Saturday, October 18, 2008

Baghdad protest

"No, No, to America! No, No, to the devil!" Al Jazeera reports protestors chanted in Baghdad today over the proposed treaty between the White House and puppet of the occupation, Nouri al-Maliki. The protestorts were followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and they want the US out of their country now and they want the treaty rejected. A message from al-Sadr read to the crowd also called for the treaty to be rejected. From the article, this is Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum speaking:


"It is not only al-Sadr that is opposed to this so-called security pact ... the Christian community, at least a big chunk of it, as well as most of the Sunni community oppose it too.
"Very recently the Sunni community declared that it is against Islam to have any security pact with the United States.
"We have to realise that, firstly, the United States came uninvited and, secondly, this so-called draft has been negotiated while 150,000 American troops plus contractors, 50,000 of them at least, are still in Iraq.
"Thirdly, it is a government that was actually chosen by the Americans, therefore when you have a country under occupation with pseudo-indepence, you don't expect that the terms would be to the best interests of Iraq."


On the same topic, Hussein Kadhim and Corinne Reilly's "Thousands rally in Iraq against proposed U.S troop deal" (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:

At Saturday's demonstration, which remained peaceful, both Shiite and Sunni Muslims condemned the draft agreement. Some chanted, "No, no to the occupier." Others carried signs telling American troops to "get out of my country."
Sadr has long criticized the American presence here and his followers regularly demonstrate against the U.S. occupation, though Saturday's rally was far larger than most.
"We want the occupier to leave without conditions," said one Shiite demonstrator, Jabar Kareem. "All Iraqi people reject this treaty."


The following community sites have updated since Friday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty's Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ

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


iraq
mcclatchy newspapers



thomas friedman is a great man





NYT: Thommy and Stevie take it to the Boom-Boom Room

In today's New York Times, Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers jerk one another off and call the mess "Draft of Iraq Deal Sets U.S. Pullout by End of 2011, With Some Flexibility." To call this garbage reporting is to stretch the term as much as Shanker and Myers apparently 'stretched' one another.

A circle-jerk may be fun for the participatns (I have no idea) but it's no treat for the rest of us to watch.

The New York Times had no story filed from Iraq yesterday and has none filed from Iraq today. Shanker and Myers grabbed a Motel 6 near DC for their little romp.

Like two good little WHORES Shanker and Myers agree to what their John wants. Their John wanted the story written as is -- 100% GARBAGE -- and they agreed to but probably said, "It'll cost you double." I'm sure both WHORES were paid well.

The State Dept provided the paper with a copy of the draft. The State Dept imposed rules for the article. Shanker and Myers were happy to agree.

Someone inform general-studies majors Shanker and Myers that they are not Constitutional experts and they can nuzzle as many officials crotches as they want on their own damn time, but while pretending to be reporters for a newspaper, they better damn well do their job. This isn't reporting, it's undermining the Constitution and we're stopping there because I'm about to start tossing out the f-word and much more.

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



Friday, October 17, 2008

Iraq snapshot

Friday, October 17, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, talk of the treaty between the White House and the puppet government continues, the UNHCR notes the Mosul crisis and more.
 
Starting with the treaty attempting to masquerade as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reminds that what's being talked about now is a draft and explains the process for Iraq: "presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups.  If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote.  Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative provess, if they moved at all." BBC's Jim Muir reports: "Rejection of any agreement with the Americans is spearheaded by the group led by the militant Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who has strong grassroots support and also 30 seats in parliament. The Sadrists have called for a mass demonstration in Baghdad on Saturday to denounce the accord. At least one other big Shia faction is believed to have reservations about the agreement, and some Sunnis have also voiced dissent." Also noting the anticipated Shi'ite split is the Minneapolis Star Tribune which adds, "Although passage would require only a majority of the 275-member parliament, Al-Maliki will submit the draft only if he is convinced it will receive two-thirds support. To reach two-thirds, the draft would need the 30 votes from the Supreme Council."  US Senator Carl Levin has issued the following statement:
 
"I have not yet seen the proposed Strategic Framework Agreement nor the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq. The Administration committed to provide the text of these agreements to Congress before they are finalized, and I look forward to reviewing the text. I am skeptical of any agreement that would subject U.S. servicemen and women to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the middle of a chaotic war and in the absence of a judicial system that has been proven to be fair and protective of the rights of individuals."
 
Germany's DPA  reports an increase in opposition to the treaty today "among Iraqi religious leaders," quoted Imam Sadr Eddin al-Qabani telling a large gatherin in Najaf ("crowd of hundreds"), "The Shiite clergy is very worried about this security agreement with the USA" and noted the protest by Moqtada al-Sadr supporters scheduled for tomorrow in Baghdad has already resulted in many people beginning "to arrive in Baghdad to participate in the demonstration".  Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) explores the treaty's meaning beyond the US and Iraq:
 
The US has extended its influence throughout the world with treaties and agreements, thereby securing its status as a major military and political power.  And irrespective of the wording of the treaties or accords, the US has categorised its partners into two groups -- friends, ans subordinates.  
Basically, treaties and accords are partnership contracts signed between two countries or more, to mutually safeguard the interests and security of all the parties to the agreement.  
In most treaties, there is one powerful partner.  There is also provisions for such agreements to include financial, scientific and cultural aid, which is usually availed by the weaker partner in the pact.   
The security treaty between the US and Iraq has become a popular political topic for discussion in Iraq and the Middle East, as its signing is round the corner.
 
Dr. Mohammad Akef Jamal goes on to explore the region and notes Iran's opposition to the treaty.  We'll come back to that later in the snapshot.  As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Congress is not in session.  In fact, let's quote White House spokesperson Dana Perino on that: "So Congress isn't even going to be back here until about November 17th."   That's the situation that worried many included Senator Jim Webb who introduced legislation September 12, 2008 about this very possibility.  Speaking on the floor (link has text and video) of the US Senate, Webb explained:
 
We are at an odd situation in the business of government at the moment in that the international authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire at the end of this year.  The UN Mandate through the UN Security Council will expire at that time.  
Since last November, the Administration has been negotiating what they call a "strategic framework agreement," that is intended to replace the international authority of the UN Mandate.  There have been two questions that have come up with respect to what the Administration is doing.  The first is the timeline.  The Iraqi government negotiators have some serious questions that weren't anticipated before.  But the larger question, really, is what entity of the federal government has the authority to enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another government? 
These are serious issues.  I would submit that the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq -- military, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally -- are not the sole business of any adminsitration.  We have questions about the legal justifications under domestic and international law for the United States to operate militarily and quasi-militarily, by the way, given the hundreds of thousands of independent contractors that now are performing essentially military functions in that country.    
There are questions about the process by which the United States government decides upon and enters into long-term relationships with another nation -- any nation.  And in that regard we have serious questions here about the very workings of our constitutional system of government. 
This Administration has claimed repeatedly since last November that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of our relations with Iraq without the agreement or even the ratification of the United States Congress.  The Administration claims that the justification for this authority is the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq and as a fallback position, the President's inherent authority from the perspective of this Administration as Commander in Chief. 
Both of these justifications are patnetly wrong.  The 2002 congressional authorization to use force in Iraq has nothing to do with negotiation with a government that replaced the Saddam Hussein government as to the future relations -- culturally, economically, diplomatically, and militarily -- between our two countries.  
On the other hand, we are now faced with the reality that the United Nations mandate will expire at the end of this year and that expiration will terminate the authority under international law for the United States to be operating in Iraq at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country.  And I and other colleagues have been warning of this serious disconnect for ten months.  
Many of us were trying to say last November that the intention of this Administration was to proceed purely with an executive agreement, to drag this out until the Congress was going to go out of session, as we are about to do; then to present essentially a fait accompli in the sense that with the expiration of the international mandate from the UN at the end of the year, something would have to be done and that something would be an executive agreement that to this point the United States Congress has not even been allowed to examine.  We haven't been able to see one word of this agreement. 
We've tried to energize the congress about this.  We've met with all the appropriate administration officials.  There have been hearings.  There have been assurances from the administration that they will "consult" at the appropriate time.  But we haven't seen anything.  So we're faced with a situation that is something of a constitutional coup d'etat by this Adminstration.  At risk is a further expansion of the powers of the presidency, the results of this is to affirm in many minds that the president -- any president -- no longer needs approval of congress to enter into long-term relations with another country.  
In effect, that is committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without the direct involvement of the United States Congress.  This is not what the Constitution intended.  It's not in the best interests of the country.  
This amendment which I introduce today is designed to prevent this sort of an imbalance from occuring at the same time that it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year. 
This amendment is a sense of the congress.  On the one hand, it states that it is a sense of the Congress that we work with the UN to extend the United Nations mandate for up to an additional year, giving us some addition international authority for being in Iraq, taking away the pressure of this timeline that could be used to justify an agreement that the Congress has not had the ability to examine.  It also says that an extension of the United Nations mandate would end at such time as a strategic framework agreement and a status of forces agreement between the United States and Iraq are mutually agreed upon. 
The amendment also makes the point that the strategic framework agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses significant long-term national security implications for this country.  We need a sense of the Congress.  We need to be saying that.  The Iraqis need to hear it.  The amendment also puts the Congress on record, and the Administration on record, to the reality that the Bush Administration has fully agreed to consult with the Congress regarding all the details of the strategic framework agreement and the status of forces agreement and that there will be copies of the full text of these agreements provided to the chiarman and ranking minority members of the approriate committees in the house and senate prior to the entry into either of those agreements. 
Importantly, it also says that any strategic framework agreement that has been mutally agreed upon by negotiators from our executive branch and the Iraqi government officials will cease to have effect unless it is approved by the Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of that agreement. 
So, Mr. President, on the one hand this amendment recognizes the realities of where we are in terms of time lines.  But, on the other, it protects the constituational process by which we are entering into long-term relationships with other countries, whether it is Iraq or Cameroon or  Burudni, pick a country.  We need to preserve the process.  And it does it in a way that would not disrupt our operations in Iraq.  I would urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment and protect the prerogatives under the Constitution of the United States Congress. With that, I yield the floor.
 
The White House continues its attempt to circumvent the Constitution while pretending that (a) it's not a treaty and (b) they share, they really, really share with Congress.  Which explains Sean McCormack's song and dance before the press today at the US State Dept which included saying that Secretary of State Condi Rice is reaching out to various Senators and Reps and so is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  Asked what she told them, McCormak responded, "Talked about the text of the agreement and -- [asked if "agreement" was Rice's word] -- I don't know if she used that word.  That's my word."  He decided to stick with text and not agreement: "I'm sticking with text.  I like the word text.  And she also talked about the process, where we stand in the process.  The process is ongoing.  The Iraqis are considering the text.  We are talking to the Iraqis.  No news to announce in that regard.  The process continues."  By her phone calls, McCormack stated, we can surmise Rice supports the text.  She wouldn't make phone calls if she didn't support it!  Pressed on that, McCormack finally said, "Sure, sure.  She supports the text, yes." 
 
McCormack, in the same press confrence, made a badly worded statement when asked about Governor Sarah Palin, GOP vice presidential nominee, not being briefed when Senators Barack Obama, Joe Bide and John McCain have: "She -- if you hadn't noticed, she's a governor, not a sentor or congressman."  I don't see how Palin could ever be a Congressman.  She could be a Congress woman.  She could be a member of Congress.  She could be a US House Rep.  But there was so much in that press conference.  McCormack was asked didn't the Senate have approval and he responded, "Well, my understanding -- and you can check with the White House on this -- is this is not, it's not a treaty, so it doesn't require Congressional approval.  And I think if you look back on the history of SOFA agreements, they are not traditionally things that have required Congressional approval.  Of course, since this is a, you know, foreign policy, national security issues are issues of concern to all branches of government.  And importantly, in this case, to the Legislative and the Executive Branches, there is a briefing process that's going on."  After declaring that, he was asked six questions -- and answered none -- about complaints from members of Congress which led him to state, "I've -- you know, again, I've said what I'm going to say on the matter."  At the White House, Dana Perino addressed the press and took questions and maintained that Congress is being briefed.  Over and over, she maintained that.  That's not advise and consent.  As Karen DeYoung noted, "None of the actuald raft wording has yet been made public or unveiled to Congress".
 
 
From the Constitutional crisis to the Mosul crisis.  Christians have been forced to flee from the Iraqi city as a result of attacks on them.  Ed West (UK's Catholic Herald via Catholic Online) explains, "The refugees now face a bleak winter without any food or shelter in what aid workers are calling a 'desperate' situation."  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued the following this morning, attributed to spokesperson Ron Redmond:

UNHCR is concerned about the displacement of Christian Iraqis from Mosul which started last week. We have received information from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) in Mosul that approximately 1,560 families (some 9,360 people) have been displaced so far, although UNHCR cannot confirm this number. The displaced population would represent about half of the Christians in the Mosul area.  
In recent days, we have sent at least 10 field assessment missions to areas surrounding Mosul, including Telesquf, Batnaya, Bartilla, Baashiqa, Akre, Shekhan. We've also had UNHCR teams in areas of Dahuk and Erbil, where Christians have sought refuge. 
According to initial reports, most Christian Iraqis decided to leave Mosul following direct as well as indirect threats and intimidation. One of those interviewed witnessed the killing of a Christian Iraqi on the street, while several of the displaced told us they had received printed threats at the university campus, in their homes and through text messages on their mobiles. Several others told our teams that they left when they heard news of 11 reported killings of Christians in Mosul. Others were warned by family members, friends and neighbours of potential threats and decided to leave before it was too late.  
Most of the families who fled are staying with extended family members, friends within the host community or in collective community buildings, including church facilities. There is an urgent need for food, clothes, non-food items (such as blankets, mattresses, and stoves), health facilities, hygiene kits, clean water and access to school.  
Over the past week, UNHCR and our partner, International Medical Corps (IMC), have distributed non-food items to a total of 802 families (about 4,800 people). We expect to have reached over 1,500 families by early next week, both new arrivals as well as those displaced people we have not been able to reach yet. Food and kerosene and additional assistance have been distributed by other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and local authorities. A decision was also taken on Wednesday by the Ministers of Displacement and Migration and Defence to make available an immediate cash grant of 300,000 --  500,000 Iraqi dinars ( $250-$425 ) to the displaced families, and another 1.5 million dinars ($1,250) to those who decide to return.  
For now, most of the displaced we spoke to do not envisage return to their homes as an immediate option, as they fear for their lives. A few told us that they will only return if and when their safety and security can be assured by the local authorities. 
UNHCR's led protection and assistant centres in Kirkuk and Mosul will continue to closely monitor the situation on the ground.
 

Gulf Daily News reports, "Lebanese political figure Amin Gemayel on Friday warned against attacks targeting Christians in Iraq, according to media reports. Gemayel was quoted by media as saying that a campaign targeting Iraqi Christians was 'part of a campaign to displace them, similar to displacing of Palestinians' by Israel'." Lebanon's Naharnet Newsdesk quotes Gemayel calling it "racial cleansing" and stating, "What sparks suspicion is that the campaign of racial cleansing targeting Iraqi Christians is underway as the security situation in Iraq is achieving progress.  It is regretful that this campaign is underway while the new Iraqi regime and the American forces are watching." Fatih Abdulsalam (Azzaman) provides a unflinching look at the current state of Iraq which includes asking about the alleged 'strength' of Iraq: "Is it our political stability and security?  The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and police as well as 150,00 U.S. Marines cannot stop the persecution of Iraqi Christians in the city of Mosul."  Also refusing to blink is Sami Moubayed (Asia Times):
 
Ever since the occupation of Iraq in 2003, Iraqi Christians have complained that they are being persecuted by Islamic militias. In some cases, many Christians were killed, churches attacked and women raped for walking outdoors without wearing headscarves. 
Over the past 10 days, 12 Iraqi Christians have been found dead in Iraq, angering the prime minister, who created a senior ministerial delegation to investigate the crimes. The group is composed of the ministers of defense, industry, planning and refugees. 
The depiction of Maliki's Iraq as a theocracy where freedom of religion is not tolerated is a terrible setback for Maliki, and is tarnishing his image in the United States and Europe. Ordinary Iraqis - mainly Christian - cannot but compare him with Saddam Hussein, who despite all the faults of his dictatorship, upheld religious diversity in Iraq and protected Iraqi Christians from fundamentalist threats.   
 
Prior to the most recent outbreak of violence in Mosul, Iraqi Christians and other minorities were publicly demonstrating against the decision to strip Article 50 out of the legislation for provincial elections.  Article 50 provided minority representation.  Newsday reports, "The president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, Massoud Barzani, said the omission of a minority quota in a recently passed elections law was a 'big mistake.' Barzani also promised to help the federal government in its 'efforts to provide the equivalent protection for our Christian brothers.' Kurdistan borders Nineveh province, which includes Mosul. More than 1,400 families have fled Mosul to nearby villages and towns, the Iraqi Ministry of Displacement and Migration said." Add Barzani to the long list -- which includes puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and Iraqi president Jalal Talabani -- of people calling the elimination of Article 50 out . . . after the bill was signed into law.  Saad Abedine (CNN) reports 4 males have been arrested today under suspicion of taking part in the attacks on Iraqi Christians and quotes Maj Gen Mohammed al-Askari stating, "We know that they are part of a criminal gang that has been committing criminal acts in Mosul and we will do our best to arrest the rest."
 
Today the United Nations HCR noted a new report:  "A UN refugee agency report released on Friday shows that the number of Iraqis seeking asylum in industrialized countries dropped in the first six months of this year, but they were still by far the top nationality seeking asylum in these destinations. According to the asylum trends report, the number of claims made by Iraqis (19,500) during the first six months of 2008, was higher than the combined number of asylum claims submitted by citizens of the Russian Federation (9,400) and China (8,700), the second and third most important source countries. Other important countries of origin of asylum seekers were Somalia (7,400), Pakistan and Afghanistan (6,300 each)."  The report [PDF format warning] is entitled "Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries" and it examines the statistics on "asylum claims submitted in Europe and selected non-European countries during the first six months of 2008."  The US and Canada rank first for asylum claims (not asylum granted, applications).  France and the UK are third and fourth.  The report notes that Iraq was the country of origin for most aslyum-seekers as it has been since 2006.  For all of 2007, there were 45,000 asylum claims by Iraqis.  For the first half of this year, there were 19,500 claims.  The report is 25 pages and the bulk of it is tables.
 
While Iraq remains the number one refugee crisis in the world (and figures above were on external refugees making claims), tension remain between Iraq and it's northern neighbor Turkey.  CNN reports that Turkish military planes again bombing northern Iraq today and notes that there are no known/confirmed deaths from the bombing.  Reuters adds, "The general staff said on its website that the Turkish jets hit PKK bases in northern Iraq's Qandil mountains on Friday and that all planes had returned to their bases. Military sources, who declined to be named, earlier told Reuters that four PKK guerrillas were killed and several wounded in the bombardment of Qandil mountains."
 
In other reported violence . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and wounded four people and  a Falluja bombing at the home of Sheikh Suleiman Ahmed al-Jumaili claimed the Sheikh's life as well as a man suspected of being the bomber.  Reuters reports a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left one person injured, 2 more Mosul roadside bombing that resulted in 1 Iraqi soldier losing his life, four more wounded, two police officers and three civilians being injured and a roadside bombing outside Falluja that left three police officers injured.
 
Shootings?
 
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "Qadir Aziz, a guard in a driver training establishment" was shot dead in Kirkuk.
 
Corpses?
 
Reuters notes the corpse of 1 "pregnant woman" was found in Kut ("gunshot wounds").
 
Turning to the US presidential race.  Yesterday's snapshot mentions a debate at Columbia. Maria Recio's "Third-party debate's only confirmed participant: the moderator" (McClatchy Newspapers) informs that it's iffy with Cynthia McKinney saying she's doing another debate, Ralph Nader hedging and apparently no real desire for it. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate.  Today Nader writes "In the Public Interest: Closing the Courthouse Door:"
 
"Real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The genius of the American system has been to let that change flow upward, from neighborhoods to cities to states and then to the federal government." George W. Bush February 26, 2001. 
Unfortunately, the difference between words and deeds in Washington is often shocking even to those who think they have seen it all. Alicia Mundy in the October 15, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal reports: "Bush administration officials, in their last weeks in office, are pushing to rewrite a wide array of federal rules with changes or additions that could block product-safety lawsuits by consumers and states." 
What President George W. Bush should have said is that he believes in states rights when they are in the interest of Big Business and their lobbyists in Washington. Mr. Bush and his cronies would like to forget about those harmed by dangerous products or reckless conduct. Indeed, Bush & Company seem to regard the civil justice system as a nuisance that threatens to destroy our economy and way of life. In reality, America's civil justice system plays an indispensable role in our democracy. When the rights of injured consumers are vindicated in court, our society benefits in countless ways: compensating victims and their families for shattering losses (with the cost borne by the wrongdoers rather than taxpayers); preventing future injuries by deterring dangerous products and practices and spurring safety innovation; stimulating enforceable safety standards; educating the public to risks associated with certain products and services; and providing society with its moral and ethical fiber by defining appropriate norms of conduct.
The Center for Progressive Reform has in painstaking detail chronicled the attack on the civil Justice system by the Bush Administration. In "The Truth about Torts: Using Agency Preemption to Undercut Consumer Health and Safety" legal scholars William Funk, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck and Karen Sokol write: "In recent years, the Bush administration has launched an unprecedented aggressive campaign to persuade the courts to preempt state tort actions…. Widespread preemption of state tort law would significantly undermine, if not eliminate, the rights of individuals to seek redress for injuries caused by irresponsible and dangerous business practices and to hold manufacturers and others accountable for such socially unreasonable conduct." 
(See:
http://www.progressiveregulation.org)  
And, Les Weisbrod, the President of the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) hit the nail on the head when he said: "In effect the Bush administration made the safety of Americans secondary to corporate profits." Mr. Weisbrod added: "Big business lobbyists have been on a crusade to destroy state consumer protection laws, and further stack the deck against American consumers." The American Association for Justice has just published a report titled: "Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability" – this report is available at: www.justice.org/getoutofjailfree.  
Tort deform comes in many shapes and sizes – but the common theme is that tort deform severely damages Americans' cherished constitutional right to trial by jury. It ties the hands of jurors, preventing them from doing justice as the case before them requires. Only the judges and juries see, hear, and evaluate the evidence in these cases. But it is the politicians, absent from the courtrooms, who push bills greased by campaign cash that send a perverse message to judge and jury.  
Tort law has produced decades of slow but steady progress in state after state respecting the physical integrity of human beings against harm and recognition that even the weak and defenseless deserve justice. Instead of seeing this evolution as a source of national and global pride, a coalition of insurance companies, corporate defendants' lobbies, and craven politicians, led by George W. Bush, want to destroy our civil justice system.
When Georgetown Law School Professor David Vladeck testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, 2007, he noted that the Bush Administration has "seized on regulatory preemption as a way to cut back dramatically on State law remedies for those injured by products and services Americans depend on every day for their health and well-being: medicines, medical devices, motor vehicles, the mattress on which we and our children sleep, and the commuter trains millions of us take to work every day." 
Let us hope that Congress and the Supreme Court stop Mr. Bush from once again trampling the Constitutional rights of citizens throughout the land and preventing victims of corporate violence from obtaining justice in a court of law.
 
Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate.
 
Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney will participate in a webcast forum for presidential candidates on Sunday, October 19, to be aired 7 to 9 pm on BreakTheMatrix.com.
Cynthia McKinney will join other candidates who've been invited to the online
forum, which has been organized by ThirdPartyTicket.com's Trevor Lyman.
Ms. McKinney will not appear at a candidates' forum at Columbia University on
the evening of October 19. The news of Ms. McKinney's participation in the Columbia event was released to the media in error by persons who are unassociated with the McKinney campaign, and who had not confirmed such
an appearance with Ms. McKinney or her staff.
"We invite everyone to go online, tune in to BreakTheMatrix.com, and listen to
Cynthia McKinney and the other candidates debate real issues. We'll hear Ms. McKinney offer ideas that have been censored from the McCain-Obama debates -- ideas that most Americans support, like bringing our troops home now, health care for everyone, and help for working Americans facing financial difficulty instead of a $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street," said John Judge, media secretary for the McKinney/Clemente Power to the People Committee.
Cynthia McKinney and running mate Rosa Clemente were nominated by the Green Party at the Green National Convention in Chicago this past July.
"A vote for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente is an investment in a growing progressive antiwar party that accepts no corporate contributions. No other candidate in the 2008 election offers the hope of a permanent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate interests that the two established parties serve. The Green Party isn't an alternative, it's an imperative," said Ms. Clemente. 
Greens and other Americans have objected to the format of the McCain-Obama debates, which were sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), and which excluded all candidates except the Democratic and Republican nominee. 
The CPD, which sets rules for candidate participation, is owned and run by the Democratic and Republican parties, which have an interest in excluding all candidates except their own. Greens noted that the CPD is funded through contributions from corporations, which have their own interests in limiting the candidates who participate in the debates.

 
Democracy Now! -- no link to trash -- had Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney on yesterday. Cynthia is the Green Party presidential candidate and wisely refused to take part in defending a White man who instigated more serious acts of violence than have the still persecuted Black Panthers (much to Goody's regret, Cynthia refused to rush to defend Bill Ayers). Ignoring Goody's need to for White privilege, McKinney responded:

CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, I think I should say that I believe that the people in this country need a political party and a movement that places our values on the political agenda. Obviously, with that exchange, that's not the case. 
There's something else that's a bit more troubling. I've also been talking about election integrity as I've gone across this country. But, you know, I really don't like the idea that the face of election fraud, given the past two presidential elections, is now a face of color and one of poor people. 
In 2000, when people went to the polls, when the voters went to the polls, they were met with confusing ballots, manipulation of the voter lists, electronic voting machines that didn't work, inappropriately or ineffectively or poorly trained officials who weren't familiar with the workings of those machines, and we know what the problems with those machines have been and are. We still have those problems that have been with us since 2000. 
In 2004, they added to these problems with the electronic poll books, the sleepovers that were discovered, where the machines weren't even secured, even intensifying the failures of the machines with the vote flipping, and usually in only one direction. The battery freezes in the midst of voters actually trying to cast their votes. 
And now we've got voter ID laws across the country, and we've got voter caging, which is a fancy way of purging people from the voter files. 
So, now, what kind of election is it when neither of the political parties is addressing the issue, the fundamental issue, of whether or not our votes are even going to be counted? 



McKinney's running mate is Rosa Clemente. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Ralph took the bait so we won't note his exchange on that issue. Instead, we'll note this from him: 

RALPH NADER: There's no such thing as free trade with dictators and oligarchs in these countries, because the market doesn't determine the costs. There's no free collective bargaining for workers. That's a crime, de facto, in many countries, to try to form an independent trade union. There's no rule of law, bribery. These companies can go there and pollute at will. There's no judicial independence to make these companies accountable, and they abuse workers and consumers and communities, as the oil companies and the timber companies have on many occasions. 
Second, these-NAFTA and WTO have to be scrapped. Under those treaties, we can withdraw in six months and give notice of withdrawal and renegotiate these agreements for the following purpose: no more trade agreements that subordinate consumer, union, worker and environmental rights. These are pull-down trade agreements that are allowing fascist and corporate dictators to pull down our standards of living, because they know how to keep their workers in their place at fifty cents an hour. So, any new trade agreements should stick to trade. Any other treaty should be labor, environment and consumer on a level playing field. These trade agreements also have to be open, democratic. They cannot undermine our courts, our regulatory agencies and our legislature. 
That's what we've got to do. And our website, votenader.org, has ample information on this process. 


If you're in the mood to wade through garbage, you know where to go find the audio and video. Cynthia McKinney has the transcript posted at her campaign website. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. In terms of the 'questions' Goody came up with, Ava and I will address that garbage on Sunday at Third.

Meghan McCain (McCainBlogette.com) offers her evaluation today on the debate Wednesday between her father, GOP presidential candidate John McCain, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "My father nothing short of ROCKED Wednesday night's debate and I have never been more proud.  He got up and showed this country why he is the right person to lead it into the future, and open the door to reinvention of the Republican Party.  I am always proud of my Dad but even more so when he lets his maverick tendencies show so clearly.  Eighteen more days to go and this election is nowhere near over!!!"  McCain's running mate is Governor Sarah Palin.  The McCain-Palin campaign has issued a press release that there's not room for in full.  We'll quote from the top and include as much as possible (ues the link to read in full):
 
OBAMA MEDICARE MALPRACTICE #1: The Very Same Reforms That Barack Obama Calls "Cuts" Under John McCain, He Says Will "Strengthen" Medicare Under His Program 
THE MALPRACTICE: While Saying Today That John McCain's Reforms Will "Cut" Medicare Spending, Barack Obama Says He Will "Strengthen" Medicare With His Reforms. OBAMA: "So what would Senator McCain's cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. ... I think every single American has a right to affordable accessible health care. We can strengthen Medicare by eliminating wasteful subsidies to big HMOs in Medicare, and making sure seniors can access home-based care, and letting Medicare negotiate with drug companies for better prices. That's the kind of change we need." (Barack Obama, Remarks As Prepared For Delivery, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)
THE TRUTH: Just Two Days Ago, Barack Obama Highlighted His Own "Cut" To Medicare Spending. OBAMA: "And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway." (CNN, Presidential Candidate Debate, Hempstead, NY, 10/15/08)
THE TRUTH: One Such "Cut" That John McCain Must Support Under Barack Obama's Logic Is A Reform That Today, Barack Obama Said Would "Strengthen" Medicare. MCCAIN: "Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should lead the way in health care reforms that improve quality and lower costs. Medicare reimbursement now rewards institutions and clinicians who provide more and more complex services. We need to change the way providers are paid to focus their attention more on chronic disease and managing their treatment. This is the most important care for an aging population. There have been a variety of state-based experiments such as Cash and Counseling or The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, called PACE, that are different from the inflexible approaches for delivering care to people in the home setting. Seniors are given a monthly allowance that they can use to hire workers and purchase care- related services and goods. They can get help managing their care by designating representatives, such as relatives or friends, to help make decisions. It also offers counseling and bookkeeping services to assist consumers in handling their programmatic responsibilities. In these approaches, participants were much more likely to have their needs met and be satisfied with their care. Moreover, any concerns about consumers' safety appeared to be misplaced. For every age group in every state, participants were no more likely to suffer care-related health problems." (John McCain, Remarks, Tampa, FL, 4/29/08) 
 
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Iraqi Christians

Mosul Christians are still suffering from killings and displacement being threatened by "extremist Islamists" who are trying to affect coexistence and national unity of the Iraqi people which is only achieved by the unity of all its components. In the wake of Defense Minister Abdul Qader Al Ubaidi's announcement that some pointers have been uncovered in the case of displacing 1894 Christian families from Mosul, a number of leaders and representatives of around 20 Christian political parties called the government to announce the results of investigations accusing security forces in the city of overlooking their duties.
Christian parties called on the government in a statement read in a news conference held in Arbil to accelerate the return of displaced home and compensate for their lost houses and properties.

The above is from Alsumaria's "Iraq Christians call to uncover probe result." As the crisis continues, not only does the puppet government in Baghdad do damn little but the domestic (US) mainstream and 'alternative' press doesn't seem overly interested let alone concerned. Ed West's "Thousands of Christians flee Mosul, Iraq amid 'Campaign of Liquidation'" (UK's Catholic Herald via Catholic Online) notes the refugees:

The refugees now face a bleak winter without any food or shelter in what aid workers are calling a "desperate" situation.
Some 25 families fled in one day last week followed by another 50 the next day. It turned into an exodus after 13 Christians were murdered, including a father and son and a disabled man in his twenties. Most victims owned or worked in shops, suggesting a campaign to break the economic strength of the Assyrian Christian community.The exiles have moved north and east to the villages of the Nineveh Plains, the last stronghold of Iraq's Christian minority. In one Christian village, Qaraqosh, more than 1,000 refugees are now staying in schools and churches.
However, Qaraqosh and the others villages in the area are already overwhelmed with Christian refugees from the fighting elsewhere in the country, and Christian charities are preparing emergency food, medicine and shelter.
Albert Michael of the Assyrian Aid Society charity called the conditions "desperate" and said: "There are convoys of blankets and tents being prepared. Most of the people are being housed in churches and monasteries. Many are outside and it's getting chilly, and they can't stay much longer. The problem is what happens when these people return to their homes? Ultimately most of the people have to return. Conditions are very bad."

Gulf Daily News reports, "Lebanese political figure Amin Gemayel on Friday warned against attacks targeting Christians in Iraq, according to media reports. Gemayel was quoted by media as saying that a campaign targeting Iraqi Christians was 'part of a campaign to displace them, similar to displacing of Palestinians' by Israel'." China's Xinhau notes Gemayel's statements:

"It is regrettable that this campaign is taking place while the new Iraqi regime and the American forces are watching," he said.
"What raised suspicion is that this campaign of racial cleaninga gainst Iraqi Christians is underway as the security situation in Iraq is improving," Gemayel said, adding Iraqi Christians have set"the first example of Christian-Muslim coexistence."

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued the following this morning, attributed to spokesperson Ron Redmond:

UNHCR is concerned about the displacement of Christian Iraqis from Mosul which started last week. We have received information from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration (MoDM) in Mosul that approximately 1,560 families (some 9,360 people) have been displaced so far, although UNHCR cannot confirm this number. The displaced population would represent about half of the Christians in the Mosul area.
In recent days, we have sent at least 10 field assessment missions to areas surrounding Mosul, including Telesquf, Batnaya, Bartilla, Baashiqa, Akre, Shekhan. We've also had UNHCR teams in areas of Dahuk and Erbil, where Christians have sought refuge.
According to initial reports, most Christian Iraqis decided to leave Mosul following direct as well as indirect threats and intimidation. One of those interviewed witnessed the killing of a Christian Iraqi on the street, while several of the displaced told us they had received printed threats at the university campus, in their homes and through text messages on their mobiles. Several others told our teams that they left when they heard news of 11 reported killings of Christians in Mosul. Others were warned by family members, friends and neighbours of potential threats and decided to leave before it was too late.
Most of the families who fled are staying with extended family members, friends within the host community or in collective community buildings, including church facilities. There is an urgent need for food, clothes, non-food items (such as blankets, mattresses, and stoves), health facilities, hygiene kits, clean water and access to school.
Over the past week, UNHCR and our partner, International Medical Corps (IMC), have distributed non-food items to a total of 802 families (about 4,800 people). We expect to have reached over 1,500 families by early next week, both new arrivals as well as those displaced people we have not been able to reach yet. Food and kerosene and additional assistance have been distributed by other UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and local authorities. A decision was also taken on Wednesday by the Ministers of Displacement and Migration and Defence to make available an immediate cash grant of 300,000 – 500,000 Iraqi dinars ( $250-$425 ) to the displaced families, and another 1.5 million dinars ($1,250) to those who decide to return.
For now, most of the displaced we spoke to do not envisage return to their homes as an immediate option, as they fear for their lives. A few told us that they will only return if and when their safety and security can be assured by the local authorities.
UNHCR's led protection and assistant centres in Kirkuk and Mosul will continue to closely monitor the situation on the ground.

Meanwhile, in a piece evaluating the puppet Nouri al-Maliki, Sami Moubayed includes the following in "Maliki in damage-control mode" (Asia Times):


Ever since the occupation of Iraq in 2003, Iraqi Christians have complained that they are being persecuted by Islamic militias. In some cases, many Christians were killed, churches attacked and women raped for walking outdoors without wearing headscarves.
Over the past 10 days, 12 Iraqi Christians have been found dead in Iraq, angering the prime minister, who created a senior ministerial delegation to investigate the crimes. The group is composed of the ministers of defense, industry, planning and refugees.
The depiction of Maliki's Iraq as a theocracy where freedom of religion is not tolerated is a terrible setback for Maliki, and is tarnishing his image in the United States and Europe. Ordinary Iraqis - mainly Christian - cannot but compare him with Saddam Hussein, who despite all the faults of his dictatorship, upheld religious diversity in Iraq and protected Iraqi Christians from fundamentalist threats.


Turning to the US presidential race, Democracy Now! -- no link to trash -- had Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney on yesterday. Cynthia is the Green Party presidential candidate and wisely refused to take part in defending a White man who instigated more serious acts of violence than have the still persecuted Black Panthers (much to Goody's regret, Cynthia refused to rush to defend Bill Ayers). Ignoring Goody's need to for White privilege, McKinney responded:

CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, I think I should say that I believe that the people in this country need a political party and a movement that places our values on the political agenda. Obviously, with that exchange, that's not the case.
There's something else that's a bit more troubling. I've also been talking about election integrity as I've gone across this country. But, you know, I really don't like the idea that the face of election fraud, given the past two presidential elections, is now a face of color and one of poor people.
In 2000, when people went to the polls, when the voters went to the polls, they were met with confusing ballots, manipulation of the voter lists, electronic voting machines that didn't work, inappropriately or ineffectively or poorly trained officials who weren't familiar with the workings of those machines, and we know what the problems with those machines have been and are. We still have those problems that have been with us since 2000.
In 2004, they added to these problems with the electronic poll books, the sleepovers that were discovered, where the machines weren't even secured, even intensifying the failures of the machines with the vote flipping, and usually in only one direction. The battery freezes in the midst of voters actually trying to cast their votes.
And now we've got voter ID laws across the country, and we've got voter caging, which is a fancy way of purging people from the voter files.
So, now, what kind of election is it when neither of the political parties is addressing the issue, the fundamental issue, of whether or not our votes are even going to be counted?



McKinney's running mate is Rosa Clemente. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Ralph took the bait so we won't note his exchange on that issue. Instead, we'll note this from him:

RALPH NADER: There's no such thing as free trade with dictators and oligarchs in these countries, because the market doesn't determine the costs. There's no free collective bargaining for workers. That's a crime, de facto, in many countries, to try to form an independent trade union. There's no rule of law, bribery. These companies can go there and pollute at will. There's no judicial independence to make these companies accountable, and they abuse workers and consumers and communities, as the oil companies and the timber companies have on many occasions.
Second, these-NAFTA and WTO have to be scrapped. Under those treaties, we can withdraw in six months and give notice of withdrawal and renegotiate these agreements for the following purpose: no more trade agreements that subordinate consumer, union, worker and environmental rights. These are pull-down trade agreements that are allowing fascist and corporate dictators to pull down our standards of living, because they know how to keep their workers in their place at fifty cents an hour. So, any new trade agreements should stick to trade. Any other treaty should be labor, environment and consumer on a level playing field. These trade agreements also have to be open, democratic. They cannot undermine our courts, our regulatory agencies and our legislature.
That's what we've got to do. And our website, votenader.org, has ample information on this process.


If you're in the mood to wade through garbage, you know where to go find the audio and video. Cynthia McKinney has the transcript posted at her campaign website. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. In terms of the 'questions' Goody came up with, Ava and I will address that garbage on Sunday at Third.

On Fridays, we try to avoid posting videos. Dial up users have problems with the page loading. Unless it's an exception for news, that's pretty much our rule. However, Oklahoma community members made their pick in the presidential race only very recently. Their candidates (McCain and Palin) highlights start this month. So others have had videos through 2008. For that reason when an Oklahoma community member e-mails a request between now and the election, we will note a video. During the week, even if it's on a Friday. I'll try to have enough things go up this weekend that it won't slow the loading of the page for dial up. Vernon notes this posted by Michael Palmer to the McCain-Palin blog:

John McCain at the Alfred E. Smith Dinner

Last night John McCain and Barack Obama attended the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York. In his usual fasion, John McCain brought the house down with laughter. Take a look for yourself:

Part 1


Part 2


This weekend (Friday nights in many markets) PBS' Washington Week offers:

The third and final presidential debate last night proved to be the most combative with the candidates drawing clear distinctions between their political platforms and personal styles. Now with less than three weeks until Election Day, Barack Obama is leading in most national polls and electoral vote projections are shifting in his favor. So what can John McCain do to improve his chances for victory? Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times offers analysis on the debate and the race for the White House.

Are we headed toward a severe recession? Despite Washington’s multi-billion dollar rescue plan for Wall Street and the federal government’s pledge to infuse billions more directly into banks to bolster the economy, the stock market continues to go up and down like a roller coaster. What will it take to stabilize and restore the damaged US economy? We get some answers from John Maggs of National Journal. Plus Jackie Calmes of The New York Times takes a closer look at the new economic recovery plans Obama and McCain offered up this week.

The McCain campaign and Republican officials from several states are accusing a non-profit group of committing electoral fraud while registering new voters around the country. The activities of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) have come under scrutiny after some state investigations discovered discrepancies including voters who registered multiple times and in one case a man who allegedly was given cigarettes in exchange for his signature on 73 voter registration forms. Michael Duffy of TIME Magazine reports on efforts to verify the eligibility of newly registered voters before the election; the status of early voting in 30 states; and concerns about potential problems at polling places on November 4.

Gwen will be on line next Thursday, October 23 at noon (ET) for her monthly web chat. If you'd like to ask a question, go to [Washington Week ]

NOW on PBS also begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings on both) and this weekend's focus is:

Virginia's Vote

[Streaming video of this program will be available online after broadcast]

Battleground Virginia: Could a reliably Republican state turn blue?

The state of Virginia has not voted for a Democratic President since 1964, but this year its 13 electoral votes are up for grabs as late polls show the race too close to call. This week, NOW on PBS goes behind the national polls and punditry and into the living rooms of real Virginia voters to learn how they'll be making their decisions. Military families, retirees, and blue-collar workers of all political stripes share their concerns about faith, the war, and making ends meet in troubling economic times.

A Better Bailout? aired alongside Virginia's Vote

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






The treaty

The draft is to be presented today to Iraq's political and national security council, which is made up of top government officials and the leaders of major political groups. If it survives challenges there and among other government ministers, it will move to the Council of Representatives, or parliament, where Maliki has pledged to put it to an up-or-down vote.
Far less controversial matters have taken months to move through the Iraqi legislative process, if they moved at all.
Some Iraqi political and religious leaders are already on record opposing other, previously agreed upon portions of the draft, including a 2011 withdrawal date for U.S. troops. The Bush administration has said that such dates are "aspirational," depending on ground conditions. Maliki has described them as firm, and political opponents such as Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have demanded an immediate U.S. withdrawal.
None of the actual draft wording has yet been made public or unveiled to Congress, where additional objections have been voiced. In a statement Wednesday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said he could not conceive of any surrender of jurisdiction over U.S. troops, no matter how limited, to the Iraqi legal system.


The above is from Karen DeYoung's "Gates, Rice Brief Lawmakers On Draft Accord With Iraq" (Washington Post) [a perfect example of a journalist who is not some glorified general studies major]. We're back to the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which the State Dept has done a huge push on in the last four weeks (a push in Iraq) and have been assisted by the return of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Carl Levin's statement is mentioned in the above excerpt so let's note it in full:

"I have not yet seen the proposed Strategic Framework Agreement nor the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq. The Administration committed to provide the text of these agreements to Congress before they are finalized, and I look forward to reviewing the text. I am skeptical of any agreement that would subject U.S. servicemen and women to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the middle of a chaotic war and in the absence of a judicial system that has been proven to be fair and protective of the rights of individuals."

That may actually be the SOFA's undoing (if it comes undone). The Senate -- both sides of the aisle -- have already objected to any effort to circumvent them and violate the Constitution. Levin choosing to emphasize that issue is touching on one that has a good chance of inflaming conservatives around the US and leading them to object to the SOFA as well.

"The President may have the power to initiate these talks, but it is a mistake for him to do so," Senator Joe Biden objected in April. The situation in Iraq can hardly be described as normal, and the government in Baghdad is far from established or reliable, even in the eyes of the Iraqi people. This is a shaky edifice for building a long-term relationship. Instead, the President should devote his energies to working with Iraq and its neighbors on a diplomatic surge – to help develop a lasting political settlement that will provide the foundation for a stable Iraq, and he should defer discussion of such long-term agreements to his successor. But if the President persists on this course, the Congress will insist on a role in approving or disapproving these agreements." (We'll note Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, in full from April near the end of this entry.)

Others on the record objecting include Senator Jim Webb and last month his office released the following:


Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation calling for the United States to seek an extension of the United Nations Security Council mandate of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and providing that any new security agreement negotiated between the United States and the Government of Iraq would not remain in effect unless approved by Congress within 180 days of entry. These provisions underscore the importance of constitutional oversight in reaching long-term security negotiations with Iraq.
Noting that the legal authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire December 31, 2008, and that Congress will be adjourned at that time, Webb warned that the Bush administration was on the verge of "a constitutional coup d'etat, a further expansion of the powers of the presidency," by agreeing to a long-term relationship without the consent of Congress.
"We are now faced with the reality that the United Nations mandate will expire at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country," said Webb. "Many of my colleagues and I started warning last November that the intention of this administration was to proceed purely with an executive agreement, to drag this out until the Congress was going to go out of session, then to present the executive agreement essentially as a fait accompli."
Webb stressed the necessity of constitutional balance and oversight when negotiating long-term relationships with nations. Instead, the Bush administration has claimed repeatedly that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of the United States' relationship with Iraq without the agreement or even the ratification of the Congress.
"The largest question, really, is what entity of the federal government has the authority to enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another government?" asked Webb on the Senate floor. "I would submit that the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq—militarily, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally—are not the sole business of any administration.
"This administration's approach seeks to affirm in many minds that the President -- any President -- no longer needs the approval of Congress to enter into long-term relations with another country. In effect, that is committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without the direct involvement of the United States Congress."
Webb concluded: "This is not what the Constitution intended. It’s not in the best interest of the country. And this amendment which I introduce today is designed to prevent this sort of an imbalance from occurring at the same time that it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year."
Senator Webb’s amendment was filed today as #5499 to the fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

"A constitutional coup d'etat" -- yes, it is a very serious issue and it's one that needs some serious attention. Click here for Webb's Senate floor statement. March 19th (fifth anniversary of the start of the illegal war), US House Rep Rosa DeLauro issued a statement that concluded with:

The President and his Administration must not be allowed to make security commitments to Iraq that will tie the hands of the next president. That is why, I have introduced legislation that enforces the Constitutional requirement that the Bush Administration must seek Congressional approval before finalizing any future and lasting agreements with Iraq . I believe we should extend into 2009 the United Nations mandate authorizing our combat troops to operate in Iraq, so that a new Administration and a new Congress can carry out the wishes of the American people in mapping out and carrying out our future course in that country.
Our nation's future presence in Iraq is one of the most important issues facing our country and the Congress must play a role.

Meanwhile the BBC's Jim Muir reports: "Rejection of any agreement with the Americans is spearheaded by the group led by the militant Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, who has strong grassroots support and also 30 seats in parliament. The Sadrists have called for a mass demonstration in Baghdad on Saturday to denounce the accord. At least one other big Shia faction is believed to have reservations about the agreement, and some Sunnis have also voiced dissent." Also noting the anticipated Shi'ite split is the Minneapolis Star Tribune which adds, "Although passage would require only a majority of the 275-member parliament, Al-Maliki will submit the draft only if he is convinced it will receive two-thirds support. To reach two-thirds, the draft would need the 30 votes from the Supreme Council."


Here's Biden's April opening statement:

"Last November, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq signed a 'Declaration of Principles,' which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by the end of July of this year, agreements governing cooperation in political, economic and security spheres. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates 'providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq' and supporting Iraq 'in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,' including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and 'all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.' In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.
"This sends up not just one, but many red flags with me and many other Americans. We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?
"We will hear today about the two agreements that the Administration is negotiating with Iraq which were anticipated in the November Declaration. On Tuesday, Ambassador Crocker told us that these agreements would set forth the 'vision' -- his phrase -- of our bilateral relationship with Iraq.
"One agreement is a 'strategic framework agreement' that will include the economic, political and security issues outlined in the Declaration of Principles. The document might be better titled ‘What the United States will do for Iraq,’ because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction -- promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to have a stable country.
"We're told that the reason why we’re not continuing under the UN umbrella is because the Iraqis say they have a sovereign country. But they don't want a Status of Forces Agreement because that flows two ways. The Administration tells us it's not binding, but the Iraqi parliament is going to think it is.
"The second agreement is what Administration officials call a 'standard' Status of Forces Agreement, which will govern the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. Unlike most SOFAs, however, it would permit U.S. forces – for the purposes of Iraqi law -- to engage in combat operations and detain insurgents. In other words, to detain people that we think are bad guys. I don't know any of the other nearly 90 Status of Forces Agreements that would allow a U.S. commander to arrest anyone he believes is a bad guy.
"In February, Secretaries Rice and Gates made clear that despite the unambiguous reference to 'security commitments' in the Declaration, these agreements would not include a legally binding security commitment to defend Iraq if attacked or to support the government against other militia groups. I welcome that clarification.
"But it obscures a critical point: the likelihood that the United States will promise some response if Iraq is threatened or attacked. Often called a security assurance or security arrangement -- it will likely create a perception in Iraq that the United States will come to Iraq’s rescue if it is threatened or attacked. The next president may not want to do that. The next president may not have a piece of that 'vision.'
"It also ignores the rather startling pledge in the Declaration to support the Iraqi government in its battle with 'all other outlaw groups' -- I assume that means any group at odds with the prime minister as the government -- a potentially expansive commitment to take sides in Iraq's civil war.
"A key question before this Committee is whether either agreement should be approved by Congress, either as a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate or as a congressional-executive agreement approved by both houses of Congress.
"It is a fact that security arrangements with several countries have been made without explicit congressional or Senate approval. But not all security arrangements are created equal. Our present military commitment in Iraq and the context in which this arrangement would be concluded are important factors in evaluating whether Congressional approval is required. Moreover, past practice is not a reason to bypass the Congress, nor can it answer the question of the President's authority, as the Supreme Court reminded us when it struck down dozens of statutes providing for the legislative veto in the landmark case of INS v. Chadha.
"This Committee has long been concerned with the unilateral efforts of the Executive Branch to bind the nation. In 1967, the Committee held a series of hearings that led to Senate approval of the National Commitments Resolution, which states that a national commitment by the United States can only result 'from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.'
"In its report on the resolution, the Committee expressed concern that ‘some foreign engagements, such as our bases agreement with Spain, form a kind of quasi-commitment, unspecified as to their exact import but, like buds in springtime, ready under the right climatic conditions, to burst into full bloom... [i]n practice the very fact of our physical presence in Spain constitutes a quasi-commitment to the defense of the Franco regime, possibly even against internal disruptions.’
"In 1970, a special subcommittee of this Committee engaged in a study of security agreements and commitments abroad. It described a practice of 'creeping commitment,' and observed that 'Overseas bases, the presence of elements of United States armed forces, joint planning, joint exercises, or extensive military assistance programs represent to host governments more valid assurances of United States commitment than any treaty or executive agreement.'
"The Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize the use of force, the power to raise and support the military, and the power of the purse; and it gives the Senate the power to approve treaties. The President, as Commander-in-Chief and chief diplomat, can direct forces in war, once authorized, and negotiate and sign treaties. This division of power was intentional, and among other things was designed to prevent one person from making national commitments that could result in taking the country to war.
"I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. Five years ago, President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent. He did so by overstating the intelligence, and by understating the difficulty, cost and duration of the mission.
"With just nine months left on his term, the President is on a course to commit the nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and thereby bind -- at least politically and perceptively -- his successors to what I believe is a failed policy. Once again, he appears poised to do so without the informed consent of the American people -- by rushing to conclude long-term agreements with Iraq without adequate public debate, and without a voice for the people’s representatives in Congress.
"Instead of giving us a strategy to end the war without leaving chaos behind, in my perspective, the President has made it clear he intends to pass on the problem to his successor, and, by these agreements, to make it harder for his successor to change course.
"The President may have the power to initiate these talks, but it is a mistake for him to do so. The situation in Iraq can hardly be described as normal, and the government in Baghdad is far from established or reliable, even in the eyes of the Iraqi people. This is a shaky edifice for building a long-term relationship.
"Instead, the President should devote his energies to working with Iraq and its neighbors on a diplomatic surge -- to help develop a lasting political settlement that will provide the foundation for a stable Iraq, and he should defer discussion of such long-term agreements to his successor. But if the President persists on this course, the Congress will insist on a role in approving or disapproving these agreements.
"I believe that the president would be better off himself, for the Iraqi people, and for the American people, if he negotiated a straightforward Status of Forces Agreement."


Turning to the US presidential race. Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate:

McKinney/Clemente Campaign Materials
Thursday, 16 October 2008 22:02
A reminder that Green Party national headquarters in Washington, DC has merchandise available for the historic McKinney-Clemente presidential campaign!

Here's the secure link to the Green Party online store where you may buy online; or you may also phone-in orders to (202) 319-7191.

Secure Shopping link:


This is union-made, sweatshop-free McKinney-Clemente gear!

Go Green! Vote Green! Vote Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente on Tuesday, 4 Nov 2008!


Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and his running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Lauren notes this from Team Nader:

Nader v. Obama

ShareThis

Nader v. Obama .

Donate $3 to Nader/Gonzalez now.

Why?

Well, on three key issues last night — energy, health insurance, corporate crime — Obama stood with the corporations against the interests of the American people.

Compare Nader to Obama.

Last night, McCain challenged Obama.

Tell me one time you have stood up to the leaders of your party, McCain said.


Obama couldn’t name one time when he stood up to the corporations that control his party.

So, instead he named a couple of times when he stood with the corporations.

And against the interests of the American people.

I voted for tort reform, Obama said.

Wow!

Brave of you Barack.

You stood with the National Association of Manufacturers against injured people.

I support clean coal technology, Obama said.

Wow Barack, you stood with the polluting coal industry against people who suffer the consequences.

When McCain accused Obama of supporting a single payer, Canadian style national health insurance system, Obama said he didn’t.

And he doesn’t.

Despite the fact that a majority of doctors, nurses and the American people want it.

On national health insurance, Obama stands with the insurance industry and against the American people who are demanding single payer.

Over 5,000 U.S. physicians have signed an open letter calling on the candidates for president and Congress "to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a nonprofit, single-payer national health insurance system." (Here’s the ad that ran in the New Yorker magazine.)

Obama says no.

McCain says no.

Nader/Gonzalez says yes.

Yes to single payer.

Yes to solar and no to coal.

Yes to protecting the American people from corporate recklessness and crime, no to tort deform.

So, donate $3 to the candidacy that is not on the debate stage.

But that is right on the issues.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Today, while Obama fronts for his corporate donors, Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez and the Nader Team will be on Wall Street protesting corporate America’s sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.

Nader/Gonzalez continues to stand with the people.

Against the corporate criminals and their candidates in the two major parties.


Onward to November.

The Nader Team


PS: If you donate $100 more now, we will ship to you our corporate crime package. The package includes two books and a DVD: Gangster Capitalism by Michael Woodiwiss, The Cheating of America by Charles Lewis, Bill Allison and the Center for Public Integrity, and a DVD that we are making of today’s rally on Wall Street. (This offer ends October 24, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)


ShareThis

John McCain is the GOP presidential nominee and Sarah Palin is his running mate. Becky notes this from the McCain-Palin campaign:

MEDIA ADVISORY: Meghan McCain to Visit Maine

ARLINGTON, VA The McCain-Palin presidential campaign today announced that Meghan McCain will visit Maine Friday, October 17th.

Friday, October 17, 2008

ORONO, MAINE

WHO: Meghan McCain

WHAT: Lunch With Supporters

WHEN: Friday, October 17, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. EDT

WHERE: Pat's Pizza
11 Mill St.
Orono, ME 04473


BANGOR, MAINE

WHO: Meghan McCain

WHAT: Meet and Greet

WHEN: Friday, October 17, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. EDT

WHERE: Bangor Victory Center
543 Broadway
Bangor, ME


AUBURN, MAINE

WHO: Meghan McCain

WHAT: Meet and Greet

WHEN: Friday, October 17, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. EDT

WHERE: Auburn Brew Pub & Restaurant
68 Main Street
Auburn, ME 04210



Meghan McCain is one of John and Cindy McCain's four children. She has her own political website and Julie Bosman (New York Times) did a nice write up of Meghan this week. She is the co-author, with Dan Andreasen, of My Dad, John McCain, a children's picture book and a percentage of the sales goes to the Fallen Heroes Fund.

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