Cedric's Big Mix: 2012-09-16

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Liars all

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

HUMAN PIECE OF CRAP PAUL HARRIS OF THE GUARDIAN TYPES, "President Barack Obama attacked the Republican party on Saturday, for scrapping a bill that would have established a $1bn scheme to help military veterans get jobs."

THROUGHOUT THE REST OF HIS CRAP-ASS ARTICLE, THE WHORE FOR BARRY O NEVER GETS AROUND TO NOTING REALITY.

REALITY (A) SOMEONE HAS MADE AN ACCUSATION. REALITY (B) PAUL HARRIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A REPORTER. REALITY (C) WHEN YOU REPORT, YOU EXAMING THE CHARGE.

CHEAP HOOKERS LIKE PAUL HARRIS DON'T KNOW HOW TO REPORT.

OVER A WEEK AGO, SEPTEMBER 14TH, REALITY WAS NOTED:

Rogin also quotes Harry Reid who has quickly become the bitch of the Senate. Like a tired drag queen attempting Joan Collins, Reid declared, "I just think my friend from Kentucky maybe should have run for secretary of state rather than the Senate." To be honest, I don't mind bitchy. I do mind poorly crafted bitchy.He whined on the Senate floor yesterday about the potential delay (but strangely avoided Rand Paul as he went after Mitch McConnell). He wasn't concerned with the nomination of Beecroft, he was talking about a delay in the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. The bill was introduced by Bill Nelson and co-sponsored by Patty Murray. We support the bill and have noted it many times here. If it's so important to Harry Reid, maybe it should have come up a lot sooner. In other words, if this bill that Harry Reid is now whining about -- whining that it could be delayed -- was so important, maybe they shouldn't have waited until July 24th to introduce a bill? According to the White House blog, to a blog post by Matt Compton, Barack gave a speech on the need for a veterans jobs corps act February 3rd. Who was draffing their feet? Who was delaying? February 3rd, Barack's calling for one and no Democrat in the Senate bothers to pick up the ball until July 24th?

IT'S THE SORT OF REALITY A CHEAP WHORE LIKE PAUL HARRIS HIDES IN HIS CONTINUED EFFORT TO PROVE HOW UNRELATED TO JOURNALISM HE ACTUALLY IS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and he issued the following statement today:

On the third Friday of every September we pay tribute to the lives and contributions of the more than 83,000 Americans who are still listed as Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. "Leave no one behind" is a familiar refrain which echoes through the ranks of our Armed Forces. This motto is also what propels the men and women of Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), who devote their lives to finding the remains of those unaccounted for in foreign lands.

While JPAC's task is challenging, their cause is worthy. Those who never made it home hold a special place in our hearts, and it is the responsibility of the living to give them a proper resting place here at home on American soil.

This past July, the remains of Lt. Col. Clarence F. Blanton of the U.S. Air Force, who was lost on March 11, 1968, in Housphan Province, Laos, were recovered. Lt. Col. Blanton is a symbol for all those who are missing. No matter how much time elapses -- in his case 42 years -- no cause is lost.

We are committed to finding all 83,000 POW/MIA and bringing them back to the home they sacrificed so much to defend, and to give their families an answer.

At the Pentagon today, there was a National POW/MIA Recognition Day ceremony attended by many including Adm James Innefeld, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former US Senator Chuck Hagel.

Chuck Hagel: Today the US military is one institution in this country -- by any metric -- that still enjoys the overwhelming support, confidence and trust of theAmerican people. No other institution in America can say that. That is a result of a generation after generation after generation of commitment, to what Ash Carter noted in his speech -- quoting my firend and former colleage [US Senator and former POW] John McCain -- what any POW has said, believes lived, continues to say: "If there is anything more important in society than to anchor that society with a belief in something greater than one's self interest in the future for your children, for your family, for the world, I don't know what it is. This institution, the military, all who sacrifice and serve daily, who have done that for years and through wars have built that institution that still anchors more than ever confidence and trust in our -- our free people, in our free society, and not only how we serve that society but how we keep that free society. Imperfect issues, problems, like all institutions, the world is imperfect. People are imperfect. But it is the POWs and their families, MIAs, those who serve who constantly remind this country of what's good, of what's strong, what's vital and what's decent.

Of this generation's wars -- the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War -- CNN notes there are 9 POWs and MIAs who were rescued. In addition there are two prisoners of war remaining from these two wars. In the Afghanistan War, the POW is Pfc Bowe R. Bergdahl of Ketchum, Idaho who was "Captured in Paktika province, Afgahnistan, on June 30, 2009. The Pentagon declared him Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown on July 1, 2009, and his status was changed to Missing-Captured on July 3, 2009." The Iraq War POW is Spc Ahmed K. Altaie of Ann Arbor, Michigan: "On October 23, 2006, Altaie was categorized as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown when he allegedly was kidnapped while on his way to visit family in Baghdad, Iraq. The Pentagon changed his status to Missing-Captured on December 11, 2006."

Staying in the US, sequestration appears to be coming shortly. The Congress voted for automatic sequestration to kick in if they were not able to come up with $1.2 trillion cuts to the budget and get it signed by the White House. Veterans services will not be effected by sequestration. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have both testified to Congress about that. The VA will be effected administratively if sequestration kicks in but both have testified it will not effect veterans care.

The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing yesterday to explore what sequestration, if it happens, will mean for DoD. US House Rep Buck McKeon is the Chair, US House Rep Adam Smith is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee: DoD's Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen Lloyd J. Austin III, Vice Chair of the Navy, Adm Mark Ferguson, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Joseph F. Dunford and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer.

Chair Buck McKeon: The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the Department of Defense planning for sequestration, The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, and the way forward. Thank you all for being here. This will be the last week that the House is in session until mid-November. Today's hearing will provide members a final opportunity before the lame duck session to inform themselves and their constitutents about how sequestration will be implemented and how those decisions will effect our men and women in uniform and our national security. We had hoped that the President would provide this information in the report required by The Sequestration Transparency Act. Unfortunately, he failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not only was the report late but the report submitted to Congress merely paid lip service to the dire national security implications of these cuts after the president has had over a year to consider this crisis. Moreover, the White House has even gone so far to instruct the Department of Defense not to make preparations for sequestration. Nevertheless, as previous testimony to this Committee has provided many of our military leaders believe that initial preparation for sequestration must occur well in advance of the January 2, 2013 implementation date. For example, when the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, was asked this spring if plans for sequestration were underway, he stated "We are not doing as yet any hard planning. That would probably happen later this summer."

Ranking Member Adam Smith declared sequestration to be "the most pressing issue facing our nation." I think every Committee should have held hearings this month asking what was being effected. Foreign Relations/Affairs in the Senate and House should have held a hearing to find out how it would effect the State Dept, etc. The Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees (chaired by Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Jeff Miller) did do that, not this month, but repeatedly throughout the year. In addition, Senator Murray has asked questions about this issue in other hearings. (Murray also served on the Super Congress which may be why she takes the issue more seriously than some Committee Chairs in the House and Senate appear to do.)

If sequestration is implemented, what does it mean? We're noting what the officials told the Committee. Not what they said it might mean, not what they said they thought it might mean but they'd have to get back on that, what was actually said.

DoD's Robert Hale: We budget separately for OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] and the Base Budget. And you approve each budget. When we actually begin executing, the budget's merge so there's one operation and maintenance army account for actives -- has both OCO and Base spending in there, we would have some authority to move money -- within that account -- and we would use it to try to protect the war time operating budgets. But I don't want to make that sound easy because what that means is we'd have to make disproportionately large cuts in the Base side and that will have some of the effects on readiness and training that are of such concern to us. So we would have some ability and we would move to use it to protect the actual wartime operating budget.

The Marine Corps Gen Joseph Dunford: Congressman [Joe Wilson], you're correct, 58% of our total obligated authority goes to personnel. Our cost per Marine is not higher, but the proportion that we spend in our budget on personnel is higher. As a result of personnel being exempt in '13, what I alluded to in my opening remarks, is that we would then have to find a preponderance of funds out of operation and maintenance, infrastructure and our modernization accounts. So we'll continue to do things like run Paris Island, we'll absolutely continue to support those Marines and sailors that are in harms way in Afghanistan, we'll support those that are forward-deployed, but where we will see the biggest impact from a training perspective and where those resources will come from are those units that are at-home station. And I think you know that right now, two-thirds of our units that are at-home stationed are already in a degraded state of readiness. They're in a C3, C4 status already and these cuts will further exaserbate deficiencies in home-station readiness. We'll also be unable to support the strategy. One of the things that we are beginning to do now and had intended to do in FY13 is reconstitute our 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force -- which was the core of our contribution to the US Pacific Command -- and the resources that are necessary to support that are unlikely to be available. And then what we'll see across the board in our modernization accounts is delays and so forth that will cause us to delay programs and in some cases do more with less.

Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer: If sequestration is triggered, the first thing we would do is look at those accounts or those areas that we would want to try to protect and OCO or Overseas Contingency Operations would be one of those. So once you do that, that drives more of a cut into the other accounts. And so, assuming we would protect wartime operations, that would drive higher than a 9..4% cut into our other accounts like our procurement accounts. So what we would have to do -- We have not had specific conversations with the contractor for the [Boeing] KC-46. But depending upon the amount of the cut, we would -- The issue would be we would have to -- because we have a firm fixed price contract -- we would have to open up that contract and so -- and so we would then have to talk to the contractor about revising our payment schedule. And I would guess the contractor would talk to us about, 'Okay, well we can't give you as many airplanes on the schedule that you asked for or we may have to stretch out the airplane. Or, by the way, we may have to charge you more because now the contract's back open.' So clearly as we go down, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned, as we go down the thousands of contracts and thousands of lines, that's the type of process we have to go through with every kind of contract.

Space and other limitations mean we cover the hearing on bare bones. You can take those answers and think about whatever other government department -- except the Veterans Affairs Department -- and explore what sequestration might mean if it takes place. In terms of the hearing, we've quoted the Chair and he's a Republican. I'm not interested in Adam Smith. Sorry. Even if we had space there's little that I'd include from him -- for reasons that are obvious if you sit through hearings. (Including but not limited to, he's very fond of using his questioning time to offer editorials that use up the entire time and never allow a witness any time to speak.) Of the Democrats, the best performer was US House Rep Susan Davis (not a surprise there, she's one of the most informed members of the Committee -- and one of the most informed members of the Congress) with US House Rep Rob Andrews following closely behind. Among others things, he noted he was voting no on Friday about the House going into recess so everyone would have six weeks before the elections off from DC to return to their home districts where all current members of Congress are either running for office or have decided (or had redistricting decide for them) that they would not run for re-election -- all 435 seats of the House will be voted on in November. Andrews spoke of not understanding how you leave DC with this problem lingering in the air and felt instead it needed to be addressed. His comments were much better than my summary but there's not room for the. My apologies. (He also offered a proposal that was a serious proposal and deserves debate. I don't support it but others might.)

Staying with the US Congress, on Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House, believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that it is.)

Chair John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.

Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our interest so overtly -- again their own interests too -- I might add.

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.

Chair John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.

Kerry proposed this. The Committee agreed with this. In a press briefing on Thursday that can be best be summed up with the line from Private Benjamin (starring Goldie Hawn, script by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer) about "Next time, don't be so quick to raise the white flag," spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisted the State Dept didn't support tying funding in to Iraq's behavior. Excerpt.

QUESTION: But you've been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday, Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and warn about the aid to Maliki government?

MS. NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there's a chicken/egg thing here.

It's a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the white flag. Always. Reuters reported today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday, they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why?

Because they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want the US money. So, Alsumaria reports, Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already, Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours, have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri that the State Dept's done for months now.

"Bitter Caesar Sald in the Kitchen"
"Misleading the American people"

"Did you ever skip all your classes?"
"White House forced to admit it was terrorism"

"Bad web experiences"
"Deporter In Chief"

"cancel 'up all night' already"
"refusing to speak to the inspector general"
"Shame on The NewsHour"

"White House spin dissolves: It was terrorism"

"Carly, Joni and Carole"
"Barack told "You didn't keep that promise.""

"David Corn's an ass"
"We deserve answers on Benghazi"

"Telstar"
"White House forced to admit it was terrorism"
"Brotherly Embarrassment"
"Harry Reid is so disgracing his office"

"The White House refused to be honest with the American people"
"Idiot of the Week"

"THIS JUST IN! THEY DON'T WANT TO GROW UP!"
"For a brief moment, they were grown ups"

Friday, September 21, 2012

For a brief moment, they were grown ups

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

The press' 'in kind' contribution

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

LAST WEEK THE BARRY O CHEERING SQUAD -- AKA U.S. PRESS -- USED OFF THE CUFF WORDS SPOKEN BY MITT ROMNEY TO DISTRACT FROM BARRY O'S FAILURES WHICH LED TO THE DEATHS OF 4 AMERICANS IN LIBYA DESPITE WARNINGS THE WHITE HOUSE RECEIVED, DESPITE REQUESTS FOR BEEFED UP SECURITY.

THIS WEEK, THE BARRY O CHEERING SQUAD AGAIN OBSESSES OVER AN OFF THE CUFF REMARK BY MITT ROMNEY TO DISTRACT FROM THE FACT THAT OBAMACARE WILL FORCE 6 MILLION MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS TO PAY A PENALTY TAX.

BUT DON'T WORRY WHEN THE PRESS GETS OVER THEIR OBSESSIVE WALL-TO-WALL ABOUT GOSSIP THAT DOESN'T MATTER, THEY'LL SPEND 4 SECONDS ON THE TAX OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT EFFECTS YOU, JUST LONG ENOUGH TO DISMISS IT AND INSIST EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW ABOUT IT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

It's really not about being a veteran or her stance as a war resister. Kimberly Rivera is both of those things. But she's not in the military now. What is she? A young mother of four children -- the youngest being only 18-months old. And she and her husband have made a home for those children in Canada. She and her husband went to Canada to make a home there. And now she may be forced out.

She's been ordered by the Stephen Harper government to leave Canada by tomorrow. If she doesn't, she faces deportation.

She went to Canada to have a safe home for her family. That wasn't requesting the world, that wasn't asking for the moon and the stars. She wants to become a Canadian citizen and has done her part to go through that process.

Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney would apparently rather kick out a mother, risk separating her from her children, than offer the most basic kindness of residency or citizenship to this woman who has spent over five years in Canada embracing the country she wants to make her own. Patty Winsa (Toronto Star) reports today:

A Thursday deportation order looms, despite frantic calls from supporters, politicians and even a Nobel Peace Prize winner to stay the order and allow Rivera and her family, including two Canadian-born children, to remain. Rallies were slated at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in front of the Federal Court building and in several other cities from Halifax to Vancouver.

Ottawa, which in the 1960s allowed both draft-dodgers and Vietnam deserters to immigrate freely, has taken a hard line this time.

They're "not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term," Alexis Pavlich, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, wrote in an email. "These unfounded claims clog up our system for genuine refugees who are actually fleeing persecution."

Rivera has applied to stay permanently on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That request continues despite the deportation order that followed a negative "pre-removal risk assessment," which is based on whether the person's return could result in persecution, torture, cruel and unusual punishment, or even loss of life.

Does Stephen Harper not grasp how cruel he's going to look on the world stage if he deports a mother? That the obvious question in people's mind -- or, better, accusation, is going to be, "Oh, that Harper, yeah, he'd deport his own mother if he could." It's not going to look good, it's not going to increase his standing. Offering Kim residency or citizenship could change things immediately, could improve his image and have the whole world talking -- saying good things -- about him. But maybe he's okay with being considered Little Bush? John Howard took that route and, outside of Australia, most people don't know his name but think of him as a min-George W. Bush. Is that the fate that Harper wants? He could do so much for his own image just by doing something so minor to him but so major for Kim, her children and her husband.

The War Resisters Support Campaign staged rallies throughout Canada today. CBC notes, "Members of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War set up camp in front of the Federal Building at 55 Bay St. North on Wednesday in support of former American soldier and conscientious objector Kimberly Rivera." In addition, the Canadian Press notes, "A number of people have gathered in downtown Toronto for an eleventh-hour protest against the planned deportation of U.S. war resister Kimberly Rivera." Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) reports, "According to Michelle Robidoux, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign (WRSC). '(Kim) faces a court martial and jail sentence, which, based on what other people have gotten, is a harsh jail sentence,' Robidoux said. 'She will be separated from her family. Her husband suffers from a disability and he's going to have four kids on his hands'."

Cracks about deporting his own mother? If Stephen Harper deports Kim, people will be saying things like, "Forget saying the inn was full, Harper would have denied Mary the manger as well!" Who is advising Stephen Harper, who is telling him, "This is the way you, the Prime Minister of Canada, wants to be seen by the whole world"? He's not getting good advice.

Yves Engler (iPolitics.ca) reports on Kim and notes what she saw in Iraq:

While Rivera expected to spend her time unloading equipment at a Colorado base she soon found herself guarding a foreign operating base in Iraq. It was from this vantage point that she became disillusioned with the war. Riviera was troubled by a two-year-old Iraqi girl who came to the base with her family to claim compensation after a bombing by U.S. forces.

"She was just petrified", Rivera explained. "She was crying, but there was no sound, just tears flowing out of her eyes. She was shaking. I have no idea what had happened in her little life. All I know is I wasn't seeing her: I was seeing my own little girl. I could imagine my daughter being one of those kids throwing rocks at soldiers, because maybe someone she loved had been killed. That Iraqi girl haunts my soul."

Deporting Kim will haunt the reputation of a number of Canadian officials. Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls for Kim to remain in Canada. Erin Criger (City News) notes "Amnesty International, the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Church of Canada have all supported Rivera." In addition, many individual Canadians support her as well as organizations such as the United Steelworkers of Canada which issued a statement calling for the government of Canada to let Kim and her family stay and Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees which also issued a statement. She also has the support of the United Church of Canada. Joining the call today, Luke Stewart observes in his letter to the editor of The Record, "It was guarding the front gate of a forward operating base in Baghdad where Rivera's conscience grew with every fatal day. She decided she could no longer participate in the war that Kofi Annan, then the UN Secretary General, said in 2004 was illegal under the United Nations Charter." Leah Bolger and Gerry Condon of Veterans For Peace note in their open letter, "According to the UN Handbook on Refugees, soldiers who refuse to fight in wars that are widely condemned by the international community should be considered as refugees. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Refugee Board in Canada has yet to grant asylum to a single person who refused to kill in the war against Iraq, a war that has most certainly been condemned by peoples and nations around the globe."

19,739 people have now signed the War Resisters Support Campaign's petition for Kim to stay. It's a new petition, started only a few weeks ago. There is support for Kim. What is done to her and her children will register -- across borders, around the world. Stephen Harper has a chance to do something that will help a family and also enhance his worldwide standing. Or he can deport her and turn himself into a joke. Again, I have to wonder who is advising Harper because the humane thing to do here is also the politically smart thing.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

How the press destroys Barry O's shot at re-election

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

THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF IS IN TROUBLE. IT'S NOT JUST THAT ED KOCH CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE BARRY O STANDS ON ISRAEL. NOR IS IT THAT PATHETIC RANDY NEWMAN HAS WRITTEN ANOTHER SONG ABOUT HIMSELF (THE NEW ONE'S ABOUT RACISM, HE'S MOST FAMOUS FOR WRITING A SONG ABOUT SHORT PEOPLE -- HE'S SHORT REMEMBER, YOU DO THE MATH).

NO, HIS BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE MEDIA THAT CAN'T STOP LOVING AND LYING. MOST RECENTLY, IT'S THE MEDIA'S TREND TO OVERSAMPLE IN POLLS AND PRETEND LIKE BARRY O HAS A SIGNIFICANT LEAD. HOW IS THIS HARMFUL TO THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF?

2012 WILL BE A CLOSE ELECTION. AS BARRY O HAS ADMITTED. VOTER TURNOUT WILL BE IMPORTANT. AS BARRY O HAS ADMITTED. IF HIS SUPPORTERS FALSELY BELIEVE HE HAS A CLEAR LEAD DUE TO SKEWED POLLING, THEY'LL BE LESS LIKELY TO VOTE WHEN THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS -- LIKE LIFE -- TO DO ON ELECTION DAY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This afternoon in Toronoto, Iraq War resister Chuck Wiley declared, "Like Kim Rivera, I am a war resister who developed an issue of conscience after witnessing events in Iraq and sought protection in Canada. Kim's actions were based in conscience, and her own understanding of the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the balance os international law. She took these principles seriously, and hoped and expected that Canada still did the same as it has for generations." Wiley was among a group of people gathered today to show their support for Kim. At The Strength of the Absurd, Kim's friend explains, "Kimberly Rivera grew up in Mesquite, Texas. When she was 17, Army recruiters visited her home offering money for college that her family did not have. She signed up to be a mechanic and was enlisted in the Army Reserves.In October 2006 her unit was activated and deployed to Iraq. What she witnessed during that deployment affected her deeply. In January 2007 on a two week leave in the US, Kim and her husband Mario agreed she would not go back to Iraq. In 2007 she became the first woman U.S. Iraq war resister to seek asylum in Canada. She lives in Canada with her husband and four children, two of them born in Canada." Now the Candiana government is stating she must leave the country by Thursday, September 20th or face deportation.

As the Toronto press conference got started, a statement from prominent Canadians -- including the children of two of Canada's most historic politicians, the daughter of "The Greatest Canadian" Tommy Douglas (Shirley Douglas) and the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (Alexandre Trudeau).

We the undersigned support conscientious objector Kimerly Rivera and her family who are threatened with imminent deportation from Canada on September 20. Kim deployed to Iraq in 2006 and sought asylum in Canada in 2007. She faces a court martial and up to 5 years in military prison for refusing to participate any longer in the Iraq War -- a war which had no legal sanction. Kim would be separated from her four young children, two of whom were born in Canada. A felony conviction would mean a lifetime of difficulty finding employment. We call on the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kennedy to do the right thing and allow Kimberly Rivera and her family to stay in Canada.

Andy Barrie, broadcaster and Vietnam War resister

Dan Bar-El, award-winning children's author

Maude Barlow, author and activist

Maev Beaty, actor

Shirley Douglas, O.C., actor

Dennis Foon, award-winning writer

Richard Greenblatt, playwright/actor

Ron Hawkins, musician

Naomi Klein, author [child of a Vietnam War resister who went from New Jersey to Montreal in 1967 with his wife Bonnie]

Ron Kovic, author, Born on the Fourth of July

Avi Lewis, filmmaker

Peter Showler, Director, the Refugee Forum, University of Ottawa; former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board

Jack Todd, journalist and Vietnam War resister

Alexandre Trudeau, filmmaker

Alexandre Trudeau's father left a mark on the world stage. He did that by taking brave stands. Stephen Harper is the current prime minister and he's little known outside of Canada despite holding the office for over six years now. If he wanted to be a world player and have all the world looking to Canada again, as so many did when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister, he could intervene and allow Kim and her family to stay in Canada. But maybe Harper's not interested in having a legacy or being known as a player on the world stage?

Also speaking at the media conference today was Beaches International Jazz Festival's Artistic Director Bill King who explained, "I arrived in Canada as a Vietnam War resister, and I have been welcomed and embraced by Canadians. Kim Rivera made the same difficult decision I did. Minister Kenney and Prime Minister Harper, please show us that strong leaders are compassionate and allow her to stay." War Resisters Support Campaign's Michelle Robidoux observed, "Canada's support for conscientious objectors to the Iraq War, and for the Rivera family specifically, has been overwhelming. If it was up to the Canadian people, there is no doubt that the Rivera family would be allowed to stay in this country. We are appealing today to Jason Kenney to stop a great injustice from being done, by approving Kimberly Rivera's application to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds." (All quotes from the press conference are from a press release e-mailed to the public e-mail account. They do not have the press release up at the War Resisters Support Campaign site currently.)

If Kenney and Harper were to do the right thing, it would have support from the Canadian people and Canadian lawmakers. Catherine (Soul Side) observes, "Twice parliament has voted to allow US Iraq war resisters to stay in the country, just as happened during the Vietnam war. Canadians understand the importance of personal conscience, of staying true to principles that matter. But the Harper government refuses to allow Rivera any justice." As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has joined the call for Iraq War veteran and war resister Kimberly Rivera (above) to remain in Canada. In early 2007, while home on a pass, Kim knew she couldn't continue with the Iraq War and she and her family moved to Canada. Erin Criger (City News) notes "Amnesty International, the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Church of Canada have all supported Rivera." In addition, many individual Canadians support her as well as organizations such as the United Steelworkers of Canada which issued a statement calling for the government of Canada to let Kim and her family stay and Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees which also issued a statement. She also has the support of the United Church of Canada.

And 19,231 people have signed on to the War Resisters Support Campaign's petition to let Kim and her family stay. Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) notes an action taking place tomorrow:

- Join a rally in support of the Rivera family. Bring your banners, flags, and signs in support of Kim and all of the Iraq War resisters.

In Toronto the rally will be held at the Federal Court, 180 Queen Street West, from 4:30 - 6:00 p.m.
For a list of rallies in other cities, go to http://resisters.ca/support-the-rivera-family/.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Look how they play favorites again

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

THE 'INDEPENDENT' AND 'OBJECTIVE' PRESS WHICH IS ALWAYS 'IMPARTIAL' IS YET AGAIN GRINDINGS ITS AXE AND PLAYING FAVORITES.

TODAY'S PRETEND OUTRAGE THAT LEADS THEM TO SHRIEK LIKE BANSHEES AND PRETEND IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD?

COMMENTS GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY MADE AT A PRIVATE FUNDRAISER THAT WERE TAPED AND LEAKED TO THE PRESS.

ROMNEY DECLARED OF VOTERS:

AND IT'S NOT SURPRISING THEN THEY GET BITTER, THEY CLING TO GUNS OR RELIGION OR ANTIPATHY TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LIKE THEM OR ANTI-IMMIGRANT SENTIMENT OR ANTI-TRADE SENTIMENT AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN THEIR FRUSTRATIONS.

OH, WAIT.

MITT ROMENY DIDN'T SAY THAT. BARRY O SAID THAT BACK IN 2008. AND THE PRESS MADE IT LESS THAN A 1/2 DAY STORY AND DESPITE BREAKING LATE FRIDAY EVENING, IT WASN'T EVEN A DRIVING TOPIC ON THE SUNDAY CHAT AND CHEWS TWO DAYS LATER -- NOT MEET THE PRESS, NOT FACE THE NATION, NOT THIS WEEK.

BUT LET ROMNEY MAKE SIMILAR STATEMENTS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AND WATCH THE MEDIA PRETEND TO BE SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED, WATCH THEM GIN UP THE STORY AND PRETEND SOMETHING MAJOR HAS JUST TAKEN PLACE.

WHY IS THAT?

1) THEY'RE IN LOVE WITH THEIR OWN CREATION (BARRY O).

2) THEY'RE IGNORANT AND UNINFORMED SO THEY CAN'T COVER ISSUES AND NEED THE EQUIVALENT OF 'LINDSAY LOHAN IS IN A CAT FIGHT!' TYPE 'NEWS' TO REPEAT OR THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting wih war resistance. Kimberly Rivera and her family (husband and two kids) went to Canada in early 2007 with only what they could carry on their small family car. She was on leave from Iraq and horrified by what she saw while serving. Already a believer in Jesus Christ when she deployed, the horror deepened her spirituality and her conviction to do the Lord's work as she understood it.

What happened to her is no uncommon. Agustin Aguayo also was a practicing Christian when he deployed to Iraq. Seeing war up close deepened his own faith and religious beliefs. That is why he stopped carrying a loaded gun while deployed in Iraq and why he found he could no longer participate in the Iraq War.

Faith. like any relationship, is not static nor is it taught to be. Regardless of the religion, there is the belief that, for example, in times of crisis, the power of religion can carry you through the experience when you could not make it through on your own. (Hence the modern day parable of the two sets of footsteps in the sand that becomes one as your higher power carries you in the darkest of times.) Faith is not stagnant which is why religious scholars spend so much time pursuing knowledge, why followers do not attend one service their entire life but continue to attend to deepen their understanding and beliefs.

Kim and Agustin's experiences are in keeping with their religions which do allow for faith to grow and deepen. The US military has refused to recognize that and has found itself in the questionable (legally questionable) position of interpreting faith and judging faith. The US military will not allow an Agustin Aguayo or Kim Rivera to become a conscientious objector, they will argue that they were practicing a religion when they went to Iraq and that if they had objections they should have been lodged prior to deployment. (Lodging the objection prior to deployment, to be clear, does not mean someone will get C.O. status.) They will refuse to recognize that faith and spirituality are not fixed and that they can grow and deepen over time and due to experience.

She is now threatened with expulsion. The Canadian government wants her out of the country by September 20th. August 31st, Kim took part in a press conference with War Resisters Support Campaign's Michelle Robidoux.

Kim Rivera: If you want to know my biggest fear is being separated from my children and having to -- having to sit in a prison for politically being against the war in Iraq which I had experience in. Without that experience, I know that I would not have come to the decision I had made to leave and also be here in Canada for people to know that experience which I had spoken many of. So the only thing that I guess I can really ask is that all of my legal applications that I applied be considered and my agency application also get a decision. That's pretty much all I have.

Many Canadians support her and organizations as well including the United Steelworkers of Canada which issued a statement calling for the government of Canada to let Kim and her family stay and Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees which also issued a statement. Now Archbishop Desmond Tutu has added his voice to the cause with a column for the Globe and Mail:

But those who were called to fight this war believed what their leaders had told them. The reason we know this is because U.S. soldiers such as Kimberly Rivera, through her own experience in Iraq, came to the conclusion that the invasion had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the presence of U.S. forces only created immense misery for civilians and soldiers alike.

Those leaders to whom soldiers such as Kimberly Rivera looked for answers failed a supreme moral test. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003, millions have been displaced and nearly 4,500 American soldiers have been killed.

There are many people who, while they may have believed the original justification for the war, came to a different conclusion as the reality of the war became more evident. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself came to the conclusion that the Iraq war was "absolutely an error."

It is large-hearted and courageous people who are not diminished by saying: "I made a mistake." Not least among these are Ms. Rivera and the other American war resisters who determined they could not in good conscience continue to be part of the Iraq war.

Hopefully other voices will join Archbishop Tutu in calling for the Canadian government to allow Kim and her family to stay.

Someone needs to call out Soledad O'Brien. Newsbusters is a right-wing media critique site. They sent something to the public e-mail account. It's their report on CNN's Soledad O'Brien 'fact checking' US House Rep Peter King (link has text and transcript). It wasn't journalism. Excerpt.

Soledad O'Brien: So let's talk about that last line. "What we saw this week is in may ways a logical result of all of that." Are you saying that the president is responsible and his policies responsible for the death of the American ambassador to Libya?

US House Rep Peter King: I'm saying the president's policies have sent a confused message. For instance, take Egypt. Here is a country getting $1.6 billion in aid annually from the United States. Yet President Morsi for the first day, the entire day of our embassy being under attack, did virtually nothing to protect us and was actually putting out statements in Arabic where he was sympathizing with the demonstrators and those attacking the American embassy. What it's done is it's created a climate, it's created an attitude in the Middle East where our allies don't trust us, where those who are undecided are starting to hedge their bets and turn against us. For instance in Iraq, the president talks about how he pulled our troops out of Iraq. The fact is he was given a glide path in Iraq. He pulled the troops out without getting a Status Of Forces Agreement, without leaving any American troops behind and now Iran is emerging as a major power in that region whereas if we had our troops there it would not happen.

Soledad O'Brien: But you-you've been talking about an apology tour. As you know that matches the framing of other people. Donald Rumsfeld says he's made a practice of trying to apologize for America, he's talking about the president. Mitt Romney has said "I will not and never apologize for America. I don't apologize for America." Tim Palwenty back in February was saying, "Mr. President, stop apologizing for -- " Where do you see an apology? You called it an apology tour. You said the apologies. What apologies are you specifically talking about?

US House Rep Peter King: I would say when he was in Cairo in 2009, when he was basically apologizing for American policies, saying American policies sometimes have gone too far --

Soledad O'Brien: Never once in that speeh, as you know, which I have the speech right here. That was -- he never once used the word apology. He never once said I'm sorry.

US House Rep Peter King: Didn't have to. The logical -- any logical reading of the speech or the speech he gave in France where he basically said that the United States can be too aggressive --

Soledad cuts him off again. What she needs to do is cut off that hair. (When you have circles and bags under the eyes, do not wear your hair long unless you're pulling it back. The goal with bags and circles is never to create more shadows on the face. What an idiot.)

This is not complicated. Soledad, using faux-gressiver terms like "framework" (the journalist term is "narrative"), may indicate some cabal but Donald Rumsfeld and King honestly believe what they're saying. I would assume the same for Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty as well but with Rumsfeld and King there is a long body of the critique. It predates Barack Obama and if Soledad thinks she's up to a 'fact check,' she needs to educate herself on this.

To move to a different topic but to explain the larger point, then-President Ronald Reagan supported SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative). I didn't. I thought it was a lunatic idea, I thought it militarized space, etc. Ronald Reagan had one opinion, I had another. By Soledad's 'understaning,' she can fact check that and determine one of us to be right. She is an uneducated lunatic. Ronald Reagan believed he was right about SDI, I believe I am right. Those are opinions. They don't go to fact check.

I bring up SDI specifically because Soledad wants to treat King's statements as something she's never before encountered. (Maybe she hasn't. She's not that smart.) But his statements are at the heart of modern day conservatism and Barack's approach is in stark contrast to Reagan (Reagan remains the hero of most modern day conservatives). You can read the SDI speech and you can see a lot of what's being discussed by King and others in that speech. Here's an excerpt:

President Ronald Reagan: The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we have sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. Deterrence means simply this: Making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our allies or our vital interests concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

I disagree with those opinions (including the claim that the US doesn't start fights). And I can argue with someone who holds those opinions. But I recognize those to be opinions. Not facts. It's an ideology. If this is so far above Soledad's head, CNN needs to send her to a college where she can hopefully learn. And I'll go further, if EJ Dionne, an opinion columnist, wanted to call the conservative opinion "wrong," that's fine. He's an opinion columnist. Soledad is supposed to be objective. That makes her performance today even more embarrassing.

Sunday, Ava and I wrote "TV: Media Fail" and it was about the media's refusal to play fair. Jim did a quick piece that bookends that with "Romney and Obama last week" and, though we answered his questions in that, Ava and I were both confused why he wanted that. He's getting at the points above. It is not fair for Soledad to pretend to be 'objective' and then treat a conservative ideology to a 'fact check.' It's about the same as putting religious beliefs to a 'fact check.' Beliefs and opinions can differ and, in fact, in a democracy are supposed to. You may not like the conclusions someone forms based on the facts, but they are allowed to reach their own conclusions.

Karl Rove wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal, published in April of 2009, about what he termed Barack's "apology tour." He wasn't the only one using that term at that time. Click here for a video about the "apology tour" that was posted to YouTube April 32, 2009. For Soledad to be ignorant of all of this is an insult to the viewers. Her segment was an insult. If she wants to debate ideology, fine, let her take a stand -- and state whether it's her own or that she's playing devil's advocate -- and have that discussion. But don't pretend that she's dealing with facts. And don't pretend that we (on the left) win when some journalist plays America dumb by acting as if ideology and belief can be put to a fact check. CNN should be ashamed of themselves.

These are serious issues and if Soledad O'Brien's not up for them, she needs to be pulled. If it's still not clear, let's look at King's remarks on Iraq.

US House Rep Peter King: For instance in Iraq, the president talks about how he pulled our troops out of Iraq. The fact is he was given a glide path in Iraq. He pulled the troops out without getting a Status Of Forces Agreement, without leaving any American troops behind and now Iran is emerging as a major power in that region whereas if we had our troops there it would not happen.

Barack pulled US troops from Iraq? That's a fact. Removed them without a SOFA? Fact. King takes those facts, places them in his conservative framework and comes up with opinions ("glide path" and the US left in a position of weakness). So-called objective journalists need to learn to do their job. Media Matters, as this item demonstrates, does a better job of grasping the points about ideology and opinion, that Soledad O'Brien refuses to -- and Media Matters doesn't claim to be objective or impartial -- it is a left-wing organization.

RECOMMENDED: