book 'em friday: new barbra bio delivers!

william j. mann is an author of many books including a new 1 entitled hello, gorgeous.  his previous book was about elizabeth taylor

"book 'em friday,"  and "How To Be A Movie Star"  and  "book 'em friday," "skimming kitty kelley," "How To Be A Movie Star II"  was marcia and my coverage of that book. 

his new book is 'hello, gorgeous: becoming barbra streisand.'  i love barbra and i love this book.  it's amazing.

william has narrowed his scope down to the early years and he ends it in 1964.  this allows him to really explore those early years.

i don't pretend to have read all the barbra biographies but i have read a few.  chris anderson had 1 a few years back that was awful, dreadful.  that was in part because he kept editorializing about her politics (he hated them) but also because there was too much to cover.

the thing i hate about the barbra bios, for example, is my favorite barbra album always gets slighted - 'the second barbra streisand album.'  i love that 1.  'gotta move, gotta get out, gotta leave this town ...'
and of course 'down with love.'

even in this book, the classic album only gets 3 pages.  :(

but he does explore so much more and at greater length than people have in the past.

probably his biggest contribution to the streisand canon is documenting how so much that we think just was what it was, turns out, was pre-planned and choreographed. 

my only real complaint was the ending.

i don't think william j. mann should have published the book.  i think he should have written at least the next 2 volumes and then sold all 3 together as a boxed set.

volume 2 would be barbra becomes a movie star.  volume 3 would be barbra reconnects with the young audience in popular music.

it's just so disappointing to finish this wonderful book on a giddy high and realize that's it.

'then she got into her car and sped away.'  that's how the book ends. 

and you'll be like me thinking, 'well i hope he's got volume 2 out next summer.  i don't think i can wait longer than that.'

i'm a huge barbra fan, she's my favorite singer.

i have 12 other barbra bios. the only 1 that comes close to this 1 is 'her name is barbra.' 

if you are a barbra fan, you will love this book.

and i you are a willam j. mann fan, you will love this book.

if you are william j. mann, stop reading this and write another book!

and i want barbra but i will accept another topic.  he has written great books on elizabeth taylor and silent star william haynes.  i even liked the katharine hepburn book and i'm not a fan of kate hepburn.

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

Friday, October 19, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, 4 British families get good news, Senator Patty Murray wants to know when an announced review into diagnoses changes is going to start since it still hasn't, State of Law launches more attacks on Barzani, new details about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi emerge, and more.
Starting with veterans, in the US veterans have struggled with many issues they shouldn't have to.  Some struggles may truly be a surprise.  Many struggles aren't.  Many struggles are a sign that proper planning was not done when the government sent people off to war.  This is a point US House Rep Bob Filner very skillfully made September 30, 2010:
Chair Bob Filner: It struck me as I looked at a lot of the facts and data that we-we see across our desks that, as a Congress, as a nation, we really do not know the true costs of the wars we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. [. . .] We all look at the data that comes from these wars. It struck me one day that the official data for, for example, the wounded was around 45,000 for both wars.  And yet we know that six or seven hundred thousand of our veterans of these wars -- of which there are over a million already -- have either filed claims for disability or sought health care from the VA for injuries suffered at war -- 45,000 versus 800,000? This is not a rounding error. I think this is a deliberate attempt to mask what is going on in terms of the actual casualty figures. We know that there is a denial of PTSD -- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's a 'weakness' among Marines and soldiers to admit mental illness so we don't even have those figures until maybe it's too late. We all know that women are participating in this war at a degree never before seen in our nation's history and, yet, by whatever estimate you look, whether it's half or two-thirds have suffered sexual trauma.  The true cost of war?  We know that over 25,000 of our soldiers who were originally diagnosed with PTSD got their diagnosis changed or their diagnosis was changed as they were -- had to leave the armed forces, changed to "personality disorder."  And not only does that diagnosis beg the question of why we took people in with the personality disorder, it means that there's a pre-existing condition and we don't have to take care of them as a nation.  Cost of war? There have been months in these wars where the suicides of active duty have exceeded the deaths in action. Why is that?  When our veterans come home from this war, we say we support troops, we support troops, we support troops? 30% unemployment rate for returning Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans. That's three times an already horrendous rate in our nation. Guardsman find difficulty getting employment because they may be deployed. Now a democracy has to go to war sometimes. But people have to know in a democracy what is the cost. They have to be informed of the true -- of the true nature -- not only in terms of the human cost, the material cost, but the hidden cost that we don't know until after the fact or don't recognize.  We know -- Why is it that we don't have the mental health care resources for those coming back? Is it because we failed to understand the cost of serving our military  veterans is a fundamental cost of the war? Is it because we sent these men and women into harms way without accounting for and providing the resources necessary for their care if they're injured or wounded or killed?  Every vote that Congress has taken for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has failed to take into account the actual cost of these wars by ignoring what we will require to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform who have been sent into harms way. This failure means that soldiers who are sent to war on behalf of their nation do not know if their nation will be there for them tomorrow.
That pretty much says everything about the planning and the funding and how both were lacking.  Bob Filner was Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Comittee at that time and credit to him and US House Reps Harry Teague, Ciro Rodriguez, Jerry McNerney, Walter Jones, George Miller and Jim Moran who all attended that hearing while almost everyone in the House had already bolted and gone back to their districts to focus on their re-election races.  Bob Filner did a great job serving veterans as a member of Congress.  He's decided not to seek re-election to Congress and instead is running for Mayor of San Diego.
He will be missed in Congress.  Veterans are fortunate to have other champions in Congress.  One of those is Senator Patty Murray whose office issued the following yesterday:
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Sen. Murray Calls on Secretary Panetta to Provide Timeline for Promised Military Review of PTSD and Behavioral Health Diagnoses
In the aftermath of the misdiagnoses of servicemembers in Washington state, Murray calls on the Pentagon to move forward with nationwide review of mental health diagnoses since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began
Letter also calls for information on efforts to collect missing unit military records that could prove critical if certain health care problems arise from service in Iraq or Afghanistan
(Washington D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta requesting next steps and a timeline for the execution of a critical military-wide review of PTSD and behavioral health diagnoses made since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.  The review, which Secretary Panetta promised following the misdiagnoses of severvicemembers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, has seemingly stalled since being announced on June 13th.
"The Department must act with a sense of urgency in order to complete this review and to act on its findings in coordinating with other ongoing efforts to improve the disability evaluation system."  Murray wrote to Panetta.  "Each of these efforts is vital in ensuring servicemembers truly have a transparent, consistent, and expeditious disability evaluation process."
"Senator Murray's letter also addressed her concerns that records for military units in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are often used to provide information on potential health and exposure issues be carefully identified, located, and collected.
The full text of Senator Murray's letter follows:
October 18, 2012
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Secretary Panetta:
I am writing to express my concern about two distinct issues, which taken together impact the disability evaluation process for servicemembers and veterans.
At the outset, I very much appreciate your ongoing efforts to address behavioral health diagnoses and care both within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System and throughout the Department at large.  In June, as part of this ongoing effort, you announced a comprehensive Department-wide review of mental health diagnoses.  Shortly after the announcement, I had the opportunity to meet with Under Secretary Conaton to discuss some of the initial steps the Department had taken in preparation for this review.  However, it appears that progress on this effort may have stalled.  I am writing today to request the Department's next steps and timeline for execution of this review.
The Department must act with a sense of urgency in order to complete this review and to act on its findings in coordinating with other ongoing efforts to improve the disability evaluation system.  Each of these efforts is vital in ensuring servicemembers truly have a transparent, consistent, adn expeditious disability evaluation process.
My second concern relates to the ability of the Department, and specifically the Army, to identify and account for many records for units that served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The lack of access to documentation of the locations and fucntions of specific military units interferes with the ability of both servicemembers and veterans to obtain evidence of military service that may result in adverse health conditions now or in the future.   As we have learned from prior conflicts, this lack of documentation all too often leads to hardship for veterans in establishing a relationship between miltiary service and a specific medical condition.
The lack of accessible documents may also impede future research efforts if health care problems arise from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.  For these reasons, I would like to know the current status of efforts to identify, locate and collect records for units that served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I also urge you to take all necessary steps to ensure unit records are properly archived and accessible.
I appreciate your attention to these requests and look forward to our continued work together to strengthen both the disability evaluation system and behavioral health diagnoses and care and to ensure our servicemembers and veterans have access to critical military documents.
Patt Murray
To tie the two together -- because this is really not new -- Bob Filner was speaking of a policy to change a diganoses from PTSD to "personality disorder" because someone was deciding the government shouldn't pay what the government owed.  Someone was deciding that the role of government was to get over on veterans, not to deliver to veterans what had been promised.
And you'd think the shame of doing that would stop it.  You'd think they'd stop changing diagnoses.  But people continue to do that.   This year, Senator Murray's found it happening in her home state of Washington.  She's repeatedly attempted to get answers -- not just as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (though she's repeatedly asked for answers in that role) but also, for example, using her position as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee to question Army Secretary John McHugh about the changing diagnoses.
There is no excuse for diagnoses to have ever been changed.  There's even less excuse for refusing to start the promised review of changed diagnoses.  To be clear, there's even less excuse for Leon Panetta to avoid starting the promised review.  Leon is Secretary of Defense.  I like him, I've known him for years -- since he was in Congress.  I like Leon.  But that doesn't change the fact that as Secretary of Defense it reflects poorly on him that the review has not started.  It doesn't change the fact that he needs to do his job.  I didn't care for Robert Gates and was appalled to see the press fawn over him (in the months long farewell tour coverage as well as in that awful farewell press conference that immediately went off the record so the press could hug him and get their photos taken with him -- as someone in the entertainment industry, I'm used to excited fans, but this was a press acting like teeny boppers mooning over some heart throb of the moment).  The fact that I like Leon doesn't mean that I don't think he should be evaluated when he leaves office.  There are not two standards here.  Gates should have been evaluated on key issues (instead, he was only evaluated on granting press access) such as military suicides and military sexual assaults.  Those were two key problems in the military and he should have been evaluated on how he addressed those (and other key problems).  Leon should be judged by those and also by issues like this scandal and the failure to launch a review in a timely manner.  Leon Panetta needs to provide an answer to Senator Murray -- more than that, he needs to launch the promised review.
The Paterson Press notes another need, in Paterson, New Jersey, the Paterson Veterans Council wants to inscribe the names of three local Iraq War veterans who died while serving in Iraq on the Veterans Memorial Park monument.  The three fallen are Spc Gil Mercado, Spc Farid Elazzouzi and Sgt Christian Bueno-Galdos.  The Paterson Veterans Council is staging a beefsteak dinner November 5th as a fundraiser: "Donations to the Nov. 5 beefsteak are tax-deductible and can be made to the Paterson Veterans Council, 296 Maitland Ave., Paterson, NJ 07502. For information, call Tony Vancheri at 973-303-3523."
"It's eight years [since her son died at the age of 21 while serving in Iraq] and it still hurts,"  England's Sue Smith explains today as the British courts tell four families of the British fallen they have permission to sue the Military of Defence over deaths that could have been preventable.  Steve Anderson (Independent of London) reports, "Relatives had argued that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to provide armoured vehicles or equipment which could have saved lives and should pay compensation."  ITV explains, "They were nicknamed mobile coffins and, in 2006, Private Lee Ellis died when one of them was blown up by a roadside bombing."  Sue Smith  is the mother of Private Phillip Hewett who died serving in Iraq from a roadside bombing while in a Snatch Land Rover.  She tells Channel 4 (link is video and text):
Sue Smith:  This is a case of an employer owing his staff the right duty of care.  Take away the uniform and everything else and it's simply a man or a woman doing their job and they should be respected for doing that job  the same as anybody else. [. . .] I think it's despicable.  They knew the vehicles were no good but it's also this dismissive attitude of it doesn't matter, they're like action men, if we break them, we can throw them in a junk pile and nobody can do anything about it.  And if they're really badly broken, they can be buried.  Well, it doesn't work like that.
Along with the family of Philip Hewett, the family of Cpl Stephen Allbutt, Private Lee Ellis and Lance Cpl Kirk Redpath have been granted permission to file suit.  The Allbutt family attorney Shubhaa Srinivasnh tells the Telegraph of London that it's a "landmark" decision and, "We maintain that the MoD's position has been morally and legally indefensible, as they owe a duty of care to those who fight on behalf of this country."    Ann Salter (International Business Times -- link is text and video) hails the verdict as "historic" and notes the families can now "sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence and inadequate equipment" as a result of the ruling made by the London Court of Appeals.  BBC News' Nick Childs speaks with Sue Smith (link is video). Excerpt.
Nick Childs:  Why are you trying to go through the UN Convention on Human Rights to deal with this - this issue?  When the court of appeal has said these claims can be pursued in terms of care and negligance through the courts here?
Sue Smith:  The negligance is for wives or dependants because that's a compensation claim.  I'm not claiming compensation.  I'm claiming that the soldiers have a right to life which is something that the MoD seemed to say that if they're on exercise or anything like that abroad, they're not covered by that. 
[. . . ]
Nick Childs:  How have you felt about the Ministry of Defence as you've gone through this-this legal proces.?
Sue Smith:  Well they're just pen pushers as far as I'm concerned.  They've got no idea.  They're not living in this world.  They're not the ones going out in substandard vehicles -- or were.  I'm not sure what they're doing now.  But at the end of the day, they're people that are arguing who haven't actually lived the life that we're living.  They've got no idea.  So how can they sit there and say that these boys have no right to life? They're not the ones sitting in the back of the vehicle that might blow up at any moment.
In Iraq, violence continues.  Alsumaria reports 1 elderly man was shot dead in front of his family as he stood in front of his Baghdad home and a Diyala Province bombing targeting a police officers home left 1 police officer dead and six people injured.  In addition, AFP notes Iraqi officials today announced bombing and shooting attack late yesterday outside Balad left 4 Pakistani men dead.  All Iraq News reports 1 man dead in a Mosul roadside bombing (which police state they believe he was planting) and 1 male corpse and 1 female corpse discovered in Mosul (gunshots to the chest and head).
On security issues, Margret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reported yesterday, "A number of Sahwa members quit their jobs and abandoned their posts in Hawija and Kirkuk. The men say their demands have not been met, but local leaders are asking them to remain on the job. The Sahwa were to have been folded into the military, but the central government has refused to fully do so. The payment of salaries has also been slow at times. Because the group is made of Sunnis, many who are former insurgents, the central government has been wary of them if not outright antagonistic. About 8,000 Sahwa are in the Kirkuk region. Should they all abandon their posts, it would be a significant blow to security."
Deutsche Welle covers Nouri's attack on the Central Bank noting that this all began back again a year ago -- this was when the political stalemate transitioned into a political crisis. The outlet notes that the talk in Iraq is that there are political reasons behind the sacking of the Governor of the Central Bank.  From yesterday's snapshot:
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."
Iraq Business News notes  that "there has been tension between the Central Bank and the government for years. In January of last year, Nouri al-Maliki secured a court ruling placing the Central Bank under the control of the cabinet, rather than the parliament, much to the displeasure of al-Shabibi."  My apologies, I'm not aware of that decision.  The Parliament either isn't or doesn't consider it a valid decision.
Let's note this week's war of words by first dropping back to Monday's snapshot:

Today Al Mada reports Yassin Majeed, an MP with Nouri's State of Law, is declaring that KRG President Massoud Barzani is a threat to Iraq. Majeed held a press conference outside Parliament to denounce Barzani. Alsumaria notes that among Barzani's supposed outrageous offenses is objecting to the infrastructure bill and objecting to the recent weapons shopping spree Nouri's been on ($1 billion dollar deal with the Czech Republic, $4.2 billion dollar deal with Russia). All Iraq News notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani issued a statement noting that, at a time when they are trying to resolve the current political crisis, the remarks are not helpful.
And now to Tuesday's snaphsot:

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports today that State of Law is rushing to walk away from Majeed's remarks after Talabani and Iraqiya both called out the "reckless" remarks yesterday.  Alsumaria reports Iraqiya stated there was no way to justify the remarks and called on everyone to condemn the remarks and this method to destroy a foundation of unity.  In addition, All Iraq News notes the Kurdistan Alliance announced yesterday that there is no political difference between Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani and that the Allliance's statement was in response to the verbal attack on Barzani from Majeed.  Hussein Ali Dawed (Al-Montior) notes Talabani statined "he considered these statements a 'call to war'."  State of Law has never walked away from their constant smack talk before.  The difference here appears to have been a united push back from the blocs at the same time that Nouri wanted it to appear he was trying to reach an understanding with everyone and be a national leader.  Majeed's remarks were in keeping with State of Law's trash talk in the past.  A month ago -- or maybe a month from now -- they wouldn't have raised an eyebrow and are part of State of Law's never-ending attacks on other politicians.
KRG President Massoud Barzani will be visiting Moscow shortly.  This trip to Russia was planned weeks ago. Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports today that State of Law MP Mohammad Chihod is stating that the trip is so Barzani can destroy the weapons deal Nouri signed with Russia. 
State of Law is a bunch of losers, liars and thieves.  They lost the 2010 election, they lie constantly and they stole the post of prime minister.  They are also stupid.  So possibly Chihod is so dumb that he believes what he's saying (or maybe he shares Nouri's paranoia?).  But Barzani can't break the contract.  And unless he has some previously unknown magical power, he can't force Russian President Vladamir Putin to break the contract either.  Now he may be a very charming man and might be able to use all that charm to slow delivery.  But he can't stop delivery.  A contract is a contract.
I grasp that's difficult for State of Law to understand because in addition to everything else they lack honor and integrity.  They break contracts.  So they assume everyone else must as well.  If Russia were to break the contract with Nouri without just cause, it would be very difficult for Russia to interest other countries in buying weapons from them.
Nouri's State of Law came in second in the March 2010 elections.  Since the Iraqi Constitution meant that Nouri wouldn't get a second term, he dug his heels in and spent over eight months (Political Stalemate I) bringing the country to a standstill while the US White House -- which fully backed Nouri -- went around telling political blocs that they needed to be mature and put Iraq first.  Grasp that lie.
Grasp that the White House told all the other political blocs -- that Moqtada al-Sadr, that's Ibrahaim al-Jafaari (National Alliance) -- that they were stopping Iraq from moving forward.  All the other leaders by wanting to stick to the Constitution were harming Iraq.  Not the little bastard Nouri who refused to honor the Constitution or the will of the Iraqi people.
Then the US government rolls up with a proposal that everybody give a little to get a little.  Give Nouri a second term as prime minister and what is it you want?  What can Nouri give you? 
That's what the White House did.  So the Kurds wanted many things but among them Article 140 of the Constitution implemented.  (Article 140 was supposed to have been implemented -- per the Constitution -- by the end of 2007; however, Nouri refused to do so.  It is how disputed areas will be resolved -- census and referendum.  The Kurds want Kirkuk so does Baghdad.)
The White House negotiated the contract, which would become known as the Erbil Agreement.  It swore that the contract was valid, legal and binding.  So all the leaders -- including Nouri -- signed off on it. 
Nouri grabbed the second term that the Erbil Agreement delivered and Nouri then refused to honor the contract, he broke the contract.  That's why the country's in a political crisis at present.  It's not a mystery. 

Turning to the issue of the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, there are new items in the news cycle.  First, the background via the House Oversight Committee hearing this month:
Committee Chair Darrell Issa:  On September 11, 2012, four brave Americans serving their country were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya.  Tyrone Woods spent two decades as a Navy Seal serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 2010, he protected the American diplomatic personnel.  Tyrone leaves behind a widow and three children.   Glen Doherty, also a former Seal and an experienced paramedic, had served his country in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  His family and colleagues grieve today for his death.  Sean Smith, a communications specialist, joined the State Dept after six years in the United States Air Force.  Sean leaves behind a widow and two young children.  Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man I had known personally during his tours, US Ambassador to Libya, ventured into a volatile and dangerous situation as Libyans revolted against the long time Gaddafi regime.  He did so because he believed the people of Libya wanted and deserved the same things we have: freedom from tyranny. 
Today's items in the cycle include the assertion that US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice's statements that the attack grew out of a protest over a YouTube video are backed by intelligence at the time and the administration had no way of knowing any better.  Nonsense.  And there's actually a push back on this spin from the press.  AP reports, "Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad."  CNN also offers reality that contrasts with the administration's latest claims:
But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, told CNN that the panel had information from the intelligence community within 24 hours of the incident that it was a military style attack.
"If you look at all of the information leading up to (the attack) from an intelligence perspective, it's really confounding how you can come to a conclusion and then promote it for days in the face of all of that information that this was about a video," Rogers said.
Reality, the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy went to Congress September 12th and briefed staffers on the attack.  He called it terrorism.  Reality, the attack was seen by State Dept types ('types' because the CIA also saw this) in real time.  Reality, a little over 50 minutes of the attacks is on video.  Reality, the FBI has no objection to Congress reviewing the video but they don't have it.  At this point, it is not disclosed who has possession of the video other than that they are in the executive branch and they are not law enforcement.  The White House is refusing to turn the video over to Congress.
All of these realities were established in the House Oversight Committee hearing.  We attended the hearing and reported on it in real time:  "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot," Kat reported on the hearing with "What we learned at today's hearing," Ava reported on it with "2 disgrace in the Committee hearing" and Wally reported on it with "The White House's Jimmy Carter moment." 
If your outlet of choice -- say The NewsHour on PBS wasted your time by refusing to tell you about those realities and instead offered a 'style' report, you really need to demand that your news outlet of choice covers the damn news.  A lot of people are talking -- like Bob Somerby -- who clearly were not at the hearing and really need to inform themselves before speaking.  These days you assume that what was reported was what happened at your own peril.  That hearing was important and full of revelations.
So one of the items was Susan Rice's alleged innocence which, again, has been pushed back on.  And should be.  Another item in the news cycle is the cables released today.
A diplomatic cable sent by Ambassador Chris Stevens from Benghazi hours before the attack on the U.S. Consulate that killed him was largely devoted to the rising security threats in and around the city.
The cable, sent to the State Department, was released Friday by the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California. It is among more than 160 pages of documents that paint a picture of persistent and unpredictable violence in and around Benghazi this year and an often fractious debate about resources for diplomatic security.
In the September 11 cable, the ambassador refers to a meeting nine days earlier in which the commander of Benghazi's Supreme Security Council "expressed growing frustration with police and security forces" being too weak to keep the country secure.
Another paragraph refers to the "expanding Islamist influence in Derna," a town east of Benghazi, amid reports linking "the Abu Salim Brigade with a troubling increase in violence and Islamist influence."
The Abu Salim Brigade was prominent among the opponents of former strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
The ambassador refers to another meeting on September 9 in which commanders of unofficial militia claimed that the Libyan Armed Forces depended on them to secure eastern Libya, and even supplied them with weapons.
The White House is not being honest when they claim that it was 'intel.'  The tape exists, the attack was monitored in real time, CIA agents were wounded in the attack and made clear that it was not a protest that descended upon the Consulate.  But not only are they not being honest there, the document release makes clear that there was reason for concern -- serious concern -- and that the administration ignored those warnings.  Four Americans died.  It's time for the White House to get honest.


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?

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 hereAFP 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.


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 MiddleWhen 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 injuredAll 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 SideRobert 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 _____.