Thursday, September 27, 2012

Plans to go back into Iraq as the news media covers for Barack

In exchange for allowing US troops back into Iraq in significant numbers, Al Rafidayn reports, the Iraqi government will get many things including weapons which can shoot down any thing entering Iraq's air space.  You may remember that Iraq has airspace issues.  And even the Iraqis currently in the US training to fly in Iraqi skies are not going to change that.  2014 was the 'hoped for' date when bandied around by the Bush administration as when Iraq could patrol their own skies.

For details on the negotiations, Al Rafidayn cites an MP and the New York Times, Tim Arango's article, which contained this: "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions."

Tom Hayden wrote six paragraphs for The Nation about the sentence that followed ("At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General [Robert] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.") but forgot to inform readers that Barack was in talks to send significant numbers of US troops back into Iraq. 

The return of US troops, Al Rafidayn reports, is wanted by the White House in part because Iraq has been unable to stop Iranian flights to Syria.  In addition, they want it due to fears that, in the words of Sheikh Hamid al-Hayes, that rebel fighters are grouping in units with al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. 

How the hell is this not front page news?

Oh, that's right, the jobs of a news outlet is to ensure re-election of Barack Obama, not to report the truth.

But back in the days when news oulets were expected to report the news, talks to bring more US troops into Iraq would qualify as MAJOR STORY.

Yesterday afternoon,  Joe Hamilton explains to the Muskegon Chronicle editors why he's supporting Barack, "But I’d maintain that if the only thing that Barack Obama accomplished in foreign policy during his entire time in office was the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, then that alone makes his presidency significant, historic and well worth voting for.  Yesterday  Jack Burgess (Ironton Tribune) explained, "He’s brought the troops home from Iraq on schedule, in spite of pressures from some in the military and Republicans such as Sen. John McCain, his opponent in 2008, who said he didn’t care if our troops remained there for 100 years."  Last week, Tonja Adams insisted to the Wisconsin State Journal, "Thankfully, President Barack Obama brought our troops home from Iraq and will bring more home from Afghanistan in 2014."


That makes the no-longer secret talks news.  So does this from September 8th.



Key line: "We’ve ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home."

He's running on that claim.  And in negotiations to send US troops back into Iraq.

When the hell is that not major news?

Oh, that's right, it's not news when the news media sees its role as to protect a politician, not to inform the American people.  Democracy depends upon an informed citizenry.  Yet again the US media demonstrates that they do not support democracy.  Message received.


The following community sites -- plus Susan's On the Edge, Antiwar.com, Cindy Sheehan, Adam Kokesh, the Center for Constitutional Rights,  Chocolate City, C-SPAN, the Los Angeles Times, PRI, Black Agenda Report, Pacifica Evening News and The Diane Rehm Show-- updated last night and this morning:




Dr. Jill Stein is the Green Party's presidential candidate.  Her campaign notes:


Though, if you prefer to see America continue on its current path, a vote for Green Party Candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, would be a wasted vote.
Holding both parties accountable for 30 years of this country's largest transfer of wealth to the rich means coming to terms with the fact that neither are in a position to solve the challenges we face. While some partisan Democrats are once again claiming that a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Republicans, that argument falls flat with millions of disenfranchised voters who believe we can do better. These are Americans who believe we must stop our descent into economic disparity, the erosion of our civil liberties, and the corruption of our political system by corporate power and massive wealth. They are Americans who understand the Democratic Party has been complacent, if not complicit, in this process and is now, as evidenced by an administration that has kept the policies of George W. Bush largely in place, institutionally incapable of any real reform.
The fact is, political parties change over time, so why shouldn't our votes change as well?

This is not the Democracy the revolutionaries of 1776 envisioned. They had just lived through a long, bloody war to throw off the shackles of an oppressive regime that had denied them rights and representation while pillaging their resources and their labor. It was not their intention that we live under a duopoly political system where a tiny handful of people control the pursestrings and allegiances of both parties.
Votes aren't being stolen, they are being bought.
Hundreds of millions of dollars from a small group of individuals are being spent by the two establishment parties to control the national conversation and convince Americans they have a clear choice. That sum of money and their record provide clarity enough. It is not a choice, it is maintenance of the status quo. It is a further grab for power by those who are threatened by recent cracks in the national conversation opening to issues of money and politics, the polarization of wealth, ecological responsibility, and the preservation of civil liberties.
The choice to be made is: Do we wish to be truly represented? Do we need to set a new course as a country? Do we need a real opposition party immediately capable of new ideas and energy, that isn't subject to the approval of the most rich and powerful?

 Evil vs. Eviler.
Choosing the lesser of two evils keeps things exactly as they are. Fear tactics have worked well in the past to keep party stragglers and independent voters in check. But today's America is not the the America of 2000. We've seen first hand that the lesser of two evils isn't lesser at all. Arguably, it is worse because we are encouraged to hope against history, yet the outcome is the same. If Democratic operatives were only concerned with the 2012 election results, they would not be aggressively fighting to keep people from voting Green in states like New York, California, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, and many more, that have absolutely no chance of going GOP due to the Electoral College system. These tired tactics and failed arguments of the two dominating parties are beginning to be seen for what they are: the last remnants of a fear-based political landscape that is changing.

The election IS spoiled, but not by the Greens.
Even though the Republican and Democratic Parties were once third parties themselves, they have shored up the political system to keep third parties out. This battle continues over the issue of the presidential debates. Neither of the establishment candidates wishes to share to stage with a candidate like Dr. Stein who freely speaks truth to power - a candidate who stands on a platform of building a sustainable economy and creating a future that puts the dignity of Americans ahead of corporate interests.
Including Dr. Stein in the debates would do something unthinkable to the Democrats and Republican candidates: show them as two peas from the same, spoiled, pod. An alternative voice is urgently needed and Dr. Stein's deserves to be heard.
Vote what you believe.
A simple enough statement. If we all found the courage to do so, we would begin to rebuild the country we deserve instead of settling for what gets left behind.

The Green Party and our 2004 presidential nominee made the Ohio Recount possible. If not for the continued determination of elected Greens, we would not have municipal sick leave or minimum wage and living wage policies in cities across the country. There would be no movement to amend the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United ruling and end the toxic influence of money in our political system. The cause of equal marriage rights would not be as far along as it is (because of Green mayors and mayoral candidates defying anti-marriage laws in CA and NY). And the 100s of cities that passed anti-war and anti-PATRIOT Act resolutions would likely have been many fewer, since those efforts were also led by Green elected officials. Meanwhile the establishment parties try to avoid our discontent by changing the subject from the real problems we face, and making elections all about preventing the other party from winning. In a way, the Democrats and Republicans are each correct. Either one of them winning would mean more of the same for America: maintaining a status quo that continues to ruin what is best about the United States.
The Green Party and the Green New Deal will shatter the status quo by addressing the real economic, social, and political challenges we face at their root causes with specific and already proven solutions. Vote for Jill Stein for President. Give a mandate for the Green New Deal. 
Join us and come be part of the solution. We are all in this together.



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


 


Posted by at