catch up

okay, that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Photo-Op This!" and don't expect too much more.

sick baby today. and i was freaking out.

swine flu!

swine flu!

flyboy kept saying: it's not swine flu.

when the doctor said it this afternoon, i releaxed.

but it is a cold and i've been busy, busy, busy with that all day.

so i've got nothing tonight. i'm just boring beyond belief, i know.

i did listen to carly simon's never been gone when i was rocking the baby to sleep.

and i'm sure the radio was on in the car but i don't remember it playing.

i don't remember looking at a tv all day.

so i'm really out of it.

sorry.


oh, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Carly Simon's warm benediction" is a review of carly's new album so check it out already.

last night c.i. highlighted sian ruddick's 'Troops give anti-war soldier Joe Glenton a 'fantastic' response' (socialist worker) and i can do that now:


Joe Glenton, a British soldier who is refusing to return to fight in Afghanistan, received the backing of his fellow troops after he led more than 10,000 protesters on last Saturday’s Stop the War demonstration in London.
Joe hit the news last week after it was revealed that he was refusing to follow military orders not to attend the march.
Him coming could add to the case that the army is bringing against him for speaking out about the horror and illegality of the war.
But Joe told Socialist Worker, “It felt empowering to be on the demonstration. I was surrounded by like-minded people—from the military and ordinary walks of life.”
Joe is still stationed in barracks, and he lives with other soldiers during the week.
“I was slightly worried on Sunday night about going back in, but I thought I’ll just see what they thought.
“The response was fantastic. Soldiers shook my hand and patted me on the back.
“One guy said, ‘You’re saying what everyone else is thinking.’
“I think there has always been support for people speaking out, and it has raised a debate inside the army.”
Discontent over the intensifying war in Afghanistan has spread in the army over recent months—and it has had a deep effect in the ranks.
Joe said, “I feel like I’m strutting round, not tip-toeing, after hearing what the guys think.
“Talking to soldiers in other units, you get the impression that people are questioning why we’re in Afghanistan.”
In September, in addition to the original charge of desertion and intent to avoid active duty, the army wanted to charge Joe with bringing the army into disrepute by speaking out.
Joe and his legal team fought for this charge to be dropped—and they won.
Joe said, “I feel like we are in the ascendancy now. We’ve taken the initiative.
“We’ll have to see what happens in the coming weeks—if they bring more trumped up charges we’ll take them on.”
Joe is continuing to speak out and encourages others to do the same. “We have to start talking and demanding the details,” he said.
“Write to your MP for answers, get out on the streets, demonstrate and debate. Whatever people can do to stop this war, they should do it.”
The following should be read alongside this article: » Thousands surge against the war» Former Guantanamo prisoner Omar Deghayes speaks out
Support Joe in his fight for justice. Email messages of support to
joeisinnocent@hotmail.co.uk
Download a petition against the army’s attempts to court martial him at » www.stopwar.org.uk
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

there now i don't feel so bad about being so worthless tonight. let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Monday, November 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, no movement on passing an election law in Iraq, KBR is costing US tax payer $193 as a result of their inability to manage their workforce, the Pentagon isn't providing all the plans for the draw-down to the GAO, and more.


The first (partial) week of October saw 5 people reported dead and 24 reported wounded, the second week (October 4th through 10th) saw 46 reported dead and 131 injured, the third week (October 11th through 17th) saw 89 reported dead and 336 reported wounded, the fourth week (October 18th through 24th) saw 53 reported dead and 107 reported wounded, and the fifth week (October 25th through October 31st) saw 191 reported dead and 580 reported injured. Totals? 384 reported dead and 1106 reported wounded. At least. Michael Christie and Michael Roddy (Reuters) cite "security sources" for the toll of 343 people killed. Barbara Surk (AP) reports that AP's count for October is 364 killed. John Leland (New York Times) reports, "In October, 453 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed, an increase from a monthly low this year of 279 in September but considerably below the high of 677 in April, according to the Interior Ministry. The statistics do not count deaths in the northern Kurdish region."

8 US service members were announced dead in Iraq during the month of October. Today the US military announced another death: "FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq -- A Multi-National Corps -- Iraq Soldier died Nov. 2 of non-combat related injuries. Release of the Soldier's identity is being with held pending notification of the next of kin. The name of the deceased service member will be announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site [. . .] The announcements are made on the web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is currently under investigation." Maloy Moore (Los Angeles Times) reports that the fallen was 20-year-old Lukas C. Hopper of Merced, California who "is survived by his mother and father, Robin and Yancy Hopper, both of Merced." The announcement brings to 4356 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. In other reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report 2 Tikrit roadside bombing which wounded one person. Reuters drops back to yesterday to note a Mosul car bombing which left 2 people dead and two more injured.

Shootings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) report 1 person shot dead in Mosul. Reuters drops back to yesterday to note 1 attorney shot dead in his Mosul office.

Violence continues, actually increases, and Nouri al-Maliki maintains he is the new strongman, the new Saddam to be trusted and should continue as prime minister of Iraq. On Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq (which began broadcasting Friday), the topic was Nouri al-Maliki and the guests joining host Jasim Azzawi included head of Iraqi Nation Party Mithal al-Alsui and US Dept Assistant Secretary of State for Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Michael Corbin.

Jasim Azzawi: This murderous double explosion that happened in Iraq is quite sophisticated. It has all the marks, perhaps, of foreign power and yet it is domestically carried out. Today the Iraqi government arrested 60 security officers -- perhaps they were either in cahoot or negligent in their duty how do you look at this double bombings?

Mithal al-Alsui: Well, first of all, I have to say that when we talk about total sections we talk about so complicated cases. This is one side but of the other side we didn't feel that the government they do have any kind of a platform or a vision how to deal with the terrorists or the security in Iraq. More than that they just react and such news as you are hearing, the government they are arresting or they are trying to start an investigation of some officers. My opinion, this is just a reaction, trying to cover the need of the new election in Iraq.

Jasim Azzawi: Indeed you are right. Perhaps the arrest or the questioning of the 60 officers might be a face saving formula. Mr. Corbin, today I was struck by what the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said. He said, "The US cannot wash its hand of the situation in Iraq. We expect more engagement from the American forces. What does that mean in light of the fact that SOFA stipulates American forces should go back to their barracks by June 30th. Is the Iraqi government speaking with two voices? al-Maliki says we don't want them and his foreign minister says we need them back.

Michael Corbin: First of all, I can't comment on what Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister, said, Jasim. But what I can say first is that we strongly condemn these horrific bombings conducted by people with no respect for human life. The victims in this latest bombing were children, were passerby on the street. We see no benefit that anyone could claim by trying to claim victory by trying to conduct these kind of attacks. We are in partnership with the government of Iraq. We are working closely with the security forces, we're working closely with Prime Minister Maliki to try and prevent this kind of attack. The Iraqis have control of their cities since June 30. They have made enormous strides. What you see here is terrorists who have tried every means to cause havoc and destruction moving from first targeting mosques and churches and minorities, then targeting innocent people in market places to now targeting uh government buildings where normal Iraqis work, where passersby are being targeted. We don't see any strategy here by the insurgents, we see only bloody killing and we find it despicable that anyone would seek to rush to claim credit for this type of attack.

What a load of crap. First off, if you'd done what Michael Corbin did in Syria, you might shut your damn mouth and keep your head down real low. That's (A). (B) He served under George W. Bush and now he wants to develop a sense of righteous indignation? NOW? The bombings were part of the ongoing Iraq War. The US government has attempted to label the Iraqis taking part in this war as "terrorist" which is a bunch of crap, they are people who feel they are defending their country. Micheal Corbin -- of all people -- wants to lecture on innocents being killed.

The US military killed innocents and the US government knew it was going to happen because (a) they ordered it and (b) the whole damn world knew it was going to happen. Which is how we get Elizabeth Piper (Reuters) reporting (March 2005) on Jawdat Abd al-Kadhum whose 'crime' was driving and for that 'crime' "he lost his leg to an American bullet." The US military likes to call it "collateral damage." In March 2007, they were even bragging about new ammo which, they stated, would be helpful in "reducing collateral damage" in Iraq. There's the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad was attacked April 8, 2003 by . . . the US military claiming the lives of journalists Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso and wounding three other journalists. On the same day -- on the same day -- that the US military attacked the Baghdad bureau of Al Jazeera killing journalist Tareq Ayyoub. Now we can go on and on -- as the illegal war has -- but the point should have been made: Michael Corbin needs to check that righteous indignation that he has oh-so recently sprouted.

But spewing mock outrage allowed him to avoid answering a direct question, didn't it? And wasn't that the point? "I can't comment on what Hoshyar Zebari, the Foreign Minister, said." Then why the hell are you on the show? For your beauty? Don't make me laugh.

Jasim Azzawi: But then again, Mr. Corbin, they are a symbol of the Iraqi government and those terrorist attacks are meant to strike at the very heart of the Iraqi symbol. We'll get to that point later on, but let me get to Mithal. There are two theories, Mithal Alusi, the reasons behind these suicide bombings. One is: To create chaos and embarrass the Iraqi government. The other one is, which I would like you to comment on, is that: It is meant to embarrass al-Maliki himself for abandoning his erstwhile allies -- primarily the Iraqi National Alliance.

Mithal al-Alsui: Well I must come back to the -- to the main point which I really believe that even the United States of America with all of the institutions they got, the terrorists, they succeed to attack America, they succeed to attack many European states. But in general, what we need here in Iraq, we need to start to build the Iraqi institution. What we need here to start, to go out of the propaganda issues, what we need here is to start to believe in our citizens and our nation and to serve the people. We still action -- we still reaction in very naive and simple ways and this is not the way to stop terrorists this is not the way to stop --

Jasim Azzawi: Are you saying the Iraqi government is failing to do the proper things? Are you casting doubt on the -- on the whole structure of the Iraqi government and its vision for the future?

Mithal al-Alsui: For sure, Mr. Maliki government, it didn't succeed to provide service. They didn't succeed to push the economy. They didn't succeed to help in the oil industry. They didn't succeed to find any platform or vision for the education, for the health sectors. They didn't succeed in different ways so the security is part of the result of this government and we are so sorry to hear it repeatedly from the American side, "We are helping the Iraqi government and we are supporting the Iraqi government." We are asking our American friends: You need to support the Iraqi political process and the democratic process. We need to support the Iraqi economy --

Jasim Azzawi: Let me give a chance to Mr. Corbin to answer that. Go ahead, your aid and your help is going in the wrong direction, that's what he's saying.

Michael Corbin: I agree with Mithal that we have to build institutions. I agree that we have to help with education and health. But what we see is an Iraqi government that is capable now of making decision. We're in partnership with the Iraqi government. When the UN mandate ended at the end of 2008, it was a significant step forward for Iraqi institutions. Iraq now can deal with its neighbors. Iraq is in a position now where we have a partnership on economic issues. Oil. We've had one bid round for international oil companies to come into Iraq. We're preparing for another. We see many elements where the Iraqi government and Iraqi institutions such as the very Ministry of Justice which was targeted --

Despite Michael Corbin's inane mutterings, no 'progress' in Iraq. John Leland (New York Times) reported in this morning's paper, "Meanwhile, Iraqi legislators again failed to agree on laws governing the January elections, despite warnings that further delay could prevent the vote from taking place on time. Discussions in Parliament on Sunday instead focused on other matters." To recap, prior to Barack Obama being elected US President, Iraq 'intended' to hold national elections in December 2009. They then pushed the elections back to January 2010 which Barack used to break his campaign promise re: troop draw-down in Iraq (he called it withdrawal and, in his speeches, rarely included "combat" which is a meaningless qualifier anyway). All this year, they've anticipated the elections being held in January 2010 and the deadline for passing legislation was October 15th. The day before that deadline, they decided to kick decisions back to October 19th. And so it has gone, over and over. It is now November 2nd and they have no election law.Appearing October 21st before the US House Armed Services Committee, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy was asked of the delays in Iraq passing an election law.Michele Flournoy: Uh, let me start by saying, you know, the draw-down plan that we have, is conditions based and it creates multiple decision points for re-evaluating and, if necessary, changing our plans based on developments on the ground. Although the government of Iraq's self-imposed deadline of October 15th for passing the elections law has passed, we judge that the COR [Council Of Representatives] still has another week or two to come to some kind of an agreement on the elections law before it will put the January date -- the early January date -- in jeopardy in terms of the election commission's ability to actually physically execute the, uh, the election. If a new law with open lists is not passed, the fall back solution for them is to return to the 2005 election law which is based on a closed list system. But that could be used for upcoming elections, the COR would simply have to vote on an election date. If that law is not passed in the next two weeks, they will be looking at slipping the date to later in January which would still be compliant with the [Iraqi] Constitution but would be later than originally planned. In that instance, M-NF-I [Multi-National Forces Iraq] would need to engage with the government of Iraq to do some contingency planning on how to secure the elections at a later date and that might well have-have implications. Though she maintained Iraq could fall back on the 2005 election law, other bodies begged to differ. As Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported, "Iraq's existing election law was declared unconstitutional by its highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or amended." Yesterday Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reported, "Iraqi MPs have until Sunday to pass controversial legislation or face postponing parliamentary elections set for 16 January. The poll is seen as crucial to the stability of the country, and any delay would likely impact on the US plan for withdrawal." There was no passage and AFP reports today that KRG President Massud Barzani and US Vice President Joe Biden "pressed the need for a key election law to be passed". BBC News reports the United Nations "had warned that it could not guarantee to endorse the polls if the bill was not approved on Sunday" -- that was yesterday and the bill was not approved. BBC points out that the 'sticky points' are Kirkuk and the issue of open or closed lists. The latter will determine whether voters vote for individual candidates and this is something that many in Parliament are opposed to. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports this afternoon that things remain at a standstill and quotes Iraqi MP Hunain al-Qaddo stating, "If we don't manage to make any progress on the electoral law, that will have a negative impact on the political process and it will send a very bad signal to Iraq's enemies that the political system isn't working. [. . .] I still have hopes but I think if we don't manage to do something this week or next week, we really have to look at postponing the election." Meanwhile Mohammed Jamjoom and Jormana Karadsheh (CNN) report Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman states that the US is pushing the "highest levels of the Kurdish leadership" to go along with a plan for January elections that would yet again set aside the issue of Kirkuk. In an offensive statement issued last week, Chris Hill (US Ambassador to Iraq) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq) insisted that the election law should be a 'one-time only' type deal and not apply to or consider Article 140 of Iraq's Constitution. Article 140 is the one that mandates the Kirkuk issue be resolved (via a referendum). That was supposed to have taken place 2 years ago. It did not. Now let's get back to offensive: In 2000, the US election was decided not by the voters nor by the means outlined in the US Constitution. Instead the US Supreme Court injected itself into the dispute and issued a laughable ruling that was so perverted the Court insisted it was a 'one-time only' ruling and couldn't be cited as precedent in future cases. That's what Hill and Odierno are now proposing. Regardless of who gets or doesn't get Kirkuk, it's amazing how the US continues to kick the can down the road over and over. This issue was supposed to have been addressed no later than 2007. The US is again pushing for it to be postponed. And the only time the KRG can get people to the table on this issue is when they have the pressure of an upcoming election which needs to be addressed.

Today the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan met in DC and heard from a number of witnesses including someone on the second panel who mentioned Flournoy's October 21st testimony, Rear Adm Thomas Traaen who declared, "As I'm sure you know, the testimony given by Secretary [Michele] Flournoy, Mr. [Alan] Estevez, Vice Adm [James] Winnefeld and, my boss, Lt Gen [Kathleen] Gainey on 21 October was well received by the House Armed Services Committee. My testimony here will draw heavily from their insightful remarks." Those remarks included establishing that decisions on draw-down and going back in would be made by events on the ground in Iraq. Yes, that is a clear contradiction of the position Barack Obama presented as a candidate when he was fond of saying the US military did everything they had been tasked to do and did it well. And, yes, he was stealing from Hillary Clinton back then and, yes, Hillary was attacked by CODESTINK and others for those comments but they apparently sounded so much better out of Barack's mouth thereby explaining the refusal to call him out. So Barack's plan as outlined in that hearing was the same plan he outlined to the New York Times, the one that left Michael Gordon flabbergasted because Barack was saying that he was 'withdrawing' and at the same time saying he was going back in if anything went wrong and playing definition games regarding the military ("trainers," etc.).

Also appearing on the second panel was the GAO's William Solis who declared that the Pentagon hasn't completed the plans for a draw-down. He stated that the Defense Dept "has not fully defined or identified the contracted services it will need to successfully complete the draw-down and support the remaining US forces in Iraq." Solis explained that 128,700 US service members were in Iraq as of the end of August "spread among 295 bases throughout the country." Solis' opening, prepared remarks, can be found [PDF format warning] here. While the GAO was able to count the number of US service members in Iraq, there was no count on the number of contractors leading Co-Chair of the Commission, Michael Thibault to declare, "It is both peculiar and troubling that eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and more than six years since the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, we still don't know how many contractor employees are working in the region. [. . .] How can contractors be properly managed if we aren't sure how many there are, where they are and what they are doing?"

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Yes, uh, first, Adm Traaen, I noticed on page three of your testimony, uh, you said that there will be a proportionally larger contractor presence. Now GAO has said that you haven't -- DoD, rather, hasn't fully determined its need for contracted services so how are you planning to oversee this? You're going to have more contractors, you already have fewer CORs than you need right now, the proportions going to go up. Could you walk me through your current plans and your timetables and how you plan to address this issue?

Rear Adm Thomas Traaen: Yes, sir. First of all, I think the proportionality is prudent as we close forward operating bases and operating sites and as the military either resets or re-postures in Afghanistan. The proportionality issue is not surprising to me. Uh, I think that the number of contractors -- in terms of measuring that to the plan -- is moving down significantly faster than CENTCOM had originally planned and so I think that getting out in front of it is the first part of the plan. It's to make sure that we're removing capability where we don't need it. Certainly, I think the CENTCOM plan is to be conditions based and I think that there is a protocol that we would continue to move forward in terms of making sure that there are some outliers -- for example, the elections that are coming up in the January time frame, counter-insurgency efforts that -- if we draw down too quickly -- we could put that combatant commander in harms way of not being able to produce his mission. I do believe that there is proper planning in terms of the MNFI fusion cell that is tasked with fusing, synchronizing and integrating this effort. And as the third point, I think having MNFI and that fusion cell also combined with the Joint Logistics Procurement Support Board that is the JCCIA and an MNFI established board that will properly prioritize and coordinate those efforts as the fourth point of light making sure that drawing down in accordance with those priorities is the proper way to go, sir.

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Uhm, let me turn now to Mr. Thompson. Uhm, we know that the target is a 32% contractor draw-down. I believe that's the number that Adm Traaen has in his testimony. But looking at that chart, I guess I'm thrown a little bit. Contractors have already declined by seven -- nearly eighteen percent but not KBR. In fact, KBR has declined by roughly half of that 18% number. In the previous panel, and you may have been here when we discussed this, I noted that if a service wasn't completely closed down, then any contractor -- well, not any -- some contractors, and I guess I should emphazise that, not all would act this way. But some contractors would drag their feet because service hasn't closed down, you don't pull the people out, you keep charging. Could you explain to me why it is that KBR which has been under so much scrutiny from GAO, from the IG, even from this commission, is pulling it's people back at half the rate -- half the rate -- of all other contractors.

Lee Thompson: Number one, when we talk about consolidation, draw-down, consolidation of bases, drawdown, those services that we provide under LOGCAP [Logistics Civilian Augmentation Program] are still being performed. There's a common mistake of rolling up all bases as a single base. There's different sizes of bases. So you had the small contingency operation locations and that which is a lower brigade size which would be a contingency operation site. They move into our services, the services we contracted for are still being provided. There has been a reduction as that [chart] says, from when we started. In fact, the number's around 50,000 today. So we've put a freeze on them. They -- KBR -- cannot hire above a certain limit based on the basis of the estimate that was negotiated this past August and September. As we get the guidance from CI MNFI on what bases will close, we'll descope and we'll start moving out contractors. We are in fact doing those, we're looking at those critical skills. But remember the major draw-down starts after the [Iraqi] elections. So we are watching that and I'm depending upon our DCA[A -- Defense Contract Audit Agency] folks that are doing the floor checks for us.

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: So can you state with absolute certainty that KBR has moved expiditiously and, for instance, has not moved people from one location to another? Are you certain of that? Do you have that degree of oversight and visibility? Given some of the things we heard earlier from one of our Co-Chairman, Co-Chariman [Michael] Thibault about issues arising with dining halls and certain things, are you absolutely certain that KBR's getting people out as they should?

Lee Thompson: I'm not going to sit here and say I'm absolutely certain but I will tell you that we'll provide the oversight and look at those places where we are closing to make sure that there's not excess personnel there. And we will -- they have to get a blessing from us as we move and we descope, we descope the property, if we close a base, we look at the personnel where they're reallocating or realinging them to so we're looking and we're scrutinizing that. And I depend on my folks forward, the same two officers -- if you will -- that said they're against or-or whatever Chairman Thibault had to say about what they said overseas.

Commissioner Dov Zakheim: Mr. Solis, could you comment on both of these points? One, the adequacy of planning and, second, the degree of oversight of KBR and the seeming discrephancy between KBR LOGCAP 3 and other draw-downs.

Willaim Solis: Well I think in terms of the planning, I mentioned before in my opening statement that there is -- there's a lot of things that are going on with regards to the retrograde of equipment. One thing that we haven't seen a whole lot of is planning, as I mentioned, for determining the requirements, the oversight for the contracts that are going to be coming onboard. And we still have a concern about that, we still have seen exact plans. As I mentioned to you the GMASS [Global Maintenance and Supply Services] contract in Kuwait ,which is a major maintenance contract, which is necessary to move equipment out, look at it, and get -- and then repair it and move it out to Kuwait or whever it's going to go -- back to a unit, over to Afghanistan or whatever -- they expect a major increase, as I mentioned, doubling the size of their contract force to about 6,000 people. We have not seen what kinds of plans are going to be put in place to increase the contractor oversight there -- and that's not just there, I think it's other contracts that we have seen as well. I think in terms of the LOGCAP, we haven't really looked in terms of the numbers so I can't really contra -- comment on that. But I think that these numbers are going to flucuate, whether it's LOGCAP or some of these other major contracts in terms as the draw-down proceeds and that's why it's important to really understand what you're contract requirements are going to be during this period.

The first panel included April Stephenson who stated KBR's ineffective managing of their workforce is costing tax payers "at least $193 million". Stevenson was testifying on behalf of the Defense Contract Audit Agency. She explained KBR had not done the staff reductions and, as a result and barring no major action on KBR's part, there staff ratio in Iraq would, by August 2010, be 1 KBR employee for every 3.6 US service members. That will probably be a detail noted by any who note the hearing. But another detail -- the reason for the excerpt above -- is equally important: No plans.

The GAO -- like the House Armed Services Committee -- is not seeing plans. Do they exist? What's being discussed isn't 2011 or post-2011. What's being discussed above is the draw-down that's supposedly going to begin taking place as soon as Iraq holds national elections. Where are the plans?

The inability to move foward on the election bill (passing legislation) by the Iraqi government or 'government' is rightly being noted. What about the inability of the Pentagon to provide plans for events that are supposed to be right around the corner?

And what's up with allowing KBR to drag it's feet there? Commission Charles Tiefer asked if KBR had a written, detailed plan for their part in the draw-down. Thompson declared, "I was over there a few weeks ago, a month ago, and they provided me with a briefing. I think it was 25th, 26th of September." He continued, "Was there a written plan? We have a normal, operational, 'how do I close a base' kind of plan that they have signed up to early on." Who is providing oversight and how will there be a draw-down starting supposedly in a few months if there are no plans in writing? (No, a general "how do I close a base" is not a written plan.) Commissioner Robert Henke attempted to get a "short, succinct answer" on the KBR issue: "If the president announces on February 27, 2009 the draw-down plan and we're on November 2nd, is it possible that the contractor hasn't provided you any plan to adjust staff accordingly?" What he received was a babble from Thompson that contradicted and spun. Henke then attempted to get answers by going bit by bit through a timeline and asking "How is that posssible?" In Thompson's most honest response in the entire hearing he included "I don't know" as part of his long-winded, run-the-clock-down response.

Friday's snapshot had an error -- thank you to a Congressional staffer who informed me of it. Duncan Hunter cited a project which was Task Force Odin not "Odum" -- ODIN stands for Observe, Detect, Identify and Neutralize. It is not and was not named after General William Odum as I wrongly stated. My error and my apologies.

Today Iran's Press TV reports:The US military has finished erecting an advanced radar system in Iraq to monitor the border with Iran, Syria and Turkey, a report says. The radar system will monitor aircraft and anti-air targets approaching from the borders, several Arabic language news websites reported on Monday, citing comments by unnamed Isareli sources. The report posted on the Palestinian Maannews website said that the system would transmit information to the Iraqi air force and some of its radar would be connected to the control tower at the Baghdad International Airport. Which gives us a chance to relive one of those 'great moments' in illegal war history. For those who've forgotten or never knew about the US spying (the governments of England and Australia joined in the spying as well) on the UN, refer to Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy and Peter Beaumont's "Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war" (Observer, March 2, 2003):The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer. The disclosures were made in a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organisation and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for its input. The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq.


iraqthe new york timesjohn lelandrebecca santanajason ditz
the christian science monitorjane arraf
mcclatchy newspapersbbc newsgabriel gatehouse
jomana karadsheh
martin brighted vulliamypeter beaumont
the los angeles times

tony blair, go away

Tony Blair is clearly hugely qualified to be the first President of Europe – he loves getting his snout in the trough, national sovereignty means nothing to him and he can lie through his teeth and get away with it.
On the presidency, Blair grandly announced that he is interested provided that it is “big enough”.
Does he mean the job? Or the limo?

that's from tony parson's telegraph of london piece and, yes, tony blair is all norma desmond these days. tony blair thinks it's time for his close up and for his comeback.

the world thinks differently.

meanwhile did angela merkel really nix tony blair's big? if so, way to go angela!

the finanical times of london also feels tony brown is not the rightf fit:

Council or won’t he? And will they – his former peers in the Council, the 27 EU heads of government that make up this select electorate – want him?

With the all-but-ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, these questions have burst out of the Euro-parlour game into the public square. The answer is not as clear as it might seem at first glance.

In the first place, there is no real consensus – yet – about what the job actually entails, yet everyone knows that it will be defined by the first person who holds it.

Is it a position that requires the star quality that – as David Miliband, the UK foreign secretary, put it in ostensibly arguing for Mr Blair – stops traffic in Washington and Beijing, Moscow and New Delhi?

It is far from clear EU leaders, in their vanity, would allow themselves to be eclipsed by that kind of star. They may well prefer someone who patiently attends to the (27) agenda(s) and works to build the sort of messy consensus that keeps the union staggering forward. The impenetrable Lisbon treaty is verbose on this but uncharacteristically brief on the role of representation.

But, if it is global recognition the EU wants, Mr Blair can certainly oblige. In his decade at the top of British and international politics, he was, indeed, a star, albeit in a rather dim firmament. It is a seductive argument that with his mix of access and charm, and his I’m-a-straight-sort-of-guy way of doing business, he would enable the EU to, at last, punch its weight on the international stage.

Europe does need a more persuasive voice, otherwise it risks fading into geopolitical irrelevance in a world parcelled up between a G2 of the US and China. And, even though the other big job of foreign policy chief created by the Lisbon treaty could turn out to be more important, it is far from obvious there are good alternatives to Mr Blair as president of the Council.

The objections to Mr Blair are not – as the opposition Conservative party has it – that his appointment would be seen as an affront to British sensibilities. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary and former Tory leader, said naming him as president would be seen as a “hostile” act. He sounds as though he is confusing Brussels with the Kremlin, circa 1980. David Cameron adopted a more even – and gently mocking – tone in saying a future Tory government could work with Il Presidente.

No, Mr Blair is the wrong man for this job for different reasons.

The folly of Iraq, a war of choice sold on a false prospectus, looms large. Quite aside from the fact that this unprovoked invasion broke Iraq as a state and as a society, giving a fillip to jihadism across the wider Middle East, Mr Blair, subordinating the UK to the incompetent adventurism of the Bush administration, did not try to reach agreement with his European partners and contributed mightily to the union’s division.

But alongside the debris piled up by the Iraq catastrophe, Mr Blair blew a historic opportunity to embed Britain in Europe and change the British conversation about Europe. At a time when Britons of his generation have never felt more familiar with and at ease with their European neighbours, and when so many EU arguments were going the British way, Mr Blair all but abandoned any attempt to win domestic opinion to even the pragmatic case for pooling a small portion of British sovereignty, instead capitulating to the Eurosceptic and jingoist media. On leaving office he blamed the press for forcing Britain’s leaders into a false dilemma of being for or against Europe: “it’s either isolation or treason”. But after his landslide 10 years earlier he could have crossed the English Channel on foot. Leaders are supposed to lead.

The star power his supporters attribute to Mr Blair, moreover, ignores the fact that the EU is more about chemistry than cosmology. It requires coalition-building skills of a high order, and a real understanding of the intra-EU tensions between big and small states, between north and south, and increasingly, east and west, and of the prickliness of the big three, France, Germany and the UK. Mr Blair may instinctively incline too much to the power of the big states to unite the union.

The Blair claim to this job cannot be lightly dismissed, but nor is it self-evident he is the man to invest the EU with glittering new credibility with a sprinkle of pixie dust. This is not about redeeming his reputation. It is about promoting Europe’s
let's close with c.i.'s 'iraq snapshot:'

On the other hand, government police and army forces arrested eight civilians in various areas of Diyala Province.

In Basra, government police forces arrested 20 people in raid and search campaign alleged to be wanted.

In Tuzkharmotu of Saladin Province, government police forces arrested three civilians who were beaten, insulted and irritated.

In Latifiya of southern Baghdad, sectarian government army forces arrested seven civilians in raid and search attacks.

Today Deng Shasha (Xinhua) reports that Iraq's Sunni vice president (Iraq has two vice presidents -- one Sunni, one Shia) Tariq al-Hashimi has "called on an evaluation of running the security dossier after Sunday's bloody suicide bombings that claimed the lives of 155 Iraqis." Meanwhile Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that today saw many clerics using the sermons to call out "Iraqi authorities" and quotes Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karbalai stating, "With insurgents having repeated the same bombings, with the same style and in the same secure area, we have to review the security plan that has been implemented in Baghdad" while Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani declared, "I demand immediate and urgent checks for the reasons that led to teh bombings." Nouri's government rsponse has been to attack Syria (naturally) and to attack the press (ibid). On the latter, Azzaman reports he has "banned movement by press vehicles with equipment to broadcast live. [. . . ] The order has been issued by the military command of Baghdad operations which specificially denies television broadcasters the right of live coverage."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which left four people injured and a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer.

Shootings?

Reuters drops back to Thursday and notes that 3 police officers were shot dead and another injured at a Mosul police checkpoint.

Corpses?

Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul while 1 police officer -- who may or may not have been part of the investigation into Sunday's bombings -- was discovered dead (from a shooting) in his Baghdad office.

Violence was kind-of, sort-of an issue yesterday in the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The hearing was about IEDs and the money spent on studying them. The Pentagon's James Schear and Lt Gen Thomas Metz as well as the GAO's William Solis were the witnesses, Vic Snyder is the Subcomittee Chair.

Subcommittee Chair Vic Snyder: IEDs remain the number one cause of casulities to coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although IEDs are not a new threat, they have been used with unprecedented frequency in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the decrease in successful attacks in Iraq is encouraging, that success has not been replicated in Afghanistan which has seen an increase in success in fatality attacks with our increase in forces there. Since former CENTCOM commander General [John] Abizaid called for a Manhattan Project like effort 5 years ago to defeat IEDs, Congress has provided nearly $17 billion to DoD's efforts. This effort has grown from a twelve-man army task force to the Jointed IED Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO, which currently employs a staff of about 3600 dedicated government, military and contract personnel.

Lt Gen Thomas F. Metz declared, "What's really different in the two theaters is that over time in Iraq, as we were experiencing 1500, 2500 IEDs a month -- and finding and clearing half of them, we were gaining an enormous amount of forensics and biometrics information. We use that in the COIC [Counter-IED Operations Integration Center] to our advantage It is our asymetric advantage."

US House Rep Duncan Hunter noted a lack of mobilization. He referred to NPR's report on IEDs this week and how, despite all the money being spent, it was human beings noting, for example, "that corpse wasn't there yesterday" and guessing that it appeared to hide an IED. He noted that Marines in Afghanistan report they have only rarely seen predator drones and that instead they rely on "hand held mine sweepers -- a version of which people use on the beach to find coins." He also showed a child's innocence or foolilshness as he lived in a world where only the 'guilty' were killed.

US House Rep Duncan Hunter: This doesn't make me feel comfortable that we are truly doing everything that we can right now. Once-once more, if Secretary Gates said, "No more IEDs to be buried" -- I understand that there are tons in Afghanistan and they can be turned on like that at any point in time. But we could do that. We could stop IEDs from being buried if we mobilize to do it. And -- and if we want to politically about this war too -- it would fall off the map if nobody was dying. Iraq's not in the paper anymore because nobody's dying. One reason is we've knocked off IEDs, huge in 2007 and 2008, with [Gen William] Odum by killing over 3,000 IED placers. Project Odom with IEDS killed more people than every single other person in Iraq put together -- with all the offensive operations, Odom killed more and they were all bad guys -- not one single civilian, they were all inputting IEDs.


"Not one single civilian." Just "bad guys." Because a drone is judge and jury. So if a drone says it's "bad guys" that's all the proof Duncan Hunter needs. (And, to clarify, this is Duncan Hunter the younger, the 32-year-old elected to his father's seat. Still wet behind the ears and with a child's wide-eyes, he needs correcting, not the blanket approval Snyder gave him when Snyder followed Hunter. And someone might have bothered to inform Hunter that, despite his claims that "nobody's dying" in Iraq, Iraq saw at least 155 people die on Sunday alone. "Nobody's dying"? That didn't require a correction? Did he mean no US service members? If so, even that's wrong because there are 8 announced dead in Iraq so far this month -- granted 2 of them were announced today so, at the time of the hearing, only 6 had been announced. And it's a good thing to Duncan Hunter that the news media walked away from Iraq? Really? (Hunter is a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, FYI.) Congress had time for that nonsense yesterday. Not for anything important, but they had time for that.

Related, Iraq Veterans Against the War's Martin Smith looks into the educational benefits scandal and reports (US Socialist Worker) on various people who have suffered and are suffering:

Politicians always clamor that we have to "support our troops" and take care of our veterans first. The White House Web site quotes Obama's proclamation that "we...owe our veterans the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned."
But the VA's latest failure to deliver on educational benefits--coming just a few years after the scandal of VA health care negligence at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C.--leaves these lofty assertions sounding like just another example of the politicians' empty rhetoric.
And given Obama's increasingly clear record of impressive speeches followed by little action, some veterans are calling his administration "the audacity of nope."
While the veterans at the VA office in Chicago expressed relief at finally receiving their first check, the bitterness persists. Bureaucratic red tape and mismanagement always holds up money and benefits for veterans, but there always seems to be an abundant supply of cash for bank bailouts, the "cash for clunkers" program to help U.S. automakers, a failed Olympic bid for the city of Chicago, or a bloated Pentagon budget.


How is that related? One damn hearing. That's all the Congress is going to hold on that scandal? Really? One damn hearing. They fawned over VA Secretary Eric Shinseki October 14th -- even when he admitted that the VA knew before he became the Secretary (and that he found out as soon as he became the Secretary) that they wouldn't be able to implement the benefit checks in a timely manner. They acted like smiling zombies. October 15th, when he was present, they were suddenly concerned for their one and only hearing thus far into the scandal. That's disgusting. That effected so many veterans and it got so little attention from Congress. Most importantly, it's still not 'fixed.' Read Martin Smith's report. But Congress has other things to do and, point of fact, the Senate held no hearings on the issue. Want to explain how that happened?

Staying on the topic of veterans issues and dropping back to the October 21st snapshot:

Meanwhile Lauren DeFranco (WABC -- link has text and video) reports Christal Wagenhauser gave birth to a two month premature daughter and she and the family want Cpl [Keith] Wagenhouser -- currently stationed in Iraq -- home to see the baby: "If the baby's condition deteriorates, it would take Wagenhauser a week to get home. At that point, it would be too late."

Jennifer Logan (CBS) reports that Keith Wagenhauser was finally given time to visit his family and arrived in New York yesterday and explains: "In an incubator adorned with her father's military photo, Madison, born by life-saving caesarean section, weighing just 2-pounds 11-ounces is being treated in the neonatal intensive care unit of Stony Brook University Medical Center. Initially, marine brass explained that emergency leave is granted only in cases of imminent or actual death in their immediate family and that Madison's condition was not sufficiently life threatening enough to grant an exception." So while the military brass did the right thing, what's the hold up with the US Congress when it comes to the latest (known) threat to deport the spouse of a veteran?

Iraq War veteran Jack Barrios would probably love some downtime with his family but the government keeps creating problems as LA's KABC reports (link has text and video):

Subha Ravindhran: [. . .] Frances Barrios considers herself an American. She grew up and went to high school here in Van Nuys but for the past 17 years, she's been living in this country illegally. Now she and her husband, an Iraq War veteran, must deal with the consequences. 26-year-old Army Specialist Jack Barrios can barely talk about the time he served in Iraq.

Jack Barrios: I'll skip that.

Subha Ravindhran: You don't want to talk about that.

Jack Barrios: Yeah.

Subha Ravindhran: But what he can speak about is the battle his family is going through now. His wife, 23-year-old Frances, is facing deporation back to Guatemala -- a country she left when she was just six-years-old.

Jack Barrios: I'm pretty sad and angry that we will get separated.

Subha Ravindhran: Not only will three-year-old Matthew and one-year-old Allanna be separated from their mother, but Jack will also lose his main caretaker. Since he returned from Iraq in 2007, he's been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Frances Barrios: He was an outgoing person, you could say. He used to like being outside with his friends and just, you know, having a good time. When he came back, like I said, he shut down. It wasn't him.

Subha Ravindhran: Their attorney Jessica Dominguez says the chances of keeping Frances here are slim.

Jessica Dominguez: It's just mind boggling to try to understand that in a situation like this, Mr. Barrios cannot be assured that his family is going to stay together because immigration laws do not protect the sanctity of his family at this point.

The US government wants to deport her. (She's from Guatemala originally, entered the US with her mother when she was just six-years-old.) As offensive as that is -- and it's really offensive -- it's also economically stupid because Jack suffers from PTSD. The US government is going to provide him a caretaker who will do all that Frances currently does? Really? Teresa Watanabe (Los Angeles Times) reported earlier this week:

But as he undergoes counseling and swallows anti-depressants, the soldier is fighting an even bigger battle: to keep his family from collapsing as his wife, an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala, faces deportation.
His wife, 23-year-old Frances, was illegally brought to the United States by her mother at age 6, learned of her status in high school and discovered just last year that removal proceedings have been started. Her possible deportation has left Barrios in panic as he contemplates life without her.
The Army reservist says his wife is the family's anchor, caring for their year-old daughter and 3-year-old son and helping him battle his post-traumatic stress.
"She's my everything," Barrios said as he sat glumly in the family's sparsely furnished but tidy Van Nuys apartment. "Without her, I can't function. It would be like taking away a part of my soul."
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers are facing the same trouble as they fight to legalize their spouses' status, a difficult process that has affected their military readiness, according to Margaret Stock, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves and an immigration attorney specializing in military cases.



Turning to the issue of contracting, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports on the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's latest report which finds that Aecom Government Services which "supplied vehicle parts for the Iraqi army sought reimbursements from the U.S. military far in excess of the costs of the items". Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor -- link has text and audio) reports that the report finds that KBR is not recycling in their catering facilities despite the contract stating they would.

Dropping back to the October 21st snapshot, "In the US yesterday, a twenty-year-old Iraqi woman was run over along with her 43-year-old friend. James King (Phoenix News) reports that police are looking for the twenty-year-old's father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, whom they supsect of running the two women down and that the alleged motive is that the daughter was 'becoming too westernized.' Katie Fisher (ABC 15 -- link has text and video) reports the 20-year-old woman is Noor Faleh Almaleki and her 43-year-old friend is Amal Edan Khalaf and the friend is also the mother of the twenty-year-old's boyfriend." CNN reports he was arrested yesterday in Atlanta -- after he had gone to Mexico, flown to London where British officials refuse him admittance in England, and returned to the US. CNN states his daughter is still in the hospital and "unresponsive" to treatment thus far. Sarah Netter (ABC News -- link has text and video) reports on the apparent attempted honor killing and notes that Noor's status as "life-threatening condition".


TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing on many PBS stations tonight (check local listings for times and for other dates if it doesn't air on your PBS station tonight):

Home to a worldwide summit on climate change in early December, Denmark is setting a global example in creating clean power, storing it, and using it responsibly. Their reliance on wind power to produce electricity without contributing to global warming is well known, but now they're looking to drive the point home with electric cars. To do this, they've partnered with social entrepreneur Shai Agassi and his company Better Place.
This week, NOW investigates how the Danish government and Better Place are working together to put electric cars into the hands of as many Danish families as possible. The idea is still having trouble getting out of the garage here in America, but Denmark could be an inspiration.
Will so much green enthusiasm bring about a "Copenhagen Protocol"?

Washington Week also begins airing tonight on many PBS stations and sitting around the table with Gwen this week are Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), John Dickerson (Slate and CBS News), Marilyn Serafini (National Journal) and Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers). Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Karen Czarnecki, Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Genevieve Wood to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:

H1N1 Vaccine
Scott Pelley reports on the manufacture, distribution and safety of the H1N1 flu vaccine. Watch Video

---

Yakuza
How does a foreigner jump the line in America for a life-saving liver transplant? It might be because he is a high-ranking member of Japan's mafia, known as the Yakuza, whose criminal influence is worldwide. Lara Logan reports.

---

The Movie Pirates
They are the bane of Hollywood: criminals who copy films - sometimes before the movies even reach the theater - and distribute them illegally on the Internet, costing Hollywood billions in lost revenue. Lesley Stahl reports.

---

60 Minutes, this Sunday, Nov. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

iraq
npr
the diane rehm show
jonathan s. landay
mcclatchy newspapers
elise labott
kabc
subha ravindhran
the los angeles times
teresa watanabe
cbs news
jennifer logan
the washington post
walter pincus
neal conan
60 minutes
cbs news
pbs
to the contrary
bonnie erbe

thoughts on the elections & the congress

A determination to protect the power over the purse -- something Congress has fiercely guarded since the earliest days of the Republic -- was on display Thursday as the House and Senate approved a bill preserving funding for a number of programs the White House had sought to cut.

It was the latest move by lawmakers in both parties to support projects they consider important to their states -- and perhaps to their reelection prospects.

The bill, which would fund environmental programs and the Interior Department, includes hundreds of earmarks: $1.4 million for repairs at Alcatraz, $650,000 for preservation of the Santa Barbara mission and $1 million for land purchases in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, among others. That spending comes despite Obama's plea for lawmakers to scale back their controversial practice of steering money to pet projects.

that's from richard simon's 'congress bucks obama on spending cuts' (los angeles times) and I say good for them. they weren't elected by barack obama, they were elected by their constituents. they need to remember that - especially with midterm elections approaching.

they weren't elected by barack and they don't work for barack. and it's past time congress realized that. they work for their consitutents.

if i hear 1 more deluded dem in congress saying 'i just want to do my part for my president,' i'll scream. you do your part for your constituents. screw the president - whomever he or she may be. you work for your constituents and that should always be your 1st concern.

they should be asking each and every day: 'how did i serve the people in my district/state today?' and they should have an answer, a real answer.

if they don't, that's their 1st hint that they're not doing their jobs.

i see barack as a 1 term president. maybe he'll get re-elected, but i don't see it. let's say he does. okay, in 7 more years, many members of congress are still going to be in office. are they going to still be serving barry o?

or will they 'serve' the next president (dem, republican or whatever)?

they need to get focused on serving the communities that elected them.

the inability to do that is part of the reason so many are polling so badly. it's not just harry reid although he is probably the best known example.

and sorry but i hope jon corzine loses his race for re-election as governor.

don't dislike him.

but instead of making a case to the voters, he's got barry o breezing in and out of the state.

what the hell does barack have to do with new jersey?

not a damn thing.

and if jon corzine - already the sitting governor - can't make a case for himself to the voters of new jersey that persuades them, he doesn't deserve to continue to hold office.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

carly coming around again

"I truly feel as if I was born a musician," Ms. Simon says. "I was born with a little bit of a faucet in my head that was always dripping music. It was always giving me a melody at any given time...At any time, talking to you or cleaning up my bathroom, you can stop me and say all right, turn on the faucet and let me hear what's coming out, and I can give you a melody. It doesn't make it good," she adds, "but I have this melody drip."

Writing lyrics is her way of problem solving, her way of seeing things from an often necessary distance.

It has been well chronicled that it has not been easy nor uncomplicated being Carly Simon. Now, at 64, she has initiated a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Starbucks, for "concealment of material facts," and "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices" - what she claims is the corporation's failure to meet its contractual obligations in promoting and marketing "This Kind of Love," her 2008 album that failed to find its audience.

"So it sends the message to everyone that the record is a dud," Ms. Simon says. "It was very hard to get out of that mire. I was really hit hard. I couldn't really do anything because my hands were tied. Starbucks still owned me, even though they weren't marketing me...I couldn't go to another labeI. I had to wait a year before putting out a new album." Her voice grows more animated and expressive. "I poured my heart into that album...It felt like 'pieces on the ground' - a lyric from one of my ex-husband's songs."

that's from ck wolfson's 'catching up with carly simon' (martha's vineyard times) and you know i love gossip so here's some.

what i'm hearing - true or false - is that carly's wrong about the album sales.

what i'm hearing is that starbucks lied about how much the album sold.

to avoid paying her.

that the sales she's talking about are based on borders books and targets and other stores like that. but that starbucks - which did a bad job selling the cd - didn't officially include the sales from their own stores. by 'officially' i mean they cheated and lied and it's called theft.

there's some gossip to keep in mind.

and if you bought a copy of this kind of love at starbucks, ask yourself: 'did they scan it? did your receipt show the title of the album?' the answer is no.

the easiest way to prove that the sales were correct would be to find out how many were shipped to starbucks around the country and how many returned.

again, the gossip is that carly sold a lot better (some say 150,000 more copies, some say as high as 250,000 more copies) at starbucks than she knows.

it's just gossip at this point and it may not be true.

if it's not true, i'm sure starbucks would willingly fork over the books that they seem reluctant to share at present.

so carly simon's new album is never been gone and you really, really need to get it.

if you've ever had a bad break up, you really need to hear 'it happens everyday.' and if you haven't had a bad break up, who the hell have you dated!!!!

seriously, grab the album, it's wonderful.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

carly releases new album, blowhard attacks

carly simon has a new album out today, never been gone. i strongly urge you to get a copy or download a copy or grab a copy & run really fast out of a store without paying - joking on the last.

the album's called never been gone and it's wonderful. carly will be on nbc's today show tomorrow morning.

i really don't care for uninformed people who try to pretend they know what they're talking about. steve leftridge attacked the album at pop matters and attacked from his gross ignorance:

While the project is billed as a re-recording of her classics, some of Carly’s best-loved tunes are missing—where is “Haven’t Got Time for the Pain” or “Nobody Does It Better”? By leaving out essential Simon tunes, any newbie will be way better served by one of the best-of compilations (2004’s Reflections would do the trick, although the classic ten-song The Best of Carly Simon from 1975 contains nothing but the most indelible singles from her peak period). Otherwise, Never Been Gone (that title sounds a tad defensive) includes non-canon tracks like the awful “Boys in the Trees”, the title cut of her 1973 album, and the deeply-buried “Never Been Gone” from 1979’s Spy. Neither song deserves much of an excavation, although “It Happens Everyday” from 1983’s Hello Big Man is a hidden gem worthy of a second chance, even if the version here features a far weaker vocal delivery than the original.

okay, let's unpack the errors bit by bit.

While the project is billed as a re-recording of her classics, some of Carly’s best-loved tunes are missing—where is “Haven’t Got Time for the Pain” or “Nobody Does It Better”?

carly's re-recording songs she's written. that's been established. so why would she do 'nobody does it better'? does idiot steve not know that carly didn't write that song? does he know who carole bayer sager is? she wrote the lyrics. marvin hamlisch wrote the music.

By leaving out essential Simon tunes, any newbie will be way better served by one of the best-of compilations (2004’s Reflections would do the trick, although the classic ten-song The Best of Carly Simon from 1975 contains nothing but the most indelible singles from her peak period).

reflections would be the better choice because it has more tracks (many more) and because it's the better buy economically. i'm sorry steve's such an idiot but he is.

Otherwise, Never Been Gone (that title sounds a tad defensive) includes non-canon tracks like the awful “Boys in the Trees”, the title cut of her 1973 album, and the deeply-buried “Never Been Gone” from 1979’s Spy.

boys in the trees? the album came out in 1978. no secrets came out in 1973. only an idiot who didn't know the 1st thing he was writing about would make a mistake like that.

'never been gone' is deeply buried?

uh. no.

it does appear on spy 1st. however, it also was in carly simon's hugely successful hbo concert - her 1st hbo concert and the concert aired when she was making her comeback with coming around again.

that concert?

it was turned into a multi-platinum album and 'never been gone' appears on it.

Neither song deserves much of an excavation, although “It Happens Everyday” from 1983’s Hello Big Man is a hidden gem worthy of a second chance, even if the version here features a far weaker vocal delivery than the original.

'it happens everyday'? i seriously doubt that idiot steve knows the song from hello big man. he may (or may not) know it from carly's greatest hits live. but on hello big man?

on hello big man, the entire song is in the wrong key. it adds to the mood of the song but let's not pretend it allows carly to have a strong vocal delivery. (she does it fine on the live album.)

so with 1 paragraph we've learned that yet another man thought he knew something when he didn't. we've learned that, as usual, a blowhard thought he could rip apart a woman's work and didn't even think he needed to familiarize himself with it 1st.


let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

carly simon's new album

tony blair and gordon brown - war hawks of a feather

now that is scary

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & SPSA BULLETIN -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TODAY TO ASK HIM WHAT IT FELT LIKE TO SUFFER THE BIGGEST DECLINE IN POPULARITY OF ANY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 50 YEARS?

"YOU THINK THAT'S SCARY," RESPONDED BARACK. "TRY THIS, MORE PEOPLE LIKE MICHELLE THAN LIKE ME. WHAT ARE THEY? ON CRACK!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The United Nations High Commisoner for Refguees (UNHCR) released a new report entitled "Asylum Levels and Trends in Inudstrialized Countries First Half 2009: Statistical overview of asylum applications lodged in Europe and selected non-European countries." From the introduction:

This report summarizes patterns and trends in the number of individual asylum claims submitted in Europe and selected non-European countries during the first six months of 2009. The data in this report is based on information available as of 28 September 2009 unless otherwise indicated. It covers the 38 European and six non-European States that currently provides monthly asylum statistics to UNHCR.
The numbers in this report reflect asylum claims made at the first instance of asylum procedures: applications on appeal or review are not included. Also, this report does not include information on the outcome of asylum procedures, or on the adminission of refugees through resettlement programmes, as this information is available in other UNHCR reports.

The report uses the terms "the 44 industrialized countries" referring to: "27 Member States of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America." The study found that all the countries are seeing increased claims for asylum and the US "continued to be the largest single recipient of new asylum claims during the first six months of 2009." The top five countries for most asylum claims are (in descending order) the US, France, Canada, UK and Germany.

Number one country of origin for aslyum seekers? From the report:

Iraq again became the main country of orgin of asylum-seekers in industrialized countries in 2006, having previously been the main source country in 2000 and 2002. Iraq also continued to be the leading country of origin of asylum applicants during the first six months of 2009 with 13,200 asylum claims lodged by its citizens. The latest figures, however, show a decreasing trend, with roughly one third fewer Iraqis requesting international protection compared to the previous two semesters. The decrease in Iraqi claims was particularly signficant during the second quarter of 2009 when 5,400 applied for asylum in the 44 industrialized countreis, the lowest quarterly level since the second quarter of 2006.
During the first six months of 2009, Iraqis lodged asylum applications in 38 out of the 44 industrialized countries covered by this report, but the distribution of claims is not equally spread across countries. More than half of all Iraqi claims were submitted in just four countries: Germany (3,000), Turkey (2,600), Sweden (1,000) and the Netherlands (950). The decrease in Iraqi asylums was observed among all major receiving countries, and in particular in Sweden, where figures plummeted, from an average of roughtly 9,300 claims per semester during 2007, to 1,000 during the reporting period. Although the levels and trends in asylum flows are often difficult to explain, they can sometimes be related to concrete policy changes. In the case of Sweden, the change in Swedish decision making on Iraqi asylum claims, following the Migration Court's determination that the situation in Iraq is not one of "armed conflict", may have led to a shift in flows to other countries such as Germany, Finland and Norway.

This was the fourth year in a row that the number one country of origin was Iraq. UNHCR also released [PDF format warning] "Developing a Livelihoods Assessment and Strategy: Case Stduy from UNCHR Jordan." The report estimates there are currently 685 Iraqis seeking asylum in Jordan and 500,413 Iraqi refugees in Jordan.

The Iraqi refugee population in Jordan has come from various educational and societal backgrounds. Many had become very frustrated and suffer psychological distress due to the isolation and idleness that they face. Many were asking for an opportunity to be involved in delivering services to the refugee community (which also can be used as a method to enhance the community based approach), and many asked for opportunities to expand their existing skills and capacities.

And how many Iraqi refugees did the US accept? In the August 19th snapshot the Eric Schwartz (Asst Sect of Population, Refugees and Migration) State Dept press conference was covered. He asserted in that press conference, regarding Iraqi refugees being accepted by the US, "The numbers -- let me -- I think I may answer your next question. The numbers for fiscal year 2008, I think are on the order of about 13,000. I'm looking to my team here. And the numbers for fiscal year 2009 will get us -- will probably be up to about 20,000." Click here for transcript and video of the press conference. Following the November 2008 election, Sheri Fink (ProPublica) reported on the issue and noted, "A State Department official contacted by ProPublica said, 'We really do recognize a special responsibility.' The official said that resettling 17,000 Iraqi refugees in fiscal 2009 was a minimum target. 'We hope to bring in many more.' The U.S. will also be accepting Iraqis who worked for the US through special immigrant visas, a program [7] that resulted from legislation introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy (discussed [8] recently by Ambassador James Foley, the State Department's senior coordinator on Iraqi refugee issues)." So how many Iraqi refugees resettle in Fiscal Year 2009? According to the US State Dept this month, the number is 18,838. Bare minimum was reached and a tiny bit passed. So what is that? The partially nude minimum? What a proud moment for the US government.

Staying with the US government, at the State Dept today, spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked about Iraq and the 'intended' elections for January 2010 and he responded:

The Iraqi legislative branch, which is called the Council of Representatives, has had two readings of the bill, two sessions debating the bill and -- I guess -- Iraqi law or the-the Iraqi parliamentary rules call for three readings before it comes to a vote. What's happened is that because there is this inability to agree on a text. The whole process has been passed to the Political Council for National Security which is composed of the head of the main parties and the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, President and (two) Vice Presidents. This is to see if they can come to some kind of agreement. And, of course, we encourage them to come up with a reconciled text and rapidly pass the legislation. Ultimately, of course, this is a -- this is for the Iraqis to decide. And this is a -- this is the kind of a process that you don't see very often in Baghdad. So, in some ways, it's encouraging that we have this kind of lively debate. But having said that, this has to move expeditiously. We see the elections in January as a real milestone in the development of Iraqi democracy. And we would like to see this law passed and the elections carried out in a fair and open way.

McClatchy's Jospeh Galloway notes the 'intended' elections in a piece where he weighs in on the 'change' (non)delivered by US President Barack Obama, "The president-to-be promised a swift withdrawal from the Iraqi quicksand, but that hasn't come to pass, either. Instead, we witness a slow-mo pullout that will sort of end things on the Bush administration's timetable of late 2011 for the last American combat troops to be gone, and God only knows when for the rest to leave. That's if the Iraqi parliament can pass a new election law in time for elections to be held on schedule in January." Yesterday, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy told the US House Armed Services Committee that the delay was not currently a problem. She stated that Parliament had two weeks to act and that they could "simply have a vote on an election date" and leave all other issues by the wayside as they utilized the law from the 2005 elections. This would not only mean that the elections would be on a closed-list, it would also mean the issue of Kirkuk was not being addressed. (The long post-poned issue of Kirkuk was not being addressed.) On the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday (a new one begins airing tomorrow night), Jasim Azawi explained "an open list is where a group, they list every single candidate running for office, for parliament. While a closed list-- just like happened in 2005 -- you really don't know who you are voting for." Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was on the show and he is among those calling for an open list -- as is current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- and Allawi offered this, "In fact, this is another failure by the Iraqi Parliament to produce a strategic law that would -- hopefully would be cementing democracy. But unfortunately, that's not the case. Likewise, the Parliament has failed in producing a law for the parties -- to say where the funding for these parties are coming from, what they are, who they are, are they national, are they sectarian, are they secular. So there are no laws -- no laws of election. Indeed, the Iraqi people are disenchanted with the so-called closed list because usually it's either voting for the sect or voting for the -- for the leader of the list." Along with using the former election law being seen as a failure by Iraqs, there's also the what Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported yesterday, "Iraq's existing election law was declared unconstitutional by its highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or amended." Michele Flournoy did not reference that decision to the committee yesterday. Which doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Other problems include Faleh Hassan (Middle East Online) reports that the country's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) is currently "facing allegations of corruption and of poorly supervising elections" Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the "supreme Shiite religious tuhorities," the Marajiya, have concerns about the elections including the issue of the lists, "Another Iraqi who's close to the Marjaiya said their foremost goal was to preserve the unity of Iraq, and that replacing the system of party lists of candidates with direct votes for representatives would serve this aim."

US State Dept spokesperson Ian Kelly was also asked today about the US Embassy in Baghdad and "shoddy work" and he sidestepped the issue with, "Let me take that question and see if I can get a reaction to you." What was he avoiding? Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the costly ($736 million) US Embassy is the subject of a new study by the State Dept's Inspector General which finds, "contractor, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co., failed to properly design, construct and commission the largest U.S. Embassy overseas. It also cites failures by the former leadership of the State Department bureau that's responsible for constructing overseas diplomatic posts. Officials there said that those failures had been rectified, and they took issue with some aspects of the inspector general's report." And they note McClatchy's previous coverage of the US Embassy construction issues including the following:

New U.S. Embassy in Baghdad ready — six months late
At new U.S. Embassy in Iraq, even kitchens are fire hazards
Mammoth new U.S. Embassy marks new stage for Iraq

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's 'intended' January elections"
"Those amazing and wonderful Iraqi security forces"
"Stop 'nation building"
"Where it stands"
"The joke that is Norman Solomon"
"russ feingold on citizens united"
"A new Watergate?"
"US House Armed Services Committee: Define stability"
"Iraqi elections"
"No government should attack the press"
"Barack's still a pig"
"Faded glory"
"THIS JUST IN! WORK IT, BARRY! "

russ feingold on citizens united

jackie, carly, barbra