Manning insists that the sudden collapse of the US-trained and funded Iraqi army and the descent of the country toward a full-blown sectarian civil war only demonstrate that the concerns that motivated him to pass some 700,000 secret documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as US foreign policy skullduggery around the globe to WikiLeaks “have not been resolved.”
Breaking the wall of secrecy and misinformation maintained by the government and the media provoked the wrath of the US ruling establishment. The soldier and former intelligence analyst is now serving a 35-year prison term. In April, an army general rejected a motion for clemency.
Manning examines the US reaction to the 2010 election of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who had been installed by the US occupation four years earlier. The American press, the imprisoned soldier recalls, “was flooded with stories declaring the elections a success,” aimed at creating the image of the US war having “succeeded in creating a stable and democratic Iraq.”
During this same period, he writes, he and other military analysts in Baghdad were receiving continuous reports of “a brutal crackdown of political dissidents by Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior and federal police,” acting on behalf of Maliki. Opponents of the US-backed prime minister “were often tortured, or even killed,” he notes.
Manning exposes the direct complicity of the US military in these crimes, reporting that he informed the US officer in command of eastern Baghdad that 15 individuals arrested for publishing a critique of Maliki’s government “had absolutely no ties to terrorism.” The commander responded that “he didn’t need this information; instead, I should assist the federal police in locating more ‘anti-Iraqi’ print shops.”
“I was shocked by our military’s complicity in the corruption of that election. Yet these deeply troubling details flew under the American media’s radar,” he writes.
Chelsea's writing -- though Bill Van Auken obscures this fact -- about events when Barack was president.
Good for Chelsea for continuing to make an impact.
And it is "she," Van Auken, not "he" -- Chelsea is a T in the LGBTQ community. I am an L in that community.
I would not like anyone getting me wrong, I will not get Chelsea wrong. She is a woman and intends to live her life as that.
It is "she," not "he."
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
First an announcement, Iraq is in crises. It's awful on the ground there. Iraqi community members who wish to be out of Iraq are already being supported by me. Any other community members that seek asylum will get the same support. In addition to those, there are Iraqi journalists that I have communicated with for years. And I'm helping those who are seeking asylum as well.
My plate is full.
I can't do any more and serve the people I'm trying to help right now. I've never presented myself as refugee guru. I have helped a number of Iraqis over the years -- especially with regards to the US, the UK and Jordan where I try to call in any favors I have.
In the last five days, 457 Iraqis have contacted this site for help.
They are not community members or anyone I've communicated with before. A few reference being referred to by _____ who was a stringer for US outlets in Iraq. I helped him and his family gladly but that was many years ago and he was one of a handful that year.
Right now, through a miracle, we've gotten a community member and her family out of Iraq and into a European country. A French official (old boyfriend) assisted on opening a dialogue with officials of another European country. That's a window and it is going to close very quickly. While it is open, any community members I can route through there, I will.
To the 457 in the last five days, I can't take you on. I'm sorry.
In part, I don't know you or your story. I can make an effective argument for Iraqis -- community members or journalists -- that I've been in contact with for years. (I would even extend that to ____ of the Sadr bloc and to several with Nouri's State of Law.) If you were added to my list of Iraqis to help, I wouldn't get to you in this calendar year. I've already felt I'm failing community members.
I can't take on anymore people (unless they're community members or Iraqi journalists I've been communicating with for years).
This is a crisis right now and people need help but I'm one person who's already overtaxed on this issue and failing people I've promised I would try to help.
I understand that many people are in danger. I'm so sorry and I apologize that my country, my government, is responsible for the pain and danger so many Iraqis are experiencing now. But I'm already over the number of Iraqis I can help -- and that list is going to get longer as the violence continues -- which is why I said in Friday's round-robin for community members in Iraq who are even just thinking of leaving to let me know now.
If Senator Ted Kennedy were still alive and in functioning health, Iraqis would get the support they need. They wouldn't need advocates on their behalf. But Ted was the one who understood the US' obligation to help Iraqis and, with him gone, no one in Congress has stepped forward to lead on this issue.
It breaks my heart that I'm repeatedly writing or dictating e-mails in the last five days saying I'm sorry but I can't take you on.
But I can't take them on.
I'm already over the limit and there are, sadly, people I'm trying to help that I will most likely not be able to help.
There is a crisis and the world needs to step up.
It's also true that it shouldn't be about who you know. But the Iraqis I know are ones I have an obligation to.
I am sorry but that is how it is.
If you and I don't have some form of a relationship, you are wasting your time contacting me to request help. I am over committed as it is and I am aware that, the worse it gets in Iraq, the more the list I'm working will increase. I'm going to fail so many but I will try my hardest for those I know. But if I take on others as well, I'm going to fail everyone. I'm sorry.
I put this at the top because it's a serious issue, because those who I don't know need to be focusing their efforts on other sources and because the world needs to grasp -- no ones paying attention -- that Iraq is in the midst of another refugee crisis. This time, Syria really isn't an option. NINA reports today that "hundreds" of Syrian refugees are fleeing Iraq and returning to Syria due to the violence in Iraq.
The violence in Iraq continues, Martin Chulov, Dan Roberts and Patrick Wintour (Guardian) report:
Iraqi government forces fought off jihadi rebel forces north of Baghdad on Tuesday amid signs from the US that the Obama administration is hesitating before being drawn into a new war.
Heavy clashes were reported from Baquba after it was taken over by fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis), and in Baghdad eight people were killed by a suicide bomber. Iranian-backed militiamen were out in force in Shia areas of the capital in an attempt to assure residents that they have a highly volatile situation under control.
Nouri never takes the blame for his failures. Today, he's decided to blame commanders in the military. All Iraq News reports:
Prime Minister General Commander of the Armed Forces Nouri al-Maliki decided on Tuesday to dismiss Nineveh operations commander Lt. Gen. Mahdi al-Gharrawi and a number of other military leaders from office, because failure and leaving their positions and not carrying out their duties as required.
A statement by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces said that al-Maliki decided to dismiss Lt. Gen. Mahdi Gharrawi commander of Nineveh operations and his deputy, Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Al Handhal and his chief of staff, Brigadier General Hassan Abdul Razzaq, from office.
1He added that it is decided also to dismiss Brigadier General Hedayat Abdel-Karim Commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, and hand over him to the military court.
AFP notes, "The dismissals came after soldiers and police fled en masse as insurgents swept into Nineveh's capital Mosul, a city of two million people, abandoning their vehicles and uniforms."
Things are changing very quickly, from minute to minute even, with regards to Iraq. Let's not bury the KRG but note near the top of the snapshot what's going on there. Gnomes National News Service reports, "In a statement that could have a dramatic impact on regional politics in the Middle East, a spokesman for Turkey’s ruling party recently told a Kurdish media outlet that the Kurds in Iraq have the right to self-determination. The statement has been relatively overlooked so far, but could signal a shift in policy as Turkey has long been a principal opponent of Kurdish independence, which would mean a partitioning of Iraq." This would be a major shift and, if the attitude and sentiment is genuine and holds, a long way towards achieving what Kurds have long sought in the region. Staying with the topic of Turkey, Daily Sabah reports:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan yesterday accused his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri al-Maliki, of failing to protect the Turkish consulate in Mosul and leaving the Turkmen population defenseless in front of ISIS's onslaught.
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at his party's group meeting yesterday panned the government of Iraq for failing to provide security for the staff at the Turkish Consulate as well as the 31 Turkish truck drivers who were abducted by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS).
We'll come back to today in a moment. However, due to the crisis, we've focused on violence and cities fallen and other things. I stated here last week that we'd get to a hearing at some point. Let's do that now before I forget.
It was last Wednesday when US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He was not there to testify about Iraq. No, he was present because Barack has nominated him to be the next US Ambassador to Egypt.
Iraq is in turmoil and Barack's trying to pull the Ambassador out and bring in a new one.
What Barack has offered is an ever changing Ambassador to Iraq.
Chris Hill was an utter failure. We noted he would be before he was confirmed. A simple look at his personnel file was all anyone needed to grasp the failure Hill would be. This was who Barack went with for his first Ambassador to Iraq. After Hill's failures were too big to ignore, Barack then nominated James Jeffrey. Like Hill, Jeffrey was confirmed. Unlike Hill, Jeffrey wasn't a non-stop embarrassment in the post. Barack then nominated I'll-stick-my-cock-in-anything Brett McGurk to be the next Ambassador. He withdrew his nomination when his e-mails about blue balls only further made his nomination seem like a joke. Then Barack nominated Beecroft.
And now he's moving Beecroft to Egypt and has nominated Stuart E. Jones to be Ambassador to Iraq. Jones currently serves as the US Ambassador to Jordan.
Barack is currently in the sixth year of his presidency. Jones is Barack's fifth nominee to be Ambassador to Iraq. Not only does that not instill confidence, it also demonstrates a lack of vision and a lack of consistency in the US government's dealings with Iraq.
In his prepared remarks, Jones noted:
Mr. Chairman, I am both humbled and thrilled to have the opportunity to serve as Chief of Mission at American Embassy Baghdad, one of our largest and most complex diplomatic missions. I had the honor of serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad. I also served as the Governorate Coordinator in Ramadi, in Anbar Province under the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004. Later I was Director for Iraq Affairs on the National Security Council staff here in Washington. These jobs have helped me prepare for the complexity and challenges of the assignment ahead. We are all familiar with the history of Iraq's past decade. It is impossible to serve in Iraq without recalling and honoring the sacrifice and achievement of our U.S. servicemen and women and civilians. More than 4,000 Americans lost their lives to give the Iraqi people a chance at a better future. Today we are committed to helping build a new Iraq, which has moved beyond the isolation and oppression of its past, with secure borders, strong democratic institutions, and where all citizens benefit from its abundant resources.
And that contained the first evidence that Jones isn't up for the job.
I'm sick of these nominees Barack keeps offering who do not value life. I'm tired of it, their work demonstrates that if they short cut life at their confirmation hearings, they don't suddenly develop a respect for it later on.
"More than 4,000 Americans lost their lives"?
The number of US military personnel the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4489.
'Well, by Price Is Right showcase showdown rules, Stuart Jones is right! He didn't overbid!'
I guess that's true, but it's also true that this isn't a game show.
He wants to be Ambassador to Iraq. He submits the statement he read out loud to the Committee in writing. And he can't get the number right?
He can -- and does -- provide accurate statistics for suicide bombers. And you should listen to him yack on with oil statistics. But when it comes to how many US military personnel died in Iraq, he goes all soft and fuzzy.
Again, if you're not interested in human life when you're angling for the position, you don't later develop an affinity for it while performing your duties as Ambassador.
Chair Robert Menendez: In Iraq, while political leaders are deal making to form a government, the Iraqi people are not benefiting from their country's increased oil output and the conflict continues to surge in western Iraq as the spillover from Syria has enabled the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to take hold. Clearly, we must continue to support Iraqi security forces but I'm concerned by reports that they have been using barrel bombs in their operations. Serious questions remain unanswered: Iraq's role in Syria, the activities of Iraqi Shi'ite militias fighting with Assad's security forces, the Iranian influence in Iraq and the commitment of the Iraqi government to protect the residents of Camp Liberty until we can conclude a resettlement process.
Barrel bombs? Human Rights Watch noted barrel bombs in their May 27th report:
Iraqi government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today. The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.
Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.
“The government has been firing wildly into Fallujah’s residential neighborhoods for more than four months, and ramped up its attacks in May,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This reckless disregard for civilians is deadly for people caught between government forces and opposition groups.”
Camp Liberty refers to the Ashraf community and they'll be mentioned again in a moment. Menendez is the Committee Chair, Senator Bob Corker is the Ranking Member. Corker noted at the top of the hearing, "Iraq, we're continue to read daily, the devolution that is taking place there. You feel it on the ground. The lack of -- The lack of involvement that we have had in terms of shaping things on the ground is very, very apparent and I know we'll talk about that during Q & A."
Along with Beecroft and Jones, the Committee also heard from Dana Shell Smith who's nominated to be the US Ambassador to Qatar. Our focus is Iraq, we won't be addressing her nomination. We will note she was able to look up frequently as she read her opening remarks because someone took a nomination seriously enough to review their written remarks and probably practice delivering them. Well done, Shell Smith.
By contrast, Jones badly read from his prepared remarks and ran with Brett McGurk's overused buzzwords such as "holistic approach" to Iraq. The bulk of his statements focused on Iraq's oil. Oil, oil, oil.
Chair Robert Menendez: Ambassador Jones, you know, we had Prime Minister Maliki here last year. It was a difficult meeting. I don't know whether or not he will actually, uh, be the prime minister again. I guess by many accounts, he may very well ultimately build the coalition necessary to do that. But, as I said to Ambassador Beecroft as it relates to our relationship with the Egyptian government, in this case, the Iraqis must understand that the use of barrel bombs, that the overflights and the transiting of airspace by Iran sending troops and military equipment into Syria with impunity, and the lives of the people at Camp Liberty until they are resettled is going to be part of what this Committee judges as it relates to future arm sales, as it relates to our relationship. So I would like to hear from you. We understand the importance, we honor the lives of those who were lost in pursuit of a more democratic Iraq from the United States and an enormous national treasure. But there has to be some change in the course of events here including having a government that is more inclusive, in which every Sunnis isn't an 'enemy' of the state. There are many Sunnis who want to be part of Iraq as a nation but they have to be included as well. Can you tell me about what you'll be messaging there as it relates to these issues?
Ambassador Stuart Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me take your last point first which is, uh, of course, we completely agree, for Iraq to succeed, the different el -- the different political elements, the sectarian groups need to come together and create a shared vision. They need to create a shared vision for their national security, they need to pull together to address the terrorist threat posed by ISIL and, uh, although the news from Mosul is very bad, I think one, uh, positive aspect of this may be that the groups are indeed coming together to address this challenge. At least we're seeing signs of that in the last 24 hours. In regards to the use of barrel bombs, the use of barrel bombs is completely unacceptable. It's an indiscriminate weapon against civilians and it cannot be tolerated. This is something that my colleague, Steve Beecroft has raised with the senior levels of the Iraqi government. There has been an instruction handed down through the military that barrel bombs will not be used. And we've also heard from military contacts that they recognize that instruction. In regards to the overflights, this is an issue that remains a problem. We are concerned that Iran is supplying the Bashar regime with overflights over Iraq. This is something that we would like to see the Iraqis stop. And this is, again, something that we have raised at the most senior levels. And I will continue to do that and look for ways to find a way to stop -- to stop this traffic. Uhm, on the issue of Camp Liberty, uhm, I know this is an issue of particular concern and it's a very important issue. When I was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq in 2010 and 2011, uhm, we witnessed a terrible attack on Camp Ashraf in which many people were killed and others were wounded. I think the steps that we've taken since then have been quite positive, moving the residents of Ashraf to Camp Liberty has improved their security. The government of Iraq has also responded to our requests and others requests to improve the security around Camp Liberty and that's encouraging. But the solution, of course, is to remove the members of Mojahedin-e-Khalq from Iraq and get them to a safer place. They will not be safe until they are outside of Iraq and, uh-uhm, our government is taking the lead on this. The Special Envoy for the Secretary [of State John Kerry], Jonathan Weiner, is meeting with representatives of countries around the world and asking them to take members of the Mojahedin-e-Khalq. And we also now have a team in Baghdad to interview members to see -- working towards receiving a group of those here in the United States. And I think this is the best solution that we can present.
Chair Robert Menendez: Well two final points so that you're crystal clear. I don't want to hear Iraq tell us that we need actionable intelligence. When we have it, we'll provide it. But they have a responsibility in doing random surveillance of over flights. And that is an excuse that is unacceptable. Secondly, I agree with you that resettlement of the MEK is the ultimate solution. I hope -- and I have urged the State Department to consider bringing some of them to the United States as an example to the rest of the world that we're asking to seek resettlement to do so. But in the interim, I hold the prime minister responsible for the lives of those individuals at the Camp.
Ideally, we'll note more from the hearing in tomorrow's snapshot. For now, we'll move to an exchange with the Ranking Member.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: Ambassador Jones, you know, I've visited Ambassador Beecroft and been to Iraq -- like many of us [on the Committee] many times. Today, when you're there, unlike Jordan where you still are, it feels like a vacant, deserted lot, relative to our emphasis on it. It feels like we've checked the box and moved on, that we've really lost influence. That's, I think, everybody acknowledges that. That we really haven't been robust in all levels relative to our efforts there. We had a great conversation yesterday and we talked a little bit about the lack of a SOFA [Status Of Forces Agreement] and the fact that our troops are gone and that's contributed to the lack of influence in a pretty big way. You've had two tours there. And I mentioned I was going to bring this up just to kind of set the record straight. Many of us have felt -- and maybe after you say what you say -- may still feel that one of the reasons that Iraq is the way that it is is that we, you know, didn't leave behind some presence and that we actually, this was actually what the administration wanted to occur. You have a very different perspective on that and I thought, don't take too long, if you will, but I thought it would be good for you to share your thoughts relative to why we do not have a presence in Iraq today.
Ambassador Stuart Jones: As you said, we spoke about this yesterday. My view on this is that, uhm, is that the Iraqi people really did not come together and ask us to stay in a way that made it possible for us to stay. And it's as simple as that. No secr -- No major Iraqi leaders -- with the exception of the Kurds -- came forward and invited us to stay in a public matter. And they didn't go on television. Uhm, we obviously needed to have a Status Of Forces Agreement for the security of our troops and the Iraqis didn't meet us half way on that. So I think that this was the result of-of-of that negotiation and that's how it ended.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: And so, from your perspective, the fact that we have no presence there and, candidly, much less influence, uh, is a result really of just the Iraqi people not wanting it to be that way?
Ambassador Stuart Jones: Yes, sir.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: That's interesting and a very different perspective than I've heard from most but I appreciate your sharing that. Uhm, and I would agree with the Chairman. We had a pretty terse meeting with Maliki here. I'd had one on the ground, just before that. [Menendez, Corker and others met with Nouri in the last week of October of last year.] He's obviously not been a good prime minister. He has not done a good job of reaching out to the Sunni population which has caused them to be more receptive to al Qaeda efforts. Uh, obviously the Syrian conflict -- I know there's analysis today saying that that's really not having an impact on Iraq -- I believe it's having a major impact on Iraq. But with our diminished status in Iraq and the fact that we used to play shuttle diplomacy, if you will, between the Sunnis and Shia and causing that to work in a better way -- I think you did that before in your previous capacity -- how do you view your role there going there now under the circumstances that we have and trying to mitigate some of the problems that exist between the -- especially the Shia and the Sunni.
Ambassador Stuart Jones: Yeah, uhm, well I think I'm blessed to be following in the footsteps of Steve Beecroft. I think Steve has established very good relations with all of the groups in Iraq and I think this is a role that we should continue to play -- brokering, using our good offices to broker solutions to the myriad problems that face -- that face Iraq. I think we've made great progress in recent months in trying to broker an arrangement by which the hydrocarbon, uhm-uh, law could be finalized and the relations between Kurdistan -- the Kurdish Regional Government and Baghdad could resolve their problems. I think we also could find ways to support a process of political conciliation between some Shi'ite, uh, Sunni groups and, uh, and the government. This is the role that the United States has played in Iraq in the last ten years and I certainly hope to continue that role. I think we do have significant influence because of our, uh, continuing presence in the commercial and the petroleum sector as well as continuing presence in the military sector though, obviously, not with troops on the ground.
Are you feeling it for the nominee?
He's well liked in the State Dept and is considered to have shown real skill and talent in Jordan. But when he says something like "great progress in recent months" on the hydrocarbon issue? Well it may seem that way to him. To others, probably not.
I've been hearing that claim in Congressional hearings since 2006.
And there's been no law passed.
And, more importantly, nothing's happening now. Nor will it happen.
Over the weekend, Parliament held what was their last session.
So you'll have a new Parliament at some point. (In 2010, it took over 8 months after the parliamentary election for Parliament to have a real session and name a president and Speaker of Parliament and prime minister-designate.) And the process of discussing a law will start all over. As it repeatedly has. And Stuart Jones -- he will be confirmed (and that's not a complaint, he's better than Hill and most think he'll be better than Jeffrey) -- will become the latest Sisyphus to start each day pushing the same rock up the hill.
Let's change topics to grab another issue. Is it dementia or drunkeness? Only his bartender knows for sure. Yes, we're talking Tom Hayden who, at the age of 74, seems bound and determined to disgrace himself one last time.
Monday, the first SDS sell-out wanted to remind people of how craven he could be with a lousy column.
It's bad enough his opening paragraph includes this garbage:
American activist anti-war networks are perfectly right in standing against renewed US intervention in Iraq. So far Obama has been forced by events to send some 275 US troops for embassy protection, while a decision on bombing is being mulled.
Events "forced" Barack to do that.
Is Barack a helpless maiden in one of the Child ballads? Is he "Mary Hamilton"?
Last night there were four Marys
Tonight there'll be but three
There was Mary Beaton and Mary Seton
And Mary Carmichael and me.
Barack was "forced" -- a passive figure in history, bent by events and ruled by circumstance?
That sounds like a really weak president.
Barack makes choices and makes them of his own accord. Don't strip him of his power.
This notion that a sitting president is weak and unable to take stands? I'm wondering if skin color isn't effecting these repeated efforts to strip Barack of his own agency, of his own power? It seems a lot of Tom Haydens are uncomfortable with seeing a person of color make their own decisions. Tom seems much more comfortable portraying a person of color as a victim of events.
And Tom's always been a little bitch. There's a reason his tired ass was kicked out of the commune, a reason he had to change his name and go underground. The government? Hell no. Tom pissed off the New Left with his constant whoring, his constant lying and his inability to make a coherent argument. All of this happened during Vietnam.
Now Tom goes whoring again and writes:
Some positions of the anti-Obama Left are too extreme to be helpful. For example, there are many in the anti-war movement who refused to believe that the US actually withdrew its troops from Iraq. This notion was meant to refute and discredit any notion that Obama had "ended" the war. Now that the raging debate is over whether to send US troops back, it's hard to argue that they are secretly still there.
If we could, we'd kick him off the online commune right now. And, as was the case in Berkeley, things would improve significantly the minute Tom was forced out.
A few e-mails wanted to know why I wasn't opening with the 275 US troops being sent into Iraq.
Because the US never withdrew.
Am I unhelpful? I think blackmailing a woman, threatening her to steal her money is "unhelpful." Telling the truth? It's never unhelpful.
December 2011 saw a drawdown of US troops. The Defense Dept used that term and not "withdrawal." The press -- most of whom withdrew by the end of 2008 -- used the term "withdrawal." Or, most of them did. A few people actually provided real reporting. In December 2011, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC).
MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?
AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
So, no, Tom, there was no withdrawal. US troops remained in Iraq. You only care about cash, so think of the troops as dollars Jane Fonda earned. Yes, you bilked her out of millions in the property settlement with your threats of making public allegations; however, Jane still had millions after you drove your beat up, getaway car away from the robbery.
In addition, over 15,000 troops were stationed in Kuwait following the drawdown.
Now this morning I noted Tom was humiliating himself again.
Poor old drunk or poor old crazy, I don't know. Thing is, I don't care. I don't like liars.
Let's drop back to October 13, 2012 and pull from an "I Hate The War" entry I did:
Tuesday, September 26th, I both called out Tom Hayden and gave him credit. He had found an important sentence in a report on Syria in the New York Times (by Tim Arango) and blogged about it at The Nation. He had ignored an even more important sentence. I called him out. As is obvious in that entry, I really would have preferred not to. I do give him credit for highlighting the fact that a Special-Ops brigade has just been sent back into Iraq. Ted Koppel, however, had already reported in December that Special-Ops would remain in Iraq. In addition, Tom missed Arango's most important sentence -- a point we'd been making for months because it is happening -- the White House is in negotiations with Nouri to send more US troops into Iraq -- back into Iraq. That sentence was right before the one Tom blogged six paragraphs about.
This is news and Tom's failure to find that sentence (it was right next to the one he highlighted) needed to be called out. And I will beat up on Tom here as needed. Sadly, it's needed a great deal as he's betrayed everything he either stood for or pretended to stand for. (I have been around Tom for years. I would have said "I know Tom Hayden" at one point in my life but now I wouldn't pretend to know what is real with him and what is fake.)
Tom did not like the above as was made very clear to me. I responded, "Tough s**t."
Now here's what Tim Arango reported for the New York Times:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Caslen is Lt Gen Robert L. Caslen and he's now over West Point.
Worthless Tom Hayden huffed Monday, "For example, there are many in the anti-war movement who refused to believe that the US actually withdrew its troops from Iraq."
I'm sorry you worthless piece of trash, but Ted Koppel's reporting demonstrated that special ops remained and at the end of September 2012, Arango had Caslen on the record stating "a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq".
This is hard for Tom. Like when people made fun of his pockmarks or, when he was with Jane, people would refer to them as beauty (Jane) and the beast (Tom). So Tom would insult Jane, he'd go out of his way to point to other women whose bodies he would say were more attractive. He was a little bitch. At his bitchiest, he liked to repeat a joke he did not think up. It went something like this: 'Try The Peter Fonda Workout. Wake up, roll out of bed, roll a joint, smoke it, call your sister two hours later and beg her for money." Tom found that hilarious. But, thing is, Peter doesn't beg or ask for money. Peter's Easy Rider fortune has carried him throughout life. Unlike Tom, Peter earned his money. Tom, who used to mock Peter, only has money because he was 'feminist' enough to demand half of a woman's earnings. Tom was the definition of a 'kept man.' (And Peter always knew Tom was trash and bad for his sister. Peter was never fooled by Tom Hayden.)
Today, Tom's the definition of a known liar. Tom read Tim Arango's 2012 article -- he even wrote about it. He now wants to pretend it never existed and that it never noted the redeployment of US troops into Iraq.
Which is a good time to note other liars.
Guess who's back?
No, not Slim Shady.
It's United for Peace and Justice. They posted their goodbye note, remember the day after the 2008 election. And then the little whores -- Tom was part of UPFJ -- were no where to be found as people were killed in The Drone War, as people were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, as . . .
Well they're back now.
Yes, the organization filled with political closet cases (many are Socialist, Leslie Cagan is a Communist) that went around smearing Ramsey Clark and A.N.S.W.E.R. is back.
Why are they back?
They offer a rambling say nothing explanation.
The real answer was provided last month in Costa Rica by Medea Benjamin who wanted people to know that things could get really bad after Barack leaves the White House -- she fears the next president might be Hillary "Clinton or a Republican."
So it's time for the usual group of whores to get active. They need the 'peace' outlets to influence Democratic primaries because if they couldn't pose as 'peace activists,' they might have to use political party labels and this crowd runs from "Communist" and "Socialist" -- self-loathing closet cases that put the late Malcolm Forbes to shame.
Tom's the perfect fit for this crowd. Barack's sending a couple of hundred troops into Iraq. Tomorrow, we'll tell you what the media's missing on that story. Today, we just had time to take on demented or drunk Tom Hayden (who was last this embarrassing in the spring of 2008 when he ordered a female intern to do a 'little spin' for the camera -- Tom, that harassment doesn't play these days). Barack is (again) sending US troops into Iraq. ABC News notes, "Under the plan being considered, those 'advisors' could be involved in field operations with Iraqi forces, ABC News' Luis Martinez reported."
Jay Carney is still on the job as White House spokesperson for a little longer. Today, on Air Force One, he was asked about Iraq.
Q After last night’s meeting, what’s the timetable for the President’s decision on Iraq? Can you give us any more insight into that?
MR. CARNEY: The President, as we noted, met with his National Security Council yesterday, late yesterday, to discuss the situation in Iraq. And he will continue to consult with his national security team in the days to come. They will also -- he and his team will continue to consult with members of Congress to share views and discuss possible responses. Those consultations will continue, including closed briefings with a number of committees this week.
As you know, the President directed his national security team to develop a range of options, and that work is ongoing. I think that rather than discuss timetables, I would note that the national security team is preparing options that are part of a comprehensive strategy -- because we have been clear, the President has been clear, that this is not primarily a military challenge. It is evident, of course, that Iraq needs significantly more help to break the momentum of extremist groups and to bolster the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces.
But there is no military solution that will solve Iraq’s problems, which is why we’ve been urgently pressing Iraq’s leaders across the political spectrum to govern in a non-sectarian manner; to promote stability and unity among Iraq’s diverse population; to address the legitimate grievances of Iraq’s Sunni, Kurd and Shia communities; and build and invest in the capacity of Iraq’s security forces.
Along those lines, we welcome the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court’s ratification of the April 30th election results. This is an extremely important step as Iraq undertakes a peaceful transition of power from one elected government to another. With the election results officially ratified, we call on Iraq’s leaders to move forward expeditiously to form an inclusive and representative government that represents the people of Iraq as determined through the democratic and constitutional process.
It’s critical that all political leaders come together without delay to put the interest of the Iraqi people foremost in their negotiations to establish the makeup of a new government.
Leslie Clark (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "As his national security team considers his options -- and insurgents move closer to Baghdad, President Barack Obama will host congressional leaders at the White House on Wednesday to discuss the situation." What's to be done?
I oppose military action, I oppose US troops in Iraq. I oppose military air strikes as well. Washington Post has an article by Craig Whitlock on the problems with strikes and Anna Mulrine (Christian Science Monitor) explores the issue here.
Others feel differently. I called out Fareed Zakaria yesterday and noted that he was capable of so much more. Tom Hayden? Really not capable so we ignore him except when he's doing damage. Click here for Fareed and two guests discussing Iraq today. At Fox News, media critic Howard Kurtz has a piece about Iraq and the media. Ned Parker (Reuters) has a report on Nouri's media appearance today.
the christian science monitor
the washington post
rock center with brian williams