Gina Chon can't stop lying!

Gina Chon is the dirty joke of the year.

If you missed it, the Wall St. Journal reporter spent 2008 covering Iraq for the paper and f**king a Bush official who she showed all of her copy to prior to publication.

Get why she's a dirty joke?

She's lost her job now that the truth has come out and she keeps whining that she's the innocent victim.

Paul Farhi (Washington Post) quotes her e-mail she sent out today:


She described her relationship with McGurk as “a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married.” 


She just can't stop lying!

It's not the "fairly simple tale" she tells.  Let me correct it for her:


My relationship with Blue Balls McGurk is a fairly complex tale of two married people who met in Baghad, f**cked like crazy, got engaged, told our spouses, got divorced and later married.

She is such an embarrassment.

You don't sleep with your source.  You especially don't sleep with a government source.  She is a dirty joke.  How many Chon's does it take to work a street corner?

One.  But she's really tired!!!!!

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

Friday, June 15, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  Gina Chon wants it all to be about her, more Democratic Senators are bothered by Brett McGurk's nomination, the VA is approximately six weeks behind in paying veterans their GI Bill benefits checks (remember in 2009 when that was supposed to have been fixed), OPEC discusses oil prices, War Criminal Tony Blair is heckled again, and more.   Today disgraced former Wall St. Journal reporter Gina Chon attempted to shove Jesus off the cross so she could climb up there herself.  Gawker posts her e-mail:   I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground. But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends. I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken. I want you to know, though, that while I worked in Iraq for the paper, Brett never gave me sensitive or classified information nor did he trade his knowledge for my affection. We were both dedicated professionals too committed to our jobs and had too much respect for each other to do anything like that. And as individuals, it's simply not who we are or how we approach our work. Nor did he need to. He was authorized to speak on occasion on background with journalists and did so with me, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other news outlets.   Gina Chon, you were not a 'dedicated professional.'  If you had been, you would have followed the ethical guidelines of journalism as well as the Dow Jones written ethical policy you signed.  If you were a 'dedicated professional,' you would still be working for the Wall St. Journal.  So stop lying.   Let's go through some of that.   I've seen the ugliness in human beings in war zones and natural disasters but I've never seen it up close and personal in the comfort of the U.S. The venom of Washington politics makes Wall Street, which I covered for the last two years, look like a playground.   How typical that all she could recall is the ugliness. Most people would embrace the humanity or see a mixture.  How telling that she chose to wallow in the ugliness.  The glass is always half full, chipped and unwashed for Gina.   And what venom?  Most newspapers and outlets have ignored your huge lapse in journalism ethics.  Jokes have yet to circulate about you -- but they are coming, they are.  You did wrong and you got caught.    The fact that you were fired and you still can't admit that it was your fault goes to your lack of maturity and your failure to practice your profession ethically.   But underneath the half-truths and outright lies is a fairly simple tale of two people who met in Baghdad, fell in love, got engaged and later married. In the process we formed a strong connection with Iraq, a place where we lost many friends.   The full truth is you were forbideen to sleep with your sources.  The full truth is you ignored the Dow Jones ethics policy.  The full truth is you violated it.  A lapse?  One tumble might have been a lapse.  But you didn't inform your editor of what happened and a 'lapse' turned into an affair.   I don't give a ___ whether you sucked him off to glory or you rode him to ecstatsy, Gina Chon.  I give a damn that you lied to everyone including the readers.   You do not sleep with government officials you are supposed to be covering.  You are obviously as stupid as you are unethical to even write such a whine.  The one thing you had going for you was that people respected the fact that you appeared to be taking your lumps without bitching and moaning in public.  You've blown that.  Now you're just another pathetic scandal, someone who gets caught and refuses to take accountability.   We have wall between press and state in the US.  Maybe that's news to you, Gina.  But unlike in China, Iran and other countries, we don't have state control of the media. When you're sent to cover Iraq for the Wall St. Journal, readers have a right to believe that you're doing it to the best of your abilities.  When you sleep with a US government official, that throws that belief out the window.  You violated the ethics, you showed your copy to McGurk -- which is what outraged everyone and why they suggested you resign immediately or they could fire you on the spot.    You lost your right to whine about "loss" in the War Zone.  You know why?   Because you're the cheater.  Ask John Edwards, the cheater doesn't get to whine.  You cheated on your husband, Brett McGurk cheated on his wife.  While that's not our focus here when you try to play utlimate victim you better grasp that you and Brett can't pull it off.  You're two people who didn't keep your vows.  Public sympathy goes to the spouses you cheated on.  Try another trick, Gina.   I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility. People were hurt along the way and for that, I am truly sorry. I made stupid mistakes four years ago in Iraq while working for the Wall Street Journal and for that, I'm also sorry. I had to leave my job at a news organization I love and for that, I am heartbroken.   You know what, Judith Miller probably would love to still be at the New York Times.  Reporting is not a hobby, you don't dabble in it.  Most people and outlets do not say "Gina Chon reported . . ."  They say, "I heard on NPR" or "I saw an NBC Nightly News" or "I read in USA Today."  You disgraced the Dow Jones with your behavior.  You're going to be in the journalism text books now so you better start trying to come up with a better line of argument than 'My hot loins moistened at the thought of his throbbing member while he texted 'blue balls' to me.'   It was not a "stupid mistake," it was a gross violation of journalism ethics.  You're very lucky this came out in 2012.   Had it come in 2008, CJR would be crucifying you, The Nation would forget the name "Judith Miller" as they went to town on you, Greg Mitchell would do non-stop posts about you, speaking to everyone you've ever worked with.  But because Bush is out of office and your husband is Barack Obama's nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq, these outlets and others are down playing what happened.   It's amazing that, as you climb on the cross, and glorify yourself, you forget to apologize for what you did which was not "stupid mistakes."  You weren't a teenager, you weren't an intern.  You were a professional journalist working for a US newspaper with the highest circulation.  When this started, last week, I was reminded of James Brooks' Broadcast News.  Albert Brooks makes a crack.  And I thought, "What is it he says?  It's about  whether you'd tell a source you' loved them to get information --  it's funny, it's . . .  Oh."    "Oh" because the butt of the joke is a woman and when that happens, we always have to wonder, is the joke fair or not? And so I decided not to include an excerpt of the whole would-you-sleep-with-your-source-to-get-a-story bit which ends with Albert Brooks saying, "Jennifer didn't know there was an alternative."  Ha-ha-ha-ha.  And now Gina Chon's name can be footnoted to that joke apparently.  Guess what?   Women have not come far enough.  When a Martha Raddatz (ABC News) has to talk on NPR (Tell Me More, February 22, 2011) about covering wars and having children -- not to talk about the juggle that so many of us who work and raise children can relate to but because suddenly the spin for the day is 'maybe women shouldn't be allowed in war zones,' we have not come far enough.   Women have not come far enough in our society.  We can't absorb your inability to follow the basic ethics, Gina.  Your actions betray women.  Not because you cheated on a 'sister,' but because you were such an idiot that you have taken the Iraq War, where women came to the forefront of reporting -- and had to pay for that already by having the scapegoat for the war itself be a woman (Judith Miller) -- and put that accomplishment at risk, put it at risk of turning all of the work into a dirty joke.  Women have not come far enough to afford your ethical lapse.   Jane Arraf, Lara Jakes, Rebecca Santana, Deborah Haynes, Nancy A. Youssef, Sabrina Tavernise, Alyssa J. Rubin, Tina Susman, Alexandra Zavis, Ellen Knickmeyer, Erica Goode, Deborah Amos, Cara Buckley, Anna Badkhen, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Liz Sly, Alice Fordham,  Deborah Haynes, Sahar Issa and many other women have risked a great deal to report from Iraq.  Your name used to be on that list.  Check the archives, earlier this year we were still including you here on that list.    You should be apologizing to women in the profession for you failure to follow the ethics policy.  One woman on the list in the first sentence of the above paragraph has been dogged by false rumors that the US military brass in Iraq fed her stories because she was sleeping with a general.  We've talked about that before here and how her male colleagues were the ones spreading the false rumors.  It wasn't a rival outlet, it was her own colleagues.  Jealous over what she was doing and feeling petty so they spread rumors about her.  She kept her head up, ignored the rumors and continued (and continues now) to do her work.   Gina Chon, that woman knows about being persecuted.  She knows about being turned into  a joke.  And she was innocent of the slander her male colleagues spread.  She didn't climb on the cross and play the victim so why you think anyone should give a damn that you wish you hadn't been caught violating the ethics of your profession is beyond me.   Now we haven't gone there here.  We've tried to make it about Brett McGurk.  I'd hoped to not write about you at any length.  But when the so-called media watchdogs refused to bark over the fact that you had a sexual relationship in Baghdad with a Bush official while covering Iraq, we had to wade in.  But there are several barriers I still haven't crossed.  For example, we haven't examined your part in the 2008 e-mails here or even quoted from your own 2008 e-mails.  In addition,  I was asked by a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about your reporting from that period and I tried to play dumb and he pointed out that I was stalling and I said, "I'm just not comfrotable with that question."   Gina Chon, if you continue to try to play the world's utlimate victim, I can easily say, "Check out the story filed ___, paragraph three, specifically ___" and you and I both know what I mean.   Because of Barack the media watchdogs -- which apparently are partisan as the right has long charged -- aren't doing their job and you're very lucky for that.  But I can do their job for them.  And I will if you don't stop trying to play injured party.  You violated journalism ethics and just as a reporter who plagiarizes gets fired, you lost your job.  Quit trying to make it about love.  You weren't fired for falling in love.  You were fired for sleeping with your source, you were fired for sleeping with someone you let see your copy -- your former bosses say "vet," you say "seek feedback."   As Dolly Parton says in Straight Talk, "Get off the cross, honey, somebody else needs the wood."   Gina Chon's current husband is Brett McGurk who, at 39, has been nominated by Barack Obama to head the US mission in Iraq.  He would be the US Ambassador to Iraq if confirmed, over the largest US diplomatic mission in the world despite not speaking Arabic, despite lacking management experience, despite his established practice of sending e-mails to women he hasn't slept with about his "blue balls."  HR's going to have a lot of fun in Iraq if McGurk gets to supervise women.   McGurk's presence means Iraqi women are not welcome at the US Embassy.  That's going to mean a number of programs are cancelled.  You never heard about those programs because the press never cared enough to write about them.  I'm not sure they ever even reported on one of Brooke Darby's appeareances before Congress in the last eight months (Darby is with the State Dept).  But with the US government having put thugs in charge of Iraq -- to scare the people into submission while various economic programs were put in place -- so-called 'honor' killings are a real threat to Iraqi women.     In 2010, the US State Dept noted:   Honor killings remained a serious problem. Legislation in force permits honor considerations to mitigate sentences. According to the UNHCR in April, honor killings were prevalent in all parts of the country. For the first nine months of the year, the domestic NGO Human Rights Data Bank recorded 314 burn victims (125 instances of self-immolation and 189 cases of burning), compared with 234 burn victim during the same period in 2008.   Last month, the US State Dept noted:   Honor killings remained a serious problem throughout all parts of the country. The penal code of 1969 permits honor considerations to mitigate sentences. Statistics published by the KRG Ministry of Interior in 2010 stated that there were 102 incidents of women burned in and around Erbil Province alone. Sixty-five percent of these cases were still under investigation during the year. Women who committed self-immolation had been previously victimized, but police investigated only a small number of women's burn cases. The KRG reported that during the year 76 women were killed or committed suicide, while 330 were burned or self-immolated, but a number of NGOs, including the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, stated that such estimates were low.   So visiting the US Embassy in Iraq -- for the small business training or any program or concern -- becomes a danger for Iraqi women who will be sneered at for ties to the Americans and now for a US Ambassador known to sleep with women in Iraq other than his own wife.  "You got a micro loan!  What did you do for it?"  Brett McGurk as US Ambassador to Iraq means a threat to Iraqi women -- especially in the KRG that he testified he would be visiting every week if named Ambassador.   It's really past time for Americans to be asking what would McGurk's appointment do to help Iraqi women?  The answer is nothing.  It would put them at risk if they visited the Embassy, it would most likely mean many Iraqi women would have nothing to do with the Embassy.   It's a real shame that the press won't protect Iraqi women.  It's a real shame that Gina Chon believes she's suffering when she has spent time in Iraq and should know the ultimate victims of the war were and remain Iraqi women.   In this community,  Trina's "No to Brett McGurk," Marica's "For the sake of Iraqi women, McGurk should step aside,"  Elaine's "McGurk needs to withdraw his name," Mike's "Brett McGurk needs to withdraw his name," Mike's "The embarrassing Erika Fry," Rebecca's "how brett mcgurk continues to remain the nominee," Kat's "What about the Iraqi women?," and Trina's "Diana West is wrong" have covered the McGurk nomination this week.  You'll notice the problem was McGurk as you read.  Gina Chon's ridiculous e-mail basically means a cry of "Unleash the hounds of hell!"  And she will have brought it on herself.     Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and the same  administration that insists Brett McGurk is qualified for the post of Ambassador is attempting to drum Van Buren out of the State Dept for his whistleblowing book.  Peter's been covering the McGurk nomination for some time and has noted at length the various ethical violations McGurk has engaged in -- violations that the State Dept punishes others for but that McGurk gets waived through on.  In his most recent post, Van Buren notes that the bubbling under of the  'underground video' of McGurk getting a blow job on top of Saddam's palace by a woman who is not his first wife or his second wife (watch out, Gina, she may be the one who replaces you!).  He also notes more unethical behavior on the part of McGurk and Chon:     Meanwhile in sleaze land, the Washington Post reports that McGurk invited his then-mistress Chon to be a guest lecturer at a Harvard course he taught in 2009. Harvard students attending the class had no idea that their teacher was romantically involved with Chon, who spoke to them about her experience reporting getting inside info by sleeping with her sources in Iraq, according to a student who attended. (Sigh) Needless to say, both the Stickman and Chon were married to others when they arranged to have Harvard pay for Chon to spend some quality time with Brett on the university's dime. Another classy move McGurk!     No, Gina, that's not "dedicated professionalism."  Try again, Gina.  And here's a little hint, when you trade sexual favors for benefits it's usually considered prostitution.    Earlier this week, 6 GOP Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to US President Barack Obama asking him to withdraw the nomination of Brett McGurk.  Though the Committee vote on McGurk's nomination was scheduled for this coming Tuesday, Committee Chair John Kerry has indicated publicly that may not be happening.  In addition, the Washington Post has reported Senator Barbara Boxer has reservations about McGurk's nomination.  Today, Ted Barrett and Paul Courson (CNN) report that two more Democratic Senators on the Committee have questions.  Senator Ben Cardin is quoted stating, "The reports are very serious.  They should be explored before we take action."  Senator Bob Casey notes that "there have been a lot of questions raised and we should weigh them.  We've got a lot more work to do."    Senator Bob Casey was acting Chair for McGurk's Committee hearing.  It was in that hearing, as we noted at Third that:   McGurk took credit for the surge.  The only aspect of the surge that was successful was what Gen David Petraeus implemented and US service members carried out.  That was not what McGurk and other civilians were tasked with.  Their part of the surge?  The military effort was supposed to create a space that the politicians would put to good use by passing legislation.  It didn't happen.  McGurk's part of the surge was a failure.He revealed incredible ignorance about al Qaeda in Iraq and seemed unaware that, in 2011, then-CIA Director (now Secretary of Defense) Leon Panetta told Congress it amounted to less than 1,000 people or that in February of this year, the Director of National Intelligence declared that a significnat number (of that less than 1,000) had gone to Syria.Though the press has reported for years about Nouri's refusal to bring Sahwa members into the process (give them jobs) and how he refuses to pay these security forces (also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq"), McGurk told Congress that Nouri was paying them all and had given government jobs to approximately 70,000.  (For point of reference, in 2008, Gen David Petraues told Congress there were approximately 91,000 Sahwa.)   Links go to the three snapshot where we reported on the hearing.  Those issues and more go to his qualifications.  He is not the 'expert' the White House has made him out to be.     Wednesday, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on proposed legislation.  Senator Patty Murray is the Committee Chair, Senator Richar Burr  The Committee heard from two panels about proposed bills. The first panel was the VA's Curtis Coy. The second panel was IAVA's Tom Tarantino, Military Officers Association of America's Robert Norton and Student Veterans of America's Peter Meijer.  Wednesday's snapshot covered the burn pit aspect of the hearing and employment rights and  Kat covered Ranking Member Richard Burr's proposed bill.  We didn't have space for it in yesterday's snapshot but there was a great deal worth noting.  One thing we have to note is that veterans are still waiting on their GI Benefits.  Remember that?  Remember when that was supposedly solved?  The US has held mid-term elections since that scandal but the problem continues.  From the hearing:   Ranking Member Richard Burr: I need to move to the GI Bill real quick.  And I just want to paraphrase an article which was written [by Tony Burbeck] on June the 12th which was Tuesday in the Charlotte Observer.  It talks about local veterans who are now enrolled in a school that aren't getting their tuition and student housing money as promised from the GI Bill and it's threatening their ability to stay in school and to pay their rent. I won't name the veterans, five of them.  "They say that they're facing the same problems: thousands of dollars in government backed tuition money from their GI Bills plus a monthly basic housing allowance which hasn't come through since they started class May the 7th." Not even a book fee.  Haven't received anything.  "We got out of the United States Marine Corps April 22nd."  "Hall's certificate of eligibility says he's entitled to 100 percent of benefits covered under the GI Bill at an institution of higher education.  He's in school, but his tutition hasn't been paid. Hall says he might have to drop out of if the GI Bill tuition payment doesn't come through.  He added the Department of Veterans Affairs also told him they are six to eight weeks behind processing payments.  Hall is already at the end of the line with rent money that could be paid with the housing allowance.  He said he faced eviction if he didn't receive the money.  Some veterans have taken out student loans they didn't think they needed to.  Others are working all night to make up for those missing benefits.  'I have received zero of my VA benefits,' White said."  And Maxwell said "Nothing."  Does that disturb you?  Because everytime this Committee asks the question of the VA, "Are we late on payments? Is this thing working?," the answer we get is, "Yeah.  It works perfectly.  We're getting them out there."  These are guys who have been in school since May the 7th   They're veterans. It's a pretty reputable media outlet.  Feel fairly certain that this Marine didn't get it wrong, 100% eligable.  But there's no payment going to his school.  There's no housing stipend, there's no book fee that's being made.   Curtis Coy: Senator, we're always concerned with any of our veterans who are getting payments late.  We process educational claims in four different sites across the country.  Uh, right now for original claims, uh, Mr. Worley can-can correct me on the, uh, exact number perhaps but on original claims, we're looking at, uh, processing times of 30 to 35 days for supplemental claims, anywhere from 10 to 15 days --   Ranking Member Richard Burr:  So is the VA official who talked to this Marine and told the Marine that they were six to eight weeks behind processing payments, was that bogus?   Curtis Coy: No, sir.  I don't think it's bogus at all.  There are some that take longer than others.  Uh, what I gave you was an average time, not the range of times.  We've had ranges much higher than that, as you might imagine.  We, uh, track these, uh, claims on a daily basis and so, uh, we take all of those kinds of issues --   Ranking Member Richard Burr: What do -- what do the Marines do, Mr. Coy? The school's working with them.  They're keeping them in.  He may be in school but he might be evicted from his place on a beneft that he -- that he's earned.  He deserves.  What are we -- what are we going to do?  I don't think -- And if I thought I was talking about an isolated case, I wouldn't  press this.  I don't think I am.     Robert Worely II: Ranking Member Burr, I would only say that when these -- when these come to our attention, uh, we find out what happened and we correct them as quickly as possible.    Ranking Member Richard Burr: I'll make sure when you leave you've got this news article.     Curtis Coy and Worely are with the VA (Worely is the Director of Education Service).  There is no excuse for this and there has never been an excuse.  Let's drop back to the October 19, 2009 snapshot for an exchange during the October 18, 2009 House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity hearing.     US House Rep Harry Teague: You know we've had a problem with some contradictory information coming out.  You know when the checks didn't go out the first of the month, well then we issued the letter that they would be cut on Friday the second. And then there was also some letters sent out that if, like in places like New Mexico, it's 320 miles to the only hospital and the only facility in the state that they would be going to some of the larger universities around and handing the checks out.  That didn't happen.  At the same time, they got a website up where they could go to but we didn't get that information to people.  So I was just wondering if we're streamlining our communications within our office there so that we don't continually jerk the veterans around and have some of them misinformed.   Keith Wilson: I understand your concerns, Congressman. And we-we have, I believe, we have a better process in place to make sure that we are communicating more effectively on that. The issues that we are dealing with was trying to get -- make sure we had something out the gate and-and informed our student population prior to 10-1 [October 1st] -- around the 10-1 time frame. The 10-1 was important because most folks were at that point where they were due their first housing allowance payments. .We thought it was important to get something up as soon as possible. We were dealing -- and continued to deal -- at the time of that press release, with some technical issues concerning how we get to the other locations beyond our 57 regional offices. We very early on wanted a desire to spread this out as much as possible. We felt that the most effective way of doing this was leveraging technology.  Taking into account that we've got technology students at thousands of locations across the country. We felt the most effective way of uh getting those folk that weren't within distance of a regional office was to allow technology and so that was the driver for our decision on the follow up --   US House Rep Harry Teague: Yes and I agree with that and I think that the webpage is working good. It's just that during that week prior to that, when I was at New Mexico State University, they were expecting someone to be there with the checks and then, on Friday when there's not, that's when we find out about the webpage.   Keith Wilson: I understand.   The same problems continue nearly three years later.  Can you pay the benefit or not?  Holding onto the money is not payment.  Veterans shouldn't have to take out short term loans and risk eviction because the VA still can't get its act together.  There is no excuse for this.  Throughout fall 2009 and early 2010, when the press was reporting on this problem, in one hearing after another in the House and Senate the Veterans Affairs Committee were assured by VA officials -- including Secretary Eric Shinseki -- that the problems had been addressed and were now in the past and the VA needed no additional resources.  So why is this again a problem nearly three years later?   Meanwhile Iraq is dependent upon oil.  Despite years of cries from Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi for Iraq to diversify its economy, Iraq remains solely dependent upon oil.  It has been pumping out a large amount at a time when OPEC is concerned with a "glut" on the world market.  Abdalla Salem el-Badri is in charge of OPEC (not some Iraqi despite bad press reporting this week). Secretary General el-Badri's spoke at the OPEC seminar in Vienna Wednesday.  We'll note the speech's main point (use the link to read in full):   Fossil fuels - which currently account for 87% of the world's energy supply - will still contribute 82% by 2035. Oil will retain the largest share for most of the period to 2035, although its overall share falls from 34% to 28%. It will remain central to growth in many areas of the global economy, especially the transportation sector. Coal's share remains similar to today, at around 29%, whereas gas increases from 23% to 25%. In terms of non-fossil fuels, renewable energy grows fast. But as it starts from a low base, its share will still be only 3% by 2035. Hydropower will increase only a little - to 3% by 2035. Nuclear power will also witness some expansion, although prospects have been affected by events in Fukushima. It is seen as having only a 6% share in 2035. [. . .] In terms of resources, there are more than enough to meet expected demand growth. And overall, fossil fuels will continue to supply over 80% of our energy needs by 2035, with oil the energy type with the largest share for most of this period. Finally, given the long-term nature of our industry and the need for clarity and predictability - not only for oil, but energy in general - I would like to leave you with three appropriate words: 'stability, stability, stability'. Stability for investments and expansion to flourish; Stability for economies around the world to grow; And stability for producers that allows them a fair return from the exploitation of their exhaustible natural resources. Stability is the key to a sustainable global energy future for us all.     Today Guy Chazan (Financial Times of London) reports, "Iran and Iraq are forming a strenghtening alliance inside Opec, raising concerns among moderate Arab Gulf producers like Saudi Arabia and increasing the potential for discord in the oil producers' group."  El-Badri is Secretary-General through the end of this year.  There are four people currently angling for the job.  Thamir Ghadhban (close ties to Nouri), Iran's pushing for one of their former Ministers of Oil, Gholamhossein Nozari, Equador's putting up Minister of Oil Wilson Pastor-Morris and Saudi Arabia is backing their OPEC Governor Majid al-Munif.  The choice will have a global impact and, in fact, what's going on right now has a global impact.  Amena Bakr and Peg Mackey (Reuters) observe, "Oil prices have dropped from a $128 peak for Brent crude in March to $97, in part because the economic outlook has darkened but also because of increased Saudi output that in April set a 30-year high of 10.1 million barrels a day."   AFP reports, "OPEC members have been divided over how to respond to plunging prices and uncertainties over global energy demand, with kingpin Saudi Arabia recently ramping up production while hawks Venequela and Iran have called for cuts so as to boost prices.  On Thursday, most memebers agreed on an average price of at least $100 per barrel, with Angolan Oil Minister Jose Botelho de Vasconcelos describing this as 'the comfortable level'."   Kay Johnson (AP) notes, "For now, Iraq is backing Iran's push for OPEC to set lower production limits and keep prices high, but Baghdad's own ambitious plans for expansion could cause an overall production growth that might drive down prices."  April Yee (The National) adds:   Already this year Iraq has increased its exports by a fifth to pump 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd), enough to help offset the decrease in Iranian supplies caused by sanctions - alongside Saudi Arabia and a recovering Libya. Iraq's target is to add another 400,000 bpd by next year, all in pursuit of its goal of 10 million bpd in total pumping capacity in 2017- equal to the current production of Saudi Arabia, Opec's top producer. Although analysts say that goal is not realistic, they do see Iraq overtaking Iran, Opec's second-biggest producer, as soon as next month.     , ""   Iraq and Iran are pushing Iraq   Meanwhile the Tehran Times reports, "Iranian Cooperatives, Labor, and Social Welfare Minister Abdolreza Sheikholeslami has said that the ministry is ready to provide Iraq with services in the fields of social welfare, technical and vocational trainings, rehabilitation and job creation."     In Iraq, the violence continues.  Al Rafidayn carries AFP's report on how, despite Wednesday's attacks which left at least 93 dead "and 312 people wounded," Shi'ites continued their pilgrims Thursday.   Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes this took place as 14 people were killed yesterday and another 21 injured.  Today Alsumaria notes 2 corpses discovered in Tikrit (shot in the chest and head), a Baghdad home invasion resulted in 5 family members being shot dead, and 2 Baquba bombings left three Iraqi soldiers injured  as well as one bystander.     Alsumaria reports that the Sadr bloc states the move for a no-confidence vote is still on.  The way it would work now is summoning Nouri before the Parliament for questioning (which they have the Constitutional power to do) and then, after questioning, making a motion for a vote.  This would cut the treacherous Jalal Talabani out of the picture and he'd be resigned to his ceremonial, do-nothing post that he does nothing in.   Desperate to appear to have some strength in a country where perceptions of strength matter, Al Rafidayn reports Jalal is now saying he'll call a national conference to address the political crisis that started as 2010 ended when Nouri ignored the Erbil Agreement.  That US-brokered contract ended the 8 month political stalemate which followed the March 2010 elections.  Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya but the Little Saddam wouldn't step down.  Little Saddam wanted a second term.  Little Saddam was backed by Tehran and DC so his public tantrum was rewarded.  The US got the political blocs to go along with Nouri having a second term by promising various concessions would be made (such as, in his second term, Nouri will be bound by the Constitution, specifically Article 140 which he refused to follow in his first term).  All political blocs signed off on this contract, Nouri signed off as well (November 2010), the US government swore it was a binding agreement that would be honored.  The next day, Parliament held a session finally -- the first real one since the elections.  They elected a Speaker of Parliament and Jalal named Nouri prime minister-designate.  Nouri immediately refused to implement the creation of an independent national security commission headed by Allawi.  Allawi and the bulk of Iraqiya walked out.  The American officials talked them back into the session, swearing this was temporary, the Erbil Agreement would be honored. They lied. In December Nouri went from prime minister-designate to prime minister.  And Nouri made clear that the Erbil Agreement wasn't a priority.  By summer 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr are calling for the agreement to be implemented.  This is the ongoing political crisis.         Los Angeles Times journalist and CFR's Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow Ned Parker spoke with Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) yesterday about what is taking place in Iraq.  Excerpt.   Since the government was formed at the end of 2010, all efforts of power sharing among Prime Minister Maliki and the main Sunni political bloc, Iraqiya, the Kurds, and even some of his Shiite partners has faltered. As a result, the three security ministries that were supposed to be shared among all of the political blocs remain under the prime minister's control. The cabinet as it functions now allows the prime minister to rule by decree. Those bylaws were supposed to be revised. That has never happened. An oil law was also supposed to be passed, and that hasn't happened. As a result, mistrust has grown on all sides. Since late April, the primary Sunni bloc--Iraqiya--the main Kurdish bloc, and Sadr's Shiite lawmakers have all come out in favor of a vote of no confidence against Maliki. This effort climaxed last weekend when the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, was asked to call for a vote of no confidence in the parliament. But Talabani, who is a Kurd but has very close ties with Maliki, at the end of the day said that there were not enough signatures to call for such a vote. So now Maliki's main competitors--the Iraqiya block, the Sadrists and the Kurds--are trying to gain more signatures to force Talabani to call a vote of no confidence. But if not, they are saying they're still going to call Maliki to the parliament--which technically they can do--for hearings, for questioning, and then after that, they want to call for a vote for no confidence. All of that shows the trust has broken down in Iraqi politics.     Iraq was destroyed in the illegal war Bully Boy Bush and Tony Blair conspired to launch with multiple lies.  While Bush generally attempts a low profile, Tony's so desperate for cash, he keeps going out in public and the results, as he found out yesterday in Hong Kong, are not good.  Lewis Smith (Independent) reports Tom Grundy attempted to do a citizen's arrest of the man whose lies killed millions, making it "the third occassion in as many weeks in which demonstrators have heckled the former prime minister."  Press TV notes: Antiwar protesters have repeatedly called for the trial of Blair for war crimes. Last month, a group of demonstrators interrupted a commencement speech by Blair at Colby College in Maine, the US, shouting "warmonger" and "war criminal". One week later, while Blair was giving evidence at an inquiry into his links with the British media, another protester managed to enter the courtroom and demanded Blair's arrest for war crimes. In November last, a symbolic tribunal in Malaysia found Blair and former US President George W Bush guilty for committing "crimes against peace" when they invaded Iraq.  The War Criminal was hoping to funnel more dough into the shell game that is the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.  Interestingly, though the 'Foundation' highlights his speech in Hong Kong, it fails to note Grundy.  For those less familiar with Tony Blair's faith or 'faith,'  Nick Cohen (Guardian of London) described it back in 2002: During their stay at the Maroma Hotel, a pricey retreat on Mexico's Caribbean coast, Cherie Booth/Blair took her husband by the hand and led him along the beach to a 'Temazcal', a steam bath enclosed in a brick pyramid. It was dusk and they had stripped down to their swimming costumes. Inside, they met Nancy Aguilar, a new-age therapist. She told them that the pyramid was a womb in which they would be reborn. The Blairs became one with 'Mother Earth'. They saw the shapes of phantom animals in the steam and experienced 'inner-feelings and visions'. As they smeared each other with melon, papaya and mud from the jungle, they confronted their fears and screamed. The joyous agonies of 'rebirth' were upon them. The ceremony over, the Prime Minister and First Lady waded into the sea and cleaned themselves up as best they could. Time Out Hong Kong interviews Grundy here.  The Daily Mail has video of the attempted arrest yesterday.  As does Tom Grundy at his website Global Citizen where he explains: "This evening, I attempted a citizen's arrest upon Tony Blair, who was speaking at Hong Kong University. I did this in the hope of renewing debate around the solid war crimes case against him, and in order that the campaign to conduct citizen's arrests against Blair continues whenever and wherever he goes. The action was legal under cap. 221 of the Laws of Hong Kong, section 101(2) which allows for citizen's arrest upon suspicion of serious crimes. He mis-led the British public over the 2003 Iraq invasion and caused the deaths of at least 100,000 people. I believe it to be abhorrent that HKU is sponsoring a talk about faith hosted by a man who set religious tolerance back decades." Blair admitted in 2009 that he would have gone to war regardless of Iraq's alleged WMDs -- international law does not allow a war of aggression in the name of regime change. He stated in 2002 that Iraq's production of WMDs was 'beyond doubt' and thus misled the British people. The use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs may constitute 'aggression' in that they are indiscriminate and cause large civilian causalities. While Phony Tony tried to use his 'faith' foundation to enrich his pockets and his trashy image, Iraqi Christians face real threats as a result of the illegal war.  Ann Rodgers (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) reports that an Atlanta conference of Catholic Bishops heard a plea yesterday on behalf of Iraqi Christians: "As leaders of the church in the United States, you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003 your country led the war that brought some terrible consequences," said Bishop Schlemon Warduni, an auxiliary bishop of Babylon of the Chaldeans. His nation has gone from one where Christians and Muslims were friends to one where churches are bombed and clergy kidnapped, tortured and killed, he said. "No more war, no more death, no more explosions, no more injustice," he told the bishops, who were gathered in Atlanta for their semiannual meeting. Catholic News Service provides Bishop Shlemon Warduni's plea in full:   "As leaders of the church in the United States," he told the bishops, "you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003, your government led the war that brought some terrible consequences. The U.S. government can and must do all it can to encourage tolerance and respect in Iraq, to help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and to provide assistance that helps create jobs for Iraqis, especially those on the margins. "Many times we ask, 'Where can we find justice and peace?' Our Lord says, "I give you my peace, but not like the world gives." The peace of Jesus is love. This love guides us to unity, because love works miracles, and builds justice and peace. This can be realized when all the church works together in one heart and one thought," the bishop said. "We beg you to do something for us," he continued. "We want only peace, security and freedom. You can tell everybody Iraq was very rich, but now is very poor, because of the war and much discrimination. We want to cry out to you: we want peace, justice, stability, freedom of religion. No more war, no more death, no more explosions, no more injustice. Please help us talk to everybody. Push the cause of peace.     iraq reuters the associated press al rafidayn alsumaria kitabat  al rafidayn dar addustour as sheikh afp prashant rao the washington post the council on foreign relations bernard gwertzman the los angeles times ned parker

What about the Iraqi women?

Can you explain to me why Brett McGurk hasn't withdrawn his name as Barack's nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq?

I can't figure it out.

Is that really what Barack wants to be talking about during an election year?

Brett McGurk and his blue balls?

If the White House had a bit of sense -- they clearly don't -- they'd have withdrawn the nomination.

Iraqi women are not helped by Brett McGurk.  I grasp that only C.I. sees Iraqi women as worth writing about.  All the others who regularly cover the McGurk story don't.  Max Boot, Erika Fry, Bonnie Goldstein, etc.  They don't give a damn about Iraqi women.

'Honor' killings are when women (and some men are suspected of being gay) are killed for bringing shame on their family.  They take place all the time in Iraq.

And despite it being (weakly) against the law in Iraq, they take place.

With Brett McGurk's reputation established as dog on the prowl who cheats in his wife, how can Iraqi women visit the US Embassy in Baghdad without being at risk of 'honor' killing/

I don't know that they can.

And how disgusting that the White House thinks it's acceptable to sell Iraqi women out after they've already suffered enough from this US-started, illegal war.

Toni called me and asked me to link to C.I.'s "The unsuited and unsuitable Brett McGurk" and to consider writing about this topic.  And she said "quote me on this. I applaud C.I.'s for her strength, courage and insight.  I am certainly grateful that she has yet again refused to forget Iraqi women.  But I am appalled by all the women writers online at the Washington Post and elsewhere who think the whole issue boils down to 'Well Gina and Brett got married!'  I say 'F**k you to those women.'  And I'm really upset that, as usual, we can't count on our media created leaders to lead."

I agree with her.  As usual, C.I. has to blaze the trail.  A year from now, watch, it always happens. Some little tootsie in a push up bra or some gray headed woman in support hose will show up and claim they were a leader on the issue.  Time and again, C.I. blazes the trail and fights the good fight and you'll notice most never bother to credit her while taking credit for the work that she did.


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

Thursday, June 14, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, War Criminal Colin Powell said his 2003 UN speech was about inspections but today let's slip the decision to go to war was already made, CJR self-embarrasses with a novel concept on journalistic ethics (If you marry, it wipes the slate clean -- quick, someone tell Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke and so many others!), the political crisis continues in Iraq, Senator Patty Murray has some tough questions for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and more.   Collie The Blot Powell continues to plug his bad and co-written (Tony Koltz) book It Worked For Me: Killing and Lying.  It's really amazing the way the liar keeps saying more than he means to.  But a War Criminal, like any other criminal, has a compulsion to confess (as Freud and Theodor Reik both argued).  You can't turn a trick without a john and a whore.  Presumably Colin played the role of the john for Kira Zalan (US News and World Reports).  We learn that Powell sees meaning when an elderly man is unable to pay attention to a discussion both due to age and to illness but to Collie it's a life lesson about division of labor.  As usual, he discusses the blot and for those fearing Colin's suddenly become part of the Neville family, it's not a facial blot.  It's the fecal smear on his public image that won't wipe off.  It's the lies he told the United Nations in an attempt at kick starting the war on Iraq.  Collie first floated the blot on TV in an interview he gave to Barbara Walters for ABC News.  After it aired, September 2005, Ava and I wrote about it:       Walters says, unable to look at him while she does -- oh the drama!, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?" Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record. Walters: How painful is it? Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it *was* painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now. Has a less convincing scene ever been performed? Possibly. Such as when Powell informs Walters that the fault lies with the intelligence community -- with those who knew but didn't come forward. Unfortunately for Powell, FAIR's advisory steered everyone to a Los Angeles Times' article from July 15, 2004: Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week. Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts.       That's the blot.  His lies that he denies were lies.  A year after his speech, Martha Raddatz (ABC News) observed:     But instead of discussing Iraq's weapons in terms of "possibilities" or "estimates," Powell spoke before the United Nations last February with certainty. "These are not assertions," Powell told the Security Council. "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Powell qualified only one of his remarks during the 75-minute presentation, saying there was some "controversy" over the intended use of high-strength aluminum tubes. On all other issues, Powell left no room for debate. He used the phrase "we know" 32 times.   Jonathan Schwarz (Mother Jones) fact checked the lies here.   The lies that you tell will leave you alone they'll catch you and trip you up, Keep you hangin' around -- "Love You By Heart," written by Carly Simon Jacob Brackman and Libby Titus, first appears on Carly's Spy album     Yes, liars usually will trip themselves up.  Like today when Powell tells Kira Zalan:     And when I gave it, people stopped and listened. And the president by that time had already decided that combat would be necessary, he decided that sometime in January. And now it's 5 February and I'm simply telling people why it may be necessary.     Does Collie realize what he just let slip?  It's no surprise to the peace community.  But still he just admitted that the decision by Bully Boy Bush to go to war was made in January -- two months before the Iraq War started.  That wasn't a part of Colin The War Criminal Powell's speech to the UN.  Click here for the full speech at the Washington Post (warning, not everyone has the full speech even when they claim to -- for example, the Guardian's lost the last third of Powell's speech -- specifically the 'human rights' portion -- but insists that it's the 'full text').  Lot of words, none of which revealed that a decision had already been made to go to war.   These, these, these are the words The words that maketh murder. These, these, these are the words The words that maketh murder. -- "The Words That Maketh Murder," written by PJ Harvey, first appears on PJ's Let England Shake    Today Colin Powell tells US News and World Reports that the decision to go to war on Iraq was made a month before his UN speech.  Strange because the day of his speech, CNN reported (February 5, 2003):   At a lunch that followed Powell's presentation, diplomats said he responded to the French foreign minister's concerns about the impact war with Iraq would have on the region by saying, "I wasn't talking about war, but about strengthening inspections." The diplomats said Powell also made clear to Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin that the United States is not ready to go to war immediately, and is interested in hearing France's proposals to strengthen inspections with the added value of the evidence Powell presented.     So Colin didn't just lie to the citizens of the world in his UN speech, he continued to lie immediately after and lied to diplomats and France's Foreign Minister.  Colin Powell is a liar.  He can pretend all he wants but the record bears out the reality that he has repeatedly misled over and over.  That is lying.   And it's really sad that someone known for doing so little on a national level (other than War Crimes) gets so much press attention for a co-written clip job while former US Senator Russ Feingold put real thought and real work into While America Sleeps: A Wake-Up Call for the Post-9/11 Era and the press is far less likely to offer coverage (or swoon).  Randy Hanson (Hudston Star-Observer) provides coverage on a recent book discussion Feingold gave:     His chapter on the Iraq War is titled "The Iraq Deception." "What I tried to do in the book is explain what happened because of our general strategy in Iraq,"  Feingold said. "Everything we did was defined on the basis of Iraq. And it was crazy, because Bush actually said in his speeches over and over again that there were 60 or 65 countries where al-Qaeda was operating. His list included Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, the Slavic republics, Ireland, England -- but not Iraq." He said that while the United States was concentrating on holding Iraq, terrorist groups were expanding in other countries. "What I thought 9/11 showed us is what happens when we're not alert. We learned what it felt like to be taken completely by surprise," he said, recalling how the big news story during the summer of 2001 had been shark attacks in the country's coastal waters.     One book is mature and thoughtful, the other pure piffle.  The one with nothing to offer gets the bulk of the media attention.    It's the immaturity that the press repeatedly embraces while pretending to be 'high brow' in order to justify their refusal to cover actual news stories.  One example, refusing to explore serious ethical violations by using matrimony as an excuse:  "But that was in 2008, and they're married now."  Is that Margaret Carlson?  No.  No, it's much worse than columnist Carlson.  That's Erika Fry forced into covering the story for CJR.  I was on the phone earlier today with a CJR friend for a half-hour, it was a pre-emptive call asking me to please understand . . .  No, it doesn't work that way.   I will allow that Erika Fry got stuck with the assignment (that's what I was told, I do not know her and didn't speak to her).  But she's an assistant editor and it's Columbia Journalism Review.  I'm real damn sorry that your panties and boxers go dry when you have to critique someone your wet dream Barack loves -- Brett McGurk.  But I'm genuinely sorry that you're such whores that you rush to minimize what took place.    Brett McGurk is Barack Obama's nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq.  He's gotten into a lot of trouble for numerous things but Fry ended up stuck writing about the e-mails.  E-mails became public last week (see the June 5th snapshot) that he had exchanged with Gina Chon in 2008 when both were in Baghdad -- he was working for the US government, she was working for the Wall St. Journal.  The Wall St. Journal let Chon go on Tuesday due to the fact that she had concealed the affair in 2008 when McGurk was not only a US government official but the primary source for her stories and she was let go because she had shared stories she was working on with McGurk to let him alter them (she stated in her defense that she was using him as a sounding board for input).    Columbia JOURNALISM Review.  And they rush to dismiss it.  And they rush to treat it as no big deal.    "But that was in 2008, and they're married now."   Who gives a damn?   That doesn't change a thing.  You either start having standards or you don't.  Right now, CJR has no standards at all.  Judith Miller could go back to work for the New York Times tomorrow and any argument CJR might make would be pointless.  Because right now, they're telling us, that if you marry the source for whom you cater coverage too, it doesn't matter that you misled readers and your editor and it doesn't matter that your lover got copy approval of anything you turned in.   If that's the position CJR wants to take, then they are nothing but a joke.      "We get that sex sells," Fry lies.  It's not about sex, it's about ethics.  If it were about sex, we'd talk about the doggie style encounter in a hallway.  We can do that.  Brett McGurk was very 'popular' in Iraq.  Gina Chon wasn't the first woman he cheated on his wife with.  (That may or may not be news to Chon.)  If Fry wants to make it about sex, we can do that.   But don't dimiss sleeping with a source, letting your lover vet your copy and misleading the public and your editor as it being about sex or as ethical lapses that expire because they two got married.   This is embarrassing and shame on CJR for this nonsense.  Again, I had to listen to  half hour of excuses today.  I hadn't even read the piece.  I return a voice mail and suddenly it's "Well we . . . and we . . and we . . ."  Wee wee?  That about sums it up.  CJR has just pissed on journalism ethics.  That's not a proud moment.   Nor is Erika Fry's inability to be factual.  Fry writes, "For what it's worth, The Wall Street Journal has said that Chon's relationship did not affect her reporting." That's not what they said.  They said, "At this time the Journal has found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship with Mr. McGurk."   That's your first clue that Fry knows what happens is much worse than she let on -- the fact that she has to distort what the Wall St. Journal actually said.  Lisa Dru (Business Insider) reported on the news Tuesday and included the Wall St. Journal's statement:   Wall Street Journal reporter Gina Chon agreed to resign this afternoon after acknowledging that while based in Iraq she violated the Dow Jones Code of Conduct by sharing certain unpublished news articles with Brett McGurk, then a member of the U.S. National Security Council in Iraq. In 2008 Ms. Chon entered into a personal relationship with Mr. McGurk, which she failed to disclose to her editor. At this time the Journal has found no evidence that her coverage was tainted by her relationship with Mr. McGurk. Ms. Chon joined the Journal in 2005 in Detroit, followed by an assignment as Iraq correspondent in Baghdad from 2007 to 2009. She also reported for the Journal from Haiti in 2010 in the aftermath of the earthquake and has served as a M&A reporter for Money & Investing in New York since April 2010.   Erika Fry maybe shouldn't be writing about journalism ethics for CJR when obviously she has ethical problems of her own as evidenced by taking an "at this time" and turning it into something else.  (For the record, the paper only learned of what took place in Baghdad after the e-mails surfaced.  I was told the paper became aware of the problem on  Wednesday of last week.  And that a number of journalists feel burned by Chon's actions and the general consensus is that she didn't give the paper a heads up and let them be completely blindsided.)   For the responsibilities that CJR shirked, let's note this from Paul Farhi (Washington Post):   The idea is to avoid relationships that could compromise a reporter's judgment or give the appearance of playing favorites, said John K. Hartman, a professor of journalism at Central Michigan University. "Serious journalists know that it is imperative to avoid any conflict of interest and any situation that might taint their reporting perspective," he said. Sometimes, however, reporters "can take cozying up to sources too far." Similarly, journalists aren't supposed to disclose unpublished stories, lest it compromise the gathering of information.     See, Erika Fry, serious journalists know that.  How serious do you think CJR looks right now?They're married now, huffs Erika Fry.  So if Bully Boy Bush marries Tony Blair, that excuses the Iraq War?  Matrimony has nothing to do with the ethical violations.  But let's play like we're as stupid as Erika Fry hopes we are.  So if Gina Chon and Brett McGurk stay married another year, it matters even less.  If they make it to ten years then there was no ethical violation at all?  It's funny because Fry should be familiar with the code of ethics for journalism and I see no 'matrimony card' that excuses any violation.     I learned of the e-mails (overheard in the office of a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) Tuesday June 5th before the hearing.  As I left the office, I was searching on my iPhone for the e-mails and found them at Cryptome. Eli Lake (Daily Beast) offers some background on Cryptome:   But what's received less attention is the website that published those emails, and the man who runs it. John Young founded Cryptome, a clearinghouse for leaked documents from the military and intelligence community, in 1996, roughly a decade before WikiLeaks existed. It has since become a must-read for some people who track the intelligence community and the military. "Cryptome has become part of the national security information landscape," says Steven Aftergood, the director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit think tank. "I check it every day," he adds.   Yesterday, some Senators weighed in on McGurk.  Sunlen Miller (ABC News) reports, Senators John Barrasso, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Mike Lee, James Risch and Marco Rubio wrote a letter to the White House explaining, "As members of the committee, with the responsibility of providing advice and consent, we write to respectfully urge you to reconsider this nomination.  There are strong concerns about Mr. McGurk's qualifications, his ability to work with Iraqi officials, and now his judgment."  The six are Republicans.  Matthew Lee (AP) reports, "Earlier, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the committee, hinted that the nomination could be reconsidered. He said he had spoken with Vice President Joe Biden about McGurk."  Lee quotes Kerry stating, "I think there are some very fair questions being asked and they need to be answered."  Ted Barrett and Paul Courson (CNN) report that Kerry is considering delaying the planned Tuesday Committee vote on McGurk and quote him stating, "I need to talk to senators and evaluate where we are.  People have become aware of things they weren't, so we have to evaluate."   Al Kamen (Washington Post) adds, "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the panel's second-ranking Democrat, is said to have deep reservations about him as well."       Yesterday Baghdad was slammed with bombings and 72 people were known to be dead.  This morning Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that the death toll has risen "to 93 and 312 people wounded" according to the Ministry of the Interior.  The Voice of Russia reports, "EU High Represenative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton has condemned the series of terrorist attacks in several Iraqi provinces that claimed dozens of lives."  The State Dept had nothing to say yesterday or today in their press briefings.  The White House spokesperson Jay Carney did acknowledge the bombings on Wednesday:   Jay Carney:  With regard to the violence, we strongly condemn the recent attacks in Iraq. The targeting of innocent civilians and security forces is cowardly and reprehensible. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims, and support the continued efforts of Iraqi government forces to bring those responsible to justice. I  would simply say that it's important to remember that while we have seen that extremist groups in Iraq are still able to use violence and cause harm, we believe their capabilities have been diminished in recent years. Also, Iraqis continue to reject extremist tactics in support of peaceful methods of resolving their disputes. There have been occasional periods where there have been increases in violence, but overall violence is greatly decreased from the time period that you referenced in particular. Also I think worth noting is that Iraq hosted -- Baghdad hosted an important series of negotiations not that long ago, and their ability to do that in a secure way demonstrates the progress that they've made in that country and in their capacity to provide security in a place like Baghdad.       Moqtada al-Sadr has declared that the government must protect all the citizens and notes that the violence took place as the political differences continued.  Alsumaria reports Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi -- still in Turkey while he's tried in abstentia in Baghdad -- also condemned the attacks.  The report also notes that the judges refused the request of the defense to call President Jalal Talabani to the stand.  al-Hasehmi is being tried for terrorism or 'terrorism' in what many see as a political attack on either Iraqiya or Sunnis.  Tareq al-Hashemi is the highest ranking office holder from Iraqiya -- the political slate that defeated Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law in the 2010 parliamentary elections.  al-Hashemi is also Sunni.    The 2010 elections found Iraqiya winning and Nouri digging in his heels and refusing to surrender the post of prime minister despite coming in second.  Because Tehran and DC backed him, Nouri was able to have a public tantrum for 8 months and then get rewarded with a second term.  The US brokered an agreement, The Erbil Agreement, which gave Nouri a second term in return for Nouri making concessions.  The US government told the political blocs this contract would be honored.  Nouri used it to grab a second term as prime minister and immediately tossed it aside.  Since the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqiya have called on Nouri to return to the Erbil Agreement.  He has refused to do so.   Today Los Angeles Times journalist and CFR's Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow Ned Parker speaks to Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) about what is taking place in Iraq.  Excerpt.   Since the government was formed at the end of 2010, all efforts of power sharing among Prime Minister Maliki and the main Sunni political bloc, Iraqiya, the Kurds, and even some of his Shiite partners has faltered. As a result, the three security ministries that were supposed to be shared among all of the political blocs remain under the prime minister's control. The cabinet as it functions now allows the prime minister to rule by decree. Those bylaws were supposed to be revised. That has never happened. An oil law was also supposed to be passed, and that hasn't happened. As a result, mistrust has grown on all sides. Since late April, the primary Sunni bloc--Iraqiya--the main Kurdish bloc, and Sadr's Shiite lawmakers have all come out in favor of a vote of no confidence against Maliki. This effort climaxed last weekend when the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, was asked to call for a vote of no confidence in the parliament. But Talabani, who is a Kurd but has very close ties with Maliki, at the end of the day said that there were not enough signatures to call for such a vote. So now Maliki's main competitors--the Iraqiya block, the Sadrists and the Kurds--are trying to gain more signatures to force Talabani to call a vote of no confidence. But if not, they are saying they're still going to call Maliki to the parliament--which technically they can do--for hearings, for questioning, and then after that, they want to call for a vote for no confidence. All of that shows the trust has broken down in Iraqi politics.   Jalal?  An angry Jalal is seen at Alsumaria denying reports about him in recent days.  Jalal's upset with the fall out over his actions.  He's pissed that Kurds in the Kurdish Alliance and Ayad Allawi have come forward with how he (Jalal) said he could take out Nouri al-Maliki.  He's ticked off that his stock is falling.  He's upset about rumors that the PUK is exploring new public faces.  (He's 78-years-old, they should have a different public face.)  As Al Rafidayn notes, so many are upset with Jalal that he's had to prepare a public letter for the PUK to distribute to its members. Alsumaria reports a bombing in Falluja today targeting police -- eight people were harmed (dead and wounded -- there are no numbers for either category).  It was a car bombing and abumlances arrived on the scene, police said.  In other security news today, Alsumaria reports the Ministry of the Interior is telling the media that a small spy plane was shot down today in Baghdad by the First Brigade (Iraqi police).  Since there is  no mention of a pilot being dead, wounded or captured, this was most likely an unmanned drone.  Which means, it was most likely a US drone.     Today, the White House issued the following statement:   The White House Office of the Vice President For Immediate Release June 14, 2012 Statement on National Security Advisor to the Vice President Tony Blinken's Travel National Security Advisor to the Vice President Tony Blinken visited Iraq on June 13-14 and met with a range of senior Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Maliki, Deputy Prime Minister Shahristani, and KRG President Barzani.  He also spoke by telephone with President Talabani, Foreign Minister Zebari, and Council of Representatives Speaker Nujaifi.  NSA Blinken made clear to all his interlocutors that the United States takes no side in the current political situation, but favors any solution that is reached by the Iraqis themselves, in accordance with Iraqi law and the constitution, and is achieved in a clear and transparent manner that does not promote or lead to violence.  He urged Iraqi leaders to move quickly to alleviate current tensions in order to refocus energy on critical state-building challenges, including preparations for provincial and local elections next year.  He underscored that the United States calls on Iraq's neighbors to support Iraq's sovereign right to choose its own government.   He also stressed that the Iraqi and American people have sacrificed greatly for Iraq's constitutional and democratic system, which continues to have our unwavering support.   No mention of the fact that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has personally invited and/or urged Nouri and KRG President Massoud Barzani to come to DC for what State doesn't want to be called "peace talks."  (But that's what they would be.)     In yesterday's snapshot, we noted Wednesday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee with regards to employment rights and with regards to burn pits.  Last night at her site, Kat covered Ranking Member Richard Burr's proposed bill.  The plan was to continue coverage of the hearing today.  We'll do that tomorrow.  Among the reasons for that is that we included a portion of a news release from Senator Patty Murray's office in yesterday's snapshot and we need to include it in full.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office issued the following yesterday: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  Wednesday, June 13, 2012  CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834   Under Pressure from Sen. Murray, Panetta Announces Military-Wide Review of Behavioral and Mental Health Diagnoses Since 2001     Panetta to Murray: "I am not satisfied either"; "still huge gaps" in how departments diagnose PTSD and other conditions; announces that all branches of military will undergo major review of diagnoses   VIDEO of Senator Murray's Exchange with Secretary Panetta     (Washington, D.C.) – Today, under questioning from Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that he has ordered the heads of every branch of the U.S. military to review diagnoses for the invisible wounds of war going back to 2001. The Secretary's announcement comes after Murray worked to spur a similar review by the Army which arose from hundreds of soldiers being misdiagnosed and in many cases accused of faking the symptoms of PTSD at Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington state. "The Pentagon and the VA are losing the battle on mental and behavioral health conditions," Murray told the Secretary at today's hearing. Murray also noted that the Army has already begun a system-wide review saying "This is not just an Army disability evaluation system. This is a joint DOD and VA program covering all of the services. Why has the Department not taken the lead in evaluating and making improvements to this system?" "What I've asked is the other service chiefs to implement the same approach that the Army's taken" Secretary Panetta responded. "…I'm not satisfied either. We're doing everything we can to try to build a better system between the Pentagon, the Department of Defense and VA. But there are still huge gaps in terms of the differences in terms of how they approach these cases and how they diagnose the cases and how they deal with them, and frankly, that's a whole area we have to do much better on." Secretary Panetta indicated that the Pentagon-wide review will be led by the Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness. At the hearing Senator Murray also highlighted the impact that mental health care shortcomings are having pointing to statistics that show that military suicides are outpacing combat deaths. A full transcript of the exchange between Senator Murray and Secretary Panetta at today's hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee follows:     MURRAY: Mr. Secretary, I want to continue the thought process of Senator Murkowski. I, too, am very alarmed by the suicide rate of our service members and our veterans. New analysis is showing us that every day in 2012 one of our service members committed suicide and you just commented on outpacing combat deaths. In our veteran population, we know a veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes. Every 80 minutes. Now, I think we can agree on two things. First of all, our service members and their families have risen to the challenge. They've done everything that their countries asked of them throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're all eternally grateful. Secondly, the Pentagon and the V.A. are losing the battle on mental and behavioral health conditions that are confronting a lot of our service members, loved ones, and as we just talked about is resulting on such extreme things as suicide. Secretary Panetta our service members and veterans can't get needed treatment access to needed resource without correct diagnosis. This has been a problem for soldiers in my home state of Washington. At Madigan to date, over 100 soldiers and counting have had their correct PTSD diagnosis restored after being told they were exaggerating their symptoms, lying, and accused of shirking their duties. So understandably, a lot of our service members trust and confidence in the disability evaluation system has been seriously shaken in the wake of these events. As you know, I have continually raised concerns about the consistency and accuracy of behavioral health evaluations and diagnosis within the entire disability evaluation system, and have offered my recommendations on how to improve the system. And as you also know the Army has taken some critically important steps forward and beginning to address these concerns. Secretary McHugh has announced a sweeping, comprehensive Army wide review of behavioral diagnosis back to 2001 to correct the errors of the past and to make sure the service members get the care and services that they need and that they deserve. But I wanted to ask you today, but this is not just an Army disability evaluation system. This is a joint Department of Defense and V.A. program covers all of the services. So I wanted to ask you why the department has not taken the lead in evaluating in taking the lead to the entire system?     PANETTA: Senator, we are. What I've asked is the other service chiefs to implement the same approach that the Army's taken here...   MURRAY: To go back and go back to 2001 and review all cases?   PANETTA: That's correct.   MURRAY: Throughout the entire system?   PANETTA: That's correct.   MURRAY: OK, so they are all following the Army's lead and we are told the evaluation and the progress of that. Who is heading that up?   PANETTA: Our undersecretary for personnel and for health care. That's the individual that you need to...   MURRAY: I would very much like to be kept inform as all of our members of Congress would. I think this needs to be transparent and clear. We need to make sure that people are accessing the system, getting back if they need it and the only way to get that is to be clear, open and honest with everyone. So I didn't know we were looking at all of the other services and I would like more information and to be informed on that as soon as possible about how that's taking place and what the timetable is and how that's going to occur.   PANETTA: I appreciate your leadership on this, Senator. I'm not satisfied either. I think the misdiagnosis that took place, what's happening in this area between -- we're doing everything we can to try to build a better system between the Pentagon, the Department of Defense and V.A. But there are still huge gaps in terms of the differences in terms of how they approach these cases and how they diagnose the cases and how they deal with them, and frankly, that's a whole area we have to do much better on.   MURRAY: You can't imagine what it's like to talk to a soldier who was told he had PTSD, his family was working with him, and then when he went to the disability evaluation system, was told he was a liar or malingerer. He was taken out of it and he went out in the civilian world not being treated. That's a horrendous offense. You know, I chair -- I am chair of the veterans affairs committee and I held a hearing on the joint disability evaluation system, and I just have to tell you I am really troubled by what with I'm hearing. Enrollment is continuing to climb, the number of service members cases meeting timeliness goals is unacceptably low, the amount of time it takes to provide benefits to the service member who is transitioning through the system has risen each year since we began this. In response to these problems we heard from the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs together about how five years after -- five years after the Walter Reed scandal, they are just now beginning to map out business processes to find room for improvement. You know, that's just unacceptable. The public, all of this really believed this was being taken head-on, that we were dealing with it and five years out. Unacceptable numbers we're seeing. So I wanted to ask you what you are doing at your level to deal with this, five years into this program and we're still hearing statements from Army leaders about how the disability system is fundamentally flawed, adversarial, and, tell me what I'm going to do.   PANETTA: Let me do this. Secretary Shinseki and I have been meeting on a regular basis to try to do what we can to implement improvements and frankly, we're not satisfied either by the progress being made here. Part of it is bureaucratic. Part of it is systems and part of it is the complicated...   MURRAY: You can't imagine what it sounds like to hear that.   PANETTA: Pardon me?   MURRAY: It's bureaucratic. I mean that -- if you're in the system, that's not the word you want to hear. PANETTA: You know, I see it every day. I'm in charge of a very big bureaucracy. And the fact is that sometimes just the bureaucratic nature of a large departments prevents it from being agile enough to respond and do what needs to be done. And so a large part of this is making sure people are willing to operate out of the box and do what needs to be done in order to improve these systems. What I would offer to you is let Secretary Shinseki and I sit down with you and walk through the steps we're taking to try to see if we can try to shake the system...   MURRAY: I really appreciate that commitment. I know you have not been there the entire five years, but I will tell you this, we've been told for five years that the DOD and V.A. are sitting down on a regular basis addressing this. And I'm talking to soldiers that are stuck in the disability evaluation system. There are bureaucratic delays. The people that are supposed to be helping them they're training them because they've been in the system longer than the trainers that are supposed to work with them. Their families are facing you know horrendous challenges as they try to figure out what the future brings months on end. You know people at the top are saying that this is fundamentally fudged, you want to hear who the people at the bottom who are in it are saying.   PANETTA: Right.   MURRAY: I totally appreciate your saying that to me today, but sitting down and talking with Secretary Shinseki is something we've been hearing for a long time. We need some recommendations and we need to move forward and we need to be a top priority out of the Pentagon as we transition now out of Afghanistan, this is not going to get more simple. Add to that the complexities of now going back and reviewing all of these PTSD and behavioral health cases, you have people who are in the IDES (ph) system right now who are saying what's going to happen to me while you go back and review all these people? Are we putting personnel into deal with this? Or now am I going to take another back seat while we deal with that? This is complex, it's hard. It's problematic, but it needs every single effort from top to bottom.   PANETTA: Listen, I share all of your frustrations, and my job is to make sure that we don't come here with more excuses and that we come here with action.   MURRAY: I truly appreciate that comment. I want to work with you. All my efforts are at your disposal. We do a fantastic job of training on you are men and women to go into the service. We still today have not gotten this right in making sure that we transition back home. We have families and soldiers and Airmen and -- throughout the service who are really stuck in a process they shouldn't be stuck in. We've got to get this right and we've got it get it right now and we need every effort at it and I will sit down with you the minute we tell you you're available, but I want more than a meeting.   PANETTA: OK, I agree.   ### Matt McAlvanah Communications Director U.S. Senator Patty Murray 202-224-2834 - press office 202--224-0228 - direct matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates       iraq abc news martha raddatz barbara walters the guardian jonathan schwarz the daily beast eli lake cnn mohammed tawfeeq the christian science monitor scott peterson  alsumaria al rafidayn the associated press  matthew lee abc news sunlen miller the washington post al kamen the council on foreign relations bernard gwertzman the los angeles times ned parker