Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Not interested in the web page that auto plays screaming from the Boston bombings

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Talk Is Cheap"...

Talk Is Cheap


Little Dicky will always love Barack.

I had an e-mail insisting I needed to highlight Hillary Is 44.

I checked to see the name on it.  It wasn't from "Betty."

So I didn't send it to myself and, last time I checked, I was the only one who could decide what went up here.

I won't link to any post to Hillary Is 44 these days.  I do check and did today.

For whatever reason -- stupidity? -- they still have the post about the Boston bombings on their main page so when you load the page -- because they didn't know how to put a video in properly -- a video from that day starts loading and you hear people -- real people, not actors -- screaming in horror and pain.

I'm not interested in that.  Once, it's news.  More than once, it's porn.

Repeating, all you have to do is load the page to get stuck with that screaming.

You don't have to scroll down the page, find the post and video and click "play."

So I'm just not interested in them currently.

When that video is off the main page, I'll check it out.  And probably link to it but I'm disgusted with the fact that visiting their site means I have to hear real people screaming in pain and horror.

That should be my choice.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 
Wednesday, April 24, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri sends helicopters to attack a village, rebels refuse to back down and fight back throughout Iraq, the Ministry of Human Rights issues a statement calling for an end to attacks on peaceful protesters, Human Rights Watch calls for a real investigation into the slaughter of Hawija, a corrupt British man gets convicted, an American's wife asserts he is being abused in an Iraqi prison, Senator Patty Murray wants answers from the military about assault in the ranks, Cindy Sheehan continues her Tour De Peace, and more.



Sometime when we have reached the end
With the velvet hill in the small of our backs
And our hands are clutching the sand
Will our blood become a part of the river
All of the rivers are givers to the ocean
According to plan, according to man
There's a chance peace will come
In your life please buy one
-- "Peace Will Come (According to Plan)," written by Melanie, first appears on her Leftover Wine


Fed up with empty promises?  Tired of the change that never came?  Cindy Sheehan's not just talking about a better world, she's doing her part to create one with the  Tour De Peace.  Over the weekend, she noted:


I will continue this rolling vigil for peace and justice, whether I ride alone, or not; but it would be much better for me, and the children of the world, if this cause for peace and justice got as much support as the one we held in Crawford, TX received, wouldn't it?  It would show our government and the terrorized people of the world that people in the US do oppose what the Empire is about.


The Tour De Peace finds her bicycling to DC.  Today, she's finishing up in Arizona.  Tomorrow she starts riding through New Mexico.  Tomorrow evening, in Babe Ruth Park (Gallup, New Mexico) Cindy Sheehan's Tour De Peace will have a gathering at 6:00 pm.  Hank Woji will be performing.  Details here.


This week's broadcast of Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox includes her discussing the ride for peace with Abby Martin (RT's Breaking The Set).  Excerpt.
 

Cindy Sheehan:  We're trying to call attention to whistle-blowers, to the war economy, to the money spent on war.  We're trying to call attention to the fact that there are War Crimes happening right now -- the previous administration committed War Crimes and crimes against humanity and the current administration is protecting those War Criminals while they're persecuting whistle-blowers and other social justice and peace activists also.  And so, I'm upset with Obama, I'm upset with the empire as usual.  But I'm more frustrated with the movement -- or the lack of movement in the movement.  So DC is an important place, but we want to organize across the country.  We want to rally people together to say that these wars are still happening, Obama has expanded Africa to the 35 or 36 countries where US troops are or drones are, and it's just pitiful the lack of response to it.  


You can show your opposition to the war economy of empire and hang out with Cindy tomorrow in Babe Ruth Park. 


In Iraq?  Today did not bring the peace -- or even just a minor ease of tensions -- that so many no doubt hoped for.   Tim Arango (New York Times) reports, "In what appeared to be a new phase in an intensifying conflict that has raised fears of greater bloodshed and a wider sectarian war, Iraqi soldiers opened fire from helicopters on Sunni gunmen hiding in a northern village on Wednesday, officials said."  Those are weaponized helicopters that were supplied by the United States.  National Iraqi News Agency cites with Kurdistan Alliance MP Ashwaq al-Jaf who states that the helicopters attacked Sulaiman Bek (Salahuddin Province) and that, "Kifri Hospital shortly received dozens of injured in Sulaiman Bek, after some villages were bombed by aircraft of Iraqi army."

Violence today was massive.  All Iraq News notes a Tuz Khurmato car bombing claimed the lives of 3 people and left eleven injured, an armed clash in Tuz Khurmato claimed the lives of 4 members of the Iraqi military and 7 rebels, an armed attack on the Salam Bek left 6 police officers dead, a Tikrit bombing left 3 Iraqi soldiers dead and a fourth injured, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left nine more people injured, an armed attack in Mosul left 1 Iraqi soldier dead, and a Tarmiya car bombing claimed 3 lives and left eight injuredNINA adds that 1 police officer and 3 of his bodyguards were shot dead in Tikrit (with another member of the police left injured), an attack in Falluja left three police members injured, a second attack in Falluja on a police patrol car left two officers injured, 2 rebels who attacked a Mosul army checkpoint were shot dead, when Nouri's thugs in Baiji attempted to attack the ongoing, peaceful sit-in they were greeted by armed rebels with 19 people being left dead or injured (on "both sides"), and an armed clash in Tikrit left 1 police officer and 7 rebels dead.


We're saying "rebels" and that's what they are now.  The media allowed the US government to intimidate them on terminology at the start of the war.  These are rebels.  If you're not getting that, let's drop over to Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN):


On Wednesday, Sulaiman Pek was completely under control of militants, Ali Hashim, a member of the Salaheddin provincial council, told CNN.
Iraqi security forces withdrew from the town to prevent more bloodshed there, he said. Most of the gunmen are residents of the town, Hashim added.

 So the city's controlled by it's own "residents."  That's a rebellion.  Last night, Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) offered, "The unrest led two Sunni officials to resign from the government and risked pushing the country's Sunni provinces into an open revolt against Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a Shiite. The situation looked to be the gravest moment for Iraq since the last U.S. combat troops left in December 2011."   That was a very good but what has taken place since that call, on the ground in Iraq, is not a revolt, actions across Iraq are too widespread for a revolt.  That makes it a rebellion as anyone who studied political science (that includes me) damn well knows.

Saying "unknown assailants" and "gunmen" may have made some sense at one time.  We've used the first term here repeatedly.  But that's not what's being described today.  Nouri would love those terms to be used because they're vague and they can be twisted to include 'foreigners.'

Sulaiman Pek is under the control of its local residents who rebelled against Nouri's forces -- rebelled against the forces and dispersed them.  Those are rebels, that's a rebellion.  It may be short-lived and gone by the end of the week or it may last for a longer period of time (might become a civil war) but terms do matter and the terms were defined long, long ago before Bully Boy Bush ever entered office and the press ever decided to take orders from him.  The worst of the press, Dan Rather, isn't even an anchor anymore, thank heavens.  September 17, 2001, 'brave' Dan declared on David Letterman's CBS talk show of Bully Boy Bush, "He makes the deicisions, and you know, it's just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where, and he'll make the call."

 Dan Rather is a coward and was always a coward.  Every now and then someone will note something in an e-mail that Dan's done, something 'brave.'  Not interested.   If you're in the news industry, you'd be smart not to do what Dan did and that includes being a cowardly toady convinced that if you kept your mouth shut and let others (like Mary Mapes) take the fall, the network would stand by you.  When you're reporting is challenged, CNN, CBS and the rest don't look at it in terms of journalism if the challenge is coming from the government, they look at it under a completely different standard -- and no journalist will ever win on those grounds.  It's probably set-up that way, in fact.  April Oliver and others learned it at CNN.  Dan Rather still can't learn it despite being fired and suing (and losing to) CBS.

Terms are terms and they exist for a reason.  It does matter what you call something.  What took place today was a rebellion.

Using the wrong terms distorts reality and confuses on events.  That's what happens in the report by Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) on Sulaiman Bek, "The clashes occurred when Iraqi security forces backed by helicopters stormed the town in the early morning hours, after dozens of militants seized the town late Tuesday night." Residents seized their own town?  No, they asserted their rights as citizens.  Then Nouri's forces came in shooting.


Why were they there to begin with? Salahuddin may not be independent but that's not their fault.  They took the measures and Nouri illegally and unconstitutionally ignored them.  Let's drop back to December 13, 2011:



 
Thursday, October 27th, Salahuddin Province's council voted to go semi-autonomous.  The next step would be a referendum (that Nouri al-Maliki's government out of Baghdad would have to pay for) and, were the popular vote to back up the council and were the rules followed (always a big if with Nouri as prime minister), Baghdad would control only 14 provinces (of the 18).  Friday, October 28th, residents of Anbar Province took to the streets advocating for their province to follow Salahuddin's lead.  When Nouri finally issued a public statement on Salahuddin's move, what did he do?  Play the B-card. Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) quoted a statement from Nouri declaring, "The Baath Party aims to use Salahuddin as a safe haven for Baathists and this will not happen thanks to the awareness of people in the province. Federalism is a constitutional issue and Salahuddin provincial council has no right to decide this issue."  Yesterday Aswat al-Iraq reported, "Iraqi Parliament Speaker Usama Nujaifi today charged the Cabinet with violating the constitution by rejecting requests to refer Salahal-Din Province's request to declare itself a region to the Election Commission."  How could Nouri be violating the Constitution?  Back in October,  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explained, "In actual fact, article 119 of the Iraqi constitution requires only that a referendum be held in a province following a request for regional status by one-third of the members of the provincial council, or one-tenth of the population." From the Iraqi Constitution:


Article 119:
One or more governorates shall have the right to organize into a region based on a request to be voted on in a referendum submitted in one of the following two methods:
First: A request by one-third of the council members of each governorate intending to form a region.
Second: A request by one-tenth of the voters in each of the governorates intending to form a region.
Per the Constitution, Salahuddin Province has already met step one. And met it back in October.  Nouri's refusal to follow the next step is what puts him in violation of the Constitution.


The Kurdish Globe summarized these events as:

The provincial council of Salahadin last October unanimously supported making the province an autonomous region after the dismissal of faculty members from the University of Tikrit and mass arrests in Salahaddin province. Last October, the Baghdad Ministry of Higher Education dismissed 140 faculty members from the University of Tikrit in Salahaddin Province. The ministry pointed out that "it was simply following the parliamentary directive on "de-Baathification." Later, Iraqi security forces started an operation in the central and southern provinces, arresting former members of the Baath Party and accusing them of plotting a coup against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government after the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of this year.
 


So what you've got is Nouri attacking a province that declared its independence in October of 2011 and you've got him attacking it with helicopters shooting blindly on the area -- displacing families -- because residents are in control of a city?

Who's in control of Nouri because someone needs to yank the leash.

It's a shame there's no one in the administration who ever warned about the possibility that Nouri could attack his own people, it's a shame that -- Oh, wait.  Then-Senator Joe Biden, now Vice President of the United States, addressed just that in a Senate hearing on April 10, 2008.  You'd think he'd have something today -- especially since what Salahuddin and others were trying to do?  Exactly the federation that Joe Biden proposed while in the Senate and while running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.   I know Joe and I like Joe and I'm having the same problem anyone who knows Joe is having right now: His silence.  If you know Joe, you know he's never missed an opportunity to argue he was right.  Apparently, he's now muzzled.


As we noted yesterday, the State Dept press corps on Wednesday had no questions about Iraq despite the slaughter in Hawija -- and despite spokesperson Patrick Ventrell noting Hawija in his opening remarks before taking questions.  Apparently, having explored Sudan, Bejing, Egypt and everywhere but Atlantis yesterday, today they decided to briefly ask about Iraq.



QUESTION: On Iraq.

MR. VENTRELL: Michel.

QUESTION: Any reaction to the clashes that went on today between the Iraqi army and armed Sunni tribesmen that killed 28 people around the country?

MR. VENTRELL: I don't have an update from yesterday, other than to say you heard us -- well, the only update is I believe that the Iraqi Government has called for an investigation. So we do want a fair, transparent, timely investigation that has broad participation. But we were very clear yesterday that we condemn this violence and that we want the Iraqi people and their leaders to work through constitutional processes and their institutions to find concrete solutions. So I guess the update from yesterday is that they've called for an investigation. We welcome that. But we want it to be fair and transparent.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that the country could be headed toward a new round of sectarian violence?

MR. VENTRELL: We have been concerned and we've long expressed our concerns that there is a risk for sectarian conflict, but -- given Iraq's history, but that we're encouraging all leaders to move away from that and that there’s no place for sectarian conflict in a democratic state. And so you know what our goal is. It's to help maintain with our Iraqi partners that they have a unified, democratic, stable, and secure Iraq, and we want them to work through their issues in the political sphere. And so to the extent that there's this tension and violence, we'd much rather have the Iraqis sitting down and working through this in specific and concrete ways to work through their differences.

QUESTION: Any communications with the Iraqi Government in this regard?

MR. VENTRELL: Our officials from our Embassy have been in contact with senior Iraqi leaders to help defuse tensions, and that’s really been done out of Embassy in Baghdad.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) of Iraq, there was no sectarian conflict until the U.S. engagement of 2003. On this very point, are you leading any kind of reconciliation effort, and if not, why not?

MR. VENTRELL: I think I already answered this, Said, that we’re very clear that we’re against the sectarian conflict, we’re against sectarian violence, and we stand ready to help our Iraqi partners work through these things in the political sphere.



Yesterday's slaughter by Nouri's forces of peaceful protesters in Hawija is not forgotten in Iraq.  
Kitabat notes that the Association of Muslim Scholars note that the government continues its assault on protesters only if its seeking to tear Iraq apart and the scholars are calling for this Friday's protests to be around the theme of national unity.  Alsumaria adds that the Arab League also expressed their concerns about what is happening in Iraq, called for a full investigation into what happened in Hawija and for those responsible to be brought to justice. All Iraq News quotes from a statement by the Ministry of Human Rights, "Regarding the events in Hawija district and the peaceful gathering of people, we call on security forces to respect the freedom of opinions and the peaceful demonstrations since the Iraqi constitution granted Iraqi people the right to demand their legitimate rights under the law." 


World Bulletin reports, "Deputy Prime Minister of Saleh Muhammed al-Mutlaq has submitted his resignation in protest of the ongoing violence in Iraq.  On the other hand, Ayad Allawi, head of Iraqiya group, did not accept Al-Mutlaq's resignation, and asked him to follow up Hawijah case.  Allawi assigned Al-Mutlaq for three weeks to work on Hawijah incidents as well as demands of protestors.All Iraq News quotes from Allawi's statement -- noting that and this, "Mutleq was also commissioned to monitor the political balance at the state departments.  If there will be no progress in addressing these files after the end of the deadline, then the Iraqiya Slate will quit from the government and maybe from the entire political process."


 Alsumaria notes Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) has announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in yesterday's assault.  Kitabat reports thousands have turned out today for the funerals of yesterday's victims -- they count at least 34 funerals -- and that mourners chanted slogans.  Sami al-Assi, a mourner, tells Kitbat that they don't want a commission or a committee or financial compensation, they want the killers punished.


Human Rights Watch issued a release today on yesterday's attack. We'll note this from the release:




Iraqi authorities should ensure that a promised investigation into a deadly raid on April 23, 2013, in Haweeja, near Kirkuk, examines allegations that security forces used excessive and lethal force. Government statements said armed men at a protest sit-in fired on security forces, killing three soldiers, but local sources and media reports said security forces attacked demonstrators without provocation, killing dozens of people. The government put the death toll at 27.
On April 23, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced the formation of a special ministerial committee to investigate the deaths. The government had previously announced investigations into killings by security forces of protesters in Fallujah and Mosul in January and March, but has so far not released any results nor has anyone been publicly held to account.

“The Iraqi authorities shouldn’t respond to the killings in Haweeja by once again failing to hold security forces responsible for unlawful killings of demonstrators,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Turning a blind eye to previous abuses has helped create the violent environment that today threatens to escalate across Iraq.”

The sit-in, local sources told Human Rights Watch, comprised around 1,000 people from Haweeja protesting what they characterized as the government’s unfair treatment of Sunnis. The protest, in “Sahat al-Ghira wa al-Sharaf” (“Pride and Honor” Square), began more than three months ago.  There were no reports of earlier violence between protesters and security forces, who had surrounded the square since April 19, following an attack on a government checkpoint.
Sheikh Saadoun Findi al-Obeidi, one of the sit-in’s organizers, was not in the square during the raid but told Human Rights Watch he spoke to numerous protesters who were present. They told him that “SWAT” security forces, which report directly to al-Maliki, surrounded the protesters at dawn on April 23, and said the forces attacked the crowd at 5 a.m. An Iraqi Defense Ministry statement said the army responded to live fire, and an attack ensued in which 27 people were killed: three soldiers and “a combination of protesters and militants.”

“The protesters told me that the SWAT forces first sprayed the crowd with hot water, then started shooting directly at the people who were armed only with sticks,” al-Obeidi told Human Rights Watch. The security forces “knew that demonstrators didn’t have weapons,” he said.

Protesters reported to al-Obeidi that 50 demonstrators were killed and 120 injured in the clashes. As protesters tried to run from the square to escape the shooting, he said, security forces also arrested “large numbers” of people. The Defense Ministry admitted to detaining 75.

Local and international media reported that the security forces used helicopters, tear gas, and live ammunition in the raid, and that later in the day, there were several retaliatory attacks against security forces in Haweeja by unknown groups. According to the reports, some armed groups took control of government security checkpoints.




Any real investigation into the attack on Hawija needs to include what led up to it which means noting that just last week Nouri al-Maliki, while traveling through Iraq to campaign for various State of Law candidates ahead of last Saturday's provincial election in 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces, yet again verbally attacked the protesters.  From Thursday's snapshot:


  Kitabat reports that tribal leaders in Dhi Qar have signed a letter apologizing to activists.  For what?  For Nouri's "abusive verbal attack" on them.  Nouri gave a little speech where he called the peaceful activists lawless rebels and threatened to use force against them.  Peaceful protests have been going on across Iraq, peaceful protests against Nouri, since December.
They aren't the only ones condemning Nouri for those remarks.  NINA notes that Osama al-Nujaifi's party has condemned the remarks and called for Nouri to stop verbally attacking demonstrators and return to Baghdad to oversea security issues.  Osama al-Nujaifi is part of the Iraqiya political slate but this was his Motahedoon Coalition issuing the condemnation.  Iraqiya also condemned the remarks.  Maysoun al-Damlouji, Iraqiya spokesperson, is quoted by NINA stating, "Describing our honorable people who peacefully demonstrate across Iraq demanding their legitimate rights as conspirators is the ugliest words you can use against the oppressed people." Iraqiya MP Ahmed al-Alwani added that Nouri's attacks on demonstrators "incite sectarian strife."

Even Nouri's new bride Saleh al-Mutlaq is calling out the remarks leading Kitabat to wonder if the honeymoon is over for Nouri and Saleh or if this is just more propaganda from Saleh in an attempt to boost the votes for the National Dialogue Front?

Nouri has returned to Baghdad. Kitabat explains that he rushed back to Baghdad after his speech in Nasiriyah was interrupted with cries of "Liar!" when he began verbally attacking the protesters.


This is not a minor point.  He did this in 2011 during that wave of protests and he's done to these protesters since December 21st when the latest wave began.  What message has been sent to the military when their commander-in-chief repeatedly attacks peaceful protesters?

Last night, Mike noted Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) explaining the problems with Nouri's claims that those attacked were terrorists and Ba'athists:

Iraqi troops raided the camp early in the day, and the Defense Ministry claimed that they found rocket-propelled grenades and sniper rifles among the protesters. Mysteriously, none of these weapons appear to have been used by the protesters to protect themselves during the raid, and protest leaders say some of the slain were just run over by military vehicles during the advance on the camp.



Mike went on to observe of the US government, "The notion that we stand for freedom around the world is revealed yet again as a lie.  We keep backing tyrants and despots."  Ruth offered:

 As much as the world mourned the bombing in Baghdad, we should be mourning the assault on the peaceful protesters in Hawija. I wished today Bully Boy Bush were still in the White House. I wished that because the press would have asked him to explain how that was "democracy" in Iraq?  The press could, and should, but will not, ask President Barack Obama the same question.  Not only did he vote for the war once he got into the Senate (yes, America, voting to continue to fund the war is voting for the war) but he also insisted Nouri al-Maliki get a second term even though the voters in 2010 said no, putting his State of Law in second place to Iraqiya.


Betty added, "Nouri's slaughtered those innocent people.  He should be tossed in a cell and put on trial for what he ordered.  He is nothing but a tyrant. And that's why the US needs to stop backing him.  Stop forking over billions to him, stop providing him with weapons he turns around and uses on the Iraqi people."  Rebecca also noted the refusal of the White House to call out Nouri:


when a tyrant who gets billions from the u.s. taxpayers every year attacks his own people, that's when aid gets ended. barack, you asleep?
you on another vaction?
what's going on? you can't call it out? you're too much of a chicken to stand up to nouri al-maliki?


Kat was reminded of attacks on others who peacefully protested and bullies and thugs who led those attacks, "Today, George Wallace's name is Nouri al-Maliki.  Today, he is the force of evil who tramples on the rights of those who just want to peacefully exist. There will always be faces of evil.  And it's our job to make the right decisions and stand up against them.  I cannot believe that this thug, this face of hatred and evil, has the backing of the US government, gets billions of our tax dollars." 



We'll move over to the US and then end with England.  Yesterday's snapshot covered a bit of the Tuesday Senate Budget Committee hearing and the plan was to pick up on that today or tomorrow.  It'll have to be tomorrow, we're out of space.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of that Committee and we'll note this from her office on a Senate Budget Committee hearing today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
(202) 224-2834


Senator Murray Questions Navy, Marine Corps on Sexual Abuse
Recent report shows Marine Corps has highest percentage of reported female sexual assault
Navy Secretary Mabus: “I’m angry about it.”
WATCH hearing.
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, expressed deep concern for the high rates of reported military sexual assault during a Defense Subcommittee hearing examining the Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2014 budget request. Disturbing data about the rates of abuse was recently revealed in the Department of Defense’s “2011 Health Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel.” The Pentagon survey showed the Marine Corps had the highest percentage of abuse reported, with nearly 30 percent of females saying they had been sexually abused during service. The Subcommittee heard testimony from The Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, and General James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
“General Amos, in your testimony you described a number of good steps you have taken to combat military sexual assault in the Marine Corps,” said Senator Murray during the hearing. “You also discussed how sexual assault is entirely incompatible with the culture of the Marine Corps. But I was very concerned by a recent USA TODAY article which discussed the results of the Pentagon health survey. According to that report, of all the services, the Marine Corps has the highest percentage of female servicemembers reporting they were sexually assaulted. Do you have any thoughts on why this might be?
Senator Murray also questioned Secretary Mabus about the new Department of Defense Instruction on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures, released by Defense Secretary Hagel on March 28, 2013. “I have been asked if I’m concerned about sexual assault,” said Secretary Mabus during the hearing. “And my reply has been, ‘That is not an accurate description and I don’t think it applies to either General Amos or Admiral Greenert.’ I’m angry about it. This is an attack on our sailors and our Marines. And it’s an attack from the inside. It’s something we simply have to fix. If someone was walking around taking shots at random at our sailors and our Marines, we would fix it. And this is no less of an attack on the integrity and the structure of our force.”
Senator Murray’s exchange with Secretary Mabus and General Amos can be viewed here. (starting at 59:43)
During a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Tuesday, Chairman Murray announced she soon will be introducing legislation to help prevent military sexual assault and protect those affected.
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834

 
 
 
RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office

 Also on the US, Raphael Satter and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report that US citizen Shawki Omar is a Sunni in a Baghdad prison, currently on a two-month-plus hunger strike: "In emails and phone calls from her home in Raleigh, North Carolina, Sandra Omar said that her 51-year-old husband shared a poorly heated shipping container with a dozen other inmates. She said he and other Sunni prisoners were denied care packages, refused exercise and repeatedly beaten."  US forces grabbed him on suspicion of 'jihad' (and a 'terrorist' via his second marriage) and then turned him over to the Iraqi forces (he's one of five Americans in Iraqi prisons currently).

Onto England.  Yesterday, Melanie Hall (Telegraph of London) reported that the "useless devices, based on novelty golf-ball finders worth less than 13 pounds," were sold to "the Iraqi government, the United Nations, Kenyan police, Hong Kong prison service, the Egyptian army, Thailand's border control and Saudi Arabia" for "as much as 27,000 pounds."  13 pounds today would be about $19.86 US dollars.  27,000 pounds?  $41,247.83 US dollars.  A device that cost less than 20 dollars to make was sold at about a 2,000% mark up -- the greed and the duplicity are usually intertwined.   But what was so worthless?  The 'bomb detectors.'  These are the devices that are a wand you hold and you then stand by or behind something (like a car) and basically jog in place and the wand, magically, let's you know if there's a bomb or not.


Dropping back to the June 8, 2010 snapshot:




In November of last year, Rod Nordland (New York Times) explained the 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board' -- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wantd as nothing more than an explosive divining rod." They are the ADE 651s with a ticket price of between $16,500 and $60,000 and Iraq had bought over 1,500.  More news came with arrests on January 22: "Caroline Hawley (BBC Newsnight -- link has text and video) reports that England has placed an export ban on the ADE-651 'bomb detector' -- a device that's cleaned Iraq's coffers of $85 million so far. Steven Morris (Guardian) follows up noting that, 'The managing director [Jim McCormick] of a British company that has been selling bomb-detecting equipment to security forces in Iraq was arrested on suspicion of fraud today'." From the January 25th snapshot:

Riyad Mohammed and Rod Norldand (New York Times) reported on Saturday that the reaction in Iraq was outrage from officials and they quote MP Ammar Tuma stating, "This company not only caused grave and massive losses of funds, but it has caused grave and massive losses of the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, by the hundreds and thousands, from attacks that we thought we were immune to because we have this device."  Despite the turn of events, the machines continue to be used in Iraq but 'now' an investigation into them will take place orded by Nouri. As opposed to months ago when they were first called into question. Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) adds that members of Parliament were calling for an end to use of the machines on Saturday.  Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes the US military has long -- and publicly -- decried the use of the machines,  "The US military has been scathing, claiming the wands contained only a chip to detect theft from stores. The claim was based on a study released in June by US military scientists, using x-ray and laboratory analysis, which was passed on to Iraqi officials." 
 
 
Today the BBC reports police raids took place at "Global Tech, of Kent, Grosvenor Scientific, in Devon, and Scandec, of Nottingham. Cash and hundreds of the devices have been seized, and a number of people are due to be interviewed under caution on suspicion of fraud."  Michael Peel and Sylvia Pfeifer (Financial Times of London) add, "Colin Cowan, head of City police's overseas anti-corruption unit, said investigators were seeking further information from the public about the manufacture, sale and distribution of the devices. Det Supt Cowan said: 'We are concerned that these items present a real physical threat to anyone who may rely on such a device for protection'." 


The wands didn't work, they were never going to work.  The liar who sold them, and got rich off them, Jim McCormick, was convicted yesterday.   Robert Booth and Meirion Jones (Guardian) report, "A jury at the Old Bailey found Jim McCormick, 57, from near Taunton, Somerset, guilty on three counts of fraud over a scam that included the sale of £55m of devices based on a novelty golfball finder to Iraq. They were installed at checkpoints in Baghdad through which car bombs and suicide bombers passed, killing hundreds of civilians. Last month they remained in use at checkpoints across the Iraqi capital."

That link goes to Peter Beaumont's Tuesday report for the Guardian.  The report contains this paragraph:

 The fact that the detectors were still in use as recently as last month is despite the fact that both Iraqi and US officials have known for two years that they are useless. Indeed, the Iraqi general who procured them through five corrupt and highly inflated contracts was arrested and jailed over his own part in the affair despite attempts by a former minister of the interior to grant him immunity from prosecution.


That paragraph's what's been picked up from the article by Arabic social media and by the Iraqi press including All Iraq News:


"The fact that the detectors were still in use as recently as last month is despite the fact that both Iraqi and US officials have known for two years that they are useless. Indeed, the Iraqi general who procured them through five corrupt and highly inflated contracts was arrested and jailed over his own part in the affair despite attempts by a former minister of the interior to grant him immunity from prosecution," he concluded.


Caroline Hawley and Meirion Jones (BBC -- link is text and video) note:

But his main market was Iraq, where lives depended on bomb detection and where the bogus devices were, and still are, used at virtually every checkpoint in the capital.
Between 2008 and 2009 alone, more than 1,000 Iraqis were killed in explosions in Baghdad. Thousands more were injured, including 21-year-old Haneen Alwan, who was two months pregnant and had gone out to buy ice cream when she was caught in a bomb in January 2009.
"My life was completely destroyed, everything gone in an instant," she said. "I lost the baby and my husband divorced me."




Richard Smith (Daily Mirror) explains of Jim McCormick, "He bought a £3.5million six-bedroom Georgian mansion from actor Nicolas Cage, homes in Florida and Cyprus, flash cars and a yacht he barely used. Detectives believe guards have been blown up while using the dodgy devices which landed the 57-year-old Scouser a £60million fortune."   The Georgian mansion is Midford Castle which was built in the 1700s.  McCormick was living like a king off the blood of others.



ITN's video report is here and it shows Superintendent Nigel Rock of Avon and Somerset Police discussing the device: "[. . .] is completely incapable of detecting explosives, drugs or any other substance.  The court has heard evidence that the device has no basis in science.  In fact, there are no working parts in that device.  It is empty."

Transparency International's Leah Wawro observes, "The hundreds that are estimated to have died because of these useless devices are the most visible victims of this crime. But the impact of this type of systemic, high-level corruption extends beyond that immediate loss of life. A quick glance at the UNDP website for Iraq shows how bad services are for normal Iraqis: 75% identify poverty as the most pressing need; 20% of Iraqis cannot read or write; just 26% of the population has access to the public sewage network. Would those numbers, and lives, be different if that £55 million had been spent in a transparent way on education, infrastructure, and enterprise? How many lives could have been saved if the £55million the Iraqi government wasted were spent on effective bomb detection mechanisms?"









 












 rod nordland











 


Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Iraqis bleed -- does anyone care?


Last month, we had to hear and read all these idiots talking about Bush's lie.  They wanted to pretend they were talking about Iraq.

They weren't. 

Iraq didn't end in 2003.  It didn't end when Bush left office.

The illegal war put Nouri al-Maliki in charge in 2003.  The tyrant, after swearing in Feb. 2011 that he wouldn't seek a third term, now plans to go for one.

And the second term?

A gift from his buddy Barack Obama.  The 2010 elections saw Iraqiya beat State of Law.  Which, by the Constitution, meant Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi is named prime minister-designate and gets 30 days to form a Cabinet.  If he can, he becomes prime minister.

But that didn't happen.  Instead, Nouri dug his heels in and refused to allow any governing to take place for 8 months -- a political stalemate.

And while that went on Barack went around the Iraqi voters, the Iraq laws, the concept of democracy, and had a contract created known as The Erbil Agreement and got political leaders to sign it and give Nouri a second term.

And he's continued to back Nouri.

He backs Nouri today.

The day Nouri ordered his forces to slaughter activists in Hawija.

The activists were taking part in a sit-in.

For that they were murdered.  For that they were killed.

Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports:

Security forces for the Shiite-led Iraqi government raided a Sunni protest camp in northern Iraq on Tuesday, igniting violence around the country that left at least 36 people dead.
The unrest led two Sunni officials to resign from the government and risked pushing the country's Sunni provinces into an open revolt against Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a Shiite. The situation looked to be the gravest moment for Iraq since the last U.S. combat troops left in December 2011.


Nouri's slaughtered those innocent people.

He should be tossed in a cell and put on trial for what he ordered.

He is nothing but a tyrant. 

And that's why the US needs to stop backing him.  Stop forking over billions to him, stop providing him with weapons he turns around and uses on the Iraqi people.


Nouri is a tyrant.  He will be remembered the same way Pol-Pot, Pinochet and other tyrants are.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 
Tuesday, April 23, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue,  Nouri sends his attack force to slaughter activists in a Hawija sit-in, criticism of Nouri's actions comes from Sunnis and Kurds and Shi'ites, for once the spokesperson for the State Dept does the right thing at the start but the press in attendance still fails miserably, Nouri swears an investigation is going to take place so we revisit Joe Stark's point about Nouri's 'investigations,' Senator Patty Murray chairs a committee hearing on the VA budget and tries to lay down some markers, Allison Hickey continues to look incredibly deceptive or just incredibly dumb, and more.


The US weapons industry, an industry responsible for so many dead and so many injured each year, announced December 24, 2012 "a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Iraq" -- a $125 million deal (they usually have cost overruns) of VSAT "operations and maintenance services" which, they insisted, "serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the United States."  An August 15, 2012 proposed sale, they insisted, would "contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country."  The July 20, 2012 sale was such a miracle, they insisted, that it would "improve the security of a friendly country" and "serves the interests of the Iraqi people and the United States."  And we can do this all day, in fact it might take several days to note all the arming of Nouri al-Maliki that the US has done, a thug who is unbalanced and whose "paranoia" (the term is repeatedly used) is even noted in US State Dept cables.


All of the above and the other weapon sales are why the slaughter in Hawija took place today.  And sending the exta-Constitutional Operation Tigris Command forces to close off the entrances of Ramadi, or having these thugs impose "a full curfew" in Muqdadiya,  or a curfew on Mosul, or banning traffic in Falluja, or even all these combined measures will not erase the slaughter, will not bring the dead back, will not wipe away the horror of the Iraqi people at seeing their fellow citizens mowed down by armed thugs working for Nouri al-Maliki.

The western press, the Whore Press Corps, failed to do their job.  It's no secret that the US government coddled Nouri al-Maliki under Bully Boy Bush and continues to do so under Barack Obama.  But the press can't hide behind that excuse.  The reason they are in Iraq, is to report for the world what is happening.

Friday, Nouri's forces attacked a Hawija sit-in killing 1 protester and wounding three others.  Hawija's sit-in is part of an ongoing series of protests across Iraq that have lasted over 100 days, first kicking off on December 21st.  As such, this should have been huge news.  But removing Hawija from the tapestry of national protests, turning it into a stand-alone event, when a sit-in is attacked, it's news.

News is not something you just Tweet about.



Protestor killed in clashes with army in Huwaijah near Kirkuk. Army says it was defending position. Witnesses say soldiers opened fire


So Arraf agreed on Friday, that a protester was killed.  That wasn't news?  Hell, it was only worth one Tweet to her.  Go check out her non-stop Tweets on the election which almost half of Iraq's eligible voters decided to boycott.

Arraf and others seem to think that they're in Iraq to cover officials. They hope they're court historians but they're really just court jesters.

Any sane person should be able to read Jane Arraf's Tweet and ask, "In what world, does the military show up at a sit-in?"

Now that issue has been raised.

By protesters.  By the Iraqi press.  But AFP, Jane Arraf and others have treated it as normal to dispatch the national military into areas where peaceful protests are taking place.  They've treated it as normal for Nouri to trash the Constitution, to ignore it, and create his own security body -- Operation Tigris Command -- without going through Parliament as the Constitution requires.

Thug Nouri created his own para-military forces, unrecognized by the Constitution, and sent them into areas -- often disputed areas like Kirkuk -- and they have attacked the protesters.

Repeatedly attacked.

January 24th,  Nouri's forces sent two protesters (and one reporter) to the hospital and that January 7th, Nouri's forces assaulted four protesters in Mosul. January 25th, his forces fired on Falluja protesters, killing and wounding many. March 8th, Nouri's force fired on protesters in Mosul killing three.

Here's Human Rights Watch on the attack on the Falluja protesters:


Iraqi authorities should complete promised investigations into the army killings of nine protesters in Fallujah on January 25, 2013, and make the results public. The authorities need to ensure that there will be independent investigations into the deaths, in addition to the promised inquiries by a parliamentary committee and the Defense Ministry, and that if there is evidence of unlawful killing, those responsible are prosecuted.'
In the January 25 incident, protesters threw stones at army troops, who responded with live fire.
“Iraqi authorities seem to think that announcing an investigation is all that’s required when security forces kill protesters,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The government needs to show it will not tolerate abuses by making public the results of the investigation and ensuring that those responsible are investigated and prosecuted for any unlawful use of lethal force.”


Click here for Human Rights Watch on the March 8th and other attacks.

This is not normal and it shouldn't be acceptable.  The US government has already given billions to Nouri and plans, in Fiscal Year 2014, to give billions more.  The US government should not be supporting a tyrant who greets peaceful protests by mowing down the protesters.

Instead, it's as though it's June 5, 1989, and the White House is on the phone to the government of China asking, "What can we give you?  Billions?  Weapons?  What'll help you with that pesky little protest in Tianamen Square?"

And the government can do this, the US government can get away with it, as long as the western press refuses to do their job.  When they treat as normal, or as an aisde, a government attacking its own people, they create the space for the Augusto Pinochets to terrorize and kill people.

This is not normal and this is not acceptable.  This didn't just happen, it's been taking place for months.  And today, it was a blood bath in Hawija.


Nouri al-Maliki used his extra-constitutional Operation Tigris Command forces to kill protesters in Hawija.  Tim Arango (New York Times) reports, "Iraqi security forces stormed a Sunni protest encampment in a village near the northern city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, sparking clashes between government forces and gunmen that left dozens dead and wounded and sharply raised the stakes in Iraq’s sectarian troubles."

Today's attack follows days of a military siege of Hawija.  A detail the western press wasn't too concerned with despite calls from Iraqi politicians for the military to leave and the UN to come in, despite the military refusing to allow food and aid to reach the protesters -- even when that aid was carried by members of Parliament.  See yesterday's snapshot if you're just learning of what's been going on.


Mohammed Tawfeeq and Saad Abedine (CNN) quote Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi stating that the military is being used as "a tool to suppress the people and not to defend them.  We condemn in the strongest words of condemnation and denunciation the unfortunate crime committed by the army against the demonstrators in Hawija," al-Nujaif is a member of Iraqiya, the political slate that bested Nouri's State of Law in the 2010 elections.  Al Mada notes that cleric and movement leader (and Nouri's main Shi'ite rival) Moqtada al-Sadr declared that the government's actions have opened the door to illegal violence.

Moqtada declared that Iraqis dream and speak of the days of violence as behind them, a door closed, but then the government acts in an illegal and excessive manner, opening the door to violence all over again.   Moqtada stressed that only days ago, Iraqis were being asked to participate in a democratic process (voting) and now, again, the sounds of violence are in their ears, the smell of innocent blood in the air.   He rightly terms what took place today in Hawija "a massacre."

Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani also condemned the assault stating "that the use of the Army in political disputes and domestic issues is a constitutional violation and [violates] the principles of state."  The KRG is the semi-autonomous region of northern Iraq.

Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) quotes student Ahmed Hawija on what took place at the sit-in, "When special forces raided the square, we were not prepared and we had no weapons. They crushed some of us in their vehicles."


And Nouri's side of the argument? 

Matt Bradley and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) report 38 were killed in Hawija (plus 3 of Nouri's thugs) and then note Nouri's government insists that a soldier was killed on Friday (likely true -- we noted in Friday's snapshot, we also noted no one knew who the person was, he wasn't in the sit-in, he darted in out of streets and grabbed a gun from an empty, abandoned house).  Because of this a five-day military siege took place?  Because of this you send the military to kill protesters?


But to really get Nouri's spin on events, you'll have to leave Bradley and Nabhan's reporting and move to Marwan Ibrahim's propaganda for AFP --where he spends 8 paragraphs presenting the attackers view and only 3 presenting the protesters' view.  

Bradley and Nabhan are late to the game and may not know about that death, so let's recap.  Nouri's forces began attacking the sit-in on Friday.  One protester was killed, three were injured.  At which point, as the military implemented their siege, someone on the street, a male, not known to be part of the sit-in (or he would have been with the sit-in) began darting through the streets, an abandoned home his destination.   He went in there and emerged with a gun that he used to shoot dead one of Nouri's forces.

The Operation Tigris Command is not wanted in Kirkuk.  It is hated.  That was established long ago.  In fact, we were covering the outrage Iraqis felt over that force coming into their regions long before the western press paid attention.  It took a face off with the KRG's Peshmerga for the western press to finally notice what had been going on for months. (Among the reasons Nouri's force is not respected?  He's seen as using it to settle land disputes when the Constitution outlined in Article 140 how disputes would be handled.)

By Nouri's logic, the protesters should have surrounded and then stormed the military since one of their own was killed on Friday.   Nineveh Province has been asking for Nouri to hand over his Operation Tigris Command 'soldier' who raped a five-year-old girl in Mosul.  Nineveh Province has been asking for that for months.

So, Nouri's now shown us today, that what needs to happen is that Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi needs to order his province's forces to invade and occupy Baghdad and begin shooting at everyone because Nouri wouldn't turn over the rapist?

And, let's just note that one more time, Nouri's forces include a man who raped a five-year-old child.  Thugs attract thugs.  Nouri's protected the man, probably because he identifies with them.  (Nouri's been accused of forcing imprisoned Iraqi women into sexual relations.  The most recent accusation of that was made at the start of the year by MP Sabah al-Saadi -- the Iraq Times reported on it.)


Alsumaria reports Sahwa commander Abu Risha is calling for the military to leave the cities and stop harassing the protesters.  Risha sees even worse things resulting from the continued militarization of Iraq.  Kitabat notes that the attack on the protesters is, in kind words, termed a "folly." They also note that the dead are being smeared as "Ba'athists" and "terrorists" by the government to justify their deaths.  Kirkuk police (which are not Nouri's Tigris forces) say that the Operation Tigris Command made the decision to storm the sit-in and began firing.  National Iraqi News Agency notes that Minister of Education Mohammad Tamim has tendered his resignation over "the storming by army of the sit-in yard of Hawija and killing and wounding dozens of demonstrators."  That's right wounded.  In addition to the 20 killed, All Iraq News notes "dozens" injured.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has a special representative to Iraq, Martin Kobler.  NINA notes that Kobler arrived in Kirkuk this afternoon (Iraq time).  How wonderful.  Of course, yesterday Ayad Allawi was pleading, publicly pleading, for the UN to mediate for the safety of the protesters.  Kobler didn't think it was necessary.  Instead, he ran around Baghdad holding a series of meetings -- including with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi who also urged him to go to Kirkuk.  Today  innocents are dead and wounded and Kobler can finally make it there?   All Iraq News adds that Kobler is calling for people to show "self-control."  Armed forces storm a sit-in, kill 20 and wound dozens and Kobler's calling for people to show "self-control"?


The US Embassy in Iraq released the following statement:




 U.S. EMBASSY BAGHDAD
Office of the Spokesman
__________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 23, 2013

The United States Condemns the Violence in Hawija

The United States strongly condemns the actions that resulted in the death and injury of civilians and security personnel in Hawija. We regret that this violence took place before ongoing efforts to reach a peaceful resolution of this situation were given sufficient time to succeed.

All sides should immediately refrain from further violence or provocative actions.

U.S. officials have been in contact with senior Iraqi leaders to help defuse political and sectarian tensions. We call for a transparent investigation with the broadest possible participation. Perpetrators of unlawful actions – whether from the government, security forces, or protestors – must be held accountable under Iraqi law.

The United States expresses its heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and urges all Iraqis to move beyond this tragedy and to work together to prevent any recurrence.



###


Nearly 40 participants in a sit-in are killed.  I really don't think the sit-in is the issue, I really don't see the 'both sides' aspect.

Let's give some praise.

 
Patrick Ventrell:  And lastly, I just want to draw your attention to a statement our Embassy in Baghdad put out just a few moments ago. In it, we highlight that the United States strongly condemns the actions that resulted in the death and injury of civilians and security personnel in Hawijah, Iraq. We regret that this violence took place before ongoing efforts to reach a peaceful resolution of the situation were given sufficient time to succeed. All sides should immediately refrain from further violence or provocative actions, and we call for a transparent investigation with the broadest possible participation.


That's US State Dept spokesperson Patrick Ventrell at today's press conference.  And praise to Ventrell for bringing it up.  That's from his opening statements.   Iraq hasn't been mentioned in years in an opening statement at a daily press briefing by the State Dept.  So good for Ventrell and the Dept for realizing what happened today is worth mentioning.

Bad for the lazy press.  Though Ventrell mentioned it at the top, no one had a question about it.  No one wanted to talk about it.  They were like a House Committee hearing -- you had the angry mob that hates Venezuela, you had the portion that sucks up to the Israeli government, you had everything but Iraq.  Excuse me, the last question (which received no answer) was about the KRG . . . oil.

How many people have to die before the lazy press wakes the hell up?  They could and did talk about Afghanistan and Burma, Libya, Sudan, Bejing, they basically covered the whole globe, the press at the briefing just weren't interested in Iraq.

Adam Shreck (AP) quotes Osama al-Nujaifi, the Speaker of Iraq's Parliament, stating,  "What happened today is a total disaster.  If this bloodshed spreads to other provinces, God forbid, there will be a huge fire that we cannot put out."

 With reports of as many as 80 injured, NINA notes that the Director of Health in Erbil has announced their hospitals are open to received the injured.  Erbil is one of the three provinces that make up the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government.

NINA notes MP Yassin al-Obeidi issued a statement today, "We, the MPs of Kirkuk and parliamentary delegation who came to Hawija yesterday, had asked the security forces to give us more time to talk with the demonstrators before storming the Hawija sit-in Square."   Sheikh Aabulmalik al-Saadi blames Nouri's forces for the blood shed todayAlsumaria adds that mosques in Dhuluiya (Salahuddin Province) are seeing protests in solidarity with the victims and martyrs of Hawija.  They're not only the protesters objecting to the slaughter.  NINA notes Mosul's sit-in is demanding that the military leave Nineveh Province.  The Ramadi protesters are making the same demand for Anbar Province.





Michael Peel (Financial Times of London) gets this take on the events from the International Crisis Group's Maria Fantappie, "This has increased the risk of an escalation of the situation from a political crisis to a security crisis.  On the one side, you will have the government increasing the security grip on the demonstrators, while on the other you will have the most radical voices taking advantage to organise better and launch violent attacks."







A similar fear is echoed by Iraqiya MP Nada Ibrahim Aljubori who tells Matt Bradley and Ali A. Nabhan,  "I think it will be the beginning of a civil war and the beginning of the country falling apart. It won't fall apart in an easy way, it will be thousands of people dying."


 How bad politically is the massacre?  Safaa Abdel-Hamid (Alsumaria) reports that Saleh al-Mutlaq left today's Cabinet meeting in protest of the slaughter.  Deputy Prime Minister al-Mutlaq had moved very close to Nouri in recent months.  So much so that a recent spat had the Iraqi press wondering if the "honeymoon" was over between the two of them?  Saleh's torn.  Alsumaria notes that in a meeting with Iraqiya later in the day, Saleh al-Mutlaq got into an argument with others present (that included Ayad Allawi and Osama al-Nujaifi).  All Iraq News states the angry words were between Allawi and al-Mutlaq.   NINA adds the Iraqiya boycotted Parliament's session to protest the slaughter.  In a rush to begin the cover-up, the tyrant announces he will investigate.  All Iraq News reports Nouri announces he'll create a commission to investigate what happened in Hawija.


He'll create a commission to investigate?  Hmm.  Can we go back to Human Rights Watch, February 13th:




Iraqi authorities should complete promised investigations into the army killings of nine protesters in Fallujah on January 25, 2013, and make the results public. The authorities need to ensure that there will be independent investigations into the deaths, in addition to the promised inquiries by a parliamentary committee and the Defense Ministry, and that if there is evidence of unlawful killing, those responsible are prosecuted.'
In the January 25 incident, protesters threw stones at army troops, who responded with live fire.
“Iraqi authorities seem to think that announcing an investigation is all that’s required when security forces kill protesters,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The government needs to show it will not tolerate abuses by making public the results of the investigation and ensuring that those responsible are investigated and prosecuted for any unlawful use of lethal force.”


Iraqi authorities seem to think that announcing an investigation is all that's required when security forces kill protesters?  Indeed.   Alsumaria notes that Martin Kobler is insisting there must be a full and independent investigation of the events.

Patrick Cockburn (Independent) notes, "As news of the clashes spread through Sunni Iraq, street protests erupted in solidarity with Hawijah, a Sunni bastion 30 miles west of Kirkuk. Some 1,000 people took to the streets in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, after calls for protests broadcast from the minarets of mosques. 'War! War!' was the chant of some. In Ramadi, capital of Sunni Anbar province, crowds threw stones at a military convoy, overturning and setting fire to a Humvee."   As many Iraqis have noted in e-mails to this site, Patrick Cockburn is notoriously anti-Sunni.  For anyone bothered by that pull-quote, I'd suggest you read the rest of his article and realize I panned for gold.  He couldn't even get the number of people who died last month correct -- not even after the United Nations issued a total of 456 dead -- but he swears the dead were mainly Shi'ite.  Why he imposes that division, I have no idea.  I can remember his niece Laura Flanders repeatedly rejecting the use of such designations and insisting that using it hardened the US imposed division in Iraq.


NINA notes an armed attack on several checkpoints east of Tikrit which left 9 police officers dead and five more injured, east of Falluja an attack left four Iraqi soldiers injured and two military vehicles were set on fire, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more injured4 corpses were discovered in Falluja (all the victims of shootings), and the corpse of 1 Ministry of Industry employee was discovered in Hilla.



Turning to the United States where the Veterans Affairs Dept remains unchecked.  Today, the US Senate Budget Committee attempted to provide some oversight.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee and Senator Pete Sessions is the Ranking Member.  Appearing before the Committee as VA Secretary Eric Shinseki who was accompanied by Allison Hickey and Dr. Robert Petzel.

Let's note this exchange from the first round.


Chair Patty Murray:  As I mentioned, you have a new announcement of a new initiative to expedite claims that have been waiting for over a year.  And that's encouraging and I'm glad to see that the Department's taking action but I do have some questions about how it is going to be implemented.  And I wanted to ask you, if the VA determines the veteran's final rating is lower than the provisional rating, will the Department seek to recover money that's already been paid to that veteran?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Madam Chairman, uh, you know, that's a question.  I, uh, I-I, what I would say is, I -- our -- historically, when we've established a standard for a veteran, we've usually stayed with that and, uh, let me call on Secretary Hickey here but my-my intent is that the provisional rating that's provided will be on those issues for which we have clarity and documentation and we can render a, uh, a decision.  For issues that, uh, where documentation isn't provided, those are the issues that remain open up to a year, for veterans to locate, with our help even, documentation that would, uh, allow us to,uh, make a decision there.  Uh, Secretary Hickey.

Allison Hickey: Chairman Murray, thank you for the question, for your, uh, interest in the initiative which we think is, uh, really important to, uh, ensure that we're, uh, taking care of those veterans who have waited the longest while we completed the more than 260,000 Agent Orange claims to take care of our Vietnam veterans over the last two and a half years.  We-we, uh - We are using the provisions that allow us to make good decisions so we will continue, uhm, under this provisional criteria to have -- to use service treatment, to use private medical records, to use the information available to our, uhm, on our veterans in terms of the nature and character of their service.  So all the similar evidence we have used in previous decisions we will use again to ensure that we, uh, don't make any of those kinds of decisions.  I don't expect to see any of those decisions, uh, where we overcompensate for, uh, for a claim.  Uhm, the other thing that that we will do is we will, uh, keep the reason for the provisional decision, we put a really huge safety net under every one of our veterans, we're, uh, going to keep the record for a whole year there -- the ability for our veterans to come back with additional evidence.  Uh, uhm, uh, and we will keep asking if --

Chair Patty Murray:  So the additional year will only be to provide information to have an additional claim, not to lower the claim?

Allison Hickey:  Uh, th-the, uh, the reason for the year is to allow to increase the rating, uh, if necessary so I think in -- The advantage is our veterans for the additional year.  Uh, and then they still have after that, the same appeal, uh, processes that they've had in the past.  So we don't anticipate, uh, having, uhm, uh, conditions where we overpay veterans under this initiative.

Chair Patty Murray:  Mr. Secretary, are you going to need additional support from the Defense Department in order to meet the time lines you've proposed?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  For these particular claims?

Chair Patty Murray:  Correct?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Uhm, we're dealing with, uh, claims in over inventory right now.  And so, we are, uh, I think we have as much control as we need.  Of course, we work closely, uh, with the Defense Department on an ongoing basis because the sharing of data is something that goes on daily.

Chair Patty Murray:  Okay, there's a number of other services that are contingent on a disability rating -- benefits from health care, home loan, designation of a small, veteran-owned business.  They all rely on the rating you're talking about.  How will this provisional rating effect those other benefits?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Secretary Hickey?

Allison Hickey: So, uh, Chairman, thanks for the question.  I will tell you that in the same way that we provide those additional benefits, uhm, uh, today associated with the claims decision we will continue that, uh, avenue.  I will say thought that, uhm, any veteran who's returning home today does not require a, uhm, decision from us to seek the five-years worth of medical care that they -- this Congress made provisions for uh, uhm, uh, uhm, uh -- They can still get that by just showing up to -- to one of the VA, uh, a, medical hospitals or clinics and get that medical care for free without a decision even today, right, uh, uh, associated with this new initiative, it doesn't have an impact there.  They're still going to get health care.

Chair Patty Murray: Under this initiative as you just described, there's the provisional rating that will be given to them and then they can make continued claims -- so are looking at increasing the workload by requiring two ratings decisions instead of one?

Allison Hickey:  Uh, Chairman, uh, we're not.  We're actually trying to benefit the veteran who has been waiting the longest in this case.  We want to get that decision to them.  If that veteran returns after the fact saying 'I have additional information,' we will expedite that claim to the front of the line, we will re-rate it based on additional information and we will get them a final decision.

Chair Patty Murray:  There's a number of efforts going on, programs like Benefits Delivery at Discharge and the Fully Developed Claims Process.  Both have been accessible and need to be maintained.  A successful, Integrated Disability Evaluation System, IDES, is critically important to our injured service members.  There's a lot of work that still needs to be done from both DoD and VA on that and we can't lose sight of the keep making improvements to the fundamental issues in the claims processing that we still have.  So are you going to be able to implement this new initiative and still support all those other efforts?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Uh, uh, Chairman Murray, that is -- that is our intent.  And, uh, as you implied earlier, this requires, uh, a level of continual synchronization in between DoD and VA.  As you, uh, know, BDD -- Benefits Delivery Discharge -- uh, Quickstart, IDES -- Integrated Disability -- these are DoD programs in which VA has provided our capability to support medical exams. And, uh, so there is a good collaboration there. We do this best when we have some indication of what the flow is and then we match up.  Uh, about the only times we've run into difficulties here is when the flow exceeded what we thought it would be and then there's a period in which we have to, uh, generally additional capability but, uh, these are things we work on a daily basis.

It's too bad there's a time limit.  If the time limit could be tossed aside (which it can't, I understand), it might be helpful, after a question is asked, to have VA officials repeat the question before answering it.  Either they can't comprehend -- which would certainly explain how the claims backlog has only increased in the last four years -- or they're just liars eating up time.  Now I think it's the latter but maybe I'm wrong and they're just so stupid that they don't understand the question?  Certainly nothing that's ever emerged from Allison Hickey's mouth has passed for intelligent or informed.  But let's pull one section from the above exchange. 



Chair Patty Murray:  Okay, there's a number of other services that are contingent on a disability rating -- benefits from health care, home loan, designation of a small, veteran-owned business.  They all rely on the rating you're talking about.  How will this provisional rating effect those other benefits?

Secretary Eric Shinseki:  Secretary Hickey?

Allison Hickey: So, uh, Chairman, thanks for the question.  I will tell you that in the same way that we provide those additional benefits, uhm, uh, today associated with the claims decision we will continue that, uh, avenue.  I will say thought that, uhm, any veteran who's returning home today does not require a, uhm, decision from us to seek the five-years worth of medical care that they -- this Congress made provisions for uh, uhm, uh, uhm, uh -- They can still get that by just showing up to -- to one of the VA, uh, a, medical hospitals or clinics and get that medical care for free without a decision even today, right, uh, uh, associated with this new initiative, it doesn't have an impact there.  They're still going to get health care.

 Committee Chair Murray did make clear she was speaking of the disability rating and how it would effect the variety of benefits.  Hickey completely blew off the question.  She went into some crap about how those discharging now don't need a claims rating to seek health care for five years.  That wasn't the question.  That wasn't even in the same state as the question.  There are oceans between the question Murray asked and the babble that greeted her question had nothing to do with what was asked. 

What the VA is proposing is that a temporary rating be created.  This temporary rating may become permanent.  Or it might increase or it might decrease.  If you're a veteran qualifying for some small-business program based on your rating, how does this impact that?  Hickey gave no response about that or how the temporary claim would effect anything.

Now I think she's an idiot who should be fired.  But can you be that stupid that when asked a direct question, you completely miss it?  Maybe so.  Maybe Allison Hickey is The Dumbest Person In The World.  However, I just see her as deeply dishonest.

As deeply dishonest is the new program that's being discussed.

Murray is correct.  This is going mean "increasing the workload by requiring two" or more "ratings decisions instead of one." And this is only more clear when Hickey asserts that after a veteran receives a rating he or she finds less than satisfactory and they return with more information, Hickey's words, "we will expedite that claim to the front of the line."

What's really going on here?

The VA has bad press because they've not eliminated the claims backlog, they have not reduced the backlog.  They have been given everything they've asked for.  Congress has actually spent the last years asking them, "Is that all you need?  What else can we do to help you with this?"  VA has insisted they had all they needed.

So this is VA's problem.  At the hearing, Senator Tammy Baldwin observed, "Veterans don't want to hear about new claims or new processes, they want results and so do I."  She's correct.  However, this program's not about veterans, it's about the press.  This is a distraction that will create the illusion of something new which, the VA hopes, will garner good press.

In what world, when you're failing at the claims system, are you allowed to create a new system that will pull more employees away?

Veterans shouldn't have to wait.  I'm not Senator Jon Tester, I don't have this ugly image of veterans trying to cheat the system, "pounds a couple of cigarettes a day and a like amount of alcohol" to cheat the system.  If the VA's unable to get to a claim in a reasonable amount of time?  The VA rates the claim 100%.   It's not the veterans fault that the President of the United States has appointed an incompetent who can't motivate people to do their jobs in a timely manner.

Instead of doing that, which has been proposed by many members of Congress over the year, the VA that already has a huge backlog wants to create a new system where they'll grab that backlog and put them in a new pool where the process will start over.

Will start over.  Grasp that.  They're hitting the snooze alarm, that's all they're doing.

Two years from now, after the VA has shoved a half million or more claims into this new pool and garnered good press for reducing the claims backlog, they'll actually be appearing before the Congress to explain that the new pool they created isn't moving that quickly and they don't know why but, hey, maybe if they create a third pool for veterans and shove claims into that, they can reduce the second pool the same way?

What they're proposing accomplishes nothing but will be there reason for failure to do their jobs.  They will come before Congress and offer this as an excuse.

I'm not even going to touch on Allison Hickey's Agent Orange lie.  It would be real good if she and Shinseki could at least get their lie straight and tell the same one instead of presenting dueling lies at one hearing after another.

Shinseki and his 'electrons,' we'll grab tomorrow or Thursday and an idiot freshman senator.  Yes, asking questions is important -- but who you ask is even more important.  Also, I'd like to note Senator Bill Nelson who had, as usual, strong points worth including.  ("Tomorrow" if Nouri hasn't gone completely nuts in Iraq -- a possibility considering his paranoia and the rumors that the vote outcome will not make him happy.) I'm sliding one thing over to Trina because she covers the topic at her site.

I see the hearing's main accomplishment as setting the record straight for two years from now when VA tries to think of excuses why this idea didn't really result in a reduction of the claims backlog.  The excuses may be harder to come by.  Chair Patty Murray made a point of noting certain things including it was VA's duty to keep Congress informed.  We'll close with her opening statement.



Opening Statement of Senator Patty Murray, Chairman
Senate Committee on the Budget
The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal and Veterans’ Program Proposals
April 23, 2013
“Welcome to this morning’s hearing on the Fiscal Year 2014 budget and the Fiscal Year 2015 Advance Appropriation request for the Department of Veterans Affairs.   I want to thank Secretary Shinseki and his team for being here this morning.  I know you have been very busy over the past couple weeks as you work to roll out the budget request.
“One month ago, the Senate passed our budget resolution.  There was plenty of debate, and plenty of disagreement.  There was a long markup in this Committee.  And there was extensive consideration on the floor. 
“But, there was never any question about the importance of providing for our nations veterans.
“The budget resolution protected funding for veterans benefits and services.  It also included deficit neutral reserve funds to assist in several important policy areas, including: eligibility and delivery of benefits, rural health care, education and training, veterans’ families, and homeless veterans.
“The Department’s budget submission will help inform us as we move forward in discussions with the House on a compromise budget resolution.
“The President’s request is $152.7 billion for VA in fiscal year 2014, and $55.6 billion in advance appropriations for medical care in fiscal year 2015. Overall, this is a strong request, and it represents an increase of more than 10 percent over last year.  It also makes important investments in some high priority areas.
“As we have discussed in the past, it is important that the Department follows good financial management principles.  This means being straightforward with Congress about what the Department’s real needs are.
“It also means accurately projecting costs and savings. And it goes without saying that we expect the Department to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, especially in this difficult budget environment.  There is no place for wasteful spending or inefficiency.
“One of the newest developments is VA’s recent announcement that it will focus on expediting claims that have been pending for more than a year by granting “provisional” ratings.  This will allow veterans to receive benefits while their claims are finalized. I am pleased the Department is taking action and trying a new initiative to make a difference for our veterans. 
“But I still have a number of questions about how this will be implemented. Certainly we cannot maintain the status quo, where almost 70 percent of veterans are waiting 125 days or more for their claims.
“Secretary Shinseki, considering the steps you have taken to address this problem so far, I think you share my concern and dedication to solving this. So I look forward to exploring this new initiative with you today.
“I was pleased to see the Department requested almost $7 billion in funding for mental health care.  This is an increase of more than 7 percent. 
“During the last Congress, we took a hard look at mental health in VA, and found some serious problems.  VA was generally providing good mental health care.  But, understaffing and long wait times were plaguing VA and keeping veterans from the care they needed. 
“Importantly, we also found that the Department did not have an accurate, reliable way of measuring the need for mental health care, and of distributing its staff effectively. We asked the Department to undertake a number of reforms to improve access to care and bring down unacceptably long wait times. This included key changes that were part of the Mental Health ACCESS Act.
“Today, I hope we will hear more about what progress the Department is making in implementing these changes.
“As I have said before, not every veteran will be affected by these invisible wounds.  But when a veteran has the courage to stand up and ask for help, VA must be there every single time.  VA must be there with not only timely access to care, but also the right type of care.
“This is especially important at a time when 22 veterans per day are taking their own lives.  VA has a number of good initiatives, such as the Veterans Crisis Line and the Suicide Prevention Coordinators, but clearly we still need to do more.
“As you know, women are the fastest growing part of the veteran population.  VA has needed to make major changes to ensure: There is a full range of health services for female veterans, facilities are safe and privacy is protected, and support services are available. The requested $422 million for gender-specific care for women is a 13.7 percent increase over last year.
“I will also continue working to end the terrible epidemic of military sexual assault in the services.  In the coming days, I will introduce legislation to help prevent sexual assault and protect the victims. And at the same time, VA must continue to provide for those suffering from M.S.T. Only a small fraction of sexual assaults in the military are reported.  So VA must provide both the highest quality treatments, but also outreach and screening to help these victims get into care.
“Developing a seamless transition is another challenge that VA and DoD continue to face, though important progress has been made.
“The requirement in the VOW to Hire Heroes Act making the Transition Assistance Program mandatory, along with a major overhaul of the curriculum, has created a much more useful tool to assist servicemembers leaving the military.  The feedback I have received is that even Colonels and Sergeants Major found the training invaluable.  If even those senior leaders are benefiting from the help on resume writing and VA resources, we are doing something right.
“Other requirements, to expand job opportunities and eliminate barriers to getting civilian licenses and credentials, are key to combatting the unemployment rate for veterans which is still far too high. We have made a great deal of progress working with employers to encourage them to hire veterans.  And I will continue to engage our private sector partners, to help them understand the skills veterans bring to the table, and why they make some of the best employees.
“Getting our veterans into education programs, into good jobs, or starting small businesses doesn’t benefit just the veteran.  It helps us grow our economy and the middle class.  It builds on the investments we have made in our veterans, as they continue to help our communities, our businesses, and fellow veterans.
“While we are making these investments in our veterans, we must also continue to invest in VA infrastructure.  I have concerns about the proposed cuts to major construction and non-recurring maintenance.  The Department is proposing a 47 percent cut in non-recurring maintenance, and only $342 million in major construction funding.  This comes while the Department still estimates it has between $54 and $66 billion in infrastructure needs. I was pleased to see the request includes funds to complete work on the mental health building in my home state of Washington at the VA hospital in Seattle.
“Information technology also plays a critical role in many of the Department’s major initiatives.  And it is a key part in giving our servicemembers a truly seamless transition from active duty to civilian life. 
“The President’s Budget Request includes an overall 18 percent increase in I.T. funding for VA.  This request includes a number of important priorities, such as the continued development and implementation of the Veterans Benefits Management System. 
“The request would also fund further development of the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, which, while implemented regionally, has not yet been rolled out nationwide. However, the recent announcement by VA and DoD that the Departments will no longer pursue development of a single electronic health record, has raised important questions about the future of the iEHR program.
“The Departments must clearly define the path forward for this important project and address the underlying reasons for the program’s abrupt change of course.  VA and DoD must ensure there is clear, strategic leadership to guide further development of the iEHR program.
“In closing, Secretary Shinseki, I want to thank you for your dedication and leadership over the past several years.  It is not easy to steer the Federal Government’s second largest Department.  And it is not easy to make the big changes that are needed. 
“You have set some very ambitious goals including: ending veteran homelessness; breaking the claims backlog; and transforming the way VA delivers health care.
“Setting these high goals is a good thing.  And I am confident you have set these goals because of your continuing demand for excellence on behalf of our nation’s veterans.
“We recognize the good progress that has been made, but we will continue to push you to meet these goals.  So I am looking forward to a constructive discussion about the challenges ahead, the concerns we have, and what we can do to provide the resources and authorities you need.
 
“I’ll now call on Ranking Member Sessions for his opening statement.”
###
--
Eli Zupnick
Communications Director
Senate Budget Committee - Majority Staff
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman
624 Dirksen Senate Office Building
(202) 224-5398















 


 
 
 
 




 the associated press
qassim abdul-zahra
sameer n. yacoub