Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel)

Monday, September 24, 2012

High opinion of himself?

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Hollow Man" went up last night.

I still can't believe Stephen Harper deported Kim Rivera, refused to let her stay in Canada. He's really a creep and a loser in my book and I'm not surprised that half of Canada doesn't like him.

"Dear Diary: Barack Obama Will Get Us All Killed" (Hillary Is 44):

We’re still waiting for an ad from Mitt Romney’s campaign with the message: “Barack Obama will get us all killed.” Mitt Romney will have to get the message out because Big Media is all out in protection of Barack Obama:

“JOHN DICKERSON: Governor Romney jumped in the middle of the violence in the Middle East and he broke a little bit of a tradition by inserting himself. They [sic] he disappeared on the issue. We’ve since learned that this administration first thought this uprising in Libya was just a kind of– something that bubbled up from the ground. Well, now they are calling it a terrorist attack. What went wrong there? What did you get wrong in the first place? Why weren’t you securing the embassy the way you should have been? These are points that a Republican could make that Mitt Romney need to make because he knows the press isn’t necessarily going to make that case for him. He can’t make it because he was the one who jumped in and said hey this is a very serious issue. But instead he hasn’t really come back to it.”

Mitt Romney should “come back to it” and start now laying out the groundwork for the last presidential debate, which will be about foreign policy, and which takes place in the must win state of Florida. What better place than Florida on October 22 for Romney to say again, after a month of ads stating such, “Barack Obama Will Get Us All Killed“?
Romney at Boca needs to declare the sacking of the Benghazi consulate “a catastrophic intelligence loss” and on October 22 inform Florida voters of the consequences of Barack Obama “leadership”. The Libya station provided critical information to intelligence services and now it is gone. Gone too is the “bump in the road” American ambassador.
Romney should be sure to provide the viewers of the October 22 debate today’s little noticed news concerning Ahmadinejad’s appearance at the United Nations (Ahmadinejad’s big speech will come later this week) and ask the question prompted by the video: Israeli delegation walks out of Ahmadinejad’s UN speech — but the U.S. doesn’t?:

All the media does is spin for Barack and attack Mitt Romney. They should really be ashamed of themselves. They're supposed to report the news, not participate. But that's all they know how to do now, to fix elections and lie.

CBS has a report about Barack going on The View:

"I told folks I'm just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys," Mr. Obama quipped about the fact that he was the only man on the couch with Walters, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, the First Lady, Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Sherri Shepherd.

Stuck on yourself much?

And what kind of a many says he's "eye candy here for you guys"? They're not guys. They're women. Barack is such a joke as a man. He really is.

He's a vain little dandy boy and I would love to see his prissy little ass kicked by Chicago. He can take all the vacations he wants there. He can golf all he wants there.

Remember when he said he wouldn't deserve a second term if . . . And now the unemployment rate is where it wasn't supposed to be. And he's running for a second term.

He's Mr. Say Anything To Get Elected.

I hope he's haunted for the rest of his life by the ghosts of all the people he's killed in the US Drone War.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, September 24, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, children are among the targeted today, Jalal Talabani's grooming his successor, State of Law's working on spin, the Iraqi government ignores violence to focus on finding a new flag and anthem, Stephen Harper's very, very unpopular, and much more.

Starting in Canada with The Hollow Man himself, Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Heartless, heartless

Ya think he's gonna bare his empty soul?

He never realized, the way loves dies

When you crucify its soul

-- "Heartless," written by Ann and Nancy Wilson, first appears on Heart's Magazine and the Wilson sisters new album, Fanatic, comes out next Tuesday, October 2nd

Heartless Stephen Harper kicked US war resister Kim Rivera out of Canada last week. She was immediately arrested, this mother of four. Gordon Block (Watertown Daily Times) noted Saturday that she was being held at Fort Drum, "A post spokesman confirmed Friday morning that Kimberly Rivera was being held before being transferred to another military facility. The spokesman did not have any details on how long she would be held on post, or where she would be transferred." Tom Russert of the Public Affairs Liaison for Customs and Border Protection tells ABC Radio, "She was wanted for being a military desserter, there was a warrant for her arrest." Diana Mehta (Canadian Press) reports on the events:

"It doesn't get any clearer that this," Mr. Marciniec said. "The risk that we've pointed out, of Iraq War resisters being punished as prisoners of conscience, isn't just risk. It's fact. Kim's case today proves that."

Mr. Marciniec also pointed out that two other Iraq war resisters who were deported in the past -- Robin Long and Clifford Cornell -- faced year-long jail sentences for desertion upon their return.

Rivera, who lived in Toronto with her family, came to Canada in 2007 to avoid further U.S. military service.

She has said she grew to oppose the Iraq war while she was taking part in it, and even stopped carrying her rifle with her.

And despite the support of Canadians, despite worldwide appeals that Kim be granted asylum, Stephen Harper was more concerned with letting the world know just how heartless and uncaring he is. In less than 12 days, 20,348 people signed on the War Resisters Support Campaign's petition to let Kim and her family stay in Canada. Across Canada this week and on Labor Day, people demonstrated calling for Harper to let Kim stay. Prominent Canadians released a joint-statement:

We the undersigned support conscientious objector Kimerly Rivera and her family who are threatened with imminent deportation from Canada on September 20. Kim deployed to Iraq in 2006 and sought asylum in Canada in 2007. She faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for refusing to participate any longer in the Iraq War -- a war which had no legal sanction. Kim would be separated from her four young children, two of whom were born in Canada. A felony conviction would mean a lifetime of difficulty finding employment. We call on the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kennedy to do the right thing and allow Kimberly Rivera and her family to stay in Canada.

Andy Barrie, broadcaster and Vietnam War resister

Dan Bar-El, award-winning children's author

Maude Barlow, author and activist

Maev Beaty, actor

Shirley Douglas, O.C., actor

Dennis Foon, award-winning writer

Richard Greenblatt, playwright/actor

Ron Hawkins, musician

Naomi Klein, author [child of a Vietnam War resister Michael who went from New Jersey to Montreal in 1967 with his wife Bonnie]

Ron Kovic, author, Born on the Fourth of July

Avi Lewis, filmmaker

Peter Showler, Director, the Refugee Forum, University of Ottawa; former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board

Jack Todd, journalist and Vietnam War resister

Alexandre Trudeau, filmmaker

Others calling for Kim to be allowed to remain in Canada included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the United Steelworkers of Canada, Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees and the United Church of Canada.

To all of this, Stephen Harper flipped the middle finger.

Who knew he had goodwill to waste? Turns out, he doesn't. Eric Grenier (Huffington Post Canada) reports, "With one in two Canadians having an unfavourable opinion of Stephen Harper, the New Democrats and Conservatives are now tied in the latest national poll. But the leaderless Liberals have suffered the most, dropping to their lowest level of support since immediately after the May 2011 election debacle." 1 in 2? That means fifty percent of Canadians surveyed disapprove of Harper. (Margin of error? It wasn't a random poll and has no margin of error.)

Lorne Silcoff writes the editors of the Montreal Gazette to share his joy over the deportation. He's in the minority of those sounding off in letters to the editor.

Others sounding off? In his letter to the Montreal Gazette, Vietnam war resister Lee Zaslofsky observes, "As a Canadian citizen who came to this country as a Vietnam War deserter in 1970, I am deeply distressed that our current government has broken with our best traditions and our noblest values by forcing Ms. Rivera to return to the United States to be punished for refusing to carry on fighting a war which she had found to be immoral." David C. Fox writes the Financial Post to wonder, "Why is it that 'mere foot soldiers' like Kimberly Rivera are going to jail for speaking out against a war based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction and false links to 9/11, when the leaders who took us to war are making millions on international book and speaking tours?" Charlie Diamond writes the Montreal Gazette editors, "But the best part of Mr. [Jack] Todd's article and my third thank you is his last sentence. 'It should be noted, however, that while Rivera and [Rodney] Watson served in Iraq and Watson is a decorated combat veteran, neither Harper, [Immigration Minister Jason] Kenney nor Defence Minister Peter MacKay ever served in the military." Lucia Kowaluk's letter notes, "Congratulations to Jack Todd for beaming yet another light on the failure of the Harper government to live up to the long-held traditions of a Canada respected in the world for positions taken precisely the opposite of the recent one: the deportation of Kimberly Rivera." Jesse McLaren tells the editors of the Financial Post, "In 2008, Stephen Harper admitted the Iraq War was 'absolutely an error,' yet he refuses to support the troops who came to the same conclusion. By deporting war resisters the government is deserting international law, Canadian tradition and democracy."

Jack Todd (Montreal Gazette) points out Harper's policies are a break with Canada's proud past, "It's a far cry from the precedent established under Liberal prime ministers Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, who faced down the pressure exerted by U.S. presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard M. Nixon to allow an estimated 100,000 American war resisters (this writer among them) to come to Canada during the Vietnam War. " To this day, the name Pierre Trudeau is known around the world -- as a good thing. Stephen Harper's ensuring that he's remembered, but far less fondly.

Moving to the US, Friday's snapshot noted the reports that the State Dept had made their (court-ordered) decision on the MEK and would be delisting it. It also included Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, refusing to confirm that but noting that a decision would be announced prior to the (court-ordered) deadline. It has rattled the unhinged.

John Glaser is among the many Little Crazies but he could have been one that got a link. He ruined that by linking to Supreme Crazy Glenn Glenn Greenwald. So no link to John Glaser and Antiwar.com and -- probably for the best. I'm not sure they're using protection in their Circle Jerk. Patrick Brennan writing for The National Review offers that the move is "strange" and offers a joke. Unlike his fellow right-winger, Brennan doesn't repeat the cult nonsense that John Glaser does. Owen Bennett-Jones uses the cult term as well at the center-right New Republic for "Our New Iran Plan Is to Help a Cult Gain Power. What Could Go Wrong?"

But he gets a link -- for making me laugh louder than Glenn Glenn. TNR identifies him as a Princeton professor. He is that . . . right now, for the fall semester. But he's mainly a British journalist, a subject of the crown. So what the hell is this "our new Iran plan"? Our? Maybe TNR should stop outsourcing and find some citizens of the US if they want to feature commentaries about "our" plans? There is no "our" plans from the US State Dept for a British citizen to write about, the Revolutionary War kind of ensured that.

It's really something to watch all these crazies suddenly re-discover Iraq. They must feel like Chris Columbus -- watching old silent films and 'discovery' slapstick to 'homage' into 1990's Home Alone. They apparently hope you haven't been paying attention.

If you have been, you might call out a lot of them for their selective use of facts. Since the 1970s blah blah blah. The MEK wasn't on the terrorist list in the 1970s. Not during the Nixon administration, not during the Ford administration and not during the Carter administration. This is the period they were active against the US. We all are aware of that, right? That three different administrations had the opportunity to put them on the list and chose not to?

In the 80s, Reagan didn't put the MEK on the list. Nor did America's only President Bush -- George H.W. Bush. In fact, it's not until 1997 that the MEK makes the US terrorist list. Then-President Bill Clinton put them on it in a gesture towards friendly relations with Iran. Friendlier relations never came and maybe Bill was wrong to have done that to begin with? They've remained on the list since.

Was it right? Was it wrong? I don't pretend to know. But I do know the law so my concern is about the Camp Ashraf refugees getting safely out of Iraq. That's a concern most US citizens should have because the US government granted the residents protected persons status. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed earlier this year that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." That's a legal obligation. You can't shrug that off. Well you can but that means you're unethical. Changing the status means countries can take in the 3500 Camp Ashraf residents without fear of the US attacking them. (Yes, other countries do worry that the same US government urging them to take in Camp Ashraf refugees will, in the current administration or a new one, use the same residents as reason to attack. That's how low the US government's standing is in the world.)

But if you're going to talk MEK, speak honestly. (The unethical can't do so, I forget.) Should they be on the list or not? I don't really care but the frantic arguments from Glenn and his fellow padded cell cronies are dishonest. They want to insist that there was a State Dept report!!!! Was there? There were also multiple reports done by US commanders of the military. They were the ones doing the interacting, doing the questioning, doing the searches -- the US military. Not the US State Dept. I don't know why one report by the State Dept (during the Bully Boy Bush Occupation) would mean a damn thing to anyone to begin with. But when contrasted with multiple reports from the US military, I don't know why you'd cite that one State Dept report and ignore all the US military reports unless it was to deliberately misinform people?

The State Dept may or may not be making the change. If they are, it has more to do with concern over the fact that a court is watching their decission. (Quick, Conspiracy Guru Greenwald! Announce that the entire American judiciary has been bought off!) It has to do with the fact that the European Union took them off the terrorist list in January 2009. (I'm sure they were bought off too -- right, Crazy Glenn -- every last one!)

I guess if I were fiercely opposed to the de-listing but couldn't make a valid case for keeping them on the list, I'd stick to insinuations about pay offs as well.

Is is the right decision? I don't know. My concern is that the US government live up to their legal obligations with regards to Camp Ashraf residents. If Glenn and the other Three Faces of Eve had advocated on behalf of the residents, on behalf of international law, then maybe things would be turning out differently? Instead, they spent years ignoring international law and now they want to whine at the way things may be going down? Impotent and inneffective, I believe that describes them all.

And it certainly describes Nouri al-Maliki, thug and prime minister of the occupation. Iran's Press TV (where many of the outlets trashing the reported decision frequently appear) reports, "According to a statement issued on Sunday by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office, the Iraqi government said that Washington's decision of delisting the MKO as a terrorist group would not change Baghdad's position toward the group 'which was involved in terrorist acts against Iraqis, in addition to its role in defending the former (Saddam Hussein) regime'." Iran's Fars News Agency adds, "The statement further said that Baghdad is determined to expel members of the terrorist organization from Camp Ashraf, and called on the United Nations to fulfill its commitment to resettle the group members outside Iraq."

Friday was International Peace Day. Al Mada notes that Iraq's Peace and Solidarity Council used the occasion to declare the Iraqi government was responsible for the deterioration in security throughout Iraq. AFP notes that Iraq current national anthem was selected in 2004 but that the government is now devoting to time to selecting a new one and a new flag. Press TV notes six potential anthems have been commissioned already including: "Salam ala Hadhabat al-Iraq" (Peace on the Hills of Iraq), "Ghareeb ala al-Khaleej" (A Stranger on the Gulf), and "Watani al-Haq Yuaiduhu" (My Country is Supported by Right). The interest in focusing on that comes after the Telegraph of London used the Olympics to make a nasty statement. From July 28th:

In other news, Alsumaria reports that the Telegraph of London has declared that Algeria and Iraq have the worst national anthems. The unsigned article in the Telegraph of London, ranks what they call the ten worst anthems -- Iraq comes in at number seven:

["]Iraq's national song, "My Homeland," comes from a poem written by Ibrahim Touquan, a Palestinian poet, in 1934. Reinstated in 2004 after a previous anthem reminded residents too much of Saddam Hussein's regime, the lyrics are rousing but the uanty melody underplays the seriousness of the message. ["]

AFP missed that insult. They also missed the 'reinstated' aspect. Prior to Saddam Hussien's rule in Iraq, "My Homeland" was used as the national anthem -- for decades.

While the government makes the choice to focus on new anthems and flags, violence continues in Iraq. All Iraq News notes a suicide car bombing in Hit targeting an elementary school in which 4 students were killed and five more people (most students) were injured. The UN News Centre quotes Martin Kobler, the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq, stating, "This is a shocking act of violence against the innocent. For schools to be attacked in a despicable crime and we are particularly distressed to learn that some of the victims were young children. Whether the school was intended as the target or not, no child should pay the price for violence carried out at the hands of criminals." Alsumaria adds the death toll has climbed to 5, that 3 of the were first graders and it was their first day at school, and that the number injured is six. Alsumaria also reports an attack on a military checkpoint in nothern Babylon Province that left 1 Iraqi solder dead and three more injured. Bahrain News Agency says three soldiers were killed. Alsumaria also notes a mortar attack in Nineveh Province left two soldiers injured, a Diyala Province roadside bombing injured a father and daughter, 1 young girl was kidnapped in Mosul, and1 five-year-old girl was kidnapped in Kirkuk.

Like the violence, the political stalemate and crisis continues. While they fret over flags and anthems, the government still, all these years later, has not passed an amnesty law. Al Mada reports today the latest hiccup is counterfeiting. Should counterfeiters be covered? It's time to 'debate' and 'explore. More likely it's time to think of another excuse to derail the position. A member of Parliament's Integrity Commission who speaks to Al Mada about the bill currently not including counterfeiting quickly launches into a conversation about how people must not be released quickly because there's no rehabilitation in Iraq -- which most likely means no process such as probation and parole and the MP is not insisting that Iraqis lack the ability to learn from actions. The amnesty bill was supposed to have become a law long, long ago. Al Mada noted on Sunday that the current bill's being in 'process' since 2008. As the broken down process remains stagnant, Alsumaria reports Iraqiya is stating the very least the government can do is start releasing those people who are innocent from the prisons.

In addition, Muhannad Jawad (Al Mada) reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc is calling for the political parties to hold a hearing to discuss the crisis and outline some steps to end it. Saturday, we explained the spin State of Law's planning.

Jalal will be hailed as "the good Kurd" to set him off from the others, used like a club to clobber the other Kurdish leaders who will be known as "the bad Kurds." Then Jalal hails Nouri's 'leadership' and praises his 'plan' and then, look, these others won't go along and POOF! all the past has vanished and all the Iraqi people know is that Jalal and Nouri are in agreement -- a Kurd and Shi'ite! -- so everyone should be!

Reality, Nouri and Jalal are almost always in agreement. With the exception of his participation in the April 2012 meet-up and his advocating for a no-confidence vote, Jalal's always been on Nouri's side. What appeared to be a change of heart in April 2012 really looks now like Jalal participated with the intent of de-railing anything that might happen so Nouri would be safe. (And considering how he stabbed Moqtada, Ayad Allawi, Massoud Barzani and others in the back at the end of May as he refused to forward the legitimate petition onto the Parliament, it really looks like Jalal came into that meeting to spy.)

As part of the efforts to spin, Al Mada reports Nouri's State of Law is saying that Iraqiya is trying to derail a national conference. For their spin campaign to work, everyone has to be really stupid and forget that, since December 21st when the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi first called for a national conference, State of Law has repeatedly resisted, thrown up road blocks and insisted that a 'reform committee' could handle it. (How's that paper from the reform committee coming?)

Friday, KRG President President Massoud Barzani addressed the World Conference in Rome. He noted that the Kurdistan Democracy Party (his political party) was founded in 1946 and that the party supports equality, social justice and diversity. He spoke of the KRG Parliament which has 111 members, from 11 political parties, 33% of the members are women. The people are free to be Muslim, Christians and Yezidis. He noted the exodus from centeral Iraq to the KRG since 2003 and the success the region has in terms of security and business. All Iraq News states he also made remarks about how the KRG will not live under a dictatorial regime and that the Iraqi government must comply with the Constitution.

Meanwhile, it's time for the annual pilgrimage by an Iraqi official to the United Nations to beg that Iraq be taken out of Chapter VII. Nouri was planning to make the pitch this year but, Al Mada reports, he's now decided not to go to New York because the White House has refused to arrange a face-to-face with Nouri while he is in the US. This is seen as an insult. (It may just be that October is a serious campaign month for the US presidential election and Barack will also be taking part in three debates that month.)

Jalal remains in his home town receiving visitors. All Iraq News reports Ahmed Chalabi visited him today. And they note Nechirvan Mustafa also met with Jalal. Alsumaria says they'd hadn't spoken in four years. Meanwhile, Jalal's successor is being groomed. Al Rafidayn reports Barham Salih is wooing the US government in an attempt to get their support to be the next president of Iraq. The 52-year-old Kurd is a member of Jala's political party (Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) and was prime minister of the KRG from September 2009 through the middle of January 2012.

Saturday, Robert S. Beecroft was confirmed as US Ambassador to Iraq. In his Wednesday Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Committee Chair John Kerry and other senators made clear that aid to Iraq could be tied to conditions. Victoria Nuland at the State Dept immediately (and ridiculously) announced that State didn't support that. But Kerry was the winner on Friday as the Committee's stance was already seeing some results in Iraq. Today, the New York Times editorial board offers "On The Wrong Side:"

But the Obama administration says that after a pause, Baghdad allowed the flights to resume in July. Since then, every American official to visit Iraq has made the case that the arms shipments must stop, according to Robert Beecroft, the new ambassador to Baghdad. On Friday, Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. stepped up the pressure with a telephone call to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Given Iraq's recalcitrance, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was right to warn last week that American aid could be reconsidered if Iraq failed to change course.

Perhaps to address the mounting criticism, Iraqi officials may be altering their stance. On Friday, Reuters reported that Iraq had denied permission for a North Korean plane bound for Syria to use its airspace. On Saturday, an Iraqi government spokesman said authorities will start searching Syrian-bound Iranian planes if they have reason for suspicion.

Meanwhile Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) examines what really happened in Iraq in 2010 and 2011 as the White House made deals about Iraq's government and as it tried to press a deal for US troops to remain in Iraq in significant numbers beyond 2011:

The attempt by Mr. Obama and his senior aides to fashion an extraordinary power-sharing arrangement between Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi never materialized. Neither did an agreement that would have kept a small American force in Iraq to train the Iraqi military and patrol the country's skies. A plan to use American civilians to train the Iraqi police has been severely cut back. The result is an Iraq that is less stable domestically and less reliable internationally than the United States had envisioned.

The story of these efforts has received little attention in a nation weary of the conflict in Iraq, and administration officials have rarely talked about them. This account is based on interviews with many of the principals, in Washington and Baghdad.

Gordon details the effort to get Jalal Talabani to step down as president so Ayad Allawi could be president and how Jalal blew off Barack (who made the request in a personal call).

President? In the United States, Dr. Jill Stein is running for president. She's the Green Party's presidential nominee. Today her campaign posts this letter:

Dear friend,

I am writing you to say thank you for your very generous support of Cheri and me in our campaign, and also to give you some exciting updates.

We've been on a roll – qualifying for federal matching funds, getting on 85% of the ballots, raising nearly $500,000 (please donate to build on that!), winning unprecedented media coverage, and receiving a hero's welcome on the campaign trail:

walking the picket lines in Chicago;
addressing Occupy Wall Street's 1st anniversary celebration;
Cornel West and Tavis Smiley's Poverty Tour 2.0;
speeches before the Veterans for Peace Convention and at Fighting Bob Fest,
and much more.

For the first ten months of our campaign, we poured the vast majority of our campaign resources into the fight to get on the ballot. We worked tirelessly to defend your right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

But now, in our eleventh month, we can say with pride that 85% of voters will see my name on the ballot. And now --right now-- is the time to this opportunity we've all created and to run an all out campaign to raise the spirits and win the voters of Americans.

We are already showing up in the polls, rising 2.1% in the last couple weeks - that's 2.5 million voters! Imagine how these numbers will rise when we are in full swing, reaching out to the tens of millions of students, workers, occupiers, unemployed, uninsured, immigrants, and advocates for peace, climate, civil liberties and racial justice who are looking for a real choice in this election that's not bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Nearly half of eligible voters are predicted to sit out the election this year because they don't support either Obama or Romney. That's because they haven't heard about us yet.

Please help us raise our voices by making a contribution to our general election campaign. I am asking everyone who has already contributed to make a donation of the same size or larger than your contribution during the primary. And I am challenging everyone who has yet to donate to make a first-time donation right now. If you do that, we'll have the resources needed to get the word out, and harness the winds of this perfect storm for political transformation.

Here's an added incentive. We qualified for matching funds in the primary. But during the general election, there is an even bigger, indirect match that kicks in if we boost our vote on November 6th to at least 5% of the total. Winning 5% of the vote in November will unleash a $20,000,000 grant from the public treasury for the next presidential election.

If we can raise as much in the next seven weeks as we did in the primary, about $450,000, that will allow us to run the full-fledged campaign that has a shot at 5% of the vote. If we raise $450,000, we can hire the staff to organize our thousands of volunteers to get the word out, we can resume our TV ad campaign, we can mobilize the vast networks waiting to hear about our campaign, and we can build the grass roots organization for the Green Party politics of integrity for the long haul.

Think about it. Raising another $450,000 now could mean getting 40 times as much money for the next general election. That is a 40:1 return on every dollar of your contribution!

By making a generous contribution now – at this time of urgent need and breath-taking possibility – you help fulfill the potential of this campaign and the Green Party to transform our future.

Please help turn this breaking point into a tipping point to take back the promise of democracy and the peaceful just green future we deserve. Go to JillStein.org to contribute, or send a check made out to Jill Stein for President to P.O. Box 260217, Madison, WI 53726-0217. Thank you for standing up for people, peace and the planet!

~ Dr. Jill Stein

iraq

press tv

al rafidayn

al mada

kitabat

the new york times
michael r. gordon

Friday, September 21, 2012

Did you ever skip all your classes?

"Romney Weak Beat Obama Year" (Hillary Is 44):

Mitt Romney has had a lot of bad weeks recently. There’s no use denying that. His campaign has pretty much sucked too. There’s no sense denying that.
Mitt Romney can easily fix what ails his campaign machinery however. All Mitt has to do is give John Sununu an electric cattle prod and full charge of getting the campaign in gear, running smoothly. Problem solved.
Yeah, Mitt Romney has had a lot of bad weeks lately, and by all rights Mitt Romney should be toast but somehow Mitt keeps hanging on. Poor Mitt, other than his wife few love him, but he keeps on hanging on.
Consider: after weeks, if not months, in which the Obama campaign has been almost completely successful with their tactics of distraction, distraction, smear, distraction, distraction, lies, lies, lies, lies, distraction, smear – Mitt Romney is either tied with Obama or a few, often only 1, points behind Obama in polls which skew at least 5 points in Obama’s favor.
Consider: Big Media continues to ignore or downplay news items hurtful to Obama while playing up stories that hurt Romney’s campaign but somehow the public is closely divided between Obama and Romney.
Bottom Line: Mitt Romney’s enemy is Big Media which protects Barack Obama from his many failures. Barack Obama’s enemy is reality and reality’s intrusion into the everyday life of Americans.

After cutting class for two weeks, look who showed up.

What's the longest you know someone to cut classes?

This is a funny story.

There are times when C.I. wakes up from a dream where she had missed classes all semester. Do you know this story? Elaine and Rebecca tell it which is how I heard it (I did confirm with C.I. that it's true). Because she wouldn't declare the major her parents wanted, C.I.'s parents, as college was starting, announced they weren't paying. They were going to. Now it was time for the semester and they weren't going to. They thought that would force C.I. but you really don't force her.

So she worked two and three jobs in her freshman and sophomore years. Then her trust fund kicked in but she kept working because it kept her focused on classes.

Those first two years, there was one semester where she was taking 16 hours and she was working three jobs plus an occasional weekend. So she was wiped out. And she had a math or science class clear across campus. And sometimes, especially if it was raining or cold or snowing, she just didn't want to walk to class. (She was working 16 hour days according to Elaine. And doing classes.) So she went to the first class. She didn't see it as all that impressive.

And then she didn't go back. She had an excuse and an excuse. And then she thought she'd drop. And then she'd missed that. So she's in this class that she was only at on the first day. And it's become a big thing among people who know her. And they were telling her how awful it was an how bad her grade was going to be and somehow it came up that she would skip the final -- from others -- because there's no way she could show up for the final.

So you know what she did. She showed up for the final.

The professor, a very nice old man, came up to her and said, "I'm so sorry about your grandfather. They told me he passed away." He told her not to worry about the final. She got an A. And all she ever did was attend the first day and then show up -- but not take -- the final.

So she sometimes does have a dream where she's back in college and she's missed that class and has to show up for the final.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, September 21, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, today is both National POW/MIA Recognition Day in the US and International Peace Day around the world, Kim Rivera is arrested, Nouri whines to Joe Biden, bragging rights go to John Kerry not the sad little State Dept spokesperson, sequestration, and more.

Today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and he issued the following statement today:

On the third Friday of every September we pay tribute to the lives and contributions of the more than 83,000 Americans who are still listed as Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. "Leave no one behind" is a familiar refrain which echoes through the ranks of our Armed Forces. This motto is also what propels the men and women of Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), who devote their lives to finding the remains of those unaccounted for in foreign lands.

While JPAC's task is challenging, their cause is worthy. Those who never made it home hold a special place in our hearts, and it is the responsibility of the living to give them a proper resting place here at home on American soil.

This past July, the remains of Lt. Col. Clarence F. Blanton of the U.S. Air Force, who was lost on March 11, 1968, in Housphan Province, Laos, were recovered. Lt. Col. Blanton is a symbol for all those who are missing. No matter how much time elapses -- in his case 42 years -- no cause is lost.

We are committed to finding all 83,000 POW/MIA and bringing them back to the home they sacrificed so much to defend, and to give their families an answer.

At the Pentagon today, there was a National POW/MIA Recognition Day ceremony attended by many including Adm James Innefeld, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former US Senator Chuck Hagel.

Chuck Hagel: Today the US military is one institution in this country -- by any metric -- that still enjoys the overwhelming support, confidence and trust of theAmerican people. No other institution in America can say that. That is a result of a generation after generation after generation of commitment, to what Ash Carter noted in his speech -- quoting my firend and former colleage [US Senator and former POW] John McCain -- what any POW has said, believes lived, continues to say: "If there is anything more important in society than to anchor that society with a belief in something greater than one's self interest in the future for your children, for your family, for the world, I don't know what it is. This institution, the military, all who sacrifice and serve daily, who have done that for years and through wars have built that institution that still anchors more than ever confidence and trust in our -- our free people, in our free society, and not only how we serve that society but how we keep that free society. Imperfect issues, problems, like all institutions, the world is imperfect. People are imperfect. But it is the POWs and their families, MIAs, those who serve who constantly remind this country of what's good, of what's strong, what's vital and what's decent.

Of this generation's wars -- the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War -- CNN notes there are 9 POWs and MIAs who were rescued. In addition there are two prisoners of war remaining from these two wars. In the Afghanistan War, the POW is Pfc Bowe R. Bergdahl of Ketchum, Idaho who was "Captured in Paktika province, Afgahnistan, on June 30, 2009. The Pentagon declared him Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown on July 1, 2009, and his status was changed to Missing-Captured on July 3, 2009." The Iraq War POW is Spc Ahmed K. Altaie of Ann Arbor, Michigan: "On October 23, 2006, Altaie was categorized as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown when he allegedly was kidnapped while on his way to visit family in Baghdad, Iraq. The Pentagon changed his status to Missing-Captured on December 11, 2006."

Staying in the US, sequestration appears to be coming shortly. The Congress voted for automatic sequestration to kick in if they were not able to come up with $1.2 trillion cuts to the budget and get it signed by the White House. Veterans services will not be effected by sequestration. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have both testified to Congress about that. The VA will be effected administratively if sequestration kicks in but both have testified it will not effect veterans care.

The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing yesterday to explore what sequestration, if it happens, will mean for DoD. US House Rep Buck McKeon is the Chair, US House Rep Adam Smith is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee: DoD's Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen Lloyd J. Austin III, Vice Chair of the Navy, Adm Mark Ferguson, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Joseph F. Dunford and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer.

Chair Buck McKeon: The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the Department of Defense planning for sequestration, The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, and the way forward. Thank you all for being here. This will be the last week that the House is in session until mid-November. Today's hearing will provide members a final opportunity before the lame duck session to inform themselves and their constitutents about how sequestration will be implemented and how those decisions will effect our men and women in uniform and our national security. We had hoped that the President would provide this information in the report required by The Sequestration Transparency Act. Unfortunately, he failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not only was the report late but the report submitted to Congress merely paid lip service to the dire national security implications of these cuts after the president has had over a year to consider this crisis. Moreover, the White House has even gone so far to instruct the Department of Defense not to make preparations for sequestration. Nevertheless, as previous testimony to this Committee has provided many of our military leaders believe that initial preparation for sequestration must occur well in advance of the January 2, 2013 implementation date. For example, when the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, was asked this spring if plans for sequestration were underway, he stated "We are not doing as yet any hard planning. That would probably happen later this summer."

Ranking Member Adam Smith declared sequestration to be "the most pressing issue facing our nation." I think every Committee should have held hearings this month asking what was being effected. Foreign Relations/Affairs in the Senate and House should have held a hearing to find out how it would effect the State Dept, etc. The Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees (chaired by Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Jeff Miller) did do that, not this month, but repeatedly throughout the year. In addition, Senator Murray has asked questions about this issue in other hearings. (Murray also served on the Super Congress which may be why she takes the issue more seriously than some Committee Chairs in the House and Senate appear to do.)

If sequestration is implemented, what does it mean? We're noting what the officials told the Committee. Not what they said it might mean, not what they said they thought it might mean but they'd have to get back on that, what was actually said.

DoD's Robert Hale: We budget separately for OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] and the Base Budget. And you approve each budget. When we actually begin executing, the budget's merge so there's one operation and maintenance army account for actives -- has both OCO and Base spending in there, we would have some authority to move money -- within that account -- and we would use it to try to protect the war time operating budgets. But I don't want to make that sound easy because what that means is we'd have to make disproportionately large cuts in the Base side and that will have some of the effects on readiness and training that are of such concern to us. So we would have some ability and we would move to use it to protect the actual wartime operating budget.

The Marine Corps Gen Joseph Dunford: Congressman [Joe Wilson], you're correct, 58% of our total obligated authority goes to personnel. Our cost per Marine is not higher, but the proportion that we spend in our budget on personnel is higher. As a result of personnel being exempt in '13, what I alluded to in my opening remarks, is that we would then have to find a preponderance of funds out of operation and maintenance, infrastructure and our modernization accounts. So we'll continue to do things like run Paris Island, we'll absolutely continue to support those Marines and sailors that are in harms way in Afghanistan, we'll support those that are forward-deployed, but where we will see the biggest impact from a training perspective and where those resources will come from are those units that are at-home station. And I think you know that right now, two-thirds of our units that are at-home stationed are already in a degraded state of readiness. They're in a C3, C4 status already and these cuts will further exaserbate deficiencies in home-station readiness. We'll also be unable to support the strategy. One of the things that we are beginning to do now and had intended to do in FY13 is reconstitute our 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force -- which was the core of our contribution to the US Pacific Command -- and the resources that are necessary to support that are unlikely to be available. And then what we'll see across the board in our modernization accounts is delays and so forth that will cause us to delay programs and in some cases do more with less.

Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer: If sequestration is triggered, the first thing we would do is look at those accounts or those areas that we would want to try to protect and OCO or Overseas Contingency Operations would be one of those. So once you do that, that drives more of a cut into the other accounts. And so, assuming we would protect wartime operations, that would drive higher than a 9..4% cut into our other accounts like our procurement accounts. So what we would have to do -- We have not had specific conversations with the contractor for the [Boeing] KC-46. But depending upon the amount of the cut, we would -- The issue would be we would have to -- because we have a firm fixed price contract -- we would have to open up that contract and so -- and so we would then have to talk to the contractor about revising our payment schedule. And I would guess the contractor would talk to us about, 'Okay, well we can't give you as many airplanes on the schedule that you asked for or we may have to stretch out the airplane. Or, by the way, we may have to charge you more because now the contract's back open.' So clearly as we go down, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned, as we go down the thousands of contracts and thousands of lines, that's the type of process we have to go through with every kind of contract.

Space and other limitations mean we cover the hearing on bare bones. You can take those answers and think about whatever other government department -- except the Veterans Affairs Department -- and explore what sequestration might mean if it takes place. In terms of the hearing, we've quoted the Chair and he's a Republican. I'm not interested in Adam Smith. Sorry. Even if we had space there's little that I'd include from him -- for reasons that are obvious if you sit through hearings. (Including but not limited to, he's very fond of using his questioning time to offer editorials that use up the entire time and never allow a witness any time to speak.) Of the Democrats, the best performer was US House Rep Susan Davis (not a surprise there, she's one of the most informed members of the Committee -- and one of the most informed members of the Congress) with US House Rep Rob Andrews following closely behind. Among others things, he noted he was voting no on Friday about the House going into recess so everyone would have six weeks before the elections off from DC to return to their home districts where all current members of Congress are either running for office or have decided (or had redistricting decide for them) that they would not run for re-election -- all 435 seats of the House will be voted on in November. Andrews spoke of not understanding how you leave DC with this problem lingering in the air and felt instead it needed to be addressed. His comments were much better than my summary but there's not room for the. My apologies. (He also offered a proposal that was a serious proposal and deserves debate. I don't support it but others might.)

Staying with the US Congress, on Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House, believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that it is.)

Chair John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.

Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.

Chair John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.

Kerry proposed this. The Committee agreed with this. In a press briefing on Thursday that can be best be summed up with the line from Private Benjamin (starring Goldie Hawn, script by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer) about "Next time, don't be so quick to raise the white flag," spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisted the State Dept didn't support tying funding in to Iraq's behavior. Excerpt.

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

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

It's a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the white flag. Always. Reuters reported today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday, they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why?

Because they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want the US money. So, Alsumaria reports, Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already, Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours, have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri that the State Dept's done for months now.

With a court-ordered dealine looming, the US State Dept has finally made a decision on the MEK. Joby Warrick (Washington Post) reports, "The State Department is preparing to remove the Iranian opposition group Mujaheddin-e Khalq from the U.S. government's terrorist list, siding with advocates who say the controversial organization should be rewarded for renouncing violence and providing intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, senior Obama administration officials said Friday." Approximately 3,400 MEK members remain in Iraq. They were welcomed into the country in the eighties. After the US-invasion in 2003, the US military disarmed them and they entered into protected status which mean something under the Bush administration but meant nothing under the Barack administration. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." Under Barack, 'protected persons' means Nouri may attack and kill you and the US government looks the other way.

That explains the attacks and the lack of accountability for them. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."

How bad was it? So bad the members of England's House of Lords not only noted Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq during both attacks, they publicly speculated if he carried messages from the White House okaying the attacks? That's how bad it was.

The MEK in Iraq are known as Camp Ashraf residents because, for years, Camp Ashraf has been their home. They have now been forced to relocate to Camp Liberty and most have been relocated there. The US State Dept defied the federal courts for two years. And then?

Dropping back to the June 1st snapshot:

Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports, "A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds, "The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had violated the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut' unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet to make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The courts and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.) What generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united front because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the case from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the judicial branch has no security forces.

The court gave them until October. Mark Hosenball, Andrew Quinn and Vicki Allen (Reuters) note, "Officials said this week that the final large group of dissidents had moved from Camp Ashraf to the new location, ending a long standoff with Iraqi authorities." Elise Labott (CNN) speaks with a number of unnamed officials who undermine Hillary, attack her decision, insist the group is a cult and otherwise make clear that they do not enjoy their jobs currently. (Don't worry, one's leaving.) At the State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about the MEK.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask what you could say about the MEK and the de-listing.

MS. NULAND: I cannot say a lot at the moment, but what I can say is as part of the review process that we have made clear has been ongoing here for some time, the Department is now in the process of sending a classified communication from the Secretary to the Congress today regarding the designation of the MEK. I'm not in a position to confirm the contents of this because it's classified, but we anticipate being able to make a public announcement about it sometime before October 1^st.

So with that, I'm going to have to excuse --

QUESTION: October 1st.

MS. NULAND: Yeah, exactly.

QUESTION: What's today?

QUESTION: It's September 21st.

QUESTION: The 21st?

MS. NULAND: Exactly.

QUESTION: Sometime in the next ten days?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

Because it's always news when a man of his girth moves, Al Mada reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani plans to arrive in Baghdad on Tuesday and get started on solving the political crisis -- if he's feeling good, the report states. AKnews reports State of Law MP Ali al-Shalah has declared that Jalal will be "able to find the solution for the current political crisis." However, Raman Brusk (AKnews) reports, "Kurds expect Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take 'practical steps' to end the file of the disputed areas between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), said" Mohsen al-Saadoun, MP and Vice Chair of the Kurdish Blocs Coalition. Al Mada notes the Kurdistan Alliance states that there will be no political agreement without the consent of KRG President Massoud Barzani.

If Jalal Talabani does make it to Baghdad to work on political issues, he'll be working with one less vice president since Tareq al-Hasehmi remains in Turkey after Nouri bringing charges against him for terrorism. The 'judges' ruled September 9th that he was guilty. Nouri's State of Law political slate wasted no time running to Al Mada to insist that no one gives a damn about Tareq, not even in Iraqiya, and that no one was worried about Tareq, that he has no role in the government, he is "finished" and he has no role in government. Really? He still holds his position as Vice President. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq was targeted when al-Hashemi was. As Nouri charged Tareq with "terrorism," he demanded that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post (it was an attack on Iraqiya -- the political slate that bested Nouri's State of Law in the 2010 elections). This followed Saleh al-Mutlaq calling Nouri a dictator. And he didn't just make the remark in passing, he made to the media. December 13, 2011, Arwa Damon and Moahmmed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was 'shocked' to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as 'the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq.' He said Washington is leaving Iraq 'with a dictator' who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks." The round ups, the mass arrests continue. What's changed is Nouri and Saleh have kissed and made up and Saleh now trots after Nouri like an obedient dog or a cooing bird flying overhead. They travel together now and Saleh's always finding a silver lining. Al Mada reports he gushed that Nouri's agreed not to allow the Justice and Accountability Commission to target college professors.

Isn't that just wonderful? Unless . . . maybe you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission not only was not ever supposed to have anything to do with educators but also you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission was supposed to have expired years ago. If you know that, if you know that the Justice and Accountability Commission died and that Parliament let it die (by refusing to approve another committee), then why would you think it was good that the Commission was doing anything to begin with?

Let's drop back to the January 25, 2010 snapshot and, for those who've forgotten, Saleh al-Mutlaq was furious back then. The Justice and Accountability Commission had barred him from running for office -- even though he was currently an MP -- would not allow him to run in the 2010 elections. He was angry, he was mad. He insisted he was no terrorist. And he told the world a few other things when he appeared on Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera), we'll just note the most key passage.

Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people? Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament. You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer. Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on. Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification? Is it Prime Minister al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq? Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this?

Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone. I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this. And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody. The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it. You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that? We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally. The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president. And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party].

The Justice and Accountability Commission, Saleh told the world, was frozen and Parliament didn't allow another one to form. That was 2010. So how is this a good thing that the same commission is going to be around? It's not. Saleh al-Mutlaq is an embarrassment.

Alsumaria notes a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left another person injured, that a Washash mosque was stormed by assailants and an Imam was shot dead, and a Tarmiya roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left two more injured. All Iraq News has the 2 dead as police officers (the two wounded also a police officers) and also notes a Baghdad home invasion of a retired police officer's home in which he was shot dead.

Back to the US, Goldie Hawn Tweeted.

Collapse

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

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

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

Sarika Sehgal: So what happens to her now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesse McLaren: Thanks.

In addition, Amnesty International issued the following:

Full Text

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