Sunday, October 31, 2010

Editorial: And that's why the illegal war continues

As we noted two weeks ago ("Editorial: Media bites the people"), the media's been busy blaming everyone else for not talking about Iraq. Why, oh why -- they whine -- don't politicians talk about Iraq?

Because they're not being asked about it.

Last week, various 'campaign pieces' about Barack Obama's endless road trips to turn-out-the-vote began noticing that he either didn't mention Iraq at all in his speeches or reduced it to a brief sentence.

Journalists found that strange.

They didn't find it strange enough to ask about.

Nor did they factor it in to what was said Monday in a US State Department press briefing by spokesperson Philip J. Crowley, "Well, we have a Status of Forces Agreement and a strategic framework. The Status of Forces Agreement expires at the end of next year, and we are working towards complete fulfillment of that Status of Forces Agreement, which would include the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year. The nature of our partnership beyond next year will have to be negotiated. On the civilian side, we are committed to Iraq over the long term. We will have civilians there continuing to work with the government on a range of areas – economic development, rule of law, civil society, and so forth. But to the extent that Iraq desires to have an ongoing military-to-military relationship with the United States in the future, that would have to be negotiated. And that would be something that I would expect a new government to consider. [. . .] Should Iraq wish to continue the kind of military partnership that we currently have with Iraq, we're open to have that discussion."

You would have thought that public statement -- witnessed by dozens of reporters -- would have made it into the news cycle . . . unless you've paid attention and noticed how hard media whores work to avoid anything 'messy.'


Wednesday, the Christian Science Monitor's editorial board declared "many experts predict Iraq will soon ask Mr. Obama to extend the time for US forces to stay, not only to protect the nation's fledgling democracy but to help Iraq survive as a nation in a hostile neighborhood. Iraq is far behind the schedule set in the 2008 security pact with the United States to bolster its military and police. Its ability to defend its borders and its oil fields -- both of which are critical to US interests -- is years away. And there is much doubt in Washington about the US State Department's ability to take over the American military's role in managing key security aspects of Iraq, such as Kurdish-Arab friction or forming new police forces." It went on to state that Barack needs to prepare Congress for this possibility.

But the American people?

They're not mentioned in the editorial.

They and their wishes were ignored in the lead up to the Iraq War and they will apparently also be ignored as whether to continue the Iraq War past 2011 is decided.

And don't count on Beggar Media to sound the alarms. While it's true their echo chamber will be done promoting the elections after Tuesday, they'll still be whoring for the Democratic Party.

Philip J. Crowley, the State Dept. spokesperson, declared last Monday that the White House is prepared to extend the military presence in Iraq past 2011 -- in complete violation of every remark Barack Obama has made as a candidate and as president. And no one felt this was newsworthy?

And that's why the illegal war continues.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Poll1 { display:none; }