Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Re-election?

M.J. Lee of POLITICO reports:

In a dozen key swing states across the country, President Barack Obama is trailing Mitt Romney by 5 percentage points and Newt Gingrich by 3 percentage points, according to a new Gallup/USA Today poll on Tuesday .

The survey, which included Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, found that Obama is running behind the former Massachusetts governor, 43-48 percent, while he is losing to the former House speaker, 45-48 percent.


And you can also refer to Cokie Roberts' analysis from Monday's Morning Edition (NPR):

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

And let's hear one more number. In a CBS/New York Times poll released on Friday, more than half the respondents, 54 percent, said that President Obama does not deserve to be re-elected.

The president appeared on CBS last night, telling "60 Minutes" why he thought he would win the job again, despite that number. And we're going to talk about that and more with NPR's Cokie Roberts, who joins us most Mondays.

Cokie, good morning.

COKIE ROBERTS, BYLINE: Hi, Steve.

INSKEEP: OK, how do you win re-election when most people tell pollsters you don't deserve it?

ROBERTS: Well, and close to 70 percent in that same poll said that the president hasn't made progress in fixing the economy. And you remember back in 2009, a couple of weeks after the inauguration, he said that, quote, "if I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."



There's more to it, that's just the start.

Can Barack be re-elected?

Only if we're really, really stupid.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, December 13, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, so many press lies continue as well (CNN may take the prize today for their re-invention of how a government is formed in Iraq), however, NBC and NPR deserve praise, Iraq's Parliament -- per their Speaker -- is willing to go for "partial immunity," Nouri intends to ignore the UN (and the European Union's) call for more time on Camp Ashraf, another province wants to go semi-autonomous, and more.
Let's start in the US and with some veterans news. US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office

Tuesday, December 13, 2011 (202) 224-2834

Senator Murray's Statement on Drop in Veterans Homelessness

(Washington D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following statement after the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that their annual point-in-time survey of veterans homelessness showed an estimated 12% decrease in homeless veterans.

"This is welcome news. It means that the steps we have taken to invest in the HUD-VASH housing voucher program, prioritize veterans employment, and support rapid re-housing efforts are making an impact.

"No one who has made sacrifices to serve our nation should ever be homeless, and this problem should never be ignored. I've been proud to work with the Obama Administration to stem the tide of this national crisis and am pleased that we are moving toward the bold goals they've laid out. We have a long and difficult road ahead, but it's clear that with investments in proven solutions and cooperation between government agencies we are making progress."


###

Matt McAlvanah

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834 - press office

202--224-0228 - direct

matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov

News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues his visit in the US. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) reports that Nouri has several issues to address in the visit including the issue of trainers and immunity, bilateral relations, garnering US support at the UN for removing Iraq from Chapter VII, security, energy, education, and judicial partnerships and the F16 aircraft order. Sheikh notes the F-16s are in place of the F-18s Iraq wanted but the US wouldn't sign off on due to concerns that technology might be leaked to Iran. Al Rafidayn notes that US Nationcal Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor declared yesterday that the US had agreed to sell Iraq a second batch (18) of F-16s.
There's a development on the trainers front. In what Al Mada calls a remarkable development, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi publicly declared yesterday that Parliament has agreed to grant foreign troops "partial immunity." US talks broke down over one legal reading-- no the official administration reading of the law - that US troops could not stay in Iraq without immunity granted by the Parliament. As negotiations continue, the Parliament is now ready to offer "partial immunity."
CONAN: Though the president cheers his accomplishment, you say not so fast.
KOPPEL: I do say not so fast, and I think he knows better. But he's right, he did make the campaign promise to get all the troops out, and all the troops will be out, save 157 who will be guarding the embassy, and a few hundred U.S. military trainers. But as you pointed out, 16 to 17 thousand others will be remaining behind, and the extraordinary thing, Neal, is we're hearing echoes now of what we heard nine years ago. You know, we can't have that smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. No one is actually using that particular formulation anymore, but the fear of nuclear weapons. The danger of a nation that is supporting terrorism. Oil, which was the great unspoken issue in 2002 and 2003, very much a part of this. The difference, of course, now is that the target is Iran, not Iraq. But the two are very close to one another, and the fact of the matter is that Iran is exercising an enormous influence throughout Iraq. And the oil fields, which have under the surface, they have something - I believe it's the second-largest reserves of any country in the world. That's all very close to Iran, and if Iran were to exercise significant political, let alone military, control in that region, together with their own oil and gas, they would have the capacity to wreak havoc on Western economies.
During the segment, they took calls from listeners and noted Ted's report on last night's Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC). Here's an excerpt of Ted's report from Iraq and it's where they are discussing the US consulate in Basra.


Ted Koppel: If those Iranian backed militias were to launch a full scale attack on this consulate, would the US calvary ride to the rescue?

US Ambassador James Jeffrey: We depend upon the Iraqis and if we need security support, we will turn to them and we will tell them, "I've got a problem in Basra and you need to help us.

Ted Koppel: The question is will they?

US Ambassador James Jeffrey: I believe they will.

Ted Koppel: That's what an ambassador has to say about his hosts. This is the man who might actually have to deal with that nightmare, Lt Gen Robert Caslan. General, how are you going to get 1320 people out of there? I mean if you've 24 hours notice that something like this was going to happen, you're telling me the Iraqi government would evacuate immediately? Would get them all out of there?

Lt Gen Robert Caslan: I would argue that we do have, in theater, whether it's in Kuwait or elsewhere in theater, that we fall under the central command, Centcom, and I feel confident that Centcom has the necessary assets to take whatever measures they need to to counter that attack.
In addition to the reporting on Rock Center with Brian Williams (there are online features from last night's show including some that are online only, FYI) Brian Williams also spoke with Ted after the report. Excerpt of that.

Brian Williams: I wrote down the words "dangerously exposed?" while watching the piece. So many people speaking through clenched jaws. You can almost hear it in the voice of that Lieutenant Colonel from the 1st cavalry. Why aren't the remaining Americans to be considered dangerously exposed?

Ted Koppel: They are. They are dangerously exposed. And you have to remember, Brian, that the military command in Iraq did not want the US troops heading home. The commanding general asked for 27,000 troops to stay behind. The fact of the matter is, if the Iranians were to launch an attack against the consulate in Basra, you have to be willing to put your money on the Iraqi government. And if the Iraqi government doesn't do it, who else is going to do it? Well as you've heard there are a lot of American troops in that region and I would put my quota on saying, they're coming back and they'll be the ones to evacuate.

Ted is raising serious issues and, to their credit, NPR today and NBC last night (and anchor Brian Williams) were willing to go beyond the nonsense on Iraq that has cluttered up so many networks -- broadcast and cable, commercial and PBS (The NewsHour hasn't done anything like what NPR and NBC have done this week). With Nouri al-Maliki visiting the US right now, you would assume everyone would be trying to offer something deeper than a bumper sticker and platitudes. But that's all the airwaves have been interested in. Some might argue CNN deserves credit for Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq's report which includes:
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.
"America left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said. "People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster. Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."
Any credit the above might get it outweighed by an attempt to distort reality -- either due to time, space or just not being honest. They also insist:
Al-Maliki won a second term as prime minister in 2010 after a months-long dispute among the leading parties in the country's parliamentary elections. Al-Mutlaq's largely secular Iraqiya movement won two more seats than al-Maliki's party, but a merger of the premier's Shiite Muslim slate with a smaller Shiite bloc put him first in line to form a government.
No, that is not what happened and that's grossly embarrassing for CNN. I'm embarrassed for them. The Constitution outlines what happens in the elections. Nouri didn't follow it. He also got an opinion from the court he controls in his favor. Per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) had the first crack at forming a government. But Nouri refused to follow the Constitution. The United Nations actually was exploring a request from some Iraqi officials to put a caretaker government in place (during the political stalemate caused by Nouri refusing to step down) but the US government blocked that. I don't expect CNN to tell the truth about what the US government did; however, the Iraqi Constitution is a public document. And how the government is formed following an election is detailed precisely in the Constitution. There's no need to 'invent' or 'improve' upon reality. Just stick to the law. Nouri refused to and CNN refuses today to inform people of that fact.
Nouri's visit ends shortly. His return to Iraq should be very interesting. We're back to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's press conference yesterday. In it, Dar Addustour reports, he declared that he and/or members of Parliament -- not Nouri -- was the target of the assassination attempt, he also stated that 15,000 US employees for diplomatic reasons was illogical, and that Nouri will be appearing before Parliament to answer questions regarding the country's military readiness.
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left five more people (three were police officers) injured, 2 Christians (husband and wife) were shot dead in Mosul, an Ishaqi sticky bombing claimed 2 lives and left three people injured, a Falluja gun and bomb attack in which 3 people died and five were injured (three of the five were judges), 1 police colonel was shot dead in Mosul and a Shirqat sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, "The judges were headed to Ramadi, where they work. One of them is the chief judge of the criminal court there."
Al Mada reports Diyala Province's provincial council voted Monday to become a semi-autonomous region. Iraq has 18 provinces. Three of them -- Sulaymaniyah, Dahuk and Erbil -- are semi-autonomous and form the Kurdistan Regional Government. Al Mada explains that, following the vote, members of the council held a press conference where they explained that the majority vote of the members meant they had now signed a formal request to move towards semi-autonomy. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) quotes provincial council member Suhad al Hiyali stating, "There is nothing in the constitution that talks about the necessity of holding an official session for the council to sign the request. We tried every legal way with the central government to have administrational and financial authorities that enable the members to practice their role in helping the people who voted for us. But we failed and that is why we used our last legal right, announcing the region."


Thursday, October 27th, Salahuddin Province's council voted to go semi-autonomous. The next step would be a referendum (that Nouri al-Maliki's government out of Baghdad would have to pay for) and, were the popular vote to back up the council and were the rules followed (always a big if with Nouri as prime minister), Baghdad would control only 14 provinces (of the 18). Friday, October 28th, residents of Anbar Province took to the streets advocating for their province to follow Salahuddin's lead. When Nouri finally issued a public statement on Salahuddin's move, what did he do? Play the B-card. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) quoted a statement from Nouri declaring, "The Baath Party aims to use Salahuddin as a safe haven for Baathists and this will not happen thanks to the awareness of people in the province. Federalism is a constitutional issue and Salahuddin provincial council has no right to decide this issue." Yesterday Aswat al-Iraq reported, "Iraqi Parliament Speaker Usama Nujaifi today charged the Cabinet with violating the constitution by rejecting requests to refer Salahal-Din Province's request to declare itself a region to the Election Commission." How could Nouri be violating the Constitution? Back in October, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explained, "In actual fact, article 119 of the Iraqi constitution requires only that a referendum be held in a province following a request for regional status by one-third of the members of the provincial council, or one-tenth of the population." From the Iraqi Constitution:


Article 119:

One or more governorates shall have the right to organize into a region based on a request to be voted on in a referendum submitted in one of the following two methods:
First: A request by one-third of the council members of each governorate intending to form a region.
Second: A request by one-tenth of the voters in each of the governorates intending to form a region.

Per the Constitution, Salahuddin Province has already met step one. And met it back in October. Nouri's refusal to follow the next step is what puts him in violation of the Constitution. Attacks on residents of Salahuddin Province may have influenced the decision to go semi-autonomous (some public figures in the province have said it did, some have said it did not). Regardless, it wasn't a smart move on Nouri's part to launch a crackdown on political enemies. Reporting on fears in Salahuddin Province, AP notes, "In Tikrit there's a perception -- right or wrong -- that the national government treats the Sunnis, and especially people from Salahuddin, differently from Shiites." Reporting on that crackdown and on what some have seen as a power grab by Nouri, Jack Healy, Tim Arango and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) offer this call on Nouri's claim that the crackdown was needed because of 'Ba'athists' who were out to destroy the government:
"It's highly unlikely to be much validity behind" the coup plot, said a Western official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, to avoid upsetting relations with the Iraqi government. "Baathism here is a symbol that Maliki uses as a bogyman. It gives them the leeway to go around arresting people. It's about a climate of fear."



The Tehran Times reports, "The Iraqi ambassador to Iran has said that according to the 'irreversible decision of Iraq's government all members of Mojahedin Khalq Organization should leave the country by end of 2011." Press TV adds, "In a recent visit to Baghdad, the UN special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, urged Iraqi officials to extend the deadline for MKO presence in Iraq."
Background, Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. 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 8th of this year 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." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
Martin Kobler is the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Iraq. Attorney Geoffrey Robertson (Daily Beast) shared his opinion of Kobler last week, "The U.S. has abandoned them and UNAMI, the remaining U.N. mission, has been pathetic -- its 'ambassador,' a German diplomat, has refused to meet the residents and has allowed himself to be fobbed off for months by the government. He is not even objecting to Camp Ashraf's closure, but only asking for its residents to be relocated inside Iraq, which would make it easier for more of them to be killed." Kobler offered testimony to the UN Security Council last week and it included three steps that need to be taken.



SRSG Martin Kobler: The Secretary-General has spoken personally to Mr. Maliki to appeal for flexibility and for full support for the UN's efforts to faciliate this peaceful solution the government has assured that it seeks. He has asked me to attach the highest priority to this case. In trying to facilitate a solution, we are emphasizing a number of important points. First, that lives are at stake and must be protected. The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety, security and welfare of the residents. Any forced action that results in bloodshed or loss of lives would be both ill-advised and unacceptable. Second, we believe that any workable solution must be acceptable to both the government of Iraq and to the residents of Camp Ashraf. The solution must respect Iraqi soveriegnty on the one hand and applicable international humanitarian human rights and refugee law on the other hand. Third, a solution must also respect the principle of nonrefoulement. No resident of Camp Ashraf should be returned to his or her home country without consent. While some progess has been made in our latest discussions in Baghdad, many obstacles remain to arriving at a plan that would meet the concerns and requirements of all concerned. Subject to all conditions being met, UNHCR is ready to begin verification and interviews for the purpose of refugee status determination; however, the process will take time to complete and clearly the situation cannot be fully resolved before December 31st. I, therefore, appeal to the government of Iraq to extend this deadline in order to permit adequate time and space for a solution to be found. I also appeal to the leadership and residents of Camp Ashraf to engage constructively and with an open mind to this process. They should give serious consideration to the proposals under discussion. There should be no provocation or violence from their side nor a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty. Finally I appeal to the international community to do more to help. A lasting solution cannot be found and as governments step forward and offer to accept Camp Ashraf residents to resettle in their countries.
Marc Daou (AFP) quotes Brig Gen David Phillips stating, "Initially, when I arrived at Camp Ashraf, I was told simply that they're a foreign terrorist organisation. I tried very hard to get information as to why they are that type of organisation. I was never able to substantiate any of those allegations, [which was] very frustrating for my soldiers and I." Paul Courson (CNN) reports that a protest took place yesterday at the White House and that demonstrators included former US Senator Robert Torricelli and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Torricelli is quoted stating, "When President Obama welcomes Mr. Maliki to the White House he may have noticed something. When he took his hand back, there was blood on it."

And we'll close with something a friend at the State Dept wanted noted. For several years now, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari have been meeting to discuss diplomatic issues and ties for the two countries. Now that the the US has militarized diplomacy, their partnership may be even more significant. The two met again yesterday and, afterwards, spoke briefly with the press (click here for video).
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It's my honor to welcome Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and his distinguished delegation here to the third meeting of our political and diplomatic Joint Coordination Committee. We have had a series of very constructive discussions, starting at dinner last night and going through the meetings at the White House with the President, and now here at the State Department. Together, we are opening a new chapter in the relationship between Iraq and the United States under our Strategic Framework Agreement. We believe these are truly historic days for both nations, and as we complete the withdrawal of American troops, we are defining our new partnership with a free and democratic Iraq. Our Strategic Framework Agreement commits our countries to work together on a wide range of issues, from governance and rule of law, to economics and education, to energy and the environment. And we are committed to following through. As Vice President Biden said in Baghdad two weeks ago, we intend to keep our promises. Now, our new beginning is founded in mutual understanding, shared interests, and mutual respect for each other as sovereign equals. We share the same goal, building a self-reliant Iraq with a government that is able to serve the needs of the Iraqi people. And we have made a lot of progress together. Iraq is in charge of its own security and it stands as an important example of democracy in a region experiencing historic transformation and democratic transition. We are very committed to doing everything we can to support this new Iraqi democracy. We are pleased by the steps being taken by the government to secure the country and to protect Iraq's minorities as well. And we are very committed to working with our friends in Iraq to create opportunities for minorities and women to participate in the life of this new country that Iraqis together are building. Likewise, we want to help Iraq increase its voice and engagement on the regional stage. It's one of the most important countries, certainly in the Arab world and in the region. The upcoming summit of the Arab League to be held in Baghdad represents a key step in reestablishing Iraq's status in the region and in the international community. We also want to continue working with Iraq to resolve Iraq's remaining UN Chapter 7 issues. The Joint Coordination Committee has been critical in helping meet several of the requirements, and the United States was proud to help pass three key resolutions at the UN Security Council last December that recognized Iraq's progress. We will continue working with Iraq to address the outstanding issues between Iraq and Kuwait through initiatives such as the Tripartite Commission for Gulf War Missing. We look forward to Iraq taking its rightful place and building strong, peaceful ties with its neighbors. So the Strategic Framework Agreement provides a strong roadmap for us to work together at the highest levels. And we know that there will be challenges ahead, but we will encounter them together as strategic partners and as friends. The United States, Minister, will continue to stand with Iraq and work with the Iraqi people and your government to build a nation that is stable, secure, and prosperous. Thank you very much.
FOREIGN MINISTER ZEBARI: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. On behalf of myself and my colleague in the delegations, we want to thank you for hosting us. Iraq is committed to an enduring partnership with the United States on the basis of the Strategic Framework Agreement, which is very comprehensive, and in fact, it provides both countries ways for mutual cooperation in the future in many fields in Iraq and the United States. Also, Madam Secretary, we think that the withdrawal of the United States forces in Iraq doesn't mean the withdrawal of U.S. presence and friendship and influence in Iraq. We believe that will continue but in different forms, not through the military means or security means, through the civilian and diplomatic means, which we will carry out. And we want to make sure that your Embassy, your missions will have a secure, healthy environment to work and operate to help us. Also, we appreciate your help and assistance to free Iraq from the sanction regime, from the many Security Council resolutions under Chapter 7. We look forward also to you to help us to finish the remaining Chapter 7 resolutions related to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. And lastly, Madam Secretary, Iraq nowadays has a say in what's happening -- what goes on in the region. And rest assured that Iraq will be an ally to the United States and a friend, and also committed to enduring partnership.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister Zebari. Thank you very much.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Desperate Housewives

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Scrub Buddies"

scrub buddies

Wonderful.

There was no "Desperate Housewives" last night.

What do I think about the way the season is shaping up? That was asked in an e-mail from Geri.

If they move Susan off to NYC, they'll be blowing it. We don't need that last episode (this is the show's last season) where everyone says goodbye and, oh, I wish Susan were here, oh, she is! She just got here!

Spare us.

They really don't know what to do with Susan. I'll repeat one more time, they were damn lucky to have Teri Hatcher in that role. She made it so much more than it was.

Lynette's bored me completely and I don't care for her.

After Susan and Renee, the character I care most about is Carlos.

I really wish he'd been given more to do.

Gabby's made me laugh out loud several times this year.

Tom wanting his own life I could applaud. His indifference to Lynette (whom I hate) is not something I can applaud. I think the actor should have played scenes this year where it appeared he was torn. Instead, he ended up looking like an ass.

Renee. Vanessa's the reason I started watching the show. She's never disappointed in any scene but it's a damn shame they never really found a way to make her part of the core of the show.

I really do think the season sucks if Susan moves away.

So those are my thoughts about half-way into the last season.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, December 12, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, did ABC News deliberately try to distort the way Ron Paul speaks, the Iraq War claimed another US life (though the press looked the other way), Ted Koppel offers an adult discussion on Iraq tonight on NBC's Rock Central (10:00 pm EST and Pacific, 9:00 pm Central), the US press goes soggier than usual with pomp and, well, pomp, NATO says it's out of Iraq at the end of the month, Iraqi Christians are taxed for practicing their religion, and more.
Today NATO issued (link is text and video) a statement announcing they would be doing no more training in Iraq.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen: NATO has decided to withdraw the training mission from Iraq by the 31st of December this year when the current mandate of the mission expires. Agreement on the extension of this successful program did not prove possible despite robust negotiations over several weeks. NATO remains fully committed to our partnership and political relationship with Iraq through our existing Structured Cooperation Framework. The NATO Training Mission in Iraq, which started in 2004 at the request of the Iraqi authorities, has been a success. Our trainers can be very proud of what they have achieved over the last seven years, contributing to Iraq's security capacity and helping to develop a more sustainable, multi-ethnic security force. Since 2004, we have trained over 5,000 military personnel and over 10,000 police personnel in Iraq and provided over 115 million euro worth of military equipment. We're determined to build on the success and the spirit of our Training Mission to further strengthen our partnership and political relationship with Iraq, so that together we can continue to contribute to regional peace and stability, which is beneficial for the whole international community.
AFP notes, "On November 29, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraq was studying a contract to extend NATO's presence in Iraq beyond the year's end, but noted that such a deal would not grant its troops immunity from prosecution." David Brunnstorm and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) report that NATO has approximately 100 trainers in Iraq currently and quote an unnamed official stating, "Our minimum line was that if we are asking our people to live and work in another country, we need to maintain our own jurisdiction over them. It wasn't possible to agree to that." Before the announcement, Dar Addustour reported this morning the deal was off and that the sticking point was immunity. As Al Rafidayn notes, news that the deal was off leaked out Sunday though NATO issued denials. Sunday was when, Al Mada observes, Faleh al-Fayad, the National Security Adviser, declared that Iraq regretted NATO had decided to withdraw from Iraq over the issue of immunity.
In other news, Alsumaria TV reports:
Iraqi Parliament Speaker Osama Al Nujaifi considered, on Monday, that keeping 15 thousand employees at the US embassy in Iraq after US troops' withdrawal is illogical. This issue requires answers from Iraqi government, Nujaifi revealed indicating that the parliament will host Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to discuss Security Forces' readiness at his return from Washington.
"Under diplomatic representation and bilateral relations' exchange in accordance with the Strategic Framework Agreement signed with Iraq, it is illogical to have 15 thousand employees at the US embassy after US troops' withdrawal from Iraq," Osama Al Nujaifi told a press conference attended by Alsumarianews at the parliament building.
US House Rep Ron Paul: Well -- well I want to -- extend the tax cut, because if you don't, you raise the taxes. But I want to pay for it. And it's not that difficult. In my proposal, in my budget, I want to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are we gonna restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit this being the policemen of the world. We don't need another war in Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad. We're pretending we're coming home from Baghdad. We built an embassy there that cost a billion dollars and we're putting 17,000 contractors in there and pretending our troops are coming home. I could save and we don't have to raise taxes on Social Security -- on the -- on the -- on the -- on the tax --
That's kind of from the ABC official transcript. When I attend a hearing and we cover it here, I try to be accurate. There are times when I can barely keep my eyes open out of boredom and if someone's uh-uh-ing, I won't include it because in my notes that I take, I'm just trying to get through the hearing. But most of the time, we do capture it. I think, to be accurate, you need to. Sometimes the uh-uh (or whatever) is not merely a manner of speaking but indicative of something -- such as a witness who works for the government trying to think of way to answer without actually answering.
So when there was the mini-drama over AP's transcript of Barack last month, I did have to wonder how pathetic some people's lives were that they needed to wrongly call the Associated Press racist because Barack clearly dropping the "g"s at the end of his words was noted in the transcript. It should have been. If that's how he speaks -- and it was how he was speaking -- then it should be noted. So should you starting over in the middle of a sentence. Such as: "So should you -- So should you starting over in the middle of a sentence." I expect transcripts to be accurate. I had that expectation when Bush was in the White House. I have it now.
A news outlet that does a transcript needs to be accurate. I have changed ABC News' official transcript because Ron Paul did not say, for example, "wanna." "Gonna"? Yes, he says that once. But he never says "wanna." Click here for the Ron Paul highlights. When I heard what was in the ABC transcript, I thought, "That's not how he speaks. But I was not about to stream that entire debate. The link goes to just Ron Paul's parts of the debate. Repeating, that did not sound like how he speaks from Congressional hearings I've attended. And if you stream the video, you'll see he's not saying "wanna" and "gonna" and I forget the other thing I corrected. But when Ron Paul says "want to," he usually goes up a note on the "to," something I noticed back in 2006 and why I doubted ABC's transcript to begin with.
I'm not calling it "racism" but I am saying that transcript is inaccurate with regards to Ron Paul and I think people are right to wonder if ABC News was attempting to make Ron Paul sound a certain way, a way that might make some believe he was less educated than he is. The press pattern with regards to Ron Paul makes the transcript distortion an issue.
Back to what he was saying.
US House Rep Ron Paul: Well -- well I want to -- extend the tax cut, because if you don't, you raise the taxes. But I want to pay for it. And it's not that difficult. In my proposal, in my budget, I want to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are we gonna restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit this being the policemen of the world. We don't need another war in Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad. We're pretending we're coming home from Baghdad. We built an embassy there that cost a billion dollars and we're putting 17,000 contractors in there and pretending our troops are coming home.
Yes, a lot of people want to pretend things are different than they actually are. It was an important point -- made by someone who truly was against the Iraq War. And one of the few functioning members of the press noted that on yesterday's Meet The Press (NBC).
Ted Koppel: The point is Ron Paul was almost right last night. You remember, and it was one of the overlooked points in the debate, he spoke of the 17,000, he spoke about civilian contractors who are still in Iraq. We do have 17,000 people still in Iraq. They're not all civilian contractors, but a great many of them are. You've got a consulate in Basra, a consulate in Erbil. The one in Basra is just less than 20 miles from the Iranian border; 1,320 Americans down there. They are rocketed two or three times a week. They are about as vulnerable as any Americans have been since 1979 at the embassy in Tehran. And if they were to be frontally attacked, and I'm suggesting that that's not unlikely at all, you're going to see the U.S. military come back in. Because, while the ambassador said, "No, no, no, we're going to rely on the Iraqis to do the job," there is no way that the U.S. military will wait for the Iraqis to save those Americans, and they're going to need saving.
Also on Meet The Press, they highlighted a small segment of an interview Ted did with US Ambassador James Jeffery as part of a report to air tonight on Rock Center (NBC):
MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
Yes, the CIA will still be there (and in a new subdivision in Turkey) and so will Special Ops. And this has been addressed. But there aren't a lot of grown ups in the press. When Ted left Nightline, it wasn't just that program that suffered, it was the quality of news.
Rock Center airs tonight at 10:00 pm. EST and Pacific, 9:00 pm Central. Rock Center's Tom Bettag notes of Ted Koppel's report tonight:
But is America really leaving? Many people have the impression that the U.S. presence -- and U.S. government spending -- is finally ending in Iraq. Koppel makes it clear that this is far from the truth.
He tells the story of some 16,000 people who will be left behind. Koppel and his team obtained extraordinary access to the U.S. embassy, the largest embassy in the world, with a footprint the size of Vatican City. He also traveled to the U.S. consulate in Basra, which faces regular rocket attacks from Iranian-funded militia.
For them, it isn't over; it's just about to begin.
So grown ups should tune in to Rock Center tonight on NBC. You'll be informed with some realities. Realities just don't make a lot of the US outlets which is fully staffed with sycophants. Maybe Steve Kroft kicked off the latest wave of press nonsense with the interview of Barack that 60 Minutes (CBS) aired last night? Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic) offers a brilliant critique of the interview:
An interviewer determined to challenge a sitting president, as every interviewer of every president should do, could've asked what Obama thinks about the fact that his drone strikes in Pakistan are destabilizing a nuclear power and killing innocent children; or whether Solyndra got special treatment because of its insider connections; or what he thinks about the Fast and Furious scandal and what Eric Holder knew about it. Kroft could've challenged Obama to explain why he decided to proceed with military action in Libya even though it violated the War Powers Resolution, or asked him about the controversy surrounding federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, or echoed the concerns that progressives have with his immigration policies.
But nope. Kroft asked none of those questions; nor did he press Obama about his views on indefinitely detaining American citizens; nor did he ask about the killing without due process of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American; nor did he ask about the controversy surrounding whether the morning-after pill should be available over-the-counter for people of all ages or not; nor did he ask about the private security contractors that America will pay to stay in Iraq after we leave; nor about the state secrets privilege; nor about aggressively prosecuting whistleblowers; nor about many other issues of concern to liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, all of whom have earnest complaints.
Nouri al-Maliki is in the US. Al Mada reports on Nouri's visit to DC and notes that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is stating that the visit is about finding a way for the US military to work out a deal on 'trainers.' It is stated that they will dangle investment opportunities in an attempt to smooth the way. Al Rafidayn quotes Ali al-Moussawi, Nouri's media advisor, stating that all aspects of the relationship will be addressed. Dar Addustour reports the multi-day visit will address many issues including "immunity for US trainers' and, of course, Chapter VII. One of the worst reports on the meet up between Barack and Nouri is this Washington Post article that's free of anything that might actually matter. A friend at CBS News asked for a link to Brian Montopoli's report -- I haven't read it and stated, "Don't tell me what's in it." I don't want to slam him. But we'll include a link and I'll hope Brian broke from the pack and offered something of value.
What's the value of worship if you worship? In Iraq, a religious minority is being forced to pay a tax for worshipping. Catholic Culture reports, "The Latin Rite archbishop of Baghdad says that some Christians have been reduced to dhimmitude and are being forced to pay the jizya, a special tax that permits them to practice their faith." Independent Catholic News adds, "Mgr Jean Benjamin Sleiman, Latin Archbishop of Baghdad, said that in recent years, some Christians have experienced persecution and today they continue to live in the most dangerous areas such as Baghdad and Mosul. They are considered 'dimmi' (infidels), therefore legally and socially inferior, and even forced to pay the 'jizya', the tax due from the non-Muslim minorities in order to practice their faith." Assyrian International News Agency adds, "The latest attacks of Kurds on Assyrian businesses, cultural centres and houses in Zakho (Northern Iraq) clearly indicate that bomb attacks, robberies and systematic discrimination are still present and force Assyrians to flee their homeland. They are denied their constitutional rights of establishing their own civil society organisations. They are being oppressed and deprived of their equal rights in a systematic way." There will be protests outside the White House during Nouri's visit by supporters of Camp Ashraf. Former FBI director Louis Freeh is supposed to be among those protesting. Maybe supporters of Iraqi Christians should be out protesting as well?

At the end of last week, Joel Gehrke (Washington Examiner) noted:

Thirty-seven House legislators from both sides of the aisle signed a letter to President Obama requesting that he intercede on behalf of persecuted Iraq Christians and other religious minorities in his upcoming meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"The Iraqi Government needs to understand," wrote Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., on behalf of his colleagues yesterday, "that the protection and preservation of these communities will be a key component of our future bilateral relations and critical to our alliance, given its own centrality to our own basic values."
The legislators -- including Democrats such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. -- reminded Obama that a 2004 commission found that rapes, beheadings, and bombings of Christians in Iraq often take place. "Too often, attacks of the sort described above are not adequately investigated, prosecuted, or punished, fostering a deadly climate of impunity," they said.

Possibly Iraqi Christians could appeal to Iraqi government officials. Like Hakim al-Zamili? Elizabeth Palmer (CBS Evening News -- link is text and video) reported last week:

Meet Hakim al-Zamili, member of Parliament for the Shi'a stronghold of Sadr City. This morning he's touring local schools and getting an earful from teachers about their lousy pay.
But just four years ago, al-Zamili was a wanted man. At the time, he was Iraq's deputy health minister. The U.S. authorities believed he was using that position to funnel money to the Mahdi Army and to order assassinations.
The Mahdi Army was the feared Shi'a militia that murdered hundreds -- probably thousands -- of Sunnis and Christians in a vicious religious war. Its fighters also attacked U.S. forces.
Today Reuters notes two Baghdad roadside bombings left six people injured and that, last night, 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul.
Over the weekend, the government of Iran began floating claims that the US government was lying about the number of US dead and wounded from the Iraq War. Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported that Iran's military commander, Brig Gen Massoud Jazayeri, is questioning the official numbers provided by the US Defense Dept on the number of service members injured and killed in Iraq stating that the official numbers of less than 5,000 dead and 11,000 wounded are incorrect. On the same story, Press TV noted:

Despite US efforts to impose an information blackout on its war casualties, the number of US troops killed and wounded in Iraq has surpassed 50,000, a senior Iranian commander says.
"Based on the existing figures and data, the American forces killed and injured in Iraq are estimated to be 50,000. However, it seems that the real statistics are much higher than this," said Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri, the deputy head of Iran's Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday.
"Of course the figure 50,000 killed and wounded Americans, is notwithstanding the mercenaries of other nationalities who are in the US Army fighting against the people of Iraq," the Iranian commander added.

The Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Jazayeri stating, "Today with over 15 trillion dollars of debts, the US government has the greatest debt of a government in the world, and is therefore a bankrupt government, on the verge of collapse. But of course the psychological propagation media of the US administration and the super-capitalism camp's media levers prevent the possibility of revealing such realities for the US public, but sooner or later the truth would be unveiled and then the world nations would be taken aback by the sudden downfall of the US Empire." And all the above could be dismissed as the ranting of one goverment opposed to another -- well not the money, there's no arguing the trillions thrown away on the illegal war -- but the claim of lying could be disputed and dismissed as Iranian propaganda.
Or could have been if it weren't for the fact that the US military had another fatality in the Iraq War in the last seven days but DoD failed to issue an announcement of the death and the lazy press corps in the US can't be bothered with following the Pentagon's official count -- hell, they don't even acknowledge that it exists.
But it does exist and, as we noted last night, DoD's fatality count of US military personnel in Iraq now stands at 4487 which is up one from the Sunday prior -- use the link before and after 4487, there are screen snaps of the official DoD count, you'll see it went up one. Apparently announcing that death would have marred the soft coverage of Barack and Nouri and the so-called end of the occupation of Iraq.
We'll close with this from Debra Sweet's "Mumia, Obama's Birth Control Obstruction; Action Vs. Torture" (World Can't Wait):


Wednesday, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the FDA, Kathleen Seblius announced that the administration will not allow women under 17 to get Emergency Contraception (EC, Plan B) without a prescription. This makes Barack Obama the first president to counter the FDA by executive order.
His action goes against the science. There is no medical or ethical reason to impede a woman of any age, who, for whatever reason, wants to avoid an unplanned pregnancy. How does it help the future of that young woman to put her through more hoops, including a doctors' visit, potentially leaving her vulnerable to all the complications of a pregnancy for a young person?
My blog on this continues here. This president, this government, just acted against the interests of all of us who are women, or who care about women's' lives, in a craven way which will only give encouragement to those on the right who want to enact even worse measures, including bans on abortion and all birth control.


Friday, December 09, 2011

Whitney

Thank goodness for Mark. I've shared before that I think he's a sexy man. But I hope I've also gotten across how funny I think he is as a character on the NBC sitcom Whitney.


NBC Whitney

Since not everyone watches, that's a photo from the show. Mark is the one standing up (police officer). Starting on left, the woman with the dark hair is Whitney, the blond on the couch is Roxanne, the red-head Lily and that's her fiancee Neal ("Jonathan" on 30 Rock).

Now back to the episode.


With a sober Roxanne, the episode really needed Mark.

And his two moments of truth were hilarious, creepy and sexy all at once.

Whitney wanted a Christmas that didn't go bad so they decided no family.

But of course family couldn't stay away ensuring that there would be problems.


It was a nice Christmas episode; however, in season two, don't have Christmas be the day that Roxanne decides to go sober.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, December 9, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the Camp Ashraf plan Martin Kobler presented to the UN Security Council Tuesday continues to gain support, the Defense Department attempts to again short-change National Guard service members, 28 firefighters bring a class-action lawsuit over contracting, and more.
Despite the Islamic Republic News Agency insisting today that the European Union endorses Nouri al-Maliki's decision to expell the MKO, the EU doesn't endorse that. Today the European Union's High Representative Catherine Ashton released the following statement:
Yesterday I met with Martin Kobler, the Sepcial Representative of the Secretary-General and head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). As I did earlier this week in my meeting with the UN SG Ban Ki-moon, I expressed my full support for the efforts both UNAMI and UNHCR are making to solve the problem of Camp Ashraf. I stressed that the safety of the people in the camp must be our primary concern. The initiative by United Nations High Commissioner Antonio Guterres and the work of Mr. Kobler are essential to facilitate an orderly solution to the problem which fully respects human rights and international humanitarian law. I have stressed to all the parties involved, including the Iraqi Foriegn Minister who I met this week and the EU Foreign Ministers, that the UNAMI and UNHCR-led process must be fully supported as the best and only way forward. I have asked my Special Adviser Jean De Ruyt to continue liasing with the United Nations on my behalf, inclduing on practical ways of working together. I want to praise the work of Martin Kobler and reiterate my call on all parties to show flexibility and cooperate fully to find a satisfactory solution.
What is the UNAMI and UNHCR-led process? Martin Kobler outlined it to the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday:
SRSG Martin Kobler: The Secretary-General has spoken personally to Mr. Maliki to appeal for flexibility and for full support for the UN's efforts to faciliate this peaceful solution the government has assured that it seeks. He has asked me to attach the highest priority to this case. In trying to facilitate a solution, we are emphasizing a number of important points. First, that lives are at stake and must be protected. The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety, security and welfare of the residents. Any forced action that results in bloodshed or loss of lives would be both ill-advised and unacceptable. Second, we believe that any workable solution must be acceptable to both the government of Iraq and to the residents of Camp Ashraf. The solution must respect Iraqi soveriegnty on the one hand and applicable international humanitarian human rights and refugee law on the other hand. Third, a solution must also respect the principle of nonrefoulement. No resident of Camp Ashraf should be returned to his or her home country without consent. While some progess has been made in our latest discussions in Baghdad, many obstacles remain to arriving at a plan that would meet the concerns and requirements of all concerned. Subject to all conditions being met, UNHCR is ready to begin verification and interviews for the purpose of refugee status determination; however, the process will take time to complete and clearly the situation cannot be fully resolved before December 31st. I, therefore, appeal to the government of Iraq to extend this deadline in order to permit adequate time and space for a solution to be found. I also appeal to the leadership and residents of Camp Ashraf to engage constructively and with an open mind to this process. They should give serious consideration to the proposals under discussion. There should be no provocation or violence from their side nor a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty. Finally I appeal to the international community to do more to help. A lasting solution cannot be found and as governments step forward and offer to accept Camp Ashraf residents to resettle in their countries.
Today the Staten Island Advance reports,"About 220 people from First United Christian Church in Tompkinsville will travel on Monday to Washington, D.C., to protest what they believe is an impending massacre of Iranian dissidents. Nationwide, about 960 humanitarian and faith-based organizations numbering 50,000 to 60,000 people are expected to converge on the White House at 10 a.m. to protest the situation at Camp Ashraf in Iraq."
Background, Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. 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 8th of this year 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." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."

In response to a column Nouri al-Maliki penned for the Washington Post, MEK attorneys Allan Gerson and Steven M. Schneebaum point out, "Only the United States and Canada -- and, of course, Iran -- continue to maintain the MEK on their respective lists of terrorist organizations. More than two years ago, an appellate court in Britain threw out that designation as baseless, and the European Union soon followed suit. " ""
Wednesday, US House Reps Dana Rohrabacher and Gary Ackerman oversaw a hearing on Camp Ashraf by the House Affairs Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia. Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) described the hearing an an effort "to seek an explanation from State Department officials about a court-ordered review of the terrorist label and an update on developments at Camp Ashraf." Sen reminds that the court ordered the review back in July 2010. Erik Slavin (Stars and Stripes) adds, "The State Department is re-examining MEK's status as a terrorist organization, said Ambassador Daniel Fried, who was appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to oversee the MEK's situation."
In his prepared remarks, Fried declared, "The Secretary has tasked me to report to her, using experience I have as a career foreign service officer of 34 years, to ensure that the US government is taking every responsible action possible, working with the government of Iraq, the United Nations, and our allies and partners, and in contact with the residents of Camp Ashraf and those who speak for them, to assure that any relocation of residents from Camp Ashraf is done humanely, with our principal concern being the safety and well-being of the residents. We are working urgently." Repeating, the court-ordered review came down in July of 2010.
Meanwhile weeks after ExxonMobile's deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government, it continues to dominate the news. Patrick Cockburn (Independent) reports, "The bombshell exploded last month when Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, defied the instructions of the Baghdad government and signed a deal with the Iraqi Kurds to search for oil in the northern area of Iraq they control. To make matters worse, three of the areas Exxon has signed up to explore are on territory the two authorities dispute. The government must now decide if it will retaliate by kicking Exxon out of a giant oilfield it is developing in the south of Iraq." Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports that Nouri al-Maliki has announced the contract won't be cancelled.
Tensions around what's going on in Syria weren't cancelled either. Liz Sly (Washington Post) offers an an analysis of the impact on Iraq including, "As the Syrian conflict takes on increasingly sectarian dimensions, the crisscrossing rivalries that had been held somewhat in check in recent years among Iraq's Shiite majority and its Kurdish and Sunni minorities also risk being inflamed. Syria's sectarian makeup is almost a reverse image of Iraq's, with a minority, Shiite-affiliated Alawite regime confronting a protest movement drawn largely from the country's Sunni majority. " Brian Katulis (American Progress) argues that Nouri's trip to DC next week should include discussions of Syria, "Iraq and the United States currently have different positions on what to do about Syria. The United States maintains that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad must step down and has carved out a strategy to stop the violence and support a political transition through economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for the opposition. Iraq has rejected calls for Assad to step down. In the fall Maliki echoed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Syria, saying that Syria needed to implement a series of political reforms to overcome the current crisis."
I don't understand that all. Syria will surely come up in passing but is the Center for American Progress now advocating for telling Iraq what to do? I believe, in regards to Syria, Nouri has already stated Iraq is not a follower. I also believe Nouri's expressed his belief that civil war could easily break out in Syria. He's also staked out a position of friendly input. Why is it Nouri's job to do the US job?
I know Nouri's a puppet. I'm just surprised that the Center for American Progress is now openly advocating for puppets and for them to dance for the US. CATO's Doug Bandow (at The Huffington Post) offers a clear-eyed assessment of Nouri:
However, what kind of democracy has resulted after eight years of U.S. occupation? Once seen as weak, Prime Minister Maliki has concentrated power in his hands. He turned a minority parliamentary position into the premiership and refused to honor a power-sharing agreement his chief opponent.
The International Crisis Group pointed to Maliki's expansion of government control over supposedly independent agencies tasked with overseeing the government. Worse, reported Yochi Dreazen: "Maliki has refused to appoint either a permanent defense minister or an interior minister, keeping Iraq's U.S.-trained armed forces and intelligence services under his sole control. He has also taken direct command of the ostensibly neutral 150,000 Iraqi troops stationed in Baghdad, using them to arrest rival politicians, human-rights activists, and journalists."
Maliki brutally suppressed anti-government demonstrations coinciding with the Arab Spring, targeted human rights activists, and cracked down on the media, having critics of his regime arrested and tortured. A number of journalists have been murdered, with government agents the chief suspects. Ghada al-Amely of the al-Mada newspaper told National Journal: "We feel just as scared as we did during Saddam's time." Maliki recently used improbable rumors of a Baathist coup to arrest more than 600 former members of the Baath party, including academics.
Washington has said little. Indeed, Wikileaks captured America's ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, observing that "It is in the interests of the U.S. to see that process of strengthened central authority continue." So much for democracy.
Crucially, the mission in Iraq has come to change -- and indeed militarize - the way in which the State Department operates.
First the expense. The State Department budget for FY2012 in Iraq is $6.2 billion. While that number may not shock in the context of the torrent of dollars that flowed during the war itself, it is nonetheless a major outlay, significantly larger than this year's budget for, to take an important example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Moreover, the Department of Defense will also continue to spend money to redeploy thousands of troops from Iraq to U.S. military bases in Kuwait and elsewhere nearby.
Then the risk. Violence continues as daily fare in Iraq, including continued resistance to U.S. presence. To deal with this fact, fully one third of the 16,000 civilians to be posted in Iraq will wield guns: a phalanx of security contractors -- 5,500 strong -- will operate in the country. This is definitely not State Department business as usual, even in the more dangerous areas in which it operates. The Iraq total is three times the number of people the State Department has employed to protect all of its other diplomatic missions in the world combined.
Breaking it down, the State Department's 5,500 security personnel join 4,500 "general life support" contractors who will be working to provide food, health care, and aviation services to those employed in Iraq, and approximately 6,000 US federal employees from State and other agencies. After Jan. 1, there will also be 157 U.S. military personnel and about 700 civilian contractors in Iraq who will train local forces in how to use the more than $8 billion in military equipment U.S. military corporations have sold to Iraq.
Also at Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver outlines some risks in the latest stage of the Iraq War.
Moving from risks to violence, Reuters notes a Muqdadiya roadside bombing injured one "tribal leader," a Muqdadiya sticky bombing claimed 2 lives and 1 Sahwa shot dead in Baquba -- all events were from Thursday.
Turning to the Defense Dept scandal over the Air Force dumping the remains of the fallen into a landfill, Charley Keyes and Barbara Starr (CNN) report:


Backtracking on initial information about how it handled the remains of American service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force now says the cremated body parts of hundreds of the fallen were burned and dumped in the landfill.
Earlier, the Air Force said only a small number of body parts had been buried in a commercial landfill and claimed it would be impossible to make a final determination of how many remains were disposed of in that manner.

Yesterday Craig Whitlock and Mary Pat Flaherty (Washington Post) reported that the number of troops whose remains have been dumped is much greater than the Defense Dept has acknowledged, that the "partial remains of at least 274 American troops" have been dumped "in a Virginia landfill."

Jill Laster and Markeshia Ricks (Marine Corps News) report, "Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said he believes the service has found and fixed problems at Doer Port Mortuary and that a Defense Department panel will back up that belief." If that belief is backed up, that's disgusting. As Keyes and Starr report the Air Force's position is that they will apologize to any family . . . who objects. They are not contacting families and informing them of what happened. The families have to contact the Air Force. Who does the Air Force work for? Having already disrespected the fallen, they now can't even offer an apology. This is not accountability, this is not a sign of a government that works for the people. This is about bureaucrats who feels they shouldn't be bothered and that their mistakes are justifiable because they don't have to answer to anyone.

Mike Bowersock (Ohio's NBC 4i -- link has text and video) speaks with Iraq War veteran Daniel Hutchison who states, "I served in Iraq in 2006 and four of my really good friends were killed and it makes my blood boil to think they may be in a landfill right now. The argument can be made that it is difficult to try to identify all the pieces to bring it back home, but it's difficult to fight in a war."
The Defense Department is hardly a one scandal department. The Pentagon is coming under intense and deserved criticism for its refusal to initiate "a mental health program for National Guard soldiers." USA Today's Gregg Zororya reports on this latest government effort to save a penny by spitting on the National Guard. Zoroya quotes Senator Patty Murray who is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, "I was really surprised that the Departemtn of Defense decided to oppose this. It's just a no-brainer to make sure that this is out there for every Guard and Reserve member wherever they live." The Pentagon's own tracking demonstrates more National Guard service members have died from suicide in the last five years than have been died serving in Iraq or Afghanistan for any reason (other than suicide). At a time when the Pentagon has already used the National Guard in ways most didn't ever see happening, are they going to again refuse to give the Guards its due?
We don't have the time or space to go into all the times in the last years the Guard has been used to carry out military missions while being offered second-rate treatment in return, but we will note two things. First, this is from an NBC report former-US House Rep Martin Frost posted at his website:
When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."
Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
So you've got what appears to be the Pentagon actively attempting to cheat Guard members. (Appears to be? I'm trying to be kind.) You've also got the Pentagon screwing them over when it comes to paying them. From Lisa Myers and NBC Nightly News' November 12, 2010 report:
Soldiers with the National Guard are already under the gun in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now a new government report claims that while the troops are fighting far from home, red tape is preventing many of them from being paid.
While National Guard soldiers fulfill their duty, risking their lives around the world, the Pentagon apparently is not living up to its obligation to pay them the right amount or on time. That's according to a new congressional report obtained by NBC News, which finds the Pentagon's pay process is such a mess it's having "a profound financial impact on individual soldiers and their families."
"This is well beyond anything I could ever imagine," said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., "I would like to think if we send people off to war that we're not going to have them worry about whether their home is going to be taken because they can't pay their mortgage."
Those are just two examples. They both have to do with the Pentagon's problems paying the Guard for the work they're being asked to do. At a time when the Pentagon keeps insisting it's addressing the suicide issue, it's appalling that yet again they're trying to save a few pennies by short changing National Guard service members.


In other news of cheapness and crooked behavior, Ryan Abbott (Courthouse News Service) reports 28 firefighters are part of a class action lawsuit against "Wackenhut, KBR and Halliburton [who they allege] forced them to work around the clock in Afghanistan and Iraq but paid them for only half their time." Zoe Tillman (The BLT) quotes one of the attorneys representing the firefighters, Scott Bloch, stating, "This case is about very big government contractors making billions off of the back of firefighters and other people who work over there in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're going to make billions if they pay for work performed, but somehow that's not enough for them."
Lastly, the US Justice Dept notes a 20-month sentence for a US Army Corps of Engineers employee for bribery:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, December 9, 2011
Former Army Corps of Engineers Employee Sentenced to 20 Months in Prison for Accepting Bribes from Iraqi Contractors

WASHINGTON - A former employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stationed in Baghdad, Iraq, was sentenced today in the Eastern District of Virginia to 20 months in prison for conspiring to receive bribes from Iraqi contractors involved in the U.S.-funded reconstruction efforts, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride for the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge James W. McJunkin of the FBI's Washington Field Office.

Thomas Aram Manok, 51, of Chantilly, Va., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. In addition to his prison term, Manok was sentenced to three years of supervised release. Judge Trenga ordered a forfeiture hearing to be held on Jan. 13, 2012. Manok pleaded guilty on Sept. 19, 2011.

Manok admitted to using his official position to conspire with Iraqi contractors to accept cash bribes in exchange for recommending that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approve contracts and other requests for payment submitted by the contractors to the U.S. government. According to court documents, in March and April 2010, Manok agreed to receive a $10,000 payment from one such contractor who had been involved in constructing a kindergarten and girls' school in the Abu Ghraib neighborhood of Baghdad and had sought Manok's influence in having requests for payment approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to court documents, Manok was to receive an additional bribe payment from the contractor once the contractor's claim had been approved. Manok also admitted that he intended to conceal the payments from authorities by transferring them, via associates, from Iraq to Armenia.

This case was investigated by the FBI's Washington Field Office, the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, the Army Criminal Investigation Command and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, as participants in the International Contract Corruption Task Force. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul J. Nathanson of the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Mary Ann McCarthy of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.

This prosecution is part of efforts underway by President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force visit: www.stopfraud.gov.

the wall st. journal
sam dagher