thoughts on the election

thank you cbs news for doing 'due diligence.'

Let's look at the transcript of those September 12 comments in the Rose Garden, as the president suggested.
It shows that the president did refer to "acts of terror" - but not specifically in reference to the Libya attack. Instead, he made a broader statement about American defiance.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," he said.
You can make the case that the president was referring to the Libya attacks as well as other "acts of terror," since he made the comment in the course of a statement about those attacks. But the stronger case would seem to be that the president did not specifically refer to the attack as an act of terror - as Romney said.

the article is by brian montopoli, by the way.

candy crowley should have been silent.  she should have let the two candidates sort it out.  that was what was happening before she interjected herself into the discussion. 

they were disagreeing - mitt and barack - and they could have continued doing that.  but candy didn't want a debate.  and maybe she didn't want mitt to score a point - i don't know on that.

but i know that the only conflict of real matter, the only real debate that started in that faux debate was that exchange and just as it got started candy crowley comes along hijacking it and, no surprise, she really didn't know what she was talking about.


did you see cedric and wally's joint-post this morning?

Cedric's Big Mix

You don't buy their albums anymore but . . .

16 hours ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! FRANKIE & FABIAN WERE BUSY!

16 hours ago

amen to it.

bruce springsteen is an embarrassment.

he's never been about the working class and that was obvious long before john landou's pipe dream got the gap in his teeth fixed.

i can't believe how craven 'the twinkie' has become.

maybe i shouldn't be surprised.

i remember when ronald reagan was using 'born in the u.s.a.' at campaign rallies and bruce said he didn't think reagan got the point of the song.

maybe because a serious song was written as rah-rah with a rah-rah beat.  who's fault was that?

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

Thursday, October 18, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, ExxonMobil brushes off Nouri, Nouri's son is in trouble, Falluja's victims remain ignored, Nouri spends more billions on weapons, and more.

 

So I'm at a daily paper visiting a friend who's an editor when a name reporter decides he's going to make small talk while the editor's on the phone and hijacks the computer to show me "something you won't believe.  It's so sad."  Wrongly, I assumed I was about to see the children of Falluja.  Wrong.  I saw a dog from Australia that people around the world are donating to because it lost its snout saving a child.  And the dog's coming to -- or now in -- the United States with a friend and will have surgery at one of the UCLAs (Davis?) and, turns out, the dog's also got tumors and a sexually transmitted disease and -- On and on, it went.  Now I love dogs.  And if someone wants to send a terminal dog across the globe for  reconstructive surgery of a snout, that's their decision.  But I do think it's very sad that people want to pull up a picture of this dog and oh-and-ah over it and these same people will not even look at the children of Falluja.  

 

Monday, we noted a new study by the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The study documented the miscarriages and the birth defects and the huge increase in both.  The linked study even has photos of the children.  But that didn't become an internet sensation.  What does that say about us that we can feel for an injured dog but ignore suffering children?  If you're a citizen of the United States, especially what does that say about us?  These birth defects are a result of weapons the US used. 

 

Fred Mazelis (WSWS) noted the study yesterday and explained:

 

A study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology focuses on an extraordinary epidemic of congenital birth defects in Iraqi cities over the past decade, particularly in Fallujah and in the southern city of Basra, assaulted by British troops in 2003.

This study has been released only one month before a broader survey is due to be released by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO report has looked at nine areas in Iraq and is also expected to show increases in birth defects.

As summarized in the British newspaper The Independent, the first study, entitled "Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities" and published online on September 16, pinpoints statistics for Fallujah and Basra that add up to a public health crisis that is as serious as any other around the world.

More than 50 percent of all births surveyed in Fallujah were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010, the newspaper explains. In the 1990s, Falllujah had a birth defect rate of 2 percent. This rose to about 10 percent in the early years of the twenty-first century, and then exploded in the years following the siege of Fallujah in 2004.

The data on miscarriages was also significant. Before the 2004 attacks on Fallujah, both in April and in November-December of that year, about 10 percent of pregnancies ended in miscarriage. This rose to a rate of 45 percent in the two years after the bombings. It fell as the most drastic attacks subsided, but the rate still remained high, at one in six pregnancies.

 

 

If today's conversation had taken place anywhere but a newsroom and involved people other than journalists, I wouldn't be writing about it.  But in the supposed information industry, not only did the reporter not know about the above, when I pulled up the study to show the photos, his response was "Eww, gross."  No, not "gross," tragic.  Those poor children who never hurt anyone and who suffer now because of an illegal war.  I think, my opinion -- I could be wrong, I often am -- that we've soaked up enough entertainment, gossip and cute animals online.  I think it's really past time we learned to actually care -- especially when the harmed are harmed because the actions of our government.

 

Early this morning, Laura Rozen (The Back Channel) reported, "Oil giant Exxon Mobil is expected to soon announce that it is pulling out of non-Kurdish Iraq, an energy expert source told Al-Monitor Wednesday on condition of anonymity.  The decision would not apply to Exxon's contracts in Kurdish Iraq, which has been a source of on-going tension with Baghdad authorities for the company, the source said."  Ahmed Rasheed and Patricky Markey (Reuters) state the corporation didn't inform "Iraq of its interest in quitting the country's West Qurna oilfield project" according to unnamed sources.  Sometimes unnamed sources lie.  This may be one of those times.  This is very embarrassing for Nouri and his government and feigning surprise may be their effort to play it off.  'How could we have stopped it?  We didn't even know it was coming!'   That would explain why the 'big surprise' that isn't is being played like it is.  Derek Brower (Petroleum Economist) has been covering this story for over 48 hours (including a source that stated ExxonMobil had informed the Iraqi government) and he notes that ExxonMobil will be focusing all their "efforts on upstream projects in Kurdistan instead."  In addition to the claim in Rasheed and Markey's piece about  Iraq having had no meeting on this, Brower notes that a meeting took place today at the Ministry of Oil.  It would appear Nouri's spinning like crazy in an effort to save his faltering image.  (Nouri can certainly spend billions -- as he proved last week on his mad shopping spree for weapons, he just doesn't seem able to maintain releations with those who help Iraq generate large revenues.)

 

This Reuters story notes that unnamed US officials stated Iraq was informed and it adds the Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister for Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, "told Reuters in an e-mail that Baghdad was sticking to its line that all contract signed with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) without the approval of Baghdad were illegal."  ExxonMobil has long had problems with their deal with Baghdad.  In March,  Emily Knapp (Wall St Cheat Sheet) explained, "Foreign oil companies involved in Iraq's oil expansion generally prefer to be compensated for capital expenditure and service fees in oil because cash payments are more complicated to arrange. Now the parties have reached an agreement in which they will be paid in crude. Exxon and Shell spent $910 million on West Qurna-1 last year, and were repaid $470 million in cash."  Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) adds today, "Exxon's 2010 deal with the Iraqi central government to improve production in the West Qurna-1 field was never expected to be lucrative under the best circumstances, the person said.  The government had agreed to pay Exxon Mobil and its partners $1.90 for each additional barrel of oil they pumped after refurbishing the already producing field.  The fees would barely be enough to cover the companies' costs."

 

And there is the issue of the nature of the contracts.  The KRG is offering production sharing ones while Baghdad sticks with the less return-friendly technical service contracts.  Dropping back to the November 11, 2011 snapshot:

 

 

 

In Iraq, things are heating up over an oil deal. Hassan Hafidh and James Herron (Wall St. Journal) report, "ExxonMobil Corp. could lose its current contract to develop the West Qurna oil field in Iraq if it proceeds with an agreement to explore for oil in the Kurdistan region of the country, an Iraqi official said. The spat highlights the political challenges for foreign companies operating in Iraq" as Nouri's Baghdad-based 'national' government attempts to rewrite the oil law over the objection of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Tom Bergin and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) offer, "Exxon declined to comment, and experts speculated the move could indicate Baghdad and the Kurdish leaders are nearing agreement on new rules for oil companies seeking to tap into Iraq's vast oil reserves." UPI declares, "The breakaway move into Kurdistan, the first by any of the oil majors operating in Iraq under 20-year production contract signed in 2009, could cost Exxon Mobil its stake in the giant West Qurna Phase One mega-oil field in southern Iraq." Salam Faraj (AFP) speaks with Abdelmahdi al-Amidi (in Iraq's Ministry of Oil) declares that the Exxon contract means that Exxon would lose a contract it had previously signed with Baghdad for the West Qurna-1 field.  Faraj sketches out the deal with the KRG beginning last month with Exxon being notified that they had "48 hours to make a decision on investing in an oil field in the region."  Exxon was interested but sought an okay from the Baghdad government only to be denied.

 

November 11th, things heated up and they never cooled down.  For months, Nouri's people sent angry letters to ExxonMobil.  The multi-national corporation chose not to respond leaving Nouri looking like an angry, spurned lover.  Or a stalker.  Nouri's people continued to send those letters with no response.  And we pointed out how ridiculous Nouri was looking and making Iraq look throughout that period.  There were threats of lawsuits, there was barring ExxonMobil from auctions, it was ridiculous.  First of all, it didn't build confidence among the international business sector that Iraq had its act together.  Second of all, those remaining acutions?  In the February 22nd snapshot we noted what was being offered by Baghdad in the March acution  was "a dingo dog with fleas." Were we wrong?  The auction was a bust.  They had no takers.  Instead of grasping that Nouri had created a serious image problem for Iraq, they decided they just needed to have the same auction all over again.  So they scheduled it for two days at the end of May.  From the May 31st snapshot:

Iraq's two day energy auction ended today. Yesterday brought one successful bid. W.G. Dunlop and Salam Faraj (AFP) explain, "Iraq on Thursday closed a landmark auction of energy exploration blocks with just three contracts awarded out of a potential 12, dampening hopes the sale would cement its role as a key global supplier." The offerings weren't seen as desirable and the deals offered even less so. But big business began sending signals this auction would not go well over two months ago. (And we've noted that at least three times in previous months.) That's due to the instability in Iraq caused by Nouri -- and it is seen as caused by Nouri in the oil sector because he is the prime minister, he did pick a fight with Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, he did order Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested. All the instability in recent months have not helped. His attacks on ExxonMobil and their deal with the KRG has not helped. Nouri al-Maliki is bad for business. If Iraq had the arrangement they did under Saddam Hussein, Nouri could get away with that. But he's going to have to grasp real soon that state oil isn't what it was under Hussein. The economic model (imposed by the US) is mixed. And if Iraqis hadn't fought back, it would be strictly privatized. Nouri's not yet learned that his actions impact Iraq's business. (And, in fairness to Nouri, this is a new thing for Iraq. Saddam Hussein could do anything and it wasn't an issue unless the super powers decided it was. But, again, it's a mixed model now. Nouri might need to bring in some economic advisors from out of the country.) W.G. Dunlop and Salam Faraj (AFP) report Iraq's response to the poor showing at the auction is to declare that they will hold another one.

 

Well one is greater than zero.  But not worth the cost of putting together one auction, let alone two.  Following the twin embarrassments of March and May, Nouri had a new 'brilliant idea:'

get the White House to tell Exxon "no."  So he made noises and made public letters to the White House.  Then, on July 19th, Nouri al-Maliki insisted that the White House had conveyed, in a letter, their support for his attempts to cancel the October contract the Kurdistan Regional Government signed with ExxonMobil.  No such thing happened.  But damned if some in the press reported differently.  The US does not have state-control over oil companies -- certainly not over multi-national ones like ExxonMobil -- "multi-national" meaning more than one nation.  Like so many of Nouri's brilliant plans, that one fell apart.  Derek Brower explains, "Pressure has been building on the central government to punish ExxonMobil for its investment in Kurdistan, he said.  The government knows it could not win a court case if it stripped the US firm of its contract, he said, but could make operations intolerably difficult." It couldn't win a court case.  What the KRG and ExxonMobil did, for all of Nouri's pouting and foot stomping, ws legal.  Thomas W. Donovan (The National) explains:

 

The most urgent need is for a comprehensive federal law to regulate the hydrocarbons industry. At present, petroleum operations are governed by a collection of laws from previous regimes and by the 2005 constitution. This legal hodgepodge gives no guidance on the interplay between the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), nor does it set out any rules for oil-revenue sharing between the central administration and the regional governorates.

A draft law to govern oil and gas production was tentatively agreed upon as far back as 2007. However, disputes between Baghdad and the KRG blocked enactment of a law, and today there are three draft versions, none of them likely to win approval anytime soon.

 

2007 is a key date. Not just because Nouri was prime minister (but he was -- the US government installed him in April 2006).  In the lead up to the US 2006 mid-terms, Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress lied to the American people, swearing, "Give us back one House of Congress and we'll end the Iraq War."  The American people trusted that they were being told the truth and did something pretty amazing -- turned both house of Congress over to the Democratic Party.  That was so surprising that even Pelosi and company hadn't been pushing it as a possibility.  Afraid the Democrats might be telling the truth and might pull the funding on the illegal war, Bully Boy Bush quickly devised a series of benchmarks in 2007.  He signed off on them, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on them.  This was the tool by which, the White House insisted, progress could be measured in Iraq.

 

Because the US press is as stupid as the US Congress (well, the Congress didn't want to end the Iraq War, let's be honest, so they weren't stupid so much as they were pretending to be), no progess was always somehow turned into success.  In April of 2007, Mike Peska (NPR's Day By Day -- link is text and audio) decided to grade the progress on the benchmarks.  He should have just stuck to putting happy face stickers on each one.  Needing people to help him deceive, he enlisted the master of deception Philip Zelikow (adviser to Condi Rice, betrayer of 9-11 Jersey Widows and others who thought they'd get a real investigation into the events of 9-11) and the Brookings Institution's Carlos Pascual.  Here's how the 'brain trust' graded the 'progress' on the oil law:

 

Pres. BUSH: Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

 

PESCA: Both Pascual and Zelikow said this is happening as we speak. Details are still to be worked out, but sharing oil revenue is something the Iraqis can point to as an area of real progress, much more so than the third plank that the president touch on.

 

 

They needed to pass legislation.  And Pesca 'reported' that his hand-picked brain trust said "this is happening as we speak."  Seriously? 

 

It was a lie then, it's a lie over five years later.  Happening as we speak?  It never happened.  The press sold the Iraq War.  Not just the start of it but all of it.  There has never been accountability for any of these actions.  No one's ever done their update of, "Remember when we said . . . Well, turns out . . ."  And let's remember that Mike Pesca was just on Weekend Editon Sunday ridiculing the New York Daily News' Filip Bondy for being creative with languge in his description of a home run.  That home run mattered to baseball fans.  Those benchmarks?  All the press whores that lied -- that includes Pesca -- provided cover for Nouri and Iraqis suffer because of Pesca and his ilk.  Filip Bondy's descriptive powers didn't have a fly.  Pesca might need to remember that before he takes to NPR next to slam another journalist.  And Rachel Martin might want to think about who she goes on air with to mock other journalists.

 

 

Having agreed, in writing, to pass an oil and gas law and never having accomplished it, over five years later, Nouri's got no standing to whine about what the KRG is doing.  If he doesn't like it, he should have kept his word and passed an oil and gas law.  Didn't do it, so the current law(s) allow the KRG to make the deals they're making.  Considering the money involved, you'd think even a semi-functioning government would have taken this seriously.  The Ministry of Oil notes on their website, "The ministry of oil of Iraq declared that the daily oil exports for September 2012 rose to 2.6 million barrels with 8.4 billion dollars outcome [. . .]"

 

All that money and Nouri still can't turn on the lights.  The Iraqi people still have to use generators because daily electricity isn't 24 hours, it's more like six to twelve.  And Nouri can't provide potable water -- despite all the billions the Iraqi government takes in each month.  That's why Iraq keeps having the cholera outbreaks.  Just this week, Al Mada reported that UNICEF declared that the cholera problems will not go away in Iraq while the poor sanitation continues.  The World Health Organization explains, "Cholera is an acute intestinal infection caused by ingestion of food or water contaminated with the bacterium Vibrio cholerae.  It has a short incubation period, from less than one day to five days, and produces an enterotoxin that causes a copious, painless, watery diarrhoea that can quickly lead to severe dehydration and death if treatment is not promptly given.  Vomiting also occurs in most patients." Also this week, AFP noted that there have been 4 deaths and 272 confirmed cases including thirty-one that are children in the last weeks.  And Nouri can't even give a portion to the people.  He recently declared there wasn't any to give and Moqtada al-Sadr expressed doubt and disapproval.  All Iraq News explains that Moqtada and his poltical bloc have not let the matter die or just resorted to words, they're actively working with the Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi and the Minister of Planning Ali Shukri to find oil money that can go to the Iraqi people with plans to set aside 25% of future revenues for that.

 

 

Six years as prime minister and he can't fix the basic needs and public services?  But last week he could fly to Russia and sign a $4.2 billion dollar weapons deal and then on to the Czech Republic to sign a $1 billion weapons deal.   And today?  Suadad al-Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) report that Iraq's signed a deal for another 18 F-16 fighter jets and since the "financial details" are the same (according to the Ministry of Defence), that means the deal will cost Iraq at least $3 billion.  AFP reports Nouri didn't just place an order, he also wants the US to speed it up.  And while he spends on weapons, the Iraqi people are left to depend upon charity from other countries.  The Camden New Journal reports, "The Highgate hospital recently brought new cervical screening equipment and decided to give the old machinery to the women of Iraq."

 

Yesterday's snapshot noted a press release from the White House on the Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough's visit to Iraq.  I didn't have a link and couldn't find it online.  The link is here (thank you to my friend for supplying that).  ANI reports on it here,  AFP here, and KUNA here.

 

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 103 deaths in the country by violence this month. 
Alsumaria reports 1 person shot dead today near his Mosul home and an Enaimah car bombing (south of Falluja) left four Iraqi soldiers injured. All Iraq News adds a Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured.  In addition, Alsumaria also notes a Mosul attack in which a Ministry of Intelligence officer and his son were shot dead and the corpse of 1 Peshmerga was discovered in Kirkuk.

 

Like the violence, the polticial crisis continues.  Iraq had a political stalemate that lasted a little over 8 months following the March 2010 elections when Iraqiy came in first and Nouri's State of Law came in second but Nouri refused to honor the results and allow Iraqiya to move to establish a cabinet.  The White House tossed the will of the Iraqi people, democracy and respect for elections to the side to back Nouri.  The country was at a standstill for months as the US government shamed the various political blocs for standing in the way of second place Nouri and worked the guilt angle pretending that they -- not Nouri -- was the one keeping Iraq from moving forward.  They also negotiated the Erbil Agreement which ended the political stalemate in November 2010.  This contract gave them various concessions in return for their allowing Nouri to have a second term as prime minister.  Nouri signed the contract and used it to get his second term and then trashed the contract and refused to make good on what he'd promised in exchange for holding on as prime minister.

It was fairly obvious that he was trashing the agreement but the US government and the press covered for him repeatedly.  Such as when he failed to nominate people to head the security ministries.  Iraqiya rightly labled that a power grab.  The press (I'm referring to the US and European press) rushed in to insist it was no such thing and Nouri would name people to head the ministries in a matter of weeks.  The three year mark is closing in and Nouri's still not nominated people to head the seucrity ministires.  It was, indeed, a power grab.

In 2011, he tried an even greater power grab.  He wanted control of two bodies the Constitution has made independent of the prime minister: the Electoral Comission and Central Bank.  Unreast in the region and protests in Iraq resulted in Nouri fearing his own ouster.  He quickly promised (lied) he wouldn't seek a third term as prime minister (about 24 hours after the foreign press had run with that, it was announced that Nouri reserved the right to run for a third office, but he'd already gotten his headlines and his praise from stupid -- as opposed to skeptical -- reporters) and backed off that power grab.

For a brief moment.

This week, charges were brought against Sinan al-Shabibi, the governor of the Central Bank, and he was replaced.  Al Mada reports that Parliament's Legal Committee is saying the actions were both rash and illegal.  Nouri does not control the Central Bank and he cannot fire a governor with it.  They point to Article 103 of the Iraqi Constitution which has two clauses pertaining to the Central Bank:

First: The Central Bank of Iraq, the Board of Supreme Audit, the Communication and Media Commission, and the Endowment Commissions are financially and administratively independent institutions, and the work of each of these institutions shall be regulated by law.
Second: The Central Bank of Iraq is responsible before the Council of Representatives.  The Board of Supreme Audit and the Communication and Media Commission shall be attached to the Council of Representatives. 

The second clause puts the Parliament over the Central Bank.  (The third clause, not quoted, puts the Cabinet over the Endowment Commission.)  Michael Peel (Financial Times of London) reports an arrest warrant has been sworn out for "Sinan al-Shabibi and 15 of his colleagues."  Peel also observes, "While no evidence has yet been produced about the allegations, analysts and business people have raised concerns about the way the government has handled the case.  Some observers see it as an extension of efforts by Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister, to extend his control over important security and financial institutions, a charge the governmnet denies."

 

In more bad news for Nouri, Al Mada reports Ahmad al-Maliki, Nouri's son, can't get along with other employees (we'll assume the problems are more than that) and the complaints have led Nouri to freeze his son's salary in the hopes that this will let the matter die down.

In even worse news for Nouri?  Remember last month's assault on the Tikrit prison that left many dead and wounded and over 100 prisoners escaped?  Dropping back to the September 27th snapshot:

The latest day's violence includes a prison attack BBC News reports assailants using bombs and guns attacked a Tikrit prison.  AFP quotes a police Lieutenant Colonel stating, "A suicide bomber targeted the gate of the prison with a car bomb and gunment then assaulted the prison, after which they killed guards" and a police Colonel stating, "The prisoners killed one policeman and wounded (prison director) Brigadier General Laith al-Sagmani, the gunmen took control of the prison, and clashes are continuing."  Kitabat states two car bombs were used to blow up the entrance to the prison and gain access and they also state 12 guards have been killed. Reports note the riot is continuing.  Alsumaria reports four guards have died, 1 police officer and the injured include two soldiers and the prison director al-Sagmani.  There's confusion as to whether a number of prisoners were able to escape in the early stages after the bombing and during gunfire.  Reuters goes with "dozens" escaping which is probably smarter than the hard number some are repeating. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports 5 police officers killed and another two injured -- the numbers are going to vary until tomorrow, this is ongoing -- and state over 200 prisoners escaped with 33 of them already having been recaptured.  If you skip the English language media, what's not confusing is why it happened and why it was able to happen.   Alsumaria reports that there are approximately 900 inmates in the prison and that many have death sentences.  Alsumaria does even more than that.  It notes the recent prison violence throughout the country and ties it into the death sentences.  These aren't just happening at random, this is about the many people being sentenced to death -- a fact the English language press either doesn't know or doesn't think people need to know.

 

 

 

That was an extremely violent act.  And apparently one that was preventable.  Alsumaria has an exclusive report that the police chief in Salahuddin Province had warned the Ministry of Interior over 3 days in advance -- in writing -- that there were serious problems and the possibility of a prison break.  Why is that so damning to Nouri especially?    Three months ago,   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." 

 With no minister nominated to Parliament and approved by Parilament, Nouri controls the Ministry of Interior.  If the Ministry had information over 3 days ahead that something was supposed to have happened and nothing was done to try to prevent it, that goes to Nouri's leadership.

 

 

 

iraq

the back channel

laura rozen

all iraq news

alsumaria

al mada
cnn

mohammed tawfeeq

an unexpected highlight

leigh ann caldwell (cbs news) reports:


Mitt Romney has seen his lead over President Obama increase slightly in a new national poll of likely voters. The Gallup Daily Tracking poll gives Romney a six point advantage over Mr. Obama, with 51 percent of respondents saying they'd vote for Romney and 45 percent backing the president.


This is the third day Romney has seen a slight increase in his lead in the poll, which surveyed 2,700 likely voters and has a 2-point margin of error. The survey was taken before last night's presidential debate. 


remember when they swore a few weeks back that the race was over and barack had won.


judith miller.

judith isn't some 1 i would rush to highlight.  she had some very bad reports that the bush administration loved because it made it appear that the war with iraq was necessary.  the administration used her for stenography.

she gladly engaged in that.

surprisingly, judith started out rather left in life.  (and started out at the magazine 'the progressive.')  but she was too cozy to her sources.

some people call her a liar.

as c.i. has pointed out, miller didn't lie.  she did bad reporting but she wasn't lying.  she honestly believed what she was being told.

so she's a dupe.

she's no longer with 'the new york times.'  she's now with the hoover institute and fox news.

all of that is my way of explaining i would not normally highlight her.

i wouldn't read her, to be honest, so there would be no point in highlighting her.

however, i do know douglas e. schoen.  and he co-wrote the article.  a friend sent me the article and reminded me about douglas and said, 'you should consider highlighting it.'

i did and will.  this is from judith miller and douglas e. schoen's 'crowly's intervention as moderator-in-chief swung the debate in obama's favor:'


Was Obama’s use of the term “acts of terror” referring to 9/11 and the other militant Islamic attacks that have plagued America for so long? Or was he referring to the murders in Benghazi as "acts of terror?" Fair-minded readers may disagree. Even CNN’s own John King said that Obama’s statement struck him as a “generic” comment about terror, and not specifically a decision to label the Libya attack a terrorist act.
But Crowley, who covers politics, incidentally, not foreign policy or national security, had no doubt. The nanny moderator was sure that the president had called the Benghazi murders "acts of terror" -- journalism’s equivalent of a replacement referee’s worst call.
Did Crowley understand that her intervention 70 minutes into a 90 minute debate was not only possibly inaccurate but also partisan in that it helped Obama? In a breathless interview with CNN about what can most charitably be called her gaffe, she claimed to have been even-handed, though she tried walking back her intervention by saying, after the damage was done, that Romney had been right “in the main.” But, she added, she had not only told Romney that he was wrong about “act of terror,” she then told him that he was right in having claimed that “it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.”
In other words, it took the president 14 days to say that Benghazi was, well, an act of terror and not the result of a spontaneous riot over a videotape. At this point the audience might understandably have been thoroughly confused. But the president’s supporters got the message: they clapped and cheered after Obama asked her to “say that a little louder.”

 judith and doug make some very good points.

i find the way candy crowley behaved to be offensive.

i can't think of any time in my life when i have seen such rudeness.  i agree she was ruder to mitt but she was rude to both and seemed to think america was tuning in to hear her, that she was running for office.

this is why ava and c.i. have repeatedly written pieces about the dangers of glorifying 'fact checking.'  there are idiots who demand it and say that it should happen as the debate does.  but who determines the facts? 

a lot of people, like candy crowley, are not up to fact checks and shouldn't try to do them.

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

Wednesday, October 17, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Libya makes the debate but the news cycle's really not sure how, White House owns up to a visit to Iraq that we'd already noted this week, a new poll spells bad news for Nouri, tensions between Iraq and Turkey continue, the US Ambassador to Turkey stirs things up (intentionally?) in a region that can't afford any outside sparks right now, and more.   We're starting with the Libya because the media can't get their story right.   We have to start with last night's debate in New York between President Barack Obama, Governor Mitt Romney and -- as Cedric and Wally pointed out this morning -- from Team CNN 'candidate' Candy Crowley.   This is really the best example of the failure of the media.  Something happened last night in the debate.  Forget who is accurate in facts for a moment (we'll get to that).  A series of events went down and the press can't even report that accurately -- they can't even handle a timeline.  We're going to use Brian Montopoli (CBS News) as an example because he's got one mistake (while others have many) and he's also easy to follow (while others are obscuring -- intentionally or not).  Montopoli reports the chronology the way everyone else does (he just does so in a more understandable manner).  To make it even easier to follow, I'm going to put numbers in the excerpt of Brian's report and we're calling the debate [1]:   Crowley isn't offering apologies.  Though she initially seemed to backtrack [2] on her Libya fact check, suggesting that Romney was "right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word," she later maintained [3] that she had not in fact done so.  She said [4] on The View Wednesday morning that her fact check was simply an attempt to move the conversation forward, and suggested that criticism of her performance was inevitable.   So the timeline is: [1] debate where 'moderator' Candy Crowley says Barack Obama is correct; [2] CNN post-debate last night where Crowley 'suggests' Romney is "right in the main"; [3] Wednesday morning on CNN says she's not backtracking; and [4] goes on The View and says what she said at [2] but pretends criticism is inevitable.   That chronology is technically correct.  But [1] has an (a) and a (b) that the media is missing.   Rachel Weiner (Washington Post) reports on [3], Crowley on CNN this morning (that's where Brian's link goes) and Weiner seems to grasp the point others are missing.  It seems so obvious to Rachel that she's probably wondering what her peers are talking about.   The false narrative is Crowley said Barack was right, Crowley went on CNN last night and conceeded Mitt had a point, this morning she said she hadn't backtracked on CNN last night post-debate and whatever she said on The View.    We're going over this slowly.  Most of you probably already grasp what happened.  As Ava and I noted this morning: Romney expressed disbelief that Barack stated that on September 12th but Crowley declared that "he did in fact, sir."  And Barack asked her to repeat that "a little louder, Candy" which led her to state, "He -- he did call it an act of terror." No, he didn't.  At best, he implied it.  And Crowley knew she was wrong almost immediately.  You can see it on her face as the audience applauds and she rushes to quickly add, "It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that."Ruth caught that quick amend by Crowley but few others did, especially alleged news outlets.     The reason Crowley is saying she did not backtrack after the debate is that she's aware of what she said during the debate -- a point that did not make the news cycle this morning at most outlets.  After the debate, she echoed what she'd already said.  Why are people not aware that Crowley also told Romney he was correct?  Again, Ava and I this morning:   At the start of the debate, Candy Crowley declared, "Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive - no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort." (We're using the CNN transcript, by the way, which is laid out on one web page and will not require you to click for another page every few paragraphs the way ABC and others offering a transcript do.)   Applause is an outburst.  And it can be distracting.  For example, Ruth caught Crowley admitting at the debate that Romney was correct but most people didn't and that was probably due to the second round of applause that was going on.   She did not pause, she did not say, "You, Governor Romney," most people thought she was continuing the same support she gave Barack.    She didn't.  the second statements after the applause for rescuing Barack, were supporting Mitt Romney.  That most people in the news industry do not grasp that goes to how poorly Candy Crowley performed as a moderator.  When the moderator herself is confusing, that's a problem.   Now let's deal with the factual issue.  After the debate,  Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) explained: What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? We covered this previously in our extensive timeline of administration statements on Libya. "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said. But the president did not say "terrorism"— and Romney got tripped up when he repeated the "act of terror" phrasing. Otherwise, Romney's broader point is accurate — that it took the administration days to concede that the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was an "act of terrorism" that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad. By our count, it took 8 days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya was the result of a "terrorist attack." More to Romney's point, Obama continued to resist saying the "t" word, instead repeatedly bringing up the video, even in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25. On Sept. 26--15 days after the attack-- the White House spokesman felt compelled to assert "it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack."   Kessler is being more than fair to Barack who was talking about 9-11 (2001) at the Rose Garden when he starts using the terror word.  Let's go to the White House for what Barack said  in the September 12, 2012 Rose Garden speech and use the link for the full speech, we don't have the room so we'll offer the sections that apply:   The United States [1] condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the [1] killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  [2] We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and [1] this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens's body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died. [. . .] Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home. Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the [3] 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of [1] this attack in Benghazi.  As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. [4] No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for [1] this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their [1] attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity. We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.   That's what he said regarding the "attack."    [1] represents the time he specifically mentioned the events of 9-11-2012.  He refers to the "attackers," to "this terrible act," "this attack" (twice), "the killers"  and "this shocking and outrageous attack."  When speaking specifically of 9-11-2012's event, he never uses the terms "terrorism," "terrorist," "terrorist attack," etc.   [2] is where Barack is referencing a YouTube video that the White House was maintaining led to a protest outside the US Consulate in Benghazi and the White House maintained cause the attack.   [3] notes where he specifically addresses the attacks of 9-11-2001 -- eleven years prior.   [4] is when he suddenly declares "no acts of terror."  What is he speaking of?  We all are aware that September 11, 2001 saw two "acts of terror" in NYC with two planes crashing into the Twin Towers -- and doing so at two different times, right?  We're all on the same page there?  And, on that same day, "acts of terror" including a plane (or missile for those who don't believe a plane hit) going into the Pentagon and another plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.    We have what Barack said.  The press gets in a hell of a lot of trouble when they try to mind read.  So what did he say?  After bringing 9-11-2001 into his speech, he finally uses terror to state "no acts of terror."  Is he including the Benghazi attack in that?  You don't know.  He may or he may not be.  He's also spoken of Iraq and Afghanistan and, by inference, tied them both into the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Which no one objected to because when Bully Boy Bush does it, we scream like crazy.  But when Barack does it, we just stay silent.   Six times in the spech, he directly references the September 11, 2012 event from the day before.  In those six times, he never once calls the Benghazi attack terrorism or the attackers terrorists.   Candy Crowley was wrong to cut Mitt Romney off last night in his assertion that Barack Obama did not label the attack "terrorism" as Barack insisted when he stated "[. . .]  I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror and [. . .]"  No, he did not call the events of 9-11-2012 "an act of terror."   Word games.  That's what we're getting from the White House.  Earlier we got lies.  Now we get word games.     And the mix gets more toxic as Scott Shane (New York Times) arrives to 'explain' to us.  Shane insists (lies), "Mr. Obama applied the 'terror' label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect."  If you're a mind reader you might make that claim.  We've already established that was talking about the September 11, 2001 attacks and then proclaimed "No acts of terror . . ."  Shane knows better than to mind read.  Is he on firmer ground referring to a Las Vegas, September 13th speech by Barack where it is stated, "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."?   Not really.  What does that have to do with September 11, 2012.  The "no act of terror" or the "no act of violence"?  Both?  Both and?  None at all.  I have no idea because, unlike Scott Shane, I don't present myself as a mind reader.  Nor do I play the game of, "I know what he said but what he really meant was . . ."  If something's a terrorist act, you call it that. I thought Barack was the great communicator.  Presumably, even a poor speaker could clearly call something a terrorist attack if they thought it was a terrorist attack.     We could go through all of Scott Shane's ridiculous b.s. but I didn't watch Crowley on The View because life is too short and we'll move to another topic for the same reason.  Read Brian Montopoli's piece for CBS News, it's worth reading -- timeline not withstanding -- and don't accept Candy Crowley's nonsense at the end which seems to argue that conservatives are criticizing her and liberals praising her and it's about them.   It's not about them.  Ava and I are extreme lefties.  We didn't slam Jim Lehrer for the questions he asked or the way he asked them nor did we slam Martha Raddatz.  We're slamming Crowley because she conducted herself very poorly.  We slam both/all for participating in this sham that denies third party and independent candidates their place on the stage.  In that regard, maybe we should praise Crowley for making it all about herself?  She revealed just how hollow and meaningless these faux debates are.  Murphy (Puma P.A.C.) ventures, "I think Candy Crowley was pissed for being assigned to the 'less prestigious' debate, the one where the moderator is supposed to be practically invisible, and she wasn't going to stand for it. She really overstepped."  Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) offers his take on the debate and these are his points on the Libya exchange:   The consensus on imperial war is near absolute. What passes for argument is merely a matter of style and posture. Romney attacks Obama for failing to grasp or reveal the "terrorist" nature of the fatal attack on the U.S. ambassador in Libya. But both candidates are wedded to an alliance with Muslim fundamentalist jihadis against Middle East governments targeted for destabilization or regime change: Syria and Iran. Obama's obfuscations on Benghazi were an attempt to continue masking the nature of the Libyan legions armed by the U.S. as proxies against Gaddafi, many of whom are now deployed in Syria – a mission with which Romney is in full accord. There is also no daylight between the contenders on drone warfare or the continued projection of U.S. power in the "Af-Pak" theater of war, or in Somalia and Yemen. The War Party wins in November, regardless of the Electoral College outcome.   September 12th, as we learned in last week's hearing, the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy could brief Congress that it was a terrorist attack.  Why couldn't Barack tell the American people?  Why the song and dance about a YouTube video while a very important, very real video was hidden from the public and is still hidden from Congress?  I'm referring to the footage of the attack.  As we learned in last week's hearing, the FBI said they'd turn it over to Congress gladly but they didn't have possession of it.  Someone else does and, on the orders of the White House, is refusing to turn the video over to Congress.    Anne Gearan and Colum Lynch (Washington Post) had an important Libya story on Monday.  If you doubt it's importance, Bob Somerby attacks the story.  What happens when Bob goes crazy and off his meds?  I seem to remember the last time.  He knew a player in Plamegate but refused to make that public.  Still hasn't.  All this time later.  We called him out in real time when he was trashing Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.  Bob did a great job obscuring reality on behalf of a bad journalist.  Bob's back to that crap again.  We won't be linking to him again until he's back on his meds.  Anne Gearan has a solid career behind her for being a meat and potatoes, basic facts nailed reporter.  Can she make a mistake?  Anyone can.  But did she make the mistakes Bob accuses her and Lynch of?  Nope.  I'm all for holding people accountable.  I'm not for your cloaked wars where you pretend to hold someone accountable but it's really about some petty grudge.  I don't play that game.  If someone deserves to be called out, they get called out (I would prefer not to call out Joe Biden -- I know Joe and Hillary but it's harder for me to call Joe out than Hillary just because of his nature -- he's a very sweet person).  By the same token, I couldn't stand Patricia Heaton because of an attack she made on a very good friend of mine.  So when I had reason to mock her, I mocked her loudly and repeatedly -- I'm talking offline at various events but it was true online as well.  My anomosity was so well known that friends at ABC avoided even suggesting Ava and I review The Middle.  When we finally did, I had no problem praising Patricia's performance.  I was stunned by how good she was as Frankie.  I am still stunned.  I caught two episodes last year, she's still doing an amazing job.  She should be nominated for an Emmy for this role and she should win.  She's better than I would ever expect her to be, yes, but she's also playing a fully developed, fully created character.  So our political differences as well as what she said about a friend of mine didn't enter into it and don't.  If someone deserves praise, I don't care if I like them or not.  I don't play that game.  I'm actually happy for Patricia that she's become such a first rate actress.  This is a quality of work that few actresses ever achieve and she should be very proud of herself for what she's done in the role of Frankie.   There are serious issues and Bob Somerby can cover for another friend all he wants but the reality is if Barack's going to claim to be responsible -- as he did in last night's debate -- the first thing he needs to do is start explaining why Susan Rice made those statements.  As many in the press who cover the White House have pointed out in conversations over the last weeks, "Why even Susan Rice?  Why was she the one sent out?"     The White House had an announcement about Iraq and Afghanistan today -- sent to the public e-mail address by a White House friend (I can't find it at the White House website, if it's up tomorrow -- or if a friend calls and tells me where it is -- we will do a link to it in tomorrow's snapshot).  So here's the brand new news that the White House announced today:     Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan October 15-17. In meetings in Baghdad on October 15, Mr. McDonough underscored the U.S. commitment to Iraq's success through the structure of the bilateral Strategic Framework Agreement.  He reviewed our cooperation on security issues, and discussed how the U.S. and Iraq could further improve their partnership, including on counterterrorism.  In meetings with President Talabani, Prime Minister Maliki, and with Parliament Speaker Nujayfi and others, Mr. McDonough stressed the President's support for Iraq's independent democratic institutions, and urged inclusive dialogue toward national reconciliation.  Mr. McDonough reiterated our view that that any investigation into Iraq's Central Bank must be transparent, in accordance with Iraqi law and free from political influence to avoid undermining the independence of the institution or investor confidence in Iraq. In all of his meetings with Iraq's leaders, Mr. McDonough discussed Syria, with a particular focus on ensuring that violence from Syria does not degrade Iraq's domestic security.  During his visit to Baghdad, Mr. McDonough spoke with Roman Catholic Archbishop Jean Sleiman and expressed the President's continuing support for the rights and security of all of Iraq's minority groups. On October 16 and 17 in Afghanistan, Deputy National Security Advisor McDonough met with U.S. civilian and military leaders, as well as our coalition and Afghan partners, in Kabul, and in Eastern and Southern Afghanistan.  In these meetings, he discussed the current state of transition to Afghan lead and our progress towards meeting the objectives agreed to at the NATO Summit in Chicago earlier this year.  In Kabul, Mr. McDonough met with General Allen and other senior ISAF officials to discuss the military campaign, the transition process, and the status of building and strengthening the Afghan National Security Forces to assume responsibility as U.S. and coalition forces continue to draw down. Mr. McDonough also met with Ambassador Cunningham and Embassy staff to discuss Afghanistan's political transition, including reconciliation, the upcoming 2014 elections, and implementation of our mutual commitments under the Strategic Partnership Agreement. Mr. McDonough completed his visit by meeting with military personnel in Regional Command-East and Regional Command-South, to hear their perspective on the challenges they face as we move forward, including the recent troubling trend of insider attacks and the mitigation steps being taken against them.   Wow.  That is news.  Maybe the press will report it now?  Tuesday morning though, hmm?  What went up here Tuesday morning?  Oh, that's right, "What is the US Deputy NSA doing in Iraq?"  From that entry:   While England's closing its Basra Consulate, the US has a figure on the ground, Denis R. McDonough.  Barack's Deputy National Security Advisor.  All Iraq News reports he and members of his team met with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani yesterday.  Al Mada adds that the discussions involved Syria, violence and the Strategic Framework Agreement.  Al Mada also reports that McDonough met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and along with discussing those topics, McDonough also stressed the many visits the US government will be making in the coming weeks.Press TV has an article about alleged renewed interest in Iraq by the campaigns of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  And some might see the meetings as part of that.  But there's a reason the White House isn't publicizing the visit or who's on it -- including a key SOFA negotiator from the Bush administration. SOFA?  Strategic Framework Agreement?  What was it  Tim Arango reported: for the New York Times September 26th?  Oh, yeah:   ["] Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.["] That's what the US security delegations are making trips about: the negotiations to send more US troops back into Iraq.   So this afternoon, the White House announces a trip after it's taken place.  I guess that's one way to ensure that it won't be covered.  (UPI, to its credit, did do a write up on the White House press release today.)     That's not the only American official who's visted Iraq and had a press release.  A friend with the State Dept passed on this (and she included a link):     Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew J. Shapiro completed a series of consultations with senior civilian and military officials in the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Jordan this week. In London, Assistant Secretary Shapiro met with senior officials on a wide range of political-military issues, including counter-piracy and further expansion of security cooperation through the new U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty, which entered into force earlier this year. This treaty recognizes and supports the longstanding special relationship between the two nations by facilitating industry collaboration and innovation, allowing American and British troops to get the best technology in the fastest way possible to meet shared security challenges. In Baghdad, Assistant Secretary Shapiro met with senior officials, highlighting our ongoing commitment to developing a long-term cooperative bilateral security relationship through training and defense trade. In Amman, Assistant Secretary Shapiro held consultations on a wide range of political-military issues, including ongoing efforts to further enhance partnerships with a longstanding regional partner in peacekeeping, humanitarian demining, border security, and regional security issues.     If you're not getting it, there is a reason Shaprio went to Baghdad.  Refer to those two sentences from Tim Arango.     Turning to the continued violence,  AP reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers with two more left injured, a Baghdad market bombing claimed 2 lives and left seven injured and yet anoteher Baghdad market bombing claimed 1 life and left six people injured,   Alsumaria adds that an Abu Saida bombing (Diyala Province) claimed the life of 1 farmer and an Abu Sir bombing (also Diyala Province) left one Iraqi solider injured.  All Iraq News notes that, just north of Mosul, a police officer and his son were attacked leaving the police officer dead and his son injured.  AFP adds that 1 truck driver was shot dead in Baghdad and that 2 people were shot dead in Muqdadiyah "in separate incidents by gunmen using silenced weapons."   In addition, Alsumaria reports Turkish warplanes bombed Dohuk Province last night for approximately two hours.  Citing the office of the PUK (Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's political party) as its source, All Iraq News notes that the bombings began at approximately one this morning (Iraq time).   Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The latest bombing raids follow the objection to the bombings by some in Nouri's Baghdad-based government and the one-year renewal of the bombing authorization by the Turkish Parlament.  Such a vote grants legal authorization only within Turkey.  The legal justification for the raids outside is the existing agreement that Iraq and Turkey signed a few years back giving authorization to these raids.  This agreement has not been rescidned even though Nouri has been critizing the raids in recent weeks.  Trend News Agency notes that MP Iskander "Witwit said that the Iraqi parliament is considering the issue of cancelling the agreement about the presence of Turkish troops in Iraq signed earlier between Turkey and Iraq."   Vestnik informs that Baghdad wants "forces to the Turkish border" in the belief that this will stop the aerial bombings.  And not only are things tense between the Baghdad-based government and the Ankara-based government, now the US Ambassador to Turkey has made comments that may force the Turkish Prime Minister to 'get tough' at a time when it should be obvious that military action does not solve the issue of disenfranchising the Kurds.  Hurriyet Daily News reports that the opposition parties in Turkey are bringing up the comments made by the US Ambassador and implying that Recep  Tayyip Erdogan is a puppet of the United States:   "Unfortunately, Mr. Prime Minister is the leader of a government that fought against terror to the extent that the United States allowed him to do," Haluk Koç, spokesperson of the Republican People's Party (CHP) told reporters at a weekly press conference yesterday. "He is not a ruling prime minister but is being ruled." Ambassador Frank Ricciardone had said that Washington suggested to Turkey the implementation of the TTPs (tactics, techniques and procedure, a means of multi-disciplinary military organization), that paved the way for the killing of Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, during an Oct. 16 meeting in Ankara with the bureau chiefs of news channels. "We have made proposals to Turkey to provide more than we do. We have [offered] to share the TTPs [with them]. I will not enter into the details of our secret works with your government, but the Turkish government is carrying out its works on the basis of its laws and experiences," Ricciardone said. Is the US attempting to force the Turkish government into more violence?  Is that what this exposure is about?  Ricciardone as an ambassador dates back to the Bully Boy Bush era, he's been around enough to know what you do say intentionally and what you don't.  It appears he either had a serious lapse of judgment or else it is the US government's goal to up the violence in northern Iraq.  This is a big story in the Turkish press.  Hurriyet Daily News has several stories on it including this one which notes:   If Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara, had not revealed that there had been a secret offer to the Turkish government to have an "Anti-bin Laden" type joint operation against Murat Karayılan and other military leaders of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) based in the north of Iraq, it would possibly have remained a secret for many more years. Responding to questions from Turkish journalists, Ricciardone said on Oct. 16 that the U.S. had offered the Turkish government its state of the art military technology to hunt down the military leaders of the PKK. However, the Turkish government declined, saying it would continue fighting the PKK "on the basis of its laws and experiences." When asked the same day, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed that he had turned down the offer on a rather technical basis. "Bin Laden was caught in a house" he said, recalling the U.S. commando raid on a house near the Pakistani capital Islamabad on May 2, 2011. "But the struggle here is in mountainous geography". (We can assume that the offer was made within the last year-and-a-half.)     The region did not need this.  It was either a huge bungle or the US government is attempting to sew unrest.  Just yesterday, Azad Amin (Kurdish Globe) was issuing cautions and warnings in an article entitled, "Disaster awaits Kurds without National Strategy."  The US Ambassador's remarks are like playing with matches at a gasoline pump.  The White House needs to be asked to explain their strategy towards and relationship with the Turkish government and how the amassador's remarks fit into that grand-scale vision.  Today's Zaman notes that Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, has told the BBC that warfare will not solve the problem and "So, the critical question is 'Does Turkey want to solve the issue?' If it does, it has to sit down at the negotiating table with the PKK."     In other news, a new poll can be seen as an indictment of Nouri al-Maliki's six years as prime minister.  Al Mada reports a survey of Iraqis has found that they have little faith in their government.  Whether it's the 55% that does not have faith in the security forces, or the 61% who believe that equal rights (regardless of religious beliefs -- this isn't about gender equality) are very low in Iraq or 60% who believe the government doesn't treat citizens fairly, or the 50% who believe they will be harmed if they criticize the government, or the 54% who think the judiciary lacks independence, these results read like an indictment of the last six years (the US made Nouri prime minister in April of 2006, after they rejected Iraqi MPs' choice of Ibrahim al-Jaafari). The disastification comes as All Iraq News reports a protest in Najaf today over the reduction in hours of electricity. Yesterday, Sinan al-Shabibi, the governor of Iraq's Central Bank, was ousted and replaced with the Nouri-friendly Abdul-Baset Turki.  This follows Nouri's 2011 attempt to insist that he had control over the Central Bank (he doesn't).  AP notes, "The governor, Sinan al-Shabibi, is seen as a politically independent economist who has led the bank since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003."  Al Mada notes criticism from Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqiya over the move and that some fear -- since other members of the Central Bank's board are being investigated -- this is part of a move by Nouri to take control by appointing State of Law-ers to all the posts (State of Law is Nouri's political slate).  MP Naajiba Najib serves on Parliament's Finance Committee and tells All Iraq News that the alleged irregularities did not rise to the leve of firing and that the move damages Iraq's reputation on the international stage.  Iraqiya MP Qusay al-Abadi tells All Iraq News that the move was premature and damaging. Not a good news cycle for Nouri.  From yesterday's snapshot, "Staying with the political, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports the other political blocs are accusing Nouri's State of Law of preventing progress on proposed legislation due to a walk out State of Law staged.  Iraqiya says State of Law's goal Monday was to disable the Parliament with their walk out. "  Today Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports that Parliament's Services Committee is accusing State of Law of blocking a vote on the Telecommunications and Information Law. While Nouri's reputation diminishes further, All Iraq News reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani, Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi met to discuss the political crisis and propose solutions with all agreeing the Erbil Agreement needs to be implemented.   Back to the US, Trina praised Brian Montopoli's "Do the debates unfairly shut out third parties?" (CBS News) last night and she was right to praise it.  Here he is reporting on 1980's third party candidate John Anderson:   In an interview, Anderson said the debates are now "pretty well locked into the maintenance of a two-party system." "Very clearly, the present system is wrong in my humble judgment in that it excludes the possibility that there could rise up a reasonable and probably candidate from someone other than one of the major parties," he said.   Brian's written a very important article exploring the factors that decide the debates currently.   On third parties, do not miss this interview with Cindy Sheehan.  (Time permitting, we'll note some of it tomorrow.)  The Green Party presidential ticket (Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala) were at the New York debate last night and arrested for attempting to participate.  Kimberly and Ian Wilder were there and they have photos at their site On The Wilder Side.  Robert Naiman has an important piece on the Drone War at Huffington Post.  And personal note, Cedric read your wife's post from last night.  I hate it when I know things I'm not supposed to.  Ann, if he doesn't figure it out, call me.  And _____.          iraq cnn candy crowley cbs news brian montopoli the washington post glenn kessler the new york times scott shane glen ford black agenda report press tv al mada all iraq news tim arango todays zaman hurriyet daily news on the wilder side kimberly wilder ian wilder