Oh, no, he didn't

"Obama moves to legalize cluster munitions" (Scott Martin, WSWS):

The Obama Administration is pushing to allow the use of a weapon prohibited by an international treaty because of its indiscriminate killing and maiming of civilians, particularly children. The US is seeking clearance for all cluster munitions made after 1980 even though the weapons are currently banned by 111 states that have agreed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM).

The anti-personnel weapon is designed to inflict mass casualties. Cluster bombs and artillery shells are filled with hundreds of even thousands of “bomblets,” which disperse at random, and on impact, explode into thousands of projectiles that rip through bodies and structures. Perhaps most maliciously, they have a very high failure rate, which leaves countless duds scattered across a landscape, liable to explode at the slightest touch.

You may remember someone named Princess Diana? She did many things during her life. One of the things she worked the most on was cluster mines. She spoke often and eloquently about the damage they did, the danger they were to all, especially children.

But here we are in 2011 and Barack Obama's trying to make them acceptable. He really is disgusting.

You can find out more about their dangers at the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, November 18, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, a US delegation is said to be in Baghdad to continue negotiations on immunity for US troops, Moqtada al-Sadr threatens to take his bloc and go home, Baghdad and the KRG continue to argue over the Exxon deal, DoD identifies the fallen, and more. Starting with breaking news out of Iraq, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports a mixture of White House officials and US military officials arrived in Baghdad Friday for a three day visit to discuss a number of issues including to "provide immunity to American trainers." The delegation will meet with President Jalal Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents, with the prime minister, and with the head of the political blocs. In addition, it will visit the Krudistan Regional Government. Al Mada reports that Rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr wasted no time in announcing that, should immunity be granted, his bloc would immediately withdraw from the National Alliance coalition. An MP with the Sadr bloc is quoted declaring that it is not the right of Nouri al-Maliki to provide the Americans with immunity Bombs went off throughout Iraq today. Press TV counts 9 dead from bombings alone. Reuters provides the breakdown: a police officer's Saqlawiya home was bombed claiming the lives of his wife and their 4 kids [CNN states the dead were police officer Najah Abdullah's mother-in-law, the man's five-year-old son and two daughters with two more relatives injured and notes that his home was attacked in 2008 as well]; a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left four people injured (this was near a mosque in the Abu Ghraib section of Baghdad), a second Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left five people injured, 1 police officer was injured in a Hawija shooting, and, dropping back to Thursday, a Mahmudiya car bombing claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured (increase in deaths by 1 and injured by 2 since yesterday's report by Mohammed Tawfeeq of CNN), a Baghdad attack in which one police officer was injured, a Mosl car bombing claimed 1 life, a Mosul grenade attack which left a police officer injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left one Iraqi soldier injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left an Iraqi police officer injured and 1 man was shot dead outside their Mosul home. The Abu Ghraib mosque bombing, Bushra Juhi (AP) reports it was "bombs" plural, near mosques (plural) and that 4 people died with eighteen more injured. Staying with violence, earlier this week it was announced another US soldier had died in Iraq. DoD has identified the fallen: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, N.C., died Nov. 14, in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C. For more information related to this release, the media may contact the Fort Bragg public affairs office at 910-432-0661 or at 82ndpao@conus.army.mil . Today at the US State Dept, Deputy Dept Spokesperson Mark C. Toner gave the press briefing. Iraq came up at the end in an exchange with AFP's Lachlan Carmichael. Lachlan Carmichael: Can I have one more here? Mark C. Toner: Oh, I'm sorry, Lach. Sure. I'm sorry, guys. Lachlan Carmichael: No, just -- in -- Mark C. Toner: It's just Friday. We're so close here. Lachlan Carmichael: Yeah. In Brussels, the head of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Iraq raised concerns about the fate of Camp Ashraf refugees. He said that Iraq has served a virtual death warrant on the residents, and he pointed to an embassy note from the Iraqi Government saying that they're committed to close the camp by the end of 2011. Mark C. Toner: That's correct, yeah. Lachlan Carmichael: And it says that dissidents there are terrorists, and the Iraqis deny they have refugee status, and therefore the Europeans are fearing that the UNHCR will not be able to interview them as refugees. Mark C. Toner: Well, we are working -- look, I don't have a detailed response to those accusations. I do know that we are working with international organizations, including UNHCR, to find a suitable outcome and a suitable destination for these individuals, and we recognize the urgency. While this was going on at the US State Dept, AFP reports that the European Parliament's MEP Struan Stevenson declared that a "death warrant" had been signed today on the residents of Camp Ashraf when the government sent the European Parliament which refers to the residents as "terrorists" and asserts that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention nor do they have refugee status. Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers." Tuesday the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing addressed many Iraq issues. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted the remarks on the residents of Camp Ashraf. We're going to go over most of those again today in light of the comments that a "death warrant" has been signed and what appears to be a refusal of the Iraqi government to honor the agreement that was made with the US government with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf. Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee, Senator John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee. The first panel the Committee heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy. Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to them? General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government --- Senator Lindsey Graham: Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing the problem? General Martin Dempsey: I won't say anything to those people because I'm not involved in the outcome. Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough. [. . .] Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk and I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate that. Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question -- and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment. What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of -- not them, the organization from the terrorist list? General Martin Dempsey: Well, Senator -- Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this -- General Martin Dempsey: And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd Austin shares your concern. And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the concern and there is no -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection of those folks in Camp Ashraf. But right now, actually, the Iraqi security forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them. And so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one. And But I actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct. Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations -- that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it at that. Secretary Leon Panetta: Senator, I want to assure you that Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the Iraqis. Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman? Senator Joe Lieberman: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf. The concerns have been expressed, a supposed understanding was reached, yet reports today indicate that the understanding meant nothing to the government of Nouri al-Maliki. Turning to issues revolving around the provinces, Aswat al-Iraq notes "Tahreer Square in Baghdad witnesses since last February different types of demonstrators, including terminating political differences and ending corruption dossiers." And they note today's protest included a call for provinces not to move towards being semi-autonomous. Alsumaria TV adds that the participants in the protest numbered in the "tens." Along with today's protesters, the move is opposed by Nouri al-Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr. Nouri is especially ticked off at the Speaker of Parliament, Osama al-Nujaifi, because he continues to cite what the Constitution states on this issue while Nouri and his lackeys on the 'independent' electoral commission repeatedly attempt to pretend that the Constitution gave the Council of Ministers the right to make these decisions. (Article 119, as McClatchy Newspapers' Laith Hammoudi has reported, notes the process for a province to move to semi-autonomy.) Apparently having difficulty maintaining all of his many grudges, Nouri's focusing on al-Nujaifi but, Al Rafidayn reports, he's decided that Ayad Allawi is a-okay. The Iraqiya leader pissed off Nouri weeks ago when he offered a strong critique to a London paper about the current state of Iraq. Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) covers the province issue and other developments: On 2 November, a Sunni-dominated province of Iraq created uproar when its local council voted to establish itself as an "independent region within a unified Iraq." The provincial council of Salaheddin, which hosts Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, voted by 20 votes out of 28 to set up the new federal region, sparking speculation that other Sunni provinces may now follow suit. In trying to explain the shift, the council's leaders said that the establishment of an autonomous region was a reaction to the Iraqi government's negligence, exclusion and marginalisation of Sunnis. They said that the request to set up an autonomous region had been intended to boost the province's share of federal revenues and to protest against the domination of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's Shia-led government. Coming in the aftermath of a nationwide crackdown on former Saddam loyalists, the timing of the vote seemed to have been spurred by the firing of more than 100 lecturers at Tikrit University for alleged Baath Party connections and a roundup of suspected Baathists in the province. Hundreds of former Baathists have been arrested in recent weeks following government reports that they were conspiring to overthrow Al-Maliki's government. And to clarify on the Salahuddin vote, there are 28 members of the provincial council. Twenty of them voted on the measure. All voting on the measure voted "yes." On the alleged conspiracy, Aswat al-Iraq reports that over 2,000 people marched in Salahuddin's Samarra today to declare their support for Salahudding becoming a semi-autonomous province. In other 'oops Nouri' news, Al Mada reports Iraqiya's Salman Jumaili has declared Iraqiya intends to host a session in the Parliament over the claims of the existence of a conspiracy. With several dents already in Nouri's public claims, the prime minister may be sweating that possible session. Currently, Nouri's Baghdad government is engaged in a game of chicken with the Kurdistan Regional Government -- Exxon being the prize. Javier Blas (Financial Times of London) reviews the companies interested in oil exploration in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Blas notes in addition to oil, Turkey's eyeing the KRG's natural gas reserves and that Erbil is becoming a boom town. This follows on the deal that the KRG says is a done deal and that the government out of Baghdad is still making noises about. Pierre Bertrand (International Business Times) reports, "After several days of loaded proclamations, a deal may be in the offering between ExxonMobil, the Kurdish regional government, and Iraq's central government, in relation to an oil exploration contract the company signed with Kurdistan that the central government calls illegal ." Ipek Yezdani (Hurriyet Daily News) reports, "Iraq's deputy prime minister for energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, said the Iraqi govenrment did not recognize the oil agreement signed between the KRG and Exxon Mobil in northern Iraq [. . .] this contract is not approved by the Iraqi government and is not legal." Turning to the US, Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky. His father is US House Rep Ron Paul who is currently in a race for the GOP's presidential nomination. Senator Paul's office notes: Nov 17, 2011 WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to formally end the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq cannot be considered definitively concluded if Congress does not reclaim its constitutional power to declare war by repealing the underlying authorization. Until Congress takes this action, the President would still possess the legal authority to move troops into Iraq or to conduct kinetic operations within its borders, agreements with the Iraqi government notwithstanding. "On several occasions this year, Congress has been ignored or remained silent while the President committed our forces to combat. It is my intention to urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over the decision to go to war, or to end a war - it is one of the body's most important powers," Sen. Paul said. "It is right that we wrest it back from a President who has shown he cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution or powers prescribed to Congress in it." The President has ordered withdrawal of most forces by the end of the year, and Sen. Paul's amendment continues the spirit of that decision by formally ending the war. Sen. Paul will push for a vote on this measure during consideration of the Defense bill. Under existing laws, necessary actions to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq (such as at the embassy) will still be allowed. "Americans should celebrate the safe return of our soldiers, thank those who served, and mourn those we lost. We should honor them by committing to a return to a more rational and constitutional foreign policy," Sen. Paul added. ### Finally, today the Defense Dept released the Army's suicide data for October: The Army released suicide data today for the month of October. Among active-duty soldiers, there were 17 potential suicides: one has been confirmed as suicide and 16 remain under investigation. For September 2011, the Army reported 16 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers. Since the release of that report, one case has been added for a total of 17 cases. Three cases have been confirmed as suicide and 14 cases remain under investigation. During October 2011, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were 12 potential suicides: none have been confirmed as suicide and 12 remain under investigation. For September 2011, the Army reported six potential suicides among not-on-active-duty soldiers. Since the release of that report, two cases have been added for a total of eight cases. Three cases have been confirmed as suicide and five cases remain under investigation. Maj. Gen. David E. Quantock, director of the Army Health Promotion and Risk Reduction Task Force, knows how the tragedy of suicide affects our soldiers, civilians, and families. He joins the task force as the former commanding general of the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. "Our people are the Army and their health and well-being are top priorities. This is very important work and I can assure you that the Army team is fully engaged and is totally committed to it," said Quantock. Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Trained consultants are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and can be contacted by dialing 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or by visiting their website at http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org . Army leaders can access current health promotion guidance in newly revised Army Regulation 600-63 (Health Promotion) at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_63.pdf and Army Pamphlet 600-24 (Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention) at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p600_24.pdf . The Army's comprehensive list of Suicide Prevention Program information is located at http://www.preventsuicide.army.mil . Suicide prevention training resources for Army families can be accessed at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/training_sub.asp?sub_cat=20 (requires Army Knowledge Online access to download materials). Information about Military OneSource is located at http://www.militaryonesource.com or by dialing the toll-free number 1-800-342-9647 for those residing in the continental United States. Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource website for dialing instructions for their specific location. Information about the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program is located at http://www.army.mil/csf/. The Defense Center for Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE) Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020, via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at http://www.dcoe.health.mil . The website for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is http://www.afsp.org/, and the Suicide Prevention Resource Council site is found at http://www.sprc.org/index.asp . iraq al sabaah the financial times of london javier blas international business times pierre bertrand aswat al-iraq al rafidayn mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi al-ahram weekly salah nasrawi cnn mohammed tawfeeq

Iraq

Brenda is a friend from college. That's how far she goes back. We probably talk on the phone twice a month and see each other about once a month even now, all these years later.

She asked about something yesterday. We were on the phone talking about a number of things. I started to answer but got distracted (I had just gotten home and we had packages arrive galore some personal, some work-related).

I got distracted and never answered her question. Sunny greets me at lunch with, "One e-mail stands out." It was from Brenda. She said she was making a "formal request."

Brenda knows C.I. from college as well (and is friends with her). Yesterday's snapshot? She loved it but was puzzled. C.I. is not a self-referential person, so what was up with that in the snapshot?

As she pointed out, that was the closest she's ever known C.I. to come to saying "I was right." (C.I. -- as I've noted here many times over the years -- is always more than happy to say "I was wrong." She really doesn't say, "I was right." That's not her style.)

So what was up with that?

What was up with that?

C.I. knows when and how to use celebrity. She always has. She basically did a star turn but making "you" (plural) the star. Why did she do that?

Again, she knows how to use celebrity.

She knew it would ensure that the snapshot was read and that was very important to her since she was reporting on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Iraq War and occupation that continues beyond 2011 as evidenced by the testimony Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense) and General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff).

Did it work?

Do you doubt C.I.?

If so, that's your mistake.

I called Jim to ask him the numbers. (Blogger/Blogspot has a built in "Stats" feature. C.I. ignores it and never wants to know. She says if she knows what's popular she'll starting doing "best of" instead of doing what needs to be done.)

It got triple the views of anything this month and is in fact the most read piece at The Common Ills ever. That's how popular it was. Again, C.I. knows what she's doing. She wanted that information out there and she did a star turn knowing that would sell it.

It's a real shame (Mike and I were talking about this) that she's busting her ass to get the word out on the "enduring" US bases that General Dempsey testified to, the ongoing negotiations between Iraq and the US, the Defense Dept's 10 bases it will keep in Iraq, the 40,000 US troops that will be stationed outside the country and so much more.

C.I. reported it. She continued to report on it today. You should ask yourself why others are so silent.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, November 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the most important hearing on the Iraq War this year took place yesterday and we continue to cover it, we also note which outlets got it right and which got it very, very wrong, "enduring" US bases (and that's a US general, not me calling them "enduring") will remain in Iraq, DoD will keep US troops in Iraq (it won't just be the State Dept or just 'guarding' embassies and diplomatic staff), John McCain (and Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman) are distorted by the press, the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- Senator Patty Murray -- calls for action on the VA's backlog of disability claims, and more. Charley Keyes (CNN) reports of yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, "The Obama administration will withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year, after negotiations with Iraq broke down last month over leaving behind a small force for training and security. Some 30,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq now, and only a small number of U.S. military will remain behind, attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Well golly, I'm confused and would assume I were wrong were it not for the fact that it is impossible for Barack to "withdraw all U.S. military personnel by the end of the year" and also for "a small number of U.S. military will remain behind". All is all. Does CNN not grasp that? Do they also not know how to report on hearings? The way you do that is you attend the hearing and you report what was said. Keyes doesn't have a quote does he? No. He needs one. When he's so wrong, he really needs one. So "all" leave, he says, while he's also saying that small number will remain "attached to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad." Did Keyes doze off during Senator Susan Collins' questioning? Senator Susan Collins: What about the Kurdish region in Iraq? There are concerns that Kirkuk stands out as an unresolved area where there's still a lot of tension with the central government in Baghdad. I understand that only a small DoD contingent will remain there. And it's my understanding that the State Dept is going back and forth on whether or not it should have a full consulate presence in Kirkuk or maintain a less formal 'diplomatic post'. If there's no US military presence to act as a buffer between the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi security forces, are you worried that this region of Iraq will become a destabalizing flashpoint? General Martin Dempsy: I-I worry about a lot of things, Senator. And I will include this among the list of things I worry about. As you know, we put in place, several years ago, joint-check points where there was a member of the Kurdish peshmerga, there was a member of the Iraqi security forces and a US service man or woman and a coordinating center. And part of our Office of Security Cooperation footprint will include our participation in the coordination center. We won't be on the check points anymore -- that's true. And so we will have to rely upon the continuing negotiations between the Kurdish political leaders and their Iraqi -- the government of Iraq. But this is not, again, a place where we are completely removing ourselves. But your point is accurate. We won't be on the check points. We have been there as a buffer. The risk goes up. But our presence in the coordination center provides a stabilizing influence to get them to find negotiated answers, not violent answers. I'm sorry, where in there is the State Dept? It's not there. Collins and Dempsey are speaking of US military personnel that will be stationed in Kirkuk in a coordinating center. And possibly Keyes was snoring when Collins explained she was referring to "a small DoD contingent"? Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- and we'll note some of his remarks tomorrow -- and John McCain is the Ranking Member. We're focused on the first panel of the hearing, when General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff) and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified. We noted another exchange in yesterday's snapshot -- one which refuted the lie that "all" are leaving or that negotiations are "over." I noted this was one of several exchanges in the hearing on this topic -- maybe Keyes required multiple naps? -- and wrongly thought we didn't need to do flash cards. Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq. General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about. Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct? Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct. Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis? Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street. So, flash cards. There's that "Office of Security Cooperation" again. And, no, that's not State Dept, that's DoD. And in that OSC, according to General Martin Dempsey, "we will be embedded with them as trainers" -- get that? Second card, Senator Joe Lieberman noted what he's hearing from Iraqis which appears to be that after January 1st there will be a deal made. That talk jibes with what I've shared here several times perviously, a friend at the State Dept swears that as soon as Nouri and Barack have both had their victory laps over 'withdrawal,' negotiations begin for more US troops in Iraq. Third one, Panetta says that the US is currently in negotiations with Iraq ("with regards to the size of the security office that will be there"). Get it? Negotiations did not end. Fourth card: Panetta notes that just for that security office -- DoD security office -- there should be "hundreds [of US troops] that will be present" -- that's what's currently being negotiated. Fifth card: Panetta rejects the notion taht "zero [US] troops" will be in Iraq. Hint, to CNN, that's why you don't report or 'report' that "ALL" US troops are leaving. Sixth card: Panetta believes negotiations will continue and that Iraq will make requests for additional troops. Is Panetta right? CNN can't tell you that. They're not psychics. They can report what was said and they can fact check. If they want to. And clearly reporting on the hearing wasn't a concern for CNN. The hearing was yesterday morning. At Trina's site last night, Ava covered an exchange with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally covered economic concers expressed over the use of contractors "The costs (Wally)" and Kat offered a look at various claims about the administration's negotiating goals and what Iraqi leaders supposedly sought with "Who wanted what?" But Keyes isn't the only bad reporter. Look at Rachel Martin. And unlike Keyes, Martin's not paid by a corporation and advertising. Martin's salary is paid for by tax payers and donors to NPR. 'Reporting' like this should get you fired, "But come December 31st, the remaining 24,000 US troops now in Iraq will be out." No, they won't. As she got to the end of her report, like Keyes, she suddenly noted a few American troops would remain in Iraq. What about those bases, by the way? Those US bases in Iraq. What about them? Strange Keyes and Martin didn't report on that. What were they called? Oh, yeah. "Enduring." And that was in yesterday's hearing. By the US general. Let's go to that section. Senator Kay Hagan: But I wanted to talk about our Special Operations Forces. And, as you know, our Special Operations Forces have engaged with their Iraqi counter-parts in counter-terrorism and in training and advising activities. And what will things look like in Iraq from a Special Operations Forces stand point going forward. And what type of engagement would our Special Operation Forces have in Iraq? General Martin Dempsy: Yes, senator the size of the Iraqi operating Special Forces is about 4,500. They're organized into a counter-terrorism section commanded by an Iraqi general by the name of Kanani. We partnered with him at the head quarters level and will remain so. We're in discussions with Iarq about training -- trainers -- that would stay inside the wire of their places where this counter-terrorism force is located, not go with them on missions but rather train them to continue to go on missions. And-and as I mentioned earlier, the gap is actually in their ability to kind of identify the network and target it. We call it the find-fix-finish-asses-and-exploit cycle. They're very capable of fixing and finishing, not so capable as yet in finding, assessing and exploiting so that you continue to keep pressure on a network. But I will tell you, they are extraordinaryly competent individual soldiers. What we've got to do is keep raising the bar with them on their ability to do things at eschelons above tactics. Senator Kay Hagan: Well with the drawdown taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue this training process to enable them to continue to do this on their own? General Martin Dempsey: Well they will be limited. They don't have the airlift to deliver them to the target that we might have been able to provide. They don't have the ISR target to keep persistant surveillance over the top of the target. So they'll be limited to ground movement and they'll be limited to human intelligence and we'll keep -- But part of the Office of Security Cooperation provides the trainers to keep the training to develop those other areas, but we're some time off in reaching that point. Senator Kay Hagan: We'll, as we continue this drawdown of our military personnel from Iraq, I really remain concerned about their force protection -- the individuals that will be remaining in Iraq. So what are the remaining challenges for our military personnel in Iraq in terms of managing their vulnerabilities, managing their exposures during the drawdown? General Martin Dempsey: Senator, are you talking about getting from 24,000, the existing force now and having it retrograde through Kuwait? Senator Kay Hagan: The ones that will remain over there. General Martin Dempsey: The ones that will remain -- Senator Kay Hagan: Their protection. General Martin Dempsey: Yes, Senator. Well, they will have -- First and foremost, we've got ten Offices of Security Cooperation in Iraq bases. And their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on delivering the foreign military sales. So F-16s get delivered, there's a team there to help new equipment training and-and helping Iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty. Or there's a 141 M1 Tanks right now, generally located at a tank gunnery range in Besmaya, east of Baghdad and the team supporting that training stays on Besmaya so this isn't about us moving around the country very much at all. This is about our exposure being limited to 10 enduring, if you will, Offices of Security Cooperation base camps. And doing the job of educating and training and equipping on those ten bases. Host nation is always responsible for the outer parameter. We'll have contracted security on the inner parameter. And these young men and women will always have responsibility for their own self-defense. Senator Kay Hagan: So we'll have contracted security on the inner-paramenter? General Martin Dempsey: That's right. "The ones that will remain over there." Again, "all" aren't leaving. And "the ones that remain over there" will be on the "enduring" (Dempsey's term) bases -- those Offices of Special Coordination bases. Breaking with the pack to do actual reporting is Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reports, "Some United States forces will remain as military trainers on 10 bases in Iraq even after an end-of-year deadline for all American troops to be out of the country, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee on Tuesday." She's reporting on the exchange above. She speaks with an unnamed "military official" who, frankly, lies to her. That's fine, she doesn't present the claim as truth, merely as a claim. "No more than 200" -- on ten bases? That is what the general testified to. And it's previously been reported that the number of these 'trainers' would be over half the amount the official insists off the record. And General Dempsey testified that they were in ongoing negotiations to increase the number already agreed to. Now let's assume unnamed isn't lying? 20 people on 10 bases each? And security contractors hired to protect them? That's cost-effective how? It isn't. So who's going to launch an investigation into that? As for the claims about Iraq's counter-terrorism forces, were you puzzled? You should have been. It was the second time Dempsey was praising Iraq's counter-terrorism forces for being able to do their job after -- after -- a target was identified. Actually doing the identification, he had to admit -- to Hagan and earlier to Senator Scott Brown as well -- was a step they just weren't up to. From Ava's report: But the big howler was when Brown was asking Dempsey about Iraq's counter-terrorism forces and how proficient they are? Dempsey said about 80% ready to handle what's needed. He wanted to explain his score -- apparently feeling bad that he hadn't given them a 100. He insisted that, when a target is identified, the C-T forces could "lock onto" it. Otherwise, they have a problem. Counter-Terrorism forces can "lock on" with an identified target? Who can't? When you know who the target is, who can't? General Dempsey's such a generous grader when it comes to Iraqi forces. So the hearing revealed "enduring" US bases in Iraq -- the general's term -- and it revealed that negotiations are taking place right now, and that negotiations will continue (that the US isn't done with the 'trainers' issues), that already trainers are planned to remain in Iraq, and a lot more. It's rather strange to look at two sites that I think of as right-wing -- both are Libertarian websites. Maybe I'm misunderstanding them looking, as I do, from the left? At Lew Rockwell.com, Laurence Vance accurately covers what Panetta stated at one point (we'll be pulling that in with another section where Panetta's asked to clarify it), "We have more than 40,000 American troops that remain in the Gulf region. We're not going anywhere." Vance rightly notes this is no withdrawal. So good for LRC and Vance. But at Antiwar.com -- where they want to tell you it's fundraising time -- they make no effort to be accurate. In fairness to John Glaser, maybe he's pulling from bad reporting and wasn't actually at the hearing? His past reports have been strong and sound. This hearing was reported on badly. I think it's most likely that he's relied on bad reporting. I don't think we have time or space to refute that 'report' today and am not sure if we'll have time for it tomorrow (where I'm already shoving the topics of Camp Ashraf, Iraqi Christians and drones too).So, briefly, you may hate John McCain. I've noted I don't care for him. I've noted I would never vote for him. But that doesn't give me the right to lie about him. Intentional or not, the Antiwar.com report is 100% wrong. In the hearing, John McCain ("and otehrs in Congress") did not argue "the administration should have strong-armed their way into a new security agreement in Iraq." That is 100% incorrect. What McCain argued, what Senator Lindsey Graham argued, what Senator Joe Lieberman argued, was that a deal should have been made to keep US troops in Iraq and that the deal failed because of the US. No, they did not argue that the US should have forced Iraq to do anything. They argued the US failed by refusing to present a number (for troops) and a plan for missions. "As late as May" -- if one of the three said it once, they all said it multiple times. What are they basing that on? Their trips to Iraq. McCain specifically stated that he came back after one trip (this is in his second round of questioning) and asked the National Security Advisor what the plan was -- as late as May -- and the White House still didn't have a plan to offer. What McCain stated he was hearing from Iraqis -- including Nouri al-Maliki -- was that the US would not provide a plan. Graham, Lieberman and McCain all noted repeatedly that they spoke to Nouri, that they spoke to the Kurds, that they spoke to Osama al-Nujaifi (Speaker of Parliament, Iraqiya member and a Sunni). There was not opposition from these groups, the three stated repeatedly. This was Lindsey Graham's point in his first round of questioning. He walked it through slowly with Panetta and then noted that he'd gone slowly and done so for a reason, he stated that when you had all of that support (and Panetta agreed on the Sunni issue, the Nouri issue and on the Kurds that they would have -- the Kurds -- gone for as many as 50,000 US troops), how did you fail to make a deal? McCain felt that the White House didn't want to make a deal and presented that feeling as fact. Graham agreed with him about the failure and wanted to point out that the whole thing -- Iraq plus Afghanistan -- seemed to be done for votes and that it was interesting that Panetta was willing to talk about and explore the Iraqi political situation but no one wanted to talk about the American one. From his remarks in the hearing, Lieberman agreed it was a failure but did not form an opinion as to why it failed. This was their argument, they repeated it over and over. They never once said, "We can force Iraq to do this!" Or that Iraq should have been forced. Their argument was that they speak with these politicians (including Nouri) often and that they knew what the Iraqi politicians were open to and that they couldn't believe that with what Iraq was willing to go along with the White House couldn't get a deal. If they're right about what the Iraqi politicians were willing to go for (I believe them because I've heard similar from the administration), then that was a significant moment and one that history books will review -- as McCain himself noted. I disagree -- again based on what I've heard from administration friends -- that the White House intended to torpedo the agreement. But that's my opinion and I could be wrong (and often am). McCain may have hurt his own argument by presenting it so forcefully -- you'll note that the presentation and not the substance is what the 'reporters' focused on. Had he turned it into a question -- the way Lindsay Graham did -- it might have led to many headlines. Then again, it's a lazy press. Most likely they would have just seized upon another trivial moment to run with. (We don't have space for a full transcript. But some of McCain's remarks on this were included in yesterday's snapshot and Kat's report last night included much more from McCain where he made the argument that the Iraqi leaders wanted US troops but the White House failed when they repeatedly had no plan to present.) It's interesting that John Glaser goes with the garbage when he should have -- Antiwar.com should have -- been leading on that hearing. Repeating: We learned there were "enduring" bases; we learned that there are "trainers" who will remain; we learned that some US military will remain in Iraq under DoD (not the State Dept); we learned that negotiations continue and that further negotiations are expected. In addition, we got some numbers on the countries that will most likely be used as a staging platform should, for example, sectarian warfare noticeably return to Iraq. Remember we noted Vance (LewRockwell.com) quoting Panetta stating, "We have more than 40,000 American troops that remain in the Gulf region. We're not going anywhere." We're going to the second round of Joe Lieberman's questions, when Lieberman brought up Panetta's earlier statement. Senator Joe Lieberman: My question, Mr. Secretary, is if you could just develop the statement that you made a little earlier, that we will have 40,000 troops in the region, does that include the 24,000 now in Iraq? Or have we made a decision to increase the number based on the failure to have more troops in Iraq after January of next year, have we made a decision to increase the number of the troops in the region outside of Iraq for some of those what-ifs I just talked about? Secretary Leon Panetta: No, Senator, that did not include Iraq. What we have now is in Kuwait we have almost 29,000; Saudi Arabi we've got 258; Bahrain over 6,000 -- close to 7,000 -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: UAE about 3,000, Qatar 7,000 if you go through the region and add up all those numbers, that's the 40,000. Senator Joe Lieberman: So has there been a decision made to increase that number at all because we were unable to reach an agreement about continuing presence of American troops in Iraq? In other words, keeping them in the region? General Martin Dempsey: Yeah, I wouldn't describe it as cause-and-effect relationship based on what happened in Iraq but rather our continuing concern with a more assertive Iran and, uh -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. General Martin Dempsey: -- we are looking at our central command footprint. You know, Senator, that prior to 2001, we had -- we routinely rotated brigades in and out of Kuwait for training -- Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. General Martin Dempsey: But also as part of deterrance. And I think, we haven't negotiated this with Kuwait yet, but it would be my view that we should have some sort of rotational presence -- ground, air, and naval. Senator Joe Lieberman: Some of those would be combat troops? General Martin Dempsey: Absolutely. Is that what Barack presented to the American people last month? Not really. And along with his distortions, there were the press distortions. It worked kind of like the way he was portrayed (falsely) as the anti-war candidate in the primaries. He distorted a little, the press distorted a little and before you know it, he was being considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. Last week, Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reported on a CBS poll. Montopoli concluded, "Three in four Americans support President Obama's decisions to withdraw US troops from Iraq by the end of the year." Do they? No, they don't. Respondents were told, "President Obama recently announced that US troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year. Should U.S. troops come home?" That's what 77% of the respondents approved of; however, that is not what was discussed in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, now is it? 40,000 US troops kept in the region? An unknown number of US troops under the State Dept kept in Iraq and an unknown number of US troops under the Defense Dept kept in Iraq? That's not even getting all the contractors. If the Americans aren't presented with what's taking place, how can they make an evaluation? CBS should be ashamed of themselves over this poll. I find it very interesting that they decided to whore for Barack yet again. 77% approved of a vague 'plan' falsely presented by CBS. The real headline, from the polling data, should have been "67% of Americans say the Iraq War wasn't worth it." That's 49% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats and 67% of independents. That's an honest headline. An honest headline for the 'plan' question? "CBS News Fails To Explain Plan In Survey And Gets Good Results." People always respond in polls highly to the vague, that's a known. Violence continues in Iraq and that's also known. Reuters notes a Bagdhad roadside bombing left six people injured, a bombing outside targeting a mayor left him injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left thirteen additional people injured, 2 corpses were discovered in Qaiyara (father and son who were kidnapped yesterday), a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left eighteen people injured, and, dropping back to last night for the last two, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left three people injured and a government worker was kidnapped in Kirkuk. Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports on Osama al-Nujaifi's trip to Turkey. The Speaker of Parliament declared that he will also visit Tehran and Riyadh to address regional issues with the hopes of bringing Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the table for discussions. While MP Abdul Salam al-Maliki expresses hopes for the visit, he also makes clear that he and State of Law see the trip as "vague" and not promising. We'll note the topic of oil -- the root of the war -- and the current struggle for control of it in Iraq. Forbes reported this morning that oil giant Chevron is demonstrating interest in oil exploration in the KRG. This comes on the heels of Exxon's deal with the KRG over the developing the West Qurna oil field last week which outraged the centeral-government out of Baghdad. Chevron would be the second oil giant dealing with the KRG and the Forbes article notes rumors that Italy's Eni may also be in talks with the KRG. Meanwhile Reuters reports that the Baghdad government is attempting to cancel the Exxon contract. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) quotes the (Iraq) Ministry of Oil's director of contracts, Abdul-Mahdy al-Ameedi, stating, "Exxon has violated the ministry directions and instructions concerning the companies working in Kurdistan. It's a violation of the contract and th e law. As a consequence the oil ministry will take steps to end the contract." Due to the lack of coverage on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, that was our emphasis again today. And we'll probably make a third of tomorrow's snapshot the hearing as we wrap up on it (tomorrow's emphasis will be on Camp Ashraf, Iraqi Christians and drones -- and I'm surprised those sections of the hearing weren't picked up on). Things are going on in Iraq, I know. And we cover some of it in the morning entries. But this hearing is important and we have to focus on it -- all the more so since so few actually want to take the time to cover it accurately. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office Wednesday, November 16, 2011 (202) 224-2834 VETERANS: Chairman Murray Urges VA to Take Immediate Steps in Addressing Disability Claims Backlog (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray sent a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki about the critical need to improve the efficiency of the claims processing system by eliminating unnecessary tests and procedures that are contributing to the claims backlog at the Department. "I have heard time and time again from veterans who are frustrated with having to wait months, years and even decades for resolution of their claims and appeals," said Chairman Murray. "I am writing to bring to your attention a practice that may not be medically supported and may be unnecessarily delaying the processing of some claims." Chairman Murray was alerted to this issue after a number of "errors" were identified at the Seattle Regional Office during an Inspector General review. She shares veterans' frustrations with the disability claims system and continues to take targeted action to address the backlog and to improve the timeliness and accuracy of claims decisions. The full text of Chairman Murray's letter is below: The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki Secretary of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Dear Secretary Shinseki: The disability claims system is under enormous pressure as the number and complexity of claims continue to increase. I have heard time and time again from veterans who are frustrated with having to wait months, years and even decades for resolution of their claims and appeals. I am writing to bring to your attention a practice that may not be medically supported and may be unnecessarily delaying the processing of some claims. I request that you put an end to this practice, if there is no strong medical basis for it. This issue was brought to my attention by a number of "errors" identified at the Seattle Regional Office during a recent Inspector General review. In some disability cases, veterans exhibit "overlapping symptoms" meaning they have symptoms that may be attributable to more than one claimed disability. Currently, medical providers are being asked whether they can differentiate what portion of the symptom is caused by each diagnosis and to provide an opinion as to which overlapping symptom is attributable to each disability. In cases where a medical provider fails to address this question, regional offices are required to return examinations to the provider delaying a final decision on the claim. The "errors" identified in Seattle were the result of a failure to return examination reports that did not address this question. Based on staff discussions with VA physicians, it appears that a medical provider cannot scientifically, with a high degree of certainty, attribute an overlapping symptom to one disability or another. If a provider cannot say with a level of certainty greater than fifty percent that a particular symptom is due to only one of the overlapping symptoms, it calls into question the practice of asking a medical professional to answer this question. I hope you would agree that if procedures are being used that are not necessary for the proper resolution of the claim they should be eliminated. Returning an examination for failure to address a question that is not supported by medical science delays the final resolution of a claim and unnecessarily contributes to the claims backlog. I am therefore requesting that you ask the Veterans Health Administration and VA's General Counsel to answer the two questions attached to this letter. Thank you for your service to our nation's veterans and your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Patty Murray Chairman ### Meghan Roh Deputy Press Secretary Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray iraq the new york times elisabeth bumiller al mada the los angeles times al rafidayn cnn charley keyes forbes al mada al sabaah hossam acommok

Dear Cary, My Life With Cary Grant

Tonight, I am going to recommend a book. Dear Cary, My Life With Cary Grant.

It's by Dyan Cannon whom most of you know as an actress (Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice; Death Trap; Author, Author; The Last Of Sheila; That Darn Cat (remake with Christina Ricci); etc.). She was married to Grant and the mother of his only child (Jennifer Grant.)

It was not an easy marriage.

I am a big fan of Cary Grant movies. He is probably one of my favorite actors, maybe my favorite.

I was also curious as to how Dyan would tell the story. Until Sonny & Cher's divorce, I think Dyan and Cary had the nastiest divorce.

I was surprised by how involving the book was.

She came off very honest. Especially with regards to her career and disappointments (pressured to get a nose job which her parents objected to and fortunately so did the doctor Dyan ended up seeing). Also with regards to when she loses her grip and requires some medical help to get back on track.

What I loved best was what she worked to with the ending. I won't spoil it in any way but just tell you that many books claim to be a journey but this one really is.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Panetta tells Congress negotiaions continue with Iraq, NPR reports on a man accused of killing 5 US soldiers -- but forgets to name the 5 US soldiers -- and more. Here's what the news media isn't telling you because apparently they'd rather be a bunch of guttersnipe gossips. Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq. General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about. Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct? Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct. Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis? Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street. That's from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Can everyone follow that or do we need to prepare flash cards? I grasp that the cess pool of today's 'reporters' -- 'artistes' -- can't tell you the truth. They can't do it because the press is lazy and when they all agree to a narrative, it is hell to get them to ever change it. A bunch of lazy asses and dumb asses in the Mainstream Media decided Barack was withdrawing all US troops from Iraq and bringing them home. Based on? Their own reporting? Hell no. Lazy bastards take stenography, they don't report. Since before that speech, we were explaining there were many options to continuing the war. Since that speech, we've repeatedly explained that negotations did not end, that they were ongoing. But day after day, your MSM wants to tell you that it's over and that blah, blah, blah and 3 out of 4 approve of Barack's plan. What the hell is Barack's plan? It's what he told Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny he planned to do with Iraq -- what he told them in 2008. And back then, we were the only ones to catch it because idiots like Tom Hayden went by the report Gordo and Jeffy did as opposed to the partial transcript that the Times published online. Martha and Shirley tell me that a record number of e-mails came into the public account today from visitors full of apologies for all the nasty things they said about me being a liar and who knows what else. Let me be clear, not only do I not read the bulk of the e-mails to the public account (I try to read as many e-mails as I can from community members to the two private e-mail accounts), it doesn't matter if I do. An insult from a stranger? I don't really care. I'm not that touchy. It's not necessary to me -- and never has been -- to be universally loved. I can actually operate more effectively when I'm up against the opposite emotional spectrum. Nasty e-mails calling me a liar and worse to the public account didn't force me to write, "Negotiations aren't going on! I was wrong! Forgive me! It really is all over!" I could care less. And I've always been aware that when you're dealing with big topics, reactions really aren't about you. So I don't know why visitors are writing the public e-mail account now to apologize. Presumably, you share my outrage over the inability of our press -- we're dealing with Big Media right now -- to tell the damn truth. If indeed that is the case, you need to use that time e-mailing the David S. Clouds (whom Martha and Shirley say you're praising for his report -- read it again and ask yourself why you're praising him for his single-sentence sixth paragraph when that should have been his lede), e-mailing CBS News about their dumb ass survey, etc. You need to be e-mailing and ask them why they are deliberately -- DELIBERATELY -- skewing reality and refusing to inform the American people of what is taking place. I know what's taking place because I have friends in the Congress and friends in the administration and what the MSM press keeps 'reporting' is not what is taking place. If you need forgiveness from me, "I forgive you." Blanket forgiveness, let's move on. Now stop writing the public account to apologize and use that time instead to demand that Big Media tell the damn truth. Look at the SOFA. In today's hearing, over and over, you heard how this official and that official and this and that senator expected -- this is back in 2008 -- that in 2011 it would be extended or replaced. We have that in our archives. The day the White House published the SOFA -- despite it being Thanksgiving -- I went through every bit of it and we shared an analysis here that stands up to this day. The inability of the MSM to get that story right should have led to a huge outcry. But from whom? Panhandle Media? When's the last time Left Media did a damn thing besides beg you for money? And did you not hear that garbage on Antiwar Radio this week with the guy The Nation pays? Or how about the garbage before that with Gareth and Scott? And Scott Horton is right-wing media. If Antiwar Radio won't bother with the truth why the hell would we expect The Progressive, The Nation and the other get-out-the-vote for Barack Obama organs to tell the truth? We live in a sick and disgusting time when it comes to media. Across the board, they have failed us. They have done so repeatedly. Today, when the MSM -- Big Media -- could be correcting the false narrative they broadcast to the American people, they instead focus on the trivia. The news from the hearing is that negotiations go on -- and it's not just that exchange quoted at the top. We can cite other exchanges in the hearing as well. But instead of focusing on that actual news, instead of delivering reality to Americans -- who, point of fact, need to be informed if we're going to have a functioning democracy -- the 'artiste' David S. Clouds want you to know John McCain got testy today. News -- that which is new, novel or effects lives. I'm having a hard time figuring out how John McCain being testy in a committee hearing meets the definition of news. It really doesn't effect our lives. And it's not new or novel to anyone who's attended a hearing he's been present for in the last years. He didn't even have the best moment in what I guess the 'reporters' are calling "Testy Theater." The best moment came when Leon whined -- the most nasally whine, as if he were channeling Jerry Lewis -- and was stopped by a senator. Ava will cover that at Trina's tonight because she covers that senator (and, no, it's not John McCain). The big news was that negotiations continue and will continue. That is big news because it effects lives. It is big news because it is both "new" and "novel" as a result of the press failure to report that this was taking place. But you won't get that. You won't be informed of that. Not as long as you continue to accept this garbage from All Things Media Big and Small. Let's stay with McCain for a moment. As noted before, I don't care for him. (As noted before, I know Cindy McCain and she's a very nice person.) Here's what really news with regards to him. John McCain was right. John McCain was attacked by partisan bloggers from the left. Republican who repeated his comments were trashed from the same group. (Not all left bloggers are partisan bloggers. And if you're late to the party, I'm a Democrat. And way further left than probably most people are.) You had Huffington Posts and other outlets attacking them, calling them crazy. Remember? For what? For making the assertion that US military commanders were opposed to all US troops leaving Iraq. John McCain was right. I guess playing Rona Barrett and going all dishy with "John gave Leon a look and Leon got mad and you know he just was so not going to take that but you will absolutely not believe what they said to each other then!" tires our MSM out so very much that they can't report reality. (Or, hell, maybe it's part of the continued effort to push Barack over the line -- you know that benchmark that he never met as a candidate or since as a president?) When Vet Votes' lil' expert showed up at Huffington Post, we didn't play that game. It didn't matter the right was being attacked so, if we want to be good leftists, we go along or be silent. No, that's not the game we play. We'll play the truth game instead, thank you very much. And we called out that nonsense repeatedly, check the October 27th snapshot for one example. In today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, John McCain (Ranking Member on the Committee) established, in his first round of questions, that US military commanders were not on board with what the press has presented the US is doing in Iraq (pulling all troops). Furthermore, in the second round, Senator Lindsey Graham would establish that this was true of Iraqi military commanders as well. Neither US nor Iraqi were calling for zero forces, both felt that US troops needed to remain in Iraq. From McCain's first round of questioning, here's one portion of that. Senator John McCain: Since you brought up regrettably, General Dempsey, 2003 and 2004. The fact is that you did not support the surge and said that it would fail. Secretary Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group which recommended withdrawal from Iraq and opposed the surge. And so we're all responsible for the judgments that we make and obviously that effects the crediblity of the judgments that we make now on Iraq. I regret that you had to bring that up, General Dempsey. The fact is that there were some of us who were over there in those years you talked about, in fact, maybe even had other members of their family there and saw that it was failing and that we needed to have the surge and the surge succeeded. And the fact is that we could have given sovereign immunity as we have in other countries to keep our troops there and give them the immunity that they needed. We have other agreements with other countries that guarantee sovereign immunity. The fact is, that every military leader recommended that we have residual forces at minimum of 10,000 and usually around 20,000. That was the recommendations made before this committee by General [Ray] Odierno, recommendations made by General [David] Petraeus, recommendations made by even lower ranking military who had spent, as you mentioned a great amount of time there and did not want to see that service and sacrifice all wasted away because of our inability and lack of desire to reach an agreement with Iraqis. As I said in my opening statement, Iraqis are largely responsible as well. But the fact is that when Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham and I were there the Iraqis were ready to deal. And what was the administration's response? They didn't have a number last May as to our residual force in Iraq. So as things happen in that country, things fell apart. Now can you tell the Committee, General Dempsey, if there was any military commander who recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, no, Senator. None of us recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq. Senator John McCain: When did we come up with the number of uh troops that we wanted to remain in Iraq? Do you know when that final decision was made as to exact numbers that we wanted? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, it to my knowledge the process started in Augustof [20]10 and, as you know, there was a series of possibilities or options that started at about 16,000 and ended up with about 10[000] and then migrated to 3[000] and then we ended up with [cross talk] -- Senator John McCain: Do you know when the final decision on numbers was reached? General Martin Dempsey: Well the final decision of focusing on the Office of Security Cooperation was based on a conversation between our president and president Maliki. [C.I. note: Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq. He is not the president. Jalal Talabani holds the ceremonial post of president.] Prior to that, I don't know. Senator John McCain: The reason I thnk you don't know because there never was an exact number and missions articulated by our government which would have been a concrete proposal for the Iraqi government. So to say that the Iraqi government didn't want us when they didn't know the number and missions that we wanted as a residual force makes it understandable why we didn't reach an understanding with them. And, as you mentioned, it cascaded down from 20,000 to the ridiculously low number of 3. So, Secretary Panetta, we're now going to have a residual presence in Iraq of 16,000 American Embassy personnel and workers, isn't that correct. If we'd mocked John McCain for his claim, it really would be incumbent upon us to present the above. We didn't mock him. But we include the above -- some of which I disagree strongly with -- because we do care what is true and what is false. McCain -- and GOP presidential nominee wanna-bes like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney -- were correct when they stated that the military leaders did not agree that there should be no US military presence in Iraq. I believe there should be no military presence at all and no huge embassy presences. I can and have argued that position and done so without lying about John McCain or any other idealogical opponent. A lot of people tell pretty lies. It's very good if you want to fit in with the circle-jerk. But if you're looking for reality, it's of no use. You laugh, he said, you think you're immune Go look at your eyes they're full of moon You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you All those pretty lies pretty lies When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies Only pretty lies Just pretty lies -- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album Blue Wally's covering the hearing at Rebecca's site tonight and will note the cost issue. Kat will offer some general impressions of the hearing at her site tonight. We'll be covering the hearing tomorrow -- barring some major Iraq news breaking -- because there were many topics noted in the hearing's first panel that we address here frequently. We may or may not cover the second panel. (The first panel was composed of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsy.) Turning to today's violence in Iraq. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, a Qaiyara asault claimed the life of 1 doctor and, dropping back to Sunday night, 1 man was shot dead outside his Jbela home. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three people injured. AP reported this morning that the US military has announced another death in Iraq, this one taking place yesterday "while conducting military operations in central Iraq." AFP quotes an unnamed US military spokesperson stating, "It was a hostile incident." Sean Ferguson whose death made yesterday's news cycle. KSEE 24 News reports the decorated Iraq War veteran was back in Iraq as a contractor for the State Dept and they quote Ralph Jordan speaking on behalf of the fallen's family, "A 29-year-old man whose life has really been unselfishly given. . . . I'm a direct beneficiary of that, everyone is." KFSN (link has text and video) notes, "A memorial service for Army Sergeant Sean Ferguson will be held at the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints on Saturday morning. Friends and family say Ferguson was passionate about his service and fighting for freedom." Meanwhile Carrie Johnson does a bad report for NPR on today's Morning Edition. The US military is holding Ali Mussa Daqduq. Are they going to release him? Are they going to try him in the Iraqi courts? Are they going to try him in a military court? Will they bring him to the US and try him in a civilian court? Johnson notes that Senator Lindsey Graham is among those saying a US civilian trial would be a mistake. Where the report falters is in actual details. He was not, as Johnson states, captured five years ago. It will be five years next March. To say he's accused of the deaths of 5 US soldiers is really kind of tacky. Who are the five? Why aren't you naming them? Here's the US military's release on the January 20, 2007 attack that they are saying Ali Mussa Daqduq is responsible for: Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. So that's what the military said in real time. It's a real shame that an NPR report can't add a thing to it all these years later. For example, the accused is apparently the last of those alleged to be responsible for the attack to still be held. Barack Obama released the ringleader. Were I the defense counsel, I would certainly think that was pertinent and belonged in a so-called news report. The five dead also have names. That's pretty pertinent as well. It's shameful that NPR did a report on an attack and couldn't take the time to name the five killed. The US military -- above -- couldn't because the families hadn't all been notified on January 21, 2007. What's NPR's excuse today? We'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot for names of the five US soldiers killed while serving in Iraq and for Barack's decision to release others who are alleged to have taken part in the attack: 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." While it's no surprise that NPR wouldn't want to address the deal the White House made, it's shocking that they would also work to render the five dead invisible. If you're talking about someone who is alleged to have killed 5 Americans in Iraq, you name the five Americans. iraq the associated press ksee 24 news npr morning edition carrie johnson the los angeles times david s. cloud reuters aswat al-iraq