Saturday, September 12, 2009

THIS JUST IN! HE'S A SCREAM QUEEN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IT'S DESPERATION TIME AT THE WHITE HOUSE WHERE THE FREE FALLING CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS LOST THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC AND RAN OFF HIS FAN BASE SO QUICKLY YOU'D THINK HE'D SHAVED HIS HEAD.

INSTEAD, IN THE TRADITION OF SO MANY OTHER FALLEN STARLETS, BARRY O'S DECIDED TO STAR IN A HORROR MOVIE. THIS ONE IS CALLED "I WILL SCARE YOU TO DEATH!" AND BARACK'S FIRST BIG SCENE CAN ALREADY BE STREAMED ONLINE.

GRINNING MADLY WHILE LOOKING UP AT SOMETHING OFF CAMERA, HE REMINDS THESE REPORTERS OF JOAN CRAWFORD IN HER "TROG" LOVE SCENES WHICH IS FITTING BECAUSE HER CAREER WAS ON THE SKIDS AS WELL WHEN SHE MADE THAT FILM. IN THE TRADITION OF PARIS HILTON, VAMPIRA, AND EMMANUELLE, BARRY O INTENDS TO GRAB WHAT EVER ATTENTION IS LEFT AFTER THE 15 MINUTES OF ADULATION IS GONE.

.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

On the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, Iraq was discussed. Steve Roberts filled in for Diane Rehm (who tripped a few Thursdays ago and expects to be back on Monday's program and will be on Saturday's Weekend Edition speaking with Scott Simon) and spoke with panelists Karen DeYoung (Washington Post), Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera) and Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy).

Steve Roberts: Karen, next door [to Iran], Iraq continues, almost every week we have to talk about it. This week in Iraq, a blast in the northern provinces, 25 or so people killed. This is an area of-of a lot of ethnic strife, Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs. What do we know about the security situation in-in Iraq and the potential for widening civil strife there?

Karen DeYoung: It's interesting that as these -- as these things have happened and there have been several big explosions, certainly starting from the August 19th suicide attack against the Foreign Ministry in Baghdad, the Americans have gone out of their way in each instance to say, "Gosh this is too bad but we don't think it's a return to sectarian strife. We think things are proceeding as they should, we are leaving on schedule, if not before we are scheduled to leave." And you saw Ambassador Chris Hill, the US ambassador to Baghdad, was on Capital Hill yesterday testifying in the Senate and in the House and saying, "Look, you know" essentially saying, "this is growing pains. The Iraqis have to learn how to deal with these things themselves and they will learn by doing it."

Steve Roberts: I'm Steve Roberts and you're listening to The Diane Rehm Show. But in his (Hill's) testimony, the subtext clearly was drawing a very clear distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan. They continually say Iraq is-is not vital to national security in just -- in the way that Afghanistan remains.

Karen DeYoung: Well he was saying Look we have an ongoing interest in a partnership with Iraq. Iraq will -- You know we have this Strategic Framework Agreement that-that has levels of economic cooperation, cultural cooperation and some ongoing military cooperation, certainly in terms of training and-and other kinds of assistance. But that we are not -- we think in terms of the insurgency, that's Iraq's problem now and we're leaving it for them to deal with." Obviously, they still have problems in the north and that is the primary concern both on a military level, an economic level and a governance level The difficulties between the Kurds in the north and the -- and the Arabs and the Shi'ite-led government in Baghdad.

Let's use Karen's remarks to jump back to that hearing already covered in yesterday's snapshot. Last night, Kat shared her thoughts on the hearing and she also noted that I didn't do transcript format to cover as much of the two hearings as possible. Today we're going to zoom in on a few specific moments from the Senate Foreign Affairs hearing. First up, a few e-mails wonder if John Kerry was clear that Hill should summarize? Kerry is the chair of the committee and he was very clear in his instructions and Hill agreed to do what was asked and then went on to ignore what was requested of him.

Chris Hill: Thank you very much, uh Chairman Kerry, I would like to uhm -- I have a statement which I would like to --

John Kerry: We'll put the full statement in the record as if read in full and if you'd summarize that would give us more time to have a good dialogue. Thanks.

Chris Hill: Very good.

Is that not clear? Does any adult have trouble following what Kerry requested? Hill responded "Very good" and nodded. So presumably he understood what he was asked to do. He was asked to summarize his statement. The next words out of his mouth were, "Chairman Kerry, Senator Lugar, Members of . . ." and you can [PDF format warning] click here for the written statement he prepared ahead of time and you will see -- surprise, surprise, as Carol Burnett's Eunice used to say -- it starts the same way. In fact, 14 pages will be read word for word with the exception of when Hill loses his place. 14 pages. At which point, he will finally notice Kerry's displeasure and begin summarizing the last five pages. He will take approximately 11 minutes with the bulk of it (10 minutes) being spent reading word-for-word before he rushes to sum up the last five pages in one minute.

John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, you also talked about the issue of reform in Iraq and, you know, we've been sitting on this committee listening to this talk I mean I can remember Secretary [Condi] Rice down in the lower building, lower room of the Dirksen, testifying to us in January three or four years ago saying the oil law's almost done, we're moving forward on this and that, etc, etc. We are at least three or four years later now and still those contentious issues remain contentious. Share with us, I mean, it seems those may be the explosion point also in the absence of an American presence. Would you lend your view on that and on the prospect of actually resolving these --

Chris Hill: Well first of all, I'd like to say that I think getting the economy there operating -- namely getting oil uh starting to-to-to be pumped out of the ground -- is essential to the future of that country and, frankly, we cannot be uh funding uh things that should be funded by the Iraqis and would be funded if they - if they were able to move on the oil sector. Uh with regard to the hydrocarbons law, I went out there with the expectation that we would move on that but I know -- you know -- it was held up -- it's been held up for three or four years. I have really worked that issue. We have tried to break it down, find out where the real differences are between the Kurdish government and the uh Iraqi government. It's a complex piece of legislation actually involving four separate pieces of legislation having to do with revenue sharing, having to do with institution building, uh having to do with uh how the ministry would operate and I think realistically speaking it will probably not get done before the January elections. So our concern has been we cannot have Iraq's future held up or-or simply held hostage to this one piece of legislation. Therefore we were pleased that the Iraqis did move ahead with the beginning of something they hadn't done for decades and decades and that is begin the process of-of bidding oil fields to foreign concerns. They didn't do it during Saddam, they didn't even do it pre-Saddam. So they have begun that. They began it in June. One of the --

John Kerry: That's all well and good but if all those revenues, if all those revenues are piling up in even greater amounts without some distribution mechanism --

Chris Hill: Well there is a distribution mechanism the 17% is basically -- is agreed to by all sides. So even when the -- when they -- on the Kurdish Regional Government when they were able to export some oil with an agreement with Baghdad, they did it under the provision of seven -- seventeen percent. So I think these things can-can be properly distributed. The issue is in the -- I won't say "long run" but certainly in the medium run they're going to need this law because the issues go to things like infrastructure. Iraq's oil sector is very much in trouble with very aging infrastructure. They have to have agreements no how they're going to pay for Is that the responsibility of local authorities? There are other issues having to do with the uh southern part of-of Iraq and there own regional concerns So I think they can deal with some of the key elements but it would be better if they dealt with the hydrocarbon law. I'm giving you my sense of the situation and I don't think we're going to get there before January. And therefore we really want to focus on getting them to bid out these fields because British-Petroleum in there is a good development.

John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, Syria and Iraq had indicated a willingness to try to cooperate on the borders and deal with the foreign fighter issue which is very much in our interest and we've been pushing that on both sides. But the bombings on August 19th have now seen, you know sort of an explosion between the two countries, they've pulled their ambassadors and uh traded recriminations so where do we stand on that? What if anything can be done to end that? Will Turkish mediation make a difference? Is that the thing that we should be advocating at this point? And what do you think is the process for getting back to the place that we'd hoped to be.

Chris Hill: Well, I uh think we would like to see Iraq and uh Syria have a good relationship and it was rather ironic that on August 18th -- that is one day before the bombing -- Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki was in Damascus and they signed a number of economic agreements. Uh, obviously, things are -- things are in a difficult state and things are frankly on hold right now through this uh, through this uh down turn n the relationship. The Iraqis are very concerned about the fact that some senior Ba'athist leaders went and found refuge in Syria and remain in Syria. And the Iraqis have understandably called for their return to-to Iraq. That issue needs to be, frankly, needs to be worked through.

We'll stop on that section -- and note British Petroleum is not "in there" on its own, it formed a partnership with China National Petroleum Corporation. On the subject of Iraq and Syria, Muhanad Mohammed, Khalid al-Ansary, Tim Cocks and Elizabeth Fullerton (Reuters) report Nouri's spokesmodel Ali al-Dabbagh declared today, "It is premature to talk about the return of the ambassadors before Iraq sees seriousness from the Syrian side and the political will to implement the demands of Iraqis." Today's exchange is only the latest volley. Syria continues to demand proof before extraditing anyone.


We'll pick back up on yesterday's Senate Foreign Affairs Committee with Senator Russ Feingold.

Senator Russ Feingold: I'm extremely pleased that we finally have a time table for ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. While I'm concerned that the redeployment is not being done as promptly as it should be, this will allow us to refocus on the global threat posed by al Qaeda. I remain convinced that foreign occupations are usually not a good strategy for combatting a global terrorist network. We need to find ways to relentlessly pursue al Qaeda while simelutaneously developing longterm partnerships with legitimate local actors and doing so through civilian diplomatic and development efforts that do not involve a massive military footprint. And now as we transition out of Iraq it is extremely important that we focus on making this an orderly withdraw and doing everything we can through diplomatic means to help promote the political reconciliation needed to bring lasting peace to Iraq. As to some questions, Ambassador, how do the Iraqi people feel about the redeployment of all US troops by the end of 2011 as required by the bi-lateral agreement? Is there any danger that any indication that we're backing away from that committment strong opposition.
Chris Hill: I think the-the dates of uh December 2011, uh August 2010, these were agreed with the Iraqi government and uh at the end of 2008. Uh I think any uh any uh indication that we were not prepared to live with these dates would be very poorly received by the -- by the Iraqi people. And indeed we saw this in the uh in the movement out of the cities June 30, 2009. Rememer we tried to discuss that in terms of nuances and the uh Iraqi media, the Iraqi public got concerned that somehow we were looking for ways not to accomplish that and we did exactly what we said we would do which is we pulled our people from the cities and I think it really has established a resevoir of trust that when you uh have an agreement with the -- with the Americans, you can take it to the bank. So I think uh it's very important to-to live up to these agreements and I think the Iraqi people, even though they do have great concerns about the security, I think they-they want to be responsible for their -- see their country responsible for their own security. As I said earlier, this will be -- these will be difficult moments ahead but uh these are -- these will be nonetheless Iraqi moments to handle and I think they will -- they will deal with this. We are dealing with uh very -- some very competent people, very intelligent people and they will know what to do.

Russ Feingold: Thank you for that answer. The Iraqi government intends to hold a nation-wide referendum on the bi-lateral Status Of Forces Agreement and while there's been a lot of speculation about how this could impact a redeployment timetable, I'd like to also point out that both the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people will have had a chance to vote on the agreement even though the US Senate has not. Can you assure us that any potential modifications to the Security Agreement will be submitted to the Senate for ratification?

Chris Hill: Uh, the issue of Senate ratification goes beyond my write but I will certainly take that question to the State Department and get you an official answer on that. I can give you my personal opinion on that.

Russ Feingold: Would you please?

Chris Hill: -- that you would not want to be changing this uh we would not engage in changing this security agreement without uh considerable consultation but as for the actual relationship between the Senate and the executive [branch] on this, I'd like to defer to our lawyers at the State Department.

First, Omar Fadhil al-Nidawi and Austin Bay (Wall St. Journal) report, "It's clear that Iraqi air defense forces will not be ready to handle the mission by 2011. Currently, the Iraqi Air Force is a creature of turbo-prop planes and helicopters. A squadron of high performance aircraft flown by Iraqi crack pilots is an expensive goal that might sortie over Baghdad by 2016 at best, though the Iraqi Ministry of Defense quietly estimates that 2018, or 2020, is more probable."

Could the White House extend the US presence beyong 2011 and would it require Senate approval to do so? "Yes" to the first and "no" to the second. Russ Feingold isn't suddenly interested in this issue. He was among those vocally decrying attempts to circumvent the Constitution by bypassing the Senate to form a treaty with Iraq. That was the Bush White House. Let's drop back to the April 10, 2008 snapshot where another Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing was covered:

Senator Russ Feingold wanted to know if there were "any conditions that the Iraq government must meet?" No, that thought never occurred to the White House. "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation," Feingold asked, "won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?" The two witnesses [David Satterfield (US State Department) and Mary Beth Long (US Defense Dept)] didn't appear to have heard that fact before. Feingold repeated and asked, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal" Satterfield feels the US and the agreement "will enjoy broad popular support" in Iraq. Satterfield kept saying the agreement wasn't binding. And Feingold pointed out, "The agreement will not bind the Congress either, if the Congress were to" pass a law overriding it which seemed to confuse Satterfield requiring that Feingold again point that out and ask him if "Congress passed a clear law overriding the agreement, would the law override the agreement." Satterfield felt the White House "would have to look carefully at it at the time" because "it would propose difficult questions for us."

"I would suggest," Feingold responded, "your difficulties are with the nature of our Constitution. If we pass a law overiding it . . . that's the law." The treaty and the efforts to bypass the Senate's advise & consent role was something that bothered senators on both sides of the aisle.

Feingold objected as did many Dems and, in the Senate, several Republicans. Barack Obama objected as well. Until he won the election. Then objections began vanishing. Now he operates under Bush's SOFA as opposed to doing any of the things he promised on the campaign trail. Can the White House extend US involvement in Iraq?

Yes.

It was one of the two signers of the document. It can put forward a new agreement or can add years to the same agreement.

Yes.

Does it need Senate approval to do so?

"No" would now appear to be the answer. Precedent would most likely apply here were the matter to go before the Supreme Court. The Court will sometimes provide a check on the Executive Branch; however, it generally looks for any way out of such a ruling. (The Court has no officers that enforce decisions -- among the reasons it tends to avoid stand-offs with the Executive Branch.) Allowing George W. Bush to put forward a treaty and refusing to overturn it when Barack was sworn in as president would most likely allow a wary Court to say a limited and limiting precedent --- applying solely to this SOFA document with Iraq -- was set by Bush's objections and the continuation of them under President Barack Obama. So Barack could bypass the Senate -- as Bush did -- in creating a new agreement or extending the current one. It's an issue Feingold always takes seriously. You'll note his chief online cheerleader, The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild, 'forgets' to document Feingold's line of questioning yesterday.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's Air Force, Museum and prison riot"
"Camp Ashraf"
"I Hate The War"
"Dam Alito"
"Salsa in the Kitchen"
"Carly Simon's new album and more on the bad speech"
"David Corn, crazy ass David Corn?"
"Todd Chretien, sit your ass down"
"Next up, the Double Date"
"New Carly Simon CD"
"school problems"
"carly simon, dean powers health care recommendation"
"Sam Ritchie and marrigae equality"
"Someone tell Mr. Clyburn and Mr. Hoyer to cool down"
"McGovern scores, Levy whores"
"Wonderful Carly Simon, Creepy Chris Hill"
"ACORN falls far from the tree"
"Conspiracy nuts"
"WTF????????????"
"The Offensive Todd Chretien"
"Music"
"But, but Joe Wilson was wrong, right?"
"Public option schmublic option says Pelosi"
"They had nothing else to do"
"THIS JUST IN! DEMS IN CONGRESS GOT NOTHING!"

Thursday, September 10, 2009

THIS JUST IN! DEMS IN CONGRESS GOT NOTHING!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

THERE'S NO TIME TO WASTE, INSISTED BARRY O LAST NIGHT, WE MUST FOCUS ON HEALTH CARE.

HE FORGOT TO TELL THAT TO HIS FRIENDS IN CONGRESS.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS ARE TOO BUSY TRYING TO MANUFACTURE A FAUX CONTROVERSY OUT OF BARRY O FACING A CRY OF "YOU LIE." FYI, THE MAN WHO THREW TWO SHOES AT GEORGE W. BUSH? CONGRESS NEVER EVEN DEBATED CENSURING HIM. SAY BARRY O LIES AND THEY WANT YOU TO CRAWL BEFORE THE PUBLIC GROVELING.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS RUNNING ON FUMES AND HAS NOTHING LEFT TO OFFER THE PUBLIC.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

US Ambassador Chris Hill appeared before Congress today. He last appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on March 25th, back when Committee Chair John Kerry was explaining that, if confirmed as ambassador, he would depart for Iraq "within a day of his Senate confirmation. Tuesday April 21st, Hill was confirmed by the Senate. Three days later he showed up in Baghdad. Baby Hill's first broken promise since becoming ambassador.

This morning, Chris Hill appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and there wasn't a great deal to that hearing. Hill insisted that there was joy and wonder in Iraq because Sunnis and Shia had no "risen to the bait" of sectarian warfare. He avoided the issue of mounting tensions between Kurds and Arabs -- surprising when you grasp that outside observers and the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, have identified that mounting tension as among the most pressing problems facing Iraq today. In fact, "Analysts say tensions between Arabs and Kurds in northern Iraq is the major threat to the country's stability and security as the U.S. troops, which have mediated between the two sides, are prepare to withdraw from Iraq by 2012." That's Xinhua, we'll come back to that after discussing the hearing.

He acknowledged that "there is a risk of escalation in tensions between Arabs and Kurds around the disputed areas in nothern Iraq." A risk? It's taking place. Hill came off like an uninformed fool in March when attempting to speak on the issue of Kirkuk. He was no more convincing today discussing "the thorny dispute in Kirkuk." What is he doing on that issue? Apparently nothing but, he insisted, "The UN has an important role here." Then why are you appearing before Congress?

"There has been some good news," insisted Hill. "Iraq statged two rounds of successful elecitons this year -- the provincial council elections in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces in January, and elections for the Kurdistan Regional Government in July." Yes, he is that stupid. The KRG elections allowed for 3 more provinces to vote. And? What of Kirkuk? The oil-rich Kirkuk has not had its referendum -- promised in Iraq's Constitution ratified in 2005. There has been no promised census. There is no progress.

And that needs to be stated clearly. In 2007, a series of benchmarks were created by the Bush White House to measure 'progress' in Iraq. These were not 'longterm' benchmarks. These were benchmarks Iraq was supposed to meet within a year. And never did. And even now, as 2009 winds down, the benchmarks haven't been met.

Hill should not be allowed to cite 'progress' without defining it. He found time to slam the Iraqis comfort level with a Socialist economy, to preach the marekt economy as the only way for Iraq to find stability, to prep for a coming war with Iran (including climbing the drama cross about an Iranian rocket landing "in the front yard of my house") and more. James Morrison (Washington Times) reported this morning that Hillmight face questions today regarding why he more or less ignored ("downplayed") a letter from over "500 members of the British Parliament" warning that Camp Ashraf residents were in danger (the residents were assaulted July 28th). The issue was raised by the House Committee and Hill embarrassed himself and the country of the United States. The assulat resulted in 11 dead, many injured and at least 36 kidnapped/imprisoned. (Camp Ashraf residents call the 36 hostages.) Hill declared that Nouri has assured him the 36 won't be sent to Iran. The MEK are Iranian dissidents who have been in Iraq for decades now. Saddam Hussein welcomed them into the country. Following the US invasion in 2003, the US protected the MEK. Hill stated that they won't be sent back to Iran and seemed pleased with his statement. That's an ambassador? When Joe Wilson was Ambassador to Iraq, he stood up to the ruler. Hill's couldn't have been more ineffectual if he'd added, "Nouri and I text and i.m. all the time. And Hoshie Zebari is so dreamy!" He insisted that Nouri knew the US was interested in "the preservation of their human rights" but that appears only to apply to "Don't send them back to Iran!" Imprison them? Hey, fine and dandy with Chris Hill.


Due to the differences in time limits, we'll focus on the Senate committee. Individuals members of the committee have more time to ask questions on the Senate Committee. Equally true, Hill appeared fully awake for the afternoon session. His hair was in disarray and he had a food stain on his shirt (he is the Pig-Pen Ambassador), but he was awake.

We'll note a lengthy section of John Kerry's opening statement:

If the Iraqi public rejects the agreement, then I believe we have no choice but to withdraw all of our forces as quickly as we can. This would complicate our redeployment and severely curtail our ability to assist the Iraqi security forces and government. But at this point, I'm not sure how we justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary after being formally disinvited by the Iraqi people.

In a sense, the security agreement that the Bush Administration negotiated with Prime Minister Maliki made moot the old "should we stay or should we go" policy debate. But even so, Iraq remains a Rorschach test for pundits and policymakers:

On the one hand, a person can look at the security gains since 2006 -- when sectarian violence threatened to tear Iraqi society apart -- and conclude that Iraqis have stepped back from the brink. And it's true that, since the worst days of 2006 and 2007, violence has dropped by 85 percent, even with the recent mass-casualty attacks. American fatalities are at their lowest rate of the war. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, while still deadly, is only a shadow of its former self.

There has been political progress, as well. In the January elections, unlike in 2005, sectarian and ethnic identification is unlikely to be the sole organizing principle of Iraqi politics. The leader of the Anbar Awakening, a group that evolved out of the Sunni Arab insurgency, has been talking openly about a political alliance with the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Such an announcement would have been unthinkable just eighteen months ago. Other Sunni factions are exploring a coalition with the Kurds. Electricity production, which had long been stalled, quietly increased by forty percent in the last year.

That is the optimistic view. But one can look at the same set of facts on the ground and come to a more pessimistic conclusion: namely, that removing an American presence that has been the lynchpin of the security improvements of the last few years would lead Iraq back into a downward spiral of communal violence.

It's too soon to know whether the rise in violence since American forces withdrew from Iraqi cities in June is an uptick or an upswing. Whether it is a blip or a trend, recent violence has been troubling. August was the deadliest month for Iraqis in more than a year. And the devastating "Black Wednesday" bombings against the Iraqi Foreign and Finance Ministries last month were a stark reminder that forces opposed to reconciliation remain capable of devastating attacks that could alter the country's direction. The attacks were also a blow to the Iraqi people's confidence in their security forces. And of course, Iraq's problems don't end there: Arab -- Kurdish tensions remain unresolved, corruption is rampant; millions of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons remain far from home, waiting to be resettled; and Iraq's relations with its neighbors are volatile. These are a few of the many challenges Iraq will face in the coming years.

So which is it? Is Iraq beginning to unravel again, or are these just the inevitable bumps on the road toward returning responsibility for Iraq to Iraqis? What will happen after we leave? We don't have definitive answers to these questions.

Ranking Member Richard Luger stated they didn't need Hill to use a crystal ball and tell them about what would take place in 2011, that instead they need "your best sense of how things are progressing towards that date." And then the floor went to Chris Hill.

In the midst of reading his prepared statement -- the same prepared statement Senator John Kerry asked him to summarize and not read in full so that there could be more time for questions -- Hill looked around (so many rumors of meds, so many rumors) and asked,
"Is that my phone or someone else's? Good, it's not mine." Good. And did anyone else hear the ringing? Hill returned to reading his statement. Repeating, John Kerry told him the statement would be put into the record "as if you read it in full" and instructed him to summarize it so there would be more time for a discussion. Hill just doesn't grasp events around him. Maybe all those ringing cell phones he hears distracts him? Over three minutes into his word-for-word reading of the prepared statment, Hill was greeted by a loud throat clearing on the part of Senator Kerry. No, he didn't take a hint. Four minutes in, Kerry was visibly irritated. No, Hill didn't notice but went on about "we need to work closely with Iraq" . . . Some might think Hill was so dependent upon his prepared remarks because he stammers and stumbles when speaking without prepared text. Possibly. But he manages to screw up even his word-for-word reading. And, it needs to be noted, the prepared remarks he gave in the afternoon were pretty much the same ones he gave in the morning to the House committee. Kirkuk was "the thorny dispute" in both because they were the same damn statement. Four minutes later, Senator Kerry was again loudly clearing his throat and Hill was continuing to speak about "a very important day, more important than many . . ." Over ten minutes after he was asked to summarize and not read his statement, Hill finished reading it.

Senator Kerry noted Hill "mentioned in your testimony a strengthend civilian effort. What do you mean by that? We have one of the largest embassies in the world." Hill agreed that was true and then stated that the embassy "will need to get smaller." If you're confused, the committee appeared to be so as well as Hill began speaking of having to rent apartments in Baghdad for some staff members and putting in a partition/dry wall in one when the two people were not married. "But I want to assure mr chairman I want to see that embassy smaller," he declared firmly to the puzzled stares of the committee. Is Hill planning to rent out the embassy conference room for small parties? Sign lease agreements with some of the Subway sandwich shops losing spots on bases. [Marc Santora reported on bases yesterday, it was an article of interest but there was no room for it in the snapshot. Click here to read his article.]

Senator Russ Feingold asked whether the US military should provide security for embassies in war zone considering recent contractor scandals? "Incidents do happen," stated Hill, "everywhere." Thanks for that explanation, Chris. But, "I would rather not task the military with another mission." The US marines are the ones who are supposed to be protecting US embassies staff in foreign countries. If Hill's aware of that, he gave no indication. In replying to Senator Feingold, Hill fell back repeatedly on some variation of, "Maybe I can take the question and get back to you." Even for something as basic as his own role as supervisor as US troops draw-down. It was rather sad.

And what of 'progress'? Senator Kerry observed, "We've been sitting on this committee listening to this talk -- I can remember Senator Rice [. . .] testifying to us three or four years ago, saying the oil law is almost done." And it wasn't and it isn't.

"I went out there with the expectations that we would move on it," Hill declared of the oil law while painting himself as Hill of Arabia. But now? The issue's so much more complicated than he knew. (Over his head?) The law has many parts: "revenue sharing, institution building". And no luck on it. "We have tried to break it down," Hill shrugged. " I think that getting the economy there operating [. . .] is eseentital to the future of that country and frankly we cannot be funding things that should be funded by the Iraqis and would be funded" if the oil law was in place. Senator Corker wanted to know "how long as a country that we are supporting Iraq financially?" Hill agreed, "They should be able to pay their own bills. There's no question that they should pay their own bills." But?

They need financial support, Hill said, and pinned it on pre-Saddam era, going back to the British occupation (which he named and fingered) and Iraqis 'fear' of turning over assets "to foreigners to development. So they've got to get over that." Oh do they? They have to get over that. Hill said that Iraqis have to get over that? And he's the ambassador to Iraq?

The oil draft law (aka Theft Of Iraqi Oil)? "I think realistically speaking," Hill said indicating he had offered something other than realistic speaking to the committee previously, "it will probably not get done before the January elections. So our concern is that we cannot have Iraq's future held up or held hostage by this one particular issue."

The Ambassador to Iraq made statements blaming Syria and that may have been the most interesting of all. "They have rightly called for their return" declared Hill of former Ba'athists now living in Syria. Wow. What a difference from mere days ago. September 1st he appeared on WBUR's On Point with Tom Ashbrook (see Sept. 2nd snapshot for transcript of his remarks). From that broadcast:

Jacki Lyden: We are going to take a few calls here in just a moment but Ambassador, I would like to ask you, based on your intelligence, who do you think is responsible for the August 19th bombings which was the worst in a very long time?

Chris Hill: Well I you know the investigations are very much continuing I'm not sure I want to sort of give you a running tab of an ongoing investigation but there are certain usual suspects here that we are obviously looking at very closely and one of course is this al Qaeda in Iraq -- so-called AQI. Now the government has some theories that it's more complex that you have possible ex-Ba'athist elements You know these are also Sunni who feel disenfranchised from the system but they're not sort of these extreme Wahhabists Sunnis that al Qaeda draws its ranks from. Yet there is you know talk in the analytical community whether they're Ba'athist in al Qaeda or AQI -- I want to stress this is al Qaeda in Iraq, a sort of franchised operation. And there's a lot of you know talk that perhaps they have some know -- tactical putting, you know, putting this thing together. It's really hard to say. What is clear though is that for many people in this country when those terrible bombings took place out came the fingers and pointing at each other. And to be sure there's a time for finger pointing, there's certainly a time to investigate and see what failures there were in the system. But there's also a times, as the United States, as we know very well in the wake of 9-11. There is a time to come together and one hope that that call will be better heard in Iraq. Because, uh, it's a very rough political climate here.

Again, his tune changed and he sang it repeatedly, always off-key, today. But he found it "rather ironic" that the day before the August 19th bombings, Nouri al-Maliki was in Syria and they had "signed a number of agreements". That's "ironic"? Does Chris Hill know the definition of "irony"? Hill places tremendous faith in Nouri's assessment of Syria and Syrian involvement because, Hill explained, Nouri spent "18 years of his life in Syria."

The issue of the Status Of Forces Agreement was raised -- Kerry raised it first in his opening remarks -- and what would happen if it was changed in some manner or a new agreement was done? Hill felt he wasn't qualified to answer and stated he would defer to the State Dept attorneys but he was of the non-legal opinion that "we would not engage in changing the security agreement without official consulation" with Congress.

We may return to the hearing tomorrow. If so, we'll address the nonsense Hill offered on refugees. It was as irritating as Hill's mincing efforts to be cute such as replying to John Kerry's question about a power grab on Nouri's part with a rambling answer that began "In the privacy of this hearing room".

In terms of immediate concerns, it was pointed out that the elections are scheduled for January and that Barack Obama has stated his delay (broken campaign promise) in terms of drawing down troops is to keep troops on the ground for that. Hill declared, "I worry about developing the political rules of the game and what I don't want to see is an election that resutls in six months of government formation during which there is a loss of some of the progress made." He fears that following the election it will take some time time to set up a new government. That's not the only election fear being expressed currently. Catholic News Agency reports that Father Shlemon Warduni, Auxiliary Bishop of Baghdad, is stating the 2010 elections in Iraq have Iraqi Christians fearful of even more violence and noted of Zakho and Amadhiya, "The lack of work is noticeable and is made worse by the fact that many lands have been occupied by people who have come from other areas in search of refuge. The streets are not secure and neither are they in good condition, thus making it difficult for the people who need to find work or to transport the infirm to move about."

He could have grounded that fear in facts but, being Chris Hill, knew none. In the spring of 2006, when the US nixed the Iraqi's first choice for prime minister and Nouri was proposed as the accepted candidate instead, Nouri promised to quickly assemble his cabinet. He didn't do that. He was boasting that he would do so before the official deadline and gave himself a new deadline, an earlier one. He missed both. Hill was offering some nonsense during the hearing (re: power grab) about how Nouri's cabinet is people forced on him and blah, blah, blah. Nouri assembled his cabinet. Chris Hill seems as unaware of that as he is of every other Iraq-related fact.

During the Senate hearing, there were eight Camp Ashraf supporters (wearing yellow shirts) on the row behind him -- to the left of him (his left) -- with two on the right side of him. Kat, Ava and Wally have a piece on the Camp Ashraf supporters which will run in tomorrow morning's gina & krista round-robin.

RECOMMNEDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"Iraq bombing kills at least 20"
"Chris Hill to appear before Congress today"
"The non-news"
"As usual, Michelle looked dreadful"
"Cass Elliot"
"the clues"
"TV worth watching"
"The dumb speech"
"Yes, I watched"
"Barack's bad plan"
"Barack's contradiction"
"Dems launch smear campaign on Charles Boustany!"
"Barry O . . . vacuous"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S A DUMB ASS!"

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

THIS JUST IN! HE'S A DUMB ASS!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

FOLLOWING CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S NOT-SO-BIG SPEECH TONIGHT (IT'S ALREADY BEEN DUBBED "VACUOUS"), THESE REPORTERS WERE INVITED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO SPEND A FEW MINUTES WITH BARRY.

BARRY O GREETED US WARMLY SAYING, "I WANT TO THANK THE CREW AND MY MAKE UP AND HAIR TEAM. I REALLY WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING WITHOUT THEM. I WANT TO THANK MY DIRECTOR --"

THESE REPORTERS CUT HIM OFF AND EXPLAINED HE HADN'T WON AN OSCAR BUT THAT WE DID HAVE AN AWARD FOR HIM.

WE UNVEILED A LIFE SIZE BUST OF . . . GEORGE W. BUSH'S ASS OR FACE -- WHAT'S THE DIFF? WE TOLD HIM IT WAS THE DUMB ASS AWARD AND THAT HE EARNED IT BECAUSE AT A TIME WHEN AMERICANS ARE SUFFERING RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT AND MANY OF THOSE WORKING WORRY ABOUT BILLS AND LOSING THEIR JOBS, BARACK PROPOSES FINES FOR THOSE WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE.

BARRY O STROKED THE GOLD PLATED STATUE, WIPED AWAY A TEAR AND GUSHED, "I WANT TO START BY THINKING HAIR AND MAKE UP . . ."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


In an interview with Al Jazeera's Abderrahim Foukara (click here for DoD transcript), US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made one of those jaw dropping statements that leaves a nation stunned . . . if they hear it. (Al Jazeera started airing the interview this week.) Speaking of what he hopes the US will accomplish in Afghanistan, Gates declared, "So in a way it's somewhat comparable to the situation in Iraq, where we have -- where our role has become less and less prominent, where the Iraqis have taken a more and more prominent role in protecting their own security. And I think that's how we will measure -- be able to measure -- one way we will be able to measure success in Afghanistan is as we see the Afghan security forces taking a more and more pominent and leading role in protecting their own security." For those who missed it, the new 'secure' Iraq was a myth and even the press had to face that fact as violence began it's slow climb back up starting in February to the point that August saw more deaths than any month in the last 13. Yesterday NPR's Peter Kenyon (Morning Edition -- link has text and audio, transcript below is from audio) examined one section of Baghdad, a region that had seen tremendous 'success' and 'progress.'

Peter Kenyon: This is Antar Square, a well-known spot in Adahmiya. During Saddam Hussein's time, Sunnis lived here and Shiites were actively discouraged from moving there. After 3002, Adhamiya was, like many Baghdad neighborhoods, wracked by sectarian violence. In 2007, miles of concrete blast walls encircled the neighborhood. Sunni "Awakening" forces, armed men recruited and paid by the U.S. military, shouldered their guns and manned checkpoints. The Iraqi army and police improved their capabilities, and slowly the situation improved. By the spring of this year, investors held their breath and plunged into the neighborhood. [, , , notes progress in shopping back in May via Sheik Abdel-Qader a-] Dulami said he was seeing close to 1,000 people a day visit the mall showing that Iraqis were starved for signs of normal life. [. . .] A scant three months later, Sheik Dulaimi's 'Flower of Baghdad' is once again the scene of deadly explosions and a terrorized population. The Iraqi army has resumed raiding house, provoking cries of abuse from families who complain of heavy-handed tactics. That in turn, prompted the army to close the neighborhood down even tighter. A return visit to the Adhamiya Mall this month found it almost completely deserted.

Robert Gates blathers, "So in a way it's somewhat comparable to the situation in Iraq, where we have -- where our role has become less and less prominent, where the Iraqis have taken a more and more prominent role in protecting their own security." And does so at a time when Iraq is rocked by violence. Robert Gates defines that as the measurement for the other illegal war (Afghanistan) and the response across the US should be stunned disbelief. But they'd have to hear about that statement to be appalled. They'd have to know about it.

If the news media ever feels like exploring it, they might also want to explain that this 'strategy' is George W. Bush's. It's the same thing he 'preached' year after year, finally turning it into a soundbye: "As they stand up, we'll stand down." Didn't the United States hold a presidential election in 2008? Don't seem to remember George W. Bush's name on the ballot. So the White House changed but the policies didn't. Hmm.

Gates on to repeat the official line (you really don't think the press comes up with them on their own, do you? No, they interview the military which is assigned the buzz words and the press thinks they discovered something) of: It's still a success because we haven't seen a return of the sectarian war. That would be the civil war and it would be a bit hard for it to 'return' when one of the results of it was futher segregation of Baghdad neighborhoods. But noting that requires critical thinking and apparently stenography saps you of that ability.

Interestingly, the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, doesn't appear to be on the exact same page as Gates. While Gates does cart wheels over the lack of a sectarian war, Odierno told Joint Forces Quarterly (PDF format warning, click here). , "Iraqis are still dealing with lingering ethnosectarian histories, Arab-Kurd tensions, and violent extremist groups such as al Qaeda and other external actors who seek to exploit any fissures. The Iraqis are still deterrmining the nature of their federal state and the balance of powers between the central and provincial govenrments. [. . .] I see Arab-Kurd tensions as the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq -- and it does complicate the security situation in the north to an extent. While our combined operations have degraded al Qaeda, there is still a presence in the north, and those cells work to exploit tensions between the ISF and the Kurdish peshmerga and police forces." That's not Sunni and Shia. And that's an area Robert Gates didn't cover. Back to the interview:


Abderrahim Foukara: And after you leave, my understanding is that President Obama pledged that the United States will not build any permanent military bases in Iraq. Is that pledge -- does that pledge still stand?

Robert Gates: Absolutely.

Abderrahim Foukara: Now how do you define permanent? Because bases in Germany, they've been there for about 60 years now, in Korea for a similar period of time. How do you define permanent? How do you define temporary?

Robert Gates: Temporary is based on the fact that anothe rpart of this agreement is that all US forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. That is the agreement that we have with the Iraqi government. All US forces. No bases. No forces. That's the --

Abderrahim Foukara: Unless the Iraqis ask you to stay longer.

Robert Gates: Unless there is some new agreement or some new negotiation, which would clearly be on Iraqi terms. But we will not have any permanent bases in Iraq. We have no interest in permanet bases in Iraq. And we are now planning on withdrawing all American military forces by the end of 2011.

Yes, the war could be extended. It's a shame US news consumers need Al Jazeera to know that. Continue. It's not over. A few weeks ago, Jari (The Stupidest Man on Earth) highlighted the International Committee of the Red Cross' statment:

Despite the common perception that the armed conflict in Iraq is largely over, widespread violence and a lack of respect for human life continue to affect the Iraqi people. Civilians are the primary victims.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq and Syria"
"Yesterday's news and Merlene Davis' recycled columns"
"Remember grade school?"
"Hoyer undercuts Pelosi again"
"Somerby, Hillary is 44, Isaiah and more"
"politics, politico, insurance give-away and more"
"Health care fines"
"Music, Ruffles and more"
"Van Jones and other hysterias"
"Eboo Patel of the 9-11 Truth Movement"
"Jo-Jo Palermo, another mis-educator"
"Isaiah, Debra Sweet, Third"
"Don't let her near the national anthem"
"THIS JUST IN! DON'T LET HER DRINK AND BLOG!"

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

THIS JUST IN! DON'T LET HER DRINK AND BLOG!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


TENNESSEE GUERILLA WOMEN REMAINS THE SITE FOR THE BEST UNINTENTIONAL LAUGHS. THE ALWAYS DELICIOUSLY FACT-FREE AND CONFUSED EGALIA GETS OFF ANOTHER RIB TICKLER DECLARING, IN DEFENSE OF VAN JONES, "THIS IS NOT THE 1950S, WE HAVE AN AVOWED SOCIALIST IN CONGRESS. AND WE HAVE . . .'' AVOWED SOCIALIST?

SHE MEANS "INDEPENDENT" BERNIE SANDERS WHO IS A SOCIALIST, YES.

AND YOUR POINT IS WHAT, EGALIA?

BERNIE SANDERS INDICATES SOME 'WAVE OF CHANGE'? BERNIE WAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS IN 1990. AND 19 YEARS LATER HE'S STILL THE ONLY "AVOWED SOCIALIST."

WHAT DOES BERNIE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NATIONAL VOTING?

NOT A DAMN THING. HE WAS VOTED ON BY THE CITIZENS OF VERMONT.

HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT STATE HAS A BIGGER POPULATION THAN VERMONT?

ALASKA.

REMEMBER HOW 'SILLY' ALASKA WAS MADE TO SEEM IN 2008?

AND NOW EGALIA WANTS TO TELL US THAT 1 SENATOR IN THE SENATE BEING AN "AVOWED SOCIALIST" (WHILE REPEATEDLY BILLED AS AN "INDEPENDENT") AND COMING FROM A TINY STATE WITH LESS PEOPLE THAN ALASKA MEANS SOMETHING?

THAT EGALIA, SHE'S THE NEW ROSEANNE BARR.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps – Iraq servicemember was killed today when an improvised explosive device targeting the patrol detonated in southern Baghdad at approximately 10: 30 a.m. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of servicemembers are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/ The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the servicemember's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." And they announced: "Three Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldiers were killed today when an improvised explosive device targeting their patrol detonated in northern Iraq at approximately 11:40 a.m. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. [. . .] The incident is under investigation." ICCC has been down since Wednesday. It is still down. Sunday the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war should have been 4338. It should now be 4342 unless we've missed a death. We haven't missed any announcements by MNF; however, they don't always remember to announce. If DoD has covered a death that MNF never announced, then our estimate is off. AFP also estimates that ICCC's number should be 4342. Ali Windawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) observe today "was the deadliest day for the Americans since June 29, when four soldiers were killed in Baghdad."

Windawi and Parker note, "It was also a bloody day for Iraqi security forces around the oil-rich Kirkuk region of northern Iraq, the territory at the center of a land dispuate among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen" with 2 police officers dead and four injured in a bombing outside of Kirkuk. Meanwhile BBC News reports an Amirli roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police chief and four police officers today while one in Baghdad claimed the life of 1 "health ministry employee" with four others left injured. The police chief was Maj Zaid Hussein, Windawi and Parker explain. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a roadside bombing in Kirkuk today targeted the home "of a judge . . . without causing casualties." Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 man, a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 person and injured another (both are labeled "insurgents" by the police), a Daquq roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and injured three, a Tikrit roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 of Salahuddin Province Deputy Governor Ahmeda Abdul-Jebbar's bodyguards, a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing claimed the lives of 4 police officers and left three more injured, a second Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing claimed 1 life, a Baquba sticky bombing injured one civilian and one police officer, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Ministry of Health employee with twelve people injured (four MoH employees), another Baghdad roadside bombing which left eigh people injured (four are police officers) and a third Baghdad roadside bombing left two police officers injured. In addition, Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Mosul.

Many of the wounded and dead Iraqi security forces were killed in attacks on police and military checkpoints. This has been a recent pattern of violence. Sunday's violence trend in Iraq was attacks on checkpoints with 3 attacks in Mosul on army and police checkpoints. Monday saw an attack on a military checkpoint and on a police checkpoint. Marc Santora (New York Times) noted, "For those seeking to undermine the Iraqi government, attacking checkpoints is a natural way to undermine public confidence. However, the attacks at checkpoints could also indicate a frustration at being able to penetrate attack more populated areas, Iraqi officials say."


Meanwhile Nouri al-Maliki attempts to create an international crisis as he goes after Syria with accusations that they harbor the two masterminds behind Black Wednesday's bombings. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report Nouri continues to air 'confessions': "Two confessions have been shown on state television and a third was aired at a news conference." Today Sherko Raouf, Waleed Ibrahim, Missy Ryan and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report "rifts" emerging in Nouri's assault incluidng the country's Presidency Council (made up of Iraq's President and two vice presidents) releasing a statement "calling for dialogue and speaking of the need 'to ease tension with Syria'." President Jalal Talabani is quoted saying the escalation is "unacceptable. This is not in the interest of Syria, Iraq or (other) Arab nations. Such a stand from the Iraqi government, without consultation with the presidency council, is illegal." They also note that Iraqi's Sunni vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi, released a statement which "called for an internal fact-finding committee to collect more evidence about the Aug. 19 attacks." [Adil Abd Al-Mahdi is Iraq's Shi'ite vice president.] In addition, Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Nouri is being accused "of lunching a purge of senior security officials in order to weaken political rivals ahead of winter elections. Maliki ordered the dismissals of at least three senior officials from the Interior Ministry over the weekend, Iraqi newspapers reported Tuesday: Maj. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf, the ministry's commander of operations; Gen. Ahmed Abu Rikheef, the head of internal affairs; and the director of the explosives division, who wasn't identified in the reports."

Friday, Jasim Azzawi (Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq, video link) observed, "A so-called Bloody Wednesday has put the brakes on Prime Minister Maliki's claim of winning the war on violence. The question is will he use Syria as the whipping boy to engender sympathy to avoid the backlash of angry voters in January's next election?" Samir Altaqi and Saad al-Muttalibi were the guests.

Jasim Azzawi: To discuss the rising tension between Iraq and Syria, I'm delighted to welcome from Baghdad Saad al-Muttalibi a political adviser to the Ministry of National Dialogue in Iraq and from Damascus Samir Altaqi, Director of the Orient Center for International Studies. Gentlemen welcome to Inside Iraq. Saad Muttalibi, let us go the heart of the matter, rhetoric aside, where is the evidence that Syria is implicated in Bloody Wednesday.

Saad al-Muttalibi: Well next time maybe we should ask the terrorists to bring an authorization when they come and commit a crime I mean this is -- this question should not be asked this way. There are evidence, there are confessions, there are roots, there are cameras, there are maps, there are -- there are millions of things that indicate that 90% of terrorists come through Syria into Iraq. We are not implicating the Syrian government, I must be very clear on this. We implicating Iraqi citizens living in Syria, taking advantadge of the hosp -- of the Syrian hospitality, using Syria as a launch pad to organize crimes against state of Iraq and the people of Iraq.

Jasim Azzawi: Samir Altaqi, Syria has a history of not handing over political refugees requested by their mother country. al-Maliki himself, when he resided in Syria, was asked by Iraq to hand him over during Saddam Hussein and Syria refused. Is this a principle position or is Syria keeping those two suspects for a rainy day.

Samir Altaqui: Not all. Practically the Syrian position for a long time was that it won't be handling those opposition people since not only Mr. Maliki even Mr. [Masoud] Barazani at a certain moment and [Iraqi President Jalal] Talabani were guests in Syria and Syria did not deliver them. Unless there is real evidence that would implicate them directly, that Syria would be convinced that this is not coming because of conflictual positions within the Iraqi political arena.

Jasim Azzawi: Saad Muttalibi, I will come to the maps and the other evidence you alluded to but for the time being regarding Bloody Wednesday, the trucks, the explosives, the suicide bombers, they were all in Baghdad. And some people, they say al-Maliki is shifting the blame against himself because he was the one who ordered those concrete blast walls around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be removed.

Saad al-Muttalibi: No, that's not ver -- that's not very honest statement. Not from you, but from the people who says that. The environment in Baghdad became better. Security became much better. A drop -- over 90% drop in violence in Baghdad. The walls beca -- constituted a hurdle in the way of Ira -- in the way of Iraqi citizens. So they were not -- they were not needed anymore. That's the general feeling of people had so the government acted on the general will of the people. That was not a deliberate act of removing these walls to allow bombing -- that's ridiculous. The -- the-the-the bombs were in Baghdad but the political will to start and use these bombs came from overseas or abroad. We say from Syria. We have evidence. We have proof. From Syria. [Turkey's] Foriegn Minister [Ahmed] Oglu was completely convinced of all the evidence otherwise he wouldn't have presented them to the Syrians. He was completely convinced that if this evidence were about Turkey, Turkey would have acted. So there is no question about the validity Syrian political will to hand over those criminals.That's basically it.

Jasim Azzawi: Samir Altaqi, the evidence against you is air tight, he says

Samir Altaqi: Not at all, I think. If we are speaking on behalf of Mr. Ahmed Oglu, he -- as a mediator -- he has to present the Iraqi position but practically he didn't consider them as tight -- water proof. I think practically what is needed is a direct dialogue between the two sides -- not across the media centers today or the press -- but through specialist channels, through diplomatic channels to present those evidences and to discuss them in a decent way.

Jasim Azzawi: The fact that 1.2 million Iraqis live in Syria, can they do exactly what they like regarding Iraq without the knowledge and consent of the Syrian government and Syrian intelligence as Saad al-Muttalibi alludes.

Samir Altaqi: I -- I think we have to take in account the fact that you have one-million-two-hundred-thousand refugees in Syria, they are not from one faction, they are not from one confession. They are Shia, they are Kurds, they are Sunnis and everyone of them is still having his political view about what is going on. And the more the political process in Iraq would be inclusive, the more this will withdraw any support, any domestic support and refugee support to those who are still thinking about regulating their positions in Iraq through violence.

Saad al-Muttalibi: I must comment here. Really. For you to dictate to us that we should include this part -- faction or that faction, that is --

Samir Altaqi: No, no, no, no --

Saad al-Muttalibi: -- interference in Iraqi affairs --

Samir Altaqi: I'm not, I'm not --

Saad al-Muttalibi: You are not, we do not interfere in your affairs --

Samir Altaqi: You are expression to me one million --

Saad al-Muttalibi: No, no, no, I'm not accusing anybody.

Samir Altaqi: -- one million refugees --

Saad al-Muttalibi: No, no --

Samir Altaqi: -- refugees. I'm telling you, it's --

Saad al-Muttalibi: With a welcome mat! First of all -- first of all ---

Samir Altaqi: I'll try to make the situation --

Saad al-Muttalibi: -- first of all -- first of all --

Samir Altaqi: Please -- please. Exactly, they don't consider themselves safe and they don't consider justice available nor justice even fairness would be --

Saad al-Muttalibi: Okay, okay.

Samir Altaqi: -- available for them in Iraq. That's why

Saad al-Mmuttalibi: Okay, okay, let me correct some information. Let me correct some information for you, my dear friend. First of all, the United Nations says there are 160,000 Iraqis in Syria, not 1.2 million. That's one. Second, as from this moment, I am saying we are ready to have all of this 160,000 back --

Samir Altaqi: They are not ready

Saad al-Mmuttalibi: -- We'll pay them.

Samir Altaqi: They are not ready.

Saad al-Muttalibi: -- if they want to come back. They are Iraqis. Well that is their problem, that's not my problem.

First off, al-Muttalibi is incorrect as usual. 160,000 have been registered. state they have registered that many. Yet again, Saad al-Muttalibi has gone on Al Jazeera and lied. The United Nations Refugee Agency (one of the few UN agencies Nouri hasn't been able to successfully bully) carries the estimate of 1,105,698 Iraqis in Syria. Click on this page, on the right side of the page is "Statistical Snapshot" the number follows "Refugees" and you get the information when you run your mouse across the blue "i".

Second of all, Saad al-Muttalibi's 'that's their problem' attitude to refugees who don't feel it is safe to return (and many of whom do not wish to ever return) when you consider that Saad turned tail and ran to England in 1977 and stayed there until 2003. In other words, by his 'logic,' it was HIS PROBLEM he was a refugee back then. It needs to be especially pointed out that for someone who went to college in the United Kingdom and lived there for nearly 30 years, Saad never managed to master the English language. He can't even get his subjects and verbs to agree. Apparently his planning to pull the US into an illegal war was more important than anything else. At the end of last week, The Economist offered an editorial entitled "Iraq's freedoms under threat: Could a police state return" in which they noted:

Old habits from Saddam Hussein's era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. "Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards," says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs. The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. In July the Baghdad police reimposed a nightly curfew, making it easier for the police, taking orders from politicians, to arrest people disliked by the Shia-led government. In particular, they have been targeting leaders of the Awakening Councils, groups of Sunnis, many of them former insurgents and sympathisers, who have helped the government to drive out or capture Sunni rebels who refused to come onside. Instead of being drawn into the new power set-up, many of them in the past few months have been hauled off to prison. In the most delicate cases, the arrests are being made by an elite unit called the Baghdad Brigade, also known as "the dirty squad", which is said to report to the office of the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Today's violence results in at least 11 dead, 30 wounded"
"Contractors and other c-words"
"Kat's Korner: Cass Elliot's buried classic surfaces"
"Labor Day post"
"Iraq violence claims 26 lives, leaves 44 wounded"
"The loons, the idiots, the crazies and the self-deceivers"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack Prepares To Talk To The Kids"

"And the war drags on . . ."
"Talking entry"
"Chalabi's secretary connected to League of Rightous"
"Adam Ashton says the US wanted to 'fix' Iraq"

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: Accountability
TV: Ugly wallpaper
War Criminal sentenced to life with no parole
Iraq
Roundtable
From the CrackPot 'mind' of Jerry Merryitt
US imprisons reporter
Idiot of the week
Highlights

"The company he keeps"

"THIS JUST IN! GOOD THING MEN CAN'T GET PREGNANT!"