Monday, March 4, 2013

The Good Wife

keystone barack

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Keystone Barack" from yesterday.  Valerie Jarrett is just a pint-sized dynamo!

Okay, "The Good Wife" aired last night on CBS, thank goodness.

Because of the last episodes of corruption charges, Eli Gold (Alan Cummings) had to resign as Peter's campaign manager.

Elsbeth has been trying to clear his name but every time she gets done with one thing, another pops up.  This episode?  A DNC honcho swore he saw Eli buy votes.  Elsbeth took it into civil court (C.I. told me Jane Fonda did a similar thing in the early 70s and the dropped all charges because they didn't want discovery to expose Richard Nixon's enemies list).

She forced the honcho to say that it was a nursing school head.  Now Kyle McLaughlin's character was objecting and throwing around that he's an Attorney General for the Justice Dept. and the judge told him he didn't care and he'd answer questions.  So Elsbeth goes after the corroborating witness who is actually being strong armed.  She gets him to say Eli didn't do a pay off.

The judge in the criminal case is getting really tired of Justice changing their witnesses and arguments over and over.

They have a new person to corroborate the charge!

Who?

Jackie.  Peter's mother.

She does and then she reveals her recent stroke and says she's not sure what she's saying.

So Elsbeth (again) moves to dismiss the charges.

But again Kyle's got another witness.  Who?

Diane Lockhart.

She signed off on a decrease Eli gave to the retirement home.  This means it was a conspiracy.

Diane explains that they had a government appointed trustee named Clark (Nathan Lane) who was trying to get them out of debt and he made the decisions.

So at last all charges against Eli are dropped.

Peter's listening to the young guy from "Grey's Anatomy" who is sinking the campaign.  Alicia's told him before to call Eli.  Now she stresses it again in the middle of the debate on a 3 minute break.

He does.  Eli tells him how to handle his opponent.  Peter wins the debate.

Alicia?  Now that she's partner, Diane sees it as, "Alicia gets to do all the dirty work." She wants Alicia to gut 10% of the hours on one client that Carey's handling and that ticks Carey off.

So that was the episode.  Oh, Will and Alicia both had a cold.  This comes after a kiss not long ago.

I think Diane suspects that they are back together or tried to be.  (They broke off the kiss and Alicia doesn't want to get back together.  Amanda Peet's character is laying it on thick in her own flirting with Will.)




Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Monday, March 4, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Reuters plays the fool, February saw no reduction of violent deaths, Nouri sicks the military on protesters, raids take place in Samarra, an inquiry hears abuse allegations, and more.


Yesterday at Third, we addressed the gross stupidity (or laid back lying) of Reuters which published stenography.  136 Iraqis died in Iraq last month said the Iraqi government ministries.  Reuters could have kept their own count but that would require work.  They could have compared the official count to Iraq Body Count but that would have required thought.  So they just spat out what they were handed and pretended that was reporting.


February 3rd, Sofia News Agency at least 30 dead.  February 4th, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported 23 dead,  February 8, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported at least 26 dead. February 16th, we noted 18 dead. February 17th, AP reported at least 37 dead.  February 28th, AP reported at least 22 dead.  Now forget that, for example, the 37 dead February 17th were just from Baghdad bombs and that, as Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) in real time, the actual death toll from violence that day was 52 and forget other big days of violence (February 16th, we noted 18 dead).  Just go with those figures: 30, 23, 26, 18, 37 and 22.  That's 138 deaths.  (Check my math always.)  From just five days.  And that's 2 deaths more than the official figures say.


Grasp that no major skill was required to reveal the ministry figures as fraudulent.  So is Reuters too dumb, too lazy, or are they in on the con?



Through Wednesday, February 27th, Iraq Body Count counts 316 deaths.  Which means, despite claims to the contrary there was no reduction in violence.  As we noted above, the Associated Press reported 22 dead on Feburary 28th.  Add 22 to 316 and you have 338.  The reality is when Iraq Body Count updates, it will probably have more than 22 deaths (they're not Baghdad-centric which is why they're able to report deaths across Iraq).  But let's say they just go with 22.  That would be 338.  As noted in the February 1st snapshot, IBC's toll for January was 341.

So we're talking a death toll that remained the same.  For the very slow -- which may include Reuters -- that would be 338 deaths over 28 days.  There were 31 days in January.  Even setting aside that IBC will probably list more than 22 deaths, it's the same basic number.

Other measures?  We can't use the AFP count.  Prashant Rao is out of Iraq currently and is apparently the only one who fills in the spreadsheet.  We can use AKE's figures via their own John Drake.



At least 45 people were killed and 191 injured in violence last week.
At least 56 people were killed and 108 injured in violence last week.
Expand


At least 65 people were killed and 145 injured in violence last week.
Expand

At least 98 people were killed and 265 injured in violence last week.
Expand

At least 54 people were killed and 141 injured in violence last week.
Expand


So for that period of time, AKE's counting 318 deaths and 850 injured.

Does Reuters really want to stand with the Iraqi government and claim there were only 136 deaths took place?

Repeating, February saw no reduction in violence despite the government claims that Reuters echoed without skepticism, question or common sense.

Let's stay with bad press as the topic.  The New York Times headlines their piece "Massacre of Syrian Soldiers in Iraq Raises Risk of Widening Conflict."   Widening conflict?  Dahsiell Bennett (The Atlantic) toes that White House line as well:

As has been feared for months, violence from the Syrian civil war has spilled across the border into Iraq, threatening an already unstable balance of power in the neighboring country. A group of Syrian soliders were ambushed and killed inside Iraqi territory on Monday, raising concerns that the violent conflicts in both countries could somehow merge.



Reality, fighting is taking place in Syria.  Two sides, the Syrian military, the US-backed 'rebels.'  In this case, the Syrian military ran into Iraq.  It doesn't really matter whether it's the military or the so-called 'rebels.'  When you holler "Tag! You're it!" as you run to base, the other side's going to follow you.  In this case, they appear to have gotten sympathizers with the 'rebels' to attack.  It doesn't matter.


When you cross borders in the midst of the war, that's what can enlarge a battle field, not a massacre after you've crossed over.  Nouri's made the decision to back President Bashar Assad's government.  This morning, for example, Nouri (or his office) Tweets today about posting a new photo to his Facebook page -- a new photo of Bashar Assad. He's made the decision that Iraq will provide harbor.  When you do that, you expand the conflict.  The attack didn't expand it.  The attack is in response to Nouri expanding the conflict by providing a harbor for the Syrian military.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quotes Nouri's 'adviser' Ali al-Mussawi stating, "From the beginning, we have warned that some militant groups want to move the conflict in Syria to Iraq."  al-Mussawi gets closer to reality when the AP quotes him, "We do not want more soldiers to cross our borders and we do not want to be part of the problem."  Then stop allowing fleeing sides in the combat to cross into your country.

In the region currently is US Secretary of State John Kerry whose trips wraps up Tuesday and will have taken him to Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia (as well as through parts of Europe).  Today in Saudi Arabia, John Kerry and Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, spoke to the press.  In his remarks, Secretary Kerry noted:

During this time of great political transition and uncertainty, we’re working together to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world. Across the Arab world, men and women have spoken out demanding their universal rights and greater opportunity. Some governments have responded with willingness to reform. Others, as in Syria, have responded with violence. So I want to recognize the Saudi Government for appointing 30 women to the Shura Council and promoting greater economic opportunity for women. Again, we talked about the number of women entering the workforce and the transition that is taking place in the Kingdom. We encourage further inclusive reforms to ensure that all citizens of the Kingdom ultimately enjoy their basic rights and their freedoms.


Arab social media is quoting the above up through "have responded with violence."  And they're asking how John Kerry can be unaware that Friday, January 25th, Nouri al-Maliki's forces killed 11 peaceful protesters in Falluja.  Some aren't asking how he can be unaware, some are just mocking him -- and the US government -- for thinking, in the words of one, "Arabs are stupid."  The US government always looks sad when it tries to put one over on a foreign country.  Over the weekend, NINA quoted Sheikh Khalid Hmoud, Falluja protest organizer, stating, "We have authorized journalist Bahjat al-Kurdi, who is residing in Holland, to bring a suit before the International Court of Justice at The Hague on charges of military elements opened fire, a month ago [. . . ]"



Alsumaria reports protesters in Khan  Bani Saad have cut off the main road from Baghdad to Baquba as they protest the deterioration of basic public services.  Meanwhile Iraqi Spring MC reports that Nouri's forces are raiding the homes of protesters in Samarra today.  In other protest news, Jake Rudnitsky (Bloomberg News) reports, "The Iraqi army broke up a protest today by people seeking work at the OAO Lukoil-operated West Qurna-2 oil field, according to a Moscow-based company official.  Several dozen people blocked the entrance to a central processing facility run by Samsung Group, according to the official, asking not to be identified due to company policy."  Reuters, which has become state-controlled media in Iraq, adds,"Officials of the state-run Southern Oil Company said there was no disturbance around any of the producing oilfields in the south of Iraq and production was proceeding as normal."  AP reports there were 150 protesters and quotes an Iraqi military colonel stating, "These people have been waiting for a long time to get jobs. They were very angry and things got out of control" the army colonel said. "The police couldn't stop them from entering the site, and that's why the army was called in."


What's especially disturbing is that it's become normal in Iraq to call in the military and sick them on the Iraqi people.  Al Jazeera estimated that there were 650,000 people in the Iraqi police force.  And yet the military is used.  And yet, the US government keeps arming Nouri with weapons he can use against the Iraq people.  The US government isn't the only one willing to supply Nouri with weapons.  October 9th, Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion weapons deal with Russia. The deal became iffy among corruption charges (with fingers pointing at Nouri and his son) and Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh fearful that Nouri was going to hang the corruption on him causing al-Dabbagh to flee Iraq.  Dar Addustour reports that Parliamentary sources say the body's Integrity Commission has requested warrants for al-Dbbagh and his brother.   UPI reminds, "Russia and Iraq had reached a deal for Russian Mi-28NE attack helicopters and Pantsyr mobile air-defense systems in October but an Iraqi spokesman said shortly afterward the deal was on hold." 


So the deal's on . . .  Or is it?  Global Research republishes The Voice of Russia's interview with Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari:


Mr. Zebari, Massoud Barzani, President of Iraqi Kurdistan, has recently visited Moscow. In his interview to the Voice of Russia he mentioned that the anticipated large deal of arms supply from Russia to Iraq had reportedly fallen through. It appears that the Kurds don’t like that deal that much. Has it really been cancelled? Are there no more arms supplies from Russia to Iraq planned for the near term?

Naturally, Iraq needs to acquire weapons and modernize its army and military equipment. Such are the main tasks for the country’s security – it is our lawful right. It is clear why in pursuing that goal Iraq has turned to Russia among other countries. The Iraqi army has in its arsenal a lot of arms produced in Russia. From that point of view, Russia is closest to us. We have been talking to the Russian side about our needs for a long time. But by the way, during the visit of our Prime Minister to Moscow last fall that I mentioned (I was a part of that delegation), the press gave figures of the volume of the contracts that had little to do with reality. Yes, there was an exchange of opinions. We presented our requirements; the Russian side described its proposals. We discussed the timing. But the press also talked about the contracts, which had not been signed at that point. In many cases it was only our intensions that back then were at the negotiations stage.
As far as the signed contracts go that deal with the acquisition of weapons in Russia, they have not been cancelled. However, we have not started executing them yet.

When will the first supply commence?

As soon as the financial issue is resolved. I believe that the first shipments of weapons from Russia to Iraq will start before the summer, as the latest term.


Woah.  What was that? As soon as the financial issue is resolved?  You resolve those issues in negotiations, you resolve them before you sign a contract.



Last Friday, at the Ramadi protest,  Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi resigned.  Alsumaria reported Saturday that Nouri's State of Law is dismissing the notion that others will step down from the council.   Al Mada added that al-Issawi called today for others to leave the council including Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq.  al-Issawi and al-Mutlaq are both members of Iraqiya.  Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections, besting Nouri's State of Law.  al-Issawi told Kitabat that he resigned because there had been over 70 days of protest and the government had still not responded to the protesters.  He notes that a government is supposed to be responsive to the people, not ignore them.  He told Alsumaria that Article IV -- which has been used to punish so many Sunnis -- is no longer going to work and that the government refused to listen to the protesters or to take accountability for the eleven shot dead in Falluja by Nouri's forces January 25th.   He feels the solution to the crises facing Iraq can be found in the sit-ins taking place.



As the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War approaches, many offer reflections.  Patrick Cockburn (Independent) reports:

Iraq is disintegrating as a country under the pressure of a mounting political, social and economic crisis, says Iraqi leaders. 
They add that 10 years after the US invasion and occupation the conflict between the three main communities -- Shia, Sunni and Kurd -- is deepening to a point just short of civil war.  "There is zero trust between Iraqi leaders," says an Iraqi politician in  daily contact with them.

Roula Khalaf (Financial Times of London) observes: that Iraqis "live in an unstable country run by a sectarian-driven and often corrupt political elite that puts its own narrow interests above those of society.  As they mark the 10th anniversary of the change later this month, Iraqis are wondering whether they are doomed to exist in a dysfunctional state, which still fails to provide either security or basic services."

All Iraq News reports a rather bold assertion by a Kurdish MP, "MP Adel Abdullah, of the Kurdistani Alliance stated that the situation in Iraq is close to the partition rather than changing the regime where the govenrment, especially the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, is convinced that Iraq is about to be divided into three countries."





Violence continues today in Iraq. Alsumaria reports a Mosul suicide bombing targeting a police headquarters which left 5 police officers dead and eleven pople injured,   a Mosul roadside bombing injured three more police officers. and, dropping back to last night, 3 Babil Province bombings are said to have injured two soldiers and caused an army major to have a heart attack which killed him.  The National Iraqi News Agency notes 1 female corpse was discovered in Hilla, a Mosul firefight between Nouri's forces and unknown assailants has left a bystander dead -- a 10-year-old bystanded who was shot in the head, and "Unidentified gunmen attacked an Iraqi army vehicle [. . .] carrying 4 wounded [. . .] Syrian government troops in western Anbar this afternoon."



If you visit this ACLU page, you will find documents released under the Freedom of Information Act detailing the abuse and torture in the last ten years of various people by those working for the US government.


We'll focus on one set of documents on an Iraqi woman.  She self-reports theft and abuse to the military on April 29, 2004:

Basis for Investigation:  About 1300, 29 Apr 04, this office was notified by 22nd Military Police (MP) Battalion (BN), Baghdad, IZ of an alleged detainee abuse of Ms. _____
Ms. ___ reported she was arrested from her residence and transported via helicopter to an unknown interrogation center. She was detained for approximately 5 days.  During her detention, she was abused, which resulted in two broken fingers, black eye and made to crawl around on all-fours as a "large man rode" on her, calling her an animal.  Ms. ______ described the unknown subjects as 1) a fat white male, approximately 6' 3", 125 kilos, 30 years old, black hair, brown eyes, who spoke Arabi (NFI).  The second subject was described as a white female, 25 years old, blond hair, who did not speak Arabic (NFI).  Both subjects wore military uniforms with name patches (NFI).   Ms _____ also received a receipt for property siezed and damaged at the time of her arrest.  The receipt indicated $3,600,000 (7,550,000.00 Iraqi Dinars) and jewelry were seized and the doors and windows of her residence, which entitled her to compensation.  The receipt also stated she could retrieve her property after 14 Oct 03.



A month later, May 5, 2004, more work on her complaint has been done (typos and incorrect spelling is in the original document, I've not changed it -- one time they spell "Jewlerly" for "jewelry," another time they get it right, they never get "anally" correct, etc.):

ON 5 MAY 04 THIS OFFICE WAS NOTIFIED BY THE 22ND MILITARY POLICE BATTALION, BAGHDAD, IZ, THAT MS. ____ WAS POSSIBLY ABUSED, WHILE DETAINED BY COALITION FORCES.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION REVEALED MS. _____ WAS APPREHENDED ON 11 AUG 03 AND DETAINED AT AN UNKNOWN LOCATION.  WHEN MS. ____ WAS APPREHENDED, SHE ALLEGED THAT INDIVIDUALS CONFISCATED HER MONEY AND JEWLERLY AND HAS NOT RETURNED IT.  FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED MS. ____ WAS ANALY SODOMIZED, IDECENTLY ASSAULTED, AND PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED WHILE SHE WAS DETAINED AT THE UNKNOWN LOCATION BY AN UNKNOWN WHITE MALE.
ON 5 MAY 04, MS. _____ WAS INTERVIEWED AND STATED SHE WAS APPREHENDED BY COALITION FORCES SHE BELIEVED TO BE AMERICANS AND DURING THE APPREHENSION THE INDIVIDUALS CONFISCATED HER MONEY AND JEWELRY AND HAS NOT RETURNED HER MONEY OR PROPERTY.  MS. _____ FURTHER STATED SHE WAS MISTREATED BY HER CAPTORS WHEN THEY DEPRIVED HER OF FOOD AND WATER FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, AND AN UNKNOWN MALE PHYSICALLY ABUSED HER ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, ANALY SODOMIZED, AND INDECENTLY ASSAULTED HER.



As documented above, "further investigation revealed," by May 2004, that the woman "was anally sodomized" as well as indecently assaulted and physically assaulted.  And what happened after that? Nothing.  They give her some money for the stolen property (how much is not specified) and they vanish the further investigation and instead maintain that there was no evidence she'd been sodomized.  How does that happen?  How is established and then it vanishes?  Oh, right, that's how a cover up works.  And part of the cover up is also ignoring the indecent and physical assault evidence.  That's how no one gets in trouble and why there's a note that no disciplinary action needs to be taken.

In England, the above tends to get publicly aired.  Brits who care about justice tend to complain that the investigations they get into the Iraq War end in a whitewash.  While that is true, at least some reality gets aired -- that's more than has happened in the US.


The Metro reports,  "British troops killed, mutilated and tortured civilians following a battle in Iraq, the start of an inquiry heard.  Graphic images were shown of missing eyes and genitals among the bodies of unarmed men who were taken to an army base."  What's going on?  An inquiry known as the Al-Sweady Inquiry, named after Iraqi Hamid al-Sweady, a 19-year-old killed in May of 2004.   Huffington Post UK reports, "The Al-Sweady Inquiry is examining claims that UK soldiers murdered 20 or more Iraqis and tortured detainees after the 'Battle of Danny Boy' in Maysan Province, southern Iraq, in May 2004."  Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explains, "Nine Iraqis say they were tortured after being taken to a detention centre at Shaibah base near Basra and held there for four months. They say they were taken, along with the 20 murdered Iraqis, to a British base, Camp Abu Naji, after a fierce firefight in what became known as the battle of Danny Boy, a British military checkpoint near Majar al-Kabir, on 14 May 2004."

Allstair Bunkall (Sky News) notes:

The incident was initially investigated by the Royal Military Police and latterly the Iraq Historic Allegations Team.
But the independence and objectivity of that was brought into question by lawyers who successfully argued that some of the investigators might have conflicting motives. And so the Al Sweady Inquiry was commissioned by the former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth.
More than 50 Iraqis will give evidence, some in London but the majority in Beirut later in the year. Around 200 British military witnesses will also be questioned.


Cecilia French, the Secretary for the Inquiry, tells Caroline Hawley (BBC News),  "In most public inquiries, you know what has happened and you are trying to find out why - and how you can avoid it in the future. But this public inquiry is more like a criminal trial because you have two completely different accounts of what happened and we're trying to find out the truth, which makes this very unusual." You can find profiles of the various members of the Inquiry here.   We'll note the Chair of the Inquiry:

Sir Thayne Forbes was called to the bar in 1966 and appointed Queen's Counsel in 1984. He was made Official Referee in 1990 and in 1993 he became a High Court Judge assigned to the Queen's Bench Division. As Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit he conducted the trial of Dr Harold Shipman on 15 separate counts of murder. From 2001 to 2004 he was the Judge in charge of the Technology and Construction Court. He then chaired a working group on Judicial Welfare and Support and, from 2006, chaired the Judges' Council's Standing Committee on the same subject. He retired as a High Court Judge in January 2009 but at the Lord Chief Justice's request he continued to chair the Standing Committee with particular responsibility for judicial welfare in England and Wales. He retired from this position in December 2009. Sir Thayne was appointed to chair the Al-Sweady Inquiry by the Secretary of State for Defence on 25 November 2009.


PanArmenian.net points out, "The Al-Sweady inquiry is the second public inquiry into allegations of abuse by British troops in Iraq, following one that examined the death of Baha Mousa in 2003, and has been described as 'unprecedented' in its scope."  Today,  Paddy McGuffin (Morning Star) reports, "Lead counsel for the inquiry Jonathan Acton Davis QC revealed that its investigators had to request disclosure from the MoD some 250 times before they gained access documents relevant to the case. During its investigations the inquiry team found thousands of previously undisclosed documents including nine detainee files that had not been disclosed to the claimants or the court in the judicial review proceedings, he said."  Not a good start when the oversight investigation attorney is opening with the fact that the ministry in question has failed to turn over files. Things did not improve from there.  Reuters notes that the Inquiry reviewed documentation on death certificates and discovered that "three of the bodies bore signs of torture including missing eyes, a missing penis and crushed bones.."   ITV News adds that they viewed footage today of "bodies being taken to hospital.  The graphic footage showed body bags being carried into a local hospital and doctors pointing to some alleged signs of torture."  RT adds:

One of the first jobs of the inquiry is to try and establish whether the 20 Iraqis were killed in battle as the MoD claims or if in fact they were captured alive and then unlawfully killed.
The inquiry will also try to determine if five men taken prisoner following the battle of Danny Boy were mistreated at a second British base in Shaibah, near Basara, between 14 May and 23 September 2004.

and

"I never would have agreed to the
formation of the CIA back in forty-seven
. . . if I had known it would become the American Gestapo."

-- Harry S. Truman



That's from a title card in the documentary (first title card) by Joe Ayella entitled American Coup.   The film addresses the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 because Iran was nationalizing the oil.  Hulu is currently carrying the documentary and promoting it as what took place before Argo -- the film, not documentary, for which Ben Affleck won Best Picture at last week's Academy Awards.  You can stream it now.  If you wait a few months from now and it's gone, don't e-mail asking how to see it.  On the topic of the CIA and the media, Tom Hayden wrote a great piece of ZNet last week.  This almost got noted at Third.  Mike wanted to note Norman Solomon's strong column from last week and we were going to do something on best reads of the week.  Time (and other things) prevented that.  I'm not including Tom's because I agree with it.  I think it's well written and he backs up his arguments.  There are points where I disagree.  But it's a very strong piece of writing and more than worth reading.






















 

Friday, March 1, 2013

Hitchcock

Like Ruth, I wanted to catch "Hitchock" at the movies but missed out.  So when she called me this week and asked, "Can you come over?  I am going to stream 'Hitchcock'."?  I was right over.

I asked her if she wanted to write about it and she said she might after I do.  So if she does, I'll do a link to her post.

Hitchcock is the director Alfred Hitchcock who directed many classic films like "Psycho," "The Birds," "Family Plot," "North By Northwest," "Lifeboat," "Vertigo," etc.

Anthony Hopkins plays the part of Hitchcock and Helen Mirren plays his wife Alma Reville Hitchcock.

Toni Collette plays Hitch's assistant.

The three of them are great and give great performances.

And that's it.

The rest are awful.

That includes Scarlet Johannson.  She played Janet Leigh and she was awful.

She was bland, she was dull.  Janet Leigh may not be Elizabeth Taylor but she was a star and she made a lot of movies (still makes movies) and did that by being a very popular and lively actress.  Johannson was awful.  And she looked too old to play Janet Leigh.  (Leigh stars in "Psycho" -- the film is about Hitchcock during the filming of "Psycho.")

There was way too much Johannson and Hopkins -- too many scenes of them together.

What I don't get is if you're making a classy movie about Hitchcock and you've got Janet Leigh as a character, why don't you offer it to Jamie Lee Curtis?

She is the daughter of Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis.

I'm sure she would have been honored.

And she's got the acting chops to play her mother.

So why use Scarlett Johanssen?

She's like Tara Reid post-2003.

She, more than anything else, ruins the film.

It's not Janet Leigh.  It's Mary Martin, to be specific.

And because we know Janet Leigh and we know her character from "Psycho."

The film is a flight of fancy, a sketch stretched otu, and it doesn't soar when Johannsen's around.


 Anthony Hopkins plays the legendary film director, and Helen Mirren plays his wife, Alma Reville.
How close




Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Friday, March 1, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, protests take place throughout Iraq, the Finance Minister resigns,  Bradley Manning gets some attention, and more.

We're starting with Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning who confessed yesterday that he passed on documents to WikiLeaks.  Alexa O'Briean has transcribed his statement in full.  We're going to note a section at the top:


The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense--DoD personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors support. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater-- CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.
CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle-space data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander's daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting.
[. . .]

I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.
In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

I don't get -- or I didn't -- why people still aren't covering counter-insurgency.  Bradley Manning's been behind bars for over 1000 days because he hoped to spark a national dialogue.  24 hours after he states that, there's still nothing in the media. 
For those late to the party, Monday April 5, 2010,  WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions.  Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor."

At Rolling Stone, Janet Reitman asks, "Did the Mainstream Media Fail Bradley Manning?" And suddenly it falls together.  Not because of what Reitman finds -- she finds nothing.  Not because of Kevin Gosztola's hypothesis that the Washington Post and the New York Times might have been too scared to publish it.

Check the archives, but we covered the WikiLeaks releases in real time.  Today, a lot of people like to pretend they did but they didn't.  In Little Media, they wrote for magazine websites and for magazines and they had their own programs but they never used them to explore what was released.  They didn't have time for it.  They didn't give a damn until they got their postage of Julian Assange.

They still don't give a damn about Bradley.  But Julian they could get behind. 

Janet Reitman wants to know if the press failed Bradley?  It wasn't about Bradley.  It was about Iraq.

And, yes, the US press failed Iraq.  Failed before the start of the war, failed it after.

Did you pay attention to the recap earlier.  People pretend like there was great interest in the WikiLeaks 2007 video.  No, there wasn't.  There should have been but there wasn't.  And there was even less interest when they began publishing various documents.

The question to ask is "Did the press fail Iraq?"  Yes, it did.  By the time WikiLeaks released the Iraq information, there had been a withdrawal from Iraq -- a press withdrawal.  ABC closed down their operation and lied that they'd grab BBC if there were any developments.  (Use the BBC for their evening news.) They didn't really.  NBC was out.  The networks pulled out.  McClatchy Newspapers was pulling out.  No one gave a damn in the US press about Iraq. 

And if you complained -- and I did to many producers and editors -- you were told that the viewers were tired of Iraq.  I didn't then and don't now see how that's possible.

Among the trash that passes for 'independent' media in the US, Demcoracy Now! couldn't be bothered with the topic, nor could The Nation magazine, nor could The Progressive.

In the spring of 2009, Steven D. Green went on trial.  We covered it every day here.  May 7th Steven D. Green was convicted for his crimes in March 12, 2006 gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, the murder of her parents and the murder of her five-year-old sister while Green was serving in Iraq. Green was found to have killed all four, to have participated in the gang-rape of Abeer and to have been the ringleader of the conspiracy to commit the crimes and the conspiracy to cover them up. May 21st, the federal jury deadlocked on the death penalty and instead he was sentenced to life in prison. 

This was a War Crime.  It should have been covered widely.  Instead it was Kentucky media.  It was the Associated Press' Brett Barrouquere and Time magazine's Jim Frederick.  That was it for the national mainstream press.  Arianna Huffington deserves credit for sending a reporter down there (Gail Mellor) and even more for realizing the best reporting was coming from high schooler Evan Bright and carrying his coverage at The Huffington Post.  We interviewed Evan for a May 3, 2009 piece at Third.  Evan was covering every day of the trial.  Evan wasn't shy.  Why wasn't he on Democracy Now! during the trial?  Why did Pacifica Radio waste all that money on the garbage that was Mitch Jeserich's Letters from Washington but fail to send even one reporter to Kentucky for a War Crimes trial?  Why wasn't Matthew Rothschild or Katrina vanden Heuvel at all concerned with the gang-rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by US soldiers? 


It's in that climate that Bradley Manning tries to interest the media in what he has.  It wasn't about Brad, it was about the complete lack of interest on the part of the press with anything to do with Iraq by 2010.  If you need a 'reputable source' making that observation, here's PEW on Iraq War coverage in 2010:

The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were on the periphery of both the American public’s and news media’s radar in 2010. Just 1% of the total news coverage last year was devoted to events related to and policy debates about the Iraq war. In no single week did Iraq consume more than 10% of the newshole. With the exception of a week in September, during a large troop withdrawal, most of the public reported they were not following events in Iraq very closely when surveyed throughout the year.



Get it?  The media didn't fail Bradley.  Long before Bradley tries to interest the media, it had already failed Iraq.

And the Amy Goodmans and Greg Mitchells can pretend they did something but they didn't.  They didn't treat the WikiLeaks releases seriously in real time.  After Julian Assange became a folk hero to some, once they had their poster on the wall, the Goodys and Mitchells suddenly could give a damn . . . about Julian Assange.  Not about Iraq, not about Iraqis, never about Iraq, never about Iraqis.

And what we're seeing yet again, right now, is an attempt to posterize.  We're not talking about the War Crimes, we're not writing about the War Crimes, we're rehashing this and that and blah blah blah.  I'm not going into counter-insurgency today.  Unlike Amy Goodman, we've covered it here (and called it out) regularly.   I don't have the time or space for/in this snapshot today to go over counter-insurgency again.

But we've covered it (including yesterday -- and we first covered it in 2006 when the ridiculous Montgomery McFate got her first press via The New Yorker.  These are the issues of substance.  A whole rag-tag assembly wants to pretend that they support Bradley.  Yet they still won't take the time to write and talk about counter-insurgency.  Even now, 24 hours after Bradley outlined his hope/intent to spark a debate on the policy.

You can't argue whether Bradley was in the right or in the wrong to release the documents if you can't address the importance of the documents.  Support him?  Then kick-start the national dialogue on counter-insurgency.  Yeah, it might take a little work and, goodness knows, a little work's too much for our Panhandle Media.  But if we want the mainstream to cover it and if we want people to know the importance of Bradley's actions, then we're going to need to do a little work. 



Let's stay in the US and turn to a loser named James Fallows sets the low mark -- the all time low mark -- for 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq rambles.  The cowardly scribbler for The Atlantic cowers as only the spineless truly can.  The invasion, Fallows whimpers "was the biggest strategic error by the United States since at least the end of World War II and perhaps a much longer period."

What nonsense.  It's not an "error," it's a crime. And if you can't say that, why the hell are you scribbling today to begin with? 

And could you maybe learn to write Jimmy Fallows?  Stop resting on work you did before many readers were born and learn to write today? "The biggest strategic error by the United States since at least the end of World War II and perhaps a much longer period" -- what is that?  Cover your ass in case senility's set in and you're not remembering some major event?  And what is that wording?  Are you aware you're suggesting -- via your construction -- that the worst strategic errors were invading Iraq and ending World War II?  Do you need someone to remind you to take your meds?

If my claim to fame was being a speechwriter for then-President Jimmy Carter -- one of the most bland and boring speakers of all time, I think I'd be trying real hard for another credit to put by name.   And in Fishbowl Idiot, Fallows may have finally found another credit.

This is just completely a puzzle to Fallows, this Iraq War.  "Vietnam," he writes, "was costlier and more damaging, but also more understandable.  As many people have chronicled, the decision to fight in Vietnam, was a years-long accretion of step-by-step choices, each of which could be rationalized at the time."  Anything can be rationalized at any time.  Second, Vietnam, for the US government, was not just criminal, it was more stupid than Iraq because the US followed France's failure in Vietnam but kidded itself that it was so much better at War Crimes that it would be victorious over the Vietnamese.  The US government was wrong.

By contrast, the Iraq War is completely understandable.  September 11, 2001 was an attack on the United States.  We could have dealt with it as we had other attacks.  We could have followed the law.  We could have been grown ups and had honest discussions.  We didn't follow the law and we demonized those who wanted to speak honestly (such as Susan Sontag).  By refusing to address what happened, the events that follow are completely understandable.

We put aside thinking, logic, processing and everything else and were left with nothing but injury and hurt and we looked for someone in a weaker position to last out at to feel better.  Strip the tired colloquialisms from Thomas Friedman's bad writing and TV appearances and what your left with is a tiny, impotent and angry man raging with violence.

Where in the world did you think that rage would go?  Because it had to go somewhere.


Bully Boy Bush stoked the rage, encouraged the rage and he and his administration attacked anyone and everyone who questioned in any way or tried to use actual thought.  The rage had to go somewhere.  And they knew what they were doing having decided early on to use 9-11 to push for war with Iraq.  (September 11, 2001 -- though repeatedly linked to Iraq by Bully Boy and his administration -- had nothing to do with Iraq.  While Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq, al Qaeda didn't even have a base in Iraq because secular Hussein and fundamentalist al Qaeda were at complete odds with one another.)

Bully Boy Bush repeatedly picked away at 9-11 because it had to be an unhealed wound, it had to be gaping, for him to misuse the horror of it to push for the Iraq War.

I'm sorry that James Fallow is confused.  I truly am sorry that he's such an imbecile because, after 10 years, if we still can't recognize and name what happened and how, there's not much hope for any of us.  All these years later and we still can't be honest?  The refusal to honestly address what happened allowed emotions to be manipulated and played to.  If we can't be honest about that, we're never going to learn from it so forget about any talk of preventing  it from happening again.

Let's go to someone far wiser than James Fallows: Joan Didion.  In 2003, The New York Review of Books published her Fixed Ideas: America Since 9.11.  From that slender book overflowing with wisdom.  Excerpt.

And yet, all through the summer of 2002, the inevitability of going to war with Iraq was accepted as if predestined.  The "when" had already been settled.  "Time is getting short," The New York Times had warned us in July, "for decisions that have to be made if the goal is to take action early next year, before the presidential election cycle intrudes."  That last cause bore study.
"Before the presidential election cycle intrudes."  In case the priorities were still unclear.
The "why" had also been settled.  The President had identified Saddam Hussein as one of the evildoers.  Yes, there were questions about whether the evildoer in question had the weapons we feared he had, and yes, there were questions about whether he would use them if he did have them, and yes, there were questions about whether attacking Iraq might not in fact ensure that he would use them.  But to ask those questions was sissy, not muscular, because the President had said we were going to do it and the President, if he were to back down, risked losing the points he got on the muscular "moral clarity" front.
"I made up my mind," he had said in April, "that Saddam needs to go."  This was one of many curious almost petulant statements offered in lieu of actually presenting a case.  I've made up my mind, I've said in speech after speech, I've made myself clear.  The repeated statements became their own reason: "Given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity for regime change in Iraq, "James R. Schlesinger, who is now a member of Richard Pearl's Defense Policy Board, told The Washington Post in July, "our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place."



Why can we not be honest?  What purpose does James Fallows' nonsense serve?  He wants to brag about 2002 nonsense.  It won a National Magazine Award.  2002 and 2003 are the worst years for American journalism.  So you can imagine the kind of nonsense he wrote to win.  Of that garbage, he says today, "I feel I was right in arguing, six months before the war in 'The Fifty-First State,' that invading Iraq would bring on a slew of complications and ramifications that would take at least a decade to unwind."  Oh, the bravery.  (That was sarcasm.)  He wrote an article in October 2002 proclaiming points of interest if the Iraq War happened.  You know Jim Hoagland was doing the same thing in a Washington Post column in June of 2002?  In fact, the topic was all over the place long before Fallows used it to offer his centrist tour of potential things to look for after the war starts.  A real journalists should have been working on questioning the claims.  But James Fallows isn't a real journalist.  There was no money to be made off telling the truth.  During Vietnam, he couldn't be counted on to do anything either, except lie to avoid serving there.  Couldn't rally, couldn't organize the war but didn't want to go there.  How sad that as the days wind down, Fallows is as timid and ineffectual as he was in his college years.

The kind of garbage he provides, we don't need.  If you're writing about Iraq on the 10th anniversary of the start of the illegal war, you should be doing to explain how things are today or to explain how the illegal war was sold.

How things are today? 

Protests across Iraq.  The Iraqi Spring Media Center proclaims:

Here the People of Iraq Revolt against Tyranny and Oppression
It is not important which sect you belong to or race
What is important is that you seek to regain your Iraqi Identity
What is important is you regain your Honour, and live in your
                                 country with dignity!!!





Of all the protests across Iraq, Ramadi received the most attention due to a high profile speaker.  Alsumaria notes  Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi attended and, in his speech, resigned his office.  Hamdi Alkhshali (CNN) adds, "The finance minister resigned because the government has not met the demands of the demonstrators to end the marginalization, spokesman Aysar Ali told CNN."

Zaid Sabah (Bloomberg News) quotes al-Issawi telling the protesters, "I am with you, I am your son.  I will not return to this government."  Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) quote al-Issawi telling the crowd, "I am presenting my resignation in front of you. I do not care about a government that does not respect the Iraqi blood and its people." Sabah notes the protesters chanted back, "We are with you! We are with you!"
al-Issawi tells Reuters, "More than 70 days of demonstrations and this government hasn't fulfilled our people's demands.  It doesn't honor me to be part of a sectarian government.  I decided to stay with my people."  Alsumaria notes that Nouri al-Maliki has declared he will not accept the resignation until a legal and financial investigation is completed.  Ayad Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi states that there are secret arrest warrants Nouri is holding on Iraqiya politicians.  Allawi states the members are innocent and this is part of an effort to silence Nouri's political rivals.  Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 provincial elections, besting Nouri's State of Law in the process.



In Mosul, Nouri's forces refused to allow journalists access to the protest.  Nouri's forces also raided a mosque in Mosul to prevent morning prayers. Journalists trying to report on the morning prayers in Baghdad's Adhamiya section were arrested by Nouri's forces.   Nouri's State of Law sees other reasons for the protests.  MP Abdul al-Abbas, for example, insists to All Iraq News that the protests are a plot to run the economy of Iraq.  Iraqi Sping MC notes that protests took place today in Baquba,  in Jalawla, in Samarra and in Duluiya.  Al Mada reports that participation in the protests increased today in Falluja and Ramadi and that Samarra protesters are calling for a general strike in the cities throughout the province.


The Washington Post's Liz Sly Tweets:

  1. "Iraqis are still to some extent prisoners of a self-image the US fashioned and left behind..." 10 years on:
  2. To understand Iraq 10 years on - and the real tragedy of the US legacy - read nothing but this. Brilliant and true


Muhammad Yassine (translated by Nicolas Dagher for World Meets US) offers a look at Iraq's crises:


Prime Minister Maliki, commander-in-chief of the armed forces and primarily responsible for the security situation in the country, refuses to descend from the fragile throne he ascended to years ago through an open agreement between America and Iran. Nouri al-Maliki was put there as a cover for their mistakes. Citing the Constitution, which he says gives him all rights and authority, Maliki has refused to give up even a small measure of influence or administrative authority to his political partners. With his poor judgment, he has lost many of his partners and allies, particularly among the Kurds.
Maliki's gambit to remain in power by relying on the Americans and Iranians was misplaced. When he ignored the demands of anti-government demonstrators on February 25th, 2011, he laid the groundwork for a worsening of the crisis between the corrupt political class and the disenfranchised public. No one can deny the success Maliki has had cutting down to size his political partners, who obeyed his deranged demands to resign in return for personal favors and privileges. With privileges granted by marginalizing and excluding huge segments of the Iraqi people, these partners conspired against the voters and their constituents, hiding under the cloak of Maliki's dictatorial powers.



The violence never ends in Iraq. Probably because Nouri al-Maliki has been as much a failure at Iraqi security as he has been at Iraqi unity.   Today Alsumaria speaks with Diwaniya Poice Chief Brigadier Abdul Jalil al-Asadi who explains 2 car bombs went off in a livestock market (cattle and sheep) resulting in 5 deaths and forty people being left injured.  Imad al-Khuzaie, Suadad al-Salhy, Isabel Coles and Patrick Graham (Reuters) quote butcher Jassim Khalid stating, "I came to buy some calves and was checking them when the explosion happened, I threw myself on the ground, then the second explosion happened."  AFP reminds, "The blasts came a day after at least 26 people were killed and more than 60 wounded in a series of bomb attacks in the Baghdad area and shootings in northern Iraq."  Alsumaria notes a home invasion just to the south of Baquba (8 kilometers to the south) in which Ghalib Abdul Ali was shot dead by machine guns and his son was left wounded and a Mosul sticky bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers.  All Iraq News adds that Kaen Saleem, Commander of Salah-il-Din Emergency Regiment, was targeted with three Dijail bombings leaving him and one civilian injured and a Babel car bombing targeted a kindergarten (but there are no reported injuries).


AFP's WG Dunlop Tweets on violence:



  1. Day-by-day breakdown of Feb. attacks in , based on reports from security and medical sources



Finally, David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. We'll close with this from Bacon's "MERCADO WORKERS PROTEST SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND FIRINGS" (Truth-Out):

Valentine's Day sometimes brings chocolates and sometimes flowers. But Valentine's Day in Oakland, California, brought angry women out to the Mi Pueblo supermarket in the heart of the barrio. There they tried to speak to the chain's owner, Juvenal Chavez, not about love, but about the sexual harassment of women who work there.
As they gathered next to the parking lot holding pink placards, Latino families in pickup trucks and beat up cars honked and waved. Laura Robledo then stepped up to an impromptu podium and told her story. As she spoke, her teenage daughter held her protectively around the waist, and stared angrily at the doorway where managers stood waiting for trouble.
Robledo used to work at the Mi Pueblo market in San Jose. She lost her job when she complained to the company that she'd been sexually harassed by a coworker. "I had two witnesses who heard everything he said," she recalled angrily. "The words were so low and degrading it was horrible just to hear them. He even tried by force to kiss and embrace me."
So she complained to the company. That was unusual, because workers at the markets complain about intimidation by managers, and that those who complain lose their jobs.
Fear at Mi Pueblo has been high since last August, when the company announced it was using the E-Verify database to check employees' immigration status. Then in October company lawyer Julie Pace said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was auditing Mi Pueblo's personnel records. Almost all the chain's workers are immigrants.
In each store employees were herded into meetings, where they were shown a video in which Juvenal Chavez told them that if their immigration status was questioned they would be fired. "The possibility of losing one of our employees will hurt my heart," he assured them. "And it will feel like losing a family member."
When Robledo went to the company to report the harassment, however, she says it didn't feel at all like a family. "They said they'd investigate it," she recounted. "But they did nothing. After two weeks they gave me a letter saying they'd finished their investigation and that nothing had happened and that workers were always treated with respect. For me this was terrible. I felt very humiliated because I could see they didn't respect my rights as a woman."
Robledo was a new employee, having only started working at the store that October. The harassment began almost immediately, she says. Despite getting the letter claiming she had no basis for her charges, she continued working. Robledo is a single mother of three children, and couldn't afford to quit.
The company then made that decision for her. "I worked a couple of weeks after getting the letter," she recalls. "Then they accused me of getting into an argument with another worker, which wasn't true. It was just a pretext. They fired me because I kept complaining about sexual harassment. They knew that because I know my rights and I'm willing to defend myself that eventually I'd expose the truth."
























zaid sabah



qassim abdul-zahra