THIS JUST IN! BARRY IS THE BUTT!

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



CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS JUST NOT USED TO IT. JAMES CARVILLE MADE A JOKE ABOUT HIM AND THE WHOLE WORLD FRETS HERE AND HERE AND HERE.

"IT MADE ME THE BUTT OF THE JOKE!" WHINED BARRY O TO THESE REPORTERS. "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE NEVER DOES THAT! THEY TREAT ME WITH KID GLOVES!"

YES, THE LITTLE PRINCE CAN'T TAKE IT.

NOR CAN HIS CULT. JOKES HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR CENTURIES BUT IT'S TIME TO FRET AND WORRY AND WHINE.

AND THROUGH IT ALL, PROVING THAT IT IS A SPECIAL LITTLE RULE FOR THE SPECIAL LITTLE CANDY ASS, NO ONE BOTHERS TO NOTE THAT THE JOKE TOLD REALLY ISN'T FLATTERING TO HILLARY.

POOR LITTLE PRINCE BARRY O.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Nick Turse (Asia Times) notes, "Notably unnerving for the Obama administration was a deal reportedly brokered by Iran in which Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- whose forces had repeatedly clashed with US troops only a few short years ago -- threw his support behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, currently vying for a second term in office. This was allegedly part of a regional agreement involving Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah that could leave the US military out in the cold. A source informed the Guardian that 'Maliki told [his new regional partners that] he will never extend, or renew [andy bases] or give any facilities to the Americans or British after the end of next year'." Nouri gave his word, did he? He also gave his word to the US. If there was one characteristic of Nouri's occupation of the post of prime minister from 2006 through 2010, it was his non-stop ability to break his word. Now we could provide many, many examples of this -- of Nouri wooing Iraqis with one version of what-if and wooing his American string-holders with another, but Turse is writing about Nouri promising Iraqis that the US military will not be staying in Iraq so let's use the best example for that. This is most like in late 2006 when Nouri renewed the United Nations mandate authorizing the occupation of Iraq, bypassing the Parliament in order to do so and creating massive ill will in the process. In response to the outcry, Nouri promised that this was a one-time thing and he would, of course, not bypass the Parliament again. But 2007 rolled around and, golly-gosh, there was Nouri doing the exact same thing he'd done as 2006 concluded, the exact same thing that had outraged so many, the exact thing he'd promised not to do.

Could this be the time that Nouri double-crosses the US? Possibly. The US influence is waning. But it's equally true that the US government has so compromised themselves that Nouri would be crazy to double-cross them. Events of this year demonstrated for all to see that the US government doesn't give a damn about the fate of the average Iraqi and will break any and every rule in order to back up Nouri. They've looked the other way with regards to torture. Does it really look like if Joe Biden's worst case scenario comes true (Nouri begins attacking his own people -- a scenario Joe publicly floated in April of 2008) that the US military will be used to take Nouri down? No. The US government this year's actions indicate that the US government will order the US military to ensure that Nouri is protected and remains in place. It's a reading Nouri has as well, an opinion he shares. And he would not have remained prime minister from 2006 through 2010 were it not for the presence on the ground in Iraqof the US military. He would have been overthrown and one of the many conspiracies to put his head on top of a pike in Nasser Square would have been more than the starting point to one of his public and paranoid remblings, it would have been reality.

So Nouri could go back on his promise to the US. That's the thing about free will, you never know what will happen. But he could stick to it. His past record -- as well as what would personally benefit him -- indicates he is likely to stick with the promise he made to the US government. As Lily Tomlin says to Jane Fonda in 9 to 5, "Well I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered."

And he's currently prime minister-delegate and may or may not be Iraq's next prime minister. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, twelve days and counting.

A great deal of time has focused on the power-sharing arrangement between the big blocks but Nick Turse (Asia Times) explores the power-sharing arrangement Nouri first worked out with Shi'ite slates:

Notably unnerving for the Obama administration was a deal reportedly brokered by Iran in which Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - whose forces had repeatedly clashed with US troops only a few short years ago - threw his support behind Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, currently vying for a second term in office.
This was allegedly part of a regional agreement involving Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah that could leave the US military out in the cold. A source informed the Guardian that "Maliki told [his new regional partners that] he will never extend, or renew [any bases] or give any facilities to the Americans or British after the end of next year."

Nouri gave his word, did he? He also gave his word to the US. If there was one characteristic of Nouri's occupation of the post of prime minister from 2006 through 2010, it was his non-stop ability to break his word. Now we could provide many, many examples of this -- of Nouri wooing Iraqis with one version of what-if and wooing his American string-holders with another, but Turse is writing about Nouri promising Iraqis that the US military will not be staying in Iraq so let's use the best example for that. This is most like in late 2006 when Nouri renewed the United Nations mandate authorizing the occupation of Iraq, bypassing the Parliament in order to do so and creating massive ill will in the process. In response to the outcry, Nouri promised that this was a one-time thing and he would, of course, not bypass the Parliament again. But 2007 rolled around and golly-gosh, there was Nouri doing the exact same thing he'd done as 2006 concluded, the exact same thing that had outraged so many, the exact thing he'd promised not to do.

To get US support and backing for another term as prime minister, Nouri promised that he would allow the US military to remain on Iraqi soil past 2011. That is why the US government allowed Nouri to remain prime minister instead of heeding calls for the UN to appoint a caretaker government. This week, Gareth Porter (Dissident Voice) broke new ground with his monumental scoop detailing how the White House has actively been working to decieve the US voters into believing the Iraq War would end when, in fact, it would not. NSC-er Puneet Talwar was dispatched to offer Iraq 15,000 US troops after the end of 2011 'withdrawal' and to explain that the would simply shove these 15,000 under the US Embassy to hide the remainders. Excerpt from his article:

The Iraqis also asked whether the 15,000 regular combat troops could be augmented with Special Operations Forces, according to the Iraqi official's account. Talwar said the additional deployment of SOF troops after the withdrawal deadline would be possible, because the United States had never publicly acknowledged the presence of SOF units in Iraq.

The Pentagon signaled last summer that it was assuming the post-2011 U.S. military presence in Iraq would be less than 20,000 troops. In a press briefing last August, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East, Colin Kahl, said Iraq "is not going to need tens of thousands of [American] forces".

Talwar also told the Iraqis that any deployment of combat troops in Iraq beyond the termination date of the U.S.-Iraqi agreement would require a letter from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. The Iraqi officials said the letter would be sent.

Could this be the time that Nouri double-crosses the US? Possibly. The US influence is waning. But it's equally true that the US government has so compromised themselves that Nouri would be crazy to double-cross them. Events of this year demonstrated for all to see that the US government doesn't give a damn about the fate of the average Iraqi and will break any and every rule in order to back up Nouri. They've looked the other way with regards to torture. Does it really look like if Joe Biden's worst case scenario comes true (Nouri begins attacking his own people -- a scenario Joe publicly floated in April of 2008) that the US military will be used to take Nouri down? No. The US government this year's actions indicate that the US government will order the US military to ensure that Nouri is protected and remains in place. It's a reading Nouri has as well, an opinion he shares. And he would not have remained prime minister from 2006 through 2010 were it not for the presence on the ground in Iraqof the US military. He would have been overthrown and one of the many conspiracies to put his head on top of a pike in Nasser Square would have been more than the starting point to one of his public and paranoid remblings, it would have been reality.

So Nouri could go back on his promise to the US. That's the thing about free will, you never know what will happen. But he could stick to it. His past record -- as well as what would personally benefit him -- indicates he is likely to stick with the promise he made to the US government. As Lily Tomlin says to Jane Fonda in 9 to 5, "Well I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered."

On the large power-sharing agreement, Marina Ottaway and Danial Anas Kaysi (at LAT's Babylon & Beyond) explain:

Implementing the agreement hinges on two main conditions: first, creating a National Council for Higher Strategic Policies with real executive power and second, lifting the ban on political participation by three important Sunni leaders -- Rasem Awadi, Saleh Mutlaq, and Dhafer Aani. The agreement also calls for launching a national reconciliation process.

But the agreement does not appear to be legally enforceable. Take the National Council, for instance. While it was originally created to curb Maliki's power, it cannot do so without a constitutional amendment, and the constitution precludes amendments until the end of the this election cycle four years hence. Therefore, the council's influence will depend largely on Maliki's willingness to comply with its decisions. That likelihood is not great.

In today's reported violence, Saad Abdul-Kadir (AP) reports a Mosul roadside bombing attack on Iraqiya's Mohammed al-Khalidi and, while Khalidi survived, 1 bodyguard was killed and another injured. Reuters also notes that 1 "oil facility guard" was shot dead outside his home in Mosul.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Just look who got paid off for services rendered"
"Conflicts of interest at the State Dept?"
"I Hate The War"
"E-mails in the Kitchen"
"Republicans say no to unemployment benefits"
"Maxine Waters"
"Still on Desperate Housewives"
"Terry Gross is a lot like the Pentagon"
"Terry's sexism"
"Alberto Gonzales from the Land of Denial"

"explaining maddow's 'popularity'"
"this reminds me of ..."
"Text 2-2 to bring Joe Scarborough back"
"Another fake exposed"
"Cher"
"Lazy me"
"Loretta Ross, one of many smart Black women"
"It's on him"
"The Walker"
"All those years of abuse"
"The embarrassment is Kate Clinton"
"Fringe and Chuck"
"Iraqi Christians"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY WANTS TO SHARE CAT FOOD!"
"Cat Food for one and all!"

THIS JUST IN! BARRY WANTS TO SHARE CAT FOOD!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS FACING CRITICISM FOR HIS CAT FOOD COMMISSION.

BARRY O DECLARED TODAY TO THESE REPORTERS, "I AM ADDING VALUE TO LIVES, OFFERING EVERY RETIRED PERSON 3 CANS OF CAT FOOD A DAY FOR FREE. THEY'RE NOT GETTING THAT NOW. BUT UNDER MY PLAN THEY WOULD GET THREE CANS OF FREE CAT FOOD. AND THEY COULD FEED IT TO THEIR CATS. OR THEY COULD GRAB SOME TUNA HELPER -- PROBABLY NEED TO WORK PART TIME TO AFFORD THAT AFTER I SLASH THE MONTHLY CHECKS -- AND MAKE A CAT FOOD SURPRISE TO EAT THEMSELVES."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Larry Kaplow (Foreign Policy) has a major essay on Iraq and we'll note the opening:

"Iraq Is a Democracy." In theory, but it doesn't work like one. Yes, it has had three, free national elections and a constitutional referendum and there are elements of democracy. I started covering Iraq in 1998, living there from the start of the war until late 2009, and it certainly feels freer than before. Saddam Hussein held his last election, a plebiscite in 2002, and claimed 100 percent of the vote (and maybe it was true -- who would risk voting against him?). Under the old regime, even when I could slip away from government minders, people were usually too scared of informants among their family and friends to speak openly. You weren't even allowed to keep your mouth shut. Failure to join the chanting crowds at pro-government rallies -- watched closely by neighborhood-level Baathists -- could cost you your job, admission to university, or worse. Now there's lots of open talk, government criticism, and widespread Internet access.

But Iraq is not democratic in a reliable or deep sense, where people can expect equal rights, legal protections, or access to their leaders. Free speech is still a dangerous pursuit. At least seven reporters or their staff have been killed this year in what appear to be direct attacks on news agencies, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Most others are afraid to get too specific in their criticisms of the leadership. Regulations are tightening, and the track record of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has just maneuvered himself into another term in office, is getting darker. The government has started requiring that news agencies register their staff and equipment. Media regulations ban quotations from anonymous sources. Human Rights Watch recently documented government efforts to ban public demonstrations and encourage security forces to violently disperse attempts at peaceful protest.

Some people, like Kaplow, claim three national elections. We don't. There was the 2005 elections (December 2005) and there was the March elections this year which were national elections. The way they're getting three is they're counting the 2009 elections which were provincial elections. Could they be considered "national elections"?

Most of the time a national election takes place on a set date. Whereas the 2009 provincial elections were held on two different dates, months apart. The KRG voted on their own and were not part of that. January 31, 2009 was election day for 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. The KRG held their elections July 25, 2009. And Kirkuk wasn't allowed to hold elections -- which is why only 17 of 18 provinces held elections in 2009. In addition, if we were going to count those, it would be four elections because January 30, 2005 saw governorate council elections. National elections, for our purposes here, were the December 2005 and March 2010 parliamentary elections. Only the parliamentary elections result in the creation of a national government so we only count the two parliamentary elections as "national elections" here. Others can count as they want.

Let's stay with the most recent elections. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, eleven days and counting.

David Romano (Rudaw) offers his take on the power-sharing arrangements, "A Sunni Iraqiya parliamentarian, Osama Al Nujaifi, became Speaker instead. The Kurds remain weary of Al Nujaifi and his penchant for strident Arab nationalism, reminding them a bit too much of yesterday's Ba'athist discourse. Nujaifi will likely remain a fierce opponent of most of the Kurdistan Bloc's aspirations in the new government. Meanwhile, something clearly had to be done to placate Allawi, so a new 'National Security Council' was created for him to lead. The only problem is that no one seems to know what powers, if any, this new National Security Council will have. Muqtada Al Sadr's group of parliamentarians is also entering this new government, despite their bitterness towards Maliki for the offensive against them in 2008 as well as their abiding distrust of the Iraqiya bloc. They will want some important portfolios which no one trusts them enough to give them. Nuri al Maliki, once again, isn't particularly liked by any of the other groups, but somehow he has managed to engineer his resurrection as Prime Minister for another term. Finally, virtually all the other parties remain deeply suspicious of Kurdish aspirations, especially fearing that implementation of Article 140 could set the stage for eventual Kurdish secession from Iraq." The Economist emphasizes a number of issues -- including the Kurdish issues, "Mr Maliki has agreed to nearly all of the 19 demands made by the Kurds, including a commitment to hold a referendum on who should control the disputed city of Kirkuk. Mr Maliki is also said to have promised some powerful ministries to a Shia group led by a populist anti-Western cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr." Writing today, The Economist also grasps what few other outlets can:

A new government has not yet been born.

Why The Economist has the ability to grasp that and so many others don't is puzzling but credit goes to them for noting reality in their opinion piece when most pieces passing for reporting from news outlets continually hail the 'new' 'government'.

On the issue of the National Security Council, Alsumaria TV reports, "State of Law Coalition senior official Hassan Al Sunaid stated that the political parties have started the legislation of a special law for the national policy council which will play a major advisory role in shaping Iraq's future policies, he said." Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) interviews Charles W. Dunne (NSC during the previous Bush administration) about the developments. Gwertzman notes of the power-sharing deal, "Allawi is supposed to have an important policymaking role, says Dunne, although it remains to be seen whether Maliki keeps his word and whether the Obama administration will press him to do so." Excerpt.

Bernard Gwertzman: A key question is how important this new National Council for Higher Strategic Policies that Allawi is supposed to head, will be, right?

Charles W. Dunne: This council has not yet been enshrined in Iraqi law. There is a school of thought that believes there will need to be a constitutional amendment to make it serve as an effective check on the prime minister's power. This is all going to be very contentious and the outcome is very uncertain, which is probably one of the reasons why Allawi said, before he departed for London, that the power-sharing deal is dead. In addition, there are very different views among the Iraqi political leadershipr about how this council should function. Maliki clearly sees it as an advisory body, whose advice he can ignore. Allawi and a number of his supporters see it as a venue in which national security decisions by the prime minister, and important economic decisions, can be altered or veteoed. Even if legislation has passed to create a fairly robust council, the concept of this council as it exists right now will require 80 percent consensus within the council in order to implement a decision, which in this political system -- as in any political system -- is going to be difficult.

At Foreign Policy, David Bender offers an analysis of the deal that sees the new council and other efforts themselves as being of little value and noting that the council -- under Allawi or another Iraiqya member -- is not going to have grand powers:

But formally changing the chain of command in Iraq would require a highly unlikely constitutional change, and it seems unlikely that Maliki will ultimately agree to a significant reduction in his powers. He has argued that the new council will function as an advisory panel with no independent authority. If Allawi decides he is powerless in his new position, he could resign and become a forceful leader of the opposition.

Between an unclear Iraqiya role, an uncomfortably large Sadrist contingent, rising Kurdish demands, and no unity of purpose among any of the political groups, the prospects for the next government are not great. But the overall situation in Iraq will probably improve anyway. The next government isn't going to resolve much of Iraq's deep social and political dysfunction, but having it in place will finally allow the oil sector, budget, and infrastructure projects to begin to move ahead.

Was it worth the eight (soon to be nine) month wait? No.

But is it a good thing that there's likely to be a government by the new year? Absolutely.

Meanwhile Currency Newshound reports that the Ministry of Planning declared today that 10 times the current allocation of the investment budget is needed to address issues of operations such as government salaries and the rations card system. Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers' Middle East Diary) crunches other numbers -- the latest Brookings Institution figures for Iraq -- and notes, among other things, that Iraq is "on track to exceed the 2009 death total of 3,000". Bengali picks many interesting figures. Some he doesn't note include that landlines are down in Iraq as compared to the middle of 2004 -- this may be partly due to the large increase in cellular phones (and there was no cell phone industry prior to the start of the Iraq War according to Brookings). The report finds that an estimated 20,000 Iraqi medical doctors have left the country since the start of the war and only 1,525 of that number have returned -- so (check my math) 18,475 doctors have left and not returned. In addition, 2,000 Iraqi medical doctors have been killed since the start of the Iraq War. So the Iraq War has resulted in the country losing an estimated 20,475 doctors. The most recent estimate finds approximately 16,000 medical doctors remain in Iraq. CIA estimates put the Iraqi population at between 26 and 30 million. Check my math but that should put the number of doctors at 0.053% of the population. The median age in Iraq is 20.6 years-old. In 2008, the official unemployment rate in Iraq was 15.2%. Though there are no figures for this year, there's been no improvement and that official figure is much lower than the actual unemployment figure (the CIA notes that the unofficial estimate is 30%). But in 2009, a number of Iraqis were surveyed and asked if they thought unemployment would improve in 2010? 37% hoped it would "fall slightly" or "fall a lot," 35% thought it would increase -- slightly or a lot) and 24% expected it would remain the same.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Plenty of drama but no prime minister"
"Deployments, PTSD"
"Anti-woman Terry and pro-woman Jane"
"Two looks at unemployment"
"Still Desperate Housewives"
"hold onto that"
"More smoke and mirrors"
"Stale excuses dance"
"How did I end up at Hooters?"
"No Ordinary Family"
"Those Bush tax cuts"
"He is the problem"
"He continues to tank"
"THIS JUST IN! NO GOOD NEWS IN THE POLLS!"

THIS JUST IN! NO GOOD NEWS IN THE POLLS!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS TO FACE MORE BAD NEWS: HE NOT ONLY DIDN'T GET THE SUPPORT OF PEOPLE WHO VOTED REPUBLICAN, GREEN AND INDEPENDENT LAST MONTH, 1/2 THE VOTERS WHO STAYED HOME AND DIDN'T VOTE CAN'T STAND HIM.

OTHER FINDINGS WERE THAT 51% OF AMERICANS FEEL BARACK'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THEIR OWN. THIS LED NEUTERED POODLE E.J. DIONNE TO HISS THAT IT WAS A "DOUBLE-STANDARD" AND INSIST IT WAS JUST BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GO TO CHURCH.

NO, SCREWY, IT'S ALSO BECAUSE A HUGE WAVE OF ATTACKS ON IRAQI CHRISTIANS STARTED OCTOBER 31ST AND BARRY O HAS NOT SAID ONE DAMN WORD ABOUT THE ATTACKS. HE HASN'T SPOKEN OUT PUBLICLY ON BEHALF OF IRAQI CHRISTIANS. PEOPLE DO NOTICE. AND THEN THEY CONTRAST THAT WITH ALL HIS EFFORTS TO REACH OUT TO OTHER RELIGIONS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today in DC, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted (link has text and video) a new department report on religion:

Because we believe in religious freedom and because we are committed to the right of all people everywhere to live according to their beliefs without government interference and with government protection, we are troubled by what we see happening in many, many places. Religiou sfreedom is under threat from authoritarian regimes that abuse their own citizens. It is under threat from violent extremist groups that exploit and inflame sectarian tensions. It is under threat from the quiet but persistent harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can leave minority religious groups vulnerable and marginalized. During the past year, al-Qaida issued calls for further violence against religious minorities in the Middle East. Sufi, Shia, and Ahmadiyya holy sites in Pakistan have been attacked. So was a Syriac Catholic Church in Baghdad just a few weeks ago. We received reports from China of government harassment of Tibetan Buddhists, house church Christians, and Uighur Muslims. And several European countries have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression.

The new report is entitled "2010 Report on International Religious Freedom" and we'll note these basics on the Iraqi population from the report:

The country has an area of 168,754 square miles and a population of approximately 28.9 million. According to statistics provided by the government, 97 percent of the population is Muslim. Shi'a Muslims--predominantly Arabs but also Turkmen, Faili (Shi'a) Kurds, and other groups--constitute a 60 to 65 percent majority. Arab and Kurdish Sunni Muslims make up 32 to 37 percent of the population; of these 18 to 20 percent are Sunni Kurds, 12 to 16 percent are Sunni Arabs, and the remaining 1 to 2 percent are Sunni Turkmen. Approximately 3 percent of the population is composed of Christians, Yezidis, Sabean-Mandaeans, Baha'is, Shabaks, Kaka'is (sometimes referred to as Ahl-e Haqq), and a very small number of Jews. Shi'a, although predominantly located in the south and east, are also a majority in Baghdad and have communities in most parts of the country. Sunnis form the majority in the west, center, and the north of the country.

Reported estimates from leaders of the Christian population in 2003 ranged from 800,000 to 1.4 million. Current population estimates by Christian leaders range from 400,000 to 600,000. Approximately two-thirds of Christians are Chaldeans (an eastern rite of the Catholic Church), nearly one-fifth are Assyrians (Church of the East), and the remainder are Syriacs (Eastern Orthodox), Armenians (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), Anglicans, and other Protestants. Most Assyrian Christians are in the north, and most Syriac Christians are split among the Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Ninewa Provinces. Christian leaders estimated that as much as 50 percent of the country's Christian population lives in Baghdad, and 30 to 40 percent lives in the north, with the largest Christian communities located in and around Mosul, Erbil, Dohuk, and Kirkuk. The archbishop of the Armenian Orthodox Diocese reported that 15,000 to 16,000 Armenian Christians remained in the country, primarily in the cities of Baghdad, Basrah, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Evangelical Christians reportedly number between 5,000 and 6,000. They can be found in the northern part of the country, as well as in Baghdad, with a small number residing in Basrah.

Yezidi leaders reported that most of the country's 500,000 to 600,000 Yezidis reside in the north, with 15 percent in Dohuk Province and the rest in Ninewa Province. Shabak leaders stated there are 400,000 to 500,000 Shabaks, who reside mainly in the north, near Mosul. Estimates of the size of the Sabean-Mandaean community vary widely; according to Sabean-Mandaean leaders, 3,500 to 7,000 remained in the country, reduced from an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 in 2003. The Baha'i leadership reported their members number fewer than 2,000 and are spread throughout the country in small groups. A sizable portion of the Jewish community, which once had a significant presence in the country, left in the years immediately following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Eight Jews remain in Baghdad, and none are known to live in other parts of the country.

As of March 2010, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported 223,000 active refugee cases for Iraqis living outside of the country and estimated that approximately 1.5 million Iraqis had fled and remain outside the country. In March 2010 the UNHCR reported that 58 percent of all registered Iraqi refugees (in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt) were Sunni, 21 percent were Shi'a, 4 percent were nonspecified Muslim, 13 percent were Christian, 3 percent were Sabean-Mandaean, and fewer than 1 percent were Yezidi. As of April 2010, the Ministry of Migration and Displacement (MDD) had registered 1.55 million internally displaced persons since 2006. In March 2010 the UNHCR, using the UNHCR, MDD, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as sources, estimated there were 2.8 million internally displaced persons in the country. An estimated 59 percent of the internally displaced are Shi'a Muslims, 35 percent are Sunni Muslims, 5 percent are Christians, and fewer than 1 percent are Yezidis, according to the IOM.

Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) observes, "The situation for Christians in Iraq is becoming bleaker. The violence directed against them is no longer limited to the captal city of Baghdad, but has been spreading throughout the country." Hadani Ditmars (Globe and Mail) reflects on the violence:

When I met Maryam last spring, she was desperate. "Please help me get out of here," she pleaded. She was continually harassed, she told me, by her new neighbours, rural Shia Muslims who had come to Karradeh from the south after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. "They tell me I'm a bad woman, and that I will go to hell."
But as Maryam tearfully blurted out her story of living alone as a virtual shut-in, terrorized by local militias and longing to join family members abroad, she already seemed to be in hell.

Ditmars explains Maryam had left Iraq for Syria due to the violence but money issues ("her meagre United Nations stipend") forced her to return to Baghdad where she found the violence had neither vanished nor merely diminished. AP reports that Berlin's Interior Minister Ehrhart Koerting issued a call today for Germany to provide refuge to 2,500 Iraqi Christians. The current wave of violence targeting Iraqi Christians -- one in a long line of waves -- appears to have begun with the October 31st assault on Baghdad's Our Lady of Salvation Church. Father John Boyle (Caritas in Veritate) posts a letter from friends in Iraq who were in the church during the attack:

The terrorists were in the Church from about 5 pm until 11 pm when their weapons ran out and they began to blow themselves up. They Iraqi Security forces were all the while standing outside paralysed with fear and confusion but by about 10 pm the security forces attacked the Church with huge fire power and no one knows how many innocent people they killed when they stormed the Church but by then most of the terrorist were already dead and they had run out of weapons to use.
At about 1 am the army was sure that all of the terrorist were dead and that they had rescued any of the people who were still alive inside the Church.
One army officer described the scene as follows; "I entered the Church and can hear loud screams of women and children but I could not see them because of the intense smoke, I then slipped and noticed that I slipped in a pool of blood just then I was hit by the most awful smell, it was a smell that I had become familiar with but it was nevertheless awful it was the terrible stench of death. I saw body parts, limbs and many bodies piled up at the entrance. The people there looked like they had been dead for sometime as their bodies had become quite stiff when we tried to move them".

The link will also provide you with photos of the violence including the dead (and one of the two priests killed -- after he was killed; the one who was shot in the back of the head execution style). The Underground debunks two popular rumors about the motivation for the attacks. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes Father Firas Benoka stating, "There is a climate of terror that fills the Christian homes not only in Mosul and Baghdad, but also those on the plain of Nineveh." Holdren explains, "The plain of Nineveh, where Mosul is located, is one of the ancient cradles of Catholicism. The towns and villages that dot the plain are home to some of the world's original Christian communities, dating back nearly 2,000 years to the dawn of Christianity." Meanwhile Asia News interviews Monsignor George Basile Casmoussa, the Syrian Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, who notes that there is a "dangerous growth" in the attacks with people being assaulted "directly in their homes" and that Christians are first fleeing their own cities and some then take the step of fleeing Iraq. He states, "We are asking the United Nations to seriously discuss the issue of Iraqi Christians. To send a real commission for an inquiry. To put pressure on the Iraqi government to ensure attention and the highest security to churches and Christian villages. And to pursue the murderers, to the very end of it."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Little Nouri, right at home in Saddam Hussein's ol..."
"Iraqi Christians and immigration"
"Desperate Housewives"
"Unemployment and unemployment benefits"
"Terry loves a (male) boss"
"pelosi faces election tomorrow"
"Medium"
"Mike Posner"
"Charlie Rangel"
"The Good Wife"
"YouTube"
"Kucinich and Fey"
"More media time for the 'fun' couple"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O CAN'T STOP EXPOSING HIMSELF!"

THIS JUST IN! BARRY O CAN'T STOP EXPOSING HIMSELF!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DOESN'T KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD EXPOSURE -- WHICH GOES TO JUST HOW DENSE HE IS.

DESPITE HAVING JUST APPEARED ON CBS' 60 MINUTES, BARRY O AND SHE-HULK WILL SIT DOWN WITH BARBARA WALTERS FOR A SPECIAL 20/20. ABC IS PROMOTING IT AS SHE-HULK'S "FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE THE MID-TERMS!" WOW THAT WAS FOREVER AGO, RIGHT?

TWO WEEKS.

OH CAN THAT FAMILY JUST GIVE AMERICA A BREAK ALREADY?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

A special envoy from President Barack Obama raised the possibility in a secret meeting with senior Iraqi military and civilian officials in Baghdad Sep. 23 that his administration would leave more than 15,000 combat troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline for U.S. withdrawal, according to a senior Iraqi intelligence official familiar with the details of the meeting.
But the White House official, Puneet Talwar, special assistant to the president and senior director for the Gulf States, Iran and Iraq on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the deployment would have to be handled in a way that was consistent the president's pledge to withdraw U.S. troops completely from Iraq under the 2008 agreement, the official said.

That's the opening to Gareth Porter's "U.S. Envoy Secretly Offered Troops in Iraq after 2011" (IPS). And this morning, we observed, "It's probably one of the most important articles of the week so look for it to be roundly ignored." Ignored? Boy was I wrong (I've been wrong before and will be wrong many times more). Ignored? Try disappeared. Use the link and you're taken to IPS main page. Hit the Iraq page of IPS and you can't find the story that way. A search demonstrates they're now playing Rupert Murdoch and burying the story behind a pay wall. IPS, for those who forgot or never knew, was part of the Cult of St. Barack and it's been really difficult for it to return to being a news agency.

Want to read the story? Don't waste your money on Jim Lobe's crap ass site which doesn't have the brains to grab traffic or the guts to call out Barack. Gareth's story can be found -- in full -- at Dissident Voice and Common Dreams links go directly to Porter's story. Too hot to be freed by IPS where they now attempt to bury it. We'll discuss the report in more detail and with context tomorrow. Right now, I want to note I was wrong. The story was not ignored -- it was buried..

From Iraq, Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports a Mosul sticky bombing today claimed the life of 1 adult male Iraqi Christian and his six-year-old daughter, the latest in the continued wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians. Yesterday, the targeting of Iraqi Christians continued with two more killed in Mosul home invasions. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reminds, "Attacks in October 2008 on Christians in Mosul prompted a mass exodus from that city of 1.8 million. Many Christian families in Iraq who spoke to CNN said they feared for their safety and wanted to leave the country, but didn't have the means to do so." That was 2008, only one of the many waves of attacks on Iraqi Christians, and Nouri did nothing then to protect Iraqi Christians either. Nouri's 'leadership' this go-round includes castigating France and Italy for offering medical treatment to the victims and asylum to victims and their families who deisre it. The latest wave of attacks garnered international attention when Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was seized October 31st and 70 people -- including two priests -- were killed and 75 injured. Two nuns, Sister Alice and Sister Martine, were in the Church during the attack and (at Asia News) they share what they saw:

The church was attacked on Sunday, 31 October, past midday, right after Fr Tha'er's homily. Fr Wasim, who is the son of a cousin of Sister Lamia, was hearing confessions in the back of the church. Fr Raphael was in the choir. The attackers were all young, 14-15-year-olds. They did not wear a mask but had machine guns and hand grenades. They also carried explosive belts. When they arrived, they opened fire right away, killing Fr Wasim who was closing the church's door, shooting in every direction, telling people to lie on the floor, and not to move or shout. Someone was able to send some text messages with a mobile phone, but the attackers shot at anyone who was using a mobile. Fr Tha'er was killed at the altar in his liturgical vestments, still celebrating the mass. His brother and mothers were also killed. Then the slaughter began. We cannot tell you what everyone told us. Even crying children were killed. Some people fled to the sacristy, and blocked the door. Yet the attackers went up to the church's balcony and threw hand grenades through the sacristy windows, which are high up.

Joe Sterling and Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) report on an Iraqi Christian woman who no longer allows her children outside or to go to school due to the threats that Iraqi Christians are living under, a woman who informs that "security hasn't been beefed up since the assaults began on October 31" and who thought of moving her family to 'safer' Mosul until her sister who lives there "called, told her about the latest attacks targeting the community, and advised her not to come." The assault has led to international protests. Xinhua reports approximately 500 people protested the assaults in Sydney, Australia today, "A sea of Syrian and Iraqi flags waved through Martin Place in Sydney Central Business District on Tuesday, as about 500 protesters chanted 'stop the violence, stop the killing'." AAP quotes Raymond Elishapour stating, "There are many people there that are not only being wiped out but who want to seek asylum on Australian shores that are being subjected to long bureaucratic processes. They're being caught up in violence that they can't escape. Australia is liable because they were involved in causing the destabilisation (in Iraq) that has aggravated the circumstances for these people." Tom Reily, Yuko Narushima and Glenda Kwek (Sydney Morning Herald) add, "About 160 detainees reportedly went."

Meanwhile Ahmad Al Akabi apparently took his own life last night. Australia's ABC reports that he was among many immigrants at Sydney's Villawood detention center and that he had been attempting to receive asylum in Australia and that efforts were being made to expel him from Australia and send him back to Iraq: "Mr Al Akabi came to Australia by boat 12 months ago. He was a teacher and a truck driver in Karbala in southern Iraq. His fellow asylum seekers say his bid to stay in Australia was based on claims of persecution from the Shia Mahdi Army." AFP adds, "Human rights supporters said the man who had hanged himself in a bathroom on Tuesday was an Iraqi in his 40s who had left a wife and four children behind in Iraq, and arrived in Australia on a boat about a year ago."

Meanwhile in England, Martin Revis (Christian Century) notes that the Christian Muslim Forum issued a statement yesterday: "We stand shoulder to shoulder with Iraqi Christians to confront the terror and fear that this important part of Iraqi society now faces, emphasising that these terrorist attacks will not succeed in dividing us and destroying the great values that we share, and our long history of peaceful coexistence."

Now turning to the Mandaeans. This group goes back centuries -- and may date back to Antiquity -- and now is estimated to number less than 100,000. Until the Iraq War began, the majority of Mandaens could be found in Iraq. Like other religious minorities, they've become external refugees (many have fled to Iran, others to Syira and Jordan and a small number have left the Middle East). It's estimated that as much as 90% of the community has left Iraq since the start of the Iraq War. In 2007, US professor Nathaniel Deutsch wrote a column for the New York Times calling for the US to grant this community refugee status (which did take place) and noting, "Unlike Christian and Muslim refugees, the Mandeans do not belong to a larger religious community that can provide them with protection and aid. Fundamentally alone in the world, the Mandeans are even more vulnerable and fewer than the Yazidis, another Iraqi minority that has suffered tremendously, since the latter have their own villages in the generally safer nother, while the Mandeans are scattered in pockets around the south. They are the only minority group in Iraq without a safe enclave." Nadia Keilani is an Iraqi-American, an attorney and a Mandean. In 2008, she explained for CNN: "I belong to a religious minority called Mandaean, also known as Sabeans or Sabean-Mandaean. We are a Gnostic sect that claims Adam as the first in a line of "teachers" and John the Baptist as the last. Even today, our baptisms are conducted in the same manner that John the Baptist baptized Jesus and others of his time. Mandaeanism is a pacifist religion that forbids violence even in defense of life. In the anarchy that is today's Iraq, this has proved fatal to the existence of this small but important part of human religious history." The water issue is important to the faith when resettling. Lakes and rivers being ideal due to the baptisms. Settling is not a small issue and it goes beyond the issue of needing to be near a body of water. Keilani noted, "To be a Mandaean, you must be born to two Mandaean parents. To survive, Mandaean communities must exist in large enough numbers for young people to meet, marry and have children. Since 2003, the number of Mandaeans inside Iraq has dwindled to fewer than 5,000. Tens of thousands are scattered throughout Europe, Australia and the United States. The results of this diaspora are clear: Our religion probably will cease to exist in my children's lifetime."

Today Matthew Hay Brown (Baltimore Sun) notes that there are problems resettling this refugee community and notes that Dr. Wisam Breegi argues that if the community is not resettled together, "it will disappear." In September, IRIN reported on the Mandeans who fled Iraq for Syria due to being targeted and IRIN noted, "UNHCR does give special consideration to refugees 'who have special needs based on various vulnerabilities,' but religion is not counted as one of those." Russell Contreras (AP) quotes UNHCR's Vincent Cochetel stating, "It makes sense to keep them together, but no one nation can provide them with effective protection. Nations also have to take into consideration affordable housing available. That's just the social reality."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"White House works to continue the Iraq War"
"Iraqi Christians suffering in and outside of Iraq"
"Christmas"
"Unemployment"
"Four men in two days"
"leadership"
"Baby, You Knock Me Out"
"'Cher"
"The Knife Feels Like Justice"
"Arianna and the lawsuit"
"Stand up against the prison industrial complex"
"Tired Mondays"
"He knows just how to fix it"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A NEW BOOK!"

THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A NEW BOOK!

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


FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, IT'S ONE HUMILITATION AFTER ANOTHER. NOT ONLY IS THE CATFOOD COMMISSIONER HE APPOINTED PUBLICLY CALLING HIM OUT BUT SO ARE MANY, MANY OTHERS.

IN FACT, IT TURNS OUT THAT DURING BARRY O'S PHOTO OPS IN AUSTRALIA LAST WEEK, THE AUSTRALIANS WERE LAUGHING AT HIM AND THAT THE LAND DOWN UNDER SEE'S THE UNITED STATES IN DECLINE AND WEAKER.

BUT BARRY O'S NOT FRETTING. HE'S ALREADY FIXED, HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, FOR CELEBRITY IMAGE REHAB: HIS NEW BOOK COMES OUT TODAY, HIS THIRD AUTOBIOGRAPHY, THIS ONE'S ENTITLED OF THEE I SING.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

At Political Hotsheet, CBS News' Brian Montopoli offers a clear-eyed analysis of the Afghanistan War and it's endings and 'endings' that may be just around that 'turned corner.' He also notes Iraq briefly:

Even if things go well between now and then - a big if - 2014 would not be the end of the war. The end of "combat operations," as the Iraq war has shown, does not mean the end of American troop deaths - nine Americans have died in Iraq since Mr. Obama hailed the end of combat operations there in September.

That's because if the combat operation does end in 2014, America will most likely still keep "non-combat" troops - who will be combat capable - in the country. (The "non-combat" troops in Iraq are still fighting alongside Iraqis and engaging in "targeted counterterrorism operations.")

Turning now to Iraq War Veteran Bradley Manning. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. This month, the military charged Manning. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. The Bradley Manning Support Network notes that today is day 139 of imprisonment for Bradley.

Last week the Bradley Manning Support Network issued a statement:

Washington, DC, November 10, 2010 – Last week, David House, a developer working with the Bradley Manning Support Network, was detained and had his computer seized by the FBI when returning from a vacation in Mexico. He committed no crime, nor was he ever alleged to have committed a crime. He was questioned extensively about his support for alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning, who has been imprisoned at Quantico for over 160 days.

This invasive search is of great concern to all Americans who value the Constitutionally-protected rights to free speech and free assembly. The campaign to free Bradley Manning – which has garnered the support of tens of thousands of individuals from across the United States and the world – is rooted in a belief that government transparency is key to a healthy democracy. Our network stands firm in support of alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning and has raised over $80,000 for his defense. If he is a source for documents published by WikiLeaks illuminating the campaign of disinformation about US foreign wars, then Manning deserves the gratitude of the entire nation.

House sent an email to the Network describing his detainment, saying that, "My computer, video camera, and flash drive were confiscated, leaving me in a tough spot in terms of research obligations; the reason for the seizure, said the officials, was 'border search.'"

The FBI denied House's requests to have a copy of his research data. This seems to be part of a disturbing trend of intimidation and property seizure being carried out against activists critical of US policies, including the detainment and laptop seizure of activist Jacob Applebaum in July and the September 24th FBI raids against antiwar and social justice activists.

The topic was explored further last Thursday,when Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) spoke with Mike Gogulski of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Excerpt:

Scott Horton: Something happened to a guy named David House who works with you.

Mike Gogulski: Yeah, yeah. David House is a friend of Bradley's and he was in touch with us very early on when we were first putting the network together as an organization. He was on our founding conference calls and also provided us with some technical assistance on the website. Being that he's a friend of Brad's, he's visited Bradley at Quantico two or three times since Bradley was moved from the field confinement facility in Kuwait to the -- to the US Embassy brig at Quantico, Virginia. So David, last week, was returning from a vacation to Mexico and in the process of making a connection at Chicago O'Hare Airport was detained by customs initially, later DHS and FBI, questioned extensively about his involvement with Bradley Manning, why he was visiting Manning in prison, what his connection was to us and, additionally, his electronic devices were seized and detained including a laptop computer. Now he was requested to provide the encryption keys to decrypt the contents of his computer which he refused to do. And he requested of the DHS and the FBI that he be able to get the twenty hours worth of programming work that he'd accomplished at some point during his vacation so that he wouldn't lose that product of his labor. And he wasn't allowed to do that. So he was given a receipt for the equipment which listed the laptop as worth $30 and the camera and the cell phone -- sorry, the camera and the memory stick as worth nothing and apparently the cell phone was returned to him after its contents were copied.

This is part of the ongoing harassment of activists by the federal government. Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Heidi and Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner covered the topic on WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio including during a conversation with Margaret Ratner-Kunstler which you can hear at the program's site by going into the archives and the program has also transcribed their discussion with Margaret and you can read it here. Nicole Colson (US Socialist Worker) spoke with Michael Ratner about the raids and you can also refer to that. November 8th, Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) noted a development, "We turn now to an update on the fallout from the FBI raids in late September that targeted antiwar activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Subpoenas to appear before a grand jury were served on thirteen people but later withdrawn when the activists asserted their right to remain silent. But this week the Justice Department said it intends to enforce the subpoenas for some of them and require them to appear before a grand jury. All those subpoenaed have been involved with antiwar activism that is critical of US foreign policy in Colombia and the Middle East." The National Lawyers Guild's Bruce Nestor joined the show briefly:

BRUCE NESTOR: Three people are now being -- looking at reappearing in front of the grand jury and likely being forced with the choice between talking about who they meet with, what the political beliefs of their friends and allies are, or perhaps risking contempt and sitting in jail for eighteen months. These are people who are deeply rooted in the progressive community in Chicago and Minneapolis. These are grandmothers, they're mothers, they're union activists. They were some of the organizers of the largest antiwar march at the 2008 Republican National Convention. And so -- and they're being prosecuted under this material support for terrorism law, a law that was really enhanced under the PATRIOT Act and that allows, in the government's own words, for people to be prosecuted for their speech if they coordinate it with a designated foreign terrorist organization. What you run the risk of there is that even if you state your own independent views about US foreign policy, but those views somehow reflect a group that the US has designated as a terrorist organization, you can be accused of coordinating your views and face, if not prosecution, at least investigation, search warrants, being summoned to a grand jury to talk about who your political allies and who your political friends are. So, so far, this law has largely been used against individuals, often Muslim Americans.

John Catalinotto (Workers World) reported Friday on a recent solidarity meet-up in Manhattan:

At the Nov. 6 meeting, civil liberties attorney Bruce Nestor, who represents those subpoenaed, said the Department of Justice is re-subpoenaing three of the 14 targeted anti-war activists. Nestor explained that they have the choice of testifying against their friends and the movement or potentially serving jail time for contempt of court if they refuse.

Among those speaking were several of the activists whose homes were raided: Steff Yorek, Mick Kelly, Hatem Abudayyeh and Jess Sundin. Tom Burke co-chaired the meeting with Cherrene Horazuk.

Kelly gave an overview of the FBI offensive, which reached as far as California and North Carolina, although most of those subpoenaed were in Minneapolis and Chicago. He also thanked the movement in general for the quick and widespread solidarity expressed in demonstrations in more than 60 cities in the first weeks after the home invasions.

Sundin and Abudayyeh added more political insight, and also gave a feel for the personal side of being ambushed by the FBI and having your home, your life and your children's sense of security disrupted by the brutal state apparatus.

On the Law and Disorder Radio broadcast that began airing October 4th, hosts Michael S. Smith and Heidi Boghosian explained what you should do if the FBI attempts to question you:

Michael S. Smith: Heidi, when the FBI knocks, what do you do?

Heidi Boghosian: It is crucial that if anyone listening to this show is contacted by the FBI or if your friends or family members are, that you do not talk to them. You just say, "I would like to consult with my lawyer. May I have your business card? My lawyer will get back to you." Never say anything because anything you say, no matter how seemingly mundane -- answering a question: Do you live here?, Is your name such and such? -- can be used against you in further grand jury proceedings.

Michael S. Smith: Well they can go after you saying that you lied to them. Don't talk to them. Call your lawyer. Call our hotline. Get out a pencil. Heidi, give them the hotline.

Heidi Boghosian: If you're visited by the FBI, you can call the NLG's Hotline. It's 888-NLG-ECOL. Or 888-654-3265.

Michael S. Smith: Heidi, please repeat the hotline.

Heidi Boghosian: The hotline is 888-NLG-ECOL. And how you can remember that is that originally we started this as a hotline for environmental and animal rights activists so it was for ecology. It was Eco Law but we shortened it.

Sahar Issa (Miami Herald) reported Saturday, "Iraq averted a new political crisis Saturday when the head of the main Sunni-backed bloc ended a walkout and returned to parliament, paving the way for the formation of a new government." Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reminded, "The return came after Iraqiya's leader, secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, told CNN on Friday that he would 'not be a part of this theater,' adding: 'I am thinking of forming a council for opposition from inside parliament to start building the issues that we think are right for this country and to use all possible peaceful means to achieve the objectives'." Fadel also notes that Allawi is out of the country currently (in London). Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) offered, "But Saturday's session could be a fleeting "kumbaya" moment: The weeks ahead are sure to be stormy as the sides brawl over the meaning of the often vague language of the agreement. In fact, even as the sides celebrated the end of the political crisis, the head of Iraqiya, Iyad Allawi, muddied the waters." John Leland and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) broke it down to the basics, "On Saturday, members of Iraqiya took part in a low-key session that consisted largely of ceremonial remarks. Representatives avoided initiatives that might have renewed the fractiousness of the previous session. In the end, they voted on a general plan for sharing power, but did not address any of the details that have divided the blocs. The members agreed to meet next on Nov. 21, after the Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha."

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with via "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, eight days and counting.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Continued upheaval, continued lack of government"
"The 2012 rollout"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"The Iraq elections (talking entry)"
"Plenty of drama but no prime minister"
"Deployments, PTSD"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Robert Gates speaks
• TV: Comedy dos and don'ts
• Easy Come, Easy Go
• Sundays before dawn
• On those truest statments . . .
• Roundtable
• Valerie Wants To Share (parody)
• US targeting Papuan Churches
• Highlights

"THIS JUST IN! HE WANTS SOME HAM!"
"No one will bring him some ham"