The Daily Jot: 2012-11-11

Saturday, November 17, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE BAD NEWS? HE REMEMBERS!

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

THIS WEEK WAS THE DAY THAT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SUDDENLY REMEMBERED THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE SANDY. HE WENT ON TO VOW THAT HE WOULD NOT FORGET THEM -- THE "AGAIN" APPARENTLY IMPLIED.

CONSIDERING THAT HE SPENT FOUR YEARS REPEATEDLY VOWING NOT HE WOULD NEXT ADDRESS THE BAD ECONOMY AND NEVER DID, WE CAN ALL FIGURE OUT THE FATE OF THE VICTIMS.

THE PRAYERS OF A NATION ARE WITH YOU, VICTIMS OF HURRICANE SANDY, EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTRY IS NOT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

If you believe in prayer, pray for Iraqis. They now really need all the prayers they can get. Why? This is the week that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman decided he was interested in Iraq again. Friedman's 'interest' in the Middle East is a bit like Nicholas Kristof's concern in so-called "developing countries" like Cambodia -- you know there's going to be a lot of bloviatin, women are sure to suffer and the New York Times columnists will make it all about themselves. Here's War Hawk Friedman chewing the fat on the back of his ass:

For better and for worse, the United States in Iraq performed the geopolitical equivalent of falling on a grenade -- that we triggered ourselves. That is, we pulled the pin; we pulled out Saddam, and we set off a huge explosion in the form of a Shiite-Sunni contest for power.
Thousands of Iraqis were killed along with more than 4,700 American troops, but the presence of those U.S. troops in and along Iraq's borders prevented the violence from spreading.

The lunatic really believes what he writes. After all the harm he's caused Iraq, grasp that the gas bag won't take the blame for what he did. So he wants to rewrite it. 'Yeah, things are rough but thank goodness the US landed on that grenade.'

Except, of course, that didn't happen. The US military is largely (though not completely) out of Iraq and the war continues. The killing continues, the dying continues. That's not a single explosion or "a grenade," idiot. No, that's a US-created mine field. Which the US military was largely pulled off of but ut of but which Iraqis have to try to live in. Tip-toeing across a mine field daily. John Catalinotto (Workers World) notes, "Cholera, a gastrointestinal disease, and typhoid, which had been virtually eradicated in Iraq by 1989, made a comeback under Western imperalist occupation. Today, the electricity and water supply systems in Baghdad are in even worse conditions than in 2008." Maybe what landed on a grenade was Thomas Friedman's brain?

If Thomas Friedman had any ethics, he'd be on his knees in public begging forgiveness from the entire world and especially from the Iraqi people for his role in beating the War Drums and cheerleading it and lying and being completely wrong over and over.

Yes, we are all wrong some of the time. And I may be wrong more often than anyone. However, it's a different level of wrong when your mistakes impact whether someone lives or dies.

For Thomas Friedman, it's all a glib view from overhead with a few tired, worn out phrases casually tossed over the shoulder in passing. It's not life and death. Clearly, from his writing, it's not life and death. But thing is, the Iraqi people don't have the luxury of turning everything into a glib World-Is-Flat cocktail chatter moment the way Thomas Friedman does. Let us all learn to fear a New York Times columnist with an unshakable belief in himself and a desire to "help" as he understands the word. There may truly be nothing more life endangering that such a columnist, than such a beast. ("Himself," "he" and "beast" are intentional word choices on my part.)

Today, an Iraqi official made clear that Iraq had less than sunny thoughts about the United States. Expressing displeasure over the intensified conflict in Gaza (Palestinians and Israelies), the official explained that oil could be used as coercion. Reuters reported this morning, "Iraq's representative to the Arab League [Qais al-Azzawy] said on Friday that Arab states should use oil as a weapon to put pressure on the United States and Israel over the attacks on Gaza." AFP notes that al-Azzawy likened it to a move during the October Yom Kippur war, "What happened in 1973, when the Arabs stopped oil exports to Western states, is proof that this weapon can succeed in the battle between the Arabs and Israel." Later in the morning, Shaimaa Fayed (Reuters) reported that al-Azzawy "later appeared to withdraw the remark, saying Baghdad would make no particular proposal to a League meeting." Devon Shire (Seeking Alpha) explores the International Energy Agency's recent report offering projections on oil prices and Shire is less alarmed by the price ($215 per barrell) IEA is predicting but how they get to such a low number:

The IEA in assuming that oil prices are $215 per barrel in 2035 is assuming that oil production in Iraq will double by 2020 and then increase another 2 million barrels per day by 2035.

Did I miss a memo? Is Iraq fixed?

Call me a pessimist, but I think there might be a real chance that Iraq can't deliver this kind of production growth.

Exxon Mobil (XOM) is currently in the process of pulling out of Iraq if it can get a decent price for its interest in the West Quarna project, which is a pretty telling commentary on the difficulty of doing business in Iraq. Exxon is not a company to run away from a challenge.

If Iraq is the central source of future production growth needed to meet future demand, then I think I'm still firmly in the bullish camp when it comes to the price of oil.

Iraq may very well double output by 2020. BUt that's 8 years away and, currently, there's no reason to make such a prediction. Maybe there's hope that a new prime minister (in 2014?) will be able to get things going? Nouri al-Maliki is in his sixth year as prime minister and still can't pass the 2007 White House benchmarks.

The big violence in Iraq today? Alsumaria reports violence resulting from Nouri's Operation Command Tigris. Alsumaria reports a clash between the Tigris forces and members of a Kurdish official's protection detail left many injured (over ten and possibly one dead). All Iraq News reports 1 person is dead -- a civilian and the outlet says all the injured were Tigris forces. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports that 1 Iraqi soldier also died and states that clash took place in Khurmato "when Iraqi soldiers attempted to search a house belonging to Goran Najam, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, officials said. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is the current leader of the PUK." Sinan Salaheddin (AP) offers, "The clash occurred as police commandos were attempting to arrest a Kurdish smuggler in the city of Tuz Khormato, said Lt. Gen. Abdul-Amir al-Zaidi, of the newly formed Dijla Joint Military Command. When the smuggler took shelter in the offices of a Kurdish political party, police tried to break into the building, but gunmen guarding the office opened fire, he added." Peshmerga spokesperson Jabbar Yawar tells Alsumaria that this was a personal problem between the two and is now contained.

Differeing details depending on the outlet, obviously. But what's going on? What's at stake? Kirkuk is disputed territory. It's also oil-rich. Iraq's Constitution, passed in 2005, explains how to resolve the issue, Article 140 calls for a census and referendum. By the end of 2007. Nouri continues to refuse to implement Article 140. In October of 2008, Corey Flintoff (NPR's All Things Considered -- link is text and audio) explained, "The potential wealth has made Kirkuk a tormented city ever since oil was discovered in 1927. Today the city's three main ethnic groups, Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens, are vying for demographic and political control."

While refusing to implement Article 140, Nouri's Operation Command Tigris is seen as a way for Baghdad to take control of Kirkuk. Jasim Alsabawi (Rudaw) observes, "The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) considers that formation of the DOC as a provocative move aimed at undermining the sovereignty of the Kurdistan Region, and reactions have heightened the tensions between Erbil and Baghdad." Alsabawi reports:

[. . .] Imran Samad, a resident of Kirkuk, believes political goals, not terrorist threats, are behind the formation of the DOC. "We strongly condemn the formation of DOC," he says.

Samad adds that the government not only refuses to implement Article 140, but is violating the constitution and imposing its will with force.

"We fought against former dictatorships and gave the finest sons of the Kurdish people in order to gain freedom and independence, and the Shia were supporters of the Kurdish people through previous periods. But now that they have power, they have forgotten all that and want to govern Iraq as Saddam did," said Samad.

Al Mada noted earlier this week that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani has been attempting to work out a unified opposition position with Jalal on this issue. Barzani issued a statement declaring that public opinion is against it and that they have waited for Talabani to solve the issue but no solution has come forward and what is taking place is unconstitutional. The statement is posted on the Kurdistan Regional Government's website. In the statement, Barzani notes that there were concerns and fears about the formation of the so-called Operation Command Tigris and it does nothing to help with the application of Article 140. Instead, Operation Command Tigris was formed with intentions and goals that go against the hopes of the Kurds, against the democratic process and does nothing to help the Baghdad-government and KRG get along. Barzani notes that he waited so that Talabani would have an opportunity to put into play promises he had made about stopping the situation; however, that has not come to be. All Iraq News pointed out that State of Law MP Jawad Albzona immediately declared Barzani's statement to be wrong and inaccurate. Not in the statement but also pertinent, Nouri's refused to fund the peshmerga in the latest federal budget which has caused additional problems.

Friday, November 16, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE SAD BONO!

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

TAX EVADER BONO COULDN'T STOP PRAISING CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THIS WEEK, THE SAME WAY HE USED TO LAVISH PRAISE ON BULLY BOY BUSH.

BONO TRULY IS PART OF "THE ASS LICKING, DYING REGIME." AND WILL BE AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES OR TAKE A BATH.

GO HOME, BONO, TRULY GO HOME.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Let's start with Benghazi because, like Elaine, I'm getting real damn tired of Our Liar Of The Left. Today OLOFL calls out CNN's Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett, ABC's Jake Tapper, PBS' Kwame Holman and others. Could they all be wrong?

Certainly. Anyone can be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. That's part of life.

I'm also not concerned with 'tone' -- with one exception -- because you should call people out in your own voice and not someone elses, we need more voices hitting more notes not a choir of tenors all hitting the same damn note. My exception? OLOFL's sexism is well known and I did notice that Erin Burnett gets a special kind of attack different from the men.

Today OLOTL accuses the journalists of many things including "cherry picking." He's the one who's cherry picking. Susan Rice went on television six days after the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. She went on multiple programs. Journalists have to condense. That is not the same thing as "cherry picking." They're dealing with the totality of Susan Rice's presentation.

Some try to argue she's the messenger. Yes, I believe she was confirmed to be that. I believe that's what an ambassador does. But the American people don't give a damn if she was just the messenger or not. She went on television and spoke about Benghazi. She was flat out wrong. Now if anyone wants to argue that Susan Rice is incompetent, he might get some takers. But to argue that she couldn't help it and blah blah blah? No. That ship sailed a long time ago. She was going on every network Sunday morning.

CBS' Face The Nation, NBC's Meet The Press, ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union, Fox News Sunday -- am I missing one? All links go to transcripts -- Fox News was smart enough to put their video and transcript together. She presented the same bad talking points over and over. Five live interviews that morning? She should have known her facts before she gave the first one, she should have known her facts and been up to date before the first interview (which dismisses the claim that Saturday evening a new view emerged and poor Susan Rice woke up Sunday morning, took out her curlers and stepped in front of the camera). She used "spontaneous" in every interview (Somerby attacks Anderson for noting "spontaneous"). Susan Rice was the messenger because the State Dept wasn't going to lie. Susan Rice shouldn't have been on TV. It should have been Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or someone else at the State Dept, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, etc. Susan Rice? Please. The US Ambassador to the United Nations?

That was above her head. If she's stupid enough to think she can ace it, then she's stupid enough to earn the blame for her idiotic statements which -- even in the official White House timeline -- are now out of date and wrong.

I've done press junkets. As I go from interview to interview, I have someone telling me if any information has changed and I'm revising my remarks to include that -- and that's the entertainment industry. Susan Rice should have known the information that came in on Saturday before she spoke on Sunday. If no one bothered to inform her, that's also on her because she should have demanded it when she agreed to do the programs, "I need to know every update that comes in between now and when I step on camera."

Is that hard? Well so is life. And if you're going to go on TV to speak about an attack that claimed the lives of 4 Americans (Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens) and speak on behalf of the US government, your job is to be prepared.

She wasn't or she lied. She was incompetent or she lied.

Actually, she may have been incompetent and a liar.

I see this as a lie, ". . . what we understand to be the assessment at present" (Face The Nation, similar words used on other programs). That's a lie. That's, according to the White House, the assessment early Saturday afternoon as she got a briefing. It wasn't Saturday evening's assessment. It certainly wasn't Sunday morning's assessment.

Again, if you're going on TV to do live interviews and you are representing the US government, you need the most current information. She didn't do the work required. Maybe she wasn't smart enough to know what work was required? Maybe her personal time Saturday and Sunday was more important to her? I have no idea. But she went on TV Sunday morning and gave out-of-date information according to the White House's version of events.

She should have cared a little less about protecting the White House and a little more about serving the American people. Barack Obama is not paying her, the American people are. She works for the American people and she takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a office, not to a person.

She wants to be Secretary of State and Barack wants her to as well. If nominated, she'll be jumping over Senator John Kerry which should raise eyebrows considering her awful record in the last four years in terms of public diplomacy. And that's the only record she has. Yet she's going to be put in charge of the US State Dept which is in charge of Iraq? This liar or incompetent or both is going to be put over the billions of dollars the US is still pouring into Iraq? America needs someone trustworthy in that position. Susan Rice is a joke to many American people. She's not up to the job and she comes in as a joke. This is how Barack Obama wants to waste his time post-election?

I thought the second term was going to be about getting things done. I thought this was the term Barack was going to get to work. So choosing between a qualified nominee (John Kerry) who is an automatic approved by the Senate nominee and between the unqualified Susan Rice who already has senators opposed to her, Barack's going to waste America's time with Susan Rice? (Because he's a senator, John Kerry's an automatic confirmation. That's how it goes historically. The Senate rushes to confirm its current and former colleagues.) So America's going to have to suffer through weeks of drama because Barack can't stop fixating on Susan Rice? And let's be clear that, if Rice had any integrity, she'd look at the situation herself, realize what a liability she is and announce she was not interested in the post.

The phrase the White House and its employees need to learn is "for the good of the country."

Thursday, November 15, 2012

THIS JUST IN! 'LOOK AT ME!' HE SCREAMS!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE YESTERDAY TO ANNOUNCE THAT HE WASN'T GETTING ENOUGH ATTENTION AND THAT HE WANTED TO CONTINUE "BITCHY WARS" AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS.

BUT MAINLY BECAUSE HE WASN'T GETTING ENOUGH ATTENTION.

BARRY O TOLD THE PRESS THAT THE G.O.P. NEEDED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT SUSAN RICE. "THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME!" WHINED BARRY O.

MAINLY BECAUSE HE WASN'T GETTING ENOUGH ATTENTION.

IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT HIM.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Iraq was yet again slammed with bombings. In a month of violence that had already seen 80 die so far through yesterday (Iraq Body Count's count), bombs left many dead and injured. It didn't look like it was going to be that kind of day to the security forces and Nouri's government. Early this morning in Baghdad, Alsumaria was trumpeting the fact that 3 members of al Qaeda in Iraq had surrendered outside of Ramadi. How quickly it all changed.

Wang Yuanyuan (Xinhua) offers, "The deadliest attack occurred in the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, when four car bombs killed a total of nine people and wounded some 32 others, a provincial police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." Al Rafidayn also calls that the deadliest attack of the day. When the press is ranking the day's attacks, you know it's a day of deadly violence and Deutsche Welle adds, "The violence comes a day before Muharram, the Islamic new year."

Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "In Kirkuk, a city disputed between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, there were at least three car bombs: one against the offices of a major Kurdish party, one targeted a Turkmen party office, and another that hit a major road. That was in addition to car bombs in the city of Hilla, a Shia town. And one here in Baghdad that targted an army general [General Qassim Nouri -- Prensa Latina reports that the general's bodyguard was killed in the bombing]. All in all, these seem to be the major targets that have been frequent targets of violence: security forces, Shia and, increasingly, political parties in Kirkuk." All Iraq News says 9 people were killed and thirty-eight were injured. Shukriyah Rauf tells AFP, "My child was killed! His friends were killed! There is no security hear, our homes were destroyed!"

Alsumaria notes that an assassination attempt took place in Kirkuk with a bombing targeting the Governor of Diyala Omar Humairi as he was entering Kirkuk Province from the south. He was not harmed and security forces swarmed the area. On the Baghdad bombing, Alsumaria reports it was outside the Ishtar Sheraton Hotel in Firdos Square and, in addition to claiming 1 life, and left four other people injured (Mohammed Twafeeq reports on the hotel bombing for CNN), a bombing in Wasit Province, just north of Kut, near a restaurant claimed 3 lives and left fifteen injured. while a mortar attack near a Falluja gravel plant left three workers injured. BBC News offers a photo essay of the Kirkuk and Baghdad bombings here. AFP has a photo essay here. Yasir Ghazi and Christine Hauser (New York Times) have a good article on the day's violence.

On the Hilla bombing, Reuters quotes city official Hamza Kadhim stating, "A car bomb exploded near a secondary school for girls and a crowded poultry market, leaving four dead, including innocent students. It's a real vicious terrorist act." Press TV adds eleven female students were left injured in the attack. All Iraq News reports the bombing left over 12 dead and over sixty injured.

The US press largely ignored Mosul. All Iraq News, citing a security source, reports a Mosul bombing injured a military officer and this took place at the University of Mosul where, here's the disturbing part, security forces closed all doors to bar students and faculty from leaving a campus they thought under attack. All Iraq News updates the story to note the officer held the rank of Captain and was evacuated to the hospital before the security forces began closing the doors (and trapping students and faculty on a campus with bombs). In addition, two other bombs were found inside the university (they were disarmed), one at the entrance to the Faculty of Science office. All Iraq News notes that another Mosul bomb - a roadside one this time -- targeted a military patrol and left seven people (five were soldiers) injured -- this one the US press did cover.

And then they lost interest. Even though the violence continued. Alsumaria notes a Nineveh Province barber shop was attacked leaving 3 police officers dead and two civilians injured, an armed clash at a Nineveh Province checkpoint that left 1 police officer dead, and 1 person died and twelve were left injured via stoning at a residential project to the north of Najaf.

So much of the violence is not reported. For example, today Lauren Williams (Daily Star) reports a rape that took place last month which led to a father killing his 14-year-old son -- neither the rape nor the murder ("execution") of the 14-year-old garnered attention from the press in October:

When a young boy was raped by a member of rival tribe last month in the city of Ramadi, in Iraq's vast Sunni heartland of Anbar province, tribal authorities were called on to settle the situation.

Fourteen regional tribal sheikhs convened an emergency judicial session and delivered a swift, unanimous verdict.

The perpetrator was sentenced to immediate execution at the hands of his father, to avert any further retributive violence.

Amnesty International's UK office issued the following:

Amnesty International has condemned a wave of bomb attacks across Iraq that has reportedly killed at least 14 people on the eve of the Islamic New Year.

The deadliest attack took place in the northern city of Kirkuk, where, according to media reports, four bombs planted in parked cars went off simultaneously, killing at least nine people and wounding scores more.

Meanwhile in the mainly Shi'a southern city of Hilla, a car bomb reportedly exploded near a school and a crowded market, leaving at least four people dead, among them schoolchildren.

Explosions were also reported in the capital, Baghdad, and in the town of Balad Ruz, in the province of Diyala. The attacks appear to have targeted both Iraqi civilians and members of the security forces.

Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:

"Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified.

Such attacks show utter contempt for humanity and must be roundly condemned.

"We urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.

"Those suspected of being behind the attacks must be brought to justice in proceedings that meet international standards of fairness, and without the imposition of the death penalty."

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

THIS JUST IN! ARIANNA STOP OUTSOURCING!

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

CONSIDERING ALL THE MILLIONS ARIANNA HUFFINGTON RAKED IN FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS WHEN SHE SOLD HUFF AND PUFF TO A.O.L., YOU'D THINK SHE'D BE ABLE TO FINALLY PAY A DECENT WAGE.

APPARENTLY NOT. INSTEAD SHE OUTSOURCES THE WRITING OF 'POLITICAL PIECES' ABOUT U.S. POLITICS TO UNINFORMED OUTSIDERS.

CASE IN POINT, INDIA'S STEEDHAR PILLAI WHO WASTES PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH EXPLAINING HOW, HAVING WON LAST WEEK'S ELECTION, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O NEEDS TO RUN AGAIN IN 2016.

STEEDHAR PILLAI ACTUALLY SAYS BARRY O WILL REALIZE HE NEEDS TO RUN FOR A THIRD TERM.

SOMEONE TRANSLATE AND EXPLAIN THE 22ND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSITUTION TO STEEDHAR, SOMEBODY TELL PILLAI IT FORBIDS HIS BELOVED BARRY O FROM HAVING A THIRD TERM.

THEN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ARIANNA THAT AT LEAST CALL CENTERS THAT OUTSOURCE MAKE THE EMPLOYEES ANSWER WITH PHRASES LIKE, "HOWDY, THIS ROY DUANE, HOW MAY I HELP YOU?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Then-General David Petraeus became a high profile figure when he was the top US commander in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008. The press followed him around with their tongues hanging out. And not just the female reporters that he 'flirted' -- in fact he never 'flirted' Thomas E. Ricks though, clearly, few reporters have spent as many fevered nights, tossing on sweaty sheets moaning David's name. Sounding like the woman not asked to bed down, Ricks posts a clutch-the-pearls response at his Foreign Policy blog -- it's actually a clutch-the-pearls hide behind a clutch-the pearls response as he hides twice behind by posting a statement he made to Reuters. Clucking so loudly you picture him wearing one of Barbra Bush's ugly blue moo-moos, Ricks wants to wonder why sex can't be private?

It's not really about sex, it's about a CIA Director stepping down three days after a presidential election. Supposedly, a CIA Director stepping down to avoid being compromised on national security issues. It's about a CIA Director putting himself in the spotlight with actions that apparently threatened US security.

Was Petraeus a risk for blackmail? I think a strong case could be made for that and I didn't believe that until I read the report today by Sari Horwitz, Kimberly Kindy and Scott Wilson (Washington Post). According to the report, his "closest advisers" told the journalists that Petraeus had no plans to resign even after he admitted the affair to the FBI. What changed? When he found out that the affair was going public, he decided to resign. He wasn't bothered by it being known by the FBI or others in the government. But he didn't want it to go public. If the report is accurate, that would indicate that there was the potential for blackmail and that does make him a security risk.

There are other issues as well. It's about how the White House could not have known about the investigation or the impending resignation prior to the election. It's about how Petraeus is a potential security risk and the administration -- as far as we know currently -- had no idea that was the case. It's about what happened in Benghazi. Especially since the mistress is now all over YouTube in an October speech she gave where she asserts that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi September 11, 2012 -- the attack that killed Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens -- was a result of the CIA holding Libyan prisoners. Here's one example at YouTube.

Paula Broadwell: I don't know if a lot of you heard this but the CIA Annex had actually -- had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the Consulate was an effort to get these prisoners back.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted that aspect in a column last night:

And that could be the tip of the iceberg. If Broadwell's claims about the CIA holding detainees in Benghazi also turns out to be true, that whole separate scandal is potentially far bigger, as keeping that secret, along with the administration's already shaky history of truth-telling on Benghazi, could suggest there really was a cover-up in the wake of the attack on the consulate, that the Obama Administration lied about ending the use of CIA black sites, and got their own ambassador killed in doing so.
The possible fallout of all that, even coming after the presidential election, is virtually unfathomable, and as a part of the story continues to center on a sordid affair the real information about very really issues seems to be coming out as well.

In addition, Kevin Johnson, Jim Michaels and Carolyn Pesce (USA Today) reported this afternoon, "On Monday, FBI agents searched the Charlotte, N.C., home of Broadwell, who is also Petraeus' biographer. Broadwell had high security clearances as part of her former job as a reserve Army major in military intelligence. But those clearances are only in effect when a soldier is on active duty, which she was not at the time she researched the biography. FBI spokeswoman Shelley Lynch said agents arrived shortly before 9 p.m. at Broadwell's home. Lynch declined to elaborate on what prompted the search." And Andrew Tilghman (Navy Times) reports that General John Allen is now the focus of an investigation. The US Defense Dept issued the following statement from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta today:

On Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation referred to the Department of Defense a matter involving General John Allen, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

Today, I directed that the matter be referred to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for investigation, and it is now in the hands of the Inspector General. I have informed the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House Armed Services Committee has also been notified.

While the matter is under investigation and before the facts are determined, General Allen will remain Commander of ISAF. His leadership has been instrumental in achieving the significant progress that ISAF, working alongside our Afghan partners, has made in bringing greater security to the Afghan people and in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists. He is entitled to due process in this matter.

In the meantime, I have asked the President - and the President has agreed - to put his nomination on hold until the relevant facts are determined. I have asked both Senators Levin and McCain that the confirmation hearing on General Allen's pending nomination to be Commander of United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe be delayed.

The President has nominated General Joseph Dunford, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, to succeed General Allen at ISAF. I respectfully requested that the Senate act promptly on that nomination.

These are real issues and that's why it was the topic on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show today, Diane and her guests Mark Jacbosn (Truman National Security Project), Michael O'Hanlon (Brookings), Evan Perez (Wall St. Journal) and Rachel Smolkin (POLITICO) discussed the issues involved. With any story, someone will always go smutty (such as John R. Talbott at Huffington Post today). Equally true, there will always be shrieking harpies like Thomas E. Ricks who are more devoted to an individual (always a man, in Ricks' case) than they are to the truth so they will clutch-the-pearls and pretend that there's no story there and someone's being persecuted. Spare us all from the Drama Queens like Thomas E. Ricks.

US News & World Reports takes the issue to their Debate Club for three views. In a rare instance for the Debate Club, all are of the same mind (but for different reasons).

Yes — You can't both lead the CIA and recover from a public betrayal of your family

MIEKE EOYANG, Director of Third Way's National Security Program Comment (0 )

Yes — But Petraeus should still testify before Congress to quiet conspiracy theorists

ROBERT NOLAN, Editor at the Foreign Policy Association Comment (0 )

Yes — Petraeus understood his institutional leadership was compromised by his own actions

HEATHER HURLBURT, Executive Director of the National Security Network Comment (0 )

At the Los Angeles Times, conservative Max Boot offers a column on what he sees as Petraeus' accomplishments.

Oliver Stone is a film director and screenwriter (directing credits include JFK, Platoon, Nixon, Wall Street, Savages, W. and Alexander) He and historian Peter Kuznick have created Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States, a documentary mini-series airing on Showtime (first run episodes of each of the ten chapters begin airing each Monday night) and also a book. Disclosure, I know Oliver. He addressed the topic of Petraeus on Piers Morgan (CNN -- link is video) last night. Excerpt.

Oliver Stone: Well the American media has come up with narrative that he's an American hero who was betrayed by the woman. He takes the fall. It's the classic. It sales well. It's a good soap opera. But it's not true. I see no evidence of his heroism. There has been no success in Iraq. The so-called 'surge' has been over-hyped by the media as a success when, in fact, Iraq was trashed almost from the beginning to the end. And it was in worse shape when he left. He didn't leave it well. And then when he went to Afghanistan, he -- First of all, he conned Obama into adding 30,000 troops -- was in Afghanistan with a plan that he'd win with this counter-insurgency program. Well where is it? Where are the results? They're non-existent. Afghanistan is worse off. He's supervised the Predator explosion [the Drone War] and the missiles not only into Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he's exaserbated the entire region and the people that are there are going to hate us, more so for civilian damage, collateral damage. And top of it, he's built up this reputation -- I mean, first of all, as a military man, I really think he's overdoing it as a show man because he goes in front of Congress to talk about the counter-insurgencies wearing -- if you notice, the ribbons grow every year. He's got now like a regular fruit salad up here [holds right hand to left pectoral] and it's disgusting. General [George] Marshall who was one of the greatest heroes of WWII is famous for having been a modest man and going in front of Congress and wearing hardly anything

Piers Morgan: I mean he had this reputation as King David --

Oliver Stone: Very much so.

Piers Morgan: That was what a lot of people in the forces -- and didn't always mean it as a compliment

Olive Stone: No.

Piers Morgan: It meant as he was slightly regal.

Oliver Stone: But success? America values success. What's success in Iraq and Afghanistan? He's left many weeping widows out there. And it's not worked, counter-insurgency. Our involvement in a foreign country -- whether it's Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq I, Iraq II -- it doesn't work. We go in, we have a lot of money, we make a lot of friends -- temporary friends -- they know we're leaving. And when we leave, which they know we will leave, they value their lives so they are our tempory friends.

Oliver continued the conversation on CBS This Morning (link is text and video) today with Gayle King, Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell. Excerpt.

Oliver Stone: In American media, they're praising him as a hero. I don't see the hero. I see a misguided policy in Iraq, an even more misguided policy in Afghanistan. I don't think the 'surge' worked, I think that was a lot of media hype. And I -- And I -- And I don't trust his credientials. He never was in Vietnam but he wrote -- He made his reputation writing about counter-insurgency in Vietnam -- in which his main recommendation, a US military man told me, was, "You know what? Get the press on your side." That was his counter-insurgency proposal. And he's very good at that. So when he appears on Congress, I don't know if you saw the rows of medals the first time, he appeared.

Gayle King: I saw them, yes.

Oliver Stone: He seemed to woo the Congressmen. They were falling at his feet. The military worship in this country has reached unhealthy proportions.

On videos. A number are asking that we note a video report. I agree that normally we would. We're not noting it. "Off the record" is off the record. I don't think the person discussing an e-mail they received from a _____ at ____ (military institution) grasped what they were doing on camera. That is great work. But someone still in the military? That person would be off the record for a reason. He or she could be drummed out. Could be punished. I like the person doing the report and we have noted the person before and will many times again and this is surely a topic I support and believe in. But I don't think the person doing the report grasped that he or she had just outed someone and, if not outed, started an investigation on the base. I'm hopeful that no one else will notice. I think we're the last website left in the US that gives a damn about that issue. So I doubt it will be amplified by others. But I really think that report needs to be taken down and edited. My opinion. When someone in the military tells you something that could get them in trouble and they tell you it is off the record, you don't need to be sharing what base they're on and what position they hold. It is very easy, from there, to narrow down the _____s on the base and to check their computer history and determine which one it is without even asking any witnesses (who are also identified indirectly, if you think about it). If this confused you, we'll note it Saturday without noting what installation, what rank or where the report came from.

Onto Iraq and the never-ending political crisis where tensions remain high among the various political blocs. Yesterday, Alsumaria reported that State of Law MP Sami al-Askari is calling Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi a failure and he told Alsumaria that the Kurds are playing up the Sunni - Shi'ite divide. Today Kurdistan Alliance MP and leader Muhsin al-Sadoun tells Alsumaria that al-Askari's remarks are not helpful and that the suffering that has taken place has been under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership as people have increasingly lost confidence in the government's ability to provide as a result of the vast corruption and the failure to provide security. al-Askari hasn't stopped trashing politicians. Al Rafidayn reports he went on Alsumaria television tonight and trashed Iraqiya's Osama al-Nujaifi who is the Speaker of Parliament. He stated that al-Nujaifi is indebted to the Kurds who pushed for him to be Speaker of Parliament, implying that he does their bidding. Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections. After Nouri refused to honor the Constitution and give up the post of prime minister and Jalal was bound and determined to remain prime minister, that only left one post for the political bloc that got the most votes. Iraqiya was always going to get the spot and al-Askari knows that, he's just attempting to inflame tensions with his bitchy nature.

Yesterday Al Mada reported that Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahma Khalil had announced 150 members had signed on to the bill to limit the prime minister to two terms. At the start of 2011, when Iraq had protests going on across the country about Nouri's inability to deliver basic services or jobs and the disappearance of so many into Iraq's 'justice' system, Nouri announced he would not seek a third term. Almost immediately this was retracted though outlets like the New York Times that rushed to 'report' Nouri wouldn't seek a third term went on to 'forget' to report that the pledge had been withdrawn. Since then Nouri's attorney has repeatedly reminded the press that there is nothing that can prevent Nouri from seeking a third term. The proposed bill is an attempt to make it illegal. Among those who support this proposal? Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc.

Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reports on the bill and notes, "Since the last American troops left Iraq nearly a year ago, the country's Shi'ite, Sunni Muslim and ethnic Kurdish parties have been caught up in a power-sharing stalemate that has left key oil and investment laws paralyzed in parliament. Kurdish parties, the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc and even some rivals in Maliki's own Shi'ite coalition failed earlier this year to trigger a vote of no confidence against a prime minister whom they accuse of consolidating power at their expense." Failed or were betrayed? Iraqiya MP Hamza Allrtani tells All Iraq News that the people should not forget that when the political blocs came up with a plan to withdraw confidence and merely needed Talabani to pass it on to Parliament, Jalal refused to do so. Dar Addustour adds that Kurdish MP Moahmmed Chihod is calling for Jalal to appear before Parliament to give a status report on his months -- since the middle of September -- of talks with political blocs to resolve the crisis. Meanwhile All Iraq News reports Jalal has declared his support of Nouri al-Maliki.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE BACKSTABBER!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS STILL THE BITCH, THE LITTLE BACK STABBING BITCH AS A MEMO OF PROPOSALS HE MADE FOR CUTS IN JULY 2011 REVEALS. THE OFFER WAS MADE TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER WHO REJECTED THEM. WHAT BARRY THE BITCH WAS WILLING TO PUT ON THE TABLE FOR CUTS:

Among the programs Obama's staff proposed for $200 billion in spending cuts over the next decade were the military's health care program ($16 billion), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 billion), the government's pension benefit program that stabilizes pension insurance premiums ($9 billion), the Transportation Security Administration ($18 billion) and flood assistance ($4 billion).
It further confirms previous HuffPost coverage that characterized the wealth of cuts that the president was willing to entertain that would disproportionately impact the nation's vulnerable -- the poor, the elderly, young mothers, students and veterans. Lawmakers reconvene in Washington D.C. this week to begin negotiations over how to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, the series of tax hikes and automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect on Jan. 1.

JUST AS CHILDREN ACROSS THE NATION ARE HAVING TO LEARN TO SAY, "NO, DON'T TICKLE ME, ELMO! ESPECIALLY DON'T TICKLE ME DOWN THERE!," ADULTS NEED TO STOP WORSHIPING A TURNCOAT WHO POSES AS A DEMOCRAT BUT REPEATEDLY STABS THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The former top US commander in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008 was General David Petraeus. Late Friday, Petraeus resigned as CIA Director citing an affair. If this is indeed the reason he stepped down, an affair, if that made him subject to blackmail, then he wasn't properly vetted because he had 'intense' relationships with many female journalists while he was in Iraq and that should have come up when he was up for the post of CIA Director.

Today on Democracy Now! -- no link to that trash -- Amy Goodman again spoke with CIA contractor Juan Cole and supposedly they talked about counter-insurgency but that would require honesty and you don't get honesty from those currently on the CIA payroll. Michael Crowley's dishonest at Time magazine but we'll put that down to a reluctance to tell the 'ugly truth' about counter-insurgency.

As Iraq began to stabilize in 2007 and 2008, counterinsurgency got much of the credit. Soon the theory caught fire in Washington: Think tanks hired and the media spotlighted some of the doctrine's many well-educated (and combat tested) proponents. The U.S. military developed more counterinsurgency training programs for its troops, offering tips on things like making nice with village elders and knowing when to let the enemy escape rather than risk high civilian combat casualties. This was a form of warfare that even many liberals (perhaps misguidedly) saw as kinder and gentler enough than the usual shock and awe to tolerate.

Tips on making nice? That sort of leaves out the violence and intimidation, doesn't it? Counter-insurgency isn't just handing out a bunch of water bottles, it's about getting a native people to turn on their own. That means ratting out fellow Iraqis to foreigner invaders. And the ratting out? What comes after that? Do the foreign invaders just hand out daisies? No. They take out the fingered.

Counter-insurgency did not emerge during the Iraq War. It has a long history. It failed in Vietnam (even the CIA admits that) and it generally does fail. But before that's apparent, a lot of people are killed and a lot of people are harmed. Crowley gets closer to the truth in this passage:

Those sort of targeted assassinations aren't quite the opposite of counterinsurgency. (That would be carpet-bombing.) But they fly in the face of the doctrine in multiple ways. Drone strikes -- which often kill unlucky civilians -- are enraging local populations in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, risking "damaging and counter productive" effects for U.S. interests. At least one recent would-be terrorist plotting to attack America has said he was motivated by drone attacks in Pakistan. Counterinsurgency requires huge numbers of troops to protect and build relationships with local populations. Drone-based counter-terrorism strategy requires few if any boots on the ground. Death is rained down anonymously, typically no explanation or apology for "collateral damage."

Of course, death isn't 'rained down anonymously.' The surivovrs blame the US government for the deaths. As Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) noted yesterday, the immediate effect of the Petraeus saga is that he may not be testifying to Congress about the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens. The editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel argues, "Lawmakers should not let the tabloid-worthy story at the CIA sidetrack them from a thorough investigation into the security failures in the attack in Benghazi. They should insist on hearing directly from Petraeus -- even though he's no longer in charge." The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune agrees, "Petraeus should volunteer to testify at the hearing. There are already many questions about what happened in and after the attack in Benghazi, and his abrupt departure from the CIA has created more suspicion. There is only one reason for him not to testify -- to spare himself more public embarrassment."

One hearing on Benghazi this week will be presided over by Senator Dianne Feinstein who is the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She told Chris Wallace yesterday (on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace) that she wasn't told about the investigation of Petraeus until Friday, "We received no advanced notice. It was like a lightning bolt. The way I found out, I came back to Washington, Thursday night. Friday morning, the director told me there were a number of calls from press about this. I called David Petraeus. And as a matter of fact I had had an appointment with him, at 3:00 that afternoon, and that was canceled." When were others told, such as the president? Mike Levine, Chatherine Herridge and Judson Berger (Fox News) report that despite Attorney General Eric Holder being informed Petreaus was part of an ongoing FBI probe, the White House states "the president did not find out about the situation until last Thursday." The editorial board of the Washington Post argues that if these are the facts -- with nothing else to be added -- they don't believe Petraeus should have resigned:

THE RESIGNATION of David Petraeus as CIA director is a serious blow to the nation's national security leadership, and it comes at an unfortunate moment. With the expected departure of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a possible reshuffling of senior officials at the National Security Council, President Obama could have benefited particularly from Mr. Petraeus's knowledge and seasoning as he begins to grapple with second-term challenges in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. Mr. Petraeus understands those issues as well as any American, and his record of service as a military commander is without equal in his generation.

Given those facts, some have questioned whether Mr. Obama should have accepted Mr. Petraeus's resignation. The CIA director was found to have committed no crime. Adultery, which he confessed to, is not uncommon, including presumably among his agency's staff. However, in our view the president made the right call. Mr. Petraeus's failing was not merely an illicit relationship; he recklessly used a Gmail account to send explicit messages and, as a result, was swept up in an FBI investigation of alleged cyberstalking. Such behavior would not be acceptable in the private sector, or in the military, as Mr. Petraeus recognized.

The Chicago Tribune editorial notes that the woman Petraeus had an affair with had access to classified documents (which Petraeus states must have come from someone else) and that she gave a speech in October where she declared the attack on the Benghazi facility was because the CIA was holding Libyans in a secret prison there.

Moving over to Iraq where the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is supposed to run Iraq, not ruin the country. Possibly he misunderstood? He's forever in search of new enemies to tick off. For example, from Friday's snapshot:

After the decision last month to buy billions of weapons from Russia, it may appear Russia and Iraq are getting very close -- and they might be. But friendly? Do you threaten a friend? AFP reports, "Baghdad has told Russian energy giant Gazprom to either cancel its energy contracts in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region or abandon its work with the central government, a spokesperson said on Friday."

October 9th, Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion weapons deal with Russia. Then something happened 30 days later and the status of the deal became in question. Was it all just buyer's remorse over a big-ticket item? Saturday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling (CNN) reported:

Iraq's prime minister has canceled a recently signed arms deal with Russia after "suspicions over corruption" surfaced, his spokesman told CNN on Saturday.
Under the $4.2 billion deal forged last month, Russia would deliver attack helicopters and mobile air-defense systems to Iraq.

Amani Aziz (Al Mada) reported that there are senior Iraqi government officials who are involved with a brother of Russian President Vladimir Putin. All Iraq News noted there are calls for Nouri to step forward and clear his name. Al Rafidayn added Nouri spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi announced that the deal is off. New contracts may be needed, he said, because weapons are, but the deal is off. AP hedged the bets going with language about the deal being "reconsidered" and in "turnaround." Reuters spent the day providing constant updates and in their third one they noted, "In a confusing exchange, the announcement by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office was immediately contradicted by the acting defence minister who denied the corruption charges and said the Russian arms deals were still valid." RIA Novosti reminded, "At the time the deal was announced in October, the Russian press had hailed it as the country's largest since 2006. Under the contract, Moscow is to supply 30 Mil Mi-28NE night/all-weather capable attack helicopters, and 50 Pantsir-S1 gun-missile short-range air defense systems." Al Mada reports today that Iraqiya is demanding Nouri provide a report to Parliament explaining the details of the weapons deal with Russia.

If the deal is off, Nouri looks rather poor on the world stage. But then, he already did as Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) notes today:

Those who saw the picture released by the prime minister's office of Nuri al-Maliki inspecting fighter jets by knocking on the metal body of the plane should not be surprised that he has decided to halt the deal out of suspicion of corruption.

The picture should have sounded alarm bells for the Russians, Czechs and people of Iraq. He seemed like a man shopping for a car in a sales lot, not a head of state buying strategic weapons. From the start, the deal did not seem to have been examined well or to have gone through the proper procurement procedures.

You don't make a four billion dollar deal, take the bows nationally and internationally for it, then cancel a few weeks later without your image taking a huge hit to your image. That's setting charges of corruption to the side. Those who hoped that, come Monday, something as basic as whether the deal was on or off would be known were hoping in vain.

The World Tribune states, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has canceled a $4.2 billion weapons contract with Russia amid allegations of bribery. But the Defense Ministry,
which signed the deal, has insisted that the project would continue."

RECOMMENDED:

Cedric's Big Mix

Love, sweet love
2 days ago
The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! GIVE IT UP FOR THE LOVE!
2 days ago

The Daily Jot

Saturday, November 17, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE BAD NEWS? HE REMEMBERS!

Friday, November 16, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE SAD BONO!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

THIS JUST IN! 'LOOK AT ME!' HE SCREAMS!

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

THIS JUST IN! ARIANNA STOP OUTSOURCING!

Yes — You can't both lead the CIA and recover from a public betrayal of your family

Yes — But Petraeus should still testify before Congress to quiet conspiracy theorists

Yes — Petraeus understood his institutional leadership was compromised by his own actions

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE BACKSTABBER!

About Me

Links

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot