Democracy in the new Iraq -- loser could prevail in parliamentary elections

News from Baghdad that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has formed a coalition government to rule his U.S.-supported country for the next four years sounds like good news. For the continuation of Maliki's role as prime minister of Iraq, it could be. But since Maliki finished second in the March election to the secular and Sunni coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the prospect of four more years of a Shiite-dominated government despite the election results could be problematic for the fragile Iraqi society, according to the New York Times. An unpopular government also could complicate the planned withdrawal of 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of August, particularly if the current parliamentary standoff continues and is accompanied by an escalation of violence. But if Maliki's State of Law coalition holds and it results in Allawi's Iraqiya party being completely excluded from power in the next government, despite its narrow victory in the election, there is almost certain to be political resentment in addition to the simmering Shiite-Sunni religious friction that seems to almost always be present. Minority Sunnis held power in Iraq during the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein but the majority Shiites have been in power since the 2003 U.S. invasion. "No doubt this could lead to a resurgence in violence and provide a fodder for extremism," said Sheik Abdul-Rahman Munshid al-Assi, leader of a Sunni political council in the disputed region of Kirkuk, the Times said. "There must be participation in the government by any means. Otherwise, we will return to square one." There is only one Sunni politician in Maliki's coalition, the Times said. "The fear is this alliance will have a sectarian color," said Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni allied with Allawi. "That is how Iraqis and the world will see it, whether we like it or not. This development will be a tragic step backward." One hopeful sign -- the Shiite coalition invited Allawi's Iraqiya group to join a national unity government. But the details of such a government -- surely the most important factor -- have not been made clear, the Times said.

Does Allawi party win signal return of normalcy to Iraq?

Bombastic rhetoric aside, the victory by secularist Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bloc in last month's election, announced today in Baghdad, could be a sign that the war-torn country's halting moves toward Western-style democracy are finally showing some success. Allawi, the prime minister in 2004-5 at the height of the U.S. occupation, and his Iraqiya bloc took 91 seats in Iraq's 325-seat parliament, according to the Reuters international news service. Allawi's bloc, made up of more than 40 political parties, received millions of votes from Sunni Muslims alienated from the Shiite governments that have been in power in Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Shiite Prime Minister's Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law bloc took 89 seats but was rumored to be in negotiations with the controversial Iraqi National Alliance (INA) to form a coalition. The INA's 70 seats would give that coalition a near-majority in parliament, but would likely bring into the government anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army fought fierce battles with U.S. troops during the invasion. In brief remarks following the announcement, Allawi said he was extending "hands and heart" to all groups in Iraq. "For all who want and wish to participate in building Iraq, we will together bury political sectarianism and political regionalism," he said. But don't expect Maliki to leave office without a fight -- hopefully, a rhetorical one. "For sure, we will not accept these results," Maliki told a news conference after the announcement. More helpful remarks would have been, well, more helpful. If the 2005 exercise in coalition building is any indication, the process of forming a new government in Baghdad could take months. If it takes any longer, it could complicate the planned withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq in 2011.

U.S. government starts making sense on Blackwater

Why it took a change in administrations in Washington to get top congressional officials to start thinking again is a little hard to understand, yet there we are. We're discussing, of course, letters sent to top Obama administration officials by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a fellow Democrat, asking whether controversial military contractor Xe Services, the former Blackwater Worldwide, should be barred from bidding on future Iraq contracts, according to the Washington Post. Blackwater, you recall, is the Myock, N.C., company that has been paid billions of dollars over the past 7 years to provide support services for U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But several well-publicized shooting incidents in Baghdad, including one that resulted in the deaths of 17 civilians, made the company the object of scorn in Iraq and nearly brought down the newly restored Iraqi government. So, wouldn't you expect past performance to be at least one major factor in the selection of bidders for a new $1 billion contract to train a new national police force in Afghanistan? That's the context in which Levin (D-Michigan) wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only Bush administration holdover in new President Barack Obama's cabinet. "The inadequacies in Blackwater's performance appear to have contributed to a shooting incident that has undermined our mission in Afghanistan," Levin told the Post in an e-mailed statement. It's been a long time since we've heard U.S. officials speak so honestly about the company. Last May's incident, in which two Blackwater contractors allegedly killed two Afghani civilians and wounded a third, damaged relations between the local population and U.S. forces. The military sees strong relations between troops and Afghani citizens as vital for securing the country and putting down a stubborn al-Qaida insurgency. A Xe Services spokesman said Levin's query was appropriate and welcome. "We are confident that Xe's record of service in training thousands of security personnel in Afghanistan demonstrates the company's strong record of supporting critical U.S. government initiatives in Afghanistan, which are essential in advancing the United States national interest," said the spokesman, Mark Corallo, in an e-mailed statement. The Pentagon's Bryan Whitman said there was no effort within the military to ban Xe Services, as far as he knew, and it would be legally allowed to submit a bid on the Afghanistan contract. Levin's second letter, to Attorney General Eric Holder, called for an investigation into whether Blackwater tricked the Army into awarded it a separate $25 million contract to train police in Afghanistan by creating a shell company named Paravant. Corallo said military officials knew Paravant was a Blackwater subsidiary when the contract was awarded.

Secretary of State says massive debt threatens U.S. security

In Washington, sometimes, the truth comes out when everybody least expects it, like when they're looking for something else. That seems to be what happened Thursday when, testifying before Congress on the U.S. State Department's request for additional funding, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated outright that the country's burgeoning deficit -- $1.4 trillion and growing -- threatened the country's security. Gee, you think? "We have to address this deficit and the debt of the United States as a matter of national security, not only as a matter of economics," Clinton told lawmakers on various committees, according to the Reuters international news service. "I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are." And, as if that wasn't obvious enough, Clinton added that debt to other nations hinders "our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve." So, was she talking to ordinary citizens who don't have advanced degrees in economics but still are able to understand what's going on, or to the Washington political elite who have the sheepskins but still seem unable to get it? Continuing deficits are the result of deliberate decision-making -- it's possible to make mistakes in the short term but by the time it's the long term, the term "mistake" doesn't cover it. Of particular concern to Washington is China's ownership of nearly $800 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds, Reuters said, and the possibility of Beijing trying to force changes in policy as a result. "The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever," Clinton said. Of course, the value of China's holdings are directly related to the continued vibrancy of the U.S. economy, so Beijing has a strong interest in not forcing it to derail. But why doesn't the Congress have that same interest? What did they think would be the result of cutting taxes by billions of dollars at the same time they were authorizing the spending of hundreds of billions on an offensive war in Iraq? The $4.9 billion increase in the State Department budget is to pay for diplomatic and development work in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Clinton said. "We are now assuming so many of the post-conflict responsibilities, and that is the bulk of our increase," she said.

U.S. Justice Department opens investigation of alleged bribery in Iraq

From Washington comes word that the U.S. Justice Department is investigating allegations that Blackwater Worldwide, the largest outside contractor for the military in Iraq, paid officials of the government in Baghdad to allow the company to keep operating there. The department's fraud section opened the investigation late last year, according to the New York Times. The Iraqi government wanted Blackwater, since renamed Xe Services, expelled from the country following the shooting deaths of more than a dozen civilians in a Baghdad intersection in 2007. Company guards were protecting a diplomatic convoy when they opened fire in Nisour Square, apparently believing they were under attack. The shooting outraged the Iraqi public and led the government to order company employees out of the country. The last reportedly left in May. Five of six former guards allegedly involved in the incident were charged with manslaughter and other charges, but the case against them was dismissed in December out of concern that their rights had been violated. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the government would appeal that dismissal. A sixth guard pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for his testimony. The existence of the bribery investigation was confirmed by three current and former U.S. officials, the newspaper said. The investigation appears to have started after a Times report that Blackwater officials had authorized $1 million in payments to Iraq officials to retain their support in the post-Nisour Square incident environment. If true, such payments would violate federal law barring U.S. companies from bribing officials of other countries. Investigators are working with the U.S. State Department and with federal prosecutors in North Carolina, where a grand jury has been reviewing the Blackwater contracts, the Times said.

Prosecuting Blackwater guards changes very little

Even if the U.S. government is successful in having murder and other charges reinstated against five Blackwater security guards implicated in the shooting deaths of 14 civilians in a Baghdad intersection in 2007, it may help somewhat in soothing some suspicions among the leaders of Iraqi society but is probably not going to do anything to heal the fundamental damage done to the United States. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday on a visit to Iraq that Washington would appeal a federal judge's decision tossing out the charges because the guards' constitutional rights had been violated by the government. "The United States is determined, determined to hold accountable anyone who commits crimes against the Iraqi people," Biden said, according to the Reuters international news service. "While we fully respect the independence and integrity of the U.S. judicial system, we were disappointed by the judge's decision to dismiss the indictment, which was based on the way in which some evidence had been acquired." The dismissal reopened long festering wounds among Iraqis disturbed by the massive loss of life in the years that followed the defeat of Saddam Hussein, even though thousands of U.S. serviceman and women also died in the effort to set up a democratic government in Baghdad. The five guards were accused of responsibility in the deaths of the civilians by opening fire in Baghdad's Nisour Square. The guards claimed they began shooting because they thought they were under attack as they were escorting a diplomatic convoy through the city as the height of the insurgency. A sixth guard pleaded guilty to lesser charges in exchange for testimony against the other five. The Nisour Square shooting served to focus attention on the propriety of the military's use of private contractors to fight in Iraq in place of lesser-paid U.S. soldiers. But military adventure undertaken by the Bush administration in Iraq in 2003 also raised serious questions about the constitutional underpinnings of the U.S. government -- questions that will have to be answered if Washington intends to retain any of its traditional moral authority in the new century. The paralysis in the capital in Washington that has prevented any significant legislative progress in the new administration of Barack Obama is symptomatic of this problem -- the train has left the tracks, and the conductor refuses to halt the locomotive. At issue now is the future of the separation of powers doctrine in the U.S. Constitution, the power of the president, the authority of the Congress to declare war and the nation's revered Bill of Rights, which has surely suffered severely. At a time of international challenge, the United States appears leaderless and its citizenry inexcusably uninformed.

'Chemical Ali' gets sentenced to death -- again

While it's certainly exciting to see society returning to normal in Iraq after all those terrible years of uncertainty before and after the 2003 U.S. invasion ousted Saddam Hussein's despised government, it's getting harder to tell how interested the country's elected leadership in Baghdad is in justice as opposed to revenge. What brings this to mind is Sunday's decision by the Iraqi High Tribunal to sentence Ali Hassan al-Majeed to death for the fourth time, according to the Reuters international news service. Nobody, apparently, disputes that Majeed, a Saddam cousin who became known as "Chemical Ali" for ordering the use of poison gas against civilians, was an awful person. But nobody who saw the extraordinary show trial and execution of Saddam in 2006 -- except, perhaps, those bent on revenge for his widely renowned cruelty -- could help but be troubled by the apparent lack of fairness in the proceedings. Saddam's conviction and execution were so obviously predetermined that there was little justification for the trial at all, except as a formality. At least Saddam was only sentenced to death once -- for crimes against humanity in the slaying of 148 Shiite men and boys after a failed assassination attempt in 1982 -- even though he is believed to be responsible for the deaths of nearly 300,000 people, Reuters said. But Majeed had already been sentenced to death three times before the trial that concluded Sunday for a 1988 gas attack that killed 5,000 Kurds. Then again, Majeed is still alive, while Saddam was rushed to the gallows and hung while the families of tens of thousands of his victims waited for some accounting. In addition to Sunday's verdict, Majeed has been sentenced to death for a 1988 military campaign against ethnic Kurds, for ruthlessly suppressing a Shiite revolt following the 1991 Gulf War and for a 1999 slaughter and displacement of Iraqi Shiites, Reuters said. Everyone hopes post-Saddam Iraq will be a stable, democratic nation going forward. But show trials and executions only undermine the moral character of the state and serve as a warning that the inhumanity that flourished in Saddam's Iraq may not yet be extinguished.

U.S. oil companies launch new Iraq invasion

And they're off! We're talking, of course, about the latest charge by U.S. companies toward financial nirvana in Iraq, where their expertise is apparently essential for the world's second largest proven oil reserves to be re-equipped for full production. Iraq officials are aiming for a five-fold increase in production to more than 11 million barrels a day in the next seven years, according to the New York Times. That level of oil production would rival Saudi Arabia and Iran for No. 1 in the world, the Times said. Such an increase means billions of dollars in contracts for new oil drilling, repairs to thousands of miles of pipeline, updating current facilities and construction of many more -- including, possibly, a new port on the Persian Gulf. U.S.-based oil-services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger have either started sending workers and equipment to Iraq or have plans to, and construction and engineering giants KBR, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler are not far behind, the Times said. But Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, which used to be run by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Bechtel and Parsons were criticized by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction for earlier work in the country, and could be headed for trouble before they're offered more. The companies have denied intentional wrongdoing and say that their experience in Iraq and in other oil-producing countries in Central Asia gives them an advantage, the Times said. “KBR has historic experience on previous oil and gas production projects ranging from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan,” said Heather Browne, KBR’s director of corporate communications, in an e-mail to the Times. “Our pursuit of additional contracts in the region is based on this experience in addition to KBR’s work on Project RIO (Restore Iraq Oil).” David Lesar, Halliburton’s chief executive, said in October that his company was already doing work on oil wells there. “I think you see everybody trying to establish a base there, and we’re no exception,” he said. “Clearly, a great future there and one we will participate in — in a big way.” Iraq has signed 10 production contracts with international oil companies in the past few months and officials say they hope to drill at least 430 oil wells during the next two years, the Times said.

Criminal charges dismissed? Iraq responds with lawyers

From Baghdad comes word that Iraq's government plans to help victims of the notorious 2007 shooting in Nisour Square to file lawsuits in the United States against private security guards working for the U.S. government. An Iraqi government spokesman called "unacceptable and unjust" last week's decision by a U.S. judge to dismiss murder and other charges against five employees of Blackwater Worldwide, then the largest U.S. security contractor, according to the Reuters international news service. Fourteen civilians were killed in the 2007 shooting when guards protecting a U.S. convoy opened fire in a crowded Baghdad intersection. The guards claimed they were reacting to gunfire and an explosion when they began shooting, but Iraqi witnesses said the guards shot indiscriminately. "The government will facilitate a lawsuit from Iraqi citizens to sue the guards and the company in a U.S. court," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters. Al-Dabbagh also said the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad would ask the U.S. Justice Department in Washington to review the decision by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina throwing out the charges. The shooting provoked widespread outrage in Iraq and led to a new agreement between Washington and Baghdad that lifted immunity provisions that had protected the private guards from Iraqi law. Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services after the shooting, and Iraq barred the company from working in the country. Dabbagh said Iraq was investigating whether any Blackwater employees were still in the country, Reuters said. "We don't want any member of this company, which committed more than one crime in Iraq, to work in Iraq," Dabbagh said.

Justice can wait -- charges against Blackwater defendants dismissed

The longer the United States puts off a comprehensive review of George W. Bush's presidency, the more disgraces like these are going to happen. We're discussing, of course, Thursday's decision by a federal judge to dismiss murder and other charges against five private security guards involved in a 2007 shooting that killed 17 civilians in Iraq. In a 90-page ruling, U.S. Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court in Washington said government officials had misused statements made by the five defendants in such a "reckless violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights" that dismissal of the indictment was the appropriate sanction, according to the New York Times. That works out well for the five guards who worked for Blackwater Worldwide, the McLean, Vir., company that provided security for foreign diplomats in Baghdad following the U.S. invasion in 2003, and, perhaps, for the rest of us in the long run, because it discourages prosecutorial overzealousness by the government. But there is a price to be paid. The decision further delays the urgently needed reckoning - the conduct of the U.S. government during the Bush administration has put the philosophical basis of the country at risk. The U.S. government has put its own survival ahead of its founding principles -- that's why it feels justified in operating secret prisons in other countries, torturing suspects, kidnapping suspects in other countries and holding them for years without charge or access to attorneys, in spying on its own citizens. These were supposed to be the truths we held self-evident and, yet, our government has chosen to restrict them with the support of the citizenry. It is an outrage.

Latest Blackwater revelation tries the nation's soul

Just in case anyone had any doubt about the seriousness of the Bush administration decision to use private contractors instead of soldiers to conduct the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latest revelations might very well convince them. According to the New York Times, employees of Blackwater Worldwide -- the Reston, Vir., private security company hired by the Pentagon to protect diplomats in Iraq -- took part in covert CIA raids and assassinations, and might have had a role in the agency's controversial and morally suspect rendition program. Officials at Blackwater, which renamed itself Xe Services following the fatal shooting of 17 unarmed civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square in 2007, have consistently denied involvement in covert CIA activities. But those denials are under attack in the U.S. Congress and in a U.S. court, where investigations are revealing a disturbing pattern of involvement far beyond what the military or the company have admitted to. Citing interviews with unnamed current and former Blackwater employees and military officials, the Times said security contractors appear to have participated in CIA-authorized raids in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006 and might have played roles in flying detainees to secret prisons operated by the CIA in other countries. The fact that information is still so scarce should give pause. While some clandestine operations can be expected, particularly in times of war, it is generally understood that these affairs are being carried out by highly trained military operatives, not outside contractors whose training and abilities are unknown and, as such, highly suspect. Do residents of the United States want military operations conducted by companies largely made up of foreign nationals with no allegiance to their country nor commitment to its values? Do the residents of the United States want military operations conducted outside the protection of U.S. law and the control of U.S. officials? Residents may have to make that decision soon, because the House Intelligence Committee is presently investigating Blackwater's role in the C.I.A. assassination program revealed this year and promptly eliminated by new agency director Leon Panetta, and a grand jury in North Carolina is investigating allegations of illegal conduct by Blackwater in Iraq, the Times said. Among the facts still to be discovered is whether CIA, military or White House officials approved the participation of outside contractors in these covert activities.

Feds move to drop charges against one Blackwater guard

What does it mean that the U.S. Justice Department wants to dismiss criminal charges against one of five former Blackwater security guards facing multiple manslaughter charges for their roles in a 2007 shooting incident in Baghdad in which 14 civilians were killed? Well, it might mean very little, since the charges would be dropped without prejudice and could be refiled later in the case. More likely, it means that a second guard, Nicholas Slatten of Sparta, Tenn., has agreed to give testimony against the four others who still face charges stemming from the shooting of civilians by a private security company hired by the U.S. military to protect diplomats in Baghdad threatened by unrest in the years following the 2003 invasion. The five former guards pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 attempted manslaughter counts and one weapons violation in January. A sixth Blackwater guard, Jeremy P. Ridgeway, 34, of Fallbrook, Calif., pleaded guilty to fewer charges in 2008 in a deal for his testimony, according to the Reuters international news service. The Nisour Square shooting helped to sour relations between Iraq's elected government and the Bush administration, which had destroyed the former government of Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Subsequent investigation found Hussein's government played no role in the 2001 attacks. The incident prompted Iraq's government to refuse to renew Blackwater's authority to operate there, and the company's military contract was not renewed in May. However, Blackwater guards have continued to operate in Iraq while replacement contractors are being sought. The shooting also reignited a debate over the use of private contractors to fulfill duties traditionally handled by soldiers at substantially lower costs. The motion to dismiss charges against Slatten was filed under seal, and no explanation was offered publicly, Reuters said. "While we never comment on sealed motions, it is a long-standing legal principle that charges against a defendant dismissed without prejudice allow the government to recharge the defendant at a later date if the evidence warrants," said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. The shooting happened on Sept. 16, 2007, as guards escorted a diplomatic convoy through a crowded Baghdad intersection, Reuters said.

Britain takes stock of Iraq war abuse claims

News from London that the British government has launched an investigation into more than 30 allegations of abusive conduct by its soldiers in Iraq makes it likely that the staunch U.S. ally has already realized that the price of war goes far beyond the cost in treasure. In a statement released Saturday, the British Ministry of Defence said many of the claims filed by Iraqi civilians have been pending for awhile but would be resolved, according to Cable News Network (CNN). "We are now looking into these new cases," a ministry spokesman told CNN. "Some of the cases we are looking at though go back a while, some are even from February this year, so all 30-something cases are at different stages in the investigation." An attorney for the Iraqis told Independent Television News, a CNN affiliate in London, that most of allegations involved sexual abuse of civilians. "There was a lot of sexual abuse," said the attorney, Paul Shiner, who likened the abuse to what happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Shiner said allegations include forcing a 14-year-old boy to commit sexual acts and the rape of an Iraqi man by two soldiers. "It is using sex as a mechanism to humiliate," Shiner said. "There are too many cases. Armed forces minister Bill Rammell said it was too early to jump to conclusions about the allegations but all would be investigated. "Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast, vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behavior, displaying integrity and selfless commitment," Rammell said. "While there have been instances when individuals have behaved badly, only a tiny number of individuals have been shown to have fallen short of our high standards." But soldiers who engage in sexual abuse of prisoners and children are not merely 'falling short' of some lofty standard. They are not just boys letting off a little steam. They are criminal deviants who have no place in human society, let alone handed sophisticated weaponry and entrusted with the defense of one of the world's great countries. It looks like the British armed forces, like the U.S. military, must at a minimum put more energy into understanding the psychological makeup of their soldiers and into understanding the effects of what is certainly unimaginable stresses on them. And if military leaders of both countries do not want to or are incapable of taking this seriously, both countries must find other military leaders who will and can.

United States shouldn't threaten war unless it means it

Was U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serious today when she warned Iran that it would not permitted to possess nuclear weapons or even produce nuclear fuel for power plants? Did she really mean to threaten war against the Shiite country that had regarded Washington with emnity since the 1979 revolution that overthrew a U.S.-backed ruler who had imposed a monarchy on Iran? That's certainly what it sounded like Sunday when she told Iran's leaders on NBC's "Meet The Press" television show that the country's efforts to develop nuclear weapons was "futile" and said the United States would not permit Tehran to produce its own nuclear fuel, according to the New York Times. "We’re trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime,” Clinton said. "What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen.” Well, if something sounds like a threat, looks like a threat and feels like a threat, it's reasonably certain that it's a threat. Is the United States really going to attack Iran, or enlist its allies to, if Tehran continues defying international economic and diplomatic sanctions aimed at bringing an end to its nuclear research? For its part, the rest of the Obama administration immediately began backing away from Clinton's most-threatening comments. Senior officials said Clinton was offering her own opinion but also agreed with her statement that the United States was committed to defending its allies in the region, which presumably include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and Turkey. “You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil, nuclear power,” Clinton said as if speaking to Iran's leaders. “You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control." But what if Iran continues to ignore the international community's demands, what then?

Happy talk by former presidents obscures deep political divide

Nice to see former U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton getting along so well. The stuck up for each other and even joked around Friday at a political forum in Toronto when they spoke before a crowd of 6,000, according to the Associated Press. Neither criticized the other in their first appearance together, the AP said. Bush, who left office in January after eight controversial years as president, said he didn't like being criticized by previous administration officials and that Clinton never did that. Bush said there were "plenty of critics in America," the AP said. And Clinton, who was president from 1993-2001, did not even mention recent well-publicized comments by Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney, who has been highly critical of the new administration of Barak Obama. Bush even called Clinton his "brother" while joking about how much time his father, former President George H.W. Bush, spends with his immediate predecessor. Clinton and the elder Bush led international fundraising efforts after the southeast Asian tsunami and after hurricanes Katrina and Ike. The two former presidents made speeches before answering questions from the audience, the AP said. Clinton said he regretting not sending soldiers to Africa to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, and Bush defended his administration's conduct of the Iraq war. "I don't buy the premise that our attention was diverted," Bush said, after Clinton said Bush should have given U.N. inspectors more time to look for weapons of mass destruction and instead concentrated more on Aghanistan, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is still thought to be hiding. Clinton praised Bush for his contributions to efforts to battle the AIDS virus in Africa and for appointing a racially and ethnically diverse Cabinet. Bush said Clinton would not have been able to mobilize enough troops in time to stop the Rwanda bloodbath, in which Hutu militias killed 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in three months. The event was moderated Frank McKenna, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States.

Blackwater saga keeps getting worse and worse

Just when we thought the Blackwater scandal in Iraq had faded from the headlines when the U.S. Army security contractor changed its name after five of its guards were indicted in an ugly shooting incident incident in Baghdad in 2007, comes word from Raleigh, N.C., that a different contractor claims Blackwater guards asked him to dispose of weapons after the shooting. According to the Associated Press, the other contractor, John Houston, was an employee of SOS International Ltd. of New York when he allegedly tried to smuggle a case of firearms out of Iraq. Houston now faces smuggling charges in federal court in Maryland based on testimony given by two informants, army reservists in Iraq, who told authorities they had been approached about the scheme, the AP said. The weapons were seized before they were shipped to an accomplice in the North Carolina, according to court papers, the AP said. The alleged accomplice, Michael Henson, also faces smuggling charges. Houston is a former Special Forces soldier. It is not clear, the AP said, whether the planned weapons shipment including the weapons used by Blackwater guards in the 2007 incident, which left 17 dead in Baghdad's Nisour Square. The bloody incident strained relations between the United States and the fledgling Iraq government, and led to last year's agreement to withdraw U.S. forces from the countryside to the cities by June and from the country in 2011.

Iraqi court cuts shoe thrower's 3-year sentence

From Baghdad comes word that an Iraqi judge has cut most of the prison sentence of Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi broadcaster who infamously threw his shoes at President George W. Bush last year at a press conference. Zaidi was convicted of assaulting a visiting head of state for the attack, according to the Washington Post. The throwing of shoes was said to be a show of disrespect in the Arab world. Bush avoided both thrown shoes but Zaidi was wrestled to the ground and taken away after the attack, which occurred during a Dec. 14 press conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad's heavily fortified green zone. Zaidi was convicted in an Iraqi court and sentenced to three years in prison. The April 6 decision, which came as Zaidi's lawyers appealed his sentence, reduced his term to one year. Zaidi, a Sadr City resident who worked for al-Baghdadia, a satellite channel based in Cairo, threw his leather shoes at Bush and shouted, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog," during the news conference, which came during Bush's last visit to Iraq as president. Zaidi said at trial that the attack was the result of his years of anger over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Post said. Zaidi gained wide fame in the Arab world as a result of the attack, which was broadcast around the world. But three years in prison certainly seemed excessive, since the attack occurred in a country where people get murdered with astonishing regularity. Plus, Bush was able to duck and was not struck by either shoe. Zaidi could be released as early as this fall, according to the Post.