Mediaboss Marketing

The City of Boulders Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Departmentisseeking publicfeedbackon a draft approach and an evaluation of potential actions to manage irrigable agricultural landwithlarge populations of prairie dogs.

OSMPsidentificationofa draft approach and its evaluation of potential actions isaresponse todirection from the Boulder City Council,following a recommendation from the Open Space Board of Trustees(OSBT)last spring, to undertake an expedited public process to look at agricultural uses on the citys northern grasslands. Potential management actions evaluated includeways to help foster soil health and carbon sequestration and options forbothnon-lethal and lethal control measures.

The city welcomes public feedback on the draft approach and the evaluation of potential actions online at http://bit.ly/Actions-Approach until 5 p.m., Sunday, Feb. 16.Community membersare invitedto theOSMPHub at 2520 55thSt. from5to7p.m.,Monday, Jan. 27, and2 to 4 p.m.,Tuesday, Feb. 4,if they needassistancein using the citysonline inputtool.

City policiesplans and ordinances have prioritized non-lethal control measures and have sought to protect prairie dogs and their habitats because they are important in helping to maintain healthy ecosystems. However, monitoring has indicated that OSMP irrigable agricultural lands currently have thehighest levels of prairie dog occupation they have seen since the department beganprairie dogmapping in 1996.

Such high abundance of prairie dogs on irrigable landsnorth of Bouldermakesit difficult forOSMPand farmers and rancherstofulfillagricultural-related open space purposes in the city charter and to implement soil carbon farming and climate mitigation practices.Elected and appointed leaders, in their direction to staff last May,indicatedthat it may beinfeasible to address large prairie dog populations on agricultural lands in a timely or economical fashion by current non-lethal practices alone.Currently,the city has 967 acres of irrigable agricultural land that is occupied by prairie dogs,butitcan only accommodate the relocation ofabout40 acres of prairie dog colonies each yearbecause of costs, contractor availabilityand permitting requirements.

The preliminary potential managementactionsevaluated as part of this public process focus on thesemanagement categories:

Comments received throughTuesday, Feb. 4, will be provided to the Open Space Board of Trustees(OSBT)in advance of a study sessionWednesday, Feb. 12, when board members willdiscussstaffs potential strategies and actions.Community members are welcome to provide comments to the OSBT during a public comment period before theWednesday,Feb. 12,study session.Staff willthenuse community input and OSBT feedback on the draft approach and evaluated actions to developfinal recommendations, which the department expects to present to the OSBTduring a public hearingin March.

For more information, please visit the project website or call OSMP at 303-441-3440.

Published: Jan. 6, 2020

Phillip Yates, Media Relations, 303-349-2438Bryan Rachal, Media Relations, 303-441-3155

Read the original post:
City Seeks Input on Potential Approach and Actions to Manage Irrigable Agricultural Areas With a High Abundance of Prairie Dogs - City of Boulder

Johnson will govern like he campaigned, by running away from the press.

Hes barely back from his post-election Carribean holiday but we it is already clear that Boris Johnson will govern as he campaigned by hiding from the press.

After Boris Johnson chickened out of an interview with Andrew Neil during the election campaign, his ministers are now going to avoid appearing on BBCs Newsnight.

According to the Mail, the governments excuse for this is that Newnight has appointed a journalist called Lewis Goodall as its policy editor and hes apparently too left-wing.

Goodall has joined Newnight from Sky News, where he worked as a political correspondent for right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch.

The governments evidence that Goodall is anti-Tory, the Mail says, is that he is the author of a string of aggressively anti-Tory comments on social media.

So what did he say? F**k Tory scum. All hail Corbyn.? No, just the kind of reasoned criticism every political journalist makes about any party. The most anti-Tory example the government/Mail could dig out is this one:

And of course, hes also been critical of Labour too. He called Labours election performance lamentably bad and accused Corbyn of looking stiff and robotic at Prime Ministers Questions.

The government/Mails other piece of evidence against Goodall is that, when he was a student, a Guardian profile described him as a Labour activist.

But plenty of political journalists used to be active in politics in their youth.

Today Show presenter Nick Robinson was the chair of the Young Conservatives and the BBCs Andrew Neil used to be a Conservative Party researcher and now edits the right-wing Spectator magazine.

Yet Johnson dodged Neils election interview and his ministers have been told to avoid Robinsons Today Show. So it looks like its not Lewis Goodall but any media scrutiny they are afraid of.

This impression is reinforced by government moves to change the location of press briefings from parliament to Downing Street where they can control the guestlist more tightly.

At present, any media outlet with a parliamentary pass can attend government press briefings. If theyre moved to Downing Street, publications which displease the government could be disinvited.

If this is the case, lets hope that the favoured journalists and outlets stand up for press freedom and boycott the briefings.

Joe Lo is a co-editor of Left Foot Forward

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for 5 a month?

See original here:
Johnson's government continue to hide from press scrutiny by dodging Newsnight - Left Foot Forward

BAGHDAD (AP) A push led by pro-Iran factions to oust U.S. troops from Iraq following the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general is gaining momentum, bolstered by a Parliament vote calling on the government to remove them.

But the path forward is unclear, and in Iraqs deeply divided terrain, with a resigned prime minister and raging proxy war between Iran and the U.S., ending Americas 17-year military presence in Iraq is a risky undertaking.

Iraq was barely starting to recover from a devastating four-year war against the Islamic State group when a mass uprising against the countrys ruling elite erupted on Oct. 1, forcing the resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi two months later. He hasnt been replaced.

A pullout of U.S. troops could cripple the fight against Islamic State militants and allow the extremists to make a comeback. Militants affiliated with IS routinely carry out attacks in northern and western Iraq, hiding out in rugged desert and mountainous areas. Iraqi forces rely on the U.S. for logistics and weapons in pursuing them.

An American withdrawal could also enable Iran to deepen its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority Shiite country.

It is not that simple, Lebanese political analyst Ibrahim Bayram said of any withdrawal. This will increase the complications inside Iraq, the conflicts and contradictions ... and the clash, both political and non-political, between the Iranians and Americans.

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, meanwhile, said Monday the United States has made no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq, adding that the U.S. remains committed to the campaign to defeat the Islamic State group in Iraq and the region.

The Iraqi parliamentary vote Sunday calling for the ouster of the 5,200 American troops in Iraq requires Iraqi government approval. But it highlights the sharp deterioration in relations between Washington and Baghdad amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport .

American forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the government to help battle the Islamic State group. The extremists had seized vast areas in the north and west of the country after Iraqs armed forces collapsed, including the second-largest city, Mosul. A U.S.-led coalition provided crucial air support as Iraqi forces, including Iran-backed militias, regrouped and drove IS out in a costly three-year campaign.

Unlike the previous U.S. deployment, which was governed by the Status of Forces agreement that clearly spelled out the rules of termination, American troops in Iraq are now in the country based on a less formal request by the then prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

Pressure has been escalating for a U.S. troop withdrawal since the defeat of IS in 2017, particularly among factions loyal to Iran. But calls for their removal grew louder amid outrage over the U.S. strike last week that killed Soleimani along with senior Iraqi militia leaders.

Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament on Sunday to take urgent measures to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country. In a sign of the divisions, the parliament session was boycotted by many Sunni and Kurdish legislators who oppose abolishing the deal with the Americans, and most of the lawmakers who voted were Shiite.

It was not clear what steps Abdul-Mahdi would take following the parliamentary vote. Experts were split on whether, as a resigned prime minister, he has the authority to request the termination of the U.S. presence.

Thafer al-Aani, a Sunni lawmaker, said Abdul-Mahdi doesnt want to risk aggravating the Americans too much by acting alone, which is why he turned to Parliament for backing, adding that the vote was mostly for a domestic audience.

He feels that America isolated his government by siding with the protesters. ... He decided to side completely with the Iranians after the killing of Soleimani and because of the U.S. position toward the protests, he said.

The U.S. government repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to stop using excessive force on peaceful protesters. Nearly 500 people were killed by security forces in three months of protests against the countrys top political and religious leaders. The protests have also turned into a revolt by the countrys Shiites against Iranian influence in the country, with protesters burning Iranian interests in the southern provinces.

On Monday, Abdul-Mahdi met with U.S. Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq, according to a statement from his office.

In their meeting, Abdul-Mahdi said relations with Washington must be built on a sound basis. He didnt elaborate, but said the situation in Iraq was critical and that all efforts were being exerted to prevent sliding towards an open war.

Speaking in Washington, Esper said the U.S. was not pulling troops out of Iraq.

Theres no decision to leave, nor did we issue any plans to leave or prepare to leave, the defense secretary said. He spoke to reporters in response to a letter from a senior U.S. commander that seemed to suggest a withdrawal was underway.

The Iraqi parliament vote angered President Donald Trump, who promptly warned Iraq that he would levy punishing sanctions if the government expelled American troops. He said the U.S. wouldnt leave without being paid for its military investments in Iraq over the years

We will charge them sanctions like theyve never seen before, ever. Itll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame, Trump said.

The alarming rhetoric by the two allied nations comes amid a recent series of unclaimed attacks targeting military bases that host U.S. troops in Iraq. One attack killed an American contractor in Kirkuk late last year, and was blamed on an Iran-backed militia. That attack sparked a deadly U.S. airstrike targeting that militia, which in turn led to a New Years Eve assault by militias loyal to Iran on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Abbas Kadhim, head of the Washington-based Atlantic Councils Iraq Initiative, said because Abdul-Mahdi has resigned as prime minister, he didnt want to give the impression that he was acting unilaterally and wanted Parliament to be on board, although he has the right to approve the U.S. troop removal himself.

He said there was no reason the Americans should stay now that the mission to defeat IS is over.

The troops are there and its called the coalition to defeat ISIS not the coalition to re-occupy Iraq, Kadhim said. ISIS was defeated and they have no reason to be there now. Kadhim added that an agreement could be worked out whereby some U.S. trainers can stay behind.

Bayram, the Lebanese analyst, said, however, that Trumps reaction shows that the Americans have no intention of exiting smoothly from Iraq.

The United States considers its presence in Iraq fundamental, especially since it rid Iraq in 2003 from Saddam Hussein. America also considers itself an essential partner in Iraq, he said.

___

Karam reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers A.J. Naddaff in Beirut and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

See the original post:
Push to oust US troops from Iraq a risky undertaking

The reality on the streets, where antigovernment protests have swelled, with calls for an end to Irans influence, was something else, though, as fear of what may come outweighed any jubilation over the killing of General Suleimani.

Faiq al-Shakhe, a member of Parliament, said the demonstrators showed, no signs of happiness or celebration. Instead, he said, they were worried about a violent response from Iran-aligned militias, who have already killed many protesters and may now, more than ever, see them as agents of the United States.

It was a wrong act from America because America should have coordinated with the Iraqi government, said Ameer Abbas, a protester, who shared the widespread view that the American attack was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Another protester, Mustafa Nader, said, we are all against foreign interventions, whether from Iran, Saudi Arabia or the United States. We do not have a personal problem with Iran, but if America were to intervene at the same level as Iran, you will see as much objection as there has been against Iran, and maybe stronger.

Emma Sky, a former adviser to American forces in Iraq and a senior fellow at Yale, said the American-Iraqi relationship is going to be really damaged by the killing. I think there will be more calls for the U.S. to withdraw troops, she said.

She said Americans will be hard pressed to justify a continued presence in Iraq because of the perception that its objectives are not aimed at promoting a stable Iraq, but containing Iran.

The U.S. doesnt have a policy on Iraq, she said. It has a policy on Iran.

While Iraqs Parliament is sure to take up the issue of the American troop presence, few expect the government to actually expel the Americans. Many Iraqi leaders still view an American presence as vital to its security, and depend on American training of the Iraqi security forces and, for better or worse, as a counterweight to Iranian influence.

See original here:
A Shocked Iraq Reconsiders Its Relationship With the U.S. - The New York Times

Hussein, it turned out, did not have an active WMD program, but was hoping to keep Iran, his regimes longtime foe, guessing as to whether he did have one as a deterrent.

During questioning, Biden mocked Ritter as ol Scotty boy and suggested that his demands that the international community compel Iraq to cooperate with inspectors if met, would give Ritter the unilateral authority to start a war in Iraq. Biden argued that such decisions belonged to higher-level officials. I respectfully suggest they have a responsibility slightly above your pay grade, to decide whether or not to take the nation to war, Biden said. Thats a real tough decision. Thats why they get paid the big bucks. Thats why they get the limos and you dont. I mean this sincerely, Im not trying to be flip.

He ended by redeploying his unusual idiom in thanking Ritter. The reason why Im glad you did what you did: We should come to our milk. We should make a decision, Biden said.

Bidens earlier suggestion that taking Saddam down was the only way to guarantee an end to the WMD program left little doubt where Biden would later come down on the issue.

Bidens grilling of Ritter is important because it gives context to claims Biden later made: First, that when he voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq as a senator, he did not mean to vote for war, but hoped the resolution would empower inspectors to get back into Iraq and monitor the program. And second, that he never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

On the first claim, Biden told NPR last year that former President George W. Bush looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. He got them in and before you know it, we had shock and awe.

But according to Bidens own statements in 1998, he believed that Hussein could never be trusted to eliminate his program, no matter how many inspectors were admitted.

In October 2004, by which time it had become clear there were no WMDs, Biden told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, as Biden had said in 1998, he believed not only that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no amount of inspections or diplomacy could guarantee their removal. That, he told Ritter, could only be done by guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a taking Saddam down.

Bidens thought process puts critical hearings he held in 2002 as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in sharper context. That summer, as the world was focused on the war in Afghanistan, from where the attacks of September 11, 2001, had been launched, Biden sought to begin a national dialogue on Iraq. During a series of high-profile hearings, he feigned neutrality, but his earlier questioning of Ritter leaves no doubt where he stood: Iraq had WMDs, and the only way to disarm Iraq with confidence was to depose Saddam Hussein. Biden, given his chairmanship, was a leading voice on foreign policy within the party. He had voted against the first Gulf War, waged by Bushs father, and wasnt considered a knee-jerk hawk. His support for the 2003 war made Democratic opposition ultimately untenable even as Ritter, in the run up to it, loudly made the case against war, arguing that the WMD claims were overhyped.

Biden had reason to disbelieve the WMD claims. In a classified hearing on September 24, 2002, at the urging of a staff member, Biden asked then-CIA Director George Tenet what evidence of WMDs the U.S. had technically collected.

None, Senator, Tenet said, according to an account in the book Hubris, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Biden, wondering if there was some highly classified evidence, asked Tenet, George, do you want me to clear the staff out of the room? Tenet told him no. Theres no reason to, Senator.

None, Senator that answer will ring in my ears as long as I live, the staffer later told the authors. Later in that same hearing, Biden heard from two government witnesses who rejected the aluminum tubes claim that had been circulating, and would later become a centerpiece of Secretary of State Colin Powells presentation to the United Nations.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bushs terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bushs broader resolution. I was angry, Biden later said, according to Hubris. I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another mans political judgment.

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

Yet during the summer 2002 hearings, Biden claimed that one thing is clear, these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power. Given that he was already on record believing that the weapons could never effectively be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, that left only one option: war. Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, three weeks after hearing from Tenet in the classified session.

See original here:
Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Years Before Invasion - The Intercept