The Haunting

Halloween is Monday. One of my favorite holidays. I give out tons of candy and also decorate the house (inside and outside) and just have a blast.

I have a new crop of grandchildren (Eli being the youngest) that end at ten (my first wave are all either in college or high school seniors now) and so that makes it even more fun.

I like scary movies and I always hope a remake will be better but they so rarely are. I hated The Astronaut's Wife, for example, with Charlize Theron and Johnny Depp because it ripped so much off from Rosemary's Baby (a modern day classic). I like the actors, just hated the script.

Over a decade ago, I went to the movies with my husband to see a remake we hoped we would love. Catherine Zeta Jones was in it, so he was pretty sure he was going to love it regardless. And he enjoyed it but loved the original better. I hated the 1999 film but loved the original starring Julie Harris.

Julie Harris is a really amazing actress. She lacked the whatever to be a conventional female lead (maybe she had too much talent for that) but when she had a lead she usually ran with it. She starred opposite James Dean in East of Eden and she's famous for playing pre-teen Frankie in A Member of the Wedding.

But what studios should have done, if they gave a damn, was cast Ms. Harris in the scary movies. She is perfect for them and The Haunting is a wonderful film. It all figures around her performance and I think that's part of the problem with the remake. Lili Taylor is a powerful actress but the script (remake) seemed to add on too much for the other characters while taking away from Ms. Taylor's character.

The premise of the film is that Julie Harris and three others go to a house to investigate whether or not it is haunted. I would recommend you pop some popcorn, get your beverage in a 32 ounce cup, and prepare to sit in front of the TV without moving until the end of the film.



This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" from today:

Thursday, October 27, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, 18 dead in Baghdad from 2 bombings alone, Nouri's crackdown continues, a province wants independence, we look at the GOP candidates with regards to Iraq, and more. We were going to avoid the GOP and their statements on the 'end' of the Iraq War because it hasn't ended. We're not big on false impressions but we're also not big on the people promoting false impressions. As long ago noted, VoteVets is a Democratic Party organ. That's all it is. Ashwin Madia is the perfect fake face for a fake group. Madia shows up at Huffington Post to survey statements on the Iraq War by the GOP presidential contenders and deem all crazy and stupid. He ignores Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul. Reminder: All the people he quotes buy the notion that the Iraq War is ending. That's not reality. And "all" include Madia. We'll start at the end of his list with Herman Cain. "I can't for the life of me understand why you'd tell the enemy what you're going to do and when you're going to do it. That's just not common sense, I'm sorry." I have no idea there and will say Madia probably made the right call based on the fact that that's the entire quote from the original news report. As reported, Cain's remark makes no sense. (Again, that may be due to his not being quoted in full.) Michele Bachmann: "And while we're on the way out, we're being kicked out by the very people that we liberated . . . And to think that we are so disrespected and they -- they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this." That's from Face The Nation (CBS). Here Madia plays people for fools. He tells you what Bachman 'means' when he could have quoted her in full (instead of using elipses). Madia argues elsewhere in the piece about the "power" of Moqtada al-Sadr. If Madia believes he has all that power, then it's not a huge leap to feel that he has "so little fear" that the US is being disrespected. I could make a joke here about Bachmann but won't. Instead, I'll note that her opinion isn't uncommon in America. Madia lumps Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum together because they both speak of how Iran has allegedly increased power. Madia wants to insist that was always the case. Well if that's the case, then the two candidates would be correct. Mitt Romeny's called Barack's claims an "astonishing failure" because he didn't secure an agreement to continue the occupation. Rick Perry also feels things are being risked by Barack's claims and argues "The President was slow to engage the Iraqis and there's little evidence today's decision is based on advice from military commanders." Let's deal with Perry first. Perry's lying or stupid because of that statement? Seems like Perry's statement is an awful lot like Roy Gumtan's "Did Obama engage as U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered?" (McClatchy Newspapers). White House response to the article is here. (I have not commented on either the story or the White House response.) So if Perry's wrong, so is McClatchy. Now for Mitt Romney. His long quote ends with, "The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq." Madia huffs, "Rick Perry and Mitt Romney seem to take the position that withdrawal is a diplomatic failure that contradicts the advice of military commanders. As an aside, neither Romeny nor Perry have offered any evidence that our military commanders want an indefinite presence in Iraq." Seem to take the position? That is their position. Offer proof? Well they could go with the open testimony Senator John McCain has put on the record in hearings. But in terms of what the military in Iraq wanted, we don't know because our government refuses to tell us. Ava reported on the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations hearing October 12 at Trina's site. Here's the key exchange: Chair Jason Chaffetz: Ambassador Vershbos, let's talk about the number of US troops, what the Iraqis are requesting or authorizing. How many is the president authorizing? Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Mr. Chairman, no decisions have been made, uh. Discussions are still ongoing, uh. On the nature of the relationship from which would be derived any -- Chair Jason Chaffetz: So the number of 3,000 to 4,000 troops that we here, is that accurate or inaccurate? Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: As I said, there's a lot of things going on in these discussions which predate the announcement of October 4 when the Iraqi leaders took the position they're taking regarding no immunities so obviously the discussions now have taken on a different dimension so beyond-beyond that I really can't say because nothing's been decided. The shape of the relationship will be determined in part by how this issue of status protection is-is addressed. So it's a work in progress. Even as we speak discussions are taking place between our ambassador [James Jeffrey], uh, the commander General Austin, and Iraqi leaders. So it's really difficult to give you more than that today. Chair Jason Chaffetz: Now there was a report that General Austin had asked for between fourteen and eighteen thousand troops. Is that true? Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Again, I-I can't comment on internal deliberations. A lot of different ideas have been Chair Jason Chaffetz: Wait a second, wait a second -- Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: --tossed around in the last few Chair Jason Chaffetz: -- do you know what the actual request was? Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: Uh -- the military leadership was asked to provide a range of options and they've done that and that was the basis on which we engaged the Iraqis and now the discu -- Chair Jason Chaffetz: Do you know what General Austin requested? Ambassador Alexander Vershbos: I can't talk about that in an open session, Mr. Chairman. It's classified. Why is it classified? Hmm. Jon Huntsman was ignored in the article. This is the statement he issued in response to Barack's speech: On the occasion of the announcement that U.S. forces will withdraw completely from Iraq by the end of the year, we should take a moment to reflect on the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We are forever grateful for their service to America, and are eager to welcome our troops home. President Obama's decision, however, to not leave a small, focused presence in Iraq is a mistake and the product of his administration's failures. The president's inability to reach a security agreement leaves Iraq vulnerable to backsliding, thus putting our interests in the region at risk. An ideal arrangement would have left a small troop presence that could have assisted with the training of Iraqi security forces and vital counter-terror efforts. Before we go further, you can support the Iraq War and want it to on longer, you can be opposed to it (at the start or at any time) and feel that it needs to continue, there are many, many options. We were always kind to Thomas E. Ricks about his opinion which was the war was a mistake but that if the US left it would cause turmoil and violence so the US needed to stay. It is very likely that the US departure -- today, tomorrow, whenever -- will see turmoil and violence. Our take is that it's a puppet government put in place, a number of exiles put in charge of Iraqis, and that when the US is no longer able to prop it up, the Iraqi people may well try to take it down and replace it with real representatives. When an occupying power leaves a country, there's always the chance of violence or revolt. But our take is that day comes whenever the US leaves and staying isn't going to change that. While we were kind to Thomas E. Ricks, he was attacking one person after another -- what a great speaking tour he must have had! -- for insisting (rightly in my opinion) that the US needed to leave Iraq. He lacks the ability to see beyond his point of view. I'm not sure whether Ashwin Madia lacks the ability or if he doesn't care to utilize it because he's having so much fun with his tribalism. But there are any number of sincere reasons for feeling Barack's 'end' is wrong. (Sincere doesn't mean 'right.' We have opposed the illegal war from the start here.) 1) Prestige. This is what Michele Bachmann is most likely getting at. Barack's end has no prestige and, yes, may project weakness on the world stage. Bully Boy Bush was a mad dog on the world stage and while it can be demonstrated that his actions and behaviors harmed goodwill towards the US and actually made the United States less safe, it's also true that his nutty behavior, his instability, may well have prevented attacks on the US. My opinion: The illegal war was always going to be a failure due to the lies needed to support it and continue it. The only way you save your country from mass embarrassment is by having the honesty to tell the truth when you do end a war like that. Barack isn't really ending the Iraq War so his speech based on lies was never going to acknowledge how wrong and illegal the Iraq War was. 2) Iraqis. You can be concerned what happens to Iraqis who were collaborators with foreign powers, you can be concerned with Iraq's LGBT community which has long been targeted, you can be concerned with Iraqi Christians or any religious or ethnic minority, you can be concerned with how Sunni and Shi'ite engage . . . There are any number of humanitarian reasons a person might have to argue against what Barack presented in his speech. 3) The US did not win. That's very difficult for a number of Americans to deal with. Any politician reflecting that same denial will most likely pick up a number of votes -- how many, I don't know, but those people exist. For these people the war was a sports event that did not play out until the end but got halted due to rain. This is the group that will spend years arguing that the US could have won but that the government forces the troops to fight with their hands tied and that if the US had the 'guts' to use nukes or whatever else, the war would have been won. This group will never, ever admit that the Iraq War was illegal or toy with the concept of just wars. For some, they can't see beyond the immediate so logical avenues are closed. For others, there's a belief that their country must always be number one, must always be victorious, must always be right. (And I'm sure there are other groupings in that as well. There were among the Vietnam revisionaries as well. Peter Hart's calling out a stepping stone to revisionary history in this critique of Richard Engel.) 4) I thought you were getting lunch. The American people were lied to and told the war would pay for itself. It will cost over $6 billion dollars, probably more like $15 billion when all the costs are in (that includes caring for wounded veterans). Some people, not all, sit down at the table and order up something, love it while they're eating it and then when the bill shows up, uh-oh, that's suddenly too much money to spend. Having spent billions and billions with nothing to show for it, some Americans, experiencing buyer's remorse, are going to feel, "Wait, can we stay there long enough to figure out how our country benefits from this." 5) Iran I don't put a great deal of weigh into Iran is now tight with Iraq!!!! A lot of people do. The US military, the White House, etc. That GOP presidential candidates worry about this is not surprising. The Bush Administration and Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) encouraged the country to worry about Iran incessantly. (And Barack's administration has encouraged that.) Iran tops the 'enemies list' largely due to the fact that, of all the White House's enemies, the country's leader is youngish and apparently healthy (contrast that with other popular White House targets such as Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea). The reason the Cold War lasted so long was because so many Americans were willing to buy into it. I don't think human behavior has changed a great deal in 40 or so years nor do I believe that we had, on a national level, an honest reflection that allowed us to see as a people how misguided the Cold War was. Meaning those feelings are still out there and a politican can tap into them very easily. (I'm not accusing any of the politicians listed above of being insincere. I don't know any of them, I'll assume all are sincere.) Why don't I think Iran's a big area of concern? I could be wrong, I often am. But you've got still unsettled borders and you've got water issues. Those are problems for any two neighbors. When you add in that the Iranian regime is seen as more repressive than most Iraqis would want, there's another problem. (Both the 2009 provincial elections and the 2010 parliamentary elections can be seen as a rejection of fundamentalism and sectarianism and as a desire for a national identity.) In addition, you have past conflicts with Iran. At present, I think Iran and Iraq sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g is a fear related belief and not a reality based analysis. I could be wrong or events could change the way the countries interact. We're not horse race central. I'm not interested in the US presidential election (vote for who you want or don't vote, I don't care, there's no litmus test here). I had avoided the Republican presidential contenders comments because the Iraq War's not ending. But now that they're being cherry-picked and slammed for their comments, we've weighed in once and that's it. But I'm really tired of it and if we weren't taking on media beggars in our piece Sunday, Ava and I would be taking on a certain comedic 'genius' who is yet again be looking with the facts. Not all seeking the GOP presidential nomination fell for Barack's spin. As noted before, Mary Stegmeir (Des Moines Register) reported US House Rep Ron Paul told a town hall over the weekend that the US isn't walking out of Iraq anytime soon, "I predict we will be very, very much involved in Iraq. I think it will be unstable for a long time to come, and we will continue to spend a lot of money in Iraq." Matched up against Barack Obama, he would be able to claim that, he, unlike Barack, never voted to continue the war. While Barack arrived in the Senate to late to vote on the 2002 authorization (Ron Paul voted against it), Barack did manage to vote to continue the Iraq War over and over and over. Ron Paul's also called for the US to leave Afghanistan. He's opposed Barack's illegal Libyan War. Barack's a War Hawk. At present, of those seeking the presidential office, Ron Paul's the only one with a voting record that demonstrates he is not a War Hawk. Since political races in the US are generally about little else besides money, let's stay with the topic of big bucks. Charley Keyes (CNN) reports, "The mystery of $6 billion that seemed to go missing in the early days of the Iraq war has been resolved according to a new report." Keyes is referring to a new report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction entitled [PDF format warning] "Development Fund For Iraq: The Coalition Provisional Authority Transferred Control Over Most Of The Remaining DFI Funds To The Central Bank Of Iraq." Table 1 explains where the money being addressed came from -- most from "Proceeds from Oil Exports" ($11,362,662,000) with "Oil for Food" being the second biggest source ($8,100,000,000). Tony Capaccio and David Lerman (Bloomberg News) add that the $6.6 billion earlier said to have been lost is not lost and was not lost. Really because that's kind of one-side reporting. Yes, the SIGIR did assert that $6.6 billion was missing months ago but the government in Baghdad had an official response and that's really not noted in the US coverage today. From the June 22nd snapshot: Today Al Mada reports that Parliament's Integrity Commission has officially notified the United Nations in writing that they would like their assistance in finding out what has happened to the $17 billion they saw was lost in reconstruction funds (the money is Iraqi money from the oil-for-food program). The article reminds that the Development Fund was set up by the UN and overseen by L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. In another article, Al Mada quotes Integrity Committee member Jawad Alshahyla stating that the $17 billion is a preliminary number and it may increase as a result of additional information. He also states that prior to contacting the UN, they had notified Nouri al-Maliki's office and the Ministry of Finance. Dar Addustour notes that the original figure -- provided by the US -- was $6 billion and says that it's urgent the money is found -- possibly due to the fact that Iraq's 2012 budget has a shortfall of at least $12 billion dollars (they budgeted close to $100 billion for 2012 and are set to be short at least $12 billion). Last week, Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) reported that $6 billion was missing in food-for-oil money that was supposed to have been used for reconstruction. Mu Xuequan (mu) points out that even if the money did end up stolen, "the CPA issued an order granting immunity to the U.S. personnel and institutions working in Iraq after the 2003 invasion." Sunday Al Jazeera reported (link has text and video), "Osama al-Nujaifi, the Iraqi parliament speaker, has told Al Jazeera that the amount of Iraqi money unaccounted for by the US is $18.7bn - three times more than the reported $6.6bn. Just before departing for a visit to the US, al-Nujaifi said that he has received a report this week based on information from US and Iraqi auditors that the amount of money withdrawn from a fund from Iraqi oil proceeds, but unaccounted for, is much more than the $6.6bn reported missing last week." AFP notes Osama al-Nujaifi intends to raise the issue while visting DC this week. AP notes al-Nujaifi has a meeting schelued with US Vice President Joe Biden today. Eamon Javers (CNBC) adds, "The New York Fed is refusing to tell investigators how many billions of dollars it shipped to Iraq during the early days of the US invasion there, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction told CNBC Tuesday. The Fed's lack of disclosure is making it difficult for the inspector general to follow the paper trail of billions of dollars that went missing in the chaotic rush to finance the Iraq occupation, and to determine how much of that money was stolen." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) explains, "The Federal Reserve claims that since the account was from the Oil for Food account the SIGR is not entitled to know anything about the account. Fed officials said they would continue to cooperate in the investigation, without disclosing what appears to be the only useful information they might have." And while US outlets are running with the lowest figure, in Iraq they remember. Dar Addustour notes the amoung was $17 billion and then that a 'decree' has been issued in the US that the lost money is found but where is the "documentations to support that the money was disbursed" and they point out that the US has "acquitted its own leaders" while questions remain. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) has questions about all the Iraq money the Federal Reserve had and has: The issue of the tens of billions of dollars -- at least that portion of the total which has been made public -- being sent to Iraq for what the US and Iraqi governments call reconstruction and then being lost, stolen, unaccounted for, etc. is indeed a criminal level of recklessness and negligence. But another aspect of these shady giveaways is perhaps more fundamental. At the beginning of the Iraq War, the US government secretly commissioned the New York Federal Reserve to create money in order to covertly fund the war and the newly-crafted client regime in Iraq. The American people were not informed, Congress was in the dark, and the total amounts and the beneficiaries involved are to this day being kept secret. This clandestine collaboration of unaccountable public-private institutions colluding to facilitate warfare and secure profits in the process understandably leads to questions of the legitimacy of these institutions. The Federal Reserve system has long been tied to the most egregious genre of violence perpetrated by the state, that is war. Yet hardly any support in Congress exists to impose restrictions and accountability on the Federal Reserve, and the institution itself seems entrenched beyond the grip of those most affected by its policies. Both Americans, and Iraqis. "President Barack Obama said last week that American troops will empty out of Iraq by New Years 2012," Russia Today noted yesterday. "That doesn't mean, however, that the United States' presence will vanish completely." They then note that the CIA will remain in Iraq and: National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor added yesterday that the talks between the militaries of the two nations will discuss how to implement a strong security in Iraq "that meets our mutual interests." He notes that tactical exercises and "regular coordination" might be on the table, but that US forces will not be permanently based in Iraq. That decision comes, however, after the United States has invested around $2.4 billion in posts in Iraq, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. Currently the US embassy in Baghdad is home to 1,000 civilian officials and troops over the course of 21 buildings in 100 acres. "This American embassy is massive," former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts tells RT. "It's still there. It's huge. There is nothing like it on the face of the earth. It must have some purpose. So we can't really say that the Americans are not going to continue to control Iraq from behind the scenes." Still on the topic of reality, Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Global Research) explain: Even without the presence of U.S. troops, America's footprint in Iraq is immense. In addition to the fortress near the site of Saddam Hussein's palace, two additional, $100 million buildings are slated to be built outside Baghdad as mini-embassies in the north and south of Iraq. Iraqis know that U.S. troops acting as trainers will still be in Iraq, both as a permanent presence of less than 200 and as an undetermined presence of U.S. troops permanently stationed in neighboring countries. In addition to these troops and embassy personnel, a large and robust force of CIA agents are presumed to be on the ground. As one of the largest contingencies of foreign personnel in any sovereign nation, it is no surprise that Iraqis refused to bargain away their right to enforce their own laws by giving our troops immunity from prosecution. The use of a huge personnel force, with a large number of private contractors, has even stoked the ire of some Republicans. Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, in a recent letter to President Obama expressed his dismay at the drastic increase of contractors as a private army in Iraq. "The American people have a right to know the past, present and future status of private security contractors in these regions," Mr. Issa wrote. Taken a step further, the American people have a right to know that our stated withdrawal is far from a true withdrawal of our presence from Iraq. And Sam Biddle (Gizmodo) raises important issues with regards to the CIA and drones as he speaks to Global Security's John Pike: "UAVs provide a persistent surveillance capability that satellites do not," Pike explains, giving the government more reason to keep them flying over Baghdad long after american soldiers have been shipped home. The war on terror is indefinite and sprawling, with every inch of the globe a potential target. The near future of Iraq -- especially post-occupation --will be a shaky one. The CIA doesn't want shaky futures. "Any area where we feel the government doesn't have effective control of its territory, and [it] can't be solved via law enforcement -- that's why we have drones." Iraq has no air force. Iraq's ability to prevent itself from harboring enemies of the CIA is dubious. This gives America's drone fleet a self-justification to fly ad infinitum, and for a smaller war of distant humming and craters to continue as long as the CIA wants. Al Sabaah reports Interior Ministry flack Adman al-Asadi he has stated that 'trainers' really aren't needed but any that are used will not be paid for by Iraq. He insists the costs will come out of billions the Congress has granted for expenses such as housing. He noted that there are thousands of mercenaries in Iraq and that Blackwater's been replaced by Triple Canopy (among others) and that the US Embassy provides cover for it. Al Sabaah reports Nouri al-Maliki met with Mohammad Karim Khalili who is vice president "of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" and Nouri bragged about how he had battled terrorism and "succeeded" as a result of having built up the security forces. Nouri forgot to credit his most important weapons -- false charges and forced confessions. Currently, he's launched another witch hunt against opponents and is, yet again, labeling them 'Ba'athists!' He's usually successful deploying the B-bomb. The only time there's been significant pushback was when he attempted to label the Friday activists protesting in Tahrir Square as 'Ba'athists.' He quickly realized that even the B-bomb has some limits. Al Sabaah reports that the crackdown is ongoing and the government claims it has arrested 75% of the 'Ba'athists' so far (over 500 arrested, they brag). Sounding a great deal like Hogan's Heroes' Col Klink insisting, "We have ways to make you talk," Ministry of the Interior flack Adnan al-Asadi declares that "We have eyes and ears allowing us to detect a plot of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Ba'ath Party." And to apparently make it sound even more of-the-moment, al-Asadi adds there is PKK involvement in the plot as well. What's worse? The lie or that fact that Nouri and company clearly thought it would be easily believed? Well puppets don't get picked for their brains. Nor do thugs and Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr supported the measures taken by Iraqi minister of higher education to demote some universtiy personnel who were connected with the former Baath Party, as stated by his office." Did he? Well if they're 'Ba'athists' and 'dangerous' why were they demoted? Aren't they going to pollute the campuses just by being present? But back to those eyes and ears al-Asadi was claiming, Al Mada reveals that the government is stating their source for the 'tips' about the alleged Ba'athist plot to take over Iraq came from the Transitional Government of Libya. The so-called rebels. A number of whom were in Iraq killing both Iraqis and US troops and British troops, several years ago. And supposedly prepping to rule Libya currently so you'd assume they had their hands full. Tim Arango (New York Times) maintains that "secret intelligence documents" were discovered by the so-called 'rebels' that provided a link between Libya's late president Muammar Gaddafi and Ba'ath Party members and that Mahmoud Jibril made a trip to Baghdad to turn over the info. Jibril was acting prime minister who stepped down October 23rd. (We're back to when puppet regimes meet!) One would have assumed he had other things to focus on. It's also curious that this 'rebel' would have 'learned' after the fall of Tripoli of a plot. Curious because, unlike a number of 'rebel' leaders in Libya, Langley didn't ship Jibril in from Virginia, he was Gaddafi's hand picked head of the National Economic Development Board (2007 to 2011). One would assume he would have been aware of any big plot long before the so-called rebels began the US war on Libya. The crackdown and targeting likely fueled a major event today. AFP reports, Salahuddin Province's council voted for the province to become semi-autonomous like the KRG (the article says "autonomous") and the measure should now go before the voters of the province so they can register their desire. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the move, in a 20 for and zero against vote, "is expected to spur Anbar, the neighboring mostly Sunni province, to follow suit. Probably not a good day to be predicting Nouri successfully completing his term (which ends in 2014) -- when will the Oxford students learn, when? And it's not a good day to be claiming that "security in Iraq good" or, worse, "very good." Reuters notes 2 Baghdad bombings have claimed 18 lives and at least thirty-eight are injured. They also report 1 police officer shot dead in Baghdad, a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing left four more people injured, a third Baghdad bombing left three people injured (two were police officers), an Iskandariya motorcycle bombing claimed the lives of 1 adult and 1 child and left two more people injured, a Jbela roadside bombing injured one person, 1 coprse was discovered in Mosul and, dropping back to yesterday, a Samarra grenade attack killed 1 Iraqi soldier, a Mosul armed conflict ended with 3 'militants' being killed, and a Kirkuk sticky bombing injured one person. In addition, there was a Basra house raid in which 6 Sadrists were arrested by "Iraqi security forces backed by U.S. forces." iraq cnn charles keyes antiwar.com jason ditz al jazeera xinhua mu xuequan the new york daily news frank lombardi antiwar.com john glaser mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi

al sabaah
al mada
dar addustour
the new york times
tim arango

The Edwards Cess pool

John Edwards . . . What do you say?

He is just trash.

Josh Gerstein has two reports at POLITICO. The brief one notes that Mr. Edwards' attorney is arguing that John Ensign did the same thing and was never charged.

First of all, that sounds a lot like, "Yes, I am guilty but so was the other guy."

Secondly, Mr. Ensign may be charged, the F.B.I. is looking into it.

The longer article is about silly billys who want to insist this is about Republicans going after Mr. Edwards. I loathe John Edwards and I am a Democrat.

I would guess most people most outraged by John Edwards would be Democrats.

He put one over on the whole country.

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's rounding up opponents, Gareth Porter embarrasses himself in his rush to glorify Barack, Barack has a 'senior moment' on The Tonight Show, Gates gives Bush all the credit, Turkey continues assaulting Iraq, and more. How stupid are they? That's the question for the day. We've got stupidity on Antiwar Radio, we've got stupidity on NBC's The Tonight Show. Let's start with late night. For the record, I didn't support Ronald Reagan, I didn't vote for him, I campaigned against him and generally refer to him as the Great Satan. So why am I noting that if Reagan had said what Barack Obama said on The Tonight Show last night, the media would be all over Reagan? Chatting with Jay Leno like a braless starlet, The (brainless) One was asked of Hillary and yammered away about his cabinet. Barack Obama: The entire national security team that we've had has been outstanding. And it's not just rivals within the Democratic Party. My Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is a Republican. Jay Leno: Right. Barack Obama: He was a carryover from the Bush Administration. He made an outstanding contribution. Bob Gates is the US Secretary of Defense? If Reagan had prattled on like that, I wouldn't be the only one calling him senile. But it was Barack and no one's supposed to comment on this "senior moment," no one's supposed to note that the boy in the bubble is so out of it he forgets that Gates left that post at the start of July. (Leon Panetta has been in the post since then.) If you can't stomach gushing, click here for the Washington Post's transcript (also has video you can stream). While Barack was gushing about Gates last night, Gates wasn't giving Barack any credit last night. We've noted Sig Christenson many times before and noted Christenson's a straight-forward reporter. I bring that up before someone says, "The reporter must have gotten it wrong!" Anyone can, but that's really not Christenson's style. Reporting for the San Antonio Express-News, Christinson notes Gates held a press conference at Trinity University yesterday: "Gates said the status of forces agreement negotiated under then-President George W. Bush included a timetable for U.S. troops leaving Iraqi cities, a drawdown to 50,000 troops and an end to combat operations." No, it didn't. I'm not in the mood to spoon feed on this point -- a point we've made repeatedly excepting only when a friend got it wrong on NPR and I thought, "I've addressed this point enough." -- so you'll have to play One Of These Things Is Not Like the Other all by yourself but not all of that's the SOFA. Some of that's Barack. Gates should not only know what the SOFA says, he should know which was Barack. And I'd expect him to credit Barack for the part that was Barack Obama's. (Quickly, cities is Article 24, section two of SOFA; end to combat operations can be presumed to Gates referring to the SOFA expiration date, however, it most likely refers to the pulling of 'combat' forces by Barack Sept. 1, 2010 and that was Barack and not the SOFA; as for 50,000, there's no way to be generous, the SOFA doesn't say a damn word about dropping down to 50,000. Again that would be US President Barack Obama and you'd think Gates would know that and would credit him with it.) Moving on. Can little boys keep their hands out of their pants in public? Where are their parents? Did no one tell them not to do that in public? You have to wonder that as you listen to Gareth Porter make a fool out of himself (yet again). Speaking to Scott Horton (Antiwar.com) who hung on every word and possibly a better posture would be to question unless this is Fan Boi Radio? Gareth Porter: Well I know that this marks the end of the fiction that the United States could actually have a longterm presence in Iraq in -in Iraq which was of course the, uh, the aspiration of the Bush administration and then, you know, despite the campaign promise by Barack Obama, the national security state again prevailed on Obama to try to maintain a significant US military presence. Uh, they put a lot of pressue on him to do that. Uh, and in the middle of last year, 2010, it appeared that they had gotten the White House to go along with the scheme [. . .] We'll stop there. 'Poor little Barry O, under pressure from the national security state.' I cannot believe Scott Horton swallowed all that. That's very telling. Gareth Porter: Well I know that this marks the end of the fiction that the United States could actually have a longterm presence in Iraq in -in Iraq [. . .] First off, Gareth, the US does have a longterm presence in Iraq right now, it's called the US Embassy in Baghdad and all of its consulates throughout the country. Second, Special-Ops will remain in Iraq, that's known. Third, the CIA will remain, that's known. Fourth, about 160 US soldiers will be under the State Dept's command. Fifth, about 150 US soldiers will remain in Iraq for 'arms sales.' Sixth, the White House has revealed that Marines will be guarding the diplomatic outlets. How many is not known. Seventh, some members of the Air Force are remaining. Eighth, negotiations are ongoing. Ninth, Kuwait, Jordan and others are planned staging areas. In fact, Press TV reports today, "The US is negotiating with Kuwait about moving some equipment and troops to the Persian Gulf state. Washing is also holding talks with Turkey about deploying sensitive sensors, drone, and other equipment used in Iraq at the Incirlik airbase, promising to assist the Turkish government in fighting the Kurdistan Workers' Party." It is unexpected to hear spin on Antiwar Radio. At a time when Antiwar.com has already noted negotiations are ongoing, has already noted the huge amount of contractors, this is really sad. Instead of challenging Gareth's spin, Scott launches into a discussion about 2004. Scott Horton needs to be booking actual journalists like James Denselow or John Glaser to speak. Not people who really aren't allowed to speak honestly of Barack without threat of losing their pay check. Maybe we should just be glad that a conviction finally kept pedophile Scott Ritter off the show? A conviction that's standing despite today's appeal for a retrial -- 'Not fair,' whined Pig Ritter, 'that my two other arrests for being a pedophile were brought in this case about my third pedolphile arrest!' Judge Jennifer Harlachar Sibum disagreed. Carol Demare (Albany Times Union) reports the 50-year-old pedophile has been sentenced "to up to 5 1/2 years behind bars in a Pennsylvania state prison" and that Judge Harlachar Sibum "also said Ritter met the criteria as a sexually violent predator and will have to register in Pennsylvania as a sex offender." Yeah, these are the people who embraced the pedophile, remember? Yeah, they've got a great record. As for Antiwar Radio? Corporate crap couldn't be worse than that broadcast with Gareth. In fact, NPR did a better job discussing Iraq yesterday on The Diane Rehm Show than Antiwar Radio. Ann picked this statement as her favorite exchange of that broadcast: Phyllis Bennis: The agreement that was signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki was very clear, as Nick Burns said earlier, about withdrawing all troops and all Pentagon-paid contractors. It left a huge loophole, big enough for tanks to drive through, about contractors who would be paid by another agency, for example, the State Department. And that's why we're seeing now this race by the State Department to sign off on contracts with, what we're hearing, up to 16,000 new contractors who will do the same things as the contractors have been doing throughout these eight years, which is very worrying. Because there have been so many crimes committed with no accountability, they are not legally provided with immunity by a U.S.-Iraqi agreement, but they have not been held accountable in the Iraqi system. And there have been these terrible incidents of killing civilians at checkpoints, et cetera. There's no particular indication to think that's going to end, nor is there any likelihood that the flood of money that has so corrupted the government -- so many government officials inside Iraq is going to end anytime soon. So I'm not persuaded that it's going to turn into Switzerland. I don't think anybody thinks that the case. But I think that this is a moment where, for the first time in more than 20 years, Iraq will have the chance to figure out how it wants to run its country, whether or not that includes the current government remaining in power. Rafe Pilgrim (OpEdNews) notes how tempting it was to believe Barack's Friday announcement, especially if you didn't listen closely: How many of his hopeful audience missed the "mention" that unspecified thousands of American "civilian contractors" would be "maintained" in Iraq? This is the side deal between him and Maliki to fool both of their peoples. Those "contractors" will not be filling potholes or doing horticulture. They will be weaponized and on ready alert status to do whatever soldiers and black-ops are commanded, at incidentally many times higher cost per trooper than an honestly declared American soldier. I personally did not catch a statement on air-base privileges. Such will be there. Now to our State Department's presence: The US will maintain three (or four?) major "diplomatic stations," including the embassy in Baghdad, the world's largest of any nation's, which accommodates 4500 personnel. Diplomats, clerks and chaplains? I would suppose not. And in the meantime, there is a boom of American construction in Iraq, and no one knows, or rather admits to knowing of what. Pew Research Center's latest study finds that a number of Americans rank the Iraq statements by Barack as news . . . behind the death of Muammar Gaddafi . . . and behind the animals released from the zoo in Ohio . . . and behind news about the presidential election . . . and behind the news of the economy. The way things are going, the Cult of St. Barack's going to be offering animal sacrifices before the year ends. In yet another blow to the White House spin, Al Mada is reporting that the US is planning to keep 5,000 troops in Kirkuk province. Alleged discussions on this proposal are said to have taken place last week in Parliament's building (but not with all blocs in Parliament). Turning to the latest crackdown in Iraq, some estimates have 350 Iraqis arrested since Saturday for allegedly being "Ba'athists" (a once dominant political party in Iraq). Dar Addustour cites a security source who states the number is 400. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "1074 arrests were made over the past two weeks in Babylon on orders issued in Baghdad. . . . Is there a prison big enough for the whole of the Iraqi people?!" Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Provincial Council of north-central Iraqi Province of Salah al-din has refused on Wednesday to hand over a number of detained former Iraqi Army officers and former ruling Baath Party members to the Baghdad security forces, considering the measure as 'illegal and not supported by legal arrest warrents,' the Council's Deputy Chairman, Sabhan Mulla Chiad, announced today." Al Mada reports that the Interior Ministry is stating that they had credible evidence that these people were plotting a coup. Did they have that? Who vetted it? Because they don't have a head of the ministry. Nouri's never done his job. Nouri al-Maliki, to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister in December 2010 was supposed to, per the Constitution, form a Cabinet -- that means nominating ministers and having Parliament vote them in. But what does the country's Constitution matter when you have the US government running interference for you? So Nouri was made prime minister despite not meeting the Constitutional requirements. (So the US government sent the message to the Iraqi people that votes and the Constitution both didn't matter. Good job!) And press flunkies assured us that Nouri would name ministers for Interior, National Security and Defense in a matter of weeks. Over ten months later, they've never been named. ("Acting" ministers are not real ministers. They have no protection, they serve at Nouri's whim and Parliament did not confirm them.) So when the Interior claims they had credible evidence, that's Nouri claiming they did. Nouri known to scream "Ba'athist" at the drop of a hat to discount his political rivals. The Great Iraqi Revolution adds, "Media sources confirm that Maliki is using his influence through his self appointed Acting Ministers of Interior and Defence to flex his muscles in concurrence with the American withdrawal in a pre emptive attack to isolate voices that refuse the new dictatorship in the New Iraq under the pretext of anti Baathism and anti Saddamisim!!" Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Al-Iraqiya Coalition, led by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, has called on Iraq' Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to stop the current detention campaign and the sacking of university professors, according to its statement on Wednesday." The statement includes: Al-Iraqiya has met at the office of Dr. Saleh al-Mutlaq to discuss the recent detentions campaign and the list of discharges against leading Iraqi professors by the Ministry of Higher Education. [. . .] We also call on the Iraqi Judiciary and the security bodies not to lean to the pressures of certain political forces and to safeguard its independence and specialization, assigned by the Constitution and current laws. Violence and other news has distracted from Political Stalemate II. To end Political Stalemate I (the eight months plus of inaction and gridlock that followed the March 7, 2010 elections), the political blocs met up, in Erbil (in November 2010), (along with the US) and hammered out a deal. That deal is known as the Erbil Agreement. It promised to resolve the disputed Kirkuk (who will control it, Baghdad or the KRG) and to do as the Constitution outlines, it promised that a new, independent security council would be created and Ayad Allawi (whose political slate Iraqiya came in first in the elections) would head it and that Nouri would remain prime minister despite his political slate (State of Law) coming in second. There were other deals made in the agreement as well. All parties agreed and the press hailed it as a breakthrough moment. Nouri used the Erbil Agreement to remain prime minister and then trashed it. The Kurds (minus the CIA-backed Goran) have objected to Nouri's attempt to rewrite the oil law and his failure to follow the Erbil Agreement. They are calling for it to be re-instated. (Also making that call about the Erbil Agreement: the National Alliance and Iraqiya.) After many meetings internally, the Kurds hammered out what they wanted to stress in a face to face. Al Rafidayn reports that face to face took place yesterday between Nouri and KRG President Barham Salih and Salih also met with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and stressed that the problem is not a Kurdsih one, it has to do with the political system and the way decisions are being made. In addition, Iraqiya's Saleh al-Mutlaq lodged a complaint over Nouri's arresting of college professors on the claim that they are Ba'athists. Al Mada refers to the complaint airing as an angry altercation, a quarrel of words. Nouri reportedly stormed off in anger. Back to the meeting between Nouri and the KRG president, Dar Addustour reports Salih and Nouri came to an agreement on the fact that the problems needed to be resolved. Let's stay with Nouri and his 'justice' by providing an update. From yesterday's snapshot: Dar Addustour has a breaking news report this evening that American journalist Daniel Smith has been arrested in Baghdad by Iraqi forces (the arrest was Friday). If the report is correct and the name is correct, this is most likely Daniel Wakefield Smith who in addition to text reporting is also a photojournalist (not to be confused with retired US Army Col Dan Smith who has offered commentary and analysis on the Iraq War). Dar Addustour is the only one reporting the story currently and they say that there is confusion regarding what he was arrested for with some saying it was for the Friday protests in Baghdad (covering it or participating in it? that's not explained) while others are saying he was arrested for spying on Iraqi officials. This morning Aswat al-Iraq is reported: The American Reporter, Daniel Smith, detained in Iraq since last Friday, has been released on Wednesday by Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who allowed him to continue his reporting from Baghdad, according to a statement by the Prime Minister's Press Freedoms Center's Director. "Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decided on Wednesday morning to release the American Journalist, Daniel Smith, and to allow him continue reporting from Iraq, in response to demands by our Center and other journalists," Ziyad al-Ujeily told Aswat al-Iraq news agency. Last Friday, when he was arrested, Reporters Without Borders released the following statement of concern: Reporters Without Borders continues to be concerned about the dangers for journalists in Iraq, where there have been series of attacks and acts of intimidation against media personnel this month. In one of the latest cases, unidentified gunmen fired on Al-Iraqiya TV reporter Abd Al-Hasan Al-Rukaabi as he was driving between the southern city of Nasriyah and the nearby town of Al-Refai on 19 October. He was injured in the neck after abandoning his car to escape the shots but, after being treated in hospital, doctors said he was in no danger. Aged 50 and the father of eight children, Rukaabi has worked for Al-Iraqiya since 2003. He said he did not know the motive for the murder attempt, which the police are investigating. Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to ensure that those responsible are identified. Soldiers raided the home of Al-Sharq reporter Khalil Al-Alwani in Fallujah (in the western province of Anbar) on 17 October. In a statement, Alwani said the raid was carried out illegally, without a court order, with the probable aim of arresting him in connection with articles about everyday problems in Anbar, where the rate of violent crime and murder has become alarming. The authorities denied having anything to do with the raid. Journalists and activists staged a peaceful demonstration in Fallujah the next day to demand an investigation into the circumstances of the illegal raid. Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to begin the investigation at once in order to shed light on what happened and to guarantee Alwani's safety. TV executive Hoshyar Abdallah was arrested by a court in the Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah, in northern Iraq, on 1 October on a charge of defaming former Kurdish water resources minister Abdul Latif Muhammad Jamal for accusing him of corruption. He was released two days later on bail of 145,000 dinars (90 euros). Abdallah heads KNN, a Sulaymaniyah-based TV station affiliated to the Kurdish opposition movement Change. Reporters Without Borders urges the Iraqi authorities to put a stop to the abuses against media personnel and to guarantee their safety under the law for the protection of journalists that was adopted last August. Iraq continues to be a dangerous country for journalists. Journalists have been targeted in Iraq throughout the illegal war -- and often they've been targeted by the US so Iraqi government officials can always assert that their own attacks were nothing but learned behavior. Violence continues in Iraq today. Reuters notes a Mosul car bombing claimed 2 lives and left sixteen injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left two people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Jurf al-Sakhar roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left two more injured, an Iskandariya bombing claimed 2 lives and, dropping back to last night, that a Jurf al-Sakhar military checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 2 Iraqi soldiers with another injured, 1 person was shot dead outside his Mussayayb home and Sheikh Safa Jasim's Hilla home was bombed resulting in the death of his wife and son with three other sons and Sheikh Jasim left injured. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports the Mosul car bombing was actually 2 car bombings and that 9 people were killed. The Tehran Times adds that a bombing on the border of Iraq injured nine Iranian pilgrims traveling by bus. In addition, the Turkish military's assault continues on northern Iraq. Peter Kenyon reports on it today for NPR's Morning Edition. KENYON: Ibrahim Dogus, editor of a London-based Kurdish newspaper, told Al-Jazeera's English Channel that it's only natural for the PKK to try to exploit the diplomatic rift between Ankara and Damascus. IBRAHIM DOGUS: It will be plausible for PKK to take advantage of deteriorating relations between Syria and Turkey, between Iran and Turkey. But the best thing that the Turkish government could come up with is a resolution to the Kurdish question within Turkey. Turkey tries to deal with Palestine. Turkey tries to deal with Somalia. Turkey tries to deal with all over the world now. But when it comes to Kurdish politics, they always look for other international forces or countries to blame for. Alsumaria TV reports, "Hundreds of Turkish soldiers sieged a village in Al Imadiya District, northern Dahuk, eye witnesses reported on Tuesday. Citizens called upon authorities to intervene in fear of turning the village into a battlefield." They quote resident Fawzi Ibrahim stating, "These forces have caused a state of panic among villagers." Grasp how this plays in Iraq because, despite a lot of silence from Nouri and his Cabinet, it doesn't play well. The Great Iraqi Revolution observes, "Turkish armored vehicles cross the border into Iraq heading towards PKK camp inside the Kurdistan territory and combs the area for rebels before it withdraws back to Turkish soil. Not the first time this happens. Violation of the integrity of the Iraqi sovereignty amidst silence of the Iraqi government and sometimes its blessing." And that's not a minor sentiment. Who ever you are, in whatever nation-state you lived, you would take kindly to another country sending its military in. (Even more so if, like Iraq, you have been attacked and occupied for the last 8 years.) And that's before you consider Iraq's complicated relationship with Turkey. Rachael Cloughton (Independent) notes one issue: A crisis awaits Iraq following Turkey's extensive dam building project, claims Azzam Alwash, the director of one of the country's largest non-governmental environmental organisations, Nature Iraq. Yet little attention is being give to his proposed methods to avert catastrophe. By 2050, Iraq is predicted to receive only 25% of its former water supply due to the ambitious Anatolia project being embarked on by Turkey. This project includes the building of 22 dams and 19 power plants in the southeast. Historically, Iraq once received between 60 billion to 90 billion cubic meters of water from the Tigris and Euphrates. This is expected to drop to less than 25 billion cubic meters in less than 40 years' time. Rivers flowing from Iran contain too much saline, rivers that should be flowing from Turkey are often circumvented via dams. Meanwhile Murat Yetkin (Hurriyet Daily News) reports that the Turkish military's General Necdet Ozel gave a written interview: "First, with the latest wave of attacks the PKK is aiming to destroy government authority in towns near the Iraqi border to establish a power of its own; second, Turkey had no joint security operations with Iran against the PKK but has intelligence and legal cooperation with it; and third, Turkey was happy with the intelligence it is sharing with the United States on PKK presence in Iraq but wants more." Serkan Demirtas (Hurriyet Daily News) reports that Turkey is pleased with surveillance data from the US that it will continue to receive* but that they still expect to be provided with their own drones (provided by the US) and that Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet in Istanbul November 2nd to discuss issues. How is the US guaranteeing Turkey that it will continue to provide it with intel? Oh, that's right, the CIA's not leaving Iraq. Meanwhile, if you wonder why the Turkish press is so one-sided on the issue, it goes beyond what you might expect and includes governmental retaliation. Reporters Without Borders notes today: As well as a spate of trials and cases of prolonged detention, journalists are now the target of government directives. Journalists who cover Kurdish issues critically continue to be accused of supporting the separatists by officials who cite the war on terror as their overriding imperative. And concern is growing that the government is trying to control coverage of its offensive. Jailed for an interview? The Turkish judicial system continues to treat the publication of interviews with PKK members as terrorist propaganda, even if they are accompanied by commentary that stops far short of praising the PKK. Nese Düzel, a journalist with the liberal daily Taraf, and his editor, Adnan Demir, for example, are being prosecuted for two April 2010 reports containing interviews with former PKK leaders Zübeyir Aydar and Remzi Kartal. A prosecutor asked an Istanbul court on 14 October to sentence them to seven and a half years in prison. The next hearing in their trial is to be held on 9 December. Click here to read their alert in full. Turning to the US, Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) sends out this SOS: If you live anywhere near Oakland, California, or have friends or relatives who do please tell them that they need to take action today. Their democracy has been threatened. American democracy has been threatened due to their police and their government. Yesterday morning, police wrongfully raided and destroyed two, peaceful, Occupy Oakland encampments. That was the first big problem. People went to make their voices heard at the library at 4pm, and police were oppressive and wrong. All through the night, police followed, hovered, struggled, tear gassed, shot with bean bags, and otherwise abused a whole crowd of peaceful folks, in the effort to suppress a message, and keep people from expressing their belief in the right to assemble. Wait, today's passed! You can show up at 14th and Broadway for as long as Occupy Oakland continues (barring the activists moving to another site). You can show your support tomorrow. In fact, if people are really trying to send a message, what would send the strongest message would be each day's turnout being larger. What happened last night? Adam Gabbatt (Guardian) reports Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen was taken to Highland hospital with "a fractured skull and brain swelling" -- apparently from a projectile launched on the activists by the police. Gabbatt quotes photographer Jay Finneburgh stating, "This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile. He went down hard and did not get up." You can click here for Adam Gabbatt's live blogging of Occupy Oakland. Occupy Wall Street issued a statement today which includes: Today at Occupy Wall Street we are looking across the country to the city of Oakland, where last night our fellow Americans were subjected to violence at the hands of their own government for exercising the constitutional freedoms their government is sworn to protect. Last night police forces violently raided Occupy Oakland, arresting 85 people and brutalizing many peaceful participants, using excessive physical force, tear gas, and dangerous projectile rounds. Peaceful Protest is An American Birthright, Not a Crime Among those injured is Scott Olson, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq. Olsen is in the hospital with a fractured skull. "Scott is in stable but serious condition as the neurologists decide whether to take him into surgery or the ICU," said Joshua Shepherd, a friend of Olsen's. "Oakland Police Department fired a tear gas canister at his head, fracturing his skull." Video of the incident with Scott Olsen: http://tinyurl.com/3vqlsv3 It is unconscionable that American government officials would sanction the use of such extreme force against peaceful citizens. Occupy Oakland has been a public forum, set up on public land, concerned with critical public issues about the nation's financial crisis, consolidation of wealth and power, and the ability of citizens to meaningfully participate in the democratic process. This brutality carried out on the orders of city government, sends a chilling message to those who want to engage in civic processes to work for social change. Over a month ago, we went to the doorstep of Wall Street to say "enough!" That message has resonated across the country and around the world. Occupy Wall Street continues to build, and a national movement of peaceful occupations and civic engagement has sprung up in every corner. Public officials must listen to the grievances of this popular movement. It is absolutely unacceptable to attempt to dissuade civic engagement through the use of brutality, repression and retaliation against movement participants. This is America. All Americans have the freedom to peacefully protest our government. That right defines who we are as a country and a people, and when it is denied, all of America is the poorer for it. The Mayor of Oakland -- and mayors and city governments across the country -- should get on the right side of history and honor all Americans' freedom to peacefully assemble and to civically engage. Justin Raimondo has an interesting take (at Antiwar.com) on governments: The retention and expansion of political power is the central task of every ruling class throughout history, no matter what their ostensible ideological orientation. Dictatorships, democracies, and everything in between all share this common trait: it is the organizing principle at the core of the policymaking machine, the brain behind the brawn. The various ideological explanations offered by these elites for their actions are invariably self-serving and ultimately irrelevant rationalizations: for example, the old Communist elites pretended to be working toward the establishment of the communist system worldwide, but in fact were devoted to the creation of "socialism in one country," i.e. feathering their own nest. In the West, political leaders insist their goal is the spread of liberal democracy and its alleged economic benefits, but the reality is that they're more concerned with their campaign treasuries and their poll numbers: the old mottoes of the Anglo-Saxon ruling class, which upheld the principle of "noblesse oblige," are so timeworn and tattered that no one even bothers to invoke them any longer. The politicians, in short, are in it to stay in it: they are in the business of acquiring and keeping power, and that is what motivates them in all matters foreign and domestic. The "national interest," the "world revolution," the peculiar destiny afforded us as sainted beneficiaries of "American exceptionalism" -- all these disparate brands of ideological snake-oil, boiled down to their essence, are just naked self-interest colored with various shades of rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. iraq al mada dar addustour al rafidayn afp npr morning edition peter kenyon the san antonio express-news sig christenson xinhua mu xuequan the diane rehm show kimberly wilder antiwar.com justin raimondo

Martin Frost is wrong

That is an illustration of George Clooney that was done for Third's "Clooney's Dark Secrets" (part of the summer fiction read of 2009 -- each year at Third we do a summer fiction read week). And Betty's kids and Wally did the illustration.

I used to love George Clooney. But he has made too many boring movies in which he gave the same performance during the last ten years. I cringe just at the thought of another Clooney film.

So when I saw Martin Frost had a column at POLITICO, I thought, "Mr. Frost is a centrist with many problems, but possibly this would be worth reading."

George Clooney's new film, Mr. Frost frets, will depress voter turnout in 2012. It is about a John Edwards-like politician. Oh! My!

You know what, I still do not plan to see it because I just cannot stand Mr. Clooney anymore; however, if that is a possibility, I applaud Mr. Clooney.

I know he takes voting and politics very seriously.

If his movie might depress voter turnout, good for him because making it demonstrates that he put his art first. I have not felt that way about him since The Perfect Storm.

And, in the end, we are responsible for ourselves. A movie does not make you do anything -- except maybe straighten your hair if you came of age, as I did, when Sandra Dee with her tiny nose and straight hair were all the rage. (I kept my nose, but I did straighten my hair.) Even then, I was the one responsible for what I did. No one else.


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

Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, a US journalist is reported to have been arrested in Iraq, James Denselow is among those leading the factual charge against spin, Turkey's assualt on Iraq continues, we explore the Special Inspector General on Iraq Reconstruction's grading of the US State Dept, Nouri targets 'Ba'athists' (political enemies) and more. Dar Addustour has a breaking news report this evening that American journalist Daniel Smith has been arrested in Baghdad by Iraqi forces (the arrest was Friday). If the report is correct and the name is correct, this is most likely Daniel Wakefield Smith who in addition to text reporting is also a photojournalist (not to be confused with retired US Army Col Dan Smith who has offered commentary and analysis on the Iraq War). Dar Addustour is the only one reporting the story currently and they say that there is confusion regarding what he was arrested for with some saying it was for the Friday protests in Baghdad (covering it or participating in it? that's not explained) while others are saying he was arrested for spying on Iraqi officials. Friday, October 21st, while Barack was spinning the country and the press was sleeping on the job, another US soldier died in Iraq. The Defense Dept issued the following today: The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. Pfc. Steven F. Shapiro, 29, of Hidden Vally Lake, Calif., died Oct. 21 in Tallil, Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Advise and Assist Brigade, 1st Cavalry Divison, Fort Hood, Texas. For more information media may contact the Fort Hood public affairs office at 254-187-9993/2520 or [] Their address is wrong and you're taken to a site that can harm your computer. You'd think DoD could get this right. It's www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/site/3439/ The Pentagon's count of US military personnel who've died in Iraq currently stands at [PDF format warning] 4484. That's 63 deaths since Barack Obama proclaimed combat operations ended August 31, 2010. How many US military personnel will die after December 31, 2011 and will the press continue to avert their eyes? Yochi J. Dreazen (National Journal) examines the issue of Special-Ops and notes they will remain in Iraq and Afghanistan and, "Many conventional troops have done four or five deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. By contrast, Special Operations troops have done 10, 12, and even 14 tours." He quotes Adm Eric Olson who stated back in February that although 100,000 US troops left Iraq, only "about 500 special operations" troops departed implying the bulk of Special-Ops remained. In addition, yesterday Walter Pincus (Washington Post) noted, "Denis McDonough, White House deputy national security adviser, told PBS's News Hour on Friday night that the United States and Iraq woul still conduct periodic naval and air exercises." Meanwhile James Denselow (Guardian) observes "there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality surrounding the US departure from Iraq." And he goes on to back that up explaining, among other things, the ongoing neogtiations to put US 'trainers' under the NATO mission (a 2004 agreement), the large number of contractors and much more. We'll note this paragraph: In September, Iraq made the first payment in a 1.9 billion pound deal to buy 18 F-16s. The agreements mean that despite the claim that Iraq took full responsibility for its airspace in October, effective aerial sovereignty will be in the hands of the Americans for years to come as they help to patrol the country's skies and control its airspace, and train its air force. A senior Iraqi politician explained to me last week: "We are absolutely incapable of defending our borders. We don't even have one fighter jet to defend our airspace." Al Mada reports that before US Vice President Joe Biden visits Iraq, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will be visiting DC. Both visits will focus on the issue of US 'trainers' as negotiations continue. The paper notes that the Kurdish Alliance is expressing concern over the issue of neighboring countries (Turkey and to a less extent Iran) attacking Iraq. A non-Kurdish government source notes that there is only a short amount of time between now and the end of the year but that he believes they can work out an understanding with the US that will provide a mechanism to ensure the safety of Iraq. Rumors swirling in the Iraqi government include that the US, in this round of negotiations, is pressing for 1500 US troops based out of the Baghdad embassy. Dar Addustour notes both visits as well as Ayad Allawi's trip to London (he's on it now) where he's meeting with David Cameron (British Prime Minister) and others. As Trina pointed out last night, Patrick Martin (WSWS) is also noting Nouri's trip to DC: "Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is to visit Washington in December for further talks, and Obama held out the possibility of a future agreement to station US troops in Iraq in the guise of training Iraqi soldiers in the use of weapons systems the Iraqi government is buying from American military contractors." The Pakistan Observer notes Moqtada al-Sadr's comments that the US "is seekign to maintain its occupation of Iraq through keeping trainers and private contractors" in Iraq. The CIA isn't leaving Iraq either. Eli Lake (The Daily Beast) reports: The programs involve everything from the deployment of remote sensors that scan the wireless spectrum of terrorist safe havens to stealth U.S.-Iraqi counterterrorism commando teams, and their status is uncertain as a U.S. diplomatic team negotiates with Iraqi leaders, according to officials, who made clear the CIA intends to keep a footprint inside the country even as troops leave by Dec. 31. "There are of course parts of the counterterrorism mission that the intelligence community, including CIA, will be able to take on from other organizations—and there are parts of that mission that it won't," said one U.S. counterterrorism official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of secret negotiations with the Iraqis. Also addressing realities is Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque via World Can't Wait): So we have a baseline of 5,000 militarized forces remaining indefinitely in Iraq, with no immediate limit on an expansion in their numbers. And of course, all the stories make it abundantly clear that the Americans will quickly negotiate a new "security agreement" with Iraq, which will include -- or even be in addition to -- thousands of military "advisers" to help "train" the Iraqi forces, especially with the multitude of new weapons that Washington's war profiteers are lining up to sell to the "sovereign" government in Baghdad. How many troops will be involved in these "agreements"? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Again, we don't know. And as Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, none of these numbers include the "Special Forces" and CIA paramilitaries that will inevitably be ranging across Iraq, no doubt in large numbers. Iraq is hardly going to receive less attention from the American black ops and death squads than Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and the dozens of other countries where Washington is waging secret war. Thus it is almost a certainty that by the end of 2012, there will be, at the barest minimum, at least 8,000 to 10,000 heavily armed personnel under the direct control of the United States government stationed at strategic points throughout Iraq; the actual figure will doubtless be higher, perhaps much higher. But this is a bare minimum -- numbers which tally almost exactly with the final goals of the American war machine in the "failed" negotiations on extending the present form of the occupation. David R. Francis (Christian Science Monitor) deludes his readers (and possibly himself) that the US is leaving Iraq and the delusions never stop, "Throw in the replacement of vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc., and the eventual tab for the United States could reach $4 trillion to $6 trillion, according to University of Columbia economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes. Those are big numbers." They'd be even bigger if Francis factored in the continued spending on Iraq. All US forces are not withdrawing -- as he wrongly writes -- and neither is the US tax payer money. As Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) noted Sunday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has released a new report. The report [PDF format warning] is entitled "Iraqi Police Development Program: Opportunities Program Accountability and Budget Transparency." The 18-page report (plus appendices) paints a disturbing picture. As with Congressional hearings we've attended, the State Dept refused to provide SIGIR with needed information and documents. Though the State Dept has planned since 2009 to take over the training of Iraqi police, they have no assessment of the force's current capabilities. To call what they have shared with ISGR "planning" is being extremely generous. In its opening, the report notes: "We believe this audit raises serious concerns regarding the PDP [Police Development Programs]'s long-term viability. The continual downsizing of the program, the planned use of unspent funds, and the lack of transparency regarding the use of program funds for 'Embassy platform' purposes (e.g., security, life support, and aviation) raise red flags about the program's fund requirements." As the report makes clear early on, these are not concerns about something that will happen in the near future (for instance, January 1, 2012), these are concerns about a program the State Dept is over and executing as of October 1, 2011 and for Fiscal Year 2012, State wants $887 million for this program. This after 8 billion US tax payer dollars being spent in the last eight years "to train, staff, and equip Iraqi police forces to maintain domestic order" and that money was spent on, among other things, increasing the size of the police force. Prior to the start of the Iraq War, police forces numbered 58,000 and today it has increased to 412,000 police. Population estimates for the country range from as low as 23 million to the CIA's 30,399,572 (July 2011 estimate) which would be an estimate of roughly 24 million when you subtract the Kurdish population. (My opinion: The US should not be training the Kurdish police. They do have a training center in Erbil. But they shouldn't be doing it. The Kurds don't need it and it's a waste of money. That is not to say Kurdish forces are perfect -- they aren't -- or that there are not human rights abuses -- there are -- but it is to state that the KRG is not starting from ground zero the way the rest of Iraq supposedly is.) 412,000 police officers for a population of 24 million (CIA figure minus KRG numbers). The US has a population of over 300,000,000. How many police officers -- including federal law enforcement -- does the US have? At the end of 2007, Kevin Johnson (USA Today) reported that figure was 800,000. The US has twice the number of police officers as Iraq (minus KRG) but over 12 times the population (ibid). And US tax payers have spent $8 billion on achieving that. (And at a time when the "Super" Congress must find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts for the US government.) The report didn't address the above issue, it's "objective for this report is to address whether DoS/INL has a program plan with sound requirements and cost estimates, and whether DoS identified the funds and other resources that the GOI will contribute to the program." In 2009, SIGIR pointed out the need for an assessment and in April of 2011 a grant was given -- "$1 million to conduct a base-line assessment of the Iraqi police." The money was paid out. No assessment was ever completed. Is the State Dept unable to handle even the most basic of duties? If you wasted $1 million of the tax payer dollars, you should have an explanation as to what you did to follow up on that but State doesn't feel they are answerable to anyone on these questions. The report notes: Without specific goals, objectives, and performance measures, the PDP could become a "bottomless pit" for U.S. dollars intended for mentoring, advising, and training the Iraqi police forces. Meetings held with Iraqi police officials and training courses provided could simply become "accomplishments," without any indicators of changes in the management and functioning of the Iraqi police forces that can be attributed to this costly program. In addition, the report notes: DoS has yet to obtain a signed agreement with the GOI [Government of Iraq] for the PDP, although hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have already been spent on providing program support. It has also not prepared the documents required by the gudielines, which would describe the program cost and the GOI financial participation. SIGIR has reported that working closely with the GOI is essential to long-term program success and to avoid waste of U.S. funds. In prior work, SIGIR recommend that U.S. efforts be based on assurances that the GOI supports the U.S. approach, and that there are measurable indicators of progress. Absent such assurances, the programs are vulnerable to waste. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have repeatedly BMW-ed in public (bitched, moaned and whined) about how Congress needs to give poor little State more money. Isaiah lampooned Hillary and Leon as pigs at the trough back in August. With the rate of sexual assault in the military, Leon needs to mind his own damn business and focus on the Defense Dept. Hillary needs to buy a damn clue and realize that though she has little control over the Iraq matters (Barack farmed them out), she's the one the public will hold responsible. If she was thinking smart, she'd bail right now and announce she was retiring. Instead, she's being stupid and staying in the position. That means she's about to learn the lesson Colin Powell did as Secretary of State -- one minute your beloved, the next your image is in ruins and some obsessive flunkie spends years trying to repair it for you. State has a lot of damn nerve asking for a cent from US tax payers when it's not even practicing the most basic fiscal checks. The report makes many recommendations. We'll note these made for Congress: SIGIR believes that the Congress could consider requiring DoS to provide data on and analysis of PDP plans, requirements, and costs before additional U.S. funds are committed to a program that is currently without budget transparency and measurable goals, and has the potential for significant waste. The Congress could also consider requiring DoS to provide details on how previously provided funds can be used to meet PDP costs in FY 2012, and documentation required by DoS guidance that describes the GOI financial contribution to the program. Further, the Congress could consider whether the GOI's 50% contribution to PDP costs should be calculated by including or excluding security, life support, and other special costs of operating in Iraq. The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction came about as a result of 2003 legislation introduced by then-Senator Russ Feingold. In 2006, when Republicans controlled both house of Congress, they moved to shut down the office but Feingold, Senator Susan Collins and others were able to keep it alive. Feingold's no longer in Congress and, as is obvious by State's refusal to cooperate with SIGIR, Democrats no longer appear to value the work done and especially appear determined to evade oversight. If that seems harsh, SIGIR should not have to remind Hillary Clinton -- in writing (letter dated August 3, 2011, appears on page 30 of the report) -- that State is obstructing the SIGIR's oversight or to remind her that, when information is requested, her department needs to turn it over as Congress instructed in their legislation. And the only one who might need to be more embarrassed than Hillary by this report is Harold Koh, whose legalese doesn't meet anyone's definition of "transparent" -- let alone the definition Barack was applying to his administration before he was sworn in. (Two of Koh's letters are included in the report.) Michael Lawson (Free Speech Radio News) reported on the SIGIR findings yesterday. Michael Lawson: A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction cited inefficiencies in the State Dept's ability to handle a program aimed at training Iraqi police forces. The Department requested nearly $900 million for the project in 2012. The Inspector General's report claims the State Dept has no detailed plan for how the program will operate or what goals are to be accomplished. Only 12% of the 900 million would go to actual advising of Iraqi forces. The balance would pay for security and support for the trainers. An Iraqi government official suggested to the Inspector General's office that the money would be "better spent on the American people." [Just Foreign Policy's Robert] Naiman says Iraqis on the ground see the presence as a remnant of the US occupation. Robert Naiman: It would probably be better for this not to exist at all. There isn't any strong case that US training at this point is particularly better than any other training that the Iraqis could get. Still on the topic of Iraqi police, Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports traffic police continue to be targeted in Baghdad with three roadside bombing today claiming the life of 1 and leaving eight more injured. In addition, Aswat al-Iraq reports assailants attacked two homes in Babel "killing the wife and son of one of the owners of one of the two houses". Reuters notes 2 Baghdad roadside bombings and 1 sticky bombing which injured police officers leaving 1 dead and four injured plus eight civilians left injured (these are not three more bombings -- I'm noting the difference in the numbers and characterizations between AP and Reuters on the same bombings), an Abu Ghraib roadside bombing which left two Iraqi soldiers injured, a Baquba roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left two more injured, a second Baquba roadside bombing which left four police officers injured and, dropping back to Monday night a Kirkuk assault on a real estate office claimed 1 life. Sunday, Dar Addustour reported, Nouri al-Maliki orhcestrated a campaign of arrests in Kut, Salah al-Din, Kirkuk and Diyala against those he insists are threats because they are "senior" Ba'ahtists and former officials in the Ba'athist Party. In Saddam Hussein's time, most Iraqis were Ba'athists. Many of the exiles, like Nouri, were as well before their exile period. Aswat al-Iraq counts 45 people arrested. If you've forgotten, and Nouri clearly has, the purge against Ba'athists -- implemented by Paul Bremer in 2003 -- is supposed to be over and, in 2007, Nouri signed off on benchmarks which included reconciliation. Reconciliation never happened. The arrests indicate it's not going to any time soon. Today Ahmed Rasheed and Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) report, "Iraq has arrested at least 240 former members of Saddam Hussein's banned Baath Party and ex-military officers over what some senior officials described as a plot to seize power"; however, Al Rafidayn reports that 350 is the number arrested in the last 72 hours (ending Monday). The arrest warrants were issued by Nouri. Arrests continued today in Dhi Qar with three alleged Ba'ath Party leaders arrested, according to Al Rafidayn. I can't remember where I read this now (I'm juggling phones to see if any US outlet knows about the journalist reported arrested in Iraq and am getting nothing so far) but an Arabic paper (Al Mada?) reported Tuesday that Nouri al-Maliki had announced the Justice and Accountability Commission's term had expired. Though this might mean that the commission was finally being buried, in fact, it meant that Nouri was announcing the current members were part of a commission whose term had expired and that new members would be nominated. Especially in the lead up to the March 7, 2010 elections, Nouri used the commission to shut out political opponents. In other news, Turkey continues its assault on northern Iraq. Have Turkish ground forces entered Iraq? That's in dispute. AFP reports that the country's military guarding the borders -- citing Iraqi Maj Gen Ahmed Fadheleddin in particular -- as well as the PKK state Turkey has not entered Iraq. By contrast, Reuters reported yesterday that "Turkish tanks and armored vehicles crossed into northern Iraq" while the National Turk reports that Turkish military entered Iraq on Saturday: "Around 20 tanks and 30 military trucks entered Iraqi territory from Siyahkaya village around 15 kilometers east of the Habur border gate in Turkey." Shamal Aqrawi, Daren Butler and Elizabeth Piper (Reuters) note the Turkish military is in Iraq and that is has surrounded the village of Ure (not a PKK base) where theTurkish military, rifles aloft, have marched through the town. A resident of Ure tells Reuters, "They only spread out around the village. We are worried. We don't know what will happen. We are in our houses afraid to go out." This wave of the Turkish assault has been going on since August 17th. The Turkish government just 'knows' the way to deal with an aggrieved population is to target them with killings and to kill innocent bystanders and that's how you put down a rebellion! Their actions are breeding more violence and the US has egged them on it -- possibly to ensure that Turkey does not come to the prominence so many have been predicting for the country for several years now. Certainly every principle of conflict resolution would tell you this is not how you defuse a tense situation. The mountains of northern Iraq have many villages. The people in those villages have been terrorized with non-stop bombings for months now. While some were evacuated last week, not all were. It was cute to read the press on the evacuations, about how they were being re-settled in places where millions had been spent. But no press went to those areas to confirm that, did they? It's easy to make claims and especially when the press never bothers to check out your claims. The PKK is one of many Kurdish rebel groups. The long standing mistreatment of the Kurds by the Turkish government created a large number of Kurdish rebel groups. Until the Kurds are brought into the political process in Turkey with full inclusion, the PKK will continue to be a problem for the government of Turkey. Liam Stack and Sebnem Arsu (New York Times) report from Cizre, Turkey where yesterday "thousands" mourned "the death of a local heroine [Cicek Botan], a commander in a mountaintop training camp for Kurdish militants seeking autonomy for the country's largely Kurdish southeast." The International Crisis Group's Hugh Pope is quoted stating of the latest Turkish assault, "We have been down this road many times before. Politicians might say they can hit the P.K.K. out of the park this time, but it never has worked and it never can work." From Istanbul, Ron Margulies (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) reportson life for Kurds in Turkey: This week an earthquake has killed hundreds in south-eastern Turkey, in and around the Kurdish town of Van. This is a very poor part of the country. The town's population has swollen in the past 20 years from a few hundred thousand to well over a million, as a result of the war between the Kurdish national movement and the Turkish army. Peasants from the surrounding countryside have flooded in to escape the war and to search for work. The creaking infrastructure cannot cope, and there are no jobs. When I visited two years ago there were ramshackle, poorly-built buildings everywhere -- even in the town centre. One newspaper has reported that none of the 10 sellers of ready-mix concrete in the town hold the necessary official quality certificates. It is these buildings, inhabited by the poorest, which collapsed when the earthquake hit. They include a student hall of residence. So far, the official death toll is 366 and this is expected to rise. The earthquake hit in the middle of extensive military operations by the Turkish army against the Kurdish PKK. The fighting has been intense for the past two months, with dozens dead on both sides. It was revealed at the beginning of the summer that the Turkish state and PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan had been holding talks and negotiations for the previous five years. Clearly these have now broken down. In recent weeks the PKK has been reminding the state that there is no military solution, that the PKK cannot be defeated by arms. Last week, 25 Turkish troops were killed in one day. The army's response, as always, has been to wage further war, blindly and needlessly causing further bloodshed. © Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Soner Cagaptay (at CNN) argues that the end result of the earthquake will be determining which Kurdish group will dominate, "As Turkey's Kurdish nationalist movement enters a new phase, buoyed by demands for political recognition for the Kurds, the group that performs best in delivering aid to the Kurdish quake survivors will likely emerge as the leader of Turkey's Kurdish nationalist movement. By the same token, groups that fall behind in delivering relief will lose their prestige, as well as the support of the Kurdish population." iraq the guardian james denselow the national journal yochi j. dreazen al mada dar addustour the pakistan observer the daily beast eli lake chris floyd wsws patrick martin the washington post ed okeefe free speech radio news the washington post walter pincus