Saturday, February 16, 2013

Some movie talk

Saturday.  I got up this morning all excited to stream and write.  I was going to catch the latest Nikita.  There was none.  I'm so tired of the stop and stop, you know?  The CW destroys their own ratings with that crap.  'Oh, let's watch Nikita!  What? It's not on?  Okay, let's find something else.  Oh, this is really good show.  Let's watch it from now on.'  For example, CBS shows the same line up every Friday night.

Okay, movies.  Zero Dark Thirty is  a great film that a bunch of pigs decided to tear apart because women threaten them.  So the impotent railed against Kathryn Bigelow's film without ever seeing it.  Michael White (Bloomberg News) talks about how these liars acted:

Then the U.K.’s Guardian published an article accusing Bigelow, the only woman to win an Oscar for directing, of justifying torture. On Dec. 19, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, joined by John McCain and Carl Levin, asked Sony Pictures to consider “correcting” the suggestion torture helped the CIA find bin Laden because it was inaccurate.
The senators also asked the CIA about what officials told the filmmakers about interrogation tactics used during the administration of President George W. Bush. Feinstein and Levin declined to comment. McCain didn’t respond to requests.
Hollywood activists piled on. Asner, a former president of the Screen Actors Guild, told the New York Times he wanted to “condemn” the movie and said he and Martin Sheen planned to sign a letter by Clennon, who appeared in the TV series “thirtysomething,” urging voters to choose another movie.
Sheen later backed away, saying he opposed torture but didn’t want to attack Bigelow’s right to make the film her way. He and Asner didn’t respond to requests for comment.
“Its hopes for best picture seem to be, well, zero,” said Tom O’Neil, founder and editor of the “The movie was unfairly blamed for showing us something we didn’t want to see, which was our nation misbehaving.”

That Guardian article was written by full time prick Glenn Greenwald -- who hadn't seen the film when he launched his written attack on it.  As Ava and C.I. pointed out Sunday:

It would help if people discussing the film would see it.  There's a lie that Ammar gives up information after he's water boarded.  How that lie got started, who knows?  But David Denby certainly popularized it in his review for The New Yorker, "Yet, in attempting to show, in a mainstream movie, the reprehensibility of torture, and what was done in our name, the filmmakers seem to have conflated events, and in this they have generated a sore controversy: the chairs of two Senate committees have said that the information used to find bin Laden was not uncovered through waterboarding." And because The New Yorker no longer has functioning fact checkers, it first appeared in a 'report' by Dexter I-Lied-About-Falluja-And-Let-The-US-military-vet-my-copy Filkins:  "Bigelow maintains that everything in the film is based on first-hand accounts, but the waterboarding scene, which is likely to stir up controversy, appears to have strayed from real life.  According to several official sources, including Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the identity of bin Laden’s courier, whose trail led the C.I.A. to the hideout in Pakistan, was not discovered through waterboarding."
People have repeatedly latched onto the lie in slamming the film.  You can't get through a comment thread on any article about the film without somebody bringing that up.  But in the film itself, the water boarding does not produce a name.   How do you miss that?   In fact, in the shooting script, the scene's end is described as, "Dan and Maya exit.  They've learned nothing."

The whores like Glenn Greenwald lied.   And people believed them.  They whored and that needs to be known because if they'd lie about a movie, what won't they lie about?

Zero Dark Thirty is a great film and Glenn Greenwald is a trashy piece of filth that won't be remembered in ten years.

Here's the well made up Glenn Greenwald (does anyone wear more make up than Glenn when they go on TV?).

What's sexist about what he wrote?  He is the sexist Michael Woolf and Woolf is an old piece of man flap that should have been cut off long ago.  Here he is attacking the film Zero Dark Thirty:

Also, it's a bit copy-cat. It's Homeland without the character quirks. ("OK… picture this… Homeland… but the girl isn't nuts – just super-focused. What about that?" is something like how the screenwriter, Mark Boal, must have pitched it.)

"The girl"?  Does Glenny think, like Bret Easton Ellis, that he gets a pass because he's gay?

Sucking a cock doesn't make Glenn an honorary woman and there's no pass for sexism.

In this instance, the extent to which we might naturally believe the story line – CIA girl alone against the world doing nothing for 10 years but, against the wishes of her superiors, searching for Osama – would be minimal.

Did Glenn suck off Michael Wolff?  Did Michael suck off Glenn?

Why else would he be endorsing the bad writing of Wolff?  We're all aware that Wolff's long been criticized for making s**t up and calling it reporting -- slammed for his lies by Brill's Content, by The New Republic, by the Columbia Journalism Review.

I hope Glenn and Michael 69-ed because otherwise, Glenn Glenn ended up a bigger idiot than usual and didn't even get some sex out of it.  Michael Wolff infamously attacked Maureen Dowd's writing as bad because (he felt) she couldn't get a man.

Michael Wolff also has a habit of sleeping with young interns while he was still married -- interns his daughter's age.

Screw 'em all.

And if you're a James Bond fan, remember Skyfall just came out on video.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, February 15, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, protests take place in Iraq (including Baghdad), one American media outlet explores Iraq, today was the 10th anniversary of the global protests, and more.

Your Call airs on the Bay Area's public radio station KALW Monday through Friday (ten to eleven in the morning Pacific Time).  Today host Rose Aguilar and the program offered something you rarely hear on American radio today: a discussion of Iraq.  The guests were Kael Alford and Thorne Anderson.

Rose Aguilar:  It's been almost ten years since the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. In fact today marks the 10th anniversary of the historic global protests against the war that took place all over the world.  In 2003, today's guests photo journalist Kael Alford and Thorne Anderson took photos of Iraqi citizens outside of the confines of the US military's embedded journalist program.  Their goal was to find out how the war was effecting ordinary people.  Their photos are on display at the de Young Museum in San Francisco.  The description on a photo taken in Baghdad at a hospital on April 9, 2003 says, "A pool of blood is left on the floor of the lobby of the Saddam Medical Center after a man died on a makeshift operating table.  Located near the front lines, the hospital was overlowing with patients."  Another photo taken in Najaf on August 21, 2004 shows a man holding his crying son.  The description reads, "On the wrecked outskirts of the old city, a father tries to cross the front lines with his terrified child signaling to snipers to hold their fire.  Father and son crossed safely."   Thorne Anderson began his work in Iraq in October 2002 photographing the impact of UN sanctions on Iraqis.  He spent ten months of the last two years -- actually, that's not right.  He was last in Iraq in 2004.  While covering the war from Baghdad, he was arrested by Iraqi intelligence and expelled from the country.  He returned from Iraq as soon as the borders opened at the end of the war and has covered the occupation resistance movements.  He's also worked in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine.  He's taught photo journalism at the American University in Bulgaria and his photographs regularly appear in major American and international newspapers and magazines.  And Thorne joins us here in the studio.  [. . .] We're also joined by Kael Alfred, a freelance photo journalist who was based in Baghdad during the US invasion in 2003.  She was last in Iraq in 2011.  Her work focuses on the growing culture of resistance, religion and the grassroots movements developing since the invasion.  She has worked extensively covering southeast Europe and the Middle East for many major US and European magazines.  She's currently working on a longterm project about the environmental degradation of the landscape and culture of the Gulf Coast.
At the top of each Friday show, Your Call always asks their guests to note reporting that they found valuable and noteworthy that week. 

Kael Alfred:  Well this isn't specifically -- It's not journalism but it's reporting done by Human Rights Watch.  They just -- every year they publish this world report based on what happened in the last year.  And as I was researching and preparing to speak to audiences about Iraq, I came across their report which goes into some depth about what's happened in Iraq in the last year.  And, although I was there in 2011, it's nice to see -- or,  it's not sort of nice, but it's confirmed in this report what I saw in Iraq in 2011 which is that the leadership of Iraq is, and I'm quoting the report here, sort of the intro to the report, "is using draconian measures against opposition politicians, detainees, demonstrators and journalists -- effectively squeezing the space for independent civil society and political freedoms in Iraq."  Human Rights Watch said this today in their world report -- this was just published at the end of January.  And so it's -- There just isn't a huge amount of reporting coming out of Iraq these days by western media because budgets are shrinking.  There are a lot of conflicts happening all over the world and our attention shifts elsewhere. And, you know, we were just speaking about this before the show, how tens years on, the anniversary of this war, we don't really know what's happening in Iraq, we don't know what it looks like.

Rose Aguilar:  Right. I remember on MSNBC, one of the hosts said, "President Obama has announced that the war is over, the troops are leaving."  Sort of 'end of story.' 

Kael Alford: Right.

Rose Aguilar:  So you went there last year.  Just talk about when you go, where do you go and what do you set out to do?  What did you find this time around?

Kael Alford:  Well I-I had a short period of time to work there.  I only had a few weeks.  And actually my time was even shortened by my having to get my visa through.  So I had this window to work and I decided that what I would -- The best way to catch up with what had happened since I was there last would be to take the photographs I had made and revisit as many of the people as I could in these photograph -- people I had met in the past and reported on in the past.  So I searched systematically, went searching for these people, and it was like detective work because the country was so up-ended in the last years that I didn't know where to find anyone, they weren't living in the same neighborhoods, they certainly didn't have the same phone numbers --

Rose Aguilar:  And these are the people you have gotten to know over the years?

Kael Alford:  Right.  The people who I met in 2003 and 2004.  And, you know, I hadn't really kept in close contact with them, it was really difficult, many of them don't speak English or don't write English and I don't speak or read Arabic.  So when I went back, I found these people and just sort of asked them what's happened in the last eight years since I was here last?  How is your life?  What are your concerns?  And almost universally, people's lives had gotten much, much harder.  The situation was violent.  It was very divided.  People couldn't live safely in the places they'd lived before. The Sunni people I'd met, many of them felt confined to specific neighborhoods.  There really was this ethnic divide, this ethnic cleansing, that targeted mostly Sunnis -- who are in the minority now -- were the subject of that.  So Sunni people were really living in much more cloistered circumstances than they'd lived before -- if I could even find them at all.   And-and there's one woman.  Her name is Karimah.  She and her family, I'd spent time at their house a lot in 2003 and 2004 and she's a widow and her husband was killed in the Iran - Iraq War.  She has a large number of kids.  And I went to visit her and her son, her oldest son, Aalee had been picked up at a cafe in a raid.  And there were these Iraqi security forces who were looking for members of the Sadr militia.  They picked him up, detained him, didn't charge him with anything really and interrogated him, extracting a confession from him and then proceeded to sort of keep him in prison until the family sold everything they had and could buy him out of prison basically.  And that speaks to the state of the Iraqi judicial system today.  It's a confession-based sort of system and people are frequently detained and not charged with anything until people can just buy them out.  And that's included in this Human Rights Watch report.  So it's really, the biggest concerns for the people who are coming up from this new very sort of corrupt  and ineffective Iraqi government, in their words, in the way they described it and also the infrastructure was just a mess.

Rose Aguilar:  Tell us more about that because we've done -- over the years we've done a lot of shows about the infrastructure.  And I remember when we used to have a series Open Line To Iraq and we'd bring Iraqis on on a regular basis and the first question was do you have electricity, do you have water and it was so sporadic.

Kael Alford:  So sporadic.  I mean, the grid supplies maybe six hours of power a day -- the national grid.  And otherwise, there are these neighborhood generators that are either privately owned by one wealthy person in the neighborhood that sells energy to everybody else -- produces it and sells it to everybody else at whatever price they decide to set.  At least when I was there, they were talking about regulating this generator system but it wasn't happening yet when I was there.  And then sometimes a neighborhood would go in together and buy a generator and they can be more of a grassroots, sort of democratic use of the generator.  And these are the very large generators, like the size of shipping containers that would sit every few blocks and were constantly running and spewing fumes -- they run on petroleum and they smell terrible and they're loud.  And then people would have a little generator at their house if they were wealthy enough to have their own generator that they would run when both those other systems weren't working.

Thorne Anderson:  You know, it's important to note, we're not talking about an earthquake or some kind of natural disaster.  What we're talking about here is just a disaster of massive corruption because there have been billions and billions of dollars that have been poured in for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure and that has not been realized.  That money has gone into Iraq but it hasn't gone into the infrastructure.

Kael Alford:  That's a good point.

Thorne Anderson:  So we're not talking about a national disaster here.  We're talking about a really poorly managed transition of huge amounts of money.

The exhibit is entitled to "Eye Level in Iraq" and the exhibit continues to June 16, 2013 at the de Young Museum.  Kenneth Baker (San Francisco Chronicle) reviews the exhibit today observing:

Looking at these images, visitors who opposed the man-made human catastrophe of Operation Iraqi Freedom before or after it began will experience again some of the nauseating helplessness they felt a decade ago at government deceit, lawlessness and ideology-driven aggression.
The exhibition leaves it to viewers to connect the discredited neocon foreign policy with draconian provisions of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act and with the killer drones now fatally realizing abroad the nightmare concept of the world as a battlefield. A picture such as one Alford took in Zafrania a month after the invasion suggests the peril she must have faced daily from enraged Iraqis certain of her foreignness but not of her relationship to the calamity engulfing them.
No less chilling is a shot she took from behind on the same day of an insurgent peering from an alley, a loaded rocket launcher on his shoulder. Was he aware of her presence? What preceded and followed from the image we see?

The Your Call discussion is a great one and hopefully we'll return to it next week.  I'll also note that Thorne Anderson is an associate professor at the University of North Texas (Denton, Texas).  And quickly, on the topic of photography, AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted:

REMINDER - has begun publishing its 'Iraq War - 10 Years On' series of photographs. Have a look:

Moving to Iraq.  Last Friday saw the largest turnout in the ongoing protests which now span three months (December, January and February).   Each week, the numbers grow, but last week was a huge leap forward in participation.  (I'm basing that call on media coverage, on social media photos, on reports from Iraqi community members by e-mail and two that I spoke with on the phone as well.) Nouri's forces infamously attacked the protesters in Falluja on January 26th., killing at least nine (Human Rights Watch noted that 2 more of the wounded had died) with dozens left injured.  And this resulted in public condemnation -- though not from the US government where the pathetic response from the State Dept was to have Icky Vicky Neocon Nuland, Dick Cheney's former Deputy Advisor on National Security, insist that both sides should not resort to violence.  (Number of protesters killed by Nouri's forces: at least 9.  Number of forces killed at protests: Zero.)  But while Victoria and the administration coddled, stroked and fondled their puppet Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and chief thug of Iraq, others were appalled.  The United Nations and the British government were among the most publicly vocal.  Nouri knows the world is watching and that's, for now, prevented another assault on the protesters.

With the huge increase in participants and with Nouri refusing to meet the demands -- which have been the same demands for months now and which are also pretty much the exact same demands that the protesters were making in February 2011 (demands Nouri swore he would meet if given 100 days -- he didn't meet them, he didn't care, he lied to stall for time and to try to stop the protests) -- the protesters decided maybe a stronger presence was needed in the capital.   From Saturday:

Kitabat reports that yesterday some protesters in Anbar Province announced their intent to march to Baghdad next Friday.  All Iraq News notes National Alliance MP Qasim al-Araji is calling out the plan to stage a sit-in in Baghdad.  The Ministry of Interior (run by Nouri al-Maliki since he never nominated anyone to head it) had its own announcement.  Alsumaria reports that today it was declared their intent to crack down on any protest -- anywhere in the country -- that they felt was a threat or lacked a permit.  Al Mada notes that the spokesperson for the Anbar protests, Sayad Lafi, states that the protesters have written Baghdad seeking permission to pray in the city on Friday and return the same day. 

And Nouri's response?  From Tuesday's snapshot:

In the failed state of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki is refusing to allow Iraqis from the west to enter their own country's capital.  We noted this development yesterday morning and in yesterday's snapshot.  The non-Iraqi press continues to ignore it with only one except[ion]: Jane Arraf (see yesterday's snapshots for her Tweets) who reports for Al Jazeera, the Christian Science Monitor and PRI.  Today, she Tweets.

  1. Back in this evening, anti-aircraft batteries along the river, roadblocks, rumors of a Thursday curfew. That is some scary protest.

Alsumaria reports that there will be a ban on 'roaming' in Baghdad starting Thursday and that "security reasons" are being cited for the curfew that kicks off at midnight tonight and for the refusal to allow 'outsiders' into Baghdad. Dar Addustour adds that security forces have been put on "high alert" and that there is pressure on various mosques in Baghdad not to call for demonstrations on Friday while i.d.s continue to be checked and people from western Iraq are being refused access to Baghdad.  The Iraq Times notes that two military brigades are being used to stop cars attempting to enter Baghdad.

Why is he allowed to use the military to prevent Iraqis from entering the capital?  Whether you agree with his call or not -- I don't -- why is he repeatedly allowed to use the military on the Iraqi people?  The military is supposed to protect from external threats.  Nouri also controls the police.  Why does he keep using the military?  Juntas use militaries to control the people.  Thugs and dictators use militaries to control the people.   It it any surprise that the Los Angeles Times' Ned Parker made this discovery:

Most striking thing in Anbar last week was how many young Sunni males are afraid to come to Baghdad because they fear the security forces.

Following the Falluja massacre last month, Nouri was forced to pull the military out of Falluja by the provincial council which demanded he stop using the military to police the people.  Baghdad's not in Anbar so the Anbar council has no power.  But why is he allowed repeatedly to use the military on the Iraqi people?  The Associated Press' Adam Schreck Tweeted this morning:

  1. Sunnis stage big protests again, but stop short of traveling to . Govt shut roads just in case:

Nouri may have prevented western Iraqis from entering Baghdad but he didn't prevent protests. Not even in Baghdad, where, All Iraq News notes protests took place and that banners were unfurled demanding the government respond to the demands and do so promptly.  Al Mada reports his preventing Iraqis from entering their own capital was criticized in multiple provinces on Friday.  Mosul's Sheikh Badr al-Din al-Hayali is quoted declaring, "Baghdad is not the property of the of rulers of armed forces gathered in the city and around it."  Baghdad belongs to the Iraqi people.  Anbar spokesperson Said Lafi told Al Mada that the protesters would scream loud to awaken Iraq from its slumber.  NPR's Kelly McEvers Tweets on the Baghdad protest:

  1. Demo underway at Abu Hanifa. Pretty chill and small so far.
  2. Inside Abu Hanifa. Prayers underway. Very quiet up til now. Adhamiya on lock-freaking-down

Abu Hafina is a Sunni mosque in Bahgdad.  AFP reports, "Thousands of people in Sunni-majority areas of Iraq called on Friday for the government's fall amid a spike in violence that has accompanied a political stalemate two months before provincial polls."  Shafaq News pointed out yesterday, "Demonstrations and sit-ins still continue in Iraq in protest against Maliki's policies, as the sit-in in Ramadi had entered its 56 day.  Maliki's government is witnessing recently protests in several areas, including Anbar, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Samarra, Mosul and a number of neighborhoods in Baghdad to demand reforms and cancel laws that prohibit some from participating in the political process, as well as cancelling Article 4 of Anti-Terrorism Act and release detainees especially women detainees and achieve balance in the institutions of the state."

Yesterday Kitabat reported that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has stated that the choice for the government is to reform or resign.  That's rather basic.  Alsumaria notes "tens of thousands"  turned out today in Ramadi calling for the detainees to be released and for an end to marginalization and exclusion.  Alsumaria notes that thousands continue protesting in Kirkuk.  The protesters are making their demands and criticizng Nouri's for show commission that has so far accomplished nothing.   Hawija Mohammed al-Jubouri tells Alsumaria that over 20,000 protesters showed up in Haija and that the calls included for Iraqis to be able to go into Baghdad -- a reference to Nouri's refusal all week to allow western Iraqis into Baghdad -- using the military to prevent them from entering their own capital.  AP explains it this way, "Protestors had hoped to move their demonstrations from predominantly Sunni provinces to Baghdad on Friday, but they backed off that plan after the government rejected their request and imposed tough security measures. Government security forces blocked roads leading from Sunni-dominated provinces and sealed off all Sunni neighborhoods."

Al Jazeera, the Christian Science Monitor and PRI's Jane Arraf Tweeted on the protests:

In protest central , cleric makes clear these are Sunni protests, says Iranians have more freedom in Baghdad than they do.

sheikh to more than 100,000 protestors - we are exiles in our own country. Other protests in warn they will come to Baghdad.

True or false, I have no idea, but there is a rumor in Iraqi social media this evening that there will be a raid in Ramadi early Saturday morning -- this alleged raid is an effort to end the protests.  Again, that's the big talk on Iraqi social media right now, I have no idea whether it's true or false.
But I do know that Nouri's refusal to listen to the protesters is why the protests continue.  Nouri's refusal to govern -- let alone govern fairly -- is why the violence continues today.  Alsumaria reports one person was injured in a Baquba arm,ed attack, a Baquba car bombing has left four people injured (one an Iraqi solider), and an Al Zeera roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left another injured (Al Zeera is a village to the south of Mosul)All Iraq News adds that 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad and a Muqdadiyah suicide car bomber has left at least eleven people injured.

Today is the tenth anniversary of a historic day around the world.  At the Guardian, Patrick Barkham reports:

For some, 15 February 2003 will go down in history as the final moment that Britons demonstrated a touching faith in parliamentary democracy.
Henna Malik, a sixth-former at the time, painted her face with the Stop the War logo and took the train to Waterloo with her friends. She believed the millions chanting "George Bush, terrorist" would persuade their MPs to vote against the war. "It was incredibly empowering at the time," she says. When most MPs and the government ignored this will of the people, Malik became a revolutionary socialist; now she does not support any political party but is training to be a human rights lawyer. "In retrospect we didn't stop the war so I became quite disillusioned but it did shape my political beliefs and how I felt I fit within society," she says.
It was an epic day of protest by people who didn't usually do that sort of thing. "There were nuns. Toddlers. Women barristers. The Eton George Orwell Society. Archaeologists Against War. Walthamstow Catholic Church, the Swaffham Women's Choir and Notts County Supporters Say Make Love Not War (And a Home Win against Bristol would be Nice). They won 2-0, by the way," as Euan Ferguson memorably noted in the Observer the next day. As night fell, Jesse Jackson and Charles Kennedy made rousing speeches and Ms Dynamite sung in Hyde Park.

Channel 4 News provides a video report which includes the reflections of four protesters.  We'll do an excerpt noting Sarah Jewell and Henna Malik:

Sarah Jewell (Occupy Activist) : There was a genuine feeling of unease in the west and certainly in Britain and in London.  Communities that I were a part of, we had a sense for a long time that something was going to happen.

Henna Malik (Trainee Lawyer):  I mean Iraq was a humongous issue.  It was everywhere.  It permeated every aspect of society. You couldn't walk down the street without seeing an Iraq War poster -- an anti-Iraq War poster.

[. . .]

Henna Malik (Trainee Lawyer):   I remember standing behind the student banner surrounded by tens of thousands of students all chanting in unison.  It was incredible.  It was absolutely incredible.  I had my face painted with the Stop the War logo on it.  I was surrounded by a lot of my friends and a lot of other students.

Sarah Jewell (Occupy Activist) :   [. . .] because we were stuck at Gallow Street for so long, we started singing.  And we were singing quite traditional, quite 1960s protest songs that people could join in on.  We were singing, "Step-by-step the longest march, can be won, single stones will form an arch [the American Miner's Association Song].  Rich, poor, old, young, right-wing, left-wing, no wing, everybody was on that march.

We noted Laurie Penny's  "Ten years ago we marched against the Iraq War and I learned a lesson in betrayal" (New Statesman) earlier this week.  For some reason, former Marxist Tim Stanley (Telegraph of London) feels the need to hurl insults at Penny but he really comes off looking like a fool:

Never mind that school children should be in school (that includes a 16-year old Laurie Penny). [. . .]  “What changed in 2003 was that millions of ordinary citizens around the world finally understood that the game was rigged, because only a few weeks after that march Nato went to war anyway.” No, Laurie, Nato didn’t lead in the invasion of Iraq and 2003 wasn’t the first time that a protest failed. The Peasant’s Revolt? The Vietnam War? Perhaps it was a history lesson that Penny missed the day she went to London.

Laurie Penny went to London on February 15, 2003.  If I was a pompous ass like Tim Stanley, I don't believe I'd be lecturing Laurie Penny.  But maybe a pompous ass gets off on the world laughing at him?  Tim, if that's what gives you an orgasm, prepare to moan.  Your idiotic assault on Laurie and how she missed school that day?  February 15th was chosen precisely because it was a Saturday and most people would not be at work or at school. Do you get that, Tim Stanley?  You've mocked Laurie and chided her but you're the big idiot because the sarcastic point of your bad column is that she should have been in school that day learning and the reality is there was no school that day. 

Other coverage of the world protests ten years ago?  Ishaan Tharoor (Time magazine), Philip Maughan (New Statesman), Ned Simons (Huffington Post UK), these letters to the Guardian newspaper, Philip Kane (Socialist Resistance), Symon Hill (Ekklesia), Ben Quinn (Christian Science Monitor)Dan Hodges (Telegraph of London), Rabble's "F15: Assessing the legacy of the largest protest in world history," Press TV's "Why was the biggest protest in world history ignored?," and "The Feb. 15 Call for Global Protests for Democracy, Solidarity and Justice" (War Is A Crime).

We're nearly out of space. 

Michael Dakduk: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that since the system has been rolled out that there has been an increase in the processing of GI Bill claims so that should be acknowledged.  But I would also say that at the beginning of the semesters, that's when we see an influx of delays. and that's when we receive most of our complaints at Student Veterans of America. So we have a concern when we talk about troops returning home from Afghanistan and the Dept of Defense estimate over the next five years one million troops will remove the uniform and make the transition into civilian society.  Many of them are going to use this Post-9-11 GI Bill.  So we want to make sure that the Dept of Veterans Affairs is ready to handle that influx of military veterans on college campuses.  At the beginning of semesters is when we see a high number of delays.
That's Student Veterans of America's Michael Dakduk testifying to Congress yesterday.  We'll cover it next week, there's no space tonight to do it justice.  We'll close with this on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee:

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
United States Senate
113th Congress, First Session
Hearing Schedule
Tuesday, February 26, 2013 2:00 p.m. 345 Cannon HOB (House Side)
Joint Hearing on the legislative presentation of Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:00 a.m. SD-G50
Joint Hearing on the legislative presentation of Military Officers Association of America, Retired Enlisted Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association, Blinded Veterans Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Wounded Warrior Project, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, American Ex-Prisoners of War
Heather L Vachon
Chief Clerk
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
SR-412 Russell Senate Office Building

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Barack's State of the Union, Hillary's embarrassing testimony

Thursday.  I'm not a Kathleen Parker fan.  She's a Washington Post columnist who had a CNN show (which I never caught).  I know of her but haven't read her.

I agree with this column.

It's about Benghazi.  The attack September 11th that killed Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens.  And specifically about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony to Congress last month.

In this community, her testimony was called out.

And C.I. plays fair.  She knows Hillary, she likes Hillary.  But that didn't stop her from saying it was an embarrassment especially when Hillary snapped "what difference does it make!"  Here's C.I. reporting on that hearing:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before Congress today.  In the morning, she spun before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the afternoon, she spun before the House Foreign Relations Committee.  Does Hillary live in a bubble?
This morning, her voice broke as she read (from her prepared remarks), "I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews.  I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."

Yes, she did meet with various family members.  Equally true, a significant number of them have publicly rebuked her and the administration.  Pat Smith is the mother of the late Sean Smith.  She spoke with Anderson Cooper October 10th for CNN's Anderson Cooper 360Here and here for video, here for transcript.  Here's an excerpt of Pat Smith speaking about her son:

COOPER: Do you feel that you know what happened or are you still searching for answers? Have you been in contact with the State Department? Have they reached out to you and given you details of what happened?

SMITH: That's a funny subject. I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And everyone of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out.  No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people.

"No one," Pat Smith stated, "not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people."  Charlie Woods is the father of the late Tyrone Woods.  October 26th, he spoke with Megyn Kelly on America Live (Fox News).

Charlie Woods: My son was an American hero.  And he had the moral strength to do what was right, even if that would professionally cost him his job, even if it would potentially cost him his life.  He was a hero who was willing to do whatever was necessary to respond to their cries for help.  If, in fact, those people from the White House were as courageous and had the moral strength that my son, Ty, had immediately within minutes of when they found there was the first attack, they would have sent, they would have given permission, not denied permission for those C130s to have gone up there.

The two parents above are not being partisan, they are being parents.  We will note that Kate Quigley told Erin Burnett (Erin Burnett Out Front) that her family was getting updates.  (Kate Quigley is the sister of the late Glen Doherty.)  The families of Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith have largely been ignored/silence by the media.  Even worse, their loved ones have gone unnamed over and over in reports which usually read  "an attack that killed Chris Stevens and three other Americans."

Hillary did name all four.  She also repeatedly noted there was one DS Agent still in Walter Reed (the agent's name was not given).  But I didn't see anything that indicated this hearing was about that.  Instead, we got a lot of nonsense, a lot of, "You are so wonderful, Hillary."  That's garbage.  You were there to ask questions.  Four Americans are dead and I don't think "I am grateful" nonsense from senators recognizes the reality of those four deaths.  Senator Ben Cardin walked the line very well, taking a brief moment to note Hillary's accomplishments and not getting lost in it.  It's a real shame others couldn't do the same. Senator Robert Mendez was the acting Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Bob Corker is the Ranking Member.  ARB is Accountability Review Board.   Senator Barbara Boxer waxed on about how "you stepped up" -- I don't know that the hearing established that. 

One key exchange.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  To my knowledge, no one has been held accountable.  Our staff had a meeting with one of the State Dept officials and I hate to use this word again but it was nothing short of bizarre as they talked about the communications.  These officials were screaming out for more security.  And I was just wondering if you might mention one reform that would be helpful so that you would have known of the needs of security that went undone.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Well obviously, I have, uh, thought about this almost constantly since that date, Senator, uhm, you know I do feel responsible.  I feel responsible for, uh, the nearly 70,000 people that work for the State Dept.  You know, I take it very seriously.  Uhm, the-the specific security requests, uhm, pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department.  I didn't see those requests.  Uh, they didn't come to me.  I didn't approve them.  I didn't deny them.  That's obviously one of the findings that Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen made -- that these requests don't ordinarily come to the Secretary of State.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  If we could -- I know -- I respect you tremendously but we have short amount of time.  They did come in to folks. 

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  That's right.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  We did have  SST people on the ground at no cost to the State Dept.  They were asked to be extended by the ambassador.  Someone at the State Dept turned that down. They were at no charge -- 16 officers.  So I just wonder, what has happened inside to make sure that never happens again?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Well -- uh -- several things.  Not only are we, uhm, on the path to implement all of the ARB recommendations but we've gone beyond that.  Uhm, we did, uh, immediately do this high threat assessment using DoD assets as well as our own.  That had never been done before.  Uh, we have asked the Congress to help us, uh, reallocate funds.  The Senate has given us that authority -- we-we don't yet have it from the House -- so that we can get more Marine guards, we can get more diplomatic security guards, we can try to put more money into the maintenance, the upgrades, the construction that's needed.  I created the first ever -- it sounds like it should have been done years ago -- but first ever Department  Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threats.  I'm also recommending that there be a regular process that includes the secretaries and the deputies in these decisions because nobody wants to sit where I am and have to think now about what coulda-woulda-shoulda happened in order to avoid this.  Now, as I said, we've had 19 ARBS.  Only two have ever been unclassified.  The one coming out of the East Africa bombings where there was full transparency, there was a set of recommendations, many of which have been implemented, along with recommendations from other ARBS.  But this Committee never had a public hearing about the 17 other ARBS because they were classified.  So we're-we're-we're putting into action, steps that we think will help the next Secretary be able to make these decisions, be part of these decisions, have more insight into what is going on and we would, obviously, welcome the opportunity to work closely with a subcommittee or a set of members to make sure that that's what's happening. 

That's a lot of words.  If you know Hillary, and I do, she's not a "uhm" and "uh" and "the-the" type person.  When she is that?  She's hiding.  That's reality.  You can admit that or not.

But if you're on the fence about whether she's spinning, grasp that she used a lot of words.  Ranking Member Bob Corker wanted to know -- and asked three times -- what she'd done that would ensure that the Secretary of State would be aware of the security needs and requests? 

And Hillary couldn't answer it.  She went on and on.  To the point that Corker pointed out time was limited and re-directed her.  She responded by going on and on and still not answering his question.  So he tried asking it for a third time.  And no answer.

That's not just disappointing, that's actually damning. 

If you need to contrast?  Senator James Risch asked her about what's going on in Algeria.  She couldn't talk about it in terms of what it is but she, explained, she could talk about this ongoing situation in terms of the information she's receiving (that "we don't have anyway to confirm it" at present).  Hillary didn't stammer once, she'd didn't pause and it wasn't until the end that she even fell into a "uh"  (and there she was recalling what someone in another department had done).  That question was out of left field.  It played to her strengths, she is very knowledgeable.  She is very smart.  She thinks on her feet.  She was pulling from news reports and briefings in her head, off the top of her head, and speaking eloquently and to the point.  Contrast that completely unprepared for moment and how well she mastered it with her refusal to answer Corker's very basic question -- one she was asked three times.

Another serious issue "we knew we were piecing together what a host nation was not able to do."  That Hillary speaking to Senator Marco Rubio.  Who's insane idea was it that Libya could provide security?  How many billions has the US government spent on Iraq's police and military?  But the protection of the US staff there is US military and contractors.  That issue has not been dealt with adequately by the press, by the Senate or by the State Dept.  Do not say, "Well host countries provide security."  No.  Not in Iraq.   According to Reuters timeline of the 2011 Libyan War,  October 23, 2011, Libya is declared "liberated."  The attack happened less than a year later.  In what world does the US government assume that a regime not even a year old can provide adequate security?  Don't distract with budgets or authorizations or other nonsense.  Answer clearly who made the decision -- in State or out -- that the militias in Libya could protect US diplomatic staff?

"What difference at this point does it make!" she shouted to Senator Ron Johnson at one point in the hearing looking unhinged, unprofessional and, quite frankly, uncaring.

It was supposed to be a dramatic moment that showed her heart.  She's a diplomat.  Johnson was doing nothing but agreeing with her but she wanted a big TV moment apparently.  Instead she's flying off the handle in a hearing where she's gotten more praise than any non-uniformed witness in the last six years.  It wasn't pretty.  Nor her attempts shortly afterwards -- during Senator Jeff Flake's line of questioning -- to laugh about the same topic ("we didn't [laughter] have a clear picture").  There are four people dead.  I don't need to scream that as she did at Senator Johnson.  But there are four people dead and America doesn't need your laughter, Hillary Clinton.  She did not conduct herself in a professional manner and as this haunts and taints her legacy, look for people to step forward and insist it was health related and she should have waited a week or two longer before testifying.  I'm not here to rescue her, I'm reporting what happened in the hearing and it was embarrassing.  Wally will be covering Johnson's questions at Rebecca's site tonight, Ava will cover another aspect of the hearing at Trina's site and Ruth's covering it at her site (Ruth's offering an overview of the testimony Hillary offered).

It's public here that I supported Hillary in her 2008 run for the presidential nomination, that I like her and I know.  I've also long shared that I can't stand Senator John McCain (Cindy McCain is a very sweet woman).  I stated here as early as 2006 that I would not be voting for him.  I would love to be reporting John McCain unleashed the crazy and Hillary was just amazing.  But that's not what happened.

Senator John McCain:  Four months -- or months -- after the Benghazi tragedy -- it's a tragedy when we lose four brave Americans, there are many questions that are unanswered and the answers, frankly, that you've been giving this morning are not satisfactory to me.  Were you and the President made aware of the classified cable from Chris Stevens that said the United States Consulate in Benghazi could not survive a sustained assault?  Numerous warnings -- including personally to me -- about the security were unanswered or unaddressed.  It took a CNN reporter looking through the Consulate to find Chris Stevens' last warning.  When were you made aware of that cable?  When were you made aware of the attack on the British ambassador? And the assassination attempts?  And the closing of the Consulates there?  And what actions were taken? What were the president's activities during that seven hour period?  On the anniversary of the worst attack in American history, September 11th, we didn't have the Department of Defense forces available for seven hours.  Two brave Americans died in the last hour.  With all these warnings, all these things took place, we didn't have a single Department of Defense asset apparently available to come to these rescue.  I categorically reject your answer to Senator Johnson about 'Well, we didn't ask these survivors who were flown to Ramstein [Air Base] the next day that this was not a spontaneous demonstration.'   You say that it was because an investigation was going on?  The American people deserve to know answers and they certainly don't deserve false answers.  And the answers that were given the American people on September 15th by the Ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice] were false -- in fact, contradicted by the classified information which was kept out of the Ambassador to the United Nations' report who, by the way, in the President's words, had nothing to do with Benghazi -- which questions why she was sent out to start with. Why is it that the administration still refuses to provide the full text of the e-mails regarding the deletions of references to al Qaeda and terrorism in the talking points?  Why do we care? Because if the classified information had been included, it gives an entirely different version of events to the American people.  Going to the American people and tell them what happened then you ought to have your facts straight -- including, the Ambassador said, "al Qaeda is decimated and our consulates and embassies are secure." So here we are, four months later, and we still don't have the basic information.  Now if you want to go out and tell the American people what happened, you should have at least interviewed the people who were there instead of saying 'No, we couldn't talk to them because an FBI investigation was going on.'  And, by the way, as I said at the time, I just happened to be on one of those talk shows, people don't bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations.  That's a fundamental.  And, of course, the president continued to say, days afterwards, September 12th, he made a reference to active terrorists, September 12th on 60 Minutes "too early to know," September 20th on Univision "we're still doing an investigation," September 24th on The View "we're still doing an investigation."  The President of the United States, as late as September 24th, two weeks later, did not acknowledge that this was an act of terror conducted by people who were at least somehow connected to al Qaeda.  And, finally, Madam Secretary, I strongly disagree with your depiction of what we did after [Libyan leader before the 2011 assault, Muammar] Gaddafi fell.  We did not provide the security that was needed.  We did not help them with border security.  We did not give them the kind of assistance that would have been necessary to help dismantle these militias that still, to this day, remain a challenge to democracy in Libya and freedom.  You knew Chris Stevens very well.  I knew him very well.  I knew him on July 7th, when I went to Libya to observe the elections.  And at that time, on July 7th, he expressed to me his deep and grave concerns about security particularly in Begnhazi.  And he continued to communicate with the State Dept -- and I don't know who else was privy to those cables -- of his deep concern about the security there and the need for additional assistance.  And I will argue -- [will argue] with facts -- that after that event took place, after the fall of Gaddafi, the so-called 'soft footprint' was partially to some degree responsible for the tragedy that took place.  The American people and the families of these four brave Americans still have not gotten the answers that they deserve.  I hope that they will get them.
Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Well Senator, I understand your very, very strong feelings.  You knew Chris, you were a friend of Chris, you were one of the staunchest supporters of the efforts to dislodge Gaddaif and try to give the Libyan people, uh, a chance and we just have a disagreement.  We have a disagreement about, uh, what did happen and when it happened, with respect to explaining, uh, the sequence of events.  Uhm, we did get to, uh, talk to the DS Agents when they got back to this country.  We did so.  It was not before September 15th.  We had no access to the surveillance cameras for weeks which helped to answer a number of questions.  But with respect to helping the Libyans -- and that also goes to the question Senator Rubio asked -- we will provide a list of everything we were doing and were attempting to do but I will also tell you that since March 2011, Congressional holds have been placed on programs for many months for aid to Libya.  Uh, we've had frequent Congressional complaints: Why are we doing anything for Libya, it's a wealthy country, it has oil, disagreement from some sources that we should never have been part of some UN mission in Libya.  Currently, the House has holds on a bilateral security assistance on other kinds of support for anti-terrorism assistance, so we got to get our act together between the administration and the Congress if this is a priority and if we are serious about trying to help this government stand up security and deal with what is a very dangerous environment from east to west, then we have to work together, uhm, so I hope that, uh, we can have the kind of discussion where we can agree on, uh, certain approaches that will make a difference.  We -- And, again, I would urge that you look and read both the classified 6and unclassified versions of the ARP that tries to deal with the very questions that you and  Senator Johnson are raising -- the timing of it and the like.  But I also hope we're looking forward because right now Libya is still dangerous, it is still in a very unstable status and whatever we can do for them we at least ought to agree we need to do and get out there and start delivering.

Again, a lot of words and none of them address the issues raised by McCain, do they?  They do distract.  He's asking about the failures and she's talking about how support needs to be firm for funding Libya.  (Neither spoke of the illegal nature of the Libyan War -- the US involvement -- but War Hawks never do.)

It was an embarrassment and she might have been better off pleading health problems to avoid appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.   We'll try to grab her appearance before the House Committee in tomorrow's snapshot and I also want to return to the Senate hearing to note something from Senator Bob Casey.

Now here's C.I. reporting on it the next day:

Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said.  We called her out in yesterday's snapshot.   In addition,  Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally),"   Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?"  Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again.  Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible.  Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions.  They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner.  I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry.  I supported her in 2008.  I don't see supporting a presidential run again. 

I have never seen lunatic behavior like that in a hearing and I was present a few years back when a Ranking Member stormed out in the middle of a witness' remarks, loudly and intentionally slamming a door behind him.  Everyone stopped -- the witness stopped testifying -- and we all appeared to wonder, "What the hell is wrong with Steve Buyer?"  I disagreed with Buyer on many things (he was very right, however, on the burial grounds for military members who were buried in this country and overseas -- he was a champion on that issue and deserves praise for it) but I had never seen anything so rude.  I sat through Condi Rice testifying as a hostile witness or at least to a hostile Congress, I sat through Condi testifying as a woman with red paint (representing blood) on her hands invaded Condi's space.  Condi didn't scream and yell.  In fact, I said to Kat, "I'm sort of impressed with how calm Condi remained and with the fact that she didn't try to sick security guards on the woman" (Diane Wilson).  (I think John Kerry responded very well to an outburst in the midst of his opening remarks at today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.)

Some 'press' -- like the Drama Queen at the Washington Post -- are distorting the hearing, especially a key exchange (the one Wally covered accurately last night).  They're rushing to praise Hillary and calling Senator Ron Johnson a "tea partier."  I have no idea what he is (other than Republican), yesterday was the first time I ever laid eyes on him.  But I don't need to know his backstory to know what happened in the hearing. 

Senator Ron Johnson:  Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary, I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking your for service sincerely and also I appreciate the fact that you're here testifying and glad that you're looking in good health.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Thank you.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Did you, were you fully aware of -- again, I realize how big your job is, you know everything's erupting in the Middle East this time.  Were you fully aware of these 20 incidents reported in the ARP in real time?  I mean --

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  I-I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention.  They were part of, uh, our ongoing discussion about the um-um deteriorating threat environment in uh eastern Libya uh, we certainly were, uh, very conscience of them was assured by our security professionals that, uh, repairs were underway additional security upgrades in place.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Okay.  Thank you.  Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for basically reinforcements for the-the security detail that was going to be evacuating -- or leaving -- in August?  Did you see that personally?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:   No, sir.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Okay.  Uhm, when you read the ARB, it strikes me, uh, how certain the people were that the attacks started 9:40 pm Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to, the returnees, the evacuees?  Did you personally speak to those folks?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  I've spoken to, uh, one of them but I waited until after the ARP had done its investigation because I did not want there to be [laughing] any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARP conducted its investigation.

Senator Ron Johnson:  How many people were evacuated from Libya?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Uhm.  Well, you, uh, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --

Senator Ron Johnson:  Approximately?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Approximately 25 to 30.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Uh, did anybody in the State Dept talk to those folks shortly afterwards?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Uh, there was discussion going on uh-uh afterwards.  But once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them and so other than our people in Tripoli which -- I think you're talking about Washington, right?

Senator Ron Johnson:  Yeah.  Yeah.  The point I'm making is a very simple phone call to these individuals I think would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this.  I mean this attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time.  It was an assault and I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault.  But I mean, I'm going back to then, Ambassador Rice five days later going to the Sunday shows and what I would say purposefully misleading the American public.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Well, Senator --

Senator Ron Johnson:  Why-why-why wasn't that known?  And, again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing but why weren't we transparent at that point and time?

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened and once we got our people rescued out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries because, as I said, I still have a DSA agent still at Walter Reed seriously injured, getting them into Frankfurt-Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to talk to them, we did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews.  And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows.  And, you know, I just want to say that, uhm, you know, people have, uh,  accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of, uh, misleading the Americans, I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth.  Was information developing?  Was the situation fluid?  Would we reach conclusions later that weren't reached initially and I appreciate --

Senator Ron Johnson:  But, Madam Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn't have ascertained what happened immediately that there was no protest?  I mean that was -- that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained. 

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  But Senator, again --

Senator Ron Johnson:  -- within hours, if not days.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Senator, I, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going --

Senator Ron Johnson:  I understand, I realize ---

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Number two --

Senator Ron Johnson:  -- that's a good excuse.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  No, it's a fact.  Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because even today there are questions being raised.  Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people, but what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing --

Senator Ron Johnson:  No, no, no.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  -- is still -- is still --

Senator Ron Johnson:  Again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily --

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson:  -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans!  [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her voice, begin going all over the map.]

Senator Ron Johnson:  I understand.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans!  What difference at this point does it make!
It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from every happening again, Senator!  Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this but the fact is people were trying in real time to get to the best information.  The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out but, you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it then to find them and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Okay, thank you Madam Secretary.

If you applaud that performance by Hillary I don't know who you are or what you believe in.  You don't believe in the Constitution -- not enough to support it -- nor do you believe in an informed society.  You do believe in all the b.s. Bully Boy Bush put the United States through after 9-11.

As Wally points out in his piece, there are things called "facts" that actually are facts but facts are not Hillary Clinton's personal opinions no matter how loud  she gets in hearing. 

Second, the issue of Susan Rice came up repeatedly.  During other questioning on the topic, Hillary testified she wasn't present so she can't speak to that process or what happened or anything. But with Johnson, she wants to assure him what happened -- what happened when she wasn't present.  She knows those aren't facts, she knows they're at best "hearsay."

Third, she's being asked a basic question.  I'd be a real hypocrite if I disagreed with Johnson because the issue of talking to someone who was present during the attack before going on TV to pontificate?  I raised that in the November 15th snapshot.  And Johnson was right yesterday.  You do have an obligation to speak to someone.

I've never been more disappointed in Hillary or more ashamed.  We're not going to debate the Susan Rice nonsense, it's been covered.  We're going to address Hillary's nonsense and we have to because the press doesn't want to do their damn job -- as usual.

Hillary said she took accountability.  If you burn my house down and show up the next day as I'm going through the charred remains and you say, "I take accountability," I may believe you . . . up until you start yelling and screaming.  If you take accountability, then you damn well learned something from the experience.  Hillary learned nothing.  It's a cheap line ("I take accountability") intended to silence people.  You either take accountability or you don't.

She's taken no accountability.  She's done nothing to indicate she has.  She's done nothing to improve her knowledge of the attack.  She's done nothing to secure the diplomatic staff around the world.  On the last one, as Ava so aptly pointed out in her report, as an aside, Hillary tosses out in the hearing that at least 20 US diplomatic outposts are currently at risk.  I'm missing the moment where Hillary or one of her staffers rushed before Congress in the last months to demand funding for these 20 at risk posts.

Don't lie to the country and claim you took accountability when you so obviously didn't.

Gore Vidal used to praise Hillary for her manners and grace.  Neither was visible yesterday.  If you didn't get it from the exchange, she was being flattered by Johnson, she was being praised.  She flew off the handle and started screaming and acting like a crazy person while she was being treated with kid gloves.  I was offended by her behavior.  She is not just a former First Lady, she's also a former US Senator and she fully  knows how to conduct herself in the Senate.  There was no excuse for her behavior.  Senator John McCain was probably the most severe critic she faced yesterday.  John McCain did not yell at her, he did not fly off the handle.  Let's move over to what she said while she was acting so crazy.

Senator Ron Johnson:  Again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily --

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  But-but --

Senator Ron Johnson:  -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.

Secretary Hillary Clinton:  With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans!  [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her voice, begin going all over the map.]

There were four dead Americans and they died because of failures within the administration.  You can claim to take accountability all you damn well want.  But Ranking Member Bob Corker put one question to Hillary over and over (three times) and she ignored it.  'You claim you didn't see any of the various requests for more security.'  Corker wanted to know how that wouldn't happen to you again or the next person in your position?  Hillary couldn't answer him.  That's a failure.  She refused to answer him.  There are four dead Americans, Secretary Clinton, and you've done nothing to ensure that when people in the field ask for additional security, these requests and their outcomes are made known to the Secretary of State. 

I could go on with that.  C.I. does a great job reporting on Congressional hearings.  And she holds people accountable.  She held Hillary accountable for her outrageous actions.

But the press treated it like it was normal and rational.  That's why C.I. returned to the topic the next day, because the press wasn't doing their job.  They were too busy insisting Hillary had the nomination sewed up, they wanted to insist.  No, she didn't.  If she was planning to run in 2016, she may have even slit her own throat.  That was an appalling performance.

Kathleen Parker calls her out for "what difference at this point does it make!" in her new column:

Well, it all makes quite a bit of difference, though inarguably less now than it might have just weeks before the November election. Apparently, Johnson and his Republican colleagues were so hornswoggled by Clinton's irritation that no one wanted to volunteer.
Most important is the possibility that those four American lives might have been saved. More prosaically, it is very possible that President Obama's reelection might not have been assured had possible incompetence at the highest levels been highlighted sooner rather than ."‰."‰. now.

She then goes into Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's testimony this month where he said that he informed Barack as the attack was starting and that Barack told him basically to handle it and didn't do anything else.  Parker points out:

As chief executive, Obama may have felt he delegated appropriately. Let the military handle it. But he is also the commander in chief. When our ambassador is being attacked, our country is being attacked. Should he have done more? Might he have made a call to Stevens or someone else on the ground? Obama didn't hesitate to call Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke two days after she was attacked on-air by Rush Limbaugh. Two days after would have been too late for Stevens, of course, but one is a real-war theater and the other is merely political.

Again, first time reading Parker (who is a Republican, if you didn't know that) so I can't judge her entire work.  But she wrote a strong column.

Now this is from Stephen Lendman's column grading Barack's awful State of the Union Address Tuesday night:

Obama did what he does best. He lied. He’s a serial liar. He supports wealth and power. He’s beholden to powerful monied interests. They own him. He spurns popular needs. He prioritizes letting them go begging on his watch.
He proposed massive Medicare cuts. In 2010, 2011, and last November he urged more. He’s waging class war on Americans.
He wants fundamental social benefits destroyed. He wants ordinary people hung out to dry. He wants them on own sink or swim.
In 2010, his Simpson-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRF) recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Medicaid co-pays, and restrictions on filing malpractice suits.
It urged other ways to end Washington’s responsibility for healthcare. Obama’s address reiterated support. Implementation assures disaster for millions.
Healthcare for millions already is unaffordable. Implementing Simpson-Bowles makes it more so when most needed. Illnesses will go untreated. Pain, suffering, and early deaths will follow. Rogue leadership assures it. Obama reflects the worst of irresponsible lawless leaders.

Do you ever eat something and it just doesn't agree with you?

My daughter and I had chicken tenders.  I spent an hour with her after she threw up.  She felt like she was going to hurl again.  So I got her to lay down and I just kept a cold wash cloth on her head and talked to her until she fell asleep.  And then I went to the bathroom.  I didn't throw up, I had the runs.  I cannot believe it.

Elaine would have chosen something healthy but Thursday nights is when she does her veterans group session so she wasn't eating with us.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, February 14, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's Iraq releases a journalist, the Justice and Accountability Commission removes the Chief Justice, the UK Labour Party works hard to say 'we're a different Labour Party than a decade ago,' and more. 

Starting in England where Politics UK noted early today:

A new approach to intervening in foreign countries will be set out by Labour as the shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy, accuses David Cameron of failing to learn the lessons from Tony Blair’s mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ten years after the Iraq War, Labour will attempt to further distance itself from a conflict which alienated many voters by warning against the “ideological” crusade against al-Qa’ida favoured by Mr Blair and Mr Cameron.

In his speech today, Murphy declared:

Just as important is the need to understand the culture and character of a specific country. A primitive understanding of the Afghan population, culture and geography prior to our intervention severely undermined attempts to work with proxies and our political strategy was in its conception insufficiently representative. In Iraq there was a serious deficit in Western comprehension of the Sunni-Shia or intra-Shia dynamics.
There is rightly much discussion of ungoverned spaces, but this means absence of a central authority rather than a non-existence of local power-brokers who must be navigated. Extremists often understand this and so must we.
Associated to this, as we all now know, the physical disconnection of a ‘Green Zone’ or an ‘inside the wire’ mentality can impede communication or cultural empathy. Diplomatic compounds, equally, can be isolated from local communities, restricting the relationships necessary to understand communities.
The final lesson I want to mention is the need to understand the interests of the Forces with whom we co-operate, not just our enemy. They will have their own interests - and not necessarily those of the central authority. It took too long for us to see the training of the ANA and ANP as a strategic priority, and we know that de-Ba’athification left a lethal vacuum in Iraq. When the UK plays a role in training local or regional forces, it is essential we view them not just as auxiliaries but as partners who can inform the strategy behind our operations.

And Murphy's remarks in the speech can be paired with what Labour's Douglas Alexander tells Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) in an interview today:
Q: You mentioned Iraq. Over the last 10 years, have you changed your view of that conflict and the British involvement in it?
A: Well, of course I regret the loss of life and accept that there was a loss of trust that followed. Had any of us who were in the House of Commons at the time known then what we know now, that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, we wouldn't have voted, indeed there wouldn't have been a vote. So of course our understanding of the situation deepened and changed because the evidence pointed against the existence of weapons of mass destruction when the weapons inspectors did their work in Iraq after the conflict.
Q: It was clear within six months of the conflict that the weapons had not been found. But the way events have panned out of the following 10 years has, for many people, changed their views of the rights and wrongs of the conflict.
A: Sure, if you look at the ledger with a 10-year perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives. Of course, I don't regret the removal of Saddam Hussein, the relative safety of the Kurds compared with their previous position. But given the lack of post-conflict planning, the insurgency that followed the action in 2003, of course the negatives outweigh the positives in my judgment.

The remarks come one day before the tenth anniversary of the largest protest London ever saw -- and there were protests all over England February 15, 2003 -- not just in London.  The demonstrators were calling for the march to illegal war to be halted.  Laurie Penny reflects  in "Ten years ago we marched against the Iraq War and I learned a lesson in betrayal" (New Statesman):

Ten years ago this month, millions of people all over the world marched against the war in Iraq – and were ignored. I was one of them. For me, at the age of 16, there were a lot of firsts on 15 February 2003: first truancy, first solo trip to London, first time seeing democracy rudely circumvented.
Tony Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Americans’ war in Iraq was an immediate, material calamity for millions of people in the Middle East. I’m writing here, though, about the effect of that decision on the generation in the west who were children then and are adults now. For us, the sense of betrayal was life-changing. We had thought that millions of people making their voices heard would be enough and we were wrong.

The Week's Matthew Clark also reflects in "Lest we forget: anti-Iraq war protesters were in the right:"

Supporters of military intervention in Iraq, both then and since, have variously smeared the protesters for being pro-Saddam, anti-American, fellow-travellers of totalitarianism and jihadism, political ingénues and Chamberlain-style 'appeasers'.
Alastair Campbell, the ruthless and cynical apparatchik who did so much to promote the war, wrote contemptuously in his diary of encountering "no end of people coming back from the march, placards under their arms, faces full of self-righteousness, occasional loathing when they spotted me".
Shortly before the march, his boss Tony Blair made the characteristically grandiose and narcissistic observation that unpopularity was "the price of leadership and the cost of conviction" and insisted that there would be "bloody consequences" if Saddam was not "confronted".

The protests didn't stop the war but they do exist to serve notice that not everyone believed the lies, that everyone wasn't wrong and that 'no one could have guessed.'  They prove false the claims by War Hawks and other cowardly leaders that they were using the best available data to make their decisions.  As Mehdi Hasan (New Statesman) observes:
It isn’t the size of our demonstration that those of us against the war should be proud of, it is our judgement. Our arguments and predictions turned out to be correct and those of our belligerent opponents were discredited. Remember the rhetoric? There was “no doubt” that the invaders would “find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam’s weap­ons of mass destruction” (Blair) as well as evidence of how Iraq had “provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to al-Qaeda” (Colin Powell); the foreign troops would be “greeted as liberators” (Dick Cheney); “the establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East” would be “a watershed event in the global democratic revolution” (George W Bush).

Those protesting around the world a decade ago included people who hoped the rallies and marches would stop the Iraq War from starting, it included people who thought it might make a difference, it included people who felt it would make no difference but wanted to be on the record that a war on Iraq would be an illegal crime, it included people with a number of beliefs.  And it had an impact.  Tuesday on Mornings with Steve Austin (Australia's ABC -- link is audio), Austin spoke with Just Peace's Annette Brownlie.  She was one of the organizers of the Brisbane march ten years ago that drew between 700,000 and 1,000,000 participants.  As with the London protest in England, the Brisbane march was only one of the protests taking place in Australia that day. 

 Steve Austin:  You started protesting at the age of 16 against the Vietnam War.  Does it sadden you that this type of protest is still necessary but still appears to be ineffective?

Annette Brownlie:  It saddens me that it's still necessary, for sure.  You know, in an ideal lifetime, you would see the fruits of your labor.  But, you know, history isn't like that, is it?  It's sometimes  the really big paradigm shifts in human thinking take much longer than one person's lifetime.  And you think about slavery and just how long it took for people to accept that this was wrong.  Think about women's right to vote, it took a long time for that to take off.  And I'm, you know, I see what we do in the peace movement as being a continuum.  And at some point, we're going to realize that wars, indiscriminate killing of people, is a crime and it doesn't achieve what you want and it's criminal activity. 

The protests didn't stop the illegal war but they did object to it and the objection continues to this day.  Which is why, for example, Labour scrambles today.  The three in power and pushing the Iraq War destroyed their political parties.  In the US, Bully Boy Bush destroyed the Republican Party.  It lost the White House and is a joke today no matter what.  I'm not saying all their actions today deserve to be derided but I am saying the illegal war and their part in selling it has had an effect not just with the people but also with the press.  (For an example, see Elaine noting how NPR's trying to rewrite Senator Susan Collns.)  In England, Tony Blair was in power.  And when he left, Labour should have remained in power for years.  But the illegal war -- and their inability to address it publicly -- has meant Labour has scrambled for votes in an economic downturn that would normally have many flocking to them.  They are paying the political price for the illegal war.   In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard's Liberal Democratic Party remains in shambles for his selling of the Iraq War.   His party scrambles the same way the Republicans do, the same way Labour is doing.  In Australia, he was replaced with Kevin Rudd -- and Rudd was replaced Julia Gillard -- both are members of Australia's Labor Party.

Of the three countries, England's protesters have had the most impact.  Sue Wareham (Age) called this week for an Iraq inquiry in Australia:

Britain and the Netherlands have both conducted such inquiries, revealing much that was hidden in those countries' Iraq war decision-making. Of course, the government and opposition will resist, counting on the resignation many felt for the past decade to shield them from public pressure. But the demand for an inquiry into what happened 10 years ago can sow the seeds for a democratic capacity to ensure it never happens again.
Instead of simply looking back in horror at how Australia became embroiled in such an ill-conceived and catastrophic conflict, the inquiry would seek to identify the steps that led to Australia participating in the invasion of Iraq, in order to understand the lessons to be learnt and how to ensure we follow better procedures in the future.

 England has had multiple inquiries into the war -- the start of it and actions during it.  And now Labour has to work to woo voters.  Contrast that with the US where Dick Cheney's Deputy National Security Advisor is now the spokesperson for the US State Dept.  Victoria Nuland is a War Hawk from a family of neocon War Hawks.  So why does she represent the State Dept in Barack Obama's administration?

Remember Blackwater's massacre in September 2007?  From the Monday, September 17, 2007 snapshot:

Turning to the issue of violence, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday that  a Baghdad shooting (by private contractors) killed 9 Iraqi civilians and left fifteen more wounded. Later on Sunday, CNN reported, "In the Baghdad gun battle, which was between security forces and unidentified gunmen, eight people were killed and 14 wounded, most of them civilians, an Interior Ministry official said. Details were sketchy, but the official said witnesses told police that the security forces involved appeared to be Westerners driving sport utility vehicles, which are usually used by Western companies. The clash occurred near Nisoor square, in western Baghdad.  CBS and AP report that Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesperson for the Interior Ministry, announced "it was pulling the license of an American security firm allegedly involved in the fatal shooting of civilians during an attack on a U.S. State Department motorcade in Baghdad," that "it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force" in the slaughter (eight dead, 13 wounded) and they "have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory." 

17 dead and twenty injured would be the final tolls.  That didn't stop Gwen Ifill from finding the incident amusing on PBS.  From the October 8, 2007 snapshot:

Over the weekend on PBS' Washington Week (or Washington Weak) Linda Robinson of US News and World Reports decided to chat and chew the topic with star Gwen:
Linda Robinson:  Well Blackwater has about 800 people who are primarily providing bodyguard service to the embassy personnel.  And there are about, well there are some thousands of other contractors doing this exact kind of job.  So they're moving around the city in convoys and they apply very aggressive tactics in general.  There are some who are alleging that Blackwater in particular uses much more aggressive tactics.  But let's just set the stage a little bit.  Very, very violent city.  You're driving around, bombs are going off, at any unpredicted time.  So what happens is these convoy drivers uses a tactic: they throw things at people, they sound their horns their sirens if you don't get out of the way they will shoot.  So Iraqi drivers generally pull over as soon as they see a convoy.  The problem is SUVs cannot readily be identified often from a distance --
Gwen Ifill: Yeah, how do you know it's a convoy?  How do you know it's not the military?  How do you know -- tell the difference?
That's the problem.  Washington Weak tells you that's the problem.  For the record, Robinson informs Gwen that it's very obvious when it's the military and it's only confusing when it comes to civilian contractors.  So the question is, were Linda Robinson or Gwen to be walking to their cars at the start of the day and a car came zooming through with those in it throwing things at them, would they see that as a problem?  Should Jon Stewart attempt to find out for The Daily Show?  In fact, it shouldn't even be a surprise.  Gwen and Robinson should volunteer for it to prove what good sports they are.  After ten to fifteen minutes of drive-bys where water bottles are hurled at them (the mildest object usually cited in press reports) from speeding cars, let's see their smiling, bruised (possibly bloodied?) faces and find out whether they now think that "the problem" includes a great deal more than being able to tell if a convoy is approaching?  What's really appalling is Robinson admits to being selective in her report explaining that's why she "set up" because, apparently, reporters are not supposed to show any sympathy for the civilian populations they are allegedly covering but instead are supposed to be act as a p.r. hack for multi-billion dollar corporations.  And the chat and chew only got worse as it was wondered if this was all just sour grapes due to Blackwater's "success"?

How embarrassing was that broadcast -- which did include laughter at the assault?  So embarrassing that Gwen's vanished it from the show's archives -- even on YouTube.  That doesn't erase it from collective memory nor does it make it okay.  Rule of thumb for Gwen -- and Nuland as well -- when Iraqis die, take it seriously.  Your job shouldn't be to make excuses for the attackers.

Nuland's repeatedly attacked Iraqi protesters, insisted they were violent and done real damage on the topic.  Yet the only deaths in protests have come at the hands of Nouri's forces.  From the January 26, 2013 snapshot:

Friday, Nouri al-Maliki's armed thugs in Falluja fired on protesters killing at least seven (Alsumaria reported another of the victims has died from wounds raising the death toll)  and sixty more were left injured.  Alsumaria notes the Iraq's Literary Federation and the Association for Defending Press Freedom and the General Union of Writers have all called for the protection of the protesters, decried the violence and are calling for early elections.  Uday Hadim (Association for Defending Press Freedom) states that putting the military out there was a mistake to begin with and now the government and the Parliament must tender the resignations and early elections must take place under the supervision of the United Nations.   Writer Fahmi Saleh points out that the Constitution guarantees Iraqis the right to demonstrate and protest. In the KRG, Alsumaria reports, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's political party) has called on Nouri to remove the military from protests and to show restraint.  All Iraq News notes that the Kurdistan bloc in Parliament also condemned the assault and called for Nouri to stop using the military on internal issues.  They also note that the National Alliance (Shi'ite grouping of various slates -- including Nouri's State of Law but I'm sure they're not part of this) is calling for a prompt and thorough investigation into the shootings.  Alsumaria notes Iraqiya announced they will boycott all upcoming Parliamentary votes that are not a no-confidence vote or votes addressing the demands of the protesters.

Alsumaria reports that the military was withdrawn from Falluja Saturday. Kamal Naama Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Patrick Markey, Andrew Roche and Jason Webb (Reuters) quoted Mustafa Jamal, the brother on one of the 7 shot dead by the military yesterday, stating, "Withdrawing the army from the city is not enough, I do not know how this will benefit me and it won't get my brother back."   The dead and wounded were taken to Falluja General Hospital [. . .].  Al Mada noted that Falluja residents descended on the hospital in large numbers to donate blood.  Kamal Naama Suadad al-Salhy, Ahmed Rasheed, Patrick Markey, Andrew Roche and Jason Webb (Reuters) report that "thousands" turned out for the five funerals in Fallluja Saturday.  Al Mada adds that the mourners chanted and marches calling for soldiers who executed the 7 citizens to be handed over.  Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN -- link is text and video) reported that Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha who is a tribal leader and a Sawha leader delivered a statement on television Saturday in which he "gave Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government seven days to hand over to Anbar's criminal court those involved in the shootings."   Today the Sheikh tells Al Mada that he believes the violence was premeditate and planned because Nouri had declared on TV that the demonstration would be targeted.   BBC News adds, "Sunni leaders in Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, had earlier told the BBC that they would attack army positions in the province if the government failed to bring the soldiers responsible for the protester shootings 'to justice'." 

Now here's Icky Vicky Nuland on January 25th, the day of the assualt.

QUESTION: A very quick question: According to reports, five protestors got killed today in Fallujah, Iraq. Have – are you able to confirm – during protests by the Iraqi security forces.

MS. NULAND: I’m not in a position to confirm numbers, but I will say that we are concerned about the use of deadly force during today’s protests in Iraq. We understand that the Iraqi Government has now issued a statement indicating that they are initiating a very prompt investigation into the incidents, and that they have called for restraint by security forces. We obviously stand ready to assist in that investigation if asked, but we would also say that as the government and government forces show restraint, the demonstrators also have a responsibility to exercise their right to protest in a nonviolent manner, as well as to continue to press their demands through the political process.

The government, Icky Vicky rushed to assure, and its forces were "showing restraint."  7 people dead.  What does she consider 'letting the gates open' to be?

Today Human Rights Watch calls for  a real investigation into the assault and they note:

According to witnesses who spoke with Human Rights Watch, shortly after noon on January 25, about 10 soldiers at an army checkpoint prevented people from reaching a sit-in site. A Fallujah resident who attended the January 25 sit-in, who asked to be identified only as Abu Rimas, said that the soldiers verbally provoked a group of demonstrators as they were walking near the highway toward the sit-in. Abu Rimas said the demonstrators numbered in the hundreds: The demonstrators were walking past the checkpoints, at a distance, and the soldiers started yelling at us. They said, “Why are you coming here to demand the release of the whores [referring to female detainees] and terrorists? You are terrorists.” This provoked the demonstrators and many of them started throwing rocks at the army, and [the army] opened fire. Some of them opened fire right away, into the air . . . but some of the soldiers fired into the crowd.
He said the demonstrators were close enough to hear the soldiers yelling, but far enough away that none of the thrown rocks reached the checkpoint.

Victoria Nuland had nothing to say today about Iraq.  She wasn't asked about it at the brief State Dept press briefing and she certainly didn't volunteer anything. 

Strange because if Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy were declared a 'terrorist' this morning and removed from the bench, seems like that would be news.  That's what happened to Chief Justice Medhat al-Mahmoud who is also the President of the Iraqi Higher Judicial Council.  Alsumaria reports 'independent' MP Sabah al-Saadi has accused Medhat al-Mahmoud of "crimes against humanity."   Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that the laughable Justice and Accountability Commission  has removed the judge from office.  He's a 'Ba'athist,' a criminal.
Returning to the topic of the protesters, Shafaq News points out, "Demonstrations and sit-ins still continue in Iraq in protest against Maliki's policies, as the sit-in in Ramadi had entered its 56 day.  Maliki's government is witnessing recently protests in several areas, including Anbar, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Samarra, Mosul and a number of neighborhoods in Baghdad to demand reforms and cancel laws that prohibit some from participating in the political process, as well as cancelling Article 4 of Anti-Terrorism Act and release detainees especially women detainees and achieve balance in the institutions of the state."  Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) is back in Iraq and offers this take on the protests:

Something has broken. Much of Iraq's minority Sunni Muslim population appears to have run out of patience with Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a religious Shiite Muslim who has ruled since 2006. In recent weeks, Sunnis by the thousands have carried out a campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience, closing off the main roads to Fallouja and Ramadi in the west and mounting demonstrations in Samarra, Baghdad and Mosul.
The rallies are a testament to problems left unresolved when the U.S. military campaign ended here, and to the new tension that has spread throughout the Middle East. Angry citizens of other countries have overthrown entrenched rulers through street protests or armed revolt. In neighboring Syria, Sunnis have risen up as well, forming the backbone of the insurgency against President Bashar Assad.
Though the protests have taken Iraq by surprise, they were triggered by two events no different from many in recent years that have left Sunnis feeling like second-class citizens: news reports about the rape of a woman in prison and the arrest of a local politician's bodyguards. But the original causes no longer matter; they have mushroomed into a larger outrage.

Meanwhile coalitions are forming.  All Iraq News notes that Ahmed Chalabi and KRG President Massoud Barzani have talked and are saying partnership is the only way to resolve the political crises.  Also partnering up were Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Ammar al-Hakim.  All Iraq News reports that the National Alliance head and the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq held a joint-press conference last night to
. . . announce their love?  They didn't repeat anything new.  Mainly Ammar layered praise upon praise on Ibahim al-Jaafari. 

That won't end the political crises or the violence but the two men may have provided a chuckle or two.  Iraq Body Count counts 155 dead from violence through Wednesday.  The violence continues today, All Iraq News notes a Mosul home invasion that left 2 brothers dead -- one a soldier, the other a police officer.  The soldier was part of the security detail for Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.  In addition, the outlet notes a Mosul bombing has left 2 police officers dead and a third injured.  Alsumaria notes another Mosul bombing which left one civilian injured (his legs were amputated) and 1 cleric was shot dead in Kirkuk.

AFP reports, "French-Australian journalist Nadir Dendoune has been released from an Iraqi prison after three weeks in custody, Iraqi and French sources said Thursday.  The 40-year-old reported was jailed in January after taking 'unauthorised' photos in Baghdad."  As I pointed out when I filled in for Ruth last week, he's French.  He was very vocal about that in a BBC report -- on tensions in France, alienation among the Muslim community.  October 31, 2005, he asked the BBC, "How am I supposed to feel French when people always describe me as a Frenchman of Algerian origin?"  -- over five years ago.  Dropping back to the February 8th snapshot:

Alsumaria reports Nadir Dendoune appeared before Baghdad's Criminal Court today wearing a jacket, jeans and handcuffed.  Who?  Good question because Nadir's not supposed to exist.  Just Saturday, Karin Laub and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported  Nouri declared, "There are no detained journalists or politicians."  But Nadir Dencoune was 'deatined' and had been for weeks.  From the January 29th snapshot:

As we noted this morning, Nadir  Dendoune, who holds dual Algerian and Australian citizenship was covering Iraq for the fabled French newspaper Le Monde's monthly magazine.  His assignment was to document Iraq 10 years after the start of the Iraq War.   Alsumaria explains the journalist was grabbed by authorities in Baghdad last week for the 'crime' of taking pictures.  (Nouri has imposed a required permit, issued by his government, to 'report' in Iraq.)  All Iraq News adds the journalist has been imprisoned for over a week now without charges.

Nadir is the latest journalist to be targeted in Nouri's Iraq.   A petition calling for his release has already gathered 15,594 signatures and a Facebook page has been created to show support for himThe Journalistic Freedoms Observatory in Iraq, Reporters Without Borders and The Committee to Protect Journalists have called for his release.

Arnaud Baur (Le Parisien) reports his sister Houria spoke with him today and he told her he was at the French Embassy in Baghdad, that he has freedom of movement there and has thanked everyone but he does not yet know when he'll be able to leave Baghdad.  Remi Yacine (El Watan) counts 22 days of imprisonment for Nadir.  The Voice of Russia states he is "freed on bail."  Reporters Without Borders released a statement which includes:

“The announcement of Dendoune’s release is an immense relief after 23 days of worry,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “He was arrested simply for doing his work as a journalist. A campaign by his family and fellow journalists in France and Iraq has borne fruit. Reporters Without Borders thanks all the journalists who signed the petition for his release launched by RWB and the support committee.”
Dendoune arrived in Iraq on 16 January to do a series of reports for the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique and the magazine Le Courrier de l’Atlas. According to the French foreign ministry, he was arrested near a water treatment plant in the southwest Baghdad neighbourhood of Dora while out reporting on 23 January.

Moving over to the United States . . .

Dr. David Rudd: I've included in my testimony the tragic suicide of Russell Shirley.  I spoke with Russell's mother over the course of the last month.  I've spoken with one of his dear friends.  And I think Russell is probably typical of the problem -- the tragic problem which will occur over the coming years.  Russell was a son, a husband, a father.  He was a soldier.  He served his country proudly and bravely in Afghanistan.  He survived combat.  He came home struggling with PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury.  With a marriage in crisis and escalating symptoms, he turned to alcohol.  He received a DUI and, after ten years of dedicated service, he was discharged.  And part of the rationale for the discharge was the increasing pressure to reduce the size of the force.  I think we're going to see more and more of that over the coming years.  After the loss of his family, the loss of his career and the loss of his identity, Russell shot himself in front of his mother.  Having spoken with Russell, I would tell you  -- or having spoken with Russell's mother -- I would tell you that a part of the tragedy is that we knew that Russell was at risk prior to his death.  We recognized, identified him as an at-risk soldier prior to his discharge, but yet there were not adequate transitional services in place that allow a clean connection from an individual to an individual.  And I think those are the sort of things we need to start talking about, we need to start thinking about.  How do we connect at-risk soldiers -- once we identify them and they're being discharged -- particularly if they're being discharged against their -- against their wishes -- into the VA system and how do we connect them with an individual and not just with a system?  How do we help them connect in a relationship that can potentially save a life?  I've included a picture of Russell with his two children at the end of my [written] testimony.  And the reason I've done that is I think it's important for all of us.  When I read the Suicide Data Report, the one thing that is missing in the Suicide Data Report are the names of the individuals, the names of the families, the names of the loved ones that are affected and impacted by these tragedies.  And I think it's important for all of us to remember that.

Rudd was speaking before the House Veterans Affairs Committee yesterday as they explored mental health care issues.  He was on the first panel along with the Wounded Warrior Project's Ralph Ibson, the Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem and Connecticut's Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Linda Spoonster Schwartz.  Rudd spoke of Russell Shirley's forced discharge and the loss of identity that took place as a result.   Linda Spoonster Schwartz picked up on that theme.

Linda Spoonster Schwartz:  The President's message last night [Barack Obama's State of the Union address] that we're going to have all of these people coming down.  He [Rudd] mentioned  a very important point -- some of these people who have joined, you have an all volunteer force who has joined.  They intended to make this their career and now you have a drawdown and that is a loss of identity.  As a disabled veteran, I had to leave military service and I had a long time finding a new identity.

What she went through, what Russell Shirley went through, is happening for a number of veterans right now and is about to happen for even more.  Dr. Rudd portrayed Russell Shirley as someone the military knew, prior to the discharge, would be someone who would struggle with the discharge.  If they knew ahead of time and still couldn't tailor some program for him, what does that say about their ability to help those whose problems emerge at a later date?

Chair Jeff Miller:  Last night the President announced that 34,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are going to be back home.  The one-size-fits-all path the Department is on leaves our veterans with no assurance that current issues will abate and fails to recognize that adequately addressing the mental health needs of our veterans is a task that VA cannot handle by themselves.  In order to be effective, VA must embrace an integrated care delivery model that does not wait for veterans to come to them but instead meets them where the veteran is.  VA must stand ready to treat our veterans where and how our veterans want to be treated -- not just where and how VA wants to treat them.  I can tell you this morning that our veterans are in towns and cities and communities all across this great land.  The care that they want is care that recognizes and respects their own unique circumstances, their preferences and their hopes.

Spoonster Schwartz noted that veterans sought care that was closest and that might mean skipping the VA if it was sixty miles away.  She also noted that veterans had more access -- outside the office -- to a private sector doctor than to a veterans doctor

"Something somewhere is clearly missing," House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller observed at the start of the hearing.   US House Rep Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member on the Committee.

Ranking Member Mike Michaud:  Over the years we have held numerous hearings, increased funding and passed legislation in an effort to address the challenges of our veterans from all eras.  VA spent $6.2 billion on mental health programs in Fiscal Year 2012.  I hope to see some positive progress that this funding has been applied to the goals and outcomes for which it was intended and the programs are really working.  We all know that mental health is a significant problem that the nation is facing now -- not only in the VA but throughout our population.  In the broader challenges is an opportunity for the VA to look outside its walls to solve some of the challenges that they face rather than operate in a vacuum as they sometimes have done in the past. One of the most pressing mental health problems that we face is the issue of suicide and how to prevent it.  Fiscal Year 2012 tragically saw an increase in military suicides for the third time in four years.  The number of suicides surpassed the number of combat deaths.  Couple that with the number of suicides in the veterans' population of 18 to 22 per day and the picture becomes even more alarming.

Still on the issue of health care and veterans,  Senator Patty Murray is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and her office issued the following today:

Thursday, February 14, 2013
CONTACT:  Murray 202-224-2834
Tester 202-228-0371
Murray, Tester Introduce Bill to Expand Health Care for CHAMPVA Children
Would raise maximum age for CHAMPVA eligibility to 26 to bring program into parity with Affordable Care Act
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced legislation to adjust current eligibility requirements for children who receive health care under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a child may stay on a parent’s health insurance plan to age 26. However, children who are CHAMPVA beneficiaries lose their eligibility for coverage at age 23, if not before. The legislation introduced today by Sens. Murray and Tester would raise the maximum age for CHAMPVA eligibility to age 26 in order to bring eligibility under the VA program into parity with the private sector.
“As more and more servicemembers return home from Afghanistan, CHAMPVA will continue playing a vital role in caring for veterans’ loved ones,” said Senator Murray. “In our ongoing commitment to keep the faith with our nation’s heroes, this bill ensures CHAMPVA recipients, without regard to their type of coverage, student status, or marital status, are eligible for health care coverage under their parent’s plan in the same way as their peers.”
"Allowing young folks to stay on their parents' health insurance until they turn 26 gives them a chance to finish school or start their careers without worrying what happens if they get sick,” said Senator Tester. “This bill makes sure that the children of our most selfless citizens have access to the same care as the rest of the country."
“MOAA strongly supports VA-sponsored health coverage for eligible adult children of CHAMPVA beneficiaries,” said VADM Norb Ryan, USN-ret., President, Military Officers Association of America. Such coverage is mandated in law to be made available for every other qualifying adult child across the nation and only a technical adjustment to the VA statute is needed to extend it to the grown kids of our nation’s heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.”
“The DAV applauds Senators Murray and Tester for introducing legislation we strongly support, which would grant adult children of beneficiaries of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) eligibility for continuing health benefits through age 26,” said Disabled American Veterans National Commander Larry Polzin. “DAV believes children of severely disabled veterans and of veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation should be able to enjoy the same comfort and peace of mind of having health coverage into their young adult years as every other child in our great nation.”
“This legislation is critical to ensure that dependent children of severely disabled veterans are afforded the same health care protection as all other children,” said Paralyzed Veterans of America President Bill Lawson. “It is simply unacceptable that the only children who do not have the benefit of extended health care coverage are those children of the men and women who have sacrificed the greatest.”
CHAMPVA is a VA health insurance program that provides coverage for certain eligible dependents and survivors of veterans rated permanently and totally disabled from a service-connected condition. CHAMPVA is a cost-sharing program that reimburses providers and facilities a determined allowable amount, minus patient copayments and deductible. Once a veteran becomes VA-rated permanently and totally disabled for a service-connected disability, the veteran's spouse and dependents are then eligible to enroll in CHAMPVA.

Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
Get Updates from Senator Murray