Blog post answering a question

"As long as you're taking questions," wrote Jonelle, "how about answering mine?" Her question was whether I would work to do chapters for the novel here which included Hillary Is 44?

No. I tried that the first go-round. It is very difficult. I tried that with other sources because Hillary Is 44 wasn't around then. But it was like trying to force a lump of cheese into a perfume vial.

Now if I'm doing a blog post -- like tonight --no problem.

"Islamic Killer And President " (Hillary Is 44):

It took long enough. Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post, an admitted admirer of Obama today asked “Where’s Waldo?”

“For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action – unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.”

After listing potential excuses for voting as President “Who Gives A Crap” Marcus lists the many times Obama went missing:

“He didn’t want to get mired in legislative details during the health care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration’s prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn’t want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn’t want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn’t want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it’s a swing state.

Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a “Where’s Waldo?” presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape.”

Marcus states she is someone “who generally shares the president’s ideological perspective”. But the excuse seeking Marcus realizes that something is very wrong:

“On health care, for instance, he took on a big fight without being able to articulate a clear message or being willing to set out any but the broadest policy prescriptions. Lawmakers, not to mention the public, were left guessing about what, exactly, the administration wanted to see in the measure and where it would draw red lines.

That was not an isolated case. Where, for example, is the president on the verge of a potential government shutdown — if not this week, then a few weeks from now?

Aside from a short statement from the Office of Management and Budget threatening a presidential veto of the House version of the funding measure, the White House — much to the frustration of some congressional Democrats — has been unclear in public and private about what cuts would and would not be acceptable. [snip]

Obama seems more the passive bystander to negotiations between the House and Senate than the chief executive leading his party.”

Last night Americans could find President “Who Gives A Crap” a.k.a. “Waldo” on a taped public television broadcast of another Obama extravaganza party to sing the praises of Motown Records. “Waldo” was partying. Marcus claims that “Obama performs best on a stage that permits the grandest sweep.” That is another way of saying he likes events before big crowds that glorify him, not the hard day to day work required. Marcus is only now realizing that those words to the sounds of “celestial choirs” are not a formulation of “change”:

That's Barry O. That's him alright. He's never to be found where the work's being done. Maybe he's having his chef from Chicago whip him up something or maybe his Chicago body trainer just showed up to have a session with him or maybe . . .

He does everything but work.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, March 2, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the Arab summit this month in Baghdad is off, the US 'advised' Iraqis last week not to participate in protests, the VA has ignored a law passed by both houses of Congress, Patty Murray's Committee had some tough questions about how that happened, and more. Starting in DC with the US Congress. Some background: Caregivers are the people who take care of you when you need assistance. If you are a wounded veteran, your caregivers are often family, a spouse or a significant other. Caring for you may be temporary in that you recover and you have full or close to full use and ability and mobility as you did before your injury; however, that is not always the case. There are many veterans -- especially of the current wars -- who are badly injured and need a caregiver for the rest of their lives and/or around the clock. The person who fills that role -- whatever his or her relationship to the veteran -- isn't visited by the clock fairy who waves a wand and creates more hours each day for that person. The person in the role of the caregiver is doing hard work and a full time -- usually more than full time -- job. And you cannot be a caregiver in that situation and also maintain a full time paid job in the workforce. Which means that while you are providing care, you're not bringing in money. The bills don't go away and many veterans and their caregivers face huge financial hardship as a result. June 4, 2010, the mother of a veteran called in on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR). Marlene: My son was in Iraq for 15 months and directly effected by two IED explosions -- with shrapnel to his head. He continues -- my son continues to say everything is fine. But two weeks ago, the bank repossessed his car. He had been faithfully paying on this car prior to his diagnosis of PTSD. Now, as the Mom and the next of kin, I was not able to assist in any way. The bank would not work with my son other than to demand the total payment of the balance. There was no bailout for this soldier. Now I as the Mom had no right to advocate on his behalf. I called my Congressman, the military and who ever else I thought could help. My question is: Who does advocate for these soldiers? Bills don't stop for the veterans because they're veterans and that's especially an issue if you're a disabled veteran or the caregiver for one. Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum who is hiking across the country to raise awareness and money for veterans issues -- all veterans. Why did he start his 7,000 mile hike? As Katherine Gustafson (Tonic) reported last May: Directing people's attention to the stress that many military families face is an idea that came to Yocum while he was stationed in Iraq, where he was distressed to receive emails from a friend, an Iraq veteran, who had lost his job and was losing his house. It brought to Yocum's mind memories of his grandfather, a World War II veteran who had faced the same problems and ended up committing suicide as a result. Yocum contacted nonprofit organizations to find help for his friend, but everywhere got the same answer: There isn't enough funding to go around. Yocum made up his mind that he would find a way to help all those families when he got home and immediately started researching a game plan. He turned up the story of Terry Fox, a one-legged man who had run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. "That story was so amazing, and he raised millions and millions of dollars," said Yocum. "That's something I could do to help spread awareness across America but also raise millions of dollars to help military families." He was determined to prevent more people from getting "into a situation like my grandfather where they lose their jobs and they have no other way out, or at least that's what they think, and then they kill themselves. Did you realize that 20 percent of all suicides are veterans?" Money, debts and the stress from bills piling up do not help the health of any veteran -- even more so a disabled one. Doesn't help a caregiver either and you can't be a full time caregiver and also work in the paid work force. It's just not possible and Congress has been recognizing the time and work required of caregivers for many years with hearings in both houses. For example, June 4, 2009, the Wounded Warrior Project Anna Freese testified to the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health: Let me begin by asking you to think about what it took for each of you to get prepared for the day today. I'm not talking about the first cup of coffee or your morning paper. I'm asking you to think about more basic activities. Raising your arm to reach for a bedside light switch. Moving a finger to wipe the sleep from your eyes. Getting out of bed, walking to the bathroom. While most of us take this for granted, severely injured service members, like my brother Eric [Edmundson], can no longer carry out these basic activities of daily living without assistance. Eric and other severely wounded warriors get the most intimate, devoted care from family members in the privacy of their homes, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. After many hearings and many meetings with the effected populations, both houses of Congress agreed upon the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (May 5, 2010) which was to go into effect January 30, 2011. This was a bill that had support from both political parties -- and support from independent Senator Joe Lieberman, Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. In the Senate it passed by 98 votes (all present voted for it). In the House, it passed by 419 votes with all present voting in favor of it. President Barack Obama signed it into law May 5, 2010. It shouldn't have caused any problems because of the huge Congressional support it had -- universal support -- and because the Congress took so much care in investigating the issues, in taking testimonies from stakeholders, in evaluating and re-evaluating before they wrote the bill. So this morning, in the US Senate, it might have been surprising to some to discover that the law that Congress wrote and understood and backed universally was taken by the VA to mean, "Do what you want with this." The US Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee took testimony this morning from VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and from the VFW's Raymond Kelley, Delware VA Medical Center's Maryann D. Hooker, AMVETS' Christina Roof, Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, the American Legion's Tim Tetz and Disabled American Veterans' Joseph A. Violante. We're noting this exchange from the first panel. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee. Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Secretary, I have a great deal of respect for the work that you've done on homeless and women's issues and I know you're working diligently in a number of ways. But I wanted to bring up an issue that I'm very concerned about. I've already discussed the caregiver issue with you, I've talked about it with Jack Woo, I've talked with senior staff at the White House and I have spoken directly with the president of the United States. VA's plan on the caregivers issue was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that unanimously cleared this Congress. Three weeks ago, my Committee staff requested information on how that plan was developed and to date no information has been provided. Rather than following the law, the administration set forth some overly stringent rules bureaucratic hurdles that would essentially deny help to caregivers. Sarah and Ted Wade who were staunch advocates and worked hard with us to get this passed were invited by the president to attend the bill signing at the White House, they won't be eligible for the program under the plan that the department submitted. We're also hearing a lot from veterans and caregivers from across the country who fall outside of this new line in the sand the VA has drawn, who have been left in limbo and now don't know if this benefit that they advocated and worked so hard for will support them. Mr. Secretary, it appears your that department is not complying with the law as we have written. Can you please tell this Committee why? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Well, Chairman Murray, let me begin by expressing my regret that the implementation plan was late in getting to you. We did our best and uh, uh, we're looking forward at this point on how to accelerate the process. I will also add to that that the importance of family and caring for our nation's uh injured veterans has been a long standing uh, uh concern and issue for VA. And I think, as you know, we have eight decades of history of, uh, caring for the caregives. And we have demonstrated this dedication to them in a wide range of ways over those years. Benefits that are already offered including education, training, homemaker, home health services, respite care, uh, family support services. But more than programs, we see it in the thousands of acts of compassionate care provided by VA employees on the front lines. Through the caregivers bill enacted last year -- thanks to the leadership -- your leadership specifically -- but the leadership of Congress as well, Congress and the president built on this foundation by establishing landmark new benefits for Post-9/11 veterans that for the first time provide direct financial and broad health care support directly to the caregiver. We've not done this before and, uh, and we're working through the complexity of what this means. Implementation of the more unprecedented features of this law has taken longer than I had anticipated or would have liked and we understand the frustration that's been expressed on the part of some. We have responded by greatly expediting the required regulatory process through the use of what I described as the interim final regulation transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget on Monday. I assure veterans and the Congress that the administration will move quickly and we plan to have direct to caregiver benefits in place this summer -- early this summer. We also understand the concerns that have been expressed in the scope of the benefit as we've proposed in meeting our implementation plan. We have an obligation to get this right -- to get this benefit right -- and that means meeting the requirements of the law and also making sure that those VA employees on the front lines of caring for our veterans have a clear and consistent set of guidelines to apply. It has been a challenging exercise. I will state that. It's my personal obligation to be able to explain to an injured veteran why he or she would not be eligible for this benefit while someone else in his or her company with similar injuries would be. And that's the standard we're trying to establish here. That standard has guided our efforts to this point and I hope remains in whatever standard we finally establish. That said, I want to be clear, we are absolutely open to suggestions for different places to draw that line than what we have put forward, what we have put forward was a start place. But the standard must work in the real world, on the clinical front lines where the differences end standards and combinations of injuries mental and physical are unique as-as veterans themselves. To that end, Madame Chair, VA is willing -- and I am willing -- to work with you and this committee and members of your staff and all the veterans and families who are represented and have a stake in this. I welcome the input both from you and Ranking Member Senator Burr and others in trying to develop clear, clinical guidelines for this program. OMB is now reviewing the regulation. I'll take this opportunity to encourage all with a stake in this important new program.to provide us the benefit of their insights and their comments and, uh, I will provide feedback to you at the appropriate time. Chair Patty Murray: Well thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I know that this is a new law. I think that we went through that as we prepared it and wrote it and worked with many, many people to get it done. But I think it is absolutely in this time of war with OIF and OEF soldiers coming home seriously disabled, a generation of soldiers that are facing very long term care with spouses or parents who are caring for them -- that's what we went through in our hearings and processes as we went to it. I am deeply concerned, first of all, in the lack of information we had and the lateness of this getting to us. We're past that now but a very unfortunate circumstance where the rules have gone to OMB and may be out in a few months and implementation takes awhile and you're now offering to us to look into different ways of writing the law but it's at OMB. So we have a real challenge in front of us to write it in a way that Congress intended. If the rule comes out as we saw the draft with the narrow definition, it will not be the intent of what Congress had. We're happy to work with you now to tell you how we feel that should be implemented but we're in a serious, difficult challenge to do that because of where we are today. So I am very concerned about that and we'll have more to talk about that. I think it's important to remember why we wrote this. We know that in every war, soldiers come home and need care. But in this war in particular, where we have saved the lives of many, many soldiers, they've come home with very serious, challenging issues to deal with at home and their spouses or their parents are now required to quit their job, lose their income and care for them. That was the intent of Congress. The narrow draft of what we saw of your rules excludes many people who we believe, in Congress, and we wrote the law to cover. So we're going to have to work on this. But I wanted to ask you today of the 180 million that the budget submission specifies for caregivers and veterans pact, how much is going to be actually allocated for the implementation of the family caregiver program? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uh, in the 2012 budget it's 66 million. Chair Patty Murray: 66 million for the implementation. Okay. The legislation authorized an average of 308.4 million for this program each year. Can you tell us why the VA use about 21% of that? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Madame Chairman, I'd just say that that again is where we established the start point. We expect this program will go -- grow. Chair Patty Murray: Pardon me? Secretary Eric Shinseki: We expect that this program will grow. The 66 million was based on our estimate of uh going through the veterans who are in various categories of serious injuries, severe injuries and, uh, the numbers on which, uh, 66 million are based was that initial eligibility start point.Roughly about a thousand. Chair Patty Murray: Very narrowly defined, though. Not designed as the law was defined. Secretary Eric Shinseki: That is correct. Chair Patty Murray: And it was the intent of Congress that that law not be narrowly defined. So we have an issue between us on that one. Let me ask one other question and I will turn it to my Ranking Member -- and we will have a lot more discussion about this caregiver bill -- I recently saw a newsletter written by the Directoor of the Indianapolis VA Medical Center talking about a variety of cost saving initiatives that the VAMC will undertake and he indicated that he intended to seriously reduce bonuses but he also will be slowing the hiring of additional and replacement staff. Will those types of cost savings actually result in the degredation of quality? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Madame Chairman, I'm going to call on Dr. [Robert[ Petzel to address the specific issue hear at Indianappolis. But what I would offer up front is that we now have a year long budgeting dialogue -- the beginning of the year, mid-year and end of year. And they're adjustments made. No VISIN Director of the 21 VISINS have come in and said they're unable to execute their programs the year and we hold them responsible for balancing resources and requirements. Dr. Robert Petzel: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Madame Chairman, the estimate that the letter you read -- and I also read -- was based on -- was an early estimate of what the budget might look like. Those estimates are refined almost weekly as the medical centers begin to spend their money. And if you were to look -- in fact, we have asked what the estimate is now, it is substantially reduced. As the Secretary has said, we review -- here in Washington [. . . Not including it -- Petzel was brought on to testify about things Shineski did not know about it. I would presume Shineski knows what he does each day at work and could have answered that himself.] Chair Patty Murray: Well the Indianapolis director said that they were facing an $18 million gap this fiscal year. Dr. Robert Petzel: That's -- that was the difference between what they wanted and what they got. It does not represent the difference between need and what they got. So if you were to look -- If we were to ask what is that gap now that it's not $18 million. It's been substantially reduced and if not actually disappeared. In addition to that, if that were true, if there was an $18 million shortfall between what they got and what they needed, the networks are able to make up those differences. They have reserve funds. The Secretary has a reserve fund. And we have, as I said, reviews at least 3 times a year here in Washington of the financial state of each one of the medical centers. Chair Patty Murray: How many -- Dr. Robert Petzel: There would be money to take care of it. And how many VISNS currently are facing a budget shortfall? Dr. Robert Petzel: None. Chair Patty Murray: Quickly on the issue of bonuses, I was surprised at the number of bonuses that were awarded last year. Among them actually was the director of the medical center in Dayton, Ohio where there have been serious problems we've been hearing about with respect to a dentist failing to practice basic hygene and overall poor management of resources, the dental clinic and other areas. Apparently he received more than $11,000 this year and $64,000 since 2006, problems going on the entire time with that. And executives at other troubled medical centers received significant bonuses as well. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you, are you going to be seriously reducing the number of bonuses the same way the director of Indianapolis was forced to? Secretary Eric Shinseki: Uhm, Madam Chairman, let me start and then call on Dr. Petzel for any details. I-I offer that since -- for the past two years we have, uh, paid specific attention to the way bonuses are paid and, uh, without making any statements about how it was run prior, I just didn't find as close a connection between performance and bonuses. And I do believe bonuses have a real role to play in the compensation programs -- designed to encourage best behaviors, superior performance. And when that happens, I think there's justification for them. Since -- for the past few years, we have looked very closely at it and I'd be happy to provide you with the details, the "outstandings" and the number of bonus payments actually adjusted quite significantly. To your direct question about Dayton? I can't justify the performance of what happened at Dayton. I think there is a failure of leadership and therefore I'm not going to try to describe why a bonus was sensible. But suffice to say this issue came up because VA workers thought we had a problem. This went on for an extended period of time where it wasn't brought to the attention of leadership and I again fault that to a failure in leadership that the climate wasn't conducive for the workforce to believe they could raise the issueand get satisfactory response. I own that and my responsibility is to correct that and that's what we're doing. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee released the following this afternoon: (Washington, D.C.) – Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Chairman Patty Murray, pointedly questioned Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki over the VA's decision to limit a benefit for the caregivers of severely injured Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The VA's decision, which cuts back stipends for those who have left careers behind to care for their injured loved ones, ignores the will of Congress in passing the caregivers law last year. "I have already discussed the caregivers issue with you, with Jack Lew, with senior staff at the White House, and I have spoken directly with the President," Senator Murray said at today's hearing. "VA's plan was overdue and once submitted it hardly resembled the bill that unanimously cleared this Congress. "Rather than following the law, the Administration set forth some overly stringent rules -- bureaucratic hurdles that would deny help to caregivers. We are hearing from veterans and caregivers from all across the country who fall outside of this new line in the sand that the VA has drawn or who have been left in limbo – and now don't know if the benefit they have been advocating for will support them." After questioning Shinseki about why the VA is not complying with the law, Murray also pointed out that the VA has only set aside a fraction of the funding authorized for the caregiver program. Secretary Shinseki acknowledged that all of the funding is not being used because of the narrowing eligibility requirements. Secretary Shinseki also acknowledged that the benefit has taken too long to implement. TO WATCH SENATOR MURRAY QUESTION SECRETARY SHINSEKI VISIT: [this Senate Veterans Affairs Committee page] The caregivers question appears at the 77 minute mark. Yesterday's snapshot covered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's appearance before the US House Foreign Affairs Committee. We'll again note this exchange: US House Rep Dannis Cardoza: Madam Secretary, at least 70 people were killed during an attack last October on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003. Less than two months later, extremists bombed the homes of more than a dozen Christian families in Baghdad as well. And on New Year's Eve 23 people were killed by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt while coming out of mass in St. Marks and St. Peter's Coptic Church. Since these tragic incidents in the Middle East have -- Since these tragic incidents, the Middle East has been rocked by wide ranging protests and regime changes as we've seen in the last few weeks. How has this ongoing instability effected the already heightened risk to vulnerable religious minority groups like Assyrians, Jews, Cops and others? Secretary Hillary Clinton: Congressman, thank you for asking that question. I think this has not gotten the level of attention and concern it should. We immediately went into action when the bombings took place in Baghdad. Our Ambassador [] was deeply involved with the government, making sure that there was protection and security. The ambassador went to Mass in order to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians. But there's no doubt that Christians and other minority groups are feeling under pressure and are leaving countries from North Africa to south Asia because they don't feel protected. I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of religious minorities and obviously I'm deeply concerned about what happened to the Christians in Iraq and the Christians in Egypt. I'm also concerned about what happens to minority Muslim groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. So you have raised an issue that I think is one of deep concern and we have to be speaking out more. And we have to hold governments accountable. When I spoke with the prior Egyptian government after the Alexandria bombing, they expressed the same level of outrage that I felt. They said that the Cops are part of, you know, Egyptian history. As you recall from Tahrir Square there were a lot of inter-faith efforts with Cops and Muslims together, worshiping together. Let's hope that continues and let's do whatever we can to make that the future instead of what I am fearful of which is driving out religious minorities. And the final thing I would say on that because it's an issue that I have paid a lot of attention to, we want to protect religion and religous believers but we don't want to use some of the tools that other countries are proposing -- which is to criminalize defamation, criminalize in the broadest possible definition blasphemy -- and then use it to execute, harass and otherwise oppress religious minorities. So we have to come up with an international consensus about what we're going to do to protect those who are exercising their conscience. Of her non-Iraq comments above, the story from McClatchy Newspapers and the Los Angeles Times on the events in Pakistan add weight to them. In Pakistan, Minorities Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, who was a Christian and who opposed the blasphemy legislation, has been assassinated; however, BBC News cautions that too many details on the assassination are unknown. On yesterday's Committee hearing, Kat covers it in "Is you're Congressional district in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?," Wally covers it at Rebecca's site with "Pitching the State Dept. budget (Wally)" and Ava covers it at Trina's site with "Hillary's foreign policy aims (Ava)." Kat will cover Richard Burr -- Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- at her site tonight. She long ago carved out Burr's participation on the Committee as her beat. And Monday's snapshot noted an article by Eric Ruder (US Socialist Worker) however the link had a period at the end of it which caused it not to go to the correct page. This is the correct link. Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Today UPI reports on Rasmussen Reports' poll which found 'a plurality of U.S. voters think the Arab world's growing unrest makes it unlikely U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the year's end as planned'. We'll go into the poll more tomorrow." Respondents were 1,000 likely voters surveyed February 26 through 27th. 61% of the respondents say it is unlikely the US will remove troops at the end of 2011 and, from that 61%, 16% say "Not At All Likely." In addition, respondents were asked what-if in terms of Iraq becoming more violent? 22% would want to see the US military provide more troops while 65% voice that the situation in Iraq would be the responsibility of the Iraqis. There is not a great shift in public opinion. Opinions on the Iraq War hardened some time ago. There is a small shift and that may be due to the fact that the peace movement has acted as though the Iraq War has ended -- when it hasn't -- and allowed the War Hawks to run free and wild with their revisionary tactics. Because the Iraq War is not over, this month there will be a march which A.N.S.W.E.R. and March Forward! and others will be taking part in this action: March 19 is the 8th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq today remains occupied by 50,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of foreign mercenaries. The war in Afghanistan is raging. The U.S. is invading and bombing Pakistan. The U.S. is financing endless atrocities against the people of Palestine, relentlessly threatening Iran and bringing Korea to the brink of a new war. While the United States will spend $1 trillion for war, occupation and weapons in 2011, 30 million people in the United States remain unemployed or severely underemployed, and cuts in education, housing and healthcare are imposing a huge toll on the people. Actions of civil resistance are spreading. On Dec. 16, 2010, a veterans-led civil resistance at the White House played an important role in bringing the anti-war movement from protest to resistance. Enduring hours of heavy snow, 131 veterans and other anti-war activists lined the White House fence and were arrested. Some of those arrested will be going to trial, which will be scheduled soon in Washington, D.C. Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine. Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. Click this link to endorse the March 19, 2011, Call to Action. Turning to Baghdad, the seat of the puppet government installed by the US, where a massive protest took place Friday despite efforts on the part of the government to stop it. Al Kamen (Washington Post) notes, "Just last weekend, the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki responded most poorly when tens of thousands of Iraqis around the country demonstrated against the endemic corruption of government officials and the lack of electricity. Seemingly legitimate concerns, but the government nonetheless responded to the 'Day of Rage' by killing 29 protesters, wounding hundreds and allegedly detaining hundreds more, though the prime minister's office says only four people were detained. The government also allegedly beat and tortured some journalists and others, and shut down a TV station." AP reports today that Ad Melkert, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative to Iraq, has expressed that the violence aimed at protesters seemed excessive and dismay regarding the attacks on and arrests of journalists. The UN News Centre quotes him stating, "We are encouraged by the engagement by the Council of Representatives and by the Government to seek dialogue with civil society aimed at addressing the grievences expressed by the Iraqi people, as well as by the unanimous support given by all Iraqi parties to improving the access of all Iraqis to basic services. Fundamental changes are needed for creating stability and trust." Mahdi al-Hindawi (Dar Addustour) pens a column about the attacks on journalists noting that journalists "are independent" and do not serve political parites or sects or factions, they are observers outside the circle of influence but there are many who work to liquidate journalism. Sami Ramadani (Guardian) reports on efforts to stop last Friday's protests (more protests are scheduled for this Friday) -- efforts by the US government to stop the protests: For its part, the world's biggest US embassy -- the power behind the throne -- took the unprecedented step of broadcasting in Arabic, on state TV, a thinly veiled threat to protesters not to go too far in their demands. The US, it stressed, fully backed the "democratically elected" regime, while supporting the right to peaceful protest. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama must be pretty confused as to which dictatorship they should now abandon and which to prop up. Maliki has so far made four state-TV broadcasts. In the first two he urged people to stay at home, because "Ba'athists and al-Qaida terrorists" had infiltrated the protesters and were planning to kill them. In the third, he was visibly shaken, thanking the protesters and promising reform "within one hundred days". Lastly, he implied the state would react violently and even torture journalists if they wanted to "overthrow" him and his regime, because he was "democratically elected". Al Rafidayn reports Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani held a press conference yesterday where he said the KRG would weigh reforms while noting that he had ordered the pesh merga into Kirkuk. Dar Addustour reports that Kirkuk's curfew was removed yesterday in part due to the influx of additional pesh merga forces. It transitions to the news that Nineveh governor, Ethel al-Nujaifi has refused the request of Nouri al-Maliki to resign as govenor. Al Rafidayn adds that Nujaifi states the protests in Mosul -- the demands and the slogans, chants and signs of the protesters -- addressed the responsibilities of the prime minister and not him. al-Nujaifi is the brother of the Speaker of Parliament, Osama al-Nujaifi. To address unrest in the provinces, one of the measures proposed is to hold provincial elections early. Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that UNHCR has stated that the election law would need to be revised for such a thing to take place and the issue of preparation work for elections also needs to be considered. In other news, Dar Addustour notes the claim that there are 15 candidates being considered for the posts of Minister of the Interior, Defense and National Security. The three posts are (illegitimately) held currently by Nouri al-Maliki. New Sabah reports that Nouri will make a decision next week -- yes, we have heard that before. For months, rumors have swirled that Iraq would be unable to hold the Arab summit March 23rd. It is now March and Al Rafidayn reports that "Arab diplomatic sources" are confirming that the Arab summit will not take place this month but will be pushed back until at least May. And when May rolls around, who knows what will happen then? Al Arabiya also reports the summit has been pushed back to May. Sarah El Deeb (AP) has an English language report on the story here. Among the many official denials in the last weeks was Haidar Al Ibadi, MP from Nouri's State Of Law, noted by Alsumaria TV February 19th. Of course, while those denials were being made, Bi Mingxin (Xinhua) was reporting, "Libya, current holder of the Arab summit's rotating presidency, said the next summit will be delayed over the circumstnaces in the Arab world, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya TV reported earlier Friday." Much had been made of it taking place in Baghdad since in the Arab League's 20 years, it had never held its annual meeting in Iraq. And Nouri's government that can't provide basic services to the Iraqi people began spending big bucks prepping for this event. Lara Jakes (AP) reported in January that the money spent would include $30 million in US dollars alone were to go to the Palestine Hotel in order to ensure that it was ready and presentable. The cancellation will hit Baghdad hotels especially hard since they were looking at up to 5,000 guests requiring lodging. Reuters notes the following violence: 2 Baghdad bombings claimed 1 life and left thirteen injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured two people, another Baghdad roadside bombing injured another two people, a Baghdad bombing injured two people, a third Baghdad roadside bombing injured three people, yesterday a Mosul bombing claimed the life of an Iraqi who had done translation for the US military, a Baghdad bombing injured four people yesterday, a Ramadi suicide bomber took his own life and the life of 1 other people as well as leaving three people injured and 1 person was shot dead outside his Mosul home. Turning to England, whether he took his own life (as has been ruled) or was the victim of foul play, Dr. David Kelly's death is due to the Iraq War. The scientist is the one who told the BBC that the intell was being cooked by Blair's Cabinet to make the case for war. After he was publicly outed as the source, Kelly died. It was ruled a suicide but every few months new developments seem to pop up. Miles Goslett (Daily Mail) reports, "Fresh information casting doubt on how weapons inspector Dr David Kelly died has been sent to the Government by campaigners trying to secure an inquest into his death. Attorney General Dominic Grieve was presented with legal papers on Monday arguing that because there were no fingerprints on five items found with Dr Kelly's body – including the knife he supposedly used to kill himself – a coroner's inquest must be held to determine how he died." BBC News notes today, "The files contain fresh information about the absence of fingerprints on items found near his body in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003. The Hutton inquiry found in 2004 that he had killed himself." The Oxford Mail adds, "Similarly no fingerprints were recovered from a mobile phone, watch or water bottle discovered near to where his body was found, close to his home in Southmoor, near Abingdon. No gloves were found on the body or in its vicinity." iraq the guardian sami ramadani the washington post al kamen al rafidayn dar addustour al mada ayas hossam acommok the daily mail miles goslett bbc news the oxford mail

Blog post (angry reader)

I have an e-mail from an angry reader so I'm doing a blog post tonight. He has a point, by the way. He started reading in 2009.

He never checked the archives (no reason for him to, I agree) and now Betinna's back and he doesn't know her story and he feels I did a brief post on backstory and he's completely lost.

I'm sorry he feels that way. If he does, I'm sure someone else does as well. (Maybe a lot of someone elses.)

Betinna had no memory of her past. She was also being drugged by Thomas Friedman. He told her he had met her on an island and married her. She was instructed (in her drugged state) to repeat, "Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man." Hence the site title.

Slowly, she began to realize she was used a slave and, for example, Mr. Cheapness wouldn't even let her have dresses. She had to wear a sheet draped around her. He told her that was island style. And she had to buy the sheets at flea markets because he was that cheap.

Once Betinna stopped taking the pills (without him knowing she had), that's when she began to realize how screwed up her life was.

It would be some time before she discovered he was lying about everything.

Over time, her memory returned. She was working at a strip mall in New Jersey. He and Nicky K stopped off. Betinna didn't take Thomas Friedman's crap. He was pissed. They were in Nicky K's Pinto and they waited until Betinna was taking trash out to the dumpster. They knocked her out, popped the hatchback and put her in the back.

Nicky K's wife actually helped Betinna. And once Nicky K was confronted, Thomas Friedman went into hiding. Because they weren't married. Because he already had one wife.

Betinna was enraged that she had lost years, been used as a slave, been lied to etc.

Those are the key points. It was about how a man who thinks the world caters to him exploits and uses others.

I hope that helps. If it doesn't, let me know.

So they finally had their face to face last week and Thomas Friedman attempted to kill her. Now Miko has provided her shelter and may have rescued her. That's where we're at now.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 1, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary Clinton says Iraq must receive US billions of dollars because it's a national security risk on the same day that England announces they're cutting aid to Iraq because it's not a national security risk, a new rumor is reported that the US flooded the Green Zone last Friday with US military (including sending them in from out of the country), violence remained high in Februrary (look at the numbers, not the headlines and claims from the ministries), NPR explored US forces in Iraq past 2011, Nouri gets called out by Moqtada al-Sadr, and more. Today on Morning Edition (NPR -- link has audio and text), Kelly McEvers reported on the chances of a withdrawal from Iraq by US forces at the end of 2011. McEvers notes US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates telling the US House Armed Services Committee last month (Feb. 16th) that "there is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence" in Iraq and she notes "one congressman" said Congress would be okay with 20,000 or so troops remaining in Iraq -- that was Democrat Adam Smith from the state of Washington. Now she's noting comments by US commanders in Iraq including the top US commander in Iraq, Gen Lloyd Austin. MCEVERS: This kind of spending puts the U.S. military in a difficult spot, especially back in Washington. On one hand, they have to say Iraq is a success story, that all that American blood and treasure wasn't for naught. On the other hand, they have to say there's still work to be done, so lawmakers increasingly averse to spending will continue funding military efforts here. If a large contingent of US troops doesn't remain in Iraq, the plan is to shift much responsibility to the state department. But that means funding a private army of contractors to do things that Austin says the real army does best. Gen. AUSTIN: If you're talking about combined arms training and joint training, then uniformed people probably do better at conducting that type of training. MCEVERS: For U.S. troops to stay and do that training, Iraq has to formally ask them. Many analysts believe Iraqi officials will wait until the last minute to do so, mainly because no Iraqi politician wants to be seen as pro-American. But Austin says the Iraqis simply can't wait forever to ask. Gen. AUSTIN: The answer is we always need as much time as we can possibly get. The US plan currently to continue the Iraq War past 2011 (US forces remaining in Iraq) are two-fold: One push for a new agreement or an extension of the SOFA to allow DoD to continue to keep forces there while also preparing to switch the forces over to the State Dept (US troops under the State Dept's umbrella) in case no extension or new agreement is reached. Either way, US troops remain past 2011. Today UPI reports on Rasmussen Reports' poll which found "a plurality of U.S. voters think the Arab world's growing unrest makes it unlikely U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the year's end as planned". We'll go into the poll more tomorrow. On her Twitter feed, Kelly McEvers tells another interesting story about a conversation with a US contractor today -- payoff comes in fourth Tweet: Really don't want to talk about Juan Williams and whether Fox is "fair and balanced" with this security contractor. #flightdelay #Iraq about 9 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Now I feel bad. The guy just gave me cliff bars and water. #Iraq #flightdelay about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Guy actually really interesting. Has all his savings ($37K) in #Iraqi dinars. Thinks he might triple his money someday. #flightdelay about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Also sez US mil was VERY worried abt #Iraq day of rage. Sez troops flooded green zone (where he works), some even flew in from US. #feb25 about 7 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone Is that true? Is the contractor telling the truth? Is anyone going to ask the State Dept or the White House or the Defense Dept if this assertion is true? Today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared: Let me walk you through a few of our key investments. First, this budget funds vital civilian missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Qaeda is under perssure as never before. Alongside our military offensive, we are engaged in major civilians effort that is helping to build up the governments, economies and civil societies of both countries and undercut the insurgency. Now these two surges -- the military and civilian surge -- set the stage for a third: a diplomatic push in support of an Afghan process to spilt the Taliban from al-Qaeda, bring the conflict to an end and help stabilize the region. Our military commanders are emphatic they cannot succeed without a strong civilian partner. Retreating from our civilian surge in Afghanistan with our troops still in the field would be a grave mistake. Equally important is our assistance to Pakistan -- a nuclear armed nation with strong ties and interests in Afghanistan. We are working to deepen our partnership and keep it focused on addressing Pakistan's political and economic challenges as well as our shared threats. And as to Iraq? After so much sacrifice, we do have a chance to help the Iraqi people build a stable, democratic country in the heart of the Middle Esat. As troops come home, our civilians are taking the lead, helping Iraqis resolve conflicts peacefully and training their police. It was from her opening remarks to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen set a relaxed but serious tone for the meeting. She and Ranking Member Howard Berman both touched on multiple issues in their opening statements (Berman's appeared to go on forever). Our focus is Iraq. They weren't concerned with it in their opening remarks or in the hearing. Chair Ros-Lehtinen asked Hillary to please summarize her written remarks and, though Hillary agreed she would. she read her prepared remarks outloud. US House Rep Gregory Meeks was one of the few obviously listening to every word (or polite enough to make it appear he was). US House Rep Donald Payne appeared as though he were about to fall asleep during the opening remarks (and Payne and Hillary are friends). When Hillary was talking about State needing to put their "war" money into the Overseas Contingency Operations account (8.7 billion) US House Rep Ann Marie Buerkle's facial expression was an editorial of opposition -- to what wasn't made clear. In her opening questions, Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen asked, "And I ask for US protection for the many residents of Camp Ashraf, many of who are here today in the audience and are concerned about their relatives. Thank you, Madam Secretary." It was a series of questions from the Chair and Camp Ashraf was the last of the series. Time ran out before it was dealt with by Hillary. An excited and red faced US House Rep Dan Burton was concerned about national security due to the fact that so much of our "energy" (oil) is coming from outside the country. If you thought he might have a real discussion on "energy," you were wrong. He wants to open up drilling for oil in the US. Burton announced that "this administration is being derelict in its responsibility." Ron Paul had a long editorial statement that name checked the Iraq War and a hundred other things. A specific question did include Iraq. US House Rep Dannis Cardoza: Madam Secretary, at least 70 people were killed during an attack last October on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad making it the worst massacre of Iraqi Christians since 2003. Less than two months later, extremists bombed the homes of more than a dozen Christian families in Baghdad as well. And on New Year's Eve 23 people were killed by a suicide bomber in Alexandria, Egypt while coming out of mass in St. Marks and St. Peter's Coptic Church. Since these tragic incidents in the Middle East have -- Since these tragic incidents, the Middle East has been rocked by wide ranging protests and regime changes as we've seen in the last few weeks. How has this ongoing instability effected the already heightened risk to vulnerable religious minority groups like Assyrians, Jews, Cops and others? Secretary Hillary Clinton: Congressman, thank you for asking that question. I think this has not gotten the level of attention and concern it should. We immediately went into action when the bombings took place in Baghdad. Our Ambassador [] was deeply involved with the government, making sure that there was protection and security. The ambassador went to Mass in order to show solidarity with Iraqi Christians. But there's no doubt that Christians and other minority groups are feeling under pressure and are leaving countries from North Africa to south Asia because they don't feel protected. I think we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of religious minorities and obviously I'm deeply concerned about what happened to the Christians in Iraq and the Christians in Egypt. I'm also concerned about what happens to minority Muslim groups in Pakistan and elsewhere. So you have raised an issue that I think is one of deep concern and we have to be speaking out more. And we have to hold governments accountable. When I spoke with the prior Egyptian government after the Alexandria bombing, they expressed the same level of outrage that I felt. They said that the Cops are part of, you know, Egyptian history. As you recall from Tahrir Square there were a lot of inter-faith efforts with Cops and Muslims together, worshipping together. Let's hope that continues and let's do whatever we can to make that the future instead of what I am fearful of which is driving out relgious minorities. And the final thing I would say on that because it's an issue that I have paid a lot of attention to, we want to protect religion and religous believers but we don't want to use some of the tools that other countries are proposing -- which is to criminalize defamation, criminalize in the broadest possible definition blasphemy -- and then use it to execute, harass and otherwise oppress religious minorities. So we have to come up with an international consensus about what we're going to do to protect those who are exercising their conscience. While Hillary was repeatedly saying that the billions to go into Iraq -- a third surge, was how she billed it -- were necessary for national security, a curious thing was happening across the Atlantic Ocean. Alex Stevenson (Politics) reports, "Britain has shaken up its international development budget by placing renewed emphasis on poor countries which directly affect the UK's national security. The move means 16 countries including Angola, Niger, Cameroon and Lesotho will no longer receive any funding from Britain. Neither will Russia, Iraq, Vietnam, Bosnia, Serbia and Burudni." That's very interesting. The Iraq War was started and led by the US and the UK. They spent the most money on the illegal war and sent the most bodies to fight it (and had the most foreign people die in Iraq). To sell the Iraq War in the US, Bully Boy Bush resorted to many lies including that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from Africa. Tony Blair, then prime minister of England, had the ability to use chemical and/or biological weapons on England within 45 minutes. That's much quicker than an attack on the US and that's because England is physically closer to Iraq than is the US. So why is it that the UK argues today that they don't need to give Iraq anymore aid because it's not a threat to their own national security but the US -- White House and Hillary Clinton -- is arguing differently? February 10th, Oxfam released their report "Whose Aid is it Anyway?" which argues that aid is not the military (or lunch money you fork over for protection on the playground). They make a solid argument and one I agree with. I'm not taking the State Dept's position that we give aid only for national security. But I am saying that today England announces they're giving aid for their own national security and that means dropping Iraq for them. But in the US, the claim is being pushed that it is our national security that is at stake so we must fund billions and billions more just for next year (that's not even acknowledging what happens after next year when more billions are budgeted for Iraq). It doesn't make sense. And someone needs to clarify it. One country's government is wrong in their classification of Iraq as a national security threat. (And it looks like it's the United States that's wrong.) Security is always at risk in Iraq. And Iraq remains a violent country as a result of the illegal and ongoing war. Reuters reports today a Falluja roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier. Let's review the month. February 2nd, 5 people were reported dead and ten injured, February 3rd, 17 people were reported dead and forty-eight injured. February 4th, 10 were reported dead and twenty-seven injured. February 5th, eighteen were reported injured, February 6th, 1 person was reported dead and five injured. February 7th, 2 were reported dead and thirteen wounded. February 8th, 3 were reported dead and six injured. February 9th, 10 were reported dead and seventy-eight injured. February 10th, 1 person was reported dead and five wounded. February 12th, 38 were reported dead and seventy-four injured. February 13th, 151 were reported dead (we have always counted a mass grave discovered -- grave from 2003 and later -- in the violence count, it was 150 on this day and 1 protester died). February 14th, six people were reported injured. February 15th, 3 were reported dead and eleven injured. February 16th, 7 were reported dead and fifty-eight injured. February 17th, 9 people were reported dead and forty-seven injured. February 18th, 23 were killed and thirty-one injured. February 20th, 3 were reported dead and six injured. February 21st, 13 were reported dead and fifty-nine injured. February 22nd, five people were injured. February 23rd, 2 people were reported dead and twenty-two injured. February 24th, 18 were reported dead and thirty-eight injured. February 25th, 23 were reported dead and ninety injured. February 26th, 7 were reported dead and eighteen wounded. February 27th, 6 people were reported dead. February 28th, 1 person was reported dead and seven wounded. For the month of February, 353 people were reported dead and 682 were reported injured. The150 corpses counted were not counted when they died. No one knew about it then. We've always counted them when they were discovered. (Which is the way most crime bases do as well in the US.) For those who insist, "It's not fair! It inflates violence!" Yes, it does. And not including in real time (when it wasn't known) made Iraq appear much less violent than it was. Those are the trade-offs. But for the whiners, if you take the 150 away you have 203. AFP tells us the Iraqi ministries ministries count 197 reported deaths. They then claim 330 people were injured. The wounded is obviously off. It should further be noted that the numbers we are counting are probably way off because they're an under-report. McClatchy hasn't done a daily violence report since December 7th. Few bother to report violence anymore. Iraq Body Count has a total of 254 killed for this month. That's probably more accurate than either our number or the ministries. AFP notes the toll was 259 in January (according to ministries). IBC says 254, the ministries say 197. Go with IBC. And 254 is only 5 less than the ministries claims for January so you can say violence stayed more or less exactly the same in February as it was in January. Some outlets might need to correct their copy and especially their headlines. What does all the violence mean? It does impact lives. The daily press rarely conveys that -- or even tries to -- anymore. Journalist Annia Ciezadlo's new book is Day of Honey: A Memoir of Food, Love and War. She was a guest on Think with Krys Boyd (KERA) today (here for audio). Annia Ciezadlo: There's a story in the book, a short chapter, about a mother in Baghdad. And-and it was just this heartbreaking thing that I actually wrote for the Houston Chronicle. It was the first story I wrote from Baghdad. This mother who had been very, very spooked -- as had many parents in Iraq -- by this terrible bombing that happened right at the beginning of Ramadan. And, as it happened, it was the week before her daughter's birthday. And so she kept her daughter out of school for -- I think it was a week and a half. She-she finally -- Her daughter was going crazy, but it was this terrible choice that she had to make: Let my daughter go to school and take the risk that their might be a bombing on the very road she might be taking to school? Or do I say ''no, education comes first, we can't live like this" and send her to school? It was a horrible choice to have to make. So she decided that she was going to throw this extra special birthday party for her daughter and she was going to get her this fabulous cake. And-and the more she talked about the cake, the more I realized, really, it wasn't about having a fancy cake. The cake had become this symbol to her of normal life, her ablility to go to school and send her daughter to school and all of these things that they had lost. I think -- I think it's natural. I think we all do that with food. I think we all have a food that symoblizes to us something more than just that food. Krys Boyd: And one thing that, you know, people may not make this direct connection a lot about market places being targeted in times of war, particularly in that part of the world. Even shopping for food can be a dangerous thing. This is this day-to-day thing we always have to do, even when there's a war going on. And it might be the most dangerous thing people go out and do. Annia Ciezadlo: Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's one of the first places that gets targeted: Marketplaces, restaurants, hotels, cafes. I think there's a couple of reasons for this. I think terrorists like to target these places because nothing sews fear like this attack on something you have to do every day, really an attack on normal life. And I should add that in a place like Baghdad where electricity is very irregular, you have to go shopping every day because you can't just keep stuff in the freezer or refrigerator. So all of these forces combine to make it absolutely essential that you go to the market but also dangerous. I think there's another thing about markets and I have a real -- I'm a real market nut. I love markets. And one of the reasons I love markets is that they're often in a city that might be somewhat segregated or somewhat, you know, Balkanized. But the market is usally the place where everybody goes. It's usually a place that's free of divisions or relatively free of divisions of sect or gender or, you know, religion, ethnicity, these kinds of things. And I think that's one of the things that makes them so wonderful and I think that's why terrorists like to target them. Along with the immediate effects of the violence, there are the longterm effects of some of the weapons that the US and England used in Iraq. The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons announces a news conference in Hiroshima this Saturday: Iraq War and Inhuman Weapons: What is Happening at the Hospitals in Fallujah Now -- An Urgent Appeal toward the 8th Anniversary of Iraq War -- Time: PM 3:30-6:00, March 5, 2011 Venue: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, Conference Room II Speakers: 1) Ms Samira Alani: pediatrician 2) Ms Mayasah Waleed: radiologist 3) Mr. Abdulgader Abdulkareem: geneticist 4) Ms Yukiko Hashida: director, Hashida Memorial Mohammad Fund 5) Prof. Nobuo Kazashi, director, NO DU Hiroshima Project Moderator: Ms Haruko Moritaki, executive director, NO DU Hiroshima Project The three Iraqi doctors are going to report about the reality they are faced with now at their hospitals in Fallujah; lately the media has been reporting about the alarming increase of congenital deformities in Fallujah where it is suspected that various inhuman weapons including DU weapons were used during the fierce attacks by the U.S. forces in 2004. Last year it was also reported that WHO had started an independent study on the critical situation in Fallujah. Three doctors are staying in Japan for about a month with the support of JICA and Hashida Memorial Mohammad Fund. Yesterday morning we were noting how the New York Times couldn't be bothered mentioning the assault on Iraqi journalists. A day later, they still can't find the story. This despite the fact that by yesterday evening, The Committee to Protect Journalists had called out the assaults, as had Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) and Reporters Without Borders released their open letter to KRG President Massoud Barzani while Nouri al-Maliki had apologized to one reporter, Wissam Ojji (Turkman Eli TV), publicly. Al Rafidayn reports Ojji accepted Nouri's apology. No report on that in the New York Times today. Alsumaria TV reports the White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Visor issued a statement which included: "We were also deeply troubled by reports that Iraqi Security Forces detained and beat Iraqi journalists and civil society leaders during Friday's demonstrations." Those reports Visor refers to never ran in the New York Times. Even the Guardian manages a brief item today, "Over the weekend, a number of reporters were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square." But the New York Times, which was determined to sell Friday as a day of violence -- but to hang the blame for that on the protesters -- never managed to report on what was going on. Meanwhile with Ayad Allawi, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr weighing in on the protests Saturday, New Sabah reports that Jalal Talabani has now issued a statement in support of the Iraqi people -- what a brave move. Why is it that the President of Iraq is always the last to make a statement or take a position? Al Mada notes that Talabani declared that democracy is the aspiration which drives people. Nouri's press conference yesterday was to again proclaim "reform." New Sabah reveals that among the issues he floated was reducing retirement age from 63-years-old to 61-years-old. Dar Addustour reports he declared the proposed change was necessary to provide young people with opportunities. He also pledged more construction projects. (Day laborers and construction workers were among the first to join the recent wave of protests in Iraq.) Meanwhile, though the New York Times misses it, the Iraqi press is all over Moqtada al-Sadr's remarks. New Sabah reports that al-Sadr has declared Nouri is the one responsible for the conditions in Iraq nothing that Nouri "tops the pyramid" of power. Dar Addustour also leads with al-Sadr saying Nouri had full responsibility for the conditions in Iraq and that he's compared it to what has taken place in Egypt and calls for Nouri to address the issues. If Nouri seems a little on the ropes, that may explain why, when asked about a rumored cabinet post for Ahmed Chalabi at yesterday's press conference, he begged off. Raman Brosk (Zawya) reports that al-Sadr announced yesterday the seven-day referendum he's calling "People's Voice Week." The referendum is a rather silly idea. But it does keep Moqtada's name before the public and does give the appearance that he is doing something which may be the whole point. Meanwhile Dar Addustour reports that Iraqiya is accusing State Of Law of blocking the appointment of heads for the security ministries -- Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Defense and Ministry of National Security. The posts have never been filled. Nouri appointed himself the minister of all three 'temporarily' but that's gone on for months now. New Sabah notes that Iraqiya reminded Nouri is the head of State Of Law. Yesterday, Time magazine's Bobby Ghosh appeared on C-Span's Washington Journal and Iraq briefly came up: Maryland Caller (on the GOP line): I wanted to know what your thoughts were on what sort of example and therefore role Iraqi government might play in the Middle East uprising as it continues to afford more and more democratic opportunties to its people. Thank you. Bobby Ghosh: That's a great -- that's a great question. And what we're seeing in Iraq right now, unfortunately, does not -- does not lend itself to a lot of confidence in the Arab world. You're seeing a lot of instability in Iraq. This is a country that took more than 200 days to create a government after elections. Iraq's new government has already proven itself to be very corrupt and not very responsive to its people which is why Iraqis have also been inspired by what's happened in Egypt and Tunisia and over the last week there's been a lot of uprising all over Iraq -- from the north to the south -- against the government and there have been demonstrations demanding that the government respond to the needs of the people. I think if Iraq stands as an example to the Middle East, it is that Iraqis now have an opportunity to express themselves. That Iraqis have the ability now to go out and, without fear, and demonstrate and protest and make themselves heard. And every four years, they have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. They have the opportunity to kick out a government that is not responsive to them. Bobby Ghosh has an informed view. That doesn't make him correct. The Iraqi people have been fairly consistent about why they're protesting and that they're not copying. One element of Iraq has been pushing the notion that they're aping others: Iraq's Communist Party has repeatedly attempted to tie it in with Egypt. The press has treated the Communist Party as the spokesperson on the protests -- and they are not that. They are one segment of the protests. But while treating them like the spokesperson, the press has repeatedly refused to identify the Communist Party. I have no idea why. But that's what's happened over and over. And if you're a member of the Communist Party, you have a world view that is different than some people. For instance, you see a global struggle against capitalism and all its effects. If you're predisposed to see a global struggle, you're going to be making statements linking your actions to actions in other countries -- whether or not there is an actual linkage. (You can see that in the US with those who started the efforts to link Wisconsin with Egypt -- as well as those sad speakers who turn off half of America every time they use terms like "solidarity" and "brothers and sisters" and "comrades" in what are supposed to be working class, just US follks, speeches.) It is interesting that the Communist Party in Iraq (which the US government should have supported from the start of the invasion but did not and has not) is rendered invisible by so much of the Western press; however, they grab onto it for this instance. Iraq's protests were inspired by Ned Parker and Human Rights Watch exposing the secret prisons. That's what got people in the streets besides Iraq's union workers (the leather workers were doing protests with very small turnouts). The secret prisons were denied by Nouri al-Maliki. The families of the prisoners turned out and they were protesting. They were the spine of the protests and you had day laborers and contructions workers and others joining but it was that higher purpose and that authority that inspired the original protests and it was the way these protesters were treated that allowed the spreading to other areas of Iraq. And you can see that even in the original areas where a number of women were not participating in the protests until the protesters started getting beaten up and locked up. That's when those areas came alive (though the US press still wasn't paying attention). That acted as an agent of change and the efforts to eradicate that from the story are very annoying and possibly very telling. I think Bobby Ghosh is less than honest when he claims that now Iraqis can protest without any fears. Explain the secret arrests? Explain the crackdowns? Explain the targeting of journalists and academics? No fears? I don't know where he's getting that. And then there is this remark: "And every four years, they have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. They have the opportunity to kick out a government that is not responsive to them." How does Iraq have that? They votes were counted and recounted. And Nouri succeeded in using the power of being the sitting prime minister to have many votes thrown out. Even so, Iraqiya got more votes than State Of Law (Nouri's slate is State Of Law). How were the people heard? They weren't heard. Nouri refused to budge and the man whose party got the least votes was allowed to put together the government and remain prime minister. (The US government backed all of that with promises, strong-arming and bribes.) So Bobby Ghosh might want to reconsider the claims that Iraqis have no fears in protesting and that they have had any real voice in their own government. Andrew Raine (The National) reports: Authorities in Iraq are using a mixture of strong-arm tactics and financial persuasion to prevent anti-government protests gaining momentum. The political stakes escalated significantly when thousands of people took to the streets of Baghdad and other major cities last week to demand reforms, improved services and an end to the corruption associated with Iraq's new political elite. Those demonstrations, the largest yet in Iraq, were met by force, as riot police opened fire on protesters with live ammunition. At least 29 people were killed, including a 14-year-old boy. Since then, army and police units have beaten, arrested or threatened scores of political activists and journalists, their colleagues say. Meanwhile, government security and intelligence agencies are trying to root out the organisers of the protests, especially those who are using the internet in an attempt to organise another mass protest. And we'll close with this from the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee: MURRAY TO CHAIR VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET (Washington, D.C.) – Tomorrow, Wednesday, March 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will chair a hearing on the President's budget. The Committee will meet at 10:30 a.m. in Room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Witnesses will include: PANEL I The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Accompanied by: The Honorable Robert A. Petzel, MD, Under Secretary for Health Michael Walcoff, Acting Under Secretary for Benefits Steve L. Muro, Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs The Honorable Roger W. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology W. Todd Grams, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management PANEL II Independent Budget Representatives Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans Christina M. Roof, National Acting Legislative Director, AMVETS Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars Tim Tetz, Director, National Legislative Commission, The American Legion Maryann D. Hooker, MD, Lead Neurologist, Wilmington, Delaware VA Medical Center, representing American Federation of Government Employees iraq al rafidayn alsumaria tv the guardian new sabah al mada dar addustour zawya raman brosk npr morning edition kelly mcevers