BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
FOR A BRIEF MOMENT AT THE END OF YESTERDAY'S NEWS CYCLE, GROWN UPS WERE IN CHARGE. THAT'S WHEN FINALLY THE PRESS WAS NOTING THE WHITE HOUSE HAD SPENT OVER A WEEK DENYING THAT LAST WEEK'S ATTACK IN LIBYA WAS TERRORISM BEFORE BEING FINALLY FORCED TO ADMIT THE TRUTH.
BUT THAT WAS A FEW MINUTES LATE IN THE CYCLE.
TODAY, CRAP REIGNS SUPREME AS WE HEAR ABOUT WHO IS RAISING MORE MONEY FOR THEIR CAMPAIGN AND HOW ONE-TIME ROCK CELEBRITY EDDIE VEDDER WORE A SUIT TO WHORE FOR BARRY O. (HEY, REMEMBER WHEN BILL CLINTON WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COUNTRY ABOUT KURT COBAIN'S SUICIDE AND JEALOUS MINOR CELEBRITY EDDIE INSISTED IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE? CATTY BITCH, THAT'S EDDIE VEDDER.)
AND THE PRESS RUSHES TO IGNORE THE TERRORISM AND THE LIES THAT WERE USED TO COVER IT UP.
FOUR AMERICANS DIED IN AN ACT OF TERRORISM. THAT SHOULD BE THE DOMINANT STORY IN SEVERAL DAYS NEWS CYCLES, NOT JUST FOR FIVE MINUTES AT THE END OF ONE.
ONE-HIT WONDER EDDIE'S NOT THE ONLY WHORE FOR BARRY O AND, AS MARY LOUISE PARKER SAYS IN WEEDS 7TH SEASON, "THERE ARE WHORES AND THEN THERE ARE CHEAP WHORES."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Ranking Member
Richard Lugar: His experience with managing large embassies is
especially critical given the US mission in Iraq is the biggest embassy
in the world. The operation includes the huge embassy in Baghdad,
several outlying facilities, in Baghdad about ten security cooperation
police training sites and consulates in Barsa and Erbil. Employees
number approximately 1600 US-direct-hires, 240 Iraqis, thousands of
contractors. Iraq sits aside the Sunni-Shia divide that's been the
source of great conflict. Politically, Iraq remains fractured along
sectarian lines and those divisions appear to have deepened in the last
year. Iraq's stability depends on it being integrated with responsible
neighbors and the world community. It's longterm future depends on its
willingness to stand on the side of human rights, democracy and the rule
of law. Iraq's political fragmentation and corruption also present
fundamental challenges to its economy. An annual World Bank report
that analyzes the ease of doing business and the protection of property
rights across 183 economies ranked Iraq 164th in 2012 -- down five slots
from its 2011 ranking. Despite Prime Minister Maliki's claims that Iraq
is open for business, most interested investors and trade partners are
challenged to get a visa or definitive answer from the government about
tender and bidding processes. According to the World Bank, Iraq last
year implemented policies that made it more difficult for Iraqis
themselves to do business.
That's
Ranking Member Richard Lugar speaking at the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearing yesterday where the senators heard testimony from
Robert S. Beecroft who is nominated to be the new US Ambassador to
Iraq. Yesterday,
we noted Committee Chair John Kerry and Senator Mark Rubio's
questioning. Today, we're noting Ranking Member Richard Lugar and
Senator Bob Casey who was Acting Chair for the bulk of the hearing.
Lugar
spoke movingly of the late US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens who was
one of four Americans (Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods are
the other three who were) killed in an attack on the embassy in Libya
last week. Kerry, Beecroft and others at the hearing noted Stevens'
passing and his service but Lugar spoke of working with him when Stevens
had been a Pearson Fellow with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in 2006 and 2007 and how he had made a point to stay in touch with the
Committee.
On that attack, earlier today Kathleen Hennessey of the Los Angeles Times reported,
"The White House is now describing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
Consulate in Benghazi as a 'terrorist attack,' a shift in emphasis after
days of describing the lethal assualt as a spontaneous eruption of
anger over an anti-Islamic film made in California." Today
in Tripoli, the US State Dept's Deputy Secretary William J. Burns
presided over a ceremony honoring Stevens, Doherty, Smith and Woods
(link is text and video).
From Lugar's questions:
Ranking
Member Richard Lugar: Let me just follow on Senator Kerry's
questioning because what he and you have described is a country which
clearly is a sovereign country but without the hydrocarbons law which
was anticipated so that the oil, the basic revenue for a good part of
managing the government never came into being and therefore deals have
been made by the Kurds on occassion with companies outside of Iraq, the
sort of -- Commerce is proceeding, with or without the hydrocarbons law
and therefore some dispersion of the wealth of the country, quite apart
from some questions about how the Kurds fit in to this Iraq situation.
Now, as you point out, two important laws, hydrocarbon and the
Constitution basically. And the question, therefore, that Iraqis must
have, quite apart from Americans, sort of getting back to testimony that
we used to hear before this Committee in which some people were
advocating that there really were three different countries or we
ought to recognize really the realities of Iraq as opposed to having
this fiction that there was one country and somehow or other this oil
and this constitutional framework representing three major groups -- and
others -- would come into being. How does a country operate given these
divisions? Granted that Maliki has authority but from time to time
there are reports of terrorism in Iraq against Iraqis -- quite apart
from the Kurd situation which is hard to describe. And you mention these
are still to happen but how do they move towards happening at all? Is
there an impetus in the country towards unity, towards cohesion that we
should say -- given patience and given time -- this is going to work
out? Or is the trend maybe the other way given events in the Middle
East, given the ties with Iran, whatever they may be, or the problem of
Sunnis and Shi'ites everywhere? Is this really a solid country?
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Thank you, Senator Lugar. Yes, I think
it is. There's a solid basis for the country to go forward and succeed
here. While there are forces that would pull Iraq apart, what we
continue to see and what's encouraging is that Iraqis continue to-to
resolve their differences through dialogue, through negotiation and so
when they do have disputes, which they have frequently, to be perfectly
honest, they find ways to resolve them peacefully and as part of this
democratic process. Our job is to continue to encourage that and to
support them as they do that and point out ways where they can do it
more effectively. Hydrocarbons law, as you point out, is one way to do
that, strengthening the legislative process is another way of doing
that. Focusing on key -- helping them to focus on key laws that they
need to pass as part of that legislative process -- For example, the,
uh, law on the Higher Electoral Comission, putting new commissioners
in place. These are the things that will help unify the country over
time. Right now, I think it is headed in the right direction. But with
plenty of ups and downs on the trend lines. We need to keep the trend
line going and try to minimize the downs.
Ranking
Member Richard Lugar: Is your counsel appreciated? Our enthusiasm in
the United states is obviously for a unified, whole Iraq --
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I think by and large, it -- We're
listened to very closely. Most Iraqis will say the United States
continues to have a role to play in Iraq and I think most Iraqis are
committed to the same thing we're committed to which is a unified,
federal and democratic Iraq.
Ranking
Member Richard Lugar: Now you mentioned the relative security of our
embassy and what have you. In the past, there's been considerable
discussion, not only among diplomats but among the American public about
the size in Iraq. There was discussion when this was first built -- a
monumental structure, to say the least. I remember at one conference, I
suggested in fact that this structure is so big that it might really
serve as a unifying purpose for Middle Eastern countries -- a sort of
united forum in which they would all come together -- or like the Hague
or what have you. And some people found some interest in this even if
the Iraqis did not necessarily nor could our government since its our
embassy. But what is the future, simply of all of the real estate, all
of the responsibilites? They're huge and this is going to be an ongoing
debate, I'm certain, in the Congress as we come to budget problems in
this country.
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Uhm, thank you very much. We-we
recognize that this is an issue we started with an embassy that was
staffed to address all possible contingencies, to follow up on the
wonderful work that the US military had done in Iraq. Since that time,
and again starting with Ambassador [James] Jeffrey, and it's something
that I personally am continuing and have been very closely involved in
and we will pursue -- We're calling it a "glide path exercise" where
we're looking at what our objectives are and how we are resourced and
staffed to meet those objectives. And what we've found is that we can
prioritize and can focus our mission and will continue to do that on
what we really need to accomplish. And as we do that, we're able to
reduce personnel. Since the beginning of the year, we have reduced
personnel by more than 2,000. We're now somewhere between 13,000 and
14,000 personnel in Iraq -- down from over 16. Facilities? We have
given back in the last couple of days, facilites we had in Kirkuk, had
an airbase up there, and facilities we had in Baghdad for police
training center. And we have another facility in the next few days which
we'll give back also in Baghdad. So we're reducing not just the number
of personnel but we're reducing the number of pieces of property we
occupy and use and we are very mindeful of the cost that it takes to
support the mission in Iraq and I personally am dedicated to reducing
those costs by again focusing on the mission on what we really need to
achieve.
It
continues but we're stopping him there. Yesterday, he got to have his
say in the snapshot. We didn't fact check him because he's a diplomat
and hopefully he doesn't believe half the happy talk he's saying but
feels its necessary for relations should he be confirmed.
So
when he claims that Iraq is resolving differences through politics, we
just roll our eyes, think of the still unimplemented Erbil Agreement and
chuckle.
But now we're to the part where his statements require a fact check.
If Republicans wanted to lodge an objection to the nomination -- they don't -- this is where it would come from:
Facilities?
We have given back in the last couple of days, facilites we had in
Kirkuk, had an airbase up there, and facilities we had in Baghdad for
police training center. And we have another facility in the next few
days which we'll give back also in Baghdad. So we're reducing not just
the number of personnel but we're reducing the number of pieces of
property we occupy and use and we are very mindeful of the cost that it
takes to support the mission in Iraq and I personally am dedicated to
reducing those costs by again focusing on the mission on what we really
need to achieve.
Do you see the problem?
Members
of the Senate might not but House members most likely would
immediately. It's not often the State Dept gets both caught lying in a
hearing and fact checked in a hearing but that
happened at the June 19th House Oversight and Government Reform's
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations. The State Dept's Patrick Kennedy was confronted with the
fact that the US government was using land in Iraq that they had not
secured lease agreements for. That's why the police training facility in
Bahgdad was turned over. Kennedy lied and thought he could get away
with it. Apparently he forgot who was on the second panel: the US
Government Accountability Office's Michael Courts, the State Dept's
Acting Inspecting General Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy Inspector
General for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, USAID's Deputy Inspector
General Michael Carroll and the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction Stuart Bowen Jr.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest
eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest
eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?
Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes.
But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use
agreements or leases.
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes.
But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use
agreements or leases.
Acting Chair Blake Farenthold: Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat. So what does
that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that
basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?
that mean? They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that
basically what those are? Or is there some force of law to those notes?
Michael
Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as having an
explicit agreement. And as a matter of fact, there's already been one
case where the Iraqis
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites. And that was at one of the
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.
After the elections, the House Oversight and Government Reform needs to hold a hearing about this.
We
have given back in the last couple of days, facilites we had in Kirkuk,
had an airbase up there, and facilities we had in Baghdad for police
training center. And we have another facility in the next few days which
we'll give back also in Baghdad.
Unless
something's changed since June, these facilities are being handed over
for free. And they're being handed over because the administration did
not secure land-lease agreements. The US taxpayer footed the bill. And
Beecroft is talking about how "we have another facility in the next few
days which we'll give back also in Baghdad." In June, Patrick Kennedy
didn't give that impression. In fact, he stated that the police
training center in Baghdad was the only thing being given away and he
lied that there were land-lease agreements for all properties. Patrick
Kennedy needs to be called before the Committee and asked why his
testimony in June is in so much conflict with what's taken place in
September. If it were earlier in the year, it might happen. But it
will be hard to schedule the hearing in the brief amount of time left.
(October means all House members seeking re-election return home to
campaign. All 435 seats in the House are being elected.) Possibly
after the election, they can ask Patrick Kennedy to return and explain
himself to the Committee?
Beecroft told Lugar
that protests in Iraq -- similar to others against the video in the
region -- were mild. I don't think that's an accurate description.
More to the point, he seemed unaware of a Tuesday action Dar Addustour reported.
An American flag was burned. How is that any different from any other
protest? Well it was burned by an MP. An elected official, a member of
the Parliament burned it. He is Hussein Aziz al-Sharifi. And we're
not done. He didn't burn it in the streets of Basra, he burned it
outside the US Embassy in Baghdad. As a member of Parliament, he can
enter the Green Zone. So he was able to go in front of the US Embassy
in Baghdad and burn the flag. The Committee should have been informed
of that. Since Beecroft is acting US ambassador currently, he should
have been informed of what happened outside the US Embassy on Tuesday
before he testified to the Senate on Wednesday. Let's remember what he
told John Kerry about the safety in Iraq.
Charge
d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: For some time now and all the more so in
light of recent events we have taken a very cautious and careful look
at our security on a regular basis. We have our own security at the
Embassy. We think it is sizable. It is robust. And we're very
confident that it's what we need at this time. At the same time, we're
fully engaged with Iraqi officials both poltiical and security
officials at the most senior levels to make sure that they give us the
cooperation that we feel we need and so far they have done that. They
have pledged to protect us and we're doing everything to ensure that
they keep to that pledge and that we meet our part of it by ensuring
that we're as safe as we can be on our terms. At the same time, I'd
comment, we enjoy geographic advantages. The Embassy is located inside
the International Zone, the Green Zone, as you know, and there are a
number of checkpoints that are closely guarded getting into it. It's
not a place where demonstrations usually take place.
"It's
not a place where demonstrations usually take place." Chuckle
implied. But on Tuesday, a member of Parliament staged a protest,
burned the US flag outside the Embassy. That's a huge insult but, more
importantly, it raises serious security questions.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Though already disproven, Nouri uses a lie to atta..."
"Will Kim leave Canada today?"
"An author kids herself"
"Oh that American press and its duopoloy games"
"Arsenic with your rice?"
"revenge"
"I wish she could get some privacy"
"Heart rocks on!"
"Jesus was more than a cross maker?"
"Gambit"
"Afghanistan and more on Revenge"
"About last night's post . . ."
"THIS JUST IN! PROTECTING BARRY O'S ASS!"
"The press' 'in kind' contribution"
No comments:
Post a Comment