|
|
Nov 6, 2009
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLECELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS A CHEESE HEAD WHICH HAS LED AT LEAST ONE CITIZEN TO WEAR A CHEESE HAT TO ONE OF HIS EVENTS. BUT CHEESE HEAD IS FAR FROM THE WORST OF HIS PROBLEMS. HIS RECENT POLITICAL GOLDEN GLOBE (NOBEL) REMAINS HOTLY CONTESTED WITH SOME POINTING OUT THAT HE'S NOT DONE ANYTHING, OTHERS NOTING HIS WAR ON PAKISTAN, AND STILL OTHERS REMINDING THAT HE'S ORDERING ASSASSINATIONS IN SOMALIA. NOT SINCE PIA ZADORA'S HUSBAND BOUGHT HER A GOLDEN GLOBE HAS A CELEBRITY AWARD BEEN SO QUESTIONED. FROM THE TCI WIRE:Today
the Oversight and Ivenstigations Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee held a hearing entitled Iraq and Afghanistan:
Perspectives on US Strategy, Part II. It certainly lived up to Part I
and, no, that wasn't a good thing. That October 22nd hearing was
covered in the October 23rd snapshot and, as we asked then, "Where the hell was Iraq?" Let's
go with a big moment which raised no eyebrows. This is US House Rep
Duncan Hunter (elected for the first time last year, fills his father's
seat) opening remarks. He supports sending more troops to Afghanistan,
just FYI. Duncan Hunter: We're not at the ground floor of this
debate anymore. We'we're kind of talking like we are. And my question,
one is, we're over there, we're committed, we're on the 50th floor, so
what now? And I don't think that our commanders over there are ignorant
of anything you are saying. I think they all -- they all -- Do you
think they're ignorant of this? I think that they have heard probably
every point of view and-and the State Department involved -- I was
stationed in Afghanistan for my third deployment in 2007. I just went
back this last weekend, it was fun. The State Department involvement
and the civilian and Smart Person involvement now with the military in
Afghanistan is unprecedented. Never happened before. It's quintupled
since July -- the State Department, US AID personnel. And there's a
two-star civilian for every two-star military person there, there's a
whole chain of command for the civilian side along with the military
side, everybody's confident, they're asking for a troop surge, I mean
that's what everybody's asking for. But my question is: So what now
then? I mean they -- there's -- we're talking a lot, we're at the 50th
floor, not the ground floor anymore. We're over there. We're committed.
Dr. Khan might have us pull out but not on the basis that we can't win,
on the basis that you don't think we'll stay Muqtedar Khan: Yes. Duncan Hunter: Right? Muqtedar Khan: Yes, exactly. Duncan
Hunter: Okay. So what now. That's-that's all I got. And that's the big
. . . What do you recommend if we do want it stable and we do want it
so that we can leave in the next two to five years, leave it relatively
stable, not abandon it totally and we'll probably leave troops there
like we will in Iraq. But so what now? Excuse me, "and we'll
probably leave troops there like we will in Iraq"? I don't disgree with
Hunter but there has been a big effort to deny that was planned. That
statement should get attention but don't wait for the press to pick it
up. The same press that sold you the illegal war on Iraq really isn't
interested in that war ever ending -- as long as they don't have to
cover it, they're hap-hap-happy. There's another obvious moment that should be addressed. It's not Iraq related and Kat's
grabbing it for her site and will write about it tonight. So let's move
over to US House Rep Mike Coffman and whether he was attempting to spit
on Jonathon M. Sylvestre's memory or if he was just damn stupid? We'll
go with bulb nose being damn stupid -- and possibly the WC Fields like
nose was a tip off? Two days ago, DoD announced:
"Spc. Jonathon M. Sylvestre, 21, of Colorado Springs, Colo., died Nov.
2 in Kut, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related
incident. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery
Regiment, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort
Benning, Ga." Does he not matter to Coffman? Because Coffman
supports the continued war on Iraq? No, Coffman probably still supports
that continued war, he supported it back when he could actually
remember a war was going on there. But Coffman's lost interest in Iraq
long, long ago. And it was disgusting to watch him do an exchange where
he cited 'recent' deaths in Afghanistan from his home state and he
didn't have a damn thing to say about Jonathon M. Sylvestre who, for
the record, is Colorado's most recent service member to die in Iraq or
Afghanistan. But Coffman wasn't interested in that. It should be noted
US House Rep Susan Davis wasn't interested in Iraq either and our
state, California, saw two deaths announced this week in Iraq; Lukas C. Hopper of Merced and Christopher M. Cooper of Oceanside. The
subcomittee heard from retired Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Professor Christine
Fair (Georgetown), Professor Muqtedar Khan (University of Delaware) and
Marin Strmecki (Smith Richardson Foundation). Eaton and Strmecki were
aware of the Iraq War as evidenced by their opening remarks. In his
opening remarks, Eaton noted speaking to US President Barack Obama over
a year ago, being asked what the army wanted and replying, "Senator, we
want your Secretary of Agriculture to be at least as interested in the
outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq as is your Secretary of Defense." Does
anyone get the idea that this interest is present in the Secretary of
Agriculture? That's Tom Vilsack. And, just for example, click on this page (US Agricultural website) and note just what's been 'done' (covered) in 2009 compared to 2008. See an increase? No. And click here for archives and you'll see more efforts noted in every year of the Iraq War except 2004 and 2005. So where's the increase? Wait, you're saying, Barack had all those problems getting qualified people (and a few tax cheats) confirmed, right? Wrong.
Not with Vilsack. He was nominated December 17, 2008 and he was
confirmed by the US Senate January 20th -- the day Barack was sworn in
as president. Vilsack did his swearing in January 21st. So let's not
pretend like Vilsack showed up late. He was there from the first day of
this administration. Now Eaton told that story in his opening
remarks. At any point did any member of the Subcommittee ever ask him,
"Do you think what you asked for happened or is happening?" No. And no
one ever explored it. Remember, it was about Iraq and the hearing,
though including Iraq in the title, really wasn't interested in Iraq.
Congress can vote, in 2002, some form of authorization or approval for
an impending Iraq War they just don't seem able to focus on it while it
continues. That seems to be the tricky part and may be why they've
become so lousy about providing oversight on it? (Or for that matter, pulling the plug on it.) If
there's an exception to that it's been the Senate Democratic Policy
Committee. Tomorrow there will be another hearing held by them, this
one looking into the burn pits: Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
announced Wednesday the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) will
conduct a congressional oversight hearing on Friday, November 6, to
examine the health risks associated with the continued use of open-air
burn pits by the U.S. military and contractor KBR in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The hearing is set for 10:00 AM and will be held in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Although
military guidelines allow the use of burn pits to dispose of waste only
in emergency situations, most large U.S. military installations have
continued to use burn pits for years, despite growing evidence that
exposure to burn pit smoke may be causing an increased incidence of
chronic lung diseases, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and
cancer. Hearing witnesses are expected to testify that plastics,
paints, solvents, petroleum products, rubber, and medical waste have
been burned in the pits. The hearing will also examine whether military contractor KBR operated the burn pits in a safe and cost-effective manner. Witnesses
will include the Air Force's former Bioenvironemental Flight Commander
at Joint Base Balad, who warned three years ago about health hazards
associated with burn pit smoke at the base, two KBR whisteblowers, and
a medical expert who will describe the adverse health consequences
associated with burn pit smoke inhalation. Details follow: WHO: Senators: Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman, and others Witnesses:
Lt. Colonel Darrin Curtis, former Air Force Bioenvironmental Flight
Commander at Joint Base Balad; Rick Lamberth, former KBR employee;
Russell Keith, former KBR medic; Dr. Anthony Szema, MD, expert on
health impact of burn pit smoke. WHAT: Congressional oversight hearing. WHERE: Room 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building WHEN: 10:00 AM, Friday, November 6, 2009 WHY:
To examine the health impact of burn pit smoke on U.S. troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, whether the Army is providing exposed soldiers and
veterans with accurate information about the risks, and whether
contractor KBR is safely operating burn pits. We'll try to cover
that hearing in tomorrow's snapshot (but we're juggling our schedule
because we only just learned of it). In other oversight news, Josh
Rogin's " Exclusive: Did the U.S. government buy favorable coverage of Iraq's Anbar Province?"
(Foreign Policy) reminds that a lot of money has gone into the sinkhole
that is the illegal war and for a lot of questionable activities:U.S.
taxpayer money that was supposed to be used for emergency purposes in
Iraq was spent to buy a special advertising issue for an Anbar
businessman in a British trade magazine, a U.S. government
investigation has found. FDI magazine, a bimonthly print publication
and website owned by the Financial Times, nearly simultaneously
showered Anbar Governor Qasim Abid Muhammad Hammadi Al Fahadawi with
positive coverage, praising the dangerous Anbar province as "a hot
place to invest in" and giving the businessman an award as "Global
Personality of the Year for 2009." FDI's award was announced three days
before the "Special Report" on Anbar, entitled, "Bridge to the Future,"
was published on its website. The award was immediately praised by the U.S. military
in Iraq, without mention of the U.S. funds spent on the supplement, and
the website makes no mention of it having been paid for by the American
government. Then again last month, FDI magazine Editor Courtney Fingar
handed the governor another award
naming Anbar province one of FDI magazine's "standout regions of the
year." Reached by The Cable, Fingar confirmed the U.S. government had
spent "in the neighborhood of $50,000" on the special supplement but
denied her magazine's content had been bought and paid for, calling the
report on Anbar "balanced and accurate." The investigation was
disclosed in the October quarterly report
of the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction
(SIGIR), which is tasked with monitoring U.S. expenditures and projects
in Iraq, but has so far not been publicly reported. Sources told The
Cable that after the report is submitted to Congress, it's up to that
body to determine if the payment violated funding rules or the law. And now . . .It
could playfully be argued that by performing this concert Joni Mitchell
was the attending mid wife at the birth of Greenpeace. It is a fact,
however, that the music on this CD has been donated and approved by the
artists and their publishers for a limited period with all proceeds
from sales going to Greenpeace in support of our work. What is that? Joni Mitchell, Phil Ochs and James Taylor did a 1970 concert to benefit Greenpeace. Starting November 10th, the concert is out on CD for a limited time. Click here for more information.
Joni Mitchell is, of course, a legendary, one of kind songwriter and
artist. The late Phil Ochs left his mark with "I Ain't Marching
Anymore," "Changes" and many others and James Taylor is the name of a
man who was once married to the legendary artist Carly Simon
and whose intense vanity was documented by both Joni and Carly
("watching your hairline recede my vain darling," as Joni put it in
"Just Like This Train"). On the live album, Joni's songs include "For
Free," "Woodstock," "Big Yellow Taxi," "My Old Man," "Cactus Tree,"
"The Gallery," "The Circle Game" and "A Case Of You." Phil Ochs
contributions to the live album include "Changes," "Chords of Fame,"
"I'm Gonna Say It Now," "The Bells" and "I Ain't Marching Anymore." Not
having yet begun doing vanilla covers of R&B classics, James offers
"Fire and Rain," "Sweet Baby James" and a few other songs he wrote
(James last recorded a batch of new songs he'd written on 2002's
October Road). Carly Simon's latest album is a reimagining of some of
her classics as well as two new songs and is entitled Never Been Gone
(an amazing album, Kat praised it here). Yesterday, Carly was a guest on NPR's Soundcheck. Finally, with Aimee Allison (co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show), David Solnit authored the must read Army Of None. David Solnit has now teamed up with his sister Rebecca Solnit, of Courage to Resist, for a new book and there's a new action. Two things I'd like to tell you about: ACTION: A Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on the ten year anniversary of Seattle WTO shutdown, Nov 30, 2009. Yesterday African delegates walked out of
pre-Copenhagen trade talks in Barcelona demanding the US and rich
countries commit themselves to deeper and faster greenhouse gas
emission cuts and European activists blockaded the talks.
The key fight over the future of the planet is taking place right now
around climate; corporate market solutions are the new WTO and the US
and the rich countries are undermining any efforts at climate solutions
to avert even more catastrophic impacts. What could shift things right
now is people in the US (doing what we did ten years ago) showing mass
resistance to the US government and corporate capitalism's obstruction
and false solutions. Please join one of the regional actions being
planned in SF and around the US (details here soon) and sign up to take or support direct action and get your folks together now! BOOK:
AK Press asked me to make a book reflecting on the Seattle WTO shutdown
from an organizers view. With my sister Rebecca Solnit, Kate and the AK
Press collective workers, designer Jason Justice and contributions from
fellow organizers we did it just in time for the ten year anniversary.
Please support by buying a book , get ten at half-off, and pass on the announcement below. hope and resistance, David Solnit About the book: From
dawn to dusk on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of people shut
down the World Trade Organization meeting, facing cops firing tear gas
and rubber bullets, the National Guard, and the suspension of civil
liberties. An unexpected history was launched from the streets of
Seattle, one in which popular power would matter as much as corporate
power, in which economics assumed center-stage, and people began
envisioning who else they could be and what else their economies and
societies might look like. The Battle of the Story of the Battle of
Seattle explores how that history itself has become a battleground and
how our perception of it shapes today's movements against corporate
capitalism and for a better world. David Solnit recounts activist
efforts to intervene in the Hollywood star-studded movie, Battle in
Seattle, and pulls lessons from a decade ago for today. Rebecca Solnit
writes of challenging mainstream misrepresentation of the Seattle
protests and reflects on official history and popular power. Core
organizer Chris Dixon tells the real story of what happened during
those five days in the streets of Seattle. Profusely illustrated, with
a reprint of the original 1999 Direct Action Network's "Call to Action"
broadsheet-- including key articles by Stephanie Guilloud, Chris Borte,
and Chris Dixon -- and a powerful introduction from Anuradha Mittal,
The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle is a tribute to the
scores of activists struggling for a better world around the globe.
It's also a highly-charged attack on media mythmaking in all its forms,
from Rebecca Solnit's battle with the New York Times to David Solnit's
intervention in the Battle in Seattle film, and beyond. Every essay in
this book sets the record straight about what really happened in
Seattle, and more importantly why it happened. This is the real story. For more on the book, including ordering it, click here and last night Ann noted the book and the importance of the issues the book is covering. RECOMMENDED: " Iraq snapshot" " Another 'deadline' passed and no election law" " The price of oil" " Battle for Seattle" " The economy continues to be bad news" " EDNA, Oprah and the Cult" " edna hearing in the senate tomorrow" " Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose" " Janis Ian, Dennis Kucinich" " Equality" " Only ten?" " The Big Insurance Give Away" " The day after" " Family scandals" " THIS JUST IN! BARRY'S TRASHY FAMILY!"
Posted at 04:48 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Thursday,
November 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, no election law
continues, Nouri's attacks on the press continues, a US House Armed
Services subcomittee's lack of interest in Iraq continues, and, of
course, the war itself continues. Earlier today Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports that Parliament finished today's session (Thursday's session) "without agreeing" to any election law. Nothing has been passed. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reveals,
"The Council of Representatives postponed the voting on the elections
law to Saturday after the lawmakers agreed on a proposal submitted by
the parliament's legal committee." Warren P. Stroble (McClatchy Newspapers) adds,
"The standoff is jeopardizing plans for national elections in
mid-January, as well as the timetable for an orderly drawdown of the
120,000 U.S. troops here, even as President Barack Obama weighs sending
tens of thousands more soldiers and Marines to Afghanistan." I believe
the only known count was given by the GAO Monday and that was 128,000.
Considering that the press has been lazy asses for months now and
tossed around the 120,000 INACCURATELY you'd think now that the GAO has
presented a hard number, they'd get off their candy asses and try using
the correct number. In addition, there's no "drawdown of the 120,000"
-- the White House and press ran with 50,000 since the November 2008
election and we stated here the number would be 70,000. The number the
White House uses now is 70,000. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"Lawmakers said they would meet again on Saturday, but big differences
over the legislation remained. After a meeting Thursday evening, the
country's election commission decided it would wait until Saturday to
make a final decision on whether the polls should be delayed,
commission chairman Faraj al-Haideri said. He added that even if a law
is passed on Saturday, the commission could still recommend that the
elections be delayed depending on which voting system the parliament
ends up choosing." Oliver August (Times of London) explains
that the Iraqi Constitution mandates the elections be held no later
than January 31st and, in addition "[a]n important Shia religious
holiday in early February makes it difficult to push back the poll by
only a few weeks." Timothy Williams and Sa'ad Izzi (New York Times) report,
"Hamdia al-Hussaini, a member of the Independent High Electoral
Commission, the government agency that organizes elections here, said
she would wait until Parliament met on Sunday to decide whether to
postpone the election. Earlier in the week, Faraj al-Haideri, the head
of the electoral commission, warned that if a law was not passed by
Thursday, he would recommend a delay because there would be
insufficient time to print ballots and perform other prepatory work." Sammy Ketz (AFP) quotes
election commission head Faraj al-Haidari stating, "We can no longer
organise elections on January 16 -- that would have been difficult even
if we had received the law today. Whether they retain the old electoral
law, amend it or adopt an entirely new one is a matter for members of
parliament but we are the ones who will have to implement their
decisions according to the timetable. We hope that MPs will resolve
their dilemma but we are not going to sacrifice international norms and
criteria -- we're obliged to respect the rules so that these elections
are transparent." Iraqi MP Ayad Jamal Aldin wrote a letter to the editors of the Guardian on the issue of the elections: I
have written to the head of the UN expressing concern over the
possibility of "free and fair" elections taking place in Iraq next
January. Repeating the much-publicised vote-rigging seen in
Afghanistan, since the last national Iraqi election in 2005, political
factions have placed supporters on the Iraqi Electoral Commission to
assist them in manipulating the result in the upcoming election. This
self-interested action must be defused now, and I am calling on the UN
to replace Iraq's Electoral Commission with fresh faces, unaligned and
unbeholden to the factions in Baghdad. This could take place
immediately, with no disruption to the political process, and would
give the best possible chance of a fair vote in January.
A free, fair and properly
supervised election in January is absolutely vital for our country's
young democracy and the wider region. As has been witnessed in
Afghanistan, failure to ensure a free vote is too damaging to imagine.
Ayad Jamal Aldin is running for re-election and promises, at his website,
"A better life for Iraqi families" via three steps: "1 million new
jobs, especially for our young, Make the electricity system work within
2 years, Major upgrades to deliver running water." While the election's at a stand-still, the greed factor keeps corporations lusting Iraqi oil. David Gauvey Herbert (National Journal) notes
the foreign monies being thrown at Iraqi oil in a long thing piece
whose observations include: "Even with more investment, Iraq still
doesn't have enough engineers or institutional experience. While Saudi
Arabia has half a century of oil expertise under its belt, brain-drain
robbed Iraq of plenty of talent under Saddam Hussein and scared off
more talent during the turbulent aftermath of the 2003 invasion." This
morning AFP reported
that the Iraqi Oil Ministry announced today the awarding of a contract
to Exxon Mobil for West Qurna 1 field: "West Qurna 1 currently produces
about 279,000 bpd and has reserves of around 8.5 billion barrels,
according to oil ministry figures." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) observes,
"Major oil companies have been eyeing Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion
in 2003, but the Iraqi government has acted slowly to encourage them.
That changed earlier this year as falling oil prices and lagging
exports put a squeeze on the national budget. But the June auction
fizzled after it emerged that Iraq wasn't willing to pay the fees
demanded by the oil companies." Ernesto Londono and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) note
the next auction is scheduled for December and that today's contract
and the BP-CNPC one indicate "that foreign companies that initially
balked at the terms the ministry offered at a public auction in June
now think the prospect of eventually tapping into Iraq's vast oil
reserves outweighs the risks." Away from the big dollar figures tossed
around -- 'oh, so impressive' -- what's it like? Owen Fay (Al Jazeera) investigates (link is video, transcript to video follows): Owen
Fay: Children play on a street filled with sewage, live in homes
surrounded by rubbish and grow up in villages displaying all of the
signs of abject poverty. This is southern Iraq, just outside Basra and,
by any measure, one of the wealthiest pieces of land on earth. Iraq has
the world's third largest reserves of oil and the bulk of it is located
right here. The government in Baghdad is in the middle of signing a
series of deals with major oil companies from around the world worth
billions and billions of dollars but people here have seen none of
it. Female Resident of Basra: We have not benefited from anything, we have nothing to show for it at all. Own
Fay: Instead, what they do have is widespread unemployment,
intermittent electricity and wells filled with septic
water. Male
Resident of Basra: Is this Iraq? This is an oil rich country? It is
true that there is security now and that's much improved. Security is
there but what's the use of that? It is true this is an oil country but
as you can see can anyone live in this sewage
water? Owen
Fay: Local government officials are circumspect about the major new
deals being announced in Baghdad. They say they're not opposed to the
oil companies coming here but they do have conditions. Jabaar
Amin (Head of Basra Provincial Council): If the contracts are
beneficial to Iraq, we welcome them. If they subjugate us and take
Iraq's oil wealth, we do not.
Owen Fay:
Another set of oil auctions is due to take place next month. Big names
like Exxon will get a chance to invest billions and right now
assurances are being made that one of the conditions for any successful
bid will be local and regional investment. Shiltag
Aboud (Governor of Basra): These companies will not only be
contributing to the oil sector but will contribute to the economic,
cultural and environmental situation in Basra too. They're not just
going to be based at the fields far from everyday life. The impact on
the city will be felt. Owen
Fay: If that does happen, it will be warmly welcomed but people here
say they'll believe it when they see it. For now, they're deeply
skeptical because as they look around what they see are international
companies far more interested in what lies beneath this land than in
the people who have to live on it. Owen Fay, Al
Jazeera. Friday's snapshot noted Nouri's latest attack on the press: "On the latter, Azzaman reports
he has 'banned movement by press vehicles with equipment to broadcast
live. [. . . ] The order has been issued by the military command of
Baghdad operations which specificially denies television broadcasters
the right of live coverage'." And it never ends. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports
today that there are "journalists cliaming to have been beaten by
security forces and ministers issuing warnings about media coverage"
while Farqu Abd al-Qadir, the Communications Minister, is insisting
that all broadcast media apply for a $5,000 permit: "Observers say the
move appears to have been prompted by official anger at recent coverage
of a string of devastating bomb attacks on government ministries, which
caused about 250 deaths and seriously eroded the government's security
credentials." And the coverage may have hurt installed thug Nouri
al-Maliki's chances at re-election. Meanwhile journalist Mohammed
Jabar explains he was attempting to report on a bombing but instead was
attacked by Iraqi forces who "attacked me with the butts of their
rifles. They saw I had all the right badges and knew I was entitled to
be there. They beat me till I was unconscious. I am sure they didn't
behave like this on their own. It's obvious they have orders to block
any coverage of explosions." Turning to some of today's violence which did get coverage . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded two people and another one
which wounded three people, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the
life of 1 police officer and wounded three more, a Ramadi sticky
bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer ("in the
investigations department") and was followed by a second bombing which
claimed 2 lives and wounded seven people, and a Kirkuk "assassination
attempt" by roadside bombing on Brig Gen Adnan Khairu. Shootings? Reuters notes US and Kurdish forces killed 1 'suspect' and "freed three child hostages". Today
the Oversight and Ivenstigations Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee held a hearing entitled Iraq and Afghanistan:
Perspectives on US Strategy, Part II. It certainly lived up to Part I
and, no, that wasn't a good thing. That October 22nd hearing was
covered in the October 23rd snapshot and, as we asked then, "Where the hell was Iraq?" Let's
go with a big moment which raised no eyebrows. This is US House Rep
Duncan Hunter (elected for the first time last year, fills his father's
seat) opening remarks. He supports sending more troops to Afghanistan,
just FYI. Duncan Hunter: We're not
at the ground floor of this debate anymore. We'we're kind of talking
like we are. And my question, one is, we're over there, we're
committed, we're on the 50th floor, so what now? And I don't think that
our commanders over there are ignorant of anything you are saying. I
think they all -- they all -- Do you think they're ignorant of this? I
think that they have heard probably every point of view and-and the
State Department involved -- I was stationed in Afghanistan for my
third deployment in 2007. I just went back this last weekend, it was
fun. The State Department involvement and the civilian and Smart
Person involvement now with the military in Afghanistan is
unprecedented. Never happened before. It's quintupled since July -- the
State Department, US AID personnel. And there's a two-star civilian for
every two-star military person there, there's a whole chain of command
for the civilian side along with the military side, everybody's
confident, they're asking for a troop surge, I mean that's what
everybody's asking for. But my question is: So what now then? I mean
they -- there's -- we're talking a lot, we're at the 50th floor, not
the ground floor anymore. We're over there. We're committed. Dr. Khan
might have us pull out but not on the basis that we can't win, on the
basis that you don't think we'll stay Muqtedar Khan: Yes. Duncan Hunter: Right? Muqtedar Khan: Yes, exactly. Duncan
Hunter: Okay. So what now. That's-that's all I got. And that's the big
. . . What do you recommend if we do want it stable and we do want it
so that we can leave in the next two to five years, leave it relatively
stable, not abandon it totally and we'll probably leave troops there
like we will in Iraq. But so what now? Excuse
me, "and we'll probably leave troops there like we will in Iraq"? I
don't disgree with Hunter but there has been a big effort to deny that
was planned. That statement should get attention but don't wait for
the press to pick it up. The same press that sold you the illegal war
on Iraq really isn't interested in that war ever ending -- as long as
they don't have to cover it, they're hap-hap-happy. There's another obvious moment that should be addressed. It's not Iraq related and Kat's
grabbing it for her site and will write about it tonight. So let's
move over to US House Rep Mike Coffman and whether he was attempting to
spit on Jonathon M. Sylvestre's memory or if he was just damn stupid?
We'll go with bulb nose being damn stupid -- and possibly the WC Fields
like nose was a tip off? Two days ago, DoD announced: " Spc.
Jonathon M. Sylvestre, 21, of Colorado Springs, Colo., died Nov. 2 in
Kut, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He
was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd
Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, Ga." Does he not matter to Coffman? Because
Coffman supports the continued war on Iraq? No, Coffman probably still
supports that continued war, he supported it back when he could
actually remember a war was going on there. But Coffman's lost interest
in Iraq long, long ago. And it was disgusting to watch him do an
exchange where he cited 'recent' deaths in Afghanistan from his home
state and he didn't have a damn thing to say about Jonathon M.
Sylvestre who, for the record, is Colorado's most recent service member
to die in Iraq or Afghanistan. But Coffman wasn't interested in that.
It should be noted US House Rep Susan Davis wasn't interested in
Iraq either and our state, California, saw two deaths announced this
week in Iraq; Lukas C. Hopper of Merced and Christopher M. Cooper of Oceanside. The
subcomittee heard from retired Maj Gen Paul Eaton, Professor Christine
Fair (Georgetown), Professor Muqtedar Khan (University of Delaware)
and Marin Strmecki (Smith Richardson Foundation). Eaton and Strmecki
were aware of the Iraq War as evidenced by their opening remarks. In
his opening remarks, Eaton noted speaking to US President Barack Obama
over a year ago, being asked what the army wanted and replying,
"Senator, we want your Secretary of Agriculture to be at least as
interested in the outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq as is your Secretary
of Defense." Does anyone get the idea that this interest is present in
the Secretary of Agriculture? That's Tom Vilsack. And, just for
example, click on this page (US Agricultural website) and note just what's been 'done' (covered) in 2009 compared to 2008. See an increase? No. And click here for archives and you'll see more efforts noted in every year of the Iraq War except 2004 and 2005. So where's the increase? Wait, you're saying, Barack had all those problems getting qualified people (and a few tax cheats) confirmed, right? Wrong.
Not with Vilsack. He was nominated December 17, 2008 and he was
confirmed by the US Senate January 20th -- the day Barack was sworn in
as president. Vilsack did his swearing in January 21st. So let's not
pretend like Vilsack showed up late. He was there from the first day
of this administration. Now Eaton told that
story in his opening remarks. At any point did any member of the
Subcommittee ever ask him, "Do you think what you asked for happened or
is happening?" No. And no one ever explored it. Remember, it was
about Iraq and the hearing, though including Iraq in the title, really
wasn't interested in Iraq. Congress can vote, in 2002, some form of
authorization or approval for an impending Iraq War they just don't
seem able to focus on it while it continues. That seems to be the
tricky part and may be why they've become so lousy about providing
oversight on it? (Or for that matter, pulling the plug on it.) If
there's an exception to that it's been the Senate Democratic Policy
Committee. Tomorrow there will be another hearing held by them, this
one looking into the burn pits: Chairman
Byron Dorgan (D-ND) announced Wednesday the Senate Democratic Policy
Committee (DPC) will conduct a congressional oversight hearing on
Friday, November 6, to examine the health risks associated with the
continued use of open-air burn pits by the U.S. military and contractor
KBR in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hearing is set for 10:00 AM and will be held in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Although
military guidelines allow the use of burn pits to dispose of waste only
in emergency situations, most large U.S. military installations have
continued to use burn pits for years, despite growing evidence that
exposure to burn pit smoke may be causing an increased incidence of
chronic lung diseases, respiratory ailments, neurological disorders and
cancer. Hearing witnesses are expected
to testify that plastics, paints, solvents, petroleum products, rubber,
and medical waste have been burned in the pits. The hearing will also examine whether military contractor KBR operated the burn pits in a safe and cost-effective manner. Witnesses
will include the Air Force's former Bioenvironemental Flight Commander
at Joint Base Balad, who warned three years ago about health hazards
associated with burn pit smoke at the base, two KBR whisteblowers, and
a medical expert who will describe the adverse health consequences
associated with burn pit smoke inhalation. Details follow: WHO: Senators: Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chairman, and others Witnesses:
Lt. Colonel Darrin Curtis, former Air Force Bioenvironmental Flight
Commander at Joint Base Balad; Rick Lamberth, former KBR employee;
Russell Keith, former KBR medic; Dr. Anthony Szema, MD, expert on
health impact of burn pit smoke. WHAT: Congressional oversight hearing. WHERE: Room 628 Dirksen Senate Office Building WHEN: 10:00 AM, Friday, November 6, 2009 WHY:
To examine the health impact of burn pit smoke on U.S. troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, whether the Army is providing exposed soldiers and
veterans with accurate information about the risks, and whether
contractor KBR is safely operating burn pits. We'll
try to cover that hearing in tomorrow's snapshot (but we're juggling
our schedule because we only just learned of it). In other oversight
news, Josh Rogin's " Exclusive: Did the U.S. government buy favorable coverage of Iraq's Anbar Province?" ( Foreign Policy) reminds that a lot of money has gone into the sinkhole that is the illegal war and for a lot of questionable activities: U.S.
taxpayer money that was supposed to be used for emergency purposes in
Iraq was spent to buy a special advertising issue for an Anbar
businessman in a British trade magazine, a U.S. government
investigation has found. FDI magazine, a bimonthly print publication and website owned by the Financial Times, nearly simultaneously showered Anbar Governor Qasim Abid Muhammad Hammadi Al Fahadawi with
positive coverage, praising the dangerous Anbar province as "a hot
place to invest in" and giving the businessman an award as "Global
Personality of the Year for 2009." FDI's
award was announced three days before the "Special Report" on Anbar,
entitled, "Bridge to the Future," was published on its website. The
award was immediately praised by the U.S. military
in Iraq, without mention of the U.S. funds spent on the supplement, and
the website makes no mention of it having been paid for by the American
government. Then again last month, FDI magazine Editor Courtney Fingar handed the governor another award naming Anbar province one of FDI magazine's "standout regions of the year." Reached by The Cable,
Fingar confirmed the U.S. government had spent "in the neighborhood of
$50,000" on the special supplement but denied her magazine's content
had been bought and paid for, calling the report on Anbar "balanced and
accurate." The investigation was disclosed in the October quarterly report
of the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction
(SIGIR), which is tasked with monitoring U.S. expenditures and projects
in Iraq, but has so far not been publicly reported. Sources told The Cable that
after the report is submitted to Congress, it's up to that body to
determine if the payment violated funding rules or the law. It
could playfully be argued that by performing this concert Joni Mitchell
was the attending mid wife at the birth of Greenpeace. It is a fact,
however, that the music on this CD has been donated and approved by the
artists and their publishers for a limited period with all proceeds
from sales going to Greenpeace in support of our work. What is that? Joni Mitchell, Phil Ochs and James Taylor did a 1970 concert to benefit Greenpeace. Starting November 10th, the concert is out on CD for a limited time. Click here for more information.
Joni Mitchell is, of course, a legendary, one of kind songwriter and
artist. The late Phil Ochs left his mark with "I Ain't Marching
Anymore," "Changes" and many others and James Taylor is the name of a
man who was once married to the legendary artist Carly Simon
and whose intense vanity was documented by both Joni and Carly
("watching your hairline recede my vain darling," as Joni put it in
"Just Like This Train"). On the live album, Joni's songs include "For
Free," "Woodstock," "Big Yellow Taxi," "My Old Man," "Cactus Tree,"
"The Gallery," "The Circle Game" and "A Case Of You." Phil Ochs
contributions to the live album include "Changes," "Chords of Fame,"
"I'm Gonna Say It Now," "The Bells" and "I Ain't Marching Anymore." Not
having yet begun doing vanilla covers of R&B classics, James offers
"Fire and Rain," "Sweet Baby James" and a few other songs he wrote
(James last recorded a batch of new songs he'd written on 2002's October Road).
Carly Simon's latest album is a reimagining of some of her classics as
well as two new songs and is entitled Never Been Gone (an amazing
album, Kat praised it here). Yesterday, Carly was a guest on NPR's Soundcheck. Finally, with Aimee Allison (co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show), David Solnit authored the must read Army Of None. David Solnit has now teamed up with his sister Rebecca Solnit, of Courage to Resist, for a new book and there's a new action. Two things I'd like to tell you about: ACTION: A Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on the ten year anniversary of Seattle WTO shutdown, Nov 30, 2009. Yesterday African delegates walked out of pre-Copenhagen trade talks in Barcelona demanding the US and rich countries commit themselves to deeper and faster greenhouse gas emission cuts and European activists blockaded the talks.
The key fight over the future of the planet is taking place right now
around climate; corporate market solutions are the new WTO and the US
and the rich countries are undermining any efforts at climate solutions
to avert even more catastrophic impacts. What could shift things right
now is people in the US (doing what we did ten years ago) showing mass
resistance to the US government and corporate capitalism's obstruction
and false solutions. Please join one of the regional actions being
planned in SF and around the US (details here soon) and sign up to take or support direct action and get your folks together now!
BOOK: AK Press asked me to make a book reflecting on the Seattle WTO shutdown from an organizers view. With my sister Rebecca Solnit, Kate and the AK Press collective workers, designer Jason Justice and contributions from fellow organizers we did it just in time for the ten year anniversary. Please support by buying a book , get ten at half-off, and pass on the announcement below.
hope and resistance, David Solnit About the book: From dawn to dusk on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of people shut down the World Trade Organization meeting, facing cops firing tear gas and rubber bullets, the National Guard, and the suspension of civil liberties.
An unexpected history was launched from the streets of Seattle, one in
which popular power would matter as much as corporate power, in which
economics assumed center-stage, and people began envisioning who else
they could be and what else their economies and societies might look
like.
The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle explores how that history itself has become a battleground and how our perception of it shapes today's movements against corporate capitalism and for a better world. David Solnit recounts activist efforts to intervene in the Hollywood star-studded movie, Battle in Seattle,
and pulls lessons from a decade ago for today. Rebecca Solnit writes of
challenging mainstream misrepresentation of the Seattle protests and
reflects on official history and popular power. Core organizer Chris
Dixon tells the real story of what happened during those five days in
the streets of Seattle.
Profusely illustrated, with a reprint of the original 1999 Direct Action Network's "Call to Action"
broadsheet-- including key articles by Stephanie Guilloud, Chris Borte,
and Chris Dixon -- and a powerful introduction from Anuradha Mittal, The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle
is a tribute to the scores of activists struggling for a better world
around the globe. It's also a highly-charged attack on media mythmaking
in all its forms, from Rebecca Solnit's battle with the New York Times to David Solnit's intervention in the Battle in Seattle
film, and beyond. Every essay in this book sets the record straight
about what really happened in Seattle, and more importantly why it
happened. This is the real story. For more on the book, including ordering it, click here and last night Ann noted the book and the importance of the issues the book is covering.
Posted at 11:56 am by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
Nov 5, 2009
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS PROVEN INCAPABLE OF ACCOMPLISHING MUCH OF ANYTHING. BUT IN GOOD NEWS FOR CELEBRITIES, TURNS OUT HIS FATHER WAS AN ABUSIVE PSYCHO. THE
PSYCHO ASSHOLE BARACK OBAMA SR. CAME TO THE U.S. ALREADY MARRIED AND,
AFTER GETTING STANLEY DUNHAM PREGNANT, BAILED QUICKLY. FOR YEARS BARRY
O HAS LIED THAT HIS PARENTS WERE MARRIED -- HA! -- BUT HIS
HALF-BROTHER'S REVEALING TO THE WORLD HOW LUCKY BARRY O HAD IT, TURNS
OUT BARACK SENIOR BEAT UP CHILDREN AND HIS WIVES. REAL SHAME
BARRY O NEVER FOUND TIME TO OFFER 'DREAMS OF MY MOTHER' BUT AS HIS
MOTHER WAS DYING, WASTED EVERYONE'S TIME WRITING ABOUT THE DRUNKEN,
DEAD BEAT FATHER WHO ABANDONED BARRY O TO RETURN TO HIS WIFE. SAID ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL, "THIS IS SO TRASHY, IT'LL PROBABLY GET BARRY ON LENO AND SPRINGER!" FROM THE TCI WIRE:
While the violence continues, there's still no election law. Today Alsumaria reports,
"Iraq High Election Commission gave the parliament a timeline that ends
on Thursday in order to enact an elections' law or else it will not be
able to hold elections as it is scheduled on January 16. Chief of IHEC
Faraj Al Haidari said that the commission and the UN discussed
elections' timeline and stressed that if he did not receive the law in
the two upcoming days the commission won't be able to hold the
elections on the scheduled date." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) adds,
"The election commission said if parliament doesn't approve a law by
the end of Thursday, it will be impossible to hold the polls as
scheduled on Jan. 16 because there won't be enough time to organize it.
In meetings earlier this week, United Nations officials also told
lawmakers if a law isn't passed by Thursday, the U.N. would urge
postponement of the elections." The Iraqi Constitution mandates that
the elections must be held before the end of January 2010; however, the
Iraqi Constitution mandates many things -- such as resolving the issue
of Kirkuk or appointing a full cabinet by X date or requiring
Parliament's approval to extend a United Nations mandate -- and Nouri's
always managed to just ignore it. Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) report
US Ambassador Chris Hill is scrambling on the ground in Iraq attempting
to use his 'influence' to push for a vote. The US' own manic depressive
ambassador has little-to-no influence especially if the press wants to
continue pushing the-hold-up-is-Kirkuk line. Why is that? Hill offended
the KRG with his very late first visit to their region. Chris Hill
offended them in his remarks which were based on Hill's gross ignorance
regarding the issue of Kirkuk -- ignorance on full display when the
Senate held his confirmation hearing. Hill came to Iraq with no
knowledge of the KRG or Iraq. He has no pull. US Vice President Joe
Biden and the top commander US commander in Iraq Gen Ray Odierno have
some pull (whether or not it's enough remains to be seen) with the KRG
but Hill has none. He also has no influence over non-Kurdish MPs in the
Parliament. So what's he's mainly doing is rushing around in an attempt
to look busy. He'll no doubt (as has been his pattern throughout his
time at the State Dept) find a group to spill the beans to on
whatever's hidden and supposed to be hidden. They'll agree to present
whatever he wants them to because he shared secrets and then they'll
stab him in the back and he'll shrug and finger-point at others. In
other words, his Korean 'leadership' all over again. Biggest
idiot of the week? The editorial board of the Boston Globe --
apparently begging for readers to pull the plug on the finacial crater
that is their paper. In an appalling uninformed editorial they praise Nouri al-Maliki and conclude,
"In their own nihilistic way, Al Qaeda fanatics are showing their true
colors not only to Iraqis but to the rest of the Muslim world. They are
massacring children and other innocents in the name of a holy war to
replace all existing Arab and Muslim governments with the fantasy of a
multinational Islamic caliphate. The less Americans are caught up in
this war within the Muslim world, the harder it will be for the
regressive forces of Al Qaeda to survive." al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a
home grown group and has always been a group of resistance. The Boston
Globe was awfully silent when Steven D. Green and others were
discovered to have gang-raped and murdered 14-year-old Abeer, murdered
both her parents and murdered her five-year-old sister. The Boston
Globe voiced no concern about the US soldiers making it appear the War
Crimes were done by 'insurgents.' And the Boston Globe was silent as
each soldier entered a plea of guilty except for Green who was a
civilian when the crimes were exposed and was tried in civilian court.
The Boston Globe couldn't be bothered with Steven D. Green's trial and,
even after the verdict (or for that matter, the sentencing), couldn't
say one damn word, NOT ONE DAMN WORD, about the War Crimes. So their
selective efforts at playing editorial bully goes to the fact that they
are the most ignorant and uninformed editorial board in the nation.
Praise be to the Boston Globe, doing their part to demonstrate that
struggling papers sometimes aren't worth the struggle to save them. It
should also be noted that while condemning al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for
violence that they have not claimed responsibility for (despite
headlines, a splinter group claimed responsibility for the August and
October Baghdad bombings that shocked so many, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia
did not claim credit), they've refused to condemn their hero and crush
Nouri al-Maliki strange choice of political bedfellows -- the ones who
have claimed responsibility for invading the US base and killing 5 US
soldiers, the ones who have claimed responsibility for kidnapping 5
British citizens -- 3 of whom are known dead, a fourth is assumed dead
and the fifth is hoped to be alive (by the British government -- the
fourth assumed dead is hoped to be alive by his friends and family but
the British government has stated they assume he is dead). The Boston
Globe has nothing to say about that and one wonders exactly when they
got in the business of covering for those who murder US troops? Those
are Nouri's friends. He got 'em released. He may have provided them
with the Iraqi security forces uniforms they used in the attack on the
US base and in the kidnapping of the 5 British citizens. He certainly
provided the group's leader and the leader's brother with a pass out of
a US prison this spring. The Boston Globe wasn't at all worried about
and they continue to be a beacon for ignorance around the world. What a
proud, proud moment. While the Boston Globe tongue bathes Nouri (aka the new Saddam), UPI reports
Nouri's latest planned assault: doing away with minority
representation. The quota system for the cabinet exists because Iraq's
a diverse country. But Nouri's never liked diversity, Nouri's a
radical, fundamentailist Shi'ite who oversaw the genocide of the Sunni
population because he loathes Ba'athists and sees every Sunni as a high
ranking Ba'athist or at least as one of the big, scary people that
forced coward Nouri to flee Iraq for decades until the US invaded and
installed him as a 'leader.' Nouri really hates Ba'athists because they
remind him all over again what a meek, little, sniveling coward he is.
And that's why oversaw the genocide -- gladly oversaw. UPI notes
the announcement by one of Nouri's political party (State of Law)
spokespersons "brought a wave of criticism from Kurds, independents and
Shiite members of the Iraqi National Alliance who complain Maliki is
trying to take greater control of the government." UPI also reminds
how Nouri's road to strongman has been littered with attacks on those
who are supposed to provide security such as his December 2008 assault
on the Interior Ministry whom he accused of plotting a coup -- a plan
that never had any evidence to back it up then or since but did allow
him to push out a Shi'ite rival -- and how his firings in August for
'security reasons' also can be seen as an attack on one of his rivals,
Shi'ite Jawad al-Bolani. UPI notes of Nouri: He
has centralized power for himself to the extent that he has formed two
paramilitary forces, the Baghdad Brigade -- also known as "the Dirty
Squad" for its nocturnal sweeps arresting Maliki's critics,
particularly Sunnis -- and the Counter-Terrorism Force. Both report
directly to him. Maliki has cemented his control over the nation's
security forces by recruiting tribal militias funded by his office and
seizing the power of appointing or dismissing army officers, bypassing
the chief of staff who should have that authority. In the eyes of many, this has transformed the army into a well-armed prime ministerial militia. And for what? What is Iraq today? After nearly seven years of war, what is Iraq? The University of Pittsburg's Haider Hamoudi visits and shares impressions at The Daily Star: Appealing
as these examples may be, the role of religion must be greater in the
view of the Najaf clerics concerning matters of law than merely as a
voice of conscience on behalf of the people against the powerful. Are
we truly to believe then that Najaf clerics are indifferent to
potential reforms of the Personal Status Law that challenge existing
religious doctrine, such as, for example, a ban on polygamy? Why did
the Shiite Islamist parties who dominated the Constitutional Committee
and who were close to Sistani fight so hard for a constitutional
provision banning laws that violate the "certain rulings of Islam,"
which now appears in Article 2 of the Constitution? Is the fact that
every woman within 50 miles of Najaf is covered by a headscarf and then
a wide black cloak on top of that really just a matter of personal
choice, exercised universally in precisely the same fashion, or does
some form of public regulation (state law or otherwise) have something
to do with it as well? I put this point to another of the four
grand ayatollahs, Mohammad Said al-Hakim, when the question was raised
about the relationship of religion to law. We heard again the Najaf
mantra. I asked specifically about Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution
and its requirement that law conform to particular certainties in
Islam. He described this as a "separate issue," and when I suggested it
might mean the marjaaiyya had a role in the legal apparatus of the
state, he replied, "we have a role in the clarification of the religion
(bayan al-din), not in the administration of the law." This
clarifies the position to some extent, in that it makes Najaf
responsible for indicating what the religious position is, and then
leaves to the legislator and the judge the determinations that the
state is supposed to then make on the basis of Article 2. Even Najaf's
commitment to this separation is fuzzy, in that its political allies in
Baghdad have fought long and hard to ensure a place for "religious
experts" on the Federal Supreme Court for Article 2 questions. In the
Constitutional Review Committee, the Shiite Islamist parties have
proposed an amendment that indicates that members of the court would be
nominated by the "relevant bodies." It is hard to imagine that they did
not imagine the marjaaiyya to be the "relevant body" responsible for
nominating the religious experts, or at least that number of them who
were going to be Shiite. And that's what Iraq can offer . . .
after non-stop war and the US installed puppets. Elections? The US had
a few of them yesterday. For the New Jersey governor's race see Mike's post and also be sure to read Betty's
which expands on some of the issues Mike touches on but sets aside the
race. And for Iraq related coverage in the MSM? Turns out your best
chance of discovering the Iraq War is still ongoing comes via " Hints From Heloise"
(Washington Post) and not 'reporting' (which long ago lost interest in
Iraq):Dear Heloise: Our church group has decided to start sending baked
goods as CARE PACKAGES to military personnel in Iraq. We brainstormed
several ideas, such as shoe boxes, etc., but found that the best way to
send a cake to anyone overseas is to bake the cake in a small, metal
coffee can. After baking, remove the cake to cool. Then repack it in
the can, put on the plastic lid the coffee came with and pack the can
in a postal box. Soldiers tell us that they love getting cakes this way
for two reasons: 1. The cake arrives in one piece 2. The cake can be
stored easily, with an airtight lid, if it's not eaten all at once. --
Gwen, via e-mail How wonderful to hear that your group is sending
home-baked goodies to our troops! Nothing beats a treat from the heart
and kitchen! Your group deserves a big Heloise hug, and I know the
troops who receive the goodies are appreciative, too. I'd love to hear
hints from other readers who send treats to troops. -- Heloise RECOMMENDED: " Iraq snapshot" " No Iraq election law still" " Service members continue being deployed to Iraq" " ObamaGiveAway" " The economy" " Never Been Gone" " c.i. and ccr" " Equality" " Carly" " Pins & Needles" " ObamaCare" " The silence from the (co-opted) 'leaders'" " Corzine goes down for the count" " THIS JUST IN! GREEN EYED BARRY!" " Jealousy flares up in the White House"
Posted at 04:16 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
"ObamaGiveAway" (Betty, Thomas Friedman is a Great Man)
"THE SWELLS DON’T CARE! What ever happened to 'affordable?' E. J. Dionne doesn’t care" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):For the record, those middle-income families would be paying 15-18 percent of their pre-tax income for their health care. Does that sound
like “affordable” health care? For various reasons, Pear’s analysis is
hard to judge. But note one thing well: In a detailed discussion of
health care costs for the average family, not a word is allowed to
intrude about the stunning foreign experience, in which universal care
is achieved at half (or less) the per-person cost we maintain over here. Once again, Times readers are kept from knowing a basic fact: Everywhere else, average people get health care at a massively lower cost than obtains over here. Alas!
In America, we tried “managed care.” Now, we’re having a “managed
discussion.” A real progressive would scream and yell about the looting
which seems to plague the system—about the massive, apparently
unnecessary cost of health care for average people. But as the health
reform project has proceeded, the looting seems to have stayed in the
picture. In an unfortunate trade-off, the word “affordable” has largely
disappeared. E. J. Dionne is a
Serious Person. On Monday, he kept his trap shut about a very large
problem. The prospective bill will approach universal coverage. But what ever happened to affordable coverage? To us, the evidence seems rather strong: In the press corps, the swells just don’t care. I really don't care about this insurance give-away. It's not going to do a thing to improve my life or my children's lives. It will make the insurance companies rich. What else has it done? It's
demonstrated to me how STUPID my own side is. And it's underscored that
Communists and Socialists need to self-identify and not present
themselves as Democrats. What I see is that the Communists and
Socialists gas bags/pundits are as bad as the right-wing ones. They're
incapable of having a discussion, incapable of hearing anyone speak. They're the ones insisting that the right opposed to ObamaGiveAway are evil people, or hateful people or this or that. No, not all of them. Many
just don't believe the government needs to be involved. Many feel
government screws up enough things as it is. And I can disagree with
that but understand where they're coming from. As opposed to the liars
insisting upon demonizing everyone on the right-wing. And I'm
beginning to get that those liars (you know who they are) really don't
get it. They're so committed to a socialist state that they can't
understand why anyone would find that bothersome. They can't grasp why Van Jones needed to leave the administration, after all this time. The
country is in the worst economic crisis and Barack swore up and down he
wasn't a Socialist or a Communist and that he'd govern from the center.
Then, at a time of economic crisis, he's got a Marxist in the White
House. How much harm could Van Jones have done? I have no idea.
Nor do I know that, if given the economy and sticking to a Marxist
economic view, he would have done any harm. But I do understand why people on the right were disturbed and it wasn't just those on the right. Those
who are not Democrats but continue to pose as them to the public need
to get honest because they are dangerously screwing up not only the
conversation but the Democratic Party. They are (a) screwing up how we
(Democrats) are seen and they are (b) ensuring that we will have a hard
time getting winning majorities in subsequent elections. My thoughts. "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): Tuesday,
Novemer 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, IOM releases a study on
internal refugees in Iraq who have returned to their former homes,
still no election law in Iraq (and the pretense that Kirkuk is the big
hold up continues), a man goes to town on a NYT reporter online so we know the reporter must be a woman, and more. Today
the International Organization for Migration [IOM] released their
latest report on internal Iraqi refugees [PDF format warning] entitled " Assessment of Return to Iraq:"
The report notes the low rate of return (external refugees coming back
to Iraq) and focuses on the 1.6 million estimated interal refugees and
what the desires of this vulnerable population are. The report notes
that IOM spoke with "4,061 families (24,366 individuals)" while
assessing needs. The bulk of the internally displaced hail from Baghdad (nearly 90%). From the report: *
The majority of identified returnees (33,521 families, or 58%) have
returned to Baghdad governorate, while a significant proportion has
also been identified in Diyala and Anbar. *
54,451 of the returnees identified (94%) have returned from internal
displacement, while the remaining 3,659 identified families (6%) have
returned from abroad. *
Almost 90% of IOM-assessed post-Samarra IDPs were displaced from
Baghdad, diyala, and Ninewa, and almost 79% of identified returns are
also located in these three governorates. The report notes the top six reasons IDPs give for their displacement are:
Direct threats to life (29.1%) Left out of fear (21.7%) Generalized violence (16.5%) Forced displacement from property (7.6%) Ethnic/religious/political discrimination (5.9%) Armed conflict (5.0%) The
report notes that those who are returning often cite "harsh conditions
in displacement" as one of the reasons they have returned (exampele
include "high rent, lack of employment opportunities, poor shelter and
lack of basic services"). The second and third categories can be
combined: "Improved security in area of origin and very difficult
conditions in displacement" and "Very difficult conditions in
displacement". If you combine the two than 45.46% of those who have
returned are citing "very difficult conditions in displacement"
regions. Those returning to Baghdad cite "former employment,
transporation assistance, repair of damaged homes and property, and
renewed access to basic services" as their reasons. 38% of those who
have returned to their former homes "reported feeling safe only some of
the time." In addition, 42.5% of returnees in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala
and Kirkuk report that "their homes are partially or completely
destroyed. In addition, 50% of returnees in these governorates no
longer have their movable property, such as cars, due to loss or
theft." Of
those returning to their former homes across Iraq, Arab Shia Muslims
make up the largest percent (49.4%), followed by Arab Sunni Muslim
(31.0%), Turkmen Sunni Muslim (9.7%) and Christians (8.9%). (Kurd Shia
Muslim, Kurd Sunni Muslim and Other each account for less than one
percent.) Of those who remain internally displaced, the highest percent
is (again) Arab Shia (58.4%) followed by Arab Sunni Muslim (29.3%) with
Christians and Kurd Sunni Muslim next (each at 4.4%), followed by Other
(4.0%) and Kurd Shia Muslim (0.7%). IOM's report also provides a gender
breakdown for heads of household of returnees: 12% are female-headed
households and 88% of returnees are male-headed housholds (and 35% of
the 88% cannot find work). The study found, "Among assessed returnee
female-headed households, food is consistently identified as a priority
need (60% across Iraq) along with non-food itmes (NFIs) and fueld. In
Baghdad, health and sanitation are major concerns for interviewed
female-headed households. Access to legal help was also a serious
issue, particularly in Diyala and Ninewa governorates." Breaking down
employment for returnee heads of household; 69.7% of females heading
households are unable to work contrasted with 15.4% of the male heads
of household; 4.7% of female heads of household are employed contrasted
with 50.1% of male heads of household, and 25.7% of female heads of
household are able to work but unable to find employment contrasted
with 34.5% of male heads of household in the same situation. Returnees
were asked about basic services as well (remember, the bulk live in
Baghdad). How many have electricity each day for "More than 18 hours"?
Only 2%. Most (34%) report they have only one to two hours of
electricity each day. With water, more were able to rely on basic
services: 81.8% state they receive "Municipal water/pipe grid" while
the next most common response (7.9%) was "Rivers, streams or lakes."
Returnees ranked their needs and 61% stated their most pressing need
was food. The report finds: While
the total number of returns in Iraq continues to slowly grow since the
end of 2007, it remains a small fraction of the total Iraqi IDP and
refugee populations. In the face of uncertain security improvements,
the future of return is also unsure. Many IDP families continue to say
that they are waiting for security to improve in order to return. IOM
returnee assessments show that 'pull' factors such as improved security
in place of origin are more encouraging of return than 'push' factors
such as difficult conditions in place of displacement. However, as
prolonged displacement makes life difficult for Iraq's internally
displaced and refugees, this could change. Returning
home means facing a new set of challenges for Iraqi families. 34% of
IOM-assessed returnee families report that they are able to work yet
unemployed, 34% returned to partially or completely destroyed property,
and 75% have less than 6 hours of electricity per day. In addition, the
majority were displaced for more than one year, meaning that they
return carrying the stress and financial debilitation of long-term
displacement. UPI reports
Nouri al-Maliki and Oscar Fernandez-Taranco met in Baghdad today. Who
is Oscar Fernandez-Taranco? The envoy United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon sent "to discuss Baghdad's concerns over foreign meddling
following deadly bombings in August and October." Strange that two
bombings (and Nouri stomping his feet) gets UN action when the non-stop
and ongoing assault on Christians doesn't. Deutsche Presse Agentur reports
that Iraqi MP Yonadam Kanna has "petitioned Sunni Muslim parliamentary
speaker Iyad al-Samarrai to formally request [. . .] an international
investigator to determine who was behind the killing of Iraqi
Christians that Iraqi Christians believe are designed to convince them
to leave their homes". Mohammad Alef Jamal (Gulf News) adds: When
Iraqi Mandaeans are killed, an international committee is formed to
defend their community and when Iraqi Christians are killed or
expelled, the Pope appeals to the US President to provide protection
for them. This is because these groups follow religions that connect
them to other countries. But when Iraqi
scientists and intellectuals are killed, or when border villages are
bombed by neighbouring countries and the bodies of Iraqis are torn
apart by violent explosions, the only reaction seen is condemnation,
calls for immediate investigation, threats and random accusations --
even before an investigation starts. This
is followed by an exchange of accusations between politicians about
whose fault it is, and some prominent figures are made scapegoats,
solely for electoral reasons. Violence
has created the refugee crisis, the world's largest refugee crisis.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two people, a Baquba roadside
bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left three
more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left
two more people injured and a Mosul mortar attack which injured two
people. Shootings? Ignore the violence, joy for the greedy. BBC News reports,
"Iraq's oil ministry has signed an initial agreement with a consortium
led by the Italian firm, ENI, to develop the Zubair oilfield in
southern Iraq. The deal, which needs cabinet approval, calls for the
group to extract 200,000 barrels of oil a day, rising to 1.1 million a
day within seven years." Meanwhile AP notes that the consortium of British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Company's successful bid has been finalized. Khalid a-Ansary and Jack Kimball (Reuters) report
that the Iraqi Parliament has informed Hussain al-Shahristani, the
country's Oil Minister, that he will be testifying before them November
11th on the "distribution of the nation's oil wealth" which has led to
Nouri al-Maliki to have another public fit, muttering about "evil
supporters of the past regime" and comparing the summons to "the last
bombings" (he is a drama queen). In
our view, American military force no longer plays a role in Iraq other
than "peace-keeping." Someone must contain the violence over time to
allow democratic-like institutions to flourish. That should not be the
role of American military power; it must be done by Iraqi institutions
controlled solely by the Iraqi government. It is now time for a
broad and sustained military withdrawal of American military forces
from Iraq. Whatever American forces of any sort that remain should be
paid for exclusively by the Iraqi government. We can argue forever
about the wisdom of our invasion and presence in Iraq beginning in
2003. For sure, Iraq cannot be allowed to become another Korea, where
today 30,000 American troops are held hostage to a crazy North Korean
regime while "protecting" a rich and prosperous South Korea. Withdraw
now the 120,000 military personnel from Iraq, Mr. President and
Congress. Do it as quickly as the safety of those troops will permit. Why the Globe and not the New York Times?
Because the Globe actually is read by families of the enlisted,
therefore, it is aware that there is an ongoing war and it is aware
that the Iraq War directly effects their readership. US
President Barack Obama could end the Iraq War immediately . . . if he
wanted to. He's the biggest road block at present because he is, as
Bully Boy Bush once so infamously put it, "the decider." (Especially
true when an apethetic news media has largely moved away from the issue
and a public's been lulled into false dreams of peace.) Other things
that aren't helpful would include (a) the Iraqi government or
'government' and (b) the Pentagon and KBR. Starting with the former, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) interviews US Lt Gen Charles H. Jacoby Jr.: Are
you concerned that the elections on which your withdrawal timetable is
based may be delayed? The Iraqi parliament is deadlocked over an
election law, even though the deadline has long since passed. This
parliamentary election is a decisive point in the history of Iraq's
democracy, and it's also very important to the United States. We have a
stake in their success. Iraq has had increasingly better elections over
time. Of course we look forward to these elections. And so we're very
concerned that we're past the date that the Iraqis wanted to have an
election law, and that every day that goes by eats into the established
date for the election. Iraq has the opportunity to demonstrate that it
has a viable and credible democracy, and can be a model for the region.
There's lots of opportunity here and we don't want to miss these
opportunities by having this election drift. Would an election delay also delay the plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces by August 2010? We
do not think we are at the point where we are off our plan, but of
course we are going to watch this very carefully. Any decision to vary
from the plan is a policy decision that won't take place here. It's too
soon to say whether a potential delay in the election is a potential
delay in the withdrawal. Alsumaria notes rumors that US pressure is expected to lead various parties to accept the United Nations' recommendations on the legislation: To
that, Kurds decried the US pressure calling them to renounce their
rights in the city and that after announcing that US Vice President Joe
Biden called Kurdistan Governor Massoud Al Barazani in order to talk
over the obstructions hindering approving elections law. MP Mahmoud
Othman told Al Hayat Newspaper that endeavors of Senior US officials
are means to pressure Kurds in order to accept the suggested solutions
though they are unfair. The US behaviors are biased, Othman added. It
is no secret that this kind of pressure is expected considering the
importance USA gives for holding the lections on time. MP Khairallah Al
Basri said that failing to reach an accordance solution regarding
elections' law will urge the USA to interfere in order to impose
solutions. Alsumaria sources had said that the Legal committee
suggested a draft law that proposes to adopt open list and determines
the parliament's seats number. The law also stipulates using
multi-divisions system and appoints the number of seats for each
division without mentioning Kirkuk. However the relevant parties did
not agree on this suggestion. Ali Karim (Asia Times) reports
the recents bombings are said, by some, to have an impact on their
votes and quotes MP Mithal al-Alosi stating, "I expect a low turnout in
the elections if matters go on this way. The wounds of Bloody Wednesday
have not healed yet and the Salehiya bombs have deepened those wounds."
Mithal Alusi was noted in yesterday's snapshot, he's the head of the
Iraqi Nation Party and he appeared as a guest on Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq which began broadcasting last Friday. AFP reports
that Faraj al-Haidari, head of the country's Independent High Electoral
Commission, declared on Al-Sharquiay TV today, "The electoral
commission held talks with the United Nations on Tuesday to discuss the
timetable. We must receive the law in the next two days, otherwise we
will be unable to hold the election on the scheduled date of January
16. There is material relating to the election, and international
companies need time to print it. Fifteen thousand polling stations have
to be made ready for the election, as do 50,000 personnel." UPI speaks with MP Mohammad Salman who states there are currently three options. 1)
Allow the voting to be based on an open-list (where voters know which
people they are voting for and not just a party). 2) Keep the voting to a closed-list (as was done in the 2005 elections). 3)
"[P]ostpone the elections for at least one legislative term to give
lawmakers the chance to vet all of their concerns."
Salman
states that "is the most likely route" but that at least 70 MPs from
the Kurdistan Alliance object to the third option. That's an important
point because the US continues to pressure tthe KRG to agree to . . .
well to anything that will get the bill passed. And many in the press
wrongly -- WRONGLY -- continue to state that the issue of oil-rich
Kirkuk (claimed by the KRG and by Baghdad) is the road block. It is a
road block and it is not just bad reporting to leave out the issue of
the lists, it is politically ignorant. Any
legislative body -- true of the US Congress as well as Iraq's
Parliament -- makes decisions based on their own interests --
especially when it comes to re-election. Closed lists are thought by
many MPs to mean they have a better shot at re-election. Open-lists are
feared. (Nouri al-Maliki and Ayad al-Alawi are two who have spoken out
publicly for open-lists.) When the Parliament is so fearful that
open-lists may mean they aren't re-elected, that is an issue, that is a
road block and it's repeatedly set aside or forgotten in press
accounts. There are three options, UPI is told. Find where
the MP (a Sunni) is at all concerned about the issue of Kirkuk in his
statements. What is he concerned about? Open and closed lists. So the Iraqi Parliament drags their feet and they aren't the only ones. At yesterday's
public hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it was learned that the Defense Department had still not
submitted all the plans for the draw-down that's supposed to be on the
verge of taking place. Not only have they not submitted all of their
own plans, they're supervision of KBR is so lax that KBR's been allowed
to skip submitting a plan. As noted in yesterday's snapshot,
Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get an answer from the
Pentagon's Lee Hamilton to this question: "If the president announces
on February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is
it possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust
staff accordingly?" Despite attempting to walk Hamilton through slowly
(after Hamilton rambled on with a non-answer reply) and despite asking,
"How is that possible?", Henke never got anything that would pass for
an answer to his questions. This morning Jen Dimascio (Politico -- link has text and audio) reports: KBR,
the largest contractor in Iraq, is pulling out of that country so
slowly that it could end up costing American taxpayers $193 million
more than expected, according to a new Pentagon audit. Furthermore,
during a hearing Monday by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a
legislative body set up to study contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Commissioner Charles Tiefer said the company's plodding exit from Iraq
could cost even more -- up to $300 million. As noted in
yesterday's snapshot, that's only one portion of the story. Dimascio
notes a quote from Commissioner Dov Zakheim and you can see yesterday's
snapshot for that full exchange. From last night, Kat's " Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan"
covers the hearing and she shares some impression on Commissioner Chris
Shays hearing performance. But Dimascio covers one aspect of the big
news from yesterday's hearings -- and we did consider skipping it but
fortunately didn't because the Commission actually had their act
together yesterday (we is Kat, Ava, Wally and myself) -- the other big news was the lack of completed plans. For
the Pentagon, that's especially appalling and it's either an issue of
insubordination or the White House isn't really serious about a
draw-down. For the Pentagon, the refusal to submit their own plans or
demand that KBR draw up their own is appalling. Thompson declared in
the hearing that he visited with KBR most recently on September 25th or
26th and they still had no plans -- and Thompson was neither surprised
nor worried about the lack of planning. In the US, Noor Faleh Almaleki has died. The 20-year-old Iraqi woman was intentionally run over October 20th (see the October 21st snapshot)
while she and Amal Edan Khalaf were running errands (the latter is the
mother of Noor's boyfriend and she was left injured in the assault).
Police suspected Noor's father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, of the assault
and stated the probable motive was that he felt Noor had become "too
westernized." As noted in the October 30th snapshot,
Faleh Hassan Almaleki was finally arrested after going on the lamb --
first to Mexico, then flying to London where British authorities
refused him entry and he was sent back to the US and arrested in
Atlanta. Karan Olson and CNN note that the judge has set the man's bail at $5 million. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) adds,
"Noor died yesterday, having failed to recover consciousness after the
attack. The other woman, Amal Khalaf, was also seriously injured but is
expected to survive. " Rachel Stockman and 12 News (link has text and video) supply this timeline: October 20th -Around 2 p.m. Police say Faleh Almaleki ran down his daughter, friend. -Around 5 p.m. Nlets Alert with Almaleki's license plate and vehicle description goes out October 23rd -U.S. Customs and Border Protection notified. Addressing
the timeline, Rachel Stockman reports, "They allowed the suspect to
cross the border into Mexico so we wanted to know where the
communication broke down. What we found? Nlets, the system Peoria
police use to notify other authorities is not something US Customs
always checks." Dustin Gardiner (Arizona Republic) quotes:
prosecutor Stephanie Low stating of the father, "By his own admission,
this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had
brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor
killing." Iraqi American Romina Korkes offered her thoughts on the so-called 'honor' killing last week in a column for the Arizona Republic. Women
are attacked daily around the world. The attacks are dismissed. A large
number of men seem to think it's okay -- and a significant number of
women must agree since we're not in the streets marching -- and that
goes a long way towards explaining Rory O'Connor's post at Media Channel -- a site not known for its 'inclusive' view of humanity (to put it mildly). Noting Alissa J. Rubin's opinion piece from Sunday's New York Times (we noted it in Friday's snapshot),
O'Connor goes on to rip her apart. Now let's be clear, Alissa J. Rubin
being a woman doesn't mean she can't be ripped apart nor are we
concerned about tone. She's never been good with math (we've called her
"teen queen" at this site) and she's been so wack that she's even been
called "crack whore" here. But what have we done that Rory O'Connor
doesn't? We've praised her, yes. She's earned a lot of praise over the
years here. But that's not it. He doesn't have to praise her and,
indeed, he may not find anything worth praising in her writing. That is
his opinion. But
where there's a problem is that Alissa J. Rubin was never the paper's
problem. On her bad days, she jumbled the numbers and was too quick to
believe things she shouldn't have (such as the "Awakenings" being
universally embraced in areas they 'patrolled' or 'terrorized'). Her
worst day never found her as bad as John F. Burns or Dexter Filkins.
I'm not seeing their names mentioned by Rory. Those are the two worst
offenders for what he's demanding (truth). But they don't get called
out. It's really strange that so few women have worked in Baghdad for
the New York Times (others include Cara Buckley, Sabrina
Tavernise, Erica Goode and, of course, Judith Miller) but they're
always the ones being ripped apart. Not the males. The issue isn't that
he called Rubin out. He's allowed to. He can loathe her and rip her
apart. The issue is that we haven't seen that same standard applied to
men. This is the Judith Miller effect, the bash the bitch craze,
we've long documented here. Judith Miller did not start a war. Judith
Miller was not responsible for the entire media landscape. She did not
twist the arms of PBS and NBC and Oprah to get air time. Those people
wanted her on their shows. She did not twist arms at the paper to land
on the front page, the paper wanted her on the front page. Judith
Miller was so WRONG about the Iraq War but she wasn't a liar -- at
least not on the big issue. She honestly believed their were WMD in
Iraq, that's why she commandeered a squadron while stationed in Iraq.
She's a lousy reporter, her 'facts' do not hold up. She needs to be
held accountable. But she often had co-writers -- such as Michael R.
Gordon who remains at the paper and who spent the second Bush term
advocating for war on Iran. Judith Miller was a reporter for one of the
top three papers in the country (at that time). If you saw her on TV,
she was invited on. If you heard her on radio, she was invited on. If
you read her in another paper, a decision was made to print her
article. It took a lot of people echoing the government (not all of
whom believed the lies the way Miller did) to start the war on Iraq, to
lie to the people. Miller was one person. Hold her accountable, no
question, but what about all the others? The
pleasing lie (pleasing to a lot of members of the press corps) is that
Judith Miller, all by herself, lied the nation into war. Judith Miller
and others like her helped the US get into Iraq but grasp that Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns
kept the US in Iraq. There are some who will kiss Dexy's butt because
of those bad, BAD, college campus appearances where he talks about (and
has done this for several years now) about how the Iraq War is lost and
how they knew it then and blah, blah, blah. That might have mattered.
If he'd done it in real time. But in real time, he was lying. In real
time, he was taking orders from the military -- as Molly Bingham
long ago explained, Dexy even cancelled a meeting with the Iraqi
resistance when US military brass frowned. In real time, Dexy let the
US military vet his copy. That's reality. His award winning 'reporting'?
Vetted by the US military. Vetted and delayed while it was vetted which
is why the paper ran it so many days after it was written. I
have no problem with Judith Miller being called out -- and I've called
her out myself. But, look through the archvies, we've called out women
and we've called out men. We haven't worried about tone but we've made
damn sure that people were treated fairly -- even if that just meant
that abuse was heaped on equally. I'm glad that someone at Media Channel remembered there is a war in Iraq and I'm glad that Rory O'Connor wrote with fire.
But I'm also aware that Alissa J. Rubin, graded on any scale, qualifies
as one of the better reporters the paper's had in Iraq. And I'm also
aware that MediaChannel is more than happy to go after Katie Couric or
any other woman but I find very little in efforts to praise women or to
link to them. (Until O'Connor's column, which I heard about from a
friend at the Times, I haven't visited MediaChannel since the efforts to distort Marcia's
writing.) And if Alissa J. Rubin was Alan J. Rubin, I have to wonder
whether or not MediaChannel would even be weighing in? Again, it's been
a long, long time since they've made it known that they're aware of the
Iraq War. This
isn't a minor issue -- not the silence on Iraq or the attacks on women.
And, repeating, it's not about tone. It's about fairness. We've
ridiculed many women here and will do so again and again and again. But
we don't go to town on a woman and refuse to on men. Todd S. Purdum is
a better writer at Vanity Fair than he was at the Times -- that has to do with the differing role, the fact that he can write longer at Van Fair
and the differences between the outlets. But we went to town on Todd
(who I know offline) and did so because his work was as appalling as
Elisabeth Bumiller's columns (run in the news section but they were
columns) at that time. (Bumiller's done some strong reporting in the
last few years.) We went to town on her, we went to town on Todd. And
the fact that I knew him didn't prevent that nor did the fact that he
was a man make me think, "I shouldn't criticize." But there's a real
locker room mentality among the online critics where a man gets a pass
and another one and another one and, okay, let's make it about the
work. But a woman gets ripped apart. The ripping apart doesn't bother
me . . . if it's applied to both. We've linked to Rory before and we'll link to his post today one more time.
But it's really past time that a lot of online critics took a look what
they were doing. I'm not suggesting anyone change their style or tone
or make nice. I am suggesting that they make sure they treat people the
same -- regardless of gender. I do not believe Alissa J. Rubin was
treated the same as a male reporter would have been. I could be wrong,
I often am. But I'm saying my call on that goes to pattern:
MediaChannel's emphasis and the climate online. Finally, independent reporter David Bacon remains one of the few remaining labor reporters in the country. (And he can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show each Wednesday morning -- the program begins airing at 7:00 a.m. PST and streams online.) His latest report is "San Diego -- Land of Day Laborers, Farm Workers and Guest Workers" (21st Century Manifesto):In
Oceanside, Carlsbad, Del Mar and north San Diego County, immigrant day
laborers wait by the side of the road, hoping a contractor will stop
and offer them work. Alberto Juarez Martinez slings his jacket over his
shoulder while he waits. His hands show the effect of a lifetime of
manual work, plus arthritis suffered as a child in Zapata, Zacatecas.
The hands of Beto, a migrant from Uruachi, Chihuahua, also show the
effect of a lifetime of manual work. Juan Castillo, a migrant from
Tehuacan, Puebla, waits with his friends in the parking lot of a market
they've nicknamed La Gallinita, because of the rooster on the roof of
the building. Police in
north county towns have now started cruising by day labor sites in
plainclothes, pretending to be contractors offering workers jobs, and
then citing them and turning them over to immigration agents, even
those with green cards Many community organizations are protesting this
practice.Francisco Villa
operates a lunch truck that visits the areas where migrant day laborers
live on hillsides and under trees. Villa hands out leaflets advising
workers of their rights and letting them know that they can find help
from California Rural Legal Assistance. Across the street from Villa's
truck, Zaragosa Brito and Andres Roman Diaz, two migrants from Arcelia,
Guerrero, sit next to a fence where workers look for day labor, or get
rides to the fields for farm work. The men sleep out in the open in the
field behind the fence, and have worked on a local strawberry ranch,
Rancho Diablo, for many years.David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which has won the CLR James Award.
Posted at 04:13 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces deaths, the tag sale in Iraq continues, the Boston Globe's editorial board begs for the plug to be pulled on the paper, no Iraqi election law still, and more. Today the US military announced:
"Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division
-- North Soldier died Nov. 4 from combat related injuries. The name of
the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and
release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are
announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website
[. . .] The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24
hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin.
The incident is under investigation." And they announced:
"Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division
-- North Soldier died Nov. 4 from non-combat related injuries. The name
of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin
and release by the Department of Defense. [. . .] The incident is under
investigation." The announcements bring the number of US service
members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4359. In addition, Reuters reported this morning that a Tuesday Baghdad mortar attack left 7 US service members injured. As
the toll of dead and wounded US service members continues to climb, US
service members are still being sent to Iraq. The war has not ended
just because so much of the press (and the Democratic Party) moved on
(or MoveOn-ed). Sig Christenson (San Antonio Express-News) reports on
some members Fort Sam Houston's 418th Medical Logistics
Company soldiers preparing to deploy like Spc Justin Ralph whose wife
Julie states, "It hasn't hit me yet. I've just been kind of
stressed-out. I don't want him to leave. I've (tried) to talk him out
of it, but he has to. He really wants to." Christenson observes,
"They're headed to Iraq for the next year, marking the unit's third
deployment there since the invasion, and they won't be the last to go.
The Iraq war, contrary to popular opinion, isn't near over, and
American troops won't be out until 2011 -- and maybe not for years
after that." Meanwhile Iran's Press TV informs,
"Iraq has signed its biggest oil deal since the US 2003 invasion with
Britain's BP and China's CNPC to develop the giant Rumaila oilfield.
The 20-year contract is expected to triple production at the southern
oilfield, from the current one million barrels per day (bpd) to around
2.8 million bpd within a six-year period." British Petroleum and China
National Petroleum Company formed a consortium earlier this year during
bidding on Iraqi oil fields and, unlike many other oil companies, they
didn't bail out on the bidding right before it started. However, now
other companies are rushing to get their hands on Iraqi oil despite the
fact that the terms are the same ones so many foreign coporations found
hard to swallow earlier this year. Stanley Reed (BusinessWeek) explains, "The big oil companies are reconsidering Iraq because they realize this may be among their last opportunities to get large volumes of crude. Britain's BP ( BP),
for instance, typically turns up its nose at anything below roughly 700
million barrels of reserves; Rumaila, about 30 miles west of Basra, may
have 20 billion barrels of recoverable oil, BP estimates. Another field
in the same class is West Qurna, located north of Basra, where a group
including Exxon Mobil and Shell is competing against a partnership of
ConocoPhillips and Russia's Lukoil ( LKOH.RTS) for production rights." Meanwhile Khalid al-Ansary, Jack Kimball and Simon Jessop (Reuters) report
that the country and Japan's Toyota Tsusho entered into a contract for
"1.23 billion yen ($13.60 million)" for which Toyota Tshusho will sell
Iraq "eight power transformers and six auxiliary units". But the
really big 'growth industry' in Iraq? Quil
Lawrence: The cemetery is called the Valley of Peace though, for the
living, it's crowded, dusty and almost always echoing with the sounds
of grief. The tombs and crypts extend for miles in every direction,
large enough that different Shi'ite political factions in Iraq have
their own sectors spanning several city blocks. Family members sing
prayers over the dead and spill water onto the new graves. As long as
there have been funerals here, there has been an industry to receive
the dead and their families. Dakhil Shakir has spent his eighty years
here in the cemetery of Najaf, he says. His earliest memories are
helping his father and his grandfather with the business of funerals
and burials. Dakhil can count back his families five generations in the
trade. He's nearly blind now and, despite his thick plastic glasses, he
calls out to ask which of his sons are in the room with him? They will
bury him some day, he says, and then carry on the business. When Dakhil
was a boy, he recalls, desert caravans brought the dead to Najaf Dakhil
Shakir [translated]: They used to bring the dead on mules. A mule would
carry two bodies with five mules in the caravan. I have seen that with
my own eyes. They would stay here for a few days and we used to offer
them a place to stay and, later, they would set off back home. Quil
Lawrence: As early as the 16th century, the trafficking of Shi'ite
corpses from as far as India was big business. The Ottoman Empire taxed
and regulated the trade as did the first governments of modern Iraq.
The coffins came especially from Iran -- the majority Shi'ite state
that shares hundreds of miles of border with Iraq. And
today smuggling corpses into Iraq continues as a smuggle Lawrence
interviews explains the Iran-Iraq transportation continues and that
there is considerable money to be made in the 'trade.' As the corpse trade continues, so does the violence which creates ever more deaths. Bombings? Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a
Baghdad sticky bombing injured five people, a second Baghdad sticky
bombing wounded seven, a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people
injured and a Mahmoudiyah car bombing left four injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad home bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer, his wife and their daughter. Xiong Tong (Xinhua) adds
that the police officer was Col Shalal al-Zoubaie and reports an
al-Miqdadiyah boming of a generator which left two people injured. Shootings? Corpses? As
the bombings continue, multiple reports have appeared in the last
months about the 'bomb detectors' and how they're so very good at
detecting perfume and cologne but worthless when it comes to bombs. At
the end of October, an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy was exploring the subject at Inside Iraq: Before
starting telling you what happens in most of the checkpoints you should
know about the "explosives detectors". The device is carried by
security man who stops your car and walk beside it carrying the device.
The device's pointer changes its direction when passed by a car that
supposedly carries explosives. But the main flaw it points also if there is any chemical material like detergents or even medicine.The
correspondent also addresses a multitude of other problems with the
checkpoints, but staying on the issue of the 'bomb detectors,' in this
morning's New York Times, Rod Nordland reports the
'wands' cost anywhere betweeen $16,500 and $60,000 a piece and quotes
US Lt Col Hal Bidlack dismissing them and stating they work "on the
same principle as a Ouija board". While the violence continues, there's still no election law. Today Alsumaria reports,
"Iraq High Election Commission gave the parliament a timeline that ends
on Thursday in order to enact an elections' law or else it will not be
able to hold elections as it is scheduled on January 16. Chief of IHEC
Faraj Al Haidari said that the commission and the UN discussed
elections' timeline and stressed that if he did not receive the law in
the two upcoming days the commission won't be able to hold the
elections on the scheduled date." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) adds,
"The election commission said if parliament doesn't approve a law by
the end of Thursday, it will be impossible to hold the polls as
scheduled on Jan. 16 because there won't be enough time to organize it.
In meetings earlier this week, United Nations officials also told
lawmakers if a law isn't passed by Thursday, the U.N. would urge
postponement of the elections." The Iraqi Constitution mandates that
the elections must be held before the end of January 2010; however, the
Iraqi Constitution mandates many things -- such as resolving the issue
of Kirkuk or appointing a full cabinet by X date or requiring
Parliament's approval to extend a United Nations mandate -- and Nouri's
always managed to just ignore it. Ernesto Londono and K.I. Ibrahim (Washington Post) report
US Ambassador Chris Hill is scrambling on the ground in Iraq attempting
to use his 'influence' to push for a vote. The US' own manic
depressive ambassador has little-to-no influence especially if the
press wants to continue pushing the-hold-up-is-Kirkuk line. Why is
that? Hill offended the KRG with his very late first visit to their
region. Chris Hill offended them in his remarks which were based on
Hill's gross ignorance regarding the issue of Kirkuk -- ignorance on
full display when the Senate held his confirmation hearing. Hill came
to Iraq with no knowledge of the KRG or Iraq. He has no pull. US Vice
President Joe Biden and the top commander US commander in Iraq Gen Ray
Odierno have some pull (whether or not it's enough remains to be seen)
with the KRG but Hill has none. He also has no influence over
non-Kurdish MPs in the Parliament. So what's he's mainly doing is
rushing around in an attempt to look busy. He'll no doubt (as has been
his pattern throughout his time at the State Dept) find a group to
spill the beans to on whatever's hidden and supposed to be hidden.
They'll agree to present whatever he wants them to because he shared
secrets and then they'll stab him in the back and he'll shrug and
finger-point at others. In other words, his Korean 'leadership' all
over again. Biggest idiot of the week? The editorial board of the Boston Globe -- apparently begging for readers to pull the plug on the finacial crater that is their paper. In an appalling uninformed editorial they praise Nouri al-Maliki and conclude,
"In their own nihilistic way, Al Qaeda fanatics are showing their true
colors not only to Iraqis but to the rest of the Muslim world. They are
massacring children and other innocents in the name of a holy war to
replace all existing Arab and Muslim governments with the fantasy of a
multinational Islamic caliphate. The less Americans are caught up in
this war within the Muslim world, the harder it will be for the
regressive forces of Al Qaeda to survive." al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is a
home grown group and has always been a group of resistance. The Boston Globe
was awfully silent when Steven D. Green and others were discovered to
have gang-raped and murdered 14-year-old Abeer, murdered both her
parents and murdered her five-year-old sister. The Boston Globe voiced no concern about the US soldiers making it appear the War Crimes were done by 'insurgents.' And the Boston Globe
was silent as each soldier entered a plea of guilty except for Green
who was a civilian when the crimes were exposed and was tried in
civilian court. The Boston Globe couldn't be bothered with
Steven D. Green's trial and, even after the verdict (or for that
matter, the sentencing), couldn't say one damn word, NOT ONE DAMN WORD,
about the War Crimes. So their selective efforts at playing editorial
bully goes to the fact that they are the most ignorant and uninformed
editorial board in the nation. Praise be to the Boston Globe,
doing their part to demonstrate that struggling papers sometimes aren't
worth the struggle to save them. It should also be noted that while
condemning al Qaeda in Mesopotamia for violence that they have not
claimed responsibility for (despite headlines, a splinter group claimed
responsibility for the August and October Baghdad bombings that shocked
so many, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not claim credit), they've refused
to condemn their hero and crush Nouri al-Maliki strange choice of
political bedfellows -- the ones who have claimed responsibility for
invading the US base and killing 5 US soldiers, the ones who have
claimed responsibility for kidnapping 5 British citizens -- 3 of whom
are known dead, a fourth is assumed dead and the fifth is hoped to be
alive (by the British government -- the fourth assumed dead is hoped to
be alive by his friends and family but the British government has
stated they assume he is dead). The Boston Globe has nothing
to say about that and one wonders exactly when they got in the business
of covering for those who murder US troops? Those are Nouri's
friends. He got 'em released. He may have provided them with the
Iraqi security forces uniforms they used in the attack on the US base
and in the kidnapping of the 5 British citizens. He certainly provided
the group's leader and the leader's brother with a pass out of a US
prison this spring. The Boston Globe wasn't at all worried about and they continue to be a beacon for ignorance around the world. What a proud, proud moment. While the Boston Globe tongue bathes Nouri (aka the new Saddam), UPI reports
Nouri's latest planned assault: doing away with minority
representation. The quota system for the cabinet exists because Iraq's
a diverse country. But Nouri's never liked diversity, Nouri's a
radical, fundamentailist Shi'ite who oversaw the genocide of the Sunni
population because he loathes Ba'athists and sees every Sunni as a high
ranking Ba'athist or at least as one of the big, scary people that
forced coward Nouri to flee Iraq for decades until the US invaded and
installed him as a 'leader.' Nouri really hates Ba'athists because
they remind him all over again what a meek, little, sniveling coward he
is. And that's why oversaw the genocide -- gladly oversaw. UPI notes the
announcement by one of Nouri's political party (State of Law)
spokespersons "brought a wave of criticism from Kurds, independents and
Shiite members of the Iraqi National Alliance who complain Maliki is
trying to take greater control of the government." UPI also reminds
how Nouri's road to strongman has been littered with attacks on those
who are supposed to provide security such as his December 2008 assault
on the Interior Ministry whom he accused of plotting a coup -- a plan
that never had any evidence to back it up then or since but did allow
him to push out a Shi'ite rival -- and how his firings in August for
'security reasons' also can be seen as an attack on one of his rivals,
Shi'ite Jawad al-Bolani. UPI notes of Nouri: He
has centralized power for himself to the extent that he has formed two
paramilitary forces, the Baghdad Brigade -- also known as "the Dirty
Squad" for its nocturnal sweeps arresting Maliki's critics,
particularly Sunnis -- and the Counter-Terrorism Force. Both report
directly to him. Maliki has
cemented his control over the nation's security forces by recruiting
tribal militias funded by his office and seizing the power of
appointing or dismissing army officers, bypassing the chief of staff
who should have that authority. In the eyes of many, this has transformed the army into a well-armed prime ministerial militia. Appealing
as these examples may be, the role of religion must be greater in the
view of the Najaf clerics concerning matters of law than merely as a
voice of conscience on behalf of the people against the powerful. Are
we truly to believe then that Najaf clerics are indifferent to
potential reforms of the Personal Status Law that challenge existing
religious doctrine, such as, for example, a ban on polygamy? Why did
the Shiite Islamist parties who dominated the Constitutional Committee
and who were close to Sistani fight so hard for a constitutional
provision banning laws that violate the "certain rulings of Islam,"
which now appears in Article 2 of the Constitution? Is the fact that
every woman within 50 miles of Najaf is covered by a headscarf and then
a wide black cloak on top of that really just a matter of personal
choice, exercised universally in precisely the same fashion, or does
some form of public regulation (state law or otherwise) have something
to do with it as well? I
put this point to another of the four grand ayatollahs, Mohammad Said
al-Hakim, when the question was raised about the relationship of
religion to law. We heard again the Najaf mantra. I asked specifically
about Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution and its requirement that law
conform to particular certainties in Islam. He described this as a
"separate issue," and when I suggested it might mean the marjaaiyya had
a role in the legal apparatus of the state, he replied, "we have a role
in the clarification of the religion (bayan al-din), not in the
administration of the law." This
clarifies the position to some extent, in that it makes Najaf
responsible for indicating what the religious position is, and then
leaves to the legislator and the judge the determinations that the
state is supposed to then make on the basis of Article 2. Even Najaf's
commitment to this separation is fuzzy, in that its political allies in
Baghdad have fought long and hard to ensure a place for "religious
experts" on the Federal Supreme Court for Article 2 questions. In the
Constitutional Review Committee, the Shiite Islamist parties have
proposed an amendment that indicates that members of the court would be
nominated by the "relevant bodies." It is hard to imagine that they did
not imagine the marjaaiyya to be the "relevant body" responsible for
nominating the religious experts, or at least that number of them who
were going to be Shiite. And
that's what Iraq can offer . . . after non-stop war and the US
installed puppets. Elections? The US had a few of them yesterday.
For the New Jersey governor's race see Mike's post and also be sure to read Betty's
which expands on some of the issues Mike touches on but sets aside the
race. And for Iraq related coverage in the MSM? Turns out your best
chance of discovering the Iraq War is still ongoing comes via " Hints From Heloise" ( Washington Post) and not 'reporting' (which long ago lost interest in Iraq): Dear
Heloise: Our church group has decided to start sending baked goods as
CARE PACKAGES to military personnel in Iraq. We brainstormed several
ideas, such as shoe boxes, etc., but found that the best way to send a
cake to anyone overseas is to bake the cake in a small, metal coffee
can. After baking, remove the cake to cool. Then repack it in the can,
put on the plastic lid the coffee came with and pack the can in a
postal box. Soldiers tell us that they love getting cakes this way for
two reasons: 1. The cake arrives in one piece 2.
The cake can be stored easily, with an airtight lid, if it's not eaten
all at once. -- Gwen, via e-mail How
wonderful to hear that your group is sending home-baked goodies to our
troops! Nothing beats a treat from the heart and
kitchen! Your group deserves a big Heloise hug, and I know the troops who receive the goodies are appreciative, too. I'd love to hear hints from other readers who send treats to troops. -- Heloise
Staying with reading, earlier this decade Aimee Allison, David Solnit authored the must read Army Of None. David Solnit has now teamed up with his sister Rebecca Solnit, of Courage to Resist, for a new book and there's a new action. ACTION: A Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on the ten year anniversary of Seattle WTO shutdown, Nov 30, 2009. Yesterday African delegates walked out of pre-Copenhagen trade talks in Barcelona demanding the US and rich countries commit themselves to deeper and faster greenhouse gas emission cuts and European activists blockaded the talks. The
key fight over the future of the planet is taking place right now
around climate; corporate market solutions are the new WTO and the US
and the rich countries are undermining any efforts at climate solutions
to avert even more catastrophic impacts. What could shift things right
now is people in the US (doing what we did ten years ago) showing mass
resistance to the US government and corporate capitalism's obstruction
and false solutions. Please join one of the regional actions being
planned in SF and around the US (details here soon) and sign up to take or support direct action and get your folks together now!
BOOK: AK Press asked me to make a book reflecting on the Seattle WTO shutdown from an organizers view. With my sister Rebecca Solnit, Kate and the AK Press collective workers, designer Jason Justice and contributions from fellow organizers we did it just in time for the ten year anniversary. Please support by buying a book , get ten at half-off, and pass on the announcement below. From dawn to dusk on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of people shut down the World Trade Organization meeting, facing cops firing tear gas and rubber bullets, the National Guard, and the suspension of civil liberties.
An unexpected history was launched from the streets of Seattle, one in
which popular power would matter as much as corporate power, in which
economics assumed center-stage, and people began envisioning who else
they could be and what else their economies and societies might look
like.
The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattleexplores how that history itself has become a battleground and how our perception of it shapes today's movements against corporate capitalism and for a better world. David Solnit recounts activist efforts to intervene in the Hollywood star-studded movie, Battle in Seattle,
and pulls lessons from a decade ago for today. Rebecca Solnit writes of
challenging mainstream misrepresentation of the Seattle protests and
reflects on official history and popular power. Core organizer Chris
Dixon tells the real story of what happened during those five days in
the streets of Seattle.
Profusely illustrated, with a reprint of the original 1999 Direct Action Network's "Call to Action"
broadsheet -- including key articles by Stephanie Guilloud, Chris
Borte, and Chris Dixon -- and a powerful introduction from Anuradha
Mittal, The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle is
a tribute to the scores of activists struggling for a better world
around the globe. It's also a highly-charged attack on media mythmaking
in all its forms, from Rebecca Solnit's battle with the New York Times to David Solnit's intervention in the Battle in Seattle film,
and beyond. Every essay in this book sets the record straight about
what really happened in Seattle, and more importantly why it happened.
This is the real story.
David Solnit lived and organized
in Seattle in 1999 with the Direct Action Network, a group co-initiated
by the Art and Revolution Collective, of which he was a part. He has
been a mass direct action organizer since the early '80s, and in the
'90s became a puppeteer and arts organizer. He is the editor of Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World and co-author with Aimee Allison ofArmy of None: Strategies to Counter Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World. He currently works as a carpenter in Oakland, California
and organizes with Courage to Resist, supporting GI resisters, and with
the Mobilization for Climate Justice West. Rebecca Solnit is an activist, historian and writer who lives in San Francisco. Her twelfth book, A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster, came out this fall. The previous eleven include 2007's Storming the Gates of Paradise; A Field Guide to Getting Lost; Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities;Wanderlust: A History of Walking;As Eve Said to the Serpent: On Landscape, Gender and Art; River of Shadows, Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West (for which she received a Guggenheim, the National Book Critics Circle Award in criticism, and the Lannan Literary Award). A contributing editor to Harper's, she frequently writes for the political site Tomdispatch.com. She has worked on antinuclear, antiwar, environmental, indigenous land rights and human rights campaigns and movements over the years. We'll note the book again tomorrow but right now we'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' " CHOMSKY SAYS PRESIDENT OBAMA CONTINUES BUSH POLICY TO CONTROL MIDDLE EAST OIL" ( Veterans Today): Political
activist Noam Chomsky says that although President Obama views the Iraq
invasion merely as "a mistake" or "strategic blunder," it is, in fact,
a "major crime" designed to enable America to control the Middle East
oil reserves. "It's ("strategic blunder") probably what the German
general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad," Chomsky quipped,
referring to the big Nazi defeat by the Soviet army in
1943. "There is basically no
significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that if we
can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the
world," he said. In a lecture at the School of
Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th, Chomsky warned
against expecting significant foreign policy changes from Obama,
according to a report by Mamoon Alabbasi published on MWC News.net.
Alabbasi is an editor at Middle East Online. "As
Obama came into office, (former Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice
predicted he would follow the policies of Bush's second term, and that
is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style,"
Chomsky said.Chomsky said the U.S. operates under
the "Mafia principle," explaining "the Godfather does not tolerate
'successful defiance" and must be stamped out "so that others
understand that disobedience is not an option." Despite
pressure on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Alabbasi reported, Chomsky
said the U.S. continues to seek a long-term presence in the country and
the huge U.S. embassy in Baghdad is to be expanded under
Obama.
Posted at 12:41 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
Nov 4, 2009
Jealousy flares up in the White House
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS DIRECT-TO-CABLE FILM.
"I CAN'T BELIEVE SHE GOT ALL THE GOOD ANGLES!" HE HISSED POINTING ACROSS THE HALL. AS NORMA SHEARER FOUND OUT IN THE WOMEN WHEN JOAN CRAWFORD UPSTAGED HER, AS OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN FOUND OUT WHEN STOCKARD CHANNING STOLE GREASE AND AS CLINT EASTWOOD DISCOVERED WHEN JOHN MALKOVICH WALKED AWAY WITH IN THE LINE OF FIRE, AMERICA LOVES A BAD GIRL. "A BITCH!" HISSED BARRY. ACROSS THE HALL, A BEAMING MICHELLE WAS BASKING IN CONGRATULATIONS AND SIGNING AUTOGRAPHS. MUTTERED BARRY, "THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MY NIGHT! MINE!" So the Iraqi Parliament drags their feet and they aren't the only ones. At yesterday's
public hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it was learned that the Defense Department had still not
submitted all the plans for the draw-down that's supposed to be on the
verge of taking place. Not only have they not submitted all of their
own plans, they're supervision of KBR is so lax that KBR's been allowed
to skip submitting a plan. As noted in yesterday's snapshot,
Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get an answer from the
Pentagon's Lee Hamilton to this question: "If the president announces
on February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is
it possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust
staff accordingly?" Despite attempting to walk Hamilton through slowly
(after Hamilton rambled on with a non-answer reply) and despite asking,
"How is that possible?", Henke never got anything that would pass for
an answer to his questions. This morning Jen Dimascio (Politico -- link has text and audio) reports: KBR,
the largest contractor in Iraq, is pulling out of that country so
slowly that it could end up costing American taxpayers $193 million
more than expected, according to a new Pentagon audit.Furthermore,
during a hearing Monday by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a
legislative body set up to study contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Commissioner Charles Tiefer said the company's plodding exit from Iraq
could cost even more -- up to $300 million.As noted
in yesterday's snapshot, that's only one portion of the story. Dimascio
notes a quote from Commissioner Dov Zakheim and you can see yesterday's
snapshot for that full exchange. From last night, Kat's " Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan"
covers the hearing and she shares some impression on Commissioner Chris
Shays hearing performance. But Dimascio covers one aspect of the big
news from yesterday's hearings -- and we did consider skipping it but
fortunately didn't because the Commission actually had their act
together yesterday (we is Kat, Ava, Wally and myself) -- the other big news was the lack of completed plans. For
the Pentagon, that's especially appalling and it's either an issue of
insubordination or the White House isn't really serious about a
draw-down. For the Pentagon, the refusal to submit their own plans or
demand that KBR draw up their own is appalling. Thompson declared in
the hearing that he visited with KBR most recently on September 25th or
26th and they still had no plans -- and Thompson was neither surprised
nor worried about the lack of planning.
In the US, Noor Faleh Almaleki has died. The 20-year-old Iraqi woman was intentionally run over October 20th (see the October 21st snapshot)
while she and Amal Edan Khalaf were running errands (the latter is the
mother of Noor's boyfriend and she was left injured in the assault).
Police suspected Noor's father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, of the assault
and stated the probable motive was that he felt Noor had become "too
westernized." As noted in the October 30th snapshot,
Faleh Hassan Almaleki was finally arrested after going on the lamb --
first to Mexico, then flying to London where British authorities
refused him entry and he was sent back to the US and arrested in
Atlanta. Karan Olson and CNN note that the judge has set the man's bail at $5 million. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) adds,
"Noor died yesterday, having failed to recover consciousness after the
attack. The other woman, Amal Khalaf, was also seriously injured but is
expected to survive. " Rachel Stockman and 12 News (link has text and video) supply this timeline: October 20th -Around 2 p.m. Police say Faleh Almaleki ran down his daughter, friend. -Around 5 p.m. Nlets Alert with Almaleki's license plate and vehicle description goes out October 23rd -U.S. Customs and Border Protection notified. Addressing
the timeline, Rachel Stockman reports, "They allowed the suspect to
cross the border into Mexico so we wanted to know where the
communication broke down. What we found? Nlets, the system Peoria
police use to notify other authorities is not something US Customs
always checks." Dustin Gardiner (Arizona Republic) quotes:
prosecutor Stephanie Low stating of the father, "By his own admission,
this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had
brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor
killing." Iraqi American Romina Korkes offered her thoughts on the so-called 'honor' killing last week in a column for the Arizona Republic.
Women
are attacked daily around the world. The attacks are dismissed. A large
number of men seem to think it's okay -- and a significant number of
women must agree since we're not in the streets marching -- and that
goes a long way towards explaining Rory O'Connor's post at Media Channel -- a site not known for its 'inclusive' view of humanity (to put it mildly). Noting Alissa J. Rubin's opinion piece from Sunday's New York Times (we noted it in Friday's snapshot),
O'Connor goes on to rip her apart. Now let's be clear, Alissa J. Rubin
being a woman doesn't mean she can't be ripped apart nor are we
concerned about tone. She's never been good with math (we've called her
"teen queen" at this site) and she's been so wack that she's even been
called "crack whore" here. But what have we done that Rory O'Connor
doesn't? We've praised her, yes. She's earned a lot of praise over the
years here. But that's not it. He doesn't have to praise her and,
indeed, he may not find anything worth praising in her writing. That is
his opinion. But where there's a problem
is that Alissa J. Rubin was never the paper's problem. On her bad days,
she jumbled the numbers and was too quick to believe things she
shouldn't have (such as the "Awakenings" being universally embraced in
areas they 'patrolled' or 'terrorized'). Her worst day never found her
as bad as John F. Burns or Dexter Filkins. I'm not seeing their names
mentioned by Rory. Those are the two worst offenders for what he's
demanding (truth). But they don't get called out. It's really strange
that so few women have worked in Baghdad for the New York Times
(others include Cara Buckley, Sabrina Tavernise, Erica Goode and, of
course, Judith Miller) but they're always the ones being ripped apart.
Not the males. The issue isn't that he called Rubin out. He's allowed
to. He can loathe her and rip her apart. The issue is that we haven't
seen that same standard applied to men. This is the Judith Miller effect, the bash the bitch craze,
we've long documented here. Judith Miller did not start a war. Judith
Miller was not responsible for the entire media landscape. She did not
twist the arms of PBS and NBC and Oprah to get air time. Those people
wanted her on their shows. She did not twist arms at the paper to land
on the front page, the paper wanted her on the front page. Judith
Miller was so WRONG about the Iraq War but she wasn't a liar -- at
least not on the big issue. She honestly believed their were WMD in
Iraq, that's why she commandeered a squadron while stationed in Iraq.
She's a lousy reporter, her 'facts' do not hold up. She needs to be
held accountable. But she often had co-writers -- such as Michael R.
Gordon who remains at the paper and who spent the second Bush term
advocating for war on Iran. Judith Miller was a reporter for one of the
top three papers in the country (at that time). If you saw her on TV,
she was invited on. If you heard her on radio, she was invited on. If
you read her in another paper, a decision was made to print her
article. It took a lot of people echoing the government (not all of
whom believed the lies the way Miller did) to start the war on Iraq, to
lie to the people. Miller was one person. Hold her accountable, no
question, but what about all the others? The
pleasing lie (pleasing to a lot of members of the press corps) is that
Judith Miller, all by herself, lied the nation into war. Judith Miller
and others like her helped the US get into Iraq but grasp that Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns
kept the US in Iraq. There are some who will kiss Dexy's butt because
of those bad, BAD, college campus appearances where he talks about (and
has done this for several years now) about how the Iraq War is lost and
how they knew it then and blah, blah, blah. That might have mattered.
If he'd done it in real time. But in real time, he was lying. In real
time, he was taking orders from the military -- as Molly Bingham
long ago explained, Dexy even cancelled a meeting with the Iraqi
resistance when US military brass frowned. In real time, Dexy let the
US military vet his copy. That's reality. His award winning 'reporting'?
Vetted by the US military. Vetted and delayed while it was vetted which
is why the paper ran it so many days after it was written. I
have no problem with Judith Miller being called out -- and I've called
her out myself. But, look through the archvies, we've called out women
and we've called out men. We haven't worried about tone but we've made
damn sure that people were treated fairly -- even if that just meant
that abuse was heaped on equally. I'm glad that someone at Media Channel remembered there is a war in Iraq and I'm glad that Rory O'Connor wrote with fire.
But I'm also aware that Alissa J. Rubin, graded on any scale, qualifies
as one of the better reporters the paper's had in Iraq. And I'm also
aware that MediaChannel is more than happy to go after Katie Couric or
any other woman but I find very little in efforts to praise women or to
link to them. (Until O'Connor's column, which I heard about from a
friend at the Times, I haven't visited MediaChannel since the efforts to distort Marcia's
writing.) And if Alissa J. Rubin was Alan J. Rubin, I have to wonder
whether or not MediaChannel would even be weighing in? Again, it's been
a long, long time since they've made it known that they're aware of the
Iraq War. This isn't a minor issue -- not
the silence on Iraq or the attacks on women. And, repeating, it's not
about tone. It's about fairness. We've ridiculed many women here and
will do so again and again and again. But we don't go to town on a
woman and refuse to on men. Todd S. Purdum is a better writer at Vanity Fair than he was at the Times -- that has to do with the differing role, the fact that he can write longer at Van Fair
and the differences between the outlets. But we went to town on Todd
(who I know offline) and did so because his work was as appalling as
Elisabeth Bumiller's columns (run in the news section but they were
columns) at that time. (Bumiller's done some strong reporting in the
last few years.) We went to town on her, we went to town on Todd. And
the fact that I knew him didn't prevent that nor did the fact that he
was a man make me think, "I shouldn't criticize." But there's a real
locker room mentality among the online critics where a man gets a pass
and another one and another one and, okay, let's make it about the
work. But a woman gets ripped apart. The ripping apart doesn't bother
me . . . if it's applied to both. We've linked to Rory before and we'll link to his post today one more time.
But it's really past time that a lot of online critics took a look what
they were doing. I'm not suggesting anyone change their style or tone
or make nice. I am suggesting that they make sure they treat people the
same -- regardless of gender. I do not believe Alissa J. Rubin was
treated the same as a male reporter would have been. I could be wrong,
I often am. But I'm saying my call on that goes to pattern:
MediaChannel's emphasis and the climate online.
Posted at 04:46 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
corzine goes down for the count (mike)
rebecca here. cedric and i swap out cross-posting duties. some nights, he does it for me, some nights i do it for him. c.i. usually does it for us both on thursday nights. tonight's my night and with his permission, i'm cross-posting mike's blog post.
Tuesday! What a great day!!!!! :D I've been on the phone with C.I., Kat, Ava, Wally, Cedric and Jim doing prep on an article we're doing Sunday. On what? Hmm. The losers. See.  Yes,
Jon Corzine is not New Jersey's choice for governor. We are aware that
Bob Somerby spent today trying to do damage control insisting that the
governors races in Virginia and New Jersey didn't count. Didn't count?
Barack campaigned non-stop for Corzine. Corzine was the incumbent. He
couldn't hold on to his seat. Even with Barry O and Caroline Kennedy. Or maybe because of them. Hillary voters will not forget and Jon Corzine learned that lesson tonight. Poor washed up politician. And
most importantly, both races send a message to House and Senate Dems
afraid to buck the Great . . . Unwashed. They better start bucking
Barack. It's their asses that are on the line if they're up for
re-election in 2010, not Barack's. America's love affair with
Barack is over. He currently polls worse than Bush in his first term.
It's over and those who chose to be Barry's buds will learn that, yes,
WE DO judge you by the company you keep. In fact, let's start a new
game: Six Degrees of Barry Soreto. I can connect Robert Byrd to
domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Watch! Robert Byrd knows Barack and
Barack was neighbor and friends with Bill Ayers and with Weather
Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. It's a fun game to play: Six Degrees of Barry Soreto. Patent pending. All rights assigned to Mike McKinnon. :D Corzine
was a US Senator. He left the Senate to run for governor. He won that
race too. Then he ran for re-election and the voters said, "Piss off." Poor
Jon Corzine. He stood by Barry O and thought that would be enough. In
fact, it helped defeat him. If I were Barbara Boxer -- who disgraced
herself in 2008 as she played catty in the most stereotypical manner --
I wouldn't plan on running for re-election because she's really hated
right now. And the polls show that. These whores like Corzine and Boxer
who thought they could lie and attack Hillary are finding out that
Hillary is a hell of a lot more popular with voters than they are. So Boxer prepare to do what Jon Corzine's doing right now: Eat s**t. Jonathan Martin (Politico) reports,
" Chris Christie has defeated New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine,
becoming the first Republican to win statewide in more than a decade. With
79 percent of the vote in, Christie was winning, 49 to 45, with
independent candidate Chris Daggett pulling just 5 percent. " That's
got audio if you'd prefer to listen to it instead of reading. Now
they kept saying the Republican Party was dead. Apparently idiots on my
side brought it back to life. How did they do that? By lying, by using
hypocrisy and by being the smuggest asses in the world. Most of
all by putting the Not Ready For Prime Time Barry O on the world's
stage. We could have had a real president, we could have had Hillary
who would have done a great job. But we let Republicans, Communists and
Socialists infiltrate our Democratic Party primary and give the
nomination to Barack The Unprepared. And he has single handedly made
Evil Doer George W. Bush look better just by comparison. (That's what
happens when you continue ALL of Bush's policies.) My party better wise up real quick or expect to be eating s**t the way Corzine is tonight. Here's C.I.'s " Iraq snapshot:" Tuesday,
Novemer 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, IOM releases a study on
internal refugees in Iraq who have returned to their former homes,
still no election law in Iraq (and the pretense that Kirkuk is the big
hold up continues), a man goes to town on a NYT reporter online so we
know the reporter must be a woman, and more.
Today the
International Organization for Migration [IOM] released their latest
report on internal Iraqi refugees [PDF format warning] entitled "Assessment of Return to Iraq:"
The report notes the low rate of return (external refugees coming back
to Iraq) and focuses on the 1.6 million estimated interal refugees and
what the desires of this vulnerable population are. The report notes
that IOM spoke with "4,061 families (24,366 individuals)" while
assessing needs.
The bulk of the internally displaced hail from Baghdad (nearly 90%). From the report:
*
The majority of identified returnees (33,521 families, or 58%) have
returned to Baghdad governorate, while a significant proportion has
also been identified in Diyala and Anbar.
* 54,451 of the
returnees identified (94%) have returned from internal displacement,
while the remaining 3,659 identified families (6%) have returned from
abroad.
* Almost 90% of IOM-assessed post-Samarra IDPs were
displaced from Baghdad, diyala, and Ninewa, and almost 79% of
identified returns are also located in these three governorates.
The report notes the top six reasons IDPs give for their displacement are:
Direct threats to life (29.1%) Left out of fear (21.7%) Generalized violence (16.5%) Forced displacement from property (7.6%) Ethnic/religious/political discrimination (5.9%) Armed conflict (5.0%)
The
report notes that those who are returning often cite "harsh conditions
in displacement" as one of the reasons they have returned (exampele
include "high rent, lack of employment opportunities, poor shelter and
lack of basic services"). The second and third categories can be
combined: "Improved security in area of origin and very difficult
conditions in displacement" and "Very difficult conditions in
displacement". If you combine the two than 45.46% of those who have
returned are citing "very difficult conditions in displacement"
regions. Those returning to Baghdad cite "former employment,
transporation assistance, repair of damaged homes and property, and
renewed access to basic services" as their reasons. 38% of those who
have returned to their former homes "reported feeling safe only some of
the time." In addition, 42.5% of returnees in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala
and Kirkuk report that "their homes are partially or completely
destroyed. In addition, 50% of returnees in these governorates no
longer have their movable property, such as cars, due to loss or theft."
Of
those returning to their former homes across Iraq, Arab Shia Muslims
make up the largest percent (49.4%), followed by Arab Sunni Muslim
(31.0%), Turkmen Sunni Muslim (9.7%) and Christians (8.9%). (Kurd Shia
Muslim, Kurd Sunni Muslim and Other each account for less than one
percent.) Of those who remain internally displaced, the highest percent
is (again) Arab Shia (58.4%) followed by Arab Sunni Muslim (29.3%) with
Christians and Kurd Sunni Muslim next (each at 4.4%), followed by Other
(4.0%) and Kurd Shia Muslim (0.7%). IOM's report also provides a gender
breakdown for heads of household of returnees: 12% are female-headed
households and 88% of returnees are male-headed housholds (and 35% of
the 88% cannot find work). The study found, "Among assessed returnee
female-headed households, food is consistently identified as a priority
need (60% across Iraq) along with non-food itmes (NFIs) and fueld. In
Baghdad, health and sanitation are major concerns for interviewed
female-headed households. Access to legal help was also a serious
issue, particularly in Diyala and Ninewa governorates." Breaking down
employment for returnee heads of household; 69.7% of females heading
households are unable to work contrasted with 15.4% of the male heads
of household; 4.7% of female heads of household are employed contrasted
with 50.1% of male heads of household, and 25.7% of female heads of
household are able to work but unable to find employment contrasted
with 34.5% of male heads of household in the same situation.
Returnees
were asked about basic services as well (remember, the bulk live in
Baghdad). How many have electricity each day for "More than 18 hours"?
Only 2%. Most (34%) report they have only one to two hours of
electricity each day. With water, more were able to rely on basic
services: 81.8% state they receive "Municipal water/pipe grid" while
the next most common response (7.9%) was "Rivers, streams or lakes."
Returnees ranked their needs and 61% stated their most pressing need
was food.
The report finds:
While the total number of
returns in Iraq continues to slowly grow since the end of 2007, it
remains a small fraction of the total Iraqi IDP and refugee
populations. In the face of uncertain security improvements, the future
of return is also unsure. Many IDP families continue to say that they
are waiting for security to improve in order to return. IOM
returnee assessments show that 'pull' factors such as improved security
in place of origin are more encouraging of return than 'push' factors
such as difficult conditions in place of displacement. However, as
prolonged displacement makes life difficult for Iraq's internally
displaced and refugees, this could change. Returning home means
facing a new set of challenges for Iraqi families. 34% of IOM-assessed
returnee families report that they are able to work yet unemployed, 34%
returned to partially or completely destroyed property, and 75% have
less than 6 hours of electricity per day. In addition, the majority
were displaced for more than one year, meaning that they return
carrying the stress and financial debilitation of long-term
displacement.
UPI reports
Nouri al-Maliki and Oscar Fernandez-Taranco met in Baghdad today. Who
is Oscar Fernandez-Taranco? The envoy United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon sent "to discuss Baghdad's concerns over foreign meddling
following deadly bombings in August and October." Strange that two
bombings (and Nouri stomping his feet) gets UN action when the non-stop
and ongoing assault on Christians doesn't. Deutsche Presse Agentur reports
that Iraqi MP Yonadam Kanna has "petitioned Sunni Muslim parliamentary
speaker Iyad al-Samarrai to formally request [. . .] an international
investigator to determine who was behind the killing of Iraqi
Christians that Iraqi Christians believe are designed to convince them
to leave their homes". Mohammad Alef Jamal (Gulf News) adds:
When
Iraqi Mandaeans are killed, an international committee is formed to
defend their community and when Iraqi Christians are killed or
expelled, the Pope appeals to the US President to provide protection
for them. This is because these groups follow religions that connect
them to other countries. But when Iraqi scientists and
intellectuals are killed, or when border villages are bombed by
neighbouring countries and the bodies of Iraqis are torn apart by
violent explosions, the only reaction seen is condemnation, calls for
immediate investigation, threats and random accusations -- even before
an investigation starts. This is followed by an exchange of
accusations between politicians about whose fault it is, and some
prominent figures are made scapegoats, solely for electoral reasons.
Violence has created the refugee crisis, the world's largest refugee crisis. Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two people, a Baquba roadside
bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left three
more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left
two more people injured and a Mosul mortar attack which injured two
people.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 judge was injured when he was shot not far from his Mosul home.
Ignore the violence, joy for the greedy. BBC News reports,
"Iraq's oil ministry has signed an initial agreement with a consortium
led by the Italian firm, ENI, to develop the Zubair oilfield in
southern Iraq. The deal, which needs cabinet approval, calls for the
group to extract 200,000 barrels of oil a day, rising to 1.1 million a
day within seven years." Meanwhile AP notes that the consortium of British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Company's successful bid has been finalized. Khalid a-Ansary and Jack Kimball (Reuters) report
that the Iraqi Parliament has informed Hussain al-Shahristani, the
country's Oil Minister, that he will be testifying before them November
11th on the "distribution of the nation's oil wealth" which has led to
Nouri al-Maliki to have another public fit, muttering about "evil
supporters of the past regime" and comparing the summons to "the last
bombings" (he is a drama queen).
Meanwhile the 163-year-old US
daily newspaper the Joplin Globe -- serving the south west sections of
Missouri -- offers the editorial "In our view: Time to get out of Iraq:"
In
our view, American military force no longer plays a role in Iraq other
than "peace-keeping." Someone must contain the violence over time to
allow democratic-like institutions to flourish. That should not be the
role of American military power; it must be done by Iraqi institutions
controlled solely by the Iraqi government. It is now time for a broad
and sustained military withdrawal of American military forces from
Iraq. Whatever American forces of any sort that remain should be paid
for exclusively by the Iraqi government. We can argue forever about the
wisdom of our invasion and presence in Iraq beginning in 2003. For
sure, Iraq cannot be allowed to become another Korea, where today
30,000 American troops are held hostage to a crazy North Korean regime
while "protecting" a rich and prosperous South Korea. Withdraw now the
120,000 military personnel from Iraq, Mr. President and Congress. Do it
as quickly as the safety of those troops will permit.
Why the
Globe and not the New York Times? Because the Globe actually is read by
families of the enlisted, therefore, it is aware that there is an
ongoing war and it is aware that the Iraq War directly effects their
readership.
US President Barack Obama could end the Iraq War
immediately . . . if he wanted to. He's the biggest road block at
present because he is, as Bully Boy Bush once so infamously put it,
"the decider." (Especially true when an apethetic news media has
largely moved away from the issue and a public's been lulled into false
dreams of peace.) Other things that aren't helpful would include (a)
the Iraqi government or 'government' and (b) the Pentagon and KBR.
Starting with the former, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) interviews US Lt Gen Charles H. Jacoby Jr.:Are
you concerned that the elections on which your withdrawal timetable is
based may be delayed? The Iraqi parliament is deadlocked over an
election law, even though the deadline has long since passed. This
parliamentary election is a decisive point in the history of Iraq's
democracy, and it's also very important to the United States. We have a
stake in their success. Iraq has had increasingly better elections over
time. Of course we look forward to these elections. And so we're very
concerned that we're past the date that the Iraqis wanted to have an
election law, and that every day that goes by eats into the established
date for the election. Iraq has the opportunity to demonstrate that it
has a viable and credible democracy, and can be a model for the region.
There's lots of opportunity here and we don't want to miss these
opportunities by having this election drift. Would an election delay
also delay the plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces by August 2010?
We do not think we are at the point where we are off our plan, but of
course we are going to watch this very carefully. Any decision to vary
from the plan is a policy decision that won't take place here. It's too
soon to say whether a potential delay in the election is a potential
delay in the withdrawal. Alsumaria notes
rumors that US pressure is expected to lead various parties to accept
the United Nations' recommendations on the legislation:To that, Kurds
decried the US pressure calling them to renounce their rights in the
city and that after announcing that US Vice President Joe Biden called
Kurdistan Governor Massoud Al Barazani in order to talk over the
obstructions hindering approving elections law. MP Mahmoud Othman told
Al Hayat Newspaper that endeavors of Senior US officials are means to
pressure Kurds in order to accept the suggested solutions though they
are unfair. The US behaviors are biased, Othman added.It is no secret
that this kind of pressure is expected considering the importance USA
gives for holding the lections on time. MP Khairallah Al Basri said
that failing to reach an accordance solution regarding elections' law
will urge the USA to interfere in order to impose solutions.Alsumaria
sources had said that the Legal committee suggested a draft law that
proposes to adopt open list and determines the parliament's seats
number. The law also stipulates using multi-divisions system and
appoints the number of seats for each division without mentioning
Kirkuk. However the relevant parties did not agree on this suggestion.Ali Karim (Asia Times) reports
the recents bombings are said, by some, to have an impact on their
votes and quotes MP Mithal al-Alosi stating, "I expect a low turnout in
the elections if matters go on this way. The wounds of Bloody Wednesday
have not healed yet and the Salehiya bombs have deepened those wounds."
Mithal Alusi was noted in yesterday's snapshot, he's the head of the
Iraqi Nation Party and he appeared as a guest on Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq which began broadcasting last Friday.AFP reports
that Faraj al-Haidari, head of the country's Independent High Electoral
Commission, declared on Al-Sharquiay TV today, "The electoral
commission held talks with the United Nations on Tuesday to discuss the
timetable. We must receive the law in the next two days, otherwise we
will be unable to hold the election on the scheduled date of January
16. There is material relating to the election, and international
companies need time to print it. Fifteen thousand polling stations have
to be made ready for the election, as do 50,000 personnel." UPI speaks with MP Mohammad Salman who states there are currently three options.
1)
Allow the voting to be based on an open-list (where voters know which
people they are voting for and not just a party).
2) Keep the voting to a closed-list (as was done in the 2005 elections).
3)
"[P]ostpone the elections for at least one legislative term to give
lawmakers the chance to vet all of their concerns."
Salman
states that "is the most likely route" but that at least 70 MPs from
the Kurdistan Alliance object to the third option. That's an important
point because the US continues to pressure tthe KRG to agree to . . .
well to anything that will get the bill passed. And many in the press
wrongly -- WRONGLY -- continue to state that the issue of oil-rich
Kirkuk (claimed by the KRG and by Baghdad) is the road block. It is a
road block and it is not just bad reporting to leave out the issue of
the lists, it is politically ignorant.
Any legislative body --
true of the US Congress as well as Iraq's Parliament -- makes decisions
based on their own interests -- especially when it comes to
re-election. Closed lists are thought by many MPs to mean they have a
better shot at re-election. Open-lists are feared. (Nouri al-Maliki and
Ayad al-Alawi are two who have spoken out publicly for open-lists.)
When the Parliament is so fearful that open-lists may mean they aren't
re-elected, that is an issue, that is a road block and it's repeatedly
set aside or forgotten in press accounts. There are three options, UPI
is told. Find where the MP (a Sunni) is at all concerned about the
issue of Kirkuk in his statements. What is he concerned about? Open and
closed lists.
So the Iraqi Parliament drags their feet and they aren't the only ones. At yesterday's
public hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it was learned that the Defense Department had still not
submitted all the plans for the draw-down that's supposed to be on the
verge of taking place. Not only have they not submitted all of their
own plans, they're supervision of KBR is so lax that KBR's been allowed
to skip submitting a plan. As noted in yesterday's snapshot,
Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get an answer from the
Pentagon's Lee Hamilton to this question: "If the president announces
on February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is
it possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust
staff accordingly?" Despite attempting to walk Hamilton through slowly
(after Hamilton rambled on with a non-answer reply) and despite asking,
"How is that possible?", Henke never got anything that would pass for
an answer to his questions.This morning Jen Dimascio (Politico -- link has text and audio) reports:KBR,
the largest contractor in Iraq, is pulling out of that country so
slowly that it could end up costing American taxpayers $193 million
more than expected, according to a new Pentagon audit.Furthermore,
during a hearing Monday by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a
legislative body set up to study contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Commissioner Charles Tiefer said the company's plodding exit from Iraq
could cost even more -- up to $300 million.As noted in yesterday's
snapshot, that's only one portion of the story. Dimascio notes a quote
from Commissioner Dov Zakheim and you can see yesterday's snapshot for
that full exchange. From last night, Kat's "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan"
covers the hearing and she shares some impression on Commissioner Chris
Shays hearing performance. But Dimascio covers one aspect of the big
news from yesterday's hearings -- and we did consider skipping it but
fortunately didn't because the Commission actually had their act
together yesterday (we is Kat, Ava, Wally
and myself) -- the other big news was the lack of completed plans.For
the Pentagon, that's especially appalling and it's either an issue of
insubordination or the White House isn't really serious about a
draw-down. For the Pentagon, the refusal to submit their own plans or
demand that KBR draw up their own is appalling. Thompson declared in
the hearing that he visited with KBR most recently on September 25th or
26th and they still had no plans -- and Thompson was neither surprised
nor worried about the lack of planning.
In the US, Noor Faleh Almaleki has died. The 20-year-old Iraqi woman was intentionally run over October 20th (see the October 21st snapshot)
while she and Amal Edan Khalaf were running errands (the latter is the
mother of Noor's boyfriend and she was left injured in the assault).
Police suspected Noor's father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, of the assault
and stated the probable motive was that he felt Noor had become "too
westernized." As noted in the October 30th snapshot,
Faleh Hassan Almaleki was finally arrested after going on the lamb --
first to Mexico, then flying to London where British authorities
refused him entry and he was sent back to the US and arrested in
Atlanta. Karan Olson and CNN note that the judge has set the man's bail at $5 million. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) adds,
"Noor died yesterday, having failed to recover consciousness after the
attack. The other woman, Amal Khalaf, was also seriously injured but is
expected to survive. "Rachel Stockman and 12 News (link has text and video) supply
this timeline:October 20th -Around 2 p.m. Police say Faleh Almaleki ran
down his daughter, friend. -Around 5 p.m. Nlets Alert with Almaleki's
license plate and vehicle description goes out October 23rd -U.S.
Customs and Border Protection notified. Addressing the timeline, Rachel
Stockman reports, "They allowed the suspect to cross the border into
Mexico so we wanted to know where the communication broke down. What we
found? Nlets, the system Peoria police use to notify other authorities
is not something US Customs always checks." Dustin Gardiner (Arizona Republic) quotes:
prosecutor Stephanie Low stating of the father, "By his own admission,
this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had
brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor
killing." Iraqi American Romina Korkes offered her thoughts on the so-called 'honor' killing last week in a column for the Arizona Republic.
Women
are attacked daily around the world. The attacks are dismissed. A large
number of men seem to think it's okay -- and a significant number of
women must agree since we're not in the streets marching -- and that
goes a long way towards explaining Rory O'Connor's post at Media Channel -- a site not known for its 'inclusive' view of humanity (to put it mildly). Noting Alissa J. Rubin's opinion piece from Sunday's New York Times (we noted it in Friday's snapshot),
O'Connor goes on to rip her apart. Now let's be clear, Alissa J. Rubin
being a woman doesn't mean she can't be ripped apart nor are we
concerned about tone. She's never been good with math (we've called her
"teen queen" at this site) and she's been so wack that she's even been
called "crack whore" here. But what have we done that Rory O'Connor
doesn't? We've praised her, yes. She's earned a lot of praise over the
years here. But that's not it. He doesn't have to praise her and,
indeed, he may not find anything worth praising in her writing. That is
his opinion.
But where there's a problem is that Alissa J. Rubin
was never the paper's problem. On her bad days, she jumbled the numbers
and was too quick to believe things she shouldn't have (such as the
"Awakenings" being universally embraced in areas they 'patrolled' or
'terrorized'). Her worst day never found her as bad as John F. Burns or
Dexter Filkins. I'm not seeing their names mentioned by Rory. Those are
the two worst offenders for what he's demanding (truth). But they don't
get called out. It's really strange that so few women have worked in
Baghdad for the New York Times (others include Cara Buckley, Sabrina
Tavernise, Erica Goode and, of course, Judith Miller) but they're
always the ones being ripped apart. Not the males. The issue isn't that
he called Rubin out. He's allowed to. He can loathe her and rip her
apart. The issue is that we haven't seen that same standard applied to
men.
This is the Judith Miller effect, the bash the bitch craze,
we've long documented here. Judith Miller did not start a war. Judith
Miller was not responsible for the entire media landscape. She did not
twist the arms of PBS and NBC and Oprah to get air time. Those people
wanted her on their shows. She did not twist arms at the paper to land
on the front page, the paper wanted her on the front page. Judith
Miller was so WRONG about the Iraq War but she wasn't a liar -- at
least not on the big issue. She honestly believed their were WMD in
Iraq, that's why she commandeered a squadron while stationed in Iraq.
She's a lousy reporter, her 'facts' do not hold up. She needs to be
held accountable. But she often had co-writers -- such as Michael R.
Gordon who remains at the paper and who spent the second Bush term
advocating for war on Iran. Judith Miller was a reporter for one of the
top three papers in the country (at that time). If you saw her on TV,
she was invited on. If you heard her on radio, she was invited on. If
you read her in another paper, a decision was made to print her
article. It took a lot of people echoing the government (not all of
whom believed the lies the way Miller did) to start the war on Iraq, to
lie to the people. Miller was one person. Hold her accountable, no
question, but what about all the others?
The pleasing lie
(pleasing to a lot of members of the press corps) is that Judith
Miller, all by herself, lied the nation into war. Judith Miller and
others like her helped the US get into Iraq but grasp that Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns
kept the US in Iraq. There are some who will kiss Dexy's butt because
of those bad, BAD, college campus appearances where he talks about (and
has done this for several years now) about how the Iraq War is lost and
how they knew it then and blah, blah, blah. That might have mattered.
If he'd done it in real time. But in real time, he was lying. In real
time, he was taking orders from the military -- as Molly Bingham
long ago explained, Dexy even cancelled a meeting with the Iraqi
resistance when US military brass frowned. In real time, Dexy let the
US military vet his copy. That's reality. His award winning 'reporting'?
Vetted by the US military. Vetted and delayed while it was vetted which
is why the paper ran it so many days after it was written.
I
have no problem with Judith Miller being called out -- and I've called
her out myself. But, look through the archvies, we've called out women
and we've called out men. We haven't worried about tone but we've made
damn sure that people were treated fairly -- even if that just meant
that abuse was heaped on equally.
I'm glad that someone at Media Channel remembered there is a war in Iraq and I'm glad that Rory O'Connor wrote with fire.
But I'm also aware that Alissa J. Rubin, graded on any scale, qualifies
as one of the better reporters the paper's had in Iraq. And I'm also
aware that MediaChannel is more than happy to go after Katie Couric or
any other woman but I find very little in efforts to praise women or to
link to them. (Until O'Connor's column, which I heard about from a
friend at the Times, I haven't visited MediaChannel since the efforts
to distort Marcia's
writing.) And if Alissa J. Rubin was Alan J. Rubin, I have to wonder
whether or not MediaChannel would even be weighing in? Again, it's been
a long, long time since they've made it known that they're aware of the
Iraq War.
This isn't a minor issue -- not the silence on Iraq or
the attacks on women. And, repeating, it's not about tone. It's about
fairness. We've ridiculed many women here and will do so again and
again and again. But we don't go to town on a woman and refuse to on
men. Todd S. Purdum is a better writer at Vanity Fair than he was at
the Times -- that has to do with the differing role, the fact that he
can write longer at Van Fair and the differences between the outlets.
But we went to town on Todd (who I know offline) and did so because his
work was as appalling as Elisabeth Bumiller's columns (run in the news
section but they were columns) at that time. (Bumiller's done some
strong reporting in the last few years.) We went to town on her, we
went to town on Todd. And the fact that I knew him didn't prevent that
nor did the fact that he was a man make me think, "I shouldn't
criticize." But there's a real locker room mentality among the online
critics where a man gets a pass and another one and another one and,
okay, let's make it about the work. But a woman gets ripped apart. The
ripping apart doesn't bother me . . . if it's applied to both.
We've linked to Rory before and we'll link to his post today one more time.
But it's really past time that a lot of online critics took a look what
they were doing. I'm not suggesting anyone change their style or tone
or make nice. I am suggesting that they make sure they treat people the
same -- regardless of gender. I do not believe Alissa J. Rubin was
treated the same as a male reporter would have been. I could be wrong,
I often am. But I'm saying my call on that goes to pattern:
MediaChannel's emphasis and the climate online.
Kat's "Kat's Korner: Carly Simon's warm benediction" is a review of Carly Simon's
just released Never Been Gone. Carly is one of America's most gifted
songwriter and one whose work has changed the landscape. She's also one
of the surest of singers and for the latest project, she's re-imaging
songs from her amazing canon of work. She explained to Dean Goodman (Reuters) that she was hestitant to include her classic "You're So Vain" until she heard the cover Susanna Hoffs and Matthew Sweet did earlier this year on Under The Covers Vol. II (which Kat reviewed here) "and I thought, 'Well if they can do it, I can do it!" And as Ty noted in the roundtable at Third Sunday, "Still on the subject of Carly Simon, Bill, who runs Carly Simon Conversations, recommends this Day Trotter article on Carly Simon's concert, last week at Lincoln Center, this blog post on the concert and this video of 'Touched By The Sun'." The Day Trotter article contains video clips of Carly's concert last week.
Finally, independent reporter David Bacon remains one of the few remaining labor reporters in the country. (And he can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show each Wednesday morning -- the program begins airing at 7:00 a.m. PST and streams online.) His latest report is "San Diego -- Land of Day Laborers, Farm Workers and Guest Workers"
(21st Century Manifesto):In Oceanside, Carlsbad, Del Mar and north San
Diego County, immigrant day laborers wait by the side of the road,
hoping a contractor will stop and offer them work. Alberto Juarez
Martinez slings his jacket over his shoulder while he waits. His hands
show the effect of a lifetime of manual work, plus arthritis suffered
as a child in Zapata, Zacatecas. The hands of Beto, a migrant from
Uruachi, Chihuahua, also show the effect of a lifetime of manual work.
Juan Castillo, a migrant from Tehuacan, Puebla, waits with his friends
in the parking lot of a market they've nicknamed La Gallinita, because
of the rooster on the roof of the building. Police in north county
towns have now started cruising by day labor sites in plainclothes,
pretending to be contractors offering workers jobs, and then citing
them and turning them over to immigration agents, even those with green
cards Many community organizations are protesting this
practice.Francisco Villa operates a lunch truck that visits the areas
where migrant day laborers live on hillsides and under trees. Villa
hands out leaflets advising workers of their rights and letting them
know that they can find help from California Rural Legal Assistance.
Across the street from Villa's truck, Zaragosa Brito and Andres Roman
Diaz, two migrants from Arcelia, Guerrero, sit next to a fence where
workers look for day labor, or get rides to the fields for farm work.
The men sleep out in the open in the field behind the fence, and have
worked on a local strawberry ranch, Rancho Diablo, for many years.David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which has won the CLR James Award.iraqcnnkaran olsonphilippe naughtonthe times of londonrachel stockmanthe arizona republicdustin gardinerromina korkasmcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudithe joplin globethe los angeles timesliz slyalsumariapoliticojen dimasciothe new york timesalissa j. rubincarly simonmatthew sweetsusanna hoffsdavid baconkpfathe morning show
Posted at 04:44 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Tuesday,
Novemer 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, IOM releases a study on
internal refugees in Iraq who have returned to their former homes,
still no election law in Iraq (and the pretense that Kirkuk is the big
hold up continues), a man goes to town on a NYT reporter online so we know the reporter must be a woman, and more. Today
the International Organization for Migration [IOM] released their
latest report on internal Iraqi refugees [PDF format warning] entitled " Assessment of Return to Iraq:"
The report note the low rate of return (external refugees coming back
to Iraq) and focuses on the 1.6 million estimated interal refugees and
what the desires of this vulnerable population are. The report notes
that IOM spoke with "4,061 families (24,366 individuals)" while
assessing needs. The bulk of the internally displaced hail from Baghdad (nearly 90%). From the report: *
The majority of identified returnees (33,521 families, or 58%) have
returned to Baghdad governorate, while a significant proportion has
also been identified in Diyala and Anbar. *
54,451 of the returnees identified (94%) have returned from internal
displacement, while the remaining 3,659 identified families (6%) have
returned from abroad. *
Almost 90% of IOM-assessed post-Samarra IDPs were displaced from
Baghdad, diyala, and Ninewa, and almost 79% of identified returns are
also located in these three governorates. The report notes the top six reasons IDPs give for their displacement are: Direct threats to life (29.1%) Left out of fear (21.7%) Generalized violence (16.5%) Forced displacement from property (7.6%) Ethnic/religious/political discrimination (5.9%) Armed conflict (5.0%) The
report notes that those who are returning often cite "harsh conditions
in displacement" as one of the reasons they have returned (exampele
include "high rent, lack of employment opportunities, poor shelter and
lack of basic services"). The second and third categories can be
combined: "Improved security in area of origin and very difficult
conditions in displacement" and "Very difficult conditions in
displacement". If you combine the two than 45.46% of those who have
returned are citing "very difficult conditions in displacement"
regions. Those returning to Baghdad cite "former employment,
transporation assistance, repair of damaged homes and property, and
renewed access to basic services" as their reasons. 38% of those who
have returned to their former homes "reported feeling safe only some of
the time." In addition, 42.5% of returnees in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala
and Kirkuk report that "their homes are partially or completely
destroyed. In addition, 50% of returnees in these governorates no
longer have their movable property, such as cars, due to loss or
theft." Of those returning to
their former homes across Iraq, Arab Shia Muslims make up the largest
percent (49.4%), followed by Arab Sunni Muslim (31.0%), Turkmen Sunni
Muslim (9.7%) and Christians (8.9%). (Kurd Shia Muslim, Kurd Sunni
Muslim and Other each account for less than one percent.) Of those who
remain internally displaced, the highest percent is (again) Arab Shia
(58.4%) followed by Arab Sunni Muslim (29.3%) with Christians and Kurd
Sunni Muslim next (each at 4.4%), followed by Other (4.0%) and Kurd
Shia Muslim (0.7%). IOM's report also provides a gender breakdown for
heads of household of returnees: 12% are female-headed households and
88% of returnees are male-headed housholds (and 35% of the 88% cannot
find work). The study found, "Among assessed returnee female-headed
households, food is consistently identified as a priority need (60%
across Iraq) along with non-food itmes (NFIs) and fueld. In Baghdad,
health and sanitation are major concerns for interviewed female-headed
households. Access to legal help was also a serious issue, particularly
in Diyala and Ninewa governorates." Breaking down employment for
returnee heads of household; 69.7% of females heading households are
unable to work contrasted with 15.4% of the male heads of household;
4.7% of female heads of household are employed contrasted with 50.1% of
male heads of household, and 25.7% of female heads of household are
able to work but unable to find employment contrasted with 34.5% of
male heads of household in the same situation. Returnees
were asked about basic services as well (remember, the bulk live in
Baghdad). How many have electricity each day for "More than 18
hours"? Only 2%. Most (34%) report they have only one to two hours of
electricity each day. With water, more were able to rely on basic
services: 81.8% state they receive "Municipal water/pipe grid" while
the next most common response (7.9%) was "Rivers, streams or lakes."
Returnees ranked their needs and 61% stated their most pressing need
was food. The report finds: While
the total number of returns in Iraq continues to slowly grow since the
end of 2007, it remains a small fraction of the total Iraqi IDP and
refugee populations. In the face of uncertain security improvements,
the future of return is also unsure. Many IDP families continue to say
that they are waiting for security to improve in order to return. IOM
returnee assessments show that 'pull' factors such as improved security
in place of origin are more encouraging of return than 'push' factors
such as difficult conditions in place of displacement. However, as
prolonged displacement makes life difficult for Iraq's internally
displaced and refugees, this could change. Returning
home means facing a new set of challenges for Iraqi families. 34% of
IOM-assessed returnee families report that they are able to work yet
unemployed, 34% returned to partially or completely destroyed property,
and 75% have less than 6 hours of electricity per day. In addition, the
majority were displaced for more than one year, meaning that they
return carrying the stress and financial debilitation of long-term
displacement. UPI reports
Nouri al-Maliki and Oscar Fernandez-Taranco met in Baghdad today. Who
is Oscar Fernandez-Taranco? The envoy United Nations Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon sent "to discuss Baghdad's concerns over foreign meddling
following deadly bombings in August and October." Strange that two
bombings (and Nouri stomping his feet) gets UN action when the non-stop
and ongoing assault on Christians doesn't. Deutsche Presse Agentur reports
that Iraqi MP Yonadam Kanna has "petitioned Sunni Muslim parliamentary
speaker Iyad al-Samarrai to formally request [. . .] an international
investigator to determine who was behind the killing of Iraqi
Christians that Iraqi Christians believe are designed to convince them
to leave their homes". Mohammad Alef Jamal (Gulf News) adds: When
Iraqi Mandaeans are killed, an international committee is formed to
defend their community and when Iraqi Christians are killed or
expelled, the Pope appeals to the US President to provide protection
for them. This is because these groups follow religions that connect
them to other countries. But
when Iraqi scientists and intellectuals are killed, or when border
villages are bombed by neighbouring countries and the bodies of Iraqis
are torn apart by violent explosions, the only reaction seen is
condemnation, calls for immediate investigation, threats and random
accusations -- even before an investigation starts. This
is followed by an exchange of accusations between politicians about
whose fault it is, and some prominent figures are made scapegoats,
solely for electoral reasons. Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a
Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two people, a Baquba roadside
bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left three
more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left
two more people injured and a Mosul mortar attack which injured two
people. Shootings? Ignore the violence, joy for the greedy. BBC News reports,
"Iraq's oil ministry has signed an initial agreement with a consortium
led by the Italian firm, ENI, to develop the Zubair oilfield in
southern Iraq. The deal, which needs cabinet approval, calls for the
group to extract 200,000 barrels of oil a day, rising to 1.1 million a
day within seven years." Meanwhile AP notes that the consortium of British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Company's successful bid has been finalized. Khalid a-Ansary and Jack Kimball (Reuters) report
that the Iraqi Parliament has informed Hussain al-Shahristani, the
country's Oil Minister, that he will be testifying before them November
11th on the "distribution of the nation's oil wealth" which has led to
Nouri al-Maliki to have another public fit, muttering about "evil
supporters of the past regime" and comparing the summons to "the last
bombings" (he is a drama queen). In
our view, American military force no longer plays a role in Iraq other
than "peace-keeping." Someone must contain the violence over time to
allow democratic-like institutions to flourish. That should not be the
role of American military power; it must be done by Iraqi institutions
controlled solely by the Iraqi
government. It
is now time for a broad and sustained military withdrawal of American
military forces from Iraq. Whatever American forces of any sort that
remain should be paid for exclusively by the Iraqi
government. We
can argue forever about the wisdom of our invasion and presence in Iraq
beginning in 2003. For sure, Iraq cannot be allowed to become another
Korea, where today 30,000 American troops are held hostage to a crazy
North Korean regime while "protecting" a rich and prosperous South
Korea. Withdraw
now the 120,000 military personnel from Iraq, Mr. President and
Congress. Do it as quickly as the safety of those troops will
permit. Why the Globe and not the New York Times?
Because the Globe actually is read by families of the enlisted,
therefore, it is aware that there is an ongoing war and it is aware
that the Iraq War directly effects their readership. US
President Barack Obama could end the Iraq War immediately . . . if he
wanted to. He's the biggest road block at present because he is, as
Bully Boy Bush once so infamously put it, "the decider." (Especially
true when an apethetic news media has largely moved away from the issue
and a public's been lulled into false dreams of peace.) Other things
that aren't helpful would include (a) the Iraqi government or
'government' and (b) the Pentagon and KBR. Starting with the former, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) interviews US Lt Gen Charles H. Jacoby Jr.: Are
you concerned that the elections on which your withdrawal timetable is
based may be delayed? The Iraqi parliament is deadlocked over an
election law, even though the deadline has long since
passed. This
parliamentary election is a decisive point in the history of Iraq's
democracy, and it's also very important to the United States. We have a
stake in their success. Iraq has had increasingly better elections over
time. Of course we look forward to these elections. And so we're very
concerned that we're past the date that the Iraqis wanted to have an
election law, and that every day that goes by eats into the established
date for the election. Iraq has the opportunity to demonstrate that it
has a viable and credible democracy, and can be a model for the region.
There's lots of opportunity here and we don't want to miss these
opportunities by having this election drift. Would an election delay also delay the plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces by August 2010? We
do not think we are at the point where we are off our plan, but of
course we are going to watch this very carefully. Any decision to vary
from the plan is a policy decision that won't take place here. It's too
soon to say whether a potential delay in the election is a potential
delay in the withdrawal. Alsumaria notes rumors that US pressure is expected to lead various parties to accept the United Nations' recommendations on the legislation: To
that, Kurds decried the US pressure calling them to renounce their
rights in the city and that after announcing that US Vice President Joe
Biden called Kurdistan Governor Massoud Al Barazani in order to talk
over the obstructions hindering approving elections law. MP Mahmoud
Othman told Al Hayat Newspaper that endeavors of Senior US officials
are means to pressure Kurds in order to accept the suggested solutions
though they are unfair. The US behaviors are biased, Othman added.It
is no secret that this kind of pressure is expected considering the
importance USA gives for holding the lections on time. MP Khairallah Al
Basri said that failing to reach an accordance solution regarding
elections' law will urge the USA to interfere in order to impose
solutions.Alsumaria sources
had said that the Legal committee suggested a draft law that proposes
to adopt open list and determines the parliament's seats number. The
law also stipulates using multi-divisions system and appoints the
number of seats for each division without mentioning Kirkuk. However
the relevant parties did not agree on this suggestion.Ali Karim (Asia Times) reports
the recents bombings are said, by some, to have an impact on their
votes and quotes MP Mithal al-Alosi stating, "I expect a low turnout in
the elections if matters go on this way. The wounds of Bloody Wednesday
have not healed yet and the Salehiya bombs have deepened those wounds."
Mithal Alusi was noted in yesterday's snapshot, he's the head of the
Iraqi Nation Party and he appeared as a guest on Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq which began broadcasting last Friday. AFP reports
that Faraj al-Haidari, head of the country's Independent High Electoral
Commission, declared on Al-Sharquiay TV today, "The electoral
commission held talks with the United Nations on Tuesday to discuss the
timetable. We must receive the law in the next two days, otherwise we
will be unable to hold the election on the scheduled date of January
16. There is material relating to the election, and international
companies need time to print it. Fifteen thousand polling stations have
to be made ready for the election, as do 50,000 personnel." UPI speaks with MP Mohammad Salman who states there are currently three options. 1) Allow the voting to be based on an open-list (where voters know which people they are voting for and not just a party). 2) Keep the voting to a closed-list (as was done in the 2005 elections). 3) "[P]ostpone the elections for at least one legislative term to give lawmakers the chance to vet all of their concerns."
Salman
states that "is the most likely route" but that at least 70 MPs from
the Kurdistan Alliance object to the third option. That's an important
point because the US continues to pressure tthe KRG to agree to . . .
well to anything that will get the bill passed. And many in the press
wrongly -- WRONGLY -- continue to state that the issue of oil-rich
Kirkuk (claimed by the KRG and by Baghdad) is the road block. It is a
road block and it is not just bad reporting to leave out the issue of
the lists, it is politically ignorant. Any
legislative body -- true of the US Congress as well as Iraq's
Parliament -- makes decisions based on their own interests --
especially when it comes to re-election. Closed lists are thought by
many MPs to mean they have a better shot at re-election. Open-lists
are feared. (Nouri al-Maliki and Ayad al-Alawi are two who have spoken
out publicly for open-lists.) When the Parliament is so fearful that
open-lists may mean they aren't re-elected, that is an issue, that is a
road block and it's repeatedly set aside or forgotten in press
accounts. There are three options, UPI is told. Find where
the MP (a Sunni) is at all concerned about the issue of Kirkuk in his
statements. What is he concerned about? Open and closed lists. So the Iraqi Parliament drags their feet and they aren't the only ones. At yesterday's
public hearing of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it was learned that the Defense Department had still not
submitted all the plans for the draw-down that's supposed to be on the
verge of taking place. Not only have they not submitted all of their
own plans, they're supervision of KBR is so lax that KBR's been allowed
to skip submitting a plan. As noted in yesterday's snapshot,
Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get an answer from the
Pentagon's Lee Hamilton to this question: "If the president announces
on February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is
it possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust
staff accordingly?" Despite attempting to walk Hamilton through slowly
(after Hamilton rambled on with a non-answer reply) and despite asking,
"How is that possible?", Henke never got anything that would pass for
an answer to his questions. This morning Jen Dimascio (Politico -- link has text and audio) reports: KBR,
the largest contractor in Iraq, is pulling out of that country so
slowly that it could end up costing American taxpayers $193 million
more than expected, according to a new Pentagon audit.Furthermore,
during a hearing Monday by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, a
legislative body set up to study contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Commissioner Charles Tiefer said the company's plodding exit from Iraq
could cost even more -- up to $300 million.As noted in
yesterday's snapshot, that's only one portion of the story. Dimascio
notes a quote from Commissioner Dov Zakheim and you can see yesterday's
snapshot for that full exchange. From last night, Kat's " Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan"
covers the hearing and she shares some impression on Commissioner Chris
Shays hearing performance. But Dimascio covers one aspect of the big
news from yesterday's hearings -- and we did consider skipping it but
fortunately didn't because the Commission actually had their act
together yesterday (we is Kat, Ava, Wally and myself) -- the other big news was the lack of completed plans. For
the Pentagon, that's especially appalling and it's either an issue of
insubordination or the White House isn't really serious about a
draw-down. For the Pentagon, the refusal to submit their own plans or
demand that KBR draw up their own is appalling. Thompson declared in
the hearing that he visited with KBR most recently on September 25th or
26th and they still had no plans -- and Thompson was neither surprised
nor worried about the lack of planning. In the US, Noor Faleh Almaleki has died. The 20-year-old Iraqi woman was intentionally run over October 20th (see the October 21st snapshot)
while she and Amal Edan Khalaf were running errands (the latter is the
mother of Noor's boyfriend and she was left injured in the assault).
Police suspected Noor's father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, of the assault
and stated the probable motive was that he felt Noor had become "too
westernized." As noted in the October 30th snapshot,
Faleh Hassan Almaleki was finally arrested after going on the lamb --
first to Mexico, then flying to London where British authorities
refused him entry and he was sent back to the US and arrested in
Atlanta. Karan Olson and CNN note that the judge has set the man's bail at $5 million. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) adds,
"Noor died yesterday, having failed to recover consciousness after the
attack. The other woman, Amal Khalaf, was also seriously injured but is
expected to survive. " Rachel Stockman and 12 News (link has text and video) supply this timeline: October 20th -Around 2 p.m. Police say Faleh Almaleki ran down his daughter, friend. -Around 5 p.m. Nlets Alert with Almaleki's license plate and vehicle description goes out October 23rd -U.S. Customs and Border Protection notified. Addressing
the timeline, Rachel Stockman reports, "They allowed the suspect to
cross the border into Mexico so we wanted to know where the
communication broke down. What we found? Nlets, the system Peoria
police use to notify other authorities is not something US Customs
always checks." Dustin Gardiner (Arizona Republic) quotes:
prosecutor Stephanie Low stating of the father, "By his own admission,
this was an intentional act and the reason was that his daughter had
brought shame on him and his family. This was an attempt at an honor
killing." Iraqi American Romina Korkes offered her thoughts on the so-called 'honor' killing last week in a column for the Arizona Republic. Women
are attacked daily around the world. The attacks are dismissed. A
large number of men seem to think it's okay -- and a significant number
of women must agree since we're not in the streets marching -- and that
goes a long way towards explaining Rory O'Connor's post at Media Channel -- a site not known for its 'inclusive' view of humanity (to put it mildly). Noting Alissa J. Rubin's opinion piece from Sunday's New York Times (we noted it in Friday's snapshot),
O'Connor goes on to rip her apart. Now let's be clear, Alissa J. Rubin
being a woman doesn't mean she can't be ripped apart nor are we
concerned about tone. She's never been good with math (we've called
her "teen queen" at this site) and she's been so wack that she's even
been called "crack whore" here. But what have we done that Rory
O'Connor doesn't? We've praised her, yes. She's earned a lot of
praise over the years here. But that's not it. He doesn't have to
praise her and, indeed, he may not find anything worth praising in her
writing. That is his opinion. But where
there's a problem is that Alissa J. Rubin was never the paper's
problem. On her bad days, she jumbled the numbers and was too quick to
believe things she shouldn't have (such as the "Awakenings" being
universally embraced in areas they 'patrolled' or 'terrorized'). Her
worst day never found her as bad as John F. Burns or Dexter Filkins.
I'm not seeing their names mentioned by Rory. Those are the two worst
offenders for what he's demanding (truth). But they don't get called
out. It's really strange that so few women have worked in Baghdad for
the New York Times (others include Cara Buckley, Sabrina
Tavernise, Erica Goode and, of course, Judith Miller) but they're
always the ones being ripped apart. Not the males. The issue isn't
that he called Rubin out. He's allowed to. He can loathe her and rip
her apart. The issue is that we haven't seen that same standard
applied to men. This is the Judith Miller
effect, the bash the bitch craze, we've long documented here. Judith
Miller did not start a war. Judith Miller was not responsible for the
entire media landscape. She did not twist the arms of PBS and NBC and
Oprah to get air time. Those people wanted her on their shows. She
did not twist arms at the paper to land on the front page, the paper
wanted her on the front page. Judith Miller was so WRONG about the
Iraq War but she wasn't a liar -- at least not on the big issue. She
honestly believed their were WMD in Iraq, that's why she commandeered a
squadron while stationed in Iraq. She's a lousy reporter, her 'facts'
do not hold up. She needs to be held accountable. But she often had
co-writers -- such as Michael R. Gordon who remains at the paper and
who spent the second Bush term advocating for war on Iran. Judith
Miller was a reporter for one of the top three papers in the country
(at that time). If you saw her on TV, she was invited on. If you
heard her on radio, she was invited on. If you read her in another
paper, a decision was made to print her article. It took a lot of
people echoing the government (not all of whom believed the lies the
way Miller did) to start the war on Iraq, to lie to the people. Miller
was one person. Hold her accountable, no question, but what about all
the others? The pleasing lie (pleasing to a
lot of members of the press corps) is that Judith Miller, all by
herself, lied the nation into war. Judith Miller and others like her
helped the US get into Iraq but grasp that Dexter Filkins and John F. Burns
kept the US in Iraq. There are some who will kiss Dexy's butt because
of those bad, BAD, college campus appearances where he talks about (and
has done this for several years now) about how the Iraq War is lost and
how they knew it then and blah, blah, blah. That might have mattered.
If he'd done it in real time. But in real time, he was lying. In real
time, he was taking orders from the military -- as Molly Bingham
long ago explained, Dexy even cancelled a meeting with the Iraqi
resistance when US military brass frowned. In real time, Dexy let the
US military vet his copy. That's reality. His award winning 'reporting'?
Vetted by the US military. Vetted and delayed while it was vetted which
is why the paper ran it so many days after it was written. I
have no problem with Judith Miller being called out -- and I've called
her out myself. But, look through the archvies, we've called out women
and we've called out men. We haven't worried about tone but we've made
damn sure that people were treated fairly -- even if that just meant
that abuse was heaped on equally. I'm glad that someone at Media Channel remembered there is a war in Iraq and I'm glad that Rory O'Connor wrote with fire.
But I'm also aware that Alissa J. Rubin, graded on any scale, qualifies
as one of the better reporters the paper's had in Iraq. And I'm also
aware that MediaChannel is more than happy to go after Katie Couric or
any other woman but I find very little in efforts to praise women or to
link to them. (Until O'Connor's column, which I heard about from a
friend at the Times, I haven't visited MediaChannel since the efforts to distort Marcia's
writing.) And if Alissa J. Rubin was Alan J. Rubin, I have to wonder
whether or not MediaChannel would even be weighing in? Again, it's
been a long, long time since they've made it known that they're aware
of the Iraq War. This isn't a minor issue --
not the silence on Iraq or the attacks on women. And, repeating, it's
not about tone. It's about fairness. We've ridiculed many women here
and will do so again and again and again. But we don't go to town on a
woman and refuse to on men. Todd S. Purdum is a better writer at Vanity Fair than he was at the Times -- that has to do with the differing role, the fact that he can write longer at Van Fair
and the differences between the outlets. But we went to town on Todd
(who I know offline) and did so because his work was as appalling as
Elisabeth Bumiller's columns (run in the news section but they were
columns) at that time. (Bumiller's done some strong reporting in the
last few years.) We went to town on her, we went to town on Todd. And
the fact that I knew him didn't prevent that nor did the fact that he
was a man make me think, "I shouldn't criticize." But there's a real
locker room mentality among the online critics where a man gets a pass
and another one and another one and, okay, let's make it about the
work. But a woman gets ripped apart. The ripping apart doesn't bother
me . . . if it's applied to both. We've linked to Rory before and we'll link to his post today one more time.
But it's really past time that a lot of online critics took a look what
they were doing. I'm not suggesting anyone change their style or tone
or make nice. I am suggesting that they make sure they treat people the
same -- regardless of gender. I do not believe Alissa J. Rubin was
treated the same as a male reporter would have been. I could be wrong,
I often am. But I'm saying my call on that goes to pattern:
MediaChannel's emphasis and the climate online. Finally, independent reporter David Bacon remains one of the few remaining labor reporters in the country. (And he can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show each Wednesday morning -- the program begins airing at 7:00 a.m. PST and streams online.) His latest report is " San Diego -- Land of Day Laborers, Farm Workers and Guest Workers" ( 21st Century Manifesto): In
Oceanside, Carlsbad, Del Mar and north San Diego County, immigrant day
laborers wait by the side of the road, hoping a contractor will stop
and offer them work. Alberto Juarez Martinez slings his jacket over his
shoulder while he waits. His hands show the effect of a lifetime of
manual work, plus arthritis suffered as a child in Zapata, Zacatecas.
The hands of Beto, a migrant from Uruachi, Chihuahua, also show the
effect of a lifetime of manual work. Juan Castillo, a migrant from
Tehuacan, Puebla, waits with his friends in the parking lot of a market
they've nicknamed La Gallinita, because of the rooster on the roof of
the building. Police in
north county towns have now started cruising by day labor sites in
plainclothes, pretending to be contractors offering workers jobs, and
then citing them and turning them over to immigration agents, even
those with green cards Many community organizations are protesting this
practice.Francisco Villa
operates a lunch truck that visits the areas where migrant day laborers
live on hillsides and under trees. Villa hands out leaflets advising
workers of their rights and letting them know that they can find help
from California Rural Legal Assistance. Across the street from Villa's
truck, Zaragosa Brito and Andres Roman Diaz, two migrants from Arcelia,
Guerrero, sit next to a fence where workers look for day labor, or get
rides to the fields for farm work. The men sleep out in the open in the
field behind the fence, and have worked on a local strawberry ranch,
Rancho Diablo, for many years.David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which has won the CLR James Award.
Posted at 10:57 am by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
Nov 3, 2009
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLELIKE MANY A FAILED STARLET, BARRY O HAS HAD TO DOWNGRADE HIS AMBITIONS. TOMORROW NIGHT, HIS LATEST SOFT CORE PORN DEBUTS ON HBO OR, AS THEY LIKE TO CALL IT, HUSSEIN BARACK OBAMA. TO MAKE A DIRECT TO CABLE OFFERING, HE NEEDED ANOTHER DOWN ON THEIR LUCK CELEB: ENTER EDWARD NORTON.
HE HASN'T DRIVEN A BOX OFFICE HIT SINCE 2003 WITH THE ITALIAN JOB ($106
MILLION). EVER SINCE, NOTHING BUT FLOPS AND 11TH BILLED (KINGDOM OF
HEAVEN) OR SPECIAL EFFECTS UPSTAGING ANY POTENTIAL AT ACTING (THE
INCREDIBLE HULK). TOMORROW NIGHT, THE TWO OF THEM FIND OUT IF THEIR NEXT STOP IS HOME SHOPPING NETWORK OR BROADCAST TV. FROM THE TCI WIRE:The first (partial) week of October saw 5 people reported dead and 24 reported wounded, the second week (October 4th through 10th) saw 46 reported dead and 131 injured, the third week (October 11th through 17th) saw 89 reported dead and 336 reported wounded, the fourth week (October 18th through 24th) saw 53 reported dead and 107 reported wounded, and the fifth week (October 25th through October 31st) saw 191 reported dead and 580 reported injured. Totals? 384 reported dead and 1106 reported wounded. At least. Michael Christie and Michael Roddy (Reuters) cite "security sources" for the toll of 343 people killed. Barbara Surk (AP) reports that AP's count for October is 364 killed. John Leland (New York Times) reports,
"In October, 453 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed, an
increase from a monthly low this year of 279 in September but
considerably below the high of 677 in April, according to the Interior
Ministry. The statistics do not count deaths in the northern Kurdish
region." 8 US service members were announced dead in Iraq during the month of October. Today the US military announced
another death: "FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq -- A Multi-National
Corps -- Iraq Soldier died Nov. 2 of non-combat related injuries.
Release of the Soldier's identity is being with held pending
notification of the next of kin. The name of the deceased service
member will be announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site
[. . .] The announcements are made on the web site no earlier than 24
hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin.
The incident is currently under investigation." Maloy Moore (Los Angeles Times) reports
that the fallen was 20-year-old Lukas C. Hopper of Merced, California
who "is survived by his mother and father, Robin and Yancy Hopper, both
of Merced." The announcement brings to 4356 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. [ . . .] Appearing October 21st before the US House Armed Services Committee,
the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy was asked of the delays in Iraq passing
an election law.Michele Flournoy: Uh, let me start by saying, you know,
the draw-down plan that we have, is conditions based and it creates
multiple decision points for re-evaluating and, if necessary, changing
our plans based on developments on the ground. Although the government
of Iraq's self-imposed deadline of October 15th for passing the
elections law has passed, we judge that the COR [Council Of
Representatives] still has another week or two to come to some kind of
an agreement on the elections law before it will put the January date
-- the early January date -- in jeopardy in terms of the election
commission's ability to actually physically execute the, uh, the
election. If a new law with open lists is not passed, the fall back
solution for them is to return to the 2005 election law which is based
on a closed list system. But that could be used for upcoming elections,
the COR would simply have to vote on an election date. If that law is
not passed in the next two weeks, they will be looking at slipping the
date to later in January which would still be compliant with the
[Iraqi] Constitution but would be later than originally planned. In
that instance, M-NF-I [Multi-National Forces Iraq] would need to engage
with the government of Iraq to do some contingency planning on how to
secure the elections at a later date and that might well have-have
implications. Though she maintained Iraq could fall back on the 2005
election law, other bodies begged to differ. As Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported,
"Iraq's existing election law was declared unconstitutional by its
highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or amended."
Yesterday Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reported,
"Iraqi MPs have until Sunday to pass controversial legislation or face
postponing parliamentary elections set for 16 January. The poll is seen
as crucial to the stability of the country, and any delay would likely
impact on the US plan for withdrawal." There was no passage and AFP reports
today that KRG President Massud Barzani and US Vice President Joe Biden
"pressed the need for a key election law to be passed". BBC News reports
the United Nations "had warned that it could not guarantee to endorse
the polls if the bill was not approved on Sunday" -- that was yesterday
and the bill was not approved. BBC points out that the 'sticky points'
are Kirkuk and the issue of open or closed lists. The latter will
determine whether voters vote for individual candidates and this is
something that many in Parliament are opposed to. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports
this afternoon that things remain at a standstill and quotes Iraqi MP
Hunain al-Qaddo stating, "If we don't manage to make any progress on
the electoral law, that will have a negative impact on the political
process and it will send a very bad signal to Iraq's enemies that the
political system isn't working. [. . .] I still have hopes but I think
if we don't manage to do something this week or next week, we really
have to look at postponing the election." Meanwhile Mohammed Jamjoom and Jormana Karadsheh (CNN) report
Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman states that the US is pushing the "highest
levels of the Kurdish leadership" to go along with a plan for January
elections that would yet again set aside the issue of Kirkuk. In an
offensive statement issued last week, Chris Hill (US Ambassador to
Iraq) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq) insisted that the
election law should be a 'one-time only' type deal and not apply to or
consider Article 140 of Iraq's Constitution. Article 140 is the one
that mandates the Kirkuk issue be resolved (via a referendum). That was
supposed to have taken place 2 years ago. It did not. Now let's get
back to offensive: In 2000, the US election was decided not by the
voters nor by the means outlined in the US Constitution. Instead the US
Supreme Court injected itself into the dispute and issued a laughable
ruling that was so perverted the Court insisted it was a 'one-time
only' ruling and couldn't be cited as precedent in future cases. That's
what Hill and Odierno are now proposing. Regardless of who gets or
doesn't get Kirkuk, it's amazing how the US continues to kick the can
down the road over and over. This issue was supposed to have been
addressed no later than 2007. The US is again pushing for it to be
postponed. And the only time the KRG can get people to the table on
this issue is when they have the pressure of an upcoming election which
needs to be addressed. Today the Commission on Wartime
Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan met in DC and heard from a number
of witnesses including someone on the second panel who mentioned
Flournoy's October 21st testimony, Rear Adm Thomas Traaen who declared,
"As I'm sure you know, the testimony given by Secretary [Michele]
Flournoy, Mr. [Alan] Estevez, Vice Adm [James] Winnefeld and, my boss,
Lt Gen [Kathleen] Gainey on 21 October was well received by the House
Armed Services Committee. My testimony here will draw heavily from
their insightful remarks." Those remarks included establishing that
decisions on draw-down and going back in would be made by events on the
ground in Iraq. Yes, that is a clear contradiction of the position
Barack Obama presented as a candidate when he was fond of saying the US
military did everything they had been tasked to do and did it well.
And, yes, he was stealing from Hillary Clinton back then and, yes,
Hillary was attacked by CODESTINK and others for those comments but
they apparently sounded so much better out of Barack's mouth thereby
explaining the refusal to call him out. So Barack's plan as outlined in
that hearing was the same plan he outlined to the New York Times, the
one that left Michael Gordon flabbergasted because Barack was saying
that he was 'withdrawing' and at the same time saying he was going back
in if anything went wrong and playing definition games regarding the
military ("trainers," etc.). Also appearing on the second panel
was the GAO's William Solis who declared that the Pentagon hasn't
completed the plans for a draw-down. He stated that the Defense Dept
"has not fully defined or identified the contracted services it will
need to successfully complete the draw-down and support the remaining
US forces in Iraq." Solis explained that 128,700 US service members
were in Iraq as of the end of August "spread among 295 bases throughout
the country." Solis' opening, prepared remarks, can be found [PDF
format warning] here.
While the GAO was able to count the number of US service members in
Iraq, there was no count on the number of contractors leading Co-Chair
of the Commission, Michael Thibault to declare, "It is both peculiar
and troubling that eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan, and more than six years since the overthrow of
the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, we still don't know how many contractor
employees are working in the region. [. . .] How can contractors be
properly managed if we aren't sure how many there are, where they are
and what they are doing?" Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Yes, uh,
first, Adm Traaen, I noticed on page three of your testimony, uh, you
said that there will be a proportionally larger contractor presence.
Now GAO has said that you haven't -- DoD, rather, hasn't fully
determined its need for contracted services so how are you planning to
oversee this? You're going to have more contractors, you already have
fewer CORs than you need right now, the proportions going to go up.
Could you walk me through your current plans and your timetables and
how you plan to address this issue? Rear Adm Thomas Traaen: Yes,
sir. First of all, I think the proportionality is prudent as we close
forward operating bases and operating sites and as the military either
resets or re-postures in Afghanistan. The proportionality issue is not
surprising to me. Uh, I think that the number of contractors -- in
terms of measuring that to the plan -- is moving down significantly
faster than CENTCOM had originally planned and so I think that getting
out in front of it is the first part of the plan. It's to make sure
that we're removing capability where we don't need it. Certainly, I
think the CENTCOM plan is to be conditions based and I think that there
is a protocol that we would continue to move forward in terms of making
sure that there are some outliers -- for example, the elections that
are coming up in the January time frame, counter-insurgency efforts
that -- if we draw down too quickly -- we could put that combatant
commander in harms way of not being able to produce his mission. I do
believe that there is proper planning in terms of the MNFI fusion cell
that is tasked with fusing, synchronizing and integrating this effort.
And as the third point, I think having MNFI and that fusion cell also
combined with the Joint Logistics Procurement Support Board that is the
JCCIA and an MNFI established board that will properly prioritize and
coordinate those efforts as the fourth point of light making sure that
drawing down in accordance with those priorities is the proper way to
go, sir. Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Uhm, let me turn now to Mr.
Thompson. Uhm, we know that the target is a 32% contractor draw-down. I
believe that's the number that Adm Traaen has in his testimony. But
looking at that chart, I guess I'm thrown a little bit. Contractors
have already declined by seven -- nearly eighteen percent but not KBR.
In fact, KBR has declined by roughly half of that 18% number. In the
previous panel, and you may have been here when we discussed this, I
noted that if a service wasn't completely closed down, then any
contractor -- well, not any -- some contractors, and I guess I should
emphazise that, not all would act this way. But some contractors would
drag their feet because service hasn't closed down, you don't pull the
people out, you keep charging. Could you explain to me why it is that
KBR which has been under so much scrutiny from GAO, from the IG, even
from this commission, is pulling it's people back at half the rate --
half the rate -- of all other contractors. Lee Thompson: Number
one, when we talk about consolidation, draw-down, consolidation of
bases, drawdown, those services that we provide under LOGCAP [Logistics
Civilian Augmentation Program] are still being performed. There's a
common mistake of rolling up all bases as a single base. There's
different sizes of bases. So you had the small contingency operation
locations and that which is a lower brigade size which would be a
contingency operation site. They move into our services, the services
we contracted for are still being provided. There has been a reduction
as that [chart] says, from when we started. In fact, the number's
around 50,000 today. So we've put a freeze on them. They -- KBR --
cannot hire above a certain limit based on the basis of the estimate
that was negotiated this past August and September. As we get the
guidance from CI MNFI on what bases will close, we'll descope and we'll
start moving out contractors. We are in fact doing those, we're looking
at those critical skills. But remember the major draw-down starts after
the [Iraqi] elections. So we are watching that and I'm depending upon
our DCA[A -- Defense Contract Audit Agency] folks that are doing the
floor checks for us. Commissioner Dov Zakheim: So can you state
with absolute certainty that KBR has moved expiditiously and, for
instance, has not moved people from one location to another? Are you
certain of that? Do you have that degree of oversight and visibility?
Given some of the things we heard earlier from one of our Co-Chairman,
Co-Chariman [Michael] Thibault about issues arising with dining halls
and certain things, are you absolutely certain that KBR's getting
people out as they should? Lee Thompson: I'm not going to sit
here and say I'm absolutely certain but I will tell you that we'll
provide the oversight and look at those places where we are closing to
make sure that there's not excess personnel there. And we will -- they
have to get a blessing from us as we move and we descope, we descope
the property, if we close a base, we look at the personnel where
they're reallocating or realinging them to so we're looking and we're
scrutinizing that. And I depend on my folks forward, the same two
officers -- if you will -- that said they're against or-or whatever
Chairman Thibault had to say about what they said overseas. Commissioner
Dov Zakheim: Mr. Solis, could you comment on both of these points? One,
the adequacy of planning and, second, the degree of oversight of KBR
and the seeming discrephancy between KBR LOGCAP 3 and other draw-downs. Willaim
Solis: Well I think in terms of the planning, I mentioned before in my
opening statement that there is -- there's a lot of things that are
going on with regards to the retrograde of equipment. One thing that we
haven't seen a whole lot of is planning, as I mentioned, for
determining the requirements, the oversight for the contracts that are
going to be coming onboard. And we still have a concern about that, we
still have seen exact plans. As I mentioned to you the GMASS [Global
Maintenance and Supply Services] contract in Kuwait ,which is a major
maintenance contract, which is necessary to move equipment out, look at
it, and get -- and then repair it and move it out to Kuwait or whever
it's going to go -- back to a unit, over to Afghanistan or whatever --
they expect a major increase, as I mentioned, doubling the size of
their contract force to about 6,000 people. We have not seen what kinds
of plans are going to be put in place to increase the contractor
oversight there -- and that's not just there, I think it's other
contracts that we have seen as well. I think in terms of the LOGCAP, we
haven't really looked in terms of the numbers so I can't really contra
-- comment on that. But I think that these numbers are going to
flucuate, whether it's LOGCAP or some of these other major contracts in
terms as the draw-down proceeds and that's why it's important to really
understand what you're contract requirements are going to be during
this period. The first panel included April Stephenson who
stated KBR's ineffective managing of their workforce is costing tax
payers "at least $193 million". Stevenson was testifying on behalf of
the Defense Contract Audit Agency. She explained KBR had not done the
staff reductions and, as a result and barring no major action on KBR's
part, there staff ratio in Iraq would, by August 2010, be 1 KBR
employee for every 3.6 US service members. That will probably be a
detail noted by any who note the hearing. But another detail -- the
reason for the excerpt above -- is equally important: No plans. The
GAO -- like the House Armed Services Committee -- is not seeing plans.
Do they exist? What's being discussed isn't 2011 or post-2011. What's
being discussed above is the draw-down that's supposedly going to begin
taking place as soon as Iraq holds national elections. Where are the
plans? The inability to move foward on the election bill
(passing legislation) by the Iraqi government or 'government' is
rightly being noted. What about the inability of the Pentagon to
provide plans for events that are supposed to be right around the
corner? And what's up with allowing KBR to drag it's feet
there? Commission Charles Tiefer asked if KBR had a written, detailed
plan for their part in the draw-down. Thompson declared, "I was over
there a few weeks ago, a month ago, and they provided me with a
briefing. I think it was 25th, 26th of September." He continued, "Was
there a written plan? We have a normal, operational, 'how do I close a
base' kind of plan that they have signed up to early on." Who is
providing oversight and how will there be a draw-down starting
supposedly in a few months if there are no plans in writing? (No, a
general "how do I close a base" is not a written plan.) Commissioner
Robert Henke attempted to get a "short, succinct answer" on the KBR
issue: "If the president announces on February 27, 2009 the draw-down
plan and we're on November 2nd, is it possible that the contractor
hasn't provided you any plan to adjust staff accordingly?" What he
received was a babble from Thompson that contradicted and spun. Henke
then attempted to get answers by going bit by bit through a timeline
and asking "How is that posssible?" In Thompson's most honest response
in the entire hearing he included "I don't know" as part of his
long-winded, run-the-clock-down response. RECOMMENDED: " Iraq snapshot" " The 'intended' January elections" " The Iraq inquiry" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Photo-Op This!" " And the war drags on . . ." " Kat's Korner: Carly Simon's warm benediction" " The violence allegory or who's Brando?" " PTSD, plastic surgery" Truest statement of the weekTruest statement of the week IIA note to our readersEditorial: No, it's not journalism.TV: The ForgettableRoundtableSexism And The Stupid Guy (Ava and C.I.)Iraq10 thoughts of Carly Simon's Never Been GoneIdiot of the WeekHighlights
Posted at 03:29 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills)
Monday,
November 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces another death, no movement on passing an election law in
Iraq, KBR is costing US tax payer $193 as a result of their inability
to manage their workforce, the Pentagon isn't providing all the plans
for the draw-down to the GAO, and more. 8 US service members were announced dead in Iraq during the month of October. Today the US military announced
another death: "FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq -- A Multi-National
Corps -- Iraq Soldier died Nov. 2 of non-combat related injuries.
Release of the Soldier's identity is being with held pending
notification of the next of kin. The name of the deceased service
member will be announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site
[. . .] The announcements are made on the web site no earlier than 24
hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin.
The incident is currently under investigation." Maloy Moore (Los Angeles Times) reports
that the fallen was 20-year-old Lukas C. Hopper of Merced, California
who "is survived by his mother and father, Robin and Yancy Hopper, both
of Merced." The announcement brings to 4356 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. In other reported violence . . . Bombings? Shootings? Violence
continues, actually increases, and Nouri al-Maliki maintains he is the
new strongman, the new Saddam to be trusted and should continue as
prime minister of Iraq. On Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq
(which began broadcasting Friday), the topic was Nouri al-Maliki and
the guests joining host Jasim Azzawi included head of Iraqi Nation
Party Mithal al-Alsui and US Dept Assistant Secretary of State for
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Michael Corbin. Jasim
Azzawi: This murderous double explosion that happened in Iraq is quite
sophisticated. It has all the marks, perhaps, of foreign power and yet
it is domestically carried out. Today the Iraqi government arrested 60
security officers -- perhaps they were either in cahoot or negligent in
their duty how do you look at this double bombings? Mithal
al-Alsui: Well, first of all, I have to say that when we talk about
total sections we talk about so complicated cases. This is one side but
of the other side we didn't feel that the government they do have any
kind of a platform or a vision how to deal with the terrorists or the
security in Iraq. More than that they just react and such news as you
are hearing, the government they are arresting or they are trying to
start an investigation of some officers. My opinion, this is just a
reaction, trying to cover the need of the new election in Iraq. Jasim
Azzawi: Indeed you are right. Perhaps the arrest or the questioning of
the 60 officers might be a face saving formula. Mr. Corbin, today I was
struck by what the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said. He
said, "The US cannot wash its hand of the situation in Iraq. We expect
more engagement from the American forces. What does that mean in light
of the fact that SOFA stipulates American forces should go back to
their barracks by June 30th. Is the Iraqi government speaking with two
voices? al-Maliki says we don't want them and his foreign minister says
we need them back. Michael
Corbin: First of all, I can't comment on what Hoshyar Zebari, the
Foreign Minister, said, Jasim. But what I can say first is that we
strongly condemn these horrific bombings conducted by people with no
respect for human life. The victims in this latest bombing were
children, were passerby on the street. We see no benefit that anyone
could claim by trying to claim victory by trying to conduct these kind
of attacks. We are in partnership with the government of Iraq. We are
working closely with the security forces, we're working closely with
Prime Minister Maliki to try and prevent this kind of attack. The
Iraqis have control of their cities since June 30. They have made
enormous strides. What you see here is terrorists who have tried every
means to cause havoc and destruction moving from first targeting
mosques and churches and minorities, then targeting innocent people in
market places to now targeting uh government buildings where normal
Iraqis work, where passersby are being targeted. We don't see any
strategy here by the insurgents, we see only bloody killing and we find
it despicable that anyone would seek to rush to claim credit for this
type of attack. What a load of crap.
First off, if you'd done what Michael Corbin did in Syria, you might
shut your damn mouth and keep your head down real low. That's
(A). (B) He served under George W. Bush and now he wants to develop a
sense of righteous indignation? NOW? The bombings were part of the
ongoing Iraq War. The US government has attempted to label the Iraqis
taking part in this war as "terrorist" which is a bunch of crap, they
are people who feel they are defending their country. Micheal Corbin
-- of all people -- wants to lecture on innocents being killed. The
US military killed innocents and the US government knew it was going to
happen because (a) they ordered it and (b) the whole damn world knew it
was going to happen. Which is how we get Elizabeth Piper (Reuters) reporting (March 2005)
on Jawdat Abd al-Kadhum whose 'crime' was driving and for that 'crime'
"he lost his leg to an American bullet." The US military likes to call
it "collateral damage." In March 2007, they were even bragging about new ammo which, they stated, would be helpful in "reducing collateral damage" in Iraq. There's the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad was attacked April 8, 2003 by . . . the US military
claiming the lives of journalists Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso and
wounding three other journalists. On the same day -- on the same day
-- that the US military attacked the Baghdad bureau of Al Jazeera
killing journalist Tareq Ayyoub. Now we can go on and on -- as the
illegal war has -- but the point should have been made: Michael Corbin
needs to check that righteous indignation that he has oh-so recently
sprouted. But spewing mock outrage allowed
him to avoid answering a direct question, didn't it? And wasn't that
the point? "I can't comment on what Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign
Minister, said." Then why the hell are you on the show? For your
beauty? Don't make me laugh. Jasim
Azzawi: But then again, Mr. Corbin, they are a symbol of the Iraqi
government and those terrorist attacks are meant to strike at the very
heart of the Iraqi symbol. We'll get to that point later on, but let me
get to Mithal. There are two theories, Mithal Alusi, the reasons behind
these suicide bombings. One is: To create chaos and embarrass the
Iraqi government. The other one is, which I would like you to comment
on, is that: It is meant to embarrass al-Maliki himself for abandoning
his erstwhile allies -- primarily the Iraqi National Alliance. Mithal
al-Alsui: Well I must come back to the -- to the main point which I
really believe that even the United States of America with all of the
institutions they got, the terrorists, they succeed to attack America,
they succeed to attack many European states. But in general, what we
need here in Iraq, we need to start to build the Iraqi institution.
What we need here to start, to go out of the propaganda issues, what we
need here is to start to believe in our citizens and our nation and to
serve the people. We still action -- we still reaction in very naive
and simple ways and this is not the way to stop terrorists this is not
the way to stop -- Jasim
Azzawi: Are you saying the Iraqi government is failing to do the proper
things? Are you casting doubt on the -- on the whole structure of the
Iraqi government and its vision for the future? Mithal
al-Alsui: For sure, Mr. Maliki government, it didn't succeed to provide
service. They didn't succeed to push the economy. They didn't succeed
to help in the oil industry. They didn't succeed to find any platform
or vision for the education, for the health sectors. They didn't
succeed in different ways so the security is part of the result of this
government and we are so sorry to hear it repeatedly from the American
side, "We are helping the Iraqi government and we are supporting the
Iraqi government." We are asking our American friends: You need to
support the Iraqi political process and the democratic process. We need
to support the Iraqi economy -- Jasim
Azzawi: Let me give a chance to Mr. Corbin to answer that. Go ahead,
your aid and your help is going in the wrong direction, that's what
he's saying. Michael
Corbin: I agree with Mithal that we have to build institutions. I agree
that we have to help with education and health. But what we see is an
Iraqi government that is capable now of making decision. We're in
partnership with the Iraqi government. When the UN mandate ended at the
end of 2008, it was a significant step forward for Iraqi institutions.
Iraq now can deal with its neighbors. Iraq is in a position now where
we have a partnership on economic issues. Oil. We've had one bid round
for international oil companies to come into Iraq. We're preparing for
another. We see many elements where the Iraqi government and Iraqi
institutions such as the very Ministry of Justice which was targeted -- Despite Michael Corbin's inane mutterings, no 'progress' in Iraq. John Leland (New York Times) reported
in this morning's paper, "Meanwhile, Iraqi legislators again failed to
agree on laws governing the January elections, despite warnings that
further delay could prevent the vote from taking place on time.
Discussions in Parliament on Sunday instead focused on other
matters." To recap, prior to Barack Obama being elected US President,
Iraq 'intended' to hold national elections in December 2009. They then
pushed the elections back to January 2010 which Barack used to break
his campaign promise re: troop draw-down in Iraq (he called it
withdrawal and, in his speeches, rarely included "combat" which is a
meaningless qualifier anyway). All this year, they've anticipated the
elections being held in January 2010 and the deadline for passing
legislation was October 15th.
The day before that deadline, they decided to kick decisions back to
October 19th. And so it has gone, over and over. It is now November 2nd
and they have no election law. Appearing October 21st before the US House Armed Services Committee, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy was asked of the delays in Iraq passing an election law. Michele
Flournoy: Uh, let me start by saying, you know, the draw-down plan that
we have, is conditions based and it creates multiple decision points
for re-evaluating and, if necessary, changing our plans based on
developments on the ground. Although the government of Iraq's
self-imposed deadline of October 15th for passing the elections law has
passed, we judge that the COR [Council Of Representatives] still has
another week or two to come to some kind of an agreement on the
elections law before it will put the January date -- the early January
date -- in jeopardy in terms of the election commission's ability to
actually physically execute the, uh, the election. If a new law with
open lists is not passed, the fall back solution for them is to return
to the 2005 election law which is based on a closed list system. But
that could be used for upcoming elections, the COR would simply have to
vote on an election date. If that law is not passed in the next two
weeks, they will be looking at slipping the date to later in January
which would still be compliant with the [Iraqi] Constitution but would
be later than originally planned. In that instance, M-NF-I
[Multi-National Forces Iraq] would need to engage with the government
of Iraq to do some contingency planning on how to secure the elections
at a later date and that might well have-have implications. Though she maintained Iraq could fall back on the 2005 election law, other bodies begged to differ. As Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported,
"Iraq's existing election law was declared unconstitutional by its
highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or amended."
Yesterday Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reported,
"Iraqi MPs have until Sunday to pass controversial legislation or face
postponing parliamentary elections set for 16 January. The poll is seen
as crucial to the stability of the country, and any delay would likely
impact on the US plan for withdrawal." There was no passage and AFP reports
today that KRG President Massud Barzani and US Vice President Joe Biden
"pressed the need for a key election law to be passed". BBC News reports
the United Nations "had warned that it could not guarantee to endorse
the polls if the bill was not approved on Sunday" -- that was yesterday
and the bill was not approved. BBC points out that the 'sticky points'
are Kirkuk and the issue of open or closed lists. The latter will
determine whether voters vote for individual candidates and this is
something that many in Parliament are opposed to. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports
this afternoon that things remain at a standstill and quotes Iraqi MP
Hunain al-Qaddo stating, "If we don't manage to make any progress on
the electoral law, that will have a negative impact on the political
process and it will send a very bad signal to Iraq's enemies that the
political system isn't working. [. . .] I still have hopes but I think
if we don't manage to do something this week or next week, we really
have to look at postponing the election." Meanwhile Mohammed Jamjoom and Jormana Karadsheh (CNN) report
Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman states that the US is pushing the "highest
levels of the Kurdish leadership" to go along with a plan for January
elections that would yet again set aside the issue of Kirkuk. In an
offensive statement issued last week, Chris Hill (US Ambassador to
Iraq) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq) insisted that the
election law should be a 'one-time only' type deal and not apply to or
consider Article 140 of Iraq's Constitution. Article 140 is the one
that mandates the Kirkuk issue be resolved (via a referendum). That
was supposed to have taken place 2 years ago. It did not. Now let's
get back to offensive: In 2000, the US election was decided not by the
voters nor by the means outlined in the US Constitution. Instead the
US Supreme Court injected itself into the dispute and issued a
laughable ruling that was so perverted the Court insisted it was a
'one-time only' ruling and couldn't be cited as precedent in future
cases. That's what Hill and Odierno are now proposing. Regardless of
who gets or doesn't get Kirkuk, it's amazing how the US continues to
kick the can down the road over and over. This issue was supposed to
have been addressed no later than 2007. The US is again pushing for it
to be postponed. And the only time the KRG can get people to the table
on this issue is when they have the pressure of an upcoming election
which needs to be addressed. Today
the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan met in DC
and heard from a number of witnesses including someone on the second
panel who mentioned Flournoy's October 21st testimony, Rear Adm Thomas
Traaen who declared, "As I'm sure you know, the testimony given by
Secretary [Michele] Flournoy, Mr. [Alan] Estevez, Vice Adm [James]
Winnefeld and, my boss, Lt Gen [Kathleen] Gainey on 21 October was well
received by the House Armed Services Committee. My testimony here will
draw heavily from their insightful remarks." Those remarks included
establishing that decisions on draw-down and going back in would be
made by events on the ground in Iraq. Yes, that is a clear
contradiction of the position Barack Obama presented as a candidate
when he was fond of saying the US military did everything they had been
tasked to do and did it well. And, yes, he was stealing from Hillary
Clinton back then and, yes, Hillary was attacked by CODESTINK and
others for those comments but they apparently sounded so much better
out of Barack's mouth thereby explaining the refusal to call him out.
So Barack's plan as outlined in that hearing was the same plan he
outlined to the New York Times, the one that left Michael
Gordon flabbergasted because Barack was saying that he was
'withdrawing' and at the same time saying he was going back in if
anything went wrong and playing definition games regarding the military
("trainers," etc.). Also appearing on the
second panel was the GAO's William Solis who declared that the Pentagon
hasn't completed the plans for a draw-down. He stated that the Defense
Dept "has not fully defined or identified the contracted services it
will need to successfully complete the draw-down and support the
remaining US forces in Iraq." Solis explained that 128,700 US service
members were in Iraq as of the end of August "spread among 295 bases
throughout the country." Solis' opening, prepared remarks, can be found
[PDF format warning] here.
While the GAO was able to count the number of US service members in
Iraq, there was no count on the number of contractors leading Co-Chair
of the Commission, Michael Thibault to declare, "It is both peculiar
and troubling that eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan, and more than six years since the overthrow of
the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, we still don't know how many contractor
employees are working in the region. [. . .] How can contractors be
properly managed if we aren't sure how many there are, where they are
and what they are doing?" Commissioner
Dov Zakheim: Yes, uh, first, Adm Traaen, I noticed on page three of
your testimony, uh, you said that there will be a proportionally larger
contractor presence. Now GAO has said that you haven't -- DoD, rather,
hasn't fully determined its need for contracted services so how are you
planning to oversee this? You're going to have more contractors, you
already have fewer CORs than you need right now, the proportions going
to go up. Could you walk me through your current plans and your
timetables and how you plan to address this issue? Rear
Adm Thomas Traaen: Yes, sir. First of all, I think the proportionality
is prudent as we close forward operating bases and operating sites and
as the military either resets or re-postures in Afghanistan. The
proportionality issue is not surprising to me. Uh, I think that the
number of contractors -- in terms of measuring that to the plan -- is
moving down significantly faster than CENTCOM had originally planned
and so I think that getting out in front of it is the first part of the
plan. It's to make sure that we're removing capability where we don't
need it. Certainly, I think the CENTCOM plan is to be conditions based
and I think that there is a protocol that we would continue to move
forward in terms of making sure that there are some outliers -- for
example, the elections that are coming up in the January time frame,
counter-insurgency efforts that -- if we draw down too quickly -- we
could put that combatant commander in harms way of not being able to
produce his mission. I do believe that there is proper planning in
terms of the MNFI fusion cell that is tasked with fusing, synchronizing
and integrating this effort. And as the third point, I think having
MNFI and that fusion cell also combined with the Joint Logistics
Procurement Support Board that is the JCCIA and an MNFI established
board that will properly prioritize and coordinate those efforts as the
fourth point of light making sure that drawing down in accordance with
those priorities is the proper way to go, sir. Commissioner
Dov Zakheim: Uhm, let me turn now to Mr. Thompson. Uhm, we know that
the target is a 32% contractor draw-down. I believe that's the number
that Adm Traaen has in his testimony. But looking at that
chart, I guess I'm thrown a little bit. Contractors have already
declined by seven -- nearly eighteen percent but not KBR. In fact, KBR
has declined by roughly half of that 18% number. In the previous
panel, and you may have been here when we discussed this, I noted that
if a service wasn't completely closed down, then any contractor --
well, not any -- some contractors, and I guess I should emphazise that,
not all would act this way. But some contractors would drag their feet
because service hasn't closed down, you don't pull the people out, you
keep charging. Could you explain to me why it is that KBR which has
been under so much scrutiny from GAO, from the IG, even from this
commission, is pulling it's people back at half the rate -- half the
rate -- of all other contractors. Lee
Thompson: Number one, when we talk about consolidation, draw-down,
consolidation of bases, drawdown, those services that we provide under
LOGCAP [Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program] are still being
performed. There's a common mistake of rolling up all bases as a
single base. There's different sizes of bases. So you had the small
contingency operation locations and that which is a lower brigade size
which would be a contingency operation site. They move into our
services, the services we contracted for are still being provided.
There has been a reduction as that [chart] says, from when we started.
In fact, the number's around 50,000 today. So we've put a freeze on
them. They -- KBR -- cannot hire above a certain limit based on the
basis of the estimate that was negotiated this past August and
September. As we get the guidance from CI MNFI on what bases will
close, we'll descope and we'll start moving out contractors. We are
in fact doing those, we're looking at those critical skills. But
remember the major draw-down starts after the [Iraqi] elections. So we
are watching that and I'm depending upon our DCA[A -- Defense Contract
Audit Agency] folks that are doing the floor checks for us. Commissioner
Dov Zakheim: So can you state with absolute certainty that KBR has
moved expiditiously and, for instance, has not moved people from one
location to another? Are you certain of that? Do you have that degree
of oversight and visibility? Given some of the things we heard earlier
from one of our Co-Chairman, Co-Chariman [Michael] Thibault about
issues arising with dining halls and certain things, are you absolutely
certain that KBR's getting people out as they should? Lee
Thompson: I'm not going to sit here and say I'm absolutely certain but
I will tell you that we'll provide the oversight and look at those
places where we are closing to make sure that there's not excess
personnel there. And we will -- they have to get a blessing from us as
we move and we descope, we descope the property, if we close a base, we
look at the personnel where they're reallocating or realinging them to
so we're looking and we're scrutinizing that. And I depend on my folks
forward, the same two officers -- if you will -- that said they're
against or-or whatever Chairman Thibault had to say about what they
said overseas. Commissioner
Dov Zakheim: Mr. Solis, could you comment on both of these points? One,
the adequacy of planning and, second, the degree of oversight of KBR
and the seeming discrephancy between KBR LOGCAP 3 and other draw-downs.
Willaim
Solis: Well I think in terms of the planning, I mentioned before in my
opening statement that there is -- there's a lot of things that are
going on with regards to the retrograde of equipment. One thing that we
haven't seen a whole lot of is planning, as I mentioned, for
determining the requirements, the oversight for the contracts that are
going to be coming onboard. And we still have a concern about that, we
still have seen exact plans. As I mentioned to you the GMASS [Global
Maintenance and Supply Services] contract in Kuwait ,which is a
major maintenance contract, which is necessary to move equipment out,
look at it, and get -- and then repair it and move it out to Kuwait or
whever it's going to go -- back to a unit, over to Afghanistan or
whatever -- they expect a major increase, as I mentioned, doubling the
size of their contract force to about 6,000 people. We have not seen
what kinds of plans are going to be put in place to increase the
contractor oversight there -- and that's not just there, I think it's
other contracts that we have seen as well. I think in terms of the
LOGCAP, we haven't really looked in terms of the numbers so I can't
really contra -- comment on that. But I think that these numbers are
going to flucuate, whether it's LOGCAP or some of these other major
contracts in terms as the draw-down proceeds and that's why
it's important to really understand what you're contract requirements
are going to be during this period. The
first panel included April Stephenson who stated KBR's ineffective
managing of their workforce is costing tax payers "at least $193
million". Stevenson was testifying on behalf of the Defense Contract
Audit Agency. She explained KBR had not done the staff reductions and,
as a result and barring no major action on KBR's part, there staff
ratio in Iraq would, by August 2010, be 1 KBR employee for every 3.6 US
service members. That will probably be a detail noted by any who note
the hearing. But another detail -- the reason for the excerpt above --
is equally important: No plans. The GAO -- like
the House Armed Services Committee -- is not seeing plans. Do they
exist? What's being discussed isn't 2011 or post-2011. What's being
discussed above is the draw-down that's supposedly going to begin
taking place as soon as Iraq holds national elections. Where are the
plans? The inability to move foward on the
election bill (passing legislation) by the Iraqi government or
'government' is rightly being noted. What about the inability of the
Pentagon to provide plans for events that are supposed to be right
around the corner? And what's up with
allowing KBR to drag it's feet there? Commission Charles Tiefer asked
if KBR had a written, detailed plan for their part in the
draw-down. Thompson declared, "I was over there a few weeks ago, a
month ago, and they provided me with a briefing. I think it was 25th,
26th of September." He continued, "Was there a written plan? We have
a normal, operational, 'how do I close a base' kind of plan that they
have signed up to early on." Who is providing oversight and how will
there be a draw-down starting supposedly in a few months if there are
no plans in writing? (No, a general "how do I close a base" is not a
written plan.) Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get a "short,
succinct answer" on the KBR issue: "If the president announces on
February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is it
possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust
staff accordingly?" What he received was a babble from Thompson that
contradicted and spun. Henke then attempted to get answers by going
bit by bit through a timeline and asking "How is that posssible?" In
Thompson's most honest response in the entire hearing he included "I
don't know" as part of his long-winded, run-the-clock-down response. Friday's snapshot
had an error -- thank you to a Congressional staffer who informed me of
it. Duncan Hunter cited a project which was Task Force Odin not "Odum"
-- ODIN stands for Observe, Detect, Identify and Neutralize. It is not
and was not named after General William Odum as I wrongly stated. My
error and my apologies. Today Iran's Press TV reports: The
US military has finished erecting an advanced radar system in Iraq to
monitor the border with Iran, Syria and Turkey, a report
says. The radar
system will monitor aircraft and anti-air targets approaching from the
borders, several Arabic language news websites reported on Monday,
citing comments by unnamed Isareli sources. The
report posted on the Palestinian Maannews website said that the system
would transmit information to the Iraqi air force and some of its radar
would be connected to the control tower at the Baghdad International
Airport. Which gives us a chance to relive
one of those 'great moments' in illegal war history. For those who've
forgotten or never knew about the US spying (the governments of England
and Australia joined in the spying as well) on the UN, refer to Martin
Bright, Ed Vulliamy and Peter Beaumont's " Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war" ( Observer, March 2, 2003): The
United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN
Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win
votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details
of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception
of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New
York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The
disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the
National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications
around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his
organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for
its input. The
memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in
secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed
at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to
provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting
intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.
Posted at 12:10 pm by cedricsbigmix
Permalink
|
|
|