Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Ft. Hood

Wally -- still here while Rebecca's in England. Today Kat, Ava, C.I. and I were at two Congressional hearings. The second one we attended was the House VA Committee's subcommittee on finance hearing and that lasted a little less than an hour. I mention that because C.I.'s got it in the snapshot (continue reading, I repost it at the end) and Kat's going to blog on it tonight. So with both of them covering it, I think I'd be imparting more by covering the Senate Armed Services Committee (which C.I. also covers in the snapshot).

Yesterday, I wrote about Vern Clark and Togo West appearing before the House Armed Services Committee to talk about the Fort Hood shootings last November. Today they appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Carl Levin chairs this committee. I like how he chairs hearings and I'm always happy when we've got the Senate Armed Services Committee on the calendar because it's going to be a smooth hearing. He works it like a clock and he's not breaking the rules for the witnesses or the committee members.

(I groaned very loudly in 2008 when a 'darling' got to break all the rules. Who was that darling? Here's your hint: He arrived to the hearing -- the April hearing -- late and he then stammered through his first question which received a reply that politely said "You don't know what you're talking about." Corrected, he attempted a second go. He still couldn't get it right. But the chair decided to let him take more time. He said he'd only take two more minutes and then went on to take ten and a half more minutes. And he never knew what he was talking about and it was a huge embarrassment. Who was that man? Barack Obama.)

Levin runs it tight. Can people have additional time? Sure. As they work their way through. But no rules are going to be broken for one special pet. And that's not true of all the hearings. (I also like attending John Kerry's hearings because I know all the signs -- from C.I. and also from attending so many hearings he's chaired -- of when he's ticked. And I also like that he will ask people to please make opening remarks because their prepared statements are already going into the record. Despite his stating that, there are a number of people who will just go ahead and read, word for word, their prepared remarks.)

I don't know if Levin is a wonderful actor or if that's how he actually is but he has a good personality for the hearings. He's always on a slow boil and he'll stare down a witness or frown at them if they're a little far from reality. The smart ones pull the car around immediately. The ones a little slower get called out by him.

So those are some basic observations and now I'll note the biggest difference between yesterday and today's hearings. Democrats weren't avoiding the elephant in the room. Levin addressed it right away. Even made a reference to the alleged shooter's statements that Shaira law trumped the US Constitution. John McCain also wasn't afraid to raise the issue and he ticked off one of the witnesses (Clark) by pointing out that the report the West-Clark panel produced seemed seriously lacking.

I agree. If a crime takes place, what was the motivation?

What was the intent?

What was the motive?

Those are basics.

Clark got pissy with McCain about that.

So that's the hearing. And here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Thursday, January 21, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, the VA does another song and dance before Congress (as approximately 1,000 veterans still wait for their FALL 2009 checks), the Senate explores the Fort Hood shootings (in which 13 people died and over forty were wounded), the Iraq election 'process' remains in crisis, and more. Today the US military announced: "CAMP VICTORY, Iraq -- A U.S. Soldier assigned to United States Forces - Iraq died of non-combat related injuries as a result of a vehicle accident, Jan. 20. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website [. . .] The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4374 the number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. RTE News is the only one filing on violence today and they note a Kirkuk bombing targeting the Health Dept director general (who survived) today and, dropping back to yesterday, they note that 1 Iraqi colonel was shot dead in Mosul, while 2 police officers were shot dead in Mosul and a third was killed in a Mosul bombing. In DC today, US Senator Carl Levin declared, "Today's open hearing is on the panel's unrestricted report. A restricted annex to their report entitled 'Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator' focuses on information which, in the judgment of the Department of Defense could prejudice a criminal prosecution if it was discussed in public. So our committee will have a closed session after this open hearing is concluded." Levin is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee which was hearing from former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Adm Vernon Clark, both of whom were tasked by US Secretary of the Defense Robert Gates to examine procedures and policies leading up to the November 5th Fort Hood shootings. John McCain is the Ranking Member on the committee and he noted, in his opening remarks, that "your report is devoted to personnel policies and emergency shooting response procedures. The report concentrates on actions and effects rather than the motivations but it was motives that led to the Fort Hood killings and that should have been examined." McCain called it an "omission" to not identify specific threats of potential violence to servicemembers. In reading his opening remarks, Clark broke away to insist that "behaviors" were addressed in the report ("that's what we're talking about") and "self-radicalization" was in there. He also broke away to say there was "no single" answer to ensuring the protection of servicemembers from these threats but the threats really weren't identified in the public report. I'm less interested in West and Clark's opening remarks today because we covered them in yesterday's snapshot when they appeared before the House and the basics remained the same. One difference was Clark's delivery which was brusque at best and defensive in regards to issues McCain raised. His irritation was also noted by his repeated praise for "Mr. Chairman" and his pointed refusal to praise the "Ranking Member" or "Senator McCain." He offered praise for Levin not once but mulitple times and there were several times when he offered an "I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman" for something that Levin had noted in his opening remarks . . . but it had also been noted by McCain who, again, was pointedly not mentioned. (At one point he did thank "Mr. Chairman and all the members".) Chair Carl Levin: The panel found that: "Department of Defense policy regarding religious accomodation lacks the clarity necessary to help commanders distinguish appropriate religious practices from those that might indicate a potential for violence or self-radicalization." And I think what you're saying is that obviously this country believes in religious tolerance, tolerance of others' religions, but it can never be tolerant of violent, radical views that are dressed up in religious garb. I think that's that point reworded. I couldn't agree with you more. Sometimes the views that are clearly inherently violent, promote violence are dressed up in religious clothing and that automatically means that people who are sensitive to others' religious views then are kind of put on the defensive right away or reluctant right away to point out what is underneath the claim of religion. So the line has got to be there obviously. We want to continue our tolerance but we've got to be much harder and much more intolerant of views that are radical, promote violence, or encourage violence. And so my first question to you is that the policy of the Department which is limited to and addresses only active participation in groups that pose threats to good order and discipline is far too narrow a policy because of the self-radicalization point. You don't have to participate in a group that poses that kind of a threat to be a threat yourself. And so I guess my first quesiton is: How would you -- and I know you're not here to provide remedies and that wasn't your job -- but I assume that you agree that it's not just that that policy should be examined but that in your judgment, at least, it's simply too limited a policy. And I'm wondering whether or not for instance, you would agree that communication with a radical cleric who promotes violence is the kind of conduct that should raise real questions? Would you agree with that? Even though it's not active participation at that point it's just simply communication -- asking someone for their recommendations and views. Would you agree that that ought to be raising great suspicion without getting into this particular case? Sec Togo West: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree -- I think we both would. And I think your larger point that this is an example of, we would agree with as well. And that is: Yes, in the past perhaps, membership alone in a group may have been less looked upon than the actual act of doing things but, in this environment, we have to look at the group, we have to understand its purposes. And it is already considered by some that there is a tool that enables a commander to declare certain kinds of action including that a threat to his immediate area'ss order and discpline. But we think the Department of Defense can just simply strengthen the ability of commanders to look at and examine exactly what kind of activity they are permitting and whether or not we can better define it. Group membership in a group of that sort that has a record of active advocation of violence and as well as your point communication --especially repeated communication -- again, not referring to any particular case -- with those who advocate violence? Those are all signals that we need to be able to indicate in our publications and in our regulations commanders are authorized to look and be react to. Chair Carl Levin: And even if there weren't active communication, excuse me, active participation or communication, with radical persons who are promoting violence, even if there's simply the expression of views which promote violence without any information about participation in a group or communication with radical extremists -- if somebody gets up and says, 'I believe that the Constitution comes in second and that my religious views come in first,' would that not be that kind of a signal which ought to indicate some real genuine concern? Would you agree with that? Adm Vernon Clark: I certainly do agree with it and it goes without saying that where we draw our redlines is a very, very important point. But if you look at our history, we as a people, as Americans have always been very careful working about where we draw those lines. I so appreciate, your introduction to this question by your [. . .] And we're done. Salem Witch trials are only one historical example in the US of religious intolerance. That is a flavor of the hearing a number of service members are concerned with what is going on in these hearings and wanting to be sure that care is being taken. Levin covered that at the top. Whether you think it is or is not will be your call but the issue was raised and those are some of the responses. Due to space limitations and too much else to cover, that's it on that. Yesterday the US House Armed Services Committee heard from West and Clark. Last night Kat weighed in on US House Rep Loretta Sanchez' exchange. Sanchez noted a colonel who called into a radio program that she happened to catch and how he stated that there were warning signs and he just wanted to retire before the guy 'blew'. West told Sanchez he believed they spoke to the (left unnamed) colonel but they never heard the radio broadcast or of it. Kat: "How does that inspire confidence? You've got a public conversation out there that you can now apply to the testimony a colonel is giving you. Shouldn't you have made the comparison? Shouldn't you have been aware of the radio broadcast?" Filling in for Rebecca last night, Wally noted US House Rep Todd Akin was the one to ask a question about the issue of the suspect being Muslim and he also noted that although over sixty representatives serve on the committee, he counted 14 at one point and one of those wasn't on the committee, US House Rep Michael Burgess who was allowed to sit in. And we're back to service members. Today the US House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a hearing. We'll start by noting some of the chair's opening remarks (as delivered, slightly different from the prepared text). Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Some of those in attendance may recall that our first hearing of 2009 was on the implementation of the post-9/11 GI Bill. This was followed up by supplemental hearings that sought to ensure VA's progress on the short and long-term information techonology solutions. I hope that it is clear to our panelists before us today that by making this our first hearing of 2010, we demonstrate the continued importance of the subject at hand. I'm sure my colleagues will agree that the current delays in processing education claims are simply unacceptable. A number of my colleagues not on this committee have spoken to me directly or have written to me documenting experiences of student veterans that they represent who have suffered some of the consequences of the delays in processing these claims. While the administration, I know, shares my concerns regarding these shortcomings,more has to be done. However, the blame doesn't rest solely with the VA. The processing of a single claim requires multiple steps involving multiple parties and computer systems, all of which must work in-sync with one another in order for a veteran to receive his or her benefits in a timely manner. These computer difficulties demonstrate the need for a fully-functional long-term solution. The Chair then noted that the Subcommittee staff had visited Muskogee, Oklahoma's VA Regional Processing Center and Education Call Center wher ethey discovered the Education Call Center was being shut down on Thursdays and Fridays. Veterans calling were not able to speak to anyone and the staff was working on claims. It was noted by Herseth Sandlin that the Call Center can and should be open five days via better time management. Ranking Member John Boozman noted the visit as well and how the staff were the ones who told them time could be better managed and that, "As a result of that discussion, local VA management forwarded a request to the VA's Office of Field Operations to make the changes suggested and therein lies my concer: Why does it take a suggestion from Congressional staff to raise such a common sense issue and why do those responsible at the local level need to get permission from central office?" He furher noted that seven a.m. to five p.m. on the call center (from Monday through Friday) limits the opportunities for those "living outside the continental US" to speak to someone. The VA sent Capt Mark Krause (Program Manager) and Roger W. Baker (Asst Sec for Information and Technology) to testify. I'm really not interested in their excuses or self-strokes. Nor are the service members complaining that they still haven't received their fall 2009 checks. So I'm not interested in Rober Baker's bulls**t for example where he refers (past tense) to 2009 enrollees that did not receive their checks and "I believe it is important to convey, on behalf of Secretary Shinseki and every member of the VA team, our apologies for those delays and our understanding that the impacts of those delays on Veterans are unaccpetable." It's nonsense. And the committe heard "accountability" from Shinseki and others who followed him in October. Someone needs to explain to the VA that merely tossing around the word "accountability" (while the cameras are rolling) is not demonstrating "accountability." And the VA has yet to demonstrate that it has taken any accountability for its poor job. A congo lline of VA employees have repeatedly appeared before the committee all claiming that the delays were "unacceptable" but the VA has shown no improvements. Following a lengthy slideshow, this exchange took place. Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Let me start with a statement, Mr. Wilson, that you made. On slide four, the long-term release II scheduled for June 30, 2010 that sort of allows for the automated data feeds for the schools, DoD, that this is a game changer from the user point of view. You know, for Mr. Baker, Mr. Wilson, I assume that the goal for the long-term release II is to have that operatational for processing fall 2010 semester claims. Is that correct? Keith Wilson: Yes, that's correct. Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: That being the case, Mr. Baker, according to your testimony, release I has been modified to reduce its functionality because of this software requirement that you recently -- Roger Baker: Yes. The increased complexity, yes. Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: So why did it take until just recently to identify the need for the new software requirement? Roger Baker: Actually . . . uhm . .. what-what occured is as the subject matter experts and the software people were sitting down together to walk through what does an amended reward really mean? What are the intracricies, the decision trees required for an amended reward . . . uhm . . . They kept uncovering , if you will, more and more depth of what was required on software of amended awards and it went beyond the estimates they had originally had for what it was going to take to do amended awards. Uh, so as we determined that the amount of work to make that March 31st date exceeded the amount possible to accomplish, we had to determine what would come out of that release? Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: And how confident are you then that the June 30th deadline can be met -- Roger Baker: We're -- Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: In light of how important that deadline is to the fall semester? Roger Baker: We're -- we're pretty confident in that. We-we, as you can imagine, we've had some significant focus on that as well. And we've talked about what is it possible to do in the June 30th timeframe. We know that we can get everything in that was originally scheduled for release I and release I was intended to be the replacement for the current system so -- functional replacement. If we had delayed release I until about mid-May , we'd have had a fully functional release. There's about that much additional work that was added. Uh, so we know that will come in. And we will be releasing that functionality in incremental pieces along the way to mid-May and if VBA determines it's appropriate allowing the users to work with the increased functionality in that time frame. And then adding those automated feeds that are critical as we ramp up to June 30th. So we-we have a reasonably good confidence in the June 30th -- and if you don't mind, I'll elaborate on that just a little bit further. The-the thing that I have to tell you that I'm pleased with in the slip -- and I know this is going to sound a little strange -- is that in December, this project team was able to tell us that they had a problem with meeting the March 31st date. That's not a usual thing inside of VA projects. Usually, you hear about it March 30th. Uh, you know, that's going to happen on March 31st. That gave us time to make rational decisions about: Do we want to allow the slip or do we want to force the delivery date so that we see the software and what is the impact of that on subsequent releases? And so that's why we have a reasonable degree of confidence that we're going to have what we need on June 30th for a more automated system going into the fall semester. That's exactly been our focus with that June 30th release. Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Well I would just request that as that team -- you know, you've got a lot of internal milestones you're trying to meet and you've been very helpful to our committee and our committee staff in sharing information at every step of this process but in light of the problems that we've had with the interum solution, in light of the importance of this long-term solution, we-we need to stay on top of this, day-by-day, week-by-week. And if there is any other problem that is revealed to your project team, uh, we just need to be made aware of some of that ongoing work because of the importance of these deadlines in meeting the benefits for these students and-and understanding what more you might need from us because it's a high priority not only among this committee but the colleagues we hear from who have student veterans who are experiencing problems. You know, we want to make sure that we're able to answer questions immediately. Herseth Sandlin wanted to know how long it will take to train the veterans claims examiners in each of the releases? "We haven't done this before," said Krause. "I don't know that we have a feel for it," he added after some stumbling and hand gesturing. Wilson stated the training would be different blah blah blah. Which means, we don't know. But Wilson couldn't tell the truth and instead went into "that will be a more efficient process." The chair noted that after release one, the committee needed to be informed of what the time figure for training was. Wilson stated approximately 1,000 veterans are still waiting for their fall 2009 checks ("no payments have gone out on those"). Wilson also insisted that the VA is in contact with all veterans who are waiting. No, they aren't. And as the chair pointed out, service verification from DoD is not the student's responsibility. That's the government's issue and that's their delay. If it seemed to repeat from past hearings, that's because it did. Boozman repeated that the committee needed to know when there was a problem and that they needed to know if additional resources were need: "We have to understand what's going on." And the Ranking Member and the Chair both care about this issue but this is getting to be a joke where the committee gets informed of a problem in the midst of hearing or right before a scheduled hearing. The VA did not, DID NOT, inform Congress, that over a thousand veterans were still waiting for fall checks. That broke right before Christmas -- AP's Kimberly Hefling broke that story. Now grasp that this might have been tuition and/or housing checks. Tuition? You may say, "Well the college can wait." Many veterans -- talk to them, not the VA -- will tell you they had to take short-term loans. With interest rates. In order to cover the VA's delayed tuition payment, they had to take out short-term loans. I think the issue of money that would have gone to housing is self-explantory but I do know there is a perception (a mistaken one) that if the veteran's just waiting for a tuition check, it's no big deal. It is a big deal. And it's really past time that the committees in Congress started hearing from veterans in a public form so that all the citizens can know what they've had to go through as they've waited and waited for this promised benefit. They've waited and waited. And then, when problems emerged, they were treated rude. "It was," to quote one attending today's hearing, "as if the attitude was, 'Well we're giving it to you so you should just be grateful and stop complaining about it being late. We'll get to you when we have time.'" It has been offensive and it's been awkward. And especially so for those veterans with children. Whether they are the primary caregiver or not, many had to juggle money that was not there -- because the VA couldn't get the checks out -- to try to pull off a Christmas for their children. There's no excuse for that. There is no excuse for months and months of delays and it is very upsetting to veterans to continue to see Congress ask, "What do you need? Now you're going to tell us -- this time -- when a problem comes up, right?" Veterans at the hearing today felt like if they made that kind of mistake it would be all on them but when the VA makes it, the VA gets patted on the back and told, "Just try next time." It needs to stop and there needs to be accountabilty, There is none now and that goes to a lack of real leadership at the VA currently. Let's move to Iraq quickly. Nizar Latif (The National) notes Iraq is now "locked in a deep constiutional crisis" as a result of the continued targeting of Iraqi politicians who might prove popular with voters. The banning is being done through a post-legal (or pre-legal) body. Jason Ditz (Antiwar) adds, "The bannings effectively destroy the third largest political alliance in Iraq just months ahead of the election, and are seen by many as an attempt by the Maliki government to cement its hold on power." Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) explains of the body: The Justice and Accountability Commission is heir to the old, circa-2003 de-Baathification Commission, a McCarthyite blacklisting body set up by the neocon-domination occupation authorities after the US invasion of Iraq and headed by Ahmed Chalabi, the wheeler-dealer who was the chief proponent of the war in the 1990s and beyond and who was an intimate confidante of leading neoconservatives such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and various American Enterprise Institute apparatchiks such as Michael Rubin, Danielle Pletka, et al. Today, Chalabi -- who spends a lot of his time in Iran, and who US military authorities believe is essentially an agent of Tehran -- is still the titular leader of the Justice and Accountability Commission, which is run day-to-day by Ali Faysal al-Lami. Lami is a sectarian Shiite politician who is running on the same Shiite religious alliance in the March 7 election that was put together by Chalabi, with the support of Iran and the backing of Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), Iran's chief Iraqi ally. The commission is no more. Iraq is supposed to have implemented de-de-Ba'athification measures and, in addition, the Parliament refused to appoint people to the so-called Justice and Accountability Commission. The presidency council didn't sign off on the committee. It has no power, it has no authority. So why is it being listened to? On the most recent Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera -- excerpt in Tuesday's snapshot), a supporter explained that it exists in bits and pieces stitched together. That's what his meandering response stated and, for those paying attention, this is the same lie/excuse supporters use to justify Parliament being cut out of the process for awarding oil contracts. Nouri's people pick and choose which laws to listen to and which laws not to, ignore this aspect or that, ignore the Constitution and do Nouri's bidding. The two situations really are identical. In both cases the Constituion is being ignored as are other laws. In both cases, a cobble together pre- or post-legal argument is being made -- one with no actual legal foundation -- to justify doing what Nouri wants done. Al Arabiya reports on a document Iraq's Sunni Vice President, Tariq al-Hashimi, has passed to Jalal Talabani, current president of Iraq which goes to the lack of authority for the commission, noting it's not been "approved by the presidency, cabinet, and paliamentary councils." Waleed Ibrahim, Khalid Al-Ansary, Muhanad Mohammed, Michael Christie and Ralph Boulton (Reuters) report the presidency council is asking for a court ruling on whether or not the committee making these decisions is even legitimate and quotes Talabani stating, "We have asked our brother Medhat al-Mahmoud (head of the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council) whether the commission called justice and accountability really exists. As we know, parliament has not voted it into existence yet." Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports US Vice President Joe Biden is being dispatched to Iraq and quotes Talabani stating, "We are an independent country and will not receive orders from anyone, whether it is a brotherly Arab country, a neibhoring country or a friend. Mr. Biden made proposals, but we are committed to safeguard and uphold this constitution." In London, the Iraq Inquiry continues and today's witness was Jack Straw (link goes to video and transcript options) who was the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2001 to 2006. In the lead up to his testimony, correspondence and family drew press attention. Starting with the latter, the Daily Mirror quotes his son Will Straw stating, "My father's eventual support for Tony Blair over the war was the biggest mistake of his political life." David Cohen profiles Will Straw for London's Evening Standard: and quotes him stating, "Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have been a huge disappointment and let down the Laobur Party. I am especially deeply angry with Blair for being duplicitous about his reasons for taking us to war with Iraq, hiding behind WMDs when he was content to prosecute a war for regime change. And also for the unbelievably shoddy way he betrayed my father, demoting him from Foreign Secretary to Leader of the House, especially after my dad had been so loyal." Now to the correspondence issue, Sunday Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian of London) reports on a letter Straw wrote Blair ten days before Blair met with Bush at the latter's Crawford ranch (April 2002): "Jack Straw privately warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, questioned what such action would achieve, and challenged US claims about the threat from Saddam Hussein, it was revealed today ." Let's note this excerpt from today's hearing: Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Let's just go through the very interesting issues you have raised there. Let's go through a couple of them. First, the missiles, and this had always been the strongest part of the intelligence picture, and the missiles were found. The point Mr Blix made was that it was destroying -- that is, here was something that could be found and there was a way of dealing with them through the provisions of UNMOVIC. You didn't need to do anything else thereafter. He had found them. He had made the point. He dealt with them. The other question on the intelligence was that the issue that you were saying about going to war, not going to war, depended very much on a political understanding in the Security Council, indeed in this country, so that, though you may well have been right about what the resolution required and what was needed, nonetheless you were dealing with a political perception, within the Security Council, that something more was required and this was a difficulty all the way through, that the people were expecting to see more. Jack Straw: Sir Lawrence, everybody was expecting to see more. Leave President Putin out of it, but the level of the international consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was very broad, and as I record in my memorandum, Dr Blix himself says after the war that he thought they continued to have stocks -- his assumption all the way through had been that. But there was a -- there was no war party on the Security Council -- I mean, we can say maybe on the part of the United States administration, but I certainly, in the UK government -- I certainly didn't want war and I say, if Dr Blix had said -- and Dr El-Baradei, but if Dr Blix -- because this was where the focus was -- "This regime is complying with and it fulfils, as it were, the test in OP4", that would be the end of it from our point of view. I don't know what the United States would have done, but there would have been no case whatever for us taking part in any military action, and the strategy of 1441, which was to resolve this by peaceful means would have succeeded. That's reflective of all the jumble of distortions that came out of Straw's mouth. Let's deal with the above. 1441 is the first UN resolution. There was no second resolution. There was no UN resolution giving the go-ahead for the invasion of Iraq. 1441 was about weapons inspectors going into Iraq and searching for weapons. Does Straw think the whole world is stupid? He wants to say that if the weapons inspectors had said Iraq was in compliance that there would have been no war. At least not for England, he quickly added. 2003 was some time ago, it was not, however, before the advent of recorded history. Click here for AP's real time story where the inspectors have to flee Iraq -- before finishing their mission -- because Bully Boy Bush is declaring war. Everything Straw stated was questionable. Including that he went to Tony Blair and stated the UN had to mediate or be given the chance to because otherwise the war would be illegal -- if England and the US just invaded, it would be illegal. But that's exactly what happened. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) attempts to travel through the maze of Straw's making. Louise Nousratpour (Morning Star) notes the vanity in Straw's statements as he declared if he'd told Blair he wouldn't support the war, it wouldn't have taken place. Well there you go. Now we know who to blame. As soon as he climbs off the cross, we can all proceed to the Hague. Straw also attempted to insist that the 45-minute claim used to sell the illegal war in England (Iraq has WMD! and Iraq can attack England with them in 45 minutes!) was a mistake -- not because it was a lie (it was a lie) but, golly, that wasn't WMD, that was missiles. Missiles, Straw insisted, was what Tony Blair meant with the 45-minute claim. Not that WMD would hit England in 45 minutes, but missiles. Straw really thinks the world is stupid. The man appears unhinged when speaking, whether he was that nervous or suffering from some mental or physical issue, I have no idea. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger best captured one of the strangest moments, "Odd too when Straw appeared to suggest that the panel take evidence from the late Robin Cook to confirm how he -- Straw -- had always insisted the war only proceed after parliamentary debate." At the Guardian, Chris Ames has a detailed analysis of Straw's testimony and we'll note the opening: Thanks to Gordon Brown, the Iraq inquiry has become largely an exercise in reading between the lines against a government strategy of the selective release of information and selective quotation. From that perspective, we learnt this afternoon, in spite of Jack Straw's best efforts, that in a letter to George Bush in July 2002, Tony Blair gave a pretty unconditional undertaking that Britain would join in the US-led invasion of Iraq. The government has blocked publication of that letter. Jack Straw, who also blocked publication of the pre-war cabinet minutes, agrees with that suppression. The reason you have to read between the lines is that – as I first wrote in November – by virtue of the Cabinet Office protocol on information, the government can control both what the inquiry can publish and what it can directly quote in public sessions. The inquiry is increasingly kicking against this restriction and today said out loud that it is being restricted. But, as I have also observed, government witnesses have also learnt to play the game of putting their own spin on the evidence we have not been allowed to see. In pursuit of this strategy, Straw today submitted a lengthy memorandum justifying his approach to a war that he says he never wanted. The inquiry dutifully published it on its website. In response to Straw's testimony today, the Liberal Democrats issued the following statements: "Given his central role and all we know about Blair's support for Bush's regime change plans, Straw's claim seems implausible," said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary. Commenting on Jack Straw's appearance at the Iraq Inquiry, Edward Davey said: "Jack Straw's insistence that he used his 'judgement' rather than solid proof of the existence of WMD is a weak defence of his role in this disastrous war. "Given his central role and all we know about Blair's support for Bush's regime change plans, Straw's claim seems implausible. "It is clear that he is desperate to distance himself from Tony Blair's unrepentant belief that he would have got rid of Saddam whatever it took. "Jack Straw's testimony today also shows that there is no problem with serving Cabinet ministers appearing before the Iraq Inquiry. There is no obstacle to Gordon Brown appearing before the General Election to talk about his role as Chancellor in the run up to and during the Iraq War." Finally, BBC News is reporting that Gordon Brown will testify to the Iraq Inquiry before elections are held. iraq the daily mirror the london evening standard david cohen the national the nation robert dreyfuss jason ditz al arabiya the washington post ernesto londono leila fadel the guardian iraq inquiry blogger chris ames

Armed Services Committee Hearing on Fort Hood

Wally here while Rebecca's in England. This morning Kat, Ava, C.I. and I were at a Congressional hearing. It was the House Armed Services Committee. Ike Skelton is the chair of the committee. The topic was the November shootings at Fort Hood with the two men Robert Gates, Secretary of the Defense, tasked with conducting a review: the former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Navy Admiral Vern Clark.

I just have a few points (really two) I want to make regarding the hearing.

First, the Republicans. I'm a Democrat. I'm trying hard not to bash Republicans here but they really do serve a purpose on the committee. Todd Akin -- presumably no relation to Clay -- very nervously raised the subject of how the suspect is Muslim. And seriously, that is a question to some people in this country and there are many that would make it the first question they asked. And I'm not slamming him. I'd slam the other Republicans who danced around it and several did. Akin wanted to ask a question and he asked it. Others spoke in code tossing around "politically incorrect."

So that's the Republicans.

The Democrats?

I think Ike Skelton and Loretta Sanchez were the strongest. Third place would go to Vic Snyder. Fourth place?

That's my second point. I really can't do a lengthy ranking because so few people were present, so few House Representatives were present, so few committee members.

At one point, I looked around and counted the number of members present and it was 14. I count 62 members listed. But Niki Tsongas is listed and she's left Congress to join the administration. So check out my math because I could be one or two off. But I'll say I'm right for argument sake and go with 62 and subtract one for Tsongas to get 61.

So 14 out of 61. And it's actually worse than that. Michael Burgess was among the 14 I counted. He is a Republican who is not on the committee but was invited to sit in.

So only 13 Committee Members showed up for the hearing.

If you're wondering when Rebecca's coming back, she hopes to be back this weekend. Which would mean back here blogging on Monday.

So here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, January 20, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq Inquiry continues in London with the false 45 minute claim by Tony Blair excused as "local colour," in the US the Fort Hood shooting gets a Congressional hearing, the barring of candidates continues in Iraq, and more. In DC today, the House Armed Services Committee heard from the former Secretary of the Army Togo West and retired Navy Admiral Vern Clark about the November 5, 2009 Fort Hood shootings. Committee Chair Ike Skelton noted 13 people dead (Togo West explained 12 members of the military, 1 civilian) and 43 wounded in the shooting. Committee Chair Ike Skelton: I'm troubled by the fact that it would appear that some of the circumstances that led to the shooting were the result of military officers not following existing policies and procedures. Specifically, there are numerous stories in the press -- NPR, AP, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and others -- that the alleged shooter's raters and senior raters failed to document negative information in his official record. We have questions. Why did it happen? Could it have been prevented? Was the response adequate? More importantly, we all share the same intent to ensure that everything possible is done to make sure that this does not happen again. West and Clark's opening statement was read into the record [PDF format warning, click here] explaining how they were tasked by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to review the "policies, procedures and practices" leading up to the Fort Hood shooting. Following the reading of the statement, West and Clark then they hit some of the highlights of their report. West noted that details regarding the shooter are in a restricted annex available to members of the committee. Skelton had already noted that, due to ongoing prosecution issues, they would not be focusing on the shooter or alleged shooter. West explained that the military intelligence aspects -- did they fail? -- as well as the criminal aspects and the FBI review of sharing information with the military were segments West and Clark did not look into because (a) they were asked not to and (b) explorations of those three areas were already taking place. Sec Togo West: With respect to the alleged perpetrator, you will note that we state openly in Chapter One [of the report] that several military officers did not apply Army policies to the alleged perpetrator. We also recommended that that finding and similar findings that are reflected in the annex be referred by the Secretary of the Defense to the Secretary of the Army for review as to responsibility, acountability and such other action as he shall deem appropriate. He [Gates] has done so. The Army has that referral, the review is underway now. Before I turn this over to Adm Clark, to fill in some details with respect to the review of the report that you have, three observations I think are important to-to point out. First, what we learned is that there is never enough preparation, there is never too much preparation. Authorities at Fort Hood had already anticipated a mass casualty event as reflected in their emergency response plans. And their response on that day showed their preparation. Two minutes and forty-seven seconds after the 911 call was received, first responders were on the scene of the shooting. And by "first responders," I refer specifically to members of the Fort Hood security team. A minute and a half after their arrival, the assailant was incapacitated. Two minutes and fifty seconds later, two ambulances and an Incident Command Vehicle from the post hospital arrived and began to provide life saving health care. With that response, lives were saved. And yet thirteen people died. Scores more were wounded. We can prepare better. We must plan with greater attention. And we must make the effort to look around the corners of our future and anticipate the next potential event in order to deflect it. Secondly, we need to pay attention to today's hazards. The fact is that we need to understand the forces that cause an individual to radicalize, to commit violent acts and, thereby, to make us vulnerable from within. And, thirdly, there is much in this report that is about violence -- violence by a service member against his or her colleagues. The effort is to detect the indicators that one might commit acts of violence, to catalogue them, to make them available to the persons who need to know what are the indicators -- and where have the indicators been noted -- and then prepare ourselves to act when that evidence is before us to make it available to our commanders so that they can act and to be clear about their authority. One further note, as has been pointed out, we were asked to do this review within 45 days. The Secretary clearly had in mind that there would be follow-on reviews of what we would come up with. For that reason, although we have cast our net widely, there were also boundaries simply in terms of what the 129 or so souls who were committed to our leadership could accomplish and thus you will find that there is space left for the follow on reviews. Often our recommendations are couched on term of the need to pay closer attention and to closer review that. [. . .] Adm Vern Clark: First, let me just talk briefly about force protection. The principle message is this: There are many policies, dozens of policies, in the Defense Dept about force protection. We built lots of barriers since 9-11. That said, existing policies are not optimized for the internal threat and the threat that we saw witnessed at the Fort Hood incident was evolving inside the barriers. Second, let's talk about i.d.ing employees who can be a threat in this sort of circumstance. It's a difficult challenge. The reality is that there is insufficient knowledge and guidance to identify individuals. Guidance involving workplace violence and the potential for self-radicalization or radicalization in general, as Secretary West indicated, it's inefficient. And the key here is that we focus on violence of any kind. What we found was a lack of clarity for comprehensive indicators which then limited commanders or supervisors ability to then recognize these potential threats. And so it doesn't matter if we're looking at somebody who might be inclined to hurt themselves. And, by the way, the Secretary of Defense had that specifically in our terms of reference -- incidents of suicide. Or criminal and gang behavior or somebody advocating supremist activity and doctrine or family violence or the evolving threats like radicalization. Identifying the key indicators is critical to focusing the force on the threat. So our focus was on violence that comes from any kind of behavior. But what we found especially was that policies on the internal threat are inadequate. Prohibited behaviors and actions need to be addressed. And our report says specifically that such guidance exists but it's incomplete for the day in which we live. He continues with "remove the walls" over and over about intelligence sharing (over and over) to the point that he might as well have been singing the "tear down the walls" refrain in Jefferson Airplane's "We Can Be Together" (written by Paul Kanter, first appears on Volunteers). Tear down the walls Tear down the walls Come on now together Get it on together Everybody together We should be together We should be together my friends We can be together We will be We must begin here and now A new continent of earth and fire Come on now getting higher and higher Tear down the walls Only Clark was far less melodic and much more scary. The committee never asked him to define the wall tearing he wanted and "walls" are usually erected for a reason. Rush to dismantle "walls" can lead to, for example, the current economic crisis in the US (the 'barriers' of regulation were dismantled). There is a difference between "information sharing" and targeting and/or spying. That's especially true when it comes to military intelligence. We'll note this exchange from the hearing. Chair Ike Skelton: It appears to me that there were two disconnects that lead to a major question. Disconnect number one is the actual performance of the alleged shooter on the one hand and the OER [Officer Evalution Report] and academic evaluation. The second disconnect would be one of intelligence type -- whether that reached the right superiors or not. Which leads to the bottom line question: Was a great deal overlooked because this was a medical person in a speciality in which there was a shortage? Mr. Secretary? Sec Togo West: [Long pause] Mr. Chairman, I paused just for a minute because I'm trying to reflect on how much my answer leads me into a discussion of an area we've covered in the annex rather than in the report. Chair Ike Skelton: Do your best. Sec Togo West: But I -- thanks for the encouragement. But I would think that we could say in general as to the way uh uh officers are evaluated, especially medical officers, and that the way that is reported that what we have concluded and have said to the Secretary of Defense is this: First, the disconnect you noted is correct. That's what we mean when we say that the policies were not applied. That things witnessed were not always reported where they need to be reported and that in fact there are contradictory indications. And with respect to the Secretary, and we recommended to the Secretary of Defense that he take some public steps about this, that we had to say to the force -- or that he had to say to the force -- the Department has to say to the force, "Evaluations make a difference and we can't do the job of leading or protecting against threats if honest evaluations are not done by those who have the duty, the information and the authority to do so." Chair Ike Skelton: Adm? Adm Vern Clark: A major piece of this, Mr. Chairman, is what is part of the record. And our report -- we don't tell the Secretary of Defense what parts to make -- what should go into the record -- we say -- he asks us for gaps and weaknesses and so we said look if an individaul track history doesn't stay with him that leaves you open to potential weaknesses and gaps. So there are certain things that are required by regulation that cannot move from station to station with the individaul. That's something that needs to be looked at. With regard to the issue of performance appraisal, we all know that performance appraisal is a challenge in any environment. That said, we used specific terms to say things that we wanted to conote. We didn't just use the term "leadership," we used the term "officership." If you look on page six and seven of our report, we say specifically what we think happened here. We believe that some of the signs were clearly missed or they were ignored. I can't tell you which. And I can't go further than that because of the nature of the restrictions -- the information that's in the restricted annex. But there's no doubt in my mind or Secretary West's mind that there were issues here. US House Rep Vic Snyder objected to the annex noting it confused the issue and that "it would be one thing if we had out there the criminal case file [. . .] But, in fact, what you all are conducting is an administrative proceeding based on the records that are in the military in order to problem solve. And it's not clear to me why the American people are not entitled to see -- because it's part of the problem solving process -- these undredacted reviews -- career reviews or academic reviews or college transcripts or whatever's in that record as part of an administrative proceeding. You're not putting those things out there." Snyder also wanted to know when would be the right time for such a discussion? After the trial? After an appeal process? "I don't know what the right time's going to be for the American people [. . .] to have a specific discussion about this specific case," he stated. West replied that the annex contains "officer efficiency reports and the like. Those are specifically protected. Secondly, the overall concern that what's contained in there will have an effect on the military justice proceedings." On the first aspect, notice that it's tear down the wall to let hidden spying take place (that is what Clark was advocating) but it's hide and hide again when it applies to what the American people can and cannot have access to. Kat plans to offer a few thoughts on today's hearing tonight (including on US House Rep Loretta Sanchez) so be sure to check her site. In Iraq, a bombing has resulted in numerous people being wounded. Xinhua reports a Mosul suicide car bombing claimed the life of the driver and left thirty people injured Al Jazeera reports that the bombing targeted an Iraqi military base and, citing police, states the injured are "18 soldiers, five police officers and 10 civilians". Reuters notes the injured has climbed to 45. In other reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province motorcycle bombing which claimed 1 life and left four people wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer. Shootings? Reuters notes a Mosul attack in which 1 police officer was shot dead in a cafe while, in Baghdad, a robbery at a jewelry store resulted in the death fo the owner and 1 other person and was followed by Iraqi police and the robbers engaging in a gunfight in which 1 police officer was shot dead and 7 people were injured (two were assailants, the remainder civilians). Today the Washington Post editorial board offers "Obama administration must intervene in Iraqi election crisis" on the banning of political rivals in Iraq with the claimes of "Ba'athist!": There's not much clarity about who is behind the nasty maneuver -- but one protagonist appears to be Ahmed Chalabi, the notorious former exile leader and master of political manipulation. Now regarded as an Iranian agent by most U.S. officials, Mr. Chalabi, along with his associates, served Tehran's interests as well as his own by banning the Sunni leaders. Several of those blacklisted had recently joined cross-sectarian secular alliances that are challenging the Shiite coalition of which Mr. Chalabi is a part, as well as the list headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Over the weekend, Mr. Maliki appeared to endorse the disqualifications -- a step that would nullify his previous support for progressive electoral reforms. Surprised by the sudden decision, U.S. and U.N. officials have been trying to moderate it. Vice President Biden, who used his influence to good effect during previous disputes over the elections, has been working the phones again. If the US had a real ambassador to Iraq (and not Chris Hill), maybe all these 'last minute' surprises wouldn't continue to pop up? Why is it that the US is repeatedly caught unaware over and over despite having Hill there supposedly to guide diplomatic relations? Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) notes "U.S. diplomacy has shifted into high gear" (that would be Biden) and that there are now "515 barred candidates -- the number keeps growing". Rahma al-Salim (Asharq Alawsat) reports: "The office of Iraqi parliamentary speaker, Ayad al-Samarrai informed Asharq Al-Awsat that US Vice President Joe Biden has called for the Debathification process to be postponed until after the elections on the condition that the electoral candidates in question prove that they are no longer affiliated to the outlawed party. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, hinted that his country would not support the elections if al-Mutlaq is not allowed to stand for election." And al-Salim notes that Nouri's spokesperson is stating that US attempts "will not achieve anything." At An Arab Woman Blues, Layla Anwar offers her take including the following: The news from Iraq where the Shiites from Iran are doing everything possible to ensure that only they present themselves to the forthcoming elections, by banning all secular and non Shiites representation i.e Sunnis. Which of course lead me to remember the ongoing genocide against Arab Sunnis in Iraq, the ongoing genocide led by Iran and its Shia supporters, a genocide within the grander American genocide on the Iraqi people. And of course that lead me to question for the 100th time the role of the filthy, despicable, depraved, perfidious Iraqis who supported and still support either the American or Iranian occupation of Iraq or both... These filthy, rotten to the core, dishonorable, undignified traitors on CIA/Pentagon payrolls and on Iran's -- who still 7 years on, despite the holocaust, despite the destruction, despite the exile, despite the mass terror inflicted upon us by both the Americans and their Iranian counterparts, still manage to praise, justify, rationalize, propagandize, glorify either the US or Iran. These filthy, depraved, complicit criminals calling themselves Iraqis, who made their money and fame from Iraqi blood, they live inside Iraq and outside of Iraq, they are men and women, young and old ; bloggers, journalists, so-called activists, so-called feminists, some are running NGOs, other are "analysts and experts", spokespersons...some of them are hiding in their spider holes, their rat holes in America, Europe, and elsewhere spewing more lies and more garbage, covering up the crimes, and some come to the limelight and appear in the media, having pocketed good sums of money from the murderers of Iraq, their masters. And they dare speak in the name of Iraq and Iraqis ! At Reuters, Suadad al-Salhy offers that the banned candidates are more often Shi'ite than Sunni. The tongue stuck out after 'reporting' that appears implied. Going far deeper than that, Reidar Visser examines the banned list and finds The main problem with the de-Baathification measures, then, refers not so much to systematic and overt sectarianism or partisanship as such as to despotism more generally, albeit clearly with the ulterior goal of perpetuating a sectarian political atmosphere. The basic problem here is the attempt by the accountability and justice board to portray its decisions as "legal" and "constitutional" when they clearly are not – and the failure of the rest of the "democratic" system in the new Iraq to offer any meaningful resistance. Previous developments have shown that the accountability and justice board is an anachronism that lacks a clear legal basis after the passage of the accountability and justice law in 2008, that the formation of a seven-judge appeals court (to which these decisions may be appealed within three days) remedies this situation only in a partial way, that the Iraqi elections commission seems to be in league with the accountability and justice board in this matter, and that even if one accepts the dubious existence of the current de-Baathification board, its application of the relevant laws appears to be both partisan and selective in the extreme. In sum, rather than being an attempt at a complete exclusion or elimination of political enemies, these de-Baathification measures seem aimed at intimidating and terrorising, with the overarching motive of keeping sectarian issues on the agenda. Any attempt at remedying the situation must keep this aspect in mind: What is at stake here is not a question of "Sunni participation" versus a "Sunni boycott"; rather this is about the very fundamentals of the post-2003 system of government in Iraq and the importance of offering hope to those Iraqis who wish to get rid of the narrow sectarian categories altogether. Hence, even if the US should miraculously succeed in reversing or postponing the de-Baathification moves, the ball will simply be kicked further down the road: The so-called independent elections commission (IHEC) which will oversee the elections is in practice owned by the same Shiite Islamist parties that control the accountability and justice board, and that authored the decision to exclude 511 candidates with reference to de-Baathification and with support from Iran. To really make a difference, what is needed today is some kind of appeals institution that does not mechanically replicate the structures of power in Iraq that have emerged since 2003 on an ethno-sectarian basis and their underlying sectarian logic, which after all is what the accountability and justice board is fighting so hard to preserve. An internationalised complaints commission similar to the one used in Afghanistan could be one possible option. On the whole, it is of course a good sign that US policy-makers today seem concerned about the gravity of the situation, but if they are really serious about solving it then they should realise that none of their current friends in Baghdad are capable of doing so in a truly sustainable fashion. Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that Iraq's Presidency Council is supposed to take up the issue: "The initiative is under process waiting for the return of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi, the source said." Iraq remains the world's largest refugee crisis -- though no one's done a telethon for it -- not KPFA or MTV or George Clooney or any of the big wastes of time. But Iraqi refugees -- external and internal -- suffer. External refugees are the subject of a back and forth between the governments of Syria and Iraq. AFP quotes Fayssal Mekdad, Deputy Foreign Minister of Syria, "Ever since the Iraqi refugees began arriving in Syria in 2003, the Iraqi government, despite having the means, only gave 15 million dollars to help its citizens in Syria. This is a small sum in comparison with the number of Iraqi refugees who number more than 1.5 million in Syria, and with the enormous capacity of the Iraqi government." KUNA quotes Abdulsamad Sultan, Iraq's Minister of Displacement and Migration, responding that Syria's assertions are "exaggerated." Iraq has done very, very little financially in terms of aiding neighboring and/or bordering countries which have taken in refugees. In London, the Iraq Inquiry continues. Before getting to today's two witnesses, we'll note events outside the Inquiry. The Liberal Democratic Party today issued the following: "William Hague's comments are welcom," said the Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary. Responding to William Hauge's comments that it is only right and proper that all those who played a role in taking the country to war give evidence before the general election', Edward Davey said: "William Hauge's comments are welcome. As a key backer of the drive to war in Iraq, we look forward to him volunteering to appear before the Inquiry, along with Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader at the time. "The huge role played by the Conservatives in backing Labour's disastrous and illegal war deserves to be examined." Also today on appearances before the Iraq Inquiry, it emerged current Prime Minister Gordon Brown might appear before the elections. Philip Webster (Times of London) reports, "Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions he told the Commons that he had written to Sir John Chilcot saying that he was happy to give evidence at any time." The witnesses today were Mark Lyall-Grant (Director General Political, FCO, 2007 - 2009), David Omand (Permanent Secretary Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, 2002 - 2005) (link goes to transcript and video option). In England, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sold the illegal war on the claim that Iraq had WMD and could attack England within 45 minutes. Not true. (And Blair should have known that ahead of time because it was reported to his underlings before the outbreak of the illegal war. When he appears, January 29th, he may be asked about that.) Omand is getting a lot of attention from the press (Lyall-Grant none really) and I'm noting this section that I found telling: David Omand: I would interpret that as meaning people saying there isn't enough intelligence in substance, but this isn't going to look very convincing if we are not allowed to show more of it. That's my personal expression -- explanation of why, as it were, people fell on the 45 minutes. At least that was something the Secret Service would allow to be used. With hindsight, one can see that adding a bit of local colour like that is asking for trouble. But we didn't really spot that at the time. Local colour? I find those statements news worthy (and outrageous) but those I depend on for guidance on this issue downplay it. I think it's news. Everyone else feels this passage is the big news regarding the 45 minute claim: Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Just to continue on these, again, sort of favoured topic these days, the 45 minutes, were you aware of the background to that going into the assessment? Did you take much notice of that as a feature of the presentation? David Omad: Not as a feature of presentation. It was a piece of intelligence that was circulated quite late in the day, as you know, round the JIC and found its way into the JIC's own assessment at quite a late stage. I think it is worth again stepping back slightly and just recalling that the idea of producing a detailed intelligence assessment for public consumption was not hugely welcomed by the intelligence community, certainly not by me, partly on precedential grounds, although it had sort of been done once before, but there is a natural queasiness on the part of anyone who has worked in the intelligence business at putting anything into the public domain, and one of the problems we foresaw, and, indeed, to some extent did occur, was that the agencies were quite happy for generalized statements to be made, but were not very happy about any of the detail of the reporting being used. So the risk was we would end up with a document which was simply a series of assertions. Richard Norton-Taylor and Allegra Stratton (Guardian) report of Omand's testimony: From October 2002 the JIC was warning that al-Qaida would use an invasion as a justification for terrorist attacks, an argument that would attract widespread support among Muslims. The JIC also warned that the terrorist network might establish sleeper cells in Iraq, Omand said. By October 2004, the JIC warned that up to 50 people from the UK had "attempted to get to Iraq to join jihadist factions". Asked whether the deteriorating security situation in Iraq had a direct impact on jihadist activity in Britain, Omand, who was a JIC member, replied: "Yes". He said Britain should have stepped back in January 2003 when UN weapons inspectors reported that they found no evidence in Iraq of a continuing WMD programmes. The JIC did not look again at the intelligence claims, and was not asked to do so by ministers. "We assumed an invasion was inevitable," said Omand. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger notes that "Omand joined Geoff Hoon in accusing Brown's Treasury for keeping his office on a tight leash -- it was hard enough getting the latest version of Microsoft Office, let alone enough of the right sort of staff." Returning to the US. An electoral upset took place yesterday. Caro of MakeThemAccountable has a roundup of reports on the Massachusetts upset last night. Caro makes time today for the important topic as well -- Barack's attempts to cut Social Security benefits and raise the age of retirement. Kat noted this last night and we mentioned it in Third's "Editorial: The Haiti Distraction." Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley as both attempted to win the Senate seat Ted Kennedy recently vacated. Betty observed of the results, "The reality is there for all the world to see: The media created sensation peaked in January 2009 and it's been all downhill since then. Say hello to Pet Rocks on your way out the door, Barry. Say hello to Troll Dolls and Cabbage Patch Kids, to Rubics cubes and earth shoes. You're the hula-hoop no one wants anymore." Stan offered, "Martha Coakley was a great primary candidate. Scott Brown was a better candidate for the general and a lot of that had to do with Coakley become Barry's best bud after she won the nomination. He's becoming toxic." Ann commented on the comedic act of 'analyst' Elyse Cherry and referred people to Trina who explained just how Elyse was long-term kissy with Deval and not an independent analyst or really much of anything of worth or value. Mike (who voted for Brown) reflected last night: We're also pissed off that Dems aren't keeping any damn promises. Why the hell are we still in Iraq? I don't want to help Barack because Barack's not helping the country. Mr. Vanity's all about himself. (Listen to any speech.) Fine and dandy. But if Dems want to stop the losses, get out of Iraq and start doing real work. We're sick of this s**t. Yeah the Danny Schechters are real dumb asses and lap it up when the White House attacks Fox News (and they stay silent when Robert Gibbs attacks Helen Thomas) but the rest of us, those of us on the left who are adults? We're damn sick of it and sick of all you can do while you don't keep your promises. And, yes, it was about health 'reform.' We've already got the corrupt system Barry's trying to pass off as universal health care (it's not and a lot of lefty liars don't have the guts to tell you the truth on that, do they? Lance Selfa notes those hypocrites here) but we saw the arrogance. We saw the polls where Americans weren't buying what was being sold (some because they don't want any change, some because they know this crap being proposed is crap) and we saw a Congress and a White House ignore the people. Brown was one way to send a message and to hold the White House in check. And Lance Selfa has a column today at US Socialist Worker which Mike's grandfather (Trina's father) proudly points to because Selfa has some similar observations and Mike's grandfather says that's proof that he's passed on "a strong Socialist outlook to Mike." Ruth observed, "No disrespect meant to Scott Brown but it is a bit sad for me that Martha Coakley lost. That said, as someone who has followed the race closely for sometime, it is obvious that Ms. Coakley's primary campaign was on the right track and her general campaign was misguided. I do not blame her for that, I blame the people running her campaign. Mike wrote about the campaign yesterday. From speaking to his family over the last weeks, I would argue that Mr. Brown did not just pick up independents (as conventional wisdom says he did), I would argue he also picked up some Democrats (in Mike's family, he picked up Democrats and Socialists)." Cedric's "Bad news served over Kool-Aid" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BARRY O SOBS IN HIS KOOL-AID!" joint-humor post offers a look at White House reaction. Wally filled in for Rebecca last night (and is filling in for her tonight), Marcia tackled numerous topics and Elaine took on KPFA's decision to sponsor the PDA Hour -- where so-called "Progressive" Democrats (of America) get an hour of air time each week to pretend that they stand for something and actually have a spine. On the Coakley-Brown match up, Ruth Conniff (The Progressive) shows real strength calling out a dual citizen (does he vote in both countries' elections) insisting Coakley lost because the left is just too hard on St. Barack. At the same outlet, Matthew Rothschild backslides as he once again ignores reality to play hero worship. If only, Matt offers, Barack would fire Rahm Emanuel. I've known Rahm for years and I think he's funny and delightful as a person. That said, if I ever hired Rahm to work for me -- I never would and for the following reason -- I would know it was for life or until Rahm wanted to leave. You do not fire Rahm unless you want to burn down the house as well. That's reality. If Barack wanted to, he couldn't fire Rahm without bringing on a whole lot of trouble (far more trouble than Barack and Michelle experienced trying to mingle on Martha's Vineyard this summer -- no, it did not work out well for them there). Now that's why it's not feasible to fire Rahm. But let's quickly deal with Barack wanting to fire Rahm. Why? He does Barack's bidding. Barack wanted him in that role for that reason. Barack gets to come off like a saint and a princess. And while it's not surprising the public buys that, it's distressing that Matt Rothschild does. Matt notes that Rahm is DLC. Matt, so is Barack. That's long been established. Not only has that long been established, Barack publicly identified himself as a "New Democrat" early last year. The New York Times reported it, did you miss it? "New Democrat" is the term the DLC (Simon Rosenberg and all the centrists) love to use because the DLC 'brand' had the worst political odor excepting only "neoconservative." Barack is DLC. He's always been DLC. That's why he governs the way he does. It's not a mystery. It's right there in plain sight. I'm blanking on the Times artilce but Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee also reported it for Politico: "I am a New Democrat," he told the New Democrat Coalition, according to two sources at the White House session. The group is comprised of centrist Democratic members of the House, who support free trade and a muscular foreign policy but are more moderate than the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Obama made his comment in discussing his budget priorities and broader goals, also calling himself a "pro-growth Democrat" during the course of conversation. That's March 10, 2009. Know who you support before you vote for them. And please, please, know who they are after they're in office. And, as Rebecca has long exposed, the New Democrats? Worst haircuts in all US political circles. That includes Barack. Worst. Cheap. Tacky. Male or female, do something with that hair. iraq mcclatchy newspapers sahar issa the los angeles times liz sly rahma al-salim alsumaria tv the times of london philip webster the guardian allegra stratton richard norton-taylor lance selfa

Heroes (Wally)

Wally here. Rebecca's had to go to England. The decision was made Sunday night. C.I. and I flew out Monday to pick up her baby (C.I. had agreed to watch Rebecca's baby) right before they left and then today went back to the usual speaking out against the Iraq War gigs.

I do read Rebecca's site but I also know her little girl. And I'm not sure how much she's posted here about her little girl so I'll just note she's very cute and very sweet. And still a toddler.

Why C.I.? Rebecca babysat C.I.'s kids and when it began to look like she might go, C.I. said, "If it's last minute, I'll take care of her." She loves C.I. For most of the day, she wouldn't let any of us hold her, she just wanted C.I.

Bejing. That is not the baby's name but that is the name Rebecca gave for her here (and noted that it wasn't her real name). Bejing is a really wonderful kid. And she just wanted C.I.

After lunch she was more curious (she knows all of us) and probably because I had the guitar out and was playing it in the car, she decided she wanted me to hold her.

So Rebecca plans to be gone only this week. There will be guest blogs every night at the usual time or close to it. I'm fine with doing it but I don't know if it's just me or what. (If it is, that's fine.) At my site I do jokes so this is fun.

NBC. Monday nights. Heroes.

I didn't watch.

But I did catch it on Hulu today.

I hadn't watched most of this season because it just sucks, sucks and sucks.

So we Claire being terrorized and pressured by Sylar. The only strong woman and she was stuck playing damsel in distress. We got way too many scenes with Carnie Barker. I hate that man, the new villain. There was way too much him. I ended up skipping his scenes after the first half of the show because he was so boring.

Then you've got Hiro on trial -- in his head. That's just nonsense. "OH, I shouldn't have done that!" Right and now you are forgiven, Hiro!

We all know that's how it's going to go.

The show used to mean something.

Now it's just so damn dull. My mom watches and she says it's like every day is Tuesday or Thursday. I didn't get it. She said Tuesdays and Thursdays were always the slow days on the soap operas and they'd have all the minor characters you didn't care about on those days.

Read my buddy Mike tonight (and make sure to read him from yesterday). I know he's doing cartwheels. :D (as he would say). Okay, I gotta call Cedric so we can work on our joint-post for tonight.

Let's close with C.I.'s ''Iraq snapshot:''

Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, barring political candidates in Iraq continues, one of the ones doing the barring is running for office, the Iraq Inquiry continues in London and the war (a witness insists) was what Americans wanted, and more (including more delusions from the Iraq Inquiry). Starting with Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq which began broadcasting its latest episode Friday night. Jassim al-Azzawi's guests were Mustafa al-Hiti, Adnan Pachachi and Abdul-Hadi al-Hassari -- all members of Iraq's Parliament -- while the topic was the banning of political parties and candidates in Iraq. Jassim al-Azzawi: Mustafa al-Hiti, I would like to start with you. This latest crisis has two dimensions: a political and a legal one. Let's start with the legal one. The Constitution established the Commission of Justice and Accountability but Parliament per se did not sanction it, did not authorize it, did not vote even on the members. So to what extent its decision is legal and binding? MP Mustafa al-Hiti: It is clear, as you say, there is no member of the committee, I mean Parliament denied all of them and if they said then ''we can go back for the old committee, the Ba'athification,' it is not. In fact there isn't any committee. And I will be very happy if anybody from your guests will tell me the names of the committee if there is any. As far as I understand, long time ago, during the time of [Paul] Bremer there was a committee of up to ten members from the governorate council and no one of them -- Jalal Talabani, [Masoud] Barzani [Ibrahim abd al-Karim Hamzah al-Ashaiqir], al-Jaafari, all of them were committee member. They are out by now. So I don't think there is any legal background for the committee to work now. Jassim al-Azzawi: Adnan Pachachi, this commission -- which inherited the de-Ba'athification -- the infamous commission established by Paul Bremer -- and the members, they just moved from the old de-Ba'athification Commission to this new Accountability and Justice Commission. Is this legal? MP Adnan Pachachi: Well there is a law which has been adopted by Parliament and signed by the presidency council, The Law of Accountability & Justice, and, under this law, a commission or a group of seven is supposed to be elected by Parliament and to replace the de-Ba'athification Commission. When the names were proposed by the government, the Parliament did not give its assent and agreement to all the names which means there is now no commission under The Law of Accountability & Justice. But I think there has been an explanation which is, I think, rather dubious and open to question that in the absence of a commission under the present law, we can use the former commission of de-Ba'athification. But you know the most important thing is not the legal situation or the legal problem. But I think this was an ill conceived decision which may have very serious effects on the whole democratic process in Iraq. And we have to make sure that this democratic process must succeed because there is no other option for the people of Iraq except democracy. Jassim al-Azzawi: I will come to the impact of that, Adnan Pachachi, of that decision. But let me engage Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani. You heard the two gentlemen. The committee itself is not legally sanctioned and consequently all decisions emenating from this commission will be null and void. MP Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: Thank you for your question. Actually the gentlemen have -- Mr. Adnan and Mr. Mustafa al-Hiti explained, the source and root of this commission is come from the Constitution. The Constitution is very obvious and explicit in saying that the people who be barred from taking place in the political process. If they find them legally binded to the Ba'athist Party, that didn't mean if we didn't pass the names, the law is not there. The law is there and binded. People who didn't belive in democracy, they didn't believe in civilized and cast a vote and didn't believe in taking part and building a new Iraq, they, by the Constitution, have no right to be part of the true process unless they reform. They haven't shown any reformation and they haven't shown any repetence, they haven't shown any remorse. Jassim al-Azzawi: Yes. MP Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: So we have no option except to implement by the commitee eivdence of are they really binded to the Ba'athists, are they supportive o fthe Ba'athists. MP Mustafa al-Hiti: I want you to really answer me about this equation. Do we really have a council for the commision? By now? Even the old one. And who is the names, how many of them? Who is taking the decision? How much votes you need to pause the decision in order to be executed by the others in the de-Ba'athification? Do we have any people now? How many of them? There is -- what you call in the formula, in the structure of the commission the high council -- who take the decision -- and the other who is the execution. Ali Faisal al-Lami is one of the execution men who will receive the information or the decision from the committee and pass it down there and he should pass it according to the rules and according to the Constitution 2005. So I want really to ask you and please answer me for my information and the information of the people, do we have a committee? Really the old one? And how many of them? MP Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: As you know if we don't really abolish a law, the previous law is still valid by its own so de-Ba'athification law under Ahmed Chalabi was really the head of de-Ba'athification was really the de-Ba'athification for accountablity. We tried to nominate certain people as everybody know. We fail to pass them MP Mustafa al-Hiti: Yes, I agree with you -- MP Abdul-Hadi al-Hassani: But many of them are still there. This doesn't mean -- MP Mustafa al-Hiti: But just Ahmed Chalabi, just Ahmed Chalabi take the decision -- Jassim al-Azzawi: It is obvious to me, Dr. Adnan, by the spirited discussion of the two gentlemen that this crisis has to be resolved one way or another and it was no accident that Parliament has established a committee that consists of seven judges in order to look into the legality of the decision by the commission. Will that go forward? MP Adnan Pachachi: Yes, the Parliament has already agreed to the appointment of these seven judges who are all members of the appeal court and they will look into all claims by those who have been disqualified from joining the -- from being members -- from being candidates for Parliamentary elections. So I think those who have been -- have been included in the list, I understand there are about 500 of them at present -- which may become even more later on. They'll be able to lodge an appeal with these seven judges who will have to decide on the matter as expeditiously as possible. Ali Faisal al-Lami was mentioned above. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) noted Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) noted Ali Faisal al-Lami yesterday, "Far from dissipating, the political turmoil caused by the accountability commission -- a little-known government agency headed by an official who until August was in an American prison on charges of orchestrating a 2008 bombing in Baghdad that killed two American embassy workers, two American soldiers and six Iraqis -- only worsened over the weekend." But others are noting al-Lami as well. Leila Fadel and Ernesto London (Washington Post) note, "The committee that announced the disbarments is known as the Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice. Its chairman, Chalabi, is an erstwhile Pentagon and CIA ally who played a crucial role in the run-up to the invasion. He's fallen out of favor, and most U.S. officials now call him an Iranian agent. Chalabi's deputy on the commission, Lami, spent nearly a year in U.S. custody after being implicated in the bombing of a Sadr City government building that killed two American soldiers and two U.S. Embassy employees. He has denied involvement in the attack and claims that U.S. interrogators tortured him." For example, al-Lami who is determing who is eligible to run and who isn't? He's running for public office. Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) explains: How can the Watani list be so confident and go ahead with the publication of its candidate lists even before the IHEC has formally approved them? The explanation is very simple, and is contained in the Watani lists themselves: Its candidate number twenty-four in Baghdad is named Ali Faysal al-Lami and belongs to the Iraqi National Congress headed by Ahmed Chalabi. Sounds familiar? Yes, that's right, Lami is the director of the accountability and justice board that recently moved to bar several hundred candidates from taking part in the elections. No resistance was offered, and today no one in Iraq seems to be making a big point of the fact that he himself is a candidate in the elections! Little wonder, then, that the Watani leaders seem confident about proceeding with the release of their list: It is they who effectively control the vetting process for the entire elections process. They enjoy full support in this from Iran; meanwhile their leaders are being feted in Washington, where Adil Abd al-Mahdi has just been visiting. Andrew Lee Butters (Time magazine) observes that the "the move damages the fragile reconciliation process between Sunni and Shi'ite factions, but it also throws the country's democratic process into disarray just as a landmark election is scheduled to take place a few weeks from now." J. Scott Carpenter and Michael Knights' "Iraq's Politics of Fear" (Foreign Policy): The ban will mainly affect candidates from the Iraqiyya coalition, a cross-sectarian alliance dominated by secular nationalists and led by Iyad Alllawi, the first Iraqi prime minister of the post-Saddam era. Saleh Mutlaq, one of the three most senior leaders in the coalition, was among the candidates struck from the ballot -- along with all candidates from his party, the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue. Wathab Shakir, the Sunni Arab head of the national reconciliation committee, was also banned, alongside numerous candidates of the Unity of Iraq coalition, another cross-sectarian nationalist alliance. Even if the decision is overturned, damage has already been done. The exclusion of Sunni Arab candidates has coincided with other factors that are reducing public confidence in the success of the elections. Al Qaeda in Iraq continues to plan and undertake mass casualty attacks against government and civilian targets, fueling sectarian distrust and the risk of heavy-handed responses by the predominantly Shiite security force in Baghdad. On Jan. 12, all movement in Baghdad was abruptly curtailed as the city went into lockdown as a result of a newly-foiled terrorist plot against key ministries. The reaction to this incident -- pervasive rumors concerning an attempted neo-Baathist military coup -- was significant. The rumors were magnified by various military parades and U.S. overflights that attended the Iraqi Armed Forces anniversary, which were misconstrued by a wary Baghdad populace. By manipulating well-justified cultural and historical fears, the Shiite sectarian parties have also stoked fears of a "Baathist return" as part of their election strategy. These concerns have not been effectively assuaged by the United States and its allies. For example, there was insufficient explanation following the Jan. 8 statement by John Jenkins, the British ambassador to Iraq, warning of a future coup. Once upon a time, 2007, the White House came up with a list of benchmarks and Nouri al-Maliki agreed to them. Among those benchmarks were "Reversal of de-Ba'athification laws." How'd that work out? People need to pay attention to the benchmarks because some members of the do-nothing Congress think they can vote for the continued Afghanistan War by attaching benchmarks and proving their anti-war cred. Congress said in 2007 and 2008 that they would hold the administration to account with benchmarks. They never did. If they had, maybe what's going on right now in Iraq -- the purging of Sunnis -- wouldn't be happening. And at some point, maybe someone will wonder why the US even bothers to have an ambassador to Iraq when he is so totally ineffective. At what point has Chris Hill not been caught off guard, not been playing catch up? That's what happens when someone with no experience in the region is made the ambassador. Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) states, "As the disqualification of some 500 leading Iraqi politicians on the grounds of alleged ties to the Baath Party is continuing to roil Iraqi politics, Arab papers today report that both U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill and Vice President Joseph Biden have been intervening with Iraqi officials in an attempt to find a way to walk back the disastrous decision -- perhaps by postponing the implementation of the committee's decisions until after the election. The commission in turn is complaining about foreign interference, while Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki broke his silence by calling to 'not politicize' the process (a bit late for that, no?) and some Iraqi outlets are screaming about alleged American threats. There is still a chance that the appeals process could provide an exit strategy, but this doesn't seem hugely likely at this point; the final list of those disqualified is set to be released tomorrow." Which really means bi-polar and manic depressive Chris Hill is having yet another episode and Biden's got to play adult. One of the political rivals Nouri is attempting to silence is Saleh al-Mutlaq. Nada Bakri (New York Times) profiles al-Mutlaq here. In today's reported violence, a rocket was launched on the Green Zone, Reuters reports. Turning to London where the Iraq Inquiry is in the midst of a busy week. Yesterday they heard from Tony Blair's Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell and today they heard from Sec of Defence (2001-2005) Geoffrey Hoon. The rest of the week, they will hear from: Mark Lyall-Grant (Director General Political, FCO, 2007 - 2009), David Omand (Permanent Secretary Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, 2002 - 2005), Jack Straw (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 2001 - 2006), Suma Chakrabarti (Permanent Secretary, DFID, 2002 - 2007) and Nicholas Macpherson (Permanent Secretary, HMT, 2006 - 2009). Before getting to hearings, BBC News reports over "3,000 people have applied for seats at Tony Blair's appearance before the Iraq Inquiry. The inquiry, which has 60 seats" will raffle or lotto (no charge) them and has set up a room with additional seating (total of 1,400 seats will be made available). Jonathan Powell appeared before the committee yesterday (link goes to video and transcript options) and insisted there was no blood oath signed in Crawford, Texas by Bully Boy Bush and Tony Blair. Whether or not they just became spit brother (spit on the palms and then shake) remains an unknown. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) takes on Powell's fluff here. David Hughes (Telegraph of London) offers this evaluation of Powell's appearance: "Well, who'd have thought it? Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, has told the Chilcot inquiry that 'when our forces went in, we were absolutely amazed to discover there weren't any weapons of mass destruction.' Bet you could have knocked them all down with a feather. I can just picture them all --Blair, Powell, Alastair Campbell, Sir John Scarlett -- sitting around in the PM's office scratching their heads in complete and utter bewilderment." Looking like a more emaciated John F. Burns (New York Times' London correspondent), Powell scowleded and furrowed his brow throughout his testimony -- apparently in the hopes that such extreme and 'heavy' facial expressions would add gravitas to his facile statements. How facile? Have you seen the episode of Seth MacFarlane's Family Guy where Lois runs for mayor? And the easy answers she tosses out? And her 9/11 changed everything? Jonathan Powell declared (more than once), "Well, I think 9/11 changed everything for the United States." He offered that on September 12, 2001, Tony Blair and Bully Boy were phone buddies and Bush brought up Iraq during that phone call. Other phone buddies were David Manning and his American counterpart Condi Rice. December, January and, as late as February 14th, Rice, Powell believes, assured Manning that the US had no "concrete" plans for Iraq. Jonathan Powell: So, really, I think it was February and March that they started to get into more concrete plans. Committee Member Usha Prashar: Concrete plans for what? Jonathanon Powell: For considering how they would actually deal with Iraq. You remember there was the State of the Union speech in which he talked about the Axis of Evil, and, again, David spoke to Condi Rice on 14 February to make sure the Americans would not plunge into any plans before the Prime Minister met the President at Crawford and received an assurance that they wouldn't. The first face-to-face encounter we had on this was with Vice-President Dick Cheney, who came to Number 10 on 1 March 2002. He was on his way for a Middle East tour and he wanted to discuss Iraq with us before he discussed it with Middle East leaders. The Prime Minister warned him of the law of unintended consequences. If you are going to deal with something like Iraq, you have to think ahead about what might happen and that you do not expect. Committee Member Usha Prashar: What was Dick Cheney's view at the time? What was he proposing? Jonathan Powell: Dick Cheney was proposing to go and consult the Middle East leaders on what should be done in Iraq, to see what their tolerance would be for action. He said at the end of the meeting -- Committee Member Usha Prashar: But the action was about regime change? Jonathan Powell: The action was about -- yes, about replacing Saddam, and, at the end of the meeting, he said that a coalition would be nice, but not essential. Jason Beattie (Daily Mail) emphasizes Powell's admission that there was no proof that WMDs existed and quotes him stating "Intelligence is something that suggests something -- not proves something" as opposed to Tony Blair's September 2002 insistance to the public that there was intelligence demonstrating "beyond doubt" Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) live blogged the hearing. Before moving on to today, we need to note another development. Last week (Tuesday), the Inquiry heard from Alastair Campbell who had been the spokesperson for then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Chris Ames (Iraq Inquiry Digest) noted Sunday that Campbell has now provided a "clarification" for his testimony: He appeared, he said, to be suggesting that the then prime minister could have claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "beyond doubt" even if intelligence chiefs disagreed. "This is clearly not correct," he said in a written memo to the inquiry which had grilled him about the Government's controversial 2002 dossier which was used to justify the invasion. Andrew Gilligan (Telegraph of London) adds: It's just not how a leading professional communicator should be treated, is it? Alastair Campbell tonight faces a demand from the former Lib Dem leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, that he be recalled to the Chilcot inquiry after I spotted that the former Spin King had written to Chilcot, "clarifying" his evidence. Campbell decided he needed a second go at saying what he really meant over an issue which is emerging as a key area of interest for the enquiry. It is the claim, written by him in the WMD dossier, and repeated by Tony Blair, that the "assessed intelligence" had established continued Iraqi WMD production "beyond doubt." But the intelligence, of course, established nothing of the sort, as both Blair and Campbell must have known. Now we move on to today's testimony by Geoffrey Hoon (link goes to video and transcript options -- transcript is over 200 pages). Channel 4 News reports, "As the session started a previously unpublished letter from the then Attorney General was made public, revealing that Lord Goldsmith complained that Mr Hoon had put him in a "difficult position" by claiming Britain would be 'perfectly entitled' to use force against Iraq without a specific United Nations mandate." James Kirkup (Telegraph of London) reports, "Documents released today by Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the war show that Lord Goldsmith wrote to rebuke Goeff Hoon, then the defence secretary, for stating publicly that war could be justified in international law. Mr Hoon made the claim in a television interview on March 24, 2002." Now to the testimony. 200 pages of transcript and damn near nothing worthy of recording. Doubt it? How about when Hoon blamed the Iraq War on 9/11 and Americans reactions to 9/11? Geoffrey Hoon: I was never really persuaded -- I have family and I have lived in America and I have many friends there. I don't think the United Kingdom ever quite grasped the extent of the shock that 9/11 caused to the United States, both to the political system, but also to ordinary people, and I think the Americans became very anxious to avoid being taken by surprise again and looked hard at the kinds of risks that were around. Iraq was one of them, but I would say in the pre-Crawford period, as far as the Ministry of Defence was concerned, it was only one of them. Support for the war in the US, ahead of the March 2003 invasion was not as Hoone portrays it. Maybe it's really past time that the committee insist witnesses testify to that which they, here's the key word, WITNESSED. "Witnessed," hence the term "witness." Hoon's a blustering fool. Check [PDF format warning] questions 43 and 44 of the CBS News - New York Times poll for October 3 - 5, 2002. Question 43 has 63% of respondents stating the United Nations should be given more time for weapons inspectionwhile question 44 has 70% saying Bush should obtain authorization from Congress before starting the Iraq War. Let's move to January 24, 2003 when CBS News reported on the latest poll: "The poll found 63% of Americans want President Bush to find a diplomatic solution. It also found support for military action -- if it becomes necessary -- is still high, but it has slipped from just two months ago -- 64% now compared to 70% last November. What's more, Americans seem to want hard evidence that Iraq is cheating. More than two-thirds (77% to 17%) say if inspectors haven't found a smoking gun, they should keep looking. For the moment, diplomacy is the clearly favored course with regard to Iraq, a feeling that hasn't changed from two weeks ago." After a Conga Line of Media Whores -- all of whom now hide behind Judith Miller -- wrote op-eds insisting Colin Powell's laughable presentation (February 6, 2003) meant 'case closed,' Americans were again polled by CBS and NYT and: "The public is divided on whether the Bush Administration has yet presented enough evidence against Iraq to justify military action right now. 47% say they have, 44% say they still have not." That's pretty much an even split (plus/minus 4% was the margin of error for the poll). Now we can go round and round with the polling of other outlets, it's not going to make Hoon right. He was wrong. He offered testimony that either he knew was wrong or should have. He doesn't know the first thing about popular opinion in the US and he obviously didn't bother to familiarize himself with it before he testified. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Ask Collie Powell and ask him how that blot feels (it's not going away). Hoon's a liar and the committee needs to get some guts and some gumption. It is past time that they call out these witnesses who come before them and offer 'testimony' about things they have no way of knowing and that they did not witness. That's speculation and, pay attention, if all they're doing is gathering speculation, the Inquiry is going to be of little value because you can't use anything from an inquiry (in a later case) that was speculation. But I have a feeling the Inquiry already knows that. Sometimes he offered non-stop speculation -- to paint others. Anything that might make him seem culpable? He pled he was an innocent and unknowing lamb. Ann Treneman (Times of London) boils down the essance of his performance: Geoff Hoon is the man who was never there. He is like Macavity but not as much fun, for there is little of mystery, or indeed cattiness, about the man who was Defence Secretary for six years. Six years! Can it be? Can you be that important and yet be so very unimportant for six long years? When I say that he wasn't there, I mean it. He was asked if he was at a crucial meeting at Chequers just before Tony Blair met President Bush in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002. "Actually I wasn't," he noted, "and I haven't been able to establish precisely why." So, after Crawford, where military intervention in Iraq had been discussed, what had the Prime Minister told him? "I don't think he told me anything directly. I saw a record of the meeting." So did he know that Mr Blair was writing little billets-doux to George saying: "I'll be there for you"? Mr Hoon said he did not and seemed puzzled why anyone should ask such a question. Emma Albercici (Australia's ABC) emphasizes Hoon's claim that he warned Blair that Iran was what needed to be focused on and his claim that the British military suffers today due to cuts the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown made in 2003 when Brown was chancellor. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) covers the military aspect. Iain Martin (Wall St. Journal) offers a look at Geoff Hoon the person (as opposed to the buffoon). Glen Oglaza live blogged the hearing for Sky News and he notes Jack Straw's appearance on Thursday is expected to be a media event. Sunday, Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports on a letter Straw wrote Blair ten days before Blair met with Bush at the latter's Crawford ranch (April 2002): "Jack Straw privately warned Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq was legally dubious, questioned what such action would achieve, and challenged US claims about the threat from Saddam Hussein, it was revealed today ." In the US, Phyllis Bennis (ZNet) notes: As for the wars - while the Obama administration is so far fulfilling the letter, if not the spirit, of the Bush-negotiated withdrawal plan from Iraq, we are already hearing from Secretary of Defense Gates and others that there are talks already underway to insure that U.S. troops remain in Iraq even after the end of 2011, supposedly the date for the "final" withdrawal of "all" U.S. troops from that country. The Afghanistan war is escalating, and there are new drone strikes in Pakistan. And now, Yemen. The UN has just reported that civilian casualties in Afghanistan were higher in 2009 than any earlier year of the U.S. war. This seems to be the Obama-as-president version of the Obama-as-candidate promise to not only end the war in Iraq, but "end the mindset that leads to war." IPS just issued its one-year report card for Obama and his administration. We gave him a barely passing C-minus. And the lowest grades were those in war and peace. We have a lot of work to do. Independent journalist David Bacon reports on the education of K through 4th grade students: http://dbacon.igc.org/Students/reading00a.htm http://dbacon.igc.org/Students/reading00b.htm http://dbacon.igc.org/Students/reading00c.htm David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which just won the CLR James Award. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST). iraq al jazeera inside iraq jasim al-azzawi the new york times nada bakri steven lee myers the washington post ernesto londono leila fadel time magazine andrew lee butters foreign policy j. scott carpenter michael knights the daily mirror jason beattie the times of london nico hines the telegraph of london james kirkup the guardian andrew sparrow iraq inquiry blogger sky news miranda richardson chris ames david bacon phyllis bennis