The Endorsement

May 18, 2008, "The Endorsement."

Remember when John Edwards had enough press love to be considered respectable? And how the press raved over Johnny's endorsement? And used it to ignore Hillary's primary wins?

John Edwards is sleaze.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, December 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Morning Joe brews a new form of sexism: Erasing all US women who served in the Iraq War, a mayor is kidnapped in Iraq (and killed), Senator Patty Murray calls for a new outpatient care center for veterans and more. Today on The Takeaway (PRI), the issue of Iraq was addressed. Excerpt: Celeste Headlee: Ned Parker has covered the war since the beginning as the former Baghdad bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times now at the Council on Foreign Relations. So let me ask you about the future of Iraq. Obviously, we've gotten comments from American generals who are worried that this country will descend into chaos. You heard an Iraqi woman just a moment ago talking about how she's optimistic although the government is weak. What -- what do you think? Is this a country that will remain united? Where the path to diplomacy is shaky but-but sure? Ned Parker: In terms of the country's internal politics? Celeste Headlee: Yeah. Ned Parker: Well -- I -- That's what struck me so much my recent trip to Iraq. I was in Iraq this summer from May 'till early August. And at that time I saw many worrying trends in Iraq. The politics of the country were becoming very polarized again and very sectarian -- reminiscent of 2003, 2004 and '05 and the build up to civil war. And also saw a lot of alarming trends from the government by -- from the prime minister's office of security forces being used in questionable raids where people were detained and would disappear into special jails where their families and lawyers could not talk to them. Pro-democracy protesters who were trying to have their own equivalent of an Arab Spring to criticize the corruption among the elite government officials and the lack of transparency started to be attacked in May and June by plain clothes government agents and pro-Maliki supporters. While army looked on, these men would go around and beat people on one occasion. And I had been in Egypt in Tahrir Square in February and had some mobs there attacking pro-democracy protesters. And it was the same thing. So I saw all of that this summer and when I came back it was the same if not worse. And Iraqis are in charge of their destiny and America I don't think in recent years has effectively used its clout and leverage to try to help promote this process of national reconciliation or the respect of civil liberties and freedom of speech.. Particularly I think since 2010 there was an effort of getting a government in place because there had been [crosstalk] Yeah and with the deadline on troops leaving, there was an emphasis on just having a stable figure in power that America could deal with at the expense of these important things: rule of law, freedom of speech. So all of these seems to be going and that was the case when I went back. Celeste Headlee: Well we've got like a minute-and-a-half left so let me ask you this very complicated question which is Iraq five years from now, ten years from now, stable? Peaceful? Ned Parker: It's uh -- I mean, I wish I had a crystal ball. I sure hope so. You know I very much respect Iraqis, I have spent a lot of time there and I think everyone wants to see Iraq work out for the best but we really don't know there are so many worrying and different trends there. As I said, the politics have become far more sectarian, in the political class there's very little trust between kind of the Shi'ite elite and Sunnis. There's talk within different provinces of creating their own regions because -- Celeste Headlee: Separating off. Ned Parker: Right Sunni provinces no longer trust Baghdad so they want to declare their own region. With what's happening in Syria that could also polarize things So it's so complicated. That could lead to more unrest and an authoritarian regime. Or perhaps Iraq will have their own Arab Spring that will lead to responsible government and a process of reconciliation. From radio we'll switch to TV but before noting something worth noting will first note PIG BOY Willie Geist. Willie is part of the sewer of MSNBC -- the non-news shows, the yackety-yack where buffoons pass themselves off as informed -- and today on Morning Joe he felt the need to weigh in on those US service members who had lost their lives serving in Iraq. It's a serious issue and it's insulting to here people say "4500" -- try getting the actual number you lazy ass fools (and, yes, I'm aware that would include Barack). But Willie did all of them one better, he wanted to talk about the "brothers" who were left behind because they died there. The "brothers." And no one corrected him, not one damn person -- guest or the huge cast of Morning Joe -- stopped the frat boy Bob Somerby has so rightly and so often criticized to inform him that US service members who died in the Iraq War were not just men, women died as well. In July of 2008, CNN would note that the number of female US service members who have died in the Iraq War had already reached 100. As of September 23, 2011, 111 female US service members had died in the Iraq War according to Noonie Fortin -- and 13 US civilian women died in the Iraq War as well. Fortin provides a write up on each one of the dead (including the civilians like DynCorp contractor Deborah Klecker who died at age 51 in June 2005). The first US female service member to die in Iraq was PFC Lori Ann Piestewa (also the first Native American to die in the Iraq War) on March 23, 2003. And the last so far was August 7, 2010, SPC Faith R. Hinkley of Colorado. Here's the link to trash (only because Ava and I will be commenting further at Third on Sunday unless Bob Somerby grabs it Friday). Twelve minutes and 17 seconds into the clip, Willie Boy asks, ". . . what is the bitter-sweet feeling if that's the way to put it for some of these guys who are happy to be going home but remembering the brothers left behind?" 111 women dead. And no guest or cast member of Morning Joe (it's not a news show) could bother to object when "Tucker Carlson's boy toy" bothered to render women who have served in the Iraq War invisible, including those who died while serving. Maybe Morning Joe can spend tomorrow apologizing to the loved ones of the 111 women who died serving in Iraq as well as to the women who served in Iraq and made it home? (And the total number of US military personnel killed in the Iraq War? The Pentagon's official count currently stands at 4487 -- one up from last week. If you're going to note the deaths and if you think they matter, you bother to get the number right and not go with an estimate.) Yesterday on Nightly News with Brian Williams, correspondent Richard Engel returned to Iraq to see how things were on the ground. Richard Engel: But the biggest change for Iraq may be closer ties with it's Shi'ite neighbor Iran. These days Alkadhimiya is full of Iranian tour groups who come with their own guides with signs in Farsi. Under Saddam, no Iranians came to Iraq, Saddam was Iran's enemy. Today, more than 2 million Iranians visit Iraq every year. Iraq's new dynamic is on display here every day. After nearly nine years, it's Iraq Shi'ites who have benefited the most, they have won this country. The United States toppled a dictator who's been replaced by a Shi'ite government with close ties to Iran. It's hard to imagine how that was ever part of the plan. Across town at Baghdad's famous book market, Kareem Hanash, himself a Shi'ite, doesn't want US troops to leave. He says Iran has calculated all of this very well; they want a Shi'ite Iraq so they can control the assets, economy and politics. Fear of Iran's growing power is sharper still in the Sunni-stronghold of Falljua. Once Iraq's deadliest war zone, Falluja remains violent. A bomb killed 3 policemen here just after we arrived. Police say Sunni radicals killed them because they work for the Shi'ite government. Compared to other parts of Iraq, there's been little development in Sunni towns like Falluja. This building was destroyed by US forces seven years ago and still looks like this. People here accuse the government of persecuting them, ignoring them, trying to cut Sunnis out of the new Iraq. A cloth merchant told me, "You crossed a thousand miles from America. Why? If you want the oil, take the oil. If you want our money, take it. But you have destroyed life, the whole system." Staying on Falluja, Fadhil al-Badrani, Patrick Markey and Giles Elgood (Reuters) note the US military's two major assaults on Falluja, the first in March 2004, "Hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of U.S. troops were killed but the insurgency was not quelled. Six months later, the U.S. Marines went back in. A month-long assault destroyed much of the city, killed an estimated 1,300 Iraqi fighters and civilians, and wounded thousands more. More than 100 U.S. troops also died." Turning to today's violence, Reuters notes the corpses of 3 government workers were found in Dhuluiya (all were shot dead, all had their hands bound), the mayor of Jurf al-Sakhar and his son were kidnapped (the mayor was then killed) and 2 Ramadi bicycle bombings claimed 2 lives and left three people injured. Verbal violence took place at Fort Bragg yesterday when Barack Obama spoke. Bill Van Auken (WSWS) analyzes the speech: Obama won the 2008 election in large measure due to the deep-going hostility among the American electorate to the wars begun under the Bush administration. He pledged to end the war in Iraq within 16 months of coming to office. Once in the White House, however, he retained Bush's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, and largely ceded policy decisions to the Pentagon brass. The December 31, 2011 deadline for completing troop withdrawals was set not by Obama, but was rather part of the Status of Forces Agreement reached between Bush and the Iraqi regime in 2008. Bush, like Obama, had fully intended to renegotiate this pact to allow permanent stationing of US troops in the country. As it is, Washington is doing its best to maintain its grip on Iraq, replacing uniformed troops with an army of up to 17,000 under the nominal direction of the US State Department. It is to include a force of 5,500 private mercenary security contractors, a massive CIA station, and Special Operations troops operating covertly out of uniform. Tens of thousands of US troops are being kept in place across Iraq's border in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, while the US Navy and the US Air Force remain in control of the country's coastlines and airspace. And Nouri remains in control of Iraq because the US government installed the puppet during the Bush administration and because the Barack administration wasn't going to allow anyone else to be prime minister, the will of the voters (expressed in the 2010 elections) be damned. Dar Addustour reports that the only hope for Iraq's government is for the blocs to meet and iron out their differences. Al Sabaah notes Parliament wants Nouri to appear before them next week to answer questions regarding the status of Iraqi security forces, the withdrawal and the absence of heads for the three security ministries (Defense, Interior and National Security). (This would be the questioning that Moqtada al-Sadr called for weeks ago.) Yes, Iraq remains in Political Stalemate II -- a fact that so much Iraq coverage this week has ignored repeatedly. Noting Barack's false claim that the Iraqi government is inclusive, Warren Olney (To the Point) launched into a discussion Tuesday about the realities. A journalist wasn't up to reality (your first clue was the assertion that "the Americans are leaving" -- which the journalist stated she told to Iraqis who complained about the ongoing occupation. No, 17,000 State Dept employees aren't leaving. Not even all US troops are leaving. There's no reason not to know these things or to not know that violence has increased over the last 17 months.) So instead of wasting our time on that nonsense, We'll note the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Anthony Cordesman from the same broadcast: Anthony Cordesman: Well I think we need to be concerned more broadly. The structure that we created around the Constitution really never properly defined the role of the Council to the Republic, the legislature. It attempted to limit the power of the president [prime minister[, but it gave him authority in ways where whoever drafted it was less concerned with money and military appointments than theoretical lines of authority. They've never really resolved how to manage the provincial and local government structures -- although that has improved over time. And here we are, nearly two years after the last election [March 7, 2010], you really don't have a functioning Cabinet. You don't have a Minister of Interior who is in charge of the internal security forces. And the Prime Minister is acting as Minister of Defense in part because a body which also is not part of the Constitution but was supposed to be a mix of Sunni and Shi'ite parties with the head or the leading opposition figure [Ayad] Allawi has never been able to work. We really need to be extremely cautious about what is happening there and certainly Maliki has attempted to centralize power but the problem goes far deeper than Maliki. Warren Olney: Thank you for calling him "prime minister." I called him "president" earlier and that is not the office that he holds. How concerned are you, Anthony Cordesman, about the sectarian issues? Anthony Cordseman: Well I think again we need to be very concerned. The reason that the US tried to keep troops was the risk of bringing back Sunni and Shi'ite tension and an insurgency. But, more than that, the real fear that clashes in the north between the Kurds and the Arabs could turn into a significant new form of fighting and that, at best, it needed a buffer so that it could be resolved peacefully. We look at the levels of violence and the way that the US tends to count violence in terms of signficant acts still shows a relatively high count. But if you look at other ways of counting which are sort of terrorist and lower levels of violence -- the counts that are used, for example, by the counter-terrorism center, still show a very high level of violence inside Iraq. And reports by another US figure indicated that the pattern of violence was rising as US forces went down. While so many in the press rush to lie and pretty up things with yet another wave of Operation Happy Talk, not everyone went surfing. Jack Healy (New York Times) did participate in one of the few honest looks at Nouri al-Maliki this week (click here for Healy, Tim Arango and Michael D. Schmidt's article on Nouri) and today he writes about the rally denouncing the US in Falluja yesterday: Once an inner ring of Iraq's wartime inferno, Falluja is only too eager to say goodbye to nearly nine shattering years of raids, bombings and house-to-house urban combat. At least 200 American troops were killed in this city. Untold thousands of Iraqis died, civilians and insurgents who are mourned equally as martyrs. We noted the rally in yesterday's snapshot. Strangely, Healy was the only one with an article published this morning (in print, last night online) who could explore the rally. Equally strange, the Operation Happy Talk-ers had no time to mention what Ann noted last night, Press TV reported: Unknown gunmen have attacked a US military base in the southern Iraq city of Basra with several mortar shells, military sources say. Possible casualties or damages are yet to be reported. The outpost is located in Basra International Airport, the second largest international airport in Iraq. A lot of waves of Operation Happy Talk crashing up against reality as they had time to file on Leon Panetta, US Secretary of Defense, taking part in a "white flag" ceremony in Baghdad today. Meanwhile Dar Addustour speaks with officials in Moqtada al-Sadr's political bloc who explain that Iraq has put special forces on the ground in civilian clothing and, in addition, they note that there are "foreign" intelligence agents in Iraq (US). And in another article they note Moqtada's words about resisting the continuation of US occupation in any manner are again being noted. Al Mannarah reports that Saleh al-Mutlaq, Deputy Prime Minister for Service Affairs, declared on Tuesday that the Diyala provincial council's decision to move towards semi-autonomy for the province was "rushed" and would harm Iraq because, with so many US forces leaving, everyone must work together on security and stability. Dar Addustour notes that a delegation from Parliament went to Diyala to discuss the latest issue (the move towards semi-autonomy). They're also exploring the protests against the move (protests by residents in Diyala Province) and hearing from Mohammed Hassan, provincial council chief, that he had nothing to do with it, he didn't know that this was going to happen, he didn't even know that there was going to be a request forwarded for semi-autonomy. If he thinks that makes him look good, I'm at a loss as to how. He's the chief of the council. He should have had some inkling towards the feelings of the council members on this issue. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will leave Iraq to go to Turkey (Friday) where he will discuss, Dar Addustour notes, $111 million of drone equipment the US will be providing Turkey. In the US, veterans care is already overwhelming the VA health care system and that's only going to get worse. Senator Patty Muarry is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and she's calling for a new outpatient clinic in the state of Washington: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office Thursday, December 15, 2011 (202) 224-2834 Chairman Murray Urges VA to Establish New, Full-Time CBOC on North Olympic Peninsula (Washington, D.C.) -- Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray has sent a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki about the critical need to establish a new, full-time Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) on the North Olympic Peninsula. In her letter, which urges the VA to include funding for a new clinic in the Department's Fiscal Year 2013 budget, Murray cites the growing need for veterans care in the Northern Peninsula region and rising enrollment at the current Port Angeles facility. In addition to sending the letter to Secretary Shinseki, Murray also hand delivered the letter and discussed this issue with Dr. Robert A. Petzel, the VA's top health official, yesterday in a meeting in her office. "For too long, the needs in the North Olympic Peninsula have outpaced VA's ability to provide veterans in the region with adequate health care services," said Chairman Murray. "While the current lease has been extended until the end of fiscal year 2012, I believe that veterans in the North Olympic Peninsula cannot wait any longer for a new clinic that has sufficient staff, space and hours to meet the needs of veterans living in this rural region of Washington state." Since its establishment in 2008, the Port Angeles outreach clinic has served more than 14,000 veterans living on the North Olympic Peninsula. As a result of the strong growth in this rural area, the Port Angeles outreach clinic has already exceeded maximum physical capacity and can neither expand services nor accommodate additional personnel. The need for care is expected to grow, with a 20 percent increase in enrollment projected over the next 10 years. Currently, the clinic occupies approximately 1,500 net usable square feet in a building owned by the Olympic Medical Center. A new CBOC would provide primary care and mental health services in a much larger space five days a week. The full text of Chairman Murray's letter is below: The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki Secretary of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Dear Secretary Shinseki: As you continue to work toward our shared goal of increasing veterans' access to VA services and benefits, I write to urge your support for the establishment of a new, full-time Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) on the North Olympic Peninsula. Since its establishment in 2008, the Port Angeles outreach clinic has served a critical and growing need for the more than 14,000 veterans living on the North Olympic Peninsula. In FY 2010, the clinic delivered primary care and mental health services to 1,200 veterans (a 6.5 percent increase over FY 2009), and accommodated 4,876 patient visits (a 5 percent increase over FY 2009). As a result of the strong growth in this rural area, the Port Angeles outreach clinic has already exceeded maximum physical capacity and can neither expand services nor accommodate additional personnel. The need for care is expected to grow, with a 20 percent increase in enrollment projected over the next 10 years. When I wrote to you in August 2010 requesting that the Department examine in earnest a full service CBOC to serve veterans in the North Olympic Peninsula, you let me know that the VA Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) was working on a lease expansion proposal to develop a larger outreach clinic when the current lease with Olympic Medical Center expires at the end of fiscal year 2011 and that VAPSHCS will request that the outreach clinic be upgraded to a full-time CBOC "as space, staff and hours of operations are expanded." I believe the time has come for veterans living on the North Olympic Peninsula to have access to the level of care and services afforded by a full-time CBOC. For too long, the needs in the North Olympic Peninsula have outpaced VA's ability to provide veterans in the region with adequate health care services. While the current lease has been extended until the end of fiscal year 2012, I believe that veterans in the North Olympic Peninsula cannot wait any longer for a new clinic that has sufficient staff, space and hours to meet the needs of veterans living in this rural region of Washington state. As you finalize the Department's Fiscal Year 2013 budget, I urge you to include in your request sufficient funding to establish a new, full-time CBOC on the North Olympic Peninsula. I thank you for your enduring commitment to our nation's veterans and look forward to learning of your plans. Sincerely, Patty Murray Chairman ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray iraq pri the takeaway celeste headlee ned parker msnbc richard engel dar addustour the new york times jack healy al sabaah tim arango michael d. schmidt al mannarah wsws bill van auken to the point warren onley

Read on ...

When Front Runners Attack

From November 4, 2007, that's "When Front Runners Attack" about last week's 'debate.' That's how they worked it, Barry and John, and they are disgusting.

I feel no sadness over John Edwards' potential prison time. In fact, I hope they convict his sorry ass.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, June 9, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, DoD finally names the 5 US soldiers killed in Iraq on Monday, Leon Panetta appears before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta states "a request like that," US military staying in Iraq past 2011, "you know, is something that I think will be forthcoming at some point," weapons inspector David Kelly's 2003 death remains in the news in England, and more. Monday, in the worst attack on US service members in the last two years, 5 soldiers were killed in Baghdad. Doug Ireland (Eagle Tribune) speaks to Michael Cook's high school computer teacher, Curtis Killion, who states, "He would always volunteer. He was the kind of kid that all the younger ones were comfortable with." We noted more details about Michael Cook in yesterday's snapshot. The five who died were finally identified by the Defense Dept this afternoon: The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of five soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died June 6 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with indirect fire. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field artillery Regiment, 2nd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. Killed were: Spc. Emilio J. Campo Jr., 20, of Madelia, Minn.; Spc. Michael B. Cook Jr., 27, of Middletown, Ohio; Spc. Christopher B. Fishbeck, 24, of Victoville, Calif.; Spc. Robert P. Hartwick, 20, of Rockbridge, Ohio; and Pfc. Michael C. Olivieri, 26, Chicago, Ill. For more information, the media may contact the 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-240-6359 or 785-307-0641. Prior to the announcement, the press was already reporting on Emilio Camp Jr. because his survivors had spoken to the press. Pat Pheifer (Star Tribune) reports: Allan Beyer, the high school principal, said Campo, a 2009 graduate, "was a credit to his school and the community" and called him "a very outstanding young man." Campo played basketball, his main sport, but also soccer, track and football. Whenever he returned to his hometown of 2,400 people about 100 miles southwest of Minneapolis, he'd stop at school to say hello to the staff. Five of his classmates stopped by Tuesday to share their grief and their memories, Beyer said. Campo's death was the first war loss for Madelia since Vietnam, Beyer said. Dustin VanHale, a classmate and good friend, said Campo "was always best friends with everybody." He was a motivator, telling basketball teammates after a 25-point loss, "don't worry, we'll get 'em next time." KARE (link has text and video) observes, "His picture seems to be on every page of his high school yearbook. Campo played varsity football, basketball, ran track, was a member of the Business Professionals of America, and sang in the choir." Mark Steil (MPR -- link has text and audio) speaks with several people who remember Emilio Campo including his cousin Martha Magally Garcia who talks about how he'd always call home when something bad happened in Iraq so that his family would know he was okay and not worry, "It was something that he always said when called. Don't worry family, I'm still alive. Joking and teasing with us on the phone. We couldn't believe, we can't believe, that he's gone now." AP notes that "when he died he also had a steady girlfriend, Samantha Crowley, who was prom queen when Campo was prom king in 2009." Meanwhile Randy Ludlow (Columbus Dispatch) notes Robert "Hartwick graduated from Logan High school in 2009" and speaks to the school principal Jim Robinson who states, "He was a pretty tough kid. The Daily Press notes Christopher Fishbeck (and runs a photo of the dignified transfer of his remains to Dover -- photo by Jose Luis Magana with AP) and a website created for him. Among the features at the website is this moving photo slide show of Christopher Fishbeck with his friends, family, pets and serving in the military. Chicago's WLS has a photo of Michael C. Olivieri. In addition to the 5 who died Monday, another US service member was reported dead in southern Iraq yesterday for a total of six this week. The regional press in the US has done a strong job of covering the deaths (as has the Associated Press). The national outlets? Not so good. ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, for example, didn't even note the 5 deaths on Monday. Even more appalling, PBS' The NewsHour reduced the deaths to a brief headline (3 sentences) but made time for a segment on a non-sex 'sex scandal' -- a full segment. And the US service member killed in Iraq yesterday? The NewsHour didn't even note yesterday's death in their headlines last night. Apparently, it wasn't news and 5 US soldiers have to die in Iraq for them to make (a small amount of) time on the program for the news. The Nation and The Progressive have had no time for the deaths though both grand standed on the Iraq War for years and years . . . before a Democrat was voted into the White House. You might say Matthew Rothschild "has now proven himself to be both a fool and a hypocrite" -- you might even say that Matthew Rothschild should stop calling others hypocrites (Rand Paul is whom Rothschild aimed the insult at) and take a look in the mirror. International press has done a better job of noting the 5 US deaths on Monday. For example, today Arab News offers an editorial which opens by referencing Monday's violence: Five US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. This is the single most serious loss the US has suffered in Iraq in more than two years. The killing of Americans in a rocket attack on the outskirts of Baghdad coincides with two interesting opinion polls in the US. Although President Barack Obama formally ended Iraq combat operations last year, there are still 45,000 US troops and thousands of other Americans in the country who serve as "advisers." A Washington Post-ABC poll suggests that support for the war in Afghanistan had actually risen in the past month understandably buoyed by the sensational killing of Al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden. Forty-three percent of Americans now think the war is worth fighting, compared with 31 percent in March. This is still a minority against those who are opposed to the Afghan war. A different poll by the Pew Research Center shows that a whopping majority of Americans blames the country's current economic woes and debt on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sixty percent of Americans agree that the two wars contributed a great deal to the size of the national debt. Meanwhile this morning the Senate Armed Services Committee heard from the head of the CIA, Leoan Panetta, who has now been nominated to become the Secretary of Defense. Before the hearing started, several members of CodePink were present asking, "Mr. Panetta, will you pledge to bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq" and carrying signs which read "DIPLOMACY NOT WAR!!" and "NO MORE WAR!" The Committee has posted [PDF format warning] "Advance Policy Questions for the Honorable Leon Panetta Nominee to be Secretary of Defense" which is a series of written questions Panetta has responded to -- 79 pages of a Q & A. As disclosed before, I know Leon Panetta. I like him but, for example, pages 13 through 14 is bulls**t. He is asked about dwell time. He is asked specifically about what he will do to see that they are all meeting the prescribed dwell time. He notes that the Army and the Reserve Component are not meeting it and states, "If confirmed, I will continue to work toward the goal of a 1:5 dwell time ratio for the Reserve Component" and, for Army, "If confirmed, I will continue to monitor this issue closely." That's what you would do? No, that is your JOB DUTY. So he's answered (in question 18) nothing more than, "I will do the duties my job demands." What do you believe are the major lessons learned from the Iraq invasion and the ongoing effort to stabilize the country? [Panetta:] One of the most important lessons is the U.S. government must train and plan for post-combat operations. Conflict can occur along a spectrum. Our military must be prepared for combat, but also may have a role in shaping the political, cultural and economic factors that can fuel conflict. The U.S. military must plan and train with civilian counterparts, be prepared to operate effectively in all phases of conflict, and develop better awareness of political, cultural, and economic factors to ensure that our actions will meet our objectives. What is your understanding and assessment, if any, of the Department's adaptations or changes in policy, programs, force structure, or operational concepts based upon these lessons learned? [Panetta:] I understand that lessons learned from Iraq and other recent engagements have led to deep and wide-ranging changes in doctrine, organization, training, and policy. For example, the counterinsurgency doctrine has been completely revised, culminating in the publication of Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24. The development of Advise and Assist Brigades and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance units are examples of force structures. So, for any who didn't know already, he's a counter-insurgency supporter. Counter-insurgeny is war on a native people -- in this country, it was used against the Native Americans, it was most infamously used in Vietnam to the outrage of millions and millions of people around the world. Such are the times that today few bother to object the unethical and illegal nature of counter-insurgency and one-time journalists rush to disgrace their profession and their own names to become cheerleaders for a policy they damn well should know is criminal. While maintaining that he supports a drawdown of all US troops by the end of the year, he writes, "Iraqi leaders and U.S. officials have acknowledged that there will be gaps in Iraqi Security Forces' capabilities after 2011, especially in external defense. I believe the United States should consider a request from the Government of Iraq to remain in Iraq for a limited period of time to provide limited assistance to fill these gaps." He gets credit for grasping the Kirkuk issue. That may seem an obvious issue but it wasn't that long ago that Chris Hill (the thankfully former US Ambassador to Iraq) and didn't have a clue -- even after extensive tutoring -- about the issue of Kirkuk. ("A land dispute" was as deep as he could go.) On Iraq today, he writes, "Iraq still faces dangerous and determined enemies, but these enemies do not have the support of the Iraqi people. Although occasional high-profile attacks still occur, the underlying security situation in Iraq remains stable and these attacks have not sparked a return to widespread insurgency or civil war." Those are the key sections on Iraq in the 79 pages. (Anyone wondering about contractors should know he takes a pass on the issue of whether they are being over-utilized insisting he is not currently in the position to be able to make that call.) In testimony, he showed a subserviance that was disgusting. Asked by John McCain whether or not the Congress had the right to cut off funds (as they did during Vietnam), Panetta gave an indirect response praising the president and "his" powers. Congress has control of the purse and Panetta, a former member of Congress, knows that. It was embarrassing to see that and alarming because maybe he meant it. (It wasn't said in order to cinch the post -- he's a former member of Congress, he knows that's an automatic in before you even factor in that he sailed through the nomination process in 2009.) In the final half-hour of the nearly four hour hearing (I'm counting Panetta's break that he took which was longer than five minutes), Senator Jim Webb would raise the issue and note that Panetta served in Congress. Panetta would dance around the question and use language that portrayed Congressional power as weak and presidential power as higher and more powerful -- has Leon forgotten about the three branches of the federal goverment and the concept of separation of powers? Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain is the Ranking Member. We'll note this from Chair Levin's opening remarks: The next Secretary of Defense will face a complex, extraordinary set of demands on our Armed Forces. Foremost among them, the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Between these two conflicts, we continue to have approximately 150,000 troops deployed, the US military is also providing support to NATO operations in Libya. In addition, even after the extraordinary raid that killed Osama bin Laden, terrorist threats against our homeland continue to eminate from Pakistan, Yemen, Somolia and elsewhere. The risk of a terrorist organization getting their hands on detonating an improvised nuclear device or other weapon of mass destruction remains one of the gravest possible threats to the United States. To counter this threat, the Defense Dept is working with the Departments of State, Energy, Homeland Security and other US government agencies to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, fiscile materials and dangerous technologies. A number of key national security decisions will have to be made in the coming weeks and months. Even as the drawdown of US forces in Iraq is on track recent signs of instability may lead Iraq's political leadership to ask for some kind of continuing US military presence beyond the December 31st withdrawal deadline agreed to by President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki in the 2008 security agreement between our countries. We'll also note this exchange on Iraq. Ranking Member John McCain: On the subject of Iraq, if the Afghan [he meant Iraqi] government and all its elements agree that there should be a residual US military presence in Iraq, particularly in three areas, air,defense, intelligence capabilities and security in the areas around Kirkuk and that part of Iraq where there has been significant tensions, would you agree that that would be a wise thing for us to do? CIA Director Leon Panetta: I-I believe that if, uh, Prime Minister Maliki, the Iraqi government uh requests that we uh that we maintain a presence there that that ought to be seriously considered by the president Ranking Member John McCain: Do you think it would be in our interests to do that given the situation -- CIA Director Leon Panetta: Senator, I have to tell you, there are a thousand al Qaeda that are still in Iraq. We saw the attack that was made just the other day. It too continues to be a fragile situation. And I believe that uh we-we should take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that we protect whatever progress we've made there. An interesting exchange but do reporters give a damn about US troops staying beyond 2011? Let's look at Reuters reporter Missy Ryan's real time reaction on her Twitter feed to the hearing -- and apparently that's the only exchange that stood out to her: missy_ryan Missy Ryan #Panetta just said there 1,000 #alQaeda militants left in #Iraq. What??????!!!!!!!! 8 hours ago missy_ryan Missy Ryan @ Seriously where does that number come from @StripesBaron Panetta: There are 1,000 al-Qaida that are still in Iraq. #factcheckplease 8 hours ago missy_ryan Missy Ryan @ @prashantrao @StripesBaron Meaning it's less than a thousand? #Iraq 7 hours ago missy_ryan Missy Ryan @ Hi Jomana! @JomanaCNN @prashantrao maybe it's a ? of nomenclature and who you're counting ... does a part=time guy get included, 4 example 7 hours ago Missy Ryan appears to have gotten lost in that 1,000 figure. I have no idea why. It's not as though the US government has an al Qaeda membership list and daily uses it to conduct a roll call. It's a guess. It may be accurate, it may not be. More than likely, it's not. Why is Missy Ryan -- and the rest of the press -- obsessed with that number. In the exchange above, was 1,000 really the key moment? I don't think so but it's the sort of minor trivia that the press can run with and obsess over. It's trivia which is so much easier for small minds to cover as opposed to ideas. And if people don't like that -- Missy Ryan's hardly the only reporter running with "1,000!" as news from the hearing -- maybe they might try rising to a higher level? 6 is a number that Missy and Reuters didn't obsess over but 6 is the number of US soldiers who have died in Iraq this week. And whether or not the troops leave Iraq at the end of the year will determine whether or not that number increases after 2011. And considering the very poor job Reuters did reporting on the Status Of Forces Agreement in real time, I think it could be argued that they need to do remedial reporting on this issue. (They are far from alone on that.) But by all means, obsess over 1,000 -- a guess and an inflated one at that. If 6 US soldiers die in Iraq in the first six months of 2012, I'm sure that we'll all be so thrilled that the obsession from today's hearing was over 1,000 -- I'm sure we'll all feel that was time well spent by the circus freaks passing themselves off as the press. Back to the hearing for a brief excerpt. Senator Lindsey Graham: When it comes to Iraq, if the Iraqis ask us to provide some troops in 2012, Secretary Gates says he thinks that would be smart. Do you think that would be smart to say yes. CIA Director Leon Panetta: Yes. This is an issue, maybe not to Missy Ryan, but to Iraqis and Americans, this is an issue. Aswat al-Iraq reports that MP Maha al-Douri is on a campaign to collect a million signatures to a petition calling on the US to leave Iraq. Three days ago, Fatih Abdulsalam (Azzaman) wrote about how "Arabs are divided over the spate of popular revolutions rocking their regimes. But it is clear that many of them will prefer to be crushed under the armored vehicles of their regimes than being 'liberated' by the U.S. [. . .] U.S. 'liberation' of Iraq has brought horrendous results and led to ruinous consequences. Its outcome has been corrupt local administrations (governments) immersed in filthy sectarianism." You could argue that, around the world, the issue of whether or not the US military stays in Iraq beyond 2011 matters to a large number of people -- even if those people aren't in the US press corps. Of course, not all US reporters missed the point. This is from the strong report by Lolita C. Baldor and Donna Cassata (AP): "I think it's clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of presence to remain there," Panetta said, adding that it was contingent on what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki requests. "I have every confidence that a request like that is something that I think will be forthcoming at some point." We'll note the exchange the above quote came in. Senator Jeanne Shaheen: I know earlier you were asked about Iraq and whether we would continue to stay in Iraq if asked. And, like others, I have been concerned about increasing violence in Iraq, about the recent casualties. We just lost someone from New Hampshire in the attack over the weekend. And so I wonder if you can talk to what we need to do in order to keep our focus on the efforts in Iraq and, um, assuming that we are not asked to stay, how we will deal with drawing down the remaining troops that are there. CIA Director Leon Panetta: Well we are at the present time on track to withdrawing our forces at the end of 2011 but I think that, uh, it's clear to me that Iraq is -- is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of presence to remain there. And-and-and it really is dependent on uh the prime minister and on the government of Iraq to present to us, uh, what, uh, you know what is it that they need and over what period of time in order to make sure that the gains we've made in Iraq are sustained. I-I have every confidence that, uh, that, uh, you know, that a request like that, you know, is something that I think will be forthcoming at some point. Senator Jeanne Shaheen: My time has expired. I would like to explore that more later. Senator Shaheen was referring to Michael B. Cook. We'll again note the statement her office issued: (Washington, D.C.) -- U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen released the following statement in response to reports of the death of Pfc. Michael Cook, formerly of Salem, N.H.: "My deepest condolences go out to the family and friends of Pfc. Michael Cook. Like many brave sons and daughters of New Hampshire, he sought to serve his country and protect his fellow Americans, and he did so with honor and courage. "My thoughts and prayers are with Michael's family at this difficult time." Yesterday there was also coverage of a Senate hearing. To note that, we'll quote Ann from this morning: They covered the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" reported on Senator Patty Murray's Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 bringing in some other details from other hearings this month. At Rebecca's site, Wally offered "Army pays $1 billion annually in unemployment" which focused on the costs issues of Murray's bill. At Trina's site, Ava covered the sexual assaults that are taking place at the VA in "Sexual assaults at the VA (Ava)." And Kat explored a bill Senator Richard Burr's is pushing in "Senator Burr" and how it's been something he's fought for repeatedly and she also covered the fact that the government officials continue to break the rules on prepared testimony before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. To which I say, "So much for Barack's transparency pledge." In Iraq today, violence continued. Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life, a Tuk Khurmato roadside bombing injured one police officer, 1 person was shot dead in Kirkuk, a Baghdad bombing injured one person (bomb was outside a store selling alcohol), 1 judge was shot dead in Baghdad, Jalal Jassim Mohammed ("head of a company belonging to the Ministry of Industry") was shot dead in Taji, 1 police commissioner was shot dead in Baghdad, 1 corpse (male) was discovered in Baghdad and a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that the day's violence claimed "three government officials" and "The assassinations have led some government officials to take some precautionary measures like changing the type or color of their cars or changing their routes home, three government officials told CNN. They spoke on condition of anonymity for security." Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) observes that violence has increased in the last 100 Days. 100 Days? Nouri al-Maliki's attempt to derail the protests that were taking place in Iraq. He and Moqtada al-Sadr worked over to derail the protests. Moqtada even insisted people shouldn't protest. The 100 Days ended June 7th. Mohammad Akef Jamal explains: The political crisis in Iraq is coming to a head as the 100-day government ultimatum ends today. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki had sought the time to undertake reforms. Al Maliki had not been expected to meet his goals because he does not have the capabilities to fix the situation in Iraq in such a short time. Moreover, his pledge could have worsened the situation. And this is exactly what happened, as no one has seen any kind of improvement on the ground. In fact, things have deteriorated further in the country. The prime minister had a major role in the deterioration of the political situation in Iraq, a country that is on the verge of collapsing as a result of the Arbil agreement not being implemented. This agreement included nine chapters, and was concluded last November between Al Maliki and Eyad Allawi, Chairman of the Al Iraqiya list. It was sponsored by the President of Iraqi Kurdistan Masoud Barzani. It put an end to the government formation crisis that had lasted nine months. The agreement included the establishment of the Supreme Policies Council, to be chaired by Allawi, and the formation of a real, national unity government. Both did not happen, resulting in protests by Al Iraqiya, which had received the most number of votes in the elections. Nouri elected to trash the Erbil Agreements once he got what he wanted. Marina Ottaway and Danial Anas Kaysi (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) examined the current political tensions in a new paper and noted of the Erbil Agreement: The Erbil agreement was a compromise among the parties that had won seats in the Council of Representatives in the March 2010 elections. Allawi's Iraqiya coalition had won 91 seats in the election and Maliki's State of Law coalition won 89 seats. Neither could form a government without entering into a coalition with other parties, and political reality dictated that any coalition needed to include representatives of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish parties to be viable. This meant that Maliki and Allawi had to compete for the allegiance of the same parties, and compete they did, in a nine-month-long round robin in which every party tried at one point or another to form an alliance with every other party. When it became clear that neither side could prevail, all parties accepted the compromise mediated by Barzani. Maliki would be the prime minister, but, in exchange, the speaker of the parliament would come from the ranks of Iraqiya, and thus would be a Sunni, while Allawi would head a new National Council on Strategic Policies (NCSP). The Kurds would continue to control the presidency -- and, of course, to run the Kurdistan region autonomously. Ministries would be shared among political parties proportionate to the number of seats each controlled. Several issues, however, were left unresolved, including the number of vice-presidents and the nature of the NCSP. The government of national unity was certainly not a marriage based on love or even convenience. It was a marriage of despair -- there was no other acceptable solution. It thus took a month to form the government -- the maximum time permissible under the constitution before the president would have to declare that Maliki had failed. Even when the government was announced, it was not complete. Many ministers were only nominated in an "acting" capacity, though it had already been decided which party would control which ministry. Most notably, none of the security ministries -- defense, interior, or national security -- had a permanent head yet, and Maliki was the acting minister in all three cases. He remained in control of the three ministries at the time of this writing five months later. MEMRI Blog states, "After meeting in Erbil with Masoud Barazani, president of Kurdistan Regional Government, and the regional Prime Minister Barham Saleh, the head of al-Iraqiya, Ayad Allawi, declared that an early election is preferable to a majority government which Iraqi President Nouri al-Malaki might prefer over the current government of national partnership, given his long-standing disagreement with Allawi." Aswat al-Iraq reports that Iraqiya's Mohammed al-Daamy declared today, "Al-Iraqiya Coalition is able to form a government of political majority, through its partnership with the Kurdistan Coalition and the Supreme Islamic Council, in order to save the Iraqi situation, that has reached its minimum stage; but we are not for such a solution at the present time. We want a common solution, shared by all political blocs, in order to save the Iraqi situation, and we may resort to the formation of a majority government in the forthcoming phase, because the current experience has proved that the national partnership did not succeed in saving the situation, causing further deterioration in public services and security." And yesterday the paper noted that MP Abdul Mehdi al-Khafaji (National Alliance) declared Nouri cannot fire any minister currently because the National Alliance "is the only bloc capable of forming a majority government." We'll note this report by Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) tomorrow. (There's nothing wrong with the report, I just don't have the time to include it and what needs to be included with it so we'll wait for that tomorrow.) Meanwhile Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports that "the country's armed forces remain dysfunctional, with power dangerously decentralized and wielded by regional fiefdoms controlled by Iraq's top politician. Local commanders have a direct line to Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, circumventing heads of the military. The armed forces remain focused almost entirely on internal security; no one knows how the Iraqi military would come together to fight a foreign enemy, or even who would be in charge." Turning to England where the big news is the late Dr. David Kelly. Kelly told the BBC about the way the intel for the Iraq War was being cooked. The BBC reported that intel was being "sexed up," Tony Blair hit the roof and began a war on the BBC. Dr. David Kelly admitted he was the source for the BBC story and, shortly afterward, Kelly turned up dead. If this 2003 major news event is new to you (and it may be, that was 8 years ago), the Telegraph of London offers a timeline of key events. His death, ruled to be a suicide, has been surrounded with rumors. Nick Collins (Telegraph of London) provides a walk through of the contradictory evidence (some say Kelly was despondent before his death, others found him upbeat, etc.) and ends with, "As well as the notion that spy agencies may have orchestrated Dr Kelly's death to prevent the publication of secret and possibly incriminating information, some conspiracy theorists point to the fact that a number of other microbiology experts including five Russians working on a weapons project had died in the past decade, some in circumstances deemed to be suspicious." Today Emma Alberici (Australia's ABC) reports, "Calls for an inquest into the death of the UK government's chief scientist, Doctor David Kelly, have been rejected by attorney-general Dominic Grieve, who says there is no evidence he was murdered." News 24 adds, "Attorney General Dominic Grieve, the government's chief legal adviser, ruled out asking the High Court to order an inquest into the scientist's death." The Telegraph notes that "a group of campaigning doctors, led by Dr Stephen Frost, accused the Government of being 'complicit in a determined and concerted cover-up', saying they would now seek a judicial review of Mr Grieve's decision." Paddy McGuffin (Morning Star) adds that the group of doctors are calling the decision an embarrasment and have stated: "No coroner in the land would have reached a suicide verdict on the evidence which Lord Hutton heard." iraq the eagle tribune doug ireland the star tribune pat pheifer mpr mark steil kare cnn mohammed tawfeeq reuters missy ryan gulf news mohammad akef jamal the washington post aaron c. davis

Read on ...

Bully Poppa's True Sons

From October 14, 2007, "Bully Poppa's True Sons." I'm a psychic.




Seriously, I just lucked into observing what was going on. Barack the liar teamed up with John the liar.

John Edwards is a disgusting piece of crap. What he did to his wife may have been bad (before she was clued in and then took part) but what he did to voters was far worse.

He's a liar, he's a sleeze. I hope they lock him up.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, May 19, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Kirkuk is slammed with bombings, Barack expands the 'reasons' why the US will now go to (illegal) war, and more. "I saw a lot of dead bodies, burned dead bodies." Yahya Barzanji (AP) quotes eye witness Adnan Karim stating. Asso Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quote police officer Fadl Ahmed stating, "I saw one of my officers. I had said good morning to him by the lot and when I came back, he was dead." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports Kirkuk was slammed with bombings today which resulted in at least 27 deaths with sixty-nine more left injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy News) breaks it down, "Two coordinated explosions targeted the police headquarters in Kirkuk, 140 miles north of Baghdad, killing 25 people and wounding at least 65, security officials said. A third blast struck the motorcade of the city's chief counterterrorism official, killing four security guards and seriously wounding nine others." Fang Yang (Xinhua) adds, "The attack took place in the morning rush hours when a sticky bomb attached to a car detonated at a parking lot in front of a police headquarters in central the city of Kirkuk, some 250 km north of Baghdad, the source said. Afterwards, a booby-trapped car parked at the scene went off as Iraqi security forces and dozens of onlookers gathered at the site of the first blast, the source added." Mustafa Mahmoud (Reuters) quotes police officer Talib Jabar, "I was on my way into police headquarters and suddenly I fell to the ground, but did not feel anything because I lost consciousness. When I woke up I found myself in the hospital with doctors around me and I was bleeding everywhere." KUNA cites Kirkuk's Health Director Seddiq Abdulrasoul for the death toll of 30 and the for "no less than 90 others injured." The BBC notes that those harmed included many police officers. Vatican Radio observes, "One of the bombs targeted the head of the city's anti-terrorism unit. He survived unharmed, but four of his body guards were killed." ITN adds, "Television video has shown the twisted, burned wreckage of several cars in the street as police officers picked through the debris." Jack Healy (New York Times) recaps, "The attackers used a now-familiar tactic, detonating a small improvised explosive device attached to a sedan in a parking lot outside the local police headquarters. After police rushed to the scene, a larger car bomb went off, killing 17 officers and 11 civilians." Tim Craig and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) provide this context, "The attack came a day after Iraqi security officials announced they had captured several local leaders with suspected ties to al Qaeda. It was one of several in Iraq Thursday, most of which appeared aimed at police officers." The UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, Ad Melkert, issued a statement condemning the Kirkuk attack and calling for "all parties concerned to work together to expedite settlement of all pending issues that will show collective determination to promote stability and security throughout Iraq." The oil-rich region of Kirkuk is disputed with the KRG and the central 'government' out of Baghdad both insisting they have dibs on the region. Under Saddam Hussein, Kurds were expelled from the region and, since the start of the Iraq War, the KRG has made efforts to ship Kurds into the region. Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) explains, "Kirkuk is a historically Kurdish city which was excluded by Saddam Hussein from the self-governing Kurdish autonomous region, leading to the departure of many of its inhabitants. But since the fall of Saddam many Kurds have returned and are agitating for its inclusion in the autonomous [KRG] region." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) provides this walk through, "Kirkuk is quintessentially the disputed city: the Kurds see it as their internal homeland, they believe it has always belonged to them even though it is under Iraqi goernment control. The city is claimed by Arabs as well, of course, as well as Turkmen who are a substantial population there. On top of all that it is the centre of the oilfields -- it has enormous oil reserves and it has been fought over for decades." Iraq's Constitution (passed and ratified in 2005) explained how the issue would be settled. Article 140 First: The executive authority shall undertake the necessary steps to complete the implementation of the requirements of all subparagraphs of Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. Second: The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007. The Iraqi Constitution can be found [PDF format warning] here at the UN webpages. By 2007, a census and referendum would have taken place -- leaving the issue up to the inhabits of the region. But, check the calendars, it's 2011, four years after the referendum was supposed to take place and it never has. Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to have overseen it but he was either unable or unwilling to do so. He continually pushed the date back. It was most recently supposed to have taken place in December of 2010. He made that promise while seeking to continue as prime minister. In November, he became prime minister-designate. Almost immediately, he then cancelled the scheduled census. So the tensions continue to thrive and build in Kirkuk. As a result, certain 'team-building' exercises take place. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) observes, "Currently, US forces participate in confidence-building tripartite patrols and checkpoints with central government forces and Kurdish security foficers in Kirkuk and across northern Iraq." Asso Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) add, "Despite eight years of American-backed efforts to mediate a solution, the sides remain at loggerheads." But it was seven years, not eight. See Chris Hill blew off the issue. He did so at his Senate confirmation hearing, he did so as US Ambassador to Iraq and he did so after he was finally replaced. (Did anyone ever get shown the door as quickly as Hill?) While ambassador, he showed up on PRI and NPR radio programs insisting that the Kirkuk issue was minor (echoing his words at his confirmation hearing). Even earlier this month, in Denver, in a public 'conversation' (Hill can't debate -- big surprise) with Bruce Hoffman, Hill was still down playing the issue of Kirkuk. (This is in direct contrast to the US Ambassador to Iraq who preceeded him, Ryan Crocker, and the one who followed him, James Jeffrey. Jeffrey is the current ambassador.) Sky News states, "US officials have persistently said that the unresolved row [over Kirkuk] is one of the biggest threats to Iraq's future stability." And they're correct if you leave out Chris Hill. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) sums up, "Violence and ethnic tensions are on the rise there. In recent months, after protests over problems with electricity and other public services, the governor and the head of the provincial council resigned and were replaced by a Kurd and a Turkomen, whiich Kirkuk's Arabs considered a slight." In other violence today, Reuters notes a Qaiyara roadside bombing claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 cleric and left two other people injured and a Baquba car bombing which claimed two lives and left ten people injured. Earlier this month, Gordon Evans (WMUK) interviewed Ben Lando and his colleague Ali with Iraq Oil Report. I meant to include this in a snapshot last week and said I would. I didn't, my apologies. Excerpt: Ben Lando: Iraq Oil Report is a news site that I started to cover the story of Iraq by looking at one of the major factors of Iraq's history and current possible funds for progress as well as fuel for problems which is the oil sector. And we let that tell the story of the society and politics and economy and security. Gordon Evans: Through oil? Ben Lando: Through -- through the story of developing and the fight over the prosperity of the oil sector. Gordon Evans: Ali, is that a valuable lesson, do you believe, for people in this country and maybe some other countries not familiar with Iraq to kind of see the country through that lens? Ali: Which lens do you mean? Through which one? Gordon Evans: The lesson of oil, energy, those sorts of things. What Ben just talked about. Ali: Well I think it is a very encouraging. It is very important because now Iraq is taking another course. It's a different course from what used to before 2003. The oil ministry, Iraq now, with these bidding rounds and oil development now within the country, I think the people need a thing like this in order to know what's going on. The people -- not just the businessman and the companies and the others -- but the people themselves need to know what's going on. The details about their oil. So I think it is a very good project. [. . .] Ben Lando: I think that the understanding of Iraq, the history of Iraq and even the social make up of Iraq was missing and that's evident in the-the planning for and the execution of the occupation of the country. It was clear that the US government didn't understand the tribal make up and all these very different factors that make up a complex and extremely historical society. That you could go in there and say, "Well forget about, you know, history in your country, you know, that goes back to -- legend has it -- the Garden of Eden and we're going to, here's this democratic model and you're going to be successful and peaceful in the middle of the Middle East. So I think it's clear that our country has a lack of understanding of the country. The US has a lack of understanding of Iraq. We as journalists, I think, we try our best, sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't, in explaining what's happening in the country and the plight of the people in the country. But there's always room for further understanding. I mean, I learn more about the country every day so you can't expect somebody living and working in the US to understand it very well. But there definitely is a knowledge gap and this is why these statements by politicians or want-to-be politicians like this [referring to Donald Trump and his claim that the US should take Iraqi oil]. Gordon Evans: How long have you been in Baghdad now? Ben Lando: I first -- My first trip there was in the beginning of 2008 and I've been living there for two years or just about two years. Gordon Evans: So when you come back to the US and you talk to people about what's happening in Iraq, what are the things that you hear just talking to friends or family or strangers that you believe are perhaps the biggest misconceptions about what's happening? Ben Lando: I think the biggest misconception is that it's some sort of peace that's taken hold and that democracy's taken hold. And those are the two biggest misconceptions. Now I think that there's -- at least for "democracy" -- in these air quotation marks I'll put it in -- is that there's opportunity for that. As Ali can attest to, it's definitely not peaceful. I mean, we were in the coffee shop today and looked at the news and saw that there was a bomber that killed 27 at a police recruiting station, injured 72. And this is -- smaller events like this happen every day. I mean it's still a violent place. And it's not -- It's not a place that one feels comfortable. Even somebody who's lived there your entire life, right? Gordon Evans: Ali, would you agree that that is probably the biggest misconception that we Americans have about Iraq? Ali: I do agree with my colleague. The plans started to become wrong, to be honest, from 2003. From the very beginning. From the very beginning that theAmbassador [L. Paul] Bremer the civil administrator when he was taken -- brought to Iraq. So I think the mistakes, when you look at the house, the most important is how to make the basement. So the basement, the bricks in the basement were wrong. Gordon Evans: The foundation? Ali: Foundation. So there was mistakes in the foundation. So how you can build on a wrong foundation? This -- This is all, you know, the army, you know people brought to join the political process. So many things went wrong, I think, from the beginning. Gordon Evans: So what are some ideas for moving forward? And I guess maybe no necessarily your's but what do you hear from Iraqis when you talk to them -- their leadership or just people on the street? What are their ideas about how do you get Iraq from where it is now to perhpas a better place, if you will? Ben Lando: I think that the -- So far and up until now, the direction of the country hasn't been chosen by the people of Iraq-- in general or as individuals. It's been chosen by a series of violent actors, foreign armies, foreign funded militias, things like that, terrorist groups and by people who were born in Iraq and most of which haven't lived in Iraq for a lot of their years prior to 2003 so who are very disconnected from what it's like as an average Iraqi, what the average struggle is or what has been the average struggle for 30, 40 years in the country. So I think that it is -- The mass amount of people, the 29 million people who are Iraqis, have had their lives, since 2003, ruled by and decision made by and the government organized by people who don't really represent them and their interests. And so I would say, as an American, let the Iraqis figure out how they want their country. Gordon Evans: But I can hear somebody objecting right now saying, wait a minute, they've held elections. Ben Lando: Yeah. See -- and we've talked about this. Elections are one thing. The elections in 2010, the most recent national election where they had some monitors and there were some issues but overall it was considered a very credible election by observers, by journalists who had access to the polling stations which we went to. And even -- We went to this polling station which is right behind the Abu Hanifa Mosque which is the last place Saddam [Hussein] was seen free, he gave his kind of farewell speech, 'we'll return,' that type of thing and this is the heart of Saddam-held Baghdad. And we went there, we saw the election. The election was good. But what happened after that? The election gave, basically legitimized fighting between politicians to continue. And thus because the US has basically said "democracy" without defining it and then said "Do it." The leaders say, "Okay, well we were elected, so since we were elected, this is a democracy, the elected officials can do what we want. We don't have to follow the Constitution, we can kind of detain people, we can torture, we can have secret prisons where we torture people. We can beat up journalists as they're covering protests and we can beat up the protesters and detain them indefinitely. And it's legitimate because we had an election." That's the definition of "democracy" transplanted into a country that model doesn't necessarily fit with. And in these times of trouble, Barry-Barry breezes by, speaking words of blather, sit it down, sit it down. US President Barack Obama decided to remember Iraq today in his speech. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor, Al Jazeera) Tweeted: janearraf jane arraf Obama: US will stand with #Iraq if it continues its peaceful progress. He doesn't say what will happen if it slips... 4 hours ago AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted: prashantrao Prashant Rao Obama described #Iraq as having 'the promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian democracy' #MEspeech 4 hours ago » prashantrao Prashant Rao 5 mentions of #Iraq in #MEspeech, in 3 different parts. 4 hours ago And what a speech it was. CBS has text and video here. If people pay attention, Mr. Pretty Words failed. On every level. For example, to claim that a half a century after the end of colonialism (the end? really?) that people need to stop pointing to that as an ill responsible for their current problems? ("The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism.") Words have consequences, as Barack knows. What's he saying? A half a century is the time limit? Because there are people who will apply that in the US to other "ills." (Slavery, for example.) Will people call it out? Or will the Cult of St. Barack just continue madly clapping as they wet themselves? Probably just continue to wet themselves. The speech was nothing but a neoliberal argument for more war. (Samantha Power was among those providing input for the speech, FYI.) Here's Barack telling the world what the US will now go to war for -- no longer just nukes and borders, mind you: And that's why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -- and I believe now -- that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder. So we face a historic opportunity. We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator. There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be. Of course, as we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It's not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo -- it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it's the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short-term interests don't align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region. But we can, and we will, speak out for a set of core principles -- principles that have guided our response to the events over the past six months: The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -- whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran. That's truly frightening. And the fact that they're marketing war on catch phrases and abstractions should appall any sentient being. One example, freedom of speech in one place is different from freedom of speech in another, as Barack damn well knows. Declaring that war is on the table if you don't live up to the rights as the US lists them and as the US sees them is a very scary notion and far, far from the principle of just war which allowed you to go to war when your country was physically attacked by another country not when your sensibilities were offended. There is no universal measure for "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion." Some would argue that France, which strives to be extremely secular, is the ultimate for freedom of religion, others would disagree. What Barack wants to insist are universal principles are not, in fact, universally defined. More importantly, in many (all?) countries (certainly in the US), the people are always in the midst of an ongoing debate about rights. So now the US government is claiming the right to pick sides in foreign countries? In prior times, the US government respected (or pretended to) the rights of people in another country to define themselves. Now there will be a set of guidelines that the US came up with and that the US will define? And these guidelines will carry the country into more wars. This is nothing but another attempt to bully. It is not about justice. It will not be applied equally. It has not been in the last months under Barack. While he spins and lies, the reality is he didn't do a damn thing to stop the attacks in Iraq. Journalists weren't just attacked while covering protests. On February 25th -- to cite only one specific date -- journalists in Baghdad, after the protests, were having lunch and they were attacked while they were seated at their table by Iraqi forces under the command of Nouri al-Maliki. They were beaten, right there in front of every other diner, with the butts of rifles and then they were dragged off to a security vehicle, dragged off to a cell, threatened, beaten, forced to sign papers stating they were not tortured and finally released. Did you hear one word for Barack? No, you didn't. Not one damn word. And just last week, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) was pointing that reality out: In Iraq, "Arab Spring" protests continue, as they have across the Middle East, but – unlike the demonstrations in Egypt, the civil war in Libya, and the violently-repressed upsurge in Syria – the Western news media has decided not to cover them. When thousands jammed the streets of Suleimaniya, the supposedly pro-occupation, pro-American capital city of the Kurdish autonomous region – Maliki and his Kurdish equivalents sent the Iraqi army in to crush the incipient rebellion no less violently than Syria's Assad is now doing in Syria. Yet we hear nothing from the White House, nothing from the media, and nothing from the former leaders of the "antiwar" movement – yes, I'm talking to you, Leslie Kagan, you fraud – after they folded up their tents and went off to work for Obama's election (and re-election). Meanwhile the US is attempting to extend the military's stay in Iraq and England is gearing up for this Sunday, their kind-of-sort-of-we're-out-and-it's-for-real-this-time-we-promise 'departure' (see yesterday's snapshot or this Washington Post report by Tim Craig) which brings us to Australia where Kevin Rudd replaced John Howard as Prime Minister and the move came in part due to Rudd and his party's opposition to the Iraq War and Rudd's promise that he would pull Australia troops out of Iraq. Rudd was kicked to the curb in about the same time it took for Gordon Brown to win and lose the post of prime minister in England. But Rudd claimed he'd pulled all the troops out. For those who've forgotten, June 1, 2008 is the date when Australian forces 'departed' Iraq. In that kind-of-sort-of way. Today Alison Middleton (Australia's ABC) reports on the return of Australian troops from Iraq -- as does Nadja Hainke (NT News). And Australia's Defence Dept issues the following statement: Security Detachment Home from Iraq Australian Defence Force (ADF) members of Security Detachment Seventeen, known as SECDET XVII, returned home to Australia today after a successful eight-month deployment to Iraq . The 33-member team was deployed as part of Operation KRUGER, the ADF's contribution to the provision of security and support for the Australian Embassy and its staff in Baghdad . A parade was held at the Australian Baghdad Embassy on 14 May 11 to transfer responsibility to the new rotation, SECDET Eighteen (XVIII), from the Brisbane-based 1st Military Police Battalion. Commander of Australian Forces in the Middle East , Major General Angus Campbell, said that the members of SECDET XVII had accomplished their mission of supporting Australian diplomats. "Although security in Baghdad is improving, it's essential our Embassy staff are protected while undertaking their important duties," Major General Campbell said. "Your contribution in providing security has been invaluable to the successful Australian diplomatic mission in Iraq ." The ADF has been providing security to the Australian Embassy in Bagdad for eight years. During the deployment, SECDET XVII supported more than 1127 security activities for Embassy staff, averaging five separate tasks per day. The detachment was raised by the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Darwin and comprised personnel drawn from seven units across the Army and Air Force. Officer Commanding SECDET XVII, Major Shaun Richards, said his unit had continued the achievements of previous deployments and built on Defence's reputation for professional service in support of its Foreign Affairs partners. "Our efforts in providing security to the Australian Embassy in a difficult environment have allowed the diplomatic effort to succeed in its mission to promote Australia 's national interests." Major Richards said. SECDET XVII arrive home in Australia on Thursday, 19 May 11. Media note: Imagery can be found at: http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?archiveId=5003&search=20112727 Media contact: Defence Media Operations (02) 6127 1999 or 0408 498 664 Oh, the word games of the misleaders. Moving over to Iraqi Refugees, Raber Y. Aziz (Zawya) reports: The Swedish ambassador to Iraq denied claims of a behind-the-curtains deal between the two countries to deport Iraqis in return for loans being dropped. Refugee groups have alleged that deals were signed between Iraq and certain EU countries by which Iraq would receive deported Iraqi refugees and in exchange, debts owed to these countries would be cancelled. Why would people think that? Forget that there actually is a signed agreement -- as has been well reported over the last months -- between Sweden and Iraq. It might have something to do with the continual deportation of Iraqis from Sweden. Back in June of last year, Sweden kicked 56 Iraqis out and did so with no regard to the warning from the United Nations that it was not safe for refugees to return. That was not the first time they'd forcibly deported Iraqis. Nor was it the last time. I believe the most recent was in January of this year (see this CNN report). Yesterday's snapshot included coverage of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committe hearing. Last night, at Trina's site, Ava offered "Scott Brown questions DoD's concept of streamlining," Kat provided an overview with "DoD embarrasses at Senate hearing" and Wally, at Rebecca's site, noted "VA can't answer a basic service question." We'll close with this from Justin Raimondo's "What We're Up Against" (Antiwar.com): Today, however, as Rall's example dramatizes, things are worse: much worse. The intellectual and political atmosphere of lockstep conformity – especially, I would argue, in the realm of foreign policy – is just as strictly enforced as ever, as Rall has found out. As for us here at Antiwar.com: our nominal allies, the "progressive" antiwar movement of yesteryear, have deserted us in droves. As long as it's not a Republican President slaughtering innocent civilians, as long as it's "our first African-American president" invading the Muslim world, as long as their team is in power – well, then, it's okay, everything's hunky-dory, and please don't rock the boat. I imagine my politics are quite different from Rall's, but we both face the same conundrum: how to speak truth to power when the powerful control the media, the money, and the "mainstream." Oh, so you want us to get out of Afghanistan – well, that's just not "mainstream," don'tcha know?! You say you're sick of endless war, and America's emerging police state? What are you – some kind of rabid "extremist"? The smear campaign against me I don't mind so much: it's too absurd to be taken seriously, and, besides that, I never sought to become a "mainstream" media "star." I have to say, however, when I was purged as a blogger from the Huffington Post, the reasons given to me by cult-follower Arianna Huffington were quite explicit: I'm too hard on Israel. A letter-writing campaign to get me off the site was apparently quite successful. I can live without being one of Arianna's unpaid blog-slaves: the point is that, in Arianna's world, the arbiters of political correctness and good taste have divined that I'm a purveyor of "conspiracy theories," to use her phrase. That's code for any opinion that holds our elites responsible for the present state of the world. If Arianna wanted to stay a member in good standing of that elite – she once boasted about having the President's personal phone number ensconced in her legendary Blackberry – I had to go, and go I did. Antiwar.com has never gotten a blessed dime from any big foundation, left or right. A recent attempt by someone affiliated with a major libertarian foundation that sponsors interns to work with us was vetoed by "headquarters" – no names here, but you get the idea. One would think that a web site of this type, with an entire stable of articulate and readily available writers, would garner lots of face time in the cable news universe, where foreign policy matters are now all the rage: and you would be wrong. There's only one side of the "debate" that's allowed to appear in television, for the most part, and that's the War Party's side. Aside from the media blackout, however, there's another side to the dominance of the Obama cult in "progressive" circles that is having a significant effect on Antiwar.com's fortunes: fund-raising. Our current fund-raising campaign is, so far, an absolute disaster. On the morning of the second day of the campaign, we had less than $3000 raised. If this goes on, we will be forced to close down in the very near future – it's as simple as that. The intellectual atmosphere of this country, especially when it comes to the question of war and peace, is absurdly narrow: we are faced with a "choice" between partisan brands of interventionism, between the unilateral belligerency of the neoconservative right and the self-righteous "multi-lateral" interventionism of the Obama crowd. The two factions, however, are variations on a single theme of American (or Western) global hegemony, a "world order" ruled from Washington, London, and Paris. A multinational "elite" which owes loyalty to nothing but its own power and privileged existence has detached itself from the common herd: while the rest of us struggle to survive at the bottom. The aristocrats of the global order, who live in state-supported- and-subsidized luxury, are concentrated in the Imperial City of Washington, D.C., where they hand the media their "talking points." These pundits and "journalists" are little more than servitors of the royal court. iraq cnn mohammed tawfeeq mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa xinhua fang yang the los angeles times ned parker asso ahmed reuters mustafa mahmoud the new york times jack healy bbc news the washington post tim craig aziz alwan the associated press yahya barzanji antiwar.com justin raimondo wmuk ben lando iraq oil report gordon evans the telegraph of london richard spencer abc alison middleton nt news nadja hainke zawya raber y. aziz cnn al jazeera jane arraf

Read on ...