THIS JUST IN! IT'S CELEB LIFE BAMA STYLE

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   BARACK HELD HIS FAUX HEALTH CARE SUMMITT AND CRANED HIS HEAD WHEN EVER HE HEARD THE CAMERAS CLICKING.  ONLY BANNED JOURNALIST HELEN THOMAS HAD THE NERVE TO ASK WHY HE HAS DECLARED WAR ON SINGLE-PAYER.   IN OTHER NEWS, IT'S THE END OF BARAGE -- BARACK AND GEORGE CLOONEY HAVE BROKEN UP AND HE'S NOW WITH BRAD PITT.  THE NEW SUPER COUPLE WILL BE KNOWN AS "BARAD."  REACHED FOR COMMENT A SOBBING GEORGE CLOONEY INSISTED, "EVEN WITH 5 O'CLOCK SHADOW, I'M STILL MORE FEMININE THAN MICHELLE!"  AS IF ANYONE WOULD EVER SUGGEST OTHERWISE!     FROM THE TCI WIRE:     Starting with talk of war crimes. Yesterday in Geneva the United Nations General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto, speaking before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, called for an investigation into the crimes going on in Iraq. Donn Bobb (United Nations Radio, link has text and audio) reports: UN General Assembly President, Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann on Wednesday urged the Human Rights Council to investigate "massive human rights violations" in Iraq. The Nicaraguan diplomat describes Iraq as "a contemporary and on-going example of how the illegal use of force leads inexorably to human suffering and disregard for human rights." He says "it sets a number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand." "The illegality of the use of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in..the United Nations Charter. All pretended justifications notwithstanding, the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations, constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations." General Assembly President D'escoto suggests the Council consider appointing a special mechanism to report on Iraq. Mr. D'escoto cites "reliable" estimates of over a million deaths in Iraq "as a result of the US-led aggression and occupation", saying " and still there is no rapporteur". He says this was a serious omission that should be corrected. D'Escoto also called for human rights to be seen in a more encompassing manner stating, "I see a profound relationship between access to safe drinking water and sanitation and the enjoyment of the right to life or health. Indeed, access to water is indispensable for a life in dignity and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of other human rights." Iran's Press TV states, "The UN General Assembly president's fiery speech coincided with the Obama administration's decision to take up observer status on the Human Rights Council -- which the Bush administration had boycotted. "   Friday Barack gave his kind-of-sort-of-leaving-Iraq-if-you-pretend-with-me speech at Camp Lejeune.  Monday, USA Today's Susan Page hosted The Diane Rehm Show and the first hour was a discussion on Iraq (here for just that hour).  Her guests were Tom Andrews (Win Without War), Michael O'Hanlon (right-leaning, War Hawkian Brookings Institution), Paul Pillar (former CIA, Georgetown University professor) and Thomas E. Ricks whose most recent book is  The Gamble: Susan Page: Well Tom Ricks, in brief, what is this new strategy that the president outlined on Friday?   Thomas E. Ricks: It was presented as a way to end the war . He said that we'll start drawing down troops at an undetermined rate over the next couple of years and that by August of 2010, next year, we'll be down to what he called a non-combat force that would then do the next year of transition to Iraqi forces.  Oddly reminescent in many ways of President Bush's plan to accomplish the mission and stand down as they stand up.   Susan Page: Do you see, Michael O'Hanlon, big differences in what we would be doing in Iraq if President Bush were still in office and what President Obama has outlined?   Michael O'Hanlon: That's a good question, Susan.  Probably not enormous.  [. . . ] I think Mr. Obama, by going with the 19 months and then, as Tom says, keeping 50,000 thereafter is perhaps a little faster than Bush or [Senator and GOP presidential nomine John] McCain would have been but that 50,000 number is key and I'm sure we'll come back to that.  That retains a lot of capability and that, I think, closes the difference between Obama and McCain - Bush which is why I'm sure Senator McCain endorsed it the other day.   Susan Page: Well, Paul Pillar, is there -- President Obama says he's withdrawing combat troops but leaving 35,000 to 50,000 US troops there.  Is it a meaningful distinction that they will not be combat troops?   Paul Pillar: Good question.  It's not an obvious distinction because -- well the president laid out three missions for the so-called transitional force.  The residual is not the preferred term, it's a transitional force.  One was training.  A second was counterterrorism.  A third was protect everything else we're doing there. If you talk about something like training, it's not a matter of US officers standing up in a safe classroom and lecturing.  We're talking about side-by-side operations, we're talking about American troops still being in harms way.  There will still be casulties incurred.  So I think some of the questions we heard on Capitol Hill from Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and others about whether this 35 to 50,000 troop range really makes sense is not just disatisafaction or impatience with getting this thing over with.  It reflects a real question about what the mission is going to be so that the combat versus noncombat distinction is still a question that hasn't really been resolved.    Susan Page: Well Tom Ricks is it clear to you what the mission of these transitional US forces will be?   Thomas E. Ricks: It's clear to me what President Obama said it would be: not to fight.  But as Professor Pillar points out it's just a bizarre thing to say, that these are troops who are not combat troops.  The heart of this mission is going to be two combat brigades.  Now they're going to be renamed something like advisory units but look you can call them Mousekateers if you want.  They are US army soldiers going in harm's way with bombs going off, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.  Troops will still be dying after August 2010 and I don't think a lot of Americans get that.  For that matter, I think US troops will be dying in Iraq after the SOFA [Status Of Forces Agreement] comes to fruition in 2011.   Susan Page: Now the SOFA agreement is the Status Of Forces Agreement and that calls for all US troops to be out by when?   Thomas E. Ricks: By the end of 2011.  Except unless it's renegoiated and I think the SOFA was all about getting through 2009 and taking the American troop presence off the table as a divisive issue in domestic Iraqi politics.  So you get to that point and they say, "Well actually, we'd like you to stay."  And I think this residual force that President Obama laid out is the same thing I heard about in Baghdad last summer.  They talked about the post-occupation force and oddly enough it's very similar to what they talked about in Baghdad with me last summer which was 30 to 50,000 troops because it's really hard to get smaller than that and still have an effective force.  There's a lot of minimums you need. [. . .]   Susan Page: Well before you get to the post-occupancy force you've got to get to the point where you're actually withdrawing these troops and Michael O'Hanlon, he's -- President Obama's indicated that these troops wouldn't be coming out a brigade a month which is what he talked about during the campaign but that rather this withdrawal would be pretty backloaded after elections toward the end of the year in Iraq.  And I wonder, do you think this timetable is likely to hold up?  Will events allow it to proceed the way President Obama outlined it on Friday?   Michael O'Hanlon: I -- I hope so.  There's a decent chance by the way let me agree very much in answering with Paul and Tom but add one additional point: I do think we should view the mission as being difficult and enduring and dangerous but I also think that if we can get through this next year, we will have gotten through a lot of the residual dangers and problems in terms of getting through big elections -- that second election in a young democracy, the peaceable transfer of power and also I hope a resolution or at least a partial resoultion of some of these Arab-Kurd issues that are so difficult up north right now that I heard about last week when I was in Baghdad and that could come to a head very soon. So I'm hopeful without being able to convincingly demonstrate this that we can get to a much better place within a year.   Tom Andrews wasn't on the first segment and had nothing of value to say when he did stammer onto the show via phone-in.  He said that most Americans would give Barry the benefit of doubt.  So nice of pathetic Tom Andrews to presume to speak for all of us.  He had nothing of value to say and little that was factual.  I don't believe I've ever agreed with one of Michael O'Hanlan's punditry moments but I'd rather sit through his nonsense (which O'Hanlan truly believes) than Tom Andrews spinning.  Pillar is falling into the same trap that Phyllis Bennis already did, by the way, which is saying that two or three months doesn't matter.  Currently 15 to 16 US service members die in Iraq each month.  I would assume the families of those 15 to 16 could tell you that, yes, every month does matter.  Michael O'Hanlan -- who is not, my opinion, very astute (to put it mildly) -- had enough sense not to make the kind of ridiculous statements others are.    Susan Page: Now we have notably seen praise from John McCain, his foe in the campaign, and criticism from Nancy Pelosi, his chief ally on Capitol Hill.  What do you make, Tom Ricks, of the political situation the president now faces when it comes to Iraq?   Thomas E. Ricks: Well I think what that tells you, with respect, I disagree with Paul, I think it tells you that people understand what's going on here.  Is that his speech on Friday at Camp Lejeune was much more about how to stay in Iraq than how to get out of Iraq.   Susan Page:  Please expand on that idea.   Thomas E. Ricks:  It's a formulation for walking away from taking a brigade out every month for 16 months and instead going to the post occupation force that the military has been planning for well over a year now.    Susan Page: When you go away from the pulling out a brigade out a month -- which is what he talked about during the campaign -- it then makes it possible if the situation after the elections isn't stable, doesn't seem right, I guess you could greatly delay the planned pull out of the forces there at the end. Thomas E. Ricks: Well I think military feeling that I picked up in Baghdad is that there's a lot more things in Iraq that could go wrong than can go right.  You really have to thread the needle to make this work right so they really do want to hedge they really think they're going to be there longer than the president thinks and I don't have the faith in the Status Of Forces Agreement I think that will be renegotiated and I think we're going to have US troops fighting in Iraq for a very long time to come.   Susan Page:  If the situation there is less stable, not more stable, will the US forces stay or will the nation's patience basically have been exhausted and we pull out in any case?  Paul, what do you think?   Paul Pillar: Well we should note that in the speech last week, the president did give himself some rhetorical wiggle room when he said "I intend" -- that was his word -- "I intend to have forces out by December 2011." Which was a somewhat weaker statement than his one about "Let me be as clear as I possibley can," you know, "no combat after August of 2010." So it's not totally out of the realm of possibility.  The only thing I would say about these things, about getting over the next election or getting over the next whatever it is, there's always the next something or other.  We've heard about that all in the past.  There was the transfer of sovereignty way back in 2004.  There were the constituent assembly elections.  There was the next round of parliamentary elections.  There's always another hump to get over, another reason for us to say, "Oh, the next year is going to be the critical year."  We'll be saying that five years from now if we're still in Iraq just as we were saying it five years ago.   On the Status Of Forces Agreement, Ricks (Foreign Policy) notes today, "Meanwhile, Sen. James Webb (D-A Country Such as This) notes with alarm in an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell that the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq has "plenty of loose language in there that would allow our troops to stay longer." He dislikes that idea. I think it is going to happen and think, on balance, that it is better than leaving. But I don't much like either option. "     Tom Andrews' comment about most Americans giving Barack the benefit of the doubt is echoed in another coward's comments.  Robert Fantina (link provided for laughter purposes only, CounterPunch) slobbers, "One hesitates to criticize Mr. Obama too strongly.  Rarely, if ever, in the history of the United States has a president inherited such a colossal mess, ranging from the implosion of the U.S. and world economy, to two disastrous and ill-conceived wars."  Really?  And this is a surprise because?  It's a shocker?  You go out for a job and you get it, you have no right to whine about it.  No one has sympathy for the actress who complains about the loss of her privacy and no one should have sympathy for Barack's 'new problems' that were all known some time ago.  He wanted to run.  He did.  He won.  And maybe cowards who run to Canada should just stop commenting on US politics?  How 'bout that?  And to be clear, we're not talking about someone in the US military making a brave decision to resist by going to Canada.  We're talking about an alleged grown up -- who worked on John Kerry's campaign -- being such a coward that after the 2004 election, due to those results, he had to high tail it to Canada.  What a coward, what a loser.  No one needs to hear from people like that.  They have no 'authority' with which to speak.  They're the turncoats, the ones who go running whenever things get tough.  And how embarrassing for John Kerry that someone associated with his presidential campaign (and associated with MoveOn) could be seen as so unAmerican as to flee the country in a panic over the results of an election.  How very, very sad.    If you want to end the illegal war, you fight to end it.  And it is always a fight to end an illegal war.  Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) observes, "Those who are breathing a sigh of releif that US troops are being slowly removed from Iraq should stop and realize that this is part of an overall strategy to deepen and strengthen, not end, US domination of the region.  Those who think our job is to 'help' Barack Obama carry out this plan are not looking at the interests of the people here, or in the Middle East, in stopping this occupation immediately."  Those who want to stop the Iraq War can join with The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)      To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   Those not sure whether it's necessary to protest the ongoing, illegal war should consider the evaluation of the draw down offered by Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune):   During the campaign, Mr. Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Mr. Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart. Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Mr. Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months. The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.   And Media Lens issues a call for sobriety:   But Obama's lies matter little to much of the public, anti-war activists among them. 'You don't understand,' they tell us. 'Obama +has+ to say all this stuff - it's not what he believes. He's out to change all this, but he has to say it.' This involves a kind of treble-think. Politicians typically hide their ruthlessness behind compassionate verbiage. Obama, we are to believe, is hiding his compassion behind ruthless verbiage - Machiavellianism in reverse. Which is exactly what was said of Clinton and Blair in the 1990s. Of course it could be the case now. But should we not aim to be a little more socially scientific in our political analysis? We can observe that, in a way that mirrors Newtonian physics, enormous political forces tend to act unimpeded unless challenged by powerful oppositional forces. We can observe, further, that there is no reason whatever to believe that the greed and violence that have become entrenched in American politics over decades and centuries have simply gone away. Certainly they have not been countered by mass democratic movements rooted in compassion rather than greed. There are no new, mass-based parties rooted in progressive values; no city-stopping protests erupting out of a transformational political process. If a brand new, benevolent face now fronts the system in which traditionally ruthless forces dominate, rationality demands that we assume it to be a makeover, a brand alteration, an attempt precisely to reduce pressure on the system to change. The Bush-Blair crimes contaminated the American brand with Iraqi and Afghan blood products - we have to assume that the same ferocious system is now in the process of rehabilitating, not revolutionising, that brand. Greed, ignorance and hatred do not miraculously transform into compassion, wisdom and peacefulness, in individuals or in superpowers. Call it Newtonian political physics. Call it Buddhist psychology. Call it common sense.   Today at the Washington Post online, Dana Priest participated in a discussion and, asked about what the US military commanders wanted, said she wasn't sure there was a consensus but she believes "many in the military are hoping for . . . some flexibility so the drawdown deadline doesn't become hard and fast." Asked about similarities between the Cold War and the current wars, she responded, "I agree that there are parallels between those who saw a Commie behind every bush during the Cold War and those who see a terrorist behind every Mid-Eastern face now. Such generalities always backfire, causing the U.S. to spend too much, waste too much and misdirect a lot of our foreign policy effort. But here's where the difference ends: the U.S. helped topple Communism abroad by enabling dissent (not by invading) from within and standing as an ideal for those who wanted out; for many reasons we (capitalists, promoter of equal rights and free speech, etc.) are not the model that moderate Islamic governments and believers want to follow. It's a third way we have not figured out how to effectively promote."  Asked to explain why Barack's draw down so closely resembles George W. Bush's statements (Jon Stewart did a mash up on The Daily Show), Preist responds Barack "was being politically expedient during the campaign when he promised at first to get out of Iraq lickety-split.  His base did not listen closely when he began to hedge on that later, so now they are surprised.  Sorry."   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Traumatic Brain Injury" "War crimes talk at the United Nations" "nbc's monday line up" "Organic foods, Hillary's MidEast and European trip" "Music, Amazon" "The return of Harri Miers!" "Message to Fat F**k Tim Wise" "Dustin Alan Parks, John Pilger" "Ted, read the Constitution" "Belle of the ball" "THIS JUST IN! MARTHA STEWART, WATCH YOUR BACK!"

THIS JUST IN! MARTHA STEWART, WATCH YOUR BACK!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   TOMORROW BARACK HOLDS HIS BIG HEALTH CARE GET TOGETHER.  HE SPOKE TO THESE REPORTERS ABOUT IT TONIGHT EXPLAINING THAT HE HAD "INVITED EVERYONE!"  WHEN THESE REPORTERS POINTED OUT THAT NO ONE WILL BE PRESENT WHO ADVOCATES FOR SINGLE PAYER, BARACK SAID, "EVERYONE WHO MATTERS!"   BARACK THEN ENCOURAGED THESE REPORTERS TO MINGLE AND ENJOY THE PARTY HE'D THROWN FOR REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS.  PINCHING HIS CHEECKS TO MAKE THEM EXTRA ROSY, HE EXCLAIMED, "I'M THE HOSTESS WITH THE MOSTESS!"   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   This morning  Thomas E. Ricks appeared on NPR's Morning Edition to discuss his new book The Gamble with Steve Inskeep:    Steve Inskeep: If you think the war in Iraq is a disaster and the US cannot leave soon enough, Ricks offers you no comfort.  If you think the surge of troops led to victory, Ricks will not comfort you either.  As we're about to hear, his book presents the war very differently than it looks in the headlines.  If you don't mind, I'd like to begin at the end.   Thomas E. Ricks:  Sure.   Steve Inskeep: You have a much noted quote at the end of the book which is?   Thomas E. Ricks: "The events for which this war will be remembered have not yet happened."   Steve Inskeep: What does that mean?   Thomas E. Ricks: It's actually a thought that came from Ambassador Ryan Crocker, top diplomat out in Iraq, who said it to me first in January 2008 and then when I did my last interview with him in November.  The prism through which we view this war has not yet been built.  We don't know how this thing comes out, so we don't know how to view this.      Steve Inskeep: When I hear that quote the first thing that comes to my head is that after almost six years, it's just beginning?   Thomas E. Ricks: I think we may just be half-way through this war.  I know President Obama thinks he's going to get all troops out by the end of 2011.  I don't know anybody in Baghdad who thinks that's going to happen.  I think Iraq is going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq.  The plan they had in Baghdad last summer was about 35,000 troops to be there for several years.  General [Ray] Odierno says in the book that he would like to see 35,000 troops there in the year 2015 and that would be well into what is Obama's second term.  The point is as long as we have American troops in Iraq -- no matter what you call them -- you can call them 'noncombat' troops, you can call them Mousekateers -- they're going to be fighting and dying -- some of them.   Steve Inskeep: I want to explore the implications of that but first to understand why the military people you're talking with would think this way?  Because it's been observed from Washington and, in fact, it's observed in your book that the so-called surge of troops was in many ways successful, the amount of violence is down dramatically in Iraq, their electing people, things are happening in Iraq, why should we not feel that the war has been concluded -- whether you want to say victory or not, that it's over?   Thomas E. Ricks: The surge worked tacticly.  It improved security enormously but it didn't succeed strategically, politically.  And that was its larger goal.  What you see in Iraq is a lot of people who think Obama by talking about getting out of Iraq quickly is not departing from Bush but repeating Bush's mistake.  I think Bush's core mistake in many ways was persistant, unwarranted optimism about Iraq.  The original US war plan was to be down to 30,000 troops by September 2003 and so by Obama saying August 2010 is very much on that same path I think.  Steve Inskeep: I think that some people listening to this may be trying to figure out where you're standing politically here and I have a feeling it's going to be difficult for people to figure out because you have written quite critically of the war, uhm, but you're saying the president is not right in trying to get out.   Thomas E. Ricks:  I don't know if there's a political label to be put on it.  I think you can call it uncomfortable more than anything else.  I do think this war was the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy.  I think it's a tragedy.  I think that George Bush's mistakes are something we're going to be paying for for decades.  We don't yet understand how big a mistake this is.  And I think that because it was such a tragic mistake, everything that flows from it is the fruit of the poison tree.  So the question is what is the least bad solution and I think staying in Iraq with a smaller force probably is that answer.   That's a transcript of almost the first half.  The link is audio only but it does contain an excerpt from the book.  Ashley Smith (CounterPunch) offers a strong critique of the book, highlighting what he sees as its weaknesses and strengths and we're noting this from the opening:   Obama extended his promised timeframe for withdrawing "combat troops" to 19 months. But even more telling is the aspect of Obama's policy that remained vague during the campaign--plans for a "residual force" of up to 50,000 soldiers to remain in Iraq through at least 2011. This isn't a plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but to continue it in another form. "You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history." Obama's policy on Iraq has been shaped by a new consensus that has developed among the U.S. political establishment over the past year and a half. It holds that the surge of U.S. troops ordered by George W. Bush in 2007 stabilized the country, the war is now winding down, and the U.S. occupation will soon come to an end. This is all an illusion--and a new book by Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post journalist and author of Fiasco, about the disaster of the U.S. invasion and the early years of the occupation, shows why, even if Ricks himself doesn't draw all those conclusions.   That's not really a critique of the book! Use the link.  We need truth tellers and Ashley is one.  At a time when so many are Cultist, we need that more than the critique.  (It's an important critique, I'm not dismissing it.  I'm noting that there are too may liars and cheerleaders and water boys for Barack.)  We need some intelligence as well and there's damn little to be found on Democracy Now! where we had Jeremy Scahill trying to reinvent history and Larry Korb either lying outright or senile.  (We have never praised Korb and we would never do so.)    Korb repeats the lie that the Iraqi government forced something off on the US with the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement.  LIE.  The White House got what they wanted.  If they had not, they would not have signed it.  The White House held all the cards as everyone in Congress knew -- even those objecting to the treaty (which had no approval from the US Congress).  Nouri couldn't survive a day in Iraq without the support of the US.  Anything that the White House didn't want in, they could nix and threaten to walk away.  Iraq's military remains dysfunctional and without a military (currently the US military) propping him up, al-Maliki's head would most likely be on a stick in the center of Baghdad.  He had no position of power and how insane and offensive for Korb (and others, toss in Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn) to pretend otherwise.  Iraq is an occupied country, occupied by the US.  Quit providing cover for the occupation -- and all the humilitation that entails -- by lying.    Larry Korb: "The other [thing to remember] is the Iraqi people get to vote this summer on a referendum about whether they want to support the Status of Forces Agreement.  If they decide not to, all the forces have to be out withing a year."  Really?  Show me where the hell that is in the agreement?  Let me help the idiot Larry Korb, you would go to Article 30 of the SOFA.  Now, granted, you can't do that very easily because Barack's wiped it off the White House website.  I wasn't joking or using hyperbole when I said Barack's people had trashed the White House website.  They trashed it. Documents that were historical and significant -- and highly significant if charges were brought against George W. Bush -- are gone, pulled from the public record.  We have a copy of the treaty here.  This is the US version, released by the White House.  Article 30 covers how the contract can be terminated.  Larry Korb, find where it says that the treaty requires the approval of the Iraqi people?  It doesn't say that.  You add something to a contract, you put it into the contract or you didn't add it.  That's basic contract law and if you don't know the law don't try to discuss it. The Parliament voted to approve the treaty.  The presidency council signed off on it.  It can be broken -- as outlined in Article 30 -- at any point.  But there's no guarantee that a vote by the people (which isn't required by the treaty or by Iraq's Constitution) will result in the treaty being broken.  And who's paying for that vote, Larry?  Voting costs money.   al-Maliki's whining about shortfalls.  Who is paying for national election in July?  And how long before they have to start getting ready for such a vote?  The KRG's holding provincial elections in May and they're already in that process.     We could pick through Larry's falsehoods bit by bit but he's as uninformed as he is boring so we'll wrap up with him on this: "The final thing is, come 1 July, our forces are out of the cities, they're out of the towns.  They're basically back on their bases."  Really?  Because that's allegedly a "goal" now.  And it taking place is disputed by US commanders on the ground in Iraq.  Now I realize that the treaty passed the Parliament on Thanksgiving Day and that Panhandle Media is a bunch of rejects who couldn't work in real media because they have sloppy work habits (to put it mildly) but at some point, when Thanksgiving is over, you either read the contract or you don't.  And if you don't, you don't jawbone about it.  We covered it, when it passed the Parliament.  Not the day after or the next week. November 27, 2008 snapshot has it.  We went through it bit by bit.  And we did it with that version, released by the White House, because it was already known -- and US Congressional testimony had repeatedly made this point clear -- that the Iraqis were given another draft of it, a different one, weeks earlier.  That wasn't the official draft.  It is the draft many have 'analyzed.'  A draft is meaningless if a subsequent version replaces it.  When the final draft came along, all the previous ones could be trashed.   So we're done with Larry Korb and if the CAP had any self-respect, they'd be done with him as well.  Which brings us to Jeremy Scahill.  Jeremy, you make it so hard to applaud when you can't stop lying.  Jeremy's analysis is stronger than Larry's.  But he's not content with that, he has to reinvent history.  Specifically, he has to reinvent his own actions.  We're not playing that game Jeremy.  You want to earn some respect, earn it. You're not going to lie your way to it and have us sit silent.  Here's Jeremey, disgracing himself by lying:   But the fact that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer all acted like astonished that there's going to be 35,000 to 50,000 troops in a residual capacity in Iraq and were criticizing this, I mean, this is a classic example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy and what's been wrong with this party for a long time. And that is that when it actually mattered, when Pelosi or Reid could have said to candidate Obama, "Back off that residual force," as many activists were calling for, they were deafeningly silent.   Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should have been calling for Barack to do that?  Really?  I kind of think so-called 'independent' journalists should have been holding Barack accountable but we didn't see that, did we, Jeremy?  We saw you attack Hillary for proposing that all mercenaries be banned from Iraq.  We saw you excuse away Barack's refusal to make the same call Hillary did.  Hillary did what you wanted and you attacked her, and you ripped her apart and, in your TV work, you had that smug little grin on your face while you did it.  You lied for Barack and you covered for him and you did so, tell the people, because Samantha Power was returning your phone calls and you felt included.  You were part of something!  Samantha was an advisor to Barack!  And she would take your calls!  Well, she'd return them.  She was too busy to actually take your calls.  But, whatever, you and Amy were so thrilled and you both pimped her as the next Secretary of State.  Here's more reinvention from Jerry Scahill:   We were at the Democratic convention, Amy, walking around, trying to find anyone to criticize that aspect of the Obama policy, and not even antiwar Democrats, who were firmly against the war from the beginning, would dissent from the policy positions of the dear leader. This is cult activity, when you refuse to go after someone to try to criticize their policies when it matters and then later act like you've been hoodwinked. They knew exactly what was going on.   Really?  Because Amy Goodman had a woman on who was attempting to criticize Barack. Do you remember what happened, Jeremy?  Amy cut her off repeatedly.  Amy wouldn't let Sacha Millstone speak and Amy even flat out lied.  Amy accused the woman of saying she'd vote for John McCain when the woman said no such thing.  It was Sacha, not Amy, who had to point out that America's choices are not limited to Barack or John McCain.  Amy carried Barack's water in the same way you're accusing the Democrats of doing.  No one in Denver -- that's where the convention was -- to speak out!!!!  Really.  Well maybe you and Amy should have covered the rally Ralph Nader and others (Rosa Clemente, the Green Party's vice presidential nominee spoke at it) held during the DNC, right there in Denver.  But you didn't cover that.  P.S. Samantha laughed at you.  She bragged to the campaign about her "seduction" (that was the term) of you.  (And for those late to the party, she didn't sleep with him nor was she implying she did.  She seduced with the prospect of access to the campaign.)  She turned you into a joke at the highest levels of Barack's campaign.  Excuse me, you allowed her to turn you into a joke.  Don't show up all this time after and think you can rewrite history.  It's not that easy.   Jeremy tosses around Bob Somerby's term ("Dear leader") today and offers a strong critique of Barack's craven 'plan.'  Had he stuck to that, we might have let him slide.  But when he tries to push the responsibility for his own misdeeds off on others? We're not in the mood to play that game.  Without Jeremy covering for him, Barack might not be where he is now.  Own it.   Those who want to own their part in ending the illegal war can take part in an action this month led by   The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)      To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.       RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Iraq realities" "Iraq and the unspeakables" "Huey" "It was probably supposed to be a secret" "iraq, iran, england" "The useless F.C.C." "Isaiah, Virign Megastore" "Huey sends Distraction packing" "I can't draw, Alan Gomez can't report" "Isaiah, Debra Sweet" "AP gets creative with figures for violence" "Barack's plan to solve the economy" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK HAS PLAN!"

THIS JUST IN! BARACK HAS PLAN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARACK OBAMA MET WITH THESE REPORTERS TODAY TO DISCUSS HIS LATEST NOMINEE WITH A TAX SCANDAL, RON THE FAILURE KIRK.   YES, BARACK ADMITTED, RON OWES BACK TAXES BUT HE HAS PROMISED HE WILL FINALLY PAY THEM.    IT WAS THEN THAT BARACK REVEALED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN A BLUNDER ON HIS PART, HE HAS INTENTIONALLY SELECTED TAX CHEATS TO NOMINATE.   WHY?   "IT'S PART OF MY EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE ALL AMERICANS PAY THEIR TAXES," BARACK DECLARED.  "PEOPLE LIKE TIMMY GIETHNER AND TOMMY DACSCHLE AND EVEN RONNIE KIRK DON'T PAY TAXES BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR AMERICA.  BUT BY MY NAMING THEM AS NOMINEES, THEY ARE FORCED TO PAY THE TAXES THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY IGNORED.  IT'S ALL PART OF MY MASTER PLAN TO SOLVE THE ECONOMIC CRISIS."   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-North Soldier died from injuries sustained during an indirect fire attack in Mosul, Iraq, Mar. 3.  The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the U.S. Department of Defense."  The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4255.   The deaths continue to mount because the illegal war continues and that's because a War Hawk is in the White House.  That last one was George W. Bush, the current one is Barack H. Obama.  Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) observes:     In the last two weeks of February, President Barack Obama -- upon whom so many peace supporters had counted to change Washington's commitment to wars and militarism -- delivered these three blows to his antiwar constituency: 1. By ordering 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan Feb. 17, President Obama is continuing and expanding George W. Bush's war. It's Obama's war now, and it's getting much bigger. 2. By declaring Feb. 27 that up to 50,000 U.S. soldiers would remain in Iraq after "combat brigades" departed, President Obama is continuing the war in a country that remains a tragic victim of the Bush Administration's aggression and which has taken the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians and has made refugees of 4.5 million people. 3. By announcing Feb. 26 that his projected 2010 Pentagon budget was to be even higher than budgets sought by the Bush Administration, President Obama was signaling that his commitment to the U.S. bloated war machine -- even at a time of serious economic recession -- was not to be questioned. Whether or not Obama's actions will revive the peace movement is another matter. Antiwar activism during the election year was minimal. And now that a Democrat is in the White House it may be further reduced, since most peace backers voted for Obama. The movement's strength will be tested at the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war March 21.   The actions are being led by   The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement: IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.)    To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.   In his Dissident Voice article, Jack A. Smith goes on to cite two polls which may or may not be enough to determine public sentiment but what is known is that when gatekeepers grab the rulers and slap the wrists of the people, it takes longer for the ball to get rolling.  For example, in August 2001, Bully Boy Bush was a joke.  Then came 9-11 and, with it,  the self-appointed guardians of discousre.  They're out in full force again and this time their names include Tom Hayden.  They can try to slow the awakening that's coming, but that's all their cheerleading and garbage will do, slow the awakening.  Smith lists multiple cowards and also notes a recent column, Justin Ramondo's "The Silence of the Liberals" (Anti-war.com; this is the column Marcia highlighted last week): Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong? Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces." In short: we aren't leaving. The embarrassing, aging tool Tom Hayden showed up yesterday to tell the world he still loves Barack.  And that's fine, Tom-Tom but don't confuse your love and lust with actual activism.  As we noted at Third on Sunday:   So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader of -- the peace movement.                   Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack.                     And we again remind you . . .               Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'        Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start        That won't get you into his heart               The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.   Who knew that in 2009, the tired and deceitful 'leaders' would attempt to pass drooling off as 'action'?  ("Wishin' And Hopin'" written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach, most famously sung by Dusty Springfield.)  While Tom Hayden rushes around with his tongue out and his hands down his pants, Alan Bjerga (Bloomberg News) reports not everyone's thinking with their loins, George McGovern's actually speaking out:   McGovern, 86, said he supports Obama's plan to increase spending to stimulate the U.S. economy, while faulting the president for his willingness to keep troops in Iraq.    Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 makes him "exactly the same" as former President George W. Bush in his conduct of the war and continues to spend money needed for economic recovery.       "What's the change?" McGovern said. "Guys are still dying over there. Guys are coming home with mental and emotional problems that will linger on for years."     As Ruth observed last night, "Poor Tom Hayden. George McGovern could not have chosen a worse time to speak out for Tom Hayden. Mr. Hayden is spit polishing Barack's knob today as per usual. (My grandson Jayson will love that I have included that phrase in the previous sentence.) And along comes George McGovern who is everything Mr. Hayden wanted to be but never managed to pull off. Poor Tom Hayden. Believe your daddy just sent you to your room without dinner."  Or as Rebecca put it, "tom hayden, what an embarrassment.  and he looks all the more childish when mcgovern can do what hayden won't. mcgovern endorsed barack. he didn't just endorse barack, he took back his endorsement of hillary to endorse barack. and here mcgovern is calling out barack while tom hayden wonders whether to let barack go balls deep or not."   The country's got more than a bunch of aging bobby soxers like Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden, et al getting all wet-pantied for Barack.  In the real world Barack's draw down has resulted in some showing a spine.   John Yaukey (Gannet via Honlulu Advertiser) reports that US House Rep Neil Abercrombie told CNN that US forces on the ground in Iraq need to "be leaving faster than President Obama has ordered" and the quote is, "I think it can be done faster." Yaukey observes, "Abercrombie's comments signal what could become a growing rift between some Democrats and Obama on policy in Iraq." Abercrombie also questioned Barack's claim that the 'surge' was a success stating, "we Bribed people. We paid people not to kill us." Abercrombie is not lying. He is not being inflamatory. He is repeating what US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Petreaus repeatedly told Congress in the days of testimony back at the start of April. (Here, we called Petreaus and Crocker's 'logic' the fork-over-the-lunch-money-so-no-one-gets-beat-up policy.) On the same topic, Mark Johnson, Ryan Beckwith and Steven Thomma (McClatchy Newspapers) report on some of the Democrats speaking out including US House Rep Lynn Woolsey ("I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq. This is unacceptable.") and US House Rep Dennis Kucinich ("You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history."). Senator Russ Feingold is also quoted but that's the statment we quoted three times last week.   With another perspective on the Iraq War, Endy M. Bayuni (Washington Post's Post Global) offers: It took years for Americans to realize that it was a war they could not win. Nixon and Kissinger agonized over whether to cut the country's losses and leave Vietnam, or stay and maintain America's integrity, pride and international standing. In the end, it was public opinion in America that forced the United States government to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. It was not so much the thought of the Vietnamese death toll as the rising death toll of young Americans drafted into the military that turned the public opinion against its own government. Americans suffered the humiliation of a war defeat as it never had before. One would expect that that trauma and scar would have been enough to prevent the United States from launching another war in a foreign land. Bush and Cheney did not read history well, and they took America to another war some 40 years later, which is where we are today: a war America cannot win, and an ethnic war just waiting to erupt as soon as American troops pull out. The real question to ask is not whether the United States should send the soldiers back if ethnic strife returns in Iraq. The problem of Iraq is for the Iraqis to solve, and for its immediate neighbors to help. Unless Americans are still thinking of controlling Iraq's oil, they really have no business meddling in Iraqi politics.   Bayuni is the chief editor of The Jakarta Post.   And in this age of Barack the War Hawk, the US military breathlessly announces: "A team of Soldiers from Alpha Troop, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, made history Feb. 23 when the unmanned aerial vehicle they were operating became the first armed Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial system to fire missiles in combat."  Staff Sgt. Jerry Rhoades is quoted stating, "We neutralized both targets" and those targets included "insurgents."   What a proud moment for Barack.  Some presidents can just hope for creating long lasting global tensions like a cold war but Barack can take pride in the fact that more ways of death destruction are being discovered on his watch.   RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Shutting Down The Domestic Arts Czar" "Iran and Iraq increase ties" "The failures of the Tom Haydens" "CBS says US citizens "carried" by the military" "The difference between Tom Hayden and a turd" "suck on it, tom hayden" "Comics and Iraq" "Comics and music" "Comics, Iraq" "Luke Cage, Sunday comics, more" "The Charm Offensive" "Comics and Oprah" "Comics and Chris Hedges and Third" "Barack and his cabinet of tax cheats" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S LATEST TAX CHEAT!"

THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S LATEST TAX CHEAT!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   IF BARACK REALLY CARED ABOUT FIXING THE ECONOMY, HOW COME HE KEEPS NOMINATING LOSERS WHO CAN'T PAY THEIR TAXES.   RON KIRK IS NOMINEE NUMBER FOUR WHO OWES BACK TAXES, $10,000.   RON KIRK IS ANTI-LABOR AND DID ASSORTED TRICKS WITH THE PENSION PLAN WHEN HE WAS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DALLAS.  HE RESIGNED HIS POST TO RUN FOR THE U.S. SENATE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS A D.L.C. CANDIDATE.   KIRK IS THE REASON JOHN CORNYN IS IN THE SENATE.    BY THE WAY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA IS DENSELY POPULATED AND A NATURAL AREA FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, RON KIRK REFUSED TO RUN ADVERTISEMENTS THERE.  HE BASICALLY THREW AWAY THE ELECTION AND HE GAVE HIS 'IT'S FUN JUST TO RUN' SPEECH BEFORE ALL THE VOTES WERE COUNTED AND WHILE TONY SANCHEZ, RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR, WAS FIGHTING TO HAVE ALL THE VOTES COUNTED.    TRANSLATION, RON KIRK'S A LOSER.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Friday Barack Obama spoke at Camp Lejeune.  The spin was his decision to go from a 16-month 'withdrawal' to a 19 one was no surprise and he had always, always, always said he would listen to commanders on the ground.  No.  That's a lie. Sunday, Ava and my "TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff," covered the exchange between ABC's Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during the April 16, 2008 debate. But anyone who followed the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidential nomination knows the way it worked: Hillary gave an answer and then Barack tried to make it his own.  So today we'll start by noting Hillary's answer.  And you should notice that when Charlie Gibson moves over to Barack, he is clearing asking Barack if he is giving "the same rock-hard plegde" that Hillary just gave.  From the transcript:   GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director of your campaign, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call recently was asked, is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month, whatever the realities on the ground?   And Wolfson said, I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it. The answer is, yes. So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?   CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president, as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goal posts when it comes to Iraq. And I am convinced that it is in America's best interests, it is in the best interests of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interests of Iraq that upon taking office I will ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days.  I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner because, obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment, is dangerous. I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States.  Because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdrawal that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years. I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq.  But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.   GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?   CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios.  But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing, as well, is there -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world.  It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have.  There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world.  And there are other problems that we have failed to address.  So the bottom line for me is: We don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq.  The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to re-assert our leadership and our moral authority in the world.  And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.    GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."  So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?   OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus."  Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.  Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there.  Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.   The buck does stop with Barack Obama who is now the president of the United States and he told the American people in the debate last April that he would stick to a 16-month withdrawal and that was the "mission."  He would listen to the military commanders about how to implement the "mission," but the civilian command was the one responsible for setting the mission.  He mocked Bully Boy Bush for falling back on "I'm just taking cues from General Peteraeus."  And yet, Friday, when Barack sold his broken promise, he pushed the blame for it off on the military commanders.  The buck stops with Barack Obama.  He told the American people one thing in April and did another thing Friday.  That's called "lying."   A lot of people believe that his announcement of a draw down means that the approximately 144,000 (or 142,000) troops in Iraq will begin leaving Iraq at a steady pace.  That is not the case.  For this year, the expectation is that it will drop 10,000 -- to either 134,000 or 132,000 -- and no more.  January 2010, a 'draw down' is expected to begin.  If nothing changes, of course, and something always changes.  ABC News' Martha Raddatz explained this on Friday's Washington Week:   Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says -- Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen. Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe. Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.   Note that as this is dicated,  Washington Week has streaming video up of Friday's show but has not yet posted the transcript.  Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) evaluates Barack's speech today and offers, "The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama's Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out. . . . What's more, the planned troop reductions won't really happen in a big way until sometime in 2010, so Iraq can get through its national elections. (And a memo to everyone who is counting on the SOFA to bail us out of Iraq: Guys, that was about getting Iraq through 2009, not about what happens in 2011.)" He could have been directing the parenthetical to Phyllis Bennis (but he wasn't) who showed up last week so uninformed that The Third Estate Sunday Review awarded her a Katrina.  (Ava and I were working on our TV pieces, we didn't help write the Katrina article.)  Phyllis repeats the lie Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn's been pimping that the White House was forced to sign that treaty. (If link to Phyllis article doesn't work, it's because you have to be a ZNet sustainer to see it.)  The Third gang takes Phyllis to school, "Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack. The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution. . . .   Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality."  Phyllis also foolishly appears to have no idea on when (some) US troops might start leaving.  When she grasps that only 10,000 tops will leave in the ten months left in this year -- and maybe grasps that will put the number at around the same number before Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' -- she may feel that "three months" or one day more matters.  Right now, she's worthless.  Sorry, Phyllis, that's the reality.  Chris Hedges (World Can't Wait) never saw himself as Barack's handmaiden which is why he can speak the truth so many others silence:   Barack Obama has shown that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference in 19 months. Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? Will Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater (which recently changed its name to Xe), all of whom have made fortunes off the war, pack up and go home? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil? The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. Lies and deception, which launched the war in the first place, are being employed by Democrats to maintain it. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East. Add to this Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and even his most purblind supporters will have to admit the new president is as intent on maintaining American empire as the old.   USA Today offers the editorial "Obama declares end to U.S. presence in Iraq -- sort of:"   Despite Obama's certitude, the best answer is: maybe. Yes, the war is winding down, and Iraq is far calmer than it was two years ago. But the situation remains fluid, and Obama's commitment to get out is part goal, part guessing game. The president's bid to fulfill the promise he made on the campaign trail -- to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office -- always came with a big asterisk. He would leave 35,000 to 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq well beyond that promised drawdown period, now extended from 16 to 19 months. That's about a third of the 142,000 troops there now. What's more, the drawdown will be back-loaded, with troops leaving only slowly until after national elections this December.    And when would those "non-combat" troops come home? Under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, by the end of 2011. Even that isn't set in concrete, however. "If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement ... negotiated with President Obama and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on Meet the Press.   At the New York Times, Emily S. Rubb covers the same Meet the Press apperance USA Today only mentions but somehow Rubb forgets to include the pertinent section.  Intent on offering a feel-good experience, Rubb ignores that Gates repeated what he'd emphasized on Friday: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011.  It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011.  So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011."  And could the US remain in Iraq after 2011, Secretary Gates?   "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see.  I mean, it's a hypothetical.  The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point.  So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative.  I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that.  But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point."  Back to Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript to Gates' segment here) where Gates admitted that, yes, troops could be sent back in.  (The Times wasn't interested in that despite the fact that their own Michael Gordon pressed Barack on that point in November of 2007 and Barack admitted that was the case.)  At the Washington Post's Post Global Rami G. Khouri offers this opinion on troops going back in after some being leaving, "Absolutely not. American troops should leave Iraq and stay out. If ethnic strife flares up again in Iraq beyond its current levels, it will probably be due to three possible causes: lingering resentments and active revenge for the abuses of the Baathist regime; destructive forces unleashed by the American-led invasion that removed the entire state structure; or, meddling by external forces from neighboring countries. A return of American forces would not resolve any of those issues or lower their intensity, but would only exacerbate them."  Meanwhile, link provided for laughter, Tom Hayden pretends he's of some use to the world and wants to insist that Thomas E. Ricks is wrong, wrong, wrong and Barack's announcment proves it and . . . Wipe the drool from your mouth, Tom-Tom, or use it to soak Barack's balls.  But don't pretend you've offered anything resembling critical thought or even a summary.  Ricks remains an analyst, you remain the ex-husband who pulled a Brinks truck up to your divorce settlement.  Not content to spew at Thomas E. Ricks (who's actually been to Iraq, Tom, what's your excuse?), Tom-Tom goes after Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader supporters, Cynthia McKinney supporters and any lefty who refused to support the Christ-child at the ballot box, "When there was a choice between supporting Barack Obama and attending rallies organized by various Maoists, Trotskyists and neo-anarchists opposed to Obama and electoral politics, the grassroots peace movement headed for the precincts by the thousands."  You just have to laugh, you just have to laugh.    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Making Dennis the Menace" "ABC News: Only 10,000 US troops leaving Iraq this year" "Provincial elections still cause ire" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rounding up Lucy" "And the war drags on . . ." "Kat's Korner: The charity album that just takes" "Silence" "NYT pretends it's Palm Beach Society Magazine" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff More faux change from Barack Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis Liar-in-chief Barack TV Spotlight: Washington Week The Condi II The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin Iraq roundtable Highlights "Talking Iraq" "LET'S TALK IRAQ"