6 women

Today on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), the guests were Lenor Guariguata, Maya Rockeymoore, Dr. Rita Kalyani, Dr. Judith Franklin and Ann Albright. The second hour was Jean Baker.

POLITICO reports that The Daily Caller is having troubles. That link's not to gloat, just because I think it's an interesting article.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Panetta tells Congress negotiaions continue with Iraq, NPR reports on a man accused of killing 5 US soldiers -- but forgets to name the 5 US soldiers -- and more. Here's what the news media isn't telling you because apparently they'd rather be a bunch of guttersnipe gossips. Senator Joe Lieberman: Understood. In your own thinking, since you obviously didn't recommend zero troops after January 1st, what do you think now are the greater risks that we face as a result of the fact that we will have no continuing US military presence in Iraq. General Martin Dempsey: Well some of the things that the -- that the larger military footprint address will now have to be addressed diplomatically and that is some of the things that have come up here today about the, you know, the protection of the small religious communities and so forth, the Arab-Kurd tensions, if you will. But I also want to mention this Office of Security Cooperation will help us ensure that the foreign military sales program, the program of record as we call, it that continues to build the institution of Iraqi security forces, will continue to be addressed. So this isn't a divorce. It might feel that way because the way the numbers have -- the way the Iraqi government came to the decision. But the fact is we will be embedded with them as trainers, not only tactically but also at the institutional level. And I think that's an important way to mitigate the risk that you are talking about. Senator Joe Lieberman: Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st. So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year? Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are. Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations. We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there. But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right. Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq. Senator Joe Lieberman: And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship. A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct? Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct. Senator Joe Lieberman: So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis? Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.' And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions. It's got to be a two-way street. That's from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Can everyone follow that or do we need to prepare flash cards? I grasp that the cess pool of today's 'reporters' -- 'artistes' -- can't tell you the truth. They can't do it because the press is lazy and when they all agree to a narrative, it is hell to get them to ever change it. A bunch of lazy asses and dumb asses in the Mainstream Media decided Barack was withdrawing all US troops from Iraq and bringing them home. Based on? Their own reporting? Hell no. Lazy bastards take stenography, they don't report. Since before that speech, we were explaining there were many options to continuing the war. Since that speech, we've repeatedly explained that negotations did not end, that they were ongoing. But day after day, your MSM wants to tell you that it's over and that blah, blah, blah and 3 out of 4 approve of Barack's plan. What the hell is Barack's plan? It's what he told Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny he planned to do with Iraq -- what he told them in 2008. And back then, we were the only ones to catch it because idiots like Tom Hayden went by the report Gordo and Jeffy did as opposed to the partial transcript that the Times published online. Martha and Shirley tell me that a record number of e-mails came into the public account today from visitors full of apologies for all the nasty things they said about me being a liar and who knows what else. Let me be clear, not only do I not read the bulk of the e-mails to the public account (I try to read as many e-mails as I can from community members to the two private e-mail accounts), it doesn't matter if I do. An insult from a stranger? I don't really care. I'm not that touchy. It's not necessary to me -- and never has been -- to be universally loved. I can actually operate more effectively when I'm up against the opposite emotional spectrum. Nasty e-mails calling me a liar and worse to the public account didn't force me to write, "Negotiations aren't going on! I was wrong! Forgive me! It really is all over!" I could care less. And I've always been aware that when you're dealing with big topics, reactions really aren't about you. So I don't know why visitors are writing the public e-mail account now to apologize. Presumably, you share my outrage over the inability of our press -- we're dealing with Big Media right now -- to tell the damn truth. If indeed that is the case, you need to use that time e-mailing the David S. Clouds (whom Martha and Shirley say you're praising for his report -- read it again and ask yourself why you're praising him for his single-sentence sixth paragraph when that should have been his lede), e-mailing CBS News about their dumb ass survey, etc. You need to be e-mailing and ask them why they are deliberately -- DELIBERATELY -- skewing reality and refusing to inform the American people of what is taking place. I know what's taking place because I have friends in the Congress and friends in the administration and what the MSM press keeps 'reporting' is not what is taking place. If you need forgiveness from me, "I forgive you." Blanket forgiveness, let's move on. Now stop writing the public account to apologize and use that time instead to demand that Big Media tell the damn truth. Look at the SOFA. In today's hearing, over and over, you heard how this official and that official and this and that senator expected -- this is back in 2008 -- that in 2011 it would be extended or replaced. We have that in our archives. The day the White House published the SOFA -- despite it being Thanksgiving -- I went through every bit of it and we shared an analysis here that stands up to this day. The inability of the MSM to get that story right should have led to a huge outcry. But from whom? Panhandle Media? When's the last time Left Media did a damn thing besides beg you for money? And did you not hear that garbage on Antiwar Radio this week with the guy The Nation pays? Or how about the garbage before that with Gareth and Scott? And Scott Horton is right-wing media. If Antiwar Radio won't bother with the truth why the hell would we expect The Progressive, The Nation and the other get-out-the-vote for Barack Obama organs to tell the truth? We live in a sick and disgusting time when it comes to media. Across the board, they have failed us. They have done so repeatedly. Today, when the MSM -- Big Media -- could be correcting the false narrative they broadcast to the American people, they instead focus on the trivia. The news from the hearing is that negotiations go on -- and it's not just that exchange quoted at the top. We can cite other exchanges in the hearing as well. But instead of focusing on that actual news, instead of delivering reality to Americans -- who, point of fact, need to be informed if we're going to have a functioning democracy -- the 'artiste' David S. Clouds want you to know John McCain got testy today. News -- that which is new, novel or effects lives. I'm having a hard time figuring out how John McCain being testy in a committee hearing meets the definition of news. It really doesn't effect our lives. And it's not new or novel to anyone who's attended a hearing he's been present for in the last years. He didn't even have the best moment in what I guess the 'reporters' are calling "Testy Theater." The best moment came when Leon whined -- the most nasally whine, as if he were channeling Jerry Lewis -- and was stopped by a senator. Ava will cover that at Trina's tonight because she covers that senator (and, no, it's not John McCain). The big news was that negotiations continue and will continue. That is big news because it effects lives. It is big news because it is both "new" and "novel" as a result of the press failure to report that this was taking place. But you won't get that. You won't be informed of that. Not as long as you continue to accept this garbage from All Things Media Big and Small. Let's stay with McCain for a moment. As noted before, I don't care for him. (As noted before, I know Cindy McCain and she's a very nice person.) Here's what really news with regards to him. John McCain was right. John McCain was attacked by partisan bloggers from the left. Republican who repeated his comments were trashed from the same group. (Not all left bloggers are partisan bloggers. And if you're late to the party, I'm a Democrat. And way further left than probably most people are.) You had Huffington Posts and other outlets attacking them, calling them crazy. Remember? For what? For making the assertion that US military commanders were opposed to all US troops leaving Iraq. John McCain was right. I guess playing Rona Barrett and going all dishy with "John gave Leon a look and Leon got mad and you know he just was so not going to take that but you will absolutely not believe what they said to each other then!" tires our MSM out so very much that they can't report reality. (Or, hell, maybe it's part of the continued effort to push Barack over the line -- you know that benchmark that he never met as a candidate or since as a president?) When Vet Votes' lil' expert showed up at Huffington Post, we didn't play that game. It didn't matter the right was being attacked so, if we want to be good leftists, we go along or be silent. No, that's not the game we play. We'll play the truth game instead, thank you very much. And we called out that nonsense repeatedly, check the October 27th snapshot for one example. In today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, John McCain (Ranking Member on the Committee) established, in his first round of questions, that US military commanders were not on board with what the press has presented the US is doing in Iraq (pulling all troops). Furthermore, in the second round, Senator Lindsey Graham would establish that this was true of Iraqi military commanders as well. Neither US nor Iraqi were calling for zero forces, both felt that US troops needed to remain in Iraq. From McCain's first round of questioning, here's one portion of that. Senator John McCain: Since you brought up regrettably, General Dempsey, 2003 and 2004. The fact is that you did not support the surge and said that it would fail. Secretary Panetta was part of the Iraq Study Group which recommended withdrawal from Iraq and opposed the surge. And so we're all responsible for the judgments that we make and obviously that effects the crediblity of the judgments that we make now on Iraq. I regret that you had to bring that up, General Dempsey. The fact is that there were some of us who were over there in those years you talked about, in fact, maybe even had other members of their family there and saw that it was failing and that we needed to have the surge and the surge succeeded. And the fact is that we could have given sovereign immunity as we have in other countries to keep our troops there and give them the immunity that they needed. We have other agreements with other countries that guarantee sovereign immunity. The fact is, that every military leader recommended that we have residual forces at minimum of 10,000 and usually around 20,000. That was the recommendations made before this committee by General [Ray] Odierno, recommendations made by General [David] Petraeus, recommendations made by even lower ranking military who had spent, as you mentioned a great amount of time there and did not want to see that service and sacrifice all wasted away because of our inability and lack of desire to reach an agreement with Iraqis. As I said in my opening statement, Iraqis are largely responsible as well. But the fact is that when Senator Lieberman, Senator Graham and I were there the Iraqis were ready to deal. And what was the administration's response? They didn't have a number last May as to our residual force in Iraq. So as things happen in that country, things fell apart. Now can you tell the Committee, General Dempsey, if there was any military commander who recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, no, Senator. None of us recommended that we completely withdraw from Iraq. Senator John McCain: When did we come up with the number of uh troops that we wanted to remain in Iraq? Do you know when that final decision was made as to exact numbers that we wanted? General Martin Dempsey: Uh, it to my knowledge the process started in Augustof [20]10 and, as you know, there was a series of possibilities or options that started at about 16,000 and ended up with about 10[000] and then migrated to 3[000] and then we ended up with [cross talk] -- Senator John McCain: Do you know when the final decision on numbers was reached? General Martin Dempsey: Well the final decision of focusing on the Office of Security Cooperation was based on a conversation between our president and president Maliki. [C.I. note: Nouri al-Maliki is the prime minister of Iraq. He is not the president. Jalal Talabani holds the ceremonial post of president.] Prior to that, I don't know. Senator John McCain: The reason I thnk you don't know because there never was an exact number and missions articulated by our government which would have been a concrete proposal for the Iraqi government. So to say that the Iraqi government didn't want us when they didn't know the number and missions that we wanted as a residual force makes it understandable why we didn't reach an understanding with them. And, as you mentioned, it cascaded down from 20,000 to the ridiculously low number of 3. So, Secretary Panetta, we're now going to have a residual presence in Iraq of 16,000 American Embassy personnel and workers, isn't that correct. If we'd mocked John McCain for his claim, it really would be incumbent upon us to present the above. We didn't mock him. But we include the above -- some of which I disagree strongly with -- because we do care what is true and what is false. McCain -- and GOP presidential nominee wanna-bes like Rick Perry and Mitt Romney -- were correct when they stated that the military leaders did not agree that there should be no US military presence in Iraq. I believe there should be no military presence at all and no huge embassy presences. I can and have argued that position and done so without lying about John McCain or any other idealogical opponent. A lot of people tell pretty lies. It's very good if you want to fit in with the circle-jerk. But if you're looking for reality, it's of no use. You laugh, he said, you think you're immune Go look at your eyes they're full of moon You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you All those pretty lies pretty lies When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies Only pretty lies Just pretty lies -- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album Blue Wally's covering the hearing at Rebecca's site tonight and will note the cost issue. Kat will offer some general impressions of the hearing at her site tonight. We'll be covering the hearing tomorrow -- barring some major Iraq news breaking -- because there were many topics noted in the hearing's first panel that we address here frequently. We may or may not cover the second panel. (The first panel was composed of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsy.) Turning to today's violence in Iraq. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left three people injured, a Qaiyara asault claimed the life of 1 doctor and, dropping back to Sunday night, 1 man was shot dead outside his Jbela home. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three people injured. AP reported this morning that the US military has announced another death in Iraq, this one taking place yesterday "while conducting military operations in central Iraq." AFP quotes an unnamed US military spokesperson stating, "It was a hostile incident." Sean Ferguson whose death made yesterday's news cycle. KSEE 24 News reports the decorated Iraq War veteran was back in Iraq as a contractor for the State Dept and they quote Ralph Jordan speaking on behalf of the fallen's family, "A 29-year-old man whose life has really been unselfishly given. . . . I'm a direct beneficiary of that, everyone is." KFSN (link has text and video) notes, "A memorial service for Army Sergeant Sean Ferguson will be held at the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints on Saturday morning. Friends and family say Ferguson was passionate about his service and fighting for freedom." Meanwhile Carrie Johnson does a bad report for NPR on today's Morning Edition. The US military is holding Ali Mussa Daqduq. Are they going to release him? Are they going to try him in the Iraqi courts? Are they going to try him in a military court? Will they bring him to the US and try him in a civilian court? Johnson notes that Senator Lindsey Graham is among those saying a US civilian trial would be a mistake. Where the report falters is in actual details. He was not, as Johnson states, captured five years ago. It will be five years next March. To say he's accused of the deaths of 5 US soldiers is really kind of tacky. Who are the five? Why aren't you naming them? Here's the US military's release on the January 20, 2007 attack that they are saying Ali Mussa Daqduq is responsible for: Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. Multi-National Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office, Camp Victory APO AE 09342 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RELEASE No. 20070121-01 Jan. 21, 2007 Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center attacked by militia Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO KARBALA, Iraq – The Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC) in Karbala was attacked with grenades, small arms and indirect fires by an illegally armed militia group Jan 20. Five U.S. Soldiers were killed and three wounded while repelling the attack. Initial reporting by some media outlets indicated falsely that the attack was conducted by Coalition forces. "The PJCC is a coordination center where local Iraqi officials, Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces stationed within the center meet to address the security needs of the population," said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, Deputy Commander for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. "A meeting was taking place at the time of the attack to ensure the security of Shiite pilgrims participating in the Ashura commemorations." "The attack on the Karbala Provincial Joint Coordination Center was aimed at Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces working together toward a better future for the citizens of Karbala," said Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, Spokesperson for Multi-National Division-Baghdad. The location has been secured by Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The deceased Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of their next of kin. -30- FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION – BAGHDAD PUBLIC AFFAIRS NCO IN CHARGE, MASTER SGT. DAVID LARSEN BY E-MAIL AT: DAVID.J.LARSEN@US.ARMY.MIL This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; OR BY PHONE AT COMMERCIAL: (914) 822-8174, OR IRAQNA: 011-964-790-192-4675. So that's what the military said in real time. It's a real shame that an NPR report can't add a thing to it all these years later. For example, the accused is apparently the last of those alleged to be responsible for the attack to still be held. Barack Obama released the ringleader. Were I the defense counsel, I would certainly think that was pertinent and belonged in a so-called news report. The five dead also have names. That's pretty pertinent as well. It's shameful that NPR did a report on an attack and couldn't take the time to name the five killed. The US military -- above -- couldn't because the families hadn't all been notified on January 21, 2007. What's NPR's excuse today? We'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot for names of the five US soldiers killed while serving in Iraq and for Barack's decision to release others who are alleged to have taken part in the attack: This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it." While it's no surprise that NPR wouldn't want to address the deal the White House made, it's shocking that they would also work to render the five dead invisible. If you're talking about someone who is alleged to have killed 5 Americans in Iraq, you name the five Americans. iraq the associated press ksee 24 news npr morning edition carrie johnson the los angeles times david s. cloud reuters aswat al-iraq

2 men, 2 women

I really did enjoy Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Occupy" and Barack is so clueless. Plus it's always fun to see angry Michelle.

On the first hour of today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR), the guests were Michael Hirsh, Liaquat Ahamed and Heather Conley. Does anyone else ever notice how often Diane Rehm is out? Today Katty Kay was guest host. Which meant the second hour was Katty Kay and Katty van van. Yes, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the airhead, was the guest for the hour. No, she really wasn't able to fill an hour.

The Fatty Chronicles? The woman at my office has taken 2 weeks off from working out or 'working out' and she's now so big her girdle can't contain her. If you're late on this story, I laugh at her because she was so rude and insulting to my friend (who actually did lose weight).

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, November 14, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, an Iraq War veteran serving in Iraq as a contractor dies, the US gives Turkey drones, mercenaries needed for Iraqi skies. the State Dept continues to believe it doesn't have to explain to the American people how it spends their money, and more. Is this the moment America begins to start tracking the death of US contractors in Iraq? Lewis Griswold (Fresno Bee) reports, "Sean Ferguson of Visalia, who earned two Purple Hearts for his military service in Iraq, died there Saturday of natural causes, a friend of his family said today. Ferguson, 29, is the son of Tulare County Superior Court Judge Darryl Ferguson." KMPH notes, "He joined the U.S. Army in August 2001 and retired eight years later as a Staff Sergeant after he was hurt in combat. He returned to Baghdad to work for Triple Canopy, a private contractor that provides security and mission support services to government agencies and other organizations. [. . .] A memorial service will be held at the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints chapel located at the corner of Caldwell Ave. and Chinowth St. in Visalia on Saturday, November 19, at 10 a.m." Lemor Abrams (KMPH) offers a video report here. 1st Lt Dustin Vincent was the most recent US military fatality in the Iraq War. Amber Fischer (The 33 News, CW33) reported Saturday evening that the 25-year-old had been laid to rest earlier that day at Dallas-Fort Worth National Cemetery and she quoted his friend Jared Griggs stating, "He and I talked a lot. He's part of the reason I joined the army myself. You couldn't be mad, you couldn't be sad around Dustin. You couldn't even really be serious around Dustin. There was only two things that he was really serious about, and that was the Lord and serving his country." Vallari Gupte (University of Texas at Arlington's Shorthorn) noted: Vincent, who graduated from UTA in 2009, was from Mesquite. Vincent, a 1st Lieutenant, was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Field Artillery of the 1st Infantry Division in Fort Riley, Kan. Vincent leaves behind a wife and daughter. Kinesiology senior Christopher Harris was a freshman when he met Vincent in UTA's ROTC program. Harris was a cadet and Vincent was an officer of that year's battalion. "He was my leader," Harris said. "He would teach me some stuff and I would learn." When Harris learned about Vincent's death, he grieved. "It is hard to feel anything else right now. Just grief," he said. Cynthia Vega and Steve Stoler (WFAA -- link has text and video) report that Dustin Vincent was on his first deployment to Iraq and "just six months into his deployment when the enemy threw a deadly grenade at his convoy." Yesterday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) reported that 3 soldiers serving with Dustin Vincent testified in an Iraqi court Sunday: The November 3 shooting of 1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent -- one of the last U.S. casualties in the more-than-eight-year Iraq war -- was chronicled by insurgents who captured the sniper shooting on video and posted it online. Inside a crowded courthouse, one of the soldiers who were with the 25-year-old Vincent the day he was killed told the investigative judge that a "few days later a video was posted that claimed the killing of the 1st lieutenant, and it shows the same location we were that day." In other news, Al Mada reports that US President Barack Obama is saying the Iraq War is "about over" and that the US government is down playing the concerns of the Sadr bloc over the decision to use Kuwait as a staging platform for US forces. This will be in addition to the forces under the US State Dept's control. Spencer Ackerman (Wired) reports: The State Department has already requisitioned an army, part of the roughly 5,000 private security contractors State is hiring to protect diplomats stationed in Iraq. Now, State is hiring someone to provide a little help from the air: an "Aviation Advisor" responsible for "Search and Rescue (SAR), medical evacuations (ME), transporting Quick Reaction Forces (QRF) to respond to incidents, and provid[ing] air transportation for Chief of Mission personnel." It's not a familiar job for the diplomatic corps, which is why State is seeking to bring in someone from the outside. The State Department put out this notice on Nov. 4. That's 58 days before the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Fifty-eight days before State has the skies over Iraq to itself. In related news, Dylan Welch (Sydney Morning Herald) reports the Australian government is surprised that security costs for their embassies and staff in Iraq and Afghanistan "has quadrupled in less than 12 months to almost $40 million a year" and they are now "paying two private security companies a total of $82 million for the two years to 2012." How is it related? Cost overruns happen very frequently. Presumably the Australian government properly budgeted for their mission and unexpected details led to such a huge increase. In the US, please remember, that the State Dept refuses to share concrete information with the Congress or with the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction or with the Government Accountability Office. In fact, the GAO's last report on the State Dept's contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan was entitled what? [PDF format warning] "Iraq and Afghanistan: DOD, State, and USAID Cannot Fully Account for Contracts, Assistance, Instruments, and Associated Personnel." So if the US cost overruns mirror those of Australia, who's going to be held responsible? The White House? Don't make me laugh. And their fall guy will be gone because Hillary Clinton has stated she is a one-term Secretary of State. So the US tax payers will be screwed and who's going to be held accountable? And it's time to get very real about something. The Senator Al Frankens with their "thank you for your service"? It's past time they greeted every tax payer with, "Thank you for your dollars." This country has gone into debt for an illegal war and not only do we see the debt today but future generations will as well. And clearly Congress doesn't give a damn since they refuse to scream bloody murder over the State Dept requesting money for Iraq (and Afghanistan) and being unable and unwilling to provide an accounting of how that money will be spent. Last June, Peter Van Buren wrote a piece for Le Monde in which he noted: In its post-"withdrawal" plans, the State Department expects to have 17,000 personnel in Iraq at some 15 sites. If those plans go as expected, 5,500 of them will be mercenaries, hired to shoot-to-kill Iraqis as needed, to maintain security. Of the remaining 11,500, most will be in support roles of one sort or another, with only a couple of hundred in traditional diplomatic jobs. This is not unusual in wartime situations. The military, for example, typically fields about seen support soldiers for every "shooter." In other words, the occupation run by a heavily militarized State Department will simply continue in a new, truncated form -- unless Congress refuses to pay for it. Unless Congress refuses to pay for it? At present, that seems highly unlikely. PeterR.S. Kalha explores the realities of the relationship between the governments of Iraq and the US in "Is America Finally Withdrawing From Iraq? -- Analysis" (Eurasia Review): Having spent at least about US$ 3 trillion, taken thousands as casualties both dead and wounded, the Americans are not going to give up that easily. The Shiite Iraqi PM Nourie al-Maliki is slated to visit the White House on December 12, 2011, just a few days before the deadline runs out. If he changes his mind and signs the status of forces agreement with the US, it will certainly not be out of character and in tune with the Iraqi political temperament. Nevertheless, the Americans are not taking any chances and have already made alternative plans. The US Embassy in Baghdad is going to be strengthened and will have about 17,000 personnel on its rolls. Situated in the 'Green Zone' on a 104 acre plot with its own electricity, water and sewage, it is one of the most expensive and largest US Embassies in the world and its entire requirements are supplied from Kuwait under armed guard. US Consulates exist in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each about 1,000 strong with its own security personnel. The US Embassy also has an 'Office for Security Co-operation' under which will come all US army trainers, private contractors and assorted military personnel -- all under the cover of diplomatic immunity. Presently about $ 10 billion worth of arms deals are under negotiations. Once the negotiations are completed, additional US military personnel will arrive to train and 'co-ordinate' with their Iraqi counterparts. These large numbers of 'trainers' will also be under US Embassy cover. Presently the Iraqi air force is non-existent. This means that the air space over Iraq will be controlled by the US for the foreseeable future. The US will continue to fly drones over Iraq targeting any potential enemy. It also means that the US can reinforce its residual troops under the 'cover' of the US Embassy as and when it is required without any serious hindrance. It also means that the Shiite-led Iraqi government cannot move its troops without US concurrence since they would have no air cover. And to make it absolutely certain that matters do not go out of hand, the present day Iraqi forces are commanded by a Kurdish officer General Zebari. The Americans have made an assessment and quite rightly so that of the three communities in Iraq, the Kurds will remain the most loyal. In any case the Kurdish dominated areas of Iraq are outside the political control of the Iraqi government and even the Kirkuk question remains unresolved. Thus President Obama has very skilfully reaped the political benefits of ordering a 'technical' withdrawal and ending the US mission there, whilst not only retaining the substance of the US posture and presence but immeasurably strengthening it. Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq notes, "The Legislature of the so-called White al-Iraqiya Bloc in the Iraqi Parliament, Aliya Nuseif, has demanded the Iraqi government to carry out a complete account for security contractors, in charge of protecting the American Embassy in Baghdad." And we're back to Peter Van Buren who, at his blog, notes the move and asks, his voice dripping with sarcasm, "So really, what are 16,000 people going to do everyday in Iraq on behalf of the US government?" Peter Van Buren is the author of the new book We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (American Empire Project). Bob Kustra (Idaho Statesman) reviews the book and notes, "Van Buren has served with the Foreign Service for more than 23 years. Before arriving in Baghdad, his response was not new to him, but war was. [. . .] There are few bright spots in this painful and gripping story of mismanagement. The first account of our blunders from a State Department inisder, 'We Meant Well' is thought-provoking and hard to put down." Also reviewing the book is Dan Simpson (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) who concludes, "The book is short, very readable and has humor as well as profound points in it." In other news, Chen Zhi (Xinhua) reports General Babker Zebari, Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Joint Forces, headed an Iraqi delegation to Tehran where they met " with the commander of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Ground Forces Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour." The Tehran Times adds, "In a meeting in Tehran on Sunday, Iraqi Chief of Staff General Babakr Zibari and IRGC Ground Forces Commander Mohammad Pakpour stressed the need for closer ties between Tehran and Baghdad. Commander Pakpour, who hosted General Zibari and his accompanying delegation, hoped the trip will help strengthen bilateral ties. Pakpur said the Iraqi people have endured many problems and difficulties over the past ten years, however, a gradual withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq has created an opportunity in which Iraqi people and officials can directly govern their country." Fars News Agency continues: The general expressed the hope that Iraq and its armed forces could gain increasing success after the end of the 8-year-long occupation which he described as a hard and cumbersome era for the Iraqis. The IRGC Ground Force commander further noted the profound political and cultural commonalities of Iran and Iraq as two Muslim and friendly neighboring nations, and stressed, "We hope that the existing commonalities pave the ground for cooperation, coordination and expansion of all-out relations." There is (and has been) alarm and concern by some US officials (military and civilian) over what happens between Iran and Iraq? David S. Cloud's piece for the Los Angeles Times is part of that: In Iraq and other trouble spots, Iran is handing out money and weapons, often in secret, in an effort to expand its clout and stay ahead of the political changes sweeping the region since the start of the "Arab Spring," U.S. officials say. The Islamic Republic still faces severe challenges, however. If opposition forces in Syria manage to topple President Bashar Assad, Iran could lose its closest ally in the region. It's cute the way Cloud rushes to draw a line between the Pentagon and the White House. Cloud's missed all of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about Iran? No one knows what will happen. If there's concern on the part of the White House (and their comments last week indicate there is), then they shouldn't have backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term (which meant they overruled Iraqi voters when they did). Setting Nouri aside, the others involved wouldn't necessarily rush to embrace a partnership with Iran that was more of a partnership than what they have with their other neighbors. There's some concern in the administration over clerics. That's a possibility. But so are turf wars. An Iraqi cleric embracing Tehran is one reducing their own sphere of influence. CNN's Wolf Blitzer is among those convinced Iran's getting a boost in Iraq. He notes that 18 countries recently voted to put Syria on suspension from the Arab League but that Iraq didn't vote: Despite the enormous sacrifie of U.S. blood and treasure, in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, the Shiite-led government in Baghdad din't have the guts to stand with the overwhelming majority in the Arab world and side against the Damascucs regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Iraqi government is still apparently most concerned about overly upsetting its friends in Iraq, which has strongly sided with the Syrian government. He may be right. I may be wrong. Some fear a war with Iran is in the making. It's a good time to look at the weak ass. George McGovern's a sad man who will never live down 2008 which only brought forth the scars of sexism regarding his campaign in Miami back in 1972. Now our 'antiwar voice' can be found saying what? Kristi Eaton (AP) reports he declared today that the US should think twice about going-it-alone on Iran and needs to instead build international support. For those who don't remeber, that's the actual garbage George McGovern offered ahead of the Iraq. War. He's always loved to strut and pose and pretend. But you don't have to take my word for it or check the archives. Eaton quotes McGovern explaining, "We invaded Iraq with very little support in the rest of the world." Yes, that was his 'anti-war' stand. As it is today. For those who can't get it, NO WAR ON IRAN! is an anti-war statement. "Hey everybody, let's build a coalition for war!" is not an anti-war statement. On the move towards war on Iran, here's Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com): The War Party is bound and determined to drag us, kicking and screaming, into a military conflict with Iran -- and they have constructed a vast network of agents inside both parties, and inside the government, to accomplish exactly that. The nexus of this network is the government of Israel and its intelligence services, which is coordinating an increasingly frantic campaign to bring the Iran issue to a head. From all indications, it appears as if the goal is to ignite the conflict before the 2012 presidential elections. Back to Iraq, AFP reports John Kirby declared at the Pentagon today that the US was deploying some of the predator drones in Iraq to Turkey to give "support to the Turkish military to deal with the specific threat posed by the PKK on their southern border." Reuters adds that the program "involves four US predator unmanned aircraft". Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) observes, "Moving them to Turkey could strengthen the diplomatic alliance with the United States, but it also risks putting the United States in the middle of a regional conflict between Turkey and Iraq, two putative allies. Pentagon officials declined to say whether the four Predator drones being flown out of Incirlik Air Base, a joint U.S. - Turkish military installation, would be allowed to cross into Iraqi air space." And how is Iraq going to feel knowing Turkey has a spy view on them? Not the US which is bad enough. But Turkey's a neighbor. There's really no chance Turkey won't use the drones to their own advantage? John Reed (Military.com News) adds, "In what could be an effort to head off the popular discontent seen in other countries that have hosted U.S. drones, Davotugu claimed that the American UAV missions would be overseen by the Turkish military." In Iraq yesterday, northern Iraq was again attacked by the Turkish military. Reuters reports that the PKK's spokesperson Dozdar Hamo stated the bombing lasted for about an hour. Since August 17th, the latest waves of attacks have been taking place. The back and forth between the PKK and the Turkish government has been going on forever and, in fact, the Turkish government's oppression of the Kurdish minority in Turkey bred and spawned the PKK. The issue of Turkey's military attacks was raised last when Amar C. Bakshi (CNN -- link has text and video) interviewed KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih: Amar C. Bakshi: Let's switch gears to Turkey -- an important regional neighbor that over the past few months has intervened in northern Iraq to go after Kurdish nationalist forces who have used terror to kill Turkish soldiers, numerous civilians. Now is the Kurdistan Regional Government cooperating with Turkey in its interventions into northern Iraq? Prime Minister Barham Salih: These issues cannot be solved by military means, these issues cannot be solved by violence. There has to be a political track. This initiative that the Turkish government has started, the democratization process, needs to be enhanced, deepened, in order to ensure that this long-standing conflict is resolved in a different way. Today AFP reports, "Iraq's top Kurdish leaders are mediating between Turkey and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) separatists with bases in northern Iraq to bring their conflict to an end, an official said. Iraq's president Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Kurdistan regional president Massoud Barzani 'Are leading mediation efforts between the Turkish government and the PKK, to end the battles in the border area between Iran, Turkey and Kurdistan,' said a spokesperson for Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan." Lale Kemal (Today's Zaman) stateswonders , "Turkey is understood to have warned Barzani that 'if the PKK continues its violent attacks, your region [northern Iraq] will also be affected,' and asked him to tell the number two of the separatist organization that it should declare a ceasefire and ask its terrorists to lay down their arms." Meanwhile Al Rafidayn notes the continued disputes over Exxon's contract with the KRG and how the government out of Baghdad remains upset over it. Hurriyet Daily News adds, "The regional administration in northern Iraq is urging the country's central government for a quick resolution to the dispute over rights to natural resources, the nation's biggest wealth source, as it insists on implementing deals undersigned earlier. The regional administration confirmed yesterday it had already signed a long-debated deal with U.S.-based oil major Exxon Mobil on Oct. 18 for six exploration blocks within its area of control." Reuters adds, "Iraq's central government, which has long-running disputes with the Kurdish region over oil and land, has said Baghdad would consider a deal between Exxon and the KRG illegal and a violation of the company's contract to develop Iraq's 8.7-billion-barrel West Qurna Phase One oilfield in the south." Stuart Kemp (Hollywood Reporter) reports, "The Kurdistan region in Iraq is to launch its first British film festival in partnership with representative from the U.K. movie industry. Organizers said a program of films would unspool in the region's capital city of Erbil later this month. [. . .] During this festival, the U.K.'s National Film and Television School (NFTS) is planning to run a series of workshops for young Kurdish filmmakers wanting to tell their stories." Andreas Wiseman (Screen Daily) adds that the festival is to run from November 26th through November 28th, "The event is expected to host around 15 films, screening in an Erbil conference centre. Admission will be free for the general public. The final programme has yet to be announced." British counsul-general in Erbil Chris Bowers states, "It's fascinating to note that many of the films we are programming have strong female role models (The Queen, Pride and Prejudice, Made in Dagenham), or that tackle social stereotypes (Billy Elliot) or discuss the Holocaust (The Boy in Striped Pyjamas). The Kurdistan Region is on a dash for modernity and that comes through in the type of films that people want to see here in Erbil." Wiseman notes that films were popular in the KRG before the wars and that "at least two large cinema complexes are due to oepn in Erbil". London's Bankside Films is co-sponsoring the festival. Turning to some of today's reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing injured a government worker, a Baghdad roadside bombing left one person injured, a second Baghdad roadside bombing leaving two police officers injured, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (killed by a bullet to the head), a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left three more men injured, an Iskandariya rocket attack on the US Kalsu base left two people injured (Iraqi civilians), a third Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured, 1 'suspect' was shot dead by the Iraqi military in Baghdad, two police officers were injured in a Baghdad shooting, a fourth Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured and "Omar al-Dulaimi, the head of a journalists' association in Diyala province" was shot in Baquba and seriously injured. AKE's John Drake Tweets: johnfdrake Last week was one of the quietest I've recorded in #Iraq. about 16 hours ago And he Tweeted: johnfdrake While last week was very quiet in #Iraq, militants appear to have been making up for things over the past two days. about 3 hours ago Of course, part of the quiet -- not noted in a Tweet -- was there really no press in Iraq. Who notes violence? What outlet that issues reports in English notes violence? That would be Reuters. And they really didn't do FactBoxes last week. If you checked Aswat al-Iraq, you saw that violence continued. Aswat al-Iraq was doing three and four news items (violence and other) a day. That was it. That was more than Al Mada, Al Rafidayn, Dar Addustour, Al Sabbah, etc. were doing. They all shut down for the holiday. Aswat al-Iraq reduced its coverage for the holiday. With actual press coverage, would have been so 'quiet'? That's an important question to ask. iraq al mada wired spencer ackerman aswat al-iraq xinhua chen zhi the tehran times fars news agency the los angeles times david s. cloud reuters ahmed rasheed cnn amar c. bakshi mohammed tawfeeq chelsea j. carter al rafidayn hurriyet daily news le monde peter van buren

3 women, 3 men

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Portions" went up this morning and uses the exchange C.I. reported in yesterday's Iraq snapshot for its source material.

If you don't know what's going on the 'portions' of some of the fallen -- killed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were being dropped in a landfill. Heads should roll. I don't feel they have.

Today on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), her guests were Susan Page, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Reid Wilson. The second hour was Jonathan Landy, Kim Ghattas and David Sanger.

And as C.I. noted:

Community note: Wednesday night, Cedric and Wally did one of their usual funny joint-posts ("The Whiner In Chief" and "THIS JUST IN! BITCHY IS HOW HE ROLLS!") while others in the community posted on a theme of "The first time I felt like a grown up." The theme posts are Ann's "2 men, 2 women The first time I may have broken federal law," Betty's "The second time I got my period," Trina's "Parking," Rebecca's "that time i stole a watch from a teacher," Ruth's "My first cup of coffee in front of my parents," Kat's "My first time hosting the pot party," Marcia's "My first R-rated film," Stan's "My first big purchase," Elaine's "The first time I faced my issues" and Mike's "My first orgasm."

NBC's Whitney (Thursday nights -- and you can stream at the link) just gets funnier and funnier and one thing I really like is the chemistry between Whitney and her boyfriend Alex. It's playful and funny.

They went on a double date in the latest episode and realized they didn't know each other all that well.

Whitney: How many women have you slept with?

Alex: Uh, same number as last time I answered that question.

Whitney: You ever killed a man?

Alex: Uh-uh.

Whitney: Ever killed a woman?

Alex: Not yet.

The above was both funny and touching. I really am starting to care about them as a couple.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, November 11, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, it's Veterans Day in the US, we examine a Senate hearing on whether or not the National Guard deserves a spot on the Joint-Chiefs, Exxon and the KRG get closer, Iraqiya switches its position on provinces becoming semi-autonomous, and more.

On this Veterans Day, the Pentagon finds itself in another scandal. Last night, David Martin (CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley -- link has text and video) reported on the Air Force's landfill scandal. Here's a transcript of the first minute of the report.

Scott Pelley: Just when you thought the scandal over mishandled remains of fallen American troops at Dover Air Force Base couldn't get any worse. It did today. David Martin has been reporting on the investigation that led to a career ending letter of reprimand for the commander of the mortuary and tonight David is at the Pentagon with new developments.

David Martin: A landfill is no one's idea of a fitting resting place for a soldier fallen in battle.

Gari-Lynn Smith: No service member, no human being at all, should be placed into a landfill -- no matter if it's a finger nail, a foot or an entire body

David Martin: Yet that is what happened to Gari-Lynn Smith's husband, Sgt 1st Class Scott Smith, who was blown apart by a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2006. Without her knowing part of his body was incinerated and disposed of as medical waste in this Virginia landfill. She found out two years after his funeral.

Gari-Lynn Smith: I have honestly no idea what we buried of him because they forbid me to see him in the casket.

The issue was raised by Senators Kelly Ayotte and Claire McCaskill in yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. We noted the hearing in yesterday's snapshot in terms of Ayotte and McCaskill's remarks and questions on the disrespect shown to the remains of the fallen (Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Portions" notes Ayotte's exchange). That was a needed topic and one more senators could have explored. But the topic of the hearing was whether or not the Chief of the National Guard should be a Joint-Chief of Staff.

Senator Lindsey Graham: Now, Mr. Johnson, headlines are made at every hearing. Is the headline from this hearing "Obama Administration Opposes Putting the National Guard Bureau Chief on the Joint-Chiefs"?

Defense Dept General Counsel Jeh Johnson: Uhm, uh, Senator, you've, uh, heard the best military advice from --

Senator Lindsey Graham: Well I'm going to tell you what Vice President [Joe] Biden said in 2008 when he spoke to the National Guard Conference in Baltimore, "It's time for change. Change begins with giving the Guard a seat at the table -- that table in the Pentagon where the Joint-Chiefs sit." President [Barack] Obama's campaign document, Blueprint for Change, page 55, if you want to read it, I haven't read it, I'll be the first one to admit to it, but this part I do like. Obama will restore the readyness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, provide the National Guard with equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff." Has he changed his mind?

Defense Dept General Counsel Jeh Johnson: Uhm, the, uh, uh, not to my knowledge

Senator Lindsey Graham: Don't you think when he said that, he thought long and hard about this and he came to conclude as a prospective commander-in-chief this would be a good idea? And you're not here to tell us he's wrong, are you?

Defense Dept General Counsel Jeh Johnson: The president and the vice president are above my pay grade.

Appearing before the Committee was the Defense Dept's General Counsel Jeh Johnson --noted above -- as well as the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey, Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm James Winnefeld Jr., the Army Chief of Staff Gen Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm Jonathan W. Greenert, Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen Jame Amos, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Norton Schwartz and the National Guard Bureau Chief Gen Craig McKinley. Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Scott Brown is also an attorney with the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Massachusetts Army National Guard.

Senator Scott Brown: I'm looking at a letter from General Amos and Chief Greenert. In paragraph three of the letter says that "CNGB does not represent a branch of service nor is CNGB responsible for manning and training and equipping the National Guard to the extent of the service chiefs." And I've got to respectfully disagree. Pursuant to the DoD directive as to the responsibilities of what the Guard in fact does, they are responsible for entire cradle to grave planning program budgeting and execution of these budgets. Provides the President's budget for each of the APPN, which goes to Congress, validates those requirements, provides the annual financial reports to Congress. It's in fact the service chiefs that don't have any of that budget responsibility. Is that -- Was there a mistatement in your letter there?

Gen James Amos: Well, senator, the point we were -- that I was making was making in the letter, we-we the service chiefs, testify to -- are held accountable to the Congress for the execution of those budgets as well. We have budget submitting offices -- pardon me -- in the Navy who do similarly that you just listed there.

Senator Scott Brown: But you said specifically, they have -- they have, they're not responsible at all. And, in fact, that's not correct. That being said, I'd like to just shift gears a little bit. Um, on -- Mr. Johnson, you indicated that you felt that maybe it would create confusion as to who represents the Army and Air Force and I've referenced letters -- General Odierno's "confusion and balance," obviously General Schwartz' confusing lines of authority and you, sir, Adm Greenert, complicated unity of command. I mean, it is really any question as to what the chain of command is with the Joint Chiefs? Obviously General McKinley would go through General Odierno and obviously General Schwartz to General Dempsy. There's no chain of command breach at all. I think it's very clear. And in addition to that, it would -- it would -- I don't think there's any question that the command authority, the Title X Command Authority wants to change. I don't believe the Guard or General McKinley in his capacity is seeking a seat wants to change that at all. He wants -- he wants -- and I believe, I don't -- I guess I'll just ask you, sir. You don't want to change the Title X Command Authority at all, do you?

Gen Craig McKinley: No, sir. As I said in my opening remarks, it's working well for us.

Senator Scott Brown: There's no confusions as to who you have to go through in the chain of command, is there?

Gen Craig McKinley: I-I-I have no confusion.

Senator Scott Brown: And with regard to the total force integration, do you feel that that would be benefitted by you having a seat at the table?

Gen Craig McKinley: It's improved greatly as the service chiefs have testified. It can only get better.

Senator Scott Brown: And is there any question that you in your capacity of having a seat at the table would be the person that could best advise not only in any capacity through any of the service chiefs or the president or anybody on the domestic mission and what the non-federalized units would be able to do? Espececially the homeland security issues that we're facing? Is there anyone else better quaified than you in your capacity to do that?

Gen Craig McKinley: Sir, I think it's my role and responsibility to be that person.

Senator Scott Brown: I would agree with you and just to follow up on what Senator Inhoff said, General Schwartz, on the fighter aircraft issue, is it a fair statement that due to the effort to save money with the Air Force, the Guard units are going to be eviscerated when it comes to aircraft. And especially, I've heard and others have commented that the TAGS can't gain access to the plans as to what wings will be effected and how many of the aircraft are going to be lost and isn't that another reason to have somebody like General McKinley at the table that can advise those TAGS and others what the plan is for the aircraft --

General Schwartz: Senator Brown, that's not a role of the Joint Chiefs, but beyond that, the reality is that if the Air National Guard is going to be eviscerated so will the active duty and the reserve. We are getting smaller together. That is what's underway here. And I would emphasize the point that -- that we are now the smallest Air Force that we've ever been and so -- And because of that, those reductions that occur because of diminishing resources -- which we all face -- will be shared by all the components.

Senator Scott Brown: Well you know that's interesting. You know, that is another reason why we all need to get back to the table and get this select committee to work so sequestration doesn't come in and dramatically effect this more.

Senator Kelly Ayotte noted that the record indicated that in 1978 the then Joint-Chiefs opposed the Commandant of the Marines becoming a member of the Joint-Chiefs of staff. Gen Amos agreed that the change had not hurt the Joint-Chiefs but stated he was not aware of the positions in 1978.

If there was a valid reason not to make the Chief of the National Guard, it wasn't expressed in the hearing by the witnesses. What they offered repeatedly came off as, "If someone else is promoted to our level, our level becomes less special for us." If all them together couldn't come up with one solid reason then either verbal skills are sorely lacking in military leadership or else there is no solid reason to deny it.

An important point: The Guard is not being used as it was in the last century. Under Bush the Guard became another unit of the military to be deployed to war overseas. If that's what the Guard now is, then, yes, they need to be represented in the Joint-Chiefs. Their role has changed and they suffer a tremendous burden and carry more than their weight. That largely went unsaid except for Senator Daniel Akaka who noted it and how it calls for some adjusments such as elevating "the Chief of the National Guard bureau to the Joint-Chiefs of Staff is something that is overdue and will show our guardsmen and their families that they are a true partner. It will also let them know that their voices and views will be represented at the highest levels of government."

Long before he became a senator, Lindsey Graham was serving in the Air Force and today he serves in the US Air Force Reserves and is a Senior Instructor at the Air Force JAG School.

Senator Lindsey Graham: General Amos, pound for pound, do you agree the Marine Corps is the best fighting force in the world?

Gen Jame Amos: Yes, sir. We celebrate that today on our birthday.

Senator Lindsey Graham: Okay. Good. I agree with you. Do you agree with me that the only thing older than the Marine Corps when it comes to defending America is the citizen-soldier?

Gen Jame Amos: Sir, I believe that's true.

Senator Lindsey Graham: Well okay. So I'm here to tell everybody I appreciate it but the citizen-soldiers' day has come. You're going to get a seat at the table, General McKinley, if I have anything to say about it. We're long into this fight as a nation. The first shot was fired by a citizen-soldier, it is time for the citizen-soldier to be sitting at the table -- not for political reasons, but for substantive reasons.

The most vocal opponent was Senator Jim Webb who had no real reason to explain why he opposed it today or why, when he was 25-years-old, he wrote an article expressing the belief that the National Guard should have a seat on the Joint-Chiefs.

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

Nouri al-Maliki and the Kurdish politicians (with the exception of members of Goran) are in conflict and have been for some time now. Over the weekend, Al Mada noted that the country is in the midst of a political crisis with no end in sight. This is Political Stalemate II. Nouri's refusal to abide by the outcome of the election (Iraqiya, led by Ayad Allawi came in first; Nouri's State of Law slate came in second) and surrender the post of prime minister caused Political Stalemate I which only ended (November 2010) when the political blocs met up in Erbil and ironed out an agreement where everyone made concessions. This agreement is known as the Erbil Agreement. Upon all parties signing off, Parliament held their first real session in over eight months and Nouri was named prime minister-designate (Jalal Talabani would wait over a week to name him that 'officially' in order to give Nouri more time to put together a Cabinet.) Upon getting what he wanted, Nouri went on to trash the agreement. This is the start of Political Stalemate II which has continued since. The National Alliance, Iraqiya and the Kurdish politicians (except for Goran) have called for a return to the Erbil Agreement.

Among the things that Kurds want is to see the Constitution followed. The 2005 Constitution outlined how disputed regions would be settled: A census and a referendum. Nouri became prime minister in the spring of 2006. The Constitution called for the census and referendum to be held by the end of 2007. Nouri operated in violation of the Constitution and continues to do so. In the US, such an action could lead to impeachment. Kirkuk is an oil-rich region that's in dispute with both Baghdad's central government and the KRG claiming it. Another big concern for the Kurds was Nouri's recent effort to rewrite the oil law by proposing a new draft which would result in the KRG losing their claims on many oil fields. The Exxon back and forth today is only the latest in a string of back-and-forth volleys between the KRG and Nouri.

In addition to those conflicts, the KRG is also seeing the mountains in the north bombed by the Turkish military with the Turkish government insisting that they're only targeting the PKK -- a group of rebel Kurdish fighters created in response to the severe and historical disenfranchisement of Kurds within Turkey. Amar C. Bakshi (CNN -- link has text and video) interviews KRG Prime Minister Barham Salih:

Amar C. Bakshi: Let's switch gears to Turkey -- an important regional neighbor that over the past few months has intervened in northern Iraq to go after Kurdish nationalist forces who have used terror to kill Turkish soldiers, numerous civilians. Now is the Kurdistan Regional Government cooperating with Turkey in its interventions into northern Iraq?

Prime Minister Barham Salih: These issues cannot be solved by military means, these issues cannot be solved by violence. There has to be a political track. This initiative that the Turkish government has started, the democratization process, needs to be enhanced, deepend, in order to ensure that this long-standing conflict is resolved in a differnt way.

Today, Aswat al-Iraq reports, Iraqiya's Azhar al-Sheikhli announced Iraqiya has changed their position on the province issue stating that they "are not against federalism, but there are many questions on their implementation process." Does that mean Kirkuk? It might. But last week, Salahuddin Province set in motion, if the Constitution is followed (Article 119), the steps to become a semi-autonomous province like the three that make up the KRG. On the issue of Salahuddin Province, Aswat al-Iraq reports that Nouri and Salahuddin Province Governor Ahmed Abdulla al-Jbouri and Nouri stressed that there are so many 'dangers' while al-Jbouri stated "the declaration of Salah al-Din as a region has become a public demand and cannot stop it."

Aswat al-Iraq reports 1 Sahwa was killed in an attack in Diyala Province while a second attack left two Sahwa injured. Sahwa are also known as "Awakenings" or "Sons Of Iraq." The US government paid them to stop attacking US military equipment and soldiers. The Iraqi government was supposed to pick up the payments and did so slowly. They were also supposed to incorporate the Sahwa into government jobs -- security and non-security jobs; however, that hasn't happened. Instead, Nouri's targeted them with arrests, often paid them late and never issued a statement decrying any of the attacks on Sahwa. In related news, Mustafa Habib (niqash) interviews Iraq's Minister of National Reconciliation Amir al-Khuzaei:


NIQASH: The process of reconciliation has been criticised – some say that it's avoided putting the blame on certain parties – such as insurgent groups who carry out armed attacks - even though they may have engaged in criminal behaviour.



Al-Khuzaei: In our efforts to reconcile, we want to open up channels of communication with the insurgents and to negotiate with them. The government will pardon those who put down their arms to join in the reconciliation process. But this doesn't mean that the rights of ordinary Iraqi citizens are compromised. Reconciliation may be able to make compromises in the public interest. But it cannot compromise on individual rights.



NIQASH: Can you tell us more about the kinds of dialogue that you have been having with armed factions?



Al-Khuzaei: We have been engaged in a positive dialogue with some of the factions for whom Harith al-Dhari [head of the conservative and mostly anti-US and anti-Iraqi-government Association of Muslim Scholars, a mainly Sunni Muslim group] is a spokesperson. We have also been fully engaged with the [Sunni Muslim] 1920 Revolution Brigade, the [Sunni Muslim] Mujahideen Army, the [Sunni Muslim] Islamic Jihad Brigades and the [Sunni Muslim] Ansar al-Sunnah group in Diyala. Also [the Sunni Muslim armed group] al-Naqshbandia, [the Sunni Muslim armed group] Hamas Iraq and the [Shiite Muslim] League of the Righteous. The dialogue and the agreements we have come to differ from group to group. Some of them were made on a collective level, others were on an individual level. In terms of the latter, we've had members of armed groups approach us and say that they wanted to quit their armed activities and return to their ordinary lives. We have no objection to this -- in fact, we welcome it.

Alsumaria TV reports that yesterday in Baghdad, a sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Ministry of Health employee. In Baghdad today, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Hundreds of Electoral Authority employees demonstrated today in Firdous Square, mid Baghdad, demanding to be appointed in their full capacity, while other NGOs talked for next Friday demonstration. Aswat al-Iraq correspondent said that the demonstrators came from different provinces to demand that the martyrs of the Authority should be given their lawful privileges."


Alsumaria TV quotes a political analyst on the US and Iraq who states, "U.S. leaked through some of the media they would go to the Security Council to consider The Iraqi government is a competent and this allows again to return to Iraq and I think this Klha means of pressure, because America did not like its the issue of withdrawal. According to observers, the U.S. troops stay in the Gulf comes the desire of them fear for their own interests or fear of potential Iranian expansion, as well as standing desire of the United States to stay close to Iran in anticipation of launching a military strike after sunburn Israel to do so."

Again, today is Veterans Day in the US. Denise Goolsby (Desert Sun -- link has text and video) reports that 11 to 20% of veterans of the current Iraq and Afghanistan Wars "report suffering from" PTSD. One Iraq War veteran with PTSD is Justin Weathers. Matthew Renda (Union) reports:

Since his return stateside in 2004, Weathers often is unable to shake habits of vigilance he cultivated to stay alive while fighting in the town of Ramadi, often reported as the site of some of the Iraq war's most fierce fighting.
"If you stopped at a stoplight in Iraq, you were going to get shot at," said Weathers. "There was a lot of chaos; it was just … it was just hectic."
Weathers is currently in therapy in an attempt to manage the nightmarish memories and persistent symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder that have continued since he first received his honorable discharge from the armed services.

There is also what military commanders have called the signature wound of the current wars, TBI -- Traumatic Brain Injury. Sgt Laura Todd is among the many with TBI. Colleen Flaherty (Killeen Daily Herald) reports:

"There was an explosion off the (base) and the concussion blast blew me off my feet," said Todd. She finished her deployment with the rest of 3rd Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment. "We just run on pure adrenaline." It was only upon returning home that Todd noticed something was wrong.
"I couldn't figure out which slot the fork went into in the drawer, or I couldn't (remember) how to tie my shoes, things like that," she said.

As with every war, there are also those who lost limbs, those who have had their hearing and/or vision harmed or lost, those who suffered burns and much more. On today's Fresh Air (NPR), Terry Gross spoke with journalist David Wood about some of the severely war wounded. Those who served in the war include the fallen and that's those killed while serving and those service members who took their own lives and veterans who took their own lives. Yesterday on The Diane Rehm's Show's first hour, Diane and her guests explored military suicides (link has audio and transcript). We noted that in yesterday's snapshot; however, the link was not included. My apologies.

Today's remembered also includes those who died of natural causes and those who died from wounds or exposures from the war zone which claimed their lives. Those dying from toxins they were exposed to while serving may have been around or worked the Burn Pits.

Iraq War veteran Leroy Torres and his wife Rose Torres work on the Burn Pit issue non-stop. Another person who does is Iraq War veteran and Afghanistan War veteran Daniel Meyer whose blog can be found here. This month the three of them and others have been working on lobbying for a Burn Pit Registry. Wednesday, Daniel Meyer reported:


Yes­ter­day, Novem­ber 8, 2011, BurnPits360 stormed capi­tol hill, kick­ing off a three day cam­paign. The sec­ond week in a row being in our nations capi­tol, this event dis­plays the ded­i­ca­tion and tenac­ity this great orga­ni­za­tion exudes in sup­port of vet­er­ans who have been neg­a­tively affected by toxic burn pits. It also comes just a few short days after the intro­duc­tion of the Open Air Burn Pits Reg­istry Act of 2011 by Con­gress­man Todd Akin -- R -- Missouri.


The burn pit issue is one that there should be strong support from Congress on. But there really hasn't been. When some -- then-US Senater Evan Bayh in 2009 and 2010, for example -- have attempted to lead on the issue by introducing a bill for an Iraq Burn Registry, others have refused to allow a bill out of committee. Milan Simoniah (Las Cruce) reports Iraq War veteran Master Sgt Jessey Baca is working on the issue:


Baca was the first veteran from New Mexico to publicly say burn pits were killing soldiers. He stood with the state's two U.S. senators last week after they introduced legislation to create a registry that would track veterans who were exposed to open burning and help them get medical treatment. America's military created the burn pits as a practical means to keep bases in Iraq and Afghanistan functional.
"They burn constantly to get rid of trash, metal, batteries, chemicals, human waste, plastics, paint. Contaminated jet fuel is used for the fire," Baca said one recent afternoon.

As awareness increases, we see efforts to minimize the realities of Burn Pits. Last week, the Institute of Medicine published a silly study researched by several people who depend upon government funding to finance their other studies. Even then, they couldn't come out and say there was no link between burn pits and serious damage to respiratory systems, forms of cancer, etc. The most they could offer was that further study was needed because they couldn't prove or disprove. J. Malcolm Garcia (The Investigative Fund) published a brilliant take-down of that 'study' today and he also noted:

Last year, long before the IOM report, the US government acknowledged the injurious effects of burn pits. According to a report released last year (PDF) by the United States Government Accountability Office, "burn pits help base commanders manage waste, but also produce smoke and harmful emissions that military and other health professionals believe may result in acute and chronic health effects to those exposed."

The VA states on its own webpage that chemicals, paint, medical and human waste, metals, aluminum, unexploded ordnance, munitions, and petroleum products among other toxic waste are destroyed in burn pits. Possible side effects, the department notes, "may affect the skin, eyes, respiration, kidneys, liver, nervous system, cardiovascular system, reproductive system, peripheral nervous system, and gastrointestinal tract."

So while further study may elicit more information about the effects of breathing burn pit fumes as well as the dust in Afghanistan and Iraq, the verdict appears to be in, and that is that the government knows that just breathing the air poses severe consequences to its soldiers.

It took decades for the Congress to get behind an Agent Orange Registry for veterans exposed while serving in Vietnam and surrounding areas. In 2009, then-US Senator Evan Bayh attempted to get the ball rolling on Burn Pit Registry hoping it would take far less time than the struggle for an Agent Orange Registry.

While veterans include more than just the veterans of today's current wars, our focus is Iraq and Luis Martinez and Amy Bingham (ABC News) provide some basic statistics on the veterans of today's Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

Though returning to life outside of a war zone usually requires some readjustment, many service members and veterans are fortunate enough to return with no major physical, mental or emotional wounds. Many veterans are also furthering their education, some utilizing the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Kevin Fagan (San Francisco Chronicle) reports on Iraq War veteran, Staff Sgt Josh Aguilar who will be attending San Francisco City College next semester and explains, "I learned in the military that when you want to get something done, it's best to have a plan. So I have one, and at the same time I am open to everything." Iraq War veteran Chris Seaman is a college student and he shares his thoughts at the Drury Mirror:

There were crappy times when you realize how much you've got left over there, but overall it was good.
I learned the values of hard work, team work, and leadership.
One thing I'd like for people to know is that not all young enlisted servicemen are loud, MMA gear wearing douchebags, although most are.
We do not get wasted and have a grand ole time in Iraq and Afghanistan like some movies portray.
It really bothers me that a lot of people think we're just getting hammered and running around shooting camel spiders, of which I never saw a single one.

Community note: Wednesday night, Cedric and Wally did one of their usual funny joint-posts ("The Whiner In Chief" and "THIS JUST IN! BITCHY IS HOW HE ROLLS!") while others in the community posted on a theme of "The first time I felt like a grown up." The theme posts are Ann's "2 men, 2 women The first time I may have broken federal law," Betty's "The second time I got my period," Trina's "Parking," Rebecca's "that time i stole a watch from a teacher," Ruth's "My first cup of coffee in front of my parents," Kat's "My first time hosting the pot party," Marcia's "My first R-rated film," Stan's "My first big purchase," Elaine's "The first time I faced my issues" and Mike's "My first orgasm."

iraq

reuters
ahmed rasheed

cnn
amar c. bakshi

aswat al-iraq
niqash
mustafa habib
alsumaria tv

cbs evening news with scott pelley
david martin
the desert sun
denise goolsby
the union
matthew renda
the killeen daily herald
colleen flaherty
npr
fresh air
terry gross
the diane rehm show
the drury mirror
abc news
luis martinez