Harry Reid is so disgracing his office

The Senate is supposed to be a lot calmer and laid back than the House.  Harry Reid isn't just in the Senate, he's the Senate Majority Leader.  So when he offers baseless attacks (attacks he cannot back up with facts), he looks cheap and tawdry.

That may or may not matter to voters, but it does matter to big donors.  This is from Joel Gehrke (Washington Examiner):


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used Mitt Romney’s most recent charitable contributions to suggest that the Republican presidential candidate has committed some sort of tax crime.
“The information released today by Mitt Romney reveals he manipulated 1 of the only 2 y[ea]rs of tax returns he’s seen fit to show the country,” Reid tweeted this evening.  “That raises the question: What else in those returns has Romney manipulated?”

I don't think Harry Reid grasps that he's coming off like a little bitch or that being seen as a little bitch isn't good for a man his age.  I also think he doesn't get that there's a limit.  At some point, when you keep attacking someone on the taxes they've paid and the returns they've released, the public gets fed up with it.

They start thinking, "That bitch needs to shut up."  I think that point has been reached now with Harry Reid.

I agree with the quote from John McCain that appears in Roll Call:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) weighed in on behalf of Romney, saying that the issue surrounding his personal tax returns should be a settled matter.
"Mitt Romney has now released more than 1,200 pages of tax returns, giving voters an incredibly detailed look at his finances. Now that the most recent tax return has been released, it's time to get back to discussing the issues that voters care about," McCain said.

I'm also getting tired of all the lies about his returns.

But on that, remember when Bob Somerby used to point out that Romney had released more than was being said.  Then Barack repeated what Somerby was calling a "lie" and suddenly it no longer mattered to Somerby.

I can't believe what a weasal and a coward Somerby is.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, September 21, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, today is both National POW/MIA Recognition Day in the US and International Peace Day around the world, Kim Rivera is arrested, Nouri whines to Joe Biden, bragging rights go to John Kerry not the sad little State Dept spokesperson, sequestration, and more.     Today is National POW/MIA Recognition Day. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and he issued the following statement today:     On the third Friday of every September we pay tribute to the lives and contributions of the more than 83,000 Americans who are still listed as Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. "Leave no one behind" is a familiar refrain which echoes through the ranks of our Armed Forces. This motto is also what propels the men and women of Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), who devote their lives to finding the remains of those unaccounted for in foreign lands. While JPAC's task is challenging, their cause is worthy. Those who never made it home hold a special place in our hearts, and it is the responsibility of the living to give them a proper resting place here at home on American soil. This past July, the remains of Lt. Col. Clarence F. Blanton of the U.S. Air Force, who was lost on March 11, 1968, in Housphan Province, Laos, were recovered. Lt. Col. Blanton is a symbol for all those who are missing. No matter how much time elapses -- in his case 42 years -- no cause is lost. We are committed to finding all 83,000 POW/MIA and bringing them back to the home they sacrificed so much to defend, and to give their families an answer.     At the Pentagon today, there was a National POW/MIA Recognition Day ceremony attended by many including Adm James Innefeld, the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former US Senator Chuck Hagel.     Chuck Hagel: Today the US military is one institution in this country -- by any metric -- that still enjoys the overwhelming support, confidence and trust of theAmerican people. No other institution in America can say that. That is a result of a generation after generation after generation of commitment, to what Ash Carter noted in his speech -- quoting my firend and former colleage [US Senator and former POW] John McCain -- what any POW has said, believes lived, continues to say: "If there is anything more important in society than to anchor that society with a belief in something greater than one's self interest in the future for your children, for your family, for the world, I don't know what it is. This institution, the military, all who sacrifice and serve daily, who have done that for years and through wars have built that institution that still anchors more than ever confidence and trust in our -- our free people, in our free society, and not only how we serve that society but how we keep that free society. Imperfect issues, problems, like all institutions, the world is imperfect. People are imperfect. But it is the POWs and their families, MIAs, those who serve who constantly remind this country of what's good, of what's strong, what's vital and what's decent.       Of this generation's wars -- the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War -- CNN notes there are 9 POWs and MIAs who were rescued. In addition there are two prisoners of war remaining from these two wars. In the Afghanistan War, the POW is Pfc Bowe R. Bergdahl of Ketchum, Idaho who was "Captured in Paktika province, Afgahnistan, on June 30, 2009. The Pentagon declared him Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown on July 1, 2009, and his status was changed to Missing-Captured on July 3, 2009." The Iraq War POW is Spc Ahmed K. Altaie of Ann Arbor, Michigan: "On October 23, 2006, Altaie was categorized as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown when he allegedly was kidnapped while on his way to visit family in Baghdad, Iraq. The Pentagon changed his status to Missing-Captured on December 11, 2006."     Staying in the US, sequestration appears to be coming shortly. The Congress voted for automatic sequestration to kick in if they were not able to come up with $1.2 trillion cuts to the budget and get it signed by the White House. Veterans services will not be effected by sequestration. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have both testified to Congress about that. The VA will be effected administratively if sequestration kicks in but both have testified it will not effect veterans care.     The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing yesterday to explore what sequestration, if it happens, will mean for DoD. US House Rep Buck McKeon is the Chair, US House Rep Adam Smith is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee: DoD's Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen Lloyd J. Austin III, Vice Chair of the Navy, Adm Mark Ferguson, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Joseph F. Dunford and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer.     Chair Buck McKeon: The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the Department of Defense planning for sequestration, The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, and the way forward. Thank you all for being here. This will be the last week that the House is in session until mid-November. Today's hearing will provide members a final opportunity before the lame duck session to inform themselves and their constitutents about how sequestration will be implemented and how those decisions will effect our men and women in uniform and our national security. We had hoped that the President would provide this information in the report required by The Sequestration Transparency Act. Unfortunately, he failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not only was the report late but the report submitted to Congress merely paid lip service to the dire national security implications of these cuts after the president has had over a year to consider this crisis. Moreover, the White House has even gone so far to instruct the Department of Defense not to make preparations for sequestration. Nevertheless, as previous testimony to this Committee has provided many of our military leaders believe that initial preparation for sequestration must occur well in advance of the January 2, 2013 implementation date. For example, when the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, was asked this spring if plans for sequestration were underway, he stated "We are not doing as yet any hard planning. That would probably happen later this summer."     Ranking Member Adam Smith declared sequestration to be "the most pressing issue facing our nation." I think every Committee should have held hearings this month asking what was being effected. Foreign Relations/Affairs in the Senate and House should have held a hearing to find out how it would effect the State Dept, etc. The Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees (chaired by Senator Patty Murray and US House Rep Jeff Miller) did do that, not this month, but repeatedly throughout the year. In addition, Senator Murray has asked questions about this issue in other hearings. (Murray also served on the Super Congress which may be why she takes the issue more seriously than some Committee Chairs in the House and Senate appear to do.)     If sequestration is implemented, what does it mean? We're noting what the officials told the Committee. Not what they said it might mean, not what they said they thought it might mean but they'd have to get back on that, what was actually said.     DoD's Robert Hale: We budget separately for OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] and the Base Budget. And you approve each budget. When we actually begin executing, the budget's merge so there's one operation and maintenance army account for actives -- has both OCO and Base spending in there, we would have some authority to move money -- within that account -- and we would use it to try to protect the war time operating budgets. But I don't want to make that sound easy because what that means is we'd have to make disproportionately large cuts in the Base side and that will have some of the effects on readiness and training that are of such concern to us. So we would have some ability and we would move to use it to protect the actual wartime operating budget.     The Marine Corps Gen Joseph Dunford: Congressman [Joe Wilson], you're correct, 58% of our total obligated authority goes to personnel. Our cost per Marine is not higher, but the proportion that we spend in our budget on personnel is higher. As a result of personnel being exempt in '13, what I alluded to in my opening remarks, is that we would then have to find a preponderance of funds out of operation and maintenance, infrastructure and our modernization accounts. So we'll continue to do things like run Paris Island, we'll absolutely continue to support those Marines and sailors that are in harms way in Afghanistan, we'll support those that are forward-deployed, but where we will see the biggest impact from a training perspective and where those resources will come from are those units that are at-home station. And I think you know that right now, two-thirds of our units that are at-home stationed are already in a degraded state of readiness. They're in a C3, C4 status already and these cuts will further exaserbate deficiencies in home-station readiness. We'll also be unable to support the strategy. One of the things that we are beginning to do now and had intended to do in FY13 is reconstitute our 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force -- which was the core of our contribution to the US Pacific Command -- and the resources that are necessary to support that are unlikely to be available. And then what we'll see across the board in our modernization accounts is delays and so forth that will cause us to delay programs and in some cases do more with less.     Air Force Gen Larry O. Spencer: If sequestration is triggered, the first thing we would do is look at those accounts or those areas that we would want to try to protect and OCO or Overseas Contingency Operations would be one of those. So once you do that, that drives more of a cut into the other accounts. And so, assuming we would protect wartime operations, that would drive higher than a 9..4% cut into our other accounts like our procurement accounts. So what we would have to do -- We have not had specific conversations with the contractor for the [Boeing] KC-46. But depending upon the amount of the cut, we would -- The issue would be we would have to -- because we have a firm fixed price contract -- we would have to open up that contract and so -- and so we would then have to talk to the contractor about revising our payment schedule. And I would guess the contractor would talk to us about, 'Okay, well we can't give you as many airplanes on the schedule that you asked for or we may have to stretch out the airplane. Or, by the way, we may have to charge you more because now the contract's back open.' So clearly as we go down, as Mr. Bartlett mentioned, as we go down the thousands of contracts and thousands of lines, that's the type of process we have to go through with every kind of contract.     Space and other limitations mean we cover the hearing on bare bones. You can take those answers and think about whatever other government department -- except the Veterans Affairs Department -- and explore what sequestration might mean if it takes place. In terms of the hearing, we've quoted the Chair and he's a Republican. I'm not interested in Adam Smith. Sorry. Even if we had space there's little that I'd include from him -- for reasons that are obvious if you sit through hearings. (Including but not limited to, he's very fond of using his questioning time to offer editorials that use up the entire time and never allow a witness any time to speak.) Of the Democrats, the best performer was US House Rep Susan Davis (not a surprise there, she's one of the most informed members of the Committee -- and one of the most informed members of the Congress) with US House Rep Rob Andrews following closely behind. Among others things, he noted he was voting no on Friday about the House going into recess so everyone would have six weeks before the elections off from DC to return to their home districts where all current members of Congress are either running for office or have decided (or had redistricting decide for them) that they would not run for re-election -- all 435 seats of the House will be voted on in November. Andrews spoke of not understanding how you leave DC with this problem lingering in the air and felt instead it needed to be addressed. His comments were much better than my summary but there's not room for the. My apologies. (He also offered a proposal that was a serious proposal and deserves debate. I don't support it but others might.)     Staying with the US Congress, on Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to be US Ambassador to Iraq. We covered that hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. Kerry's questioning is in the Wednesday snapshot. Like others on the Committee, he was frustrated with the use of Iraqi air space to carry goods into Syria. (The Senate, like the White House, believes this is taking place. Nouri al-Maliki's government denies that it is.)     Chair John Kerry: Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?     Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government. My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this. We're continuing to engage on it. And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people. It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.     Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late. If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh, that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response? I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.     Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%. I'll continue to engage. And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.     Chair John Kerry: Well I think that it would be very hard. I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways. So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.     Kerry proposed this. The Committee agreed with this. In a press briefing on Thursday that can be best be summed up with the line from Private Benjamin (starring Goldie Hawn, script by Nancy Meyers and Charles Shyer) about "Next time, don't be so quick to raise the white flag," spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisted the State Dept didn't support tying funding in to Iraq's behavior. Excerpt.     QUESTION: But you've been protesting all along about this issue. Yesterday, Senator Kerry warned Iraq. Are you going to further pressure Iraq and warn about the aid to Maliki government?   MS. NULAND: Well, Senator Kerry has obviously made his own statements. We do not support linking U.S. assistance to Iraq to the issue of the Iranian over-flights precisely because our assistance is in part directed towards robust security assistance, including helping the Iraqis build their capability to defend their airspace. So there's a chicken/egg thing here.     It's a shame she couldn't back up Kerry and it's a shame she couldn't have just said she'd get back to them on it. Instead, she had to waive the white flag. Always. Reuters reported today, "Iraq denied permission to a North Korean plane bound for Syria to pass through Iraqi airspace last Saturday because it suspected it could be carrying weapons, a senior official said on Friday." On Friday, they announce the denial six days prior of a North Korean plane? Why? Because they feel and fear the pressure from the proposal John Kerry and others on the Committee floated. So now they're making some sort of effort to say, "Well, we're at least doing this." And making it because they want the US money. So, Alsumaria reports, Nouri told US Vice President Joe Biden on the phone today -- I would say whined -- that he was being doubted about his Syrian position by US officials and that this wasn't fair. Point being, John Kerry and the Committee knew what they were doing. Again, it's a shame that Nuland was so quick to raise the white flag at the State Dept yesterday. Already, Kerry and his Committee floating the idea has had impact. It's not yet where they want it, but it could get there. If Nuland and company would stop undercutting the Senate. There's more here but we'll pick it up next week, hopefully on Monday. Nuland doesn't have the sense to be embarrassed but if anyone has bragging rights today, it's John Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, in less than 48 hours, have accomplished more than all the talk and talk and talk with Nouri that the State Dept's done for months now.     With a court-ordered dealine looming, the US State Dept has finally made a decision on the MEK. Joby Warrick (Washington Post) reports, "The State Department is preparing to remove the Iranian opposition group Mujaheddin-e Khalq from the U.S. government's terrorist list, siding with advocates who say the controversial organization should be rewarded for renouncing violence and providing intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, senior Obama administration officials said Friday." Approximately 3,400 MEK members remain in Iraq. They were welcomed into the country in the eighties. After the US-invasion in 2003, the US military disarmed them and they entered into protected status which mean something under the Bush administration but meant nothing under the Barack administration. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." Under Barack, 'protected persons' means Nouri may attack and kill you and the US government looks the other way.     That explains the attacks and the lack of accountability for them. 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 8, 2011, 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."     How bad was it? So bad the members of England's House of Lords not only noted Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq during both attacks, they publicly speculated if he carried messages from the White House okaying the attacks? That's how bad it was. The MEK in Iraq are known as Camp Ashraf residents because, for years, Camp Ashraf has been their home. They have now been forced to relocate to Camp Liberty and most have been relocated there. The US State Dept defied the federal courts for two years. And then? Dropping back to the June 1st snapshot:     Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports, "A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds, "The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had violated the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut' unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet to make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The courts and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.) What generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united front because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the case from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the judicial branch has no security forces.     The court gave them until October. Mark Hosenball, Andrew Quinn and Vicki Allen (Reuters) note, "Officials said this week that the final large group of dissidents had moved from Camp Ashraf to the new location, ending a long standoff with Iraqi authorities." Elise Labott (CNN) speaks with a number of unnamed officials who undermine Hillary, attack her decision, insist the group is a cult and otherwise make clear that they do not enjoy their jobs currently. (Don't worry, one's leaving.) At the State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about the MEK.     QUESTION: I just wanted to ask what you could say about the MEK and the de-listing.     MS. NULAND: I cannot say a lot at the moment, but what I can say is as part of the review process that we have made clear has been ongoing here for some time, the Department is now in the process of sending a classified communication from the Secretary to the Congress today regarding the designation of the MEK. I'm not in a position to confirm the contents of this because it's classified, but we anticipate being able to make a public announcement about it sometime before October 1st. So with that, I'm going to have to excuse --     QUESTION: October 1st.     MS. NULAND: Yeah, exactly.     QUESTION: What's today?     QUESTION: It's September 21st.     QUESTION: The 21st?     MS. NULAND: Exactly.     QUESTION: Sometime in the next ten days?     MS. NULAND: Correct.     Because it's always news when a man of his girth moves, Al Mada reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani plans to arrive in Baghdad on Tuesday and get started on solving the political crisis -- if he's feeling good, the report states. AKnews reports State of Law MP Ali al-Shalah has declared that Jalal will be "able to find the solution for the current political crisis." However, Raman Brusk (AKnews) reports, "Kurds expect Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to take 'practical steps' to end the file of the disputed areas between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), said" Mohsen al-Saadoun, MP and Vice Chair of the Kurdish Blocs Coalition. Al Mada notes the Kurdistan Alliance states that there will be no political agreement without the consent of KRG President Massoud Barzani.     If Jalal Talabani does make it to Baghdad to work on political issues, he'll be working with one less vice president since Tareq al-Hasehmi remains in Turkey after Nouri bringing charges against him for terrorism. The 'judges' ruled September 9th that he was guilty. Nouri's State of Law political slate wasted no time running to Al Mada to insist that no one gives a damn about Tareq, not even in Iraqiya, and that no one was worried about Tareq, that he has no role in the government, he is "finished" and he has no role in government. Really? He still holds his position as Vice President. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq was targeted when al-Hashemi was. As Nouri charged Tareq with "terrorism," he demanded that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post (it was an attack on Iraqiya -- the political slate that bested Nouri's State of Law in the 2010 elections). This followed Saleh al-Mutlaq calling Nouri a dictator. And he didn't just make the remark in passing, he made to the media. December 13, 2011, Arwa Damon and Moahmmed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was 'shocked' to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as 'the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq.' He said Washington is leaving Iraq 'with a dictator' who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks." The round ups, the mass arrests continue. What's changed is Nouri and Saleh have kissed and made up and Saleh now trots after Nouri like an obedient dog or a cooing bird flying overhead. They travel together now and Saleh's always finding a silver lining. Al Mada reports he gushed that Nouri's agreed not to allow the Justice and Accountability Commission to target college professors.     Isn't that just wonderful? Unless . . . maybe you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission not only was not ever supposed to have anything to do with educators but also you know that the Justice and Accountabilty Commission was supposed to have expired years ago. If you know that, if you know that the Justice and Accountability Commission died and that Parliament let it die (by refusing to approve another committee), then why would you think it was good that the Commission was doing anything to begin with?     Let's drop back to the January 25, 2010 snapshot and, for those who've forgotten, Saleh al-Mutlaq was furious back then. The Justice and Accountability Commission had barred him from running for office -- even though he was currently an MP -- would not allow him to run in the 2010 elections. He was angry, he was mad. He insisted he was no terrorist. And he told the world a few other things when he appeared on Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera), we'll just note the most key passage.     Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people? Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament. You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer. Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on. Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification? Is it Prime Minister al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq? Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this?     Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone. I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this. And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody. The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it. You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that? We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally. The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president. And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party].       The Justice and Accountability Commission, Saleh told the world, was frozen and Parliament didn't allow another one to form. That was 2010. So how is this a good thing that the same commission is going to be around? It's not. Saleh al-Mutlaq is an embarrassment.     Alsumaria notes a Falluja sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left another person injured, that a Washash mosque was stormed by assailants and an Imam was shot dead, and a Tarmiya roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left two more injured. All Iraq News has the 2 dead as police officers (the two wounded also a police officers) and also notes a Baghdad home invasion of a retired police officer's home in which he was shot dead.       Back to the US, Goldie Hawn Tweeted. 6h Goldie Hawn ‏@goldiehawn "@LiamJBayerSr: Happy International Peace day to all! @goldiehawn Thanks for sharing such a great image. Happy International Peace Day!" Collapse Reply Retweet Favorite 23 Retweets 8 Favorites 11:05 AM - 21 Sep 12 · Details     The United Nations declared today to be International Peace Day. And to celebrate it early, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper kicked Iraq War veteran and US war resister Kimberly Rivera out of Canada yesterday so she could be arrested. Canada's CTV explored the issues yesterday. Sarika Sehgal: The first female soldier to seek refuge in Canada has lost her fight to stay and has been deported. Tonight Kimberly Rivera is back on US soil and in US custody. She was detained as soon as she reached the border. Rivera, who is married, has four children. Two of them were born here in this country. She served three months in Iraq but became disillusioned with the war. She came to Canada while on leave in 2007 and eventually sought refugee status. Her application was denied. That decision was later struck down. Today immigration officials again ordered her to leave. Jesse McLaren is a spokesperson with the War Resisters Support Campaign. He joins me now in the studio to discuss this. What is your reaction to what happened with Kimberly? Jesse McLaren: It's been three things. First of all, we've been amazed by the outpouring of support for Kimberly Rivera over the past couple of weeks. There's been more than 20,000 signatures on a petition, there's been rallies from coast-to-coast. And this really reaffirms that Canadians want to continue our proud tradition. Now the second thing we've seen is that the government has been actively intervening against that mass support to try and deport war resisters where they are going to be jailed in the US. And so unfortunately today, Kimberly was sent across and despite the reassurances by government lawyers, she was immediately arrested. Sarika Sehgal: So what happens to her now? Jesse McLaren: She is going to be subject to court-martial. Previous war resisters who were deported by the Harper government were given disproprotionately harsh sentences because they spoke out in Canada so that amounts to persecution. So that is a fate that potentially awaits her but we already know she's already being punished. She's been deported from her new country. She's been separated from her family. And she's now been arrested. And that is at the behest of the Harper government. Sarika Sehgal: Now you're saying separated from her family because two of her kids were born here in Canada, right?   Jesse McLaren: Her entire family has gone back to the US.   Sarika Sehgal: Oh. They left. Okay. What -- how common is this? War resisters or people being deported back?   Jesse McLaren: So there's dozens, even perhaps hundreds of war resisters in Canada. They have the support of the majority of Canadians, of two motions of Parliament, of international law, of Canadian tradition and the Harper government has already departed two: Robin Long and Clifford Cornell. Robin was also separated from his family -- from his Canadian-born son. And they were given harsh jail sentences. Much harsher than the majority of people who left the armed forces and those sentences were harsh because they spoke out in Canada. Sarika Sehgal: What is the government saying or responding? How are they responding?   Jesse McLaren: The government claims to not be involved but in fact Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has a strong record. Firstly, he labeled war resisters bogus refugee claimants and the Canadian Council of Refugees clearly was dismissive of that and claimed that that provided evidence of the strong appearance political interference. Second of all, he's actually institutionalized his own personal ideological beliefs with what's called Operational Bulletin 202. And this is basically an instructive where he's told immigration officials to flag all US Iraq War resisters as "criminally inadmissiable" even though they refused to be criminally involved in the war in Iraq. And Amnesty International and the former chair of the Refugee Board have spoken out against Operational Bulletin 202, saying that it mistates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of immigration. And finally, just this week, his lawyers claimed that the risk of Kimberly being arrested was merely speculative where in fact we have proof today that she was arrested just as we'd feared.   Sarika Sehgal: Okay, thanks so much for joining us.   Jesse McLaren: Thanks.   In addition, Amnesty International issued the following:   Amnesty International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada. Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday 20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of conscience. Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to be a conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a prisoner of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon arrival in the United States. Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses either to perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies for non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars. The law of the United States only recognizes the right to conscientious objection where a person forms an opposition to war in any form. Full Text Amnesty International is dismayed that today the Federal Court of Canada denied the motion to stop the removal of Kimberly Rivera, pending the outcome of her Humanitarian and Compassionate application to remain in Canada. Kimberly has been ordered leave Canada for the United States on Thursday 20 September. It is expected that Ms. Rivera will be detained upon arrival in the USA, transferred to military control, court-martialed and imprisoned for refusing to serve in the U.S. military on grounds of conscience. Amnesty International considers Kimberly Rivera to be a conscientious objector, and as such would consider her to be a prisoner of conscience should she be detained for military evasion, upon arrival in the United States. Amnesty International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who, for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, refuses either to perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies for non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in a war because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars. The law of the United States only recognizes the right to conscientious objection where a person forms an opposition to war in any form. Wherever such a person is detained or imprisoned solely for their beliefs as a conscientious objector, Amnesty International considers that person to be a prisoner of conscience, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release. Amnesty International believes that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience is inherent in the notion of freedom of thought, conscience and religion as recognized in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Kimberly Rivera formed an understanding of her position as a conscientious objector over a period of time while she was deployed in Iraq. At one point her convictions caused her to stop carrying her rifle while on duty in Iraq. Amnesty International has followed the cases of multiple U.S. soldiers who have objected to military service on grounds of conscience since the U.S. led conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Amnesty International has observed multiple U.S. soldiers who maintain principled objections to military service imprisoned solely on the basis of their beliefs. Some soldiers have been imprisoned despite pending applications for conscientious objector status, some have been imprisoned after their applications for conscientious objector status have been wrongly refused, other soldiers have been deployed to combat zones despite pending applications for conscientious objector status.     For additional coverage published today, AP's reported on the deportation and arrest, Dan Burns covered it for Reuters, BBC covers it, RT covers it, NBC News covers the topic, Darren Weir (Digital Jounal) reports on the topic, John Bonnar (Rabble) reports on it, Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) covers the topic, Press TV covers the story and Michael Allen (Opposing Views).         iraq the washington post joby warrick cnn elise labott

arwa damon
mohammed tawfeeq

the war resisters support campaign

sarika sehgal

all iraq news

al mada

About last night's post . . .

Another post about an e-mail.  Sunny found one from Claude ____ who wrote to tell me how angry he was with me.  Last night, he reminds me, I wrote about Channing Tatum.

"Do you not realize or care or even notice what is going on with Kimberly Rivera in Canada?  They're trying to kick her out and you're writing about Channing Tatum?  You're doing nothing to get the word out!"

Yep.

I also don't regret it.

What Claude's missing is that C.I. addressed Kim Rivera's story at the top of the snapshot yesterday (does so again today).  So?

So if I write about war resister Kim Rivera, I and the snapshot will reach an audience who already knows about Kim Rivera.  If I instead write about Channing Tatum, someone dropping by for that stands a chance of learning about Kim Rivera.

Here are last night's posts in the community:

• Mikey Likes It!

  Revenge
  

  20 hours ago
• Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Remake and pig
  

  20 hours ago
• Like Maria Said Paz

  Channing
  

  20 hours ago
• Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  matt lauer needs to go
  

  20 hours ago
• Trina's Kitchen

  The strike is over
  

  21 hours ago
• Ruth's Report

  It's just like a Lifetime movie!
  

  21 hours ago
• The World Can't Wait!

  Protests Against Drones Spreading
  

  21 hours ago
• SICKOFITRADLZ

  Revolution
  

  21 hours ago
• Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Press down plays abuse by teacher
  

  21 hours ago
• Ann's Mega Dub

  Lucy Madison is not up for a fact check
  

  21 hours ago
• Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Heart on CBS This Morning Wednesday am
  

  21 hours ago

I see World Can't Wait's in there.  I'm leaving it.  I support that organization and it does great work.

Kat would have written about Heart regardless because she covers music.  But it also fit in with the plan which was outlined to everyone -- by Mike and Marcia who came up with it -- which was, "Try to find a topic that might increase the number of views you would usually get."  For me, I don't write about Channing Tatum most of the time.  He's a very popular actor.  I'd already told Sunny (who loves him) that I'd write about him last night before the plan was introduced to me but once it was it made the topic even more important.

Repeating, if I wrote a post titled "Help Kim Rivera!" last night, a lot of people who, like me, support Kim would have stopped by and read.  The plan last night was for us to grab eye balls we wouldn't normally grab.  So Rebecca called for the firing of Matt Lauer, Marcia reviewed a new TV show, Mike wrote about the extremely popular TV show Revenge, look at Betty and Ruth's titles which hook you in, Ann called out a journalist, etc.

Point being, there was a plan to the posts.  Hopefully, it worked.

Equally true, read the snapshot below, no one tackles the issue like C.I.  You are aware, right, that C.I.'s handling of Agustin Aguayo, the way she presented the case, resulted in awareness and sympathy in Christian circles that led to Aguayo even getting covered on Pat Robertson's TV program?  She knows what she's doing.  She doesn't 'narrow cast' but instead writes in a way to try to pull you in and show people who might not care about war resisters that they have many things in common with them.


P.S. My Channing post has 1433 reads according to Blogspot.  That's a lot in a 24 hour period for this site.  (I usually top out at 900 on a popular post.)

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, September 19, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, mass arrestes continue, the Federal Court says the Electoral Commission needs to add members in order to ensure the representation of women, Robert S. Beecroft has his confirmation hearing for US Ambassador to Iraq, Canadians try to convince Stephen Harper to let Kim Rivera stay in Canada as the world watches, and more.

It's really not about being a veteran or her stance as a war resister.  Kimberly Rivera is both of those things.  But she's not in the military now.  What is she?  A young mother of four children -- the youngest being only 18-months old.  And she and her husband have made a home for those children in Canada.  She and her husband went to Canada to make a home there.  And now she may be forced out. 

She's been ordered by the Stephen Harper government to leave Canada by tomorrow.  If she doesn't, she faces deportation.

She went to Canada to have a safe home for her family.  That wasn't requesting the world, that wasn't asking for the moon and the stars.  She wants to become a Canadian citizen and has done her part to go through that process.

Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney would apparently rather kick out a mother, risk separating her from her children, than offer the most basic kindness of residency or citizenship to this woman who has spent over five years in Canada embracing the country she wants to make her own.   Patty Winsa (Toronto Star) reports today:

A Thursday deportation order looms, despite frantic calls from supporters, politicians and even a Nobel Peace Prize winner to stay the order and allow Rivera and her family, including two Canadian-born children, to remain. Rallies were slated at 4:30 p.m. Wednesday in front of the Federal Court building and in several other cities from Halifax to Vancouver.

Ottawa, which in the 1960s allowed both draft-dodgers and Vietnam deserters to immigrate freely, has taken a hard line this time.

They're "not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term," Alexis Pavlich, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, wrote in an email. "These unfounded claims clog up our system for genuine refugees who are actually fleeing persecution."

Rivera has applied to stay permanently on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. That request continues despite the deportation order that followed a negative "pre-removal risk assessment," which is based on whether the person's return could result in persecution, torture, cruel and unusual punishment, or even loss of life.

Does Stephen Harper not grasp how cruel he's going to look on the world stage if he deports a mother?  That the obvious question in people's mind -- or, better, accusation, is going to be, "Oh, that Harper, yeah, he'd deport his own mother if he could."  It's not going to look good, it's not going to increase his standing.  Offering Kim residency or citizenship could change things immediately, could improve his image and have the whole world talking -- saying good things -- about him.  But maybe he's okay with being considered Little Bush?  John Howard took that route and, outside of Australia, most people don't know his name but think of him as a min-George W. Bush.  Is that the fate that Harper wants?   He could do so much for his own image just by doing something so minor to him but so major for Kim, her children and her husband.

The War Resisters Support Campaign staged rallies throughout Canada today.  CBC notes, "Members of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War set up camp in front of the Federal Building at 55 Bay St. North on Wednesday in support of former American soldier and conscientious objector Kimberly Rivera."  In addition, the Canadian Press notes, "A number of people have gathered in downtown Toronto for an eleventh-hour protest against the planned deportation of U.S. war resister Kimberly Rivera."  Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) reports, "According to Michelle Robidoux, a spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign (WRSC). '(Kim) faces a court martial and jail sentence, which, based on what other people have gotten, is a harsh jail sentence,' Robidoux said. 'She will be separated from her family. Her husband suffers from a disability and he's going to have four kids on his hands'."

Cracks about deporting his own mother?  If Stephen Harper deports Kim, people will be saying things like, "Forget saying the inn was full, Harper would have denied Mary the manger as well!"  Who is advising Stephen Harper, who is telling him, "This is the way you, the Prime Minister of Canada, wants to be seen by the whole world"?  He's not getting good advice.

Yves Engler (iPolitics.ca) reports on Kim and notes what she saw in Iraq:

While Rivera expected to spend her time unloading equipment at a Colorado base she soon found herself guarding a foreign operating base in Iraq. It was from this vantage point that she became disillusioned with the war. Riviera was troubled by a two-year-old Iraqi girl who came to the base with her family to claim compensation after a bombing by U.S. forces.

"She was just petrified", Rivera explained. "She was crying, but there was no sound, just tears flowing out of her eyes. She was shaking. I have no idea what had happened in her little life. All I know is I wasn't seeing her: I was seeing my own little girl. I could imagine my daughter being one of those kids throwing rocks at soldiers, because maybe someone she loved had been killed. That Iraqi girl haunts my soul."

Deporting Kim will haunt the reputation of a number of Canadian officials.    Archbishop Desmond Tutu calls for  Kim to remain in Canada.  Erin Criger (City News) notes "Amnesty International, the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Church of Canada have all supported Rivera."  In addition, many individual Canadians support her as well as organizations such as the United Steelworkers of Canada which issued a statement calling for the government of Canada to let Kim and her family stay  and  Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees which also issued a statement.   She also has the support of the United Church of Canada.  Joining the call today, Luke Stewart observes in his letter to the editor of The Record, "It was guarding the front gate of a forward operating base in Baghdad where Rivera's conscience grew with every fatal day. She decided she could no longer participate in the war that Kofi Annan, then the UN Secretary General, said in 2004 was illegal under the United Nations Charter."  Leah Bolger and Gerry Condon of Veterans For Peace note in their open letter, "According to the UN Handbook on Refugees, soldiers who refuse to fight in wars that are widely condemned by the international community should be considered as refugees. Unfortunately, the Immigration and Refugee Board in Canada has yet to grant asylum to a single person who refused to kill in the war against Iraq, a war that has most certainly been condemned by peoples and nations around the globe."

19,739 people have now signed the War Resisters Support Campaign's petition for Kim to stay.  It's a new petition, started only a few weeks ago.  There is support for Kim.  What is done to her and her children will register -- across borders, around the world.  Stephen Harper has a chance to do something that will help a family and also enhance his worldwide standing.  Or he can deport her and turn himself into a joke.  Again, I have to wonder who is advising Harper because the humane thing to do here is also the politically smart thing.

Maybe Harper's advisors are all on drugs?  Meanwhile, in the US, did we all just drop acid?  How else to explain the approximately 75 minute flashback today?  

Senator John Kerry: Mr. Ambassador, I remember sitting downstairs, we were in this building on the ground floor in that big hearing room, when Secretary Condolezza Rice testified and I remember her saying to us vividly, 'Well we're just a few weeks away from signing an agreement on the oil -- on the division of the oil and having an oil agreement -- a global oil agreement for Iraq.' I guess we're about five years later now, maybe six. I don't remember the precise timing of that [January 11, 2007 was the date of one Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing where she made that statement], still no agreement, still the problem with the Kurds, still the problem with the Sunni majority feeling divorced, there's a certain amount of skepticism now about whether or not the current government actually intends for the government to be a pluralistic, representative government or whether they're moving towards some other form of sectarian division here.

[. . .]

Senator Bob Corker:  When Senator [John] Barrasso and I first got here, which was five-and-a-half years ago roughly, five years ago for him, we were talking about the hydrocarbon discussion at that time.  And I remember sitting and interact with [US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad as he was running back and forth trying to work out some hydrocarbon law at that time.  Still nothing's happened.

Yes, it was all the things we'd heard before.  Restated yet again.  And longtime Congressional watchers probably wished US House Rep Llloyd Doggett could suddenly emerge and hit hard on those failed benchmarks for Iraq that were never achieved, not even now, over five years after Nouri signed off on them.  There is still no progress in Iraq and yet we are still told that it's just around the corner.

This morning, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Robert S. Beecroft to the position of US Ambassador to Iraq.  Beecroft is career State Dept.  It's rare that someone is able to move up to ambassador -- more often than not these posts are doled out based on political favors and financial contributions.  Granted, Iraq is not a glamor post but it is a high profile one.

The problem with career diplomats is that they make for lousy witnesses until they leave the diplomatic service.  They practice the craft they're so good at and you saw that with Robert Beecroft today.  Did he spin?  That's really not the word for it.  It's as if he was asked if someone had bad breath and he chose to respond by noting their youthful skin and not commenting on the breath issue.  He didn't lie, he did practice diplomacy.  

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  I have spent most of my career working on the Middle East, including assignments in Syria and Saudi Arabia and as Ambassador to Jordan.  For much of my career, I have been immersed in Iraq issues -- from the Iraq Desk in Washington, DC to recently serving as Deputy Chief of Mission and now Charge d'Affaires in Baghdad.  I stand on the shoulders of the thousands of brave and committed Americans who have worked, fought, and died to help the Iraqi people achiever our shared goal of a united, federal, and democratic Iraq.  If confirmed, I would commit to continuing their work to build a lasting partnership with Iraq.  In so doing, I would labor alongside a team of able and dedicated personnel who understand the importance of achieving success.  While the size and nature of our presence may have changed, our interests and commitments remain the same, and Iraq continues to be a top priority for the United States.

There is nothing shockable in that statement or even eyebrow raising.  It was smooth and I'll assume sincere.  However, what was lacking was a point of view. 

By contrast, campaign donors who usually get nominated to be ambassadors come in with a strong point of view.  If they can learn some diplomatic skills, they can be effective as ambassadors.  Their strong point of view can clash with an administration's point of view leading to a better point of view when all points are debated.  What Beecroft needs to work on -- especially if Barack is re-elected in November -- is sharpening and expressing his point of view.  If he's moved up to team leader, that will require a point of view.

The hearing  started 12 minutes late and ending well before the 90 minute mark.   Senator John Kerry is the Chair of the Committee.

Chair John Kerry:  This is not a time for delay.  There's no substitute for having a confirmed ambassador in place and ready to hit the ground running -- especially at this critical moment in the region.  It's my hope to move this nomination as rapidly as we can in the next 48 hours because we must have a confirmed ambassador and it would be a dereliction of the Congress' responsibility were we to leave here for the next 6 weeks and not have done so.

That was from his opening remarks.   As we noted last week, there should be an ambassador to Iraq.  Right now, there should be.  Both countries need for there to be one. 

However, no one forced the White House to nominate the insulting Brett McGurk and no one forced the White House to wait so long to name a new nominee after McGurk's name was withdrawn.  I remember the Attorney General nominations of 1993.  That was rough and Republicans were determined to defeat the nominees.  Plural. Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for the post.  Her nomination was derailed and she withdrew her name January 22, 1993.  Clinton goes on to announce a new nominee: Kima Wood.  Kimba Wood withdraws her name February 5, 1993.  Clinton then nominated Janet Reno who was confirmed March 11, 1993 on a 98 to zero vote in the Senate.  January 20, 1993, Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States.  March 11th, Reno -- his third nominee -- was confirmed as Attorney General. That's moving quickly.

By contrast?  June 18th McGurk's name is withdrawn.  Late  September 10th word leaks out that Beecroft is Barack's new nominee and it's made official with an announcement September 11th.  In less than two months, President Bill Clinton names 3 different nominees for Attorney General and gets one confirmed.  Eight days shy of three months after McGurk's name is withdrawn, President Barack Obama is finally able to find someone to nominate for the post (Beecroft, the person who's been doing the work all that time).  If Senate Dems want to whine that Paul's creating a delay on that nomination, Barack's the one who created the delay and dragged his feet.

The average time between confirmation hearings and a vote is said to be ten days.  That would be September 28th and that's awfully close to when senators facing re-election battles have tor return home.  That was also foot dragging by the administration which should have planned it much better.

No one thinks Beecroft is going to lead to "no" votes, not any significant number if even that.  Beecroft has been doing the job he's nominated for already -- for several months.  He has many outstanding qualifications.  But other issues may lead the vote to be postponed.  If that happens, that's on the White House.  Don't wait until September to make a nomination and then expect everyone to go along with it.  The nomination should have been made months ago.  Beecroft got the nomination because (a) he is qualifed and (b) he's already doing the job.  There doesn't seem to be any doubts about that or about Beecroft from members of the Committee.  It's a shame the White House couldn't have nominated him March 26th instead of McGurk.  It's a shame that the White House didn't withdraw the nomination months earlier -- from the start there were problems including Iraqiya's opposition to McGurk.  As has been the case since the start of the Barack Obama administration, they need to do a better job vetting their prospects before nominating them.  Barring that, they need to be preparing back up candidates.  Bill Clinton had two nominees go down in flames before Janet Reno was confirmed as Attorney General.  He didn't stumble. He didn't fall down whining.  He named another nominee.  And another if that was needed.  That's what a functioning administration does.  It doesn't wait three months after their failed nominee's name is withdrawn to finally get around to naming another nominee.

The hearing had a lot worth noting.  We're going to note Chair John Kerry and Senator Marc Rubio today.  Tomorrow, we'll note Ranking Member Richard Lugar and Senator Bob

Casey.  Here is Kerry's line of questioning for the nominee.

Chair John Kerry:  Our Embassy in Baghdad, the Consulates in Erbil and Basra and other offices supporting the Embassy and Office of Security Cooperation still number about 14,000 people.  And that makes it our largest mission in the world.  We are going to need someone with Ambassador Beecroft's demonstrated management skills to rightsize the mission and to ensure that all the appropriate security measures are in place to keep our staff safe and secure.  Iraq's leaders have a rare opportunity to consolidate their democracy and build a strong, durable  institution or set of institutions to hold the country together.  But more will be required of the Iraqi government.   Questions remain about whether Iraqi leaders -- including the prime minister -- aspire to represent a unified Iraq in all of its diversity or rather they seek to govern narrowly according to ethnic and sectarian tendencies.  To ensure that parliamentary elections in 2014 are free and fair,  Iraq's Electoral Commission must be professional, transparent and impartial.  Iraqi leaders across the political spectrum must also be willing to make tough compromises and put national priorities over personal ambitions.  It is no secret that we are at a moment of heightened sectarian tensions in the Middle East.  Iraqi leaders should understand that the best way to insulate themselves from the horrific violence in Syria is through meaningful, political compromise in Iraq.  As Iraq's leaders work to establish a more stable political order, they need to redouble efforts to reach agreement on disputed boundaries, on oil and on Kirkuk's final status.  If progress is not made on diffusing tensions, the window for peaceful resolution of Kirkuk and other disputed territories may well close.  Baghdad and Erbil must resolve their differences on the Kurdish Region's authority to enter into oil exploration and production contracts.  To their credit, the Iraqis have made efforts to resolve issues related to revenue sharing but the country still lacks an overarching, legal framework for its oil industry.   Without this agreement, Iraq will be unable to unleash the full potential of its oil sector.  For years, Iraq has focused on its internal politics but it must now also start to look outwards.  It is not surprising that Iraq seeks neighborly relations with Iran but the reports of Iran using Iraq airspace to resupply Assad's ruthless regime are troubling. 

Chair John Kerry:  Can you share with me an answer to the issue I raised about the Iranians using American airspace in order to support [Syrian President Bashar] Assad?  What are we doing, what have you been doing -- if anything, to try to limit that use?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: I have personally engaged on this repeatedly at the highest levels of Iraqi government.  My colleagues in Baghdad have engaged on this.  We're continuing to engage on it.  And every single visitor representing the US government from the Senate, recently three visitors, to administration officials has raised it with the Iraqis and made very clear that we find this unnaceptable and we find it unhelpful and detrimental to the region and to Iraq and, of course -- first and foremost, to the Syrian people.  It's something that needs to stop and we are pressing and will continue to press until it does stop.

Chair John Kerry: Well, I mean, it may stop when it's too late.  If so many people have entreated the government to stop and that doesn't seem to be having an impact -- uh,  that sort of alarms me a little bit and seems to send a signal to me: Maybe -- Maybe we should make some of our assistance or some of our support contingent on some kind of appropriate response?  I mean it just seems completely inappropriate that we're trying to help build their democracy, support them, put American lives on the line, money into the country and they're working against our insterest so overtly -- agains their own interests too -- I might add.

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Senator, Senator, I share your concerns 100%.  I'll continue to engage.  And, with your permission, I will make very clear to the Iraqis what you've said to me today -- and that is you find it alarming and that it may put our assistance and our cooperation on issues at stake.

Chair John Kerry:  Well I think that it would be very hard.  I mean, around here, I think right now there's a lot of anxiety about places that seem to be trying to have it both ways.  So I wish you would relay that obviously and I think that members of the Committee would -- would want to do so.  Can you tell us with respect to the safety issues --  personnel and our citizens there -- are you taking extra steps now?  Are there additional initiatives in place as a result of what's happened in the last week or two?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft: For some time now and all the more so in light of recent events we have taken a very cautious and careful look at our security on a regular basis.  We have our own security at the Embassy.  We think it is sizable.  It is robust.  And we're very confident that it's what we need at this time.  At the same time,  we're fully engaged with Iraqi officials both poltiical and security officials at the most senior levels to make sure that they give us the cooperation that we feel we need and so far they have done that.  They have pledged to protect us and we're doing everything   to ensure that they keep to that pledge and that we meet our part of it by ensuring that we're as safe as we can be on our terms.  At the same time, I'd comment, we enjoy geographic advantages.  The Embassy is located inside the International Zone, the Green Zone, as you know, and there are a number of checkpoints that are closely guarded getting into it.  It's not a place where demonstrations usually take place.

Chair John Kerry: What's the reaction of the Iraqi people been to the events of the last weeks?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:   So far, compared to other places in the region, it's been quite muted.  There have been demonstrations throughout the country but they've been low level.  And there's been nothing that's specifically threatening.  There have been statements highly critical of the film that is at issue and statements by some political leaders that they should examine their relationship with the United States because of this film.  But on the whole, we get good cooperation.  We continue to engage and Iraqi officials are meeting with us on regularly and going about business.

Chair John Kerry: Increasingly, we are hearing more anecdotal and other reports about the increased authoritarianism of the Maliki government and of the political system itself perhaps becoming less diplomatic and so forth.  Can you share your perceptions of that with us and how you see this trendline moving.

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:   Uh, Iraq is a democracy.  It does face a lot of issues that are challenging to that democracy.  Uhm, it is fragile in many ways.  We are working constantly with all sides -- with the prime minister, with his party, his bloc, with other blocs and other parties across the political spectrum to ensure that democratic institutions and the democratic process is strengthened.  And, in short what we're doing is pushing them all to engage, to pursue their interests  in the legislative process, in an independent reform process that they've agreed to.  In other words, use the system to achieve what you need rather than look outside the system and make it fall apart.

Chair John Kerry:  Mr. Ambassador, I remember sitting downstairs, we were in this building on the ground floor in that big hearing room, when Secretary Condolezza Rice testified and I remember her saying to us vividly, 'Well we're just a few weeks away from signing an agreement on the oil -- on the division of the oil and having an oil agreement -- a global oil agreement for Iraq.'  I guess we're about five years later now, maybe six.  I don't remember the precise timing of that [January 11, 2007 was the date of one Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing where she made that statement], still no agreement, still the problem with the Kurds, still the problem with the Sunni majority feeling divorced, there's a certain amount of skepticism now about whether or not the current government actually intends for the government to be a pluralistic, representative government or whether they're moving towards some other form of sectarian division here.  I think a lot of people are worried about it.  Can you share your persepctive about that?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Uh, you're right about the hydrocarbons law.  There still is no hydrocaborns law.  We think this-this -- next ot Iraq's Constitution, is one of the most important laws that could go in place in the country.  We're pushing it very aggressively.  Most recently, Ambassador Carlos Pascual from the State Department, who looks after energy issues there, and a representative from the Dept of Energy [Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs Jonathan Elkind] came to Iraq, met with Iraqi officials, Deputy Bill Burns [] followed up last week with a visit and pushed the same issue.  We're pointing out to them this is a way to unite and unify the country -- which is what they need to do at this time.  I am pleased to say that there has been some subsequent engagement by the Iraqis on oil issues and some discussion of restarting negotiations on the hydrocarbons law and we're going to continue to push them in that direction.  It's a positive trend and a positive sign.  Most recently, representatives from the Kurdish Regional Government were in Baghdad only a few days ago, meeting with the Minister of Oil there and -- by all reports, what we see, what we hear in the press -- they did make some progress and they're moving forward on that.  So while it's not  the hydrocarbons law itself, these are issues we're see in the press, they did make some progress and they're moving forward on that.  And so while it's not the hydrocarbons law itself, these are issues which should smooth relations and allow for the hydrocarbons law to go forward in the future.

Could aid be cut off or made conditional?

It was a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in 2008 that led to the government of Iraq being responsible for paying Sahwa and not American tax payers.  From that day's snapshot -- and "she" is Senator Barbara Boxer:

She wanted to know about the training, all the training, that had gone on and then on again.  "We've done a lot for the Iraqis just in terms of the numbers themselves," Boxer declared.  "I'll tell you what concerns me and most of my constituents, you said -- many times -- the gains in Iraq are fragile and reversable. . . . So my constituents and I believe that" after all the deaths, all the money, "you have to wonder why the best that you can say is that the gains are fragile and reversable."  Noting the lack of military success and Hagel's points, Boxer pointed out that nothing was being done diplomatically "and I listened carefully to Senator Hagel and Ambassador Crocker -- from the answer you gave him, I don't get the" feeling that the White House has given anything, it's still "the status quo.  She then turned to the issue of monies and the militias, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" and wouldn't put them into the forces because he doubts their loyalty.  She noted that $182 million a year was being paid, $18 million a month, to these "Awakening" Council members and "why don't you ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that progam" because as Senator Lugar pointed out, "It could be an opportunity" for the Iraqi government "to turn it into something more long term."  This is a point, she declared, that she intends to bring up when it's time to vote on the next spending supplamental. Crocker tried to split hairs.

Boxer: I asked you why they couldn't pay for it. . . . I don't want to argue a point. . . I'm just asking you why we would object to asking them to pay for that entire program giving all that we are giving them in blood and everything else?

Crocker declared that he'd take that point back to Iraq when he returned.

Apparently prior to Senators Boxer and Lugar thinking of it, it had never occurred to anyone that maybe the Iraqi government should be paying for the Sahwa security forces to secure Iraq.  So possibly John Kerry's message will be conveyed and have some effect.

Now let's note the exchange with Rubio.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Let me touch on three subject.  The first, I know there's already been discussion about Iran's influence in Iraq.  In your opinion, does that influence extend to the judiciary? And I'm particularly concerned in light of obviously the ex-vice president's trial.  I guess he's now in Turkey.  But others, as well.  The growing evidence that perhaps -- at least allegations -- that the prime minister and others have manipulated the judiciary for purposes of pursuing their political enemies?  Do we have concern that Iran'sinfluence in Iraq has no reached or extended into the judiciary as well?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Thank you, Senator.  I would -- I would say we have concerns across the board that any country -- Iran or others --  not play an overbearing or an overly influential role -- particularly a negative one -- in Iraq.   We work closely with the judiciary in Iraq and the legal community.  We do everything we can to ensure that there's support for rule of law programs.  And so far what we see is a largely functioning judiciary that, uhm, while not again I can't give it 100% endorsement as perfect, no country has a perfect judiciary, it is something that , again, continues to function and we'll continue to help it function better to the extent we can.

Senator Marco Rubio: My second concern is about the well being of the leader of Iraq's Democratic Nation Party Mithal Alusi.  Have we expressed our concerns about the way he's been treated?  I believe he's now in the northern region.  He's been given -- I guess he's been allowed to enter and he's living under their protection.  But I've read a series of accounts about how different types of protection have been withdrawn, his life's been made a miserable mess in Baghdad, apparently promises of protection have been withdrawn, his life's been made a miserable mess in Baghdad, apparently he's had to leave Baghdad.  Have we expressed our concern about his well being and our concern about how he's being treated? 

 [Nouri ran Alusi out of Baghdad after he lost the 2010 election to Parliament -- he won a seat in 2005.  Losing the election meant losing the security guards MPs get.  Nouri refused to allow Alusi's bodyguards to carry guns.  Then Nouri refused to renew Alusi and his wife's travel papers to enter and exit the Green Zone.  Their home is in the Green Zone.  They've lived there since 2004 due to repeatedly being targeted for assassiantion.  KRG President Massoud Barzani has welcomed Alusi and his family to the KRG.]

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  I'm sorry, Senator, I missed the name.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Mithal Alusi.   He is the leader of the Iraq Democratic Nation Party.

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Let me, excuse me, let me just say that first and foremost we have concerns about human rights across the board and we will raise those concerns at every opportunity -- as well as rule of law concerns -- to make sure everyone is treated fair and freely.  On this specific individual, I'm going to have to go back for an answer and get back to you as soon as I can.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Well just so I can point out, he -- in addition to being the leader of the Democratic Nation Party in Iraq -- he has also been a staunch ally of the United States in Iraq, courageous in many instances, a proponent of a more open society -- basically everything we hope the region will become in terms of the things he stood for.  And I encourage you to look into his case. It's actually well documented and well known and he has now had to leave to the northern region for protection because of the way the current government has treated him.  I think it sends a terrible message to our friends and to moderate reformers in the region when the US is silent to their well being.  And I think it's concerning that, quite frankly, there's not more awareness about his plight.   But let me just add to that, what is your view of our relationship with the regional government in the north, the Kurdish Regional Government?   There's been accounts about how well they've developed.  Certainly, it's a safer region than the rest of Iraq.  They've certainly progressed economically quicker than the rest of the nation.  How is our relationship with them?  How do you envision our relationship with them moving forward as far as their own aspirations, etc?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Thank you, Senator.  On the first case, I will look into the case personally and will get back to you and your staff.  Regarding the north, we're very supportive of the autonomous region in the north.  And you're absolutely right, it has progressed in many ways and in many ways sets an example for not just the country but the region and what it can be.  We'll continue to support with them -- support them and work with them as part of a unified federal Iraq. And we have the best of relations with them and we will continue to have those relations.

Senator Marco Rubio: I've heard concerns expressed that the closer we get to them, the more we risk alienating the prime minister [of Iraq], the less cooperative he may be with us.  Do you share that view?  Or?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  Uh, we have excellent relations too, sir, with the prime minister and we're going to continue to keep those and so as long people understand this is part of a unified, federal Iraq, our work with the north should not be objectionable and it so far has not been objectionable.

Senator Marco Rubio:  Right. But what I've heard some commentators say is we've got to be careful how we deal with them and not to appear to close to them because it may alienate him [Nouri al-Maliki] or make him less cooperative with us.  And I think -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you're saying is that that's something that would not necessarily stand in your way in working with them and reaching out to them and having a close relationship with them?  You don't view it as a zero-sum game.  You think you can have a good relationship with both?

Charge d'Affaires Robert S. Beecroft:  That's absolutely right.

If you remember that awful Chris Hill confirmation hearing of 2009 and Chris Hill's hideous answers, you'll understand why Rubio was attempting to be sure that Beecroft had a working knowledge of the KRG.  (Hill knew nothing.  Couldn't even grasp the issue of Kirkuk.)

The ex-vice president Rubio's referring to is Tareq al-Hashemi.  However, Rubio's wrong that al-Hashemi's an ex-vice president.  Rubio may know the Iraqi Constitution very well and, if so, assume that al-Hashemi is an ex-vice president.  The reason being, while he holds office, he's not supposed to be put on trial.  But he was -- and he was a victim of Nouri's political power-grab.

Nouri's mass arrests continued in Iraq today.  Ahlul Bayt News Agency reports 20 people have been arrested in Karbala Province.  That sound like a lot?  That's just one province.  Alsumaria notes 26 people were arrested for 'terrorism' in Babil Province.  Iraq's had no mass release from the prisons.  But the mass arrests continue.  In a country of approximately 30 million people, it would be very interesting to get an estimate on the number of people imprisoned.  That can't happen of course because Nouri al-Maliki -- aka Little Saddam -- loves his secret prisons.

This month alone, you've seen hunger strikes in the prisons, people dying in prison (including one who may have died because he was denied medical treatment -- the one in Diyala who was diabetic) and prisoners rioting when they've taken death row inmates out to transfer them to a facility where they can be executed.

Add in that people remain imprison in Iraq forever.  They disappear into the system -- not by accident.  Families only know that their loved ones were taken away and they search in vain trying to track them down, trying to figure out if they're even still alive.  This passes for justice in Nouri's Iraq.

An amnesty law could free many.  But despite promising it for years now, and restating that promise in February 2011, Nouri and his State of Law continue to refuse to allow the bill to become law.  Alsumaria reports today that State of Law MP Kamal Saadi is now stating they will support the bill . . . provided it excludes thieves, counterfeiters and terrorists.  So that leaves the arsonists who've been setting fire to the orchards?  Is that it?  The bulk of imprisoned Iraqis are behind bars because they're accused of terrorism -- accused, not found guilty of.  People wait and wait in prison for a trial to roll around -- a trial that never arrives.  And it's interesting whom Nouri labels a 'terrorist' and whom he doesn't.

The Shi'ites who make up the League of the Rigtheous can be -- and have been -- released.  (Barack released their leader, their leader's brothers and a few other members in US military custody -- I'm referring to the members who were in Iraqi custody.)  They killed Americans and Brits, yes, but they also killed Iraqis.  But that's 'okay' because they're Shia.

This is why the recent executions -- that have brought the total number of executed in Iraq this year to 96 so far -- and the rush to execute more (at least 200 are pending) have enraged so many.  They see it as political, as an attempt to punish Sunnis.

The violence continues as well. All Iraq News reports 1 person was shot down in Mosul.  Press TV adds, "Five members of the security forces, including a one-star general and a colonel, have been killed in separate attacks targeting the Iraqi police and army."  Alsumaria adds a Baghdad roadside bombing injured an Iraqi solider, a Ministry of Oil employee was shot in Baghdad, a Nineveh Province home invasion resulted in 1 death, 2 corpses were discovered in Baaj, 1 Turkman doctor was killed in Kirkuk (shot dead),  and 1 corpse was discovered in Wasit Province (of a male who was kidnapped three years ago).

About the only thing that could be passed off as 'progress' this week just imploded.  Yesterday, 8 of 9 Independent High Electoral Commission commissioners elected.   Alsumaria reported this morning that the Federal Court says the number of commissioners must be increased because women must make up a third of the members.  (Not one of the eight was a woman -- an oversight Iraqiya called out -- the only political bloc to publicly call that out.)  Al Mada notes that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was insisting yesterday that if they just make the ninth member a Christian, they'll have all their bases covered. The judiciary begs to differ.  They're calling on members -- not a single seat, multiple seats.  That means that the Parliament either gets very focused on this or it is highly likely that an election cannot take place in March of 2013.  It's tarting to look a lot like fall 2009 in Iraq.

iraq

veterans for peace

rabble

krystalline kraus
ipolitics.ca 

yves engler

kitabat
the toronto post

city news

erin criger

war resisters support campaign

 ahlul bayt news agency

all iraq news

bbc news
al rafidayn 

al mada

kitabat