Curiosity

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts  "Sunset Jackson"  from Sunday.



 Amanda Willis (Stuff) notes that Curiosity is one of the nominees for Time magazine's "Person of the Year."  I would love to see that go to Curiosity.  We're supposed to be having a new commitment to science in this country.  Curiosity as the person of the year would really focus young children on science. 

Curiosity is the land rover on the NASA mission to Mars.  And, you know, I love Curiosity.

Joseph Serna (Los Angeles Times) reports:

NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and two planet-based explorers are  tracking a massive dust storm, offering scientists an opportunity to study the planet’s weather like none they’ve had before.
The regional dust storm was first spotted on Nov. 10 in the Red Planet's southern hemisphere. Though the storm is considered only “regional,” it’s big enough that it has lowered air pressure on either side of the planet and increased temperatures on the opposite pole by changing the atmosphere’s circulation.

Now last week, there was some teasing of coming news, you may remember.   If you don't, Bob Grant (The Scientist) reminds:


According to John Grotzinger, chief scientist on the Curiosity team, the rover’s Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) instrument has made important discoveries in the Rocknest area of the Gale Crate, near the spot where Curiosity landed earlier this year. “This data is gonna be one for the history books,” Grotzinger told NPR last week. “It’s looking really good.”

Damon Poeter (PC World) notes that today and explains:

Less remarked upon was a rather cryptic tweet from the Curiosity team after the interview:
What did I discover on Mars? That rumors spread fast online. My team considers this whole mission "one for the history books" ...
Wills figured the statement was a rather, well, curious one to make for a science team that was supposedly preparing to announce a groundbreaking Mars discovery in early December. She took the matter up with NASA social media manager Veronica McGregor, who described the tweet as an effort to "quell" a runaway rumor.
"It's always difficult to quell rumors like this one. But at the same time it's great to see so many people are excited and interested in what the rover might find," McGregor told Mashable.
It seems that the misunderstanding between Grotzinger and NPR came about because the NASA scientist was discussing Curiosity's mission and findings in general terms as "historic," while the public radio programmer interpreted his words as a reference to a specific and recent discovery made by the surface probe.

So there may be no big announcement coming.  I don't know.  But I do agree with the idea that the mission has been historic.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, November 27, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, whispers that Nouri's allies have lost patience, torture in Iraqi prisons receives some attention, in the US a lawsuit calls for equality in the armed forces, Susan Rice (and her supporters) don't seem to grasp what they're going into, the White House states that 47 days after a terrorist attack killed 4 Americans the US government still doesn't know what happened or how to prevent another similar attack, and more.

 

 

Starting in the US where Air Force Major Mary Jennings Hager has written an essay for the ACLU entitled "Women Warriors Are On the Battlefield. Eliminate Outdated, Unfair Military Combat Exclusion Policy."  From her essay:

 

If there is one thing I've learned about the differences between us all throughout my years of service, it's this: putting the right person in the right job has very little to do with one's gender, race, religion, or other demographic descriptor.  It has everything to do with one's heart, character, ability, determination and dedication.

That's the problem with the military's combat exclusion policy.  It makes it that much harder for people to see someone's abilities, and instead reinforces stereotypes about gender.  The policy creates the pervasive way of thinking in military and civilian populations that women can't serve in combat roles, even in the face of the reality that servicewomen in all branches of the military are already fighting for their country alongside their male counterparts.  They shoot, they return fire, they drag wounded comrades to safety and they engage with the enemy, and they have been doing this for years.  They risk their lives for their country, and the combat exclusion policy does them a great disservice.

 

 

 The changing roles women have been required to play in the current wars have been addressed in reporting, documentaries and before Congress.  For one example, we'll drop back to  April 23, 2009, US House Rep John Hall chaired the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing. John Wilson (Disabled American Veterans) explained the struggle women in the military have as a result of the notion that they aren't 'in combat.' From his opening statement:

 

The female soldiers who accompany male troops on patrols to conduct house-to-house searches are known as Team Lioness, and have proved to be invaluable. Their presence not only helps calm women and children, but Team Lioness troops are also able to conduct searches of the women, without violating cultural strictures. Against official policy, and at that time without the training given to their male counterparts, and with a firm commitment to serve as needed, these dedicated young women have been drawn onto the frontlines in some of the most violent counterinsurgency battles in Iraq.

Independent Lens, an Emmy award-winning independent film series on PBS, documented their work in a film titled Lioness which profiled five women who saw action in Iraq's Sunni Triangle during 2003 and 2004. As members of the US Army's 1st Engineer Battalion, Shannon Morgan, Rebecca Nava, Kate Pendry Guttormsen, Anastasia Breslow and Ranie Ruthig were sent to Iraq to provide supplies and logistical support to their male colleagues. Not trained for combat duty, the women unexpectedly became involved with fighting in the streets of Ramadi. These women were part of a unit, made up of approsimately 20 women, who went out on combat missions in Iraq. Female soldiers in the Army and Marines continue to perform Lioness work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would like to highlight the issues faced by Rebecca Nava as she seeks recognition of her combat experience and subsequent benefits for resulting disabilities. Then US Army Specialist Nava was the Supply Clerk for the 1st Engineering Battalion in Iraq. In conversations with her and as seen in the film Lioness, she recounts several incidents. Two of those incidents are noted in my testimony today.

The first is the roll-over accident of a 5-ton truck that was part of a convoy to Baghdad. In this accident, the driver was attempting to catcuh up with the rest of the convoy but in doing so lost control of the vehicle. The five ton truck swerved off the road and rolled over, killing a Sergeant who was sitting next to her, and severely injuring several others. Specialist Nava was caught in the wreckage. She had to pulled through the fractured windshield of the vehicle. While not severly injured in the accident, she did suffer a permanent spinal injury.

Another incident occurred wherein she was temporarily attached to a Marine unit and her job for this mission was to provide Lioness support for any Iraqi women and children the unit contacted. It was a routine mission patrolling the streets of Ramadi. Before she knew it, the situation erupted into chaos as they came under enemy fire. She had no choice but to fight alongside her male counterparts to suppress the enemy. No one cared that she was a female -- nor did they care that she had a Supply MOS -- their lives were all on the line -- she opened fire. The enemy was taken out. During this fire fight she also made use of her combat lifesaver skills and provided medical aid to several injured personnel.  

This and other missions resonate with her to this day. When she filed a claim with the VA, she was confronted with disbelief about her combat role in Iraq as part of Team Lioness. Specialist Nava filed a claim for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus but was told that she did not qualify because of her logistics career field. Since she does not have a Combat Action Badge, she cannot easily prove that the combat missions occurred which impacted her hearing.  

 

John Hall was among those who worked very hard in the House to recognize the changing role for women in the military.  In the Senate, Senator Patty Murray was noting this changing role and the difficulties of getting the VA to recognize it -- long before she became Committee Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.   Two examples.  At the May 21, 2008 Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Patty Murray observed that in today's conflict, "Some units, including military police, are using an increased number of females to fill jobs that were traditionally held by male personnel.  And because of the conflicts of today, we have no clear frontlines and women, like all of our service members, are always on the frontline -- riding on dangerous patrols, guarding pivotal check opints and witnessing the horrows of war first hand."   And fron the July 14, 2009 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing:

 

Senator Patty Murray: Dr. Hayes, as you know, the military currently bars women from serving in combat.  We all know, however, that in today's wars there is no front line on the battlefield, we know that women are serving right along side of male colleagues and they are engaging in combat with the enemy.  But unfortunately the new reality of this modern warfare isn't well understood here at home including by some in the VA. This knowlege gap obviously impacts the ability of women veterans to receive health care and disability benefits from the VA.  What are you doing, Dr. Hayes, to ensure that all VA staff -- both in the VHA and in the VBA -- are aware that women are serving in combat and that they're getting the health care and benefits that they've earned?

 

 

June 3, 2009, appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee,  Vietnam Veterans of America's Marsha Four, R.N. offered this historical context,  "The nature of the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is putting service members at an increased risk for PTSD.  In these wars without fronts 'combat support troops' are just as likely to be affected by the same traumas as infantry personnel.  They are clearly in the midst of the 'combat setting.'  No matter how you look at it, Iraq is a chaotic war in which an unprecedented number of women have been exposed to high levels of violence and stress.  Nearly 200,000 female soldiers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan . . . this compared to the 7,500 who served in Vietnam and the 41,000 who were dispatched to the Gulf War in the early 90s.  The death and casualty rates reflect this increased exposure." 

 

Today, the ACLU filed on behalf of four service members in an attempt to remedy the inequality in the current system:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO – The Defense Department's longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions was challenged today in a federal lawsuit by four servicewomen and the Service Women's Action Network.

The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan -- some deploying multiple times --where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

One plaintiff, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, is an Air National Guard search and rescue helicopter pilot who flew Medevac missions in Afghanistan. In 2009, her helicopter was shot down while rescuing three injured soldiers, and she and her crew were forced to engage in combat. Hegar, who returned fire after sustaining shrapnel wounds, was awarded the Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor, and was returned to flying status within a week. Despite that, the combat exclusion policy prevents her from seeking some combat leadership positions.

"Ever since I was a little girl I wanted to be an Air Force pilot, and I have proven my ability every step of the way," said Hegar. "The ability to serve in combat has very little to do with gender or any other generalization. It has everything to do with heart, character, ability, determination and dedication. This policy is an injustice to the women who have come before us and who continue to put their lives on the line for their country."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the rule categorically excludes them from more than 238,000 positions. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank.

"These women served their country bravely and honorably and have demonstrated their ability to distinguish themselves under fire just as much as their male comrades," said Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "This antiquated policy doesn't reflect the nature of modern warfare or the actual contributions of women in uniform."

Two of the plaintiffs led the Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams (FET) in Afghanistan. The FETs lived with and conducted missions with combat infantrymen. Another plaintiff was sent on similar missions in the Army, accompanying combat troops in Afghanistan. Because these were considered temporary duties outside of the servicewomen's official specialties, their combat experience is not given official recognition.

"It's unfair that a serviceman can be promoted for putting his life on the line in a combat situation, but a servicewoman who performs just as well on the battlefield is told that her service doesn't count," said Elizabeth Gill, staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Other plaintiffs include:

• Marine Capt. Zoe Bedell, who served in Afghanistan as the officer in charge of an FET. Her teams lived with infantrymen for several weeks and frequently encountered combat situations.
• Army Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt, who served in Afghanistan, where she went with soldiers on combat missions in remote mountain areas, and in Iraq, where her vehicle was hit by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). Hunt was awarded the Purple Heart for shrapnel injuries sustained in that attack.
• Marine 1st Lt. Colleen Farrell deployed to Afghanistan, where she led an FET that was regularly in danger of drawing enemy fire, being ambushed or hit by IEDs. Although the teams she commanded lived and worked alongside infantrymen, they were prevented from fully participating in training with those troops.

"Combat exclusion is an archaic policy which does not reflect the realities of modern warfare, the values which our military espouses, or the actual capabilities of our service women," said Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network and former Marine captain. "Rather than enforcing a merit-based system, today's military bars all women regardless of their qualifications from access to prestigious and career-enhancing assignments, positions and schools, and is thus directly responsible for making servicewomen second-class citizens."

The full complaint can be found here: www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta-complaint

More information on this case, including biographies of the plaintiffs, can be found at www.aclu.org/womens-rights/hegar-et-al-v-panetta

 

 

Iraq was slammed with bombings today as explosions went off across the country.   In Baghdad, Xinhua reports 3 car bombings which have left "at least 19 people killed and 72 injured."  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains the bombings were "outside three Shiite mosques in the capital of Baghdad:"  Zahraa Shi'ite mosque, Ali-Basha Shi'ite mosque and Sodani Shiite mosque.  The Voice of Russia adds, "The bombs planted in three cars went off almost simultaneously in the north of the city when dozens of believers were taking part in the Ashura ceremony commemorating imam Hussein ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who is worshipped by Shiites."

 

 Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 3 car bombs exploded there, leaving 4 people dead and forty-one more injured.  Tawfeeq adds, "A clash between the regional and federal governments started nearly 10 days ago when Tigris Operations Command carried out military operations in Kirkuk and disputed areas around the city."  Alsumaria notes that at least fifty-five have been left injured.   Reuters notes two of the three bombs exploded near the Kurdistan Democratic Party's office -- that is one of the two main political parties in Iraq.  The other, the PUK, is headed by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani while KRG President Massoud Barzani is the head of the KDP.  All Iraq News states that the bomb was oustide the Patrioti Union of Kurdistan's headquarters -- which would be Talabani's party.  The Iraq Times offers this morning that Kirkuk is witnessing violence due to the crisis between the Baghdad-based government and the KRG.  Alsumaria notes that the KRG has issued a statement condemning the bombings in Kirkuk.  RT offers three Reuters photos of the Kirkuk aftermath.

In addition, Alsumaria notes that a Mosul roadside bombing has left two people injured and they update that to note 2 Iraqi soldiers and 1 civilian are dead from the bombing and eleven people are injured.  That's important to note because these are early numbers and the tolls (death toll and wounded toll) in today's violence may rise.   All Iraq News notes that a Ramadi car bombing has left 1 dead and fifteen injured.  Alsumaria adds that a Baquba roadside bombing has left two police officers injured.  All Iraq News notes multiple bombs in Tuz Khurmatu while AFP elaborates, "Also on Tuesday, six roadside bombs targeted Iraqi army and police in the disputed town of Tuz Khurmatu, wounding two members of the security forces, police Lieutenant Colonel Khalid Al Bayati said."   And Alsumaria notes a Salahuddin Province bombing (south of Tikrit) has left one person injured.

 

Today's violence will distract from the many reports yesterday that the conflict between the Baghdad-based central government of Iraq and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (three provinces in nothern Iraq that have been liberated/semi-autonomous since the first Gulf War).  Harriet Fildes (Eurasia Review) explains:

 

The recent increase of Iraqi troops in resource-rich contested areas is fuelling fears that the subsequent escalation of tension could develop into full-scale war between the Shiite Iraqi government and the area known as Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iraqi encroachment on the city of Kirkuk is one of the reasons for the recent escalation as the Kurdistan Regional Government has issued a number of statements compelling Iraq to back away from this area, threatening war should it continue with its current aggressive policy.

 

 

Alsumaria reports that today a delegation representing the Peshmerga (Kurdish elite forces) met at the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad with officials from that Ministry to continue talks in an attempt to work towards ending the current standoff.  For the same reasons, All Iraq News notes, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi met with the United Nations's Gyorgy Busztin.  In a statement after the meeting, al-Nujaifi noted that they discussed his recent meetings (last week) with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and KRG President Massoud Barzani and that they also discussed torture in Iraqi prisons.

 

 

Women are said to be primary targets of torture in Iraqi prisons.   All Iraq News reports that a workshop combatting sexual violence that the British Embassy co-sponsored yesterday, British Ambasssador to Iraq Simon Cowles quoted Nouri's own words about the violence targeting Iraqi women and Cowles went on to declare that words have to be put into practice.  The Iraq Times notes the increasingly louder outrage over the Iraqi security forces illegally arresting Iraqi women and torturing them in Nouri's prisons and detention centers.  The paper adds that Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq has called out Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi saying they have failed the female prisoners who are being raped and tortured.  On this issue, from yesterday's snapshot:



Still on the Iraqi Parliament, Saturday All Iraq News reported that the Women, Family and Children's Committee is calling for the Ministry of Justice to make prisons and detention centers open to legislative committees so they can see what the conditions are.  In addition, All Iraq News noted MP Safia al-Suhail is calling on the Ministry of Women to focus on eliminating violence against women in prison.  Today Alsumaria reports that Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq accused security forces of raping and torturing women prison and he traces the culture back to the torture of Iraqis by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison.  On Sautrday, the article notes, Iraqiya MP Ahmed al-Alwani discussed the large number of women who have been raped in Iraqi prisons and are in fear of further assaults.


The same Iraq Times article notes a journalist who has been imprisoned since February.  That journalist is noted in a release from the Journalistic Freedom Observatory that Global Research has translated:


On 25 November 2012 The Iraqi News Network published an urgent statement of the Iraqi NGO Journalism Freedoms Observatory(JFO). This Journalist Advocacy group asks Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki to immediately interfere and investigate the circumstances behind the arrest of Sabah Hasan,a journalist arrested on 20 February 2012, almost ten months ago. She used to live and work in Baghdad, but she was transferred to the notorious Tasfirat prison in Tikrit, that witnessed at the end of September the largest prison break in recent history, when over 100 inmates allegedly escaped.
She was brutally tortured in the Major Crimes Directorate, which is located in one of Saddam's palaces. JFO demands that the officers who tortured her should be submitted to interrogations. Some of them are already in jail because of the escape of some prisoners a few weeks ago.Sabah Hasan was accused of crimes she didn't commit. JFO states that the victim's daughter, Shatha Salah, used to work since the last four years with her mother as a photographer for the Free Opinion Newspaper that is issued and distributed in Baghdad and other governorates. Shatha assured that she has medical reports confirming the terrible torture her mother has been facing for months.
They have beaten her mother, burned her with cigarettes all over her body,taking off all her clothes and wrapping her in a blanket to be transferred to Tikrit Prison while everyone was watching. Her daughter added that the injuries covered 85% of her mother's body. Shatha said that Tikrit Operations Leader Kareem Al-Khazraji assisted her to take her mother to Baghdad after they were sure that she didn't commit any crime. Now she is at the headquarters of the Fifth Brigade of the Iraqi Army in Al-Sayidiyah District.
Sabah was arrested last February while she was trying to bring back a car for one of her relatives thatwas taken by the Traffic Office after a traffic violation. Sabah was shocked to find out she was wanted in Tikrit for having a role in the killing of the brother of Nahida Al-Daini, a member of the Iraqi Parliament. Later investigations proved that Sabah had nothing to do with that assassination, but then she was accused of other crimes without any evidence.
Sabah works in Baghdad as a Chief Editor for theFree Opinion Newspaperduring the past four years. She has six children and a handicapped husband. Her daughter told JFO that her mother now experiences terrible conditions in one of the detention centers related to the Ministry of Interior, because there are not enough cells for the female prisoners in Shaab Stadium Tasfirat Prison. This was confirmed by a source in the Ministry of Interior who stated that there are no places available for female prisoners in this detention, called Site 4. He also added that human rights organizations should raid this prison and immediately start an investigation to take serious actions against the brutal prison guards and the forces of the Ministry of Interior, which are under the command of Maliki.
Shatha is trying to contact some Parliament members and political personalities who could help with her mother's release, and bring to justice the persons who tortured her and caused terrible psychological and physical pain. JFOis making the same demands through the Legal Centre and a team of lawyers who will defend her do their best to get her released,and bring the criminals to the court.


Sunday the Iraq Times noted that Nouri's Dawa Party was targeting Al Baghdadi and the paper noted they stood in solidarity with the cable outlet.  Iraqi Times notes that the cable outlet was prevented by security forces working for Nouri's office from entering Kadhimiya and filming.  (This is the city that the US set up the base Camp Justice and  where Saddam Hussein was executed.)

 

The Iraq Times notes an 'accomplishment' that they pin on Nouri: 600,000 families headed by a widow and extreme poverty.  The rate of poverty?  It's highest in southern Iraq, 56%.  (In the KRG, the article notes the poverty rate is under 10%.)  And they say he has mortgaged Iraq's education to the World Bank.

 

With those 'accomplishments' on his CV is it any surprise that Al Mada is reporting rumors that the National Alliance leaders (Shi'ite leaders who make up the coalition supporting Nouri) are becoming very concerned about how Nouri's 'managing' Iraq.

 

 

In the US today, MSNBC News offers the usual trash we've come to expect -- no link to trash.  But do the idiots in charge of the trashy network really think tabloid journalist Martin Bashir ranting and raving -- at high volume -- in that thick accent -- helps?

 

 

It doesn't.  It just reminds people that Martin Bashir needs to become a US citizen (and give up British citizenship) or he needs to take his ass back to England (yes, I know he burned those bridges, that's how the trash rolled onto US shores). Truly, Americans are not going to embrace some prissy pontificator from another country ranting and raving nightly about US politics.  I'm sorry MSNBC didn't grasp that when they hired him.  But all his yelling does for most Americans is make them wonder, "Why isn't Mr. Drama in his own country?  Who the hell asked him to stick his nose in our business?  Didn't we fight the Revolutionary War just so the British couldn't tell us what to do or what to think?"

 

I have no idea why MSNBC would give a foreigner an opinion show.  But keep it up, let him screech (at high volume) about the 'witch hunt' and, as he grows ever more strident, watch Americans tune him out.  In the 90s, when MSNBC couldn't stop attacking the Clintons, the network was at least smart enough not to give Christopher Hitchens a show.  Americans don't take well to busybodies and that's how Martin Bashir -- a tabloid journalist of questionable ethics -- is seen.

 

 

Bashir and others are toeing the administration line that Susan Rice is being treated unfairly by Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte.  And the reason?  The administration whispers 'racism' to journalists.

 

 

Let's make a list of "racist" senators, let's all be like the White House.  The following are or were racist senators:

 

 

Daniel Akaka

Evan Bayh

Barbara Boxer

Robert Byrd

Mark Dayton

Dick Durbin

Tom Harkin,

Jim Jeffords

Ted Kennedy

John Kerry

Frank Lautenberg

Carl Levin

Jack Reed

 

Why are the above racist?

 

They voted against confirming Condi Rice for Secretary of State in January 2005.

 

Now they're also non-Republicans.  (Jim Jeffords had left the Republican Party and was an indepedent at that time.)  So some might argue that, if they were against Condi for anything other than her record, it was for partisan reasons.

 

But if we're just going to stand in the center of the town square and scream "Racist!" at people, then let's scream at the ones above to because fair is fair.

 

With the exception of Robert Byrd (who is now dead and who I didn't care for) and Jeffords who I don't know, I will say that none of the above are racist.  But I would also argue that racism is not at the root of the opposition to Susan Rice (nor was it at the root of the opposition to Condi Rice).

 

Susan Rice is Black.  She's also a Democrat.  She's also immensely unqualified to be Secretary of State should she be nominated for the office.  Bashir can't tell you that because -- well there's so very much Bashir doesn't know.  But he loves to chatter.  Can't get his ass to Senate hearings but he loves to chatter.  Can't tell you that the State Dept is over Iraq, can't tell you how much money that involves -- tax payer money -- can't tell you what the Office of Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has stated in repeated reports.  But he can gas bag.  

 

 

He can't tell you that last week at the United Nations, Susan Rice was the person ensuring that a global moratoreum on the death penalty sunk.  Bashir won't talk about Susan Rice's involvement in the Libyan War. 

 

 

 

Let's deal with a few of the many reasons that Susan Rice is unqualifed to be Secretary of State (though, as Elaine has noted, she could be Secretary of War in a heartbeat).  Rice is a War Cheerleader.  Rice refused to stand against the Iraq War.  She wasn't in government at the time.  She was a frequent guest on NPR.  She refused to call out Bully Boy Bush going to war on Iraq. 

 

Exactly how many people who got it wrong on Iraq does Barack Obama plan to reward.  And those members of the Cult of St. Barack intend to stay silent on this forever?  He wouldn't be in the White House today if it weren't for the Iraq War.  You'd think he could pay down that debt in some small manner but instead he just keeps appointing one pro-Iraq War person after another.

 

The State Dept has a huge budget and it's really not a justified or an accountable budget.  It's become like the CIA (shh, no rumors) since Barack came into office.  Congress really doesn't know where the money is going and when they try to find out, they get the same stone walling that the SIGIR does.  Not only does Rice have no record of transparency, she's also got no record of handling such a huge department and especially such a huge budget.  You need someone with some understanding of money.

 

Then there is the issue of diplomacy.  It's not been mastered by the blustering bully that is Susan Rice.  As Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) has observed, "To further circumvent international law and other hindrances to imperial reach, Washington devised the doctrine of 'humanitarian' military intervention -- where Susan Rice makes her mark as madwoman, demanding blockades and air strikes against Sudan, invasion of Somalia, embargoes on little Eritrea, and regime change in Libya."  Susan Rice's image is as a bully and someone who doesn't give a damn about people.  US House Rep John Conyers has, on his website, a letter he and 103 other House Representatives signed July 17th and sent to Susan Rice "encouraging her to urge the United Nations to take a leading role in addressing the cholera crisis in Haiti."  And what was Rice's response?

 

Mark Weisbrot (San Francisco Bay View) notes, she had none.  Over 100 members of Congress make a request of her and she can't even respond? In what world does showing contempt for Congress win them over to your side?

 

There are many, many other issues.  But let's deal with Benghazi.  Susan Rice is based in NYC at the United Nations.  That's because she's the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.  There is nothing in her job description that makes her an 'expert' on Libya.  Yet she ws dispatched by the White House to appear, September 16th, on CBS' Face The Nation, NBC's Meet The Press, ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union, Fox News Sunday   to discuss the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Begnhazi in which Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens were murdered. 

 

Responding to charges that she lied, the White House (and Rice herself last week) have insisted that she merely repeated what she was briefed on.  As Isaiah notes in "The Idiotic Susan Rice" editorial cartoon, she's saying she didn't lie, she's just really stupid.

 

And she is stupid because she went on five live programs to 'talk to America' and she was out of her depth.  The White House should probably explain real soon why Rice spoke to the American people and not then-CIA Director David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano or President Barack Obama.  Barack wants credit for linking it to terrorism prior to Rice's appearence.  Alright then, why wasn't someone qualified and elected or appointed to a position covering that terrain sent out to the Sunday talk shows? 

 

Let's come back to questions in a moment and move over right now to some cold hard truth.  Whether Hillary Clinton was effective or not as Secretary of State, no one currently knows.  What's taken place over the last four years is a lot of work on her part that will be evaluated in the years to come -- did this sprout here did that grow there.  She did work hard.  Some will think she worked on important issues, some will think she wasted America's time and money.  (I like Hillary, I would hope her work was successful.) What we know right now is that she is immensely popular.  Not just in the US but around the world. 

 

That's because Hillary brought her own star power into the office.  She was the wife of a governor, she was the former first lady of the United States for eight years, she was a woman who went and ran successfully for Congress, winning two elections to the US Senate.  She was an advocate for children and women.  She brought all of this and more to the office of Secretary of State.  People who like Susan Rice would do well to advocate for her for another post.  It will be very difficult for a woman -- any woman short of Michelle Obama -- to follow Hillary as Secretary of State.  There has been no female Secretary of Defense.  There has been no female CIA Director.  People who claim to care about Susan Rice better grasp that Hillary's replacement -- whomever it is -- likely will not be Cheryl Ladd.  Hillary's replacement is more likely going to be Shelley Hack -- derided and mocked no matter how she performs.  Michelle Obama is the only woman in the government who brings that kind of star power.  (And maybe Michelle should be Secretary of State?  Right away we know State gets the president's attention.  I'm not joking, by the way.  I'm deadly serious. Michelle has spent four years as a goodwill ambassador, she's known around the world, she's highly educated, she was a practicing attorney which is its own form of diplomacy.  She'd be highly effective in the role if she wanted it.) 

 

So if you like Susan Rice, if you care about her, you should really be trying to help her into a position where she can be a trail blazer and a first (Mad Maddy Albright was already the first woman to be Secretary of State, Condi Rice was already the first African-American woman to be Secretary of State) and not into a post where she's going to be repeatedly compared to someone who has natural star power, someone who could and did charm Gore Vidal (who went into meeting her convinced he wouldn't like her and came out raving how gracious and kind she was).

 

 

Now let's go back to questions.

 

The questions that remain to be answered and that the President insists are answered have to do with what happened in Benghazi, who was responsible for the deaths of four Americans including our Ambassador and what steps do we need to take to ensure that something like that does not happen again?

 

 

That's Jay Carney.  The White House's plus-size spokesmodel (as Cedric and Wally have dubbed him).  And it must be great to be the White House.  All the Benghazi focus on Rice.  Hours and hours wasted on MSNBC with nonsense. 

 

Rice hasn't even been nominated for the post.  But she certainly does distract from the fact that the US was attacked on September 11th and it's now 47 days later and the official White House position, per Jay Carney, is that they don't know "what happened in Benghazi, [or] who was responsible for the deaths" or "what steps do we need to take to ensure that something like that does not happen again?"

 

It's 47 days after the terrorist attack.  And they don't know what steps to take?  How non-reassuring for American diplomats around the world.  How pathetic.

 

If Bully Boy Bush -- or his henchman toady Ari -- had declared on November 27, 2001, "We don't know who attaacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, we don't know who was responsible for the deaths and we don't know what steps we need to take to ensure that an attack like that doesn't happen again," how long do you think it would have been before Congress was openly discussing impeachment?

 

Maybe Jay Carney, not Senate Republicans, is the one "obsessed" with Susan Rice?  Clearly, the White House is not doing their job.  Not only did they fail to anticipate the attack despite all the mounting indicators leading up to the attack but 47 days later the official White House spokersperson faces the press -- by proxy the American people -- and declares that they have no idea, all these weeks and weeks later, how it happened or who was behind it?

 

 

The kind term is "incompetence."  A more harsh charge that could be tossed around would be "dereliction of duty."

 

 

 

 

iraq

al mada
alsumaria

all iraq news

kitabat

npr
all things considered 

kelly mcevers

xinhua

wang yuanyuan

al jazeera jane arraf all iraq news alsumaria
al rafidayn press tv

reuters

cnn

mohammed tawfeeq

the voice of russia

666 Park Avenue

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Idiotic Susan Rice" and "Sunset Jackson" both went up yesterday.





That's the Susan Rice one.  I'll highlight the other tomorrow.  (I think that's how we're all doing it, but I could be wrong.)

You know what I love about the net and about blogging?  We get to provide instant reactions.  Gone are the days of the Pony Express, you know?  We're instant.  Something happened, here's what people are thinking!

If you're thinking, "Betty that sounds like sarcasm in your voice.  Are you being sarcastic?"  Damn right.

Today, finally, after eleven days of not posting, Hillary Is 44 finally rouses itself long enough to post "Unravel #4: Egypt - Why Won't Obama Demand Morsi Resign?":




January 2011 it was obvious to all but the Hopium Guzzlers what would happen in Egypt and Egypt is game over:

“The boobery from Obama has been ceaseless. From the first Obama pandered to Arabs and Muslims and snubbed Israel. Obama thought that if he strapped on a ukulele and sang “Tip Toe Through The Tulips With Me” the gangs governments of the Middle East would sing along. But these governments have interests and strategies that will not be swayed by Obama’s flood of words, backed up by more words and yet more words. Weakness is not respected in the Middle East and Barack Obama is weak and foolish. [snip]
In most if not all instances, the revolution in the streets, hailed in the West as steps forward, ended in theocracy and authoritarianism. The people are tools to establish dictatorships. The hopes that start with calls from the street for democracy - end in small groups of men who seize power and throttle the voice of the people.”

During that season of gullibility and fantasy-politik Obama and the foolish assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood constituted too small a group, that it was unpopular, and that in either case the Muslim Brotherhood had forsworn running a candidate in Egyptian elections.
The well organized Muslim Brotherhood not only fielded a presidential candidate. He won. The Muslim Brotherhood candidates also gobbled up the legislature. We were then assured the Egyptian courts and the military would block the crazies – as if the entire Muslim Brotherhood was not “the crazies”.
Subsequently, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi declared himself authority over the military and removed Egyptian military officials that might block his full control. That much power was not enough for the Muslim Brotherhood.


You know, I used to post twice a week.  And I felt awful about that.  I felt like I was the laziest person in the world.  However, I never went 11 days without posting. 

"666 Park Avenue."  Does anyone care at this point?

The show's getting the axe, so maybe not.  If not, that's fine.  I don't have a great deal to write about because despite talk that the whole thing was heading to a real resolution in these last episodes, they served up a turkey of a show last night.

I don't think I've ever been bored watching the show before.  I was bored last night.

Was it me?  Maybe it was just me.  Maybe the fact that ABC is yanking it after the 13 episodes air has me in a foul mood?

I will more than allow for that.

But I thought the episode was hideous.

Brian founds out his wife was an addict again.  She returned to tell him she had been in rehab.  Yes, she vanished on her husband without telling him.  No, that did not make a great deal of sense.  Or that he didn't have a real fit on that.  If it were my husband and he disappeared to go to rehab and showed up after to tell me, I think I'd have a few words to share about how I should have been informed before rehab so I wouldn't spend 30 days thinking he might be dead.  Instead, he had about one sentence on how Louise was back on drugs (asking) and then it was rush over to the blond who works for Louise that he slept with and tell her she's quitting her job, moving out of the Drake and leaving him and Louise alone.

I didn't hate that storyline.  And my daughter was thrilled to see Brian.  She's got a crush on that actor.

I didn't mind Vanessa Williams story.  Though Olivia (like Brian) wasn't on much.  Shaw stole the box, remember?  We don't know what's in the box but it may be supernatural.  Well Shaw's being tortured and Gavin's questioning him when Shaw tells him that Olivia knows their daughter killed herself and that the car crash wasn't an accident.  He goes on to tell Gavin that his daughter found out what Gavin really was and that's why she took her own life.

Gavin didn't know Olivia knew.  We did.  Remember when she nearly crashed the car with Jane in it a few weeks back?  And at the end of the episode burned their daughter's suicide note?

So Olivia tells Gavin that she did know about the suicide and points out that Shaw (who isn't even really Shaw?  Who is he? They won't tell us and they really think we care) hurt him and Gavin should repay him.

Shaw sees his father in front of him and tells him that he left the box with a priest at some church.  The father's not the father, it's Gavin.

He heads to the church where -- is he a vampire? -- the priest says Shaw told him that Gavin wouldn't be able to enter a church.

While he's getting the box, Olivia lets Shaw have it. But he says that Olivia and Gavin's daughter is alive.  Olivia doesn't believe him.  But, as I understood it, Olivia knows she didn't tell Shaw about the note, that only she had seen the note so the implication is he learned about the note from Olivia's (living) daughter.  He tells her if she helps him escape, he'll take her to her daughter.

She apparently does.

This needed more scenes than it got.

What we didn't need.

Jane.

Over and over.

Damn, she bored the hell out of me.

Not because of the actress.  She did the best she could with a bunch of crap that served no purpose other than watch-us-string-along-the-audience.  Which they did without revealing anything.

As you may remember, she was going through a secret staircase when the floor closed on her last time.

She's now in a mental ward.  If they'd made Henry look normal, I might have bought it.  But they made everyone (including Henry) look just a little different.

So I knew we were in a fantasy or dream.  They wasted the entire episode with that crap.

At the very end, she's finally back at the Drake and Nona asks her what happened?  She doesn't know, can't remember.  Nona takes her to an apartment of a woman who may be able to help.  But Nona says she can't go in because the woman won't like having more than one person present.  So Jane prepares to enter.  End of episode.

Maybe it was me but the whole Jane thing was a waste of time.  There are answers that I want and I assume other viewers want and we don't have time for being jerked around.






"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, November 26, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions continue between Baghdad and Erbil, the most superficial of agreements  today is portrayed (falsely) by some as a resolution, charges continues that Iraqi female prisoners are being mistreated, abused and, in some cases, raped, corruption charges attach themselves to Nouri's son, the continued Petraeus scandal, and more.   The tensions between Erbil and Baghdad continue.  Nouri al-Maliki turned a tense situation into a crisis by sending forces (Tigris Operation Command) into the disputed areas in northern Iraq.  The Kurds see this as an attempt by Nouri to seize control of the areas.  Due to Nouri's past record and his refusal to honor the Constitution he took an oath to (specifically to implement Article 140 of the Constitution to resolve disputed areas), they're wise to see this as yet another power grab on Nouri's part.   The World Tribune observes today, "Over the last 10 days, KRG and the Iraq Army have been in a standoff for control of a disputed town of Tuz Khurmatu."    Zaydan al-Rabii (Al-Monitor translating Al-Khallej) reported this morning that despite the fact that "a Kurdish military delegation is arriving in Baghdad on Monday [Nov. 26] to meet officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, news indicates that additional Kurdish soldiers and armored vehicles are moving towards disputed areas."   In a development everyone is trumpeting, representatives from the KRG and the central Iraqi government met in Baghdad today.  KUNA notes, "Iraq's federal government and provincial government of Iraq's Kurdistan region reached an agreement in principle stipulating return of all military foces to their previous locations."  In principal?  And that's the more upbeat version.  Isabel Coles and Alison Williams (Reuters) lead with, "Iraqi military leaders agreed on Monday with commanders from the Kurdistan region to defuse tension and discuss pulling their troops back from an area over which they both claim jurisdiction."  That's not quite the same thing and when you include a quote from Iraq's "commander in chief of the Iraqi armed forces" (that would be Nouri) that states the two sides will "discuss a mechanism to return the forces which were deployed after the crisis to their previous positions."  So they're going to discuss that.  And even less has been accomplished according to Almanar, "Top federal and Kurdish security officials agreed in Baghdad on Monday to 'activate' coordinating committees between their forces and work to calm the situation in northern Iraq, a statement said."  Almanar also notes that those attending the meeting including US Lt Gen Robert Caslen.   Let's take a little side trip since a US military officer is attending meetings in Iraq.  Last night,  Xinhua reported on US efforts to beef up their presence in Iraq, US military efforts.  They note Independent Press Agency has quoted an Iraqi government source stating, "Dozens of giant U.S. airplanes C-130 Hercules had carried out successive flights to the once second largest U.S. military airbase al-Asad in Iraq's western province of Anbar."  They include the official government denial.  While Buratha News Agency has noted a Special Ops unit has come into Iraq in recent weeks and that there are negotiations going on to send more in.  Then the report notes: On Sept. 24, the New York Times newspaper quoted Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., an American commander in charge of speeding up weapons sales to Iraq, as saying that Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. According to Caslen, "A unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence," the newspaper. Back in September,  Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:   Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence. That's the New York Times report Xinhua is referring to.  And please note, 'fact checker' and corpulent TV personality Candy Crowley felt no need to tell debate watchers that very real fact.  But China's Xinhua can note what NBC News, CBS News and ABC News all ignored.  But it wasn't just television news that was ignorant of Tim Arango's report.  Mere weeks ago the editorial board of the New York Times wrote an editorial on Iraq that made clear they hadn't read what one of their own reporters had written.  And when 'fact checking' the presidential debates, the New York Times team repeatedly came up stupid when it had to do with the US government in negotiations to send more US troops into Iraq.    The Chinese may end up better informed about what the US is working on in Iraq than the American people.   Back to the current standoff in Iraq.       Kelly McEvers has a major report on the conflict today for NPR's All Things Considered (link is audio right now -- transcript will go up at link tomorrow).  McEvers notes the history of the conflict and the recent skirmish in Tuz Khormato. Calling it the best US broadcast report on the conflict really isn't a compliment becuase it's also the only in depth broadcast report in the US so far. That said, it's a very strong report. We're going to stay with today's 'big news' and note this from her report.     Kelly McEvers: Kurdish and Arab military leaders tentatively agreed today to pull their troops back to previous positions but the restaurant owner back in Tuz Khormato is not optimstic. "It's not the politicians in high place who suffer from this war of words," he told us. "It's us. The people on the ground."   Things are now so tense between the Kurdistan Regional Government out of Erbil and the Baghdad-based central government of Iraq that rumors usually used to justify the start of open war are flying around. Al Rafidayn reports rumors being spread that the Kurds are sending shooters into Kirkuk in plain clothes to kill people. This is the sort of thing the US government has repeatedly used to justify moving on the Syrian government. While rumors fly, Kitabat notes that efforts to de-escalate the situation and prevent armed conflict continue with talks continue. But Nouri never plays fair. Alsumaria reports that Nouri has announced the issue is one for the federal courts. That would be the federal courts he controls.  All Iraq News notes that Jabbar Yawar, Secretary General of the Ministry of Peshmerga (Kurdish elite forces) has stated that their demand is that Nouri's forces leave the disputed areas. Alsumaria adds that Nouri has sent in six more additional military helicopters to the area.   This isn't surprising.  This has been building for years and there were many red flags raised in the process.      KRG President Massoud Barzani: Iraq is facing a serious crisis today. Yesterday, we have discussed that very frankly with the President [Barack Obama], the Vice President [Joe Biden] and it's going to one-man rule. It's going towards control of all the establishments of state. So we have got a situation or we ended up having a situation in Baghdad where one individual is the Prime Minister and at the same time he's the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he's the Minister of Defense, he's the Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the Intelligence and lately he has sent a correspondence to the president of the Central Bank in Iraq that that establishment would also come under the Prime Minister. Where in the world would you find such an example? We as the people of Kurdistan, we believe that this government has come to be as a result of the blood that we have shed and as a result of the sacrifices that we have contributed. We are eager to see the situation reformed. Therefore, we will not leave Baghdad for others. So, therefore, we see the situation in Iraq that it requires to be ruled in partnership -- for that power-sharing and partnership to consist of the Kurds and the Arabs -- both the Shia Arabs and the Sunni Arabs.       Those words? Barzani delivered them when he spoke publicly in DC at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy April 5th. What's really changed since then? Nouri's gotten more aggressive and less interested in a power-sharing government. Days after that speech, Wladimir van Wilgenburg (Rudaw) reported: After increased tensions between the Iraqi and the Kurdish governments, Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani told Alhurra TV last Thursday that Baghdad is considering the use of F-16 fighter planes against the Kurds. In the interview, Barzani says the issue with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not personal, but it is about his dictatorial policies. "I still consider him a brother and a friend," he said. According to Barzani, division commanders in the Iraqi army are supposed to be approved by parliament, but this hasn't happened. Barzani told Alhurra that he has confronted the Iraqi PM many times and been told by Maliki that he will act, but he hasn't, and suggested there is talk of a "military solution" to confront the Kurds in Baghdad. Barzani said that in an official meeting with Iraqi military commanders, it was stated that they should wait for F-16s to arrive to help push back the Kurds.     "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true coalition, won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?"     That's an important question. Then-Senator Russ Feingold asked it in the April 10, 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when the US was attempting to hand Nouri the moon and stars in contract form with the Status Of Forces Agreement.  He wasn't the only senator bothered by the US government getting into bed with Nouri and the issue of a civil war in Iraq. Another senator pointed out that this arrangement raised "many red flags with me and other Americans. We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat. We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?"     Good questions.  They deserved answers.     The person asking that question, like Russ Feingold, is no longer in the Senate. The person asking that question is Joe Biden, now the US Vice President.   It's a shame those questions weren't answered before Joe left the Senate.    The questions didn't stop then.  Let's drop back to the July 26, 2011 snapshot:       Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops." The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing else happens, you may have read the already read the report. [. . .]   The authors acknowledge: ["] Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds. ["]   [. . .]   The report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.     It's a real shame the White House ignored Odierno, sidelined him, told him couldn't give interviews all to appease and please Chris Hill who didn't know the first thing he was talking about.  As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor note in their new book The Endgame, for the White House to realize what a mistake they'd made, it would take Odierno speaking to then-Secretary of Defense Robert       Turning to the topic of the death penalty, last week US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice helped kill the UN General Assembly resolution which would have placed a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide.  Susan apparently needs blood flowing in the street to wake up feeling safe each morning.  This week?  Kitabat reports that Iraq's Foreign Affairs Minister Hoshyar Zebari met with Fadh Abdul Mohsen al-Zaid. al-Zaid is based in Jordan and acts as Saudi Arabi's Ambassador to Jordan as well as being Saudi Arabia's non-resident Ambassador to Iraq. Zebari and al-Zaid discussed attempts to normalize relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the issue of Saudi prisoners in Iraq and of Iraqis in the Saudi Kingdom and the need to ratify the agreement on the exchange of prisoners. Thamer Qamqoun (Saudi Gazette) reports Saudi national Ali Hassan Ali Fadel is in an Iraqi prison and has been sentenced to death, "Sources in Iraq said Fadel was tortured and his confessions were extracted from under duress while he had proved to the court that he had entered Iraq to visit his friends in Al-Mosul" and not for 'terrorism.'  Most of Iraq's 'confessions' are derived from torture.          From the November 12th snapshot:   Staying with violence, as noted in the October 15th snapshot, Iraq had already executed 119 people in 2012.  Time to add more to that total.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported last night that 10 more people were executed on Sunday ("nine Iraqis and one Egyptian").  Tawfeeq notes the Ministry of Justice's statement on the executions includes, "The Iraqi Justice Ministry carried out the executions by hanging 10 inmates after it was approved by the presidential council."  And, not noted in the report, that number's only going to climb.  A number of Saudi prisoners have been moved into Baghdad over the last weeks in anticipation of the prisoners being executed.  Hou Qiang (Xinhua) observes, "Increasing executions in Iraq sparked calls by the UN mission in the country, the European Union and human rights groups on Baghdad to abolish the capital punishment, criticizing the lack of transparency in the proceedings of the country's courts."     At least 129 executions so far this year.  Iraq is on the verge of setting another record.  Sadly, not one to be proud of but there aren't many records the government's set that anyone can be proud of since Nouri al-Maliki was installed by the US government to be prime minister.     Let's move over to violence.  Alsumaria reports that a Baquba bombing claimed the life of 1 person with seven more left injured, a second Bquba bombing left 1 person dead and three more injured and a third Baquba bombing left four people injured.  All Iraq News adds that 1 army officer was shot dead at his Mosul home and a Samarra sticking bombing claimed the life of a captain in the Iraqi forces.     Weeks ago, Nouri traveled with a delegation to Russia and, while there, signed a $4.2 billion weapons deal.  The deal was a surprise and it involved so much money that it garnered huge press.  Russia took bows on the world stage as did Nouri.  As with all other weapons deals, Nouri insisted that it was to protect Iraq from external forces.  Nouri then went to Prague, signed another weapons deal, then returned to Iraq and, shortly after, announced the Russian deal was off.   Long before he made that announcement, there was calls for him to appear before the Parliament to explain the deal.  There were accusations of corruption and graft.  These accusations have not vanished.  Ali al-Dabbagh, Nouri's spokesperson until this week, felt the need to publicly announce this week that he was not part of the deal.  Saturday, All Iraq News reported that Nouri's son is now accused of being part of the alleged corruption.  Ahmed al-Maliki has long been accused of benefitting from nepotism but now the Sadr bloc has accused him of being in on the corruption.  Sunday morning, Kitabat reported on it.  Both also noted that Ali al-Dabbagh's public denial last week of being involved in the deal has not cleared him of charges of corruption.    Still on the Iraqi Parliament, Saturday All Iraq News reported that the Women, Family and Children's Committee is calling for the Ministry of Justice to make prisons and detention centers open to legislative committees so they can see what the conditions are.  In addition, All Iraq News noted MP Safia al-Suhail is calling on the Ministry of Women to focus on eliminating violence against women in prison.  Today Alsumaria reports that Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq accused security forces of raping and torturing women prison and he traces the culture back to the torture of Iraqis by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison.  On Sautrday, the article notes, Iraqiya MP Ahmed al-Alwani discussed the large number of women who have been raped in Iraqi prisons and are in fear of further assaults.          Moving to the US and the Petraeus scandal.  For those who don't know, David Petraeus was the CIA Director.  That was his last position.  He stepped down, this month, with the title of Director.  I'm sorry if you're so  stupid that this confuses you.  He was not "General David Petraeus the CIA Director."  That did not happen.  Petraeus was following in Michael Hayden's footsteps.  That CIA Director (2005-2009) chose to use the title of his position "Director."  He could have insisted on General.  But we don't militarize other branches of government.  Hayden actually grasped that and corrected the press when they attemtped to call him "General" after he assumed the position.  Good for Michael Hayden.  (And we said that in real time when he corrected a member of the press on that.)   So all this worship of  a person -- which is how it plays out -- is pretty sad.  Ava and I already took on the ultimate military whore Sunday in "TV: The 10 Most Disgraceful People" in which we imagined Barbara Walters hosting a needed program:   "Thank you very much, General Woodward," Barbara Walters said.  "Six commanding officers received some form of a disciplinary actions and two more were removed, according to the Air Force.  My next guest chose to remove himself.  He flew from obscurity to national prominence with the help of media admirers like Thomas E. Ricks.  Interestingly, Ricks has a book that insists that generals should be fired when they don't win wars but Ricks has spent the last weeks defending this man.  Former general David Petraeus, at one point, the top US commander in Iraq.  Oversaw a failed war and what some call an unethical policy of counter-insurgency.  Despite those realities, President Barack Obama would go on to put Petraeus over the war in Afghanistan and then to make the military retired Petraeus the CIA Director.  It was a sensitive post and one that must be free of any potential scandal out of concerns over blackmail.  Mr. Petraeus has resigned over an affair which, he insists, did not start until after he left the military in 2011.  Director, how do you explain this affair?  And why did you decide to resign not when the FBI learned of the affair but when you learned the affair was going to be made public?" We were as shocked as Walters when David Petraeus' knees parted and Thomas Ricks crawled out from between them and began speaking. "We now seem to care more about the sex lives of our leaders than the real lives of our soldiers." As Ricks attempted to filibuster and brought up President Dwight D. Eisenhower's alleged affair when he was a general, Walters cut him off. "You are a disgrace but not enough of one to be on this show.  Why do you prattle on about this general and that general and the military and all the other crap?  He is not a general who was forced to resign because of the military code of ethics.  He was a CIA Director.  As usual, your stupidity has confused the issue. As I was saying before, the Director could live with the feds knowing of the affair but could not handle it going public.  Which would indicate that if a foreign government discovered the affair and attempted to blackmail him with it, he would be very open to blackmail because he so clearly did not want the affair to go public."   Barbara Walters will host her annual Barbara Walters Presents: The 10 Most Fascinating People of the Year Wednesday, December 12th on ABC.  That's the special Ava and I were re-imagining.  And the quote from Ricks with a link?  That's Thomas E. Ricks' own stupid words.  "General David Petraeus" did not step down.  Director David Petraeus did.   Where there is military porn there is Thomas E. Ricks.  Today he posts the silly nonsense of Iraq War veteran Blake Hall who can't stop salivating over "General Petraeus" and "our most brilliant General" (I'm not making that crap up) but Hall really flies over the moon with this:     I cannot stand the hypocrisy of my country. We have presidents, presidential candidates and corporate executives who fornicate and adulterate with impunity, some when their wives were stricken with cancer, yet this one man who has given his entire life to America errs one time and the media and hacks like Michael Hastings attack him with impunity. There should be no mass audience for a situation should remain a private issue between General Petraeus and his wife.     Oh, grow up, you little man. Let's examine your stupidity in that paragraph sentence by sentence.     I cannot stand the hypocrisy of my country.   Can't you?  You served in an illegal war but a news cycle has you on edge?   I didn't realize they grew 'em so weak these days.  Let's call Cokie Roberts and see if she can loan Blake Hall her pearls so he can wear them when he's doing these clutch-the-pearls moments. And doesn't Hall offer his own hypocrisy in his next sentence?         We have presidents, presidential candidates and corporate executives who fornicate and adulterate with impunity, some when their wives were stricken with cancer, yet this one man who has given his entire life to America errs one time and the media and hacks like Michael Hastings attack him with impunity.   Well, clearly, if someone has a spouse and they also have an extra-marital partner, they're not giving their ENTIRE life to the country.  That's just a factual.  But maybe John Edwards -- I don't care for John Edwards and have felt that way since I was planning on being a donor to his first presidential campaign but instead got groped by Scummy Edwards and I lfet, but not before telling told Elizabeth to put her husband on a leash (and then instead donated to John Kerry's campaign -- but for one brief moment, John Edwards could have had me as a donor until he thought he could 'have me' in another way) -- feels he gave a lot to his country?  Maybe he feels that some of his legal cases and his Senate service and even running for president in two primaries and running for the vice presidency in one were giving his "entire life" to the country?    He may feel that way.  He may not.    But it's strange, Blake Hall wants to draw a cone of silence around Petraeus' extra-martial   affair(s) but still feels he can trash John Edwards for the same thing?  For someone who, just the sentence before, was decrying hypocrisy, Hall certainly seems willing to embrace it with a 'logic' that appears to be:  "Don't talk about Petraeus sex life! Let's talk about John Edwards sex life instead!"   Hall feels Michael Hastings is a "media hack."  That's Hall's opinion.  Many others feel differently.    Hall also insist that Petraeus "errs one time" and is punished which confuses me?   Is the argument that Petraeus only slept around once or that he only had one mistress?    Long before Rielle Hunter entered the picture, John Edwards was trolling.  Because that's what cheaters tend to do.  Now maybe people serving a lot closer with Petraeus in Iraq than Hall did, maybe these two people told me wrong and maybe a certain reporter who confessed to me that she had an affair with Petraeus during that period was just looking for another notch on her lipstick case (to be Pat Benatar about it) but even though those things I've been told never happened, human nature really doesn't allow for a person to be married for over 30 years and then, suddenly, out of the blue, decide to cheat.   Add to that the fact that Petraeus is sixty-years-old which really isn't the age for a man to either be in his sexual prime or facing a mid-life crisis (two 'triggers' for sleeping around).   I bring that up because Hall's the one who's defending Petraeus and basing it on his belief that Petraeus is someone who "errs one time."  If you're going to make an argument with any attempt at logic and you're going to acknowledge that Petraeus did cheat, I really wouldn't rush to shore up an argument for a cheater based on how few times the cheater says he cheated.   Because most people lie about sex.  That's why I never supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I liked Bill (I still do) and I think he did a good job as president.  But, no, I wouldn't impeach someone because they said they hadn't had a sexual relationship with someone when indeed they had.     There should be no mass audience for a situation should remain a private issue between General Petraeus and his wife.     He is not a general.  At best he is "retired General Petraeus."  At best.  I don't know why your bring his wife into it.  We're not naming her.  I have nothing to say about her on this topic.  She has done much good with regards to veterans and we will surely note her again in relation to that.    But grasp that I am damn tired of an innocent spouse -- wife or husband -- being dragged through the smutty river because of a cheating spouse.  The David Petraeus scandal is about many things but the wife is not a part of that scandal and that's why -- check the archives -- since this story broke I have not mentioned her name here.  No spouse should be dragged into this nonsense.   She's not doing a thing to bring disgrace to herself.  Leave her out of it.  And that includes those of you who want to offer crocodile tears for her to try to cover for Petraeus.  The secret is out.  She has to live with it publicly and privately and that is not fair but neither is life.  She's always conducted herself in a professional and caring manner and I assume she will continue to do so.   Hall's biggest mistake is he doesn't seem to grasp what actually happened.  Petraeus -- according to the offficial record -- retired from the military (Hall doesn't even grasp that), became Director of the CIA, slept with what appears to be an unbalanced person, ended the affair after several months at which point the person began creating problems leading one woman feeling unsafe, that woman contacts authorities about the possibly unbalanced person, an investigation ensues, during the investigation it comes out that Petraeus has slept with the person.  Do we follow those events so far?   A CIA Director is put into a compromising position.  This is where people have to start exploring national security issues -- that go far beyond, "Did he tell the woman classified information!"  The primary concern here is are you open to blackmail.  When gay men and lesbians had to live in the closet, they were considered security risks with the official justification being that they were open to blackmail.  In those witch hunt days (funny how people never want to talk about the sexuality witch hunt of that period despite the fact that it was a big deal in real time and among the reasons a former general, Frank McCarthy, left the State Dept and relocated to California where he'd go on to live with longterm love Rupert Allan while producing a number of films including Patton).   Petraeus admitted to the affair and planned to continue in the post.  The official story states  that and states that he only decided to step down when he learned that the affair was going to become public.   If Petraeus was prepared to stay on as CIA Director if the affair was private but took the dramatic option of stepping down when he found out that the affair would go public, you need to grasp what that says.   It says he didn't feel he did anything worth resigning over.  It also says he was, indeed, a potential blackmail target.  He was prepared to stay on with the Justice Dept knowing but the whole world?  That freaked him out.  Which means a foreign power, if the affair had been kept quiet, could have discovered it and could have attempted to blackmail him with it.   I'm not saying they would have succeeded.  I am saying his actions in stepping down indicate that there was reason to be concerned that he was a blackmail risk.   That's the official story.   If Blake Hall knows differently, if he knows or even suspects, that the official story isn't correct, many of us would appreciate him stating so.  Unless/until that happens, Petraeus chose to step down, he was not forced out and he chose to step down not when the government learned of his affair but when the public was about to.   That's not really "Poor Petraeus."    Michael Hastings and others like him are really responsible for ensuring freedom and accountability.  They are not the only ones.  And if Michael Hastings is involved in a sex scandal or drug scandal tomorrow, you better believe it will be in the news cycle.   Blake Hall wants Petraues to have privacy and, again illogically, seems to think that the best way for that to happen is for Hall to write a piece about it.    Seriously?   I have two friends who have been the tabloids for sometime because they both got caught cheating.  I haven't said a word about it publicly.  I've said, for Third, "You can all write about it but I have nothing to say on the matter and will not be participating."  I don't even discuss it with friends who I love but I know are prone to gossip.  Because the best way I can help the two cheaters who are embarrassed (and more importantly,the  two innocent spouses who didn't do a damn thing to warrant their marriages being held up to ridicule) is by not saying anything.  It's a tactic that Hall might want to explore if he truly wants people to stop talking about David Petraeus.  It doesn't mean they'll stop, but he'll know he hasn't helped fuel the discussion.     And Hall's not helped by using terms he's doesn't grasp the defintion of.  Fornicate with impunity?  Seriously?  That's a real grasp-the-pearl moment.  Fornication is not cheating.  Fornication is sex outside of marriage.  In America, a huge portion of people have 'fornicated.'  And most of us? We've done it "with impunity" -- gasp.  I'm sure there's a CEO fornicating somewhere without impunity right now.  But "fornicate" doesn't mean that said CEO is cheating on a spouse -- only that the CEO and whomever they are sleeping with are not married.  Maybe Hall does grasp that.  Maybe he's arguing for everyone to be a virgin until marriage?  If so, he'll probably have about the same luck with that as with getting people to stop writing about Petraeus.         iraq alsumaria all iraq news kitabat npr all things considered  kelly mcevers

xinhua

hou qiang

the new york times
tim arango

Whitney

Marcia's "Whitney and Happy Endings" went up yesterday.  "Whitney" airs on NBC Wednesday nights.

Marcia talked about Mark and wondered about my reaction?

I hate it.

The subplot of the episode was Mark opening a bar.  How's he going to run a bar and be a police officer?

He's not.  He's leaving the force.

One of the things I liked about Mark was his police work.  In Wednesday's episode he said he just liked the bar and speeding when it came to police work.  We know that's not true from last season.  For example, the episode last season when he and Whitney were going through the apartment of Roxanne's ex-husband. 

I felt like someone thought, "Uh-oh, don't know what to do with a police officer.  Let's make him a bar owner."  And I don't feel like it was handled well.

Like Marcia, I think Mark's best scene was with Lily.  She wants a lime slice for her drink and freaks out that he's going to lose everything.  She tells him about her own life, which is not going good, and though she feels awful, he feels great now.

It was the best scene Mark had in the whole episode and he needed more scenes like that.

My other problem?

I know that the actor who played Neal decided to go back to "30 Rock" (where they have only used him for one episode, what a dumb move).  But I'm getting tired -- and we're only on episode two -- of the jokes about Neal being gay.  That was not the cliffhanger last season. 

There were two more episodes.  Now it's even later, Neal's gone (no one explains why) and it's joke about Neal joke about Neal joke about Neal.

I don't want to imply that the show's not funny.  It was a hilarious episode.  But those were two things that really bothered me about the episode. 



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, November 23, 2012.  Chaos and violence continues in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani wades into the latest crisis, Iraq increases crude oil exports by 1.1%,  some in Iraq's special needs community participate in a hunger strike, Iraqi women face increased harassment from fundamentalists, David Lawly-Wakelin weighs in on protesting Tony Blair, and more.

Starting in England where David Lawley-Wakelin explains at Huffington Post UK:

Last week at Highgate Magistrates' Court, in answer to my interrupting Tony Blair whilst he was giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry, I was found guilty of causing him 'harassment, alarm or distress', and ordered to pay a £100 fine plus £250 costs.

The Leveson Inquiry was set up specifically to look into the lies and deceit of others. Some might just scream double hypocrisy when one also considers the harassment, alarm or distress caused to the families of well over half a million lives lost as the John Hopkins Bloomberg school of public health estimated (654,965 up until 2006) let alone the harassment alarm or distress to those families still giving birth to deformed babies in Fallujah.

As a nation, just as with Hillsborough, we are being asked to turn a blind eye to what millions of us believe - that former prime minister Tony Blair, in a conspiracy with George W. Bush, deceived us into a corrupt and illegal Iraq war that took the lives of well over half a million people. Since he has left office it's been reported that he has accumulated well over £60million on the back of his lies.

Knowing that Iraq was crippled from 10 years of sanctions, George W. Bush and Tony Blair believed the war would be over in months. No one would then care or notice, five years later, the business deals that would follow.

Last Friday, Oliver Laughland and Emine Saner (Guardian) reported that Lawley-Wakelin was found guilty by the court and ordered to pay 250 British pounds in court costs and another 100 pounds as a fine.  They quote him stating, For me to have been found guilty of causing Tony Blair harassment, alarm or distress, for calling him a war criminal while he is giving evidence in an inquiry that is looking into the lies and deceits of others is the greatest hypocrisy I've heard in a very long time."  From the May 29th snapshot:

Samira Shackle (New Statesman) reported that while Tony Blair gave testimony a the Royal Courts of Justice, he was shouted down with a cry of, "This man should be arrested for War Crimes!"  Tom Chivers (Telegraph of London) identifies the truth-teller as David Lawley-Wakelin who made the documentary Alternative Iraq Enquiry. Sam Lister, Rosa Silverman and Brian Farmer (Independent of London) report that Lawley-Wakelin shouted, "This man should be arrested for War Crimes.  JP Morgan paid him off for the Iraq War.  Three months after he invaded Iraq they held upt he Iraq bank for 20 billion.  He was then paid six million dollars every year and still is from JP Morgan six month after he left office.  This man is a War Criminal!" As Connor Simpson's piece for The Atlantic noted, "Tony Blair Can't Escape the Iraq War."

Suzannah Hills (Daily Mail) reports that Lawley-Wakelin appeared on James O'Brien's LBC radio program today You go through the metal detectors, any member of the public can actually go in, and I tried to get in through the front entrance of the Leveson inquiry but was evicted as I don't have any press accreditation. But I figured out there must be a back way in as Lord Leveson himself must have one.  When I got there I was surprised to find out that there was no security at all and in fact the door to the court was wide open in the same way that Lord Leveson himself would have got in there."  The Telgraph of London quotes Leveson telling the inquiry today, "Yesterday morning a man by the name of David Lawley-Wakelin interrupted and disrupted the proceedings of this Inquiry for purposes of his own.  I directed that an inquiry should take place and it has now been completed.  Appropriate measures to prevent any risk of repetition have been taken."  Lawley-Wakelin appeared on Press TV (link is video and transcript) today and was asked if War Criminal Blair would ever appear before the Hague?

Lawley-Wakelin: You know, whether he ever gets to court that's another thing.  Taking on the American government, Bush and Blair and the British government it's just an enormous thing.  There are lots of websites where you can join petitions to get Blair indicated for war crimes and perhaps one day we can hope that he will be taken down to the Hague but it's a long road and we can only hope that it will happen.  There is plenty of evidence to point towards it.  The sad thing is that the Chilcot Inquiry [so named after its chairman Sir John Chilcot] over here in England which is known as the Iraq Inquiry won't be looking into any criminal activity, they'll only be making inquiry into what went wrong in the decision-making by the politicians and the government and putting guidelines towards that but they won't be looking at all the money that washed around at the time and that Blair is still making.

War Ciminal Tony Blair is not forgotten in England where the former prime minister remains at large and is wanted for citizens arrests as noted at Arrest Blair.  Blair, Bully Boy Bush, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have all overseen the illegal war on Iraq.  They are all responsible for the state of Iraq today but it's apparently too gruesome for any of them to look straight-on.

So don't look at me sideways

Don't even look me straight on

And don't look at my hands in my pockets, baby,

I ain't done anything wrong

-- "Never Said Nothing," written by Liz Phair, first appears on Phair's Exile in Guyville

In Iraq, the political crisis on top of the political crisis continues.  And it dwarfs the original one.  Earlier this week,  Rami Ruhayem (BBC News) described the origins of the first political crisis this way:

Straight after the withdrawal of US troops at the end of last year, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, the most senior Sunni politician in Iraq.

He was accused of running death squads, tried in absentia, and sentenced to death.

And Mr [Nouri al-]Maliki has kept both the defence and interior ministries under his control, refusing to hand them over to his partners within the government.

That was alarming and had led to calls for a National Conference to resolve it -- calls by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.  But Nouri's created yet another crisis and it's so huge even some who normally stay out of the political process are wading in to try to resolve the issues.  Kitabat notes things are so fraught that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has had to weigh in to try to resolve the situation.  The Grand Ayatollah is calling for the Constitution to be followed with regards to the conflict.          All Iraq News notes that Sheikh Abdul Mahdi al-Karabalai has joined the Grand Ayatollah's call.

Along with the clergy, others are alarmed as well.  Hurriyet reports:

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan warned about a sectarian and ethnic-based civil war in Iraq on Nov. 22 and pointed to energy wars as the main motivation behind it. The next day, Iraq's Shiite-origin Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, sent a strong "Not if you trigger it" reply to Erdoğan, only to be snubbed as "delusional" by the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Almost simultaneously, al-Maliki released a photo showing the deployment of Iraqi troops to Tuzhurmatu in order to face Kurds piling up along the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) borders, despite still being part of Iraq on paper.
It is surely about energy resources. There are still untapped oil and natural gas beds in the KRG territory, for which the energy giants of the world - from Exxon and Chevron of the United States to Total of France and Gazprom of Russia (Turkish companies too) - have sealed deals with the KRG President Massoud Barzani in Arbil. Despite the strong protests of al-Maliki in Baghdad and disapproving lip service from Washington, D.C., they are not taking any steps back. Al-Maliki knows that if Kurds manage to sell their oil and gas via NATO member Turkey without interference from Arabs, Russians and Iranians, that would mean a de-facto change in Iraqi borders and sovereignty, if not de jure.

Nouri had his own response, he publicly stated that the conflict in Syria could take over Turkey, implying that the Turkish government should focus on that and not speak of Iraq.  UPI notes the response of the Turkish government, "Turkish officials labeled delusional statements by Iraqi [Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki warning sectarian violence in Syria could engulf Turkey.  Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Nouri's response also hinted that Erdogan would soon be ousted in Turkey.  Nouri declared, "Erdogan should focus his attention on addressing Turkey's domestic issues, which raise our concern, as Turkey heads toward civil war.  [. . .]  Turkish people are looking forward to changing the political situation to protect Turkey from worsening domestic and foreign problems."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/11/23/3931699/turkey-iraq-exchange-sharp-rhetoric.html#storylink=cpy

The crisis results from Nouri sending forces into the disputed areas after years of refusing to implement Article 140 of the Constitution (which states that disputed areas will be resolved via census and referendum).  The Kurds see this is as an attempt by Nouri to seize the areas and claim them for the Baghdad-based area.  Realizing too late that Barack Obama's for-show trip to Asia was a mistake, the White House is scrambling to get more face-to-face diplomats into Iraq.  (The trip was a joke and Barack made a fool of himself.  Americans didn't give a damn about the visit, his reception on the trip was lukewarm and Hillary Clinton seized all the news interest with her trip to the MidEast leaving Barack looking like a glorified extra on the world stage.)  Reuters adds:,  "Washington intervened to end a similar standoff in August and is now again in contact with Iraqi and Kurdish officials to ease tension mounting over the formation of a new command center for Iraqi forces to operate in the disputed areas."  Iran's Trend News Agency notes that Iraq's Col Dhia al-Wakeel is alleging that "Kurdish forces, backed by rocket launchers and artillery, reinforced troops already in the cities of Khaniqeen and Kirkuk on Thursday."

Iraqi politicians are attempting to resolve the issue as well.  Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi visited with KRG President Massoud Barzani Wednesday and returned to Bahgdad yesterday to meet with Nouri al-Maliki.  All Iraq News notes that they met late yesterday evening and that a statement issued by al-Nuajaif called the meeting productive.

Bit by bit, all of the political blocs are getting into the process.All Iraq News notes that the National Alliance leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari is preparing a paper on the issue.  Alsumaria notes that Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahmoud Othman is calling for Nouri al-Maliki and Massoud Barzani to sit down together (this echoes Moqtada al-Sadr's call for a working lunch between the two to be hosted by Moqtada).Kitabat reports that sources are stating Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani are discussing the option of withdrawing confidence from Nouri. Dar Addustour reports that Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi traveled to Erbil yesterday to meet with Talabani and Barzani to discuss this issue.  All Iraq News says that Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadr bloc, has given the green light for such talks.  

Rebwar Karim Wali (Rudaw) offers his opinions on the political situation:

The Shia will stand by him, and the Sunnis will too since most of his officers are former Baathist Sunnis.

Then, he thinks, if everything goes according to plan, he will turn on the Kurdistan Region and what the Kurds have achieved so far. Maliki wants to show the Kurds that Kurdistan is part of Iraq, and he does not conceal this sentiment.

At this time, Kurds and their political groups have reached a unanimous conclusion that this is Maliki's intention. In the meantime, they have admitted that they lack a united voice.

However, when the Dijla Operations Command deployed, the leader of the Change Movement (Gorran) -- who had previously sided with keeping Maliki in his seat -- went to Kirkuk and vehemently rejected the actions of the forces.

Judging from the tone of its media, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) is waging a full war against Maliki. The party's secretary general, Jalal Talabani, concurs with President Barzani that Maliki is a threat to both Iraq and Kurdistan.

Territories defined as "disputed" through constitutional Article 140 include 43 percent of Kurdish land. According to international laws, when an area is considered disputed, no one side has the right to make decisions about it unilaterally. If the two sides do not trust each other, then a third force -- often an international one -- comes to mediate.

Yesterday,  Al Mada reported Nouri' had announced that KRG officials may not leave Iraq without the permission of the federal government (his permission).  Kitabat picks up the story about Nouri al-Maliki declaring that Kuridstan officials could not leave the country without the federal government/s permission -- that would be Nouri's permission.  It is intended to be an inflammatory insult.  It has no teeth.  Not unlike when Nouri was screeching that the KRG had to hand over Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and they didn't have to do that and they didn't do that.  They will continue to do as they want.  They share a border with Turkey which doesn't take orders from Nouri.  Hurriyet Daily News notes:


The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement on its website today calling for the Iraqi government to "not make imaginary assumptions about the expectations of the Turkish public, but to listen to advice instead," according to daily Hurriyet. 
The statement was released Nov. 23 in response to a statement issued by the Iraqi Prime Ministry several days before that accused Turkey of "meddling with regional problems." 

In other news, the Telegram reports that Iraq's crude oil exports for October increased by 1.1%. According to the World Bank, Iraq's GDP for 2010 was $82.15 billion.  And yet even with increased crude oil output, Azzaman reports, "Iraq imports 70% of its needs from foreign countries, especially neighboring states, said the head of the Iraqi Chamber of Commerce Jaafar al-Hamadani."  That's the reality of Nouri's Iraq where demonstrations have not vanished. Al Mada reports that yesterday, for the third day in a row, special needs persons staged a strike outside the Kurdistan Parliament in Sulaimaniya.   They are staging a hunger strike, spokesperson Iara Mohammed explained, that the money allocated to those with special needs does not meet the most basic needs.  Azzaman notes, "The wars Iraq has gone through in the last three decades have produced a nation of disabled people -- six million out of a population of 30 millions."  Najaf alone has at least 120,000 people who are challenged or have special needs.  Meanwhile, a strike is threatened in Babylon.  Al Mada reports that teachers in Babylon are considering going on strike for, among other reasons, a lack of protection and accountability.  A school headmaster was killed and Wednesday saw demonstrations over it.  It is not felt that the death is being taken seriously or being investigated as needed.

In Iraq, Parliament's Human Rights Commission announced earlier this week that they will begin making prison inspections due to the increased reports of women being abused and treated poorly in prison, Al Mada reports.  The announcement led the Ministry of Justice to announce mid-week that they are responsible for prison interrogations.  And outside of prison?  Hanaa Edwar states, "Day after day, I am seeing more indicators that there is discrimination against women who choose not to wear hijab in Iraq."  Dina al-Shibeeb (Al Arabiya) speaks with Hanaa Edwar who founded the Iraqi Women's Network and is the General Secretary of Iraqi al-Amal Association:

Edwar, also founder of Iraqi Women's Network, sounded the alarm about attempts to force women to wear the hijab, especially in government offices.
Head of Iraq's Ministry of Women, Ibtihal Kasid al-Zubaidi, ordered in January that women working in government offices dress "modestly." Zubaidi axed tight pants, short skirts and colorful clothes.
Zubaidi, who segregated genders in her ministry, was lambasted as "anti-female" and her ministry described as an "anti-women ministry."
Edwar's Iraqi Women Network, made up of 18 civil society organizations, protested against Zubaidi's policy, describing it as seeking to curb women's civil liberties.
More women are approaching Edwar to file their complaints about government institutions and even TV channels belonging to religious political which enforce strict dress code and gender segregation.

Hanaa Edwar also decries the increase in temporary marriages in Iraq.  Kelly McEvers (NPR's  All Things Considered -- link is audio and text) reported on temporary marriages in October of 2010 with Robert Siegel observing in the introduction that the practice is popular in Iraq but had not been in Iraq where it was banned by Saddam Hussein.  After the US invaded Iraq in 2003, things changed.  Excerpt:

KELLY MCEVERS: This woman is so ashamed about what happened to her, she doesn't want to give her name. A mother of three, she says her husband abandoned her when she found out he preferred men. She had no way to support the family.

Unidentified Woman: (Foreign language spoken) 

MCEVERS: A religious figure in her neighborhood promised to help. He brought her to his home, locked the door and had sex with her. He offered her $15.
For the man at least, it was a brief moment of muta'a, the Arabic word for pleasure and the Arabic word for temporary marriage.

Unidentified Woman: (Foreign language spoken)

MCEVERS: The woman says the man who had sex with her worked with leading Shiite religious clerics in the Iraqi City of Najaf. It's one of the most revered places in Shiite Islam.
We're standing on a main street in the Holy City of Najaf. Just down some of these smaller streets are the offices of the Marjah. That's the four top clergymen for the Shiite community in all of Iraq.

Al Mada notes that Parliament's Integrity Commission disputes their ranking by Transparency International on the corruption index.  Today is the International Day to End Impunity.  Transparency International explains:

Friday, 23 November marks the International Day to End Impunity. At Transparency International we view impunity as getting away with bending the law, beating the system or escaping punishment. Impunity is anathema to the fight against corruption.
Earlier this month, activists, businesspeople, politicians, public officials, journalists, academics, youth and citizens who convened at the 15^th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Brazil made it clear that transparency alone is not enough but must be accompanied by prosecution and punishment.
In a joint declaration, the gathering of 1,900 representatives from 140 countries called on political, business and community leaders everywhere "to embrace not only transparency in public life but a culture of transparency leading to a participatory society in which leaders are accountable."
"We are watching those who act with impunity and we will not let them get away with it," said the declaration, adopted in Brasília on 10 November.
The International Day to End Impunity is organized by IFEX, a global network that defends and promotes free expression. Events in more than 14 countries raise public awareness about what creates and sustains a culture of impunity. Transparency International supports the goals of protecting journalists and others engaged in the vitally important work of exposing corruption.

Dictionary definition of impunity im·pu·ni·ty  [im-pyoo-ni-tee]
noun
1. exemption from punishment.
2. immunity from detrimental effects, as of an action.

Many of Transparency International's some 100 national chapters are involved in initiatives that work toward ending impunity for corruption in their country, including helping in the detection of corruption, facilitating access to the judiciary, strengthening the judiciary's independence and capacity, or by analysing and monitoring how corruption cases are being judged.
TI's Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs) offer the opportunity for citizens to pursue complaints about corruption. ALACs also play an instrumental role in identifying corruption hotspots that demand reform or official action. These centres are already functioning in more than 50 countries.
Our Rwandan ALAC pursued a case of land grabbing involving a mining cooperative president who sought to renew the mine's certificate under his name. With the help of the ALAC, an investigation was launched with the Public Prosecutor Authority; after being taken to court the cooperative president's was sentenced to 10 years in jail and fined nearly US$3,500.
Many TI chapters have conducted election monitoring, including in Serbia, Bahrain and the Dominican Republic. In Venezuela, our chapter is part of an initiative, Alerta Electoral, which monitors electoral irregularities including potential misuse of taxpayer money by political candidates.
Several TI chapters are also working to improve whistleblower protections by advocating for strong legislation and assisting whistleblowers. These include chapters in Hungary, Lebanon and Zambia.
Our chapter in Ireland has established "Speak Up", a free, secure helpline and online system for employees considering reporting wrongdoing. The Ireland chapter is also campaigning for the passage of a national whistleblower law that would cover all employees.
The need to fight impunity was also stressed at the closing session of the 15^th International Anti-Corruption Conference, which called for the promotion of a culture of transparency leading to a participatory society in which leaders are held accountable.
Transparency International believes that 'impunity undermines integrity everywhere' and is proud to participate on 23 November along with citizens who are fighting to end impunity for corruption and other crimes.

Press contact(s):

Chris Sanders
Manager, Media and Public Relations
press@transparency.org
+49 30 3438 20 666

iraq

bbc news
rami ruhayem
al mada
alsumaria
all iraq news
kitabat
hurriyet daily news

gulf news

khalaf al habtoor

al rafidayn 

mcclatchy newspapers
roy gutman

rudaw

rebwar karim wali

al arabiya

dina al-shibeeb 

npr
all things considered

robert siegel

kelly mcevers

iraq iraq