CIA operative Juan Cole

Amy Goodman's best friend Juan Cole, if you have forgotten, recently admitted on air, on her program, that he was on the CIA payroll. That little slip of the tongue explained a great deal. About him and about Amy Goodman.

Bill Van Auken (WSWS) had a great article about Cole and here's the opening:

The eight-month US-NATO war against Libya, culminating in the barbaric siege of the Mediterranean coastal city of Sirte and the hideous lynching of the country’s deposed ruler, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has been backed from its outset by a number of political parties around the world that call themselves “left” and an upper-middle-class socio-political milieu that forms their key constituency.

In the United States, this phenomenon is bound up with the support given by such parties and this milieu to the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama, even as it carries out military aggression around the world and embraces assassination as a principal policy tool.

Among the most prominent representatives of this trend is the University of Michigan professor of Middle Eastern history Juan Cole, who has postured as an expert on Libya while uncritically promoting the war propaganda of the Obama administration and NATO.

Cole’s reputation as a self-described “left” stems from his role as a limited critic of the Bush administration’s phony pretexts for the war against Iraq. Once it was launched, however, he supported the US invasion, describing it as “worth the sacrifices”—now amounting to some one million Iraqi lives—to rid the world of Saddam Hussein.

We did not rush forward, you may remember, saying, "Oh, poor Juan Cole! He was spied upon by the Bush administration." In part, because it was Juan Cole, yes. But equally true, we didn't believe it.

And I still don't believe it.

It's the sort of whispered rumor that gets whispered to make Juan look like he's really a member of the left. All CIA operatives need a good cover, right?

Juan Cole is disgusting and so is Amy Goodman for bringing him on her awful show.

In this week's "Roundtable" at Third,Third's Ty and Trina (of Trina's Kitchen) had really

good points:

Ty: Exactly. And they seem surprised when the few building blocks they have shared get used against them. For example, FAIR and Amy Goodman hectoring others on the importance of disclosures yet pissy and pissed when their own failures on that issue are called out. There are very few outlets I go to anymore. Forget ZNet. They continue to publish Juan Cole even after he revealed he is paid by the CIA. I won't go there at all. There are very outlets I go to.

Trina: I want to jump in there. That demonstrates just how corrupted the left establishment has become. Juan Cole is on the CIA payroll. He's a contractor for the CIA. And Amy Goodman and ZNet still treat him as a respected critic. A) He's working for the government so he's not independent at all. B) It's the CIA. Even 20 years ago, that would have prompted a huge outrage and they would have been forced to exile him -- as they should. But the CIA is their thing these days. Barack worked for a CIA cut-out after college and, of course, his mother worked with the agency as well. It would appear the Mighty Wurlitzer includes Amy Goodman.

Exactly. Juan Cole should be banned by all genuine left outlets after admitting he's on the CIA payroll.

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a US journalist is reported to have been arrested in Iraq, James Denselow is among those leading the factual charge against spin, Turkey's assualt on Iraq continues, we explore the Special Inspector General on Iraq Reconstruction's grading of the US State Dept, Nouri targets 'Ba'athists' (political enemies) and more. Dar Addustour has a breaking news report this evening that American journalist Daniel Smith has been arrested in Baghdad by Iraqi forces (the arrest was Friday). If the report is correct and the name is correct, this is most likely Daniel Wakefield Smith who in addition to text reporting is also a photojournalist (not to be confused with retired US Army Col Dan Smith who has offered commentary and analysis on the Iraq War). Dar Addustour is the only one reporting the story currently and they say that there is confusion regarding what he was arrested for with some saying it was for the Friday protests in Baghdad (covering it or participating in it? that's not explained) while others are saying he was arrested for spying on Iraqi officials. Friday, October 21st, while Barack was spinning the country and the press was sleeping on the job, another US soldier died in Iraq. The Defense Dept issued the following today: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Pfc. Steven F. Shapiro, 29, of Hidden Vally Lake, Calif., died Oct. 21 in Tallil, Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Cavalry Divison, Fort Hood, Texas. For more information media may contact the Fort Hood public affairs office at 254-187-9993/2520 or [] Their address is wrong and you're taken to a site that can harm your computer. You'd think DoD could get this right. It's www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/site/3439/ The Pentagon's count of US military personnel who've died in Iraq currently stands at [PDF format warning] 4484. That's 63 deaths since Barack Obama proclaimed combat operations ended August 31, 2010. How many US military personnel will die after December 31, 2011 and will the press continue to avert their eyes? Yochi J. Dreazen (National Journal) examines the issue of Special-Ops and notes they will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan and, "Many conventional troops have done four or five deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. By contrast, Special Operations troops have done 10, 12, and even 14 tours." He quotes Adm Eric Olson who stated back in February that although 100,000 US troops left Iraq, only "about 500 special operations" troops departed implying the bulk of Special-Ops remained. In addition, yesterday Walter Pincus (Washington Post) noted, "Denis McDonough, White House deputy national security adviser, told PBS's News Hour on Friday night that the United States and Iraq woul still conduct periodic naval and air exercises." Meanwhile James Denselow (Guardian) observes "there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality surrounding the US departure from Iraq." And he goes on to back that up explaining, among other things, the ongoing neogtiations to put US 'trainers' under the NATO mission (a 2004 agreement), the large number of contractors and much more. We'll note this paragraph: In September, Iraq made the first payment in a 1.9 billion pound deal to buy 18 F-16s. The agreements mean that despite the claim that Iraq took full responsibility for its airspace in October, effective aerial sovereignty will be in the hands of the Americans for years to come as they help to patrol the country's skies and control its airspace, and train its air force. A senior Iraqi politician explained to me last week: "We are absolutely incapable of defending our borders. We don't even have one fighter jet to defend our airspace." Al Mada reports that before US Vice President Joe Biden visits Iraq, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be visiting DC. Both visits will focus on the issue of US 'trainers' as negotiations continue. The paper notes that the Kurdish Alliance is expressing concern over the issue of neighboring countries (Turkey and to a less extent Iran) attacking Iraq. A non-Kurdish government source notes that there is only a short amount of time between now and the end of the year but that he believes they can work out an understanding with the US that will provide a mechanism to ensure the safety of Iraq. Rumors swirling in the Iraqi government include that the US, in this round of negotiations, is pressing for 1500 US troops based out of the Baghdad embassy. Dar Addustour notes both visits as well as Ayad Allawi's trip to London (he's on it now) where he's meeting with David Cameron (British Prime Minister) and others. As Trina pointed out last night, Patrick Martin (WSWS) is also noting Nouri's trip to DC: "Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is to visit Washington in December for further talks, and Obama held out the possibility of a future agreement to station US troops in Iraq in the guise of training Iraqi soldiers in the use of weapons systems the Iraqi government is buying from American military contractors." The Pakistan Observer notes Moqtada al-Sadr's comments that the US "is seekign to maintain its occupation of Iraq through keeping trainers and private contractors" in Iraq. The CIA isn't leaving Iraq either. Eli Lake (The Daily Beast) reports: The programs involve everything from the deployment of remote sensors that scan the wireless spectrum of terrorist safe havens to stealth U.S.-Iraqi counterterrorism commando teams, and their status is uncertain as a U.S. diplomatic team negotiates with Iraqi leaders, according to officials, who made clear the CIA intends to keep a footprint inside the country even as troops leave by Dec. 31. "There are of course parts of the counterterrorism mission that the intelligence community, including CIA, will be able to take on from other organizations—and there are parts of that mission that it won't," said one U.S. counterterrorism official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of secret negotiations with the Iraqis. Also addressing realities is Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque via World Can't Wait): So we have a baseline of 5,000 militarized forces remaining indefinitely in Iraq, with no immediate limit on an expansion in their numbers. And of course, all the stories make it abundantly clear that the Americans will quickly negotiate a new "security agreement" with Iraq, which will include -- or even be in addition to -- thousands of military "advisers" to help "train" the Iraqi forces, especially with the multitude of new weapons that Washington's war profiteers are lining up to sell to the "sovereign" government in Baghdad. How many troops will be involved in these "agreements"? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Again, we don't know. And as Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, none of these numbers include the "Special Forces" and CIA paramilitaries that will inevitably be ranging across Iraq, no doubt in large numbers. Iraq is hardly going to receive less attention from the American black ops and death squads than Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and the dozens of other countries where Washington is waging secret war. Thus it is almost a certainty that by the end of 2012, there will be, at the barest minimum, at least 8,000 to 10,000 heavily armed personnel under the direct control of the United States government stationed at strategic points throughout Iraq; the actual figure will doubtless be higher, perhaps much higher. But this is a bare minimum -- numbers which tally almost exactly with the final goals of the American war machine in the "failed" negotiations on extending the present form of the occupation. David R. Francis (Christian Science Monitor) deludes his readers (and possibly himself) that the US is leaving Iraq and the delusions never stop, "Throw in the replacement of vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc., and the eventual tab for the United States could reach $4 trillion to $6 trillion, according to University of Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes. Those are big numbers." They'd be even bigger if Francis factored in the continued spending on Iraq. All US forces are not withdrawing -- as he wrongly writes -- and neither is the US tax payer money. As Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) noted Sunday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has released a new report. The report [PDF format warning] is entitled "Iraqi Police Development Program: Opportunities Program Accountability and Budget Transparency." The 18-page report (plus appendices) paints a disturbing picture. As with Congressional hearings we've attended, the State Dept refused to provide SIGIR with needed information and documents. Though the State Dept has planned since 2009 to take over the training of Iraqi police, they have no assessment of the force's current capabilities. To call what they have shared with ISGR "planning" is being extremely generous. In its opening, the report notes: "We believe this audit raises serious concerns regarding the PDP [Police Development Programs]'s long-term viability. The continual downsizing of the program, the planned use of unspent funds, and the lack of transparency regarding the use of program funds for 'Embassy platform' purposes (e.g., security, life support, and aviation) raise red flags about the program's fund requirements." As the report makes clear early on, these are not concerns about something that will happen in the near future (for instance, January 1, 2012), these are concerns about a program the State Dept is over and executing as of October 1, 2011 and for Fiscal Year 2012, State wants $887 million for this program. This after 8 billion US tax payer dollars being spent in the last eight years "to train, staff, and equip Iraqi police forces to maintain domestic order" and that money was spent on, among other things, increasing the size of the police force. Prior to the start of the Iraq War, police forces numbered 58,000 and today it has increased to 412,000 police. Population estimates for the country range from as low as 23 million to the CIA's 30,399,572 (July 2011 estimate) which would be an estimate of roughly 24 million when you subtract the Kurdish population. (My opinion: The US should not be training the Kurdish police. They do have a training center in Erbil. But they shouldn't be doing it. The Kurds don't need it and it's a waste of money. That is not to say Kurdish forces are perfect -- they aren't -- or that there are not human rights abuses -- there are -- but it is to state that the KRG is not starting from ground zero the way the rest of Iraq supposedly is.) 412,000 police officers for a population of 24 million (CIA figure minus KRG numbers). The US has a population of over 300,000,000. How many police officers -- including federal law enforcement -- does the US have? At the end of 2007, Kevin Johnson (USA Today) reported that figure was 800,000. The US has twice the number of police officers as Iraq (minus KRG) but over 12 times the population (ibid). And US tax payers have spent $8 billion on achieving that. (And at a time when the "Super" Congress must find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts for the US government.) The report didn't address the above issue, it's "objective for this report is to address whether DoS/INL has a program plan with sound requirements and cost estimates, and whether DoS identified the funds and other resources that the GOI will contribute to the program." In 2009, SIGIR pointed out the need for an assessment and in April of 2011 a grant was given -- "$1 million to conduct a base-line assessment of the Iraqi police." The money was paid out. No assessment was ever completed. Is the State Dept unable to handle even the most basic of duties? If you wasted $1 million of the tax payer dollars, you should have an explanation as to what you did to follow up on that but State doesn't feel they are answerable to anyone on these questions. The report notes: Without specific goals, objectives, and performance measures, the PDP could become a "bottomless pit" for U.S. dollars intended for mentoring, advising, and training the Iraqi police forces. Meetings held with Iraqi police officials and training courses provided could simply become "accomplishments," without any indicators of changes in the management and functioning of the Iraqi police forces that can be attributed to this costly program. In addition, the report notes: DoS has yet to obtain a signed agreement with the GOI [Government of Iraq] for the PDP, although hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have already been spent on providing program support. It has also not prepared the documents required by the gudielines, which would describe the program cost and the GOI financial participation. SIGIR has reported that working closely with the GOI is essential to long-term program success and to avoid waste of U.S. funds. In prior work, SIGIR recommend that U.S. efforts be based on assurances that the GOI supports the U.S. approach, and that there are measurable indicators of progress. Absent such assurances, the programs are vulnerable to waste. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have repeatedly BMW-ed in public (bitched, moaned and whined) about how Congress needs to give poor little State more money. Isaiah lampooned Hillary and Leon as pigs at the trough back in August. With the rate of sexual assault in the military, Leon needs to mind his own damn business and focus on the Defense Dept. Hillary needs to buy a damn clue and realize that though she has little control over the Iraq matters (Barack farmed them out), she's the one the public will hold responsible. If she was thinking smart, she'd bail right now and announce she was retiring. Instead, she's being stupid and staying in the position. That means she's about to learn the lesson Colin Powell did as Secretary of State -- one minute your beloved, the next your image is in ruins and some obsessive flunkie spends years trying to repair it for you. State has a lot of damn nerve asking for a cent from US tax payers when it's not even practicing the most basic fiscal checks. The report makes many recommendations. We'll note these made for Congress: SIGIR believes that the Congress could consider requiring DoS to provide data on and analysis of PDP plans, requirements, and costs before additional U.S. funds are committed to a program that is currently without budget transparency and measurable goals, and has the potential for significant waste. The Congress could also consider requiring DoS to provide details on how previously provided funds can be used to meet PDP costs in FY 2012, and documentation required by DoS guidance that describes the GOI financial contribution to the program. Further, the Congress could consider whether the GOI's 50% contribution to PDP costs should be calculated by including or excluding security, life support, and other special costs of operating in Iraq. The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction came about as a result of 2003 legislation introduced by then-Senator Russ Feingold. In 2006, when Republicans controlled both house of Congress, they moved to shut down the office but Feingold, Senator Susan Collins and others were able to keep it alive. Feingold's no longer in Congress and, as is obvious by State's refusal to cooperate with SIGIR, Democrats no longer appear to value the work done and especially appear determined to evade oversight. If that seems harsh, SIGIR should not have to remind Hillary Clinton -- in writing (letter dated August 3, 2011, appears on page 30 of the report) -- that State is obstructing the SIGIR's oversight or to remind her that, when information is requested, her department needs to turn it over as Congress instructed in their legislation. And the only one who might need to be more embarrassed than Hillary by this report is Harold Koh, whose legalese doesn't meet anyone's definition of "transparent" -- let alone the definition Barack was applying to his administration before he was sworn in. (Two of Koh's letters are included in the report.) Michael Lawson (Free Speech Radio News) reported on the SIGIR findings yesterday. Michael Lawson: A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction cited inefficiencies in the State Dept's ability to handle a program aimed at training Iraqi police forces. The Department requested nearly $900 million for the project in 2012. The Inspector General's report claims the State Dept has no detailed plan for how the program will operate or what goals are to be accomplished. Only 12% of the 900 million would go to actual advising of Iraqi forces. The balance would pay for security and support for the trainers. An Iraqi government official suggested to the Inspector General's office that the money would be "better spent on the American people." [Just Foreign Policy's Robert] Naiman says Iraqis on the ground see the presence as a remnant of the US occupation. Robert Naiman: It would probably be better for this not to exist at all. There isn't any strong case that US training at this point is particularly better than any other training that the Iraqis could get. Still on the topic of Iraqi police, Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports traffic police continue to be targeted in Baghdad with three roadside bombing today claiming the life of 1 and leaving eight more injured. In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports assailants attacked two homes in Babel "killing the wife and son of one of the owners of one of the two houses". Reuters notes 2 Baghdad roadside bombings and 1 sticky bombing which injured police officers leaving 1 dead and four injured plus eight civilians left injured (these are not three more bombings -- I'm noting the difference in the numbers and characterizations between AP and Reuters on the same bombings), an Abu Ghraib roadside bombing which left two Iraqi soldiers injured, a Baquba roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left two more injured, a second Baquba roadside bombing which left four police officers injured and, dropping back to Monday night a Kirkuk assault on a real estate office claimed 1 life. Sunday, Dar Addustour reported, Nouri al-Maliki orhcestrated a campaign of arrests in Kut, Salah al-Din, Kirkuk and Diyala against those he insists are threats because they are "senior" Ba'ahtists and former officials in the Ba'athist Party. In Saddam Hussein's time, most Iraqis were Ba'athists. Many of the exiles, like Nouri, were as well before their exile period. Aswat al-Iraq counts 45 people arrested. If you've forgotten, and Nouri clearly has, the purge against Ba'athists -- implemented by Paul Bremer in 2003 -- is supposed to be over and, in 2007, Nouri signed off on benchmarks which included reconciliation. Reconciliation never happened. The arrests indicate it's not going to any time soon. Today Ahmed Rasheed and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) report, "Iraq has arrested at least 240 former members of Saddam Hussein's banned Baath Party and ex-military officers over what some senior officials described as a plot to seize power"; however, Al Rafidayn reports that 350 is the number arrested in the last 72 hours (ending Monday). The arrest warrants were issued by Nouri. Arrests continued today in Dhi Qar with three alleged Ba'ath Party leaders arrested, according to Al Rafidayn. I can't remember where I read this now (I'm juggling phones to see if any US outlet knows about the journalist reported arrested in Iraq and am getting nothing so far) but an Arabic paper (Al Mada?) reported Tuesday that Nouri al-Maliki had announced the Justice and Accountability Commission's term had expired. Though this might mean that the commission was finally being buried, in fact, it meant that Nouri was announcing the current members were part of a commission whose term had expired and that new members would be nominated. Especially in the lead up to the March 7, 2010 elections, Nouri used the commission to shut out political opponents. In other news, Turkey continues its assault on northern Iraq. Have Turkish ground forces entered Iraq? That's in dispute. AFP reports that the country's military guarding the borders -- citing Iraqi Maj Gen Ahmed Fadheleddin in particular -- as well as the PKK state Turkey has not entered Iraq. By contrast, Reuters reported yesterday that "Turkish tanks and armored vehicles crossed into northern Iraq" while the National Turk reports that Turkish military entered Iraq on Saturday: "Around 20 tanks and 30 military trucks entered Iraqi territory from Siyahkaya village around 15 kilometers east of the Habur border gate in Turkey." Shamal Aqrawi, Daren Butler and Elizabeth Piper (Reuters) note the Turkish military is in Iraq and that is has surrounded the village of Ure (not a PKK base) where theTurkish military, rifles aloft, have marched through the town. A resident of Ure tells Reuters, "They only spread out around the village. We are worried. We don't know what will happen. We are in our houses afraid to go out." This wave of the Turkish assault has been going on since August 17th. The Turkish government just 'knows' the way to deal with an aggrieved population is to target them with killings and to kill innocent bystanders and that's how you put down a rebellion! Their actions are breeding more violence and the US has egged them on it -- possibly to ensure that Turkey does not come to the prominence so many have been predicting for the country for several years now. Certainly every principle of conflict resolution would tell you this is not how you defuse a tense situation. The mountains of northern Iraq have many villages. The people in those villages have been terrorized with non-stop bombings for months now. While some were evacuated last week, not all were. It was cute to read the press on the evacuations, about how they were being re-settled in places where millions had been spent. But no press went to those areas to confirm that, did they? It's easy to make claims and especially when the press never bothers to check out your claims. The PKK is one of many Kurdish rebel groups. The long standing mistreatment of the Kurds by the Turkish government created a large number of Kurdish rebel groups. Until the Kurds are brought into the political process in Turkey with full inclusion, the PKK will continue to be a problem for the government of Turkey. Liam Stack and Sebnem Arsu (New York Times) report from Cizre, Turkey where yesterday "thousands" mourned "the death of a local heroine [Cicek Botan], a commander in a mountaintop training camp for Kurdish militants seeking autonomy for the country's largely Kurdish southeast." The International Crisis Group's Hugh Pope is quoted stating of the latest Turkish assault, "We have been down this road many times before. Politicians might say they can hit the P.K.K. out of the park this time, but it never has worked and it never can work." From Istanbul, Ron Margulies (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reportson life for Kurds in Turkey: This week an earthquake has killed hundreds in south-eastern Turkey, in and around the Kurdish town of Van. This is a very poor part of the country. The town's population has swollen in the past 20 years from a few hundred thousand to well over a million, as a result of the war between the Kurdish national movement and the Turkish army. Peasants from the surrounding countryside have flooded in to escape the war and to search for work. The creaking infrastructure cannot cope, and there are no jobs. When I visited two years ago there were ramshackle, poorly-built buildings everywhere -- even in the town centre. One newspaper has reported that none of the 10 sellers of ready-mix concrete in the town hold the necessary official quality certificates. It is these buildings, inhabited by the poorest, which collapsed when the earthquake hit. They include a student hall of residence. So far, the official death toll is 366 and this is expected to rise. The earthquake hit in the middle of extensive military operations by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK. The fighting has been intense for the past two months, with dozens dead on both sides. It was revealed at the beginning of the summer that the Turkish state and PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan had been holding talks and negotiations for the previous five years. Clearly these have now broken down. In recent weeks the PKK has been reminding the state that there is no military solution, that the PKK cannot be defeated by arms. Last week, 25 Turkish troops were killed in one day. The army's response, as always, has been to wage further war, blindly and needlessly causing further bloodshed. © Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Soner Cagaptay (at CNN) argues that the end result of the earthquake will be determining which Kurdish group will dominate, "As Turkey's Kurdish nationalist movement enters a new phase, buoyed by demands for political recognition for the Kurds, the group that performs best in delivering aid to the Kurdish quake survivors will likely emerge as the leader of Turkey's Kurdish nationalist movement. By the same token, groups that fall behind in delivering relief will lose their prestige, as well as the support of the Kurdish population." iraq the guardian james denselow the national journal yochi j. dreazen al mada dar addustour the pakistan observer the daily beast eli lake chris floyd wsws patrick martin the washington post ed okeefe free speech radio news the washington post walter pincus

Music

That's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Lovable?" from yesterday. A number of you are surprised that I didn't do a review this weekend. While I hadn't said I would, I do get that you feel C.I.'s truth telling is brave and needs support. I agree with you. I covered that last Monday. C.I. benched Isaiah last week because she was determined to be on the limb by herself so as not to pull anyone else out there with her.

So I hadn't planned on doing a piece over the weekend. That said, a friend of C.I.'s came over Saturday night (came over to C.I.'s, not to my place) and had a number of things to play. There was an album in there that I enjoyed but, afterwards, I realized I loved. I got his number from C.I. and left a message about 5 minutes ago. When I find out the name of the group or artist (I think it was a solo artist -- male, I know -- but it may have been a group), I'll get the album (if it's released already) and begin writing a review. If it's not released, I may ask him if he can FedEx me a copy. If I don't purchase my own copy, I will note that in the review, I promise.

In the meantime, if you're looking for some music coverage, check out the piece we did at Third: "World Cafe celebrates 20 years."

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

Monday, October 24, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, spinning and lying as well with many 'news' outlets providing fictions, yeah, we're back to 'withdrawal,' and more. The enigma today is Michael S. Schmitt. Is he being ironic? Tongue in cheek? An idiot savant? Or just so busy whoring he doesn't even realize what he's writing? Maybe he's channeling? I can't decide I don't know Which way to go? The more you learn The less you know Which way to go? Some follow blind And never know Which way to go? To lead you need some place to go Which way to go? -- "Fiction" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Dog Eat Dog album Fiction. It sold the illegal war, it kept it going and even now it abounds. Are they all that stupid or they just dirty whores who were to ugly to work the streets so they took to newsrooms? The Honolulu Star-Adviser embarrasses itself with an editorial claiming the end is in sight for all but 150 or so "soldiers" who will "secure the American Embassy in Baghdad" -- will come back to that number later in the snapshot. Amy Goodman's been lying for years -- this is the 'journalist' who sold tickets to the Barack inaugural bash to raise money for her show, so much for any pretense of objectivity or even distance from the loud mouth who loved to quote I.F. Stone on not getting too close to those in power. In her headlines, she's less than honest. Then she puts a Gulf War veteran (90s Iraq War) on to lie about the Iraq War. He's with Occupy Lousiville and, if anything, the so-called 'leaderless' spirit of OWS is demonstrating there are a lot of people who require an education center in these encampments. They're far from alone. Is there a reason for Harvard's Nieman Foundation to exist? Gilbert Cranberg's post argues that it shouldn't. Cranberg feels the need to pretend to bark about the war at Nieman's Watchdog Blog to . . . ask the serious and needed questions about the current White House presentation? No, to drop back nine years to 2002 and 'cover' what was already covered some time ago and covered in depth. Why do governmetn lie? Because they know they can get away with it. When you think of all the little whores on the left who've pretended they respected I.F. Stone and yet you see the work they produce, you're left with the impression that it must be some sort of 'I respect I.F. Stone, I just don't want to be like I.F. Stone.' Message received. And the reasons governemts lie is because they know they'll get away with it. The current administration, for example, knows that 'brave' watch doggery today will be people dropping back to 2002 and listing the lies of the previous administration. Barack says the Iraq War is over and that all US forces are coming home. The press runs with that without examination and ignores his own comment indicating negotations continue -- a comment made clear on Friday in the second White House press conference, the one Denis McDonough spoke in. Elusive dreams and vague desires Fanned to fiery needs by deadly deeds In falling empires Fiction Truth Fiction Truth Fiction Truth Fiction Fiction of the diplomat Fiction of the critic Fiction of the Pollyana and the cynic Fiction of the coward Fiction ofthe hero Fiction of the monuments reduced to zero -- "Fiction" written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Dog Eat Dog album The New York Times' Michael S. Schmidt wants you to know that he used to cover sports and, in sports, you either win or lose. And he just doesn't understand why it's not the same with his current assignment. Okay, let's bite. If you were covering sports, Schmidt, and you were covering performance ehancement drugs in sports -- a beat you were familiar with -- if it was announced that all US baseball players were no longer taking drugs and you knew better, what would the hook of your story be? Schmidt knows the truth and mentions it as an aside in paragraph 12 ("both countries said they would continue to discuss training options") but goes on for 17 more paragraphs without ever again mentioning it. Maybe Schmidt should be less concerned about whether officials admit to wins or losses and more concerned that the average American news consumer has no clue that negotiations are not over? Maybe, in fact, that would make for an actual report? Again, if he needs to drop back to sports, if the impression was that steroid use stopped because of remarks by the Commissioner of Baseball declared so or gave the impression that was so and Schmidt knew otherwise, seems like that would be his big story. We could do nothing but link to all the outlets and gas bags claiming that negotiations ended and are no more and blah, blah, blah and that could be the entire snapshot. Strange that reporter Schmidt doesn't consider that a narrative in need of correction. Again, the mistaken belief that negotiations have ended has been promoted by the press. It's out there and so many people -- some misguided, some natural idiots, some dirtly little whores -- are repeating it. And Niemen's Watchdog Blog wants to whine to us about lies from 2002? Really? That's why governments lie. They know they'll get away with it. They know gas bags will either be whores or cowards and refuse to call out the current lies. Maybe, like Michael S. Schmidt, they'll mention it as a tiny aside -- a partial sentence in a 29 paragraph report -- or maybe they'll just vanish it completely. And in the process the public will be ever less informed. That's journalism? That's what the role of the press is supposed to be? They should all be ashamed of themselves. A press that, as Rebecca rightly points out, confuses itself for a public relations agency, isn't really a functional press -- let alone an accurate one. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki spoke publicly about ongoing negotiations. Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reported that Nouri spoke Saturdayy about how excited he was that "all" US troops would be leaving Iraq and how US "trainers" are needed by Iraq and that discussions will continue on that. Like the White House, Nouri's always drawn a false line between "trainers" and soldiers. So Nouri expects a "full" withdrawal of US soldiers and he's also expecting to be able to include US "trainers" after the end of 2011. Al Sabaah quoted him stating that it's "natural" to have US trainers in Iraq. How will the number be determined? He says by the weapons purchasing contracts Iraq signs. Dar Addustour reports that Nouri claims he and Barack did not discuss the issue of the US Embassy "and immunity" on their tele-conference (it's Nouri, meaning they may have or they may not have) but tha the US embassy will be similar to other embassies in Iraq. Yeah, right. Where's a flying shoe tossed in Nouri's direction when you need it? While declaring the Status Of Forces Agreement dead, he noted that the Strategic Framework remains alive and "open" and that it can be altered and modified. Where's the US coverage of that? Oh, why do we even ask at this late date. The US press clearly exists to misinform. Too many lies and distortions for it to be accidental. The article quotes Moqtada al-Sadr declaring that he has learned the US Embassy in Baghdad plans to increase its employee numbers from 5,000 to 15,000. And Al Mada reported Moqtada called Saturday for the Parliament to hold an emergency session to address withdrawal and what's taking place (he doesn't appear to believe that is withdrawal). This morning Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported Moqtada got his wish and the special session would be taking place today. A statement from Speaker of Parliament Osama Najaifi's office notes that the session is at the request of the al-Sadr bloc but avoids other details. The National Alliance's Rafie Abdul-Jabbar states that the issues will include Barack Obama's speech on withdrawal (al-Sadr doesn't see it as withdrawal, which is why he called for the session), the drop in the price of oil, oil revenues being allocated for the people and the bombing of Iraq by Turkey. Over the weekend, John Glaser (Antiwar.com) notes, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will continue negotiating with the US on a deal to keep a contingent of troops in Iraq, despite President Barack Obama's announcement on Friday that all troops would be withdrawn in December." And he notes, "Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta also mentioned continuing talks to decide on a new role for US troops inside the country, again, despite Obama's announcement." Both the White House and Nouri are using a sleight of hand wherein US soldiers who will be "trainers" are not soldiers. It's a little game both parties have been playing for months now. I predicted last night that those US journalist who were punked or punked others wouldn't get honest today. No surprise, they didn't. If you want honesty in independent media on the status of the Iraq War, you can count on Antiwar.com and that's it. Democracy Now? Nope. The Progressive? Forget it. The Nation? Uh-uh. It's a fraud perpetrated against the American people. Al Rafidayn reports that the National Alliance shares Moqtada's concerns regarding 'withdrawal.' They also are aware that "withdrawing troops" does not mean the end to negotiations for so-called "trainers" (in the article, trainers is in parenthesis). An unnamed senior National Alliance official states that the speech Barack Obama gave was to manage US public opinion and that he was delivering what he had promised his followers (what I'm translating as "followers" in the article might actually be better translated as "fans" but we'll go with "followers"). National Alliance officials are clear that they have no idea what the outcome of the negotiations will be but that the negotiations for trainers are still ongoing. Along with Antiwar.com, there's another outlet that's tried to report news: NPR. Saturday on All Things Considered (NPR), host Guy Raz and James Fallows breifly discussed Iraq: Guy Raz: Jim, let's move to Iraq. The president announced a full US withdrawal by the end of the year. His take is that this is a fulfillment of a campaign promise but there's a bit of spin there, isn't there? James Fallows: Oh sure. It's not at all the way he expected to fulfill the promise. The reason there's going to be this complete -- or near complete withdrawal-- of US troops by the end of this year is not so much the commitment of the US government to wind things down as the view on the Iraqi side that they are not willing to keep US forces in their country any longer than the end of this year and the reason for that of course is the disagreement about whether US uniformed troops and also contractors would be subject to Iraqi law for things that went wrong while they were serving in that country. Not only did NPR listeners learn that "all" are not leaving, but they also learned that, no, it's not really what Barack promised as a candidate. Today on NPR's Morning Edition (link has audio and text), Kelly McEvers reported from Iraq. Major General DAVID PERKINS: We are handing over control and responsibility to the government of Iraq, to the Iraqi security forces. Here on this base, it is going to be the Iraqi Air College, their air force academy. The United States will have a small amount of trainers here. MCEVERS: Those trainers would mostly be private contractors. They come as part of the package when Iraq buys American fighter jets and tanks. The U.S. and Iraq are talking about finding a way to bring back some uniformed soldiers next year, mainly to train Iraqis on how to use those fighter jets and tanks in combat situations. Setting aside the issue of contractors and the issue of the ongoing negotiations over "trainers," how many US troops will remain in Iraq? Elaine asked "What about the Air Force? " Friday. How many will? 160 is the number tossed around for US soldiers the US Embassy in Baghdad will oversee. An equal number will be present for "arms sales" -- see Friday's snapshot. Without even counting the AIr Force, that's already 310. How many Air Force? And since everybody ignored it Friday (this is what I said in Friday's snapshot that we'd pick up on today), a new word entered the US government speak on troops remaining in Iraq: Marines. We long ago noted that Marines are what guard the Embassies around the world. Marines are not soldiers. They are vocally not soldiers. They are among the reason that the press used "troops." The government knows this. So with Friday's acknowledgement by the White House that Marines would also be under the command of the US Embassy, how many is that adding to the count? Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) explains, "Panetta was quick to insist the US is going to continue to keep massive numbers of combat troops in the region, including tens of thousands in tiny Kuwait." And how many in Jordan? These are questions the US press should be pursuing but notice that the bulk of them are too busy selling the lies of "ALL" US troops out of Iraq and "home" and negotiations for 'trainers' ending. So many fictions brought to you by supposed news outlets. Again, a few are standing up and telling truths. Veterans for Peace's Mike Ferner notes (at David Swanson's War Is A Crime) that a shame is taking place: America's war in Iraq is over. The last U.S. troops will leave by year's end, "with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops." So sayeth President Obama. A "sham of a mockery of a sham," is what Groucho would call Obama's announcement and he would be right. For several reasons Mr. Marx would be much closer to the truth than Mr. Obama. 1) Even with "all" troops pulled out…well…who knows about Special Forces since their presence in a country never seems to really equal a "troop presence." But even if all the "non-combat" combat troops leave and even if we don't count the Marine Corps' standard complement of guards at the world's largest embassy, 5,000 armed mercenaries will remain indefinitely. The State Department, not the War Department will be responsible for them, but a killer for hire is not likely to become a diplomat at the stroke of midnight on December 31. Nouri's coming to the US shortly. To take part in face to face discussions about trainers with the White House. Barack extended that invitation on Friday. Nouri accepted. I haven't found one outlet that's made mention of that. But it's not a secret. Wonder how the press will portray that visit or Joe Biden's to Iraq -- as noted, Friday, that visit is still on. Don't worry, about the US reporters, they find things other than truth to busy themselves with. Take Tom Cohen (CNN) who can't stop raving that Barack is a War Hawk and what great news that is for (War Hawk) Democrats. Little Tommy didn't think to to interview anyone who might find that upsetting but when you're a whore you go with who pays you and perform the acts you're paid to perform. And when you're a whore you tend to write crap like this: The "soft on war" legacy for Democrats continued in 2004, when Kerry came under fierce, privately funded attacks that accused him of falsifying his account of a battle that earned him a Silver Star as a Swift boat operator, as well as making false claims about misconduct by other U.S. forces in Vietnam and Cambodia. The campaign against Kerry coined the phrase "swift-boating" in reference to an acute, partisan and not necessarily truthful political attack. It also turned what should have been a benefit for Kerry -- his war record compared to the non-service in Vietnam by Republican incumbent George W. Bush -- into a controversial issue. Kerry lost the election. Why in the world, at this late date, would you print that slander against John Kerry and not note that the charges were false? Oh, that's right, because you had trouble in 2004 noting it was false as well. In other words, you have trouble doing the job you're paid to. Especially when providing the truth about John Kerry's record might mean Barack Obama was less 'super' and that the actual problem was indeed the press. This afternoon, Michael Muskal (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The Obama administration is finding some new political cover by invoking the Bush administration after Republican presidential hopefuls stepped up their attacks on the president's announcement that the United States would withdraw its troops from Iraq by year's end." I think Isaiah captured it best last night in his comic where he had Valerie Jarrett explain of Barack, "He campaigned as the Anti-Bush but continues to try to prove himself on Bush terms." US House Rep Dennis Kucinich issued the following statement on 'withdrawal': As one of the first Members of Congress to oppose the war in Iraq, I welcome the President's announcement that he will withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq at the end of the year. The U.S. has spent over $806 billion on a war that was based on lies. The war in Iraq has cost the lives of over 4,421 U.S. troops and an estimated 1 million innocent Iraqis. Yet today's announcement fails to acknowledge that we will simply be replacing one U.S. occupation with another. Under the State Department's current plans to take the place of the Department of Defense as the main U.S. force in Iraq post-military withdrawal, we are still maintaining a massive presence there, now with the State Department and its heavily armed private security contractors. And it is the presence of armed U.S. contractors that is the problem. It will continue to foment instability and violence in Iraq and the region. We need to get out now, not just trade uniforms and personnel. It is reasonable to ask whether the people of Iraq will notice any change. We are also guaranteed to continue to see billions of dollars go unaccounted for. According to the Commission on Wartime Contracting, Congress will need to dedicate even more resources to support State's increased contracting and personnel costs. At the same time, the Commission warns that the U.S. has already lost between $31-60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. At an absolute minimum, Congress must heed the warnings of the Commission and implement significant reforms to the U.S. government's acquisition process to ensure proper oversight of U.S.-taxpayer dollars and the 8,000 - 17,000 private security and service contractors that will be operating in Iraq. Still on US members of Congress, Mary Stegmeir (Des Moines Register) reports US House Rep Ron Paul told a town hall yesterday that the US isn't walking out of Iraq anytime soon, "I predict we will be very, very much involved in Iraq. I think it will be unstable for a long time to come, and we will continue to spend a lot of money in Iraq." Ron Paul is running for the GOP presidential nomination. He is the only one in the GOP field who can claim to have been against the Iraq War. Matched up against Barack Obama, he would be able to claim that, he, unlike Barack, never voted to continue the war. While Barack arrived in the Senate to late to vote on the 2002 authorization (Ron Paul voted against it), Barack did manage to vote to continue the Iraq War over and over and over. Ron Paul's also called for the US to leave Afghanistan. He's opposed Barack's illegal Libyan War. Barack's a War Hawk. At present, of those seeking the presidential office, Ron Paul's the only one with a voting record that demonstrates he is not a War Hawk. Violence continued in Iraq today. Reuters notes a Baghdad suicide bombing claimed 1 life (plus the life or the bomber) and left seven others injured, 4 people were shot dead in Baghdad, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured four people, a second Baghdad roadside bombing injured five people, two more Baghdad roadside bombing which injured another five people, a Mosul grenade attack which left three people injured and, yesterday, a Balad mosque bombing (three bombs) "destroyed the mosque." Of the mosque incident, the Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "After the mosque bombing in Salahuddin, gunmen blow up a hysainiya south of Saladin. An eye witness said that 'an American force was located inside the husainyiah' asserting that 'the explosion occured two hours after the force left'." They also report, "After leaving it, the American occupation forces burned down Saad base east of Baquba as soon as they evacuated." We'll close with an excerpt from Cindy Sheehan's important new column "United Rogue States of America" (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox): Wow, I thought Bush was bad and that we had sunk about as low as we could go during those insane years, but Obama is excavating new territory. Just since the Occupy movement began, the Obama regime has (among other things): 1) assassinated several US citizens in Yemen, (without due process) including a 16 year old having dinner with his buddies; 2) Sent "advisors" to Vietnam (oops, I meant Uganda; 3) aided and abetted the assassination of a leader of a sovereign state. Not a bad month for a Rogue President still in his first term, eh? iraq npr all things considered guy raz the atlantic james fallows reuters waleed ibrahim al sabaah dar addustour al mada antiwar.com john glaser jason ditz morning edition kelly mcevers cindy sheehan the world today just nuts the des moines register mary stegmeir

What do you do?

What do you do when you know you're about to screw up someone's plans?

I was there today.

C.I. was dictating the snapshot on one cell phone while juggling the other by taking calls, returning calls and making calls -- and it's really something to watch, by the way -- while other calls came in on Ava's cell phone.

"Okay, okay, I've got all I can do, bye."

That was C.I. agreeing to fit in the last link for the snapshot.

She put her second phone down and started dictating the first paragraph of the snapshot (that's the last thing she dictates in every snapshot).

And the cell she'd placed down was ringing. I grabbed it because Wally had gone off with his grandfather to get something to eat (we had the good fortune to have Wally's grandfather with us this week) and I thought he might be calling (because he'd said he'd call me before they left so I could make a take out order). He hadn't called on my phone so I grabbed C.I.'s phone and it was (as noted in the snapshot) two Iraq War veterans who used to be part of IVAW. They told me they were upset and asked if C.I. had finished the snapshot? I told them to hold on and they were filling me in as I gulp and tug on C.I's sleeve to get her attention.

She was done with the snapshot. It was probably 6:00 pm EST -- or almost that. And I told her she really had to take the call.

She did. She listened. She asked questions. She gave them thirty minutes of her time and told them she'd find a way to work in some of the points they'd made. She then called her friend back and said, "Pull ___" (a number of things including a Senator Patty Murray press release) "because we've got to make room for something really important." And she worked about 15 minutes on what to pull (5 minutes before doing the new section, 10 minutes after) and then did the the new section. Added a few sentences in other places to lead up to the section. And then her friend tried to send it and it was too big. So that's when she did the ten minutes additional editing.

I think it was important and I'm glad it's in the snapshot because (a) it's important and (b) it adds a take that's not going to get included otherwise.

But I did think, "Should I stop her? Should I just let her say, 'Send it' and then hand her the phone after that?"

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

Friday, October 21, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Barack holds a press conference, few reporters listen to what he actually says, they then miss another press conference, the Iraq War continues, the Iraqi refugee problem continues, and more. This afternoon Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweeted: janearraf Obama: "After nearly nine years, America's war in #Iraq will be over" raising the question 'What about Iraq's war?' Goodbye and good luck. about 3 hours ago Today in DC, US President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce . . . Well, let's look at how it's being reported. The best reporting? How about Mark Landler's "U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year's End, Obama Says" (New York Times)? The journalists didn't write the headlines. We're not holding them responsiblve for them. We will, however, hold them reponsible for their content. Mark Landler didn't sleep through the press conference and it shows. Not among the worst but probably somewhere above the middle is Yochi J. Dreazen's piece for National Journal which opens: "President Obama's speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: the troops aren't being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They're leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay." The biggest flaw for that? Remember the ones that will remain with the embassies in Iraq (under the State Dept) for a moment? Yochi didn't and didn't realize that in addition to those, there will be others. CNN notes that approximately 150 "will remain to assist in arms sales." Julian E. Barnes, Carol Lee and Siobhan Hughes (Wall St. Journal) remembered the ones assigned to the State Dept and also report on the ones who will remain for "arms sales." It's a toss up between the Los Angeles Times and AP on who has the worst report. Both are pretty ridiculous. But Reuters was probably the worst report until Ben Feller (Christian Science Monitor) elected to file. Normally, we don't link to Wired but a friend called in a favor so we'll note Spencer Ackerman (Wired) observes, "But the fact is America's military efforts in Iraq aren't coming to an end. They are instead entering a new phase. On January 1, 2012, the State Department will command a hired army of about 5,500 security contractors, all to protect the largest U.S. diplomatic presence anywhere overseas." Ackerman also notes there will be a CIA presence. It's a strong report. Eli Lake (Daily Beast) notes: But the end of the war does not mean the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Indeed, speaking after the president's brief announcement, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough acknowledged that the United States would continue to train Iraq's military in the new weaponry that Obama has agreed to sell the government that emerged after U.S. troops toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Just this year, the Pentagon approved a sale of F-16s to Iraq's air force. Also remaining in Iraq will be military contractors who currently protect American diplomatic missions in Iraq, such as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Irbil. I spoke to many people today. The news media sure is compliant -- not the ones praised above or below. I was told by friends at State that we were correct about negotiations and bluffing (see earlier this week). (That's their term, I call it the power of no and note you can't bluff the power of no. You have to be prepared to walk away if you don't get what you need.) From the Vice President's office, no, it's not time (in reply to whether I should announce here that the site would be going dark shortly -- and please note, this from a friend who is not only unhappy with the way Barack comes off here but also that I critique Joe when I feel it's needed). So I'm really not understanding why there's so much hoopla. Between what was said especially. As a friend at State pointed out, Barack specifically spoke of discussions being ongoing for "trainers" and the White House has never considered "trainers" to be soldiers. My friend at the Pentagon suggested I think of a scene we both quote to one another from Black Widow.(starring Debra Winger as Alex and Theresa Russell as Catherine) written by Ronald Bass, directed by Bob Rafelson) Catherine: The truth is, I'm sorry it's over. Alex: The truth is, it's not over yet. So what does that all mean. For starters, is a withdrawal really a withdrawal if you move from Iraq to Kuwait? October 12th the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations held a hearing. As Ava noted in her coverage, State's Patrick F. Kennedy provided testimony about how State will have "employees" in Kuwait that will be flown in as needed via airplanes ("long wing") and helicopters. Who'll ask that question? Probably few. But credit to Brian Montopoli (CBS News -- link has text and video) who gets it right from the opening sentence: "President Obama announced Friday that the United States will withdraw nearly all troops from Iraq by the end of the year, effectively bringing the long and polarizing war in Iraq to an end." And Brian Montopoli also grasps what many others didn't hear -- he quotes Barack stating at the press conference, "As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces, again just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world." Mark Landler also notes that statement and points out, "Mr. Obama appeared to leave open the possibility of further negotiations on the question of military trainers". New York Times' Tim Arango Tweeted, (if only he'd been drunk): tarangoNYT props to @larajakesAP and @ruskygal. they nailed this iraq news last week about 1 hour ago "If only he'd been drunk"? It would excuse his not grasping what Mark Landler -- who works for the New York Times as well -- had reported. It's nice of Tim to credit Lara Jakes and Rebecca Santana of AP but it's not really over yet and he might need to read his own paper to discover that. In addition, the sources that spoke to AP for that article were incorrect. Listen to the press conference by Barack and then the one that followed. (We'll get to the one that followed in a moment.) What Barack announced was not anything to cheer. There is the continued negotiations (I'm told Joe Biden will still be going to Iraq shortly to press on "trainers") for post-2011. David Swanson points out that what Barack announced today and what he promised on the campaign trail were two different things. There's also the issue of the remaining soldiers -- for 'arms sales' and for the US Embassy staff -- and there's the issue of contractors. Iraq Veterans Against the War posted a stupid, stupid statement which opened with: "IVAW is excited to hear President Obama's announcement this afternoon about a total troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. We are happy to know troops will be home with their families soon. However, there will be many issues to resolve in the aftermath of this disastrous war and occupation." When a lot of us were supporting to IVAW, the people in charge were aware of issues like 'security' contractors. But it doesn't seem to matter at all to IVAW today. But that's IVAW. They've repeatedly embarrassed themselves over Barack Obama and it goes to the split that has led some to leave the organization. For whatever reasons, certain elements of IVAW got behind in 2007 and they've really whored for him and turned the organization into, as one former member likes to put it, "a bunch of __s" (p-word for vagina). And that's how they're seen now because in 2008 they went partisan and they never got their intelligence back. The same former member likes to point out that he can't take one of the faces of IVAW seriously because (quoted with permission) he's an "extreme 9-11 Truther, extreme, heavy, and he's also a member of that whole Cult of [St.] Barack you talk about. In other words, George W. Bush, all by himself, planned 9-11 and Barack is peaches and cream and puppy dog tails -- or maybe puppy god tales, I have no idea. But it's one foolish extreme or the other, where someone's the supreme goodness or else the supreme badness." And in each 'belief' there is naivete. Then again, as another former IVAW points out, maybe it wasn't a good idea to make someone executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War when the person never served in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a puzzler. Now they're gearing up to talk "reparations." The US doesn't owe the puppet government reparations. Those exiles lobbied the US government to invade Iraq. If anything, they should be paying the US. The Iraqi people, I believe, deserve reparations. But I don't believe you turn that over to the Iraqi government. Not when so many Iraqis continue to live in poverty while the Iraqi government officials not only steal freely (and proudly) but also waste money like crazy. Dar Addustour reports the Iraqi government is spending $150 million to buy three deluxe planes -- one of which will be for the Iraqi president, another for the prime minister. $150 million. While people struggle in poverty. And someone thinks it's a good idea to give the government of Iraq more money? If IVAW had anything to offer, they would have issued a statement today noting that Barack stressed negotations were still ongoing. They would have called out the contracters as well as the US soldiers who are going to be remaining on the ground in Iraq not to mention those who will be stationed in Kuwait. But that would have required leadership and IVAW turned themselves into a get-out-the-vote organization. For those who've forgotten, IVAW got punked big time at the Democratic Party's convention in Colorado. We were there, Ava and myself, reporting on it for Third and IVAW had the Democratic officials running scared. They were making demands, they were going to have a protest. People in the press that we knew were asking Ava and I about it and the excitement was building and IVAW was geared to get more publicity than they'd ever had in their lives. Then they got stage managed right out of their press moment. They were all happy and thrilled and Barack was going to meet with them and blah, blah, blah. The clock had already been running out. They got punked. The party shut down their protest and shut them up and then ignored them. The big split in IVAW, that it's never recovered from, was not, as some want to reduce it, about whether or not a political statement was being made with a US flag or whether the flag was being disrespected. That was the eruption point and it was issues like the refusal to be the independent organization that was going to hold all politicians accountable. IVAW was not a Democratic Party organization but that's what it became in 2008 and they have made clear today that they have chosen to remain that. That's a priority but being a veteran of the Iraq War or even the Afghanistan War, not so much. Despite being named Iraq Veterans Against the War. If that hurts, I really don't give a damn today. We don't link to Wired and I dislike Spencer Ackerman. While a favor called in got Wired it's link, I didn't have to give kind words to Ackerman. I did it because he did a good job reporting on what's really going down. I don't care for David Swanson and usually see him as the most extreme Barack apologist but he didn't try to spin it or lie today and he got a link. He earned his link, good job, David Swanson. By the same token, I didn't intend to write about IVAW today. Except for a few passing sentences about the shameful 2008 behavior, I've not criticized the organization. But this snapshot was ready an hour ago when Kat tugged on my shoulder and whispered (as I was finishing dictating in my cell phone), "You have to take this call." And I said "Hold the snapshot, I'm going to have to change something I know" and took the other cell phone and it was two former members of IVAW telling me about the IVAW statement -- which I hadn't even read yet -- and expressing their extreme anger. I don't blame them. The fact that they're not IVAW now doesn't matter -- and doesn't matter to them. They worked to build up that organization and IVAW had core beliefs about the Iraq War. Those beliefs got shoved aside to promote Barack today. They're outraged and I think they're right to be. If it was just their opinion and I didn't agree with it, I'd present as "two former IVAW's feel . . ." and leave it alone. But they are right and IVAW really needs to take a look what they believe in what they started and the mutant child they've become. Today was interesting. It wasn't what much of the press portrays but it was interesting. Like this statement, after Barack's press conference, by Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough, "You know, Matt, I think it's important to point out that we have a capacity to maintain trainers. In fact, the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq will have a capacity to train Iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapons systems that the Iraqis are going to buy, including, importantly, like the F-16s that they just purchased just about a month ago. So we will have a training capacity there. We'll have the kind of normal training relationship that we have with countries all over the world. You'll see, for example, Central Command looking for opportunities to have increased naval cooperation. You'll see opportunities in naval exercises; opportunities to have increased air force training and exercise opportunities. So we're going to have the kind of robust security cooperation with the Iraqis that we have with important allies all around the world. So the suggestion of your question that somehow there is not going to be training is just not accurate." Did those doing their shine-on-the-glory write-ups bother to pay attention to that press conference? Apparently not. We'll probably go into that one on Monday (including the admission that ups the numbers -- probably by about 45, I'm guessing -- of US troops that will remain in Iraq). AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted some thoughts on Iraq: prashantrao Politics in #Iraq remain deadlocked to a large degree - after elections in March 2010, still no permanent minister of defence or interior about 4 hours ago prashantrao Violence remains high in #Iraq by international standards - 185 people died as a result of violence in September. #US about 4 hours ago Violence does remain high. It also remains unreported. There are minimal foreign reporters in Iraq so when something happens (like Turkey's attacks), it sucks up the oxygen for any other story. And violence didn't end this week, bombings didn't stop, it's just the outlets had no time for coverage. Aswat al-Iraq -- an Iraqi news agency -- has continued all week long to cover the violence while more established, well known, bigger budgeted foreign news outlets couldn't be bothered. (I'm not picking Prahsant despite him being above. I'm especially knocking Reuters, however.) Aswat al-Iraq notes a woman was killed in Mosul home invasion, two Mosul bombings left three police officers injured, and 3 Baghdad bombings claimed 1 life and left eleven people injured. The Turkish military continues to assault northern Iraq. Roy Gutman, Ipek Yezdani and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report that while various Kurdistan Regional Government officials have condemned PKK attacks, they have not joined in the assault on the PKK. That's not at all surprising. The PKK assaults, as the press portrays the story, leads to the Turkish military response. That's not true. Not only is not where the story begins -- the starting point is the continued disenfranchisement of Kurds in Turkey -- there is no logical relationship between 'I condemn the PKK attack on a checkpoint' and 'I support the carpet bombing of the northern Iraq mountains.' The press has created a false narrative (I'm not referring to McClatchy who -- in this story and in Sahar Issa's report earlier this week) have pretty mcuh played it by the facts). They'e turned it into a high speed chase, tossing in everything but a white Bronco, when nothing could be more false. There was no high speech chase -- though yesterday afternoon the New York Times was pimping that hard in an early draft -- but pretending that there was allows people to pretend that the only one who might die are the evil doers that we can see up ahead and have had our eye on all along. Again, that's a lie. From the article: "We have no intention of sending any reinforcements to the site of the conflict on the border," said Jabbar Yawar, spokesman for the Kurdish peshmerga defense force, adding that this was "because force is not the answer." AP reports that Turkey and Iran are stating they will work together on the issue of Kurdish rebels. Iran recently worked out some form of an understanding with PJAK, the Kurdish rebels that attack Iranian security targets. So whether this is a real partnership or just an effort to strengthen its relationship with Turkey by offering public statements of support remains to be seen. In related news, Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraq's Ahrar bloc affiliated to Sadrist Movement criticized, on Tuesday, head of White Iraqiya Party Hassan Al Alawi's statements which called to unify the two main Kurdish parties in Kurdistan 'in preparation to declare the independent Kurdish state.' These statements reflect the failure of Alawi's overstated ambitions, Al Ahrar argued confirming that Kurds are an integral component of Iraq's community." This morning, the Iraqi press was reporting on the ongoing negotiations regarding a US military presence in Iraq beyond 2011. Al Mada notes Nouri's statements to the press that the number of trainers will be no more than one thousand. In a separate report, Al Mada notes that US Vice President Joe Biden is due in Iraq shortly to discuss the issue of 'trainers' and immunity and that Biden will be citing US laws and the US Constitution as the need for immunity. In addition to meeting with Nouri, he will also meet with Massoud Barzani, KRG President and with Amar al-Hakim (Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq leader). In other news, the Iraqi press has been full of articles this week (such as this one at Al Rafidayn) about calls for certain professors to lose their jobs or be demoted on charges that they are Ba'athists. Alsumaria TV notes, "Iraqi Minister of Higher Education Ali Al Adib accused on Wednesday his predecessor Abd Diab Al Ujaili of having run the ministry upon Baathist Party's directions. The 140 staff members that were sent away from the University of Tikrit were subject to the Justice and Accountability Law, Adib pointed up. The University's president reported their names to the ministry, he added." Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Deputy Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq rejected what he called 'demotion' of a number of professors from Mosul and Tikrit universities, pointing out that these procedures are 'disappointing and depressive' to the coming political stability and uprising of scientific and economic situations. In a field visit done by Mutlaq to Salah al-Din province, he met the governor, university teachers and tribal sheikhs." Presumably crying "Ba'athist" every five seconds allows many to refuse to focus on real issues such as Dar Addustour's report on new data which finds that the number of Iraqi widows and orphans continues to rise. Al Mada offers a lengthy report on the state of press freedoms in Iraq and notes the crackdown on journalists when "government agents" started arresting those who dared to cover the Friday protests, how their cameras and laptops were confiscated, how security teams beat demonstrators, used tear gas, water cannons and bullets on the protesters, how journalists were arrested, etc. Hadi al-Mahdi, the Iraqi journalist and activist, was arrested February 25th, the article notes, after covering the protest. He and two other journalists were eating lunch when Iraqi forces rushed up and began beating them with sticks and the butts of the rifles. The paper notes the assassination of Hadi al-Mahdi and how friends believe the murder was part of the government crackdown. That's just the first part of the article. Now we turn to targets and refugees. Starting with Iraqi Christians. Last week The NewsHour (PBS) examined Christianity in the Middle East and we'll note the question and answer section on Iraq: How did the Christians benefit from Saddam Hussein? "There was a kind of a social contract in Iraq," between minorities and Hussein, says Adeed Dawisha, a professor at the University of Miami in Ohio. "Under Saddam, it was understood that if you don't interfere in politics, then you are provided with a good life." "If the Christians supported Saddam, not because they loved what he was doing, it was the fear of the alternative," Dawisha says. As a result of turning their focus elsewhere, Christians prospered economically. They were businessmen, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. A select few were part of the political elite, like Tariq Aziz who served as foreign minister and deputy prime minister under Hussein. According to Katulis, that created a "network of protection that existed through some of the leaders [in] Saddam's inner circle ... trickled on down through community." What did Hussein get out of it? Hussein, by being intolerant of all sectarian violence, ensured that his minority-rule regime was safe from uprisings. The regime was equally intolerant of any sectarian-led violence, says Dawisha. However, Christans were not a "favored community" under Hussein's rule, Dawisha explains, "they were simply left alone." As a result, these minorities did not rebel against him. What happened after Hussein left? Nothing good. Once the regime fell, animosity between all religious communities exploded. The smallest minorities suffered the most. Before 2003, there were about 800,000 Christians in Iraq. Currently, Dawisha says, there is less than half that number. Sister Rosemarie Milazzo (Maryknoll Sisters) is in Iraq and writes today of an Iraqi Civil Socieity Soldiarity Initiative conference in Erbil last weekend, "The Iraqis I met there are on fire with passion for justice and peace and have been demonstrating, marching, etc. They came from all over Iraq for this meeting. Presentations from trade unions, women empowerment groups, environmental groups, etc. I met lots of courageous young activists. One was a young woman who shared her story of torture and beatings in Baghdad recently." Phil Lawler (Catholic Culture) wonders, "How is it that after more than two decades of US involvement in Iraq, Christians there face a steadily deteriorating situation?" Because, among other reasons, the US government wasn't interested in the Iraqi people, they were interested in thugs who could terrorize and distract the Iraqi people while various US government desires were imposed. Thugs, generally speaking, don't have a high regard for any anyone but fellow thugs. Which is how you get the waves of attacks on Iraqi Christians and on Iraq's LGBT community, on Iraq's religious minorities (which include more than just Christians) and ethnic minorities, attacks on Iraqi women, etc. The Witchita Eagle's editorial board notes, "More than half of Iraqi Christians have fled the country since the U.S. invasion, according to a State Department report last year. And the persecution and attacks on Christians have increased in recent years." Alex Murashko (Christian Post) reported yesterday, "Ongoing violence against Christians in Iraq has produced an accelerated exodus of believers recently and numbering in the hundreds of thousands over the last 10 years, said Open Doors USA officials." Dennis Sadowski (Catholic News Service) reported earlier this month on Bishop Gerlad Kicanas (Tucson) and Bishop George Murry (Youngstown) visiting Iraq (October 2nd through 5th) where they saw that security was still an issue that needed to be addressed and quotes Bishop Kicanas on a church scarred by a machine gun attack (the physical structure still scarred and the congregation still scared), "You still see vivid remains of the attack. This was a defining moment for Christians relizing they weren't safe in their own homes or their own churches." Sadowski notes, "The number of Christians in Iraq has declined from about 1.5 million in 2000 to less than 500,000 in 2010, according to Iraqi Christians in Need, a British charity established to address the exodus of Christians from the country. The agency cited long-imposed economic sanctions, continuing violence and the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 as reasons for the mass migration of Christians from the country." Last week Vatican Radio (link is text and audio) noted a lower estimate of the remaining Christians in Iraq (150,000) and noted that while safety issues continue to force many to flee "their homes and even the country," Ankawa in the Kurdistan Regional Government has seen an increase in a little over two decades from 8,000 Christians to 25,000 due to Christians moving there in an attempt to find safety. It was nearly a year ago, October 31st, that Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked. Church goers were held hostage, over 50 people were killed, many more injured. A woman in the church explained to Jim Muir (BBC News -- link is text and video), "Gunmen entered the church and started to beat people. Some of the people were released but others were wounded and some died and one of the priests was killed." Police officer Hussain Nahidh told John Leland (New York Times), "It's a horrible scene. More than 58 people were killed. The suicide vests were filled with ball bearings to kill as many people as possible. You can see human flesh everywhere. Flesh was stuck to the top roof of the hall. Many people went to hospitals without legs and hands." John Pontifex (Scottish Catholic Observer) reported earlier this month on the increase in Ankawa's Christian population noting that "1500 have arrived within the last year alone" and that "Christians arriving in Ankawa have fled not only from the Iraqi capital but from all across the country -- Mosul in the north, Kirkuk in the north-east, and even Basra, hundreds of miles away in the extreme south." Rob Kerby (Belief Net) notes that the Kurdistan Regional Government is offering Iraqi Christians "plots of land as well as $10,000 per family to settle in the village of Se Ganian, whose population was murdered by poison gas during Saddam's campaign against the Kurds." Joni B. Hannigan (Florida Baptist Witness via Asia News) adds, "The Grace Baptist Cultural Center in Dohuk [Province, in the Kurdistan Regional Government] -- a partnership between Iraqi, Jordan, Brazilian, American and Lebanese Baptists -- is being built with the blessing of Iraqi Kurdistan's Regional Government, who donated the $2 million properly. The land is in the same village, Simele, where in 1933 an estimated 6,000 Assyrians and Chaldeans were slaughtered by the Iraqi government following the withdrawal of British troops from the region after a treaty granting Iraq's independence in 1930." Sister Mary Brigid Clingman (GateHouse News Service) explains what the Dominican sisters in Iraq share: Throughout the last 10 years, these sisters kept us in a different loop of information as their country fell futher into chaos. One comment we heard was "order under a dictatorship was better than anarchy," which followed the collapse of the government. The religious tolernace that had existed had disappeared. The Christian Church existing in Iraq since the days of the Apostles ironically is disappearing as Christians from the West despoil their country. [. . .] What might the world be like if instead of weapons we had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan with bread and roses, medicine and education, electricity and roads? What if we had acknowledged our responsibilities for the anguish and anxiety of these people existent decades before 9/11? The Iraq War created the largest refugee crisis in the MidEast since 1948. Steve Beaven (Oregonian) reports on Baher Butti who left in 2006 and who is part of Jim Lommasson's photo exhibit at the Launch Pad Gallery through Saturday, October 29th entitled "What We Carried: Fragments from the Cradle of Civilization" which features photographs and also the paintings of Iraqis Farooq Hassan and Samir Khurshid, both of whom "now live in Portland." Beaven notes that Baher Butti and his wife (Balsam) and "their daughter and two sons [. . .] live in a house in Cedar Hills. Butti is a case manager and counselor for refugees at Lutheran Community Services in Southeast Portland. Balsam hopes to get her medical license here, their daughter goes to Sunset High School, and their sons are Portland State University students." The Launch Pad Gallery describes the exhibit: What We Carried: Fragments from the Cradle of Civilization is about leaving one's homeland. Portland Photographer/Writer Jim Lommasson is currently photographing and interviewing Iraqi refugees and immigrants who have fled to the U.S. since 1990. This project dovetails with Lommasson's visual and oral history of returning American soldiers from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars called Exit Wounds. Lommasson feels that there is another side of the story that needs to be told, about those who have left their homeland and are now resettling around the world. Lommasson is photographing those few important personal items that have survived the long journey from Iraq to the U.S. The journey may take months, sometime even years, and includes refugee camps, piles of documents and possibly a few bribes. After photographing the objects, Lommasson asks the participants to write about the significance of their objects on the finished photographs. Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer via the Modesto Bee) remembers Barack stating in 2007, "One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America -- the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors -- are being targeted for assassination. . . . And yet our doors are shut. That is not how we treat our friends. That is not who we are as Americans." He felt that way before he got in the White House. Trudy notes, "I've received dozens of e-mails from desperate Iraqi interpreters (some with glowing recommendations from senior U.S. military officers) who have all received death threats. Some interpreters are getting kicked off U.S. bases where they've lived for safety's sake, because those bases are closing." Pacific News Center notes that Guam-Senator Judi Guthertz has proposed that Guam be used as a asylum location for Iraqi refugees. The refugees include many groupings. Iraq's gay and lesbian community has been targeted repeatedly. Paul Canning (Care2Care) reports: Iraqi gay refugees may be almost forgotten, but one man has photographic proof that they exist. Back in June, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at NYU School of Law published the report 'A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism,' the first account of how U.S. counter-terrorism efforts have undermined the rights of women and sexual minorities. The report includes the 'collateral damage' from the Iraq war, the hundreds of LGBT people hunted down and killed in Iraq, including some by state actors, and the probably thousands (no one knows) who have fled. The group Iraqi LGBT has been almost solely responsible for documenting the murders. Another report [PDF], released by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in September says that attacks on LGBT in Iraq continued in 2010. Neither report got much play, but a new show of photographs by Bradley Secker puts a name to the gay refugee. We noted Bradley Secker's exhibit in the August 31st snapshot: Switching to the UK, London's First Out Cafe is hosting Bradley Secker's photo exhibit of LGBT Iraqis in Syria: "His primary aim was to create a photo essay with writtne, first hand testimonies. Accompanying the images, a short documetary film has been made to further highlight the issue in another medium. Through photos and interviews, the individual accounts are posing questions as to how, and why, such acts of violence and brutality can be overlooked in a new 'free' Iraq." August 22nd, Bradley Secker posted a photo from the exhibit to his blog and explained: After being left for dead by militia men in Iraq for photographing a story about the treatment of gay men, Nasser fled to Damascus, Syria, barely alive. 18 months later he is robbed in Damascus, everything he had stolen by a boyfriend. He was feeling betrayed and impatient, and tired of waiting to hear of news of resettlement to another country through the United Nations. Nasser wanted to go to Bulgaria, smuggling himself into the European Union illegally. Instead he went back to Iraq to get new documents, risking his life doing so. Arriving back in Iraq Nasser was kidnapped and has dissapeared. His whereabouts, his survival; unknown. I just had a phone call from someone in Iraq telling me that Nasser had been taken away, and that his friends are worried he might have been killed for real this time. In the search to make a new start, Nasser; a very brave, quiet and confident man may have lost his life and become another number added to the countless others killed because of their sexuality in Iraq. Sexual genocide continues. He may be alive, held somewhere. If he's alive, his courage will allow him to break out, escape, and start the new life he has been wishing for. I never got to note Adam Kokesh this week. Please visit his site (Adam is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and a truth teller) because he's doing his program again and you can stream an episode there. Joan Wile is the founder of Grandmothers Against the War and has written the book Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace. She is taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York and this is her latest report on that: POLICE BACK OFF AFTER THE GRANNY PEACE BRIGADE OCCUPIES LINCOLN CENTER by Joan Wile, author, "Grandmothers Against the War; Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace" (Citadel Press) Culture seekers streaming through Lincoln Center Tuesday evening, Oct. 18, were undoubtedly surprised to see a tableau not usually seen at the arts complex. Approximately 100 members of the Granny Peace Brigade and their followers formed a semi-circle around the fountain located in the midst of the plaza surrounded by the Koch Theatre (home of the New York City Ballet); the Metropolitan Opera House, and Avery Fisher Hall. The mostly elderly women, interspersed with a few men, stood silently from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. wearing placards with messages such as "AGAINST WARS, INVASIONS, OCCUPATIONS" and "AGAINST U.S. MILITARFY BASES ABROAD." The main purpose of the action was to challenge the rules forbidding private public spaces being used to advance political agendas, in essence preventing freedom of speech. And, as always, the grannies meant to convey their anti-war, anti-militarization message. They chose the date to celebrate the six years since 18 of them were arrested and jailed on Oct. 18, 2005, when they tried to enlist to replace America's grandchildren in harm's way in an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. The grannies believe that because of the national and international crises currently prevailing, which sorely demand resolution, it is essential that there be opportunities to rally, to vigil, to demonstrate on behalf of peace and social justice wherever people congregate. After about 20 minutes, an official from Lincoln Center came over to the group and said that they would have to disperse, and, if not, the police would be called. The peace people stood their ground. No police came, though they were at a nearby location ready to pounce. More time passed, and again the woman from Lincoln Center warned the grannies to leave the premises or the police would be called. The grannies continued standing silently, and again there was a notable absence of the men in blue to carry out the threat. Promptly at 8 p.m., the grannies broke ranks and, as cameras flashed and the watching crowd burst into applause, spoke happily about their feelings of having accomplished their mission. They had, after all, held their vigil without interference. One wondered why the police backed off from removing and presumably arresting the vigilers. Was it because they retain vestiges of their childhood respect and fear of their elders -- they were psychologically unable to clamp handcuffs on old women like their grannies? Or was it because they've been getting a bad rap lately as stories have circulated about young women being pepper sprayed while peacefully marching with the Occupy Wall Street people, and for randomly brutally mistreating OWS persons on Brooklyn Bridge, in Citibank? If so, it was a wise decision. YouTube videos circulating throughout the world showing cops dragging white-haired old ladies into paddy wagons would not exactly enhance the reputation of New York's Finest! So, have the grandmothers created a new precedent paving the way for future vigils and rallies to take place in public private spaces (or is it private public spaces)? Was this a unique event resulting from intimidated police confronted with their elders? Or if it's a younger assemblage next time, will the police revert to their old aggressive tactics? Time will tell. One hopes, however, that a new chapter is beginning, allowing for more freedom to peaceably assemble in order to alert the public to the perilous circumstances confronting us all. iraq the national journal yochi j. dreazen mark landler the christian science monitor al jazeera jane arraf cbs news brian montopoli afp prashant rao vatican radio catholic culture bbc news jim muir the new york times john leland the philadelphia inqurier trudy rubin