Wednesday, February
8, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the CIA will remain in Iraq, Tim
Arango's report from yesterday continues to dominate Iraqi discussion in
the US, several conservatives call the reported decision to scale back
the US diplomatic mission an indication of policy failure, Camp Ashraf
residents are being told to prepare for a move, Stan catches War Hawk
Terry Gross pimping for War With Iran, and more.
After
"ALL" US forces left Iraq, a number of Marines remain to guard the
diplomatic missions (Embassy and consulates), a number of US service
members remain to provide training (Nouri al-Maliki publicly stated that
number was 700), Special Ops remain, the FBI remained and the CIA
remain. Today Greg Miller (Washington Post) reports which explains:
The
CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops as part
of a plan by the Obama administration to rely on a combination of spies
and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests in the two
longtime war zones, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials said that
the CIA's stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the
agency's largest overseas outposts for years, even if they shrink from
record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in those
nations to fend off insurgencies and install capable governments.
Aswat al-Iraq reported
what US outlets wouldn't last month: "Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr
clled his 'resistance' followers to be prepared to face the US Embassy
in Baghdad, if they did not stop their breaches. In response to a
question made to his followers, received by Aswat al-Iraq, he expressed
rejection that US officials walk in Baghdad streets with their weapons."
Now
since then, a US helicopter emergency landed in Baghdad (with another
transporting the Americans away), reports of F-16 jets flying overhead
are coming from the Iraqi Parliament and there is the drone issue which
enraged Iraqis last week. Tuesday morning, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported
that the US is stating that they are only flying planes and drones and
helicopters in Iraq airspace to provide protection for the US Embassy in
Baghdad (and its various consulates throughout the country).
Parliaments Security and Defense wants answers as to exactly what the US
is doing in Iraq's skies.
In this climate, a decision may
(or may not have) been made. Equally true, we were informed last week
that the US and Iraq were back in negotiations regarding the US military
presence. If a pull out of diplomatic 'forces' is going to happen, at
present, the American people have no idea whether this is happening on
its own or as part of the negotiation process for US troops in Iraq.
But Victoria Nuland wants to assert that it's a cost-cutting measure?
Strange that the billions didn't bother anyone in the administration until after Congress allocated them. BBC News notes
that the US Embassy in Baghdad alone cost $750 million and that the
"huge diplomatic operations [. . .] reportedly costs $6bn a year" --
that doesn't count the embassy cost, construction was completed on that
back when Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq. Reportedly? The current US Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, told a media roundtable in November of last year,
"We are standing up an embassy to carry out a $6.5 billion program,
when you throw in the refugee program as well as the actual State
Department budget for 2012, of assistance in support for Iraq on a very
broad variety of security and non-security issues. The direct budget,
operating and assistance (to Iraq), was $6.2 billion [and] a little less
than $300 million [of] that goes to refugee and displace person
programs." Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) observes
of the State Dept mission in Iraq, "It has a $6 billion budget, its on
airline and three hospitals, and imports virtually all of its food. Its
central fortress, otherwise known as the Baghdad embassy compound, is
nearly as Vatican City." She quotes US Senator Patrick Leahy calling
the embassy "a relic before the paint was dry" and insisting that
Congress may have to make cuts in the costs if the White House is
unwilling to. Writing it up for NPR, Eyder Peralta declared, "The Times
story [Tim Arango] today as well as the Al Jazeera story from December
mention a program run by the embassy, which trains Iraqi police
officers. The program cost $1 billion last year and will cost about $500
million this year. Al Jazeera noted that an audit found there's no way
to know whether the program is working." Al Jazeera noted that? No, they didn't.
The error is Peralta's. An audit can only "find" what is there. It's
not an abstract, an audit is basic inventory, addition and subtraction.
No audit "found" what Peralta insists it did. The Al Jazeera piece was
published December 16th. We're falling back to December 7th and the report we did in that day's snapshot
on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security
Subcommittee hearing -- US House Rep Jason Chaffetz is the Chair of the
Subcommittee.
Appearing before the Subcommittee that day
were the Defense Dept's Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell, the State
Dept's Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel, the acting inspector
general of US AID Michael Carroll, the acting inspector general for the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Steven J. Trent
and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen.
US
House Rep Raul Labrador: Mr. Bowen, right now the police development
program is the administration's largest foreign aid project for Iraq
going forward. And there's some evidence that the Iraqis don't even
want this program. So have you or your staff asked the Iraqi police
forces if they need the $500 million a year program that the Obama
administration is planning to spend on the police development program?
SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: Yes, Mr. Labrador, we have and we reported on that in our
last quarterly report noting that the senior official at the Ministry
of the Interior, Senior Deputy Minister al-Assadi said "he didn't see
any real benefit from the police development program." I addressed that
with him when I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and I asked him, "Did
you mean what you said?" And his response was, "Well we welcome any
support that the American government will provide us; however, my
statements as quoted in your recent quarterly are still posted on my
website."
US House Rep Raul Labrador: So why is the administration still spending $500 million a year to provide this program?
SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: There's a beliff that security continues to be a
challenge in Iraq, a well founded belief, I might add, given the events
of this week. Killings of pilgrims again, on the way to Najaf, on the
eve of Ashura. The focus though on trying to address those problems has
been a widely scattered, high level training program involving about 150
police trainers who, as we've seen again this week, are going to have a
very difficult time moving about the country.
US House Rep Raul Labrador: So what other problems have you found with the police development program, if any?
SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: Several. Well, Mr. Labrador, we pointed out in our audit
that, one Iraqi buy-in, something that the Congress requires from
Iraq, by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs,has not
been secured -- in writing, in fact, or by any other means. That's of
great concern. Especially for a Ministry that has a budget of over $6
billion, a government that just approved, notionally, a hundred billion
dollar budget for next year. It's not Afghanistan. This is a country
that has signficant wealth, should be able to contribute but has not
been forced to do so, in a program as crucial as this.
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot
and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He
declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we
intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews
with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that
might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that
Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already
spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer
as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was
complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on
it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of
Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But
Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan
al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example,
Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our
money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He
made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke
Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she
had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US
was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US
government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend
covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why
are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
After 8
years of spending US tax payer dollars on this program and on the verge
of spending $500 million, why is the US not talking to the person in
charge ofthe Interior Ministry?
Because Nouri
never named a nominee to head it so Parliament had no one to vote on.
Nouri refused to name someone to head the US ministry but the
administration thinks it's okay to use $500 million of US tax payer
dollars to train people with a ministry that has no head?
None
of that raised a concern on the part of the US State Dept about
spending but we're supposed to believe some magical change of the
'mission' now is the result of concern about spending?
INSKEEP: So what happened?
ARANGO:
It really is a remarkable thing that so quickly after the American
troops left that the State Department realized that the embassy that
they built is too big, is too costly and the situation on the ground
means that they can't get out and do the things that they like to do to
justify that cost.
INSKEEP: What do you mean the situation on the ground?
ARANGO:
Well, there's two things going on. There's the persistent security
problems that prevent diplomats from moving around as much as they'd
like. And then what they didn't plan on was how the Iraqis would react
as soon as the military left in terms of obstructing what they want to
do. They immediately started enforcing customs regulations that the
Americans were not accustomed to abiding by. And then there's the
situation with the visas. Prime Minister Maliki now - his office has to
approve all the visas for Americans. And so it's resulted in these
lengthy delays.
INSKEEP: Lengthy delays in even getting the staff into Iraq. And then they have difficulty moving around once they're in Iraq?
ARANGO:
Absolutely. There's a new kidnapping threat in the Green Zone. And as
such is getting out of the Green Zone to interact with ordinary Iraqis,
there's even new security procedures for moving around in the Green Zone
which is probably one of the most fortified places in the world.
It
was an odd choice by the State Department to make Iraq the flagship of
"smart power," given that the White House has consistently conveyed that
President Obama just wants Iraq off the agenda. The president never
invested in getting from Congress the resources necessary --- even if
the State Department had the capacity to carry out its ambitious plans.
Nevertheless,
the State Department's plan for maintaining two thousand diplomats --
protected and supported by 15,000 other civilian personnel -- was a
terribly cost-ineffective program fraught with potential for disaster.
Outside review of the department's plan by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, the Commission on Wartime Contracting, and every other
outside source highlighted the crucial dependence on mobility that was
both vulnerable and reliant on civilian contractors (the majority of
them non-American) with the authority to use deadly force. Why the
government of Iraq would grant immunity from prosecution to civilian
contractors when it denied immunity to better trained military personnel
was only one among many questionable planning assumptions.
So
much for a "strong and enduring partnership" that has "our diplomats
and civilian advisers in the lead." Those of us who argued for a
continuing military presence were deeply skeptical the State Department
would actually be able to main a mission of some 2,000 diplomatic
personnel supported by an army of 15,000 or so contractors. The size of
the task they faced was just too huge, and the State Department lacks
the resources the military can bring to the task. Sure enough, the U.S.
embassy has been having trouble stocking its vast chow hall and getting
its personnel outside its fortified walls.
Jane
Arraf: Sarah doesn't like her children outside. A few weeks ago, she
left her husband. She's afraid he'll come back and kill her. He'd hit
her for years. But last month, after getting angry with their son, he
got out a police baton and started beating him.
Sarah
(translated by Jane Arraf): He said to me, 'Why are you looking at
me?," and put his finger in my eye and wanted to pull it out. I ran out
of the room and he kicked the door and got to me. With his baton, he
beat me hard. When I collapsed and he saw me lying on the floor, he
jumped up and down on me and stepped on my head and belly and said,
"Die."
Jane
Arraf: At the hospital, they told her she had a broken rib. She had
photos taken of her injured but her husband told her he'd kill her if
she went to the police. Now she and her four child live with her
mother. [. . .] In a society Sarah where a woman leaving her husband
for any reason is grounds for punishmnet, Sarah is one of the lucky few
who have relatives willing to take them in.
Jane
Arraf's report is one of three disturbing reports on Iraqi women this
week One of the many casualties of the illegal war is the rights of
Iraqi women. Rebecca Burns (In These Times) speaks with the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq's Yanar Mohammed. Excerpt.
RB:
OWFI members have been beaten and sexually assaulted while
demonstrating, just like female protesters in Egypt. Why are women
targeted in this way?
YM:
They wanted us to feel ashamed. Our organization made sure that these
demonstrations had a female face. We had our slogans, our banners, which
we carried every single Friday. This was not approved by al-Maliki's
government. And in an Arab society, if a woman is shamed, she is pushed
out of the public arena. They expected that we would go hide in our
homes and not show our faces to anybody. The same way in which women are
forced to immolate themselves or made the victim of an honor killing,
they wanted to force a political dishonoring on us in order to end us
politically.
RB: How are the women who have been attacked in Tahrir Square faring today?
YM:
All of them are back in the square. But we are very careful as to our
whereabouts. Once we see security forces, we leave the square. We are
not willing to be tortured again and again.
RB: Are you working to get women elected directly to Parliament?
YM:
In Iraq, 25 percent of members of Parliament are required to be women,
which is good. But more than half the women in Parliament are from the
Religious Right. When we were beaten in Tahrir Square – 25 of us – not a
single female Parliamentarian spoke out. In other words, those women
are puppets.
Doug Moore (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) reports on a group of attorneys -- 12 Iraqi women and five US women -- who teleconference once a month:
The
St. Louis lawyers hope that kind of moral support could help the Iraqi
lawyers get women into more powerful positions in the legal system and
in government. Islamic laws protecting women are inadequate or not
enforced in a culture where men are in charge and women are treated as
property. Domestic violence is often considered accepted practice.
[. . .]
[Nancy]
Mogab said the ultimate goal is forming a group similar to a women
lawyers' association here, and called on the Iraqi women to create a
list of goals they want to accomplish.
"Together they will be able to
provide a voice whereas a single lawyer can't do that there," Mogab
said after the groups' third meeting earlier this month.
Law school
classes in Iraq are an even mix of men and women, but there are very few
women judges. And those who practice law have little influence in a
male-dominated legal system.
Moving to the topic of Camp Ashraf, KUNA reports,
"The United States on Tuesday urged the 3,400 residents of Iraq's Camp
Ashraf to relocate immediately, as it is 'no longer a viable home for
them'. Ambassador Dan Friend told reporters that 'We look forward to the
first residents moving from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in the
immediate future,' referring to a new camp the Iraqi government
constructed for the Iranian dissidents who have occupied Camp Ashraf for
the past 30 years. The camp was under US control until January 2009,
when US handed over control to the Iraqi government." Ian Duncan (Los Angeles Times) adds:
Speaking
in the European Parliament on Tuesday, Maryam Rajavi, the group's
leader in exile, said residents of the camp were willing to move but
were "demanding minimum assurances, namely a dignified and humane
treatment at the new location."
"The EU, U.S. and U.N. should actively and immediately intervene to prevent turning of Camp Liberty into a prison," she said.
This push follows earlier news this week that some Camp Ashraf residents and their supporters found alarming. Monday Fars News Agency reported
that National Alliance MP Abbas al-Bayati appeared on al-Baghdadia TV.
His statements were both explosive and embarrassing for the United
Nations. According to al-Bayati, Iraq will be expelling the MEK (Iranian
dissident group welcomed into Iraq decades ago). All will be expelled
or sent to Iran, declares al-Bayati in direct conflict with what the
United Nations has been stating in what will now be seen as stalling
statements made by the international body as it attempted to buy time.
This bad impression will take hold because al-Bayati denies that the UN
has any supervision of Camp Liberty. He states, "No, the camp is under
the control of Iraqi government and (the camp's control) has nothing to
do with the United Nations. Iraq came to the decision to provide the UN
with the reports of the camp and also let them visit the camp."
Though
the US media has been ignoring it, you can't visit the US State Dept (I
did last week) and not see the Camp Ashraf supporters gathered across
from it. The MEK has Iranian-American relatives in this country (a large
number in California -- many in US House Rep Bob Filner's district).
Following the revolution in Iran, some members of the MEK went to Iraq.
When the US invaded, the US military entered into negotiations with the
approximately 3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf. The end result was that
they became protected persons under international law and the Geneva
Conventions. Though Nouri has given repeated promised to the US that he
would protect the residents, that has not happened. He has twice
launched attacks on the camp. They've now relocated to a new camp that
some British MPs have described as a "concentration camp." The only
defender the new camp (which has no medical facilities and Nouri
al-Maliki is refusing to allow medical supplies in) had was the United
Nations, which vouched for it so strongly based on a single, brief visit
of the unnoccupied camp-to-be. That vouching now appears incredibly
misinformed.
December 23rd, Human Rights Watch noted:
Human
Rights Watch sent letters on December 15 and 16, 2011, to the
governments of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany,
Italy, Denmark and Sweden seeking their support for the appeal by Martin
Kobler, the United Nations special envoy for Iraq,to the Iraqi
government to extend a December 31 deadline for closing Camp Ashraf.
Human Rights Watch also urged the governments to helpensure the safe
transfer of camp residents for individual refugee status interviews, and
respond quickly and positively to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's
call for UN member states to indicate their willingness to accept Camp
Ashraf residents for resettlement.
"Resolution
of the Camp Ashraf situation requires the active involvement by other
major players like the United States and the EU who can play a critical
role in resettling Camp Ashraf residents and monitoring to make sure
they are safe and are treated fairly," said Frelick.
The
Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) was founded in 1965 as an armed group to
challenge the Shah of Iran's government. In 1981, two years after the
Iranian revolution, the group went underground after trying to foment an
armed uprising against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the former Supreme
Leader of Iran. After a period of exile in France, most of the group's
leaders relocated to Iraq in 1986 and established Camp Ashraf, although
its top leadership remains in France.
Human
Rights Watch called on all parties to allow international diplomats, UN
agencies, and independent observers to be present to monitor every step
of the transfer of these residents to a protected transit site, such as
the former Camp Liberty at Baghdad's international airport. Human
Rights Watch also urged the UN to continue monitoring the human rights
and humanitarian situation after camp residents have been relocated to
the transit site.
Human
Rights Watch previously appealed to both the Iraqi government and the
leadership of the MEK to cooperate fully with the UN to ensure the
protection and safety of Camp Ashraf residents. Tension and mistrust
between the MEK leadership and Iraqi security forces remain high
following two violent incidents involving Iraqi security forces that led
to the deaths of more than 40 Camp Ashraf residents, in July 2009 and
April 2011. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called on Iraqi
authorities to refrain from using excessive force against Camp Ashraf
residents, and for independent and transparent investigations to
investigate the two incidents and any crimes committed during them.
The Iraqi government has not opened investigations into these incidents.
The
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that "law
enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to
the extent required for the performance of their duty." The UN Basic
Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provide that law enforcement
officials "shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before
resorting to the use of force" and may use force "only if other means
remain ineffective." When the use of force is unavoidable, law
enforcement officials must "exercise restraint in such use and act in
proportion to the seriousness of the offence."
Human
Rights Watch has also called on the Iraqi government not to return the
exiles to Iran against their will, saying they may risk torture or other
serious abuse. Human Rights Watch has documented the prevalent use of
torture in Iran, particularly against opponents of the government.
As
a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, Iraq is bound to apply the principle of nonrefoulement. The UN's
Human Rights Committee, which interprets the covenant, has explained
this obligation as: "States parties must not expose individuals to the
danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion
or refoulement."
The Iraqi
government has assured Washington that it would not forcibly transfer
any member of the group to a country where they face a risk of torture.
In Iraqi government news, Al Mada reports
that Nouri al-Maliki is attempting to rally MPs with State of Law (his
political slate which came in second in the March 2010 elections) to
push through a 2012 budget (yes, the 2012 budget should have been taken
care of some time ago). Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) notes
that political leaders who attended yesterday prep meeting for a
national conference are attempting to map out the post-US Iraq. As for
proposed documents, Kurds present stated that the Erbil Agreement
already maps out the steps necessary.
Following the March 2010
elections and Iraqiya's first place results, Nouri al-Maliki refused to
allow Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) the chance at forming a
government that his slate's win guaranteed. Nouri didn't want to give up
being prime minister. Because the White House backed him, he was able
to bring Iraq politics to a stand-still. Eight months of political
stalemate followed during which Parliament met briefly once and that was
it. There was no governing of Iraq taking place. Nor any efforts to
move forward. (A White House friend has insisted in the last week that
the reason the White House backed Nouri was because they needed to get
started on negotiations for when most US troops left. That's a nice spin
to their decision to back a thug.) Political blocs met in Erbil in
November 2010 and the Erbil Agreement was hammered out. It was supposed
to do a number of things for all actors involved. However, the minute it
kicked in with Nouri being named prime minister-designate, he quickly
disregarded the agreement. That's what's caused the political crisis.
That's what the Kurds have been demanding Nouri agree to return to --
demanding since this summer. When Iraqiya announced their planned walk
out December 16th, they were calling for a return to the Erbil
Agreement. (The arrest warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi
had not yet been issued at that point.)
Nouri (and his sycophants
in the US) today like to insist the Erbil Agreement is
unconstitutional. (A) They only made that claim after he used it to
remain prime minister and (B)they're not legal scholars. The Erbil
Agreement was not illegal or unconstitutional. But if Nouri and his pep
squad want to keep insisting it was, they should grasp that means Nour's
prime minister tenure is illegitimate. Al Rafidayn notes rumors that al-Hashemi has left the Sulaymaniyah villa he was staying in and is now in an undisclosed/unknown location.
Nouri is fearful of February 25th. Wael Grace (Al Mada) notes
that the fear is that activists might take to Tahrir Square as they did
a year ago. Nouri responded by (a) promising to cut his salary (no one
ever followed up to see if that happened), (b) kicking the can --
insisting that he would address corruption in 100 days (100 days came
and went and corruption in Iraq remains -- Nouri was saying earlier this
month that it was as big a threat as terrorism) and (c) swearing he
wouldn't seek a third term (his attorney has declared that promise to be
non-binding). Grace speaks to Nouri's thugs that have been occupying
Tahrir Square and running off the real protesters. One explains that
he's a political activist with State of Law and he didn't get a seat in
Parliament. These are Nouri's thugs. We noted that when they first
appeared. Grace is the only journalist to pursue the story. If it were
in English, it would be all over the internet.
Will the
demonstrators show back up Feb. 25th (or more likely the 24th since they
were protesting on Fridays after morning prayers)? Maybe so.
None
of the demands were met. Basic services have not been met. Unemployment
remains high and jobs scarce. People continue to disappear in the Iraqi
justice system and more. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reports
that, over the weekend, a generator had to be moved when the landlady
refused to allow it to be ket on her land. Due to wiring issues and
other things, the people ended up without electricity for two days.
The correspondent report on the frustration of the Iraqi people:
One
of the angry people shouted "why does the government pay budget for the
ministry of electricity? Why does it pay salaries for unproductive
employees?" and finally he asked simply "why don't they give us the
money to manage our electricity problem instead of wasting money?" The
last question was the most important one for me. It reflects clearly the
disappointment of Iraqis. Obviously, we don't trust our government and
our politicians in general because after even after eight years of
collapsing Saddam's regime, our politicians failed in everything. They
failed in providing services, they failed in forming a real national
government, they failed in protecting Iraq and they failed in saving
Iraqis lives. They succeeded only in one thing. They perfectly succeeded
in dividing Iraqis.
A
year later and all the problems are still present -- and more plentiful
than before. The cry that may have scared Nouri the most last year --
remember the regime in Egypt was falling and numerous leaders were
worried they would be next -- might have been the one about how they'd
turned out to vote in the elections and nothing changed. They had the
same prime minister, the same president, the same vice presidents (one,
Adel Abdul Mehdi, has since resigned in protest of the corruption and
the inability of the government to address it), so what was the point of
'democratic' elections?
16 days until Friday the 24th. Nouri's paranoia is well known. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
At World Can't Wait, Ray McGovern explores
a US war on Iran (and gives too much credence -- my opinion -- to what
Barack supposedly really, really wants -- stop listening to the people
around him, when Samantha Power hyped Jeremy Scahill, that should have
been the end of it, the embarassing punking JS received should have
ended it for all). Stan makes a far more important catch.
Terry Gross was part of the selling of the Iraq War though she's
supposed a lefty. She not only sold it, she attacked Ehren Watada on
her program. Now she's hoping no one will catch her pimping for a war
with Iran. Stan caught her. She interviewed the New York Times' William Broad about his new book
The Science of Yoga: The Risks and Rewards.
Terry felt the need to bring up Iran and how it 'wants' a bomb. Broad
explained to her slowly and carefully -- when she brought up Iran --
that there was no proof that Iran even wanted to make a nuclear bomb.
After this had been gone over at great length (see Stan's post),
Terry does a mm-hmm "So is there an estimate of how far away they are
from actually having a bomb?" She goes back to insisting they want one
even though it's just been explained to her that there's no proof of
that.
| 
