Nancy Pelosi thinks she's funny

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The 2010 Plan"


The above really captures the 'depth' of the administration, sadly. So Barack's doing a new review of . . . his reviews. Is that right? Seems more like a punchline.

Mitch Jeserich is a comedian? I have no idea what he thinks he is but to refer to independent journalist David Lindorff as a "blogger" as he did on today's (so bad it's camp) Letters To Washington? I believe Dave Lindorff is now 60 years old and has had an illustrious career. How sad that Jeserich reduces him to a "blogger."

We got to hear Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, think she was doing stand up. She declared, "I predict that whatever we have coming out of this bill will hold them accountable and they'll be crying out for a public option one of these days." You have to hear her voice as she tries not to laugh while saying it (she laughs at the end). If only it were a funny issue, we might all laugh along but this is screw the American public and Nancy Pelosi is the joke.

By the way, the professor.

The professor will not stop writing. I have no idea why. I removed "whore" and replaced it with "pretzel." I'll never do that again (as I noted then). But having done it, why is she still writing me? I have no idea. Sunny told me today and added, "What does she want now?"

I have no idea.

I'm done with her. I told Sunny not to even bother reading it.

I don't read them and there's no reason Sunny should have to.

I wonder if people realize that when you ask for a favor and you get one, you should just go away quickly?

I have no idea and, again, we are not reading it. I am not and Sunny is not.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, January 6, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, a US soldier has died in Iraq, 5 Iraqi women are killed in a collision with the US military, the British deal with 'insurgents' is discussed, and more.

When you make a deal with opposing forces, a cease-fire, it's news.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Mr Day, I wonder if I could now turn to the very specific question of the ceasefire by the JAM, which -- I mean a national ceasefire was announced on 29 August by Moqtadr Sadr and I understand that there was a separate ceasefire negotiated locally in Basra. Were there contacts between British Government and the Sadrists in Basra about this?

Jon Day: Yes, I mean, I can confirm that there were contacts between the UK and the Sadrists in Basra from the spring of 2007, and that as a result of this continuing dialogue, a series of -- I think I prefer to use the word "understandings" were reached with core elements of the Sadrist JAM militias in Basra. These understandings ran from mid June 2007 and they therefore pre-dated and were separate from the national JAM ceasefire in late August.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: Can you say what the motives were for the British Government in talking to the JAM in Basra?

Jon Day: I think the government had a number of motives for authorising this dialogue. First of all, it was part of the coalition's outreach to groups involved in violence consistent with, though separate from, what was happening with Sunni groups further north. Second, we wanted to encourage the mainstream JAM to move from violence towards a commitment to democracy and to demonstrate to them a path to that goal, especially in the context of local government elections, which were then expected in early 2008, although in practice didn't happen until early 2009.

Yes, we're on the Iraq Inquiry taking place in London and never have so many words been used to say so little. The British negotiated a cease-fire in Basra in 2007. Why? What led up to 2007? From the November 22, 2006 snapshot:

In England, This Is London reports: "Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett this afternoon surprised MPs by signalling the countdown to a withdrawal from Iraq. She told the Commons that Basra, where the bulk of the UK's 7,200 personnel are stationed, could be handed over from British military control to Iraqi forces as early as next spring." Basra has been a violent area for British soldiers (and for Iraqis). Earlier this month, on England's Rememberance Sunday, four British troops were killed while on a boat patrol in Basra and three more were wounded. The four killed included Sharron Elliott who was "the second British female servicewoman to die in action." The other three were Jason Hylton, Ben Nowak, and Lee Hopkins. Mortar attacks have been common in Basra and, in August, a British soldier died as a result of wounds received from mortar rounds. In October, a British soldier died in Basra from road traffic. The end of October was also when the British consulate in Basra was evacuated after it was decided it was no longer safe after two months of mortar attacks. (In August, British troops 'evacuated' from their base in Amara due to repeated mortar attacks.)

And to zoom in on their being forced off their base, from the August 24, 2006 snapshot:

Meanwhile British troops of the Soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars are . . . on the move. Ross Colvin (Reuters) reports a lot of talk about how they're 'stripped-down' and mobile (in Landrovers) but the reality is that they're also homeless -- they've "abandoned their base in Iraq's southern Maysan province on Thursday". Though the base was under "nightly attack" and though it has, indeed, been abandoned, British flack Charlie Burbridge disagrees that "the British had been forced out of Amara".

Why did the British negotiate a cease-fire? Because they were getting their asses kicked and being forced to close consulates and flee their own base. In fact, let's stay with the base a second more because it was such an embarrassing moment and the Inquriy does not appear to be prepared to tackle that issue. From the August 25, 2006 snapshot, the day fater the British military fled their base:

In other violence, despite the British military flacks that were so eagerly allowed to spin in this morning's New York Times, Haidar Hani (AP) reports: "Looters ravaged a former British base Friday . . . taking everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes". As Ross Colvin (Reuters) reported yesterday, the base, which had come under nightly, heavy attacks, was abandoned. The AP story today notes: "Iraqi authories had complained that the British withdrawal had caught them by surprise" and allows flack Charlie Burbridge to holler Not-true-we-gave-them-24-hours-notice! Well, Charlie, on a rental, you usually have to give a minimum of 30 days notice. But it is good to know that as they packed up everything they could carry, someone did think to make a quick call saying, "Hey, we're about to split. If there's anything you want, better grab it quick, dude!"

Reporting on Day's testimony today, AP observes, "Britain has been accused of being too passive in the Basra region and leaving it without a proper post-conflict strategy that left it vulnerable to militias." David Brown (Times of London) reports:

There were persistent reports at the time that the British military had struck a deal with the al-Mahdi Army including transferring 60 prisoners to Iraqi custody in return for safe passage out of the palace. The Ministry of Defence at the time denied that there was any deal.
Mr Day said yesterday: "I can confirm that there were contacts between the UK and the Sadrists in Basra from the spring of 2007. As a result of this continuing dialogue I think I prefer to use the word 'understandings' were reached with core elements of the Sadrist JAM militias in Basra.
"These understandings ran from mid-June 2007 and they therefore predated and were separate from the national JAM ceasefire in late August."
Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the inquiry, said on Monday that he would hold a session in private about the British deal with the al-Mahdi Army.

Today the Inquiry heard from Gen Peter Wall, Mark Lowcock, Christopher Prentice as well as Day (link goes to video and transcript options). While Day was less than truthful, Wall was a bit more truthful. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports that Wall declared that British troops were "sitting ducks" and "the focus of the violence." Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger continues to live blog the hearings and we'll note this from one entry:

We aim for at least two entries a day here at the Iraq inquiry blog but someone much web-savvier than me (which, admittedly, could be almost anyone) recently suggested that less is more when it comes to the quieter days – and this was certainly one of those.

With the exception of Day and Wall, it was a very slow day. If you e-mail to state that something should have been noted on one day's hearings -- feel free to do so -- please note that (a) I can miss something (very easily, very often -- which is why the day after a hearing, most days, the next morning's entries will include some coverage of that hearing), (b) I'm speaking to friends in England about the hearings to make sure we don't miss the 'big talking point' and (c) I'm making a call. My call may or may not be right. And if a friend or friends is/are adament that something is the story, I'll let them overrule my own call. (They insisted John Chilcot's lengthy statement at the end of the last public hearing in December was the story, for example, and we went with that.) But a number of visitors are e-mailing about the US slowing the British withdrawal. Andrew Hough (Telegraph of London) and David Brown (Times of London) are among those who reported on that development. We didn't lead with it and didn't inlcude it in the snapshot because I made a call that it wasn't news. It may be new to some people but in October 2007, we repeatedly noted Kim Sengupta and Anne Penketh's "US 'delayed' British withdrawal from Basra" (Independent of London) on this issue. That's what the testimony was about -- what the two had already reported. You can disagree with my call and you may very well be right but I did not (and do not) feel that we have to spend time going over points from the hearing that were already established years ago. The only real exception is the NO WMD and that we will go over and over because so many were led to believe that there were or, after the invasion, that they were discovered. There were no WMD in Iraq. But other than that, we'll go for things that are new or at least "newish."

While we're dropping back to yesterday's snapshot, we noted the latest episode of The Progressive Radio Show where Matthew Rothschild speaks with Sami Rasouli and that Sami Rasouli is with Muslim Peacemakers Team in Iraq and also a part of the Reconciliation Project. I meant to include links to both organizations but forgot. So the links are now there.

Outside of the Iraq Inquiry, we will repeatedly note other topics. Such as the League of Righteous. Dropping back to the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Timothy Williams and John Leland (New York Times) report that Interior Ministry spokesperson Alaa al-Taei states that Qais al-Khazali was "released two days ago" by the Iraqi government (he is the "Iraq accues of being behind the killings in 2007 of five American soldiers"). Ned Parker and Saad Fakhrildeen (Los Angeles Times) add:The release followed the complicated transfer of Khazali and 450 of his supporters from U.S. to Iraqi custody, which began in June when his brother Laith and a senior aide were given their freedom. Since then, the League of the Righteous has handed over to the Iraqi government the corpses of three of the abducted British hostages, and the kidnapping's one known survivor, Peter Moore, a computer technician. Moore was freed last week after the Americans transferred Qais Khazali to Iraqi custody. The fate of the fifth hostage remains unknown, although he is believed to be dead. The U.S. military has backed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government in its effort to bring Khazali into the political process and has said the League of the Righteous halted its attacks against the Americans early last summer. Khazali had been held since March 2007 in the kidnapping and killing of five U.S. soldiers in the southern city of Karbala in January of that year. His supporters kidnapped the Britons to bargain for his release. At the time, the Americans accused Khazali of working in direct collaboration with Iran's Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard.

Laura Rozen (Politico) did a brief write up yesterday. To be clear, the British government has every right to ask for help with their hostages -- in fact, as the Iraq Inquiry has demonstrated, if they didn't ask for help constantly, the British government would have no 'plan' when it came to freeing hostages. It is their obligation, not just their right. The British government is supposed to represent their citizens. The United States government is supposed to represent their own citizens' best interests. There will be trade-offs and one-offs and various deals made between governments.

There were no American interests in this trade, there was no benefit to the US in making this trade. The British are already allies, they can't get any closer short of gene-splicing and they can take a "no" as easily as any other country. So it did not win over support from a lukewarm ally or recruit a new ally. No American citizens had been kidnapped and were being freed as a result of the trade, so no benefit arrived that way.

All Barack Obama did was embarrass the United States. 5 US soldiers are killed. The US military has the suspected ringleaders in custody. To force their release, the League of Righteous kidnaps five British hostages. The US allowed itself to be blackmailed into a release that it had no business making. America did not benefit from the release and, in fact, the US suffered and suffers. The US military that is being sent in harm's way now knows that their lives matter very little to their commander in chief and any nut job in the world now knows if you want your leaders freed, kidnap British citizens and the US will cave. There was no benefit and it is a very disgraceful moment. Barack is desparately trying to portray himself as Mr. Security with his never-ending announcements about fighting terrorism but for all the speechifying, he let go two terrorists who are the ring leaders of the group claiming responsibility (bragging about it, not merely claiming) for the deaths of 5 US soldiers in an assault on a US base. It is not a proud moment for Barack Obama, nor is it a proud moment for the United States of America.


Today a US soldier died. Did the newly christened "USF" (United States Forces - Iraq) post a release? No, that would be actual work. (Note, USF also apparently doesn't plan on posting the briefings the way M-NF did.) David Culter (Reuters) reports 1 US soldier died "while on patrol in Baghdad" -- other than that, we'll wait for the official statement which may or may not include "The incident is under investigation." The death brings to 4373 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

Violence claimed Iraq lives today. Anne Tang (Xinhua) reports 5 women are dead and either other Iraqis injured after an accident with a US military vehicle outside Hilla and the bulk "of wounded people were women and children". Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one of the injured, Badriya Hussein, was "dazed and blood-spattered" and crying, "Why? Why?" and the Iraqi media is reporting the US military vehicle was traveling on the wrong side of the road when it hit the women's mini-van. Reuters notes that three US soldiers were also injured in the accident and they report a Mosul roadside bombing left two police officers wounded and a Mosul bombing reaulted in the deaths of 2 children with a third left injured.

Meanwhile Uthman al-Mukhtar (Asia Times) reports that al Anbar Province residents are "alarmed" by the recent increase in violence in the province and quotes Noor Saadi stating, "The police can't even protect themselves." The violence is causing her to keep her son at home and not let him attend school while other people are refusing "to return to their businesses or open their shops." To the south east of Anbar Province is Nasiriyah (of Dhi Qar Province) where Katharine Houreld (Scotsman) reports a number of artificats were discovered before they could be carried across the border out of Iraq and sold on the black market.

Also on the move is Nouri al-Maliki, US-installed thug of the occupation, whom UPI reports journey to Najaf yesterday in order "to discuss election preparations with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani from whom Nouri was seeking a blessing as evidenced by his trip and groveling. Nouri told the Ayatollah that "his State of Law coalition would join forces with the Shii'te National Alliance slate to compete in March elections." Missy Ryan and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report that Saleh al-Mutlaq, the Iraqi National Movement, calls Nouri's efforts false noting, "It's not possible for a party that has been sectarian from its beginning for dozens of years, to suddenly become nationalist." Tariq Allhomayed (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) notes Nouri's long, long sildence while Iran occupied an Iraqi oil field last month (Iran denies it) and compares Nouri's remarks when they finally came to a popular saying:

The following popular saying applies to Mr. al Maliki's comments: 'We destroyed a house last year, and its dust came this year,' as he made his comments way after the lines have been drawn and the positions of all Iraqis became apparent. However what's strange is that after the occupation of the Iraqi Fakka oil well by Iranian forces, I, like many others, wrote about the danger of what happened. The article was called 'The Iranians Have Done Good in Iraq,' based on the consideration that the occupation will help Iraqis, or let us say the Iraqi voters, discover who are Tehran's men in Baghdad, because they will not dare say a word about Iran, even if it was occupying an Iraqi oil well. Some comments were made about us in some Iraqi media affiliated to the government that can only be described as insults and accusations, as the media affiliated to the Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council launched a violent attack on me and other colleagues at our newspaper, and they cast the worst accusations against us, as well as insults and instigations, whilst Mr. Nuri al Maliki comes out today to say that Iraq "will not remain silent" in the face of any violations against his land!
The question here is: why the tension, and why the media campaigns when al Maliki is coming out today to defend Iraq, its "land, sea and air," in his own words.
Why are we thought of as sectarian and as traitors? Most importantly, the main, real reason for the recent speech in defense of Iraq, after a long silence, is the fear of the results of the upcoming Iraqi elections -- the preparations for which are in full swing today.

Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations) interviews Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) and the subject of Iraqi elections is raised:

[Bernard Gwertzman]: Talking about politics, the national elections for a new parliament that were originally supposed to take place in January will now take place on March 7. Who are the main contenders for power?

[Jane Arraf]: The most prominent of course is Prime Minister Maliki, who has done quite a lot of things right in the view of people in the streets. After all the suicide bombings, you would think people would be incredibly angry at him. But when you ask people in the street, he doesn't get a lot of the blame. What he hasn't done so well is enforcing his alliances with the political players he needs. He was basically the compromise candidate, and that's how he came to power. Now the Kurds say that he came to power because they decided to back him. That's in part true. Right now, the Kurds are not showing their cards. They're waiting to see, as everyone is waiting to see, who gets the most votes after the elections. That's when we'll see the coalitions forming. Unlike the previous election, when we pretty much knew who was going to head these coalitions, it's still all up in the air. There are even some players from 2003. Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has been backed by the United States, is back. There are various Shiite candidates who have split from the coalition that Maliki had been part of, so there is a division in the two main Shiite parties, each with competing candidates. But again, that might change after the election results are in. As you know, politics anywhere, especially in the Middle East, are full of surprises so we could see alliances that we hadn't predicted.

[Bernard Gwertzman]: Is this a different kind of election? Will people be voting for individuals or for parties?

[Jane Arraf]: They will be voting for both. For the first time in national elections, Iraqis are able to choose and vote for the candidate of their choice, not just for the party of their choice. This was one of the big debates in Parliament and one of the reasons for the delay in passing the election law. There are a lot of really unpopular members of Parliament. There's a lot of dissatisfaction in the country with Parliament, and a feeling that a lot of these members of Parliament probably won't win this time, so they were pushing for a closed slate where they were running on the coattails of the more popular parties. But in the end, they passed an election law that allows people to actually vote for the candidates themselves as well as the parties, which is seen as somewhat more democratic.

Iraqi refugees have their own opinions about the intended March vote. Julian Barnes-Dacey (Syria Today) reports on the mood in Syria among the refugee population where a large number appear determined not to vote because they do not feel the 2005 vote made any difference for their lives and and political analyst Fadel al-Rubaie declares, "Not even 10 percent of refugees will vote because of their dissatisfaction with the political process. Today Iraqi refugees feel change is hopeless. They voted in 2005 and it made no difference." UPI reports a large number of Iraqi Parliamentary members are not expected "to run for re-election" and that a huge turnover is being predicted. Meanwhile John Leland (New York Times' At War Blog) reports on the press conference Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain held in Baghdad in which they never even mentioned the elections and Leland observes Lieberman was "taking stock of an Iraq that has yet to emerge" with statements such as "We have together made history here, but more important than making history, we changed history." Yesterday the White House issued the following statment regarding the elections:

The Vice President [Joe Biden] met today with the U.N. Secretary General's Special Representative for Iraq Ad Melkert, to discuss developments in Iraq. The Vice President offered continued U.S. government support for the indispensable role of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and thanked Mr. Melkert for his leadership, highlighting his recent support for Iraqi efforts to approve an election law. They discussed preparations for the upcoming national elections and pledged to help the Iraqis resolve outstanding national unity issues. To view a photo of this meeting please click HERE.

Tuning to the US where little whiners are up in arms over Andrew Tyndall's latest 'study'. Tiny Eric Deggans (Tampa Bay Tribune) huffs that he can't find a person of color but Andrea Mitchell is "top of that heap" -- Andrea Mitchell's a woman. If, IF, the 'study' is correct and she had the most air time on the network news of any correspondent, good. About damn time. Women make up over half the US population. Deggans is not at all distressed by women's low representation (Andrea's not even in the top 20 for 2009). He just wants to play his Pig Boy games. That includes citing the Ultimate Pig Boy Andrew Tyndall as gospel. Who is Andrew Tyndall? Andrew Scott (AOL's Inside TV -- and Outside Sanity?) is clueless: ". . . Mitchell clocked in the most minutes on camera during the last decade. Her total a staggering 2,416 minutes. Andrew Tyndall, also of NBC, finished in second, with 2,328 minutes." Can we get a reading workshp for Andrew Scott?

Andrew Tyndall is not a reporter and he did not receive 2,328 minutes of time on NBC news or on any news. He is a media 'expert.' He has a stream of data he's releasing (he's still posting it at his bad blog as I dictate this) and no one ever checks it out, they just run with it. They should try checking it out.

Let's address Tyndall's bonafides, shall we? He explains:

Sawyer's decision to lead ABC's newscast with Kate Snow's story on the ban on military cancers in the warzone displayed a morning show sensibility. It is the type of story that sparks plenty of debate around the watercooler [. . .] yet affects very few people. Only four cancer diagnosis have occurred in defiance of Cucolo's order; those people have received no punishment more severe than a reprimand; and they have been sent home from the battlefield just as they would have been had cancer not been forbidden.

What? The military's targeting cancer patients? Proposing to possible court-martial them and Tyndall says it's "watercooler" and "affects very few people"?

No, he didn't say that. I've changed pregnancy to cancer. This is why Tyndall's hyped Tyndall Report needs to be ignored (if not called out). He does this all the time -- issuing reports that he claims are objective and they aren't. He did that repeatedly with Katie Couric, labeling something "soft news." That's not "soft news." He didn't care for it -- women were involved -- and he hissed "soft news." (We covered this topic in December. If you're late to the party, check out this at Feminist Wire Daily. And I will again say thank you to Gen Ray Odierno for eliminating the policy.)

The pregnancy issue? What an idiot Andrew Tyndall is. Tell it to the women in the miltiary e-mailing this site outraged by the policy. Tell it to the 4 US senators lodging a complaint about the policy. The government wants to court-martial for pregnancy -- even, get this, married pregnancies -- and Tyndall says it doesn't matter and is just "watercooler." Tyndall thinks he judges by a "universal" standard. No, he judges by a sexist standard where issues effecting women are "watercooler" and don't matter as much. His crap needs to be called out.

He's released a ton of numbers -- they aren't accurate. They never are. He can't back it up and he knows he won't be checked. There are categories in there on Iraq. When PEW releases a study on media coverage of Iraq? We'll take it seriously as we always have. Andrew Tyndall? We're not interested. September 2006 at Third we quoted from a Tyndall 'study':

CBS' enthusiasm for features includes Exclusives. Lara Logan's scoop took us behind Taliban lines in Afghanistan's Ghazni Province and David Martin landed a one-on-one with Richard Armitage, the leaker who told columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, wife of diplomat Joe Wilson, was a spy. "I let down the President. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family. And I also let down Mr and Mrs Wilson." "Do you feel you owe the Wilsons an apology?" "I think I have just done it."We then explained that 'analyst' Tyndall labels both reports as "features." Lara Logan is doing a report not a feature. Media 'analyst' Andrew Tyndall doesn't know the first thing he's talking about -- as usual. We don't trust him, we don't trust his 'findings' and we don't trust his numbers so we'll ignore the Iraq aspects of his 'study.'

Back here on earth, Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and a noted professor. We noted that Iraqi members of Parliament may not be running for re-election earlier in the snapshot. Professor Boyle weighs in on the decision in the US by Chris Dodd not to run for re-election to the US Senate:


Contrary to conventional wisdom, Senator Dodd's retirement from the Senate will be no loss for the Irish or this country. During the past two decades, Senator Dodd has sold out the Irish and Irish Americans and Irish America on two separate occasions. In 1986, he sold us out to Margaret Thatcher and her Diplock Courts by means of supporting the U.S.-U.K. Supplementary Extradition Treaty. Then again in 2006 Senator Dodd sold out us Irish to Tony Blair and Britain's still extant Diplock Courts by means of his decisive support for the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty. This first sell-out was because of Dodd's craven capitulation to President Ronald Reagan. The second sell out was because of Dodd's craven capitulation to his own presidential ambitions. As a veteran of both treaty battles, I can assure your readers that Senator Dodd alone could have stopped both treaties if he had really wanted to. Instead Senator Dodd greased the way for the two most totalitarian extradition treaties in the history of this proud American Republic going all the way back to our War for Independence against the British Monarchy. When conjoined with his own financial and banking scandals , Senator Dodd finally decided to throw in the towel on his latest re-election campaign. Bon voyage!

Caro of MakeThemAccountable adds:

"BREAKING: Democrats Hoping To Take Control Of Congress …
… From Republican Minority In 2010"
Why was that tweet from The Onion so funny?
Because it's so true.
Despite a Democratic president, a Democratic majority in the House, and 60 members of the Senate caucusing with the Democrats, the corporate lobbyists' agenda continually prevails.
If you want to force that situation to "change", if you'll pardon the expression, read on.
(more…)

Lastly Friday night on most PBS stations, NOW on PBS begins airing (check local listings) and this week's program explores the Afghanistan War:President Obama is sending as many as 30,000 more troops to combat Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan this year, but are we missing the true target? On Friday, January 8 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW reports directly from Pakistan's dangerous and pivotal border with Afghanistan, where Pentagon war planners acknowledge many of the enemy fighters and their leaders are based. The U.S. has been relying on Pakistan to act against Taliban militants there, but the Pakistani army's commitment is in question. NOW takes you to the true front lines for an eye-opening, inside lookyou haven't seen before, and won't soon forget.

iraqthe new york timestimothy williamsthe los angeles timesned parkersaad fakhrildeenpoliticolaura rosen
anne penkethkim sengupta
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the times of londondavid brown
the guardianrichard norton-taylor
francis a. boyle
caromakethemaccountable
pbsnow on pbs

Pelosi's morning after doubts

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Brownie Approved"


Isaiah did three comics from Friday morning to Sunday night (more than that if you count the newsletters) and this one is probably my favorite. I think it really captures 2009 without being obvious. You read it and think, "Oh, that's true and funny." Then you realize it goes far beyond that one incident.

If you missed it, Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) has declared it's okay with her if the public option (a weak proposal but the House fought to include it) is left out of Obama BigBusinessGiveAway for the insurance companies. Big surprise that Nancy's not going to stand up for anything. I believe she took her spine "off the table" some time ago.

"Nancy Pelosi takes swipe at President Obama's campaign promises" (Patrick O'Connor and Glenn Thrush, Politico):
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow at President Barack Obama Tuesday, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises.
A leadership aide said it was no accident.
Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised. A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.
“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.


Oh, so now Nancy's not in love with Barack. Big surprise. She should have checked him out closely in 2007 before deciding to endorse him (without going publicly), before deciding to steal the nomination for him. Nancy, few did as much as you to put him into power. Remember, it was you that stopped the delegate count at the DNC convention. Stopped the count. That should have been the biggest story of that week but no one cared. No one cared about fairness or democracy.

When people only have 'outrage' when it benefits them, if they're older than 14, they have no real ethics. That's reality.

Nancy pimped him, she's stuck with him.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, January 5, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi Christians are again targeted, a British official tells the Iraq Inquiry they did everything but (under questioning) reveals they did damn little, KPFA runs off listeners, and more.

There's confusiong this week regarding Ba'athism as a result of one outlet publishing rabid ravings of a Chalabi. But there's also an easy walk through provided on this week's The Progressive Radio Show where Matthew Rothschild speaks with Sami Rasouli of Muslim Peacemakers Team in Iraq.

Sami Rasouli: And by the way, Ba'ath means the Arab renasance or a new born Arab and that political party as philosophy and set of values and objectives were founded --was founded by a Christian Syrian philospher scholar named Michel Aflaq in 1947. Main objective of the Ba'ath to unite all Arab countries. 22 countries become just like United States of America, United States of Arabia. That was a wonderful thing to think of of it. And the people were according to the Ba'ath philosophy, they live in a social system and free -- free from outsider's intervention

Matthew Rothschild: But that's not how the regime turned out though?

Sami Rasouli: Well the objectives yes. The objectives, I mean, the-the Ba'ath was -- attracted actually lots of young people. Started in Syria, moved to Iraq, then right now at the moment the Syrian government is run -- embracing that party, Baath political party and also there are Bathis in the parliaments of Lebanon, Jordan, Sudan and the Ba'ath Party is active in Mauritania and other Arab countries excpet in Iraq. In Iraq if you run for political office, public office like the next election in March, in Iraq, you have to submit an affidavit that prove that you are not Ba'ahti you did not work with the previous regime. So there is a harsh actually ban on exercising the Baath as a political party in Iraq today and that goes back when Paul Bremer, the second civil administrator -- American administrator, who run the country after Saddam Hussein fall, he set one of the 100 orders, besides disbanding the army, the order was the de-Ba'athifcation that slaughtered a lot of Iraqis.

Matthew Rothschild: Do you think it's a mistake to ban the Ba'ath Party?

Sami Rasouli: Oh, yeah, because many people embraced that political party willing and others, no, they were forced. But the big dilemma that the Iraqi people are suffering today, 1/5 of the population got displaced and mostly was the educated paople. Now this is just for education, Taliban means the educated people. So the educated people of Iraq -- 1/5 of the popultiaton, one million people were driven first they were kidnapped, imprionsed, killed with many, many, many, I mean 650 Iraqi scientists were assassinated by the Mossad these Israeli intelligence agency in the last six and a half years and this is available as information go Google the State Dept and the Pentagon They don't shy away about it because those scientiest they know about it and the so they are so dangerous and they were not recruitable so they got assassinated. Now many --

Matthew Rothschild: Well that's the first I've heard of that. You're sure about that?

Sami Rasouli: Right you can find that easily, hundreds of articles about this. The Oil experts that were part of those people, the Iraqi educated people, got displaced out of Iraq, in Jordan and Syria and beyond, they left the country the country now has a big vaccum and it became a dead end where the Iraqi oil became privatized.

Matthew Rothschild: Well, and, how is that, that has just begun and for a long time/ I mean, I had a bumper sticker on my car that said: "The Iraq War Is Terrorism For Oil" or something when the war started and now it looks like, low and behold the oil companies are getting in.

Sami Rasouli: On June 30th, the Iraqi government made a big noise sending 100s dancers and musicians on the street to celebrate what? The US forces left the cities and stayed on their bases, military based. and Malii told the Iraqis we just got -- we took the right step towrads our indepencncy our soverntiy so let's be happy and celeertate but he didn't tell the Iraqi pople the other thing that was happening on the very same day, June 30th giant oil company represenatives attended the celebration, another celebiration of submitting their bids to get their shares of the Iraqi treasures Iraqi government silently, secretly auctioned off the Iraqi wealth, the Iraqi oil. And now we know one of the three letters that Ray McGoven when he was asked about the Iraq War, He said it was about three letters O-I--L. O it's about Oil, I it's about Israel, L it's about location or logistics.

Sami Rasouli is with Muslim Peacemakers Team in Iraq and also a part of the Reconciliation Project. In terms of the 630 Iraqi scientists, Al Jazeera reported "Mossad murdered 530 Iraqi scientists. The Plight of Iraqi Acadmics" May 9, 2006. December 10, 2007, Press TV counted 530 in their "Mossad mission: Murder Iraqi scholars." James Petras' article noting the reports can be found at Al Jazeera and the Palestine Chronicles. And it made the Marxism mailing list. Philip Sherwell (Telegraph of London) reported that Mossad was targeting Iran's scientists (Feb. 16, 2009) and quoted an unnamed source saying it would be like what they did in Iraq. December 3, 2005, David Hoskins (Workers World) reported:

Osama Abed Al-Majeed, the president of the Department for Research and Development at the Iraqi Ministry for Higher Education, has accused the Israeli secret service, Mossad, of perpetuating the violence against Iraqi scientists. A June 2005 report by the Palestine Information Center claims that Mossad, in cooperation with U.S. military forces, was responsible for the assassination of 530 Iraqi scientists and professors in the seven months prior to the report's publication.
Mossad unquestionably has the motive and means to assassinate leading Iraqi intel lectuals. The Israeli intelligence agency contains a Special Operations Division called Metsada which is tasked with conducting assassinations, sabotage and paramilitary projects. Israel has a long history of interference in Iraq, going back to the 1981 bombing of a nuclear energy plant that stood 15 miles outside Baghdad that just before that attack had voluntarily undergone inspection by the Inter national Atomic Energy Agency.
Regardless of who is responsible for the killing of Iraqi scientists and academics, it is clear that the U.S. and Britain, as the leading occupying powers, have the responsibility for the precarious situation in which these intellectuals are forced to live.

In July 2006, Fakhri Al Qaisi ("assistant dean of the College of Dentistry") told Basil Adas (Gulf News) that, "The assassinations are linked to Israeli Mossad." Adas reported, "He claimed that the Iraqi National Congress Party began abducting physicians and university professors after the US occupation, a time when assassinations increased dramatically and that the party was backed by the Mossad."

Matthew Rothschild devotes The Progressive Review this week to the issue of Iraq. And it can be done. And it used to be done. Which brings us to KPFA's self-serving [PDF format warning] "KPFA State of the Station 2009." Pledge drives? It's never-ending begging at KPFA these days -- if you've missed it, you haven't been listening. Pledge drive over? Keep hitting up the listeners at the top of the hour. If you just listened, you'd get the impression that (a) KPFA needs money and (b) it wants to raise money. Reality: It needs money. If it wanted to improve the station's financial health the answer's in the paper. No, not in "This is how we get young males to listen to us!" In fact, that crap's so damn pathetic you begin to grasp why KPFA's listenership has CRATERED. Give them an audience and KPFA will run the audience off.

Travel with us through the report: "In 2004, KPFA's overall listenership reached a peak, paralleling the trend of public radio as a whole, in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq." Why would that be the peak? Because of the Iraq War, the report tells you. The report continues, "Times of reaction and war have traditionally increased listenership to Pacifica stations. The fact that we have not broken any lasting new ground in the past eight years is cause for real concern."

Indeed it damn well is. Equally true, PAY ATTENTION KPFA, the fall in listeners coincides with KPFA's drop in war coverage. The Iraq War has not ended. The Iraq War, when it was covered, brought KPFA record high listenership for the decade and what the hell did KPFA do with that?

Not a damn thing. KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, trivia note, began how? Covering the first Gulf War. In 2003 and 2004, while KPFA was pulling in a record number of listeners, what show did they create to cover the Iraq War? Not one damn show.

Not one damn show.

And when confronted, management would insist it could be covered by the various programs. As we all know, that was either optimistic thinking or a flat out lie. Here's what happened, the end of 2004 (which is when the ratings start to droop -- a factor that is left out of the 'official report'), KPFA drops Iraq to subordinate position. The Iraq War is no longer an issue itself, mind you, it is now a reason: A reason to vote for John Kerry. KPFA lost listeners doing that because it wasn't NPR. See, NPR covers the news. You may not like how they cover it, you may. But NPR isn't telling you who to vote for.

Having failed to use the Iraq War to elect John Kerry president of the United States, KPFA (and the rest of Pacifica) lost interest in Iraq. This is December 2004, January 2005, etc. It's not until Cindy Sheehan stages Camp Casey that Iraq becomes an 'issue' for KPFA. And, no surprise, KPFA's interest was just in time to push the 2006 mid-term elections.

Today the Iraq War doesn't exist on KPFA except for one program, we'll get to it in a minute. You can hear Kris Welch embarrass herself (how sad that this is how the broadcast career ends) doing her bulls**t broadcasts each Thursday and Friday which are nothing but grief therapy for Democrats which end with a group hug and a pledge to forever vote Democrat -- and that crap you can hear all over KPFA. You just can't hear a damn thing that matters.

KPFA walked away from its mission. It refused to provide information and instead worked on get out the vote. That is not Pacifica Radio's function. And that nonsense alienated people who weren't Democrats (Socialists, Greens, Communists, independents, disenchanted Republicans, swing voters, non-voters, etc.) and alienates even Democrats today as they hear Kris Welch and various other liars on the airwaves insisting that Bush did this and Bush did that even though Barack Obama is the President. They're such liars, no one takes them seriously. KPFA is supposed to lead. Not lead in minimizing or lowering expectations.

KPFA failed. The management failed. The first thing you do, if you're KPFA, when the US launches a war, is launch a program to cover it. Anytime Pacifica's done that, the ratings have been there. Anytime. And the funds have been there because it was an alternative to the rah-rah war of the MSM. But they failed. And they continue to fail because the Iraq War continues and the Afghanistan War continues. They could give you Mitch jerking off daily while moaning "Barack! Barack" and call it [Dear Penthouse Forum] Letters From Washington. They've failed to grasp why Pacifica ever mattered, they've confused electoral politics with Lew Hill's mission statement and, in doing so, they've driven off all the listeners they gained in 2004.

In full, from Indybay Media, this open letter from Dennis Bernstein of KPFA's Flashpoints Radio:
Open Letter to KPFA General Manager, Lemlem Rijio and the KPFA community
by repost from D. Bernstein Thursday Dec 31st, 2009 12:37 PM
Dennis Bernstein replies to a letter sent by KPFA General Manager Lemlem Rijio to the staff list concerning the cuts to Flashpoints
Open Letter to KPFA General Manager, Lemlem Rijio and the KPFA community of Listeners /And A Bold Proposal By Dennis Bernstein, Executive Producer, Flashpoints On December 30th [Response to Rijio letter of 12/30, KPFA Staff: KPFA Open Letter on Budget Reductions, which is not copied here due to a confidentiality notice] KPFA GM, Lemlem Rijio addressed the KPFA Pacifica community in an open letter . . about the current financial crunch at KPFA. While the crunch is real, I would of course disagree with several statements made in the letter by MS Rijio. But let me just shed light on one point, in which she directly addresses Flashpoints, and then I'd like to offer a bold proposal to Management and workers at KPFA, to step up and stand strong for Free Speech Radio. Ms Rijio states in her open letter: "At the current staffing level (after cuts to all programs), Flashpoints has more staffing per hour than all other public affairs programs at KPFA." Really? Under current management, Flashpoints has lost fifty percent of its budget, leaving the show with 80 paid hours for staffing. Currently KPFA news has well over 200 paid hours for staffing, five times the plant space as Flashpoints, and their own broadcast studio. They also have full access to Free speech Radio News which is a major contributor to the news cast. According to the official budget figures for fiscal 2005/2006, the news department budget went up over $50,000 dollars under current management, while the Flashpoints budget was cut. Administration went up over $30,000 dollars in the same period. The trend continued, as MS Rijio expressed her priorities clearly, by continuing to cut (and censor) Flashpoints, while increasing the budgets for the morning show and the news and administration. Statement of Fact: The Flashpoints budget has been slashed in half under current management. Question: Have the budgets for the morning show and the KPFA news gone up or down under the same management? Question: Did current management bust the budget, and are they now using the bust as an excuse to get rid of, or at least marginalize a radical edgy show like Flashpoints? MY Challenge: Ms Rijio writes in her open letter, "program teams, were given the opportunity to voluntarily spread the cuts among themselves, and some staff voluntarily reduced their hours to lessen the impact on their co-workers." Well here's my response to my boss: OK I will volunteer to go on an unpaid six months leave, and work for free, starting immediately if six of my brothers and sisters at the top of the KPFA pay scale will do the same. That would be say the two top managers, and 4 senior members of CWA (let's make room for the next generation). One more thing, it is my understanding that several people were given major increases in their hours, even while others were being cut. Those hours should immediately be returned back to the hour pool and given back to the people who were just laid off. If you agree to this action, in support of KPFA,the people's radio station, Ms Rijio, then I think that it will go a long way to getting us over the financial hump, without hobbling Flashpoints and Hard Knock Radio, which have been hit hardest by the crunch, and which are born under the banner of Pacifica founder, Lew Hill. In closing, Ms Rijio, I do admire your decision to bring this conversation out into the light of day, with your open letter to the KPFA community. I look forward to this frank open dialogue on how to keep KPFA Free Speech, non-corporate radio strong and viable into the 21st Century. In Struggle, Dennis Bernstein Executive Producer, Flashpoints, CWA/KPFA member, dbernstein [at] igc.org


Today Flashpoints Radio is the only KPFA program aware that the Iraq War did not end in January 2008 when Barack Obama was sworn in as the new president of the United States so we'll note Dennis' letter in full. KPFA has failed. The management needs to turn in their resignations. They've destroyed the station and they refused to deliver a program on Iraq all these years even though the Iraq War was the only thing, THE ONLY THING, that increased their ratings in the entire decade. (And we can go into pledges and what brought in the dollars -- not noted in the 'report' released but noted in a lengthier report.) KPFA and Pacifica need to get it together real damn quick. For Pacifica coverage from last night, see Marcia's "Hey KPFA, where are the women?," Ann's "The Morning Show's sexism is showing," Ruth's "A sexist broadcast from Women's Media Center," Kat's "Comic, Flashpoints, year end" and Elaine's "The Infantile Norman Solomon."

In London, the Iraq Inquiry has resumed public hearings today and the witnesses were Gen Nichols Houghton, Simon McDonald, William Patey and Vice Adm Charles Style (link goes to transcript and video options of today's testimony). John Chilcot is the chair of the Inquiry and he noted before Patey offered testimony that the focus would be on examining "developments in Iraq from summer 2005 to summer 2006" and Patey explained, "I was the British Ambassador to Iraq from June 2005 to July 2006." The Press Association reports he told the Inquiry today "that for the first time in his career he had received orders directly from the prime minister." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) adds, "Tony Blair personally briefed Britain's ambassador in Baghdad, with Downing Street calling almost every day as tension grew between political demands at home and reality on the ground in Iraq, the Chilcot inquiry was told today." After offering testimony on that early on, it was a subject Committee Members repeatedly asked about.

Committee Member Martin Gilbert: I would like to ask you about your contact with London. You mentioned your frequent telephone calls direct with Number 10. The instructions you got across the board, were they instructions that you felt were attainable?

William Patey: In the end, we did. I mean, my instructions were: get a constitution, get it agreed, have an election, get a government formed and get some troops out. So I suppose they were, because that's -- by July, when I left, we had done all of those. Handover in Muthanna was just about to happen. Obviously, we would have liked to have got more troops out quicker, but it was always a conditions based approach, and when the conditions were right. We weren't just going to pull troops out for the sake of it. So they were reasonable requests as long as you realised that they weren't in my gift or soley in the gift of the British Government. We were actors in a complex situation where there were other actors and the key for us was to work with the Americans, with the Iraqis, mainly, to try and see a path through. I was always struck by how open Iraqis were to discussions about how democracy worked, and what struck me about it was how little experience they had of it. All politicians had been in exile a while, it was just your own normal experience. I don't regard myself as a constitutional expert, but my everyday understanding of how government works was useful in talkign to Iraqi politicians who were genuinely interested. So there was a process of constant dialogue with individuals, which I think had an impact.

[. . .]

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: I just wonder if I could follow up a bit on the London end. You have talked about getting almost daily phone calls from Number 10. Where were your instructions coming from? Did it seem to you at all odd that you were being managed from 10 Downing Street rather than another department? Did you sense that there was a joined-up policy in Whitehall?

William Patey: No, I didn't find it strange, give the sort of level of interest in the subject, the level of commitment, personal comitment, by the Prime Minister. I didn't get -- I had lots of visitors. Jack Straw was out three or four, maybe five times in the time I was there. The Prime Minister was out two or three times. The Defence Secretary was out, you know, at least as often as that. So I had a lot of direct contact with the Ministers. In a sense, we weren't getting daily instructions. You know, we had -- I had my marching orders, if you like, and a lot of it was left to us. It was one of those -- what they were interested in was updates: what's happening? What's happening on the constitution? Where are we? Where are we on the electroral processes? Where are we on the formation of the government? So a lot of it was an insatiable appetite for information on what was happening, and that was -- in a sense that was the essence of really the Sheinwald call at nine o'clock in the morning. It was a kind of, "I'm going in to see the Prime Minister this morning. He is going to ask about Iraq. What's happening?"

Committee member Usha Prashar raised the issue of the prisoners ("detainees") and William Patey felt the biggest problem wasn't the US (he omitted the British from his response) but was the Ministry Of Interior "detention centers, and some of the horrific things we found there when coalition forces did go into something called the Jadriya bunker, and we also discovered detention centres on the seventh floor of the Ministry of Interiror which led to a whole process of dialogue with the Iraqi Government and agreement on investigation commission and also coalition willingness to inspect -- basically raid detention centres that they were aware of. So there was a determined effort to try and get to the bottom of what the Sunnis called the MOI death squads and politically motivated groups detaining people."

Committee Member Prashar attempted to pursue the issue but Patey repeatedly gave conflicting answers. He insisted he "gave quite a high priority to it" at one point, that he "didn't need London to raise it [the issue] with us" but pressed for what he actually did by Prashar, Patey responded that it was the "Americans [who addressed it[ because they had the forces in Baghdad." But, Patey declared, he did tell the Minister of the Interrior that the MOI death squad "was bad news for the country."

David Brown (Times of London) reports of Simon McDonald's testimony, "British companies have benefited from the award of oil contracts in Iraq because of the decision to help to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Gordon Brown's chief foreign policy adviser told the Chilcot inquiry yesterday." Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger adds these details of McDonald's testimony:

How, purred Sir Roderic, did McDonald think our involvement in Iraq had affected our standing in the Middle East? And with the European Union? And for that matter -- he'd started so he'd finish -- The World? Had it improved or worsened the fight against terrorism? Where exactly had it left our dealings with Iran?
The witness looked, quite frankly, a little astounded; the game had abruptly changed from Simon Says to Roderic Rails. His reply gambit to one question -- a refusal to speculate -- was, frankly, supremely ill-advised.
I'm not asking you to speculate, hissed his inquisitor; I'm asking for your assessment as one of the most senior foreign policy officials in the United Kingdom government. *Ouch*

Between those two testimonies, Vice Adm Charles Style and Gen Nicholas Houghton offered joint-testimony. Here's the key passage:

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: But you said earlier we had got to a situation where we couldn't do much about it. You said that a couple of times.

Vice Adm Charles Style: Absolutely, and not only that but I very much had the view by the first quarter of 2007 that we were starting to become part of the focus -- the target, the cause of much of the violence that was going on in the city.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: So we then withdraw to Basra Airport and we hang around there for a couple of more years unable to do very much, but not able either decently to hand over in conditions that we regarded as acceptable.

At which point Gen Houghton jumped in to rescue the Vice Adm. The Inquiry continues tomorrow. Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq until April. (Chris Hill is now in that position.) Jefferson Robbins (Wenatchee World) interviews Crocker on Iraq and other issues.

Turning to Iraq where Iraqi Christians are again being targeted. AINA reports a Bartilla car bombing outside St. George Church in which twelve people were wounded and property damaged (link has a photo essay). Ethan Cole (Christian Post) provides this background, "The blast occured near St. George Church, which is the same town as the church that was attacked on Christmas morning by a minority ethnic group called Shabak."

Meanwhile Alan McMenemy remains unaccounted for. Five British citizens were kidnapped May 29, 2007 in Iraq and, Wednesday, one was released: Peter Moore. Moore, Alec Maclachlan, Jason Crewswell, Alan McMenemy and Jason Swindelhurst were kidnapped by the League of Righteous from the Ministry of Finance and, following the US military releasing League of Righteous members from their prisons in Iraq in June, the bodies of Crewswell, Swindelhurts and Maclachlan were slowly turned over to British authorities. The British government announced in July that they believed Alan McMenemy was dead but his family has continued to hold out hope.
From the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Yesterday Alice Fordham (Times of London) explained, "The release of Mr McMenemy, or his remains, is being linked to the impending freeing of a Shia cleric and leader of Asaib al-Haq (AAH), League of the Righteous, the group that held the five Britons. Qais al-Khazali, the AAH leader, was transferred from US to Iraqi custody shortly before the release of Mr Moore on December 30." Today Waleed Ibrahim, Suadad al-Salhy, Muhanad Mohammed, Jim Loney, Missy Ryan and Jon Hemming (Reuters) report Iraqi officials are stating Qais al-Khazali has been released; however, "several sources familiar with Khazali's Shi'ite militant group denied he had been released and British officials believe the last remaining hostage, Alan McMenemy, is now dead." Yesterday's snapshot included this:

ITN reports that the family of Jason Swindlehurst have stated that Jason is dead because the US refused to act quickly and quote father Russel Swindlehurst stating, "We're very, very glad that Peter's back home safe and sound. But if the only reason he was released was because the Americans have released whover it is [al-Khazal], why couldn't they have done it two years ago so we might have had all five lads coming home instead of just one." As the father, it's a perfectly reasonable question. Stepping back a distance, the US never, NEVER, should have released the ringleaders responsible for the deaths of 5 Americans. And if Barack's administration had thought in the least (their thinking was addressed in Thursday's snapshot), they would have realized that the release would lead to questions such as Swindlehurst. From his point of view, it's a valid question. From the point of view that an American president is supposed to represent and protect American citizens -- Barack was not elected President of the World -- Barack's actions are appalling.

Barack's actions remain appaling but Russell Swindlehurst's actions described above are perfectly normal and would bef ro any parent. However, Rob Quinn (Newser) reports today that Russell Swindlehurst's feelings were more complicated than described above. He did ask why the Americans didn't release the prisoners sooner but only after he stated, "I believe that you should not negotiate with terrorists, even though it's cost my son his life." And, correction, it's "Russell" not "Russel" as spelled yesterday.

Tom Engelhardt and Nick Turse's "The Year of the Assassin" (Asia Times):Obama swept into office, in part, on a pledge to end the US war in Iraq. Almost a year after he entered the White House, more than 100,000 US troops are still deployed in that country (about the same number as in February 2004). Still, plans developed at the end of the Bush presidency, and later confirmed by Obama, have set the US on an apparent path of withdrawal. On this the president has been unambiguous. "Let me say this as plainly as I can," he told a military audience in February 2009. "By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end ... I intend to remove all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011." However, Robert Gates, his secretary of defense, has not been so unequivocal. While recently visiting Iraq, he disclosed that the US Air Force would likely continue to operate in that country well into the future. He also said: "I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see agreements between ourselves and the Iraqis that continues a train, equip and advise role beyond the end of 2011." For 2010, expect platitudes about withdrawal from the president and other administration spokespeople, while Defense Department officials and military commanders offer more "pragmatic" (and realistic) assessments. Keep an eye out for signs this year of a coming non-withdrawal withdrawal in 2011.


iraq
matthew rothschild
kpfaflashpoints radiodennis bernstein
anns mega dublike maria said pazkats kornerruths reportsickofitradlz
channel 4 newsiraq inquiry blogger
the asia timestom engelhardtnick turse
the times of londondavid brown
the guardianrichard norton-taylor

The Infantile Norman Solomon

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Colgate Ready"



That's from last night and there are two others Isaiah did that I'll be highlighting tomorrow and Wednesday.

But now we turn to radio. In fact, now we turn to bad radio.

KPFK's Connect The Dots with Lila Garrett. Before we get to how bad that was, let me toss in a cutting of C.I.'s year-in-review.

"The Year of Living Sickly" (C.I., The Common Ills):
The left's not going anywhere because the clerical pool wanting to lead it is sick and needs help. They can't take accountability for any of their actions and their actions in 2008 destroyed the left. They cannot heal, they cannot lead.
And as long as they're allowed to pretend 2008 didn't happen, they infect the entire left. If you doubt that, look at 2009 and see what the clerical pool elected to write and gas bag about: insults to gays, insults to women, non-stop attacks on Sarah Palin who holds no office currently. What did they accomplish?
The Iraq War has not ended. The Afghanistan War has not ended. The Guantanamo prison system has not been closed. Illegal warrantless spying has not ceased. The Patriot Act was not overturned or allowed to sunset out of existence.
What did they accomplish?
Not a damn thing except to drive up support for Palin. That really wasn't supposed to be the point of their attacks on Palin, was it? If there's a lesson for 2010, it's that the sick can't lead and it's time to tell them, "Get help or get lost. We can't afford you." For more on the clerical pool, see this piece by Ralph Nader who is far kinder than I would be if I were him.

Amazing and true. I loved what C.I. wrote and thought she just did something amazing. Especially knowing that she didn't have anything planned and was so tired. But she managed to sum up the year and do say in a way that was powerful and humorous.

Norman Solomon has no power nor any sense of humor. He has a high pitched voice and a pompous manner of speaking -- actually, he is pompous, he has a prissy manner of speaking.

He was the first guest on Connect The Dots today. (Lila was out. Brad filled in for her again.) As the first guest, he drove the show into Lake Useless and did anyone ever have a doubt that would happen?

As usual, he offered a lot of excuses for the powerful. That is, after all, what Mr. Solomon does. You do not get that right away unless you pay close attention.

Mr. Solomon babbled on endlessly.

Mr. Solomon, the 'independent' media 'critic', told us in 2006 that we had to vote for Democrats and, if we gave them a house of Congress, they would end the Iraq War. In 2008, he told us we had to give Barack Obama (he was a pledged delegate for Barack) the White House and more seats in Congress to Dems (in the 2006 mid-terms, Dems were given control of both houses of Congress). That, he insisted, would end the war. "He" insisted? Yes, you have probably already guessed that Mr. Solomon, 'independent' Mr. Solomon, is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Democrats.

As today's interview drew to a close, Brad wanted to know what could be done. People were disenchanted that "change" did not come and they were also tired. What could they do? "Give the people listening to this program," he suggested, "a positve proposal they can do."

What did Mr. Solomon suggest?

Take to the streets?

Boycott Big Oil?

A sit-in?

A teach-in?

No.

"Well local, one idea is to send Jane Harman home."

Yes, he was pimping for his 'friend' Marcy Winograd (the Democrat who wants to go to Congress so she can "fight for Barack" -- strange, I thought members of Congress were supposed to fight for citizens).

Norman insisted that voting was "a very clear example and one of the most important races in 2010."

How pathetic. Ava and C.I.'s "The Public Account (Ava and C.I.)" addresses a number of topics including one of the Whores for Marcy Winograd. Let me back them up on this. If Winograd and her kennel can't get their s**t together (and stop attacking Ruth), it won't just be Ava and C.I. deciding to get Harman re-elected, it will be me as well. Not only will I max out, not only will my brother max out, but I will work the phone (not that hard) and Harman will have a war chest. Ava and C.I. will work the phones in California, I'll do the same on the East Coast. I should futher add that the real damage will be in our use of soft money.

Norman and the Marcy Goons better grasp that soft money will kill them and that C.I. could do that with just millions of her own money. Better grasp that C.I. was a poli-sci major as an undergraduate. Better grasp that Tom-Tom never got further in his career because C.I. wasn't on Tom-Tom's side after he lost his meal ticket.

If the Winograd Kennel can't get their act together, I'll gladly help ensure that 2010 becomes another year where Marcy's a LOSER.

"TV: Scrub up" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Fortunately we were there. And really not into the badly written roles. And tired of watching Chalke in her funk between scenes. So one of us gave Chalke all her lines and the other gave Franco all her lines and it worked. Chalke took "Hey, crazy swimsuit girl" and almost made it funny. And Franco tore into the new lines with the kind of gusto that would make Cristal Connors proud or at least have Cristal handing Franco a black cowboy hat.
If they gave it time, ABC could actually have a hit. The elements are there in a way that they haven't been before. Some stronger scripts and the retool of Scrubs would be a huge hit. Ourselves, we'd make Franco's Cole at least bi-sexual, if not gay.
As for our health care, oh, well, we'd just be screwed like most Americans if Obama's BigBusinessGiveAway was turned into law.

I enjoyed their critique yesterday but I really did when Mike was hollering earlier for me to "C'mere! C'mere!" He had pulled the episode up on Hulu. You only think you get the critique until you watch, then you really get it.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, January 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraqis suffer from exposure to depleted uranium, US troops patrol Iraqi villages attempting to coerce Iraqi civilians (in the name of "psyops"), and more.

"This is our life and this is our environment," declares Zahraa Mohammed, a young mother of two who has been diagnosed with lung cancer. "All have been polluted by the war. I am 23 and I have cancer though I'm the only one to be infected in my family history. I wish I could become better for the sake of my children. If I die, who's going to take care of my children?" Zahraa speaks in the video report at the start of the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) where moderator Jasim al-Azzawi is joined by Dr. Jawad al-Ali (consultant oncologist) and Christopher Busby (radiation expert) to discuss the huge rise in cancer that coincides with the start of the illegal war and the use (by the US and others) of depleted uranium. Jasim al-Azzawi noted that the Pentagon was invited to participate in the discussion but declined to participate.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Dr. Jawad al-Ali, you are a physician, you are a member of the Iraq Cancer Board and you have seen the astronomical rate in cancers rise as well as defects in children. Explain to me what is going on in Basra?

Dr. Jawad al-Ali: Really, as you know, Iraq is effected by three wars, three destructive wars. The last two -- the 1991 war and the 2003 war -- where depleted uranium is used for the first time in history. The 1991 war, they used depleted uranium at the western part of Basra and also they dropped some of the uranium weapons [. . .] during the withdrawal of the Iraqi army. And also they dropped some of the depleted uranium at the eastern part of Basra where it was the only way to withdraw our army from Kuwait.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Did that cause such an astronomical rise in the cancer rates in 1991 and the 90s? And also in the 2003?

Dr. Jawad al-Ali: After three or four years, that is in 1994, I, myself, I noticed that the hospital receiving many patients with cancer. And we were surprised at that time. And we don't what was the link. But, after two years, that is 1996, one of the intelligent persons, worked with the intelligence and he's escorting one of the delegations, he told me that depleted uranium is used. And he told me this is a secret, please keep it inside your brain.

Jasim al-Azzawi: It is no longer a secret, Dr. al-Ali, let me bring in Christopher Busby. Mr. Busby, you were a witness expert in one of the British trials regarding a soldier who developed cancer immediately after returning from deployment in southern part Iraq.

Christopher Busby: In September of this year, I was asked by the coroner in the West Midlands near Birmingham to attend an inquest as an expert witness. I've become a witness on the health effects of depleted uranium. I sat on a number of government committees including a [UK] Ministry of Defense committee and I've studied the health effects of Uranium for almost 15 years and I've closely followed these arguments about the increase in cancer in Iraq and in other areas where uranium has been used. So I was -- I was asked to give evidence as an expert witness in this case. This man, Stuart Dyson, has worked as an Ordnance Corps support soldier. So basically what he did, he cleaned up the vehicles and, as a result, he became contaminated with depleted uranium which collected on the vehicles which were used in the 2003 Gulf War and he then developed cancer at a very early age, about 38. I mean, it's very, very rare to get that cancer, colon cancer, at that age. The normal rate is about 6 in a million people. Now we know as a result of cancer research that cancer is caused by exposure to something that causes a mutation in cells. So we have to look to something that he was exposed to that caused mutations in cells.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Yes.

Christopher Busby: And really there isn't anything else but depleted uranium.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Dr. Jawad al-Ali, you were also a member of a research team in Iraq, especially in the south, and you have seen the deformities and the defects among newly born babies in Iraq. How bad is that?


Dr. Jawad al-Ali: You know, depleted uranium, it's not only a cancer inducing factor but also it might effect the chromosomes whether in the husband or the mother of a child. And many, many children are born with deformities, with loss of limbs, with a big head, with deformed legs and the rate of this -- these deformities is increasing about seven times since 1991until 2002. And also another phenomena we noticed here that families cluster -- cluster of cancer in families -- a husband and a wife are effected. And many families, I got their pictures with me. The other phenomena is the appearance of double and triple cancers. That is three cancers in one patient or two cancers in the same patient. These phenomena are very strange for us. I haven't seen it before. Because I worked in Basra for about 39 years. And I haven't seen such cases of cancer [before]. The other thing is the change of pattern of cancer as said by Dr. Busby. We have a change in the pattern that is the cancers of elderly people appearing now in a younger age group. And this is surprising. Even the breast cancer which is disease of middle and elderly ladies now appearing at the age of 20.

Jasim al-Azzawi: Let me, Mr. Busby, in the 1991 war, most of the fighting was done outside the centers of population, out of the big cities. But in 2003, a great majority of the war, of the battles, actually happened in centers of population. In 1991, we started to see the effect of depleted uranium almost two years or three years after that immediately. Are we going to witness a dramatic rise later on, even in places like Baghdad?

Christopher Busby: I believe you are. And the way in which this works is that you get an immediate genetic shock and then you get a build up of an effect over a longer period of time. But the other thing is that if you already have cause -- genetic damage -- in the first Gulf War, then those people will be more likely to get cancer as a result of a second hit in the second Gulf War. So-so what you've got here, I am afraid, is that, in my prediction, there's going to be a massive increase in cancer and a massive increase in birth defects because this material is one of the most dangerous genetic damaging material that has ever -- that exists on earth because it binds to the DNA and it focuses radiation to that part of the body where it's most dangerous, where it causes the most damage -- for inheritable defects, as Dr. al-Ali says, for cancer also, as he says. So I'm afraid that the whole genetic makeup of the Iraqi population -- and probably a lot of the Gulf War veterans who fought there to, from America and from the United Kingdom also -- will be suffering as a result of these exposures.


All Iraqis suffer from the DU but it falls primarily on the young. They're the ones who may not only become sick themselves but may also see a parent (or both) die. The children of Iraq are not "collateral damage," they are the victims and they are the targets. If you doubt that, Scott Fontaine (McClatchy's News Tribune) was all excited about a psy-ops operation, one he identified as just that. It's all about persuasion, blared the headline, not propaganda. But psyops, by its very nature, is propaganda. US Dept of Defense definition: PSYOPS or Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives. Also called PSYOP. See also consolidation psychological operations; overt peacetime psychological operations programs; perception management.

Get it? Fontaine didn't. Even with Lt Jose Perez bragging about how the operation was about managing the Iraqis behavior. It's also about lying to Iraqis. Perez explains of the December 8th bombing, "We told them that the attackers targeted Iraq's culture and Iraq's history. We wanted people to know that it was way more than an attack on buildings and people." Uh, no, the Iraqi government was attacked. The one set up by the occupying power (the US) and, no, it doesn't not have a cultural or historical role in Iraq. Most importantly, foreigners do not define a foreign country to the inhabitants. Especially when those foreigners are occupiers, they do not define a foreign country to the inhabitants. But that's what the US military does as it swarms through al-Saltuin. Roaming through the village like they own it. Barreling in and flashing guns and stopping parents, pay attention to this, who say they know nothing about any 'insurgents' only to have the US military make veiled threats. An armed US soldier speaking to an Iraqi, pumping him or her for information, and then stating to the Iraqi, "We're here to stop in some of the villages and talk to parents so their kids don't get in trouble"? Plays like a veiled threat. Doubt it? Spc Olivia Laschober tells Fontaine she talks to the Iraqi women, "Most women, if they have children, want to protect their kids, and we play into that."

That's disgraceful and outrageous. It's also shocking because we were told that these sort of raids and patrols stopped June 30th. Remember that? But the US forces are going through villages, detaining Iraqis (there's no freedom of choice when the occupier is armed and orders you to speak with them) and making veiled threats towards Iraqi children.

Moving on to other hostages, five British citizens were kidnapped May 29, 2007 in Iraq and, Wednesday, one was released: Peter Moore. Moore, Alec Maclachlan, Jason Crewswell, Alan McMenemy and Jason Swindelhurst were kidnapped by the League of Righteous from the Ministry of Finance and, following the US military releasing League of Righteous members from their prisons in Iraq in June, the bodies of Crewswell, Swindelhurts and Maclachlan were slowly turned over to British authorities. The British government announced in July that they believed Alan McMenemy was dead but his family has continued to hold out hope. John Leland (New York Times) reports, "On Sunday, the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said that he did not know for sure whether Mr. McMenemy was dead, and that he hoped for 'a handover' in the next few days." Assad Abboud (AFP) quotes an unnamed spokesperson for the British Foreign Office stating, "Our position is unchanged. We have believed for some time that Alan's been killed and his immediate family have been told our views. We continue to urge those holding Alan to return his body immediately. We're in close contact with the Iraqi authorities and we're doing everything we can to try and secure a swift return to the UK." Leland explains that the League of Righteous' Laith al-Khazali had to be released by the Americans back in June before the corpses were retutnred and that his brother, Qais al-Khazali, was released from the US prison "just hours" before Peter Moore was released. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports:The Shia cleric, Qais al-Khazali, who held the key to Peter Moore's fate was freed from Iraqi custody tonight in a move that is widely expected to prompt the handover of the body of the last of the five kidnapped Britons, Alan McMenemy.Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman and the Sadr Office in Baghdad confirmed the Iranian-linked cleric was released after a cursory period of three days in Iraqi custody that followed the almost three years he spent in an American detention centre.Leaders of the Shia resistance group, The Righteous League, which captured the five men in May 2007 have committed to releasing the remains of McMenemy, who is believed to have been killed along with Moore's three other guards. Negotiators who have dealt with the hostage takers tonight reiterated that they were "100% sure" that McMenemy was dead. They joined the Foreign Office in downplaying speculation from Baghdad that he was still alive.Who are the League of Righteous? A group tight with Nouri al-Maliki. Once followers of Moqtada al-Sadr. From the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."
The ringleaders of an attack on a US base that killed 5 American troops were in US custody and they were released, traded so that 3 British corpses and 1 British citizen could be released. Kind of hard for Barack to play commander in chief and enstill a fighting spirit or pride within the military when the answer to an attack on a US base that results in multiple deaths is the killers walk. ITN reports that the family of Jason Swindlehurst have stated that Jason is dead because the US refused to act quickly and quote father Russel Swindlehurst stating, "We're very, very glad that Peter's back home safe and sound. But if the only reason he was released was because the Americans have released whover it is [al-Khazal], why couldn't they have done it two years ago so we might have had all five lads coming home instead of just one." As the father, it's a perfectly reasonable question. Stepping back a distance, the US never, NEVER, should have released the ringleaders responsible for the deaths of 5 Americans. And if Barack's administration had thought in the least (their thinking was addressed in Thursday's snapshot), they would have realized that the release would lead to questions such as Swindlehurst. From his point of view, it's a valid question. From the point of view that an American president is supposed to represent and protect American citizens -- Barack was not elected President of the World -- Barack's actions are appalling. Alice Fordham (Times of London) explains, "The release of Mr McMenemy, or his remains, is being linked to the impending freeing of a Shia cleric and leader of Asaib al-Haq (AAH), League of the Righteous, the group that held the five Britons. Qais al-Khazali, the AAH leader, was transferred from US to Iraqi custody shortly before the release of Mr Moore on December 30."

There are reports that Alan McMenemy may be alive. His family has never given hope. The reports center around a questionable character as the source -- one known for headline grabbing behavior. Since the source has nothing concrete, why did he go public? The answer is: headline grabbing behavior.

Staying with England, Stephen White (Daily Mirror) notes the growing story in England that Prince Charles vocally opposed the Iraq War (before it started) to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Yesterday the Press Trust of India was reporting that Prince Charles spoke out against the Iraq War to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Is it true? Chances are no one will ever know because Richard Palmer (Daily Express) reports, "Prince Charles will refuse to give evidence to the Iraq war inquiry amid claims he broke royal tradition by actively campaigning against the invasion." Wales News feels the most pressing question Tony Blair will face from the Inquiry "will be the central decision to go to war in the first place and whether he took the country into conflict on the basis of a 'lie' regarding Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." Paul Waugh (Evening Standard) adds that there's so much interest in Tony Blair's upcoming testimony to the Iraq Inquiry that there will be a "lottery" to determine who gets seats to attend the hearing that day. Andrew Grice (Independent of London) reports:An internet-based "people power" campaign is asking its 60,000 members to draw up the "tough questions" that Tony Blair must be asked when he is questioned by the Iraq inquiry this year.38 Degrees, a group set up last year in memory of the Body Shop founder Dame Anita Roddick, wants to ensure that Mr Blair is not let off the hook or allowed to answer the most sensitive questions in private. Although Sir John Chilcot, the former Whitehall mandarin chairing the inquiry, has insisted that Mr Blair will be questioned mainly in public, critics of the 2003 invasion fear the former prime minister may cite national security in an attempt to ensure some of the hearing is behind closed doors.The Iraq Inquiry resumes Tuesday. Tony Blair is not scheduled to testify anytime soon (nor is he scheduled to testify before the Parliamentary elections are held in England). However, Tom Baldwin and Sam Coates (Times of London) report the Labour Party feels that he's a drag on the party and can't be deployed in turn up the heat and turn out the vote efforts in the coming weeks. Tony Blair became Prime Minister in May of 1997 when the Labour Party ascended and the Conservative Party was in decline. He replaced John Major as prime minister. Over the weekend, John Major was interviewed by the BBC's Today (audio and text at the link).

John Major: I supported the Iraq War because I believed what the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] said. I had myself been prime minister in the first Gulf War and I knew that when I said something I was utterly certain that I knew it was correct and I said less than I know. I assumed the same thing had happened and on that basis I supported, reluctantly, the second Iraq War. It now seem listening to the Chilcot Inquiry, which is proving more fascinating by the day, that there were questions about whether there were Weapons of Mass Destruction. In which case, obvious points arise. Why was the matter not referred back to [UN weapons inspector] Hans Blix to take a longer look before we engaged in a war? Why did nobody go back to the United Nations seeking a proper resolution? Did the cabinet know that there were doubts about whether there were Weapons of Mass Destruction? The supisicoun arises that this was more about regime change than it was about Weapons of Mass Destruction. And there is a bit of history here which I-I'm not sure that many people have yet heard. When President Clinton was in office, America passed an act called the Iraq Liberation Act which committed the US to regime change long before President [George W.] Bush acutally came into power. We, of course, had no comparative law in this country. Some time, I think in the mid-90s, officials, not Presidnet Clinton, officials approached the UK to discuss ideas about regime change and my officials at that time replied that of course Saddam [Hussein] is a bad man and we need to get rid of him but that isn't the most important point. It has to be legal, it has to be viable and, crucially, what happens after you have removed him? After the 91 conflict many people were criticizi- critical of Geroge [H.W.] Bush and I for stopping. I think they now why we stopped [. . .] I think they now know why we stopped. Would have been illegal to go on and the moment that you go on, you have to run the country.


Violence continue in Iraq.

Bombings?

Li Xianzhi (Xinhua) reports 2 bombs today in Kirkuk which claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left five more wounded. AFP says the wounded toll has now reached eight. In addition, Reuters notes a car bombing outside of Mosul left eight people injured and a Mosul bombing that left five people injured. Anne Tang (Xinhua) reports the number wounded in the Mosul car bombing has now reached thirteen and that it was in "a popular marketplace in a predominately Christian town near the city of Mosul".

Shootings?

Reuters notes the Iraqi military shot dead 1 suspect.

Saturday USF announced the following: "BAGHDAD -- A United States Division - Baghdad Soldier died, Jan. 1, of non-combat related injuries. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. 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 the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4372. The Defense Dept identifed the fallen today as "Spc. Brushaun X. Anderson, 20, of Columbus, Ga.". Newport Television notes, "An initial press release from the Department of Defense said Spc. Anderson was attacked by an unknown assailant. A corrected release issued later omitted the reference to any assailant."


USF? As Hannah Allem (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last week "as of Friday, former president George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing' formally ceased to exist, leaving only the U.S. military's 130,000 or so forces to shepherd their Iraqi counterparts through a volatile election". M-NF announced: "MNF-I is now United States Forces-Iraq, and we have moved!"

Sahwa haven't moved, they've just been abandoned. Sahwa ("Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq") are Sunni militias paid by the US military to stop attacking the US military and its equipment. In 2008, Nouri was supposed to take over the monthly payments (US tax payers were paying approximately 92,000 Sahwas $300 a month) but he couldn't get it together. Still couldn't in Februrary. In the summer he reported finally managed to absorb all the payments (reportedly? there's still no accounting for CERP funds). He's not bringing them in and there are rumors they get kicked off the payroll this month. Michael Gisick (Stars and Stripes) reports attacks on Sahwa are on the rise with the US military estimating an average of ten attacks a week in the last two months:The killing of several members of the U.S.-allied Sunni militias known as "Sons of Iraq" has underscored the increasing weakness of groups widely credited with helping turn the tide of the Iraq war. About a dozen members of the groups have been killed in the rural areas south of Baghdad in recent weeks, U.S. military officials say. Similar attacks have occurred elsewhere, including the execution-style killing of five SOI members north of Baghdad on Tuesday. Karim Zair (Azzaman) reports today that mass arrests are taking place "in Sunni Muslim-dominated neighborhoods of Baghdad and towns and cities to the north and west of the capital".

Meanwhile the decision by Judge Ricardo Urbina (announced Thursday) to toss out the case against Blackwater for the September 2007 massacre as a result of the Justice Department basing much of their case on statements the contractors gave to the US State Dept -- statements given after the men were told anything they said would not be used against them -- has the Baghdad based government or 'government' enraged. The Iraqi government or 'government' of Nouri al-Maliki is still publicly stamping feet. RTE News notes they are 'outraged' over the decision by Judge Ricardo Urbina. (There's nothing outrages with Urbina's decision. Prosecutorial abuse or misconduct is always supposed to be punished.) Alsumaria TV reports the rag-tag Parliament actually managed to avoid insulting each other as they bonded over mutual 'outrage' over the Urbina's decision. And, no, Urbina did not dismiss over "procedural errors." The joke that is 'justice' in Iraq might be less so if media outlets could get their facts right. If someone is told that their statements cannot be used to prosecute them, then their statements cannot be used to prosecute them. It's that damn simple. Nouri's grandstanding as well. Rebecca Santana (AP) reports he declared today, "We have done what is necessary to protect our citizens and to punish those who committed the crime and we have formed committees and filed a lawsuit against Blackwater security firm either in America or Iraq." Big words from Little Nouri. The slaughter took place in September of 2007. After the judge's decision, the foot stamping began and it was decided, "Blackwater get out!" That decision's way too late, by too many years, for Nouri to effectively grandstand. In the US, the big surprise is that there aren't calls for the Justice Dept to be punished, for heads to roll. Yesterday, CNN interviewed Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson, today and he insisted that not only did Iraq plan to appeal the dismissal. al-Dabbagh's attempt to pose as shocked might have more power were it not for the fact that he also threatened to expell Black water, "Instructions have been given to check if there is any Blackwater member [in the country]. I advise him to leave Iraq and not to stay in Iraq anymore.' Oh, now? Now you want Blackwater (trying to rebrand as Xe) out? Now? After a judge's decision? But not after the shooting massacre in which 17 Iraqis were killed? Over two years after that, you want to hop the high horse and demand that they leave? These are among the reasons some Iraqi people do not feel the Baghdad government or 'government' represents them. For those just returning from a long holiday weekend, Josh Gerstein (Politico -- text and audio) reported on Judge Urbina's decision (and Gerstein's link is to a PDF document, FYI):
"In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant[s] in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation," Urbina wrote in a 90-page opinion released Thursday afternoon.
"In so doing, the government's trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team on [such] issues, that this course of action threatened the viability of the prosecution. The government used the defendants' compelled statements to guide its charging decision, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leaders and, ultimately, to obtain the indictment in this case," Urbina wrote.

I weighed in with my opinion Friday morning (short version: "If the government -- with all its powers and its unlimited budgets -- can't make a solid case without using statements that were never supposed to be used in court, the government never should have brought the charges forward.").

If you're just coming back from the long holiday weekend, a number of year-end pieces posted last week: Kat's "Kat's Korner: 2009 in music" and Ruth's "Ruth's Report" and Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Brownie Approved" and his "The 2010 Plan" went up Friday. Kat's "Kat's Korner: The decade in music" and "2009 in books (Martha & Shirley)" went up Thursday and "Reflecting on 2009 (Beth)" posted on Sunday. In addition, Ann's "2009 in DVDs" and Stan's "DVDs of 2009" (joint-post) looks at DVDs. I did "The Year of Living Sickly" Friday and Trina examines the economy in "The economy," Marcia the 'message' sent to the LGBT community in "What I learned this year" and Rebecca notes how the sexism came from the top in "the 2009 take-away."

Lastly, NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations Friday (check local listings):

President Obama is sending as many as 30,000 more troops to combatTaliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan this year, but are we missingthe true target? On Friday, January 8 at 8:30 pm (check local listings),NOW reports directly from Pakistan's dangerous and pivotal border withAfghanistan, where Pentagon war planners acknowledge many of the enemyfighters and their leaders are based. The U.S. has been relying onPakistan to act against Taliban militants there, but the Pakistaniarmy's commitment is in question. NOW takes you to the true front lines for an eye-opening, inside lookyou haven't seen before, and won't soon forget.




iraq
al jazeera
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
the news tribunescott fontaine
the new york timesjohn lelandafpassad abboudthe guardianmartin chulovthe times of londonalice fordham
mcclatchy newspapershannah allem
bbc newstodaywales news
cnnstars and stripesmichael gisickthe daily expressrichard palmer
politicojosh gerstein
pbsnow on pbs