Returning Iraqi exiles story overhype

I knew those stories about returning exiles entering Iraq from camps in Syria were too good to be true, i wish I could find some better reporting though, this peice from tomdispatch.com does a good job conceptually, yet dosen't win in the details department.

Tomgram: Michael Schwartz, Why Bush Won't Leave Iraq
Whoa, let's hold those surging horses in check a moment. Violence has lessened in Iraq. That seems to be a fact of the last two months -- and, for the Iraqis, a positive one, obviously. What to make of the "good news" from Iraq is another matter entirely, one made harder to assess by the chorus of self-congratulation from war supporters and Bush administration officials and allies, as well as by the heavy spin being put on events -- and reported in the media, relatively uncritically.

An exception was Damien Cave of the New York Times, who had a revealing piece on a big story of recent weeks: The return of refugee Baghdadis -- from among the two million or more Iraqis who had fled to Syria and other countries -- to the capital. This has been heavily touted as evidence of surge "success" in restoring security in Baghdad, of a genuine turn-around in the war situation. In fact, according to Cave, the trickle of returnees, which had actually been lessening recently, has been heavily "massaged by politics. Returnees have essentially become a currency of progress."

Those relatively modest returnee numbers turn out to include anyone who crossed the Syrian border heading east, including suspected insurgents and Iraqi employees of the New York Times on their way back from visits to relatives in exile in Syria. According to a UN survey of 110 families returning, "46 percent were leaving [Syria] because they could not afford to stay; 25 percent said they fell victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14 percent said they were returning because they had heard about improved security." And that's but one warning sign on the nature of the story under the story.

A recent Pew Research Center poll of American reporters who have been working in Iraq finds that "[n]early 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit" and many believe that "coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict." In an on-line chat, the reliable Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post (and author of the bestselling book Fiasco), just back from Baghdad himself, offered his own set of caveats about the situation. He suggested that, in addition to the surge of U.S. troops into the capital's neighborhoods, some combination of other factors may help explain the lessening violence, including the fact that "some Sunni neighborhoods are walled off, and other Sunni areas have been ethnically cleansed. In addition, the Shiite death squads, in addition to killing a lot of innocents, also killed some of the car bomb guys, I am told." Of the dozens of American officers he interviewed, none were declaring success. "[T]o a man, they were enormously frustrated by what they see as the foot-dragging of the Baghdad government." And he points out that violence in Baghdad "is only back down to the 2005 level -- which to my mind is kind of like moving from the eighth circle of hell to the fifth." In 2005, or early 2006, of course, such levels were considered catastrophic.

Robert Parry of Consortium News points out that, while "good news" dominated front pages here, "the darker side" of "success" has "generally been shoved into brief stories deep inside the newspapers." He adds that "the harsh repression surrounding the ‘surge' has drawn far less U.S. press attention," even as "Iraq steadily has been transformed into a more efficient police state than dictator Saddam Hussein could have ever imagined."

Jim Lobe of Interpress Service interviewed surge "skeptics" who "argue that the strategy's ‘ground-up' approach to pacification -- buying off local insurgent and tribal groups with money and other support -- may have set the stage for a much bigger and more violent civil war or partition, particularly as U.S. forces begin drawing down from their current high of about 175,000 beginning as early as next month."

Michael Schwartz, a Tomdispatch regular on Iraq these last years, takes up this changing post-surge landscape and what exactly it may mean for the Iraqis -- and for us. Tom

Plunge Protection Team meets in secret

Woah, so these guys think they can hide behind some notion of executive shield?!

THE TREASURY'S MISSING MINUTES MYSTERY

November 29, 2007 -- AFTER a year and a half of stalling, the US Treasury finally complied with The Post's requests for information about The President's Working Group on Financial Markets - by delivering 177 pages of crap.

In essence, the Treasury's Freedom of Information officials said that the Working Group - affectionately nicknamed the Plunge Protection Team - doesn't keep records of its meetings.

How interesting and convenient!

Included in the 177 pages that the Treasury said responded to our request on the actions of The President's Working Group were 53 pages on which something was redacted - blacked out so that the discussion was unreadable.

Many of those 53 pages contained no words at all - just a big black blob.

Starting in June of 2006 The Post asked for an accounting of the actions of The President's Working Group, which was formed under President Reagan. The Group seems to have the ill-defined task of keeping an eye on the financial markets. We also asked for e-mails related to our request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Working Group operates out of the Treasury Department and includes the heads of the various exchanges in the US, as well as top-ranking government officials.

Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, and Ben Bernanke, the head of the Federal Reserve, are the two most prominent members.

Back in August, Paulson said in a television interview that "we've reenergized The President's Working Group on Financial Markets."

The Wall Street Journal last year said that Paulson, upon becoming Treasury Secretary, was insisting that the Working Group meet every six weeks.

Whatever the schedule of meetings, one of those meetings occurred on Aug. 17 - the day the Federal Reserve surprised the financial markets with a cut in its discount rate.

According to records that someone else got from Bernanke's office through a FOIA request, there was an 11 a.m. conference call on Aug. 17 of the "PWG" - the President's Working Group.

Fed Governor Kevin Warsh and Patrick Parkinson, a Treasury staffer, took part in that call, according to Bernanke's phone log.

The day before - Aug. 16 - Bernanke and Paulson had lunch, but it isn't clear whether this was just two guys having a meal or if it, too, was related to The President's Working Group.

Hours after that lunch, word got around on Wall Street that the Fed was about to make a move and the stock market staged a tremendous rally.

The next day those rumors of Fed action proved accurate.

So what's the Working Group up to?

I suspect the group is ready to come to the rescue of the financial markets - even equities - in the case of a meltdown.

And as I've said in the past, that would be a completely acceptable task as long as it remains a limited power that is used infrequently.

But who decides when a rescue is needed?

And if no records are kept, who is held accountable if The Working Group's power is abused?

George Stephanopoulos, a former top aide to President Clinton, tried to calm fears right after the terrorist attack in 2001 by explaining that The President's Working Group was at the ready to prop up the stock market.

I, too, had a similar conversation with a Fed official in Sept. 2001.

But the chance of abus ing this presi dential man date - even for personal gain - is great whenever an orga nization operates in secrecy.

And that's exactly how The President's Working Group is operating.

Included in the pile of manure we received from Treasury this week is an internal e-mail dated April 9, 2007 that Heidilynne Schultheiss, director of the Treasury's Office of Financial Market Policy, sent to six people.

The subject "Minutes of PWG Meetings?"

"Hi All, We received a FOIA request asking for minutes of meetings of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG). As far as we know, minutes are not (and never have been) kept . . . A search of our records turned up nothing," Schultheiss wrote.

That same day someone at Treasury named Mary Kertz e-mailed a bunch of folks "re: meeting notes from last PWG meeting on Financial Markets."

The e-mail said: "Thanks. Just spoke with Norman - he said the Fed Chairman had said he believed minutes were recorded for these meetings. Strange."

I don't know who Norman is. But I agree that having a powerful organization like this meet in secret is very, very strange.

And extremely dangerous. john.crudele@nypost.com

Marx Cafe tonight!

Hey, I'm back from the dead, I'll be playing at Marx tonight, 9-11pm. I have been on sort of a vacation from the internet for some time, also went to England for three weeks, so been out of the loop. All that's changing tonight, come get your 2-step bassline fix with me!

Marx Cafe
3203 Mount Pleasant St. NW

Seeya tonight!