|
Tuesday,
June 26, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi political crisis
continues, 5 members of the Kurdish Alliance prepare to question Nouri
al-Maliki, Mad Maddie Albright repeats herself, Tony Blair remains in
hot water, the ICRC continues their work in Iraq, and more.
Perhaps the saddest thing for the White House was
realizing that it you want bi-partisanship, don't piss off Republicans.
Specifically, don't piss off [a] Republican on the issue of Iraq.
(Think about it, you'll quickly guess which US Senator I mean.) Not
only did he rally opposition to keep the International Republican
Institute from being used to rubber stamp numbers that were going to be
called results for a poll, he's gone away making sure many know that an
upcoming National Democratic Institute for International Affairs 'poll'
was nothing but propaganda on behalf of the White House. The poll will
insist -- abusrdly -- that Nouri al-Maliki's popularity is on the rise.
It
would have been unbelievable coming from a reputable polling
organization. It would have been laughable coming from the NDI (a
notorious tool to oppress and suppress freedom around the world -- as is
its Republican counterpart) but with the senator telling anyone who
will listen how the White House shopped it first as a joint-poll and the
had no interest in it, the White House looks like its in the business
of non-stop lying. But maybe that's every administration's business?
Regardless, it's not a good time for the administration.
Maginnis and I will never agree on the illegal war
but good for him for calling out the 'poll' ("Obama loyalists hosted and
conducted the survey."). It's a surprisingly strong article:
On the day the U.S. withdrew from Baghdad Maliki's
security forces surrounded the residences of prominent Sunni politicians
including Vice President al-Hashemi, to arrest him on charges of
running death squads. But Hashemi escaped to northern Iraq and sectarian
violence has since skyrocketed.
"It is
very troubling the Maliki-led government is operating on cultivating
sectarian tensions and executing policies to suppress democracy at the
expense of the Iraqi people," said Vice President al-Hashimi from his
exiled refuge. He continued, "Iraqi politicians must put the past and
our differences behind us to improve the lives of our people."
But Maliki isn't putting past differences behind him.
Rather he is resurrecting memories Iraqis associate with their former
dictator, Saddam Hussein.
Second, the
DNI/GQRR survey found most non-Shia Iraqis believe Maliki has too much
power and 64 percent say he acts like a dictator. Iraqis have good
reason to associate Maliki's actions with their former dictator.
The prime minister is consolidating personal power as did
Saddam Hussein says British scholar Toby Dodge who outlined Maliki's
power grab at a forum hosted by the National Defense University and
reported in Foreign Affairs.
Maliki
completely transformed Iraq's security and intelligence forces to be at
his beck and call, explained Dodge. The prime minister retained the
title and role of defense and interior ministers, controls all
high-ranking appointments, and created special counter-terrorism
brigades that report directly to him. These special forces, which some
Iraqis label fedayeen [Arabic for "those who sacrifice"] al-Maliki,
remind them of Hussein's fedayeen Saddam which performed the
dictator's dirty work.
And
"surprisingly strong" is not due to, 'From the left, I can't believe
anyone on the right can get anything about Iraq correct!' "Surprisingly
strong" means that at a time when the US media clearly doesn't give a
damn about Iraq, it's surprising to find a strong article in any US
media. Good for Robert Maginnis. And for any who are surprised that
Republicans might want to make an issue out of Iraq, weren't you paying
attention? We told you that was the plan back in 2009. That's why the
questions and issues about Chris Hill were raised at his confirmation
hearing. We went all into that and how he would get confirmed but
Republicans were getting it on the record.
Many
Democrats supported the war and many went along. If they didn't, they
could have stopped it at any time. Former US Senator Mike Gravel
discussed how you do that repeatedly in 2007 and 2008 but no one wanted
to end it, not even 'brave' Dennis Kucinich. And along with supporters
and tag-alongs, you also had the evil that actively worked to get the
illegal war up and going. Indo-Asian News Service reports
on the human garbage dump that is Mad Maddie Albright who declared in
New Dehli today that "the war on Iraq was the biggest mistake we could
make and are still hurt because of it." Lest anyone think the woman
known as " Iraq's Grim Reaper" has come to
her senses, she rushed to insist "that the international community has a
responsibility to act if a country's leaders deny the people their
rights, despite such actions being an encroachment of that country's
sovereignty." But Mad Maddie, as you damn well know, the costly and
illegal Iraq War wasn't sold to the American people as, "Let's go kill
millions and send our own off to die in a foreign land because we think
the people are being denied rights!" That never would have sold the
illegal war. Just last week a Dartmouth YouGov poll
(with a +/- 3.18% margin of error) found only 32.1% of Americans
surveyed would support using US military force "To stop small-scale or
moderate human rights abuses by the government, such as the killing of
tens or hundreds of civilians."
The
sentiment is similar around the world and not surprising. It's why the
United Kingdom required Tony Blair's endless lies -- including silencing
objection from his government's legal expert about the legality of the
Iraq War -- to sell the war there. And in England, the war refuses to
fade as an issue and the publication of Alistair Campbell's liary has only
led to more attention. More news from the book broke over the
weekend. Jane Merrick and Matt Chorley (Independent)
reported: MPs
demanded an emergency recall of the Chilcot inquiry last night after new
revelations that Tony Blair blocked the Government's most senior
lawyer from explaining to Cabinet the legality of the war in Iraq. According
to the newly published full version of Alastair Campbell's diaries, the
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wanted to "put the reality" to cabinet
ministers that there was a case against, as well as for, military action
in March 2003. But, according to his former spin doctor, the then Prime
Minister feared that the legal opinion was too "nuanced" and would
allow the war's ministerial critics Robin Cook and Clare Short to say
that the case had not been made."Why does Alastair
Campbell's account of cabinet decision-making about Iraq nine years ago
still matter?" asked the editorial board of the Independent
before answering: Because,
more than any that a government can make, the decision to join military
action is the most serious. Millions of British people believed at the
time that they were being taken to war on a false premise. They, and The
Independent on Sunday, feared that Tony Blair had committed himself to
the US. George Bush's motives were an unhealthy mixture of wanting to
impress US voters with a vigorous response to the humiliation of 9/11,
completing his father's unfinished business from the first Gulf War and a
strategic concern about security of oil supplies.
By Monday, Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) was
reporting that Campbell had already rushed to deny that what he
wrote meant what it said: "Mr Campbell said on his blog yesterday that
the entry had been misinterpreted, and that Lord Goldsmith had addressed
Cabinet after the meeting referred to in the diary. He had argued in
Cabinet that there was a legal case for war and was cross-questioned by
ministers."
On my previous post on the issue
of the Independent on Sunday article
claiming that "Tony Blair blocked the Government's most senior lawyer
[the attorney general] from explaining to Cabinet the legality of the
war in Iraq", it was noted that Alastair Campbell had responded to the
story on his blog. Campbell's (attempted) rebuttal
largely misses the point but does make a very good point about what the
views of the attorney general (Lord Peter Goldsmith] were at the
time.
Campbell is so hooked on his self
justifying claim that "The Real Spin Doctors Are The Journalists" that
he does exactly what he accuses one of the IoS story's authors of doing.
I also drew attention to various passages
of former Attorney General Peter Goldsmith's evidence to Chilcot, and
asked if the IoS had bothered to study it before rushing to print a
story which conformed to their view of the Iraq war.
e.g.
when Sir Roderic Lyne asks: 'so no one at any stage asked you to
restrict what you said to cabinet to the fairly limited terms in which
you presented this to cabinet?' And Goldsmith replies 'No.'
If Campbell had bothered to read the IoS story properly,
he would have seen -- as I pointed out yesterday -- that it did quote
exactly that piece of evidence to the Inquiry. He later claims that what
he recorded in his diary – that Blair "made it clear he did not
particularly want Goldsmith to launch a detailed discussion at Cabinet" –
is "consistent" with this.
Poodle
Tony and Mad Maddie, two War Hawks. The Albright article notes that Mad
Maddie's supporting Barack in the 2012 elections -- of course she is.
War Hawks of a feather bind and teather. Just last month, Barack gave her the
Presidential Medal of Freedom (she also chairs the laughable
National Democratic Institute we were just mentioning).
With the impact of Iraq's
long years of war and insecurity still marring the future, older
problems, such as water scarcity and weak infrastructure, are also
harming prospects for development and stability. The ICRC is striving
to improve the situation in the areas hardest hit.
The
ICRC has been working in Iraq for the past 30 years, attending to the
mounting humanitarian needs. During this period, the challenges relating
to water and basic public infrastructure have taken various shapes.
The fall in the water levels of the Tigris and Euphrates river, which
provide the bulk of Iraq's water supply, is not new. The ICRC has long
been warning of the serious consequences of a dwindling water supply.
But present-day Iraq faces challenges that are even more daunting.
How very sad that the ICRC has to
depend upon donations for their work in Iraq when so much of it could be
done by the Iraqi government which is too cheap to spend the billions
on making life better for the Iraqi people. Iraq's not a poor country.
Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg
News) report today, "Iraq's crude output rose to the highest
in 20 years as the Halfaya field increased production."
The Red Cross update, covering March 2012 through May 2012, is
entitled [PDF format warning] " Iraq: The Challenge of Providing Clean
Water and Rebuilding Infrastructure" which quotes the ICRC's
Alexandre Farine stating, "Access to clean water is not the only problem
faced by Iraqis today, though it is one of the major ones. There are
areas in Iraq where entire systems are in need of repair. We are
focusing on the areas that have been hardest hit, where such problems
have posed the greatest challenge for the population. People's daily
lives are affected by the scarcity of clean water, which in turn causes
health and hygiene problems." The update notes the ICRC's work on
behalf of the disabled:
* treated
8,398 patients, 4, 266 of whom were amputees;
*
manufactured 4,840 devices and fitted patients with them so they could
walk again;
* distributed 227 crutches and
40 wheelchairs to needy patients;
*
provided training in wheelchair adaptation and assembling and in
management of ankle-foot orthosis services in three centres;
* provided on-site support for nine primary health-care
centres in areas including Ninawa, Kirkuk, Diyala, Babil, Baghdad and
Diwaniya, serving approximately 260,000 people
There are many other findings in the report but here's what the
ICRC is emphasizing from the update:
- supported
the upgrade of more than 100 kilometres of irrigation schemes in Rabea
and Qaratapa, in Dohuk and Diyala governorates respectively, which will
help increase agricultural production and income for more than 1,500
families;
- enrolled 437 needy community
members in cash-for-work activities in connection with the irrigation
works, enabling those taking part to temporarily increase their
household income;
- awarded 183 grants to
disabled people and to women heading households in Kirkuk, Diyala,
Ninewa, Suleymaniyah, Basra and Missan and Erbil, enabling them to start
small businesses and regain economic self-sufficiency;
- distributed
essential hygiene and household items to over 17,300 displaced people
in Salah Al-Din, Anbar, Sulaimaniyah, Kirkuk, Dohuq and Mosul; 527 of
the beneficiaries also received basic food items for one month for their
families;
- provided aid for 1,092 women
heading households in Baghdad and Anbar governorates, and helped them
register with the State welfare allowance system.
The update notes other topics including their work
on identifying the dead -- such as from Iraq's war with Kuwait --
allowing the remains to be returned home. Iraq released the remains of a
US citizens. Dropping back to the June 20th snapshot:
An Iraq War veteran returned to Iraq as a DynaCorp
[worker] and was dead a week later. Now his family fights to have his
body returned to the US. Steve Shaw of Oklahoma's News 9
(link is text and video) reports:
Angela
Copeland: They came in and they told me that they had found Michael
deceased in his living quarters.
Steve Shaw: Michael
Copeland's widow Angela is distraught -- not only because of Michael's
sudden death but because our State Dept told Copeland's family Iraqi
leaders say Copeland died of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome -- or
SARS -- an extemely rare disease, and our State Dept bought it. Iraq
says it can't release the body. Michael Copeland's fathe says he talked
to his son by phone just 12 hours before his death, nobody's died
from SARS since 2003, and he says that his son showed no signs of the
disease.
Mike Copeland: Everyone that I've spoke with is
always sorry for our loss but they say there's nothing they can do. I
find that very difficult to believe. That my government? There's
nothing they can do to bring my son home fom Iraq?
The
Center for Disease Control and Prevention's SARS page
notes:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral
respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated
coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS was first reported in Asia in February
2003. The illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North
America, South America, Europe, and Asia before the SARS global outbreak
of 2003 was contained. Since 2004, there have not been any known
cases of SARS reported anywhere in the world. The content in this Web
site was developed for the 2003 SARS epidemic. But, some guidelines are
still being used. Any new SARS updates will be posted on this Web site.
No
new updates have been posted to the CDC's page.
"Not only are we
having to deal with the loss," Angela Copeland tells NewsOn6,
"but we're having to deal with the battle to get him back home."
Michael Copeland died June 9th. She tells Victoria Maranan
(KXII -- link is video), "There is absolutely no
excuse in this world that you could give me that could convince me why
he should not be home." Jerry Wofford (Tulsa World)
reports on the case and quotes Oklahoma State Rep.
Dustin Roberts stating, "Michael David Copeland was a man who served
our nation as a Marine and our state as a National Guardsman, and his
family deserves better than this." Zach Maxwell (Durant
Democrat) reports this evening, "The family of
Michael Copeland is still waiting for answers more than 10 days after
the former Marine and National Guardsman passed away in Iraq."
Lara Jakes (AP) reports
Michael David Copelad's body is back in the US and that the long delay
resulted from disputes "over whether the Iraqi government would perform
the autopsy on his remains."
In Iraq, the
political crisis continues as efforts are pursued to question thug and
prime minister Nouri al-Maliki before Parliament and, if answers do not
reassure, move towards a vote to withdraw confidence in Nouri. Because
there is so much confusion in the press about what's required and what's
allowed, we'll note the following from Article 58 of the Iraqi Constitution:
Seventh:
A. The Council of Representatives member may direct
questions to the Prime Minister and the Ministers on any subject within
their specialty and they may answer the members' questions. The Member
who has asked the question solely has the right to comment on the
answer. B. At least twenty-five members of the Council of
representatives may table a general issue for discussion to obtain
clarity on the policy and the performance of the Cabinet or one of the
Ministries. It must be submitted to the President of the Council of
Representatives, and the Prime Minister or the Ministers shall specify a
date to come before the Council of Representatives to discuss it. C.
A Council of Representatives member with the agreement of twenty-five
members may direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Ministers to
call them to account on the issues within their authority. The
discussion on the question shall begin at least seven days after
submitting the question. Eighth: A. The Council of
Representatives may withdraw confidence from one of the Ministers by an
absolute majority and he is considered resigned from the date of the
decision of confidence withdrawal. The issue of no confidence in the
Minister may be tabled only on that Minister's wish or on a signed
request of fifty members after an inquiry discussion directed at him.
The Council of Representatives shall not issue its decision regarding
the request except after at least seven days of its submission. B.
1- The President of the Republic may submit a request to the
Council of Representatives to withdraw confidence from the Prime
Minister. 2- The Council of Representatives may withdraw
confidence from the Prime Minister based on the request of one-fifth
(1/5) of its members. This request may be submitted only after a
question has been put to the Prime Minister and after at least seven
days from submitting the request. 3- The Council of
Representatives shall decide to withdraw confidence from the Prime
Minister by an absolute majority of its members. C. The
Government is considered resigned in case of withdrawal of confidence
from the Prime Minister. D. In case of a vote of withdrawal
of confidence in the Cabinet as a whole, the Prime Minister and the
Ministers continue in their positions to run everyday business for a
period not to exceed thirty days until a new cabinet is formed in
accordance with the provisions of article 73 of this constitution. As
you can see from the above, there really wasn't a requirement for Jalal
Talabani to 'vet' the petition he was given nor for X-number of
signatures to be on it. It had 176 but that wasn't good enough for
President Jalal who stabbed his partners (Moqtada al-Sadr, KRG President
Massoud Barzani, Iraqiya's Ayad Allawi, etc.) in the back. Last week, Mustafa Habib (Niqash) interviewed MP Diaa
N. al-Asadi who heads Moqtada's bloc in Parliament. Excerpt:
NIQASH: So how did this initiative – to withdraw
confidence from al-Maliki's regime – get started?
Al-Asadi: A series of events. There were a lot of
negative indicators regarding the performance of the government; the
Iraqi people went to protest on the streets to demand reform and
improved levels of services; those demands were not politically driven.
Additionally the government has not respected the Erbil
agreement [formulated to end a nine month dispute over who should run
the government following 2010 elections] and they have caused political
crises over [deputy PM] Saleh al-Mutlaq and Vice President Tareq
al-Hashimi. All of these factors have combined to create a lot of
pressure. There was an urgent need to find a definitive solution.
NIQASH: Can you give us
more details about this initiative to withdraw confidence?
Al-Asadi: Other political
parties – the Iraqiya bloc and the Kurdish bloc - came to us,
complaining about the way al-Maliki was governing. They felt that
al-Maliki was creating these crises and then resolving them in ways that
served only his interests.
We, the
Sadrists, were already unhappy with him. And they asked us to take a
patriotic stand.
That's why Muqtada al-Sadr
met with al-Maliki in Tehran, when al-Maliki was there. We discussed
with him what his version of the crises was and his ideas on how to
solve them.
But al-Sadr also wanted to hear
what other parties had to say. That's why he went to Erbil to meet with
Masoud al-Barzani, the president of [the semi-autonomous region] Iraqi
Kurdistan.
It was at this stage that
al-Sadr said he was for the use of constitution and legislation [to get
out of the political impasse]. The results of that meeting in Erbil and
of another in Najaf ended in a letter that was sent to al-Maliki's
office.
This letter contained nine points,
suggestions for the resolution of the political crisis in Iraq. Seven of
the nine points focused on reform and the other two suggested a motion
of no confidence was possible if the other seven points were not dealt
with, and if limits were not put on how long the Iraqi prime minister
could be in power. This letter was ignored by al-Maliki's office.
Alsumaria reports that Moqtada does
not plan to question Nouri himself. That's not surprising. Throughout
this process, Moqtada has stated that if Nouri would agree to return to
the Erbil Agreement (contract between the political blocs that the US
government drew up with gave Nouri a second term as prime minister --
despite his State of Law coming in second in the 2010 elections -- in
exchange for concessions from Nouri), they would drop the move to vote
him out of office. Moqtada has stated that over and over. He's also
stated that he plans to listen to the answers Nouri provides to the
Parliament (Nouri's refusing to appear so he may not provide any
answers) and then make up his mind on the vote. Who would
question Nouri? Alsumaria reports that the Kurdistan
Alliance has five deputies prepared to question Nouri before Parliament
and the Kurds state they will not be silent even in Nouri (appears
before Parliament, faces questions) and manages to stay in power. This
is becoming a very big issue in the KRG and may become a position of
honor. Nouri became prime minister in 2006. The Constitution --
Article 140 -- called for him to hold a referendum and census for
Kirkuk by the end of 2007. He refused. He still refuses. The Kurds
feel Kirkuk is their province and this is only one of the many disputes
between them and Nouri's Baghdad government. You've also got the
shrinking Jalal Talabani (his influence is on the wane at present) and
his disregarding the Kurdish hope of an independent Kurdish homeland.
So there are a lot of details at play as a confrontation looms and a
lot of tangled emotions can become vested in this move towards
no-confidence. Dar Addustour reports the
National Alliances Ibrahim al-Jaafari declared Nouri is not planning to
face Parliament and that he is questioning the process. (He should
refer to the Constitution.) Meanwhile Nouri's trying another stalling
technique. Al Rafidayn reports that he's
calling for a national dialogue. He only wants that when he's in
trouble, then when it's 'about to happen' or even scheduled, he manages
to subvert it as well. Kitabat reports Nouri's
threatening to dissolve the Parliament and call for early elections.
Some might see that as a good way to go and
possibly it is. But there is a potential negative side. Parliament
gets dissolved and Nouri rules through the next elections. The next
elections would not be in a matter of weeks. The KRG is currently
working on their laws ahead of the 2013 provincial election. This could
take months and the KRG runs smoother than any other part of Iraq.
Meaning parlimentary elections are scheduled for 2014. The Nouri
al-Maliki who let over 8 months of gridlock pass following the March
2010 elections isn't necessarily someone who feels pressure to move in a
speedy manner. He could easily stall and delay it so that there are no
elections until 2014 when they ae scheduled to take place.
And?
If Nouri dissoled the Parliament,
who would act as a check on his power? New elections might not come
until 2014. During the time between that and right now, Nouri would
have no check on his power.
That's something
for Iraqis to consider as they weigh what's going on.
It could get very hard to determine what's going on if Nouri is
successful in attacking the media.
Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) quotes
Moqtada al-Sadr stating, "In our beloved Iraq, the government is always
interfering in the affairs of media outlets and tring to politicize
them." Saturday the Journalism Freedoms Observatory
published an alert about a government list of 44 news outlets
Nouri's government was planning to close. Ruchi Shroff (Digital Production)
observes, "Organizations targeted for shutdown reportedly include
BBC, Voice of America, U.S.-financed Radio Sawa, as well as
privately-owned TV channels Sharqiya and Baghdadia." AFP notes, "Iraq regularly
ranks near the bottom of global press freedom rankings. It placed 152nd
out of 179 countries in media rights watchdog Reporters Without Borders'
2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index, down 22 from the year before." Kitabat notes the Ministry of
the Interior has rushed to distance itself from the issue, declaring it
had no issued the orders and that its role in implementing them would
be minimal. Today Alsumaria reports the commission
says it is putting the list (temporarily) on hold. On hold. It's not
been dropped.
Turning to the
US where Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. Her office notes that proposed legislation will be
discussed in a hearing of the Committee tomorrow and that Murray will
discuss her bills to ensure equality for veterans the Mental Health
ACCESS bill and the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act -- the
latter will also be championed with testimony from Iraq War veteran Matt
Keil's wife Tracy Keil:
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202)
224-2834
TOMORROW: Spouse of Severely Wounded Veteran to Testify
on VA's Fertility Services
At a
hearing on pending health and benefits legislation, Senator Murray will
discuss her Mental Health ACCESS bill and Women Veterans Health Care
Improvement Act
(Washington, D.C.) –
Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 27, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman
of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will chair a hearing to
examine health and benefits legislation pending before the Committee. At
the hearing, Tracy Keil, the spouse of a severely wounded OIF
veteran will discuss her family's experience with VA's fertility
services. Veterans who have severe reproductive and urinary tract
injuries and spinal cord injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized
treatments and procedures like IVF to conceive. However, under
current law, IVF is expressly excluded from fertility services that are
provided by the VA to veterans or their spouses. This is a
significant barrier for veterans with SCI and genital and urinary tract
injuries and as a result they have to seek care outside of the VA.
Senator Murray's Women Veterans and Other Health Care
Improvements Act of 2012 , which she introduced last
week, would expand fertility treatment and care for seriously wounded
veterans, their spouses, and surrogates.
In addition, Senator Murray will discuss
her new servicemembers and veterans mental health legislation, the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012,
S. 3340. Vets First will testify on the Mental Health ACCESS Act of
2012, which Senator Murray introduced yesterday. Six other Senators are
expected to appear in support of their legislation, including Senators
Ayotte, Boxer, Franken, Heller, Wyden, and Portman. VA and stakeholder
groups will provide their views on the legislation as well. View the
full agenda for tomorrow's hearing below.
| 
