BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS SPENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW TAKING HIS SHOW ON THE ROAD. HE WEARS A LOT MORE MAKE UP THESE DAYS AND TRIES REAL HARD TO ACT FORCEFUL BUT NO ONE'S BUYING THE ACT.
IN FACT, AMERICA'S PRINCESS GOT MORE BAD NEWS, THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO DON'T THINK HE'S DOING A GOOD JOB JUST HIT 55%. LIKE SO MUCH ABOUT HIM IN THE LAST MONTHS, THIS IS BEING CALLED "AN ALL TIME LOW." SINCE JULY, HIS DISAPPROVAL HAS RISEN 9%.
REACHED FOR COMMENTS, BARRY O SNIFFED TO THESE REPORTERS, "I'M SO PISSED I JUST MAY PISS MY PANTIES. AND THEY'RE GOOD ONES, EXPENSIVE ONES, WITH RUFFLES ON THE BACKSIDE!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
On Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton spoke with the State Dept's Peter Van Buren, author of W
e Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. Excerpt.
e Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. Excerpt.Scott Horton: . . . which makes me look at the Iraq War in context and think, did you guys ever think of yourselves as maybe just window dressing? That this never really was about winning hearts and minds of the people of Iraq but telling the American TV audience that "Don't worry, someon'es over there winning their hearts and minds"?
Peter Van Buren: This actually was something that we did talk about quite a bit. There were sort of two groups of folks with us. One -- I'd say three. There was a group of very gung ho folks that really thought we were out to do something great. And they were really just a tiny, tiny minority. Most of the people there just wanted to do their job the best they could, make a little money and go home. But a number of us, and I include myself in this, came to believe that, in fact, it was nothing but a scam, a Ptokeman village that was set up simply so that someone could say, "Look, we're trying to help. We're rebuilding schools. We're doing all of these wonderful things." And then, in fact, the reason why it failed is that nobody really cared if it succeeded or not. The most important thing we could do was simply to be there so that when it became politically expedient to point to us and say, "Look at the nice thing we're doing. We're building a road, we're giving some food out to kids, or something," we were there and handy for that. When the political expediency expired, they closed the program down. It's not like we finished the job. They just basically said earlier this year, "Well time to move on," and closed everything down and left things pretty much where we started.
Scott Horton: You know I'd hate to give too much credit to the Bob Woodward version of events but it seems like despite all the smoke screens and kind of you know the spin that all of his first person actors put on their own part in the Iraq War and whatever it does seem pretty clear, you know, the truth kind of leaking through and all that as soon as the war started no one was in charge of anything. Everything that Rumsfeld was supposed to be doing he pointed to Condoleezza Rice. Everything Condoleezza Rice was supposed to do, she pointed to Rumsfeld and Powell and whomever. And back and forth they went and no one was really doing anything except down at the local level Douglas Feith and Paul Bremer are deciding to disband the army and these kind of things. But -- well, man, and now the music's playing and we've got to go out to break. But that's kind of where I want to pick up when we get back was whether anybody was really in charge of this thing at all?
Peter Van Buren: Absolutely.
Scott Horton: Or whether this was just like a local job training program run amuk.
[. . .]
Peter Van Buren: You were talking earlier about -- we were talking earlier about the lack of leadership and actually one of the chapters that got cut from the book but that I'm going to put up on my blog was called "Lessons Learned from Iraq." And the idea was that we're going to repeat this nation building stuff over and over again, we're doing it right now in Afghansitan where we've spent over $70 billion and the rumors are that Libya, Yemen, maybe even Syria are on the future screen. So if we're going to spend all this money and take all this time, one of the lessons learned was the desperate need for adult supervision. What happened in Iraq was a series of failures. Coalition Provisional Authority was one of the first failures to do anything useful rebuilding Iraq. They got caught up in neocon fantasies of creating flat taxes and super powered stock markets and things like that and it crashed and burned. The Army Corps of Engineers was then handed the bag of money to try to rebuild Iraq and they got tangled up in their own security issues and their own bureaucracy and they crashed and burned. The next step under the Bush administration, of course, was to hand all the money over to KBR and some of those other nice mega contracting firms and let them rebuild Iraq. They -- they took the money alright, they were very efficient at that part but they didn't really accomplish anything. So by around 2007, pretty much the only people left in town that hadn't had a shot at it were the State Dept, where I worked, and we were sent in to do this. The problem was that State had no vision for it. They didn't really understand what we were supposed to do other than we were supposed to spend money and try to make some friends. The projects that we were asked to do were pretty much left to do were pretty much left to each person on the ground to conceive.
Telling the truth comes with no applause in the so-called Era of Transparency Barack Obama supposedly ushered in. No, the administration's response is to attack. Kelley B. Vlahos (Antiwar.com) charts the administration's response to Van Buren's book:
Van Buren says he is being accused of "disclosing classified material," though the
cables he linked to were "unclassified," "confidential," and "unclassified/for official use only," respectively*. The State Department told Antiwar.com that it would not comment on "whether or not there is an investigation underway."
Van Buren, who worked for a year on an embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team (ePRT) in Iraq from 2009-2010, is nonetheless convinced that the book is what set off the alarms at Foggy Bottom. He may well be right. Van Buren's publisher, Macmillan Publishers, has confirmed that the department is now seeking redactions, even though We Meant Well just hit the shelves and was officially vetted for classified material a year ago.
According to Van Buren, the State Department never raised a flag about the book until now.
FYI, Kelley Vlahos will be taking part in a Saturday event. This is Angela Keaton's write up for Antiwar.com:
Kelley B. Vlahos along with military veterans Daniel Lakemacher and Students for Liberty's Peter Neiger will be appearing at an Antiwar Break Out Session at the 2011 Students for Liberty Philadelphia Regional Conference. The conference will be held Saturday, October 8th. Register here.
Vlahos is a contributing editor for The American Conservative magazine, a Washington correspondent for the DC-based homeland security magazine, Homeland Security Today, a long-time political writer for FOXNews.com, and weekly columnist for Antiwar.com.
At the end of Scott Horton's interview with Peter Van Buren, the issue of 'withdrawal' came up.
Scott Horton: Well now they're talking about keeping troops past the 2011 deadline. Do you think that Maliki and his armies still need Americans to keep them in power?
Peter Van Buren: What they need is American money and they'd like to have that and if they have to tolerate a few thousand American soldiers around to get the money bags, I suspect they will. Maliki right now has consolidated his power quite effectively. He retains control of both the Defense and the Interior Ministries, the two most powerful parts of the centeral Iraqi government. He retains control of personal militias -- many of which have been linked to alleged secret prisons and alleged torture. He doesn't need the Americans to keep him in power anymore. What he does like is the flow of cash and some of the weapons that we're planning to give/transfer/sell to him. So he's a smart guy, he's played a little poker in his life and if he needs to keep a few thousand American soldiers in the neighborhood to get all those benefits, sure, that's a small price to pay for all the benefits, money and goods he's going to rake in.
Let's stay with 'withdrawal' and then we'll come back to other topics mentioned. What's known so far? Tuesday, a meet-up of the political blocs at Jalal Talabani's home resulted in the declaration that "trainers" would be needed in Iraq beyond December 31st. ("Trainers" is a euphemism for "US soldiers.") At Jalal's house it was decided that the political blocs would not grant immunity. Their decision not to grant immunity did not mean immunity would not be granted but damned if so many idiots in the press (here for a critique of the New York Times' 'reporting') didn't insist that was the case. Are they really that stupid? And, if so, how long does stupid qualify as an excuse?
From yesterday's snapshot:
Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reports, "Iraqi lawmakers on Wednesday said they were discussing a deal to extend a NATO training mission that could allow U.S. troops to stay as trainers beyond the year-end deadline for withdrawal, with the type of legal protections demanded by Washington." Wait, it gets better, al-Salhy reports the bill was read out loud to the Parliament once already.
Do you get it? Most of the press didn't. All the political bloc leaders said on Tuesday was that they -- themselves -- would not be granting immunity at that meeting. If indeed, as so much of the press misreported, what they were saying was NO IMMUNITY, what al-Salhy reported couldn't and wouldn't and shouldn't have happened.
But it did.
What happens if there's no immunity granted or created? (And it can be granted or created in any number of means provided the administration's attorneys agree it grants immunity.) US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta answered that today. AFP reports he declared, on a visit to Brussels, that without immunity, US troops would not remain in Iraq. (US soldiers shoved under the US State Dept's umbrella will have immunity.) Slobodan Lekic (AP) quotes Panetta staing, "I can say very clearly that any kind of U.S. presence (in Iraq) demands that we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers." BBC News notes that Panetta pointed out that negotiations continue.
In related news, Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) reports on a letter US House Rep Darrell Issa has sent the White House demanding to know the details of the White House's plan for contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, "The American people have a right to know the past, present, and future status of private security contractors in these regions." Issa also notes: "Americans would be shocked to learn that during your administration, in fact, the numbers [of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan] have drastically increased. Despite poor oversight and unacceptable levels of waste, fraud and abuse, the numbers of private security contractor boots on the ground and the price tag have only gone up during your administration." In related news, yesterday the US State Dept issued the following:
Question: Approximately how many security contractors will be required in Iraq to protect the U.S. diplomatic mission next year?
Answer: In light of the high threat environment in Iraq over the past several years, we expect that in 2012 there will be approximately 5,000 such security personnel to help protect our diplomatic presence in various locations around the country and ensure our capability to interact successfully with the Iraqi Government and people to build an enduring partnership of benefit to both countries and the region. We expect this number of security personnel to noticeably decrease in the following years as security conditions continue to improve, as they have done steadily since 2007.
In addition, the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) will be part of our strategic engagement and partnership with Iraq. This office will require additional security personnel to protect facilities and staff. The exact number and final disposition of these security requirements are still under review.
The United States is committed to an enduring partnership with Iraq, which can be a strong ally in a strategic region of the world critical to our national security. This Administration has placed a priority in strengthening our partnership by maintaining a strong diplomatic presence on the ground in Iraq and is committed to ensuring the safety of the men and women who make up that presence. Utilizing security personnel to assist U.S. diplomatic security officials in protecting Americans serving abroad is not a new practice; it has been part of civilian operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and is an important component of security operations at many of our embassies and consulates around the world today.
As Iraq further develops its democratic institutions and improves its security capacity, our security presence will be reduced and operations will be comparable to other countries around the world where we have large missions and vital interests.
Question: Approximately how many security contractors will be required in Iraq to protect the U.S. diplomatic mission next year?
Answer: In light of the high threat environment in Iraq over the past several years, we expect that in 2012 there will be approximately 5,000 such security personnel to help protect our diplomatic presence in various locations around the country and ensure our capability to interact successfully with the Iraqi Government and people to build an enduring partnership of benefit to both countries and the region. We expect this number of security personnel to noticeably decrease in the following years as security conditions continue to improve, as they have done steadily since 2007.
In addition, the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) will be part of our strategic engagement and partnership with Iraq. This office will require additional security personnel to protect facilities and staff. The exact number and final disposition of these security requirements are still under review.
The United States is committed to an enduring partnership with Iraq, which can be a strong ally in a strategic region of the world critical to our national security. This Administration has placed a priority in strengthening our partnership by maintaining a strong diplomatic presence on the ground in Iraq and is committed to ensuring the safety of the men and women who make up that presence. Utilizing security personnel to assist U.S. diplomatic security officials in protecting Americans serving abroad is not a new practice; it has been part of civilian operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and is an important component of security operations at many of our embassies and consulates around the world today.
As Iraq further develops its democratic institutions and improves its security capacity, our security presence will be reduced and operations will be comparable to other countries around the world where we have large missions and vital interests.
And back to Peter Van Buren. It's good to hear someone from State calling out Nouri al-Maliki. The US government has been thrilled to shower him with (undeserved) praise but not to hold him accountable. As he's 'consolidated' his power (power grab), he's rarely been called out by the US government. In Iraq, many have called him out. They've often been arrested, beaten and/or killed as a result. Arwa Damon (CNN -- link has text and video) reports on Hanaa Edwar, the activist and feminist famously stood up to Nouri last June. Today she continues to worry about the attacks on peaceful demonstrators:
Both Al-Amal and Human Rights Watch are concerned the government is trying to portray the protesters as terrorists, and allowing thugs to beat and sexually assault them.
Despite her long career in human rights, Edwar is pessimistic about the current state of her country.
"We are losing everything now in Iraq, even you know, our dream for democracy, our dream for elections," she said.
Both Al-Amal and Human Rights Watch are concerned the government is trying to portray the protesters as terrorists, and allowing thugs to beat and sexually assault them.
Despite her long career in human rights, Edwar is pessimistic about the current state of her country.
"We are losing everything now in Iraq, even you know, our dream for democracy, our dream for elections," she said.
That's Iraq today. And the people did not choose their leader. An Iraqi exile who fled the country and lived in Iran, Syria and elsewhere for decades, returned only after the US invaded and cuts ahead of all the Iraqis who remained in the country and becomes prime minister?
