Wednesday, October 10, 2012

We need some honesty

"Libya Fibya - Hillary's War Against Obama Treachery And Boobery" (Hillary Is 44):
The House Oversight Committee meets today in an attempt to unravel what happened in Benghazi Libya. We’ll do their work for them.
First draw the organizational chart. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and she runs the State Department. But it is not that simple. Recall that in 2009 Barack Obama put in one of his enforcers as the #2 at the State Department in order to thwart Hillary Clinton and to keep eyes on her.
Recall also that Susan Rice, an Obama supporter in 2008, was placed by Obama without Hillary Clinton’s input as United Nations Ambassador. Rice was supposed to be a power center against Hillary Clinton and therefore was also given cabinet level status and a direct line to Barack Obama without having to go through the Secretary of State.
Also in 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was purposefully circumvented when Obama appointed special envoys to coordinate policy with him, not Hillary, in major areas of foreign policy. Remember how in 2009 the speculation was rampant that Hillary Clinton had been boxed in and left as a powerless figurehead while special envoys like Richard Holbrooke (Afghanistan and Pakistan), Dennis Ross (Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran), Daniel Kurtzer (Near East), Wendy Sherman (North Korea).
Hillary eventually got rid of Obama’s watchdog at State, Holbrook died, and the diffusion of power via special envoys fell apart due to Obama’s indifference and the natural flow of power to the office of the Secretary of State.
But Susan Rice remains an independent power center to block Hillary and Rice does so at the behest of Barack Obama.
Want to know why it was Susan Rice, not the Secretary of State that went on a flurry of talk shows to announce that it was a Youtube video that led to the death of an American Ambassador, the sacking of American embassies, and riots in Muslim capitals? Get a clue, Hillary Clinton would not go on TV to lie for Obama and in either case Barack Obama did not trust her to do so.

I want all who took part in the cover up outed and punished.  I don't care who it is.  I really love Hillary but if that includes her, so be it.  I hope it doesn't but if it does, the truth's more important than the person. 


Xinhua reports:

The American security presence at the Benghazi consulate which was under fierce attacks on Sept. 11 was insufficient, U.S. security officers who had worked in Libya told a congressional hearing on Wednesday.
"It was abundantly clear that we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident," Eric Nordstorm, a former U.S. regional security officer in Libya, told a special hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.
"And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?" he said.

Americans deserve the truth.  That's what democracy is all about.  We know the security was not adequate, we know that requests were turned down.  We know that Barack was grandstanding about protecting us on September 11th.

We know when the terrorist attack took place, the immediate response was to cover up the attack and pretend like it was due to a video.

We need to hear some honesty from the White House real quick.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, October 10, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri spends crazy in Russia, while Iraq claims they can't pay Kuwait what they owe, the $4 billion plus contract not going to the US is noted by international observers but the US State Dept plays dumb, the administration's lies about the attack on the US Consulate in Libya get some exposure, and more.
 
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly: And I'm kind of surprised.  You know, I come from western Pennsylvania and people look at things in maybe a little different fashion.  When I'm not down here in Washington DC amid all these brains and all the intelligence and you get back home and you talk to people, if I were to say to you, Lt Col Wood, "What does 9-11 mean to you?"
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood:  This last 9-11?
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly:  No, just 9-11.  Like I would say "December 7th, what does December 7th --," 9-11?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood:  It's an attack on the United States of America.
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Mr. Nordstrom?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  The same.
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Ms. Lamb? 
 
Charlene R. Lamb:  The same.
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Ambassador?
 
Patrick Kennedy:  Absolutely, sir.
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly:  Okay, so if you can all connect the dots right here, why in the heck did it take so long for all these highly briefed and intelligent  people to figure out that it actually wasn't a 15-minute YouTube video?  And that it actually was a 9-11 event?  A terrorist attack?  I don't know that this stuff about what's classified and not classified is getting confusing for me because I sat in a members only briefing and I -- Mr. Chairman, I ask you -- and this is on September the 20th with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and some other personnel -- is this something we're allowed to talk about or not allowed to talk about?
 
 
 
Chair Darrell Issa: Uh, if it was in a classified setting, the only thing that I would think that would be appropriate is any inconsistencies you've seen in testimonies today you could relate.  Otherwise, the specifics, I couldn't judge it --
 
US House Rep Mike Kelly: Okay.  Well it comes down to this: What caused this?  And Ms. Lamb, I read through your testimony and it would be horrible to sit there and watch it, in real time, what was going on.    And I read another account -- this is kind of strange -- that same night -- this is about the Ambassador.  At 8:30 pm, the Ambassador said goodnight to a visiting Turkish diplomat.  Outside the compound.  And the streets are empty.  But at 9:45 pm, noises, gunfire and an explosion were heard by the agents located in the TOC building and -- TOC in building B.  It is absolutely preposterous to me that we would watch Ambassador Rice go out and say what happened five days later, that I would sit in a briefing and was [told], 'No, you have it all wrong.  This is not a terrorist attack.  This is a result of a 15-minute YouTube.'  Now we are either in denial or, unfortunately, and I know some of the members are concerned because I got to tell you, it's very unfortunate that terrorists don't recognize that this is an election year.  And they tend to just do what they want anytime they want to us.  And when we have a weakened position around the world, and when we leave our embassies and our consulates as unprotected as we do and then we say, "You know what?  This is terrible because this is 27 days before an election, why are we bringing it up now?"  And I ask the same question, where the heck were we before 9-11, this 9-11?   Why weren't we questioning it then?  My goodness, 230 security incidents in Libya between June of 2011 and July of 2012.  Of those attacks, 48 took place in Benghazi.  2 of which at the US diplomatic compound and the scene of the September 11, 2012 attacks and we are still saying, 'I think it's the result of the video that was on YouTube'?  And this is based on intelligence?  Now, listen, I gotta' ask you Ambassador Kinney because you say you couldn't possibly have had a different idea about it than Secretary Rice did when she went before the nation on September 16th.  I'm going to tell you, this thing smells.  From every single angle.  If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  And for you to come in here and say, "Well, it was based on some of the things I knew but I can't tell you all that I knew"?  We've got four Americans dead.   And I'm gonna' tell you.  It's very upsetting for me to go back home and look at those people in the eye.  People who don't do what we do hear with all the intelligence and all the briefings, just guys that go out and work every day and women that go out and work every day and they can come home and they can figure it out?  But we're still trying to figure it out?  And you watch it in real time?  And the account wasn't there that night of the ambassador saying goodbye to a Turkish friend outside the gates and everything was quiet?  But, my goodness, those terrorists or those Islamic extremists got a hold of that video and between 8:30 and 9:40 they decided to just go crazy?  And Africa's on fire?  And, Mr. Nordstrom, thank you for pointing out, as Mr. [Mitt] Romney did, that hope is not a strategy.  And I feel sorry for you and Lt Col Wood to have to come here because it is you who are on the ground.  You're not watching in some far away room in real time, you're people are there in real time.  We've watched our colleagues be killed.  And the question doesn't become "What is it that we didn't know?"  It is because we have become lax.  We have dumbed down. We have turned down the dial.
 
 That was from this morning's House Oversight Committee hearing in the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Libya in which Glen Doherty, Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods were killed.  Darrell Issa is the Committee Chair.  Appearing before them were the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene R. Lamb, the State Dept's always less than truthful Patrick Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management), Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and the US military's Lt Col Andrew Wood. 
 
For days after the attack on the consulate,  the White House spun that it was due to a 'movie' that turned out to be a YouTube clip -- not before the compliant press was offering up least one individual who was yammering away that he'd seen the entire movie.  Susan Rice went on the Sunday public affairs shows five days after the atack to continue to insist that the YouTube video caused a protest in Libya, the protesters got out of hand and that was what happened to the US Consulate in Libya and why four Americans were killed.
 
During that period, we got speeches about tolerance and bad YouTube and the White House tried to bully YouTube into taking the clip down.  The lies never stopped.  Nor did US President Barack Obama's campaigning -- which incorporated the lies.  Immediatly after the attacks -- which are seen as an attack by al Qaeda -- Barack jetted off to Las Vegas for fundraisers and campaign rallies.  It was in Las Vegas that he boasted,  "A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead." 
 
Guess when you're claiming to have finished off al Qaeda, the truth that it was a terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate doesn't fit with your spin or your campaign rhetoric.  And that's how a lie takes hold.  Barack would then rush off to a campaign event in Colorado where he would repeat the same boast, "And while a new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead."
 
Four days later in his weekly address (September 15th), he would note the attack, refer to the "angry mob" and declare:
 
This tragic attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion – including Islam.
Yet there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates. And so long as I am Commander-in-Chief, the United States will never tolerate efforts to harm our fellow Americans.
 
But it wasn't an "angry mob" and it wasn't a reaction of offense to a YouTube video that led to the attack.  Barack was wording carefully the way Bush did.  Because Barack knew he was selling a lie.  So he uses inference to indicate that the attack was a mob of protesters, angered that a video had insulted their religion.   The next day, September 16th, Susan Rice would appear on CBS Face The Nation:
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?
 
SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--
 
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.
 
SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--
 
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
 
SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
 
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
 
She'd go NBC's Meet The Press the same day and declare, "This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world  Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that -- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a -- spontenaeous reaction to a video, and it's not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.  Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who attacked our facilitiy in Benghazi."
 
Pressed by host David Gregory, Susan Rice stuck to the lie and insisted "our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of -- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course by the video."  She'd go on other shows that day and stick to the cover story, the lie, that a YouTube video caused an angry group of protesters to attack the US Consulate in Libya, resulting in the deaths of four Americans.  Pointing the finger at a man who was seen as a hate merchant (the one responsible for the video -- I say "seen as a hate merchant" because I haven't viewed the video and have no intention of every watching it) gave the White House a scapegoat.  And they really needed one because security precautions were not taken.
 
So Jay Carney picked up the lie ("It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting," September 14th press briefing).  But it's Carney's spinning on September 18th that really took it to another level:
 
Q    Jay, I want to go back to Libya.  On September 10th, you put out a press release saying that the President had a meeting with senior officials to figure out the security posture around the 9/11 anniversary.  And in that press release you said that "steps were taken to protect U.S. persons and facilities abroad.  The President reiterated that departments and agencies must do everything possible to protect the American people both at home and abroad."  So in retrospect, given the tragedy, did the administration drop the ball on what you promised on September 10th that you had improved security at these installations?
 
MR. CARNEY:  They were numerous steps taken, as there have been every year on the anniversary of 9/11, and as there have been at different times on the calendar when it is judged by the experts that taking additional steps, security steps, is the right thing to do.  As for specific measures taken at specific facilities, diplomatic facilities, I would refer you to the State Department.
 
Q    Separate from the FBI investigation you mentioned to Mary a few moments ago, is there any sort of inquiry going on here at the White House among the President's national security team to get to the bottom of -- you told the American people on September 10th, "We've taken steps to protect Americans here at home and abroad."  Obviously, with four Americans tragically being killed, the steps were not good enough.  So is there an inquiry going on here to figure out what went wrong?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that you're conveniently conflating two things, which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation in terms of what --
 
Q    Which happened on the anniversary.
 
MR. CARNEY:  -- which are under investigation, and the cause and motivation behind them will be decided by that investigation.
It is certainly -- I would point you to what Ambassador Rice said and others have said about what we know thus far about the video and its influence on the protests that occurred in Cairo, in Benghazi and elsewhere.  And all I can tell you is that steps are taken, both seen and unseen, in advance of and in preparation for times like the anniversary of 9/11 when it is judged that there might be greater threats.  And those steps are based on the threat assessments that we have at the time.  But I would refer you in terms of specific security for specific facilities to the State Department.
 
 
September 18th, two days later, and Carney was pointing to Susan Rice's b.s. to provide cover for an administration -- one in which the president was already accused of not receiving the daily intelligence briefing because he allegedly wanted to do other things.  Susan Rice put  out the story the White House wanted.  Once the story was out there, the White House would repeatedly reference Rice.
 
Reporting on today's hearing, Jake Tapper and Mary Bruce (ABC News) note: Lt Col Wood testified he was removed from Libya in August "against his wishes and, he says, the wishes of the late Ambassador Chris Stevens."  They note:
 
 
Wood said that when he heard of the attack on the Benghazi post on September 11, it was "instantly recognizable" that it had been a terrorist attack.
Why?
"Mainly because of my prior knowledge there," Wood said. "I almost expected the attack to come. We were the last flag flying. It was a matter of time."
 
 
 
 
In a dramatic moment at the hearing, Issa released unclassified cables from March and July that the State Department had refused to release, detailing those requests.
One cable, written by then Amb. Gene Cretz, noted that three Mobile Security Detachments [MSD], consisting of 18 personnel, and the Site Security Team [SST], consisting of 16 personnel, were about to leave their temporary assignments. He said that the Libya mission needed both an extension of those forces and an increase in the number of permanent security officials in Libya.
 
 
We're going to note another exchange in today's hearing:
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Mr. Nordstrum, earlier in your testimony  you were discussing your recollection of the conversation that you had had with two agents in the room regarding the denial of the extension of the SST.  Now it was your understanding that you were not to request an extension at that point, is that correct? 
 
Eric Nordstrom:   That's correct.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And who was on the other end of the line that told you that?
 
Eric Nordstrom: I was on the telephone call with DS Lamb [DSLAM?].
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Was Ms. Lamb on the phone call with you?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  That is DS Lamb.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Okay, sorry.  So she did tell you that?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  That's correct.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Okay.  Now she, just the other day in an interview with the Committee, indicated that on your July 9th cable to Washington requesting security personnel, you didn't formally request an SST extension, in fact, you just made a recommendation.  Can you explain that there's a difference between recommendation and request?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  In Post felt that that was a pretty clear request for resources.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:   Had you done it before with the idea that it was a request?
 
Eric Nordstrom:   I believe it was also titled "Request For Continued TDY Staffing."
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And it was a denial of that extension?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  Well actually, we never actually received a response.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Other than -- other than that phone conference that you were on?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  Correct. We never received a response to that cable.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And as a result of that phone conference where you were denied, did you seek any further effort to follow up or make a re-request?
 
Eric Nordstrom:  I believe actually, to clarify, the telephone call was prior to sending in the cable. What we decided since we continued to get resistance, instead of specifically asking for SST or MSD or whatever, we just said, 'You know what, give us the thirteen bodies, where ever they come from.'  And that's the way in which we crafted the cable.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Now Ms. Lamb, you testified in an interview with this Committee that you trusted your RSOs in the field such as Mr. Nordstrom.  Now how do you square that statement with you telling Mr. Nordstrom that you would not support an extension of the SST?
 
Charlene Lamb:  The cable that he sent in indicated that any of the categories --
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  But before the cable was the phone conversation.
 
Charlene Lamb:  That's -- that's correct.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And you wouldn't support his request or recommendation at that time.
 
Charlene Lamb:  Because we had Department of State diplomatic security assets that could do the same functions of the remaining --
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And that was explained to him as well?
 
Charlene Lamb:  Yes, sir.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Now, Lt Col Wood, I understand that you were the senior officer of the SST team.  Is that correct?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: That's correct, sir.
 
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And do you have any reason to believe that if you had to go up your chain of command at AFRICOM for a request from the State Dept that they extend the tour of duty of an SST, that your chain of command would not grant that?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely Gen [Carter F.] Ham was fully supportive of extending the SST as long as they felt they needed them.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  So the resources were available for the SST?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood:  Absolutely.
 
US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And had they been there, they would have made a difference, would they not?
 
Lt Col Andrew Wood: They made a difference every day they were there, when I was there, sir.  They were a deterrent effect.
 
 
Turning to Iraq where Alsumaria reports violence today included a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured a police officer, a Baghdad armed clash at a checkpoint which left 1 soldier dead, and there were 12 mass arrests. 
 
Iraq has had a wave of executions, at least 23 since Thursday with more death row prisoners just moved from Tikrit to Baghdad.  Today Human Rights Watch issued a call for a moratorium on the death penalty in Iraq:
 
 
Serious questions about whether Iraq's justice system meets international fair trial standards highlight the urgent need for a moratorium on capital punishment.
The Iraqi authorities executed six prisoners with no prior notice on October 4, 2012, eleven prisoners on October 7, and another six prisoners on October 8. According to a statement released by Justice Ministry officials on October 8, Iraq has executed 23 people convicted of "criminal and terrorist offenses" since October 4, bringing the total as of Monday's executions to 119 in 2012 and making the country a leading user of the death penalty in the region.
"The Iraqi authorities' insistence on carrying out this outrageous string of executions, while unwilling to reveal all but the barest of information, underlines the opaque and troubling nature of Iraq's justice system," said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "Rather than executing people, Iraq should focus on reforming its security and judicial systems to protect its citizens from increasing human rights violations."
Iraqi officials contend, when challenged about the death penalty, that it is rooted in cultural tradition. But the prevalence of unfair trials and torture in detention, particularly in national security and terrorism-related cases, raises serious concerns and makes the lack of transparency in Iraq's imposition of the death penalty particularly egregious, Human Rights Watch said.
The Justice Ministry provided few details about the people it executed in the first week of October. A statement released that day named only one, Abd al-Rahman Yassin Turky, saying he had been convicted for detonating a car bomb close to the Foreign Ministry in 2009. The ministry's statement said that another of those executed was one of the prisoners who escaped from Tikrit prison at the end of September, who had been "recently re-apprehended by security forces." The statement provided no further details on the identities of those executed, saying only that all had been convicted of offenses punishable under the counterterrorism law. The Ministry provided no details about the people executed on October 7, stating only that they had been convicted of terrorism after "carrying out killings and explosions against the Iraqi people." In a statement released on October 8, the ministry provided the initials of two of those executed, claiming they had been convicted of kidnapping and murder. The other four persons were convicted of terrorism charges, according to the statement, which otherwise gave no identifying information about the people executed on Monday.
"The government should disclose the identities, locations, and status of all prisoners on death row, the crimes for which they have been convicted, the evidence supporting their conviction, and details of any impending executions," Stork said.
 
 
They also need to put a moratorium in place on false boasting.  AFP reports, "Iraq insisted on Wednesday its oil output could reach up to 10 million barrels per day by 2020, far highter than a prediction from the International Energy Agency which outlined several risks."  Whether this is possible or not, it is a comedown from the previous promise by Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet that they'd be at 17 million barrels per day in four years.  And of the IEA report, Kirsten Korosec (Smart Planet) observes:
 
The outlook provided by the IEA isn't all sunshine and rainbows. How this plays out will be highly dependent on the speed at which impediments to investment are removed, market conditions and Iraq's ability to maintain political stability and develop its workforce, the IEA said. It also will require substantial investment in oil infrastructure, roads and the country's decrepit electricity grid.
Iraq's electricity grid is especially problematic. Prolonged power outages occur daily in many parts of the country. The IEA estimates Iraq needs 70 percent more net power generation capacity to meet demand. The country will have to install 70 gigawatts of generation capacity and move away from a predominantly oil-fired power mix to efficient gas-fired generation, the IEA said.
 
This means, Iraq will have to invest a lot into the energy sector — an average of $25 billion per year through 2020 — if it hopes to meet its potential.
 
All that oil, all that income, and the Iraqi government wants to whine it can't pay its bills?  A. Saleh (Kuwait Times) reports that, pleading that rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure will be costly, Iraq is moving to reduce the compensation payments they owe to Kuwait. 
 
They just don't have the money, you understand, to pay compensation for their war on Kuwait, even though the United Nations has ordered compensation be paid.  They just don't have the money.  But Prensa Latina observes, "Russia will deliver gun-missile Pantsir-S and combat helicopters Mi-28NE air-defense systems to Iraq in arms deals worth $4.2 billion signed earlier this year, said the government today."  Defense World adds, "The contracts, among the biggest ever signed between Iraq and Russia, were signed in April, July and August by Iraq's acting defense minister, according to documents released on Tuesday during al-Maliki's visit." Ilya Arkhipov (Bloomberg News) explains, "The deals are the biggest military contacts since the 2003 U.S.-led overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."   M.K. Bahdrakumar (Asia Times) shared this opinion:
 
The stunning news will send US politicians into a tizzy. Reports say the phone kept ringing in Maliki's office in Baghdad as soon as it transpired that he was to travel to Moscow and something big could be in the works. Queries were coming in from the US State Department and the National Security Council as to what warranted such a trip at this point in time.
The point is, Maliki still remains an enigma for Washington. He is no doubt a friend of the US, but he is also possibly more than a friend of Iran. Now, it seems, he is also fond of Russia - as Saddam Hussein used to be.
 
 
At the State Dept yesterday, spokesperson Victoria Nuland appeared eager to prove she could lie about things other than Libya:

QUESTION: Yes. I wonder if you could comment on the military sale deal with – between Iraq and Russia. Because last week I asked about the – what kind of sales are in the pipeline and why they are taking so long. I'm talking about the FMF – the military sales to Iraq program, the American military sale. But it seems that they are taking a step ahead and concluding a deal with Russia.

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, with regard to U.S.-Iraqi military support, Iraq overall has initiated some 467 foreign military sales cases with the United States. If all of these go forward, it will be worth over $12.3 billion, so obviously our own military support relationship with Iraq is very broad and very deep.
We've seen the press reporting that one of the subjects on Prime Minister Maliki's agenda for his Moscow trip is military sales, but I'll have to send you to the Russians for what it is in particular they're talking about.

QUESTION: But aren't you at least annoyed that Iraq, after so much U.S. investment in blood and treasure, is actually going to conduct a deal or sign a deal with Russia on – over military sales going back – a throwback to the Cold War era?

MS. NULAND: Again, Said, we're doing some $12.3 billion worth of military business with Iraq, so I don't think one needs to be concerned about that relationship being anything but the strongest. With regard to what they may be seeking from the Russians, I would send you to the Russians and to the Iraqis.
 
Keep spinning, Nuland, keep spinning.  A four billion dollar deal?  Do you know how many jobs that would mean in the US?  Do you realize how many trillions the US government has poured into Iraq (most for war, yes, but it was the illegal war that allowed them to put the chicken s**t exile Nouri al-Maliki into place as a leader)?  Do you realize how many billions the State Dept continues to spend in Iraq?  And Russia got the four billion contract?  Good for Russian workers and their economy but don't pretend that a four billion dollar contract wouldn't have resulted in a ton of jobs in the United States.  Dmitry Babich (Voice of Russia) offers, "Interestingly, Iraq's unexpectedly independent stance sheds a new light on the American occupation of Iraq and its consequences. Obviously, instead of a strong ally, free of Iranian influence and completely drawn into the orbit of American influence, Washington has got in Baghdad the exact opposite of its desires." The White House that overturned the 2010 Iraq election results to keep Nouri prime minister can't even get a moderate return on their investment. 
 
That includes their desire for war on Syria.  Vladimir Radyuhin (The Hindu) reports:
 
 
Amid a visit to Russia, Mr. Maliki has warned Turkey not to blow-up its differences with Syria and drag NATO into the conflict.
The veiled support for the Syrian government came soon after Baghdad revived its military ties with Moscow. Mr. Maliki, a close ally of Iran, asserted that Syria was not threatening Turkey, which should not seek NATO's intervention.
 
 
One of Iraq's leading newspapers is Al Mada.  They have retooled their online look so click here to check out the redesign.   In the US, a presidential election approaches.  Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate.  Today her campaign offers an open letter from running mate Cheri Honkala:
 
This Thursday's vice presidential debate in Kentucky reads like bad joke: The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has pledged to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners," but continues to refuse an open and fair debate with all candidates on enough ballots to win -- guaranteeing we will not see any women, poor, or working people behind the podium.
We must change that. Until the debates are open and fair, we won't see a sincere discussion of fighting to end poverty in America. Or an honest debate of reproductive rights or equal pay for equal work (in fact, gender issues weren't mentioned even once in last week's debate).
It's no laughing matter. Contribute today to take back the debate and fight for the real issues facing our nation --
~ We need comprehensive Medicare for all. With the Green New Deal, we can replace profiteering by private health insurance companies with a just and humane health care system.

~ We can end grinding poverty with a Full Employment Program. Over 48 million people live in poverty today, but with the Green New Deal, we can create good jobs building green infrastructure, clean manufacturing, and public works programs.

~ Selling out our teachers and public workers to "balance the budget" is no solution to our money problems. With the Green New Deal, we can break up the banks "too big to fail" and end bailouts for the financial elite.
Can you pitch in $5, $25, or $50?

Our momentum continues to build and we're taking huge strides -- check out our newest effort based on what we'll win by earning 1, 3, or 5% of the vote. None of this could be possible without you.

Thank you.

 ~ Cheri Honkala
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

Who I may vote for

"Obama Discovers America, America Discovers Barack Obama And Mitt Romney" (Hillary Is 44):

 This is a no whine zone. This is a gloat zone as well. Let’s gloat.
Remember Andrew Sullivan? He’s that snake that lives in the Slytherin bathrooms. Sullivan is a reptile who fell to his knees in 2008 to worship Barack Obama in the silliest schoolgirl crush since Olive Oyl took a liking for lumbering Popeye.
Now Sullivan, today’s headline at Drudge, is worried sick for his lovey-poo:
“Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?
The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.
Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall? Over in one night [snip]
Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion.“
That poor reptile (we mean Sullivan). It’s sad when reality takes a bite out of your fat ass. Sullivan is in tears. We here at Big Pink are in tears too – tears of joy!. On Denver Debate Disaster Night we wrote what we repeated the day after: “Last night the country saw the Obama we saw in 2008.
Reptile Sullivan saw a golden calf in 2008. We saw a corrupt, rusted Chicago calf. No one should read or listen to someone like Sullivan who was so wrong. We’re posting about him today simply to gloat:
“How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? [snip]
Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve.“
Hey, we thought calling Obama “arrogant” was racist? We thought Sullivan believed in hope and change”? Sullivan is hopeless though as he thinks up schemes to salvage his rusted calf:



Amen.

I was supporting Jill Stein.  Read the snapshot today.

At the end, C.I. has a piece on Jill's campaign.

I'm not in the mood for the crap the campaign's pulling.  They've done their second press release in two weeks calling out a politician.  The first was Mitt Romney.  The second was Paul Ryan.

Sorry, Jill, I'm not into this f**king dance.

If you're just a covert op for the Democratic Party, you can go f**k yourself and I will not vote for you.

I noted all along that Jill had my vote unless the campaign started seeming fake.

She's got a limited time to show she's for real.

I did not applaud her and promote her here only so she could spend the last four weeks betraying her supporters as she turned her campaign into an attack dog on Mitt Romney.

That's what she's now doing and she go f**k herself if that continues.

I'm sorry.  I hope you get how angry I am.

This nonsense is why Ralph Nader got my vote in 2008 and not Cynthia McKinney. 

Cynthia refused to challenge Barack.  Issued press releases praising him -- including on getting the Democratic Party nomination.

Barack didn't give a s**t about Cynthia and damn well didn't issue a press release about her campaign.  Cynthia looked like a pathetic little suck up.  That's not the Cynthia who represented me in Georgia.

So Ralph got my vote.

And if Jill Stein doesn't straighten her campaign up and do so pretty damn quick my vote will be a protest vote and I will pull the lever for Mitt Romney.

Barack has destroyed this country and people on the left refuse to call him out.  Four more years of Barack is more gutting of the safety net, more attacking whistle blowers, more wars, more all the awful things I thought only Republicans did.

I'm not rewarding that behavior.

If Jill can't get her act together, I'm voting Mitt.  And she needs to hurry because I'm absentee voting and need to mail it in shortly.  (We'll be in Georgia election day.  There's a big family anniversary this year and the kids and I'll fly to Georgia.)


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

October 9, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, someone explain to Barack Obama that campaign material cannot be posted at a government site (yes, that includes the White House) unless your intent is to violate the Hatch Act, Barack talks Iraq (briefly), Nouri gets weapons from Russia, Jill Stein's campaign for president is looking very weak, and more.
 
Yesterday we noted Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate, delivered a foreign relations speech.  Today US President Barack Obama did.  If you're a dope -- like Michael A. Memoli of the Los Angeles Times -- you just type it up.  I'm sorry, is it only Republicans that have to be fact checked?  Barack's been president for nearly four years, at what point does he stop being coddled?
 
And if you can figure out the lunatic ravings of his campaign site, more power to you.  I couldn't.  Where's the speech?  I called a friend with the campaign and he told me, "Why it's at the White House."
 
At the White House.  How many times is this adminitsration going to break the Hatch Act?
 
Go to the White House's Speeches and Remarks page and you'll find the following:

Speeches and Remarks

 
 
 
The White House is not a campaign site.  I went over the legalities with Team Barack when they had their Twitter Feed issues (they were breaking the Hatch Act, they quickly changed their policies to be in compliance with the Hatch Act).  I don't feel like being nice today.  Team Barack has a ton of lawyers, at least one of them should know the damn law.  Campaign event speeches belong at the campaign website.  They are not official White House business.  They cannot be posted at the White House.  This is no different than what got Al Gore in trouble -- the phone calls -- only now we're talking online. 
 
If you're not grasping it, White House staff posts to the White House web.  Right away, you've got a Hatch Act issue if White House staff is posting campaign event material to the White House website.  I cannot believe how stupid Team Barack is.  And I'll put my hand on the Bible and say "stupid" and not "criminal."  It took two hours to explain the basics of how their Twitter feed was in violation of the Hatch Act.  I don't have that kind of time, especially for a candidate I'm not campaigning for, donating to, or voting for.  I expect the President of the United States to comply with the law.  That is not an outlandish expectation.  If Team Obama's attorneys are this stupid, that not only suggests the need for new attorneys, it goes to the man they're working for.
 
White House staff has now posted campaign event material to a government website.  Forget that it's the White House, for a moment, to a government website.  They are not in compliance with the Hatch Act and if we grown ups in the press -- which we so obviously do not (excepting the few like Jake Tapper) -- they'd be running with this story.  We'd have headlines "Potential Hatch Act Violation by White House" or "Another Potential Hatch Act Violation by White House."  But we have meek little general studies majors who never learned one damn thing about one damn thing and we're all victimized by their stupidity.
 
And today's speech where he remembers Iraq all the sudden?  It's got be the one damn speech they didn't break the Hatch Act by posting.
 
We can't get the text of the speech (supposedly it'll be faxed to me shortly, I don't have the time to wait) so we have to depend upon the accuracy of a dunce, a village idiot, by the name of Michael Memoli.  Fate has saved us.  The fax just came in. 
 
Ohio State University in Columbus was where Barack spoke this evening. 
 
 
On Iraq:
 
I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our schools all across America.  And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.  I disagree.  I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do.  If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.  In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on that belief.  He said ending that war was a mistake.  After nine years of war, more than $1 trillion in spending, extraordinary sacrficies by our men and women in uniform and their families, he said we should still have troops on the ground in Iraq.   Ohio, you can't turn a page on the failed policies of the past if you're promising to repeat them.  We cannot afford to go back to a foreign policy that gets us into wars with no plan to end them.
 
 
That's Barack on Iraq in Ohio today.  It was not a major foreign policy speech.  It was actually very disappointing to read because there was no effort to say much of anything.  Did Barack think his college audience couldn't handle much more than simplistic statements.  I'm not talking him presenting a new map for foreign relations, I'm talking about some uplifting phrases.  This is the dullest speech in the world.  Maybe attorneys aren't Team Obama's only problem?
 
 
Reading Michael A. Memoli's nonsense, it becomes clear that Barack can say whatever he wants and will not be fact checked.   So let's do the work that the Los Angeles Times should have expected Memoli to do.
 
 
Barack: I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our schools all across America.
 
I would applaud you but you stated that repeatedly in your campaign speeches in 2008 -- and in your victory speech on election night (link is NPR, text and audio).  So you had four years and the US roads and bridges remain in need of repair.  You refused to do a public works project, the way FDR did to provide jobs, but we're supposed to believe you that this time you really, really mean it.
 
 
Barack:  And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.
 
Barack keeps repeating that lie.  FactCheck.org from September 7, 2012:
 
 
Making the case that Romney lacks foreign policy chops, Obama twisted Romney's words, claiming, "My opponent said it was 'tragic' to end the war in Iraq."
But that's not quite what Romney said. He was speaking of the speed with which Obama was withdrawing troops, not to ending the war in general.
During a veterans roundtable in South Carolina on Nov. 11, 2011, Romney criticized Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq by the end of that year. Here's the fuller context of his comments, as reported by the New York Times:
Romney, Nov. 11, 2011: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it's more than unfortunate, I think it's tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.
A month earlier, when Obama formally announced the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Iraq by year's end, Romney released a similar statement:
Romney, Oct. 21, 2011: President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.
In December, Romney argued that Obama "has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way" and that he ought to have left a residual force of  "10-, 20-, 30-thousand personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi's own military capabilities."
Criticizing the "precipitous" pace of withdrawal and the president's failure to leave a residual force in Iraq is a far cry from calling the end of the war in Iraq "tragic."
 
 
 
"Obama twisted Romney's words" -- yes and continues to do so after being called out on it which makes it a lie.
 
 
Barack:  I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do.
 
 
If you had actually done that, Barack.  I could probably vote in this presidential election and could vote for you.  If you had done that, if you had brought the troops home from Iraq.  I probably could ignore your assaults on whistle blowers, find some way to justify your persecution of Bradley Manning and other things.  Because Iraq really matters to me.  So I could probably find a way to lie to myself, write you a big check, go out and campaign for you and vote for you.  I might hold my nose, but I probably could have if you'd just done that.
 
But you didn't bring US troops home.  Some of them, over 15,000, you moved across the Iraqi border into Kuwait.  And there's no plans to bring that number down to zero.  In fact, June 19, 2012,  the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council." 
Page 12:
 
 
Kuwait is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.
* U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991 and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.
 
 
The report goes on to recommend that the troops stay there for years.  (Individuals would rotate out but approximately 13,000 US troops would be stationed in Kuwait for years.) 
 
 
In addition, Special Ops remained in Iraq.  They never left.  'Trainers' remained in Iraq (also US military).  And not only did Special Ops remain but Barack just sent more Special Ops into Iraq. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th, "At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence." 
 
 
 
Barack:  If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.
 
 
Barack, "these troops" still are there.  And if Barack had gotten his way, even more would be there.  As Yaroslav Trofimov and Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) remind today, "In Iraq, Washington's ability to influence the government in Baghdad was greatly diminished by December's pullout of American forces, ordered by President Barack Obama after Baghdad refused to accept the U.S. demand that remaining U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi jurisdiction."   I would love to hear Senator John McCain respond to this speech by Barack.  In November of last year, we defended Barack here from McCain's charge that Barack was misleading (lying) and intended to tank negotiations between the US and Iraq for US troops to remain in Iraq in large numbers.  And we even brought it up in the 2011 year-in-review:
 
Another reason offered for the refusal by the Iraqis to extend the SOFA or come to a new agreement came from US Senator John McCain. McAin's hypothesis is that Barack purposely tanked the talks (see the November 15th Iraq snapshot and Kat's report on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing). Were that true (I personally don't buy that proposal), then the administration should be paraded before Congress due to the fact that, when the country was in three overseas wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya), plus drone attacks of Pakistan and in an ever increasing economic mess, for Barack to have wasted some of the administration's most valuable players on negotiations that were intended to fail would be criminal negligence. Far more likely is that, as with his attempts to land the 2016 Olympics (for Chicago) which included traveling all the way to Denmark only to see the Committee rebuff him and select Rio instead. Barack's embarrassing failure was lampooned in Isaiah's 2009 "Dream Team Take Two" which found the players (Barack, Michelle, Oprah and Valerie Jarrett) attempting to bring the Mary Kay Convention to Chicago.
 
 
I think McCain would look at that single sentence ("If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.")  and say that Barack can't have it both ways -- either he would have kept troops there but couldn't get a treaty passed or else he intentionally tanked a treaty because he didn't want troops there.
 
 
In addition,  Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions."  Troops would still be there?  But it's the White House right now that's negotiating to send more troops back into Iraq.
 
 
 
Barack:  In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on that belief. He said ending that war was a mistake.
 
No, he didn't.  He called out the way the White House did the drawdown (what Romney termed a withdrawal).
 
Mitt Romney:  In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran. And yet, America's ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The President tried -- and failed -- to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown that would have better secured our gains.
 
 
He is not saying ending the war was a mistake, he's saying the way Barack ended it was a mistake.  Barack's distorted and twisted Romney's words -- possibly because he knows the media is loathe to talk about the realities of Iraq today. 
 
 
Barack:  After nine years of war, more than $1 trillion in spending, extraordinary sacrficies by our men and women in uniform and their families, he said we should still have troops on the ground in Iraq.
 
He didn't say that yesterday.  I wouldn't be surprised if that was Romney's position but he didn't state that yesterday.   But if Barack doesn't believe the US should still have troops on the ground in Iraq, (a) why didn't he withdraw all US troops at the end of 2011 and (b) why is he attempting to negotiate a treaty to send even more US troops back into Iraq?
 
It's amazing how the Los Angeles Times refuses to hold Barack accountable until you realize that the Los Angeles Times responded to the Iraq War most infamously by dropping their columnist who was adamantly opposed to it -- Robert Scheer who went on to create Truthdig.  So in other words, the Los Angeles Times lied in real time and pimped the war.  They didn't whore as bad as the New York Times -- but outside of a cathouse, who could?   So now the LA paper continues to lie.  It lied to get US troops into Iraq, it lies to keep US troops in Iraq.
 
 
Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:
 
Let's go through what Mitt Romney said about Iraq.
 
[Romney:] In Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising violence, a resurgent Al-Qaeda, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad, and the rising influence of Iran.
 
 
The press reports that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is responsible for the rise in violence.  I tend to be more skeptical of that claim and see this as less about terrorism and more as a fight for who will control the country.  In my view, the refusal to share power and bring in Sunnis is creating the same oppression that the Shi'ites lived under for decades.  But Mitt Romney expressed statements perfectly in keeping with the American press reports (and Salon's not challenged those reports or even been skeptical of them).  From the right and the left, you read about Iran and Iraq's increased relationship.  From the right, it's Barack's fault for what he's done in the last four years (his fault that Iran and Iraq are so much closer), from the left it's Bush's fault for starting the illegal war.  Regardless of who gets blamed, the reality is that Iraq and Iran are much closer than they were before 2003.
 
Today Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) has a report headlined, "Al-Qaeda making comeback in Iraq, officials say" and  "Surge in violence, new training camps show al-Qaidia revival in Iraq after US troop withdrawal."  Use the links.  Romney's statements were not controversial unless you're Joan Walsh or some other dishonest person.
 
 
Through Monday, Iraq Body Count counts 51 people killed in violence in Iraq since the start of the month.  Today All Iraq News reports that an official with the Ministry of Interior was targeted in a Baghdad assassination attempt but survived while his driver died in the attack and a Tal Afar roadside bombing has claimed two lives.  Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) adds the Tal Afar victims were two brothers who are members of the PUK political party (Jalal Talabani's party) and reports 1 judge (Abbas al-Abadi) was shot dead in front of his Mosul home, a Mosul roadside bombing left "a deputy police chief and a policeman" injured, a Sulaiman Bek roadside bombing injured five members of one family and 2 Abu Ghraib roadside bombings resulted in 1 military officer and 1 Iraqi soldier being killed with two more soldiers left injured.  Press TV reports 1 "bodyguard of a lawmaker was killed in an ambush near the town of Mussayeb" and a Kirkuk car bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers with four more injured.
 
Al Mada notes State of Law has declared that Iraq is not attempting to form an alliance with Iran and Russia..   That Nouri al-Maliki's political slate felt the need to make that statement is more interesting than the statement itself.  Nouri, of course, is in Russia.  All Iraq News reports he's met with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medevdev to discuss trade, economic and military issues.  UPI explains, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly flew to Moscow Monday for talks on defense and trade amid signs Russia is trying to make inroads in on Iraq's multibillion-dollar rearmament program, which has been dominated by the United States.The word is that Baghdad, nearly a year after the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, Maliki will sign a $5 billion air-defense contract with Moscow." Hurriyet Daily News observes, "If the deal takes place, Iraq will be among five largest importers of Russian arms, according to Pravda."  AFP reports the deal did take place but it was a "$4.2 billion" arms deal --
30 Mi-28 attack helicopters and 42 Pansir-S1 surface-to-air missile systems."  And the two sides continue to explore additional weapons. Alberto Riva (International Business Times) explains:
 
It's a significant deal not only because of its size, but because it gives Iraq advanced capabilities it could use in the possible conflicts brewing in the region. The Mi-28 helicopter gunships would be deadly in any confrontation with Kurdish independence fighters over the status of Iraqi Kurdistan and its rich oil fields; the Pantsir missiles would be a strong deterrent against the air forces of Iraq's Sunni Muslim neighbors and potential enemies. That's an important factor now that Iraq has a Shiite-dominated government, and that those Sunni neighbors – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait -- all have powerful air forces, recently replenished with hundreds of American and European fighter-bombers of the latest generation.

 
And this isn't the end of Nouri's shopping spree.  AFP reports, "Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will head a government delegation to the Czech Republic on Thursday, with a potential arms deal involving several dozen Czech-made subsonic jet fighters likely to figure on the agenda."  Alsumaria notes that Nouri spoke in Russia today of unnamed forces wanting to topple Middle East regimes and used Syria as an example.  That will be interpreted as a hint that he was referring to the United States government.  The snub comes as Iraqi diplomats in DC, Dar Addustour notes, work to garner US support to get Iraq removed from Chapter VII by the United Nations.
 
 
While Nouri was out of the country, the Council of Ministers was 'hard at work.'  Alsumaria reports Nouri's Council of Ministers announced a decision today to kill wild pigs.  They fear they might be spreading disease. 
 
That passes for a functional government in Iraq.  In addition, Khalid al-Ansary (Bloomberg News) reports, "Iraq's Cabinet agreed to double the capital of state-owned Trade Bank of Iraq to one trillion dinars ($858 million), State Minister Ali al-Dabbagh, the official government spokesperson said in an e-mailed statement today."
 
 
In the US, US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Richard Burr is the Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  The House Veterans Affairs Committee notes:
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Friday, Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Senator Richard Burr, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, called on VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to remove VA Chief of Staff, John Gingrich from his position due to his involvement in VA's conference scandal. To read Chairman Miller's and Ranking Member Burr's letter to the Secretary, click here.
To learn more about VA's OIG investigation, click here.
 
 
 
I normally would include a Jill Stein press release.  Stein is the Green Party's presidential candidate.  But it was just read to me and I said, "Don't copy and paste it in."  I have no idea why you need a "Paul Ryan" at your protest.  But if you -- and maybe you do, then you'd need a Biden as well.  Can't have Ryan without Joe.
 
I think Jill Stein is a sincere candidate.  But I'm not whoring.  And the Green Party has whored since 2000 so people are automatically suspicious.  That's why this community got behind Ralph Nader and not the Green Party nominee (it was Cynthia McKinney but the community had already gotten behind Ralph) (the community had gotten behind him, I've not stated who I voted for -- I've stated I didn't vote for Barack and I'd long noted I wouldn't vote for McCain). 
 
Jill Stein needs to be aware of this pitfalls if she's not already.  Her campaign was called out in Third's "Roundtable."
 
Jim (Con't): Let's kick things off with the presidential election.   Last week, we did various roundtables and Dona moderated "Campaign roundtable" and noted they'd run out of time before they could really discuss Jill Stein's campaign.  Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate.  So let's start with Dr. Jill and then move to the debate last Wednesday.  Ann and Jess are Greens, they're supporting Jill Stein.  Everyone participating in this roundtable is except for Ava and C.I. who have announced that they don't intend to vote in the presidential election.  If they change their mind, they say they'll note it.  But Ann and Jess, why don't you kick things off on Dr. Stein.

Ann: It's October 7th and the Stein campaign hasn't updated their website since October 3rd.  I find that disturbing.  Jess and I were talking earlier and both agreed we'd note disturbances.  You're a third party candidate and the election is about four weeks away.  You need to be updating daily and you certainly cannot afford to go four days without  updating.  Gary Johnson is also a third party candidate, the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.  If you go to his website, not only do you find out he's raised a half-million dollars, you also see that he last updated Friday, October 5th.  It's one thing to take the weekend off -- which I don't think is ever smart for a third party candidate -- it's another to allow four days to pass with nothing new from your campaign.  I also notice that the campaign no longer allows people to leave comments like they did last month.  So there's nothing new and there's not even new comments you can read.  I'd say that's ridiculous.

Jess: Yeah and on the disturbing and ridiculous, they've got something on the main page that shouldn't have made it there to begin with.  Maybe if they'd updated throughout the week it would be gone.

Jim: It is?

Jess: About a bunch of stupid little bitches who took part in a protest against Mitt Romney in Boston.  They dressed up as chickens.  Their point was that Romney was too scared to debate.  Let's work in Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The So-Called Presidential Debate" right now. 
 
Jess (Con't):   You'll note that Isaiah makes fun of Mitt Romney for being scared also.  But, hey, look, he also makes fun of Barack for the same thing.    Yeah, it's both of them.

C.I.: Actually, it is Barack.  But go on.

Jess: I'd agree with that too.  But the point is if you're going to protest, for example, the NFL tomorrow, you don't go stalk the New England Patriots.  They are number two, as of last year's superbowl.  You go with the biggest and the baddest, the New York Giants, who won the Superbowl last year.  If you only protest the Patriots to protest the NFL, you look like a little bitch.  If you're stupid enough to wear costumes nd your men and you  have women in cheesecake poses, the only real word for you is one we can't use here so I'll just repeat: bitches.  You don't look strong, you look incredibly pathetic.  And by posting that crap, Jill Stein's campaign looks incredibly pathetic.

Ann: I would agree.
 
 
Jess and Ann are Greens.  Their feelings are not mysterious or strange.  The Green Party in 2004 made a laughingstock of itself.  In 2008, Green Party members rushed foward to urge people to vote for Barack.  These things do not help the Green Party.
 
I believe Dr. Jill Stein is a sincere candidate.  But she's up against an opinion that she isn't -- and that would be true of any president from that party -- because the Green Party has refused to act like a political party for the previous two presidential races.  It's instead acted like it's the kid sister of the Democratic Party. 
 
If, with all the administration currently does, Jill Stein and her campaign can't do more than ridicule Paul Ryan (Mitt Romney's running mate), then that makes people wonder, "Is this another fake ass campaign from the Green Party?" 
 
We didn't include the b.s. that Ann and Jess rightly objected to, we didn't run that press release.  We're not interested in this one.  If Jill's campaign is just about 'Oh, Mitt and Paul are awful!,' then we've got more important things to focus on then faux candidates and their pretend efforts to run for office.
 
And it is Barack, by the way, as I said in the roundtable.  Barack can waive Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and anyone else into the debate.  George H.W. Bush waived H. Ross Perot into the 1992 debates.  Why?  He thought Perot would 'steal' votes from Clinton.  (No vote that a voter awards to a candidate is stolen.)  Bill Clinton was for Perot being included as well.  In fact, he was for it before Bush.  But when Bush, the sitting President of the United States, was for it, the contract with the corporation no longer mattered (the debates are put on by the two parties -- Democrat and Republican -- and they make long lists of what's possible and what's not, read Ava and my "TV: Jim Lehrer, notch below child molester" if this is news to you).  But if the goal is to get into the debates, and that's what the press release the Stein campaign has put out says, then you need to target the sitting president because that's the only one with the power.  Mitt Romney could demand or oppose the inclusion of third party candidates.  It wouldn't matter.  But if a sitting president demands it (as George H.W. Bush did and as Barack can do now), it will happen -- such is the power of the presidency.
 
 
 
upi
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)