Joan Baez needs to get accountable

Is there a bigger fraud than Barack Obama. It wasn't all that long ago that he was bragging publicly of how he ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, remember? But it was the 9th Circuit that ended it and they did so yesterday. Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "9th Circuit Shows Leadership" documents that milestone. Let's elect the 9th Circuit president.

Meanwhile Trina and I couldn't stop laughing at Colin Randall's article (The National) on tired whore Joan Baez:

With so many causes dear to her heart, it is hardly surprising that Baez soundbites are easy to find. "I've never had a humble opinion," she once said. "If you've got an opinion, why be humble about it?"

Humble? How about accountable?

You stuck your damn nose into a Democratic Party primary and whored for Barack Obama. The same Barack Obama, JOAN WHORE LIAR BAEZ who's continued the Iraq War. Remember when you used to be opposed to it?

Remember when you claimed to want to end it?

You haven't run from a position so quick since you shared that female lover with Janis Joplin, have you?

But unlike your bed partners, this had a HUGE impact. And you've never taken accountability.

People in Libya are dying right now as a result of the man you WHORED for.

So why don't you try accountability?

Because you're bravado is as screeching as your high notes these days.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, July 7, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, more US soldiers are announced dead, Chair of the Joint Chiefs talks US forces in Iraq beyond 2011, Camp Ashraf betrayed?, and more. Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who has left Canada to report from Libya on the illegal war. Kevin Pina: So give us an update, what's going on on the ground there? Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya: Well I did look at some of the press reports being released saying that the gates of Tripoli had been reached by the rebels. That is totally untrue. That is not happening whatsoever. Nothing like that has happened whatsoever. In fact what I am hearing here is contradictory to what the press is saying in North America and Western Europe and that's the western mountains have been regained by the Libyan military -- or as they call it in their reports pro-Gaddafi forces. So there's total contradictions on the ground here and from what I'm seeing there. I also went to the Washington Post, Reuters today. They seem to be getting information from some person named 'Niz.' They all -- If you look through the wires, you're going to see 'Niz said this, Niz said that'. And most of the reports are unverified. They're just quoting Niz, but they're unverified. And I happen to notice while looking through these reports that they're saying he's been talking to them or contacting them through secure internet services. Secure internet services or secure internet lines usually mean like an embassy or something like that. So what is the press doing here? Another thing that was brought up by a Libyan I was talking to while looking at these reports was that the United States government -- especially President Obama -- is establishing shadow internet and shadow phone lines in so-called authoritarian countries as a means to remove the regime. Now if somebody did that in the United States, I think that would be seen as an act of aggression. That's unacceptable. We can't have these type of double standards. And, yes, today was -- today and actually for a while tensions have been brewing between south Sudan and north Sudan. nothing is said Barack will occupy western Sahara where they've actually built fences, you know, fences just like the Israelis have in the West Bank and nothing was said there. The ICC is out to lunch about what happened in Georgia, they still haven't come up with a verdict. But they look at Gaddafi and, in a couple of days, they come up with convictions based mostly on media reports from what I've went through looking at everything that ICC's putting together. So people here are united. They're united more than ever. And that's the feeling you get in Tripoli. It's not what the media is portraying. It's not going to fall anytime soon. There's no rebels at the gates. It's totally different on the ground from what I see here than what the press is reporting. Kevin Pina: You're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and that's the voice of Mahdi Nazemoraya. Mahdi is speaking to us directly from Tripoli, Libya. Mahdi, what about news reports -- Well, explain to me first, what is this shadow phone system you're referring to. Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya: Well reading through the press releases, the wires, there's talking about how secure alternative -- not as in alternative media but alternative internet sources that the governments of these countries can't control are being set up in these countries as a means for so-called activists or opposition groups to organize to overthrow the government. That's basically what they're doing. And this is in the press. Take me to task, listeners should take me to task and look this up. You can find this in the mainstream media where they're talking about shadow internet and shadow phone lines the government can't control. If anybody did that in my country Canada or the United States or they did it in Britain, France, Belgium -- they would end up -- It would be seen as an act of treason. You can't do that. I'm not saying the state [has] to control the internet but you can't set up a system to overthrow the government. That's a hostile act. Kevin Pina: And you know of course that they barely averted a vote in the US Senate yesterday to support the NATO-led war effort in Libya. It looks as if they're going to try to -- the Democrats are going to try to -- push another vote later next week. And all of this is, of course, predicated upon what is being called a victory that is in sight. Mahdi Darius Nazemoraya: I don't see a victory in sight. I think that's just talk. I think it's part of the psychological warfare against this country and it's people -- yes, against its people. I want to point out there's a war against the people of this country. When you bomb places that are food storage sites and you bomb places where money is made and when you bomb civilian structures, it's a war against the people, trying to break their spirits. Former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney (2008 Green Party presidential candidate) was part of a fact finding mission to Libya earlier and Lucy Grider-Bradley -- who has worked with various members of the US Congress including Cynthia and US House Rep Gwen Moore and who is the former program director for Northeast Georgia Black Leadership Council -- also took part in the fact finding mission. On this week's Black Agenda Radio -- hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network -- they highlight remarks by lucy Grider-Bradley and Cynthia McKinney. Glen Ford: We asked Lucy Grider-Bradley if what she saw felt like a war to her? Lucy Grider-Bradley: Absolutely. I felt bombs, the effect of bombs dropping in the distance. I saw billowing clouds that came up after the horrible sound and the building that I was in shaking. Billows of white, smoke-like substance that turned black as if watching a horror movie. I saw the effects of that bomb. I saw a 30-fooot crater in the middle of a home that belonged to Muammar Gaddafi's son -- where his son was killed and 3 of his grandchildren also murdered from the effects of that bomb. I mean, how do you get a 30-foot hole in the middle of your house? Well I can tell you what I saw -- the results of a UN-US-NATO bomb. The delegation saw a lot. We saw people trying to go about their daily lives, not knowing when the next bomb was going to drop or knowing where the bomb was going to drop. But in spite of it all, they gathered ever evening at the place where the grandchildren and the son were killed to show their support for their leader. I wonder if that kind of thing was happening in the United States, if we would get out and rally behind a leader who was dropping bombs and murdering people -- Black people especially. I don't think I'd be part of that party. But the Libyans definitely support their leader and show it every night despite the fact that there might be bombs dropping. And I also want to say civilians have been murdered. Not just military folks. So the bombs aren't dropping just on what the UN calls military outposts, they're dropping in residential areas in Libya. I think it's important that that point is made over and over and over again. Glen Ford: And when President Obama denied that he had to comply with the War Powers Act because he was not engaged in hostilities with Libya, how did you feel having just returned from there? Lucy Grider-Bradley: Well can I just say that I don't listen to him so I didn't hear him say that so I really don't have an opinion. I think about him like I felt about President Bush: If you see his mouth moving he's probably lying. The Cynthia McKinney excerpt is from her speech at the National Black Theatre in Harlem. Cynthia McKinney: During the time that I was in Congress, I was asked to take positions that were absolutely not true but people wanted to use my Black face in order to put forward their own agenda. And their own agenda was anti-Black. So they wanted to use the integrity that I had, they wanted me to lease it to them for a small price. In fact, one person, a media person from New York told me that if I just took a particular stand against Sudan then I could be be in Congress for the rest of my life. But what they wanted me to say was a lie. And I did my research, as I always do my research, and I understood what they were asking me to say was not true and so therefore I declined. [Next sentence is drowned out from applause to previous sentence.] But this leasing of the Black face and oppressing people of color within black face was something that moved me and, in fact, when I filed the Articles of Impeachment against George Bush and Dick Cheney, it was important for me to include Condoleezza Rice because she knowingly chose the wrong side. And I went to an elementary school in my district as I was trying to campaign for re-election and there big as day the school, Black History Month, is celebrating who else but Condoleezza Rice. So Condoleezza Rice becomes the role model for our young people. Colin Powell, who lied to the world, becomes a role model for our young people. So this is what they want us to become but this is certainly not what I can contence. So as I am blessed to be able to travel around the world, one of the things that sticks out to me is how Black America, at one point, had moral authority no matter where you went in the world. And if you had a USA passport and your skin was Black, you were respected. You were loved. Because people around the world understood our struggle, understood our oppression and they understood our resistance to the imperial face of the United States. But not so anymore. How long do you think we're going to get a free pass? And now the ultimate insult to my integrity is that we have a Black man bombing Africa. The ultimate insult. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports that a vote in the House came close to cutting off approproations: "A broader bipartisan amendment from Reps. Amash (R - MI) and Kucinich (D - OH) narrowly failed, with a vote of, 199 - 229. [. . .] Still, the Cole (R - OK0 Amendment, a less ambitious version, managed to pass, which prohibits any funding for equipment, training or advice related to the Libya War in the bill." This morning, before the vote, US House Rep Dennis Kucinich's office noted, "A bipartisan agreement to support an amendment with the broadest coalition of support has been reached by 15 Members of Congress. The bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Justin Amash (R-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), John Conyers (D-MI), Dan Burton (R-IN), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Pete Stark (D-CA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA) and Richard Nugent (R-FL)." Alan Silverleib (CNN) notes of the Amash-Kucinich measure, "A relatively slim majority of Republicans voted in favor of the measure, while a large majority of Democrats opposed it." One of the most interesting aspects about US coverage of the Status Of Forces Agreement being extended or replaced is how the White House keeps saying Iraq will have to ask and reporters run around DC looking for unnamed officials to comment while ignoring what's been and is being reported in the Iraqi press. You might say, "Well the US press feels it's more professional and therefore isn't interested . . ." To which the obvious rejoinder is, "The US isn't interested in Iraqi press or Iraqi reaction? That makes the US press just like the US government. Today Al Sabaah reports that a unified statement is expected before the end of the month from Parliament. Of course, if recent reports that Nouri intends to sign off on a memorandum of understanding with the US government prove to be correct, the Parliament can say whatever it wants, they will have been bypassed (not unlike the way he bypassed them at the end of 2006 to extend the UN mandate and, again, at the end of 2007 for the same reason). Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that State of Law insiders (Nouri's slate) say Moqtada al-Sadr is the stumbling block currently and that Nouri is weighing the threats Moqtada has made to reactivate the Mahdi milita. State of Law worries about the so-called 'gains' that have been made being lost if the US military leaves. Not all in the political slate are worried about Moqtada and some point out that Nouri is the leader of the Armed Forces as well as the Minister of Defense and Interior so he will have the support of most political blocs when he makes his evaluation. From outside the political slate, some are less optimistic and many point out that the decision should not be Nouri's alone (Osama al-Nujaifi, not noted in this article, has repeatedly maintained that this is a decision that must come before Parliament). Adm Mike Mullen, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, weighed in this afternoon. David Alexander (Reuters) reports that Mullen was "at a luncheon with reporters, maintained that "Iran" (presumably the government of) was supplying Shi'ite militias in Iraq with "high-tech weapons" to kill US soldiers "the forensics prove that." Any agreement to keep US troops on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, Mullen argued, should include some provision that Iraqi forces will address this alleged supplying of weapons to Shi'ite militias. Viola Gienger (Bloomberg News) observes, "The condition for a U.S. troop extension poses a challenge to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose Shiite Muslim political party has struggled to manage Iran's political and military influence." Meanwhile Charley Keyes (CNN) puts the red across White House flunkie Jay Carney's freshly-facialed face by reporting, "Mullen confirmed that discussion are underway. 'Negotiations are ongoing,' Mullen said, adding that any final decision would be for the presidents of Iraq and the United States. He said any agreement with Iraq 'has to be done in conjunction with control of Iran'." Tuesday at the White House, Carney played dumb (you were playing, right, Jay?) and insisted about any extension that "I really don't have any more information on that possible outcome, because, again we haven't even gotten a request." If negotiations are going on, there are requests on both sides. Helen Thomas (Falls Church News-Press) explains: As for pulling our troops out of Iraq, don't hold your breath. There are all kinds of official hints that our withdrawal from Iraq may take a longer time than the end of the year deadline. James F. Jeffrey, the U.S envoy to Iraq, told reporters recently that the U.S would consider keeping some of the 40,000 troops in Iraq to provide security. Of course, some Iraqi officials who have played ball with the U.S. occupation would like us to remain in the country. But the car bombings and explosions have not stopped. Obama has ordered the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Afghanistan, the beginning of the end of the 10-year war. As for Afghanistan, we had more reason to go in (although there were neither Afghans nor Iraqis involved in 9/11). Obama had one big chance to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan - the day after he took the oath of office. He could have saved thousands of lives and would have been called a hero by many. Instead, Obama maintained the Bush War scenario and kept the wars going. America has to decide who we are -- and why we are trying to sell democracy with guns and bombs. Today there are more US deaths in Iraq. The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe Tweeted: edatpost edatpost Roadside bomb kills 2 US soldiers in #Iraq http://ow.ly/5zbIt 2 hours ago Lara Jakes (AP) reports the bombing was "outside the main American military base in Baghdad". Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) adds, "Officials believe an explosively formed projectile, many of which are manufactured in Iran, was responsible. The weapons are designed to penetrate layers of armor." As of 10:00 AM EST this morning, the Pentagon's count of US military personnel killed in the Iraq War stood at 4472. -- 51 of those deaths since Barack pronounced the end of 'combat operations' August 31st. Last month, 15 US soldiers died in the Iraq War. Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh is now the host of RT's Adam vs. The Man which airs on RT each weeknight at 7:00 pm (EST). Yesterday's broadcast included this commentary: Adam Kokesh: Hey, remember that time Barack Obama was a senator and he was just running for president? You remember when he said the first thing he was going to do as president was pull US forces out of Iraq? Footage of Candidate Barack Obama: I will promise you this that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. Adam Kokesh: Yeah. But then remember that instead the first thing he took to the bank was all of your bail out money? Well it turns out there's still too many kinks in that whole getting out of Iraq thing to make it a reality. We were slated to finally pull out by year's end. Yes, 2011. But now the AP is reporting that the White House is offering -- "offering" -- to leave 10,000 US troops behind. Iraqis expressed their gratitude today by shooting at some American convoys. Now that's what I call friendly fire. It's good we're showing so much generousity towards the Arab world, surely the tide of anti-Americanism will turn if we stick it out just a little while longer. Seems the Pentagon is crossing their fingers for a troop request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government in Iraq but I'm going to guess just one way or another they'll find or create a way and a reason to stay. Jack Cafferty (CNN) observes the same promises from Barack and notes that "Now as that deadline for military withdrawal from Iraq approaches, he's apparently prepared to break that promise. Gee, what a surprise." On the topic of crossed fingers -- in terms of lying, not good luck -- how do you tell a group of people to disarm and swear that you'll protect them and then don't? Ask Barack Obama who refused to repudiate the acts of George W. Bush so he embraced them. The Bush administration promised the residents of Camp Ashraf (approximately 3400 Iranian dissidents in Iraq) that they would be protected. They've instead been repeatedly slaughtered. The most recent blood bath, April 8th, by the Iraqi military was so bad that US Senator John Kerry termed it a "massacre." Sunday Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) filed an important report on Camp Ashraf. Recapping, US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey can't understand why residents of Camp Ashraf (who unarmed after the US government promised to protect them) don't want to leave their area and disperse throughout Iraq living as, in his word, "refugees." Nima Sharif's "US gives Iranian Opposition Choice: Die or Commit Suicide" (Stop Fundamentalism) points out: The fact of the matter is that the residents of Camp Ashraf who died last April – 36 of them including 8 women – were killed when the Iraqi military forces raided their camp. That makes Ambassador Jeffery's remarks refereeing to a "place a bit safer" puzzling. Does he mean that there is actually a place in Iraq where Iraqi forces cannot attack the residents and have no access to? Logic suggests that if the Iraqi forces are determined to slaughter the members of the Iranian main opposition movement, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK/PMOI), they can do so anywhere in Iraq. Moreover, what does he mean when he say "a bit safer?" Does he mean that next time less people will be killed and that is acceptable to the U.S.? But in reality, since Camp Ashraf currently receives some minimal international attention, the only place that is "a bit safer" for the residents in Iraq is in fact Camp Ashraf. The camp residents have already announced their complete agreement to the European plan for their resettlement outside Iraq to resolve the situation once and for all. They consider that the only party disagreeing with their relocation outside Iraq would be the Iranian regime; rather it wants all the 3400 residents of the camp to be destroyed. In fact it has been the Iranian regime and its Iraqi collaborators who have been calling for their relocation inside Iraq for the past few weeks. Struan Stevenson is a member of the European Parliament and he maintains: But I have made it clear in all discussions with the Iraqi Government that we are not willing to enter into any negotiations with them unless four key pre-conditions are met. Firstly, the military forces must be withdrawn from Camp Ashraf. Secondly, the siege of the camp which has gone on uninterrupted for more than two years, involving hundreds of loudspeakers blaring high decibel threats and propaganda 24 hours a day - plus interruptions to vital medical, energy and water supplies - must immediately stop. Thirdly, there must be an independent inquiry into the massacre on April 8 - with the perpetrators identified and brought to justice. And fourthly, those critically injured during the April 8 attack must be given immediate access to proper hospital care. In other words, the Iraqi government must restore an environment as near to normality as possible in Ashraf, before negotiations can begin on the long-term resolution to this crisis. Only if these conditions are met will we have confidence that the Iraqi authorities really do intend to bring this situation to a positive conclusion. But during this period of transition the UN will have to take control over the safety and security of the camp, ensuring the residents receive all necessary living and medical supplies. At the same time, a committee will be set up to take the plan forward - consisting of key individuals from the EU, US, UN and Arab League as well as members of Iraq's government and parliament, residents from Camp Ashraf and the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Baroness Ashton and the EU Foreign Affairs Council, together with the US President and the UN Secretary General, must now back this solution and throw their weight behind it in order to ensure that the lives of 3,400 Iranians are saved and Iraq moves along a path upon which respect for human rights and the rule of law is prevalent, in a land which has been mired in violence for too long. Yesterday at the US State Dept, Victoria Nuland was asked about Camp Ashraf: QUESTION: A couple of months ago, a senior State Department official rolled out a U.S. plan for relocating the residents of Camp Ashraf, saying that there was a concern in this building that they face the potential for more violence against them if they stay where they are. The head of that group is now going around telling media outlets that they're rejecting this plan sort of outright, that they won't consider it. I'm wondering if that rejection has been communicated directly to you, and is there a Plan B if the U.S. -- what's the next step as far as the U.S. is concerned regarding the Camp Ashraf situation? MS. NULAND: We are continuing to work with the Government of Iraq, with the Ashraf leadership, with all of our international partners on a plan to relocate the camp. This is an ongoing dialogue. We want to see this done in a way that avoids further violence and leads to a long-term solution. So this is an ongoing process and our goals, I think, remain the same, which is to see an appropriate settlement of the issue. QUESTION: But if they're rejecting this plan, then clearly, you have to find another path to reach those goals, don't you? MS. NULAND: Again, I don't want to speak to the specifics of the negotiation that we're having, both with the Iraqi Government and with the Ashraf leadership. I think those talks will continue. Asked about it today, Nuland was confused as to when she'd last addressed it declaring, "I don't have anything to -- new to report with regard to the MEK status on the terrorist list. I did speak to the Ashraf issue yesterday or the day before. Just to reiterate, we continue to work actively with the Government of Iraq, with the Asraf leadership, with our internal partners to come up with a plan to relocate the Ashraf residents and we're still working on that together." Reuters notes that today's violence included 1 woman being shot dead in Baquba and her husband being left injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left four people injured. Turning to the US where Barack Obama's promise to end Don't Ask, Dont Tell didn't result in it ending but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did what Barack refused to do and yesterday announced the end of the discrimination. As Marcia observed yesterday, DADT was overturned "not by Barack. It took adults to end it and Barack's just an overgrown (and spoiled) child." A child who likes to play war. 15 US soldiers died last month in the Iraq War. One of them was Sgt Matthew Gallagher. Sean Teehan (Boston Herald) reminds that his loved ones have to deal with both the loss and the military's 'confusion' -- they told the family he died conducting a house sweep and have since backed off of that statement and now state his death is under investigation while insisting it was a 'non-combat death.' Teehan opens with Katie Gallagher, "The 22-year-year-old widow of Army Sgt. Matthew R. Gallagher lay across the flag-draped casket of her husband yesterday, burying her face in her arms before succumbing to sobs." The Cape Cod Times notes, "A funeral Mass is set to begin at 11 a.m. [today] at St. Elizabeth Seton Parish in North Falmouth. Burial at the Massachusetts National Cemetery in Bourne will follow. Gallagher is the 11th soldier with ties to Cape Cod to die in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2006." Spc Dylan Johnson also died last month. Manny Gamallo (Tulsa World) reports on the 20-year-old's memorial yesterday: Jeff Johnson told mourners that a few things agitate him in his daily life and that a few things agitated his son, as well - primarily the heat and dust of Iraq. He said his son has now left him with a valuable lesson - "to ignore the small agitating things and to concentrate on loving your family and friends every day, because none of us will ever know when it is our June 26." The soldier's mother, Joy Sehl, also spoke to mourners, telling them of her heartbreak but also saying how proud she was of her son. She read a tribute from one of her son's best friends, Pfc. Anthony Santiago of Placerville, Calif. Santiago wrote that he had always wanted a little brother and finally got one when Dylan Johnson entered his life. Last month Iraq War veteran James Keenan apparently took his own life. Elizabeth Dinan (Sea Coast Online) reports he died June 29th ("self-inflicted gunshot wound") and suffered from PTSD which Greg Chabot ("who served in an Army National Guard artillery unit with Keenan") says took his life, "He was one of the younger guys, very squared away and wouldn't hesitate to help another guy out. I don't know if he slipped through the cracks or was overlooked." Sheila Keenan says of her son, "My son, my hero. I'm not angry. I know why. They can't deal with what happened." Yochi J. Dreazen (National Journal) observes, "In 2010, 301 active-duty, reserve, and National Guard soldiers committed suicide, up from 242 in 2009. In 2008, the military's suicide rate exceeded that of the general population for the first time ever." Meanwhile Leroy and Rosie Torres continue to raise awareness of the effects of the burn pits. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, the military and contractors are exposed to burn pits which aren't safe and which are used to burn off everything (including medicines) producing damaging fumes. Leroy Torres is an Iraq War veteran who was exposed while serving. KRIS TV reports: We last spoke with him in January when the cold air was taking it's toll on his lungs. Now, he is getting treatment in Denver at the National Jewish Medical Center, but he says the cost for medical bills is also taking its toll. "Unfortunately, I haven't been successful with the VA. They denied my claim- my reimbursement. All of that was denied," he said. As Leroy continues fighting for his own health and benefits, his wife Rosie, who we also met back in January, says she is fighting for awareness and help for everyone affected by burn pits. Last month, she went to Washington DC to meet with legislators. She says she spoke with local Representative Blake Farenthold, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and more about how to make changes on national policies which she says are preventing these victims from getting adequate care. Her focus: creating a national registry for burn pit victims. Evan Bayh proposed a national registry for burn pit victims. He put forward a bill and even appeared before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee to testify on behalf of the bill. Senator Jim Webb -- who, months later, would go on to screw over Vietnam veterans suffering from Agent Orange -- blocked the bill from going forward and it died in committee. Bayh elected not to run for re-election and no one else in the Senate has picked up this issue and run with it. Bayh and Senator Byron Dorgan regularly explored and investigated this issue via the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Like Bayh, Dorgan decided not to run for re-election in 2010. iraq mahdi darius nazemroaya kpfa flashpoints al sabaah al mada hossam acommok bloomberg news viola gienger antiwar.com jason ditz cnn charley keyes the associated press lara jakes the washington post ed okeefe mcclatchy newspapers roy gutman helen thomas the wall st. journal julian e. barnes the boston herald sean teehan the cape cod times the tulsa world manny gamallo the seacoast online elizabeth dinan the national journal yochi j. dreazen

The Queen of Hearts has spoken

POLITICO reports on Arianna Huffington. She was in London and decided to stick her nose into a press scandal over there and declared if it had happened at Huffington Post she would have seen to "everybody being fired" -- then quickly adding, "everybody involved."

Uh,, we got you the first time, Queen of Hearts. She would have fired everyone.

We also learn what offended her the most about the scandal: (her words) "different culture, journalistically, where you basically hire an investigator to tap into phones and where you pay for sources."

I can see how that would bother Arianna and how it would never happen at Huff Post -- Arianna pay sources? She doesn't even pay her bloggers!

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, July 6, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Barack pretends to want to cut waste but continues to waste trillions on the wars, Iran and Iraq firm up their friendship, denials fly all over about the US military staying in Iraq beyond 2011, and more. Starting with Libya. Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who has left Canada to report from Libya on the illegal war. Kevin Pina:The US Congress delayed a vote for a resolution supporting the NATO-led air campaign in Libya amidst reports of new bombing raids on Tripoli just this weekend. This comes on the heels of last week's revelations that France had flouted a UN resolution barring arm shipments to Libya by providing guns, ammunition and rocket launchers to Libyan forces opposed to Muammar Gaddafi The French government has since said that the armaments provided to elements aligned with the Libyan National Transitional Council were intended for defensive purposes only. However, no sooner had the French provided that qualifier, Libyan rebel commanders announced offensive military plans to take the capitol of Tripoli. And you're listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio and now joining me from Tripoli, Libya is once again our special correspondent Mahdi Nazemroaya. Mahdi, welcome back to Flashpoints. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Thanks for having me, Kevin. Kevin Pina: So I understand that the bombs fell again this weekend on the capitol Tripoli. Give us an update, what's going on on the ground there? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Well the last time I talked to you, right after we finished our discussion, bombs had started falling and very close to me actually. I was in a civilian residential area at a fact-finding NGO, talking to the organizers there and during the middle of our conversation: Bombs. I've talked to foreigners living here. Italians, people from other Arab countries and Europe, even a Canadian who lives here. They've gotten so used to the bombs they can tell the difference between a missile and a bomb from the noise -- what's hitting what. Their lives have changed. The Italian lady I talked to who lives here, she was never into politics or the media or scrutinizing it until she lived here because she's saying what the media is reporting is her life and a total contradiction of reality. She can't get the reality of her life to-to correspond with what she's saying about Libya. She's totally disgusted about what's happening. So, yes, they've been bombing at night, they've been bombing during the day and there's been flights overhead on the hour almost. Kevin Pina; And so what are the effects of the bombings been? Have they been hitting military targets? Have they been -- saying they're hitting military targets but striking civilian neighborhoods again as they did in the past? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: They have not been hitting military targets. There's no more military targets to hit after the first two days. There's nothing military left. All they've been doing is carpet bombing this place. That's essentially what it's coming down to. It's a watered down form of carpet bombing and they've been giving aerial support to the forces opposed to the government and Col Gaddafi here. That's what they've been doing. They've been bombing places that have nothing to do with war, have nothing to do with commanding control, they've been bombing civilian areas. I've taken pictures of them, others have. They've bombed food storage facilities. They've bombed a place where bank notes are made. They've bombed the university -- one of the main universities. They've bombed medical facilities and hospitals. They bombed a place used to bring oxygen for people in the hospital. Like oxygen needed in hospitals. They haven't bombed any military -- Libya really doesn't have a strong military at all. In fact, I was telling somebody today, what we're seeing on the ground is mostly volunteers and semi-organized people, people of all walks of life. They're fighting against the Libyan people, they're not fighting against the Libyan military because all or most of these people are volunteers who are fighting for their country. Kevin Pina: Now we had talked about this last week, you had said that there was going to be a large demonstration in Tripoli against the war and against NATO's bombing campaign. We had this discussion about whether they were coming out pro-Gaddafi or whether they were coming out pro-Libya. And you had made it very clear that they were pro-Libya more than they were pro-Gaddafi. What happened with that demonstration? Did it happen? Did it occur? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Let me point out that many of these people like Col Gaddafi, not all of them. It is pro-Libya first, yes. But a lot of them, they know or they see Col Gaddafi and Libya as being on the same line. And, yes, I was at the protest. It was remarkable, it was big. It was energized and no one forced these people to come. And I want to point something out, Kevin. All the people in Tripoli -- not just Tripoli, in Libya, the part of Libya that are not of the rebels are armed. The government's armed them. Every house is armed here. They have civilian defense contingency plans here that's been put into effect. It's not that organized but there's neighborhood watches, there's neighborhood armories, there's green tents in every neighborhood, every house has weapons that have been distributed. If these people wanted to get rid of Col Gaddafi, believe me, they could have. They all have arms -- Kevin Pina: So let me just interrupt real quick, Mahdi. So you're saying that there has been a campaign by the Libyan government to arm the population. And that if the population wanted to overthrow Gaddafi, they're armed and could do that now? Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: 100% there have been independent journalist here who have verified this. And you can easily find this on the internet now with pictures, with descriptions of these civilian defense contingency plans. And it wasn't recently that this happened. Col Gaddafi said at the start that they were going to arm the people and if they wanted to get rid of him, they could have. Turning to the illegality of the LIbyan War, at Antiwar Radio, they've posted Horton's interview with Matthew Rothschild where they discuss his article "Stop the Bombing of Libya" (The Progressive). Excerpt. Scott Horton: You start out by describing the extent of the war going on over there --whatever the president wants to call it. And you know I think, gee there's so many wars for people to keep up with, it can be hard. I'm amazed when I saw your assertion here that NATO has conducted 11,500 sorties in Libya thus far. Matthew Rothschild: Isn't that amazing? I mean here we have a campaign that was started ostensibly to protect civilians and to impose a no-fly zone. Well it didn't take 11,500 sorties to impose a no-fly zone and to protect civilians in Libya from an imminent massacre -- that was what we were sold. No, this is a campaign that's entirely different from it's intentions right now. It may have been entirely different from the intentions that were sold to us at the very beginning because, look, there's no reason why these bombing raids should have continued after the no-fly zone was imposed because, at that point, Muammar Gaddafi could not have sent in his pitiful airforce to bomb those people who were supposed to be in such peril. So the no-fly zone and protection of civilians in Libya was accomplished really within 48 hours and everything else since then has been something designed to do quite a great deal more than what the UN signed off on and that was to protect civilians. Now what's going on now is a campaign to get rid of Gaddfi and seize the oil in Libya for US control of the oil supplies in the Middle East which is, of course, what the Iraq War was largely about to and what our connivance with Saudi Arabia's been all about for the last many decades. Scott Horton: Well now, there's so much there. I guess first of all, it's probably worthy of note that "no-fly zone"? It's been months since we even heard anybody talk about that. I kind of almost forgot it's supposed to be a no-fly zone. Matthew Rothschild: Yeah and it's certainly not applying to NATO. NATO's flying all over the place. And the amazing thing about Obama's doctrine here is that the War Powers Act doesn't apply. And the reason he's saying the War Powers Act doesn't apply -- and if Bush had said that I think the peace movement in the United States would be in the street in the tens of hundreds of thousands. Obama's reasoning just gives a justification for the next president to go in and attack any country that doesn't have a decent air force or surface to air missiles because what he is saying and what his lawyers are saying is that the War Powers Act doesn't apply right now because our military is not at risk of being killed because essentially we've so wiped out the Libyan air force and surface to air missiles that there's no chance that our bombers are going to be shot down -- or almost no chance -- and so they're not really in a zone of hostilities which is what the War Powers Act was dealing with. Well that's -- this is a crazy doctrine then because the United States now has carte blanche to go attack any weaker country as soon as its air force has been obliterated. Scott Horton: Well, yeah, and funny about that, the lawyer for the Pentagon and the lawyers at the Justice Dept, they didn't buy that argument for a minute. They were over-ruled by the president. Matthew Rothschild: Yeah, it's extraordinary when the president's own lawyers want to follow the law and the president of the United States doesn't. That gives you an idea of just how far out there Obama has gone in expanding presidential war powers. This from a presidential candidate who played footsie with the left, played footsie with the progressive peace movement, said he would never unilaterally engage the US military overseas unless there was an imminent threat against the United States which there wasn't. Gaddafi didn't attack the United States, he didn't represent a threat to the United States. [Former] Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates even admitted that on TV. I saw him when he said it. And my jaw kind of drops because, you know, why are we there if he's not a threat to us? And yet Obama has expanded this idea that he, the president of the United States, and, of course, future presidents can go start a war or at least a bombing crusade anywhere they want without asking Congress' permission, without getting Congressional authorization. After all the Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. And now he wants to completely violate the War Powers Act which he's violated three times now. He violated it at the beginning because the War Powers Act says a president can go in without Congressional permission at first if there's an imminent threat against the United States -- there wasn't an imminent threat. And then within 60 days of that the president has got to get approval from Congress -- Obama didn't get approval from Congress. And then 30 days after that the president is supposed to withdraw those troops if he hasn't gotten Congressional approval -- and, of course, Obama hasn't gotten Congressional approval and hasn't withdrawn the bombers. So he's really in illegal territory here and he's kind of gloating about it. Onto Iraq. Yesterday Lara Jakes (AP) reports 10,000 is the number of US soldiers the White House is floating to Iraq to keep with an understanding that Iraq will respond by September to the offer. Jakes reports, "Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press." Today David S. Cloud and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) add that the White House has "made its proposal now in hopes of spurring a request from Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government, and to give the Pentagon time to plan, the officials [in the administration] said. The troops would be based around Baghdad and in a small number of other strategic locations around the country, the officials said." Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) explains, "While that word 'offer' has been repeatedly used by US officials named and unnamed in recent months, a better word might be 'pleading'." ABC News Radio adds, "In Washington, D.C. keeping American support forces in Iraq past the deadline could start a mutiny in the president's own party." Zeke Miller (Business Insider) points out, "The plan would put Obama on the wrong side of his promise to remove all U.S. troops from the country by the end of 2011." Ryan Blethen (Seattle Times) observes, "We have no business staying in Iraq. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama must live up to his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq. We have wasted too many lives and too much money. It is time to leave the rebuilding of Iraq to Iraqis and turn our attention to fixing our own country." Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) notes that offer is being made "despite vows to bring U.S. forces home by the end of the year." She also notes Vice Adm William McRaven told Congress a "contingent of commando forces should remain in Iraq." Last Tuesday, McRaven appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and this was the exchange: Ranking Member John McCain: Adm McRaven, do you believe that the United States should have a residual force in Iraq in order to assist -- with particularly special operations, functions and intelligence? Vice Adm William McRaven: Sir, I think that it would be mutually beneficial to us and the Iraqis if in fact that was the case. Obviously, remains to be seen whether the Iraqis will want us to stay past the intended drawdown time. But clearly there is still a threat in Iraq. And a small, soft presence there I think would be advisable. Ranking Member John McCain: And if you look at recent US casulties, the situation -- at least in some respects -- politically as well as militarily has shown some deterioration. Would you agree? Vice Adm William McRaven: Sir, I would. Statistically that appears to be the case, yes, sir. And the denials grow even less believable. Pentagon spokesperson Col Dave Lapan declared today that stories about the US government having a number in mind that they would like to remain in Iraq? Untrue, huffs Lapan. "The process for troops to remain in the country after the date begins with an official request from the Iraq government and no such request has been made. Until the government of Iraq makes a request, there is no number." At the US State Dept, Victoria Nuland was in denial mode: QUESTION: With regards to Iraq situation, especially that they haven't requested officially for the U.S. troops to remain there, if it doesn't happen, what is the take on that? I mean, is there an action plan on the – Iran's effort to influence Iraq situation? MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that we have grave concerns about what Iran has been doing in terms of supplying weaponry and trying to stir up violence in Iraq. Ambassador Jeffrey spoke to this yesterday, trying to exploit the current situation. That said, we have a lot of confidence in Iraqi security forces and in their ability to maintain security in Iraq. We continue to say that if Iraq were interested in some residual U.S. presence staying in Iraq, we would be willing to have that conversation. But at this point, we haven't had a request. QUESTION: But there is two key position in Iraq Government. Defense and internal ministry hasn't got any minister there. These are two key position. Are you confident within the – Iraq's government to handle their conflicts internally? Because they don't seem to be reaching any substantial unity amongst themselves. MS. NULAND: This is democracy in action in Iraq. They are involved in trying to take their internal situation to the next level. So from our perspective, we continue to work with them on the full range of issues, including the security situation today and the security situation as we head towards the end of the year and the withdrawal of the remainder of forces. Andy, did you have something? QUESTION: May I have one more question? MS. NULAND: I think we've done it on that subject. QUESTION: Thanks. MS. NULAND: Andy? QUESTION: A follow-up on Iraq? QUESTION: I've got an Iraq one. MS. NULAND: Lots of Iraq today. (Laughter.) While the relationship with the US remains in doubt, Xiong Tong (Xinhua) reports, "Iraq on Wednesday signed six agreements of cooperation with its neighbor Iran during an official visit of Iranian First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad." Alsumaria TV adds, "Iranian First Vice President Mohamed Rida Rahimi arrived to Baghdad on Wednesday heading a senior delegation to discuss bilateral relations between both countries." Press TV notes, "Iraq is currently the third trading partner of Iran after the United Arab Emirates and China. Tehran seeks to turn Baghdad into its first trading partner, Rahimi told reporters ahead of his official visit to Iraq on Wednesday." And before that visit takes place, Aswat al-Iraq observes that Iraq has sent Rafi'e al-Issawi, Minister of Finance, to Tehran yesterday where he met with Mohammed Riza Rahimi. AAP notes of the Baghdad meeting that the two countries representatives made a promise "to strengthen ties and put the past behind them, even as Washington accuses Iran of supplying new and more lethal weapons to anti-US militias." Aswat al-Iraq reports former MP mithal al-Alousi decried the visit and deals stating, "Iran wants to compensate its loss in Syria by controlling Iraq. Signing these agreements proved that Iraq lost its independence before the Iranian regime." al-Alusi is a former Ba'athist who was already in Germany when Saddam Hussein put his name on a hit list. The US was happy to bring al-Alusi back to Iraq and happy to see him become part of the government. They weren't bothered at all that right before the war -- December 2002 -- he took part in the seizure of the Iraqi embassy in Germany. Even more interestingly, al-Alusi was a member of Parliament and on the de-Ba'athification committee until he visited Israel in the fall of 2004 at which point he was kicked out of Parliament and off the committee -- kicked off via a law outlawing contact with 'enemy states' -- the current Parliament and the de-Ba'athficiation committee used that 1969 law. From Saddam's era. While claiming to be against the Ba'ath Party and all it did, they used that law to get rid of al-Alusi in 2004. Asked by the press today about Iran and Iraq's relationship, the State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland begged off (link is text and video): QUESTION: Iranian vice president was visiting Iraq today, and he said that Iran is ready to build and provide security to Iraq. He added that the relation between the two countries has reached a very high level. Do you have any reaction to this? MS. NULAND: I don't. I don't. QUESTION: Why not? MS. NULAND: I think I've already spoken to our – (laughter) – I think I've already spoken to our concerns about Iran's intensions and Iran's activities in Iraq. Aswat al-Iraq notes today's violence includes a Baquba car bombing in which "a number of civilians and military personnel were injured" and last night the al-Buteira Military Airport was attacked with two rockets and, still last night, 3 Sahwa were shot dead in Kirkuk. Aswat al-Iraq notes that President Jalal Talabani met with thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki yesterday and quotes Kurdish MP Fuad Maasoum insisting it was a success and paves the way for a meet-up next week among all parties. Meanwhile Iraq remains without potable water and Al Rafidayn reports Iraqis are resorting to bottled water which are overpriced. The article estimates it will require $100 million to fix Iraq's water infrastructure alone. Despite the lack of potable drinking water, Iraq is moving forward with plans for an agricultural revival, Al Sabaah reports, including a major investment in livestock. Turning to the United States. Yesterday, Elaine Quijano followed up on her earlier CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley report. Last week, she reported on how, if your loved one takes their own life or dies in a training exercise, you receive no condolence letter from the president. Yesterday, Quijano reported that the White House announced they will do condolence letters to those whose loved ones take their own lives in a war zone. Dan Lothian (CNN) makes it more specific, "In the statement Tuesday, the White House official said a review had been completed, and the president will send condolence letters to families of service members who commit suicide while deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat operations" (and notes that CNN has been reporting on this issue since 2009). In her report last week, Elaine Quijano noted: Sara Conkling didn't receive one either, for her daughter, Jessica. "She was willing to put her life on the line and she did lose her life doing it," Sara says. "But it doesn't count as much to them." Conkling was a Marine Corps pilot training for deployment in combat when her helicopter crashed in San Diego. She was 27. Families of active duty military who die in stateside training accidents do not receive presidential condolence letters. But Sara Conkling says her daughter's sacrifice deserves that recognition. Sara says, "You'd like people to have appreciated and understand what she did, that she was important and her loss is a big loss." The policy change does nothing for Sara Conkling or others in similar situations. While it's good news for those who lose a loved one to suicide, it does nothing for those like Conkling. A change should have covered both. Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) notes that condolence letters will be sent out by both President Obama and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. US President Barack Obama held a Twit-fest. He was allegedly talking about the economy and how to help improve it but the only time he mentioned 'war' at any real length was the war on drugs. (Click here for transcript.) This despite the fact that Kim Geiger (Chicago Tribune) reports "The House began debate Wednesday on a $650 billion spending bill to fund the Pentagon and continue paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill increases the Pentagon's budget by $17 billion for fiscal year 2012, a spending hike that comes at a time when Congress and the White House are in heated negotiations over the deficit and reigning in federal spending." $650 billion dollars. If you've forgotten last week's press conference (where Barack acted like a dick and bitchy), Ava and I noted: Take Barack Obama and his tantrum at the press conference last week (here for transcript). At the top, Barack declared that "$4 trillion in savings" had to be found and the best he could offer was apparently cutting the "tax break for corporate jet owners." So proud of this 'plan' was he that he mentioned it six times in his press conference. US House Rep. Eric Cantor responsed that cutting that tax break will save $2 billion and that he didn't see that as a big deal. Six times he boasted about this $2 billion 'saver.' But he wants to spend $650 on wars and that's a $12 billion increase. David DeGraw (at Pacific Free Press) explains: When Obama launched his re-election propaganda campaign to trick the American public into thinking that he intends to end the Af-Pak War, he said that the "War on Terror" has cost $1 trillion over the past decade. While that is a staggering amount of money, he was being deceitful once again. As you may have heard, a newly released study by the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University revealed that the cost of the War on Terror is significantly greater than Obama has said. The little passing coverage the study received in the mainstream press cited $3.7 trillion as the total cost, which was the most conservative estimate. The moderate estimate, which the mainstream media ignored, was $4.4 trillion. In addition, interest payments on these costs will most likely exceed $1 trillion, which brings the total cost up to at least $5.4 trillion. Yesterday, by a 12 to 1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution calling on the White House to end the wars and to spend the money domestically instead. Council member Bill Rosendahl is quoted by Fox 11 News stating, "We're spending $1 trillion over there. We should be investing in education, health care and infrastructure. We need to focus on ourselves and stop playing big shot all over the earth." Council member Janice Hahn, who is running for Jane Harman's old set in the US Congress, states, "This country, I believe, is war-weary. It's time to invade this country with resources. We know that our schools need more resources. We need to spend more money creating jobs. We need to get our economy back up and running." But, again, Barack avoided the issues in his pretend press conference today. iraq antiwar radio scott horton matthew rothschild mahdi darius nazemroaya kpfa flashpoints the associated press lara jakes the los angeles times david s. cloud ned parker the atlantic conor friedersdrof fox 11 news salar jaff the wall st. journal julian e. barnes the cbs evening news with scott pelley elaine quijano cnn

Robert Flack to be honored August 1st

Robert Flack is one of my favorite singers and I'm eagerly awaiting her new album of Beatles song. But in the meantime, she's about to receive an honor.

The NYCDA Foundation announces:

Special Events - August 2011

BRIGHT LIGHTS SHINING STARS

Monday, August 1, 2011
Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, NYU

This Gala evening serves as the biggest annual event for the NYC Dance Alliance Foundation. This is a NOT TO BE MISSED celebration of the eclectic nature of song and dance – including scholarship presentations, celebrity spokespeople, Broadway performances and appearances by a variety of artists, dance companies and special guests – PLUS a VIP red-carpet cocktail reception and after-party.

A private College Scholarship Audition will be held in conjunction with this event on Sunday, July 31. $50,000+ in college scholarships will be awarded at the Bright Lights Shining Stars Gala.

GUEST OF HONOR: ROBERTA FLACK

Recipient of the first NYCDAF

AMBASSADOR FOR THE ARTS AWARD

Special Guest Performances	NYCDA Choreographers	Commiteees
Broadway's "Billy Elliot" Lin-Manuel Miranda and a reunion of Broadway's "In The Heights" Desmond Richardson from Complexions Contemporary Ballet Clifton Brown formerly with Alvin Ailey Karine Plantadit (Tony nominated) from "Come Fly Away" MORE TO COME!!	Chloe Arnold Andy Blankenbuehler AC Ciulla Scott Jovovich Andy Pellick NYCDA STUDIO GUESTS: Next Step Dance, TX KJ Dance, TX	Honorary Chairs: Cassandra Seidenfeld-Lyster Robin Cofer Event Committee: Kimberly Tiberi-Adams Lisa Danias Nancy Epstein Chirstopher Freer Cindy Lapes Liz Tillotson

Tickets Are Now On Sale!! (Tickets will be available for pick up on the night of the show)

	$300 Ticket includes VIP orchestra seating, pre-show cocktail reception and after party
	$125 Ticket includes mezzanine or side orchestra seating
	$75 Ticket includes balcony seating

Group discounts are available for groups of 20 or more. Contact Travis Fritsche at 855-692-5678 or travis@nycdance.com for more information.

Remember, ALL dance studios that raise the $25,000+ for the current NYC Dance Alliance Foundation National Fundraising Campaign will be flown to NYC – all expenses paid - to perform on this special program. In addition, every $3,000 raised allows one dancer to attend the private July 31 College Scholarship Audition - no limits.

The current fundraising campaign ends June 30th, 2011. See the National Fundraising Campaign for details.

This will be an exciting evening and an entertainment extravaganza!

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, July 5, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, twin bombings in Taji kill over 30, the White House continues to attempt to extend the US military stay in Iraq, the Los Angeles City Council says end the wars, Jalal Talabani plans another meet-up, and more. David Zahniser (Los Angeles Times) reports the vote was twelve for and one against today when, "The Los Angeles City Council called Tuesday for the federal government to end its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying money for those foreign wars should be invested in cities and other domestic needs." This follows the June 20th by the Annual Conference of US Mayors, held in Baltimore, passing the resolution demanding the wars be brought to an end and the vast amounts of money spent on these wars be spent instead on domestic needs in the United States. The LA City Council's move comes as Lara Jakes (AP) reports 10,000 is the number of US soldiers the White House is floating to Iraq to keep with an understanding that Iraq will respond by September to the offer. Jakes reports, "Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press." This happening after Robert Gates has left his post as US Secretary of Defense may force even some members of the Cult of St. Barack to face the fact that Barack is the one pushing to extend the US military presence in Iraq, not Gates who, repeating, is gone. VoteVets' Ashwin Madia has not been among the foolish; however, today at Huffington Post, he writes, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the president's top ally in the Senate -- came out forcefully today against a continued American presence in Iraq, which most observers believe President Obama is for. Senator Reid said, according to the Associated Press, "As Iraq becomes increasingly capable, it is time for our own troops to return home by the end of the year and for these precious resources to be directed elsewhere. There is no question that the United States must continue to provide support for the Iraqis as they progress, but now is the time for our military mission to come to a close." Madia links to an AP article (one that quotes Madia) and Reid's statment is actually about the 15 US soldiers who died last month. The idea that Harry Reid is going to lead the fight is hard to believe. He did lead the fight . . . against the House efforts to end the Iraq War when Bush occupied the White House. Madia sees Reid's statements as meaningful. Others could disagree. Reid's not saying anything. Reid's comments -- made in response to June's 15 deaths of US soldiers in the Iraq War -- are not inconsistent with Barack's (and Bush's) claims that "we will stand down as they stand up." Harry Reid didn't call for an end to the Iraq War or even that the SOFA be followed. He says "our military mission is over." How does that differ with Barack's (false) assertion August 31st that 'combat missions' were over? It doesn't. And on 'stand up' does no one follow the violence in Iraq? Here's Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe discussing it with Washington Week's Gwen Ifill on tonight's NewsHour (PBS -- link has text, video and audio): GWEN IFILL: Well, if the U.S. says the Iraqis should step up and do something about it, what does this tell us about the state of Iraqi security right now? ED O'KEEFE: Well, part of the reason -- or part of the frustration among American officials is that, while their pleased with how the Iraqi security forces have responded -- they have taken the lead in several counterterrorism measures -- they have targeted insurgent groups over the past several weeks and months -- they feel that perhaps they could be doing a little more. Part of it, the problem, is that the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, still hasn't named a new defense minister and a new interior minister, and that, if there were leadership at the top of those two important ministries, perhaps there would be clearer direction given to the Iraqi security forces to go out and target these groups a little more. That said, for the most part, if you talk to military officials here, they say a lot of progress has been made, that, whether you're an infantry soldier in the Iraqi army or part of the special forces, you are better trained today than you were even just a year ago. Reid has issued a brief statement acknowledging 15 deaths where he states the US will 'stand down as Iraqis stand up' and that the US 'military mission is over.' That's perfectly in keeping with Barack's remarks. Wish it wasn't. Wish Harry Reid was finally going to find a spine and lead a mission worthy of the post of Senate Majority Leader. And it could happen but it doesn't seem likely. Reid was the stalling block for Democratic efforts in the House to put a minimum of restrictions on the Iraq War when Bush was in office. This isn't my hypothesis, this is fact. Nancy Pelosi has spoken publicly -- including to the San Francisco Chronicle's edtiorial board -- about Reid on the Iraq War. She got very angry when a reporter questioned her (rightly) about the refusal to end the Iraq War and began listing off what the House had attempted and told the reporter that people needed to ask Reid why the Senate refused to act. It makes for a novel twist in the 24-hour news cycle but it doesn't make for reality. Today at the White House, spokesperson Jay Carney was asked how the White House planned to pay for US troops in Iraq beyond 2011 if they were kept in Iraq? Jay Carney: I will have to bump that to the Defense Department. I don't have a specific answer for you on that. We are, as of now, on track to withdraw all of the U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of this year, as dictated by the agreement we have with the Iraqi government and as promised by the President of the United States. So we have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end-of-the-year deadline, we would consider it. That doesn't necessarily mean we would do it. We would just consider it. And I really don't have any more information on that possible outcome, because, again, we haven't even gotten a request. There's Carney's lies and there's reality. Saturday Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reported US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffery spoke with reporters today about the US mission in Iraq beyond 2011 and stated that "keeping thousands of troops in Iraq" after 2011 is a possibility. Also over the weekend, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported on the US Special Forces in Iraq and how they're training the Iraqi Special Operations forces to bash in the doors of suspect's homes in the middle of the night ("the sound of glass shattering and screams pierced the nighttime stillness" really doesn't sound like freedom or democracy) and quoted Iraqi Maj Gen Fadhel al-Barwari stating, "The Americans need to stay because we don't have control over our borders." On the Fourth, a US Senator weighed in. US Senator John McCain tells Anna Fifield (Finanical Times of London -- link has text and video) that the US neeeds to keep troops on the ground in Iraq, "I'm talking 10,000-13,000 specifically for intelligence capabilities, air capabilities and also as a peacekeeping force up in the disputed areas around Kirkuk and that area." McCain was visiting Afghanistan with (among others) Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Also weighing in that day was Sabah Jawad of the London-based Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation who told Iran's Press TV (link has text and video): Yes it's quite obvious they don't want to withdraw, they don't even want to withdraw now more than before because of the uprisings that have taken place in the Arab world; they want to keep their military presence in Iraq. As you said they have the biggest embassy here in Iraq and also that this embassy is supposed to staff over 16,000 employees. I don't know of any other country where the Americans have a 16,000 staff in their embassies. This is an indication that these people will be in full control of the security situation in Iraq -- security operations. They will control Iraq's air space and the Iraqi economy. They will advise every important minister in Iraq and they will continue to interfere in the internal situation in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So these all are indications for the future that the US does not want to withdraw from Iraq. They have invested a lot of money in the occupation of Iraq and they continue the occupation of Iraq and they want to be there to steal even more oil and to tie up Iraq in its entirety to the so-called free market and to multinational oil companies. Al Mada reports that "well-informed sources" (unidentified by the paper) are stating that the discussions taking place between the government and the US Embassy on US troops staying beyond 2011 continue and that what is being discussed currently is a memorandum which would allow for US forces to remain in Iraq for another five years and it is thought that going that route (memorandum of understanding) would allow Nouri to bypass the Parliament. (Al Mada also does a write up of Tim Arango's NYT report on US Special Forces.) Al Rafidayn reports Ammar al-Hakim is calling for a series of "extended meetings" to discuss US troops remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. He wants the heads of all the political blocs to attend a general meeting to address the issue. On The NewsHour Ed O'Keefe offered a summary of the various talks going on: As one U.S. official joked to me a little while ago, he said, look, six months from now, one of these reports will have gotten it right. But, tonight, there is no discussion going on between U.S. officials and the Iraqis over how many troops might stay on beyond December. We had a conversation with the U.S. ambassador here over the weekend. And he said, look, if the Iraqis come to us with some kind of proposal for troops to stay, we will consider it. For us, it's not about the numbers. It's about what exactly U.S. troops would do. Most of them in the last year have focused on what is called advise-and-assist responsibilities. They essentially hang back when Iraqi forces go out to conduct counterterrorism measures or target other groups, and only jump into it if, for some reason, it's not going well. But you talk to military officials they say things are going pretty well. The problem is, Iraq still can't defend its skies, still can't defend its big port down in Basra, and military officials say that the Iraqi still want some more training, whether it's basic infantry training or more specialized training. So it's there that U.S. officials believe the Iraqis will come to them with some kind of a request. We're expecting the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, to meet with the prime minister, Maliki, and other political leaders as early as this week to once again talk about this. There have been several meetings, and no big conclusions just yet. But the thought is that perhaps we're getting much closer to some kind of a request that would be given to U.S. officials. And at that point, it lands back in the lap of President Obama and the Pentagon. They will have to discuss this, figure out what exactly they could do, how many more troops could stay here beyond December. CNN reports that the US opened a consulate in Basra today (and notes the last one shuttered its doors in 1967). Ed O'Keefe noted Monday that the US plan was 15 consulates around Iraq staffed by "roughtly 17,000 US diplomats, contractors and security personnel." Aswat al-Iraq adds that Joe Biden is supposed to be visiting Iraq shortly according to the Higher Islamic Council's Jalal al-Sagheer who states Biden is visiting "to resolve the questions related to the US withdrawal". Normally US visits are surprises and even the press is supposed to be hush-hush. It would appear some in Iraq who normally keep secrets are being rather talkative. Al Rafidayn reports Moqtada al-Sadr has heard of this visit "expected to take place over the next few days" and he's condemned it. The question Jay Carney should have been asked today is: (A) Will Joe Biden still be visiting Iraq, (B) Does the White House have any idea who in Iraq started leaking news of the visit and (C) Since the White House always makes 'surprise' visits, is it really safe for Biden to go to Iraq in the near future? Tony Blair, when he was prime minister of the UK, visited England and did so without secrecy. He also did the sort of well guarded walk through areas that US Senator John McCain did. So presumably a visit doesn't need to be kept in secret; however, the White House (under Bush and under Barack) has always treated it as a state secret and this time the secret got out and is now all over Iraq. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, released a statement decrying today's attack and insisting "that security forces reveal the outcome of an investigation into previous attacks." Rob Crilly (Telegraph of London) counts 35 dead from the two Taji bombings. Aswat al-Iraq quotes "a security source" who states that there was a bombing in a garage and "a booby-trapped car". Hurriyet notes that the "two bombs detonated near a government council building." The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe told CBS Radio News that, "It was a booby-trapped vehicle followed pretty closely by some other kind of explosive charge that went off as people were headed for the first explosion." (That's from a friend with CBS Radio News -- and they don't have a link so I'll just note this link to CBS News website.) Yashir Ghazi and Tim Arango (New York Times) quote survivor Hesham Hasoon, "Why am I still alive? My brothers, friends, everyone left me. [. . .] When the first explosion happened, I saw the people and the kids start to gather near the car bomb and I knew something else would happen. I called on the stupid soldier to evacuate the place but he didn't care." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) quotes a police officer stating, "It was awful ... some of the lightly wounded people were running in all directions, either crying or screaming for help." Today Pacifica Evening News noted that the death toll had risen to 37 and that many of the dead and wounded had "lined up for national identity cards." (Pacifica Evening News has their own website, click here.) At the State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland handled the daily press briefing and was asked about the increased violence in Iraq. Victoria Nuland: I think you saw that Assistant Secretary Feltman is in Iraq today for the opening of our consulate in Basra. It gave him an opportunity to have some meetings with Iraqi officials. With regard to the uptick in violence, I would simply say that the people who are doing this are not only enemies of the United States, they're also enemies of the Iraqi people and their desire to live peacefully and have stability in their future. So we continue to work with the Iraqi security forces as they get ready for the full takeover of their own security. But obviously, we continue to work with the Iraqis on ensuring that they have a full and strong and stable government. The Taji bombings weren't the only violence reported today. Reuters notes 3 Sahwa were shot dead in Hawija, 1 man was shot oustide his Rashad home, and, dropping back to Monday, a Baghdad rocket attack claimed 5 lives, 1 police officer shot dead outside his Mussayab home and a Jurf al-Sakhar bombing injured one Sahwa. Last month Jalal's House Party accomplished nothing other than killing a Monday. June 20th, Jalal hosted political leaders in an attempt to get them to agree to return to the Erbil Agreement that ended the political stalemate and promised a security council would be created -- an independent body -- and it would be headed by Ayad Allawi whose political slate Iraqiya received the most votes in the March elections. Nouri's slate came in second. But, per the Erbil Agreement, he would be named prime minister-designate and given the 30 days to nominate a cabinet and have it approved by Parliament. Nouri got what he wanted and then broke the Erbil Agreement. Unless and until Nouri wants to follow it, it's not going to be followed. But Jalal issued statements after his House Party insisting the meeting was a success. Ayad Allawi skipped it but Jalal said it was a success. And Jalal insisted they'd be meeting again real soon. Dar Addustour reports Jalal is scheduling a new House Party for next week. Why bother remains a question. Nouri still can't put forward a full Cabinet -- which, were the Constitution followed, would mean he wouldn't be prime minister. There are no heads to the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of National Security -- the three security ministries. Nouri claims he is heading all of them and bieng prime minister. That would explain the onslaught of violence Iraq is facing. By December 25th, those posts were supposed to be filled -- per the Iraqi Constitution. If they were not filled by then, Nouri was supposed to step down as prime minister-designate and someone else was supposed to be name. The Constitution was not followed and as 2010 drew to a close, Nouri was promising he would name heads to the security ministries in a matter of weeks. It's even months into 2011 and he's still not filled those posts. The day before Jalal Talabani's House Party, Fakhri Karim (Al Mada) reported that the meet up has to deal with several serious issues including: * Providing the foundation to end monopoly control of the government by Nouri or "whatever person would occupy the post" of prime minister * Work towards national partnership * Confirm the words of the Constitution (and reject Nouri's interpretation of it) with regards to the executive branch * End one party power. * Review the security appointments which are in violation of the Constitution (Nouri cannot be Prime Minister and Minister of National Security, Minister of the Interior and Minister of Defense as he's made himself for over six months now). The meet-up accomplished none of those items. As a result Jalal Talabani began issuing statements making fanciful claims. From the June 21st snapshot: Al Rafidayn offers that the meeting put an end to squabbles between Allawi and Nouri being played out in the media. That seems doubtful and not just because Allawi's very adept at manipulating the media (Nouri's a clumsy ox but he does have many flunkies he dispatches regularly). How can such an agreement be finalized when one of the two parties in the two party squabble is present? Hisham Rikabi (Al Mada) notes a majority present agreed to end to the media campaigns but, again, how can such an agreement honestly be made when one of the two parties engaging in the campaign is not present? Rikabi notes Talabani, Nouri, Ammar al-Hakim and Adel Abdul Mahdi were among those preent while Saleh al-Mutlaq was the most prominent member of Iraqiya present. Jamal Hashim and Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) quote Talabani stating, "The meeting was successful. We discussed the presence of the U.S. troops in details whether to stay or to leave (the country) and whether we need trainers and the number of them." "No more attacks on each other in the media!" That was the best Jalal could offer and even that claim seemed doubtful. It was doubtful. It was quickly broken. From the June 22nd snapshot, "Today the 'agreement' has already fallen apart. Al Mada reports Nouri's State Of Law is again attacking Allawi's Iraqiya to the media as they pin the 'crisis' in Iraq on Iraqiya and state that the political slate is what has prevented Nouri from filling the security ministries. It didn't even last a 24-hour news cycle and that does not bode well for the second meeting Talabni's been promoting." Nouri's State of Law slate also appears to have used the media to launch a disinformation campaign against Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament and member of Allawi's Iraqiya. Al Mada notes today that Ayad Allawi has stated Nouri's government has failed to provide security and has failed to deliver basic services. Alsumaria TV explains, "Allawi took the floor during the Middle East and North Africa Conference held in Italy and affirmed that certain regional countries are interfering in Iraq's internal affairs pointing out to pressures on the political process in what serves the interest of specified parties." Last week, we repeatedly highlighted Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Libyan War reports from Tripoli on KPFA's Flashpoints. He has an article up at Information Clearing House entitled "Journalism as a Weapon of War in Libya:" The truth has been turned on its head in Libya. NATO and the Libyan government are saying contradictory things. NATO says that the Libyan regime will fall in a matter of days, while the Libyan government says that the fighting in Misrata will end in about two weeks. During the night the sound of NATO jets flying over Tripoli can be heard in the Mediterranean coastal city. Tripoli has not been bombed for a few days, but the sound of the flyovers have been numerous. The Atlantic Alliance deliberately picks the night as a means to disturb the sleep of residence in an attempt to spread fear. Small children in Libya have lost a lot of sleep during this war. This is part of the psychological war being waged. It is meant to break the spirit of Libya. This is all additional to the severing wound imposed on Libya through trickery and sedition. In the same context, the media war against Libya has continued too. The Rixos Hotel in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, where the majority of the international press is located, is a nest of lies and warped narratives where foreign reporters are twisting realities, spinning events, and misreporting to justify the NATO war against Libya. Every report and news wire being sent out of Libya by international reporters has to carefully be cross-checked and analyzed. Foreign journalists have put words in the mouth of Libyans and are willfully blind. They have ignored the civilian deaths in Libya, the clear war crimes being perpetrated against the Libyan people, and the damage to civilian infrastructure, from hotels to docks and hospitals. One group of Libyan youth explained in a private conversation that when speaking to reporters they would interview in twos. One would ask a question followed immediately by another one. In the process the answer to the first question would be used as the answer for the second question. In the Libyan hospitals the foreign reports try not to take pictures of the wounded and dying. They just go into the hospitals to paint the image of impartiality, but virtually report about nothing and ignore almost everything newsworthy. They refuse to tell the other side of the story. Shamelessly in front of seriously injured civilians, the type of questions many foreign reporters ask doctors, nurses, and hospital staff is if they have been treating military and security personnel in the hospitals. CNN has even released a report from Misrata by Sara Sidner showing the sodomization of a woman with a broomstick which was conducted by Libyan soldiers (which it refers to as Qaddafi troops as a means of demonization). In reality the video was a domestic affair and from prior to the conflict. It originally took place in Tripoli and the man even has an accent from Tripoli. This is the type of fabrications that the mainstream media is pushing forward to push for war and military intervention. There are now investigations underway to show that depleted uranium has been used against Libyans. The use of depleted uranium is an absolute war crime. It is not only an attack on the present, but it also leaves a radioactive trace that attacks the unborn children of tomorrow. Future generations will be hurt by these weapons too. These generations of the future are innocent. The use of depleted uranium is the equivalent of the U.S. planting nuclear weapons in Germany or Japan during the Second World War and leaving timers for them to detonate in 2011. This is an important and newsworthy issue in Libya and all the foreign journalists have heard about it, but how many have actually covered it? iraq the washington post ed okeefe the new york times tim arango aswat al-iraq al mada al rafidayn reuters al sabaah the associated press lara jakes pbs the newshour gwen ifill mahdi darius nazemroaya kpfa flashpoints