Amidst new revelations
concerning emails that show the
Obama
administration conspired to create a phony narrative
around the Benghazi attacks, the true purpose behind
the cover-up is being obfuscated – the fact that an
annex near the U.S. embassy was being used by the
CIA
to transfer surface to air missiles to terrorists in
Syria.
House Oversight Committee
Chairman Darrell Issa issued
a subpoena for Secretary
of State John Kerry to testify before the committee
on May 21 about Benghazi following the release
of emails by Judicial
Watch which show that the
White House crafted a
deceptive policy to falsely frame the attack as a
spontaneous
protest sparked by a
YouTube video in order to protect Barack
Obama’s
image.
Lost in the haze of claims and
counter claims is the real reason why the
White House is desperate
to prevent the attack from coming under any further
scrutiny – because it would likely reveal an arms
smuggling scandal that could rival
Iran-Contra.
Benghazi, for those who have forgotten, resulted in the deaths of four Americans -- Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.
What Watson is writing about, he notes after my excerpt, is something U.S. Senator Rand Paul has brought up. That is true. But it is also true that former U.S. House Representative Dennis Kucinich has also raised this issue.
I will be posting C.I.'s snapshot in full in a moment but I want to pull something from it:
Gowdy was a guest yesterday on The Charlie Rose Show (PBS -- link is video). In this community, Ruth has covered Benghazi more than anyone. This has become one of her chief topics. Last night, she praised Charlie for the interview he conducted. This is an excerpt of the interview.
Charlie Rose: So tell me how you see this? Is a new select committee necessary? Why did you accept the Speaker's invitation? [Speaker of the House John Boehner.] What do you think you can accomplish?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think it's necessary, Charlie, because if you consider the three different categories with respect to Benghazi, number one, why was the facility not secure leading up to 9-11-2012 during the siege itself? Did we have assets able to respond? And if not, why not with the significance of that date? And thirdly, was the government honest with the citizenry in the aftermath with respect to the explanation? I'm sure the Speaker picked me in part because I used to be a prosecutor. That would be my guess. I'm-I'm much more interested in-in pursuing the facts than I am political theater. And I think it can be done that way. I hope my Democratic colleagues will-will participate in the select committee. Many of them are former prosecutors or former attorneys who ask very good questions. I had a guy who stopped me in the airport today just-just at Reagan I was coming to the Capitol. He said I'm a former military guy and I want you to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Now I have no idea what his politics are. He may have no politics. But that's a pretty common refrain -- at least back in South Caroline and as I travel people still think that there are unanswered questions.
Charlie Rose: But it seems to me -- and you can correct me or not -- and I'm asking this as a question, it's really driven by Republicans have this belief and they have not been dissuaded that somehow the White House in a political campaign year has not been forthcoming and you question exactly why there was some confusion about the nature of the attack? That, in the end, that's the issue?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think that you can certainly fashion an argument that that's the most important of three issues because that gets at whether or not people can trust or rely upon what government tells 'em. And it's difficult, Charlie, to go back to 2012. But if you and I can go back there in our minds, we're in the throes of a general election and one of the narratives is that al Qaeda is on the run, Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. I think that Ben Rhodes memo was probably the straw that broke the camel's back because that memo made it really clear that we're going to blame an internet video and not a broader policy failure in Libya. Charlie, I'm an old DA. If-if you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence. That's the mantra that we hear, that 'We used the best evidence that we had at the time, that there wasn't an intent to deceive, we were just mistaken.' Think back to the five Susan Rice talking shows. Well then give me all the evidence that buttressed what you said at the time because there is none.
Charlie Rose: Well, so you don't believe anybody from the CIA who says, 'You know, at the earliest beginnings, we were not sure. We, in Washington at the CIA, were not sure exactly what was going on. We later, you know, looked at all the evidence but that was our state of mind.' You don't believe that?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: No. No. I cannot tell you what someone's state of mind was. What I can tell you is that on September the 12th [2012], there was an e-mail from Beth Jones kind of memoralizing a conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. And she was very clear -- this was Ansar Al Sharia. This was an extremist organization. With respect to Mr. Morrell. every change he made to the talking points, in my judgment, sanitized them -- to go from the word "terrorist" to "extremist," to go from the word "attack" to "demonstration." And most significantly, take out any reference of the prior episodes of violence in Libya because -- and his own testimony was -- he didn't want to embarrass the State Dept. I'm not interested in embarrassing or not embarrassing anyone. I think it is fair to ask, given on that date what had been happening in Libya prior to that, why were we caught so flat-footed by what turned out not to be a protest but an organized attack on our facility?
Charlie Rose: Is it -- Listen to what Mike Morrell said to me on this program in a conversation about him and the CIA but also about Benghazi. Here it is, you can hear it.
Archived Mike Morrell: In the entire process that I talked about, the White House suggested three changes. Three changes. All of them were editorial. None of them were substantive. So the White House had no substantive input into the talking points. There have been allegations, Charlie, that the White House wrote the talking points. There have been allegations that --
Archived Charlie Rose: That's what they mean by cooking the books --
Archived Mike Morrell: Cooking the books.
Archived Charlie Rose: -- is the expression used.
Archived Mike Morrell: There-there have been allegations that the White House made significant changes to the talking points, that's not true. There have been allegations that the White House told me to make changes to the talking points, not true. None of that's true. None of it.
Charlie Rose: So when you listen to Mike Morrell, former Deputy Director of the CIA and acting director say that, what do you think?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Well the first question I would ask Mr. Morrell is then where did Susan Rice come up with her video narrative? Because even the CIA was not pushing that narrative. If you'll think back to Mr. Morrell's testimony before Intel just last month, he said he was shocked when she said on the five Sunday morning talk shows that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video because his intel, his information was, 'Wait a minute no one was telling us that this was related to the video.' Hillary Clinton said it was related to the video. The president condemned the video. So I cannot tell you what Mr. Morell believed on September 12, [2012]. I can tell you this: Someone changed the talking points and they changed them in a light most calculated to sanitize them and cast the administration in the best light. Is there a benign explanation for that? Of course, there could be.
Charlie Rose: Okay.
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Is there a more nefarious explanation? Of course, there could be.
I was hoping to pull from the transcript today. But there is no transcript. Unless you want to pay for it. But I do not think I would get it tonight if I paid for it. I think it would arrive (by e-mail) tomorrow.
So we will just use C.I.'s transcript above. Her excerpt is the start of the interview.
Thank you to her for doing that excerpt and for noting me in the snapshot.
In the snapshot, she also includes this:
Still on Benghazi, Media critic David Zuraqik (Z on TV, Baltimore Sun) argues that the way you see Benghazi may come down to whether or not you served in the military:
Despite the sneers of MSNBC hosts and the disdainful manner of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Benghazi matters. And it matters in ways we don't yet even understand -- deep, fractious ways that reveal a major front in the culture war almost no one seems to understand or want to even talk about:
[. . .]
No one who has been in the military would ever say, "What difference . . . does it make?" as Hillary Clinton did of the details of Benghazi.
No one who has been in the military -- especially in battle -- would ever think for one second it was OK not to try something, no matter how desperate, to get aid to the Americans in the Benghazi compound.
But for those who did not serve, such responses seem perfectly OK.
That is an interesting argument.
I would be careful about drawing those lines to clearly, though.
I never served in the military and I take Benghazi seriously.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Wednesday, May 7, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's killing of
civilians in Falluja gets a little bit of attention, the US is back to
training the Iraqi military in Jordan, the VA scandals continue, Chelsea
Manning is prepared to sue for hormone therapy, Benghazi and much more.
Starting with veterans issues, US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. His office issued the following:
US House Rep Jeff Miller: I had hoped that during this hearing, we would be discussing the concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more questions and ever mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status quo is still firmly entrenched at VA. On Monday -- shortly before this public hearing -- VA provided evidence that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care at VA medical facilities. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have happened beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012." These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the VA's consult review, this committee has reviewed at least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a whole host -- of other maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide. Yet, the department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred. Congress has met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee that if the department would have approached this committee at any time to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the care they required, every possible action would have been taken to ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans. This is the third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety and I am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by telling them what I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear the rote repetition of -- and I quote -- "the department is committed to providing the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they deserve. When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional risks. Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold those persons accountable." Another thing I don’t want to hear is -- and, again, I quote from numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement -- "while any adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many," preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek care from VA every year. What our veterans have truly "earned and deserve" is not more platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many. Look, we all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high the quality standards might be. But I think we all also recognize that the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special obligation not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our nation in uniform -- but also to the hard-working taxpayers of the United States of America.
The first whistle-blower on the Phoenix VA's secret list was Dr. Sam Foote. Rebecca Thomas (CBS5 -- link is video and text) reported yesterday that Troy Burmesch has stepped forward to back Foote's assertions.
He said the secret list might have been a secret to the Veteran's Administration, but everyone on the Phoenix campus knew about it.
Burmesch, who worked as a medical support assistant from November 2012 to September 2013, said most support staff just didn't know exactly how the list was being used.
Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) reports on Chelsea Manning who, having won the battle to change her name now is pursuing hormone therapy while she serves her 35 year sentence in a military prison.
The story publicly begins Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
For truth telling, Brad was punished by the man who fears truth: Barack Obama. A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and every whistle-blower. David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and 'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of classified information, is in reality something very different: a vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."
Tuesday, July 30th, Bradley was convicted of all but two counts by Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge in his court-martial. Susan Manning is Brad's mother. Nic North (Daily Mail) quotes her stating, "Never give up hope, son. I know I may never see you again, but I know you will be free one day. I pray it is soon. I love you, Bradley, and I always will." His aunt Sharon Staples states, "If anyone was going to get themselves arrested for leaking hundreds of thousands of secret documents and end up jail for it, it was going to be our Bradley. He just seemed to have a burning sense of wanting to right any injustice from such a young age." August 21st, Bradley was given a lengthy prison sentence. Following the verdict, Manning issued a press release which included, "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." She is appealing her conviction. Now Chelsea is seeking hormone therapy. Klasfeld notes, "Manning has offered to pay for her treatment to avoid litigation, and a media-generated controversy, even though an increasing number of federal and appellate courts have affirmed that she is entitled to get such care for free."
Last Wednesday, Iraqis voted in parliamentary elections. And it briefly got some attention from the western media. James Denselow (Majalla) observes:
Iraq has become a family secret, the hideously malformed child hidden away in the attic, whose presence is only acknowledged on rare and awkward occasions. In the UK this is particularly true with the Chilcot Inquiry, ongoing since 2009, testing the patience of the prime minister as to when it will reveal its findings. Iraq’s state of permanent chaos, of market bombings and assassinations, has turned it into a toxic issue which politicians avoid, one which bores the public and which the media struggles to contain into a coherent narrative.
Along with having elected Members of Parliament, there is the hope that this time (third time's the charm?), Iraqis might elect their own prime minister. In 2006, the Bully Boy Bush administration imposed know-nothing Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (when the pick of Iraqis was Ibrahim al-Jafaari) and, in 2010, when Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, the Barack Obama administration imposed Nouri for a second term (the US brokered The Erbil Agreement -- a legal contract which circumvented the will of the people, the Iraqi Constitution and basic concepts of democracy -- what a proud moment for Barack). The Economist sees the scramble for the post of prime minister as a scramble for Shi'ite alliances:
Many Shia voters in Iraq still look to the Marjaya, the establishment of senior religious scholars in the holy city of Najaf, to give them guidance when casting their ballots. Mr Maliki has brought the security and intelligence services under his control, has eroded the power of parliament and replaced military commanders with people loyal to him. But he has been less successful in creating unity among his fellow Shias—the overwhelming concern of the Marjaya.
During the campaign Ali al-Sistani, the 83-year-old grand ayatollah whose influence was pre-eminent in the early years after the American invasion, was silent, but other prominent clergymen in Najaf, including one of Mr Sistani’s closest confidants, called for change. “Every Friday [when they give sermons] they have been bashing the government for not delivering services, accusing them of corruption and for lacking principles and good governance,” says Bakhtiar Amin, a human-rights minister in Iraq’s first government after the American invasion of 2003. “The question is how much the Shias are following their spiritual leaders.”
Cihan observes today:
The real competition is between incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his rivals, namely Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites who believe he will not serve for a third time. There are secondary rivalries between pious Shiites and secularists and between moderate Sunnis and radicals/insurgents.
The Shiites are split three ways between al-Maliki's State of Law Coalition, Muqtada al-Sadr's Sadrist movement and the Citizen Coalition of Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
The Sunnis in turn are split between parliamentary speaker Osama al-Nujaifi's Muttahidoon list and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq's al-Arabiya list. Given this political split, no single bloc is expected to win a majority in the new parliament.
Ammar al-Hakim was busy today. All Iraq News notes he met with the Swedish Ambassador to Iraq and he met with Karar al-Khafaji who heads the political commission of cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr's coaltion. NINA notes that in addition to meeting with Jorgen Lindstrom (Swedish Ambassador), Ammar also met with British Ambassador to Iraq Simon Paul Collins today.
On the subject of the Sadr bloc, Monday's snapshot included:
On Saturday, the Independent High Electoral Commission declared their intention to announce the results May 25th. Today, Ghassan Hamid and Mohammed Shafiq (Alsumaria) report the IHEC has stated the large number of complaints alleging violations during the vote will delay the release of the votes. Violations would be one way to word what State of Law MP Mahmoud al-Hassan is accused of. All Iraq News notes MP Hussein al-Shirifi, of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, is calling for the IHEC to toss al-Hassan's eligibility as a result of al-Hassan's alleged voter intimidation to scare up votes for Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition.
Alsumaria reports today that MP Hussein al-Sharifi is stating that a fine for Mahmoud Hassan would not be justice since the State of Law MP was extorting and threatening Iraqi people, specifically those in the slums of Baghdad, that this is recorded on video and that this was broadcast on television so a fine is not enough.
Amjad Salah and Mohammad Shafiq (Alsumaria) report MP Hassoun Fatlawi who serves on Parliament's Legal Committee declared today that Nouri's term will expire June 14th
And Nouri?
He gave his weekly speech today. Alsumaria notes he used it to savage the Parliament and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi as he insisted that they accomplished nothing.
Nouri al-Maliki will have completed his second term in one month and seven days and he will have done so without ever finding three individuals to head the security ministries -- his entire term he has had, for example, no Minister of Defense. For four years, Iraq's been without a Minister of Defense -- as violence has increased. He's in no position to call anyone else a failure.
In fairness to Nouri, he is accomplishing something currently -- increasing his number of War Crimes. As he continues to use collective punishment (legally defined by the United Nations and the United States as a War Crime) on the civilians of Falluja, he kills and he wounds. Alsumaria reports that today's assault on Falluja's residential neighborhoods by Nouri's military bombings left 7 civilians dead and forty-five injured. Suleiman al-Qubeisi (Anadaolu Agency) reports on another shelling today which left 9 dead and numerous people injured -- the nine dead included 2 children. AFP notes today, "Security forces have periodically clashed with insurgents in areas around Fallujah, but the main source of casualties in the city has been persistent shellfire that has especially targeted southern neighbourhoods." Erin Evers (Human Rights Watch) puts a human face on these civilians killed by military shelling:
His call yesterday was not the usual update. He told me that his oldest brother, Ammar, who had also fled Fallujah, recently returned to the city with his wife and daughter when they ran out of money and food. Yesterday, two days after arriving, a mortar strike killed him. He was riding his bike to buy groceries, his brother told me.
[. . .]
Ammar’s death is a stark reminder that horrible abuses by some armed groups, which may amount to crimes against humanity, do not allow the government to attack ordinary people.
Explaining that the US government is back to training the Iraqi military in Jordan, Missy Ryan (Reuters) notes, "Washington's response to surging violence and sectarian tensions in Iraq has been limited by a reluctance to further empower Maliki, who critics say has bullied opponents, and a desire to ensure that U.S. soldiers do not become embroiled again in a Middle Eastern conflict."
Monday, Aswat al-Iraq noted the Kurds were insisting that holding the presidency of Iraq was actually a "right." It's not. It's been a custom. There's nothing in the Iraqi Constitution that guarantees the president will be a Kurd. (Only that he or she will be an Iraqi citizen by birth, born of Iraqi parents.)
The current Iraqi president is Jalal Talabani. The president in self-exile. December 2012, Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. Per the Constitution, he should have been relieved of his duties by February 1, 2013. He's not performing his duties and he hasn't been. This does not help the Kurds make a case but they are trying to.
Massoud Barzani is the KRG President (and he's back in Iraq after his visit to Jordan). Barzani heads the Kurdistan Democratic Party and NINA notes that they are saying that a Kurd must be president and quotes KDP member Abdul Salam Berwari stating, "The entitlement of the presidency is exclusive for Kurds will not renounce it in any way." The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is headed by Jalal. Alsumaria reports that PUK member Burhan Faraj states that the Kurds are discussing now who should be president.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Kurdish Union Party nominated today the special physician of President Jalal Talabani and the Governor of Kirkuk to assume Iraqi presidency office": Dr. Najm al-Deen Kareem.
The who did what?
The Kurdish Union Party. A minor player in the KRG (and one that's been angling cabinet positions in the KRG's government). The two dominant parties in the KRG now are the KDP and Goran. I don't see why they would back a minor party -- especially one closely associated with the PUK -- Jalal Talabani's party.
Today, Omar al-Jaffal (Al-Monitor) reports:
The PUK nominated Kirkuk governor and Talabani’s personal physician, Najmeddine Karim. Meanwhile, the Movement for Change (Gorran) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) have remained silent, at least until the election results are final.
Kamal Raouf, a political analyst and author, told Al-Monitor, "The two parties that remained silent are waiting for the election’s results," adding, "Karim is not an acceptable candidate for Barzani’s KDP."
Raouf said, "The debate over the presidency of the republic between the Kurdish parties will be limited to the PUK and the Movement for Change," pronouncing it likely that "the [next] president will be a member of the PUK."
"The figures who can be accepted by everyone include Barham Salih, who previously served as prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and Adnan Mufti, a leader of the PUK," he said.
al-Jaffal also notes that the Sunnis are expressing interest in the post with some saying it should go to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.
Back to the ongoing violence, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Hit suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and 1 federal police and injured six more, 1 person was shot dead in Tarmiyah, the Ministry of the Interior announced 1 suspect was killed in Salah al-Din, the Joint Operations Command announced they killed 12 suspects, 1 agronomist was shot dead in Mosul, police forces killed 1 suspect west of Mosul, a Mosul car bombing left four people injured, an armed clash in Falluja left 4 rebels dead, and 2 corpses were discovered south of Kirkuk. Alsumaria adds the corpses had gunshot wounds, were blindfolded and bound.
Meanwhile, it's been noted that US Ambassador Beecroft has issued no statement on the elections. (They took place April 30th so, no, his April 23rd a week before the elections does not count.)
Reuters notes today, "The Obama administration plans to nominate its ambassador in Iraq to be the new U.S. envoy in Cairo, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, as U.S.-Egyptian ties remain strained following the Egyptian army's ouster of an elected president last year." Dropping back to the April 23rd snapshot:
On the topic of Stephen Beecroft, Laura Rozen (Backchannel) reports the word is Beecroft will be nominated to be the US Ambassador to Egypt shortly.
That would be a deeply stupid move. So it's probably going to happen. If it does, we'll go into how stupid it is. Until then, we'll just note the rumor.
I didn't doubt Laura Rozen, she has strong sources in the State Dept. I don't doubt Reuters but we'll wait for a real statement and then we'll go into how stupid this is. (We also don't have space or time today for this topic.)
Moving over to the topic of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed there September 11, 2012: Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Congress is pulling together a select committee to investigate. US House Rep Trey Gowdy has been named to head it.
Gowdy was a guest yesterday on The Charlie Rose Show (PBS -- link is video). In this community, Ruth has covered Benghazi more than anyone. This has become one of her chief topics. Last night, she praised Charlie for the interview he conducted. This is an excerpt of the interview.
Charlie Rose: So tell me how you see this? Is a new select committee necessary? Why did you accept the Speaker's invitation? [Speaker of the House John Boehner.] What do you think you can accomplish?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think it's necessary, Charlie, because if you consider the three different categories with respect to Benghazi, number one, why was the facility not secure leading up to 9-11-2012 during the siege itself? Did we have assets able to respond? And if not, why not with the significance of that date? And thirdly, was the government honest with the citizenry in the aftermath with respect to the explanation? I'm sure the Speaker picked me in part because I used to be a prosecutor. That would be my guess. I'm-I'm much more interested in-in pursuing the facts than I am political theater. And I think it can be done that way. I hope my Democratic colleagues will-will participate in the select committee. Many of them are former prosecutors or former attorneys who ask very good questions. I had a guy who stopped me in the airport today just-just at Reagan I was coming to the Capitol. He said I'm a former military guy and I want you to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Now I have no idea what his politics are. He may have no politics. But that's a pretty common refrain -- at least back in South Caroline and as I travel people still think that there are unanswered questions.
Charlie Rose: But it seems to me -- and you can correct me or not -- and I'm asking this as a question, it's really driven by Republicans have this belief and they have not been dissuaded that somehow the White House in a political campaign year has not been forthcoming and you question exactly why there was some confusion about the nature of the attack? That, in the end, that's the issue?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think that you can certainly fashion an argument that that's the most important of three issues because that gets at whether or not people can trust or rely upon what government tells 'em. And it's difficult, Charlie, to go back to 2012. But if you and I can go back there in our minds, we're in the throes of a general election and one of the narratives is that al Qaeda is on the run, Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. I think that Ben Rhodes memo was probably the straw that broke the camel's back because that memo made it really clear that we're going to blame an internet video and not a broader policy failure in Libya. Charlie, I'm an old DA. If-if you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence. That's the mantra that we hear, that 'We used the best evidence that we had at the time, that there wasn't an intent to deceive, we were just mistaken.' Think back to the five Susan Rice talking shows. Well then give me all the evidence that buttressed what you said at the time because there is none.
Charlie Rose: Well, so you don't believe anybody from the CIA who says, 'You know, at the earliest beginnings, we were not sure. We, in Washington at the CIA, were not sure exactly what was going on. We later, you know, looked at all the evidence but that was our state of mind.' You don't believe that?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: No. No. I cannot tell you what someone's state of mind was. What I can tell you is that on September the 12th [2012], there was an e-mail from Beth Jones kind of memoralizing a conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. And she was very clear -- this was Ansar Al Sharia. This was an extremist organization. With respect to Mr. Morrell. every change he made to the talking points, in my judgment, sanitized them -- to go from the word "terrorist" to "extremist," to go from the word "attack" to "demonstration." And most significantly, take out any reference of the prior episodes of violence in Libya because -- and his own testimony was -- he didn't want to embarrass the State Dept. I'm not interested in embarrassing or not embarrassing anyone. I think it is fair to ask, given on that date what had been happening in Libya prior to that, why were we caught so flat-footed by what turned out not to be a protest but an organized attack on our facility?
Charlie Rose: Is it -- Listen to what Mike Morrell said to me on this program in a conversation about him and the CIA but also about Benghazi. Here it is, you can hear it.
Archived Mike Morrell: In the entire process that I talked about, the White House suggested three changes. Three changes. All of them were editorial. None of them were substantive. So the White House had no substantive input into the talking points. There have been allegations, Charlie, that the White House wrote the talking points. There have been allegations that --
Archived Charlie Rose: That's what they mean by cooking the books --
Archived Mike Morrell: Cooking the books.
Archived Charlie Rose: -- is the expression used.
Archived Mike Morrell: There-there have been allegations that the White House made significant changes to the talking points, that's not true. There have been allegations that the White House told me to make changes to the talking points, not true. None of that's true. None of it.
Charlie Rose: So when you listen to Mike Morrell, former Deputy Director of the CIA and acting director say that, what do you think?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Well the first question I would ask Mr. Morrell is then where did Susan Rice come up with her video narrative? Because even the CIA was not pushing that narrative. If you'll think back to Mr. Morrell's testimony before Intel just last month, he said he was shocked when she said on the five Sunday morning talk shows that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video because his intel, his information was, 'Wait a minute no one was telling us that this was related to the video.' Hillary Clinton said it was related to the video. The president condemned the video. So I cannot tell you what Mr. Morell believed on September 12, [2012]. I can tell you this: Someone changed the talking points and they changed them in a light most calculated to sanitize them and cast the administration in the best light. Is there a benign explanation for that? Of course, there could be.
Charlie Rose: Okay.
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Is there a more nefarious explanation? Of course, there could be.
Still on Benghazi, Media critic David Zuraqik (Z on TV, Baltimore Sun) argues that the way you see Benghazi may come down to whether or not you served in the military:
Despite the sneers of MSNBC hosts and the disdainful manner of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Benghazi matters. And it matters in ways we don't yet even understand -- deep, fractious ways that reveal a major front in the culture war almost no one seems to understand or want to even talk about:
[. . .]
No one who has been in the military would ever say, "What difference . . . does it make?" as Hillary Clinton did of the details of Benghazi.
No one who has been in the military -- especially in battle -- would ever think for one second it was OK not to try something, no matter how desperate, to get aid to the Americans in the Benghazi compound.
But for those who did not serve, such responses seem perfectly OK.
iraq
national iraqi news agency
alsumaria tv
all iraq news
cihan the baltimore sun
david zuraqik
the economist
courthouse news
veterans
disabled veterans of america
pbs
the charlie rose show
missy ryan
reuters
james denselow
iraq
iraq
Starting with veterans issues, US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. His office issued the following:
Chairman Miller Responds to Calls for VA Leadership Changes
May 5, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following the American Legion’s calls for VA leadership changes, Chairman Miller released the following statement:
“Make no mistake. There is a crisis of confidence with VA’s top leadership, and the American Legion’s calls for the resignations of the department’s top leaders should be sending shock waves through the White House. I have the utmost respect for Commander Dellinger’s opinion, and while I am going to wait until VA’s inspector general releases its report on the situation in Phoenix before deciding to call for any personnel changes, this much is clear: for nearly a year, we have been pleading with top department leaders and President Obama to take immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths and hold accountable any and all VA employees who have allowed patients to slip through the cracks. In response, we’ve received disturbing silence from the White House and one excuse after another from VA. Right now, President Obama and Sec. Shinseki are faced with a stark choice: take immediate action to help us end the culture of complacency that is engulfing the Veterans Health Administration and compromising patient safety, or explain to the American people and America’s veterans why we should tolerate the status quo.”
– Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Related
Chairman Miller letter to President Obama
May 21, 2013
“Make no mistake. There is a crisis of confidence with VA’s top leadership, and the American Legion’s calls for the resignations of the department’s top leaders should be sending shock waves through the White House. I have the utmost respect for Commander Dellinger’s opinion, and while I am going to wait until VA’s inspector general releases its report on the situation in Phoenix before deciding to call for any personnel changes, this much is clear: for nearly a year, we have been pleading with top department leaders and President Obama to take immediate steps to stop the growing pattern of preventable veteran deaths and hold accountable any and all VA employees who have allowed patients to slip through the cracks. In response, we’ve received disturbing silence from the White House and one excuse after another from VA. Right now, President Obama and Sec. Shinseki are faced with a stark choice: take immediate action to help us end the culture of complacency that is engulfing the Veterans Health Administration and compromising patient safety, or explain to the American people and America’s veterans why we should tolerate the status quo.”
– Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
Related
Chairman Miller letter to President Obama
May 21, 2013
What scandal are we talking about this time? House Veterans Affairs
Committee Chair Jeff Miller explained it an April 9th Committee hearing.
From that day's snapshot:
US House Rep Jeff Miller: I had hoped that during this hearing, we would be discussing the concrete changes VA had made -- changes that would show beyond a doubt that VA had placed the care our veterans receive first and that VA's commitment to holding any employee who did not completely embody a commitment to excellence through actions appropriate to the employee's failure accountable. Instead, today we are faced with even with more questions and ever mounting evidence that despite the myriad of patient safety incidents that have occurred at VA medical facilities in recent memory, the status quo is still firmly entrenched at VA. On Monday -- shortly before this public hearing -- VA provided evidence that a total of twenty-three veterans have died due to delays in care at VA medical facilities. Even with this latest disclosure as to where the deaths occurred, our Committee still don't know when they may have happened beyond VA's stated "most likely between 2010 and 2012." These particular deaths resulted primarily from delays in gastrointestinal care. Information on other preventable deaths due to consult delays remains unavailable. Outside of the VA's consult review, this committee has reviewed at least eighteen preventable deaths that occurred because of mismanagement, improper infection control practices and a whole host -- a whole host -- of other maladies plaguing the VA health care system nationwide. Yet, the department's stonewall has only grown higher and non-responsive. There is no excuse for these incidents to have ever occurred. Congress has met every resource request that VA has made and I guarantee that if the department would have approached this committee at any time to tell us that help was needed to ensure that veterans received the care they required, every possible action would have been taken to ensure that VA could adequately care for our veterans. This is the third full committee hearing that I have held on patient safety and I am going to save our VA witnesses a little bit of time this morning by telling them what I don't want to hear. I don't want to hear the rote repetition of -- and I quote -- "the department is committed to providing the highest quality care, which our veterans have earned and that they deserve. When incidents occur, we identify, mitigate, and prevent additional risks. Prompt reviews prevent similar events in the future and hold those persons accountable." Another thing I don’t want to hear is -- and, again, I quote from numerous VA statements, including a recent press statement -- "while any adverse incident for a veteran within our care is one too many," preventable deaths represent a small fraction of the veterans who seek care from VA every year. What our veterans have truly "earned and deserve" is not more platitudes and, yes, one adverse incident is indeed one too many. Look, we all recognize that no medical system is infallible no matter how high the quality standards might be. But I think we all also recognize that the VA health care system is unique because it has a unique, special obligation not only to its patients -- the men and women who honorably serve our nation in uniform -- but also to the hard-working taxpayers of the United States of America.
Monday, the American Legion called for the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki over the latest VA scandal. Yesterday, Senators John Cornyn and Jerry Moran jointed the call for Shinseki to step down. Matthew Daly (AP) reports
Senator Richard Burr (Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee) is also calling for Shinseki to step down. Last month, Disabled American Veterans issued a call for accountability and quoted DAV Washington Headquarters Executive Director Garry
Augustine stating, "We look forward to the results of these investigations, and
if there is any evidence of wrongdoing or knowledgeable neglect, those
responsible must be held to account." An early leader in the call for accountability, DAV issued the following today:
DAV remains deeply concerned about allegations of secret waiting lists, falsification of medical appointment records and the destruction of official documents at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities in Phoenix, Arizona and Fort Collins, Colorado.
DAV is first and foremost concerned about the health and safety of the 9 million enrolled veterans who rely on the VA for some or all of their health care needs, including most of our 1.2 million members.
Veterans are a unique population with special needs; and it is vitally important that a safe, high-quality and accessible VA health care system be sustained to deliver such care.
At a time of such serious allegations it is imperative that the VA respond quickly, forcefully and publicly to these reports and answer questions about whether similar problems are threatening other VA facilities or the system as a whole.
Veterans have a right to know that they can receive quality medical care in a timely manner when they come to VA.
I am calling on VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to answer not just the public allegations but also some fundamental questions about the entire VA health care system.
The Secretary must quickly, comprehensively and publicly answer a number of questions that are necessary to give us, all veterans and the American public confidence that the VA health care system can and will provide safe, high-quality care at every facility in the nation.
VA and its leadership at all levels must be held fully accountable for any failures or wrongdoing that may have occurred or be occurring. America’s heroes deserve nothing less.
Yesterday, Concerned Veterans for America issued the following:
Arlington, Va. – Concerned Veterans for America today released a new web video, “Demand Accountability,” as part of its ongoing VA Accountability project, which calls for reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and supports the VA Management Accountability Act—a bill that gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to hold managers accountable for their performance—both positively and negatively.
“Demand Accountability,” which focuses on the VA healthcare system’s culture of dysfunction, highlights the recent news that 40 vets’ deaths have been linked to long wait times for care at the Phoenix VA and points out the large cash bonuses VA administrators around the country received even after overseeing hospitals where severe mismanagement exposed veterans to health risks and in some cases even led to their deaths. The video also calls on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to support the VA Management Accountability Act.
DAV remains deeply concerned about allegations of secret waiting lists, falsification of medical appointment records and the destruction of official documents at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities in Phoenix, Arizona and Fort Collins, Colorado.
DAV is first and foremost concerned about the health and safety of the 9 million enrolled veterans who rely on the VA for some or all of their health care needs, including most of our 1.2 million members.
Veterans are a unique population with special needs; and it is vitally important that a safe, high-quality and accessible VA health care system be sustained to deliver such care.
At a time of such serious allegations it is imperative that the VA respond quickly, forcefully and publicly to these reports and answer questions about whether similar problems are threatening other VA facilities or the system as a whole.
Veterans have a right to know that they can receive quality medical care in a timely manner when they come to VA.
I am calling on VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to answer not just the public allegations but also some fundamental questions about the entire VA health care system.
The Secretary must quickly, comprehensively and publicly answer a number of questions that are necessary to give us, all veterans and the American public confidence that the VA health care system can and will provide safe, high-quality care at every facility in the nation.
VA and its leadership at all levels must be held fully accountable for any failures or wrongdoing that may have occurred or be occurring. America’s heroes deserve nothing less.
Yesterday, Concerned Veterans for America issued the following:
Arlington, Va. – Concerned Veterans for America today released a new web video, “Demand Accountability,” as part of its ongoing VA Accountability project, which calls for reform of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and supports the VA Management Accountability Act—a bill that gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the power to hold managers accountable for their performance—both positively and negatively.
“Demand Accountability,” which focuses on the VA healthcare system’s culture of dysfunction, highlights the recent news that 40 vets’ deaths have been linked to long wait times for care at the Phoenix VA and points out the large cash bonuses VA administrators around the country received even after overseeing hospitals where severe mismanagement exposed veterans to health risks and in some cases even led to their deaths. The video also calls on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to support the VA Management Accountability Act.
New Video: Demand Accountability
Click here to watch.
Pete Hegseth, CEO of CVA, issued the following statement:
“Just yesterday The American Legion called
for the resignation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary
Eric Shinseki—action we fully support and called for at CVA a year ago.
But replacing Shinseki won’t actually lead to reform unless the next VA
secretary is empowered to hold managers and administrators accountable
for their poor performance. That’s why the VA Management Accountability
Act is so important; it equips VA leaders with the tools necessary for
meaningful reform.”
To schedule a TV interview Pete Hegseth, CEO of CVA, or other CVA experts, please email booking@guestbooker.com.
For more information, contact Emily Laird at 571.302.0973 or email elaird@cv4a.org.
###
Concerned Veterans for America is a
non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for
policies that will preserve the freedom and liberty we and our families
so proudly fought and sacrificed to defend.
The first whistle-blower on the Phoenix VA's secret list was Dr. Sam Foote. Rebecca Thomas (CBS5 -- link is video and text) reported yesterday that Troy Burmesch has stepped forward to back Foote's assertions.
He said the secret list might have been a secret to the Veteran's Administration, but everyone on the Phoenix campus knew about it.
Burmesch, who worked as a medical support assistant from November 2012 to September 2013, said most support staff just didn't know exactly how the list was being used.
Jamie Reno (IBT) reports today:
*A third and fourth whistleblower at the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System provided more details of the “secret list” allegedly
used by managers to make it appear that wait times for veterans were
shorter than they actually were. At least 40 veterans died while waiting
for care in Phoenix, according to whistleblowers. Three top managers in
Phoenix have been placed on leave while the VA’s inspector general
investigates.
*A VA scheduling clerk accused higher-ups in Austin,
Texas, and San Antonio of manipulating data in an attempt to hide long
wait times to see doctors there, the Austin American-Statesman reported on
Wednesday. The employee told the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which
protects government whistleblowers, that he and others were “verbally
directed by lead clerks, supervisors, and during training” to ensure
that wait times at the Austin VA Outpatient Clinic and the North Central
Federal Clinic in San Antonio were “as close to zero days as possible,"
according to the newspaper.
Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) reports on Chelsea Manning who, having won the battle to change her name now is pursuing hormone therapy while she serves her 35 year sentence in a military prison.
The story publicly begins Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
For truth telling, Brad was punished by the man who fears truth: Barack Obama. A fraud, a fake, a 'brand,' anything but genuine, Barack is all marketing, all facade and, for that reason, must attack each and every whistle-blower. David Delmar (Digital Journal) points out, "President Obama, while ostensibly a liberal advocate of transparency and openness in government, and of the 'courage' and 'patriotism' of whistleblowers who engage in conscientious leaks of classified information, is in reality something very different: a vindictive opponent of the free press willing to target journalists for doing their job and exposing government secrets to the public."
Tuesday, July 30th, Bradley was convicted of all but two counts by Colonel Denise Lind, the military judge in his court-martial. Susan Manning is Brad's mother. Nic North (Daily Mail) quotes her stating, "Never give up hope, son. I know I may never see you again, but I know you will be free one day. I pray it is soon. I love you, Bradley, and I always will." His aunt Sharon Staples states, "If anyone was going to get themselves arrested for leaking hundreds of thousands of secret documents and end up jail for it, it was going to be our Bradley. He just seemed to have a burning sense of wanting to right any injustice from such a young age." August 21st, Bradley was given a lengthy prison sentence. Following the verdict, Manning issued a press release which included, "I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female." She is appealing her conviction. Now Chelsea is seeking hormone therapy. Klasfeld notes, "Manning has offered to pay for her treatment to avoid litigation, and a media-generated controversy, even though an increasing number of federal and appellate courts have affirmed that she is entitled to get such care for free."
Last Wednesday, Iraqis voted in parliamentary elections. And it briefly got some attention from the western media. James Denselow (Majalla) observes:
Iraq has become a family secret, the hideously malformed child hidden away in the attic, whose presence is only acknowledged on rare and awkward occasions. In the UK this is particularly true with the Chilcot Inquiry, ongoing since 2009, testing the patience of the prime minister as to when it will reveal its findings. Iraq’s state of permanent chaos, of market bombings and assassinations, has turned it into a toxic issue which politicians avoid, one which bores the public and which the media struggles to contain into a coherent narrative.
Along with having elected Members of Parliament, there is the hope that this time (third time's the charm?), Iraqis might elect their own prime minister. In 2006, the Bully Boy Bush administration imposed know-nothing Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (when the pick of Iraqis was Ibrahim al-Jafaari) and, in 2010, when Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, the Barack Obama administration imposed Nouri for a second term (the US brokered The Erbil Agreement -- a legal contract which circumvented the will of the people, the Iraqi Constitution and basic concepts of democracy -- what a proud moment for Barack). The Economist sees the scramble for the post of prime minister as a scramble for Shi'ite alliances:
Many Shia voters in Iraq still look to the Marjaya, the establishment of senior religious scholars in the holy city of Najaf, to give them guidance when casting their ballots. Mr Maliki has brought the security and intelligence services under his control, has eroded the power of parliament and replaced military commanders with people loyal to him. But he has been less successful in creating unity among his fellow Shias—the overwhelming concern of the Marjaya.
During the campaign Ali al-Sistani, the 83-year-old grand ayatollah whose influence was pre-eminent in the early years after the American invasion, was silent, but other prominent clergymen in Najaf, including one of Mr Sistani’s closest confidants, called for change. “Every Friday [when they give sermons] they have been bashing the government for not delivering services, accusing them of corruption and for lacking principles and good governance,” says Bakhtiar Amin, a human-rights minister in Iraq’s first government after the American invasion of 2003. “The question is how much the Shias are following their spiritual leaders.”
Cihan observes today:
The real competition is between incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his rivals, namely Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites who believe he will not serve for a third time. There are secondary rivalries between pious Shiites and secularists and between moderate Sunnis and radicals/insurgents.
The Shiites are split three ways between al-Maliki's State of Law Coalition, Muqtada al-Sadr's Sadrist movement and the Citizen Coalition of Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
The Sunnis in turn are split between parliamentary speaker Osama al-Nujaifi's Muttahidoon list and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq's al-Arabiya list. Given this political split, no single bloc is expected to win a majority in the new parliament.
Ammar al-Hakim was busy today. All Iraq News notes he met with the Swedish Ambassador to Iraq and he met with Karar al-Khafaji who heads the political commission of cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr's coaltion. NINA notes that in addition to meeting with Jorgen Lindstrom (Swedish Ambassador), Ammar also met with British Ambassador to Iraq Simon Paul Collins today.
On the subject of the Sadr bloc, Monday's snapshot included:
On Saturday, the Independent High Electoral Commission declared their intention to announce the results May 25th. Today, Ghassan Hamid and Mohammed Shafiq (Alsumaria) report the IHEC has stated the large number of complaints alleging violations during the vote will delay the release of the votes. Violations would be one way to word what State of Law MP Mahmoud al-Hassan is accused of. All Iraq News notes MP Hussein al-Shirifi, of Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc, is calling for the IHEC to toss al-Hassan's eligibility as a result of al-Hassan's alleged voter intimidation to scare up votes for Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition.
Alsumaria reports today that MP Hussein al-Sharifi is stating that a fine for Mahmoud Hassan would not be justice since the State of Law MP was extorting and threatening Iraqi people, specifically those in the slums of Baghdad, that this is recorded on video and that this was broadcast on television so a fine is not enough.
Amjad Salah and Mohammad Shafiq (Alsumaria) report MP Hassoun Fatlawi who serves on Parliament's Legal Committee declared today that Nouri's term will expire June 14th
And Nouri?
He gave his weekly speech today. Alsumaria notes he used it to savage the Parliament and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi as he insisted that they accomplished nothing.
Nouri al-Maliki will have completed his second term in one month and seven days and he will have done so without ever finding three individuals to head the security ministries -- his entire term he has had, for example, no Minister of Defense. For four years, Iraq's been without a Minister of Defense -- as violence has increased. He's in no position to call anyone else a failure.
In fairness to Nouri, he is accomplishing something currently -- increasing his number of War Crimes. As he continues to use collective punishment (legally defined by the United Nations and the United States as a War Crime) on the civilians of Falluja, he kills and he wounds. Alsumaria reports that today's assault on Falluja's residential neighborhoods by Nouri's military bombings left 7 civilians dead and forty-five injured. Suleiman al-Qubeisi (Anadaolu Agency) reports on another shelling today which left 9 dead and numerous people injured -- the nine dead included 2 children. AFP notes today, "Security forces have periodically clashed with insurgents in areas around Fallujah, but the main source of casualties in the city has been persistent shellfire that has especially targeted southern neighbourhoods." Erin Evers (Human Rights Watch) puts a human face on these civilians killed by military shelling:
His call yesterday was not the usual update. He told me that his oldest brother, Ammar, who had also fled Fallujah, recently returned to the city with his wife and daughter when they ran out of money and food. Yesterday, two days after arriving, a mortar strike killed him. He was riding his bike to buy groceries, his brother told me.
[. . .]
Ammar’s death is a stark reminder that horrible abuses by some armed groups, which may amount to crimes against humanity, do not allow the government to attack ordinary people.
Explaining that the US government is back to training the Iraqi military in Jordan, Missy Ryan (Reuters) notes, "Washington's response to surging violence and sectarian tensions in Iraq has been limited by a reluctance to further empower Maliki, who critics say has bullied opponents, and a desire to ensure that U.S. soldiers do not become embroiled again in a Middle Eastern conflict."
Monday, Aswat al-Iraq noted the Kurds were insisting that holding the presidency of Iraq was actually a "right." It's not. It's been a custom. There's nothing in the Iraqi Constitution that guarantees the president will be a Kurd. (Only that he or she will be an Iraqi citizen by birth, born of Iraqi parents.)
The current Iraqi president is Jalal Talabani. The president in self-exile. December 2012, Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. Per the Constitution, he should have been relieved of his duties by February 1, 2013. He's not performing his duties and he hasn't been. This does not help the Kurds make a case but they are trying to.
Massoud Barzani is the KRG President (and he's back in Iraq after his visit to Jordan). Barzani heads the Kurdistan Democratic Party and NINA notes that they are saying that a Kurd must be president and quotes KDP member Abdul Salam Berwari stating, "The entitlement of the presidency is exclusive for Kurds will not renounce it in any way." The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is headed by Jalal. Alsumaria reports that PUK member Burhan Faraj states that the Kurds are discussing now who should be president.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The Kurdish Union Party nominated today the special physician of President Jalal Talabani and the Governor of Kirkuk to assume Iraqi presidency office": Dr. Najm al-Deen Kareem.
The who did what?
The Kurdish Union Party. A minor player in the KRG (and one that's been angling cabinet positions in the KRG's government). The two dominant parties in the KRG now are the KDP and Goran. I don't see why they would back a minor party -- especially one closely associated with the PUK -- Jalal Talabani's party.
Today, Omar al-Jaffal (Al-Monitor) reports:
The PUK nominated Kirkuk governor and Talabani’s personal physician, Najmeddine Karim. Meanwhile, the Movement for Change (Gorran) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) have remained silent, at least until the election results are final.
Kamal Raouf, a political analyst and author, told Al-Monitor, "The two parties that remained silent are waiting for the election’s results," adding, "Karim is not an acceptable candidate for Barzani’s KDP."
Raouf said, "The debate over the presidency of the republic between the Kurdish parties will be limited to the PUK and the Movement for Change," pronouncing it likely that "the [next] president will be a member of the PUK."
"The figures who can be accepted by everyone include Barham Salih, who previously served as prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and Adnan Mufti, a leader of the PUK," he said.
al-Jaffal also notes that the Sunnis are expressing interest in the post with some saying it should go to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.
Back to the ongoing violence, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Hit suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and 1 federal police and injured six more, 1 person was shot dead in Tarmiyah, the Ministry of the Interior announced 1 suspect was killed in Salah al-Din, the Joint Operations Command announced they killed 12 suspects, 1 agronomist was shot dead in Mosul, police forces killed 1 suspect west of Mosul, a Mosul car bombing left four people injured, an armed clash in Falluja left 4 rebels dead, and 2 corpses were discovered south of Kirkuk. Alsumaria adds the corpses had gunshot wounds, were blindfolded and bound.
Meanwhile, it's been noted that US Ambassador Beecroft has issued no statement on the elections. (They took place April 30th so, no, his April 23rd a week before the elections does not count.)
Reuters notes today, "The Obama administration plans to nominate its ambassador in Iraq to be the new U.S. envoy in Cairo, U.S. officials said on Wednesday, as U.S.-Egyptian ties remain strained following the Egyptian army's ouster of an elected president last year." Dropping back to the April 23rd snapshot:
On the topic of Stephen Beecroft, Laura Rozen (Backchannel) reports the word is Beecroft will be nominated to be the US Ambassador to Egypt shortly.
That would be a deeply stupid move. So it's probably going to happen. If it does, we'll go into how stupid it is. Until then, we'll just note the rumor.
I didn't doubt Laura Rozen, she has strong sources in the State Dept. I don't doubt Reuters but we'll wait for a real statement and then we'll go into how stupid this is. (We also don't have space or time today for this topic.)
Moving over to the topic of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed there September 11, 2012: Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and US Ambassador Chris Stevens. Congress is pulling together a select committee to investigate. US House Rep Trey Gowdy has been named to head it.
Gowdy was a guest yesterday on The Charlie Rose Show (PBS -- link is video). In this community, Ruth has covered Benghazi more than anyone. This has become one of her chief topics. Last night, she praised Charlie for the interview he conducted. This is an excerpt of the interview.
Charlie Rose: So tell me how you see this? Is a new select committee necessary? Why did you accept the Speaker's invitation? [Speaker of the House John Boehner.] What do you think you can accomplish?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think it's necessary, Charlie, because if you consider the three different categories with respect to Benghazi, number one, why was the facility not secure leading up to 9-11-2012 during the siege itself? Did we have assets able to respond? And if not, why not with the significance of that date? And thirdly, was the government honest with the citizenry in the aftermath with respect to the explanation? I'm sure the Speaker picked me in part because I used to be a prosecutor. That would be my guess. I'm-I'm much more interested in-in pursuing the facts than I am political theater. And I think it can be done that way. I hope my Democratic colleagues will-will participate in the select committee. Many of them are former prosecutors or former attorneys who ask very good questions. I had a guy who stopped me in the airport today just-just at Reagan I was coming to the Capitol. He said I'm a former military guy and I want you to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Now I have no idea what his politics are. He may have no politics. But that's a pretty common refrain -- at least back in South Caroline and as I travel people still think that there are unanswered questions.
Charlie Rose: But it seems to me -- and you can correct me or not -- and I'm asking this as a question, it's really driven by Republicans have this belief and they have not been dissuaded that somehow the White House in a political campaign year has not been forthcoming and you question exactly why there was some confusion about the nature of the attack? That, in the end, that's the issue?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: I think that you can certainly fashion an argument that that's the most important of three issues because that gets at whether or not people can trust or rely upon what government tells 'em. And it's difficult, Charlie, to go back to 2012. But if you and I can go back there in our minds, we're in the throes of a general election and one of the narratives is that al Qaeda is on the run, Osama bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. I think that Ben Rhodes memo was probably the straw that broke the camel's back because that memo made it really clear that we're going to blame an internet video and not a broader policy failure in Libya. Charlie, I'm an old DA. If-if you really think it was the video, then site me all the evidence. That's the mantra that we hear, that 'We used the best evidence that we had at the time, that there wasn't an intent to deceive, we were just mistaken.' Think back to the five Susan Rice talking shows. Well then give me all the evidence that buttressed what you said at the time because there is none.
Charlie Rose: Well, so you don't believe anybody from the CIA who says, 'You know, at the earliest beginnings, we were not sure. We, in Washington at the CIA, were not sure exactly what was going on. We later, you know, looked at all the evidence but that was our state of mind.' You don't believe that?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: No. No. I cannot tell you what someone's state of mind was. What I can tell you is that on September the 12th [2012], there was an e-mail from Beth Jones kind of memoralizing a conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. And she was very clear -- this was Ansar Al Sharia. This was an extremist organization. With respect to Mr. Morrell. every change he made to the talking points, in my judgment, sanitized them -- to go from the word "terrorist" to "extremist," to go from the word "attack" to "demonstration." And most significantly, take out any reference of the prior episodes of violence in Libya because -- and his own testimony was -- he didn't want to embarrass the State Dept. I'm not interested in embarrassing or not embarrassing anyone. I think it is fair to ask, given on that date what had been happening in Libya prior to that, why were we caught so flat-footed by what turned out not to be a protest but an organized attack on our facility?
Charlie Rose: Is it -- Listen to what Mike Morrell said to me on this program in a conversation about him and the CIA but also about Benghazi. Here it is, you can hear it.
Archived Mike Morrell: In the entire process that I talked about, the White House suggested three changes. Three changes. All of them were editorial. None of them were substantive. So the White House had no substantive input into the talking points. There have been allegations, Charlie, that the White House wrote the talking points. There have been allegations that --
Archived Charlie Rose: That's what they mean by cooking the books --
Archived Mike Morrell: Cooking the books.
Archived Charlie Rose: -- is the expression used.
Archived Mike Morrell: There-there have been allegations that the White House made significant changes to the talking points, that's not true. There have been allegations that the White House told me to make changes to the talking points, not true. None of that's true. None of it.
Charlie Rose: So when you listen to Mike Morrell, former Deputy Director of the CIA and acting director say that, what do you think?
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Well the first question I would ask Mr. Morrell is then where did Susan Rice come up with her video narrative? Because even the CIA was not pushing that narrative. If you'll think back to Mr. Morrell's testimony before Intel just last month, he said he was shocked when she said on the five Sunday morning talk shows that this was a spontaneous reaction to a video because his intel, his information was, 'Wait a minute no one was telling us that this was related to the video.' Hillary Clinton said it was related to the video. The president condemned the video. So I cannot tell you what Mr. Morell believed on September 12, [2012]. I can tell you this: Someone changed the talking points and they changed them in a light most calculated to sanitize them and cast the administration in the best light. Is there a benign explanation for that? Of course, there could be.
Charlie Rose: Okay.
US House Rep Trey Gowdy: Is there a more nefarious explanation? Of course, there could be.
Still on Benghazi, Media critic David Zuraqik (Z on TV, Baltimore Sun) argues that the way you see Benghazi may come down to whether or not you served in the military:
Despite the sneers of MSNBC hosts and the disdainful manner of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Benghazi matters. And it matters in ways we don't yet even understand -- deep, fractious ways that reveal a major front in the culture war almost no one seems to understand or want to even talk about:
[. . .]
No one who has been in the military would ever say, "What difference . . . does it make?" as Hillary Clinton did of the details of Benghazi.
No one who has been in the military -- especially in battle -- would ever think for one second it was OK not to try something, no matter how desperate, to get aid to the Americans in the Benghazi compound.
But for those who did not serve, such responses seem perfectly OK.
iraq
national iraqi news agency
alsumaria tv
all iraq news
cihan the baltimore sun
david zuraqik
the economist
courthouse news
veterans
disabled veterans of america
pbs
the charlie rose show
missy ryan
reuters
james denselow
iraq
iraq
