The lies

"ICC prosecutor demands arrest warrant against Gaddafi" (Patrick O'Connor, WSWS):
The chief prosecutor with the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, yesterday demanded that arrest warrants be issued for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, his son Saif Al Islam, and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi, on crimes against humanity charges.
Three ICC judges will now examine a 74-page dossier detailing the alleged crimes before making a decision on the requested warrants. These moves come after the UN Security Council issued a request in late February for a criminal investigation. Britain and France, backed by the US, instigated this as part of their drive for regime-change in Libya, aimed at installing a client regime in the strategically significant and oil-rich state.
The rank hypocrisy of the imperialist powers levelling accusations of crimes against humanity is transparent. The leaderships in Washington, London and Paris have no legal, political or moral authority to be issuing such charges against anyone. They are collectively guilty of war crimes being inflicted daily on the Libyan population.



We don't do proof in the US anymore. We just kill and lie.

Want war with Iraq?

Illegal war? That the UN won't sign off on?

Lie.

Scare the people.

Lie and tell them Iraq has WMD and is connected to al Qaeda.

Want Ghaddafi killed?

Lie.

Lie and declare war.

Lie and pretend that CIA backed forces are 'rebels' and that they represent Libya.

Lie and keep lying.

Want to kill Osama bin Laden?

Lie.

Lie and claim you have proof that you're about to present but never do.

Then kill him, assassinate him.

He worked with the CIA, after all, back in the 80s.

So lie.

At some point this nation's sorry descent appears to be about very little other than protecting the CIA.. How fitting that Barack would preside over the US at such a time.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, May 17, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, a lengthy Basra protest gets some results, the Kurds want the US to stay in Iraq, Tom Bowman wants to half-inform you in his half-assed way, Senator Patty Murray gears up for an important Senate hearing, and more. Al Sabaah reports Iraq's political blocs have agreed to address whether or not to extend the US military presence in Iraq. This reconsideration is at Nouri's request. Wednesday, Nouri al-Maliki raised the issue and said if 70% of the political players agreed to extend the US presence, then that's what would happen. As we've repeatedly noted, that's not an impossible to reach number. The Kurds would want them to stay -- and our statement on that is backed up by Fars News which reports today, "The Kurdistan Patriotic Union issued a statement on Sunday, asking the US military troops to extend their mission in Iraq." That's roughly a third of the Parliament right there. Aswat al-Iraq adds, "Most of political blocs in Kurdistan believed that the US withdrawal at the end of this year is unsuitable that will tense the security situation in the country and return of violence. Spokesman of the National Kurdistan Party, headed by President Jalal Talabani, Azad Jindiyani said to Aswat al-Iraq that 'the US withdrawal is unsuitable due to the delay in building up Iraqi forces and the existence of political problems in the country'." The uninformed and deluded will continue to insist that Moqtada al-Sadr has power (Shi'ite leader of the small Sadr bloc). Let's provide the context they keep missing by dropping back to two reports on Moqtada's last attempt to stop US troops from staying, November 22, 2008. This is from Mary Beth Sheridan's "Sadr Followers Rally Against U.S. Accord" (Washington Post): Thousands of followers of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrated Friday against an agreement that would extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, shouting "America out!" and burning an effigy of President Bush. The rally was held in Baghdad's Firdaus Square, where U.S. soldiers toppled a statue of President Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the 2003 invasion. Friday's demonstration followed two days of boisterous protests by Sadr's loyalists in parliament, which is scheduled to vote next week on the agreement. The Sadrists do not appear to have the strength to derail the bilateral accord, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq for three more years. The group has only 30 seats in the 275-seat parliament. Friday's protest drew thousands of people but was smaller than a massive demonstration held by Sadr loyalists in the same central Baghdad plaza in 2005. And this is from Stephen Farrell's "Protests in Baghdad on U.S. Pact" (New York Times): In Firdos Square, protesters sat in rows of 50 stretching back more than half a mile. They filled Sadoun Street, beside the Palestine Hotel and in front of the colonnaded traffic circle where five years ago American troops pulled down the dictator's statue in scenes televised around the world. While the rally was billed as a cross-community effort, to be attended by Shiite and Sunni clerics, the vast majority of those in attendance were Sadrists. Many had come from Mr. Sadr's stronghold of Sadr City, and the chants the crowd took up were "Moktada, Moktada," "No, no to America," and "No, no to the agreement." Sadrist officials said they opposed the security agreement because they did not believe assurances that the Americans would ever leave. They depicted the pact as a successor to colonial-era treaties with Western powers in the last century that, they said, had "sold the Arab and the Muslim lands into occupation." Despite the protests, days later the SOFA would pass Parliament. If Moqtada had the power so many are convinced he had, the SOFA never would have gone through. And, in 2008, Moqtada was a lot more influential than he is today when he's concerned that many of his lieutenants are eager to lead and not follow. One US view for staying? Today Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes ("former executive officer to Gen. David Petraeus and a professor of military history at Ohio State University") Peter Mansoor stating, "Let's be clear -- the reason we should stay is to keep the Iraqis from fighting each other, particularly the Kurds and the Arabs. We can couch it in whatever terms we want to but . . . they need us to protect them from themselves." To be clear, this site has always supported, and continues to, immediate and full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The US staying? November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament voted on the Status Of Forces Agreement (or those who bothered to show up -- many skipped the vote, for the record, 149 MPs voted in favor of the SOFA -- Parliament then had 275 members). As soon as it passed the Iraqi Parliament, the White House finally released a version of the SOFA. Prior to the SOFA, each year the US and Iraq had to request that the UN mandate be renewed for the US military to legally operate on Iraqi soil. (This is the occupation. No UN mandate provided for the war itself.) The SOFA replaced the UN mandate. The UN mandate covered a variety of countries (including England and Australia) but it also put Iraq in a type of protective receivership. Nouri was prevented from gaining access to certain funds (among other things). This is why Nouri didn't want the UN mandate renewed. When it was decided that the UN mandate would be ditched, every country that planned to stay in Iraq needed to negotiate their own contract (bilateral agreement) with Iraq. The US went with the SOFA. The SOFA could run for three years, if neither side exercised their 'out clause.' Article 30 of the SOFA covers this noting in section one: "This Agreement shall be effective for a period of three years, unless terminated sooner by either Party pursuant to paragraph 3 of this Article." Either side could terminate the SOFA at any point but there was no immediate termination. Section 3 of Article 30 covered this: "This Agreement shall terminate one year after a Party provides written notification to the other Party to that effect." Lies were told from the beginning. For instance, in an attempt to clamp down on outrage and ensure it passed the Parliament, Nouri al-Maliki insisted the people would get a say in this. In fact, a referendum would be held in July 2009! That referendum never took place. It really didn't matter in terms of ending the SOFA right away. If it had taken place and the vote had been to end the SOFA and Nouri had immediately notified the US that Iraq was breaking the SOFA, the SOFA would end . . . one year after Nouri gave official notification. The SOFA is a contract. Like any contract, it can expire, be renewed and it can be replaced. Expire? It would run through Decemeber 2011 and not be renewed (or replaced). Replaced? A new bilateral agreement could be agreed to by the US and Iraqi governments. Renewed (or extended)? That's Article 30, Section 2. We have repeatedly opposed efforts for the US Congress to praise the SOFA with meaningless 'honorary' bills. While Iraq's Parliament was able to vote on the SOFA, the US Congress had no say. The Bush White House yet again circumvented the US Constitution -- specifically the section on treaties (treaty clause), Article 22, Section 2, Clause 2 which requires the Senate's advise and consent on all treaties the US enters into with other countries. Barack Obama was 'outraged' that the Senate was being bypassed . . . until he became president-elect. At which point Barack (and Joe Biden) dropped their objection to the US Constitution being circumvented -- this despite Barack being one of the 13 co-sponsors of Hillary Clinton's Senate bill insisting the SOFA come before the Congress. After it was a done deal, why did it matter? Because (A) the Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US. Violating it is no minor thing. (B) It sets a precedent. (C) The SOFA can be extended. And how is it extended? Article 30, Section 2, "This Agreement shall be amended only with the official agreement of the Parties in writing and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in effect in both countries." What does that mean? It means that the precedent is Nouri's Cabinet and the Parliament have to sign off in Iraq while, in the US, only the White House has to want it. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Offering that very basic legal analysis was controversial in 2008; however, events have backed up what we've said. It's only the most idiotic that can't grasp it today. Enter Tom Bowman (NPR). Today on Morning Edition, he reports on one of two plans. But gets many things wrong. First, he's unaware -- or unwilling to pass on --that this is one of two plans currently. What he's covering is plan B for the US administration. It's their back up plan, not their preferred plan. The preferred plan is extending the SOFA. If that doesn't happen, US forces that remain in Iraq -- and some will though Tom Bowman 'forgets' to include that aspect in his report -- will be under the State Dept's control. In addition, as Bowman report, there will be many contractors brought in (who will also be under the State Dept's control). Throughout his report, Bowman repeatedly states as fact that all US troops leave Iraq at the end of this year. First off, they don't. Even under plan B (Bowman's topic), some remain in Iraq. (Bowman might need to attend Congressional hearings on this subject. If he had, he'd be well versed in this topic instead of flying blind. Here are two hearing you can refer to, the February 1st Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and the February 3rd Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.) Second, facts are what has happened. US troops have NOT left Iraq. Some may leave at the end of 2011, some may not. And with Iraqi blocs agreeing to discuss the issue, you'd think NPR would be concerned about their reporters getting the facts correct. Bowman insists, "On the ground, it's the same story. American soldiers and Marines will leave." Marines will leave? What kind of a moron is Tom Bowman? Who the hell does he think protects US Embassies around the world? This is the Marine Embassy Guard Association's website. Tom Bowman should familiarize himself with the page since he obviously has no idea that it is the US Marines who protect US Embassies around the world. Let's give him a movie reference, maybe film will help him? When Jason Bourne enters the US Embassy in The Bourne Identity and quickly begins fighting American forces? Those are Marines. From About.com, "Marine Security Guards are responsible for providing security at about 125 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Those on MSG duty are primarily responsible for embassies' interior security, normally the lobby or main entrance. Guards are trained to react to terrorist acts as well as a variety of emergencies such as fires, riots, demonstrations and evacuations." They're trained at Marine Corps Base Quantico and you can click here for a story on the training written by Lance Cpl Skyler Tooker. And it wouldn't be just three or five Marine guards under the Embassy in Baghdad's control. At this late date, you'd think a journalist would know what came before. For example, in February the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a 20 page report entitled [PDF format warning] "IRAQ: THE TRANSITION FROM A MILITARY MISSION TO A CIVILIAN-LED EFFORT." This section should be rather clear: The State Department is scheduled to assume full security responsibilities in a still dangerous and unpredictable environment and must strike a difficult balance between maintaining a robust presence and providing sufficient level of security. In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassy in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance. But the size, scope, and structure of this presence remain undetermined, even at this late date. Perhaps most significantly, it is unclear what kind of security relationship the incoming Iraqi Government would like with the United States. "In almost any scenario, the United States will continue to have military personnel stationed at the American embassay in a non-combat role under the Office of Security Cooperation. As in many countries around the world, these troops will be responsible for enhancing the bilateral defense relationship by facilitating security assistance." Clear enough? The report offers the following three scenarios: 1) All US troops leave at the end of 2011 ("except for a limited Office of Secuirty Cooperation housed within the embassy") which would require the State Dept scale back their current plans. 2) Many US troops leave at the end of 2011 but the Office of Security Cooperation is expanded with "military forces" who will "provide logistical support for the Iraqi army, shore up administrative gaps within the Ministry of Defense, and prove 'behind the wire' capabilities". 3) A new security agreement is negotiated to allow the US military to continue in Iraq. ("This approach should only be considered if it comes at Iraq's request".) Jane Arraf counts "about 150 marines" in Iraq after 2011 (if no extension takes place). I have no idea where she's getting her numbers (I'm not questioning her numbers) because when the US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and various heads of military and Robert Gates have publicly raised the issue to Congress, they haven't had a number. Carl Levin, in his role as Chair of the Armed Services Committee, has repeatedly noted that. Again, I don't question Jane Arraf's numbers but find it interesting that someone in the US military or (more likely) with the US Embassy in Baghdad is providing her with numbers when they've refused to do the same to the House or Senate Armed Services Committee or the Senate Foreign Affairs Committe (the chair of the latter, John Kerry, has also pursued this). Without an answer to that question, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimated the State Dept would need between $25 to 30 billion over the next five years for Iraq alone. Though the State Dept was quite happy to send Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Congress to fight their battle (and he was stupid enough to do it -- no head of any department is caught up enough in their own work to take on the work of another department), as they continued to insist they needed more money. As Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) reported last February, the reality for the 2012 budget would be "about $10 billion" on Iraq alone -- as opposed to the $5.2 billion the State Dept tosses around to the press and public. At a time when -- supposedly -- we're all having to make sacrifices, the State Dept wants a huge increase in funding and can't even provide solid numbers. The Iraq War has been a financial sink hole exactly because it was pay-as-you-go. That started under Bush. Though Barack promised there would be no more supplementals for war spending, they have continued. And when a Department asks for money but will not provide the details of how many US military forces and how many contractors it would cover, you have the recipe for further cost overruns -- at a time when the United States supposedly cannot afford it. Equally important, Barack was supposed to usher in a new age of transparency in government -- his promise, take it up with him and that's not happening when the State Dept continues to conceal the very basic numbers involved from the citizens of the United States. Not only is there no transparency, there's an attitude of 'we don't answer to the American people.' While some of that attitude -- which needs to be dropped immediately -- can be pinned on the national security types who will be pulling the strings, that's no excuse and the State Dept needs to get its act together and remember it works for the American people. More true than ever as Behrouz Saba (New American Media) reports today, "Three countries which have received billions in U.S. foreign aid -- Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- made the top ten list of the world's failed states, in a survey conducted by Foreign Policy magazine. Moreover, Transparency International reports that Iraq and Afghanistan are just about the most corrupt countries in the world -- edged out only by Myanmar and Somalia -- among the 178 nations rated. Pakistan ranks 143, just slightly better than Haiti and Iran." Now let's go back to the SOFA because there are a few more points to be made but we'll stick to one. Iraq did not force the US on this treaty. Nouri al-Maliki knew then (and knows today) that he is in danger of losing his post (prime minister) if US forces aren't present to 'maintain' the 'democracy.' This was stated outright to Nouri in 2008. Despite that, some claim that the US was forced into concessions. Noam Chomsky, in fact, made that claim in Syracuse last week. He's not the only one who's done so. An idiot that Elaine rightly slammed last night buys into that claim for her own vanity (doing so means her time wasn't 'wasted'). What appears to confuse some people is that (A) they don't realize how long the process was and (B) they don't realize that the US was more than happy to have Iraq focus and obssess over certain details while ignoring others -- especially since the clock was ticking. On (A), negotiations began in 2007. Article 25 of the SOFA notes that Condi Rice notified the UN that the mandate would not be renewed on December 7, 2007. On (B), articles like Deborah Haynes (Times of London) in June of 2008 mean nothing in terms of the SOFA. The US wanted what it wanted and knows how to play the game. Meaning on things minor to them, they'll happily play along but they will get what they want in the end. The non-English press was filled with these reports by October of 2008. The English language press largely ignored it. One foreign outlet in English that covered it was Iran's Press TV with their November 28, 2008 report entitled "Jannait: Iraq passed US deal out of force: "Washington echelons repeatedly threatened to overthrow the Iraqi government if they continued their opposition to the security deal," said Tehran's interim Friday prayers leader Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati. Iraq's al-Morsad reported on Oct. 10 that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had warned that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be 'ousted' unless he signed the US-proposed security pact. Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi has also claimed that the Bush administration had threatened to cut off vital services to Baghdad if it further delayed the accord, saying the threats were akin to 'political blackmail'. "It was really shocking for us…Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing," al-Hashimi said on Oct. 26. Why is any of the above important -- and so important that we had to walk slowly through it? If, in 2008, the press (including NPR) had done their jobs and told the truth (instead of swearing the Iraq War was now over -- a prediction, not a fact), attempts to encourage the American people to ignore Iraq and to stop working to end the war would not have been as successful as they were. In less than seven months, we'll find out what happens in Iraq (whether US troops get switched to State Dept supervision or whether a new agreement allows them to remain on the ground and under the Defense Dept). It is very important that accurate information is provided to the American people at this point. Those who want the Iraq War to continue (and there are probably at least 28% of Americans who do want that) have every right to know what is going on so they can weigh in and lobby their representatives. Those opposed to the Iraq War have the same rights. The press has whored enough. We don't need more whoring from Tom Bowman. Tell the truth or do like Diane Rehm and just pretend that Iraq fell of the map. Seriously, your lies did enough damange over the last three years. If lies are all you intend to offer over the next seven months, do the country a favor and take a vow of silence. You're not helping anyone. Iraqis continue to in their efforts to help themselves out of a puppet government and into something more responsive. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "With the Sologan ALL OF ANBAR IS TAHRIR: The Youth of Anbar will be starting a new SIT-IN very shortly since their SIT-IN was ended by force." In addition Revolution of Iraq notes that there will be an 11:00 am demonstration outside the Iraqi Embassay in Cairo this Friday. Free Iraq Uprising offers video from Mosul yesterday and notes, "Government repression did not stop young people." Meanwhile an oil workers strike in Basra paid off. Ben Lando (Iraq Oil Report) notes that the Ministry of Interior has created "3,300 new full-time positions for the Iraqi Oil Police" in response to the ongoing protests. Turning to today's violence, Reuters notes a college employee was shot dead in Mosul, 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk, a Kirkuk roadside bombing left two employees of North Oil Company injured and the Interior Ministry's Col Jasim Mohammed was shot dead in Baghdad. AFP adds that 21 corpses have been discovered in Falluja "in body-bags with Latin letters and numbers on them" and that Falluja mayor Adnan Hussein is stating they were killed in 2004 by the US military and that "the black body-bags and the manner in which they were buried proves this." Aswat al-Iraq notes a bombing attack on US forces in Wassit Province which left a woman and her daughter injured (no US injuries reported) and a Baghdad bombing killed 1 person and left three more injured. Meanwhile Alison Matheson (Christian Post) reports on Ashur Issa Yaqub whose body was found yesterday in Kirkuk. The Iraqi Christian, who appears to have been tortured before he was killed, was kidnapped and the ransom was $100,000 which his family was unable to meet. The number of Christians in Iraq has fallen drastically throughout the Iraq War as they have been the focus of one wave of targeting after another. The latest wave began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. Spero News adds that Ashur had three children and that "horrific marks of torture" were on his corpse (including his "head had been cut off and the eyes gauged out of their socket"). Iraqi Christians are targeted. We do cover the issue. There's a report in the Guardian we aren't interested. Andrew White is a liar. We do not cover him, we certainly do not glorify him. He's lied too many times publicly. But we had our fill of it when he gave testimony about the Jewish population in Iraq and said they were all gone. He apparently thought he was providing closed testimony. Too bad for him, it was public. The Jewish population was not all gone and when confronted by a reporter, he threw a snit fit and insisted that his testimony (which was false, understand that, grasp it) could not be reported on. Andrew White is a liar. He's actually much worse than a liar and should he ever stop visiting Iraq (he doesn't live there), we can go into exactly what he's done. But we'll bite our tongues while he continues to do his lay overs in Baghdad. At times in Iraq, it seems everyone except the exiles the US put into power are being targeted. Hasan Kanbolat (Todays Zaman) reports there's a new wave of targeting Turkman: One week after the new political restructuring of the ITC, on the morning of May 12, Erşat Salihi's Kirkuk home was attacked. Despite the fact that his house was guarded, the attacker succeeded in tossing explosives into his house and planting mines around the outside of the home. And thus, the first large-scale attack on a Turkmen leader in Iraq took place. Luckily, no one was hurt during these events, even though Salihi and his family were at home during the attack. But the fact that the convoy of Kirkuk Police Chief Cemal Tahir was attacked as Tahir and his team returned from inspecting the evidence at Salihi's home shows that whoever carried out these attacks was very organized and resolute in their actions. Also on the rise, Rebecca Santana (AP) reports, are attacks on US service members "in southern Iraq, where Shiite militias trying to claim they are driving out the U.S. occupiers have stepped up attacks against bases and troops. The uptick in violence serves as a warning about what American forces could face if U.S. and Iraqi officials come to an agreement about keeping more U.S. troops in the country past Dec. 31." In the United States, the first of two major veterans hearings takes place. Senator Patty Murray's office notes: (Washington, D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray will question the Deputy Secretaries of both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on major problems confronting those agencies in caring for veterans with the visible and invisible wounds of war. Murray will focus on DoD and VA's joint disability evaluation process, military and veteran suicides, the lack of cooperation in certain areas between the two agencies, and care for amputees. The hearing is the first of two that Chairman Murray has scheduled as part of her efforts to prevent service members and veterans from falling through the cracks of the VA/DoD system. The second hearing on these issues is scheduled for next Wednesday (5/25) and will feature first-hand accounts from veterans. WHO: Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray The Honorable W. Scott Gould, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs The Honorable William J. Lynn III, Deputy Secretary of Defense WHAT: Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Hearing on the State of VA/DoD Collaborations and the Challenges those Agencies Face in Caring for Veterans WHEN: TOMORROW: Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 10:00 AM EST/7:00 AM PST WHERE: Russell 418 WEBCAST: http://veterans.senate.gov/ iraq al sabaah npr morning edition tom bowman the washington post mary beth sheridan the christian science monitor jane arraf the new york times stephen farrell the associated press rebecca santana

Faux peace?

At Third yesterday, "Editorial: The Whores of Panhandle Media" went up. Sunny says two people e-mailed to say that now I'm going to be nice to Justin Raimondo.

Now?

I don't think I was rude to him. I simply noted that C.I. sacrificed a lot to speak out against Barack the Corporatist War Hawk. Justin's a right-winger, I don't think it was that hard for him to speak out. (I could be wrong.)

In the editorial, Justin is quoted and there's a nice line about how he stood up last week when others didn't.

It's a very nice line. I'm not sucking up to Justin.

I didn't write it.

C.I. wrote that last section.

Whenever you see something really nice at Third about someone doing something and, reading it, you think, "Hey, C.I. did it too. They should have thanked her as well," know that C.I. wrote that. She never expects thanks, she never goes looking for it but she will give thanks to others in a heartbeat.

I think it's a great editorial at Third.

But I didn't suddenly go soft on Justin nor was I (in my mind) attacking him last week.

I could have though.

There's a piece of garbage popping up all over the internet. I first saw it at Antiwar.com. Then it moved to Znet. Now it's all over.

It's a whiny little bitch (and I know her, so I choose my words precisely) who wants to insist that the antiwar movement isn't dead! It's not!!! UPFJ!!! Forever!!!!

She needs to shut her mouth.

The only life in the movement comes from (a) libertarians (like Justin) and (b) people like Cindy Sheehan and C.I. who go all over the country rallying groups of people.

Some whiny little bitch who wants to pretend that UPFJ chapters are doing amazing work better own up to the fact that Leslie Cagan ruined UPFJ and there's really no comeback for that outfit. Their name is mud and they brought it on themselves.

You'll notice that the whiny little bitch can't call out Barack.

She's claiming there's a vibrant antiwar movement in the US. But, as she makes that claim, she can't even call out the person in charge of continuing some wars and starting others.

Again, whiny little bitch.

"TV: Living Proof" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):

There was the backstabbing Winona declaring Barack innocent of what was done. While attacking the US military? Who is commander in chief of the US military? Maybe Winona missed that while living in the suburbs?

Who is the commander in chief of the US military? It's the President of the United States. That would be Barack Obama.

But Winona endorsed Barack for president in 2008 -- stabbing one-time running mate Ralph Nader in the back yet again -- and she's still whoring. Barack, as a US senator, strongly embraced counter-insurgency. It was that -- not genocide -- that first led him to Samantha Power (who worked for his senate office long before she became a National Security type for the administration). Counter-insurgency is war on a native people. Power's friends wrote the US military's counter-insurgency manual. Power herself praised it publicly repeatedly (and also blurbed it for ads and the book cover).

A Native American would be calling that out. Winona LaDuke is not a Native American.

And that little 1/8th she possesses can, apparently, be shoved down deep to allow her to whore.

"A Jew Grows In Brooklyn" describes not just that episode but the attitude that Native Americans see on display when Goodman's sitting down with guests. For example, a playwright last week. Why? He wasn't going to get an honor from a college. With all that's going on in the world, that matters because? It doesn't. Not only does it not matter, but he ended up getting the honor. But Goody Whore wasted all of our time with that b.s. (And, no surprise, the playwright went out of his way to cower before the Israeli lobby via his statements on the show and -- if you missed his key point -- he did not now or ever know Professor Norman Finkelstein. That may have been the most craven and self-serving point of the whole interview, how he repeatedly used the professor's name and worked overtime to provide distance from the professor.)

"A Jew Grows In Brooklyn" refers to the insulated and out-of-touch microcosm that the show and its guests inhabit. A world that the bulk of the country doesn't recognize because it doesn't reflect their own lives.

A Jew Grows in Brooklyn? I love it. Leave it to the Native Americans to not only pick up on the most annoying thread of Amy Goodman's bad show but also to give it a poetic and fitting moniker. (For those who don't know, see the book or play A Tree Grows In Brooklyn.) (There's also been an off Broadway play with the title A Jew Grows In Brooklyn, this year. I doubt -- but I could be wrong -- that the Native Americans on the New Mexico reservation had that in mind when nicknaming Goodman's bad show.)

I'm going to stop there. I have something else, but I think I'll sit on it until tomorrow.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, May 16, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq continues to have no heads for the security ministries, Parliament gears up for their vacation, the governments in England and Canada reel from Iraq revalations, Nouri plans to shut down Camp Ashraf, and more. Violence never ends in Iraq and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) breaks the news, "Shi'ite militias rather than Sunni Islamist al Qaeda are behind a recent wave of assassinations of Iraqi government, police and military officials in Baghdad, security officials said." al-Salhy counts over 38 deaths since the start of this year that Shi'ite militias have been respondible for. The stated reason for the assassinations? Shi'ite militias fear "a return of Saddam's outlawed Baath party" should the US military pull out at the end of 2011. Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported on a Baghdad home invasion in which "three Shiite family members" were shot dead by assailants in "police uniforms". This has been a repeating incident in and around Baghdad. For a long time, Nouri and company tried to float a story about this mythical uniform making company which did have enough security and kept losing these uniforms. Is the latest allegation by Iraqi officials supposed to explain the attacks by people in police uniforms? There are a lot of questions the story raises. A story blaming Shi'ites -- as opposed to the catch all "al Qaeda in Iraq" -- for the violence and it offers up the motive of 'fear of what happens if the US leaves Iraq and the Baath Party attempts a take over'? It it news or propaganda from officials attempting to frighten Iraq into demanding the US stay? Nouri al-Maliki wants political blocs to consider the extension of US forces on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. Zainab Suncor (Al Mada) reported this morning that consideration would most likely take place around June 13th when the Parliament begins its second session. Suncour cites sources "close to the State of Law coalition" wanting US troops to remain in Iraq and the same sources saying this is the wish of most MPs, however, they fear what happens -- Iraqi anger -- if they back the extension they feel is needed. State of Law's Jawad Albz notes talks among the various political blocs and that the US government is applying pressure. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki called to convene heads of political parties in order to assess their stands over the decision to extend US Forces mandate in Iraq. Al Maliki's call was not well received by Sadr's Front which firmly rejects the extension of US presence in Iraq." David Ali (Al Mada) adds that the Sadrists continue to maintain they will bring back the Mehdi militia and there are rumors that they will be leaving the National Alliance. Over the weekend, Muhammad al-Khaldi (Dar Addustour) reported that State Of Law's Jawad Albz was stating that there are ongoing talks between the US and the political blocs about US troops remaining in Iraq past 2011. Albz insists this is being done in secret and to avoid embarrassment. In the US, Doug Bandow (Fortune) weighs in, "Washington should close its 86 bases and bring home its 47,000 troops, 63,000 civilian contractors and mountains of military equipment. The Obama administration's attempt to keep U.S. forces in Iraq is further evidence that America has become an empire. Not in the traditional sense of conquering territory. But certainly in the sense of garrisoning foreign lands to extend Washington's influence and creating advanced bases to impose Washington's will." Sunday Faith Abdulsalam (Azzaman) noted how chancy it is that Nouri will remain in power without the US military: "The prime minister understands that the sinking of the ship in the mud that will be left in the aftermath of U.S. troops withdrawal will lead to damages worse than those inflicted on the country by the occupation itself. He now senses that almost everybody is his enemy, even those within his closest circle working for him under the political or factional banner. This is the kind of characteristic that breeds dictators in the course of time." The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Maliki is terrified and realizes that he is about to disappear - this can be sensed from the tone of his voice and the expression on his face and the same can be sensed and seen of the of his cronies in the so called government. After his departure there will be no more lies!" An editorial in the Pensacola News Journal declared, "New reports say Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is 'open' to the possibility that U.S. combat troops will remain in Iraq beyond the scheduled Dec. 31 departure date. Big surprise. If he can get U.S. taxpayers to keep shelling out billions of dollars to support his efforts to consolidate power, I'm sure he'll count it as a feather in his hat." While US forces right now are supposed to be leaving Iraq December 31, 2011, a number of them are being deployed on year long and "about a year" tours of duty in Iraq. For example, Scott Wasserman (Twin Cities Fox 9 -- link has text and video) reports, "It's the second largest deployment of Minnesota Guard members since World War II. Over 2,400 men and women are preparing to leave home so they can serve in Iraq." He notes that they will be deployed in Iraq for "about a year." ABC Newspapers note, "A total of 460 soldiers will be leaving Minnesota May 22 for training before departing for the Middle East." Last Thursday, Corey Dickstein (Savannah Morning News) reported, "Fort Stewart officials announced Thursday that the 3rd Infantry Division's Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion will be deployed to Iraq in late fall to support Operation New Dawn." Lot of people headed to Iraq for "about 12" months . . . when there are less than seven months left in the year. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left eight people injured (three are bodyguards of the Baghdad Provincial Council's Kamel al-Zaidi), another Baghdad roadside bombing injured three people, a third injured five, 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad, a coprse was discovered in Kirkuk, a Mosul sticky bomb on a judge's car was successfully dismantled, and, dropping back to Sunday for the rest, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Interior Ministry worker, 1 person was shot dead in Baghdad by assailants on motorcycles, 1 soldier was shot dead in Mosul and a child left injured and "the son of a civilian contractor" was shot dead in a separate Mosul shooting. Aswat al-Iraq reports a bombing at the Fadhila Party Headquarters "north of Hilla" which left 2 people dead, a 1 "young man" was shot dead in Mosul and 4 children -- ages eight to twelve -- died in Diwaniya today while playing in a military camp with "unexploded shells." And in Kirkuk, Ashur Jacob's corpse was found, the "head chopped off," approximately a week after the Iraqi Christian was kidnapped and his family told they needed to raise a $100,000 ransom. AFP reports that Ashur Issa Yaqub was 29-years-old and that they were asking $100,000 in a country where the "average daily wage for a construction worker averages to around 25,000 Iraqi dinars ($21)." On the issue of corpses, the Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "It has just been announced that a new Mass Grave has been discovered in Fallujah in the Al Ma'adheedi - 20 bodies defaced by acid! What a mess and what a democracy and liberation! what hell for their families and for the Iraqi People. Dear God I pray vengeance is wroght upon all who wrecked this havoc on Iraq." And the Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "‎2 days ago I heard from someone quite close to the powers that be that daily there are at least 50 bodies that are found in the streets - this is what is known, but I wonder what the real figure is - where are the legally responsible occupation forces???? Do they think that they will get away with all of this? They brought us scum who are not Iraqis - just in case they did not know - where is the UN? Where are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch???? When are the Americans going to allow them to speak up?????" Turning to legislative news, Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that the Parliament wants their summer vacation and is refusing to cancel it. MP Mohamed Khaldi explains that he and some of his peers are tired -- especially of the ongoing demonstrations. And Alsumaria TV notes that there is little chance of Parliament holding a special session during their vacation to decide the security ministers issues. Though Nouri named a Cabinet in December, it wasn't a complete Cabinet. It did, apparently, have some very interesting characters as evidenced by this from the Great Iraqi Revolution, "‎14 officers from Maliki's inner security circle are accused of taking bribes and smuggling terrorists to Iran. Abu Ali Al Basri is a member of the Da'awa Party! So is his brother and so is Haliki's nephew. They are all murderers and assassins. What lovely company! One of them is his Haliki's step-brother, by the way, Qati'i al rikabi who is Maliki's messenger for smuggling money! This man's son was released from jail in Australia on a state visit there! He was sentenced to jail for smuggling drugs into Australia - lovely family tree!" The Minister of the Interior, the Minister of National Security and the Minister of Defence are three posts that still, all this time later, remain empty. These are the security ministries and despite continue violence, there's been little movement on this issue. Nouri finally made nominations but ignored needed input. Aswat al-Iraq reports that the Iraqiya bloc is objecting to the nominees: Saadoun al-Dulaimi (for Minister of Defense), Riyadh Ghareeb (Minister of National Security) and Tawfeeq al-Yassiri (Minister of the Interior). The Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "The Alliance of Industries has announced that 95% of all projects are at a standstill because of the lack of security in the country as well as the lack of electricity." And if a lack of minister for the security ministries isn't bad enough, Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported Saturday that Sahwa has stepped aside. The "Awakening" Councils, Sahwa and Sons Of Iraq are three names for a group of largely Sunni fighters the American military gave tax payer money to if they would stop attacking US forces and US property. Gen David Petreaus credited the 'movement' with turning the tide in Iraq. Sahwa is no more and that's largely because Nouri was too greedy to pay them. Now, in al-Anbar Province, the al-Dulaimi tribe is saying Sahwa is over and advising that the government considered Sahwa to be puppets all along. As a result, al-Dulaimi states that the fight between the government and 'terrorists' is between the two and that Sahwa should not attempt to step in or eliminate the conflict. al-Dulaimi is over 10,000 families and, counting those in Syria as well as those in Iraq, is an estimated three million people. In addition to there vast numbers, there is also the fact that they are highly influential when it comes to other Sunnis. In addition, tensions may rise over a weekend arrest. Saturday Dar Addustour reported MP Yassin Obeidi, of the Iraqiya slate, states US forces -- accompanied by the Iraqi military -- raided his home and he is calling for an investigation into the raid. Also Alsumaria TV noted that the US military arrested an Iraqi military officer in Kut Friday night and that Waset Provincial Council head Mahmoud Abdul Rida "Talal believes the arrest violates the regulations of the US-Iraq security agreement calling on Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki to interfere and set him free, a source told Alsumaria." The Tehran Times is trumpeting that Camp Ashraf is soon to be no more. Background, Camp Ashraf is an enclosed area that houses Iranian dissidents who have been present in Iraq since before the start of the Iraq War and, following the US invasion, the US made these MEK residents of Camp Ashraf -- these Iranian refuees who had been in Iraq for decades -- surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28, 2009 the world saw what Nouri's word was actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. April 4th, Iran's Fars News Agency reported that the Iraqi military denied allegations that it entered the camp and assaulted residents. Specifically, Camp Ashraf residents state, "The forces of Iraq's Fifth Division invaded Camp Ashraf with columns of armored vehicles, occupying areas inside the camp, since midnight on Saturday." Friday April 8th saw another attack which the Iraqi government again denied. Thursday April 14th, the United Nations confirmed that 34 people were killed in the April 8th assault on Camp Ashraf. Barbara Grady (San Jose Mercury News) reported that the dead included journalist Asieh Rakhshani who has family in California. The assault hasn't really registered in the US the way it has in Europe. AFP reports, "Urgent international action is needed to avert 'a Srbrenica-style massacre' at the Iraqi Ashraf camp housing thousands of exiled Iranian opponents, a European parliament delegation said Tuesday after returning from Iraq." CBS and AP note US Senator John Kerry has termed the April 8th assault a "massacre." Today Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reveals, "U.S. troops were at Camp Ashraf up until the eve of the attack. According to Mohammad Mohaddessin, a senior official in the Paris-based political umbrella group, 40 to 50 uniformed U.S. troops arrived at Ashraf on April 2 and departed on the afternoon of April 7. Iraqi forces struck shortly before 5 a.m. the next morning. A U.S. military spokesman said the U.S. units were not aware of any impending Iraqi oeration at the camp." This morning the Tehran Times reported that the camp is to be shut down citing Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, as the source. The US State Dept has been attempting to work out a deal whereby the camp would be relocated to another area of Iraq, one not so close to Iran. This does not appear to be what Zebari is indicating will happen because he and Ibrahim Jafari are noted for stating that other countries will need to accept the residents and the term "expulsion" is used. Wisam al-Bayati (Press TV -- link has text and video) reports that the expulsion was decided by the US proposal to relocate the camp, "The Iraqi lawmakers from Sadr Movement have condemned US intervention in their country's internal affairs. They believe the US is trying to keep these terrorists in Iraq to use them against neighboring countries." Meanwhile Reza Haftbaradaran writes at the Telegraph of London about his daughter: My daughter Saba's life ended at 5:30 in the morning on 9 April 2011 at the age of 29. The story leading to the worst day of my life is one which must be heard by the families of British and US troops, whose many loved ones gave their lives on Iraqi soil. Saba was born in 1981 in an Iranian prison. As a child she spent many days in prison alongside her mother and I who had been jailed for demanding freedom. She would sleep and wake to the sound of screams from the political prisoners being tortured. When we finally escaped Iran we set up home at Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp in Iraq, home to 3,400 Iranian dissidents, members of the PMOI, forced from their homes for opposing the Iranian regime. Saba who had been born in prison and left prison at the age of two was some years later sent abroad to Germany where she and her sister could live and study. However, the sound of torture from Saba's childhood never left her and at the age of 19 she decided to come to Ashraf to struggle with us for freedom and democracy in Iran. On 8 April 2011, in the middle of the night, 2,500 Iraqi soldiers forced entry to Ashraf and began shooting at its unarmed residents, as well as driving at them in Humvees. As I saw the slaughter of my friends and colleagues happening before me, my thoughts immediately turned to finding Saba. As I searched amongst the hundreds of wounded, I was told by a doctor that she had been shot and taken to hospital. Only when I arrived there did I realize the extent of her injuries. She had been shot in the thigh, breaking the bone and tearing her main artery. She was, though, awake and could speak to me and I knew immediately that with the necessary treatment her life could easily be saved. It soon became clear that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who had ordered the massacre, had no intention of allowing victims to live. The Iraq Inquiry has been ongoing since 2009. November 24th, they heard from their first witnesses. The London-based inquiry is headed by John Chilcot while the other committee members are Usha Prashar, Roderic Lyne, Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman. Chilcot noted at the start, "Our terms of references are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country." Thursday, the Chilcot inquiry released evident Maj Gen Michael Laurie gave. In his [PDF format warning] evidence, Laurie wrote: Alistair Campbell said to the Inquiry that the purpose of the Dossier was not "to make a case for war". I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used. The previous paper, drafted in February and March, known to us then also as the Dossier, was rejected because it did not make a strong enough case. From then until September we were under pressure to find intelligence that could reinforce the case. [Redacted passage.] I recall Joe French frequently enquiring whether we were missing something; he was under pressure. We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD, generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country. During the drafting of the final Dossier, every fact was managed to make it as strong as possible, the final statements reaching beyond the conclusions intelligence assessments would normally draw from such facts. It was clear to me that there was direction and pressure being applied on the JIC and its drafters. In summary, we knew at the time that the purpose of the Dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care. Provinding context and an overview, Irfan Husain (Pakistan's Dawn) brings everyone up to date: When Gordon Brown asked Sir John Chilcot to head a commission to enquire into the Iraq war, few expected it to come up with anything earthshaking. Chilcot was widely seen as a "safe pair of hands", and a pro-establishment mandarin who was not known to rock the boat. And so it has proved to be: in a series of interviews with the principal actors in the run-up to the bloody but unnecessary war, no great revelations have emerged. The effect of being grilled by Chilcot has been likened to "being mauled by a toothless sheep". Tony Blair was allowed to drone on for hours, expanding on all the reasons why he thought the war was a good idea. His misuse of intelligence was not seriously questioned by the commission, and he was permitted to leave scot free, with his loathsome grin in place. Blair's powerful spin doctor Alastair Campbell was similarly let off the hook. This despite widespread charges in the media that he had been a key player who had used his proximity to Blair to bully the British intelligence community into sexing up the dodgy intelligence dossier that was used by Blair into persuading Parliament to authorise him to attack Iraq. But now, after Chilcot had interviewed all the witnesses in the drama, a senior intelligence officer has claimed that Campbell lied in his testimony. Major General Michael Laurie, director general of the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for collating and analysing raw intelligence data before the Iraq war, has delivered a bombshell that has produced a gaping hole in the Blair-Campbell narrative. The Laurie revelations remind many of BBC News' 2003 reporting (first on the Today show, the reporting that the intel was "sexed up") by Andrew Gilligan which were slammed by Tony Blair's supporters and led to heads rolling at the BBC. Ian Burrell (Independent of London) pursues that angle and notes: John Kampfner, who was a political correspondent on Today but left before the 2003 controversy, said the BBC should have done more to stand up to the New Labour government. "There was absolutely no willingness on behalf of the governors to do anything but raise the white flag," he said. "It was a wholesale capitulation instead of what should have been a partial expression of regret for certain procedures of oversight with an agreement to disagree on the substance and [an expression of] support for courageous journalism." What was already a cautious news organisation took on a culture of being fearful of "sticking your neck out", he said. Suzanne Moore (Daily Mail) offers her own reflections: Both Labour and the Tories, remember, voted for a war that many thought was Bush's folly. We were repeatedly told that they had access to knowledge that we didn't, and the Labour machine spun itself dizzy trying to frighten us with the prospect of Saddam about to launch a missile attack at any second. Some Ministers have vaguely apologised but many still maintain they thought they were doing the right thing, believing what many suspected at the time to be flawed intelligence. Blair has God as his judge and Alastair Campbell is forever on TV, sometimes as an expert in mental health, sometimes on politics. He often features on the BBC, the organisation he sought to bring to its knees. Greg Dyke may have lost his job and David Kelly taken his life, but Campbell's views are still sought after. Thousands of Iraqis are dead, military families are still lost in grief but those who pushed for this war appear to have lost little. Sure, there have been the inquiries – Butler, Hutton, Chilcot – where they have been cleared of wrongdoing. But evidence is still coming in to Chilcot. The British government is hardly the only one being made uncomfortable as a result of Iraq news. Yesterday Greg Weston (CBC) reported: On March 17, 2003, two days before U.S. warplanes launched their attack on Baghdad, prime minister Jean Chretien told the House of Commons that Canadian forces would not be joining what the administration of then U.S. president George W. Bush dubbed the "coalition of the willing." Chretien's apparent refusal to back the Bush administration's invasion, purportedly launched to seize weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein (which were never found), was hugely popular in Canada, widely hailed as nothing less than a defining moment of national sovereignty. But even as Chretien told the Commons that Canada wouldn't participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different. At the time he was passing on messages, Wright was Political Director and Assistant Deputy Minister for the International Security Branch. Today he is Canada's Ambassador to England. UPI adds, "The U.S. ambassador to Canada at the time, Paul Cellucci, said the leaked memo 'sounds right'." Joshua Keating (Foreign Policy) observes, "It's not really clear whether the Canadian ships and surveillance aircraft conducting counterrorism activities in the Straights of Huormuz at the time did, in fact carry out any activities that contribued to the effort in Iraq." In peace news, World Can't Wait notes the latest We Are Not Your Soldiers action: The We Are Not Your Soldiers Tour made its' debut trip to Philadelphia this past week. In four presentations between two urban schools approximately 90 high-school students saw the Collateral Murder video with commentary from Ethan McCord. Anti-war veteran and war resister Matthis Chiroux and World Can't Wait Steering Committee member Samantha Goldman discussed with these young adults what these wars are really about along with giving students a sense of how they can resist. At both schools, word about the tour (along with orange We Are Not Your Soldiers bandanas) spread throughout the student body, inciting one teacher to bring her small class to join the presentation. Students who were not getting the tour in their class came in to say hi, to get a bandana or a shirt and to say f**k the recruiters, expressing disappointment that their class was not getting to hear the anti-war vet. Before this tour, the students (primarily low-income minority youth) did not have access to this anti-war message. Many of them have people in their lives who are in or were in the military. The We Are Not Your Soldiers Tour was brought to the youth because their teachers, both social studies educators, were exploring concepts relating to war in their class and had learned about the tour at a radical teacher gathering a couple weeks prior. The teachers also were worried that some of their students had expressed interest in enlisting. With the exception of a few, none of the students knew what Wikileaks was and none (except one) had seen the film Collateral Murder. Each class began with an introduction in which questions were posed such as, "how many of you have been approached by a recruiter (or have seen ads, etc):", "how many of you have a family member in the military," "how many of you have thought or are thinking about joining," and "how many of you have been told in the ads or by the recruiters what they are being recruited for?" Then Collateral Murder was introduced and shown. This was followed by discussion in which Matthis shared his personal experience. The presentations ended with discussion around resistance to recruiters. iraq fox 9 scott wasserman abc newspapers the savannah morning news corey dickstein cbc greg weston azzaman fatih abdulsalam the pensacola news journal cnn mohammed tawfeeq mcclatchy newspapers roy gutman al mada ayas hossam acommock al rafidayn dar addustour muhammad al-khaldi

The costs

Justin Raimondo has a column at Antiwar.com that you should read. (No excerpt because C.I. quotes it in the snapshot and I include that at the end and don't want to grab more than fair use.)

Justin's column went up today and I need to note that Dale e-mailed me on Thursday stating that Justin Raimondo told the truth about the non-withdrawal.

That was in reply to my "One person told you the truth" from Wednesday.

Justin's not a Democrat. C.I. is.

I don't want to minimize Justin's truth telling or any of the attacks on him -- I'm sure there were verbal attacks on him for telling the truth.

But C.I. is a Democrat.

When no Democrats would criticize Barack, she did. When closet Communists like Leslie Cagan (whom Justin calls out in his column today -- and he's called her out before) wouldn't tell the truth, C.I. did.

Telling the truth wasn't easy. She was attacked repeatedly.

She's strong and she didn't whine. If the veteran who was pro-war hadn't been booed earlier this year, you wouldn't even know that C.I. had ever been booed while speaking out against the illegal war after Barack was elected president. When that happened, she wrote about getting booed. There were some elements on the right (and Thomas E. Ricks who is just a damn prick) who were trying to stir that up. She pointed out that if you put yourself out there you may get applause, you may get boos. She wrote about how you could be booed and shake it off by realizing it wasn't about you because you were speaking about an issue. She really did feel badly for that veteran and wanted to offer something for anyone who's been booed. For that reason, and only that reason, did she write about it.

But she took offline attacks starting in 2008, during the Democratic Party primary. There were people who thought they could bully her into supporting Barack (I'm not referring to online support, I'm referring to her, in her offline life, signing on to the Barack campaign as one of the celebrity endorsers and donating money to it). These people don't know her. She cannot be bullied and, if you try, she'll not only prove she can't be bullied, she'll prove just how little you mean to her.

There are friendships she lost.

She stood strong.

Now you need to know that when the Iraq War was gearing up, she stood strong then too. There were a lot of lame people in her circles who wanted to go along with that illegal war.

Yes, she's an 'untouchable' in many ways. She's got more money than she could ever spend. (As do I.) But that doesn't mean some of the crap that went down didn't hurt. She never complained to me, she never even mentioned it. She didn't have to. I know her and have known her for years and years.

She showed tremendous courage and if you think some de-links online (which did take place) hurt her, you don't know what she was dealing with personally.

I'll give Justin credit but he criticized from outside. C.I. was in the power circle (and still is -- that's what her purchase of the DC home was about). She criticized from within. That always takes more courage.

(For any wondering, I wasn't effected at all. I cut off some dead weight friendships that had gone on too long and did so without giving a damn. A brother-of-a-Weather Underground screamed and yelled at me at an airport -- until Mike roughed him up, then brother-of cried like a little baby. Excuse me, cried like the little baby he is. That's the most I endured. Also true, Carl Davidson didn't attack me in e-mails the way he did C.I. That's because I don't go out of my way to get close to people. I have my circle of friends and it's a small one. Intentionally.)

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, May 13, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue in Iraq, 'withdrawal' or not-withdrawal continues to be a topic, revelations out of England continue to dominate the British news cycle, the funerals for 2 US soldiers who died in Iraq take place tomorrow, and more. It's Friday which means protests in Iraq. The Great Iraqi Revolution has posted video of the Baghdad protest here. The protests have been going on for months now. The protesters demands include: an end to government corruption, the restoration of basic services (electricity, potable water, etc.), jobs and freedom from foreign interference (including no foreign troops on Iraqi soil). Among the issues addresed at the Baghdad protest today? The kidnapping of Omniya Al Sammaraie "-- she is a widow and raises her children on her own -- her parents and her husband are martyrs. She is an engineer and was threatened by the security forces by internet on facebook!" The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Omniya Al Sammaraie's sister, Dr. Shems, was speaking live a few minutes ago - she said that the people who came to kidnap her were dressed in black - so it is a militia dressed in black - really this gang of hooligans in the Green Zone is all balck in the face and dressed in black!!!!!" And they add, "Dr. Shems, Omniya's sister, speaking live on air stated that she holds Maliki responsible for her safety , in addition we, too , hold Maliki responsible fro her safety. She also told the - them the goervnment and its hooligans - that they will go on fighting for Iraq's liberation as well as getting rid of Haliki and his goons!" The Associated Press notes over 500 Iraqis protested in Baghdad. The Great Iraqi Revolution reports a Baghdad chant ("you" is Nouri), "Katthab wu Kahyyif, Menreedek Wallah Menreedek! It means you are a liar and scared and we don't want you By God we don't want you." Among those who turned out were family members of those lost in the Iraqi 'justice' system, "The screams and cries of the mothers and sisters of the detained and disappeared on LOYALTY FRIDAY IN TAHRIR BAGHDAD - ALWAFA'A FRIDAY." And they note what's going on in Mosul currently, "People are gathering in Bab Jedeed District in Mosul - the army and security forces are surrounding them but they continue to gather." Plus, "‎1000s have come out protesting and demonstrating in Sammara'a - Interior Minsitry's Maghaweer and Army tried suppressing them but it has not worked! They have arrested some young demonstrators. United Prayers for Friday were carried out and the A'immeh from both sects called for this demonstration." And, "Our Correspondent in Ramadi, Anbar - security forces heavily deployed in and around Tahrir and have suppressed protestors as well as people attending Friday Prayers in an attempt to stop them praying! They have also arrested some 12 of our Anbar Youth. 13.5.2011 ALWAFA'A FRIDAY RAMADI" Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) observes, "In Iraq, 'Arab Spring' protests continue, as they have across the Middle East, but -- unlike the demonstrations in Egypt, the civil war in Libya, and the violently-repressed upsurge in Syria -- the Western news media has decided not to cover them. When thousands jammed the streets of Suleimaniya, the supposedly pro-occupation, pro-American capital city of the Kurdish autonomous region -- Maliki and his Kurdish equivalents sent the Iraqi army in to crush the incipient rebellion no less violently than Syria's Assad is now doing in Syria. Yet we hear nothing from the White House, nothing from the media, and nothing from the former leaders of the "antiwar" movement -- yes, I'm talking to you, Leslie Kagan, you fraud -- after they folded up their tents and went off to work for Obama's election (and re-election). " Some more realities took place on TV. Monday through Friday at 7:00 pm EST, Adam vs. The Man airs on RT America. "Adam" is Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh. Yesterday he spoke with US House Rep Walter Jones. US House Rep Walter Jones: The day I walked to the floor -- it was actually a night -- on giving President Bush the authority to go into Iraq, I did not feel good about my vote. I -- Adam Kokesh: But you did vote for it. US House Rep Walter Jones: Yeah, I did. And I've apologized many, many times. In fact, that's the reason, after I went to Sgt Michael Bitz' funeral down at Camp Lejeune, one week after we went in, sat there with his wife Janina, outdoor service and that's when I started questioning myself why didn't I vote my conscious? And that started my journey of a -- of a seeking the truth. Adam Kokesh: Do you think a lot of other Republicans who voted in favor of that authorization for Bush to go into Iraq felt the same as you did? US House Rep Walter Jones: I think some did but maybe a couple of years after I made my public announcement to leave -- to have a time -- a plan to get out of Iraq. And, uh, from that funeral, I have signed over 10,100 letters to families and extended families in this country because of my weakness to vote my conscious quite frankly. Adam Kokesh: And what has the reaction of your constitutents been? Most of them military and military families. US House Rep Walter Jones: Yeah. Well I think on Iraq, most are thinking now that maybe I was right but they won't admit it and I don't expect them to, I don't need people to say to me, "Well you were right and I made a mistake." I'm not looking for that. But, you know, if anybody would look for the truth, you would see that the previous administration manipulated the intelligence to sell the American people. And, to me, that is just absolutely wrong. Adam Kokesh: So you're saying we were lied into war. US House Rep Walter Jones: Well absolutely. Adam Kokesh: Now members of your -- of your district obviously having a unique connection to the military have a different perspective on this. But most Americans now think that, with Obama's policies, the war in Iraq is over, it's winding down, we're just tying up the loose ends and getting out. What do you think of Obama's strategy in Iraq getting us out so far? US House Rep Walter Jones: I think at some point and time as we continue to downsize, I think that Iraq is going to go back into a civil war situation. I don't think -- I don't really think -- Yes, did we remove an evil dictator? Probably so. But you cannot go into these Middle East countries and change their history and their culture. You just cannot do it. Adam Kokesh: Well what about Obama's policy right now? We've still -- US House Rep Walter Jones: In Afghanistan? Adam Kokesh: Well in Iraq. We've still got 50,000 troops or so. I don't know the exact current numbers but that's the thing: Most people have just assumed it's gone away and yet Obama's still got at least several ten-thousands troops in Iraq, he's got hundreds-of-thousands of contractors possibly. US House Rep Walter Jones: Adam, I'm for pulling 'em all back home. I would tell you the truth, I've learned one thing. You know Ron Paul's one of my dearest friends in Congress and I'm of the firm belief that any country that wants to nation build -- all that try to build, to take their way of life around the world, eventually they collapse. You cannot go into particularly Muslim countries and make them want to be like America. You just can't do it. Adam Kokesh: Does it bother you to see the so-called conservative Republican Party in the United States trying to promote conservative policy at home and then basically US House Rep Walter Jones: Yeah. Adam Kokesh: -- trying to convert other nations with the most liberal policy possible, liberal nation building? US House Rep Walter Jones: It disappoints me. I'll be honest with you. I do not understand how a party which -- I am a Republican and I'm a social conservative for sure, I'm probably a centrist when it comes to trying to help people -- But, no, it does surprise me and disappoint me because I don't see the Republican party as -- as the party that believes in war and the party that believes in nation building. I just don't. US House Rep Ron Paul was mentioned above and Adam Kokesh supported Ron Paul's run for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination. Jason Notte (The Street) reports that Ron Paul formally announced he's running for the GOP presidential nomination. The Iraq War hasn't ended, Ron Paul has repeatedly and consistently called for an end to the Iraq War. Last month, 11 US soldiers died in Iraq. One of the eleven is Robert Friese who died in an attack on April 29th. Yesterday the office of Michigan Govenor Rick Snyder released the following statement: LANSING, Mich. - Gov. Rick Snyder ordered United States flags throughout the state of Michigan to be lowered to half-mast in honor of Army Private First Class Robert Friese on Thursday, May 12. Flags should be returned to full-staff May 13. Friese, 21, of Harrison, died April 29 in Al Qadisiyah province, Iraq, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked his unit with a rocket propelled grenade. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment at Fort Hood, Texas. Friese's awards and decorations include the Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal with campaign star, Global War on Terrorism Service Medals, Army Service Ribbon and Overseas Service Ribbon. There will be an open viewing Friday, May 13 from 2 to 9 p.m. and the funeral will be held Saturday, May 14 at 10 a.m. at Stocking Funeral Home in Harrison. "This young man served his state and country with pride and honor," Snyder said. "My condolences are with his family at this difficult time." When flown at half-staff or half-mast, the United States flag should be hoisted first to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff or half-mast position. The flag should again be raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. Susan Field (Morning Sun) reports he "will be laid to rest following a funeral service at St. Athanasius Catholic Church in Harrison at 10 a.m. Saturday, with Father Noel Rudy officiating." Kelly Dame (Midland Daily News) adds, "Fries graduated from Harrison High School in 2007, where he participated in the Army ROTC program. He joined the U.S. Army and enlisted as a Tanker in 2010. In January, he deployed to Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn." LaNia Coleman (Bay City Times) reported yesterday, " Hundreds of people lined the streets of Clare and Harrison today as the Patriot Guard Riders and Forgotten Eagles escorted Friese's remains to Stocking Funeral Home. Many waved American flags, placed their hands over their hearts and wiped away tears. Veterans, in caps emblazoned with the insignias of their respective branches of the military, saluted the procession." Kyle Mitchell and Eli Gardiner (9 & 10 News) provide a video report of the procession here. Another US soldier who died in Iraq last month, Andrew Evan Lara, will also be laid to rest tomorrow. The office of Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber issued the following statement yesterday: (SALEM, Ore.) -- Governor Kitzhaber today ordered all flags at public institutions to be flown at half-staff from sunrise to sunset on Saturday, May 14, 2011, in honor of Oregon Army National Guard Specialist Andrew Evan Lara. Specialist Lara, 25, of Albany, Oregon, died April 27, of a noncombat-related incident, in Babil province, Iraq. He was assigned to F Company, 145th Brigade Support Battalion, attached to the 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Regiment. "Specialist Lara died while deployed overseas serving both his state and country," said Governor Kitzhaber. "This is a tragic loss and my thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this difficult time." Tom Hallman Jr. (The Oregonian) notes the 25-year-old will be laid to rest at an 11 a.m. service tomorrow at First Assembly of God Church in Albany and notes, "After graduating from high school, Lara got a job building log homes. He enlisted in the Oregon National Guard in June 2009 and drilled out of Woodburn. He was deployed last September. He was a driver for one of the convoy escort teams, driving a mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle meant to ensure that supplies arrive safely at their destination." Pat Caldwell (Argus Observer) reports from US Joint Base Balad that a memorial service was held for Andrew Lara on base May 1st and Caldwell quotes Chaplain Jock Johnson (who performed the services) stating, "It is important for (Lara's) family, his mother, to know we are honoring her son in every possible way." The Iraq War has not ended. Corey Dickstein (Savannah Morning News) reports, "Fort Stewart officials announced Thursday that the 3rd Infantry Division's Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion will be deployed to Iraq in late fall to support Operation New Dawn." The Bryan County News notes the Fort Stewart press release, "It said the mission and location has not been assigned. It was not specific about which commanders will deploy, how long soldiers will be gone and how the mission meshes with a Dec. 31 deadline to have U.S. troops out of Iraq." How the mission meshes with the deadline? From Wednesday's snapshot: The big news today? Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports Nouri al-Maliki declared that "he might ask thousands of U.S. troops to remain in the country next year provided that a solid majority of the main political parties back the request at a meeting this month." AGI News quotes Nouri stating, "The decision concerning the USA's withdrawal is an important national issue. For this reason, I am inviting all political leaders to establish a dialogue to clarify whether we want American soldiers to stay or not." AFP continues the quote: "Aftter that, the government will decide on keeping them, or making them leave." Xiong Tong (Xinhua) notes, "Iraqi political blocs are sharply divided over whether part of the U.S. troops will have to stay amid continuing violence in the country and the region as well, or to leave to assert independence eagerly wanted by Iraqis." Rebecca Santana and Lara Jakes (AP) add, "Equally important might be the nervousness many Iraqis feel at how the U.S. departure will affect sectarian relations. [. . .] Many Sunnis and even Shiites worry that Iraq is falling too much into Iran's orbit, something that will only increase when the U.S. military leaves." Aamer Madhani (National Journal) wonders what keeping US troops on Iraqi soil past 2011 might mean for Barack: With American troops scheduled to leave Iraq this year, President Obama may be forced to consider going back on his word and leaving them there now that Iraq's prime minister said his country might ask the United States to leave boots on the ground. Obama has stood solidly behind his pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, as dictated by a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement signed more than three years ago. He's reiterated his intent as recently as six weeks ago, when in announcing his decision to take military action against Libya he noted that the U.S. remained committed to "leaving Iraq to its people." Meanwhile The Great Iraqi Revolution states, "Secret Agreement between American Embassy and Ministry of Freign Affairs, Iraq for Occupation Troops to remain in 5 Provinces until 2016!" Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The U.S. has the desire to extend its military presence in Iraq for another 25 years, until the Islamic rule in Iran is toppled, an Ahrar MP declared today. Amir Al-Kinani of Ahrar bloc, affiliate with the Sadrist Trend, told Aswat al-Iraq that the majority in the Iraqi Cabinet and Parliament support the extension of U.S. military presence." The Scripps Howard News Service editorial board -- noting the foot dragging that's become a hallmark of the Nouri-led government -- argues that, if US forces are to stay, time can't be wasted: "Starting in August and accelerating through the fall, the U.S. is to send home 50,000 troops and 63,000 contractors, close 100 bases and do something with about 1 million pieces of equipment and unused supplies. Al-Maliki seems confident his government can engineer a compromise -- but in its own time. Perhaps by the start of August." Throughout 2008, Congress would touch on the status of US troops in Iraq after it was learned that Nouri would not go to the United Nations mandate way again. (The UN mandate gave legal authorization for the occupation of Iraq. There was no UN authorization for the illegal war. The UN mandate was a yearly measure.) Not only was it touched on but a few hearings actually focused entirely on the issue. April 10, 2008, the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, then chaired by Joe Biden, held such a hearing. In it, now-US Vice President Joe Biden declared that if an agreement was not agreed to by both parties, US forces would retreat to their bases and either be pulled home or stay on base while more work went into coming to an agreement. The Status Of Forces Agreement expiring (not being extended or replaced) would mean something similar would happen January 1, 2012 with an exception. The exception is the Strategic Framework Agreement between Iraq and the US which would be used for the US State Dept to supervise US soldiers. It's a shame there's no concern in Congress over this issue. There was real concern in the Senate in 2008. Most Democrats and many Republicans were concerned (among the Republicans, Norm Coleman was frequently the most vocal). But a Democratic Party candidate wins the presidency and suddenly Democratic Congress members no longer seem to care about accountability or ending the Iraq War. As Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) points out: That Republican congressman who yelled out "You lie!" to the President -- and was excoriated by our enforcers of political etiquette (Rule Number One: never tell the truth) -- is vindicated. Yes, yes, I know: this solon wasn't yelling because of our policy in Iraq, but still -- the President is indeed a proven liar, and the way our Iraq non-withdrawal is playing out underscores this irrefutable fact. Will this be the final straw for the "progressive" left as far as their Hero is concerned? Will the Obama cult implode, will Leslie Kagan's head explode -- will Arianna Huffington add Iraq to her endless round of tiresome complaints about how the Glorious Leader has failed to enact every dot-and-tittle of her political agenda? Don't bet the farm on it. Politics is very much like religion: a faith that brooks no doubt and punishes heretics. In authoritarian countries, the party line is enforced at gunpoint: in America, there is no need to point a gun at elite opinion-makers and other Washington sycophants of power -- the code of political correctness is self-enforcing. For these people have built their careers on certain assumptions, appealing for their pelf to very specific constituencies: to violate the prejudices and knee-jerk emotionalism behind those assumptions is to court professional disaster. The increasingly marginalized Moqtada al-Sadr (hard to hold so many seats in the Cabinet and also pretend to be an 'outsider') is in the news today. Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports that Moqtada responded to Nouri's statements earlier this week that if 70% of the politicians agree on the US military remaining in Iraq past the end of 2011, Moqtada would have to go along, "For the first time since returning to Iraq after nearly four years of self-imposed exile in Iran, Sadr took to the pulpit and delivered an unannounced sermon at Friday prayers in his southern stronghold of Najaf. In a forceful political message that prefaced his religious sermon, Sadr employed some of his strongest language yet against a U.S. troop extension." His strongest words yet? We should be quoting that, right? No. And not just because we've established that Moqtada's pattern is strong words and threats followed by caving (as he did twice with the UN mandate and, in 2008, with the SOFA). We don't have to wait for the cave. Aaron C. Davis reports the cave took place as soon as his followers filed out at which point Moqtada admitted that he might not lift the ban on his militia and allow them to take to the streets. That admission may surprise some. If so, they haven't been paying attention to the way he operates. The Iraq War hasn't ended for Iraqis either. Not only do they have a puppet government forced off on them, they continue to face violence every day. And they face the violence while knowing that there are no heads to the country's three security ministries. Aswat al-Iraq reports: Al-Iraqiya Bloc MP member said that the question of security and defense nominees will remain unsolved even once the 100-day period elapses, due to political sharing, calling for "a feeling of responsibility to solve this crisis." Mohammed Al-Da'mi, in a press statement attended by Aswat al-Iraq, added "the insistence of Premier Nouri Al-Maliki to nominate unqualified and unprofessional figures is the main reason, as well as the insistence of his bloc to hold the post of ministry of defense." Alsumaria TV speaks with Iraqiya's Wehda Al Jumaili, "Al Maliki is capable of dissolving the Parliament, Al Jumaili said. Iraqiya member called to create a state of political balance, otherwise, Iraq will remain in a political chaos, a source told Alsumaria. Al Jumaili argued that it is not acceptable for the Parliament to be manipulated by Iraqiya leader Iyad Allawi and Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki." And they add, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki complained of media's corrupt role calling on religious institutions to raise religious awareness through the media in a call that is regarded to be as the most radical stand taken by Al Maliki. " An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers blogs at Inside Iraq in "Facing Death:" I don't know how to start this blog. I am still under the effect of the shock that happened to me only less than an hour ago. I was about to lose my life and my lovely son because of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I used to bring sweets to my family every Thursday from a close bakery on the main street. Today I did the same thing but I went only about half an hour ago. My son Haider insisted to join me so I took him. In my way back home and Just less than ten steps from the sweets bakery, I hear sound of shooting and I thought that some kids are playing with fireworks. I was shocked to know the issue is bigger than my simple mind. I saw by my own eyes two young boys covering their faces with black scarves holding two pistols and shooting a broker inside his office in a very cool blood and walked away. In today's reported violence, Aswat al-Iraq notes a Baquba bombing which injured 3. As big a lie that the war is over is the one that claims both that the Iraq War was legal and that it had nothing to do with oil. From yesterday's snapshot: ----------- Moving over to England where new revelations emerged from the Iraq Inquiry. The John Chilcot led inquiry hasn't heard testimony in months but they've released evidence that is in leading the news cycle in England. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) calls the release "devestating" and explains, "A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor. In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: 'We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care'." In his [PDF format warning] evidence released today, Laurie wrote: Alistair Campbell said to the Inquiry that the purpose of the Dossier was not "to make a case for war". I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used. The previous paper, drafted in February and March, known to us then also as the Dossier, was rejected because it did not make a strong enough case. From then until September we were under pressure to find intelligence that could reinforce the case. [Redacted passage.] I recall Joe French frequently enquiring whether we were missing something; he was under pressure. We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD, generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country. During the drafting of the final Dossier, every fact was managed to make it as strong as possible, the final statements reaching beyond the conclusions intelligence assessments would normally draw from such facts. It was clear to me that there was direction and pressure being applied on the JIC and its drafters. In summary, we knew at the time that the purpose of the Dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care. BBC News' Gordon Corera offers an analysis which includes: The JIC is a collegiate body and has not, in any significant way, broken ranks over events. But now, in the form of Michael Laurie, someone serving just below the top tier has expressed his displeasure about the way events have been characterised and particularly the extent to which those collecting intelligence were blamed for getting things wrong. He is adamant the purpose of the dossier was, indeed, to make a case for war. His assertion that there was direction and pressure on those drafting the dossier will be deeply uncomfortable for those associated with it. Gordon Rayner (Telegraph of London) adds, "The Iraq Inquiry will not produce its final report until September at the earliest, almost a year after it was originally due, the Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has disclosed. " The statements from Laurie continue to receive press attention but there's a new element in the mix as well. Duncan Gardham (Telegraph of London) reports: The briefing note from the Chief of MI6's private secretary to Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser three months after the September 11 attacks, said there was "no convincing intelligence (or common sense) case" that Iraq supported Islamic extremists. But it said the "removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies" as well as "engage a powerful and secular state in the fight against Sunni extremist terror." The briefing note further contradicts the story Tony Blair told the Iraq Inquiry by demonstrating that the desire for and decision to go to war took place long before what he publicly admits. If you need to jog your memory on the official timeline, check out the one provided by the Telegraph of London. Oliver Wright (Independent of London) notes, "Oil was a key motivating factor behind the efforts to remove Saddam. 'The removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies,' the officer writes." Noting the oil revelations, Ian Drury (Daily Mail) observes: The intelligence service also made clear in newly declassified papers that the 'prize' for removing the Iraqi dictator was 'new security to oil supplies'. The documents will add weight to critics' claims that this was the real reason the U.S. and Britain went to war, and not because they feared Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq Inquiry has heard that Tony Blair had signalled that he would be willing to back 'regime change' in Iraq when he met President George W Bush in Texas in 2002. But the latest papers highlight how the prospect of removing Saddam had been discussed by the then Prime Minister's inner circle months earlier. Amanda Platell (Daily Mail) observes, "Now, however, the mendacious former red-top tabloid political editor has been exposed. Devastating secret evidence has been declassified which proves that Campbell and Blair lied about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. There was none." The Evening Standard notes calls for Campbell to face new questions from the Iraq Inquiry. And Ian Burrell (Independent of London) reports: The editor of the BBC's Today programme at the time of its controversial 2003 report which claimed the Government had "sexed up" an Iraqi weapons dossier said last night that evidence provided to the Iraq Inquiry by the former intelligence official Michael Laurie proved that his team had been right all along. Kevin Marsh described Maj-Gen Laurie's evidence as "devastating for [Alastair] Campbell", the former Downing Street communications chief, whose furious response to the Today report led to the Hutton Inquiry and ultimately to the resignations of the BBC's director general and chairman. "The thing that rankles with me a little bit is that I thought at the time when [the Today reporter] Andrew Gilligan came with the story was that it wasn't just broadly correct, it was 100 per cent correct," Mr Marsh said. iraq adam kokesh the associated press lara jakes the washington post aaron c. davis antiwar.com justin raimondo mcclatchy newspapers the guardian richard norton-taylor iraq inquiry xinhua xiong tong bbc news