After the prayers, the several hundred worshipers had planned to march in protest against the security agreement, which still requires approval from Iraq's presidency council. The Sadrists have long opposed the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Sadr issued a statement through his key aides Friday, calling for three days of mourning and peaceful demonstrations against the pact.
[. . .]
In the city of Kufa, also in southern Iraq, about 500 Sadrists carrying black flags and photos of Sadr demonstrated against the pact after Friday prayers. "No, no agreement!" and "Death, death to those who signed the agreement!" they chanted. "We shall continue to protest the agreement because it does not serve Iraq or its people," said Kadhim Alwan, 25, a protester. "We reject this agreement because we have our own beliefs, and we do not want to be tied down to the West and its culture."
The above is from Sudarsan Raghavan and Saad Sarhan's "Bombing At Mosque In Iraq" (Washington Post) so that protests against the treaty reported in Baghdad, Basra and Kirkuk thus far. But, hey, pull a Bremer, it can't hurt anyone, right? (And for the record, Paul Bremer's de-Baathification came with White House knowledge and approval. He was not a 'lone gun'.)
Let's turn to stupidity. That trip takes us naturally to the New York Times. Today, Steven Lee Myers offers up "A Loosely Drawn American Victory" which maintains victory in Iraq. Is he going to get away with that? Probably because he is a 'he.' Dropping back to the September 25th snapshot:
Turning to the US presidential race. Yesterday The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric featured part one of an interview (link has text and video) with Governor Sarah Palin (part-two airs tonight), the GOP vice presidential candidate. Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) thinks he's found a mis-step in Palin's remarks, specifically in this section: "So, again, I believe that . . . a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq. And as I say, Katie, that we cannot afford to retreat, to withdraw in Iraq." Kurtz offers, "The vice-presidential nominee may have misspoken in an attempt to say that President Bush's military surge in Iraq has been a success, but she did not qualify her remarks." While she may have misspoken, there's nothing in her remarks that indicates she has. In fact, her remarks are perfectly in keeping with top-of-the-ticket GOP nominee John McCain. In the last months McCain has repeatedly declared victory in Iraq but the press has rarely paid attention. There was some attention to his May 15th speech in Ohio which included, "The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a function democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent . . ." Speech in full (text and video) at the McCain-Palin 2008 website. Based on that and other speeches McCain has given over the summer, there is nothing inconsistent with Palin's answer. (I don't happen to agree with her or McCain. That's not the issue. The issue is did she know what she was saying? Why assume she didn't? No one assumed he didn't, now did they? McCain's repeatedly made those type of remarks and there's been no questioning of them.) Let's stay with McCain's remarks for a moment because they have been noted in the snapshots. McCain's statements on withdrawal are that most US servicemembers would be out by 2013. What is "most"? That's why the press should have focused on his repeated statements that the Iraq War had been "won." (We're not going into the nonsense of 100-years which was a deliberate distortion of what McCain said.) Presumably, McCain favors US service members stationed at the US Embassy in Iraq -- US service members are stationed at all US embassies. What else does he support? That's where the press has failed by refusing to explore. And the most important question is: "If the war is won, why are US troops still in Iraq and when will they begin leaving?" McCain's actually not fenced in with his remarks and the questions wouldn't be "gotcha" in nature. He can sincerely believe the Iraq War has been won. (I obviously disagree and do not think the illegal war can be won.) But, as was pointed out in numerous snapshots, when you declare the war won then you're obligated to address what happens next.
Palin declares victory and she's raked over the coals. McCain does it over for months (starting in the spring of 2008) and no one bats an eye. So Myers will probably get away with it. It's apparently only troubling when a woman declares "victory" in Iraq. There is no victory in Iraq but if the Times couldn't pimp the lie that it was, they might have to shut up shop (something they should seriously consider doing) seeing how they, more than any other outlet, are responsible for the US being in Iraq today. (That is getting the US over there as well as the lies that have kept the US over there.)
Myers pimps the Council For A Liveable World as a 'peace organization.' They're nothing but a war hawk front group to elect Democrats, in the tank with Kurdistan independence on top of everything. What a joke. The chair is Gary Hart (I know and like Hart; however, he is not now nor has he ever been a peace activist) and the officers are a motley crew of military War Hawks and civilian War Hawks. Their National Advisory Board includes Freaks and Liars like Sarah Sewall aka Sarah Sewar who declared publicly at the close of 2007 that the Iraq War could not be called a failure because if it were called that, future wars would be more difficult for the US to start. Sarah Sewer oversaw the counter-insurgency manual for the military and there is nothing 'peaceful' about that. Sarah's roll dog (emphasis on "dog") is Monty McFate whose sister was also a 'peace activist' until she got exposed this year for being a right-wing subsersive attempting to disrupt the peace movement. Like Sewar, Monty works on counter-insurgency and betrays her field and all the ethical standards it is supposed to uphold. (A hilarious NPR moment found Monty insisting that ethical standards were maintained in Afghanistan only to then have a New York Times reporter join the conversation late -- unaware of what Monty had stated -- and go on to explain how, in fact, ethical standards -- including basic disclosures -- were not followed in Monty's Afghanistan programs.) The McFates were never popular in the Bay Area (hence Monty's need to lie and inflate her standing in the community) but they have become a popular joke as it appears every member has publicly disgraced themselves this year.
And Myers? He's a damn liar and he thinks you're a lousy fool that he can trick into believing a Democratic Party front group staffed with War Hawks is a 'peace organization.'
When this illegal war continues to drag on, remember how many of our 'voices' and 'outlets' failed us -- the ones who are supposed to counter the corporate media's propaganda but were all too busy offering something else, some diversion, not reality, not anything that did a damn thing to help end the illegal war. They can jerk off, they just can't expose anything other than themselves.
Let's move over to Campbell Robertson (because I'm not wasting my morning on Myers). Robertson offers up "Wary Iraqis Weigh Deal That Shapes Their Future" which states that "in interviews with Iraqis in cities around the country, there was less concern about the agreement itself than there was a wisdespread skepticisim that the Americans would actually adhere to its rules." In cities? The Times is only aware of a protest yesterday in Baghdad or else they are choosing not to report the protest in Basra (or Kirkuk). That makes it a little difficult to believe Robertson's claim about "widespread" anything.
Alissa J. Rubin offers "Bomber Kills 12 at Shiite Mosque Before March Against a New Security Pact" and that's yesterday's mosque bombing which features an AFP/Getty Images photo by Mohammed Sawaf and that may be all that can be recommended of the article. It's not even a coherent report, it's so patched together that, were it a film, we'd be talking about it's jump-cuts.
Yesterday, Kat reviewed Labelle's Back to Now here and, after this morning's two entries go up, Kat's latest review follows. She repeats, "I would like to do three reviews; however, barring a miracle, this second one is probably it."
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
the washington post
the new york times
alissa j. rubin
steven lee myers
the cbs evening news