Saturday, November 17, 2012

Barack's latest blunder

In Iraq, the violence continues and so does the public embarrassment of Barack Obama which may be why the US press looks the other way. 

The violence, not even the big story today due to other events. The Tehran Times notes a Sammara car bombing injuring and killing a number of people.  AFP explains, "The pilgrims were on their way to visit the Al-Askari shrine in Samarra, which militants bombed in February 2006 sparking a wave of sectarian violence that killed tens of thousands of people."  Alsumaria reports 7 are dead and twenty-five injured.  All Iraq News notes security forces cordon off the area and ambulances transported the victims.  Gazwan Hassan, Suadad al-Salhy and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) offer,  "Attacks against Shi'ites have often increased during Ashura, when Shi'ites commemorate the death of the Prophet's grandson Imam Hussein."  Bushra Juhi (AP) elaborates on the commemoration, "Shiites mourn the seventh-century killing of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, the Imam Hussein."

From the dead and wounded to released prisoners, yesterday's snapshot noted: " Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that the rumors Ali Musa Daqduq had been released from Iraqi custody are true (see Wednesday's snapshot).  It's a huge embarrassment for the White House.  Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, was asked about it in today's press briefing."  All Iraq News notes that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated a few months back that the Iraqi government had promised him they would not release Daqduq.  Alsumaria adds that Nouri al-Maliki's office today confirmed that Daqduq had been released.  Al Mada reports that Prime Minister Nouri states there wasn't evidence against Daqduq that warranted his detention.  Iraqiya MP Nada al-Joubouri tells All Iraq News that this was an Iraqi decision and the US government has no say in it.



For any who've forgotten, Daqduq was in US custody.  The US government believed that he worked with the League of Righteous and killed, among others, five American soldiers.  Not in a fight, not in combat.  They were surprised, they were targeted, they were killed on the spot, or kidnapped and killed.  From the June 9, 2009 snapshot:


This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Barack made a deal with a terrorist organization that had killed American soldiers and killed British citizens.  That's when these people the US government considers guilty begin being released by the US.  Because of the deal, Barack ordered the release of the leaders of the League of Righteous.  This decision was criticized internally but it was stated that they still had Daqduq and would not release him.

Until of course they did.



Ali Moussa Daqdouq, a Lebanese militant accused of involvement in the murder of several U.S. soldiers in Iraq, was released by Iraqi authorities Friday morning, Daqdouq's lawyer, Abdulalmehdi al-Mutairi, told CNN.
Daqdouq has arrived in Lebanon, his lawyer said.
"Thank God, he arrived in Lebanon a few hours ago after he left Iraq this afternoon" al-Mutairi told CNN. "There is no legal reason for his detention. He should have been released months ago".

Despite calls for him to be tried in the US, Daqduq was handed over to the Iraqis in 2011. Despite objections from US Senators.  But the White House just knew Nouri could be trusted.  Instead, Nouri demonstrated that his word was useless.  

But Nouri's actions didn't set it all in motion.  Instead, Barack did.  Daqduq and the leaders of the League of Righteous have all been released.  Barack set that in motion.  The killers of American citizens were in US custody and Barack let them go.  He needs to answer for that.  He needs to be asked how and why and what he was thinking.  These actions were outrageous in real time and we called them out in real time.

The Iraqi legal system found him innocent.  That was it for the legal system.  The US government idiotically not only insisted that Daqduq continued to be held, they asked for a review.  The review again found Daqduq innocent.  How was that a surprise?

At what point does the White House stop getting caught with their pants down?

When they were fortunate enough to be promised a review of the verdict, they should have immediately moved for extradition so that when Daqduq was again found innocent (a possibility they should have prepared for), they would have been prepared to move on it.

They weren't prepared.  Iraq gets billions from the US -- even now -- and the White House couldn't even manage a simple extradition of someone with a group considered to be a terrorist organization by most governments around the world?  




The following community sites updated last night and today:




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





iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
Posted by at

I Hate The War

Bob Somerby has offered many contributions to a leftist critique. He's also helped popularize sexism among the left.  He didn't invent it but the heart of his critique is a sexist critique. He has a post today which can't be panned for gold.  The sexism buries him and any observations he might make.

In a perfect world, there would be no sexists and sexism would be hugely frowned upon -- the way racism is.  But, like homophobia, sexism is frequently passed off as "cute" or signs of  "a real man."  What it is is a pathology and as it grips the person, it overcomes them and turns them into babbling idiots.  Look at a certain group of church members who protest the funerals of the fallen with homophobic slogans.  To them, what they're doing makes complete sense. 

Bob's sexism was always present.  We've noted it here many times.  The way The Daily Howler has always worked is that a male journalist makes a mistake and a female journalist is evil, a man makes a mistake and can be redeemed but a woman is pure evil.  So he may batter E.J. Dionne around lightly, but a Ceci Connolly or Katharein Seelye are savaged. 

The sexism is so pervasive that Somberby doesn't even grasp how little he understands about journalism.  The last sentence in the paragraph above goes to that lack of understanding as does his attack today on Karen DeYoung.  We'll get to it.

When this site started, Media Whores Online had gone down only a short while before.  MWO wasn't really concerned with gender.  And its immense popularity surely made an impact.  But with it gone, we were left with Bob Somerby as a pattern and a ton of men and women online desperate to ape his lead.

Here, we did our part to combat it.  We called out Elisabeth Bumiller's White House Letters -- as most people did.  A friend with the paper (New York Times) called me out on that saying those were columns and I was treating them as reports.  Good note.  We tried to treat them as columns after that.  But we didn't just call out Elisabeth Bumiller.

Todd S. Purdum was called out.  And we did in the same way that they were calling out women.  Todd Purdum's a good reporter.  Like most people in any occupation he's going to screw up from time to time.  Todd does not smell, that was part of our critique.  Repeating, I do know Todd and he doesn't stink.  The point of that critique -- which went on for about a year-and-a-half -- was to point out that women were being slammed online while men were just being said to have misreported.  Women were said to be on their knees, to need knee pads, to this and that and be sexualized repeatedly. 

Men really not.

When they were, it was in the role of passive gay sexual partner.  Which goes to homophobia when you couple that with the portrayal of women already popularized throughout the web. 

Same-sex coupling -- male or female -- can have an active and a passive role that stays with one partner or that flows from one to the other.  In addition, it can have no such role.  However, most sex in our society -- male-male, female-female or male-female -- or involving more than two people at one time -- does play with power roles because of socialization and the aggressive nature promoted in society, history and other places.  Isn't that socialization?  It goes beyond socialization and beyond the focus here.  Power is prized and power is seen as a means to advancement.  It is far from the only 'gate' to advancing -- individually or collectively -- however we are misinformed as a global people about that repeatedly.  Slamming passive sexuality -- shaming it -- and portraying it as the province of straight women -- or really all women since they don't acknowledge lesbian couples -- and passive gay man -- the standard cultural stereotype -- shows the strong relation between sexism and homophobia and goes to why men on the left can reject racism but see no problem with holding on to their sexism and homophobia.

They can see -- lefts of all races -- power in an African-American males road to today because it feeds into the power glorification but they tie gender (female only) and gay males (stereotype of a weak and effete male) into "softness" and "weakness."  And because of the way we're socialized and beyond, that's okay with them.  In part because so many lefties do feel powerless themselves and they loathe that about themselves so they attack in others.

You can see the powerless identity in many of the left commentaries from the Cult of St. Barack from 2009 through this year.  They never acted as winners, they never saw it from that view.  Instead, they behaved like sore losers and forever searched for the person, device or concept that was stealing their power.


Bob Somerby didn't invent sexism ("Bash The Bitch" was popular long before Somerby ever got online) but he benefitted from it and he popularized it. 

His inability to grasp sexism is most apparent in his defense of Lawrence Summers.  For many, that was the reveal.  Bob Somerby writing that Summers wasn't a sexist.  What others -- many -- saw as sexism in Summers 2005 remarks, Somerby rushed to assure wasn't.  As a man, he seemed to think, he was the best voice on the topic.  It never entered his mind that he could be wrong about sexism or even guilty of it.

His sexism is also apparent in his obsession with Naomi Wolf.  Did Naomi pick out ties for Al Gore?  No.  And anyone wanting to combat sexism knows that was a hiccup from the McGovern campaign of 1972.  But Somerby never has a clue.  (In 1972, Newsweek printed the lie that George McGovern's presidential campaign was using feminist Gloria Steinem as an advisor to help pick out socks.)  When Bob finds some 'good' woman to stick by, he goes full out sexist.  The woman is put on a pedestal and is noble and wonderful and capable of no wrong or error.  That's why, in college,  he and his friend were obsessed with Joan Baez -- clutching to her madly -- and scared of the likes of Grace Slick and Janis Joplin.  Joan was the Madonna.  (Offstage, she was screwing any and every male and female she could but her image at that time was of the madonna as she herself notes in "Diamonds and Rust."  She and Janis shared more than one lover, FYI.)  Grace Slick and Janis Joplin were far more complicated.  Janis especially with the presenation of look-at-me-I'm-a-poor-put-upon-weak-girl with a vocal that refuted on stage image.  She was a study in complexities.  Grace Slick, of course, never met a construct or stereotype she wouldn't f**k with, stretch, break, implode.  Grace and Janis were complex women for public consumption.  Baez was much more safe and a throw back.  And the 'ideal' for too many left men -- a woman who would fight men's battles but credit men (Ira before Joan found David) and act subservient for public consupmtion.  She was "the wife" in every construct of the term.  The "old lady" in the terms of that time.

Naomi Wolf became "the wife" and "the old lady" at The Daily Howler and we're supposed to be thrilled to have her as a woman Somerby doesn't hit with his verbal fists.  But there's nothing there to praise.

I don't care for Naomi anymore and would spit on her if she tried to approach me tomorrow.  She has spent too many of the last years selling out women.  But when I say there's nothing to praise, I'm not referring to Naomi the person, I'm referring to the fictional Naomi that one-dimensionally exists at The Daily Howler.

That Naomi is the ultimate victim.  To prove how victimized she was, you should be noticing, Bob always finds a man to speak for her. Naomi has rejected the earth tones and ties nonsense herself, in her own words.  But she wouldn't be "the old lady" if she used her time to speak out for her own needs or herself.

Naomi was wrongly savaged by the press in Bob's construct.  No.  That's not reality.  Naomi was not brought on to pick out fashion choices.  But that doens't mean she was a serious scholar the way Bob presents.  He frequently goes out on a limb about Promescuities.  That book made Wolf a joke and, by extension, the Gore campaign.

There is no defense for that book.  Only Bob Somerby (and men like him) could read Naomi writing about college, the gang rape of a woman at a fraternity while Naomi was present, and how, the next morning, the woman's bloody shoe was turned into a prop and a point of laughter and Naomi didn't do a thing (speak out at the breakfast table) because she didn't want to be called a lesbian.  Beyond that, Naomi never called the police.  A crime took place, she covered for the rapists.  She continued to party with them, she continued to socialize with them.

She's a nut case.  But to Bob Somerby, she's a male-defined woman and that's all that matters.  What's more assuring to the pack of pigs than a woman who will see you commit a crime and stay silent?

Karen DeYoung is a reporter for the Washington Post.  Somerby suddenly discovers her today.  In his continued pursuit of "Poor Susan Rice" (which recalls his lack of honesty when he went after Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson).

DeYoung makes what appears to be only her second appearance in Bob's world in twelve years and she's immediately awful and evil.

"DeYoung's report is awful," "DeYoung works hard to keep you from knowing," "This is a horrible news report," she was a "sock puppet" to Colin Powell, she may be angling to write John McCain's biography, her work "is misleading and confusing," she "slimes" and she's produced "a terribly fake news report" -- all that and more. 

Wow, Howler readers should be thinking, if DeYoung is so awful why have we not heard of her repeatedly over the last weeks or even the last years.

This is more hatred and nonsense and, yes, ignorance on the part of Bob Somerby.

Above, it's noted: "So he may batter E.J. Dionne around lightly, but a Ceci Connolly or Katharein Seelye are savaged."

Do you see the problem with that treatment?

Bob has an opinion.  He has many though you'd think it was only one -- "My friend Al Gore was mistreated!" -- to read most of The Daily Howler.  You can agree with it or not.  That's the thing about opinions.  You can have a more complex take as well.  (I think Gore was mistreated by the press and I think he encouraged them to further mistreat him by becoming a punching bag when he should have hit back.  Don't make lies about you a joke -- which Al Gore himself did.  If they're lies, you either ignore them or you confront them.  When you make remarks in public jesting about the press distorting you, you've just waived them through.)

But if Bob's opinions weren't represented in the press, then E.J. is the most evil.

Seelye and Connolly were reporters.  So is Karen DeYoung.  They're supposed to be impartial and balanced.  Bob's fuming over what many will see as Karen DeYoung's attempt to be balanced in a report.  E.J. and other columnists aren't reporters.  They are paid to express opinions.

If 2000 didn't go well for Bob Somerby and Al Gore, Bob needs to hold reporters accountable but the greater problem was the pundits.  They can offer opinion.  They don't have to pretend to be balanced. 

Bob Somerby has a simplistic and uniformed view of journalism.  Which is why his work is best as a primer (provided the inherent sexism in his writings is acknowledged).

Bob Somerby wets his briefs and whines because of Karen DeYoung's reporting.

He's offended that more than one view is presented. 

He never grasps that that's also know as reporting.

He never grasps that he, Bob Somerby, does not know what David Petraeus told Congress.

Petraeus did not testify in public.  Only members of Congress and their staff heard his testimony.  That's what a closed door hearing is. 

Karen DeYoung is a reporter.  She can work her sources, she can look for new ones and she can piece together what may have been said from that.  But she wasn't there.  And she can't just present one view.  (Especially when, I'm guessing, she's heard more than one version of events.  I've heard three different versions of what Petraeus said at just one party in DC.)  DeYoung is not a psychic.  She's also not a columnist.  Ideally, she traffics in facts but the only known fact is that Petraeus has appeared before Congress.  Her report is an attempt to bring together various claims put foward about what Petraeus told Congress.

Is Bob Somerby confused by this reality?

Maybe he'd grasp it if the byline had been Kevin DeYoung and not Karen.

That's not a minor critique nor is it coming out of no where.  Sexism has always been at the heart of The Daily Howler and Bob Somerby has refused to address it.

That's evident in his attack on Karen DeYoung to begin with.  Back before our sole focus was Iraq, one entry a week (the third one, what's now the Iraq snapshot) featured nothing but women writers.  Journalists and reporters.  With Iraq as a focus, we don't have that option.  We have to use sources I wouldn't otherwise. And maybe that makes the snapshot more rounded since, for example, a Libeterain or a conservative might get quoted.  But if I tried now to do a snapshot with just women?  I couldn't.  There would be Jane Araf and then I'd have to go archives -- meaning, I'd have to be saying, "In 2006, ___ reported . . ."  The Iraq coverage -- in US media and European -- is pretty much gone.  There's AP and Reuters and that's really it.  And the only woman with any kind of regular beat is Jane Arraf of Al Jazeera (which isn't European or US).

But before Iraq was our sole focus and before the left also walked away from Iraq, I could pull together a snapshot that would be women.  Even today, when friends call asking for links from their outlets, they know if they can say, "____ reports it" and "____" is  a woman, it's an automatic in, they don't have to call in a favor.  They know that I believe firmly women are underrepresented in bylines and that the work women are producing is frequently ignored.

So point here is that what Karen DeYoung is reporting on?  You can be sure that many mean are also on that story.  You can also be sure that many men have stolen her work and passed it off as their own.  So the point is, there are probably 24 bylines on the topic DeYoung's written about -- 24 from various outlets.  There may be another woman covering the story.  But there's not more than three total.  So at least 21 of those other bylines -- the bulk of the bylines -- are men.  And yet Bob Somerby zooms in on a woman.

If you're not getting it, Monday do a little exercise.  Pick out a big news topic.  And real news, not entertainment.  Then search that topic and note the bylines. You will see very few women. 

(For those late to the party, I'm a feminist, not a glorifist.  By that I mean, I will criticize a woman.  But I will not fixate on women and give men a pass.  Generally speaking, a woman has to really piss me off with bad reporting to be called out and when she makes it into a snapshot I've usually made a point to ignore her at least three times prior.  That's not because I think one gender is wonderful or better but because I do know Bash The Bitch is a popular game and I do realize that a woman will be slammed many times quicker and many times more than a man ever will be.)

But if you really can't grasp that Bob Somerby openly engages in the War Against Women, note him try to walk back an offensive phrase today.  "Barefoot and confused."  Throughout the week, the 'wit' wanted us to know the press was leaving us "barefoot and pregnant."  Now he's realized how offensive he was.  He can't apologize.  Nor can he let go of the (sexist) laugh the phrase produces.  So he goes to "barefoot and confused."  That he would think the phrase was acceptable to begin with goes a long way towards explaining his sexism.  (The phrase is a sexist one with a long, long history.  A man cannot 'reclaim' it or use it 'ironically.'  What Bob Somerby did was try to frighten the people by telling them they were now the equivalent of women.  The shudder, the horror, was what would prompt the giggles as Somerby damn well knew.)




It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)


The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.



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










Posted by at

Friday, November 16, 2012

Iraq snapshot

Friday, November 16, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, someone the US labeled a terrorist was released from Iraqi custody, the Operation Command Tigris clashes with Kurdish forces resulting in injuries and death, a hearing on Benghazi wastes a lot of time that apparently Democrats on the Committee had to waste, Thomas Friedman 'cares' about Iraq again, the Pentagon releases October Army suicide data, and more.
 
 
If you believe in prayer, pray for Iraqis.  They now really need all the prayers they can get.  Why?  This is the week that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman decided he was interested in Iraq again.  Friedman's 'interest' in the Middle East is a bit like Nicholas Kristof's concern in so-called "developing countries" like Cambodia -- you know there's going to be a lot of bloviatin, women are sure to suffer and the New York Times columnists will make it all about themselves.  Here's War Hawk Friedman chewing the fat on the back of his ass:
 
 
For better and for worse, the United States in Iraq performed the geopolitical equivalent of falling on a grenade -- that we triggered ourselves. That is, we pulled the pin; we pulled out Saddam, and we set off a huge explosion in the form of a Shiite-Sunni contest for power.
Thousands of Iraqis were killed along with more than 4,700 American troops, but the presence of those U.S. troops in and along Iraq's borders prevented the violence from spreading.
 
 
 
The lunatic really believes what he writes.  After all the harm he's caused Iraq, grasp that the gas bag won't take the blame for what he did.  So he wants to rewrite it.  'Yeah, things are rough but thank goodness the US landed on that grenade.'
 
Except, of course, that didn't happen.  The US military is largely (though not completely) out of Iraq and the war continues.  The killing continues, the dying continues.  That's not a single explosion or "a grenade," idiot.  No, that's a US-created mine field.  Which the US military was largely pulled off of but ut of but which Iraqis have to try to live in.  Tip-toeing across a mine field daily.   John Catalinotto (Workers World) notes, "Cholera, a gastrointestinal disease, and typhoid, which had been virtually eradicated in Iraq by 1989, made a comeback under Western imperalist occupation.  Today, the electricity and water supply systems in Baghdad are in even worse conditions than in 2008."  Maybe what landed on a grenade was Thomas Friedman's brain?
 
 
If Thomas Friedman had any ethics, he'd be on his knees in public begging forgiveness from the entire world and especially from the Iraqi people for his role in beating the War Drums and cheerleading it and lying and being completely wrong over and over.
 
Yes, we are all wrong some of the time.  And I may be wrong more often than anyone.  However, it's a different level of wrong when your mistakes impact whether someone lives or dies. 
 
For Thomas Friedman, it's all a glib view from overhead with a few tired, worn out phrases casually tossed over the shoulder in passing.  It's not life and death.  Clearly, from his writing, it's not life and death.  But thing is, the Iraqi people don't have the luxury of turning everything into a glib World-Is-Flat cocktail chatter moment the way Thomas Friedman does.  Let us all learn to fear a New York Times columnist with an unshakable belief in himself and a desire to "help" as he understands the word.  There may truly be nothing more life endangering that such a columnist, than such a beast.  ("Himself," "he" and "beast" are intentional word choices on my part.)
 
Today, an Iraqi official made clear that Iraq had less than sunny thoughts about the United States.  Expressing displeasure over the intensified conflict in Gaza (Palestinians and Israelies), the official explained that oil could be used as coercion.  Reuters reported this morning, "Iraq's representative to the Arab League [Qais al-Azzawy] said on Friday that Arab states should use oil as a weapon to put pressure on the United States and Israel over the attacks on Gaza."  AFP notes that al-Azzawy likened it to a move during the October Yom Kippur war, "What happened in 1973, when the Arabs stopped oil exports to Western states, is proof that this weapon can succeed in the battle between the Arabs and Israel."   Later in the morning, Shaimaa Fayed (Reuters) reported that al-Azzawy "later appeared to withdraw the remark, saying Baghdad would make no particular proposal to a League meeting."  Devon Shire (Seeking Alpha) explores the International Energy Agency's recent report offering projections on oil prices and Shire is less alarmed by the price ($215 per barrell) IEA is predicting but how they get to such a low number:
 
The IEA in assuming that oil prices are $215 per barrel in 2035 is assuming that oil production in Iraq will double by 2020 and then increase another 2 million barrels per day by 2035.
Did I miss a memo? Is Iraq fixed?
Call me a pessimist, but I think there might be a real chance that Iraq can't deliver this kind of production growth.
Exxon Mobil (XOM) is currently in the process of pulling out of Iraq if it can get a decent price for its interest in the West Quarna project, which is a pretty telling commentary on the difficulty of doing business in Iraq. Exxon is not a company to run away from a challenge.
If Iraq is the central source of future production growth needed to meet future demand, then I think I'm still firmly in the bullish camp when it comes to the price of oil.
 
 
Iraq may very well double output by 2020.  BUt that's 8 years away and, currently, there's no reason to make such a prediction.  Maybe there's hope that a new prime minister (in 2014?) will be able to get things going?  Nouri al-Maliki is in his sixth year as prime minister and still can't pass the 2007 White House benchmarks. 
 
 
The big violence in Iraq today?   Alsumaria reports violence resulting from Nouri's Operation Command Tigris.  Alsumaria reports a clash between the Tigris forces and members of a Kurdish official's protection detail left many injured (over ten and possibly one dead).  All Iraq News reports 1 person is dead -- a civilian and the outlet says all the injured were Tigris forces. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that 1 Iraqi soldier also died and states that clash took place in Khurmato "when Iraqi soldiers attempted to search a house belonging to Goran Najam, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, officials said.  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is the current leader of the PUK."  Sinan Salaheddin (AP) offers, "The clash occurred as police commandos were attempting to arrest a Kurdish smuggler in the city of Tuz Khormato, said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Amir al-Zaidi, of the newly formed Dijla Joint Military Command. When the smuggler took shelter in the offices of a Kurdish political party, police tried to break into the building, but gunmen guarding the office opened fire, he added."  Peshmerga spokesperson Jabbar Yawar tells Alsumaria that this was a personal problem between the two and is now contained. 
 
Differeing details depending on the outlet, obviously.  But what's going on?  What's at stake?  Kirkuk is disputed territory.  It's also oil-rich.  Iraq's Constitution, passed in 2005, explains how to resolve the issue, Article 140 calls for a census and referendum.  By the end of 2007.  Nouri continues to refuse to implement Article 140.   In October of   2008, Corey Flintoff (NPR's All Things Considered -- link is text and audio) explained,  "The potential wealth has made Kirkuk a tormented city ever since oil was discovered in 1927.  Today the city's three main ethnic groups, Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, are vying for demographic and political control."

While refusing to implement Article 140, Nouri's Operation Command Tigris is seen as a way for Baghdad to take control of Kirkuk.  Jasim Alsabawi (Rudaw) observes, "The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) considers that formation of the DOC as a provocative move aimed at undermining the sovereignty of the Kurdistan Region, and reactions have heightened the tensions between Erbil and Baghdad."  Alsabawi reports:
 

[. . .] Imran Samad, a resident of Kirkuk, believes political goals, not terrorist threats, are behind the formation of the DOC. "We strongly condemn the formation of DOC," he says.

Samad adds that the government not only refuses to implement Article 140, but is violating the constitution and imposing its will with force.

"We fought against former dictatorships and gave the finest sons of the Kurdish people in order to gain freedom and independence, and the Shia were supporters of the Kurdish people through previous periods. But now that they have power, they have forgotten all that and want to govern Iraq as Saddam did," said Samad.

 
 Al Mada noted earlier this week that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani has been attempting to work out a unified opposition position with Jalal on this issue.  Barzani issued a statement declaring that public opinion is against it and that they have waited for Talabani to solve the issue but no solution has come forward and what is taking place is unconstitutional.  The statement is posted on the Kurdistan Regional Government's website.  In the statement, Barzani notes that there were concerns and fears about the formation of the so-called Operation Command Tigris and it does nothing to help with the application of Article 140.  Instead, Operation Command Tigris was formed with intentions and goals that go against the hopes of the Kurds, against the democratic process and does nothing to help the Baghdad-government and KRG get along.  Barzani notes that he waited so that Talabani would have an opportunity to put into play promises he had made about stopping the situation; however, that has not come to be.  All Iraq News pointed out that State of Law MP Jawad Albzona immediately declared Barzani's statement to be wrong and inaccurate. Not in the statement but also pertinent, Nouri's refused to fund the peshmerga in the latest federal budget which has caused additional problems. 
 

Today's clash, "personal problem" or not,  follows Kurdistan Alliance MP Khalid Shwani stating yesterday that the Tigris forces were going to provoke an uprising among the people of Kirkuk.  He stated they were not popular or liked and that they were seen as a provocation in Kirkuk.   In addition, Al Mada reports that KRG Prime Minster Nechirvan Barzani declared yesterday that the Trigris forces were a violation of the Constitution (he doesn't go into it but most likely he's referring to Article 140 and  may also be noting the powers the Constitution gives provinces over security forces).   He notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani went to Baghdad and spoke with Nouri al-Maliki.  He says Nouri made promises and has not kept them. 

Meanwhile Alsumaria notes that the Peshmerga are said to have a plan to address the Tigris forces if it comes to that.  Dar Addustour reported earlier this week claims that a State of Law Mp was arrested in Erbil (Kurdistan Regional Government).  In news that will most likely only further create tensions, All Iraq News reports State of Law MP Abdul Salam al-Maliki is calling for Nouri to send Iraqi forces into Erbil.  He's calling for them to protect Erbil from Turkish forces.  Yes, the KRG has its own forces.  No, most people will not believe that's the reason he's calling for Nouri to send forces into Erbil.

In other violence, Alsumaria notes a machine gun attack on a Sahwa leader injured him and two of his bodyguards (in an update, they note the Sahwa leader died while receiving medical treatment on his wounds)  and they note a grenade attack in Nineveh that left one police officer injured while a Kirkuk roadside bombing left two police officers injured.
 
From violence to prisoners, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that the rumors Ali Musa Daqduq had been released from Iraqi custody are true (see Wednesday's snapshot).  It's a huge embarrassment for the White House.  Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, was asked about it in today's press briefing.
 
 
QUESTION: On Iraq, is it correct that Iraq has released – I believe his last name is Daqduq? He's a --
 
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
 
QUESTION: Uh-huh, Daqduq, a top Hezbollah operative. Senator McCain is saying it's an outrage; he apparently was responsible for the deaths of five Americans.
 
 
MS. NULAND: Well, I'm going to refer you to the Iraqis for the precise status, but as you know, we continue to believe that Daqduq should be held accountable for his crimes. We've made this point very clearly to the Government of Iraq. We – while we strongly object to his release, we've been informed by the Iraqis that they determined that they were no longer able to hold him under Iraqi law.
 
 
QUESTION: So I'm sorry, does that mean that --
 
 
MS. NULAND: So I guess – yeah, he's – they have said that he's been released, yeah. Never mind.
 
QUESTION: Well, I mean, so basically, you're saying he shouldn't be? I mean, is there (inaudible)?
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah. We were – we didn't want it to happen and we were concerned about it. We said that to the Iraqis. They have said back to us that they didn't have a legal basis to continue to hold him. Let me add to that that as with other terrorists who we believe have committed crimes against Americans, we are going to continue to pursue all legal means to see that Daqduq sees justice for the crimes of which he is accused.
 
QUESTION: How would you do that? What can you do?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, again, it all depends on the circumstances, but we're going to continue to do what we can in this circumstance.
 
QUESTION: Can you take any retaliatory action against Iraq?
 
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to get into hypothetical issues here beyond saying that we've expressed our deep dissatisfaction with this action with the Government of Iraq. We do have to respect the role of the Iraqi judiciary.
 
QUESTION: So does that – when you say you're going to pursue all legal means, does that mean that this Mr. Daqduq might be driving in a car someday and get blown out of the air or blown --
 
MS. NULAND: I'm obviously --
 
QUESTION: -- or blown off the road? Would --
 
MS. NULAND: I think I said all legal means and I'm not going to --
 
QUESTION: Well --
 
MS. NULAND: -- get into hypotheticals.
 
 
QUESTION: Well, the drone – the Administration says that drone strikes are legal, so all legal means could include that; correct?
 
 
MS. NULAND: I am not going to get into anything along those lines.
 
 
QUESTION: All right. Then the other thing about Daqduq is, is it all upsetting to you that after spending billions and billions of dollars to oust Saddam Hussein and create a democracy in Iraq, one the previous Administration was very, very high on, is it at all upsetting to you that you seem zero influence with this government now?
 
 
MS. NULAND: First of all, I'm going to reject the premise of that. There are many, many things that we work together with the Iraqis on, both in terms of the internal situation in Iraq as well as our regional work together, not least of being Syria and our efforts to ensure that Iraqi air and land space is not abused to arm the Syrians. There are many things that we work together on. But as I said, we objected very strongly to this particular decision, and we've made that clear to the Iraqis.
 
The shortest version on Daqduq?  He's said to be responsible for many deaths.  Including five Americans.  From the May 18th snapshot:
 
Dropping back to earlier violence,  Christine Show (Daily Mail) reports, "The wife of a U.S. Army captain who was killed while deployed in Iraq is stunned that the person named responsible for his death will be freed.  Charlotte Freeman of Temecula, California expressed her dismay when she learned on Wednesday night that Ali Mussa Daqduq was cleared of all charges in the 2007 attack that killed Brian Freeman, 31, and four other U.S. soldiers."
 
What happened?  Barack Obama made a deal with a terrorist group in Iraq.  Daqduq and others behind the killing of the five Americans were in US custody in Iraq, in US prisons in Iraq.  Barack began letting them go.  Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:


This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
 
The League of Righteous would publicly rebuke Barack later noting that they did not feel he'd lived up to the deal they'd made.  They'd refuse to release the corpse of a British citizen as a result.  Then, months and months later, they would.  By that point, the terrorist group was very clear in public remarks that they'd made a deal with the White House.  Daqduq was not part of the deal.  He was an outsider.  As the US military began drawing down and getting rid of prisoners, it could have brought Daqduq to the US to try him.  Several senators suggested just that.  They were ignored.  And no one was to worry, the White House insisted, because they had assurances from Nouri's government.
 
When has Nouri's word ever been reliable?  After it was announced Iraq would be releasing him, that he'd been tried and found innocent, the White House began fuming.
 
But they still did nothing.
 
I believe Daqduq is guilty.  I also believe that sometimes the guilty walk.  In the best cases, we have a human justice system, not a perfect justice system.  In the best cases.  Iraq is not the best case.  And I've called out the 'justice' system there many times.  But if someone is found innocent, then that's the verdict.  And the White House was wrong to pressure Iraq to hold someone who had been found innocent.  Nouri was wrong to agree to do so for several months.  He was found innocent.  I think he's guilty.  Sometimes the guilty walk.  It's not fair but neither is life.
 
While I'm not going to rage at the Iraqi justice system over this, I will point out that the White House screwed this up from day one.  They never should have been releasing any of the killers.  It was not in the interest of the American people or the US military to let the killers of 5 US soldiers walk.  It certainly wasn't in the interest of the American people or the US military to let the killers walk to score brownie points with the government of England.  That was Barack's first mistake.  Everything that followed was one long mistake including but not limited to trusting Nouri. 
 
Barack needs to answer for his actions but, sadly, the White House press corps makes clear that they don't care about this story -- repeatedly makes clear.  By contrast, veterans, service members and military families make clear, when we speak to them, that this matters.
 
 
Yesterday, the Defense Dept released the US Army's suicide numbers for last month: "20 potential suicides: five have been confirmed as suicides, and 15 remain under investigation" which is an increase of five from September's numbers.   DoD notes that 2011 resulted in 165 deaths confirmed as suicides and that 2012 has seen 105 confirmed and 61 which are still being investigated.  So if all under investigation currently were to be ruled suicide, October will be the month that 2012 surpassed 2011 for number of army members taking their own lives (166 is the number of suicides if the 61 under investigation end up determined to be suicides).  With two months of data remaining for the calendar year, it is likely 2012 will see an increase in the number of suicides.  Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Tom Tarantino offers at Huffington Post:
 
 
The battle against IEDs required a $45 billion investment in armored vehicles, which have been credited with saving thousands of troops' lives. Protective undergarments to shield service members from blasts have also been fielded. In April, the Army issued a request for proposal for more gear. The fight to protect service members and prevent military suicide will necessitate a different but equally forceful response. We need a unified effort from Congress, the Administration, the Department of Defense, as well as public and private groups at the local, state, and national level.
Leadership is a must in this endeavor. As Congress heads back to Washington, they have the opportunity to seize the initiative and fight for veterans. Votes have been cast and elections have been won or lost, but before the new Congress takes over--which by the way will have 16 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan--the 112th can leave their mark. With only about 15 working days, they'll need to avoid sequestration and prevent the nation from falling off the fiscal cliff, pass a defense authorization bill, and tie up loose ends in a veterans omnibus bill that hopefully will protect student vets, improve women's health care at the Veterans Administration, and help prevent suicide. This short session will be jam-packed, with much to accomplish in a short period of time, but now is not the time for rest. The 2.5 million veterans who served our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have done their part, and now it's time for elected officials to do theirs. There is simply too much at stake for more jockeying that favors politics over solutions. It's time for the 112th to step up to the plate, lead, and show veterans that they've got their backs.
Critical mental health legislation is sitting on members of Congress' desks and needs to be acted upon. Senator Patty Murray's Mental Health Access Act of 2012 would improve access to support services and care for service members, veterans, and their families. The legislation will require DoD to create standardized a suicide prevention program and require the department to oversee mental health care to ensure that best practices are implemented. Understanding the toll that prolonged wars take on families, the legislation would expand eligibility for VA mental health services to family members, helping them to get the care and support needed. Lastly, the act would require VA to establish reliable measures for mental health and adopt an effective staffing plan in order to best serve veterans. Congress needs to act, or veterans will be left behind.
 
 
"And also, before beginning," declared US House Rep Illeana Ros-Lehtinen yesterday morning, "I want to assue the families and friends of four brave Americans killed in the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and our diplomatic personnel serving in high risk posts worldwide, that we are committed to identifying what went wrong and what needs to be done to prevent any further American lives from being lost in such attacks.  Our thoughts and our prayers are also with those wounded during the attack as they face a long and difficult recovery." 
 
 
Ros-Lehtinen is the Committee Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  Yesterday they held a hearing into the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi that killed Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Chris Stevens.  Democrats at the hearing did themselves no favor by not knowing four names.  I'm being really kind due to space limitations and we will let those Democrats remain as nameless as they let Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods be yesterday.  They should be ashamed of themselves for repeatedly saying "Chris Stevens and three other Americans."  But we'll be kind and not humiliate them by naming them -- well not all of them.
 
If US House Rep Frederica Wilson truly believes the four killed are "heroes," she damn well needs to be able to name all four and not just Chris Stevens.  US House Rep Jean Schmidt (a Republican) was able to name each of the four and why they were present in Libya.  It's four names.  You don't look like you respect the four or consider the four people -- let alone heroes -- when you can't even remember or mention their names.  It's embarrassing and it's shameful and, as a Democrat, it's sad to sit through this crap over and over, this empty rhetoric from Democrats who can't even get their staff to write down the other three names for them before the hearing started.  US House Rep Eni F.H. Faleomavaega used the term "heroes" and he was the only Democrat who was able, during the hearing, to name all four.  Anything he said in that hearing carried weight because he came in knowing there were four and, in the hearing, he noted all four by name.  It's not that difficult, as he proved, but it does go to whether you look believable (as he did) or you just look like you're grandstanding as Frederica Wilson and so many others on the Democratic side did.
 
US House Rep Dan Rorabcher noted that at last month's House Oversight Commitee he specifically asked the State Dept's Charlene Lamb (who "was specifically responsible for what level of spending they would have for security at the Benghazi Consulate")  if "budget concerns were actually part of her decision not to increase the level of security, she stated emphatically, no, that was not part of it.  Democrats who spoke before Burton looked foolish to those of us at that October hearing. 
 
 
They looked even worse when, after Burton spoke, they tried to state that the attack was Republicans fault.  Well, the White House blamed a YouTube video, I guess their lackeys in Congress would be quick to blame Republicans.  There are a great many strong Democrats in Congress on this issue.  I'm not tarring and feathering all Democrats in Congress as "lackeys" but if you sat through yesterday's hearing you would realize that a number acted like lackeys. For an example of a non-lackey, you can see US House Rep Karen Bass.  She focused on the issues.  I didn't always agree with her conclusions but she was there for the issues the attack raised and made that clear in her words and the way she conducted herself.  Another one worthy of praise would be US House Rep Albio Sires.  He also made the focus the violence and the dead and wounded.  He wasn't in campaign mode or of the mistaken belief that the White House hired him as defense counsel.  By contrast, a little weasel named Eliot Engel wasted his time and mine.  Now his life is clearly unimportant as evidenced by "we will never forget them" to refer to four Americans he can't name (he can only name Chris Stevens) but my time is valuable and I'm not sitting through a hearing on Bengahzi to listen to an idiot yokel with an ugly mustache insist that determining blame is "political."  Not since Engel rubbed shoulders with raving lunatic who sees Hitler as a "good" has he come off so deranged.
 
This is about 4 people who are dead and it is important to understand how they died because things will happen, even tragic things, but mistakes can be corrected and fixed so that they do not duplicate.  There are people serving all over the world -- including in places where the "United States" is not said, it is spat.  These people are doing a job the government has tasked them with and they have a right to expect a level of safety.  They also need to know that if they are attacked and wounded or killed, the government body that provides oversight of the executive branch, the Congress, will stop at nothing to get the best and most full answer as to what led to their deaths. 
 
 
Chair Illeana Ros-Lehtinen:  The coordinate, pre-planned and brazen attacks against the US Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th was an outrage.  Also disgraceful is the sad parade of conflicting accounts of the attack that we have received from administration officials in the weeks and months since.  Successive revelations and public reports indicate that the administration failed to adequately protect the American Consulate and denied Consulate requests for additional security.  It has come to light that the administration was warned of the deteriorating security system in Benghazi one month before the attack on September 11th with the personnel stationed at the post asserting  that they could not withstand a coordinated assault.  We also know that our consulates sustained two previous attacks this year and that they were approximately ten Islamic militia and extremist training camps nearby yet the administration denied repeated requests for additional security measures.  We have also learned that the Consulate alerted both Libyan authorities and the administration about members of the Libyan security forces possibly compromised with ties to extremists --  as they were caught photographing the Consulate prior to the attack and still the Consulates requests for additional security for additional security were ignored.   The Consulate even warned that the situation was trending negatively and that the daily pattern of violence was the new normal given the minimal capabilities of the Libyan security forces. These revelations make clear that the security situation was deteriorating and that the administration was aware that the security was grossly inadequate.  Undersecretary [Patrick] Kennedy publicly testified that the assault on September 11th was an unprecedented terrorism attack by dozens of heavily armed men.  This explanation is unsatisfactory.  
 
 
Appearing before the Committee were the Government Accountability Office's Michael Courts, RAND Corporation's William Young, Heritage Foundation James Jay Carafano and the American Acdemy of Diplomacy's Ronald E. Neumann.   The hearing was over half-way over before the first of the four witnesses even read from their prepared remarks. 
 
This came about because nearly every member of the entire House Committee on Foreign Affairs had an opening statement to make.  Some were worthwhile.   US House Rep Dan Burton, for example, used his opening remarks to provide background on the previous public House hearing on this issue.  In doing so, he reminded about witness testimony -- witness testimony that didn't get reported but was offered to the House Oversight Committee.
 
US House Rep Dan Burton: Let me just start off by saying that we had a hearing on this issue on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee [for coverage of that hearing, refer to "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot," "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing," "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment" and "What we learned at today's hearing"] shortly after this tragedy occurred and that a lot of the information that we received from government officials -- publicly and privately -- does not comport with the testimony of the people who were at that hearing.  The people who were at that hearing consisted of Eric Nordstrom who was the Regional Security Officer for the US Mission in Libya, Lt Col Andrew Wood who was in charge of the military escort team there, special operations command support team.  It was also Charlene Lamb who was in charge of all of the embassies and consulates around the world as far as the security was concerned who incidentally said when the attack took place she was following it in real time immediately because she was in Washington in her office at the time.  Then we also had Patrick Kennedy who's testified numerous times about this issue.  And the thing that bothers me the most is that Lt Col Wood, in charge of the security forces -- the SST -- and Eric Nordstrom, the Regional Security Officer, said time and time again they needed more security -- particularly at Benghazi and they were denied.  In fact, even though Nordstrom tried to get more security at Benghazi, he was told, "You're asking for the moon and the stars."  Now they were supposed to have five people there but there was an unwritten law, I guess, that you could only have three there.  And yet when Mr. Nordstrom and Lt Col Wood went down and checked the area out, there were three.  There's supposed to be five.  The unwritten rule: there's supposed to be three.  But there was only one there. Only one.  The security was lax.  There were 230 different kinds of incidents -- some pretty strong attacks, some not so strong.  But nevertheless, the security officer in charge and the Lt Col in charge of the security people there contacted Washington time and time again and said, 'We need more security.  There'a s threat of an attack.'  There had been one attack in Benghazi where they blew a hole in the compound wall and yet time and again Ms. Lamb and Mr. Kennedy continually said, 'No, we don't need those.'  No, we don't need those. And they tried to cover their fannies a number of times in their testimony here in this body -- or in this house and it does not comport, it is not consistent with what Mr. Nordstrom who is in charge of that region and Lt Col Woods said.  This is not only a tragedy, it's a perfect example of malfeasance at the State Dept.
 
 
When questions did come, you wondered why they even bothered?  US House Rep Brad Sherman came with talking points prepared.  But why he thought the GAO would have information that's not part of what they are tasked with raises more questions about Brad Sherman than it does about the GAO.  That's a shame because Sherman did have something worth saying.  It wasn't a question for the witnesses but it was something people need to think about: What is the value of having a State Dept presence on the ground in ___?  This is worth exploring. 
 
 
US House Rep Gary Ackerman thought his time for questioning was a time to emote heavily -- that gawdy yellow flower on his lapel wasn't attracting enough attention?  He also thought it was time to define "malfeasance -- which is the malicious and knowing evil doing."  No, that's not what it means.  Instead of suggesting people grab a mirror, Ackerman should pick up a dictionary.  Websters says malfeasance is "wrongdoing or misconduct."   And if you're going to talk stench, or "ask not who the guilty party is," don't show up looking like you're attending a social in Mayberry with a flower pinned flat to your jacket -- with stem and with stem exposed.  For those feeling my critique offers no substance, I believe I was matching the same level of substance Gary Ackerman offered.  In fact, I easily surpassed him. 
 
US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  Let's start by going on the record again so that all may hear this, my last colleague's statement notwithstanding, the lady who made the -- the official, I should say, happens to be a lady, who made the decision at the State Dept what level of spending would be spent for security for the Benghazi Consulate testified under oath that there was no budget consideration whatsoever in her decision.  Under oath.  Anyone suggesting otherwise should not be pointing fingers at hypocrisy at this side of the aisle.  This is not "just a cover up of a third rate burglary."  We have four of our diplomatic personnel dead and it is not a McCarthy era tactic to demand accountability and to demand that the American people are not misinformed about it to the point that they don't know what the threat is.
 
 
And that's a real shame and why the hearing so frustrating.  At the end of last year, I sat through a hearing where Rohrabacher went out of his way to praise Ackerman, to say Ackerman was right and he (Rohrabacher) was wrong.  To praise his colleague across the aisle (the topic was Iraq, Rohrabacher admitted -- in a public hearing -- that Ackerman was correct about Iraq and that he should have listened to him).  And yet now it's descended into a stream of insults launched by Gary Ackerman who is more intent on play White House Consel than he is on serving in Congress and finding out why four Americans died.  Barack promised unity.  No surprise that the House Foreign Affairs Committee is as split as the country.  Rohrabacher launched no personal attack on Ackerman.  Ackerman was not defending himself. If he were, I wouldn't be objecting.  But as with so many other Democrats on that hearing, we couldn't get to reality because they wanted to talk (imply) McCarthyism and other crap that had nothing to do with the hearing.  They wanted to scream and holler -- and Ackerman screamed -- and it was so unprofessional, it was so immature that I'd hoped waiting a day would let me find something of great value in this hearing that I made time to attend.  There was nothing.  Well maybe there was one thing.
 
 
 
 
US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: Alright, now in terms of money for diplomatic security, let's note that this year the State Dept has requested $1.4 billion for worldwide security for its facilities and its personnel and in addition, they have requested $215 million for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.  That comes to $1.6 billion.  At the same time, this administration wants to give Iraq $850 million to train a police force and $900 million for military financing which comes to $1.7 billion.  How can the Obama administration and members of this Committee justify giving more money to Iraq for its security than we are giving to the protection of our diplomats?  I don't expect you [Michael Courts] to answer that.
 
And Courts couldn't.  But maybe someone can.  It's a question worth asking.
 
On Benghazi, Ruth noted last night in "A layer of the lie peels back" that the White House appears to have been playing lawyerly offering technically true statements about the attack if you split it -- as they appear to have done -- into two attacks and not one.  They call the first attack the one on the Consulate and the second attack the one on the safe house.  Congress needs to explore the White House statements with that in mind.  If that is what they are doing, it does not mean they have been truthful.  In fact, it argues they have been deliberately misleading.  Lastly, John Glaser (Antiwar.com) reports, the former CIA Director (as of last Friday) David Petraeus testified to Congress today in a closed-door hearing and "Petraeus maintained that he consistently referred to the Consulate attack as the work of terrorists when talking to Congressional intelligence committees and other government agencies of the Executive Branch."  Glaser goes on to offer the uninformed opinion that Republicans have used the issue as "a political football."  He can make that claim because he hasn't sat through any of the public hearings on this matter.  I have.  And, as a Democrat, I would love it if Gary Ackerman and company weren't disgracing themselves, but they are.  And when John Glaser can explain what charges of McCarthyism and other crap served up by Democrats during these hearings has to do with four dead Americans, I might take his opinion seriously.  Until then, he's just doing rip and write and doesn't know what he's talking about.  He's made this mistake before with regard to Congressional hearings.  Maybe it would be smarter for him to stop offering his opinion on hearings he has not attended? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)