Friday, October 07, 2011

True confessions from NYT

"Even in 2008, when the security agreement requiring a complete withdrawal by the end of 2011 was passed, officials said privately that they expected the document to be amended to allow a longer military presence," inform Tim Arango and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) this morning. While I'm aware neither was covering the SOFA for Iraq in November 2008 or in the immediate months that followed, they do work for the paper that was part of the Lie Chamber promoting the myth that the Status Of Forces Agreement meant all US forces left Iraq by the end of 2011. So when they share their tidbit today, near the end of their article, the natural response is: It's not that easy.

The paper lied. They were far from the only outlet to do so. But those that lied do share responsibility for the continuation of the illegal war. When you tell people -- over and over, it was never one-day coverage -- in article after article, that the Iraq War ends at the end of 2011, that it has to and all US troops have to leave at the end of 2011, you don't just mislead, you give many a reason to focus on other things, to (wrongly) believe that this issue is taken care of and they can focus on something else.

The media pimped that lie hard. They share responsibility. Share. They are not solely responsible. The Cult of St. Barack also shares responsibility. They were beyond desperate to believe the lie, so much so that they would take the Bush administration's Status Of Forces Agreement and treat that as proof not just that the illegal war would end but that Barack was better than Bush, they would turn a Bush agreement into a Barack treaty. People who are that eager to self-deceive are the reason the media can't be the sole culprit but it was an active accomplice.

Maybe Arango and Schmidt's article should have been called "True Confessions"? They certainly supply a lot of information the press has been concealing.

All summer, all year, we've had to take the crap for telling the truth that Barack was pushing for US troops to stay in Iraq while crackpots no longer with the CIA launched one disinformation that Barack didn't want that, didn't know a thing about it, that it was these out of control military officers and, Barack, please, please, please speak clearly on this issue so that your military will know you are opposed to this -- On and on that garbage went. So it is refreshing to see Arango and company report (finally): "And this June, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone with the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and indicated he was willing to leave nearly 10,000 troops, according to a Western diplomat and an Iraqi official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions had been private."

I am not a Barack supporter. So it's interesting that we've always recognized his agency and power here while the Cult of St. Barack has repeatedly portrayed him as a victim, naive, apparently stupid to what the people he appointed are doing, unaware of what was going on around him.

I hope the Cult of St. Barack is aware that their portrayal of him the last years has contributed to the negative image he now holds (and that it's too late to change it now) with the public at large. You can only whine for so long that he's a victim, that he's Patty Hearst, that he doesn't want to do ___ but people won't listen to him, before that all contributes to his being seen as inept. And underlying the negative polling of Barack currently is that image that the Cult of St. Barack created. (Don't expect LieFace Melissa Harris Perry to ever tell that at The Nation. This is the cheap liar who went to work for the Obama campaign in 2007 but 'forgot' to disclose that in January 2008 on Democracy Now! or in March 2008 on The Charlie Rose Show.)

Had the paper bothered to offer reality in 2008 or 2009, I'd be raving over the article today. Instead, it plays a lot like someone broke the window and Arango and Schmidt got stuck taking the blame for everyone when they came to ask for their baseball back.

Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya which came in first in the March 2010 elections, announced yesterday that he was no longer going to seek to head the security council. The security council? Never created. The Erbil Agreement, which allowed Nouri al-Maliki to remain as prime minister, was supposed to, among other things, create an independent security council and Allawi was supposed to head it. After Nouri got what he wanted out of the agreement, he went back on his word and trashed the agreement. The Kurds and Iraqiya and the National Alliance have been calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement.

In his statements yesterday, Allawi decried the policies of the government currently and noted the "rampant corruption" taking place. He said there is no partnership nationally and noted the failure to implement the Erbil Agreement. As mixed up and messed up as he sees the national scene currently, he also stated that Iraq's relations with other countries and within the region was being harmed by the current approach of the current government (Nouri).

As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) notes of the Tuesday meet up at President Jalal Talabani's home, that Iraqis were expecting the governmental issues to be discussed but instead the meeting became solely about US troops remaining in Iraq. He writes of failed opportunities and of a pattern of sewing dissatisfaction and mistrust.

As Political Stalemate II continues, so does the violence. Aswat al-Iraq reports a Baghdad bombing has claimed 5 lives and left twenty injured, a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 woman and left another person injured, and a police officer was shot dead in Baghad.


The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com -- updated last night:

Plus Mike's "Turley" and Rebecca's "fast & furious."
Joan Wile is the founder of Grandmothers Against the War and has written the book
On Friday, Oct. 7, 2011, a coalition of major peace groups will mark the 10th anniversary of the Afghanistan war with a large rally at the SE corner of 42nd St. and 7th Ave. from 12 noon to 2 p.m. The event will advocate for an end to the war and redeployment of the money spent for the conflict to our needs here at home.

Among the speakers will be Cong. Charles Rangel; New York City Public Advocate Bill DiBlasiol; City Council member Gale Brewer; Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, Rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church; legendary Broadway actress Vinie Burrows; peace leader Dave McReynolds, renowned civil liberties attorney Norman Siegel, and many more. Entertainment will be provided by the Raging Grannies.
"This is not only America's longest war, it's the first not to be funded, but put on a credit card costing us billions," said Jerry Moss, Vice President of Peace Action Manhattan. "We desperately need that money here at home for jobs, schools, scientific research, health care, repair of infrastructure, and so on."
Sponsors are Military Families Speak Out, the War Resisters League, the Granny Peace Brigade, Afghanistan Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, Peace Action Manhattan, Grandmothers Against the War, Westchester Concerned Families, the Gray Panthers, Veterans for Peace, West Side Campaign Against Hunger, Citizen Soldier, and others.
"There are almost 7,000 dead, hundreds of thousands who lost a limb or developed
long- term medical and mental issues. We must call for an end to a war causing
so much destruction, economic disaster and which has no clear mission or goals achieved," stated Lionelle Hamanaka, a leader of Military Families Speak Out.

DATE: Oct. 7, 2011
TIME: 12 noon to 2 p.m. -- Rep. Rangel scheduled to speak 1 p.m.
LOCATION: SE corner of 42nd St. at 7th Ave






The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



















Posted by at