Maine Owl

More evidence of fraud right under the nose of Senator Susan Collins

$13 Billion in Iraq Aid Wasted Or Stolen, Ex-Investigator Says
By Dana Hedgpeth - Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A19

A former Iraqi official estimated yesterday that more than $13 billion meant for reconstruction projects in Iraq was wasted or stolen through elaborate fraud schemes.

Salam Adhoob, a former chief investigator for Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity, told the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, an arm of the Democratic caucus, that an Iraqi auditing bureau "could not properly account for" the money.

While many of the projects audited "were not needed -- and many were never built," he said, "this very real fact remains: Billions of American dollars that paid for these projects are now gone."

My first question is, Why is this buried on Page A19? The bigger question is, Why is the lede buried?

Investigations by Iraqi oversight agencies also found that some of the money sent to the Defense Ministry was diverted to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Adhoob said, and deposited into banks in Jordan and elsewhere.

If I had a loved one killed in this war, I'd be livid. My own government, however unwittingly, was funding the enemy. Shameful.

Here are some archive posts on Iraq fraud and the years of less-than-interested approach to oversight of this by Senator Susan Collins:

Daylight Robbery (June 2008)
Iraq waste, fraud, and abuse dissected by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Susan Collins and the Oil-for-Food double standard

Politics-charged announcement follows summer filled with assertion of Iraqi government power

By any stretch, 8,000 is a modest draw down:

President Bush: Here is the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight. As a result, we have been able to carry out a policy of "return on success" — reducing American combat forces in Iraq as conditions on the ground continue to improve.

Predictably, both McCain and Obama think their own ideas about Iraq are vindicated. The design, however, clearly is for Bush to help McCain get the upper hand because the announcement reinforces his "maverick" image in being an early "surge" promoter.

But the "surge" is far from the only or even any reason at all it looks like Iraq is quieter, for now. Patrick Cockburn offered in a short piece last week parts of the story missing from all the American political narratives:

How the Bush Administration is Helping McCain:
The Fake U.S. Victory in Iraq
By PATRICK COCKBURN

Much of what the White House is now doing is done to help the Republicans in the presidential election. The aim is to give the impression that Iraq has finally come right for the US and victory is finally in its grasp. The surge is promoted as the strategy by which the tide was turned and it is true that the Sunni uprising against the US occupation has largely ended.

But it has done so for reasons that have little to do with the surge or American actions of any kind. Crucial to the success of the government against the Mahdi Army has been the support of Iran. It is they who arranged for the Shia militiamen to go home.

Obama, for his part, pointed out today the money sink-hole the "wrong" war in Iraq will continue to be:

Obama: We will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus. In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq's leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences. So the President's talk of "return on success" is a new name for continuing the same strategic mistakes that have dominated our foreign policy for over 5 years.

I find it unseemly for Obama (and other politicians like both Susan Collins and Tom Allen) to take the handy course of whipping the Iraqis over their treasury, seeing how U.S.-run contractors and quislings have stolen Iraq blind over those five years. I'd be more more impressed if he acknowledged the death, destruction, and displacement the Iraqi people have suffered over these years and promised that his administration would get the American boot off of Iraq's neck.

Note & update: Earlier in the summer I had been concerned about the onerous so-called "Status of Forces" agreement and colonial oil proposal the Bush Administration had been attempting to impose on Iraq. An excellent piece describing what had ensued over the summer to cause the Bush Administration to back off is HERE:

Is the Maliki Government Jumping Off
the American Ship of State?
Michael Schwartz , TomDispatch.com , Sep 8, 2008

In the past few weeks, the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made it all too clear that, in the long run, it has little inclination to remain "aligned with U.S. interests" in the region. In fact, we may be witnessing a classic "tipping point," a moment when Washington's efforts to dominate the Middle East are definitively deep-sixed.

The client state that the Bush administration has spent so many years and hundreds of billions of dollars creating, nurturing, and defending has shown increasing disloyalty and lack of gratitude, as well as an ever stronger urge to go its own way. Under the pressure of Iraqi politics, Maliki has moved strongly in the direction of a nationalist position on two key issues: the continuing American occupation of the country and the future of Iraqi oil. In the process, he has sought to distance his government from the Bush administration and to establish congenial relationships, if not an outright alliance, with Washington's international adversaries, including the Bush administration's mortal enemy, Iran.

Hmmm. The ungrateful wretches. It won't be easy for them under either McCain or Obama, but it may not be long before the Iraqis themselves cast off that American boot.

Baghdad treasury flush with oil revenue

A front page story in the Wall Street Journal last week and THIS item from Reuters reveals the steps being taken by the Iraqi government to increase its military might and solidify its perceived victory over competing factions.

Iraq eyes Lockheed F-16 fighter aircraft purchase
Fri Sep 5, 2008 12:13pm EDT
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government has asked for information about buying 36 F-16 fighter aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Corp ...

The request, received Aug. 27, is being reviewed "in the normal course of business" as part of the U.S. government-to-government arms sale process, said Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman.

F-16s are among the world's most advanced multirole fighters and a powerful symbol of military ties to the United States. Iraq's interest in the fighter jet, reported first by The Wall Street Journal, could spark concerns among neighbors worried about advanced arms in the hands of a country still facing major internal challenges. ...

What better symbol of the normalcy of relations between Iraq and Washington? The Iraqi government has jelled in recent months and now sees its future as a blossoming U.S. client state (ally in the Terror War?).

With Iraqi oil pumping and the petrodollars flowing into the U.S. military-industrial complex as powerful weapons needed for maintaining "stability" flow back, the not unfamiliar pattern of Arab client states doing the bidding of the U.S. comes to Iraq.

But you know the part of this story I really find amazing is just how typical the Iraq situation is becoming. Reuters mentions that the most advanced F-16s are being produced in Poland, Israel, Greece and Pakistan; while Morocco has recently become the "25th and latest overseas buyer with a deal for 24 new Block 50/52 models"!

After the crushing blows and millions of deaths and displacements in Iraq, U.S. mandarins revel in a "stable" future that will be grim indeed for the bulk of the population. Meanwhile, discussion of whether or not unbridled militarism is right for America is the farthest thing from the attention of the presidential campaign.

What was the source of the REAL anthrax Iraq DID possess?

Obviously the terror-inducing U.S. anthrax attacks during the fall of 2001 fit in nicely with what the U.S. was doing to portray Iraq as the most dangerous regime in the world. Here's President Bush whipping up hysteria concerning Iraq and bioweapons on October 7, 2002 in his famous Cincinnati speech, given as he was pressuring Congress to pass the Iraq War Resolution:

President Bush: ... the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions. ...

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. ...

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. ...

Now, news about the investigation into the October 2001 "anthrax by mail" attacks in the U.S. is hot again after the death by suicide of the latest FBI candidate for the culprit, another scientist within the U.S. military's own bioweapons program. The latest is that the suspect, the late Bruce Ivins, was some kind of whacko with an obsession with a college sorority.

Glenn Greenwald has been all over this story, with several posts focusing on media contributions that helped President Bush falsely pin the anthrax threat on Iraq. Greenwald has his doubts about Ivins's guilt. THIS Democracy Now! segment suggests that the case should be far from closed, despite Ivins's suicide.

As Greenwald suggests, "extreme skepticism" should be the rule when dealing with any government or media claim concerning anthrax. I agree. Why might certain U.S. authorities want to keep the lid on the truth and the public diverted and confused? Perhaps it is because the U.S. itself, along with the U.K. have plenty to keep covered up. Both were key enablers of Iraq's actual bioweapons program during the 1980s.

Is there any evidence for this assertion? Yes. My old site carries an essential 2005 white paper on the subject written by contributor Geoffrey Holland. It is accessible HERE. Holland traces strains of anthrax shipped to Iraq through many decades of U.S. and U.K. bioweapons research, concluding "that the anthrax threat from Iraq, a repeatedly cited reason for the 2003 invasion of that country, actually originated from a dead cow in South Oxfordshire" in the U.K.

Holland argues that the "United States breached the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) by supplying warfare-related biological materials to Iraq during the 1980s" and should be sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. Holland campaigned in the U.K. on this issue for several years, eventually garnering over 100 sponsors for a Parliamentary resolution demanding such a referral.

Today Juan Cole has more: "Bush Pressured FBI to Blame al-Qaeda for Anthrax", along with a fascinating item about how the notion that Iraq was anthrax central propagated through the U.S. media, even on entertainment shows and with the help of none other than John McCain.

American war hammer seen as good, by Americans


Amazing program

Just a few days ago from a (broken) link at Counterpunch I discovered the incredible Pinky Show. The latest one posted, linked directly from the above graphic, features Pinky's discussion of recent American polling on attitudes about Iraq followed by a moving, disturbing, and deeply insightful talk by blogger and AFSC Iraq program coordinator, Raed Jarrar.

While Americans overwhelmingly believe the war was a "mistake," they are still bathed in misinformation about its consequences. For example, over 60% of Americans today believe the invasion and occupation has been a good thing for the Iraqi people. Many think that Iraqis should be grateful to the U.S., despite the fact that hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced, and the country's infrastructure destroyed while the Bush administration and American corporations act to carve up Iraq's resources for their own benefit.

Pinky posits that it's corporate media and politicians who promulgate the misfeeds on Iraq. The wall of nebulous obfuscation prevents most Americans from processing the horrors the U.S. has inflicted upon Iraq. It's damned disheartening that so many people won't turn off their televisions, quiet the dissonant voice, and find places like Pinky to get some real information.

The 1958 Revolution

This is an episode of Twentieth Century history that escapes attention here in America but is essential background if you want to understand what is happening in Iraq. If you can even find reporting these days (total network coverage is minimal), you almost never see a decent story about how Iraqis feel about being occupied.

That observation fits well with the fact there is no significant story in a major U.S. paper marking the events of that summer one-half century ago. The BBC has an "On this day" item HERE. I'll watch the network news for a story, but I'm not holding my breath.

The prolific author and long-time activist Tariq Ali fills in some of the missing context for the Bush attack, conquest, and occupation in his important 2003 book, "Bush in Babylon", while giving proper respect for the culture and consciousness of the Iraqi people. Ali describes the removal from power of the British-installed imperial monarchist government:

On 14 July 1958 the Free Officers seized power and declared Iraq a Republic. At 6.30 am, the first proclamation was read on Radio Baghdad by Colonel Aref, who informed the country that

"... with the loyal aid of the loyal sons of the people and the national armed forces, we have undertaken to liberate the beloved homeland from the corrupt crew that imperialism installed. Brethren, the army is of you and for you and has carried out what you desired ... your duty is to support it in the wrath that it is pouring on the Rihab Palace and the house of Nuri al-Said. Only by preserving it from the plots of imperialism and its stooges can victory be brought to completion ..."

The military leaders had planned to exile the young king Feisal II, but to arrest and try his uncle, the Crown Prince Abdul-Ilah, and Nuri al-Said for crimes against the people. Plans had been made to carry out the verdicts without delay. Obviously they would have been found guilty and executed, but all this was preempted by a young officer ...

Ali goes on to describe the grisly scenes of the ensuing assassinations of the royal family.

These events precipitated a flurry of tense reaction from Washington. On July 15, 1958, 1,700 Marines of the US Sixth Fleet arrived in Lebanon and two days later 2,000 British paratroopers landed in Amman. Noam Chomsky provided further context with respect to the U.S. national security establishment in a talk on nuclear weapons and U.S. global domination in March 2002 (broadcast on Democracy Now!, archived HERE). Chomsky called 1958 a "critical year" for U.S. imperialism and gave these very illuminating comments about the Iraqi revolution,

CHOMSKY: It was the first year that some country, namely Iraq, had been able to break out of the Anglo-American condominium over the world's energy resources. Iran had tried [in 1953]... but there was a U.S.-British military coup that overthrew it. Iraq actually broke out and it was a huge issue. A big flurry of activity, military forces all over the place, almost came to nuclear weapons ...

[If you look at those records you find that] President Eisenhower, in internal discussion, observed to his staff, his words, "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people."

And there was discussion about this [in the National Security Council]. They said [the reason is] there's a perception in the region that the United States is supporting harsh and brutal and corrupt regimes and is blocking democratization and development, and is doing so because of our interest in controlling the oil reserves of the region. And they said it's difficult to counter this perception because it's accurate.

Perhaps the Bush regime attack on and destruction of Iraq could be seen as an attempt to reverse once and for all the 1958 Iraqi "break out of the Anglo-American condominium over the world's energy resources." The "status of forces" and oil contracting plans all reflect such a neo-colonial approach. Certainly, Iraqis are responding by demanding a timetable for U.S. withdrawal and so far resisting the permanent codification of U.S. immunity in their country.

Speaker Pelosi feigns disgust after clever maneuvers


Massive off-budget appropriation for perpetual war and a Christmas tree of money for dozens of other "priorities"

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ms. Nancy Pelosi. Here I post what she said last Thursday after engineering passage of a war budget of truly GIGANTIC proportions. It's so disingenuous:

MS. PELOSI: I’m sorry that I cannot fully participate in all of the comradery that is accompanying this legislation that we bring to the floor because of the huge amount of money that is in this bill to fund the war in Iraq without any conditions, without any limitation on time spent there. I’m glad that we have something about no permanent bases, yes, but this is the first time that we will be sending a bill—well, we sent it to the Senate with conditions and they struck it. We have no choice. This is not about a failure of this House of Representatives; it’s about what we cannot get past the next body and onto the President’s desk. ...

So while I’m pleased that we have some spirit of civility here tonight about coming to a conclusion on this bill to bring it to the floor, and I enthusiastically will vote for the domestic piece of this, I’m not urging anyone to do anything, I just want you to know why I would be voting ‘‘no’’ on the spending without constraints. We owe our troops more than sending them into war on a false premise, without the equipment and training they need, without a plan for success, without a strategy to leave. This war has not made the region more stable, it has not made our country safer. It has undermined our capability to protect the American people. It should come to an end safely, honorably, responsibly, and soon.

Then why, why, why, Ms. Speaker, do you not work to STOP the budget from even reaching Bush? This is a hell of a price for some bones to the unemployed and support for vets that you should be forcing through the president anyway.

And that bill is absolutely loaded with everything from military bases to border fences to a $50 million "freedom fund" for privatization of Iraqi industries. Take a look, starting here. This massive episode of paper hanging should shock and appall every decent American.

Thanks to Maine Representatives Mike Michaud and Tom Allen for voting against the war funding. But I quote Representative Kucinich on exactly what's wrong with this horror:

Mr. KUCINICH. I regret that I’m going to have to oppose this bill. And let’s look at the numbers: $161.8 billion for the war it keeps going, a war that we all know now was based on untruths. It keeps going a war that has cost the lives of over 4,000 of our brave men and women, tens of thousands of injuries to our troops and over 1 million innocent Iraqis killed as a result of the war. The costs of the war will run to $3 trillion. And here instead of keeping a commitment that we made back in 2006 to end the war, we’re continuing it into the term of the next President, and $161.8 billion of this bill will go for the war.

That’s actually, of the total bill, 86 percent is going to go for the war, $24.7 billion in domestic spending. How much of this is going for unemployment? Well, $12.5 billion or about half of it over a period of 2 years. How much is going to the veterans? Less than $1 billion over 2 years. So we’re using the veterans here and unemployed persons to put forth a war bill that is going to cost $161.8 billion. We have to establish what our priorities should be in this country.

Yes. Getting people back to work should be a priority. Imagine if we put $100 billion into that. Yes. Giving veterans better benefits ought to be a priority. Imagine if we put $100 billion into that. But no. We’re putting $161 billion into a war that we know is based on untruths.

It’s time that Congress take back its real authority here. And its real authority under article 1, section 8 is to declare war. This administration led us into a war based on lies. It is time for us to regain our ability to create an effective checks and balances, to reclaim our position as a coequal branch of government. You do not do that by continuing to fund this war. You do it by funding education, health care and job creation. That’s what the people in Cleveland, Ohio, want. That is what people want all over this country. I’m voting against this.

And below is Ms. Pelosi's complete statement.

It's spelled O - I - L; companies seek "foothold"

According to the New York Times today:

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
By ANDREW E. KRAMER - Published: June 19, 2008

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. ...

We learn that these deals are unusual "no-bid contracts." No one needs to be "suspicious" according to company executives, because they are just "helping" Iraq get new oil field development going while the oil law is stalled.

Turns out that the companies involved--Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP--have history with the old colonial Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC). During the period from 1921 to 1958, oil was discovered and developed in Iraq by these multinational corporations and their precursors under concessions distinctly unfavorable to the Iraqis. This history is very complicated. But under the concession agreements of the 1920s, Iraq was the big loser, not even owning an equity share in the IPC.

The post-1958 revolutionary government began to reverse these harsh terms. The IPC monopoly was broken during the early 1960s and Iraq's oil was fully nationalized in 1971.

Does the pattern of what is happening today resemble a return to the old colonial system of oil concessions backed by imperial military force? I would say yes. The traditional British colonial pattern in the Arab Gulf states usually involved a commercial agreement between companies and a quisling ruler followed by a political agreement. Is that not exactly what we are seeing in Iraq right now? The commercial agreement described by the Times today lines up perfectly with the security agreement now being pushed upon a reluctant Iraq.

Torrent HERE

"Panorama investigates claims that as much as $23bn (Ł11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or not properly accounted for in Iraq. ..."

By BBC Panorama; video quality fair:



Panorama investigates claims that as much as $23bn (Ł11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or not properly accounted for in Iraq.

When the US goes to war, corporate America goes too. There are contracts for caterers, tanker drivers, security guards and even interrogators, many of them through companies with links to the White House. Now more than 70 whistleblower cases threaten to reveal the scandals behind billions of dollars worth of waste, theft and corruption during the Iraq war.

Gagging orders
A total of $23bn (Ł11.75bn) is under scrutiny. The US justice department has imposed gagging orders which prevent the real scale of the problem emerging. But Panorama's Jane Corbin has spoken to some of those involved - with astonishing stories to tell of who got rich and who got burned. ...

BBC investigates contractor corruption

Senator Susan Collins (Press release, November 2004): The Subcommittee's estimate over a longer period is a staggering 21 billion dollars. I am deeply troubled that UN sanctions could be circumvented by the former Iraqi regime on such a massive scale.

Staggering, huh? If that's staggering, try THIS:

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions
By Jane Corbin BBC News - 10 June 2008

[Representative Henry] Waxman: "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (Ł11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations. The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering
While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

This story isn't new, of course. But the "staggering" figure of $23 billion missing/unaccounted for/lost to fraud is higher than previously quoted by the Iraq Inspector General. Meanwhile, this "gagging order" is keeping the depth and scale of the robbery well away from the public eye.

BBC 4 broadcast "Daylight Robbery" in its Panorama series last night. This program seems not to be available for viewing in the U.S. If a torrent or YouTube version becomes available, I'll let readers know. (UPDATE: I posted the video HERE.)

For those wanting a taste of what is in this program, a substantial report ran on the BBC/PRI The World radio show, carried yesterday on Maine Public Radio. Here is a convenient player for listening to this 5-minute report:



(Permalink to report)

As for Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins, she seems only to be "staggered" when the corruption could be pinned on the demonized enemy. The scale of Iraq corruption at the hands of the Americans is bigger than the wildest Oil-for-Food scandal estimates promulgated with near hysteria throughout wingnuttia during 2004 and 2005.

Why was Senator Collins such a willing transmitter of Oil-for-Food tales while something bigger in her own back yard didn't even elicit a yawn? And I don't hear her trying to really get to the bottom of this even today.

UPDATE (6/12): The video disappeared from Google. Also, the November 2004 press release from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations inquiry into Iraq Oil-for-Food I attributed to Susan Collins has disappeared from the page where I found it living a few months ago, HERE. After some digging, I found this text within the November 15, 2004 hearing document, archived HERE as S. Hrg. 108-761.

P.S. Warm greetings to Collins Watch readers.

The U.S wants to use it as a launching pad to bomb Iran. I guess Cheney feels like to really make it all worthwhile, he needs to use his new bases for something.

It's up to 58 permanent bases

This is just so ridiculous it's easy to feel the pain and humiliation of every decent Iraqi:

U.S. seeking 58 bases in Iraq, Shiite lawmakers say
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. ...

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. ...

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

"Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," [Iraqi lawmaker Jalal al Din al] Saghir said.

No U.S.-domination-over-Iraq story would be complete without the joke of the day: "The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism. 'Look, there is going to be no occupation,' said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli."

"U.S. Not Seeking Permanent Iraq Bases, Ambassador Says"

The actual punch line is there will be fifty permanent bases:

Bush's Secret Deal Would Ensure Permanent U.S. Occupation of Iraq
By PATRICK COCKBURN

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to this reporter, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq.
Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which U.S. troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law...

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now.

Let's see if Obama resists this in any meaningful way. I suppose there have been a few hurt feelings in Congress over earlier whispers because the administration was loathe to tell any of them what this plan was actually going to be. I'll be watching what they do.

Has anyone counted the times Cheney, Bush, Rice, McClellan, Fleisher, et. al. deceived the American people and its press sheep in the Iraq war run-up? Sure. The Center for Public Integrity came up with 935. Harry Shearer explains: