We're the cops of the world

Phil Ochs nailed it decades ago with his song "Cops of the World."

Our boots are needing a shine, boys

Boots are needing a shine

But our Coca-cola is fine, boys

Coca-cola is fine

We've got to protect all our citizens fair

So we'll send a battalion for everyone there

And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years

'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys

We're the Cops of the World

And if you ever doubted Phil Ochs, Jennifer Epstein (POLITICO) reports

President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Wednesday announced an agreement that will establish a permanent military presence here as the United States pushes to assert its influence in the Pacific
.
Thank goodness Australia will finally be safe. I know they've lived in fear ever since the nuclear bombing at the end of WWII and the dividing up of their country into north and south with Ho Chi Mihn marching into Sydney in 1961 and that's not counting the abuses the Australians have suffered at the hands of their leaders who are really the new Hitlers.

(If you didn't understand the previous paragraph, it was sarcasm.)

So now Marines will be stationed in Australia. All together now:

Cause we're the cops of the world, boys

We're the cops of the world

POLITICO runs a photo of "country crooner" (take it up with them) James Taylor. He looks stupid as always. But check out wife number three or four. First off, get a bra that lifts your breasts. When they droop to your waist, you really need to rethink the bra, dear. Second, when you have sections of upper arm fat -- sections, no less -- you don't need to wear a sleeveless dress to a formal (White House) occasion. She is neither an attractive nor well dressed woman but, thing is, she's still out of James Taylor's league.

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

Wednesday, November 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the most important hearing on the Iraq War this year took place yesterday and we continue to cover it, we also note which outlets got it right and which got it very, very wrong, "enduring" US bases (and that's a US general, not me calling them "enduring") will remain in Iraq, DoD will keep US troops in Iraq (it won't just be the State Dept or just 'guarding' embassies and diplomatic staff), John McCain (and Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman) are distorted by the press, the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- Senator Patty Murray -- calls for action on the VA's backlog of disability claims, and more. Charley Keyes (CNN) reports of yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, "The Obama administration will withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year, after negotiations with Iraq broke down last month over leaving behind a small force for training and security. Some 30,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq now, and only a small number of U.S. military will remain behind, attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Well golly, I'm confused and would assume I were wrong were it not for the fact that it is impossible for Barack to "withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year" and also for "a small number of U.S. military will remain behind". All is all. Does CNN not grasp that? Do they also not know how to report on hearings? The way you do that is you attend the hearing and you report what was said. Keyes doesn't have a quote does he? No. He needs one. When he's so wrong, he really needs one. So "all" leave, he says, while he's also saying that small number will remain "attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Did Keyes doze off during Senator Susan Collins' questioning? Senator Susan Collins: What about the Kurdish region in Iraq? There are concerns that Kirkuk stands out as an unresolved area where there's still a lot of tension with the central government in Baghdad. I understand that only a small DoD contingent will remain there. And it's my understanding that the State Dept is going back and forth on whether or not it should have a full consulate presence in Kirkuk or maintain a less formal 'diplomatic post'. If there's no US military presence to act as a buffer between the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi security forces, are you worried that this region of Iraq will become a destabalizing flashpoint? General Martin Dempsy: I-I worry about a lot of things, Senator. And I will include this among the list of things I worry about. As you know, we put in place, several years ago, joint-check points where there was a member of the Kurdish peshmerga, there was a member of the Iraqi security forces and a US service man or woman and a coordinating center. And part of our Office of Security Cooperation footprint will include our participation in the coordination center. We won't be on the check points anymore -- that's true. And so we will have to rely upon the continuing negotiations between the Kurdish political leaders and their Iraqi -- the government of Iraq. But this is not, again, a place where we are completely removing ourselves. But your point is accurate. We won't be on the check points. We have been there as a buffer. The risk goes up. But our presence in the coordination center provides a stabilizing influence to get them to find negotiated answers, not violent answers. I'm sorry, where in there is the State Dept? It's not there. Collins and Dempsey are speaking of US military personnel that will be stationed in Kirkuk in a coordinating center. And possibly Keyes was snoring when Collins explained she was referring to "a small DoD contingent"? Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- and we'll note some of his remarks tomorrow -- and John McCain is the Ranking Member. We're focused on the first panel of the hearing, when General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified. We noted another exchange in yesterday's snapshot -- one which refuted the lie that "all" are leaving or that negotiations are "over." I noted this was one of several exchanges in the hearing on this topic -- maybe Keyes required multiple naps? -- and wrongly thought we didn't need to do flash cards. Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq. General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about. Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct? Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct. Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis? Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street. So, flash cards. There's that "Office of Security Cooperation" again. And, no, that's not State Dept, that's DoD. And in that OSC, according to General Martin Dempsey, "we will be embedded with them as trainers" -- get that? Second card, Senator Joe Lieberman noted what he's hearing from Iraqis which appears to be that after January 1st there will be a deal made. That talk jibes with what I've shared here several times perviously, a friend at the State Dept swears that as soon as Nouri and Barack have both had their victory laps over 'withdrawal,' negotiations begin for more US troops in Iraq. Third one, Panetta says that the US is currently in negotiations with Iraq ("with regards to the size of the security office that will be there"). Get it? Negotiations did not end. Fourth card: Panetta notes that just for that security office -- DoD security office -- there should be "hundreds [of US troops] that will be present" -- that's what's currently being negotiated. Fifth card: Panetta rejects the notion taht "zero [US] troops" will be in Iraq. Hint, to CNN, that's why you don't report or 'report' that "ALL" US troops are leaving. Sixth card: Panetta believes negotiations will continue and that Iraq will make requests for additional troops. Is Panetta right? CNN can't tell you that. They're not psychics. They can report what was said and they can fact check. If they want to. And clearly reporting on the hearing wasn't a concern for CNN. The hearing was yesterday morning. At Trina's site last night, Ava covered an exchange with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally covered economic concers expressed over the use of contractors "The costs (Wally)" and Kat offered a look at various claims about the administration's negotiating goals and what Iraqi leaders supposedly sought with "Who wanted what?" But Keyes isn't the only bad reporter. Look at Rachel Martin. And unlike Keyes, Martin's not paid by a corporation and advertising. Martin's salary is paid for by tax payers and donors to NPR. 'Reporting' like this should get you fired, "But come December 31st, the remaining 24,000 US troops now in Iraq will be out." No, they won't. As she got to the end of her report, like Keyes, she suddenly noted a few American troops would remain in Iraq. What about those bases, by the way? Those US bases in Iraq. What about them? Strange Keyes and Martin didn't report on that. What were they called? Oh, yeah. "Enduring." And that was in yesterday's hearing. By the US general. Let's go to that section. Senator Kay Hagan: But I wanted to talk about our Special Operations Forces. And, as you know, our Special Operations Forces have engaged with their Iraqi counter-parts in counter-terrorism and in training and advising activities. And what will things look like in Iraq from a Special Operations Forces stand point going forward. And what type of engagement would our Special Operation Forces have in Iraq? General Martin Dempsy: Yes, senator the size of the Iraqi operating Special Forces is about 4,500. They're organized into a counter-terrorism section commanded by an Iraqi general by the name of Kanani. We partnered with him at the head quarters level and will remain so. We're in discussions with Iarq about training -- trainers -- that would stay inside the wire of their places where this counter-terrorism force is located, not go with them on missions but rather train them to continue to go on missions. And-and as I mentioned earlier, the gap is actually in their ability to kind of identify the network and target it. We call it the find-fix-finish-asses-and-exploit cycle. They're very capable of fixing and finishing, not so capable as yet in finding, assessing and exploiting so that you continue to keep pressure on a network. But I will tell you, they are extraordinaryly competent individual soldiers. What we've got to do is keep raising the bar with them on their ability to do things at eschelons above tactics. Senator Kay Hagan: Well with the drawdown taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue this training process to enable them to continue to do this on their own? General Martin Dempsey: Well they will be limited. They don't have the airlift to deliver them to the target that we might have been able to provide. They don't have the ISR target to keep persistant surveillance over the top of the target. So they'll be limited to ground movement and they'll be limited to human intelligence and we'll keep -- But part of the Office of Security Cooperation provides the trainers to keep the training to develop those other areas, but we're some time off in reaching that point. Senator Kay Hagan: We'll, as we continue this drawdown of our military personnel from Iraq, I really remain concerned about their force protection -- the individuals that will be remaining in Iraq. So what are the remaining challenges for our military personnel in Iraq in terms of managing their vulnerabilities, managing their exposures during the drawdown? General Martin Dempsey: Senator, are you talking about getting from 24,000, the existing force now and having it retrograde through Kuwait? Senator Kay Hagan: The ones that will remain over there. General Martin Dempsey: The ones that will remain -- Senator Kay Hagan: Their protection. General Martin Dempsey: Yes, Senator. Well, they will have -- First and foremost, we've got ten Offices of Security Cooperation in Iraq bases. And their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on delivering the foreign military sales. So F-16s get delivered, there's a team there to help new equipment training and-and helping Iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty. Or there's a 141 M1 Tanks right now, generally located at a tank gunnery range in Besmaya, east of Baghdad and the team supporting that training stays on Besmaya so this isn't about us moving around the country very much at all. This is about our exposure being limited to 10 enduring, if you will, Offices of Security Cooperation base camps. And doing the job of educating and training and equipping on those ten bases. Host nation is always responsible for the outer parameter. We'll have contracted security on the inner parameter. And these young men and women will always have responsibility for their own self-defense. Senator Kay Hagan: So we'll have contracted security on the inner-paramenter? General Martin Dempsey: That's right. "The ones that will remain over there." Again, "all" aren't leaving. And "the ones that remain over there" will be on the "enduring" (Dempsey's term) bases -- those Offices of Special Coordination bases. Breaking with the pack to do actual reporting is Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reports, "Some United States forces will remain as military trainers on 10 bases in Iraq even after an end-of-year deadline for all American troops to be out of the country, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee on Tuesday." She's reporting on the exchange above. She speaks with an unnamed "military official" who, frankly, lies to her. That's fine, she doesn't present the claim as truth, merely as a claim. "No more than 200" -- on ten bases? That is what the general testified to. And it's previously been reported that the number of these 'trainers' would be over half the amount the official insists off the record. And General Dempsey testified that they were in ongoing negotiations to increase the number already agreed to. Now let's assume unnamed isn't lying? 20 people on 10 bases each? And security contractors hired to protect them? That's cost-effective how? It isn't. So who's going to launch an investigation into that? As for the claims about Iraq's counter-terrorism forces, were you puzzled? You should have been. It was the second time Dempsey was praising Iraq's counter-terrorism forces for being able to do their job after -- after -- a target was identified. Actually doing the identification, he had to admit -- to Hagan and earlier to Senator Scott Brown as well -- was a step they just weren't up to. From Ava's report: But the big howler was when Brown was asking Dempsey about Iraq's counter-terrorism forces and how proficient they are? Dempsey said about 80% ready to handle what's needed. He wanted to explain his score -- apparently feeling bad that he hadn't given them a 100. He insisted that, when a target is identified, the C-T forces could "lock onto" it. Otherwise, they have a problem. Counter-Terrorism forces can "lock on" with an identified target? Who can't? When you know who the target is, who can't? General Dempsey's such a generous grader when it comes to Iraqi forces. So the hearing revealed "enduring" US bases in Iraq -- the general's term -- and it revealed that negotiations are taking place right now, and that negotiations will continue (that the US isn't done with the 'trainers' issues), that already trainers are planned to remain in Iraq, and a lot more. It's rather strange to look at two sites that I think of as right-wing -- both are Libertarian websites. Maybe I'm misunderstanding them looking, as I do, from the left? At Lew Rockwell.com, Laurence Vance accurately covers what Panetta stated at one point (we'll be pulling that in with another section where Panetta's asked to clarify it), "We have more than 40,000 American troops that remain in the Gulf region. We're not going anywhere." Vance rightly notes this is no withdrawal. So good for LRC and Vance. But at Antiwar.com -- where they want to tell you it's fundraising time -- they make no effort to be accurate. In fairness to John Glaser, maybe he's pulling from bad reporting and wasn't actually at the hearing? His past reports have been strong and sound. This hearing was reported on badly. I think it's most likely that he's relied on bad reporting. I don't think we have time or space to refute that 'report' today and am not sure if we'll have time for it tomorrow (where I'm already shoving the topics of Camp Ashraf, Iraqi Christians and drones too).So, briefly, you may hate John McCain. I've noted I don't care for him. I've noted I would never vote for him. But that doesn't give me the right to lie about him. Intentional or not, the Antiwar.com report is 100% wrong. In the hearing, John McCain ("and otehrs in Congress") did not argue "the administration should have strong-armed their way into a new security agreement in Iraq." That is 100% incorrect. What McCain argued, what Senator Lindsey Graham argued, what Senator Joe Lieberman argued, was that a deal should have been made to keep US troops in Iraq and that the deal failed because of the US. No, they did not argue that the US should have forced Iraq to do anything. They argued the US failed by refusing to present a number (for troops) and a plan for missions. "As late as May" -- if one of the three said it once, they all said it multiple times. What are they basing that on? Their trips to Iraq. McCain specifically stated that he came back after one trip (this is in his second round of questioning) and asked the National Security Advisor what the plan was -- as late as May -- and the White House still didn't have a plan to offer. What McCain stated he was hearing from Iraqis -- including Nouri al-Maliki -- was that the US would not provide a plan. Graham, Lieberman and McCain all noted repeatedly that they spoke to Nouri, that they spoke to the Kurds, that they spoke to Osama al-Nujaifi (Speaker of Parliament, Iraqiya member and a Sunni). There was not opposition from these groups, the three stated repeatedly. This was Lindsey Graham's point in his first round of questioning. He walked it through slowly with Panetta and then noted that he'd gone slowly and done so for a reason, he stated that when you had all of that support (and Panetta agreed on the Sunni issue, the Nouri issue and on the Kurds that they would have -- the Kurds -- gone for as many as 50,000 US troops), how did you fail to make a deal? McCain felt that the White House didn't want to make a deal and presented that feeling as fact. Graham agreed with him about the failure and wanted to point out that the whole thing -- Iraq plus Afghanistan -- seemed to be done for votes and that it was interesting that Panetta was willing to talk about and explore the Iraqi political situation but no one wanted to talk about the American one. From his remarks in the hearing, Lieberman agreed it was a failure but did not form an opinion as to why it failed. This was their argument, they repeated it over and over. They never once said, "We can force Iraq to do this!" Or that Iraq should have been forced. Their argument was that they speak with these politicians (including Nouri) often and that they knew what the Iraqi politicians were open to and that they couldn't believe that with what Iraq was willing to go along with the White House couldn't get a deal. If they're right about what the Iraqi politicians were willing to go for (I believe them because I've heard similar from the administration), then that was a significant moment and one that history books will review -- as McCain himself noted. I disagree -- again based on what I've heard from administration friends -- that the White House intended to torpedo the agreement. But that's my opinion and I could be wrong (and often am). McCain may have hurt his own argument by presenting it so forcefully -- you'll note that the presentation and not the substance is what the 'reporters' focused on. Had he turned it into a question -- the way Lindsay Graham did -- it might have led to many headlines. Then again, it's a lazy press. Most likely they would have just seized upon another trivial moment to run with. (We don't have space for a full transcript. But some of McCain's remarks on this were included in yesterday's snapshot and Kat's report last night included much more from McCain where he made the argument that the Iraqi leaders wanted US troops but the White House failed when they repeatedly had no plan to present.) It's interesting that John Glaser goes with the garbage when he should have -- Antiwar.com should have -- been leading on that hearing. Repeating: We learned there were "enduring" bases; we learned that there are "trainers" who will remain; we learned that some US military will remain in Iraq under DoD (not the State Dept); we learned that negotiations continue and that further negotiations are expected. In addition, we got some numbers on the countries that will most likely be used as a staging platform should, for example, sectarian warfare noticeably return to Iraq. Remember we noted Vance (LewRockwell.com) quoting Panetta stating, "We have more than 40,000 American troops that remain in the Gulf region. We're not going anywhere." We're going to the second round of Joe Lieberman's questions, when Lieberman brought up Panetta's earlier statement. Senator Joe Lieberman: My question, Mr. Secretary, is if you could just develop the statement that you made a little earlier, that we will have 40,000 troops in the region, does that include the 24,000 now in Iraq? Or have we made a decision to increase the number based on the failure to have more troops in Iraq after January of next year, have we made a decision to increase the number of the troops in the region outside of Iraq for some of those what-ifs I just talked about? Secretary Leon Panetta: No, Senator, that did not include Iraq. What we have now is in Kuwait we have almost 29,000; Saudi Arabi we've got 258; Bahrain over 6,000 -- close to 7,000 -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: UAE about 3,000, Qatar 7,000 if you go through the region and add up all those numbers, that's the 40,000. Senator Joe Lieberman: So has there been a decision made to increase that number at all because we were unable to reach an agreement about continuing presence of American troops in Iraq? In other words, keeping them in the region? General Martin Dempsey: Yeah, I wouldn't describe it as cause-and-effect relationship based on what happened in Iraq but rather our continuing concern with a more assertive Iran and, uh -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. General Martin Dempsey: -- we are looking at our central command footprint. You know, Senator, that prior to 2001, we had -- we routinely rotated brigades in and out of Kuwait for training -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. General Martin Dempsey: But also as part of deterrance. And I think, we haven't negotiated this with Kuwait yet, but it would be my view that we should have some sort of rotational presence -- ground, air, and naval. Senator Joe Lieberman: Some of those would be combat troops? General Martin Dempsey: Absolutely. Is that what Barack presented to the American people last month? Not really. And along with his distortions, there were the press distortions. It worked kind of like the way he was portrayed (falsely) as the anti-war candidate in the primaries. He distorted a little, the press distorted a little and before you know it, he was being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. Last week, Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reported on a CBS poll. Montopoli concluded, "Three in four Americans support President Obama's decisions to withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of the year." Do they? No, they don't. Respondents were told, "President Obama recently announced that US troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year. Should U.S. troops come home?" That's what 77% of the respondents approved of; however, that is not what was discussed in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, now is it? 40,000 US troops kept in the region? An unknown number of US troops under the State Dept kept in Iraq and an unknown number of US troops under the Defense Dept kept in Iraq? That's not even getting all the contractors. If the Americans aren't presented with what's taking place, how can they make an evaluation? CBS should be ashamed of themselves over this poll. I find it very interesting that they decided to whore for Barack yet again. 77% approved of a vague 'plan' falsely presented by CBS. The real headline, from the polling data, should have been "67% of Americans say the Iraq War wasn't worth it." That's 49% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats and 67% of independents. That's an honest headline. An honest headline for the 'plan' question? "CBS News Fails To Explain Plan In Survey And Gets Good Results." People always respond in polls highly to the vague, that's a known. Violence continues in Iraq and that's also known. Reuters notes a Bagdhad roadside bombing left six people injured, a bombing outside targeting a mayor left him injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left thirteen additional people injured, 2 corpses were discovered in Qaiyara (father and son who were kidnapped yesterday), a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left eighteen people injured, and, dropping back to last night for the last two, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left three people injured and a government worker was kidnapped in Kirkuk. Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports on Osama al-Nujaifi's trip to Turkey. The Speaker of Parliament declared that he will also visit Tehran and Riyadh to address regional issues with the hopes of bringing Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the table for discussions. While MP Abdul Salam al-Maliki expresses hopes for the visit, he also makes clear that he and State of Law see the trip as "vague" and not promising. We'll note the topic of oil -- the root of the war -- and the current struggle for control of it in Iraq. Forbes reported this morning that oil giant Chevron is demonstrating interest in oil exploration in the KRG. This comes on the heels of Exxon's deal with the KRG over the developing the West Qurna oil field last week which outraged the centeral-government out of Baghdad. Chevron would be the second oil giant dealing with the KRG and the Forbes article notes rumors that Italy's Eni may also be in talks with the KRG. Meanwhile Reuters reports that the Baghdad government is attempting to cancel the Exxon contract. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) quotes the (Iraq) Ministry of Oil's director of contracts, Abdul-Mahdy al-Ameedi, stating, "Exxon has violated the ministry directions and instructions concerning the companies working in Kurdistan. It's a violation of the contract and th e law. As a consequence the oil ministry will take steps to end the contract." Due to the lack of coverage on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, that was our emphasis again today. And we'll probably make a third of tomorrow's snapshot the hearing as we wrap up on it (tomorrow's emphasis will be on Camp Ashraf, Iraqi Christians and drones -- and I'm surprised those sections of the hearing weren't picked up on). Things are going on in Iraq, I know. And we cover some of it in the morning entries. But this hearing is important and we have to focus on it -- all the more so since so few actually want to take the time to cover it accurately. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office Wednesday, November 16, 2011 (202) 224-2834 VETERANS: Chairman Murray Urges VA to Take Immediate Steps in Addressing Disability Claims Backlog (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray sent a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki about the critical need to improve the efficiency of the claims processing system by eliminating unnecessary tests and procedures that are contributing to the claims backlog at the Department. "I have heard time and time again from veterans who are frustrated with having to wait months, years and even decades for resolution of their claims and appeals," said Chairman Murray. "I am writing to bring to your attention a practice that may not be medically supported and may be unnecessarily delaying the processing of some claims." Chairman Murray was alerted to this issue after a number of "errors" were identified at the Seattle Regional Office during an Inspector General review. She shares veterans' frustrations with the disability claims system and continues to take targeted action to address the backlog and to improve the timeliness and accuracy of claims decisions. The full text of Chairman Murray's letter is below: The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki Secretary of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Dear Secretary Shinseki: The disability claims system is under enormous pressure as the number and complexity of claims continue to increase. I have heard time and time again from veterans who are frustrated with having to wait months, years and even decades for resolution of their claims and appeals. I am writing to bring to your attention a practice that may not be medically supported and may be unnecessarily delaying the processing of some claims. I request that you put an end to this practice, if there is no strong medical basis for it. This issue was brought to my attention by a number of "errors" identified at the Seattle Regional Office during a recent Inspector General review. In some disability cases, veterans exhibit "overlapping symptoms" meaning they have symptoms that may be attributable to more than one claimed disability. Currently, medical providers are being asked whether they can differentiate what portion of the symptom is caused by each diagnosis and to provide an opinion as to which overlapping symptom is attributable to each disability. In cases where a medical provider fails to address this question, regional offices are required to return examinations to the provider delaying a final decision on the claim. The "errors" identified in Seattle were the result of a failure to return examination reports that did not address this question. Based on staff discussions with VA physicians, it appears that a medical provider cannot scientifically, with a high degree of certainty, attribute an overlapping symptom to one disability or another. If a provider cannot say with a level of certainty greater than fifty percent that a particular symptom is due to only one of the overlapping symptoms, it calls into question the practice of asking a medical professional to answer this question. I hope you would agree that if procedures are being used that are not necessary for the proper resolution of the claim they should be eliminated. Returning an examination for failure to address a question that is not supported by medical science delays the final resolution of a claim and unnecessarily contributes to the claims backlog. I am therefore requesting that you ask the Veterans Health Administration and VA's General Counsel to answer the two questions attached to this letter. Thank you for your service to our nation's veterans and your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Patty Murray Chairman ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray iraq the new york times elisabeth bumiller al mada the los angeles times al rafidayn cnn charley keyes forbes al mada al sabaah hossam acommok

Who wanted what?

Today was the Senate Armed Services Committee and what I learned repeatedly was that no matter what was actual news, reporters would run with the trivial. It's as if they work overtime to uninform us.

For example, you may have read or heard some reports about John McCain and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta being cross with one another. You really weren't told what it was about, of course.

Senator John McCain: When did we come up with the number of uh troops that we wanted to remain in Iraq? Do you know when that final decision was made as to exact numbers that we wanted?

General Martin Dempsey: Uh, it to my knowledge the process started in Augustof [20]10 and, as you know, there was a series of possibilities or options that started at about 16,000 and ended up with about 10 and then migrated to 3 and then we ended up with [cross talk] --

Senator John McCain: Do you know when the final decision on numbers was reached?

General Martin Dempsey: Well the final decision of focusing on the Office of Security Cooperation was based on a conversation between our president and president Maliki [C.I. note: Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq. He is not the president. Jalal Talabani holds the ceremonial post of president] prior to that, I don't know.

Senator John McCain: The reason I thnk you don't know because there never was an exact number and missions articulated by our government which would have been a concrete proposal for the Iraqi government. So to say that the Iraqi government didn't want us when they didn't know the number and missions that we wanted as a residual force makes it understandable why we didn't reach an understanding with them. And, as you mentioned, it cascaded down from 20,000 to the ridiculously low number of 3. So, Secretary Panetta, we're now going to have a residual presence in Iraq of 16,000 American Embassy personnel and workers, isn't that correct.

Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe with contractors, that's correct.

Senator John McCain: And how are we planning on ensuring the security of 16,000 Americans?

Secretary Leon Panetta: A lot of those 16,000 Americans are security people.

Senator John McCain: So we will now be using civilian contractors to protect and maintain the security of the State Department personnel. The largest embassy personnel in the world. Is that correct?

Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct.

Senator John McCain: And the comparative cost of a contractor versus a military individual is dramatically different. Cost of a contract personnel is dramatically higher than the cost of an ordinary service member, correct?

Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe you are correct --

Senator John McCain: So in these times --

Secretary Leon Panetta: -- and I can give you an accurate answer later.

Senator John McCain: -- I think, so in these times of fiscal austerity, we withdraw our troops and hire a bunch of contractors who either rightly or wrongly do not have a good reputation as opposed to the uniformed military in order to secure the safety of some thousands, X thousands of -- certain thousands who are there for security and some thousands of the 16,000 who are there are divided up that way.

Secretay Leon Panetta: Senator McCain, if I could, just for the record --

Senator John McCain: Sure.

Secretary Leon Panetta: When I -- actually as the Director of the CIA -- talked with Prime Minister Maliki regarding this issue and then when I became Secretary of Defense had a number of conversations with him as well in which I made very clear, along with General [Lloyd] Austin and Ambassador [James] Jeffrey, that it was extremely important that we needed to have a SOFA agreement, that we needed to have immunities for our troops, that we needed to have that protection, and, uh, he believed that there was possibly a way to do this that did not involve having to go to the Parliament, to their Council for approval and it was very clear among all the attorneys herre that we absolutely had to have their approval through their Parliament if we were going to have a SOFA agreement that provided the kind of immunities we needed. I can't tell you how many times we made that clear. I believe the Prime Minister understood that. And it was at that point where he basically said, 'I can't deliver it, I can't get it through the Parliament,' that we were then left with the decisions that were made.

Senator John McCain: Well you know again -- That -- Then we should be having to withdraw our troops from those countries where we have a presence that we don't have it going through the parliament, that it's done through sovereign immunity. And the fact is the president was presented with options -- either a Declaration of Sovereign Immunity made by the government as was the case with other countries which the Iraqis may have been willing to do and the other option of demanding it go through the Parliament. So I guess now that we should withdraw those troops from countries that we do not have a Parliamentary approval. So, look, the fact is that if we had given the Iraqis the number and the mission that we wanted long ago, if we had done what Condaleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, has said, "Everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force. There was an expectation we would negotiate something with residual force." We met with Barzani and Maliki and they were ready to move forward. And the fact is that they were not given the number and mission that residual United States troops would be there for. As General Dempsy just mentioned, it cascaded down. It cascaded down over months, Mr. Secretary, from 20,000, to 15,000, to 13,000, to 10,000, to 5,000 and each time there was a different number given for the Iraqi consideration and it would be hard for me to uh -- And that's what they told us. Maybe they weren't telling us the truth, Mr. Secretary, but we have a relationship with them that goes back many, many years. And they've always told us the truth and the truth is that this administration was committed to the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and they made it happen.

Secretary Leon Panetta: Senator-Senator McCain, That's simply not true. I guess you can believe that and I respect --

Senator John McCain: And I respect your opinion, but the outcome --

Secretary Leon Panetta: -- but that's not true

Senator John McCain: -- has been exactly as predicted.

Secretary Leon Panetta: But that's not -- that's not how it happened --

Senator John McCain: It is how it happened, I was there.

Secretary Leon Panetta: This is about negotiating -- this is about negotiating with a sovereign country, an independent country. This was about their needs. This was not about us telling them what we're going to do for them or what they need to do, this is about --

Senator John McCain: It's about our needs as well.

Secretary Leon Panetta: This is about their country making a decision as to what is necessary here.

[Crosstalk.]

Secretary Leon Panetta: In addition to that, once they made the decision that they were not going to provide any immunities, for any level of force that we would have there -- And this is a lot different than other countries, frankly, Senator, this is a country where you could very well be engaging in combat operations. If you're going to engage in those kind of operations, you're goin to engage in combat operations, you're going to engage in CT operations, you need to have immunities. And those immunities have to be negotiated by a SOFA aggreement. I was not about to have our troops in place without those immunities.

Senator John McCain: They were willing. They were ready to get it through the Parliament and for months we did not give them the numbers and the mission that was needed in order for us to remain there. And again, your version of history and mine are very different but the way it has turned out is the way that, unfortunately, many of us predicted that it would. And in the view of every military expert that I know, we are now at greater risk than if we had a residual force there. And by the way, I understand the American people's approval of withdrawing from Iraq. I would imagine they would probably approve if we withdraw from Korea. And that's because we haven't made the case for what's at stake here and what the consequences of our failure are. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Later in the questioning, Senator Lindsey Graham would get his turn. He would pursue the same topics as McCain and make a point to ask what was the Kurds position on US troops remaining in Iraq?

Panetta admitted that they wanted US troops in Iraq.

Okay, what about the Sunnis?

Panetta admitted that they wanted US troops in Iraq as well.

And Graham knew Nouri had because he and McCain had spoken to Nouri about it on a trip there earlier this yea.

Graham couldn't understand how having those three focal points didn't result in a deal.


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

Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Panetta tells Congress negotiaions continue with Iraq, NPR reports on a man accused of killing 5 US soldiers -- but forgets to name the 5 US soldiers -- and more. Here's what the news media isn't telling you because apparently they'd rather be a bunch of guttersnipe gossips. Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq. General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about. Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct? Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct. Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis? Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street. That's from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Can everyone follow that or do we need to prepare flash cards? I grasp that the cess pool of today's 'reporters' -- 'artistes' -- can't tell you the truth. They can't do it because the press is lazy and when they all agree to a narrative, it is hell to get them to ever change it. A bunch of lazy asses and dumb asses in the Mainstream Media decided Barack was withdrawing all US troops from Iraq and bringing them home. Based on? Their own reporting? Hell no. Lazy bastards take stenography, they don't report. Since before that speech, we were explaining there were many options to continuing the war. Since that speech, we've repeatedly explained that negotations did not end, that they were ongoing. But day after day, your MSM wants to tell you that it's over and that blah, blah, blah and 3 out of 4 approve of Barack's plan. What the hell is Barack's plan? It's what he told Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny he planned to do with Iraq -- what he told them in 2008. And back then, we were the only ones to catch it because idiots like Tom Hayden went by the report Gordo and Jeffy did as opposed to the partial transcript that the Times published online. Martha and Shirley tell me that a record number of e-mails came into the public account today from visitors full of apologies for all the nasty things they said about me being a liar and who knows what else. Let me be clear, not only do I not read the bulk of the e-mails to the public account (I try to read as many e-mails as I can from community members to the two private e-mail accounts), it doesn't matter if I do. An insult from a stranger? I don't really care. I'm not that touchy. It's not necessary to me -- and never has been -- to be universally loved. I can actually operate more effectively when I'm up against the opposite emotional spectrum. Nasty e-mails calling me a liar and worse to the public account didn't force me to write, "Negotiations aren't going on! I was wrong! Forgive me! It really is all over!" I could care less. And I've always been aware that when you're dealing with big topics, reactions really aren't about you. So I don't know why visitors are writing the public e-mail account now to apologize. Presumably, you share my outrage over the inability of our press -- we're dealing with Big Media right now -- to tell the damn truth. If indeed that is the case, you need to use that time e-mailing the David S. Clouds (whom Martha and Shirley say you're praising for his report -- read it again and ask yourself why you're praising him for his single-sentence sixth paragraph when that should have been his lede), e-mailing CBS News about their dumb ass survey, etc. You need to be e-mailing and ask them why they are deliberately -- DELIBERATELY -- skewing reality and refusing to inform the American people of what is taking place. I know what's taking place because I have friends in the Congress and friends in the administration and what the MSM press keeps 'reporting' is not what is taking place. If you need forgiveness from me, "I forgive you." Blanket forgiveness, let's move on. Now stop writing the public account to apologize and use that time instead to demand that Big Media tell the damn truth. Look at the SOFA. In today's hearing, over and over, you heard how this official and that official and this and that senator expected -- this is back in 2008 -- that in 2011 it would be extended or replaced. We have that in our archives. The day the White House published the SOFA -- despite it being Thanksgiving -- I went through every bit of it and we shared an analysis here that stands up to this day. The inability of the MSM to get that story right should have led to a huge outcry. But from whom? Panhandle Media? When's the last time Left Media did a damn thing besides beg you for money? And did you not hear that garbage on Antiwar Radio this week with the guy The Nation pays? Or how about the garbage before that with Gareth and Scott? And Scott Horton is right-wing media. If Antiwar Radio won't bother with the truth why the hell would we expect The Progressive, The Nation and the other get-out-the-vote for Barack Obama organs to tell the truth? We live in a sick and disgusting time when it comes to media. Across the board, they have failed us. They have done so repeatedly. Today, when the MSM -- Big Media -- could be correcting the false narrative they broadcast to the American people, they instead focus on the trivia. The news from the hearing is that negotiations go on -- and it's not just that exchange quoted at the top. We can cite other exchanges in the hearing as well. But instead of focusing on that actual news, instead of delivering reality to Americans -- who, point of fact, need to be informed if we're going to have a functioning democracy -- the 'artiste' David S. Clouds want you to know John McCain got testy today. News -- that which is new, novel or effects lives. I'm having a hard time figuring out how John McCain being testy in a committee hearing meets the definition of news. It really doesn't effect our lives. And it's not new or novel to anyone who's attended a hearing he's been present for in the last years. He didn't even have the best moment in what I guess the 'reporters' are calling "Testy Theater." The best moment came when Leon whined -- the most nasally whine, as if he were channeling Jerry Lewis -- and was stopped by a senator. Ava will cover that at Trina's tonight because she covers that senator (and, no, it's not John McCain). The big news was that negotiations continue and will continue. That is big news because it effects lives. It is big news because it is both "new" and "novel" as a result of the press failure to report that this was taking place. But you won't get that. You won't be informed of that. Not as long as you continue to accept this garbage from All Things Media Big and Small. Let's stay with McCain for a moment. As noted before, I don't care for him. (As noted before, I know Cindy McCain and she's a very nice person.) Here's what really news with regards to him. John McCain was right. John McCain was attacked by partisan bloggers from the left. Republican who repeated his comments were trashed from the same group. (Not all left bloggers are partisan bloggers. And if you're late to the party, I'm a Democrat. And way further left than probably most people are.) You had Huffington Posts and other outlets attacking them, calling them crazy. Remember? For what? For making the assertion that US military commanders were opposed to all US troops leaving Iraq. John McCain was right. I guess playing Rona Barrett and going all dishy with "John gave Leon a look and Leon got mad and you know he just was so not going to take that but you will absolutely not believe what they said to each other then!" tires our MSM out so very much that they can't report reality. (Or, hell, maybe it's part of the continued effort to push Barack over the line -- you know that benchmark that he never met as a candidate or since as a president?) When Vet Votes' lil' expert showed up at Huffington Post, we didn't play that game. It didn't matter the right was being attacked so, if we want to be good leftists, we go along or be silent. No, that's not the game we play. We'll play the truth game instead, thank you very much. And we called out that nonsense repeatedly, check the October 27th snapshot for one example. In today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, John McCain (Ranking Member on the Committee) established, in his first round of questions, that US military commanders were not on board with what the press has presented the US is doing in Iraq (pulling all troops). Furthermore, in the second round, Senator Lindsey Graham would establish that this was true of Iraqi military commanders as well. Neither US nor Iraqi were calling for zero forces, both felt that US troops needed to remain in Iraq. From McCain's first round of questioning, here's one portion of that. Senator John McCain: Since you brought up regrettably, General Dempsey, 2003 and 2004. The fact is that you did not support the surge and said that it would fail. Secretary Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group which recommended withdrawal from Iraq and opposed the surge. And so we're all responsible for the judgments that we make and obviously that effects the crediblity of the judgments that we make now on Iraq. I regret that you had to bring that up, General Dempsey. The fact is that there were some of us who were over there in those years you talked about, in fact, maybe even had other members of their family there and saw that it was failing and that we needed to have the surge and the surge succeeded. And the fact is that we could have given sovereign immunity as we have in other countries to keep our troops there and give them the immunity that they needed. We have other agreements with other countries that guarantee sovereign immunity. The fact is, that every military leader recommended that we have residual forces at minimum of 10,000 and usually around 20,000. That was the recommendations made before this committee by General [Ray] Odierno, recommendations made by General [David] Petraeus, recommendations made by even lower ranking military who had spent, as you mentioned a great amount of time there and did not want to see that service and sacrifice all wasted away because of our inability and lack of desire to reach an agreement with Iraqis. As I said in my opening statement, Iraqis are largely responsible as well. But the fact is that when Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham and I were there the Iraqis were ready to deal. And what was the administration's response? They didn't have a number last May as to our residual force in Iraq. So as things happen in that country, things fell apart. Now can you tell the Committee, General Dempsey, if there was any military commander who recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, no, Senator. None of us recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq. Senator John McCain: When did we come up with the number of uh troops that we wanted to remain in Iraq? Do you know when that final decision was made as to exact numbers that we wanted? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, it to my knowledge the process started in Augustof [20]10 and, as you know, there was a series of possibilities or options that started at about 16,000 and ended up with about 10[000] and then migrated to 3[000] and then we ended up with [cross talk] -- Senator John McCain: Do you know when the final decision on numbers was reached? General Martin Dempsey: Well the final decision of focusing on the Office of Security Cooperation was based on a conversation between our president and president Maliki. [C.I. note: Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq. He is not the president. Jalal Talabani holds the ceremonial post of president.] Prior to that, I don't know. Senator John McCain: The reason I thnk you don't know because there never was an exact number and missions articulated by our government which would have been a concrete proposal for the Iraqi government. So to say that the Iraqi government didn't want us when they didn't know the number and missions that we wanted as a residual force makes it understandable why we didn't reach an understanding with them. And, as you mentioned, it cascaded down from 20,000 to the ridiculously low number of 3. So, Secretary Panetta, we're now going to have a residual presence in Iraq of 16,000 American Embassy personnel and workers, isn't that correct. If we'd mocked John McCain for his claim, it really would be incumbent upon us to present the above. We didn't mock him. But we include the above -- some of which I disagree strongly with -- because we do care what is true and what is false. McCain -- and GOP presidential nominee wanna-bes like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney -- were correct when they stated that the military leaders did not agree that there should be no US military presence in Iraq. I believe there should be no military presence at all and no huge embassy presences. I can and have argued that position and done so without lying about John McCain or any other idealogical opponent. A lot of people tell pretty lies. It's very good if you want to fit in with the circle-jerk. But if you're looking for reality, it's of no use. You laugh, he said, you think you're immune Go look at your eyes they're full of moon You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you All those pretty lies pretty lies When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies Only pretty lies Just pretty lies -- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album Blue Wally's covering the hearing at Rebecca's site tonight and will note the cost issue. Kat will offer some general impressions of the hearing at her site tonight. We'll be covering the hearing tomorrow -- barring some major Iraq news breaking -- because there were many topics noted in the hearing's first panel that we address here frequently. We may or may not cover the second panel. (The first panel was composed of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsy.) Turning to today's violence in Iraq. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, a Qaiyara asault claimed the life of 1 doctor and, dropping back to Sunday night, 1 man was shot dead outside his Jbela home. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three people injured. AP reported this morning that the US military has announced another death in Iraq, this one taking place yesterday "while conducting military operations in central Iraq." AFP quotes an unnamed US military spokesperson stating, "It was a hostile incident." Sean Ferguson whose death made yesterday's news cycle. KSEE 24 News reports the decorated Iraq War veteran was back in Iraq as a contractor for the State Dept and they quote Ralph Jordan speaking on behalf of the fallen's family, "A 29-year-old man whose life has really been unselfishly given. . . . I'm a direct beneficiary of that, everyone is." KFSN (link has text and video) notes, "A memorial service for Army Sergeant Sean Ferguson will be held at the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints on Saturday morning. Friends and family say Ferguson was passionate about his service and fighting for freedom." Meanwhile Carrie Johnson does a bad report for NPR on today's Morning Edition. The US military is holding Ali Mussa Daqduq. Are they going to release him? Are they going to try him in the Iraqi courts? Are they going to try him in a military court? Will they bring him to the US and try him in a civilian court? Johnson notes that Senator Lindsey Graham is among those saying a US civilian trial would be a mistake. Where the report falters is in actual details. He was not, as Johnson states, captured five years ago. It will be five years next March. To say he's accused of the deaths of 5 US soldiers is really kind of tacky. Who are the five? Why aren't you naming them? Here's the US military's release on the January 20, 2007 attack that they are saying Ali Mussa Daqduq is responsible for: Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. So that's what the military said in real time. It's a real shame that an NPR report can't add a thing to it all these years later. For example, the accused is apparently the last of those alleged to be responsible for the attack to still be held. Barack Obama released the ringleader. Were I the defense counsel, I would certainly think that was pertinent and belonged in a so-called news report. The five dead also have names. That's pretty pertinent as well. It's shameful that NPR did a report on an attack and couldn't take the time to name the five killed. The US military -- above -- couldn't because the families hadn't all been notified on January 21, 2007. What's NPR's excuse today? We'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot for names of the five US soldiers killed while serving in Iraq and for Barack's decision to release others who are alleged to have taken part in the attack: This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it." While it's no surprise that NPR wouldn't want to address the deal the White House made, it's shocking that they would also work to render the five dead invisible. If you're talking about someone who is alleged to have killed 5 Americans in Iraq, you name the five Americans. iraq the associated press ksee 24 news npr morning edition carrie johnson the los angeles times david s. cloud reuters aswat al-iraq

Grading Ben

Above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Occupy" from last night. If you missed the real story, a singer sang about Occupy (lyrics are real in the cartoon) and it just sailed right over Barack's head. It's as though we live in an alternate universe where Dan Quayle finally became president.

Ben Smith's blogging continues. His most interesting story today is on firings:

It was a dizzying day at Tina Brown’s Newsweek/The Daily Beast.

The publisher was let go and the managing editor and executive editor resigned – signs of both how hard it has been for the money-losing magazine and website to turn things around, and how challenging it can be to work in the shadow of publishing’s most famous, and often fickle, editor.

My critique above?

Tina Brown rescued Vanity Fair. She then went on to do damage at The New Yorker. My point is most people will assume that Tina is the publisher and was let go. They're referring to the Newsweek publisher and he was let go.

Grade for Ben: A-.

As for Newsweek, I never cry when any of those creeps are sent walking. Newsweek disgraced itself in 2008 and I don't know if even Tina Brown can restore its reputation.

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

Monday, November 14, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, an Iraq War veteran serving in Iraq as a contractor dies, the US gives Turkey drones, mercenaries needed for Iraqi skies. the State Dept continues to believe it doesn't have to explain to the American people how it spends their money, and more. Is this the moment America begins to start tracking the death of US contractors in Iraq? Lewis Griswold (Fresno Bee) reports, "Sean Ferguson of Visalia, who earned two Purple Hearts for his military service in Iraq, died there Saturday of natural causes, a friend of his family said today. Ferguson, 29, is the son of Tulare County Superior Court Judge Darryl Ferguson." KMPH notes, "He joined the U.S. Army in August 2001 and retired eight years later as a Staff Sergeant after he was hurt in combat. He returned to Baghdad to work for Triple Canopy, a private contractor that provides security and mission support services to government agencies and other organizations. [. . .] A memorial service will be held at the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints chapel located at the corner of Caldwell Ave. and Chinowth St. in Visalia on Saturday, November 19, at 10 a.m." Lemor Abrams (KMPH) offers a video report here. 1st Lt Dustin Vincent was the most recent US military fatality in the Iraq War. Amber Fischer (The 33 News, CW33) reported Saturday evening that the 25-year-old had been laid to rest earlier that day at Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery and she quoted his friend Jared Griggs stating, "He and I talked a lot. He's part of the reason I joined the army myself. You couldn't be mad, you couldn't be sad around Dustin. You couldn't even really be serious around Dustin. There was only two things that he was really serious about, and that was the Lord and serving his country." Vallari Gupte (University of Texas at Arlington's Shorthorn) noted: Vincent, who graduated from UTA in 2009, was from Mesquite. Vincent, a 1st Lieutenant, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery of the 1st Infantry Division in Fort Riley, Kan. Vincent leaves behind a wife and daughter. Kinesiology senior Christopher Harris was a freshman when he met Vincent in UTA's ROTC program. Harris was a cadet and Vincent was an officer of that year's battalion. "He was my leader," Harris said. "He would teach me some stuff and I would learn." When Harris learned about Vincent's death, he grieved. "It is hard to feel anything else right now. Just grief," he said. Cynthia Vega and Steve Stoler (WFAA -- link has text and video) report that Dustin Vincent was on his first deployment to Iraq and "just six months into his deployment when the enemy threw a deadly grenade at his convoy." Yesterday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) reported that 3 soldiers serving with Dustin Vincent testified in an Iraqi court Sunday: The November 3 shooting of 1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent -- one of the last U.S. casualties in the more-than-eight-year Iraq war -- was chronicled by insurgents who captured the sniper shooting on video and posted it online. Inside a crowded courthouse, one of the soldiers who were with the 25-year-old Vincent the day he was killed told the investigative judge that a "few days later a video was posted that claimed the killing of the 1st lieutenant, and it shows the same location we were that day." In other news, Al Mada reports that US President Barack Obama is saying the Iraq War is "about over" and that the US government is down playing the concerns of the Sadr bloc over the decision to use Kuwait as a staging platform for US forces. This will be in addition to the forces under the US State Dept's control. Spencer Ackerman (Wired) reports: The State Department has already requisitioned an army, part of the roughly 5,000 private security contractors State is hiring to protect diplomats stationed in Iraq. Now, State is hiring someone to provide a little help from the air: an "Aviation Advisor" responsible for "Search and Rescue (SAR), medical evacuations (ME), transporting Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) to respond to incidents, and provid[ing] air transportation for Chief of Mission personnel." It's not a familiar job for the diplomatic corps, which is why State is seeking to bring in someone from the outside. The State Department put out this notice on Nov. 4. That's 58 days before the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Fifty-eight days before State has the skies over Iraq to itself. In related news, Dylan Welch (Sydney Morning Herald) reports the Australian government is surprised that security costs for their embassies and staff in Iraq and Afghanistan "has quadrupled in less than 12 months to almost $40 million a year" and they are now "paying two private security companies a total of $82 million for the two years to 2012." How is it related? Cost overruns happen very frequently. Presumably the Australian government properly budgeted for their mission and unexpected details led to such a huge increase. In the US, please remember, that the State Dept refuses to share concrete information with the Congress or with the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction or with the Government Accountability Office. In fact, the GAO's last report on the State Dept's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan was entitled what? [PDF format warning] "Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot Fully Account for Contracts, Assistance, Instruments, and Associated Personnel." So if the US cost overruns mirror those of Australia, who's going to be held responsible? The White House? Don't make me laugh. And their fall guy will be gone because Hillary Clinton has stated she is a one-term Secretary of State. So the US tax payers will be screwed and who's going to be held accountable? And it's time to get very real about something. The Senator Al Frankens with their "thank you for your service"? It's past time they greeted every tax payer with, "Thank you for your dollars." This country has gone into debt for an illegal war and not only do we see the debt today but future generations will as well. And clearly Congress doesn't give a damn since they refuse to scream bloody murder over the State Dept requesting money for Iraq (and Afghanistan) and being unable and unwilling to provide an accounting of how that money will be spent. Last June, Peter Van Buren wrote a piece for Le Monde in which he noted: In its post-"withdrawal" plans, the State Department expects to have 17,000 personnel in Iraq at some 15 sites. If those plans go as expected, 5,500 of them will be mercenaries, hired to shoot-to-kill Iraqis as needed, to maintain security. Of the remaining 11,500, most will be in support roles of one sort or another, with only a couple of hundred in traditional diplomatic jobs. This is not unusual in wartime situations. The military, for example, typically fields about seen support soldiers for every "shooter." In other words, the occupation run by a heavily militarized State Department will simply continue in a new, truncated form -- unless Congress refuses to pay for it. Unless Congress refuses to pay for it? At present, that seems highly unlikely. PeterR.S. Kalha explores the realities of the relationship between the governments of Iraq and the US in "Is America Finally Withdrawing From Iraq? -- Analysis" (Eurasia Review): Having spent at least about US$ 3 trillion, taken thousands as casualties both dead and wounded, the Americans are not going to give up that easily. The Shiite Iraqi PM Nourie al-Maliki is slated to visit the White House on December 12, 2011, just a few days before the deadline runs out. If he changes his mind and signs the status of forces agreement with the US, it will certainly not be out of character and in tune with the Iraqi political temperament. Nevertheless, the Americans are not taking any chances and have already made alternative plans. The US Embassy in Baghdad is going to be strengthened and will have about 17,000 personnel on its rolls. Situated in the 'Green Zone' on a 104 acre plot with its own electricity, water and sewage, it is one of the most expensive and largest US Embassies in the world and its entire requirements are supplied from Kuwait under armed guard. US Consulates exist in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each about 1,000 strong with its own security personnel. The US Embassy also has an 'Office for Security Co-operation' under which will come all US army trainers, private contractors and assorted military personnel -- all under the cover of diplomatic immunity. Presently about $ 10 billion worth of arms deals are under negotiations. Once the negotiations are completed, additional US military personnel will arrive to train and 'co-ordinate' with their Iraqi counterparts. These large numbers of 'trainers' will also be under US Embassy cover. Presently the Iraqi air force is non-existent. This means that the air space over Iraq will be controlled by the US for the foreseeable future. The US will continue to fly drones over Iraq targeting any potential enemy. It also means that the US can reinforce its residual troops under the 'cover' of the US Embassy as and when it is required without any serious hindrance. It also means that the Shiite-led Iraqi government cannot move its troops without US concurrence since they would have no air cover. And to make it absolutely certain that matters do not go out of hand, the present day Iraqi forces are commanded by a Kurdish officer General Zebari. The Americans have made an assessment and quite rightly so that of the three communities in Iraq, the Kurds will remain the most loyal. In any case the Kurdish dominated areas of Iraq are outside the political control of the Iraqi government and even the Kirkuk question remains unresolved. Thus President Obama has very skilfully reaped the political benefits of ordering a 'technical' withdrawal and ending the US mission there, whilst not only retaining the substance of the US posture and presence but immeasurably strengthening it. Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq notes, "The Legislature of the so-called White al-Iraqiya Bloc in the Iraqi Parliament, Aliya Nuseif, has demanded the Iraqi government to carry out a complete account for security contractors, in charge of protecting the American Embassy in Baghdad." And we're back to Peter Van Buren who, at his blog, notes the move and asks, his voice dripping with sarcasm, "So really, what are 16,000 people going to do everyday in Iraq on behalf of the US government?" Peter Van Buren is the author of the new book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project). Bob Kustra (Idaho Statesman) reviews the book and notes, "Van Buren has served with the Foreign Service for more than 23 years. Before arriving in Baghdad, his response was not new to him, but war was. [. . .] There are few bright spots in this painful and gripping story of mismanagement. The first account of our blunders from a State Department inisder, 'We Meant Well' is thought-provoking and hard to put down." Also reviewing the book is Dan Simpson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) who concludes, "The book is short, very readable and has humor as well as profound points in it." In other news, Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports General Babker Zebari, Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Joint Forces, headed an Iraqi delegation to Tehran where they met " with the commander of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Forces Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour." The Tehran Times adds, "In a meeting in Tehran on Sunday, Iraqi Chief of Staff General Babakr Zibari and IRGC Ground Forces Commander Mohammad Pakpour stressed the need for closer ties between Tehran and Baghdad. Commander Pakpour, who hosted General Zibari and his accompanying delegation, hoped the trip will help strengthen bilateral ties. Pakpur said the Iraqi people have endured many problems and difficulties over the past ten years, however, a gradual withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq has created an opportunity in which Iraqi people and officials can directly govern their country." Fars News Agency continues: The general expressed the hope that Iraq and its armed forces could gain increasing success after the end of the 8-year-long occupation which he described as a hard and cumbersome era for the Iraqis. The IRGC Ground Force commander further noted the profound political and cultural commonalities of Iran and Iraq as two Muslim and friendly neighboring nations, and stressed, "We hope that the existing commonalities pave the ground for cooperation, coordination and expansion of all-out relations." There is (and has been) alarm and concern by some US officials (military and civilian) over what happens between Iran and Iraq? David S. Cloud's piece for the Los Angeles Times is part of that: In Iraq and other trouble spots, Iran is handing out money and weapons, often in secret, in an effort to expand its clout and stay ahead of the political changes sweeping the region since the start of the "Arab Spring," U.S. officials say. The Islamic Republic still faces severe challenges, however. If opposition forces in Syria manage to topple President Bashar Assad, Iran could lose its closest ally in the region. It's cute the way Cloud rushes to draw a line between the Pentagon and the White House. Cloud's missed all of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about Iran? No one knows what will happen. If there's concern on the part of the White House (and their comments last week indicate there is), then they shouldn't have backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term (which meant they overruled Iraqi voters when they did). Setting Nouri aside, the others involved wouldn't necessarily rush to embrace a partnership with Iran that was more of a partnership than what they have with their other neighbors. There's some concern in the administration over clerics. That's a possibility. But so are turf wars. An Iraqi cleric embracing Tehran is one reducing their own sphere of influence. CNN's Wolf Blitzer is among those convinced Iran's getting a boost in Iraq. He notes that 18 countries recently voted to put Syria on suspension from the Arab League but that Iraq didn't vote: Despite the enormous sacrifie of U.S. blood and treasure, in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, the Shiite-led government in Baghdad din't have the guts to stand with the overwhelming majority in the Arab world and side against the Damascucs regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Iraqi government is still apparently most concerned about overly upsetting its friends in Iraq, which has strongly sided with the Syrian government. He may be right. I may be wrong. Some fear a war with Iran is in the making. It's a good time to look at the weak ass. George McGovern's a sad man who will never live down 2008 which only brought forth the scars of sexism regarding his campaign in Miami back in 1972. Now our 'antiwar voice' can be found saying what? Kristi Eaton (AP) reports he declared today that the US should think twice about going-it-alone on Iran and needs to instead build international support. For those who don't remeber, that's the actual garbage George McGovern offered ahead of the Iraq. War. He's always loved to strut and pose and pretend. But you don't have to take my word for it or check the archives. Eaton quotes McGovern explaining, "We invaded Iraq with very little support in the rest of the world." Yes, that was his 'anti-war' stand. As it is today. For those who can't get it, NO WAR ON IRAN! is an anti-war statement. "Hey everybody, let's build a coalition for war!" is not an anti-war statement. On the move towards war on Iran, here's Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com): The War Party is bound and determined to drag us, kicking and screaming, into a military conflict with Iran -- and they have constructed a vast network of agents inside both parties, and inside the government, to accomplish exactly that. The nexus of this network is the government of Israel and its intelligence services, which is coordinating an increasingly frantic campaign to bring the Iran issue to a head. From all indications, it appears as if the goal is to ignite the conflict before the 2012 presidential elections. Back to Iraq, AFP reports John Kirby declared at the Pentagon today that the US was deploying some of the predator drones in Iraq to Turkey to give "support to the Turkish military to deal with the specific threat posed by the PKK on their southern border." Reuters adds that the program "involves four US predator unmanned aircraft". Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) observes, "Moving them to Turkey could strengthen the diplomatic alliance with the United States, but it also risks putting the United States in the middle of a regional conflict between Turkey and Iraq, two putative allies. Pentagon officials declined to say whether the four Predator drones being flown out of Incirlik Air Base, a joint U.S. - Turkish military installation, would be allowed to cross into Iraqi air space." And how is Iraq going to feel knowing Turkey has a spy view on them? Not the US which is bad enough. But Turkey's a neighbor. There's really no chance Turkey won't use the drones to their own advantage? John Reed (Military.com News) adds, "In what could be an effort to head off the popular discontent seen in other countries that have hosted U.S. drones, Davotugu claimed that the American UAV missions would be overseen by the Turkish military." In Iraq yesterday, northern Iraq was again attacked by the Turkish military. Reuters reports that the PKK's spokesperson Dozdar Hamo stated the bombing lasted for about an hour. Since August 17th, the latest waves of attacks have been taking place. The back and forth between the PKK and the Turkish government has been going on forever and, in fact, the Turkish government's oppression of the Kurdish minority in Turkey bred and spawned the PKK. The issue of Turkey's military attacks was raised last when Amar C. Bakshi (CNN -- link has text and video) interviewed KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih: Amar C. Bakshi: Let's switch gears to Turkey -- an important regional neighbor that over the past few months has intervened in northern Iraq to go after Kurdish nationalist forces who have used terror to kill Turkish soldiers, numerous civilians. Now is the Kurdistan Regional Government cooperating with Turkey in its interventions into northern Iraq? Prime Minister Barham Salih: These issues cannot be solved by military means, these issues cannot be solved by violence. There has to be a political track. This initiative that the Turkish government has started, the democratization process, needs to be enhanced, deepened, in order to ensure that this long-standing conflict is resolved in a different way. Today AFP reports, "Iraq's top Kurdish leaders are mediating between Turkey and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) separatists with bases in northern Iraq to bring their conflict to an end, an official said. Iraq's president Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Kurdistan regional president Massoud Barzani 'Are leading mediation efforts between the Turkish government and the PKK, to end the battles in the border area between Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan,' said a spokesperson for Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan." Lale Kemal (Today's Zaman) stateswonders , "Turkey is understood to have warned Barzani that 'if the PKK continues its violent attacks, your region [northern Iraq] will also be affected,' and asked him to tell the number two of the separatist organization that it should declare a ceasefire and ask its terrorists to lay down their arms." Meanwhile Al Rafidayn notes the continued disputes over Exxon's contract with the KRG and how the government out of Baghdad remains upset over it. Hurriyet Daily News adds, "The regional administration in northern Iraq is urging the country's central government for a quick resolution to the dispute over rights to natural resources, the nation's biggest wealth source, as it insists on implementing deals undersigned earlier. The regional administration confirmed yesterday it had already signed a long-debated deal with U.S.-based oil major Exxon Mobil on Oct. 18 for six exploration blocks within its area of control." Reuters adds, "Iraq's central government, which has long-running disputes with the Kurdish region over oil and land, has said Baghdad would consider a deal between Exxon and the KRG illegal and a violation of the company's contract to develop Iraq's 8.7-billion-barrel West Qurna Phase One oilfield in the south." Stuart Kemp (Hollywood Reporter) reports, "The Kurdistan region in Iraq is to launch its first British film festival in partnership with representative from the U.K. movie industry. Organizers said a program of films would unspool in the region's capital city of Erbil later this month. [. . .] During this festival, the U.K.'s National Film and Television School (NFTS) is planning to run a series of workshops for young Kurdish filmmakers wanting to tell their stories." Andreas Wiseman (Screen Daily) adds that the festival is to run from November 26th through November 28th, "The event is expected to host around 15 films, screening in an Erbil conference centre. Admission will be free for the general public. The final programme has yet to be announced." British counsul-general in Erbil Chris Bowers states, "It's fascinating to note that many of the films we are programming have strong female role models (The Queen, Pride and Prejudice, Made in Dagenham), or that tackle social stereotypes (Billy Elliot) or discuss the Holocaust (The Boy in Striped Pyjamas). The Kurdistan Region is on a dash for modernity and that comes through in the type of films that people want to see here in Erbil." Wiseman notes that films were popular in the KRG before the wars and that "at least two large cinema complexes are due to oepn in Erbil". London's Bankside Films is co-sponsoring the festival. Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing injured a government worker, a Baghdad roadside bombing left one person injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing leaving two police officers injured, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (killed by a bullet to the head), a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left three more men injured, an Iskandariya rocket attack on the US Kalsu base left two people injured (Iraqi civilians), a third Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured, 1 'suspect' was shot dead by the Iraqi military in Baghdad, two police officers were injured in a Baghdad shooting, a fourth Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured and "Omar al-Dulaimi, the head of a journalists' association in Diyala province" was shot in Baquba and seriously injured. AKE's John Drake Tweets: johnfdrake Last week was one of the quietest I've recorded in #Iraq. about 16 hours ago And he Tweeted: johnfdrake While last week was very quiet in #Iraq, militants appear to have been making up for things over the past two days. about 3 hours ago Of course, part of the quiet -- not noted in a Tweet -- was there really no press in Iraq. Who notes violence? What outlet that issues reports in English notes violence? That would be Reuters. And they really didn't do FactBoxes last week. If you checked Aswat al-Iraq, you saw that violence continued. Aswat al-Iraq was doing three and four news items (violence and other) a day. That was it. That was more than Al Mada, Al Rafidayn, Dar Addustour, Al Sabbah, etc. were doing. They all shut down for the holiday. Aswat al-Iraq reduced its coverage for the holiday. With actual press coverage, would have been so 'quiet'? That's an important question to ask. iraq al mada wired spencer ackerman aswat al-iraq xinhua chen zhi the tehran times fars news agency the los angeles times david s. cloud reuters ahmed rasheed cnn amar c. bakshi mohammed tawfeeq chelsea j. carter al rafidayn hurriyet daily news le monde peter van buren