Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-08-28

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Call the vice cops

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

OH LOOK! POLITICO'S PUBLISHING ONE OF KATRINA VAN-VAN'S LITTLE BITCHES.

AIR MEBLER DOESN'T WRITE FOR AN OUTLET, HE WRITES FOR A PROPAGANDA MILL. WHY POLITICO WANTS TO TROT OUT THE TIRED LITTLE WHORE IS ANYONE'S GUESS BUT TRY TO FOLLOW THE 'LOGIC' OF AIR:

If the White House has any concerns about losing Democratic voters, it is not from the party’s progressive wing. Obama’s support there is holding strong — in the high 70s. His approval among moderate Democrats, however, is in the low 70s, while among conservative Democrats it just hit a low of 58 percent.

POOR LITTLE DUMB S**T, STUCK WITH THAT NOSE AND NO BRAIN.

SUDDENLY "THE BASE" IS JUST THE "PROGRESSIVE WING." UH, DID THAT GROUP DEFEAT GEORGE W. BUSH IN THE 2004 ELECTION?

NO.

AND THE ONLY REASON BARRY O WON IN 2008'S GENERAL ELECTION WAS THAT HE GRABBED DEMS, INDEPENDENTS AND REPUBLICANS. "DEMS." NOT JUST A TINY SLIVER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

AND IN FEBRUARY, ABC NEWS REPORTED:

ABC News' Amy Walter reports: A Gallup analysis of interviews of more than 350,000 Americans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia finds that fewer people defined themselves as Democrats in 2010 than did in 2008.

In fact, notes Gallup “every state and the District of Columbia had fewer residents identifying as Democrats, or identifying as independents but leaning Democratic, in 2010 than in 2008.” States carried by Barack Obama in 2008, including New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Nevada, saw some of the most significant shifts away from Democratic identification. Back in 2008, for example, Democrats had an 18-point lead in party affiliation in Wisconsin. By the end of 2010, however, that lead had shrunk to 2.6 percent.

POLITICO IS NOT A 'PRESTIGE' PUBLICATION. BUT IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD DO WELL TO STAY AWAY FROM KATTY VAN-VAN'S WHORE HOUSE. ESPECIALLY FROM THE TIRED AND WORN OUT AND WHORED OUT AIR MEBLER.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Danny Schechter (ZNet) notes US President Barack Obama is set to deliver another speech, this one on Thursday and supposedly focusing on jobs:

Attention, collapsing Economy: you finally have the big man's attention. Nearly 70 organizations are pressing the President to take strong action.

Please give him a break. He's been busy tending Empire business -- waging GWOT warfare on IraqAfghanistanLibyaYemenPakistanSomalia et. al . . .

Call it the greatest "long war" in American history: an unending and unbelievably expensive intervention justified as necessary to keep us safe.

But the Iraq War made no one safe. Iraqis aren't safe, and we'll get to that later in the snapshot, but neither is "the west." The former head of British intelligence, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller just said so in a recent speech.

Eliza Manningham-Buller: War was declared on a rogue state, an easier target than an elusive terrorist group based mainly at that stage in the difficult terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. And, in my view, whatever the merits of putting an end to Saddam Hussein, the war was also a distraction from the pursuit of al Qaeda. It increased the terror threat by convincing more people that Osama bin Laden's claim that Islam was under attack was correct. It provided an arena for the jihad for which he had called so that many of his supporters including British citizens traveled to Iraq to attack western forces. It also showed very clearly that foreign and domestic policies are intertwined, actions overseas have an impact at home and our involvement in Iraq spurred some young British Muslims to turn to terror.

BBC News has video here and notes, "She was speaking during her first 2011 Reith Lecture, which will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 6 September 2011 at 09:00 BST and repeated on Saturday 10 September at 22:15 BST. You can also listen via the BBC iPlayer or download the programme podcast." In the US, Richard Cohen (New York Daily News) observes:

This is a melancholy season in Washington, much talk about the decline of America and how our vaunted system has broken down. I won't quibble. But the most consequential breakdown of our system is exemplified by waging an unnecessary war and then - history, brace yourself - the reelection of the incompetents who had done it. Is it possible that for all the treacly talk about "the fallen" and all our salutes to the troops, we care so little about them that we casually gave second terms to the very people who wasted their lives?
This lack of accountability is not limited to our ill-conceived military adventures. After all, the financial system collapsed, but afterward there were no metaphorical hangings. People of modest means, suckers fooled into thinking a home of their own was a gift of citizenship, lost it all, but the guys at the top had a couple of bad years and then got the bonuses they were accustomed to. We are a get-over-it nation, always moving on.
Still, Iraq was different. Lives, not homes, were lost - and the Middle East was thrown up into the air.

And the Iraq War continues. Over the weekend, Aswat al-Iraq quoted from a statement by Humam Hammoudi, "head of the Iraqi Parliamentary Foreign Relations Commission," which says of the issue of a US withdrawal: "we are waiting the PrimeMinister to present a new agreement following the U.S. forces withdrawal for the training cadres." Al Mada reports today that Iraqi Gen Anwar Hamad Amin has released a statement stating that Iraq will need "years" to be able to secure their own air space and that, post-2011, they will continue to need US air support. But the big news happens because of Fox News.

Today, they reported, "The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News." They reported that US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had agred to it and they quoted Panetta denying that any decision had been made. Some rushed to slam Fox News. Why? Today Norah O'Donnell, CBS News, raised the issue of Iraq.

Norah O'Donnell: And can I turn to Afghanistan and ask whether the President has received a recommendation from Secretary Panetta to reduce the number of troop levels to about 3,000 by year's end?

Jay Carney: I think you mean Iraq.

Norah O'Donnell: Excuse me, Iraq. Thank you. I misspoke.

Jay Carney: No. And the process has -- as you know, we are operating under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed by the previous administration to draw down our forces. We are in negotiations, consultations with the Iraqi government about what our relationship with Iraq will look like going forward. We want a normal, productive, healthy relationship with Iraq going forward. We have said in the past that if the security component of that relationship -- if the Iraqi government makes a request of us, we will certainly consider it. That request has not been made. No decisions have been made. And so we are operating as of now under the existing agreements.

Norah O'Donnell: I understand those negotiations are underway. But the question specifically, though, is has Secretary Panetta delivered a recommendation to the President --

Jay Carney: No, I think what I -- This is contingent upon what our relationship looks like with Iraq, and that component of it depends on our negotiations with the Iraqi government.

Wendell Goler: Will budgetary concerns be a part of the President's decision about how many troops to leave in Iraq?

Jay Carney: The President has I think made abundantly clear for a long time now that he will end and has ended our efforts in Iraq, our combat efforts, responsibly. We have been operating on a timetable that has withdrawn over 100,000 U.S. forces since he took office in a way that has been incredibly careful and responsible, and has allowed the Iraqis to further build up their security forces and improve their capacities. And uh, the -- Wh-what our relationship looks like going forward with Iraq will depend upon our negotiations with the Iraqi government.

Wendell Goler: And not concerns about how much it costs?

Jay Carney: I think we live in a world of, uh -- where resources aren't infinite, and that -- that's the case with every consideration we make. But the answer is we will uh-uh make decisions based on what is the best for the United States, best for our national security interests and best for having the most effective relationship with Iraq going forward.

Norah's with CBS News, Wendell Goler is with Fox News. The is the most Jay Carney has spoken of the Iraq War. A war that has no cease fire. A war that has no peace treaty. A war that is ongoing. A war that the White House should be asked of regularly. Today they were forced to address it. They should. The State Dept is forever being asked about Iraq. Why isn't the White House? Is Barack not the commander-in-chief? Was an executive order signed that no one knows of?

If not, the White House needs to be pressed on what is going on with Iraq.Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, is a better speaker than Jay Carney to begin with. But part of the reason she's not forever stammering and uh-uh-ing her way through Iraq issues is because she's regularly forced to address it. That includes today:

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. NULAND: On Iraq. Yeah.

QUESTION: The [Kurd] president, Masoud Barzani, has told the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq, and warning of a civil war if the American forces withdraw. What can you tell them?

MS. NULAND: I think our public position, our private position, hasn't changed, that our plan is to withdraw by the end of the year. Were the Iraqi Government to come forward and make a request for some continued security assistance, we would be prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Do you consider this call as a request from an Iraqi leader?

MS. NULAND: Well, we have heard many different views from individual Iraqi leaders, but they have a government, and we need to hear a united view from the government.

QUESTION: There was an article, a very lengthy article, by Ayad Allawi last week basically calling for that, so that's the head of a major political Iraqi bloc. Now you have the Kurds calling for that. There are talks of some sort of behind the scene agreements between the Pentagon and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense for a rotation. And so, did you know of that?

MS. NULAND: I mean, it's clear that a lot of Iraqis are thinking about this and talking about it. But obviously, we couldn't get into a discussion on the basis of informal comments by individual Iraqis.

QUESTION: I guess the question is: Is the United States flexible enough to accept such a request when it happens?

MS. NULAND: Again, you're taking me into hypotheticals as to when this might happen. Our view hasn't changed, that if they have something that they would like us to do, we're prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Is there any --

MS. NULAND: Oh, sorry. Still on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility to make a deal with north Iraq regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq instead of waiting for a request from the Iraqi Government?

MS. NULAND: I think we have for many years operated on the basis of a single policy with regard to a unitary Iraq. I don't see that changing.

On the issue Fox News reported on and that Norah O'Donnel asked about, Lolita C. Baldor, Rebecca Santana, Lara Jake and Robert Burns (AP) report that the White House "is reviewing a number of options" but that a request needs to be made before Barack can decide which option to go with.

As noted earlier, the Iraq War didn't make Iraq safer for Iraqis. Lara Jakes (AP) reports on the mood of Iraqis and notes, "Security is a key indicator of Iraq's future -- it drives business investment, government policy decisions and the psyche of the war-torn nation. In interviews across Baghdad, Iraqis cited the random daily bombings and shootings that continue to kill people here. At least under Saddam, they say, they knew they could avoid being targeted by violence by simply staying quiet." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing left two people injured and a Haditha attack on the military left 8 Iraqi service members dead with one more injured.

"On it's last legs?"
"THIS JUST IN! THE REVIEWS ARE BRUTAL!"

Saturday, September 03, 2011

On it's last legs?

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

IF THE MUSICAL BARRY O HAD EVER HAD AN OUT OF TOWN TRY OUT, IT NEVER WOULD HAVE OPENED IN DC.

IT'S WOBBLED AND BOBBLED, SCRAPED AND BOWED, SINCE OPENING AT THE WHITE HOUSE IN JANUARY 2009 AND STILL THE REVIEWS CONTINUE TO BE BRUTAL.

OF YESTERDAY'S PERFORMANCE, THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES SAYS:

President Barack Obama has run away from so many of his initial principled stands in his first term that it is hard to tell at times what he will run on to win a second. The latest disappointment came Friday, as many Americans checked out and headed off to enjoy Labor Day, when Obama abruptly reversed the administration's plans to tighten controls over smog.

THE NEW YORK TIMES FINDS THE PERFORMANCE SUPERFICIAL AT BEST:

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

THE TELEGRAPH OF LONDON FINDS THE LEAD ACTOR'S PERFORMANCE UNCONVINCING:

Obama, who declined even to comment on the latest jobless figures on Friday, is like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O INSISTED, "SPIDERMAN THE MUSICAL'S STILL PLAYING! I'M JUST TOO GOOD FOR MY AUDIENCES!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Turning to Iraq, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes, "A source in Babel province warned that 45 taxi drivers have gone missing in recent months." And Reuters notes 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk (stabbed to death) and that 13 of the 35 who broke out of a Mosul prison (see yesterday's snapshot) are still at large while 22 have been captured.

Wednesday's snapshot noted the ridiculous Michael S. Schmidt article entitled "Iraq War Marks First Month With No U.S. Military Deaths" (New York Times) but something was missed (by me) that community member Terrance caught: most months NYT ignores all but combat fatalities when doing their reports. In addition, we'll note this from John Glaser's refutation (Antiwar.com) of the 'milestone' coverage:

Hailed as a victorious milestone, the achievement merely reveals the failure and disgrace of the Iraq War. [. . .] Milestones apparently don't have to consider civilian deaths, which reached 155 in August.

This supposed "milestone" provides comfort the families of service members? On today's Takeaway (PRI), Celeste Headlee addressed the issue with Jack Jacobs and Rossan aCambron. Excerpt:

Celeste Headlee: Also with us is Rossana Cambron whose son Arturo Cambron is serving his third term in Iraq so that's the opinion of a retired army col Rossana, what's your opinion as a mom? Does it make you feel the situation in Iraq is getting safer?

Rossana Cambron: It's a difficult question to answer because if I say "yes" people get the illusion that they can kind of rest, they apply it to their current situation. But as a mother who has a son in the war it only brings it down just a short notch to the concern I feel and the worry I feel. It doesn't really make a significant difference in how much I worry about my son and his safety --

Celeste Headlee: Well --

Rossana Cambron: -- in the overall scheme.

Celeste Headlee: -- have you noticed any change in the past few months in his messages to you when he talks to you? Does he seem to feel like things have gotten improved or safer there?

Rossana Cambron: Well if we compare it to his first deployment which was late '06, definitely there's less combat, there's less mission where he goes out and he doesn't come back and mention maybe a snippet of what he may have experienced. But, again, I don't want to leave the illusion that it's a great relief, that I've stopped worrying or that I can stop not looking out of my window for somebody that's waiting to give me the bad news or walking up my door -- or things like that. It's not like that. It's just a -- shave off a thin layer of the worry that I have every day, the concern I have every day.

Still on violence, Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) reports on a new Lancet study, "The report documented 1,003 suicide attacks in Iraq between 2003-10, which killed 12,284 civilians and injured a further 30,644. The Lancet authors found 108,624 civilian deaths from violence of all kinds in the period. To put that in perspective by adjusting for population, that would be equivalent to 1 million Americans killed in a seven-year period. And the violence has continued. Earlier this week, 28 worshipers were murdered by a suicide bomber at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque."

Reviewing the month's violence and starting with what was reported by the media (and noted in the snapshots). August 1st, 2 dead and four injured; August 2nd, 6 dead and thirty-three injured; August 3rd, 18 dead and eleven wounded; August 4th, 3 dead and fourteen injured; August 5th, 1 dead and fifteen injured; August 6th, 1 dead and three wounded; August 7th, 6 dead and eight injured; August 8th, 8 dead and twenty-four wounded; August 9th, five wounded; August 10th, 1 dead and seventeen injured; August 11th, 5 dead and seventy-one injured; August 12th, five injured; August 13th, 3 dead and thirteen wounded; August 14th, 6 dead and eight injured; August 15th, 75 dead and two-hundred-and-fifty injured; August 16th, 8 dead and thirteen injured; August 17th, 8 dead and twenty-two wounded; August 18th, 10 dead and twenty-one injured; August 19th, 3 dead and six injured; August 20th, four were reported injured; August 21st, 8 dead and twelve injured; August 22nd, 6 dead and eight injured; August 23rd, no reports (the next day will find Reuters dropping back to cover the 23rd) ; August 24th, 8 dead and twenty-four wounded; August 25th, 23 dead and seventy-one injured; August 26th, 3 dead and nine injured; August 27th, 14 dead and twenty-six injured; August 28th, 35 dead and fifty-four injured; August 29th, 6 dead and thirty-eight injured; August 30th, 2 dead and eleven injured; August 31st, 4 dead and thirty-five wounded.

That's 262 dead and 855 injured. Iraqi Body Count counted 395 civilians killed (our 262 count is all killed, not just civilians -- the 262 leaves out Turkish and PKK claims on how many PKK fighters were killed due to the fact that the two sets of number conflict).

AFP notes that the Iraqi Ministry of Health, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense released their figures for the month and are insisting only 239 Iraqis died in August ("155 civilians, 45 people and 39 soldiers"). But they've been undercounting forever. And with the exception of a pushback (from AFP) earlier this summer, the press just spits out the 'official' count -- from two ministries that don't even have Ministers. (Nouri cannot appoint a minister. He can nominate one. Parliament then decides on the nominee. If Parliament doesn't decide, there's no minister for that department.)

I'm not a fan of Alyona Minkovski or The Alyona Show (if needed, Ava and I can go into that at Third) but there's limited coverage of the WikiLeak released State Dept cable about the 2006 slaughter of an Iraqi family. Of the three choices I'm aware of that are radio or TV, her show was the strongest. She spoke with blogger Kevin Gosztola and we'll skip the whole Christopher Columbus claim of discovery of something already in the public sphere. We'll also skip the b.s. that doesn't address the cable. (But we will note when you yack and yack about others defocusing, why don't you yourself focus.) Excerpt:

Alyona Minkovski: Yeah can you give us a few more of the details that have been released in this cable about this raid?

Kevin Gosztola: Right, in this cable it's a communications log to the Mission in Geneva and he basically placed an inquiry, asking a number of questions about information he had received about multinational forces raid going into a home and, as you said in the set-up of your segment, five children were killed and four women were killed. And they were taken outside of the home and they were lined up and they were handcuffed -- they were in handcuffs -- and they were executed. And the autopsies show from the morgue they were able to see that they were shot in the head and that they were handcuffed. And then afterwards, a[n] airstrike came along and demolished the home so there wasn't any evidence left for any investigators to go [. . .]

And that's about all that was wroth it. Of course there was evidence even with the house demolished. That was the best of the three and, yes, that is very sad. John Glazer (Antiwar.com) wrote about the cable earlier this week noting the dead killed in the 2006 raid:

Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay'ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra'a (aged 5) Aisha ( aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz's mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz's sister (name unknown), Faiz's nieces Asma'a Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma'arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (aged 23) were killed during the raid.

And this is news and should be treated as such but I want to get back to the Christopher Columbus issue. John Glaser has written on the raid this week and done it very well. If he wanted to claim credit, I wouldn't bat an eye, though I doubt Glaser would take credit for doing more than he did. But to hear the blogger quoted above and the infotainment presenter go on and on about his big discovery and how now we know about a raid --now? Click here for Matthew Schofield's March 19, 2006 report for Knight Ridder Newspapers and this is Schofield's opening:

Iraqi police have accused American troops of executing 11 people, including a 75-year-old woman and a 6-month-old infant, in the aftermath of a raid last Wednesday on a house about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

The villagers were killed after American troops herded them into a single room of the house, according to a police document obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers. The soldiers also burned three vehicles, killed the villagers' animals and blew up the house, the document said.

A U.S. military spokesman, Major Tim Keefe, said that the U.S. military has no information to support the allegations and that he had not heard of them before a reporter brought them to his attention Sunday.

And we'll drop back to the June 2, 2006 snapshot to note it was covered by the press:

Next, there is Ishaqi which took place in March 15th of this year. For background refer to Democracy Now!'s March report as well as the BBC's report on a tape that has turned up which appears to refute the US military claims. In that incident, the official version is that "four people died during a military operation" when a building that was on fire collapsed on them while the version put foward by Iraqi police is that "US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people." March 23, 2006, Democracy Now! (link is transcript, audio and video) spoke with Matthew Schofield about the story:

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain exactly what you know at this point?

MATTHEW SCHOFIELD: Well, the story, as you and Juan just outlined it, pretty much goes through the basics of the story. We've talked quite a bit further in the last couple days with people surrounding the story. But what we have is a divergence on the story between the two -- there are two accounts. There's a U.S. military account, and then there's an Iraqi police account of what happened. As you know, the U.S. military account is that after showing up and getting into a shootout to get into this house, the house collapsed during the shootout. People were killed either in the shootout or by the collapsing house. They left. They found four bodies and left. They found this suspect. They arrested him. And that's pretty much that story. The other story is that the house was standing when the U.S. troops went in. They were herded into one room -- eleven people herded into one room, executed. U.S. troops then blew up the house and left. We were talking with the police officer who was first on the scene earlier today. He explained the scene of arriving. He said they waited until U.S. troops had left the area and it was safe to go in. When they arrived at the house, it was in rubble. I don't know if you've seen the photos of the remains of the house, but there was very little standing. He said they expected to find bodies under the rubble. Instead, what they found was in one room of the house, in one corner of one room, there was a single man who had been shot in the head. Directly across the room from him against the other wall were ten people, ranging from his 75-year-old mother-in-law to a six-month-old child, also several three-year-olds -- a couple three-year-olds, a couple five-year-olds, and four other -- three other women.

Lined up, they were covered, and they had all been shot. According to the doctor we talked to today, they had all been shot in the head, in the chest. A number of -- you know, generally, some of them were shot several times. The doctor said it's very difficult to determine exactly what kind of caliber gun they were shot with. He said the entry wounds were generally small and round, the exit wounds were generally very large. But they were lined up along one wall. There was a blanket over the top of them, and they were under the rubble, so when the police arrived, and residents came to help them start digging in, they came across the blankets. They came across the blankets. They picked the blankets up. They say, at that point, that the hands were handcuffed in front of the Iraqis. They had been handcuffed and shot. And the Iraqi assumption is that they were shot in front of the man across the room. They came to be facing each other. There is nothing to corroborate that. The U.S. is now investigating this matter, along with the Haditha matter. That's kind of where we stand right now.

And here's how Democracy Now! covered it in their headlines on March 16, 2006:

US Strikes Blamed for Death of Iraqi Family Members
Meanwhile, a US military attack in the Iraqi town of Balad is being blamed for the deaths of at least a dozen members of the same family. The dead include five children and six women. The Associated Press is reporting the family's house was flattened by an airstrike from a US helicopter. The victims were wrapped in blankets and driven to the Tikrit General Hospital. Ahmed Khalaf, the brother of one of the victims, said: "The dead family was not part of the resistance, they were women and children. The Americans have promised us a better life, but we get only death."

What is new is a development emerging today. Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) lead with, "Negotiations to keep U.S. troops in Iraq came under new strain Friday in the wake of WikiLeaks' release of a U.N. letter alleging that an Iraqi family was handcuffed and shot in the head in a 2006 raid by American forces -- not accidentally killed in an airstrike." Donald Macintyre and Jerome Taylor (Independent) note, "The incident is raised in a letter from Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Mr Alston's letter to US officials, which went unanswered, challenges the American military version of events. It says that autopsies carried out in the nearby city of Tikrit showed the victims had been handcuffed and shot in the head. They included a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old. The US military had said that the troops seized an al-Qa'ida suspect from a first floor room after fierce fighting left the house in ruins. US officials originally said five people had been killed, although they later accepted a higher toll of 11." Annie Gowen (Washington Post) adds that Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi is stating that the investigation into what happened in Ishaqi will be reopened as a result of the cable. We'll ignore the rhetoric of the spokesperson and note Nouri has some sort of a viral outrage that comes and goes. Now he's outraged. But this slaughter happened a month before he became prime minister-designate (the first time, April 2006) and a month after he was prime minister (May 2006), the US military released their white wash report. In fact, from the June 2nd headlines on Democracy Now!:

Iraqi PM: US Killings of Iraqis "Daily Phenomenon"
Meanwhile, Iraq's Prime Minister has lashed out at the US military over what he has called the "daily phenomenon" of US attacks on Iraqi civilians. In an interview with the New York Times, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said many troops "do not respect the Iraqi people." Maliki went on to say: "They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just on suspicion. This is completely unacceptable."

Friday, September 02, 2011

Yeah, it's the hair

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO BE ABOUT AS POPULAR AS EVAN MARRIOTT* (WHO? EXACTLY!) WITH ONE BAD POLL AFTER ANOTHER AFTER ANOTHER.

LOOKING AT THE POLLS AND DEALING WITH THE NEWS THAT DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE DISTANCING THEMSELVES, BARRY O ASKED THESE REPORTERS, "IS IT MY SCRAGGLY PUBES HAIR DO? I LIKE IT. I REALLY DO."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in the US where an Iraq War veteran is finishing an odyssey. Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum to raise awareness and money for veterans issues. "Hike" because part of raising awareness is reaching out and Troy went around the country -- by foot -- reaching out. His hike began in April of 2010. Tamara Evans (WDRB) reports that this Saturday, September 3rd, around 1:00 pm, Troy's hike is set to end in Louisville where it all started ("He's expected to cross the finish line at the Louisville Slugger Museum between 1:00-1:30.") Troy notes it is 16 months and a week that he's been hiking across the country. During that time, he's met more people than he can count and raised serious attention to issues facing veterans while, at the same time, raising a half-million dollars to help veterans in need. Matt Frassica (Louisville Courier-Journal) reports that in the sixteen months, Troy has:

been interviewed by Diane Sawyer and taken the field with baseball teams like the Yankees and the Reds, thanks to help from sponsor Louisville Slugger.

In New York, the Yankees donated $10,000, and the CEO of Modell's Sporting Goods, Mitchell Modell, pledged $260,000 to the cause. Customers at Modell's and Party City retailers have the option to contribute at the cash register, and those sponsors will present Yocum with the resulting donations on Sept. 14 in New York.

Most importantly, for Yocum, his fundraising has allowed Wish Upon a Hero to help 60 military families, providing things like food and supplies for tornado survivors and a trip to space camp for the son of a soldier who died.

Meanwhile The New Statesman notes:

Brown University's Costs of War project estimates that the financial burden to the US of these wars is between $3.2trn and $4trn. So far, 1,752 US service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan and 4,474 in Iraq. The UK has lost 380 soldiers in Afghanistan and 179 in Iraq. The civilian death toll in Iraq has been estimated at anything between 120,000 and one million; the comparable figure in Afghanistan is estimated to be in the tens of thousands. So many lives lost and so many resources squandered - and for what? These sacrifices haven't made us feel any more secure.

And a real life cost of the war can be seen by the residents of Vermont currently. Tony Rutherford (Huntington News) reports, "Hurricane Irene has devastated Vermont; however, the National Guard has no helicopters in the state to help its citizens. The choppers, along with the men and women, are in Iraq." As the week began, Sam Hemingway (Burlington Free Press) noted, "Eight helicopters on loan from the Illinois National Guard were expected to arrive Tuesday night in Vermont to help the Vermont National Guard deliver food, medicine, water and other supplies to 13 Vermont towns cut off from the rest of the state in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene." Yesterday evening (5:56 p.m. EST), Governor Peter Shumlin's office was noting utility outages throughout the state. US Senator Patrick Leahy is from and represents the state of Vermont. His office has posted photos online of the flooding and damages to Vermont. Bernie Sanders is Vermont's other US Senator and he's currently in Vermont and has stated, "This is a devastating moment for Vermont." His office noted there were "12,000 power outages in the state" yesterday and that "Four teams from the Environmental Protection Agency, Vermont's Hazardous Materials team and Department of Environmental Conservation are visiting the hardest hit areas of the state to make preliminary environmental hazard assessments. Three of the teams are traeling by ground, one by air. The teams will be reviewing water and wastewater hazards. In particular, they will be looking for chemicals and other hazardous materials that have leaked, or are in danger of doing so."

Vermont could use the members of their National Guard and those helicopters. They don't belong in an illegal war, they belong in the US. Barack obama didn't just continue the illegal Iraq War he continued the 'new,' the 'novel' concept that a state's emergency forces, organized to protect a state, can instead be sent overseas and into combat. All of Barack's pathetic defenders better grasp that if their Christ-child truly was different from George W. Bush, the first thing he would have done would have been said "no more" to sending the Guard overseas. It's the "National Guard." It's not the "International Police Force."

On The NewsHour (PBS -- link has text, video and audio) tonight, the issue of waste and fraud were explored. Margaret Warner introduced the segment:

MARGARET WARNER: Now, waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money during a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. After a three-year investigation, a Congressionally mandated commission yesterday issued a blunt finding, that between $31 billion and $60 billion has been misspent on the two wars. That's up to one-quarter of the entire $206 billion outsourced to private contractors for everything from security to food preparation to reconstruction projects. The last 10 years have brought more than 260,000 such contractors to work in war zones, where they sometimes outnumbered soldiers. The panel urged quick action on 15 recommendations to tighten controls.

She discussed the findings with Commission on Wartime Contracting member Dov Zakheim. Excerpt:

MARGARET WARNER: Could that problem even be exasperated as the U.S. draws its troops down from Iraq in the next couple of years, or three years, Afghanistan, and, say, State Department or AID become even more dependent on private contractors for security, for example?

DOV ZAKHEIM: Absolutely.In fact, there are two ways that the problem is getting worse. One is the challenge of starting projects that the either the Iraqi government or the Afghan government cannot sustain. We built a power plant -- excuse me -- a water treatment plant in Iraq that has intermittent power and that is not being used. We built a prison that is not being used. The Iraqis don't want it. We have built schools in Afghanistan without teachers; health clinics, over 130 of them, in Iraq without the proper equipment and supplies. So you have got the problem that we're building stuff that won't be maintained. And, at the same time, if you rely on security contractors in places where there's corruption, where there's danger, where maybe the contractors themselves are a danger, then you have got a problem as well. And we have recommended that, instead of simply focusing on the narrow issue of whether this is something government can or cannot do, you focus on the risk involved. Then we will clearly identify places where we just shouldn't have contractors.

Thursday, September 01, 2011

No spine, but a new hair style!

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

ALL DURING CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S LATEST PRICEY GET AWAY VACATION FROM A JOB HE BARELY EVEN ATTEMPTS TO DO, THE CULT OF ST. BARACK WET DREAMED THAT, AFTER THE VACATION, WELL THAT'S WHEN THEIR BELOVED SAVIOR WOULD STAND UP TO REPUBLICANS.

EMERGING A LOT LESS FOR THE WEAR YESTERDAY, BARRY O AND HIS SYCOPHANTS WERE ANNOUNCING HE'D BE SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC -- WITH CONGRESS AS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE -- NEXT WEDNESDAY NIGHT.

BUT WHEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER SAID NO, BARRY O TURNED TAIL AND RAN.

REACHED FOR COMMENT EARLY THIS MORNING, BARRY O INSISTED IT WAS NO BIG DEAL AND "REALLY, I'M MORE FOCUSED ON THE NEW HAIR STYLE I'M SPORTING. I CALL IT SCRAGGILY PUBES AND IT TAKES A LOT OF B.B.S AND A LOT OF UNEVEN, UNCOMBED, UNPACKED WORK FOR IT TO LOOK LIKE THIS. I'M SO PRECIOUS."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Law and Disorder Radio --is a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings on WBAI and around the country throughout the week and is hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). On the first half of this week's show explore issues of media and dissent. A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Brian Becker speaks about the disinformation media campaign on the Libyan War and its future implications for the next DC desired 'regime change.' We'll note this section.

Michael Smith: Brian, the United States, although it is supporting the war there and is actually having the CIA fly predator drone assassination planes, but the Congress has never declared war against Libya. And [US Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, the head of the Democratic Party in the Senate, said, 'Well this war's going to be over with so quickly we don't have to declare war.' But the Constitution of the United States says quite clearly that Congress must declare war. Nonetheless, they're going abou supporting the overthrow -- regime change is what Obama articulated -- without doing that. What's your reaction to that?

Brian Becker: Well Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear that only Congress has the right to declare war. This is clearly a war when you drop thousands of bombs and missiles. And the Americans are doing most of the bombing, by the way. It's not simply "leading from behind" -- that's partly public relations by the Obama administration. The bulk of the sorties are carried out by American aircraft. Very few voices in Congress -- Dennis Kucinich was one who clearly made the point and has demanded that the Obama administration be held accountable for what is basically a violation of the Constitution. Obama even went beyond what George W. Bush did in one sense. In Iraq, Bush demanded and got from Congress something of a blank check for later military operations -- that was the vote in October of 2002. In the case of Libya, the Obama administration said, 'Well, we don't even have to introduce any legislation that would give us any kind of pretext or premise for engaging in military hostilities" because they said that the bombing of Libya doesn't "constitute a hostility in the traditional sense in which the word hostility is meant." I mean that's real, true double-speak. I think a lot of people don't realize the extent to which that this is not simply NATO supporting a rebel force but the entire operation is a NATO operation. The Guardian newspaper on August 23rd says, for instance, and I'll quote you, "British and NATO military commanders are planning what they hope will be the final onslaught on Col Gaddafi's forces to put an end to put an end to all resistance from troops loyal to the Libyan leader." And then they go on and describe -- and this has come out only in the recent days -- how French and British and, in particular, a British commando unit have actually been leading the troops into battle. Giving the advice, yes, but also leading them into battle and coordinating with the US, the British and the French airforce for pin-point, precise, military bombing campaigns against Libyan resistance forces. And so leading from behind is just more euphemistic language designed to conceal what is, one, an illegal war as you suggest -- or certainly as I would assert because it has no authorization -- certainly the [UN[ Security Council isn't a legal entity that gives the United States executive branch the authority to carry out wars of agression. But it's not simply supporting people in the field who have a beef or a grievance or are in armed struggle against Gaddafi. If it was them and them alone, they would never have survived -- succeeded, to the extendt that they are succeeding. This is the military efforts by the Pentagon and their colleague in Britain and France to overthrow an independent government and they're using disaffected Libyans as foot-soldiers in this battle.

Michael Smith: I would add that the United States when it was formed, when the Declaration of Indepence was issued in 1776, it was issued on the basis that the people in this country had a right to determine for themselves what type of a government they had. Whether you agree or disagree with the Gaddafi government, that would be, I would say, the business of the Libyan people, not the American government. And the principal of self determination which was a great principal that was established in the American Revolution two hundred years ao is the princpal that's been violated now, wouldn't you agree?

Brian Becker: I would and I think that we need -- political people need to recognize that the last century has been the era of imperialism. The slogan of self-determination has no credibility except in that struggle against imperialism.

A.N.S.W.E.R. will be taking part in two October actions:

Join us in DC to say "Bring the troops home now!"

Washington, District of Columbia, October 6, 2011

Protest & Die-In on 10th Anniversary of Afghanistan War

San Francisco, California, October 7, 2011

On the subject of protests, Randy Furst (Minneapolis Star-Tribune) reports at least 200 people turned out yesterday to protest (weakly) against War Criminal (strong War Criminal) Barack Obama as the US president breezed through town to speak to the VFW. They "shouted slogans and denounced his polices on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya." But like battered spouses, when Furst spoke to them, they weren't sure they could deny Barack their vote. Really? Men and women and children are dying in these wars. Wars you supposedly oppose. And you can't put it on the line to say, "End the war or don't get my vote?" How very pathetic. If true. But is it true? Tim Nelson (Minnesota Public Radio) puts the turnout at "more than a hundred" and portrays the same situation that Furst does. Protesters too in love with Barry to protest much.

They sell us the president

The same way they sell us our clothes and our cars

They sell us every thing from youth to religion

The same time they sell us our wars

-- "Lives in the Balance," written by Jackson Browne, first appears on Jackson's Lives In The Balance album.

And Fight Back! reports a much more lively, more passionate, and seriously opposed to war protest than do the other two outlets. Excerpt from Fight Back!'s coverage:

Jess Sundin, one of the raided activists, said, "In his address to the American Legion, the president sought support for his policies of war. Outside the hall, protesters, including organizations of veterans and military families whose voices exposed the human costs of these wars, not only on the people of Afghanistan or Iraq, but also on the troops sent to fight these wars."

She added, "We are coming out to protest because Obama's policies of endless war and Wall Street bail outs have failed to meet the needs of the majority of people at home, while costing countless lives abroad. We stand up together to support our community members who have been targeted with repression for speaking out against these policies. We demand an end to attacks on activists, an end to U.S. wars, occupations and bombings around the world and we demand funding of human needs here in our own country."

How could the other two get it so wrong? Oh, yeah, they're not fans of protest. They don't like protest and both outlets did their part to create the Cult of St. Barack so presenting 'reluctant' protesters as the norm certainly allows them to play it as "so good even his opponents have a hard time protesting his wars." I don't think it's reporting, I think it's indoctrination, an attempt at controlling the masses. (To be clear, the people in those other two outlets coverage do exist. To afraid to deny Barack their vote. But Fight Back! offers a real look at the protests which means either someone didn't want to really do the work required or they deliberately distorted it in the media's continued efforts to restore and refinish Brand Obama.

Switching to the UK, London's First Out Cafe is hosting Bradley Secker's photo exhibit of LGBT Iraqis in Syria: "His primary aim was to create a photo essay with writtne, first hand testimonies. Accompanying the images, a short documetary film has been made to further highlight the issue in another medium. Through photos and interviews, the individual accounts are posing questions as to how, and why, such acts of violence and brutality can be overlooked in a new 'free' Iraq." August 22nd, Bradley Secker posted a photo from the exhibit to his blog and explained:

After being left for dead by militia men in Iraq for photographing a story about the treatment of gay men, Nasser fled to Damascus, Syria, barely alive. 18 months later he is robbed in Damascus, everything he had stolen by a boyfriend. He was feeling betrayed and impatient, and tired of waiting to hear of news of resettlement to another country through the United Nations.
Nasser wanted to go to Bulgaria, smuggling himself into the European Union illegally.
Instead he went back to Iraq to get new documents, risking his life doing so.

Arriving back in Iraq Nasser was kidnapped and has dissapeared. His whereabouts, his survival; unknown.
I just had a phone call from someone in Iraq telling me that Nasser had been taken away, and that his friends are worried he might have been killed for real this time.
In the search to make a new start, Nasser; a very brave, quiet and confident man may have lost his life and become another number added to the countless others killed because of their sexuality in Iraq. Sexual genocide continues.
He may be alive, held somewhere.
If he's alive, his courage will allow him to break out, escape, and start the new life he has been wishing for.

Sexual genocide does take place in Iraq. And, fortunately, this year the UN decided that equality means equality and, in June, as Jill Dougherty (CNN) reported, their "Human Rights Council passed a resolution [. . .] supporting equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation." That was one of two steps that allowed the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to cover the status of LGBT Iraqis in [PDF format warning] "2010 Report on Human Rights in Iraq" released earlier this month. From that report:

Article 17 of the ICCPR mandates the right of privacy. This provision, specifically Article 17(1), protects private adult consensual sexual activity, including homosexual behaviour.
In 1994 the Human Rights Committee considered the case of Toonan v Australia. The committee concluded that the criminalisation of sexual acts between consenting adults was a breach of a right to privacy and that the right to be free from
discrimination on grounds of sex included sexual orientation. Since then, the committee has developed and consolidated its own jurisprudence. During the Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in February 2010, Iraq expressly and officially rejected calls by UN member States to act to protect persons on account of their sexual preferences, and to investigate homophobic hate crimes and to bring perpetrators of such crimes to justice.
UNAMI continued to receive reports during 2010 of attacks against individuals based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation. The topic of homosexuality is largely taboo in Iraq and seen as incompatible with the country's culture and religion.
Members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community usually keep their sexual orientation secret and live in constant fear of discrimination, rejection by family members, social ostracism, and violence. The Iraqi Penal Code does not expressly prohibit homosexual relations between consenting adults. However, a variety of less specific, flexible provisions in the Iraqi Penal Code leave room for active discrimination and prosecution of LGBT persons and feeds societal intolerance. Police and courts regularly take into account the alleged homosexuality of the victim as a mitigating factor in relation to crimes committed against persons on account of their perceived or real sexual orientation.
Reports published by Ali Hilli, the pseudonym of the sole publicly known representative of the Londonbased Iraqi LGBT, state that on 16 June, 12 police officers burst into a "safe house" in Karbala' and violently beat up and blindfolded the six occupants before taking them away in three vans. The same report states that the police confiscated computer equipment found in the house before burning it down. The six people arrested reportedly included three men, one woman and two transgender people. Two days later, one of the men turned up in hospital with a throat wound claiming he had been tortured. UNAMI has not been able to ascertain the whereabouts of the other five individuals.
UNAMI continued to follow the cases of ten men who were persecuted in Baghdad because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation. As previously reported, the men had suffered extreme forms of violence and abuse at the hands of members of the Mahdi Army, police officers, religious leaders and local criminal gangs, which had forced them to flee to a neighbouring country in May 2009 from where they hoped to seek protection in third countries. While one of these cases was subsequently resettled through UNHCR, some of these men subsequently returned to Iraq because they claimed they lacked funds and adequate means of support. One of them contacted UNAMI stating that he was homeless and alleging that he was being subjected to further acts of violence. He reported that he could not return to his family who had threatened to kill him because of his sexual orientation.

While this became a big issue, the New York Times couldn't lead or do much for coverage. The Denver Post could and did lead on the subject. The New York Times? It was as though it was the 80s all over again, when AIDS moved from new disease, to vastly growing outbreak to a crisis. And all the while the New York Times wanted to look the other way, especially on the op-ed (opinion and editorials) pages. It was just too 'icky' for the straight-laced and sexually repressed Times apparently. And in the years between, they have begun to publish smiling photos of same-sex consumers who wish to announce marriage but that's about the marriage industry, it's not about equality or any real concern for all. That was made clear when the 'brave' staff of the paper just couldn't bring themselves to provide some serious coverage of the assault on Iraq's LGBT community.

Tim Arango is back in the US for a rest (like so many foreign reporters covering Iraq, he's been out for the month of August) which means Michael S. Schmidt gets to face my wrath today instead. And he can take comfort in the fact that (a) he's just written the perfect piece for the Times and (b) my hatred of it won't do a thing to change the way its embraced by the Grey Lady. "Iraq War Marks First Month With No U.S. Military Deaths" gushes the headline -- and sadly, the headline writer properly summarized Schmidt's article. Really? That's a milestone?

Hmm. Not seeing it. In fact, there's sort of a stink wafting from the article, a We're-so-much-damn-better-than-everyone-else-in-the-world. In other words, a "milestone" in Iraq would be a month when no Iraqis were killed. That would be a "milestone." This? Not so much.

Leave aside the wounded this month -- the New York Times certainly did, never reporting on any of them -- and the attacks on US forces -- ibid -- and the fact that the administration wanted US troops confined on bases for all but "essential missions" this month (after the heavy death toll in July). Set all of that aside. And grasp that since the Iraq War "ended" (Barack's August 31st declaration of the end of combat operations), the Pentagon says [PDF format warning] 56 US military personnel have died. In one year. In one year since the illegal war supposedly ended. The 56 who died in the last 12 months are still dead. If they'd all died in June or all died in January or at a rate of a little over 4 each of the 12 months, they'd still be dead.

And grasp -- even though the New York Times can't -- that is the real story. Grasp that it takes a lot of Dumb Ass on the one year anniversary of Barack's speech declaring an end to combat operations in Iraq to fail to write the story that needed to be written, the story that noted the US death toll in the year since Barack's announcement.

By all means, instead write a crappy, ill-focused article that attempts to ride a wave of Operation Happy Talk. Pretend that the US "milestone" is really the story of Iraq. Pretend the entire country's empty except for US forces. If you can do all that, you can stomach Schmidt's article. If you can't, if context or perspective are 'hang ups' you have trouble letting go of, be prepared to read the article slowly, in slack-jawed wonder.

(Schmidt can also take comfort in the fact that context has never been the paper's strong suit in their Iraq reporting. The Los Angeles Times -- Alexandra Zavis, Tina Susman, Ned Parker and others -- has always mastered context better than any other outlet when it came to Iraq War coverage.)

Are US troops staying in Iraq? Oh the fun never ends when watching US outlets cover that one. It's especially cute to listen or read denials from Americans who don't read Arabic. They mock US Secretary of State Leon Panetta, for example, and don't have the first clue that Arabic media reported and quoted accurately what English media bungled. Add UPI to the clueless list. Today they trumpet that the US State Dept insists that Iraq hasn't made a request to extend the SOFA. No, they haven't. Nor are they planning to. Arabic media has made a huge deal out of Jalal Talabani's house parties -- the big meet-ups he's hosted. It's not been so newsy to US outlets. But in the last meeting at the start of this month, that's when the "trainers" was agreed to.

"Trainers" don't require a SOFA. Among the hold ups currently is determining -- the US and Iraq -- whether "trainers" require a vote by Parliament or not.

Also on this topic, UPI headlines another report "Maliki reportedly says he wants U.S. out" and it's good for the press to be skeptical -- journalists are supposed to practice a healthy skepticism. However, for UPI, the issue is that Press TV reported it and that's why they're skeptical.

What makes Nouri al-Maliki, a known liar, a trusted source?

Even while Radio Netherlands is noting: "The outgoing UN Special Representative for Iraq, Dutchman Ad Melkert, has taken the unusual step of openly contradicting the Iraqi government. Mr Melkert has publicly aired his disagreement with statements made by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki about the position of Iranian refugees in Iraq's Ashraf refugee camp."

For more on the UN's public rebuke when Nouri insisted upon lying publicly, see Monday's snapshot. And remember Lara Jakes (AP) reported Melkert "bluntly disputed" the version of events Nouri was insisting took place in their final meeting (the UN Secretary-General has a new special envoy to Iraq) . Jakes notes, "The public disavowal was rare for the U.N. office in Baghdad, which goes to great lengths to avoid engaging in political disputed."

Nouri gets treated as a trusted source -- on this topic, even more amazing. This is the same Nouri who was publicly rebuked by the Iraqi Parliament at the end of 2006 for extending the mandate for US troops to remain on Iraqi soil without consulting or informing the Parliament? The same Nouri who was again publicly rebuked by the Iraqi Parliament at the end of 2007 when he yet again extended the mandate for US troops to remain on Iraqi soil without the consent of Parliament?

Trust in Nouri doesn't stop continued deployments to Iraq. WJXT reports that 240 members of the Florida National Guard are deploying to Iraq. Ayad Allawi's political slate won the March 2010 elections in Iraq. He weighs in with a column at the Washington Post which includes:

Debate rages in Baghdad and Washington around conditions for a U.S. troop extension beyond the end of this year. While such an extension may be necessary, that alone will not address the fundamental problems festering in Iraq. Those issues present a growing risk to Middle East stability and the world community. The original U.S. troop "surge" was meant to create the atmosphere for national political reconciliation and the rebuilding of Iraq's institutions and infrastructure. But those have yet to happen.

Cedric's Big Mix