|
Wednesday,
October 24, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, an Iraqi journalist is
stabbed to death, Barack gets busted for lying about Iraq, Nouri gets
accused of assassinating a political rival, Robert Gibbs justifies the
killing of a 16-year-old American, new e-mails reveal the White House
should have known what was going on during the Benghazi attack, and
more.
Reporting for the Pentagon's American Forces Press Service, Jim Garamone notes
Lt Gen Mark P. Hertling expressed doubt on Tuesday as to what Iraq
might become -- democracy or something else, "They are still struggling
and it pains me to watch it." He also stated, "There was a lot of blood
and sweat and tears and hard work put into that country by American
soldiers." Joel Gehrke (Washington Examiner) ties
"the general's misgivings about the insurgency and Iraqi security
forces" to comments made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt
Romney in the debate Monday as well as to those of Senator John McCain
who has stated, "Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket. Al Qaida has
doubled there presence there. There are al Qaida training camps in
Western Iraq. . . . I've got to hand it to the president to [be able] to
say things [in the debate] that in my view defy reality."
To
be fair, an awful lot of supposedly sensible Democrats supported the
war too, including a lot of senior officials in the Obama
administration. But they didn't dream up the war or work overtime to
sell it from 1998 onward. They just went along with the idea because
they thought it was politically expedient, they couldn't imagine how it
might go south, or they were convinced that Saddam was a Very Bad Man
and that it was our duty to "liberate" the Iraqi people from him. They
were right about Saddam's character, of course, but occupying the entire
country turned out to be a pretty stupid way of dealing with him.
You
have to be a huge liar to say "to be fair" and then proceed not to be
fair. Barack's had necons throughout his administration. We regularly
call out Victoria Nuland who is better known as Mrs. Robert Kagan and
who is even better known as Dick Cheney's National Security Adivsor
(2003 to 2005). In February 2011, whistle blower Sibel Edmonds (Boiling Frogs) noted
some of the many neocons serving in Barack's administration: Marc
Grossman, Dennis Ross and Frederick Kagan (that would be Victoria
Nuland's brother-in-law). In 2010, Kristine Frazao (Russia Today -- link is video and text) thought
Kagan's addition was so important, she did a report on just that,
opening with, "They're ba-a-a-ck! The US government may be done with
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld but another neoconservative is returning
to the government payroll. That same year, Allen McDuffee (ThinkTanked) observed,
"Because we overinflated the impact of neoconservatives during the Bush
administration and paid little attention to them before that, we're
missing the fact that neocons are having the same influence in the Obama
administration they've always had, according to a report issued by the
Brookings Institution." And if we drop back another year, we can land on
Jacob Heilbrunn's Huffington Post report from May of 2009 which opened:
This
morning leading neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert
Kagan held a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel -- in support of President
Obama's Afghanistan policy. Kristol and Kagan, as Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen has reported,
have formed a successor organization to the Project for the New
American Century, which came into disrepute for its advocacy of the Iraq
War. The new one is called the Foreign Policy Initiative. Its
contention is that America remains, in the words of Madeleine Albright,
the "indispensable nation"and, furthermore, that neocons can play a
valuable role in coming years in ensuring that it remains one.
So
Walt's sudden concern about the neocons return to power is
rather disingenuous. Return to power? When Barack brought them into
his administration? His insincerity and lack of scruples go a long way
towards explaining why many of the people who applauded him just five
years ago wouldn't cross the street to greet him today.
On Monday night, we heard President Obama and Governor Romney each profess their love of militarism.
The
president boasted, "We spend more on our military than the next 10
countries combined; China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name
it." Then his opponent called for increasing the military budget even
more! It was the president who called the United States the "one
indispensible nation," but both candidates showed their love of U.S. exceptionalism and exhibited paternalistic worldviews.
That is not the way I see our relationship with our sisters and brothers across the globe.
Mark
Johnson is posting from Basra, he's back in Iraq. Barack's taken a
distortion (lie) he made in the debate and turned it into a new ad which
Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) gives
three Pinocchios. Among other things, the ad proclaims, "Mitt Romney
would have left thirty thousand troops there [Iraq]." Kessler reviews
how the Status Of Force Agreement (negotiated under the Bush
administration) was coming to an end and the Barack administration
attempted to negotiate another agreement. The deal faltered on the
issue of immunity. But even after it was seen as faltering,
negotiations continued (and still continue -- but we will get to that). This
was established by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General
Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) appeared before the Senate
Armed Services Committee November 15, 2011 (for reporting on that
hearing, see " Iraq snapshot," " Iraq snapshot," " Iraq snapshot." Ava reported on it with " Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally reported on it with " The costs (Wally)" and Kat reported on it with " Who wanted what?").
By November 15th, the press had been telling you for weeks that
negotiations were over. But that's not what Senator Joe Lieberman and
Panetta were saying at the hearing. Excerpt.
Senator
Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point.
I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki
said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside
for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations
again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some
troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from
there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I
know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to
Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions
with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in
Iraq after the end of this year?
Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony,
what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does
involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are.
Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in
negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that
will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are
going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present
by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there.
But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security
agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what
exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level
of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT
[Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises --
joint-exercises -- that work together?
As
Kessler points out, the administration attempted to negotiate a
variation of a SOFA and failed. Failed. But the administration wants
to spin. Kessler:
In other words, Obama has spun a
diplomatic failure -- an inability to reach a deal with Iraq -- into a
"mission accomplished" talking point. In fact, Obama made a dubious
claim in the debate that having any troops in Iraq "would not help us in
the Middle East."Since the departure of U.S. troops, the United States has lost leverage in Iraq. For instance, Iran uses Iraqi airspace and convoys on the ground to ferry arms and military equipment to the beleaguered regime in Syria -- a government that Obama says must fall.
And, of course, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:
Iraq
and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in
the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training
missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General
Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed
to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Back
in December 2011, Nouri accused Vice President Tareq al-Hasehmi of
being a terrorist. While Tareq was in the KRG, Nouri ordered his
arrest. The KRG refused to hand him over. After killing one of Tareq's
bodyguards -- he was tortured by Nouri's forces who tried to pretend
kidney failure had nothing to do with torture -- they then staged their
kangaroo court and convicted Tareq who now resides in Turkey. Josh Rogan (Foreign Policy) picks up the story there:
But
Hashimi is still technically the vice president and he is fighting for
what he calls a "fair trial." He argues that Maliki has hijacked the
Iraqi political system and become beholden to Iranian interests, which
include supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Hashimi
said he has evidence and reports from politicians, from officers in the
Interior Ministry, and from Iraqi intelligence officials, all pointing
to a growing and active ground transport route from Iran to Syria. The
route crosses through the Zarbatia checkpoint on the Iran-Iraq border,
west of the Iranian town of Mehran, flows through the city of Karbala,
and crosses over to Syria via the al-Qaim border crossing, he said. "The
transit is not only aerial using Iraqi airspace, but the ground transit
is becoming a phenomenon. Munitions, heavy arms, and even militias are
passing checkpoints without any sort of obstruction," Hashimi said in a
telephone interview. "I am very afraid the U.S. and the international
community is only focused on the aerial transit and leaving behind the
ground transit. Everything should be checked now."
Noting Hashemi's remarks, Paul Mulshine (New Jersey Star Ledger) observes,
"Got that? Not only is the nation we liberated helping the Iranians to
ferry arms to Syris, but its elected vice-president is under a death
sentence and is living in exile.
Ain't democracy wonderful?"
Tareq
al-Hashemi: I am with the Syrian people against the unprecedented
repression and killing. I am with the Syrians and champion them in
finding an opportunity to live in freedom. What is happening in Syria
will also inspire a generation of true change in Iraq.
Al
Arabiya: Hashemi scoffed at the statements made by the Iraqi
government about searching Iranian planes crossing into Syria via Iraq.
Tareq
al-Hashemi: We have proof on this matter and so does the US
administration. And in truth, this random inspection is considered
fabrication.
Al
Arabiya: He urged the international community to see Iraq's double
standard regarding its policy towards Syria. He said there is an
Iraqi-Iranian agreement to down planes that medical and humanitarian aid
to Syrian civilians and at the same time turn a blind eye to the planes
that carry weapons and artillery to the Syrian regime.
Tareq al-Hashemi: This is an issue that the international community must pay attention to.
Al Arabiya: He accused Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki of persecuting Sunni Iraqis.
Tareq
al-Hashemi: The sectarian issue is another matter. Today, when you go
to prisons, you will find that over 90% of inmates are Sunnis. This is
something that cannot be ignored. Today, the Arab Sunnis are targeted
by Nouri al-Maliki's government exclusively. Today, the torture that is
carried out, the random apprehensions, turning our provinces into
regions have occured for sectarian purposes.
That's
far from the only serious accusation Nouri's currently facing. He now
stands accused of the assassination of a political figure. From the September 27th snapshot: " Alsumaria reports that the former governor of Basra, Mohammed Misbah Waili, was assassinated today (the firearm had a silencer)." And from the October 2nd snapshot: "On fear, Alsumaria reports that in Basara accusations are being tossed around following the assassination last Thursday
of former Governor (2005 to 2009) Mohammed Misbah Waili with some
accusing a clan within the province and the clan accusing unnamed
foreign powers." Despite a so-called investigation, nothing has been
turned up regarding the who or why of the assassination. However, Kitabat reports
that the family of the late governor is stating that Nouri and others
in Dawa (Nouri's political party -- State of Law is his political slate)
wanted him dead and they are accusing Nouri of ordering the
assassination. Family members state that when they arrived at the scene
they found security officers in offficial Iraqi military uniforms,
these officers surrounded the scene and prevented the family from going
to the car where they could hear the governor, still alive, screaming.
They are arguing that had he been immediately moved to a hospital, he
would be alive today. The family says that the refusal to move the
injured governor to a hospital resulted from orders from higher up.
They are going to file a lawsuit against Nouri and others (Abdullah Auaz
al-Jubouri and Issam al-Asadi) in a Basra court. A member of the
family tells Kitabat that although they know Nouri acts as if he is
above the Constitution and the judiciary, the family is stronger than
Nouri and the Dawa Party because they have the truth on their side.
Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 146 killed in violence so far this month. Today?
Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory notes
the investigative journalist was in Baghdad's Tahrir Square at ten a.m.
Monday morning conducting meetings and interviews and she was also
working on a story about prostitution and brothels in Iraq. She went to
a police station to interview some of the 180 women arrested but a
police officer prevented her from entering and he denied that there were
any prostitutes among the arrested. He left and then moments later
re-appeared telling her she could enter but without her colleagues. Zia
Mehdi didn't feel comfortable with that offer and instead returned to
Tahrir Square to continue her LGBT interviews. Later she was discovered
dead, stabbed to death, still in her jacket that noted she was a
journalist. Dropping back to the October 15th snapshot:
So
far this year, Iraq is known to have executed 119 people. It has
ignored calls from the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International and others to impose a moratorium on the death penalty.
Despite the fact that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani insists he is
against the death penalty and regularly basks in applause for that
stance, he has not blocked one execution. (His 'opposition' is refusing
to sign the death warrants, leaving it for a vice president to sign it.
As president, he could object to any or all executions and stop them
immediately. He refuses to use that power.)
Turning
to the topic of Libya, e-mails wonder why Bob Somerby calls Elise
Labott "CNN's tremendously awful 'foreign affairs reporter'" and "a
genuine nightmare"? Because she's a woman. He knows nothing about her
reporting and has never critiqued before today. He probably doesn't
know she's a CNN producer and that she covers the State Dept. Bob's not
real smart sometimes but he never passes a chance to demonize a woman.
If a man had reported what Elise did, Bob would treat them with kid
gloves. He only beats up on women -- see CiCi Connelly, Katharine
Seelye, Maureen Dowd, Anne Gearan and on and on and on. He'll go after
State Dept reporters Labott and Gearan but you'll never see him take on
AP's Matthew Lee. Bob only beats up on women. We noted this a long
time ago, over 7 years ago, in fact. In the Howler world a woman is
demonized but a man guilty of the same 'crime' is treated as savable
and redeemable but the witch, you understand, must be drowned -- even if
she floats. Especially if she floats.
Elise
Labott has the same problems any other person does and she can be wrong
and she can be right. As a journalist, she's one of the strongest
working today. And unlike Bob Somerby, we've noted Elisa Labott many
times here. What are we talking about when we're talking about Libya? US House Rep Darrell Issa outlined it very clearly at a hearing earlier this month:
Committee
Chair Darrell Issa: On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans
serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.
Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic
personnel. Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children. Glen
Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his
country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His family and colleagues grieve
today for his death. Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined
the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force. Sean
leaves behind a widow and two young children. Ambassador Chris Stevens,
a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya,
ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted
against the long time Gaddafi regime. He did so because he believed
the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom
from tyranny.
See those names:
Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods. Guess where you
didn't see them? At The Daily Howler. Bob Somerby thinks he can trash
Elise Labott. But Elise has noted the dead, she's done the work for
over a month now. Not true of Bob Somerby, not true at all.
Last night Ruth noted Sharyl Attkisson (CBS News) reports
on e-mails sent from the Benghazi consulate on September 11, 2012
during the attack and immediately after including one sent at 6:07 pm
where it is noted "the embassy in Trpoli reported the Islamic military
group 'Ansar al-SHaria Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack'."
This is what Elise is covering as well:
"Two hours after first being notified of an attack on the U.S.
diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, a government e-mail to the White
House, the State Department and the FBI said an Islamist group had
claimed credit, according to a copy obtained by CNN." (Elise maintains
Barack used the term "terror" on September 12th. That's her take and
her opinion. As noted in the October 17th snapshot, we disagree. Others disagreeing that there's a clear-cut assessment include The Washington Post and CBS News ( text report by Brian Montopoli, video report by Jan Crawford.) Anne Gearan (Washington Post) adds,
"The reference to Ansar al-Sharia may fuel Republican efforts to show
that the White House had evidence of terrorism almost immediately but
sat on it. Five days after the attack, U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Susan E. Rice said the attack appeared to have grown out of a
'spontaneous' protest over an anti-Muslim video." Mark Hosenball (Reuters) explains, " While
some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted
from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source
said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the
White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post. Other
addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used
by the FBI command center, the source said." John Parkinson, Dana Hughes and Sunlen Miller (ABC News) pick up there:
In
light of the emails, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire teamed up
today to write a letter to question President Obama why his
administration "consistently described the attack for days afterward as a
spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video."
"These
emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the
attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan
militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for
it," the trio wrote. "This latest revelation only adds to the confusion
surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in
Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events
in the ways that you did."
John Hudson (The Atlantic) notes
that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, "Posting something
on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence." No, it wouldn't
necessarily hold as evidence in a court of law; however, it is used as
evidence by the State Dept and the US intelligence community all the
time. Equally true, someone's who has claimed to have taken
responsibility needs to stop minimizing and justifying information's
that's coming out. Part of taking responsiblity is shutting your mouth
when you're exposed to have misled. Hillary misled. She was very clear
in her accountability that State didn't make the false claims the White
House did. She's been silent as to why that is. Now she wants to
dismiss new findings. That's not accountability, that's excuses. She
needs to either explain why the White House told people the attack was
something that it wasn't or she needs to bow out of the matter.
How does Team Obama justify killing him?
The answer Gibbs gave is chilling:
ADAMSON:
...It's an American citizen that is being targeted without due process,
without trial. And, he's underage. He's a minor.
GIBBS: I would
suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are
truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think
becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about
doing your business.
Again, note
that this kid wasn't killed in the same drone strike as his father. He
was hit by a drone strike elsewhere, and by the time he was killed, his
father had already been dead for two weeks. Gibbs nevertheless defends
the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing
him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly
joined al Qaeda terrorists. Killing an American citizen without due
process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment. Is that the
real answer? Or would the Obama Administration like to clarify its
reasoning? Any Congress that respected its oversight responsibilities
would get to the bottom of this.
Conor's correct, Congressional oversight is sorely needed.
| 
elise labott
