Saturday, November 19, 2011

THIS JUST IN! HIS FANS ARE JUST AS DUMB!

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

OH, LOOK AT THE UNEDUCATED IDIOTS OF THE PRESS. FOR EXAMPLE, LITTLE RYNE NELSON CALLS IT A "CHARITY EXHIBITION GAME." NO, YOU STUPID IDIOT, YOU MIGHT HAVE TRIED GETTING AN EDUCATION THAT MIGHT HAVE HELPED YOU. A "CHARITY EXHIBITION GAME" IS WHEN PLAYERS PLAY TO BENEFIT A HOSPITAL OR THE SEARCH FOR A CURE OR AN ORPHAN'S HOME OR SOMETHING SIMILAR.

RAISING MONEY FOR A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IS NOT "CHARITY." POOR LITTLE RYNE, EXPLAINING EVERY DAY JUST HOW USELESS THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA IS.

THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IS, OF COURSE, BARRY O'S. THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF WAS JUST DECLARING THAT THE "TOP PRIORITY" FOR THE U.S. RIGHT NOW IS "ASIA-PACIFIC." BUT A GIRL'S GOT TO RAISE SOME SCRATCH IF SHE WANTS TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION.

ESPECIALLY AFTER CALLING AMERICANS "LAZY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with breaking news out of Iraq, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports a mixture of White House officials and US military officials arrived in Baghdad Friday for a three day visit to discuss a number of issues including to "provide immunity to American trainers." The delegation will meet with President Jalal Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents, with the prime minister, and with the head of the political blocs. In addition, it will visit the Krudistan Regional Government. Al Mada reports that Rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr wasted no time in announcing that, should immunity be granted, his bloc would immediately withdraw from the National Alliance coalition. An MP with the Sadr bloc is quoted declaring that it is not the right of Nouri al-Maliki to provide the Americans with immunity
Bombs went off throughout Iraq today. Press TV counts 9 dead from bombings alone. Reuters provides the breakdown: a police officer's Saqlawiya home was bombed claiming the lives of his wife and their 4 kids [CNN states the dead were police officer Najah Abdullah's mother-in-law, the man's five-year-old son and two daughters with two more relatives injured and notes that his home was attacked in 2008 as well]; a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left four people injured (this was near a mosque in the Abu Ghraib section of Baghdad), a second Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left five people injured, 1 police officer was injured in a Hawija shooting, and, dropping back to Thursday, a Mahmudiya car bombing claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured (increase in deaths by 1 and injured by 2 since yesterday's report by Mohammed Tawfeeq of CNN), a Baghdad attack in which one police officer was injured, a Mosl car bombing claimed 1 life, a Mosul grenade attack which left a police officer injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left one Iraqi soldier injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left an Iraqi police officer injured and 1 man was shot dead outside their Mosul home. The Abu Ghraib mosque bombing, Bushra Juhi (AP) reports it was "bombs" plural, near mosques (plural) and that 4 people died with eighteen more injured.
Staying with violence, earlier this week it was announced another US soldier had died in Iraq. DoD has identified the fallen:
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn.
Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, N.C., died Nov. 14, in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
For more information related to this release, the media may contact the Fort Bragg public affairs office at 910-432-0661 or at 82ndpao@conus.army.mil .
Today at the US State Dept, Deputy Dept Spokesperson Mark C. Toner gave the press briefing. Iraq came up at the end in an exchange with AFP's Lachlan Carmichael.
Lachlan Carmichael: Can I have one more here?
Mark C. Toner: Oh, I'm sorry, Lach. Sure. I'm sorry, guys.
Lachlan Carmichael: No, just -- in --
Mark C. Toner: It's just Friday. We're so close here.
Lachlan Carmichael: Yeah. In Brussels, the head of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Iraq raised concerns about the fate of Camp Ashraf refugees. He said that Iraq has served a virtual death warrant on the residents, and he pointed to an embassy note from the Iraqi Government saying that they're committed to close the camp by the end of 2011.
Mark C. Toner: That's correct, yeah.
Lachlan Carmichael: And it says that dissidents there are terrorists, and the Iraqis deny they have refugee status, and therefore the Europeans are fearing that the UNHCR will not be able to interview them as refugees.
Mark C. Toner: Well, we are working -- look, I don't have a detailed response to those accusations. I do know that we are working with international organizations, including UNHCR, to find a suitable outcome and a suitable destination for these individuals, and we recognize the urgency.
While this was going on at the US State Dept, AFP reports that the European Parliament's MEP Struan Stevenson declared that a "death warrant" had been signed today on the residents of Camp Ashraf when the government sent the European Parliament which refers to the residents as "terrorists" and asserts that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention nor do they have refugee status.
Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
Tuesday the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing addressed many Iraq issues. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted the remarks on the residents of Camp Ashraf. We're going to go over most of those again today in light of the comments that a "death warrant" has been signed and what appears to be a refusal of the Iraqi government to honor the agreement that was made with the US government with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf. Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee, Senator John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee. The first panel the Committee heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to them?
General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government ---
Senator Lindsey Graham: Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing the problem?
General Martin Dempsey: I won't say anything to those people because I'm not involved in the outcome.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough.
[. . .]
Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk and I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate that.
Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question -- and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment. What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of -- not them, the organization from the terrorist list?
General Martin Dempsey: Well, Senator --
Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this --
General Martin Dempsey: And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd Austin shares your concern. And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the concern and there is no -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection of those folks in Camp Ashraf. But right now, actually, the Iraqi security forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them. And so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one. And But I actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct.
Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations -- that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it at that.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Senator, I want to assure you that Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the Iraqis.
Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman?
Senator Joe Lieberman: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf.
The concerns have been expressed, a supposed understanding was reached, yet reports today indicate that the understanding meant nothing to the government of Nouri al-Maliki.


Posted by at

Thursday, November 17, 2011

THIS JUST IN! PRINCESS ON CAMERA!

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

WHILE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O REMAINS OBLIVIOUS, THE WHITE HOUSE IS HITTING THE ROOF OVER BENETTON'S USE OF PHOTOS OF BARRY O KISSING HUGO CHAVEZ AND HU JINTAO.

"AMERICA'S PRINCESS IS NOT COMING OFF MASCULINE IN THESE PHOTOS!" INSISTED DAVID AXLEROD. "AND THEY COULD HAVE AT LEAST MADE HIM A LEATHER QUEEN."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Camp Ashraf is one of the worst reported subjects in the US press. We do get articles so slanted that even a paper's public editor calls out the slant (against the residents of Camp Ashraf) and we get hurled insults at Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and others for speaking out on behalf of the residents. But very little attention is given to the issue of their support. A US military official used the New York Times to smear Clark and Dean and suggest that they have sold their voices out to the highest bidders. US House Rep Bob Filner has not been paid on behalf of anyone to speak out for the residents of Camp Ashraf (a number of family members of the residents live in California, including in Bob Filner's district). You don't read about that. You don't read about hearings on topic or Congressional statements. This week, Camp Ashraf, yet again, came up in a Committee hearing. We're going to note the remarks. But first, let's provide some background on Camp Ashraf.
Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
"The status of the residents at Camp Ashraf from the Iranian dissident group MEK remains unresolved," Senator Carl Levin declared Tuesday. "As the December 2011 deadline approaches, the administration needs to remain vigilant that the government of Iraq lives up to its commitments to provide for the safety of the Camp Ashraf residents until a resolution of their status can be reached. We need to make it clear to the government of Iraq that there cannot be a repeat of the deadly confrontation began last April by Iraqi security forces against Camp Ashraf residents."
He was speaking Tuesday morning at the Senate Armed Services Comittee hearing while delivering his opening remarks as Chair of the Committee. Senator John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee. The first panel the Committee heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy. Camp Ashraf came up in Chair Levin's opening remarks and it came up later during the first panel.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to them?
General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government ---
Senator Lindsey Graham: Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing the problem?
General Martin Dempsey: I won't say anything to those people because I'm not involved in the outcome.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough.
In what was now the second round, John McCain went on to laugh with Leon Panetta and to thank him for appearing before the Comittee and putting up with pointed questions. He brought up a request that Panetta had made to him and Senator Graham (formally, in a letter) and noted they were working on that issue (defense funding). We're not going to excerpt that but since so much was made of the first round of questioning between Panetta and McCain, we will note that both laughed with one another in an exchange in the second round. (The hysterical gossip corps portrayed McCain being testy as new or novel and may have left many with images of poor Leon struggling for the vapors. Neither person was harmed by the exchange in the first round nor appeared to hold a grudge or ill will towards the other.) Near the end of his second round, McCain did bring up the issue of Camp Ashraf.
Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk and I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate that.
Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question -- and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment. What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of -- not them, the organization from the terrorist list?
General Martin Dempsey: Well, Senator --
Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this --
General Martin Dempsey: And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd Austin shares your concern. And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the concern and there is no -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection of those folks in Camp Ashraf. But right now, actually, the Iraqi security forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them. And so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one. And But I actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct.
Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations -- that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it at that.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Senator, I want to assure you that Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the Iraqis.
Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman?
Senator Joe Lieberman: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf.
Our gossip corps masquerading as a press corps missed that too, didn't they? The Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee declared that if the Iraqi government did not keep their promise to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf -- residents that the Iraqi forces have already twice attacked -- there would be serious damage to the government of Iraq's relationship with the US Congress.
Sounds like a headline to me. In fact, sounds like a first page, opening segment of the evening news type story. And that's before you factor in the remarks of the others or the consensus that Levin did speak for Congress in his remarks. Yes, independent Joe Lieberman did agree with Democrat Carl Levin who agreed with Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain but there were other Democrats present (Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen) and other Republicans present (Jeff Sessions). No one lodged an objection. It would appear that the US Congress -- at least the Senate -- pretty much universally (if not fully) backs the protection of Camp Ashraf residents. That's a story you really don't get. But news outlets can make time and will make time to run stories implying that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are only concerned with the protection of Camp Ashraf residents because they've been 'bought' and that no one would care about these people unless they were being paid to. The implication being not only that Dean and Clark are 'on the take' but also that the residents of Camp Ashraf are so low on the human chain or so digusting or so whatever that no one in their right mind could ever think these people were worthy of defending. That's a really ugly thing to suggest about Dean and Clark and it's extremely ugly and phobic to suggest that of the residents of Camp Ashraf.
If you need an example of this ugliness, you can refer to Josh Rogin's Foreign Policy piece. Tonight or at Third on Sunday, I plan to write about how people get hearings so wrong. You can find part of the answer in Josh Rogin's quote from Carl Levin. Yes, Levin did declare what Rogin quotes him stating -- but that's all Rogin quotes him stating and misses the exchange that we've quoted above. That's because like a lot of 'reporting' on this hearing, people didn't bother to attend the actual hearing. But we'll save that for tonight or I'll take it over to Third on Sunday.
Gary Feuerberg (Epoch Times) reports, "The Ashraf residents fear that they will be sent back to Iran, where they were an opposition group, and could be executed. Three Iranians visiting their sons in the camp, upon returning home, were each executed in Dec. 2010 - Jan. 2011. In the last few days, Iraqi troops in larger numbers have been outside the gates, awakening the residents early in the morning with taunts broadcast through loud speakers. The residents remember April 8 this year, when this kind of harassment was a prelude to the Iraqi military firing on unarmed residents, killing 36 and wounding scores that outside observers called a massacre." Outside observers include US Senator John Kerry who termed that assault a "massacre." British MP David Amess writes at the Independent of London's Foreign Desk blog:
At Camp Ashraf in Iraq, 3,400 residents are encircled. Loud speakers have been placed around the town's perimeter as part of a campaign of psychological intimidation. They blast out insults and threats in the early hours of the morning. The aggressors, Iraqi forces, are taking orders from the Iranian regime. They want Camp Ashraf cleared out and shut down because the residents are members of the People's Mohjahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), the main Iranian opposition group.
No-one is allowed out of the Camp to receive medical attention. Foreign observers, including Euro MPs, US congressmen and journalists, are not allowed to enter. In the latest sign that the siege is tightening, Ashraf's fuel supplied have been cut off. There have been no gasoline deliveries for almost a year, and very little diesel fuel and kerosene. Now that temperatures are dropping, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered an end to deliveries of coal and wood.



Posted by at

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

THIS JUST IN! THE VAIN PRINCESS!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS VERY WORRIED. NO, NOT OVER REPORTS THAT HE HAS A STEEP MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB IF HE WANTS TO BE RE-ELECTED. AND IT'S NOT OVER THE PHOTOS OF HIM KISSING A GUY.

NO, HE IS UPSET OVER WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING. IT STARTED LIKE MANY MORNINGS, WITH BARACK WAKING HIMSELF WITH A FART, LEAPING OUT OF BED AND STANDING NUDE BEFORE HIS "MAGIC BONER" (JAY CARNEY) AND ASKING, "BONER, BONER STICK UP STRAIGHT, TELL ME, TELL ME I'M THE MOST GREAT."

BUT TODAY THE "MAGIC BONER" DID NOT RISE.

BARACK GASPED.

BARACK YELLED.

BARACK CRIED.

STILL THE "MAGIC BONER" DID NOT RISE.

AND THE "MAGIC BONER" (JAY CARNEY) DECLARED, "SIR, YOU ARE DARK, RESTED AND TANNED BUT THESE DAYS ONLY BRADLEY COOPER MAKES ME EXPAND."

"WHY!" BARRY O CRIED. "WHY OH WHY! I SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEXIEST MAN OF THE YEAR! ME! SEXY ME! ME AND MY SEXY MAN BOOBS!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Charley Keyes (CNN) reports of yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, "The Obama administration will withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year, after negotiations with Iraq broke down last month over leaving behind a small force for training and security. Some 30,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq now, and only a small number of U.S. military will remain behind, attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Well golly, I'm confused and would assume I were wrong were it not for the fact that it is impossible for Barack to "withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year" and also for "a small number of U.S. military will remain behind". All is all. Does CNN not grasp that?
Do they also not know how to report on hearings? The way you do that is you attend the hearing and you report what was said. Keyes doesn't have a quote does he? No. He needs one. When he's so wrong, he really needs one. So "all" leave, he says, while he's also saying that small number will remain "attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Did Keyes doze off during Senator Susan Collins' questioning?
Senator Susan Collins: What about the Kurdish region in Iraq? There are concerns that Kirkuk stands out as an unresolved area where there's still a lot of tension with the central government in Baghdad. I understand that only a small DoD contingent will remain there. And it's my understanding that the State Dept is going back and forth on whether or not it should have a full consulate presence in Kirkuk or maintain a less formal 'diplomatic post'. If there's no US military presence to act as a buffer between the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi security forces, are you worried that this region of Iraq will become a destabalizing flashpoint?
General Martin Dempsy: I-I worry about a lot of things, Senator. And I will include this among the list of things I worry about. As you know, we put in place, several years ago, joint-check points where there was a member of the Kurdish peshmerga, there was a member of the Iraqi security forces and a US service man or woman and a coordinating center. And part of our Office of Security Cooperation footprint will include our participation in the coordination center. We won't be on the check points anymore -- that's true. And so we will have to rely upon the continuing negotiations between the Kurdish political leaders and their Iraqi -- the government of Iraq. But this is not, again, a place where we are completely removing ourselves. But your point is accurate. We won't be on the check points. We have been there as a buffer. The risk goes up. But our presence in the coordination center provides a stabilizing influence to get them to find negotiated answers, not violent answers.
I'm sorry, where in there is the State Dept? It's not there. Collins and Dempsey are speaking of US military personnel that will be stationed in Kirkuk in a coordinating center. And possibly Keyes was snoring when Collins explained she was referring to "a small DoD contingent"?
Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- and we'll note some of his remarks tomorrow -- and John McCain is the Ranking Member. We're focused on the first panel of the hearing, when General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified.
We noted another exchange in yesterday's snapshot -- one which refuted the lie that "all" are leaving or that negotiations are "over." I noted this was one of several exchanges in the hearing on this topic -- maybe Keyes required multiple naps? -- and wrongly thought we didn't need to do flash cards.
Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq.
General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about.
Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together?

Senator Joe Lieberman: Right.
Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq.
Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct?
Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct.
Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis?
Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street.
So, flash cards.
There's that "Office of Security Cooperation" again. And, no, that's not State Dept, that's DoD. And in that OSC, according to General Martin Dempsey, "we will be embedded with them as trainers" -- get that?
Second card, Senator Joe Lieberman noted what he's hearing from Iraqis which appears to be that after January 1st there will be a deal made. That talk jibes with what I've shared here several times perviously, a friend at the State Dept swears that as soon as Nouri and Barack have both had their victory laps over 'withdrawal,' negotiations begin for more US troops in Iraq.
Third one, Panetta says that the US is currently in negotiations with Iraq ("with regards to the size of the security office that will be there"). Get it? Negotiations did not end.
Fourth card: Panetta notes that just for that security office -- DoD security office -- there should be "hundreds [of US troops] that will be present" -- that's what's currently being negotiated.
Fifth card: Panetta rejects the notion taht "zero [US] troops" will be in Iraq. Hint, to CNN, that's why you don't report or 'report' that "ALL" US troops are leaving.
Sixth card: Panetta believes negotiations will continue and that Iraq will make requests for additional troops.
Is Panetta right? CNN can't tell you that. They're not psychics. They can report what was said and they can fact check. If they want to. And clearly reporting on the hearing wasn't a concern for CNN.
The hearing was yesterday morning. At Trina's site last night, Ava covered an exchange with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally covered economic concers expressed over the use of contractors "The costs (Wally)" and Kat offered a look at various claims about the administration's negotiating goals and what Iraqi leaders supposedly sought with "Who wanted what?"
But Keyes isn't the only bad reporter. Look at Rachel Martin. And unlike Keyes, Martin's not paid by a corporation and advertising. Martin's salary is paid for by tax payers and donors to NPR. 'Reporting' like this should get you fired, "But come December 31st, the remaining 24,000 US troops now in Iraq will be out." No, they won't. As she got to the end of her report, like Keyes, she suddenly noted a few American troops would remain in Iraq. What about those bases, by the way?
Those US bases in Iraq. What about them?
Strange Keyes and Martin didn't report on that. What were they called? Oh, yeah. "Enduring." And that was in yesterday's hearing. By the US general. Let's go to that section.
Senator Kay Hagan: But I wanted to talk about our Special Operations Forces. And, as you know, our Special Operations Forces have engaged with their Iraqi counter-parts in counter-terrorism and in training and advising activities. And what will things look like in Iraq from a Special Operations Forces stand point going forward. And what type of engagement would our Special Operation Forces have in Iraq?
General Martin Dempsy: Yes, senator the size of the Iraqi operating Special Forces is about 4,500. They're organized into a counter-terrorism section commanded by an Iraqi general by the name of Kanani. We partnered with him at the head quarters level and will remain so. We're in discussions with Iarq about training -- trainers -- that would stay inside the wire of their places where this counter-terrorism force is located, not go with them on missions but rather train them to continue to go on missions. And-and as I mentioned earlier, the gap is actually in their ability to kind of identify the network and target it. We call it the find-fix-finish-asses-and-exploit cycle. They're very capable of fixing and finishing, not so capable as yet in finding, assessing and exploiting so that you continue to keep pressure on a network. But I will tell you, they are extraordinaryly competent individual soldiers. What we've got to do is keep raising the bar with them on their ability to do things at eschelons above tactics.
Senator Kay Hagan: Well with the drawdown taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue this training process to enable them to continue to do this on their own?
General Martin Dempsey: Well they will be limited. They don't have the airlift to deliver them to the target that we might have been able to provide. They don't have the ISR target to keep persistant surveillance over the top of the target. So they'll be limited to ground movement and they'll be limited to human intelligence and we'll keep -- But part of the Office of Security Cooperation provides the trainers to keep the training to develop those other areas, but we're some time off in reaching that point.
Senator Kay Hagan: We'll, as we continue this drawdown of our military personnel from Iraq, I really remain concerned about their force protection -- the individuals that will be remaining in Iraq. So what are the remaining challenges for our military personnel in Iraq in terms of managing their vulnerabilities, managing their exposures during the drawdown?
General Martin Dempsey: Senator, are you talking about getting from 24,000, the existing force now and having it retrograde through Kuwait?
Senator Kay Hagan: The ones that will remain over there.
General Martin Dempsey: The ones that will remain --
Senator Kay Hagan: Their protection.
General Martin Dempsey: Yes, Senator. Well, they will have -- First and foremost, we've got ten Offices of Security Cooperation in Iraq bases. And their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on delivering the foreign military sales. So F-16s get delivered, there's a team there to help new equipment training and-and helping Iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty. Or there's a 141 M1 Tanks right now, generally located at a tank gunnery range in Besmaya, east of Baghdad and the team supporting that training stays on Besmaya so this isn't about us moving around the country very much at all. This is about our exposure being limited to 10 enduring, if you will, Offices of Security Cooperation base camps. And doing the job of educating and training and equipping on those ten bases. Host nation is always responsible for the outer parameter. We'll have contracted security on the inner parameter. And these young men and women will always have responsibility for their own self-defense.
Senator Kay Hagan: So we'll have contracted security on the inner-paramenter?
General Martin Dempsey: That's right.
"The ones that will remain over there." Again, "all" aren't leaving. And "the ones that remain over there" will be on the "enduring" (Dempsey's term) bases -- those Offices of Special Coordination bases. Breaking with the pack to do actual reporting is Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reports, "Some United States forces will remain as military trainers on 10 bases in Iraq even after an end-of-year deadline for all American troops to be out of the country, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee on Tuesday." She's reporting on the exchange above. She speaks with an unnamed "military official" who, frankly, lies to her. That's fine, she doesn't present the claim as truth, merely as a claim. "No more than 200" -- on ten bases? That is what the general testified to. And it's previously been reported that the number of these 'trainers' would be over half the amount the official insists off the record. And General Dempsey testified that they were in ongoing negotiations to increase the number already agreed to.




Posted by at

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

THIS JUST IN! LIKE A KEN DOLL!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS MORE AND MORE BECOMING KNOWN AS THE BALL-LESS BARRY.

AMERICA'S PRINCESS IS SMOOTH AS A KEN DOLL DOWN THERE BUT HE PROTRUDES EVERYWHERE ELSE. LIKE WHEN HE WANTS TO STICK HIS BIG NOSE INTO LOOKING AT AMERICANS AND THEN CALL THEM "SOFT AND LAZY."

BALL-LESS BARRY IS THE SOFT ONE AND, AS FOR LAZY, WHO'S DONE LESS WORK IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS THAN OUR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Here's what the news media isn't telling you because apparently they'd rather be a bunch of guttersnipe gossips.
Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq.
General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about.
Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together?

Senator Joe Lieberman: Right.
Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq.
Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct?
Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct.
Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis?
Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street.
That's from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Can everyone follow that or do we need to prepare flash cards?
I grasp that the cess pool of today's 'reporters' -- 'artistes' -- can't tell you the truth. They can't do it because the press is lazy and when they all agree to a narrative, it is hell to get them to ever change it. A bunch of lazy asses and dumb asses in the Mainstream Media decided Barack was withdrawing all US troops from Iraq and bringing them home. Based on?
Their own reporting? Hell no. Lazy bastards take stenography, they don't report. Since before that speech, we were explaining there were many options to continuing the war. Since that speech, we've repeatedly explained that negotations did not end, that they were ongoing. But day after day, your MSM wants to tell you that it's over and that blah, blah, blah and 3 out of 4 approve of Barack's plan. What the hell is Barack's plan? It's what he told Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny he planned to do with Iraq -- what he told them in 2008. And back then, we were the only ones to catch it because idiots like Tom Hayden went by the report Gordo and Jeffy did as opposed to the partial transcript that the Times published online.
Martha and Shirley tell me that a record number of e-mails came into the public account today from visitors full of apologies for all the nasty things they said about me being a liar and who knows what else. Let me be clear, not only do I not read the bulk of the e-mails to the public account (I try to read as many e-mails as I can from community members to the two private e-mail accounts), it doesn't matter if I do. An insult from a stranger? I don't really care. I'm not that touchy. It's not necessary to me -- and never has been -- to be universally loved. I can actually operate more effectively when I'm up against the opposite emotional spectrum. Nasty e-mails calling me a liar and worse to the public account didn't force me to write, "Negotiations aren't going on! I was wrong! Forgive me! It really is all over!" I could care less. And I've always been aware that when you're dealing with big topics, reactions really aren't about you. So I don't know why visitors are writing the public e-mail account now to apologize.
Presumably, you share my outrage over the inability of our press -- we're dealing with Big Media right now -- to tell the damn truth. If indeed that is the case, you need to use that time e-mailing the David S. Clouds (whom Martha and Shirley say you're praising for his report -- read it again and ask yourself why you're praising him for his single-sentence sixth paragraph when that should have been his lede), e-mailing CBS News about their dumb ass survey, etc. You need to be e-mailing and ask them why they are deliberately -- DELIBERATELY -- skewing reality and refusing to inform the American people of what is taking place. I know what's taking place because I have friends in the Congress and friends in the administration and what the MSM press keeps 'reporting' is not what is taking place. If you need forgiveness from me, "I forgive you." Blanket forgiveness, let's move on. Now stop writing the public account to apologize and use that time instead to demand that Big Media tell the damn truth.
Look at the SOFA. In today's hearing, over and over, you heard how this official and that official and this and that senator expected -- this is back in 2008 -- that in 2011 it would be extended or replaced. We have that in our archives. The day the White House published the SOFA -- despite it being Thanksgiving -- I went through every bit of it and we shared an analysis here that stands up to this day. The inability of the MSM to get that story right should have led to a huge outcry. But from whom?
Panhandle Media? When's the last time Left Media did a damn thing besides beg you for money? And did you not hear that garbage on Antiwar Radio this week with the guy The Nation pays? Or how about the garbage before that with Gareth and Scott? And Scott Horton is right-wing media. If Antiwar Radio won't bother with the truth why the hell would we expect The Progressive, The Nation and the other get-out-the-vote for Barack Obama organs to tell the truth?
We live in a sick and disgusting time when it comes to media. Across the board, they have failed us. They have done so repeatedly.
Today, when the MSM -- Big Media -- could be correcting the false narrative they broadcast to the American people, they instead focus on the trivia. The news from the hearing is that negotiations go on -- and it's not just that exchange quoted at the top. We can cite other exchanges in the hearing as well.
But instead of focusing on that actual news, instead of delivering reality to Americans -- who, point of fact, need to be informed if we're going to have a functioning democracy -- the 'artiste' David S. Clouds want you to know John McCain got testy today.
News -- that which is new, novel or effects lives.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how John McCain being testy in a committee hearing meets the definition of news. It really doesn't effect our lives. And it's not new or novel to anyone who's attended a hearing he's been present for in the last years. He didn't even have the best moment in what I guess the 'reporters' are calling "Testy Theater." The best moment came when Leon whined -- the most nasally whine, as if he were channeling Jerry Lewis -- and was stopped by a senator. Ava will cover that at Trina's tonight because she covers that senator (and, no, it's not John McCain).
The big news was that negotiations continue and will continue. That is big news because it effects lives. It is big news because it is both "new" and "novel" as a result of the press failure to report that this was taking place.
But you won't get that. You won't be informed of that. Not as long as you continue to accept this garbage from All Things Media Big and Small.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at

Monday, November 14, 2011

THIS JUST IN! SMACK TALKER!

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

LIKE A LITTLE BITCH, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GOT CAUGHT TALKING SMACK ABOUT ANOTHER WORLD LEADER.

BEING A LITTLE BITCH, HE DIDN'T HAVE THE BALLS TO OWN UP TO IT.

THE BALL-LESS BITCH. OH, WELL, HE'LL ALWAYS BE AMERICA'S PRINCESS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Is this the moment America begins to start tracking the death of US contractors in Iraq? Lewis Griswold (Fresno Bee) reports, "Sean Ferguson of Visalia, who earned two Purple Hearts for his military service in Iraq, died there Saturday of natural causes, a friend of his family said today. Ferguson, 29, is the son of Tulare County Superior Court Judge Darryl Ferguson." KMPH notes, "He joined the U.S. Army in August 2001 and retired eight years later as a Staff Sergeant after he was hurt in combat. He returned to Baghdad to work for Triple Canopy, a private contractor that provides security and mission support services to government agencies and other organizations. [. . .] A memorial service will be held at the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints chapel located at the corner of Caldwell Ave. and Chinowth St. in Visalia on Saturday, November 19, at 10 a.m." Lemor Abrams (KMPH) offers a video report here.
1st Lt Dustin Vincent was the most recent US military fatality in the Iraq War. Amber Fischer (The 33 News, CW33) reported Saturday evening that the 25-year-old had been laid to rest earlier that day at Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery and she quoted his friend Jared Griggs stating, "He and I talked a lot. He's part of the reason I joined the army myself. You couldn't be mad, you couldn't be sad around Dustin. You couldn't even really be serious around Dustin. There was only two things that he was really serious about, and that was the Lord and serving his country." Vallari Gupte (University of Texas at Arlington's Shorthorn) noted:

Vincent, who graduated from UTA in 2009, was from Mesquite. Vincent, a 1st Lieutenant, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery of the 1st Infantry Division in Fort Riley, Kan. Vincent leaves behind a wife and daughter.
Kinesiology senior Christopher Harris was a freshman when he met Vincent in UTA's ROTC program. Harris was a cadet and Vincent was an officer of that year's battalion.
"He was my leader," Harris said. "He would teach me some stuff and I would learn."
When Harris learned about Vincent's death, he grieved.
"It is hard to feel anything else right now. Just grief," he said.


Cynthia Vega and Steve Stoler (WFAA -- link has text and video) report that Dustin Vincent was on his first deployment to Iraq and "just six months into his deployment when the enemy threw a deadly grenade at his convoy." Yesterday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) reported that 3 soldiers serving with Dustin Vincent testified in an Iraqi court Sunday:

The November 3 shooting of 1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent -- one of the last U.S. casualties in the more-than-eight-year Iraq war -- was chronicled by insurgents who captured the sniper shooting on video and posted it online.

Inside a crowded courthouse, one of the soldiers who were with the 25-year-old Vincent the day he was killed told the investigative judge that a "few days later a video was posted that claimed the killing of the 1st lieutenant, and it shows the same location we were that day."

In other news, Al Mada reports that US President Barack Obama is saying the Iraq War is "about over" and that the US government is down playing the concerns of the Sadr bloc over the decision to use Kuwait as a staging platform for US forces. This will be in addition to the forces under the US State Dept's control. Spencer Ackerman (Wired) reports:

The State Department has already requisitioned an army, part of the roughly 5,000 private security contractors State is hiring to protect diplomats stationed in Iraq. Now, State is hiring someone to provide a little help from the air: an "Aviation Advisor" responsible for "Search and Rescue (SAR), medical evacuations (ME), transporting Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) to respond to incidents, and provid[ing] air transportation for Chief of Mission personnel." It's not a familiar job for the diplomatic corps, which is why State is seeking to bring in someone from the outside.

The State Department put out this notice on Nov. 4. That's 58 days before the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Fifty-eight days before State has the skies over Iraq to itself.

In related news, Dylan Welch (Sydney Morning Herald) reports the Australian government is surprised that security costs for their embassies and staff in Iraq and Afghanistan "has quadrupled in less than 12 months to almost $40 million a year" and they are now "paying two private security companies a total of $82 million for the two years to 2012." How is it related? Cost overruns happen very frequently. Presumably the Australian government properly budgeted for their mission and unexpected details led to such a huge increase. In the US, please remember, that the State Dept refuses to share concrete information with the Congress or with the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction or with the Government Accountability Office. In fact, the GAO's last report on the State Dept's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan was entitled what? [PDF format warning] "Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot Fully Account for Contracts, Assistance, Instruments, and Associated Personnel." So if the US cost overruns mirror those of Australia, who's going to be held responsible?
The White House? Don't make me laugh. And their fall guy will be gone because Hillary Clinton has stated she is a one-term Secretary of State. So the US tax payers will be screwed and who's going to be held accountable?
And it's time to get very real about something. The Senator Al Frankens with their "thank you for your service"? It's past time they greeted every tax payer with, "Thank you for your dollars." This country has gone into debt for an illegal war and not only do we see the debt today but future generations will as well. And clearly Congress doesn't give a damn since they refuse to scream bloody murder over the State Dept requesting money for Iraq (and Afghanistan) and being unable and unwilling to provide an accounting of how that money will be spent. Last June, Peter Van Buren wrote a piece for Le Monde in which he noted:
In its post-"withdrawal" plans, the State Department expects to have 17,000 personnel in Iraq at some 15 sites. If those plans go as expected, 5,500 of them will be mercenaries, hired to shoot-to-kill Iraqis as needed, to maintain security. Of the remaining 11,500, most will be in support roles of one sort or another, with only a couple of hundred in traditional diplomatic jobs. This is not unusual in wartime situations. The military, for example, typically fields about seen support soldiers for every "shooter." In other words, the occupation run by a heavily militarized State Department will simply continue in a new, truncated form -- unless Congress refuses to pay for it.
Unless Congress refuses to pay for it? At present, that seems highly unlikely. PeterR.S. Kalha explores the realities of the relationship between the governments of Iraq and the US in "Is America Finally Withdrawing From Iraq? -- Analysis" (Eurasia Review):

Having spent at least about US$ 3 trillion, taken thousands as casualties both dead and wounded, the Americans are not going to give up that easily. The Shiite Iraqi PM Nourie al-Maliki is slated to visit the White House on December 12, 2011, just a few days before the deadline runs out. If he changes his mind and signs the status of forces agreement with the US, it will certainly not be out of character and in tune with the Iraqi political temperament. Nevertheless, the Americans are not taking any chances and have already made alternative plans.
The US Embassy in Baghdad is going to be strengthened and will have about 17,000 personnel on its rolls. Situated in the 'Green Zone' on a 104 acre plot with its own electricity, water and sewage, it is one of the most expensive and largest US Embassies in the world and its entire requirements are supplied from Kuwait under armed guard. US Consulates exist in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each about 1,000 strong with its own security personnel. The US Embassy also has an 'Office for Security Co-operation' under which will come all US army trainers, private contractors and assorted military personnel -- all under the cover of diplomatic immunity. Presently about $ 10 billion worth of arms deals are under negotiations. Once the negotiations are completed, additional US military personnel will arrive to train and 'co-ordinate' with their Iraqi counterparts. These large numbers of 'trainers' will also be under US Embassy cover.
Presently the Iraqi air force is non-existent. This means that the air space over Iraq will be controlled by the US for the foreseeable future. The US will continue to fly drones over Iraq targeting any potential enemy. It also means that the US can reinforce its residual troops under the 'cover' of the US Embassy as and when it is required without any serious hindrance. It also means that the Shiite-led Iraqi government cannot move its troops without US concurrence since they would have no air cover. And to make it absolutely certain that matters do not go out of hand, the present day Iraqi forces are commanded by a Kurdish officer General Zebari. The Americans have made an assessment and quite rightly so that of the three communities in Iraq, the Kurds will remain the most loyal. In any case the Kurdish dominated areas of Iraq are outside the political control of the Iraqi government and even the Kirkuk question remains unresolved.
Thus President Obama has very skilfully reaped the political benefits of ordering a 'technical' withdrawal and ending the US mission there, whilst not only retaining the substance of the US posture and presence but immeasurably strengthening it.

Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq notes, "The Legislature of the so-called White al-Iraqiya Bloc in the Iraqi Parliament, Aliya Nuseif, has demanded the Iraqi government to carry out a complete account for security contractors, in charge of protecting the American Embassy in Baghdad." And we're back to Peter Van Buren who, at his blog, notes the move and asks, his voice dripping with sarcasm, "So really, what are 16,000 people going to do everyday in Iraq on behalf of the US government?" Peter Van Buren is the author of the new book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project). Bob Kustra (Idaho Statesman) reviews the book and notes, "Van Buren has served with the Foreign Service for more than 23 years. Before arriving in Baghdad, his response was not new to him, but war was. [. . .] There are few bright spots in this painful and gripping story of mismanagement. The first account of our blunders from a State Department inisder, 'We Meant Well' is thought-provoking and hard to put down." Also reviewing the book is Dan Simpson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) who concludes, "The book is short, very readable and has humor as well as profound points in it."


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Mercenaries for the skies of Iraq"
"Nouri tries to end standoff with 'You go first'"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Occupy""
"And the war drags on . . "
"The continuing war (and the continued war over oil..."
"Dustin Vincent laid to rest"


"Is he searching for jobs overseas?"
"THIS JUST IN! JOBS? WHAT STINKING JOBS?"
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)