Thursday, March 26, 2009

Starlet Barack














Since it was little covered and since what coverage there was missed or (Spency Akerman) distorted the exchange, let's start by dropping back to yesterday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of Chris Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq.   A key exchange was the following between Senator Jim Webb and Hill. 
Senator Jim Webb: That being said, I just burned two minutes backing you up here, Ambassador Hill, and I got something I want to get clarified and it's something that's been concerning me for well over a year and that is the nature of the Strategic Framework Agreement and the SOFA agreement in Iraq and what our obligation actually is. And have you read those two agreements?
Chris Hill: Yes I have.
Senator Jim Webb: I-I read them last fall when they were, I think, wrongly categorized as "restricted information" -- where you had to go to a room to read a couple of documents that were not even classified because the previous administration, in my view, was trying to keep this issue away from the public debate.  I re-read them again, about ten days ago, and I'm an old-legislative-council, words are very important to me.  You've been through this many times and I also notice in your  testimony and in the phraseology that's now being used we're talking -- you are talking, the administration is talking more about the drawing down of forces rather than the withdrawal of forces.  And I think -- I think that's a pretty important distinction when looking at the verbage in this agreement.  My concern is this: I was among a number of people -- the chairman [John Kerry], I know, also was, Vice President [Joe] Biden was one -- who was saying an agreement of such magnitude should have had the approval of the United States Congress.  Whether or not it was raised to the level of a treaty, it certainly should have had the approval of the United States Congress.  It required the approval of the Iraqi Parliament.  And yet because of all the machinations and the presidential campaign, the business of the Congress, this agreement was basically done through executive signatories.  It wasn't brought before the Congress at all.  Now if you go and read this agreement -- and this is, if you're not familiar enough in detail to give me an answer today, I really would like to hear what the administration thinks.  If you read this agreement in toto -- if you take Articles 2, 24, 27 and 30 and read them with the defintional phrases against each other, there really seems to be quite loose language when we're talking about a full withdrawal by the end of 2011. Just very briefly and I appreciate that the chairman will allow me a possibly couple of minutes over [overlapping, Commitee Chair John Kerry tells him to take the time he needs] but hopefully not.  In the "Defintion of Terms" a "member of the United States forces" means any member who is a member of the United States Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps.  Any individual.  Now if you read that against Article 24, I'm not going to go into detail through all the phraseology, it says, "All United States forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011."  I -- I am of the understanding, although I was not a participant, that that at one time said all United States forces "must withdraw" but now says "shall withdraw" -- "All United States forces shall withdraw no later than December 31, 2011."  If you then look at Article 27 there are two fairly lengthy paragraphs that I'm not going to quote in total but they basically talk about if there is any external or internal threat to Iraqi soverignty, political independence -- some very loose language -- that we will take appropriate measures. And it also says there will be close cooperation training, equipping, etc.  And finally, if you read all of that against Article 30, it says -- and this is important because of the way we came to this agreement -- it's important to me, anyway, as a legislature:  "This agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the parties in writing and in accordance with the Constitutional procedures in effect in both countries."  Well the argument can now be made that, since the Congress was not a part of the approval of the document, that an executive agreement, a signature in the same form as the way this agreement was signed, could basically say "Okay, we're not going to be out of there by December 2011. December 31, 2011"  And in listening to the discussions with respect to residual forces and this sort of thing, I -- I'm not really hearing clearly that it's the intention of the administration to have a complete withdrawal of all United States forces by December 31, 2011. Would you comment on that?
Chris Hill: First of all, with respect to commenting on the specifics of the -- of the  agreement, I would I would rather get back to you with a considered answer.  Words matter on this.  And this is the fundamental document that is the basis for our having forces in Iraq today so --
Senator Jim Webb: So the question really to come back to us on is: "Is it the position of the administration that we will withdraw all American military forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011? All?"

Chris Hill: That is -- that is our -- that is the position as I understand it.  Now I understand, too, that this will  this will be in continued consultations but my understanding is that, uh, it is the position that we will withraw all forces by December 31, 2011.
Senator Jim Webb: I very much appreciate that answer.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is what had little Spency juking in his shorts as he heavy-panted, "that's a flat declaration."  No, it's not and it actually goes to an issue Spency's mocked and made fun of.  The GOP's argument is that they are concerned by what was said by Hill in previous testimony and Senator Sam Brownback feels he was misled by Hill in Congressional testimony.  (See yesterday's snapshot.)   If the position of the adminstration is as Webb fears (and I believe it is based on comments from and arguments with friends serving in the administration) and Hill is held accountable for stating "That is -- that is our -- that is the position as I understand it.  Now I understand, too, that this will  this will be in continued consultations but my understanding is that, uh, it is the position that we will withraw all forces by December 31, 2011."; Hill will come back and say, "Well, I also said before that I didn't know and words matter."  Yes, Hill said that before.  That is correct.  And I don't believe Webb is confused on this issue.
But that goes to what has bothered Brownback.  You can comb through Hill's testimony, his remarks specifically to Brownback while Hill served in the previous adminsitration, and technically Hill has told the truth.  Technically.  But he has misrepresented -- intentionally or not -- because he gives a sloppy presentation.  Now we've remarkded yesterday on how sad/appalling it was that a nominee for an ambassadorship to another country showed up for a Senate hearing without combing his hair (prior to the hearing, at the start of the hearing or even during it -- anytime would have been helpful) and that goes to his sloppy presentation.  But does he intend to be so sloppy?  Does he just not think it matters for him to comb his hair (click here for an example of one huge twig sticking out in the back)?  Does he just not think it matters for him to speak clearly?
On the last question, if he does think it is important to speak clearly, his first reply should have stood.  Hill said, "First of all, with respect to commenting on the specifics of the -- of the  agreement, I would I would rather get back to you with a considered answer.  Words matter on this.  And this is the fundamental document that is the basis for our having forces in Iraq today so --" Hill doesn't know the answer.  That's clear from that statement.  But, as with Brownback, Hill couldn't stick with a solid reply.  Instead he offers comments that are speculation -- and the way he speaks, his speaking manner, during that section, it's clear he's speculating.  If push comes to shove, Hill will point to that first reply ("First of all . . .") and state that he wasn't sure and words matter. 
Throughout the hearing Hill contradicted himself non-stop.  Sometimes he was threatening Iran, sometimes he was talking about how important it was for Iran and Iraq to get along.  Hill is incredibly sloppy.  I have no idea if -- as was asked yesterday -- Condi Rice yelled at him for a North Korea related issue but he has a reputation of being very sloppy of ignoring the directives because he picks from them to choose what he thinks is important.  And what happens when his ranked importance wasn't ranked as highly by higher up in the State Dept?  He would state he'd misunderstood the directive.  [A new GAO report will address a few paragraphs down notes that "the Administration has emphasized the importance of a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces but has not yet defined this term."  Hill's testimony didn't either.] 
Not one, not twice.  This is a repeat pattern and why is the Congress not being told of that?  Hill's sloppy.  I had no opinion of his nomination (as Ava's noted, she and I lobbied friends in the adminstration on behalf of several women to be the US Ambassador to Iraq -- the women we lobbied for were all qualified and would have, by their gender alone, sent a message that needs to be sent when the US has already installed a group of sexist thugs to run Iraq).  I'd stated before that he was qualified though maybe not for Iraq.  Yesterday's hearing and comments that followed after from friends at the State Dept?  He's not qualified.  Do I think he'll be confirmed?  Probably.  But his work habits are as sloppy and as poor as his grooming.  And we'll go on the record right now, while everyone else is silent and wants to play like Hill's qualified, stating he is not qualified.  Congress doesn't need someone who will mislead them -- intentionally or not -- and the White House does not need someone who will take the directive and then determine what he wants to do.  Iraq doesn't need it.  The exchange with Webb underscored Brownback's objection for anyone paying attention.  
Back to Spency Ackerman the Democratic Cheerleader on the public dime.  I'm not really sure that "This Is the Hill Sam Brownback Wants to Die On" qualifies for reporting in commercial publishing. But it is not in keeping -- none of Spency's 'reporting' is -- with their 501 (c) (3) non-profit tax status.  When the day comes -- and it will, it may be ten years or more, but it will come -- that the Republicans have control of one or both houses, look for some of these 'non-profits' that self-describe as 'independent' and 'non-partisan' (and have to in order to be granted that tax status) to come under investigation.  As they should.  You don't cheat the tax payers by being wink-wink independent when actually being a party organ for a political party.  You're seeing the abuses that lead to outrage and lead the public to switch back and forth between the two parties over and over, installing one and then the other.  (A true independent media would have done the work required for a third party to emerge long ago but we don't have an independent media system in this country.)  It's an important point and as long as we're going on the record re: Chris Hill's qualification, let's go on the record re: the appalling clowning that passes for 'reporting.'  These are the nut-jobs who wanted to criticize the MSM.  And yet, as we're seeing, they are guilty of every conspiracy theory they floated against the MSM.  They have no ethics at all and they work in the beggar world of Panhandle Media because their character and ethics are so low that they can't work anywhere else.  Though this [MSM] reporter isn't trying to frighten, Laura Rozen (Foreign Policy) blogged last night:

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held Chris Hill's confirmation hearing to become US ambassador to Iraq this morning. Though chairman Sen. John Kerry, ranking Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), two former Bush-appointed ambassadors to Iraq John Negroponte and Ryan Crocker, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as Generals David Petraeus, Ray Odierno and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have come out in favor of getting Hill into place in Baghdad quickly, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) took to the Senate floor this afternoon to vow to continue to oppose him.
And a real left with a real alternative media would be frightened and bothered that the likes of Bloody John Negroponte and Can I Get Another Buck Down My G-String Zalmay Khalilzad are endorsing Hill for Ambassador of Iraq.
Staying with the issue of the draw down (the White House wants it spelled "drawdown," since we've noted the draw down since January -- as opposed to withdrawal -- we'll continue to spell it the way outlets have in previous wars -- unlike PBS which takes spelling lessons from Barack), Gareth Porter (IPS via Information Clearing House) reports the following:
Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.

A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."

Obama's decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010.

National Security Council officials declined to comment on the question of whether combat brigades were actually going to be left in Iraq beyond August 2010 under the policy announced by Obama Feb. 27.

Truths about the draw down will continue to emerge.  Good for Porter for getting the ball rolling.  Returning to the hearing, the peace movement should have been combing through Hill's statement.  It's really important, Hill would repeatedly state, that the US military "take with them a sense of pride in the mission accomplished" and also "we want them to leave behind . . . a sense of security in the country."   He would repeat similar remarks to Senator Russ Feingold (Feingold expressed concerns about the 35,000 to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq after Barack's plan goes through): "They come back with not only a sense of a mission accomplished but a sense of a mission well done because our nation depends on this."  Our nation depends on lies, Chris Hill?  Kat noted Senator Robert Menendez at the hearing and she pointed out that his questioning was pracitacl and "that it's called 'oversight,' not 'aftersight'."  Menendez noted the three to five billion dollars that the Special Inspector General for Reconstruction in Iraq has found to have been wasted, the millions "stolen by Iraqi officials" and that the SIGR noted "that there is corruption across the board at Iraq's ministries."  Menendez was bothered by the waste, the theft and the lack of oversight.  he wanted to know "why do you think our efforts there in reconstruction got so badly off track and, if confirmed as an ambassador, what do you consider your responsiblities to be with overseeing continued reconstruction and mitigating waste?"
Hill started off strong noting, "When the American tax payers give you money for something, it is important that we make sure that it is carefully spent -- wisely spent." Hill then went prancing off to The Land of Platitudes.  (His point on this throughout the hearing was no more reconstruction will be paid for by US dollars -- oh really? -- and that US money will only now be used to 'firm up' the ministries, via training.  He stressed this especially in an exchange with Senator Robert Casey Jr. insisting that there would be no actual construction and that US assistance would be "more in terms of technical assistance" from this point forward.)  Other than talking about making sure seminars weren't booked if no Iraqis had interest in attending, he had nothing.  Menendez noted, "I don't get the sense that there won't continue to be needs for US assistance to Iraq."  He further pointed out that when money is mispent, badly spent or stolen, it makes it more difficult to get needed funds in the future for any project, anywhere.  As Kat points out, he was looking for proactive measures by Hill. Hill provided none.  Hill did state that really it was just a case of imposing some regulations.  The SIGR states their massive and widespread corruption in every ministery but Hill believes a few regulations will fix the problem?  If there's a job Hill might have been more poorly suited for than Ambassador to Iraq, it would apparently be fixing the economic crisis in the US so possibly we should all be thankful that he's only been nominated to be an ambassador?
The day Hill insisted that rebuilding efforts in Iraq would only now be technical assistance having to do with how to run ministeries, etc. and asserted that the US was out of the reconstruction of physical structures in Iraq, the US Government Accountability Office begged to differ.  They issued the report entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq and Afghanistan: Security, Economic, and Governance Challenges to Rebuilding Efforts Should Be Addressed in U.S. Strategies." As the report documents, this "technical assistance" for the ministries became the goal in 2007 -- two years ago.  Further, the report indicates that indeed reconstruction will continue to be an issue for the US and this is probably most clear in the Figure 4 diagram.  From the report, we'll note this on the spending (remember, al-Maliki sits on billions while the Iraqi people suffer):
Despite its substantial budget surplus and international assistance, Iraq has not spent the resources it set aside for reconstruction efforts essential to its economic recovery.  As table 2 indicates, Iraq has spent about 12 percent, or $2 billion, of the $17.2 billion it allocated for reconstruction activities in the oil, electricity, and water sectors.  In contrast, U.S. agencies have spent almost 90 percent, or $9.5 billion, of the $10.9 billion Congress made available for investment activities in these sectors since fiscal year 2003.  Moreover, Iraqi ministries have consistently spent far higher percentages of their operational budgets, which include employee compensation, than they have of their investment budgets, which include infrastructure costs.
In yesterday's hearing, Senator Russ Feingold noted "recent press reports on the Kurdish region" and wondered how concerned we should be about this rising tension and what role the US should play in this situation?"  This is where the 'wise' Hill declares of the question mark dangling over oil-rich Kirkuk,  "they're disputes, they're flat out land disputes . . . just old fashioned land disputes."  And then adds, "My understanding is that there are no total deal breakers there."  Today Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports that the US has had to move "a combat brigade" into the area and is being forced to mediate the conflict while Nouri al-Maliki has sent in Saddam Hussein's former strong-man Maj Gen Abdul Amir Zaidi to Kirkuk to "remove Kurdish forces, known as the peshmerga, from this bitterly disputed province, which is home to as much as 13% of Iraq's oil reserves and borders the semiautonomous Kurdistan region."


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Baghdad bombing claims at least 18 lives"
"Kirkuk the "old fashioned land dispute"
"Dorothy West"
"Quick post"
"cole swensen: is it poetry?"
"Glyn Maxwell's Hide Now"
"Latinos In Lotusland"
"Jenny Schwartz God's Ear"
"He thought he could write a book but he was wrong"
"Wallas Shawn's Our Last Night"
"Neal LaBute"
"Spencer Ackerman has problems"

Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479

No comments: