Barack's out of the loop, Carney's just out

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS DESPAIRING OVER THE FACT THAT HE'S NOW OUT OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA LOOP AND ABOUT AS RELEVANT TODAY AS THE ALTA VISTA SEARCH ENGINE.

WHICH MAY EXPLAIN HIS EXPECTED DECISION TO DO NOTHING ABOUT THE ILLEGAL SPYING HE OVERSEES AND INSTEAD LEAVE IT UP TO CONGRESS.  HE WILL INSTEAD 'KICK THE CAN' WHICH, YOU MAY REMEMBER, 2007 CANDIDATE BARRY O INSULTED OTHERS FOR DOING.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY EXPLODED, "WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT MY DAMN BEARD! I SHOULD BE EXPLODING ALL UP ON THE TWITTERS AND THE INSTAGRAMS AND THE TUMBLERS!  I WANT PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT MY BEARD!"

THESE REPORTERS AND OUR OUTLETS SINCERELY APOLOGIZE TO JAY CARNEY.  WE HAD ALL ASSUMED HIS MARRIAGE TO CLAIRE SHIPMAN WAS A LOVING AND REAL ONE.  WE HAD NO IDEA CARNEY WAS ACTUALLY GAY AND WE REGRET ANY HARDSHIPS HE MAY HAVE EXPERIENCED WHILE LIVING ON "THE DOWN LOW" AND "IN THE CLOSET."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Former US Senator Joe Lieberman:  Yet increasingly we hear voices -- on both sides of the political spectrum -- who say that the threat from terrorism is receding, the end of this conflict is here or near, and therefore that we can withdraw from much of the rest of the world. This narrative is badly and dangerously mistaken. There is no question, the United States -- under President Bush and President Obama -- has inflicted severe damage to 'core' al Qaeda, the senior leadership that reconstituted itself in the mid-2000s in the tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan, after being driven by the American military from neighboring Afghanistan after 9/11. To borrow a phrase from General David Petraeus, while the progress we have achieved against core al Qaeda is real and significant it is also fragile and reversible . What has degraded core al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan has been the persistent, targeted application of military force against these indi viduals and networks. The precondition for these operations, and the intelligence that enables them , has been our presence in Afghanistan. If the United States withdraws all of our military forces from Afghanistan at the end of this year -- the so-called "zero option," which some now advocate -- you can be sure that al Qaeda will regenerate, eventually on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. If you doubt this, I urge you to look at what is now happening in western Iraq, where just a few years ago, during the US-led surge, al Qaeda was dealt an even more crippling blow than core al Qaeda has suffered in Pakistan. Yet now it is al Qaeda that is surging back in Iraq, hoisting its black flag over cities like Falluja and Ramadi, murdering hundreds of innocent Iraqis this year, with violence surging back to 2008 levels. 





Lieberman went on to advocate for "a small number of embedded [US] advisors on the ground" in Iraq as well as for the US to provide "airpower."  He was testifying today before the House Homeland Security Committee -- US House Rep Michael McCaul is Committee Chair and US House Rep Bennie G. Thompson is the Ranking Member.  Also testifying were former US House Rep Jane Harman, retired General Jack Keane and the RAND Corporation's Dr. Seth Jones.

Gen Jack Keane:  After the strategic blunder of leaving no residual force in Iraq -- and immunity for US troops was a false issue -- equally damaging was distancing ourselves from a long term strategic partnership between the US and Iraq leaving the al Qaeda to have re-emerged and the level of violence today is as high as it was in 2008 and destined to get higher.  The al Qaeda are quickly taking control of western Iraq while they have seized control of northern Syria.

Harman had nothing to offer on Iraq -- possibly because she was still focused on the Defense Policy Board briefing on South Asia that  "I've just come from" -- a briefing which she described as "bone chilling."  (What was she referring to?  US assessments on where nuclear war stands currently between Pakistan and India.)

We'll note this exchange.  It's typical of the hearing -- talking down to Americans, preaching war and death and destruction.

Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson:  A lot of us our faced, when we go into our districts, with an effort that's gone on a long time.  The people are becoming weary -- not defeated, but weary. And they say, "Why don't you do something to bring this to an end?" If we had a magic wand, we could do that. So, listening to some of our constituents who talk about the 6,000 people who died and the enormous costs so far, and I'll go, because I've heard it -- what would you suggest as a response to those constituents going forward, as to what members of Congress, the House and the Senate should do to bring that to an end? I'll start with you, Senator.

Former Senator Joe Lieberman:  Thanks, Congressman Thompson, that's a -- that's a really important question.  I'm glad you asked it because that's the reality.  And I know that's what you face and what members of both parties probably face -- when you go home.  So here's the point at which -- I mean one first reaction I have, which won't really convince people, but it - but it's an important one.  I will tell you that every time I went to a funeral of a soldier from Connecticut who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, I was amazed and moved by the families saying, 'Please make sure that our son/daughter/husband/whatever didn't die in vain.'  So there is that element.  I mean, if we just, we learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, that if we just walk away, we do risk saying to those families whose family members gave their lives because we ordered them to go there in our defense that they did die in vain.  I don't think we ever want that to happen.  Second thing, I want to go back to and, in some ways, I want to make this personal about President Obama. Put it in this context, President Obama ran for office in 2008 and again in 2012 with one of the basic themes -- in addition to all the change and dealing with domestic problems -- was that he was going to get us out of the wars that we were in and not get us into additional wars around the world/  And, uhm, you know, fair enough.  But sometimes the world doesn't cooperate with a presidential narrative and I think that's where we are in the countries that I've talked about: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.  Which, if we don't do something more than we're doing now, they're going to tip over.  So, I say this personally, I'm not here just to criticize what the Obama administration has done.  In some sense, I'm here to appeal to the Obama administration -- which, after all, the president's going to be our president for three more years and a lot that could be good or bad for our security couldan happen.  I repeat, what's a lesson learned that's consistent with the message that the president -- the policy that the president has adopted?  We're not going to send tens of thousands of troops on the ground to any of these countries.  But there's something in between that and just pulling out.  And I think what we've all , in different ways, tried to argue today, both militarily and in other ways in terms of aid and support where if we don't -- and this is what I'd say to the constituents -- if we don't at least maintain a presence, if we don't help the freedom fighters in Syria, the non-extremists, anti-Assad people, if we don't build up the Libyan military to maintain order against the militias, if we don't make the kind of agreement and support the government in Iraq, then we're going to get attacked again. Same from Afghanistan.  And, uh, then we're going to have to go back in there and have to spend more, risk more American lives.  It's not an easy argument to make -- and particularly, not in tough economic times.  But so I think, bottom line, we've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not going to be hundreds of thousands of troops but if we just turn away we're going to suffer and, therefore, we need your support, Mr. and Mrs. Constituent, to help us do that. 

Former US House Rep Jane Harman: I can think of five things -- some of which I've already mentioned, but I'll tick them off.  One, honor the service of those who followed orders and went to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Tens of thousands grievously wounded.  Many came home in decent shape.  Honor their service.  Make sure we have in place a welcome mat that includes all the benefits they're entitled to but also hopefully efforts to build good jobs for them -- the unemployment rate among returning vets is disproportionate to the unemployment rate of others.  Second, engage in a whole of government approach to solve this problem.  We've discussed that at length, I won't go into it again.  Third, continue the counter-terrorism mission in not just the Middle East but around the world.  The US has interests in other places other than our own country but we surely don't want training grounds to develop again in pick a place.  And we know that some are and we need to be active there using all the tools that we have. Fourth, continue our surveillance system although I think some reforms are in order.  The president will speak on Friday.  I was quite impressed with the report that was presented to him.  It's not clear exactly what he'll adopt but we need to have an effective system that can spot bad guys and prevent and disrupt plots against us.  And finally, enact cyber security legislation so that we are protected against what is a growing threat and could in the end be a more -- many predict -- a much more severe threat than some other form of terror threat against the homeland.

Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson:  General?

Retired General Jack Keane: Yes, I would first say to them that never before in the history of the country have so few sacrificed so much for so many and have done it for so long.  And the fact of the matter is that the reason why it has been so long is because of the mistakes that we made and be honest about it.  The fact of the matter is that our strategy initially in Afghanistan -- military strategy I'm talking about here -- and our military strategy in Iraq after we liberated Iraq was flawed  And that led to protracted wars.  And we should have an honest discussion with the American people and with your constituents. Now the fact of the matter is that if you know America's military -- and I can say this with some knowledge -- is that we normally get off on the wrong foot and we have throughout our history with some rare exceptions.  But because we're reflections of the American people, the American society, we're intellectually flexible and operationally adoptable.  And we sort of get to the answer faster than other people would when we're on a much larger war than what we're dealing with here.  And we did figure it out eventually in Iraq and we have figured it out in Afghanistan as well.  And the sacrifice is definitely worth it to protect the American people.  I mean, when you talk to the troops we deployed in the 90s and we were all over the world doing things in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Herzegovina, you name the place, there were problems and we were there.  Not necessarily fighting to the degree that we've done post-9/11 but nonetheless deployments and some fighting.  From 9-11 on, and we have a 9-11 generation in the military, we have a 9-11 generation in the Central Intelligence Agency -- The fact of the matter is when you talk to these troops, it's all about the American people.  Before it was about helping others.  This is about protecting the American people and they get it.  That's why they willingly go back and do four, five, six tours.  We have generals that have been away from their families for 8 out of 10 years.  I mean it's quite extraordinary the sacrifice that is willingly be made. Tell that story.  It's extraordinary because they are protecting the American people and our way of life.  And they're willing to do something that most of the American people cannot do and that is die for that.  And that is really quite extraordinary.  So I say be honest with them.  And then, in terms of this troublesome area, I know intellectually we like to talk about we're pivoting to the east because of the emergence of China.  Does anyone in this room believe that in any near term we're going to go to war with China? Not that we shouldn't be vigilant about them.  We can't be serious about that.  The fact of the matter is we have huge problems in the Middle East that threaten the United States.  And we have to stay engaged, Mr. Congressman, that is the word that we need to use.  We partner with our allies in that region and we support people who want to overthrow dictatorial regimes -- like in Libya, like in Tunisia, like in Syria.  In Libya and Syria, they just want us to help them.  They don't want our troops. And in Iraq, where we did help them, we walked away and look at the mess we have as a result.  That should inform us of how dangerous this situation is and how important American commitment is to stay engaged.  And we have to do that if we're going to protect the American people. 

Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson:  Dr. Jones?

Dr. Seth Jones:  I would say three things that are worth reminding constituents and all Americans that we talk to.  One is, as much as we would like this war and this struggle to end, there are organizations committed to fighting Americans and conducting attacks overseas that will not end.  They don't have a desire to end this and the struggle on their part will continue.  Therefore, the struggle continues.  As much as we want to end it, the terrorists we've talked about today are committed to continuing this struggle.  Second, I would say, as everybody here has noted, the days of large numbers of American forces targeting terrorists overseas -- particularly conventional forces -- are over.  And I think that as we have seen over the past several years, they have tended to radicalize populations rather than to facilitate.  So what that does leave us is, I would say, a third point.  There is a more modest approach.  I think we have learned we're talking about smaller number of forces, lethal ones overseas -- as well as civilians; we're talking about smaller amounts of American dollars that are being sent.  There is a need for direct action -- some direct action activity.  We have stopped plots targeting the US homeland from overseas because of this action.  We also have an interest in building some of the local partnership capacity so that we don't have to do all of this -- so that we don't have to do all the fighting and dying and that locals can do it.  This is the direction we've moved on in several fronts.  So I would say there has been a learning process.  But let me just conclude by again just reminding constituents and Americans, that from the al Qaeda and jihadists perspective, the war continues and, in that sense, we cannot retreat. 




Some quick take aways.  Joe Lieberman has never understood 9-11, not even the official story.  If you examine his claims about how inaction will cause another 9-11, you should realize quickly that the only inaction in the official story is the failure to heed warnings.  The reasons given for the attack are not reasons calling for more US troops stationed around the world. In fact, one reason given for the attacks was US troops stationed in the Middle East.  Second, it's really sad that two people who voted for the Iraq War -- Lieberman and Harman -- can do nothing to justify the war but hide behind dead soldiers.  Contrary to their embarrassing remarks, you don't continue insanity because some people died.  You learn from your mistakes.  Or, in Lieberman and Harman's case, you never learn.  Last main point we'll make: only a smaller number of forces will be used.

That's what the War Hawks said.  And that can be seen as a victory.  The force size -- even at its largest -- in Iraq was never as great in number as what the US sent to Vietnam.  So it's worth noting that the Iraq Wae which was supposed to bury memory and fact (more popularly known as "the Vietnam syndrome") didn't work.  And even War Hawks have to face that in the next go rounds the numbers sent will be even smaller.

Lieberman and others, of course, say send advisers so we should probably point out that this is the way they birth wars -- start it with advisers and kick it up to something greater.

I'll probably come back to the hearing tomorrow to note one more thing regarding Iraq.  Also in today's State Dept press briefing:

QUESTION: Marie --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Yep.

QUESTION: I have one more – Iraqi members of parliament are in town. Have they met anyone from the State Department?

MS. HARF: Members of parliament?

QUESTION: Yeah.


MS. HARF: I can check. I don’t know. I’ll check.


That's what we need to cover and I'll kick that back to tomorrow.  This is about the DC event that we covered in yesterday's snapshot.  We'll try to pick up the Iraq from the hearing and one of the MPs from yesterday.  Also Ruth and Kat were at this morning's hearing and plan to write about it at their sites tonight focusing on Benghazi.  Ava and Wally were at the hearing and are debating if they've got anything else they can cover.






Yesterday, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq began a visit to DC.  Speaking to  Eli Lake (Daily Beast) al-Mutlaq called for the US to send election monitors to Iraq.   He made his call for election monitors on the same day as a Nineveh Electoral Commission official was assassinated in Mosul.  Today, National Iraqi News Agency reports, "Unknown gunmen assassinated on Wednesday 15, Jan. an employee at Nineveh Elections Office, near his home in eastern Mosul."

The elections are the parliamentary elections which are supposed to take place April 30th.

Some have argued that Nouri al-Maliki's current assault on Anbar Province is a campaign move as he seeks a third term as prime minister.  Others have argued Nouri's assault is an attempt to delay the elections.

Alistair Lyon and Yara Bayoumy (Reuters) provide an analysis of Nouri's rule and we'll note this part on the 2010 parliamentary elections where Nouri's State of Law was beaten by Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya but the White House insisted Nouri be given a second term:

A former senior adviser to Maliki is cited by Iraq expert Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics as saying the prime minister began keeping decision-making far more to himself after the formation of his government in 2010.
"Maliki's paranoia went stratospheric and he wouldn't listen to any advice," Dodge quoted the adviser as saying.
The election also discouraged Sunnis who, after boycotting earlier U.S.-sponsored elections, had put their faith in the ballot box and supported Iraqiya - only to see it stymied after its success. "It's against that background that violence and alienation has flourished in Anbar," Dodge said.

In 2010, the Iraqi people voted and the White House stripped them of their votes.  Since then things have gotten progressively worse each year in Iraq leading up to the just finished 2013 which Prensa Latina describes as follows: "The city [Baghdad] is sunken in a wave of violence that left a death toll of 9 500 people last year, caused by the resurgence of the conflict between the Sunni Muslim Community, which feels discriminated, and the Shiite-led government."

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: At least 62 killed today and 83 injured"
"Buffer Zones for the Safety of Patients, Doctors a..."
"Free Hawaii! Native Hawaiian Independence (Francis..."
" Mumia and Netflix"
"Revolution"
"US Rep Brian Higgins weighs in on Iraq"
"Barack kicks the can again"
"One more time on net neutrality"
"Beto O'Rourke talks about Iraq"
"Homeland Security Committee hearing"
"The illegal spying"
"Benghazi addressed in Congress"
"The awful New Yorker"
"He calls it work"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S HARD AT WORK!"