Now that is hilarious. C.I. was telling Isaiah Sunday night that he should consider taking the night off. He'd already done a comic Saturday (we're highlighting that tomorrow) and the writing edition on Third had gone on forever. But Isaiah said he couldn't because he had a comic in his head. He described it (the one above) and C.I. said, "Yeah, you better do that quick because they probably won't be standing behind him tomorrow." :D
ADDED: When I do the Gina Chon comic tomorrow, I'll weigh in on Gina. I may even have to put Cindy Sheehan's essay on hold. I just saw my stats. My Gina post on Friday had more readers than anything I can think of. 3,329. For that one post. I will write about Gina tomorrow. I didn't realize there was so much interest.
On Third Estate Sunday Review, please read "Columbia Journalism Ridiculous" which is hilarious. Here is what happened. There were four sections. Two were funny about "Greg Maxie." Let me back up. So CJR embarrassed itself last week acting like what Gina Chon did was no big deal. When you sleep with an administration official and don't disclose it (not even to your editor) and when you let him review your copy before you hand it in, it's a big deal.
So we were going to try to send up CJR yet again.
Ava and C.I. were working on "TV: When sitcoms preach, public affairs go funny" and they also felt like Third's done this before and how is this time going to be funny when the ones before were?
So they took a pass on the piece.
Now the guys (males) and Rebecca and Marcia did a great job coming up with Greg Maxie stuff. He's one of two CJR writers in our piece. But our Erika Fry spoof just didn't work.
So Ava and C.I. come back, Jim shows them the piece and they agree that half works (the Greg Maxie stuff) and the other half doesn't. They agree to rewrite (really start from scratch) and Erika spoof. Which they did and did brilliantly. It's the first one. And it was so good and so funny that Wally and I said, "Hold on, we'll write the second Erica piece!" And we did and I think it turned out funny too.
I love the whole thing. Now if you ask me (or Wally), we'll tell you Ava and C.I.'s is the funniest. And if you've seen "Beloved," you'll really agree that there's is the funniest. I have no idea how they worked that in. And they haven't seen the film in forever.
But it's just really funny and I'm really proud of that parody.
"Was Obama's Illegal Immigration Ploy Brilliant Or Stupid?, Does This Mean Rubio Fills The VP Slot For Sure? Why Is Romney On A Bus Tour?" (Hillary Is 44):
After Thursday’s latest widely panned snore-fest “pivot” to the economy Barack Obama, like a hoochie coochie dancer, unveiled yet another (major) distraction from the economy. Obama opponents immediately started worrying that this distraction matters. Really. For sure. “This is the game-changer” the pearl clutchers squeaked. “Obama outsmarted us” wept Republican/conservatives. “The Latino vote is lost to Obama” swooned the foolish. “Obama just won the election” moaned the weak and silly.
But we’ve been watching Barack Obama for a long time. We remember him twitching for a nicotine fix in the luxurious Four Seasons Hotel in Boston during the Democratic Convention in 2004. We remember applauding him in our seats during his 2004 speech in convention hall – but at the same time having a conversation about how out of touch, or downright stupid if not cleverly manipulative, he was with that nonsensical “no red America, no blue America, just the United States of America” crowd pleasing garbage.
That “no red America” nonsense was always nonsense. Yes, it temporarily made Obama look like a “uniter” to the always gullible. But that “unity” schtick did not work out so well when in office did it? Fact is there is a “red America” and a “blue America” and we are all part of the United States of America. It’s an unruly United States with major divisions on major issues – but it almost always is this way.
The one thing we most definitely know about Barack Obama is that he is a boob. When he touches gold it turns to sh*t.
But didn’t he win the nomination and the election and that turned out all right? Well he had to be dragged across the finish line for the nomination stealing delegates along the way and if it wasn’t for the economic meltdown in September 2008 John McCain would have maintained his weeks long lead and, outspent and out-machined, beaten Barack Obama in an election which just about any Democrat would have won.
But Obama did win the golden prize of the presidency and since then it has turned to sh*t. Now he is fighting for political life and forced to do whatever it takes to win. No Distraction Left Behind.
First and most important: As with the gay marriage “evolution” Americans will see this constitutionally dubious illegal immigration/DREAM Act ploy as a political ploy. Obama’s gay marriage “evolution” was viewed by 67% of Americans as prompted by election year political pandering. That the gay marriage “evolution” was a personal not a political “evolution” with policy ramifications is not ignored by gay Americans.
Cindy Sheehan's got an important essay (I'm not endorsing Ted Rall's cartoon -- Ted Rall is part of the problem -- and then some!). Make a point to read it and I'll blog about it tomorrow. It's a brave essay and good for Cindy.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday,
June 18, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a funeral for pilgrims
turns into another bloodbath, Brett McGurk waves bye-bye, Camp Ashraf is
strangely confusing to US State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and
more.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Special Envoy Angelina Jolie:
Every minute, 8 people around the world are forced to flee their homes
due to war and persecution. No one chooses to be a refugee. Today, 43
million people worldwide have been displaced. We remember them.
Wednesday is World Refugee Day. UNHCR notes that the last year alone saw an additional 800,000 refugees. In the just released UNHCR Global Trends 2011,
details such as 46% of refugees are under the age of 18, that three
areas of concern are the displaced of Columbia, of the Democratic
Republic of Congo and of Iraq, and that the Middle East and North Africa
have a larger number of refugees than the Americas and and Asia and
Pacific combined. (Africa has the largest number of refugees with 2.1
million to the Middle East and North Africa's 1.9 million.) Through the
end of last year, Iraq could claim 1,428,3000 refugees. Only
Afghanistan topped that figure (Afghanistan had 2.6 million).
Yesterday, Oliver Maksan (Aid to the Church in Need) noted
Iraqi Christian refugees in Jordan like Lina who declares, "I never
want to go back to Iraq, ever." Why? Because she was almost killed.
Because her nephew was among the many killed in the October 31, 2010
attack on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. NPR's Deborah Amos
has documented the refugee crisis and written the book on it with Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East (now out in soft cover -- available at Amazon right now for $6.40). We'll try to note World Refugee Day again tomorrow.
But turning to the big news of the day . . .
. . . the ridiculous nomination of Brett McGurk to be the US Ambassador to Iraq.
Andre Tartar (New York magazine) reported yesterday, "Just days after seven Republican senator on the Foreign Relations Committee urged President Obama to pick a new nominee for the ambassadorship to Iraq, the White House is doubling down on Brett McGurk. Speaking on CNN's State of the Union
this morning, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said, 'We've
made this nomination and we think he will ably serve as ambassador'."
Plouffe sounded as confident in the nomination as Gina Chon when she wrote in her fantasy e-mail,
"The question I continue to have is when will the conversation return
to issues? Because when they do, I know Brett will become the next
ambassador to Iraq." She wasn't much of a reporter (the Wall St. Journal allowed her to save face by announcing her resignation last week) and it turns out she's not psychic either.
ABC News' Jake Tapper broke the news
today that the nomination was no more. He quotes National Security
Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor stating, "We greatly appreciate
Brett's years of service on behalf of the United States, to include
tireless and effective leadership in Iraq from the height of the war to
the moment our last troops left Iraq in December and through the
challenging transition earlier this year. He served in two
administrations, and his commitment to the national interest and to the
mission was always clear. He has proven himself to be a skilled
diplomat willing to take on some of the toughest challenges at the
toughest times in a difficult region. While we regret to see Brett
withdraw his candidacy there is no doubt that he will be called on again
to serve the country." In addition, to six Republican Senators
serving on the Foreign Relations Committee asking that the nomination be
withdrawn, many Democrats also voiced concerns last week. Senator
John Kerry is the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spoke
of postponing the vote which was to be held tomorrow. The Washington Post reported Senator Barbara Boxer had serious resevations about McGurk. CNN's Ted Barrett and Paul Courson reported Senators Ben Cardin and Bob Casey were stating that further thought needed to go into the nomination. Peter Baker (New York Times) states that "few Senate Democrats were eager to lead a battle against Senate Republicans on his [McGurk's] behalf." Andrea Mitchell (NBC News reporter and host of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports) Tweeted:
mitchellreports Until today @statedept was publically standing by #Brett McGurk now that he's "withdrawn" theyre referring q's to the white house
CNN makes the news of the no-longer nomination a "Gut Check" for the day. Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) notes,
"Flirtatious emails between Mr McGurk and Ms Chon from 2008, when both
were working in Baghdad and married to different spouses, were leaked
last month, throwing his nomination into crisis. [. . .] Ms Chon, who
worked at the Wall Street Journal, resigned last week after the
newspaper said she had broken its in-house rules by sharing details of
forthcoming articles with an outsider [McGurk]." Among the questions
McGurk would have faced had the process gone forward were what, if any,
information was leaked to Gina Chon in her capacity as a reporter.
With leaks being a big issue in DC these days and with Chon and McGurk
mentioning trading favors in their e-mails to one another, this issue
was on the minds of some. Ted Barrett and Kate Bolduan (CNN) point out,
"In an e-mail to friends Friday, she said the e-mails she traded with
McGurk 'which were exposed just before Brett's confirmation hearing
reflected flirtatious banter and nothing more'."
Emily Heil (Washington Post) reminds,
"The e-mails were not the only hurdle to Senate confirmation for
McGurk. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had previously criticized his
handling of U.S. policy in Iraq, including the inability of U.S. and
Iraqi negotiators to reach a deal that would have left a small U.S.
military presence behind." There were many reasons not to support him.
That includes the e-mails which made it very unlikely that Iraqi women
could access the US Embassy. While stupid sob sisters in the US would
huff, "They got married!," that doesn't mean a damn thing in Iraq. That
he entered into an affair with Chon while he was married and while she
was does matter in Iraq. And Iraqi women would have to fear accusations
-- which could result in the so-called 'honor' killings -- if they
didn't avoid the embassy. In addition, as a community member in Tikrit pointed out
early this morning, the e-mails meant that Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani and other clerics probably wouldn't meet with him. He
wouldn't just be seen as a non-believer or follower of another religion,
his actions portrayed in the e-mails would mean they would shun him.
You also have to wonder that since he was e-mailing Chon about his "blue
balls" before they'd slept together or kissed, exactly how were US
State Dept employees who were women going to be treated by new boss
McGurk? He couldn't speak Arabic. Iraqiya -- the political slate that
won the most votes in the 2010 elections -- was against him and lodged
an official complaint objecting to his being the new US Ambassador.
Then there were the statements he made at the hearings. As we noted at Third two weeks ago:
McGurk took credit for the surge. The only aspect of the surge that was successful was what Gen David Petraeus implemented and US service members carried out. That was not what McGurk and other civilians were tasked with. Their part of the surge? The military effort was supposed to create a space that the politicians would put to good use by passing legislation. It didn't happen. McGurk's part of the surge was a failure.He revealed incredible ignorance about al Qaeda in Iraq and seemed unaware that, in 2011, then-CIA Director (now Secretary of Defense) Leon Panetta told Congress it amounted to less than 1,000 people or that in February of this year, the Director of National Intelligence declared that a significnat number (of that less than 1,000) had gone to Syria.Though the press has reported for years about Nouri's refusal to bring Sahwa members into the process (give them jobs) and how he refuses to pay these security forces (also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq"), McGurk told Congress that Nouri was paying them all and had given government jobs to approximately 70,000. (For point of reference, in 2008, Gen David Petraues told Congress there were approximately 91,000 Sahwa.)
Links
go to the three snapshot where we reported on the hearing. Those
issues and more go to his qualifications. He is not the 'expert' the
White House has made him out to be.
Adam Entous and Janet Hook (Wall St. Journal) add,
"Some Republican senators said Mr. McGurk lacked the experience to head
a major embassy in a volatile region. Mr. McGurk, 39 years old, hasn't
served as ambassador to any other countries." They also quote James
Jeffrey making some idiotic remarks. Word to Jeffrey, when you're a US
diplomat and you put your foot in your mouth like you did last week
(signing the letter declaring Brett McGurk "the best man for the job" --
not person), probably a good idea to lower your profile. You have no
idea how many women in the State Dept your little letter pissed off --
rightfully so. Matthew Lee (AP) plays nice
insisting Jeffrey "and his two predecssors in Baghdad" along with the
administration "had staunchly defended McGurk as the right person for
the job". But Matthew Lee is aware of the actual word choice since he
reported on the letter Jeffrey, Chris Hill and Ryan Crocker sent,
noting he was quoting from "a copy of the letter obtained by The
Associated Press" when he included this statement the 'diplomats' signed
off on, "Brett is the right man for the job." Funny, at a time
when Hillary Clinton is the second female Secretary of State, you might
think the notion of "right man for the job" would have flown out the
window. Again, women at the State Dept, career employees, were not
pleased with the letter and if Jeffrey feels the need to speak again, he
might want to issue an apology for his word choice. That would be
the 'diplomatic' thing to do.
He should have
stepped down as soon as the e-mails became public. It was idiotic not
to. What is acceptable in the US really didn't matter though CJR and
others didn't seem to get it, so gripped with their own feelings of
superiority and xenophobia.
What mattered was the way Iraqis would respond to a US Ambassador with that history.
That
was the most important thing. Not what the US press thought, what the
Iraqis would think. He was supposed to be the US Ambassador to Iraq but
for some reason the US press repeatedly chose to ignore Iraqis and to
ignore how Iraqis would react to him. This is not a minor thing and
the host country should be considered with all nominations. That
doesn't mean, for example, we don't nominate an openly gay person to be
an ambassador to a country where there is tremendous homophobia. It
does mean that we have to be aware of it and we have to ask, "Can we
send a message that helps the LGBT community in the host country with
this potential pick?" If we can, it can very well be worth it.
The
US government, with the illegal war, turned Iraq over to exile thugs
and thugs. They did so at the expense of Iraq's educated class (why do
you think the 'brain drain' took place to begin with -- they left
because of who the US installed). In the process, they destroyed the
rights of women and they turned a secular country into a fundamentalist
one. And someone thought the answer was to send an adulterer -- who
committed adultry in the host country? Do they not get how insulting
that was? Does no one in the administration understand the Arab world?
Today Reuters notes,
"McGurk's withdrawal throws a fresh question mark over Washington's
uncertain relations with Iraq following the departure of U.S. forces
last year."
I'm sure it does. I'm also sure that confirming McGurk would have been seen as an offense by a significant number of Iraqis.
For a number of reasons, including that Gina Chon appears to have wrongly accused Peter of leaking the e-mails, we'll let Peter Van Buren have the last word on this topic today:
Brett,
all joking aside, I feel for you man. I know how it is to have State
turn on you, push you out of a job and all that. Despite some water
under the bridge between us, I think maybe we could get along, you know,
maybe hang out now that both of us have afternoons free. Whattaya say,
we leave the wives at home and hit a few rooftop bars, see what comes
up, um, goes down, aw dammit, I just did it again didn't I?
But we're moving on. Who's next to claim the head job at the world's largest and most expensive embassy? The previous landlord, Jim Jeffrey, quit the job so quickly that he didn't even wait for his replacement to arrive. Now everyone else in Iraq falls under a State Department policy requiring the outgoing person to stay on for a week overlap with his/her replacement, but like lots of things at State, that only applies to the little people.
But we're moving on. Who's next to claim the head job at the world's largest and most expensive embassy? The previous landlord, Jim Jeffrey, quit the job so quickly that he didn't even wait for his replacement to arrive. Now everyone else in Iraq falls under a State Department policy requiring the outgoing person to stay on for a week overlap with his/her replacement, but like lots of things at State, that only applies to the little people.
So who will it be? One rumor is that Obama will nominate Meghan O'Sullivan. Sully, like McGurk, is another Bush administration left over covered in Iraqi blood.
Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports
that as mourners gathered in Baquba funeral tents to pay their respects
to pilgrims killed in recent violence, a suicide bomber blew himself up
and claimed at least 15 other lives. Deutsche Welle explains,
"The blast occurred in a tnet where mourners, including several
high-ranking armed forces members, were paying respects to the family of
a Shiite tribal leader in Baquba, authorities said." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds,
"Neither of the military officials -- identified by police officials as
Lt. Gen. Ali Ghaidan, commander of the Iraqi army's ground forces, and
Abdul Ameer al-Zaidi, commander of Diyala military operations -- were
killed, though at least three guards for Ghaidan died." KUNA offers,
"The source told KUNA that a suicide bomber, wearing an explosive belt,
blew up himself while being inside a mourning house in Baquba, the
largest city in Diyala." BBC News counts forty injured. AFP notes
the death toll rose to 22 with fifty injured and that these two totals
were verified by Baquba General Hospital's Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim.
Wednesday, Iraq was slammed with bombings which Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported the Ministry of the Interior stated claimed 93 lives and left three hundred and 12 injured. Of Saturday's bombings, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported,
"Two car bombs targeted Shiite pilgrims Saturday in Baghdad, killing at
least 32 people and injuring 68 others, police said." Ahlul Bayt News Agency put the injured toll at "more than 140." As Kitabat noted earlier this week, the pilgrims were taking part in the holy journey on the anniversary of the death of Imam Musa al-Kadhim. Deutsche Welle noted Saturday,
"Crowds carried symbolic coffins through the streets as pilgrims beat
their chests in mourning as they made their way toward the mosque's two
gold domes."
Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) explained, "The pilgrims were marching on foot to return to their homes after they participated in the observation of one of the major Shiite rituals at Kadmiyah's masusoleum of Imam Mussa al-Kadhim the 7th of the most sacred 12 Shiite Imams. During the past few days, large crowds of pilgrims from Iraqi cities and some Muslim countries flocked to Kadhmiyah to observe the annual commemoration of the Imam's death." Hsahim also notes that Nouri's security measures included a ban on all vehicles in "and around the district of Kadhmiyah," as well as closing roads, dispatching military helicopters to fly overhead, adding checkpoints and dispatching "dozens of thousands of Iraqi security troops." AP quoted Mohamed Ali who state, "There is no real security, no real searches."
Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) explained, "The pilgrims were marching on foot to return to their homes after they participated in the observation of one of the major Shiite rituals at Kadmiyah's masusoleum of Imam Mussa al-Kadhim the 7th of the most sacred 12 Shiite Imams. During the past few days, large crowds of pilgrims from Iraqi cities and some Muslim countries flocked to Kadhmiyah to observe the annual commemoration of the Imam's death." Hsahim also notes that Nouri's security measures included a ban on all vehicles in "and around the district of Kadhmiyah," as well as closing roads, dispatching military helicopters to fly overhead, adding checkpoints and dispatching "dozens of thousands of Iraqi security troops." AP quoted Mohamed Ali who state, "There is no real security, no real searches."
AFP notes
that today's violence also included a Baquba roadside bombing which
claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more injured and a
Baquba roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 shepherd.
Reporting on Saturday's attacks, Duraid Adnan and Tim Arango (New York Times) observed,
"The attacks represented an embarrassment to the army and police, and
their top commander, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and raised
questions about the ability of Iraq's security forces to protect the
population." And that's what happens when you refuse to name heads to
the security ministries. Nouri was named prime minister-designate in
November 2010.
Per the Constitution, he was supposed to name a Cabinet -- full, not partial -- within 30 days. Failure to do so meant that someone else would be named prime minister-designate. Instead of following the Constitution, Nouri was allowed to become prime minister in December 2010.
The press assured us that Nouri would quickly nominate people to head the security posts. Iraqiya, at the same time, warned Nouri would avoid nominating anyone because then he could control the posts. The minute he nominates someone, it goes to the Parliament. If they vote to confirm the nominee, the nominee remains in office until the end of the term unless the nominee dies or resigns. Another way to remove the nominee (actually a minister at this point) would be for Parliament to vote them out of office. You may remember that from December through May, Nouri attempted to get Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq voted out of office; however, he wasn't able to. It's very difficult to remove a minister without just cause. By naming 'acting ministers,' Nouri ensures that they only occupy the post as long as they please him. If you're an 'acting minister,' you haven't been approved by Parliament so Nouri can toss you aside as he pleases. (There are not "acting ministers" in the Iraqi Constitution.)
Per the Constitution, he was supposed to name a Cabinet -- full, not partial -- within 30 days. Failure to do so meant that someone else would be named prime minister-designate. Instead of following the Constitution, Nouri was allowed to become prime minister in December 2010.
The press assured us that Nouri would quickly nominate people to head the security posts. Iraqiya, at the same time, warned Nouri would avoid nominating anyone because then he could control the posts. The minute he nominates someone, it goes to the Parliament. If they vote to confirm the nominee, the nominee remains in office until the end of the term unless the nominee dies or resigns. Another way to remove the nominee (actually a minister at this point) would be for Parliament to vote them out of office. You may remember that from December through May, Nouri attempted to get Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq voted out of office; however, he wasn't able to. It's very difficult to remove a minister without just cause. By naming 'acting ministers,' Nouri ensures that they only occupy the post as long as they please him. If you're an 'acting minister,' you haven't been approved by Parliament so Nouri can toss you aside as he pleases. (There are not "acting ministers" in the Iraqi Constitution.)
AP quotes Brookings Doha Center's analyst and director Salman Shaikh stating, "Those behind the attacks, they've become more determined now and see more of an opportunity because of the dysfunctional political process."
Jalal Talabani's been huffing all week. We'll cover it tomorrow.
For six weeks now, the last remaining residents of Camp Ashraf have been refusing to move. Who? May 30th, United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) released "Report on Human Rights in Iraq: 2011."
As the report notes, Camp Ashraf is "over 3,000 residents affiliated
with the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)" that are being moved to Camp
Liberty. These are Iranian dissidents who were welcomed into Iraq
decades. That changed with Nouri's Iraq. The report notes the 36
deaths when Nouri's forces went into the camp April 8, 2011 and that it
followed the assault of July 2009. The report notes that the United
Nations -- specifically UNAMI and UNHCR -- have been attempting to act
"as an impartial facilitator" in moving the residents to Camp Liberty.
Approximately 2,000 have been moved.
The UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler declared June 11th,
"I urge the remaining residents of Camp Ashraf to relocate to Camp
Hurriya without delay. The relocation process should not be stalled. I
am concerned that there will be violence if the relocation doesn't
recommence. Any violence would be unacceptable. I call on the
Government of Iraq to avoid any forceful relocation. Each relocation
must be voluntary. The United Nations supports only a peaceful,
humanitarian solution and stands ready to facilitate."
One
of the main reasons the residents stopped the process is that they want
the US to come and search the camp now because the US State Dept has
made it an issue stating such a search will determine their
classification of 'terrorist' or not 'terrorist.' If you're late to
the party, from the June 1st snapshot:
Nouri al-Maliki has twice attacked Camp Ashraf -- and done so -- both times -- while US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq. He loathes the residents and has repeatedly attempted to force them back to Iran (where they would most likely be hamed and possibly put to death). This is not an unreasonable request on their part. If the US State Dept is declaring that a search must take place of Camp Ashraf and that the search will determine whether the group is terrorist or not, of course that search needs to take place immediately. Not after they've relocated every resident and no one is there to say, "Wait! They're planting weapons!" They being Nouri's forces. The residents have been attacked by them twice, they have no reason to trust them.
Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports,
"A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident
group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist
organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it
unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some
time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds,
"The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had violated
the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut'
unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she
regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet
to make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The
courts and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.)
What generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united
front because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the
case from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the
judicial branch has no security forces. So they want to send a message
but they also want to do so without looking weak if the administration
ignores them. So since two months was the target date for the State
Dept to finish a review on the MEK, they gave State four months which,
they hope, is more than enough time. However, the two months (as the
judges know) was a guideline, not a promise. State made very clear
before the court that they were not promising two months. So it could
go on past four months. Four months carries them into October. If
they're not complying by then, there's a good chance they won't.
Whether Barack Obama wins a second term as US President or not, Hillary
Clinton has already stated she was only doing one term as Secretary of
State. So when November arrives, if there's no decision, there won't be
a rush for one. If Barack wins re-election, he'll state that he has to
find someone to oversee the department first. If Barack loses, they've
already blown off the appeals court for over two years now, continuing
to blow them off for sixty more days will be a breeze.
Nouri al-Maliki has twice attacked Camp Ashraf -- and done so -- both times -- while US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq. He loathes the residents and has repeatedly attempted to force them back to Iran (where they would most likely be hamed and possibly put to death). This is not an unreasonable request on their part. If the US State Dept is declaring that a search must take place of Camp Ashraf and that the search will determine whether the group is terrorist or not, of course that search needs to take place immediately. Not after they've relocated every resident and no one is there to say, "Wait! They're planting weapons!" They being Nouri's forces. The residents have been attacked by them twice, they have no reason to trust them.
An unidentified "senior U.S. official" tells Reuters,
"We don't know why the MEK slowdown is underway." Seriously? It's no
secret that they have requested that Camp Ashraf be searched now. The
US should do that. If they want to follow up after as well, fine. But
this is a group of people who are spooked and spooked for good reason.
They are being forced out of their home. They are aware that the UN
hasn't secured passage to other countries for those who've been
transferred to Camp Liberty. They are aware that Iran wants them and
that Nouri is in close contact with Iran. A search is a very simple
thing that the US and the UN can conduct. It doesn't have to be the
final search but it would bring peace of mind to the residents, so you
do it. You don't fight it, you don't play stupid. If you're really
not taking sides and you're attempting to do right by all, you do the
search because you know (a) it will lower the stress and (b) it will
allow the process of moving Ashraf residents to Liberty to start back
up.
Here's the statement US State Dept Victoria Nuland issued today:
The
United States remains concerned about the situation at Camp Ashraf and
urges the residents of Camp Ashraf to resume full cooperation
immediately with the Iraqi Government and United Nations Assistance
Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). The United States also urges the Iraqi
Government to intensify its efforts to fulfill its commitments to
provide for the safety, security, and humanitarian treatment of the
residents.
With almost 2,000 former Camp
Ashraf residents now relocated to Camp Hurriya, the peaceful closure of
Camp Ashraf is achievable, but requires continued patience and practical
engagement to be realized. Constructive offers must be met with a
constructive spirit, and not with refusals or preconditions to engage in
dialogue. Recent publicly-declared conditions for cooperation,
including calls for the Department to inspect Camp Ashraf as a
precondition for further relocations to Camp Hurriya, are an unnecessary
distraction.
The United States has made
clear that cooperation in the closure of Camp Ashraf, the Mujahedin-e
Khalq's (MEK's) main paramilitary base, is a key factor in determining
whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is
committed to leaving that past behind. We fully support the path laid
out by the United Nations for the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf along
with sustainable solutions for its former residents. The Camp residents
and their leadership - both in Iraq and in Paris - should recognize this
path as a safe and humane resolution to this situation. Only a peaceful
implementation of the Iraqi government's decision to close the Camp is
acceptable, and the Iraqi government bears the responsibility for the
security and humane treatment of the individuals at Camp Ashraf.
I find her statement less than genuine.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 18, 2012
Contaact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray to Introduce Women Veterans' and Other Health Care Improvment Act of 2012
Legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and severely injured veterans who want to start families
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, will outline her new legislation, the Women
Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, legislation to
strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and for severely injured
veterans who want to start families. Currently, VA's fertility
treatment services do not meet the complex needs of severely wounded
veterans. The nature of the current conflict and increasing use of
improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more susceptible
to blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the
reproductive and urinary tracts. Army data shows that between 2003 and
2011 more than 600 soldiers experienced these life-changing battle
injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. As these injured
servicemembers return home, they work to move forward with their lives
and pursue their goals and dreams. For some this includes starting
their own family. The Department of Defense and Tricare program are
already able to provide fertility treatment
to servicemembers with these injuries. Senator Murray's new
legislation would address these issues by enhancing fertility treatment
and care at VA, and allowing for fertility treatment for spouses.
Following Senator Murray's speech, a documentary
highlighting the stories of 8 women veterans and the physical and
emotional challenges they face as they transition home following
military service will be shown. More on Senator Murray's Women Veterans
and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012 HERE.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray
WHAT:
Introduction of Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
screening of documentary that highlights the stories of 8 women vets
WHEN: TOMORROW: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
2:30 PM ET/ 11:30 AM PST
WHERE: Russell 325
###
Kathryn Robertson
Press Assistant
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2834
