THIS JUST IN! HOW LOW CAN HE GO?

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 We 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.

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.

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?

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Smoke and mirrors" "Turkish Parliament votes for more bombings, more w..." "Super Sugar Crisps" "Frosted Mini Wheats" "4 men, 1 woman" "oatmeal" "Bagels, lox, Matzo Brei" "Corn flakes" "Cap 'n Crunch with Crunch Berries" "Great Grains" "Fruit Loops" "Lucky Charms" "Who sat Wonkette at the grown ups' table?" "THIS JUST IN! THEY LOWER US ALL!"

THIS JUST IN! THEY LOWER US ALL!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PRESIDES OVER A DECAYING ECONOMY AND, AT LEAST ON THE COMMENTARY END, A DECAYING AMERICA.

FOR EVERY RARE STRONG CALL FOR FOLLOWING THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN PLACE, THERE ARE 25 INANE ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES TO A BACKDROP FOR HORSE RACE YAMMERING:

I go on about this because I'm personally uncomfortable with government-sanctioned murder, but if pressed, I'd have to admit that it falls somewhat outside the purview of this blog: though there is some back and forth about Awlaki's death on the fringes of the GOP race, it will have about zero impact on the 2012 election – except to rob conspiracy theorists of a terrorist to link Obama to.

IN A FUNCTIONING WORLD, THESE VILLAGE IDIOTS WOULD BE FLOGGED IN THE TOWN SQUARE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports a series of gold shop robberies in Iraq today which left 2 people dead and three more injured. Reuters notes violence sweeps Iraq today with a Ramadi roadside bombing claiming 1 life and leaving fifteen more people injured, a Baghdad grenade attack claiming the life of 1 Iraqi soldier while injuring a second one, a Taji roadside bombing injuring four pilgrims, the mayor of Tuz Khurmato being shot dead, a Baghdad grenade attack left two Iraqi soldiers injured, another Baghdad attack left two police officers with bullet wounds, a Baquba attack claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers with three more injured, and, dropping back to last night, a Baquba boming claimed 1 life and left six more people injured, the corpse of 1 Sahwa was discovered in Qaiyara, and a Taza bombing injured one person.

News is more than, "There are bases in Iraq." In fact, "There are bases in Iraq" is just a fact. Exploring the bases, Dr. Joseph A. Kechichian (Gulf News) makes several important points:

In fact, the 39 remaining US military bases -- out of 505 -- included four large facilities which cost over $2 billion to build. The Al Asad Airfield in Anbar province, for example, is so well equipped that most servicemen refer to it as "Camp Cupcake." Likewise, at the Joint Base Balad, huge dining halls cater to thousands, many of whom have access to a "25-metre swimming pool, a high dive, a football field, a softball field, two full-service gyms, a squash court, a movie theatre, and the US military's largest airfield in Iraq." One can only imagine the numerous items stocked at each -- from toothbrushes to bombs -- though the Department of Defence estimated that at least 2.4 million pieces of equipment worth a total of at least $250 million (Dh919.5 million) were donated to the Iraqi army over the course of the past 12 months alone.

For reasons that remain murky, why did Washington authorise and actually build colossal facilities in Iraq if the assumption was not to transform the country into a long-term staging area for US troops in the Gulf region? Why create an extensive infrastructure to support large numbers of troops that would be fully operational with their latest equipment, if the American presence was temporary? Was it all a waste of money? Were there no dissenting voices that warned the Bush and Obama administrations that militarization was not a long-term option?

You might think people would show the same questioning with regards to the "trainers" issue currently. Most in the press don't. Rebecca Santana (AP) does:

When the security agreement was negotiated in 2008, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators figured out a solution that appeased both sides.

The agreement gives Iraq the right to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. troops for "grave premeditated felonies" when those crimes are committed by troops who are off-duty and outside of U.S. bases or facilities.

Good for Rebecca Santana and AP. News is more than a press release. A lot of people 'covering' the "trainers" issue don't get that as their 'reports' repeatedly indicate.

So the press that misreported on the "trainers," they were all over the press briefings today, right?

Jay Carney, White House spokesperson, did declare, "This President's position on Iraq, which was the principle preoccupation of the previous administration in terms of these wars, was clear during the campaign, and his promises are being kept. He is ending that war, has ended it. And we are on track to remove all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. And we are doing it -- we're ending that war in a responsible way."

Sadly, those lies -- Jay is quite the liar -- were in reply to the question about some Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans not feeling the war were worth it.

Not one question about Iraq was asked. Who's at fault? The public. Hell no. A lazy press that thinks they're cute laughing and cutting up with Jay Carney. (Not all. Jake Tapper asked hard questions as usual.) The press told us yesterday, this morning and this afternoon that there would be NO immunity for US troops remaining in Iraq beyond 2011. Who's commander in chief? Jay Carney's boss. But no one had time or sense enough to ask about this issue, did they? Again, that's a reflection on the press.

At the US State Dept, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked in the press briefing (click herer -- transcript and video):

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Yes. What is your reaction to the Iraqi Government decision not to extend immunity to U.S. advisors past the 31st^t of December?

MS. NULAND: Well, first to say that we are reviewing the statements that were made -- that was made in Iraq yesterday. Ambassador Jeffrey and others are working with Iraqi leaders today on specifically what they have in mind. We certainly appreciate the democratic spirit that has been displayed by Iraqi leaders in debating this important subject, and we're going to continue those discussions.

I think you know that as a matter of practice, when we enter into these long-term relationships, which is what we are negotiating now, we always ensure that our forces have the protections they need when they're deployed overseas. So we have to work through these issues.

QUESTION: Well, the statement, when it came out at 4 o'clock Washington time, essentially caught the Defense Department by surprise. And one person said this isn't going to make the negotiations any easier. We've already started far later than we should have. And if they insist on no immunity for U.S. forces, that's it, we're not going to do it.

MS. NULAND: Was there a question there, Ros?

QUESTION: Was there any signal from the Iraqi Government that this was going to be coming down the pike? Was there any heads-up to anyone in the building on this?

MS. NULAND: I, frankly, can't speak to what our Embassy and our folks on the ground knew with regard to this particular statement. But as you know, Ambassador Jeffrey and General Allen have been in nonstop communication with the Iraqis. We are working through this now, and as I said, we appreciate the fact that the Iraqis have been working hard to build a constituency for a continued training relationship, and we need to work on that together.

QUESTION: Was there ever a sense that the Iraqis appreciate the bind that they're essentially putting the U.S. military in, and by extension, the work of the U.S. State Department in Iraq starting next year by, one, waiting so late to decide that they wanted to talk about what happens next, and then two, to let things like this come out on official letterhead, long into the evening and people are thinking about other things?

MS. NULAND: I wouldn't characterize it that way, Ros. We've been talking about these issues for a long time, and we need to talk about them until we come to an agreement that is strong for Iraq and strong for the United States and strong for the region.

Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) spoke with Iraqi MP Iskander Witwit who told him that what was reported yesterday was what it was. And he quotes Witwit stating, "This is the finish. It is final." Well there's no reason he would know what Nouri al-Maliki is planning or discussing with the US currently. But you'd hope he'd at least know what the Parliament was doing -- or is he one of the 100-plus MPs who have trouble making it to the sessions? At any rate he looks like a fool (as does Gutman who framed his report around Witwit) because 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. Witwit (and Gutman) where were you?

And who was foolish enough to think Witwit was a go to? He's Iraqiya. He's got no inside line to Nouri's thoughts. More importantly, Iraqiya's wised up a little and is now toeing a tough line with all things US to have a position to negotiate from (as opposed to the lead up to the Erbil Agreement when Iraqiy unwisely gave up too much and had nothing to show for it). In fairness to Roy Gutman, he does grasp what took place on Tuesday which cannot be said for most outlets (including but not limited to the New York Times, Reuters, etc.) It is not a minor point and if the snapshot weren't being edited quickly to eliminate at least 30K, we'd have more in here on that. However, Gutman got what went down yesterday. Very few did. He deserves much credit for that. The Tehran Times reports that the Sadr bloc says they are opposed to US troops staying beyond the end of this year with or without immunity.

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"They bungled the SOFA coverage as well"

"The press buries and bungles the story"
"Solyndra and Jack In The Box"
"Occupy Wall Street continues"

"4 men, 2 women"

"i had no idea"

"Still Solyndra"

"An election, an e-mail"

"Wish I'd known before I sat through Snakes On A Plane"

"Movie Pass"

"RocknRolla"

"Fringe"

"THIS JUST IN! CAUGHT IN A LIE AGAIN!"

"Barry's not-so-secret secrets"

THIS JUST IN! CAUGHT IN A LIE AGAIN!

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

AP DEMONSTRATES HOW YOU POLITELY CALL CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O A LIAR:

Senate Democrats are scrambling to rewrite portions of President Barack Obama's jobs bill as they seek elusive party unity around the measure even as Obama tries to pin the blame squarely on Republicans for Congress' failure to act.

WHY TIPTOE AROUND WITH A WAR CRIMINAL?

MEANWHILE AMERICA'S PRINCESS HAS TAKEN TO PUBLICLY DELCARING HE'S "STILL WORKING" ON HIS FEELINGS TOWARDS GAY MARRIAGE. NO WONDER SHE HULK MICHELLE LOOKS SO ANGRY. MAYBE SHE CAN SPEAK WITH JAMES MCGREEVEY'S EX?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last Thursday on KPFK's The Lawyer's Guild with Jim Lafferty (7:00 p.m. PST every Thursday; 55 days left in the KPFK archives), Jim spoke with Shakeel Syad about an upcoming action:

Jim Lafferty: And now we're going to turn our attention to activists around the question of the war. We're coming up now to the 10th anniversary of course of the war in Afghanistan and there's a war in Iraq and a war in Pakistan and what have you. And there's a wonderful group in town, the Interfaith Clergy United for Justice and Peace. They've been active in the anti-war movement and social justice movement for some time now. And they are going to hold an action on the 10th anniversary of the war, that's next Friday October 7th, which will include both peaceful and legal protest and a parade and speeches and what have you. But they're also putting into it a feature of civil disobedience and joining us on the air to explain all that my guest is Shakeel Syed. He is the executive director of the Shura Council Mosques of Southern California, that's simply a coalition of the mosques here in southern California. Mr. Syed is one of this nation's really, really great true religious leaders and activists for for peace and social justice and especially I think for religious tolerance. Shakeel Syed, welcome back to the Lawyers Guild Show.

Shakeel Syed: Thanks for inviting me, Jim.

Jim Lafferty: As always. No, no, it's my pleasure. So next Friday, you and as many as a dozen of other members of Clergy United for Justice and Peace and some others who may not be clergy members but are part of that religious community are prepared to get arrested in protest of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?

Shakeel Syed: Gosh, I think this is an imperative for people of conscience to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens that for ten consecutive years we have been killing innocent people and getting our young men and women killed while destroying our treasure, whatever little is left, and having people like Rose [Gudiel whose story was covered in the first segment of the show] get evicted and so it is time that people should rise up. We are only 24 or 25 people who will be doing this civil disobedience on October 7th in downtown LA but I hope and pray that there would be a mass uprising throughout the country in fact to remind the country, remind the nation, remind our political leaders that we are not going to forget the misadventures of our state.

Jim Lafferty: Yeah, I would hope so to. And I want to be clear that while there are this couple of dozen folks who are going to be peacefully and nonviolently of course getting arrested, they hope that hundreds and hundreds of others will join them. And we're going to tell you about that in a moment, friends. To simply show support and to join a peaceful, legal protest which is part of this day of action as well. Now the costs of the war? I'm hoping and I suspect that I don't have to worry about it, that's certainly going to happen, is that part of the focus that you folks are going to be doing next Friday is going to include the fact that at a time when we're now up to 3 trillion dollars of costs that we are already paying or committed to in Afgahnistan and Iraq, we're pretty clearly in a biapartisan way to deal some blows to Social Security and Medicare -- to say nothing of the unemployment problem and the housing problem. So I assume those domestic costs of the war are going to be part of what moves the conscience of you folks too. Am I right?

Shakeel Syed: I hope and pray that, yes indeed. The costs certainly is a major, major factor only because now we are feeling it. Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace has been preaching this to our elected leadership for that past ten years, that it is going to be -- to become an economic crisis in our country, for the past ten years. Now that the country's waking up to this fact of how we are into such a deep, deep hole that we don't know how to get out of it. So certainly it will be highlighted and reminded that if those trillions of dollars were to have been available to the country today that joblessness that exists -- 18%, one of the highest in the country, in LA county -- probably would have not been the case today. So certainly the moral aspect of it, the economical aspect of it and most importantly it is time for us to revist the idea and notion that our country has now become immune to simply killing people in different parts of the world on a sustained basis. That paradigm has got to change.

Jim Lafferty: Yeah. Yeah, we're in a state of permanent war. It's quite amazing. At last count, I think there were 193 or 194 nations recognized by the United Nations as nations and the United States government -- if I'm wrong here, I'm not wrong in principle, I'm just wrong on the actual numbers -- we're in something like 150 or 170 of those, I can't remember which now, by that I mean that we have US military forces operating in one way or another in 85% of the nations on this earth. And we're waging active war, full-fledged war in several countries, we're certainly still bombing Libya and we're engaged in Black Ops operations with our military forces trying to overthrow governments and destabilize governments in most of the rest of the world. Shakeel, I count and I know surely you do among the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq what's happened to your and my Muslim brothers and sisters in this country. I mean, talk to us a little bit about the costs that your community has paid as a result of this.

Shakeel Syed: Yeah, I think there are two major costs or two broad areas that the Muslim and Arab community has paid very dearly and that continues to pay today. One is the demonization of the faith itself -- of the entire 1.4 billion people, a 1500-year-old faith group. Number two is the dehumanization of Muslims. Muslims have become a Fifth Column in our country just as Japanese people were looked at after the Second World War. On a daily basis, you see all sorts of Islamaphobic acts of hate and bigotry throughout the country including, in southern California, the burning of Korans and hate mails and hate messages. I just received a little over 100 e-mails, after the UCI 11 verdict, at the Shura Council office challenging the statements that we have given in the context of freedom of speech. So there is an ongoing demonization and dehumanization of Muslim Americans and their faith in this country which is very, very unfortunate. But thank God that there are also good people in America, many good people, such as the community here, the Interfaith Community of Justice and Peace for the past ten sustained years who have been a voice of conscience, the true voice of America which embraces people of all faiths and of no faith, all ethnicities, all colors and languages for the greater good of the society at large.

Jim Lafferty: Yeah, you've had to deal with and are still dealing with FBI infiltration into the mosques, infiltrators from the FBI inserting themselves into mosques, trying to stir up trouble, trying to -- really more than entrap, trying to encourage somebody in some cases to do something which is illegal despite the fact that all sane people know that the mosques in this country are not hot beds of Islamic radicalism or anything like it. You've been very clear in speaking out against that. Is that problem getting any better, do you think, or not?

Shakeel Syed: Not really. It is only getting worse. If not in LA, we heard all that has happened recently in New York, for example, where the CIA and local police department have been mapping the Muslims and mapping the mosques and God knows what else. And this continues to happen on a regular basis in a variety of ways. FBI, whom we pay our tax dollars to supposedly protect us, are training their own officers -- mistraining, rather -- in fostering and formenting hate and bigotry against Mulim Americans, law abiding, lawful and peaceful Muslim Americans. So there is all sorts of -- It has become a new normal.

The action is this Friday in Los Angeles and it kicks off at 9:00 am at La Placita Church (565 N. Main), a 9:45 march to the Federal Building and a 10:30 am mass rally.

So much money has been wasted on the wars. In the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing this morning, US House Rep Edolphus Towns was rightly decrying a contractor charging the US government $900 for a control switch that retailed for $7. That's a mark up of $893 for just one control switch. The Committee was hearing from the waste of time Commission. Over the weekend, Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) reported on the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, "The internal records of a congressionally mandated panel that reported staggering estimates of wasteful U.S. wartime spending will remain sealed to the public until 2031, officials confirmed, as the panel closed its doors on Friday." They've finished their study and they've closed their books. And, if you were at the hearing today, you learned just how wrong that is as Co-Chair Shays waived around the Commission's published findings and declared, "Our problem with Mr. Tieffer was that this book would have been three times as thick if we'd let him put in everything he wanted to put in so we limited him to 40 cases. But it could have been many more."

Great, so US tax payer money went down the drain again. The Commission unearthed tons of things but decided just to publish 40 of them. Because they didn't want their book to be too thick.

Right. We covered the Commission's public hearings. It was always a waste of time which describe the Commission itself and those members of Congress that pushed for it. The only value the Commission could have had was in making public its records now while the wars continue in the hopes that contract waste and abuse could be caught and some money saved. However, that's not going to happen with the Commisson's records being sealed and the published report only focusing on a small number of cases of fraud and abuse. As noted before, the Commission's purpose was never to find fraud and abuse. The purpose was to distract outraged Americans from what was being done with their money. The Commission had no powers. No charges have been filed over fraud. The Commission has wrapped up their business. Today they made a guest starring appearence before a Congressional committee. Excerpt.

US House Rep Jason Cahffetz: One of the questions that I hope our Committee continues to explore is what in the world is wrong over at the Dept of Defense? I want to read here from -- This is page 162 and this has to do with the Defense Contracting Audit Agency -- which seems aptly named. But it says, "The current unaudited" -- and you mentioned this in your opening statement -- "The current unaudited backlog stands at $558 billion having risen sharply from $406 billion in only 9 months. At current staffing levels, DCAA has reported that the backlog will continue to grow virtually unchecked and will exceed one trillion dollars by 2016."

Commisoner Dov Zakheim: Can I, uh, try to deal with that?

US House Rep Jason Chaffetz: Yes, please. Try to tackle that one. That would be great.

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Absolutely. When I was Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller DCAA was under me. DCAA simply doesn't have enough people. It is --

US House Rep Jason Chaffetz: How many people are there?

Commisoner Dov Zakheim: When I was there it was about 4,000. They've added about another thousand. It's nothing compared to the level of contracting that's going on and to the number of contracts that are going on. These are very, very professional folks. Most of them now have CPAs. Many of them come from the outside and then come into government, much as lawyers do now a days. But we just don't have enough of them. This goes to the point that was made earliler by Commissioner [Robert] Henke and some of my other colleagues, and we all believe this very strongly, that even in this time of cutting budgets and deficits, there has to be some spending to save money. And it's a matter of being penny wise and pound foolish. If we don't get these people in, we're going to end up hurting both the government and industry. The government because there might be money that could be recovered and industry because they're not getting paid when they should get paid. If the audit isn't completed, they have a problem too.

Co-Chair Christopher Shays: Could I just -- I'm going to change the word "might" to "will." Because it is just a proven fact that if you have these audits, you are going to discover bills that were submitted that were either fraudulently submitted or frankly just mistakes and they were paid more than they should be paid. The outrage is that all these companies have to keep these records on file for two, three, four, five, six, seven years and guess who pays for their having to do this? The government pays for their keeping the records. So this five hundred billion -- million we're talking ab -- excuse me, 500 billion that we're talking about -- million is going to just accelrate if you don't reverse it.

US House Rep Jason Chaffetz: I guess, to my colleagues, what I would highlight here is also that the GAO just recently released a report in September 2011 documenting that there are at least 58,000 contracts awarded between Fiscal Year 2003 and 2010 that must still be reviewed and closed out. But I agree with you, the numbers are absolutely staggering. I would call upon the White House: "Please, prioritize these IGs, get them nominated and get the Senate over there to do their jobs so that --" We have 3 of the 5 that are unfilled and that's just inexcusable in my opinion.

At a time when the 'Super Congress' is going to fix the economy by cutting and gutting the safety net, it's rather telling how much money the White House is willing to waste on the continued wars. Iraq specifically came up in the hearing at several times. We'll note this section because it's not really registered in a Congressional hearing before.

US House Rep James Lankford: Let me make one other quick comment here, you have an extension section here on foreign contractors using human trafficking. Obviously that's -- That's a very stark comment. Some of the work that's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is basically done with slave labor -- people compelled to work in this for whatever amount is done. How extensive do you think that is?

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: What we understand is that it's really quite extensive. Because what they do is they bring people in, uh, hold onto their passports and essentially lock them up as prisoners. It's virtually slave labor.

US House Rep James Lankford: And we're aware of that? The United States government, the people on the ground, we're aware of that either after the fact when it's over or during the process?

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Okay, at a minimum, everybody's aware of it after our report and, of course, a lot of people were aware of it before our report.

If they'd had more time, Shays declared, they would have gone deeper into the contracting issue because "I think there is a lot more to this story than any of us have confronted."

Before we go further, let's note two other antiwar actions this month. Cindy Sheehan speaks tomorrow, October 5th, 7 p.m., at the First United Church in Bloomington. That's tomorrow. The LA action is Thursday. And there's also an event Saturday. 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.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"The lost hopes and the lost coverage"
"PTSD, suicides, veterans issues"
"Desperate Housewives"
"The occupation of Wall Street and elsewhere"
"4 men, 1 woman"
"dickie durbin"
"Solyndra"
"Arts coverage"
"Look who's vouching"
"The Good Wife"

"Class Whore: Dan Hirshhorn"
"Tired"
"Barry plays big spender with your money"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S ONLY YOUR MONEY!"

THIS JUST IN! IT'S ONLY YOUR MONEY!

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

YESTERDAY WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED BY ABC NEWS AND YAHOO INSTANT MESSANGER, BARRY O HID HIS FAILURE WITH MODICUMS BY DECLARING THAT HE DID NOT REGRET LOANING HALF-A-BILLION DOLLARS TO HIS BIG CAMPAIGN DONATOR SOLYNDRA.

OF COURSE, IT WASN'T HIS HALF-A-MILLION.

AND NOW SOLYNDRA HAS GONE BELLY UP AND WILL NEVER REPAY THE LOAN.

THIS MORNING THESE REPORTERS ASKED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IF HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE HALF-A-BILLION NOW LOST FOREVER DOLLARS WERE THE U.S. TAX PAYERS' MONEY, HE LAUGHED.

"OF COURSE I DO," SNAPPED AMERICA'S PRINCESS, "YOU DON'T THINK I'D BE STUPID ENOUGH TO LOAN OUT MY OWN MONEY, DO YOU?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning attention was focused on Ramadi where the protectors were the ones in need of protection. Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports that the Ramadi police station was stormed by "gunmen and suicide bombers" who were "wearing military uniforms" and who went on to hold "14 policemen and officials" hostage, according to a police source. AKI also notes that the assailants wore police uniforms. Police uniforms and military uniforms have long been used in attacks. As late as 2006, there was a pretense that some mythical warehouses throughout Iraq were being raided. Now, at least when the violence is within Baghdad, reports are more likely to acknowledge that it could be Iraqi security officers -- like the forces working for the Ministry of the Interior which terroized and killed Sunnis in Baghdad during the ethnic cleansing phase of 2006 and 2007. RTT explains, "Local news reports quoted police officials as saying that the hostages include the Mayor of al-Baghdadi as well as several police officers and government employees." AFP adds, "At least two explosions preceded the attack on the Al-Baghdadi police headquarters, which is in a compound that also houses the office of the town's mayor, according to the officials." The Palestine Telegraph reports that Anbar's Deputy Governor, Dhari Arkan, "said the army was surrounding the police station in the town of al-Baghdadi."

What followed, according to AFP, was a standoff that lasted approximately two hours. Mazin Yahya (AP) notes that, from the seizure of the station through the standoff and finally the resolution, three hours elapsed. (From the start BBC News states that security officials then announced that all the assailants were killed . . . as were three hostages. Citing Iraqi military's Brig Mohammed al-Fahdawi, AP also notes 3 hostages were killed. Reuters counts 13 dead. DPA states 25 hostages were freed which is strange since Press TV reports that the assailants had taken "15 senior officials and policemen hostage". In addition to assailants killed, AFP adds, "Anbar provincial council deputy chairman Saadun Obeid Shaalan said four people were killed including Obeidi, an official in the town mayor's office and two policemen" while Maj Gen Mohammed al-Askari states, "We killed the four gunmen. The police chief and one civilian were killed."

AP reports that the town's mayor, Muhanad Zbar Mutlaq, hid in a "bathroom next to his office, locking the door behind him." He then texted SOS messages. He claims it was the Islamic State of Iraq and that he knows that because he heard them say it in his office -- the office the bathroom was next to. It seems strange that they would be in the office and not check a bathroom if they were holding everyone hostage. If they did check a bathroom door and found it locked, it's strange that they wouldn't kick it down. And clearly for the mayor to have heard them speaking in his office through the door of the adjoining or next to office bathroom, the door would have to be very flimsy.

In other Iraq violence reported today, Reuters notes 2 Kurdish security officers were shot dead in Khanaqin with five more injured, 1 Iraqi intelligence officer shot dead in Baghdad, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left three more injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, dropping back to Sunday, 1 Iraqi intelligence officer was shot dead in Baghdad and 1 former Iraq armed forces pilot was shot dead. Michael S. Schmidt and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) report that "gunmen attacked a police headquarters in the city of Hit, killing two police officers and kidnapping others."

Meanwhile, can Reuters stop single-sourcing? Yet again, Reuters ran with the Iraqi government figures for the number of deaths and injured for the month of September. The numbers were laughable but Reuters made no effort to provide context (or to keep track of their own reporting). The Iraqi government offers, and Reuters runs with, 177 dead and 319 injured. Let's check our own imprecise tracking of reported deaths and wounded. (Note those totals are civilians and security forces combined. As will be the totals from the Iraq snapshots below.)

September 1st 5 were reported dead and 25 injured; September 2nd 1 person was reported dead; Septmeber 3rd 3 were reported dead; September 4th 4 were reported dead and 1 injured; September 5th 5 were reported dead and 7 injured; September 7th 4 were reported dead and 4 injured; September 8th 2 were reported dead and 1 injured; September 9th 41 were reported dead and 2 injured; September 10th 8 were reported dead and 18 injured; September 11th 4 were reported injured; September 12th 31 were reported dead and 18 injured; September 13th 5 were reported dead and 19 injured; September 14th 41 were reported dead and 66 injured; September 15th 2 were reported dead; September 16th 9 were reported dead and 26 injured; September 17th 3 were reported dead and 4 injured; September 18th 1 was reported dead and 4 injured; September 19th 9 were reported dead and 33 injured; September 20th 7 were reported dead and 18 injured; September 21st 33 were reported dead and 4 injured; September 22nd 8 were reported dead and 22 injured; September 23rd 8 were reported dead and 12 injured; September 24th 1 was reported dead and 3 injured; September 25th 24 were reported dead and 121 injured; September 27th 8 were reported dead and 23 injured; September 28th 11 were reported dead and 9 injured; September 29th 8 were reported dead and 84 injured; and September 30th 21 were reported dead and 73 injured. Check my math, that comes to 303 reported dead and 601 reported injured.

303 dead, 601 injured. But the official numbers are 303 and 601 and Reuters doesn't question that? Today AKI's John Drake Tweeted:

johnfdrake At least 44 people were killed and 208 injured in #Iraq violence last week.

about 8 hours ago

208 injured last week alone and the Iraqi government is claiming 319 wounded in the entire month of September but Reuters doesn't stop a moment to say, "That figure seems impossible"? Back when Bush was in the White House, the press loved to run with Iraqi Body Count. It was the source they relied upon. These days, they don't even mention it. But what did IBC find? For the month of September, they counted 335 civilians killed. 335. And the 177 total (which is civilian and security forces) doesn't bother Reuters? How many civilians did the government of Iraq say were killed? 102.

Are you seeing a problem? Why do we have to go through this each month? Why are outlets not keeping their own counts? Why does Reuters single-source these reports instead of bringing IBC and other trackers? If accuracy were the goal, if informing were the goal, we wouldn't be going through this month after month.

Let's drop back to the August 31st snapshot:

Leave aside the wounded this month -- the New York Times certainly did, never reporting on any of them -- and the attacks on US forces -- ibid -- and the fact that the administration wanted US troops confined on bases for all but "essential missions" this month (after the heavy death toll in July). Set all of that aside. And grasp that since the Iraq War "ended" (Barack's August 31st declaration of the end of combat operations), the Pentagon says [PDF format warning] 56 US military personnel have died. In one year. In one year since the illegal war supposedly ended. The 56 who died in the last 12 months are still dead. If they'd all died in June or all died in January or at a rate of a little over 4 each of the 12 months, they'd still be dead.

That number of US military personnel killed in Iraq since Barack's August 31st declaration of the end of combat operations rose to [PDF format warning] 60 (Official Pentagon count last updated September 30, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. and you're looking at the Operation New Dawn numbers.) So 4 US soldiers died in the Iraq War in the month of September. Not that the New York Times bothered to cover that. "No deaths in the month of August" has them screaming from the mountain tops. Someone might need to explain to the paper that it's not supposed to be All The Happy News That's Fit To Print. And for those who just know I have my numbers wrong (I don't), you can refer to Jim Loney's report for Reuters from September 1st: "Pentagon statistics show 56 U.S. military deaths since the start of Operation New Dawn on September 1, 35 in hostile incidents." Or try Richard Allen Green's September 1st report for CNN which notes "56 [deaths] since the United States declared an end of combat operations exactly a year ago, according to a CNN analysis of Pentagon statistics." It's 60 now. That's 4 US soldiers. And the press didn't report the deaths. And the press didn't even call out the Pentagon which tried to slip some of those deaths into the count without releasing death announcements. (And if you can't access PDF, there's a screen snap of the Penatgon official numbers in last night's "And the war drags on . . .")

In Iraq, Political Stalemate II continues. The political blocs are set to meet up at Iraqi president Jalal Talabani's home Tuesday evening in an attempt to reach some form of understanding. Political Stalemate I (the period following the March 7, 2010 elections) ended when the political blocs and the US brokered the Erbil Agreement. However, Nouri al-Maliki followed it in terms of retaining the prime minister post but, once he had that, immediately tossed aside the Erbil Agreement and did not honor what other political blocs were suppopsed to receive -- including the creation of a new security commission that would have been headed by Ayad Allawi who is the head of Iraqiya which came in first in the March 7th elections. Yesterdat Dar Addustour noted that the political meet-up at Jalal Talabani's home is scheduled for Tuesday night and that the blocs will meet and attempt to sort out differences.


Al Mada reports that there is not a lot of hope going into Tuesday's meet-up though Allawi is stating that he's "hopeful." Kurds continue to feel shut out and call for the Erbil Agreement to be honored as well as for something other than the oil & gas draft bill Nouri has proposed. As to the issue of the US military withdrawing at the end of the year, the article quotes a source reminding that the decision is Nouri's since he is the leader of the armed forces. Al Mada also reports Allawi is stating "no" to immunity for US troops that would remain in Iraq beyond the end of the year. Allawi notes that US Vice President Joe Biden spoke with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani last week while Talabani was in the US and Biden stated that immunity is a must for US troops. The article also notes that Nouri has stated no US troops will remain in Iraq after the end of the year . . . except for trainers which is okay and universally recognized as being okay.

We covered that twice last week. From Thursday's snapshot:

Al Mada reports Nouri al-Maliki appeared on Al-Manar TV today and declared no US troops would remain in Iraq, that, as per the SOFA, they will all leave at the end of this year.

. . . except . . .

Nouri said Iraq would keep "trainers" and "experts" and that this is "normal" and "universally" accepted.

So, to translate that into reality, Nouri al-Maliki declared today that the US military will remain in Iraq beyond 2011 and they will be called "trainers" or "experts."

From Friday's snapshot:

US outlets haven't reported on Nouri's remarks and Al Mada is an Arabic publication. But those needing an English language source on the above can refer to this article by Aswat al-Iraq today which includes:

**Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has said on Thursday that the presence of foreign experts and trainers during the purchase of weapons is a natural thing, reiterating that the presence of the US troops in his country would end by end of the current year

"The presence of the American troops is settled and shall end by the end of the current year, according to an agreement between both sides, and there won't remain a single foreign soldier in the country," a statement by the Prime Minister's office reported.

But Prime Minister Maliki said that the "resence of foreign experts and trainers during the process of purchase of weapons is something natural and is followed in other parts of the world."**

We go over that yet again for a reason. The Tehran Times reports today, "Iraq's President Jalal al-Talabani has said all the Iraqi political leaders are united that the U.S. troops have to leave their country by the year-end deadline." Is anyone that stupid?

They are in agreement that all US soldiers leave Iraq at the end of the year . . .

except . . .

those they start calling "trainers." Press TV grasps it and they quote him saying, "The meeting, which is due to be held next Tuesday evening, is to discuss the American trooops' withdrawal as there is unanimity on the withdrawal. And the topic of trainers will be discussed in said meeting and God willing we hope to reach a unanimous decision in the next meeting." Get it? Two different categories. On soldiers, Talabani says there's unanimous agreement. On "trainers," he hopes they will "reach a unanimous decision."

And as we noted over the weekend, if Nouri has the power to ask for trainers than he has the power to grant immunity to them. The two have to go hand-in-hand to exist. Meanwhile National Alliance MP Mansour al-Tamimi speaks of 7,000 US troops remaining in Iraq after December 31st. This would supposedly anger the Sadr bloc but Nouri's State of Law is also at loggered heads with the Sadr bloc over the issue of amnesty.

On withdrawal/never ending war, let's move over to the US for a moment to note an event this Saturday. 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.

In a perfect world, we would note that in all five of this week's Iraq snapshots. We noted it here and hopefully I'll remember to include it at least once more. Ideally, it'll be in every day's snapshot.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"7,000 US troops in Iraq in 2012?"

"Iraqi police station held hostage"

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "La Femme Barack"

"And the war drags on . . ."

"Nouri wants 'unity'"

"The fallen, the continued war"

• • Truest statement of the week
  • Truest statement of the week II
  • Truest statement of the week III
  • A note to our readers
  • Editorial: Those who stood and those who shrank
  • TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple
  • Anthony's Iraq: The Logic Of Withdrawal
  • TV: The Daytime Menace
  • A sense of perspective, please
  • Undocumented youths stage protest (WW)
  • Saudi women, still no vote (GBSW)
  • Highlights

"Princess Barry has special rules for his family"

"THIS JUST IN! HIS LATINO PROBLEM!"

THIS JUST IN! HIS LATINO PROBLEM!

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

MORE AND MORE TALK EMERGES ABOUT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S PROBLEM CAPTURING THE LATINO VOTE IN 2012.

BUT FEW WANT TO POINT OUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR THE AMERICAN PRINCESS: HIS SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.

THERE ARE RULES FOR OTHERS AND THERE ARE RULES FOR BARRY O.




YES, BOYS AND GIRLS, IT'S "UNCLE OMAR." WHILE BARRY O HAS BEEN HAPPY TO DEPORT OTHERS -- OVER A MILLION AS OF JULY -- HIS DRUNKEN UNCLE GETS ARRESTED FOR DRIVING DRUNK AND NEARLY HITTING A COP CAR YET WHEN IT TURNS OUT THAT UNCLE OMAR WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DEPORTED 20 YEARS AGO AND THAT HE HAS A DEPORTATION ORDER, SUDDENLY THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES IT GO AWAY.

MILLIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WORK JOBS AND CONTRIBUTE TO THIS COUNTRY MAKING IT THEIR HOME BUT THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR OF BEING DEPORTED AND MANY HAVE BEEN BY BARRY O. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HIS OWN TRASHY FAMILY, WHETHER IT'S HIS AUNT TOOKIE THAT LOOKS LIKE A MAN IN DRAG OR HIS DRUNKEN UNCLE WHO IS A MENACE TO SOCIETY BEHIND THE WHEEL, THEY SOME HOW GET TO STAY IN THE UNITED STATES.

UNCLE OMAR WAS BACK IN COURT THURSDAY . . . GIGGLING. CAN YOU IMAGINE LATINOS BEING DEPORTED SHOWING UP IN COURT GIGGLING? OF COURSE YOU CAN'T. AND THAT'S WHY BARRY O'S LOSING THE LATINO VOTE -- HIM AND HIS FAMILY'S SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT, THAT SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT THAT LED UNCLE OMAR TO SNAP TO THE POLICE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED THAT HE'D JUST CALL THE WHITE HOUSE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"Suddenly the place turned into hell," explains survivor Haider Qahtan to Reuters. It was supposed to be a typical Shi'ite funeral as mourners gathered in Hilla this evening to bury Abdelamir Jaffar al-Khafaji but instead it turned into a bloodbath. Mazin Yahya and Rebecca Santana (AP) report a car bomb exploded outside Nabi Ayub Shi'ite mosque and quote Mohammed Ali who felt the blast inside the mosque, "I heard the blast, then was hit by glass from windows and my hand was bleeding severely. I blame the security forces for such a horrible breach." Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) adds that there was "damage to some civilian vehicles and nearby buildings"; however, the people most harmed were the "mourners heading to a funeral tent near the mosque". Tim Arango and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) report, "Several high-level officials were in attendance, including the leaders of the local court and provincial council. Both officials had just left before a vehicle, which had been parked outside the mosque, exploded. But the son of the local judge, who led the appeals court in the area, was killed." Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) count 17 dead and forty-eight injured. Citing police officials, Kareem Raheem (Reuters) states 18 died and sixty-three were injured.

Before the Hilla attack, Dar Addustour noted that Parliament will be examining security issues shortly in light of the continued rise in violence. Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahmoud Othman is quoted stating that the security chiefs and Nouri al-Maliki must be called before Parliament to answer about the security breaches throughout the country resulting in the death of "many innocents." After the attack, BBC News notes, "Parliament speaker Osama al-Nujaifi condemned the attack but blamed failings in the 'security apparatus'." AFP quotes Ali Khafaji who claims to be "astonished at how the explosion happened, because on the way to the funeral there were many police checkpoints." Arango and Adnan quote an unnamed security official who feels there wasn't enough security considering all the "dignitaries in attendance."

In other violence, Aswat al-Iraq reports a Thursday night car bombing outside of Kirkuk injured five people (all "one family, including 3 children") and that 1 man was kidnapped, and that two Baghdad bombings this morning left five people wounded. Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report 2 people were killed in a Baghdad bombing and another Baghdad bombing claimed 1 life.

Yesterday's snapshot included:

Al Mada reports Nouri al-Maliki appeared on Al-Manar TV today and declared no US troops would remain in Iraq, that, as per the SOFA, they will all leave at the end of this year.

. . . except . . .

Nouri said Iraq would keep "trainers" and "experts" and that this is "normal" and "universally" accepted.

So, to translate that into reality, Nouri al-Maliki declared today that the US military will remain in Iraq beyond 2011 and they will be called "trainers" or "experts."

US outlets haven't reported on Nouri's remarks and Al Mada is an Arabic publication. But those needing an English language source on the above can refer to this article by Aswat al-Iraq today which includes:

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has said on Thursday that the presence of foreign experts and trainers during the purchase of weapons is a natural thing, reiterating that the presence of the US troops in his country would end by end of the current year

"The presence of the American troops is settled and shall end by the end of the current year, according to an agreement between both sides, and there won't remain a single foreign soldier in the country," a statement by the Prime Minister's office reported.

But Prime Minister Maliki said that the "resence of foreign experts and trainers during the process of purchase of weapons is something natural and is followed in other parts of the world."

Al Mada now reports that a meeting next week is expected to resolve the issue of how many US soldiers will remain in Iraq after December 31st. The rumored meeting would be attended, according to unnamed sources, by Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, as well as leaders of the various political blocs. The issue for Parliament would be the immunity issue. The US government wants immunity for US soldiers. Nouri al-Maliki apparently can't grant it by himself (or prefers not to or hasn't yet figured out how to seize that power) so that would be taken to Parliament. As for the troops being on the ground themselves, it is believed that the Strategic Framework Agreement (signed when the SOFA was) would cover their presence. The article notes that Tareq al-Hashemi, Iraq's Sunni Vice President, declared earlier this week that when Talabani returned to Iraq (he left to take part in the United Nations meetings -- mainly to argue that Iraq needs to be released from Chapter 7, a point the US press pointedly ignored -- Ammar al-Hakim talks about Chapter 7 to Al Mada today) there would be another meet-up at Talabani's residence. Alsumaria TV has a different interpretation of the meet-up:

Iraqi Vice President, Tariq Al Hashemi, declared that President Jalal Talabani will call for a third meeting of political blocs at his return from New York. The meeting however was subject to doubts even before being held.
Hashemi's announcement about Talabani's call for a third meeting seemed to be according to Iraqiya list's desire. Iraqiya MPs stressed the necessity to know the reasons behind State of Law Coalition's failure to commit to last meeting's decisions. This meeting would be the last attempt during the present government's term, MPs

Al Mada speaks with a member of Iraqiya who states that Nouri was to enter into talks with the US government on extending the US military presence; however, he was supposed to brief the political blocs on all negotiations and that the final say was not supposed to be Nouri's. The Iraiqya MP states that Nouri has not briefed the political blocs (that's been stated before by MPs with other political slates and parties as well). State of Law and National Alliance MP Jawad Albzona disagrees over Nouri's power and states that any agreement would not need Parliamentary approval and would be valid just as a contract signed by Nouri and the US. He states it would be valid because Nouri would have identified the need on behalf of security and that would be it (presumably he's saying that's due to Nouri being commander in chief of the military but he doesn't make that point). An unidentified deputy with the Sadr bloc rejects that interpretation and insists that Parliament would have to vote on any agreement. A Sadr MP, Rafi Abd al-Jabbar, is quoted stating that the Sadr bloc rejects US military forces remaining under any name or title (such as the faux term of "trainers").

Who's right?

If by "right" you mean legal, the Strategic Framework Agreement does allow for Iraq to keep US personnel to provide support and training. The SFA covers not only diplomatic and economic realmsbut also security. Though Parliament wasn't interpreting that, in 2008, to mean that US forces could stay on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011 under the SFA, that is what it can allow.

Who's "right" in their debate over what Nouri has or doesn't have the power to do?

If the SFA is accepted -- and it may not be -- as the document that will allow the continued presence of US troops on the ground in Iraq, the only sticking point is the immunity clause. Otherwise, Nouri's actions in the past demonstrate that while he does not have the power in writing to extend the US military presence without the consent of Parliament, he has repeatedly done that and since Parliament has refused to fight back, it is a power he has assumed and the Iraqi courts (already in Nouri's pokets) would be unlikely to rule against him.

If you're late to the party, Nouri becomes prime minister the first time in the spring of 2006. The UN madate covering the continued occupation is running out because it is yearly. Nouri is supposed to get approval from Parliament to renew it. He doesn't bother to. He just renews it on his own. The Parliament notes that the move was illegal and they pass another law to make it 'doubly' illegal. Nouri swears it won't happen again. As 2007 is winding down, Nouri again renews the UN mandate without Parliament's consent or input. Either time, Parliament could have done a vote of no-confidence or taken some serious measure against Nouri. They did not. Though it's not a power the Constitution has given the office of Prime Minister, Nouri has now done it twice and the courts (already friendly to Nouri, to put it mildly) would most likely see the assumed power as one that now belongs to him.

I'm against the illegal war and want all US troops out now. Within these snapshots, my goal is to be honest. If I'm dishonest, there's no reason for anyone to bother reading it. So when we're talking the PKK (as we were recently) and I'm explaining how Turkey has over-reacted and hurt themselves and include that the PKK could damage their own reputation by attacking civilians, I'm aware that the Turkish government could begin rumors or stage such events to discredit the PKK. And certainly they have in some instances in the last two weeks labeled attacks PKK when they weren't PKK attacks. (There are many Kurdish rebel groups fighting for independence. An attack on teachers this week may or may not be the PKK. An event further into northern Turkey last week was not the PKK. And, in fact, the group responsible claimed credit -- and AP was the only outlet to report on that, by the way. A number of US commentators don't know the first thing about the Kurdish resistance and should probably find another topic to gas bag on.) My condern can't be, "How will this be used!!!" That's not my worry, that's not my concern within these snapshots. Equally true, what I'm about to go into doesn't help get US troops out of Iraq. And so maybe I should bite my tongue and hope no one thinks too hard on the issue of immunity?

We don't play it that way, we let the chips fall where they may. As commander in chief of the military, Nouri al-Maliki is responsible for the military. If, in that role, he is allowed to bring in "trainers," then he is allowed to give them immunity.

This should have been obvious to all sides long ago. He either has no power to bring in "trainers" or he has that power and having that power includes providing them with "immunity." What "trainers" would ever come in to work on security issues -- which could mean someone was accidentally killed -- without knowing that the government recognized the "trainers" were there to assist and would not prosecute the "trainers" for carrying out the duties the Iraqi government tasked them with?

If it appears Parliament will balk at the issue of immunity, don't look for that to be a sticking point. Nouri will issue some sort of order (either solo as commander in chief or with the backing of his Cabinet).

It's an important point to raise because if the talks are even semi-public, at some point a gas bag's going to go on Democracy Now! or elsewhere and smugly assert that it doesn't matter because, in the end, Parliament will never approve immunity for US troops. And a lot of people will nod their heads excitedly because it's what we want to hear (the Iraq War finally ends!) and we'll focus on something else and drop our objections only to learn a week or two later that, oops, Parliament wasn't the only way to get immunity for US troops.

Early in the day, protests took place. The Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "A big demonstration came out after Friday prayer today in Wasit condemning the American occupation and refusing to grant occupation forces an extension of their stay under the pretext of 'training'." They note the same was true in Theeqar, in Karbala and in Qadisiya, in Amara.

And in Baghdad? Alsumaria News reports that activists gathered in Tahrir Square calling for an end to the occupation and an end to govermnet corruption. They protested the millions spent for Jalal Talabani's New York Visit to the United Nations and they called for unity and the registion of sectarianism. Banners included those that rejected sectarianism, called out the judiciary that protects the corrupt and declared Parliament to be a farce. They noted that the two million spent for Jalal's NYC visit could have been spent within Iraq on needed projects that would benefit the people. The report notes that as much as $7.5 billion may have been wasted in corruption by the government in the last two years -- that should be in US dollars because the oil monies in the article are in dollar figures and not dinars -- and that estimate appears after they note the Transparency International annual reports. I'm not sure where the figure comes from, but it maybe TI's estimate. The Great Iraqi Revolution's Baghdad correspondent reports, "A large number of protestors were unable to access Tahrir Square today as the government forces have cordoned the square and allowed only one entrance point which was in turn controlled by at least forty officers and troops of the government forces. A number of ambulances were also seen in the square which raised suspicions and fears that abductions are planned as has been the practice in previous Fridays.In addition, a number of intelligence officers were deployed atop surrounding buildings, In fact they were seen using binoculars and cameras to document and know the identity of the protestors,. Due to the severity of the measures ,the revolutionary youth were unable to document the protest by videos."

Aswat al-Iraq reports that they also called for improved basic services and condemned attacks on Iraq by other countries, "The demonstrators have demanded to put an end for interferences and violations by Iraq's neighborly states, including Iran, Turkey and Kuwait, demanding the government to take opposite measures against such violations."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Protests continue in Iraq"
"Facts don't matter apparently"
"I Hate The War"
"Black Eyed Pea Soup in the Kitchen"
"It's War On The Workers"
"Parenting"
"Margaret Prescod is an idiot"
"3 women, 3 men"
"4 men, 1 woman"
"community's bad episode"
"new fees"
"The lawless Barack Obama"
"Solyndra"
"Nancy Pelosi, curb your daughter"
"If he's lost Castro . . ."
"Jared's a papa"
"Barack screws over the LGBT community"
"A Little Night Music"
"Will Blockbuster be the new hot thing?"
"Kamikaze Sammy"
"Ugly and Unwanted Theda Skocpol"
"Non-idiot of the week: Dean Baker"
"Name that Candy Ass!"
"THIS JUST IN! LIMP DICK CALLS U.S. 'SOFT'!"
"The boy princess calls others 'soft'"