Saturday, September 22, 2012

Beecroft is confirmed, Nouri's not going to New York

Kitabat reports Robert S. Beecroft was confirmed by the US Senate today -- on a voice vote -- as US Ambassador in Iraq.  The article notes that Beecroft has been serving as Charge d'Affaires and acting ambassador since James Jeffrey quit his post (US Ambassador to Iraq) months ago.  They note that he graduated from Brigham Young University and went to college in Berkeley California (UC Berkeley Law School for his law degree) and that he was chosen after the disgraceful Brett McGurk was forced to resign as the nominee back in June. 
 
Beecroft still has to get be sworn in before he departs from Iraq.  Even so, he may be Jalal Talabani to Baghdad.  The Iraqi president was earlier reported to be arriving in Baghdad on Tuesday.  Al Mada reports today that they are now saying it will be the end of next week.  The article makes no mention of Jalal being unable to find a vehicle sturdy enough to support his massive girth but maybe they were just being kind?  Why the pimping of Jalal as savior of Iraq?
 
Because he's a backstabber who stood by Nouri.  And this is the prep-phase of the spin war.  Jalal will be hailed as "the good Kurd."  And, they just know, this will make all others out to be "the bad Kurds." It's an idiotic plan and when I first heard of it being tossed around, I thought someone would point out how stupid it was and how it would be a waste of time and money.  I was wrong.  They appear to honestly believe  that people are stupid and will forget everything that's taken place for nearly two year with just a little freshly crafted spin.
 
It's supposed to go like this: Jalal hails Nouri's 'leadership' and praises his 'plan' and then, look, these others won't go along and  POOF! all the past has vanished and all the Iraqi people know is that Jalal and Nouri are in agreement -- a Kurd and Shi'ite! -- so everyone should be!
 
Reality, Nouri and Jalal are almost always in agreement.  With the exception of his participation in the April 2012 meet-up and his advocating for a no-confidence vote, Jalal's always been on Nouri's side.  What appeared to be a change of heart in April 2012 really looks now like Jalal participated with the intent of de-railing anything that might happen so Nouri would be safe.  (And considering how he stabbed Moqtada, Ayad Allawi, Massoud Barzani and others in the back at the end of May as he refused to forward the legitimate petition onto the Parliament, it really looks like Jalal came into that meeting to spy.)
 
KRG President President Massoud Barzani addressed the World Conference in Rome yesterday.  He noted that the Kurdistan Democracy Party (his political party) was founded in 1946 and that the party supports equality, social justice and diversity.  He spoke of the KRG Parliament which has 111 members, from 11 political parties, 33% of the members are women.  The people are free to be Muslim, Christians and Yezidis.  He noted the exodus from centeral Iraq to the KRG since 2003 and the success the region has in terms of security and business.  All Iraq News states he also made remarks about how the KRG will not live under a dictatorial regime and that the Iraqi government must comply with the Constitution.
 
Meanwhile, the United Nations just dodged a bullet.  It's getting time for the annual Iraqi government begging of please-please-take-us-out-of-Chapter-VII.  Nouri was planning to make the pitch this year but, Al Mada reports, he's now decided not to go to New York because the White House has refused to arrange a face-to-face with Nouri while he is in the US.  This is seen as an insult.  (It may just be that October is a serious campaign month for the US presidential election and Barack will also be taking part in three debates that month.)
 
Alsumaria notes that Nineveh Province Governor Ethel Nujaifi declared today that sectarian militias are behind the attacks on mosques and clerics.  In other news of violence, Alsumaria notes a Salahuddin Province home invasion today in which the son of a government official was killed, a Salahuddin Province roadside bombing claimed the lives of 5 Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul car bombing left two explosive experts injured (they were attempting to defuse the bomb), a Diyala Province roadside bombing left three farmers injured, and 6 people were arrested in Nineveh Province on charges of 'terrorism.'
 
 
In addition, Al Mada reports that Bashar Mustafa has been released by authorities.  Iraq's Deputy Olympic Committee President was at his home when police raided it after midnight, he was then held for hours before he was finally released.
 
 
The following community sites -- plus Pacifica Eveing News -- updated last night and today:
 
 
David Corn's an ass
21 hours ago
 
 
We'll close with this news about The Bat Segundo Show:
 
 
Dear Listeners,
Thank you so much for listening over the years and for your many kindnesses and support of the program. But the time has come for me to move on.
The last episode of The Bat Segundo Show will air shortly before Election Day. The schedule for the last shows — and I'm not sure how many there will be, but we'll probably have around ten more — will be intermittent and irregular. This wasn't an easy choice, but it was a necessary one.
You can read a detailed description of my reasons for ending the show here:
The final episode of The Bat Segundo Show will be recorded at McNally Jackson, located at 52 Prince Street, on October 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM with J. Robert Lennon, who is a deeply underappreciated writer. Lennon, who appeared previously on the 300th episode of The Bat Segundo Show, is one of the most underrated writers working today and I can't think of a more fitting way to end the program. Please stop by and say hello if you can.
This was a very fun part of my life, but I've got to move on. Thanks to friends and loved ones who put up with me. Thanks to the writers and other folks who came on the show, and the publicists who took chances with my format. Thanks to everyone who listened.
Very truly yours,
Edward Champion
aka Bat Segundo
 
 
 

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

iraq
all iraq news  al mada
 
 

I Hate The War

This week, Iraqi journalists in Falluja protested the government (central-government out of Baghdad), ethnic-religious minorities were targeted repeatedly (most infamously with a church being bombed), a police chief of a province was kicked out of office and supposed to be prosecuted (the new police chief has already said he won't be prosecuted), and so much more that we really didn't go into because there was too much else to cover.  We had to cover the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Robert S. Beecroft, the efforts to save US war resister Kim Rivera from deportation, Talabani's return and how those who stood by him in April made sure not to visit him this week, and much more.

Silly us.  We should have made like the American press which has indulged in useless crap all week.  Apparently, journalism isn't wasted enough with Gail Collins twice-weekly columns (or useless book), and Collin-ism needs to infect the bulk of the American press corps.

Useless garbage is passed off as news and entire days are wasted.

If you're not getting how hollow the promise the American news industry made on September 12, 2001 was, you're not paying attention.  Last week, September 11, 2011, another terrorist attack took place -- on the US consulate in Libya.  The White House even finally admitted that Thursday.  Where is the media?

As Ruth pointed out, PBS' The NewsHour didn't even note the White House stated it was a terrorist attack.  They reduced all the events to a few lines in their daily news summary script.  And they didn't pick it up on Friday.

There's no reality or maturity coming out of the American press corps.  Instead, they waste everyone's time with garbage.  They seem to be working to paint Mitt Romney as a rich person . . . and forgetting that Barack Obama bought a million dollar house beofre he was in the US Senate.  Kind of hard to play Barry as the 99% if you include facts, isn't it?

Kind of hard to explain how Barack's wealth has only noticeably increased while he's been in the White House -- again, the same can't be said for the 99%.  While Barack's been in the White House, the poverty level has increased and most Americans are economically worse off than they were four years before.

But by all means, let's run with Harry Reid's insane rants about Mitt Romney's taxes.  Because that really matters, right?

How much Mitt Romney paid really, really matters because . . . suddenly we're a nation of CPAs?  We're all hoping to find a tax error in his returns that we can tip off the IRS to for a little reward money?

There are real stories and real issues effecting America.  Mitt Romney's taxes and his off-hand remarks aren't among them.

During the Bush years, the left practiced a press critique.  When Barack came along, this near-perfected press critique was abandoned by most to instead lie and whore for Barack -- which included organized attacks on the press like when FAIR and the Journolist worked together to savage ABC for asking basic questions of Barack in a debate.

Do you remember FAIR and the Journolisters insisting that the questions being asked of St. Barack weren't high minded and that they were issue-oriented and blah, blah, blah.

They meant none of it, they were just trying to clobber the press into submission for Barry.

A functioning left would have long ago said, "F**k Barack Obama, this is about principal."  They would have left Barack to defend himself and focused on creating a fair press that covered real issues.

They didn't.

And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down 
-- "The Circle Game," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Ladies of the Canyon

And I hope it was worth it to them, all the whoring for Barack.

I hope that they have enough keepsakes and mementos to clutch to their chests.  We don't have a working press.

And we don't have one because this happens over and over.


We could have a working press but . . we really need to elect Jimmy Carter . . . we really need to protect Jimmy Carter . . . we really need to elect Bill Clinton . . . . we really need to protect Bill Clinton . . . . we really need to elect Barack Obama . . . we really need to protect Barack Obama.

I'm so sick of every four years another American auditioning to be the left's Poster Child Victim that we all to rally around.  They act big and tough and certainly strut around like they own the place but damed if every single one of them -- while doing nothing for the poor -- wants the entire left behind them, taking on the press for them, fighting their battles for them.

If we'd stop getting on this bandwagon, we'd accomplish so much more.  (And maybe even teach the cry babies to stand up for themselves.)

We could have had a much better press than we do now.  We had 9-11 which shamed and humiliated the American press because while they'd been playing useless with tabloid stories passed off as news, plots against American citizens had taken place -- apparently rather in the open -- and the press was caught completely by surprise.

We could have used that and built on it.  But we were more concerned with worshipping and protecting Barack.  I kind of thought the Secret Service was paid a huge amount of money each year to protect whomever was president -- didn't realize the White House also needed to go around deputizing.


What's really sad is some point to MSNBC -- with its anaemic ratings -- as proof of something accomplished.

No.

Not only does it suffer poor ratings but it exists to be high profile, to be a display of the excess of partisanship and how it corrupts news.

That happened to  a smaller degree in the early seventies as well and went a long way towards explaining the press veering to the right in the 80s.

MSNBC is Exhibit One when the press decides they've swung to far to the left.  (When they never swung left at all, they just embraced a Democratic president -- that's not the same as swinging left.)  So I hope all those bad hours of ranting and screaming about non-facts and twisted logic is worth it to you a few years from now when the media's swung back to the right again.

We could have had a media critique.  We didn't get one.  The left was building one (some still are, we still do it here) and it was something to behold.  Truly, a spark in 2003 and 2004 really ignited and some of the finest media critiques in the last 100 years were made.

If that had continued, the press would be in a better place today.

But all they had to do was change the topic of their purple prose from Bush-loving to Barack-loving and the press critique (largely) disappeared on the left.  The same people who were outraged that a press would fawn over the occupant of the Oval Office, would refuse to ask the needed and difficult questions, those same people were suddenly thrilled when the press acted the exact same way but the person now benefiting from their incompetence and malpractice was a Democrat.

It's bad enough that this b.s. destroys our country -- and it does.  If you doubt it, look at our bridges across the nation.  If you doubt it, look at the reality of life for the American poor (you'll have to find it by going through the country because Gail Collins and her posse don't give a damn about the poor). But this b.s. destroys the world.  We've got people imprisoned for life -- yes, at Guantanamo but I was referring to the secret sights around the world.  We've got drone wars and secret wars.  And all of this happens because the occupant of the Oval Office (Bully Boy Bush or, now, President Barack Obama) is protected by the press, because the press swoons and sighs instead of doing their damn job.

And this was perfectly captured on the left when Bush occupied the White House.  I remember a great commentary by FAIR's CounterSpin right after the 2005 inauguration.  But come January 2009, FAIR had no objection to the same excesses by the press (if not more) as they rushed to glorify President Barack.

By the left (as a whole) refusing to maintain the standards they supposedly wanted, it allows the right to write them off as hypocrites (as we on the left did with most of the right during the Bush Occupation).  If by contrast, we had maintained our critique, we would have people on the right more than prepared to listen to us instead of seeing us as hypocrites.

Do you realize that if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 election (which could happen) and he continues the Drone War, The Nation's got no standing to criticize him on it.  Not after all their silence on Barack,.  They have ensured that the country will remain split.  (Maybe that's their purpose.)

I'm sorry to be the one to point this out to the Cult of St. Barack but the child in Pakistan killed with Barack's Drone instead of Bush's Drone?  That child's skin didn't burn any softer just because it was Barack giving the order to kill him.  At some point, there will be a Republican president and when that happens far too many people who could have been trusted voices will instead be written off because of their hypocrisy throughout Barack Obama's presidency.  You will reach no one, you will change nothing, the press will continue to be a disaster -- just look at it right now -- but, hey, you made life easier for Barack.  He didn't do the same for the 99%.  But loyal subjects never question their king, they just work for their king, turn over all they've managed to earn to their king and expect nothing in return because nothing is ever given and these subjects never learned how to demand.






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.






Friday, September 21, 2012

Iraq snapshot

Friday, September 21, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, today is both National POW/MIA Recognition Day in the US and International Peace Day around the world, Kim Rivera is arrested, Nouri whines to Joe Biden, bragging rights go to John Kerry not the sad little State Dept spokesperson, sequestration, and more.
 
 
Today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and he issued the following statement today:
 
 
On the third Friday of every September we pay tribute to the lives and contributions of the more than 83,000 Americans who are still listed as Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. "Leave no one behind" is a familiar refrain which echoes through the ranks of our Armed Forces. This motto is also what propels the men and women of Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), who devote their lives to finding the remains of those unaccounted for in foreign lands.
While JPAC's task is challenging, their cause is worthy. Those who never made it home hold a special place in our hearts, and it is the responsibility of the living to give them a proper resting place here at home on American soil.
This past July, the remains of Lt. Col. Clarence F. Blanton of the U.S. Air Force, who was lost on March 11, 1968, in Housphan Province, Laos, were recovered. Lt. Col. Blanton is a symbol for all those who are missing. No matter how much time elapses -- in his case 42 years -- no cause is lost.
We are committed to finding all 83,000 POW/MIA and bringing them back to the home they sacrificed so much to defend, and to give their families an answer.
 
 
At the Pentagon today, there was a National POW/MIA Recognition Day ceremony attended by many including Adm James Innefeld, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former US Senator Chuck Hagel.
 
 
Chuck Hagel: Today the US military is one institution in this country -- by any metric -- that still enjoys the overwhelming support, confidence and trust of theAmerican people. No other institution in America can say that. That is a result of a generation after generation after generation of commitment, to what Ash Carter noted in his speech -- quoting my firend and former colleage [US Senator and former POW] John McCain -- what any POW has said, believes lived, continues to say: "If there is anything more important in society than to anchor that society with a belief in something greater than one's self interest in the future for your children, for your family, for the world, I don't know what it is. This institution, the military, all who sacrifice and serve daily, who have done that for years and through wars have built that institution that still anchors more than ever confidence and trust in our -- our free people, in our free society, and not only how we serve that society but how we keep that free society. Imperfect issues, problems, like all institutions, the world is imperfect. People are imperfect. But it is the POWs and their families, MIAs, those who serve who constantly remind this country of what's good, of what's strong, what's vital and what's decent.
 
 
 
Of this generation's wars -- the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War -- CNN notes there are 9 POWs and MIAs who were rescued. In addition there are two prisoners of war remaining from these two wars. In the Afghanistan War, the POW is Pfc Bowe R. Bergdahl of Ketchum, Idaho who was "Captured in Paktika province, Afgahnistan, on June 30, 2009. The Pentagon declared him Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown on July 1, 2009, and his status was changed to Missing-Captured on July 3, 2009." The Iraq War POW is Spc Ahmed K. Altaie of Ann Arbor, Michigan: "On October 23, 2006, Altaie was categorized as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown when he allegedly was kidnapped while on his way to visit family in Baghdad, Iraq. The Pentagon changed his status to Missing-Captured on December 11, 2006."
 
 
Staying in the US, sequestration appears to be coming shortly. The Congress voted for automatic sequestration to kick in if they were not able to come up with $1.2 trillion cuts to the budget and get it signed by the White House. Veterans services will not be effected by sequestration. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have both testified to Congress about that. The VA will be effected administratively if sequestration kicks in but both have testified it will not effect veterans care.
 
 
The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing yesterday to explore what sequestration, if it happens, will mean for DoD. US House Rep Buck McKeon is the Chair, US House Rep Adam Smith is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee: DoD's Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen Lloyd J. Austin III, Vice Chair of the Navy, Adm Mark Ferguson, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Joseph F. Dunford and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer.
 
 
Chair Buck McKeon: The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the Department of Defense planning for sequestration, The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, and the way forward. Thank you all for being here. This will be the last week that the House is in session until mid-November. Today's hearing will provide members a final opportunity before the lame duck session to inform themselves and their constitutents about how sequestration will be implemented and how those decisions will effect our men and women in uniform and our national security. We had hoped that the President would provide this information in the report required by The Sequestration Transparency Act. Unfortunately, he failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not only was the report late but the report submitted to Congress merely paid lip service to the dire national security implications of these cuts after the president has had over a year to consider this crisis. Moreover, the White House has even gone so far to instruct the Department of Defense not to make preparations for sequestration. Nevertheless, as previous testimony to this Committee has provided many of our military leaders believe that initial preparation for sequestration must occur well in advance of the January 2, 2013 implementation date. For example, when the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, was asked this spring if plans for sequestration were underway, he stated "We are not doing as yet any hard planning. That would probably happen later this summer."
 
 
Ranking Member Adam Smith declared sequestration to be "the most pressing issue facing our nation." I think every Committee should have held hearings this month asking what was being effected. Foreign Relations/Affairs in the Senate and House should have held a hearing to find out how it would effect the State Dept, etc. The Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees (chaired by Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Jeff Miller) did do that, not this month, but repeatedly throughout the year. In addition, Senator Murray has asked questions about this issue in other hearings. (Murray also served on the Super Congress which may be why she takes the issue more seriously than some Committee Chairs in the House and Senate appear to do.)
 
 
If sequestration is implemented, what does it mean? We're noting what the officials told the Committee. Not what they said it might mean, not what they said they thought it might mean but they'd have to get back on that, what was actually said.
 
 
DoD's Robert Hale: We budget separately for OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] and the Base Budget. And you approve each budget. When we actually begin executing, the budget's merge so there's one operation and maintenance army account for actives -- has both OCO and Base spending in there, we would have some authority to move money -- within that account -- and we would use it to try to protect the war time operating budgets. But I don't want to make that sound easy because what that means is we'd have to make disproportionately large cuts in the Base side and that will have some of the effects on readiness and training that are of such concern to us. So we would have some ability and we would move to use it to protect the actual wartime operating budget.
 
 
The Marine Corps Gen Joseph Dunford: Congressman [Joe Wilson], you're correct, 58% of our total obligated authority goes to personnel. Our cost per Marine is not higher, but the proportion that we spend in our budget on personnel is higher. As a result of personnel being exempt in '13, what I alluded to in my opening remarks, is that we would then have to find a preponderance of funds out of operation and maintenance, infrastructure and our modernization accounts. So we'll continue to do things like run Paris Island, we'll absolutely continue to support those Marines and sailors that are in harms way in Afghanistan, we'll support those that are forward-deployed, but where we will see the biggest impact from a training perspective and where those resources will come from are those units that are at-home station. And I think you know that right now, two-thirds of our units that are at-home stationed are already in a degraded state of readiness. They're in a C3, C4 status already and these cuts will further exaserbate deficiencies in home-station readiness. We'll also be unable to support the strategy. One of the things that we are beginning to do now and had intended to do in FY13 is reconstitute our 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force -- which was the core of our contribution to the US Pacific Command -- and the resources that are necessary to support that are unlikely to be available. And then what we'll see across the board in our modernization accounts is delays and so forth that will cause us to delay programs and in some cases do more with less.
 
 
Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer: If sequestration is triggered, the first thing we would do is look at those accounts or those areas that we would want to try to protect and OCO or Overseas Contingency Operations would be one of those. So once you do that, that drives more of a cut into the other accounts. And so, assuming we would protect wartime operations, that would drive higher than a 9..4% cut into our other accounts like our procurement accounts. So what we would have to do -- We have not had specific conversations with the contractor for the [Boeing] KC-46. But depending upon the amount of the cut, we would -- The issue would be we would have to -- because we have a firm fixed price contract -- we would have to open up that contract and so -- and so we would then have to talk to the contractor about revising our payment schedule. And I would guess the contractor would talk to us about, 'Okay, well we can't give you as many airplanes on the schedule that you asked for or we may have to stretch out the airplane. Or, by the way, we may have to charge you more because now the contract's back open.' So clearly as we go down, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned, as we go down the thousands of contracts and thousands of lines, that's the type of process we have to go through with every kind of contract.
 
 
Space and other limitations mean we cover the hearing on bare bones. You can take those answers and think about whatever other government department -- except the Veterans Affairs Department -- and explore what sequestration might mean if it takes place. In terms of the hearing, we've quoted the Chair and he's a Republican. I'm not interested in Adam Smith. Sorry. Even if we had space there's little that I'd include from him -- for reasons that are obvious if you sit through hearings. (Including but not limited to, he's very fond of using his questioning time to offer editorials that use up the entire time and never allow a witness any time to speak.) Of the Democrats, the best performer was US House Rep Susan Davis (not a surprise there, she's one of the most informed members of the Committee -- and one of the most informed members of the Congress) with US House Rep Rob Andrews following closely behind. Among others things, he noted he was voting no on Friday about the House going into recess so everyone would have six weeks before the elections off from DC to return to their home districts where all current members of Congress are either running for office or have decided (or had redistricting decide for them) that they would not run for re-election -- all 435 seats of the House will be voted on in November. Andrews spoke of not understanding how you leave DC with this problem lingering in the air and felt instead it needed to be addressed. His comments were much better than my summary but there's not room for the. My apologies. (He also offered a proposal that was a serious proposal and deserves debate. I don't support it but others might.)
 
 
Staying with the US Congress, on Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House, believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that it is.)
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?
 
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.
 
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.
 
 
Chair John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.
 
 
Kerry proposed this. The Committee agreed with this. In a press briefing on Thursday that can be best be summed up with the line from Private Benjamin (starring Goldie Hawn, script by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer) about "Next time, don't be so quick to raise the white flag," spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisted the State Dept didn't support tying funding in to Iraq's behavior. Excerpt.
 
 
QUESTION: But you've been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday, Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and warn about the aid to Maliki government?

 
MS. NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there's a chicken/egg thing here.
 
 
It's a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the white flag. Always. Reuters reported today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday, they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why?
Because they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want the US money. So, Alsumaria reports, Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already, Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours, have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri that the State Dept's done for months now.
 
 
With a court-ordered dealine looming, the US State Dept has finally made a decision on the MEK. Joby Warrick (Washington Post) reports, "The State Department is preparing to remove the Iranian opposition group Mujaheddin-e Khalq from the U.S. government's terrorist list, siding with advocates who say the controversial organization should be rewarded for renouncing violence and providing intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, senior Obama administration officials said Friday." Approximately 3,400 MEK members remain in Iraq. They were welcomed into the country in the eighties. After the US-invasion in 2003, the US military disarmed them and they entered into protected status which mean something under the Bush administration but meant nothing under the Barack administration. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." Under Barack, 'protected persons' means Nouri may attack and kill you and the US government looks the other way.
 
 
That explains the attacks and the lack of accountability for them. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."
 
 
How bad was it? So bad the members of England's House of Lords not only noted Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq during both attacks, they publicly speculated if he carried messages from the White House okaying the attacks? That's how bad it was.
The MEK in Iraq are known as Camp Ashraf residents because, for years, Camp Ashraf has been their home. They have now been forced to relocate to Camp Liberty and most have been relocated there. The US State Dept defied the federal courts for two years. And then?
Dropping back to the June 1st snapshot:
 
 
Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports, "A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds, "The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had violated the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut' unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet to make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The courts and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.) What generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united front because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the case from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the judicial branch has no security forces.
 
 
The court gave them until October. Mark Hosenball, Andrew Quinn and Vicki Allen (Reuters) note, "Officials said this week that the final large group of dissidents had moved from Camp Ashraf to the new location, ending a long standoff with Iraqi authorities." Elise Labott (CNN) speaks with a number of unnamed officials who undermine Hillary, attack her decision, insist the group is a cult and otherwise make clear that they do not enjoy their jobs currently. (Don't worry, one's leaving.) At the State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about the MEK.
 
 
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask what you could say about the MEK and the de-listing.
 
 
MS. NULAND: I cannot say a lot at the moment, but what I can say is as part of the review process that we have made clear has been ongoing here for some time, the Department is now in the process of sending a classified communication from the Secretary to the Congress today regarding the designation of the MEK. I'm not in a position to confirm the contents of this because it's classified, but we anticipate being able to make a public announcement about it sometime before October 1st.
So with that, I'm going to have to excuse --
 
 
QUESTION: October 1st.
 
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah, exactly.
 
 
QUESTION: What's today?
 
 
QUESTION: It's September 21st.
 
 
QUESTION: The 21st?
 
 
MS. NULAND: Exactly.
 
 
QUESTION: Sometime in the next ten days?
 
 
MS. NULAND: Correct.
 
 
Because it's always news when a man of his girth moves, Al Mada reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani plans to arrive in Baghdad on Tuesday and get started on solving the political crisis -- if he's feeling good, the report states. AKnews reports State of Law MP Ali al-Shalah has declared that Jalal will be "able to find the solution for the current political crisis." However, Raman Brusk (AKnews) reports, "Kurds expect Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take 'practical steps' to end the file of the disputed areas between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), said" Mohsen al-Saadoun, MP and Vice Chair of the Kurdish Blocs Coalition. Al Mada notes the Kurdistan Alliance states that there will be no political agreement without the consent of KRG President Massoud Barzani.
 
 
If Jalal Talabani does make it to Baghdad to work on political issues, he'll be working with one less vice president since Tareq al-Hasehmi remains in Turkey after Nouri bringing charges against him for terrorism. The 'judges' ruled September 9th that he was guilty. Nouri's State of Law political slate wasted no time running to Al Mada to insist that no one gives a damn about Tareq, not even in Iraqiya, and that no one was worried about Tareq, that he has no role in the government, he is "finished" and he has no role in government. Really? He still holds his position as Vice President. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq was targeted when al-Hashemi was. As Nouri charged Tareq with "terrorism," he demanded that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post (it was an attack on Iraqiya -- the political slate that bested Nouri's State of Law in the 2010 elections). This followed Saleh al-Mutlaq calling Nouri a dictator. And he didn't just make the remark in passing, he made to the media. December 13, 2011, Arwa Damon and Moahmmed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was 'shocked' to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as 'the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq.' He said Washington is leaving Iraq 'with a dictator' who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks." The round ups, the mass arrests continue. What's changed is Nouri and Saleh have kissed and made up and Saleh now trots after Nouri like an obedient dog or a cooing bird flying overhead. They travel together now and Saleh's always finding a silver lining. Al Mada reports he gushed that Nouri's agreed not to allow the Justice and Accountability Commission to target college professors.
 
 
Isn't that just wonderful? Unless . . . maybe you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission not only was not ever supposed to have anything to do with educators but also you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission was supposed to have expired years ago. If you know that, if you know that the Justice and Accountability Commission died and that Parliament let it die (by refusing to approve another committee), then why would you think it was good that the Commission was doing anything to begin with?
 
 
Let's drop back to the January 25, 2010 snapshot and, for those who've forgotten, Saleh al-Mutlaq was furious back then. The Justice and Accountability Commission had barred him from running for office -- even though he was currently an MP -- would not allow him to run in the 2010 elections. He was angry, he was mad. He insisted he was no terrorist. And he told the world a few other things when he appeared on Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera), we'll just note the most key passage.
 
 
Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people? Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament. You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer. Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on. Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification? Is it Prime Minister al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq? Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this?
 
 
Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone. I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this. And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody. The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it. You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that? We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally. The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president. And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party].
 
 
 
The Justice and Accountability Commission, Saleh told the world, was frozen and Parliament didn't allow another one to form. That was 2010. So how is this a good thing that the same commission is going to be around? It's not. Saleh al-Mutlaq is an embarrassment.
 
 
Alsumaria notes a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left another person injured, that a Washash mosque was stormed by assailants and an Imam was shot dead, and a Tarmiya roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left two more injured. All Iraq News has the 2 dead as police officers (the two wounded also a police officers) and also notes a Baghdad home invasion of a retired police officer's home in which he was shot dead.
 
 
 
Back to the US, Goldie Hawn Tweeted.

"@LiamJBayerSr: Happy International Peace day to all! @goldiehawn Thanks for sharing such a great image. Happy International Peace Day!"

 
 
The United Nations declared today to be International Peace Day. And to celebrate it early, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper kicked Iraq War veteran and US war resister Kimberly Rivera out of Canada yesterday so she could be arrested. Canada's CTV explored the issues yesterday.

Sarika Sehgal: The first female soldier to seek refuge in Canada has lost her fight to stay and has been deported. Tonight Kimberly Rivera is back on US soil and in US custody. She was detained as soon as she reached the border. Rivera, who is married, has four children. Two of them were born here in this country. She served three months in Iraq but became disillusioned with the war. She came to Canada while on leave in 2007 and eventually sought refugee status. Her application was denied. That decision was later struck down. Today immigration officials again ordered her to leave. Jesse McLaren is a spokesperson with the War Resisters Support Campaign. He joins me now in the studio to discuss this. What is your reaction to what happened with Kimberly?

Jesse McLaren: It's been three things. First of all, we've been amazed by the outpouring of support for Kimberly Rivera over the past couple of weeks. There's been more than 20,000 signatures on a petition, there's been rallies from coast-to-coast. And this really reaffirms that Canadians want to continue our proud tradition. Now the second thing we've seen is that the government has been actively intervening against that mass support to try and deport war resisters where they are going to be jailed in the US. And so unfortunately today, Kimberly was sent across and despite the reassurances by government lawyers, she was immediately arrested.

Sarika Sehgal: So what happens to her now?

Jesse McLaren: She is going to be subject to court-martial. Previous war resisters who were deported by the Harper government were given disproprotionately harsh sentences because they spoke out in Canada so that amounts to persecution. So that is a fate that potentially awaits her but we already know she's already being punished. She's been deported from her new country. She's been separated from her family. And she's now been arrested. And that is at the behest of the Harper government.

Sarika Sehgal: Now you're saying separated from her family because two of her kids were born here in Canada, right?

 
Jesse McLaren: Her entire family has gone back to the US.

 
Sarika Sehgal: Oh. They left. Okay. What -- how common is this? War resisters or people being deported back?

 
Jesse McLaren: So there's dozens, even perhaps hundreds of war resisters in Canada. They have the support of the majority of Canadians, of two motions of Parliament, of international law, of Canadian tradition and the Harper government has already departed two: Robin Long and Clifford Cornell. Robin was also separated from his family -- from his Canadian-born son. And they were given harsh jail sentences. Much harsher than the majority of people who left the armed forces and those sentences were harsh because they spoke out in Canada.

Sarika Sehgal: What is the government saying or responding? How are they responding?

 
Jesse McLaren: The government claims to not be involved but in fact Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has a strong record. Firstly, he labeled war resisters bogus refugee claimants and the Canadian Council of Refugees clearly was dismissive of that and claimed that that provided evidence of the strong appearance political interference. Second of all, he's actually institutionalized his own personal ideological beliefs with what's called Operational Bulletin 202. And this is basically an instructive where he's told immigration officials to flag all US Iraq War resisters as "criminally inadmissiable" even though they refused to be criminally involved in the war in Iraq. And Amnesty International and the former chair of the Refugee Board have spoken out against Operational Bulletin 202, saying that it mistates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of immigration. And finally, just this week, his lawyers claimed that the risk of Kimberly being arrested was merely speculative where in fact we have proof today that she was arrested just as we'd feared.

 
Sarika Sehgal: Okay, thanks so much for joining us.

 
Jesse McLaren: Thanks.
 
 
Amnesty International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada. Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday 20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of conscience. Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to be a conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a prisoner of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon arrival in the United States. Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses either to perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies for non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars. The law of the United States only recognizes the right to conscientious objection where a person forms an opposition to war in any form.

Full Text

Amnesty International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada. Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday 20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of conscience.
Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to be a conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a prisoner of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon arrival in the United States.
Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses either to perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies for non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars. The law of the United States only recognizes the right to conscientious objection where a person forms an opposition to war in any form.
Wherever such a person is detained or imprisoned solely for their beliefs as a conscientious objector, Amnesty International considers that person to be a prisoner of conscience, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.
Amnesty International believes that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as recognized in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Kimberly Rivera formed an understanding of her position as a conscientious objector over a period of time while she was deployed in Iraq. At one point her convictions caused her to stop carrying her rifle while on duty in Iraq.
Amnesty International has followed the cases of multiple U.S. soldiers who have objected to military service on grounds of conscience since the U.S. led conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Amnesty International has observed multiple U.S. soldiers who maintain principled objections to military service imprisoned solely on the basis of their beliefs. Some soldiers have been imprisoned despite pending applications for conscientious objector status, some have been imprisoned after their applications for conscientious objector status have been wrongly refused, other soldiers have been deployed to combat zones despite pending applications for conscientious objector status.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Nuland tries to smackdown Kerry

In yesterday's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland shot down an idea that the press tied to Senator John Kerry.

QUESTION: Yes. Senator Kerry yesterday threatened to restrict U.S. aid to the Government of Iraq if they continue to allow Iran to use the airspace of Iraq to send supplies of weapons to Syria. What do you want – and the Iraqis denied today that they are allowing Iran this. So can you tell us something about this issue, please?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been very clear about our ongoing conversation with the Government of Iraq and our view that they either need to deny over-flight requests for Iranian aircraft going to Syria or to require that such flights land in Iraqi territory for inspection. As they know, as you know, Iran is under international obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1747 not to export arms or related material, including to Syria, and all UN members are obligated to prohibit the procurement of such items. It’s also the case that all countries, including Iraq, are obligated under UNSCR 1929 to seize and dispose of prohibited items found in inspections, and UNSCR 1929 also calls on all countries to inspect cargo to and from Iran. So we are continuing to work with the Iraqis on this and to encourage maximum vigilance.

QUESTION: Sorry. Does that apply to just flights going from Tehran to Damascus, or from anywhere in Iran to Damascus or anywhere to Syria? It doesn’t apply to flights leaving Iran and going to perhaps third – to other countries that then might turn around and go fly to Damascus?

MS. NULAND: Well, UNSC 1929 and 1747 are with regard to Iranian exports. So if Iran is exporting to Syria, that’s one issue. If they’re –

QUESTION: No, no, I understand. This is having to do with what you’ve asked the Iraqis. Say that there is an Iranian plane that’s flying from Tehran to Malta – I’m making it up – somewhere else, somewhere in the Mediterranean. Are you telling the Iraqis that you want them to make – force that, have that – make that plane, if it’s using Iraqi airspace, that the Iraqis should make that plane land, and they should inspect it because it might then fly from Malta or wherever it’s going to Damascus? Or is it only flights that go from point A, Tehran or wherever in Iran, to point B, Damascus or wherever in Syria?

MS. NULAND: We’re asking the Iraqis to be vigilant with regard to any abuse of their airspace by Iran regardless of where it starts and where it’s finished that could be in violation of these UN Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: So you want them to take – to make every plane, every Iranian plane flight that uses its airspace to land so it can be inspected?

MS. NULAND: We’ve suggested that they can either deny over-flight, or they can request inspection if they want to be maximally vigilant.

QUESTION: But not just planes going directly to Syria, every plane?

MS. NULAND: This goes to the question of planes from Iran that could be abusing Iraqi airspace.

QUESTION: Okay. But what about other countries around there – Azerbaijan or countries where – that Iranian –

MS. NULAND: We have clear concerns about Iran arming Syria. We also have UN Security Council resolutions that expressly commit countries to support the arms embargo from Iran to other countries. So it’s a particular situation with regard to Iran.

QUESTION: On this matter, please.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: But you’ve been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday, Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and warn about the aid to Maliki government?

MS. NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there’s a chicken/egg thing here.

QUESTION: But the Iraqis categorically deny that their airspace has been used to transfer arms from Tehran to Damascus. You don’t accept their claim, and they are one of your best allies, and a lot of money and blood are spent in Iraq?

MS. NULAND: You know our view that Iran will stop at nothing to try to help prop up the Assad regime, so we are asking for vigilance and giving advice about how that can be best applied.

QUESTION: Sorry. Just a quick – you disagree – the Administration does not share – does not support Senator Kerry in this idea?

MS. NULAND: I think I just said that we don’t support linking the assistance because the assistance goes to help strengthening the very systems that we want to see work better in this case.

QUESTION: Okay. So would you say that’s another strike in the Senator’s campaign to become the next Secretary of State?

MS. NULAND: I’m certainly not talking about campaigns of any kind.


It's hard to tell what's the bigger embarrassment these days, the State Dept itself or Victoria Nuland.  But as many in the State Dept point out, Nuland's most likely gone in January.  They can't imagine the neocon being kept in place by John Kerry or another Barack appointee if Barack wins re-election and they can't imagine a Mitt Romney administration keeping her on.  She's been a total embarrassment. So we can all take joy in the fact that, in a few months, Victoria Nuland's pro-war ass may finally be sent packing.  In the Bush administration, she worked for Dick Cheney.  Why the hell Democrats allowed this War Hawk to be in Barack's administration is one of the many questions that The Nation, The Progressive and other party organs work very hard never to ask, let alone try to answer.


On Nuland's idiotic remarks.  It doesn't really matter what the State Dept wants and the press had it wrong.  It's Senator John Kerry's idea, yes, but it was widely embraced.

See that's what happens when the crap-ass US media can't do their damn job.  They put how many people following Barack and Romney around?  And then they don't have anyone to cover Congressional hearings -- or anything else.

John Kerry made that proposal on Wednesday, it's in that day's snapshot:

Chair John Kerry:  Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad?  What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government.  My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this.  We're continuing to engage on it.  And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people.  It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.
 
Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late.  If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh,  that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response?  I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.
 
Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%.  I'll continue to engage.  And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.
 
Chair John Kerry:  Well I think that it would be very hard.  I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways.  So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so. 



John Kerry is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Senator Bob Casey agreed with him.  Senator Richard Lugar agreed with him.  Senator Bob Corker actually spoke with him about this topic before the hearing started.  No one on the Committee disagreed with John Kerry.  It's not just him.  It's the entire Committee.  Within the Senate?  There's enough support for this action right now.  Instead of dismissing it so rudely, as Nuland did, if the State Dept really didn't want it to happen, Nuland should have spoken a little more diplomatically. 

This goes to an issue Barack doesn't understand himself because he was barely in the Senate.  But while Barack (and guru Samantha Power) loves Nouri, the Congress doesn't.

In fact, if any news outlet had done their damn job, that would have been in reports on Wednesday and Thursday.  But what reports?  What outlets filed?  I know CNN did because I was asked to link.  (This has been a crazy week.  As noted yesterday, I've steered any time that could be spared to the issue of Kim Rivera. I'll try to work in the link today.)  But where were the reports?

And where in the whatever few reports there was did a journalist try to convey how disliked Nouri al-Maliki is by the Committee?

Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, John Kerry, Richard Lugar, on and on it went with everyone noting the reports of Nouri moving towards more authoritarian and sectarian 'leadership.'  That's not surprising.  This is the Committee that condemned Nouri repeatedly.  Barack was on this Committee but never made it to a hearing unless it was packed the press.  I know because we covered the hearings.  The press can't do their damn job -- and that's a criticism of the editors and producers who are making the assignments -- but we did it.  And Barack was never present.  He didn't just refuse to hold hearings in his subcommittee (which covered Afghanistan), he refused to attend hearings unless the press corps was there -- TV cameras guaranteeing network exposure.

So Barack really doesn't grasp the sentiment towards Nouri.  He could speak to Joe Biden.  Biden was among the ones making very clear that America couldn't trust Nouri -- back when Biden was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Barack could talk to Hillary who, of course, spoke out against Nouri just like Joe did.

The press -- especially the New York Times but not just them -- gives you this idea that Nouri being a dictator is a strange idea that only a few critics think.  The reality is Democrats have been saying so in Congress since 2006.  That includes the current Secretary of State, Vice President, Special Envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense as well as many others. Congressional Republicans began expressing their concerns publicly starting especially in the middle of 2007.  That would include the current Secretary of the Army.

But you don't know that because you're not told that.  Instead you get Tim Arango with a piece about how someone -- Ayad Allawi? -- has just said Nouri's moving towards a dictatorship and it's treated as though this criticism is a little unwarranted and a little out of the mainstream.  That's a bold faced lie.

And if Barack had spent anytime as senator doing his job, he'd be aware of that and wouldn't have listened to Samantha Power's unwise counsel that Nouri needed to be backed (in 2010) because he would provide stability.  A dictatorship does provide stability, is that what the White House wanted?

(Samantha offered the advice.  Strongly.  That doesn't let Barack off the hook.  He's responsible for what he chooses to do.)

There is a complete disconnect between what goes on in Congress and what is being reported.  I'm not talking about some secret conspiracy or anything like that.  I'm saying members of Congress are very vocal about where they stand and most of the time the press has no idea because the outlets don't feel coverage is needed unless a David Petraeus or some other big name goes to testify.   Then and only then will most outlets make the effort to send someone (and that someone usually has two other potential things to cover so he or she is there for opening statements, the first bit of questioning and then has to move on to look into another potential story).  People rightly complain about the lack of investigative reporting but it's equally true that our media is failing us in coverage of Congressional hearings.  We do not know what's discussed or where representatives stand for the most part.  The only US outlet that attempts to do serious Congressional coverage is the Associated Press.  (On veterans issues, you can also count on Stars and Stripes, and Air Force/Navy/Military Times.)

Wednesday's hearing demonstrated that the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy lied to Congress in June (we covered that in yesterday's snapshot) and if we had a press that functioned, that would be a widely reported story.  Instead, those at the State Dept press briefing yesterday don't even know about it.

But someone should and they should be asking why Kennedy lied that the US had land-lease agreement for all those facilities built at great tax payer expense in Iraq?  He should be asked about the facility -- in addition to the police training center in Baghdad that is the reason the June hearing was called -- Robert S. Beecroft told Congress was just transferred and about the facility Beecroft said was about to be transferred.

See, that's the job of the press.  To provide oversight and to press for answers so you have an informed citizenry.  Tax payer money was spent -- millions -- based on what the current administration felt they would be using in Baghdad and they failed to secure land-lease agreements.  These facilities are now being turned over for free to the Iraqi government.  After all the US tax dollars spent.  And the reason they're being turned over for free is the administration did not do their job.  That's why the facility in Kirkuk is being handed over.  They have wasted US dollars via their neglect and apparent incompetence.  This should be a front page story.

But for it to be reported, reporters would have to know what took place.  And editors and producers are more concerned these days that their reporters Tweet, and Facebook and do everything but what they should be doing.  In addition, they're more interested in spreading them over several different beats than they are interested in giving the time and space to nail down a story.

Today we need to cover, in the snapshot, a hearing that I attended yesterday.  We also need to make room for a sub-theme in this entry because it goes to the problem with the State Dept and Iraq. Hopefully, they'll be room for both.




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