How labels can influence us

Did you catch Helen Thompson and Shankar Vedantam's story on Morning Edition (NPR) today? 



University of Michigan marketing professor Aradhna Krishna has studied how labels impact how much we eat. In one experiment, she gave people cookies that were labeled either medium or large, and then measured how much they ate. 
 The catch? 
 The cookies were identical in size. 
 What happened? 
You guessed it. People ate more cookies when they were labeled "medium." Rather than trust what their stomachs were telling them, in other words, people went by the label. 


 The report explains the same thing is happening in sizes and that clothes sell better when they call something a small even if it's not. I found the story interesting but ultimately limited.

 Why?

 We don't have kids yet but we both work so start of the school year means we grab nephews and nieces and get shoes for them and some clothes to help out.

 And?

 The story ignored this but boy's shoes. Once you get to wearing men's size shoes, watch out. Because of the myth that big feet mean a big penis, tennis shoes are being labled as bigger than they are. For example, an 8 1/2 is what one of the nephews wore. He had to get what was labeled a ten. Wrongly labled. So while they've got women buying clothes by making the sizes \smaller, when it comes to men's shoes these days, athletic shoes, they're being marked as bigger sizes than they are.



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

Wednesday, September 26, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq and the Turkish government make noises, the White House is negotiating with Iraq to send more troops back to the US, and more.   Yesterday, US President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations with a laundry list of fabulists claims.  One of them was:   We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.   Offering realism on this topic is journalist and sociologist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who was on the ground in the Libya as the government was overthrown by 'rebels' -- some of whom were trained out of Langley in the United States.  Madhi was one of the few unembedded reporters in Libya and one of the few who didn't take US government press releases and put his name to it.  A brave and independent voice,  Mahdi is the author of the Globalisation of NATO.  Last Wednesday, he spoke with Heart of Africa host Kudakwashe Cayenne about Libya, the modern efforts to colonize Africa, and much more, click here to stream that program.  Excerpt.   Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya:  The war in Libya was an American-led war.  I know the Americans didn't want to make it look like it was an American-led war.  That's why they pushed the French and the British ahead.  But, in reality, they provided most of the muscle, most of the bombs.  Most of the, uh, military might was from them.  They started -- They started the operations along with the French and the British.  But they publicly wanted to make it look like David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of the French Republic, were the ones leading this.  But this wasn't true.  They were just hiding behind them because they knew that the world -- There's a negative opinion of US intervention in countries so they used it as a smokescreen.   Kudakwashe Cayenne:  Okay, Mahdi, why is it important for African to understand who NATO is today?   Mahdi Darius Nazemroya: It's very important to understand who [NATO] is today because they're colonizing the African continent.  Like I mentioned Libya.  That's just one country.  NATO is also involved in Somolia, it's also involved in Sudan.  It's normally involved in both these African countries so we're talking about three African countries so NATO has programs with about one-third of Africa's land areas, more than one-third, is under NATO programs.  NATO and the European Union and the United States want to see a divided Africa.  This is very clear from their policies.  I'm going to mention something called the Mediterranean Dialogue.  The Mediterranean Dialogue is a NATO partnership program, it's an expansion of NATO.  The countries that are part of this are Morocco, Algeria, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia -- these are the African members.  That are part of it.   Kudakwashe Cayenne: Oh.   Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yeah, they're part of it.  And this program is also complimented by a European Union program called the Euro Mediterranean Partnership which Nicolas Sarkozy renamed as the Union for the Mediterranean, okay?  So this is very important to grasp because NATO expansion  has always been aligned with European Union expansion.   All the Eastern European countries that joined NATO also joined the EU after.  And they joined NATO through something called a Partnership for Peace which was made after the end of the Cold War --  it was made towards the end of the Cold War.  So it was made to -- It was made as a way of securing these countries and I have to explain this, this is very important, the Partnership for Peace prevented these Eastern European countries -- and I will get back to Africa, but I need to explain what happened in Eastern Europe.   It prevented these Eastern European countries from pursuing any other security alternative to NATO.  All of these countries used to be part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.   Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay.   Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: But once they joined the Partnership for Peace, they were never -- They didn't become full NATO members and they didn't have the benefits of being part of NATO but they fell under NATO control.  And this is what's important, when they fell under NATO control, they were promised that they could join NATO after certain reforms.  These reforms were security, military and political which effected the economy.  So they were put under this program which meant that they had one foot in the door and one foot out of the door.  They were put under this program because NATO could guarantee their structures could be changed.  They were being restructured and being prepared for NATO but restructuring meant that they were essentially being turned into colonies.  The things they had to do was make public their defense budgets and programs which meant NATO would know exactly what they were doing with their defense and this is a way to keep your eye on them.  At the same time, old military officers were being pushed out and a lot of these old military officers were very patriotic and they would look out for their country's benefit and there was a chance that it might enact a coup d'etat in their country against the new governments that were coming in place.  And this is what's important, the new governments were all supported and funded by the United States and its western allies within NATO and they were putting a lot of criminals in place or people that were treacherous who actually were selling their national assets to the United States and Western Europe, they were letting their countries become colonized.     Heart of Africa, hosted by Kitakyushu Cayenne, is a weekly program featuring music and interviews (Mahdi's interview starts about ten minutes into the program).  You can hear it live at More Light Radio every Wednesday at 2000 hours Central Africa Time.  Tomorrow night, the latest episode is broadcast live and the scheduled guest is Abramo Askew with the topic of the conflict in Syria, unrest in the region, the notorious video out of the US and Muslim reactions.   On Libya for a moment more, September 11, 2012, the US Consulate in Libya was attacked resulting in the deaths of Glen Dotty, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.   Last Thursday's snapshot included:   On that attack, earlier today Kathleen Tennessee of the Laos Angeles Times reported, "The White House is now describing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as a 'terrorist attack,' a shift in emphasis after days of describing the lethal assault as a spontaneous eruption of anger over an anti-Islamic film made in California."    Ruth covered this topic in two post last week, Thursday's  "White House spin dissolves: It was terrorism" and Friday's  "White House spin dissolves: It was terrorism."  The first included NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams' report on the White House announcing it was terrorism:   Brian Williams:  It won't bring back the U.S. Ambassador or the three other Americans who were murdered -- including two former Navy Seals, but tonight: What happened the night they died?  The storming of that U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya is being labeled an act of terrorism by the White House.  That was not the initial story and some in government have given conflicting versions for what happened there that night.  We begin tonight with tonight with what it does mean.  Our chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in our D.C. bureau tonight. Andrea, good evening. Andrea Mitchell:  Good evening, Brian.  And tonight the White House confirmed that the attack was an act of terror -- officials say by al Qaeda  sympathizers.  But big questions remain about when it was planned and why initial reports were wrong?   See Ruth's post for the full transcript and she's also posted the video of the report.  On her Friday post, she noted that while NBC treated this as major news, PBS' NewsHour reduced it to two sentences in the newswrap and didn't even note that the White House had admitted it was a terrorist act.   The NewsHour could fix their omission today.  AP reports today that the White House was pressed on Air Force One about where they stand on the attack since last Thursday saw Jay Carney deliver the announcement, was this also the opinion of President Barack Obama?   From the White House website:   Q    Jay, in his interview on the Today Show this morning, the Libyan President said that the attacks on the consulate had nothing to do with the video that sparked all the protests as elsewhere.  He also repeated his claim that they were preplanned, given their sophistication, so given that's in direct contradiction to what the administration says, who's right?   MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that President Magarief made very heartfelt public statements before his meeting with Secretary Clinton in New York about the brave four Americans who were killed and the firm commitment of Libya to not allow a violent minority to hijack Libya's hopes and dreams.  Over the course of the past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as it has been able to.  We made clear that our initial assessment and interim reports were based on information that was available at the time.  Several administration officials, including the NCTC director, have spoken on the record about the information we have.  We have also been clear that there's an ongoing FBI investigation and that we must allow that investigation to take its course.  The Accountability Review Board established by Secretary of State Clinton is also doing a full investigation.  I can point you again to the statements by the NCTC director about his assessment as the chief counterterrorism official about the information that we had available at the time about how the attack occurred and who was responsible.  And it continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we know -- not based on speculation, but based on what we know -- acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you.     Q    The fact that he was pretty equivocal statement today that the video --     MR. CARNEY:  The U.S. intelligence upon which we make our assessments has provided very clear public assessments of the information that they have available, that they had initially, that they had available when the NCTC director talked to Congress and spoke publicly.  And that's what -- we make our judgments based on the information that we gather.     Q    One more question on that.  But how often is the President in contact with President Magarief?  I mean, are they talking every day?  Are they sharing this information?  Is there anything that he might be aware of that the President would not be?     MR. CARNEY:  We have significant cooperation with the new Libyan government, but I don't think intelligence sharing occurs at the President-to-President level, necessarily.  President Obama did speak last week with the Libyan leader, the same night that he spoke with President Morsi of Egypt.  But I don't believe they've had a conversation since.   [. . .]   Q    Is there any reason why the President did not -- he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no?  Is there any reason why he didn't say yes?   MR. CARNEY:  No, there's -- I mean, he answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover.  But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack.    Q    Thanks.     The world could use a lot more Mahdi Darius Nazemroayas but instead we've got far too many Steven Strausses.  Steven Strauss grabs his two brain cells and composes a piece for Huffington Post (good for Huff Post for allowing his alternative opinion, and that's not sarcasm) where he argues Archbishop Desmond Tutu is incorrect, that Bully Boy Bush (occupier of the White House from mid January 2001 through mid-January 2009) and Tony Blair (occupier of John Rentaul's heart and bedside diary as well as former prime minister of England) are not war War Criminals.  He wants you to know, "Tragedy resulting from an individual's actions is regrettable, but isn't in and of itself a crime.  Intent, rather than act, makes someone guilty."  There's another point but let's grab that one first.   It doesn't matter whether or not they intended their illegal war to kill over a million Iraqis.  You can even set aside the issue of Abu Ghraib (for England, the UK secret service getting caught in Basra trying to pass as Iraqis while apparently setting off bombs -- one of the most under-reported moments of the war despite the fact that a prison was destroyed in the process).  You can even set aside illegal weapons being used.  The birth defects demonstrate they were used but you can set that aside.   As Kofi Annan, then United Nations Secretary-General, told the BBC in September of 2004, the war was illegal: "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.  He said the decision to take action in Iraq should ahve been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."   If you wage an illegal war, you are a War Criminal.  If you shoot someone dead, you are a murderer.  These are basics under the law.  Blair and Bush did not have authority to start the war but did so.  They intended to start the war regardless of legality.  They broke the law, they did so with intent.  They are War Criminals.   Now Steven Strauss wants to bring Tony Blair into it.  He'll argue, "Tutu did!"  Well, Strauss, if you bring the British into it and you start noting body counts (incorrect ones), it's incumbent upon you to include the British toll.  Let's do what he lacked the manners to do, 179 is the number of "British Armed Forces personnel or MOD civilians" who have died in Iraq since March 2003 according to the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence.  Again, if you start mentioning Blair and England and you then give death tolls, it's just rude and insensitive not to give the UK losses.  Iraqi losses?  They aren't really counted.  The Lancet Study found over a million.  It used the same estimating process the UN uses.  It was only 'controversial' because people didn't want to face the realities of the war and worked overtime to try and discredit it.  The methodology stands.  By now, it may be up to two million.  He grossly underestimates the death toll while adding two to the US death toll.  The US Defense Dept does not list "over 4,500 of our own service personnel," it's 4488.   Again, he overestimates the US count (unless he's disputing the official DoD count -- in which case he needs to say so) while underestimating the Iraqi death toll -- and, of course, ignores the British death toll.  The word for that is: Tacky.   Of the war in Iraq and the tremendous cost in terms of deaths, the injured and the money, Strauss insists, "This wasn't leadership by criminal masterminds -- it was mismanagement by incompetent buffoons."  So what's your damn point?   Do we remember the attempt a few years back to rob Velasquez and Sons Mufflers For Less in Chicago?  The robber showed up but the employees said they couldn't open the safe and told him only the manager had the combination. What did the robber do (link goes to WGN report, this is a true story)?  He gave them his cell phone number and told them to call him when the manager got there.  The police had the employees call him and tell him the safe was open, when he showed up with his gun, the police arrested him.   Now the judge may have laughed when the robber appeared in court.  He or she may have told the robber, "You are an incompetent buffoon."  But he or she didn't say, "I want you to plead not guilty by reason of stupidity."  Stupidity -- like ignorance of the law -- is not a valid legal defense.  Why Strauss would choose to weigh in all this time later in defense of Blair and Bush begs the question if he also is an "incompetent buffoon"?   Archbishop Desmond Tutu argued that the war was based on a lie.  That is a valid argument.  People can disagree but they'll find more to back that up -- whether it's this official or that explaining 'that's the reason we settled on.'  The reality is the people were lied to.  In America about "uranium yellow cake from Africa."  About as real as uranium yellow cake from Betty Crocker.   In England, Tony Blair lied about Iraq having chemical weapons at the ready to attack England in 45 minutes.  Intelligence agencies in both countries knew the statements were wrong.  You can be a Strauss and plead stupidity but if you're lying to the public by 'accident' (or 'accident of stupidity') and you're informed you were wrong (and Blair and Bush were), you correct the record.  If you don't, you're a liar.  They lied the world into that illegal war. Tutu is correct that these were lies.  Strauss is  -- you decide.   Staying on stupidity . . . I'd prefer not to ever say a word against Veterans for Peace and Leah Bolger.  But guess what?  Don't send me stupid crap.   Click here, they met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  If we had space, I'd put it here -- the press release -- in full because it is so stupid.  What was the point of the meeting?  Ahmadinejad is homophobic along with everything else.  Stop meeting with homophobes and declaring, "I am most pleased and honored to be in attendance with all of you."  What was the point of the stupid meeting?  This is embarrassing.  I have no problem with Sean Penn doing a fact finding mission in Iraq as he did. (And that would include, while he was in Iraq, meeting with any official including Saddam Hussein.  Iraq was not a free society, someone of Sean's stature would be pressed to meet with the officials.  That's fine.  There was a purpose for the visit and I have no problem with something like that.  Or meeting to attempt to get hostages or POWs released.)   I have no problem with CODEPINK attempting peace with visits to other countries as they have many times.  But I don't see the point of this meeting with the President of Iran other than, "We don't agree with our own government."   That's the point?  That's fine not to agree with your government.  I believe I rip apart the White House in pretty much every snapshot.  (Whereas VFP nationally shuts down criticism and opposition of Barack Obama from their chapters and refuses to hold him accountable.)  But I don't go meet with little tyrants who are known human rights abusers and say, 'Hey, like you, I disagree with the US government.'  I don't try to find common cause with tyrants or say 'we're two of a kind!'  If there was a purpose to this meeting, I'm missing it.  They say the meeting was about "stressing VSP's commitment to doing everything possible tp prevent a U.S. or U.S.-assisted attack on Iran.  VFP hopes to send a delegation to Iran in October."  Great on the delegation.  May it happen, may the VFP form strong alliances with the Iranian people (who I'm sure are good and wonderful people just like elsewhere in the world).  But there's a world of difference between meeting with him and giving him your blessing (which is what that meeting does -- even before the fawning language) and meeting with the Iranian people.  He is part of a corrupt regime that suppresses people.  I support any journalist from any country interviewing him and hope they hold him accountable on human rights and call him out when he makes homophobic remarks -- which he's been doing for so long that millions and millions have seen Andy Samberg's Saturday Night Live "Iran So Far" (featuring Adam Levine).  If those remarks about gay people had been about Black people, would VFP still be embracing him?  I don't think so.  We don't make homophobia unacceptable until we make it clear with our own actions that it's unacceptable.    Did you think this meet-up meant that if the US starts bombing Iran, Ahmadinejad is going to say, "We could bomb all of the US but let's make sure not to harm Leah and VFP?"  What the hell is that?  There is no purpose served by that meeting.  It's insulting to the Iranians who are fighting for human rights and dignity and to meet with a noted homophobe is insulting to LGBTs around the world and to all of us who despise and will not tolerate homophobia.   Andy took on homophobia with that video -- and did a wonderful job of it -- but how sad that a comedian (a great one) did more to combat homphobia than Veterans for Peace. I don't support war with Iran and will protest it if the US tries to initiate it.  But I also don't go meet with a known tyrant and express how wonderful it is to be in the same room with his Immense Cruelness.  It's a human rights issue, it's a self-respect issue.     Let's move on.  During a week where reports said that the Ministry of Education was refusing to allow men and women on campuses together, let's note a bright spot.  But let's be clear that the reports, which were denied yesterday by the Ministry of Education, were not about co-education in the way you might think.  What the Ministry was proposing -- but backed down on (at least for now) -- was that no female professors could teach at colleges employing male professors -- or deans -- and 'vice versa.'  'Vice versa' because the ones let go would be women.  Most universities in Iraq have more men on staff than they do women.  This was an attempt to cripple women's employment -- women with advanced degrees and training.  And this is what you get when you put thugs in charge, when you court fundamentalists -- as the US government did in Iraq -- to scare the population into submission.  Now for the bright spot.  AFP reports today that 15-year-old Hoda is among the young Iraqi women and girls taking part in the country's first national weightlifting team.  Dropping back to the August 27th snapshot:   Turning to sports, Alsumaria reports that Baghdad is organizing the first official tournament for women in the Iraqi Federation of Weightlifting.  This will allow the athletes to participate in the Arab Championship taking place in Morroco at the end of September.  It should also hopefully lay the groundwork for Iraqi women to compete in the weighlifting of the 2016 Summer Olympics to be held in Rio de Janeiro.   And that's what it's about, the Olympics, the pursuit of national glory on the international stage.  You want to go for the Gold (and Silver and Bronze)? You need to compete in every sport.  Emily Alpert (Los Angeles Times) reported in July, "For the first time in Olympic history, every country will have a woman competing on its team, including longtime holdout Saudi Arabia, the International Olympic Committee announced Thursday.  Brunei and Qatar will also send female athletes to the London Games for the first time."  Iraq sent 5 men and 3 women to compete in the Summer Olympics in London: Dana Hussein, Adnan Taas, Nour Amer, Rana al-Mashadani, Safa Rashed, Muhannad Ahmad, Ahmed Abdel-Karim and Ali Nazim.  Like all participating in the competition, they were outstanding athletes and, for those eight, making it to the Olympics was a victory.  As John Canzano (Oregonian) pointed out, "It wasn't lost on me that many of the sprinters around [Dana] Abdul Razak in the mixed zone didn't grow up in a nation where being able to compete would even be a question.  Also, with Allyson Felix of the U.S. coming through moments later after winning the heat and wearing the finest traack and field gear to go with the best training/nutrition to go with a USA Track and Field handler who escorted her, I wondered about the vast dispartiy in resources available to athletes here."  Iraq should be very proud of their eight Olympians.  And the decision to create the women's weight lifting team and prepare for 2016 right now demonstrates real foresight on the part of Iraq's National Olympic Committee.  AFP reports of the new weightlifting team:   In one corner, Hoda, wearing a worn tracksuit, waits for her turn to lift again. "I love the sport," she said. "I used to follow the championships on television and I went to a club and registered." She has since set personal bests of 60 kilogrammes in the snatch, and 72 kilogrammes in the clean and jerk, which she and her teammates hope to build on in the Arab weightlifting championship in the Moroccan capital Rabat. "I wish to win the gold medal," Hoda said.      The desire to win -- whether it's in a sport, on the world stage, in the economy, what have you -- can go a long way towards creating space for human rights advances.  (It can also do the opposite -- but right now in Iraq, in this instance, it's worked to open up the society just a little bit and hopefully it will make a difference.)       Turning to violence,  Al Rafidayn notes 3 Tunis bombings targeting a convoy of a police chief  Lt Col Salman Kadhim al-Khazraji which left him,  2 bodyguards and 1 civilian dead and left two bodyguards injured while a Yathrib roadside bombing claimed the  lives of 2 police officers.  AFP adds that an attack on an Iskandiriyah checkpoint left 2 soldiers dead and another injured. Press TV notes that 1 police officer was shot dead in Kirkuk and 1 soldier was shot dead in Mosul.  And if you wonder why AFP's monthly count is always so off, they only count 7 dead yesterday.  Iraq Body Count notes 14 were killed yesterday and that 279 for the month through yesterday. Meanwhile Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has invited Iraq's chief thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki for a visit.  AFP observes, "Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year, most recently Ankara's refusal to extradite Iraqi Vice President Tareq Al-Hashemi, who has been sentenced to death in absentia by an Iraqi court."  The invitation comes as Hurriyet notes, "Iraq is now capable of shooting down Turkish jets entering Iraqi airspace to target Kurdish militants, Iraqi Air Force Officer Iskander Witwit recently told the New York Times."  For years now, Turkey has sent warplanes over northern Iraq to bomb suspected PKK camps (Turkey also sends drones over the area -- drones supplied by the US and some coming from the US CIA station on the Turkish border).  This new capability by Iraq's Air Force (or alleged capability -- they have an issue with flying these planes and currently Iraq has sent a small group of pilots to the US for training) has not detered Turkey.  Selcan Hacaoglu (Bloomberg News) reports there's an effort by the Turkish government to continue the bomb raids, "Parliament will reconvene from its summer holiday on Oct. 1 and is expected to give priority to a one-year extension of the mandate for cross-border attacks, which expires on Oct. 17, Arinc told reporters in Ankara late yesterday."  Areeb Hasni (News Tribe) adds, "Turkey's military chief General Necdet Ozel on Wednesday threatened to launch an assault on the main base of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in the Qandil mountain region of northern Iraq, after series of attacks on military installments inside the country."  Trend News Agency reveals, "Turkey has begun delivering military equipment to the border with Iraq today, the newspaper Yeni Safak reported with references to the Turkish General Staff.  According to the General Staff, Turkey will conduct the operation against militants of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party, which will be called 'Fall cleaning'."    Turning to the topic of oil, Ercan Ersoy and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report, "Iraq's government will start making payments to international oil companies working in the northern Kurdish region next week, said Ashti Hawrami, natural resources minister in the Kurdistan Regional Government."  That will do a bit to ease the tensions between Baghdad and Erbil if it happens.  But it won't make everything fine.  Nawzad Mahmoud (Rudaw) reports that Kurds are losing out in the Iraqi Army and when it comes to governmnet jobs.  In addition, Nehro Muhammad (Rudaw) points out that there remains the issue of the US equivalent of $7 million that Baghad owes the KRG's for the Peshmerga budget.  Of course, there is also the disputed, oil-rich Kirkuk.      Tom Hayden (The Nation) notes Tim Arango's New York Times report from yesterday states, "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 counterrorism and help with intelligence."  The report also points out, "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." Tom ignores that.  Tim Arango should have made that his lede and the focus on the report.  If your big claim for re-election is that you pulled (most of) the troops from Iraq, this attempt to renegotiate goes to the fact that you are lying to the American people.  For a critique of Hayden, click here.    Michael R. Gordon and Bernard Trainor's new book The Endgame is noted by Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy) who summarizes some of the points in the book: A president unable to engage in effective personal diplomacy at crunch time because he had failed to invest in the hard work of retail diplomacy along the way. This is a problem that extends well past Iraq, as another blockbuster New York Times story makes clear. As an unnamed U.S. diplomat told the NYT: "He's not good with personal relationships; that's not what interests him...But in the Middle East, those relationships are essential. The lack of them deprives D.C. of the ability to influence leadership decisions." A team whose wild over-confidence contributed to the failure to react in a timely manner to an unraveling situation. In one of the most devastating items in the piece, Gordon quotes Vice President Biden: "I'll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA," he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate." A team paralyzed by infighting and poisonous civil-military relations. Gordon reports that Thomas Donilon, Obama's national security advisor, criticized Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for presenting military advice that ran counter to what the White House wanted to hear. In addition, Will Inboden (Foreign Policy) weighs in as well:   Last summer I ruminated on President Obama's curious lack of personal connections with any global leaders of note. Peter Feaver's post below on Iraq and this New York Times story both demonstrate how this deficiency continues to hinder the Obama administration's foreign policy. The Times article describes Obama's "failure to build close personal relationships with foreign leaders that can, especially in the Middle East, help the White House to influence decisions made abroad." Peter's post and the Times article both point to diplomatic mistakes made with Maliki in Iraq and Mubarak in Egypt. Meanwhile, the list continues to grow of President Obama's other missed opportunities, failures, and simmering crises that all could have benefitted from better personal relationships and rapports -- such as with Karzai in Afghanistan, Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, Merkel in Germany, Harper in Canada, Noda in Japan (the Senkaku Islands standoff between Japan and China could get much worse), Singh in India, Zardari in Pakistan, and especially Netanyahu in Israel. Sure, some of these global leaders can be difficult to get along with, but diplomacy has never been easy.           iraq emily alpert the los angeles times bloomberg news all iraq news selcan hacaoglu al rafidayn  al mada kitabat hurriyet press tv  foreign policy peter feaver the new york times tim arango  the nation tom hayden

 This is C.I.'s "

Historic moment

As a co-author of "Terry Gross' new low (Ann, Ava and C.I.)" -- which documented Terry Gross' awful record of booking women as guests in 2010 -- I feel I need to note something historic: Mindy Kaling gets almost the full hour on today's show (34 minutes and change).

You may say, "Well Mindy's the star of The Mindy Show."  Right.  And Maya Rudolph and Christina Applegate were the stars of Up All Night last year.  But she interviewed the actor playing Christina's husband. 

It is very rare for women to be booked on the show.  So make a point to use the link to check it out by audio or text.  And Mindy's show is very funny, watch it.  She gets arrested in the first episode while drunk and riding a bicycle ("Look at me, I'm Sandy Bullock!" she says or something like that) into a swimming pool.


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

Tuesday, September 25, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Barack offers pretty lies to the UN, security officials are targeted in Iraq today, State of Law announces provincial elections have been postponed, there's a Jill Stein contest, and more.     Fars News Agency reports, "The US consulate in Iraq's Northern city of Kirkuk was targeted by rocket attacks, a source in Kirkuk police announced on Tuesday." In the post-September 11, 2012 era of diplomacy, that attack may actually get noticed. The attack on the US Consulate in Libya resulted in the deaths of four Americans. Maybe Barack will just call today's attacks more "bumps in the road"? More than likely, he and the White House will just avoid mentioning it entirely. Maybe the White House will follow the State Dept's lead and just refuse to hold daily press breifings? There was no press briefing by the State Dept yesterday, there's none today. Is there something confusing about the term "daily press briefing"? Do they really think that Philippe Reines' nasty e-mails to Michael Hastings won't be a topic when they finally hold a press briefing? (For news of those e-mails, refer to Lucy Madison's report for CBS News which is work safe.)     Glen Doherty, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods died September 12th due to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya. Two weeks later, when another US consulate is attacked with rockets, you don't think that warrants a public response from the US State Dept? Other than both being attacked with rockets, there's nothing similar and, fortunately, no one was hurt in the attack today. But you don't think a rocket attack on a US Consulate merits a word or two from the State Dept?     Apparently not.     Four Americans died. Four. Each one was valued. They are devalued when you name the ambassador and render the others invisible. US President Barack Obama did that today at the United Nations.     That is outrageous. 18 sentences about the ambassador and Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods are reduced, by Barack, to "three of his colleagues." Is someone confused about the job they hold? Barack's not head of the US State Dept, he's President of the United States. Four Americans died, each life had value, each life had meaning, how dare he ramble on for 16 sentences about the ambassador and not even name the other three who died, not even name them.     This wasn't about honoring Chris Stevens, this was about creating a media moment, something that you knew would grab attention. The office of the President of the United States is supposed to be above media moments. Is there not one damn grown up in the administration?     Apparently not because Matt Compton's White House post is all about how "President Obama remembered Ambassador Chris Stevens" and how Stevens "was slain earlier this month in an attack" -- Compton never even does the insulting "three of his colleagues." This is outrageous and insulting to the memories of Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. These were prepared remarks. It was intended that Barack would name Chris Stevens and go on about him for 16 sentences. And that wouldn't be a problem if the other three had been so honored but they weren't. They were ignored. Not even named. Only 14 days after the four died while serving the United States and three are disappeared, not even named, in a prepared speech? Where are the grown ups? What an insult to everyone who works for a US embassy or consulate -- which does include guarding one.     What an insult.     Unlike Doherty, Smith and Tyrone, Stevens has been the focal point of massive media accounts and that's the only reason his name was used in the speech, the hope that it would create a media moment for Barack to look caring and concerned. If you're caring and concerned, (a) you don't need to create that impression (people know) and (b) you don't render three of the dead in the same attack invisible.       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       In the speech today, Barack noted the Arab Spring:     It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change. We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets. We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people. We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo. We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.       I'm sure some will emerge to point out that the toppled Tunisian, Yemen and Egyptian regimes were all supported by DC. I hope a few will point out that the Libyan War was illegal. But who will point out the obvious: Iraq.     Iraqis weren't supported. Iraqis took the street in January 2011 before the Arab Spring kicked off. They were protesting their loved ones disappearing into the 'justice' system. They weren't all young people so it didn't have the glossy blow and, of course, it wasn't in the KRG or in Baghdad when it kicked off so you didn't have the US and other foreign press around to cover it. But it did come to Baghdad and it did come to the Iraqi youth. And the US government -- which still had many troops in Iraq -- didn't help the Iraqi people. When Little Saddam Nouri al-Maliki began having his forces attack the protesters, the White House, the State Dept, the entire Barack Obama administration didn't say one damn word publicly. Let's drop back to the February 28, 2011 snapshot and this will be a long excerpt but it's needed for the record:     Over the weekend, protesting continued in Iraq as it did on Friday's Day Of Rage. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported that protests continued Saturday with Samarra protesters defying a "curfew to attend the funerals of two people killed during protests" on Friday and that Iraqi forces opened fire on the protesters/mourners leaving eight injured while Basra also saw a funeral for a protester killed on Friday. On Sunday, BNO News reports, protests continued in Iraq with 27 protesters left wounded in Amara City by Iraqi forces. Today, at Baghdad's Tahrir Square, Alsumaria TV reports Iraqis turned out to demonstrate again. Saturday, Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) reported the disturbing news that after Friday's Baghdad demonstration, four journalists who had been reporting on the protests were eating lunch when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested them with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists inside the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with their rifle handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says that they left Tahrir Square with colleagues including journalists, writers intellectuals, filmmakers. They went into the restaurant where the Iraqi military barged in, beat and kicked them, hit them in the face and head with the handles of their rifles, cursed the press and journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) added that the journalists stated "they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit" and quotes Hossam Serail (spelled Hussam al-Ssairi) stating, "It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists. Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq." In addition, Alsumaria TV adds, "Iraqi security forces released on Friday Alsumaria reporters Sanan Adnan and Idris Jawad in addition to cameraman Safaa' Hatem. Alsumaria reporters were arrested while covering the protests of Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Security forces attacked as well Alsumaria employees Ali Hamed and Muhannad Abdul Sattar who managed to escape." Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported Sunday, "Iraqi security forces detained about 300 people, including prominent journalists, artists and lawyers who took part in nationwide demonstrations Friday, in what some of them described as an operation to intimidate Baghdad intellectuals who hold sway over popular opinion." The Committee to Protect Journalists notes the above and other crackdowns on the press in Iraq (as well as in Yemen and Libya): ["]Security forces prohibited cameras from entering Baghdad's Tahrir Square, where there were thousands of people protesting, according to news reports and local journalists. Police confiscated tapes that reporters managed to shoot in the square, according to Al-Jazeera. [. . .] Anti-riot forces also raided the offices of Al-Diyar satellite TV station in Baghdad and detained 10 of its staff members for three hours, according to Al-Diyar's website. In the afternoon, anti-riot police stormed the office for a second time, prohibited the staff from entering the building, and detained at least three more employees. Niyaz Abdulla, a correspondent for Radio Nawa and a volunteer for Metro Center, a local press freedom group, was assaulted today while covering demonstrations in Erbil. "I was on the air when a plainclothes security officer came and started threatening me," she told CPJ. The officer threatened to call over men to attack her, alluding to a potential sexual assault. "I stayed calm but it was very disturbing," Abdulla said. She added that two of her colleagues had their cameras confiscated while they were covering the demonstration. In Karbala, anti-riot forces attacked Afaq and Al-Salam satellite channels crews, according to news reports. "They were beaten and cursed at while they were covering the march in Karbala," Jihad Jaafar, a correspondent for Afaq channel told Noun news website. He added that the tapes of the crews were confiscated. ["] In addition, CPJ's Deputy Director Robert Mahoney is quoted stating, "We are particularly disturbed that a democratically elected government such as that of Iraq would attempt to quash coverage of political protests. We call on Baghdad to honor its commitments to respect media freedom." Over the weekend, a number of journalists were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square. Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) notes: ["]During a news conference held on Sunday, four journalists -- Hussam Saraie of Al-Sabah Al-Jadid newspaper, Ali Abdul Sada of the Al-Mada daily, Ali al-Mussawi of Sabah newspaper and Hadi al-Mehdi of Demozee radio -- reported being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened by security forces. They also claimed they were held in custody for nine hours and forced to sign a document, the contents of which were not revealed to them. Aswat al Iraq news agency reported that the journalists will file a court case against the executive authority in response to the alleged violations of their civil rights. This episode is the latest in a series of repressive measures adopted by security forces in order to stifle media reports about the current political and social unrest.["] Meanwhile Nasiriyah reports that Maj Gen Qassim Atta, the spokesperson for Baghdad Operations Command is insisting he has no idea about targeting of the media, specifically four journalists being arrested on Friday, and insists there will be an investigation. He's calling on witnesses to come forward . . . so they can be disappeared? This morning Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition) reported on the attacks on journalists and focused on Hadi Al Mahdi whose "leg is really swollen" and who was one of the four noted above stopped Friday afternoon while "eating lunch with other journalists when soldiers pulled up, blindfolded them, and whisked them away. Mahdi was beaten in the leg, eyes, and head. A solider tried to get him to admit he was being paid to topple the regime."     You may not know it because Iraq, by then, received so little coverage, but journalist Hadi al-Mahdi? He was assassinated September 8, 2011. He had been threatened and harassed by Nouri's goons. Though security tape from outside his apartment should have revealed the killer or killers, that tape vanished. And, of course, no one was ever punished. I don't doubt for a moment that Hadi was killed on the orders of Nouri al-Maliki. Assassinated in his own home.     The US government didn't encourage or support the Iraqi people. The US government did not condemn the attacks on the protesters. The US government did ask several news outlets not to cover the ongoing protests -- which lasted months. Those who ignored the request risked not only US government ire but also physical assault because not even Western reporters were safe covering the protests as summer 2011 rolled around. Who was doing the attacking? Nouri's forces and Nouri's supporters. And they weren't called out. Some outlets were very helpful to the US government. The New York Times, for example, ignored most of the protests and cast aspertions on the protesters in their Saturday, February 26th report of the first massive Friday protest across Iraq. I suppose it's a shame that those working for both the New York Times and the US government were able to collect only one pay check.     The US government said nothing publicly when Hadi was murdered -- murdered because he believed in core human values and he acted on his beliefs. But the Barack Obama administration never wants to offend Nouri al-Maliki.     Last week, when Senator John Kerry rightly noted that the US has the ability to tie conditions to all the US taxpayer money that flows to Nouri, the State Dept, via Victoria Nuland, immediately shot down the idea. They never want to offend Little Saddam. They stroke Little Sadam, they encourage him, they encourage his efforts to snuff out freedom. Last Friday morning, we noted that the proposal by Senator John Kerry and others on the Senate Foreign Service Committee was correct. By Friday evening, you could already see some results from what John floated. In Monday's paper, the New York Times editorial board would observe, "[. . .] Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was right to warn last week that American aid could be reconsidered if Iraq failed to change course."     This morning, John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" went up at The Daily Beast: Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."       Could we discuss the above? Judging by the comments left on the article, no. You have Bush-supporters blaming Barack and Barack-supporters blaming Bush. No one wants to allow their own personal savior might have led them astray.     Here's a little reality for those leaving comments. You who love Barack and swear by him, stop saying the SOFA was the end. (It became the end.  Didn't have to be.)  Why did your beloved Barack try to renegotiate it if it was "a legally binding agreement to withdraw"? It was only legally binding if it wasn't replaced with a new contract. It could have also been extended and remained "legally binding." The problem is that far too many who are far too ignorant of the law choose to weigh in. In November 2008, we explained the SOFA -- Thanksgiving day. We even published it in full. Thanksgiving day. And maybe the press can be forgiven for some of their bad reporting due to the holiday but there's no excuse for the fact that they got it wrong over and over and over. Most US troops are out of Iraq and that's because of the Status Of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration negotiated.     Barack was not elected to pull most troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011. He was not elected to follow the policies of the Bully Boy administration. He made the decision to do that. The only way Barack wouldn't 'own' the Iraq War (true of the Afghanistan War as well) is if he immediately, upon being sworn in, began withdrawing troops. (You may remember, that was his promise -- one he did not keep.) Doing that would have made it Bush's war only. He could have had all the troops out within three months. Yes, it was possible. Bill Richards knew it was, George McGovern knew it was, many people knew it. George knew it because he planned, if elected president in 1972, to pull US troops out of Vietnam -- a larger number of troops, at a faster timeline than what Barack was proposing.     It's Barack's war as well. And billions of US taxpayer dollars continue to flow to Iraq. "It wasn't America's to lose," huffs Harmlessdrudge and others in the comments. Oh, you're so very wise to make that point today. Golly, jolly, gee, I wish we had made that point. Oh, that's right, we did in December 2, 2004's "Should This Marriage Be Saved?" And we paid attention and are aware that the Barack Obama administration repeatedly backed Nouri over the people of Iraq, over the democratic process, over the ballot box, over the will of the people, over the Iraqi Constitution.     "It wasn't America's to lose" only works if the White House isn't trying to install their choice for leader instead of the people's choice. Do you grasp that or are you really that stupid? Let's not John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast) because I'm not sure it's sinking in: Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."     I'm not sure it's sinking in because, in real time, we were the only ones calling it out. In real time, we were the only ones talking about what a slap in the face this was to the Iraqis who risked violence and had hardships just getting to the polls due to all the security checkpoints they had to pass through. While we were calling it out, Twitter faves like Nir Rosen were blogging at Foreign Policy about how great it would be if -- how did Trashy Nir put it? Oh, that's right, "Frankly this is a rare case where I hope Maliki violates the constitution, acts in some kind of authoritarian way --" You got your wish, Nir, are you happy?     And, at this late date, and after all the US blood and money poured into Iraq, shame on you if you don't know what happened but think you need to weigh in. The time to point out that the US need to back off was when the Barack Obama administration decided, despite the 2010 election results, that Nouri al-Maliki would get a second term as prime minister. The time to cry foul was when the US government brokered the Erbil Agreement to get Nouri that second term and when they promised the Kurds and other blocs that the Erbil Agreement was legally binding and that the it had the US support and approval. It had that long enough for Nouri to get his second term. He got that and trashed the contract, refusing to deliver on any of the concessions he promised -- in the Erbil Agreement -- to make.     And the White House played dumb. Iraqiya (who came in first), Moqtada al-Sadr and the Kurds began publicly insisting that the Erbil Agreement be returned to in the summer fo 2011. A year later, it still hasn't and the US government can't seem to figure out where they stand on a contract they negotiated, where they stand on a contract they gave their word on. To ignore all that and pretend is to be a willful idiot and apparently there is a grave need to be that in America these days.     We have called out Bully Boy Bush. We've also paid attention to what's taken place in Iraq since January 2009 and you better believe that requires calling out. But some lazy minds seem to believe Iraq goes into suspended animation because they don't think about it or it's not on their TV screens. That's not reality. Reality is that when a US president overrules the votes of a people, that's disgusting. Reality is that Barack did just that and all the crotch sniffing and offerings from the Cult of St. Barack won't change that one damn bit.     We have not argued for US troops to remain in Iraq (though they do -- let's note that because it's very offensive to the families with loved ones still in Iraq when the press repeatedly insists all troops left) but Senator John Barrasso pointed out on CNN today (link is text and video), "What we now know is that his military advisors said leave people in Iraq, 15,000. He wasn't able to accomplish that." And he wasn't able to. He failed at negotiations though they were supposed to be ongoing. (And though some in the administration believe that if he wins re-election this November, that the first thing that will happen with Iraq is new negotiations to put US troops on the ground there.) (To finish out Barrasso's point, his Iraq comments in full, "When he talks about pulling out of Iraq. What we now know is that his military advisors said leave people in Iraq, 15,000. He wasn't able to accomplish that. So right now Iran is flying supplies to Syria over Iraqi airspace. It shouldn't be happening, but it's being done to supply Syrians who are massacring their people. This president has failed on foreign policy.")     Turning to the never ending violence which has at least 9 dead and 26 injured so far today. Alsumaria reports that a Falluja roadside bombing has claimed the life of Mohammed Saleh, an adviser with the Ministry of Electricity, a Falluja car bombing left nine people (eight police officers) injured and a roadside bombing targeted the city's mayor (he surived) while claiming the life of a 2nd grade student and injuring six more. They also note a roadside bombing just outside of Falluja left an alderman and his brother injured. In addition, Alsumaria notes a Mosul armed attack which left 1 police officer dead. Trend News Agency adds Brig Gen Falih Kareem is dead from a Baghdad shooting, an assault on a Baghdad chceckpoint left 2 police officers dead (three more injured), 1 soldier was shot dead in Baghdad (with another left injured) and an armed assault on a Tarmiyah police station left 1 police officer dead and two more injured. AFP states the Tarmiyah assualt involved car bombs, rifles and rockets and that 1 police officer was shot dead in Baquba with three more left injured. Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count notes 265 deaths from violence in Iraq for the month so far. In equally disturbing news, Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports that State of Law has announced provincial elections have been postponed. State of Law is thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's political slate. Thursday, July 19th, the United Nations Security Council held a hearing on Iraq. Offering testimony was Martin Kolber, the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq.   Martin Kobler: Mr. President, there is no democracy without elections and there are no credible elections without a strong and truly independent election commission. As we speak, my political deputy, Mr. [Gyorgy Busztin], is engaged in facilitation efforts to bring about the formation of a new, Independent High Election Commission which is representative of the main components of Iraq -- including women and children and minorities. The urgent selection of the commissioners is essential for ensuring that the provincial council elections due to take place in March 2013 can be conducted on time. I'm concerned that the ongoing political stalemate is hindering the process however. In recent days, I have discussed with political leaders -- including Prime Minister al-Maliki -- the need for a swfit conclusion of this political process and the need for an adequate representation of women and minorities in the commission. Today, I would like to re-iterate my appeal to all political blocs to expedite the selection of professional commissioners. Now the March elections are postponed. Are we grasping that Nouri al-Malki cannot oversee a functioning government? The March 2010 parliamentary elections? They were supposed to take place in 2009. Among the things delaying them? Nouri's group refusing to properaly recognize refugees (who had voting rights). You may remember that the March 2010 elections were followed by an eight month political stalemate (ended only by the US-brokered Erbil Agreement which Nouri used to grab a second term as prime minister and then trashed, creating the current and ongoing political stalemate). Iraq is not 'progressing.' The repeated inability to hold scheduled elections on time is more than disturbing. These are not oh-no-an-attack-on-the-Green-Zone-we-didn't-anticipate-that. These are planned events, known ahead of time. With years to plan, there's no excuse for being able to pull this off. This is a known. This is something UNAMI's been prodding on all year long and before the start of this year. Now it's announced that Nouri's failed government can't even manage to pull off scheduled elections? That they have to postpone yet another scheduled election? These are the basics of governance and Nouri repeatedly fails. Over and over.   The Independent High Election Commission? What IHEC? The current commission has had their term extended and extended and extended. And then finally there was the announcement that Iraq had 9 new IHEC commissioners. Well . . . 8. But they'd get that ninth one. Probably a Turkman.   No one noticed, only in Nouri's Iraq, the problem with the 8. From the September 18th snapshot: Yesterday came news that 8 people had been voted onto the Independent High Electoral Commission. A vote on the 9th member was blocked by Christian MPs who felt they were not being represented. Alaa Sabbagh (Kitabat) wonders if this commission is going to promote democracy or embrace a dictatorship in Iraq? All Iraq News reports that the Sadr bloc has announced they support a Christian member for the Commission and declare that they are a "respectable part of the country." Kitabat notes that the 8 voted on do not represent minorities. This includes women. Not one woman was voted onto the commission yesterday. Only in Nouri's Iraq can 8 people be voted in and it not be noticed during the voting that, oops, there's not even one woman. Back to the September 18th snapshot: Wafaa Zangana (AK News) reports Christian MP Yonadam Yousef Kanna is calling for the number of seats on the commission to be increased since there is now "only one seat for minorities, while the women, Turkmen and Christians were not represented [in the new commission]. The law of the Federal Court stresses the need to represent all parties in the electoral commission, but the presidency of the Council of Representatives violated this law." In related news, an Iraqiya MP tells All Iraq News that there is a conpiracy taking place to ensure that women will not be members of the next Parliament (parliamentary elections are supposed to take place in 2014) and she is calling for a woman to be appointed to the electoral commission so that women's rights will be protected. She notes women make up 65% of the Iraqi population but are barely represented in the Parliament and, at present, not even on the new IHEC. Only Iraqiya (Ayad Allawi's political slate -- the one that came in first in the 2010 elections and should have been able to form a government but the White House backed Nouri over the choice of the Iraqi people) objected. It wasn't just important because of a belief that the IHEC needs to be representative, it was important because of the law. From the September 19th snapshot: About the only thing that could be passed off as 'progress' this week just imploded. Yesterday, 8 of 9 Independent High Electoral Commission commissioners elected. Alsumaria reported this morning that the Federal Court says the number of commissioners must be increased because women must make up a third of the members. (Not one of the eight was a woman -- an oversight Iraqiya called out -- the only political bloc to publicly call that out.) Al Mada notes that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was insisting yesterday that if they just make the ninth member a Christian, they'll have all their bases covered. The judiciary begs to differ. They're calling on members -- not a single seat, multiple seats. That means that the Parliament either gets very focused on this or it is highly likely that an election cannot take place in March of 2013. It's tarting to look a lot like fall 2009 in Iraq.   And that should have been that. The law states women must make up a third of the members. That's not something you can 'massage.' Yet Alsumaria reports the issue is still 'can we get a Turkman on the IHEC?' as opposed to dealing with what the law requires. Is math difficult for the Iraqi government? Is the concept of 1/3 of the members of the IHEC being women a word problem that's difficult to solve?   Back in July, when Kobler addressed the UN Security Council, it was already past time for the IHEC members to have been selected. Two months later all they have to show for it is 8 members and they fail to include women so the court says they're going to need more than 9 commissioners?     We'll note Kobler's lastest remarks tomorrow. As we were noting yesterday regarding Glenn Glenn and The Three Faces of Eve, when you can't make your case on the facts, you resort to insinuation. Iran's Press TV and Kevin Zeese try to make the case on the MEK and doe so with 'facts' like this one from Kat's BFF Kevin Zeese, "The MEK was defined as a terrorist group by the Bush administration because it was --" Okay, wipe the foam from your mouth -- that is foam, right? -- Kevin. The Clinton administration put the MEK on the terrorist list. Know your facts before you speak. And here's another though. While it may be good to go on Iranian television to present a face of America other than the government, it's really not smart to go on Iranian television and speak the Iranian government's party line. Just not smart. It'll keep you on that network, yes. It won't allow you to be seen as a voice of peace. I'm also confused why an alleged voice of peace would appear on Iran's state television considering the government's attitude towards gays and lesbians -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had quite a bit to say on that subject -- none of it educated, enlightened or aware -- while speaking to Piers Morgan (CNN). Since Kevin Zeese makes the decision to go on Iranian state TV and repeat and endorse the Iranain government's outlooks and since Kevin can't condemn the targeting of the LGBT community in Iraq -- never had time for it -- we know why he's so comfortable being cozy with the Iranian government. Thanks, Kevie.     Let's stay on the topic of mindless idiots. Can you tell I'm pissed? At the alleged Moderate Voice, Walter Brasch wants to whine about Republicans:     And now the Republicans have blocked the Veterans Job Corps bill in the Senate. That bill would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 recent veterans by giving them priority in jobs as first responders. It would also have provided career advisers for the veterans. That bill would have helped not just veterans, but all Americans by strengthening fire, police, and first aid/paramedic assistance. The vote in the senate was 58–40 to pass that bill. But, typical of Republican obstructionism, it failed. Although there was a clear majority, the bill failed because the Republicans used a technicality in Senate rules to force a higher standard–requiring 60 votes, not a simple majority, to pass the appropriation.     The premise is a lie. We were asked to note a press release last week and I rejected it because we don't put up known lies here. The press release insistead bad Republicans blah, blah, blah Veterans Job Corps bill blah, blah, blah. I'm not interested in your lies or you attempts to use human lives as partisan props in your election struggles. Cedric's "Liars all" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! LYING AGAIN!" rejected this crap on Saturday. September 14th, before the Senate vote, we pointed out the following:     He [Harry Reid] whined on the Senate floor yesterday about the potential delay (but strangely avoided Rand Paul as he went after Mitch McConnell). He wasn't concerned with the nomination of Beecroft, he was talking about a delay in the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. The bill was introduced by Bill Nelson and co-sponsored by Patty Murray. We support the bill and have noted it many times here. If it's so important to Harry Reid, maybe it should have come up a lot sooner. In other words, if this bill that Harry Reid is now whining about -- whining that it could be delayed -- was so important, maybe they shouldn't have waited until July 24th to introduce a bill? According to the White House blog, to a blog post by Matt Compton, Barack gave a speech on the need for a veterans jobs corps act February 3rd. Who was draffing their feet? Who was delaying? February 3rd, Barack's calling for one and no Democrat in the Senate bothers to pick up the ball until July 24th?     Walter Brasch wants to thunder -- at the so-called Moderate Voice -- about Republicans blocking this so-important bill. If it was so damn important, then it should have been introduced before July 24th. We are aware -- maybe we're not, maybe we're all idiots like Walter Brasch -- that August saw senators out of DC as they returned their home states, right? Are we aware that the Senate didn't return until September 10th? The schedule was proposed in 2011. The schedule was known when Bill Nelson introduced the bill. If it was important to Democrats -- and not just something to bitch, moan and whine about -- they would have introduced it earlier. Are you aware that Senator Richard Burr -- a Republican -- worked years and years before finally, in August, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act? What was controversial about providing needed assistance to service members and their families who became sick due to exposure on a base the US government had sent them to? But it took years. Meaning if you really want a bill passed -- and you better believe Bill Nelson and Patty Murray know this -- you don't wait until the last minute to introduce it. When you introduce at the last minute, you're usually doing so because you don't want it to pass and you're hoping to use it against the other side.     My political party is Democrat, not Hypocrite, so I can't join in this reindeer game where we throw facts out the window and pretend like the Republicans are hideous, mean and awful just because they wouldn't be rushed into a bill. I'd add further that the Democrats better hope the Republicans don't get pissed off. If they do, they need to go the House Veterans Committee and ask, "What did you learn this year in your hearings?" Because some of the veterans legislation that Dems pushed and Dems passed didn't work out quite the way it was supposed to and there's been no rush to fix it.     Those things happen and I'm not going to pretend that there was malice towards anyone or disrespect of veterans intended by Democrats. It's part of the process and if you're half-way intelligent (even I can make that low-level mark), you know these things happen. By the same token, if you're half-way intelligent, you know a big bill needs a lot of selling and a lot of prep work so the Dems really shouldn't be attacking Republicans over this vote.     Jill Stein is the Green Party's presidential candidate and her campaign notes:       Time Magazine columnist Joel Stein is offering a unique opportunity for Jill Stein supporters near southern California. He wants to share and pay for (!) lunch with someone who rejects the politics of fear in favor of the politics of courage - in other words - someone who plans to vote for Jill Stein. To enter this contest all you need to do is make a minimum donation of $3 to the campaign and write a few sentences about why you think you should be the winner. The best response will win the contest. And just so you know, Joel will write about his lunch experience in his Time magazine column and may even use a quote from you. To enter the contest, just donate $3 or more by Friday 9/28 at midnight PST. Click here to donate. There's no doubt this lunch will be memorable and hilarious as Joel is one of the wittiest writers of this generation. Good luck! Here's his pitch . . . Dear Person Who Cares Deeply About Others, Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's campaigns have raffled off dinner with a celebrity to encourage contributions to their campaigns. The Republicans offered dinner with Donald Trump, while the Democrats had dinners with George Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker, Anna Wintour and Michael Jordan. Jill Stein has decided to offer an even more exciting experience: Lunch with me. Joel Stein. A Time magazine columnist. Who promises to listen to you ranting on and on about the corrupt American political system without interrupting you. And I'll even write a column about it in Time magazine. With your name in it. And maybe a shortened quote of one of your rants. Better still, when you tell your fellow Green friends about it, and you say my name quickly enough, they will think you had lunch with Jill Stein. I will take you and a guest for the most expensive lunch in Los Angeles you can think of, since I know that you will probably just order the salad and dessert. Just like for the Obama and Romney raffles, "a donation of $3 or whatever you're able to give today will automatically enter you for the chance" to have lunch with me. Good luck. See you at Café Gratitude, Joel Stein Click here to donate for a chance to win a lunch date with Joel Stein.         iraq al mada wael grace adhem youssef the washington post stephanie mccrummen iraq the los angeles times alana semuels the new york times jack healy mohammed tawfeeq the daily beast john barry