I found Jeff Greer's "University of Alaska Student Journalists to Report From Iraq" (U.S. News & World Reports) interesting:
Three University of Alaska journalism students and their professor are headed to Iraq this week, the Chronicle of Higher Ed reports. They'll be embedded with an Alaskan-based Army Stryker Brigade combat team and write daily reports. They'll also update and maintain a blog, Short Timers, and regularly post first-person accounts on Facebook.
The students -- Jennifer Canfield, Tom Hewitt, and Jessica Hoffman -- were selected from a 12 applicants. The professor leading them, Brian Patrick O'Donoghue, is the chair of the university's journalism department.
University of Alaska President Mark Hamilton, a 31-year Army veteran, originally approached journalism students with the idea, and the receptive students pushed O'Donoghue to make the trip happen. O'Donoghue put together a trip proposal, and it was met with enthusiasm and support from Hamilton and Army officers.
Enthusiasm?
I have none for Law and Disorder. Why? I listened to it Monday on WBAI.
"Glen says . . ." "Well Glen wrote . . ." After the third time of hearing this nonsense, I turned the show off. Why would I want to listen to that nonsense?
Glenn Greenwald is nothing but a joke. He was part of the first memo crew -- where 'independent' bloggers got their daily talking points e-mailed to them. And he has not changed any.
So I am really not all that interested in what Glenn has to say.
There is also something truly disturbing that this is who Michael Ratner and Michael Smith have to go to for quotes. What? The two of them forgot how to type?
Two attorneys, with a strong track record, and where is their writing?
Mr. Ratner and Mr. Smith may have a professional crush on Glenn. I hope it is something that silly. I would hate to think they were trying to join in the Democratic circle jerk.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, July 28, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US Defense Secretary visits Iraq, Nouri launches an attack on civilians at Camp Ashraf, Baghdad loses millions in a bank robbery, and more.
Today Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reveals that, oh, US troops? Still patrolling. US troops are patrolling in Mosul. The 'pull-back' was for-show as was Nouri al-Maliki's no-no-we-don't-want-US-troops-in-Mosul. The largest question Gatehouse's report raises is why the BBC is the one breaking the news? Don't several US papers have staff in Baghdad?
He's not patrolling (and he's hopefully not editing copying) but US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Iraq today. As always, it was an unannounced visit. They keep splashing waves of Operation Happy Talk but the US officials still can't visit Iraq openly. Kevin Baron (Stars and Stripes) reports that the press was told about the visit on Friday by someone at the Defense Dept and quotes the unnamed person telling them, "The purpose of going to Talil is so the secretary can get an understanding of the advisory and assistance brigades that are sort of being developed. This is what eventually we will be left with when we have a transitional force come September 2010." Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) is part of the press traveling with Gates and notes this his first visit to Iraq for 2009 -- seven months in, rather sad -- and that he plans to visit with both Nouri al-Maliki (puppet of the occupation) and Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq). She also notes Gates will be playing an Amway salesman for US defense contractors as he meets with Iraqi officials to discuss "whether the U.S. will sell Iraq any F-16 fighter jets." Jim Wolf (Reuters) reports it more bluntly: "One of the topics they are expected to discuss is Baghdad's interest in acquiring Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N) F-16 multirole fighter jets to counter possible threats from neighbouring nations after U.S. forces leave." And he will visit Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani. Al Bawaba reports that Gates' visit as 8 security guards were killed in a Baghdad bank robbery. AFP places the amount stolen at $3.8 million (US dollars). Gates was greeted with a parade. Well . . . a protest. Aljazeera reports followers of Moqtada al-Sadr staged a demonstration chanting "NO, NO TO AMERICA!" BBC reports, "At a news conference after his talks in Baghdad, Mr Gates side-stepped a question about whether some US forces might stay on beyond a 2011 deadline for withdrawal. The issue, he said, was best left until the end of 2010 or even 2011."
Whose funding the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq? For years General David Petraeus, Robert Gates and assorted others have insisted it was the government of Iran. Turns out, it may be the US. Free Speech Radio News explained yesterday:
Andrew Stelzer: The US Agency for Intenational Development, or USAID, has suspended a $644 million dollar program in Iraq because of two reviews indicating a portion of the money was ending up in the hands of insurgents and going to fund jobs that didn't exist. The government hired the Virginia-based International Relief and Development to run the public works job creation program. Former employees told USA Today that documents were faked and projects that didn't exist were included in progress reports.
Ken Dilanian (USA Today) explains the program "was designed to tamp down the insurgency by paying Iraqi cash to do public work projects such as trash removal and ditch digging." So the US government, not the Iranian one, has been funding the so-called 'insurgency.' Government officials in Iran are no doubt happy by another development. Nouri al-Maliki did their bidding today. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that Camp Ashraf, to the north of Baghdad, was raided today by Iraqi forces who "used batons, hoses, pepper spray and sound grenades during the raid at Camp Ashraf, home to the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq [approximately 3500 people]. The raid came a day after the Iraqi government announced it would assume complete responsibility of the camp and vowed to 'protest the people inside the base'." You can't trust Nouri. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran is stating that "Peyman Kord-Amir, artist and singer, is in coma right now due to severe blows to his head." They note 2,000 Iraqi forces were sent in and they note that following the 300 wounded and the 4 dead, residents of Camp Ashraf have started a hunger strike and have issued a list of demands which include the immediate removal of Iraqi forces and the freeing of prisoners, returning protection responsibilities for the camp to the US, allowing attorneys and human rights organizations into the camp. Nouri's bag boy Ali al-Dabbagh insists to UPI, The entrance of the Iraqi forces into Camp Ashraf is not a break-in but rather a well-coordinated operation to stabilize the security situation inside the camp." AFP is reporting that 150 were injured as Iraqi forces stormed the camp. Until recently, the US had been protecting the camp. Before the start of the illegal war, the Iranians were allowed in the country by Saddam Hussein. Nouri's close ties to Iran include the many years where his cowardly streak found him living there because it took to much strength and courage to fight to overthrow a government he didn't believe in. Much better to hide like a coward and wait for the US military to do so. AFP quotes US Gen Ray Odierno insisting the US had no prior knowledge of the assault: "We didn't know they were going to do this." Really? After May when Nouri ordered what was obviously the trial run for the assault, no one suspected? When he sent Iraqi forces into Camp Ashraf May 28th, no one had a clue?
Barack Obama's administration has failed. Following the election, they knew this was one of the issues that the previous administration would be dumping in their laps and they knew it was time sensitive. They refused to seriously address it and, in fact, took the promises of thug Nouri at face value in order to be done with the matter and wash their hands clean. They knew this was a serious issue and instead of treating it seriously, they passed the buck. On an issue that was early on desginated as "a litmus test" regarding Barack's dedication to human rights.
August 8, 2004, the US Embassy in Baghdad [PDF format warning] sent a report by John Negroponte which noted:
(D) PROTECTED PERSON: THE MUJAHIDDEN-E-KHALQ
32. (U) 3,839 members and former members of the USG-designated foreign terrorist organization Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) are currently resident at Camp Ashraf in Diyala Province under Coalition guard and protection.
33. (U) MF-I has designated these 3,839 individuals as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention and considers the restrictions placed on MEK travel outside the compound and on visitor entry as "measures of control and security" permitted under Article 27 of IVGC.
34. (U) Those 74 residents of Camp Ashraf who are citizens or legal residents of third countries are permitted to repatriate with the approval of their respective governments. MNF-I and Post are currently facilitating a number of possible repatriations.
35. (U) IRC has been invited to vist Camp Ashraf to conduct individual interviews with the residents of the Camp. It is expected that these interviews may result in ICRC's recommendation that UNHCR make a determination of refugee status in many cases.
The term "terrorist" may be applied to the group. That was being re-evaluated by the US government (prior to the assault). Already this year England and the European Union took the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq off their list of terrorists groups. If "terrorist" is used, don't let that distract from the fact that this was a camp for exiles, that children were present during the assault. In March 2008, the International Red Cross' Juan-Pedro Schaerer explained, "The main responsibility to protect civilians lies with the States that have effective control over them -- in this case, the governments of the United States and of Iraq have to find a suitable solution in accordance with international law and relevant provisions of national law. Our main concern is to ensure that the authorities meet these obligations. In particular, they must always protect the lives, the physical and moral integrity and the dignity of those concerned. Morevoer, should anyone in Ashraf be suspected or accused of committing criminal offences, judicial guarantees must be respected as provided for in international law." The residents of the camp had rights. Those rights were not respected and the camp was assaulted. April 20th, Amnesty International issued "Iraq: concerns regarding the future of Camp Ashraf resident:"
Amnesty International has written directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki about recent developments relating to the more than 3,000 Iranian exiles currently living in Camp Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad, who Iraqi officials have said should leave the country. The Iranians are members or supporters of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI).
In particular, Amnesty International expressed concern at a recent statement reportedly made in an interview with al-Forat, an Iraqi TV channel, by National Security Advisor Dr Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, in which he said that the authorities intend gradually to make the continued presence of the Camp Ashraf residents "intolerable". Shortly after this, possibly in a related development, a team of medical doctors were denied access to the Camp for several days. One purpose of their visit was reportedly to provide treatment to a woman in the Camp in need of surgery for an internal cancerous tumour. The doctors were later allowed into the camp.
In its letter, Amnesty International urged the Iraqi Prime Minister to ensure that no action is taken by the Iraqi authorities that violates the human rights of the Camp Ashraf residents and to clarify the government's intentions towards them in the light of Dr al-Rubaie's reported threat to make their lives "intolerable." Amnesty International has previously called on the Iraqi government to ensure that none of the Camp Ashraf residents or other Iranian dissidents are forcibly returned to Iran in view of fears that they would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations there.
Background:
The PMOI is an Iranian opposition organization and many of its members have been resident in Iraq for many years. Until recently the organization was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the European Union (EU) and governments of non-EU states, but in most cases this designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the US forces provided protection for the Ashraf Camp residents, who were designated as "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions. This situation has apparently been discontinued following the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments which came into force on 1 January 2009, although the SOFA does not make any reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. The Iranian government is said to be putting pressure on Iraq to expel the PMOI members and supporters from Iraq.
Amnesty International wasn't the only one raising concerns. April 24th the European Parliament adopted the following resolution:
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the Geneva Conventions and notably Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,
- having regard to the Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto,
- having regard to the Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraqi Governments, signed in November 2008,
- having regard to its resolution of 12 July 2007 on the humanitarian situation of Iraqi refugees(1) and its resolution of 4 September 2008 on executions in Iran(2), which include references to Camp Ashraf residents having legal status as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention,
-having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A.- whereas Camp Ashraf in Northern Iraq was established during the 1980s for members of the Iranian opposition group People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI),
B.- whereas in 2003 US forces in Iraq disarmed Camp Ashraf's residents and provided them with protection, those residents having been designated "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions,
C.- whereas in a letter dated 15 October 2008 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged the Iraqi Government to protect Camp Ashraf residents from forcible deportation, expulsion or repatriation in violation of the non-refoulement principle, and to refrain from any action that would endanger their life or security,
D.- whereas following the conclusion of the US/Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement, control of Camp Ashraf was transferred to the Iraqi security forces as of 1 January 2009,
E.- whereas, according to recent statements reportedly made by the Iraqi National Security Advisor, the authorities intend gradually to make the continued presence of the Camp Ashraf residents "intolerable", and whereas he reportedly also referred to their expulsion/extradition and/or their forcible displacement inside Iraq,
1.- Urges the Iraqi Prime Minister to ensure that no action is taken by the Iraqi authorities which violates the human rights of the Camp Ashraf residents and to clarify the Iraqi government's intentions towards them; calls on the Iraqi authorities to protect the lives and the physical and moral integrity of the Camp Ashraf residents and to treat them in accordance with obligations under the Geneva Conventions, in particular by refraining from forcibly displacing, deporting, expelling or repatriating them in violation of the principle of non-refoulement;
2.- Respecting the individual wishes of anyone living in Camp Ashraf as regards his or her future, considers that those living in Camp Ashraf and other Iranian nationals who currently reside in Iraq having left Iran for political reasons could be at risk of serious human rights violations if they were to be returned involuntarily to Iran, and insists that no person should be returned, either directly or via a third country, to a situation where he or she would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights abuses;
3.- Calls on the Iraqi Government to end its blockade of the camp, to respect the legal status of the Camp Ashraf residents as protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, and to refrain from any action that would endanger their life or security, i.e. to afford them full access to food, water, medical care and supplies, fuel, family members and international humanitarian organisations;
4.- Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States, together with the Iraqi and US Governments, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to work towards finding a satisfactory long-term legal status for Camp Ashraf residents;
5.- Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Government of the United States of America and the Government and Parliament of Iraq.
The issue was debate by the UK House of Lords at the start of this month with the Labour Party Whip repeatedly assuring that England was on the issue and conveying this message to the Iraqi government and that message, and monitoring and they have "sought assurances" and received them. At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked about the assault and responded, "We've seen these media reports and we're looking into them. As you know, the government of Iraq has assumed responsibility -- security responsibility -- for Camp Ashraf and its residents. We continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure the residents of Camp Ashraf are treated in accordance with Iraq's written assurance that it will treat the residents there humanely. This is in accordance with the constitutional laws and the international obligations of Iraq and the government has stated to us that no Camp Ashraf resident will be forcibly transferred to a country where they have reason to fear persecution on the basis of their political beliefs, poitical opinions or religious beliefs or whether there are substantial grounds for believing they would be tortured."
While Nouri, if Odierno is correct, ignores the US, they continue to cater to him. July 9th, five Iranian diplomats were released. Or were they? Apparently, four were released but the fifth was something else and the US military used the diplomats release to sneak the non-diplomat out. Bill Roggio (Long War Journal) reports:
The US had previously released two members of the Irbil Five in November 2007, according to The Associated Press, but the report received little attention. This "left room for Farhadi to be pawned off as one of the Irbil Five and snuck out the back door," one official told The Long War Journal.
The US captured Farhadi during a raid in the northern Kurdish province of Sulimaniyah on Sept. 20, 2007 [see LWJ report, Captured Iranian Qods Force officer a regional commander in Iraq].
Farhadi's detention caused a row between Iran and Iraq. Iran closed the border after claiming Farhadi was an Iranian trade delegation representative named Agha Farhadi who was visiting Iraq on a sanctioned business trip.
Why would they worry? Why would they hide Farhadi's release? Because Barack Obama has a large and growing problem with military families over a stunt pulled without explanation last month. From the June 9th snapshot:
This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of.
That was a trade which was supposed to lead to the release of five British hostages. Two were released, their corpses. Earlier this month, Kim Howells, former Foreign Office Minister in the UK, told BBC that "he doubts Britain negotiated with the right people in its attempts to free five men kidnapped in Iraq." Howells: "I'm not convinced we were ever negotating with the right people. I mean, that's doubtful. The only real proof of life that I saw were the video. And there were stories circulating that a suicide had taken place, there were deadlines that came and went." And all of that goes to why the US would sneak out a prisoner.
Turning to other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad motorcycle bombing which claimed 8 lives and left seventeen injured and a two Baghdad roadside bombings which left four people injured. Reuters notes a Baghdad cafe bombing which claimed 2 lives and left fifteen injured.
Meanwhile, remember how Iraq was assuming control of paying Sahwa (also known as "Awakening" and "Sons Of Iraq")? Remember that spin started in November and we've had several other key 'dates' since. Well the US military announces today that the Iraqi government paid some members of Sahwa today in Kirkuk for . . the month of May. Handing out payments, Iraqi Lt Col Afrain declared, "This payment is for May. We have to work on solutions to the pay problem." Yes, you do. And, no, it's not a surprise, it's not something new and it's nothing your government shouldn't have been planning for some time ago.
Yesterday's snapshot included: " Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports British troops will likely have to leave Iraq as a result of the Parliament failing to ratify the bilateral agreement between England and Iraq 'Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the naval training personnel would wait in Kuwait until they were given permission to return. It is an embarrassment to Britain, however, and an illustration of the low regard in which its role in Iraq -- it once had 45,000 troops based there -- is held'." Today the Telegraph of London quotes British Embassy spokesperson Jawwad Syed declaring, "The guys who were doing the training are temporarily moving out to Kuwait while we talk to the Iraqi government about what we might do in the interim." CNN reports that "about a dozen helping to train Iraqi police as part of a NATO mission" will remain. They also state it was the al-Sadr bloc in Parliament that kept the agreement from being voted on. "Our story begins," writes Babak Rahmi (Foreign Policy) in an article on Moqtada al-Sadr's rise, "in the summer 2007, when Sadr first dabbled in getting the extra credentials. The idea came after an outbreak of violence between Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization, another armed Shiite group, in Karbala. Soon afterward, Iraqi police intervened and Sadr called a cease-fire, suspending his militia's activity. He went underground for security reasons. Soon thereafter, he left for Iran." Well why should he be any different from the previous exiles?
Saturday, Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reported the Ministry of Culture is censoring books in 'free' Iraq and quotes the ministry Taher al-Humoud explaining that all publishers now must "submit lists of titles for approval". An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy blogs (Inside Iraq):
After the 2003 American-led invasion, Iraqis enjoyed an immediate benefit--freedom of expression.Today, after all the pain and sacrifices we have endured for six years, this freedom is threatened again.After the Saddam Hussein regime fell, thousands of book and dozens of newspapers that had been banned, censored or not permitted to be printed were suddenly free to publish.
Meanwhile Heath Druzin (Stars and Stripes) explores the northern section of Iraq, "Iraqi Kurdistan's only legal land crossing along the Turkish border, it is one of the busiest ports of entry in the country, accounting for much of the estimated $6 billion in trade between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurdish region, according to a 2008 report released by the U.S. Agency for International Development." Druzin explains that the violent exchanges between the PKK and Turkey are handled with free-flow of information between the US and Turkey; however, that's not the case for all:
Local villagers are not so lucky and, while no solid numbers are available, there have been many reports of civilian deaths and injuries. In March, a 2-year-old boy was killed near the Iranian border, and earlier this month, a farmer was badly injured by shrapnel.
More often, the attacks kill livestock, set pastures and farms ablaze and flatten homes. In between shelling, shepherds who graze their sheep along the poorly-marked border must worry about being captured by Iranian troops, a fate that has befallen at least nine Iraqi Kurds in the past month, according to local officials.
The fighting makes an already grinding existence, scratched out from unforgiving terrain through bee-keeping, herding, and subsistence farming, nearly impossible. At least 8,000 Kurds have fled the fighting, creating a refugee crisis in surrounding cities, according to the Refugee Office of Soran, a government organization that works with Kurdish refugees.
Druzin is the reporter the military attempted to censor. Xinhau notes today, "Turkish Interior Minister Besir Atalay on Tuesday said that Turkey, Iraq and the United States were determined to make their cooperation on fighting against terrorism more influential."
iraqbbc news
gabriel gatehouse
jane arrafthe new york timescampbell robertsonalissa j. rubindeborah haynespaul purpuramartin chulov
elisabeth bumillerstars and stripeskevin baron
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Senator Gillibrand's office needs to learn it is okay to say "gay"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack The Magnificent" went up last night.
I love it but I am also aware that I am an old woman. Meaning, I remember Carnac The Magnificent. It was a skit Johnny Carson used to do on The Tonight Show. He would hold an envelope up to his head and make a guess, as Isaiah's illustrated above. He would wear the red velvet headdress with pearl strands and, I believe, feathers on it. I am honestly surprised that, at his age, Isaiah knows of Carnac.
What is Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Who does it effect?
This is from Senator Kristen Gillibrand's office:
Gillibrand Announces Senate Hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Don’t Tell” Policy
Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin Agrees to Hold A Senate Hearing on the Policy This Fall
July 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is announcing that the Senate Armed Services Committee is agreeing to hold a Senate hearing on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy in the Armed Forces this fall. According to a report from the Center for American Progress released last month, since President Barack Obama took office, 265 men and women have been dismissed from the Armed Forces because of the DADT policy.
"This policy is wrong for our national security and wrong for the moral foundation upon which our country was founded,'" Senator Gillibrand said. "I thank Chairman Levin for agreeing to hold this important hearing. Numerous military leaders are telling us that the times have changed. ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is an unfair, outdated measure that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women. By repealing this policy, we will increase America's strength - both militarily and morally."
Nearly 13,000 service members have been discharged for their sexual orientation since 1993, when the policy was first instituted. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the policy cost the Armed Forces approximately $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops that were discharged from 1994 through 2003.
According to a Gallup Poll from May of this year, 69 percent of Americans favor military service by openly gay men and lesbians.
More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders - including the former head of the Naval Academy -signed on to a statement last November calling for an end to DADT policy.
Last month, Senator Gillibrand met with Lt. Dan Choi, a constituent, who was dismissed from the Armed Forces because of the DADT policy. Senator Gillibrand pledged to work with him to repair the damage that has been done to his career and spare thousands of innocent, brave men and women from the same injustice.
Yes, I know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is. If I did not? Well paragraph three would finally start to inform me.
Paragraph three.
And notice that in the senator's actual remarks, her quote, there is no use of the terms gay or lesbian. Notice that and wonder.
Senator Gillibrand is supposed to be a strong woman not afraid to take a stand on many issues and one of those is supposed to be equality.
So it is more than a little distressing to read the quote her office released and to note how hard the press release works to bury the issue of orientation.
Look at CNN's report and you will find "gay" and "lesbian" in the first sentence. The news outlet is not attempting to hide. You will also discover that these are hearings apparently for publicity because there is no legislation pending on this issue. And you will discover that, "Since President Obama took office, 287 service members have been discharged for being gay, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which supports the repeal." Remember that to save the jobs and positions (and benefits) of those 287 service members, all Mr. Obama had to do was to issue an executive order putting a freeze on Don't Ask, Don't Tell while the policy was reviewed. Instead, he has allowed 287 service members to be discharged for being gay in his first six months. And he wanted to lecture last week about profiling?
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Monday, July 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue with at least 6 dead and at least nineteen wounded, the KRG held elections Saturday and no violence reported, Nouri hopes to cut them out of Kirkuk, KBR continues to deny responsibility in the electrocution deaths of US service members in Iraq but a new Pentagon report emerges, the US government officially denies any protocol signed with Iraqi exile leaders but the Los Angeles Times publishes the protocol, and more.
Saturday the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq held provincial and presidential elections. Early voting started on Thursday. Ballots will be counted in Baghdad and results are expected, at the earliest, on Tuesday but US embassy staff are predicting Wednesday at the earliest. Alsumaria noted on election day, "Kurdistan elections are the most intense since 1992 as parliamentary and presidential elections will be carried out on the same day. Five candidates are competing for the presidency while 24 political entities including 19 lists are standing the test of people's vote to occupy 111 seats in Parliament." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Kurdish voters on Saturday packed polling places in Iraq's second election this year, weighing the promises of a new party that pledged to shake up the status quo by exposing corruption in the incumbent regional government. . . . The mood at polling places remained calm through the morning with many men walking to the polls in traditional Kurdish attire and women filling in wearing colorful dresses. Opposition party leaders complained about activity at the polls later in the day, when they said supporters of incumbents tried to sway votes." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Long lines snaked out of polling stations Saturday" which "attests to the enthusiasm generated by the appearance for the first time, of a viable challenge to the 18-year monopoly of the two ruling parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party." Tim Cocks and Shamal Aqrawi (Reuters) explain voting was extended for one hour today and that the Electoral Commission estimates a turnout of 78.5%. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement today noting they applaud "the people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for having turned out in large numbers, especially among women, on July 23rd and 25th to exercise their right to elect new regional, parliamentary, and presidential representatives, in an orderly environment, notably free of violence." Saturday started with the region under curfew but the KRG lifted it after the first four hours when no incidents of violence were reported. The January 31st provincial elections which took place in fourteen of Iraq's 18 provinces required curfews and crackdowns. In Baghdad, for example, voters had to walk to polls as a result of the vehicle ban -- and frequently had to then walk to another polling station and sometimes a third. Don't remember it?
Mohammed Hussein (New York Times) explained, "I walked more than three miles and four polling centers to vote today. I have lived in the same neighborhood for more than 30 years, but my name was not on the list. With the sound of hovering American helicopters filling the unusual silence on the streets I walked to the polling center nearest my house to vote. First I had to be searched and take off my wristwatch, my box of cigarettes and my mobile telphone because an American patrol was watching the main checkpoint of the polling center. I checked my name but I could not find it." He recounts the trip to four polling stations only to note that at the fourth, where he was allowed to vote, he didn't recognize the names of any candidates. Nasreen Yousif couldn't put up with it and she told Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times), that after her third Baghdad polling station, "Now I am going home. Maybe there is a forth school, but it is too far and I can't walk anymore." Back then, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The thousands of schools being used as polling places were ringed with coils of razor wire days ago, and the police began 24-hour guard of them earlier in the week." Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin noted, "Driving was banned in most of the country to prevent suuicide bombers from attacking any of the more than 6,000 polling places and security checkpoints, often spaced just yards apart. The tight security, couples with confusion over where voters should cast their ballots, appeared to have reduced turnout in many districts across the country." And though the claim quickly became that there was no violence at all on this allgedly political holy day, in real time violence was being noted including McClatchy's Laith Hammoudi reporting a Saturday tribal fight in Baghdad that resulted in one death and one person injured and Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reporting security forces shot two people in Baghdad who "tried to enter a polling place carrying cameras and recorders". Reuters states, "The vote was not entirely without incident. Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, the president's nephew, said that one person was killed and 12 were wounded on Sunday evening when election revellers began firing shots into the air." That's Sunday, the day after the vote and, as described, also unintentional violence.
So the KRG calling off the curfew in the midst of voting Saturday is actually news and it's a shame no one thought to report it as such or to offer the obvious comparison of the three provincial elections over the weekend with the fourteen provincial elections in January. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported Saturday, "Kurdish President Massoud Barzani touched on an issue dear to all Kurds when he cast his ballot on his mountain stronghold of Salahuddin. 'I will never compromise on Kirkuk,' he said." That moment resulted in one of the few complaints actually filed (as opposed to complaints bandied to reporters by "Change" 'officials' and their US-government backers). Tim Cocks, Shamal Aqrawi, Muhanad Mohammed and Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) explained that Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission "did say Barzani had broken a campaign deadline rule by speaking to reporters after voting" and quotes IHEC's Qasim al-Sachet, "This is not important, it was a very simple matter and has no effect on the elections." Liz Sly explained Sunday that the parties were releasing their own tallies (these are not official tallies) and that, "Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, which is running the election, said it was investigating a number of complaints lodged by opposition candidates but had not yet found any serious enough to affect the outcome of the vote." The KRG adds, "More than 320 international observers from more than 35 organizations were registered by IHEC to monitor the election. This included observers from the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and a variety of other nations and non-governmental organizations. In addition, more than 30 international media outlets were accredited to observe and report on the election. More than 90 organizations based in Iraq and/or the Kurdistan Region also participated in the observation, with more than 10,000 individuals receiving accreditation badges from IHEC. Political parties were also granted the right to monitor the proceedings, with 47 groups and more than 27,000 individuals accredited for observation." Adam Ashton (Modesto Bee's The Hive) blogs about visitng the "multimedia empire" which is the headquarters for the "Change" Party, "I don't want to be cynical because the voting I saw was free and full of healthy debate. I just couldn't help but hear Roger Daltry singing 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss,' as we drove away from the Change compound in Sulaimaniya." (He's referring to the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," written by Pete Townsend.) "Change" is a US-creation. Founder (frontman) Nawshirwan Mustafa runs that US funded "multi-media empire." Mustafa became a US favorite while allegedly representing Kurdish interests to the US created and controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (interim government run by Paul Bremer). Though a strong voice in public, he was surprisingly weak in protecting Kurdish interests. Despite his fiery words in public and his apparent incompentence as an advocate for Kurdish interests, the US quickly funded Dick Cheney's BFF providing Mustafa with the money needed to start his paper and 'independent' radio station which is a satellite of the US propaganda arm Voice of America (Mustafa's is tellingly known as "Voice of Change").
In addition to crying foul, "Change" has attempted to insist they are the reason for the huge turnout. That claim cannot be backed up. But the issue of Kirkuk's status became a very big part of the KRG elections. Not just on election day with Barzani's remarks. Not just two Sundays ago with a very public speech. For weeks, it has been the driving force behind the elections with candidates from all parties attempting to make the most convincing argument that they would bring Kirkuk under the Kurdistan umbrella. Do not mistakenly think that this campaign talk did not impact voter turnout. The Kurds have long seen Kirkuk as their property and have a historical grievance over the region since Saddam Hussein ran them out of the area. Alsumaria reports the PUK kept a previously scheduled meeting yesterday: "Regardless of the elections results, people's will ought to be respected and whichever party wins, it will form the next government, said Mulla Bakhtyar, PUK political office spokesman. Bakhtyar stressed that the upcoming government will work on achieving major attainments in favor of Kurdistan's people mainly the application of Constitution Article 140." That's the article pertaining to oil-rich Kirkuk which mandated a census and referendum be held to resolve the issue by . . the end of 2007. Also in 2007, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on -- literally signed his name to -- the White House benchmarks for Iraq which included resolving the issue. It has not been resolved. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) observes this morning, "Since 2003, when U.S. forces barreled into Baghdad, toppling Saddam Hussein, inspiring a Shiite revival and unleashing a Sunni insurgency that drew on a communal sense of siege, the war in Iraq has been in large part a sectarian conflict that pitted Sunni Arab against Shiite Arab. That war has subsided, even if bitterness remains." He argues the new conflict is between Arabs and Kurds. Liz Sly interviewed Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih (and PUK member as well as a candidate for prime minister in Kurdistan) and asked him what the elections would mean in terms of the "strained relationship with Baghdad?" Barham Salih responded, "In terms of relationships with Baghdad, the impact should not be overestimated. This election is a turning point in Kurdish political dynamics and Kurdish politics are becoming more competitive and more focused on domestic issues – services, quality of life, corruption, as opposed to the larger issues of Kurdish nationalism. These issues remain important, such as the fate of Kirkuk, the fate of the relationship with Baghdad. But I do not see that there is much dissent on what I see as the mainstream Kurdish position on these issues." Prime minister of Iraq and puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has been visiting DC. Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) analyzes the trip and observes that Nouri al "Maliki wants US and UN support to solve an upcoming problem with Iraqi Kurds. During a honeymoon period with the Kurds in 2007, Maliki promised to uphold Article 140 of the constitution, which calls for a referendum in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk (which holds 13% of Iraq's reserves), to see if its residents want to remain part of Iraq or merge with Iraqi Kurdistan. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time, as Kurdish support was vital for him to maintain a shaky cabinet coalition rocked by major walkouts by Sunnis and fellow Shi'ites loyal to rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr. . . . That honemymoon is now a thing of the past, and Maliki wants to make sure that so is the promised referendum on Kirkuk. The UN is supporting Maliki's argument, claiming that if such a referendum did take place, it could ignite a civil war between Arabs and Kurds. Maliki could not afford this civil strife, nor could he afford having Iran, Turkey, and Syria -- all of which oppose giving Kirikuk to Kurdistan -- on the offensive."
Friday, the press [see Nada Bakri (Washington Post) and Sam Dagher (New York Times)] was covering the talks the US was having with Ba'athist exile leaders and others and the claim that the central government in Baghdad was left in the dark as they insisted they were "demanding explanations] reported on the angry response of the puppet government in Baghdad to the news (which emerged weeks ago in the Arab world) that the US was negotiating with leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to the puppet government the US installed. Elise Labott (CNN) reports US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated Friday that, supposedly like the Iraqi government, she had been unaware of the negotiations until "recently." Labott explains: "Iraqi officials said Friday they were investigating reports of the meetings, calling them a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The reports, which detail a supposed signed agreement between the Americans and insurgents, have angered Iraqis as they seek to establish their authority in the wake of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities." Officially the State Dept denies the signing of any protocol. Unofficially, they admit to Labott one was signed. The Los Angeles Times has posted the protocol both parties signed March 6th:
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE BENEFICENT THE MERCIFUL
PROTOCOL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POLITICAL COUNCIL FOR IRAQI RESISTANCE AND US GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
(Istanbul, 6 March 2009)
The following has been agreed upon between the two parties, Political Coundil for Iraq Resistance (PCIR) and the US Government Representatives in this meeting:
1. The PCIR will give the names of 15 representatives/political leaders in their negotiation team to the Turkish side, in the case of detention or problems in travel inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the Turkish Government will inform the US authorities, who will undertake to resolve the problem, in the case of detention by the Iraqi forces inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the US as well as the Turkish side will exert their best efforts with the Iraqi Government in order to get release of the respresentative(s) of the PCIR.
2. Both parties agreed upon to take a decision regarding the level of the participation in the negotiating teams (technical experts, politicians and leaders), before the next session of negotiations in coordination with the Turkish side.
3. Both negotiating teams should have the equal number of representatives, including the technicians and experts.
4. The venue of the upcoming sessions will be determined at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, in coordination with the Turkish side.
5. dates of the upcoming sessions will be determined by the consent of both parties.
6. This negotiation process is planned to be finalized before the end of June 2009. However, upon agreement by both sides, the negotiation process may be extended.
7. Both parties agreed that the Turkish side to act as the facilitator and guarantor throughout this negotiation process and the PCIR retains the right to ask for other guarantors.
8. Both parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations and to leak information about the negotiations in full or in part to the media, unless otherwise agreed by both parties.
9. Both parties agreed not to use cameras or any recording devices during the sessions.
10. The US will not undertake negotiations with other Sunni resistance groups during negotiation time, in order to allow PCIR to broaden the negotiation with them (This is to be confirmed by the US delegation after consulting with the US Government).
Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the meetings and have lashed out at the United States about conducting such talks. The reality is that U.S. officials most probably informed the Iraqi government about the talks beforehand, as they have done in the past when they explored discussions with groups that might be willing to negotiate with Iraqi officials." Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) adds, "Maliki also is shocked -- shocked -- that the U.S. government talked secretly to insurgent leaders. Everyone, don't tell the prime minister about the Sons of Iraq program, either!" Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) offers on Nouri, "Once Maliki's image is transformed in Washington, he will be able to market himself in different manner to ordinary Iraqis, who need time to forget that he was originally brought to power in 2006 by the United States" ahead of elections currently scheduled for next January. Nouri has Barack supporting him (verbally) on the plan to end UN sanctions on Iraq. Louis Charbonneau (Reuters) reports that Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, is backing a different plan, "I strongly encourage Iraq and other stakeholders to actively discuss alternative solutions to the issue of outstanding compensation and debt payments, including through investments, in the mutual interest of Iraq's people and the region as a while." The amount Iraq owes currently is $25.5 billion of which $24 million is owed to Kuwait.
Meanwhile what Gordon Brown couldn't do (despite promising to) the Iraqi Parliament may have due to its inaction. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports British troops will likely have to leave Iraq as a result of the Parliament failing to ratify the bilateral agreement between England and Iraq "Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the naval training personnel would wait in Kuwait until they were given permission to return. It is an embarrassment to Britain, however, and an illustration of the low regard in which its role in Iraq -- it once had 45,000 troops based there -- is held."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left four people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left five people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured six Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer and an Ameriyah sticky bombing which claimed the life of police Captain Ibraheem Khairallah. Reuters notes a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 "local tribal leader" (his driver was injured), a Kirkuk roadside bombing which left one police officer injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Christian shot dead in Telkev in Nineveh Province. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul (a civilian injured).
Corpses?
Reuters notes the corpse of 1 police officer ("shot in the head and chest") was discovered in Kirkuk.
We'll again note Angelina Jolie's goodwill visit to Iraq last Thursday where she declared, "There are still three million people displaced, innocent families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq Thursday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of support and help to rebuild their lives." The UN notes (link has a great photo of a young Iraqi boy and Angelina in Baghdad) that she is calling "for greater support for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who remain displaced." [Ann wrote about Angelina's vist last week and Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" covered a Congressional hearing which Kat covered at her site Thursday night in "Subcommittee on Disability Assistance & Memorial Affairs."]
Turning to the US and Dave Phillips' "Lethal warriors day 2" (Colorado Springs Gazette):
It was October 2007. A fellow soldier, Kenneth Eastridge, 24, watched it all from the passenger seat. At that moment, he said, it was clear that however messed up some of the soldiers in the unit had been after their first Iraq deployment, it was about to get much worse. "I have no problem with killing," said Eastridge, a two-tour infantryman with almost 80 confirmed kills. "But I won't just murder someone for no reason. He had gone crazy." Hear the prison interviews with Kenneth Eastridge. All three soldiers belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, part of Fort Carson's 4th Brigade Combat Team. The 500-soldier infantry battalion nicknamed itself the "Lethal Warriors." They fought in the deadliest places in the war twice -- first in the Sunni Triangle, then in downtown Baghdad. Since their return late in 2007, eight infantry soldiers have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Another two soldiers from the brigade were arrested and accused of murder and attempted murder after the first tour. Others have committed other violent crimes. Others have committed suicide. Many of the soldiers behind bars and their family members say the violence at home is a consequence of the violence in Iraq. They came home angry, confused, paranoid and depressed. They had trouble getting effective mental heath care. Most buried their symptoms in drugs and alcohol until they exploded.
The article is part of a package following an investigation by the Gazette, part one is Phillips' "The hell of war comes home" and there's also Tom Roeder's "Fort Carson report: Combat stress contributed to soldiers' crimes back home" and "EDITOR'S NOTE: A note of caution about the Lethal Warriors package." The series addresses what happened after they returned to the US and what happened while serving in Iraq where Iraqi drivers were randomly shot at, where those who didn't stop would be run "over with the Bradley," where Iraqis post-interrogation were dumped from bridges and more. Returning home? No concerns from the command except go-away, left to fend for themselves, some afraid to get help, some targeted for trying. Parents who attempted to get help for the children? Commanding officers mocked the soldiers whose parents called, ridiculed them. It's a complete breakdown in policies and procedures and the Gazette did a wonderful investigation but what's needed is a Congressional one.
Meanwhile at least 18 US service members have died in Iraq from shoddy electrocution. KBR always denies that's the case. Scott Bronstein (CNN) reports on the Defense Dept's inspector-general's finding released today which states nine deaths resulted from "improper grounding or faulty equipment" with five more still being investigated. The nine deaths established to have been caused by faulting work on KRB's part includes Sgt Ryan Maseth. KBR continues to shirk responsibility and spokesperson Heather Browne tells CNN, "While the death of Sgt. Maseth was tragic, KBR continues to maintain that it was not responsible for his death. The building in which Staff Sgt Maseth lived was built by Iraqi and other contractors under previous Iraqi leadership." US Senator Bob Casey Jr.'s office released the following today:
After the Department of Defense Inspector General released its report on the electrocution death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth and 17 other electrocution deaths in Iraq, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement:
"I am heartened that, after an exhaustive investigation, the Department of Defense Inspector General has finally published its findings and recommendations. The responsibility for the death of Ryan Maseth can be attributed to many quarters. However, the Inspector General has concluded that the water pump which shorted and caused his electrocution was first installed by a KBR subcontractor less than two years prior to Ryan's death. That water pump, located on the roof of Ryan's building, was not grounded during installation. This deficiency was not discovered during a subsequent inspection administered by KBR.
"We cannot stop with the publication of this report alone. Those who failed to carry out their contractual obligations in a way that contributed to the death of a U.S. soldier should be held fully accountable for their negligence. I also eagerly await the findings of the Army CID report."
Staying with the US Congress, the issue of CERP funds has been raised repeatedly by Congress. The September 10, 2008 House Armed Services Committee hearing found Chair Ike Skelton pursuing the issue of the CERP funds with DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman and explaining the process as Congress intended it.Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.
Appearing before the The Commission on Wartime Contracting February 2nd, the Department of Defense's Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble explained CERP (Commander's Emergency Response Program) funds, "CERP funds are appropriated through the DoD and allocted through each major command's sector of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up to $500,000 can be allocated to individual CERP projects, and CERP beneficiaries often receive payments in cash. We have also identified occasions where soldiers with limited contracting experience were responsible for administering CERP funds. In some instances, there appeared to be scant, if any, oversight of the manner in which funds were expended. Complicating matters further is the fact that payment of bribes and gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations. Taken in combination, these factors result in an environment conducive to bribery and corruption." Despite repeated calls by Congress for an accounting, where the money goes remains murky. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports how the millions in CERP funds have had little-to-no impact:
U.S. lawmakers and the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has released a report about the Caravan Hotel, are increasingly scrutinizing the use of CERP and urging the Pentagon to be more vigilant in its selection and oversight of projects. The success stories and cautionary tales of CERP initiatives in Iraq are shaping the way commanders in Afghanistan use the program as they place greater emphasis on counterinsurgency and keeping the civilian population safe. Since 2003, the U.S. Congress has appropriated more than $10 billion in CERP funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "CERP was meant to be walking-around money for commanders to achieve a desired effect in their battle space," said the office's deputy inspector general, Ginger Cruz. "Slowly, it has become a de facto reconstruction pot of money."
Related, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports Congress is questioning defense spending on 'hearts & minds' campaigns (or spending hidden under that umbrella) and, "In Iraq, the [US] military has awarded $100 million contracts to support elections and the aims of the Baghdad government."
Finally, independent journalist David Bacon continues to report on labor issues and "Mixtec farm workers pick blueberries, melons and chiles" (Immigration Prof Blog) covers workers in San Pablo Tijaltepec. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST) and his latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).
iraqmcclatchy newspapersadam ashtonliz slythe los angeles timesfu yiminggao shantim cocksshamal aqrawi
tina susman
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
stephen farrell
laith hammoudi
nada bakrisam dagher
cnnelise labott
ned parker
thomas e. ricks
ernesto londono
walter pincus
david baconkpfathe morning show
I love it but I am also aware that I am an old woman. Meaning, I remember Carnac The Magnificent. It was a skit Johnny Carson used to do on The Tonight Show. He would hold an envelope up to his head and make a guess, as Isaiah's illustrated above. He would wear the red velvet headdress with pearl strands and, I believe, feathers on it. I am honestly surprised that, at his age, Isaiah knows of Carnac.
What is Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Who does it effect?
This is from Senator Kristen Gillibrand's office:
Gillibrand Announces Senate Hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Don’t Tell” Policy
Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin Agrees to Hold A Senate Hearing on the Policy This Fall
July 27, 2009
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is announcing that the Senate Armed Services Committee is agreeing to hold a Senate hearing on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy in the Armed Forces this fall. According to a report from the Center for American Progress released last month, since President Barack Obama took office, 265 men and women have been dismissed from the Armed Forces because of the DADT policy.
"This policy is wrong for our national security and wrong for the moral foundation upon which our country was founded,'" Senator Gillibrand said. "I thank Chairman Levin for agreeing to hold this important hearing. Numerous military leaders are telling us that the times have changed. ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is an unfair, outdated measure that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women. By repealing this policy, we will increase America's strength - both militarily and morally."
Nearly 13,000 service members have been discharged for their sexual orientation since 1993, when the policy was first instituted. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the policy cost the Armed Forces approximately $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops that were discharged from 1994 through 2003.
According to a Gallup Poll from May of this year, 69 percent of Americans favor military service by openly gay men and lesbians.
More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders - including the former head of the Naval Academy -signed on to a statement last November calling for an end to DADT policy.
Last month, Senator Gillibrand met with Lt. Dan Choi, a constituent, who was dismissed from the Armed Forces because of the DADT policy. Senator Gillibrand pledged to work with him to repair the damage that has been done to his career and spare thousands of innocent, brave men and women from the same injustice.
Yes, I know what Don't Ask, Don't Tell is. If I did not? Well paragraph three would finally start to inform me.
Paragraph three.
And notice that in the senator's actual remarks, her quote, there is no use of the terms gay or lesbian. Notice that and wonder.
Senator Gillibrand is supposed to be a strong woman not afraid to take a stand on many issues and one of those is supposed to be equality.
So it is more than a little distressing to read the quote her office released and to note how hard the press release works to bury the issue of orientation.
Look at CNN's report and you will find "gay" and "lesbian" in the first sentence. The news outlet is not attempting to hide. You will also discover that these are hearings apparently for publicity because there is no legislation pending on this issue. And you will discover that, "Since President Obama took office, 287 service members have been discharged for being gay, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which supports the repeal." Remember that to save the jobs and positions (and benefits) of those 287 service members, all Mr. Obama had to do was to issue an executive order putting a freeze on Don't Ask, Don't Tell while the policy was reviewed. Instead, he has allowed 287 service members to be discharged for being gay in his first six months. And he wanted to lecture last week about profiling?
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Monday, July 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue with at least 6 dead and at least nineteen wounded, the KRG held elections Saturday and no violence reported, Nouri hopes to cut them out of Kirkuk, KBR continues to deny responsibility in the electrocution deaths of US service members in Iraq but a new Pentagon report emerges, the US government officially denies any protocol signed with Iraqi exile leaders but the Los Angeles Times publishes the protocol, and more.
Saturday the Kurdistan region in northern Iraq held provincial and presidential elections. Early voting started on Thursday. Ballots will be counted in Baghdad and results are expected, at the earliest, on Tuesday but US embassy staff are predicting Wednesday at the earliest. Alsumaria noted on election day, "Kurdistan elections are the most intense since 1992 as parliamentary and presidential elections will be carried out on the same day. Five candidates are competing for the presidency while 24 political entities including 19 lists are standing the test of people's vote to occupy 111 seats in Parliament." Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Kurdish voters on Saturday packed polling places in Iraq's second election this year, weighing the promises of a new party that pledged to shake up the status quo by exposing corruption in the incumbent regional government. . . . The mood at polling places remained calm through the morning with many men walking to the polls in traditional Kurdish attire and women filling in wearing colorful dresses. Opposition party leaders complained about activity at the polls later in the day, when they said supporters of incumbents tried to sway votes." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Long lines snaked out of polling stations Saturday" which "attests to the enthusiasm generated by the appearance for the first time, of a viable challenge to the 18-year monopoly of the two ruling parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdish Democratic Party." Tim Cocks and Shamal Aqrawi (Reuters) explain voting was extended for one hour today and that the Electoral Commission estimates a turnout of 78.5%. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement today noting they applaud "the people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for having turned out in large numbers, especially among women, on July 23rd and 25th to exercise their right to elect new regional, parliamentary, and presidential representatives, in an orderly environment, notably free of violence." Saturday started with the region under curfew but the KRG lifted it after the first four hours when no incidents of violence were reported. The January 31st provincial elections which took place in fourteen of Iraq's 18 provinces required curfews and crackdowns. In Baghdad, for example, voters had to walk to polls as a result of the vehicle ban -- and frequently had to then walk to another polling station and sometimes a third. Don't remember it?
Mohammed Hussein (New York Times) explained, "I walked more than three miles and four polling centers to vote today. I have lived in the same neighborhood for more than 30 years, but my name was not on the list. With the sound of hovering American helicopters filling the unusual silence on the streets I walked to the polling center nearest my house to vote. First I had to be searched and take off my wristwatch, my box of cigarettes and my mobile telphone because an American patrol was watching the main checkpoint of the polling center. I checked my name but I could not find it." He recounts the trip to four polling stations only to note that at the fourth, where he was allowed to vote, he didn't recognize the names of any candidates. Nasreen Yousif couldn't put up with it and she told Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times), that after her third Baghdad polling station, "Now I am going home. Maybe there is a forth school, but it is too far and I can't walk anymore." Back then, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reported, "The thousands of schools being used as polling places were ringed with coils of razor wire days ago, and the police began 24-hour guard of them earlier in the week." Stephen Farrell and Alissa J. Rubin noted, "Driving was banned in most of the country to prevent suuicide bombers from attacking any of the more than 6,000 polling places and security checkpoints, often spaced just yards apart. The tight security, couples with confusion over where voters should cast their ballots, appeared to have reduced turnout in many districts across the country." And though the claim quickly became that there was no violence at all on this allgedly political holy day, in real time violence was being noted including McClatchy's Laith Hammoudi reporting a Saturday tribal fight in Baghdad that resulted in one death and one person injured and Alissa J. Rubin and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reporting security forces shot two people in Baghdad who "tried to enter a polling place carrying cameras and recorders". Reuters states, "The vote was not entirely without incident. Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, the president's nephew, said that one person was killed and 12 were wounded on Sunday evening when election revellers began firing shots into the air." That's Sunday, the day after the vote and, as described, also unintentional violence.
So the KRG calling off the curfew in the midst of voting Saturday is actually news and it's a shame no one thought to report it as such or to offer the obvious comparison of the three provincial elections over the weekend with the fourteen provincial elections in January. Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported Saturday, "Kurdish President Massoud Barzani touched on an issue dear to all Kurds when he cast his ballot on his mountain stronghold of Salahuddin. 'I will never compromise on Kirkuk,' he said." That moment resulted in one of the few complaints actually filed (as opposed to complaints bandied to reporters by "Change" 'officials' and their US-government backers). Tim Cocks, Shamal Aqrawi, Muhanad Mohammed and Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) explained that Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission "did say Barzani had broken a campaign deadline rule by speaking to reporters after voting" and quotes IHEC's Qasim al-Sachet, "This is not important, it was a very simple matter and has no effect on the elections." Liz Sly explained Sunday that the parties were releasing their own tallies (these are not official tallies) and that, "Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, which is running the election, said it was investigating a number of complaints lodged by opposition candidates but had not yet found any serious enough to affect the outcome of the vote." The KRG adds, "More than 320 international observers from more than 35 organizations were registered by IHEC to monitor the election. This included observers from the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and a variety of other nations and non-governmental organizations. In addition, more than 30 international media outlets were accredited to observe and report on the election. More than 90 organizations based in Iraq and/or the Kurdistan Region also participated in the observation, with more than 10,000 individuals receiving accreditation badges from IHEC. Political parties were also granted the right to monitor the proceedings, with 47 groups and more than 27,000 individuals accredited for observation." Adam Ashton (Modesto Bee's The Hive) blogs about visitng the "multimedia empire" which is the headquarters for the "Change" Party, "I don't want to be cynical because the voting I saw was free and full of healthy debate. I just couldn't help but hear Roger Daltry singing 'Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss,' as we drove away from the Change compound in Sulaimaniya." (He's referring to the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," written by Pete Townsend.) "Change" is a US-creation. Founder (frontman) Nawshirwan Mustafa runs that US funded "multi-media empire." Mustafa became a US favorite while allegedly representing Kurdish interests to the US created and controlled Coalition Provisional Authority (interim government run by Paul Bremer). Though a strong voice in public, he was surprisingly weak in protecting Kurdish interests. Despite his fiery words in public and his apparent incompentence as an advocate for Kurdish interests, the US quickly funded Dick Cheney's BFF providing Mustafa with the money needed to start his paper and 'independent' radio station which is a satellite of the US propaganda arm Voice of America (Mustafa's is tellingly known as "Voice of Change").
In addition to crying foul, "Change" has attempted to insist they are the reason for the huge turnout. That claim cannot be backed up. But the issue of Kirkuk's status became a very big part of the KRG elections. Not just on election day with Barzani's remarks. Not just two Sundays ago with a very public speech. For weeks, it has been the driving force behind the elections with candidates from all parties attempting to make the most convincing argument that they would bring Kirkuk under the Kurdistan umbrella. Do not mistakenly think that this campaign talk did not impact voter turnout. The Kurds have long seen Kirkuk as their property and have a historical grievance over the region since Saddam Hussein ran them out of the area. Alsumaria reports the PUK kept a previously scheduled meeting yesterday: "Regardless of the elections results, people's will ought to be respected and whichever party wins, it will form the next government, said Mulla Bakhtyar, PUK political office spokesman. Bakhtyar stressed that the upcoming government will work on achieving major attainments in favor of Kurdistan's people mainly the application of Constitution Article 140." That's the article pertaining to oil-rich Kirkuk which mandated a census and referendum be held to resolve the issue by . . the end of 2007. Also in 2007, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on -- literally signed his name to -- the White House benchmarks for Iraq which included resolving the issue. It has not been resolved. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) observes this morning, "Since 2003, when U.S. forces barreled into Baghdad, toppling Saddam Hussein, inspiring a Shiite revival and unleashing a Sunni insurgency that drew on a communal sense of siege, the war in Iraq has been in large part a sectarian conflict that pitted Sunni Arab against Shiite Arab. That war has subsided, even if bitterness remains." He argues the new conflict is between Arabs and Kurds. Liz Sly interviewed Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih (and PUK member as well as a candidate for prime minister in Kurdistan) and asked him what the elections would mean in terms of the "strained relationship with Baghdad?" Barham Salih responded, "In terms of relationships with Baghdad, the impact should not be overestimated. This election is a turning point in Kurdish political dynamics and Kurdish politics are becoming more competitive and more focused on domestic issues – services, quality of life, corruption, as opposed to the larger issues of Kurdish nationalism. These issues remain important, such as the fate of Kirkuk, the fate of the relationship with Baghdad. But I do not see that there is much dissent on what I see as the mainstream Kurdish position on these issues." Prime minister of Iraq and puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has been visiting DC. Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) analyzes the trip and observes that Nouri al "Maliki wants US and UN support to solve an upcoming problem with Iraqi Kurds. During a honeymoon period with the Kurds in 2007, Maliki promised to uphold Article 140 of the constitution, which calls for a referendum in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk (which holds 13% of Iraq's reserves), to see if its residents want to remain part of Iraq or merge with Iraqi Kurdistan. It seemed like the logical thing to do at the time, as Kurdish support was vital for him to maintain a shaky cabinet coalition rocked by major walkouts by Sunnis and fellow Shi'ites loyal to rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr. . . . That honemymoon is now a thing of the past, and Maliki wants to make sure that so is the promised referendum on Kirkuk. The UN is supporting Maliki's argument, claiming that if such a referendum did take place, it could ignite a civil war between Arabs and Kurds. Maliki could not afford this civil strife, nor could he afford having Iran, Turkey, and Syria -- all of which oppose giving Kirikuk to Kurdistan -- on the offensive."
Friday, the press [see Nada Bakri (Washington Post) and Sam Dagher (New York Times)] was covering the talks the US was having with Ba'athist exile leaders and others and the claim that the central government in Baghdad was left in the dark as they insisted they were "demanding explanations] reported on the angry response of the puppet government in Baghdad to the news (which emerged weeks ago in the Arab world) that the US was negotiating with leaders of Iraqi groups opposed to the puppet government the US installed. Elise Labott (CNN) reports US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated Friday that, supposedly like the Iraqi government, she had been unaware of the negotiations until "recently." Labott explains: "Iraqi officials said Friday they were investigating reports of the meetings, calling them a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The reports, which detail a supposed signed agreement between the Americans and insurgents, have angered Iraqis as they seek to establish their authority in the wake of the withdrawal of American troops from Iraqi cities." Officially the State Dept denies the signing of any protocol. Unofficially, they admit to Labott one was signed. The Los Angeles Times has posted the protocol both parties signed March 6th:
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH THE BENEFICENT THE MERCIFUL
PROTOCOL ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POLITICAL COUNCIL FOR IRAQI RESISTANCE AND US GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
(Istanbul, 6 March 2009)
The following has been agreed upon between the two parties, Political Coundil for Iraq Resistance (PCIR) and the US Government Representatives in this meeting:
1. The PCIR will give the names of 15 representatives/political leaders in their negotiation team to the Turkish side, in the case of detention or problems in travel inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the Turkish Government will inform the US authorities, who will undertake to resolve the problem, in the case of detention by the Iraqi forces inside Iraq or leaving Iraq of this negotiating team, the US as well as the Turkish side will exert their best efforts with the Iraqi Government in order to get release of the respresentative(s) of the PCIR.
2. Both parties agreed upon to take a decision regarding the level of the participation in the negotiating teams (technical experts, politicians and leaders), before the next session of negotiations in coordination with the Turkish side.
3. Both negotiating teams should have the equal number of representatives, including the technicians and experts.
4. The venue of the upcoming sessions will be determined at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, in coordination with the Turkish side.
5. dates of the upcoming sessions will be determined by the consent of both parties.
6. This negotiation process is planned to be finalized before the end of June 2009. However, upon agreement by both sides, the negotiation process may be extended.
7. Both parties agreed that the Turkish side to act as the facilitator and guarantor throughout this negotiation process and the PCIR retains the right to ask for other guarantors.
8. Both parties agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations and to leak information about the negotiations in full or in part to the media, unless otherwise agreed by both parties.
9. Both parties agreed not to use cameras or any recording devices during the sessions.
10. The US will not undertake negotiations with other Sunni resistance groups during negotiation time, in order to allow PCIR to broaden the negotiation with them (This is to be confirmed by the US delegation after consulting with the US Government).
Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explains, "Iraqi officials have denied any knowledge of the meetings and have lashed out at the United States about conducting such talks. The reality is that U.S. officials most probably informed the Iraqi government about the talks beforehand, as they have done in the past when they explored discussions with groups that might be willing to negotiate with Iraqi officials." Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) adds, "Maliki also is shocked -- shocked -- that the U.S. government talked secretly to insurgent leaders. Everyone, don't tell the prime minister about the Sons of Iraq program, either!" Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) offers on Nouri, "Once Maliki's image is transformed in Washington, he will be able to market himself in different manner to ordinary Iraqis, who need time to forget that he was originally brought to power in 2006 by the United States" ahead of elections currently scheduled for next January. Nouri has Barack supporting him (verbally) on the plan to end UN sanctions on Iraq. Louis Charbonneau (Reuters) reports that Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, is backing a different plan, "I strongly encourage Iraq and other stakeholders to actively discuss alternative solutions to the issue of outstanding compensation and debt payments, including through investments, in the mutual interest of Iraq's people and the region as a while." The amount Iraq owes currently is $25.5 billion of which $24 million is owed to Kuwait.
Meanwhile what Gordon Brown couldn't do (despite promising to) the Iraqi Parliament may have due to its inaction. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) reports British troops will likely have to leave Iraq as a result of the Parliament failing to ratify the bilateral agreement between England and Iraq "Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the naval training personnel would wait in Kuwait until they were given permission to return. It is an embarrassment to Britain, however, and an illustration of the low regard in which its role in Iraq -- it once had 45,000 troops based there -- is held."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left four people wounded, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left five people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured six Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one police officer and an Ameriyah sticky bombing which claimed the life of police Captain Ibraheem Khairallah. Reuters notes a Mosul sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 "local tribal leader" (his driver was injured), a Kirkuk roadside bombing which left one police officer injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Christian shot dead in Telkev in Nineveh Province. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul (a civilian injured).
Corpses?
Reuters notes the corpse of 1 police officer ("shot in the head and chest") was discovered in Kirkuk.
We'll again note Angelina Jolie's goodwill visit to Iraq last Thursday where she declared, "There are still three million people displaced, innocent families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq Thursday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of support and help to rebuild their lives." The UN notes (link has a great photo of a young Iraqi boy and Angelina in Baghdad) that she is calling "for greater support for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who remain displaced." [Ann wrote about Angelina's vist last week and Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" covered a Congressional hearing which Kat covered at her site Thursday night in "Subcommittee on Disability Assistance & Memorial Affairs."]
Turning to the US and Dave Phillips' "Lethal warriors day 2" (Colorado Springs Gazette):
It was October 2007. A fellow soldier, Kenneth Eastridge, 24, watched it all from the passenger seat. At that moment, he said, it was clear that however messed up some of the soldiers in the unit had been after their first Iraq deployment, it was about to get much worse. "I have no problem with killing," said Eastridge, a two-tour infantryman with almost 80 confirmed kills. "But I won't just murder someone for no reason. He had gone crazy." Hear the prison interviews with Kenneth Eastridge. All three soldiers belonged to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, part of Fort Carson's 4th Brigade Combat Team. The 500-soldier infantry battalion nicknamed itself the "Lethal Warriors." They fought in the deadliest places in the war twice -- first in the Sunni Triangle, then in downtown Baghdad. Since their return late in 2007, eight infantry soldiers have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter. Another two soldiers from the brigade were arrested and accused of murder and attempted murder after the first tour. Others have committed other violent crimes. Others have committed suicide. Many of the soldiers behind bars and their family members say the violence at home is a consequence of the violence in Iraq. They came home angry, confused, paranoid and depressed. They had trouble getting effective mental heath care. Most buried their symptoms in drugs and alcohol until they exploded.
The article is part of a package following an investigation by the Gazette, part one is Phillips' "The hell of war comes home" and there's also Tom Roeder's "Fort Carson report: Combat stress contributed to soldiers' crimes back home" and "EDITOR'S NOTE: A note of caution about the Lethal Warriors package." The series addresses what happened after they returned to the US and what happened while serving in Iraq where Iraqi drivers were randomly shot at, where those who didn't stop would be run "over with the Bradley," where Iraqis post-interrogation were dumped from bridges and more. Returning home? No concerns from the command except go-away, left to fend for themselves, some afraid to get help, some targeted for trying. Parents who attempted to get help for the children? Commanding officers mocked the soldiers whose parents called, ridiculed them. It's a complete breakdown in policies and procedures and the Gazette did a wonderful investigation but what's needed is a Congressional one.
Meanwhile at least 18 US service members have died in Iraq from shoddy electrocution. KBR always denies that's the case. Scott Bronstein (CNN) reports on the Defense Dept's inspector-general's finding released today which states nine deaths resulted from "improper grounding or faulty equipment" with five more still being investigated. The nine deaths established to have been caused by faulting work on KRB's part includes Sgt Ryan Maseth. KBR continues to shirk responsibility and spokesperson Heather Browne tells CNN, "While the death of Sgt. Maseth was tragic, KBR continues to maintain that it was not responsible for his death. The building in which Staff Sgt Maseth lived was built by Iraqi and other contractors under previous Iraqi leadership." US Senator Bob Casey Jr.'s office released the following today:
After the Department of Defense Inspector General released its report on the electrocution death of Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth and 17 other electrocution deaths in Iraq, U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) released the following statement:
"I am heartened that, after an exhaustive investigation, the Department of Defense Inspector General has finally published its findings and recommendations. The responsibility for the death of Ryan Maseth can be attributed to many quarters. However, the Inspector General has concluded that the water pump which shorted and caused his electrocution was first installed by a KBR subcontractor less than two years prior to Ryan's death. That water pump, located on the roof of Ryan's building, was not grounded during installation. This deficiency was not discovered during a subsequent inspection administered by KBR.
"We cannot stop with the publication of this report alone. Those who failed to carry out their contractual obligations in a way that contributed to the death of a U.S. soldier should be held fully accountable for their negligence. I also eagerly await the findings of the Army CID report."
Staying with the US Congress, the issue of CERP funds has been raised repeatedly by Congress. The September 10, 2008 House Armed Services Committee hearing found Chair Ike Skelton pursuing the issue of the CERP funds with DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman and explaining the process as Congress intended it.Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll shae the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.
Appearing before the The Commission on Wartime Contracting February 2nd, the Department of Defense's Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble explained CERP (Commander's Emergency Response Program) funds, "CERP funds are appropriated through the DoD and allocted through each major command's sector of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up to $500,000 can be allocated to individual CERP projects, and CERP beneficiaries often receive payments in cash. We have also identified occasions where soldiers with limited contracting experience were responsible for administering CERP funds. In some instances, there appeared to be scant, if any, oversight of the manner in which funds were expended. Complicating matters further is the fact that payment of bribes and gratuities to government officials is a common business practice in some Southwest Asia nations. Taken in combination, these factors result in an environment conducive to bribery and corruption." Despite repeated calls by Congress for an accounting, where the money goes remains murky. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports how the millions in CERP funds have had little-to-no impact:
U.S. lawmakers and the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which has released a report about the Caravan Hotel, are increasingly scrutinizing the use of CERP and urging the Pentagon to be more vigilant in its selection and oversight of projects. The success stories and cautionary tales of CERP initiatives in Iraq are shaping the way commanders in Afghanistan use the program as they place greater emphasis on counterinsurgency and keeping the civilian population safe. Since 2003, the U.S. Congress has appropriated more than $10 billion in CERP funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "CERP was meant to be walking-around money for commanders to achieve a desired effect in their battle space," said the office's deputy inspector general, Ginger Cruz. "Slowly, it has become a de facto reconstruction pot of money."
Related, Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports Congress is questioning defense spending on 'hearts & minds' campaigns (or spending hidden under that umbrella) and, "In Iraq, the [US] military has awarded $100 million contracts to support elections and the aims of the Baghdad government."
Finally, independent journalist David Bacon continues to report on labor issues and "Mixtec farm workers pick blueberries, melons and chiles" (Immigration Prof Blog) covers workers in San Pablo Tijaltepec. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST) and his latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).
iraqmcclatchy newspapersadam ashtonliz slythe los angeles timesfu yiminggao shantim cocksshamal aqrawi
tina susman
alissa j. rubin
the new york times
stephen farrell
laith hammoudi
nada bakrisam dagher
cnnelise labott
ned parker
thomas e. ricks
ernesto londono
walter pincus
david baconkpfathe morning show
Friday, July 24, 2009
Moyers and Winship on health care
Instead of weighing in tonight on various topics, I am going to offer an essay from Bill Moyers Journal. Think about it and decide where you fall on the issue. I will reveal my thoughts on Monday (though most of you already know).
Obama's Health Care Struggle - Waterloo or Water Down?
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Push finally came to shove in Washington this week as the battle for
health care escalated from scattered sniper fire into all-out combat. If
it all seems to be getting more and more confusing, join the club. It's
hard to see what's happening through all the gun smoke.
The Republicans have more than health care reform in their bombsights -
they want a loss for Obama so crushing it will bring the administration
to its knees and restore GOP control of Congress after next year's
elections. In the words of Republican Senator Jim DeMint, "If we're able
to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The "Waterloo" of DeMint's metaphor, of course, is not the 1974 Abba hit
but the battle in 1815 that ended Napoleon Bonaparte's rule as Emperor
of France - a humiliating defeat and a turning point in European
history. Right wingers like Glenn Beck see Obama as Napoleon incarnate,
a popular emperor who must be stopped.
Here's what Beck said on his television show Monday, July 20: "I'm
telling you, this guy is dangerous. He's never lost before. He won't
understand... like, 'Who are you to question me?' I mean, this guy is
practically an imperial President now. When he starts to lose and people
start to question him and push him back against the wall, he's not gonna
know how to react."
The Republican strategy is almost identical to the way they turned
health care into Waterloo for Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1993. Back
then, one of their chief propagandists, William Kristol, urged his party
to block any health care plan for fear that Democrats would be seen as
"the generous protector of middle class interests." Now he's telling the
GOP to "go for the kill... throw the kitchen sink... drive a stake
through its heart... We need to start over."
So in lockstep are the Republicans that when strategist Alex Castellanos
issued a memo outlining their battle plan, party chairman Michael Steele
parroted large sections of it word for word in a speech at Washington's
National Press Club. Asked a health care-related question that took him
off script, Steele replied, "I don't do policy."
As the Republicans fired away, big business stepped up the attack, too,
their lobbying and advertising guns blazing. The Chamber of Commerce,
for one, announced a major campaign of rallies and print and Internet
ads to crush the White House plan for a competitive public option
allowing consumers to choose between a government plan and private
health insurance. In key states where members of Congress remain on the
fence, the airwaves are vibrating with television commercials aimed at
shifting hearts and minds away from any change that might threaten
profits.
President Obama rejected the Republicans' Waterloo metaphor and mounted
a massive media counteroffensive of his own. But the President has
already run into booby traps of his own making and minefields laid by
members of his own party, exacerbated when the Congressional Budget
Office reported that reform plans, instead of controlling costs, would
send the national debt further into the stratosphere.
Meanwhile, supporters who want to scrap the present system for
fundamental change are staring glumly though the fog of war at a
battlefield in total disarray. They fear that in the White House's
desire to get a bill - any bill - passed by Congress, it will have been
so compromised, so bent to favor the big interests, that it will be less
Waterloo than water down, a steady diluting of the change they had hoped
for and that America needs.
The big drug companies are already so pleased with what they've been
promised that they've brought back Harry and Louise - the make-believe
couple who starred in TV ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health care
plan - but this time they're in favor of reform.
According to the Associated Press, the drug industry's trade
group PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
and the drug company Pfizer "reported spending more money than other
health care organizations on lobbying in the second quarter of this
year" - $6.2 million from PhRMA, $5.6 million from Pfizer.
"Including its latest report, PhRMA has now spent $13.1 million
lobbying so far this year. Pfizer has reported $11.7 million in lobbying
expenses for 2009."
This is part of the reason, as Alicia Mundy and Laura Meckler
recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, that "the pharmaceuticals
industry, which President Barack Obama promised to 'take on' during his
campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul."
Their story describes "a string of victories" plucked from the
Senate Finance Committee by drug company lobbyists, including no
cost-cutting steps, no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border
from Canada, and no direct Federal government negotiations with the
pharmaceutical companies to lower Medicare drug prices.
And that's not all. The Senate Health Committee is giving the
biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic
drugs for 12 years after they go on the market.
No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up. Could it be
that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they're in on the
deal?
--30--
Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of
the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday
night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at
www.pbs.org/moyers. Bill Moyers Journal
Research provided by editorial producer Rebecca Wharton.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, July 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Nouri makes a public statement the press treats like his little secret, the KRG gears up for the vote, Angelina Jolie visits Iraq, 7 US soldiers wounded on July 12th and that news comes from a regional US paper and not M-NF or a big news outlet, and more.
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, July 24, of non-combat related injuries in eastern Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4328 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.That number is not a complete count. Trejo Rivas just passed away and he was a veteran of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. It was in Iraq that a mortart attack October 12, 2006. As Sig Christenson (San Antonio-Express) explained Tuesday, "Retired Army Reserve Lt. Col. Raymond Trejo Rivas died Wednesday in San Antonio after battling to recover from head injuries suffered nearly three years ago. He was 53." Meanwhile John Hacker (Carthage Press) speaks with Isaac "Jerry" Conway who explains "his grandson, U.S. Army Spec. David Conway II, was injured in the Iraqi city of Sharqat when an improvised explosive device exploded near him while he was leaving a meeting with local officials. Also injured were six other American soldiers and two Iraqi civilians working with the soldiers." Conway says the incident took place July 12th. I'm not doubting Conway, but I am noting M-NF never noted it. They did have time, however, the day after, to issue a release about "Facebook, [and] other social media." Priorities. Yesterday Nouri al-Maliki announced US forces might stay in Iraq past 2011. And who noted it? Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) may shock some readers since McClatchy is the only newspaper outlet covering it. It's not because it just emerged or emerged late. The comments are noted in yesterday's snapshot. It's not ignored because it's not newsworthy. Three outlets rushed to print articles yesterday morning on the topic . . . when they claimed all US troops would be out in 2011. (See yesterday's entry.) It's only not news when it doesn't agree with their outlets spin purposes.To recap, when you can pimp the lie that all US troops will be out of Iraq in 2011 (and, apparently, pimp yourself as a psychic who can tell the future), you run with it and call it news. When Nouri al-Maliki publicly, in front of a crowd, declares not-so-fast, you duck your head and pretend it didn't happen. Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP.
Though most of the broadcast media ignores the Iraq War (and much of the print media), there are many news items related to and coming out of Iraq. It's Friday, so smart news consumers knew there was a good chance The Diane Rehm Show would cover the Iraq War -- the only program to do so regularly. Diane's on vacation. Steve Roberts filled in for her today. The panelists for the second (international news) hour were: The Financial Times' Daniel Dombey, Washington Post's David Hoffman and CNN's Elise Labott.
Steve Roberts: Let's talk about a neighboring country, Iraq, and, David Hoffman, Prime Minister Maliki in Washington this week. Interestingly, not only in talks with President Obama but also talking a lot about the economy of Iraq -- an issue we don't hear a lot about, but trying to drum up interest among American investors and entrepreneurs. Give us your take on his visit.
David Hoffman: Well I actually thought the most interesting thing was the president pledged to help get rid of these UN sanctions. You know, Iraq still has to pay billions of dollars to Kuwait in reparations. If they get some of that money back, that will help them and, you know, I think when Mal-Maliki goes home from Washington, it's going to look grimmer on the ground there. There's a big election coming in Kurdistan, it's very important. The parties that have led Kurdistan are being challenged by an upstart party. I think Kurdistan is the real new frontline, the real flashpoint, in potential sectarian tensions in Iraq so Maliki's country's not all together yet.
Steve Roberts: Uh, well you mentioned, there are several issue here including, in his conversation with President Obama, the whole issue of the deadline of withdrawal of American troops. What did we learn?
David Hoffman: Well, I think, you know, we're committed to the deadline but what's going to happen is the deadline is going to be tested and it was just tested this morning. There's going be firefights and there are going to be military conflicts involving all these rules and deadlines and those things, you know, they're very, very sensitive and volatile.
Steve Roberts: Uh, talk Daniel, about this sense of national unity. David raises this issue of Kurdistan. Over weeks now, there's been increasing assertions of independence on the part of Kurdistan leaders, there's a huge fight over the status of Kirkuk, an oil-rich area. Is Iraq holding together? Is-is there a real threat to its national unity hear.
Daniel Dombey: I think both are true. Iraqi is holding-holding together to the moment but the Kirkuk is-is the biggest unsolved problem of-of Iraq -- not least because of the oil revenue but also because of Kurds who have come in and Turkmens who were there before. But I think just to look at Maliki's visit, I think that you need to bear two things in mind. This is a cold relationship rather like the relationship with [Hamid] Karzai and if you looked at some of President Obama's comments where he talked about wanting an Iraq where everyone could thrive -- Shia, Sunni and Kurds -- it didn't take a genius, it didn't take a Sherlock Holmes, to see that the US worries that Maliki could be a bit more of a narrow sectarian than it would like. There's that tension there. There's also a little bit of tension about how much freedom of maneuver the US military has following the June the 30th pull-out. And I wonder Iraq's economic situation is hard. There biggest thing is oil. They had a big auction to-to sell out rights to eight big oil fields uh in, near Basra. Only one of those went through that seems to be renegotiated -- it still -- the British are kind of less keen than they were. They're not getting the investors they need at a time that the oil price is going down. They need oil and money to grease the wheels to make Iraq a more coherent place.
Elise Labot: Part of the issue has been that there hasn't been enough national reconciliation in the country and the issue is part of the reason for the surge was not just -- in 2007 -- was not just to improve security but it was to give the political space for more reconciliation and that never happened. And the kind of grand constitutional bargain and the concessions that were necessary to make that were never completed. So what President Obama was saying to Maliki: "You need to do this, you need to not only include Sunnis into the political process but you need to, uhm, settle some of these issues with the Kurds." And Maliki said to him: "We need your help on doing this. We understand that there will be a military disengagement but it can't be a political disengagement because Iraq has a lot more challenges that not only are of sectarian nature but go to the whole future of the country. Is the power going to be in the central government? Is it going to be in the provinces? Who's going to be in control over the oil and the natural resources? I mean, these are major issues that the Iraqis are going to have to resolve and they are looking for the United States in many ways to help mediate these.
Steve Roberts: Well there were stories this week about this pact or protocol that was apparently signed with Sunnis in Turkey, what was that all about?
David Hoffman: It's not really clear. But there were two meetings between Americans and representatives of the Sunni insurgency that were held in Turkey. It's really -- the third meeting is the mystery. Why didn't it happen? It was scheduled. The Americans didn't come. There's some signs of some disenchantment maybe, that this wasn't really a very good channel or it wasn't working. But I do think it's at least an indicator that reconciliation's got to be the goal.
During listener feedback, a panelist completely blew it. He had no idea what he was speaking of.
Steve Roberts: Let me read some e-mails from some of our listeners. This is Randall in Cincinatti: "With the death toll rising in Afghanistan, I want to know where the anti-war groups that were protesting during the Bush administration -- the anti-war movement was seen and heard daily during the few years but they seem to have disappeared in mainstream media since Obama was elected. Could it be these were just anti-Bush groups posing as anti-war groups?" What do you think?
David Hoffman: Well I think, also, you know Obama did endorse deadlines, troops have pulled back, violence has gone down in Iraq, that may play a big part.
When we noted the Iraq portion of The Diane Rehm Show on Fridays, there are things said by panelists I disagree with. If it's not called out by another guest, the issue is, can the person's remarks be seen? Could someone look at the facts and conclude as the panelist did? If it's an opinion, it can go in. But if someone is just factually wrong, we need to call it out. So we will. David didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Obama endorsed deadlines? You mean the June 30th 'pull-out'? You mean the draw down? You mean the supposed 2011 departure? If that's what you mean, you mean Obama "endrosed" Bush's "deadlines" because those 'deadlines' are Bush's. Those are from the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which replaced the UN mandate (that Bush didn't want to renew) and which required a full-on push from the US government to pass through Parliament (with a huge number of Iraqi MPs skipping the vote) on Thanksgivng day in 2008. What was being asked was a fair question. More than fair.
And the honest answer, which Randall wasn't given, was that a large number of the 'anti-war' groups were nothing but anti-Bush groups -- and, more importantly, anti-Bush groups who existed to put Democrats into office. They weren't about ending the Iraq War. Look at MoveOn, for example. These were not real peace groups -- which is why they preferred the title "anti-war." These were not groups concerned with ending the illegal war. Their answer, over and over, check those stupid MoveOn e-mails from that time period, were: Stop the Iraq War by voting Democrats into office! That was all they had to offer. That and a few pathetic 'candle light vigils.' Randall asked a fair question and he didn't get a fair answer.
Randall would have been better served if the panelists had said nothing except, "Read Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy). He raises that issue:
That got me wondering: would those folks (say the mainstream Bob Woodward or Tom Ricks, let alone other people in the nuttier fringes of the Bush-bashing chorus) who established a cottage industry lambasting Bush Administration rhetoric as "happy talk" rise up and start calling a foul on President Obama? President Bush regularly caveated his statements of progress with reminders that there were "tough days ahead" and, if memory serves, Rumsfeld was the guy who coined "long, hard slog." In their coverage of Bush, sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and qualify their lede accordingly; sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and yet stick to a "happy talk" lede; and sometimes the reporters would simply omit any mention of the caveats, perhaps the better to advance the "happy talk" lede. Regardless of how many times President Bush presented carefully caveated assessments, the Bush-bashers could always rest their indictment on one or two off-the-cuff uncaveated remarks.
They could have also steered Randall to independent journalist John Pilger who holds both administrations accountable and was on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday delivering a speech media and empire and covering for Obama, "The Rise of Barack Obama and the Silencing of Much of the Left." For the record, Elise Labott stuck to Afghanistan and stuck to her opinion based on facts. (This isn't the Afghanistan snapshot so we're not excerpting.) Daniel Dombey stuck to Afghanistan. (And was grossly wrong -- protests continue in England against the Afghanistan War including last week and it's damn stupid to use the pre-Iraq War global protest, if that's what Dombey wants to argue, as a measure. That was the largest global protest. And it was against the impending Iraq War -- not the Afghanistan War.) Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." They also address the SOFA:
The current deterioration in Iraq has made advisors and pundits (many of whom supported the initial invasion) fearful of pulling out U.S. troops. The misleading terms of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) means U.S. troops are more involved than expected. The terms of the SOFA called for withdrawal of troops from the cities, for example, but the city limit lines were drawn within previous borders of the cities, allowing troops to be positioned in what was once considered part of the city.
David was completely wrong. It's a shame that a peace activist wasn't able to call in.
Well, it's shame that a peace activist with a brain wasn't able to call in and know what she was talking about.
Steve Roberts: And Ann in Washington, DC, welcome, you're on The Diane Rehm Show. Ann?
Ann: Oh, yes. Uhm . . .
Steve Roberts: You're on the air, please go ahead.
Ann: Thank you. I'm a member and have worked for the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition which is anti-war colation for the last seven years. It isn't a question of who is in the White House. I personally support President Obama except when it comes to Afghanistan and whatever support he still gives to Israeli initiatives, um. I think you will be seeing more anti-war, um, protests as time goes on because the money we're spending in Iraq and the money we give to Israel could be better spent at home for jobs and health care and education.
What a load of garbage. "I personally support President Obama"? If you support him on Iraq -- which you are saying you do -- then you support 2008 George W. Bush on Iraq because Barack -- pay attention -- isn't doing what he supposedly promised while campaigning, he's instead embraced and is following Bush's Iraq timetable and SOFA. The same SOFA, you grasp this, stupid idiot, that Barack was calling out while campaigning for the nomination and then the presidency. Yeah, Barack called it out, said it was wrong, said it shouldn't go through and he wouldn't let it. But what's he doing? He's doing just what Bush did. But you "personally support" him. If that's typical A.N.S.W.E.R. membership, the peace movement's in a lot more trouble than any of us realize. We're going to move right into an excerpt from from Debra Sweet's "A Proposal for Actions Against (Obama's) War and Torture" (World Can't Wait) because the peace movement is in disarray:We've put out a proposal for actions in early October, including Monday October 5 in Washington DC for actions at the White House & Congress, and a national day of resisting the recruiters in high schools Tuesday, October 6. After networking and consulting with other organizations and leaders, the World Can't Wait Steering Committee will meet on August 1 to finalize fall plans. We want your input. Please take the survey here by July 31. Or write me about the questions below...or what is on your mind. 1. Do you feel the controversy over the Obama administration not prosecuting anyone involved in torture has changed the political climate in this country? If so, how so? If not, why not? 2. What do you think of Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan? Why? Do others you know agree or disagree? How much has that war been successfully re-branded as the "good war"? 3. In the past few months has your opinion of Obama changed? Favorably or unfavorably? Why? How about people you know? 4. After reading the October 5/6th proposal what do you think is possible for these days of resistance? What do you think is necessary? What is your vision of protest for those days? Your input is needed! Please complete this survey by July 31 to feed into our discussions on August 1. To make all this possible, send along a donation, or become a sustainer 4RealChange.
Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." Joe Piasecki (Pasadena Weekly) points out that Tuesday was "day 2,313 of the war in Iraq". While A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Ann isn't at all worried about the Iraq War, Angelina Jolie declared yesterday, "There are still three million people displaced, innocent families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq yesterday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of support and help to rebuild their lives."
As Angelina noted, the returnees are "not a big number." The displaced is composed of targeted populations. A large number of Iraq's external refugees are Iraqi Christians. Deutsche Welle reports Baghdad's "Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman told Deutsche Welle that his country is slipping into a state of anarchy, and that the government has no control of the violence within its borders. In Germany he has spoken out against attacks on seven churches in Iraq, which killed four people and injured some 30 others." AINA reports Congressional Religous Minorities co-chairs, US House Reps Anna Eshoo and Frank Wolf have written the following letter to Nouri al-Maliki on the continued attacks on Iraq's Christian community:
It was with great sadness that we read recent accounts of targeted church bombings in Iraq. Reuters reported on July 12 that, "Bombs exploded outside five Christian churches in Baghdad on Sunday, in apparently coordinated attacks that killed four people and wounded more than 30." The New York Times reported that the bombings "appeared to be one of the largest single coordinated assaults against churches and Christians in Baghdad."
As co-chairs of the Congressional Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus, we have long been concerned about the plight ofIraq's ethno-religious communities including the ancient Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community. We have written numerous letters to our own government urging that there be a comprehensive policy to address the unique needs of these vulnerable minorities. U.S. Ambassador Chris Hill has indicated that the security ofthe Christian community is one of his paramount concerns, and we hope his attitude signals a willingness to develop a programmatic approach to dealing with this matter. When the new deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs assumes this post at the end ofthe month, we will meet to discuss solutions to the problems faced by ethno-religious minorities in Iraq.
Our ongoing commitment to alleviating this situation is shared by many of our colleagues in the United States Congress. Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives approved $20 million in funding dedicated toward religious minorities in Iraq. This funding is intended to support a range of programs such as security, economic development, health care enhancement and democratization programs primarily in the Nineveh Plain region. Bipartisan congressional support for these minority faith communities remains strong.
We understand that it is your desire to see Iraqi refugees return to the land of their birth. We share this hope. But news analysis following the bombings indicates that Christians who were contemplating returning will understandably reconsider given the fear gripping their community in the wake of the attacks.
As the U.S. presence in Iraq draws down, the burden for protecting these ancient faith communities rests increasingly with Iraqi forces. Increased security at Christian places of worship and an investigation into who is behind these most recent attacks will send a powerful signal that your government is committed to preserving and protecting Iraq's ethno-religious minorities.
For those late the July 12 bombings, The Catholic Leader recaps and quotes Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni stating: "We cry: Why? Why? What is our fault? That we are Christians?" In June 2006, shortly after Nouri al-Maliki was installed by the US as prime minister, the Green Zone was almost breached and it was a frightening time for al-Maliki and American leadership. In the frenzy following that, al-Maliki was advocating (as were some lower in the US military brass) that trenches be dug around Baghdad, that the answer for Baghdad was "moats." Those late to the party can see Edward Wong's "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" (New York Times, September 16, 2006). We bring that up for a reason. The waterless moats are back as a proposal. International Christian Concern advises that they have "learned that Iraqi Security forces are building trenches to protect Christians from further attacks following recent church bombings that killed four people and wounded several others. Iraqi officials are stepping up protective measures for Christians in the largely Christian towns of Tilkaif and Hamdaniya, in the northern province of Nineveh. The trenches come in the wake of a spate of bomb attacks against seven Iraqi churches on July 11 and 12 in the cities of Baghdad and Mosul." They quote Project Director of the Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project Michael Youash stating, "These trenches will require people to enter towns through 4 or 5 secure checkpoints making it far more difficult to smuggle in weapons and bombs. The construction of the trenches is a sad but necessary reminder of just how desperate the situation of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Christians is becoming." UPI quotes Abdul Raheem al-Shimari (the province's security head) stating that "the trenches are roughtly 1.5 feet deep and are intended to prevent potential car bombers from getting through without the necessary security checks." Hazem al-Aisawi (Azzaman) adds, "It is not clear when the moat will be completed and who will be financing the dig." IRIN notes, "According to some reports, it is estimated that as many as half the Christian population has left Iraq since 2003."
It is clear that Iraq's Kurdistn Regional Government is holding provincial and presidential elections. Early voting began Thursday. Voting ends tomorrow. BBC News presents the viewpoints of five voters: Mateen Dooski, Alan Ali, Savina Dawood, Hassan Jalal and Ako Omer. Savina Rafaeel Dawood explains she's Assyrian, not Kurdish and states she's voting for "the 'Mesopotamia' list which will give me my rights." Hassan Jalal doesn't think the KRG will ever be able to increase their region due to resistance from the central government in Baghdad. Alan Ali is skeptical of the "Change" party ("we don't know where their change would take us") and states, "On Kirkuk - I think it should be part of Kurdistan. I'm not just being selfish because I am Kurdish and want the oil money - Kirkuk is connected to the region. Most of the people there are Kurdish, despite the Arabs brought in by previous governments. And Kirkuk is just one of many cities like this." And Mateen Dooski, who explains he's voting for incumbent President Massud Barzani, declares, "The biggest task facing the KRG is the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution (a referendum on whether Kurdish areas of Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah ad Din and Ninawa provinces should become part of Iraqi Kurdistan). This would bring the 60% of purely Kurdish areas not run by the KRG: Kirkuk, Mosul, Diyala, under its control." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports on the elections with an emphasis on the "Change" party, "Though Change's leaders deny any conscious similarity to President Obama's campaign, it is evident in the slate's movement's official campaign slogan, 'Yes, We Can Change It.'" Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on the "Change" Party and also notes these basics, "The Kurdish parliament has 111 seats, 80 of which are held by the alliance of the KDP and the PUK. Eleven seats are reserved for minorities, such as Christians and Turkomen." Salman Ansari Javid (Tehran Times) observes that the political parties "Change, the KDP, and the PUK have the same goals for Kirkuk". Kirkuk is the oil rich disputed region which is claimed by both the KRG and the central government in Baghdad. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports that the Turkmen in Kirkuk Province are threatening to boycott a census currently scheduled for October. That'll teach 'em, seems to be the concept. The census, which was Constitutionally mandated to have been conducted in 2007, will survey the contested region. Turkmen are claiming Kurds are beefing up their population with transplants. They are. They have been doing it for years. If you don't like it, you probably should have demanded a census long ago. The shipping in of Kurds? That was a concern in 2006. It's too late to whine about something long on reported on. In 2005, some groups (largely Sunni) felt they would be shut out of the electoral process. A decision was made to boycott the elections. Some stood by that decision after the elections, some felt it was a mistake. In the January 31st elections this year, the real story was that the ones who had boycotted last time turned out in large numbers (while the drop off came from the Shi'ites who had participated in 2005). Now an election (or all elections) you might or might not want to boycott. You can certainly say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote." But this isn't an election. This is a census. And if you feel you are already going to be under-represented because of an influx of Kurds, then your decision not to participate in the census makes little sense. Unless you're attempting to stop the census, which may be the point.
In other news, the US has continued talks with Iraqi leaders living in exile. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reports on continued negotiations the US is having with former Ba'athists and other groups currently excluded from political life in Iraq. Bakri reports "two meetings this spring" held in Turkey and that the State Dept's P.J. Crowley would only say that they met to address "a wide range of Iraqi contacts with the purpose of promoting reconciliation and national unity." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds that the central government in Baghdad states it is "demanding explanations" on the meeting and declares the meetings (known for weeks before they took place and covered in Arab media though the New York Times seems unaware of that fact) were "an interference in Iraq's internal political affairs". Dagher notes an Aljazeera interview aired on July 15th where Ali al-Juboouri (Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance) "revealed that his council, which represents Sunni insurgent groups, met in March with representatives of the American government in Istanbul. He said a protocol was signed then to govern future negotiations between the two sides. He said that a second meeting took place in May" but ended over differences including that the US agree to compensation and a public apology for the illegal war.
Maliki's out of the country and Iraq has no violence? No, it's just Friday, when reports trickle out slowly. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) does note a Baghdad car bombing which injured six people. Meanwhile Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports on the drought effecting Iraq as the Tigris and Euphrates run dry, "Tensions intensified earlier in the month when Turkey announced that it would resume work on its controversial plan to build a hydroelectric dam on the Tigris in its southeast." Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli explores the issue in "Water Crisis in Iraq: The Growing Danger of Desertification" (Middle East Media Research Institute). Turning to the US, July 12th, Topeka, Kansas was in the news as a veteran had a standoff with police at the Colmery-O'Neil VA Medical Center. India's Thaindian reported, "An unknown gunman stormed a Topeka, Kansas hospital on Sunday afternoon, officials told BNO News." Taylor Atkins and Ann Marie Bush (The Topeka Capital-Journal) explained:Jim Gleisberg, public affairs officer for the medical center, said no one was injured when a veteran, whose name and hometown won't be released, walked into the emergency room with a handgun at 12:10 p.m. and asked to talk to a VA police officer. "The veteran showed the officer he had a gun and threatened his own life," Gleisberg said. "The police officer acted very professionally. He got the veteran to leave the emergency room area, and other staff members on duty called the Topeka police."KTKA quoted the VA's Jim Gleisberg stating the man is an Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran and, "Veterans are being stressed. The soldiers over there now that are in the conflict that are coming back with issues just because they've been deployed either once or twice at 12 or 15 months at a time it's a very stressful situation and so they are going to have issues." Michigan's WHMI reports "a suicidal veteran" -- Iraq War veteran -- holed up at the Homoetown Trailr Park and "held Howell Police at bay for more than nine hours". Jon Gunnells (Daily Press & Argus) reports that the "veteran is undergoing psychiatric treatment" and quotes police chief George Bassar stating, "He made statemens about suicide to his mother who calle dthe sister to check on him. He threatened his sister and she fled te home . . . He has some pretty good battle injuires and post traumatic stress syndrome. This apparently was something bubbling up." Steve Pardo (Detroit News) states the veteran is thirty-four-years-old and that after hours of attempted negotiations, "around 3:30 a.m., police threw tear gas into the house and the man was taken without further incident. He remains in St. Joseph Mercy Livingston hospital."
TV notes. This week on NOW on PBS:The Obama Administration recently released its proposal for financial regulatory reform, but before change comes to Wall Street, a reform plan has to get through Congress with its teeth intact.This week, David Brancaccio sits with Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor for The Economist magazine, to review the proposal and its ramifications for America. Beddoes encourages streamlining the regulatory system, leaving fewer but more efficient overseers. But where powerful interests are at stake, nothing is a sure bet."There is some good stuff in [the reform plan]. But it's a relatively modest rearranging of the financial supervisory structure ... I think it's more interior design than a whole new foundation."
On Bill Moyers Journal, health care is addressed with CJR's Trudy Lieberman (who has a strong article in the current CJR) and by Marcia Angell. My goodness, Bill found two women. Mark the calendars! As noted in Third's "Editorial: Taking sexism seriously," "In the first six months of this year Washington Week had 33 female guests and twice that number (66) of male guests while Bill Moyers featured 43 men and only 13 women." And, for the record, I'm only noting that segment. In another Bill floats his attacks on free speech. Free speech is something you support or you don't. Believing in it doesn't mean you can't decry statements, that you can't call them out, that you can't say they're offensive or that they crossed a line. But it does mean that you support free speech and grasp the difference between words and action and grasp that the Constitution supports free speech for an important reason.Now did we just note Washington Week? Usually four guests a week sit down with Gwen but as of the last week of June, she'd spent the year with 66 men and only 33 women on her program? How does it happen? By weeks like this one where she sits down with three men and one woman: New York Times' Peter Baker, Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, National Journal's Marilyn Werber Serafini and Wall St. Journal's David Wessel. Now how do you book that show and not notice that you have three men and only one woman? You know it. You know it and you do it on purpose. You don't accidentally end up with twice as many men as women. PBS' Editorial Standards & Policies states: "The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. The diversity of public television producers and funders helps to assure that content distributed by PBS is not dominated by any single point of view." Repeating, "Appropriate representation of women and minorities." Why have a policy if PBS doesn't ensure that their programs follow it? There's no excuse for Bill or Gwen to get away with the crap that they continue to get away with. They are in direct violation of PBS' own Standards & Policies and they need to get their shows in order and PBS needs to provide the supervision to ensure that they do.Bonnie Erbe sits down with Eleanor Holmes Norton, Melinda Henneberger, Kathleen Parker and Tara Setmayer on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Coming Up On 60 Minutes
Gun Rush Americans are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher rate despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the reason for the run on guns. Watch Video
Poisoned The African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just 20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle herds. Bob Simon reports. Watch Video
Steve Wynn The casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights of gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular success and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to see the fruits of his labor. Watch Video
60 Minutes Sunday, July 26, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
peter feaver
flashpointskpfa
margaret talevmcclatchy newspapersanne gearan
sig christensonthe washington postnada bakrithe new york times
edward wongsam daghertimothy williamsliz slythe los angeles timesdebra sweetworld cant wait
60 minutescbs news
pbsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
Obama's Health Care Struggle - Waterloo or Water Down?
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Push finally came to shove in Washington this week as the battle for
health care escalated from scattered sniper fire into all-out combat. If
it all seems to be getting more and more confusing, join the club. It's
hard to see what's happening through all the gun smoke.
The Republicans have more than health care reform in their bombsights -
they want a loss for Obama so crushing it will bring the administration
to its knees and restore GOP control of Congress after next year's
elections. In the words of Republican Senator Jim DeMint, "If we're able
to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The "Waterloo" of DeMint's metaphor, of course, is not the 1974 Abba hit
but the battle in 1815 that ended Napoleon Bonaparte's rule as Emperor
of France - a humiliating defeat and a turning point in European
history. Right wingers like Glenn Beck see Obama as Napoleon incarnate,
a popular emperor who must be stopped.
Here's what Beck said on his television show Monday, July 20: "I'm
telling you, this guy is dangerous. He's never lost before. He won't
understand... like, 'Who are you to question me?' I mean, this guy is
practically an imperial President now. When he starts to lose and people
start to question him and push him back against the wall, he's not gonna
know how to react."
The Republican strategy is almost identical to the way they turned
health care into Waterloo for Bill and Hillary Clinton in 1993. Back
then, one of their chief propagandists, William Kristol, urged his party
to block any health care plan for fear that Democrats would be seen as
"the generous protector of middle class interests." Now he's telling the
GOP to "go for the kill... throw the kitchen sink... drive a stake
through its heart... We need to start over."
So in lockstep are the Republicans that when strategist Alex Castellanos
issued a memo outlining their battle plan, party chairman Michael Steele
parroted large sections of it word for word in a speech at Washington's
National Press Club. Asked a health care-related question that took him
off script, Steele replied, "I don't do policy."
As the Republicans fired away, big business stepped up the attack, too,
their lobbying and advertising guns blazing. The Chamber of Commerce,
for one, announced a major campaign of rallies and print and Internet
ads to crush the White House plan for a competitive public option
allowing consumers to choose between a government plan and private
health insurance. In key states where members of Congress remain on the
fence, the airwaves are vibrating with television commercials aimed at
shifting hearts and minds away from any change that might threaten
profits.
President Obama rejected the Republicans' Waterloo metaphor and mounted
a massive media counteroffensive of his own. But the President has
already run into booby traps of his own making and minefields laid by
members of his own party, exacerbated when the Congressional Budget
Office reported that reform plans, instead of controlling costs, would
send the national debt further into the stratosphere.
Meanwhile, supporters who want to scrap the present system for
fundamental change are staring glumly though the fog of war at a
battlefield in total disarray. They fear that in the White House's
desire to get a bill - any bill - passed by Congress, it will have been
so compromised, so bent to favor the big interests, that it will be less
Waterloo than water down, a steady diluting of the change they had hoped
for and that America needs.
The big drug companies are already so pleased with what they've been
promised that they've brought back Harry and Louise - the make-believe
couple who starred in TV ads that helped torpedo the Clinton health care
plan - but this time they're in favor of reform.
According to the Associated Press, the drug industry's trade
group PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America)
and the drug company Pfizer "reported spending more money than other
health care organizations on lobbying in the second quarter of this
year" - $6.2 million from PhRMA, $5.6 million from Pfizer.
"Including its latest report, PhRMA has now spent $13.1 million
lobbying so far this year. Pfizer has reported $11.7 million in lobbying
expenses for 2009."
This is part of the reason, as Alicia Mundy and Laura Meckler
recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, that "the pharmaceuticals
industry, which President Barack Obama promised to 'take on' during his
campaign, is winning most of what it wants in the health-care overhaul."
Their story describes "a string of victories" plucked from the
Senate Finance Committee by drug company lobbyists, including no
cost-cutting steps, no cheaper drugs to be allowed across the border
from Canada, and no direct Federal government negotiations with the
pharmaceutical companies to lower Medicare drug prices.
And that's not all. The Senate Health Committee is giving the
biotech industry monopoly protection against competition from generic
drugs for 12 years after they go on the market.
No wonder the cost of reform keeps going up and up and up. Could it be
that Harry and Louise are happier because, this time, they're in on the
deal?
--30--
Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of
the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday
night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at
www.pbs.org/moyers. Bill Moyers Journal
Research provided by editorial producer Rebecca Wharton.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, July 24, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Nouri makes a public statement the press treats like his little secret, the KRG gears up for the vote, Angelina Jolie visits Iraq, 7 US soldiers wounded on July 12th and that news comes from a regional US paper and not M-NF or a big news outlet, and more.
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died, July 24, of non-combat related injuries in eastern Baghdad. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement brings to 4328 the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War.That number is not a complete count. Trejo Rivas just passed away and he was a veteran of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. It was in Iraq that a mortart attack October 12, 2006. As Sig Christenson (San Antonio-Express) explained Tuesday, "Retired Army Reserve Lt. Col. Raymond Trejo Rivas died Wednesday in San Antonio after battling to recover from head injuries suffered nearly three years ago. He was 53." Meanwhile John Hacker (Carthage Press) speaks with Isaac "Jerry" Conway who explains "his grandson, U.S. Army Spec. David Conway II, was injured in the Iraqi city of Sharqat when an improvised explosive device exploded near him while he was leaving a meeting with local officials. Also injured were six other American soldiers and two Iraqi civilians working with the soldiers." Conway says the incident took place July 12th. I'm not doubting Conway, but I am noting M-NF never noted it. They did have time, however, the day after, to issue a release about "Facebook, [and] other social media." Priorities. Yesterday Nouri al-Maliki announced US forces might stay in Iraq past 2011. And who noted it? Margaret Talev's "Iraq's Maliki raises possibility of asking U.S. to stay on" (McClatchy Newspapers) may shock some readers since McClatchy is the only newspaper outlet covering it. It's not because it just emerged or emerged late. The comments are noted in yesterday's snapshot. It's not ignored because it's not newsworthy. Three outlets rushed to print articles yesterday morning on the topic . . . when they claimed all US troops would be out in 2011. (See yesterday's entry.) It's only not news when it doesn't agree with their outlets spin purposes.To recap, when you can pimp the lie that all US troops will be out of Iraq in 2011 (and, apparently, pimp yourself as a psychic who can tell the future), you run with it and call it news. When Nouri al-Maliki publicly, in front of a crowd, declares not-so-fast, you duck your head and pretend it didn't happen. Anne Gearan covers al-Maliki's remarks for AP.
Though most of the broadcast media ignores the Iraq War (and much of the print media), there are many news items related to and coming out of Iraq. It's Friday, so smart news consumers knew there was a good chance The Diane Rehm Show would cover the Iraq War -- the only program to do so regularly. Diane's on vacation. Steve Roberts filled in for her today. The panelists for the second (international news) hour were: The Financial Times' Daniel Dombey, Washington Post's David Hoffman and CNN's Elise Labott.
Steve Roberts: Let's talk about a neighboring country, Iraq, and, David Hoffman, Prime Minister Maliki in Washington this week. Interestingly, not only in talks with President Obama but also talking a lot about the economy of Iraq -- an issue we don't hear a lot about, but trying to drum up interest among American investors and entrepreneurs. Give us your take on his visit.
David Hoffman: Well I actually thought the most interesting thing was the president pledged to help get rid of these UN sanctions. You know, Iraq still has to pay billions of dollars to Kuwait in reparations. If they get some of that money back, that will help them and, you know, I think when Mal-Maliki goes home from Washington, it's going to look grimmer on the ground there. There's a big election coming in Kurdistan, it's very important. The parties that have led Kurdistan are being challenged by an upstart party. I think Kurdistan is the real new frontline, the real flashpoint, in potential sectarian tensions in Iraq so Maliki's country's not all together yet.
Steve Roberts: Uh, well you mentioned, there are several issue here including, in his conversation with President Obama, the whole issue of the deadline of withdrawal of American troops. What did we learn?
David Hoffman: Well, I think, you know, we're committed to the deadline but what's going to happen is the deadline is going to be tested and it was just tested this morning. There's going be firefights and there are going to be military conflicts involving all these rules and deadlines and those things, you know, they're very, very sensitive and volatile.
Steve Roberts: Uh, talk Daniel, about this sense of national unity. David raises this issue of Kurdistan. Over weeks now, there's been increasing assertions of independence on the part of Kurdistan leaders, there's a huge fight over the status of Kirkuk, an oil-rich area. Is Iraq holding together? Is-is there a real threat to its national unity hear.
Daniel Dombey: I think both are true. Iraqi is holding-holding together to the moment but the Kirkuk is-is the biggest unsolved problem of-of Iraq -- not least because of the oil revenue but also because of Kurds who have come in and Turkmens who were there before. But I think just to look at Maliki's visit, I think that you need to bear two things in mind. This is a cold relationship rather like the relationship with [Hamid] Karzai and if you looked at some of President Obama's comments where he talked about wanting an Iraq where everyone could thrive -- Shia, Sunni and Kurds -- it didn't take a genius, it didn't take a Sherlock Holmes, to see that the US worries that Maliki could be a bit more of a narrow sectarian than it would like. There's that tension there. There's also a little bit of tension about how much freedom of maneuver the US military has following the June the 30th pull-out. And I wonder Iraq's economic situation is hard. There biggest thing is oil. They had a big auction to-to sell out rights to eight big oil fields uh in, near Basra. Only one of those went through that seems to be renegotiated -- it still -- the British are kind of less keen than they were. They're not getting the investors they need at a time that the oil price is going down. They need oil and money to grease the wheels to make Iraq a more coherent place.
Elise Labot: Part of the issue has been that there hasn't been enough national reconciliation in the country and the issue is part of the reason for the surge was not just -- in 2007 -- was not just to improve security but it was to give the political space for more reconciliation and that never happened. And the kind of grand constitutional bargain and the concessions that were necessary to make that were never completed. So what President Obama was saying to Maliki: "You need to do this, you need to not only include Sunnis into the political process but you need to, uhm, settle some of these issues with the Kurds." And Maliki said to him: "We need your help on doing this. We understand that there will be a military disengagement but it can't be a political disengagement because Iraq has a lot more challenges that not only are of sectarian nature but go to the whole future of the country. Is the power going to be in the central government? Is it going to be in the provinces? Who's going to be in control over the oil and the natural resources? I mean, these are major issues that the Iraqis are going to have to resolve and they are looking for the United States in many ways to help mediate these.
Steve Roberts: Well there were stories this week about this pact or protocol that was apparently signed with Sunnis in Turkey, what was that all about?
David Hoffman: It's not really clear. But there were two meetings between Americans and representatives of the Sunni insurgency that were held in Turkey. It's really -- the third meeting is the mystery. Why didn't it happen? It was scheduled. The Americans didn't come. There's some signs of some disenchantment maybe, that this wasn't really a very good channel or it wasn't working. But I do think it's at least an indicator that reconciliation's got to be the goal.
During listener feedback, a panelist completely blew it. He had no idea what he was speaking of.
Steve Roberts: Let me read some e-mails from some of our listeners. This is Randall in Cincinatti: "With the death toll rising in Afghanistan, I want to know where the anti-war groups that were protesting during the Bush administration -- the anti-war movement was seen and heard daily during the few years but they seem to have disappeared in mainstream media since Obama was elected. Could it be these were just anti-Bush groups posing as anti-war groups?" What do you think?
David Hoffman: Well I think, also, you know Obama did endorse deadlines, troops have pulled back, violence has gone down in Iraq, that may play a big part.
When we noted the Iraq portion of The Diane Rehm Show on Fridays, there are things said by panelists I disagree with. If it's not called out by another guest, the issue is, can the person's remarks be seen? Could someone look at the facts and conclude as the panelist did? If it's an opinion, it can go in. But if someone is just factually wrong, we need to call it out. So we will. David didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Obama endorsed deadlines? You mean the June 30th 'pull-out'? You mean the draw down? You mean the supposed 2011 departure? If that's what you mean, you mean Obama "endrosed" Bush's "deadlines" because those 'deadlines' are Bush's. Those are from the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement which replaced the UN mandate (that Bush didn't want to renew) and which required a full-on push from the US government to pass through Parliament (with a huge number of Iraqi MPs skipping the vote) on Thanksgivng day in 2008. What was being asked was a fair question. More than fair.
And the honest answer, which Randall wasn't given, was that a large number of the 'anti-war' groups were nothing but anti-Bush groups -- and, more importantly, anti-Bush groups who existed to put Democrats into office. They weren't about ending the Iraq War. Look at MoveOn, for example. These were not real peace groups -- which is why they preferred the title "anti-war." These were not groups concerned with ending the illegal war. Their answer, over and over, check those stupid MoveOn e-mails from that time period, were: Stop the Iraq War by voting Democrats into office! That was all they had to offer. That and a few pathetic 'candle light vigils.' Randall asked a fair question and he didn't get a fair answer.
Randall would have been better served if the panelists had said nothing except, "Read Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy). He raises that issue:
That got me wondering: would those folks (say the mainstream Bob Woodward or Tom Ricks, let alone other people in the nuttier fringes of the Bush-bashing chorus) who established a cottage industry lambasting Bush Administration rhetoric as "happy talk" rise up and start calling a foul on President Obama? President Bush regularly caveated his statements of progress with reminders that there were "tough days ahead" and, if memory serves, Rumsfeld was the guy who coined "long, hard slog." In their coverage of Bush, sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and qualify their lede accordingly; sometimes the reporters would include mention of the caveats and yet stick to a "happy talk" lede; and sometimes the reporters would simply omit any mention of the caveats, perhaps the better to advance the "happy talk" lede. Regardless of how many times President Bush presented carefully caveated assessments, the Bush-bashers could always rest their indictment on one or two off-the-cuff uncaveated remarks.
They could have also steered Randall to independent journalist John Pilger who holds both administrations accountable and was on KPFA's Flashpoints yesterday delivering a speech media and empire and covering for Obama, "The Rise of Barack Obama and the Silencing of Much of the Left." For the record, Elise Labott stuck to Afghanistan and stuck to her opinion based on facts. (This isn't the Afghanistan snapshot so we're not excerpting.) Daniel Dombey stuck to Afghanistan. (And was grossly wrong -- protests continue in England against the Afghanistan War including last week and it's damn stupid to use the pre-Iraq War global protest, if that's what Dombey wants to argue, as a measure. That was the largest global protest. And it was against the impending Iraq War -- not the Afghanistan War.) Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." They also address the SOFA:
The current deterioration in Iraq has made advisors and pundits (many of whom supported the initial invasion) fearful of pulling out U.S. troops. The misleading terms of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) means U.S. troops are more involved than expected. The terms of the SOFA called for withdrawal of troops from the cities, for example, but the city limit lines were drawn within previous borders of the cities, allowing troops to be positioned in what was once considered part of the city.
David was completely wrong. It's a shame that a peace activist wasn't able to call in.
Well, it's shame that a peace activist with a brain wasn't able to call in and know what she was talking about.
Steve Roberts: And Ann in Washington, DC, welcome, you're on The Diane Rehm Show. Ann?
Ann: Oh, yes. Uhm . . .
Steve Roberts: You're on the air, please go ahead.
Ann: Thank you. I'm a member and have worked for the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition which is anti-war colation for the last seven years. It isn't a question of who is in the White House. I personally support President Obama except when it comes to Afghanistan and whatever support he still gives to Israeli initiatives, um. I think you will be seeing more anti-war, um, protests as time goes on because the money we're spending in Iraq and the money we give to Israel could be better spent at home for jobs and health care and education.
What a load of garbage. "I personally support President Obama"? If you support him on Iraq -- which you are saying you do -- then you support 2008 George W. Bush on Iraq because Barack -- pay attention -- isn't doing what he supposedly promised while campaigning, he's instead embraced and is following Bush's Iraq timetable and SOFA. The same SOFA, you grasp this, stupid idiot, that Barack was calling out while campaigning for the nomination and then the presidency. Yeah, Barack called it out, said it was wrong, said it shouldn't go through and he wouldn't let it. But what's he doing? He's doing just what Bush did. But you "personally support" him. If that's typical A.N.S.W.E.R. membership, the peace movement's in a lot more trouble than any of us realize. We're going to move right into an excerpt from from Debra Sweet's "A Proposal for Actions Against (Obama's) War and Torture" (World Can't Wait) because the peace movement is in disarray:We've put out a proposal for actions in early October, including Monday October 5 in Washington DC for actions at the White House & Congress, and a national day of resisting the recruiters in high schools Tuesday, October 6. After networking and consulting with other organizations and leaders, the World Can't Wait Steering Committee will meet on August 1 to finalize fall plans. We want your input. Please take the survey here by July 31. Or write me about the questions below...or what is on your mind. 1. Do you feel the controversy over the Obama administration not prosecuting anyone involved in torture has changed the political climate in this country? If so, how so? If not, why not? 2. What do you think of Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan? Why? Do others you know agree or disagree? How much has that war been successfully re-branded as the "good war"? 3. In the past few months has your opinion of Obama changed? Favorably or unfavorably? Why? How about people you know? 4. After reading the October 5/6th proposal what do you think is possible for these days of resistance? What do you think is necessary? What is your vision of protest for those days? Your input is needed! Please complete this survey by July 31 to feed into our discussions on August 1. To make all this possible, send along a donation, or become a sustainer 4RealChange.
Adil E. Shamoo and Bonnie Bricker (Foreign Policy In Focus) explain, "Parliament members are afraid to attend meetings. Iraq's nascent economy is deteriorating. Hundreds of armed militias are ready to fight for their own interests. This is Iraq today." Joe Piasecki (Pasadena Weekly) points out that Tuesday was "day 2,313 of the war in Iraq". While A.N.S.W.E.R.'s Ann isn't at all worried about the Iraq War, Angelina Jolie declared yesterday, "There are still three million people displaced, innocent families," she added. "We have still many young men and women from our country who are fighting every day, there are men and women from all countries who have lost their lives, and this is a time to try to make some positive change." Angelina is the UNHCR's Goodwill Ambassador and made her third trip to Iraq yesterday. The above statement by her appears in CNN's coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle quotes her stating, "There are some changes. There are returns of displaced people, not a big number, but there is progress. This is a moment where things seem to be improving on the ground, but Iraqis need a lot of support and help to rebuild their lives."
As Angelina noted, the returnees are "not a big number." The displaced is composed of targeted populations. A large number of Iraq's external refugees are Iraqi Christians. Deutsche Welle reports Baghdad's "Archbishop Jean Benjamin Sleiman told Deutsche Welle that his country is slipping into a state of anarchy, and that the government has no control of the violence within its borders. In Germany he has spoken out against attacks on seven churches in Iraq, which killed four people and injured some 30 others." AINA reports Congressional Religous Minorities co-chairs, US House Reps Anna Eshoo and Frank Wolf have written the following letter to Nouri al-Maliki on the continued attacks on Iraq's Christian community:
It was with great sadness that we read recent accounts of targeted church bombings in Iraq. Reuters reported on July 12 that, "Bombs exploded outside five Christian churches in Baghdad on Sunday, in apparently coordinated attacks that killed four people and wounded more than 30." The New York Times reported that the bombings "appeared to be one of the largest single coordinated assaults against churches and Christians in Baghdad."
As co-chairs of the Congressional Religious Minorities in the Middle East Caucus, we have long been concerned about the plight ofIraq's ethno-religious communities including the ancient Chaldo-Assyrian Christian community. We have written numerous letters to our own government urging that there be a comprehensive policy to address the unique needs of these vulnerable minorities. U.S. Ambassador Chris Hill has indicated that the security ofthe Christian community is one of his paramount concerns, and we hope his attitude signals a willingness to develop a programmatic approach to dealing with this matter. When the new deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs assumes this post at the end ofthe month, we will meet to discuss solutions to the problems faced by ethno-religious minorities in Iraq.
Our ongoing commitment to alleviating this situation is shared by many of our colleagues in the United States Congress. Two weeks ago, the House of Representatives approved $20 million in funding dedicated toward religious minorities in Iraq. This funding is intended to support a range of programs such as security, economic development, health care enhancement and democratization programs primarily in the Nineveh Plain region. Bipartisan congressional support for these minority faith communities remains strong.
We understand that it is your desire to see Iraqi refugees return to the land of their birth. We share this hope. But news analysis following the bombings indicates that Christians who were contemplating returning will understandably reconsider given the fear gripping their community in the wake of the attacks.
As the U.S. presence in Iraq draws down, the burden for protecting these ancient faith communities rests increasingly with Iraqi forces. Increased security at Christian places of worship and an investigation into who is behind these most recent attacks will send a powerful signal that your government is committed to preserving and protecting Iraq's ethno-religious minorities.
For those late the July 12 bombings, The Catholic Leader recaps and quotes Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni stating: "We cry: Why? Why? What is our fault? That we are Christians?" In June 2006, shortly after Nouri al-Maliki was installed by the US as prime minister, the Green Zone was almost breached and it was a frightening time for al-Maliki and American leadership. In the frenzy following that, al-Maliki was advocating (as were some lower in the US military brass) that trenches be dug around Baghdad, that the answer for Baghdad was "moats." Those late to the party can see Edward Wong's "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" (New York Times, September 16, 2006). We bring that up for a reason. The waterless moats are back as a proposal. International Christian Concern advises that they have "learned that Iraqi Security forces are building trenches to protect Christians from further attacks following recent church bombings that killed four people and wounded several others. Iraqi officials are stepping up protective measures for Christians in the largely Christian towns of Tilkaif and Hamdaniya, in the northern province of Nineveh. The trenches come in the wake of a spate of bomb attacks against seven Iraqi churches on July 11 and 12 in the cities of Baghdad and Mosul." They quote Project Director of the Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project Michael Youash stating, "These trenches will require people to enter towns through 4 or 5 secure checkpoints making it far more difficult to smuggle in weapons and bombs. The construction of the trenches is a sad but necessary reminder of just how desperate the situation of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Christians is becoming." UPI quotes Abdul Raheem al-Shimari (the province's security head) stating that "the trenches are roughtly 1.5 feet deep and are intended to prevent potential car bombers from getting through without the necessary security checks." Hazem al-Aisawi (Azzaman) adds, "It is not clear when the moat will be completed and who will be financing the dig." IRIN notes, "According to some reports, it is estimated that as many as half the Christian population has left Iraq since 2003."
It is clear that Iraq's Kurdistn Regional Government is holding provincial and presidential elections. Early voting began Thursday. Voting ends tomorrow. BBC News presents the viewpoints of five voters: Mateen Dooski, Alan Ali, Savina Dawood, Hassan Jalal and Ako Omer. Savina Rafaeel Dawood explains she's Assyrian, not Kurdish and states she's voting for "the 'Mesopotamia' list which will give me my rights." Hassan Jalal doesn't think the KRG will ever be able to increase their region due to resistance from the central government in Baghdad. Alan Ali is skeptical of the "Change" party ("we don't know where their change would take us") and states, "On Kirkuk - I think it should be part of Kurdistan. I'm not just being selfish because I am Kurdish and want the oil money - Kirkuk is connected to the region. Most of the people there are Kurdish, despite the Arabs brought in by previous governments. And Kirkuk is just one of many cities like this." And Mateen Dooski, who explains he's voting for incumbent President Massud Barzani, declares, "The biggest task facing the KRG is the implementation of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution (a referendum on whether Kurdish areas of Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah ad Din and Ninawa provinces should become part of Iraqi Kurdistan). This would bring the 60% of purely Kurdish areas not run by the KRG: Kirkuk, Mosul, Diyala, under its control." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports on the elections with an emphasis on the "Change" party, "Though Change's leaders deny any conscious similarity to President Obama's campaign, it is evident in the slate's movement's official campaign slogan, 'Yes, We Can Change It.'" Adam Ashton (McClatchy Newspapers) reports on the "Change" Party and also notes these basics, "The Kurdish parliament has 111 seats, 80 of which are held by the alliance of the KDP and the PUK. Eleven seats are reserved for minorities, such as Christians and Turkomen." Salman Ansari Javid (Tehran Times) observes that the political parties "Change, the KDP, and the PUK have the same goals for Kirkuk". Kirkuk is the oil rich disputed region which is claimed by both the KRG and the central government in Baghdad. Timothy Williams (New York Times) reports that the Turkmen in Kirkuk Province are threatening to boycott a census currently scheduled for October. That'll teach 'em, seems to be the concept. The census, which was Constitutionally mandated to have been conducted in 2007, will survey the contested region. Turkmen are claiming Kurds are beefing up their population with transplants. They are. They have been doing it for years. If you don't like it, you probably should have demanded a census long ago. The shipping in of Kurds? That was a concern in 2006. It's too late to whine about something long on reported on. In 2005, some groups (largely Sunni) felt they would be shut out of the electoral process. A decision was made to boycott the elections. Some stood by that decision after the elections, some felt it was a mistake. In the January 31st elections this year, the real story was that the ones who had boycotted last time turned out in large numbers (while the drop off came from the Shi'ites who had participated in 2005). Now an election (or all elections) you might or might not want to boycott. You can certainly say, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote." But this isn't an election. This is a census. And if you feel you are already going to be under-represented because of an influx of Kurds, then your decision not to participate in the census makes little sense. Unless you're attempting to stop the census, which may be the point.
In other news, the US has continued talks with Iraqi leaders living in exile. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) reports on continued negotiations the US is having with former Ba'athists and other groups currently excluded from political life in Iraq. Bakri reports "two meetings this spring" held in Turkey and that the State Dept's P.J. Crowley would only say that they met to address "a wide range of Iraqi contacts with the purpose of promoting reconciliation and national unity." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds that the central government in Baghdad states it is "demanding explanations" on the meeting and declares the meetings (known for weeks before they took place and covered in Arab media though the New York Times seems unaware of that fact) were "an interference in Iraq's internal political affairs". Dagher notes an Aljazeera interview aired on July 15th where Ali al-Juboouri (Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance) "revealed that his council, which represents Sunni insurgent groups, met in March with representatives of the American government in Istanbul. He said a protocol was signed then to govern future negotiations between the two sides. He said that a second meeting took place in May" but ended over differences including that the US agree to compensation and a public apology for the illegal war.
Maliki's out of the country and Iraq has no violence? No, it's just Friday, when reports trickle out slowly. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) does note a Baghdad car bombing which injured six people. Meanwhile Missy Ryan (Reuters) reports on the drought effecting Iraq as the Tigris and Euphrates run dry, "Tensions intensified earlier in the month when Turkey announced that it would resume work on its controversial plan to build a hydroelectric dam on the Tigris in its southeast." Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli explores the issue in "Water Crisis in Iraq: The Growing Danger of Desertification" (Middle East Media Research Institute). Turning to the US, July 12th, Topeka, Kansas was in the news as a veteran had a standoff with police at the Colmery-O'Neil VA Medical Center. India's Thaindian reported, "An unknown gunman stormed a Topeka, Kansas hospital on Sunday afternoon, officials told BNO News." Taylor Atkins and Ann Marie Bush (The Topeka Capital-Journal) explained:Jim Gleisberg, public affairs officer for the medical center, said no one was injured when a veteran, whose name and hometown won't be released, walked into the emergency room with a handgun at 12:10 p.m. and asked to talk to a VA police officer. "The veteran showed the officer he had a gun and threatened his own life," Gleisberg said. "The police officer acted very professionally. He got the veteran to leave the emergency room area, and other staff members on duty called the Topeka police."KTKA quoted the VA's Jim Gleisberg stating the man is an Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran and, "Veterans are being stressed. The soldiers over there now that are in the conflict that are coming back with issues just because they've been deployed either once or twice at 12 or 15 months at a time it's a very stressful situation and so they are going to have issues." Michigan's WHMI reports "a suicidal veteran" -- Iraq War veteran -- holed up at the Homoetown Trailr Park and "held Howell Police at bay for more than nine hours". Jon Gunnells (Daily Press & Argus) reports that the "veteran is undergoing psychiatric treatment" and quotes police chief George Bassar stating, "He made statemens about suicide to his mother who calle dthe sister to check on him. He threatened his sister and she fled te home . . . He has some pretty good battle injuires and post traumatic stress syndrome. This apparently was something bubbling up." Steve Pardo (Detroit News) states the veteran is thirty-four-years-old and that after hours of attempted negotiations, "around 3:30 a.m., police threw tear gas into the house and the man was taken without further incident. He remains in St. Joseph Mercy Livingston hospital."
TV notes. This week on NOW on PBS:The Obama Administration recently released its proposal for financial regulatory reform, but before change comes to Wall Street, a reform plan has to get through Congress with its teeth intact.This week, David Brancaccio sits with Zanny Minton Beddoes, economics editor for The Economist magazine, to review the proposal and its ramifications for America. Beddoes encourages streamlining the regulatory system, leaving fewer but more efficient overseers. But where powerful interests are at stake, nothing is a sure bet."There is some good stuff in [the reform plan]. But it's a relatively modest rearranging of the financial supervisory structure ... I think it's more interior design than a whole new foundation."
On Bill Moyers Journal, health care is addressed with CJR's Trudy Lieberman (who has a strong article in the current CJR) and by Marcia Angell. My goodness, Bill found two women. Mark the calendars! As noted in Third's "Editorial: Taking sexism seriously," "In the first six months of this year Washington Week had 33 female guests and twice that number (66) of male guests while Bill Moyers featured 43 men and only 13 women." And, for the record, I'm only noting that segment. In another Bill floats his attacks on free speech. Free speech is something you support or you don't. Believing in it doesn't mean you can't decry statements, that you can't call them out, that you can't say they're offensive or that they crossed a line. But it does mean that you support free speech and grasp the difference between words and action and grasp that the Constitution supports free speech for an important reason.Now did we just note Washington Week? Usually four guests a week sit down with Gwen but as of the last week of June, she'd spent the year with 66 men and only 33 women on her program? How does it happen? By weeks like this one where she sits down with three men and one woman: New York Times' Peter Baker, Washington Post's Michael Fletcher, National Journal's Marilyn Werber Serafini and Wall St. Journal's David Wessel. Now how do you book that show and not notice that you have three men and only one woman? You know it. You know it and you do it on purpose. You don't accidentally end up with twice as many men as women. PBS' Editorial Standards & Policies states: "The goal of diversity also requires continuing efforts to assure that PBS content fully reflects the pluralism of our society, including, for example, appropriate representation of women and minorities. The diversity of public television producers and funders helps to assure that content distributed by PBS is not dominated by any single point of view." Repeating, "Appropriate representation of women and minorities." Why have a policy if PBS doesn't ensure that their programs follow it? There's no excuse for Bill or Gwen to get away with the crap that they continue to get away with. They are in direct violation of PBS' own Standards & Policies and they need to get their shows in order and PBS needs to provide the supervision to ensure that they do.Bonnie Erbe sits down with Eleanor Holmes Norton, Melinda Henneberger, Kathleen Parker and Tara Setmayer on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Coming Up On 60 Minutes
Gun Rush Americans are snapping up guns and ammunition at an increasingly higher rate despite the economic downturn. But as Lesley Stahl reports, the economic downturn, as well as the election of Barack Obama, may be the reason for the run on guns. Watch Video
Poisoned The African lion, already down as much as 85 percent in numbers from just 20 years ago, is now in danger of becoming extinct because people are poisoning them with a cheap American pesticide to protect their cattle herds. Bob Simon reports. Watch Video
Steve Wynn The casino mogul most responsible for taking Las Vegas to new heights of gaming and glitter talks to Charlie Rose about his spectacular success and the eye disease that's slowly robbing him of his ability to see the fruits of his labor. Watch Video
60 Minutes Sunday, July 26, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
iraq
nprthe diane rehm show
peter feaver
flashpointskpfa
margaret talevmcclatchy newspapersanne gearan
sig christensonthe washington postnada bakrithe new york times
edward wongsam daghertimothy williamsliz slythe los angeles timesdebra sweetworld cant wait
60 minutescbs news
pbsto the contrarybonnie erbenow on pbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)