Music grab bag

Regina Spektor's album is officially a flop.  Number three.  When one and two were older albums -- when number two's been on the charts for 67 weeks?  Regina's best week is always her first week.  And then that's pretty much it for her.  With Far (a strong album) she made it to number three, a record for her.  But it sold more units in 2009 and this new album was supposed to go higher and be better and Regina, in fact, attempted to make a marketable album.

Instead, it got number three and now it's dead.  In six weeks it will be forgotten.    That's not my fault, it's her awful album.  A similar fate awaited Ani DiFranco with her turd of an album earlier this year.

The New York Times reports Carly Simon is writing her life story . . . for whatever reason . . . I'm doing Gladys Knight and the Pips' "You're the Best Thing."  Carly's writing her life story because someone she thought was a friend, in the words of Diana Ross, "turned my life into a paperback novel" ("Mirror Mirror").  It'll be published by Random House.  She hopes to complete it by year's end.  (I will be reading it the day it comes out.  If I don't see it before then.  It's Random House so I probably will see it before then.)

POLITICO blogs about a Jackson Browne interview.  In it, he notes his disappointment with Barack.  But still plans to vote for him!  Jackson, what about the children killed by the drone attacks?

In 1989, I saw him in concert (I've seen him before and since) and he took "Cocaine" and modified it.  He added, "But I wouldn't have been a user, not even for a day, if you could have shown me how I was turning a profit for the CIA . . ."

Jackson, children have died in this illegal Drone War.  You know better.

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

Wednesday, June 6, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri claims "foreign interference" and a conspiracy, Bradley Manning's attorney states they are not getting the evidence needed (or required by law), Brett McGurk makes on outlandish statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee doesn't even bat an eye. "Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to consider the President's nominees to serve as ambassadors to the following countries: Iraq, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Tajikistan," explained Senator Bob Casey this morning.  Casey was acting Committee Chair for the hearing.  Susan Marsh Elliott has been nominated for the Tajikistan post and Jeanne Sison's for the Srik Lanka and Maldives posts.  They are not our focus.  Brett McGurk is nominated to be the US Ambassador to Iraq and that is our focus.  For those late to the party who may have checked out on Iraq sometime ago, Casey offered a strong overview. Chair Bob Casey:  In Iraq, of course, the picture is mixed.  Nearly six months after the redeployment of US troops from the country, we know that political and ethnic divisions remain sharp as Iraq recovers from years and years of war.  The current government took months to establish in 2010.  And a high degree of mistrust still exists among key political factions.  Iraqis and Americans have sacrificed greatly, mightily to support the Democratic process in Iraq.  At this point in time, we should continue to support the political reconciliation among key players in the country as they work to further deepen the Democratic process.  This unsettled political environment exists within a very precarious security situation where extremist groups are still capable of an have launched significant attacks in the country.  Just last week, six bomb blasts across Baghdad killed at least 17 people -- mostly in Shia neighborhoods.  On Monday, a suicide bomber killed at least 26 people in Baghdad and wounded more than 190 in an attack on the government run -- the government run body that manages Shi'ite religious and cultural sites.  Why did we have the hearing?  He's "eminently capable" of doing the job, Casey rushed to assure in his opening remarks.  Then why are you wasting tax payer money?  Why waste our money holding a hearing when you've already decreed the nominee "eminently capable"?  Not to mention wasting everyone's time? It was a garbage hearing.  Trash.  That's all it was.  I could ridicule Casey but instead will just note that aside from refusing to question the witness seriously, he did an okay job filling in for Kerry.  Only okay?  When the opposite side has time left and wants just a minute more, no words should be required.  Just wavie them through.  This is the Senate.  Especially when it's the other side because it's so easy to look petty when interacting with the other side.  His strengths?  He's a very religious person and follows religious news so he brings a perspective to foreign relations that's often unique.  He will -- and did in this hearing -- know certain details of foreign violence that the mainstream press has ignored.  I wish he'd bothered to hold a hard hitting hearing.  I wish he'd asked how have we arrived at Barack Obama's third nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq in four years? The refusal to ask that sort of question goes a long way towards explaining how the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has failed repeatedly in the last four years when it came to vetting nominees. In his opening remarks, Brett McGurk began with his time in Iraq back in 2004 with John Negroponte.   Listening to him list his part in one Iraqi failure after another, it was difficult not to remember Peter Van Buren's observations last March: McGurk is 38 years old and has never done any job other than help fuck up Iraq on behalf of the United States. Dude only graduated in 1999. Despite essentially doing nothing but Iraq stuff his entire adult life, McGurk has also avoided learning any Arabic. You'd kind of think that maybe that wouldn't be the resume for the next guy in charge of cleaning up some of his own mistakes, like maybe you'd want someone who had some… depth or experience or broad knowledge or understanding of something other than failure in that God-forsaken country. Normally when you are a hand maiden to failure you don't get promoted, but then again, this is the State Department. This is almost as good as Harriet Miers. Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, about his work for the State Dept in Iraq. We'll note McGurk's claims of what he will do if confirmed. Brett McGurk:  In the defense and security area, if confirmed, I look forward to working with our Office of Security Cooperation and CENTCOM to ensure that we are doing everything possible to deepen our military-defense partnership in Iraq. In the diplomatic area, if confirmed, I look forward to working with our ambassadors in regional capitols --  most of whom I've worked with and admired for many years -- to ensure close coordination of US policies in Iraq and throughout the region.  In the political area, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections -- provincial elections in 2013 and national [he means parliamenatry] elections in 2014. If confirmed, it will be a central focus of our mission to work in coordination with the UN to ensure that these elections are held freely and on time.  Energy and economics are now among the foremost priorities.  If confirmed it will be among my highest priorities to connect US businesses with emerging opportunities in Iraq and to refocus Iraqi leaders on the urgent necessity of diversifying their economy and grappling with national hydrocarbons legislation.  As the US pursues its interest in Iraq, we must never lose sight of our values including promotion of human rights, women and protection of vulnerable minorities.  This is an ambitious agenda but it should nor require an unsustainable resource base.  If confirmed, I pledge to work with the Congress to establish a democratic presence in Iraq.  That is secure, strategic, effective and sustainable.  Back to the questioning.   Chair Bob Casey: I wanted to ask you about leadership which is a central concern in any confirmation process but maybe especially so for the position that you've been nominated for.  There will be those who say -- and I want to have you respond to this -- you have based upon your record, broad experience in Iraq. several time periods in which you've served as you've been called back for services under, as I indicated, two administrations.  But they will also say that you haven't had the leadership position that would lend itself to to the kind of substantial experience that will prepare yourself for such a position.  And I want you to answer that question because I think it's an important one in terms of demonstrating in this confirmation process, your ability to lead not just an embassy but an embassy and a mission of this size and  consequence. Brett McGurk:  Thank you, Senator and thank you for allowing me to address that.  I'd like to do that in three ways.  First, leadership of the embassy starts at home: At the embassy.  As you noted in your opening statements, I've served with all five of our prior ambassadors to Iraq and I've seen every permentation of the embassy from the very beginning to where it is today.  Throughout that, uh, process, I have learned and seen and been involved with what it takes to lead in Iraq. And to lead in Iraq, you need a really  fingertip understanding of the operational tempo in Iraq, of what it's like day-to-day, of knowing when something is a crisis and when it's not, managing morale and keeping people focused on the goals.  It also takes a team.  And if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I'd be inheriting a team of extraordinary talent and depth at the embassy.  I've been fortunate to have worked with every member of the country team in Iraq.  Uh, one of whom happens to be sitting to my left, Ambassador Sissen.  That team encorporates  individuals from across the government, just a whole government approach from Commerce to Transportation to Treasury to State to the Defense Community to the Intelligence Community. I've been gratified to learn that key members of that team have volunteered to stay on for another year and, if I'm confirmed, would serve with me.  As Ambassador, the buck would stop with me.  And as I think I said in the opening statement, I have a very clear visison -- in coordination with the President and the Secretary -- of where we need to take this mission.  But I would be working with a very strong team.  He then goes on to list various people he's worked with.  However, the question was about his ability to supervise and the answer was about everything but supervision.  Near the end of all that he says "finally" and begins talking about "my relationship with the Iraqi people."  He stated he was called back "over the years due to my unique relationship with the Iraqis.  I have worked with these indiviuals since I first got to Iraq in January 2004." Iraq's changed a bit since then.  And is McGurk able to see them for who they are now?  More importantly, is an occupation agent -- which is what McGurk would have been seen as -- really the one to make the diplomatic face for the US in Iraq? No one asked that important question. Brett McGurk:  Leadership also in this context, you have to look at inter-agency experience because you're looking at a whole government approach.  As a senior director for President Bush in the NSC particularly at one of the most intense periods of the war  from the time of planning and implementing the surge and through the end of his administration.  I was at point for organizing a whole of government effort for implement the surge. That's where he should have been asked about his failure. Forget your take on the surge and just look at what happened. (Some are pro-surge, some are anti- -- set that aside.)  We know what Gen David Petraeus did.  He was the top US commander in Iraq.  He receives much praise for the surge. Bush ordered the surge.  Petraeus executed it.  That's not me saying, "Don't give Petreaus any praise!"  That's noting what Petraeus' role was.  I don't believe the surge did anything lasting.  I don't believe it resulted in success.  That's not my criticism of Petraeus.  Petraeus was ordered to execute it and did.  His efforts are his efforts and though I'm anti-surge I see nothing to fault him on with regards to the execution of it.  He did what he was ordered to do with the surge and did it excellently.  2007 wasn't that long ago for some people.  For others it was a lifetime ago or even, if you're young enough, pre-history.  So let's go back and explain what was going on.  In the November 2006 mid-terms, the Democrats campaign of "give us one house of Congress and we'll end the war" resulted in their winning control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  This alarmed the White House (among the reasons Donald Rumsfeld was replaced as Secretary of Defense).  Not surprising, Republicans are usually alarmed by Democrats and vice versa.  So you had Bush occupying the White House and fearful that the Democrats were going to keep their campaign promise.  What a naive Bully Boy Bush. But Democrats were saying that the same thing was being done over and over.  US House Rep Gary Ackerman (who truly was against the Iraq War) was among those making that statement.  And they wanted to know why more money needed to be spent.  There was no progress.  The White House came up with benchmarks in early 2007 (and Nouri al-Maliki signed off on them as Iraq's prime minister).  Iraq would meet these benchmarks and that would be progress!  They never did.  And Democrats in Congress stopped caring as soon as Barack Obama was sworn in.  Doubt it?  US House Rep Lloyd Doggett, when's the last time you expressed public concern over the amount of money going to Iraq with the benchmarks not being met?  2008 when Bush was in the White House. In Iraq in 2007, the ethnic cleansing from the year before was continuing.  Shi'ites were purging Sunnis, Sunnis were purging Shi'ites.  It was more Shi'ites than Sunnis and that's true not only because there were more Shi'ites in the country but also because Sunnis made up a huge portion of the refugee population created in this time period.  Iraq was spinning out of control.  In addition to the benchmarks, in January 2007, Bush proposed the surge.  Here he is explaining it (January 10, 2007) to the American people: The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. [. . .] Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work. Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. [. . .] This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. An even shorter version of the speech can be summed up as: Americans are weary of the war.  Iraq needs to show progress.  To give the politicians "the breathing space" to move forward, we are sending more US soldiers into Iraq to address the security situation. Brett McGurk bragged about his role overseeing the surge to the Senate committee which was either too stupid or too cowed to point out the obvious: "Brett McGurk, you, sir, are no David Petraeus." Petraeus' role is very clear.  And he executed the surge and did so in a manner that should have resulted in an excellent rating for him.  For Petraeus. And that's the only part of the surge that can be rated as "successful." The surge was a failure.  Not a military failure.  Petraeus and those following his orders did their job very well.  But the surge wasn't just about more military on the ground.  That was the military aspect.  The political aspect -- which McGurk was supposed to be working on -- was passing the hydrocarbons law, achieving reconciliation among Iraqis (end of the anti-Ba'athism implemented under Paul Bremer), etc.  That was a failure. None of it happened.  And not only did it not happen under the surge, Nouri's just appointed new members to the Justice and Accountability Commission -- that's de-Ba'athification commission.  That was supposed to be done away with during the surge.  None of it happened. That's basic and many people can say that straight forward. (An idiot couldn't say it straight forward to Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News.  Think I mean Sarah Palin?  No, the first stammering can't answer the question interview was with Barack.)  The US military did their part.  That's all that happened.  And it wasn't Petraeus job to get the political ball moving.  That was the job of people like Brett McGurk. It's amazing that he wants to claim credit for basically being the point person on the surge when the only part that succeeded succeeded because of Gen Petraeus and those service members under him.  McGurk had nothing to do with that.  Talk about a glory hog. And how shameful that the Committee let that pass.  The whoring for this administration out of Congress is becoming a national embarrassment.  You either start working for the country or start campaigning under a street lamp -- preferably a red street lamp.   If you're tired of whoring how about you start addressing the needs of the United States?  If the US needs an ambassador to Iraq, then they need a qualified one.  Your refusal to ask hard questions did not make it appear that you were the least bit interested in McGurk's qualifications or, more to the point, his lack of them. And don't for a moment think that the Republicans did a better job.  Senator James Risch began his lecture praising McGurk's "expertise" and saying no one could question it.  Really?  There are a lot of people questioning just that?  His experience is non-stop failure. To Ranking Member Richard Lugar, McGurk would assert, "Quite frankly, our presence is too large."  This moments after stating he was involved in every bit of planning and discussions for the drawndown.  The American presence is too large in Baghdad post drawdown? Well, I guess after two years, you can judge that . . .  What's that?  It hasn't been two years?  That's right.  It wasn't even six months before Tim Arango began reporting ("U.S. May Scrap Costly Efforts to Train Iraqi Police") the State Dept was exploring scaling back the presence -- and he was wrongly slammed for that reporting by the State Dept.  If I was involved in every bit of planning for the post-drawndown phase and, less than six months later, the Department was belatedly realizing the planning had all been wrong, I would expect people to question me on that.  I certainly wouldn't think I could get away with citing my involvement in poor planning as a plus and reason to consider me for a post as ambassador. But the Senators didn't object, didn't question.  When Tim Arango was reporting on this consdieration, he was noting that over $50 million had already been spent on his program in Iraq since the start of the year.  It's a damn shame that the US Senators weren't at all concerned about that wasted money.  They had a witness before them bragging about all he'd done in the planning and the planning is a failure.  You'd think the gas bags would have had a question or two. Brett McGurk:  In my last assignments in Iraq, I participated in almost every internal conversation -- both inter-agency and in Baghdad -- about how not only to plan the transition after our troops were withdrawing but also uhm, uh-uh, how to get the size down.  Uh, quite frankly, our presence in Iraq right now, uh, is too large. Welcome to our Zombie Senate.  Here you will find glassy-eyed senators who stumble through a few words but mainly stare off into space as a witness self-incriminates. We may cover this hearing again tomorrow, there is plenty more to grab to be sure, but we're going stop here.  Yesterday, we covered the e-mails McGurk allegedly sent Wall St. Journal report Gina Chon.  Today Peter Van Buren makes the following points: I myself could care less what two adults agree to do, married or not, but State has disciplined its own Foreign Service Officers for extra marital affairs, and cautions against using official email for too-personal correspondence. Always want to keep an eye on double-standards so they don't negatively influence morale among the troops. I do care what McGurk did.  He concealed the relationship from Ryan Crocker who was his superior and the US Ambassador to Iraq.  When I objected yesterday I didn't see how someone who did that could then be US Ambassador to Iraq.  I was unaware that McGurk was married (he got married in 2006).  As Peter Van Buren notes, that is considered a no-no.  So he didn't just waste time in a war zone pursuing a bootie call, he also did so while married.  There are two comments currently at Van Buren's post.  I agree with both of them but I want to echo the second one.  The State Dept has gone after Peter.  They have targeted him for being a whistle blower.  But they think the best the US can offer for a post as ambassador is someone who violated their own policies in 2008 while in Iraq.  (That's not the only time in Iraq that McGurk violated the policies.  Had I known he was married yesterday I wouldn't have stated that he had many affairs while in Iraq.  But I've already stated that so we will note, pursuit of affairs was not limited to Gina Chon.)  And they know this.  And yet they want to go after Peter? The State Dept should take their little comedy act on the road.   Maybe USA Today's Jim Michaels could be their opening act?  "Six months after the last U.S. combat troops left, an Iraq free of Saddam Hussein and overseen by a democratically elected government midwifed by the United States is standing on its own despite ever-present dangers from within and outside its borders."  Good for Michaels for not falling into the press trap of claiming all US troops left.  You still have some acting to guard the embassy and consulates, you still have special ops and you still have others.  And it does matter to those whose loved ones are the ones still stationed in Iraq (that's not even counting the ones stationed around it).  So good for him there. But democratically elected government? If you say the "government of Iraq" to most people in the US, their image is Nouri al-Maliki.  He wasn't democratically elected.  His political slate (State of Law) came in second to Iraqiya (headed by Ayad Allawi).  Nouri's only prime minister today because he pouted and threw a temper tantrum for eight months (Political Stalemate I) and had the White House and Iranian government in Tehran both backing him.  The US pushed through the Erbil Agreement.  That's what gave him a second term.  And when he got what he wanted from the agreement that he signed off on, he refused to follow the Erbil Agreement, he refused to honor the concessions he had promised and put into writing.  And that is the ongoing Political Stalemate II, generally refered to as "the political crisis." The political crisis has led to a call for Al Mada notes that 176 signatures have been collected to call for a vote of no-confidence.  The Media Line observes, "That leaves Maliki with a motley assortment of backers: his own State of Law coalition, which commands less than a third of the seats in parliament; Tehran; and Washington. Yet, followers of Iraq's murky and ever-shifting politics say, Maliki isn't a goner yet."   Of course not, it's never easy to get rid of cockroaches, Wile E. Coyote or  rodents.  Al Mada notes State of Law continues to insist that the White House won't allow Nouri to be removed from his post and that US Vice President Joe Biden will be visiting soon. That a visit from Joe Biden is seen as the saving grace for Nouri goes to how estranged the White House is from the longterm US allies in the KRG.  Nouri al-Maliki used to hate Senator Joe.  Couldn't stand him.   Because Joe was among those telling the truth publicly that Nouri was nothing but a petty thug. Now the KRG feels they can't trust the White House (they're right) and Thug Nouri feels he can.  You have to wonder what and who the administration won't sell out before Barack leaves the White House?  Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc states that they are under intense pressure from Iran's Shi'ite government to back down in the call for a no confidence vote against Nouri (Shi'ite). As AFP noted this afternoon, Nouri's response was to declare that "foreign influence" was behind Iraq's problems.  As usual, he tossed around terms like "conspiracy" and played the persecuted drama queen. You don't have to ignore sectarian conflict and you shouldn't.  The truth is the truth.  But you also shouldn't mischaracterize to pimp the lie of sectarian conflict among government officisls.  There is unity in the government against Nouir. Alsumaria notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani went ahead and forwarded the signatures forthe no-confidence vote and that Talabani is insisting that he didn't sign on himself.  If Nouri wanted to stop a vote, all he would have to do -- Moqtada has stated this publicly -- is implement the Erbil Agreement he agreed to in November 2010.  He's refused to.  All this time.  And he's harmed Iraq in the process.  There are no heads of the security ministries because Nouri's refused to nominate any.  Grasp that.  Grasp there is no Minister of Defense.  Because of Nouri.  Violence is up in Iraq and this comes and that hasn't forced Nouri to nominate.  His 'antics' have hurt Iraq in the international business community as well.  Daniel J. Graeber (OilPrice.com) observed last night: On Monday, a suicide bomber in Iraq detonated his car bomb outside the Baghdad offices of a government-backed Shiite group, leaving at least 190 people wounded and 26 people dead. The attack was said to bear the hallmarks of al-Qaida, suggesting sectarian warfare is far from over in Iraq. The attack comes as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki faces enduring challenges to his administration. That's hardly the investment climate envisioned for a post-Saddam Iraq. As if to emphasize that point, international oil companies showed little interest in Iraq's latest oil and natural gas auction. Turning to the US.  When Michael Ratner isn't in the courtroom for the Bradley Manning pre-court martial hearings, you can count on him to Retweet coverage from people who were.    7h Alexa O'Brien ‏@carwinb Defense can view teh redacted "draft" damage rassessment at DIA HQ, discussion of Defense due to logistical issues 1/2 #frebrad Retweeted by Michael Ratner Expand Reply Retweet Favorite 4h Alexa O'Brien ‏@carwinb Can you say ridiculous? At one point Prosecution says, "These are the laws and procedures that make America so great." #freebrad #wikileaks Retweeted by Michael Ratner Expand Reply Retweet Favorite  Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it. Today Donna Miles (CNN) reports: Dominating the first of what is expected to be a three-day pre-trial hearing was Manning's civilian attorney, David Coombs, arguing that the prosecution is withholding key materials needed to build a solid defense. On the other side of the aisle, Army Maj. Ashden Fein, the lead prosecutor, called the defense's 'unreasonable' request for documents, many of which he said were irrelevant to the case, a ploy to slow down the proceedings.  He insisted, however, that the government is going "above and beyond" its legal obligations and is turning over the materials as quickly as possible. CNN reports, "Among the charges requested to be dropped against Manning are eight specifications of unauthorized transmission under the Espionage Act and two charges of exceeding authorized access, according to a Military District of Washington legal spokesman who is not authorized to use his name."  David Usborne (Indpendent) notes "Bradley, Not seen since his last hearing in April, Pte Manning looked thin and fragile seated between members of his defence team inside the military courtroom at the base, which is about 30 minutes north of Washington DC. He has been in custody since his arrest in May 2010 on suspicion of passing diplomatic cables and military logs from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the anti-secrecy website founded by Julian Assange." US Senator Patty Murray Chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes: VETERANS: Murray, Kohl, Tester, Wyden Call on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Investigate Companies Marketing Inappropriate Financial Products and Services to Veterans FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 Wednesday, June 6   Senators: Companies are taking advantage of elderly veterans and their family members (Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee joined with Senators Herb Kohl (D-WI), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in calling on Director Richard Cordray of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to investigate and take enforcement action against companies that may be inappropriately marketing and selling financial services and products to elderly veterans. They also called upon Director Cordray to alert veterans to the practices of companies that are taking advantage of elderly veterans. "We believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and specifically the Office for Older Americans and the Office of Servicemember Affairs are in a unique position to assist us in educating elderly veterans and family members and stopping improper practices that may be occurring," the Senators write in the letter. "For this reason, we request that you investigate these practices to determine the feasibility of enforcement actions within CFPB's authority. We also request that you assist us in gathering information related to these companies and practices and the impact they are having on our nation's veterans. Finally, we ask that you work with us to better educate veterans, their families and veteran advocates about VA's pension program and the practices of certain companies." The full text of the letter follows: June 6, 2012 The Honorable Richard Cordray Director Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1801 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Cordray:   For many elderly veterans and their families, understanding, planning, and paying for long-term care has become a tremendous challenge. The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) pension program, which provides monthly benefits to eligible low-income wartime veterans and their surviving spouses, can help in meeting basic financial needs. Pension recipients may also be eligible for additional aid if they require assistance with activities of daily living. For eligible veterans and survivors, these benefits may allow them to receive necessary quality care in their own homes, assisted living facilities or nursing homes.   Over the past several months, our offices have received a number of complaints from veterans and their family members about companies that may be inappropriately marketing and selling financial services and products to elderly veterans. We are deeply troubled because such practices may adversely impact eligibility for both VA and other Federal benefits, such as Medicaid. Often these financial services and products may involve substantial fees and may not be properly suited for elderly veterans. Further, some of these companies fail to offer accurate advice on other available benefits, often to the detriment of the veteran or survivor.     We have also encountered companies that grant veterans deferred payments on assisted living facility costs for either a certain time period or until receipt of VA pension benefits. However, because of the method by which VA computes pension eligibility, such practices may in fact negatively impact a veteran's eligibility for pension benefits. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has provided assistance to a number of veterans who found themselves facing eviction from assisted living facilities at the end of the deferral period because VA had not completed adjudication of their claim or they were ultimately found ineligible for pension benefits.   We believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and specifically the Office for Older Americans and the Office of Servicemember Affairs are in a unique position to assist us in educating elderly veterans and family members and stopping improper practices that may be occurring. For this reason, we request that you investigate these practices to determine the feasibility of enforcement actions within CFPB's authority. We also request that you assist us in gathering information related to these companies and practices and the impact they are having on our nation's veterans. Finally, we ask that you work  with us to better educate veterans, their families and veteran advocates about VA's pension program and the practices of certain companies. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Special Committee on Aging will continue to review these issues and work to ensure eligible veterans and survivors receive the benefits they have earned. We appreciate your attention to this request and look forward to your participation in serving our veterans and their families. ### iraq cbs news the cbs evening news with katie couric katie couric the new york times tim arango al mada alsumaria  oilprice.com daniel j. graeber usa today jim michaels

Dark Shadows and Joan Crawford

Dark Shadows is Tim Burton's summer film.  I saw it today on K Street and am glad I did because it was only showing once.  I figured it would be a 7:00 pm film and planned ahead to be there for the line for popcorn and soda.  So I got there at 6:35.  Five minutes before it started!  Or the trailers.  But it wasn't too crowded in the lobby and I got my popcorn and Coke and still managed to catch a few trailers before the film started.

If you haven't seen it yet, you really need to do so on the big screen.  I'm sure the DVD will have extras but Tim Burton is a big screen director.  He's not one of those people who lacks a visual style.

Based on the reviews I saw, I was ready for the visuals to thrill me and for nothing else to work.  That wasn't how it was, though.  The actress playing Angelique, I didn't know her, I felt she faltered.  She wasn't awful but because of what's taking place and how it spins the whole story early on, I felt that scene needed to show her stronger.  That was it though.  The film moves quickly and will have you laughing and then screaming.  (And there were some screamers in the auditorium.)

Johnny Depp was amazing as Barnabus.  This was a different character and he didn't repeat the way some actors do.  But as good as he was, and he was very, very good, Michelle Pfieffer really makes the movie.

I can't imagine anyone else playing Elizabeth Collins and hitting the notes she did or filling the frame the way she did.  Not a false note.

I'd forgotten how good she is.  She is the best actress in the US who hasn't (yet) won an Academy Award.  She really is amazing and she's been gone so frequently over the years that it really is easy to forget just how good she is.

She crackles on the screen.  Toni always says that Michelle's the perfect film actress but she doesn't think she'd be good on stage.  I don't know whether she would or not but film's the medium she works on so why are you focusing on the stage?

Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were rivals.  Joan got her start in silent films (sometimes nudie silent films) while Bette Davis got her start in the theater.  And Bette Davis used to be on TV saying that sort of thing.  And I can understand it (a) because she and Crawford were rivals and (b) because she wasn't wanted in the silent phase, Hollywood was only interested in Bette once they were doing talkies.  But even with Bette and Joan, the criticism is kind of stupid.  Joan Crawford was, and wanted to be, a film actress.  And she was often very effective.  She became a movie star who kept making hits longer than most people.  She had hits in the 20s, the 30s, the 40s (won her Oscar then for Mildred Pierce), the fifties, the sixties.  Very few people can be stars in one decade. To star in hit films in more than one decade?  And she starred.  She wasn't doing supporting roles.

Of the two, I prefer Davis.  Bette Davis is the 20th century movie star, in my opinion.

But I like Crawford as well.  Here's my top ten favorite Joan Crawford films (in order).

1) Mildred Pierce -- her best film.  Film Noir was rarely better.  And I'm a big fan of Jack Carson and Eve Arden, so I really love it.  I have streamed this movie on the road more than any other.  (Amazon's made a mini forturne off me!)

2) Flamingo Road -- it lags in places after Lane (Joan) gets married.  But it gives her one of the best villains she ever had (Titus the sherrif).

3) Humoresque -- Joan gets her best male co-star ever.  No, not Clark Gable.  (They were a team in many movies.  None of those movies make my top ten but Love On the Run would come closest.)  John Garfield.  This is another noir.

4) Grand Hotel -- Joan's career goes back so far that, yes, she did do a movie with Greta Garbo. This is it.  Joan's a secretary and provides most of the life in the film.

5) A Woman's Face -- I wish the film was better.  Joan is excellent.  She could have gotten the Oscar for this film.  But the script is a little creaky.

6) Female On The Beach -- I love this one.  I saw this on TV as a child and thought she was fascinating.  Joan's in love with a younger man (Jeff Chandler) and in a thriller like this, that can be dangerous.

7)  Sudden Fear.  Joan falls in love with and marries Jack Palance.  It could be happy days but Palance has a girlfriend (Gloria Grahame) and the two are planning to kill Joan.  I think all the above except Grand Hotel qualify as noir.


8) Johnny Guitar.  This Nicholas Ray classic it a noir western.  I have no idea what the story is.  I didn't like it for years.  In the 90s, A&E started airing it late nights.  I started falling asleep to it.  That's how I ended up seeing it -- in bits and pieces.  It's visually stunning.

9) The Women.  George Cuckor directs all the big and small MGM actresses of that time in this film.  Crawford had to beg to get to play the bitch.  Her career was going bad (she and Katharine Hepburn and others had just been declared Box Office Poison) and she knew Crystal could bring her back to the top.  And the part did.  It showed that Joan could play a bad girl -- with no heart of gold.

10) Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  The film that finally teams her with Bette Davis.  Bette is crazy Baby Jane.  Joan is the film star with the damaged legs.  Bette takes her anger out on Joan.  When they end up on a beach near the end, a few revelations emerge.

So those are my ten top favorite Joan films.  But I do have other Crawford films I enjoy.  Torch Song is the only one I enjoy because it's awful.  The rest of them I love because she brings something to the films.



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

Tuesday, June 5, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  Brett McGurk intends to take himself and his self-admitted "blue balls" before the Senate Foreign Policy Committee tomorrow, whether he will be asked by the senators whether it was appropriate to engage in an affair with a reporter while stationed in Iraq or to conceal it from his supervisors remains an unknown, Moqtada says they have enough signatures to call for a no-confidence vote on Nouri al-Maliki, poverty and sanitation rates released by an Iraqi ministry do not demonstrate progress, and more.       In recent times there have been several attempts to block the nomination of an ambassador.  Republican Senators successfully blocked Mari Carmen Aponte from the post of Ambassador to El Salvador.  Prior to that, Democrats successfully blocked the nomination of John Bolton and then Bully Boy Bush recess nominated only to have Bolton step down after the 2006 mid-term elections when Democrats won control of both houses. Democrats blocked Gene Cretz's nomination successfully as well (Bush nominated, Democratic senators had a problem not with Cretz but with sending an ambassador to Libya, he was confirmed near the end of Novembe 2008).  Tomorrow morning the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on three nominations.  Senator Bob Casey will be acting Chair.  (John Kerry is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). It will most likely be very boring and run of the mill.  Why?   As the above examples demonstrate, in recent times, objections only come from the party not occupying the White House.   The Senate has a job to do and they don't take it seriously.   They can argue that all they want but the reality is that while Susan Marsh Elliott's nomination to be the US Ambassador to the Republic of Tajikistan and Michele Jeanne Sison's nomination to be the US Ambassdor to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (while also serving as US Ambassador to the Republic of Maldives) may not be controversial, Brett McGurk's nomination to be the US Ambassador to Iraq should be very controversial.   Setting aside who the nominee is, just the fact that this White House has nominated someone to be US Ambassador to Iraq should be controversial.   When Barack Obama was president-elect and not yet sworn in, then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker kindly offered to continue in his role until Barack could find a replacement.  Barack thanked him for that offer and took him up on it.  So far, so good.   Then came the nomination of Chris Hill and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- on the Democrat side -- refused to do their job.  They waived through a moron.  An obvious moron as demonstrated in his March 25, 2009 confirmation hearing (those late to the party can refer to the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot for coverage and gasp in amazement that Hill -- after being briefed on the issue -- still had no grasp on Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution or the issue of Kirkuk).  Hill was a supposed trained and accomplished diplomat (his personnel file begged to differ) but under him nothing got resolved and the long delay in the elections also comes under his watch.  Iraq falls apart under his watch, it can be argued.  I heard all about his "low energy levels" while in Iraq, his napping on the job, his inability to communicate with anyone (the then-top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno carried both the Defense Dept and the State Dept all by himself because Hill couldn't be counted on; Odierno had to do double duty and Hill was said to be resentful over all the work Ordierno took on -- work Odierno had to take on when Hill either couldn't or just wouldn't do it).  Peter Van Buren published the book We Meant Well: How I helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, he's a whistle blower now being targeted by the White House.  And until he posted the grossly offensive photos of Hill and a 'colleague' earlier this year, I wasn't aware that Hill was also mocking the assassination of JFK.  Chris Hill was a disaster and we said he would be after his hearing.  But he was much worse than anyone could have imagined and he owes the American people an apology for that little stunt where he mocked JFK and Jackie Kennedy Onassis.  He wasn't hired for his 'cutting edge comedy,' he was paid by the tax payers to be a diplomat and there was nothing diplomatic about turning the assassination of a sitting US President and the horror of the First Lady who saw her husband assassinated into a cheap joke.   If you missed that, refer to Peter Van Buren's blog here and here.  And maybe then you'll understand why so many -- especially US military officers in Iraq -- could not believe that this moron made it through a confirmation hearing.    Having made that disaster, the same Committee should be very careful. Proof of Hill's complete failure, July 20, 2010 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was holding a hearing on James Jeffrey's nomination to be the US Ambassador to Iraq.  In his hearing, Jeffrey proved himself to be competent and aware of the issues.  He has now left his post and we're not supposed to note that or to comment on the why of it.  He went in thrilled to have the post and worked very hard at it.  You'd think the press would be interested why he no longer wanted it.  But the press doesn't report, they fawn.   What does the Senate Foreign Relations Committee do?  Is the attitude of Democrats on the Committee that Barack can't win a second term?    If that's their attitude than the hearing really doesn't matter.  You're talkin gabout someone who will be voted on by the end of the month or early July so he'd only be in Iraq for a few months before the new president was sworn in.   So maybe tomorrow the Democrats won't be asking tough questions because they don't think Barack Obama can win re-election.   If they do think he can, then they need to be asking some serious questions of the nominee.  It is not normal to be on your third ambassador to a country in less than four years.    A death might excuse that number but there have been no deaths. The previous two left government service to get out of the job.  Clearly, the confirmation hearings have been a failure.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee should grasp that.   The nominee should have to explain what their committment to the job is, how long they could conceivably hold it and what they intend to bring to the table?   Iraq is supposedly a major issue to the US.  It should be.  US taxpayers saw trillions go into that illegal war.  The world saw millions of Iraqis die,  4488 US service members die (DoD count), 'coalition' partners losses, an unknown number of contractors, reporters and many more.  And you'd think with all that blood, with all those lives lost, with all that money wasted, that the US government would take the post of Ambassador to Iraq seriously.  One president having three nominees in one term -- an ongoing term -- does not indicate that serious work has been done either by the White House or the Senate.   All of the above would be for any person nominated today to that post.  In addition to the above, McGurk is woefully unsuited for the job.  He should be asked to explain his administrative experience.  He's not heading a desk in a vacation getaway.  If confirmed, he would be heading the most expensive US embassy project.  That's even with talk of staffing cuts and talk of this and talk of that.  Even now the US diplomatic presence in Iraq is the big ticket item in the US State Dept's budget.  What in his record says to the American people, "Your tax dollars are not about to AGAIN be wasted?"   Iraq is highly unstable.  The US should not be sending Ambassador Number 3 since 2009.  But it's in that position now because people trusted to do the work -- vetting the nominee, confirming the nominee -- didn't do their jobs.   Democrats saw it as, "One of our own is in the White House! Whatever he wants!" That's not why you were elected to the Senate and you have wasted tax payer money with this continued turnover of this post.  At a time when sequestering looms over the budget, the notion that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee thinks it can just waive this appointment through is inexcusable.   Unless of course, we're to infer that the Senate doesn't feel the position matters because they're assuming Barack will lose in November so McGurk would only briefly be in position until Mitt Romney could nominate his own ambassador.   Donna Cassata (AP) reports that "members of the panel saying they saw no obstacles to McGurk winning their approval to the posting to one of the United States' largest diplomatic mission in the world."  That should be "some members."  Even her own report notes that Senator John McCain is not gung-hu. McCain's not the only one.  I count three others that might ask difficult questions and rise to the occassion and to the duties of their office. Cassata feels the need to offer, "While violence has dropped sharply in recent years, attacks on Iraqi government offices and members of the security forces are still occuring."  That's so damn offensive.   The Iraqi people don't matter, Donna Cassata?  Just the "government offices and members of the security forces"?  Not only is that insulting it's inaccurate.  Siobhan Gorman, Adam Entous and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) reported on the National Counterterrorism Center's statements of "an uptick in attacks by al Qaeda's Iraq affiliate" since December and, "Recent U.S. intelligence reports show the number of attacks have risen this year to 25 per month, compared with an average of 19 for each month last year, according to a person familiar with them."   McGurk could become the new Ambassador to Iraq . . .  blue balls and all.   What's that?  Click here for some of his alleged e-mail correspondence with Gina Chon who covered Iraq for the Wall Street Journal.  It appears real and I'm told it is real.  What were the ethics of his being sent to Iraq by the US government and his beginning an affair with Chon?  Is he really supposed to be using taxpayer computers to send Chon messages about "I had a very real case of blue balls last night! I think they're still blue."? He was working under Ryan Crocker and a June 23, 2008 e-mail to Chon makes it clear that Crocker was unaware that his staffer was sleeping with a reporter for a news outlet ("[. . .] you would indeed provoke serious head scratching on Ryan's part").   To be very clear, I'm not quoting Gina Chon's e-mails and have no interest in them.  The reason being she's a reporter.  Her paper paid for her to be in Iraq.  US taxpayers paid for McGurk.  US taxpayers paid for American soldiers as well.  It was not assumed that the US soldiers would be sleeping there way through Iraq.  In fact, anything they did like that, they were expected to do while on leave.  I don't understand how a government employee went to Iraq -- a war zone -- and thought it was okay to romance a reporter and thought it was okay not to inform his superior of this little hidden dance.   If McGurk is confirmed, will he be able to focus in Iraq or will his self-admitted "blue balls" demand that he find 'relief' with a reporter?   Soldiers had to focus on their missions, I'm amazed that McGurk, now nominated to be the US Ambassador to Iraq, didn't have the same requirement.  I also wonder, of this man with so little administrative experience, how he would be able to model appropriate behavior or, if need be, discipline for inappropriate behavior?    Will anyone have the guts to ask him tomorrow why he didn't inform Crocker of his entanglement with a member of the press?   Again, the exchange is here.  Gina Chon did not work for the government.  She was free to do whatever she wanted with her time and I'm making no comment on her or any sort of judgment.  I feel badly about linking to these exchanges that include her e-mails; however, the US Embassy in Iraq has been a story of too much sex and too little work.  Again, don't expect the Senate to provide the oversight that they're supposed to.   And Iraq's a country where the people need a friend.  Alsumaria reports that 70% of the urban areas are without proper sanitation.  The numbers are from the Ministry of Planning.  They also claim that 79% of the people say that they have safe drinking water.  That doesn't mean that (a) they have safe drinking water out of the pipe.  Saying you have "safe" drinking water may merely mean that you know to boil it before drinking it -- which is far more likely when you look at the lack of sanitation.  Also true (b) the cholera outbreaks each fall indicate that a number of Iraqis either don't know about safe drinking water or don't think they can be harmed themselves.  This is not a minor issue, this is a human rights issue.  And for those who might fret that I'm on the soapbox again, although I agree with that definition, I'm not the one making it, the Foreign Ministry of Iraq defines human rights with a long list which does include the right to safe water and to sanitation.   Poverty is also defined as a human rights issue by the Iraqi government.  Ministry of Planning spokesperson Abdul Zahra al-Hindawi states that it is the lack of electricity that is hurting water and sanitation.  The Minister of Planning, Ali Yousef Shukri, tells Alsumaria that the unemployment rate in Iraq stands at 16% while the poverty rate is approximately 11%.  You can be sure both numbers are actually higher.   And the UN estimates the poverty rate to be 23% while youth unemployment is 30% and total unemployment is 15%.   But how does an oil rich country ever justify poverty in its borders?  The Ministry of Oil is yet again bragging about estimates including that in the next 20 years they expect oil revenues to bring in five trillion dollars.  Five trillion dollars.  How do justify poverty in Iraq?     Today's violence includes a Diyala Province bombing claiming the life of 1 police captain and leaving two other police officers injured, 2 alleged kidnappers of a child ($500,000 ransom) were arrested in Baghdad (kidnapping took place in Basra at the end of April) and 5 suspects were arrested in Kirkuk over the drowning of a man in Zab River.   Meanwhile Al Mada reports that the Parliamentary Integrity Committee is stating that Nouri has taken their files and the fear appears to be that he will use them to go after political rivals.  One Commssion member states that the work of the Commission for the past months has now vanished.   Dina al-Shibeeb (Al Arabiya) speaks with two analysts of Iraqi politics, Ahmed al-Abyadh and Amer al-Tamimi:   "If the majority of the political factions in Iraq agree to unseat Maliki, the United States cannot convince or stop them from doing so," he said. "If Maliki falls," Tamimi said, "that there are two possible outcomes: one, a national partnership government will be formed or two, a struggle to agree on Maliki's substitute will ensue which could lead to the setting up of a caretaker government."   Al Mada reports there are rumors that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has signed on to the no-confidence vote on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Alsumaria notes that today Talabani announced the formation of a committee to vet the authenticity of the signatures on the motion for a no-confidence vote.  Alsumaria reports sources tell them that there are 40 signatures from the Sadr bloc, 48 from the Kurdish bloc, 75 from Iraqiya, 3 from minority seats and 9 from the National Alliance. That would add up to 175.  Al Rafidayn reports Moqtada al-Sadr announced there were 176 signatures yesterday. Either Alsumaria missed one in their reporting or else one signed on after.  More interesting is Nouri's public boasting that the White House will save him -- and rumors that Vice President Joe Biden will make a visit to Iraq -- by "persuading" some signees to leave the list.  Nouri's not usually so publci about how dependent upon the White House he is.   Al Rafidayn notes that Nouri spent yesterday disputing the validity of signatures.  Al Mada adds that the National Alliance is being urged to propose an alternative to Nouri. It's the ongoing political crisis.  And Nouri could end it at any time -- Moqtada al-Sadr has publicly stated so -- by merely implementing the Erbil Agreement.  But Nouri has refused to do so. In March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections.  Nouri had a fit and demanded a recount.  Even after the recount his State of Law was still second place to Iraqiya (led by Ayad Allawi).  So like a big cry baby, he dug his feet in and refused to allow the process to go forward.  For eight months, Political Stalemate I, he refused to allow the Constitutional process to go forward and he was able to get away with it because he had the backing of the White House and of the Iranian government in Tehran. Running interference for him, the US-brokered the Erbil Agreement.  It allowed loser Nouri to have a second term as prime minister.  The willful child had exhausted everyone's patience and the other blocs tried to be mature and put Iraq ahead of everything else.  So they agreed to let Nouri have a second term as prime minister provided he made concessions (such as following the Constitution's Article 140).  He signed off on it and the US vouched for the agreement, it was legal, it would be followed, let's all move forward. Then when Nouri got his second term, he trashed the agreement, refused to abide by the contract and the same White House that brokered the contract now refused to call for it to be followed.   UPI notes, "Even fellow Shiites are saying Maliki, who controls all Iraq's military, security and intelligence forces, should go. At the same time, Tehran is seeking to ensure that Iraq's Shiites don't upstage Iran's long-held spiritual domination of the Shite sect, a position that the Iranian clergy seized Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/06/05/Iran-steps-in-to-prop-up-Iraqs-Maliki/UPI-79511338917097/#ixzz1wxoxUc2y "   Last night came news that the CIA was contemplating drawing down its presence in Iraq.   The CIA, still in Iraq?  Yes.  Last December, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC). MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control? AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff. Yes, the CIA continued in Iraq after the 'withdrawal' (remember, the Pentagon always called it a drawdown -- the press and the White House insisted on using "withdrawal').  So you have the CIA, Joint Special Operations Command, the DEA and the FBI. As well as thousands of contractors, Marines to guard the US Embassy and 'trainers.' Siobhan Gorman, Adam Entous and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) reported last night that the CIA was considering cutting its staffing in Iraq?  Cutting it all?  No.  Cutting it to 40% less than it was in 2011.  Why?  Maybe the clue comes from the Ministry of Interior's Hassan Kokaz who states of the US in Iraq today, "We have asked them to wear civilian clothes and not military uniforms and to be searched when they visit Iraqi institutions.  Perhaps they are not used to this."  How major is the story?  It actually led to Iraq being raised at today's US State Dept press briefing (link is text and video).  Mark Toner was the spokesperson handling today's briefing. MR. TONER: Let's go Iraq and then back to you.   QUESTION: Yeah. Mark, I wanted to ask you if you'd -- if you have any comment on plans by the CIA to scale back its presence in Iraq, and how does that impact the presence of your personnel at the Embassy?   MR. TONER: Well, I certainly can't speak to the matters raised in the article that you mention. I would just say that we continue to work closely through the Embassy as well as through our Office of Security Cooperation to support Iraqi Security Forces.   QUESTION: Are U.S. diplomats able to conduct their business in Iraq freely and let's say the consulates in Mosul and Basra and places like that?   MR. TONER: Yes. We believe that they -- that our -- as I said, our cooperation with Iraqi security forces is very good.   QUESTION: Okay. And finally, would the U.S. continue to conduct its diplomatic efforts in Iraq as usual with a lessened number of, let's say, contractors?   MR. TONER: I'm sorry?   QUESTION: With a scaled-back number of contractors that provide security?   MR. TONER: Well, as we've talked about before, we're looking at possible changes in reductions in our footprint in Iraq. But as we always say, the safety and security of our personnel on the ground is paramount.     As the war drums continue to pound against Syria, Professor Joshua Landis warns against foreign intervention at Foreign Policy.  Excerpt.   Anyone who believes that Syria will avoid the excesses of Iraq -- where the military, government ministries, and Baath Party were dissolved and criminalized -- is dreaming. Syrian government institutions and the security forces will fall apart once the revolution prevails. They are overwhelmingly staffed by Baathists, Alawites, and other minorities, recruited for loyalty to President Bashar al-Assad -- no revolutionary government will keep them on. Their dismissal will provide fodder for a counterinsurgency, promoting greater chaos across the country.     We'll close with "Obama's list of death" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):   The presidential election campaign is well and truly under way in the US. Barack Obama wants to banish any lingering illusions that he might be an anti-war president. Long gone is the candidate who opposed the "bad war" in Iraq, opposed rendition and promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Timely revelations from White House insiders this week present him coolly signing off on "kill lists" for deadly drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. He wants everyone to remember that he is the man who took out Osama Bin Laden. Obama has resolved the "kill or capture" dilemma by relying on drones which kill indiscriminately. Since he was elected the number of deaths by drone strikes has soared. It's impossible to obtain clear figures for civilian casualties—the US military always claims that all men of military age who die are "combatants". Drone attacks have the added benefit for him of not putting US lives at risk. The operators are safe in a Nevada bunker. And fear of drones that could strike at any moment is intended to terrorise populations, giving US troops the space to get out. Obama was never really anti‑war—he was just against George Bush's strategy for war. The establishment backed his election to pursue US imperialist interests by different methods. But today those methods will seem little different to people living in Afghanistan and Pakistan. © Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.     iraq al mada alsumaria al rafidayn nbc rock center with brian williams ted koppel the wall st. journal  siobhan gorman adam entous ali a. nabhan afp mohamad ali harissi ammar karim