It was a glorious day for the administration of Dubyanocchio nearly 14 months ago when the president stood before the cameras on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to announce to the world with his patented smirk: “Mission Accomplished.” It was one of those cleverly crafted propaganda moments that the shapers of the public mind hope can be transformed into indelible images as politically powerful as, say, JFK’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech four decades ago.
Bush's premature triumphalism was certainly a far cry from the paper-shuffling “transfer of power” in Baghdad. Today's ceremony might as well have taken place in Saddam Hussein’s spider hole.
As Kosopolitan
thirdparty points out, Viceroy L. Paul Bremer took his leave from Iraq today with a little less fanfare than the PR doyens might have liked.
Despite the obvious nature of this sham,
The New York Times played along with the Administration’s liars in
its very first paragraph, though it made clear several paragraphs later what the reality was:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 28 — In a surprise ceremony here that was hastily convened in secret to decrease the chances of more violence, United States officials handed over sovereignty to Iraqi leaders today, formally ending the American occupation of Iraq two days earlier than scheduled. …
Earlier in the day, responding to the handover announcement, security forces locked down sections of the capital. Several hotels refused to let guests in or out, thousands of police took to the streets and American fighter jets cut arcs in the sky over Baghdad. Both American and Iraqi officials said they were expecting the handover to be marred by significant terror attacks.
The inimitable
Juan Cole told a more likely version:
Paul Bremer suddenly left Iraq on Monday, having "transferred sovereignty" to the caretaker Iraqi government two days early.
It is hard to interpret this move as anything but a precipitous flight. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that the Americans must have developed intelligence that there might be a major strike on the Coalition Provisional Headquarters on Wednesday if a formal ceremony were held to mark a transfer of sovereignty. Since the US military is so weak in Iraq and appears to have poor intelligence on the guerrilla insurgency, the Bush administration could not take the chance that a major bombing or other attack would mar the ceremony.
The surprise move will throw off all the major news organizations, which were planning intensive coverage of the ceremonies originally planned for Wednesday.
This entire exercise is a publicity stunt and has almost no substance to it.
Happily, despite two months worth of the mainstream media’s unwillingness to contest the Administration’s BS about giving the Iraqis “full sovereignty,” most Americans apparently don’t buy it:
Poll: Americans Skeptical About Handover
WASHINGTON - By a 2-1 margin, Americans say the turnover of political control to Iraqis now is not a sign of success, but a sign of failure because the nation's stability remains in question, a poll out Monday found.
And if Americans think the situation doesn’t fit the public image the Bush Administration has been promoting, Iraqis seem
even less persuaded, according to Al Jazeera:
Iraqis sceptical as 'power' is transferred
by Shaheen Chughtai
The so-called transfer of sovereignty places responsibility for much of the day to day running of Iraq in the hands of the interim government, whose members were drawn from groups of mainly former Iraqi exiles approved by Washington.
But US officials will continue to advise ministers on how to conduct their responsibilities and US commanders will remain in overall charge of security in the country.
Iraqi analysts and politicians told Aljazeera.net the so-called transfer of sovereignty was incomplete at best, while others called it a sham that suited US interests.
"There may have been a transfer of documents but there has not been a transfer of sovereignty," said Jawdat al-Ubaid, the head of the opposition umbrella group the Iraqi Democratic Congress (IDC).
"The government will not be truly independent so long as there is a foreign army in Iraq. It is a good step, the correct step, but it is not enough."
A political scientist at the Iraqi Academy in Baghdad, professor Hani Ashur, agreed that the presence of more than 150,000 US-led troops in the country meant "there is no real independence in Iraq", and the interim government faced a severe credibility problem.
"Among ordinary Iraqis, there is little genuine trust in the government. In their view, there is no difference between the government and the US occupation authorities."
A political analyst at Baghdad University's Media College, Dr Liqaa Maki, said many Iraqis were sceptical that the handover ceremony would signal real change.
"If people still see US troops in the streets, they won't accept that anything has really changed." But he admitted the transfer of limited authority would come as good news to many Iraqis who hoped the interim government would distinguish itself from the Bremer regime. …
Out in the streets of Baghdad, that scepticism was widespread, though a few expressed hope for the future.
A 24-year-old student at Baghdad University, Abd Allah Ahmad Saad said he was still digesting the news after a friend had rung to inform him 20 minutes earlier.
"We're waiting to see what will happen. People hope for the best but I'm not optimistic. As long as the Americans are here, there will be no real independence.
"We either have to face reality or fool ourselves. The US did not come all this way and make such an effort just to hand back power without taking care of its own interests."
Ammar al-Janabi, a civil engineer, said the handover was "only an act on paper."
It is difficult to comprehend how the brainiacs of this Administration expect this fakery to succeed.