How low can you go?

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


CBS NEWS REPORTS CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS HIT AN ALL TIME LOW, 37% APPROVAL RATE.


EVERYBODY SING:

How low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go, how low can you go 
Higher, higher, higher and higher
Now can you hand-jive, baby, oh can you hand-jive, baby
Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, born to hand-jive, oh yeah                 


HOW LOW CAN BARRY O GO, HOW LOW CAN BARRY O GO, HOW LOW CAN BARRY O GO, HOW LOW CAN BARRY O GO?

HE WAS BORN TO HAND JIVE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:





National Iraqi News Agency notes that US State Dept official Brett McGurk met with Iraqi Vice President Khodair al-Khozai to discuss "the latest developments" in Iraq and he met yesterday with the head of the  Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, Ammar al-Hakeem, and that "US Ambassador to Iraq, Robert Beecroft, attended the meeting."


What could they be discussing?

And Beecroft an after thought?

Thank goodness that MoveOn and everyone else got together and said "NO" to Brett McGurk's nomination to be US Ambassador to Iraq.

Oh, wait, they didn't.

They stayed silent or they whored.

Brett did what?

That's right, he was a key negotiator in Iraq during Bully Boy Bush's occupation of the White House.  His responsibilities included extending the US military presence in Iraq.

What could he be discussing this time?


The last week of October, chief thug and prime minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki visited DC.  On Friday, November 1st, US President Barack Obama hosted Nouri at the White House.

Though the visit received some attention, it may be about to get a little more.  At least in the Arab world which has a more functioning press than we do in the United States.


Kitabat reports on an interview Paul Bremer gave.  I'll assume it was to a non-US outlet since there's no US coverage of Bremer's remarks (although the US press ignores Iraq repeatedly so maybe not).

Bremer stated in the interview that Nouri asked Barack to send US troops.

What answer did Nouri receive?

According to Bremer (according to Kitabat), he was not turned down, he was told the US was prepared to study how to best do this.

Dar Addustour columnist As Sheikh also weighs in on the Bremer interview and notes, if Bremer's remarks were accurate, Nouri has acted unilaterally and not informed the Parliament or sought their input or approval.

This would qualify as a serious Iraq issue.

So of course no one's talking about in the US media -- not even the so-called watchdogs and press critics.

Let's move to The Great Frauds of NYC.  Peter Hart of FAIR, come on down.  Hart wants to whine that some media members are comparing ObamaCare and/or its roll out to the Iraq War.  That comparison's gone on for some time now, we've never made it here.  It's not one I would make.  It's also not the simplistic comparison FAIR and others reduce it to.  ObamaCare supposedly is going to save lives.  So, yes, it does matter whether the rollout works or not.


It is the same lies that led to the Iraq War?

To me, no.  But the Iraq War -- the ongoing Iraq War -- actually matters to me.

Let's bring another loser into the conversation.  Greg Mitchell's being itching for another woman to hate on.  What do do after the pack sent out a woman to attack their despised network TV woman and it turned out the attacker wasn't a reporter but someone who repeatedly had sex with military officers to get her lame newspaper stories?

Find another woman to attack.  At his blog Pressing Issues, Mitchell's had another fit.  No, I'm not talking about his attack on Courtney Love -- in a week when he mentioned hundreds of male musicians and didn't attack any of them.  I'm talking about this:

Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let bygones be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases.  For example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the consequences.  This explains my reaction to the Columbia Journalism Review today announcing, after a widely-watched search, that it was hiring Liz Spayd of The Washington Post as its new editor.

Now, I suppose I should review her entire career, for context, though others are doing it and you can read about it in plenty of places.  She has been managing editor of the Post for years now and obviously supervised a good deal of important work (and some not so terrific, of course).  But I am moved to recall, and then let go,  one famous 2004 article, by Howard Kurtz, then media writer at the Post, which I covered in my book on those media failures and Iraq, So Wrong for So Long.


And what was so wrong?  That she said this about the paper's coverage:


"I believe we pushed as hard or harder than anyone to question the administration's assertions on all kinds of subjects related to the war. . . . Do I wish we would have had more and pushed harder and deeper into questions of whether they possessed weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely," she said. "Do I feel we owe our readers an apology? I don't think so." 


For context, last Friday, Martin Bashir made hideous comments on MSNBC.  I'm not going to link to them -- I think they were hideous, why would I want to promote them? -- but I didn't see it.  Every day this week, e-mails have come in insisting it must be noted.

And it might have been noted if I'd heard of his remarks on Friday, Saturday, Sunday or early Monday.  I first heard of them on Tuesday and that was after his Monday evening apology.

He apologized.

We all say things that we regret.

He apologized.  I did stream that.  It appeared sincere.

So he made remarks that he admitted were out of bounds and he offered an apology.

To me, that's the end of the story.

I don't like Martin Bashir (going back to his 90s 'reporting'), but if someone offers a sincere apology for words they spoke, I think we're grown ups and we accept it.

Greg Mitchell is having a fit over Elizabeth Spayd's remarks in 2004 -- brief remarks.

Spayd worked for the paper.  She states she wishes the paper had pushed harder on WMD.  She doesn't believe the paper owes an apology.

I don't think the Washington Post needs to apologize either.

I think they need to add corrections to hundreds of articles they ran on Iraq.

I think they were wrong and I think they served up a lot of lousy journalism.

But that's a difference of opinion with Elizabeth Spayd.  Or a difference of opinion I have with her opinion expressed back in 2004.

Back in March, Ava and I wrote "TV: The War Crimes Documentary" covering  James Steele: America's Mystery Man In Iraq -- the British documentary about counter-insurgency in Iraq.  I also covered it repeatedly here in multiple snapshots.  dropping back to the April 30th Iraq snapshot:




December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed.  We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.  It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."


For months, we were the only ones analyzing the MoU.  Then there's Tim Arango's very important report noted above.

We have covered it and linked to it and covered it again.  That didn't stop in 2012.  We continue to cover it.  In addition, we also repeatedly note his important report this year.   In September, Tim Arango (New York Times) broke that story about Nouri arming and outfitting Shi'ite militias to target Sunnins:

In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and, ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.

That's important.  Why aren't press critics at FAIR, as well as Greg Mitchell, amplifying these reports? Why aren't they offering critiques of how the rest of the media treats Arango's reports as though they have "Classified" stamped on them?

And let's quote hypocrite and fat ass, limp dick liar Greg Mitchell one more time:

Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let bygones be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases.  For example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the consequences. 


High stackes cases?

That's what he says.  And "the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the consequences."

What consequences?

You mean death and dying?

If so, that never ended and continues to this day.

So it must be Greg Mitchell's "media failures" that have prevented him repeatedly from noting Iraq.

The only time he brings up Iraq, is as a finished, past story -- and then, only to clobber people over the head with it.

Well put on your big boy pants Greg and explain to us -- if consequences matter -- why you didn't cover the documentary at your site, why you don't cover Arango's reports, why you don't cover the ongoing, 11-month old protests in Iraq?

These are some of the ongoing consequences of the Iraq War.

You want to hold someone else accountable, you need to make sure you're doing your job and, let's be honest, since Bully Boy Bush left the White House, Greg Mitchell's 'reporting' has been about running interference for the White House.  He doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people.

He can write -- and write poorly -- about people who question Barack's eligibility to be president.

We are critics of Barack Obama -- as we would be of any War Hawk.  And yet I've never had the time to indulge in writing about that topic.  We'd never noted it at Third if it wasn't a pattern of Greg Mitchell's lies.


Yes, Greg not only felt the need to write about it but, liar that he is when we pointed his mistake at Third (comprehension is so hard for Greg), when we laughed him for being so stupid and so wrong, he went back into Pressing Issues and changed what he wrote without noting that he'd changed it.  That is a liar.

FAIR didn't cover the British documentary about counter-insurgency.  They didn't cover the lack of coverage of Tim Arango's reports.  They have yet to do a blog post, report or on air mention (CounterSpin) of how protests can continue for eleven months -- with protesters being killed -- and the US media can ignore it.

Iraq matters.  As much today as it did in 2003, Iraq matters.

In fact, it actually matters more now.  Back in 2003, there was media attention on Iraq -- All Things Media Big and Small.  Today, there's really not attention in the United States.

And let's be real damn clear, in 2013, whining about what happened in 2003 is neither productive nor helpful.

It can be part larger effort to cover Iraq.

But if that's what passes for your Iraq coverage today?

You're not just a whore, you're a dumb whore.


This is from CJR's announcement of that Elizabeth Spayed was becoming editor in chief and publisher of Columbia Journalism Review (magazine) and of the CJR website:




Spayd has spent the last 25 years at the Washington Post, most recently as managing editor of the paper, where she helped supervise a newsroom of 600 journalists in Washington and around the world, overseeing coverage of everything from political, foreign, and financial news to investigative projects and features. Spayd’s previous job was managing editor of the Post’s website. She joined the Post in 1988 as an editor on the business desk, and before that she was business editor at the Detroit News. She earned her BA in journalism from Colorado State University in 1981.
“Journalism is shape-shifting into a form like nothing we’ve ever seen, a process that’s fascinating and invigorating but also nerve-wracking and confusing,” said Spayd. “It makes intelligent coverage of the field essential, and I hope as we fortify CJR’s mission, we’ll emerge as something of a North Star for those who care about journalism.”
Spayd’s mandate is to lead a strategic reset of CJR’s audience and editorial vision, with an eye toward ensuring rising visibility, impact, and relevance for CJR’s content through print, digital, video, and mobile channels. The magazine will continue its traditional media criticism, while also exploring and clarifying how traditional journalistic ethics apply to the digital space, as well as analyzing and evaluating new business models that have the capacity to change the profession.



You can judge for yourself whether she's qualified or not.  I honestly don't care.  (I do care that Mitchell's never-ending War On Women made her the latest target.)  Mainly because we've got to roll up our sleeves and do what FAIR and Greg Mitchell and all the other useless ones won't do, we have to cover Iraq.


RECOMMENDED:   "Iraq snapshot"
"What did Nouri ask Barack for?"
"For the 11th month, protests continue in Iraq"
"Feminist News Digest"
"Thanksgiving questions in the Kitchen"
"The fun has begun"
"When the end is near"
"scandal - a ton of storylines"
"The questions remain"
"On Alec Baldwin"
"And she mocks others?"
""
"CounterPunch rummages around the back of the closet"
"Idiot of the week"
"THIS JUST IN! THE WHITE HOUSE HAS PLANS!"
"White House will address the problem"

White House will address the problem

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

IN FLORIDA, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S APPROVAL RATING HAS FALLEN TO 40%.

THEY DON'T CALL IT THE SUNSHINE STATE FOR NOTHING.

ALL THAT SUNLIGHT HAS EXPOSED A STILL NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME PRESIDENT.

ACROSS THE NATION, THE LATEST POLL FINDS ONLY 41% APPROVAL FOR BARRY O.


WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS TODAY THAT ACTIONS ARE BEING CONSIDERED, "WE'RE EITHER GOING TO ARRANGE CASUL TOPLESS SHOTS OF POTUS -- THOSE WERE SO POPULAR IN 2009 AND STILL SHOULD BE BECAUSE HIS MANBOOBS FULLER THESE DAYS.  OR WE'RE GOING TO SEND OPRAH ON A NATIONAL TOUR TO INSIST ANY CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT IS RACIST.  WE'RE SURE EITHER ACTION WILL FIX THE PROBLEM."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


 Did you hear about those awful Gittes?


Those people are just evil.  They just want to take over the world.  The whole region would be better off without them.


Thank goodness, we know that they are inherently evil, right?


Now we know the cause of all the violence.


And since it's just those damn Gittes, there's no reason to look to what anyone else is doing wrong, certainly not a government.


It's just those Gittes, they have death and destruction on the brain -- it's in their blood.


So now that we know the problem we just have to figure out if we're going to arrest them all or just kill 'em?  Hunt em down, exterminate them, right?



There are no Gittes.

The above is stated for a reason (and Gittes because I had Chinatown on the brain -- script by Robert Towne and Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway star with Jack Nicholson playing private investigator JJ Gittes).



For the second day in a row, RT has allowed John Wright to blame Sunnis for the violence in the Middle East including Iraq.


How stupid or hateful is he?

Does he even know what the situation is in Syria?

But Wright tells you the problem is Sunnis.  Sometimes he says "Sunni fundamentalists."

There are some Sunnis who do resort to violence - -they're not the only group in the rgion that does -- and it apparently is 'cute' to call them "fundamentalists."  But 'cute' or not, that's also inaccurate.  Fundemantalists are one thing -- in any religion, in any area.  They take their religion very seriously.  Doing so means they don't usually resort to violence.  In the US, we have some religious fundamentalists who are opposed to this or that.  Religious fundamentalist in the US do not, for example, kill abortion doctors.  The ones who do that are extremists or fanatics; however, they aren't really "fundamentalists."  Fundamentalists would take to prayer not to bombing an abortion clinic.

Fundamentalists are different than I am.  I live a secular life with modern toys and amusements.  But they're being different from me -- or me being different from them -- doesn't give me the right to misdescribe them.  And pay really close attention here because this is the part that effects all of humanity:  When you hold up violence as a form of religious fundamentalism?

The grown ups who are fundamentalists blow you off.  They know better.

They know that they have strict observance of their faith and that's what makes them fundamentalists.

Kids?

Kids are always trying to make sense of the world and figure out where they fit in -- that is what growing ups about.  So you take a confused kid with religious leanings -- especially one shocked by some new development or modernity -- and you raise him -- via the media -- to believe that religious fundamentalism -- strict observance of your faith -- means bombing and killing people?

You've just created a generation of people who now believe this is how you express your faith.

That's especially likely in Iraq where there are so many orphans as a result of the illegal war.  In November of last year, Caroline Hawley (BBC News) reported "that between 800,000 to a million Iraqi children have lost one or both of their parents."  That's a huge number.  It's also probably an undercount -- 4.5 million is probably closer to reality., the Iraqi Orphan Foundation estimates the number to be 3 million and, at the start of 2009, Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported 740,000 widows in Iraq -- not all widows have children or children under the age of 18 but there are a huge number of orphans in Iraq without any parent and that was 2009.  The violence hasn't ceased since 2009 and, in fact, it has picked up.  Regardless of whether the number is four million or one million, that's a huge number -- especially in Iraq where the population is estimated.

The teenage years are fraught with confusion -- bodies change, hormones rage, you're still a child but confronted with adult situations.  For some teenagers, that period can be one where they find salvation in religion or retreat deeply into it, however you want to see it.  Do you really want to create the message for this group of children that bombing and shooting -- killing -- is religious fundamentalism?

John Wright's uninformed and ugly stereotype is not only false, it is highly damaging.


But it is false as well.

By blaming Sunnis for the problems in Iraq, Wright's able to ignore so much including how Nouri al-Maliki fuels the violence.


The mass arrests of Sunnis fuel the violence.  Monday, for example, 85 people were rounded up in Wasit Province alone.  The mass arrests would be disturbing in any country.


They're especially disturbing in Iraq.

There is no speedy justice.  People linger in jails, detention centers and prisons with the no court appearance and, in fact, often with no charges brought against them.

Some held in prisons, jails and detention centers can't be charged.  They were arrested but they were arrested for no real reason. They aren't  even suspects.  But, in Iraq, when you can't find the suspect, you're allowed to arrest their wives or mothers or siblings or fathers or children or grandparents.

They're rounded up and arrested with no one believing they broke a law.  They're arrested, taken from their homes and thrown behind bars because they're related to a suspect.

The disappeared (into the 'legal system') are among the issues fueling the ongoing protests.  As Mayada Al-Askari (Gulf News) observed Monday,  "In the past two years, demonstrations have increased in Baghdad and other governorates as people have been calling for better services, the release of women detainees and more civil rights."

Now if the problem is just these 'bad' Sunnis, as John Wright keeps insisting, then we don't have to worry about what Nouri's doing, we don't have to worry about a minority population being disenfranchised.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"The oversimplifiers"
"Responding to masculinist Mary Wendy Roberts"
"Gloria Steinem explains she was a CIA agent"
"To God's ear"
"michael moore's an idiot"
"The stupid New York Times columnist"
"Laura Nyro"
"Revolution"
"Arrow"
"Happy Birthday, Barack!"
"That idiot Harry Reid"
"So much free time, so little work"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O WANTS TO HELP!"

So much free time, so little work

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO TELL NEWS AGENCY WHAT IS NEWS AND WHAT IS NOT NEWS.

WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O MADE CLEAR HE DID NOT SEE THE PROBLEM.

"I NEVER DO MY OWN JOB SO I HAVE ALL THIS FREE TIME AND A PERSON CAN ONLY GOLF SO MUCH," INSISTED THE DAHLIBAMA.  "SO I USE MY EXTRA TIME TO DO THE WORK OF OTHERS.  THEY SHOULD BE THANKING ME."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Mad Maddie's back in the news today.  David Lerman (Bloomberg News) reports the vampire zombie rose to speak in Chicago:


Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the U.S. must overcome a loss of trust from Arab nations that’s developed since the Iraq war as it seeks a deal with Iran on its nuclear program.
“In many different ways, there was an erosion of trust in terms of what we were doing there,” Albright said of the Iraq war in a session today at “The Year Ahead: 2014,” a two-day conference in Chicago hosted by Bloomberg LP. 


With the blood thirsty War Hawk Mad Maddie Albright (who thinks a standing military means its there for her own capricious adventures) to lead, what could possibly go wrong?

For the answer to that question, just look to Iraq which is yet again slammed with violence.  The western media focuses on Bahgdad.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes 7 car bombings and 2 roadside bombings have left 47 dead in Baghdad with one-hundred-and-thirty-two more injured.  RTE, RTT and Russia Today also focus on Baghdad (to distinguish themselves, RT presents a xenophobic statement by the UK's John Wright).  Mohammed Tawfeeq updates his report here.

Outside of Baghdad?

National Iraqi News Agency reports 1 military officer was shot dead outside his Shura Village home, 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead outside his Mosul home, a Falluja roadside bombing left 1 police member dead and two more injured, a second Falluja bombing left three police members injured, a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, and Jalal Talabani's chief body guard was shot dead in the KRG.  All Iraq News adds that 1 "Iraqi Army postman" was shot dead in Mosul as he delivered mail.  Cheng Yang (Xinhua) reports, "In Iraq's eastern province of Diyala, a young man was killed and his father critically wounded when a sticky bomb attached to their car detonated in the town of Buhruz, near the provincial capital city of Baquba, a provincial police source told Xinhua.  Separately, four bombs planted to houses in the eastern part of Baquba, went off in the morning and caused damage to the houses and slightly wounded two children, the source said."

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 421 violent deaths so far this month.  BBC News reminds, "The UN says 979 people - including 158 police and 127 military personnel - were killed in violent attacks in October. More than 6,500 civilians have died since January."


About the death of that chief body guard of Jalal Talabani's,  Colonel Sarawr Hama Rashed.  Xinhua reports that he was shot dead in his Sulaimaniyah home "in front of his wife" and that he was "the chief bodyguard of Iraq's president."


Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq.  Or he's supposed to be.  The question continues to be: Can you be the president of a country you're not in?  Last December,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.


So questions need to be answered regarding not just why the body guard wasn't in Germany but also regarding Jalal's real health condition because despite months of claiming that he'd be returning any second, Jalal still hasn't.  And he's still not spoken in front of any recording camera and all visits by Iraqi politicians are refused.  For 11 months now, he's not performed his duties and he's been out of the country.  The Iraqi people deserve answers.  

As the lies about Jalal continue so do the rains in Iraq.  All Iraq News notes 12 homes collapsed in Babel due to flooding and  4 people drowned in Najaf due to the flooding.  That's attributable to Nouri al-Maliki who's failed to improve the infrastructure despite being prime minister since 2006.  Improved civil construction would eliminate the standing waters.  Instead, an out-dated sewage system (last worked on in the 1970s) gets backed up and allows the waters to stand.   In Diwaniya, a home collapsed killing a mother and daughter.  That's very sad but the collapse of the home from heavy rains is nature, it's not an effect of Nouri.  Another woman in the same city died of electrocution.  That was from flooding in the home.  Most likely that is Nouri's fault.  The heavy rains pooled in the streets, there was not adequate sewage drains on the streets to pull the water elsewhere and the woman's home flooded.  That's government's fault, not nature.  Yesterday's snapshot noted that Nouri was stating each province in need would receive 200 million dinars.  Oops.  He got his headlines for 'leadership' and then his petty nature took over.  Al-Shorfa reports today that the deal is now 200 billion Iraqi dinars for all of Iraq's provinces -- not for each.  In addition, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran explains:

Following the heavy rainfall last night in Iraq, flood covered the entire of Camp Liberty. Water has accumulated many of the sections reaching up to half a meter in some parts.
No one can go around the camp and transportation has stopped completely. This has caused great problems for the residents at the camp.
This is while water accumulated from the previous rainfall that occurred 10 days ago had not been removed. Restrictions and lack of required systems has hindered the residents from being able to confront this catastrophe.
The widespread flood has also caused serious problems for the hunger strikers whom are on their 81st day, preventing transfer of those who face critical problems to the Iraqi clinic at the camp. This has caused great risk for the lives of the hunger strikers.

On Camp Ashraf, I need to do a disclosure.  We got an e-mail from someone connected with the movement.  I didn't read it.  Shirley responded to it on my behalf at my request.  That's as close as we're getting.  If that offends someone, my apologies.

We have defended the Ashraf community for years now.  When Jon Corzine and others were being targeted by the US government for their work on this issue, we defended them.  What I did not note then was that, while visiting friends at the Justice Dept at that time, I was asked if I would submit to official questioning because I was on 'the list.'  I sat for 15 minutes of questions.  It was ludicrous to assume that I'd take money from anyone but I did offer my bank records willingly.  They were not examined, the offer was not taken up.  But for what I'd written here, I was questioned.  My response was not to go silent on the issue and not to move away from it.  If anything, we got louder in our defense of the Ashraf community.   No charges were brought against me because I had no involvement with the Ashraf community.   That's why I nod to the people in yellow suits at the Congressional  hearings but don't approach them.  

I will continue to support the Ashraf community here -- as long as they're in Iraq and as long as we're here online.  But I will also continue to maintain a wall.  Nothing against the community, but I am independent and I think my voice here has more value as a result.  I also wish to remain able to say, if questioned again, "No, I have not any contact with any representative or member of the Ashraf community."  The Ashraf movement is more than welcome to e-mail articles or press releases and we'll note them when we can.  But I do not have private conversations with the movement.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq slammed with violence"
"Jalal's in Germany, his bodyguard is killed in Ira..."
"The idiot Mary Wendy Roberts and other things"
"And what kind of a name is Mary Wendy anyway?"
"Thank you, Ms. magazine"
"the bitchy mary wendy roberts"
"Harriet Fraad remembers how the women's movement was harmed"
"Mary Wendy Roberts is a stupid bitch"
"Gloria Steinem's White entitlement"
"Syria and other things"
"Stupid bitch Mary Wendy Roberts"
"Dumb Ass Mary Wendy Roberts"
"He's got a new plan"
"THIS JUST IN! PLAN DISTRACTION FAILS!"

He's got a new plan

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THOUGHT HE HAD A GREAT PLAN.  (HE MAY BE THE ONLY ONE WHO STILL BELIEVES IN HIS PLAN.)  SEND A COUPLE OF BORDER AGENTS INTO MEXICO CITY TO POSE AS THE FIRST FAMILY OF MEXICO AND TRICK JUSTIN BIEBER INTO BELIEVING HE'D MET THE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO.  LET JUSTIN TWEET THAT.  THEN WHEN THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT RESPONDS HE'S NEVER MET JUSTIN, BIEBER WILL LOOK LIKE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LIAR AND NO ONE WILL EVEN BE THINKING ABOUT BARRY O'S OWN LIES.


BUT, AS THE DAHLIBAMA ADMITTED TO THESE REPORTERS TODAY, THE ONLY ONE TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THE ABOVE STUNT WAS TMZ "AND I'M STILL BEING RAKED OVER THE COALS!"

JOHN DICKERSON OF SLATE MAKES LIKE RACHEL GREEN'S MOTHER ("ONCE A CHEATER, ALWAYS A CHEATER") BY DECLARING, "ONCE A PRESIDENT LOSES HIS CRED, IT'S HARD TO GET IT BACK."


AND ONCE YOU'RE KNOWN AS THE LIAR, PEOPLE START LOOKING AT YOUR OTHER CLAIMS -- LIKE THE CLAIM, IN THE LAST WEEKS OF THE 2012 ELECTIONS, THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAD DROPPED.

BUT BARRY O ISN'T WORRIED, HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, BECAUSE HE'S GOT A PLAN TO MAKE BRITNEY SPEARS THINK SHE'S MET THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANDADA. 

"OH, YEAH," HE SAID CHUCKLING, "THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CONVERSATION!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Today her office issued the following:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 CONTACT: Murray Press Office

November 19, 2013                                                                        (202) 224-2834

 

MURRAY SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT

 

VIDEO: “These are dangers that cannot be accepted, and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face.”

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, as the Senate debates the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) joined a bipartisan group of female Senators on the floor to speak out against sexual assault in the military and call on her colleagues to support some of the historic changes being made to prevent this scourge. Sen. Murray also highlighted her legislation with Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), which has been included in the NDAA bill, to provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault in all service branches.

 

“When our best and our brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow service members,” said Senator Murray in her speech. “Thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken out we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere have brought out of the shadows.”

In August, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed immediate implementation of several measures to “gain greater consistency of effort and enhance oversight, investigative quality, pretrial investigations and victim support” in cases of military sexual assault. Among other measures, the directive includes implementation of trained lawyers to provide victims in all branches with guidance through the legal process, similar to the legislation introduced by Senators Murray and Ayotte.

 

WATCH the video here.

 

Full text of Senator Murray’s speech below:

“I first want to thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for helping to bring many of us to the floor today to discuss an issue that: cuts across partisan lines, has plagued our nation’s military, and has gone unaddressed for far too long.

 

“Military Sexual Assault is an epidemic. And it has rightly been identified as such by the Pentagon. It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person you rely on to have your back and to be there for you, would commit such a terrible crime. It is simply appalling they could commit such a personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. But, what’s worse, and what has made change an absolute necessity - is the prevalence of these crimes.

 

“Recent estimates tell us that 26,000 servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year. And just over 3,000 of those assaults are reported. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by VA has suffered from military sexual trauma. One in five.

 

“That is certainly not the act of a comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos of any of the services. And it can no longer be tolerated. And that is why the women of the Senate have been united in calling for action. 

 

“There has been much made of the fact that there are now 20 women in the Senate – a historic number that I think we all agree still needs to grow. But it’s also important to remember that the number alone should not be what’s historic. Instead, it is what we do with our newfound strength to address the issues that are impacting women across the country. With this bill, the first Defense Authorization of this Congress, we are doing exactly that.

 

“We are taking historic action to help servicemembers access to the resources they need to seek justice without fear. And, one way this bill will help do just that, how it will: protect our servicemembers, assist victims, and punish criminals -- is through the inclusion of a bill I introduced, across party lines, with Senator Ayotte.

 

“Our bill, which is included in the base bill, creates a new category of legal advocates, called Special Victims’ Counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of the interests of the victim. These SVCs would also advise the victim on the range of legal issues they may face. 

 

“For example, when a young Private First Class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by threatening her with unrelated legal charges -- like underage drinking -- this new advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the truth.

 

“Since January, the Air Force has provided these advocates to over 500 victims through an innovative new pilot program. Ten months later, the results speak for themselves: 92% of victims are “extremely satisfied” with the advice and support their SVC lent them throughout the military judicial process, 98% would recommend other victims request these advocates, 93% felt that these advocates effectively fought on their behalf.

 

“In describing their experience with an advocate, one victim shared that, “Going through this was the hardest thing I ever had to do in my life. Having a Special Victim Counsel helped tremendously . . . No words could describe how much I appreciate having one of these advocates.”

“Through our bipartisan efforts the Defense Authorization bill will also enhance the responsibilities and authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office – also known as SAPRO.

 

“This improvement will help to provide better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across the Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates, the number of cases brought to trial, and  compliance within each of the individual services. 

 

“Some of this data collection and reporting is already being done.

 

“So this requirement would not be more burdensome, but it would give that office authority to track and report to us on the extent of the problem.

 

“I believe the great strength of our military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans, to volunteer to serve, that are the Pentagon’s greatest asset. I know it is said a lot, but take a moment to really think about it. 

 

“Our servicemembers volunteer to face danger, to put their lives on the line, to protect the country and all its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs. We think of battles with insurgents, we shouldn’t have to focus on the threats they encounter from their fellow servicemember.

 

“And we should never, never allow for a culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem like this to fester year after year.

 

“These are dangers that cannot be accepted, and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to face. Earlier this year when I asked Navy Secretary Ray Maybus about the sexual assault epidemic, I was glad that he told me that “concern” wasn’t a strong enough word to describe how he feels about this problem. He said he is angry about it. 

 

“And I know many of us here, particularly many of my female colleagues who have dedicated so much time to this issue, share this feeling and want to put an end to this epidemic. So, I am hopeful that we can work quickly to do right by our nation’s heroes.

 

“Because when our best and our brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow service members.

 

“I’m proud that the women of the Senate have taken this issue head on. And what should never be lost in the effort to enact the many changes that have been proposed, is that for too long this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug. That’s no longer the case.

 

“Thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken out -- we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere have brought out of the shadows.”

###

---

Meghan Roh

Press Secretary | New Media Director

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Mobile: (202) 365-1235

Office: (202) 224-2834

@PattyMurray | @SenateBudget | @MegRoh

Senator Patty Murray's office

 

Senator Murray's YouTube Channel

 

Senator Murray's Press Office Twitter Account

 

RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office



From the Senate, let's note the way the US government spends the money they collect in taxes.  Kristina Wong (Washington Times) reports that while other countries are below poverty level and Iraq rakes in over $100 billion in oil, Iraq remains the target of charity.  Specifically, there's a reconstruction fund that two countries are pulling out of -- but not the United States.  And the US government gave Iraq $470 million of US tax payer dollars in Fiscal Year 2013 and, for Fiscal Year 2014, the US government plans to give $500 million.  This has nothing to do with the $573 million dollar loan -- again these are US tax payer dollars -- the US government is granting Iraq to purchase military weapons.


There is some concern over all the US tax dollars being poured into Iraq.  Last week,  Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared  Wednesday before the  US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa (see last week's "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot").





US House Rep Brad Sherman:  I want to focus on finances.  How much money did we give Iraq this year?  How much do they get from oil?  And are they pumping oil as quickly as they can or are they constraining their production in accordance with OPEC rules?

Brett McGurk:  In terms of money, we're not really giving Iraq much money at all anymore.  Our assistance levels have gone down dramatically.

US House Rep Brad Sherman:  But it's still well over a billion?

Brett McGurk: Uh, no.  I believe that the most recent request is now of under a billion.  It's gone from 1.5 billion last year to, uh, FY13 [Fiscal Year 2013]  to about 880 million.  And I can again brief you on the glide path in terms of our overall presence.  



The actual request by the State Dept is $1.18 billion.  What Wong's reporting on?  It's in addition to that.   So Wong's reporting $1.073 billion for Iraq in FY14 plus the $1.18 billion the State Dept is requesting for Iraq.


As we noted last week, Brett McGurk lied to Congress over and over..  Let's stay with that theme for a moment.  Today the UNHCR issued the following:



The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) calls for renewed efforts from states to relocate former Camp Ashraf residents, also known as Camp New Iraq.
Since the 1 September 2013 attack on Camp New Iraq where 52 residents died, there has been limited progress in moving the remaining residents to a third country. UNHCR encourages all Member States to share in the international efforts, admit residents and offer them a long-term solution.
UNHCR and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) also call upon the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety of the residents. UNHCR and UNAMI remain gravely concerned about the fate of seven missing individuals formerly residing in Camp New Iraq who disappeared on 1 September and call on the authorities to locate them, ensure their wellbeing and safeguard them against any forcible return.
Since 2011, UNHCR, together with UNAMI, has been engaged in an effort to find relocation opportunities outside Iraq for some 3,200 former residents of Camp New Iraq. In total, UNHCR has so far been able to secure the relocation to third countries of 300 residents.

As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1st.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.  In addition, 7 Ashraf residents were taken in the assault.  This month, in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, the  State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, stated, "The seven are not in Iraq."

So today the UNHCR issues a call for action.  It's by no means the first time they've done that and they'll do it again as needed.  But we're not talking about the United Nations, we're talking about Brett McGurk and the US State Dept.

US House Rep Joseph Wilson:  . . . but a real tragedy has been the murders at Camp Ashraf.  Since December 2008, when our government turned over the protections of the  camp to the Iraqi government, Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly assured the world that he would treat the residents humanely and also that he would protect them from harm.  Yet it has not kept the promise promise as 111 people have been killed  in cold blood and more than a thousand wounded in five attacks including the September 1st massacre, what is the United States doing to prevent further attacks and greater loss of life in terms of ensuring the safety and security of the residents

Brett McGurk:  Congressman, first let me say thank you for your-your service and your family's service.  Speaking for myself and my team who've spent many years in Iraq and have known many friends we've lost in Iraq, it's something we think about every day and it inspires our work and our dedication to do everything possible to succeed under very difficult circumstances.  Regarding Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, the only place for the MEK and the residents of Camp Liberty to be safe is outside of Iraq.  Camp Liberty is a former US military base  We lost Americans, right nearby  there, as late as the summer of 2010.  We lost a number of Americans to rocket fire and indirect fire attacks and our embassy compounds were the most secure facilities  in the country as late as the summer of 2010, that was when we had about 60,000 troops in the country in the country doing everything that they possibly could do to hunt down the rocket teams that we knew were targeting us.  Uh, there are cells in Iraq  -- we believe directed and inspired from Iran -- which are targeting the MEK, there's no question about that.  And the only place for the MEK to be safe is outside of Iraq.  That is why the State Dept and the Secretary have appointed a colleague of mine, Jonathan Winer, to work this issue full time. to find a place for them to go. Right now, there's about 2900 residents at Camp Liberty and Albania's taken in about 210, Germany's agreed to take in 100 and that's it.  We need to find a place for these - these people to go.  It is an urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis.  And I went to the camp to meet with the survivors, to speak with the families, and what they told me and I promised them to do everything I possibly could to get them to safety.  Uh, it is incumbent upon the Iraqi government to do everything it possibly can to to keep them safe -- and that means the T-walls and the sandbags and everything else.  Uh, but the only place for the residents to be safe is outside Iraq.  Since the tragic attacks at Camp Liberty on September 1st 1300 Iraqis were killed, 52 people were massacred at Camp Ashraf.  This was a tragic, horrifying act.  But since then, 1300 Iraqis in the country have been killed.  The country is incredibly dangerous and the MEK, to be safe, have to leave Iraq and we want to find a place for them to go.  

"It's an urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis," insisted McGurk to Congress last week.

And the State Dept supposedly takes the issue seriously.


Supposedly.

It was the UNHCR fueling the conversation on the Ashraf community today.  Not the State Dept.  They issued no statement.  They didn't even raise the issue at their press briefing today.

Or yesterday.


Or Friday.


Or Thursday.

Or Wednesday -- the day McGurk testified to Congress.


Or . . .


Do we see the pattern?

McGurk lies to Congress last week claiming that the US is providing leadership and raising awareness but it's done nothing on the most basic terms.

They only hired a person in the middle of September to oversee the issue in response to the over-fifty deaths and 7 kidnappings.

And, here's a little info the administration doesn't want the MEK thinking about, due to the Geneva obligations the US government owes to Camp Ashraf residents, the US government is now legally liable.  It didn't honor international law -- law which the US signed onto -- so survivors of the dead can file charges -- international court would be the best place, since this is international law -- against the US government and so could the families of the kidnapped.


Considering the fact that the US government's reputation is mud on the world stage thanks to all the wars and all the illegal spying, international courts could be harsh on the US.


And when the US didn't provide security?


People probably grasp this because the law is so rarely reported on.

The US government is liable.

People get hurt all the time!


Yes, indeed they do.

But, under Geneva, the US was supposed to guarantee the safety of these people.


And the US government can't even argue human error, act of god or any other legal claims.


That's because the US stationed no one, not one person, to protect the residents.  But that was the US obligation.  And they failed to honor it and people died as a result.


That's a lot of money.

Most likely, the US would reject any legal finding -- which would just demonstrate, even more, to the global community that the US government has no respect for the law.

In other words, if I were MEK, I'd be looking for a lawyer to file charges right away.


To get rich?  No.  To force the US government to address the 7 hostages and get them out of harm's way.


And, FYI, the court to file in would, in fact be, the International Court of Justice. -- it has jurisdiction over Geneva issues.


RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's Iraq: Flooding and killing"
"USA Today misses the point of Odierno's comments"
"Eleanor Catton, Terry Teachout, Paul Harding and S..."
"Follow up on Cher"
"The Mindy Project"
"Food"
"revenge - the good"
"Bill Ayers wrote another book"
"The homophobia of People magazine"
"Margaret Flowers writes a must-read column"
"What apology?"
"Anjelica Huston on Fresh Air"
"A tale of multiple losers"
"More lies exposed"
"THIS JUST IN! DOES HE EVER TELL THE TRUTH?"

More lies exposed

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


OBAMACARE CONTINUES TO BE A CON JOB.  HEAVILY BACKED BY THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, CANDIDATE BARRY O GAVE LIP SERVICE TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUT NEVER MEANT TO DELIVER IT.  (AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT COULD HAVE EXPANDED MEDICARE TO ALL AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF AGE.  HE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN NEEDED CONGRESS.)

NOW MORE LIES ARE UNCOVERED.

LIKE THE REALITY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW LAST APRIL ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH SIGNING UP ONLINE FOR OBAMACARE.


THE LIES NEVER END WITH THE DAHLIBAMA OR HIS HELPERS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Let's start with a 'reporter' -- one with tons of rumors about her.   Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers among other things wants to critique Lara Logan.


Joan Rivers used to do a joke about Sophia Loren and a candy bar during WWII.  That joke was applied repeatedly to Nancy by her peers during the Iraq War.  When I heard it, I would say, "Yeah, it's Joan Rivers."  (Toss a Hershey bar into her tent and she'll drop to all fours -- that's the spine of the joke.)  And they would talk about how Nancy allegedly flirted with the military -- or allegedly more than flirted -- to explain her 'scoops.'

Which was always strange to me because Nancy had only one scoop her whole time in Iraq. (Given to her by Petraeus.)


But now the woman whose male and female peers called her so many names (everything but "reporter")  thinks she has the clout to take on CBS News.  (An ABC-er said today, "If she'd been stationed in Iran, we could have called her The Trampoline of Tehran."  He said I should include that and should include it as anonymous -- "Though she'll know it's me" -- since Nancy's 'report' is nothing but anonymous sources.)

Rumors of her vast sexual antics to the side, how did she do with her analysis?

She writes:

The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims – al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.


That does sound damning until you grasp that most of the press lumps Ansar al Shariah and al Qaeda together (because the two can be linked).  We stand alone -- Nancy's never joined us, maybe that's good since I'd hate to be mistaken for a street whore -- in pointing out that the press blaming attacks in Iraq for "al Qaeda" is a catch-all that is false and blinds people to reality.  Even confining it to al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not good enough, nor precise enough.  But we've made that argument against all outlets -- that would include Nance's McClatchy Newspapers.

In other words, Nancy hopped a high horse to go after an easy target -- to decry what the bulk of the press -- including her own outlet -- does.  "For shorthand" a correspondent insisted when we called it out here.


So no points for Nance on that.

Nancy then thinks she's found a stronger point:


Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah,

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html#storylink=cpy

Logan said it was "well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida" and Nancy proves her wrong by insisting that the belief is members of Al Qaida and other groups are thought to be responsible?

Does Nancy read what she writes?  She's actually backed Lara Logan while she thinks she's disproved her.  Logan didn't say "solely by al Qaida,' she said it was an al Qaida attack -- a point Nancy doesn't appear to grasp.  Equally true, the WikiLeaks leak of State Dept cables ties one of the three suspects in Logan's report to al Qaeda.  A point Nancy ignores.  She ignores a great deal.


For example, Nancy  'disproves' Logan:



The piece also named three known insurgent operators as top suspects in the attack but did not explain the source of that assertion.

The three are long suspected of having been involved, Zelin said, but there is no evidence of their specific roles in the attack.
Two months ago, al Qaida operative Abu Anas al-Libi was captured in Tripoli by U.S. commandoes and brought to New York to stand trial for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The “60 Minutes” piece attempted to link al-Libi to the events in Benghazi, with Logan reporting that “Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi.”
But a U.S. law enforcement source involved in the Benghazi probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss a case that’s still under investigation, told McClatchy this week that al-Libi is not under investigation for the Benghazi attacks. Logan did not detail the source for her assertion that he was.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html#storylink=cpy

Wow.  That might be damning.

CBS and Lara Logan might need to apologize . . .

if Nancy were telling the truth but she's lying.


We're going to go to the transcript of the report.  Ava and I covered this topic in "TV: Whose mistake?" -- for that, we worked CBS News friends for information -- some of which we've used, some of which we're saving for when someone really makes an idiot of themselves.  Neither Ava nor I know Lara Logan or her producer Max McClellan.  We do have many friends at CBS News and, to clarify, we haven't slept any of them.  We were provided with a full transcript of the segment by CBS friends.  From the transcript.



Lara Logan:  We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Greg Hicks: It was a frightening piece of information.

Lara Logan: Because it meant what?

Greg Hicks: It raised the stakes, changed the game.

[. . .]

Lara Logan:  Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan.


Let's deal with what Nancy wrote about the government first.  An unnamed government source who is not supposed to discuss the matter told her last week, two weeks after the segment aired, that Abu Anas al-Libi wasn't a suspect.

To which the obvious question is: Since when?

The second obvious question is: Where's the investigation?

By the government of Nancy's phone records.

Oh, that's right there is none.

Because authorized leaks -- often lies the government wants to spread -- don't outrage the White House.

For example, Savannah Luschei (Information Clearing House) reports on reporter James Risen's response to the targeting of him by the government:

James Risen, the New York Times reporter facing imprisonment for refusing to disclose his sources, denounced the federal government’s infringement on the press in a rare public appearance Thursday, saying it is time for journalists to “surrender or fight.”

Risen spoke to a crowd of about 300 lawyers, journalists and others at Berdahl Auditorium in Stanley Hall on Thursday evening in a talk hosted by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism titled “Prosecuting the Press.” He spoke alongside Lowell Bergman, director of the graduate school’s Investigative Reporting Program.

The lack of protection for national security reporters, he said, has allowed the federal government to demand that journalists like him reveal their sources, which threatens the integrity of the press.

But don't fret for Nancy.  Those who repeat authorized administration leaks are never targeted.


So Nancy disproves Lara Logan and CBS by offering up an unnamed source who is legally compelled not to talk about the case (an ongoing investigation) but who breaks that legal obligation?  That's a trust worthy source there, Nancy?

Doesn't sound like it to me but maybe Nancy can furnish further info on her source -- possibly his penis size? -- to explain why we should trust him as deeply as Nancy does?


Nancy 'disproves' suspect two by running to an 'expert' at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).  I am happy to quote and critique them here.  I've noted they're to the right of me.  And that's really all I've noted because we don't exactly embrace them -- or present them as genuine experts.  Since Nancy does, let's go to Wikiepedia for some of the criticism of Nancy's source:



In a December 2003 interview on Al Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States."^[15] In response, Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes."^[16]
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States.^[17] Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda … Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."^[17]



So a group not exactly trusted in the Arab world?  That's Nancy's source for disproving suspect two?  (Suspect two is the one WikiLeaks' release exposed as connected to al Qaeada according to the US State Dept.)   To disprove suspect three . . . well even Nance finally admits she can't.

A Take down?  She hasn't even raised valid questions?

Well, maybe one:  Why is this woman employed?


For those who don't know, Nancy is the mouth piece for the US government -- and she has the metaphorical pubes stuck to her lips to prove it.


Which is why, for example, before Barack Obama declared Chelsea Manning guilty of crimes, Nancy had already done so -- repeatedly on The Diane Rehm Show.  Nancy became McClatchy's Defense Correspondent because of her closeness -- however you want to define that -- to the military.  When Petreaus was out of government, Nancy again became a foreign correspondent.

Nancy's entire output is worthless except for the last report she filed for Knight Ridder.  In all the years since, she's had nothing to offer.

When the ethnic cleansing was taking place in Iraq, Nancy repeatedly was wrong or lied about what was taking place on Haditha Street in Baghdad.  We called that out in real time.  We call it out more loudly now because we've seen photos of what happened.


We've largely ignored the rumors about Nancy using sex to get stories.  We danced closer to those rumors when we made it clear that she needed to stop declaring Chelsea Manning guilty since she was supposedly a reporter and no trial had been held.  Nancy was, yet again, doing it for the military brass.

As she's repeatedly demonstrated, no one in the know would ever describe her as a reporter.


This is demonstrated in this passage by Youssef:


The piece closed with a picture of a document outlining Stevens’ schedule for Sept. 12, “a day (Stevens) did not live to see.” According to the piece, “When a member of our team went to the U.S. compound earlier this month, he found remnants of the Americans’ final frantic moments still scattered on the ground.”
But the compound owner, Jamal el Bishari, told McClatchy on Wednesday that he began clearing debris in April from the compound’s four buildings and is still renovating the site. McClatchy visited the site in June and saw a pile of debris sitting outside the compound walls, but no documents were discernible among the broken concrete, clothing, furniture and soot.
Bishari said it is unlikely such a document could have been discovered recently.
“It is impossible to find a document now,” he told McClatchy.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/13/208446/questions-about-60-minutes-benghazi.html#storylink=cpy

While it may or may not be possible to find a document on November 13th (when Nancy filed her 'report'), whether it was on October 5th or 6th is another matter.

As for McClatchy visiting the site in June, clearly the 'visitor' didn't go through what was available -- 'discernible' wouldn't be required if he or she had.  But a larger point, Nancy doesn't trust or value the person enough to name them.  It's not a reporter.  It's a local.  Knight-Ridder had a history of using locals for stories and paying them well.  McClatchy, by contrast, is known for having lied to locals, misrepresented employment to locals and left them feeling alone and abandoned.  You could ask some of the Iraqi workers, for example.

Nancy wants you to believe this is an issue she cares about.  So she writes over 2,100 words yet never mentions the names: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods.

Over 2,1000 words and she can't mention those three men.

That about says it all.

Maybe next time we'll talk about how someone imporperly influenced their outlet's coverage of the 'Arab Spring.'



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The never-grow-ups"
"Hejira"
"Palestinian Declaration of Independence (Francis A..."
"Feminist News Digest"
"Barzani, floods and Moqtada (things that expose No..."
"I Hate The War"
"Cher or Tuesday Weld?"
"The Mindy Project"
"WSWS sets the standard"
"revenge - the bad"
"Now they're not lying?"
"Goodbye Cher"
"Marjorie Cohn goes back to whoring"
"The Good Wife's bad episode"
"The never-ending propaganda"
"ObamaCare, hilarious comedy special, Tuesday Weld and more"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: The administration remains Nouri's dir...
• TV: People catch on
• Tweet of the Week
• From The TESR Test Kitchen
• Who did he meet with Friday?
• Photo of the week
• Washed out and washed up?
• He'll never get Palin's support
• The Queening of Clooney (Ava and C.I.)
• The Drone Goes on (Chris Fry)
• Gravity film review
• Highlights

"He's a uniter!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE UNITES!"