"Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part II" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Why all the “racist” smears against the Tea Party movement? Easy to answer - as in the primary elections in 2008, it’s a way to pump up the Obama Dimocratic vote – in a year with all the energy and enthusiasm coming from the NObama Coalition. It’s a Chicago Thug way to pump up the Dimocratic vote and (as we wrote a year ago) bring down the Tea Party – and if that means race-baiting, then race-baiting it is.
Barack Obama does not have much going for him other than a near monolithic but unenthused and drifting African-American vote along with the comfortable White Liberal vote represented by unthinking, screaming Big Blog boys. So the strategy is demonize the Tea Party activists as “racist” and scare off potential supporters while at the same time race-baiting to pump up the black vote and the liberal white vote. It’s race-baiting for fun and profit just like we had during the Democratic primaries in 2008.
And where there is Barack Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing is sure to follow. Recently, protests by a group of Gay activists (remember when we Democrats loved protests and booing establishment liars?) who care more for the Gay community than Barack Obama, were announced. Soon thereafter, the usual Obama tricks came to the fore. Obama quietly (so only Gay activists -and no one else – would know) signed a memorandum which tried to head off the protests – but as usual the memorandum was meaningless. “This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”
The protests, despite the flowery worded memorandum, proceeded and Obama was rightly heckled in California as he campaigned for the drowning Senator Boxer. It’s what we have advised Women, Gays and Jews to do because the mainline organizations for these groups are more interested in protecting Obama than in protecting their constituents.
Obama, as can be seen by the video did not like being heckled. Obama was clearly angered at the challenge from the Left and not the easier to demonize Right. The Hopium guzzlers in the California audience, the ones who gave farm animals more respect than gay people on election day 2008, instead of defending the Gay activists, defended Barack Obama. Retaliation from Obama followed against the boo happy Gay people.
In a report from Politico sarcastically called “Most transparent White House ever…” Gay activists in the military chained themselves to the White House fence and the White House tried to erase them from history. From the hypocrites on the Left – silence. Silence as in Silence = Death. Gay-bashing is back on the Obama menu and the hypocrites of the Big Blog Left are sitting at his table.
Before I go further, I need to explain I'm dancing on air. Stan is as well. We're quoted by Hillary Is 44. It's the editorial we worked on at Third Sunday. This section was C.I., Ava, Mike, Elaine, Stan, Ann and me. I checked with Stan to be sure I didn't forget anyone. And where it builds up to steam, that's generally Ava, C.I. and Elaine. They sound like Julia Sugarbaker when they get going! :D
Later in today's post at Hillary Is 44, they talk about Blacks who are members of the Tea Party. I want to note that because I have called other Blacks Uncle Toms. I'm sure that sometimes they've deserved it but I'm also sure that in the past I've resorted to that just because it was easy. I haven't called anyone that online. Mainly because this wasn't a blog blog forever. This was an online comic novel for nearly three years and only stopped being that when I couldn't move into Betinna's death scene and I was sick to death of the Blog Boyz lies that only Whites were supporting Hillary.
I supported Hillary 100%.
Novel wise, I wouldn't have had a reason to say that. Betinna was in an all White world (part of the commentary on The New York Times) so there would have been no one to call that. (Minor Black characters pop up late in the novel.) That was part of her being the outsider. But anyway there was no "Uncle Tom" in that portion. And there's been none since.
But I do use that term offline. And if I'd been blog blogging here in 2005 you better believe I would have used it.
I now realize that people of my race who are conservatives aren't even in the top ten of my racial problems. So if you're someone I've called that offline, consider the fact that I was more than likely wrong.
Charlie's Angels. Why didn't I write about them last night? I forgot. Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd were on Good Morning America yesterday morning. I did not know Cheryl Ladd lived next to John Forsythe the last few years (two drive ways between them) (he was Charlie, she was Kris). She shared that some mornings he would call her up and say, "Good morning, Angel." Just like on the TV show. Jaclyn (Kelly on the show) shared that one of her memories of Farrah Fawcett (Jill) will be one of their last get togethers and 'the sweet Texas girl who showed up with a German chocolate cake.' That's a paraphrase. But Farrah had made the cake herself. She and Jaclyn were both from Texas -- Farrah from Corpus Christie, Jaclyn from Houston. Cheryl looked the way I remembered her (and a lot better now that she doesn't have the dark hair she had on the Vegas show NBC cancelled a little while ago) and Jaclyn?
Oh my goodness. Those cheekbones. She's amazing. Cheryl Ladd is a very pretty woman but I would not blame her if she thought, "Gee, I got to sit next to her?"
They would be asked a question and end up saying the same thing. It was weird -- even to them -- how close they still were.
So it was a nice interview. The thing that threw me was the guy doing it was Christopher Connely who I don't know. I thought, "Jake Tapper's bleached his hair." For a good two minutes, I thought it was Jake Tapper with Billy Idol hair.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, April 21, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, post-election jockeying continues and a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee better be willing to plead "the dog ate my homework" because there's really no excuse for what took place today.
Starting with veterans issues, Les Blumenthal (News Tribune) reports:With more than one in five veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unemployed, Sen. Patty Murray introduced legislation Tuesday that would provide expanded training, job placement and small business assistance to them, calling the current situation unacceptable. "It really makes you ask how this can be, how these heroes … struggle so much when they come home," said Murray, D-Wash., adding that existing programs offered by the Veterans Affairs Department and the Defense Department were inadequate.The legislation has bipartisan support. Among the co-sponsors are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin.Bi-partisan support doesn't mean a great deal to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee as senators on both sides of the aisle can attest. It is a dysfunctional committee that appears repeatedly unable to address new business. Murray's legislation may fly through, however, because what does get accomplished tends to happen as a result of her. She's pretty much the acting chair and the Committee would do much better if the current chair would acknowledge the reality that, at 85-years-old, he is not up to the job of chairing a committee, certainly not one with such pressing responsibilities. The Democratic Party has shown no leadership in confronting him on this matter.
Today the Committee held one of those oh so rare blink and you miss it hearings. So rare, in fact, that Senator Jon Tester felt the need to declare to Akaka, "I want to thank you for the hearing." Chair Akaka was doing stand up -- and about as funny as Dane Cook (translation, not at all -- though Tester might disagree, he noted after Akaka's stand up was completed, "I can't top that by any means."). The hearing was on the GI Bill and Akaka declared (straight face/dead pan) that, "Since the programs began, the Committee has been actively monitoring the implementation of the new benefits." Really?
I didn't realize Stephanie Herseth Sandlin served on this committee.
Oh, wait, she doesn't. She serves on the House Veterans Affairs Committee and I know I've attended at least three hearings she's held in the last seven months which have addressed the payments in the GI Bill program and other details of the program. And Danny Akaka has chaired how many hearings on this? Help me out here? The answer comes back, until today: ZERO.
Akaka's got time for jokes because he's not chairing a functioning committee. Veterans were waiting for their fall semester checks, having to take out loans, risking losing their housing and Akaka couldn't hold a hearing? This was a national scanald last fall and Akaka's response was to ignore it. This is unacceptable and the fact that Democratic leadership refuses to address it (they had no problem removing Robert Byrd as the Chair of a Committee) is beginning to translate into: We don't give a damn about veterans. The veterans of America do not have time to waste because Akaka's 85-years-old and won't admit that he's barely keeping it together and that he needs to resign as chair. The veterans of American and their loved ones do not have time to waste because the Senate Democratic leadership will not impose discpline and explain to Akaka that seniority and senility share a lot of common syllables.
The hearing was composed of two panels. The first panel was the VA's Keith Wilson and Dan Osendorf as well as DoD's Robert Clark. The second panel was Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Marco Reininger and Faith DesLauriers, Robert Madden (American Legion) and William Stephens (National Association of State Approving Agencies).
The eye rolling never stops with the ineffective Committee and its government witnesses. All on the first panel were proud of themselves and full of themselves. Keith Wilson's song and dance is old -- but of course, unlike the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Senate version was finally hearing him for the first time.
Let's drop in to Dan Osendorf's remarks. Those paying attention should be offended.
Dan Osendorf: In October 2009, VA began issuing advance payment to veterans and service members who had not received their benefits for the fall enrollment period This was done so they could focus on their academic studies and not be burdened with their financial concerns. VA notified advance payment recipients in late January and February of the reimbursment process for the advance payments. Notification explained that $750 dollars would be deducted from their monthly education payments beginning April 1st and they could make arrangements with the debt management center for a reduced withholding if $750 was causing a financial hardship. Individuals not currently enrolled in school received notification on how payment arrangements could be made to satisfy the debt. Anticipating a large number of requests for lower withholdings for the April 1 check. VMC added six telephone lines and eight operators and extended telephone service hours an additional hour to handle the increased volume. In addition, we created a form that allowed them to request a reduced withholding and could be e-mailed to DMC. This was also furnished to the VVA education websites so that they could take calls and forward the forms to us. We created special mailboxes where they could send the forms to, we could process them to. In addition, VVA added it to its website [. . .]
Wow, you worked real hard and you're such a big sweetheart to do all that. If we forget that you had to do all of that because the VA wasn't doing their damn job. No "advance" payments would have been needed had the VA distributed the fall checks in a timely manner -- and, yes, there are still some who have not received their fall checks, their fall 2009 checks. This is akin to an arsonist bragging about how s/he saved the building after setting it on fire. If the building had never been set on fire, no efforts to put out the fire would have been needed. The idea that "advance" checks were a favor? That's laughable.
So was having to sit through another slide show by Keith Wilson -- though, again, this was a first for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee since they chose to do nothing when Kimberly Hefling and AP broke the story. They chose to do nothing while parents were in danger of losing their housing. They chose to do nothing while veterans -- as late as December -- were having to take out short term loans at high interest rates to pay for Christmas for their children because they'd used every spare bit of their own money to cover the tuition that the VA was supposed to have already covered. I love how it's "advanced" checks today -- in real time, they were calling them "emergency" checks. But let's downplay that as well.
Wilson lied to through his teeth at one point and if anyone on the panel had been to college (or paid attention to their child's college) in the last two decades, they would have confronted him on it (instead Akaka quickly moved on -- well maybe one of his great grandchildren will go to college soon). Universities do not set their tuition rate as the fall semester begins. They would lose a huge number of students that way because students (and parents if parents are paying) need to know in advance what the cost is. But Wilson pinned the blame for the delays in checks on the fact that it was "crunch time" and just as the VA wants to be paying the full fall semester at the start, well at the start of the fall semester is when the universities are setting their tuition. And anyone in college in the last two decades or with children in college would have said, "Uh, explain to me then early enrollment?" This week alone, KOMU has reported that tuition for grad school will increase this fall (2.7%) for the University of Missouri System, the Jackson Citizen Patriot editorial board just praised Michigan University's board of regents for announcing that there will be no increase in tuition (or the cost of room and board) for the fall 2010 semester (or the spring 2011). And we could go on and on. But this is set well ahead of time. We'll note the exchange in full. Please note Wilson -- as he always does -- refers to the start of the year when in fact he means the fall semester. He does that in every hearing. I have no idea why. But read the remarks in full and you'll grasp how he's claiming that the schools are submitting fall enrollment funds to the VA at the same time that the tuition rates are still up in the air. That is incorrect. There are about seven lies/errors in his testimony and, were I not so disgusted, we'd go through each one.
Chair Daniel Akaka: What one change do you believe would be most important to streamline and simplify the implement a new program?
Keith Wilson: I have to limit that to one? [Laughs at what he thinks was his own humorous remark.] The program itself is a fabulous program. Uh, and anything I would say, I wouldn't want to detract from - from the significance of this program. From-from the user perspective, from the students -- the veterans perspective what I hear a lot about is the confusion of having -- thank you [volume on his microphone had been turned up] -- more than one GI Bill program. As you're aware, the programs that we had prior to the post-9/11 GI Bill are still in existance and individuals need to make those decisions on what the best program is for them based on their unique situations. It's not always the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it's not always the Montgomery GI Bill. But that decision process causes a lot of confusion for our students and it makes it that much more cumbersome for us to administer as well. There are a lot of other issues with the payment structure uh and timing. For example, uh, paying the tuition and fees and setting the tuition and fees are at the beginning of the year. That causes us a lot of problems because the time that the states are setting the tuition rates is the same time that schools are submitting enrollment information to us and we're wanting to pay benefits. Just that crunch time that occurs in the fall with the establishments of the rates -- uh -- is very challenging.
Chair Daniel Akaka: Uh, Mr. Warren . . .
I'm not in the damn mood and the fact that the Committee was goes to their lack of leadership and, honestly, their lack of awareness. Do we have to buy them building blocks and Play Dough to explain what's what to them? This is ridiculous. US House Rep Harry Teague was calling out the problems with choosing one of the two bills -- Montgomery or Post-9/11 -- in a hearing on October 15th and he was calling it out to whom? Keith Wilson. Yeah. And now Keefers want to act like it's a big problem.
Before the problem, when answering Teague, was "statutory requirement" -- confronted with the issue, he pushed it off as a problem Congress had created. Now, he brings it up on his own and still doesn't take responsibility. I'm going to repeat what we noted when we covered that before: The VFW -- FOR FREE -- helped veterans figure out which program was best suited for their needs. They stepped up and did that for free. That's great and many were helped by the VFW doing that; however, that's the role of the VA. The VA -- paid to do this -- didn't do their damn job and the VFW -- not an arm of the government -- came in and picked up the slack as best they could.
Congress has refused, REFUSED, to call out the VA for this. People are confused, Keith Wilson wants to say today. Well, yeah, they are and it's the VA job to clarify. I know Wilson's job would be so much easier if it weren't for those 'pesky veterans' but those veterans are why he has a job, why VA exists and its past time that they started doing that job. And veterans are aware of this. It was a friend who's an Iraq War veteran that asked me to note, last fall, that the VFW was doing this and doing it for free. And he noted he was on hold or couldn't get through with the VA over and over but there was little to no wait time with the VFW. Why is that the VA isn't held to any standards at all?
And why is it that on the House Committee you have so many who are informed and who work so very hard and will ask the tough questions but on the Senate Committee it's all grins and giggles. Let's drop back to that October 15th hearing to again note US House Rep Harry Mitchell refusing to be spun by Keith Wilson:
US House Rep Harry Mitchell: Mr. Wilson, this is not your first appearance before this subcommittee. You have appeared before it several times since the GI Bill was signed into law to keep the committee members apprised of the VA's efforts to implement the GI Bill. And you offered assurances that the VA would be ready by August 1st. You even brought in a detailed timeline to show us how the VA would be ready by August 1st. In February, [John] Adler of this Committee asked if the VA needed more tools to accomplish the goal of program implementation and you responded by stating, "This legislation itself came with funding. This funding at this point has adequately provided us with what we need for implementing payments on August 1, 2009." If this legislation provided you with what you needed then why did you go to the VA -- or then where did you and the VA go wrong in meeting the implementation goal? So I'd like to ask two questions. How are we supposed to believe the assurances you're offering today? And, two, knowing how interested Congress is in implementing the GI Bill, once you knew you were running into problems, why didn't you let us know? Why did we have to first hear about it from veterans and read about it in the Army Times?
Keith Wilson: You rightly call us out in terms of not providing timely service to all veterans. We acknowledge that and uh are working as hard as humanly possible uh to make sure that we are meeting those goals. Uh the timeline that we provided to the subcommittee uh I believe was largely met uh in terms of our ability to generate payments on the date that we were required to deliver the first checks -- first payments did go out August 3rd. Uh there were a couple of significant challenges uh that we had not anticipated. One was uh the volume of work created by the increase in applications for eligibility determinations that did not translate into student population dropping off other programs. But we had significantly more work in our existing programs than we would have expected to have to maintain going into the fall enrollment. One of the other primary challenges that we have responded to is uh when we began our ability to use the tools that were developed uh to implement the program in the short term. Uh May 1st is when we began using those tools and it was very clear to us from the get-go that even accounting for our understanding that they weren't perfect, we underestimated the complexity and the labor-intensive nature of what needed to be done. We responded by hiring 230 additional people to account for that.
US House Rep Harry Mitchell: And I read all of that in your testimony. My point is, once you knew you were running into problems, why didn't you come back to us? We heard it first by veterans and through the Army Times that you were having problems.
Remember that this morning's hearing was the first time that the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing. They had other things to do . . . like rest. And rest some more. Nap. Naps are good. Find some soft foods that don't require a great deal of chewing. Nap. Nap some more. And when they finally hold a hearing, they are uninformed and they are unwilling to probe.
Oh, excuse me. Akaka did ask about checks. He asked about checks that were over the amount needed and how the VA was going to ensure that this didn't happen again. That he was worried about. (As was Ranking Member Richard Burr.) A small number (about 6,000) of veterans were overpaid and the VA now has to go back and figure out who those were (that was the VA's error, by the way, not the veterans) and that was a deep concern to Akaka. All the ones whose life were turned upside down while they waited, the ones who are now being pressured to pay back the "advance" payments, those aren't a real big concern for the Committee.
Jon Tester tried to ask questions and if I were in the mood to spoon feed him, I'd go over all the lies he was told. But the automated program -- and he can check with the House committee on this -- was supposed to be no problem except for new arrivals. That means when Tester was told that there would be about a 10% reduction in the future of processing, he was lied to. The VA is again changing their timelines and their figures. That was obvious throughout the hearing. Tester had some good questions (including about rural areas) but if anyone on his staff had bothered to contact the staff of the House members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, they could have prepped him and he would have realized that agreed to targets and that happy spin that was provided over the last months just got pushed back dates. There's no excuse for this.
And if you're not grasping it or you need a walk through, we'll drop back to the January 21st snapshot for this exchange that took place during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity where Keith Wilson and his co-horts were again Happy Talking:
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Let me start with a statement, Mr. Wilson, that you made. On slide four, the long-term release II scheduled for June 30, 2010 that sort of allows for the automated data feeds for the schools, DoD, that this is a game changer from the user point of view. You know, for Mr. Baker, Mr. Wilson, I assume that the goal for the long-term release II is to have that operatational for processing fall 2010 semester claims. Is that correct?
Keith Wilson: Yes, that's correct.
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: That being the case, Mr. Baker, according to your testimony, release I has been modified to reduce its functionality because of this software requirement that you recently --
Roger Baker: Yes. The increased complexity, yes.
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: So why did it take until just recently to identify the need for the new software requirement?
Roger Baker: Actually . . . uhm . .. what-what occured is as the subject matter experts and the software people were sitting down together to walk through what does an amended reward really mean? What are the intracricies, the decision trees required for an amended reward . . . uhm . . . They kept uncovering , if you will, more and more depth of what was required on software of amended awards and it went beyond the estimates they had originally had for what it was going to take to do amended awards. Uh, so as we determined that the amount of work to make that March 31st date exceeded the amount possible to accomplish, we had to determine what would come out of that release?
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: And how confident are you then that the June 30th deadline can be met --
Roger Baker: We're --
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: In light of how important that deadline is to the fall semester?
Roger Baker: We're -- we're pretty confident in that. We-we, as you can imagine, we've had some significant focus on that as well. And we've talked about what is it possible to do in the June 30th timeframe. We know that we can get everything in that was originally scheduled for release I and release I was intended to be the replacement for the current system so -- functional replacement. If we had delayed release I until about mid-May , we'd have had a fully functional release. There's about that much additional work that was added. Uh, so we know that will come in. And we will be releasing that functionality in incremental pieces along the way to mid-May and if VBA determines it's appropriate allowing the users to work with the increased functionality in that time frame. And then adding those automated feeds that are critical as we ramp up to June 30th. So we-we have a reasonably good confidence in the June 30th -- and if you don't mind, I'll elaborate on that just a little bit further. The-the thing that I have to tell you that I'm pleased with in the slip -- and I know this is going to sound a little strange -- is that in December, this project team was able to tell us that they had a problem with meeting the March 31st date. That's not a usual thing inside of VA projects. Usually, you hear about it March 30th. Uh, you know, that's going to happen on March 31st. That gave us time to make rational decisions about: Do we want to allow the slip or do we want to force the delivery date so that we see the software and what is the impact of that on subsequent releases? And so that's why we have a reasonable degree of confidence that we're going to have what we need on June 30th for a more automated system going into the fall semester. That's exactly been our focus with that June 30th release.
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: Well I would just request that as that team -- you know, you've got a lot of internal milestones you're trying to meet and you've been very helpful to our committee and our committee staff in sharing information at every step of this process but in light of the problems that we've had with the interum solution, in light of the importance of this long-term solution, we-we need to stay on top of this, day-by-day, week-by-week. And if there is any other problem that is revealed to your project team, uh, we just need to be made aware of some of that ongoing work because of the importance of these deadlines in meeting the benefits for these students and-and understanding what more you might need from us because it's a high priority not only among this committee but the colleagues we hear from who have student veterans who are experiencing problems. You know, we want to make sure that we're able to answer questions immediately.
The automated data feeds were supposed to be in place by June 30th, reducing much of the work and speeding up the fall 2010 process. Today in the hearing, we heard otherwise; however, no senator was aware that they were hearing otherwise. Maybe if the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee had a functioning Chair and actually did some real work, they'd know these things. Instead they got played and punked in public and, yes, people at the hearing were shaking their heads over the lack of knowledge on that Committee.
Senator Scott Brown did a fine job. Wally's going to highlight Brown at Rebecca's site tonight -- he's Rebecca's senator (and Mike's, and Trina's). Other than him and one other -- and I may be grading him on a curve since he's new but I don't think so, "how are you going to ensure that it doesn't happen again" is a question all senators should have been asking, I only heard Brown do it -- I don't offer excuses for any of them. We're talking about people's lives here and the committee members are entrusted, by the citizens of the United States, with oversight. But they didn't want to use it. It's past time for the Democratic leadership to explain to Akaka that he needs to step down and to make Patty Murray the Chair. (Or do they really want to go into the election cycle with a disfunctioning Committee and at the same time drawing attention to how few Chairs are women in the Senate?)
Who was the one other? Ava's covering Senator Roland Burris (at Trina's site tonight). Burris actually does work. He always has. He's been an impressive senator and it's a real shame that those who never knew his work joined with the efforts to deny him the ability to run for election (he was appointed to his seat). Senator Burris knows the basics before he shows up for the hearing. (Disclosure/Reminder: I advocated for Burris to be seated after he was appointed to the Senate. I've never met him and never spoken to him.)
The second panel was very brief, roughly 35 minutes. Apparently there wasn't a great need from the Committee to hear from the people who are actually effected. At length, we'll note the following from IVAV's Marco Reininger who served in Afghanistan as a National Guard member:
Marco Reininger: Late GI Bill checks mean no rent checks and sleepless nights. I applied for my new GI Bill benefits on May 1st, shortly after being accepted to Columbia University. I knew that living in New York City and attending a private school meant that I could not afford any delays in my benefits. When my first living allowance check was significantly late, I was incredibly worried. I did not live in university housing and had to count on the generosity of my landlord to forgive my late rent paymetns. Columbia University was also very accommodating and did not penalize student veterans for late VA checks. That wasn't the case for all student veterans. A fellow Army veteran was un-enrolled from courses shortly before his final exams because of overdue account balances. I am thankful the VA finally started issuing emergency checks in October. Without this stop-gap measure, I would have quickly gotten into severe financial distress. When I stood in line, at the local New York City VA office, for my $3,000 advance payment, many of my fellow veterans from all over the region were extremely hesitant to accept the emergency payment. They were concerned that it would come back to haunt them in the future. This engrained distrust of the VA is not unusual among my peers. I had no choice but to accept the emergency payment. I took the hand written check and a letter from the VA to my bank, so they wouldn't place a hold on the check when I deposited it. In addition to the VA checks, members of our student veterans community supported one another by lending each other cash in order to get by, avoid bad credit scores and collection agencies. I finally started receiving my GI Bill benefits in November 2010. Last fall, I was one of the lucky ones who received their GI Bill in a somewhat timely manner. Sadly, many of my friends and fellow students had to struggle to make ends meet because their GI Bill checks never arrived. A fellow Columbia veteran pal of mine just received his first check last month.
Interestingly enough the most common complaint I hear from my fellow student veterans is that they didn't know when their GI Bill checks would arrive. Student veterans can scrimp and save in a pinch, photocopying assigned readings instead of buying the textbooks or being content to eat Ramen noodles for another week instead of going out to dinner with our clasmates. We can make due, but only if we know that our GI Bill check is going to arrive on a particular day. Not knowing when it will arrive and not being able to get an answer from the VA can wreak havoc on your life. You have to plan for the worst. I know some veterans who took some drastic measures. A fellow veteran ate canned beans and sardines three meals a day for an entire semester, trying to scrape up gas money for his wife and children back home. How could he possibly thrive at school when he was consumed with the responsibility of providing for his family? The new GI Bill was meant to relieve him of that burden.
[. . .]
I recently received a letter from the VA Debt Management Center warning me that they were planning to take back the $3,000 emergency payment they loaned me in the fall. They advised me that they would be deducting $750/month from my living allowance check unless I made other arraignments. Thankfully, I was reminded by IAVA that I needed to turn in my paperwork by the April deadline, otherwise the VA would have deducted the $750 automatically from my living allowance. It wasn't the VA that told me --- it was IAVA. I emailed the VA Debt Management Center, and they set up a payment plan of $150/month, which is within my means. Other student veterans didn't have it so smoothly. Some tried to set up payment plans but still had the full $750 deducted from their living allowance check. When you are living on a tight budget, $750/month can mean the difference between focusing on studies and looking for a second job. Other veterans had their debt applied to their accounts, even though the VA owed them money.
[. . .]
Lastly, and I hope not to sound too petty, I believe the VA owes me some money. The military Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) rates went up on January 1st, but I never saw an increase in my living allowance checks. I know the rates for Columbia's ZIP code increased slightly. So what happened? I ask because I know if I owed the VA money (which I do), they would certainly be in quite a hurry to collect (which they are). But when the VA owes me money, I can't seem to get any answers. Furthermore, in some of my veteran friends' areas the difference is quite significant, particularly when one receives less money than originally budgeted.
Kat's covering the second panel at her site tonight. Moving to Iraq, March 7th, Iraq ended voting in Parliamentary elections. The way it works, the prime minister is selected when someone has the support of at least 163 seat holders in the new Parliament. The winner of the elections was Ayad Allawi's slate which won 91 seats in the Parliament. Current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's slate won 89 seats. To reach 163, either will have to form a power-sharing coalition with other blocs. Thus far, that hasnot happened and Nouri has thrown up a large number of roadblocks including, most recently, the demand for a Baghdad recount. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reminds, "U.N. officials, who worked closely with Iraq's electoral commission, have said they found no evidence of widespread fraud." UAE's the National Newspaper editorializes today, "For Mr Allawi to become prime minister, he must overcome the perception that he is merely a proxy for Sunnis. This is something that the third place coalition -- the religious, Shiite Iraqi National Alliance (INA) -- is particularly afraid of. The Kurds might be receptive, but not without concessions on the key city of Kirkuk, where Mr Allawi prevailed. He would be seen as betraying his Sunni allies if he gave it up to the Kurds." The Watertown Daily Times notes of the Baghdad recount, "The court's ruling applied only to the Baghdad province but other challenges are pending that could expand the recount. Officials and international observers election fear delays could cause instability and violent repercussions." AP reports that the recount could begin as early as next week. Al-Masry Al-Youm adds that the recount could take two weeks. Meanwhile David Rising (AP) reports that Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, is expressing the opinion that the position of prime minister would be better filled by someone either than Allawi or al-Maliki, "We are talking about a person who should be accepted on a national level. This is the most important point because the prime minister is not going to be a prime minister of his own party or his political movement, but for all of Iraq . . . On such a basis, we find it's difficult for Mr. Maliki or even Mr. Ayad Allawi to gain the needed acceptance." Translation, as noted Sunday, Ibrahim al-Jaafari still has the momentum behind him to be prime minister. In post-invasion Iraq, the country has three prime ministers. The first was al-Jaafari, followed by Allawi and then al-Maliki. Nouri was a compromise candidate selected in April of 2006 only after the US said "NO!" to al-Jaafari who was the choice of the Iraqi government. Moqtada al-Sadr followed the March 7th vote with a referendum open to all (though the press believes only al-Sadr's supporters voted) to decide whom al-Sadr's Parliament bloc should back. al-Jaafari was the winner of that poll. al-Sadr's bloc holds 40 seats in the new Parliament, a formidable number. In addition, they are part of a bloc with ISCI and al-Hakim has repeatedly sent emmisarries to meet with al-Sadr since the March 7th elections.
In an attempt to increase his favorables, Nouri (and puppets in the press) have attempted to make much out of the alleged deaths of terrorists in Iraq. Around the world, the reaction has been great skepticism. The Ethiopian Review notes this from the centrist Brookings Institute:The announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki that the two top leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have been killed after a very long manhunt was greeted by many al Qaeda watchers with skepticism. The Iraqi government and the American military have claimed to have killed Abu Ayub al Masri, the Egyptian leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, more than once in the past. Abu Omar al Qureshyi al Baghdadi, the leader of al Qaeda's self proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq has also been reported dead or captured several times in the last few years. At other times the U.S. military has claimed he is not a real person but an invented one, a fictional leader of a fictional state.If the claims are indeed true this time, expect al Qaeda to laud its martyrs publicly. It will be a serious but not fatal blow to al Qaeda in Iraq. The al Qaeda franchise in Iraq has been in retreat for the last four years -- ever since its founder Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed on June 7, 2006 by an American air raid. What is so astonishing is not that al Qaeda in Iraq is now in retreat, but rather how close it came in 2005 and 2006 to pushing Iraq into a civil war and defeatingthe American intervention in Iraq with very little real popular support in the country and a leadership composed largely of foreigners like Zarqawi, a Jordanian, and al Masri, an Egyptian.
Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports on the reaction of Iraqi's being "somewhat muted but there were some instances of jubilation, particularly given that the American military backed up the Iraqi government's announcement this time. But in a tongue-in-cheek posting on Wednesday the Iraqi blogger Ishtar al-Iraqiya questioned the very existence of the two leaders, writing wryly: 'Finally, Maliki and the American administration agreed to kill the legend!'" Andrew Lee Butters (Time magazine) adds:
Nor does it seem likely that Allawi's Iraqiya and al-Maliki's State of Law coalitions could easily put their differences aside and share power, despite the fact that al-Maliki recently said the next government should contain significant Sunni representation. Iraqiya politicians believe that al-Maliki orchestrated the move by a government de-Baathification committee to ban some 500 parliamentary candidates -- most of them Sunni and many of them members of Iraqiya -- from running in the election just a few weeks before it took place. And they have long claimed that the Prime Minister has been using a special counterterrorism unit to arrest critics and political opponents. On Monday, Iraqi human-rights officials said they discovered a secret prison run by al-Maliki's military office that contained hundreds of Sunni men who had been routinely tortured and raped by guards. It's beginning to feel like 2005 again in Baghdad.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes Ramadi bombings injured eight people, a Mosul roadside bombing injured two police officers, another Mosul roadside bombing injured six people, a Baquba car bombing claimed 3 lives and injured two people and three Baghdad roadside bombings left six people injured.
Shootings and beheadings?
Xinhua reports, "Five family members of local leader of Awakening Council group were killed, among them three children were beheaded, at their home in north of Baghdad on Tuesday, a local police source said." The deaths were noted in yesterday's snapshot but this additional details (including the beheadings).
Corpses?
Reuters notes 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad, "The killings were worryingly reminiscent of sectarian murders at the height of the violence in 2006/07, when dozens of bodies were found each morning, but they could be related to crime."
Abdu Rahman and Dahr Jamail have an important article at Asia Times and we'll try to note it tomorrow (we will be noting Dahr tomorrow). But we're short on space, so lastly, news of a new documentary:
Journalism has faced challenges in forecasting and covering the truth behind our economic calamity. There was a media failure alongside the financial failure. There were some economists and columnists who did see the handwriting on the wall, among them Danny Schechter, the former ABC and CNN producer and leading independent filmmaker. His 2006 film IN DEBT WE TRUST exposed subprime lending and forecast a credit collapse. He is back with a new feature length documentary, PLUNDER: THE CRIME OF OUR TIME, as well as a companion book, calling the financial crisis what it is: A Crime Story… and the word is getting out. Rupert Murdoch's The Wall Street Journal, who you might expect would dismiss this contention, has given Schechter serious attention in the paper and on its respected Deal blog: YOU CAN ORDER THE FILM HERE.
iraq
the news tribuneles blumenthalthe national newspaperthe watertown daily timesthe associated pressdavid risingthe ehtiopian review
the washington posternesto londono
the new york timessam dagher
danny schechter
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Hideous
One would think that a newspaper called the NEW YORK Times would have thought this bit of “news” was important to publish before Obama’s health scam was perpetuated on the nation. We heard a lot of disjointed information about Massachusetts health care but never about New York health care.
Only now, as the scam is still rejected by a majority of Americans does the New York Times decide to publish a story that is relevant to the health care debate. The allegedly New York Times writes today:
“When her small executive search firm in New York City canceled its health insurance policy last year because of the recession and rising premiums, April Welles was able to buy her own plan and still be covered for her cancer and multiple sclerosis.
She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.
“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.”
Only now, in April of 2010 does the New York Times decide to inform readers that New York State is a “laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law”.
“New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.”
Is that not a rather relevant series of revelations that should have been put before the public months, if not years ago? Where was the New York Times? The New York Times was, and still is, shilling for Obama. The publication of “news” so late in the day as to render it “not news” is a key reason why Big Media is losing its grip on the American public – although it still has a great hold on those that bow to its power.
Only now, as the scam is still rejected by a majority of Americans does the New York Times decide to publish a story that is relevant to the health care debate. The allegedly New York Times writes today:
“When her small executive search firm in New York City canceled its health insurance policy last year because of the recession and rising premiums, April Welles was able to buy her own plan and still be covered for her cancer and multiple sclerosis.
She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.
“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.”
Only now, in April of 2010 does the New York Times decide to inform readers that New York State is a “laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law”.
“New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.”
Is that not a rather relevant series of revelations that should have been put before the public months, if not years ago? Where was the New York Times? The New York Times was, and still is, shilling for Obama. The publication of “news” so late in the day as to render it “not news” is a key reason why Big Media is losing its grip on the American public – although it still has a great hold on those that bow to its power.
As they point out, after ObamaCare passed we were allowed to hear about some problems with it. That was also true on NPR. After it passed, we learned that, woops, it was never all the MSM pimped it as.
Why did the lie while it was being discussed and could have been defeated?
Because of the money. Barack got Big Pharma to agree to advertise like crazy and the media wasn't going to risk losing those advertising dollars.
We were bought and sold. We're all slaves today, that's reality. The corporations own us and the media will sometimes tell us a few truths . . . if it's allowed because they're slaves too.
That's why the Supreme Court could reach that decision allowing corporations to spend without limits on political campaigns. People started complaining that the verdict denied them their personhood and my reply is, when were you ever sure we had that?
Seriously.
Sorry to be so bleak. Just not in an up mood tonight.
We're stuck with ObamaCare now as the law of the land. We'll never get rid of it. We thought we'd get rid of the Patriot Act, remember? Now we're stuck with it and with ObamaCare and with torture and all the other things that make this nation hideous.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, April 20, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq tops a list and comes in first!, Little Nouri's recount does not go over well as voices are raised in opposition, Amnesty International wants to know more about the secret prison, the refugee crisis continues, and more.
Though you better believe the New York Times won't blog it and pimp it in print the way they did with Iraq's soccer team, Iraq has come in first.
However, their 'gold' comes on the Committee to Protect Journalists' "2010 Impunity Index" which finds Iraq tops all countries with its number of unsolved murders of journalists: "Iraq is at number one with 88 unsolved journalist murders, while Somalia is second, reflecting insurgents' routine use of violence to control the news media." They note:
All 88 journalist murders over the last 10 years are unsolved, putting Iraq at the top of the index for the third year in a row. All but seven cases involve local journalists, the vast majority of whom were targeted by insurgents. The victims include Al-Arabiya television correspondent Atwar Bahjat and crew members Khaled Mahmoud al-Falahi and Adnan Khairallah, who were shot on assignment outside the Golden Mosque in Samarra in 2006. There is a positive trend: For the first time since the U.S.-led invasion, CPJ documented no work-related murders in Iraq in 2009. (Four journalists were killed in crossfire in 2009.) Nevertheless, with an impunity ranking nearly three times as high as any other country, Iraq has posed unparalleled dangers to the press.
Impunity Index Rating: 2.794 unsolved journalist murders per 1 million inhabitants.Last year: Ranked 1st with a rating of 2.983
Iraq didn't just come in first, it remained number one. Something Nouri al-Maliki should consider campaigning on. But it's not just the Baghdad-controlled portion of Iraq, CPJ issued an alert today regarding the Kurdistan Region:
New York , April 20, 2010 -- Anti-riot police assaulted journalists covering two different protests in Sulaimaniya in Iraqi Kurdistan on Saturday and Tuesday. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the attacks and calls on authorities to stop harassing journalists reporting in the field.
Several journalists told CPJ today that police prevented them on Saturday from covering clashes between security forces and students who had taken to the streets to protest the Ministry of Education's decision to change the grading system in high schools. Among those obstructed were Soran Ahmed, reporter for the independent biweekly Hawlati, Shikar Mu'tasim, a reporter for the independent weekly Rozhnama, Aso Khalil, a reporter for Zhyar magazine, and Talan Kosrat, a cameraman for Zahmatkeshan television channel.
Ahmed told CPJ that security forces insulted and hit journalists, confiscated their cameras and ordered them to leave the scene. "They beat me, seized my camera and my phone, handcuffed me and forced me into a police van," Ahmed told CPJ. He added that he sustained bruises on his chest and arms before being released within a half hour.
"Assaults on journalists seeking to cover public events are becoming increasingly commonplace," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator, Mohamed Abdel Dayem . "We call on the Kurdistan Regional Government to make it clear to security personnel that it will not tolerate attacks on journalists. The government must ensure that journalists are not attacked or threatened in an effort to censor coverage."
On Tuesday, more journalists were assaulted while covering a protest in front of the building of the General Directorate of Education in Sulaimaniya. Hawzheen Gharib, a reporter for the independent daily Chatir told CPJ that authorities confiscated his camera but that they later returned it with a broken memory card. He added that at least three other photographers had their cameras damaged by the police during the same protest.
Late Sunday, Ned Parker's "Secret prison for Sunnis revealed in Baghdad" was published online by the Los Angeles Times detailing Nouri al-Maliki's off-the-books prison where he was holding and torturing Sunnis. Michael Roston (True/Slant) reports:This story was probably set to lead off foreign coverage this morning, especially with the results of Maliki's re-election fight against former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi still up for grabs... .until Prime Minister Maliki appeared on the scene to announce in a press conference that Iraqi commandos in a joint raid with US forces had killed two senior al Qaida in Iraq or 'Islamic State of Iraq' leaders. And then suddenly, it was as though the the secret torture site had never been uncovered!You won't find reference to it in Tim Arango's coverage in the New York Times. Ernesto Londono elides mention of the Muthanna in his report for the Washington Post as well. And Yochi J. Dreazen steers clear of it in the Wall Street Journal, too. And of course it wasn't on Vice President Biden's mind when he touted the mission in a press conference today -- of course, hours after Maliki got to tee off the announcement.But these reports do reveal a couple of crucial facts. For instance, the Post notes that the two leading Al Qaida in Iraq figures -- Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi -- were killed in an operation late on Saturday night/very early Sunday morning, i.e. less than 24 hours prior to the LA Times's newsbreak on Old Muthanna. And the Journal reports that DNA testing on the corpses of the two killed leaders by the American military had not yet been completed to confirm their identities. Is it possible that they weren't certain of who they had killed, or whether this was the opportune moment to announce it?From yesterday's snapshot:
Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports that a huge number of people are stepping forward to sing praises of the operation including Gen Ray Odierno (his comments are actually in the previous military press release we linked to above) and Nouri al-Maliki (we'll come back to the singers, the Three Tenors, if you will, in a moment) and she notes that the US and Iraq spokespersons are claiming that Abu Hamza Muhajr and Abu Omar Baghdadi were the two killed on Sunday in the US forces-led operation. US forces-led operation? That's me, not Sly. But let's be clear that if air power was supplied, it was a US-led operation. Baghdad's air force is non-existant and expected to be that way until late 2013 by the most positive estimates. So while the US makes those claims, Sly points out, "The Iraqi government has on numerous occasions claimed to have captured Baghdadi, and last year televised the confession of a man who claimed to be Baghdadi, to widespread skepticism. U.S. officials said privately they did not believe the man was Baghdadi, and some Iraqi officials said then the real Baghdadi was a man with the same name as that given by the U.S. military." Sly leaves out the fact that the press ran with that claim -- that false claim -- with very few exceptions. It was embarrassing (and we called it out in real time). But let's underscore that today we have confirmation that it was false and we know that the confession was false. Remember that the next time the Iraqi government parades a confession or makes an assertion. But he's not the only one they've claimed to have caught in the past. As Laura Rozen (Politico) reminds, "Al-Masri, an Egyptian also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, had previously erroneously been reported killed in late 2006 as well as in 2007." In other words, this heavily panted over 'operation' which netted 'two' 'evil doers'? Don't be surprised if six months to a year from now we're again being told that al-Baghdadi and al-Masri have either been killed or captured.
As Liz Sly and Laura Rozen explained, both men have been trumpeted as 'dead' and 'caught' before. On today's Morning Edition (NPR), Quil Lawrence noted of al-Baghdadi, "And he's a very interesting one because in the past, the U.S. officials, off the record, had even suggested that he might be a fictional character that had been created to put a name to all of these bombings. And the Iraqi government had claimed several times in the past to have captured or killed him, so there was some skepticism." Michael Scherer (Time magazine) observes, "The killings may hold more symbolic value for the Iraqi government, and the White House, than strategic value. Al Qaeda in Iraq has long been a weakened body, far less concerning to U.S. intelligence leaders than other Al Qaeda groups in Yemen and Pakistan." If the death claims are accurate, it may still mean nothing -- as The Economist points out "Decapaitation is not yet victory:"
Mr Maliki, displaying gruesome pictures of two corpses, told reporters that the attack had taken place in the early hours of April 18th, after his security forces had shared intelligence with the American army, which was asked to help target the men. An American soldier was killed as a helicopter attacked the house where the two men where hiding, south-west of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town, in Salaheddin province, north of Baghdad. At least two other men in the house were killed in the raid.
The deaths of Iraqi insurgent leaders, including Mr Baghdadi, have been reported before and later found not to have occurred, so DNA testing of the bodies will have to be done before the Iraqi government's claim can be verified. The two men, also known as Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, have been shadowy figures. Mr Masri was apparently born in Egypt and has led AQI since the death of its Jordanian founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in 2006. Mr Baghdadi's history is so murky that he was at one time thought to be fictional.
BBC News notes that today Nouri claimed they'd killed Ahmed al-Obedi. That's generally the thing that trips up Nouri when he's making false claims -- they're bought and he just keeps upping the claims. Time will tell if that was the case again this time.
Now, as Michael Roston noted, Ned Parker's scoop has not received the attention it warrants. It was discussed today by Quil Lawrence and Renee Montagne on Morning Edition (NPR).
Reneee Montagne: And, Quil, just a last question - I'd like to ask you about a story that ran in the L.A. Times this week. It documented a secret prison system run by the Shiite-led government, in which Sunnis have been tortured. Is this story an indication or a sign of a return to Iraq's sectarian dirty war?
Quil Lawrence: It certainly stokes those sort of fears. The story written by Ned Parker in the L.A. Times is about hundreds of men, Sunnis, arrested around the city of Mosul, some of them without warrants. They were held for months, and apparently they were subjected to torture routinely in a secret prison in Baghdad. Now, Iraqi government officials claim that they have to bring prisoners to Baghdad sometimes, because otherwise they'll just be released by judges, courts that are sympathetic, perhaps, to the insurgents in places like Mosul. But the tales of torture and rape as torture in the prison are really horrific. The prime minister told the L.A. Times that when he discovered that this was going on, he shut it down. But certainly, Sunni families of these men are not accepting that the prime minister himself wasn't involved. And it really raises questions about whether the sectarian violence is over or just dormant here in Iraq.
At The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss notes Ned Parker's article. Amnesty International released a statement (and, note, you can go to the link and hear the statement as well as read the text):
Amnesty International has called on the Iraqi authorities to investigate allegations that security forces tortured hundreds of Sunni detainees at a secret prison in Baghdad. Iraqi Human Rights Ministry inspectors said on Sunday that more than 100 of the facility's 431 prisoners were tortured using electric shocks, suffocation with plastic bags and beatings. Prisoners reportedly revealed that one man had died in January as a result of torture. Amnesty International expressed concerns at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's claim that he was unaware of abuses at the prison, which he has vowed to shut down. "The existence of secret jails indicates that military units in Iraq are allowed to commit human rights abuses unchecked," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa deputy director. "Prime Minister al-Maliki's claim that he was unaware of abuses cannot exonerate the authorities from their responsibilities and their duty to ensure the safety of detainees." The prisoners were detained by Iraqi forces in Nineveh province in October as part of an operation targeting alleged Sunni fighters. Iraqi Security forces reportedly obtained a warrant to transfer the men to Baghdad, where they were held in isolation in a secret detention facility at the old al-Muthanna airport, which is run by the Baghdad Brigade - a special force under the direct control of the Prime Minister's office Their whereabouts came to light in March after concerns were raised by relatives of the missing men. "Al-Maliki's government has repeatedly pledged to investigate incidents of torture and other serious human rights abuses by the Iraqi security forces, but no outcome of such investigations has ever been made public," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui. "This has encouraged a widespread culture of impunity but this time, Iraq must investigate the torture allegations thoroughly and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out any abuses." Iraqi officials have said that 75 prisoners have already been released from the secret jail, while 275 have been transferred to normal prisons. In 2005, 168 detainees were found in appalling conditions at an Iraqi secret detention facility in the al-Jadiriya district of Baghdad. The findings of an investigation into the incident launched shortly afterwards were never made public and no one has been prosecuted in connection with the abuses that took place at the prison.
Yesterday Little Nouri's foot stomping and sulking paid off and he got a Baghdad recount (which should take between eight to ten days). Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The legal decision raised Maliki's hopes that his Shiite-dominated coalition would be awarded more parliamentary seats than his rival Iyad Allawi's secular bloc, which had stunned the nation by winning a slim plurality in the Mrach 7 vote. But it also raised fears that if the results are overturned" violence could return in stronger form to Iraq." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "As political maneuvering continues over the election results, US and Iraqi officials say the key political parties have yet to begin serious negotiations on forming a coalition government. Before the election, Maliki broke away from his traditional Shiite partners, leaving both his coalition and Allawi's a broad range of potential political partners." CNN reports that Allawi says the Baghdad recount is okay but feels other areas need recounts as well: "We believe very strongly in the manual recount, but the issue is why no other areas have been included in the recount where there are accusations of problems that have occurred in Basrah, Najaf and Diwaniya. We are worried about where the ballot boxes have been kept, since the election until today. Over a month-and-a-half have elapsed. We really don't know where those boxes have been, we don't know who [had] access to them, and we don't know whether they have been tampered with." Timothy Williams (New York Times) adds that Allawi's provided "evidence to the court detailing instances of fraud that occurred in the days after the Mrach 7 parliamentary elections in several provinces in southern Iraq, a region where Mr. Allawi faired poorly."
While Allawi accepts it, Iraq's Sunni vice president does not. Today's Zaman reports that Tariq al-Hashemi has termed the recount "unacceptable" and quotes him stating, "This ruling is a very dangerous development. And we will not accept this ruling because it is unnecessary." By the way, now that the recount appears to be happening, any in the press going to revist Chris Hill's DC press conference right after the elections when he flat out lied to them. Are they all still so chicken s**t that they're afraid to call Mr. Bi-Polar out?
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mahmudiya roadside bombing injured five people, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured the police chief's driver, a Baghdad roadside bombing (near a movie theater) injured two people, a Mahmudiya roadside bombing injured six people and a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 police officer was wounded in a Kirkuk attack, that a possible 'smuggler' (Iranian) was wounded by Iranian artillery in Sulaimaniya and, dropping back to Monday, a Tarmiya home invasion targeting a Sahwa leader in which his wife and their 4 children were killed.
The violence has, of course, created the largest refugee crisis in the world. There's a report that's being spun by some outlets -- including Voice of America -- that an International Organization for Migration report is maintaining refugees are returning to Iraq and that the migration out of Iraq has stopped. IOM is part of the United Nations. In Syria, the UN is still registering (as of this week, I just got off the phone) Iraqi refugees who are just arriving. The IOM report (click here for IOM's summary) is not about external refugees. It's about Iraqis who stayed in Iraq but fled their own homes. The internal refugees.
On the subject of refugees, War News Radio latest weekly broadcast features a report on the Mandaeans -- ninety percent of whom have now left Iraq.
Caitlin Jennings: A few months after the US invasion, Basil al-Majidi began working for the coalition forces in Baghdad. He was appointed general manager of a tracking company responsible for making contracts to support US operations in Iraq As a member of the Iraqi minority group, the Sabian Mandaeans, al-Majidi says that he felt like a second class citizen under Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime. With Hussein no longer in power, al-Majidi and his parents were optimistic about the future but in the months that followed sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Pacificsts by doctrine the Mandaeans are one of the most peaceful religious groups in Iraq; however, al-Majidi felt forced to keep his religious identity a secret.
Basil al-Majidi: I worked from 2004 'till 2007 and no one -- absolutely no one -- in my company knew that I was Manaean. They knew that I was a Muslim. When they used to ask me, "Are you Sunni or Shi'ite," I refused to tell them. I told them I was just a Muslim. I don't discriminate.
Caitlin Jennings: Mandaeans are followers of John the Baptist and their religious practice centers on the rites of Baptism. But for Majidi and many Mandaeans public religious practice was out of the question.
Basil al-Majidi: We couldn't do funeral ceremonies for dead people. It was a problem. Many people were buried in their own backyards to avoid going to the cemetary which was in the Abu Ghraib area. So, like for practicing rituals, for maintaining and preserving your own faith inside yourself? No. We just forgot about that. We just left it behind.
Caitlin Jennings: He started to receive death threats from Islamic militias both at his work and at his house. By 2006, the situation had reached what he refers to as unbearable limits.
Basil al-Majidi: You just feel that you are, that you are being rejected from all of the community, from all of your surroundings, from all of your surroundings. So I had to escape.
Caitlin Jennings: al-Majidi and his parents fled to Syria where they joined 1.3 million other Iraqi refugees already there. After two and a half years of waiting, al-Majidi was accepted for re-settlement in the United States. Although al-Majidi is now safe in the US, he is still unable to practice his religion. He no longer fears religious persecution but without priests and other Mandaeans, he cannot practice or perform rituals. Dr. Suhaib Nashi, Secretary General of the Mandaeans Associations Union -- an umbrella organization that encompasses all Mandaean Associations outside of Iraq and Iran argues that the resettlement of Iraqi Mandaeans around the globe while saving individuals is destroying the community as a whole.
Dr. Suhaib Nashi: Dispersing them all over the place is sweet poison for us. It kills the religion It finishes what the insurgency are doing. With all of our benevolence, with our feeling of doing good for them, we are destroying them without us knowing. We really, really need understanding and being sensitive to that part of the salvage of Mandaeans. That's not salvage of a family, it's salvage of a culture -- salvation of a whole community and a whole group of people and a language and religion.
Caitlin Jennings: Originally from Iraq, Nashi, who is Mandaean, fled in 1991 after the Iraq War. He currently lives with his family in New Jersey. He says the only way for the group to survive in the longterm is to have a sustainable community in one place.
Yesterday's snapshot noted the first panel -- DoD -- of the Commission on Wartime Contracting's hearing. Some e-mails came in about the second panel. The first panel was of more interest. We'll note the second panel which lasted about a third of the time the first panel took up. Today we'll note panel two which was composed of contractors: AECOM Government Services CEO Jay Ward and CACI International's senior vice president Terry Raney. The Co-Chairs are Christopher Shays and Michael J. Thibault. Aegis Defense Services president Kristi Clemens was scheduled to testify but did not show. Thibault swore the two men before they gave any testimony. We'll note two sections.
First, AECOM has been in Iraq and in Afghanistan since 2005. Questioning Ward, Thibault noted that in Afghanistan "life support and security" is provided for Ward's employees by the US Army and he
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: Does the company in any case or for other purposes or other have to employ your own security?
Jay Ward: Yes, in Iraq, we've had security subcontractors provide transportation primarily from Bagram or the Green Zone or out to the different locations. And then because we work on Iraqi military installations as opposed to inside the wire at Taji, we'll have uh a security service provide parameter security at the gate into our living compounds.
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: And that is -- those are contractors that are awarded by the site security -- are those JCCIA contracts or are they your own?
Jay Ward: They're subcontracts to us.
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: That are your own?
Jay Ward: Yes, sir.
Especially due to the Afghanistan conversation, it appeared that Thibault was concerned regarding the oversight of the subcontractees in Iraq. The other moment that appeared to be going somewhere addressed disbelief on the part on the part of one commissioner.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: You have about how many people providing support to JCAA? About fifty people?
Terry Raney: We have 40 in Iraq and 12 in Afghanistan.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: And these people are providing aquisition management services, they're providing program management advice, aquisition advice to officers and managers, true?
Terry Raney: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: You had mentioned in a response to Commissioner [Dov] Zakheim's question, 'Has anyone ever called, oop, I got a problem, my boss is asking me something and it crosses the line?' And you said, 'No, they never had."
Terry Raney: Not that I've received that call or I believe --
Commissioner Grant S. Green: I just -- I just find it hard to believe, human nature being what it is -- and you acknowledged this initially, that your people were probably more experienced in the workings of JCCAI/A contracting than is the new civilian or military contracting officer walking through the door to a new assignment. It's just hard for me to believe since 2004, there has not been any discussion that crosses this line. So I guess my question to you is what is your level of confidence in percentages that nothing like this has ever happened?
Terry Raney: I'll come at your question from two ways. The first is, we've been -- The requirement we have from the JCCI from day one has been to bring very experienced people. That means people familiar with the authorization processes and systems and recognize these things. And we talk about that before they go over, alright? So I guess I would say I am sure, likely, that there have been conversations between some of our people that are very experienced with somebody who's not relative to 'This is the way that I see this but it's your -- it's your -- I'm providing advice, that's what we're required to do. You have your responsibilities as well to do and that's in awarding the contract, making those decisions.' So I would suspect and I would guess that we've had some of our more experienced people handle it on a personal basis and that's the way we would look to -- look to handle it because that's what we expect of people with that kind of experience and expertise.
Again, the most interesting panel was the first one (which was covered in yesterday's snapshot). Tomorrow we may cover a hearing from late to date but it was bumped to cover the above. Meanwhile Barack went to California and it was not pretty. Though he was attempting to drive up support for Barbara Boxer, he only succeeded in antagonizing the crowd. Lin Zhi (Xinhua) reports he "was repeatedly interrupted by a number of listeners who attacked him on his policies barring gays from openly and equality serving in the military when he was delivering a speech . . . . The protesters come from GetEQUAL, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group that has also organized similar protests recently. A coalition of groups called for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." It left some acid rain dripping on Barack's attempt to fundraise for Senator Barbara Boxer's increasingly challenging run for the US Senate. In an effort to appease the protesters, Barack made the ridiculous claim that he and Barbara were leaders on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. That kind of crap would fly in NYC -- where Panhandle Media would lap it up because it sounds good to them. But in California, we know Boxer's done nothing. We know that Senators Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand have been doing more and doing more in public and that both were just appointed to the Senate in 2009. Boxer's a senator from California who's been elected to her seat repeatedly. She bragged in 2004, in fact, that she won a greater percentage of the vote than did Bully Boy Bush. She should have been leading on this issue. Instead, allegedly due to the Prop 8 vote and the video of her that's supposed to portray her as disrespectful of the military, she's hung in the background.
Well . . . hung in the background and promoted her poorly written (co-written) latest attempt at Harold Robbins. Bad books, after all, rarely sell themselves. And picture that -- 2004, she got a higher percentage of votes than any other senator (or Bush, for that matter) and joked about having a "mandate" but today, her first re-election run since then, she's in the fight of her life just to hold on to her seat. How out of it, how non-leadership is Barack on this issue? In the middle of the protest, he had to ask Boxer if she voted for Don't Ask, Don't Tell originally and she said she didn't at which point he informed the audience "I just checked with Barbara, so if anybody else is thinking about starting a chant, Barbara didn't even vote for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the first place." Thanks for that 'breaking' news, Barack. If she had voted for it, you better believe she would have been a one term senator. For just a moment grasp what took place.Barack claims he wants to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And he claims he is in Los Angeles standing by his friend Barbara Boxer . . . and he doesn't even know how she voted? That tells you exactly how distant Barack actually is from this issue. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reports of one protester, "'I am protesting because while I volunteered for, voted for, and still believe in Obama, I also believe is time to repeal don't ask don't tell,' an apparent protester wrote on tumblr.com."When not spinning Boxer's professional lethargy, the two were confronted by people such as Iraq War veteran Mike Prysner, of March Forward!, who the AP quotes telling Barack, "As an Iraq War veteran, I understand the importance of stopping these unjust wars. Too many civilians and soldiers are dying, too much money is going to fund death and destruction, while so many of us are hurting here at home."We are in the Great Recession and it probably doesn't help Barack look 'of the people' when the Los Angeles Independent reports, "A ticket to the dinner was $17,600 per person, a figure arrived at by combining half the maximum $30,400 contribution to a national party committee combined with the maximum $2,400 donation to a candidate. All the events sold out." They also report Barack whined about the issues he faces as president. Oh, I'm sorry, did he think it was all pageant waving and super market openings? Cover shoots and Jay Leno interviews? Andrew Malcolm (Los Angeles Times) also notes the price:
As The Ticket reported here earlier Monday, Obama flew across the country for no public events but just two fundraisers for the embattled liberal Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer seeking a four Senate term where tickets ranged up to $17,600 to sip wine and hear the president.
Obama's batting average campaigning for fellow Democrats is a pathetic 0-7 in recent months,. But Boxer needs help (especially in the money department in this expensive state) even in liberal California where she's been unable to reach the key 50% approval rating this year against a trio of potential Republican opponents.
Cedric's "He Loves LA, LA Remains Lukewarm" and Wally's "He Loves LA, LA Remains Lukewarm" (joint-post) covered the less-than-warm welcome Barack received, Ann covered the silence on Iraq "Diane Rehm has time for sleep none for Iraq," and Ruth ("Out-FM disgraces itself") and Mike ("Queer Voices, Goldman Sachs, Third") covered LGBT issues.
iraqthe los angeles timesned parkertrue/slantmichael rostonliz slypoliticolaura rozentime magazinemichael sherernprmorning editionquil lawrencerenee montagne
amnesty international
the nationrobert dreyfuss
cnn
the new york timestimothy williams
xinhualin zhithe los angeles timesthe washington posted okeefethe los angeles timesandrew malcolm
Tuesday, April 20, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq tops a list and comes in first!, Little Nouri's recount does not go over well as voices are raised in opposition, Amnesty International wants to know more about the secret prison, the refugee crisis continues, and more.
Though you better believe the New York Times won't blog it and pimp it in print the way they did with Iraq's soccer team, Iraq has come in first.
However, their 'gold' comes on the Committee to Protect Journalists' "2010 Impunity Index" which finds Iraq tops all countries with its number of unsolved murders of journalists: "Iraq is at number one with 88 unsolved journalist murders, while Somalia is second, reflecting insurgents' routine use of violence to control the news media." They note:
All 88 journalist murders over the last 10 years are unsolved, putting Iraq at the top of the index for the third year in a row. All but seven cases involve local journalists, the vast majority of whom were targeted by insurgents. The victims include Al-Arabiya television correspondent Atwar Bahjat and crew members Khaled Mahmoud al-Falahi and Adnan Khairallah, who were shot on assignment outside the Golden Mosque in Samarra in 2006. There is a positive trend: For the first time since the U.S.-led invasion, CPJ documented no work-related murders in Iraq in 2009. (Four journalists were killed in crossfire in 2009.) Nevertheless, with an impunity ranking nearly three times as high as any other country, Iraq has posed unparalleled dangers to the press.
Impunity Index Rating: 2.794 unsolved journalist murders per 1 million inhabitants.Last year: Ranked 1st with a rating of 2.983
Iraq didn't just come in first, it remained number one. Something Nouri al-Maliki should consider campaigning on. But it's not just the Baghdad-controlled portion of Iraq, CPJ issued an alert today regarding the Kurdistan Region:
New York , April 20, 2010 -- Anti-riot police assaulted journalists covering two different protests in Sulaimaniya in Iraqi Kurdistan on Saturday and Tuesday. The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the attacks and calls on authorities to stop harassing journalists reporting in the field.
Several journalists told CPJ today that police prevented them on Saturday from covering clashes between security forces and students who had taken to the streets to protest the Ministry of Education's decision to change the grading system in high schools. Among those obstructed were Soran Ahmed, reporter for the independent biweekly Hawlati, Shikar Mu'tasim, a reporter for the independent weekly Rozhnama, Aso Khalil, a reporter for Zhyar magazine, and Talan Kosrat, a cameraman for Zahmatkeshan television channel.
Ahmed told CPJ that security forces insulted and hit journalists, confiscated their cameras and ordered them to leave the scene. "They beat me, seized my camera and my phone, handcuffed me and forced me into a police van," Ahmed told CPJ. He added that he sustained bruises on his chest and arms before being released within a half hour.
"Assaults on journalists seeking to cover public events are becoming increasingly commonplace," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator, Mohamed Abdel Dayem . "We call on the Kurdistan Regional Government to make it clear to security personnel that it will not tolerate attacks on journalists. The government must ensure that journalists are not attacked or threatened in an effort to censor coverage."
On Tuesday, more journalists were assaulted while covering a protest in front of the building of the General Directorate of Education in Sulaimaniya. Hawzheen Gharib, a reporter for the independent daily Chatir told CPJ that authorities confiscated his camera but that they later returned it with a broken memory card. He added that at least three other photographers had their cameras damaged by the police during the same protest.
Late Sunday, Ned Parker's "Secret prison for Sunnis revealed in Baghdad" was published online by the Los Angeles Times detailing Nouri al-Maliki's off-the-books prison where he was holding and torturing Sunnis. Michael Roston (True/Slant) reports:This story was probably set to lead off foreign coverage this morning, especially with the results of Maliki's re-election fight against former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi still up for grabs... .until Prime Minister Maliki appeared on the scene to announce in a press conference that Iraqi commandos in a joint raid with US forces had killed two senior al Qaida in Iraq or 'Islamic State of Iraq' leaders. And then suddenly, it was as though the the secret torture site had never been uncovered!You won't find reference to it in Tim Arango's coverage in the New York Times. Ernesto Londono elides mention of the Muthanna in his report for the Washington Post as well. And Yochi J. Dreazen steers clear of it in the Wall Street Journal, too. And of course it wasn't on Vice President Biden's mind when he touted the mission in a press conference today -- of course, hours after Maliki got to tee off the announcement.But these reports do reveal a couple of crucial facts. For instance, the Post notes that the two leading Al Qaida in Iraq figures -- Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi -- were killed in an operation late on Saturday night/very early Sunday morning, i.e. less than 24 hours prior to the LA Times's newsbreak on Old Muthanna. And the Journal reports that DNA testing on the corpses of the two killed leaders by the American military had not yet been completed to confirm their identities. Is it possible that they weren't certain of who they had killed, or whether this was the opportune moment to announce it?From yesterday's snapshot:
Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports that a huge number of people are stepping forward to sing praises of the operation including Gen Ray Odierno (his comments are actually in the previous military press release we linked to above) and Nouri al-Maliki (we'll come back to the singers, the Three Tenors, if you will, in a moment) and she notes that the US and Iraq spokespersons are claiming that Abu Hamza Muhajr and Abu Omar Baghdadi were the two killed on Sunday in the US forces-led operation. US forces-led operation? That's me, not Sly. But let's be clear that if air power was supplied, it was a US-led operation. Baghdad's air force is non-existant and expected to be that way until late 2013 by the most positive estimates. So while the US makes those claims, Sly points out, "The Iraqi government has on numerous occasions claimed to have captured Baghdadi, and last year televised the confession of a man who claimed to be Baghdadi, to widespread skepticism. U.S. officials said privately they did not believe the man was Baghdadi, and some Iraqi officials said then the real Baghdadi was a man with the same name as that given by the U.S. military." Sly leaves out the fact that the press ran with that claim -- that false claim -- with very few exceptions. It was embarrassing (and we called it out in real time). But let's underscore that today we have confirmation that it was false and we know that the confession was false. Remember that the next time the Iraqi government parades a confession or makes an assertion. But he's not the only one they've claimed to have caught in the past. As Laura Rozen (Politico) reminds, "Al-Masri, an Egyptian also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, had previously erroneously been reported killed in late 2006 as well as in 2007." In other words, this heavily panted over 'operation' which netted 'two' 'evil doers'? Don't be surprised if six months to a year from now we're again being told that al-Baghdadi and al-Masri have either been killed or captured.
As Liz Sly and Laura Rozen explained, both men have been trumpeted as 'dead' and 'caught' before. On today's Morning Edition (NPR), Quil Lawrence noted of al-Baghdadi, "And he's a very interesting one because in the past, the U.S. officials, off the record, had even suggested that he might be a fictional character that had been created to put a name to all of these bombings. And the Iraqi government had claimed several times in the past to have captured or killed him, so there was some skepticism." Michael Scherer (Time magazine) observes, "The killings may hold more symbolic value for the Iraqi government, and the White House, than strategic value. Al Qaeda in Iraq has long been a weakened body, far less concerning to U.S. intelligence leaders than other Al Qaeda groups in Yemen and Pakistan." If the death claims are accurate, it may still mean nothing -- as The Economist points out "Decapaitation is not yet victory:"
Mr Maliki, displaying gruesome pictures of two corpses, told reporters that the attack had taken place in the early hours of April 18th, after his security forces had shared intelligence with the American army, which was asked to help target the men. An American soldier was killed as a helicopter attacked the house where the two men where hiding, south-west of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town, in Salaheddin province, north of Baghdad. At least two other men in the house were killed in the raid.
The deaths of Iraqi insurgent leaders, including Mr Baghdadi, have been reported before and later found not to have occurred, so DNA testing of the bodies will have to be done before the Iraqi government's claim can be verified. The two men, also known as Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, have been shadowy figures. Mr Masri was apparently born in Egypt and has led AQI since the death of its Jordanian founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in 2006. Mr Baghdadi's history is so murky that he was at one time thought to be fictional.
BBC News notes that today Nouri claimed they'd killed Ahmed al-Obedi. That's generally the thing that trips up Nouri when he's making false claims -- they're bought and he just keeps upping the claims. Time will tell if that was the case again this time.
Now, as Michael Roston noted, Ned Parker's scoop has not received the attention it warrants. It was discussed today by Quil Lawrence and Renee Montagne on Morning Edition (NPR).
Reneee Montagne: And, Quil, just a last question - I'd like to ask you about a story that ran in the L.A. Times this week. It documented a secret prison system run by the Shiite-led government, in which Sunnis have been tortured. Is this story an indication or a sign of a return to Iraq's sectarian dirty war?
Quil Lawrence: It certainly stokes those sort of fears. The story written by Ned Parker in the L.A. Times is about hundreds of men, Sunnis, arrested around the city of Mosul, some of them without warrants. They were held for months, and apparently they were subjected to torture routinely in a secret prison in Baghdad. Now, Iraqi government officials claim that they have to bring prisoners to Baghdad sometimes, because otherwise they'll just be released by judges, courts that are sympathetic, perhaps, to the insurgents in places like Mosul. But the tales of torture and rape as torture in the prison are really horrific. The prime minister told the L.A. Times that when he discovered that this was going on, he shut it down. But certainly, Sunni families of these men are not accepting that the prime minister himself wasn't involved. And it really raises questions about whether the sectarian violence is over or just dormant here in Iraq.
At The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss notes Ned Parker's article. Amnesty International released a statement (and, note, you can go to the link and hear the statement as well as read the text):
Amnesty International has called on the Iraqi authorities to investigate allegations that security forces tortured hundreds of Sunni detainees at a secret prison in Baghdad. Iraqi Human Rights Ministry inspectors said on Sunday that more than 100 of the facility's 431 prisoners were tortured using electric shocks, suffocation with plastic bags and beatings. Prisoners reportedly revealed that one man had died in January as a result of torture. Amnesty International expressed concerns at Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's claim that he was unaware of abuses at the prison, which he has vowed to shut down. "The existence of secret jails indicates that military units in Iraq are allowed to commit human rights abuses unchecked," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa deputy director. "Prime Minister al-Maliki's claim that he was unaware of abuses cannot exonerate the authorities from their responsibilities and their duty to ensure the safety of detainees." The prisoners were detained by Iraqi forces in Nineveh province in October as part of an operation targeting alleged Sunni fighters. Iraqi Security forces reportedly obtained a warrant to transfer the men to Baghdad, where they were held in isolation in a secret detention facility at the old al-Muthanna airport, which is run by the Baghdad Brigade - a special force under the direct control of the Prime Minister's office Their whereabouts came to light in March after concerns were raised by relatives of the missing men. "Al-Maliki's government has repeatedly pledged to investigate incidents of torture and other serious human rights abuses by the Iraqi security forces, but no outcome of such investigations has ever been made public," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui. "This has encouraged a widespread culture of impunity but this time, Iraq must investigate the torture allegations thoroughly and bring to justice those responsible for carrying out any abuses." Iraqi officials have said that 75 prisoners have already been released from the secret jail, while 275 have been transferred to normal prisons. In 2005, 168 detainees were found in appalling conditions at an Iraqi secret detention facility in the al-Jadiriya district of Baghdad. The findings of an investigation into the incident launched shortly afterwards were never made public and no one has been prosecuted in connection with the abuses that took place at the prison.
Yesterday Little Nouri's foot stomping and sulking paid off and he got a Baghdad recount (which should take between eight to ten days). Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The legal decision raised Maliki's hopes that his Shiite-dominated coalition would be awarded more parliamentary seats than his rival Iyad Allawi's secular bloc, which had stunned the nation by winning a slim plurality in the Mrach 7 vote. But it also raised fears that if the results are overturned" violence could return in stronger form to Iraq." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "As political maneuvering continues over the election results, US and Iraqi officials say the key political parties have yet to begin serious negotiations on forming a coalition government. Before the election, Maliki broke away from his traditional Shiite partners, leaving both his coalition and Allawi's a broad range of potential political partners." CNN reports that Allawi says the Baghdad recount is okay but feels other areas need recounts as well: "We believe very strongly in the manual recount, but the issue is why no other areas have been included in the recount where there are accusations of problems that have occurred in Basrah, Najaf and Diwaniya. We are worried about where the ballot boxes have been kept, since the election until today. Over a month-and-a-half have elapsed. We really don't know where those boxes have been, we don't know who [had] access to them, and we don't know whether they have been tampered with." Timothy Williams (New York Times) adds that Allawi's provided "evidence to the court detailing instances of fraud that occurred in the days after the Mrach 7 parliamentary elections in several provinces in southern Iraq, a region where Mr. Allawi faired poorly."
While Allawi accepts it, Iraq's Sunni vice president does not. Today's Zaman reports that Tariq al-Hashemi has termed the recount "unacceptable" and quotes him stating, "This ruling is a very dangerous development. And we will not accept this ruling because it is unnecessary." By the way, now that the recount appears to be happening, any in the press going to revist Chris Hill's DC press conference right after the elections when he flat out lied to them. Are they all still so chicken s**t that they're afraid to call Mr. Bi-Polar out?
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing left four people injured, a Mahmudiya roadside bombing injured five people, a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured the police chief's driver, a Baghdad roadside bombing (near a movie theater) injured two people, a Mahmudiya roadside bombing injured six people and a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 police officer was wounded in a Kirkuk attack, that a possible 'smuggler' (Iranian) was wounded by Iranian artillery in Sulaimaniya and, dropping back to Monday, a Tarmiya home invasion targeting a Sahwa leader in which his wife and their 4 children were killed.
The violence has, of course, created the largest refugee crisis in the world. There's a report that's being spun by some outlets -- including Voice of America -- that an International Organization for Migration report is maintaining refugees are returning to Iraq and that the migration out of Iraq has stopped. IOM is part of the United Nations. In Syria, the UN is still registering (as of this week, I just got off the phone) Iraqi refugees who are just arriving. The IOM report (click here for IOM's summary) is not about external refugees. It's about Iraqis who stayed in Iraq but fled their own homes. The internal refugees.
On the subject of refugees, War News Radio latest weekly broadcast features a report on the Mandaeans -- ninety percent of whom have now left Iraq.
Caitlin Jennings: A few months after the US invasion, Basil al-Majidi began working for the coalition forces in Baghdad. He was appointed general manager of a tracking company responsible for making contracts to support US operations in Iraq As a member of the Iraqi minority group, the Sabian Mandaeans, al-Majidi says that he felt like a second class citizen under Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime. With Hussein no longer in power, al-Majidi and his parents were optimistic about the future but in the months that followed sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. Pacificsts by doctrine the Mandaeans are one of the most peaceful religious groups in Iraq; however, al-Majidi felt forced to keep his religious identity a secret.
Basil al-Majidi: I worked from 2004 'till 2007 and no one -- absolutely no one -- in my company knew that I was Manaean. They knew that I was a Muslim. When they used to ask me, "Are you Sunni or Shi'ite," I refused to tell them. I told them I was just a Muslim. I don't discriminate.
Caitlin Jennings: Mandaeans are followers of John the Baptist and their religious practice centers on the rites of Baptism. But for Majidi and many Mandaeans public religious practice was out of the question.
Basil al-Majidi: We couldn't do funeral ceremonies for dead people. It was a problem. Many people were buried in their own backyards to avoid going to the cemetary which was in the Abu Ghraib area. So, like for practicing rituals, for maintaining and preserving your own faith inside yourself? No. We just forgot about that. We just left it behind.
Caitlin Jennings: He started to receive death threats from Islamic militias both at his work and at his house. By 2006, the situation had reached what he refers to as unbearable limits.
Basil al-Majidi: You just feel that you are, that you are being rejected from all of the community, from all of your surroundings, from all of your surroundings. So I had to escape.
Caitlin Jennings: al-Majidi and his parents fled to Syria where they joined 1.3 million other Iraqi refugees already there. After two and a half years of waiting, al-Majidi was accepted for re-settlement in the United States. Although al-Majidi is now safe in the US, he is still unable to practice his religion. He no longer fears religious persecution but without priests and other Mandaeans, he cannot practice or perform rituals. Dr. Suhaib Nashi, Secretary General of the Mandaeans Associations Union -- an umbrella organization that encompasses all Mandaean Associations outside of Iraq and Iran argues that the resettlement of Iraqi Mandaeans around the globe while saving individuals is destroying the community as a whole.
Dr. Suhaib Nashi: Dispersing them all over the place is sweet poison for us. It kills the religion It finishes what the insurgency are doing. With all of our benevolence, with our feeling of doing good for them, we are destroying them without us knowing. We really, really need understanding and being sensitive to that part of the salvage of Mandaeans. That's not salvage of a family, it's salvage of a culture -- salvation of a whole community and a whole group of people and a language and religion.
Caitlin Jennings: Originally from Iraq, Nashi, who is Mandaean, fled in 1991 after the Iraq War. He currently lives with his family in New Jersey. He says the only way for the group to survive in the longterm is to have a sustainable community in one place.
Yesterday's snapshot noted the first panel -- DoD -- of the Commission on Wartime Contracting's hearing. Some e-mails came in about the second panel. The first panel was of more interest. We'll note the second panel which lasted about a third of the time the first panel took up. Today we'll note panel two which was composed of contractors: AECOM Government Services CEO Jay Ward and CACI International's senior vice president Terry Raney. The Co-Chairs are Christopher Shays and Michael J. Thibault. Aegis Defense Services president Kristi Clemens was scheduled to testify but did not show. Thibault swore the two men before they gave any testimony. We'll note two sections.
First, AECOM has been in Iraq and in Afghanistan since 2005. Questioning Ward, Thibault noted that in Afghanistan "life support and security" is provided for Ward's employees by the US Army and he
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: Does the company in any case or for other purposes or other have to employ your own security?
Jay Ward: Yes, in Iraq, we've had security subcontractors provide transportation primarily from Bagram or the Green Zone or out to the different locations. And then because we work on Iraqi military installations as opposed to inside the wire at Taji, we'll have uh a security service provide parameter security at the gate into our living compounds.
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: And that is -- those are contractors that are awarded by the site security -- are those JCCIA contracts or are they your own?
Jay Ward: They're subcontracts to us.
Co-Chair Michael J. Thibault: That are your own?
Jay Ward: Yes, sir.
Especially due to the Afghanistan conversation, it appeared that Thibault was concerned regarding the oversight of the subcontractees in Iraq. The other moment that appeared to be going somewhere addressed disbelief on the part on the part of one commissioner.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: You have about how many people providing support to JCAA? About fifty people?
Terry Raney: We have 40 in Iraq and 12 in Afghanistan.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: And these people are providing aquisition management services, they're providing program management advice, aquisition advice to officers and managers, true?
Terry Raney: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Grant S. Green: You had mentioned in a response to Commissioner [Dov] Zakheim's question, 'Has anyone ever called, oop, I got a problem, my boss is asking me something and it crosses the line?' And you said, 'No, they never had."
Terry Raney: Not that I've received that call or I believe --
Commissioner Grant S. Green: I just -- I just find it hard to believe, human nature being what it is -- and you acknowledged this initially, that your people were probably more experienced in the workings of JCCAI/A contracting than is the new civilian or military contracting officer walking through the door to a new assignment. It's just hard for me to believe since 2004, there has not been any discussion that crosses this line. So I guess my question to you is what is your level of confidence in percentages that nothing like this has ever happened?
Terry Raney: I'll come at your question from two ways. The first is, we've been -- The requirement we have from the JCCI from day one has been to bring very experienced people. That means people familiar with the authorization processes and systems and recognize these things. And we talk about that before they go over, alright? So I guess I would say I am sure, likely, that there have been conversations between some of our people that are very experienced with somebody who's not relative to 'This is the way that I see this but it's your -- it's your -- I'm providing advice, that's what we're required to do. You have your responsibilities as well to do and that's in awarding the contract, making those decisions.' So I would suspect and I would guess that we've had some of our more experienced people handle it on a personal basis and that's the way we would look to -- look to handle it because that's what we expect of people with that kind of experience and expertise.
Again, the most interesting panel was the first one (which was covered in yesterday's snapshot). Tomorrow we may cover a hearing from late to date but it was bumped to cover the above. Meanwhile Barack went to California and it was not pretty. Though he was attempting to drive up support for Barbara Boxer, he only succeeded in antagonizing the crowd. Lin Zhi (Xinhua) reports he "was repeatedly interrupted by a number of listeners who attacked him on his policies barring gays from openly and equality serving in the military when he was delivering a speech . . . . The protesters come from GetEQUAL, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender group that has also organized similar protests recently. A coalition of groups called for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan." It left some acid rain dripping on Barack's attempt to fundraise for Senator Barbara Boxer's increasingly challenging run for the US Senate. In an effort to appease the protesters, Barack made the ridiculous claim that he and Barbara were leaders on Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. That kind of crap would fly in NYC -- where Panhandle Media would lap it up because it sounds good to them. But in California, we know Boxer's done nothing. We know that Senators Roland Burris and Kirsten Gillibrand have been doing more and doing more in public and that both were just appointed to the Senate in 2009. Boxer's a senator from California who's been elected to her seat repeatedly. She bragged in 2004, in fact, that she won a greater percentage of the vote than did Bully Boy Bush. She should have been leading on this issue. Instead, allegedly due to the Prop 8 vote and the video of her that's supposed to portray her as disrespectful of the military, she's hung in the background.
Well . . . hung in the background and promoted her poorly written (co-written) latest attempt at Harold Robbins. Bad books, after all, rarely sell themselves. And picture that -- 2004, she got a higher percentage of votes than any other senator (or Bush, for that matter) and joked about having a "mandate" but today, her first re-election run since then, she's in the fight of her life just to hold on to her seat. How out of it, how non-leadership is Barack on this issue? In the middle of the protest, he had to ask Boxer if she voted for Don't Ask, Don't Tell originally and she said she didn't at which point he informed the audience "I just checked with Barbara, so if anybody else is thinking about starting a chant, Barbara didn't even vote for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' in the first place." Thanks for that 'breaking' news, Barack. If she had voted for it, you better believe she would have been a one term senator. For just a moment grasp what took place.Barack claims he wants to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And he claims he is in Los Angeles standing by his friend Barbara Boxer . . . and he doesn't even know how she voted? That tells you exactly how distant Barack actually is from this issue. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reports of one protester, "'I am protesting because while I volunteered for, voted for, and still believe in Obama, I also believe is time to repeal don't ask don't tell,' an apparent protester wrote on tumblr.com."When not spinning Boxer's professional lethargy, the two were confronted by people such as Iraq War veteran Mike Prysner, of March Forward!, who the AP quotes telling Barack, "As an Iraq War veteran, I understand the importance of stopping these unjust wars. Too many civilians and soldiers are dying, too much money is going to fund death and destruction, while so many of us are hurting here at home."We are in the Great Recession and it probably doesn't help Barack look 'of the people' when the Los Angeles Independent reports, "A ticket to the dinner was $17,600 per person, a figure arrived at by combining half the maximum $30,400 contribution to a national party committee combined with the maximum $2,400 donation to a candidate. All the events sold out." They also report Barack whined about the issues he faces as president. Oh, I'm sorry, did he think it was all pageant waving and super market openings? Cover shoots and Jay Leno interviews? Andrew Malcolm (Los Angeles Times) also notes the price:
As The Ticket reported here earlier Monday, Obama flew across the country for no public events but just two fundraisers for the embattled liberal Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer seeking a four Senate term where tickets ranged up to $17,600 to sip wine and hear the president.
Obama's batting average campaigning for fellow Democrats is a pathetic 0-7 in recent months,. But Boxer needs help (especially in the money department in this expensive state) even in liberal California where she's been unable to reach the key 50% approval rating this year against a trio of potential Republican opponents.
Cedric's "He Loves LA, LA Remains Lukewarm" and Wally's "He Loves LA, LA Remains Lukewarm" (joint-post) covered the less-than-warm welcome Barack received, Ann covered the silence on Iraq "Diane Rehm has time for sleep none for Iraq," and Ruth ("Out-FM disgraces itself") and Mike ("Queer Voices, Goldman Sachs, Third") covered LGBT issues.
iraqthe los angeles timesned parkertrue/slantmichael rostonliz slypoliticolaura rozentime magazinemichael sherernprmorning editionquil lawrencerenee montagne
amnesty international
the nationrobert dreyfuss
cnn
the new york timestimothy williams
xinhualin zhithe los angeles timesthe washington posted okeefethe los angeles timesandrew malcolm
Monday, April 19, 2010
Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd on Good Morning America
"Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part I" (Hillary Is 44):
We’ve always said it’s about trust. And we don’t trust Barack Obama. Most Americans increasingly agree with us.
There was a Saturday post ("Hidden Stories – Health Care, Economics, Gay Supreme Court Candidates") and I'll probably fall back on it when they take a break this week. And I'm sure it will take a Friday break since it has for the last two weeks.
Tomorrow on ABC's Good Morning America, Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd are going to be guests. I've put it on Tivo because I don't want to miss that. If you're saying, "Who?" Oh, you make me feel so old. :D I got into Charlies' Angels when they were in syndication (I believe the show was already done making new episodes before I was born). Jaclyn Smith was one of the original Angels (private detectives working for Charlie Townsend) along with Farrah Fawcett and Kate Jackson. After one year, and with no signed contract, Farrah left and Cheryl Ladd joined the show as Kris Munroe, little sister of Jill. That was season two. Season three was Smith, Jackson and Ladd. Then Kate Jackson left (in part because they refused to give her time off to film the Meryl Streep role in Kramer versus Kramer) and Shelley Hack was brought on. She's generally slammed bad but I actually enjoy a lot of her episodes. She was not well received and was dropped after season four ended. Season five found Smith and Ladd joined by Tanya Roberts who is funny on That 70's Show but was an airhead and brought the entire Angels team down. That was just ridiculous. (Like the episode where Tanya's Julie becomes a hypnotized killer.)
Jaclyn Smith was the only actress to stay with the show all five seasons (she was also in the two hour pilot with Farrah and Kate that was done about a year before the series). Cheryl Ladd was the next longest serving Angel. Jaclyn appeared in the Charlie's Angeles Full Throttle movie (the one where Demi is the bad guy) as Kelly when Drew Barrymore is depressed.
So they'll be on Good Morning America tomorrow and I bet many people my age and older are excited by that.
In fact, I'm making them my headline. And my post because I had to stop to help my youngest son with some homework he forgot and now I just want to get this post up and done with.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
We’ve always said it’s about trust. And we don’t trust Barack Obama. Most Americans increasingly agree with us.
Claire McCaskill thinks it is “nonsense” those pesky “promises made but not promises kept”. Claire should also realize that delegitimizing people by calling them “racist” (a favorite past time by Obama thugs against Hillary Clinton supporters and Tea Party activists) is also a pesky problem – especially when the “racist” shouters are doughy white boys or work at doughy white boy institutions.
Calling people who express themselves legitimately by the anti-gay and simultaneously misogynistic “Teab**ger” epithet can also rile people up. And tit-for-tat never works because for every “Oklahoma City” shouted by the Left, the right will shout “Waco”.
Before continuing with our discussion of Bill Clinton and what he is up to, we need to exactly understand why the Tea Party movement is such a threat to so many people. And the Tea Party movement is indeed a great threat to established institutions. It might be the real thing. It might be the same thing as what they celebrate today in Massachusetts.
We’ll discuss exactly why the Tea Party movement is so important and so feared in our next thrilling, Bill packed, episode.
There was a Saturday post ("Hidden Stories – Health Care, Economics, Gay Supreme Court Candidates") and I'll probably fall back on it when they take a break this week. And I'm sure it will take a Friday break since it has for the last two weeks.
Tomorrow on ABC's Good Morning America, Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd are going to be guests. I've put it on Tivo because I don't want to miss that. If you're saying, "Who?" Oh, you make me feel so old. :D I got into Charlies' Angels when they were in syndication (I believe the show was already done making new episodes before I was born). Jaclyn Smith was one of the original Angels (private detectives working for Charlie Townsend) along with Farrah Fawcett and Kate Jackson. After one year, and with no signed contract, Farrah left and Cheryl Ladd joined the show as Kris Munroe, little sister of Jill. That was season two. Season three was Smith, Jackson and Ladd. Then Kate Jackson left (in part because they refused to give her time off to film the Meryl Streep role in Kramer versus Kramer) and Shelley Hack was brought on. She's generally slammed bad but I actually enjoy a lot of her episodes. She was not well received and was dropped after season four ended. Season five found Smith and Ladd joined by Tanya Roberts who is funny on That 70's Show but was an airhead and brought the entire Angels team down. That was just ridiculous. (Like the episode where Tanya's Julie becomes a hypnotized killer.)
Jaclyn Smith was the only actress to stay with the show all five seasons (she was also in the two hour pilot with Farrah and Kate that was done about a year before the series). Cheryl Ladd was the next longest serving Angel. Jaclyn appeared in the Charlie's Angeles Full Throttle movie (the one where Demi is the bad guy) as Kelly when Drew Barrymore is depressed.
So they'll be on Good Morning America tomorrow and I bet many people my age and older are excited by that.
In fact, I'm making them my headline. And my post because I had to stop to help my youngest son with some homework he forgot and now I just want to get this post up and done with.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, April 19, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces multiple deaths, two al Qaeda leaders are caught in Iraq (again, oops!), feline terrorists stalk the US, Nouri continues to act like a lead character in Valley Of The Dolls (or at least like Helen Lawson), the Commission on Wartime Contracting holds a hearing in which DoD pleads they have made "progress," Marc Hall gets discharged, and more. We'll start with the deaths of US service members and grasp that the US military spokespeople appear to struggle with the truth. You'll understand in a moment. Sunday the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- One U.S. Soldier was killed and three injured when their helicopter crashed in northern Iraq late Saturday evening. The accident was not attributed to enemy fire and is currently under investigation. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on that Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin." Press TV adds, "An Iraqi military official said the crash had taken place near the US military base of Camp Speicher, located outside the town of Tikrit." Alright, to review, helicopter crashed Saturday evening. One US service member dead, three more wounded, northern Iraq. Today the US military announced: "BASRAH, Iraq -- A Soldier assigned to United States Division-South died of non-combat-related injuries Sunday. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." To review, that's a Sunday death, "non-combat-related injuireds" in Basra. The announcements bring the total number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4392. And it's seems so easy to follow. Here's where they muck it up. There was an operation on Sunday morning, in Tikrit. The US military's press release is here and, while bragging that two suspects were killed, they slip this in at the end, "During the operation, a USF-I Soldier was killed during the assault when a U.S. helicopter crashed." Now is that 3 deaths the military's announcing? Or are they changing their earlier release which asserted the helicopter crashed Saturday evening to Sunday morning? Both announcement originated in Iraq. Presumably the US military knows the difference between evening and morning. If you go through reports on the assault, you'll find reporters are confused as well with some asserting that the US solider killed in the operation was in the helicopter and others asserting differently (and all are basing it on what the military told them). We're not going to call out the reporters on it because the confusion stemming from conflicting statements being made by the US military. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports that a huge number of people are stepping forward to sing praises of the operation including Gen Ray Odierno (his comments are actually in the previous military press release we linked to above) and Nouri al-Maliki (we'll come back to the singers, the Three Tenors, if you will, in a moment) and she notes that the US and Iraq spokespersons are claiming that Abu Hamza Muhajr and Abu Omar Baghdadi were the two killed on Sunday in the US forces-led operation. US forces-led operation? That's me, not Sly. But let's be clear that if air power was supplied, it was a US-led operation. Baghdad's air force is non-existant and expected to be that way until late 2013 by the most positive estimates. So while the US makes those claims, Sly points out, "The Iraqi government has on numerous occasions claimed to have captured Baghdadi, and last year televised the confession of a man who claimed to be Baghdadi, to widespread skepticism. U.S. officials said privately they did not believe the man was Baghdadi, and some Iraqi officials said then the real Baghdadi was a man with the same name as that given by the U.S. military." Sly leaves out the fact that the press ran with that claim -- that false claim -- with very few exceptions. It was embarrassing (and we called it out in real time). But let's underscore that today we have confirmation that it was false and we know that the confession was false. Remember that the next time the Iraqi government parades a confession or makes an assertion. But he's not the only one they've claimed to have caught in the past. As Laura Rozen (Politico) reminds, "Al-Masri, an Egyptian also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, had previously erroneously been reported killed in late 2006 as well as in 2007." In other words, this heavily panted over 'operation' which netted 'two' 'evil doers'? Don't be surprised if six months to a year from now we're again being told that al-Baghdadi and al-Masri have either been killed or captured. (and probably at the Christian Science Monitor as well but we'll throw them a link in a moment) and they emphasize the claims that the two deaths are a devasting blow against what recent research into the issue have found: As noted above, a chorus of voices joined to sing praises for the operation. Rounding out The Three Tenors was US Vice President Joe Biden who insisted that Iraq took the lead and this was a huge accomplishment and "demonstrates the improved security, strength and capacity of Iraqi security forces." Really, Joe? Really? It was worth the life of at least 1 US service member? Really? Laura Rozen reminds of the operation, "It also came amid revelations of a secret Baghdad prison under the direction of Maliki's military office where hundreds of Sunni prisoners had been held and abused." What's she referring to? Ned Parker's explosive (Los Angeles Times) report on Nouri al-Maliki running an off the books prison where countless "Sunni men disappeared for months" and they were tortured and hidden away with at least one possible killed during a torture session. Little Nouri talks a good game when he needs to. Iraq's current and possibly outgoing prime minister garnered headlines a few days ago for repeating what the Iranian government had said a week before, that any new coalition government must include Sunnis. [See Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) report that Nouri was insisting that Allawi's slate "should be a key player in the next government."] It was supposed to be a whole new Nouri. Then came Ned Parker's report. There's more. First the backstory, Iraq. March 7th, Iraq concluded elections. The results were released in March: Ayad Allawi's slate came out with the most seats in the Parliament (91), Nouri al-Maliki's slate with the second most (89). Since that time, efforts to build a power-sharing coaltion have gone on. 163 seats are needed for a government to be formed and a prime minister selected. How do you win in a tight race? One way is to repeatedly spin that you're in the lead. The hope is that (a) it will intimidate any opponents and (b) it will erode resistance to you. With that in mind, it comes as no surprise to learn today that the claims that Nouri and the other Shi'ite coalition (Iraqi National Alliance) set to announce a coalition being a done deal was apparently only a done deal in Nouri's mind. Alsumaria TV reports that the two groups met Sunday night and had "rows" over the issue of who would be prime minister. In a non-surprising move, a week ago State Of Law announced they were endorsing their own party's Nouri al-Maliki for prime minister. Which means the argument was about Nouri. Moqtada al-Sadr does not like Nouri for a variety of reasons and he put the issue of who his 40 seats (in the Parliament -- and they are part of the Iraqi National Alliance) should endorse to the people and Nouri was not the winner of that poll. Alsumaria notes, "Previous talks had reached an agreement to form a six member committee representing both coalitions charged of choosing the next Prime Minister. State of Law officials however opposed the joint committee arguing that choosing the next PM by consensus means ruling out incumbent Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki." What to do when you're not getting your way? Stomp your feet! Remember when the world found out, after the fact and after the election, that Nouri had gone to his rubber stamp court to get them to change the way that the prime minister is chosen? Well today's the day the country's Federal Court certifies the election results . . . and if you weren't expecting a hiccup, you consume too much American media. Al Jazeera reports that Iraq's electoral commission has agreed to Nouri's demands, the whiny tyrant will get his way, there will be a recount of ballots cast in Baghdad and "Baghdad accounts for 68 seats in the 325-seat parliament, making it a key prize." Ahmed Rasheed, Suadad al-Salhy, Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Noah Barkin (Reuters) point out, "Any revision could inflame sectarian tensions at a time when Iraq is emerging from the worst of the fighting between Sunnis and majority Shi'ites that was unleashed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) adds, "The recount is expected to take at least a week to conduct. Officials said the three-member court that ruled on Monday was still considering other complaints of fraud and could order recounts in other regions as well." Citing and sourcing to Iraq High Electoral Commissioner Ayad al-Kinani, Jane Arraf and Sahar Issa (Christian Science Monitor) note that "the process of unsealing the ballot boxes stored in secure warehouses, emptying them. and manually recounting them in front of election observers was expected to take eight to ten days." For those who have forgotten, Nouri ordered members of his political party to the streets to protest after the results were known, he spoke threateningly of violence but even that did not result in a recount. He finally got his way. He finally stamped his feet enough to get what he wanted. Over the weekend, Timothy Williams and Sa'ad Al-Izzi (New York Times) offered an analysis of Allawi's support. Rebecca Santana (AP) explains, "The decision to recount the Baghdad ballots could significantly lengthen the time it takes to seat the next government, raising questions about the country's stability as political factions battle for supremacy." General Ray Odierno is the top US commander in Iraq. Yesterday, via satellite, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (link goes to Fox News and the transcript -- video option further down the page on the right). Chris Wallace: If the Shi'ites succeed in disqualifying more membrs of the Allawi Sunni alliance and also if they are able to create a government without Sunnis, do you worry about a possible return to sectarian violence in Iraq? Gen Ray Odierno: It's been clear from all of the political leaders that everybody understands they must include all major political blocs in the government. And we think that's a very important point as we move forward because it's important that we don't alienate any of the major blocs -- whether they be Sunni or Shia or the Kurds. And we believe that the conversation going on today is focused on participation of all the different blocs so we're confident that all will be included in the government. And it'll be very important because what we don't want is to have people who don't feel like they're represented, people that -- they feel are alienated which then could chose, potentially, to go back to violence. Those comments were made yesterday -- before it was known that Nouri was still calling for a recount (US Ambassador to Chris Hill has stated publicly and repeatedly for the last two weeks that Nouri's request for a recount was a thing of the past). Read them again in light of today's developments. Further in, you will note that Chris Wallace raises the (laughable) '9-11-like-attack-foiled' nonsense from last week and Odierno does not take the bait, gives a lengthy response and never legitimizes the (false) rumor nor comments on it in any way. Speaking of rumors, the White House is attempting to force Odierno out. On Fox News yesterday, Wallace asked him about the rumors he was giving up his command in Iraq and Odierno termed them rumors. We've ignored the rumors (reported widely by everyone from AP to the New York Times to Antiwar.com) because they are rumors (floated by the White House as a trial balloon) but since he's now commented on them, we'll note that he shot them down. On the Status Of Forces Agreement, he does note that it could be extended: "If the government of Iraq thinks it would be to their advantage to ask us to stay longer than that, then we'll see. And then we'll have to have a discussion in the United States whether we decide to stay longer or not. But that will be up to the new Iraqi government, whether they want us to stay or not. And then we'll make our own decision based on our own policies." Diplomatic. Reality, in the summer of last year, Nouri al-Maliki (who desperately wants to continue as prime minister, in case you didn't notice) was in the US and -- see Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) and Anne Gearan coverage of al-Maliki's remarks for AP -- discussed how the SOFA might need to be extended and the US might need to remain in Iraq. Nouri has been propped by the US. The US government has long known that (many senators have pointed it out openly in Congressional hearings including Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and then-Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Norm Coleman). You better believe Nouri knows it. I have no idea why the press continued to promote the lie that Nouri was popular among Iraqis (maybe to continue reporting in Iraq) because he's not. And the world saw that when, despite press claims that Nouri's State of Law would destroy the competition in the March 7 elections, his party came in second. And now the press has been forced to note that Moqtada al-Sadr can't stand Nouri and, at some point, they'll have to get honest about how SICI can't stand him either. Following the December 2005 elections, Ibrahim al-Jaafari was the choice of the elected -- a Sh'ite dominant body (unlike this year, many Sunnis elected not to participate in the elections). A Shi'ite dominant body that still did not want Shi'ite Nouri. The US said no to al-Jaafari (who was the first post-invasion prime minister of Iraq, followed by Ayad Allawi, followed by Nouri) and Nouri was the (unpopular) compormise candidate. Nothing he has done in the four years he has held the post has built confidence. For the average Iraqi, there is the fact that potable water and continuous electricity remain a dream. For the political parties? The disgust with Nouri is best underscored by the fact that he's been unable to keep a full cabinet. He couldn't even appoint the original cabinet in a timely manner (and missed his own self-imposed deadline). After appointed, the key characteristic of his cabinet has been how many ministers have walked out on it, repeatedly. Nouri may well pull it out and continue as prime minister (never underestimate someone with no ethics). He's aware now that the Iranian government entered into an arrangement with Ahmed Chalabi and not as willing to accept their promises at face value (and he's taken to complaining semi-publicly about Iran). He's working every legal and illegal means to ensure he's prime minister. He may pull it out. If he does, remember that he's a puppet of the US. He only made anti-US remarks as part of his campaign. "Good morning," declared Michael Thibault in DC today, clearing his throat and explaining why everyone was gathered. "My name's Michael,Thibault, co-chairman of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Welcome to all. This hearing will probe the government's management and oversight of contracting for services to support contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Commission estimates that these contracts have consumed some $80 billion of tax payer money over the past five years. Most of the services contracts for tasks like logistical support, security, transportation and maintenance are distinct from buying weapons or equipment and are made by the US Army. I will say at the outset that we have serious concerns about the Army's management and oversight of these vast and costly arrangements. We will explore those concerns today." As with their most recent hearing (see March 29th snapshot), they put the witnesses under oath. The first panel (our focus for this snapshot) was composed of DoD's Shay Assad, the Army's Lt Gen William Phillips and the Army's Edward Harrington. Despite noteworthy statements by Thibault and Co-Chair Chris Shays, the first panel was a lot of jibber-jabber. "Oh, there's no doubt," declared Shay Assad, "about it that we need to do more. The taxpayers get a better deal when we compete." If there's no doubt about it why was this -- and every other thing -- something they're 'working on' as opposed to something they're doing? Or take Lt Gen Phillips declaring that training ("years of training, education and hands-on experience") are needed to do the jobs . . . that are being done now? The ones he would, in fact, oversee. But don't worry, he insists they are "getting closer to the goal." Nothing's being done but, don't worry, they are aware of the problem (the apparent "remarkable change" Assad testitified to) and, Assad, "we are moving forward with significant change [. . .] It's going to take some time, but we are making significant improvement." It was left to one of the Commissioners, Grant Green, to point out the obvious: They have had seven years to work on this. Faced with Commissioner Katherine Schinasi's specific questions, Assad attempted to dance around them and when she persisted, he whined "I've been on the job about eighty days so I'm eighty days into the effort." If you're not prepared to appear before the Commission maybe they should have sent someone else and eighty days should have allowed you more than enough time to familiarize yourself with your role. Harrington tried a similar dance and was confronted with the fact that he was "14 months into your tenure" and that he was aware of the problems prior to that so "we have begun to look into" really doesn't cut it. The witnesses were clear on the number of contractors in Afghanistan. They think. They admitted no one had oversight of the Afghanistan contractors at this point so the number offered (107,000) really can't be verified. It was a disgraceful and sad hearing for the witnesses who repeatedly resorted to saying that long-established problems were now (NOW) being looked into and that plans to address them were now (NOW) being thought up. If this is an indication of DoD working "seriously," Congress needs to hold a hearing on just that aspect and to do so immediately. Friday's snapshot covered a US House Armed Services Comitttee's subcommittee hearing. Ava reported on it last night in "Walter Jones discusses strain on the Guard," Kat in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Wally in "Military Personnel Subcommittee." And Kat's "Kat's Korner: The return of Natalie Merchant " went up yesterday as did her "Kat's Korner: Jakob Dylan announcing." Over the weekend, news came out of Iraq that Marc Hall was discharged from the military. Marc is the soldier who had completed his service when he learned he was being stop-lossed. In response to that, he recorded the rap song "Stop Loss" -- an apparent crime which would lead the US military to attempt to court-martial him and to whisk him away to Iraq for said court-martial thereby denying him his needed witnesses. (The song was recorded in the US.) CNN reported that Marc Hall entered into a plea agreement to avoid court-martial and has now been discharged with an "other than honorable discharge" and that Hall "will lose military and veterans benefits and be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade (E1) in the Army." Marc's plea agreement has him stating he threatened people and that the threats went beyond the song. Reality: If a member of the US military threatens to kill other soldiers and brass, the US military doesn't do a plea agreement. They toss your ass behind bars and they go overboard on it because they want to send a message. The fact that they allowed Marc to enter a plea agreement means they did not have proof of any threats. There is an alternative to that: the military command needs a huge shake up because the brass is so inept that they just released a man who threatened multiple members of the military. Were that the case, a number of higher ups would need to be relieved of duty immediately. So take your pick. The simplest explanation is that the military never had a case (which explains the decision to do the court-martial in Iraq and separate him from his witnesses) and offered a plea which they now try to spin as a 'major accomplishment' on their part. Courage to Resist explains: In a joyous victory for Specialist Marc A Hall and his supporters nationwide, this morning the US Army announced that the "Stop-loss" objector will not be court martialed next week at Camp Liberty, Iraq as scheduled. Instead, Spc Hall will be discharged immediately. In December, the Army jailed Spc Hall in retaliation for his formal complaint of inadequate mental health services available to him at Fort Stewart. The Army used an angry song that Spc Hall, a combat veteran of the Iraq War suffering from post traumatic stress, had produced criticizing the "Stoploss" policy as the pretext. Specialist Hall's civilian attorney, David Gespass, explained, "I believe we would have won the case, even in Iraq. While I'm gratified that the Army finally decided to discharge Marc, I'm appalled at the disregard it has shown for Marc's wellbeing and fundamental rights for nine months. Whatever lip service the Army gives to its concern for its soldiers, its only real concern is insuring they risk their lives without questioning why. Marc's greatest transgression was asking that question." Mr. Gespass is the president of the National Lawyers Guild. In a message to the supporters nationwide who organized a grassroots campaign on his behalf, Spc Hall provided the following message by phone from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait: "I'm out of the confinement facility! Thank you to everyone for all the efforts everyone made. Hopefully I'll be home very, very soon. I appreciate all of the love and support so many people gave me through my ordeal." Spc Hall, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, also enjoyed the support of the Veterans for Peace organization. Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist, an organization dedicated to supporting military objectors, noted, "Spc Marc Hall pled guilty today to producing a hip-hop song the Army didn't like in exchange for his freedom. It's utterly outrageous that Army spokespersons continued to slander Marc today. Despite the Army having stacked everything against Marc -- including moving the scheduled trial from Ft. Stewart, Georgia to Iraq -- supporters overcame each obstacle in order to provide Marc with a fighting chance for justice. In the end, we won." |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)