Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The truth about Gina Chon's little e-mail

From Saturday, this is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Gentlemen's Journalism Club."

the gentlemen's club for journalism

Gina Chon is the 'reporter' who, in 2008, slept with a Bush official while reporting on the Bush war.  She didn't just sleep with him (and 'forget' to tell her editor who would have reassigned her to another beat because of the conflict of interest), she also let him read her copy (and offer 'input') before she submitted it.  So the Bush administration was also editing her copy.  (That's what the Wall St. Journal meant by her showing him "unpublished stories.")

Gina Chon is worse than Judith Miller.  Judith Miller was foolish and believed everything she was told.  Chon  let desire control her.  I hope it was worth it because she's not going to be a reporter again most likely.  Maybe a columnist.  But that's it.  No one will ever trust her to be objective.

She's blown that.  That's why the paper had to let her go.  There was no story she could report on in which readers could trust her.

The man she was sleeping with?  She left her husband for him and she married the Bush official Brett McGurk.  After her divorce.  And his.

And the White House wanted to send this freak show to Iraq?

The best thing about the nomination being over is that hopefully we have heard the last from Gina Chon.  Books on Iraq will note her, especially media criticism in four or so years.  And Gina Chon will replace Judith Miller as the study of ethics when it comes to Iraq War reporting.

By the way, she wanted the e-mail leaked.  The one she sent out.  It was leaked intentionally.  C.I. knew it as soon as it was read to her over the phone.  How so?

She's supposedly writing her friends, her journalistic friends.  But she's making no real effort to assure them about the charges against her -- the ethical issues.  She does go on and on about charges that could effect Brett McGurk.

Gina Chon wrote that e-mail to get attention.  It was leaked intentionally.

The point was for Gina to (a) be painted a poor little victim and (b) clear Brett McGurk's name so he wouldn't have to answer questions from Senators -- which would by lying to Congress and he can go to jail for that whether he's sworn in or not.

Gina didn't come up with the idea.  The White House did.

The reason the e-mail was so long was because Gina was trying to get across her 'pain.'  That way, when Brett appeared before the Senators, when a Republican asked a tough question, a Dem could show boat about how, "His wife has suffered and she answered this in an e-mail that was cruelly leaked!"

What stopped that plan?

No Democrat on the Committee was willing to carry the water for Brett McGurk.

Okay, now I said I would write about Cindy Sheehan.

Cindy's got a lot of good stuff up.

All but one is worth reading.  The worthless piece is Cynthia McKinney's.

William Morris Agency is not Hollywood "execs."  They are agents.  When you can't get that part right, there's no point in even reading you.

But ignoring that piece (the same one I criticized last week), you've got a lot of stuff worth reading.  (As I explained last week, I don't link to Cynthia McKinney anymore.  She's never gotten honest about cheering on Barack when she was supposed to be his rival and of course the idiot Rosa Clemente was going around singing Barack's praises in public.)


So Sunday Cindy posted a really lengthy and important essay that she wrote.

And it reminded me of a friend of C.I.'s who's a college dean and feels the media should be more like a librarian.

Meaning?

In a good library, you're going to find science, Darwin, religious writing, David Ray Griffith's alternative to the official US government line on 9-11, etc.  In a good library, all these different books will be present to compete with one another.

Instead of doing that, we get 'protectors' who refuse to cover certain things.  Sometimes because it makes their political hero look bad, sometimes because they just don't want anyone to know about something for some reason.

Think about the way Norman Solomon, Philip Maldari, David Corn-nuts and others try to attack David Ray Griffith.

Why don't they just shut up?

Let him speak for himself.  If it's plausible, people will consider it.  If it makes no sense, they won't.  But we can't have a media that's like a library where things can compete openly, we have to be treated like children because Amy Goodman, et al, don't think very highly of us.

As a Black woman, I've grown so tired of Cracker Amy and her pretense of caring about Blacks.  But equally true, the disgusting way she treated David Ray Griffith on air, refusing to let him speak, bringing in her attack dog.

She's trash.  She's probably CIA.  That's probably why she continues to book Juan Cole on her show even after he was outed as CIA.

So Cindy's got a very important column and I hope you'll make time to read it.




"Two Important Stories" (Hillary Is 44):

For Hillary Clinton supporters however, there are two big news stories today. One of them fills in information which is increasingly hard to get in a timely manner. The Obama Dimocratic Party will do everything it can to suppress the truth. At this late date we are getting news about the April primary fight of 2012 – and we’re not talking about Republicans:
“President Barack Obama was the only name on the Democratic presidential ballot in the April 24 Pennsylvania primary, so there was no chance of him getting publicly embarrassed in the parts of the state where he’s not very popular.
But PoliticsPA drilled deep into the voting data and reports today that in 27 of the state’s 67 counties, more than 30 percent of voters left the presidential ballot blank rather than vote for Obama.”
PoliticsPA gets the hard to get numbers:
“A significant portion of western and central Pennsylvania Democrats declined to vote for Barack Obama in the April primary, an analysis by PoliticsPA has found.
The results there resemble those of Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia, where the President lost around 40 percent of the primary vote to no-name opponents or “undecided”.
A review of county-by-county vote totals show that the President underperformed historic trends, as well as other Democrats on the ballot this year.
Over 30 percent of voters left the presidential ballot blank rather than select Obama’s name in 27 counties. [snip]


At work, we were talking about how much support do-nothing-but-destroy-liberty Barack has lost.  Send him back to Chicago and stop fooling yourself that he gives a damn about anyone but himself.  He's the Killer Drone personified.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
June 19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issues a report about keeping US troops in the region, the State Dept wants to talk human trafficking and anything except McGurk, tomorrow is World Refugee Day, Nouri wants Barack to tell ExxonMobil what to do, US Senator Patty Murray continues fighting for the rights of veterans, and more.
 
 
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council." On page v., Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, notes, "Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Persian Gulf is critical to the global economy."  Chair John Kerry has stated of the report, "The Gulf Region is strategically important to the United States economically, politically, and for security reasons.  This is a period of historic, but turbulent change in the Middle East. We need to be clear-eyed about what these interests are and how best to promote them.  This report provides a thoughtful set of recommendations designed to do exactly that."
 
 
The report may well map out that for many.  That's not what stood out to me. The takeaway for me is US troops remain in the region, right next to Iraq in Kuwait and the Committee's recommendation is that they remain present.  (For those who don't want to read the report in full or operating systems are not PDF friendly, click here for the Committee's one page explanation of the report.)
 
A series of challenges are listed early on and we'll note the fourth one.
 
 
Challenge 4: The United States must carefully shape its military presence so as not to creat a popular backlash, while retaining the capability to protect the free flow or critical natural resources and to provide a counterbalance to Iraq.
 
 
If that was a challenge there were hopes the US would meet, it's too late at present. As Arianna Huffington noted last week at The Huffington Post:
 
 
With the war there officially "ended" and most of our troops back home, Iraq isn't getting much ink these days. But the story is far from over. Indeed, according to Wadah Khanfar, former director general of Al Jazeera, Iraq is still the most important story in the Middle East -- with a far greater impact on the region's future than Syria. "Nobody's paying attention to Iraq anymore," he told me during dinner in London over the weekend, "but it's becoming a client state of Iran, with a giant amount of oil between them." This state of affairs is, of course, primarily our doing.
And yet, as our soldiers have left, so has our attention. "The war in Iraq will soon belong to history," proclaimed President Obama at Fort Bragg as he marked the occasion of bringing the last troops home. But while the military chapter of that disastrous undertaking might belong to history, its consequences belong very much to the present. A present in which the very same voices that rose to push us into war with Iraq are again rising to push us into war with Iran -- but without ever noting that it was their misadventure in Iraq that gave Iran a new and powerful ally.
 
 
If the goal/challenge was to keep Iran and Iraq from growing closer, you don't, as the current White House did, back Nouri al-Maliki for a second term. You note instead that his political slate came in second and demand he step aside so that Iraqiya can have a crack at forming a governmnet. Instead, the US chose to spit on the political process, the Iraqi Constitution, democracy and the will of the Iraqis who voted by backing second place Nouri for a second term as prime minister.
 
 
Now let's move to another challenge.
 
 
Challenge 7: Relations between the Gulf monarchies and Iraq remain cool. There has been a tendency of some Arab states to remain disengaged from Iraq, largely over its relations with Iran. Unfortunately, this tendency has had the effect of pushing Iraq closer to Iran.
Recommendation: The United States should promote the gradual political reintegration of Iraq into the Arab fold.
 
 
Again, the problem is Nouri. He can't stop accusing Arab states. Just last week, he was again insisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar were out to get him. He's paranoid and he's not trust worthy. How the US government ever thought Nouri al-Maliki would bring Iraq closer to the Arab states is a head scratcher. Someone really needs to answer to that question: The White House ensured that second place Nouri remained prime minister; how was this supposed to improve relations between Iraq and the Arab states?
 
 
Further into the report, we get the point AP' was emphasizing this morning. AP: "The United States is planning a significant military presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to respond to sudden conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the withdrawal of American combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran, according to a congressional report." Page nine of the report:
 
 
A residual American military presence in the Gulf and increased burden-sharing with GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states are fundamental components of such a framework. However, the United States must also carefully shape its military footprint to protect the free-flow of critical natural resources and promote regional stability while not creating a popular backlash.
 
 
Page 12:
 
 
Kuwait is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.
* U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991 and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.
 
 
On page 20, the report notes, "Amid relatively high sectarian tensions in the Middle East -- a consequence of violence in Iraq and, more recently, in Syria, and growing concerns about Iran -- the United States should encourage its partners, including in the Gulf region, to pursue nonsectarian policies." Again, that begs the question of why, in 2010, the White House backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term? He's not about reconciliation, he's about demonization as we've seen repeatedly in the last months starting in the fall of 2011 when mass arrests began targeting Sunnis accused of being terrorists. They weren't terrorists. They were college professors, they were the elderly. Most importantly, they were Iraqis. At what point does Nouri cease trying to divide the fragile country and start uniting it?
 
 
Page 29:
 
 
Relations between Gulf monarchies and Iraq remain cool. There has been a tendency of some Arab states to remain disengaged from Iraq, largely over its relations with Iran. Unfortunately, this tendency has had the effect of pushing Iraq closer to Iran.
 
 
That's partly true but it's also true that what is seen as Nouri's targeting of Sunnis is not well received in Sunni-Arab countries. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Again, this begs the questions why, when Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections, did the White House decide to back second place Nouri for a second term as prime minister?
 
 
That is the question that will haunt the Barack Obama administration throughout history.
 
Someone might want to start preparing some version of an answer.
 
 
Just as the report refuses to seriously note how Sunni-dominant countries see the current events in Iraq, it also wants to pretend the Arab League Summit meant something. First off, this is flat-out wrong: "In April, the annual Arab League summit was held in Iraq for the first time since . . ."
 
 
The Arab League Summit was March 29th. March 29th, grab a calendar if this confusing to you, is not in the month of April. Your first clue there is probably the "March" in "March 29th." From the March 29, 2012 snapshot:
 
 
The Arab League Summit was held today in Baghdad. It didn't change a thing because Nouri never learned how to charm. So instead of starting with it, let's start with the ongoing political crisis in Iraq. [. . .] Also telling was the turnout for today's Arab League Summit. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) report, "Sunni Muslim rulers largely shunned an Arab League summit hosted by Shiite-led Iraq on Thursday, illustrating how powerfully the sectarian split and the rivalry with Iran define Middle Eastern politics in the era of the Arab Spring." It was not all that, to put it mildly. A friend who covered the summit deemed it, "Not so much a who's who as a who's that?" Who attended? Among others, the Oman Observer reports Talabani "received the credentials of Shaikh Mussalam bin Bakheet bin Zaidan al Bar'ami, Sultanate's Ambassador to Jordan, as the Sultanate's non-resident ambassador to Iraq" yesterday. Today Al Sabaah reports Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh, prime minister of Jordan arrived, Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah. [. . .] Who were the notable no-shows? Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) report that the no-shows included rulers from "Saudi Arabia, Qatar and most other Gulf countries, as well as Morocco and Jordan -- all of them headed by Sunni monarchs who deeply distrust the close ties between Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government and their top regional rival, Iran."
The Belfast Telegraph notes, "The only ruler from the Gulf to attend was the Emir of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah Al Ahmad Al Sabah."
 
 
We could continue but I believe the point's been made. It was a one day summit. You can drop back to March 28th, the day before, for when various countries' foreign ministers met in Baghdad but that wasn't the Arab League Summit nor was that "April." The Senate Foreign Relations Committee sees the summit as a success. March 30th, the morning after, we graded it. It didn't look then and has looked since like a success. Here's some of the criteria we used to judge the summit on March 30th:
 
 
The Arab League Summit took place in Baghdad yesterday. Al Mada reports 15 ministers attended. There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) observes, "That 12 of the 22 Arab League leaders did not show up and sent lower-level envoys instead did not go unnoticed [. . .]" Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq's majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Al Mada noted yesterday morning that the Iraqi public and Parliament would be judging the summit a success or not based upon whether the leaders turned out for the summit. On that scale, it wasn't a success. In other words, attendence needs improvement and absences hinder progress.
In addition to snubs and rebukes,
Liz Sly, Aziz Alwan and Asaad Majeed (Washington Post) also note, "The blast at the Iranian Embassy undermined the government's boasts that it had managed to pull off the summit without incident, although it would have gone unheard in the conference room deep inside the vast palace. Zebari and Elaraby both seemed surprised when asked about it by a journalist." Not a success.Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) points out, "It spent almost $1 billion on preparations that included unprecedented security measures -- jamming cellphone networks and mobilizing 100,000 security-force members -- and rolling out a catered menu for dignitaries that featured a dessert of 24-carat-gold-laced dates." Not a success.
 
 
And that's just some of the criteria.
 
 
Where the report succeeds (possibly without intending to) is by making clear that the alleged withdrawal and returning home of the troops never happened. Basically, 15,000 US troops were marched out of Saks to Fendi. They didn't return home. Yes, they left Saks, they even crossed a few streets, all the way through West 53rd, but they're still on Fifth Avenue. Remember, the press and the White House sold it as "withdrawal." The Pentagon used the term "drawdown."
emphasized this morning.
 
Another US government report was released today.  The State Dept issued their "Trafficking in Persons Report 2012." [Link goes to an overview page -- from the overview page, anything you click will be PDF format.]  Of Iraq, the report notes:

Iraq is a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor.  Iraqi women and girls are sujbected to conditions of trafficking within the country and in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia for forced prostitution and sexual exploitation within households.  Anecdotal reporting suggests that trafficking in forced prostitution and bonded labor are increasing in Iraq, partially owing to pervasive corruption and an overall increase in criminal activity. 
Women are lured into forced prostitution through false promises of work.  An international organization reports an increase in forced prostitution in the city of Tikrit; women between the ages of 15 to 22 years from Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Syria are sold to traffickers in Tikrit for the equivalent of $1,000 - 5,000 and then replaced or sold again every two or three months.  Women are also subjected to involuntary servitude through forced marriages, often as payment of a debt, and women who flee such marriages are often vulnerable to further forced labor or sexual servitude.  One NGO reports that recruiters rape women and girls on film and blackmail them into prostitution or recruit them in prisons by posting bail and then forcing them into prostitution via debt bondage.  Some women and children are pressured into prostitution by family members to escape desperate economic circumstances, to pay debts, or to resolve disputes between families.  NGOs report that these women are often prostituted in private residendences, brothels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.  Some women and girls are trafficked within Iraq for the purpose of sexual exploitation through the use of temproary marriages (muta'a), by which the family of the girl receives money in the form of a dowry in exchange for permission to marry the girl for a limited period of time. Some Iraqi parents have reportedly collaborated with traffickers to leave children at the Iraqi side of the border with Syria with the expectation that traffickers will arrange forced documents for them to enter Syria and find employment in a nightclub.  An Iraqi official revealed networks of women have been involved in the trafficking and sale of male and female children for the purposes of sexual exploitation. 
 
  
We'll come back to the report in a moment.
 
At the State Dept today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted how happy she was to see the room so full and had the team that worked on the report stand for deserved applause.  She also thanked Jada Pinkett-Smith and Will Smith for being present and Jada for her interest and focus on this issue.  But another reason Hillary might have been happy is that this took the focus off the failed nomination of Brett McGurk to be US Ambassador to Iraq.  If she thought she needed a new report to distract the compliant press, she missed the State Dept press briefing.  News of the withdrawal of the nomination broke yesterday late in the afternoon, well after Monday's press briefing.  So today would have been the first time that the press covering the State Dept had a chance to ask about that.  They had no interest in the issue.  They had no interest in Iraq even -- despite the Senate Foreign Relations Committee releasing a report on Iraq and the region today.
 
If you were attending, you might have thought to ask Victoria Nuland for some comment on the matter, for some indication of when a new nominee would be named, for whether or not the administration learned anything from McGurk's failed nomination.
 
You might.
 
But the paid members of the press wouldn't and didn't.  And that's among the reasons the press has such a lousy image.
 
But don't look to the Beggar Class of Panhandle Media to uphold standards.  Here's Amy Goodman today finally finding the McGurk story:
 
President Barack Obama's pick for ambassador to Iraq has withdrawn his nomination following Republican opposition and claims of inappropriate contact with a journalist.  Brett McGurk had come under fire from Senate Republicans over revelations of a racy e-mail exchange with a Wall Street Journal reporter while he served in Iraq in 2008.  McGurk and the reporter, Gina Chon, later married.  Chon resigned from the Wall St. Journal last week.
 
Not a word about sleeping with a source, not a word about allowing her lover to vet her copy.  Her lover a Bush official.  Not a word about Chon's violation of the Dow Jones ethical policies.   Amy Goodman may have been one of the pigs writing for Larry Flynt's trashy skin magazine, but she never looked more whorish than she did today.  As we noted Sunday at Third in "Editorial: Destroying their own credibility:"
 

It was 2008 and Amy Goodman was on the road hawking another clip-job she'd written with her brother, one that called on people to "challenge the corporate media" (Standing Up To The Madness, page 219).  She was on the road hawking her wares and promoting the documentary Independent Media In A Time Of War. 

 NEWS CLIP: I'm back with two of our military analysts who've been with us this morning who are helping us understand this war. 

 AMY GOODMAN: We now have people like Wesley Clarke, General Wesley Clarke on the payroll of CNN who is questioning their embedded reporter on the front line. He is questioning the reporter and the reporter is saying "Yes sir, No Sir". 

NEWS CLIP: This is a very special moment in time for the men and families and for this country. It is often fascinating for me. General Clarke and I have spent a good amount of time together today and over the week. 

AMY GOODMAN: This is journalism in America today. They have redefined general news and we have got to challenge that.


Amy Goodman was calling out reporters saying "yes, sir" and "no, sir."

Yet for two weeks she hasn't called out the pillow talk between Gina Chon and Brett McGurk.

Two weeks ago, the story emerged of their affair.  Gina Chon's been rightly fired from The Wall Street Journal.

If the scandal had come out in 2008, Amy Goodman and everyone would have been screaming their heads off.  But the Bush official that Gina Chon was f**king?  He's Barack Obama's new nominee to be US Ambassador to Iraq.

So they don't say a word.
 
 
 
Please grasp what you witnessed today from Amy Goodman.  In 2008, the Queen of Panhandle Media was ticked off that retired general Wesley Clarke was addressed by a reporter with "yes, sir" and "no, sir."  But four years later, when there's a reporter sleeping with a Bush official while she's covering the Bush policies in Iraq and while she's letting her lover see her copy and vet it before she turns it in, when that happens, Amy Goodman doesn't say, "Boo!"  Because she's a coward and completely unethical.  Maybe she's planning to fundraise in 2013, as she did in 2009, by auctioning off Barack Obama inauguration ball tickets?  Don't say Goody Trash doesn't have her own vested interests as she forever pretends to be Last Journalist Standing while ensuring that there's a huge gulf between the actual news and the propaganda she supplies.
 
 
For reality, you can refer to  Nancy Cordes (CBS News) text report and click here for Cordes' video report.
 
Back to the State Dept's report:
 
The large population of internally displaced persons and refugees moving within Iraq and across its borders are particularly at risk of being trafficked.  Women from Iran, China, and the Philippines reportedly may be trafficked to or through Iraq for commercial sexual exploitation.  Some Iraqi refugees in Syria reportedly have contracted their daughters to work as maids in Syrian households, where they may have been subsequently raped, forced into prostitution, or subjected to forced labor.  In other instances, Iraqi refugees' children remained in Syria while their parents left the country in search of improved economic circumstances, leaving the children vulnerable to trafficking.
 
 
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.
 
 
* 42.5 million forcibly displaced people of which
* 5 - 7% people living with disabilities, one third of them children
* 15.2 million were refugees, of which:
* 46% were children under the age of 18
* 48% were women and girls
* 895,000 asylum-seekers
* 26.4 million IDPs
* 12 million stateless persons
* 3.7 million returnees
 
Yesterday,  the UN released UNHCR Global Trends 2011 which contains 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).
 
Today AFP reports that some Syrians have been seeking asylum in Iraq due to the unrest in Syria and they note that those coming into Iraq have "to be smuggled across the border."  Into the continued violence of Iraq  where  Alsumaria reports that the son of a local council member was kidnapped in Ramadi today and that security forces quickly secured the area and began searching for clues.  While kidnappings have not been uncommon throughout the Iraq War, today's may end up getting attention due to the fact that is it one of two kidnappings. Al Rafidayn reports two young girls were kidnapped yesterday in Tikrit and that one is the daughter of a a member of Tikrit's security council.   One refugee, Abu Samir, tells AFP, "The Kurdistan region welcomed us and we are grateful.  Because I am Kurdish, I preferred the Kurdistan region and I am comfortable here."
 
Let's stay with the Kurds.  Iraq sits atop a huge wealth of oil.  But the most recent bidding on the oil & gas wares was a bomb. Jen Alic (OilPrice.com) summed it up days after it ended,  "Iraq's latest energy auction was a flop, and while major international companies balked at everything from unattractive contract terms to security concerns, the failure of the auction highlights how the struggle for power between north and south is shaping the future of energy in the region and beyond. "
 
We're on the topic of oil because ExxonMobil is back in the news.  Last January, Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reported, "The political crisis engulfing Iraq's power-sharing government threatens to further delay a landmark draft of its long-delayed oil law -- five years after the first version was submitted to parliament. [. . .]  The first hydrocarbon draft law was agreed by Iraq's diverse politcal blocs in 2007, but its approval has been held back by infighting among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish political groups, worrying investors seeking more guarantees for the industry."  A month later, Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) were reporting:

Iraq's proposed energy law, intended to spur foreign investment in the world's fifth-largest holder of oil deposits, will be delayed for the rest of this year due to political divisions, the prime minister's top adviser said.
The draft law, held up since 2005, may resolve a dispute about oil revenue and sovereignty between the central government and the country's semi-autonomous Kurds that has blocked an agreement with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), Thamir Ghadhban said in an interview in Baghdad. Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq angered the government by signing a separate contract with Exxon, which operates one of the nation's largest oil fields.

Nouri's failure -- in two terms now -- to get oil legislation passed is telling of what extreme failure he is.  How stupid is he? Or how crafty?
 
Ahmed Rasheed and Peg Mackey (Reuters) report Nouri's sent a letter to Barack insisting he (Barack) put an end to the ExxonMobil contract.
 
Again, how stupid is Nouri?  Or how crafty?
 
The US isn't Iraq.  ExxonMobil is a private company, not a state-owned one.  A US president might, at best, make a request.  At best.  But Barack has no power over ExxonMobil.  Is Nouri that stupid?
 
Or he is being crafty?  Barack sticks his nose into this and the already outraged business community sees Barack as even more anti-business.  Not an image to cultivate as you're trying to be re-elected.  Maybe he's crafty.  It's not as though Nouri's reaching out to the White House currently.
 
Back on June 6th, we included:  "Al Mada notes State of Law continues to insist that the White House won't allow Nouri to be removed from his post and that US Vice President Joe Biden will be visiting soon."  But that was then.  Today, Iran's  Fars News Agency reported:

"Nuri al-Maliki did not allowed US Vice-President Joe Biden to visit Iraq," an informed source in the Iraqi prime minister's information bureau told FNA in Baghdad on Tuesday.

Noting that Biden was scheduled to visit Baghdad in coming days to meet with Iraqi officials to discuss the recent differences and the political standoff between different parties and factions in the country, he added that Maliki informed Biden via the US embassy in Baghdad that Iraq is not ready to host him.

The source said the Iraqi embassy in the US has also conveyed a similar message from Maliki to the White House and State Department's officials.

Earlier reports by a website affiliated to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq said that the cancellation of Biden's visit by Maliki was ordered after it was revealed that the US vice-president is due to visit Erbil and meet President of Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Massoud Barzani. 
 
 
Suddenly Joe wasn't wanted.  After blocking Biden's visit to the country, Nouri now wants to ask a favor of the White House?
 
In the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  She continues fighting for veterans and her latest bill would put veterans on an equal footing with the non-military when it comes to reproductive issues.
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
 
Chairman Murray Introduces Bill to Provide Veterans with Genital and Reproductive Wounds with Access to In Vitro Fertilization through the VA
 
As veterans continue to return home with catastrophic IED injuries, Murray bill reverses VA ban on critical fertility treatment; will help veterans and their spouses have children.
 
If forced to turn to the private sector, veterans and their spouses often have to pay tens of thousands in out-of-pocket costs to access IVF services
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that will end the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ban on providing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) services.   Murray's bill, the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, also will begin child care programs at Vet Centers for women seeking counseling, and improving outreach to women veterans.
 
Army data shows that between 2003 and 2011 over 600 servicemembers have suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma.  The reliance on foot patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries.
 
"Reproductive injuries are some of the most impactful and serious wonds of these wars," Senator Murray said today upon introduction of the bill.  "VA has an obligation to care for the combat wounded.  For those with such catastrophic injuries, that includes access to the fertility care they needed.  Veterans and their spouses are specifically barred from accessing In Vitro Fertilization services at the VA and often times have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector to get the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family.  These veterans deserve far more."
 
Veterans who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures like IVF to conceive.  However, under current law, IVF is expressly excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to veterans or their spouses.  This is a significant barrier for veterans with SCI and genital and uringary tract injuries and as a result they have to seek care outside of the VA.  The Department of Defense currently provides access to IVF services under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded servicemembers.  Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the same access.
 
###
 
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
 
 
cbs news
nancy cordes 

Monday, June 18, 2012

Parodies and more

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Standing Behind McGurk"
standing behind mcgurk

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.

* * * * * *
Be assured. What looks like a great moment and a masterstroke from Obama will soon turn to a muddy mush that will choke him.
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:
mitchellreportsmitchellreports Until today @statedept was publically standing by #Brett McGurk now that he's "withdrawn" theyre referring q's to the white house2:57pm on 6/18/2012
CNN makes the news of the no-longer nomination a "Gut Check" for the dayJon 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.
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.
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."
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.)



 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:

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
cnn