BLOG POSTS

At a time when most Americans are self-absorbed and desperately concerned with electing a new president, the subject of Iraq is far from the forefront of their thinking, or for that matter, of the media’s.

Only last week, the present US incumbent announced he was confident of reaching agreement with the Iraqi government over the status of US troops in that nation, after the end of this year when the present agreement expires.

Confident enough, it would appear, to threaten Maliki’s legislature with withdrawal of all economic and military support, if it fails to comply with the demands of the Bush administration. Blackmail is also on the table, to the sum of $16 billion dollars:

This, from ISP:

“The threat by the George W. Bush administration last week to withdraw all economic and military support from the Iraqi government if it does not accept the U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement has raised the stakes in the political-diplomatic struggle over the issue.

However, most Iraqi politicians are now so averse to any formal legitimisation of the U.S. military presence — and particularly of extraterritorial legal rights over U.S. troops in the country — that even that threat is unlikely to save the pact.

For most Iraqis the agreement is all too reminiscent of the unequal security agreement that gave military rights to British imperialism in Iraq from 1930 to 1958. The symbolism of foreign domination inherent in that historical parallel makes it risky for political party leaders and members of parliament to be seen as going along with any agreement that provides special privileges to the United States.

In a move reflecting a new sense of desperation that has overtaken U.S. officials, Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned Iraqi officials that they would lose a total of 16 billion dollars in assistance for the economy and Iraqi security forces unless the agreement is approved by parliament, according to a story by McClatchy newspapers reporter Leil Fadel Sunday.” _{Read more….}

Apparently, George W Bush isn’t quite so confident as he intimated.

There are strong moves afoot in Iraq to hold out against further concessions to what is viewed by the majority as nothing more than a US military occupation. Maliki is undoubtedly delaying as long as possible in the hope of obtaining a more productive agreement with a new president, particularly if that president is Barack Obama, whose plans for Iraqi withdrawal are more in line with the Iraqi government’s own thinking.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, unrest against the agreement is growing.

This from ‘Azzaman.Com’, an Iraqi newspaper:

The U.S. has little favor among Iraqis due to the pain and hardships its invasion of their country has caused.

Consequently, almost all Iraqis interviewed by this newspaper were adamantly against the signing of the proposed security agreement with the U.S. The few who wanted the pact to pass, asked the government for substantial revisions that will give U.S. troops none of the privileges they now enjoy.

“It (the agreement) is totally rejected by the Iraqi people because it violates the country’s sovereignty and lengthens the stay of occupation troops,” said Kareem Khafaji, a high school teacher.

If signed, he warned, the agreement “will bring about uncalculated consequences. The country cannot afford signing such a pact,” he added.

Abdulrahman Abdullah, a political science specialist, said he saw nothing in the security agreement that looked after Iraqi national interests.” _{Read more…..}

Reading this, there are some who might consider the tide to be turning against the US military in Iraq. The truth, of course, is that the tide never ebbed. George Bush’s “surge” merely acted as a levee.

It may not be very long before that levee is dramatically breached.

Filed under: Bush’s levee problems

“Vineyard Views”^[1] is highlighting a report in today’s Sunday Times^[2] suggesting that Utah Republican senator, Chris Cannon, (he’s the one who landed on a list of corrupt members of Congress back in 2006, for alleged disreputable dealing with his lobbyist brother, Joe^[3]) has contacted an Oxford don, Dr Peter Millican, the inventor of a software program capable of detecting plagiarism, and asked him to verify whether Barack Obama’s autobiography was ghostwritten by ex-Weathermen founder, William Ayres.

Millican says he was offered $10,000 by Cannon’s brother-in-law, California businessman, Robert Fox, to prove the presidential nominee’s book, “Dreams from my Father,” was written by Ayres, now a Chicago university professor.

It would seem the Republican party has plumbed new depths of depravity during this election campaign. To consider that tactics of this level would prove acceptable to the American people, only serves to clarify the GOP’s gutter-opinion of the electorate.

Read more on this topic, and its outcome, by accessing the links below.

^{[1] “They believe in the power of the computer”, Vineyard Views, November 2nd 2008}

^{[2] “Republicans try to use Oxford don to smear Barack Obama”, Sunday Times, November 2nd 2008}

^{[3] “Chris Cannon lashed for brotherly dealing”, CREW, September 21st 2006}

Filed under: Cannon’s back-fire

I have long championed the BBC as a bastion of balanced news broadcasting. Since arriving on these shores six years ago, and discovering the bias inherent in every news media outlet in America, with the possible exception of PBS, the BBC has been my one source for fair and balanced news coverage, albeit with limited availability, in the United States.

Sadly, those days are now at an end. Since its American news programming began a few months ago, the corporation has shown itself to be in allegiance with the false, capitalist, demagogues who control the rest of America’s news channels.

The emergence of ‘BBC World News America’ heralded this decline in standards. Within weeks of the program airing, it became obvious Matt Frei and the team were willing pawns of Rupert Murdoch and his corporate colleagues. ‘BBC World News America’ rapidly announced itself as a mouthpiece for corporate America.

It didn’t stop with ‘BBC World News America’. Today, on the main BBC website, is published a long article by Peter Wehner, a former Deputy Assistant to George Bush, entitled: “Viewpoint: The case against Obama .”^[1]

Here are a few titbits:

“…….he [Obama] would be a very bad choice for president.

“………if Obama had had his way, all American combat troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008, which would have led to civil war and genocide; an unprecedented victory for al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists; and a boon to Iran. This fact is, by itself, a shattering indictment to Obama’s judgement, and in the area that is the most important responsibility of a president: his duties as commander-in-chief. ”

“Senator Obama’s intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright – an anti-American extremist – is troubling. It reinforces the sense that much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage – an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless.”

“Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid and their committee chairmen – many of them partisan, ideological, and ruthless – will exert enormous pressure on Obama to move left. From all we know about him, Senator Obama will not resist it or defy them. And that, in turn, will lead to overreach. Which is why even though next Tuesday will be a difficult day for Republicans and conservatives, the wise ones will understand that our moment will come again, and perhaps sooner than we think.

Our task is to be ready.”

I have to say, in all my life I would never have dreamed of reading such partisan claptrap on any media controlled by the BBC. This is an organization subscribed by public license fee and, supposedly, non-partisan in all aspects of its news dispersion.

To refute the crap churned out by Wehner is easy, but that is not the object of this article.

Only recently, a top man at the BBC spoke out about the state of the organization. John Simpson, for years a respected reporter, and presently BBC World Affairs Editor, said:

“I think the BBC we have known, for good or worse, is now in its last stages.”^[2]

He was, undoubtedly, correct.

When a British media corporation can bow its knee to a government itself subservient to the US corporate machine, and relinquish its independence in return for political favors, the signs bode ill for democracy and the rights of individuals.

John Simpson has always been something of a personal hero. His knowledge of Iraq, and his reporting from that nation at a time when the only news coming out the war zone was from censored, embedded, US journalists eager to curry favor from their media bosses, was precise and exacting. He lost his hearing in one ear, and his Iraqi translator, to a US A-10 missile in a ‘friendly fire’ incident in northern Iraq, but still kept reporting.

Speaking at a British literary festival recently, he admitted he ‘expected to be sacked in horrible circumstances’ from the BBC, for speaking out against the corruption in that organization.

The demise of the BBC as an independent broadcaster is yet another victory for those in power, both in the UK and the US (though, personally, I believe they’re one and the same). Both nations are controlled by their governments, who in turn are controlled by the corporations.

The outcome of the imminent US election is still in doubt. If Barack Obama wins the presidency it will be one small step in the right direction, by an electorate that proves itself capable of saying: enough is enough. Where America leads, Britain will surely follow.

An endorsement of John McCain will undoubtedly prove an endorsement of corporate control. The result of that is too dire to contemplate. It will further empower the Peter Wehner’s of this world and cause organizations like the BBC to move further into the realm of nothing more useful than yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And for those American readers thinking, “What’s this to do with me,” let me remind you that what’s happening to the BBC is only a precursor to a similar takeover of PBS.

^{[1] “Viewpoint: The case against Obama “, BBC, October 31st 2008}

^{[2] “Simpson ‘expects sack from BBC'”, BBC, October 14th 2008}

Filed under: Death of democracy