Cedric's Big Mix

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

David Corn is one ugly ass idiot

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

DAVID CORN'S DECIDED THAT BECAUSE HE'S SO UGLY HE MUST BE SMART.

NOW DAVID CORN IS UGLY.

HE IS CROSS-EYED, HAS A SPLOTCH ON HIS FACE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE MARK OF CAIN OR SOMETHING BIBLICAL. HIS FACE IS ALL SQUISHED AT ODD ANGLES AS IF THE BIRTH CANAL WASN'T FRIENDLY TO YOUNG DAVID. MOST OF ALL, HE LOOKS LIKE AN IDIOT. PROBABLY BECAUSE HE IS ONE.

THEN THERE'S THE WAY OF SPEAKING WHICH HAS LED MANY A COLLEAGUE TO HOLLER, "DAVID, TAKE THE COCK OUT OF YOUR MOUTH SO I CAN HEAR YOU!" NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING HE GIVES BLOW JOBS. JUST THAT THE WEIRD WAY HE SPEAKS MAKES IT SOUND AS IF HE'S GOT A COCK IN THERE.

TODAY DAVID CORN BLEW THE FOLLOWING OUT OF HIS SAGGY, OLD MAN ASS:

A blue-ribbon commission should study that. RT @brianbeutler If it's not too late, I think it's time for a blogger ethics panel, don't you? about 6 hours ago via web

YOU KNOW WHAT CORN NUTS: WHEN YOU LIE ABOUT A PARDON BILL CLINTON NEVER GAVE AND YOU REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE, YOU'RE THE LAST ONE TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS, YOU FREAKING LOOKING BASTARD. AND DAVID, WHEN MOTHER JONES IS GETTING PHONE CALLS COMPLAINING AND YOU STILL REFUSE TO CORRECT YOUR ERROR, YOU LOOK STUPID AS WELL AS FACIALLY DEFORMED -- SERIOUSLY, DID YOU DO THE BODY MASK FOR THE CHER MOVIE MASK?

BUT MOST OF ALL DAVID, WHEN YOU REFUSE TO DO A GENUINE CORRECTION AND INSTEAD ACT THE FOOL BY BRING UP MARC RICH, YOU'RE THE LAST ONE TO TALK ABOUT ETHICS.

AND CHECK OUT THIS DAVID CORN, YOU STUPID STOOGE AND ALL ROUND UGLY ASS MOFO, WHILE YOU WERE REPEATING LIES -- AND REPEATING THEM FOR WEEKS -- AVA AND C.I. KNEW WHAT WAS WHAT RIGHT AWAY.

The Common Ills: There was no pardon, Barack (Ava and C.I.)

Apr 17, 2008 ... There was no pardon, Barack (Ava and C.I.). MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) ...
thecommonills.blogspot.com/.../there-was-no-pardon-barack-ava-and-ci.html - Cached - Similar

The Common Ills: Jake Tapper, correct your error

Apr 17, 2008 ... Ava and I would've pardoned them. Bill Clinton did not pardon them. ... There is no need to commute your sentence because the pardon overturns the ..... Iraq snapshot · The Genderquake Quakes Again (Ava and C.I.) ...
thecommonills.blogspot.com/.../jake-tapper-correct-your-error.html - Cached - Similar

YEAH, DAVID CORN, YOU OLD UGLY BITCH, YOU WERE STUPID, UGLY AND UNINFORMED. AND WHEN YOU FINALLY OFFERED YOUR WEAK-ASS CORRECTION, IT WAS FULL OF YOUR USUAL UGLINESS.

SO DON'T TALK TO US ABOUT ETHICS.

WHAT'S THAT?

DAVID, WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND A WORD YOU'RE SAYING, TAKE THE COCK OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday Kerry asked that of James Jeffrey during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of US Ambassdor James Jeffrey. He is currently the US Ambassador to Turkey, President Barack Obama has nominated him to be the US Ambassador to Iraq. (He would replace the current disaster, Chris Hill.) Last night, Kat covered it at her site with "Senate Foreign Relations Committee," Wally covered it at Rebecca's site with "Kaufman and Casey," and Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Kerry, Lugar and Feingold." Russ Feingold's exchange with Jeffrey hasn't been noted yet.

Senator Russ Feingold: [. . .] And last year Ambassador Hill testified that any delay in withdrawing our troops by 2011 would "be poorly received by the Iraqi people." Do you agree with that assessment? Share that assessment?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I have seen all the polls, Senator, I just reviewed them in the last two days -- that we've taken and that other people have taken -- and, uh, the Iraqi, uh, populace in very large numbers -- at least outside of the Kurdish areas -- does want to see our forces withdraw.

Senator Russ Feingold: Thank you, sir. The State Dept is planning to make up for the departure of US troops by doubling its security contractors. Even though such contractors often don't have the essential security capabilities that are provided by our troops. I'm concerned this will be dangerous and also lead to a situation where we don't have meaningful control over our own contractors. What alternatives have you considered?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: Senator, this is an extremely important point. Uh, if confirmed as chief of mission, my first responsibility will be for the safety and security of the personnel under my supervision and I've put a lot of time and effort into looking at this. Uhm. The -- after the incident in 2007 in Baghdad involving the Blackwater security people, the State Dept did a very thorough investigation called the Kennedy Report. I've read that report. It concluded -- and I think that this conclusion remains true today -- that the State Dept has done a very good job in an extremely lethal environment protecting its people and keeping them alive and safe; however, there needed to be certain steps, technical steps, rule of engagement steps, coordination steps -- coordination both with the US military and with the Iraq authorities, and more supervision. Now we put, uh, a direct hire State Dept officer or person with all movements So -- And we have more technical control through, uh, basically recordings, audio and video equipment and such so that we're able to determine what happened and review any incident and since then there has not been a serious incident. But I want to underscore, this is a very, very difficult mission. This is, uh, uh, a defensive mission, not an offensive one, but it involves thousands of people, many movements in a very lethal environment and it is something we have to remain very concerned about.

Senator Russ Feingold: Thank you, Ambassador. State Dept Human Rights Report on Iraq found that -- as in previous years -- reports of abuse at the point of arrest and during the investigation period -- particularly by the Ministry of Interior's federal police and the Minister of Defense battalion level forces -- continued to be common. Federal law requires a certification before the United States can continue to provide certain kinds of security assistance to any state that has "consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." In your view, how many years of violations must occur before such a certification of a consistent pattern of abuses is required?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I've read the report, Senator, I would have to look at this in more detail. The effort that we're trying to do, including the police training effort, is to try to get at the violations and the abuse which we have seen in the past and we have seen it -- We saw it when I was there, we've seen it since then, it's been documented. Our hope is that we can see this on a declining slope. And it is something that I will look at very carefully if I'm confirmed and if I go out there.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well of course I applaud that and I urge you on in the effort to make sure that these units are vetted, but my question was: How many years of violations?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I can't assess that at this time, Senator.

Senator Russ Feingold: Can you get back to me on that?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: I can.

Senator Russ Feingold: Okay. More broadly, how if confirmed will you work with the relevant US and Iraqi entities to faciliate improvements in human rights in Iraq which according to the State Dept report are far less -- far below adequate?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: Again, that is the assessment of the State Dept Human Rights Report and Iraq is coming out of a horrific conflict and out of thirty years of dictatorship and almost constant war, both civil, internal war, war with Iran, war with Kuwait. It's going to take some time for Iraq, even with a democratic government and democratic institutions to move into a environment even more in the average in the region but certainly what we would like to see in the more developed parts of the world. It's going to take time.

Senator Russ Feingold: And in that regard, sectarianism obviously remains a very real problem in Iraq, including in security forces. If confirmed how will you work with the Iraqi government to help make this a priority issue and to push for concrete improvement?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: There are various efforts that we already have underway that I will review and reinforce if I'm confirmed Senator for example, we now do joint-patrols with the US forces, Kurdish forces, peshmerga forces, Iraqi army forces along the disputed internal borders. We are putting a special effort into the minority communities -- I mentioned that in my opening statement, it's of great concern to me. It was then when I was there last time, it remains so. We are also looking at the makeup and the composition of the security forces. It has improved over time but it is something that has been worrisome in the past and it is something that requires continued vigelance.

Senator Russ Feingold: Yes, sir. Finally, the New York Times recently reported on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crude oil and refined products being smuggled across the Iran-Iraq border every year. What steps is the Iraqi government taking to address this problem? given not only its potential to undercut our efforts with Iran but also tensions over resource revenue sharing in Iraq itself?

Ambassador James Jeffrey: We're very concerned about this given the latest, uh, uh, sanctions legislation that the US has passed but also, uh, the role of that in the relationship between Iraq and Iran. I know that we're looking into this latest charges -- the latest information -- at the embassy and with the Iraqi government and also with the folks in the north [Kurds] because some of that smuggling has been identified in the north.

There's a great deal in the above worth commenting on but we'll go for the obvious: Did you notice he didn't mention the Iraq War in his reply to a question about human rights? He was mentioning this conflict and this war and how this and that had hurt Iraq, but he really didn't seem aware that the Iraq War had caused suffering in Iraq, did he?

Today Mike Mount (CNN) reports that the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, has (yet again) declared the US is on track with the drawdown. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) notes Odierno was speaking at a Pentagon briefing and quotes him stating, "To be successful, Iraq must have a unity government." The drawdown is a success! Thus far! Is that really the story or was Odierno trotted out before people could process what took place in the Jeffrey's hearing yesterday?

Ranking Member Richard Lugar and Jeffreys had a lengthy exchange during which, asked about post-withdrawal or 'withdrawal,' Jeffreys explained, "We [State Dept] are taking on missions that the US military has done." Exactly because under the Samantha Power Doctrine, the State Dept becomes militarized in Iraq: It is over 'operations' and has armed 'employees' at various "outposts" in Iraq; it becomes responsible for training Iraqi security forces, it doubles the number of contractors/mercenaries, etc. These are not State Dept duties. The militarization of the State Dept, the armed wing of the State Dept. Jeffreys declared, "The security for all of this would be done by the Deapartment of State under the current plans."

For those present and paying attention, it was obvious that there was no end of the Iraq War in 2012 even if the SOFA was followed. This is the plan Samantha Power didn't attempt to hide from the press. But when the press is in the tank with Barack and/or scared of being attacked by the peers who are, they don't tell you what you need to know. Which is how Davey D had his ridiculous moment of defending Samantha Power on air on KPFA and revealing how dumb he truly could be -- he got her name wrong and he thought she was a woman of peace. This is the woman who blurbed the US military's counter-insurgency manual, the woman from the Carr Center. The one who preaches war eternal. And this plan Jeffrey was discussing, largely with Lugar, in yesterday's hearing. In fact, let's go to the moment Lugar and Jeffrey found so amusing -- it takes place during Lugar's "do not appreciate" when each came close to laughing.

Ambassador James Jeffrey: [. . .] We're going to have to do more if we want to have the kind of presence nationwide that everyone believes is necessary to carry out the President's program, sir.

Ranking Member Richard Lugar: I appreciate your response. I simply made the point because many Americans and members of Congress talking about the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq do not appreciate a whole new contingent is moving. And these aren't military people, these are civilian people. The State Dept and affiliated people. But it is a huge commitment by the American people and a considerable budget. And it follows that after we've had a war and a consideral period of peace making, moving on to the future is not the same maybe as the conventional embassy situation in a country where there's not been this sort of conflict. And we appreciate your outline of it and we will appreciate your management of it.

Just to be sure we're all aware of what Lugar outlined, we're going to drop back to his opening statement, which he delivered after he and Kerry took a lengthy break from the hearing and after acting chair Bob Casey paused the hearing for a recess.

Ranking Member Richard Lugar: While making fewer headlines, the situation in Iraq continues to be vital to the national security of the United States. Iraq held parliamentary elections on March 7, 2009, but an agreement on who will be the Prime Minister may not be concluded for several months. The redeployment of American forces in Iraq has begun, and by September, all but 50,000 U.S. troops will have departed the country. President Obama has said that by the end of 2011, all US troops will be out of Iraq. Plans submitted by the Administration suggest that US involvement in Iraq will remain robust well beyond that with more than 5,000 diplomats and civilian advisers working with civil society and the Iraqi government. The uncertain political situation creates risks for our transition plans. Our military has been involved in areas of governance far beyond security and turning over those critical responsibilities will be challenging. The State Dept has asked for more than $800 million in start-up costs for a police mentoring and training program. The program envisions having 350 advisors at three camps who will fan out to 50 sites in the country, about half of which would be reachable by ground and the rest requiring air support. With the military's departure, we are told, the Dept may hire as many as 7,000 contract security personnel. An AP article last month suggested the Iraq mission would need the equivalent of a squadron of Blackhawk helicopters, 50 ambush-protected vehicles and equipment to protect against rockets and mortars. It is important that the Administration flesh out how all the pieces of this unprecedented operation will fit together in Iraq as American troops depart.

That's the militarization of the State Dept and the continuation of the Iraq War. It was interesting to watch Jeffrey, for example, during the exchange with Feingold. Jeffrey stuck to the polls of the Iraqi people on withdrawal; however, he never noted that many Iraqi leaders do not want the US military to levae at the end of 2012. Nouri al-Maliki has publicy made noise about extending the US stay (he did so in August 2008). He is not the only one voicing such desires. Jeffrey is aware of that. Jeffrey chose to ignore that and was less than fully upfront in his reply.

Less than fully upfront desribes the US press and Iraq. They sold the illegal war with their wide-eyed wonder (to put it kindly) and their non-stop whoring (to tell it like it is -- as the Neville Brothers and the Wilson sisters of Heart once sang). Despite the half-truths and outright lies they both repeated and invented, they felt no desire to clear the record when they had the chance to do so via the testimony Eliza Manningham-Buller, former MI5 Director General (2002 - 2007) gave to the Iraq Inquiry (see yesterday's snapshot). At 9:00 pm last night, the New York Times published Sarah Lyall's "Briton Who Led MI5 Disputes Reasons to Invade Iraq" online (and ran it in today's paper). What other newspaper covered the story? As of 8:00 a.m. EST, that was it. Let's be clear on what was testified to. The intelligence stated Iraq was not a threat, the intelligence indicated that tensions would increase as a result of the Iraq War and it would make England's risk of a terrorist attack increase. And, she testified that when then-US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was unable to get the CIA to say that Iraq was a threat to the US, he created his own 'intel' outfit.

So where was everyone? Was, for example, the CBS Evening News so busy with the Jeffrey's hearing that they didn't have time to cover it last night? No. They ignored the hearing. That was the case with everyone including PBS' NewsHour. The same who sold the illegal war couldn't be bothered with it yesterday. Taylor Barnes (Christian Science Monitor) offers a summary of the testimony. And did so before noon today. It should have been huge news. It wasn't. Remember that if there's another terrorist attack. Remember that, despite all of the back patting and self-stroking by the media after September 2001, 9-11 didn't change a damn thing when it comes to the way the media operates. Ask ABC why Facebook or Michael Jordan qualified as news when terrorism and war didn't? No time for either report that mattered yesterday or today but they've got time for fluff? Katie Couric (CBS) had time to tell us about a new book that's nothing but rejection letters? That kind of s**t really saved anyone's life on 9-11? When the Twin Towers were burning and later collapsing, you really think anyone gave a s**t about some stupid coffee table book? Really? And you think that's how you inform the American public today? With that garbage passed off as news?

The list

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

AS TWO REPORTERS WHO HAVE LONG AND REPEATEDLY DOCUMENTED THE 'JOURNALISTS' AT THE KOOL-AID TABLE, WE WERE NOT SURPRISED BY HILLARY IS 44'S "Hillary Was Smeared First - DailyCaller, Race-baiting JournoList, And DailyKos DailyKooks - The Big Media/Big Blog Cartel" -- WHICH DOES NOT MEAN WE WEREN'T APPALLED BY THE NEWS.

ALLEGED JOURNALISTS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES, UNKNOWN TO THEIR READERS AND LISTENERS, TO ADVANCE ONE CANDIDATE, TO SUPPRESS NEWS WHEN IT REFLECTED POORLY ON BARACK AND TO LAUNCH ATTACKS TO DISTRACT?

THAT'S NOT JOURNALISM. WE'VE SEEN THAT BEHAVIOR BEFORE -- IN THE FILM "THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT."

WE PROPOSE AN IMMEDIATE STEP TO TAKE, MAKE A LIST. ALL THE JOURNOLIST PARTICIPANTS SHOULD BE KNOWN. WE'LL KICK OFF THE LIST:

1) KATHA POLLITT
2) SPENCER ACKERMAN
3) E.J. DIONNE
4) EZRA KLEIN
5) CHRIS HAYES
6) RICHARD KIM

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In London today the Iraq Inquiry continued receiving public testimony. The big witness today was MI5 Director General (2002 - 2007) Eliza Manningham-Buller. Prior to her testifying, a [PDF format warning] letter she sent to John Gieve (Home Office) was declassified [though some parts remain redacted]. Gieve was the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office at that time and the position provided oversight to MI5 (which is Military Intelligence, Section 5).

IRAQ: POSSIBLE TERRORIST RESPONSE TO A US ATTACK

We have been giving some thought to the possible terrorist consequences should the US, possibly with UK support, seek to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. I thought that you might find it helpful to see our current assessment, together with an outline of our own preparations.

2. Since the end of the Gulf War Iraq has been implicated in a small number of murders of Iraqi oppositionists in the Middle East but only one terrorist plan directed against a Western target -- a planned car bomb attack on ex-President Bush in Kuwait in 1993. There is no credible intelligence that demonstrates that Iraq was implicated in planning the 11 September attacks.

3. We judge that the current period of heightened tension between Iraq and the US is unlikely to prompt Saddam to order terrorist strikes against Coalition interests. Even limited military action (for example, cruise missile attacks such as the those in response to the attempted murder of ex-President Bush) would be unlikely to prompt such a response. We assess that Saddam is only likely to order terrorist attacks if he perceives that the survival of his regime is threatened.

In the UK

4. If Saddam were to initiate a terrorist campaign, we assess that Iraqi capability to mount attacks in the UK is currently limited. We are aware of no Iraqi intelligence (DGI) officers based in the UK. There are up to DGI agents here who report on anti-regime activities. But most of these agents lack the inclination or capability to mount terrorist attacks. So if the DGI wished to mount attacks in the UK it would need to import teams from overseas. It is possible that some Palestinian groups based outside the UK might be willing to mount attacks in support of Iraq,

5. Nonetheless, in case Iraq should try to co-ordinate action by existing UK-based agents, or to import its own or a surrogate terrorist capability, we will be taking a number of steps over the coming months, including:

reviewing our knowledge of past and present DGI visiting case officers to identify and disrupt any increase in DGI activity;

putting in place arrangements to deal with (and capitalise on) any increase in defectors, volunteers or callers to the Service's public telephone number who might have relevant information. Experience during the Gulf War leads us to expect an increase in such contact with the public in the event of conflict;

with the police, maintaining coverage of the Palestinian community, some of whom, as during the Gulf War, may react adversely to any threat to Iraq.

6. You may recall that, at the time of the Gulf War, a number of suspected Iraqi sympathisers were detained pending deportation on grounds of national security. These included members of Iraqi support organisations, as well as individuals believed to be associated with Palestinian terrorist groups, such as the Abu Nidhal Organisation. We currently assess that the number of individuals in the UK who potentially pose sufficent threat to be subject to deportation or detnetion is small. We are currently reviewing the cases of those who could pose a threat to establish whether there might be grounds for action.

7. We believe that Middle Eastern countries would be the most likely location should Saddam order terrorist attacks on Western interests. Other locations, for instance SE Asia featured in attempted DGI co-ordinated attacks during the Gulf War and are thus also a possibility. We will, of course, continue to liaise closely with FCO colleagues to ensure they are in a position to brief missions if the situation develops.

Chemical or biological (CB) threat

8. There were media stories during the Gulf War suggesting that Iraq planned to mount CB terrorist attacks in Western countries, and a 1998 scare (arising from a tale put about by Iraqi emigres) that Saddam planned to send anthrax abroad in scent bottles. Given Iraq's documented CB capabilities, we can anticipate similar stories again.

9. Most Iraqi CB terrorist attacks have been assassination attempts against individuals, often emigres.

Iraq used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and also against civilian Kurds in 1988, but there is no intelligence that Iraq has hitherto planned or sought mass-casualty CB terrorist attacks. As with conventional terrorism, we assess that Saddam would only use CB against Western targets if he felt the survival of his regime was in doubt. In these circumstances, his preferred option would be to use conventional military delivery systems against targets in the region, rather than terrorism.

10. There have for some years been reports of contact between the Iraqi regime and Al Qa'ida about CB. But we have yet to see convincing intelligence that useful co-operation developed, or that Iraq provided genuine CB materials.

11. I am copying this letter to Stephen Wright, John Scarlett, Julian Miller and Tom McKane.

E L Manningham-Buller

Deputy Director General

That letter was sent in March 2002, nearly a year before the start of the Iraq War. And that was the intelligence assessment. At Committee member Usha Prashar's request, Manningham-Buller explained the Security Service's tasks: "collect intelligence from a rance of sources, some of them secret, on threats to the United Kingdom and to develop that intelligence, to analyse it and, where necessary, to act on it in mitigating or reducing those threats and also using intelligence generated by us to provide information to government on which policy can be placed and on which more general countermeasures can be developed." Committee Member Prashar wondered about "the intelligence pciture" on Iraq?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: But if I can refer to the letter from me as Deputy Director General from March 2002 which was released -- a redacted version was released today, six months before I became Director General we felt we had a pretty good intelligence picture of a threat from Iraq within the UK and to British interests, and you will see from that letter we thought it was very limited and containable.

We'll move ahead to the start of Committee Member Lawrence Freedman's questioning. Before we do, in the US, Bully Boy Bush and his lackeys were fond of tossing in "mushroom cloud" among their lies. In England, in the leadup to the Iraq War, liar and prime minister Tony Blair publicly insisted that Iraq could deploy WMD on England in 45 minutes. That was a lie. But he insisted it was true.

Eliza Manningham-Buller: As I said to Lady Prashar, we regarded the threat, the direct threat from Iraq as low. We did think -- and it comes in that letter -- that Saddam Hussein might resort to terrorism in the theatre if he thought his regime was toppled, but we did not believe he had the capability to do anything much in the UK. That turned out to be the right judgment. What the letter -- has been redacted from the letter, like I say, in general terms is that is partly as a result of action we took. But I don't think the threat in the UK was anything other than very limited.

Still in the exchange between Freedman and Manningham-Buller. And when you read this, grasp that in 2002 the CIA knew this. Therefore the White House knew it. And the British intelligence knew the White House wasn't happy with the truth the CIA was providing.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Can I just ask one final question, which is related to the things that Iraqis might have done, and this refers to the proposition that Saddam's regime were in some way responsible for providing support, potential support to Al-Qaeda, and even might have been involved in 9/11. Did you give any credence to these sorts of assessments?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: No. I think you have material suggesting that there had been intelligence on occasional contact in the past but I think -- I wrote this down when I was preparing for today -- there was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection and that was the judgment, I might say, of the CIA. It was not a judgment that found favor with some parts of the American machine, as you have also heard evidence on, which is why Donald Rumsfeld started an intelligence unit in the Pentagon to seek an alternative judgment.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne asked about her Queen Mary College speech in 2006 where she stated that the Iraq War had increased the chances that England could be a terrorist target. She informed him, "I think it is worth saying that I needed the approval of the Home Secretary to make public speeches and he cleared the text with me, and John Reid and I discussed that part of it and he agreed that I should say that in public."

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So you're saying you had evidence that the Iraq conflict, our involvment in the Iraq conflict was a motivation, a trigger, for people who were involved in the attacks in London in July 2005, who were going to Afghanistan to fight. Were there other attacks or planned attacks in which you had evidence that Iraq was a motivating factor?

Eliza Manningham-Buller: Yes. I mean, if you take the video wills that were retrieved on various occasions after various plots, where terrorists who had expected to be dead explained why they had done what they did, it features. It is part of what we call the single narrative, which is the view of some that everything the west was doing was part of a fundamental hostility to the Muslim world and to Islam, of which manifestations were Iraq and Afghanistan, but which pre-dated those because it pre-dated 9/11, but it was enhance by those events.

Lyne asked her to speculate about how such a threat might have been lessened even with the Iraq War proceeding and she responded that the peace could have been planned for, that following the initial invasion, measures could have been taken to return Iraqi lives to normal. "The insistence, for example," she offered, "of the Americans on sacking, you know, much of the Civil Service and the Army, the Ba'athists, was an error. Others much better informed than me will have given you evidence on that. I was asked on a visit to the United States on other matters to talk to Paul Wolfowitz about this issue and to seek to persuade him that it was not sensible to do this." Lyne asked if she managed to "convert him?" "Not a hope," Manningham-Buller replied.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

No travel -- except for princess

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS ORDERING FEDERAL WORKERS TO CUT DOWN ON TRAVEL IN AN EFFORT TO LIMIT GLOBAL WARMING.

HE IS EXPECTED TO OUTLINE HIS PLAN AND REASONS MORE AS HE CONTINUES TRAVELING AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR 'RECOVERY SUMMER' AND, NO DOUBT, WILL ALSO ADDRESS THE TOPIC WHEN THE U.S. TAX PAYERS PAY FOR HIM TO RETURN TO CHICAGO AUGUST 5TH IN ORDER TO FUND RAISE FOR A SENATE RACE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Turning to the US, KSBW reports that Iraq War veteran Tremayne Wilson created some form of disturbance today in Sacremento and was in "a standoff with police." If he's a struggling veteran (he may or may not be -- he might have just had a bad day), it's one more indication that the VA leadership needs to get serious about helping veterans.

I did not mean to shout, just drive

Just get us out, dead or alive

The road's too long to mention

Lord, it's something to see

Laid down by the Good Intentions Paving Company

All the way to think we've been playing at, darling

I can see that you're wearing your staying-hat, darling

For the time being, all is well

Won't you love me a spell?

This is blindness, beyond all conceiving

While behind us, the road is leaving

And leaving, and falling back

Like a rope gone slack

-- "Good Intentions Paving Co." written by Joanna Newsom, from her album Have One On Me (which Kat reviewed here)

Blindness beyond all conceiving describes support for returning to a draft in the US. US House Rep Charlie Rangel has proposed reinstating the draft several times since the start of the Iraq War, most recently he began proposing it last month. In a July 15th press release, Rangel explained his position, "What troubles me most about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the total indifference to the suffering and loss of life among our brave young soldiers on the battlefield. The reason is that so few families have a stake in the war which is being fought by other people's children. The test for Congress, particularly for those members who support the war, is to require all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country. All of America's children should share the risk of being placed in harm's way. In other words, if you support the war, you should support a compulsary military draft."

We disagree with the return of the draft and have covered that repeatedly over the years. But Rangel's proposal raises the issue for those newer to the story. Rangel believes sincerely that the draft would drive home the costs of war. We'll note his sincerity and then dismiss the entire idea. The burden would not be "shared" and it never has been. If you doubt that, let's go to Jessica Lange at the September 2005 DC peace rally (Democracy Now!, link has video, audio and text):

And who are these men? Who are these men? Let's talk for a minute about these masters of war, these same men that are sending our sons and our daughters, our brothers and sisters, our mothers and fathers to fight an undeclared and unconstitutional and unwinnable war for them. Let's talk about their service records. Karl Rove did not serve. Paul Wolfowitz did not serve. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Newt Gingrich did not serve. Jeb Bush did not serve. The list goes on and on. And we know George W. did not really serve.

The draft would bring shared sacrifice? When has that ever happened? Ava and I noted the above quote in a piece for Third about, among other things, radio host Nicole Sandler advocating for the return of the draft to Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (Cindy is opposed to the idea). It was amazing to hear Sandler go on and on about how the wars are wrong and must be stopped and . . . her answer . . . was to return the draft. Sandler's answer wasn't to call out Barack Obama, the War Hawk overseeing the wars. That was too much for her. But, hey, start drafting Americans, she's all on board for that.

There are a ton of myths about the draft. Reality on the draft, the peace movement of the 'sixties' was successful in overturning the draft. It's one of the great successes and a success that the War Hawks immediately began chipping away at. It was Peanut Head Jimmy Carter -- our man of 'peace' -- who returned registration for the draft. In fact, Ronald Reagan's appeal to some young voters had to do with his 1980 campaign promise to repeal the registration. Only the very young ever believed Reagan on that because -- press lapping at his crotch aside -- he never could deliver a line worth s**t. (If you doubt that, check out any speech or his ghastly performance in Bette Davis' Dark Victory.) Carter brought back registration for the draft and Reagan lied that he'd stop it. Except for Emilio Estevez, I'm finding it hard to think of anyone who ever spoke out against that nonsense with any passion or elequence. Certainly politicians of either side of the War Party didn't speak out against it. Since Peanut Head brought back registration, the Oval Office has been occupied by 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats and none of them have bothered to stop the registration.

Though the elimination of the draft was a victory of the peace movement, the draft did not spur the peace movement. This is a lie that a number of crazies and lazies repeat. The crazies because, well, they're crazy. The lazies because, look at Tom Hayden, they're lazy. Real work has always frightened Tom-Tom which is why he dropped the Iraq War like a hot potato when he realized he'd wrung it of all the p.r. value he could. For those who don't want to do the work, the draft becomes the EZ Bake answer. It's what you can hide behind in good times and bad -- as 2003 to the present indicates -- it's what you can bemoan, "Oh, if only we had the draft, if only we had it, oh, we'd have people in the streets, oh, if only."

The draft, we're lied to, would force a shared sacrifice. But everyone didn't get drafted, did they? Oops. Well then, when you don't have war stories, do like the idiot Tom Hayden and fall back on draft physical 'war stories.' The peace movement, Tom-Tom wanted you to know, was fueled by those invasive physicals. In the July 5, 2007 snapshot, we were noting how stupidity was contagious and Tom's latest starry-eyed groupie Richard C. Paddock (Los Angeles Times) needed to learn to think before penning that, "In the 1960s, the possibility of being drafted at the age of 18 -- before they could even vote in those days -- compelled students to decide where they stood on Vietnam." The sixties? No quotes? When were the biggest rallies and marches against the war? In the early 1970s. Facts is hard when you're spoonfed by Tom Hayden. And, as we noted, "students" weren't at risk of being drafted. First of all, there was a student deferrment (ask Dick Cheney or Tom Hayden). Second, female students -- females period -- were not drafted. So this nonsense EZ Bake 'answer' was never based on reality. Women made up easily half of the peace movement in the 'sixties' and were never at risk of a draft. Junior high kids protested the war and sixth to eighth graders boys weren't at risk of being drafted for many, many years. As Rebecca noted of Tom and Paddock's insane claims, "but we did make up easily half of the peace movement, women did. and this nonsense that a draft was what caused campus action because 'students' were afraid of being drafted or because 'students' had to go through an invasive medical visit (the military's physical) is crap. that's not reality. and don't talk to me about an invasive medical visit if you haven't ever had to pull up your legs and use those damn stirrups." Amen.

There are so many myths and lies about the draft. There are people who think, for example, the draft started after WWII (we were speaking to a group this morning and this came up). No. December 6, 1941 is when Pearl Harbor (base in Hawaii) is bombed by Japanese planes. December 7, 1941 is when the US enters World War II. We're dropping back to the opening of Abbott & Costello's Buck Privates, released January 31, 1941 (months before the US entered the war) which opens with a newsreel.

News Announcer: September 14, 1940. Congress passes the first peace time Selective Service Training Act in the history of the nation. President Roosevelt signs the Draft Bill, and effical step in national defense. Impressive ceremony. Secretary of War [Henry L.] Stimson is blindfolded, draws the first number from 9000 sealed capsules.

Over a year prior to the US entering WWII, the draft was passed, signed by FDR and it began. "Secretary of War" is what the Secretary of Defense post used to be named and what it should still be named. The draft has never ended a war but the draft and standing armies may have allowed for wars. Certainly that was the case in 1940. Stimson was a Republican. FDR brought him to the administration because he was going to put the US into WWII (with or without Pearl Harbor). Stimson had been Secretary of War once before -- during WWI. He was brought back July 10, 1940 to prepare for war with Germany.

The draft didn't stop WWII. The draft didn't stop the Korean War. During Vietnam, a large number of factors -- societal, cultural, demographic and movement-building ones -- helped create resistance to the war as did the very nature of the conflict which was based on lies and which depended upon daily lies to keep that war going. Insulting women of all ages who were never at risk of being drafted, insulting the men over the draft age or ineligble for the draft due to any number of reasons (and there were many disabled activists in the peace movement), and insulting young children in junior high who were at no immediate risk of a draft by claiming that their motivation was due to the fact that they might be drafted is insane. It's also, in terms of the women, sexist. But we're used to Tom's sexism. It got him kicked out of the Red Family, after all. In his vanity monument Reunions (a 507-page autobigoraphy -- that's basically 100 pages for each decade of his largely dull life -- though had he owned up to the extramarital activities he was carrying on as he wrote it, he might have spiced things up a bit), he glosses over his expulsion. His ego prevented him -- as we all remember -- from joining another commune. He had to 'start' one of his own (women did the work). Accused of manipulating people (a charge that floats through all of Tom-Tom's life) and of using the group as a springboard for his own publicity (a charge he leaves out of his book -- one of many), Tom in print declares that the collective had turned "into a cult." He never confronted his sexism, he never owned up to his opportunism. The fact that all these years later, he would strip women of their credit in the peace movement by insisting that 'students fear of being drafted' fueled the peace movement is an ugly but natural outcome in the ugly life of Tom Hayden. Pockmarks of the soul, indeed. There is no sincerity to Tom Hayden at all as the Tom Hayden Workout/Cashout made clear: Marry a famous and wealthy woman, use all of her money and fame to run for public office, cheat on her, chip away at her self-esteem daily, insult her looks, tell her she's getting old, cheat on her some more, attack her daughter (who caught on to you long before her mother did), poll to see if your wife is a liability to your political ambitions, when she finds out about the poll, demand alimony and a property settlement through various forms of veiled blackmail. The cool-down, of course, is retire to obscurity. In contrast to Hayden, Charlie Rangel is sincere; however, he is mistaken that a draft would bring the costs home. The same types of people who eluded the draft during Vietnam would elude it today. And since sexism runs through the fables of the 'sixties,' let's note that Matthew Rothschild's guest on this week's Progressive Radio is Susan Douglas who critiques media for In These Times and has a new book entitled Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism's Work Is Done.

We'll close with the following from A.N.S.W.E.R.:

Statement from Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition

Badly losing the war in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus has decided to promote a violent civil war in Afghan villages.

That is the true intent of the new so-called Local Defense Initiatives that Petraeus forced down the throat of Afghanistan's puppet president Hamid Karzai. The new plan is a variant of the Community Defense Initiative that Gen. Stanley McChrystal tried to impose on Afghanistan after Obama selected him to lead the expanded war effort in 2009.

The Petraeus strategy calls for putting 10,000 job-hungry Afghan villagers on the Pentagon payroll. They will be given money and guns so that they can form militias and shoot and kill other members of their village who are asserted to be either pro-Taliban or opposed to the U.S./NATO occupation.

The new strategy further underscores the criminal role of the Pentagon generals. Petraeus is consciously fomenting civil war and ethnic rivalry just as he did in Iraq. Gen. James Mattis, Petraeus' new boss at Central Command, when speaking to a crowd in San Diego in 2005 about his experience in Afghanistan, said "it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot 'em."

President Obama and his military team recognize that it is less damaging at home, where there is almost no support for this endless occupation, to foment civil war in Afghanistan and pay desperate Afghans to slaughter each other as a means of reducing U.S. casualties.

U.S. taxpayers who are experiencing devastating cuts in state and local budgets, layoffs of municipal workers, soaring tuition hikes in public colleges—all because of budget shortfalls—will see billions of their tax dollars go to fund the occupation of Afghanistan and pay the salaries of poor Afghans so that they can shoot other poor Afghans. This is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic used historically by all colonial powers to break up a united resistance by the people whose lands they occupy.

The Obama administration and its generals are borrowing a page from Nixon and Kissinger's murderous "Vietnamization" plan, which became the announced policy in 1969. Since there was a rising tide of anti-war sentiment at home, Nixon and the Pentagon wanted the Vietnamese to kill each other in greater numbers as a way of diminishing U.S. war dead.

Millions of Vietnamese died during the war, as did 58,000 U.S. service members. The U.S. strategy succeeded in creating an ocean of human suffering, but it failed to alter the outcome. The Vietnamese, like the Afghan people, were unwilling to live under foreign occupation.

ANSWER Coalition organizers and volunteers have in recent months been working around the country to support the growing numbers of soldiers, marines, veterans and military families who are speaking out against the war in Afghanistan. We are reaching more and more active duty service members and recently returned veterans who know that this colonial-type war is based on lies by the politicians and the Pentagon Brass. The ANSWER Coalition affiliate March Forward! is reaching out to soldiers, marines and veterans.

We urge you to support this work by checking out March Forward's Ten point program and signing up for email updates at www.MarchForward.org.

Truest statement of the week

A note to our readers

Editorial: She broke no law

Of stupidity and NPR (Ava and C.I.)

TV: Middle?

Ty's Corner

Kids Korner

Roundtable

Joan Rivers spews more hatred

Was it all about gender? (Ava and C.I.)

Hypocrisy, thy name is vanden Heuvel

Highlights
"Remember The Maine, Barry"
"THIS JUST IN! VACATIONING IN THE 'GULF'!"

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Remember The Maine, Barry

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS "HAD IT, I MEAN I HAVE FRIGGIN' HAD IT!"

WHAT HAD AMERICA'S STARLET SO ANGRY THAT HE WAS TOSSING CLAM SHELLS AT REPORTERS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS?

THESE JOURNALISTS APPROACHED HIM ONLY AFTER RAHM EMANUEL HAD GIVE BARACK HIS INJECTION OF "SUGAR WATER" ("TO MAKE ME EVEN SWEETER," INSISTS BARACK BUT OTHERS SPECULATE IT MAY CONTAIN DRUGS). WE PROVIDED BARACK THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF THE DEBATE.

"I JUST THINK IT'S RUDE OF THEM [THE PRESS] TO CALL ME OUT ON THE GULF DISASTER AND NOT GIVE ME CREDIT FOR VACATIONING IN ONE OF THE STATES MOST EFFECTED BY THE GULF DISASTER."

WHEN THESE REPORTERS EXPLAINED THAT MAINE REALLY HASN'T BEEN KNOWN TO SEE ANY IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF THE GULF DISASTER, BARRY O DISMISSED THAT AS "POPPYCOSH! I CAN SEE THE WATER RIGHT OVER THERE! I THINK YOU NEED TO STUDY UP ON YOUR 57 STATES. MAINE IS A GULF STATE, A SOUTHERN STATE. NOW, IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME, I INTEND TO GO HAVE ANOTHER BOWL OF NEW ENGLAND CLAM CHOWDER."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

David Vine: Counterinsurgency, just quickly, because it features in the title, it features in the title of the book that we're going to disccus today The Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual: Notes on Demilitarizing American Society. Counterinsurgency, just quickly, is a term that dates to about 1960, the Vietnam era, came to mean the elimination of an uprising against the govenrment. Although the tactics of course are much older. Dating centuries, most likely the United States so-called "Indian Wars," the occupation of the Philipines and certainly the tactics employed by the people inside the British and French empire.

David Vines is with the American Anthropological Association and he was speaking as moderator of the December 5, 2009 discusion by Network of Concern Anthropologists in Philadelphia for the AAA's annual meeting.

You won't hear these voices on NPR very often (David Price was on The Diane Rehm Show addressing this topic -- see the October 11, 2007 snapshot for an excerpt of the October 10th broadcast of Diane's show). You will, however, hear the 'insight' of David Kilcullen on Morning Edition and you won't hear it or him questioned. Is Morning Edition unaware of what took place in Philadelphia last year?

From the December 3rd snapshot:

The American Anthropological Association's annual meeting started yesterday in Philadelphia and continues through Sunday. Today the association's Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology with the US Security and Intelligence Communities issued their [PDF format] "Final Report on The Army's Human Terrain System Proof of Concept Program." The 74-page report is a blow to War Criminals and their cheerleaders who have long thought that the social science could be abused or that the social sciences were psuedo sciences. It was in December 2006 when Dumb Ass George Packer raved over Dumb Ass Montgomery McFate and her highly imaginative and fictional retelling of both her childhood and her current work which Packer identified as "Pentagon consultant" working on Cultural Operations Research Human Terrain. Packer was jizzing in his shorts and not even warnings from other anthropologists ("I do not want to get anybody killed") could sway him.

In May the US House of Representatives made an unusual move. Noah Shachtman (Wired) reported in May that the House Armed Service Committtee announced it would be limiting funding for the program.

If you click here, you will be taken to the AAA website and to a podcast (where I grabbed David Vine's statement from) of the Network of Concern Anthropologists' symposium featuring Roberto Gonzalez, David Price, Andrew Bickford, Gregory Feldman, Dylan Kerrigan, Cahterine Besteman, Catherine Lutz and Nancy Scheper-Hughes.

Counterinsurgency is war on a native people. In its current usage by the US government, anthropologists are embedded with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq and they give the guise of "social science," the appearance of it. The cover to allow what really are War Crimes to take place. It turns social scientists into spies, spying on a native people so they can run back and fine tune the US policies and goals of war and occupation. It is not social science by any means. At its most basic, social science, when studying a people, requires informed consent. Counterinsurgency dismisses it. Those interviewed do not know who is interviewing them. They often think it's the military (because the 'social scientists' are dressed in military garb) and that they have no choice but to answer the questions. That is not informed consent.

Information is not gathered to illuminate the human condition, it's gathered to advance military goals. That is not social science, it's so far beyond a bastardization of social science that it is, in fact, a War Crime.

When he thinks no one is watching, David Kilcullen can be very illuminating and drop all pretense that he's attempting to help anyone other than a military. Speaking this month to Byron Sibree (New Zealand Herald), Kilcullen described counterinsurgency as "a form of what the French call counter-warfare which kind of morphs in response to whatever we're dealing with." Michael Hastings' article on Gen Stanley McCrystal was about McCrystal's objections to counter-insurgency (portrayed in the article as McCrystal thinking they were a waste of resources). McCrystal is now out as the US' top commander in Afghanistan. Gen David Petraeus is now the top US commander in Afghanistan. Petraeus is a close friend of Kilcullen's (he even attend Kilcullen's wedding -- no word on whether he was the ring-bearer or flower girl). And all the War Criminals hang out together. The civilian side (which Kilcullen is on now, having left the Australian military) is represented by War Whores such as Samantha Power and Sarah Sewall -- America's very own Josef Mengele and Kurt Lischka. If you're late to the party, Ava and I covered the group in 2007 when two little War Criminals -- Sarah Sewer and Monty McFate -- went on Charlie Rose -- that's the episode where Sarah Sewer brags she can get Barack to say whatever she wants. Where were you brave journalists of the left? Oh, that's right. You were all up Barack's crack or else playing the quiet game. And if you're trying to lose weight, click here and see the War Criminals Monty McFate, Sarah Sewer and Michele Flournoy (I'm sure Susan Brownmiller could analyze that photo at great length). It may be days before you regain your appetite. These women are liars and include Samantha Power who is a blood thirsty War Hawk who blurbed the counterinsurgency manual Sarah and Monty 'wrote.' (Monty's academic 'writing' appears doomed to the same fate as her juvenile 'writing' -- massive charges of plagiarism. For those late to the party, I knew Monty McFate when she was an ugly, little girl and, if nothing else, her life has demonstrated that the old wives tale of "Ugly in the cradle, pretty at the table" was wrong. Sometimes it really is ugly in the cradle and ugly at the table.) You can also click here for Noam Chomsky's thoughts on the War Criminals (Monthly Review, 2008). Though women often lead on this (at least publicly -- and Ms. magazine and Feminist Majority Foundation were stupid enough to promote these War Hawks in a so-called 'feminist' confrence), Michael Ignatieff and many other men are also part of it. (One-time journalist Thomas E. Ricks, John Nagl and many others.) One of the few journalists to tackle counterinsurgency is Kelley B. Vlahos (Antiwar.com). Most recently (June 15th), she took on the counterinsurgency 'brains' big Center for a New American Security conference:

But a year later, "victory" in Afghanistan is more elusive than ever and the "COINdinistas" are either disappearing to other realms of pop doctrine or standing around defensively, trying to backtrack and redefine tactics to accommodate the negative reality on the ground. So, as last year's event mimicked the preening confidence of a new sheriff in town, this year it amounted to a lot of whistling past the graveyard.

Whistling past the graveyard seems to be the only way to describe the sense that no one really wanted to talk about the 800-pound gorilla in the room: how their venerated COIN formula -- you know, the one that would have worked in Vietnam if spineless bureaucrats and long-haired hippies hadn't gotten in the way -- is actually playing out in Afghanistan today.

This was the largest congregation of the uniformed and civilian defense policy establishment all year. CNAS (pronounced see-nass) had been writing non-stop about Afghanistan in some capacity since its inception in 2007 -- including a recent study by fellow Andrew Exum, "Leverage: Designing a Political Campaign for Afghanistan." The fact that on June 10, the morning of the conference, one of the major front-page headlines in the Washington Post blared "Commanders Fear Time Is Running Out in Marja" should have been the perfect launching point for a stimulating discussion.

Instead, you had panel after panel nibbling around the edges and a keynote speech that managed, gratingly, to avoid talking about current operations altogether. Indirectly, the day provided a few tiny glimpses into how the COIN community and all of its defense industry hangers-on are feeling about the state of things. And it is not good. Unfortunately for them, the lack of public candor just added to the growing sense of doom.

Good. And good for Kelley for continuing to call out the counterinsurgency 'gurus' at a time when most others take a pass and in spite of the fact that Thomas E. Ricks launches personal and sexist attacks on her for doing so.

In Iraq, the Sahwa movement was part of the counterinsurgency effort. The main part, according to Petraeus (who is now trying to replicate it in Afghanistan even though for two years now it's been noted that it probably can't be done in Afghanistan). Sunni fighters (and, according to Petraeus' April 2008 Congressional testimony, some Shi'ites) were put on the American tax payer's dime. A little over 90,000 of them were paid not to attack US miltary equipment or military personnel. It was like paying a school bully off not to beat you up in the playground. And how did it work out? Shor-term it may have helped somewhat. (The large refugee crisis did more to end the bloody ethnic cleansing than paying off Sahwa -- by Petraues' own testimony and that of then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker -- Sahwa was only paid to stop targeting the US.) But there was never a diplomatic push (which the Sahwa and the escalation -- "surge" -- were sold on) and what we really see today is that the Sahwa is not, has not and will not be integrated into Iraqi society as long as Nouri al-Maliki is prime minister.

And how long might that be? Trend News Agency reports Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi's adviser Khalil Azraa is stating the US has not done enough to resolve the political stalemate in Iraq and quotes him stating, "The U.S. can exert political pressure on the formation of the government, because it is responsible for building democracy in Iraq." Tariq al-Hashimi is a member of Iraqiya, in fact, he is, after Ayad Allawi, probably the most prominent member of Iraqiya (especially post-purge by Ahmed Chalabi and Ali al-Lami).

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. Three months and two days later, still no government. 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. It's four months and five days and, in 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. Today makes it four months and nine days without any government being established. Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) notes the lengthy delay:

With many Iraqis describing this new postponement as unconstitutional, there are widespread fears that the ongoing political crisis over who will lead the country will now escalate further.

The parliament had previously convened on 13 June, the country's constitution stating that the president should be selected within 30 days of its convocation. The possibility of further delay raises the question of whether inaction is flouting a constitution that many Iraqis believe has already been violated by politicians.

Iraqi voters went to the polls on 7 March to elect a new 325-member parliament, but an indecisive result, and bickering over who should be the country's next prime minister, has delayed the formation of a new government and plunged the country into political stalemate.

Under the country's constitution the Iraqi parliament should have convened 15 days after the results were announced in order to elect a speaker, and a new president should have been elected within 30 days of the parliament's first session. The president should then have nominated the new prime minister, who should have submitted his cabinet within 30 days for ratification.

According to an understanding that emerged after Iraq's first post-Saddam elections in 2005, a Shia Arab would be prime minister, a Kurd president, and a Sunni Arab speaker of the parliament. This quota system also covers top jobs, such as ambassadors and senior government and army posts, and the country's Shias and Kurds have been insisting on the quota system despite strong Sunni opposition.

Cedric's Big Mix

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

David Corn is one ugly ass idiot

The Common Ills: There was no pardon, Barack (Ava and C.I.)

The Common Ills: Jake Tapper, correct your error

The list

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

No travel -- except for princess

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Remember The Maine, Barry

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix