Never Been Gone was released today. The packaging is really something. If you download, great. But if you're on the fence, I'd say get the CD for the packaging.
What CD?
Carly Simon's new one. What, do you live under a rock?
Never Been Gone is her latest album. It may be her last one. She wasn't planning on making anymore. That makes me really sad.
We did "The Carly Roundtable" at Third Sunday. I went last because there are six all-time favorite Carly albums for me. I figured I'd go last and that way cover something that might not get covered otherwise. I explained that with, "I asked to go last because there are about six albums I could pick as my favorite. So I figured I'd go last and grab one that wasn't already picked. I believe the choices are Spy from 1979 or last year's This Kind Of Love and, sadly, that doesn't help a great deal. I guess This Kind Of Love wins by a hair."
I apparently wasn't clear because I had an e-mail that said/asked, "So you don't like Spy or This Kind Of Love?"
No, I love both of them. With the two left to discuss, I wasn't helped because I could go with either and loved both but This Kind Of Love won by a hair.
I write about my brother a lot, you may have noticed.
I have two sisters as well who are just sweet and wonderful and, yes, gorgeous.
I'm not last of the litter but gorgeous wasn't what anyone said about me growing up. My mother was gorgeous, my sisters were, so I knew about gorgeous. And I was more of a tom-boy.
And my brother and I got along great from the start. Music was something we shared and he was the one who introduced me to Carly. And Carly's albums mean a lot to me. All of them.
I have six all time favorites but there's not one I can't listen to an enjoy.
So the thought that this could be the last one Carly does just makes me want to cry, to be honest. Her music's been such an important part of my life.
Mainly during break ups and the end of marriage, to be honest.
Carly's song really speak to me but especially when everything's falling apart.
And her music's the nudge that reminds me, "Hey, you've got three kids, you don't have time to wallow. This is life and it's up and down." Or, as she'd sing, coming around again.
I really love the new album and all the songs. "We can never, we can never know." ("Anticipation.") "The things they'll never be" (added to "Their children hate them for the things they're not" on "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be").
Joni Mitchell's albums are always something I listen to when I'm identifying the problem, whatever it is. Carly's are the encouragement to deal with it.
So I'm just really a bit sad, honestly. Thinking this might be the last one.
But that said, she's certainly worked hard enough and long enough to have earned her right to walk away with her head held high if that's what she chooses to do.
And she's also done a really amazing album if this is the last one.
If you haven't checked it out, please make a point to do so. It's really something.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, October 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq wants to go nuclear, Thomas E. Ricks repeats the lies that sold the illegal war (connecting Iraq to you know what), if your loved one takes his or her own life while serving in a war zone the President of the United States sends you no letter expressing sorrow, and more.
Frank Sesno was the guest host on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today and the first hour was devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sesno spoke with McClatchy Newspapers Nancy A. Youssef, Wall St. Journal's Peter Spiegel and Crazy Ass Thomas E. Ricks.
Frank Sesno: Tom Ricks, let's start with these incredible bombings in Iraq and the shockwave they've sent through the military and the political systems there. What signal were they intended -- intending to send?
Thomas E. Ricks: I think they were intended to send the signal that [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki does not have the control over Iraq that he asserts and that's really his sole campaign plank -- is look "You may not like me, you may not like how we're running the government but at least you're feeling safer" and I think was designed to undermine that. I was struck -- I read this morning that one of the trucks used to do the bombings was stolen in Falluja which indicates it probably came out of Anbar Province.
Frank Sesno: Which means?
Thomas E. Ricks: Which means a Sunni extrimist probably working with al Qaeda. Simeloutaneous large blast is one of the al Qaeda signatures that they like to do. We all remember that from 9-11.
Did Thomas E. Ricks just make a total idiot of himself? Yes, he did. He attempted to conflate al Qaeda in Mesopotomia with the al Qaeda group thought to be responsible for 9-11. The two are not related. Thomas E. Ricks is worse than George W. Bush because Ricks actually had a semi-functioning brain that wasn't destroyed via drink and cocaine. But that didn't stop him from conflating two separate things. al Qaeda in Mespotamia is a homegrown (Iraqi) group. It did not exist prior to the 2003 invasion. It is a response to the 2003 invasion. And Thomas E. Ricks needs to learn to choose his words a little more carefully. With each day, he drifts further and further from journalism.
What a moron. That anyone -- let alone a journalist -- would attempt to conflate 9-11 and Iraq at this late date is offensive. That a journalist would do so -- knowing full well that this conflation helped sell the illegal war -- helped sell it because the news media refused to call it out -- the same ones that will fact check a Saturday Night Live skit -- is just beyond belief. But notice that on the program, they just moved along past Crazy Ass Thomas Ricks -- not unlike they ignored that LIE when it was sold by the Bush administration. There WAS NO and IS NO connection between Iraq and 9-11 -- no matter what Thomas E. Ricks jibber-jabbers.
Frank Sesno: Which means, Nancy Youseff that Iraq is what? No where near as stable as the previous lull had indicated?
Nancy A. Youssef: Well it indicates that sectarian violence is still continuing despite the US military assertion that it's not as aggressive as it would be. These were Sunni attackers hitting Shia government buildings. It's an effort to sort of revitalize the sectarian fighting and I think it raises questions about ultimately what Iraqis and what Americans consider acceptable levels of violence in Iraq. Can these sort of occassional bombings -- you'll remember that the last one was in August -- will the Iraqis accept it? Will the Americans accept it as a condition for their leaving? That-that attacks will continue to go on? There are fewer attacks but they're becoming more and more spectacular.
Frank Sesno: And, Peter, at a critical critical moment.
Peter Spiegel: It is a critical moment because you have elections coming up in January. And just to not be overly pessimistic here 'cause, as Nancy mentioned, there was a very similar attack in August, we did not see the country descend into another round of sectarian violence. That's the good news. The other good news, as Tom pointed out, they seemed to be very political oriented. There are elections coming up. You know Maliki is vying for position with other Shia parties, with other Sunni parties. Is this just a domestic political issue being expressed through violence? If that's the case, there's an argument that as long as there's some sort of Sunni outlet through the political system, this may eventually go away. Now the problem is there appears to be no Sunni outlet for legitimate political expression right now because most of the parties are still dominated by Shi'ites and a lot of the government institutions are dominated by Shias -- they're using them to suppress Sunnis in the country. So as long as that continues, as long as there's no legitimate way for Sunnis to express their political outrage this stuff could continue.
Frank Sesno: Do you expect this stuff to continue?
Thomas E. Ricks: I do actually. The last line in the last book I've written on Iraq, The Gamble, is a quote from [former US] Ambassador [to Iraq] Ryan Crocker. He said to me twice in the course of 2008, "The events for which the Iraq War will be remembered have not yet occurred." There's a significant chance that the war will go on for another five to ten years. I think we're going to have American troops there for many, many years. They'll call them "trainers" and "advisors" but this war is far from over.
Frank Sesno: But Tom as they leave, as we have pulled out of the cities and as we withdraw to concentrated areas around the country, what vulnerability then does this latest string of events suggest for the innocent public in Iraq trying desparately to put their lives back together again because it suggest the vulnarability is extreme.
Thomas E. Ricks: Recently, the former mayor of Tal Afar, a city up in the northwest, wrote a very interesting essay in which he said all the conditions for civil war in Iraq are still there. This is why I think the civil war failed. It succeeded tactically, it improved security.
Frank Sesno: For the moment.
Thomas E. Ricks: Yes, but it's purpose was to lead to a political breakthrough and that didn't happen. That's not my saying what the purpose was, that's what the president said the purpose was.
Frarnk Sesno: Nancy, I see you nodding your head.
Nancy A. Youssef: Yeah, you know, what's interesting is that when you ask them at the Pentagon, "Look there have been two massive attacks in the last few months and what are you going to do?" And there's sort of a shrugging of the shoulders. The Status Of Forces Agreement calls for us to leave and the Pentagon's focused on Afghanistan now and yet if you go right below the surface you can feel from soldiers who have served, who wear braclets of fallen comrades, the frustration that potentially the United States is leaving as sloppily as it entered, that you've got 120,000 troops still based in Iraq and yet nothing is being done to-to-to stop this. The-the line --
Frarnk Sesno: Nothing is being done to stop this?
Nancy A. Youssef: No, because the line at the Pentagon is "We're asking for Maliki to ask us for help" or we're waiting for something like the Samarra mosque bombing. But if it gets to that level, it's already too late. I mean the Samarra mosque bombing didn't happen in a vacuum. That was a building of sectarian violence that manifested itself in a very violent way.
Peter Spiegel: One other issue, there are still 120,000 troops in Iraq which everyone seems to forget, which is about the levels they were pre-surge, which is still a very big level. But what is happening in sort of the granularity of that is a lot of assets that are needed to track down these bombing networks -- the UAVs, the unmanned drones, the intelligence assets -- all that is being sucked away to Afghanistan. And having spent time with General [Ray] Odierno, who is the commander there, a year ago, his-his real -- the thing he's most proud of is the ability to track down these networks through human intelligence through systems like unmanned drones and dismantle them. Well if you move all those assets to Afghanistan, are you still able to dismantle all those bombing networks that are still clearly sort of roving freely in Baghdad and be able to do these kind of things?
Frarnk Sesno: These bombs went off near three government buildings -- three important government buildings. How much of a set back does this present to the fledgling, struggling Iraqi government itself?
Nancy A. Youssef: I don't think we know yet. I mean, you saw the government try to respond by passing an election law which they've been debating for several months now as a way to sort of speak up. I think you're seeing Maliki -- it hurts Maliki the most, as Tom mentioned, because his political platform, his election platform is "I bring security to you." You saw rival political parties trying to exploit that.
Nancy A. Youssef was referring to a proposal put together by the Political Council for National Security and then passed on to Parliament. That was a proposal made (with much fanfare) yesterday. Like just about everything else on the governance front in Iraq, it fell apart. John Leland (New York Times) reports there was no consensus today and that they are at a stalemate, "another blockage in negotiations that have dragged on for weeks, threatening national elections scheduled for January 16th." 'Scheduled'? I believe the appropriate term is intended. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) adds that the issue of Kirkuk was the falling out point for the "proposal submitted by a high-ranking council that included Maliki and President Jalal Talabani." Repeating, no election law. Still.
Staying on Sunday's bombings, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reported this morning that credit for the bombings is allegedly being claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq and he noted that "rescue workers continued to pull bodies out of the rubble Monday". Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation via CBS News website) observes:
The perpetrators of the huge bomb attacks are unknown. Not unexpectedly, every Iraqi faction is blaming its enemies. Maliki is blaming Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Baathists, but at the very least the attacks have severely hurt Maliki's main cliam to leadership, namely, that he's kept Iraq safe. Many Sunnis are blaming Iran, charging that Iran's intelligence service is orchestrating the Baghdad attacks in order to force Maliki to abandon his independent electoral stance and sign on to the Shiite bloc, the Iraqi National Alliance. And, indirectly speaking for the Shiite bloc, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has blamed "foreign agents" for the attacks:
"The bloody actions being committed in some Islamic countries, including Iraq, Pakistan and in some parts of the country (Iran), are aimed at creating division between the Shiites and Sunnis.... Those who carry out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents." Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombings, but such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Sunday's bombings resulted in some TV coverage for Iraq yesterday. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, click here for the video of that segment
Ann Curry: We turn now to Iraq, still reeling from massive explosions that wrecked three buildings in Baghdad on Sunday. The dead now number more than 150. Hundreds more are injured. And the attacks raise the question: can the Iraqi government keep the lid on? The latest tonight from NBC's Tom Aspell. Tom Aspell: Grief and shock today at some of the funerals for bombings in Baghdad. Iraqi police and hospitals now say that up to thirty children from a day care center at the Justice Ministry are among the dead. The second blast was captured on a cell phone. The blast destroyed two government buildings outside the Green Zone in central Baghdad. Iraqi officials said at least 150 people were killed, at least 500 people were wounded. A security spokesman said two buses were used to carry the explosives -- 2,000 pounds in one and 1500 pounds in the other. It was the worst attack in Baghdad for two years. This morning Iraqis were blaming the government for lax security issues. There are checkpoints every one-hundred yards How did these vehicles come here" asked this man. Iraqi troops were patrolling Baghdad streets this morning. The government is warning there could be more attacks before elections in three months time. Tom Aspell, NBC News, London.
Also covering the bombings was PBS' NewsHour (link has text, audio and video options) and this an excerpt:JANE ARRAF [Christian Science Monitor]: It has. The death toll looks like it's going past about 150, Ray, and hundreds more wounded. And more than that, a lot of questions being raised as to how this actually could have happened just two months after the horrific bombing of the Finance and Foreign Ministries. Now, yesterday, at the site, there were absolute scenes of devastation, people sobbing, carrying away wounded relatives, trying to find their relatives, and pretty much chaos for the first little while. The streets were flooded. Rescue workers were trying to wade through bystanders. It really was one of the most horrific scenes that many of us have seen in quite a long time. We had kind of thought this was over with. And now it seems to have started again. And that is definitely the feeling that you feel on the streets, that things could very much get worse again.RAY SUAREZ: You mentioned that August attack. At the time, weren't measures put in place to make this kind of operation less likely in Baghdad?JANE ARRAF: Absolutely. That August attack, which killed at least 100 people with an eerily similar attack, a truck packed with explosives in two different places, and a suicide attack, at that, was actually a wakeup call. And it was said to have been a systemic failure -- failure of security. Now, the Iraqi government responded by firing some senior Iraqi security officials. It said it put new measures in place. I spoke with a senior American official today who said, indeed, they had put measures in place. But it has not prevented these two bombings, which, again, were eerily similar. These were trucks traveling streets where no trucks are supposed to be in daytime. They apparently went through checkpoints, where they should have been checked, but weren't. And they managed to explode in one of the busiest times of the day, in one of the most packed places in Baghdad, killing government workers, as well as passersby, including children.
ABC World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson covered the bombings.Charlie Gibson: In Iraq meanwhile the funerals began today in the wake of the stunning twin bombings that tore through the heart of Baghdad yesterday. The death toll is now 155 with the grim discovery that 24 children at a day care center were among those killed. The attacks raised questions about Iraq's security. Miguel Marquez was at the scene of the blasts.Miguel Marquez: The devastation is almost unimaginable, buildings shredded as far as the eye can see, glass, blood splattered clothing and burned rubber. When the bombs went off they shattered the relative calm here. Six months ago this street was off limits to traffic but with security improving the barriers were lifted. An investigation is now underway into how two vehicles carrying 1500 pounds of explosives each including military grade C4, got through multiple military checkpoints before reaching their targets. Despite all the security agencies the government here is helpless he says, they only cause traffic jams. Today Iraqis begin the wrenching task of burying their loved ones. Comfort was in short supply. They blame their government for failing to stop the violence. This is the hole created by the explosion. It goes down about twenty-five feet. The blast was so powerful they burst a water main, flooding this section of Baghdad. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who faces re-election in January has campaigned on his ability to make Iraq safer. His opponents say this bombings proves the military is infiltratedIraqi National Security Advisor Mouwaffak Rubaie: What we need to concentrate on is enabling our intelligence agencies. This is an intelligence led war now. Miguel Marquez: The bombings are especially shocking because security here has improved by leaps and bounds in the last two years. Construction is everywhere and night life has made a roaring comeback. [An Iraqi woman speaks.] "We have one quiet week and then the next week things get worse," she says. "The security situation is still the same." The US military says it is assisting in the investigation but there are no plans to increase US patrols here nor slow the rate of pulling US forces out of Iraq. Miguel Marquez, ABC News, Baghdad.
Not everyone provided significant time for the news. CBS Evening News (Harry Smith sitting in for Katie Couric) reduced it to a five-sentence headline. Remember that when you've heard a story and are trying to select an evening newscast in order to find out what happened. It was just a headline to CBS Evening News. Oliver August (Times of London) quotes a government employee stating, "Sadness is overwhelming today in the office. It's as if we are sitting at a funeral in the office because many of our colleagues and people we know were killed." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes an employee injured in the bombings, Shauki Abdul Jabar, stating, "There is no security, no hope." And he reports on three men searching through the rubble for some sign of Youssef Musen Nouri, their four-year-old nephew whom they now assume is dead. It wasn't just a passing headline to any of those people.
The heartbeat went out of our house
The rhythm went out of our romance
But in life that happens and you just have to remember to breathe . . .
-- "Coming Around Again," written by Carly Simon from her new recording on Never Been Gone.
Meanwhile Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports, "Baghdad governor on Tuesday said that his council voted to demand resignation of Iraqi minister of interior and chief of Baghdad operations command over Sunday's bloody blasts that enraged Iraqis and shaped a setback to the Iraqi government which struggle to restore normalcy in the country nearly three months ahead of the country's national elections." Sammy Ketz (Mail & Guardian) adds that Baghdad Governor Salah Abdul Razzaq said of the bombings (after viewing video footage of it), "It's a human failure . . . It can only be negligence or collusion."
And while these bombings are fresh on everyone's mind, someone might want to ask who in the world thinks nuclear power is needed in Iraq? What if a nuclear reactor were in Iraq and had been targeted on Sunday. It's something people better start considering. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports:
Iraq has started lobbying for approval to again become a nuclear player, almost 19 years after British and American war planes destroyed Saddam Hussein's last two reactors, the Guardian has learned.
The Iraqi government has approached the French nuclear industry about rebuilding at least one of the reactors that was bombed at the start of the first Gulf war. The government has also contacted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations to seek ways around resolutions that ban Iraq's re-entry into the nuclear field.
Iraq says it envisages that a reactor would be used initially for research purposes. "We are co-operating with the IAEA and expanding and defining areas of research where we can implement nuclear technology for peaceful means," the science and technology minister, Raid Fahmi, told the Guardian.
From future violence to some of today's reported violence, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 shop owner was shot dead in Mosul and 1 "young man" was shot dead in Mosul.
Turning to the US, today on Democracy Now! (link has text, audio and video options), Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Amy Goodman spoke with Chancellor Keesling's parents Jannett and Gregg Keesling. Their son, Chancellor, was serving in Iraq, on his second deployment, when he apparently took his own life earlier this year.
JANNETT KEESLING: I spoke to Chancellor the night before he died for about four minutes. And as always, he wore a really tough exterior, because even after conversations with some of the soldiers after he died, no one saw that he was in any type of distress or trouble. I know they say he was sleeping. He was happy that morning. He was singing.
But what he did tell me that night is that he was going to have a very long, difficult day. His conversation was quite brief. Normally he would say that he loves me, and he would say goodbye. But this time he simply hung up. I had the feeling that something was definitely bothering him more than the norm. And the next thing we knew, they were at our door saying that he had --
GREGG KEESLING: He had passed.
JANNETT KEESLING: -- passed away.
AMY GOODMAN: Where was he?
JANNETT KEESLING: But nobody saw.
GREGG KEESLING: He was at Camp Stryker in Baghdad. And he --
AMY GOODMAN: And what did they explain to you? What happened?
GREGG KEESLING: That he had gone to a latrine and locked himself in the latrine and took his own life, with his M4.
[. . .]
GREGG KEESLING: Well, I just -- we do not believe our son would have taken his life if he had been here at home. This would not have happened. This is directly related to his military service. Our casualty officer -- the military has been very, very, very good to us in helping us. And our casualty officer, though, said the same thing, that "We do not believe your son would have taken his life if he was back home." And, you know, every other benefit that the military provides to families has been afforded to us. We were flown to Dover to greet the body, in a very emotional experience. And we had a military burial and the twenty-one-gun salute. And Jannett was presented the American flag, which is a very moving ceremony. But the issue of presidential condolences -- in fact, we were shocked. I began -- President Obama has set up the suicide task force, and I began to talk with Brigadier General Colleen McGuire and members of staff there, and they were very helpful and wonderful. And during those conversations, I mentioned, "By the way, you know, when do you think the letter comes from the President?" And she goes, "I don't know. I'll check it out." And we talked again a few times. And every time at the end of the conversation, you know, "How are you guys doing?" and all that. And I said, "By the way, when are we going to get the letter from the President?" And on our third conversation, one of the staff members said to me, "Oh, my god, Mr. Keesling, I've just discovered there's a longstanding policy that prevents the President from acknowledging the death of a soldier who takes his life in the war theater by his own hand." And I nearly dropped to my knees. I was shocked. And I just said to her that I think this is a policy that should change. Our loss is no different. He was on his second tour. The investigative report shows that he was a good soldier. One of my favorite comments in the report is that his unit commander said, or unit leader says, "I wish I had fifteen Keeslings." He was a good soldier. He helped other soldiers. In fact, there's a soldier back stateside today who was at risk of suicide that Chancy intervened to help. And we got his uniform back, and when my sister was packing away the uniform, she found in the pocket and pulled out the suicide information card. He had it in his pocket of his uniform. And he helped other soldiers, but he was unable to help himself. And so, our grief is deep. And, you know, the letter won't stop -- we'll still be hollow inside for the rest of our lives, but the acknowledgement from the President that our son gave his life in service to the causes of the United States is important to us, and I think it should be important to the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of suicide victims in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. It's my understanding that the suicide rate in the military has, for the first time, surpassed the civilian suicide rate. The mental health issues are quite severe. And so, we're just simply appealing to the President to change the policy, to offer condolences to the families, like ours, that are struggling and suffering with the unique form of suffering a military suicide leaves in its wake. And it's been especially hard for us.
The suicide rate has repeatedly increased and the stories of it are usually 'this happened, then that happened' in a sort of timeline manner that rarely connects the death to the loss those who survive feel. The parents expressed their loss today and on July 31st, on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, guest host Susan Paige spoke with a caller who wanted to address this topic.
Susan Paige: Let's go to Pamela. She's calling us from New Jersey. Pamela, thanks so much for calling.
Pamela: Yes. Good morning, how are you? Thank you for taking my call. I am responding to a comment I heard earlier and it really just like shot me in my heart. And the comment was that the suicide rates [in the US military] are skyrocketing and how this has to be addressed. And I literally like I said stopped dead in my tracks. I . . . lost my brother in service due to suicide. He was home on a leave and, uh, about to be, pardon me, to go back and to serve and, uh, was, uh -- the difficulty in getting the mental health services I believe that he needed -- I mean he was married with two children -- was most, most difficult and delayed and a long wait and this and that. And then the unfathomable happened and, uh, when I, uh, at times decided to share how he died rather than just say he died in the war and I would say he died by suicide the remark I would hear unfortunately was, "Oh my goodness, he didn't die a hero then." And-and I continually hear this and I guess I want to make a statement that how someone dies, um, should not be -- that -- that is not a definition of how they lived their lives. And here was a good man who gave and did so much for the community and yet because of how he died -- which you know is a mental illness health related, etc. etc. -- he is now being defined as -- not -- as a zero. And not being defined. And I think you know this-this suicide issue is getting way out of control and for every person that dies by suicide there are at least six to ten people that are horribly effected as well to the point where their mental health also, uh, you know, begins to fall apart and the whole mental health, how to get help, starts all over again. And I should say that the support groups for those that lose a loved one by suicide are now separated from regular grief groups and while attending one and sharing how my loved one died, people were going around the room, people said to me, "Oh my God, why is she here?" I've been asked to leave meetings because -- grief support meetings -- because of how my brother died and I don't think that's fair or correct or right and, um, so the issue goes far beyond the pain of losing a loved one and is extremely complicated. And, um, I wanted to share all that. And if ever anybody hears of someone that dies of a suicide please just say "I'm sorry for your loss" and ask about the person. And don't say anything cruel or unkind because, again, how one lives their entire life for 38 years should not be defined by a, you know, a irrational moment that effects -- that became a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Changing topics, Senator Carl Levin's office released the following statement yesterday:WASHINGTON -- Calling the plight of religious minorities in Iraq "a tragic consequence" of the war there, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today introduced a Senate resolution calling on the U.S. government, Iraqi government and United Nations Mission in Iraq to take steps to alleviate the dangers facing these minority groups. Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined Levin in sponsoring the sense of the Senate resolution. "While violence has declined in Iraq overall, religious minorities continue to be the targets of violence and intimidation," Levin said. "Members of many minority groups who have fled other parts of the country have settled in the north, only to find themselves living in some of the most unstable and violent regions of Iraq. We strongly urge the Iraqi government, the United Nations and the U.S. government to address this crisis without delay." Of approximately 1.4 million Christians of various denominations living in Iraq in 2003, only 500,000 to 700,000 remain. Another minority group, the Sabean Mandeans, has seen its population decline by more than 90 percent. Iraq's Jewish community, once one of the largest in the Arab world, has almost ceased to exist.According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, members of religious minorities "have experienced targeted intimidation and violence, including killings, beatings, abductions, and rapes, forced conversions, forced marriages, forced displacement from their homes and businesses, and violent attacks on their houses of worship and religious leaders." The U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees reported that in 2008, there were an estimated 2.8 million internally displaced persons living in Iraq. Of that 2.8 million, nearly two out of three reported fleeing their home because of a direct threat to their lives, and, of that number, almost nine out of ten said they were targeted because of their ethnic or religious identity. The resolution introduced by the senators addresses the tragedy in several ways. It states the sense of the Senate that the fate of Iraqi religious minorities is a matter of grave concern and calls on the U.S. government and the United Nations to urge Iraq's government to increase security at places of worship, particularly where members of religious minorities are known to face risks. The resolution calls for the integration of regional and religious minorities into the Iraqi security forces, and for those minority members to be stationed within their own communities. The resolution calls on the Iraqi government to ensure that minority citizens can participate in upcoming elections, and to enforce its constitution, which guarantees "the administrative, political, cultural, and educational rights" of minorities. Finally, it urges a series of steps to ensure that development aid and other forms of support flow to minority communities in Iraq.
And lastly Carly Simon's latest album is released, Never Been Gone. The twelve track album is Carly dipping into her songwriting canon and providing two new songs and ten re-imaginings of earlier favorites including "You're So Vain," "Let The River Run" (her Grammy, Academy Award and Golden Globe winning song as Diane Sawyer pointed out yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America), "Anticipation," "You Belong To Me," "That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be" and "The Right Thing To Do." Tomorrow Carly's on NBC's The Today Show, Thursday's she's on Tavis Smiley (PBS) and also on NPR's Talk Of The Nation.
iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
mcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefnbc newsnbc nightly news with brian williamsann currytom aspellpbsthe newshourray suarezjane arrafthe christian science monitorabc newsworld news tonight with charlie gibsonmiguel marquez
the times of london
oliver augustmartin chulov
the washington posternesto londono
carly simon
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Mondays
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "'Feminist' Naomi Wolf speaks"
Love the cartoon and, sorry, I will never forget Wolf for that little stunt she pulled where she treated a well groomed Black woman like she was a piece of s**t (Madame C.J. Walker -- treated like dog s**t by Wolf in Wolf''s Fire With Fire). I'm real sorry that Naomi can't see Walker as sexnual and every other 'important' quality she ascribes to the White woman she compares Madame C.J. Walker too. Compares her unfavorably too.
There's a word for White women like Naomi Wolf and it is not "feminist."
"JOAN WALSH FOR PRESIDENT! Joan’s first quoted paragraph tells the truth. Darlings! It just isn’t done" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
In 2005, Krugman called our health care spending “amazing”—and he noted that the Brits spent only 40 percent as we spend, per person. But uh-oh! As of 2007, the United States was spending two to three times as much, per person, as all large European nations, including the countries Krugman praised above Britain. France was spending $3601 per person. We were spending $7290. (Great Britain: $2992. On-line, Krugman recently said that all these countries get relatively similar health outcomes.)
Those facts are beyond amazing. But this astonishing situation has disappeared in Krugman’s current column. Throughout today’s column, Krugman adopts a very weak standard for evaluating the effects of reform on health care spending: Health reform should “contain rising costs,” he says or implies throughout. But an obvious question obtains: If we’re spending two to three times as much as other nations—other nations with similar outcomes—why should our costs be rising at all? Why wouldn’t successful reform—an “overhaul,” even—reduce what we spend on health care? In 2008, Candidate Obama was talking about reducing the costs of insurance premiums—by $2500, he said. (He no longer talks about that.) Why should it be the goal of Massachusetts—or of national reform—to permit the continuing rise of costs which are “amazing?”
There may be an answer to that question—a question which is, of course, never asked. But until someone supplies the answer, let’s stick with the obvious: In part, Massachusetts citizens are happy with their reforms because they simply don’t understand how much extra they—or their employers; or their state government—are spending on their health care. To use a phrase from Krugman’s column, there hasn’t been a “huge popular backlash,” in Massachusetts or anywhere else, in part because the public simply doesn’t know how much they are getting ripped off.
It really has been sad to watch the decay of Paul Krugman. Trina used to chart it. She finally gave up because it was so depressing. He will write anything these days and it's gone beyond his emphasizing the glass is full to his insisting that a glass of vinegar is actually holy wine. Whatever, Paul, whatever.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's death toll from yesterday's massive bombings rises and includes children, finger-pointing becomes the favorite past-time, a US 'helper' and his ties to an oil company are explored, a US Iraq War resister seeks sanctuary in a Canadian church, and more.
Sunday Baghdad saw bombings resulting in a higher death total than Black Wednesday, Bloody Wednesday, Gory Wednesday August 19th. Eleanor Hall (Australia's ABC's The World Today -- link has text and audio) explained, "Twin suicide bombers targeted the Iraqi Ministry of Justice all but destroying the government department's headquarters, which are just outside the high-security 'green zone' in the centre of Baghdad." Shane McLeod added, "The sound of the second blast was captured by a mobile phone video camera being used to survey the aftermath of the first. Targeted was the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, just a few hundred metres from the fortified green zone in Baghdad." Sahar Issa and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that Iraqi government figures are stating that "a water tanker and a refrigerated food truck" were used in the attacks. This morning, Jack Kimball and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that the death toll has climbed and is currently at 155 with over five hundred left injured. Rod Nordland (New York Times) observes that "an uncertain number of children" are among the dead. CBS News and AP add that 24 "children who were killed were on a bus leaving a daycare center near the Justice Ministry when the attack occurred".
Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) sketch out yesterday's assault, "Cars clogges the road as tehy approached the traffic circle in front of the Justice Ministry, with its statue of modern Iraq's first ruler, King Faisal, mounted on a horse. An old white pickup truck had broken down by the traffic circle and its driver approached a policeman and started yelling. [. . .] It was then that the first of two car bombs exploded on opposite ends of the block." Xinhua adds, "Xinhua correspondent at the scene said that he saw ponds of blood and parts of human bodies scattered close to the blast site near the Mansour Hotel where the wreckage of dozens of civilian cars could be seen near the site." Martin Chulov (Guardian) offers, "Witnesses described body parts sprawled across the area. Mohammed Falah, was caught in the blast: 'There was a woman's leg next to me. I picked it up and gave it to the ambulance'."
Sharif Abdel Kouddous (Democracy Now! -- link has text, video and audio) asked Rick Rowley for his take on the bombings today:
Well, first of all, the first thing to say is that, you know, there is no peace in Iraq, that these bombings, first of all, put the lie once again to the three myths that we've been pushed about the war in Iraq: first, the story that the war is over; second, that we won the war; and third, that the lessons of this victory can be applied to Afghanistan. The fact is that what passes for calm in Iraq today isn't peace at all; it's a fragile, fraying truce after a brutal sectarian civil war, and it's a truce without reconciliation that -- because it's put in place a system that is a continuing engine for violence, and tragedies like these are a legacy of the American occupation and will remain one for years to come. So, bombings like these today -- or on Sunday were attempts -- I mean, you know, they're being blamed on al-Qaeda in Iraq, and it seems likely that it was a group like al-Qaeda in Iraq that carried them out. And there are attempts by those extreme elements inside the Sunni insurgency to target the Shiite-led government, which they see as their sectarian enemy, but also to try to draw the Shiite militias back into an all-out civil war that could unite the Shiites again in their resistance. I mean, bombings like the ones on Sunday are remarkable for their massive scale, the carnage they cause, but there are multiple bombings in Iraq every single week.
[. . .]
And yeah, absolutely, I mean, the government in Baghdad is seen by al-Qaeda in Iraq and by the extremists inside the Sunni resistance as a proxy, as an Iranian proxy, dominated by the Supreme Council and by the Dawa Party, both parties that were -- well, I mean, the Supreme Council was formed in Iran, and Dawa, you know, spent most of its existence in Iran. And, you know, these parties were put by the US in mid-2004, were put in charge of the government, and their militias were turned into the core of the Iraqi security structure. So, as the civil war kicked off, the main protagonists in the civil war were militias inside the police force that were -- came from these parties and, you know, versus Sunni insurgents on the outside who were doing bombings and these kinds of soft-target attacks on civilians. So, you know, clearly, I mean, institutions and ministries that are controlled by ISCI, the Supreme Council, and by Dawa are definitely seen as sectarian enemies. I mean, the Ministry of Justice, as well, you know, it's -- the police and the court system have been seen in the -- I mean, not so much the court system. The police and the prison system in Iraq have been seen as one of the tools in the sectarian fight that the Shiite militias have used from the very beginning.
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) noted yesterday that the charge of "al Qaeda in Iraq" was instantly being made by some including Nouri al-Maliki, US-installed thug of the occupation. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers -- link has text and video) add, "Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, released a statement blaming elements of Saddam Hussein's predominantly Sunni Baath Party and militants from al Qaida in Iraq for the attack. As of late Sunday, no group had claimed responsibility." Yes, Maliki couldn't wait to start (yet again) blaming former Ba'athists.
ELEANOR HALL: Given the number of people killed though in these two recent attacks and the outrage from the public that we are already hearing, I mean what is this attack and the August one likely to mean for the elections in January?
SAM PARKER: Well, clearly it undercuts Prime Minister Maliki's main narrative which is Iraq was chaos and he brought it back from the brink. It definitely hurts him and certainly if you look at what has followed the August bombings there has been a lot of that, a lot of finger pointing and a lot of people saying your claims are bogus. That Iraq is just as unsafe as it has always been and that generally is not true.I mean, yes you can point to these like high-profile mass casualty attacks and as tragic as they are, overall death counts in Iraq are still, even despite these attacks, are still much lower than they have been at any period except for right after the invasions. So for the entire war, we are still at the lowest points and so these large scale attacks largely had propaganda value to them.
Liz Sly and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) explain, "It is Maliki who stands to lose the most from a security breakdown, because he is campaigning on his record as the leader who helped restore a good measure of security after the sectarian warfare that raged after the U.S.-led invasion. Overall, violence is down 90% since the peak in 2006, U.S. commanders say." Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) adds, "The attacks came at a precarious moment in Iraqi politics. Parliament has yet to agree on legislation to organize the planned Jan. 16 vote, despite warnings by the United States and the United Nations that time will probably run out by next weekend. Critics have also complained that some of the key officials charged with security -- Maliki and Interior Minister Jawad Bolani -- are more engaged in the election than in running the country." Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman tells Al Jazeera, "This sends two messages, one of them is to the investment conference in Washington held just a few days ago as if to tell investors not to come to Iraq . . . At the same time I think it may be a message to the meeting today of the political council of national security." Baghdad governor Salah Abdel Razaq tells Elizabeth Palmer (CBS News), "The bodies I have seen -- these innocent people, what have they done? To have this destiny, it is very terrible." Timothy Williams (New York Times) explains, "In large part, Mr. Maliki's popularity has rested on the belief that he has kept the country reasonably safe. But the bombings at four high-profile, well-protected government buildings within a two-month span led some Iraqis to say Sunday that they were reconsidering their support for Mr. Maliki." It should be noted that "Mr. Maliki's popularity" -- like Ashlee Simpson's talent -- is something that's been assumed but never verified. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) provides a voice for people on the streets such as vendor Abbas Fadhil who states, "This is all from the political parties -- they want to gain seats in the election." Um Ali tells Arraf, "There had to be someone with official backing behind this -- how could they get through the checkpoints? Why are our children, our sisters still being killed? For 20 years we've been fighting."
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) puts the bombings into the larger instability landscape that is Iraq: "The timing of the Sunday bombings coincided with plans by Iraq's top political body, the Political Council for National Security, comprising top political leaders and cabinet ministers, to consider ways to end a stalemate over a crucial election law needed to begin work ahead of the vote. The legislation has stalled over disagreements between factions over how the vote will be conducted in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region in the north torn by sectarian and ethnic tensions among the area's Kurds, Arabs and Turkomen."
Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian) offers his take on the bombings:
A broad analysis suggests complicity on the part of the Sunni-Arab world: keep Iraq unstable and you stop the country from becoming an effective Iranian client state when the US withdraws; or, at the very least, facilitate terrorist attacks in the country and you have some form of a counter-measure to Iran's unmatched influence. Alternatively, the attacks on Kurdish-run and Shia-run ministries may have sought to encourage incorporation of the Sunnis, specifically the Sons of Iraq fighters, into the Shia-led government, which has so far been slow in doing so. The objectives are not necessarily independent of each other.
A more straightforward analysis suggests prime minister Nouri al-Maliki as the prime target of all this: destabilise Iraq in the run-up to January's parliamentary elections and you hurt Maliki's chances of success, as he will be campaigning on the same security platform that won him this year's provincial elections. Indeed, things are not looking too rosy for the premier now that he has lost his security card. Iraqis will struggle to list his achievements in recent times and find the country no closer to better services and increased employment levels.
As far as observations go, James Denselow (Guardian) is on stronger ground than anyone when he observes:
It takes a certain death toll for Iraq to make it back on to the headlines. Despite the presence of some 120,000 US troops (and 100 or so British naval trainers who were recently let back into the country) Iraq appears to be old news. In many people's minds it is yesterday's conflict; the surge was a success and the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a democratically mandated strongman who is bringing economic success to the country -- or so the narrative goes.
And as the instability thrives, Nouri depends upon US forces to prop him up. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "U.S. Marines arrived at the scene of Sunday's attack with Iraqi forces, in accordance with a U.S.-Iraq security pact that requires American forces to coordinate with their Iraqi counterparts before getting involved in combat or other operations. Americans at the scene asked Iraqi security guards for surveillance videos from buildings in the area, and investigators took soil samples and carted off pieces of twisted metal." The US government has attempted to call the assault a "terrorist" attack -- it's a war. All sides could be labled "terrorists." That would inclue the US which bombed and raided Iraq for the last six years and counting. It was an attack, it was an assault. It was not "terrorism." It was an attack which took place in an ongoing war and was most likely aimed at a government installed by foreigners and made up of Iraqi exiles who spent most of the last decade living abroad. Wamith al-Kassab (MideastYouth) ponders the bombings:
what just happened? Cause I watch the news every day ,and I saw Hilary Clinton give a speech on Iraq-American conference in Washington and she was promising the Iraqi displace families that there will be efforts to return them to Iraq as security improved , Almalky said in his speech in the same conference that security in Iraq has improved and today Iraqi people can go outside at night and drive safely to visit the holly shrines in Najaf ( Iraqi leaders measure security by the times when people get killed visiting holly shrines and days when people can go safely ,which brings us to bigger question , is security in Iraq related to shiaa visits to shrines or it is a whole state security?)
yes , the Iraq I left after working for 7 years in medical camps for refugees ,was a safe place ,I mean it was not totally safe , cause there is few nasty bad boys who usually beats the hell of journalists in the middle of the streets ,and threats to kill you cause you post some bloges on human rights every now and then , and yes ,if I return today my chances is zero to go out of Baghdad airport alive ,but come on ,I am only 1 person and this is small terrorist attacks that should not effect the magnificent large picture of security change in Iraq ,we had 600,000 Iraqi soldiers most of them trained in Jordan ,Kurdistan ,few went to USA ,all of them were train by Americans ,we had security companies( they work to protect the VIP only ,but any way we had ones) ,we bought armed cars ,we bought weapons ,we had police forces ,the support forces from Sunni ( waking councils) ,we had beshmerka ( Kurdish army which sometimes goverment say they are militia ,others time they are official army) ,we had small armies for each party in Iraq ,we had many people who carry guns and I do not know why ,just I know you do not whanna mess with them.
So we had allot of people who formed check points with metal and weapons and explosive detectors devices ,we had concrete walls all over Baghdad and we had traffic jam because of the check points has to check each car to prevent terrorist from attacking the innocent
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "On Monday, streets around the devastated buildings remained closed to traffic. The blasts sheared the front off the Justice and Municipality ministry buildings, leaving floors caving under collapsed ceilings." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) adds that "Iraqi police and soldiers were carrying out intense searches at checkpoints" today.
Violence continued today in Iraq.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Karbala suicide car bombing which claimed the life of the driver and 4 civilians leaving fourteen more people injured, a Mosul sticky bombing which wounded one person and a Falluja roadside bombing which injured four people.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Turkoman shot dead in Mosul. Reuters drops back to Sunday to note that 2 people were shot dead (two more injured) in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 "young boy" kidnapped in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk
(man who had been kidnapped Saturday).
We'll move over to Canada to note, as requested, Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) reporting on US War Resister Rodney Watson:
The latest flashpoint in the battle to keep war resisters in Canada has been
the case of Rodney Watson who on Monday October 19, 2009, decided to seek
sanctuary in a B.C. [British Columbia] church rather than face deporation to the United States to face desertion charges. Watson, who is originally from Kansas City, Kansas, enlisted in the US Army in 2004 for a three-year contract with the intentions of becoming a cook since he wanted to serve the troops in a non-combat capactiy.
In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul, where he was put in
charge of searching vehicles and Iraqi civilians for explosives, contraband and
weapons before they entered the base. He was also expected to "keep the
peace" by monitoring Iraqi civilians who worked on the base and fire his weapon
at Iraqi children who approached the perimeter.
When he was informed he was being deported, Rodney sought asylum at the church. Earlier this month, Stig Nielsen (Metro Vancouver) reported:Rodney Watson of Kansas City had just returned from a deployment in Iraq in 2006 when the U.S. army extended his contract for three years. Watson said he felt he had served his time and that he wasn't about to go back to a war he doesn't agree with. "The main thing was the disrespect for the people -- some guys would have a bad day and they would just beat up on some Iraqi civilians," Watson said.He deserted three years ago and crossed the border into Canada, where he fell in love and became a father.The 31-year-old is at First United Church on Hastings Street in Vancouver where he's been granted asylum since September. Camille Bains (Canadian Press) reported that he was ordered deported September 11th:Ric Matthews, lead minister of First United Church in Vancouver, said the board and the congregation support Watson. Matthews said he met Watson at a rally organized on his behalf by the War Resisters Support Campaign and that Watson later approached him about staying at the church. "There will be an effort to try and help create the momentum for something constructive to come out of this," he said. "I think the United Church in general, beyond just us, would now be working through some of our people who have experience in working with refugee claims and in engaging with government in conversation." Matthews said Watson's fiancee and son often visit him at the church, which provides daily meals for people in need.
Back to Iraq. On the latest installment of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) which began broadcasting Friday (streams online as well), Jasim al-Azzawi explored the conflict of 'help' and enrichment by examining the apparent conflicts of interests which have ensnared
Peter Galbraith.
Jasim al-Azzawi: When Norway's most respected financial newspaper, Dagens Noeringsliv, covered the activities of a small, Norwegian oil company called DNO operating in northern Iraq, no one expected subsequent investigations to implicate the former US politician Peter Galbraith. Ambassador Galbraith is now suing DNO for a quarter of a billion dollars because the Kurdistan Regional Government has squeezed him out of his 5% stake in the company. What is more devastating for Iraq is the role Mr. Galbraith played as a political consultant to the KRG writing Iraq's Constitution in a way that can only be described as a potential ticking time bomb. This story has all the marks of dual loyalty, betrayal and international intrigue. [. . .] I am now joined from Oslo by Terje Erikstad, a financial news editor at Dagens Naeringsliv and from London by Sabah al-Mukhtar, president of Arab Layers Association in London. And we were also supposed to be joined by Mohammad Ihsan, Minister for Extra-Regional Affairs of the KRG but unfortunately we were informed at the last minute that he fell sick and cannot join the program. Sabah and Terje, welcome to Inside Iraq. Terje, let me start with you. Were you surprised to discover that the name of Mr. Peter Galbraith, former US Ambassador to Croatia and a leading figure in Washington, he had a 5% stake in the DNO?
Terje Erikstad: Yes, indeed we were very much surprised because it all started with a Norwegian company being fined by the Oslo stock exchange. And we started working on this case as an ordinary conflict between a company on the stock exchange and the stock exchange. And it ended up with Peter Galbraith owning oil interests or having oil interests in Kurdistan. That was very surprising for us indeed.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Sabah, who is Peter Galbraith? Set the situation for us.
Sabah al-Mukhtar: Galbraith is a professor of international politics in the USA. He was an ambassador in a variety of capacities -- in Croatia and Afghanistan. He was advisor to the US government. He was a man who was being paid a salary by the government of the United States of America. He was at the same time being paid a salary by the Kurdish government as an advisor. And at the same time, he was taking money from a company which is going to apply for oil in Iraq. He has been instrumental in assisting the Americans and the Kurds to produce a Constitution for Iraq which is a designer made country, which is a failed state, to install a government and a regime there that has been looking after the interests of-of Mr. Galbraith. And this reminds us and reminds the listeners and the viewers that this is again history repeating itself. In the past, there was a Mr. [Calouste] Gulbenkian -- Mr. 5% -- during the Ottoman Empire who had five-percent of the oil of Iraq and now we have this man having a 5% interest in the Kurdish area -- in Tawke field in particular -- but now they seem to have turned the table on him. That's why he's on an arbitration course with them.
Jasim al-Azzawi: If that is the case, Terje, explain to me how come in a very lengthy explanation and justification by the Minister of Natural Resources of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara, at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what happened, the genesis of the story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for almost five, six pages and yet the name of Peter Galbraith has not been mentioned even once. How do you explain that?
Terje Erikstad: Because Peter Galbraith was a secret partner with the Norwegian company you mentioned, DNO International, and this company had two secret partners in their exploration in Kurdistan. The interest of Mr. Galbraith was hidden behind the company name -- behind the company named Porcupine and this Porcupine is incorporated in one of the states in the USA, Deleware, and it was very difficult to know about his identity. We found it through the company registry and it was all hidden, it was -- He is in a conflict with the DNO because the Kurdish government did not recognize his interests when the new oil law was applied to this field, the Tawke field in Kurdistan. And he is now in an arbitration process with DNO. And it was all kept secret until we found out the-the identity of the company in this arbitration process and the man behind it, Mr. Galbraith. The Kurdish government say that they know nothing about this but that is very difficult to understand.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Indeed it is very difficult to understand. Sabah al-Mukhtar, if you were Peter Galbraith, here's a man who spent the better part of almost four years consulting and advising the KRG. He shepparded them through the lengthy process of the Constitution writing. He insterted some very important clauses to the benefit of the KRG regarding the relationship between Baghdad and Irbil, regarding the oil law, regarding the peshmerga, regarding their territorial authorization. And yet, at the very last minute, they squeezed him out and they crossed him and the five-percent that he was banking on never materialized.
Sabah al-Mukhtar: Well I think this is a -- when you have, when you have a dispute between the forty thieves of Baghdad that's what you end up with. You end up with disclosures that I think this is going to run a little more. Galbraith at the present moment has a problem with the KRG but I think within the KRG itself there are a variety of individuals who may have interests vested interests, who may have conflict of interests and that is part of the problem. But to go back to what Galbraith did, in the Constitution, he's the one who instigated the idea that a federation is set up in Iraq, but based on ethnicity which is not the concept of federal government He has encouraged the Kurds and insisted on having the local government -- the local government having priority over the federal government. He has given the local government the final say. He's given the oil rights to the regional government rather than the federal government. He has assisted them in drafting the Constitution which by any stretch of imagination could not be accepted as a proper Constitution to the extent that there is Article 142 of the Constitution which called for a revision and review of that Constitution within four months which -- until now -- they have failed to do. He then -- he assisted them in working on the idea, what's called "the land grab" -- i.e. taking areas which were not within the regional government of Kurdistan to be part of Kurdistan so that he can have the oil. He has encouraged them to have the -- the type of contract that he signed with them but then subsequently the problem with the federal government and the regional government stopped that contract from going on and I think, for reasons I don't know, there is, they have fallen out. Having paved the way for them to set up this arrangement, he now stands to lose the money but I think he's a man who has been working on conflict of interests on a variety of levels from the USA to Iraq, to the politics, to the Kurdish government and at the same time working for a company which is going to contract with the Kurdish government and this is an extreme case of conflict of interest which I think amounts to an illegal act but I think this is a matter for the US to deal with.
Picking back up on "in a very lengthy explanation and justification by the Minister of Natural Resources of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara, at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what happened, the genesis of the story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for almost five, six pages and yet the name of Peter Galbraith has not been mentioned even once"? Jasim al-Azzawi appears to be referring to the letter from Dr. Ashti Hawrami to DNO ("Subject: Causing Serious Harm to KRG Reputation") that the KRG posted -- in PDF format -- September 21st. The KRG has now removed the letter from their website. You can find a copy of it (PDF format warning) here. The letter was quoted from in the September 22nd snapshot.
We'll note this from Sherwood Ross' "U.S. FORCIBLY DEPORTED ISLANDERS AND GASSED THEIR DOGS TO MAKE WAY FOR DIEGO GARCIA MILITARY BASE" (Veterans Today):In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000 Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press).""The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves," Vine said on the interview show ""Books Of Our Time," sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover."They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor," Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said."They were moved because they were few in number and not white," Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island."Through Diego Garcia," Vine pointed out, "the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S." He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.
iraq
abcthe world todayeleanor hallshane mcleod
jack kimballmichael christiereutersmcclatchy newspapershannah allammohammed al dulaimythe los angeles timesned parker
caesar ahmed
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the wall street journal
gina chonxinhuamartin chulovliz slyusama redha
al jazeera
timothy williamsthe new york times
rod nordland
cbs news
elizabeth palmer
the guardianjames denselow
stig nielsenmetro vancouverthe canadian presscamille bains
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
sherwood ross
Love the cartoon and, sorry, I will never forget Wolf for that little stunt she pulled where she treated a well groomed Black woman like she was a piece of s**t (Madame C.J. Walker -- treated like dog s**t by Wolf in Wolf''s Fire With Fire). I'm real sorry that Naomi can't see Walker as sexnual and every other 'important' quality she ascribes to the White woman she compares Madame C.J. Walker too. Compares her unfavorably too.
There's a word for White women like Naomi Wolf and it is not "feminist."
"JOAN WALSH FOR PRESIDENT! Joan’s first quoted paragraph tells the truth. Darlings! It just isn’t done" (Bob Somerby, The Daily Howler):
In 2005, Krugman called our health care spending “amazing”—and he noted that the Brits spent only 40 percent as we spend, per person. But uh-oh! As of 2007, the United States was spending two to three times as much, per person, as all large European nations, including the countries Krugman praised above Britain. France was spending $3601 per person. We were spending $7290. (Great Britain: $2992. On-line, Krugman recently said that all these countries get relatively similar health outcomes.)
Those facts are beyond amazing. But this astonishing situation has disappeared in Krugman’s current column. Throughout today’s column, Krugman adopts a very weak standard for evaluating the effects of reform on health care spending: Health reform should “contain rising costs,” he says or implies throughout. But an obvious question obtains: If we’re spending two to three times as much as other nations—other nations with similar outcomes—why should our costs be rising at all? Why wouldn’t successful reform—an “overhaul,” even—reduce what we spend on health care? In 2008, Candidate Obama was talking about reducing the costs of insurance premiums—by $2500, he said. (He no longer talks about that.) Why should it be the goal of Massachusetts—or of national reform—to permit the continuing rise of costs which are “amazing?”
There may be an answer to that question—a question which is, of course, never asked. But until someone supplies the answer, let’s stick with the obvious: In part, Massachusetts citizens are happy with their reforms because they simply don’t understand how much extra they—or their employers; or their state government—are spending on their health care. To use a phrase from Krugman’s column, there hasn’t been a “huge popular backlash,” in Massachusetts or anywhere else, in part because the public simply doesn’t know how much they are getting ripped off.
It really has been sad to watch the decay of Paul Krugman. Trina used to chart it. She finally gave up because it was so depressing. He will write anything these days and it's gone beyond his emphasizing the glass is full to his insisting that a glass of vinegar is actually holy wine. Whatever, Paul, whatever.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, October 26, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's death toll from yesterday's massive bombings rises and includes children, finger-pointing becomes the favorite past-time, a US 'helper' and his ties to an oil company are explored, a US Iraq War resister seeks sanctuary in a Canadian church, and more.
Sunday Baghdad saw bombings resulting in a higher death total than Black Wednesday, Bloody Wednesday, Gory Wednesday August 19th. Eleanor Hall (Australia's ABC's The World Today -- link has text and audio) explained, "Twin suicide bombers targeted the Iraqi Ministry of Justice all but destroying the government department's headquarters, which are just outside the high-security 'green zone' in the centre of Baghdad." Shane McLeod added, "The sound of the second blast was captured by a mobile phone video camera being used to survey the aftermath of the first. Targeted was the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, just a few hundred metres from the fortified green zone in Baghdad." Sahar Issa and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) report that Iraqi government figures are stating that "a water tanker and a refrigerated food truck" were used in the attacks. This morning, Jack Kimball and Michael Christie (Reuters) report that the death toll has climbed and is currently at 155 with over five hundred left injured. Rod Nordland (New York Times) observes that "an uncertain number of children" are among the dead. CBS News and AP add that 24 "children who were killed were on a bus leaving a daycare center near the Justice Ministry when the attack occurred".
Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) sketch out yesterday's assault, "Cars clogges the road as tehy approached the traffic circle in front of the Justice Ministry, with its statue of modern Iraq's first ruler, King Faisal, mounted on a horse. An old white pickup truck had broken down by the traffic circle and its driver approached a policeman and started yelling. [. . .] It was then that the first of two car bombs exploded on opposite ends of the block." Xinhua adds, "Xinhua correspondent at the scene said that he saw ponds of blood and parts of human bodies scattered close to the blast site near the Mansour Hotel where the wreckage of dozens of civilian cars could be seen near the site." Martin Chulov (Guardian) offers, "Witnesses described body parts sprawled across the area. Mohammed Falah, was caught in the blast: 'There was a woman's leg next to me. I picked it up and gave it to the ambulance'."
Sharif Abdel Kouddous (Democracy Now! -- link has text, video and audio) asked Rick Rowley for his take on the bombings today:
Well, first of all, the first thing to say is that, you know, there is no peace in Iraq, that these bombings, first of all, put the lie once again to the three myths that we've been pushed about the war in Iraq: first, the story that the war is over; second, that we won the war; and third, that the lessons of this victory can be applied to Afghanistan. The fact is that what passes for calm in Iraq today isn't peace at all; it's a fragile, fraying truce after a brutal sectarian civil war, and it's a truce without reconciliation that -- because it's put in place a system that is a continuing engine for violence, and tragedies like these are a legacy of the American occupation and will remain one for years to come. So, bombings like these today -- or on Sunday were attempts -- I mean, you know, they're being blamed on al-Qaeda in Iraq, and it seems likely that it was a group like al-Qaeda in Iraq that carried them out. And there are attempts by those extreme elements inside the Sunni insurgency to target the Shiite-led government, which they see as their sectarian enemy, but also to try to draw the Shiite militias back into an all-out civil war that could unite the Shiites again in their resistance. I mean, bombings like the ones on Sunday are remarkable for their massive scale, the carnage they cause, but there are multiple bombings in Iraq every single week.
[. . .]
And yeah, absolutely, I mean, the government in Baghdad is seen by al-Qaeda in Iraq and by the extremists inside the Sunni resistance as a proxy, as an Iranian proxy, dominated by the Supreme Council and by the Dawa Party, both parties that were -- well, I mean, the Supreme Council was formed in Iran, and Dawa, you know, spent most of its existence in Iran. And, you know, these parties were put by the US in mid-2004, were put in charge of the government, and their militias were turned into the core of the Iraqi security structure. So, as the civil war kicked off, the main protagonists in the civil war were militias inside the police force that were -- came from these parties and, you know, versus Sunni insurgents on the outside who were doing bombings and these kinds of soft-target attacks on civilians. So, you know, clearly, I mean, institutions and ministries that are controlled by ISCI, the Supreme Council, and by Dawa are definitely seen as sectarian enemies. I mean, the Ministry of Justice, as well, you know, it's -- the police and the court system have been seen in the -- I mean, not so much the court system. The police and the prison system in Iraq have been seen as one of the tools in the sectarian fight that the Shiite militias have used from the very beginning.
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) noted yesterday that the charge of "al Qaeda in Iraq" was instantly being made by some including Nouri al-Maliki, US-installed thug of the occupation. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers -- link has text and video) add, "Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, released a statement blaming elements of Saddam Hussein's predominantly Sunni Baath Party and militants from al Qaida in Iraq for the attack. As of late Sunday, no group had claimed responsibility." Yes, Maliki couldn't wait to start (yet again) blaming former Ba'athists.
ELEANOR HALL: Given the number of people killed though in these two recent attacks and the outrage from the public that we are already hearing, I mean what is this attack and the August one likely to mean for the elections in January?
SAM PARKER: Well, clearly it undercuts Prime Minister Maliki's main narrative which is Iraq was chaos and he brought it back from the brink. It definitely hurts him and certainly if you look at what has followed the August bombings there has been a lot of that, a lot of finger pointing and a lot of people saying your claims are bogus. That Iraq is just as unsafe as it has always been and that generally is not true.I mean, yes you can point to these like high-profile mass casualty attacks and as tragic as they are, overall death counts in Iraq are still, even despite these attacks, are still much lower than they have been at any period except for right after the invasions. So for the entire war, we are still at the lowest points and so these large scale attacks largely had propaganda value to them.
Liz Sly and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) explain, "It is Maliki who stands to lose the most from a security breakdown, because he is campaigning on his record as the leader who helped restore a good measure of security after the sectarian warfare that raged after the U.S.-led invasion. Overall, violence is down 90% since the peak in 2006, U.S. commanders say." Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) adds, "The attacks came at a precarious moment in Iraqi politics. Parliament has yet to agree on legislation to organize the planned Jan. 16 vote, despite warnings by the United States and the United Nations that time will probably run out by next weekend. Critics have also complained that some of the key officials charged with security -- Maliki and Interior Minister Jawad Bolani -- are more engaged in the election than in running the country." Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman tells Al Jazeera, "This sends two messages, one of them is to the investment conference in Washington held just a few days ago as if to tell investors not to come to Iraq . . . At the same time I think it may be a message to the meeting today of the political council of national security." Baghdad governor Salah Abdel Razaq tells Elizabeth Palmer (CBS News), "The bodies I have seen -- these innocent people, what have they done? To have this destiny, it is very terrible." Timothy Williams (New York Times) explains, "In large part, Mr. Maliki's popularity has rested on the belief that he has kept the country reasonably safe. But the bombings at four high-profile, well-protected government buildings within a two-month span led some Iraqis to say Sunday that they were reconsidering their support for Mr. Maliki." It should be noted that "Mr. Maliki's popularity" -- like Ashlee Simpson's talent -- is something that's been assumed but never verified. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) provides a voice for people on the streets such as vendor Abbas Fadhil who states, "This is all from the political parties -- they want to gain seats in the election." Um Ali tells Arraf, "There had to be someone with official backing behind this -- how could they get through the checkpoints? Why are our children, our sisters still being killed? For 20 years we've been fighting."
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) puts the bombings into the larger instability landscape that is Iraq: "The timing of the Sunday bombings coincided with plans by Iraq's top political body, the Political Council for National Security, comprising top political leaders and cabinet ministers, to consider ways to end a stalemate over a crucial election law needed to begin work ahead of the vote. The legislation has stalled over disagreements between factions over how the vote will be conducted in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region in the north torn by sectarian and ethnic tensions among the area's Kurds, Arabs and Turkomen."
Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian) offers his take on the bombings:
A broad analysis suggests complicity on the part of the Sunni-Arab world: keep Iraq unstable and you stop the country from becoming an effective Iranian client state when the US withdraws; or, at the very least, facilitate terrorist attacks in the country and you have some form of a counter-measure to Iran's unmatched influence. Alternatively, the attacks on Kurdish-run and Shia-run ministries may have sought to encourage incorporation of the Sunnis, specifically the Sons of Iraq fighters, into the Shia-led government, which has so far been slow in doing so. The objectives are not necessarily independent of each other.
A more straightforward analysis suggests prime minister Nouri al-Maliki as the prime target of all this: destabilise Iraq in the run-up to January's parliamentary elections and you hurt Maliki's chances of success, as he will be campaigning on the same security platform that won him this year's provincial elections. Indeed, things are not looking too rosy for the premier now that he has lost his security card. Iraqis will struggle to list his achievements in recent times and find the country no closer to better services and increased employment levels.
As far as observations go, James Denselow (Guardian) is on stronger ground than anyone when he observes:
It takes a certain death toll for Iraq to make it back on to the headlines. Despite the presence of some 120,000 US troops (and 100 or so British naval trainers who were recently let back into the country) Iraq appears to be old news. In many people's minds it is yesterday's conflict; the surge was a success and the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a democratically mandated strongman who is bringing economic success to the country -- or so the narrative goes.
And as the instability thrives, Nouri depends upon US forces to prop him up. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "U.S. Marines arrived at the scene of Sunday's attack with Iraqi forces, in accordance with a U.S.-Iraq security pact that requires American forces to coordinate with their Iraqi counterparts before getting involved in combat or other operations. Americans at the scene asked Iraqi security guards for surveillance videos from buildings in the area, and investigators took soil samples and carted off pieces of twisted metal." The US government has attempted to call the assault a "terrorist" attack -- it's a war. All sides could be labled "terrorists." That would inclue the US which bombed and raided Iraq for the last six years and counting. It was an attack, it was an assault. It was not "terrorism." It was an attack which took place in an ongoing war and was most likely aimed at a government installed by foreigners and made up of Iraqi exiles who spent most of the last decade living abroad. Wamith al-Kassab (MideastYouth) ponders the bombings:
what just happened? Cause I watch the news every day ,and I saw Hilary Clinton give a speech on Iraq-American conference in Washington and she was promising the Iraqi displace families that there will be efforts to return them to Iraq as security improved , Almalky said in his speech in the same conference that security in Iraq has improved and today Iraqi people can go outside at night and drive safely to visit the holly shrines in Najaf ( Iraqi leaders measure security by the times when people get killed visiting holly shrines and days when people can go safely ,which brings us to bigger question , is security in Iraq related to shiaa visits to shrines or it is a whole state security?)
yes , the Iraq I left after working for 7 years in medical camps for refugees ,was a safe place ,I mean it was not totally safe , cause there is few nasty bad boys who usually beats the hell of journalists in the middle of the streets ,and threats to kill you cause you post some bloges on human rights every now and then , and yes ,if I return today my chances is zero to go out of Baghdad airport alive ,but come on ,I am only 1 person and this is small terrorist attacks that should not effect the magnificent large picture of security change in Iraq ,we had 600,000 Iraqi soldiers most of them trained in Jordan ,Kurdistan ,few went to USA ,all of them were train by Americans ,we had security companies( they work to protect the VIP only ,but any way we had ones) ,we bought armed cars ,we bought weapons ,we had police forces ,the support forces from Sunni ( waking councils) ,we had beshmerka ( Kurdish army which sometimes goverment say they are militia ,others time they are official army) ,we had small armies for each party in Iraq ,we had many people who carry guns and I do not know why ,just I know you do not whanna mess with them.
So we had allot of people who formed check points with metal and weapons and explosive detectors devices ,we had concrete walls all over Baghdad and we had traffic jam because of the check points has to check each car to prevent terrorist from attacking the innocent
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "On Monday, streets around the devastated buildings remained closed to traffic. The blasts sheared the front off the Justice and Municipality ministry buildings, leaving floors caving under collapsed ceilings." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) adds that "Iraqi police and soldiers were carrying out intense searches at checkpoints" today.
Violence continued today in Iraq.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Karbala suicide car bombing which claimed the life of the driver and 4 civilians leaving fourteen more people injured, a Mosul sticky bombing which wounded one person and a Falluja roadside bombing which injured four people.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Turkoman shot dead in Mosul. Reuters drops back to Sunday to note that 2 people were shot dead (two more injured) in Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 "young boy" kidnapped in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk
(man who had been kidnapped Saturday).
We'll move over to Canada to note, as requested, Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) reporting on US War Resister Rodney Watson:
The latest flashpoint in the battle to keep war resisters in Canada has been
the case of Rodney Watson who on Monday October 19, 2009, decided to seek
sanctuary in a B.C. [British Columbia] church rather than face deporation to the United States to face desertion charges. Watson, who is originally from Kansas City, Kansas, enlisted in the US Army in 2004 for a three-year contract with the intentions of becoming a cook since he wanted to serve the troops in a non-combat capactiy.
In 2005, he was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul, where he was put in
charge of searching vehicles and Iraqi civilians for explosives, contraband and
weapons before they entered the base. He was also expected to "keep the
peace" by monitoring Iraqi civilians who worked on the base and fire his weapon
at Iraqi children who approached the perimeter.
When he was informed he was being deported, Rodney sought asylum at the church. Earlier this month, Stig Nielsen (Metro Vancouver) reported:Rodney Watson of Kansas City had just returned from a deployment in Iraq in 2006 when the U.S. army extended his contract for three years. Watson said he felt he had served his time and that he wasn't about to go back to a war he doesn't agree with. "The main thing was the disrespect for the people -- some guys would have a bad day and they would just beat up on some Iraqi civilians," Watson said.He deserted three years ago and crossed the border into Canada, where he fell in love and became a father.The 31-year-old is at First United Church on Hastings Street in Vancouver where he's been granted asylum since September. Camille Bains (Canadian Press) reported that he was ordered deported September 11th:Ric Matthews, lead minister of First United Church in Vancouver, said the board and the congregation support Watson. Matthews said he met Watson at a rally organized on his behalf by the War Resisters Support Campaign and that Watson later approached him about staying at the church. "There will be an effort to try and help create the momentum for something constructive to come out of this," he said. "I think the United Church in general, beyond just us, would now be working through some of our people who have experience in working with refugee claims and in engaging with government in conversation." Matthews said Watson's fiancee and son often visit him at the church, which provides daily meals for people in need.
Back to Iraq. On the latest installment of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) which began broadcasting Friday (streams online as well), Jasim al-Azzawi explored the conflict of 'help' and enrichment by examining the apparent conflicts of interests which have ensnared
Peter Galbraith.
Jasim al-Azzawi: When Norway's most respected financial newspaper, Dagens Noeringsliv, covered the activities of a small, Norwegian oil company called DNO operating in northern Iraq, no one expected subsequent investigations to implicate the former US politician Peter Galbraith. Ambassador Galbraith is now suing DNO for a quarter of a billion dollars because the Kurdistan Regional Government has squeezed him out of his 5% stake in the company. What is more devastating for Iraq is the role Mr. Galbraith played as a political consultant to the KRG writing Iraq's Constitution in a way that can only be described as a potential ticking time bomb. This story has all the marks of dual loyalty, betrayal and international intrigue. [. . .] I am now joined from Oslo by Terje Erikstad, a financial news editor at Dagens Naeringsliv and from London by Sabah al-Mukhtar, president of Arab Layers Association in London. And we were also supposed to be joined by Mohammad Ihsan, Minister for Extra-Regional Affairs of the KRG but unfortunately we were informed at the last minute that he fell sick and cannot join the program. Sabah and Terje, welcome to Inside Iraq. Terje, let me start with you. Were you surprised to discover that the name of Mr. Peter Galbraith, former US Ambassador to Croatia and a leading figure in Washington, he had a 5% stake in the DNO?
Terje Erikstad: Yes, indeed we were very much surprised because it all started with a Norwegian company being fined by the Oslo stock exchange. And we started working on this case as an ordinary conflict between a company on the stock exchange and the stock exchange. And it ended up with Peter Galbraith owning oil interests or having oil interests in Kurdistan. That was very surprising for us indeed.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Sabah, who is Peter Galbraith? Set the situation for us.
Sabah al-Mukhtar: Galbraith is a professor of international politics in the USA. He was an ambassador in a variety of capacities -- in Croatia and Afghanistan. He was advisor to the US government. He was a man who was being paid a salary by the government of the United States of America. He was at the same time being paid a salary by the Kurdish government as an advisor. And at the same time, he was taking money from a company which is going to apply for oil in Iraq. He has been instrumental in assisting the Americans and the Kurds to produce a Constitution for Iraq which is a designer made country, which is a failed state, to install a government and a regime there that has been looking after the interests of-of Mr. Galbraith. And this reminds us and reminds the listeners and the viewers that this is again history repeating itself. In the past, there was a Mr. [Calouste] Gulbenkian -- Mr. 5% -- during the Ottoman Empire who had five-percent of the oil of Iraq and now we have this man having a 5% interest in the Kurdish area -- in Tawke field in particular -- but now they seem to have turned the table on him. That's why he's on an arbitration course with them.
Jasim al-Azzawi: If that is the case, Terje, explain to me how come in a very lengthy explanation and justification by the Minister of Natural Resources of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara, at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what happened, the genesis of the story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for almost five, six pages and yet the name of Peter Galbraith has not been mentioned even once. How do you explain that?
Terje Erikstad: Because Peter Galbraith was a secret partner with the Norwegian company you mentioned, DNO International, and this company had two secret partners in their exploration in Kurdistan. The interest of Mr. Galbraith was hidden behind the company name -- behind the company named Porcupine and this Porcupine is incorporated in one of the states in the USA, Deleware, and it was very difficult to know about his identity. We found it through the company registry and it was all hidden, it was -- He is in a conflict with the DNO because the Kurdish government did not recognize his interests when the new oil law was applied to this field, the Tawke field in Kurdistan. And he is now in an arbitration process with DNO. And it was all kept secret until we found out the-the identity of the company in this arbitration process and the man behind it, Mr. Galbraith. The Kurdish government say that they know nothing about this but that is very difficult to understand.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Indeed it is very difficult to understand. Sabah al-Mukhtar, if you were Peter Galbraith, here's a man who spent the better part of almost four years consulting and advising the KRG. He shepparded them through the lengthy process of the Constitution writing. He insterted some very important clauses to the benefit of the KRG regarding the relationship between Baghdad and Irbil, regarding the oil law, regarding the peshmerga, regarding their territorial authorization. And yet, at the very last minute, they squeezed him out and they crossed him and the five-percent that he was banking on never materialized.
Sabah al-Mukhtar: Well I think this is a -- when you have, when you have a dispute between the forty thieves of Baghdad that's what you end up with. You end up with disclosures that I think this is going to run a little more. Galbraith at the present moment has a problem with the KRG but I think within the KRG itself there are a variety of individuals who may have interests vested interests, who may have conflict of interests and that is part of the problem. But to go back to what Galbraith did, in the Constitution, he's the one who instigated the idea that a federation is set up in Iraq, but based on ethnicity which is not the concept of federal government He has encouraged the Kurds and insisted on having the local government -- the local government having priority over the federal government. He has given the local government the final say. He's given the oil rights to the regional government rather than the federal government. He has assisted them in drafting the Constitution which by any stretch of imagination could not be accepted as a proper Constitution to the extent that there is Article 142 of the Constitution which called for a revision and review of that Constitution within four months which -- until now -- they have failed to do. He then -- he assisted them in working on the idea, what's called "the land grab" -- i.e. taking areas which were not within the regional government of Kurdistan to be part of Kurdistan so that he can have the oil. He has encouraged them to have the -- the type of contract that he signed with them but then subsequently the problem with the federal government and the regional government stopped that contract from going on and I think, for reasons I don't know, there is, they have fallen out. Having paved the way for them to set up this arrangement, he now stands to lose the money but I think he's a man who has been working on conflict of interests on a variety of levels from the USA to Iraq, to the politics, to the Kurdish government and at the same time working for a company which is going to contract with the Kurdish government and this is an extreme case of conflict of interest which I think amounts to an illegal act but I think this is a matter for the US to deal with.
Picking back up on "in a very lengthy explanation and justification by the Minister of Natural Resources of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara, at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what happened, the genesis of the story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for almost five, six pages and yet the name of Peter Galbraith has not been mentioned even once"? Jasim al-Azzawi appears to be referring to the letter from Dr. Ashti Hawrami to DNO ("Subject: Causing Serious Harm to KRG Reputation") that the KRG posted -- in PDF format -- September 21st. The KRG has now removed the letter from their website. You can find a copy of it (PDF format warning) here. The letter was quoted from in the September 22nd snapshot.
We'll note this from Sherwood Ross' "U.S. FORCIBLY DEPORTED ISLANDERS AND GASSED THEIR DOGS TO MAKE WAY FOR DIEGO GARCIA MILITARY BASE" (Veterans Today):In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000 Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press).""The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves," Vine said on the interview show ""Books Of Our Time," sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover."They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor," Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said."They were moved because they were few in number and not white," Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island."Through Diego Garcia," Vine pointed out, "the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S." He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.
iraq
abcthe world todayeleanor hallshane mcleod
jack kimballmichael christiereutersmcclatchy newspapershannah allammohammed al dulaimythe los angeles timesned parker
caesar ahmed
the christian science monitorjane arraf
the wall street journal
gina chonxinhuamartin chulovliz slyusama redha
al jazeera
timothy williamsthe new york times
rod nordland
cbs news
elizabeth palmer
the guardianjames denselow
stig nielsenmetro vancouverthe canadian presscamille bains
inside iraq
jasim al-azzawi
sherwood ross
Friday, October 23, 2009
Army pays out $4.3 million
"Army vet wins $4.3 million verdict" (Ben Schmitt, Detroit Free Press):
A former Michigan soldier who lost his hand after an explosion while trying to disarm a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2004 won a $4.3 million verdict today against the U.S. Army in a disability discrimination civil case.
"He proved that the Army created a hostile work environment for him because of his disability." said Royal Oak attorney Kevin Carlson who won the case along with attorney Joseph Golden.
I found the above story very interesting and congratulate James McKelvey on his win.
CBS. New Adventures Of Old Christine. Wednesday nights. First half-hour of prime time. Funniest show on TV.
If you don't watch, boy do you miss a lot.
Wanda Sykes is one of our favorites but she wasn't on Wednesday; however, it was still a very funny episode. Will from 'Will & Grace' was on (Eric McCormack).
So the gym Barb and Christine own was closed for the week. Christine decided to do Matthew a favor and play his receptionist. She mentioned she used to do that in college. And so she dug out her old clothes . . . from the 70s. Matthew (her brother) took one look at her and asked Rhoda (her) where Mary was?
Implying she looked like Rhoda on the sitcom classic 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show.'
Richard took one look at her and called her Maude.
Matthew ended up firing her. Christine couldn't stop giving advice to his patients.
They had a fight that was a little like when Mary (MTM) and Phyllis bickered over whether Phyllis was Mary's assistant or secretary.
Eric McCormack played a man with the suite next to Matthew. He asked Christine out but she thought he was inviting to do therapy with him. Then they decided to go on a date but Christine couldn't stop making things about her. He's part of a multi-arc series of episodes (I believe it's six).
New Christine? She and Richard got back together. He thought.
For her, it was just casual sex.
When he found that out, he decided it was time to move out. He hadn't yet and New Christine asked him to go to the sushi bar with her and seemed to appear to be hinting 'more to come' so they may be back in bed next episode.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, October 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, still no 'progress' on Iraq's election law, Iraqi Christians consider fleeing due to violence, the United Nations says Iraqis should not be forced to return to Iraq (pay attention England and Denmark), Gordo Brown decides British lives are worth less than Iraqi oil, the US Congress forgets Iraq, and more.
This morning on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show (second hour, international hour), Diane was joined by panelists Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera), Moises Naim (Foreign Policy) and Janine Zacharia (Bloomberg News). Iraq was noted in the following:
Diane Rehm: Let's go right back to the phones, to Kansas City, MO. Good morning, Ron.
Ron: Good morning. My question deals with the economic development. I was -- I traveled in Iraq and one of the things that I saw there wasn't really -- for all the billions of dollars that we were spending over there -- there's not a lot of economic development taking place. So, you know, that's lacking. My understanding of Afghanistan is that they were once -- they are geographically located in what was known as "The Old Silk Trade" -- that's between the Middle East and Asia. And I want to know what's going on to try to redevelop that in the way of infrastructure with roads and railroads which would allow them to have a place into the global economy which should be the essential goal that the United States would want?
Diane Rehm: Let's take Iraq first. Abderrahim?
Abderrahim Foukara: Well the issue of economic development, it has at least two impediments in Iraq. One is corruption. And the second one is political instability. Now Prime Minister Maliki was here in Washington recently. They're saying -- both he and President Obama have been saying -- Iraq is now stable enough to start focusing on economic development. Now that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that the whole focus on economic development as we have seen it talked about here in Washington during Prime Minister -- Prime Minister Maliki's visit is that Iraq, which has sort of fallen off the radar here in the United States, is actually still not doing well politically. And talking economic development is one way of diverting attention -- people's attention -- from the real problems that continue to bedevil Iraq. [. . .]
Diane Rehm: Janine?
Janine Zacharia: Well you know too echo what Abderrahim said, Prime Minister Maliki came again this week to say "Iraq's open for business" but it truly is not open for business when you still have the sec -- Correct, the political situation is involved so we don't know what's going to happen with January elections, but the security issues is still paramount. You cannot -- American businessmen or international businessmen cannot go and roam around Iraq and set up shop right now and import Coca Cola and do all these things without being worried about being blown up. [. . .]
Diane Rehm: Moises?
Moises Naim: Economic development is very, very difficult. Economic development in the middle of a war is impossible. So it doesn't matter. There's no country ever that's developed on the basis of foreign aid. You can pour as much money as you want and unless you have a functioning market and investors, commercial activity -- development will not happen. And it's impossible to have that if you have a war going on.
We're not doing the "Afghanistan snapshot" so "[. . .]" indicates they then turned to the issue of Afghanistan. We will note Afghanistan in a moment, in terms of a Congressional exchange led by US House Rep Susan Davis. But first, let's note the political referred to above.
Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) observes, "Once again the US finds itself hostage to Iraqi politics -- this time as a result of a standoff among Iraqi political parties over an overdue election law." If you're saying "Huh?", you were sleeping last week when Gina Chon was warning the Thursday date was approaching and Iraq appeared to be missing it. Parliamentary elections in Iraq are said to take place this coming January. That's after they were already kicked back. They were supposed to take place in December. They kicked it back to January. Last week, on Thursday, they were supposed to have passed the law and didn't. And still haven't. On Wednesday, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that Iraq actually had two more weeks to pass it. (Kat covered the hearing here.) Flournoy also stated they could just pass legislation on what day to hold the election and leave all matters to the 2005 election law -- which, no, would not be 'progress'. She left out the part about Iraq's court system finding that law to be unconstitutional. While Flournoy attempted to downplay, others aren't doing so. Michael Jansen (Irish Times) observes, "The US military may have to put on indefinite hold its plan to dispatch additional troops to Afghanistan if Iraq's election does not take place on time in January. [. . .] On Wednesday, after prolonged debate, the Iraqi parliament admitted failure in its efforts to draft a new election law to govern the coming contest and asked the Political Council for National Security to take on the task." "Thrown in doubt" is the call Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) makes and goes on to note of the High Electoral Commission: "The commission, responsible for organizing polls in Iraq, has said that it needs 90 days to print and distribute ballots. Iraqi and UN officials fear that the election could be delayed if lawmakers fail to pass a revised election law this week." The New York Times editorializes in "Counting Backward" that when it comes to the elections, Iraq's Constitution must be followed (they appear to forget that Iraq's Constitution also covers Kirkuk -- click here for more on that and don't miss the latest Inside Iraq for the issue as well). Barbara Surk (AP) reports today that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's spokesperson stated the Ayatollah wants the elections to take place January 16th as has been announced. Howard LaFranchi explains:
The situation, which caught Obama administration diplomats off guard as they have focused attention on Afghanistan and the electoral crisis there, is reminiscent of the stalemate the Bush administration faced in 2007 concerning a series of "benchmark" laws the US Congress sought in return for continuing support to Iraq.
At that time, US diplomats spoke of "two clocks" in the two capitals to explain the discrepancy between Washington's demand for quick political action and Baghdad's refusal to be rushed.
The two clocks are on display again, with US diplomats including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton imploring Iraqi leaders to pass an election law. For their part, some Iraqi politicians say it is Americans and not Iraqis who feel a need to hurry on legislation that cuts to the heart of Iraq's power struggles.
The election law should have been approved by Oct. 15 in order for elections scheduled for Jan. 16 to go forward, according to the Iraqi constitution.
Alsumaria reports that the National Security Political Council will discuss the election law tomorrow when they meet. Former Reagan administration official Lawrence J. Korb (Center for American Progress) is on the ground in Iraq gathering impressions and, in his latest piece, he notes:
Iraq is a fragile state, and it can become a stable or failed state depending on whether the government increases or decreases in legitimacy and competence. If it does not become more competent or regresses, there is danger of a coup. Losing legitimacy could lead to a civil war.
From Parliament issues to the US Congress, we're dropping back to yesterday. And we'll start with a question: Does the US Congress exist to help scoundrels rake in more ill gotten gain?
Thursday, we (Ava, Wally, Kat and myself) attended a hearing that was a complete waste of time unless you're a lobbyist/business person needing Congress to give you a stamp of approval. We attended the waste of time hearing because it was entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on US Strategy." Due to votes, there was a lengthy break in there and, if we'd been smart, we would have bailed during the break because after one hour of that hearing, one hour when NO ONE mentioned Iraq, it was as obvious as it was embarrassing -- embarrassing for the US House Armed Services Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Do they have trouble reading on the Hill?
For most of us in the United States, a hearing entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy" would be about . . . Afghanistan and Iraq. So where the hell was Iraq?
They didn't have time for it. They had time to call war mongers "public servants."
What the hell is Barry McCaffrey doing testifying to Congress to begin with? Retired general? BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC is his company. And his company is in the business of prolonging wars so when he says the military has to stay and when he refers to the 'justifiable' "anger" Americans had towards Afghanistan -- and laments it being gone -- every damn word out of his mouth is suspect because he's working the street, under the street lamp, trolling for bucks.
Here's SourceWatch on the Old War Whore Barry:
In April 2008 documents obtained by New York Times reporter David Barstow revealed that McCaffrey had been recruited as one of over 75 retired military officers involved in the Pentagon military analyst program. Participants appeared on television and radio news shows as military analysts, and/or penned newspaper op/ed columns. The program was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke. The idea was to recruit "key influentials" to help sell a wary public on "a possible Iraq invasion."[1]
[. . .]
Shortly after the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, McCaffrey exclaimed on MSNBC: "Thank God for the Abrams tank and... the Bradley fighting vehicle." The "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker," he added. The Nation noted, "in March [2003] alone, [Integrated Defense Technologies] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware." [15]
The above says he's got nothing to say that isn't either suspect or paid for. He sells war and he profits from it. There is no reason the US Congress needs to waste their time or US tax payer dollars getting Barry's opinion on Afghanistan. He is not, no matter how many times some members of Congress got it wrong, "a public servant." He is a lobbyist and he lobbies for war. That's reality.
Reality is also that if you're hearing's entitled Iraq and if US forces are in Iraq -- more than are in Afghanistan -- it's pretty damn stupid and insulting not to even shoot the s**t about Iraq in passing during the hearing. Now Pakistan the subcommitee made time for in the hearing despite Pakistan not being in the hearing's title.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert made an idiot of himself (no surprise there) in an online discussion with David Brooks (Brooks was no better but the world has grown accustomed to that). Here's Herbie:
Bob Herbert: David, the president is deciding what we should be doing with regard to troop deployments in Afghanistan. It seems to me that however one feels about this war and the war in Iraq, the environment here on the home front is bizarre. This is as weird a wartime atmosphere as I can imagine. For most Americans, there is nothing in the way of shared wartime sacrifices. There is no draft. We have not raised taxes to pay for the wars. Except for the families of those in the military, most Americans are paying very little attention to these conflicts. I've brought this matter up a few times on college campuses and the response has been, in essence, a collective shrug.
We addressed that in terms of the press last night (click here). But, hey, Bob Herbert, what does it say when the US Congress forgets the Iraq War? Riddle me that, Bob Herbert.
Here's a section of the hearing:
US House Rep Susan Davis: Help me with this issue because we are continuing to raise the issue of the role of women and whether or not we're abandoning them in any way if we move into negotiating or how we're able to have some kind of reconciliation in Afghanistan -- we want to focus on them. Where -- where does security lie because clearly the military has paved the way for many efforts in Afghanistan. I mean there's no doubt about that. And yet on the other hand, I understand that it's perhaps overly ambitious of us to believe that all of those efforts with the military and civilian capacity both are not necessarily in the best -- are picking up the best -- the best interests of the Afghan people -- or the region, assuming that Pakistan we're talking about as well. Do you want to -- Ms. Cole?
Beth Ellen Cole: I think that with governance -- like all of these issues -- we have to enlarge our view of security. I mean security is not just something that military forces can bring to the communities of Afghanistan. In the United States, we think of the security as school guards and bank guards and people who protect judges. And it's not just a question of military or police forces. Border guards, people that are dealing with looking at money laundering and bank operations and we -- in that sense, this -- the debate about troops is a very, very important debate but we have to think about the other assets that we have to bring to bear including -- with the Afghans -- including putting women as police officers in certain places or as school guards which we've shown we can do in Liberia. [. . .]
US House Rep Susan Davis: General Barno, do you have any thoughts?
Lt Gen Dave Barno (retired general): Two things. I think one, on the issue of security, you're absolutely correct that there -- it's not a sequential problem of security and reconstruction and development, these things are concurrent , these things have to parallel with one another. [. . .] The other question I think you alluded to was this idea of "What does it mean to women if we negotiate with the Taliban?" That's a paraphrase of what, perhaps, I think you were saying you were saying. And-and I do think we have to be aware that in my estimation, I think from a policy standpoint right now, having the Taliban be part of the government of Afghanistan is not where this is going, is not the objective. Having reformed Taliban, ex-Taliban, Taliban that have rejected violence, put down their weapons and join the political process, that's a very different outlook. The small "t" if you will, the individuals, not-not the movement. And I think that's where we have to be careful that we don't inadvertently send this message that we're willing to negotiate with the Taliban because we're really trying to exit -- as opposed to we're willing these Taliban, former Taliban fighters, lay down their arms and become part of this political process. Our goal when I was there was not to kill the Taliban -- collectively in the big strategic picture, it was to make the Taliban irrelevant, make no one want to become part of the Taliban, no one aspire to the Taliban and that takes a very nuanced approach of many different elements of simply security and military forces.
US House Rep Susan Davis: Mm-hm. Mr. Waldman, can I just real quickly get a response from you on that?
Matthew Waldman: Sure. I-I-I mean, in terms of security [. . .] But as has been said by Ms. Cole, the notion of security is much broader and-and of course, really security will political strategy which is indigenous In terms of women, you're absolutely right to raise this, I think it's a very serious issue. I think the-the-the -- when one travels the country and talks to Afghans, it's very clear that they want their girls to go to school -- if you look at the numbers now, over 2 million girls in school, yeah, you know, there's this universal desire to see that happen and for women to have the uh, in most areas, for women to be able to work and have rights, freedoms and rights that-that men have. It is alarming that the Shia law was passed recently, which you're probably aware of. And I certainly think that one has to ask about the commitment to the current administration to --
Us House Rep Susan Davis: Yes --
Matthew Waldman: -- women's rights.
US House Rep Susan Davis: -- which is doubtful.
Matthew Waldman: Yeah, yes. It certainly is. And uh we've yet to see real substance behind the-the-the work to try to-to empower women and to uh support their opportunities and rights. But you're also right that there is concern about women's rights after -- as negotiations move forward. Now of course reconciliation -- truth and reconciliation -- is essential in Afghanistan.
To review the participants above: Cole works for the US Institute of Peace (US government), Waldman works for the Carr Center AGAINST Human Rights (US government mouthpiece with a major in counter-insurgency studies and cheerleading) and Barno (Near East South Asia Center For Strategic Studies -- billed as "the preeminent U.S. Government institution for building relationships and understanding in the NESA region"). So the US government is more than well represented and we can all chuckle and pretend the stammering and stumbling Waldman represented the land of academia as well. So what did Barry represent? The War Machine. So that gets a seat at the table in front of Congress? That's really pathetic and really shameful and it's past time that Barry was pulled from Congressional panels because he's not an expert and he uses the fact that Congress calls on him as part of his business portfolio.
Now we didn't highlight the above exchange to say: The US must stay in Afghanistan for the women! That's b.s. The Afghanistan War's gone on long enough. Suddenly, the US gives a damn about women's rights? No, it's time to fly that false flag and see if you can get anyone to salute it.
No one should.
And you need to relate it back to Iraq where women did have a higher social standing, the highest in the region. And they've lost all that. It's much too late to worry about women's rights. Women were sold out by the US government and it was not by accident or happen-stance. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US government made the decision (after making the decision for illegal war) to install thugs with US ties that they thought they could interact with (in stealing the natural resources of both countries) and that they thought could terrorize the local population (the non-exiles) into a state of fear where they would not fight back.
They went for thugs. They installed thugs. Thugs don't respect rights. They don't respect women's rights, they don't respect women. At the start of this month, Najaf banned alcohol -- and not out of any concern over alcoholism but to 'condemn' the 'sin' of drinking alcohol. They're reactionary zealots and thugs and they were installed because that's what they were.
We do not need to get caught up in the cry of "for the women!" -- of Iraq or Afghanistan. The US has destroyed the lives for women in both countries and the US is not the one who can fix it. They've had more than enough time to try. They don't give a damn. With Iraq, US President Barack Obama could have sent a powerful message by making the US Ambassador to Iraq a woman. He wasn't interested. He went with the inept Chris Hill. And, as Republicans in the Senate knew, Chris Hill would screw things up because that's what he does -- as his personnel file demonstrates -- and they knew they could turn around and use him in any campaign. "Chris Hill screwed up Iraq!" "We had the surge and everything was wonderful! Then Chris Hill was installed!"
The Obama administration refuses to learn from mistakes and refuses to anticipate them. The arrogance is what is bringing them down (and, yes, they are being brought down -- the hero worship is over). Republicans (the current incarnation) would not attack Ray Odierno. He's military. So if they wanted to attack on Iraq -- a very serious issue to many voters -- they were going to go civilian. Therefore, who Barack appointed as ambassador was a serious issue. He or she was going to be attacked regardless. A competent woman doing a wonderful job would still have been attacked by the Republicans. But that said (whomever was installed in the post would be attacked), it's no excuse to install an incompetent of either gender but that's what happened with Chris Hill.
As Janine Zacharia observed on NPR today, violence continues in Iraq.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing last night (no one wounded or killed apparently), a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier. Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 man and left his wife and their three children wounded and a Baaj roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul on Friday, 1 traffic police officer shot dead in Mosul and one police officer wounded in a Mosul shooting.
Tuesday Mike noted, "Reuters reports, 'Iraq will temporarily shut down thousands of schools in two provinces and some in Baghdad after discovering 36 new cases of the H1N1 flu virus, Iraqi officials said on Tuesday'." Today John Leland (New York Times) reports on the "nearly 2,500 school closings" which have resulted from the fears or concerns: "Dr. Ihsan Jaafar, general director of the Public Health Directorate in the Health Ministry, said the number of cases was insignificant, especially compared with neighboring countries, where infection rates were much higher."
Yesterday's snapshot noted the United Nations High Commisoner for Refguees (UNHCR) released a new report entitled "Asylum Levels and Trends in Inudstrialized Countries First Half 2009: Statistical overview of asylum applications lodged in Europe and selected non-European countries." The report found that Iraqis continued to be the number one aslyum-seekers around the globe. Today UNHCR's Andrej Mahecic spoke on the issue of Iraqi refugees and the forcible deportation of them:
UNHCR is concerned about the fact that some European states have begun forcibly returning Iraqi originating from the region of Central Iraq over the last few months. In our guidelines issued last April, we noted that in view of the serious human rights violations and continuing security incidents throughout Iraq, most predominantly in the central governorates, asylum-seekers from these governorates should be considered to be in need of international protection. UNHCR therefore advises against involuntary returns to Iraq of persons originating from Central Iraq until there is a substantial improvement in the security and human rights situation in the country.
This reminder comes after the UK attempted to forcibly return 44 Iraqi men to Baghdad earlier this month. They were reportedly unsuccessful asylum claimants held in immigration removal centres in the UK. Iraq only accepted 10 who were allowed to leave the chartered aircraft in Baghdad, and the remaining 34 were returned to the UK and placed in immigration centres.
Other European states have signed readmission agreements with Iraq for voluntary and forced return. Denmark has forcibly returned 38 people originating mainly from Central and Southern Iraq since signing its agreement in May 2009. Sweden has undertaken some 250 forced returns with an unspecified number of returnees originating from the five central governorates of Iraq since signing an agreement in February 2008. UNHCR has also concerns about the safety and dignity of these returns.
Concerning asylum-seekers from the three northern governorates, as well as those from the southern governorates and Al Anbar, UNHCR recommends that their protection needs are assessed on an individual basis.
A significant number of Iraqi refugees are Christians. Mindy Belz (World Magazine) recounts some of the recent violence aimed at Iraqi Christians: "In May a 32-year-old Christian teacher was kidnapped in Kirkuk, but freed two weeks later by a joint operation between the Iraqi army and Awakening forces, or former insurgents now siding with Iraqi and U.S. forces. On Aug. 18 insurgents kidnapped a 50-year-old Christian physician named Samir Gorj. A passerby, also a Christian, who tried to come to his aid during the abduction was shot and killed." After his family piad a larger ransom, Gorj was released. "Then on Oct. 3 Imad Elia, a Christian nurse in Kirkuk, was kidnapped in front of his home and found dead in the street two days later." Meanwhile Sardar Muhammad (niqash) reports that Iraqi Christians are weighing whether or not to flee Kirkuk due to an increasing violence, "Local Christians say that they are now targets of armed groups and tens of them have been killed and kidnapped, while their churches have been bombed."
Iraqi refugees aren't the only ones being returned by others. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports the British government is sending the country's Royal Navy back to Iraq "to help train Iraqi sailors and protect oil platforms" according to the UK's Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell. To protect the oil, imagine that. Of especial interest to the US is this section of Rammell's statement:
The House will be aware that the UK concluded combat operations in Iraq on 30 April, and that our combat forces were withdrawn by the end of July in accordance with our previous arrangement with the Government of Iraq.
"Combat forces" are 'gone.' Because "protecting oil" is a non-violent effort? Point: The UK returns to Iraq. There was no withdrawal. "Combat" forces is a joke. Combat forces as opposed to that brigade of Iyengar Yoga instructors the US military usually deploys? On the UK's return, as Rebecca observed last week, "gordo even screws up a withdrawal."
In the September 4th snapshot, the following appeared:Meanwhile Quil Lawrence (NPR -- text only) reports that Iraqi security forces are using an instrumbent to detect bombs that probably doesn't do that: "Many U.S. officials say the science is about as sound as searching for groundwater with a stick. [. . .] One American expert in Baghdad compared the machine with a Ouija board but wouldn't comment on the record. A U.S. Navy investigation exposed a similar device made by a company called Sniffex as a sham." SniffexQuestions comments:
The NPR story you mentioned about a dubious explosive detector understates the problem. This is the latest in a long history of fraudulent explosive detectors that are dowsing rods. 15 years ago, the FBI busted the company, and when they opened the detectors they found they were empty. When they raided the factory, the FBI found the company was photocopying a Polaroid photo of cocaine in order to tell the detector what the molecular signature was. And in a stroke of genius so that competitors or foreign countries could not reverse engineer the "detection signature chip" they printed the photocopies on black paper. The company moved overseas, has changed the name of the product multiple times, but it has never passed a test showing it is more effective than flipping a coin as to finding explosives or drugs. Sniffex was a copycat product by a Bulgarian "inventor" that came out a few years ago. The US distributors were arrested and prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for using the device as the basis of a stock scam, but the new Sniffex Plus is still for sale to consumers overseas. I have been to the Middle East, and seen these in use outside hotels and other businesses.
TV notes. Tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings), NOW on PBS explores global warming:Is climate change turning coastal countries into water worlds? NOW travels to Bangladesh to examine some innovative solutions being implemented in a country where entire communities are inundated by water, battered by cyclones, and flooded from their homes.Imagine you lived in a world of water. Your home is two-feet under. You wade through it, cook on it, and sleep above it. This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of people around the world, coastal populations on the front lines of climate change.Only weeks before world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change, NOW senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa travels to Bangladesh to examine some innovative solutions -- from floating schools to rice that can "hold its breath" underwater -- being implemented in a country where entire communities are inundated by water, battered by cyclones, and flooded from their homes.
Many PBS stations begin airing Washington Week tonight as well (remember there is a web extra to each show if you podcast and you can check out the web extra the following Mondays when it is also posted to the website). Joining Gwen around the table this week is Dan Balz (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), David Sanger (New York Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal) -- and the show plans to remember journalist and Washington Week panelist Jack Nelson who passed away earlier this week. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Bernadine Healy, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Medicare/Medicaid Fraud Medicare and Medicaid fraudsters are beating U.S. taxpayers out of an estimated $90 billion a year using a billing scam that is surprisingly easy to execute. Steve Kroft investigates.
Fighting For The Cure More Americans are suffering from epilepsy than Parkinson's, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis combined. Katie Couric reports on a disease that may not be getting the attention it deserves. Watch Video
Tyler Perry When Hollywood refused to produce his films his way, Tyler Perry started his own studio in Atlanta and now his movies - including the popular "Madea" series - are drawing huge audiences. Byron Pitts profiles the new and unlikely movie mogul. Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 25, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
michael jansenthe irish timessalah hemeidthe new york times
bob herbertdavid brooks
howard lafranchi
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
sniffexquestionsmorning editionquil lawrence
60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbe
A former Michigan soldier who lost his hand after an explosion while trying to disarm a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2004 won a $4.3 million verdict today against the U.S. Army in a disability discrimination civil case.
"He proved that the Army created a hostile work environment for him because of his disability." said Royal Oak attorney Kevin Carlson who won the case along with attorney Joseph Golden.
I found the above story very interesting and congratulate James McKelvey on his win.
CBS. New Adventures Of Old Christine. Wednesday nights. First half-hour of prime time. Funniest show on TV.
If you don't watch, boy do you miss a lot.
Wanda Sykes is one of our favorites but she wasn't on Wednesday; however, it was still a very funny episode. Will from 'Will & Grace' was on (Eric McCormack).
So the gym Barb and Christine own was closed for the week. Christine decided to do Matthew a favor and play his receptionist. She mentioned she used to do that in college. And so she dug out her old clothes . . . from the 70s. Matthew (her brother) took one look at her and asked Rhoda (her) where Mary was?
Implying she looked like Rhoda on the sitcom classic 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show.'
Richard took one look at her and called her Maude.
Matthew ended up firing her. Christine couldn't stop giving advice to his patients.
They had a fight that was a little like when Mary (MTM) and Phyllis bickered over whether Phyllis was Mary's assistant or secretary.
Eric McCormack played a man with the suite next to Matthew. He asked Christine out but she thought he was inviting to do therapy with him. Then they decided to go on a date but Christine couldn't stop making things about her. He's part of a multi-arc series of episodes (I believe it's six).
New Christine? She and Richard got back together. He thought.
For her, it was just casual sex.
When he found that out, he decided it was time to move out. He hadn't yet and New Christine asked him to go to the sushi bar with her and seemed to appear to be hinting 'more to come' so they may be back in bed next episode.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, October 23, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, still no 'progress' on Iraq's election law, Iraqi Christians consider fleeing due to violence, the United Nations says Iraqis should not be forced to return to Iraq (pay attention England and Denmark), Gordo Brown decides British lives are worth less than Iraqi oil, the US Congress forgets Iraq, and more.
This morning on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show (second hour, international hour), Diane was joined by panelists Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera), Moises Naim (Foreign Policy) and Janine Zacharia (Bloomberg News). Iraq was noted in the following:
Diane Rehm: Let's go right back to the phones, to Kansas City, MO. Good morning, Ron.
Ron: Good morning. My question deals with the economic development. I was -- I traveled in Iraq and one of the things that I saw there wasn't really -- for all the billions of dollars that we were spending over there -- there's not a lot of economic development taking place. So, you know, that's lacking. My understanding of Afghanistan is that they were once -- they are geographically located in what was known as "The Old Silk Trade" -- that's between the Middle East and Asia. And I want to know what's going on to try to redevelop that in the way of infrastructure with roads and railroads which would allow them to have a place into the global economy which should be the essential goal that the United States would want?
Diane Rehm: Let's take Iraq first. Abderrahim?
Abderrahim Foukara: Well the issue of economic development, it has at least two impediments in Iraq. One is corruption. And the second one is political instability. Now Prime Minister Maliki was here in Washington recently. They're saying -- both he and President Obama have been saying -- Iraq is now stable enough to start focusing on economic development. Now that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is that the whole focus on economic development as we have seen it talked about here in Washington during Prime Minister -- Prime Minister Maliki's visit is that Iraq, which has sort of fallen off the radar here in the United States, is actually still not doing well politically. And talking economic development is one way of diverting attention -- people's attention -- from the real problems that continue to bedevil Iraq. [. . .]
Diane Rehm: Janine?
Janine Zacharia: Well you know too echo what Abderrahim said, Prime Minister Maliki came again this week to say "Iraq's open for business" but it truly is not open for business when you still have the sec -- Correct, the political situation is involved so we don't know what's going to happen with January elections, but the security issues is still paramount. You cannot -- American businessmen or international businessmen cannot go and roam around Iraq and set up shop right now and import Coca Cola and do all these things without being worried about being blown up. [. . .]
Diane Rehm: Moises?
Moises Naim: Economic development is very, very difficult. Economic development in the middle of a war is impossible. So it doesn't matter. There's no country ever that's developed on the basis of foreign aid. You can pour as much money as you want and unless you have a functioning market and investors, commercial activity -- development will not happen. And it's impossible to have that if you have a war going on.
We're not doing the "Afghanistan snapshot" so "[. . .]" indicates they then turned to the issue of Afghanistan. We will note Afghanistan in a moment, in terms of a Congressional exchange led by US House Rep Susan Davis. But first, let's note the political referred to above.
Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) observes, "Once again the US finds itself hostage to Iraqi politics -- this time as a result of a standoff among Iraqi political parties over an overdue election law." If you're saying "Huh?", you were sleeping last week when Gina Chon was warning the Thursday date was approaching and Iraq appeared to be missing it. Parliamentary elections in Iraq are said to take place this coming January. That's after they were already kicked back. They were supposed to take place in December. They kicked it back to January. Last week, on Thursday, they were supposed to have passed the law and didn't. And still haven't. On Wednesday, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that Iraq actually had two more weeks to pass it. (Kat covered the hearing here.) Flournoy also stated they could just pass legislation on what day to hold the election and leave all matters to the 2005 election law -- which, no, would not be 'progress'. She left out the part about Iraq's court system finding that law to be unconstitutional. While Flournoy attempted to downplay, others aren't doing so. Michael Jansen (Irish Times) observes, "The US military may have to put on indefinite hold its plan to dispatch additional troops to Afghanistan if Iraq's election does not take place on time in January. [. . .] On Wednesday, after prolonged debate, the Iraqi parliament admitted failure in its efforts to draft a new election law to govern the coming contest and asked the Political Council for National Security to take on the task." "Thrown in doubt" is the call Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) makes and goes on to note of the High Electoral Commission: "The commission, responsible for organizing polls in Iraq, has said that it needs 90 days to print and distribute ballots. Iraqi and UN officials fear that the election could be delayed if lawmakers fail to pass a revised election law this week." The New York Times editorializes in "Counting Backward" that when it comes to the elections, Iraq's Constitution must be followed (they appear to forget that Iraq's Constitution also covers Kirkuk -- click here for more on that and don't miss the latest Inside Iraq for the issue as well). Barbara Surk (AP) reports today that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's spokesperson stated the Ayatollah wants the elections to take place January 16th as has been announced. Howard LaFranchi explains:
The situation, which caught Obama administration diplomats off guard as they have focused attention on Afghanistan and the electoral crisis there, is reminiscent of the stalemate the Bush administration faced in 2007 concerning a series of "benchmark" laws the US Congress sought in return for continuing support to Iraq.
At that time, US diplomats spoke of "two clocks" in the two capitals to explain the discrepancy between Washington's demand for quick political action and Baghdad's refusal to be rushed.
The two clocks are on display again, with US diplomats including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton imploring Iraqi leaders to pass an election law. For their part, some Iraqi politicians say it is Americans and not Iraqis who feel a need to hurry on legislation that cuts to the heart of Iraq's power struggles.
The election law should have been approved by Oct. 15 in order for elections scheduled for Jan. 16 to go forward, according to the Iraqi constitution.
Alsumaria reports that the National Security Political Council will discuss the election law tomorrow when they meet. Former Reagan administration official Lawrence J. Korb (Center for American Progress) is on the ground in Iraq gathering impressions and, in his latest piece, he notes:
Iraq is a fragile state, and it can become a stable or failed state depending on whether the government increases or decreases in legitimacy and competence. If it does not become more competent or regresses, there is danger of a coup. Losing legitimacy could lead to a civil war.
From Parliament issues to the US Congress, we're dropping back to yesterday. And we'll start with a question: Does the US Congress exist to help scoundrels rake in more ill gotten gain?
Thursday, we (Ava, Wally, Kat and myself) attended a hearing that was a complete waste of time unless you're a lobbyist/business person needing Congress to give you a stamp of approval. We attended the waste of time hearing because it was entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on US Strategy." Due to votes, there was a lengthy break in there and, if we'd been smart, we would have bailed during the break because after one hour of that hearing, one hour when NO ONE mentioned Iraq, it was as obvious as it was embarrassing -- embarrassing for the US House Armed Services Committee's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. Do they have trouble reading on the Hill?
For most of us in the United States, a hearing entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy" would be about . . . Afghanistan and Iraq. So where the hell was Iraq?
They didn't have time for it. They had time to call war mongers "public servants."
What the hell is Barry McCaffrey doing testifying to Congress to begin with? Retired general? BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC is his company. And his company is in the business of prolonging wars so when he says the military has to stay and when he refers to the 'justifiable' "anger" Americans had towards Afghanistan -- and laments it being gone -- every damn word out of his mouth is suspect because he's working the street, under the street lamp, trolling for bucks.
Here's SourceWatch on the Old War Whore Barry:
In April 2008 documents obtained by New York Times reporter David Barstow revealed that McCaffrey had been recruited as one of over 75 retired military officers involved in the Pentagon military analyst program. Participants appeared on television and radio news shows as military analysts, and/or penned newspaper op/ed columns. The program was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke. The idea was to recruit "key influentials" to help sell a wary public on "a possible Iraq invasion."[1]
[. . .]
Shortly after the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, McCaffrey exclaimed on MSNBC: "Thank God for the Abrams tank and... the Bradley fighting vehicle." The "war isn't over until we've got a tank sitting on top of Saddam's bunker," he added. The Nation noted, "in March [2003] alone, [Integrated Defense Technologies] received more than $14 million worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support hardware." [15]
The above says he's got nothing to say that isn't either suspect or paid for. He sells war and he profits from it. There is no reason the US Congress needs to waste their time or US tax payer dollars getting Barry's opinion on Afghanistan. He is not, no matter how many times some members of Congress got it wrong, "a public servant." He is a lobbyist and he lobbies for war. That's reality.
Reality is also that if you're hearing's entitled Iraq and if US forces are in Iraq -- more than are in Afghanistan -- it's pretty damn stupid and insulting not to even shoot the s**t about Iraq in passing during the hearing. Now Pakistan the subcommitee made time for in the hearing despite Pakistan not being in the hearing's title.
New York Times columnist Bob Herbert made an idiot of himself (no surprise there) in an online discussion with David Brooks (Brooks was no better but the world has grown accustomed to that). Here's Herbie:
Bob Herbert: David, the president is deciding what we should be doing with regard to troop deployments in Afghanistan. It seems to me that however one feels about this war and the war in Iraq, the environment here on the home front is bizarre. This is as weird a wartime atmosphere as I can imagine. For most Americans, there is nothing in the way of shared wartime sacrifices. There is no draft. We have not raised taxes to pay for the wars. Except for the families of those in the military, most Americans are paying very little attention to these conflicts. I've brought this matter up a few times on college campuses and the response has been, in essence, a collective shrug.
We addressed that in terms of the press last night (click here). But, hey, Bob Herbert, what does it say when the US Congress forgets the Iraq War? Riddle me that, Bob Herbert.
Here's a section of the hearing:
US House Rep Susan Davis: Help me with this issue because we are continuing to raise the issue of the role of women and whether or not we're abandoning them in any way if we move into negotiating or how we're able to have some kind of reconciliation in Afghanistan -- we want to focus on them. Where -- where does security lie because clearly the military has paved the way for many efforts in Afghanistan. I mean there's no doubt about that. And yet on the other hand, I understand that it's perhaps overly ambitious of us to believe that all of those efforts with the military and civilian capacity both are not necessarily in the best -- are picking up the best -- the best interests of the Afghan people -- or the region, assuming that Pakistan we're talking about as well. Do you want to -- Ms. Cole?
Beth Ellen Cole: I think that with governance -- like all of these issues -- we have to enlarge our view of security. I mean security is not just something that military forces can bring to the communities of Afghanistan. In the United States, we think of the security as school guards and bank guards and people who protect judges. And it's not just a question of military or police forces. Border guards, people that are dealing with looking at money laundering and bank operations and we -- in that sense, this -- the debate about troops is a very, very important debate but we have to think about the other assets that we have to bring to bear including -- with the Afghans -- including putting women as police officers in certain places or as school guards which we've shown we can do in Liberia. [. . .]
US House Rep Susan Davis: General Barno, do you have any thoughts?
Lt Gen Dave Barno (retired general): Two things. I think one, on the issue of security, you're absolutely correct that there -- it's not a sequential problem of security and reconstruction and development, these things are concurrent , these things have to parallel with one another. [. . .] The other question I think you alluded to was this idea of "What does it mean to women if we negotiate with the Taliban?" That's a paraphrase of what, perhaps, I think you were saying you were saying. And-and I do think we have to be aware that in my estimation, I think from a policy standpoint right now, having the Taliban be part of the government of Afghanistan is not where this is going, is not the objective. Having reformed Taliban, ex-Taliban, Taliban that have rejected violence, put down their weapons and join the political process, that's a very different outlook. The small "t" if you will, the individuals, not-not the movement. And I think that's where we have to be careful that we don't inadvertently send this message that we're willing to negotiate with the Taliban because we're really trying to exit -- as opposed to we're willing these Taliban, former Taliban fighters, lay down their arms and become part of this political process. Our goal when I was there was not to kill the Taliban -- collectively in the big strategic picture, it was to make the Taliban irrelevant, make no one want to become part of the Taliban, no one aspire to the Taliban and that takes a very nuanced approach of many different elements of simply security and military forces.
US House Rep Susan Davis: Mm-hm. Mr. Waldman, can I just real quickly get a response from you on that?
Matthew Waldman: Sure. I-I-I mean, in terms of security [. . .] But as has been said by Ms. Cole, the notion of security is much broader and-and of course, really security will political strategy which is indigenous In terms of women, you're absolutely right to raise this, I think it's a very serious issue. I think the-the-the -- when one travels the country and talks to Afghans, it's very clear that they want their girls to go to school -- if you look at the numbers now, over 2 million girls in school, yeah, you know, there's this universal desire to see that happen and for women to have the uh, in most areas, for women to be able to work and have rights, freedoms and rights that-that men have. It is alarming that the Shia law was passed recently, which you're probably aware of. And I certainly think that one has to ask about the commitment to the current administration to --
Us House Rep Susan Davis: Yes --
Matthew Waldman: -- women's rights.
US House Rep Susan Davis: -- which is doubtful.
Matthew Waldman: Yeah, yes. It certainly is. And uh we've yet to see real substance behind the-the-the work to try to-to empower women and to uh support their opportunities and rights. But you're also right that there is concern about women's rights after -- as negotiations move forward. Now of course reconciliation -- truth and reconciliation -- is essential in Afghanistan.
To review the participants above: Cole works for the US Institute of Peace (US government), Waldman works for the Carr Center AGAINST Human Rights (US government mouthpiece with a major in counter-insurgency studies and cheerleading) and Barno (Near East South Asia Center For Strategic Studies -- billed as "the preeminent U.S. Government institution for building relationships and understanding in the NESA region"). So the US government is more than well represented and we can all chuckle and pretend the stammering and stumbling Waldman represented the land of academia as well. So what did Barry represent? The War Machine. So that gets a seat at the table in front of Congress? That's really pathetic and really shameful and it's past time that Barry was pulled from Congressional panels because he's not an expert and he uses the fact that Congress calls on him as part of his business portfolio.
Now we didn't highlight the above exchange to say: The US must stay in Afghanistan for the women! That's b.s. The Afghanistan War's gone on long enough. Suddenly, the US gives a damn about women's rights? No, it's time to fly that false flag and see if you can get anyone to salute it.
No one should.
And you need to relate it back to Iraq where women did have a higher social standing, the highest in the region. And they've lost all that. It's much too late to worry about women's rights. Women were sold out by the US government and it was not by accident or happen-stance. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the US government made the decision (after making the decision for illegal war) to install thugs with US ties that they thought they could interact with (in stealing the natural resources of both countries) and that they thought could terrorize the local population (the non-exiles) into a state of fear where they would not fight back.
They went for thugs. They installed thugs. Thugs don't respect rights. They don't respect women's rights, they don't respect women. At the start of this month, Najaf banned alcohol -- and not out of any concern over alcoholism but to 'condemn' the 'sin' of drinking alcohol. They're reactionary zealots and thugs and they were installed because that's what they were.
We do not need to get caught up in the cry of "for the women!" -- of Iraq or Afghanistan. The US has destroyed the lives for women in both countries and the US is not the one who can fix it. They've had more than enough time to try. They don't give a damn. With Iraq, US President Barack Obama could have sent a powerful message by making the US Ambassador to Iraq a woman. He wasn't interested. He went with the inept Chris Hill. And, as Republicans in the Senate knew, Chris Hill would screw things up because that's what he does -- as his personnel file demonstrates -- and they knew they could turn around and use him in any campaign. "Chris Hill screwed up Iraq!" "We had the surge and everything was wonderful! Then Chris Hill was installed!"
The Obama administration refuses to learn from mistakes and refuses to anticipate them. The arrogance is what is bringing them down (and, yes, they are being brought down -- the hero worship is over). Republicans (the current incarnation) would not attack Ray Odierno. He's military. So if they wanted to attack on Iraq -- a very serious issue to many voters -- they were going to go civilian. Therefore, who Barack appointed as ambassador was a serious issue. He or she was going to be attacked regardless. A competent woman doing a wonderful job would still have been attacked by the Republicans. But that said (whomever was installed in the post would be attacked), it's no excuse to install an incompetent of either gender but that's what happened with Chris Hill.
As Janine Zacharia observed on NPR today, violence continues in Iraq.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing last night (no one wounded or killed apparently), a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier. Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 man and left his wife and their three children wounded and a Baaj roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul on Friday, 1 traffic police officer shot dead in Mosul and one police officer wounded in a Mosul shooting.
Tuesday Mike noted, "Reuters reports, 'Iraq will temporarily shut down thousands of schools in two provinces and some in Baghdad after discovering 36 new cases of the H1N1 flu virus, Iraqi officials said on Tuesday'." Today John Leland (New York Times) reports on the "nearly 2,500 school closings" which have resulted from the fears or concerns: "Dr. Ihsan Jaafar, general director of the Public Health Directorate in the Health Ministry, said the number of cases was insignificant, especially compared with neighboring countries, where infection rates were much higher."
Yesterday's snapshot noted the United Nations High Commisoner for Refguees (UNHCR) released a new report entitled "Asylum Levels and Trends in Inudstrialized Countries First Half 2009: Statistical overview of asylum applications lodged in Europe and selected non-European countries." The report found that Iraqis continued to be the number one aslyum-seekers around the globe. Today UNHCR's Andrej Mahecic spoke on the issue of Iraqi refugees and the forcible deportation of them:
UNHCR is concerned about the fact that some European states have begun forcibly returning Iraqi originating from the region of Central Iraq over the last few months. In our guidelines issued last April, we noted that in view of the serious human rights violations and continuing security incidents throughout Iraq, most predominantly in the central governorates, asylum-seekers from these governorates should be considered to be in need of international protection. UNHCR therefore advises against involuntary returns to Iraq of persons originating from Central Iraq until there is a substantial improvement in the security and human rights situation in the country.
This reminder comes after the UK attempted to forcibly return 44 Iraqi men to Baghdad earlier this month. They were reportedly unsuccessful asylum claimants held in immigration removal centres in the UK. Iraq only accepted 10 who were allowed to leave the chartered aircraft in Baghdad, and the remaining 34 were returned to the UK and placed in immigration centres.
Other European states have signed readmission agreements with Iraq for voluntary and forced return. Denmark has forcibly returned 38 people originating mainly from Central and Southern Iraq since signing its agreement in May 2009. Sweden has undertaken some 250 forced returns with an unspecified number of returnees originating from the five central governorates of Iraq since signing an agreement in February 2008. UNHCR has also concerns about the safety and dignity of these returns.
Concerning asylum-seekers from the three northern governorates, as well as those from the southern governorates and Al Anbar, UNHCR recommends that their protection needs are assessed on an individual basis.
A significant number of Iraqi refugees are Christians. Mindy Belz (World Magazine) recounts some of the recent violence aimed at Iraqi Christians: "In May a 32-year-old Christian teacher was kidnapped in Kirkuk, but freed two weeks later by a joint operation between the Iraqi army and Awakening forces, or former insurgents now siding with Iraqi and U.S. forces. On Aug. 18 insurgents kidnapped a 50-year-old Christian physician named Samir Gorj. A passerby, also a Christian, who tried to come to his aid during the abduction was shot and killed." After his family piad a larger ransom, Gorj was released. "Then on Oct. 3 Imad Elia, a Christian nurse in Kirkuk, was kidnapped in front of his home and found dead in the street two days later." Meanwhile Sardar Muhammad (niqash) reports that Iraqi Christians are weighing whether or not to flee Kirkuk due to an increasing violence, "Local Christians say that they are now targets of armed groups and tens of them have been killed and kidnapped, while their churches have been bombed."
Iraqi refugees aren't the only ones being returned by others. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports the British government is sending the country's Royal Navy back to Iraq "to help train Iraqi sailors and protect oil platforms" according to the UK's Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell. To protect the oil, imagine that. Of especial interest to the US is this section of Rammell's statement:
The House will be aware that the UK concluded combat operations in Iraq on 30 April, and that our combat forces were withdrawn by the end of July in accordance with our previous arrangement with the Government of Iraq.
"Combat forces" are 'gone.' Because "protecting oil" is a non-violent effort? Point: The UK returns to Iraq. There was no withdrawal. "Combat" forces is a joke. Combat forces as opposed to that brigade of Iyengar Yoga instructors the US military usually deploys? On the UK's return, as Rebecca observed last week, "gordo even screws up a withdrawal."
In the September 4th snapshot, the following appeared:Meanwhile Quil Lawrence (NPR -- text only) reports that Iraqi security forces are using an instrumbent to detect bombs that probably doesn't do that: "Many U.S. officials say the science is about as sound as searching for groundwater with a stick. [. . .] One American expert in Baghdad compared the machine with a Ouija board but wouldn't comment on the record. A U.S. Navy investigation exposed a similar device made by a company called Sniffex as a sham." SniffexQuestions comments:
The NPR story you mentioned about a dubious explosive detector understates the problem. This is the latest in a long history of fraudulent explosive detectors that are dowsing rods. 15 years ago, the FBI busted the company, and when they opened the detectors they found they were empty. When they raided the factory, the FBI found the company was photocopying a Polaroid photo of cocaine in order to tell the detector what the molecular signature was. And in a stroke of genius so that competitors or foreign countries could not reverse engineer the "detection signature chip" they printed the photocopies on black paper. The company moved overseas, has changed the name of the product multiple times, but it has never passed a test showing it is more effective than flipping a coin as to finding explosives or drugs. Sniffex was a copycat product by a Bulgarian "inventor" that came out a few years ago. The US distributors were arrested and prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for using the device as the basis of a stock scam, but the new Sniffex Plus is still for sale to consumers overseas. I have been to the Middle East, and seen these in use outside hotels and other businesses.
TV notes. Tonight on most PBS stations (check local listings), NOW on PBS explores global warming:Is climate change turning coastal countries into water worlds? NOW travels to Bangladesh to examine some innovative solutions being implemented in a country where entire communities are inundated by water, battered by cyclones, and flooded from their homes.Imagine you lived in a world of water. Your home is two-feet under. You wade through it, cook on it, and sleep above it. This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of people around the world, coastal populations on the front lines of climate change.Only weeks before world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change, NOW senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa travels to Bangladesh to examine some innovative solutions -- from floating schools to rice that can "hold its breath" underwater -- being implemented in a country where entire communities are inundated by water, battered by cyclones, and flooded from their homes.
Many PBS stations begin airing Washington Week tonight as well (remember there is a web extra to each show if you podcast and you can check out the web extra the following Mondays when it is also posted to the website). Joining Gwen around the table this week is Dan Balz (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), David Sanger (New York Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal) -- and the show plans to remember journalist and Washington Week panelist Jack Nelson who passed away earlier this week. Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Bernadine Healy, Avis Jones-DeWeever and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Medicare/Medicaid Fraud Medicare and Medicaid fraudsters are beating U.S. taxpayers out of an estimated $90 billion a year using a billing scam that is surprisingly easy to execute. Steve Kroft investigates.
Fighting For The Cure More Americans are suffering from epilepsy than Parkinson's, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis combined. Katie Couric reports on a disease that may not be getting the attention it deserves. Watch Video
Tyler Perry When Hollywood refused to produce his films his way, Tyler Perry started his own studio in Atlanta and now his movies - including the popular "Madea" series - are drawing huge audiences. Byron Pitts profiles the new and unlikely movie mogul. Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 25, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
the diane rehm shownpr
michael jansenthe irish timessalah hemeidthe new york times
bob herbertdavid brooks
howard lafranchi
caroline alexanderbloomberg news
sniffexquestionsmorning editionquil lawrence
60 minutescbs newspbsto the contrarybonnie erbe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)