LT GEN ROBERT FRY: I see the direction which your question is coming from now.
I think that General Shinseki did indeed say that, but he didn't necessarily say that they all needed to be on the start line at the beginning of the process. What
he mean was that over time, what you would need is a sequential deployment, and that was perfectly within the gift of the American forces and planners to do that. So if your question is did we have the numbers for every subsequent task, the answer is no, but neither did we know at that stage whether the Americans intended to
send more or not. So we were only looking at the numbers required for the decisive combat phase. If I go on a stage further, I think that there was a group around Secretary Rumsfeld, and I think probably Donald Rumsfeld himself, who felt that what had happened in Afghanistan was transferable to Iraq, that you would be able to apply -- let me use de minimis again -- a certain amount -- a discrete level of military force that would be sufficient to defeat the enemy, that you would perhaps have in place indigenous forces, the northern lines in Afghanistan, maybe the Kurds and the Shia in Iraq, and that you would have some compliant politicians who would then be able to create an interim administration. You could hand the process over to them and then walk away.
That's from today's Iraq Inquiry in England. They heard from LT GEN ROBERT FRY this morning and, when I was looking over it, I thought, "Hmm. How strange. That someone could think, 'We'll just do in Iraq what we did in Afghanistan.'"
I mean, they are two completely different countries.
How could you be that stupid?
Donald Rumsfeld must have been plenty stupid, right?
Right?
No one would make a mistake like that today, at least.
Oh, wait.
They are making that mistake again.
Only in the other direction.
They're pretending that they can take Iraq and move it to Afghanistan. 'Lessons,' mind you. Like Donald Rumsfeld thought.
But only Donald Rumsfeld was wrong, you understand. Everything's changed, it's all different today. Right?
If you're as stupid as those planning illegal wars, you would say "right."
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, February 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, one of Iraq's two vice presidents informs that "the government hushed up the results of the investigation," the Iraq Inquiry continues in England with some notice given (by Chair John Chilcott) to the human cost of the Iraq War, some details emerge on the deal the US cut with the KRG, and more.
Starting with Iraqi elections. At the start of this year, Iraq's national elections were supposed to take place in December 2009. There were many reasons for this including (a) the fact that it takes weeks for Iraq to put together a government (the winners of the elections will then decide in Parliament who the prime minister will be) and (b) the fact that the terms expire at the end of January 2010. But Nouri just knew he was able to move mountains and the elections were pushed back to January 2010. But no one worked the issue (including the US -- the scramble is yet another indictment against the US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill). The press kept talking about January elections, kept saying they were taking place. Predicting instead of reporting. Not really understanding their role, their function or their obligation. After an election law suffered a veto from the country's Presidency Council, January went up in smoke. Currently, 'intended' elections may take place in March. That's a possibility due to frantic, last minute deals being made in the hours before midnight on December 6th allowing the latest election measure to pass. What deals were made?
Fuad Hussein is the Chief of Staff for the KRG President Masoud Barzani and Falah Mustafa Bakir heads the KRG's Dept of Foreign Relations.. Both are in DC for the week with plans to also visit Detroit and the Iraqi community there. Eli Lake (Washington Times) reports the Kurds got behind the election measure only after the US made a "historic" commitment to the KRG which Hussein states includes promises that the long postponed census would take place, the the issue of Kirkuk being resolved and more. With Lake's article, the Washington Times offers a video clip:
Fuad Hussein: Many people know that we were negotiating with Washington, with Baghdad. In Baghdad, we were negotiating with our group in Baghdad. We had two groups in Baghdad negotiating election law. We were negotiating with the American ambassador, we were negotiating with the other political leaders, Arab political leaders, in Baghdad. So we were about, for two weeks, the whole day and sometimes until one o'clock in the night, negotiating about this. So when we felt that there isn't any alternative as far as distrubtion of these seats but, to be honest, we find that it is not fair to give so little seats to the Kurdistan Region. We were thinking about a linkage and politics you have got that so we were thinking about a linkage between accepting this and getting also somewhere else or reaching somehwere else, another target so then the Americans were ready to discuss other matters with us which are our priorities and which are important and which has been riased and disccused many times at meetings with the American side and then it has been accepted and there was a green light to accept the election law.
Meanwhile Zvi Bar'el (Haaretz) speaks with Barzani and reports the KRG "is making due with an American commitment to preserve the region's autonomy as part of a federal Iraq, but his remarks have caused a shudder in both Iraq and Turkey because an American commitment implies support for Kurdish demands that the Iraqi government opposes." And among the current conflicts between the KRG and Baghdad is oil. UPI notes, "As it is, Baghdad is already at odds with Iraq's Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous enclave in the northeast. In the absence of an oil law, the Kurdish Regional Government is battling the centeral government over Kurdistan's energy resources. The KRG has signed contracts, far more lucrative than those secured by the central government, with some 20 foreign oil companies. The Kurds see this as the economic underpinning of an eventual independent state." (Mike noted and weighed in on Eli Lake's article last night.)
Meanwhile BBC News reports that Nouri's cabinet has a new 'brainstorm' on countering bombings? Offer rewards "for information that prevents bomb attacks." Of course, you need to grasp that if you tip off on a bomb attack, your name probably goes on a list that, in a later bombing, will lead you to be among the many suspects who are beaten into giving confessions and then have your confession aired on Iraqi TV -- it's Nouri's own little reality show, Who Wants To Be Forced To Confess To A Crime You Didn't Commit? And, of course, turning tipsters into later suspects means Nouri won't actually have to pay any reward money. Not that there would ever be any check on it to begin with because it's not as if the tipster will show up on TV announcing, "We were starving but now, thanks to Nouri and my bombing tip, we have a home!" Such an admission would most likely get you killed. In the real world, Hoda al-Jasim (Asharq Alawsat) interviewed Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, this week and he had a number of comments regarding what's being called Iraq's "security crisis."
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Your joy did not last long, as less than 36 hours later the Tuesday bombings took place. What is your explanation of the timing of these attacks? In your opinion, who is responsible for this security crisis? [Tariq al-Hashimi] I have a theory with regards to these operations, as there is more than one party being targeted. I am very saddened by what happened and I feel embarrassed as although I am in a high ranking [governmental] position I am unable to reduce the internal casualties. The problem is that the security file is in the hands of one party, and the Presidency Council is marginalized and excluded from any consultation or participation [in this]. We have not received any information on the Bloody Wednesday attacks [19 August 2009], or the Bloody Sunday attack [25 October 2009] and the Tuesday attack [8 December 2009; all [the information] that we have is the same information that reaches any Iraqi citizen through the media. The Presidency Council does not know what is happening, and we do not have the capabilities that will allow us to find out what is happening or whether the official in charge of the security file had learnt from previous lessons and saved Iraqi lives. I hope that Iraqi Prime Minister and commander-in-chief (Nouri al-Maliki), who is exclusively responsible for this security file, is fair and courageous and shoulders the responsibility and gives justice to all the lives lost and blood shed by saying that the security challenges are greater than his ability, and that he admits default and failure, and hands the security file to professional security experts. When he does this, I will stand strongly beside the Iraqi Prime Minister and support him, when he admits failure in managing the security file, and makes the decision to hand responsibility of this over to someone else.
[. . .]
I am very concerned that the government has kept silent about the outcome of the Bloody Wednesday and Bloody Sunday investigations, as what happened happened because the dark forces had the freedom to pick the time and location [of the attacks], which not only targeted the institutions of the state, but also innocent people. Therefore the time has come to admit defeat and hand over this file to those who possess [security] expertise and skill. We must admit failure and hand over this investigation to specialist committees, the security services should not conduct this investigation as they themselves stand accused, rather this investigation should be handed over to high level committees to study what happened and hold those involved accountable.
Hand over? al-Hashimi responds to a question as to whether or not (as rumored) the Presidency Council is against the execution of 'suspects' by noting that Nouri has kept the Presidency Council completely out of the loop in the investigation and they've seen no evidence of anything: "the government hushed up the results of the investigation." On the investigation into yesterday's Baghdad bombings, Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report, "The [Iraqi] investigators were heard discussing how two people wearing officers uniforms had parked in the lot and walked away." Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Mohammed Abbas, Missy Ryan and Jon Hemming (Reuters) add, "There is widespread suspicion in Iraq that the police and armed forces have been infiltrated by militants, take bribes to allow insurgents to mount attacks, or may be colluding with militants to undermine Maliki before a March 7 general election."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul in an attack on a military checkpoint and, dropping back to last night, 1 person shot dead in Mosul ("owner of a neighbourhood generator").
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Baghdad roadside bombing targeting Sahwa leader Shiekh Latif which claimed the life of the sheikh and left two other people injured, a Baghdad mini-bus bombing which claimed 2 lives and left five people wounded and, dropping back to last night for all that follows, a Baghdad sticky bombing left Col Abdulrazaq Mohammed injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded one police officer, a Baghdad grenade attack on a "grain storage building" which wounded two guards, a Baghdad car bombing which injured five people, and a Mosul bombing which left two people injured. On the Sahwa assassination, Wang Guanqun (Xinhua) adds the two with him were his bodyguards.
Sahwa is also known as the "Sons of Iraq" and the "Awakening" Councils. Corey Flintoff (NPR, text only) reports today that Sahwa states "they've fallen on hard times" since the US turned control over (read: "payment for") to Nouri al-Maliki's Baghdad government. Flintoff explains how the US toe-hold in Baquba is thought by some to have only been achieved via the Sahwa but now tensions between Iraqi police forces and the Sahwa have them even more doubtful about their future in the country: "One Sahwa leader, who calls himself Haji Khalid, is taking no chances. Recently, he met with a group of reporters in a quiet street at the edge of the city, then drove with them to another house, where he agreed to be interviewed. Khalid says that if anyone from Sahwa shows his face in the city, he will very likely be detained the next day on false charges. He says the problem is partly political, as proved during the run-up to last year's provincial elections. Khalid says that Sahwa leaders who announced they were running for office were promptly arrested, and many remain in prison." He also notes that of the estimated 94,000 Sahwa (some -- including US Gen David Petraeus -- have given a higher estimate), only "about 21,000 have been recruited into the Iraqi security forces". Flintoff's correct about the small number and his text report should be on air if only to refute last week's 'expert' brought on All Things Considered and allowed to pontificate wildly (and wrongly) about Sahwa.
In refugee news, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports on the visit to Camp Ashraf yesterday, "With loudspeakers mounted on pickup trucks and riot police offering backup, Iraqi troops on Tuesday ordered a group of Iranian dissidents here to vacate their sancturary, which has become an irritant in Iraq's relationship with Iran" and quotes Brig Gen Basel Hamad stating, "We will not allow any foreigners to establish their own laws on Iraqi soil." The residents are Iranian dissidents who have lived in Iraq for decades now. Following the US invasion, the US made them surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28th the world saw what Nouri's 'promises' were actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. Last week, his plans to 'relocate' them was announced. Yesterday Iran's Press TV reported that the residents "defied the Iraqi government's orders to leave" and that, "According to a plan ordered by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the group should first be moved to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and later to a 1950s detention camp in southern Iraq." Today Press TV reports , "A resolution presented by Democratic lawmakers has called on President Barack Obama to stop the relocation". AFP reports that US House Rep Bob Filner is leading the effort and held a press conference yesterday where he declared, "We are here to call on whoever will listen, the Iraqi government, the US government, to halt the forcible relocation of the residents of Camp Ashraf." UPI adds, "The National Council of Reistance of Iran, a Paris-based umbrella organization representing Iranian dissident groups, said 2,172 mayor in France signed a declaration in opposition to a decision in Baghdad to expel members of the People's Mujahedin of Iran from their Camp Ashraf enclave."
In London, the Iraq Inquiry continues hearing public testimony. BBC News reports Lt Gen Robert Fry has testified today that the US invasion into Iraq would have been a failure without the participation of British troops. Lt Gen Robert Fry is one witness giving testimony today. Also appearing before the committee is Nigel Sheinwald, John Sawers and Desmond Bowen (link goes to video and transcript options, unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from the transcripts). Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogs today's hearing and also tweets them on Twitter. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) live blogged as well and noted this section:
2.02pm: Sir John Sawers starts with a clarification of something he said in last week. The Department for Interntional Development was not substantially involved in policy making in the run up to the war. It was not involved on the ground. But they were involved in some meetings.Sawers is tidying up something he said last week. Chris Ames at the Iraq Inquiry Digest has got more on this here. Chris Ames writes:During last Thursday's hearing at the Inquiry, committee member Sir Roderick Lyne came close to calling Sir John Sawers a liar – in the nicest possible way. Sawers, former foreign policy adviser to Tony Blair and currently head of MI6, is back before the Inquiry this afternoon with a strong hint that he needs to set the record straight. But will we ever find out the truth of the matter?Lyne put it to Sawers, that Sir Suma Chakrabarti, previously the permanent secretary at the department for international development (DFID), had told the Inquiry that DFID were excluded from the Cabinet Office's 2001 review of Iraq policy, probably for political reasons. Sawers, who was responsible for the review from No 10's point of view, said that he hadn't excluded them. After a bit of waffle, Lyne said:"Given that Sir Suma has introduced this point into evidence here, you might just want to look back at some of the papers and take some advice on this and if there is anything further you want to say about it when we see you next week, I'm sure we would be happy to hear it."Chakrabarti hadn't actually said that No 10 was responsible – in fact he ducked the question. It's difficult to imagine Lyne giving Sawers such a stong hint if he didn't know there was something in the papers that could make him change his answer.
Staying with the afternoon hearing (Sheinwald, Sawers and Bowen), we'll note this section on 2004.
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Just lasly on this period, a pretty awful month was Abu Ghraib. Did you have any anticipation of this as an issue, and how did you respond when the revelations came out?
Nigel Sheinwald: I didn't. John?
John Sawers: We knew of difficulties in the conditions for detainees dating back to the June/July of 2003. We knew that the Americans had taken a more direct -- more activist approach to ensuring the facilities were secure and met ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] standards, but we also understood that there were difficulties. The US army reviewed the detainee -- called for a review of the detainee arrangments in January of that year and it reported with a number of recommendations privately. I'm not aware that we saw a copy of that review. But the revelations at Abu Ghraib were definitely a shock to us, as they were to everybody on the American side as well as across the world. They came out -- they were way beyond anything that we had envisaged that might be going wrong. We thought the basic problems were about poor conditions and possibly unnecessary violence, but Abu Ghraib was an extra dimension. I would just say that that spring of 2004, March, April, May, was one of the low points in managing Iraq policy at the London end. We had, as Nigel says, the crises in Falluja first, in March, and then again at the end of April, the beginning of May. We had the crisis in Najaf, we had the Abu Ghraib facilities. I remember visiting Iraq. I used to go regularly; I went three times in 2004. I visited Iraq in early May and it was the gloomiest and most downbeat visit that I paid throughout my four years of working on Iraq policy. And I think it was then that we realised the scale of the task that was ahead of us and the need to really put our heads down and be in it for the longer term, because the insurgency and the violence was clearly not at a peak and it was clearly going to get worse at that stage. And the Abu Ghraib issues just added another nasty twist to the difficulties that we faced.
John Chilcot is the Chair of the Inquiry. He noted the failure "to foresee the situation" -- realities on the ground in Iraq which developed after the start of the war -- "and if we had forseen it, it would have been beyond our compass to deal with it."
John Sawers: I think you are right that we failed to foresee it. The planning for the post-war, as we all know, was inadequate. The level of violence that we faced was not forseen and we didn't have enough in the way of sheer military presence, either we or the Americans, to deal with the scale of the violence that we were facing. But I think we do need to recognise that the reason so many Iraqis lost their lives, the reason it took longer than we would have liked to put Iraq back on a reasonable footing, the reason why the reconstruction effort was so difficult was because of the scale and determination of the insurgents to destroy what we were doing.
Sawers repeatedly hit on the lack of planning. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) quotes him stating, "Frankly, had we known the scale of violence, it might well have led to second thoughts about the entire project. It was not though through." Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger also emphasizes that quote from Sawers, dubs that among the "strong lines buried away today" -- and includes this as well, "Similarly, right at the end of evidence, when Lyne asked Sheinwald whether joining the US had been worth the high cost of lives lost and bodies mutilated. Even now, Sir Nigel said, that's very hard to answer. What has it done for our international reputation, Lyne went on. That's hard to answer too, he replied; it depends to whom you're talking and whether it is in public or private. Even in fluent Mandarinese this was troubling stuff." Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) ended his live blogging today noting what he saw as key moments including when Chair John Chilcott spoke of how "the committee itself is extremely . . . aware of the casualty list, the blood. Treasure you can rebuild. Blood you can't back. I don't know whether at this stage we shall come to the kind of final judgement that these last questions have raised. This may be the first draft of history. But we are conscious throughout of that cost that has been incurred by humankind. I think I'll close with that."
In addition to Sawers possible problems noted earlier by Sparrow and Ames, the Belfast Telegraph states that another witness, also with M16 at one point (Sawers is the current head of M16) has problems: John Scarlett. They note his claim that the assertion of Iraq being able to attack England "within 45 minutes" was both "reliable and authoritative" is refuted by Brian Jones ("senior WMD analyst"): "Dr Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff in the run-up to the invasion, said that it was 'absolutely clear' the intelligence the Government relied upon was coming from untried sources. The 45-minute claim was one of the key assertions that convinced MPs to take Britian to war."
Turning to the US, last week the Army again released their suicide data (no, other branches don't appear to have to dislcose) for the month of November which includes: "The Army released suicide data for the month of November today. Among active-duty soldiers, there were 12 potential suicides, all of which are pending determination of the manner of death. For October, the Army reported 16 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers. Since the release of that report, three have been confirmed as suicides, and 13 remain under investigation. There were 147 reported active duty Army suicides from January 2009 through November 2009. Of these, 102 have been confirmed, and 45 are pending determination of manner of death. For the same period in 2008, there were 127 suicides among active-duty soldiers." On this topic, Mark Thompson (Time magazine) reports "Neither the U.S. military nor the American public would tolerate a conflict in which U.S. losses mounted for five straight years. Yet, that's what's happening in the Army's battle with suicides. The recently released figure for November show that 12 soldiers are suspected of taking their own lives, bringing to 147 the total suicides for 2009, the highest since the Army began keeping track in 1980. Last year the Army had 140 suicides. Although Army officials don't blame the spike on repeated deployments to war zones, evidence is mounting to the contrary." Meanwhile veterans face a variety of issues. Female veterans face many issues similar to the one male veterans face but they also face issues specific to gender (not surprising in a misogynist society). This week, AP has been exploring some of them. Kimeberly Hefling (AP) reported on some of those issues and also notes these basics, "More than 230,000 American women have fought in those recent wars and at least 120 have died doing so, yet the public still doesn't completely understand their contributions on the modern battlefield. For some, it's a lonely transition as they struggle to find their place. In another AP story, Hefling reported on the issue of homelessness among female veterans and notes that they tend to be "younger than homeless male veterans and more likely to bring children." Hefling also reports that in Martinsburg, West Virginia, the VA Medical Center "see almost twice as many women [as] it did before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Administrators opened a women's clinic and are trying to take female veterans into consideration when deciding everything from the color of the walls to the size of the prosthetics offered. Waiting areas soon will have kid-friendly tables. On-site day care for veterans with medical appointments is under review." These additions didn't just happen. Congress has had to join veterans in advocating for them. On the US House Veterans Affairs Committee, for example, US House Rep Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has introduced bills such as the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act (HR 1211) to address issues. In addition to that and other measures, the GAO studies have also illuminated problems as US House Rep Michael Michaud noted at the start of the July 16th Veterans Affairs Disability and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee and the Subcommittee On Health joint-hearing on Eliminating the Gaps: Examining Women Veterans' Issues:
While we have made some progress on the issues facing women veterans, it is clear that more needs to be done. Just earlier this week, there was an article in MSNBC about the VA inadequately serving women veterans. This article described the key findings of a GAO report which reveald that no VA hospital or outpatient clinic is complying fully with federal privacy requirements. In other words, many VA facilities had gynecological tables that faced the door, including one door that opened to a waiting room. Beyond these privacy concers, VA facilities were built to serve male veterans and, therefore, do not accomodate the presence of children. This means that some women veterans have had to resort to changing babies' diapers on the floors of VA hospitals due to the absence of changing tables in the women's bathrooms. In light of these challenges which continue to face women veterans, it is important that we do more to address these issues.
Others covering female veterans issues include Hugh Lessig (Daily Press) who reported on a female veterans forum Senator Mark Waner held Monday in Alexandria, VA where he heard from veterans about the issues they face such as Grace After Fire's Kayla Williams who, when hanging with those she served with, is assumed to be a girlfriend or Genevieve Chase who is limited when choosing from those she served with to call about combat stress or other issues because her call might be seen by a wife or girlfriend as threatening. WTKR's Bob Matthews (link has text and video) reports on one of the meetings Warner held yesterday:Bob Matthews: Kayla Williams was a member of the 1st Airborne, she was a translator, she was shot at by the enemy. When she came home though, she said she was treated as if she was never there.Kayla Williams: I had people ask me if I was allowed to carry a gun because I'm just a girl? And I had other people ask me if I was in the infantry.Bob Matthews: It's why Senator Mark Warner came to Norfolk. He helped pass a bill that orders the VA to find out if it's giving female soldiers what they need to become civilians. More than 85,000 have been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since the war on terror began in 2002 but many, like Kayla Williams, don't feel the government gives them the care they need to go from the frontlines to the homefront. Kayla Williams: I have a friend who was told by a VA doctor that she couldn't have PTSD because women aren't in combat."I'd love to say that it's going to be fixed in a year from now but I don't think it's going to be fixed," Warner tells Matthews. "We've got to keep the pressure on and we've got to keep the pressure on."From Warner's Senate website:
Senator Warner hosted a round table discussion in Norfolk today with a group of military women to discuss the oftentimes difficult transition back to their normal lives after returning home from combat.
Last month, Senator Warner won passage of legislation directing the Veterans Administration to launch a study into the post traumatic stress disorders (PTSDs) that afflict thousands of military women who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Kayla Williams, who served as a translator with the 101st Airborne Division and was part of the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, said that friends of hers have been told by VA officials, "You can't have PTSD because you're a woman, and women don't see combat."
However in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "frontlines" of the war are no longer as clear as they used to be, and the stress of war can affect everyone.
Williams said women often return home and assume the caretaker role for spouses and children, and rarely ask, "Do I need care also?"
Senator Warner said the VA study has two goals: to make sure that women veterans are getting adequate treatment -- and that they receive the benefits they have earned.
The group said that treatment at different VA hospitals varies, and that some are better at treating female soldiers than others, especially for those who have post-traumatic stress disorder.
Senator Warner said he would push to make sure these issues are addressed by the VA: "I'd love to say its gonna be fixed in a year from now. I don't think its going to be fixed in a year from now, but we've got to keep the pressure on and we've got to keep the focus on and we've got to make sure that these women veterans who've served so well feel comfortable claiming their rights."
We'll wrap up by making like Betty and Stan and noting Riverdaughter's "Matt Yglesias tells the rest of us to 'Grow up'" (The Confluence):Here's the thing, Matt: you can't tell people to spend their electoral and emotional capital on candidates who they like and then pull the rug out from under them without consequences. You can't insist on an empty suit for President and promise Change! and transformation and then not deliver for the electorate after you've made them abandon who they really want without some of those people giving up on you. And you can't tell a country that they have no choice and expect them to feel like they are still free. The Democratic party has engaged in a process of teaching their constituents learned helplessness. It has over and over again raised expectations and then dashed them. It has asked for our input as a formality and then ignored it. It has belittled and demeaned and made inconsequential the lives of average voters and their families. Now, those same voters, seeing no reason to expend any more energy on a pointless game they cannot participate in has decided to sit it out.Your buddies are in deep trouble now by their own doing. Don't blame the electorate for not caring whether you stay in power or not. They don't exist for your wish fulfillment. They've got more important things to do with their time, like figuring out how to make a living without your help. Your party, which *used* to be my party, has a leadership vacuum. You quashed the one leader you had and now, who among your ranks has the moral authority to lead us through this mess of a recession? There is no one. The electorate is just responding to the grim reality of the situation you and your childish enthusiasm have created for them.Grow up, Matt. You reap what you sow. In the US, we do not have 100% voting rate. Because we're not the USSR or something similar. In the United States, one of the freedoms we still have left is to vote for who we want or not to vote at all if that is our choice. Don't let anyone bully you into voting for someone or into voting. Your vote, you own it. Use it as you see fit, that's your right, guaranteed in a democracy.
iraqthe washington timeseli lakehaaretzzvi barel
asharq alawsathoda al-jasim
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issa
xinhuawang guanqun
the washington posternesto londono
nprcorey flintoff
time magazinemark thompsonkimberly hefling
hugh lessig
the los angeles timesned parkerraheem salman
bbc newsthe guardianandrew sparrowchris amesthe belfast telegraphchannel 4 news
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I'm so sick of President Bill Clinton!
I'm so sick of President Bill Clinton!
I want to scream at the top of my lungs!
Why is he even in the White House!
That asshole!
What?
Bill Clinton's not in the White House?
Someone tell asshole Kevin Pina that. And Dennis Bernstein and KPFA's Flashpoints Radio that we don't need INSANE Kevin Pina screaming at the top of his idiotic lungs.
The little prick Pina can't take on Barack Obama. But he can rip apart Bill.
What a weak, limp prick Pina is. At one point he was screaming, "given all the talk of the Clinton admin-- excuse me Bill Clinton and the United Nations" -- the Clinton administration.
Prick won't call out Barack. But he will scream at the top of his lungs about Bill Clinton.
What a stupid ass. I will not do anything to help or promote Haiti issues from now on. I have new policy. I don't waste my time on chicken s**t issue or chicken s**t people. And little Kevin Pina has been a LIAR for a long, long time.
Screw Kevin Pina. Screw the coward who can't stand up against Barack Obama.
What a piece of s**t he is.
And if Reuters is getting the story wrong, asshole, it's because they want to get it wrong. Bill Clinton has never been a press favorite, you f**king moron.
I'm not in the mood for Kevin Pina or for anyone who can't stop yelling. He screams and never takes a breath and sounds like a stark raving mad idiot.
The village idiot.
F**k Kevin Pina.
The little chicken s**t who doesn't like the US policy on Haiti but can't call out Barack Obama who, pay attention Prick, is in the White House.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry gets censored, Jeremy Greenstock testifies to being a victim of some form of date-diplomacy while stationed in Iraq, Tony Blair's remarks (and Barack's prize) continue to garner criticism, Camp Ashraf residents state they're not leaving, and more.
In London today the Iraq Inquiry continued it's 'public' hearing. Channel 4 News was the first to report the day's big development: "For the first time since it began sitting, the Childcot inquiry blacked out televised courage of evidence being given for intelligence security reasons. The dramatic intervention to project confidentiality came as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former British Ambassador to Washington, was speaking. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) observes, "Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq inquiry, cut the live video of today's hearings, raising fears that he is suppressing evidence on grounds of embarrassment rather than any damage to national security." Politics.co.UK states the blackout lasted "for over a minute". Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger was in the press room:
But the national security blackout -- triggered when the inquiry heard something that would endanger national security if reported (we were told) -- was undeniably an attention-grabber.
We've had a few blank screens before but only due to technical glitches. This was clearly of an altogether different order.
One inquiry official tried to seal us into the press room, which even the slower among us (ok, me) thought could possibly mean something was afoot.
Another told us that she couldn't tell us anything, but that she'd tell us later if she could, but asking us not to report that. An eminence grise purred in from the Cabinet Office to assess the damage.
What was said in the censored moments? Richard Norton-Taylor recounts, "A member of the audience in the inquiry chamber said that after the feed was cut Greenstock went on to say that Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state, used British intelligence reports about the situation in Iraq because they were more accurate than the more optimistic dispatches that Bremer was sending to Washington. People aware of the piece of intelligence now deleted from the record dismissed it as insignificant. They made it clear that in their view the information was not at all sensitive from the point of view of national security." The witness, Greenstock, previously testified November 27th and Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) emphasized from that testimony Greenstock's statement of, "I regard our invasion of Iraq as legal but of questionably legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of members states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK." Greenstock was the morning witness and Lt Gen William Rollo and Lt Gen John Cooper were the afternoon witnesses (link goes to video and transcript options, unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from transcripts). We're going to the transcript for the censored moment (censored in the transcript as well). We're starting with Greenstock on line 25 of page 67 and he's referring to Paul Bremmer who was not "Ambassador" despite Greenstock's use of the term. He was the US Presidential Envoy when he arrived and became the Director of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and then became the US Administrator of Iraq -- all from his May 2003 arrival to June of 2003. He was also seen as the Governor of Iraq.
Jeremy Greenstock: Can I bring another point in here? Coming back to best case scenarios, Chairman, it was very clear to me, even before I got to Baghdad, that the United States had been working on and continued to work on the best case scenario: that they could administer Iraq and turn it back to Iraqis who could administer Iraq, with the lowest possible input of resources and troops and in the most direct way possible. And they didn't insure against things other than the best case scenario, with a higher number of troops or with alternative political plans. Ambassador Bremer was responding to the Pentagon in trying to run a best case scenario approach and that's why he didn't want alternative plans. But when I talked to other members of the American team, when I talked informally to the military, to the intelligence agencies, to other people who were operating, I found a very much more gloomy prognosis of what was going on than I felt or understood Ambassador Bremer was reporting back to the Pentagon. I reported these things back to London. [Redacted by the Inquiry.] My telegrams would describe what was going on, and I later discovered that [US] Secretary [of State Colin] Powell was reading the UK telegrams from Baghdad because he wasn't getting enough information from the Pentagon about what was really going on in Baghdad, as opposed to what Ambassador Bremer was reporting. So it was becoming quite a complex picture.
Chair John Chilcott: Can we stop the broadcast for a moment. We need to stay off sensitive areas. Can we just resume then without touching on those things? Thank you. We can deal with those in private.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: Just --
Chair John Chilcott: Resuming the broadcast.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: To move on, the intelligence report which was published in February this year, talks about [. . .]
Remember "talks about" above. In the transcript, the redacted testimony is on page 68, lines 20 through 23 -- indicating one long sentence or two or more short ones. Best guess would be one long one since Greenstock speaks in long sentences. In the video, the censored moment takes place starting at 118:04 (one hundred-and-eighteen minutess and four seconds) in the stream and continues through 119:17 at which point Prasher is shown saying "talks about" (it starts on those words). During the censored section, the screen shows "THE IRAQ INQUIRY Public hearing temporarily suspended" -- the same display they use when the Inquiry takes a break.
BBC News reports of today's testimony, "Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Chilcot inquiry the UK wanted post-war Iraq to have a 'clear UN label' to ensure it was not regarded as an occupying power. The ex-UN ambassador said the US wanted a 'definite limit' on the UN's role." Paul Bromley (Sky News) observed, "I think we've just witnessed another moment which will go down in history. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq war, has just come up with a phrase which will become part of the language. He's told the Iraq war inquiry that the invasion was a 'catastrophic succes'.
Munir Akram was Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations and, in 2003, was also the President of the Security Council of the UN. (His UN career ended in 2008.) Prior to testifying, Greenstock submitted a letter he and John D. Negroponte co-wrote to Akram. Negroponte was the US Ambassador to the UN when the letter was written (in 2004, he would become the US Ambassador to Iraq -- the first post-2003 invasion, US Ambassador to Iraq). The [PDF format warning] May 8, 2003 letter is a piece of fiction. What Negroponte knew or didn't know is debatable but the British witnesses have already testified that by March 10, 2003, reports were noting Saddam Hussein did not have WMD -- British intelligence reports. Therefore, by May 8th of that year, the British Greenstock should have known there were no WMD. Yet the letter opens with the lie: "The United States, United Kingdom, and Coalition Partners continue to act together to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions." The entire letter's a piece of fiction and Greenstock should have been asked to explain it by the committee.
But no hard questions were asked of him and, if they had been, he would have pleaded he was a victim. Greenstock is, in his mind, never responsible for anything. He's a victim always. Those big bad Americans pushed little Jeremy around. (If true, why didn't Tony Blair stand up for his officials? As Bush's buddy, then-prime minister Blair should have had some US clout.) He told the Inquiry Bremer didn't want him to be his deputy and he didn't want to be the deputy either because he wanted to maintain his "independence" but no "independence" was apparent in his testimony.
"My first responsibility," he declared to the committee today, "and I said this to Ambassador Bremer when I first telephoned him on his own appointment, as sson as I knew that I would be coming -- was loyalty to him and support for him in getting our joint job done in Iraq." Wow.
A British citizen -- excuse me, a British subject (they have a monarchy) testified to an inquiry held in London that when the British government posted him to Iraq, his FIRST responsibility was not to the Crown but to a man from a foreign country? That's pretty sad and pretty strange and, in some countries, qualifies as treason. You might think the committee would pursue that but, no, they didn't. We'll note this exchange.
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: But if you were talking about being able to exercise some sort of veto and not being the deputy to Bremer -- in some way that almost puts you in the position of being Ambassador to Iraq -- I mean, or in some way Bremer having an accountability to the British Government through you, but that certainly never happened?
Jeremy Greenstock: No, that's what I tried to establish, that Bremer had a direct responsibility to London. But in practice, he did not report to London; he relied on me to do that and to tell London what was going on. If London disagreed with something that the United States was doing or wanted something to be done that was not happening, London would talk to Washington.
Of course he wouldn't. Bremer's salary was paid for by the US tax payers. Bremer's a US citizen. He was put in that US government position by the US government. He's not reporting to the British government. What kind of an idiot is Jeremy Greenstock? A pretty weak one.
Jeremy Greenstock: The second or third day I was in Baghdad, Secretary Colin Powell came on a short visit and he, Bremer and I sat in Bremer's office to talk about the political process and the seven steps, and I was asked for my views by Secretary Powell and I suggested, as I had done to Bremer in Washington in July, that it would be wise to think of options, political options: what if things don't happen as we predict, as often does happen in an unusual situation.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: In other words, not sticking to the steps agreed, but --
Jeremy Greenstock: Well, we were behind the seven steps plan, but what if the Iraqis don't go along with that bit or that bit of it, are we thinking about alternative routes? And on both occassions in July and on this occassion in September, I was given a very direct and preremptory message from Bremer that I was to stick to the seven steps plan. This was what had been decided, this was the mission, this would be accomplished and I was to support it. So I turned to some other subject with Colin Powell and decided to see how things played out. But these --
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So although you were not his deputy he was issuing instructions to you?
Jeremy Greenstock: Yes, and I was trying to suggest that there was a political discussion to be had. So in a situation like that, you take a step back, you consider what has happened and you decide how you exercise your influence on the next occassion or how you put in your thoughts about the political process and whatever I was concentrating on in the next round of conversation.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: But he was not receptive to your advice. You were there as a very senior person, outranking him actually in your own diplomatic career, and you were there to offer him advice. And when you offered him advice, he was telling you that you were to accep the order and that was it, not to raise points of this kind, even in a small conversation with himself and Colin Powell?
Jeremy Greenstock: That was the outward and immediate effect, yes, that he didn't want to hear suggestions about how to complete a satisfactory political process that were different from what the President had decided.
Apparently, England's biggest problem in post-invasion Iraq was that they posted too many delicate flowers to the region, delicate flowers like Jeremy Greenstock who wilted but, presumably, were good at picking up Bremer's dry cleaning and doing assorted other personal errands. Greenstock's so victimized, he's practically Binah in The English Roses. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) live blogged Greenstock's testimony. One excerpt:12.04pm: Prashar asks about Bremer's policy of de-Baathification. Greenstock says this decree was issued before he arrived. It was an "understandable decision". The Shias were strongly opposed to bringing Baath party members into the government. But the decree was issued before Bremer had identified alternative people to run the government of Iraq.Bremer put Ahmed Chalabi, who was "deeply anti-Baathist", in charge of implementing the decree. Greenstock says he thought it was taken too far. He wanted more Baathists to be allowed to keep their jobs.
Iraq Inquiry Blogger continues blogging including at the Twitter account. The British military testified in the afternoon. As has been the case throughout the hearing, the British military takes responsibility for their choices and decisions, unlike the British officials who apparently break out in a heavy sweat at even the idea of telling a foreigner "no." That's not me stating the military witnesses are honest or 90% honest. That's only an observation that they own their actions -- good or bad -- which is something the British officials consistently refuse to do. I'm not seeing a lot in their testimony that's different from what's previously been stated by military witnesses. We'll note a few moments that did stand out.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Can I just come back on this? Why on earth were things like energy and economic development military matters four years after the conflict, a year after the [Nouri-al] Maliki government had come into power? Shouldn't this have been put into the hands of civilians? I mean, are you qualified to lead economic development strategies?
Lt Gen William Rollo: Of course I'm not.
Lt Gen John Cooper offered his assessment of the Iraq War and the British involvement:
Again, let's be honest. I think history will say of the British overall effort in southern Iraq, "Could have been better," but actually we produced the effect that we set out to do. 179 people died there and none of them died in vain, and what we left behind was certainly better than that which we found. Things didn't go entirely as we would have wished them. There were setbacks. But in the end we left a position in Iraq that was Iraqi, inside a broadly democratic, stable country. So I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the way you characterised it there.
Shortly after that, this was stated.
Lt Gen Williasm Rollo: John has spoken about our own losses. I would remember that 5,000-plus American dead and up to 30,000 seriously wounded and say that that was an army which, while taking those sort of casualties and doing 15-month tours several times, achieved that. So I have got tremendous admiration for them.
Rollo mispoke and meant "4,000-plus American dead." I include that not because of his mistake but because he noted the US service members who died and were wounded. The dead and the wounded -- foreign and Iraqi -- are rarely ever mentioned in the Inquiry.
On Iraqi deaths, Saturday an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reported at Inside Iraq:Iraqi secular parliament member Mithal Al Alusi said that the Iraqi prime minister told the Iraqi parliament on Thursday, in a secret parliament session after Tuesday's deadly bombings, that the Americans tipped-off the Iraqi government about the looming threat of car bombs attacks around 6 a.m. on Tuesday.On Tuesday Dec 8, five car bombs killed 127 Iraqis and injured more than 450 others in Baghdad as it targeted government offices around 10 a.m. On Saturday, Iraqi ministry of interior said it informed Baghdad military operations, the Iraqi special command formed by the prime minister to lead security operations within Baghdad, of the imminent attack, yet the attacks succeeded in reaching its target.
Today in Mosul, Iraqi Christians were again targeted with violence. Al Jazeera notes one bombing was at the Syrian Catholic Church of the Annunciation and another exploded at "the Syrian Orthodox Church of Purity and a nearby Christian school". Iran's Press TV counts four dead in one of the church bombings and forty injured which they identify the church as Virign Mary Church which AFP says is the Syrian Orthodox Church of Purity. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Catholic Church (which is billed as "Mariamana Church") was targeted with two bombings -- the first apparently to draw a crowd of which the 4 were then killed and the forty injured. The other church, Issa states, only suffered "material damages to the church" with no one reported dead or wounded. Mohammed Abbas and Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports among Teba Saad Jassim was among the dead ("a seven-day-old baby girl") and quotes a Mosul priest who did not want to be named stating, "We are peaceful people, but we come under attack sometimes. We are the victim of instability in this province."
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad car bombings opposite government institutions (Iranian Embassy, Ministry of Immigration & Displaced and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and where employees parked resulting in 4 deaths and fourteen people wounded, and an attempt by Iraqi security forces to detonate a bomb they discovered in Mosul resulted in one person being injured. Reuters drops back to yesterday to note a Kirkuk bombing which resulted in "an Iraqi army officer, his wife and another woman" being injured. Han Jingjing (Xinhua) reports a grenade attack on a police patrol also took place in Mosul today "damaging a police vehicle and killing three policemen aboard".
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Hussein Shamma ("senior municipality official in Sadr City") and his brother were wounded in a drive-by Baghdad shooting.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul (Abdulqadir al Aglat is his name).
Violence continues and the Iraq War continues under Barack Obama. It does not stop. Rumors to the contrary. Since 2007, we've noted the Iraqi air force, how it would not be ready for years and year, well after 2012 according to the US military and various Iraqi officials -- statements noting that have been made at joint US-Iraqi press briefings in Baghdad repeatedly since 2007. But some people want to insist that the SOFA (a contract) means the Iraq War ends in 2012 and all US troops leave. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explores the air force and reports:
But despite a US-Iraqi agreement for all US forces to withdraw by the end of 2011, neither Iraqi nor US officials envision that Iraq will be ready to protect its skies by then -- a worrying prospect for a country with five neighbors, including Iran.
"They are increasingly coming to understand that on Jan. 1, 2012, they will need American help on their airspace," says John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security in Washington, who expects any security agreement past 2011 to allow a significant US Air Force presence in Iraq.
Contracts can be broken. New contracts can then be drawn up. Contracts can run their term. New contracts can then be drawn up. The press -- with few exceptions -- has repeatedly gotten the SOFA wrong and were I one of the many news outlets who has 'reported' that the US leaves in ___ (that would actually be a prediction and once upon a time, reporters knew the difference), I think I'd be doing everything I could in terms of reporting and editorializing to ensure that happens.
Yesterday's snapshot included this in the opening: "a War Hawk re-enters stage center, faux 'peace' 'activist' Tom Hayden finds a new way to disgrace himself (and who would have thought that was possible)," -- and there's no Tom Hayden mention elsewhere in the snapshot. Yesterday's snapshot also included: "That's all we have time for. Ruth and Elaine are grabbing a bad radio program tonight so be sure to check them out. I agree with the points they outlined over the phone and would gladly weigh in but there's just not the space in this snapshot." The snapshots are dictated and they're rearranged as they're being dictated. A lengthy section was removed to include the news of Camp Ashraf instead -- this included the Tom Hayden part. Elaine's "Tom Hayden continues his long lying streak" addresses the topic of peace fraud Tom-Tom. He was on Lila Garrett's KPFK show yesterday and Ruth addresses the show in "Lila Garrett: Fool or tool?" where she notes Lila's firey monologues are not 'enhanced' by weak guests who exist to cheerlead for the Democratic Party, not to end wars.
Picking up on Camp Ashraf. Today was the day they were supposed to have been forcibly 'relocated'. The residents are Iranian dissidents who have lived in Iraq for decades now. Following the US invasion, the US made them surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28th the world saw what Nouri's 'promises' were actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. Last week, his plans to 'relocate' them was announced. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the residents "vowed Tuesday not to abandon its besieged camp" when journalists were allowed to visit the cmap today ("the first time authorities have allowed media to visit since a dealy raid on the compound last July"). Hammoudi reports, "Iraqi Army Brig. Gen. Basil Hamad, the Iraqi government's spokesman on the media tour, said the government had warned the MEK that they were to begin emptying the camp Dec. 15. However, no one was removed from the premises Tuesday and Hamad didn't say how long the group had to evacuate." Iran's Press TV reports that the residents "defied the Iraqi government's orders to leave" and that, "According to a plan ordered by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the group should first be moved to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and later to a 1950s detention camp in southern Iraq." Sarah Cosgrove (Enfield Independent) reports that in the British town of Enfield, residents are protesting "to save their relatives from a feared massacre in Iraq" and "in a show of solidarity, protesters were joined by Parliamentarians outside the Foreign Office in Whitehall. Amid cries of 'shame on you' and 'displacement of Ashraf, crime against humanity', protesters spoke of their fear for their families and anger at the lack of action from the British Government."
Meanwhile Jack A. Smith (Monthly Review Magazine) says the US has lost the Iraq War (and the Afghanistan War) but that the US refuses to acknowledge that reality:
The mighty U.S., which invaded Iraq in March 2003, was fought to a standstill from the summer of 2003 to the end of 2006 by up to 25,000 mostly Sunni guerrilla resistance fighters belonging to various small groups, nationalist or mujahedeen. The resistance largely evaporated two years ago because of President Bush's "surge," but this had nothing to do with military defeat. The struggle was subverted mainly by three things:
(1) The Shi'ite refusal to take part in the opposition to the Bush Administration's unjust and illegal invasion and occupation, knowing that when the invaders left they would be in charge, and the Shia government's antagonism toward the Sunni combatants.
(2) The entry of al-Qaeda, which before the war was never allowed into Iraq, and its indiscriminate war against civilians that undercut the resistance and dismayed Sunni nationalist ranks.
(3) The "surge" that began in 2007, which was principally based on offering large sums of money to Sunni elders and tribal leaders, combined with paying salaries to thousands of jobless fighters, plus offering to protect the Sunnis from possible retaliation by the puppet Shi'ite government.
President George W. Bush's claimed objective was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to punish the Ba'athist government of President Saddam Hussein for conniving with al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. When these lies were exposed they were replaced by two new lies: bringing democracy to Iraq, and protecting the Iraqi people from al-Qaeda.
I'm joining Rebecca in noting that Bonnie Erbe, host of PBS' To The Contrary, tackles the recent Nobel Peace Prize in "Norwegians Must Be Asking: Why Obama for Peace Prize?" (Politics Daily):
A little bit of background research might have alerted the Nobel Committee to Obama's annoying tendency toward expediency and away from commitment to principle. Instead, the Nobel Committee mimicked America's voters when they rushed to select Obama. Both votes, by the American public and the Nobel Committee, struck me as more appropriately viewed as a rebuke to former President Bush than as a rah-rah for Obama.
The Nobel Committee rushed into bed with Obama. When the alarm bell rang the next morning, six Norwegians found themselves sleeping next to someone quite apart from the person they had viewed through gin-altered glasses the night before. Hence his tepid public support from Norwegians Friday.The Nobel Committee nominated someone members saw as the Prince of Peace -- the same man whom a majority of American voters were wishfully hoping would pull them out of seemingly unending wars (and right the tanking economy, but that's fodder for another column). Instead, President Obama is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and taking much longer than his anti-war base expected he would to pull American troops out of Iraq. Wish I had been watching through a secret webcam when the six Norwegians cried, "Oops!"
Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) also weighs in on the prize and he also weighs in on Tony Blair's weekend statements to the BBC such as: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat." We'll note Floyd on Blair:
Next month, Blair will go before the Chilcot Inquiry, a panel of UK Establishment worthies charged with investigating the origins of Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq. Although the worthies have been remarkably toothless in their questioning of the great and good so far – the smell of whitewash is definitely in the air – the inquiry has at least performed the useful function of bringing the forgotten subject of Iraq back into the public eye, while collating and confirming, with sworn testimony, much of what we have learned in dribs and drabs over the years about the rank, deliberate deceit behind this murderous catastrophe. One choice bit that has emerged from the inquiry is the revelation that the centerpiece of Blair's case for immediate war – the claim that Saddam Hussein could hit Europe with WMD-loaded missiles on just 45 minutes' notice – came from unconfirmed, third-hand gossip passed along by an Iraqi taxi driver. As Blair's turn on the well-padded Chilcot cushion draws near, he has launched frantic efforts to keep his testimony secret while at the same time trying to undercut the rationale for the whole war origins inquiry, which has focused on the professed justification for the invasion: disarming Iraq's (non-existent) WMD. So last week, Blair gave an interview to a friendly, timorous chat-show host in which he made the brazen admission – no, the proud boast – that he would have found a way to drive Britain into war with Iraq even if he had known for certain that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (And of course, given the nature of the "'intelligence" that Blair used in his pre-war WMD claims it is certain that Blair was indeed certain that Saddam had no such weapons when the invasion was launched).Thus it is now Blair's contention that there is no charge to answer concerning the origins of the war; all this WMD guff is meaningless. He would have found "other arguments" to persuade Britons to follow George W. Bush into the war that American militarists had long been planning.Blair's admission has drawn a remarkable response from another Establishment mandarin, Sir Ken Macdonald, who served for five years as Director of Public Prosecutions under Blair's government – and now works in private practice at a major law firm…alongside Tony Blair's wife, Cherie. The headline in The Times puts it plainly: "Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war."
Brendan O'Neill (Christian Science Monitor) observes of Blair's recent statements, "This suggests Blair did not actually have the courage of his convictions. He may have considered it 'right' to remove Saddam -- yet instead of trying to win public support for war on that basis, he cynically searched for some legalistic fig-leaf with which he might doll up his invasion."
Meanwhile Walter Pincus (Washington Post) explores US State Dept spending -- specifically what's spent on diplomacy and what's spent on 'security' for diplomacy. He reports, "In 2008, according to the GAO, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's direct-hire personnel totaled about 3,000. But 90 percent of State's security personnel are contractors, who in 2008 numbered 37,566, according to the GAO. Only 2,000 of these provide the publicized protective services for State officials and dignitaries in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel. The bulk are guards protecting not only U.S. embassies and missions but also the homes of some Foreign Service personnel."
Lastly, from Oilwatch Southeast Asia:Southeast Asian Leaders - Go for Solution Not Delusion! A Joint Statement, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 14, 2009 Copenhagen - 14 December 2009: We, members of Oilwatch Southeast Asia[i] and Indonesian Civil Society Forum for Climate Justice (CSF) declare our common position and demands on the current climate negotiation in COP 15 UNFCCC Copenhagen. We have witnessed the lack of leadership among industrial countries to significantly cut carbon emission let alone show their responsibility to support developing countries to tackle the impacts of climate change. Southeast Asia is considered as one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to impacts of climate crisis. Most of the Southeast Asian countries are poor and majority of the population in the region live in deep poverty resulting to a very low capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. The location of the region poses high risk for disasters such as typhoons, droughts, earthquakes, and flooding. We are disappointed that the negotiations in COP15 UNFCCC do not take into account the reality in the ground that fossil fuel exploitation by industrial countries have been going from strength to strength. Oil and gas projects of transnational corporations are mushrooming and demand for coal is increasing[ii].. Big foreign and private corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell, BHP Biliton, CNUOC, Chevron Texaco, Amarada Hess, Conoco Phillips and Bumi Resources, are the same actors who plunder natural resources and pollute the environment[iii]. These big corporations control and exploit the rich natural resources of the region particularly fossil resources like oil, gas and coal. Also these entities with the support of international financial institutions like International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, are the owners and suppliers of fossil-based technologies and products that the people of Southeast Asian are forced to be dependent with. Given the fact that burning and consumption of fossil fuels especially oil and coal is the leading cause of global carbon emission, we demand the national governments in Southeast Asia •· To agree on a common position to push for more than 40% carbon reduction from ANNEX I countries by 2020 from the level of 1990. •To demand from ANNEX I countries to compensate Third World countries from ecological debt and fund their mitigation and adaptation initiatives •To declare an immediate moratorium on new exploration and commercial operation of oil, gas and coal by big transnational companies in the region. •To define a concrete timeline and comprehensive plan on eventual phase out of fossil fuel extraction and usage in the region. In this regard there should be a significant investment on research and fast development of technologies that harness alternative and renewable resources of energy that are cheap, safe and clean. This is needed to make the economy and energy needs of Southeast Asia to veer away from relying on the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Majority of the income and revenues from the existing extraction of fossil fuel in the regions should be automatically appropriated for funding public services We oppose the false solutions being implemented and pushed for by ANNEX I countries and their transnational corporations such as carbon trading, clean development mechanism, the proposed REDD and 'clean' coal technologies. These market-based and profit-oriented solutions put the interest of private corporations and ruling elite above anything else. We push for the leaders of Southeast Asia countries to unite for truly address the issue of climate change and curb global warming. There should be a reversal of the orientation and framework of economic development and production in the region. In this regard, climate solutions should be based on human security, rectification of ecological debt, land rights, the change of production and consumption pattern, to realize social justice and people's sovereignty. These principles ensure in the heart of climate solutions are the welfare and interest of the people and the environment. The Oilwatch Southeast Asia, CSF, PACC, La'o Hamutuk and TCJ remain committed not only in pushing for genuine climate solutions but also in steadfastly fight along with grassroots communities against agreement, policies, program and projects that will further aggravate climate change and endanger our communities. Media contacts:Clemente Bautista, People's Action on Climate Change (PACC), email: entengi2@yahoo.com.ph; cell phone: +45.2639.2749 •Ines Martius, Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis, email: ines@laohamutuk.org; cell phone: +45 5274 8769 · Siti Maemunah, CSF Indonesia, email: mai@jatam.org; cell phone +45 5049 9567 · Penchom Saetang, Thai Working Group for Climate Justice (TCJ), email: toxiccampaign.earth@gmail.com; cell phone: +45 2862 7267
iraqthe telegraph of londonthe guardianandrew sparrowsky newspaul bromleychannel 4 newsbbc newsmcclatchy newspaperssahar issalaith hammoudi
reuters
mohammed abbasmissy ryan
to the contrarybonnie erbe
chris floyd
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the washington postwalter pincus
I want to scream at the top of my lungs!
Why is he even in the White House!
That asshole!
What?
Bill Clinton's not in the White House?
Someone tell asshole Kevin Pina that. And Dennis Bernstein and KPFA's Flashpoints Radio that we don't need INSANE Kevin Pina screaming at the top of his idiotic lungs.
The little prick Pina can't take on Barack Obama. But he can rip apart Bill.
What a weak, limp prick Pina is. At one point he was screaming, "given all the talk of the Clinton admin-- excuse me Bill Clinton and the United Nations" -- the Clinton administration.
Prick won't call out Barack. But he will scream at the top of his lungs about Bill Clinton.
What a stupid ass. I will not do anything to help or promote Haiti issues from now on. I have new policy. I don't waste my time on chicken s**t issue or chicken s**t people. And little Kevin Pina has been a LIAR for a long, long time.
Screw Kevin Pina. Screw the coward who can't stand up against Barack Obama.
What a piece of s**t he is.
And if Reuters is getting the story wrong, asshole, it's because they want to get it wrong. Bill Clinton has never been a press favorite, you f**king moron.
I'm not in the mood for Kevin Pina or for anyone who can't stop yelling. He screams and never takes a breath and sounds like a stark raving mad idiot.
The village idiot.
F**k Kevin Pina.
The little chicken s**t who doesn't like the US policy on Haiti but can't call out Barack Obama who, pay attention Prick, is in the White House.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry gets censored, Jeremy Greenstock testifies to being a victim of some form of date-diplomacy while stationed in Iraq, Tony Blair's remarks (and Barack's prize) continue to garner criticism, Camp Ashraf residents state they're not leaving, and more.
In London today the Iraq Inquiry continued it's 'public' hearing. Channel 4 News was the first to report the day's big development: "For the first time since it began sitting, the Childcot inquiry blacked out televised courage of evidence being given for intelligence security reasons. The dramatic intervention to project confidentiality came as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the former British Ambassador to Washington, was speaking. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) observes, "Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq inquiry, cut the live video of today's hearings, raising fears that he is suppressing evidence on grounds of embarrassment rather than any damage to national security." Politics.co.UK states the blackout lasted "for over a minute". Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger was in the press room:
But the national security blackout -- triggered when the inquiry heard something that would endanger national security if reported (we were told) -- was undeniably an attention-grabber.
We've had a few blank screens before but only due to technical glitches. This was clearly of an altogether different order.
One inquiry official tried to seal us into the press room, which even the slower among us (ok, me) thought could possibly mean something was afoot.
Another told us that she couldn't tell us anything, but that she'd tell us later if she could, but asking us not to report that. An eminence grise purred in from the Cabinet Office to assess the damage.
What was said in the censored moments? Richard Norton-Taylor recounts, "A member of the audience in the inquiry chamber said that after the feed was cut Greenstock went on to say that Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state, used British intelligence reports about the situation in Iraq because they were more accurate than the more optimistic dispatches that Bremer was sending to Washington. People aware of the piece of intelligence now deleted from the record dismissed it as insignificant. They made it clear that in their view the information was not at all sensitive from the point of view of national security." The witness, Greenstock, previously testified November 27th and Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) emphasized from that testimony Greenstock's statement of, "I regard our invasion of Iraq as legal but of questionably legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of members states or even, perhaps, of a majority of people inside the UK." Greenstock was the morning witness and Lt Gen William Rollo and Lt Gen John Cooper were the afternoon witnesses (link goes to video and transcript options, unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from transcripts). We're going to the transcript for the censored moment (censored in the transcript as well). We're starting with Greenstock on line 25 of page 67 and he's referring to Paul Bremmer who was not "Ambassador" despite Greenstock's use of the term. He was the US Presidential Envoy when he arrived and became the Director of the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and then became the US Administrator of Iraq -- all from his May 2003 arrival to June of 2003. He was also seen as the Governor of Iraq.
Jeremy Greenstock: Can I bring another point in here? Coming back to best case scenarios, Chairman, it was very clear to me, even before I got to Baghdad, that the United States had been working on and continued to work on the best case scenario: that they could administer Iraq and turn it back to Iraqis who could administer Iraq, with the lowest possible input of resources and troops and in the most direct way possible. And they didn't insure against things other than the best case scenario, with a higher number of troops or with alternative political plans. Ambassador Bremer was responding to the Pentagon in trying to run a best case scenario approach and that's why he didn't want alternative plans. But when I talked to other members of the American team, when I talked informally to the military, to the intelligence agencies, to other people who were operating, I found a very much more gloomy prognosis of what was going on than I felt or understood Ambassador Bremer was reporting back to the Pentagon. I reported these things back to London. [Redacted by the Inquiry.] My telegrams would describe what was going on, and I later discovered that [US] Secretary [of State Colin] Powell was reading the UK telegrams from Baghdad because he wasn't getting enough information from the Pentagon about what was really going on in Baghdad, as opposed to what Ambassador Bremer was reporting. So it was becoming quite a complex picture.
Chair John Chilcott: Can we stop the broadcast for a moment. We need to stay off sensitive areas. Can we just resume then without touching on those things? Thank you. We can deal with those in private.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: Just --
Chair John Chilcott: Resuming the broadcast.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: To move on, the intelligence report which was published in February this year, talks about [. . .]
Remember "talks about" above. In the transcript, the redacted testimony is on page 68, lines 20 through 23 -- indicating one long sentence or two or more short ones. Best guess would be one long one since Greenstock speaks in long sentences. In the video, the censored moment takes place starting at 118:04 (one hundred-and-eighteen minutess and four seconds) in the stream and continues through 119:17 at which point Prasher is shown saying "talks about" (it starts on those words). During the censored section, the screen shows "THE IRAQ INQUIRY Public hearing temporarily suspended" -- the same display they use when the Inquiry takes a break.
BBC News reports of today's testimony, "Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the Chilcot inquiry the UK wanted post-war Iraq to have a 'clear UN label' to ensure it was not regarded as an occupying power. The ex-UN ambassador said the US wanted a 'definite limit' on the UN's role." Paul Bromley (Sky News) observed, "I think we've just witnessed another moment which will go down in history. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq war, has just come up with a phrase which will become part of the language. He's told the Iraq war inquiry that the invasion was a 'catastrophic succes'.
Munir Akram was Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations and, in 2003, was also the President of the Security Council of the UN. (His UN career ended in 2008.) Prior to testifying, Greenstock submitted a letter he and John D. Negroponte co-wrote to Akram. Negroponte was the US Ambassador to the UN when the letter was written (in 2004, he would become the US Ambassador to Iraq -- the first post-2003 invasion, US Ambassador to Iraq). The [PDF format warning] May 8, 2003 letter is a piece of fiction. What Negroponte knew or didn't know is debatable but the British witnesses have already testified that by March 10, 2003, reports were noting Saddam Hussein did not have WMD -- British intelligence reports. Therefore, by May 8th of that year, the British Greenstock should have known there were no WMD. Yet the letter opens with the lie: "The United States, United Kingdom, and Coalition Partners continue to act together to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions." The entire letter's a piece of fiction and Greenstock should have been asked to explain it by the committee.
But no hard questions were asked of him and, if they had been, he would have pleaded he was a victim. Greenstock is, in his mind, never responsible for anything. He's a victim always. Those big bad Americans pushed little Jeremy around. (If true, why didn't Tony Blair stand up for his officials? As Bush's buddy, then-prime minister Blair should have had some US clout.) He told the Inquiry Bremer didn't want him to be his deputy and he didn't want to be the deputy either because he wanted to maintain his "independence" but no "independence" was apparent in his testimony.
"My first responsibility," he declared to the committee today, "and I said this to Ambassador Bremer when I first telephoned him on his own appointment, as sson as I knew that I would be coming -- was loyalty to him and support for him in getting our joint job done in Iraq." Wow.
A British citizen -- excuse me, a British subject (they have a monarchy) testified to an inquiry held in London that when the British government posted him to Iraq, his FIRST responsibility was not to the Crown but to a man from a foreign country? That's pretty sad and pretty strange and, in some countries, qualifies as treason. You might think the committee would pursue that but, no, they didn't. We'll note this exchange.
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: But if you were talking about being able to exercise some sort of veto and not being the deputy to Bremer -- in some way that almost puts you in the position of being Ambassador to Iraq -- I mean, or in some way Bremer having an accountability to the British Government through you, but that certainly never happened?
Jeremy Greenstock: No, that's what I tried to establish, that Bremer had a direct responsibility to London. But in practice, he did not report to London; he relied on me to do that and to tell London what was going on. If London disagreed with something that the United States was doing or wanted something to be done that was not happening, London would talk to Washington.
Of course he wouldn't. Bremer's salary was paid for by the US tax payers. Bremer's a US citizen. He was put in that US government position by the US government. He's not reporting to the British government. What kind of an idiot is Jeremy Greenstock? A pretty weak one.
Jeremy Greenstock: The second or third day I was in Baghdad, Secretary Colin Powell came on a short visit and he, Bremer and I sat in Bremer's office to talk about the political process and the seven steps, and I was asked for my views by Secretary Powell and I suggested, as I had done to Bremer in Washington in July, that it would be wise to think of options, political options: what if things don't happen as we predict, as often does happen in an unusual situation.
Committee Member Usha Prashar: In other words, not sticking to the steps agreed, but --
Jeremy Greenstock: Well, we were behind the seven steps plan, but what if the Iraqis don't go along with that bit or that bit of it, are we thinking about alternative routes? And on both occassions in July and on this occassion in September, I was given a very direct and preremptory message from Bremer that I was to stick to the seven steps plan. This was what had been decided, this was the mission, this would be accomplished and I was to support it. So I turned to some other subject with Colin Powell and decided to see how things played out. But these --
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So although you were not his deputy he was issuing instructions to you?
Jeremy Greenstock: Yes, and I was trying to suggest that there was a political discussion to be had. So in a situation like that, you take a step back, you consider what has happened and you decide how you exercise your influence on the next occassion or how you put in your thoughts about the political process and whatever I was concentrating on in the next round of conversation.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: But he was not receptive to your advice. You were there as a very senior person, outranking him actually in your own diplomatic career, and you were there to offer him advice. And when you offered him advice, he was telling you that you were to accep the order and that was it, not to raise points of this kind, even in a small conversation with himself and Colin Powell?
Jeremy Greenstock: That was the outward and immediate effect, yes, that he didn't want to hear suggestions about how to complete a satisfactory political process that were different from what the President had decided.
Apparently, England's biggest problem in post-invasion Iraq was that they posted too many delicate flowers to the region, delicate flowers like Jeremy Greenstock who wilted but, presumably, were good at picking up Bremer's dry cleaning and doing assorted other personal errands. Greenstock's so victimized, he's practically Binah in The English Roses. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) live blogged Greenstock's testimony. One excerpt:12.04pm: Prashar asks about Bremer's policy of de-Baathification. Greenstock says this decree was issued before he arrived. It was an "understandable decision". The Shias were strongly opposed to bringing Baath party members into the government. But the decree was issued before Bremer had identified alternative people to run the government of Iraq.Bremer put Ahmed Chalabi, who was "deeply anti-Baathist", in charge of implementing the decree. Greenstock says he thought it was taken too far. He wanted more Baathists to be allowed to keep their jobs.
Iraq Inquiry Blogger continues blogging including at the Twitter account. The British military testified in the afternoon. As has been the case throughout the hearing, the British military takes responsibility for their choices and decisions, unlike the British officials who apparently break out in a heavy sweat at even the idea of telling a foreigner "no." That's not me stating the military witnesses are honest or 90% honest. That's only an observation that they own their actions -- good or bad -- which is something the British officials consistently refuse to do. I'm not seeing a lot in their testimony that's different from what's previously been stated by military witnesses. We'll note a few moments that did stand out.
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Can I just come back on this? Why on earth were things like energy and economic development military matters four years after the conflict, a year after the [Nouri-al] Maliki government had come into power? Shouldn't this have been put into the hands of civilians? I mean, are you qualified to lead economic development strategies?
Lt Gen William Rollo: Of course I'm not.
Lt Gen John Cooper offered his assessment of the Iraq War and the British involvement:
Again, let's be honest. I think history will say of the British overall effort in southern Iraq, "Could have been better," but actually we produced the effect that we set out to do. 179 people died there and none of them died in vain, and what we left behind was certainly better than that which we found. Things didn't go entirely as we would have wished them. There were setbacks. But in the end we left a position in Iraq that was Iraqi, inside a broadly democratic, stable country. So I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the way you characterised it there.
Shortly after that, this was stated.
Lt Gen Williasm Rollo: John has spoken about our own losses. I would remember that 5,000-plus American dead and up to 30,000 seriously wounded and say that that was an army which, while taking those sort of casualties and doing 15-month tours several times, achieved that. So I have got tremendous admiration for them.
Rollo mispoke and meant "4,000-plus American dead." I include that not because of his mistake but because he noted the US service members who died and were wounded. The dead and the wounded -- foreign and Iraqi -- are rarely ever mentioned in the Inquiry.
On Iraqi deaths, Saturday an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reported at Inside Iraq:Iraqi secular parliament member Mithal Al Alusi said that the Iraqi prime minister told the Iraqi parliament on Thursday, in a secret parliament session after Tuesday's deadly bombings, that the Americans tipped-off the Iraqi government about the looming threat of car bombs attacks around 6 a.m. on Tuesday.On Tuesday Dec 8, five car bombs killed 127 Iraqis and injured more than 450 others in Baghdad as it targeted government offices around 10 a.m. On Saturday, Iraqi ministry of interior said it informed Baghdad military operations, the Iraqi special command formed by the prime minister to lead security operations within Baghdad, of the imminent attack, yet the attacks succeeded in reaching its target.
Today in Mosul, Iraqi Christians were again targeted with violence. Al Jazeera notes one bombing was at the Syrian Catholic Church of the Annunciation and another exploded at "the Syrian Orthodox Church of Purity and a nearby Christian school". Iran's Press TV counts four dead in one of the church bombings and forty injured which they identify the church as Virign Mary Church which AFP says is the Syrian Orthodox Church of Purity. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Catholic Church (which is billed as "Mariamana Church") was targeted with two bombings -- the first apparently to draw a crowd of which the 4 were then killed and the forty injured. The other church, Issa states, only suffered "material damages to the church" with no one reported dead or wounded. Mohammed Abbas and Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports among Teba Saad Jassim was among the dead ("a seven-day-old baby girl") and quotes a Mosul priest who did not want to be named stating, "We are peaceful people, but we come under attack sometimes. We are the victim of instability in this province."
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad car bombings opposite government institutions (Iranian Embassy, Ministry of Immigration & Displaced and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and where employees parked resulting in 4 deaths and fourteen people wounded, and an attempt by Iraqi security forces to detonate a bomb they discovered in Mosul resulted in one person being injured. Reuters drops back to yesterday to note a Kirkuk bombing which resulted in "an Iraqi army officer, his wife and another woman" being injured. Han Jingjing (Xinhua) reports a grenade attack on a police patrol also took place in Mosul today "damaging a police vehicle and killing three policemen aboard".
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Hussein Shamma ("senior municipality official in Sadr City") and his brother were wounded in a drive-by Baghdad shooting.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Mosul (Abdulqadir al Aglat is his name).
Violence continues and the Iraq War continues under Barack Obama. It does not stop. Rumors to the contrary. Since 2007, we've noted the Iraqi air force, how it would not be ready for years and year, well after 2012 according to the US military and various Iraqi officials -- statements noting that have been made at joint US-Iraqi press briefings in Baghdad repeatedly since 2007. But some people want to insist that the SOFA (a contract) means the Iraq War ends in 2012 and all US troops leave. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) explores the air force and reports:
But despite a US-Iraqi agreement for all US forces to withdraw by the end of 2011, neither Iraqi nor US officials envision that Iraq will be ready to protect its skies by then -- a worrying prospect for a country with five neighbors, including Iran.
"They are increasingly coming to understand that on Jan. 1, 2012, they will need American help on their airspace," says John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security in Washington, who expects any security agreement past 2011 to allow a significant US Air Force presence in Iraq.
Contracts can be broken. New contracts can then be drawn up. Contracts can run their term. New contracts can then be drawn up. The press -- with few exceptions -- has repeatedly gotten the SOFA wrong and were I one of the many news outlets who has 'reported' that the US leaves in ___ (that would actually be a prediction and once upon a time, reporters knew the difference), I think I'd be doing everything I could in terms of reporting and editorializing to ensure that happens.
Yesterday's snapshot included this in the opening: "a War Hawk re-enters stage center, faux 'peace' 'activist' Tom Hayden finds a new way to disgrace himself (and who would have thought that was possible)," -- and there's no Tom Hayden mention elsewhere in the snapshot. Yesterday's snapshot also included: "That's all we have time for. Ruth and Elaine are grabbing a bad radio program tonight so be sure to check them out. I agree with the points they outlined over the phone and would gladly weigh in but there's just not the space in this snapshot." The snapshots are dictated and they're rearranged as they're being dictated. A lengthy section was removed to include the news of Camp Ashraf instead -- this included the Tom Hayden part. Elaine's "Tom Hayden continues his long lying streak" addresses the topic of peace fraud Tom-Tom. He was on Lila Garrett's KPFK show yesterday and Ruth addresses the show in "Lila Garrett: Fool or tool?" where she notes Lila's firey monologues are not 'enhanced' by weak guests who exist to cheerlead for the Democratic Party, not to end wars.
Picking up on Camp Ashraf. Today was the day they were supposed to have been forcibly 'relocated'. The residents are Iranian dissidents who have lived in Iraq for decades now. Following the US invasion, the US made them surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28th the world saw what Nouri's 'promises' were actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. Last week, his plans to 'relocate' them was announced. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the residents "vowed Tuesday not to abandon its besieged camp" when journalists were allowed to visit the cmap today ("the first time authorities have allowed media to visit since a dealy raid on the compound last July"). Hammoudi reports, "Iraqi Army Brig. Gen. Basil Hamad, the Iraqi government's spokesman on the media tour, said the government had warned the MEK that they were to begin emptying the camp Dec. 15. However, no one was removed from the premises Tuesday and Hamad didn't say how long the group had to evacuate." Iran's Press TV reports that the residents "defied the Iraqi government's orders to leave" and that, "According to a plan ordered by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki the group should first be moved to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad and later to a 1950s detention camp in southern Iraq." Sarah Cosgrove (Enfield Independent) reports that in the British town of Enfield, residents are protesting "to save their relatives from a feared massacre in Iraq" and "in a show of solidarity, protesters were joined by Parliamentarians outside the Foreign Office in Whitehall. Amid cries of 'shame on you' and 'displacement of Ashraf, crime against humanity', protesters spoke of their fear for their families and anger at the lack of action from the British Government."
Meanwhile Jack A. Smith (Monthly Review Magazine) says the US has lost the Iraq War (and the Afghanistan War) but that the US refuses to acknowledge that reality:
The mighty U.S., which invaded Iraq in March 2003, was fought to a standstill from the summer of 2003 to the end of 2006 by up to 25,000 mostly Sunni guerrilla resistance fighters belonging to various small groups, nationalist or mujahedeen. The resistance largely evaporated two years ago because of President Bush's "surge," but this had nothing to do with military defeat. The struggle was subverted mainly by three things:
(1) The Shi'ite refusal to take part in the opposition to the Bush Administration's unjust and illegal invasion and occupation, knowing that when the invaders left they would be in charge, and the Shia government's antagonism toward the Sunni combatants.
(2) The entry of al-Qaeda, which before the war was never allowed into Iraq, and its indiscriminate war against civilians that undercut the resistance and dismayed Sunni nationalist ranks.
(3) The "surge" that began in 2007, which was principally based on offering large sums of money to Sunni elders and tribal leaders, combined with paying salaries to thousands of jobless fighters, plus offering to protect the Sunnis from possible retaliation by the puppet Shi'ite government.
President George W. Bush's claimed objective was to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to punish the Ba'athist government of President Saddam Hussein for conniving with al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. When these lies were exposed they were replaced by two new lies: bringing democracy to Iraq, and protecting the Iraqi people from al-Qaeda.
I'm joining Rebecca in noting that Bonnie Erbe, host of PBS' To The Contrary, tackles the recent Nobel Peace Prize in "Norwegians Must Be Asking: Why Obama for Peace Prize?" (Politics Daily):
A little bit of background research might have alerted the Nobel Committee to Obama's annoying tendency toward expediency and away from commitment to principle. Instead, the Nobel Committee mimicked America's voters when they rushed to select Obama. Both votes, by the American public and the Nobel Committee, struck me as more appropriately viewed as a rebuke to former President Bush than as a rah-rah for Obama.
The Nobel Committee rushed into bed with Obama. When the alarm bell rang the next morning, six Norwegians found themselves sleeping next to someone quite apart from the person they had viewed through gin-altered glasses the night before. Hence his tepid public support from Norwegians Friday.The Nobel Committee nominated someone members saw as the Prince of Peace -- the same man whom a majority of American voters were wishfully hoping would pull them out of seemingly unending wars (and right the tanking economy, but that's fodder for another column). Instead, President Obama is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and taking much longer than his anti-war base expected he would to pull American troops out of Iraq. Wish I had been watching through a secret webcam when the six Norwegians cried, "Oops!"
Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) also weighs in on the prize and he also weighs in on Tony Blair's weekend statements to the BBC such as: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat." We'll note Floyd on Blair:
Next month, Blair will go before the Chilcot Inquiry, a panel of UK Establishment worthies charged with investigating the origins of Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq. Although the worthies have been remarkably toothless in their questioning of the great and good so far – the smell of whitewash is definitely in the air – the inquiry has at least performed the useful function of bringing the forgotten subject of Iraq back into the public eye, while collating and confirming, with sworn testimony, much of what we have learned in dribs and drabs over the years about the rank, deliberate deceit behind this murderous catastrophe. One choice bit that has emerged from the inquiry is the revelation that the centerpiece of Blair's case for immediate war – the claim that Saddam Hussein could hit Europe with WMD-loaded missiles on just 45 minutes' notice – came from unconfirmed, third-hand gossip passed along by an Iraqi taxi driver. As Blair's turn on the well-padded Chilcot cushion draws near, he has launched frantic efforts to keep his testimony secret while at the same time trying to undercut the rationale for the whole war origins inquiry, which has focused on the professed justification for the invasion: disarming Iraq's (non-existent) WMD. So last week, Blair gave an interview to a friendly, timorous chat-show host in which he made the brazen admission – no, the proud boast – that he would have found a way to drive Britain into war with Iraq even if he had known for certain that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. (And of course, given the nature of the "'intelligence" that Blair used in his pre-war WMD claims it is certain that Blair was indeed certain that Saddam had no such weapons when the invasion was launched).Thus it is now Blair's contention that there is no charge to answer concerning the origins of the war; all this WMD guff is meaningless. He would have found "other arguments" to persuade Britons to follow George W. Bush into the war that American militarists had long been planning.Blair's admission has drawn a remarkable response from another Establishment mandarin, Sir Ken Macdonald, who served for five years as Director of Public Prosecutions under Blair's government – and now works in private practice at a major law firm…alongside Tony Blair's wife, Cherie. The headline in The Times puts it plainly: "Intoxicated by power, Blair tricked us into war."
Brendan O'Neill (Christian Science Monitor) observes of Blair's recent statements, "This suggests Blair did not actually have the courage of his convictions. He may have considered it 'right' to remove Saddam -- yet instead of trying to win public support for war on that basis, he cynically searched for some legalistic fig-leaf with which he might doll up his invasion."
Meanwhile Walter Pincus (Washington Post) explores US State Dept spending -- specifically what's spent on diplomacy and what's spent on 'security' for diplomacy. He reports, "In 2008, according to the GAO, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's direct-hire personnel totaled about 3,000. But 90 percent of State's security personnel are contractors, who in 2008 numbered 37,566, according to the GAO. Only 2,000 of these provide the publicized protective services for State officials and dignitaries in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Israel. The bulk are guards protecting not only U.S. embassies and missions but also the homes of some Foreign Service personnel."
Lastly, from Oilwatch Southeast Asia:Southeast Asian Leaders - Go for Solution Not Delusion! A Joint Statement, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 14, 2009 Copenhagen - 14 December 2009: We, members of Oilwatch Southeast Asia[i] and Indonesian Civil Society Forum for Climate Justice (CSF) declare our common position and demands on the current climate negotiation in COP 15 UNFCCC Copenhagen. We have witnessed the lack of leadership among industrial countries to significantly cut carbon emission let alone show their responsibility to support developing countries to tackle the impacts of climate change. Southeast Asia is considered as one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to impacts of climate crisis. Most of the Southeast Asian countries are poor and majority of the population in the region live in deep poverty resulting to a very low capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. The location of the region poses high risk for disasters such as typhoons, droughts, earthquakes, and flooding. We are disappointed that the negotiations in COP15 UNFCCC do not take into account the reality in the ground that fossil fuel exploitation by industrial countries have been going from strength to strength. Oil and gas projects of transnational corporations are mushrooming and demand for coal is increasing[ii].. Big foreign and private corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell, BHP Biliton, CNUOC, Chevron Texaco, Amarada Hess, Conoco Phillips and Bumi Resources, are the same actors who plunder natural resources and pollute the environment[iii]. These big corporations control and exploit the rich natural resources of the region particularly fossil resources like oil, gas and coal. Also these entities with the support of international financial institutions like International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, are the owners and suppliers of fossil-based technologies and products that the people of Southeast Asian are forced to be dependent with. Given the fact that burning and consumption of fossil fuels especially oil and coal is the leading cause of global carbon emission, we demand the national governments in Southeast Asia •· To agree on a common position to push for more than 40% carbon reduction from ANNEX I countries by 2020 from the level of 1990. •To demand from ANNEX I countries to compensate Third World countries from ecological debt and fund their mitigation and adaptation initiatives •To declare an immediate moratorium on new exploration and commercial operation of oil, gas and coal by big transnational companies in the region. •To define a concrete timeline and comprehensive plan on eventual phase out of fossil fuel extraction and usage in the region. In this regard there should be a significant investment on research and fast development of technologies that harness alternative and renewable resources of energy that are cheap, safe and clean. This is needed to make the economy and energy needs of Southeast Asia to veer away from relying on the production and consumption of fossil fuels. Majority of the income and revenues from the existing extraction of fossil fuel in the regions should be automatically appropriated for funding public services We oppose the false solutions being implemented and pushed for by ANNEX I countries and their transnational corporations such as carbon trading, clean development mechanism, the proposed REDD and 'clean' coal technologies. These market-based and profit-oriented solutions put the interest of private corporations and ruling elite above anything else. We push for the leaders of Southeast Asia countries to unite for truly address the issue of climate change and curb global warming. There should be a reversal of the orientation and framework of economic development and production in the region. In this regard, climate solutions should be based on human security, rectification of ecological debt, land rights, the change of production and consumption pattern, to realize social justice and people's sovereignty. These principles ensure in the heart of climate solutions are the welfare and interest of the people and the environment. The Oilwatch Southeast Asia, CSF, PACC, La'o Hamutuk and TCJ remain committed not only in pushing for genuine climate solutions but also in steadfastly fight along with grassroots communities against agreement, policies, program and projects that will further aggravate climate change and endanger our communities. Media contacts:Clemente Bautista, People's Action on Climate Change (PACC), email: entengi2@yahoo.com.ph; cell phone: +45.2639.2749 •Ines Martius, Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis, email: ines@laohamutuk.org; cell phone: +45 5274 8769 · Siti Maemunah, CSF Indonesia, email: mai@jatam.org; cell phone +45 5049 9567 · Penchom Saetang, Thai Working Group for Climate Justice (TCJ), email: toxiccampaign.earth@gmail.com; cell phone: +45 2862 7267
iraqthe telegraph of londonthe guardianandrew sparrowsky newspaul bromleychannel 4 newsbbc newsmcclatchy newspaperssahar issalaith hammoudi
reuters
mohammed abbasmissy ryan
to the contrarybonnie erbe
chris floyd
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the washington postwalter pincus
Monday, December 14, 2009
Robin Oakley: War Criminal
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Spirit of Barack" and from that we go to the sewer to note this garbage from Robin Oakley (CNN):
Journalists, academics and politicians will never lose their taste for re-hashing the events that led up to the war. But the evidence suggests that Joe Public no longer has quite the same fascination. Currently British voters are showing much more concern with events in Afghanistan, where 100 British troops have died this year compared to the 179 who lost their lives in the entire Iraq war.
Robin Oakley needs to stop lying. The Iraq Inquriy is news in England and that was before Tony Blair shot off his mouth over the weekend.
Robin Oakley thinks if he lies, he can distract everyone in the US. Robin Oakley is a damn liar and one of the damn liars who helped sell the Iraq War.
Instead of being allowed to pontificate at CNN, he should be in a prison with other War Criminals.
I never cease to be amazed at all the losers and crooks who sold this illegal war roaming around free and not even embarrassed -- not even ashamed of their actions.
It's rather telling -- both about them and about our society.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, December 14, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a War Hawk re-enters stage center, faux 'peace' 'activist' Tom Hayden finds a new way to disgrace himself (and who would have thought that was possible),
On the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera), Jasim Azawi was joined by the Iraqi National Movement Saleh al-Mutlaq, the KRG's Mohammed Ihsan and Dr. Wamidh Nadhmi (Baghdad University) to discuss the issue of the Baghdad attacks which have led to a "Bloody Wednesday" in August, a "Bloody Sunday" in October and a "Bloody Tuesday" last week.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Saleh al-Mutlaq, we have grown very accustomed to the pretty package accusations by the prime minister [Nouri al-Maliki] whenver such bombings happen: 'It is a Ba'athist, it is al Qaeada and it is Iraq's foreign enemies.' Is he convincing? Are Iraqis buying these justifications for the lack of security?
Saleh al-Mutlaq: No. Not really. I don't think the Iraqis believe any of these accusations anymore. The problem is that we cannot reach the facts because there are already accusations for these groups and they are not looking for those who are really doing these crimes. And unless we will be fair and directing the blame and the accusation, we will not reach who is behind all of this damages that is happening to our society. So I would assume if the government was to stop these attacks and create stability in this country, I think they should be precise and direct in their accusations, not a ready accusation as you said. And every time, the package is there, they just direct it. In fact, they do it [launch the same accusations] immediately after it [bombings] happen, they make the accusation.
Jasim al-Azzawi: This time, Mohammad Ihsan, in addition to the perfuncry accusations alluded to by Saleh al-Mutlaq, the prime minister, unlike last times, he fired the head of Baghdad security, which is in essance and by division of labor is in charge of security of Baghdad. Is this move supposed to absorb the anger of Iraqis?
Mohammad Ihsan: I think that's not enough really. If we look at the Iraqi portrait for the last six months, three major attacks happened in Baghdad And every time we hear it and we see the government accusastion, the police. And you ask Middle Eastern people, you always accuse foreigner and accuse our enemy without doing a serious investigation. Who is behind it? How we can sort out? How we can strength and empower our security in the country? Firing one head of Iraq or Baghdad security is not enough. What we need in Iraq, we need to reshuffle Ministry of Interior, to reshuffle a lot of positions -- military, intelligent positions.
Jasim al-Azzawi: I remember after the Bloody Wednesday, back in August, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as the Finance Ministry happened, Jawad al-Bolani, the Interior Minister, said, "I am not responsible for the security of Baghdad, the prime minister is."
Mohammad Ihsan: Sure. Because we have mismangement of the security procedure in Baghdad and all over the country. Before we were blaming Americans because they were in charge now we are as Iraqis in charge. But let us investigate and see what we have done to stop such attacks because between time to time in the last six months we lost huge amount of Iraqis which is unfair and our main role now is just to protect Iraqi citizens and it appears and it shows to us that between time to time the terrorist group they are more selective and more empowered on what is going on in Baghdad mentally because they are selecting their target. And they are selecting accurate time. If you look at the timing of each of these explosions in Baghdad, it was clear to us that the level of penetration and manipulation of the Iraqi political scene is too high --
Jasim al-Azzawi: You used a very powerful word, Mohammad Ihsan -- that is the word "penetration" -- alluding to the fact that perhaps Iraqi security forces have somehow been penetrated by militias and other forces.
Mohammad Ihsan: Which is, which is true.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Dr. Wamidh Nadhmi, the prime minister for the first time has been questioned by Parliament. We don't know exactly what happened in that special session. Would he convince the parliamentarians and the lawmakers what he's been saying for over a year that "I am the security man. I achieved security for the Iraqis." Is this ringing hollow with him now?
Dr. Wamidh Nadhmi: Well I don't think so. In fact, he's not called upon to be questioned but is called upon to be host of the House of Parliament and, furthermore, according to what you say, he did not fire Mr. Abboud Qanbar, in fact, he promoted him to another job in the armed forces. And to say that we have to get rid of sectarianism is ridiculous to come from the prime minister because he, himself, is a grand sectarian person and his party --
Jasim al-Azzawi: That's a powerful charge, Wamidh Nadhmi, to call the prime minister sectarian himself. Go ahead. Explain more.
Dr. Wamidh Nadhmi: Well his whole party is a sectarian party and the Islamic movement was divided between two sectarian parties -- one the Islamic party who was a Sunni party, the other one is al Dawa Party [. . .] and they represent the Shias. Iraqi people look for a more liberal freedom, they look for a non-sectarian regime, more or less secular regime, who does not deny the role and importance of Islam.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Saleh al-Mutlaq, Dr. Khudair al-Murshidi, who is the spokesman for the Ba'ath Party in Syria, yesterday told Al Jazeera that we are not behind these attacks, we do not target Iraqi civilians, as a matter of fact, we target the American forces in Iraq. Is the charge, the ready charge that we talked about -- "Ba'athists is behind it" -- how long can one use this charge?
Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well it's becoming very obvious to some of the Iraqis that these charges are not precise and they are just using these accusations to absorb the anger of the people after these attacks. And I think, as I say, this government is trying to improve their reputation after they lost it. al-Maliki get his repuation through the security and while the security is deteriorating day by day he has nothing else to say. He's not doing anything with the economic side, the social side or what he was trying to convince the people with. Where is the security? Since the security is gone, al-Maliki has nothing to convince the people with the coming elections to elect him.
Iran's Press TV reports today on 13 'suspects' arrested in last Tuesday's bombings and notes that Jawad al-Bolani states they will be executed: "We have completed 80 percent of the investigation over the bombings against the ministries of finance and foreign affairs." Wow. 80%? Bang-up job the US did imparting 'justice' to Iraq. (And maybe had the US not 'imparted,' Iraq wouldn't even be using the death penalty?) The investigations are almost over. And the people will be put to death. The investigation? No trial? The United Nations today notes that the resumption of executions is 'justified' by al-Maliki's government for 'security conditions'. Salam Faraj (AFP) reports that his remarks on the executions were made to Parliament yesterday. The United Nations notes:
Finding flaws in the administration of justice and violations of due process in criminal trials, the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had called on the Government earlier this year to declare a moratorium on all executions.
"It is of particular concern that many persons are convicted on the basis of confessions often gathered under duress or torture, while their right not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt is often violated," the report said.
"Until these violations are addressed, the imposition of the death penalty by Iraqi courts will remain arbitrary and contrary to the international human rights standards."
The number of people receiving capital sentences has risen, with 324 death sentences having been handed down by the High Judicial Council in the first half of 2009.
December 4th Amnesty International (UK) issued an alert on the death penalty in Iraq: 17 women among those set to die with fears government is 'playing politics' Iraq is preparing to execute hundreds of prisoners, including 17 women, warned Amnesty International today, as it issued an 'urgent action' appeal to try to prevent the deaths. The 900-plus prisoners have exhausted all their appeals and their death sentences are said to have been ratified by the Presidential Council, meaning that they could be executed at any time. Amnesty supporters are contacting Iraqi embassies around the world, including that in London, in a bid to stop the executions. The condemned prisoners have been convicted of offences such as murder and kidnapping, but many are likely to have been sentenced after unfair trials. The 17 women are thought to include a group known to have been held on death row at the 5th section (al-Shu'ba al-Khamissa) of Baghdad's al-Kadhimiya Prison. Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock said: 'This is a staggering number of people facing execution and the fact that the government may be playing politics over these cases is truly frightening. 'Wholesale use of the death penalty was one of the worst aspects of Saddam Hussein's regime and the present government should stop aping his behaviour. 'Instead of sending nearly a thousand people to a grisly death by hanging, the Iraqi authorities should halt all executions and impose an immediate death penalty moratorium.' Iraqi media reports suggest that the Iraqi government is currently trying to present itself as 'tough' on crime ahead of national elections scheduled for January. Iraqi opposition politicians have expressed concern that executions may be carried out to give the ruling party a political advantage ahead of the elections, and there have been calls for the government to temporarily suspend all executions. Amnesty is warning that Iraq's use of capital punishment is already spiralling. At least 120 people are known to have been executed in Iraq this year, greatly up on the 34 executions recorded during 2008. Iraq is now one of the world's heaviest users of the death penalty. After the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority suspended the death penalty following the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government in 2003, Iraq's subsequent reintroduction of capital punishment led to a rapid acceleration in death sentences and executions. Despite this, and contrary to some claims made by the Iraqi authorities, use of the death penalty has not seen a drop in crime levels in the country, with rises and falls in insurgency violence having no discernible relation to execution rates.
Amnesty International issued an alert on the announced forciable eviction of Camp Ashraf residents last Friday. The residents are Iranian dissidents who have lived in Iraq for decades now. Following the US invasion, the US made them surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28th the world saw what Nouri's 'promises' were actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. Last week, his plans to 'relocate' them was announced. "Relocation programs." Under Nouri that's no surprise. From the thug that oversaw the ethnic cleansing of Iraq in 2006 and 2007, that's no surprise at all. Mohammed Tawfeeq and CNN report that Nouri's spokespeopl have announced the forced relocation will take place tomorrow while Camp Ashraf's spokesperson Shahriar Kia states Nouri's claims that an agreement was reached with the residents is "unfounded and untrue. Any attempt to forcibly displace Ashraf residents will undoubtedly lead to a massacre and humanitarian catastrophe." Terence Bunch (UK Indymedia) reports on ongoing demonstrations in London in support of the refugees (numerous photos in the report). The National Council of Reistance of Iran notes, "The Association of Independent Iraqi Jurists, comprised of 12,000 jurists and lawyers, wrote a letter to the UN Secretary General envoy in Iraq, demanding urgent intervention to prevent the forcible relocation of Ashraf residents and avert a humanitarian catastrophe. In a letter to Ad Melkert, the Iraqi jurists wrote: It appears that the Iraqi government has no regard for international conventions and laws, and does not in any way respect humanitarian laws and human rights regulations. It does not even try to save face in front of other countries." Not only has Nouri broken his promise but apparently the US government has broken their own as well. Friday at the US State Dept press briefing (State Dept link has transcript and video), spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked about the forcible move and responded:
Well, I think what we would do, first and foremost, is to urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct any such relocation with the residents of Camp Ashraf, that it be done in a lawful and humane way. They've made clear to us, to the Government of the U.S., that they do plan to do this. And this is entiraly an Iraqi planned initiative. And as I said before, we'd expect this be carried out in a humane way. We have, all along, recognized Iraqi soveriegnty over the entire territory of Iraq, including the area where Camp Ashraf is located. And as I think we've said before, the Government of Iraq has assured us that they would not deport any of these citizens to any country where they would -- if you have a well-rounded fear of being treated inhumanely. So we -- I mean, we're engaging the Government of Iraq. Diplomatically, we respect Iraqi sovereignty. But of course, we're making it clear that we would expect these -- the residents of Camp Ashraf to be treated well and with respect.
What a pathetic excuse from the US government. It's gone from this summer where it was Camp Ashraf will remain, they're just putting in a police station to we're-okay-with-whatever-they-do. It's shameful and if the administration can't get it's act together over something this minor (the residents are not minor, I'm referring to how you address the situation -- you threaten to pull back some of those weapons contracts, for example), then the administration can't handle a damn thing. And to repeat, this isn't Hillary Clinton. Before she was ever nominated for Secretary of State, Iraq had been carved out by two incompetents whom Barack favored for their 'expertise' in foreign affairs. They screwed everything up. Joe Biden is now over Iraq trying to fix all their mistakes while also dealing with festering problems. My criticism of the inept administration on this point does not apply to either Clinton or Biden. If the administration cannot send a strong message when it comes to human rights, then the administration cannot send any strong messages at all and you better believe other countries, including 'enemy nations,' will quickly pick up on that.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 6 Baghdad roadside bombings left fifteen people injured (including one Iraqi soldier), a Baghdad sticky bombing wouned one person, a Baghdad private health clinic bombing which wounded 1 doctor, the doctor's wife and four patients and a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded one person. Wang Guanqun (Xinhua) reports a Mandeli (Diayala Province) roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi police officer and left two more injured and a Miqdadiya (also Diayala) roadside bombing wounded two people.
Late Friday/early Saturday, the US military announced: "Contingency Operating Base Speicher, Iraq – A Multi-National Division – North Soldier died Dec. 11 from non-combat related injuries. The Soldier was discovered unresponsive in his living quarters by a non-commissioned officer in the unit. The NCO transported the Soldier to a nearby medical facility on their base, but he was later pronounced dead by attending physicians. The incident is currently under investigation. Task Force Marne extends our deepest condolences to the family during this time of loss. Release of the Soldier's identity is being withheld pending notification of the next of kin, and will be announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/." Iran's Press TV added, "'A Multi-National Division-North soldier died Dec. 11. He was found not breathing in his living quarters at Camp Speicher, Tikrit, Iraq,' read a US military statement issued on Saturday." The announcement brings to 4371 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
For the first time since his spring 2007 exit as British Prime Minister, Tony Blair has become big news and dominated the world news cycle over the weekend due to his BBC interview with Fern Britton. Sunday, KPFA's The KPFA Evening News reported on the issue.Anthony Fest: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says he would have sent British forces into the 2003 invasion into Iraq even knowing that Iraq did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. Blair's remarks came in a BBC interview pre-recorded for broadcast today. Blair was prime minister from 1997 to 2007 and was President George W. Bush's staunchest international ally in the Iraq invasion. In the buildup to the invasion, Bush and Blair claimed Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons but after the invasion, no such weapons were found. Blair's response. Tony Blair: We've got to accept that that that intelligence turned out to be wrong. On the other hand, I think it's then important not to go to the other extreme and say, 'Well this is someone who was basically not a danger and not a source of instability in the region. Because I believe that he was. And personally, I think, there would always have been a time when you had to deal with him. Anthony Fest: Also in the BBC interview, Blair spoke of the more democratic government in Iraq today and said of Hussein "I can't really think that we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge." The British government is conducting an investigation of the country's entry into the Iraq War. The probe is being led by retired civil servant John Chilcot and is known as the Chilcot Inquiry. Chilcot's committee began conducting interviews late last month and expects to hear from Blair early next year. But a British newspaper reported today that portions of Blair's testimony to the committee will be conducted in secret. The committee's mission is fact finding only. It does not have prosecutorial powers.On the BBC, Blair declared it didn't matter, "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat." Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) observed, "It was a startling admission from the onetime British leader, who was President Bush's staunchest ally in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Blair's comments were immediately denounced by critics who accused him of using false pretenses to drag Britain into an unpopular war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of allied troops and thousands of Iraqi civilians." Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) pointed out, "Mr Blair's statement that he wanted rid of Saddam all along, and would simply have 'deploy[ed] different arguments' to do so in the absence of WMD, is his clearest admission to date that the famous weapons were indeed a pretext. His belief that a war on Iraq would have been necessary even without WMD is both significant -- and highly questionable." Stephen Jones (Epoch Times) reports, "Tony Blair's admission that Britain would have still taken part in the Iraq war -- even if it knew that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), has sparked calls that Blair stand trial for war crimes." BBC provides reactions from the UK Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, and the former deputy prime minister, John Prescott. Ainsworth doesn't want to 'guess' but there's no guessing needed. Support for the Iraq War in England fell to 26% if the WMD 'cover' was inaccurate. What Ainsworth and Prescott muddy up, Mike Brecher makes clear in a letter to the Guardian:Boxed in by years of the insistent drip of truth on the dynamic behind his decision to invade Iraq, Tony Blair has finally conceded that he would have removed Saddam even if there had been no evidence of WMD. It seems, then, that we went to war because Blair is under the misapprehension that British general elections give the winner a mandate to make international law on the fly, and to be the world's policeman, judge, jury and jailer. Or perhaps he believes that if Robert Mugabe, say, had considered Britain to be a destabilising influence a few years back, he would have been fully entitled to remove Blair and his cabinet by force. So generous of Blair to "sympathise" with those unsophisticates who thought and think he made a mistake.Mark Hennessy (Irish Times) quotes the then-UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix declaring of Blair's statement, "It gives a strong impression of a lack of sincerity. The war was sold on the weapons of mass destruction [claim], and now you feel, or hear that it was only a question of 'deployment of arguments', as he said. It sounds a bit like a fig leaf that was held up, and if the fig leaf had not been there, then they would have tried to put another fig leaf there." In response to Blair's statements, the Scottish National Party released the following:The SNP have rounded on Labour over attempts to re-write history over Iraq, and stepped up calls for Gordon Brown to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry and explain whether he would have still bankrolled the illegal war had he know there was no WMD in Iraq. The demands come as former Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted the weapons of mass destruction were not the point of the war -- contradicting repeated claims he made in parliament and in public as prime minister. SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson Angus Robertson MP also said the current and former prime ministers must give evidence in public -- after reports today (Sunday) that the Chilcot inquiry would hear Mr Blair's crucial testimony behind closed doors.Mr Robertson said:"Tony Blair's comments are a shameful admission from a shameful man. He may now cut a rather pathetic figure, but the people who aided and abetted him in pursuing an illegal war are still in government, and tens perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result of his duplicity. Alex Salmond and the SNP Westminster group played a leading role in seeking to impeach Tony Blair, and these latest remarks underline the rightness of that cause. "Tony Blair was clearly set on war with or without weapons of mass destruction, and Gordon Brown bankrolled it -- now both men must give evidence in public. Tony Blair is on record time after time saying that the war was not about regime change, and now he is trying to change the entire basis for the war to cover up the fact that we were dragged into an illegal adventure on a false pretence. "Gordon Brown must explain whether he would still have bankrolled the war had he known there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As Chancellor, he wrote the cheques for the disastrous war in Iraq. "And it would be unacceptable if evidence was not taken in public -- especially after Tony Blair's astonishing chatshow attempt to re-write history. Both men should appear side by side when they give evidence, so that we can get to the truth behind the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times. "This inquiry will be judged on the answers that it provides, and these fundamental questions must be addressed." Note:1. Details of Tony Blair's admission can be found here:2. Reports that Tony Blair will give evidence in private can be found here:3. Quotes from Tony Blair saying the Iraq war was not about regime change:Hansard - 24 Sept 2002 : Column 17: "Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…"Interview with Radio Monte Carlo - 29 January 2003: "So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not regime change – that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change."PM statement on Iraq - 25 February 2003: "I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."Hansard - 18 Mar 2003 : Column 772: "I have never put the justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441 - that is our legal base."Jeff Sparrow (Australia's ABC observes), "As a result of choices made by George Bush and Tony Blair --and, yes, by John Howard -- hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps as many as a million -- are now dead. Millions of people have been become refugees; a generation across the Middle East has learned see representatives of the West as gun-toting occupiers. We will be dealing with the consequences for decades to come." That's Australia. Little Megan Tady of the laughable Free Press (slogan: "We WHORED for Barack because we thought we had a backdoor deal.") wants you to say no to "mega-media mergers" but, Megs, in your dualistic, yes/no world, we're left with what? The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times (Meggers wrote her bad article for the last one)? Well, goodness golly Meg, Tony Blair entered the news cycle on Saturday and yet not one of Panhandle Media's three big print outlets managed to say one damn word Saturday, Sunday or Monday. About the Iraq War. The war they grandstanded on for how many years? Get a real job, Meg, and then we'll take you seriously. Tony Blair reveals he would have launched the illegal war regardless and The Nation's offering . . . a synopsis of Oprah. Put a twit in charge and all you have left is Twitter. The Nation will inform and save the nation by offering . . . recaps of Oprah episodes. [Credit where it's due, The Huffington Post has repeatedly covered this topic in the last two days including this piece by Ben Cohen] In the real world, where Tony Blair's remarks are news, the former UK Direcotr of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald wrote a column for the Times of London in which he noted:
The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn't want, and on a basis that it's increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister's mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?Hindsight is a great temptress. But we needn't trouble her on the way to a confident conclusion that Mr Blair's fundamental flaw was his sycophancy towards power. Perhaps this seems odd in a man who drank so much of that mind-altering brew at home. But Washington turned his head and he couldn't resist the stage or the glamour that it gave him. In this sense he was weak and, as we can see, he remains so. Since those sorry days we have frequently heard him repeating the self-regarding mantra that "hand on heart, I only did what I thought was right". But this is a narcissist's defence and self-belief is no answer to misjudgment: it is certainly no answer to death. "Yo, Blair", perhaps, was his truest measure.
Andrew Sparrow offers "'Sycophant' Tony Blair used deceit to justify Iraq war, says former DPP" (Guardian), "Macdonald's comments about Blair's decision to go to war are more critical than anything that has been said so far by any of the senior civil servants who worked in Whitehall when Blair was prime minister. Macdonald was DPP from 2003 until 2008 and he now practises law from Matrix Chambers, where Blair's barrister wife, Cherie, is also based." Kate Loveys (Daily Mail) explains, "The Iraq Inquiry has already heard evidence that Mr Blair was told days before the invasion that Saddam Hussein might no longer have access to WMD. The issue of what the former prime minister knew about Iraq's WMD arsenal was expected to form a key part of the inquiry." Loveys goes on to note that Blair will give 'secret' testimony to the Iraq Inquiry "under the guise of 'national security' concerns." Alsumaria reports, "'Stop the War' British Organization considered Blair's admissions as war crimes. Attacking any country in aim to change its regime is an illegal aggression by virtue of the International Law, the NGO said in a statement."
In London, the Iraq Inquiry continued today. The committee, chaired by John Chilcot, heard testimony from Lt Gen Sir John Kiszely and Lt Gen Robin Brims in one segment and from Lt Gen Jonathon Riley and Gen Peter Wall in the second. Unless otherwise noted, all quotes are from the Inquiry's transcript and the link before has transcript and video options. We'll note this section:
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: You both [Kiszely and Brims] said that in the time you were there the generals on the ground were not allowed to use the word "counter-insurgency" to describe the situation, that there was a ban from [US] Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld, who didn't like this word. To what extent do you feel that backseat driving from Washington by Donald Rumsfeld was actually constraining and inhibiting the people in charge on the ground dealing with the problem?
Lt Gen John Kiszely: Well, certainly when I arrived, the word "insurgency" was discouraged because, as I said, he had been asked, "Is this an insurgency?" and he had made it absolutely plain that in his view it wasn't.
Commitee Member Roderic Lyne: But the generals thought it was? That was their appreciation?
Lt Gen John Kiszely: Gradually, I think people understood that it was but, to start with, we didn't use the word, just as we didn't use the word in Northern Ireland. We said we were involved in military aid to the civil power rather than counter-insurgency, and there is always a reluctance, obviously, politically, to admit that you are in an insurgency, but gradually this became the accepted parlance because people realised they were in an insurgency, but gradually this became the accepted parlance because people realised they were in an insurgency. Going to the wider point of your question about influence from Washington, I think one thing that I saw was a huge impetus from the top of the Pentagon to draw down force levels very quickly, and General Casey was, I think, arguing that they should not be drawn down as quickly as he was under some pressure to do so, and I think he was absolutely right. Why this was being done from Washington was, I think, largely because the American forces were under huge pressure; they couldn't keep up a large troop deployment for a long time. But I think it was also influenced by the projections of when the Iraqi security forces -- that's the army and the police -- would be ready to take over, and I think some optimistic predictions were made --
Committee Member Roderic Lyne: You mean over-optimistic predictions?
Lt Gen John Kiszely: Most definitely overoptimisic, unrealistic, predictions were made earlier in 2004. There was considerable pressure from Capitol Hill to keep to these predictions, that the administration in Washington was being given a very hard time, that it didn't appear to be keeping up to the targets that it had set itself, and I think, therefore, a reluctance to adjust those targets and, as a result, adjust the level of draw-down, and I think this was throughout my time very much the pressure that was coming from Washington, and it was certainly not General Casey's intentions, as I understood it, to draw down a moment sooner than he thought it was wise.
In the other segment of the hearing, we'll note this section.
Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Admiral Boyce has told us that he warned the Americans against the assumptions. Were British officers uring the Americans to think about more serious scenarios in which those things didn't apply?
Gen Peter Wall: Well, there were a number of serious scenarios that were anticipated to do with our failure to seize the oil infrastructure before it was disrupted or destroyed, the sort of environmental consequences that might flow from that and other sorts of kind of wanton disruption. Those were thought through and there was a consequence management task force that was set up under the Americans in which we didn't play a particularly signifiant role and, of course, that also had a role to do with the possible downstream effects of some chemical releases which might have ensued from what we had anticipated could well happen. So those sorts of marco kind of events were being thought about. I think the general malaise that we inherited on arrival was not fully thought through.
Wall went on to tell the Inquiry that there were "key levers in Iraqi society" that they had to identify and court:
There were the Iraqi tribes with their sheiks, who had reasonably powerful influences because their power had been increased by Saddam in the closing years of his regime; there were the technical experts, particularly relevant to the oil industry, who were very well educated and had stuck around to run oil power, water and so on, and those are sort of -- those three issues of related in terms of the way the Basra infrastructure works. You know, the oil is needed to generate electricity, which is required to pump the water which gets the oil out of the ground. You break any one of those links, the system tends to fall down. [. . .] There were also, of course, the clerics as there are in any society, who had a very significant influence over the way that people were thinking, behaving and particularly the way they thought about us. So there was an opportunity there to increase our understanding and also to try and get them to explain our posture, and there was an emerging group of would-be politicians. In fact, there was something like 40 or 50 political parties that formed up very, very quickly in Basra in the expecation of some early elections, who tended to behave as if they had already been elected and had legitimate influence over what should be done.
That's all we have time for. Ruth and Elaine are grabbing a bad radio program tonight so be sure to check them out. I agree with the points they outlined over the phone and would gladly weigh in but there's just not the space in this snapshot. I will make room for one plug. The Hurt Locker is an amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow. Susan King (Los Angeles Times) reports: "Sunday was a big day for The Hurt Locker, the gripping wartime drama about a bomb diffusion unit in Iraq. Within hours, the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. and the American Film Institute both named the independent production the year's best drama. L.A. critics bestowed the film's director, Kathryn Bigelow, with a best director prize as well." Reuters adds, "Separately on Sunday, "The Hurt Locker" was also named one of the year's 10 best movies by the American Film Institute, a Los Angeles-based group that promotes movie conservation and education." As disclosed before, I know and like Kathryn Bigelow and, fingers crossed, this is an Academy Award nominee. She's earned it. And Susan King (LA Times) notes this afternoon that the New York Critics Circle has picked The Hurt Locker as the year's best film and Kathyrn as best director.
iraq
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
xinhuawang guanqun
kpfathe kpfa evening newsanthony fest
bbc newsthe los angeles timeshenry chuthe telegraph of londonandrew gilligan
the times of londonthe guardianandrew sparrowthe daily mailkate loveys
mcclatchy newspapersmohammed al-dulaimy
the los angeles timessusan king
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)