THIS JUST IN! HE'LL GET TO WORK WHEN?

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

AS HE DID LAST WEDNESDAY NIGHT, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE YEAR HE FINALLY FOCUSES ON JOBS.

AND YET . . .

NEXT MONTH HE LEAVES THE COUNTRY AGAIN TO GO TO AUSTRALIA AND INDONESIA.

NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT EVER DONE GOOD IN INDONESIA AND THE REAL REASON BARRY WANTS TO GO IS THAT HE FINDS IT HARDER AND HARDER TO GENERATE EXCITEMENT WITH HIS TRIPS AND HE'S THINKING INDONESIA WILL GIVE HIM A HOME COMING WELCOME.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This morning Jomana Karadhseh and CNN reported a female suicide bombing in Baghdad resulted in the bombers death as well as the deaths of 41 other people with one-hundred-and-six more injured. A large number -- possibly all -- of the dead are Shi'ite pilgrims. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR -- link has audio and text) reports, "According to police sources, the suicide bomber blew herself up where Shi'ite pilgrims were being given food and water." James Hider (Times of London) informs, "Witnesses said that a huge fireball ripped through a crowd, leaving bodies strewn on the ground, their banners drenched in blood and their sandals scattered across the road." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The suicide bomber in this case struck near a tent in Bob al-Sham, filled with pilgrims making their way from Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad. The toll was one of the highest in months by an individual suicide bomber." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) provides this context, "The pilgrims were among more than 30,000 Shiites who have arrived in Iraq for Arbaeen, an annual observance marking the end of 40 days of mourning for the Prophet Muhammad's grandson Hussein, the state-run al-Sabah newspaper said. They are heading on foot to Shiite holy sites in the southern city of Karbala." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes a frantic sounding Iraqi military officer, Capt Sameer, stating, "It is a political matter -- it is part of the elections campaign. An explosion like this that takes place targeting Shiites on a sacred religious rite -- the obvious thing to do is to blame Sunnis and this would of course affect their standing in the elections." Really? Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) reminds, "There was a similar bomb attack last year at the same pilgrimage, which has been a regular target for attacks." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports the death toll has climbed to 54 (AP also reports that) with 109 injured, that it's "the fifth suicide bombing in Baghdad in a week" and that five female police officers (or "Daughters Of Iraq") were killed in the bombing. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moons Special Represenative to Iraq Ad Melkert pronounced the bombing "a horrific crime committed against defenseless journeying pilgrims practicing their faith."

In other violence reported today . . .

Bombings?

Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left twelve pilgrims injured, a Mosul roadside bombing injured four people.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 3 'suspects' were killed in Mosul by US forces on Saturday and that one Iraqi was injured in a Mosul shooting today.

And Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a combination of deaths from last week with an interesting note on who grabbed the bodies, "During the last week of January, four civilians and one Lieutenant Colonel in the former Iraqi army were killed in individual incidents by insurgents carrying pistols fitted with silencers in the city of Mosul, as was the mayor of al Intisar neighbourhood, Jassim Atiya. While one suicide bomber detonated at the entrance to the police station in Zummar district, northeast Mosul, injuring four policemen, and three insurgents were killed and one injured during clashes with the U.S. military, said Iraqi police. The U.S. military took possession of the bodies in order to conduct an investigation, said Iraqi police."

Staying with the topic of violence to note the monthly toll. From Third (covering January 1st and 2nd): "Friday 1 person was reported injured. Saturday 8 were reported dead and 27 were reported wounded." That's 8 dead and 28 injured. Next week via Third: "Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and 2 wounded; Monday 4 were reported dead and 29 wounded; Tuesday 12 people were reported wounded; Wednesday 7 were reported dead and 10 wounded (and 3 US soldiers wounded); Thursday 8 were reported dead and 42 wounded; Friday 8 were reported dead and 12 wounded; and Saturday 1 dead and 5 wounded. Totals: 32 dead and 112 wounded (plus 3 US soldiers wounded)." And Third for the week after, " Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and 7 injured; Monday 13 were reported wounded; Tuesday 4 were reported dead; Wednesday 11 were reported dead and 9 wounded; Thursday 32 reported dead and 11 injured; Friday no reported dead or wounded; Saturday 4 reported dead and 3 reported injured for a total of 55 reported dead and 43 reported injured." And still Third: "Sunday 4 Iraqis were reported dead and four injured; Monday 11 were reported dead and 10 wounded; Tuesday no one reported dead or wounded; Wednesday 6 were reported dead and 11 were reported wounded; Thursday no one was reported dead or wounded; Friday 1 person was reported dead and 6 were reported wounded; and Saturday 3 were reported dead and 6 wounded. That's 24 reported dead and 39 reported wounded." And from Third: "Sunday 12 Iraqis were reported dead and 5 were reported wounded; Monday 36 dead and 71 wounded; Tuesday 28 were reported dead (five of those the increase in the death toll from Monday's Baghdad bombings) and 94 wounded; Wednesday 6 people were reported dead and 8 wounded (not including 1 US soldier who was also wounded on Wednesday); Thursday 2 were reported dead and 11 were reported wounded; Friday 6 were reported wounded; and Saturday 4 were reported dead and 31 wounded." That's a total of 88 dead and 326 wounded. Yesterday, the last day of the month, 2 people were reported dead and 14 injured. That's 209 reported dead and 562 reported wounded. Please note, many more die and are wounded than are ever reported and, always, check my math. Reuters plays stupid more and more and insists that 135 "people" died but they're just going by the Iraqi official civilian count. AFP reports today that Iraqi officials state the number of Iraqis killed last month was 196 (that's all classifications -- military, police, civilian) and 782 injured. They note that the death count is a little higher than January 2009 and that the number wounded is significantly higher than in January 2009. Reuters pimps the lie that only 2 US service members died in Iraq -- they do that by only mentioning the "combat" losses. 5 US service members in Iraq died in the month of January -- three deaths don't matter to Reuters.

We have a lot to cover but I forgot to do December's toll and didn't realize that through half-way into January. We'll note it now. From Third, first days of December: " Tuesday saw 6 reported dead and 22 wounded. Wednesday saw 3 reported dead and 26 reported wounded. Thursday saw 11 dead and 25 injured. Friday saw 4 people reported dead and 6 wounded. Saturday saw 5 dead and 7 wounded." Second week, " Sunday 6 were reported dead and 20 were reported wounded, Monday the death toll was 15 and the wounded was 50, Tuesday 130 were reported dead and at least 500 were reported wounded (for the Baghdad bombings final toll, we're going with the numbers on Wednesday), Wednesday 9 were reported dead and 27 were wounded, Thursday 1 person was reported dead and 11 were reported wounded, Friday the death toll was 6 and the wounded was 22 and Saturday 6 were reported dead and 12 were reported wounded." Week three: "Sunday, 2 people were reported dead in Iraq and 26 injured, Monday 1 person was reported dead and 25 wounded, Tuesday saw 12 reported dead and 60 wounded, Wednesday saw 5 reported dead and 18 reported injured, Thursday saw 4 reported dead and 15 reported wounded, Friday saw 3 reported dead and 17 reported wounded. Saturday saw 3 people reported dead for a weekly total of 30 reported dead and 151 reported injured." Week four: "Sunday, 4 people were reported dead and 6 wounded; Monday 9 were reported dead and 18 wounded; Tuesday 6 were reported dead and 7 injured; Wednesday 8 were reported dead and 54 wounded; Thursday 36 were reported dead and 123 wounded; Friday 9 were reported dead and 25 injured; and Saturday 11 were reported dead and 36 reported wounded for a total of at least 83 reported deaths and at least 269 reported injured." And wrapping up, "Sunday 7 were reported dead, 36 reported injured. Monday 1 person was reported dead. Tuesday 8 were reported dead and 9 reported injured. Wednesday 9 were reported dead and 34 wounded. Thursday no deaths reported in the day but Thursday night 1 death was reported" total of 26 reported dead and 79 reported wounded. For a monthly total of 341 dead and 1227 wounded. If you ignore the wounded -- as Reuters does -- it can look pretty upbeat especially if, like them, you only count civilian deaths. Does everyone get that? If you're in the US military, Reuters only counts your death if you die in combat. If you're an Iraqi, Reuters only counts your death if you're not in the Iraqi military or security forces. Let's all pretend like that's consistent. There were 3 US military deaths in Iraq in December (so two less than the month of January).

Friday War Criminal Tony Blair testified before the Iraq Inquiry in London. Since November, the Inquiry has been holding public hearings. Brian Edwards-Tiekert addressed the Inquiry with professor David Miller of the University of Strathclyde (co-founder and co-editor of Spinwatch) on the first half hour of KPFA's The Morning Show (here for the archive currently).

Brian Edwards-Tiekert: Has Tony Blair had to change his position on anything in light of other testimony from-from other members of his government?

David Miller: Well, I mean, the evidence from both Michael Wood and the deputy legal advisor in the Foreign Office Elizabeth Wilhurst, who resigned actually over the issue, was that this was an illegal war and it was plain in international [law] that this was the case. I think it remains plain that that's the case. I think they just want -- they just want to ignore that so they did ignore the legal advice from their own advisors. What he [Tony Blair] has changed on to some extent is that he's changed on saying that they went to war on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction and to some extent although they did this less than the Bush administration to some extent the link the Iraqi regime and 9-11 which is of course was entirely fictitious and they've changed from making that as the argument to the argument, as Blair said, "I believe it was right." As if that could simply trump all factual questions. And that was how he carried on throughout the six hours trying to suggest that actually if he thought it was right, that was where the questions should end. And the Inquiry team really didn't get beyond that, they didn't ask him whether he believed some of the things he said? He tried to rephrase some of the things he'd said. For example, in the Dossier -- "the Dodgy Dossier," remember, which they promoted to get the public and the Parliament to accept war, they suggested that it was beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein had these weapons [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. Now in the Inquiry, in his evidence, Blair went and he rephrased the words by saying that he believed it beyond a doubt which, of course, applies the beyond doubt to his belief as opposed to beyond doubt to the weapons.

Brian Edwards-Tiekert: So it becomes a question of faith.

David Miller: Yeah. So that actually shifts the ground. So that's what he -- that's the process he did all the way through. If you look at the Dossier carefully -- What's not said in respectable policy circles is that he didn't really say that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction, he didn't really say that they could be used in 45 minutes. But actually if you look at the text in the Dossier, he did actually say that. It was in the Dossier. It wasn't media exaggeration, it wasn't anti-war movement which made that up. It's there in black and white that Saddam has the weapons, he can use them within 45 minutes and he can deliver them on long range missiles -- all of which were separate falsehoods welded together. All the way through this process from the beginning, they've been very careful in their use language in order that they can concoct an impression and then they can lie after about what the impression they concoted was in order to get away with it.

On Blair's testimony, Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) emphasizes the first and only resolution, "When the inquiry returned to the point - asking the pertinent question of why, if the first UN resolution legalised the war, did Mr Blair need to get a second one? - he appeared rattled for the first time. They pressed hard - surely the UN timetable was subordinate to the military one? How could he claim to be enforcing the UN's wishes by going to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their work?" AA Gill (Times of London) notes the mismash of 'facts' Blair offered, "Blair now makes sandwiches of many unlikely ingredients: regime change and weapons of mass destruction become the same thing with a threadbare piece of sophistry. One United Nations resolution becomes the same as two UN resolutions and possibly as efficient as no UN resolutions. They're produced with a sleight of hand like a card trick: 'Pick a resolution, any resolution -- don't let me see it. Is this the resolution you first thought of?'" Chris Marsden (WSWS) adds, "Blair was left to fall back on the fact that he had secured the approval of the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith for war on the basis of 1441, repeatedly dismissing the fact that this was only at the eleventh hour and was against what was put to him as the 'consistent and united advice' of the Foreign Office legal team that fresh UN authorisation was required." British Gen Richard Dannatt (Telegraph of London) offers his opinion of the biggest cost of the Iraq War as trust: "I am afraid there is only one word, and that is trust. When the British soldier fixes his bayonet and goes forward in battle, he must believe that what he is doing is absolutely in the national interest. There can be no equivocation. The generals tell the officers, who tell the soldiers, that this is what we are doing and why – and that what we are doing is really important. And, as an Army, we trust each other, because we all know that our personal liability is unlimited. The ultimate risk is a flag-draped coffin, and now a few minutes' recognition in Wootton Bassett." Richard Woods (Times of London) offers key points here. Michael Holden, Keith Ware and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) offer highlights here. The Times of London offers readers reactions to Blair's appearance on Friday here, the Guardian here. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) offers his take on Blair's performance. Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Even as he [Blair] spoke in a hearing room across from the imposing Westminster Abbey, dozens of protesters outside called Blair a murderous liar who deserved to be tried for war crimes. Many Britons believe he dragged their country into an unpopular and unnecessary war under false pretenses, a conflict in which 179 British service personnel have died."

The World (PRI -- link has text and audio) reported on Friday's hearing:

Protester: Tony Blair!

Protesters: War Criminal!

Protester: Tony Blair!

Protesters: War criminal!

Laura Lynch: Protestors gathered in the pre-dawn gloom with their verdict, Tony Blair, they shouted, is a War Criminal. Among them was American Jennifer Bromlick who focused her anger on both Blair and George W. Bush.

Jennifer Bromlick: They should do something like this with Bush. I mean, Bush is ultimately responsible for this -- for the Iraq War, so.

Ann Talbot (WSWS) offers this judgment, "Blair's testimony confirms how completely the bourgeoisie has broken from the political and legal arrangements established in the aftermath of World War II. In 1945 the political elite in both Britain and the US believed it essential that they draw a line under the conflicts that had twice plunged Europe into war and had led to the Russian Revolution of 1917, or face possible ruin. Their response was to put on trial those who had initiated the war and carried out crimes against humanity associated with it and to create the United Nations. They were attempting to establish a strong framework of international law that would regulate global conflicts and provide a semblance of political legitimacy for a capitalist system that had just caused the deaths of 78 million people." Tony Blair will be recalled for additional testimony. Richard Norton-Taylor and Patrick Wintour (Guardian) explain, "The panel are concerned in particular about his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion, the Guardian has learned. Blair's evidence seemingly contradicted that given by Lord Goldsmith, the attoney general at the time, about the number of discussions the pair had about issues of law between 7 March and 17 March 2003, three days before the attack on Iraq."

In other Inquiry news, Jonathan Oliver and Richard Woods (Times of London) reported Saturday, "CLARE SHORT, the former minister, will this week disclose that Gordon Brown feared that Tony Blair planned to exploit the Iraq war to remove him from the cabinet. Short is expected to tell the Chilcot inquiry into the conflict about private conversations she had with Brown in which he expressed anxiety at the potential personal consequences of an invasion." Clare Short, who testifies to the Inquiry tomorrow, told the BBC (link has video) that Blair's testimony was unbelievable and short on the facts. Roland Watson (Times of London) reports that Short stated current prime minister of England Gordon Brown was kept out of the inner planning circle by Tony Blair.

The Iraq Inquiry continued today in London. Air Chief Marshall Jock Stirrup and Gen Michael Walker were the witnesses (link goes to transcript and video option). Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger has live blogged Stirrup's testimony. We'll note the following from Gen Walker's testiomony.

Gen Michael Walker: If you look at the Americans: the State Department, the military, the Department of Defence, all squabbling over things, kicking Jay Garner out. We can't do things like that for modern countries, when we are trying to rebuild them.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: But the point still remains that the focus was very much on military invasion but not so much on the aftermath. Even if, let's say, 40 per cent of planning had been done, we could have mitigated some of the problems.

Gen Michael Walker: Correct, and had you had the infrastructure available -- take policing, for example. You know, have you got a list of perhaps retired policemen, who can come out and do this thing for you? Have you got a list of electricians? Have you got people you can call on to come and make the waterworks? Have

you got people who can come and help with the education, the banking and so

on. And if you had that and you were able to, on day 23, say, "Right, boys, we are ready for you, off you come," and they had the secuirty apparatus to look after them and they had people to provide them with office space -- it will not surprise you to know how badly (inaudbile). When (inaduible) arrived in Sarajevo, he had an empty room, with no windows, no doors, nothing. And we still haven't learned the lessons that we have identified time and time again. Sorry. That wasn't

meant to be a --

Chair John Chilcot: On the contrary, I was planning to offer you the opportunity

to make your final reflections on this very theme, and you have and thank you,

but are there other comments or observations you would like to offer before

we close?

General Michael Walker: Only ones that I -- to try and be helpful really. I think

the poor old Americans have come in for a lot of criticism, and my personal

belief was that the biggest mistake that was made over Iraq, notwithstanding

the decision that you may have made your own minds up about, but it was the

vice-regal nature of [Paul] Bremer's reign, and I think -- I mean, I don't want to

be personal about this but that particular six months, I think, set the scene for

Iraq in a way that we were never going to recover from.

The Inquiry has repeatedly heard from military and diplomatic witnesses that Paul

Bremer's decision to disband the Ba'ath Party and being de-Ba'athification was harmful

and too sweeping. Diplomatic witnesses have explained that England was not consulted and that British diplomats lodged an objection to Bremer who had just arrived in Baghdad (decision made before he landed in Iraq) and that it was dismissed. (Bremer has stated

the White House wanted him to do what he did. Colin Powell insists -- anonymously to reporters -- that is not true. If Colin's so sure, why doesn't he go on record?) The

decision to disband created chaos and left the open sores and wounds that remain to

this day.

Case in point, March 7th, Iraq is supposed to hold national elections. The latest complication/snag (in a long series of them) is the witch hunt that Ahmed Chalabi and Ali al-Fali (both men insist they are not lovers and ask that people stop spreading those

rumors and stop sharing those photographs) are conducting against various candidates

and political parties from their cats seat on the extra-legal Justice and Accountability Commission. Saturday Lara Jakes (AP) reported that "Awakening" ("Sons Of Iraq,"

Sahwa) leader Ahmed Abu Risha is floating the notion of a Sunni boycott for the

intended elections and he tells AP that Sunnis "will not care about the election, they will ignore it, maybe, if these decisions [bannings] stand."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The war profiteers (including those on the 'left')"
"At least 42 dead in Baghdad bombing"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "If It Stared In Her Face"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"War Criminal Tony Blair"
"How many US deaths were announced Friday?"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Some on the left drive the country to t...
• TV: Jaw-dropping viewing
• The Iraq Inquiry embarrassments
• KPFA Silences Women (Ann, Ava and C.I.)
• Coward Zinn (1922 -2010)
• Iraq
• The myth of the need for bi-partisanship
• Senate Committee calls out Secretary of the Navy
• Pompous Ass in Chief
• The real deal of the week of the week
• Scary Ass Stupid
• Freak Show Tony Blair
• 'Inspiration' comes from familiar places
• Highlights

"THIS JUST IN! TIME OF FROM TIME OFF!"
"Down time from down time"

THIS JUST IN! TIME OF FROM TIME OFF!

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

AFTER SLOGGING OFF A YEAR AND HAVING NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT AND SWEARING IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS WEDNESDAY THAT HE'D FINALLY GET TO WORK . . .

BARACK TOOK TIME OFF -- FROM TIME OFF -- TO ATTEND A BASKETBALL GAME.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the US military announced: "A United States Division-South Soldier died Jan. 28 of noncombat related injuries. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .] The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4375 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. ICCC hasd't updated to 4375 this morning and still haven't now (it is AP's count). While you ponder that, wonder why a site called "Iraq Coalition Casualty Count" has never once included the Iraq Inquiry (ongoing with public hearings since November) in their linked to headlines. Seems like if Iraq's your focus and you're providing links, you should be providing links to the BBC, the Guardian, the Times of London, etc. And now to the Inquiry.

Today the one-time prime minister who may have forever tained the Labour Party, the full-time War Criminal who should be behind bars, the forever poodle who spents years sniffing Bush's ass Tony Blair provided testimony to the Iraq Inquiry in London (here for transcript and video options). The various apologists for Blair are whining that the world is full of Blair Haters. First, the world was full of Nixon Haters. When you're a War Criminal, your reputation travels. But even more hilarious is when the idiots claim that Blair is unfairly being treated, unfairly being called a liar and more. Where there is stupidity, there is Alastair Campbell. The twit tweets on Twitter. He also blogs. And he wants the world to know they shouldn't call Tony Blair a "liar."

Tony Blair lies, that makes him a liar. We're not going to waste an entire snapshot fact checking that horrid liar. We'll note one example. Channel 4's Iraq Inquiry Blogger noted in live blogging the hearing: "Blair: Looks at infant mortality stats - down from 130 per year in 2001-2002 to 40 by 2010. You'll always find some unhappy Iraqis". Blair didn't cite sources. For the 40 he could be using anything from the CIA figures to UNICEF -- however both and other say 43.5, not 40. It's also true that neither organization has published 2010 figures -- how could they, Tony? UNICEF is dealing with 2007 figures, the CIA with 2008 -- and they are estimates in both cases and wilder estimates than normal due to the fact that you're using extrapolation from a sample (not uncommon) in a country where you're not honestly sure as how to representative the cluster sample is (and where you are limited in where you can take a random sample). In 2002, according to the CIA World Factbook, the infant mortality rate was 57.61.

Three days of around the clock coaching and the liar can't resist lying. He wants to create a higher infant mortality rate before the illegal war to 'prove' that he was right. He was wrong and he has the blood of millions on his hand. He's a liar, Alastair, because he lies and he lies so badly he's caught lying. He's a liar.

We'll come back to Blair, let's set the scene first. While Blair testified, people protested. A Morning Edition (NPR) report featured the chanting of the protesters. Featured? Past tense because what we heard on the air isn't what the audio provides. However the transcript of the piece is what aired (at least it currently is). Those who heard the segment this morning heard "Blair lied!" Philippe Naughton (Times of London) reports, "Several hundred demonstrators -- chanting 'Jail Tony' and 'Blair lied' -- gathered outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, although the former prime minister managed to slip in via a cordoned-off back entrance two hours before he was due to appear." CNN notes the protests took place "in the shadow of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament" and that Tony Blair had to arrive two hours early and use an alternative interest to arrive undected while 20-year-old Suad Mikar states, "I'm sure he can hear us. That's what matters, we don't need him to see us. He knows everyone's opinion about it." Sian Ruddick (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports, "The demonstration brought together school students, trade unionsits and activists in a show of anger against the war crimes Blair committed in Iraq. It began at 8am in central London. Protesters carried a coffin, symbolising the deaths of the over a million Iraqis in the war. Others wore Blair masks and covered their hands in fake blood. Police set up cordons to keep the demonstration away from the entrance of the Queen Elizabeth conference centre near the Houses of Parliament. This did not happen when any of the otehr witnesses came to give evidence."

Before we go further, I want to note some opening statements from John Chilcot today. He's the chair of the Inquiry and most reading the snapshots already know this but you'll see why we're going over it (again) before moving to the next section.

Chair John Chilcot: Today's hearing is, understandably, much anticipated, and in this circumstances, the Committee thinks it important to set out what this hearing will and will not cover. The UK's involvement in Iraq remains a divisive subject. It is one that provokes strong emotions, especially for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and some of them are here today. They and others are looking for answers as to why the UK committed to military action in Iraq and whether we did so on the best possible footing. Our questions aim to get to the heart of those issues. Now, the purpose of the Iraq Inquiry is to establish a reliable account of the UK's involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009 and to identify lessons for future governments facing similar circumstances. That is our remit. The Inquiry is not a trial. The Committee before you is independent and non-political. We come to our work with no preconceptions and we are committed to doing a thorough job based on the evidence. We aim to deliver our report around the end of this year. Now, this is the first time Mr Blair is appearing before us and we are currently holding our first round of public hearings. We shall be holding further hearings later in the year when we can return to subjects we wish to explore further. If necessary, we can speak to Mr Blair again. Today's session covers six years of events that were complex and controversial. It would be impossible to do them all justice in the time we have available today. The Committee has, therefore, made a decision to centre its questioning on a number of specific areas. If necessary, we shall come back to other issues at a later date. [. . .] I would like to begin the proceedings just by observing that the broad question by many people who have spoken and written to us so far is: why, really, did we invade Iraq, why Saddam, and why now in March 2003?

We should now all be on the same page regarding the Inquriy. And that makes us a million times more informed that the gaggle of idiots on today's second hour of The Diane Rehm Show on NPR today. The idiots: James Fallows (Atlantic Monthly), Tom Gjelten (NPR) and Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy). What do you do when you're asked about a subject you know nothing about? As anyone who's been to school knows, you bulls**t. "But what's the purpose of this Chilcot Inquiry about, Tom?" asks Diane. It's a basic question, one that should set up a lively segment. But that depends upon guests knowing their subjects.

Tom: Well . . . the-the-the-the British public is far more uh anti-war than-than the US public has been. And this has been something that has building -- been building for a long time in Great Britian and, you know, Tony Blair is-is really stained inthe-in the view of many -- much of the British population for having supported this war in a very -- at a very crucial time early on.

Tom has so much trouble speaking when he has no idea where he's headed. He's the student who didn't realize that he would be called upon. Completely unprepared and still playing with his early morning boner under the desk, he just wishes Diane would call on someone else and he stammers his way through until he thinks he has a concluding statement. What's the purpose, Diane asked him. Where in his reply (that's his entire reply) do you see an answer? You don't. She then asks Susan.

Susan: Well arguably this is also where foreign policy is at its most politicized even here in the US. I think if you look at the ongoing fights over national security -- look at --

No. Don't. Don't look at. How embarrassing. And I'm cutting her off before she embarrasses herself further.

The smartest thing anyone can ever say -- write this down, Suze -- is this phrase: "I don't know." Using that phrase when you don't know the answer will make you appear 10 times smarter than trying to bulls**t an 'answer' on a topic you know nothing about. Susan didn't know a damn thing and so decides, when asked about the Iraq Inquiry, to try to take it to another area. Hey, I did it all the time in Constitutional Law. If I was thrown a curve ball, I'd say, "Well it actually reminds me of another verdict . . ." And I'd b.s. my way through. But I was a college student. (And lucky.) Susan's supposed to be a journalist. If you're asked a question and you don't know the answer: Don't answer.

Wasn't that the whole point of the ridiculing of Sarah Palin for the Katie Couric interviews? Wasn't it that Sarah Palin gave responses that appeared to indicate she didn't know what she was talking about? Susan and Tom were brought on the show as 'informed' and 'experts.' They don't know what the hell they're talking about. It's embarrassing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Next time, they should just say, "I am completely unprepared, I don't follow world events and I'm a stupid moron who can only give responses that I've been programmed to give." We're not forgetting James Fallows, don't worry. James kept saying In The Loop (a movie) and offered a Washington Post cartoon. He had nothing to share on the Inquiry because he didn't know a damn thing about an ongoing public inquiry into the Iraq War which began public hearings in November of last year. He's that out of touch, he's that stupid and he was brought on as an 'expert.'

James Fallows also insisted that Blair, unlike George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, has never waivered that the Iraq War was right. Excuse me? When the hell did Bully Boy Bush or Cheney waiver? They didn't. You don't know what you're talking about and you need to just apologize to all NPR listeners for that garbage. They'd expect it in a classroom but they're not supposed to have to listen to it on listener supported public radio.

"Let's move on," said Diane after only three minutes and normally I'd call her out on that; however, she rightly realized her guests didn't know a damn thing and had nothing to offer.

Now to Blair's testimony. He made like Lois running for mayor of Quahog on Seth MacFarlane Family Guy by invoking 9-11 repeatedly. How bad was it? Tony Blair's first sentence reference 9-11 twice ("up to September 11, after September 11"). From 1997 through 2001 (or, as he put it, "through 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001") Saddam Hussein (former leader of Iraq) "wasn't the top priority for us" but "at the very first meeting" with Bush ("February 2001") he, Bush and Colin Powell chatted up the topic. That must have been a free wheeling topic because, later in the hearing, Blair would talk about his phone call or calls to Iran's president and his fears over Iran. So Iraq wasn't top priority but they what? Spun a globe and took turns dissing other countries?

Tony Blair's grand standing on 9-11, a terrorist attack on US soil, was offensive enough but let's make the point that if you're going to grand stand, know your damn facts. Do not, for instance, declare, "over 3,000 people had been killed on the streets of New York" when that is incorrect. The death toll is 2,973 (I'm not counting the hijackers -- apparently Tony grieves for the hijackers) and it was New York, it was the Pentagon (not in NYC) and it was the Shanksville field in Pennsylvania. You want to grandstand on 9-11, Tony? Try getting the facts right. What an idiot. Three days of round the clock coaching and this is what he's left with?

For those who might foolishly cut Tony slack, he kept repeating the false figure and the false locations: "The point about this act in New York was that, had they been able to kill even more people than those 3,000, they would have" -- it's offensive.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne raised the issue of Blair's interview last month with the BBC's Fern Britten where Blair stated that even if he had known there was no WMD, "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Hussein]." Blair tried to walk the remark back by begging off with "even with all my experience in dealing with interviews, it sill indicates that I have got something to learn about it." He then tried to lie that the interview was actually taped prior to the creation of the Inquiry. Lyne didn't let him get away with that so Blair insisted it was taped before the Inquiry started their November public hearings.

We'll note this exchange.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: Your Chief of Staff told us that at Crawford and subsequently you did not set any conditions for Britian's support for the US, but that your approach was to say, "We are with you in terms of what you are trying to do, but this is a sensible way to do it. We are offering you a partnership to try and get to a wide coalition." But other witnesses who were also involved in the decision-making process have told us that you set a number of clear conditions for our support. Which was it?

Tony Blair: It was the former. Look, this is an alliance that we have with the United States of America. It is not a contract. It is not, "We do this for you, you do this for us". It is an alliance and it is an alliance, I say to very openly, I believe in passionately.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman pressed him on WMD and 45 minutes (Blair had told the British people that Iraq had WMD that could be used to attack the UK within 45 minutes). Blair did allow that he might have needed to correct that after one paper headlined it (Freedman pointed out it was three newspapers) but that he answer over "5,000 oral questions" from September 2002 and May 2003 and no one ever asked him about that (Freedman points out that Jack Straw did so publicly in February 2003). Blair insisted that the 'error' was taking on "greater signifcance" after the fact. Freedman replied, "I think it has taken on that significance possibly because it is taken as an indication of how evidence that may be pointed was given even more point in the way that the dossier was written." Freedman also asked Blair about his January 2003 meeting with Bush and whether it was an effort to persuade Bush "that now it was necessary to get a second resolution" from the United Nations. Blair responds that is correct and that a second UN resolution (1441 only authorized inspectors to go into Iraq) would "make life a lot easier politcaly in every respect." The obvious question there was: "Politically? What about legally since every bit of advice you were receiving at that point -- including from Peter Goldsmith -- told you that if there was no second resolution a war would be illegal?" That didn't get asked.

Blair then declares that the US government didn't feel a second resolution was necessary but Bush's "view was that it wasn't necessary but he was prepared to work for one." In January 2003? No. Blair's lying. The US administration's position was that 1441 gave them the legal right to start a war. That was their position while 1441 was being negotiated in the fall of 2002 and when it was passed November 8th. The legal rationale the Bush administration was a joke but to argue it, they could not have a second resolution. They knew they didn't have the votes on the Security Council (both from feedback and, as has been reported, from wiretaps) and going back for a second resolution and being shot down destroys their legal argument that 1441 allows them to declare war. Blair's lying.

A key exchange, and one that the Inquiry will most likely build on when writing their report, took place between Lyne and Blair. Before that, let's not Lyne's summary of events.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Firstly, there wasn't a legal basis, as Lord Goldsmith repeated to us the day before yesterday, for regime change as an objective in itself. Secondly, lawers in the US administration favoured what was called the revival argument and that meant that the authorisation for the use of force during the first Gulf War, embodied in Resolution 687, was capable of being revived as it had been revived in 1993 and in 1998. However, the UK's lawyers did not consider that this argument was applicable without a fresh determination by the Security Council, and they felt that, not only because of the passage of time since resolutions 678 and 687, but also because, in 1993 and 11998, the Security Council had formed the view that there had been a sufficiently serious violation of the ceasefire conditions and also because the force that had been used then had been limited to ensuring Iraqi compliance with the ceasefire conditions. Even in 1998, the revival argument had been controversial and not very widely supported. So the British argument was that you needed a fresh determination of the Security Council. [. . .] So the UK and the USA went to the United Nations and obtained Security Council Resolution 1441, passed unanimously. However, in the words of Lord Goldsmith, that resolution wasn't crystal clear, and I think you, yourself, this morning referred to the fact that there were arguments. It didn't resolve the argument, I think was the way you put it. The ambiguous wording of that resolution immediately gave rise to different positions by different Security Council members on whether or not it of itself had provided authorisation without a further determination by the Security Council for the use of force. So up until early February of 2003, the Attorney General, again, as Lord Goldsmith told us in his evidence, was telling you that he remained of the view that Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force without a further determination by the Security Council that it was his position that a Council discussion -- the word "discussion" was used in the resolution -- would not be sufficient and that a further decision by the Council was required. [Blair agrees with the summary.] On 7 March, Lord Goldsmith submitted his formal advice to you, a document which is now in the public domain. In that he continued to argue that: "The safest legal course", would be a further resolution. But in contrast to his previous position and for reasons which he explained to us in his evidence, he now argued that, "a reasonable case" could be made, "that Resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution." But at the same time he coupled this with a warning that, "a reasonable case does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court, I would be confident that the court would agree with this view." So at that point, Lord Goldsmith had, to a degree, parted company with the legal advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have also given evidence to us through Sir Michael Wood and Ms Elizabeth Wilmshurst. They were continuing to argue that the invasion could only be lawful if the Security Council determined that a further material breach had been committed by Iraq. I emphasize the word "further", of course, because 1441 established that Iraq was already in breach, but then the argument was about the so-called firebreak and whether you had to have a determination of a further material breach. Lord Goldsmith told us that, when it became clear that we were not likely to get a second resolution, a further resolution, he was asked to give what he described as a "yes or no decision", especially because clarity was required by the armed forces, CDS had put this to him, and by other public servants. He had received also an intervention from a senior Treasury lawyer. So having given you that advice on 7 March, by 13 March, he had crucially decided -- and this is from a minute recording, a discussion between himself and his senior adviser, David Brummell, who has also given evidence to us and which is also on the public record -- he had decided that: "On balance, the better view was that the conditions for the operation of the revival argument were met in this case; ie, that there was a lawful basis for the use of force without a further resolution going beyond Resolution 1441." Now, there is one further stage in the process and then I will get to the end. This view now taken by the Attorney General still required a determination that Iraq was "in further material breach of its obligations." The legal advisers in the FCO considered that only the UN Security Council could make that determination, but the Attorney took the view that individual member states could make this determination and he asked you to provide your assurance that you had so concluded; ie, you had concluded that Iraq was in further material breach, and on 15 March, which is, what, five days before the action began, you officially gave the unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations. So it was on that basis that the Attorney was able to give the green light for military action to you, to the armed forces, to the Civil Service, to the Cabinet and to Parliament. But i tremained the case, as Sir Michael Wood made clear in his evidence, that while the Attorney General's constitutional authority was, of course accepted by the government's Civil Service advisers on international law, headed by Sir Michael Wood -- although Ms Wilmshurst herself decided to resign at this point from government service -- they accepted his authority but they did not endorse the position in law which he had taken, and it remains to this day Sir Michael's position -- he said this in his witness statement -- that: "The use of force against Iraq is March 2003 was contrary to international law."

Tony Blair agreed the above was a "fair" summary of events. In great detail and at lenght, Lyne will establish (with Blair agreeing) that the legal issues were set aside in Blair's Cabinet despite the fact that "until 12 February, you were not being told by the Attorney [General Goldsmith] or the Foreign Office legal advisers that you had the option of not getting a futher decision out of the Security Council."

The issue here is the second resolution and Blair's portrayal of he and his Cabinet wanting one (and they were advised it was necessary for it to be legal). So if he wanted one (this is me, not Lyne), (a) where was the work done on a second resolution and (b) shouldn't that have been the entire focus since the war would start shortly?

Now for the exchange. Lyne asked "wasn't Number 10 saying to the White House in January and February, even into March, that it was essential, from the British perspective, because of our reading of the law to have a second resolution?"

Tony Blair: It was politically, we were saying --

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Not merely preferable, but essential.

Tony Blair: No. Politically, we were saying it was going to be very hard for us. Indeed, it was going to be very hard for us.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Weren't we saying it was legally necessary for us, because that was his advice?

Tony Blair: What we said was, legally, it resolves that question obviously beyond any dispute. On the other hand, for the reasons that I have given, Peter [Goldsmith] in the end, decided that actually a case could be made out for doing this without another resolution, and as I say, did so, I think, for perfectly good reasons.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Well, it must have been of considerable relief to you, on 13 March, when he told you that he had come to the better view that the revival argument worked, because, at that point, he had given you, subject to you making the determination, the clear legal grounds that you needed.

In an earlier round of questioning, Lyne had observed, "You said a moment or two ago that you had agreed with President Bush, not only on the ends but also on the means, but the Americans actually had a different view of the means, in that they were already planning military action, and they had an explicit policy of seeking regime change. Did you, at Crafword, actually have a complete identity of view with President Bush on how to deal with Saddam?" What he appears to be building on -- and he's creating a case, if you're paying attention -- is that a lot of work was done planning for war. A lot of time spent with Bush. When did the UK ever say, "Without a second resolution, we can't go to war?" Never. (Blair confirmed that in response to lengthier versions of that question, as we've noted above.) Some members of the Cabinet and the public were under the belief that Blair wanted a second resolution. But there was no work done for one. So the point being, Blair was given legal advice repeatedly that, barring a second resolution, the Iraq War would be illegal and, month after month, he ignored that advice. There was no push on Blair's part for a second resolution, there was no (by his own admission) pre-condition of a second resolution before he pledged to support Bush in the war.

Blair made up his mind to go to war and did so before he's admitting and the proof is in the fact that he ignored legal advice. He blew it off. He had months (from November to March) to work on a second resolution. That wasn't a priority. He's detailed what he worked on and what he tasked. And there's nothing on those lists that have to do with second resolution. Blair wanted to go to war and pressured and pressured Goldsmith to finally sign off on it days before the Iraq War started. That's the reality coming out of the Inquiry.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Tony Blair pins the blame on 9-11"
"The US military announces another death"
"I Hate The War"
"Life Inside the Oval Palace"
"Cooked Goose in the Kitchen"
"Tony Blair takes the stand tomorrow"
"Barry & Blair"
"Comic, Hillary Is 44, Tony Blair, snapshot"
"KPFA The Morning Show"
"More men on The Morning Show"
"Blair Blare"
"Senator Wally"
"Unbelievable"
"That awful speech"
"Why won't the Iraq Inquiry call Hanx Blix"
"Jon Tester gets bitchy"
"Death penalty for Tony Blair"
"A gift we give to children?"
"Love At First Bite"
"The poisoned well"
"Isaiah, Iraq"
"Mary Jane Stevenson is a Whore"
"Dissing the Supremes"
"THIS JUST IN! LEFT IN THE COLD AGAIN!"
"It's all over now, Barry Blue"

THIS JUST IN! LEFT IN THE COLD AGAIN!

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



LAST NIGHT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECLARED, "HERE'S WHAT I ASK OF CONGRESS, THOUGH: DO NOT WALK AWAY FROM REFORM. NOT NOW. NOT WHEN WE ARE SO CLOSE."

TODAY BARRY O GOT HIS ANSWER.

CONGRESS IS NOT WALKING AWAY FROM HIS BIGBUSINESSGIVEAWAY . . .

THEY ARE RUNNING AWAY.

HECK OF A JOB, BARRY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing to vote on a nomination and proposed legislation. Starting with the nomination, November 9th, US President Barack Obama nominated Raul Perea-Henze to be the Assistant Secretary of Policy and Planning, Department of Veterans Affairs. Today the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee took a vote. Excepting Ranking Member Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham and Johnny Isakson, all voted in favor of Perea-Henze (Graham was not present during the vote, Burr asked that the record reflect Graham and his own votes opposing the nomination). ("All voted in favor? I would assume the entire committee. Most of whom did not show -- eight of the fifteen committee members were present during the vote -- for the hearing but if Graham's vote in opposition is recorded despite him not being present, I would assume those not present could also vote in favor of the nomination.)

Markup hearing? If you're thinking they addressed S. 1779, you are wrong. That bill addressed the need for a federal registry, similar to the one for Agent Orange exposure, for veterans exposed to contaminates while serving. It was introduced by Senator Evan Bayh, has been held up by the Committee since October 21st. Bayh's bill is co-sponsored by Byron Dorgan (who has been also been a leader on this issue), Robert Byrd, Jeff Merkley, John Rockefeller, Ron Wyden and Richard Lugar. That bill's still buried.

If that surprises you, imagine being Senator Jay Rockefeller who had a statement on the bill all ready for delivery. In fact, it's posted at the Committee's website:

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this mark up, following up on the powerful and emotional hearing of October 8th last year with military personnel and family members exposed to toxic materials in their combat service, and even from their military housing.

At that hearing, my remarks and questions focused on Russell Powell, a medic with the West Virginia Guard. He and hundreds of other members of the Guard were exposed to toxic chemicals while on duty guarding the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Facility in Basra, Iraq. For years, they were kept in the dark -- not told about their exposure. And today, they are still struggling to get the health care they need.

That is simply not acceptable. It must be fixed. And I believe today's mark represents the first important step forward.

I greatly appreciate that Chairman Akaka has incorporated a vital provision from Senator Bayh's legislation -- which I have cosponsored -- to guarantee these guardsmen the quality VA health care coverage they have earned.

That guarantee is an important element of the Homeless Veterans and Health Care Act and I strongly support it.

But at last fall's hearing, we also were moved by the heartbreaking testimony from military family members.

In particular: families describing serious water problems at Camp Lejeune and dangerous toxins in the air at Atsugi Naval Air base in Japan.

There is no doubt, we all agreed: Military personnel and family members dealing with the painful consequences of toxic exposure deserve the best health care possible.

Chairman Akaka's new legislation provides the right kind of care to families from Camp Lejeune and Atsugi Naval Air base.

But his bill goes beyond those two locations and their toxic exposure incidents. It creates a process between the VA and DoD to deal with thousands of potential exposures through a joint board. And, so future families don't have to wait for decades, the bill establishes a clear time frame for the board's decisions.

I firmly believe we must be absolutely clear about our shared responsibility. The VA's responsibility is our veterans and their care. DoD has a longstanding policy of caring for their military dependents.

DoD bears significant responsibility and has to take responsibility, today. The Pentagon has to acknowledge what happened and bear the financial costs. This matters.

The Akaka bill strikes the proper balance -- allowing the VA to provide coverage for veterans while DoD covers their families. The Chairman's legislation gets it right and I strongly support his efforts. This is our chance to do the right thing, honor our veterans' service and recognize their families' sacrifice, by ensuring they get the care they seek, they need, and they deserve.

It needed saying. Sadly, it went unsaid. There was no time for the needed bill.

What did they discuss? We'll note Richard Burr's remarks.

Ranking Member Richard Burr: As you know one of my top priorities in the Congress has been to end homelessness among our country's veterans. And the Committee Print S. 1237, the Homeless Veterans and Other Health Care Authorities Act of 2010, furthers that goal and I applaud all the members for their commitment to homelessness. I'm concerned however that the Committee's marking up legislation without having the official views of the Dept of Veterans Affairs on S. 1547, one of the key measures in the Committee Print before us today. We've heard the President talk about el-eliminating duplicate programs. We have had a legislative hearing on 1547 in October at which time where officials views from the administration were promised but, three months later, we still don't have those views. Without those views, the Committee doesn't have a full scope of key questions such as how the creation of a new program or the expansion of an existing ones will be coordinated with other homeless programs administered by the VA and other federal agencies? Or how this legislation fits with the [VA] Secretary's overall plan to end homelessness in five years? As well: What is the cost of the legislation and how long will it take the VA to be able to be appropriately staffed to carry out the bill's mandates? Now I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that any administration's testimony should dictate how this Committee proceeds but it would be helpful to have information to make an informed judgment on what's best for veterans and addressing their specific needs. As for the second bill on the agenda, quite frankly I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed at the approach used to provide health care for veterans and family members exposed to contaminated well water at Camp Lejeune. Not only might this bill be subject to Rule 25 Point Of Order because of subject matter, it's arguably in another Committee's jurisdiction, it also fails to appreciate the deep distrust that family members and veterans have for the Dept of Defense and, specifically, it's handling of these matters once these wells were found to be contaminated and, in the years since, on the scientific inquiries that have been ongoing. Frankly, to those effected by the contamination at Camp Lejeune, requiring DoD to be a key decision maker and provider of health care is absurd. Now. I'm disappointed personally that the majority has decided to take the tack that they have to put a different bill in. Uh-uh. I don't think it's been the practice of the Committee in the past. And, uhm, I hope this is not an indication of how we proceed forward in this Committee. I understand the Chairman has the votes, I know what the outcome is. It won't change my passion for this debate. It will not change the degree of description of what I share with the members . It is the reason that and I other members have turned to this legislation and it is certainly indicative of why Democrats and Republicans in the House next week will introduce practically the same bill with VA responsibilities to provide health care to individuals and family members that have disease that could likely be tied to exposure to contaminants on a military installation. Now I would only ask the members of this Committee -- likely included that group are some of your constituents -- and though you haven't had to fight the Dept of Defense day in and day out on behalf of this group, I have and members before me have -- without any conclusion, without any finality, without any help. Today as we sit here getting ready for this markup, even though under US Code 42, statutorily the Secretary of the Navy is obligated to pay for the studies required to understand the health and mortality effects of this exposure, the Secretary of the Navy refuses to fund the CDC's arm at ASTDR that is obligated entity to go out and share with the country their scientific conclusion. Let me say that again: The Secretary of the Navy has refused to fund -- even though the law says he has to. So for me in good conscience to turn this over to the Dept of Defense to determine the scope of coverage for these individuals is insane. If the outcome of this vote is pre-determined, then so be it. I would hate for members to leave the markup today and believe that they will not revisit this issue. It will be revisited time and time and time again until the Congress recognizes that maybe the Dept of Defense, maybe the Secretary of the Navy can hide but the Congress can't hide from these people. These are people we represent. These are people that have asked us to come here and represent their interests, their health concerns, their future and I can't hide from them.

To be clear, his objection to the second bill is that DoD is being put in charge when DoD is seen as the person who put people at risk to begin with and is seen as refusing to admit to the contamination after the public discovered it. He is advocating for, among other things, the VA being over the issue the way that the House proposal will advocate (US House Rep Chet Edwards is introducing that measure). Burr proposed an amendment, 9 (Democrats plus Bernie Sanders -- Sanders was not present) voted to table the amendment, all five Republicans voted against tabling it. (Again, only 8 of the 15 Committee members were present.)

On the first bill, his objection is one that is being whispered by Democrats and will probably come out in public in the next months: The administration promises to get back to Congress but never does. Publicly, Ike Skelton and Carl Levin (chairs of the House and Armed Services Committee) have made statements in hearings regarding this issue but look for more serious statements to be made. (Congress -- those two committees in fact -- have still not been provided with the so-called 'withdrawal' plan from Iraq by the administration despite repeated promises.)

Burr is stating that he is unsure of whether the bill is workable or what is needed because the VA has not provided the feedback that was promised. He is stating that hearing from the VA wouldn't mean a yes or a no vote for him but it would mean that he and the Committee would have a stronger framework to judge the bill and the needs. That is what he is saying. But what Democrats are saying (Burr is a Republican) is that they're getting very tired of the administration promising testimonies and witnesses and reports that never arrive. A Republican brought it up for the first time in a hearing this year but if the White House doesn't start living up to their promises to Congress, Democrats who are complaining privately are going to go public and they will not do it as nicely as US House Rep Skelton and US Senator Levin did last year.

For Jon Tester and you can read Kat tonight -- she'll cover his testy nature. Wally filling in for Rebecca tonight intends to note one aspect of Burr's remarks.

Today the US Justice Dept announced that Theresa Russell (not the actress, this is a one-time US Army Staff Sgt) entered a guilty plea to money laundering while 'serving' in Iraq and that her ill gotten gain went on to fund her purchase of "a car, cosmetic surgery, and" more. From the Justice Dept news release:

WASHINGTON -- A former staff sergeant in the U.S. Army pleaded guilty today to a one-count criminal information charging her with money laundering arising from a scheme involving the fraudulent awarding and administration of U.S. government contracts in Iraq, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division.

Theresa Russell, 40, of Pleasanton, Texas, pleaded guilty in federal court in San Antonio. According to court documents, from January 2004 through October 2004, Russell was deployed to Logistical Support Area (LSA) Anaconda, a U.S. military installation near Balad, Iraq. As part of the plea, Russell admitted that from April 2004 to February 2005, she received more than $30,000 in cash from John Rivard, a former major in the U.S. Army Reserves. Russell admitted that she knew the money she received from Rivard was the proceeds of bribery.

In July 2007, Rivard pleaded guilty to bribery, among other offenses, in connection with his service as an Army contracting officer at LSA Anaconda. According to court documents, from April 2004 to August 2005, Rivard conspired with a government contractor to steer federally-funded contracts to the contractor's company in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit bribe payments.

According to court documents, Rivard instructed Russell to divide the payments she received from him into several smaller monetary bank deposits, which she admitted she did, in an effort to avoid the detection of law enforcement authorities. Russell admitted that she subsequently used the criminal proceeds to purchase, among other things, a car, cosmetic surgery, and household furnishings and goods.

The maximum penalty for the money laundering charge is 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release following the prison term. Sentencing is scheduled for May 21, 2010.

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Daniel A. Petalas and Justin V. Shur of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, as well as Trial Attorney Ann C. Brickley. This case is being investigated by Army Criminal Investigation Command; Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the FBI; Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation; Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

While we're on the legal system, we'll drop back to last week. Danny Fitzsimons is a British citizen who stands accused of killing two 1 British citizen (Paul McGuigan) and 1 Australian citizen (Darren Hoare) while wounding one Iraqi (Arkhan Madhi) in an August 9th Baghdad shooting.

"They gave me a gun" he said

"They gave me a mission

For the power and the glory --

Propaganda -- piss on 'em

There's a war zone inside me --

I can feel things exploding --

I can't even hear the f**king music playing

For the beat of -- the beat of black wings."

[. . .]

"They want you -- they need you --

They train you to kill --

To be a pin on some map --

Some vicarious thrill --

The old hate the young

That's the whole heartless thing

The old pick the wars

We die in 'em

To the beat of -- the beat of black wings"

-- "The Beat of Black Wings," words and music by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm.

Iraq War veteran Danny Fitzimons joined the British military at the age of 16 and was deployed on his first mission at the age of 18. Before he was 28-years-old, he'd been diagnosed with PTSD. Out of the military, he began working for the contractor AmrourGroup Inc in August 2009. The shootings took place August 9th. By August 10th, Martin Chulov and Steven Morris (Guardian) were reporting that British embassy staff was not allowed to speak with Danny and that the Iraqi government or 'government' was announcing Danny had been in court (the day after the incident) and given a full confession. To be clear, the reporters were not vouching for the confession. Only an idiot -- or an American reporter -- would do that. Iraq has a long history (even just post-invasion) of forcing 'confessions'. August 11th, Amnesty International issued the following:

Responding to reports that a British employee of a security company working in Iraq may face a death sentence, Amnesty International UK Media Director Mike Blakemore said:
'It's right that private military and security company employees like Danny Fitzsimons are not placed above the law when they're working in places like Iraq and it's right that the Iraqi authorities are set to investigate this very serious incident.
'However, as with all capital cases, Amnesty would strenuously oppose the application of the death penalty if applied to Mr Fitzsimons in this case.
'Iraq has a dreadful record of unfair capital trials and at least 34 people were hanged in the country last year alone.
'The important thing now is that if Danny Fitzsimons is put on trial he is allowed a fair trial process without resort to the cruelty of a death sentence.'
Last year 34 criminals were hanged in Iraq. Private security guard Fitzsimons, employed by UK firm ArmorGroup, would be the first Westerner on trial since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Kim Sengupta (Independent of London) reported last Thursday that Danny appeared in Iraqi court and "was sent for psychiatric evaluation minutes after the start of his trial". Oliver August (Times of London) adds, "Efforts to have Mr Fitzsimons tried in the UK have failed since Iraq and Britain do not have a prisoner transfer agreement. However, once he has been sentenced or is found to be mentally ill, London and Baghdad may discuss the possibility of bringing him back." Adam Schreck (Time magazine) reports, "The trial has been adjourned until Feb. 18, according to Fitzsimons' attorney, Tariq Harb." There is a petition on Facebook calling for Danny to be tried in the United Kingdom and not in England. Reprieve is raising funds for Danny's defense.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Wheel of Misfortune"
"Tony Blair testifies tomorrow"
"The new told lies"
"Iraq discussed on The Morning Show"
"Congress disgraces themselves"
"Our needy lover Barack"
"Tell CBS "NO""
"CBS, play fair"
"Joni"
"John Edwards: Forever Scum"
"No, it wasn't presidential"
"CBS stands for?"
"This belongs during the Superbowl?"
"That's presidential?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S A FUNNY BOY?"