Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Oh no, O!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS IF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH HIS LOW APPROVAL RATE IN THE POLLS . . .

TIM MEADOWS WON'T STOP RUNNING AROUND INSISTING HE'S BARACK'S AUNT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in the US where Michelle Garcia (The Advocate) reports Lt Dan Choi has "rejoined his unit in Pennsylvania" having "been called back into drill duty". Choi faced a disciplinary board in June for refusing to hide in a closet and they recommended that, under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, Choi be discharged. He tells The Advocate, "It felt good to just put away a lot of the past year. Obviously there were soldiers following everything I was doing, or there were others who didn't have a clue." Lez Get Real offers, "This is an unusual event given that Lt. Choi is openly gay, and it has been recommended that he be discharged from the military for being so. Unlike Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, Choi's homosexuality was personally disclosed instead of him being outed by a third party. [. . .] Lt. Choi is an Arabic translator. His skills in the current conflicts are vital to mission success, especially given the startling fact that so many of the military's Arabic languages linguists are gay or lesbian and that many have been discharged under DADT. Lt. Choi has the full support of his commanding officer who did not push for him to be discharged from the military. Instead, the Army National Guard ultimately had to go around his commanding officer to serve Choi with his discharge notification." February 2nd the US Senate Armed Services Committee took testimony from US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs Adm Mike Mullen. Trina covered Mullen that day and we'll note this from his opening statement:

Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- their's as individuals and our's as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change.

Staying with service members, Iraq War veteran Marc Hall is facing charges over a rap song. Free Speech Radio News filed the following story yesterday (and I've added more of the lyrics to the song than are played in the report):

Dorian Merina: Supporters of a 34-year-old Iraq war veteran say the US military will be extraditing him to Iraq to face a military trial for a song he wrote called "Stop Loss." Marc Hall spent 14 months in Iraq and was due to end his military contract at the end of this month, February. Instead, like thousands of other soldiers, he received a stop-loss order that would continue his active duty and send him back to Iraq. So Hall recorded and released this song as a form of protest, he says, and mailed it to the Pentagon.

Now this is real days

When s**t hit the airwaves

Somebody gotta say

F**k you colonels, captains, E7s and above

Think you're so much bigger than I am

I've been too good of an American

Stop-lossed

Stop movement

Got me chasing

If I do drugs

I'll get kicked out

But if my time is out

I can't get out

So the good die young

I heard it out your mouth

So f**k the Army

And everything you're all about

Like Obama says,

'Somebody be held responsible'

But some of y'all gonna be held in the hospitals whenever possible

To pursue my own journeys in life,

Through my own obstacles

Since I can't pinpoint the culpable

They want me cause misery loves company

I'm gonna round them all up

Eventually, easily,

Walk right up peacefully

And surprise them all

Yes, yes, ya'll

Up against the wall

Turn around

I gott a mother f**king magazine

With thirty rounds

On a three round burst

Ready to fire down

Still against the wall

I grab my M-4

Spray and watch

All the bodies hit the floor

I bet you never stop loss nobody no more

In your next lifetime

Of course

No remorse

Yeah

You don't stop till the army is the only military branch

That still got the stop loss in effect

So the only thing I gotta' say

Is prepare for the consequences

When people want to get out

Let them get out.

Dorian Merina: That song has now landed him in jail where he faces charges in violations of the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Hall could be extradited, according to his supporters, as soon as this week. To discuss this case we're joined by attorney David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild and founding member of the Military Law Task Force. Welcome to Free Speech Radio News.

David Gespass: Thank you for having me.

Dorian Merina: First, just to be clear, you have had contact with Marc Hall but you do not represent him in any official way at this point.

David Gespass: That's correct.

Dorian Merina: So what exactly are the charges that are being brought against Marc Hall by the military?

David Gespass: They are -- one charge, one additional charge is a violation of Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- that was also the original charges -- And they are an umber of specifications all of which have to do with communicating threats. And apparently to various and asundry people. I've seen the charge sheet but they redact the names who were allegedly threatened but the charges all have to do with communicating threats to other members of the army.

Dorian Merina: And what is the reason for moving him overseas I mean why can't he be tried in Georgia or the US, I mean, what's the reason for him being moved?

David Gespass: Well I suspect the army would make different claims about the reasons. My guess is they would say that's where all their witnesses are. From my perspective and talking with Marc briefly and talking with his military lawyer briefly, the real reasons are that it makes it more difficult for him to get witnesses because who is going to want to go to a war zone to testify? And it also separates him from his supporters. I think in essence they are taking away his right to a public trial because even though a trial over there would be public in the sense that anyone who happened to be in the neighborhood could walk in none of his supporters would be able to attend and that to me, really, seems to be the essence of why they're doing it.

Dorian Merina: Now this case also brings up the policy of stop-loss President Obama has said that stop loss should-should not be used. Secretary of Defense Gates, now didn't he say in 2009 that the policy was ending or being phased out?

David Gespass: I believe he did.

Dorian Merina: So why are we seeing this now? Is this kind of the ending of that policy or?

David Gespass: My-my feeling about it is that it's very very difficult for them to prosecute two wars without keeping people in. We've had a discussions over the years in the Military Law Task force if a draft is likely to be re-instated and my feeling has always been that it's not likely to be because the modern military requires a lot of training because there's so much technology involved in war fighting in ways that avoid actual combat, face to face, where you look your enemy in the eye. And I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that they don't have sufficiently trained people without - without getting people who've been in for awhile. And again we're fighting two wars now.

Dorian Merina: And this policy, we're not talking about just a few people. According to Iraq Veterans Against the War the stop-loss orders have stopped about 185,000 soldiers from leaving the military since 2001. Very briefly what's the next step in the case of Marc Hall?

David Gespass: Next step would be assuming he's send over there, there will motions filed to get him back to the United States for a trial, there will be motions concerning I think the right to a public trial and then at some point the military judge is going to set a trial date Trying to get witnesses over there on his behalf if the trial is over there and trying to defend him without witnesses if they can't.

Retired US Air Force Major Robert L. Hanafin is encouraging people to use this Veterans for Peace link to "fill out the form letter to Army Public Affairs, expressing how outraged you are as an American citizen that any of our troops is being treated this way regardless what they've done." For more on Marc Hall, you can click here for IVAW providing the basics and actions to take. As for Robert Gates, he stated March 18, 2009 that stop-loss was being phased out. He stated phased out by the start of 2011. Meanwhile Tom Coghlan reports, "Budget cuts and relentless fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have left more than half of the ships, aircraft and ground units of the Armed Forces with 'serious or critical weaknesses', MPs say today." And though many in the US may nod, Coglhlan is reporting on the British military for the Times of London.

Staying with the two countries, yesterday, Angus Reid Global Monitor released their latest poll which finds significant doubts as to any withdrawal. Barack Obama's pretty words aren't satisfying the masses. This is the uncertainty (for good reason) that Ava and I were writing of on Sunday:

The anger in America is very real. It's base is the continuing wars -- the wars the gas bag left wants to forget because Barack's the one running them now. The Iraq War was always going to have multiple effects. The most immediate one was going to be illustrating what an occupation was and driving up support for Palestinians. That's here at home. For the first time in many Americans lives, they had to confront what an occupation was. But that wasn't the only impact.
Whether the left gas bags care or not, millions of ten and twelve-year-olds saw mass protests against the Iraq War. They're now young adults. They saw those protests. They grew up knowing the Iraq War was wrong and needed to end. And though some adults can fool themselves, the youth is not fooled and will not self-deceive. On campuses across this country, their critique of Barack Obama always includes the Iraq War. The ongoing Iraq War that the gas bag left -- including Michael Moore -- have forgotten.

Whores like Amy Goodman couldn't tell you about that nor will they tell you about the new poll. Whores like Amy Goodman dance the dance their told to by their masters. They dance for those who paid them. So they waste your time with a bunch of garbage and pretend they informed you of a damned thing.

Repeatedly, those of against the Iraq War -- against the ongoing, illegal war -- have spoken out and repeatedly the whores who profit from lying -- Amy Goodman's a millionaire, she wasn't one before 2000, how do you think it happened -- have stayed silent and distracted you with a bunch of lies and a bunch of garbage. Or maybe you think a "war and peace report" spends weeks at a film festival interviewing celebrities and that somehow informs you of the world around you. Goody dances for the foundations that now put money in her pocket. It's how the woman who decried the Aspen Institute ends up promoting it on her program. Kat sounded the alarm, Ava and I echoed her. It's past time people stop pretending that Democracy Now! exists for any reason other than to turn a few bucks for a tired whore. There's a reason Amy Goodman will not reveal Democracy Now!'s foundation funding. And just the fact that she who rides the high horse on disclosures when it comes to others refuses to disclose about her own program was your first clue. Your second was her refusal to cover the Iraq Inquiry -- Clare Short was once welcomed on Goody's program. But Short gave strong testimony -- the only testimony to receive applause -- at the Inquiry last week and Short's not avoiding Amy Goodman, Short hasn't been invited on by Amy Goodman.

You're being manipulated and you're being lied to by the people like Amy Goodman who don't give a damn about the Iraq War. Amy's done what on Iraq this year? We heard from her about the genetic disorders as a result of the US weapons? No, she's not covered that. Free Speech Radio News has, KPFA's The Morning Show has but Amy Goodman doesn't have time because 'left' think tanks are really Democratic Party organs and they don't want her talking about the Iraq War so she doesn't.

While Goody and so many more are working for the clampdown, are attempting to Manufature Consent, yes, the American people are not stupid. The poll today only demonstrates what we see as we go around the country speaking. Here are the results on a US withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011.

	BRI	USA
Very confident	3%	6%
Moderately confident	18%	25%
Not too confident	45%	39%
Not confident at all	26%	20%
Not sure	8%	9%

71% of British citizens and 59% of Americans do not believe it's going to happen. [Margin of error is 2.2. percent for the British sample; 3.1 percent for the US sample.] Where in your Panhandle Media do you see that reflected or acknowledged? You don't. There's a Democrat in the White House and our alleged 'left' won't push back against a continued illegal war.

You cannot visit a college campus in this country and not encounter widespread disbelief in how Barack's gotten away with continuing the illegal war but try to find that reality and sentiment reflected in Panhandle Media. The Iraq War has not ended. Everyone works very, very hard to tell the people it has. For a war that's "over," a lot of people keep getting deployed to Iraq. For example, Amanda Heard (Bay City Tribune) reports on an effort in Bay City, Texas to raise money for a Texas Army National Guard unit that will be deploying to Iraq -- a unit which includes the Herman Middle School in Van Vleck's nurse Shelly Park. Chie Saito (News 8 Austin) reports, "The Austin Police Department will be working with the First Squadron of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to prepare for an upcoming deployment to Iraq." The Daily Herald notes, "More than 3,000 soldiers in the National Guard's 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment will be dispatched overseas, affecting 45 cities from east to west Tennessee." WDAM reports there was a send-off ceremony at Camp Shelby on Friday and that the 278 lost 14 members on their earlier Iraq deployment. The war has not ended. Scott Barnett died serving in Iraq. KTVU reports (link has text and video) on yesterday's service at Concord's Saint Bonaventure Church for Barnett and quotes his friend Chris Jaurigue saying, "Scott was honestly one of the greatest men I have ever known in my life." John Simerman (Contra Costa Times) adds that Natalie Tollefson sood outside the church waiting because, "I remember feeling like I couldn't relate to anybody, so I want to be there for Nikki [Barnett, Scott's wife]." Benjamin Tollefson was Natali Tollefson's husband and he died serving in Iraq Dec. 31, 2008. Maybe it will just be one more wife or husband, maybe defying all odds, only one more US child will lose a parent in the Iraq War. Not very likely but stop lying that the Iraq War is over. It's not over for the Iraqi people. It's not over for those deploying and their families. Again,

Linda Greene (Bloominton Alternative) explains there is an upcoming action:

On Feb. 1 President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2011. The budget calls for a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget to $549 billion, plus $159 billion to fund the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But citizens aren't sitting by while the Pentagon's budget balloons. On March 20, just after the seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, protestors will march on Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and San Francisco.
On Friday evening, March 19, at least 55 Hoosiers and Kentucky residents will board a bus bound for Washington, D.C., for the second peace march since President Obama was elected. Participants will demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sponsored by the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) coalition and more than 1,000 other organizations and individuals, the march has as its rallying cries, "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti," "No War or Sanctions Against Iran" and "No War for Empire Anywhere."
Instead of war, the protestors will demand funding for jobs, free and universal health care, decent schools and affordable housing.

Truest statement of the week

Truest statement of the week II

A note to our readers

Editorial: Did she break a hip?

TV: Living on the fringe

Put down the pom-poms

Roundtable

Iraq

Ale for musing

Food For Thought

Highlights

"And he loses more support"
"THIS JUST IN! MORE BAD NEWS!"

Monday, February 08, 2010

And he loses more support

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS INSISTING THAT HE CAN TAKE NO MORE BAD NEWS.

"I FEEL JUST LIKE EVILINE," DECLARED BARRY O AS HE FANNED HIMSELF FURIOUSLY, "I CAN'T TAKE NO MORE BAD NEWS. DON'T NOBODY BRING ME NO BAD NEWS, NO BAD NEWS!"

MARIST FINDS THAT ONLY 44% OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF THE JOB BARRY O IS DOING. AND 57% OF INDEPENDENT VOTERS INSIST HE'S DOING A BAD JOB.

GOOD THING HE HAD THE CORE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEHIND HIM, RIGHT? OH WAIT, HE DIDN'T. HE AND DONNA BRAZILE DECIDED THEY DIDN'T NEED THE PARTY, THAT THEY COULD BUILD A 'NEW COALITION'. OH, THOSE SILLY FOOLS.

MEANWHILE THE CULT OF ST. BARACK CONTINUES TO DECREASE.

IN OTHER NEWS, DANIEL CLUTCHIE IS JUST TOO PRECIOUS FOR WORDS AS HE FAILS AT POLITICAL ANALYSIS BUT MANAGES TO TROT OUT 'DEAR READER' WHICH IS A FUSSY AND PRISSY AS IT SOUNDS. WAY TO GO PRINCESS, PROVING YET AGAIN THAT REAL MEN EITHER DON'T SUPPORT BARRY O OR STOPPED SUPPORTING HIM LONG AGO.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In 2005, US House Rep John Murtha began leading the cry for withdrawal from Iraq -- for an immediate withdrawal -- in Congress. At the age of 77, he has passed away. US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released the following statement:

Today, with the passing of Jack Murtha, America lost a great patriot. He served our country on the battelfield winning two Purple Hearts and the Bronze Star. He served the county in his community winning the hearts of his constituents and served in the Congress winning the respect of his colleagues.

On Saturday, he became the longest-serving Member of Congress from Pennsylvania, and one of the most distinguished. He is well-recognized as a champion of our national security; always putting the troops and their families first. He quietly and regulalry visited our men and women serving our country who were injured to assess their needs and offer them thanks and encouragement. As proud Marine, he was always Semper Fi.

The nation saw his courage writ large when he spoke out against the military engagement in Iraq -- winning him the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award.

Jack was also a hero in advancing scientific research to fight breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabets, and HIV/AIDS. He measured the strength of our country by our military might and also by the well-being of the American people.

San Francisco lost a good friend in Jack Murtha. His leadership as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was essential in turning the Presido from post to park.

Dedicated to God and country, and devoted to Joyce and their family. Jack Murtha was a giant. All who served with him were honored to call him colleague. I was privileged to call him friend.

I hope that is a comfort to Joyce; their children Donna Sue, John and Patrick; and their grandchildren that so many people mourn their loss and are praying for them at this very sad time.

Ed Rendell is the Governor of Pennsylvania and his office released the following:

Noting the passing today of U.S. Rep. John "Jack" Murtha, Governor Edward G. Rendell today said all Pennsylvanians should be sad at the loss of this "uber-congressman."

Pennsylvania has lost one of its greatest citizens," Governor Rendell said. "Congressman Murtha impacted the entire state, not just his congressional district, in ways that almost no individual has. He did so much for so many of us throughout the commonwealth.

"He was also the best friend and supporter of our military and the men and women who risk their lives for our country. He worked tirelessly to ensure that our military had the resources it needed to do its job effetively and that our service men and women had every piece of equipment necessary to protect them. He had the courage and the integrity to make sure the military was on the right track and he was not afraid to raise questions.

"He will be sorely missed by every citizen of the commonwealth," the Governor said. "Midge and I extend our deepest sympathy and support to the Murtha family."

Governor Rendell ordered all Pennsylvania and U.S. flags across the commonwealth to be flown at half-staff in memory of the late congressman.

"This is fitting because Jack Murtha was not just a wonderful congressman for his district, but for all of Pennsylvania," said Governor Rendell. "No matter what the issue was, Jack and Jack's office was the first call we would make. No matter where you were in Pennsylvania, and certainly for anyone sitting in this chair, he was the go-to-guy. He will be missed in countless ways."

Flags will remain at half-staff through interment.

Murtha consistently called for an end to a war that now continues after he has passed. The Daily Herald notes, "More than 3,000 soldiers in the National Guard's 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment will be dispatched overseas, affecting 45 cities from east to west Tennessee." WDAM reports there was a send-off ceremony at Camp Shelby on Friday and that the 278 lost 14 members on their earlier Iraq deployment. As the illegal war continues, Ryan Jaroncyk (California Independent Voter Network) notes the new silence:

During the Bush administration, millions of anti-war protestors voiced their passionate dissent over the massive cost, in blood and treasure, of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Largely composed of disaffected Democrats, the anti-war movement vigorously challenged the Bush-Cheney war policies through hundreds of well-orchestrated rallies across the nation. But suddenly, the movement has gone strangely silent despite President Obama's intensification of the war effort.

[. . .]

Over 100,000 soldiers are still on the ground in Iraq, despite campaign pledges to commence a fairly rapid drawdown. In addition, a significant spike in sectarian violence has occured in Iraq over the last six months, arousing new worries of yet another delay.

[. . .]

If the anti-war movement wants to regain its credibility, it will need to start holding President Obama accountable, just as it did President Bush.

Linda Greene (Bloominton Alternative) explains there is an upcoming action:

The illegal war continues and Saturday's news included the League of Righteous announcing that they had kidnapped 60-year-old American citizen Issa T. Salomi. Washington Post's Ernesto Londono and Leila Fadel (via Hindustan Times) observe, "The case marks the first reported kidnapping of an American citizen in Iraq in more than 18 months." Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed and Michael Christie (Reuters) reported that the Shi'ite milita group League of Righteous (Asaib al-Haq) has kidnapped a US contractor. Ernesto Londono and Leila Fadel (Washington Post) added the man was Issa T. Salomi and that he was working for the US military who "has been missing since Jan. 23". BBC News posted video of Issa speaking while flanked by his kidnappers. For those late to the party we'll drop back to the June 9th snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

In other news of violence, Reuters reports a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 lfie while another left one person injured.

And the illegal war continues. March 7th, elections are supposed to take place in Iraq. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Everything's in doubt -- despite Jack Straw proclaiming democracy today in London. At this point everything's up in the air except for one candidate who will not be running. That candidate is Suha Abdul Jarallah. AFP reports she was shot dead tonight outside a relative's Mosul home. Death is the ultimate 'ban' in Iraqi elections. She was a member of the National Dialogue Party -- a non-sectarian political party promoting a nationalist Iraq which has been targeted with bannings. The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq, Ad Melkert, stated today, "Campaign violence in Iraq must not be allowed to intimidate candidates or interfere with the right of every Iraqi to exercise their vote." She was a member of the National Dialogue Party -- a non-sectarian political party promoting a nationalist Iraq which has been targeted with bannings.

Wednesday an Iraqi appeals court ruled that the 500 plus candidates being banned by Iran via the extra-legal Accountability and Justice Committee would be allowed to run. This did not sit well with the thug of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki. As one of the many chicken exiles who pulled the world into a war they were too cowardly to fight on their own, Nouri knows a thing or two about perception management even if Reuters doesn't. Helen Long (Reuters) plays fool or whore -- you decide in a video 'report' on 'thousands' of Shi'ite protesters 'offended' that suspected Ba'athists were running. Helen hopes you don't get your information from anywhere else. Especially not Germany's DPA which tells you what Helen refused to: "Thousands of supporters of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Dawaa Party demonstrated outside the house of parliament in Baghdad on Sunday, to call for the exclusion of 'Baathist' candidates from the March polls." Who were these 'typical' protestors? The governor of Baghdad was among them. Helen whores it and prays the whole world is stupid and doesn't catch on. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports, "Tensions over the dispute flared elswhere, as thousand of protesters attended anti-Baathist rallies in Baghdad and Basra organized by Mr. Maliki's political oranization, the Dawa Party. The Baghdad rally was broadcast at length on state television, showing Mr. Maliki's aides denoucning those sympathetic to the Baath Party".

You get the idea that, given the chance, Helen Long would insist to you that the April 2003 US PSY-OPS operation in Firdos Square where the US military brought down the statue of Hussein amidst a small group of exiles just brought back into the country (by the US) (as well as marines and 'reporters') was a 'legitimate' and 'real' protest by Iraqis. Helen really hopes you're as stupid as she believes you are and that you don't notice -- in the video she narrates!, for example, that these 'average Iraqi protestors' are carrying handmade flags . . . Iraqi flags? No, like any 'normal' and 'average' Iraq, they're carrying home made US flags. Yeah, that's believable. (Also note that the women are covered from head to toe but the men were track suits, dress suits, pullover shirts, etc. while few sport any kind of a bear let alone one would that would demonstrate devout religious beliefs -- translation, Nouri stands for more even more suppression of women's rights.) For those who have miss and long for the combined 'reporting' of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, breathe easy, Helen Long is on the scene.

Following Wednesday's ruling, Nouri started huffing and puffing that the courts should decide it, that the presidency council should (on Saturday) and that the Parliament should (today). Xinhua reports of the planned Parliament session, "The session was to be held at 4:00 p.m. (1300 GMT) Sunday at the request of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, but the parliament decided to delay its session to Monday afternoon, speaker Ayad al- Samarrai told reporters during a news conference in Baghdad on Sunday." It was Florida 2000 all over again thanks to 'reporters' like Helen Long. In the US, the Republican Party flew outsiders into Florida to threaten violence and shut down the recounts. Nouri's staged 'protests' -- broadcast non-stop on state-TV -- had the intended effect, intimidating the appeals court. Muhanad Mohammed, Suadad al-Sahly, Ahmed Rasheed, Aseel Kami, Aref Mohammed, Michael Christie and Jack Kimball (Reuters) report they have backed down from Wednesday's decision, they've reinstated the ban. James Hider (Times of London) observed Friday, "Iraq's elections next month are a major fork in the road of the country's post-election development. One way leads towards increasing stability and political freedom; the other marks the route back to sectarianism and violence." But of course, you never install a thug if you really would like to see democracy take root and, of course, a bunch of exiles too cowardly to fight for their country can never really represent it -- even when installed into power by a foreign country. Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) picks it up there on Little Nouri's tantrums:

Another of Maliki's aides called for the expulsion of US Ambassador Christopher Hill, who reportedly lobbied behind the scenes to get the ban lifted. And Maliki himself blasted Hill: "We will not allow American Ambassador Christopher Hill to go beyond his diplomatic mission." Maliki began working with leaders of his coalition, members of parliament, and the top court to ensure that the Chalabi-imposed ban remains.

The US intervention in Iraqi politics reveals that, despite the presence of more than 100,000 US troops, America's influence in Iraq is fading fast -- and Iran's is growing. There isn't much that the United States can do about that. As soon as George W. Bush made the fateful decision to sweep away the Iraqi government and install pro-Iranian exiles in Baghdad, the die was cast. President Obama has no choice but to pack up and leave.

And yet the Iraq War continues. Mohammed Abbas, Michael Christie and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report, "Iyad Allawi, who leads the Iraqiya list into the March 7 vote, said the ban could trigger a resurgence in sectarian attacks, reversing a fall in violence in the last two years that has allowed U.S. forces to eye a 2011 withdrawal date and Iraq to sign major oil deals." And still the illegal war continues.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Keep kissing his ass

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

TODAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O INSISTED THAT DEMOCRATS NOT USE THIS TIME TO "LICK THEIR WOUNDS".

IF THEY SPEND TIME LICKING WOUNDS, BARRY O EXPLAINED, THERE WOULD BE LESS TIME TO KISS HIS ASS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today, Iraq is again slammed with bombings resulting in mass fatalities. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "Two car bombs went off at the same time on a bridge named Wadil- Salam which is located east of Karbala, 80 km south of Baghdad, an Iraqi interior ministry source told Xinhua. The two cars loaded with heavy explosives were parked at the two ends of the bridge respectively, said the source who refused to give his name." AFP states it was a mortar bomb. Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reports it was a suicide car bombing immediately followed by the mortar attack. CNN goes with two car bombings. The Washington Post's Ernesto Londono (at the Financial Times of London) explains, "Investigators were trying to determine whether there had been one or two explosions." Skipping the specifics of the bombing types, Al Jazeera notes, "Al Jazeera has learned that three Iraqi army vehicles were also destroyed in the attack." This morning AP counted 27 dead thus far and at least sixty injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) also counted 27 dead but 131 injured while noting that the numbers would likely rise throughout the day -- which they did. Muhanad Mohammed, Sami al-Jumaili, Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) report the death toll has now reached "at least 40 people [dead] and wounded 145 others" according to "health officials". The US State Dept released the following statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The United States condemns the series of bombing attacks against Shi'a pilgrims in Iraq over the past week. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Attacking men, women and children engaged in religious pilgrimage is reprehensible and exposes the cynical immorality of the terrorists who seek to replace Iraq's hard-won progress with violence and intimidation. They will not succeed in breaking the will of the Iraqi people. Iraqis are committed to realizing the promise of their democracy. There is no better rebuke to those who traffic in terror.

BBC News (link has text and a clip of the aftermath of the bombings) offers, "The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Baghdad says that the stakes are high; a peaceful and credible election would allow the country to draw a line underneath the bloodshed and turbulence of recent years, he says. But, he adds, these recent bombings have raised fears of a return to sectarian violence, just as American forces prepare to withdraw." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "The bombings play to the worst fears of Iraqi and US officials that attacks could re-ignite the kind of sectarian violence that plunged this country into civil war three years ago. They sparked anger even among security officers." Anthony Shadid (New York Times) observes, "There was a sense of fatalism to the attacks, one of dozens this week on pilgrims that the Shiite-led government had girmly predicted but was powerless to stop. The killings have underlined the very meaning of the pilgrimage: a religious ritual to commemorate Imam Hussein, the grandson of the prophet Mohammed whose death in the battlefield in Karbala in A.D. 680 gave Shiite Muslims an ethos of suffering, martyrdom and resistance." Sayed Mahdi al-Modaressi (The New Statesman) explains:

For Shias, Hussein is the ultimate moral exemplar: a man who refused to bow in the face of tyranny and despotism. Shias see his martyrdom as the greatest victory of good over evil, right over wrong, truth over falsehood. In the words of the Urdu poet Muhammad Iqbal: "Imam Hussein uprooted despotism for ever till the Day of Resurrection. He watered the dry garden of freedom with the surging wave of his blood, and indeed he awakened the sleeping Muslim nation . . . Hussein weltered in blood and dust for the sake of truth."

But why would all these people walk for hundreds of miles to remember a painful event that took place over 13 centuries ago? Visitors to the shrine of Hussein and his brother Abbas in Karbala are not driven by emotion alone. They cry because they make a conscious decision to be reminded of the atrocious nature of the loss and, in doing so, they reaffirm their pledge to everything that is virtuous and holy.

The first thing that pilgrims do on facing his shrine is recite the Ziyara, a sacred text addressing Hussein with due respect for his status, position and lineage. In it, the Shia imams who followed him after the massacre in Karbala instruct their followers to begin the address by calling Hussein the "inheritor" and "heir" of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
There is something profound in making this proclamation. It shows that Hussein's message of truth and freedom is viewed as an inseparable extension of that list of divinely appointed prophets.
Pilgrims go to Karbala not to admire its physical beauty, or to shop, or to be entertained, or to visit ancient historical sites. They go there to cry. They go to mourn. They go to join the angels in their grief. They enter the sacred shrine weeping and lamenting.

Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) provide this context, "Overall, there have been eight suicide bombings in Iraq the past 11 days, targeting hotels and government buildings as well as pilgrims, in a sign that the Sunni extremist insurgency appears to be regrouping in an attempt to destabilize the country ahead of the March 7 election." In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadise bombing which claimed the life of 1 pilgrim and left fifteen more injured.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 pilgrim was injured by a Baghdad sniper shooting and that 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul.

Kidnappings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Interior Ministry employee Brig Gen Ali Ghalib was kidnapped last night in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul ("kidnapping victim riddled with bullets").

The war that never ends. Jake Armstrong (Pasadena Weekly) notes that Tuesday, February 2nd was the 2,405 day of the Iraq War and, using DoD figures, notes 4,378 deaths of US service members in Iraq since the start of the Iraq War. The elections and violence were discussed today on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR -- which is archived and you can also podcast) when Diane spoke with Bryan Bender (Boston Globe), Youchi Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) and Elise Labott (CNN).

Diane Rehm: And now let's talk about Iraq and it's election commison which has delayed start of campaigning for Parliamentary elections. How come, Elise?

Elise Labott: Well an Iraqi appeals court this week overturned an effort to bar hundreds of candidates from upcoming elections. Many of these were aligned with Saddam Hussein's former Ba'ath Party. Many of them were members of Parliament to begin with, in previous elections [post-invasion, previous elections] and they had already been vetted. But the ban, you know, really threatened to disenfranchise Sunnis once again and open up possible sectarian tensions that we've seen over the last few years. The court overturned this ban. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had said, you know, no, that's fine, it's a Constitutional -- it's unconstitutional to overturn the ban. And so now they've postponed the elections [she means the start of campaigning for the elections].

Diane Rehm: So what's that going to mean for the whole government, Youchi?

Youchi Dreazen: There's that wonderful line in [Francis Ford Coppola's] The Godfather III where Al Pacino says, "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in." And the US, we've thought that the war is over, that the violence has stopped, the sectarian tensions are gone, Maliki's a strong leader, we can focus on something else and pull our troops out. And what's been made clear over the last few weeks -- both politically as Elise talked about but much more horrifically in terms of suicide bombings, one of which destroyed our office -- the [Wall St.] Journal offices and, of course, much worse, many human lives at the Hamra hotel in Baghdad where I lived myself for close to two years.

Diane Rehm: Really.

Youchi Dreazen: The violence is back in force and what you're seeing is the kind of syncronized attacks throughout Baghdad that you saw in the worst days of '06, '07. So this belief that we won was resting, basically, on two pillars. One, violence was gone. Two, sectarian tensions are gone. What we're seeing now is that both are still back.

Bryan Bender: I think the seriousness with which these recent developments are viewed in Washington was evident by the fact that Vice President Joe Biden was sent to Iraq a couple of weeks ago in the wake of this decision to bar these candidates because there's some real concern that the longer the elections are delayed, the more this friction is there -- and the violence increase, that you could see things unravel there.

On the elections, Leila Fadel and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) report that the ruling -- which didn't clear the 500-plus candidates of charges, only stated the charges would be evaluated after the election -- is questioned by the electoral commission, will result in Little Nouri meeting with "the Presidency Council, the parliamentary speaker and the top judge on the supreme court" and, if needed, with Parliament Sunday. As Nada Bakri (New York Times) points out, already the conflicting back and forth means that election campaigning is now scheduled to start February 12th and Bakri observes: "The latest escalation in the dispute over who is permitted to run in the elections has unsettled the political landscape. Iraqi law remains untested and perhaps bereft of mechanisms to reach a solution just a month before the vote." Anne Barker (Australia's ABC) covers the issue here. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports that the potential Parliament meeting on Sunday is "an extra-ordinary session" Little Nouri is calling and that, meanwhile, other avenues are being stopped such as yesterday when "the seven-judge appeals panel postponed the review of the demands submitted by some of the banned politicians to check their charges till after the March 7 elections, giving a green light to the banned politicians to run in the elections." Should Little Nouri succeed with the supreme court or the Saturday meeting of the Sunday meeting, the banned candidates will once again have to scramble in an attempt to run for office via appeals -- appeals which have currently been stopped. Pakistan's The News reports Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi stated in DC yesterday, "The decision taken by the appeal committee should be espected by all parties. Hopefully, it will be debated in the parliament but at the end of the day I think nobody (has) the right to block the decision taken by the committee." Alsumaria TV breaks the news that Nouri's decrying the decision as foreign interference and "State of Law Coalition political committee held on Thursday an urgent meeting attended by head of Party Nuri Al Maliki. The meeting discussed the appeals panel decision and political pressure and interference in this regard." The New York Times editorial board offers the suggestion that Iraq 'get on' with the March 7th election:

Right now, Mr. Maliki and the Parliament should get on with the campaign. Instead of trying to keep competitors off the ballot, Iraq's leaders should be debating their country's many serious problems and telling voters how they will fix them. For Iraq to be stable and to thrive -- and for American troops to safely go home -- the candidate list, and the next Iraqi government, must represent all of Iraq's people.

In Geneva, the UNHCR's Melissa Fleming today declared:

Following a request by the Iraqi Election Commission (IHEC), UNHCR stands ready to facilitate the participation of Iraqi refugees living in the countries neighbouring Iraq in the forthcoming elections. The 7 March elections are considered to be a major opportunity to consolidate national reconciliation.

As of December 2009, UNHCR had on its records some 300,000 Iraqis who are believed to still be present in the region (including over 210,000 in Syria), of whom close to 190,000 are of voting age. Based on host government sources, the total number of Iraqis in the region is much higher, as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis do not register with UNHCR for a variety of reasons.

In close cooperation with the competent Iraqi authorities and the host governments, UNHCR's assistance will be limited to providing demographic data on the registered Iraqis, informing them of their rights to participate in the elections, and providing logistical support that may be needed for a smooth and orderly election process.

Thursday, February 04, 2010

Sour grapes of a one time press queen

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN A DESPONDENT FUNK THAT HAS WHITE HOUSE INSIDERS WORRIED.

THE FUNK HAS SET IN AS BARRY O HAS GIVEN A SPEECH PROMISING TO FOCUS ON JOBS TODAY AND AS HE'S AGREED TO MEET WITH THE DALAI LAMA FINALLY.

DESPITE ALL THAT AND A PRAYER BREAKFAST, BARRY O JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET HIS PRESS MOJO BACK.

"ALL THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT," HE WHINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "IS SCOTT BROWN! NO MATTER WHAT I DO, THAT MAN UPSTAGES ME! IT'S NOT FAIR! IT'S JUST NOT FAIR! I'M THE MOST BEAUTIFUL! I'M THE SEXIEST! THE WHOLE WORLD LOVES ME! ME! ME! ME! WHY CAN'T IT ALL BE ABOUT ME LIKE IT WAS IN 2009!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Shortly after being installed, the first thing Nouri al-Maliki (thug of the occupation) did was begin floating notions of curtailing media freedoms. When the Green Zone was stormed in June of 2006 (stormed but not breached), the 'crackdowns' became a regular feature of daily life and Little Nouri worked on a 'plan' that the media repeatedly misrepresented -- US media repeatedly misrepresented. It applauded the various planks -- including the neighborhood patrols which were already taking place and were neither an idea of Nouri's nor something that needed to be implemented. In addition, considering the ethnic cleansing that would soon take place (what some dub the civil war of 2006 and 2007), maybe armed militias really weren't something to applaud? But if they weren't giving Nouri credit for things he didn't do, the US press might have to call out the plank attacking journalism. The BBC called it out. Foreign outlets called it out. It was in the US reporting that you never heard about it. Nouri had been installed only months prior and had already made repeated anti-media remarks publicly, but his plank attacking journalism, his plank that required registration and more, it didn't register in the US media.

Considering all the waves of attacks on journalism that have followed under Nouri (most infamously when a New York Times reporter was 'fired' on by a member of the Iraqi military who then laughed because there was no bullet . . . this time), maybe the post-war mea culpa that's needed is the one for refusing to loudly and vocally defend the rights of the press? Nouri's at it again. From the Committee to Protect Journalism:

New York, February 4,2010 -- An Iraqi government plan to impose restrictive rules on broadcast news media represents an alarming return to authoritarianism, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. CPJ denounced the rules and called on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government to abandon their repressive plan.

CPJ's review of the plan found rules that fall well short of international standards for freedom of expression and that appear to contravene the Iraqi constitution, which provides for a free press. The new rules would effectively impose government licensing of journalists and media outlets, a tool that authoritarian governments worldwide have long used to censor the news.

The rules would also bar coverage that the government vaguely describes as incitement to violence. CPJ research shows that such broad and unspecified standards are often used by repressive governments to silence critical coverage.

A copy of the plan, obtained by CPJ, can be downloaded here as a PDF (9 MB, Arabic).

"The regulations suggest either a lack of understanding of the news media's role in a democratic society, or a deliberate attempt to suppress information and stifle opposing views," said CPJ‎ Executive Director Joel Simon . "Either way, the rules should be rescinded immediately so that the media can do its job free of government intimidation."

The new regulations were drafted by the Iraqi Communications and Media Commission (CMC), a government body that does not appear to have legal authority to draft such rules, CPJ research shows. The CMC was created with a narrow mandate to administer broadcast frequencies and other technical issues.

CPJ's review found that the rules are replete with broad and vaguely expressed restrictions. While demanding that all local and international broadcast media be licensed and that all individual journalists be accredited by the CMC, the rules provide little information on the criteria the government would use in issuing such licenses. (All equipment must also be registered with the government.) The plan also states that news media must abstain from "incitement to violence," but it does not define what would constitute a violation.

Media deemed to violate the rules could face closure, suspensions, fines, and confiscation of equipment.

CPJ found other alarming aspects to the rules. They stipulate, for example, that media organizations submit lists of their employees to the government. While the clause raises privacy concerns, it is particularly ominous in light of the recent history of journalist murders in Iraq . Of the 140 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, at least 89 were targeted for murder, CPJ research shows. Another 43 media support workers, such as drivers and interpreters, were also murdered. In case after case, CPJ research shows, these journalists were targeted because of sectarian or work affiliations; many have gone to great lengths to conceal their profession for fear of reprisal.

In discussions with foreign reporters in Iraq, CMC representatives made it clear that media organizations would have to reveal confidential sources if they sought to challenge a determination made by the agency. If the CMC finds that a media organization has published information it deems inaccurate or inflammatory, the identification of sources would be central to any challenge to CMC findings, journalists who attended the meetings told CPJ.

"The regulations themselves, and the explanations provided by CMC officials, suggest that sources could be compromised, reporting could be censored, and Iraqi staff could be intimidated," Simon added.

Michael Christie (Reuters) observes, "It remains risky for Iraqis to be associated with foreign companies and Western media fear that handing over staff lists places them at risk from militia, insurgents like al Qaeda, or kidnap gangs. Many reporters working for foreign media do not tell their neighbors what they do. [. . .] Reuters and other media are already routinely threatened by officials with lawsuits or expulsion because of disparities between the number of bomb victims reported by their police and interior ministry sources, and official death tolls."

Yesterday came news of a decision reached by a ruling body in Iraq on the elections issue.

Already Nouri is striking back at the decision. To recap, we'll note this from yesterday's snapshot:

On Al Jazeera's Riz Khan yesterday, the issue of the elections were addressed with Riz Khan asking, "How free and fair is an election when a government bans certain people from running? Iraq goes to the polls on March the 7th but has barred more than 500 candidates which could ultimately plunge the country into chaos, even civil war." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) reports today that the government has managed to avert "a political crisis of its own making" as a result of the ban being overturned today "by a panel of seven judges". The Economist calls it "Best news in weeks." Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) explains, "The decision now opens the way for full-fledged campaigning to begin, as scheduled, on February 7. It wasn't immediately clear how many of the banned candidates would accept the compromise decision, or how the decision might affect the election outcome itself." Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "But if the ruling stands, there's a catch: those blacklisted will still be subject to investigation after the vote for past ties to the regime of Saddam Hussein." And what would happen then? Caroline Alexander and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) observe, "Election Commission official Hamdia al-Husseini told Agence France-Presse that those later found to have links to the Baath Party would be 'eliminated.'" Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports, "The ruling enraged the architect of the blacklist, Ali Faisal al-Lami, who is a close aide of the head of the former de-Ba'athification Commission, Ahmed Chalabi. That commission, which was a signature body of the post-Saddam Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), evolved into a contentious group known as the Accountability and Justice Commission." And to clear up a nasty rumor, there is no known sex tape of Ahmed Chalabi and his boy pal Ali al-Lami being distributed in Basra. Absolutely not. Nasty, hurtful rumors. Unless a tape should surface. Ammar Karim (AFP) notes, "Chalabi, who has close ties to Iran, was appointed deputy prime minister after the invasion but intelligence he provided in support of those claims in the run-up to war later turned out to be flawed and he subsequently fell out of favour with Washington." The decision is still being studied and Al Jazeera notes Saleh al-Mutlaq, of the sectarian National Dialogue Party and who was one of the banned, "declined to give an immediate comment."

Reuters reported this morning that Nouri's mouthpiece, Ali al-Dabbagh, posted to his website the following: "Postponing implementing the law of the Justice and Accountability Commission till after the election is illegal and not constitutional." Anne Tang (Xinhua) notes the cries of "illegal!" as well while Margaret Corker (Wall St. Journal) adds, "Faraj Al Haidari, the head of the electoral body running the election, says he has asked the Supreme Federal Court to weigh in on the political controversy to quell the mounting accusations among political parties that the closely watched poll set to take place on March 7 has been tainted by sectarianism." Corker explains that Al Haidari doesn't believe that this would delay elections but if elections are scheduled for March 7th and it's February 4th, exactly when would candidates campaign? While they were 'banned,' they couldn't campaign. Now with the question mark Nouri's throwing on them, they may not be able to campaign -- and certainly some of their time will be taken up with this mess even if they are campaigning. How do you have fair and free elections when candidates aren't even sure they're going to be on next month's ballot? How do you have fair and free elections when Iraqi voters are using their own limited time (just as limited as any American voter or any voter in any other country) to study up on the issues and deciding, "Well, if I have to cut back somewhere, maybe I just won't look into these candidates who might not even make the ballot"? That's not speculation, BBC News reports, "Iraq's electoral commission has said it will delay the start of campaigning for next month's parliamentary elections."

And it is apparently not enough to toss the matter to the courts -- or rather, back to the courts again. Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor via Gulf News) reports, "Baghdad: Iraq's premier has convened parliament for Sunday to debate what his government branded an 'illegal' decision to reinstate candidates with alleged links to ousted dictator Saddam Hussain in next month's election, state television said." So the decision to allow ALL candidates to run is being targeted by Nouri with a court appeal and an appeal to Parliament. And if the two are in conflict? Or if the two both shoot Nouri down? Where does it end? And when does it end? March 5th when candidates are left to scramble? This is nonsense and it's turning the entire elections into a joke. (Or, if you prefer, a bigger joke.) Gulf News, after yesterday's decision, was editorializing in praise of it and noting, "Elections serve no purpose if they are seen to be manipulated, since the government that emerges from a corrupt process will not have a popular mandate. Elections must have transparent rules that are published well in advance and do not change. This allows parties to form, adopt political positions, campaign for support and form electoral alliances. Any last-minute shift in the rules necessarily corrupts this complex process." Instead, those who are seen as threats to Nouri are left to scramble.

Jomana Karadsheh and Yousif Bassil (CNN) note, "While U.S. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. military official in Iraq, said about 55 percent of the group were Shiite with alleged links to the Baathist party, the most prominent politicians on the list were Sunni Arabs. Members of that community swiftly deplored the move and even threatened an election boycott." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reminds, "Ali Lami, executive director of the separate Accountability and Justice Commission, which ordered the disbarments, condemned the judges' decision as representing 'American interference' in Iraqi politics, and vowed to fight it in the courts. U.S. officials have charged that Lami has close ties to Iran. The chairman of the accountability commission is Ahmad Chalabi, who was once a Pentagon favorite but fell from grace after he was suspected of passing information to Iran." NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered -- link has audio and text) reports:

According to Human Rights Watch, the Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice -- a body without clear authority that compiled the list -- mainly targeted candidates from the two largest secular coalitions. They are both expected to do well on March 7.

Veteran Sunni politician Salah al-Mutlak, who had been on the banned list, told NPR in a interview this week that the commission targeted him because the current crop of elected officials are afraid losing power.

"They are scared because most of them, they don't even have the qualifications to be a parliamentary member or they are corrupted financially, or their hands are not clean from the Iraqi blood. So they know that the coming government is going to go after them, and there will be a law if there is a decent government, and the law will follow them," Mutlak says.

The above and more has resulted in a letter to the White House, House Reps William Delahunt, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, Donald Payne, Russ Carnahan, John Tanner, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Brad Miller, Keith Ellison, Jim Moran, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Markey, Steve Cohen, David Price, Maruice Hinchey, John Conyers, Earl Blumenauer, Bob Filner, Jan Schakowsky, John Tierney, Jim McGovern, Rosa DeLauro, John Olver, Niki Tsongas, Stephen Lynch and Richard Neal have [PDF format warning} written President Barack Obama:

We are writing to express our strong support for a continued focus by your Administration on the upcoming general elections in Iraq. These elections, currently scheduled for March 7, 2010, will determine Iraq's political future -- and America's relationship with that nation.

If elections are accepted by the Iraqi people and the world as free, fair and successful, they will deepen Iraq's democracy and provide a basis for a stable, respectful relationship between our countries. But -- as we have already seen in Afghanistan and Iran -- if the elections are seen as fraudulent, they could inflame tensions inside and outside the country and undermine efforts to strengthen democracy. In the worst case, they could even lead to a civil conflict and a resumption of wide-scale violence.

The impact on the U.S.-Iraqi relationship of a failed or fraudulent election would be equally disastrous, particularly as U.S. troops continue to withdraw from Iraq as mandated under the U.S.-Iraq bilateral agreement which entered in to force on January 1, 2009.

With regard to that agreement, we commend your commitment to it and support your plan to bring our troop levels down to 50,000 by August 2010 and to withdraw all U.S. force by the end of 2011. We believe that it is important that your Administration deliver a clear message to the Iraqi government and people that, while we are committed to helping Iraqis stabilize their country, we will not change our withdrawal plans based on the date or outcome of the elections. Our continued presence in Iraq -- even after the successful June 30, 2009 withdrawal of our combat forces from Iraqi cities -- is already an issue in Iraqi politics. To explicitly tie our withdrawal to the elections or their outcome would only further exacerbate existing tensions.

We believe that, as part of our commitment to helping Iraqis stabilize their country and strengthen their democracy, the U.S. should encourage Iraqi leaders to comply with the recently agreed-to election date of March 7, 2010. As you well know, the elections have already been postponed from the original target in January. Further delays will only undermind the confidence of the Iraqi people in the elections and will have a correspondingly negative impact on the U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship.

Furthermore, it is critical that all political parties can field candidates in the elections. Rather than banning politicians from participation, the Iraqi authorities should trust the Iraqi people to decide who they want to elect. Otherwise, the appearance of manipulation of the ballot -- even before votes are cast -- could compromise the legitimacy of the election. We ask you to work with Iraqi authorities to ensure the Iraqi people have a full range of options on the ballot.

We also strongly urge your Adminstration to assist Iraq in ensuring the elections are free and fair. The Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) has repeatedly called for international organizations to send monitors to Iraq. However, to the best of our knowledge, few have responded. We urge you to allocate emergency funding for U.S. NGOs and encourage them to go to Iraq to observe the election. We also suggest that your Administration increase its cooperation with the United Nations in supporting Iraqi domestic observers. And we recommend you explore other avenues -- perhaps through regional organizations -- to encourage non-U.S. international observers.

Finally, we commend your Administration's assistance to Iraq in its efforts to end the UN Chapter VII mandates still pertaining to that country, and urge you to make this a priority over the next year. We also urge you to fully implement the Strategic Framework Agreement agreed to on November 17, 2008 to enable more non-military collaboration between our two countries. Taken together, these efforts will demonstrate to the Iraqi people our continued commitment to their nation's stability and our desire for a realtionship based on mutual respect and support.

In conclusion, Mr. President, we believe the upcoming elections in Iraq will be the most improtant in that nation's history. We urge your Administration to do all it can to ensure that they are successful and viewed as free and fair. And we commit to working with you toward that goal.

If you control who runs, if you intimidate the press, how are you different from Saddam Hussein? That's a question that might be asked in the near future if this issue isn't resolved.

Vanity: His and Hers

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN THE MIDST OF A FLURRY OF PHOTO OPS IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE'S . . . VERY GOOD AT POSING.

AFTER ALL THAT 'HARD WORK,' HE'LL HEAD FOR AUSTRALIA, A LONGTIME U.S. ALLY WHICH HAS NOW TAKEN TO NOTING JUST HOW WEAK THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF IS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "NO PROBLEMO, REPORTING DUDES. I KNOW JUST WHAT TO DO. I'LL GIVE A SPEECH! I'LL GIVE MY SPEECH ABOUT HOW 'NO ONE IS GREATER THAN YOU!' IT WOWED THEM IN EGYPT AND I JUST INSERTED 'U.S.' INTO IT AND GAVE IT HERE AS THE STATE OF THE UNION AND NO ONE NOTICED. THAT'S WHAT I DO. I STAND UP BEFORE A GROUP AND TELL THEM 'YOU ARE THE GREATEST'. YOU'D BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH PEOPLE ENJOY HAVING THEIR ASSES KISSED."

MEANWHILE, WITH EXTENSIONS, FALSE EYE LASHES AND FILMED FROM THE LEFT BECAUSE IT MAKES HER RIGHT EYE SEEM LESS GIMPY, SHE HULK DECLARED "WHAT YOU SEE IS THE REAL ME." THE SAME SHE HULK THAT DEMANDED SPECIAL LIGHTING FOR THE BARBRA WALTERS SPECIAL.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The de-Ba'athification policy was implemented by Paul Bremer and he states (no reason to doubt him -- despite Colin Powell's whispers to the press) that he did so at the direction of the White House. Paul Bremer is mentiioned in the Iraq Inquiry more than any other American (that includes Bush, Tommy Franks, Condi Rice, Blot Powell and all the rest). After the start of the illegal war, in May of 2003, Tony Blair named Ann Clwyd to be England's special envoy on human rights to Iraq. We'll jump in at this section of her testimony today where she is speaking about the job and what she brought to the job.

But obviously I saw it -- because of my contact with Iraqis over the years, you know, I now knew people that were in government in Iraq, like the President Jalal Talabani, like Latif Rashid, the Water Resources Minister, Hoshyar Zerbari, the Foreign Minister, and many, many others who had been members of CARDRI and who had support INDICT, Hamid Al-Bayati and others. So I felt that I did have a particular friendship with those Iraqis and that, if I could help in improving the culture of the perception of human rights in Iraq, that really that should be one of the main issues, because obviously, you know, a country that has been absued for 35 years, human rights is not a phrase that trips lightly over the lips. So I felt -- and I still feel actually -- it takes a long time to change those perceptions -- it can't be done in a short time -- and so I started -- I also -- originally, detention issues was not in my terms of reference, but I did argue that they should be, because, you know, I knew that what happened to people in detention needed an outside voice to actually blow the whistle on occasions, and so there was some resistance but eventually it was put into my terms of reference. So, of course, I started visiting prisons, I talked a lot to Americans, because the Americans were sharing the same building in Baghdad at that time and Mr Bremer was in charge of the operation there and the British were there and so we talked about some of these issues. One of the first things that struck me was -- because, again, because of my friendship with Iraqis, one of my Iraqi friends had [been] a General in Saddam's army. He was now in a staff college, but he was a General, and immediately after 2003, my friend rang me up and he said, "Do you know what is happening with the military? Because there are lots of the military that my brother knows who would help the British. There are 50 to 100 senior Iraqi officers who are ready to help the coalition." Well, obviously, I passed that information on. But, you know, the army wasn't there anymore, but they were queuing up in very hot weather for their pensions, for their stipends, and I discovered that the man -- the brother of my friend had been queuing up every day for two weeks, and he was a senior, you know, army officer, and yet had nevr got to the front of the queue. He said -- I spoke to him eventually, and he said to me, you know, "If they want to humiliate us, this is the way of doing it." [. . .] So I was telling the Americans and the British but the Americans were mainly in charge in Baghdad and so I would go straight to Bremer and tell Bremer what was going on and he argued with me. He said, "Oh, nonsense, all the -- you know, the senior people have received their pensions". So I said, "Well, they haven't". So I gave him the name and address of the person I was talking about, and somebody went away and came back half an hour later and said, "Sorry, they must have slipped through the net". Well, I think many people slipped through the net actually, senior people, who could have been used in those early stages to help the coalition and wanted to help the coalition.

At the end of Clwyd's testiomony, Chair John Chilcot declared of Iraq: "We do hope very much to visit. We can't commit yet. To visit Iraq before our Inquiry is complete."

We'll come back to today but right now, yesterday, Clare Short testified to the Iraq Inquiry and covering the Inquiry in this community last night were Mike ("Tony Blair gets served"), Stan ("Grab bag") and Elaine ("Clare Short at the Inquiry"). One of the few US outlets to regularly devote attention to the Inquiry is The Pacifica Evening News which airs on KPFA and KPFK (as well as other stations) from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. each Monday through Friday.

John Hamilton: Former British Minister Clare Short accused Tony Blair of lying over the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and stifling discussion in the Cabinet in the run up to the war. Short is a long time critic of Blair who served as International Development Secretary in his government. She disputed evidence the former prime minister gave last week to an inquiry into the war. Short voted of the 2003 invasion but quit Blair's government shortly afterwards because she said Blair had conned her into thinking the UN would play a lead war in post-war Iraq. Speaking today before the Chilcot Inquiry, which is examining Britain's role in the war and its aftermath, Short accused the former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith of not telling the Cabinet of his doubts about the illegality of the war nor that senior Foreign Office lawyers believed it would be illegal without a second UN resolution on Iraq.

Clare Short: I think for the Attorney General to come and say there's an unequivocal legal authority to go to war was misleading. And I must say, I never saw myself as a traditionalist but I was stunned by it because of what was in the media about the view of the international lawyers but I thought "This is the Attorney General coming just in the teeth of war, to the Cabinet, it must be right." And I think he was misleading us.

John Hamilton: Goldsmith has said he initially doubted the war's legality and only concluded it would be lawful without such a resolution a week before the invasion -- days before the Cabinet was briefed. Short told the Inquiry today she believed Goldsmith had been pressured by Blair -- something that both men deny -- but she had no direct evidence to back this up. Last Friday, Blair defended his decision to go to war telling the Inquiry that Saddam Hussein had posed a threat to the world and had to be disarmed or removed. He said there had been substantive discussions with senior ministers in the Cabinet but Short told the Inquiry that she had been excluded from talks and that Blair had not wanted Iraq discussed in the Cabinet because he was afraid of leaks to the media .

Clare Short: There was never a meeting that said: "What's the problem, what are we trying to achieve? What are our military, diplomatic options?" We never had that coherent discussion of what it is that the problem is and what it was that the government was trying to achieve and what our bottom lines were. Never.

John Hamilton: Short accused Blair of being frantic to support the United States and said claims the French would have vetoed any second UN resolution in authorizing military action had been untrue.

We're stopping there, not because Hamilton's made a mistake (they did a fine job as usual in covering the Inquiry) but because we are short on space and we can move over to Elfyn Llwyd on Clare Short's assertion that Blair was frantic to support the US. Tomas Livingstone (Wales News) reports MP Elfyn Llwyd has stated that the the 2002 Crawford ranch meeting is where Blair and Bush agreed to go to war -- no hesistations, no ifs, just to go to war. He tells Livingstone that a memo exists noting this agreement and that he will gladly testify before the Inquiry eitehr in private or in person.

On Clare Short, you can refer to Iain Martin (Wall St. Journal -- he doesn't like Short and doesn't believe her, he's been covering the Inquiry regularly so we will link to him), Simon Hooper and CNN, Jason Beattie (Daily Mail -- always an outstanding job of coverage by Beattie), Iraq Inquiry Blogger offers thoughts here, Rosa Prince (Irish Independent via Independent of London), David Brown (Times of London), John F. Burns (New York Times), Philip Williams (AM which airs on Australia's ABC) and Mark Hennessy (Irish Times). If someone was omitted (especially someone requesting to be included), I either forgot or made a judgment call that you do not matter. Which is one reporter we'll be noting in a bit (not naming, not linking to) and which is one web site that wants a link but is too damn lazy to blog about the Inquiry so they post a paragraph of John F. Burns' report and then say 'read the rest at the New York Times'. Honestly, the Gabor sisters worked harder so I think we should all lay off comparing you know who to a Gabor sister.

The Inquiry continued today. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger gives this run down of the witnesses: "Sir Kevin Tebbit returns for a brief spin to round off evidence about his period as MoD Permanent Secretary 2001-05. Dr John Reid has served many different government briefs but attends today as Secretary of State for Defence 2005-06, effectively completing our MoD card-hand after Geoff Hoon, John Hutton & Des Browne. And Ann Clywd worked as the prime minister's (or rather prime ministers') special envoy to Iraq from 2003-09." Video and transcript options for the three witnesses here. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged today's hearing at Twitter and Sky News' Glen Oglaza live blogged John Reid's testimony.

Gary Gibbon (Channel 4 News) reports that Tebbit stated the current Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, "guillotined" the military budget when he was serving as chancellor: "Sir Kevin, who was MoD permanent secretary from 1998 to 2005, stressed that defence chiefs saved resources needed for Iraq but admitted the cuts had a long-term impact." Sky News reports he stated, "The Treasury felt that we were using far too much cash and in September 2003 the Chancellor of the day (Mr Brown) instituted a complete guillotine on our settlement. It meant that we had to go in for a very major savings exercise in order to cope with what was effectively a billion reduction year-on-year in our resource." In what would appear to back up that testimony, Francis Elliott, Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan (Times of London) report, "Gordon Brown demanded immediate and deep cuts to military spending only six months after the invasion of Iraq, a letter seen by The Times reveals."

Biggest laugh in England today? The reach around between eternal suck up Petey Kyle and his uber dom Alastair Campbell. In the internet version of snowballing, Petey sucks him off and spits it back in Alastair's mouth -- Petey writes that it's awful, just awful (no link to that trash -- and Labour better get it through their heads that apologists like Petey are going to mean death at the polls) how the media's treated poor Tony Blair. He writes it, Alastair reposts it at his vanity blog and then they both Tweet on it. Somebody get those two to the chapel already. No links, they've echoed one another enough. Also of note, a certain reporter for a non-right wing paper, non-Murdoch paper, who repeatedly reports wrong on the Inquiry? Maybe his editors should ask him about his contact with Alastair because Alastair's bragging to Labour Party members that he has said reporter in his pocket. Very few are covering it in the US. Kelly B. Vlahos (Antiwar) notes some of the silence:

Don't know much about any of this? Not surprising, because the American mainstream media has practically blacked-out the story on this side of the pond. It's amazing, after seven years and a growing reservoir of evidence that the Bush administration deliberately manipulated intelligence and the emotions of the American public to invade Iraq -- for which it had no comprehensive plan to stabilize or reconstruct -- the corporate press is still doing its best impression of the debauched idiots in The Hangover:

Stu: "Why don't we remember a G**damn thing from last night?"

Phil: "Obviously because we had a great f**king time."

When the press isn't treating us all like morning-after marshmallows who would prefer a cold-compress of Sarah Palin and updates of The View on the head to a clinical X-ray of how the Bush White House marched our nation into a trillion-dollar war of choice, it takes on a gratingly condescending tone. In fact, the media view jibes quite well with the standard Republican spin: that any criticism or inquiry into party-supported policies from 2001 to 2009 is "looking backward" or "rehashing the past," or worse, "we've been there, done that," when really, no, there hasn't been any "been there, done that," not anything compared to what's going on in London right now.

Turning to Iraq, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports an agreement reached between Iraq and China in which China would "write off 80 percent of Iraq's" $8.5 billion debt. In other agreements Iraq is entering into with other countries, Anne Tang (Xinhua) reports Iraq declares it is willing to turn 46 Jordanian prisoners over to Jordan and notes the Arab Organization for Human Rights, "According to the organization, there are 46 Jordanians jailed in Iraq, of whom many are held with no charges and are either students or traders." While those talks between Iraq and other governments continue, Today's Zaman reports the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, is in Ankara meeting with Turkey's Interior Minister Besir Atalay. Alsumaria TV quotes Odierno stating, "It is important that we develop a common unerstanding of the root causes of violence, so we can assit in determining political, economic and security measures that will contribute to increased security and safety of the Turkish and Iraqi people." Scott Fontaine (The Olympian) reports on increased tensions between US forces and Iranian forces on the Iraqi border.

Yesterday in the US, the Senate Armed Services Committee spent a little over an hour addressing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. All three broadcast networks' evening news covered the story. Some did better than others. We'll note highlights. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams:

Brian Williams: 62 years ago today, President Truman ordered the Defense Secretary to take the needed steps to remove discrimination in the military. He was talking about race. Today the topic was sexual orientation, specifically the Clinton era policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- a policy that is now on borrowed time. More on this story from our Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski.

Jim Miklaszewski: In a hearing today on Capitol Hill, the nation's top military commander revealed the worst kept secret in the armed services.

Adm Mike Mullen: I have served with homosexuals since 1968.

Jim Miklaszewski: Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen said it's time to scrap Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the law that prohibits gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military.

Picking up with ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer:

Martha Raddatz: Lt Dan Choi is a West Point graduate, an Iraq veteran and one of the few Arabic speakers in the military. Like thousands of others, he now faces dismissal from the army for saying publicly that he is gay.

Lt Dan Choi: I was living in the closet. Then I realized, no, this is really a violation of the honor code which, on the first day of West Point, we learned: You will not lie or tolerate those who lie. And I believe in that honor code.

Martha Raddatz: Lt Choi's case is still pending but he also told us if you're actually thinking about national security first and you're saying that it's okay to fire Arabic speakers because somebody's uncomfortable with gays, then you have your priorities in the wrong place.

And wrapping up with CBS Evening News with Katie Couric::

David Martin: Today's testimony made clear it will not happen any time soon -- certainly not this year, if at all. For one thing, Gates wants a year to study . . ..

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: What the-the men and women in our armed forces really think about this.

David Martin: For another, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a law enacted by Congress.

Senator John McCain: I'm happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

David Martin: Right now with the military fighting two wars, there are not enough votes to repeal.

PBS' NewsHour, like Diane Sawyer, led with the issue while the other two broadcasts buried the story further into the mix. Margaret Warner offered the best report of any of the correspondents. She also offered more variety in her report when quoting from the hearing -- except for Jim, all the above reports had quoted from the opening statements plus Saxby Chambliss -- and why did everyone Click here for transcript as well as audio and video options of Warner's report. We covered the hearing in yesterday's snapshot and other community coverage: Wally was at the hearing and guest blogged at Rebecca's site with "Armed Services Committee, Heroes" and, like Warner, he quoted from Burris -- who probably had the strongest and most moving remarks. Trina focused on Mike Mullen's opening remarks "Senate Armed Services Committee DADT" -- and Trina's take is like David Martin's, nothing's happening. That was our take based on the hearing and based on speaking to a few aids and senators after the hearing. You can especially see that in Kat's "Barack pretends to care about Don't Ask Don't Tell." Marcia takes this issue very personally and quizeed all of us (including Ava) at length before writing about it in "Not doing cartwheels right now."

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Did he crap out in Vegas?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

WHAT IS IT ABOUT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND LAS VEGAS?

DID HE PICK UP A SOCIAL DISEASE THERE?

TODAY HE TRASHED LAS VEGAS AGAIN AND THE LAS VEGAS MAYOR IS CALLING HIM OUT.

AT SOME POINT, BARRY O'S GOING TO HAVE TO GROW UP. GREAT IF HE COULD DO IT BEFORE HE DESTROYS THE ECONOMY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in London, where the Iraq Inquiry continued public hearings today. Appearing before the committee were Clare Short, Hilary Benn and Peter Ricketts (link goes to video and transcript options). As Committee Chair John Chilcot explained at the start of the hearing, Short "was Secretary of State for International Development from 1997 until May 2003, when you resigned over the Iraq question."

Up to this point, one narrative emerging from all the testimony is that Blair portrayed one reality to one group and another to a second group. If you were on the inside, you testified you didn't think a second UN resolution was necessary [1441 only authorized inspections, there was no resoultion autorizing the war]. If you were part of the Cabinet or advisers but not of sufficient War Hawk statutory, you were in the other group. And if you were Peter Goldsmith (Attorney General), you were brow beat and bullied until you changed your legal advice. One group was unconcerned about a second UN resolution because they knew, despite Tony Blair's posturing, he wasn't interested in getting a second resolution.

With that narrative in mind, Clare Short's testimony is even more damning than many might have expected. Asking about "the machinery of government," Committee Member Roderic Lyne noted of the legal issues of war, "You said it wasn't substantive discussion, Mr Blair said it was. It is a Cabinet of which you were a member. Then these decisions were endorsed by the House of Commons, of which you are still a member."

MP Clare Short: The first thing to say is that I noticed Tony Blair in his evidence to you, kept saying "I had to decide, I had to decide", and, indeed, that's how he behaved, but that is not meant to be our system of government. It is meant to be a Cabinet system, because, of course, if you had a presidential system, you would put better checks into the legislature. So we were getting -- his view that he decided, him and his mates around him, the ones that he could trust to do whatever it was he decided, and then the closing down of normal communications and then this sort of drip feed of little chats to the Cabinet. Now, that's a machinery of government question and there is a democratic question, but, also, there is a competence of decision-making question, because I think, if you do things like that, and they are not challenged and they are not thought through, errors are made, and I think we have seen the errors.

Short rejected the idea that the Cabinet endorsed the war and declared, "I think he misled the Cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Sorry, who misled the Cabinet?

MP Clare Short: The Attorney General. I think now we know everything we know about his doubts and his changes of opinion and what the Foreign Office legal advisers were saying and that he had got this private side deal that Tony Blair said there was a material breach when Blix was saying he needed more time. I think for the Attorney General to come and say there is an unequivocal legal authority to go to war was misleading, and I must say, I never saw myself as a traditionalist, but I was stunned by it, because of what was in the media about the view of international lawyers, but I thought, "This is the Attorney General coming just in the teeth of war to the Cabinet. It must be right", and I think he was misleading us.

Short is also of the opinion that Peter Goldsmith was leaned on.

MP Clare Short: I noticed that Lord Goldsmith [in his testimony to the Inquiry] said he was excluded from lots of meetings. That is a form of pressure. Exclusion is a form of pressure. Then, that he was -- it was suggested to him that he go to the United States to get advice about the legal position. Now we have got the Bush administration, with very low respect for international law. It seems the most extraordinary place in the world to go and get advice about international law. To talk to Jeremy Greenstock, who -- I'm surprised by his advice. I think to interpret 1441 to say you have got to come back to the Security Council for an assessment of whether Saddam Hussein is complying, but there shouldn't be a decision in the Security Council, is extraordinarily Jesuitical. I have never understood it before, and I think that's nonsense, and it wasn't the understanding of the French and so on, because I saw the French Ambassador later. So I think all that was leaning on, sending him to America, excluding him and then including him, and I noticed the chief legal adviser in the Foreign Office said in his evidence that he had sent something and Number 10 wrote, "Why is this in writing?" I think that speaks volumes about the way they were closing down normal communication systems in Whitehall.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: But there was a critical week before the conflict started on 20 March. It was on 13 March that Lord Goldsmith came into his office and told his officials that, on balance, he had come to the view that the better view was that the revival argument could be revived without a further determination by the Security Council. I suppose the question is: in the days before 13 March, specifically, was he subjected to pressure? Was this a decision not reached purely on legal grounds? Now, he said not, Mr Blair effectively has said not. Do you have any evidence that, in that period, pressures were applied of a non-legal kind to the Attorney General? He had legal discussions with the Americans in February, but I'm talking about the period between 7 March, when he gave his formal advice, and 13 March, when he had come to this clear, on balance conclusion.

MP Clare Short: No, I do not have any evidence, but I think him changing his mind three times in a couple of weeks, and then even -- in order to say unequivocally there was legal authority, to require Tony Blair to secretly sign a document saying that Iraq was in material breach, and not to report any of that to the Cabinet, is so extraordinary -- and by the way, I see that both Tony Blair and he said the Cabinet were given the chance to ask questions. That is untrue.

Short went on to describe the meeting when the Cabinet was informed of the sudden decision by Goldsmith that the war would be legal, noting that Robin Cook didn't attend and that Goldsmith sat in Cook's chair.

There was a piece of paper round the table. We normally didn't have any papers, apart from the agenda. It was the PQ answer, which we didn't know was a PQ answer then, and he started reading it out, so everyone said "We can read", you know, we didn't -- and then -- so he -- everyond said, "That's it." I said, "That's extraordinary. Why is it so late? Did you change your mind?" and they all said, "Clare!" Everything was very fraught by then and they didn't want me arguing, and I was kind of jeered at to be quiet. That's what happened.

Committee Roderic Lyne: So you went quiet?

MP Clare Short: If he won't answer and the Prime Minister is saying, "Be quiet", and that's it, no discussion, there is only so much you can do, and on this, because I see the Prime Minister -- the Attorney, the then Attorney, to be fair to him, says he was ready to answer questions but none were put. I did ask him later, because there was then the morning War Cabinet, or whatever you call it, that he did come to and he gave all sorts of later legal advice and I asked him privately, "How come it was so late?" and he said, "Oh, it takes me a long time to make my mind up".

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: The argument on this Cabinet meeting we have heard --

MP Clare Short: I would like to ask you to ask for the books -- you know the Cabinet secretary keeps a manuscript note and there is another private secretary that keeps a manuscript note on this. I think you should check the record.

Short noted they were not informed that Goldsmith had voiced objections earlier or that Elizabeth Wilmshurst had resigned over this issue or that the Foreign Office found the war would be illegal without a second UN resolution.

MP Clare Short: I think we should have been told that, and I also think -- because the side documents -- because you can tell he was uncertain. He made Blair write and sign a document saying Saddam Husseinw as not cooperating under the terms of 1441 and was in material breach. When Blix was saying -- do you remember he got rid of the ballistic missiles and he said, "These are not matchsticks", or toothpicks, or something, do you remember? And he was asking for more time. So at the time when Blix was asking for more time, the Prime Minister secretly signed to say there was no cooperation and Blix was saying I'm getting some cooperation. So -- I mean, this is disgraceful.

To Tony Blair's assertion that he had to give up on chasing down a second resolution because the French said they would not approve one, Short called that "a deliberate lie" and explained that a decision was made -- as it had been in the US (she reminded everyone of the "freedom fries") -- to blame the French and use that deceit as an excuse to avoid a second resolution. She notes the French position was not "never" on a second resolution but "not now" while inspections were ongoing.

Short also noted the lie used to deploy the troops to the region, how -- if they weren't deployed -- it wouldn't look like anyone was serious and yet, once they were deployed, the fact that they were there became the reason for "'We've got to go now,' because they can't leave them sweating in the desert? Do you remember the contradiction?" She noted discussions within the Arab world to remove Hussein from Iraq and how possibilities for other avenues or stronger partnerships were repeatedly met with objection that there wasn't time and there must be no waiting.

Short's testimony was strong and consistent throughout and she did a strong job refuting all of Tony Blair's claims before the committee. She also noted that the current prime minister, Gordon Brown, was shut out of the discussions. Today a poll was released. Kylie MacLellan and Michael Roddy (Reuters) report that the poll found Gordon Brown shared the blame with Blair for the Iraq War (60%) -- that may be due to his continuation of it. It also found that 37% believe Tony Blair should be tried for War Crimes. The reporters do not note it but that is a 9% increase since the most recent poll and the poll took place after Blair testified in public.

Nico Hines live blogged Short's testimony for the Times of London, Andrew Sparrow live blogged for the Guardian and Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged at Twitter. Iraq Inquiry Blogger also has a post up that provides an overview of Short's testimony. Chris Ames live blogged and fact checked at Iraq Inquiry Digest.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Clare Short says Peter Goldsmith "misled the Cabinet""
"A functioning democracy?"
"Those enablers"
"The Iraq Inquiry"
"David Muir, I don't like liars"
"Iraq Inquiry (Wally)"
"Out-FM"
"The dropped ball"
"Tomorrow's hearing on Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Friday's stunt and the coward"
"Isaiah, the faux peace set, etc."
"Iraq, Senate, Third, Isaiah"
"And he's leaving the country again!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'LL GET TO WORK WHEN?"

Monday, February 01, 2010

And he's leaving the country again!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS HE DID LAST WEDNESDAY NIGHT, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE YEAR HE FINALLY FOCUSES ON JOBS.

AND YET . . .

NEXT MONTH HE LEAVES THE COUNTRY AGAIN TO GO TO AUSTRALIA AND INDONESIA.

NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT EVER DONE GOOD IN INDONESIA AND THE REAL REASON BARRY WANTS TO GO IS THAT HE FINDS IT HARDER AND HARDER TO GENERATE EXCITEMENT WITH HIS TRIPS AND HE'S THINKING INDONESIA WILL GIVE HIM A HOME COMING WELCOME.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning Jomana Karadhseh and CNN reported a female suicide bombing in Baghdad resulted in the bombers death as well as the deaths of 41 other people with one-hundred-and-six more injured. A large number -- possibly all -- of the dead are Shi'ite pilgrims. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR -- link has audio and text) reports, "According to police sources, the suicide bomber blew herself up where Shi'ite pilgrims were being given food and water." James Hider (Times of London) informs, "Witnesses said that a huge fireball ripped through a crowd, leaving bodies strewn on the ground, their banners drenched in blood and their sandals scattered across the road." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The suicide bomber in this case struck near a tent in Bob al-Sham, filled with pilgrims making their way from Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad. The toll was one of the highest in months by an individual suicide bomber." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) provides this context, "The pilgrims were among more than 30,000 Shiites who have arrived in Iraq for Arbaeen, an annual observance marking the end of 40 days of mourning for the Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein, the state-run al-Sabah newspaper said. They are heading on foot to Shiite holy sites in the southern city of Karbala." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes a frantic sounding Iraqi military officer, Capt Sameer, stating, "It is a political matter -- it is part of the elections campaign. An explosion like this that takes place targeting Shiites on a sacred religious rite -- the obvious thing to do is to blame Sunnis and this would of course affect their standing in the elections." Really? Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) reminds, "There was a similar bomb attack last year at the same pilgrimage, which has been a regular target for attacks." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports the death toll has climbed to 54 (AP also reports that) with 109 injured, that it's "the fifth suicide bombing in Baghdad in a week" and that five female police officers (or "Daughters Of Iraq") were killed in the bombing. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moons Special Represenative to Iraq Ad Melkert pronounced the bombing "a horrific crime committed against defenseless journeying pilgrims practicing their faith."

In other violence reported today . . .

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left twelve pilgrims injured, a Mosul roadside bombing injured four people.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 3 'suspects' were killed in Mosul by US forces on Saturday and that one Iraqi was injured in a Mosul shooting today.

And Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a combination of deaths from last week with an interesting note on who grabbed the bodies, "During the last week of January, four civilians and one Lieutenant Colonel in the former Iraqi army were killed in individual incidents by insurgents carrying pistols fitted with silencers in the city of Mosul, as was the mayor of al Intisar neighbourhood, Jassim Atiya. While one suicide bomber detonated at the entrance to the police station in Zummar district, northeast Mosul, injuring four policemen, and three insurgents were killed and one injured during clashes with the U.S. military, said Iraqi police. The U.S. military took possession of the bodies in order to conduct an investigation, said Iraqi police."

Staying with the topic of violence to note the monthly toll. From Third (covering January 1st and 2nd): "Friday 1 person was reported injured. Saturday 8 were reported dead and 27 were reported wounded." That's 8 dead and 28 injured. Next week via Third: "Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and 2 wounded; Monday 4 were reported dead and 29 wounded; Tuesday 12 people were reported wounded; Wednesday 7 were reported dead and 10 wounded (and 3 US soldiers wounded); Thursday 8 were reported dead and 42 wounded; Friday 8 were reported dead and 12 wounded; and Saturday 1 dead and 5 wounded. Totals: 32 dead and 112 wounded (plus 3 US soldiers wounded)." And Third for the week after, " Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and 7 injured; Monday 13 were reported wounded; Tuesday 4 were reported dead; Wednesday 11 were reported dead and 9 wounded; Thursday 32 reported dead and 11 injured; Friday no reported dead or wounded; Saturday 4 reported dead and 3 reported injured for a total of 55 reported dead and 43 reported injured." And still Third: "Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and four injured; Monday 11 were reported dead and 10 wounded; Tuesday no one reported dead or wounded; Wednesday 6 were reported dead and 11 were reported wounded; Thursday no one was reported dead or wounded; Friday 1 person was reported dead and 6 were reported wounded; and Saturday 3 were reported dead and 6 wounded. That's 24 reported dead and 39 reported wounded." And from Third: "Sunday 12 Iraqis were reported dead and 5 were reported wounded; Monday 36 dead and 71 wounded; Tuesday 28 were reported dead (five of those the increase in the death toll from Monday's Baghdad bombings) and 94 wounded; Wednesday 6 people were reported dead and 8 wounded (not including 1 US soldier who was also wounded on Wednesday); Thursday 2 were reported dead and 11 were reported wounded; Friday 6 were reported wounded; and Saturday 4 were reported dead and 31 wounded." That's a total of 88 dead and 326 wounded. Yesterday, the last day of the month, 2 people were reported dead and 14 injured. That's 209 reported dead and 562 reported wounded. Please note, many more die and are wounded than are ever reported and, always, check my math. Reuters plays stupid more and more and insists that 135 "people" died but they're just going by the Iraqi official civilian count. AFP reports today that Iraqi officials state the number of Iraqis killed last month was 196 (that's all classifications -- military, police, civilian) and 782 injured. They note that the death count is a little higher than January 2009 and that the number wounded is significantly higher than in January 2009. Reuters pimps the lie that only 2 US service members died in Iraq -- they do that by only mentioning the "combat" losses. 5 US service members in Iraq died in the month of January -- three deaths don't matter to Reuters.

We have a lot to cover but I forgot to do December's toll and didn't realize that through half-way into January. We'll note it now. From Third, first days of December: " Tuesday saw 6 reported dead and 22 wounded. Wednesday saw 3 reported dead and 26 reported wounded. Thursday saw 11 dead and 25 injured. Friday saw 4 people reported dead and 6 wounded. Saturday saw 5 dead and 7 wounded." Second week, " Sunday 6 were reported dead and 20 were reported wounded, Monday the death toll was 15 and the wounded was 50, Tuesday 130 were reported dead and at least 500 were reported wounded (for the Baghdad bombings final toll, we're going with the numbers on Wednesday), Wednesday 9 were reported dead and 27 were wounded, Thursday 1 person was reported dead and 11 were reported wounded, Friday the death toll was 6 and the wounded was 22 and Saturday 6 were reported dead and 12 were reported wounded." Week three: "Sunday, 2 people were reported dead in Iraq and 26 injured, Monday 1 person was reported dead and 25 wounded, Tuesday saw 12 reported dead and 60 wounded, Wednesday saw 5 reported dead and 18 reported injured, Thursday saw 4 reported dead and 15 reported wounded, Friday saw 3 reported dead and 17 reported wounded. Saturday saw 3 people reported dead for a weekly total of 30 reported dead and 151 reported injured." Week four: "Sunday, 4 people were reported dead and 6 wounded; Monday 9 were reported dead and 18 wounded; Tuesday 6 were reported dead and 7 injured; Wednesday 8 were reported dead and 54 wounded; Thursday 36 were reported dead and 123 wounded; Friday 9 were reported dead and 25 injured; and Saturday 11 were reported dead and 36 reported wounded for a total of at least 83 reported deaths and at least 269 reported injured." And wrapping up, "Sunday 7 were reported dead, 36 reported injured. Monday 1 person was reported dead. Tuesday 8 were reported dead and 9 reported injured. Wednesday 9 were reported dead and 34 wounded. Thursday no deaths reported in the day but Thursday night 1 death was reported" total of 26 reported dead and 79 reported wounded. For a monthly total of 341 dead and 1227 wounded. If you ignore the wounded -- as Reuters does -- it can look pretty upbeat especially if, like them, you only count civilian deaths. Does everyone get that? If you're in the US military, Reuters only counts your death if you die in combat. If you're an Iraqi, Reuters only counts your death if you're not in the Iraqi military or security forces. Let's all pretend like that's consistent. There were 3 US military deaths in Iraq in December (so two less than the month of January).

Friday War Criminal Tony Blair testified before the Iraq Inquiry in London. Since November, the Inquiry has been holding public hearings. Brian Edwards-Tiekert addressed the Inquiry with professor David Miller of the University of Strathclyde (co-founder and co-editor of Spinwatch) on the first half hour of KPFA's The Morning Show (here for the archive currently).

Brian Edwards-Tiekert: Has Tony Blair had to change his position on anything in light of other testimony from-from other members of his government?

David Miller: Well, I mean, the evidence from both Michael Wood and the deputy legal advisor in the Foreign Office Elizabeth Wilhurst, who resigned actually over the issue, was that this was an illegal war and it was plain in international [law] that this was the case. I think it remains plain that that's the case. I think they just want -- they just want to ignore that so they did ignore the legal advice from their own advisors. What he [Tony Blair] has changed on to some extent is that he's changed on saying that they went to war on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction and to some extent although they did this less than the Bush administration to some extent the link the Iraqi regime and 9-11 which is of course was entirely fictitious and they've changed from making that as the argument to the argument, as Blair said, "I believe it was right." As if that could simply trump all factual questions. And that was how he carried on throughout the six hours trying to suggest that actually if he thought it was right, that was where the questions should end. And the Inquiry team really didn't get beyond that, they didn't ask him whether he believed some of the things he said? He tried to rephrase some of the things he'd said. For example, in the Dossier -- "the Dodgy Dossier," remember, which they promoted to get the public and the Parliament to accept war, they suggested that it was beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein had these weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. Now in the Inquiry, in his evidence, Blair went and he rephrased the words by saying that he believed it beyond a doubt which, of course, applies the beyond doubt to his belief as opposed to beyond doubt to the weapons.

Brian Edwards-Tiekert: So it becomes a question of faith.

David Miller: Yeah. So that actually shifts the ground. So that's what he -- that's the process he did all the way through. If you look at the Dossier carefully -- What's not said in respectable policy circles is that he didn't really say that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction, he didn't really say that they could be used in 45 minutes. But actually if you look at the text in the Dossier, he did actually say that. It was in the Dossier. It wasn't media exaggeration, it wasn't anti-war movement which made that up. It's there in black and white that Saddam has the weapons, he can use them within 45 minutes and he can deliver them on long range missiles -- all of which were separate falsehoods welded together. All the way through this process from the beginning, they've been very careful in their use language in order that they can concoct an impression and then they can lie after about what the impression they concoted was in order to get away with it.

On Blair's testimony, Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) emphasizes the first and only resolution, "When the inquiry returned to the point - asking the pertinent question of why, if the first UN resolution legalised the war, did Mr Blair need to get a second one? - he appeared rattled for the first time. They pressed hard - surely the UN timetable was subordinate to the military one? How could he claim to be enforcing the UN's wishes by going to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their work?" AA Gill (Times of London) notes the mismash of 'facts' Blair offered, "Blair now makes sandwiches of many unlikely ingredients: regime change and weapons of mass destruction become the same thing with a threadbare piece of sophistry. One United Nations resolution becomes the same as two UN resolutions and possibly as efficient as no UN resolutions. They're produced with a sleight of hand like a card trick: 'Pick a resolution, any resolution -- don't let me see it. Is this the resolution you first thought of?'" Chris Marsden (WSWS) adds, "Blair was left to fall back on the fact that he had secured the approval of the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith for war on the basis of 1441, repeatedly dismissing the fact that this was only at the eleventh hour and was against what was put to him as the 'consistent and united advice' of the Foreign Office legal team that fresh UN authorisation was required." British Gen Richard Dannatt (Telegraph of London) offers his opinion of the biggest cost of the Iraq War as trust: "I am afraid there is only one word, and that is trust. When the British soldier fixes his bayonet and goes forward in battle, he must believe that what he is doing is absolutely in the national interest. There can be no equivocation. The generals tell the officers, who tell the soldiers, that this is what we are doing and why – and that what we are doing is really important. And, as an Army, we trust each other, because we all know that our personal liability is unlimited. The ultimate risk is a flag-draped coffin, and now a few minutes' recognition in Wootton Bassett." Richard Woods (Times of London) offers key points here. Michael Holden, Keith Ware and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) offer highlights here. The Times of London offers readers reactions to Blair's appearance on Friday here, the Guardian here. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) offers his take on Blair's performance. Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Even as he [Blair] spoke in a hearing room across from the imposing Westminster Abbey, dozens of protesters outside called Blair a murderous liar who deserved to be tried for war crimes. Many Britons believe he dragged their country into an unpopular and unnecessary war under false pretenses, a conflict in which 179 British service personnel have died."

The World (PRI -- link has text and audio) reported on Friday's hearing:

Protester: Tony Blair!

Protesters: War Criminal!

Protester: Tony Blair!

Protesters: War criminal!

Laura Lynch: Protestors gathered in the pre-dawn gloom with their verdict, Tony Blair, they shouted, is a War Criminal. Among them was American Jennifer Bromlick who focused her anger on both Blair and George W. Bush.

Jennifer Bromlick: They should do something like this with Bush. I mean, Bush is ultimately responsible for this -- for the Iraq War, so.

Ann Talbot (WSWS) offers this judgment, "Blair's testimony confirms how completely the bourgeoisie has broken from the political and legal arrangements established in the aftermath of World War II. In 1945 the political elite in both Britain and the US believed it essential that they draw a line under the conflicts that had twice plunged Europe into war and had led to the Russian Revolution of 1917, or face possible ruin. Their response was to put on trial those who had initiated the war and carried out crimes against humanity associated with it and to create the United Nations. They were attempting to establish a strong framework of international law that would regulate global conflicts and provide a semblance of political legitimacy for a capitalist system that had just caused the deaths of 78 million people." Tony Blair will be recalled for additional testimony. Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour (Guardian) explain, "The panel are concerned in particular about his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion, the Guardian has learned. Blair's evidence seemingly contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attoney general at the time, about the number of discussions the pair had about issues of law between 7 March and 17 March 2003, three days before the attack on Iraq."

In other Inquiry news, Jonathan Oliver and Richard Woods (Times of London) reported Saturday, "CLARE SHORT, the former minister, will this week disclose that Gordon Brown feared that Tony Blair planned to exploit the Iraq war to remove him from the cabinet. Short is expected to tell the Chilcot inquiry into the conflict about private conversations she had with Brown in which he expressed anxiety at the potential personal consequences of an invasion." Clare Short, who testifies to the Inquiry tomorrow, told the BBC (link has video) that Blair's testimony was unbelievable and short on the facts. Roland Watson (Times of London) reports that Short stated current prime minister of England Gordon Brown was kept out of the inner planning circle by Tony Blair.

The Iraq Inquiry continued today in London. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup and Gen Michael Walker were the witnesses (link goes to transcript and video option). Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger has live blogged Stirrup's testimony. We'll note the following from Gen Walker's testiomony.

Gen Michael Walker: If you look at the Americans: the State Department, the military, the Department of Defence, all squabbling over things, kicking Jay Garner out. We can't do things like that for modern countries, when we are trying to rebuild them.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: But the point still remains that the focus was very much on military invasion but not so much on the aftermath. Even if, let's say, 40 per cent of planning had been done, we could have mitigated some of the problems.

Gen Michael Walker: Correct, and had you had the infrastructure available -- take policing, for example. You know, have you got a list of perhaps retired policemen, who can come out and do this thing for you? Have you got a list of electricians? Have you got people you can call on to come and make the waterworks? Have

you got people who can come and help with the education, the banking and so

on. And if you had that and you were able to, on day 23, say, "Right, boys, we are ready for you, off you come," and they had the secuirty apparatus to look after them and they had people to provide them with office space -- it will not surprise you to know how badly (inaudbile). When (inaduible) arrived in Sarajevo, he had an empty room, with no windows, no doors, nothing. And we still haven't learned the lessons that we have identified time and time again. Sorry. That wasn't

meant to be a --

Chair John Chilcot: On the contrary, I was planning to offer you the opportunity

to make your final reflections on this very theme, and you have and thank you,

but are there other comments or observations you would like to offer before

we close?

General Michael Walker: Only ones that I -- to try and be helpful really. I think

the poor old Americans have come in for a lot of criticism, and my personal

belief was that the biggest mistake that was made over Iraq, notwithstanding

the decision that you may have made your own minds up about, but it was the

vice-regal nature of [Paul] Bremer's reign, and I think -- I mean, I don't want to

be personal about this but that particular six months, I think, set the scene for

Iraq in a way that we were never going to recover from.

The Inquiry has repeatedly heard from military and diplomatic witnesses that Paul

Bremer's decision to disband the Ba'ath Party and being de-Ba'athification was harmful

and too sweeping. Diplomatic witnesses have explained that England was not consulted and that British diplomats lodged an objection to Bremer who had just arrived in Baghdad (decision made before he landed in Iraq) and that it was dismissed. (Bremer has stated

the White House wanted him to do what he did. Colin Powell insists -- anonymously to reporters -- that is not true. If Colin's so sure, why doesn't he go on record?) The

decision to disband created chaos and left the open sores and wounds that remain to

this day.

Case in point, March 7th, Iraq is supposed to hold national elections. The latest complication/snag (in a long series of them) is the witch hunt that Ahmed Chalabi and Ali al-Fali (both men insist they are not lovers and ask that people stop spreading those

rumors and stop sharing those photographs) are conducting against various candidates

and political parties from their cats seat on the extra-legal Justice and Accountability Commission. Saturday Lara Jakes (AP) reported that "Awakening" ("Sons Of Iraq,"

Sahwa) leader Ahmed Abu Risha is floating the notion of a Sunni boycott for the

intended elections and he tells AP that Sunnis "will not care about the election, they will ignore it, maybe, if these decisions [bannings] stand."

"THIS JUST IN! TIME OF FROM TIME OFF!"
"Down time from down time"

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Down time from down time

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AFTER SLOGGING OFF A YEAR AND HAVING NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT AND SWEARING IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS WEDNESDAY THAT HE'D FINALLY GET TO WORK . . .

BARACK TOOK TIME OFF -- FROM TIME OFF -- TO ATTEND A BASKETBALL GAME.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the US military announced: "A United States Division-South Soldier died Jan. 28 of noncombat 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." The announcement brings to 4375 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. ICCC hasd't updated to 4375 this morning and still haven't now (it is AP's count). While you ponder that, wonder why a site called "Iraq Coalition Casualty Count" has never once included the Iraq Inquiry (ongoing with public hearings since November) in their linked to headlines. Seems like if Iraq's your focus and you're providing links, you should be providing links to the BBC, the Guardian, the Times of London, etc. And now to the Inquiry.

Today the one-time prime minister who may have forever tained the Labour Party, the full-time War Criminal who should be behind bars, the forever poodle who spents years sniffing Bush's ass Tony Blair provided testimony to the Iraq Inquiry in London (here for transcript and video options). The various apologists for Blair are whining that the world is full of Blair Haters. First, the world was full of Nixon Haters. When you're a War Criminal, your reputation travels. But even more hilarious is when the idiots claim that Blair is unfairly being treated, unfairly being called a liar and more. Where there is stupidity, there is Alastair Campbell. The twit tweets on Twitter. He also blogs. And he wants the world to know they shouldn't call Tony Blair a "liar."

Tony Blair lies, that makes him a liar. We're not going to waste an entire snapshot fact checking that horrid liar. We'll note one example. Channel 4's Iraq Inquiry Blogger noted in live blogging the hearing: "Blair: Looks at infant mortality stats - down from 130 per year in 2001-2002 to 40 by 2010. You'll always find some unhappy Iraqis". Blair didn't cite sources. For the 40 he could be using anything from the CIA figures to UNICEF -- however both and other say 43.5, not 40. It's also true that neither organization has published 2010 figures -- how could they, Tony? UNICEF is dealing with 2007 figures, the CIA with 2008 -- and they are estimates in both cases and wilder estimates than normal due to the fact that you're using extrapolation from a sample (not uncommon) in a country where you're not honestly sure as how to representative the cluster sample is (and where you are limited in where you can take a random sample). In 2002, according to the CIA World Factbook, the infant mortality rate was 57.61.

Three days of around the clock coaching and the liar can't resist lying. He wants to create a higher infant mortality rate before the illegal war to 'prove' that he was right. He was wrong and he has the blood of millions on his hand. He's a liar, Alastair, because he lies and he lies so badly he's caught lying. He's a liar.

We'll come back to Blair, let's set the scene first. While Blair testified, people protested. A Morning Edition (NPR) report featured the chanting of the protesters. Featured? Past tense because what we heard on the air isn't what the audio provides. However the transcript of the piece is what aired (at least it currently is). Those who heard the segment this morning heard "Blair lied!" Philippe Naughton (Times of London) reports, "Several hundred demonstrators -- chanting 'Jail Tony' and 'Blair lied' -- gathered outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, although the former prime minister managed to slip in via a cordoned-off back entrance two hours before he was due to appear." CNN notes the protests took place "in the shadow of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament" and that Tony Blair had to arrive two hours early and use an alternative interest to arrive undected while 20-year-old Suad Mikar states, "I'm sure he can hear us. That's what matters, we don't need him to see us. He knows everyone's opinion about it." Sian Ruddick (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports, "The demonstration brought together school students, trade unionsits and activists in a show of anger against the war crimes Blair committed in Iraq. It began at 8am in central London. Protesters carried a coffin, symbolising the deaths of the over a million Iraqis in the war. Others wore Blair masks and covered their hands in fake blood. Police set up cordons to keep the demonstration away from the entrance of the Queen Elizabeth conference centre near the Houses of Parliament. This did not happen when any of the otehr witnesses came to give evidence."

Before we go further, I want to note some opening statements from John Chilcot today. He's the chair of the Inquiry and most reading the snapshots already know this but you'll see why we're going over it (again) before moving to the next section.

Chair John Chilcot: Today's hearing is, understandably, much anticipated, and in this circumstances, the Committee thinks it important to set out what this hearing will and will not cover. The UK's involvement in Iraq remains a divisive subject. It is one that provokes strong emotions, especially for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and some of them are here today. They and others are looking for answers as to why the UK committed to military action in Iraq and whether we did so on the best possible footing. Our questions aim to get to the heart of those issues. Now, the purpose of the Iraq Inquiry is to establish a reliable account of the UK's involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009 and to identify lessons for future governments facing similar circumstances. That is our remit. The Inquiry is not a trial. The Committee before you is independent and non-political. We come to our work with no preconceptions and we are committed to doing a thorough job based on the evidence. We aim to deliver our report around the end of this year. Now, this is the first time Mr Blair is appearing before us and we are currently holding our first round of public hearings. We shall be holding further hearings later in the year when we can return to subjects we wish to explore further. If necessary, we can speak to Mr Blair again. Today's session covers six years of events that were complex and controversial. It would be impossible to do them all justice in the time we have available today. The Committee has, therefore, made a decision to centre its questioning on a number of specific areas. If necessary, we shall come back to other issues at a later date. [. . .] I would like to begin the proceedings just by observing that the broad question by many people who have spoken and written to us so far is: why, really, did we invade Iraq, why Saddam, and why now in March 2003?

We should now all be on the same page regarding the Inquriy. And that makes us a million times more informed that the gaggle of idiots on today's second hour of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR today. The idiots: James Fallows (Atlantic Monthly), Tom Gjelten (NPR) and Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy). What do you do when you're asked about a subject you know nothing about? As anyone who's been to school knows, you bulls**t. "But what's the purpose of this Chilcot Inquiry about, Tom?" asks Diane. It's a basic question, one that should set up a lively segment. But that depends upon guests knowing their subjects.

Tom: Well . . . the-the-the-the British public is far more uh anti-war than-than the US public has been. And this has been something that has building -- been building for a long time in Great Britian and, you know, Tony Blair is-is really stained inthe-in the view of many -- much of the British population for having supported this war in a very -- at a very crucial time early on.

Tom has so much trouble speaking when he has no idea where he's headed. He's the student who didn't realize that he would be called upon. Completely unprepared and still playing with his early morning boner under the desk, he just wishes Diane would call on someone else and he stammers his way through until he thinks he has a concluding statement. What's the purpose, Diane asked him. Where in his reply (that's his entire reply) do you see an answer? You don't. She then asks Susan.

Susan: Well arguably this is also where foreign policy is at its most politicized even here in the US. I think if you look at the ongoing fights over national security -- look at --

No. Don't. Don't look at. How embarrassing. And I'm cutting her off before she embarrasses herself further.

The smartest thing anyone can ever say -- write this down, Suze -- is this phrase: "I don't know." Using that phrase when you don't know the answer will make you appear 10 times smarter than trying to bulls**t an 'answer' on a topic you know nothing about. Susan didn't know a damn thing and so decides, when asked about the Iraq Inquiry, to try to take it to another area. Hey, I did it all the time in Constitutional Law. If I was thrown a curve ball, I'd say, "Well it actually reminds me of another verdict . . ." And I'd b.s. my way through. But I was a college student. (And lucky.) Susan's supposed to be a journalist. If you're asked a question and you don't know the answer: Don't answer.

Wasn't that the whole point of the ridiculing of Sarah Palin for the Katie Couric interviews? Wasn't it that Sarah Palin gave responses that appeared to indicate she didn't know what she was talking about? Susan and Tom were brought on the show as 'informed' and 'experts.' They don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's embarrassing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Next time, they should just say, "I am completely unprepared, I don't follow world events and I'm a stupid moron who can only give responses that I've been programmed to give." We're not forgetting James Fallows, don't worry. James kept saying In The Loop (a movie) and offered a Washington Post cartoon. He had nothing to share on the Inquiry because he didn't know a damn thing about an ongoing public inquiry into the Iraq War which began public hearings in November of last year. He's that out of touch, he's that stupid and he was brought on as an 'expert.'

James Fallows also insisted that Blair, unlike George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, has never waivered that the Iraq War was right. Excuse me? When the hell did Bully Boy Bush or Cheney waiver? They didn't. You don't know what you're talking about and you need to just apologize to all NPR listeners for that garbage. They'd expect it in a classroom but they're not supposed to have to listen to it on listener supported public radio.

"Let's move on," said Diane after only three minutes and normally I'd call her out on that; however, she rightly realized her guests didn't know a damn thing and had nothing to offer.

Now to Blair's testimony. He made like Lois running for mayor of Quahog on Seth MacFarlane Family Guy by invoking 9-11 repeatedly. How bad was it? Tony Blair's first sentence reference 9-11 twice ("up to September 11, after September 11"). From 1997 through 2001 (or, as he put it, "through 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001") Saddam Hussein (former leader of Iraq) "wasn't the top priority for us" but "at the very first meeting" with Bush ("February 2001") he, Bush and Colin Powell chatted up the topic. That must have been a free wheeling topic because, later in the hearing, Blair would talk about his phone call or calls to Iran's president and his fears over Iran. So Iraq wasn't top priority but they what? Spun a globe and took turns dissing other countries?

Tony Blair's grand standing on 9-11, a terrorist attack on US soil, was offensive enough but let's make the point that if you're going to grand stand, know your damn facts. Do not, for instance, declare, "over 3,000 people had been killed on the streets of New York" when that is incorrect. The death toll is 2,973 (I'm not counting the hijackers -- apparently Tony grieves for the hijackers) and it was New York, it was the Pentagon (not in NYC) and it was the Shanksville field in Pennsylvania. You want to grandstand on 9-11, Tony? Try getting the facts right. What an idiot. Three days of round the clock coaching and this is what he's left with?

For those who might foolishly cut Tony slack, he kept repeating the false figure and the false locations: "The point about this act in New York was that, had they been able to kill even more people than those 3,000, they would have" -- it's offensive.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne raised the issue of Blair's interview last month with the BBC's Fern Britten where Blair stated that even if he had known there was no WMD, "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Hussein]." Blair tried to walk the remark back by begging off with "even with all my experience in dealing with interviews, it sill indicates that I have got something to learn about it." He then tried to lie that the interview was actually taped prior to the creation of the Inquiry. Lyne didn't let him get away with that so Blair insisted it was taped before the Inquiry started their November public hearings.

We'll note this exchange.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: Your Chief of Staff told us that at Crawford and subsequently you did not set any conditions for Britian's support for the US, but that your approach was to say, "We are with you in terms of what you are trying to do, but this is a sensible way to do it. We are offering you a partnership to try and get to a wide coalition." But other witnesses who were also involved in the decision-making process have told us that you set a number of clear conditions for our support. Which was it?

Tony Blair: It was the former. Look, this is an alliance that we have with the United States of America. It is not a contract. It is not, "We do this for you, you do this for us". It is an alliance and it is an alliance, I say to very openly, I believe in passionately.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman pressed him on WMD and 45 minutes (Blair had told the British people that Iraq had WMD that could be used to attack the UK within 45 minutes). Blair did allow that he might have needed to correct that after one paper headlined it (Freedman pointed out it was three newspapers) but that he answer over "5,000 oral questions" from September 2002 and May 2003 and no one ever asked him about that (Freedman points out that Jack Straw did so publicly in February 2003). Blair insisted that the 'error' was taking on "greater signifcance" after the fact. Freedman replied, "I think it has taken on that significance possibly because it is taken as an indication of how evidence that may be pointed was given even more point in the way that the dossier was written." Freedman also asked Blair about his January 2003 meeting with Bush and whether it was an effort to persuade Bush "that now it was necessary to get a second resolution" from the United Nations. Blair responds that is correct and that a second UN resolution (1441 only authorized inspectors to go into Iraq) would "make life a lot easier politcaly in every respect." The obvious question there was: "Politically? What about legally since every bit of advice you were receiving at that point -- including from Peter Goldsmith -- told you that if there was no second resolution a war would be illegal?" That didn't get asked.

Blair then declares that the US government didn't feel a second resolution was necessary but Bush's "view was that it wasn't necessary but he was prepared to work for one." In January 2003? No. Blair's lying. The US administration's position was that 1441 gave them the legal right to start a war. That was their position while 1441 was being negotiated in the fall of 2002 and when it was passed November 8th. The legal rationale the Bush administration was a joke but to argue it, they could not have a second resolution. They knew they didn't have the votes on the Security Council (both from feedback and, as has been reported, from wiretaps) and going back for a second resolution and being shot down destroys their legal argument that 1441 allows them to declare war. Blair's lying.

A key exchange, and one that the Inquiry will most likely build on when writing their report, took place between Lyne and Blair. Before that, let's not Lyne's summary of events.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Firstly, there wasn't a legal basis, as Lord Goldsmith repeated to us the day before yesterday, for regime change as an objective in itself. Secondly, lawers in the US administration favoured what was called the revival argument and that meant that the authorisation for the use of force during the first Gulf War, embodied in Resolution 687, was capable of being revived as it had been revived in 1993 and in 1998. However, the UK's lawyers did not consider that this argument was applicable without a fresh determination by the Security Council, and they felt that, not only because of the passage of time since resolutions 678 and 687, but also because, in 1993 and 11998, the Security Council had formed the view that there had been a sufficiently serious violation of the ceasefire conditions and also because the force that had been used then had been limited to ensuring Iraqi compliance with the ceasefire conditions. Even in 1998, the revival argument had been controversial and not very widely supported. So the British argument was that you needed a fresh determination of the Security Council. [. . .] So the UK and the USA went to the United Nations and obtained Security Council Resolution 1441, passed unanimously. However, in the words of Lord Goldsmith, that resolution wasn't crystal clear, and I think you, yourself, this morning referred to the fact that there were arguments. It didn't resolve the argument, I think was the way you put it. The ambiguous wording of that resolution immediately gave rise to different positions by different Security Council members on whether or not it of itself had provided authorisation without a further determination by the Security Council for the use of force. So up until early February of 2003, the Attorney General, again, as Lord Goldsmith told us in his evidence, was telling you that he remained of the view that Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the Security Council that it was his position that a Council discussion -- the word "discussion" was used in the resolution -- would not be sufficient and that a further decision by the Council was required. [Blair agrees with the summary.] On 7 March, Lord Goldsmith submitted his formal advice to you, a document which is now in the public domain. In that he continued to argue that: "The safest legal course", would be a further resolution. But in contrast to his previous position and for reasons which he explained to us in his evidence, he now argued that, "a reasonable case" could be made, "that Resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution." But at the same time he coupled this with a warning that, "a reasonable case does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court, I would be confident that the court would agree with this view." So at that point, Lord Goldsmith had, to a degree, parted company with the legal advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have also given evidence to us through Sir Michael Wood and Ms Elizabeth Wilmshurst. They were continuing to argue that the invasion could only be lawful if the Security Council determined that a further material breach had been committed by Iraq. I emphasize the word "further", of course, because 1441 established that Iraq was already in breach, but then the argument was about the so-called firebreak and whether you had to have a determination of a further material breach. Lord Goldsmith told us that, when it became clear that we were not likely to get a second resolution, a further resolution, he was asked to give what he described as a "yes or no decision", especially because clarity was required by the armed forces, CDS had put this to him, and by other public servants. He had received also an intervention from a senior Treasury lawyer. So having given you that advice on 7 March, by 13 March, he had crucially decided -- and this is from a minute recording, a discussion between himself and his senior adviser, David Brummell, who has also given evidence to us and which is also on the public record -- he had decided that: "On balance, the better view was that the conditions for the operation of the revival argument were met in this case; ie, that there was a lawful basis for the use of force without a further resolution going beyond Resolution 1441." Now, there is one further stage in the process and then I will get to the end. This view now taken by the Attorney General still required a determination that Iraq was "in further material breach of its obligations." The legal advisers in the FCO considered that only the UN Security Council could make that determination, but the Attorney took the view that individual member states could make this determination and he asked you to provide your assurance that you had so concluded; ie, you had concluded that Iraq was in further material breach, and on 15 March, which is, what, five days before the action began, you officially gave the unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations. So it was on that basis that the Attorney was able to give the green light for military action to you, to the armed forces, to the Civil Service, to the Cabinet and to Parliament. But i tremained the case, as Sir Michael Wood made clear in his evidence, that while the Attorney General's constitutional authority was, of course accepted by the government's Civil Service advisers on international law, headed by Sir Michael Wood -- although Ms Wilmshurst herself decided to resign at this point from government service -- they accepted his authority but they did not endorse the position in law which he had taken, and it remains to this day Sir Michael's position -- he said this in his witness statement -- that: "The use of force against Iraq is March 2003 was contrary to international law."

Tony Blair agreed the above was a "fair" summary of events. In great detail and at lenght, Lyne will establish (with Blair agreeing) that the legal issues were set aside in Blair's Cabinet despite the fact that "until 12 February, you were not being told by the Attorney [General Goldsmith] or the Foreign Office legal advisers that you had the option of not getting a futher decision out of the Security Council."

The issue here is the second resolution and Blair's portrayal of he and his Cabinet wanting one (and they were advised it was necessary for it to be legal). So if he wanted one (this is me, not Lyne), (a) where was the work done on a second resolution and (b) shouldn't that have been the entire focus since the war would start shortly?

Now for the exchange. Lyne asked "wasn't Number 10 saying to the White House in January and February, even into March, that it was essential, from the British perspective, because of our reading of the law to have a second resolution?"

Tony Blair: It was politically, we were saying --

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Not merely preferable, but essential.

Tony Blair: No. Politically, we were saying it was going to be very hard for us. Indeed, it was going to be very hard for us.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Weren't we saying it was legally necessary for us, because that was his advice?

Tony Blair: What we said was, legally, it resolves that question obviously beyond any dispute. On the other hand, for the reasons that I have given, Peter [Goldsmith] in the end, decided that actually a case could be made out for doing this without another resolution, and as I say, did so, I think, for perfectly good reasons.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Well, it must have been of considerable relief to you, on 13 March, when he told you that he had come to the better view that the revival argument worked, because, at that point, he had given you, subject to you making the determination, the clear legal grounds that you needed.

In an earlier round of questioning, Lyne had observed, "You said a moment or two ago that you had agreed with President Bush, not only on the ends but also on the means, but the Americans actually had a different view of the means, in that they were already planning military action, and they had an explicit policy of seeking regime change. Did you, at Crafword, actually have a complete identity of view with President Bush on how to deal with Saddam?" What he appears to be building on -- and he's creating a case, if you're paying attention -- is that a lot of work was done planning for war. A lot of time spent with Bush. When did the UK ever say, "Without a second resolution, we can't go to war?" Never. (Blair confirmed that in response to lengthier versions of that question, as we've noted above.) Some members of the Cabinet and the public were under the belief that Blair wanted a second resolution. But there was no work done for one. So the point being, Blair was given legal advice repeatedly that, barring a second resolution, the Iraq War would be illegal and, month after month, he ignored that advice. There was no push on Blair's part for a second resolution, there was no (by his own admission) pre-condition of a second resolution before he pledged to support Bush in the war.

Blair made up his mind to go to war and did so before he's admitting and the proof is in the fact that he ignored legal advice. He blew it off. He had months (from November to March) to work on a second resolution. That wasn't a priority. He's detailed what he worked on and what he tasked. And there's nothing on those lists that have to do with second resolution. Blair wanted to go to war and pressured and pressured Goldsmith to finally sign off on it days before the Iraq War started. That's the reality coming out of the Inquiry.