The main objective of the 'Surge' has not been met. Today's suicide bombings point out clearly that the improved security situation that the surge afforded, which was to enable political gains to be achieved within a broad swath of socio-economic aims, has not been met. I would posit that Maliki and the various political entities within the GZG have digressed rather than progressed on the key political goals. With plenty of blame to go around...
Let's look at the bombings...
Dozens of people have been killed and more than 130 injured after a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad and Kirkuk created havoc in Iraq Monday.
In the first attack three female suicide bombers killed at least 28 people and wounded 85 others in central Baghdad, the Iraqi Interior Ministry said. Most were Shiite pilgrims.
The attacks in three locations happened within 30 minutes.
A suicide bomber also killed at least 10 people and wounded 45 others after detonating explosives during a rally in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, a police official told CNN.
Thousands of Kurds had gathered in central Kirkuk to protest an election law that was passed by the Iraqi parliament last week but rejected by the Iraqi presidency council.
The Kurdish opposition stems from intense political disputes among the Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmens in the Kirkuk region, which is regarded by the Kurds as a majority Kurdish region.
In Baghdad it was the second straight day that attackers targeted Shiite pilgrims taking part in an annual march to one of the holiest shrines of Shia Islam.
How do I know about today’s bombing before it happened? Friday I received email from a friend who is a “mole” inside the Supreme Council, and the image above [click on the image to enlarge] is part from what he wrote:
I received information from one the members of the Supreme Council saying: We are planning a series of explosions targeting the pilgrims at the AL Kazim martyrdom memorial in AL-Adil and Al-Jami’a neighborhoods…so that regular Iraqis think that these acts are committed by the Sunnis and the Sadrists.
It seems that the Kurds adopted the same strategy in Kirkuk today. Turkomen parties (accuse)the Kurds of bringing their militias from other parts of Kurdistan, orchestrating demonstrations and claiming that “Kirkuk residents” are demonstrating against the law [confirmed by the American Consulate in Kirkuk] .
As stated by Kurdish official in Dihuk describes the provincial law as “military coup”, Turkomen officials accused the Kurds of militarly occupying the city.
That is seriously f*cked up! ISCI instigating Sunni/Shi'ite violence, and Kurds instigating Kurdish/Arab violence! However,it does track true!
Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad, blamed al-Qaida in Iraq for the attacks in the capital and confirmed the bombers were all women, including a teenager.
"As we have previously stated, AQI is not defeated. They are evil and responsible for the most heinous attacks against unarmed, non-combatant civilians," he said.
The GAO report discusses progress in meeting key goals in The New Way Forward(the 'Surge')
Security gains have largely resulted from (1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, (2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as Sons of Iraq, and (3) the Mahdi Army's declaration of a cease fire.
Average daily attacks were at higher levels in March and April before declining in May 2008. The security environment remains volatile and dangerous.
Isn't it fascinating that McInsane makes no mention of the Sadr ceasefire as a major factor...
Well, it appears that the Sahwa/Awakening councils are getting restless and increasingly disillusioned with Maliki and the GZG stonewalling on the de-Ba'athification law, the failure to integrate the Sahwa into the IAF and/or National Police, and, this doesn't make matters any better...
U.S. military commanders are liaising with top Iraqi brass on a fresh large-scale offensive to subdue the restive Province of Diyala to be launched early in August.[...]
But the U.S. is selling the imminent attack as a purely Iraqi decision. But Iraqi commanders have made it clear to their U.S. counterparts that their troops are not prepared to wage the offensive on their own.
The U.S. is contemplating more offensive across the country to help Iraqi troops spread control.
Analysts say President George W. Bush’s administration is keen to wage as many offensives as possible to defeat al-Qaeda.
The attack will be the second major military operation in less than six months targeting Diyala. The province of which the city of Baaquba is the capital has hardly recovered from the devastation the troops incurred in the previous offensive.
The province is predominantly Arab Sunni but sizeable communities of Sunni Kurds and Arab and Kurdish Shiites live there.[...]
The multi-ethnic and sectarian nature of the province is mirrored in the composition of Iraqi troops and security forces.
Units with Shiite majority are feared more than U.S. troops in mainly Sunni areas and there have stories of oppression and massive human rights abuses.
In protest, the U.S.-sponsored Sunni militia in the province known as Sahwa or awakening has been disintegrating with tribal leaders resigning or simply refusing to press ahead with fighting al-Qaeda.
Observers say the attack is expected to bear little fruit apart from the trail of destruction it will leave behind.
Now, the Kurds are pissed with Maliki for his current offensives in Mosul and Kirkuk, along with his attempt to cram the Provincial Elections law down there throats in regards to divvying up Kirkuk amongst other factions and diluting their voting bloc...
The controversial provincial election legislation is leaving the northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk polarized between Arabs who believe it would restore justice and Kurds who see it a threat to their influence.[...]
Iraqi officials say vetoing the provincial election legislation over the Kirkuk dispute has left the entire political process in tatters.
"We expected that any decision that would involve Kirkuk’s control would create uncontrolled disputes," a member from the electoral commission told IOL on condition of anonymity.
The commission had already said that provincial elections, scheduled for October 1, needed to be delayed until December 22.
The commission official believes that the delay would most likely be further extended now.
The presidential veto means the bill would be sent back to parliament to be redrafted.
"The situation is getting critical," said the official.
"We hope a soon solution can be achieved so we can have a fair and democratic election."
A delay of the elections would be a blow to the Bush administration, which considers them a key step toward national reconciliation.
Now it appears that ISCI/Badr is splintering on top of the schism between Dawa and ISCI...
Informed sources say a conflict developed within the Islamic Supreme Council bloc in parliament, led by Abdulaziz al-Hakim--and which includes the Party of the Supreme Islamic Council and the Badr Organization which is led by Hadi al-Amari--[the conflict] relating to passage of the elections law. The Supreme Council (15 seats) rejected voting on the law last Tuesday and withdrew from the session, the Badr Organization (15 parliamentary seats) voted in favor of the law.
Folks, buckle up! The sh*t is hitting the proverbial fan!!!
McInsane went on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this morning and revised the history books and his campaign stances.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But there was a fundamental difference about the original decision to go to war. He (Obama)said it would inflame the Muslim world, it would become a recruitment tool for al Qaeda.
You said, and you wrote, that it would lessen antipathy in the Muslim world, and that we'd be greeted as liberators.
Wasn't Senator Obama right about that?
MCCAIN: I don't believe so. We were greeted as liberators. We mishandled the war for nearly four years. We mishandled it in a way that was so harmful that I stood up against it. I said it wouldn't work. I said we had to have a new strategy, and I was criticized for being disloyal -- disloyal to Republicans.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You also said many times that the strategy was the right strategy.
MCCAIN: I said that Saddam Hussein caused a -- imposed a threat to the United States of America and our security. And the Oil for Food scandal, the $12 billion he was skimming, the fact that he had said that he had in operation and he wanted to have weapons of mass destruction, the fact that this society that he ruled in such a brutal fashion was really awful. And he did pose a long-term threat to the security of the United States of America.
But that's a job for the historians.
When the crucial time came as to whether we were going to leave Iraq and lose, or stay and do the very unpopular thing of 30,000 additional troops -- asking young Americans to make the sacrifice -- he was wrong, I was right. That was the crucial point...
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you don't...
MCCAIN: ... in the strategy.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... accept that he was right and you were wrong...
MCCAIN: Of course not.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... on the original decision.
MCCAIN: Of course not. Of course not.
Some more notable revisions...
SEN JOHN MCCAIN: That's really good. Look, it's not a timetable, as I said. I was asked, how does that sound? Anything sounds good to me, but...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you never used the word before.
MCCAIN: ... you know, the point is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: You made a point of never using...
MCCAIN: ... I never...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... the word before.
MCCAIN: Look, I have always said, and I said then, it's the conditions on the ground. If Senator Obama had had his way, we'd have been out last March, and we'd been out in defeat and chaos, and probably had to come back again because of Iranian influence.
It's conditions on the ground -- the way that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, the way that General Petraeus has said -- conditions on the ground, so that the Iraqi government can have control, can have the sufficient security, so that we don't have to come back. Senator Obama said that if his date didn't work, we may have to come back.
We're not coming home in victory. We're coming home in victory.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it does seem...
MCCAIN: But it is a -- it is not a date. I want to make it very clear to you, it is not a date. It's conditions on the ground.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you shouldn't have used the word timetable.
MCCAIN: Pardon me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You shouldn't have used the word timetable.
MCCAIN: I didn't use the word timetable. That I did -- if I did...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, it's a pretty good timetable.
MCCAIN: Oh, well, look. Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good.
But the timetable is dictated, not by a artificial date, but by the conditions on the ground, the conditions of security.
And by the way, our ambassador to Iraq basically said we have succeeded. We have succeeded in this strategy.
Now, look. Senator Obama doesn't understand. He doesn't understand what's at stake here. And he chose to take a political path that would have helped him get the nomination of his party.
I took a path that I knew was unpopular, because I knew we had to win in Iraq. And we are winning in Iraq.
And if we'd done what Senator Obama wanted done, it would have been chaos, genocide, increased Iranian influence, perhaps al Qaeda establishing a base again.
Now we have a stable ally in the region, and it is not based on any date.
Wow, Crock O' Shit says we've won, so it must be true!
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.
"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."
“I think it’s a pretty good timetable,” Mr. McCain said Friday in an interview on “The Situation Room” on CNN, before adding that it should be based “on the conditions on the ground.”
Recently there's been a few notable articles pointing out the blatant censorship of the press and other means of communicating the horrors of the Iraq war by this Maladministration. This article in today's NY Times puts it into the proper perspective of their determined efforts to hide the grisly truth from the American people...
If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts — the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers.
A mere half dozen! Unbelievable! The article goes on to highlight some of the reasons...
Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.
And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the “embed” rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military.
“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.”
Besides not allowing photos being taken of the flag draped coffins at Dover AFB, it extended to Arlington National Cemetery...
Former Arlington National Cemetery Public Affairs Director Says She Was Fired for Refusing to Limit Press at Funerals
...Gina Gray assumed the role of public affairs director of Arlington in April. She quickly discovered that cemetery officials were attempting to impose new limits on media coverage of funerals of the US soldiers killed in Iraq—even after the families of the dead soldiers had agreed to let the press attend. After she pushed for greater media access, she says she was fired in a retaliatory move.
The military censorship does not stop at just the Fawning Corporate media, it also extends to the internet for the troops access and posting, as these two WaPo articles point out...
A Casualty Of War: MySpace
U.S. Military Blocks Popular Web Sites, Cutting Ties to Home
The Defense Department began blocking access on its computers to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other Web sites yesterday, severing some of the most popular ties linking U.S. troops in combat areas to their far-flung relatives and friends, and depriving soldiers of a favorite diversion from the boredom of overseas duty.
The banned Web sites include some of the Internet's most popular destinations for social networking and sharing photographs, videos and audio recordings. Soldiers and their families frequent the sites to exchange notes, swap pictures and share recorded messages -- a form of digital communication that, along with e-mail, has largely replaced the much-anticipated mail call of previous wars.
Ironically, in a personal anecdote, I know for a fact that it extends beyond just those popular web sites and on just DoD computers overseas. I know that many progressive blogs, such as FireDogLake are banned on civilian providers of internet bandwidth to on-post housing at various stateside posts and overseas...
Anyways, the second article points out the arbitrary nature of censoring the troops own blogs from Iraq...
With His Blog Kaboom, a Young Soldier Told of His War. Last Month, the Army Made Him Shut It Down.
Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a military spokesman, said in an e-mail that Kaboom was "deemed by the commander to be counter to good order and discipline of his unit." He added that the blog had not been registered with the military, an assertion Dennis Gallagher disputes.
Lt. G wrote in his last dispatch that all postings, except for the one about the promotion talk, had been vetted by a supervisor. On June 27, he wrote one last entry, titled "A Tactical Pause":
I'm a soldier first, and orders are orders. So it is.
If you think, please think of us. If you pray, please pray for us. The second half of our deployment will be just as challenging and dangerous as the first half.
Thank you for caring. Agree or disagree with the war, if you're reading this, you are engaged and aware. As long as that is still occurring in a free society, there is something worth the fighting for.
Amen, Captain(he was recently promoted, Congrats)! Keep your head down and God Speed...!
While chatting with reporters on his press plane this week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), noting that many of the televisions at army bases in Iraq and Afghanistan were tuned to Fox News, jokingly asked, “Is this the commander in chief’s choice?” Missing the joke, the Fox and Friends denounced Obama’s “implication” that the Bush administration was “brainwashing” the troops.[...]
The Fox anchors repeatedly declared that the military offers “all cable channels.” However, when Brian Kilmeade checked with a source in Gen. Petraeus’ office, he reported that the military televisions offer “AFN [American Forces Network] news, which cycles through the various news broadcasts, and you can also get CNN International, and then we have Fox.” In other words, Fox is the only stateside American network accessible around the clock
I'd rather watch nothing... It'd be more informative...!
I'm always fascinated with this Maladminstration's blatant hypocrisy and the politicization of the various Executive Branch Departments' actions. It seems the Hatch Act is only applicable to the Democrats and the Repugs can ignore it anytime they see fit...
In June, the Shrub appointed Ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, coordinated and attended a speech delivered by McInsane to the Economic Club of Toronto, in Ottawa, during which, McCain made clear references to and critiques of Obama’s policy positions in the speech, and referred to his own presidential campaign six times.
Meanwhile, Yesterday, when Obama stood in front of the Victory Monument in front of 200,000 Germans in Tiergarten Park, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin “instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama’s public rally” because the event was “‘partisan political activity‘ prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas.”
Hmmm... what say you...? Hypocritical?
Moving along to the latest episode...
The Pentagon had given the green light for the Obama camp to land his campaign plane in Ramstein AFB to visit wounded troops at nearby Landstuhl, the largest military hospital outside of the US, on July 15th or 16th. I've been to it and it is massive! Then all of a sudden the Pentagon raised concerns that it was a political event...
"We learned from the Pentagon [Wednesday] night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event ... and decided instead not to go."
The Pentagon today said that, while political and campaign activity at military installations is restricted, it welcomes all nonpolitical visits by U.S. senators and did not bar an Obama visit.
"Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously as a sitting senator he has an interest in that and can certainly visit in an official capacity," said Bryan Whitman, spokesman for the Pentagon. "There are as you know, though, restrictions on what you can do as a candidate for political office, that stems from trying to maintain political neutrality and not have the military involved in politics."[...]
Pentagon officials said their interpretation of regulations made it clear that this visit would have to be considered campaign related.
That's interesting since he's a candidate for political office, he can't visit, but, as a sitting senator he can... Alrighty then... He must've been wearing the wrong hat...!
So what was McInsane's and the Repugs response...?
The campaign of Obama's GOP rival, Sen. John S. McCain, was quick to criticize the decision. "Barack Obama is wrong," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. "It is never 'inappropriate' to visit our men and women in the military."
The Youtube above was another sample of their vitriol.
Being a classier act than the Repugs, Obama still reached out to the wounded at Landstuhl...
Obama made phone calls to wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Germany this morning, in lieu of a personal visit to the forces that was canceled by the Obama campaign.
Obama was expected to speak to a number of soldiers individually.
Adapt and overcome...! I wonder what ruckus the Repugs would've raised if he had visited the wounded...?
I've always been taught that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! I guess McInsane never learned that lesson...
In an interview with Katie Couric on Tuesday night McInsane had made numerous gaffes. Interestingly, one of the more notable gaffes was conveniently left on the floor of CBS's editing room. However, McInsane and his response team just kept digging the hole deeper over the next couple of days in woeful attempts to correct the record.
Let's take a look at some of them...
Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history.
Now, first the Anbar Awakening started a full year before the Surge began, then, that Sheik (Sattar)he refers to was assassinated by... Al Qaeda... During the Surge...! Here's a article about it...
When U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, working in his Pentagon office last Thursday, heard that a tribal leader had been killed in Iraq's Anbar province, his first reaction was: "Please don't let it be Sattar."
His fears proved well-founded. A bomb had killed Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, the founder of a movement of Sunni leaders who turned against al Qaeda in Iraq, who are also Sunnis, and transformed Anbar from one of Iraq's deadliest areas into one of its safest[...]
An al Qaeda-led group said on Friday it had killed Abu Risha, according to an Internet posting. The group also vowed to assassinate more tribal leaders who cooperate with U.S. and government forces.
Seven individuals were killed and 24 others wounded by a suicide bombing targeting a commander for anti-Qaeda group in Diala on Thursday, a security source said.
“A woman rigged with an explosive belts blew herself up targetting a commander of popular committees in Baquba al-Jadida, killing him and six individuals including bodyguards and wounded 24 others”, a Diala security source, who requested anonymity, told Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq(VOI).
The source identified the anti-U.S(sic) group commander as Naeem al-Dulaimi.
Earlier, the source noted “the explosion took place when a roadside bomb placed inside a popular committees commander’s car blew up”.
The popular committee or Sahwa councils are anti-Qaeda fighters groups working in coordination with the Multi-National Force (MNF) and the Iraqi government.
CBS scrubs a second McCain flub from interview broadcast
Keeping up with John McCain's foreign policy gaffes is becoming a cottage industry these days, and a progressive radio host has caught another slip-up from the Republican presidential nominee talking about the war on terror.[...]
Young Turks host Cenk Uygur noticed that his confusion about the timeline of the "surge" in Iraq wasn't McCain's only gaffe in his interview with CBS news this week. McCain seemed to forget the war in Afghanistan preceded the invasion of Iraq; either that or he didn't think it was a major conflict.
"The fact is we had four years of failed policy. ... We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure. The defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world," McCain told CBS anchor Katie Couric.
"Was Afghanistan not major enough for him?" Uygur asks.
Like his previous flub, CBS edited this misstatement from its broadcast. The full version of the interview, which only aired online, also saw McCain wrongly crediting the surge with sparking the "Anbar Awakening," in which tribal leaders began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq.
The Anbar Awakening gaffe was edited out and replaced with McCain's scurrilous attack accusing Democratic nominee Barack Obama of caring more about winning the election than winning a war. Crooks & Liars notes that bit of editing violated CBS's own Standards & Practices because they edited in an answer from an earlier question and changed the meaning of McCain's statement.
I find it highly amusing that McCain's camp is accusing the Media of a distinct bias towards Obama... Do you think CBS would've scrubbed an interview with Obama of any gaffes...? Twice even...? Only 104 more days folks...!
37,000 Guard/Reservists Back From Iraq Didn't Receive Benefits And Other Shenanigans...
It's refreshing to finally see some congressional oversight being exerted over the VA, Pentagon, and the Private Contractors. Something that was woefully lacking for much of Shrub's tenure at the helm...
As McClatchy reports on a recent Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing...
The Department of Veterans Affairs failed to send benefit packages to nearly 37,000 National Guard and Reserve members who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan because it mistakenly thought they were ineligible.
Several senators raised the discovery Wednesday, detailed in a report by the VA's Office of Inspector General, as the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee held a hearing on whether Guard and Reserve members are being adequately informed of the benefits that are available to them.
"While the VA has targeted outreach programs in place to help service members, we still miss far too many veterans who need help and aren't aware of the services and benefits they have earned," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a senior member of the committee.
Murray and others have long criticized the VA and the Defense Department as not doing enough to ensure that the more than 488,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves who've been mobilized and deployed are notified of and receive the benefits they're entitled to.[...]
Murray said a recent Pentagon study found that National Guard members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were 25 percent more likely to suffer from combat-related psychological problems than active-duty soldiers who've been deployed. In addition, Guard and Reserve members are twice as likely to have their VA claims denied as active-duty service members are, she said.
It should be interesting to see what they propose to tackle the issue...
Even Sen. Byrd and the Senate Appropriations Committee wants answers...
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, leveled the accusations before the Appropriations Committee he chairs. He is calling for arrests and speedy trials for any contractors accused of bilking the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
In a statement released before Wednesday's hearing, Byrd said the military's inability to oversee its myriad contracts adequately has indirectly killed soldiers.
He did not elaborate except to say, "As a result of this lack of oversight, billions of dollars have been lost or wasted, bad contractors have been rewarded, and shoddy workmanship -- some of which has resulted in the deaths of our soldiers -- has gone uncorrected."[...]
Too few auditors and managers have been assigned to oversee contracts, and too few investigators are charged with prosecuting allegations of fraud, waste and corruption and with retrieving "these stolen billions," Byrd said.
"It is evident that our oversight resources have been strained past the breaking point," he said. "Army contracting dollars and actions have increased more than 350 percent over the last 11 years, while the contracting work force has decreased by more than 50 percent."
One concrete proposal for tackling that serious issue was initiated by Senators Leahy and Grassley, whereby they are seeking to extend the Statutes of Limitations for prosecuting those sorry a**holes... We shall see how far that gets...
In a related investigation, Senators Lieberman and Collins, Co-Chairs of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had requested in 2006 the GAO to investigate the DCAA's audit practices. Ironically, though, I guess they didn't say 'pretty please'...
GAO said it launched the investigation on its own after receiving complaints on a hotline about 14 DCAA audits. It conducted more than 100 interviews of more than 50 people involved in the audits at two DCAA locations in California.
What the GAO did find after looking into it was pretty gruesome...
Auditors at an oversight agency of the Pentagon were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on a major defense contractor's work, hiding wrongdoing and charges of overbilling, according to an 80-page report from the Government Accountability Office.
The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which is charged with overseeing contractors for the Defense Department, made an upfront agreement with "a major aerospace company" to limit the scope of work and basis for an audit, the report said.
When the contractor, who is not named in the report, objected to the draft findings of the DCAA audit, managers at the audit agency assigned a new supervisor to the case and threatened the senior auditor with personnel action if "he did not delete findings from the report and change the draft audit opinion to adequate," according to the GAO report.
Supervisors at DCAA attempted to intimidate auditors, prevented them from speaking with GAO investigators and created a "generally abusive work environment," the report said.
Hmmm... Not pretty at all! So what did HoJo and Collins have to say...
Lieberman said today: "GAO has substantiated serious whistleblower allegations that show that some DCAA supervisors were cutting corners and pressuring their subordinates to give more favorable audits to contractors than the auditors felt the contractors deserved. This shows a blatant disregard for the safeguards that are supposed to be in place to ensure that contractors charge the government no more than a fair and reasonable price."
Collins said the results "raise serious concerns about DCAA's ability to effectively fulfill its critical oversight mission."
Okay, so what do you propose to do about it? Hmmm...?
"Further work is needed to determine the extent of the problem and what corrective actions are necessary to put DCAA back on the right track, " Collins said in a statement
Further work? Huh? I swear they are both as worthless as teats on a boar hog... I'm not holding my breath on seeing anything come out of these investigations, but, one can always hope! Right???
I find it interesting that today, while Obama is in Israel to meet with Olmert, Abbas, and other leaders, the TimesOnline would run this smear: "Democrat Barack Obama viewed with suspicion in Israel."
Barack Obama pledged yesterday to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians from his first day in office, hours before arriving in the region where he faces a skeptical audience on both sides of the conflict.
The Democratic presidential candidate, who is struggling to win over Jewish voters in America and is viewed with suspicion in Israel, holds meetings in Jerusalem and the West Bank today during the thorniest leg of his international tour. It will be a far cry from the rapturous public reception that he is likely to receive in Berlin tomorrow.
NEW POLL: American Jews Defy Conventional Wisdom On Israel and the Middle East
Overwhelmingly Support Aggressive U.S. Leadership to Resolve Israeli-Palestinian Conflict as well as Diplomacy with Iran
¨ Middle East Peace Is a Core Interest for the U.S. and for Israel: By a 55 to 30 percent margin, Jews believe Middle East peace is a core American interest. When asked whether military superiority alone or a peace agreement with a strong military would provide better security for Israel, Jews favor a peace agreement by a 50 to 34 margin.
¨ American Jews Favor Compromise in Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Jews are very favorably disposed toward the compromises and positions outlined in the 2000 Camp David summit and in other negotiations. Large majorities support negotiating with Israel’s worst enemies (76 percent), withdrawal from the Golan Heights in exchange for full peace like the arrangements with Egypt and Jordan (58 percent) and withdrawal from most of the West Bank (59 percent). Jews overwhelming believe that the Israeli government would not agree to a dangerous peace deal, and 81 percent “will support any agreement the Israelis make with their Arab enemies.”
¨ Jews are very wary of military action against Iran. When presented with several statements about the Middle East by a Congressional candidate, respondents were most supportive of someone who says talking with Iran is not appeasement and America should pursue direct diplomacy. Statements invoking military action against Iran test poorly throughout the survey. For example, only 26 percent of respondents were much more likely (and 48 percent total more likely) to support a Congressional candidate arguing that America should support Israel if it preemptively strikes Iran.
¨ 2008 Election: Jews are more supportive of Barack Obama over John McCain (62 to 32 percent) and the Democrats over the Republicans in Congressional races (69 to 27 percent).
That certainly flies in the face of AIPAC's 'Conventional Wisdom', Eh? But, it even gets better...
Obama Far More Popular Among Jews Than Lieberman
If Barack Obama has a problem among Jewish voters, then Sen. Joseph Lieberman is in monumental trouble.
Among the most high-profile Jews in Congress, Lieberman is viewed far more unfavorably than the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to a new poll. Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably
Ouch! That has to hurt... Their poster child has lost his glamor!
I wonder if HoJo is still on McInsane's short list for Veep...?
This ad clearly demonstrates the sheer desperation that has seized the McCain camp. Let's review a little history; In 2000, just before Bush took office, gas averaged $1.07 a gallon, today it averages $4.27 a gallon... For 6 of the last 8 years, the Repugs controlled both houses in the legislature and the White House... For half of that time, Obama was a State Senator in Illinois, not the US Senate... And, how long has McInsane been part of the problem himself, 25-30 years...? Teh Stoopid... It burns...!
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said on Monday during his meeting with visiting U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that developments in Iraq will determine the presence of foreign troops in the country.
“Al-Maliki stressed that developments on the ground will enable Iraqi and U.S. sides to agree on a clear vision regarding the presence of troops, noting that the two sides agreed during their negotiations on the long-term agreement,” according to a statement released by al-Maliki’s office and received by Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).[...]
“We now have a strong government which saved Iraq from terrorism,” al-Maliki added, expressing his optimism regarding realizing the Iraqis’ ambitions in security, stability and economic prosperity,” he also said.
“For his part, Obama congratulated al-Maliki on the achievements made by his government, hailing the U.S.-Iraqi relations and the developments in the country,” the statement said.
“The U.S. senator told al-Maliki that the American people seek to have strategic relations with Iraq, asserting the U.S. commitment to maintain Iraq’s security and stability,” it added.
A cabinet media source had said earlier that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and visiting U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama discussed a number of topics including the future of U.S. military presence in Iraq.
"Maliki received Obama as soon as he arrived in Baghdad and the two sides discussed the possibility of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq," the source, who asked that he is name not be revealed, told the VOI.
I wonder if either of them experienced any translation issues...
In other Iraqi news... Do you remember the Bad Weather that delayed the turn over of Al Anbar province? Well, apparently it wasn't just the weather...
U.S. and Iraqi forces are preparing another siege of Fallujah under the pretext of combating "terror", residents and officials say.
Located 69 km west of Baghdad, the city that suffered two devastating U.S. attacks in 2004 has watched security degrade over recent months.
"Ruling powers in the city fighting to gain full control seem willing to use the security collapse to accuse each other of either conspiracy (in lawlessness) or incapability of control," Sufian Ahmed, a lawyer and human rights activist in Fallujah told IPS.
"They suddenly changed their tone from saying that the city was the safest in Iraq to claiming that al-Qaeda is a serious threat. Fallujah residents know their so-called leaders are using security threats to terrify them for their own political interests."
In the face of U.S. military claims of improved security, violence has been rising by the day this month. The city has now been placed under tight curfew while U.S. and Iraqi military forces prepare for a new offensive, according to the local Azzaman daily.
Iraqi security forces have established new checkpoints around the city and are forbidding movement of people and traffic. Pick-up trucks are roaming the city warning residents that al-Qaeda has once again infiltrated Fallujah.
Iraqi police officers insist that the situation is under control despite the "occasional incidents that take place all over Iraq."
The indications on the ground belie these claims. "The Americans and their allies transferred our leader, Colonel Fayssal al-Zoba'i from his post because they have bad plans for the city," a major in the Fallujah police force told IPS. "He has all the right to keep his post because he was the one who led us to defeat the insurgency while the Americans failed. They (the U.S. military) seem to have a plan to destroy the city again."
Iraqi police and troops from other areas are being deployed in the city in what police officials say is a build-up for a huge offensive. U.S. occupation forces are on the ready in nearby bases.
The government in Baghdad has made it clear that direct U.S. military involvement is critical for an "imminent offensive" in Fallujah, sources in the Iraqi military have been quoted as saying in Iraqi media.
That sure was one looong sandstorm... I feel for the residents of Fallujah...
Iraq's Oct. 1st Elections Postponed and HoJo Prattles On...
A member of the Iraqi electoral commission on Sunday announced postponing provincial the elections until the end of the year rather than their schedule date in October.
"The elections were put off until December 22, whether the provincial councils law is endorsed by the Parliament or not," Hamdiya al-Husseini, a member of the Iraqi high electoral commission (IHEC), told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI).
U.S. officials have described the provincial elections as one of several benchmarks, along with the reduction of violence in Baghdad and approval of a hydrocarbon resource sharing law, by which they are assessing the progress of Iraq's national government. Many U.S. officials and Iraqi leaders say new provincial elections would produce a political balance, ease resentment of disenfranchised factions, and help stabilize security.
The electoral official noted, "the electoral commission discussed the issue with the the UN assistance team," adding "it made this decision in order to run fair and transparent elections that comply with international standards."
The Iraqi Parliament has been a scene of heated debates on the provincial elections law this week and has not yet legislated any law that determines the shape of the state.
The provincial council law specifies the system of government in Iraq, and if applied, a federal system may be established in the country.
The draft law on provincial council elections proposes an open slate system, which gives voters influence on the position of the candidates placed on the party list and allows an individual voting system.
I have mixed feelings about the postponement. If they were held it would have "produce(d) a political balance, ease(d) resentment of disenfranchised factions, and help(ed) stabilize security." Personally, I think they slow-walked it in Parliament to keep their tenuous grasp on the levers of power...
On the other hand, I also find that it is imperative to "run fair and transparent elections that comply with international standards." They were right in arguing that the clock didn't afford the chance to meet the Oct. 1st goals, which I do think was the purpose of their needless 'heated debates'...
Well, Traitor Joe, had to defend his newest Bestest Friend today on Faux Spew's FNS w/Chris Wallace...
Here's a memorable exchange...
WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama’s plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he’s apparently backed off that.(Not True!)*
But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?
LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.
And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don’t want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.(Aargh!)
Remember this, Chris. We wouldn’t be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party(Huh???), popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.
So I think that’s the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we’re out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Senator Obama doesn’t seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that’s not wise.
Sen. Evan Bayh promptly smacked Chris and HoJo upside the head...
BAYH: Chris, I think it's important to note that Barack Obama's judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you'd want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.
We wouldn't be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn't have started that war to begin with.(Ouch!)
He was right about Afghanistan. That's the place from which we were attacked. He's been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack's point of view on that.
He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it's the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.
And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it's starting to sound pretty much like a timeline to me.
So it's common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it's going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it's going to take.
So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let's work toward that. Let's bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.
It got even more heated...
WALLACE: Again, two questions, really, Senator Bayh. Why the, quote, "iron timetable" that the Washington Post talks about? And secondly, this issue — why announce your policy before you go to Iraq and talk to the generals and the Iraqis?
BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, General Petraeus was asked recently about whether a 16-month period was a reasonable period of time, and he said it would depend on a variety of factors. He didn't say it was unreasonable.
We've been there — will have been — 16 months from when the next president is inaugurated, almost seven years. We've spent $700 billion. Just think of all the other things we could have done — finished Afghanistan, energy security for our country — with those amount of resources.
What's really surprising is that John, a man I admire and respect, says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruct in Iraq, knowing all the consequences that have been adverse in Afghanistan because of our fixation on Iraq, he would do this all over again. That's what is really surprising.
So Barack thinks that 16 months from January is a reasonable period of time. Let's go for it. Let's see. Let's try and bring this to a conclusion on that time frame. If there are difficulties, we'll address them when they arise.
LIEBERMAN: Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today. It wouldn't be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq.
John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he'd rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States.
The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama's policy couldn't — had been implemented — if Barack Obama's policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn't be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.
And that would mean today Al Qaeda would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and maybe even genocide.
And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can't choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan.
The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaeda has its tail tucked between its legs as it's exiting Iraq to go — to try to...
WALLACE: I'm going to...
BAYH: I have to respond to that. Barack Obama was not for losing in Iraq. Barack didn't want the war to begin with.
John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week.
LIEBERMAN: Yeah, but what...
BAYH: Excuse me. Was John for losing in Afghanistan? I don't think so.
LIEBERMAN: Of course not.
BAYH: And now you have Maliki, even President Bush, are moving toward Barack Obama's position on this.
WALLACE: I want to...
BAYH: His judgment was right.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, I want to — we could continue this...
LIEBERMAN: Those questions — bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq.
BAYH: That's not true.
WALLACE: All right. All right.
LIEBERMAN: Forget what's right or wrong...
WALLACE: Gentlemen, you're going to have to agree to disagree. I want to move on to the whole issue of his trip this week.
Senator Lieberman, the McCain camp seems divided about whether this is a legitimate fact-finding trip or a political stunt. After McCain and the Republican Party taunted Obama for not going to Iraq, has that, in fact, backfired on them by making this an even bigger story?
LIEBERMAN: No, I don't think so. I think John McCain's challenge to Barack Obama is very important. And frankly, it says a lot more than whether McCain was right about Iraq and Obama was wrong.
It says what kind of leaders these people will be as president. Obama reached — John McCain reached a decision about what to do in Iraq based on what he saw there, what he heard — what he heard from the generals and from the soldiers, and then he had the guts to fight big interests to see — including public opinion, to see that that would happen.
Senator Obama was taking positions about Iraq to put us on a rigid time line to get all troops out by March 2008 — all combat troops. That's what he said. That would have been accepting defeat there.
And I think what it says about the two of them — this is the kind of president John McCain will be on the economy. We're in crisis. We need a president who will listen, learn, decide what's right for the country, not what's right for their political campaign, and fight for the American people to make...
WALLACE: I want...
LIEBERMAN: ... that happen.
WALLACE: I want to ask Senator Bayh about another aspect of Obama's trip.
He plans to make a big public speech in Berlin. There was first talk it was going to be at the Brandenburg Gate. They announced today it's going to be at the Victory Column, a golden column in the heart of downtown Berlin.
Why would someone running for president of the United States hold a big rally in Germany? Wouldn't it be like a candidate for German chancellor holding a rally in front of the Statue of Liberty?
BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, getting back to Iraq, I just have to disagree once again. Barack Obama is for success in Iraq. His judgment about this was right from the beginning.
If you agree that knowing what we know today you would do this all over again...
WALLACE: With all due respect...
BAYH: ... then vote for John McCain.
WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we both have been there.
BAYH: But I just couldn't let Joe get away with saying he's for defeat. That's not true. He has a better path to victory. His judgment's been right about this.
Whew, too much BS from Chris and HoJo to keep track of...
In a stinging rebuke to Shrub's nebulous language of time horizons and despite Betrayus's feeble attempt to clarify Maliki's position, Maliki set off an EFP that shredded Shrub's and McInsane's Iraqi Foreign Policy armor...
Here's Betrayus attempt...
“Again, what [al-Maliki] has said is not a timeline or a timetable. He said time horizons, which, again, we think that there's nothing wrong with talking about time horizons,” said Petraeus.
He added that the feasibility of withdrawing U.S. troops in 16 months would depend on conditions that could not be forecast with much certainty.
Here's Maliki...
When asked in an interview with Der Spiegel when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Ouch! That has got to hurt...! In an amusing anecdote on the panic it induced in the WH...
White House Accidentally E-Mails to Reporters Story That Maliki Supports Obama Iraq Withdrawal Plan
The White House this afternoon accidentally sent to its extensive distribution list a Reuters story headlined "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine."[...}
The White House employee had intended to send the article to an internal distribution list, ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports, but hit the wrong button.
All but guaranteeing that the story would get publicized...
That's definitely gonna leave a campaign road rash of sorts for McInsane, eh?
Today, McCain 2008 Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:
"The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama's views had prevailed."
Btw, as that YouTube above points out, McInsane says we've Succeeded in Iraq! Not, we're succeeding, we've succeeded...! He even it clarified it later...
McCain added on the campaign bus: “I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq — not we are succeeding — we have succeeded in Iraq.”
As proof, he said, just ask the commander on the ground... Betrayus...! D'oh!!!
Now, that begs the obvious question, if we've 'succeeded' why don't we leave? Hmmm...? Inquiring minds want to know...
There were quite a few articles published today crowing the sudden 'breakthrough' in negotiations between Maliki and Shrub on the 'long term agreement'. As is typical of our Fawning Corporate Media, they fail to grasp the actual facts or basis of the 'agreement'.
The United States and Iraq have agreed to set a “general time horizon” for the “further reduction of U.S. combat forces in Iraq” following the improvement in security conditions in the country, the White House said Friday.
The breakthrough, which was reached between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in discussions via video link on Thursday, could lead to the successful completion of a long-term security agreement covering American operations in Iraq — from combat missions to detaining Iraqis — by the end of this month, a White House official said.
Huh? What breakthrough on timetables for troop reductions do you ascertain from; "'general time horizon' based on 'improvements in the security situation'...?"
I think Rep. Delahunt summed it up best...
Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, who has led House hearings on the agreement, described the "time horizon" as "very vague and nebulous."
Like many Democrats — including Mr. Obama — Mr. Delahunt said a “timetable with specific dates is critical."
He also expressed broader legal concerns about the authority to conduct combat operations in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expires.
He said the agreement that was likely to be reached before the end of this month reflected a retreat by the administration, in that it seems "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated," he said.
Heh, it is definitely 'far less grandiose'... Of course, Maliki is none too anxious to set specific timetables for our departure either...!
Washington's top diplomat confirmed on Friday that the United States had shifted its position on diplomacy with Iran, as Tehran said it was prepared for a dialogue on establishing a US interests section in Iran and beginning direct flights between the two countries.
"The US doesn't have any permanent enemies," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in response to a question on the unexpected move to send a senior envoy to Geneva to participate in crucial nuclear talks with Iran's negotiator on Saturday.
"And we hope this signal we're sending, that we fully support the track that Iran could take for a better relationship with the international community, is one the US stands fully behind."
"This decision to send Undersecretary [William] Burns is an affirmation of the policy that we have been pursuing with our European allies ... for some time now," Rice said, adding: "We will see what happens on Saturday."
Huh? "For some time now..." Since when, Condi?
Personally, I think Laura Rozen's colleague gets to the real reason behind the flip-flop on Iran...
"Everyone seems to have missed the obvious: The State Department's third man is going to [talk with] Iran to send oil prices down. I'm sure Paulson told Bush this was the only way to stop a panic." Almost certainly part of it. (And is it working?)
Indeed, a US official involved with Iran policy wrote me a couple weeks back that high oil prices had severely crimped their policy: "It’s clear that the two-track policy put in place a number of years ago (incentives vs. sanctions) has been overtaken somewhat by the unforeseeable and dramatic rise in oil prices. Iran’s GDP has doubled, and they are more isolated from the effects of economic sanctions. At the same time the Iranians have made significant progress on enrichment. There are many, many more economic sanctions in the quiver, but we have carefully resisted imposing economic sanctions, unilaterally or multilaterally, that would significantly affect the Iranian people. Our goal remains an Iran without nuclear weapons, and our strategy remains the two-track approach. In light of the rise in oil prices and Iran’s enrichment achievements, the interim objectives that the two-track strategy should be aiming to achieve is something everyone is looking at, and there is no question that there is a way forward. ..."
Oil prices have put a crimp on Shrub's policy endeavors, maybe both foreign and domestic...? Hmmm... Ya think?
I am encouraged with the sudden shift to diplomatic talks with Iran, but, I'll reserve judgment until after the talks on Saturday... Stay tuned...!
UPDATE: Josh Marshall seems to think there's another motive to the paradigmatic shifts by Shrub and McInsane...
Over the last ten days or so, the President and the McCain campaign (who are clearly working in coordination, as they're entirely entitled to do) have been systematically drawing back from their positions on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran and either fully embracing or moving toward those held for some time by Barack Obama.
Let's run the list.
McCain and now the White House (via the DOD) are moving toward more US troops in Afghanistan -- a position they've each long opposed and which Obama has been on record in support of for at least a year.
Bush and McCain have each also in different ways tried to nudge closer to Obama's position on withdrawing troops from Iraq. The key shoe falling today is President Bush's embrace of a "time horizon" for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, McCain's declaration of military victory in Iraq seems very much like an effort to get people thinking the troops are coming home soon within the conceptual architecture of his professed goals in Iraq.
And finally Iran. I'm not certain what McCain himself has said about Iran in recent days. But over recent months a key line of attack from the president and John McCain has been that Obama is a latter-day Neville Chamberlain for saying we should negotiate with Iran. And now over recent days we've learned that the White House is sending one of its top diplomats to negotiate directly with Iran's nuclear negotiator. And there are growing signs the White House is poised to open a diplomatic interests section (an unofficial diplomatic outpost) in Tehran.
In the case of Iran, the flashpoint has been meetings between heads of state. So there's not a direct equation. And McCain's and Bush's supporters can still point to this as the bright line they have not and will not cross.
But when the spin is wiped away, for all the scrutiny and hand-wringing about the nuances about Obama's 16 months, there's simply no denying that all the real movement at this point in the campaign shows Bush/McCain trying to nudge closer to the ground Obama already holds.
Wow, maybe Obama does have the right answers after all! Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right...?
Having witnessed numerous Dog and Pony shows with dignitaries running the gamut from Governors, Senators and House Reps, to DoD Secs, JCS and even a SMA, I've never seen a honest, accurate assessment given to the respective dignitary...
With Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and Afghanistan, I've decided to sound off on the subject. Awhile back I ran across this awesome blog post on how to truly give the dignitaries/top brass a realistic account... (Btw, Welcome Home, Satirist!)
The first thing I'd like to point out is that I've seen deplorable living conditions a few times during my sojourn in the Army, and those instances have all had the following in common:
1) outside in the sand or mud
2) heavy precipitation
3) stinging / biting insects
4) lack of food and/or water
Our FOBs have beds, or at least cots, air conditioning, and well-prepared food. Who goes to Afghanistan and expects a four-star hotel??? There's no pleasing some people, I suppose.
The next thing--and this is important--is: how did I know that G1 was coming for an inspection tomorrow? I guess the logic must be: "if they know we're coming, and they're s***'s jacked up, they're *really* bad." I've seen this on countless occasions--a "Distinguished Visitor" will fly into the battlespace, we'll know far in advance, prepare a highly-scripted briefing, and said visitor will come away with our well-spun version of the truth, which is always more complicated than can effectively be summarized in a one-hour brief. And yet, General after General comes through, speaks to a few high-ranking officers that have been preparing for days to receive him, then leaves, beaming, full of satisfaction that he's doing a good job.
The military cannot hope for accurate and effective top-down assessments if this is allowed to continue. We are sabotaging ourselves and our ability to self-criticize effectively by choreographing this type of event. If I were a General, or a Congressman, and genuinely interested in soliciting honest battlefield reporting this is what I'd do:
1) grab a blackhawk and an apache from a primary hub
2) fly, unannounced, around the battlespace, visiting COPs and FOBs in no particular pattern
3) spend 3 or 4 hours at a single location, and speak *privately* with a representative cross-section of NCOs and low-level officers, before speaking with the commander. Why? If nothing's going wrong, that'll show. If, on the other hand, there are corrections that need to be made, the time to identify those corrections is not during a powerpoint presentation from the very individual / individuals who have the most at stake.
In this fashion, we, the military, could identify problems BEFORE they spun out of control, rather than waiting for some tactical or strategic disaster and performing "After Action Reviews" to brainstorm solutions. Often, a serious military reverse is the last act in a long-unfolding drama.
Then again, institutional change is painful; if nothing's wrong, no change is necessary. And, of course, every individual in the institution has some vested interest in keeping things the same--the closer you get to the top, the stronger the loyalty to the institution. Few leaders succeed who *question* the institutional capacities and functions of the Army--though to question those capacities should not automatically be construed as disloyalty. So you get to the top, and you're not thinking: "is that 240B broken?" You're thinking: "I'm glad everyone's doing great out here. I'm going to get you more air conditioners."
Sorry for the long excerpt, but it's too good to trim it...
Here is a good example for how a House Rep can try to find out the real deal...
...Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) recounted his experiences visiting the detention center. Hastings, who arrived at the facility “two hours early one day” during his visit, said he witnessed Guantanamo staffers “whitewashing the walls” in anticipation of the arrival of the other members of congress:
I know that they had washed it that day. Cleaned it up. And the prisoners were eating the best meal that they had gotten in a week. And I could go on and on and on and on. I even remember I got there — I did so deliberately — two hours early one day. And they were still whitewashing the walls and what have you.
Hastings said he “wasn’t impressed” by the “dog and pony show.”
Nice job, Rep. Hastings...
As Reuters reports on McCain's take on Obama's trip...
McCain, who is running behind Obama in public opinion polls, was trying to make a major campaign issue of Obama's Iraq policy in hopes of convincing Americans that the Illinois senator is too inexperienced to be trusted to lead the country as commander in chief.
On his bus, he said he hoped Obama will listen not only to commanders on the ground in the two war zones but also to the troops.
"They'll tell him they don't want to be defeated," McCain said. "They'll tell him that the surge has succeeded," he said, referring to President George W. Bush's 2007 troop buildup.
"They'll tell him that we're winning this war, will win it, if we don't do what he wants to do, which is to set a date for withdrawal."
Having said all that, McCain said he was glad Obama was making the trip, disagreeing with his communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, who told the Fox News Channel:
"Let's drop the pretense that this is a fact-finding trip and call it what it is: the first of its kind campaign rally overseas."
Excuse me, McInsane? Are you serious...? I seem to recall your Dog and Pony show of strolling through a Baghdad Bazaar... Are you happy with those rugs you bought while Apaches hovered above...?
In another sad rendition of VA's unofficial motto... "Delay, Deny, and Hope They Die..."
Although Dennis Kucinich has been in the news of late, for his impassioned pleas to impeach Darth and Shrub, little mention is made about his role as chairman of the domestic policy subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Today, he held a hearing on: “Die or Give Up Trying: How Poor Contractor Performance, Government Mismanagement and the Erosion of Quality Controls Denied Thousands of Disabled Veterans Timely and Accurate Retroactive Retired Pay Awards.”
Whew, quite a mouthful... About sums it up tho, don't ya think?
Who are the 'guests of honor'? The director of DFAS, Zack Gaddy, the Pentagon's inspector general, and, a top Lockheed Martin executive. Now, why would Lockheed Martin have to answer questions on Disabled Vet pay...? Because, DFAS, issued a no-bid contract to Lockheed Martin. Don't you just love those 'no-bid' contracts...
DFAS, in charge of military benefit payments, issued a no-bid contract to Lockheed Martin to get out back payments and clear up a backlog. DFAS supervised the work from its Cleveland offices, and it had previously contracted with Lockheed Martin to handle other benefits work.
But Lockheed Martin was understaffed, according to Kucinich's investigation, and missed deadlines. DFAS officials grew increasingly frustrated with the backlog, according to e-mail and memos found by Kucinich's committee staff.
Yet despite a desire to hold Lockheed Martin accountable, DFAS found that its contract rendered it powerless to penalize the company.
Yep, the War Profiteers, err.. Private Contractors chalk up another victory...
The report by the majority staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform domestic policy panel, released Tuesday, concluded that at least 28,283 disabled retirees were denied retroactive pay awards because rushed efforts to clear a huge backlog of claims led program administrators to stop doing quality assurance checks on the claims decisions.
And of the original 133,057 potentially eligible veterans, 8,763 died before their cases could be reviewed for retroactive payments, according to the report.[...]
Under the programs, many disabled veterans also became eligible for a single retroactive payment due to changes in their disability status.
As of September 2006, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service determined that 133,057 veterans potentially were eligible for these so-called “VA Retro” payments. Over time, another 84,237 newly retired and other veterans were added to the list.
Yet as of March 1, more than 60,000 eligible veterans were still waiting for reviews of their cases under the two programs.
The claims processing shortfall was raised during a February defense budget hearing; Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas told the Senate Budget Committee that she had recently asked Zack Gaddy, the director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, to triple the number of people working on the backlog.
In February, the backlog was said to be “more than 39,000” cases. Jonas said she had been assured that the backlog would be cleared by April.
That did not happen, according to the subcommittee report, because Lockheed Martin, the contractor hired in July 2006 to compute the complex retroactive pay awards, had difficulty making the computations fast enough to eliminate the backlog quickly. The complexity of the computations also hindered Lockheed Martin’s ability to develop software to automate the process.
Two other factors played a role: The required databases did not exist, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military services “were slow to put the data in the necessary form for automation.”
As a result, Lockheed Martin was forced to compute the cases manually. It did so, and with just under half the number of workers the government had previously used for the work — a relic of the original contract proposal, according to the report.
So they had to do it manually and with half the workers that DFAS used... But wait, fear not, it gets even better(worse?)...
Lockheed Martin missed its original November 2007 deadline and every succeeding one, the report stated. The committee said Gaddy personally monitored the program and “frequently complained to Lockheed about low productivity and the high number of errors DFAS quality control auditors were detecting.”
Gaddy also expressed concern that the delays were damaging the reputation of DFAS.
To ease congressional concerns and speed up the review process, DFAS chose several “questionable approaches” — assigning federal workers to duties covered by the contract with Lockheed Martin, and suspending independent quality checks on Lockheed’s calculations.
After those measures went into effect on March 1, up to 60,051 payments were made to eligible veterans. But the subcommittee concluded that “serious questions” remain about the accuracy of these payments.
“While the subcommittee majority staff does not know how many erred payments were sent, we do not believe that DFAS knows either,” the report said.
Under Lockheed’s operating procedures, its quality assurance team also did not verify the accuracy of any “No Pay Due” determinations, which are sent directly to veterans without verification, the report added.
“Neither DFAS nor Lockheed knows how many ‘No Pay Due’ letters could be in error,” the report states. Such letters were sent to at least 28,283 veterans.
For that dismal performance Lockheed Martin raked in $18.74 million of our taxpayer dollars, I wonder if that tally includes the DFAS employees' salaries that had to help them complete the shitty job they did...?
Today, Obama and McCain exchanged jabs on the 'Surge' and Afghanistan, amongst other Foreign Policy issues... The differences are rather stark. 'Stay the Course,' versus, end the war, for starters. However, they do agree that more troops are needed in Afghanistan, Obama wants to send two brigades, McCain wants to send three...
In a side note on Afghanistan, I find it ironic that the current Repug meme is that it's NATO's failure to pony up the troops for Afghanistan that has led to the current security crisis there. McCain mentioned it today in his townhall meeting, and, in an interview on MSNBC, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson severely flogged NATO for their unwillingness...
One article on McInsane's Albuquerque townhall meeting today headlines his bombastic statement; "McCain says he 'knows how to win wars'"
"I know how to win wars. And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory,"
Really? Being shot down and held as a POW means you know how to win wars? By having a Senate seat on the Armed Forces Committee, or even the Foreign Relations Committee?
McInsane pressed on...
The Arizona senator said that Obama "is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to Gen. [David H.] Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."
Sure we're 'winning' in Iraq! Just ask Betrayus for the 'facts on the ground', he'll set ya straight...!
I'm truly impressed with this jab...
"Sen. Obama will tell you we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backward. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan."
Who's ass backwards...? Yeppers, Obama wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq... I'm truly in awe of McInsane's jaw-droppingly asinine assumptions! It really behooves us to elect Obama as our next Prez... Can we afford a third term of Shrub?
In today's NYT, Obama penned an Op-Ed simply titled: "My Plan For Iraq." Some critical snippets...
The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.
Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.
But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.[...]
We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.[...]
I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.[...]
Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.
It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.
That's music to my ears! I would argue with some of his points, but, it's minor compared to what Shrub/Mcinsane are advocating...!
I'm concerned about this point; "After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia..." I think that any residual forces remaining should only be the Marines guarding the embassy and/or trainers for the Iraqi Army/National Police forces and that would be it...
Aswat Aliraq has two separate articles on the MoU status today...
UIC leader: Most points settled in U.S.-Iraqi agreement
Iraq and the United States have agreed on most points of the joint cooperation agreement, which is scheduled to govern the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, a Shiite Unified Iraqi Coalition leader said on Monday.
"Disagreement between the Iraqi and U.S. sides has largely subsided and they have agreed on many points," Hassan al-Saneed told Aswat al-Iraq- Voices of Iraq- (VOI).
According to al-Saneed, the Iraqi vision of the security agreement with Washington can be divided into three aspects: cultural, economic and educational strategic cooperation, a timetabled withdrawal of the Multi-National Force (MNF), and military operations' go-ahead and coordination with the Iraqi government.
"Fighting terrorism will entail joint operations and coordination with the Iraqi government…," Saneed noted.
Commenting on the immunity granted to U.S. forces in Iraq, the parliamentarian said: "A U.S. soldier will be subject to U.S. law inside his camp, but outside the camp many details of how to subject him to Iraqi law will have to be further discussed."
When asked about the main point of disagreement between the two sides, Saneed said: "Both sides believe that it is necessary to set a time limit on troop presence, but they disagree on the period that foreign troops should stay in Iraq."
The Unified Iraqi Coalition (UIC) is the largest parliamentary bloc, which holds 82 seats in the Parliament.
No agreement is expected to be signed with the current U.S. administration – Iraqi cabinet's spokesperson
The Iraqi cabinet's spokesperson on Monday expected that the long-term security agreement between Iraq and the U.S. would not be signed by the end of July 2008.
He estimated that this issue would be postponed until a new U.S. president is sworn into the White House.
"There is a large possibility of postponing the signing of the long-term agreement between Iraq and the U.S., until a new U.S. administration is elected," Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh told Aswat al-Iraq - Voices of Iraq - (VOI).
"Both sides have not yet reached a final outline for the agreement's items," he said.
"The two countries delegations' involved in the negotiations for the agreement are still debating, yet there is no mutual agreement on the important items, such as timetabling the Multi National Forces' (MNF) withdrawal, how these forces operate in Iraq, and how operations are conducted by those forces in coordination with the Iraqi government," he added.
"Both teams aim at achieving the maximum benefits for their countries," he explained.
"The Iraqi team considers Iraq's sovereignty as a priority in the agreement's items, especially in the field of security," he clarified.
"The U.S. side in return stresses items that we may disagree with," he said.
"The Iraqi and U.S. delegations have disputed on the nature and time period required for the MNF to remain in Iraq," he added.
"The U.S. side refers to a number of years, while the Iraqi side talks about short period and then depends on the abilities of Iraqi security forces," he noted.
"It is not important to sign the agreement on time (end of July 2008); the important things are the aims that the Iraqi government seeks to accomplish by signing this treaty with the U.S.," he asserted.
It seems that both articles are looking at the same glass of water... one calling it half full, and, the other calling it half empty...
I think the handwriting is finally on the wall... Time to leave Iraq...!
It's appears that the SOFA talks are dead and buried! At least the formal negotiations have... But, don't fret, there's still hope for it not to implode like Cinderella's Carriage...
"What we're doing now is more . . . a bridge to have the authority in place so we don't turn into a pumpkin on December 31," the official said. Neither country wants an extension of the U.N. mandate. Iraq has rejected its explicit limits on sovereignty, and the administration believes that a limited extension would only postpone the need for a bilateral accord and potentially leave U.S. troops with "our backs against the wall."
Fear not though! Maliki and Shrub are hard at work...
According to U.S. officials, Maliki also hopes that a temporary protocol would circumvent the full parliamentary review and two-thirds vote he has promised for a status-of-forces agreement. "He is trying to figure out, just as we did, how you can set up an agreement between the two and have it be legally binding," one official said, "but not go through the legislative body."
Isn't that just swell, Maliki and Shrub are still determined to avoid their respective Legislatures' input...!
Today, Dr iRack places the blame for it's failure squarely where it belongs...
Why did the SOFA/SFA talks fail? The standard explanation will be that U.S. negotiators overreached and the combination of Iraqi sovereignty concerns, upcoming provincial elections, and growing (over)confidence among Maliki's crowd in the capabilities of the ISF meant the Iraqis were not willing to meet the Americans even half-way. This is partially right. The bigger problem, however, was how the entire negotiations were framed on the American side.[...]
...U.S. negotiators framed the whole thing to the Iraqis as us wanting to negotiate a way to stay in Iraq. This reversed the leverage in negotiations, making us appear increasingly desperate to give the Iraqis concessions so we could stick around indefinitely. This made it look like we needed them more than they needed us, which is completely back-ass-ward.
If, instead, U.S. negotiators had framed the talks around setting a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal and then sought to establish the conditions for the Iraqi government to receive the residual U.S. support it desperately needs (especially support to the ISF which, despite Maliki's rhetoric, the Iraqis will need for years), then the sovereignty/nationalism issues would have been at least partially addressed and the leverage would have worked in our favor. But because this administration doesn't believe in negotiating a withdrawal and because they have never been willing to impose strategic conditionality on our support to Maliki, they didn't adopt this approach. And they failed.
I agree with much of that, but, I think it's a good thing that it will be kicked down the road... Both electorates, Iraqi and American, will be able to sound off accordingly...
Iraqi security forces are awaiting the zero hour to be set by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to commence operations to track down gunmen in the restive province of Diala, an Interior Ministry official said on Sunday.
"The file regarding the security operations in Diala is now on the prime minister's table for a decision to give the go-ahead for well-prepared Iraqi security forces to do their job," Maj. General Abdelkareem Khalaf, the interior ministry's operations chief, said in a press conference he held in Baghdad on Sunday.
I stand corrected on prior posts stating the op was already underway, yet... " Khalaf said it would be during the next few days."
Another article warns of Israeli Air Force usage of Iraqi air space...
The Iraqi government has asked the United States to prevent Israel from using Iraq’s airspace in any possible attack on Iran, Gulf News has learnt.
According to a senior official, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has "conveyed to the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, a message from the government that Iraq doesn’t accept the use of Iraqi space by Israeli jets."
Hopefully, that was persuasive enough to shut this bovine excrement down...
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran
...Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread skepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.
January 20th, 2009 is taking way too long to get here...!
Part 2 of Al Jazeera's interview with Crock'o Shit.
It's rather amusing to watch Crock'o Shit squirm while being peppered with real hardball questions backed up with hard facts...
One memorable exchange was when Crocker finally admitted that the current hope is to have an interim Mou inked, rather than the more formal SOFA/SFA, before the UN Chapter 7 Authorization runs out in December. He did a miserable job in justifying the sudden switcheroo on Immunity for not only the troops, but the contractors too... He actually thinks we'll still obtain it...!
He further elaborated that we are drawing down; "...the last 'Surge' brigade has just left...," no mention that we're still at a higher tempo than pre-surge levels! How convenient!
Another fallacious meme was the respect for Iraq's 'Sovereignty' by not seeking 'permanent' bases in Iraq... As I've stated before that's a strawman, the legal eagles in DoD have flatly stated we have no legal term for permanent bases... In an aside, GITMO is leased, not owned or 'permanent'...
Crock'o Shit defended his Congressional testimony that 15 of the 18 'Surge' benchmarks have been met... Satisfactorily, at least...! Quite the difference from the GAO's scathing review stating only 3 of the 18 BM's have been met!
The ORA assessment of the Iraqi Army was another futile attempt at spin... He was fidgeting noticeably in answering the question of the poor ORA numbers... especially, why did IA and NSF still only have a 10% ORA 1 level...! Basically, the same level it was when he was confirmed by the Senate as Ambassador...!
It really is 'Must-see teevee'...!
In an interesting development, everybody; the US, Iraqis, and Israelis all deny this...
According to the Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that (Israeli) fighter jets have been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha.
The sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
The first story on this was on the Sadrist site Nahrrainnet on Wednesday (link here), and when I read it I thought it sounded not implausible. People around two US airbases (Assad in Anbar, and Ali bin Abi Talib in Nassiriya) had been noticing unusual nighttime takeoffs and landings of fighter planes, along with unusually tight security for several weeks, and anonymous Iraqi Defence Dept people had concluded it was American or Israeli (more the latter since the Anbar flights seemed to be coming from Jordan), and they pointed out that from the Nassiriya base you could in in Iranian airspace in 5 minutes and to Bushehr very quickly. So the sourcing seemed to be un-exaggerated and methodical. The next I saw was the Iranian PressTV picking up the report, and now YNet, but the YNet details seem to be no more than recycling of the Nahrainnet ("5 minutes to Iranian airspace from Nasiriya" and so on), so I don't know. Looks as if you're right, the only independent report is still the one in Nahrainnet...
Military reinforcements arrived on Friday morning in Diala province from Baghdad to participate in the operations recently announced by the Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki to track down gunmen, said a security source.
"Scores of military vehicles carrying Iraqi troops with armored vehicles, arrived today in al-Moradiya area in Baaquba on the road linking Diala to Baghdad," the source told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI) on condition of anonymity. "The reinforcements came to participate in the imminent military operations in Diala," he said.
Yeppers, those gunmen need to be hunted down... Just like this Imam and 25 followers needed to be arrested too...
A security force raided a mosque belonging to the Sadrists, or Iraqis loyal to Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, and arrested its imam (preacher) along with 25 worshippers in Diwaniya on Friday, Sadr's office director in the province said.
"A force from the Diwaniya Emergency raided Imam Ali mosque in northwestern Diwaniya and arrested the mosque preacher Sheikh Hussein al-Karbalaie and 25 worshippers," Sayyed Ali al-Gharabi told Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).
Gharabi said the raiding force assaulted the imam and the worshippers by beating and verbal abuse before arresting them without any apparent reason," he said.
Police sources could not be reached immediately for clarifications on the incident.
However, an official source in the Diwaniya provincial building told VOI by phone that the reason for the arrest was "excesses and insults against the government during religious sermons and occasions in Imam Ali mosque".