Cedric's Big Mix

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Worst talk show since Chevy Chase's

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

CELEBRITY-IN-CHIEF BARRY O JUST WANTED TO BE OPRAH TODAY.

HE HAD HIS OWN SHOW AND IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYONE WOULD BROADCAST BUT DISINTEREST AND POSSIBLY HIS BITCHY WAY OF DEALING WITH GUESTS MEANT THAT CNN, PBS, FOX AND EVEN HIS BELOVED MSNBC CUT AWAY FROM THE CHAT SHOW ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

SAID BARRY, "THE PROBLEM WAS I DIDN'T HAVE A WEIGHT PROBLEM AND A SEMI-CLOSETED MALE 'BOYFRIEND' WHO WOULDN'T MARRY ME. I'M NOW WORKING ON OBTAINING BOTH."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs held a full committee hearing whose purpose, Chair Bob Filner explained at the start, was "to look at the potential relationship between psychiatric medicines and suicides. Not a lovely topic but one that I think we have to address." Filner noted that the suicide rate within the military "continues to increase at an alarming rate, far exceeding the comparable suicide rates among the general population." The committee had four panels. The first panel was composed of Dr. Peter Breggin (Ithaca, NY) and Andrew Leon (Weill Cornell Medical College), the second of Drs. M. David Rudd (University of Utah) and Annelle Primm (John Hopkins School of Medicine) and retired Commander Donald J. Farber, panel three was composed of the VA's Iraq Katz with other VAs as background singers and panel four was Dr. Bart Billings.

Dr. Breggin detailed Eli Lilly's efforts to disguise suicide as related to anti-depressants. He first came across paperwork of the German government's equivalent of the US FDA "in the late 80s" where they expressed their concern to Eli Lilly over suicide rates and asked the drug maker to check their clinical trials.

Dr. Peter Breggin: Lilly found, depending on how you count it, a 6 to 12 to 1 ratio of suicide attempts -- not just thinking, attempts -- in the control group compared to placebo. Lilly never made it public. They never gave this report that I found to the Germans, they never made it available to the FDA. I also found memos inside Lily explaining guilt and shame on the part of some German investigators for Lilly that the company was classifying suicides and suicide attempts reported by doctors to them as "no drug effect." or other harmless kinds of entities; thereby disgusing the suicide attempts and the completed suicides. In one of these memos, the gentleman declared, uhm, 'How am I going to explain this to my family?' It was a genuine shame.

Dr. Breggin testified about various reactions and various ways of monitoring in clinical trials where a great deal more monitoring will take place than in real life use. As he was detailing some of these, the chair asked a question.

Chair Bob Filner: Dr. Breggin, I don't want to interrupt but if an active duty soldier is given these medications, they may not even see that warning, right? I mean --

Dr. Breggin: Well, my experience, last year I spoke at the oldest military stress conference given -- Bart Billings, whom you know, retired army officer and psychologist, runs that -- and I talked to generals and I talked to mental health professionals and they all agreed that these warnings were hardly ever presented to the soldiers and that the army was, in a sense, acting as if it was unaware. And some of these people gave me estimates, not of the 15% on pyschiatric drugs that we often hear but up to 30% of soldiers in some sections -- marines in particular, was one that was mentioned to me.

Chair Bob Filner: So they're not even informed of the risks?

Dr. Breggin: No, no. And as we go on further, we'll see that the FDA tells doctors you should -- and the word "should" is in the label -- you should share this information with the patient and the family and make sure they understand it. It's not just you repeat it to them. You sort of, "Hey, this is, I want you to understand, this is what may happen to you." It's what I do in my clinical practice. I don't say, "By the way, the drug may cause this or that," you know, I just make sure over a period of many sessions that the person understands the risks.

We're not interested in Leon's testimony which was inaccurte in many parts. He was urged to come to a point by the Chair but couldn't or wouldn't, he and Breggin were asked questions by House Rep Ciro D. Rodriguez and Leon jumped all over Breggin for answering and implied that the question was only for him when Rep Rodriguez was not only asking them both, Rodriguez has made clear he was asking them both the same question by using "you both" in his question.

At one point, Leon insulted Breggin in what may end up the rudest moment in Congress for the year. "You don't know what you're talking about," Leon snapped at Breggin. Rodriguez redirected with another question. He also snapped at Rodriguez. Not concerned about tone here but including his rudeness to convey just how unprofessional Andrew C. Leon was. And to be clear, he attempted to give 'expert' testimony on psychiatry when he is not a psychiatrist. Myself, I prefer psychologists to psychiatrists (for historical reasons including the ingrained sexism to be found in psychiatry). So I don't say that as a sneer or to suggest the Leon, being a psychologist, is not a real doctor. But he is not a psychologist either. Translation, he's not a doctor. But he is not qualified to speak of what psychiatry does or does not do. (Breggin, for any wondering is a psychiatrist.) He was so offensive in his remarks that Chair Filner felt compelled to note, "Just your last sentence, Dr. Leon, I don't think anybody was ever suggesting not to treat people. I mean, you're setting up a false straw man there."

I'll leave our focus on the first panel or we'll get lost in this hearng. Yesterday's snapshot covered a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing on Iraq chaired by Russ Carnahan. Kat covered it last night in "Subcommittee on Oversight hears about Iraq," Wally filled in for Rebecca and covered it in "Congress advances technology today via Carnahan" and Ava filled in for Trina and covered it in "The 'powerless' Stuart Bowen." Kat will be emphasizing some aspect of the Veterans Affairs Committee hearing at her site tonight. And Rebecca's just invited Wally to blog at her site tonight on the hearing so he's grabbing a rare moment that took place -- one that should take place in every hearing.

Well over a million Iraqis have died since the start of the illegal war. One is Baha Mosua whose 'crime' was going to work. The 26-year-old was arrested in a dragnet at the hotel -- arrested by British forces and he went on to die in their custody. As Adrian Shaw (Daily Mirror) reminds, Baha died of 93 injuries -- all while in British custody -- in September 2003. The ongoing inquiry into Baha Mosua's death is taking place in England. Today is day 66, we last noted it in the November 16th snapshot when Donald Payne testified that he and others repeatedly kicked and hit -- for over 48 hours -- a hooded and restrained Baha and Payne pinned some of his previous lying down to "self-preservation."

Today the inquiry heard from a retired British military colonel (retired in April 2006) who is identified as witness "S009." Gerald Elias began the questioning by noting a statement S009 signed August 17, 2009 and reviewing some basics from it such as S009 was "commission in 1981," immediately "attached to the Queen's Dragoon Guards," "served in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia . . . Kosovo," etc. Among 2009's duties in Iraq were building and running a Theatre of war Internment Facility (TIF).

He was asked about the "shock of capture."

S009: My understanding of "shock of capture" is that feeling of dislocation, of -- I think it is a spiritual thing more than anything else. You have just been captured by the enemy, you feel profoundly uncomfortable, you feel dislocated from your normal systems and hierarchies and processes and, as a result, my understanding is that produces a vulnerability in you. I mean a bit like me sitting here today, I wish you to like me to remove some of my stress. I would put it in those terms.

Gerald Elias: Were you given any training prior to your deployment to Iraq in relation to the maintenance of the shock of capture, for example?

S009: No. My understanding of the maintenance of shock of capture is really all about speed. You know, there is a window when the human psyche wishes to be loved and wanted and cosseted and, after a while, most people get used to new circumstances reasonably quickly. So the point of maintenance of shock of capture is to get the person that you have detained to the person who is going to question them as fast as possible -- no more than that.

Gerald Elias: So speed of delivery. But you didn't understand that there were any other techniques that might be used to maintain the shock of capture?

S009: No, and indeed if you are referring to things like sleep deprivation and all that, I would say that those would be inappropriate.

S009 testified that interrogations took place at the camp he was in charge of (April 2003) but he was prevented from observing them when they were carried out by Joint Forward Intelligence Teams (JFIT). JFIT is a mixture of military and civilians and is considered part of military intelligence.

Gerald Elias: Mr S009, may I move on, please, to your concerns about what was going on in the JFIT. First of all, in general terms, can you tell us briefly what it was that you saw or experienced which concerned you?

S009: Yes. I witnessed a number of prisoners of war, kneeling in the sun with what I believed to be plastic hoods over their heads and with their hands handcuffed behind their backs, in two rows, facing each other.

Gerald Elias: You considered that treatment to be wrong?

S009: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Unlawful?

S009: Yes.

Gerald Elias: Just before going into the detail of that and what you did about it and the conversations you may have had about it, was that the extent -- the full extent -- of what you saw that concerned you in the JFIT?

S009: Yes, pretty much. I mean I felt that the organisation was not running well, so I had concerns about the general efficiency of that unit and its effectiveness as well.

Staying with violence, Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) notes that Muslim Woman Org has announced that three Iraqi women -- Wassan Talib, Zainab Fadhil and Liqa Muhammad -- are now scheduled to be hanged on March 3rd. On the latest installment of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) Shatha al-Obosi -- deputy chair of the Iraqi Parliament's Human Rights Committee -- declared to host Jasim al-Azzawi, "We want to delay the execution orders after the elections because I receive many claims from people that they take their speech, their -- and they sign them under the torture. So many of them are innocent. We are afraid if there is a few number of them are innocent so we must protect all of them and make another investigation with them to guarantee if they are innocent or not." Apparently, the three women won't be protected.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

He's so pretty

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS EXCITED THAT HE MIGHT BECOME THE DAY-GLOW PRESIDENT.

"MY ENERGY MAKES ME GLOW," BARRY O GUSHED.

HE THEN EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT BY A GROUP OF FANS.

AFTER SEVERAL MINUTES, THESE REPORTERS EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THE PEOPLE WERE EXPRESSING FEARS THAT NUCLEAR PLANTS, DOTTING THE COUNTRY, WOULD TURN THE POPULATION RADIOACTIVE.

"BUT I WOULD STILL GLOW, RIGHT?" BARRY O SNIFFED.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"I don't know anything about police training but I think if I had a 2.5 billion dollar contract, I could figure out how to train police. That is outrageous," declared US House Rep Russ Carnahan today as he chaired the House Committee on Foreign Affair's Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight. The subcomittee heard from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen this morning about contracting issues, specifically the lack of oversight. We'll note this key exchange.

Stuart Bowen: This is the top story, Chairman Carnahan. We looked at this four years ago and the problem that we identified four years ago was lack of contract management -- raised in our first audit, issued in the first month of 2007. Then we got into the whole contract and found it was inauditable and so we issued a review in October saying the State Dept asked for three to five years to put things in order because it was just a mess. And then we went in in 2008 to see if there were remedial measures and there were but then we go in last summer and find the same problem, 3 person in country overseeing a contract that is spending hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars. And more-more disturbing the lack of clarity about who is supposed to do what. The in country contracting officer representative my people interviewed said, 'Well invoice accountability is being done back in Washington.' Ask them, they say it's being done in Iraq. Huge vulnearbility.

Chair Russ Carnahan: And with regard to the contractor, Dyncorp, describe how that contract was initially awarded.

Stuart Bowen: It was an existing contract that was held by the State Dept that was, that was used. I don't have the specific facts of the bidding, but it was -- it was -- it was in 2004 and used to apply to this -- to this program at the level of 2.5 billiion. And again as I said it was DoD money that went into it so I think DoD was looking for a vehicle that is could use to spend this money and it did so. I think there are some questions about that process. It certainly shows how bifurcated or disjointed both the source of the money, the contract management of the money and then the execution of the contract. All different places. Uh-uh, it shows, I think, just the lack of clarity in stabilization reconstruction contracting.

Chair Russ Carnahan: In your reviews, to what extent can you account for how that money has been spent?

Stuart Bowen: Uh, we're looking at the execution of it now. My auditors in Iraq today are reviewing that matter and the outcomes, which are an important question for you, we will answer in a later review.

Chair Russ Carnahan: And you expect that report out when?

Stuart Bowen: By July, no later than July.

Chair Russ Carnahan: I'm going to yield to Judge Poe.

US House Rep Ted Poe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [To Bowen] Which of our government agencies, in your opinion, was most irresponsible about money? DoD, State Dept, USAID

Stuart Bowen: I think that the State Dept did not carry out its contract oversight responsibilities sufficiently enough. In this particular contract we're discuss -- discussing is the most egregious example and the most disturbing point is it hasn't remediated that weakness sufficiently today.

We attended three hearings today and I'll try to pick up the VA one tomorrow. But this hearing was the most sparsely attended by the press. It was scheduled opposite big-ticket or 'hot topic' hearings such as Senator Carl Levin's hearing (Senate Armed Services Committee) on contractors in Afghanistan which is where the bulk of the press went this morning. I was not at that hearing but I have the opening statements of the Chair (Levin) and the Ranking Member (John McCain) and have spoken to Senate staffers about it. Some of the statements and questions are built around a hope that something was learned about contracting in Iraq -- with attention to oversight and cost effectiveness. For example, McCain declared, "Too many scarce tax payer dollars were squandered in the rebuilding of Iraq. I hope we have learned lessons from our experience there." No, there have been no lessons learned. That was obvious throughout the hearing Bowen testified at today.

The problems he is addressing regarding lack of oversight are the same ones he first noticed in 2004, the same ones he flagged in his early reports are still being flagged today. What is the point of having an Inspector General over reconstruction if they have no power? And Bowen obviously has no power or else he doesn't know how to use it. The same mistakes do not get called out over and over unless no one's taking the issue seriously. And if John McCain or Carl Levin are really hoping that Iraq 'lessons' can be taken to Afghanistan, they better get serious in hearings and oversight about what's going on in Iraq still in terms of the lack of oversight on US monies spent.

Not only do they need to pay more attention to it, so does the press. Again, this Subcommittee hearing that Russ Carnahan chaired this morning? Barely attended by the press. Kat plans to cover an aspect of it at her site tonight and Wally's going to sit in for Rebecca tonight and cover another aspect of the hearing.

March 7th, elections are supposed to be held in Iraq. These are Parlimentary elections and the Parliament will then select a prime minister. Yesterday, NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) offered a report on the campaigning:

Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Nouri al-Maliki is Iraq's unlikely strongman. Initially seen as a weak compromise candidate when he was installed as prime minister four years ago, Maliki is now accused by his rivals of being a dictator in waiting. To secure another term, he needs to win big in Iraq's Shi'ite south. On a multi-city tour of the region this past week, Maliki told the crowds that he is a man who can deliver.

Nouri al-Maliki: We have achieved security. We've signed huge oil contracts which will give Iraq money. I'm not telling you that we want to achieve something, we have already achieved something.

Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Maliki's coalition, called "State of Law," did well in provincial elections last year but more recently his popularity has waned according to some Iraqi analaysts. A series of high profile terrorists attacks in Baghdad and elsewhere have called into question his security credentials and what some call his heavy-handed approach to governance has also provoked criticism. Maliki's main rival in the south is the Iraqi National Alliance It includes the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or ISCI, and Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's political bloc. ISCI's leader, Ammar al-Hakim, was also campaigning in the south this week. Speaking to a crowd in Diwaniyah, he said the time is right for change.

Ammar al-Hakim: Iraq deserves better than what it has now. With the grace of God and your help, the Iraqi National Alliance will be able to revive this country.

Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Both sides are using whatever means they can to secure votes. In last year's provincial elections, Maliki won significant support from so-called tribal support councils that he established. In return for money and positions, tribal leaders promised to deliver votes for the prime minister -- and they did.

Of the process thus far, Olivia Ward (Toronto Star) offers this recap, "The election started with a call for unity, which gradually unravelled with scores of people killed in bombings, candidates targeted for assassination or attack, and up to 400 would-be candidates disqualified under a 'de-Baathification' law meant to prevent a resurgence of Saddam Hussein's supporters."

AFP states that the coalition led by al-Maliki and the one led by Allawi are the two chief rivals based on a new National Media Centre poll and they note the NMC "is linked to Prime Minister Maliki". Ayad Allawi is a candidate running. UPI reports unnamed 'sources' are saying that both "Tehran and Damascus would back Allawi" as the next prime minister. If false, the rumor may come from Ahmed Chalabi who is mentioned in the article. UPI claims "sources" for the rumor. Alsumaria TV, reporting the same claim, relies on a "source" -- "an informed governmental source speaking on condition of anonymity". If that source is indeed Chalabi, it would explain why Ammar al-Hakin is also targeted -- the unnamed insists that al-Hakim is in league with Allawi. Earlier this week Muhanad Mohammed, Waleed Ibrahim, Aseel Kami, Rania Elgamal, Souhail Karam, Mohammed Abbas and Richard Williams (Reuters) reported on Allawi's trip to Saudi Arabia spawning rumors (for some) and accusations within Iraq. Iran was worried as demonstrated by Press TV's report on the visit today.

For the record, there's nothing 'wrong' about ties with their neighbor Saudi Arabia. For example, Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced Feb. 16th that their Embassy in Riyadh was doing workshops including their Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Dr. Ghanim Alwan al-Dumaili, doing a lecture on his work with NASA. And February 17th their Embassy in Tokyo hosted "the monthly meeting of Council of Arab Ambassadors. During the meeting the Charge d' affaires a.i. reviewed developments in Iraq and general elections which [are] to be held on the seventh of next March and the Iraqi government's keeness on the success of this national event." Yesterday Michael Wahid Hanna (World Politics Review) observed, "Iraq has also mismanaged its diplomatic relations with its regional counterparts. Most conspicuously, on separate occasions Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hampered international efforts aimed at thawing Iraqi-Saudi relations by lashing out intemperately against the Saudi monarch. Al-Maliki's rhetorical excess also reversed the historic re-establishment of full diplomatic relations with Syria in the aftermath of catastrophic coordinated bombings in Baghdad in August 2009." So the panic or alleged panic over Allawi seems a bit inflated at best. Tariq Alhomayed (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reminds, "The attacks made by the Dawa party and the supporters of the ruling regime in Iraq on Dr. Ayad Allawi can only be understood by recalling an important issue which is that Allawi's visit to Saudi Arabia came at a time that reminds the Iraqi electorate that Nuri al-Maliki's government is isolated from the Arab world, and this is something that has led to the isolation of Iraq as a whole. Of course, this is something that is troubling to the Dawa party followers and the State of Law coalition, especially since the Iraqi elections are just around the corner." Let's leave Allawi for a moment to note Chalabi. Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) explains today, "So you thought that Ahmed Chalabi and Ali al-Lami's Accountability and Justice (De-Ba'athification) Committee had done all they could to wreck Iraq's elections and advance their political agendas? Not even. Yesterday, in what al-Hayat calls a surprise move, Lami announced that the AJC had named 376 military, police and intelligence officers for de-Ba'athification. The list includes a number of important people in senior positions." Lynch offers his take on it which is that Chalabi is setting a trap because al-Maliki either drums out the latest group of 'Ba'athists' or else he looks like a sympathizer (with does not play for the "State Of Law" political party).

al-Maliki, Allawi are only two thought to be vying for prime minister. Reuters notes the two and others thought to be in the running: Bayan Jabor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Adel Abdul Mahdi, Ahmed Chalabi, Jawad al-Bolani, Qassam Daoud and Raad Mawlude Mukhlis. Reuters also examines some of the political alliances. The Ahrar Poliltical party issued the following today:

Yesterday on the Race to Parliament programme, Ayad Jamal Aldin declared that the Iraqi government has lost control

The leader of the Ahrar Party announced that the government had failed the Iraqi people by failing to tackle three major problems: a census, the constitution, and national reconciliation.

He blamed corruption for this failure and stated that Ahrar has a plan to unite Iraq and end bribery and dishonesty.

Ayad Jamal Aldin said: "This government has lost control and has been overrun by corrupters and outsiders intent on dividing and destroying Iraq.

"Ahrar is the only party to have a credible and detailed plan to end the violence and intimidation that every Iraqi faces every day. We will create a united Iraq with water, jobs, and electricity.

"On March 7 the Iraqi people have a choice. They can vote for more corruption, more violence, and more division. Or they vote for change, with jobs, security and unity. A vote for Ahrar is a vote for change."

Watch the video here.

For further information, contact:

Ahrar Media Bureau
Tel: +964 (0)790 157 4478 / +964 (0)790 157 4479 / +964 (0)771 275 2942
press@ahrarparty.com

About Ayad Jamal Aldin:

Ayad Jamal Aldin is a cleric, best known for his consistent campaigning for a new, secular Iraq. He first rose to prominence at the Nasiriyah conference in March 2003, shortly before the fall of Saddam, where he called for a state free of religion, the turban and other theological symbols. In 2005, he was elected as one of the 25 MPs on the Iraqi National List, but withdrew in 2009 after becoming disenchanted with Iyad Allawi's overtures to Iran. He wants complete independence from Iranian interference in Iraq. He now leads the Ahrar party for the 2010 election to the Council of Representatives, to clean up corruption and create a strong, secure and liberated Iraq for the future.

While some alleged 'Ba'athists' are being banned, Hannah Allam, Warren P. Strobel, Laith Hammoudi and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy) and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) report that candidate Abu Mahdi al Mohandas is campaiging on the stand 'I'm an enemy of the American government.' He tells McClatchy and the Monitor, "I was told, officially, by the speaker of parliament and a high-ranking Iraqi official that it's preferable I don't show up before the election because they couldn't assure I was protected. Since 2005, the Americans have conveyed a message through an Iraqi mediator that they'll kidnap or assassinate me." (Allam, Hammoudi and Arraf reported Monday on what may have been violence targeting a campaign -- link has text and video.)

Now back to Allawi. Andrew England (Financial Times of London) reports that he is accusing the current government in Iraq of "reviving sectarianism" through the previous bannings and they quote him stating, "It's a beginning of going back to the drawing table where they started sectarianism. You can sense it unfortunately, in the political landscape again. If this sectarianism becomes an issue, which it already is, and continues to do so then definitely we will slip into more violence and this may lead to a civil war." Meanwhile ever since John Jenkins, British Ambassador to Iraq, made it a 'hot topic,' military coup in Iraq just doesn't go away. The latest to wade in is Adil Abdel-Mahdi, Iraq's Shi'ite vice president. DPA reports that he has expressed concerns about "militarization" in Iraq and what that could mean for the country's future, noting, "There is a historical precende in this case. The country is set for military coups." Iraq has another vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi. Waleed Ibrahim and Rania El Gamal (Reuters) quote al-Hashemi declaring today, "(Reconciliation) is one of the projects that the government has failed at unprecedentedly and . . . the reason is that there is no real intention for national reconciliation. There is no real will for reconciliation."

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Barry O, your stripper pole awaits

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S REVIEWS JUST KEEP GETTING WORSE. ON TOP OF THAT, HE'S LOST THE YOUTH OF AMERICA.

BUT REST ASSURED, HE STILL KNOWS WHO TUCKS THE DOLLAR BILLS INTO HIS G-STRING AND HE INVITED ALL OF THOSE BIG BOYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE TONIGHT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the US military announced: "RAMADI, Iraq -- A U.S. Soldier died today in a vehicle related accident in Western Iraq. The Ironsides command team wishes to extend their deepest sympathies and condolences to the family. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kind and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .] The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." Prior to the announcement, ICCC's count of the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4378. The number is now 4379.

Starting with elections and specifically with the Real Ugly. Yes, it is foundation ugly but it's not Thomas E. Ricks, it's worse: Nir Rosen. Rosen's offering predicitions and those who are familiar with his past attempts at tea leaf reading are immediately laughing. But there's laughable and then there is appalling. Rosen, who looks more and more like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, decided to share the following:

Maliki will probably emerge the victor in the elections. His more sectarian and corrupt Shiite rivals are discredited and unpopular, but more importantly, he is an authoritarian ruler in the Middle East, he would have to be really incompetent if he couldn't stay in power. If Karzai could do it, then Maliki should be able to as well. Of course there is nothing uniquely Middle Eastern about this. In fact maybe looking at post-Soviet states is useful -- that is, the new ruler will not readily relinquish control, even if he has to bend the rules a bit, or operate outside the constitution. This has happened in Asia, Africa, and other places in transition. I hate to admit that I hope Maliki wins. He's the best of all the realistic alternatives. It's not like a more secular candidate is likely to win, so if it's not Maliki it will be Jaafari or Chalabi. Frankly this is a rare case where I hope Maliki violates the constitution, acts in some kind of authoritarian way to make sure he wins the elections, because the alternative is fragmentation, or a criminal, sectarian kleptocratic Shiite elite taking over, and then Iraq might unravel. For now it's still "raveling."

"I hope Maliki violates the constitution"? You really want to say that? I guess it doesn't matter, you're now on the record saying that. Saying that you hope he "violates the constitution, acts in some kind of authoritarian way" and we're talking about Little Nouri, the would-be New Saddam. You can't take that back. You can't put it back into the bottle. Your wish is that the Constitution be trashed, that the process be ignored. When Iraqis have to live with your okaying of that process, remember you wanted it, you encouraged it, you wrote a piece advocating for it. There are no take backs on democracy. Nir Rosen is the perfect example of someone who can be educated and educated but never learn. No one who truly values democracy would ever advocate that the process be trashed, thwarted or ignored. We may not be happy with the results of, for example, an election but when we trash the process, we trash our own democracy. When we critique another society and offer that their authoritarian leader should disregard the laws and the processes, we send a message and it's an ugly and dangerous one.

Refugees International really can't afford these type of comments from Rosen. And just yesterday, the US military was trumpeting a Monday conference on "human rights and the role of the military in a democracy" that over 60 female Iraqi soldiers attended. You can bet that the seminar didn't teach the soldiers to root for their country's Constitution being trashed or that the elections were fraudulent. There is democratic thinking and there is what Nir Rozen has offered which, pay attention, is how the US government has justified installing every despot from Saddam Hussein in Iraq to Augusto Pinochet in Chile. There is no excuse for the 'hope' Rosen has expressed. It is outrageous and it is offensive.

As to his predictions, Nir Rosen will no doubt insist, "I was just there!" Yes, and you've been there before and all of your predictions have been wrong repeatedly (do we need to go into Sahwa for just one example or maybe the way you wrongly predicted what's known as the "civil war" of 2006 and 2007 would go down?). Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) doesn't breeze through like Rosen, Sahar lives there:

When asked why more than 500 candidates were banned just before the elections -- they would answer, "We are not sectarian -- there are as many Shiites as Sunnis on those lists", but when I asked Ahmed Chalabi at a press conference why were the political parties in power, who were religious in nature, targeting the seculars (and not the Sunnis as was the usual question to be asked of a Shiite controlled government), he was taken aback, but recovered quickly and with a knowing twinkle in his eyes, retorted, "Do you see me being targeted??" It was no use telling him that he was part of the biggest and maybe the most powerful Shiite alliance in the country, and therefore not considered secular -- I knew he would not answer -- He was too smart. Instead, he declared, "This conference is to discuss the legality of the ban -- and not the political aspects of it." and ended the conference soon after.

So the struggle, now, is religious vs. secular.

This country was secular once.

Will it be secular again? Do the seculars have a chance?

Difficult to say.

Further bad news for the laughable Nir Rosen comes via the latest ORB poll. Michael Hastings (The Hasting Report, True/Slant) reports that Iraqis were polled last week and

* In Baghdad 65% of people want someone other than Maliki as Prime Minister and fewer people say they are very likely to vote than elsewhere -- just 22% compared with 64% across Iraq as a whole.

*When asked whether conditions for peace and security have improved in the past 3 months 57% of Baghdad voters say things have worsened and across all of Iraq more than half (54%) think things have gotten worse or not improved.

* 96% of voters want change in the country -- with most wanting significant change. Maliki's status quo is not endough.

* An average of 64% of voters have an unfavourable view of Iran -- only 18% have a favorable view and 68% of all voters think that Iran is a bad influence in Iraq.

The polling reflects earlier reporting by Aseel Kami (Reuters) who noted over a week ago that the lack of basic services were impacting Iraqi attitudes towards voting.

Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) profiles a few of the candidates running for Parliament including an activist "for those the war has left wounded," Karim Radhi al-Khafaji who states, "I consider myself the candidate for the disabled and the deprived and those who are marginalized. [. . .] We have not seen anyone pay attention to us, including the prime minister." He offers that the percentage of people disabled or challenged in Iraq is 13% greater than the "world average of 2 percent".

Ahmed Chalabi has reported cut a deal with Tehran that, if true and if they stick with it, would slide Nouri al-Maliki to the side after the elections and allow Chalabi to be Prime Minister. (If true. Some are beginning to wonder if the original source of the rumor isn't Chalabi himself.) Layla Anwar (An Arab Woman Blues) reports on a recent interview the War Criminal gave:

Chalabi was obnoxious with Souhair Al-Qayssi and she would not let him off the hook, he did not intimidate her with his aggressiveness and she grilled him...Good for you Souhair, you're my kind of an Iraqi woman !

At one point his lies were so blatant that S.Al-Kayssi could not contain her laughter...this is how comic it was ...but let me not waste more time with my introduction and let's get down to what Chalabi said. I did take short notes but I am not a secretary and my mind is not a computer bank for storing data either..so there may be some grotesque lies that I may not remember as well...

S.Q : Why the fall out with the U.S ?

A.C : The U.S wants to bring back the Baath to Iraq so they can fight Iran in Iraq (no joke) Since 2004, I knew that this was Bremer's plan, after I initiated the De-baathification process and that is why I backed off. Now the U.S feels remorse for having removed the Baathists and they want them back in.

S.Q : (smiling wide) But you were close to the CIA yourself and you welcomed with open arms the U.S occupation, what changed ?

A.C : We (the Iraqi National Congress/opposition) have always refused the Occupation (no joke). I stood in the U.S congress in 1998 and asked for the liberation of Iraq and not its occupation. The cooperation with the US was limited, with the sole aim of removing Saddam Hussein, they liberate us and then they leave. I only have the best of interests for Iraq and its sovereignty ...

S.Q : But you had a honeymoon season with the U.S and some say you worked for the CIA and that the Justice and Accountability Committee which you now head was formed by Bremer himself...

A.C : Me, the CIA, never ! I went to Bremer with my daughter (her name is T.Chalabi) and told him you are not giving us sovereignty, you are not allowing a full Iraqi government as you promised, I even told Manning (some British Foreign official) that even Gertrude Bell in the 20's was more merciful in her approach to Iraq than you guys.

Meanwhile the Ahrar Party issued this release today:

Tonight on al-Arabiya, Ayad Jamal Aldin sets out his party's policies to secure the future of a united and peaceful Iraq

Ayad Jamal Aldin says that only Ahrar has a detailed and credible plan to end the sectarian violence and intimidation that blights the lives of all Iraqis and bring peace to our country.

On the Race To Parliament programme, he points out that of all the parties standing for election, Ahrar is the only party with a comprehensive and plausible plan to provide water, electricity and jobs in Iraq.

Ayad Jamal Aldin believes that Iraq's young people are capable and full of energy, ideas, and aspirations.

On the show, he recognises the need for Iraqis to build their own future, without the assistance of outsiders, and announces that under Ahrar 1200 Iraqis with college degrees will be sent to foreign universities to earn a degree in management leadership.

Ayad Jamal Aldin also explains the fundamental disagreement with the existing party structures which made it necessary to form the Ahrar Party as a standalone organisation, outside of previous coalitions. It reflects his belief that only an independent Iraqi organization not tainted by the corruption and failings of current political parties can be free to make the change Iraq needs.

He also reveals his opinion on the recent troubles between the Iraqi government and the Mujaheden Khalq in Diyala Province and the effect of these events on Iraq's foreign reputation.

Commenting on the US presence in Iraq Ayad Jamal Aldin says: "The American presence in Iraq is a fact. It is up to diplomacy to deal with the situation, not violent actions."

For further information, contact:

Ahrar Media Bureau
Tel: +964 (0)790 157 4478 / +964 (0)790 157 4479 / +964 (0)771 275 2942
press@ahrarparty.com

About Ayad Jamal Aldin:

Monday, February 22, 2010

Keep it in your pants, Colin Powell

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

FAT ASS WAR CRIMINAL COLLIE POWELL DECLARED THAT HE'S SUPER DUPER GLAD HE VOTED FOR HIS MAN CRUSH IN 2008. SAID POWELL, "BARRY O MAKES THE FRONT OF MY PANTS TIGHT, MY THROAT HOARSE AND MY HEART RACE. I AM OUT OF THE MILITARY AND CAN FINALLY GO FOR WHAT I WANT!"

ASKED FOR A COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O REPLIED, "I'M NOT THAT HARD UP."

REPLIED COLLIE, "IT'S BECAUSE OF MY BLOT, ISN'T IT? I CAN PUT SOME PORCELANA ON IT."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The latest installment of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday with Jasim al-Azawi exploring the topic of human rights with Arab Lawyers Association's Sabah al-Mukhtar, Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork and Iraqi Parliament's deputy chair of the Human Rights Committee Shatha al-Obosi.

Jasim al-Azawi: Let me ask you a very simple question. Not only are you an Iraqi that witnessed human rights record in Iraq but also you are the deputy chair person. How do you assess the human rights record in Iraq?

Shatha al-Obosi: The situation of human rights in Iraq is still worrying because with the huge number of detainees, with minority rights, with the women rights, with the killing peoples, the human rights belong to the secure situation. We have very bad situation after 2003, after the occupation. The American arrested people and killed people without any judge about them because they then -- belong for the Iraqi law. After that in the 2005 and 2006, the very bad situation of the security make a huge number of the detainees in the prison and there's no trial for them. They are asking for a fair trial, if they are innocent to release them or they are guilty to put them in the prisons. That's what they need. We have very bad situation in the prisons with the crowding, with the bad food, with the bad health care. So we look after their cases to find -- to end this file. And we have another, another challenges about the minorities --

Jasim al-Azawi: We will come to the other challenges for human rights for minorities as well as women, Shatha, but the bleak picture, Joe Stork, as portrayed by Shatha al-Obosi, it is not alien to you. You must have run across this many times. Your organization gave a report to the world community as well as to the UN. Did she present an accurate picture? Or is it worse than that or less than that?

Joe Stork: Well I think almost all of the things she mentioned are things we are aware of and-and I would subscribe to her, you know, list of-of the many problems that Iraq faces. I think we should focus on -- we should distinguish between those problems that the government has a direct ability to effect, you know, in the near term, in the short term, and those things -- like very important issues like protection of the population which is obviously -- the are human rights aspect to it and other things as well. And obviously there is a capacity issue in terms of the government's ability here. So let me talk for just a second about what I think the government can do and should do in the near term. First, we have the escalation as you noted Jasim the escalation in executions. Executions resumed in May of 2008. There are scores of people -- if not hundreds of people -- with death sentences now. There have been mass executions, that is to say dozens of people executed on a single morning. There's no transparency about this and the -- There's two things, two points to make. One, we're opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances but we're especially worried in a situation where you have people who have been convicted after patently unfair trials. They have not had access to lawyers --

Jasim al-Azawi: I can predict, Joe, that this is going to be extremely long. Keep some of the ideas that you would like to list later on but let me engage Sabah al-Mukhtar who is just fresh right now from that Geneva conference held under the auspices of the United Nations. Give us a brief summary of what has been said vis-a-vis Iraq's human rights record and what Wijdan Mikhail, the Iraqi Human Rights Minister, said.

Sabah al-Mukhtar: Well the Minister presented a document -- a report to the UN General Council. The report said nothing about the accusations which had been levied against Iraq by the UN organization. It didn't address absolutely any of the obligations, any of the accusations. It was just talking general conversations about how things should be, what the law says, what the international obligations are. So the report contained absolutely nothing. The Minister brought with her a team. One of her team went on for quarter of an hour, boring the Council, talking about the previous regime rather than talking about the human rights situation. The countries have all commented negatively on the report including the United States of America which said to the Iraqi Minister that their elections should be one that allows people to stand for elections rather than excluding people. Everybody condemned the situation of executions and hanging. Everybody talked about the academics -- killing of 500 academics, 200 journalists, 24 judges, 150 lawyers in the country, the torture, the prison situations. All the countries that spoke there condemned the situation in Iraq.

Jasim al-Azawi: So in a nutshell, they have blasted Iraq's claim that they are making progress out of the water. I noticed Shatha in your response to me, you also harped on the Americans. I am the first to recognize -- and many people including Joe will recognize that the chaos and the pain and the killing that followed 2003, in one way or another, is because of the American invasion. But that is in the past and I'm sure as the Americans withdraw their forces their contribution to the violations of human rights will be diminished. But talk to me about the current level of human rights abuse in Iraq. The government is responsible for that, no matter how you cut it, al-Maliki and his government are responsible for that.

Shatha al-Obosi: They have the Human Rights Ministry as our guys say so the problems with the Minister -- the Ministry of Human Rights -- so they must -- don't announce any-any-any -- anything against human rights because the torture happened by the government in the prisons. Who can torture the people there? She cannot say this clearly in the media or in front of the international associations so this is the problem for this reason. We establish the Human Rights Commission and we want this commission to start before we leave this period of the Parliament but the government didn't allow us to do that because any -- any, you know, anything happen against the human rights, it will be announced for the international or the UN or any international association. This is the problem. They can for do a lot to protect people. The first right of the Iraqi citizen: The right of living in his house --

Jasim al-Azawi: Indeed that is an inalienable right that should be guaranteed by all constitutions and by all governments. Joe Stork --

Shatha al-Obosi: Yeah, yeah but I want to mention about executions. We want to delay the execution orders after the elections because I receive many claims from people that they take their speech, their -- and they sign them under the torture. So many of them are innocent. We are afraid if there is a few number of them are innocent so we must protect all of them and make another investigation with them to guarantee if they are innocent or not.

This morning at the Pentagon, the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno held a press briefing. He was asked about the role for US troops after 2011 and he replied that "in order for us to have anybody in Iraq past 2011 we'll have to -- it will have to be requested by the government of Iraq. So until that happens, I see us being at what we -- what we'd usually have at a normal embassy, a military contingent that would help support Iraq." He was asked of the air issue -- Iraq has no forces ready to 'protect' their air space at present. The training of Iraqis for that has hit a hitch, but Odierno didn't state that and instead offered a 'we'll see when it rolls around' type take. He declared that "several factors" would determine a continued draw down (of "combat" forces only):

One is governmental formation. But it's not necessarily how long it takes to form the government. It's: "Is it happening in a peaceful manner? Do we think that the -- if there's a problem in forming the government, does it translate into violence?" So that'll be a big piece of this, whether it does or not. And right now, we're not sure. We think so far it will probably fo fairly smoothly, but we'll wait to see. I have contingency plans, and I've been -- I've briefed the chain of command this week that we could execute if we run into problems, if it goes the way we think, or if it just is a little bit different than the way we think. And we're prepared to execute those.

A member of the press made a complete idiot of themselves and that's really no surprise but let's point out here (without naming the idiot) that if you're going to charge that big attacks on government targets are down, you better damn well know the pattern. The pattern isn't for these attacks to place weekly or even monthly. If the pattern holds, an idiot should have to eat their words. In the meantime, we should all wonder about a reporter allegedly covering this topic who doesn't know the first thing about it.

Odierno was asked about the plans for the 2011 withdrawal. We'll note him word for word:

This is -- we haven't talked in specific terms yet about this, but it's very important to understand that there's a complex transition that's going to on in -- the end of 2010, beginning of 2011, as the military draws down, and how we transition resposibility over to the government of Iraq in some cases, to the embassy, in other cases to NGOs. So one thing we have to remember is the faster we draw down from 50,000 the faster we have to transition to the State Dept and these other organizations. So what we want to do is we want to do this very deliberately, because how we transition will go a lot into saying how well we do post-2011. So the way I see it is, I expect us to stay at 50,000 probably somewhere through the middle of 2011, and then we'll begin to draw down to zero. If we do it faster than that, then you've got to increase the money you give to the State Dept or the Embassy. You have to increase the -- you have to -- you have to speed up the transition. And what we worry about is if we do that too quickly we won't do it right. So we want to do that very deliberately and smoothly.

I'm going to repeat one more time that the Congress -- specifically the Armed Services Committee in the House and Senate -- has still not been provided with withdrawal details. For a withdrawal that's supposed to or supposedly to take place at the end of 2011, that's rather surprising. Why hasn't Congress seen the plan?

In a real democracy, we'd be asking that. But Congress can take comfort in the fact that this withdrawal plan that supposedly concludes in 22 months (begins much sooner, but concludes in 22) has also not been shared with the top US commander in Iraq. Odierno has apparently been as left in the dark as the Congress. Will Michele Flournoy offer more idiotic excuses, more 'I didn't know you hadn't been briefed' garbage? Will anyone press her or the Dept of Defense to be forthcoming about the withdrawal that's supposedly complete in 22 months?

Craig Whitlock (Washington Post) emphasizes that the "withdrawal of all combat forces" could be delayed. (And those acting shocked should be aware Barack gave these same reasons in 2007 when speaking to the New York Times -- in an article the idiot Tom Hayden praised while we were calling out Barack and going by the transcprit -- a transcript Tom would find days and days later. And then offer a muted objection to. If you're late to the party, grab a drink and refer to this Iraq snapshot and Third's article and the actual transcript of the interview -- a transcript Tom Hayden should have read before humiliating himself in public, then again Tom-Tom seems to enjoy public humiliation).

Questions of Iraqi elections were also raised in the press conference. Before we get there, Friday, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill did as he did Wednesday but this time to the Foreign Press Center when he shot down the possibility that any political party would boycott elections:

Nadia Bilbassy: Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador. I'm sure you are tired by any questions about -- so many press availability you've done so far. It's Nadia Bilbassy with MBC Television. Very often, the Americans complain about interference from neighboring countries, mainly Iran and Syria, in Iraqi affairs. To what extent do you see an influence from both countries on this current election? And as you know, two prominent Sunni politicians have been disqualified from this election. Do you worry that ultimately, that will affect the Sunni votes in the representations in the Iraqi Government in the future?

Chris Hill: Well, first of all, we have expressed our concerns about interference in some of the processes, especially the issue, as I think General Odierno laid out and I have also mentioned -- the issue of Iran. That said, we believe we have a election mechanism that will indeed be free and fair. This has been -- involved a considerable amount of planning in addition to the Iraqi high commissioner -- high commission for the elections, we've had a very active and engaged UN operation in Baghdad. So we are confident that we will have an Iraqi election that will be for and about the Iraqi people. So we're pretty confident we've got a good mechanism and a proper election which will be all about Iraq and not about any foreign country. On the second issue, obviously, de-Ba'athification has been a tough issue to go through. We had, obviously, some concerns about the transparency and the way that this whole process would appear to the Iraqi people. The Iraqi authorities have dealt with this. Their courts have dealt with this. The Iraqi senior politicians have dealt with it. And we really look forward to a good election. I know there continues to be some discussion about this. I know it was a very emotional issue for many people. But we believe the de-Ba'athification problems are, for the most part, behind. And we look forward to them getting on with the election and having the voters make their decisions.

Saturday Waleed Ibrahim and Jack Kimball (Reuters) reported that the National Dialogue Front is boycotting the election and, in the words of Haider al-Mulla (party spokesperson), calling "for other poltiical parties to take the same stand as our front. The whole issue is not related to (the candidate ban), rather the unsuitable atmosphere of this election." Fang Yang (Xinhua) added: that the press release cited the remarks of Iranian influence on the elections made by Odierno and Hill as being among the reasons (". . we can't continue in a political process running by foreign agenda"). Yesterday Michael Jansen (Irish Times) reported on what followed in the wake of Saturday's announcement by the National Dialogue Front: "the National Council for Tribes of Iraq siad it would" withdraw from the elections. Oliver August (Times of London) explained, "International observers have significantly lowered their expectations for the poll in recent days. Few diplomats in Baghdad now talk about 'free and fair elections', since they clearly won't be. The new publicly stated goal is a 'credible election', but even that seems doubtful. Pressed to sketch out a best-case scenario, several diplomates talk of an election that, despite its flaws, is merely accepted by the people. This is far from the democracy once envisaged."

The UN Secretary-General's Special Representative in Iraq, Ad Melkert, tried to stamp a happy face on the process and declared, "Generally speaking, I should say that the elections are on track in terms of their technical preparation. Still, a lot needs to be done. Security remains a big challenge to all, to the Iraqis in the first place, but also to the international community." Martin Chulov (Guardian) offers this background, "The call for a boycott was made by Saleh al-Mutlaq, an MP who leads the National Dialogue Front, a leading Sunni party. It is part of a cross-sectarian Iraqiya electoral alliance, formed to contest the 7 March ballot. Al-Mutlaq was on a list of 511 individuals banned from standing in elections because of their connection to the old Baathist regime. The list has now been reduced to 145. Ahmed Chalabi, the former Pentagon favourite, has been aggressively defending the list as part of a new de-Baathification drive through a body called the Accountability and Justice Commission." Gulf News editorializes, "It is important for any election to be fair that all the rules of contest are defined well in advance. It is wrong that candidates have been banned a few weeks before the elections. They should have known years in advance that their previous records would not allow them to hold public office and their sympathisers and supporters would be able to find candidates to represent their views without breaking the law." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) offered, ". . . Sunnis and many secularists in the Shiite community are so eager to overturn the dominance of the Shiite religious parties that have controlled Iraq's government for five years that it is unclear whether Mutlak's boycott call will have weight with many people." UAE's The National countered, "Not only does it threaten the legitimacy of the poll, but the last time Sunni parties boycotted the elections in 2005, it exacerbated a cycle of violence that almost drove the country into civil war. It is hard to fault the decision of the party's leader, Saleh al Mutlaq. He and hundreds of other banned politicians are the victims of blatant political manipulation. Regardless, they must be careful; there is more at stake than their own political careers." Leila Fadel (Washington Post) added, "Iraqi officials said Saturday that meetings with Mutlak and his group were ongoing. Mutlak could not be reached for comment. "

Today the Iraq Inquiry announced that the current Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, will offer testimony to the Inquiry on March 5th. Douglas Alexander (International Development Secretary) will also offer testimony. On March 8th, the Inquiry will hear from Bill Jefrey who was scheduled earlier but had to call off due to illness and David Miliband is also booked for that day. David Miliband is Foreign Secretary and, disclosure, he is also someone I know. When we cover David, I'll either call him out loudly (if needed) or just stick to what he says -- meaning we just quote the transcript and I offer no comment of my own. In addition, the March 9th snapshot will offer press reactions on Miliband. We usually don't have time for that but because I know David and may or may not be able to be impartial, I'm saying right now that the March 9th snapshot will offer a roundup of press criticques and reports of his testimony and presentation.