Two tie for village idiot

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CAN'T HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE BUT HE LOVES TO WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME GOING ON BASIC CABLE DUDS LIKE "THE DAILY SHOW" WHERE HE AND VILLAGE IDIOT JON STEWART CAN DISH ON HOW JOE BIDEN WOULD LOOK IN A SWIMSUIT.

KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS, GIRLY BARRY AND JON, JOE'S MARRIED.

IT ALLOWS BARRY O TO AVOID THE LIBYA ISSUE AND ISN'T THAT THE POINT?


SADLY FOR BARRY O, PEOPLE WON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT LIBYA -- NO MATTER HOW MANY BASIC CABLES SHOWS HE GOES ON, NO MATTER HOW STUPID HE ACTS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH HE CLOWNS.


Let’s review: After a brief statement deploring the loss of life on Sept. 12, Obama and his flunkies (Press Secretary Jay Carney, UN Ambassador Susan Rice) put on a prolonged full-court press to convince the American people that an obscure You Tube video, “Innocence of Muslims” — which had been out for months — was the cause of a wave of violence that swept the Islamic world on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, including the Benghazi attack.

Rice made a sweep of the Sunday shows a few days later to argue that an “insult” to Islam’s prophet was the cause of all the carnage across the region. Quoth she: “This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.” Carney parroted similar nonsense.
Obama himself even went on the David Letterman show to retell the same falsehood, then doubled down with a speech at the United Nations in which he intoned: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
But the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, and everybody knew it, including the intelligence community and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.


REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O ASKED, "WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ME TAKE OFF MY SHIRT?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

So I'm at a daily paper visiting a friend who's an editor when a name reporter decides he's going to make small talk while the editor's on the phone and hijacks the computer to show me "something you won't believe.  It's so sad."  Wrongly, I assumed I was about to see the children of Falluja.  Wrong.  I saw a dog from Australia that people around the world are donating to because it lost its snout saving a child.  And the dog's coming to -- or now in -- the United States with a friend and will have surgery at one of the UCLAs (Davis?) and, turns out, the dog's also got tumors and a sexually transmitted disease and -- On and on, it went.  Now I love dogs.  And if someone wants to send a terminal dog across the globe for  reconstructive surgery of a snout, that's their decision.  But I do think it's very sad that people want to pull up a picture of this dog and oh-and-ah over it and these same people will not even look at the children of Falluja.  

 

Monday, we noted a new study by the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The study documented the miscarriages and the birth defects and the huge increase in both.  The linked study even has photos of the children.  But that didn't become an internet sensation.  What does that say about us that we can feel for an injured dog but ignore suffering children?  If you're a citizen of the United States, especially what does that say about us?  These birth defects are a result of weapons the US used. 

 

Fred Mazelis (WSWS) noted the study yesterday and explained:

 

A study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology focuses on an extraordinary epidemic of congenital birth defects in Iraqi cities over the past decade, particularly in Fallujah and in the southern city of Basra, assaulted by British troops in 2003.

This study has been released only one month before a broader survey is due to be released by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO report has looked at nine areas in Iraq and is also expected to show increases in birth defects.

As summarized in the British newspaper The Independent, the first study, entitled "Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities" and published online on September 16, pinpoints statistics for Fallujah and Basra that add up to a public health crisis that is as serious as any other around the world.

More than 50 percent of all births surveyed in Fallujah were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010, the newspaper explains. In the 1990s, Falllujah had a birth defect rate of 2 percent. This rose to about 10 percent in the early years of the twenty-first century, and then exploded in the years following the siege of Fallujah in 2004.

The data on miscarriages was also significant. Before the 2004 attacks on Fallujah, both in April and in November-December of that year, about 10 percent of pregnancies ended in miscarriage. This rose to a rate of 45 percent in the two years after the bombings. It fell as the most drastic attacks subsided, but the rate still remained high, at one in six pregnancies.

 

 

If today's conversation had taken place anywhere but a newsroom and involved people other than journalists, I wouldn't be writing about it.  But in the supposed information industry, not only did the reporter not know about the above, when I pulled up the study to show the photos, his response was "Eww, gross."  No, not "gross," tragic.  Those poor children who never hurt anyone and who suffer now because of an illegal war.  I think, my opinion -- I could be wrong, I often am -- that we've soaked up enough entertainment, gossip and cute animals online.  I think it's really past time we learned to actually care -- especially when the harmed are harmed because the actions of our government.

 

Early this morning, Laura Rozen (The Back Channel) reported, "Oil giant Exxon Mobil is expected to soon announce that it is pulling out of non-Kurdish Iraq, an energy expert source told Al-Monitor Wednesday on condition of anonymity.  The decision would not apply to Exxon's contracts in Kurdish Iraq, which has been a source of on-going tension with Baghdad authorities for the company, the source said."  Ahmed Rasheed and Patricky Markey (Reuters) state the corporation didn't inform "Iraq of its interest in quitting the country's West Qurna oilfield project" according to unnamed sources.  Sometimes unnamed sources lie.  This may be one of those times.  This is very embarrassing for Nouri and his government and feigning surprise may be their effort to play it off.  'How could we have stopped it?  We didn't even know it was coming!'   That would explain why the 'big surprise' that isn't is being played like it is.  Derek Brower (Petroleum Economist) has been covering this story for over 48 hours (including a source that stated ExxonMobil had informed the Iraqi government) and he notes that ExxonMobil will be focusing all their "efforts on upstream projects in Kurdistan instead."  In addition to the claim in Rasheed and Markey's piece about  Iraq having had no meeting on this, Brower notes that a meeting took place today at the Ministry of Oil.  It would appear Nouri's spinning like crazy in an effort to save his faltering image.  (Nouri can certainly spend billions -- as he proved last week on his mad shopping spree for weapons, he just doesn't seem able to maintain releations with those who help Iraq generate large revenues.)

 

This Reuters story notes that unnamed US officials stated Iraq was informed and it adds the Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister for Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, "told Reuters in an e-mail that Baghdad was sticking to its line that all contract signed with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) without the approval of Baghdad were illegal."  ExxonMobil has long had problems with their deal with Baghdad.  In March,  Emily Knapp (Wall St Cheat Sheet) explained, "Foreign oil companies involved in Iraq's oil expansion generally prefer to be compensated for capital expenditure and service fees in oil because cash payments are more complicated to arrange. Now the parties have reached an agreement in which they will be paid in crude. Exxon and Shell spent $910 million on West Qurna-1 last year, and were repaid $470 million in cash."  Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) adds today, "Exxon's 2010 deal with the Iraqi central government to improve production in the West Qurna-1 field was never expected to be lucrative under the best circumstances, the person said.  The government had agreed to pay Exxon Mobil and its partners $1.90 for each additional barrel of oil they pumped after refurbishing the already producing field.  The fees would barely be enough to cover the companies' costs."

 

And there is the issue of the nature of the contracts.  The KRG is offering production sharing ones while Baghdad sticks with the less return-friendly technical service contracts.  Dropping back to the November 11, 2011 snapshot:

 

 

 

In Iraq, things are heating up over an oil deal. Hassan Hafidh and James Herron (Wall St. Journal) report, "ExxonMobil Corp. could lose its current contract to develop the West Qurna oil field in Iraq if it proceeds with an agreement to explore for oil in the Kurdistan region of the country, an Iraqi official said. The spat highlights the political challenges for foreign companies operating in Iraq" as Nouri's Baghdad-based 'national' government attempts to rewrite the oil law over the objection of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Tom Bergin and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) offer, "Exxon declined to comment, and experts speculated the move could indicate Baghdad and the Kurdish leaders are nearing agreement on new rules for oil companies seeking to tap into Iraq's vast oil reserves." UPI declares, "The breakaway move into Kurdistan, the first by any of the oil majors operating in Iraq under 20-year production contract signed in 2009, could cost Exxon Mobil its stake in the giant West Qurna Phase One mega-oil field in southern Iraq." Salam Faraj (AFP) speaks with Abdelmahdi al-Amidi (in Iraq's Ministry of Oil) declares that the Exxon contract means that Exxon would lose a contract it had previously signed with Baghdad for the West Qurna-1 field.  Faraj sketches out the deal with the KRG beginning last month with Exxon being notified that they had "48 hours to make a decision on investing in an oil field in the region."  Exxon was interested but sought an okay from the Baghdad government only to be denied.

 

November 11th, things heated up and they never cooled down.  For months, Nouri's people sent angry letters to ExxonMobil.  The multi-national corporation chose not to respond leaving Nouri looking like an angry, spurned lover.  Or a stalker.  Nouri's people continued to send those letters with no response.  And we pointed out how ridiculous Nouri was looking and making Iraq look throughout that period.  There were threats of lawsuits, there was barring ExxonMobil from auctions, it was ridiculous.  First of all, it didn't build confidence among the international business sector that Iraq had its act together.  Second of all, those remaining acutions?  In the February 22nd snapshot we noted what was being offered by Baghdad in the March acution  was "a dingo dog with fleas." Were we wrong?  The auction was a bust.  They had no takers.  Instead of grasping that Nouri had created a serious image problem for Iraq, they decided they just needed to have the same auction all over again.  So they scheduled it for two days at the end of May.  From the May 31st snapshot:

Iraq's two day energy auction ended today. Yesterday brought one successful bid. W.G. Dunlop and Salam Faraj (AFP) explain, "Iraq on Thursday closed a landmark auction of energy exploration blocks with just three contracts awarded out of a potential 12, dampening hopes the sale would cement its role as a key global supplier." The offerings weren't seen as desirable and the deals offered even less so. But big business began sending signals this auction would not go well over two months ago. (And we've noted that at least three times in previous months.) That's due to the instability in Iraq caused by Nouri -- and it is seen as caused by Nouri in the oil sector because he is the prime minister, he did pick a fight with Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, he did order Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested. All the instability in recent months have not helped. His attacks on ExxonMobil and their deal with the KRG has not helped. Nouri al-Maliki is bad for business. If Iraq had the arrangement they did under Saddam Hussein, Nouri could get away with that. But he's going to have to grasp real soon that state oil isn't what it was under Hussein. The economic model (imposed by the US) is mixed. And if Iraqis hadn't fought back, it would be strictly privatized. Nouri's not yet learned that his actions impact Iraq's business. (And, in fairness to Nouri, this is a new thing for Iraq. Saddam Hussein could do anything and it wasn't an issue unless the super powers decided it was. But, again, it's a mixed model now. Nouri might need to bring in some economic advisors from out of the country.) W.G. Dunlop and Salam Faraj (AFP) report Iraq's response to the poor showing at the auction is to declare that they will hold another one.

 

Well one is greater than zero.  But not worth the cost of putting together one auction, let alone two.  Following the twin embarrassments of March and May, Nouri had a new 'brilliant idea:'

get the White House to tell Exxon "no."  So he made noises and made public letters to the White House.  Then, on July 19th, Nouri al-Maliki insisted that the White House had conveyed, in a letter, their support for his attempts to cancel the October contract the Kurdistan Regional Government signed with ExxonMobil.  No such thing happened.  But damned if some in the press reported differently.  The US does not have state-control over oil companies -- certainly not over multi-national ones like ExxonMobil -- "multi-national" meaning more than one nation.  Like so many of Nouri's brilliant plans, that one fell apart.  Derek Brower explains, "Pressure has been building on the central government to punish ExxonMobil for its investment in Kurdistan, he said.  The government knows it could not win a court case if it stripped the US firm of its contract, he said, but could make operations intolerably difficult." It couldn't win a court case.  What the KRG and ExxonMobil did, for all of Nouri's pouting and foot stomping, ws legal.  Thomas W. Donovan (The National) explains:

 

The most urgent need is for a comprehensive federal law to regulate the hydrocarbons industry. At present, petroleum operations are governed by a collection of laws from previous regimes and by the 2005 constitution. This legal hodgepodge gives no guidance on the interplay between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), nor does it set out any rules for oil-revenue sharing between the central administration and the regional governorates.

A draft law to govern oil and gas production was tentatively agreed upon as far back as 2007. However, disputes between Baghdad and the KRG blocked enactment of a law, and today there are three draft versions, none of them likely to win approval anytime soon.

 

2007 is a key date. Not just because Nouri was prime minister (but he was -- the US government installed him in April 2006).  In the lead up to the US 2006 mid-terms, Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress lied to the American people, swearing, "Give us back one House of Congress and we'll end the Iraq War."  The American people trusted that they were being told the truth and did something pretty amazing -- turned both house of Congress over to the Democratic Party.  That was so surprising that even Pelosi and company hadn't been pushing it as a possibility.  Afraid the Democrats might be telling the truth and might pull the funding on the illegal war, Bully Boy Bush quickly devised a series of benchmarks in 2007.  He signed off on them, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on them.  This was the tool by which, the White House insisted, progress could be measured in Iraq.

 

Because the US press is as stupid as the US Congress (well, the Congress didn't want to end the Iraq War, let's be honest, so they weren't stupid so much as they were pretending to be), no progess was always somehow turned into success.  In April of 2007, Mike Peska (NPR's Day By Day -- link is text and audio) decided to grade the progress on the benchmarks.  He should have just stuck to putting happy face stickers on each one.  Needing people to help him deceive, he enlisted the master of deception Philip Zelikow (adviser to Condi Rice, betrayer of 9-11 Jersey Widows and others who thought they'd get a real investigation into the events of 9-11) and the Brookings Institution's Carlos Pascual.  Here's how the 'brain trust' graded the 'progress' on the oil law:

 

Pres. BUSH: Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

 

PESCA: Both Pascual and Zelikow said this is happening as we speak. Details are still to be worked out, but sharing oil revenue is something the Iraqis can point to as an area of real progress, much more so than the third plank that the president touch on.

 

 

They needed to pass legislation.  And Pesca 'reported' that his hand-picked brain trust said "this is happening as we speak."  Seriously? 

 

It was a lie then, it's a lie over five years later.  Happening as we speak?  It never happened.  The press sold the Iraq War.  Not just the start of it but all of it.  There has never been accountability for any of these actions.  No one's ever done their update of, "Remember when we said . . . Well, turns out . . ."  And let's remember that Mike Pesca was just on Weekend Editon Sunday ridiculing the New York Daily News' Filip Bondy for being creative with languge in his description of a home run.  That home run mattered to baseball fans.  Those benchmarks?  All the press whores that lied -- that includes Pesca -- provided cover for Nouri and Iraqis suffer because of Pesca and his ilk.  Filip Bondy's descriptive powers didn't have a fly.  Pesca might need to remember that before he takes to NPR next to slam another journalist.  And Rachel Martin might want to think about who she goes on air with to mock other journalists.

 

 

Having agreed, in writing, to pass an oil and gas law and never having accomplished it, over five years later, Nouri's got no standing to whine about what the KRG is doing.  If he doesn't like it, he should have kept his word and passed an oil and gas law.  Didn't do it, so the current law(s) allow the KRG to make the deals they're making.  Considering the money involved, you'd think even a semi-functioning government would have taken this seriously.  The Ministry of Oil notes on their website, "The ministry of oil of Iraq declared that the daily oil exports for September 2012 rose to 2.6 million barrels with 8.4 billion dollars outcome [. . .]"

 

All that money and Nouri still can't turn on the lights. 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Bad news for Nouri"
"The administration springs their own little WikiLe..."

"As Marvin once asked, what's going on?"
"That awful Candy Crowley"
"The real presidential debate is coming"
"an unexpected highlight"
"Most important network news report this week"
"Tom Henehan"

"The nonsense"
"Crowley and third parties and more"
"The debate and the bad moderator"
"The race continues"
"You don't buy their albums anymore but . . ."
"THIS JUST IN! FRANKIE & FABIAN WERE BUSY!

You don't buy their albums anymore but . . .

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

ON THE HEELS OF THE NEWS THAT GRANDPA 'ROCKER' BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN WAS HITTING THE TRAIL FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF COMES THE NEWS THAT BON JOVI WILL BE JOINING IN.

THAT'S RIGHT, BOYS AND GIRLS, THEY WERE BIG IN THE 80S! THEIR LAST ALBUM ONLY WENT GOLD!  THEY WOULDN'T KNOW A HIT IF SLAPPED THEM IN THEIR WRINKLY FACES! 

BUT THEY'RE THE GOLDEN OLDIES, TAKING IT TO THE STREET -- IN LIMOS -- FOR BARRY O!

WATCH AND WONDER IF JON BON JOVI IS WEARING HAIR PIECES!  WATCH AND WONDER IF BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN REALLY BELIEVES A MAN OVER 60 NEEDS TO BE WEARING A TANK T-SHIRT IN PUBLIC!  WATCH THEM LUMBER AROUND THE STAGE IN SOME PARODY OF THEIR YOUTH!

AND THEN REMEMBER, BECAUSE THEY WERE ONCE HOT AND ON THE CHARTS, YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THEM ABOUT WHO TO VOTE FOR!  IN 50 YEARS, IT'LL BE MILEY CYRUS AND JUSTIN BIEBER TELLING YOU HOW TO VOTE!

BUT RIGHT NOW THE OLDIES CIRCUIT IS BRUCE THE TWINKIE SPRINGSTEEN AND JOHN IT'S MY REAL HAIR BON JOVI.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We're starting with the Libya because the media can't get their story right.   We have to start with last night's debate in New York between President Barack Obama, Governor Mitt Romney and -- as Cedric and Wally pointed out this morning -- from Team CNN 'candidate' Candy Crowley.

 

This is really the best example of the failure of the media.  Something happened last night in the debate.  Forget who is accurate in facts for a moment (we'll get to that).  A series of events went down and the press can't even report that accurately -- they can't even handle a timeline.  We're going to use Brian Montopoli (CBS News) as an example because he's got one mistake (while others have many) and he's also easy to follow (while others are obscuring -- intentionally or not).  Montopoli reports the chronology the way everyone else does (he just does so in a more understandable manner).  To make it even easier to follow, I'm going to put numbers in the excerpt of Brian's report and we're calling the debate [1]:

 

Crowley isn't offering apologies.  Though she initially seemed to backtrack [2] on her Libya fact check, suggesting that Romney was "right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word," she later maintained [3] that she had not in fact done so.  She said [4] on The View Wednesday morning that her fact check was simply an attempt to move the conversation forward, and suggested that criticism of her performance was inevitable.

 

So the timeline is: [1] debate where 'moderator' Candy Crowley says Barack Obama is correct; [2] CNN post-debate last night where Crowley 'suggests' Romney is "right in the main"; [3] Wednesday morning on CNN says she's not backtracking; and [4] goes on The View and says what she said at [2] but pretends criticism is inevitable.

 

That chronology is technically correct.  But [1] has an (a) and a (b) that the media is missing.

 

Rachel Weiner (Washington Post) reports on [3], Crowley on CNN this morning (that's where Brian's link goes) and Weiner seems to grasp the point others are missing.  It seems so obvious to Rachel that she's probably wondering what her peers are talking about.

 

The false narrative is Crowley said Barack was right, Crowley went on CNN last night and conceeded Mitt had a point, this morning she said she hadn't backtracked on CNN last night post-debate and whatever she said on The View. 

 

We're going over this slowly.  Most of you probably already grasp what happened.  As Ava and I noted this morning:

Romney expressed disbelief that Barack stated that on September 12th but Crowley declared that "he did in fact, sir."  And Barack asked her to repeat that "a little louder, Candy" which led her to state, "He -- he did call it an act of terror."
No, he didn't.  At best, he implied it.  And Crowley knew she was wrong almost immediately.  You can see it on her face as the audience applauds and she rushes to quickly add, "It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that."Ruth caught that quick amend by Crowley but few others did, especially alleged news outlets.

 

 

The reason Crowley is saying she did not backtrack after the debate is that she's aware of what she said during the debate -- a point that did not make the news cycle this morning at most outlets.  After the debate, she echoed what she'd already said.  Why are people not aware that Crowley also told Romney he was correct?  Again, Ava and I this morning:

 

At the start of the debate, Candy Crowley declared, "Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up. The audience here
in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive - no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort."
(We're using the CNN transcript, by the way, which is laid out on one web page and will not require you to click for another page every few paragraphs the way ABC and others offering a transcript do.)   Applause is an outburst.  And it can be distracting.  For example, Ruth caught Crowley admitting at the debate that Romney was correct but most people didn't and that was probably due to the second round of applause that was going on.

 

She did not pause, she did not say, "You, Governor Romney," most people thought she was continuing the same support she gave Barack. 

 

She didn't.  the second statements after the applause for rescuing Barack, were supporting Mitt Romney.  That most people in the news industry do not grasp that goes to how poorly Candy Crowley performed as a moderator.  When the moderator herself is confusing, that's a problem.

 

Now let's deal with the factual issue.  After the debate,  Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? We covered this previously in our extensive timeline of administration statements on Libya.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said.
But the president did not say "terrorism"— and Romney got tripped up when he repeated the "act of terror" phrasing.
Otherwise, Romney's broader point is accurate — that it took the administration days to concede that the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was an "act of terrorism" that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad. By our count, it took 8 days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya was the result of a "terrorist attack."
More to Romney's point, Obama continued to resist saying the "t" word, instead repeatedly bringing up the video, even in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25. On Sept. 26--15 days after the attack-- the White House spokesman felt compelled to assert "it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack."

 

Kessler is being more than fair to Barack who was talking about 9-11 (2001) at the Rose Garden when he starts using the terror word.  Let's go to the White House for what Barack said  in the September 12, 2012 Rose Garden speech and use the link for the full speech, we don't have the room so we'll offer the sections that apply:

 

The United States [1] condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the [1] killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  [2] We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and [1] this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens's body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

[. . .]

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the [3] 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of [1] this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

[4] No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for [1] this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their [1] attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

 

That's what he said regarding the "attack." 

 

[1] represents the time he specifically mentioned the events of 9-11-2012.  He refers to the "attackers," to "this terrible act," "this attack" (twice), "the killers"  and "this shocking and outrageous attack."  When speaking specifically of 9-11-2012's event, he never uses the terms "terrorism," "terrorist," "terrorist attack," etc.

 

[2] is where Barack is referencing a YouTube video that the White House was maintaining led to a protest outside the US Consulate in Benghazi and the White House maintained cause the attack.

 

[3] notes where he specifically addresses the attacks of 9-11-2001 -- eleven years prior.

 

[4] is when he suddenly declares "no acts of terror."  What is he speaking of?  We all are aware that September 11, 2001 saw two "acts of terror" in NYC with two planes crashing into the Twin Towers -- and doing so at two different times, right?  We're all on the same page there?  And, on that same day, "acts of terror" including a plane (or missile for those who don't believe a plane hit) going into the Pentagon and another plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. 

 

We have what Barack said.  The press gets in a hell of a lot of trouble when they try to mind read.  So what did he say?  After bringing 9-11-2001 into his speech, he finally uses terror to state "no acts of terror."  Is he including the Benghazi attack in that?  You don't know.  He may or he may not be.  He's also spoken of Iraq and Afghanistan and, by inference, tied them both into the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Which no one objected to because when Bully Boy Bush does it, we scream like crazy.  But when Barack does it, we just stay silent.

 

Six times in the spech, he directly references the September 11, 2012 event from the day before.  In those six times, he never once calls the Benghazi attack terrorism or the attackers terrorists.

 

Candy Crowley was wrong to cut Mitt Romney off last night in his assertion that Barack Obama did not label the attack "terrorism" as Barack insisted when he stated "[. . .]  I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and [. . .]"  No, he did not call the events of 9-11-2012 "an act of terror."

 

Word games.  That's what we're getting from the White House.  Earlier we got lies.  Now we get word games.

 

 

And the mix gets more toxic as Scott Shane (New York Times) arrives to 'explain' to us.  Shane insists (lies), "Mr. Obama applied the 'terror' label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect."  If you're a mind reader you might make that claim.  We've already established that was talking about the September 11, 2001 attacks and then proclaimed "No acts of terror . . ."  Shane knows better than to mind read.  Is he on firmer ground referring to a Las Vegas, September 13th speech by Barack where it is stated, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."?

 

Not really.  What does that have to do with September 11, 2012.  The "no act of terror" or the "no act of violence"?  Both?  Both and?  None at all.  I have no idea because, unlike Scott Shane, I don't present myself as a mind reader.  Nor do I play the game of, "I know what he said but what he really meant was . . ."  If something's a terrorist act, you call it that. I thought Barack was the great communicator.  Presumably, even a poor speaker could clearly call something a terrorist attack if they thought it was a terrorist attack.

 

 

We could go through all of Scott Shane's ridiculous b.s. but I didn't watch Crowley on The View because life is too short and we'll move to another topic for the same reason.  Read Brian Montopoli's piece for CBS News, it's worth reading -- timeline not withstanding -- and don't accept Candy Crowley's nonsense at the end which seems to argue that conservatives are criticizing her and liberals praising her and it's about them.

 

It's not about them.  Ava and I are extreme lefties.  We didn't slam Jim Lehrer for the questions he asked or the way he asked them nor did we slam Martha Raddatz.  We're slamming Crowley because she conducted herself very poorly.  We slam both/all for participating in this sham that denies third party and independent candidates their place on the stage.  In that regard, maybe we should praise Crowley for making it all about herself?  She revealed just how hollow and meaningless these faux debates are.  Murphy (Puma P.A.C.) ventures, "I think Candy Crowley was pissed for being assigned to the 'less prestigious' debate, the one where the moderator is supposed to be practically invisible, and she wasn't going to stand for it. She really overstepped."  Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) offers his take on the debate and these are his points on the Libya exchange:

 

The consensus on imperial war is near absolute. What passes for argument is merely a matter of style and posture. Romney attacks Obama for failing to grasp or reveal the "terrorist" nature of the fatal attack on the U.S. ambassador in Libya. But both candidates are wedded to an alliance with Muslim fundamentalist jihadis against Middle East governments targeted for destabilization or regime change: Syria and Iran. Obama's obfuscations on Benghazi were an attempt to continue masking the nature of the Libyan legions armed by the U.S. as proxies against Gaddafi, many of whom are now deployed in Syria – a mission with which Romney is in full accord. There is also no daylight between the contenders on drone warfare or the continued projection of U.S. power in the "Af-Pak" theater of war, or in Somalia and Yemen. The War Party wins in November, regardless of the Electoral College outcome.

 

September 12th, as we learned in last week's hearing, the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy could brief Congress that it was a terrorist attack.  Why couldn't Barack tell the American people?  Why the song and dance about a YouTube video while a very important, very real video was hidden from the public and is still hidden from Congress?  I'm referring to the footage of the attack.  As we learned in last week's hearing, the FBI said they'd turn it over to Congress gladly but they didn't have possession of it.  Someone else does and, on the orders of the White House, is refusing to turn the video over to Congress. 

 

Anne Gearan and Colum Lynch (Washington Post) had an important Libya story on Monday.  If you doubt it's importance, Bob Somerby attacks the story.  What happens when Bob goes crazy and off his meds?  I seem to remember the last time.  He knew a player in Plamegate but refused to make that public.  Still hasn't.  All this time later.  We called him out in real time when he was trashing Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.  Bob did a great job obscuring reality on behalf of a bad journalist.  Bob's back to that crap again.  We won't be linking to him again until he's back on his meds.  Anne Gearan has a solid career behind her for being a meat and potatoes, basic facts nailed reporter.  Can she make a mistake?  Anyone can.  But did she make the mistakes Bob accuses her and Lynch of?  Nope.  I'm all for holding people accountable.  I'm not for your cloaked wars where you pretend to hold someone accountable but it's really about some petty grudge.  I don't play that game.  If someone deserves to be called out, they get called out (I would prefer not to call out Joe Biden -- I know Joe and Hillary but it's harder for me to call Joe out than Hillary just because of his nature -- he's a very sweet person).  By the same token, I couldn't stand Patricia Heaton because of an attack she made on a very good friend of mine.  So when I had reason to mock her, I mocked her loudly and repeatedly -- I'm talking offline at various events but it was true online as well.  My anomosity was so well known that friends at ABC avoided even suggesting Ava and I review The Middle.  When we finally did, I had no problem praising Patricia's performance.  I was stunned by how good she was as Frankie.  I am still stunned.  I caught two episodes last year, she's still doing an amazing job.  She should be nominated for an Emmy for this role and she should win.  She's better than I would ever expect her to be, yes, but she's also playing a fully developed, fully created character.  So our political differences as well as what she said about a friend of mine didn't enter into it and don't.  If someone deserves praise, I don't care if I like them or not.  I don't play that game.  I'm actually happy for Patricia that she's become such a first rate actress.  This is a quality of work that few actresses ever achieve and she should be very proud of herself for what she's done in the role of Frankie.

 

There are serious issues and Bob Somerby can cover for another friend all he wants but the reality is if Barack's going to claim to be responsible -- as he did in last night's debate -- the first thing he needs to do is start explaining why Susan Rice made those statements.  As many in the press who cover the White House have pointed out in conversations over the last weeks, "Why even Susan Rice?  Why was she the one sent out?"

 

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The King of Self-Love sings to the Choir (Ava and C.I.)"
"Bad news for Nouri in survey of Iraqi citizens"
"Stephen Stromberg: Idiot of the Day"
"Jill Stein lets her campaign go down the drain"
"Most important story by the network news"
"the mess we're making"
"'It did as well take two weeks or so'"
"Joni book"
"Revolution"
"Barack did not come off presidential"
"A learning experience"
"He's such a prissy priss"
"The Three-Way Debate"
"THIS JUST IN! CANDY'S CAMPAIGN!"

The Three-Way Debate

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

IN NEW YORK LAST NIGHT, THE DUOPOLY ARRANGEMENT WAS HIT WITH A MAJOR SET BACK AS PLANS BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO SHUT OUT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WAS IGNORED.

GOP CANDIDATE, GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY, FACED NOT ONLY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, BUT A HENCEFORTH UNKNOWN RIVAL, ONE CANDY CROWLEY OF THE PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF CNN PARTY.

MS. CROWLEY MADE CLEAR FROM THE START THAT SHE WAS GOING TO HAVE EQUAL TIME AND THAT HER OPINIONS, IN HER MIND, WERE AS IMPORTANT AS ANY CANDIDATES. 

SHE WOULD GO ON TO TAG TEAM, WITH BARRY O, MITT ROMNEY ON THE LIBYA ISSUE AND ONLY LATER, BASKING IN THE GLOW OF HER AGGRESSIVE DEBATE PERFORMANCE ON CNN, WOULD SHE ADMIT THAT MITT ROMNEY WAS BASICALLY RIGHT ABOUT LIBYA.

LAST NIGHT, IT WAS ALL ABOUT CANDY!


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Changing topics, if press stupidity and press whoring were executable crimes, there'd be a lot more people on death row today and two who would be facing the needle/gas chamber/electric chair?  The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times and  The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta.  Franke-Ruta is disgusting.  She brings up the father of the late US Ambassador Chris Stevens saying that his son's death shouldn't be made "into a campaign issue" but slides past because she wants to do just that.  Grasp that.

 

Let's also grasp what we're talking about.  From last week's US House Oversight Committee hearing.

 

Committee Chair Darrell Issa:  On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic personnel.  Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children.   Glen Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  His family and colleagues grieve today for his death.  Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force.  Sean leaves behind a widow and two young children.  Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya, ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted against the long time Gaddafi regime.  He did so because he believed the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom from tyranny. 

 

 

Realize please that you come off like a stuck up bitch every time you say "an attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others."  What is that?  "And the rest here on Gilligan's Island"?  You can't list three more names?  They aren't important to you?  They're just props?  That's what it sounds like.  If you gave a damn about four Americans and were writing because you gave a damn, you'd list their names. 

 

If you want to honor the dead, you don't do it by rendering them nameless.  And you don't write sentences like this, "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday said the first line-of-duty death of a U.S. ambassador since the Carter Administration was on her."  It's the bad writer who's turning it into Chris Stevens and Three Backup Singers.  We'll deal with Hillary in a bit.

 

Let's deal with the father's feelings first: Important in the private world.  Note that we're not even mentioning the man's name.  But here's reality, 4 Americans died -- and, everybody get it through your damn heads, it wasn't just Chris Stevens.  You've got four families.  I believe the mother of Sean Stevens wants answers -- wasn't that what she told Anderson Cooper on 360 last week?  But even if all four were calling for a press black out, too damn bad.

 

This was not a suicide.  This is four Americans killed in an attack in a foreign country, killed because they were Americans.  Your child and your memories of them are for your private consumption, fine.  But a terrorist attack isn't Little Susie or Little Johnny pissed themselves at school and let's not embarrass them by telling the whole world.  This was a terrorist attack and that made it an international concern and a public event.

 

Unlike me, GF-R can't find a clue so she pretends like the father's making a request that would or could be honored.  But she then dismisses the request.  That's pretty craven.  Some might argue that what she's about to share is politicizing the deaths --  GF-R says tilting her head and biting her cringing lips, but -- "But this isn't how you put out a self-serving account."

 

How stupid is this woman? 

 

If you want to put out a self-serving account, how do you do it?  You do an on-background briefing.  Then it's never traced back to you.  And that's what she's praising.  A State Dept "on-background briefing" from last week.  Again, how stupid is this woman?

 

In a democracy, government is supposed to take place in the open.  We don't rush to embrace one or several officials who won't even go on the record.

 

It only gets worse as she tries to make it better.  This woman earned a college degree?  Seriously?  The same woman who wants to argue, "But no one died in their sleep."  That's her spin?  That's her 'up' in the equation?  What a moron.

 

And what an offensive column.  "But no one died in their sleep."  Well, Garance, as far as we know, no one died in their sleep in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon or in the planes on September 11, 2001 either.  That didn't make that attack any less tragic.  What a moron.

 

"While Republicans continue to charge administration cover-up and denial, the State Department's moves have repeatedly undermined both charges," the idiot writes.  Did she attend the hearing?  Of course not.  If she had actual facts, she'd never be able to do that 'creative writing' that's become her hallmark.  I was at the hearing.  (Community coverage includes: "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot," "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing," "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment" and "What we learned at today's hearing.")  I also know what was said on the Sunday chat & chews.  The Republican members of the House Oversight Committee praised the State Dept and Hillary by name.  (The only exception being US House Rep Jason Chaffetz.)  Darrell Issa, the Committee Chair, started the hearing by thanking Hillary and the State Dept for what they were doing and for the information they were providing.  So exactly what Republicans in Congress is the idiot GF-R referring to?  Oh, that's right, the ones talking in her head. 

 

And after Hillary's media appearances late yesterday, did the Republican Congress members pile on?  Not according to Hillary Is 44 which notes: 

 

Consider Senator Lindsay Graham. Early yesterday Graham sent Obama a letter asking Obama whether he knew of the previous attacks on the Benghazi compound and if so what Obama did about it?

Years ago Representative Lindsay Graham was an impeachment manager against Bill Clinton. Did now Senator Graham attack Hillary Clinton and demand her immediate resignation? No. Senator Graham's response to the Lima statement by Hillary remained focused on Barack Obama:

"Her remarks drew a quick response from three Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, including ranking member John McCain.

Clinton's statement of responsibility was "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever," the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."

Senator Graham and Hillary Clinton know where the buck stops: [. . .]

 

Competing with The Atlantic for the dunce cap is the Los Angeles Times which may win as a result of bad editorials like the one today containing this:

 

The Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was a tragedy. Was it also preventable? At a congressional hearing last week, Eric Nordstrom, the State Department's former regional security officer in Libya, criticized his superiors for ignoring his concerns about the growing risk of armed militias and extremist groups in Benghazi. But he also acknowledged that posting a few more Americans at the site would not have been sufficient to repel the onslaught by heavily armed extremists.

 

No, the editorial board wasn't at the hearing.  No, Eric Nordstrom did NOT say "that posting a few more Americans at the site would not have been sufficient to repel the onslaught by heavily armed extremists."  He didn't say it, he didn't acknowledge it.  He allowed that it might not have made a difference.  That's not the same thing.  Nor was he the only security witness at the hearing.  There was also Lt Col Andrew Wood.

 

US House Rep Dennis Ross:  Now, Lt Col Wood, I understand that you were the senior officer of the SST team.  Is that correct?

 

Lt Col Andrew Wood: That's correct, sir.

 

 

US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And do you have any reason to believe that if you had to go up your chain of command at AFRICOM for a request from the State Dept that they extend the tour of duty of an SST, that your chain of command would not grant that?

 

Lt Col Andrew Wood: Absolutely Gen [Carter F.] Ham was fully supportive of extending the SST as long as they felt they needed them.

 

US House Rep Dennis Ross:  So the resources were available for the SST?

 

Lt Col Andrew Wood:  Absolutely.

 

US House Rep Dennis Ross:  And had they been there, they would have made a difference, would they not?

 

Lt Col Andrew Wood: They made a difference every day they were there, when I was there, sir.  They were a deterrent effect.

 

So you had one security witness stating it might not have made a difference and another stating it would have made a difference, no maybes about it.  The editorial board is less than honest -- not since a sex scandal in a hotel -- well a nudity scandal, the prostitute had left -- back before Barack was in the White House has the Los Angeles Times editorial board been such a joke.  And, let's repeat, four people died.  Say their names, write their names.  Do not pretend you're 'honoring' the four when you reduce them to 'Chris Stevens and three people I don't care enough to even try to name.'  The four names are Glen Doherty, Chris Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.  If that's too many names for your meager minds to hold, then you don't need to be writing about the Benghazi attack to begin with.

 

Now let's deal with Hillary.  Here for a transcript of her interview with Elise Labot of CNN (here for video of it).  Hillary gave a series of interviews late yesterday where she stated she took accountability.  Language warning, Larry Johnson (No Quarter) does not feel she takes responsibility and his thoughts include, "What she is doing now with respect to Libya and covering [for] Obama is politics of the most disgusting.  She insists that she takes responsibility, but, rather than resign for her failure to protect the Consulate and the Ambassador, she only says it was the fault of the intelligence community."  As we noted earlier, others see it differently.

 

 

No one plays word games better than lawyers and Hillary has a law degree and was a practicing attorney for many years.  In other words, let's go to the State Dept press briefing today:

 

MS. NULAND: All right, everybody. Happy Tuesday. The Secretary is just finishing her program in Latin America and will be returning later this afternoon. I have – or later this evening – I have nothing for you at the top.

 

 

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the series of interviews she gave on this trip? We didn't have one, so we didn't get a chance to ask her directly. But she said she took responsibility related to the Benghazi attack. I just wanted to be clear on what she's taking responsibility for.

 

MS. NULAND: Well, if you have a chance to get up on our website, you will see transcripts of five TV interviews that the Secretary gave yesterday, as she always does when she's traveling and she has TV crews with her or TV correspondents with her. I think she was extremely clear what she's taking responsibility for. She is the head of this Department. She takes responsibility for this Department fully. She's never made any secret of that. That's been her position all the way through this.

 

QUESTION: What is she taking responsibility for, though? She just said, "I take responsibility," full stop.

 

MS. NULAND: Brad, you can go back and reread that interview. The question was clear.

 

QUESTION: I have reread it.

 

MS. NULAND: The answer was clear. I'm not going to try to improve on it here.

 

QUESTION: Why won't you?

 

MS. NULAND: Because she was –

 

QUESTION: She doesn't finish the thought.

 

MS. NULAND: She was extremely clear what she takes responsibility for, which is the operation of this Department, all of the men and women here, and certainly she is personally, as she has said again and again and again since September 11th, committed to getting to the bottom of who did this and learning the lessons that we need to learn from it.

 

QUESTION: So you said she takes responsibility for the operation of this Department and the people who work here. So she wouldn't be taking responsibility for things like intelligence assessments, per se, because that is something that might not be done by this building; is that correct?

 

MS. NULAND: Brad, I am not going to stand here and parse the Secretary's words. She was very clear in her interviews.

 

QUESTION: Well, if she was so clear, why can't you answer a question like that?

 

MS. NULAND: I want you to go back and read the interviews.

 

QUESTION: I have read all of them.

 

MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think she was very clear.

 

 

What did Hillary take accountability for?  What she appears to have taken accountability for is her department.  I think, I could be wrong and often am, Larry Johnson is responding to the press summaries and interpretations as opposed to Hillary's words.

 

On September 12th, as revealed in last week's hearing, the State Dept was briefing Congress that the attack was a terrorist attack (Patrick Kennedy specifically was doing that).  I believe, and I could be wrong, that Hillary is stating, "I am responsible for my department."  As in, "I am responsible for my department and other Secretaries are responsible for their departments and the President is ultimately responsible for all."  As explained in last week's hearing, the attack was monitored live and footage exists of the attack -- a little over 50 minutes of footage.  The FBI has told Congress they are not holding onto the footage or preventing anyone from seeing it.  But an unidentified element of the Executive Branch is keeping it off limits to the public and to Congress.  It appears to me -- and I could be wrong and often am -- that Hillary was taking accountability for what she was responsible for and indicating that she couldn't take responsibility for things others were responsible for.

 

If I was responsible for the State Dept, I would be very glad to know that we were telling Congress the truth from the start and that, even in our overseas interviews such as William J. Bruns' interview to Al Jazeera last month, we did not blame the attack on a YouTube video or a protest over a YouTube video.

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Cleared names, targeted institution, State of Law ..."
"What is the US Deputy NSA doing in Iraq?"
"Park 666"
"Women who rock, women who write"
"My state's Senate race"
"revenge"
"Tomorrow is the second debate between the two"
"Her name was Charlotte"
"Jill Stein refused to do what was needed"
"The Good Wife"
"His speaking abilities?"
"Fringe"
"THIS JUST IN! HIS BIG MOMENT!"
"Millions will see him"

Millions will see him

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS DEEP IN BRIEFING AND COACHING FOR HIS BIG APPEARANCE THIS WEEK. 

HE'S PREPARED ONE-LINERS AND ACTING CASUAL.  HE'S ALSO PICKED OUT HIS WARDROBE REPEATEDLY BUT KEEPS GOING BACK AND CHANGING HIS UNDERWEAR -- SILK BOXERS FEEL SO GOOD ON HIS HINEY BUT A THONG REALLY DOES AWAY WITH SOME OF THE UNDERWEAR LINES.

COME RAIN OR COME SHINE, HE IS GOING TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION THIS THURSDAY WHEN HE APPEARS ON THE DAILY SHOW.

DEBATE TONIGHT?  WHAT DEBATE?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

 

The Last Ride of the James-Younger Gang & Jesse James & the Northfield Raid 1876 comes out later this month. The author is Sean McLachlan, most famous for A Fine Likeness, who was an archaeologist before he became a full time author. He is currently in Baghdad and, at his blog (Civil War Horror), he posts a photo and notes, "Above is a photo of yours truly with a fellow writer -- the Sumerian scribe DuDu, who we know from an inscription on the back of his statue lived in Lagish around 2400 BC. I'd be willing to live with the name Dudu in exchange for my work to still be read four thousand years after my death." He's in Iraq to write a piece on the country for the travel outlet Gadling.

 

Lagash. Enyclopedia Britannica explains, was "one of the most important capital cities in ancient Sumer, located midway between the Tirgris and Euphrates rivers in southeastern Iraq. [. . .] Lagash was endowed with many temples, including the Eninnu, 'House of the Fifty,' a seat of the high god Enil. Architecturally the most remarkable structure was a weir and regulator, once doubtless possessing sluice gates, which conserved the area's water supply in reservoirs." The University of Chicago has a slide show of Lagash here. The Louvre houses a statue of Lagash's Prince Gudea. The statue is thought to date back to 2120 BC. Another statue of Gudea can be found at the Detroit Institute of Arts and this one is thought to date back to 2141-2122 BC. It is near this area that the first recorded war was fought -- Sumer's war with Elam (modern day Iran) back in 2700 BC (the war would have been fought in what is now Basra). In antiquities news, Al-Shorfa notes that yesterday Iraq and Italy "signed a memorandum of cooperation" regarding the restoration of archaeological sites in Iraq.

 

 

If another part of Iraq, Falluja, was excavated centuries from now, what would they find? Most likely evidence of massive birth defects as a result of the Iraq War. Falluja was twice assaulted in 2004. First, briefly in April and then a much more prologned assault immediately after the US presidential election in November. It was duing the second assault that Dexter Filkins, then a New York Times 'reporter,' wrote his rah-rah bit of nonsense. We called it out when the paper ran it on the front page November 21, 2004. But a lot of people like their war porn. Which is why 'reporter' Dexter won a little award for that piece. Someone reading it today, after the admission by the US military that white phosphorus was used in that attack on Falluja, would probably first notice how Dexy missed that. But even back then there was something fishy about a report about actions on November 15th that carried a dateline of November 18th and ran November 21st. Apparently, the military that vetted 'embed' Dexy's copy wasn't too concerned about print deadlines.

 

 

Reporter Dahr Jamail reported on Iraq during the same period Dexy churned out press releases for the military. In his book Beyond The Green Zone: Dispataches From An Unembedded Journalist In Occupied Iraq, Dahr explores what happened during the second assault on Falluja:

 

 

The humanitarian disaster in Fallujah worsened as the U.S. military continued to refuse entry to the Iraqi Red Crescent (IRC) convoys of relief supplies. I was told at the Red Crescent headquarters in Baghdad that they had appealed to the UN to intervene, but once again the UN proved its impotence in all matters. While there, I also heard that Iraqi Army members, under U.S. control, engaged in the supervised looting of Fallujah General Hospital during the first week of the siege.

Inside Fallujah, the U.S. military allowed some bodies to be buried by residents, but others were being eaten by dogs and cats in the streets, as reported both by refugees coming out of the city and residents still trapped there. The military claimed that there was no need for the IRC to deliver aid to people inside Fallujah, since there were no more civilians inside the city. (Later, officials acknowledged that thirty thousand to fifty thousand residents had remained in the city.)

 

 

While speaking to survivors of the assault, Dar encountered Abu Sabah who told him, "They used these weird bombs that first put up smoke in a cloud and then small pieces fell from the air with long tails of smoke behind them. These exploded on the ground with large fires that burned for half an hour. They used these near the train tracks. When anyone touched those fires, their body burned for hours."

 

 

Jackie Spinner, Karl Vick and Omar Fekeiki (Washington Post) reported November 10, 2004:

 

 

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujaheddin which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

 

 

Dexy couldn't report any of that truth. And when even the US military stopped denying the truth, it was left to Scott Shane (in November 2005, a year later) to mop up after Dexy with "Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control" (Shane was speaking of the US government's damage control but so intwined are the Times and the US government that it also spoke to the paper's previous 'reporting'):

 

 

After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."
But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.
In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.
While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."

 

 

 

And now a new study by the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology is getting attention from the press. The study is entitled "Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities." Early on, the study's authors point out, "It is old knowledge that exposure to chemicals can harm human reproduction. Ancient Romans were aware that lead (Pb) poisoning can cause miscarriage and infertility (Gilfillan 1965; Retief and Cilliers 2006). Today it is well established that human pregnancy and fetal development are susceptible to parents' environmental exposure to chemical, biological and physical agents (Mattison 2010)." The war -- specifically the weapons -- contaminated Iraq and led to a skyrocketing in the number of birth defects. Press TV explains:

Between 2007 and 2010 in F[a]llujah, over half of all the surveyed babies were born with birth defects. Before the US-led invasion of Iraq, the figure was one in 10.
In Basrah's Maternity Hospital, over 20 babies out of 1000 were born with defects in 2003, which makes the figure 17 times higher than it was in the previous decade.

Al Arabiya adds that samples demonstrate residents of Falluja are exposed to extremely high levels of mercury, lead and other "poisonous metals." And when those are in the eco-system, exposure becomes highly common. RT offers, "According to the WHO, a pregnant woman can be exposed to lead or mercury through the air, water and soil. The woman can then pass the exposure to her unborn child through her bones, and high levels of toxins can damage kidneys and brains, and cause blindness, seizures, muteness, lack of coordination and even death." Sarah Morrison (Independent of London) notes:

 

The report's authors link the rising number of babies born with birth defects in the two cities to increased exposure to metals released by bombs and bullets used over the past two decades. Scientists who studied hair samples of the population in Fallujah found that levels of lead were five times higher in the hair of children with birth defects than in other children; mercury levels were six times higher. Children with defects in Basra had three times more lead in their teeth than children living in non-impacted areas. Dr Savabieasfahani said that for the first time, there is a "footprint of metal in the population" and that there is "compelling evidence linking the staggering increases in Iraqi birth defects to neuro-toxic metal contamination following the repeated bombardments of Iraqi cities". She called the "epidemic" a "public health crisis". "In utero exposure to pollutants can drastically change the outcome of an otherwise normal pregnancy. The metal levels we see in the Fallujah children with birth defects clearly indicates that metals were involved in manifestation of birth defects in these children," she said. "The massive and repeated bombardment of these cities is clearly implicated here. I have no knowledge of any alternative source of metal contamination in these areas." She added that the data was likely to be an "underestimate", as many parents who give birth to children with defects hide them from public view.
Professor Alastair Hay, a professor of environmental toxicology at Leeds University, said the figures presented in the study were "absolutely extraordinary". He added: "People here would be worried if there was a five or 10 per cent increase [in birth defects]. If there's a fivefold increase in Fallujah, no one could possibly ignore that; it's crying out for an explanation as to what's the cause. A rapid increase in exposure to lead and mercury seems reasonable if lots of ammunition is going off. I would have also thought a major factor would be the extreme stress people are under in that period; we know this can cause major physiological changes."

 

This tracks with the findings from earlier studies -- such as the 2010 one. Last spring, Karlos Zurutuza (IPS) reported that in January alone, Falluja saw 672 children born with birth defects. Gene Clancy (Workers World) observed a year ago that "Fallujah sees at least 11 times as many major defects in newborns as world averages, research shows." At the start of this year, Dahr Jamail reported for Al Jazeera, "Most of these babies in Fallujah die within 20 to 30 minutes after being born, but not all." Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) observes today, "The destruction of Fallujah was like a black hole, where all the evil of the war was sucked in and concentrated with unbreakable force."

 

 

The study finds that, of central nervous system defects, the most common since the start of the Iraq War has been anencephaly. The Center for Disease Control explains, "Anencephaly is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull. It is a type of neural tube defect (NTD). These are birth defects that happen during the first month of pregnancy, usually before a woman knows she is pregnant. As the neural tube forms and closes, it helps form the baby's brain and skull (upper part of the neural tube), spinal cord, and back bones (lower part of the neural tube). Anencephaly happens if the upper part of the neural tube does not close all the way. This often results in a baby being born without the front part of the brain (forebrain) and the thinking and coordinating part of the brain (cerebrum). The remaining parts of the brain are often not covered by bone or skin. Unfortunately, almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." It is also known as an ONTD -- Open Neural Tube defect. St. Jude's Medical Center provides this means of reference, "Anencephaly and spina bifida are the most common types of ONTD, while encephalocele (in which there is a protrusion of the brain or its covering through the skull) is much rarer. Anencephaly occurs when the neural tube failes to close at the base of the skull, while spina bifida occurs when the neural tube fails to close somewhere along the spine."

 

RECOMMENDED:  

• Iraq snapshot
• More power grabs from Nouri
• Things we care about, things we're not interested ...
• Hejira

• Nouri threatens to dissolve Parliament, assassinat...
• I Hate The War

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: You can't trust the untrustable
• Media: Avoiding character and competence
• White House loses $5.2 billion deal
• Cyndi Lauper: Author (Ava and C.I.)
• Roundtable
• Rethinking the Lynne Stewart case
• Radio Moment of the Week
• Dennis Kucinich talks some truths about Libya
• The Post Debate Debate (Ava and C.I.)
• Highlights

• Cedric's Big Mix

  Faded elderly rocker to perform on Barry O

  2 days ago
• The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! SUCKING UP AGAIN!

  2 days ago