The economy

Sunday, Ava and C.I. looked at the news media in "TV: News on the 'news'" and they specifically noted how one little fluffer tried to 'create' good news:

When Diane's on vacation, the children come out to play. Such as human fur ball George Stephanopolous. Among the most jaw-dropping moments last week would have to be George on the economy Thursday. To watch that broadcast, was to be told the economy had recovered and things were wonderful and amazing. Yet, same night, on CBS, you were being told that middle class families were now depending on food banks in record numbers. Which was it?
As usual, with George, reality gets put on hold so he can advance the White House line now that a Democrat is president. And that bias is not an obsevation we're the first to make. It's long been known. But to see him acting as economic cheerleader when he was supposed to be anchoring a news broadcast Thursday was to see the debate on his bias settled once and for all. On Friday, a trained journalist (Josh Elliott) would replace George as anchor of World News, note the slashed prices many stores were offering and wonder,"Is it enough to lift the fragile economy?"
George, like too many in TV news, has no background in news. He wasn't educated in it and he didn't come up in the trenches of journalism. He was a flack for the Clinton White House and, though he would later fret about the toll that took on his skin, he still firmly believes that 'news' is what officials say. (Whether it's true or not is of no concern to George.)

The economy has not recovered, not one bit. David Walsh (WSWS) reports:

Sears Holding, the fourth largest broadline retailer in North America, with over 4,000 full-time and specialty stores in the US and Canada, announced Tuesday it was closing 100 to 120 Sears and Kmart stores. Shares of Sears Holding fell 27.7 percent Tuesday and are down more than 50 percent from earlier in 2011.

The company did not disclose the number of jobs that would be destroyed, but warned that the closures would probably not be the last. “We will carefully evaluate store performance going forward,” said a Sears Holding statement, “and act opportunistically to recognize value from poor performing stores as circumstances allow. While our past practice has been to keep marginally performing stores open while we worked to improve their performance, we no longer believe that to be the appropriate action in this environment.”

Burt Flickinger III, managing director of Strategic Resource Group, suggested that another 5 to 10 percent of Sears and Kmart stores—200 to 400—might close, and blamed economic conditions, including lowered wages, and increased competition from online competitors. Sears has closed 171 of its large US stores since merging with Kmart in 2005.

Think of all the jobs lost, all the people who will be out of work. I had to run into the drug store today (picking up some prescriptions for my father) and I know the lady behind the counter from going in to the store (it's my local drug store). Her son served in the Iraq War and, fortunately, he got out -- after three deployments -- back in the fall. Now he's going to college. So we always talk about that and about her daughter. She's ringing me up today and tells me that her daughter got fired on Christmas Eve. She was hired back in September for retail at a store and they waited until the end of the shift (which was after 11:00 p.m.) to inform her and three others that this was their last shift and they were fired.

This is happening over and over. The economy has not improved.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Wednesday:

Wednesday, December 28, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Rick Perry grandstands on Iraq and finds the ground beneath him shaky, more calls for new elections in Iraq, Camp Ashraf repeatedly targeted with rockets, 2 Americans held by Iraqis are released, and more. Starting in the US with Rick Perry, who is running for the GOP's presidential nomination is whining about parades. Alicia M. Cohn (The Hill) reports Perry has "criticized President Obama for not arranging a parade to welcome U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq, accusing him of not properly thanking the military." There are a dozen and one reasons (including costs at a time when the federal government is supposed to be trimming everything -- see this Leo Shane III article on costs from Stars & Stripes) why a national parade is not needed. There is, of course, nothing preventing Rick Perry from hosting a parade in Texas where he is governor . But, most importantly, Dustin Vincent. Before Perry grandstands on the issue of Iraq, he might want to grasp that just because the bulk a lot of people stopped paying attention to the war doesn't mean everyone did. And, last month, we repeatedly called Rick Perry out (here and here for two examples) for his failure to note the passing of Dustin Vincent. Perry is the governor of Texas but couldn't issue a statement, a proclamation on behalf of Dustin Vincent? He couldn't even order the state flags at half mast for Dustin Vincent? And yet now he wants to question whether someone else cares about the returning? As is usual, Perry needs to get his own house in order before attempting to criticize anyone else. When a Texan was killed while serving in Iraq last month, Rick Perry's GOP primary campaign was more important to him than either Dustin Vincent or performing the duties of the office he holds currently. November 4th, the Dept of Defense released the following: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. 1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent, 25, of Mesquite, Texas, died Nov. 3, in Kirkuk province, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with small arms fire. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. For more information the media may contact the Fort Riley public affairs office by email at matthew.howard1@conus.army.mil, nathaniel.s.smith@us.army.mil, or by phone at 785-240-6359/4928. Governors across the country note their fallen with public proclamations and ordering state flags to be lowered. Rick Perry did nothing. And now wants to whine about what Barack did or didn't do? Iraq? In what may rank as the most obvious statement of today (doesn't make it any less true), Brookings' Kenneth M. Pollack (Newsweek via Khaleej Times) observes, "At least the Nixon administration got something of a 'decent interval' before North Vietnam betrayed their strategy from Southeast Asia." Iraq has not gotten with the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk, no. But when has it ever? American politicians have repeatedly attempted to portray Iraq in some manner that reflected well on them -- apparently forgetting that Iraq is an independent country of millions of people and not a mirror on the wall. Barack's only the latest politician to become entranced with his own image. How bad are things right now? The editorial board of The Economist is insisting that the country needs "to enact a federal formula, already provided for by the constitution. The Kurds, enjoying an unprecedented measure of autonomy, have long been keen on this. Most of Iraq's Sunni Arabs have hitherto loathed the idea, seeing it as a conspiracy to do them down and to belittle a great nation. But they should now think again. Mr Maliki's best chane of making Iraq work is to go federal." This is an issue that's been debated at the Guardian with Ranj Alaaldin advocating for a federation and more recently, yesterday, Hayder al-Khoei rejecting. al-Khoei argues, "Federalism may have worked wonders for the Kurds, but their success cannot be taken as a blueprint for the rest of the country. The Kurds are an exception because they have had de facto autonomous rule since 1991. That was a consequence of the brutality of the Ba'ath regime. Today, Iraqi villages are not being gassed, mass graves are not being filled with hundreds of thousands of corpses, and entire towns and cities are not being cleansed by the central government." Meanwhile Michigan State University professor Mohammed Ayoob (CNN) maintains that "it is only Iran that can now prevent Iraq from sliding into the abyss of chaos and disintegration. This argument has a simple logic. Iran is the country with the greatest leverage with the Shia-dominated al-Maliki government." By contrast the Telegraph of London feels it is for the US to stop a return of civil war and referencing Nouri's trashing of the Erbil Agreement, "In the process, he has called into question the settlement between Iraq's competing groups that helped restore a measure of stability. [. . .] Left unspoken was America's implict role as guarantor of this settlement. Iraqis asked, sotto voice, how long it would last after US forces withdrew. The answer, we have learnt, is that its foundations were undermined within hours." The administration does not share the Telegraph's view that the its their role. At the State Dept today, spokesperson Mark C. Toner declared, "Well, look, overseeing and husbanding implies that we're somehow calling the shots. [. . .] And Iraq's a sovereign country. I think we're engaged with all the political parties on the ground. And, again, we're urging that they come together, that they talk through the current situation and issues, and reach a consensus that way." Tarqi Alhomayed (Al Arabiya) feels there may be a bright spot in the crisis in that it's allowed Nouri to show his true nature, "This is because Nuri al-Maliki has moved away from the political game, and instead resorted to using force against his opponents, immediately following the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This represented a red flag to all those who are concerned about the future of Iraq. Al-Maliki is a man who has not mastered the political game, and it seems that he does not even believe in politics at all, or at least not as much as he believes in the power of force. Therefore, he has over-used what he terms 'the law,' and we now see him seeking to arrest Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, and fire his own deputy, Saleh al-Mutlaq, whilst he is also clashing with Iraqi Parliamentary Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi." In addition, rumors swirl that the Minister of Finance, Rafie al-Issawi, will be charged with something shortly. All three are members of Iraqiya, the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections. And al-Issawi teams with Ayad Allawi (former prime minister and head of Iraqiya) and Osama al-Nujaifi (Speaker of Parliament) to pen "How to Save Iraq From Civil War" in today's New York Times: We are leaders of Iraqiya, the political coalition that won the most seats in the 2010 election and represents more than a quarter of all Iraqis. We do not think of ourselves as Sunni or Shiite, but as Iraqis, with a constituency spanning the entire country. We are now being hounded and threatened by Mr. Maliki, who is attempting to drive us out of Iraqi political life and create an authoritarian one-party state. In the past few weeks, as the American military presence ended, another military force moved in to fill the void. Our homes and offices in Baghdad's Green Zone were surrounded by Mr. Maliki's security forces. He has laid siege to our party, and has done so with the blessing of a politicized judiciary and law enforcement system that have become virtual extensions of his personal office. He has accused Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, of terrorism; moved to fire Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq; and sought to investigate one of us, Rafe al-Essawi, for specious links to insurgents -- all immediately after Mr. Maliki returned to Iraq from Washington, wrongly giving Iraqis the impression that he'd been given carte blanche by the United States to do so. If you're having trouble identifying the players, Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) provides flash cards here. Tony Karon (Global Post) observes, "Maliki, both by measures of votes in parliament and control of men under arms, is stronger than any other faction leader in Iraq right now, but he's not strong enough to rule Iraq on his own. Indeed, he has the job of prime minister only because Iran -- mindful of the importance of keeping a friendly government in Baghdad -- intervened to convince rival Shi'ite leaders, most important among them being Moqtada al-Sadr, to back another Maliki term. But other neighbors, particularly those at odds with Iran such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have other ideas. Both backed the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya bloc that challenged Maliki, and Saudi Arabia has been engaged in proxy conflicts with Iran across the region." Hamza Hendawi and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) note Nouri "effectively runs the Defense and Interior ministries and has created a separate security force that answers to him alone. He bypassed parliament to install Shi'ite allies in key positions [. . .]" And right there we need to clarify some issues that are wrong in reporting. (Not wrong with the AP article.) Al Jazeera maintains that Nouri al-Maliki has benched Saleh al-Mutlaq. Parliament told Nouri last week that they would review the matter in the new year and not until then. Nouri has no power on that. It is wrong to say that Nouri's done anything here other than ask that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his powers. Why? al-Mutlaq was nominated for his post and he was confirmed by Parliament. That's why Nouri can't just exile him. Nouri swore -- back in December 2010 -- that the security ministries would be filled -- that's the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of National Security and the Minister of Defense. They have not been filled. Nouri wants credit for calling someone 'acting' minister. An acting minister is not a real minister. He or she has not been nominated by Nouri and approved by the Parliament. So Nouri can call Howard Dean "acting Minister of Defense" tomorrow and then strip him of the title next week. That's because Parliament never confirmed it. If Parliament doesn't sign off, you're just Nouri's puppet. Parliament did vote to approve Saleh al-Mutlaq and that's why Nouri can't just discard him without their permission. That's the first thing. The other thing that needs to be cleared up is the notion that Tareq al-Hashemi "fled" to the KRG. This pops up in reports after reports including, today, Al Jazeera where a man supposedly sympathetic to Iraqiya insists that al-Hashemi fled and therefore he's unsympathetic to him. "Fled" can be a descriptive word. It can also be a pejorative word. In this case, it is the wrong word. Dropping back to Sunday, December 18th: AFP reports, "Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and several of his bodyguards were escorted off a plane at Baghdad airport on Sunday because two of the guards were wanted on 'terrorism charges,' officials said, the latest step in a deepening political crisis." Also on the plane was Saleh al-Mutlaq, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister whom Nouri has asked Parliament to strip the powers of. al-Mutlaq was also forced off the plane. On today's All Things Considered (NPR), Kelly McEvers offered this take: Kelly McEvers: Here in Kuwait, just having crossed over the border, we have all these US commanders telling us that they're leaving Iraq in a better place, that it's a thriving democracy. Yet in Baghdad it looks like you have Prime Minister Maliki -- who is a Shi'ite and whose government is Shi'ite -- going after his rivals who are Sunnis. Just yesterday, charges were announced against the Vice President who is Sunni and troops surrounded his house. The Maliki government accuses him of being involved in a terrorist plot. But Maliki's detractors say this is sectarian revenge. So you know we've got these promises from US commanders that things are going really well but this kind of national reconciliation government looks like it's unraveling. Nizar Latif (The National) observes: Those moves have added to a fear among the prime minister's critics that he is seeking to eliminate rivals and consolidate power.Iraqiyya warned it would pull out of the coalition government unless Mr Al Maliki agreed to seek a solution that respects "democracy and civil institutions". "Iraq is now in a very difficult position. This is a critical time," said Eytab Al Douri, an MP with the Iraqiyya bloc. "If solutions are not found quickly, Iraq will be heading towards sectarian and ethnic divisions, and a return to civil war." ---------------- [End of Dec. 18th excerpt] ---------------- And now for the December 19th snapshot (the following day): CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism. Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power. However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator." Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds." It is INCORRECT to say -- as many outlets are -- that Tareq al-Hashemi fled to the KRG. Tareq al-Hashemi had scheduled meetings. He departed from Baghdad on Sunday the 18th. Before he could, he and others were cleared from the plane by Nouri's forces. Had the arrest warrant been issued, Nouri's forces could have kept him from re-boarding. They didn't do that because there was no, at that time, valid arrest warrant. Monday the 19th, while al-Hashemi is finishing meetings in the KRG, the arrest warrant is issued. To say that Tareq al-Hashemi fled to the KRG is a pejorative statement ("flee" having the connotation of "coward"). It is also an incorrect statement. Since the arrest warrant was issued, he has stayed in the KRG. You could say he's seeking shelter or refuge or even some form of asylum. But you cannot say he fled and be accurate. Repeating, it is not only incorrect, it is a charged term. He is being called a terrorist. It does matter how you present the facts, it does matter in the court of public opinion. The Council on Foreign Relations can get it right, why can't the press? Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker Najaiji met in Sulaimaniya yesterday and compiled a list of four points of the political crisis. One of the points is that a national conference is needed to address the crisis and governance. The issue of Tareq al-Hashemi is another point and it is thought that the KRG judiciary could be impartial and it would be better to move the charges Nouri's lodged to the KRG judiciary and out of Baghdad. Dar Addustour notes that Parliament will hold a meeting next week to attempt to ease the crisis and that they will address the issue of Nouri's call to dismiss Saleh al-Mutlaq as Deputy Prime Minister. There are rumors that it will be suggested al-Mutlaq retain the office, remain in Iraq for a few weeks, then travel to Jordan claiming "illness" and remain in Jordan for the duration of the current Iraqi government. Prashant Rao (AFP) states that Kurdistan Regional President Massound Barzani has joined the call for elections stating that if the planned meet-up fails, early elections are the next avenue. Khalid al-Ansary and Dahlia Kholaif (Bloomberg News) report Iraiqya states it is on board with the planned meet-up. However, Aswat al-Iraq states that they are on board conditionally -- Iraqiya states Moqtada al-Sadr and Ammar al-Hakeem must be present at any meeting. Both men are part of the National Alliance. In addition, al-Hakim is the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Jim Loney and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) add: But Allawi, in a separate statement, listed a series of demands before he would agree to any conference, including the release of "all detainees held on false charges" and the formation of a panel of top politicians to oversee and prevent interference in legal procedures. Iraqiya has criticized a recent arrest campaign against hundreds of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party over what some officials said was a plot to seize power after U.S. troops left. Allawi also demanded the government implement an accord reached last year [the Erbil Agreement] before the coalition government was formed that would have given him leadership of a new national policy council. Allawi has accused Maliki of reneging on the pact. Ned Parker's long covered Iraq for the Los Angeles Times and, in an interview with CFR's Bernard Gwertzman, offers many points worth sharing but we'll note this section because it includes Chapter VII which US news outlets usually forget. [Bernard Gwertzman]: You've been living in Iraq on and off since the war began in 2003. What's the United States' influence there since the departure of the troops? Ned Parker: America has influence. Evidently, it's less, given that [the] troops have left, but America still has much soft power from the sales of weapons to Iraq, the need of Iraqi counterterrorism forces to work with U.S. Special Forces. Then there's the issue of America helping Iraq with investment, getting foreign companies in, and the issue of ending Iraq's Chapter Seven status at the UN, which prevents Iraq from having its full sovereignty because Iraq continues to pay reparations to Kuwait. So there are many ways that the United States can help Iraq. In terms of influence, it's a question of how America uses it and how it leverages it. Even when America had U.S. forces in Iraq, particularly in the last three years, America has been very reluctant to use its influence or clout to the maximum. Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The ratification of the Anti-Terrorism Law by the Iraqi Council of Ministers on Tuesday has stemmed from the government's keenness for the sovereignty of the law and the stability of the security in the country, the Official Spokesman of the Government, Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement on Wednesday." Actually, it's a bill. Parliament makes laws. Dar Addustour notes that it's been referred to Parliament. Al Rafidayn reports that the UN has opened a mission in Basra. Turning to some of today's reported violence, Aswat al-Iraq notes that Yacub Youif Lazim, the director of Kirkuk's Red Screscent was wounded in a sticky bombing last night. Reuters adds a Baghdad roadside bombing left nine people injured, a Hawija roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier (and left another injured), 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (the man was a kidnap victim), a Mosul roadside bombing injured one police woman, and a Balad Ruz roadside bombing left a woman and her son injured. At the US State Dept today, there was confusion on the issue of Camp Ashraf. Had the residents been moved? Spokesperson Mark Toner didn't know but "we did see reports of a possible rocket attack on Camp Ashraf," he allowed. They've played intentionally dumb for months now on Camp Ashraf -- ignoring, in the process, a 2010 court order that they review the status of the residents. Sunday, the head of the Dept, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, issued the following statement: Today, the United Nations and the Government of Iraq signed an important agreement on the temporary relocation and eventual resettlement of the more than 3,000 residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. We commend the Government of Iraq for its work with United Nations Special Representative Ambassador Martin Kobler, and welcome this important step toward a humane resolution to the ongoing situation at Ashraf. The UN effort has our full support. The signing of this Memorandum of Understanding represents significant progress on this issue and outlines steps necessary to achieve a peaceful and viable solution for the residents of Ashraf, including their temporary relocation to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad International Airport. At this new location, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) will be able to conduct refugee status determinations for the residents of Ashraf -- a necessary first step toward resettlement to third countries. We are encouraged by the Iraqi government's willingness to commit to this plan, and expect it to fulfill all its responsibilities, especially the elements of the MOU that provide for the safety and security of Ashraf's residents. We welcome the agreement by the Government of Iraq to allow the United Nations to station monitors at this new location around the clock and to observe the move from Ashraf to this new location. In addition, officials from U.S. Embassy Baghdad will visit regularly and frequently. We also welcome the Iraqi government's willingness to delay the final closure of Camp Ashraf to give this plan time for implementation. To be successful, this resettlement must also have the full support of the Camp's residents, and we urge them to work with the UN to implement this relocation. All those who want to see the people at Camp Ashraf safe and secure should work together to see that the agreed upon plan is carried out. The agreement actually entered the news cycle on Wednesday and State Dept spokersperson Victoria Nuland had to spin because the administration was out of the loop -- a detail thata quickly became obvious leading one reporter to observe, "So you guys didn't know anything about it until today." Joby Warrick (Washington Post) reported that the deal "has not yet been accepted by the Iranian exiles, who have repeatedly insisted on a U.S. troop presence to guard against possible attacks by Iraqis." Today Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that what appeared to be a stand-off may have passed today with the residents accepting the agreement and that 400 of the approximately 3,500 members were moved to what used to be Camp Liberty today. And the rumors of rocket attacks? AFP reports that Camp Ashraf was repeatedly attacked with "multiple rockets." At the State Dept press briefing today, a question was raised as to whether or not Camp Ashraf had any American citizens? Toner had no response. (There are Americans with family members there.) And it was pointed out, "And you've washed your hands of it. So why would you even know?" But the US government granted protected status to the residents. It's not supposed to be able to wash its hands. It's supposed to be helping on this issue. When that status was granted, the US government then had a legal obligation. It's an obligation the government has not lived up to. Meanwhile it's a member of the US Congress (and not the press) that broke the news of two Americans held by Iraqi forces who were released yesterday after being held for 18 days. AP noted this morning that US House Rep Peter King has announced the release of Alex Antiohos and Jonas March by the Ministry of the Defense. The limited details indicated that King's office lit a fire under the State Dept after his office was contacted by Antiohos' wife. His office has since released the following statement: Washington, D.C. -- Today, U.S. Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, welcomed news that his work has helped secure the release of three security contractors, including two U.S. citizens, who had been detained in Iraq since December 9. The three men, Army veteran Alex Antiohos of Long Island, New York, National Guardsman Jonas March of Savannah, Georgia, and Kevin Fisher of Fiji, all contractors for a security firm, were detained by Iraqi Army forces in Mahmudiyah, part of the infamous "Triangle of Death," and held until early today without being charged with any crime. Immediately after learning of the men's detention from Antiohos' wife Melissa last week, King pressed the State Department for help in securing their release. Last Wednesday, King wrote a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, urging that the men be released. King's staff followed up by personally pressing Iraqi officials at the Iraqi Embassy in Washington for the release of the men. King said: "I am pleased that these three men have been released after having been detained for no reason. With the unfortunate and clearly deteriorating security situation in Iraq and with al-Qaeda in Iraq still very active, these men were in increasing danger with each passing day. "I appreciate the efforts of officials at the Department of State and U.S. Embassy Baghdad, as well as individuals at DoD and the White House who worked to secure the men's release. Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) and Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who represent Jonas March, were also very engaged and deserve great credit for this good news." Antiohos, March, and Fisher were reportedly detained while escorting a logistical convoy simply because the Iraqi Ministry of Defense officials did not like the "mission request authorization" paperwork that had been issued by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. The men were never charged with any crime. The National Lawyers Guild gets the last word: NLG condemns NDAA provisions on indefinite detention Contact: David Gespass, President, 205-566-2530 After over a decade of the so-called "War on Terror," President Barack Obama is about to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. The NDAA permits the indefinite detention of anyone, including citizens of the United States, who "was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, under the law of war until the end of hostilities" -- an extremely problematic and vague definition. In addition, it permits the transfer of any detained individuals to any foreign country and trial of such persons before a military tribunal. The National Lawyers Guild adds its voice to the many others who oppose this legislation. Our opposition is not based solely on the fact that this bill allows indefinite detention of US citizens and residents or that the presumed "battlefield" encompasses the entire globe. We oppose indefinite detention without trial because it is immoral and cruel and because it violates the U.S. Constitution and international law. Our principled opposition is based on the: 1. United States Constitution's Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 which enshrines the privilege to petition for habeas corpus; 2. United States Constitution's Article 3, Section 3 which provides those charged with treason heightened due process protections; 3. United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure; 4. United States Constitution's Fifth Amendment prohibition of deprivations of liberty without due process; 5. United States Constitution's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, to knowledge of the charges, to the assistance of counsel and to confront witnesses; 6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has signed, and which holds that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" (Article 9); those who are arrested are entitled to a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal (Article 10), and all those charged with a penal offence are presumed innocent, and have the right to a public trial and all of the guarantees necessary for a defense (Article 11); and 7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified, and which provides in article 9 (1): "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." The laws of war do not override these rights. International humanitarian law, set forth in the Geneva Conventions, applies to all battlefield hostilities, including illegal wars. The current "war on terror" is an undeclared war without end, waged everywhere on Earth. Indefinite detention for the duration of such a "war" is an immoral act of extreme injustice that makes a mockery of the idea that prisoners of war may be held only until the end of hostilities. The National Lawyers Guild opposed expansion of executive power by George W. Bush, who oversaw Guantánamo and other "black sites" where prisoners often endured cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture at the hands of their captors without access to lawyers or courts to challenge either the fact or the conditions of their confinement. We oppose equally the current president's claim to such executive power and his apparent desire to expand it. The absolute power that the NDAA affords the Executive Branch and the military is dangerous, allowing the Executive Branch to designate whomever it chooses to be subjected to its draconian provisions. If President Obama were committed to Constitution and international legal norms, he would veto this bill. Instead, he seems more concerned about consolidating the power of the Executive Branch at the cost of our legal and human rights. As "terrorism" and "radical Islam" have come to replace "Communism" in the federal government's lexicon of fear, the United States continues its spiral toward a new era of McCarthyism. The NDAA is one more step down that road. iraq stars and stripes leo shane iii al mada al arabiya tariq alhomayed the new york times aswat al-iraq dar addustour global post tony karon hossam acommok al rafidayn ned parker mcclatchy newspapers roy gutman afp prashant rao

Cookies and WSWS

That's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "I See Ba'athists" from Christmas Day. Hope everyone who celebrated had a great time (and hope those who didn't celebrate had a great time as well).

Thank you to the 15 of you who e-mailed and agreed there was no point in making dough when you could buy the dough already made. I think it's great to make cookies. But I think you're really asking a lot to try to learn on Christmas Eve how to make cookie dough you are going to cook on Christmas Eve.

That's really pushing it.

Okay, this is from WSWS:

The affluent upper-middle class layers represented by the Nation are indifferent to the plight of working people and hostile to an independent movement of the working class. They are discomfited by the overt turn to police-state methods, but defend the system that has served them well financially even as it has fueled the growth of militarism and dictatorship.

In the end, Scheer is reduced to opposing the most egregious attacks on democratic rights by implicitly supporting those that have preceded them. He offers advice to the ruling class, arguing from the standpoint of what is best and most expedient for US imperialism.

The World Socialist Web Site wrote at the time that the theft of the 2000 election was a watershed event, signifying the absence of a significant constituency for the defense of democratic rights within the American ruling class. The reaction of the Nation to the NDAA demonstrates that the same can be said of the left-liberal milieu.

That's from a great piece on Robert Scheer and The Nation, the piece is written by Tom Carter and Barry Grey. I hope I chose the right part to excerpt. Check for me by using the link to read the column in full.

Okay, I eased back in to blogging tonight. I'll do better tomorrow night.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday:

Tuesday, December 27, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's political crisis continues, did someone "close" to Nouri murder a journalist, Barack may not be the new Jimmy Carter (but he may be a new version of another recent one-term president), and more. How bad are things in Iraq right now? The editorial board of the Hindu Times insists, "It has also exposed the hollowness of Washington's claim that Iraqi democracy is now stable enough to justify the December 18 removal of the remaining U.S. combat troops." Alsumaria TV reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pronounced calls to dissolve Parliament as "untruthful and delusive." Calls to dissolve the Parliament? Yes, things got even wilder over the weekend. Mustafa Habib (Al Mada) observed Saturday that Nouri al-Maliki's targeting Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with terrorism charges and calling for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his office have many noticing that both are members of Iraqiya (which came in first in the March 2010 elections; Nouri's State of Law came in second) and, therefore, political opponents of Nouri and that, while the political crisis has revealed a diminished role for the US, it has underscored that the Kurds remain the heart of the country's political process. Dar Addustour reported that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi announced the postponement of the scheduled meeting last Friday of the political blocs while Nouri's spokesperson floated the notion that there are other charges waiting in the wings. Reportedly this includes charging the Minister of Finance, Rafie al-Issawi, with terrorism, specifically with killings in Falluja back in 2006. Like Tareq al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, Rafie al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya. al-Hashemi was meeting with Kurdish officials in the KRG when Nouri made his charges and al-Hashemi has remained in the KRG since the charges were made. And opinions flew right and left. Dar Addustour zeroed in on Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister, issued a statement declaring the matter should have been resolved by the political blocs but has instead played out in the press. Zebari is Kurdish and a member of the PDK political party -- KRG President Massoud Barzani is the head of the PDK. Al Mada added that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani and US Ambassador James Jeffrey spoke Friday and were calling for a meeting among the political blocs. Rudaw has quoted the KRG President's chief of staff Fuad Hussein stating, "There's no way we would hand over Hashimi to Baghdad. He is our guest." Al Mada noted that State of Law was whining about the Friday meet-up, about having one and including Iraqiya because Iraqiya is boycotting Parliament and so Nouri's political slate does not feel that Iraqiya should be included in the dialogue. Aswat al-Iraq noted, "Iraqiya bloc leader Iyad Alawi described recent events in Iraq as 'liquidation of differences', warning an explosive era waiting Iraq in the coming days, according to an interview with Arabia TV late yesterday (Friday)." And throughout the weekend, as Aswat al-Iraq reported, Iraqiya floated that Parliament to withdraw trust from Nouri. On the topic of Iraqiya, the game Nouri's decided to play can play both ways. Journalist Hadi al-Mahdi was assassinated September 8th. Earlier in the year, he had a run in with Nouri's goons. February 26th, Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported: Four journalists who had been released described being rounded up well after they had left a protest at Baghdad's Tahrir Square. They said they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit. "It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists," said Hussam al-Ssairi, a journalist and poet, who was among a group and described seeing hundreds of protesters in black hoods at the detention facility. "Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq." NPR's Kelly McEvers interviewed Hadi for Morning Edition after he had been released and she noted he had been "beaten in the leg, eyes, and head." He explained that he was accused of attempting to "topple" Nouri al-Maliki's government -- accused by the soldiers under Nouri al-Maliki, the soldiers who beat him. Excerpt: Hadi al-Mahdi: I replied, I told the guy who was investigating me, I'm pretty sure that your brother is unemployed and the street in your area is unpaved and you know that this political regime is a very corrupt one. Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was later put in a room with what he says were about 200 detainees, some of them journalists and intellectuals, many of them young protesters. Hadi al-Mahdi: I started hearing voices of other people. So, for instance, one guy was crying, another was saying, "Where's my brother?" And a third one was saying, "For the sake of God, help me." Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was shown lists of names and asked to reveal people's addresses. He was forced to sign documents while blindfolded. Eventually he was released. Mahdi says the experience was worse than the times he was detained under Saddam Hussein. He says the regime that's taken Sadam's place is no improvement on the past. This, he says, should serve as a cautionary tale for other Arab countries trying to oust dictators. Hadi al-Mahdi: They toppled the regime, but they brought the worst -- they brought a bunch of thieves, thugs, killers and corrupt people, stealers. And then Hadi ended up killed in his own home and many felt Nouri was responsible. Al Mada reports that Maysson al-Damalouji, Iraqiya spokesperson, held a press conference in which she stated that they have files showing the involvement of someone close to Nouri in the assassination. Dar Addustour adds that the official minutes of the investigation into Hadi's assassination features witnesses stating they had been sent threatening letters from a close associate of Nouri's but that the investigation did not follow up on that. That covers many of the political blocs weighing in over the weekend but not all. In the midst of the political crisis, radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr strode in striking a pose of leadership (genuine or not, I'll leave for others to decide). It started, as Sinan Salaheddin and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reported, with Moqtada proposing a "14-point 'peace code'." No one in Iraqi or US media seemed to interested in going over the 14 points (or any of them actually) but they became less important as Moqtada and his bloc made more proposals. Monday Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reported cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared that new elections are needed. Dan Morse (Washington Post) adds that Moqtada wants elections "within six months" That's not all Sadr's calling for. Aswat al-Iraq notes: The Leader of the Shiite Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, has called Sunday for the trial of Iraq's Vice-President, Tareq al-Hashimy, under the auspices of the Parliament, warning at the same time from the single-party power on the political process in the country. Answering a question by one of his followers in Baghdad, about the fate of Tareq al-Hashimy, Sadr said: "The issue of Hashimy's trial should take place under the auspices of the Parliament and the people," adding that "even the sacking of politicians from their posts must take place in a legal manner." "The issue of confessions against Vice-President, Tareq al-Hashimy and the raising of this issue at the current period may harm the country, its unity and security, including the downfall of the current political process and the security situation, along with harming the political process as well," Sadr said. What's going on? Moqtada only supported Nouri for prime minister when Tehran told him to. Early on, he'd declared he'd abide by the wishes of his followers and they voted in their own poll in the spring of 2010. They rejected Nouri. Dropping back to the April 7, 2010 snapshot for the results of the referendum Moqtada called: Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc won 40 seats in the Parliament. Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) report that Ibrahim al-Jaafari "won 24 percent of the 428,000 ballots cast in the internal referendum, ahead of al-Sadr's second cousin, Jafar Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, who obtained 23 percent, Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said today in the southern city of Najaf." Al Jazeera notes that Nouri al-Maliki received 10% of the vote and Ayad Allawi 9%. The US military invaded Iraq in March 2003 (and still hasn't left). Following the results, Moqtada kept his anti-Nouri stance for months. Has he broken with Nouri? Earlier, he was among those calling for the Erbil Agreement to be followed. After coming in second in the March 2010 elections, Iraq went into eight or so months of Political Stalemate I in which Nouri refused to allow the Constitution to be followed because he was not willing to give up the post of prime minister. Iraq's current crisis didn't just emerge this month, they have deep roots. Today AP observes, "In the week since the last American troops left Iraq, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered an arrest warrant for the country's highest-ranking Sunni official, threatened to exclude the rival sect's main political party from his governmt and warned that 'rivers of blood' would flow if Sunnis seek an autonomous region." Going back to the roots of the current problems . . . Political Stalemate I ended in November of 2010 with the Erbil Agreement hammered out in Erbil between the major political blocs (and the US) whereby every one was supposed to make concessions. The Kurds would get to keep Jalal Talabani as president. They thought they would get three vice presidents. Iraqiya won the elections in March 2010 and the political bloc was headed by Ayad Allawi. Nouri wasn't stepping down and the White House was backing Nouri. For Nouri to remain prime minister, Allawi was promised he would head a new, independent council over security issues. He was also promised that the Iraqiya candidates demonized as Ba'athists and forced out of the 2010 elections by Nouri's friends would have their names cleared. On November 11th, the new Parliament held their first real session. They voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker of Parliament (he was from Iraqiya and that was part of the Erbil Agreement), Jalal was named president and Nouri was named prime minister designate (but we were all informed in the following days that this was 'unofficial' -- once named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days, per the Constitution, to put together a Cabinet and get the Parliament to sign off on each member). But what of the security council? What of clearing the names of the falsely accused? That would come, State of Law insisted, in time. Allawi and a number of Iraqiya members walked out. They should have refused to participate from that day forward. Instead, they foolishly believed promises (from both State of Law and the White House). Nobember 25th, Jalal 'officially' named Nouri prime minister-designate. Nouri had created Political Stalemate I by refusing to surrender the prime minister post. He'd done that for eight months. In that time, he should have had some ideas about a Cabinet. But Nouri's problem was he over-promised to get support. So when it was time to name a Cabinet, suddenly the Cabinet had more ministers and deputy ministers than it had previously (from 37 in 2006 to 42 in 2010). And he still couldn't keep his promises to everyone. December 21, 2010, the Constitution was tossed by the wayside and Nouri was allowed to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister because he'd assembled a kind of Cabinet. He named 31 out of 42 ministers and people pretended that was good enough. He had failed to meet the Constitutional mandate of naming a Cabinet but everyone looked the other way. He refused to name the security posts: National Security, Interior and Defense. His defenders (including the White House) swore those posts would be named in a matter of weeks. His detractors saw the refusal as part of a pattern of power grabs on Nouri's part and stated he wouldn't fill the posts. This is the start of Political Stalemate II. He may now feel it is time for him to become prime minister -- allegedly, for backing Nouri in 2010, Tehran promised to back him (Moqtada) the next go round. Printing ballots and other issues would take at least six weeks. While most would be scrambling during such a short period, Moqtada's group wouldn't be. They demonstrated that when they had millions vote -- they allowed non Sadrists to vote as well if they wanted -- on whether or not Moqtada should back Nouri. They were able to print ballots, count ballots and release a total in an orderly fashion that really drove home the foot dragging of Nouri and company. To have a strong say in Parliament, they'd also have to expand outside of their traditional areas (focusing just on the areas they dominate population wise would result in no more than 40 seats (there are 325 seats in the Parliament). Wolf Blitzer (anchor of CNN's Situation Room) sees Iraq going the way of Yugoslavia, "But with U.S. troops now out of the country, I suspect we could be on the verge of seeing Iraq spiral into civil war. We already have seen a series of terrorist attacks in recent days. My fear is that this will only get worse. The Sunnis clearly don't trust the Shiites, especially Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Some of his recent actions, including an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president, have fueled this fear of a civil war." AFP, however, speaks with the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Iraq, Martin Kobler, who insists that despite "significant security problems," he does "not expect the outbreak of civil war." Whether he expects it or not, violence is garnering attention. Last night Nightline (ABC) featured a report from Iraq. Martha Raddatz: They could be scenes from the height of the US war in Iraq, at least a dozen explosions tearing across Baghdad in the last few days, car bombs and improvised explosive devices targeting schools, markets and today the Interior Ministry leaving more than 60 dead and hundreds wounded. And in halls of power, a different kind of crisis. The Shi'ite dominated government issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President accusing him of ordering attacks on government on government officials and police officers. Thursday's Baghdad bombings resulted in over 70 dead and over 200 injured. The attack on the Ministry of the Interior was Monday and Reuters noted it was a Baghdad suicide car bombing which claimed 7 lives and left thirty-four people injured. Today Reuters notes a Hawija car bombing claiming 2 lives (two more injured) and a Mussayab roadside bombing injuring one Iraqi soldier. The violence has not helped the economy. Iraq is seeing even more inflation and there is concern about the dinar (Iraq's unit of currency). In other financial news, Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) explains, "To understand the economic shambles that is Iraq, look no further than the banking sector. There are no electronic funds transfers for payroll or bills and almost no checking accounts or credit cards. ATMs are few and far between. There are no home improvement loands and few mortgages. For most Iraqis, banks serve only as a safety deposit bank." As Iraq goes into chaos, Barack Obama has to worry. The comparison to Jimmy Carter was apt. (And, again, Elaine made it back in 2007 before anyone. Good call on her part.) It would be even more so if a hostage situation emerged in Iraq (something many believe is possible). But what it really looks like right now, we're on US domestic politics, is Barack's not Jimmy Carter. He's George H.W. Bush. Gallup and all the other meaningless polls gave Bush -- er, Barack a bump in their just released polls. Just like at the end of the Gulf War. Bush couldn't connect with average Americans (patrician, just like Barack) and didn't appear to understand their concerns (ibid) and was stiff (ditto). Now his 'achievement' crumbles. Now Barack finds out that Iraq's really the angry john that's going to slap him in the face with its penis. Why they were ever stupid enough to believe that they could manage what no one else could is a question for the history books. But they truly thought they could turn Iraqi into election fodder. And certainly the media has, yet again, been in the tank for Barry O. As the Iraqi political crisis deepend all last week, ABC World News, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News never said "boo" -- not one word about it, not one word about the arrest warrant Nouri put out on the country's vice president. Not one damn word. (If you're late to the party on that NEWS BLACKOUT, refer to "TV: News on the 'news'" and "ABC, CBS and NBC placed on academic probation" and "How do you spell 'lie'? ABC, CBS and NBC.") And as Americans were kept -- intentionally kept by broadcast commercial news -- from the realities of Iraq, it was feel-good, pump those polls and that approval rating. But as someone who saw the Iraq rise and fall of George H.W. Bush, the 'messaging' seems really familiar and so does the outcome. And what may be most scary is that even the saddest simpleton, watching the last years play out, should have known the chances that Iraq was going to roll over and fetch for you just because you were the president of the United States, those chances were always going to be zero. Because, though still occupied, Iraqis are independent people and they will not be harnessed to serve some foreign country. Their leaders may betray them (as leaders of all countries can do), but the Iraqi people themselves are fiercely independent and will never be a serene backdrop for the ambitions of any foreigner. Again, that should have been obvious to even the most simple minded observer of the last few years. Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy) observes of the political crisis: Besides, it is Bush's fault, the bitter-ender Obamaphiles say, because he saddled Obama with the 2008 framework agreement that set the 2012 troop exit deadline. Of course, to cling to this view requires ignoring that both sides, U.S. and Iraqi, viewed the 2008 agreement as an interim step, one that would be renegotiated after the Iraqi elections to allow for a longer-term U.S. presence. More problematically, it requires ignoring the lengthy but ultimately failed negotiations by Obama-appointed representatives to accomplish just such an extension. So the Obama spin involves a remarkable double twist. Anything favorable that happens in Iraq is due to Obama's courageous decision to end U.S. involvement. Anything unfavorable that happens cannot be blamed on Obama because he had no choice but to do what he did. I have encountered Obama supporters who flip back and forth between these two lines multiple times in one conversation. The only way Barack didn't own Iraq -- and all the tragedy that could end up following -- was to immediately begin withdrawing brigades from Iraq upon being sworn in and to have them all out before the end of 2009. That is what he misled voters into believing was his plan, was his promise. By refusing to do that, by attempting to negotiate a US presence beyond 2011 and by keeping the forces there under Bush's agreement, he bought the Iraq War. And don't forget that negotiations are ongoing on the US troops in Iraq issue. And the current climate really lights a fire under the administration -- especially to get a quick fix on damage control -- to push through some form of an agreement for troops on the ground. If they're going to make a deal they need to announce it quickly -- and they know that -- because the Republicans like John McCain look psychic right now to many paying attention. (The senator is not psychic. Nor is he right but Barack chose to play the game on McCain's court and now he has to put up a defense to hold back McCain.) Turning to radio, on this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- topics explored include Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing, Mumia, and Lynne Stewart. Lynne Stewart is an attorney, grandmother and political prisoner in the United States. There is no law on the books that Lynne broke but she is in prison. Her 'crime'? Allegedly breaking an order -- not a law -- by issuing a press release for a client in the 90s. The Clinton administration reviewed the actions and saw there was no point in prosecuting. Lynne's the people's lawyer, a radical who stands up for the oppressed. You just knew Bully Boy Bush was going to dig back in during his administration and they did. A hearing took place in NYC where they attempted to scare the jury with false 9-11 linkage. Lynne was sentenced to twenty-eight months. The government -- by this time the Barack administration (July 2010), not the Bush administration -- wasn't pleased and had a higher court order the judge to resentence Lynne. She was sentenced to ten years. The 72-year-old political prisoner has now been in prison for two years -- with many medical conditions. Among other things, Lynne has suffered from breast cancer. Excerpt from the broadcast: Michael Ratner: We had Lynn in the seat you're sitting in, I don't know, when was it, two years ago? Ralph Poynter: She has served two years in November. Michael Ratner: Oh my gosh. Ralph Poynter: And she is looking forward to her attorney Herald Fahringer presenting to the court once again testing the law in February, that will be February 29th at Federal Court and we are planning a Occupy the Courtroom -- and Occupy the Park the night before, the 28th through the 29th, the date of her -- not her appearance, the day that there will be a hearing of her case. And she says you take each struggle as it comes. And she has a way of being funny, her spirits are good. She said to me, "Little did I ever think that I would be putting my hopes in the hands of Clarence Thomas." And I say, "Lynne, that is funny, but not in your circumstance." Heidi Boghosian: Right. Ralph, tell us exactly what the lawyer will be asking for. Ralph Poynter: He will be talking about the sentencing. The change from the 28 months to the 120 months. Nothing changed [there was no new hearing on new charges, the jury had already rendered their verdict years prior] and the laws that Judge [John G.] Koeltl used to extend his rationale for extending it was as ridiculous, you might say, as the Weapons of Mass Destruction but they got over with that, so they might get over with these two ridiculous cases that he used. One where they didn't know about a sex offender putting on video of a 10-year-old that he was offending sexually and another one where the government, when the sentence was given, did not know that the person being sentenced had stolen far more money, federal money, than they had imagined. So they used that as an example of being able to extend sentences. Heidi Boghosian: So you're saying those examples don't work at all? Ralph Poynter: They don't work whatsoever. We'll be noting more from the segment this week. More information on Lynne can be found at Justice For Lynne Stewart. Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) is calling for people to write Lynne letters of support (Ralph tells Heidi and Michael that all the letters mean so much to Lynne). And Cindy interviewed Ralph on her radio show here. iraq al mada mustafa habib dar addustour the associated press sinan salaheddin qassim abdul-zahra the washington post stephanie mccrummen npr morning edition kelly mcevers cnn the situation room wolf blitzer abc news nightline martha raddatz dan morse todays zaman omer taspinar wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner al mada

Santa Cookies in the Kitchen

If there is a snapshot on Monday, I'll blog. Otherwise, I won't blog again until Tuesday. I hope everyone has a great weekend. This is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The War on Social Security"

First, a bit of practical advice: If you have never made cookies from scratch, now really isn't the time to try. You can buy cookie dough already made.

If you want to make cookies on Christmas Eve with your kids, I really recommend that.

Otherwise, you're looking at a lot of stress as a first time cookie maker.

In addition to ready made cookie dough in the grocery store, you can also buy Betty Crocker mixes in the same type of sleeves as the instant mashed potatoes now come in. Those are dry mixes that you add liquids to (read the back instructions before you leave the store to be sure you have everything you need to make the batter).

But for those like Estelle who are desperate to disregard my advice . . .

First, do you have a cookie sheet? If not, what are you planning on cooking them on? Can't use a casserole dish. If you have a pizza sheet, you can use that and I sometimes do just because it's on top of my cookie sheets. (We have pizza more than I make cookies. And my family loves to have home made pizza because we make it better than anyone else. By that I mean nutrition wise and taste wise. But we were doing all veggie pizzas when the kids were little. Not in anticipation of a coming fashion but due to the fact that it takes a lot of money to make meat lover pizzas for two parents and eight kids.)

I'm not to waste time with scissor recipes. It takes time to learn to cut cookie dough. So forget that. If you don't have cookie presses forget about shapes like trees, etc.

First up, Haystacks.

Line your cookie sheet with wax paper. In a glass bowl, melt 2 cups of semi-sweet chocolate chips and 2 cups butterscotch chips in the microwave. You do this by cooking on 1 minute, stopping, taking out of the microwave and stirring, back in the microwave for another minute and stirring, etc. You are not trying to make the chocolate bubbly, you're just trying to melt them. When chips are melted, mix in 12 ounces of peanuts and 5 ounces of chow mein noodles (the chow mein noodles are in the store next to the Chinese food). Drop teaspoon fulls of the mixture onto the wax papered cookie sheet. Cover with wax paper and cool in the fridge.

Now . . .

Molasses and Sugar Cookies.
Melt 1 and a half cups Crisco in a large pan on the stove. Allow to cool. Then add 2 cups of white sugar, followed by 2 eggs (yolks and whites) and a half cup of molasses. Beat the mixture with a spoon in firm, quick strokes. (Or use your mixer.) Add 4 cups of all-purpose flour to an empty bowl followed by 1 teaspoon of salt, 1 teaspoon ground giner, 1 teaspoon ground cloves, 2 teaspoons ground cinnamo and 4 teaspoons baking soda. You can stir the ingredients or just sift by shaking the bowl lightly. Add the contents of the bowl to the pan. Stir. Place in the fridge for 3 to 4 hours. Remove from fridge. Roll dough into balls -- about the size of a cherry tomato works best. Roll the balls in sugar. Grease a cookie sheet and preheat oven to 375 degrees. Place cookie balls on the cookie sheet. Bake for 7 to 10 minutes.

Those are two easy cookie recipes.

Again, I strongly suggest you buy prepared cookie dough if you're not used to making cookie dough and plan to make it tonight. It will be much less of a headache.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Friday:

Friday, December 23, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Christmas gets cancelled in Iraq, the Baghdad meet-up gets the axe, Nouri continues to bluster as the political crisis gets deeper, and more. Stealing from Mike to name an idiot of the week: Uma Purushothaman. who writes (Daily Pionner), "One of the ways in which the US has left Iraq a better place is that it has nudged the country towards democracy. The country has had elections and now has an inclusive, elected government." Sorry, Uma, stupidity does not pay (unless you anchor a US commercial, broadcast TV newscast). Iraq held parliamentary elections March 7, 2010. But it does not have an inclusive, elected government. Nouri al-Maliki's slate came in second in those elections, he refused to surrender the post of prime minister, the US backed him in that and he retained the office despite the will of the people, the election results and the country's Constitution. Sorry, Uma, stupidity isn't pretty. And for those late to the party on that, we'll ape Mike and quote this from the Independent of London editorial: "The deal Washington did between the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sections of the Iraqi population was always uneasy. The danger of its fragmenting, now that the nine-year US and Shia have each been quick to blame the other. Either way, it is clear that there are strong forces in the country who have been waiting for this moment to make their move to achieve supremacy." Or you can refer to Ruth, "Because the White House screwed over Iraqiya before. That is who the reporters mean by 'Sunni Muslim minority,' by the way. And, no, Iraqiya is not 'Sunni.' It is a mixture of Sunni and Shia and others as well. They are a non-sectarian slate and are headed by (Shi'ite) Ayad Allawi. Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections so Mr. Allawi should have been given first crack at forming a government as prime minister designate. If he had been successful at forming a government within 30 days, then he would have moved from prime minister designate to prime minister." And your first hint that there's no democracy in Iraq, or foundation for it, people don't elect exiles, they elect their own. But, as Marcia has pointed out, the US-created government in Iraq is one of exiles (including Nouri). Yesterday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings. All week long, ABC, CBS and NBC have chosen to ignore Iraq in the nightly news casts. This despite the fact that Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and thug, has sworn out an arrest warrant on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. This despite the fact that al-Hashemi went to the KRG to meet with officials there and now remains there for his own protection. This despite the fact that Nouri is also attempting to strip Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq of his office (and immunity). This despite both men are members of Iraqiya -- the political slate which won more votes than did Nouri's State of Law -- and both men are Sunni. When they finally addressed Iraq last night, all three chose not to inform their viewers of anything that Nouri's done and focus on the bombings only. What commercial broadcast TV wouldn't do, public radio did. On the second hour of today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane and her guests Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy), Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera) and David E. Sanger (New York Times) discussed Iraq. Excerpt. Susan Glasser: If you look at the political instability racking Iraq -- Diane Rehm: Exactly. Susan Glasser: -- literally hours and days after the last American troop left and you can see what the scenario is going to look like potentially in Afghanistan, in a place where the threats could be even more directly to US interests. Diane Rehm: Do we know who's responsible for the worst day of violence that Iraq has seen in more than a year? Do we know who committed those acts. Susan Glasser: Well you know you immediately, as in Syria, saw claims from the government that this was al Qaeda related. And remember, this is in the context -- as David pointed out -- of the widening sort of sectarian violence that has been and will be the context for the political fight that's playing out over who controls Iraq. Remember that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who has now gone after Iraq's sitting vice president who is a Sunni, you have the rise of this Shi'ite majority in Iraq and I think that is the context of the political struggle taking place. Diane Rehm: So how fragile is Iraq's government right now? Abderrahim Foukara: It seems to me extremely fragile. It seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that when the US was there, people were saying the-the situation currently is what it is because US presence -- because of US presence. Now that you don't have that US presence, a lot of people are going back and saying US presence was actually the cement that was keeping superficially somewhat Iraq together. Now that the US is out, it seems that you have to hark back to what happened the time of the surge when the Sunnis in Anbar Province -- who were actually by the way have been the most vocal in celebrating the departure of US troops. You had the Arab "Awakenings" [Sahwa] there, you had the Arab tribes there, working with the US government at that time to fight al Qaeda. And everybody at that time was saying, 'Okay, the surge has worked. But it has also given various parties in Iraq time to actually reassemble their strength and once the US is out, you are going to see a surge of the violence including the sectarian violence. So right now, Iraq looks -- Diane Rehm and Abderrahim Foukara (together): -- very fragile. Diane Rehm: And do you see that fragility really turning back into what could be described as civil war? Susan Glasser: You know I think that has to be a real possibility. As we're talking, I'm thinking about this conversation merging Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't help think of what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and what you had was first a political crisis and many thought that [Mohammed] Najibullah, who was the Soviet-installed ruler of Afghanistan, wouldn't last out the year. He managed to but at the cost of literally a sort of cycle of violence that the country has not gotten out of yet and of course ultimately with his body being dragged through the streets. And you know, these scenarios are very real. [. . .] Abderrahim Foukara: Just wanting to go back to Iraq and the possibility of specter of civil war. Yes, that's one possible scenario. The other possible scenario -- and remember that when Saddam [Hussein, former president of Iraq] was in power, one of the main pieces of rationale that he gave for being the tough guy, dictator that he was is that Iraq could only work if it had a tough guy leading it. And I think the other scenario that we could be looking at now is Maliki turning into that tough guy to hold Iraq together which would be goodbye to any talk or any hope of a democratic Iraq even in -- even in the long future. And I think Maliki has so far shown all the signs that he wants to be another Saddam of a kind. Whether he will actually be forced to go all the way there, we don't know. But he's showing signs of that. Susan Glasser: Well, you know, in fact, that's exactly what the political opposition to him is calling him already: The Shi'ite Saddam. We had an interview this week with Vice President Hashemi who is now seeking refuge in Kurdistan in order not to be arrested by -- by supposedly his partner in the government and that's exactly what he said. He said not only is Maliki turning into Saddam but he was making the case, and it shows you how inflammatory the rhetoric has become, he said, "Well actually Maliki's worse than Saddam," you know, in this interview with us because Saddam brought this stability. But I have to say, take this with a grain of salt, right? This is what every tough guy says in order to justify his dictatorship. Remember, I'm thinking about Russia and what is it that Vladmir Putin said a dozen years ago when he came to power? He said, 'Well, it's time for us to restore stability, we need to have a strong hand again to govern Russia. It's the only way to keep the state intact..' Before we move further, a few things to note. Twice this week, we quoted from Deborah Amos' "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010," Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center. Deborah Amos is with NPR and the author of one of 2010's important books Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East which I wished we linked to. (One day we did and there wasn't room. Also a similar note was supposed to go in yesterday's snapshot but was cut for space.) Second, Wednesday's snapshot included: "In other news, Arwa Damon and Wolf Blitzer (CNN) report that, yes, indeed, CIA Director David Petraeus was just in Iraq." What rumors, a few e-mails asked? Since it was in the first paragraph (after the introduction) of Tuesday's snapshot: How bad are things in Iraq right now? Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) notes a rumor, "The reported appearance of CIA director David Patraeus at a meeting of Iraqiyya yesterday seems somewhat extraordinary. If true, it could be indicative of how Washington sees the situation in Iraq after the withdrawal. Critics will claim that after two years dominated by Joe Biden diplomacy, it is perhaps somewhat late in the day to begin sending competent special envoys to Iraq." The rumor may have truth to it, it may be completely false. But its very existence, it merely being uttered goes to just how out of control things are in Iraq. Reidar Visser had first reported the rumors that were confirmed the following day. On yesterday's bombing, Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explain: Sirens wailed, smoke billowed and blood pooled on the pavement. The scenes of devastation were all too familiar after more than a dozen explosions ripped through the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing at least 60 people and injuring nearly 200, just days after the last U.S. troops left the country. [. . .] By nightfall, fear gripped the city and some residents were already talking about the need to arm themselves again. Sean Carberry reported on the issues for All Things Considered (NPR -- link is text and audio) yesterday: CARBERRY: Ahmed Mahdi is a 22-year-old who's selling chickpeas from a cart outside the cafe. He says the explosions were the result of the political crisis that erupted last weekend just as the last American convoy was packing to leave. Word came out of an arrest warrant against the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi. The government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused Hashemi of running assassination squads that have killed political and military officials. MAHDI: (Foreign language spoken) CARBERRY: Ahmed Mahdi believes that supporters of the embattled Sunni politicians carried out the bombings. Sectarianism has been on the rise and there's fear that things may be reaching critical mass. Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Civil Society Forum (CSF) shouldered Iraqi politicians and the three presidencies the responsibility of the bloody explosion which hit Baghdad yesterday. CFS regarded these explosions as a reflection of the failure of Iraqi politicans, following US forces withdrawal." As Susan Glasser noted on Diane's program today, Foreign Policy has an interview with Tareq al-Hashemi conducted by Uri Friedman: Hashemi has vehemently denied the charges against him, arguing that they are politically motivated and yet another effort by Maliki to consolidate power. When asked if Maliki has become a Saddam-like figure since assuming power in 2006, as fellow Iraqiya leaders Saleh al-Mutlak and Iyad Allawi have suggested, Hashemi noted that "many of Saddam's behaviors are now being exercised by Maliki unfortunately." But he added that Saddam rebuilt Iraq in six months after the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War in the early 1990s. In contrast, under Maliki's leadership, Hashemi pointed out, the consulting firm Mercer ranked Baghdad the worst city in the world in terms of quality of life. That isn't saying Nouri is worse than Saddam. There is nothing in the interview that meets that claim and Susan Glasser must have been confused. However, those saying he is worse have many reasons to say so. Though Diane Rehm laughed at the thought of Nouri as worse than Hussein, it's not off-base. When Saddam Hussein had US support (as Nouri does), Saddam wasn't repeatedly exposed as a torturer publicly. What Saddam early on had to do in secret, Nouri's done as the world watches. That's only one way that Nouri is worse than Saddam. Many groups can claim a better life under Saddam (and have, check the public record) than under Nouri. Those include Iraqi Jews which can now be counted on only two hands, Palestinians in Iraq, women in Iraq, and many more groups. Back to the interview of Tareq al-Hashemi: "Now everything is in his hands: the ministry of defense, the ministry of the interior, intelligence, national security," Hashemi claimed. He wants his case transferred to Kurdistan because he doesn't think Iraq's judicial system is independent. Instead of judiciary authorities responding to his appeal, the vice president notes, Maliki himself shot down the request during his press conference yesterday, calling instead for Kurdish officials to hand over Hashemi. "The judicial system is really in his pocket," Hashemi argued. When asked if Maliki is also in Iran's pocket, Hashemi responded that the prime minister "is very close to Iran" and that Iraqiya's Allawi -- not Maliki -- would be prime minister now if not for the "interference of Iran." When Iraqi leaders agreed to a power-sharing deal last year, Hashemi said, "Iran actively supported Maliki, and we discovered in due course that the United States also supported Maliki. Whether this was a coincidence or deliberate or behind-the-scenes coordination I don't know. But this is what happened." Hashemi says he had a brief telephone conversation with U.S. ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey when the American diplomat cut short his holiday vacation and rushed back to Baghdad to help resolve the current standoff. "I asked him to do his best and try to reach some sort of compromises and try to accommodate this crisis," Hashemi explained. "He promised me to do his utmost and talk to Maliki." Hashemi says Ambassador Jeffrey also suggested that he would come and meet with the vice president in person, though this has yet to happen. So that's Jeffrey, US Vice President Joe Biden, CIA Director David Petraeus and General Ray Odierno that have all been attempting to aid in solving the crisis. Geoff Dyer and Borou Daragahi (Financial Times of London) note that while these people are attempting contact, it is the huge number of employees of the US State Dept's Iraq branch (militarized) that the White House is pinning their hopes on. Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Ahrar bloc MP described the statements of US vice-president Joe Biden on Hashimi's case as 'an avowed intervention in Iraqi internal affairs'." The Wheeling Intelligencer editorializes that the US government better have a plan for Americans who will remain in Iraq, "But as we have pointed out, many Americans remain in harm's way there. About 16,000 diplomats, contractors and security personnel remain in Iraq. At some point, anti-American terrorists probably will target them." Rebecca Santana (AP) interviews al-Hashemi today and quotes him stating, "Definitely, he [Nouri] is going to concentrate on the Sunni community because they are the society, the community of Tariq al-Hashemi so they are going to suffer. He is trying to escalate the tension, making life very, very difficult for our provinces, to our people. [. . .] He doesn't believe in compromises. He doesn't believe in peaceful solutions to the problems. He's going to use the Iraqi army and the security for more repression." Ghazwan Hassan (Reuters) reports that protests took place in Baiji, Ramadi, Samarra and Qaim today against Nouri al-Maliki and his targeting of Sunnis while Aswat al-Iraq notes 500 people gathered in Baghdad's Tahir Square "calling to hadn over vice-president Tarqi al-Hashimi to justice." No reports of attacks, of course, because when Nouri sends his employees to Tahrir Square, they aren't treated the way real protesters are. Real protesters are beaten up by the police, kidnapped, tortured. Nouri's employees are encouraged to protest and are rewarded for it. Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports Nouri is calling for the US to turn over tools of destruction to him quickly citing yesterday's bmbings as one reason. Another reason would be his ability to target enemies more quickly and deadly with such tools. While Nouri's paid employees demand Tareq al-Hashemi be returned to Baghdad, Al Mada reports that Parliament is stating that the law is not clear on this issue. Nouri has stated, "Kurdistan has to hand over the wanted. The abstention of handing Hashemi or allowing him to escape will only cause problems," Maliki stressed adding that Kurdistan should not contribute to the escape of wanted." Last night, Trina shared her opinion that Tareq al-Hashemi could not get a fair trial in Baghdad. Stan's also expressed his doubt on that this week when he noted "Dan Morse ('Washington Post') reports, 'Tariq al-Hashimi said he was ready to stand trial, but only in the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, the area to which he has fled. His statement raised the possibility of the Kurds being dragged into the political battle that has broken out between Shiite and Sunni factions of the country's central government'.'' Again, Iraqi lawmakers say the law is unclear on that point. As Ann noted last night, the Kurds are less covered in this political crisis and she noted this from Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal): The Kurds, mostly Sunni Muslims who are ethnically distinct from the Arabs who dominate the rest of Iraq, find themselves once more in the position of exploiting sectarian divisions among Arabs. The Kurds also have a stake in the political conflict. They seek to maintain, and expand, their virtual state-within-a-state in northern Iraq, which they have built largely beyond the central government's control. Both sides have long been at loggerheads over a law that would govern how oil revenues are to be shared in the country. U.S. officials have pressed Iraqi leaders to overcome their differences. On Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden called Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to offer support for his efforts to foster dialogue, the White House said. Al Rafidayn reports that the scheduled meet-up of the political blocs in Baghdad today to address these issues was cancelled. In other news, Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Archbishop of Chaldeans in Kirkuk and Sulaymaniah Louis Sako announced, on Wednesday, that Christians in Kirkuk decided to mark the season of Christmas in church masses and cancel Christmas celebrations due to Iraq's crisis and the continuous targeting of Christians." Peter Wilson (The Australian) reports: Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 70 per cent of Iraq's Christians have fled their homes since the 2003 invasion. Statistics are unreliable but the Christian population is believed to have crashed from about 1.4 million to less than 500,000, with many of those who are still in the country having sought refuge in Christian-heavy parts of Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Mr [Ra'ad] Emmanuel [head of the Iraqi Christian Endowment] said the southern city of Basra had been virtually abandoned by Christians and there had been repeated church bombings, kidnaps and assassinations in Baghdad. Early this week, several Christian teenagers wandered quietly inside the gutted church of Our Lady of Salvation in central Baghdad, shaking their heads at the hundreds of bullet holes left by a massacre in November last year. Aid to the Church in Need quotes the Archbishop of Kirkuk, Louis Sako, stating, "Midnight Christmas Mass has been cancelled in Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk as a consequence of the never-ending assassinations of Christians and the attack against Our Lady of Perpetual Help Cathedral on 31st October, which killed 57 people." Yesterday's Baghdad bombings are also impacting the way people feel in terms of safety. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) notes the claims that Iraq could take care of its internal security now ring hollow to some Iraqi Christians and quotes Slvan Youhanna Matti -- whose sons have already sought shelter in Belgium, Lebanon and Sweden -- stating, "I am only staying in Kirkuk temporarily -- I am waiting to leave at any second. Christians who are leaving Baghdad for Kirkuk or Kurdistan consider those places just temporary stops before they leave for good. The future is unknown, and sectarian and religious conflict hurts our confidence in the situation, especially after the US departure." Barack declared 'progress' and praised thug Nouri. This is progress? Someone needs to ask Barack Obama exactly how Iraqi Christians not being able to publicly observe their faith's holiest day qualifies as progress? While the evening newscasts on broadcast, commercial TV ignored the political crisis in Iraq, PBS' The NewsHour covered Iraq with two segments on Tuesday (here and here), in the news wrap on Wednesday, an ITN report by Inigo Gilmore Thursday covering the bombings and Jeffrey Brown moderated a discussion of whether or not the US should have remained in Iraq. Former NSC-er Meghan O'Sullivan supported a longer stay while former Air Force officer John Mearsheimer didn't. (All NewsHour segments are text, audio and video.) Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The War on Social Security" went up today and we'll close with this from Helen Thomas' "Iraq War Ends, But Questions Remain" (Falls Church News-Press): Obama, who followed Bush in the White House, had one chance to pull out of Iraq the day after he took over the presidency. At that time, he was very popular and he could have moved boldly to end the wars. Instead, he chose a losing policy. The war toll for American servicemembers includes 4,700 dead and tens of thousands wounded. The American people have been passive to fact that thousands of men and women who have gone half way around the world to fight Iraqis - none of whom were involved in the 9-11 attacks. Hussein was anathema to the United States and Israel, who targeted him as public enemy number one. Following Israel's footsteps, we have now turned our attention to Iran and its plans to become a nuclear power. The financial cost of the war is estimated to be somewhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion. We are leaving Iraq not with a bang but a whimper. iraq npr the diane rehm show deborah amos the los angeles times raheem salman alexandra zavis alsumaria tv the australian peter wilson aid to the church in need afp marwan ibrahim al mada alsumaria tv the wall st. journal sam dagher the associated press rebecca santana al rafidayn helen thomas falls church news-press