Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Tornado

Not much to write about tonight.  I was on the phone with Dallas community members to make sure everyone was okay.  (They had two tornados hit in the DFW area today.)

There are people like Billie that I talk to on the phone at least once a week so it shouldn't be surprising that if something goes wrong in Dallas, I wonder, "Is Billie okay?"

But that's true of the ones I've never spoken to as well.

If you missed what I'm talking about:

Tornadoes cause damage, injuries in Dallas-Fort Worth area

Los Angeles Times - ‎10 minutes ago‎
Lancaster and Arlington are declared disaster areas, flights are canceled and emergency responders are scrambling to tally the devastation.
Tornado » Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex »
Tornadoes rake Dallas area, more than a dozen hurt
Cleanup starts after tornadoes tear through Dallas-Fort Worth area
Valley uses social media for info on loved ones
See all 1,314 sources »

Thankfully, none of the reports I've read mention anyone dying.

I grew up with tornados.  We'd have tornado warnings and watches all the time in Georgia.  It was fun when I was a little girl because I thought it would be like "The Wizard of Oz." But at some point, I saw a store on TV where the tractor trailers had been overturned and things were destroyed and that's when I started to be scared.  That's also around the time my mother's youngest sister lived with us for about half a year.  And watch or warning, she'd make us go into the hall and sit there for hours if my parents weren't home.  If they came home while we were in the hall, we'd get to leave the hall at last.

But my aunt would be in a panic and whining and moaning and it just turned it into nightmare and very non-Wizard of Oz like.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, April 3, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Qatar offers a message to Nouri al-Maliki, tensions continue between Nouri and the Kurds, Barack Obama calls Nouri ahead of a planned national conference in Iraq, a journalist is assassinated in Baghdad, and more.
 
 
This week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network),  features coverage of the United National Anti-War Coalition conference in Stamford, Connecticut where both hosts were among the speakers.  Another speaker was Black Agenda Report's Margaret Kimberley:
 
Margaret Kimberley: It's a great pleasure to be here today, speaking to a group of people who proudly proclaim themselves to be anti-war.  Now I was told I only had three minutes to speak which is both a hard and easy task at the same time so I'll get to my main point which is pretty simple: You cannot be anti-war and pro-Obama.  We can't discuss the issue of NATO and the G8 without talking about Barack Obama. The two events were initially planned to take place in Chicago which is no coincidence -- it's the President's home and his political base.  His former Chief of Staff [Rahm Emanuel] now serves as the mayor there.  And these events were intended to be coronations for the Obama Doctrine which states that the United States can kill and steal whenever it wants to and wherever it wants to and does so in a fashion which keeps liberals happy even as acts which they decried under Bush are carried out by Obama.  Those of us who are anti-war are not fooled because a Democrat makes war instead of a Repbulican or because the current war making Democrat is a Black man.  As we all know, the G8 meeting was moved from Chicago to Camp David because the President and his G8 friends are afraid of protest.  They are afraid of us. The change of venue for the G8 summit is a sign of success but we can't rest on our laurels and forget the awful forces represented by NATO and the G8. These forces will not be happy until the people of the world accept their rule without question or protest. We know that the goal of the G8 is to turn the whole world into Greece -- a country which, among other things now, has no mimimum wage, no regulation of corporate activities and a shrunken welfare safety net.  NATO is an organization which should have outlived its usefulness.  It was always a counter-weight to the Warsaw Pact nations but the Soviet Union no longer exists and former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics like Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Latvia and Estonia are now all NATO members.  Actually, I should correct myself there.  There is a reason for NATO to exist and that is to further the interest of empire and western capitol.  NATO is a tool of western imperialism and we saw that all very clearly in Libya.  The United States, France and the UK conspired to bring down a sovereign nation's government, kill its leader,spread a race war and lynch law and divide Libya into weak fiefdoms incapable of stopping their collaborators from turning over their resources to NATO and G8 countries.  The bombings of civilians and the lies told to the world about a phony humanitarian agenda were all carried out in NATO's name. Now I know that anti-NATO and G8 protests are being planned this weekend and I also know that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president recently signed legislation which makes it a felony to protest at national security events where Secret Service are present and that makes these actions very dangerous.  But speaking of protest just as an aside, the actions at political conventions this summer should be restricted to the Democrats.  They are, after all, the party in power. They are the only ones who we need to protest to.  But even so -- even so, resistance is still the order of the day. Thank you very much.
 
 
Of the conference, Glen Ford explains:
 
I was privileged to present the coordinating committee's draft of the Action Plan to UNAC's national conference in Stamford, Connecticut, this past weekend. "This action plan does not just target some U.S. wars," said the committee's statement. "It does not target the currently unpopular wars. It does not shy away from condemning wars that remain acceptable to half the population because the real reasons for them are obscured in the rhetoric of humanitarian intervention. It does not advocate that we avoid putting U.S. boots on the ground by mounting embargoes that bring economic devastation on the peoples of Iran. It does not condone war by other, more sanitized, means. It does not cheer on wars that minimize U.S. combat deaths by the use of robotic unmanned planes or the highly trained murder squads of the Joint Special Operations Command. It does not see war by mercenary as somehow less threatening to the peoples of the world and the U.S. than war by economic draft. It does not give credit to Washington for removing brigades from one country in order to deploy them in the next."
The document demands an end to "all wars, interventions, targeted assassinations and occupations" and U.S. withdrawal from "NATO and all other interventionist military alliances."
UNAC's reasoning is rooted in the principle that all the world's peoples have the inherent right to self-determination, to pursue their own destinies -- the foundation of relations among peoples, enshrined in international law but daily violated by the United States.
 
 
Alsumaria TV reports a TV broadcaster was killed by a sticky bombing in Tirkit yesterday.  AGI notes that the journalist's name is Kamiran Salaheddin and that he "worked for the Salaheddin channel, which was founded in 2004" by US forces. The Journalistic Freedoms Observatory has a photo of the 35-year-old here and they explain that he held a Masters degree in the Arabic language, had previously worked for the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, that he had been working for the channel since 2005 and that his survivors include his wife and their two children. Reporters Without Borders notes:
 
Reporters Without Borders condemns Salahaddin TV presenter Kamiran Salaheddin's murder last night in the centre of Tikrit (170 km north of Baghdad). Aged 35 and the father of two children, he was killed at around 9 p.m. by a bomb placed under his car.
"We offer our condolences to Salaheddin's family, friends and colleagues," Reporters Without Borders said. "The Iraqi authorities must do everything possible to ensure that those responsible for his death are brought to justice. His murder must not go unpunished."
 
 
 
 
 
The White House released the following today:
 
 
Read out of the President's Call with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki
President Obama called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki today to congratulate the Iraqi people on the success of the Arab Summit hosted in Baghdad last week, and on Iraq's continued reintegration into the region as a sovereign, independent state.  The two leaders discussed the United States and Iraq's joint efforts to advance peace and security in the region as strategic partners.  The discussion also covered the political situation in Iraq, and a range of other shared interests.  President Obama expressed the United States' firm commitment to a unified, democratic Iraq as defined by Iraq's constitution, as well as his support for Prime Minister Maliki's participation in the ongoing dialogue convened by President Talabani tasked to reconcile Iraqi political blocs in a flexible and open manner. 
 
Barack must have been bored and needing to play with his puppet today.  The Arab League Summit, for Iraq, was a failure (see "Editorial: Successful summit for Iraq?").  But for those who delude themselves otherwise, the question to ask is why Barack called Nouri today?  The summit was Thursday.  Had Barack run out of his March minutes?  Exactly what was the hold up on that call?
 
Oh, because the summit praise was smoke up the ass.  The actual point of the call was to try to coax the puppet into playing nice tomorrow when a national conference is supposed to be held.
 
Iraq's been in political crisis for over a year now. Since December 21st, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a National Conference. Supposedly that will take place tomorrow. Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) reports that Iraqiya's Haidar Mulla states they "will only paticipate in the convention if the Erbil Agreement is implemented and the security posts are finalized beforehand." The three security ministries -- Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of the Defense and Ministry of National Security -- were supposed to be named by the end of December 2010. That was how Nouri al-Maliki would move from prime minister-designate to prime minister -- per the Constitution. Instead, he was moved without naming a full Cabinet and those posts remain empty all this time later, have never been filled while violence has increased in Iraq.

By not filling them, Nouri controls them. He ignores the Constitution and declares someone 'acting' minister. Then they do what he tells them or he fires them. If he nominated someone for the post and the person was confirmed, Nouri could not fire them. He would not Parliament's backing. Since December, he's been trying to strip Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq of his post. Thus far Parliament has refused to go along with him so al-Multaq retains his post.

Ahmed reports:


Muayad Taiyb, spokesperson for the Kurdistani bloc in Iraqi Parliament, believes Barzani is avoiding the convention because he believes it won't solve anything.
"Massud Barzani is not hopeful about the results of the convention; that's why he will not participate in it."
Mulla believes that Barzani's decision to not attend the convention will affect the positions of other political leaders.
"If President Barzani does not participate in the convention, then neither will Alawi," he said. "Massoud Barzani is a key figure in the political process in Iraq. His absence at the convention will make it have no value."
The State of Law Coalition has left many political issues unresolved with the Kurdistan Region and the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya bloc.
Taiyb says, "The State of Law bloc has issues with both the Iraqiya bloc and the Kurds. The convention is meaningless without Iraqiya's participation because the main issues in the political process in Iraq are between Iraqiya and the State of Law."
 
Earlier this week, Al Rafidayn noted that Iraqiya's concerns include Saleh al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi and that, for the conference to have real meaning, KRG President Massoud Barzani, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq's Ammar al-Hakim and Moqtada al-Sadr would need to attend.  Barzani will not be attending.  He's out of the country on a diplomatic tour and has already arrived in the United States.  Today he spoke with the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl and Jim Hoagland and Diehl reports:
 
"The more you look at it, the more you see the situation going toward conflict and chaos," he said Tuesday.
To the south, in Baghdad, Barzani sees Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "concentrating power," having driven the leader of Iraq's Sunni population to seek de facto asylum in Kurdistan. "Iraq right now is facing a crisis," he told me and The Post's Jim Hoagland during a visit to Washington. "There may be some people who do not want to call it a crisis, but it is a crisis. This is not the Iraq we struggled for: We are seeing the consolidation of power under one party and one ruler."
 
Hadi Jalo tells Hamza Hendawi (AP), "The sectarian war has moved away from violence to soft conflict fought int he state institutions, government ministries and on the street.  What was once an armed conflict has turned into territorial, instituationalized and psychological segregation."  Henawi explains that Sunnis are basically blacklisted from employment in the government and at colleges and that Shi'ites in charge "stonewall them when they seek help locating the remains of loved ones."
 
Iraqiya members Saleh al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi are political rivals of Nouri al-Maliki's -- he leads State of Law, they belong to Iraqiya.  (Iraqiya came in first in the March 7, 2010 elections.)  In addition, while Nouri is a Shi'ite, al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are both Sunni and some see the attacks on the two men by Nouri as both political attacks and sectarian attacks. 
 
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whom Nouri wants arrrested but has been in the KRG as a guest of KRG President Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, went to Qatar on Sunday (and states he will return to Iraq when he finishes up his diplomatic tour that will include visits to other countries).  Nouri's government is engaging in a war of words with the government of Qatar over Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's visit to the country.  Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister of Energy al-Sharistani -- who apparently believes his title is much more elastic than it would appear to be -- declared that Qatar should hand over al-Hashemi. It was never going to happen. But Nouri and his minions have their answer today. AP  reports that Qatar's State Minister Khaled al-Aiityah has stated that they will do no such thing.  RTT News adds, "Qatar's State Minister for Foreign Affairs Khaled al-Attiyah stated at a press conference held Tuesday that Hashemi could not be extradited to Iraq as requested by Baghdad because there was no court judgment against him. The minister also noted that Hashemi still holds the post of vice-president." Alex Delmar-Morgan (Wall Street Journal) offers, "Qatar's stance is likely to sour already strained ties with Iraq where the pursuit of Mr. Hashemi by the Shiite-led government is stoking political tensions and threatening to destabilize the country's delicate sectarian balance."
 
 
Laith Saud:  Well let's look at this from three different angles.  The first angle being that the moment the United States departed from Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, began to consolidate his power and go after any potential political rivals. So, in terms of analysis, there's a great deal -- a great deal of evidence to suggest that these are trumped up charges against Tareq al-Hashemi, the Vice President of Iraq.  So he seeks refuge in the Kurdish region, in northern Iraq, which is semi-qutonomous and has its own security forces and which he was there until very recently.  He decides to go to Qatar this past Sunday in order to engage in diplomatic talks with the Qataries, in particular the Prime Minister of Qatar, which was a huge slap in the face to al-Maliki considering that the vice president is wanted.  However, if you look at what happened at the Arab League just these recent days ago --
 
Jerome McDonnell:  And it took place in --
 
Laith Saud: In Baghdad. 
 
Jerome McDonnell: For the first time in forever.
 
Laith Saud: Yeah, for the first time since 1990.  The Qataries sent very low-level representation to that Arab Summit which was kind of a slap in the face of Iraq again or, in particular, Nouri al-Maliki.  The message that the Qataries were sending was that they believe the Sunnis in Iraq are being marginalized, that, in fact, they are being repressed, and this was their way of challenging what they see as the more sectarian role that they feel that Iraq is playing in the Middle East.
 
Jerome McDonnell:  And Iraq sees that there are some Shi'ites that are being marginalized in Bahrain.
 
Laith Saud: Exactly.
 
Jerome McDonnell:  And they see some actions where they think the Saudis drive -- driving the old army into Bahrain is not cricket with some of the Shi'ites there.
 
Laith Saud: No, you're absolutely right, Jerome. And what's happening is the sectarian discourse, the sectarian narrative is really reaching a high level pitch in recent years.  So you have Shi'ite governments or so-called Shi'ite governments if we could use such a term talking about the persecution of Shias in Bahrain and, on the flip side, you have Sunni governments -- if you want to use such a term -- talking about the persecution of Sunnis in Shi'ite countries like Iraq and in the middle of all of this is Syria where you have a -- an essentially Shi'ite government that is seen to be persecuting its largely Sunni population.  Now, is this posturing?  Are these really sectarian conflicts? Are these essentially not sectarian conflicts and this is a guise by which people are battling out for resources? I tend to think so.  But there's no question that the sectarian nature of the narrative has reached a new level.
 
And of course it's not just Qatar.  AP notes, "Nouri al-Maliki, launched a thinly veiled attack on both nations during a news conference on Sunday in Baghdad, saying their desire to arm Syrian rebels would deepen the conflict there."  They go on to note "a column published in Tuesday's Saudi-owned, pan-Arab Al-Sharq al-Awsat, editor-in chief Tariq al-Hamid  . . ."  That's this column.  We noted it yesterday, we noted Tariq Alhomayed's column yesterday, when Arab News ran it.  Excerpt.
 
 
Likewise, the Al-Maliki government has remained in power as a result of Iranian pressure, despite Al-Maliki losing the elections and coming second behind Iyad Allawi, so how can he fear for the region now if Assad is overthrown by force?
How can Al-Maliki attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar following the Arab summit in Baghdad, after both countries attended the meeting, and especially given the positions of both countries in the days leading up to the event.
Meanwhile, ahead of the summit Al-Maliki had announced that his government could not defend Assad. So how, nearly three days after the Baghdad summit, can Al-Maliki turn on Saudi Arabia and Qatar today? Of course, this is clear deception, and evidence that Al-Maliki's government cannot be trusted. Had he attacked "these two countries" before the Baghdad summit, then matters would have turned out differently.
Most important of all, in addition to the fact that we cannot trust the Al-Maliki government, is that the Iraqi government is trying to secure a safe passageway for the transfer of Iranian weapons to the Assad regime, and this is what a witness -- a dissident Syrian official -- reported to the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul.
 
 
 
 
It's not enough for Nouri and his lackeys to be engaged in a public feud with Iraqiya, it's not enough enough for them to be involved in a public feud with Iraqiya and the government of Qatar.  It's not enough for them to be in a public feud with Iraqiya, the government of Qatar and the government of Saudi Arabia, no, they have to also attack the Kurds.  Al Rafidayn notes Deputy Prime Minister of Energy Hussein al-Shahristani asserts that the Kurds are diverting oil to Iran. Alsumaria TV reports the Kurdistan Alliance is accusing al-Shahristani of declaring war on them and they are calling for him to apologize to the Kurdish people for his accusations. They deny that they are smuggling oil to Iran.  RT observes:
 
A bitter dispute over oil revenues between Baghdad and Kurdish authorities highlights the escalating tensions that could split war-torn Iraq apart. However, anti-war activist Mike Raddie says the chaos is 'all part of the plan.'
Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region halted oil deliveries to Baghdad on Monday, claiming the central government owed it $1.5 billion. The region's Ministry of Natural Resources said that despite exporting 50,000 barrels per day, "there have been no payments for 10 months, nor any indication from federal authorities that payments are forthcoming."
Baghdad shot back, saying they have incurred $6.65 billion in lost revenue over the past few years after Kurdish authorities short-changed them on crude exports. The central government has further accused Kurdistan of smuggling oil through Iran.

The National notes, "It is yet another example of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's government consolidating power, which in turn is deepening the divisions within the country."


In other news, Alsumaria reports that Minister of Planning and Development Ali Shukri declared that Iraq's budget depends 92% on oil and that they need to diversify and find other avenues for income. That's a call Tareq al-Hashemi's been making publicly since 2009.

 
Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:
 
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
 
TOMORROW: MURRAY TO HOLD SENATE HEARING IN TACOMA ON THE CHALLENGES OUR VETERANS AND SERVICEMEMBERS FACE RETURNING HOME
 
Official U.S. Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing will bring to top VA and Pentagon officials to the region to answer questions and discuss mental health care concerns, putting local veterans to work, and improving transition services
Hearing will also feature the stories of local veterans and servicemembers, veterans advocates, and businesses in order to highlight challenges and ongoing community efforts
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will hold a field hearing tomorrow in Tacoma on the unique opportunities and challenges that the South Sound and Washington state continue to face as thousands of veterans return to the region.  This official Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee field hearing will explore how the military, veterans, business, and non-profit communities can work together to improve the transition home for those returning to Washington state.  In particular, the hearing will focus on improving mental health care, employment opportunities, and community outreach for returning veterans.
The hearing will feature testimony from top VA and Pentagon officials, local servicemembers and veterans, business leaders, and veterans' advocates.  Members of the public are encouraged to RSVP if they plan to attend the hearing to fieldhearing@murray.senate.gov
 
WHAT:       U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Field Hearing
"Washington's Veterams: Helping the Newest Generation Transition Home"
 
WHO:         U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
                  Dr. Robert A. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration,
                  Department of Veterans Affairs
                  Dr. Susan Pendergrass, Director, VA Northwest Network (VISN 20), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs
                  Willie Clark, Western Area Director, Veterans Affairs
Dr. Jo Ann Rooney: Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
                  Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, United States  Army
                  Major General Richard W. Thomas, Commanding General Western Regional Medical Command, Senior Market Executives for TRICARE Puget Sound, United States Army
                 Local Servicemembers and Veterans
                 Business Leaders
                 Veterans' Advocates
 
WHEN:      TOMORROW: Wednesday, April 4, 2012
                 Hearing Starts at 10:39 A.M. PST | Doors Open at 9:45 A.M. PST | Cameras
                 are encouraged to come early for set-up
 
WHERE:    The STAR Center
                 3873 South 66th Street
                 Tacoma, WA 98409
 
Map it
 
Public Transportation Routes:  Pierce Transit Bus Route 53
Parking                                    On-site Parking is available
 
For more information about this hearing or other activities of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, please visit www.veterans.senate.gov
 
Press interested in coming are encouraged to RSVP to eli_zupnick@murray.senate.gov
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by at

Monday, April 02, 2012

Desperate Housewives

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Falling in (and out of) love with M. Ward" went up Sunday night.  Be sure to read her review.  l don't know where she got the energy for it.  And this weekend was so long. 

Desperate Housewives?  First, community member Billie e-mailed me to talk about what she did Saturday night.  She lives in Dallas and went to the Fair Park Music Hall (Dallas) for a dinner and entertainment for charity.  Guess who the guest was?

Vanessa Williams.  She sung for an hour.  Everything from "The Right Stuff" to "Oh, How The Years Go By."  It sounds like a really great event and I'm jealous.  Billie's sending me (snail mail) her playbill for the evening.  :D

In that hour, she saw more of Vanessa then us "Desperate Housewives" viewers get to see in 3 months of watching the show.

The first scene was Renee's wedding shower.  She gets dull gifts.  And then Bree, who is hosting it, gets arrested.  As Renee says moments later in her second scene, they owe her another shower.  And after that scene with Lynette, she's never seen again.

How typical.

Bree was arrested.  They have the conversation with Ben taped (about burying something), a letter from her ex-husband (Orson) and a finger print on the dead man's shirt button.

The police are trying to connect the corpse to Bree.  They don't know yet that the dead man was Gabby's step-father.

Gabby is doing her personal shopping and tells Carlos he can't go to the police and confess (he killed the man).  That's really it. Her being selfish and fighting with Carlos.

Lynette? Tom's new girlfrind is tired of Tom not delivering the divorce papers so she goes to Lynette and does.  At first, she just wants to leave them there but she gets jealous and makes a point of telling Lynette her marriage is over.

Lynette then goes to Tom who admits he did sign but that he didn't mean for her to get the papers today nor to get them from his girlfriend. 

She's mad (she really thought they were going to get together), she signs the papers and rushes to the parking lot where she cries.

Susan's cleaning out Mike's stuff.  We see Lee for the first time in forever.  I don't think he's been on once this season.  They find a metal box, locked, of Mike's stuff.  Lee says she shouldn't go through it.  He does. 
He won't tell her.  She goes nuts guessing.  Confronts him at midnight.

Once a month, Mike has been writing a check for some woman.  Is she a former wife?  Does she have a child?

Susan and her daughter go to check it out.  The money was going to a group home that Mike's sister is at.  Susan didn't know he had a sister.  She has severe autism.  The woman who runs the home tells her Mike was there every Monday night to paint and do crafts with his sister (who can't speak).  Susan says he told her he had softball on Mondays.  Susan meets the sister and then thinks Mike felt he had to hide his sister.  She doesn't know if it's because Mike thought she'd object to the money (she wouldn't have) or because he thought she wasn't going to accept his sister?

She can't believe Mike thought so little of her.  She says it doesn't matter, they'll take care of the bill and also visit her.

Her daughter goes through the letters in the box and informs her that Mike didn't know he had a sister until 8 years ago.  His parents gave her away before he was born and never told him until 8 years ago when his mother, apparently realizing she was going to pass away, told him.  She also asked him to keep the secret because she was humiliated that she had given her daughter away.

Her daughter tells Susan that he wasn't worried about her reaction, he was trying to keep his mother's secret like she asked him too. 

And while they're talking, Susan's daughter starts crying and tells her mother she can't give up the baby like she thought. 

New Christine's father (from "The New Adventures of Old Christine") who was also the lead in "Quantum Leap."  He's the best defense attorney.  He turns down Bree.  He tells her he likes a challenge and no one would ever convict her.

Meanwhile this one cop is determined to take her down.  They visit the hotel where Gabby's step-father stayed at and find a map (in lost and found) he left with Wistoria Lane on it.  The cop writes in the digits to Bree's home.  And the other cop doesn't notice.  B.s.  He noticed.

Anyway, they call Bree in and big crook tries to scare her into confessing.  She keeps saying she's waiting for her attorney.  He shows the map. 

She steps out to get water and is very worried.  Scott Bakula sees her, says hi and ends up listening to the questioning through an open door before going in and saying he's her attorney.

As she and he leave, she asks why he took the case, he said it was so easy.  He said he didn't realize she knew who the killer was. 







"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, April 2, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Tareq al-Hashemi is Qatar, Nouri's threatning to sink INTERPOL on him (no, it's not what INTERPOL does), the Iraqi government low balls the death toll for March (and some reporters assist in the low balling), the 'experts' go nutty (prolonged exposure to to gas baggery can be damaging), and more.
It's not a good day to be an 'expert.' Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) is often insightful. This isn't one of those times. We'll get to his larger points in a moment but first we'll note these supporting 'facts' Lynch supplies:
The real story of America's withdrawal from Iraq is how little impact it has really had on either Iraq or the region. There are even signs that the withdrawal has helped to nudge Iraqis onto the right path, though not as quickly or directly as I might have hoped. This month's death toll was the lowest on record since the 2003 invasion, while Iraqi oil exports are at their highest level since 1980. Baghdad successfully hosted an Arab Summit meeting, which may have done little for Syria but did go further to bring Iraq back into the Arab fold than anything since 2003.
Let's address this lowest toll first. Ben Armbruster (Think Progress) is also running with that, opening with, "The AP reports that according to data released . . ." No, they're not really reporting. They're repeating. They're not reporting. Reporting isn't just repeating what someone said. What the Iraq Ministry of Defense (no head to the ministry) and the Ministry of Interior (no head to the ministry) and the Ministry of Health released was 112 people died in March. That's those classified as civilians or security. And the Iraqi government said that 357 were injured. That is a low figure. Reuters stopped tracking the violence because . . . Well, ask them. So I guess there's just no way to confirm or refute . . . Oh, wait, there's Iraq Body Count. Their March total is 295. Let's see, the independent Iraq Body Count or the two ministries Nouri controls (by refusing to appoint a Minister to head them) and the Ministry of Health, who do we believe? Any rational, sentient person would tell you you don't believe the struggling government sliding further towards authoritarianism.
We can also go over AKE's totals. March 5th, they reported 63 dead the previous week (41 wounded), March 12th they noted 70 killed (76 injured) the week prior and reminded that this did not include Iraqi youth who were or perceived to be either Emo or LGBT. March 19th they reported 26 dead (22 injured) the week before. March 26th they reported 73 dead (270 injured) the week prior. Today they report 29 people were killed the week prior (22 injured).
Leaving out the first week of March, we're already at 198. Repeating that's leaving out the first week of March (due to the fact that the first week of March also included four days of February). AKE advertises it's Iraq Services:

AKE can fully support your business in Iraq. We can provide transport, security and accomodation in a home-from-home environment in central Baghdad. [. . .] We can provide logistical support in and out of the country, giving you access to clients, partners, business opoerations and government ministries. Visa faciliation is available (subject to status) and we can provide recommendations for drivers, fixers as well as local translators and other services.
Do you know how much AKE charges? Do you know they couldn't get five cents if they weren't seen as much more than merely competent.
So 112 is rejected by both IBC's count and AKE's count? Maybe in the future, allegedly educated people could remember that governments have an interest in lying about how much violence takes place in their country. That's true of the US, that's true of all countries. And maybe in the future, when you 'report' a number, you could try confirming it and even contrasting it with counts from other outlets?
As for the nonsense about the Arab League Summit being a success for Iraq, we've addressed those false claims here and we addressed it yesterday at Third in "Editorial: Successful summit for Iraq?" which goes over one aspect after another demonstrating that you cannot grade it a success for Iraq. And that was before Ahmed Hussein (Al Mada) was reporting that the number of Iraqis living at the poverty level or below is five and a half million persons. That's outrageous in any country but especially in Iraq which has somewhere between 25 to 30 million people (the population is an estimate, there has not been a census in decades). So basically, one-fifth of the country lives in poverty and yet Nouri wasted at least a billion dollars on the summit.
Back to Marc Lynch. His argument is that Barack did no great harm to Iraq by withdrawing most of the troops. And I would agree with that and agree that US troops feed into resentments. Even more their presence postpones the sorting out -- violent or otherwise that Iraqis have to do. But there's another problem besides being gullible about government figures. Lynch writes:
This is not to say that there aren't reasons to worry about Iraq's future. There are many. It is troubling that Maliki has driven Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi into exile on terrorism charges and has rebuffed all efforts at meaningful cooperation with his political rivals. It is troubling that core constitutional issues such as the oil law and the limits of federalism remain unresolved. It is troubling that violence and terrorism continues to claim Iraqi lives and unsettle its politics. It is troubling that the Iraqi Parliament appears inept and incompetent [. . .]
But what's striking is that these problems are the same ones which kept us all up nights in previous years. None of these trends is remotely new, and few have become palpably worse since the American departure. Iraqis have been worried about the centralization of power in Maliki's office and his authoritarian tendencies for the last four years.
Yes, those things are, to say the least, troubling. As for it be striking that these are the same problems from the previous years and that Nouri's "authoritarian tendences" have been a concern "for the last four years," Marc Lynch, what do you think Iraqis could have done about that?
Gee, I guess March 7, 2010, they could have gone and voted for someone other than Nouri's political slate State of Law. If they'd done that, they'd be rid of Nouri.
Oh, wait. They did do that. That's why despite the threats, despite the demonization of Iraqiya as "terrorists" and "Ba'athists" (the latter especially a serious charge in the Shi'ite majority Iraq), Iraqiya won more votes. Who backed Nouri, Marc Lynch?
That's right, Barack Obama. The White House backed Nouri. The White House didn't give a damn about the vote, didn't give a dam about democracy, didn't give a damn about the will of the Iraqi people, didn't give a damn about the Iraqi Constitution.
So if you're going to note that the problems are similar or claim they're the same (they're not the same, they're far worse and today's events after Lynch's piece went up demonstrate that they're worse), then you better be willing to talk about why they're the same. They're not the same because the Iraqi people didn't attempt to solve the problem. They're not the same because the Iraqi people believed that their votes would matter. The problems are similar because the White House overruled the voice of the Iraqi people.
At least Marc Lynch is consistent. (And, again, often insightful.) If Phyllis Bennis suffering from MPD? Which personality is attempting to communicate with us today? In a piece at Real News Network she attempts to cover various wars. Here she is on Iraq:
Last week was the 9th anniversary of that war. And looking back, it's clearer than ever that the U.S. failed to achieve any of its goals. I don't mean the lying goals, the fake goals, of finding weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq. I mean the real goals, the ones that kept hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Pentagon-paid mercenaries in Iraq for so many years:
  • Consolidating U.S. control over Iraqi oil -- nope, U.S. oil companies are just some among many of the myriad of foreign interests in Iraq's oil fields.
  • Leaving behind a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad -- hardly, Prime Minister Maliki is barely on speaking terms with anyone in Washington.
  • Permanent access to U.S. bases across Iraq -- not even close, every one of the several hundred bases was either closed down or turned over to the Iraqi government; even the giant 5,000-person embassy, biggest in the world, had to be scaled back when Iraq refused to guarantee immunity to enough U.S. troops to protect it.
  • Creating a government and military more accountable to the U.S. than to Iran -- oops, seems we got that one wrong too; despite continuing billions of dollars of our tax money to prop it up, Baghdad today is allied more closely to Iran than to the U.S.
So the U.S. lost in Iraq too. Iraq hasn't been "liberated" -- violence is rampant, the sectarian violence resulting from early U.S. policies after the 2003 invasion continues to escalate. And U.S.-paid contractors (paid by the State Dept this round, instead of the Pentagon, that's the technical difference) are still there. Thousands of them. What's not there, so far, is one dollar for reparations or compensation. That's the battle that lies ahead. The U.S. war in Iraq may be over, but our responsibilities are not.
Okay, help me out, was it not Phyllis insisting the Iraq War wasn't over after December 19th (the big withdrawal). And now she's insisting it is? Again, which personality is attempting to communicate with us? January 23rd, she was at US News & World Reports and, in her opening sentence, telling readers, "Far from being 'too soon,' the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq came more than eight years too late -- and still, the war isn't over."
How did the US troops in the region -- still in the region around Iraq -- depart, how did the CIA depart Iraq, how did Special Ops depart Iraq, how did all the contractors depart, the 700 US soldiers who are 'trainers,' the Marines guarding the embassy, how did all of those people leave between December 19th and today and we didn't even notice? How did that happen? To the personality now insisting that the war is over, let us speak to Phyllis. We want to speak with Phyllis.
Nouri al-Maliki pretends he wants to speak with Tareq al-Hashemi. Really he wants him imprisoned. The Vice President is a member of Iraqiya, a Sunni and in his second term as vice president. Iraqiya and State of Law are political rivals. Nouri doesn't play well with others. Iraqiya announced they were boycotting the government December 16th and did so on December 17th entry. December 18th is al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq are attempting to fly to the KRG from Baghdad when they and their bodyguards are pulled off the flight by Nouri's forces. For less than an hour, they are detained. Then they're waived through and allowed to fly out. December 19th, Nouri issues an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi -- after the Vice President is in the KRG.
At this late date, anyone who falsely states that Tareq al-Hashemi fled to the KRG after an arrest warrant was issued for him has problems far larger than chronology.
Yesterday, al-Hashemi went to Qatar. In reporting that development, both . Aseel Kami (Reuters) and Jack Healy and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) were unable to get the facts right. In addition, while reporting on the trip to Qatar and the outrage by Nouri, they failed to bring in Qatar's message to Nouri last week. Dropping back to Friday's snapshot:

There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis."
If Nouri is outraged and furious, it seems like you might want to note the above. Because it makes clear that receiving al-Hashemi wasn't accidental and that all of Nouri's thundering really isn't going to make too much of an impression on Qatar. Only Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) managed to touch on that issue yesterday:
The vice president's trip comes several days after Qatar's foreign minister said his country had sent a low-ranking representative to last week's Arab League summit in Baghdad in order to send a message over "factionalism in Iraq," the state-run Qatar News Agency reported.
The US State Dept was not bothered by the news and had hoped/urged it for weeks now. They feel the issues surrounding Tareq al-Hashemi prevent Iraq from focusing on other needed issues. They also feel al-Hashemi can't get a fair trial. They worry that he will return to Iraq as he has stated he intendes to do (not years from now, but when this current diplomatic tour is over).
Nouri's blustered over al-Hashemi's departure making an idiot of himself to the global village as he and his spokespeople have insisted that al-Hashemi will be rounded up by "international authorities." This morning, Al Mada reported Nouri is stating he'll use INTERPOL. Al Sabaah quoted Nouri at a news conference claiming that being a founding member of the Arab League gives Iraq 'legal status' in this issue. State of Law's Sa'ad al-Moutallebi echoed the use of INTERPOL when speaking to Press TV today:
The Minister of Interior, the Minister of Justice will launch a complaint and present documents and evidence to INTERPOL, the international police, to aid us and help in securing the arrest for the fugitive.

Poor State of Law -- all those members and not a functioning brain among them. INTERPOL doesn't get involved in politics. They have to remain neutral. This isn't something you can sidestep, it's written into INTERPOL's charter.
By attempting to have Tareq al-Hashemi arrested while he was also attempting to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his post -- both al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq are members of Iraqiya -- Nouri helped drive home that the arrest warrant was political.
Again, INTERPOL can't get involved in political.

"There has not been a judicial decision against me from any court, and the demand does not respect Article 93 of the constitution, which provides me with immunity," he said in the Qatari capital.
[. . .]
"Why do they demand that Qatar extradite me?... Officials in Kurdistan have responded to a similar request by telling them that I have immunity according to Article 93[.]"
Al Jazeera notes, "After arriving in Doha, Hashemi met Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani to discuss 'relations between the two brotherly countries and developments in the region', according to Qatari state news agency QNA. QNA added that he was to meet Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr Al Thani, before visiting unnamed other countries and returning to Kurdistan."
Well, obviously the Qataris are involved in this matter. The Kurdish authority is involved. And there is a possibility of a Turkish involvement which is not confirmed yet.
There were some reports that there might've been a combination of a Turkish, Qatari and Kurdish cooperation in this matter, all working together in the matter of his escape.
This could develop into a very serious issue and could definitely effect an international relationship between Iraq and those countries.
And the attacks on the KRG come as the region puts a freeze on their oil. April Yee (The National) reports, "The Kurdish oil ministry said companies are not being paid for their oil, which is exported through a shared Iraqi pipeline to Turkey. The same issue led Kurdistan to halt exports in October 2009; exports restarted in February last year only after a compromise between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad." Jumana al-Tamimi (Gulf News) observes, "Baghdad also criticised Kurdistan for stopping its crude oil exports on Sunday after arguing the central government had withheld $1.5 billion owed to foreign oil companies working in the region." And Hassan Hafidh and Ali Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) add, "Iraq's deputy prime minister for energy, Hussein al-Shahristani, lashed out at Iraq's Kurdistan authorities for halting crude oil exports, accusing them of separately allowing billions of dollars worth of oil-smuggling over its northern borders, mainly to Iran." Nayla Razzouk and Kadhim Ajrash (Daily Star) note:
The Iraqi government incurred $6.65 billion in lost revenue over the past few years after the regional Kurdish government didn't supply it with the agreed amount of crude for export, said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Affairs Hussain al-Shahristani.
"Lost revenue this year will be even more than last year," he said at a news conference in Baghdad Monday.
In addition, Nouri's verbal attacks on Qatar and Saudi Arabia are stirring up trouble with Iraq's neighobrs. Tariq al-Homayed (Arab News) notes the attacks and argues that Nouri cannot be trusted:
Likewise, the Al-Maliki government has remained in power as a result of Iranian pressure, despite Al-Maliki losing the elections and coming second behind Iyad Allawi, so how can he fear for the region now if Assad is overthrown by force?
How can Al-Maliki attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar following the Arab summit in Baghdad, after both countries attended the meeting, and especially given the positions of both countries in the days leading up to the event.
Meanwhile, ahead of the summit Al-Maliki had announced that his government could not defend Assad. So how, nearly three days after the Baghdad summit, can Al-Maliki turn on Saudi Arabia and Qatar today? Of course, this is clear deception, and evidence that Al-Maliki's government cannot be trusted. Had he attacked "these two countries" before the Baghdad summit, then matters would have turned out differently.
Most important of all, in addition to the fact that we cannot trust the Al-Maliki government, is that the Iraqi government is trying to secure a safe passageway for the transfer of Iranian weapons to the Assad regime, and this is what a witness -- a dissident Syrian official -- reported to the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul.
All the above does not smooth things over ahead of the National Conference. Iraq is in the midst of a political stalemate. Political Stalemate I was when the government was faced with gridlock following the March 2010 elections. For eight months, Nouri refused to allow Ayad Allawi the right to try to form a government, refused to allow anyone to be named prime minister-designate. Per the Constitution, that should have been Allawi. Iraqiya, his political slate, came in first. He should have been given the chance to put together a coalition and then name a Cabinet. Were he unable to do so in 30 days, per the Constitution, someone else should be named prime minister-designate. With the backing of the White House, Nouri refused to budge.

After eight months, Political Stalemate I finally ended when Iraq's various political actors signed off on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. Nouri would be prime minister, the agreement decreed, in exchange for that, he would have to make concessions including the creation of an independent, national security commission to be headed by Ayad Allawi and a vote on the disputed Kirkuk. Nouri was named prime minister-designate when the agreement resulted in the Parliament holding its first real session since the March 2010 vote. But most of Iraqiya walked out.

Why? Because Nouri was saying that the independent commission would have to wait until after he named his Cabinet and that they couldn't clear the various Iraqiya members of trumped up charges right away. He was already trashing the agreement he signed off on.

It would not get better. As December 2010 came to a close, he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister despite the fact that he had not named a Cabinet. There were posts unfilled and Iraqiya and other critics stated he would not fill three of the posts, the security posts (Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security) because this was a power grab. By refusing to fill the spots, he controlled them. (Ministers are nominated by the prime minister-designate, they are confirmed by Parliament. Once confirmed, they can only be fired with the approval of Parliament.) Nonsense, said the US press, Nouri would be naming those posts in a matter of weeks.

It's April 2012. 16 months later. Who was right, who was wrong? Critics of Nouri were correct and the US press was wrong. Grossly wrong.

Once he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister, any pretense of following the Erbil Agreement was tossed aside. This is Political Stalemate II and Iraq's been in it for some time. Over the summer, the Kurds insisted that Nouri return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya has echoed that call as had Moqtada al-Sadr and other elements of the National Alliance. This is Iraq's ongoing political crisis. Since December 21, 2011, Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to address the crisis.
The Al Iraqiya List, which includes leaders like Eyad Alawi and Saleh Al Mutlaq, has been for the past two years a competitor to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's State of Law coalition, which is the influential bloc in Iraq. Al Iraqiya did not become part of the opposition despite the fact that it is an opposition party with an agenda that differs from that of the State of Law.
Al Iraqiya did not become part of the opposition despite the fact that it is an opposition party with an agenda that differs from that of the State of Law.
And although the State of Law coalition, which is headed by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, has worked hard to weaken and marginalise other political blocs — including its own allies in the National Alliance, and its close partners in the Kurdish Alliance — its stand regarding Al Iraqiya is somewhat different. The conflict between the State of Law and Al Iraqiya goes beyond the political framework of new structures.
The Al Iraqiya has been targeted systematically since the last elections in 2010, when it came first. It was deprived of its right to form the government at a tense time, riddled with sectarian alignments. Al Iraqiya was not allowed any kind of influence or power that had been agreed upon in the Arbil agreement, which ended the government-formation stalemate at the time.

The National Conference is said to take place this week; however, Dar Addustour notes the Thursday meet-up is not a done deal and that Ibrahim al-Jaafari has called a meeting on Tuesday night to review certain aspects of the conference. They also note that State of Law is insisting (lying) that all aspects of the Erbil Agreement have been implemented except the naming of heads of the security ministries (Interior, Defense and National Security). Of course Kirkuk has not been resolved. Nouri al-Maliki has never wanted to resolve the issue. He became prime minister in the spring of 2006. The Iraqi Constitution mandated (Article 140) that a census and referendum be held on Kirkuk no later than the end of 2007. Nouri ignored the Constitution. Nouri violated the Constitution. The Iraqi Communist Party has reposted an Alsumaria report on the United Nations Mission in Iraq calling for Article 140 to be implemented, calling for that yesterday. And, again, that was also part of the 2010 Erbil Agreement.
Lastly, Jonathan Fisher (WebProNews) covers new threats to the internet from around the world and he notes this on Iraq:
According to a translation from the Centre for Law and Democracy, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Iraq's Informatics Crimes Law would impose a mandatory life sentence for anyone using a computer or the Internet to do any of the following:
      "compromise" the "unity" of the state;
      subscribe, participate, negotiate, promote, contract or deal with an enemy … in order to destabilize security and public order or expose the country to danger;
      damage, cause defects, or hinder [systems or networks] belonging to security military, or intelligence authorities with a deliberate intention to harm [state security].
      promote "ideas which are disruptive to public order";
      "implement terrorist operations under fake names or to facilitate communication with members or leaders of terrorist groups";
      "promote terrorist activites and ideologies or to publish information regarding the manufacturing, preparation and implementation of flammable or explosive devices, or any tools or materials used in the planning or execution of terrorist acts";
      facilitate or promote human trafficking "in any form";
      engage in "trafficking, promoting or facilitating the abuse of drugs".
The Act also includes provisions to punish network users who "create chaos in order to weaken the trust of the electronic system of the state," "provoke or promote armed disobedience," "disturb public order or harm the reputation of the country," or "intrude, annoy or call computer and information network users without authorization or hinders their use," the Electronic Freedom Foundation reports. Copyright infringement and hacking would also land users in big trouble under the Act, which proposes a 2- to 3-year prison term for either offense.
Posted by at

Friday, March 30, 2012

Like heartburn, Van Jones never goes away

Professional idiot Van Jones has a new book out, POLITICO reports, and it's all about what "we" need to do.  "We" need to work to get Barack re-elected and "we" can only find change in that way.

What a load of garbage from a pile of trash.

Van Jones exists to lie and then lie some more.  Barack's not going to do anything he doesn't want to do and he's made that clear over the last years as well as that he's not really left. 

He tried to take over Occupy Wall Street and that didn't work now he's spreading for his press lovers who'll go out and whore for him some more.

Van Jones has accomplished nothing.

That's why he's a media celebrity.  He's a declawed tabby who misleads the people.  And for that reason, the press supports him.

And if there's a lesson here (OWS hates him), it should be that we on the left need to stop rushing to protect assholes like Van Jones.

When he got fired from the White House, people were acting as if he were their best friend.  He's a cheap con artist.  But On The Wilder Side and countless other sites were swearing by him.

Look where that got you.

Maybe stop being so damn knee jerk next time?



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, March 30, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, camp cheerleaders try to find "success," Iraqis continue to suffer, US not so quick to sell Iraq high-tech enemy, the US Congress talks military sexual traum and military suicides, and more.
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) wants you to know that, as Sly Stone once sang, everybody is a star, that we're all winners. Probably Charlotte Caffey and Jane Wiedlin were closer to the truth with, "We're all dreamers, we're all whores" ("This Town," first appears on the Go-Gos' Beauty and the Beat). Journalists are supposed to be critical thinkers not advance men for the company. The Arab League Summit was only a success if we're all toddlers and everyone gets a trophy for showing up. Or if you're stupid enough to think something's true just because a two-bit thug like Nouri al-Maliki says it is.
There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Yussef Hamza (The National) offers, "Iraq has looked to the summit, the first it has hosted in a generation, to signal its emergence from years of turmoil, American occupation and isolation. It wanted the summit to herald its return to the Arab fold. But the large number of absentees told a different story." That's reality.
Who's the liar pimping success? Why it's not just Nouri al-Maliki, it's Jane Arraf and Prashant Rao's Twitter buddy, the idiot Reider Visser. A fool not qualified to discuss legalities of the Erbil Agreement as evidenced by his dime store 'legal' 'analysis' that makes Elle Woods look, by comparison, like a legal giant along the lines of Thurgood Marshall. And of course Jane and Prashant and the others weren't trained in the law either so they idiotically retweet Reider's ignorance there by multiplying it as well as endorsing it. Reider's a Nouri al-Maliki groupie so he's hardly an impartial voice. He's also buddies with trash Nir Rosen. Though Nir's more famous right now for turning over the names of Western reporters to the Syrian government (that's what led to the recent charges that he was a spy), he of course became infamous for presenting the 'legal' 'analysis' that Lara Logan 'had it coming.' Nir really wasn't qualified for anything other than blowhard status but the Circle Jerk -- the same one that Jane and Prahsant employ on Reider's behalf -- ensured that a man was elevated and it didn't matter that he pisses on women or anything else. It's really past time that so-called professional journalists started examing their own ethics. At best, Reider is nothing but a whore for Nouri. There's no reason to treat him as impartial. There's no reason to treat his 'legal' renderings as worth passing on.
And to make his lack of value clear, he's pronounced the summit "a landmark achievement." (You sort of picture him panting that as he pulls on himself for a minute and ten seconds.) (Though I may be implying more endurance than he actually has.)
Only a whore for Nouri would pronounce the summit "a landmark achievement." It's cute the way he and Jane Arraf and Prashant Rao and the rest ignore the assault on the Communist Party in Baghdad this week. That took place in Baghdad. That took place as supposedly part of 'security sweep' on the neighborhood for the summit. 12 people were arrested and forced to sign papers they hadn't read. And that's not news? But what a little pig and prig named Reider Viseer thinks is supposed to carry weight?
Why?
Because like the 'professional journalists,' he ignores what was done to the Communist Party this week. It's really interesting and illuminating to see what gets covered and what gets ignored and, excuse the hell out of me, but let's also point that when we spent a week here covering the assault on Iraqi youth, Prashant, Jane and their beloved Reider couldn't be bothered with the story.
I guess it's easy to judge Iraq a success when you ignore all the people who suffer and die. I guess it's real damn easy -- real damn easy to lie.
And to whine. I seem to remember these 'professional journalists' and their whines about it took two hours or four hours or they didn't have phone service wah, wah, wah. Did any of those self-obsessed fools stop to write one damn article about the Iraqi journalists who were denied the right to cover the summit?
Did they note that printing presses were down?
Did they mention that outlets like Dar Addustour were basically forced into a holiday for the entire summit?
No, they didn't. But they did let you know that, golly, they ate their breakfast and it was digesting but now it was two hours later and their tummies were rumbling and goodness knows the bus they were on should be moving towards food a whole lot faster.
Everyone pimping the damn lie that the summit was a success should be ashamed of themselves. Not Reider Visser -- his kind is immune to shame. But so-called 'professional journalists,' I don't know what the hell you think you did this week but most of you didn't do reporting.
Not only did you ignore the threats to the Iraqi people, you ignored the staples you usually cover. Radical cleric and online tween advisor Moqtada al-Sadr takes questions from his followers and posts answers. These are usually the 'quotes' of Moqtada's that you see in the press. They love to cover this -- often forgetting to note it was written and it's an online exchange -- but they love to cover it. Strangely, they ignored what he said this week.
He said the US citizen that was released was a soldier. We're talking about Randy Michael Hills. He was in the news March 17th and 18th. The most fitting headline of all the coverage went was on Jack Healy's New York Times article: "Militans Free American No One Knew Was Missing." Randy Michael Hills, a 59-year-old American, former US military or current US military (take your pick) was released by forces once attached to Moqtada al-Sadr who explained that they had held the man for nine months (that he was held for nine months was confirmed by Victoria Nuland in a US State Dept press briefing).
Peter Graff (Reuters) reported that the man "was shown on telievision in a U.S. military univorm with no insignia, flanked by two members of parliament from Sadr's movement." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported:

Maha al-Douri, a lawmaker and a member of the al-Sadr movement, said Michael had been in captivity for nine months. A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said officials were working "to verify the information regarding the alleged U.S. captive."
A Pentagon official said the Defense Department is also looking into the reports, but added that to the best of defense officials' knowledge, no active duty military person has been missing in Iraq.
The website of the Defense Prisoner Of War/ Missing Personnel Office on Saturday showed three Defense Department contractors as still missing from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Michael was not among them.

Al Mada's coverage made clear that the Sadr brigade considers him a soldier and states they captured a US soldier (not contractor) and they state he took part in the 2004 attack on Najaf and Sadr City as well as 2008 attacks in southern and Central Iraq -- what is known as the Charge of the Knights -- that begins March 25th and is a joint US-Iraq operation targeting Moqtada's forces. And this week, Moqtada answered a question about this released hostage and again stated he was US military, not former military, not a contractor. He may or may not be telling the truth or he may be telling what he thinks is the truth and be mistaken. But Moqtada al-Sadr does know the difference between a US soldier and a contractor. It's interesting that no one wanted to quote Moqtada this week. They usually break their necks trying to follow Moqtada. (Moqtada was a press created 'political figure.' Had it not been for the international press -- as well as Paul Bremer's demonization of Moqtada throughout 2004 -- he would not be the celebrity and power player he is today.)
There are many other stories that they ignored. I think they were highly foolish to ignore KRG President Massoud Barzani but there's a distaste for him among a certain element in the US press.
The summit was a failure and maybe pretending otherwise allows some people -- including those who didn't file a thing until after the summit -- to pretend that they weren't failures as well. But they were.
Some of the idiots want to tell you that the number of Arab heads of states who did not attend doesn't matter and that you should look at the ones who attended and decided to support Iraq.
That insanity (from Reider among others) comes from extreme whoring. It's the after effects of some sort of veneral mental disease turning them all into some sort of modern day Oswald Alving. Clearly Reider has not only never planned a large, successful function, he's never planned anything. It was not the "Iraq League." It was a summit for the Arab League. About half sent heads of state. That had little to do with Iraq and more to do with attempting to honor the organization. It was a failure. Iraq's neighbors are probably laughing at the turnout. They're surely laughing at the idiot claims Nouri made and at his repeated attempts to present himself as someone who has battled 'terrorism' and brought about 'peace.' That wasn't his only bone-head move. Youssef Hamza (The National) observes that, "Iraq's Shiit prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, may have stunned his Arab guests when he told them his government's handling of Iraq's sectarian conflict 'can be an example to follow in other Arab Nations'."
Again, as Gulf News pointed out, "In addition, the idea that fortified areas such as the Green Zone can exist is also not the solution. As a matter of fact, the very existence of such isolated and protected enclaves proves that there is much to be done to ensure stability and peace."
To hold the disappointing summit, Baghdad had to go into lockdown. Airline traffic had to stop. Barricades had to go back up throughout Baghdad. A national holiday had to be declared for the week. Over 100,000 extra security forces had to be deployed. Supposedly a large amount of money was spent on armored vehicles for these forces -- these vehicles came from Jordan and the fact that the order was last minute and had to be rushed significantly increased the cost. If the Parliament were to explore that, people might question the planning and the vast cost overruns. Whether it's half-a-billion that was spent on the summit or a billion, that was money that has not been spent on the Iraqi people. And how the hell does that make for a success? We're not that many months away from the regular cholera outbreaks in Iraq. The main reason these happen every year is due to the fact that potable water isn't readily available. (Potable water is water that is safe to drink as is -- no boiling of the water is necessary nor purification tablets.)
UPI reports that, "Iraq is acquiring an array of missiles and other sophisticated systems for the 36 Lockheed Martin F-16s it's buying to build an air force but Washington is reluctant to provide Baghdad with the most advanced U.S. weapons." Somewhere Reider's Tweeting: "Landmark achievement" -- with Prashant and Jane rushing to retweet. And Reider's insisting that it's an achievement because, in 2002, the US wasn't selling Iraq F-16s!!!!!!
Al Mada noted yesterday morning that the Iraqi public and Parliament would be judging the summit a success or not based upon whether the leaders turned out for the summit. On that scale, it wasn't a success. In other words, attendence needs improvement and absences hinder progress. In addition to snubs and rebukes, Liz Sly, Aziz Alwan and Asaad Majeed (Washington Post) also note, "The blast at the Iranian Embassy undermined the government's boasts that it had managed to pull off the summit without incident, although it would have gone unheard in the conference room deep inside the vast palace. Zebari and Elaraby both seemed surprised when asked about it by a journalist." Not a success. Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) points out, "It spent almost $1 billion on preparations that included unprecedented security measures -- jamming cellphone networks and mobilizing 100,000 security-force members -- and rolling out a catered menu for dignitaries that featured a dessert of 24-carat-gold-laced dates."
Putting on the dog for visitors while the people went without?
One's left to wonder how Jane and the gang would cover Marie Antoinette? "A success by any standards. Today, October 16, 1793, the one-time Dauphine of France was beheaded via the guillotine . . . so that the many admirers throughout the land might have not just a corpse to remember her by but a corpse and a head! And La Veuve Capet looked simply gorgeous clad in a simple white shift as she approached the guillotine clearly having followed a strict diet in the last weeks allowing her to show off a sleaker and slimmer figure."
From the failed leadership of Nouri to the failed leadership of Tony. One time British prime minister and Bush family pet, Tony "The Poodle" Blair barged back into the news cycle. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports that yesterday Clare Short accused Blair of distorting reality in order to start the Iraq War. Specifically, he lied when he asserted the French would nix any attempt at a second resolution from the UN Security Council.

Backing up. The UN authorized weapons inspectors to go into Iraq. The UN did not authorize the war. Many citizens of the US and UK felt their rulers (Bully Boy Bush and Toy Poodle Tony) were committed to and, in fact, required to get a second resolution from the UN Security Council if war was the next step.

Clare Short was a Labour MP serving in Blair's Cabinet in the lead up to the Iraq War. Richard Norton-Taylor reports Short told an international tribunal yesterday that Tony Blair deliberately distorted the French government's attitude towards a second resolution. Short states (this is correct) that Blair maintained that the French would veto any attempt at a second resolution. (This is correct? The second resolution was established in the Iraq Inquiry. We pointed this out when the Inquiry completed their public testimony. We also noted that based on the public testimony and documents, Blair was not the passive one led by the genius Bush but, in fact, the one steering Bush through technical waters.) From Norton-Taylor's article:



The Foreign Office is trying to overturn a decision by Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, to disclose records of a conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush about the UN and the French position, days before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
Disclosing that the evidence was "fantastically important for the people of Britain and the historical record", Short told the tribunal.
The tribunal heard that Blair claimed that in a television interview on 10 March 2003, the French president, Jacques Chirac, said France would veto any new UN resolution backing war. This enabled Blair to argue before his cabinet, parliament and the British public that the UK could go to war with no further UN backing because of French opposition.
The tribunal heard on Thursday that what Chirac actually said was that France would reject a new pro-war resolution at that particular moment since the UN weapons inspectors had not been given enough time to carry out their mission in Iraq.

In the June 29, 2010 snapshot, we addressed the resolution at length as a result of the British Ambassador to France (2001 - 2007) John Holmes' testimony to the Iraq Inquiry. A second resolution was not desired by the US or the UK. It would hem them in. Holmes testified as to the French government's position and to being baffled that Jeremy Greenstock was told by Blair that he could not ask the French government what their position on UN resolutions were. This was during the exchange with Committee Member Roderic Lyne. From that exchange, we'll note this:

Committee Member Roderic Lyne: If the second resolution had contained a longer deadline for Iraqi compliance, do you think that France would have considered supporting it?
Ambassador John Holmes: I think it is possible because that's what essentially they were suggesting. They were suggesting -- they didn't like the six tests or whatever they were called, but they said "If you give -- if you put in a period" -- I think 120 days was the period they wanted -- "for the inspectors to operate, so they can do their job properly without being put against impossible deadlines, then that's something we could contemplate", but of course, they were still wanting to say that-that a second resolution of that kind would also not have any automatic trigger in it. You would still need to come back at the end of that, the Security Council would need to come back at the end of that, and take a view on what the inspectors were saying to them. So you know, at that stage, you were into third resolution territory. So that is a reason why we weren't particularly attracted, perhaps, to that route, but in any case in those timescales it was simply not available.

Both Blair and Jack Straw misled the British people and, later, the Iraq Inquiry. This might be further underscored if the conversation between Bush and Blair was released (that Short was giving testimony on). Joel Shenton (Public Service) explains, "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is fighting calls to release details of a 2003 phone call between Tony Blair and George Bush which was made just seven days before the Iraq War began."

While Labour continues to be stained by the shame Blair brought to them (and Gordon Brown as well), the member they expelled just had a surprise victory. Eddie Buckle and Robert Hutton (Bloomberg News) report that George Galloway won 56% of the vote and was re-elected despite predictions that he would lose. ITV offers an overview of his career here. Anindya Bhattacharyya (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) explains, "George Galloway has pulled off a spectacular political comeback by winning Thursday's Bradford West parliamentary by-election by a landslide." Nicholas Watt (Guardian) reports:
Ed Miliband was facing renewed criticism of his leadership of the Labour party after George Galloway swept back into parliament, achieving one of the greatest byelection upsets in recent history.
As Miliband said he would learn the lessons from the defeat in Bradford West, the shadow public health minister, Diane Abbott, said Labour had underestimated the popularity of Galloway and the Iraq war remained "unforgotten and unforgiven".
Now we're dropping back to Wednesday afternoon to note military sexual assault and suicides. The Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel was hearing about various programs the Pentagon was working on to address the needs of their uniformed and civilian personnel. We'll note this exchange between Senator Richard Blumenthal and Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jo Ann Rooney.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: [. . .] I want to focus on one though that may not be directly related to the budget, I know the budget consumes a lot of time, but you've discussed in your testimony, Secretary Rooney, the issue of sexual assault which I know troubles you and the Secretary greatly, a great concern to you and there's a zero tolerance policy, it's a leadership issue. You say in your testimony that the estimates now are about 19,000 sexual assaults a year which is down from the estimate of 34,000 in 2006. Are you suggesting that the rates are numbers of sexual assaults has been reduced over the last six years.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, the way we get to that number is that we look at the number of reported sexual assaults as a percentage of the overall force and then actually multiply it. The number appears to come down but quite frankly, as you indicated, our concern is that there are any. And 19,000 is 19,000 too many or whatever the exact number is because, again, that was extrapolated from actual reported numbers. So while we believe that the attention being focused, the programs being put in place and, frankly, the leadership taking this on as such a critical area to be able to address because it goes right to the heart of what our military believes in terms of their work and their respect for each other, that that number will come down but we realize we have a lot of work to do.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: But it may not have come down in the last six years. Obviously, you're objective is to make it come down. But I'm just asking whether you have confidence in that number because, quite honestly, I'm not sure that I do.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I believe that number indicates that we have a substantial problem yet. But, again, it's not a specific number. It's extrapolated from those reports we have.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: Of the defendants who reported and in those incidents 3,192 in FY '11, what percentage faced court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, I'll take that question for the record and get back to you on the specific.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: The information I have is fewer than 21% and I was going to ask you --
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: That percentage is correct.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: What is the reason that they are not brought to court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Often, sir, it's many of the same challenges that we see on the civilian side which is, in order to go through the court-martial, obviously we need to be able to get the evidence and make sure that our folks are trained to be able to prosecute those particular cases. Those are specific areas we are working on now -- to make sure people are trained in the specific areas of how to be able to not only get that evidence but be able to present that forward. And that's often the road block.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: So you're upgrading the procedures for collection of evidence. And what about retention of evidence?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Uh, yes, sir. We actually are retaining the evidence at this point -- if it's an unrestricted report, for fifty years.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: And are you making efforts to speed the process? In one instance that has been reported to me -- and I can get you the name and perhaps you can give me more details -- there was a three year gap -- and, by the way, I'm very familiar with the defense in the civilian area since I was -- [Attorney General of the state of Connecticut from 1990 through 2010]
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I know you are, sir.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: -- involved in it so this is by no means to say you should use it as a model necessarily. But I know the military sets its own standards for what excellence is and you have your own goals. But that three year gap, as you know, makes evidence, even if it's collected -- that is the eye witness testimony that, if provided, may prove more difficult to get [three years after when memories are less fresh] and I just wonder what steps are being taken to make sure that these cases are brought to court-martial -- brought, in effect, to trial -- more quickly?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Actually, we're working directly with the services on this and the Joint Chiefs [of Staff] have been actively involved in looking at how do we not only streamline the actual court process but also streamline from the point of reporting to -- we have such things in place now, as you know, as expedited transfers -- so all through the process making sure that we are able to protect due process, if you will, for the accused. But move that through the system from the first report through. So that's something that we're actually engaged right now with the services to do.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: Do you have numbers as to the median or average length of time it's taken and what percentage involves eventual findings of guilt, culpability? And also what the eventual penalities are in those cases?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Sir, we do have those numbers but if I could take that for the record and give them to you as opposed to trying to get them from memory. But we do have them. I have seen them, sir.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: I would appreciate that.
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: We will.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: And do you also -- Can you also provide percentages as to what numbers -- in what rate you give defendants the option of a discharge or a resignation in lieu of court-martial?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: I can get the information as to what the eventual resolution was. As to whether that was a negotiated plea or something in that regard, that will be a little harder. But I can certainly tell you Article 15 and various section penalties.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: And finally on this subject, can you tell me when [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta is going to be releasing the recommendations? He's going to be having both administrative and legislative. Do you know?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Actually, we've been working on the possible legislative proposals as recently as today. So I'm expecting those to be coming up soon and then, within the next three to six months, we'll also have some additional ways forward on specific recommendations coming out from the services as well as follow-up on the ones we mentioned -- the expedited transfer and the document retention.
Senator Richard Blumenthal: Thank you. On the issue, and you raise it in your testimony, concerning suicides, can you talk a little bit about what steps are being taken to address this issue?
Secretary Jo Ann Rooney: Absolutely. And you're right that the numbers right now -- despite many of our efforts -- have not shown a significant decrease. But what we have done in fact is -- taken the task force that had their report forward, one of their recommendations was to create a specific suicide office which we have done in the last few months. And the purpose of that office is not to create yet another layer but it's to look across all the services and actually be the conduit for what are our best practices, where are we missing some opportunities, getting rid of some of the redundancies. So that has, at this point, a temporary staff. But in the fiscal '13 budget, we have the full appropriations we're requesting on that to have that staff stand up. In addition to that, we're working directly with the services in each of their component areas to see what practices they have in place. The next thing, and I think you've seen it also from the medical side, we're embedding behavioral health not only within the units but also making it available to the families through a number of our family programs. And, again, we're continuing to monitor what has been the outreach and where have we seen some successes or not, as it were. So those are the steps at this point with many more coming forward. And, also, collecting data has been a big challenge that we've had. Contemporaneous data. So we're working closely with the VA, in particular, at this point to share information not only from the DoD side but also what the VA is getting. We're doing a lot of joint work with them. So we're getting data that is between thirty and sixty days old as opposed to a year or two -- which is what we had been getting because that's the way states are gathering it -- and sharing that information and trying to trend directly with the VA. So those are some of the ideas.

Etan gets the last word:
Groups Urge U.S. Not to Sell Attack Helicopters to Indonesia
Contact: John M. Miller, +1-718-596-7668; mobile: +1-917-690-
4391, john@etan.org

Ed McWilliams, +1-575-648-2078, edmcw@msn.com
March 30, 2012 - Ninety organizations today urged the U.S. government and Congress not to provide deadly attack helicopters to Indonesia. Indonesia
has announced that it plans to buy eight AH-64 Apache attack helicopters
from the United States.

The groups warned that the helicopters will escalate conflicts in Indonesia, especially in the rebellious region of West Papua: "Providing these
helicopters would pose a direct threat to Papuan civilians."

The Indonesian military (TNI) regularly conducts "sweep operations,"
involving attacks on villages where innocent villagers are forced from their homes. The groups write that "Papuan civilians either flee the attacks to neighboring villages or into the surrounding forests where many die or face starvation, cut off from access to their gardens, shelter, and medical care."
Sweep operations are now underway in the Central Highlands region of West Papua.

The letter was organized by the U.S.-based East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the West Papua Advocacy Team and signed by human
rights, religious, indigenous rights, disarmament and other organizations
based in 14 countries.


Signers include: Faith-based Network on West Papua, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Peace Action, International Lawyers for West Papua, Land
Is Life, KontrS (Indonesia), and Pax Christi Australia. A complete list of
signers can be found here: http://www.etan.org/news/2012/03helicop.htm

The AH-64 is designed for air to ground attack. It can operate day or night
and is armed with high caliber chain guns and equipped to fire missiles.

ETAN was formed in 1991. It celebrated its 20th anniversary this December
10, advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for Timor-Leste and Indonesia. See ETAN's web site: http://www.etan.org

Text of letter.

As organizations concerned about human rights in Indonesia
and West Papua, we are writing to urge the U.S. government
and Congress not to allow the sale of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters to the Indonesian military (TNI). Providing these helicopters would pose a direct threat to Papuan civilians,
who have been the target of deadly TNI assaults for many
years.
The sale of this weapons system to the TNI -- notwithstanding its long record
of disregard for civilian casualties, corruption, human rights violations and impunity in East Timor, Aceh and elsewhere -- would only increase the
suffering of the Papuan population.

Indonesia's Deputy Minister of Defense Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin
told the Antara news agency, that Indonesia intends to buy eight AH-64
Apache helicopter from the United States.

The heavily-armed AH-64 is a highly lethal weapon which can be used to
escalate conflict within Indonesia and in West Papua. These aircraft will substantially augment the TNI's capacity to prosecute its "sweep operations"
in West Papua and thereby, almost certainly lead to increased suffering
among the civilian populations long victimized by such operations.

TNI "sweep operations," including several now underway in the Central
Highlands region of West Papua, involve attacks on villages. Homes are destroyed, along with churches and public buildings. These assaults,
purportedly to eliminate the poorly armed Papuan armed resistance, force innocent villagers from their homes. Papuan civilians either flee the attacks
to neighboring villages or into the surrounding forests where many die or
face starvation, cut off from access to their gardens, shelter, and medical
care.

The AH-64 is designed for air to ground attack. It can operate day or night
and is armed with high caliber chain guns . It is also equipped to fire
missiles.

Congress must be notified of major weapons sales. We urge Congress to
oppose the sale of these helicopters.
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan

Read about ETAN's 20 years of work for for human rights,
justice and democracy: http://etan.org/etan/20anniv/default.htm ETAN needs you support in 2012.
Follow ETAN on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ETANUSA
John M. Miller, National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: +1-718-596-7668 Mobile phone: +1-917-690-4391
Email: etan@igc.org Skype: john.m.miller

------

Website: http://www.etan.orgBlog: http://etanaction.blogspot.com/Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/134122?recruiter_id=10193810
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)