 |
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Wednesday,
June 20, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri wants Barack to kill
an ExxonMobil deal, Nouri wants TOTAL to stay away from the KRG,
Moqtada al-Sadr states the US is still controlling Iraq, US House Rep
Bob Filner calls out the VA on its lack of progress, an American family
tries to get the body of their loved one back from Iraq, and more. House
Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking Member Bob Filner: Now, by the way,
Mr. [US House Rep Timothy] Walz -- now, Mr. Walz, she [VA Under
Secretary Allison Hickey] doesn't need your defense here for her past
accomplishments. And I don't need a lecture from you of her past. We're
talking about what she's going to do for the VA now. I'll stipulate any
accomplishments that she's had. I respect her service. But if she
can't do this job, I don't care what she has done in the past. Okay? So
don't lecture me about how I don't have respect for someone's past.
She's talking about the future -- the present and the future. And she
didn't give one answer or one recognition that there was any problem --
in all her testimony, in every answer. This Chairman [Marlin Stutzman]
asked her a number of things. She talked for three-and-a-half minutes
and didn't give the answer and still doesn't know the answer. So
let's talk about what she's doing right here and right now. And I said
if one of your veterans -- And she didn't answer your question, your
very good questions, Mr. Walz, about the time period of what's going on
in Minneapolis? She just said, 'Oh, from time to time we have surges.'
You asked are we heading toward a lowest common denominator and she
never answered that. So don't -- I mean be a little more critical of
the kind of answers we're getting. We don't have a plan. This whole
hearing was about a plan. If I were her, I would have given out the
plan. But we still don't have one. Again, Ms. Hickey, if I were you,
leadership comes from the top. The top is saying, "There is no
problem." You ask any veteran in my district, in Mr. Walz' district, in
Mr. [Mike] Michaud's district, in Mr. Stutzman's district: Is there a
problem? Every one will say, "Yes." Now you can say, 'They don't
understand fully. Their perception is wrong, we've had a surge of
this. We did this. We had the Vietnam era.' I don't care what -- you
have not either acknowledged the problem or say how we're going to get
out of it. You gave us an assurance of a date. And Mr. Walz asked -- I
know it's not a very bright question -- 'Are you committed? Is it going
to happen?' What is she going to say? "No"? We've had these
questions, we've had these committments for years and years and years
and years. And Mr. Walz asked you another softball question: 'Has
anything been tried as this big before? We have tried every single
thing that you have as your initiatives -- has been tried. Every one
of them at some point. In fact, we've had far more comprehensive plans
than your forty initiatives lumped together. Nothing has worked. It's
gotten worse. And you refuse to admit it. You refuse to acknowledge
it. And you don't give us a plan to fix it. What am I to think? 'Well,
she was an Air Force General that did great things.' If it doesn't
happen by 2015, are you going to say I resign or what's going to happen
if you're at the top? And it's always two or three years out. It's
never, "I'm going to do this tomorrow." You've been working on this.
Your predecessor's been working on this. I don't have any assurance.
You can't even correct a date on the computer for a year-and-a-half and
you call it a "glitch." What confidence do I have that you can do
anything if it took a year-and-a-half to fix a "glitch?" The simplest
thing. Put a date in. You could have done it by hand in a few months.
It took you a year-and-a-half. You still haven't done it. I'm sure
we'll get a memo from you -- I just bet, you want to make a bet right
now -- that you'll ask for another extension. I just bet. When's that
going to be done? Why should we have any confidence in 2015 that a
system of a million backlog is going to be fixed when we can't even get a
"glitch" fixed in a year-and-a-half? What gives me the confidence?
That you were an Air Force General? Sorry, it doesn't work. Give me
some confidence. What has worked so far? Everything has been a
problem. Yesterday US House Rep Gus
Bilirakis and other Republicans chaired a VBA hearing. Chair Jeff
Miller wasn't present for the hearing. "Well here we are again,"
observed Ranking Member Bob Filner, "I think one of the first meetings I
went to twenty years ago as a member of the Veterans Committee was on
the backlog. We've hired what? In the last few years, maybe 10,000,
15,000 employees." I spent last night on the
phone to friends in federal, state and municipal government because
Bilirakis brought up an issue that I didn't feel comfortable speaking to
without some research. Bilirakis noted the claims progress, or rather
the lack of progess. Acting
Chair Gus Bilirakis: VBMS I know that I and my fellow Committee members
and our Ranking Member have many questions to ask as to when this
system will be ready for national roll out rolled out and how issues
relating to the scanning of paper documents will be handled in the
future. As a matter of fact, VA's contract with the US National
Archives and Records Administration, the agency currently handling VA's
scanning needs, expires on June 26th, just one week from today. I'll
ask what goes after, what's going to happen on June 27th? Backlog
needs to be farmed out. I'm not surprised or troubled by that. I'm
bothered by backlog being created as I type this sentence. Paper taken
in today should not become part of a backlog. The first person touching
that paper in the VA should be immediately scanning it into the
system. (Then it would be put in a box for archiving, as was explained
last night, according to whatever retention program they're operating
under.) The paper needs to be addressed immediately. And how do you
address it? You don't hire one or two people
in the office to scan documents and carry the documents to them. That's
how you begin creating the backlog. The first person to handle the
paper, is the one who scans it. Every one that comes after is referring
to the digital copy in the system after that. And everyone responsible
for accepting paperwork or opening mail has a light scanner
(inexpensive) attached to their computer and they immediately scan what
they receive. That's the only way you're going
to end the paper backlog. There is no excuse for creating new
backlog. Again, I'm not disputing the farming out of the existing
backlog. There's no way VA employees can catch up with that and also do
their current job tasks. But new backlog should not be created. You
touch a claims application, you scan it in and then it goes to a pile to
be boxed up for archives. The original is not sent somewhere else in
the office to be scanned or placed with stacks of others to be farmed
out for scanning. How much of a problem is the
claims request? Do they get lost? I was told by three people with the
VA that "missing" happens more than "lost" with "lost" meaning -- in
their usuage -- it's not showing back up and "missing" meaning a week or
two of fumbling around for the paper. (How often are original paper
documents "missing?" "From time to time" and "it happens" were the
responses, no one with the VA wanted to give a percentage or an
estimate.) Many governments are already
moving towards that. In your local areas, getting an application to put
up a fence means turning it and paying for the permit and more and more
local governments are scanning that document in right there when
payment is being taken. They're doing that to prevent the loss that can
take place when the original document is routed to one or more
different people before it's entered into the system. This is not a
"C.I. brainstorm." This is what is happening in government offices
around the country and what the VA should immediately begin doing.
There is no need to create new backlog and even without a numbered
estimate of how many claims application are lost each year, one is too
many. The longterm goal is for VA to move away from paper
altogether. They're not their yet and they're really not prepared for
that at present which is the point US House Rep Phil Roe made -- he is
also medical Dr. Phil Roe -- when he discusses his own practice's
transition to paperless. Disabled American Veterans Jeffrey Hall also raised the issue of the paper backlog, the future paperless goal and more. Hall, VFW's Gerald Manar, The American Legion's Richard Dumancas and Paralyzed Veterans of America's
Sherman Gillums made up the first panel. The National Archives Records
Administration's William Bosanko was the second panel. The third panel
was the IG. Fourth panel was the VA's Allison Hickey, Alan Bozeman and
Roger Baker. Jeffrey
Hall: Mr. Chairman, even before VBMS was first conceived, it was clear
that in order to have a paperless claims process there must be a
comprehensive system in place to digitze paper documents. Yet VBA has
failed to finalize a long-term scanning solution, in part because it has
not yet definitively answered fundamental questions about when and
which legacy documents will be scanned into VBMS. Although VBA has
committed to moving forward with a paparelss system for new claims, it
has dragged its feet for more than two years in determining under what
conditions existing paper claims files would be converted to digital
files. Because a majority of claims processed each year are for
reopened or appealed claims and because files can remain active for
decades, until all legacy claims are converted to digital data files,
VBA could be forced to continue paper processing for decades. We have
been told that VBA's current plans are to convert claims files that
have new rating-related actions, but not those with minor actions such
as dependency or address changes. However, the uncertainty over the
past couple of years about how much scanning would be required, and at
what cost, is at least partly responsible for VBA's reliance on NARA and
its current rush to find a new scanning vendor. While there are very
difficult technical questions to be answered, and significant financial
considerations involved in transitioning to all-digital processing,
particular involving legacy paper files, we believe VBA would be best
served by taking the most aggressive approach feasible in order to
shorten the length of time this transition takes. While the conversion
from paper processing to VBMS will require substanital upfront
investment, it will pay dividends for VBA and veterans in the future.
We would urge VBA to provide -- and Congress to review -- a clear plan
for eliminating legacy paper files, one that includes realistic
timeliness and resource requirements. As
noted before, there were several acting chairs for the hearing. It was
a disturbing hearing as we heard the same things that we've heard over
and over. But there were some new revelations as well. However, that
might have been even more disturbing. Excerpt. Acting
Chair Marlin Stutzman: I'd like to do a second round because I'd like
to talk about the scanning issue. Why did it take this Committee
calling a hearing for the VA to meet with NARA [National Archives and
Records Administration] to discuss next week's scanning contract
expiration? I mean this is, I think, the frustration that's felt around
here. It's these sorts of things that we find out about and why isn't
there some sort of pro-active movement before this? Can you -- can you
give us an explanation of why the contract is set to expire next week?
There isn't a contract. Is there some other plan that the VBA is
planning on implementing? Is it going to be done in-house? I mean, I
know for us, Congressional offices, we have folks that we could use to
scan things in. I'm sure that you're system is a little bit more
complicated. We're spending ten million dollars a year, if I remember
the number correctly. It seems like we could do it cheaper and it
seems like we could get it done. Is there a plan to address that? Allison
Hickey: Congressman -- I mean Chairman Stutzman, yes, there is. I
will defer the first part of it to my Assistant Secretary for
Information Technology, Roger Baker. Roger
Baker: Thank you. I just want to talk to the NARA piece. NARA's been
our partner on this for two years so let me start with will we have an
agreement with them by the end of this week to continue them for the
next year? I believe the answer to that is "yes." I know that's in
process. I checked with my staff while we were listening to this going
on. Got absolute assurances that there is really nothing in the way of
that completing by the end of this week. So it's a little bit different
than a normal government contractor relationship. Because it's a
government-to-government relationship, it's much easier to do. We've
used NARA primarily from a development standpoint. That's
more than enough from him. I'm really tired of witnesses who eat time
to avoid answering questions. Stutzman would go on to ask about the
cost. "I really don't know," Baker told him. The cost is a per-page
scanned fee. Well then you should know it. And it's probably not a
good idea to tell Congress and taxpayers that the deal will be closed by
the end of the week but you don't know how much the VA will be paying
for the scanning. See, most people would assume that you find out the
cost before you start closing on a contract. Rushing to complete a deal
when you don't know the cost doesn't look like you're being scrupulous
with the taxpayer money. And it's not good
to call something a plan when, as Acting Chair Stutzman noted, it's a
presentation (slide show) of variables, not a plan. Excerpt. Ranking
Member Bob Filner: When you were asked: "Do you have a plan?," you
said, "Yes, we supplied it to the Committee." This is not a plan. This
is not a strategic plan. I will ask you again, do you have a strategic
plan? And why don't you just have it with you and give it to us?
That's the title of this hearing [Reclaiming the Process: Examing the
VBA Claims Transformation Plan as a Means to Effectively Serve our
Veterans]. Do you have a plan to give to us this minute? Allison Hickey: I do have a plan, Congressman Filner. Ranking Member Bob Filner: You what? Allison
Hickey: I do have a plan. I do not have it in this book, in these
materials. I'm happy to provide it for the Committee. Ranking
Member Bob Filner: Why are you providing it with us, a plan of
execution? You're going to provide it to us? Why don't you have it
here? You have 18 people here working for you. Give us the plan.
That's all we're asking for. You said you did it. [Shaking head] We
have some slides. We don't have a strategic plan of how you're going to
execute this so-called transformation which sounds more like a
fossil-formation. So where is the plan? Allison Hickey: Congressman Filner, I have the plan. It's in Word document. Ranking Member Bob Filner: A secret one or what? Allison
Hickey: No, it is not a secret document. In fact, I have shared it
with Veterans Service Organizations, with our labor partners, with -- Ranking Member Bob Filner: I just said none of us have seen it. Why don't you have it with you? Allison Hickey: I will be happy to bring it to you, sir. The
paper backlog and the some-day-transition-to-paperless are issues and
are problems. There are other problems. The worst backlog problems is
veterans waiting and waiting for their claims to go through the
process. And, as Ranking Member Bob Filner noted, this isn't weeks or
months, this is years. He estimated that there were 100,000 Agent
Orange claims -- from Vietnam era veterans -- waiting, over thirty
years, he noted. He noted that the IRS used to
have a huge backlog and you waited and waited forever and ever for a
refund check if you had one coming. What changed that? Why can you now
file and get money within three weeks if you have a refund coming?
Because it's "subject to audit." Ranking Memer
Bob Filner argued that's what should be taking place with the VA today,
"Grant the claim, subject to audit. Send out a check." Ranking
Member Bob Filner: What have we done in the last few years? Doubled
the backlogs. Raised the rate of inaccuracy, according to the recent
report, up to 25%. This is disgraceful. This is an insult to our
veterans. And you guys just recycle old programs, put new names on them,
and here we are again. Do you know what the definition -- one
definition of insanity is? Try the same thing over and over again
expecting a different result. I mean somebody has to take
responsibility for this. We just keep announcing new names, new pilot
programs, on and on. We're up to 1.2 million by one count on backlog.
If it wasn't tragic, it would be ridiculous. Acting
Chair Bilirakis raised another issue that needs further attention. So
we'll ignore it here. Seriously, it'll be carried over to Third on
Sunday because it's one of the issues -- the first one -- that we
discussed with Dona in " Congress and Veterans."
It has to do with education and I see Bilirakis' concerns (which are
solid concerns) as related to Senator Richard Burr's concerns that we
discussed with Dona for the piece last Sunday so it makes more sense to
pick it up this coming Sunday at Third. There's something we're
carrying over for tomorrow already as it is. I'll be one day behind on
hearings all week, I bet but I didn't know a damn thing about storage of
records or moving towards digitized or anything and I needed all the
wonderful people who walked me through the process last night (thank you
to all) so I could understand the hearing I'd sat through. There's a
press release on the hearing that we'll include in a morning entry
tomorrow there's not room for it today. Violence continues in Iraq. Alsumaria reports
a Falluja roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three people
-- including a 3-year-old child -- injured. It's been a bad week for
children with the bombing today and the targeting of children
in kidnappings this week. Al Rafidayn reports a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left nine injured. BBC News reports Judge Aziz Abdul Qadir was the target of the bombing and that he and two of his bodyguards are among the injured. AFP counts 141 people killed in Iraq so far this month. In addition, the Herald of Scotland notes that a clash yesterday between the PKK and Turkish military left sixteen soldiers injured. The Oman Tribune reports that 20 PKK were killed in the altercation. Jennifer Parker (Foreign Policy) notes,
"Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul have
both condemned the violence and denounced the PKK militants as
terrorists. Selahattin Demirtas, the head of Turkey's pro-Kurdish Peace
and Democracy Party, has also criticized the hostilities, adding, 'The
PKK should stop all kinds of armed activity. The government should also
halt (military) operations. Let them give a political solution a
chance'." Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk." BBC reports the Turkish military has announced it struck PKK targets today. AP notes
KRG President Massoud Barzani called for peace today, stating, "The
time for war and weapons has passed." On the subject of violence, RBC Radio notes: A
UN investigator has called on the Obama administration to justify its
policy of assassinating rather than capturing Al-Qaeda or Taleban
suspects, increasingly with the use of unmanned drone aircraft that also
take civilian lives. Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, urged Washington to
clarify the basis under international law of the policy, in a report
issued overnight to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The
47-member Geneva forum is to hold a debate later on Tuesday. The
US military has conducted drone attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan,
Somalia and Yemen, in addition to conventional raids and air strikes,
according to Heyns, a South African jurist serving in the independent
post. "Disclosure of these killings is critical to ensure
accountability, justice and reparation for victims or their families,"
he said in a 28-page report. "The (US) government should clarify the
procedures in place to ensure that any targeted killing complies with
international humanitarian law and human rights and indicate the
measures or strategies applied to prevent casualties, as well as the
measures in place to provide prompt, thorough, effective and independent
public investigation of alleged violations." On today's bombings, Reuters notes
that Diyala Province electrical towers and lines were bombed by unknown
assailants. This comes a day after Nouri finally decided to spend a
little of the billions Iraq brings in on oil each year to provide some
electricity. Nayla Razzouk and Khalid al-Ansary (Bloomberg News) report
that Iraq has agreed to pay Weatherford International $843 million to
put in six new power plants "at the Zubair oil fields in the south of
the country." Alsumaria reports
on their exclusive interview with Moqtada al-Sadr. Moqtada states the
US still occupies Iraq and that the so-called withdrawal was purely
symbolic. He states that Iraqis seek an Iraq free of US interference
and one free of the US Embassy. He declares that the US Embassy is
merely a cover to keep foreign foces (contractors, Marines and some
soldiers) in Iraq under the guise of protecting the Embassy staff. Along with those guarding the embassy, consulate and staff, there are all the US service members who were moved to Kuwait. Maqsood Hussain (News Tribe) reports,
"The United States has now nearly 15,000 troops in three bases across
Kuwait -- triple the average number of American forces in the Middle
Easter country before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 [. . .]," Jennifer Rizzo (CNN) opens
with, "The United States has approximately 15,000 troops in Kuwait,
according to a Senate report released Tuesday,, the first time the
number has been disclosed," RT goes with, "Despite the troop withdrawal from Iraq, the American military presence in the area is set to expand," Evann Gastaldo (Newswer) launches a Platonic dialogue, "The US has no combat force in Iraq
and a wary eye on Iran: What's a nervous country to do? Maintain a
force in neighboring Kuwait, apparently." They're referring to the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] " The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council" which you can find more on in yesterday's snapshot.
15,000. And the report recommends that a little over 13,000 stay in
Kuwait for several years to come. Aren't you glad Barack brought ALL
the troops home? (No, he didn't.) The
Security Council today urged the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait to step
up their engagement with the United Nations envoy helping the two
countries resolve issues pending from Iraq's 1990 invasion, including
finding Kuwaiti or third-country nationals. "The
members of the Security Council welcomed the continued cooperation of
the Governments of Iraq and Kuwait, and their high-level commitments to
full implementation of all Iraqi obligations to Kuwait under the
relevant resolutions," the Council said in a statement issued to the
press following a closed-door meeting. The Council was briefed by Ambassador Gennady Tarasov, Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon's High-Level Coordinator for the issue of missing Kuwait
and third-country nationals and property, on Mr. Ban's latest report on
the issue. Wednesday,
the big story in the Iraqi press was Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's
letter to US President Barack Obama asking/requesting/demanding (depends
upon the account) that Barack kill ExxonMobil's deal with the KRG. Kitabat uses
"warned" of the October 18th contracts between the parties and quotes a
spokesperson for Nouri, Ali al-Moussawi, stating that these contracts
could start wars and could rip the country apart. Really? If
that's the case, maybe Nouri should show some leadership and back the
hell off his non-stop complaining about the contract? Don't hold your
breath for that to happen. Dar Addustour reports
Nouri is prepared to go to the extreme -- they're citing al-Moussawi
on that and what the "extreme scores" would be is not specified. But
what the statements make clear is that it's not the ExxonMobil contract
that's causing problems. It's Nouri's reactions to the contracts. Al Rafidayn reports
that, thus far, there's no response from Barack but National Security
Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor acknowledged that the letter from
Nouri was received. Reuters reports
today, "Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan expects more oil majors to follow
Exxon Mobil Corporation in the next few months in striking deals in the
region, where oil shipments will resume, its natural resources
minister said, despite a dispute with Baghdad." April Yee (The National) observes,
"A hydrocarbon law remains a mirage in Baghdad and the reality is
dawning that Iraq's plans to become one of the world's top-five oil
producers are jeopardised by the legal deadlock." Reuters also notes that Nouri's government had a message for France's TOTAL today, " Iraq
gave a veiled warning to France's Total on Wednesday not to make deals
with the autonomous Kurdish region without the approval of central
government in Baghdad." His tantrums come as oil has dropped over 20% per barrel in the last two months with the current pdb being $82. An
Iraq War veteran returned to Iraq as a DynaCorp week and was dead a
week later. Now his family fights to have his body returned to the US.
Steve Shaw of Oklahoma's News 9 (link is text and video) reports:
Angela Copeland: They came in and they told me that they had found Michael deceased in his living quarters.
Steve
Shaw: Michael Copeland's widow Angela is distraught -- not only
because of Michael's sudden death but because our State Dept told
Copeland's family Iraqi leaders say Copeland died of Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome -- or SARS -- an extemely rare disease, and our
State Dept bought it. Iraq says it can't release the body. Michael
Copeland's fathe says he talked to his son by phone just 12 hours before
his death, nobody's died from SARS since 2003, and he says that his
son showed no signs of the disease.
Mike
Copeland: Everyone that I've spoke with is always sorry for our loss
but they say there's nothing they can do. I find that very difficult to
believe. That my government? There's nothing they can do to bring my
son home fom Iraq?The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's SARS page notes:
Severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused
by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS
was first reported in Asia in February 2003. The illness spread to more
than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and
Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was contained. Since 2004,
there have not been any known cases of SARS reported anywhere in the
world. The content in this Web site was developed for the 2003 SARS
epidemic. But, some guidelines are still being used. Any new SARS
updates will be posted on this Web site.No new updates have been posted to the CDC's page. "Not only are we having to deal with the loss," Angela Copeland tells NewsOn6, "but we're having to deal with the battle to get him back home." Michael Copeland died June 9th. She tells Victoria Maranan (KXII -- link is video), "There is absolutely no excuse in this world that you could give me that could convince me why he should not be home." Jerry Wofford (Tulsa World) reports
on the case and quotes Oklahoma State Rep. Dustin Roberts stating,
"Michael David Copeland was a man who served our nation as a Marine and
our state as a National Guardsman, and his family deserves better than
this." Zach Maxwell (Durant Democrat) reports
this evening, "The family of Michael Copeland is still waiting for
answers more than 10 days after the former Marine and National Guardsman
passed away in Iraq." In the US, Fred Kaplan of Slate magazine is an idiot. (No link for obvious reasons and Rebecca's correct that I would love to use this as the excuse to end this site on the Fourth, next month). We last dealt with Baby Dumb F**k when he attacked Brian De Palma.
He's so supremely stupid that people wonder about Brooke but I always
say that like the fat-man-skinny-wife couples on TV in the late 90s and
during the '00s, Fred and Brooke are the-stupid-fool-brilliant-wife
combo. Kappy writes a column about Brett
McGurk's nomination while never once considering the Iraqi people.
Iraqiya is mentioned (in a bad paragraph). Iraqiya is popular, they are
not the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are approximately 30 million
and Foolish Fred wants you to know how wonderful his man crush Brett
would have been in the job. No, he wouldn't have been good in the job.
The clerics, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (al-Sistani is
the only true calming influence in the country, if he requests that the
temperature of rhetoric be lowered, it gets lowered), could not be
comfortable with McGurk. He came to Iraq a married man. He had an
affair in Iraq. On top of that, he left his wife. He divorced her.
Gina Chon would have been his "_____" if she'd accompanied him to
Iraq. What's the big debate in Iraq today? Raheem Salman (Reuters) reports,
"An Iraqi government decree banning soldiers and police from wearing
beards on duty has revived a debate over religious practices in a
country where sectarian divisions between Shi'ite and Sunni still fester
close to the surface." What McGurk and Chon did -- both married when
they began their affair in Iraq -- goes against fundamentalist teachings
and also insults the host country since he violated his vows while he
was in Iraq. Iraqi women would not have been able to access the Embassy
because of fear of what would be said about them (and the fear that
words could lead to 'honor' killings -- where women have supposedly
disgraced and brought dishonor to their relatives so the women must be
put to death by their relatives). We've got over half the population
right there. And Idiot Fred doesn't stop to think about Iraqi women or even include in his bad article. Look,
we get it. Fred, you stood next to Brett at the stalls and you were
impressed. Fine. Keep it to yourself, use it for your fantasies but
the rest of us aren't interested. Fred insists
Brett McGurk was right for the job because he knows people. The
American face in Iraq does not need to be someone who is the object of
ridicule. I'm sorry that Fred's so unintelligent that he never learned
Arabic. It should be required for him when you think of how badly he
wanted the Iraq War. But if he could read Arabic and he wasn't so lazy,
he would have seen what we noted many times here, this was a big story
in the Iraqi press -- the affair. They didn't care about the other
stuff, they cared about the affair. It was considered shocking -- even
among Iraqi publications which regularly report on Madonna.
Because they did not consider that to be appropriate behavior for what
would be the highest ranking US official who would be living in their
country. The host country should not be an after thought. McGurk
had no qualifications to speak of, was too young, without managerial
experience and lied (or else is stupid) to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. It's cute that Fred -- like so many of his lazy ass peers --
didn't show for that hearing, didn't report on it, but thinks he can
now play 'expert' and insist McGurk was qualified. Only an idiot claims
that Nouri is providing Sahwa with jobs. We covered it. We were
there. Fred should have been on it but that would have been work and
lazy asses don't do work even when they're paid for it. Fred's
'knowledge' of Iraqiya is based upon what one person told him -- and
they got it wrong. But, hey, Fred's real point is to smear people. If
you support Allawi and you're American, you're doing that because you
must be "still involved in political or business ventures that would be
served by a degree of Kurdish autonomy that is favored more by Allawi
than by Maliki." Poor Fred, as stupid as he is ugly. He goes on to
declare that Nouri was "the country's elected prime minister." Not in
2006, not in 2010. In 2006, the US stopped Parliament's first choice.
And Parliament, not the country, elects the Prime Minister, Fred. The
Bush White House wanted him in that position. That's why he got it. In
2010, the Barack White House wanted him in the position. As Fred goes on and on, you keep waiting for that moment where he notes the real reporting of Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times)
or the worker of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in
exposing the hidden jails and ongoing torture Nouri's responsible for.
But Fred never does because liars can't tell the truth. Fred's a nutty
conspiracy theorist. Probably the nuttiest one around as his latest
column demonstrates. Next time he writes a column like this, he might
need to do some self-disclosures -- at least if he's still pretending to
be a journalist. Brett McGurk demonstrated over and over that he
didn't know what he was talking about (most infamously when his
testimony contradicted that of earlier testimony by Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta and the public remarks of National Intelligence Director
James Clapper). Brett McGurk was supremely uninformed which makes him
the perfect match for Fred Kaplan.
Posted at 05:05 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Today is World Refugee Day.
The daily existential struggle of millions of Iraqi refugees has
become lost in the coverage of the unexpected, tumultuous, and
geo-politically spell-binding Arab uprisings. Although the coalition's
mission in Iraq is declared officially over, and the Iraqi government is
encouraging their return, millions of Iraqi refugees remain unconvinced
that life in their homeland is improving.
Since the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in 2003, an
estimated 4 million Iraqis of all sectarian identities and social
classes have fled the country for other nations in the region,
especially Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Sporadic violence, poverty, lack
of infrastructure, and a pervasive state of instability prompted their
exodus from Iraq. The displacement of Iraqi refugees is considered by
many experts to be the largest movement of people in the Middle East
region since 1948, when Palestinians left what is today Israel for the
West Bank, Gaza Strip, and neighboring nations.
This week, the UN released UNHCR Global Trends 2011
which contains details such as 46% of refugees are under the age of 18,
that three areas of concern are the displaced of Columbia, of the
Democratic Republic of Congo and of Iraq, and that the Middle East and
North Africa have a larger number of refugees than the Americas and and
Asia and Pacific combined. (Africa has the largest number of refugees
with 2.1 million to the Middle East and North Africa's 1.9 million.)
Through the end of last year, Iraq could claim 1,428,3000 refugees.
Only Afghanistan topped that figure (Afghanistan had 2.6 million). Of
the report, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared today, "These
numbers represent far more than statistics; they are individuals and
families whose lives have been upended, whose communities have been
destroyed, and whose future remains uncertain."
The European Union's High Representative Catherine Ashton and Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmstrom released this joint-statement today:
"Today, on the World Refugee Day,
our thoughts are, more than ever, with the millions of women, children
and men, around the world who are forced to flee their home countries
because of war, conflict, or persecution. This is still a reality in
today's world.
Protecting the persecuted, the weak
and the vulnerable is our obligation. All EU Member States have
acceded to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and are committed to
its implementation. In a world where people continue to fear for their
lives just because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, Europe
has to remain true to its principles by showing solidarity towards
refugees. We are proud that so many Europeans share the conviction that
the EU must offer protection and asylum to all those who need it.
The EU is stepping up efforts to
put in place common rules on asylum which guarantee high standards of
protection and is aiming to complete the strengthening of the Common
European Asylum System by the end of this year. This objective is within
reach, with the final stages of the negotiations now underway. Work is
also progressing on enhancing solidarity between EU Member States.
The UNHCR's 2011 Ministerial
Conference underlined the importance of eliminating the phenomenon of
statelessness. We welcome the pledges made during this Conference, and
underline the EU's determination to step up its efforts to address
statelessness worldwide.
In 2011, just over 300,000 asylum
applications were lodged in Europe, more than the year before but well
below the peak of 425,000 in 2001. This represents about 34 % of the
total worldwide. However, contrary to widespread belief, it is not
Europe but other countries – often the poorest – that host the world's
largest refugee populations. Last year, South Africa alone received
close to 107 000 applications – one tenth of all asylum applications
worldwide. In terms of the individuals recognised as refugees,
approximately four fifths are hosted in developing countries.
Therefore, refugee resettlement
should form an integral part of the EU common asylum policy.
Resettlement is not only a life-saving measure but an important
humanitarian gesture of solidarity on the part of the EU towards
countries hosting large numbers of refugees.
We welcome the European
Parliament's and the Council's decision to establish a common EU
resettlement programme for 2013. The programme will include specific EU
resettlement priorities, identifying the nationalities of refugees and
the countries from which resettlement should take place as a priority
and for whom EU funding is available. In 2013 that list will include
refugees from Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Burma and Eritrea.
We are gravely concerned about the plight of
refugees fleeing the violence in Syria. The EU, in close co-operation
with its partners, is providing significant humanitarian and other
assistance to these refugees, and will throw its weight behind all
efforts to ensure the protection of the victims of this conflict."
The US State Dept elects to Tweet (it's less characters so less time required):
@StateDept
In the Iraqi press, World Refugee Day isn't causing a ripple. But, in
fairness, they usually note events like this the day after (reporting
on what an Iraqi official said on the occasion, that sort of thing).
What's the big story in the Iraqi press today?
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's letter to US President Barack Obama
asking/requesting/demanding (depends upon the account) that Barack kill
ExxonMobil's deal with the KRG. Kitabat uses
"warned" of the October 18th contracts between the parties and quotes a
spokesperson for Nouri, Ali al-Moussawi, stating that these contracts
could start wars and could rip the country apart.
Really?
If that's the case, maybe Nouri should show some leadership and back
the hell off his non-stop complaining about the contract? Don't hold
your breath for that to happen. Dar Addustour reports
Nouri is prepared to go to the extreme -- they're citing al-Moussawi on
that and what the "extreme scores" would be is not specified.
But what the statements make clear is that it's not the ExxonMobil
contract that's causing problems. It's Nouri's reactions to the
contracts.
Al Rafidayn reports
that, thus far, there's no response from Barack but National Security
Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor acknowledged that the letter from
Nouri was received. Reuters reports
today, "Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan expects more oil majors to follow
Exxon Mobil Corporation in the next few months in striking deals in the
region, where oil shipments will resume, its natural resources minister
said, despite a dispute with Baghdad." April Yee (The National) observes, "A hydrocarbon law remains a mirage in Baghdad and the reality is dawning
that Iraq's plans to become one of the world's top-five oil producers
are jeopardised by the legal deadlock."
Alsumaria reports
on their exclusive interview with Moqtada al-Sadr. Moqtada states the
US still occupies Iraq and that the so-called withdrawal was purely
symbolic. He states that Iraqis seek an Iraq free of US interference
and one free of the US Embassy. He declares that the US Embassy is
merely a cover to keep foreign foces (contractors, Marines and some
soldiers) in Iraq under the guise of protecting the Embassy staff.
Alsumaria reports a Falluja roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three people -- including a 3-year-old child -- injured. Al Rafidayn reports a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left nine injured. BBC News reports
Judge Aziz Abdul Qadir was the target of the bombing and that he and
two of his bodyguards are among the injured. In addition, the Herald of Scotland notes that a clash yesterday between the PKK and Turkish military left sixteen soldiers injured. The Oman Tribune reports that 20 PKK were killed in the altercation.
Lastly, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. She continues fighting for veterans and
her latest bill would put veterans on an equal footing with the
non-military when it comes to reproductive issues.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Chairman
Murray Introduces Bill to Provide Veterans with Genital and
Reproductive Wounds with Access to In Vitro Fertilization through the VA
As
veterans continue to return home with catastrophic IED injuries, Murray
bill reverses VA ban on critical fertility treatment; will help
veterans and their spouses have children.
If
forced to turn to the private sector, veterans and their spouses often
have to pay tens of thousands in out-of-pocket costs to access IVF
services
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that will end the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ban on providing In Vitro
Fertilization (IVF) services. Murray's bill, the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, also will begin child care programs at Vet Centers for women seeking counseling, and improving outreach to women veterans.
Army
data shows that between 2003 and 2011 over 600 servicemembers have
suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The reliance on foot
patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive
devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries.
"Reproductive
injuries are some of the most impactful and serious wonds of these
wars," Senator Murray said today upon introduction of the bill. "VA
has an obligation to care for the combat wounded. For those with such
catastrophic injuries, that includes access to the fertility care they
needed. Veterans and their spouses are specifically barred from
accessing In Vitro Fertilization services at the VA and often times
have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector to get
the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family.
These veterans deserve far more."
Veterans
who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord
injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures
like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is expressly
excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to
veterans or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans
with SCI and genital and uringary tract injuries and as a result they
have to seek care outside of the VA. The Department of Defense currently provides
access to IVF services under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF
and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded
servicemembers. Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the
same access.
###
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the fair observer
nicholas a. heras
al rafidayn
kitabat
dar addustour
the national
april yee
al mada
bloomberg news
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted at 07:24 am by thecommonills
Permalink
No, they didn't all come home and a family fights to get their fallen returned from Iraq
Maqsood Hussain (News Tribe) reports,
"The United States has now nearly 15,000 troops in three bases across
Kuwait -- triple the average number of American forces in the Middle
Easter country before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 [. . .]" Jennifer Rizzo (CNN) opens
with, "The United States has approximately 15,000 troops in Kuwait,
according to a Senate report released Tuesday,, the first time the
number has been disclosed." They're referring to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] " The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council" which you can find more on in yesterday's snapshot.
15,000. And the report recommends that a little over 13,000 stay in
Kuwait for several years to come. Aren't you glad Barack brought ALL
the troops home? (No, he didn't.)
Say a little prayer till they all get home
Say a little prayer till they all get home
I knew when we woke up
You would be leaving
You knew when you left me
It might be too long
That kiss on your shoulder
It's me looking over
Close to your heart
So you're never alone
Say a little prayer till they all get home
Say a little prayer till they all get home
An Iraq War veteran returned to Iraq as a DynaCorp week and was dead a
week later. Now his family fights to have his body returned to the
US. Steve Shaw of Oklahoma's News 9 (link is text and video) reports:
Angela Copeland: They came in and they told me that they had found Michael deceased in his living quarters.
Steve Shaw: Michael Copeland's widow Angela is distraught -- not
only because of Michael's sudden death but because our State Dept told
Copeland's family Iraqi leaders say Copeland died of Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome -- or SARS -- an extemely rare disease, and our
State Dept bought it. Iraq says it can't release the body. Michael
Copeland's fathe says he talked to his son by phone just 12 hours
before his death, nobody's died from SARS since 2003, and he says that
his son showed no signs of the disease.
Mike Copeland: Everyone that I've spoke with is always sorry for
our loss but they say there's nothing they can do. I find that very
difficult to believe. That my government? There's nothing they can do
to bring my son home fom Iraq?
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's SARS page notes:
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory
illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus
(SARS-CoV). SARS was first reported in Asia in February 2003. The
illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North America, South
America, Europe, and Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was
contained.
Since 2004, there have not been any known cases of
SARS reported anywhere in the world. The content in this Web site was
developed for the 2003 SARS epidemic. But, some guidelines are still
being used. Any new SARS updates will be posted on this Web site.
No new updates have been posted to the CDC's page.
"Not only are we having to deal with the loss," Angela Copeland tells NewsOn6, "but we're having to deal with the battle to get him back home." Michael Copeland died June 9th. She tells Victoria Maranan (KXII -- link is video), "There is absolutely no excuse in this world that you could give me that could convince me why he should not be home." Jerry Wofford (Tulsa World) reports
on the case and quotes Oklahoma State Rep. Dustin Roberts stating,
"Michael David Copeland was a man who served our nation as a Marine and
our state as a National Guardsman, and his family deserves better than
this."
In other news, Olivia Koester (Journal Times) notes
the efforts of Fie Chief William Bouma to organize a "Back From Iraq"
march in Racine, Wisconsin's upcoming Fourth of July parade. Yvette C. Hammett (Tampa Tribune) reports on Iraq War veteran Mark Goujon's efforts to ceate an Iraq Veterans Memorial in Tampa, Florida's Veterans Memorial Park.
The following community sites -- plus FPIF, The Diane Rehm Show, Cindy
Sheehan and Antiwar.com -- updated last night and this morning:
Joan e-mailed to ask if we'd note that Melanie has a special series of upcoming shows. From
October 19th through 28th at Blackfriars Theatre in Rochester, New
York, Melanie and the Recordman will be performed, the story of Melanie
and her late husband Peter Schekeryk (he passed away in 2010, they
were together for decades, starting in the sixties). That's ten
performances only and among those working on the show with Melanie is
her son Beau Jarred Schekeryk. Melanie is the original Queen of the
Rock Festivals, having performed at so many (including Woodstock).
"Lay Down (Candles in the Rain)" made her a name all over the world and
her other hits include "What Have They Done To My Song, Ma?," "Peace
Will Come (According to Plan), "Bitter Bad," "The Nickel Song," "Ring
The Living Bell," her cover of "Ruby Tuesday," "Beautiful People" and
her numbe one hit "Brand New Key."
She's continues writing and recording and her most recent album was 2010's Ever Since You Never Heard of Me which Kat praised highly here and also picked it as one of the year's top ten releases. Two tracks from the latest album have videos up at YouTube: " Motherhood of Love" and " Smile."
Lastly, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. She continues fighting for veterans and
her latest bill would put veterans on an equal footing with the
non-military when it comes to reproductive issues.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Chairman
Murray Introduces Bill to Provide Veterans with Genital and
Reproductive Wounds with Access to In Vitro Fertilization through the VA
As
veterans continue to return home with catastrophic IED injuries, Murray
bill reverses VA ban on critical fertility treatment; will help
veterans and their spouses have children.
If
forced to turn to the private sector, veterans and their spouses often
have to pay tens of thousands in out-of-pocket costs to access IVF
services
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that will end the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ban on providing In Vitro
Fertilization (IVF) services. Murray's bill, the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, also will begin child care programs at Vet Centers for women seeking counseling, and improving outreach to women veterans.
Army
data shows that between 2003 and 2011 over 600 servicemembers have
suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The reliance on foot
patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive
devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries.
"Reproductive
injuries are some of the most impactful and serious wonds of these
wars," Senator Murray said today upon introduction of the bill. "VA
has an obligation to care for the combat wounded. For those with such
catastrophic injuries, that includes access to the fertility care they
needed. Veterans and their spouses are specifically barred from
accessing In Vitro Fertilization services at the VA and often times
have to spend tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector to get
the advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family.
These veterans deserve far more."
Veterans
who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord
injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures
like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is expressly
excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to
veterans or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans
with SCI and genital and uringary tract injuries and as a result they
have to seek care outside of the VA. The Department of Defense currently provides
access to IVF services under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF
and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded
servicemembers. Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the
same access.
###
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the news tribe
maqsood hussain
cnn
jennifer rizzo
the journal times
olivia koester
the tampa tribune
yvette c. hammett
news 9
steve shaw
kxii
victoria maranan
tulsa world
jerry wofford
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted at 05:55 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
| June
19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee issues a report about keeping US troops in the region, the
State Dept wants to talk human trafficking and anything except McGurk,
tomorrow is World Refugee Day, Nouri wants Barack to tell ExxonMobil
what to do, US Senator Patty Murray continues fighting for the rights of
veterans, and more. Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] " The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council."
On page v., Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, notes, "Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves
and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Persian Gulf
is critical to the global economy." Chair John Kerry has stated of the report,
"The Gulf Region is strategically important to the United States
economically, politically, and for security reasons. This is a period
of historic, but turbulent change in the Middle East. We need to be
clear-eyed about what these interests are and how best to promote
them. This report provides a thoughtful set of recommendations designed
to do exactly that." The
report may well map out that for many. That's not what stood out to me.
The takeaway for me is US troops remain in the region, right next to
Iraq in Kuwait and the Committee's recommendation is that they remain
present. (For those who don't want to read the report in full or
operating systems are not PDF friendly, click here for the Committee's one page explanation of the report.) A series of challenges are listed early on and we'll note the fourth one. Challenge
4: The United States must carefully shape its military presence so as
not to creat a popular backlash, while retaining the capability to
protect the free flow or critical natural resources and to provide a
counterbalance to Iraq. With
the war there officially "ended" and most of our troops back home, Iraq
isn't getting much ink these days. But the story is far from over.
Indeed, according to Wadah Khanfar, former director general of Al
Jazeera, Iraq is still the most important story in the Middle East --
with a far greater impact on the region's future than Syria. "Nobody's
paying attention to Iraq anymore," he told me during dinner in London
over the weekend, "but it's becoming a client state of Iran, with a
giant amount of oil between them." This state of affairs is, of course,
primarily our doing. And yet, as our soldiers have left, so has our attention. "The war in Iraq will soon belong to history," proclaimed
President Obama at Fort Bragg as he marked the occasion of bringing the
last troops home. But while the military chapter of that disastrous
undertaking might belong to history, its consequences belong very much
to the present. A present in which the very same voices that rose to
push us into war with Iraq are again rising to push us into war with
Iran -- but without ever noting that it was their misadventure in Iraq
that gave Iran a new and powerful ally. If
the goal/challenge was to keep Iran and Iraq from growing closer, you
don't, as the current White House did, back Nouri al-Maliki for a second
term. You note instead that his political slate came in second and
demand he step aside so that Iraqiya can have a crack at forming a
governmnet. Instead, the US chose to spit on the political process, the
Iraqi Constitution, democracy and the will of the Iraqis who voted by
backing second place Nouri for a second term as prime minister. Now let's move to another challenge. Challenge
7: Relations between the Gulf monarchies and Iraq remain cool. There
has been a tendency of some Arab states to remain disengaged from Iraq,
largely over its relations with Iran. Unfortunately, this tendency has had the effect of pushing Iraq closer to Iran. Recommendation: The United States should promote the gradual political reintegration of Iraq into the Arab fold. Again,
the problem is Nouri. He can't stop accusing Arab states. Just last
week, he was again insisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar were out to get him.
He's paranoid and he's not trust worthy. How the US government ever
thought Nouri al-Maliki would bring Iraq closer to the Arab states is a
head scratcher. Someone really needs to answer to that question: The
White House ensured that second place Nouri remained prime minister; how
was this supposed to improve relations between Iraq and the Arab
states? Further into the report, we get the point AP' was emphasizing this morning. AP:
"The United States is planning a significant military presence of
13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to respond to sudden
conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the withdrawal of American
combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran, according to a
congressional report." Page nine of the report: A
residual American military presence in the Gulf and increased
burden-sharing with GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states are
fundamental components of such a framework. However, the United States
must also carefully shape its military footprint to protect the
free-flow of critical natural resources and promote regional stability
while not creating a popular backlash. Page 12: Kuwait
is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In
fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more
positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led
liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate
coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert
Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush
Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally. *
U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991
and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights
of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops
departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring
American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S.
forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500.
Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp
Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and
logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate
Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile
defense. On
page 20, the report notes, "Amid relatively high sectarian tensions in
the Middle East -- a consequence of violence in Iraq and, more recently,
in Syria, and growing concerns about Iran -- the United States should
encourage its partners, including in the Gulf region, to pursue
nonsectarian policies." Again, that begs the question of why, in 2010,
the White House backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term? He's not about
reconciliation, he's about demonization as we've seen repeatedly in the
last months starting in the fall of 2011 when mass arrests began
targeting Sunnis accused of being terrorists. They weren't terrorists.
They were college professors, they were the elderly. Most importantly,
they were Iraqis. At what point does Nouri cease trying to divide the
fragile country and start uniting it? Page 29: Relations
between Gulf monarchies and Iraq remain cool. There has been a tendency
of some Arab states to remain disengaged from Iraq, largely over its
relations with Iran. Unfortunately, this tendency has had the effect of
pushing Iraq closer to Iran. That's
partly true but it's also true that what is seen as Nouri's targeting
of Sunnis is not well received in Sunni-Arab countries. That shouldn't
be a surprise to anyone. Again, this begs the questions why, when
Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections, did the White House decide to back
second place Nouri for a second term as prime minister? That is the question that will haunt the Barack Obama administration throughout history. Someone might want to start preparing some version of an answer. Just
as the report refuses to seriously note how Sunni-dominant countries
see the current events in Iraq, it also wants to pretend the Arab League
Summit meant something. First off, this is flat-out wrong: "In April,
the annual Arab League summit was held in Iraq for the first time since .
. ." The Arab
League Summit was March 29th. March 29th, grab a calendar if this
confusing to you, is not in the month of April. Your first clue there is
probably the "March" in "March 29th." From the March 29, 2012 snapshot: The
Arab League Summit was held today in Baghdad. It didn't change a thing
because Nouri never learned how to charm. So instead of starting with
it, let's start with the ongoing political crisis in Iraq. [. . .] Also
telling was the turnout for today's Arab League Summit. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) report,
"Sunni Muslim rulers largely shunned an Arab League summit hosted by
Shiite-led Iraq on Thursday, illustrating how powerfully the sectarian
split and the rivalry with Iran define Middle Eastern politics in the
era of the Arab Spring." It was not all that, to put it mildly. A friend
who covered the summit deemed it, "Not so much a who's who as a who's
that?" Who attended? Among others, the Oman Observer reports
Talabani "received the credentials of Shaikh Mussalam bin Bakheet bin
Zaidan al Bar'ami, Sultanate's Ambassador to Jordan, as the Sultanate's
non-resident ambassador to Iraq" yesterday. Today Al Sabaah reports Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh, prime minister of Jordan arrived, Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and the Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah. [. . .] Who were the notable no-shows? Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) report
that the no-shows included rulers from "Saudi Arabia, Qatar and most
other Gulf countries, as well as Morocco and Jordan -- all of them
headed by Sunni monarchs who deeply distrust the close ties between
Baghdad's Shiite-dominated government and their top regional rival,
Iran." We could continue but I believe the point's been made. It was a one day summit. You can drop back to March 28th,
the day before, for when various countries' foreign ministers met in
Baghdad but that wasn't the Arab League Summit nor was that "April." The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee sees the summit as a success. March
30th, the morning after, we graded it. It didn't look then and has
looked since like a success. Here's some of the criteria we used to judge the summit on March 30th: The Arab League Summit took place in Baghdad yesterday. Al Mada reports 15 ministers attended. There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) observes, "That 12 of the 22 Arab League leaders did not show up and sent lower-level envoys instead did not go unnoticed [. . .]" Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put
the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed
out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who
sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin explains that
Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar)
declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was
meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq's majority Shiites to stop what he
called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Al Mada noted
yesterday morning that the Iraqi public and Parliament would be judging
the summit a success or not based upon whether the leaders turned out
for the summit. On that scale, it wasn't a success. In other words,
attendence needs improvement and absences hinder progress.
In addition to snubs and rebukes, Liz Sly, Aziz Alwan and Asaad Majeed (Washington Post) also note,
"The blast at the Iranian Embassy undermined the government's boasts
that it had managed to pull off the summit without incident, although it
would have gone unheard in the conference room deep inside the vast
palace. Zebari and Elaraby both seemed surprised when asked about it by a
journalist." Not a success.
Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) points out,
"It spent almost $1 billion on preparations that included unprecedented
security measures -- jamming cellphone networks and mobilizing
100,000 security-force members -- and rolling out a catered menu for
dignitaries that featured a dessert of 24-carat-gold-laced dates." Not a
success. And that's just some of the criteria. Where
the report succeeds (possibly without intending to) is by making clear
that the alleged withdrawal and returning home of the troops never
happened. Basically, 15,000 US troops were marched out of Saks to Fendi.
They didn't return home. Yes, they left Saks, they even crossed a few
streets, all the way through West 53rd, but they're still on Fifth
Avenue. Remember, the press and the White House sold it as "withdrawal."
The Pentagon used the term "drawdown." emphasized this morning. Another US government report was released today. The State Dept issued their " Trafficking in Persons Report 2012." [Link goes to an overview page -- from the overview page, anything you click will be PDF format.] Of Iraq, the report notes: Iraq
is a source and destination country for men, women, and children
subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor. Iraqi women and girls
are sujbected to conditions of trafficking within the country and in
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Iran,
Yemen, and Saudi Arabia for forced prostitution and sexual exploitation
within households. Anecdotal reporting suggests that trafficking in
forced prostitution and bonded labor are increasing in Iraq, partially
owing to pervasive corruption and an overall increase in criminal
activity. Women are lured into forced
prostitution through false promises of work. An international
organization reports an increase in forced prostitution in the city of
Tikrit; women between the ages of 15 to 22 years from Baghdad, Kirkuk,
and Syria are sold to traffickers in Tikrit for the equivalent of $1,000
- 5,000 and then replaced or sold again every two or three months.
Women are also subjected to involuntary servitude through forced
marriages, often as payment of a debt, and women who flee such marriages
are often vulnerable to further forced labor or sexual servitude. One
NGO reports that recruiters rape women and girls on film and blackmail
them into prostitution or recruit them in prisons by posting bail and
then forcing them into prostitution via debt bondage. Some women and
children are pressured into prostitution by family members to escape
desperate economic circumstances, to pay debts, or to resolve disputes
between families. NGOs report that these women are often prostituted
in private residendences, brothels, restaurants, and places of
entertainment. Some women and girls are trafficked within Iraq for the
purpose of sexual exploitation through the use of temproary marriages
(muta'a), by which the family of the girl receives money in the form of a
dowry in exchange for permission to marry the girl for a limited period
of time. Some Iraqi parents have reportedly collaborated with
traffickers to leave children at the Iraqi side of the border with Syria
with the expectation that traffickers will arrange forced documents for
them to enter Syria and find employment in a nightclub. An Iraqi
official revealed networks of women have been involved in the
trafficking and sale of male and female children for the purposes of
sexual exploitation. We'll come back to the report in a moment. At
the State Dept today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted how
happy she was to see the room so full and had the team that worked on
the report stand for deserved applause. She also thanked Jada Pinkett-Smith
and Will Smith for being present and Jada for her interest and focus on
this issue. But another reason Hillary might have been happy is that
this took the focus off the failed nomination of Brett McGurk to be US
Ambassador to Iraq. If she thought she needed a new report to distract
the compliant press, she missed the State Dept press briefing. News of
the withdrawal of the nomination broke yesterday late in the afternoon,
well after Monday's press briefing. So today would have been the first
time that the press covering the State Dept had a chance to ask about
that. They had no interest in the issue. They had no interest in
Iraq even -- despite the Senate Foreign Relations Committee releasing a
report on Iraq and the region today. If you
were attending, you might have thought to ask Victoria Nuland for some
comment on the matter, for some indication of when a new nominee would
be named, for whether or not the administration learned anything from
McGurk's failed nomination. You might. But the paid members of the press wouldn't and didn't. And that's among the reasons the press has such a lousy image. President
Barack Obama's pick for ambassador to Iraq has withdrawn his nomination
following Republican opposition and claims of inappropriate contact
with a journalist. Brett McGurk had come under fire from Senate
Republicans over revelations of a racy e-mail exchange with a Wall
Street Journal reporter while he served in Iraq in 2008. McGurk and the
reporter, Gina Chon, later married. Chon resigned from the Wall St. Journal last week. Not
a word about sleeping with a source, not a word about allowing her
lover to vet her copy. Her lover a Bush official. Not a word about
Chon's violation of the Dow Jones ethical policies. Amy Goodman may
have been one of the pigs writing for Larry Flynt's trashy skin
magazine, but she never looked more whorish than she did today. As we
noted Sunday at Third in " Editorial: Destroying their own credibility:" It
was 2008 and Amy Goodman was on the road hawking another clip-job she'd
written with her brother, one that called on people to "challenge the
corporate media" (Standing Up To The Madness, page 219). She was on the road hawking her wares and promoting the documentary Independent Media In A Time Of War. NEWS CLIP: I'm back with two of our military analysts who've been with us this morning who are helping us understand this war. AMY
GOODMAN: We now have people like Wesley Clarke, General Wesley Clarke
on the payroll of CNN who is questioning their embedded reporter on the
front line. He is questioning the reporter and the reporter is saying
"Yes sir, No Sir". NEWS CLIP: This is a very special
moment in time for the men and families and for this country. It is
often fascinating for me. General Clarke and I have spent a good amount
of time together today and over the week. AMY GOODMAN: This is journalism in America today. They have redefined general news and we have got to challenge that.Amy Goodman was calling out reporters saying "yes, sir" and "no, sir."
Yet for two weeks she hasn't called out the pillow talk between Gina Chon and Brett McGurk.
Two weeks ago, the story emerged of their affair. Gina Chon's been rightly fired from The Wall Street Journal.
If
the scandal had come out in 2008, Amy Goodman and everyone would have
been screaming their heads off. But the Bush official that Gina Chon
was f**king? He's Barack Obama's new nominee to be US Ambassador to
Iraq.
So they don't say a word. Please
grasp what you witnessed today from Amy Goodman. In 2008, the Queen of
Panhandle Media was ticked off that retired general Wesley Clarke was
addressed by a reporter with "yes, sir" and "no, sir." But four years
later, when there's a reporter sleeping with a Bush official while she's
covering the Bush policies in Iraq and while she's letting her lover
see her copy and vet it before she turns it in, when that happens, Amy
Goodman doesn't say, "Boo!" Because she's a coward and completely
unethical. Maybe she's planning to fundraise in 2013, as she did in
2009, by auctioning off Barack Obama inauguration ball tickets? Don't
say Goody Trash doesn't have her own vested interests as she forever
pretends to be Last Journalist Standing while ensuring that there's a
huge gulf between the actual news and the propaganda she supplies. Back to the State Dept's report: The
large population of internally displaced persons and refugees moving
within Iraq and across its borders are particularly at risk of being
trafficked. Women from Iran, China, and the Philippines reportedly may
be trafficked to or through Iraq for commercial sexual exploitation.
Some Iraqi refugees in Syria reportedly have contracted their daughters
to work as maids in Syrian households, where they may have been
subsequently raped, forced into prostitution, or subjected to forced
labor. In other instances, Iraqi refugees' children remained in Syria
while their parents left the country in search of improved economic
circumstances, leaving the children vulnerable to trafficking. * 42.5 million forcibly displaced people of which * 5 - 7% people living with disabilities, one third of them children * 15.2 million were refugees, of which: * 46% were children under the age of 18 * 48% were women and girls * 895,000 asylum-seekers * 26.4 million IDPs * 12 million stateless persons * 3.7 million returnees Yesterday, the UN released UNHCR Global Trends 2011
which contains details such as 46% of refugees are under the age of 18,
that three areas of concern are the displaced of Columbia, of the
Democratic Republic of Congo and of Iraq, and that the Middle East and
North Africa have a larger number of refugees than the Americas and and
Asia and Pacific combined. (Africa has the largest number of refugees
with 2.1 million to the Middle East and North Africa's 1.9 million.)
Through the end of last year, Iraq could claim 1,428,3000 refugees.
Only Afghanistan topped that figure (Afghanistan had 2.6 million). Today AFP reports
that some Syrians have been seeking asylum in Iraq due to the unrest in
Syria and they note that those coming into Iraq have "to be smuggled
across the border." Into the continued violence of Iraq where Alsumaria reports
that the son of a local council member was kidnapped in Ramadi today
and that security forces quickly secured the area and began searching
for clues. While kidnappings have not been uncommon throughout the Iraq
War, today's may end up getting attention due to the fact that is it
one of two kidnappings. Al Rafidayn reports
two young girls were kidnapped yesterday in Tikrit and that one is the
daughter of a a member of Tikrit's security council. One refugee, Abu
Samir, tells AFP, "The Kurdistan region welcomed us and we are
grateful. Because I am Kurdish, I preferred the Kurdistan region and I
am comfortable here." Let's stay with the
Kurds. Iraq sits atop a huge wealth of oil. But the most recent
bidding on the oil & gas wares was a bomb. Jen Alic (OilPrice.com) summed it
up days after it ended, "Iraq's latest energy auction was a flop, and
while major international companies balked at everything from
unattractive contract terms to security concerns, the failure of the
auction highlights how the struggle for power between north and south is
shaping the future of energy in the region and beyond. " We're on the topic of oil because ExxonMobil is back in the news. Last January, Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reported,
"The political crisis engulfing Iraq's power-sharing government
threatens to further delay a landmark draft of its long-delayed oil law
-- five years after the first version was submitted to parliament. [. .
.] The first hydrocarbon draft law was agreed by Iraq's diverse
politcal blocs in 2007, but its approval has been held back by
infighting among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish political groups, worrying
investors seeking more guarantees for the industry." A month later, Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) were reporting:
Iraq's proposed energy law, intended to spur foreign investment in the world's fifth-largest holder of oil deposits, will be delayed for the rest of this year due to political divisions, the prime minister's top adviser said. The
draft law, held up since 2005, may resolve a dispute about oil revenue
and sovereignty between the central government and the country's
semi-autonomous Kurds that has blocked an agreement with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM),
Thamir Ghadhban said in an interview in Baghdad. Kurdish authorities in
northern Iraq angered the government by signing a separate contract
with Exxon, which operates one of the nation's largest oil fields.
Nouri's
failure -- in two terms now -- to get oil legislation passed is telling
of what extreme failure he is. How stupid is he? Or how crafty? Again, how stupid is Nouri? Or how crafty? The
US isn't Iraq. ExxonMobil is a private company, not a state-owned
one. A US president might, at best, make a request. At best. But
Barack has no power over ExxonMobil. Is Nouri that stupid? Or
he is being crafty? Barack sticks his nose into this and the already
outraged business community sees Barack as even more anti-business. Not
an image to cultivate as you're trying to be re-elected. Maybe he's
crafty. It's not as though Nouri's reaching out to the White House
currently. Back on June 6th, we included: " Al Mada notes State
of Law continues to insist that the White House won't allow Nouri to be
removed from his post and that US Vice President Joe Biden will be
visiting soon." But that was then. Today, Iran's Fars News Agency reported: "Nuri
al-Maliki did not allowed US Vice-President Joe Biden to visit Iraq,"
an informed source in the Iraqi prime minister's information bureau told
FNA in Baghdad on Tuesday.
Noting that Biden was scheduled to
visit Baghdad in coming days to meet with Iraqi officials to discuss the
recent differences and the political standoff between different
parties and factions in the country, he added that Maliki informed Biden
via the US embassy in Baghdad that Iraq is not ready to host him.
The
source said the Iraqi embassy in the US has also conveyed a similar
message from Maliki to the White House and State Department's officials.
Earlier reports by a website affiliated to the Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq said that the cancellation of Biden's visit by Maliki
was ordered after it was revealed that the US vice-president is due to
visit Erbil and meet President of Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government
(KRG) Massoud Barzani. Suddenly Joe wasn't wanted. After blocking Biden's visit to the country, Nouri now wants to ask a favor of the White House? In
the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans
Affairs Committee. She continues fighting for veterans and her latest
bill would put veterans on an equal footing with the non-military when
it comes to reproductive issues. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tuesday, June 19, 2012 Contact: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 Chairman
Murray Introduces Bill to Provide Veterans with Genital and
Reproductive Wounds with Access to In Vitro Fertilization through the VA As
veterans continue to return home with catastrophic IED injuries, Murray
bill reverses VA ban on critical fertility treatment; will help
veterans and their spouses have children. If
forced to turn to the private sector, veterans and their spouses often
have to pay tens of thousands in out-of-pocket costs to access IVF
services (Washington,
D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, introduced legislation that will end the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ban on providing In Vitro
Fertilization (IVF) services. Murray's bill, the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, also will begin child care programs at Vet Centers for women seeking counseling, and improving outreach to women veterans. Army
data shows that between 2003 and 2011 over 600 servicemembers have
suffered reproductive and urinary tract trauma. The reliance on foot
patrols in Afghanistan and the prevalence of improvised explosive
devices has left servicemembers far more susceptible to these injuries. "Reproductive
injuries are some of the most impactful and serious wonds of these
wars," Senator Murray said today upon introduction of the bill. "VA has
an obligation to care for the combat wounded. For those with such
catastrophic injuries, that includes access to the fertility care they
needed. Veterans and their spouses are specifically barred from
accessing In Vitro Fertilization services at the VA and often times have
to spend tens of thousands of dollars in the private sector to get the
advanced reproductive treatments they need to start a family. These
veterans deserve far more." Veterans
who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord
injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures
like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is expressly
excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to veterans
or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans with SCI
and genital and uringary tract injuries and as a result they have to
seek care outside of the VA. The Department of Defense currently provides
access to IVF services under the Tricare program and coverage for IVF
and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded
servicemembers. Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the
same access. ### Communications Director U.S. Senator Patty Murray 202-224-2834 - press office 202--224-0228 - direct matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates | cbs newsnancy cordes
Posted at 06:02 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Nouri won't let Joe Biden visit Iraq?
When there are patterns of violence, the press can sometimes note it.
More often, the patterns have to be really close together to be
noticed. So maybe two incidents -- one today, one yesterday -- will
garner US press attention. Alsumaria reports
that the son of a local council member was kidnapped in Ramadi today
and that security forces quickly secured the area and began searching
for clues. While kidnappings have not been uncommon throughout the
Iraq War, today's may end up getting attention due to the fact that is
it one of two kidnappings. Al Rafidayn reports two young girls were kidnapped yesterday in Tikrit and that one is the daughter of a a member of Tikrit's security council.
From violence to laughter. Tony Blinken gets hit hard today. Tony's
been with Joe Biden forever and a day and currently serves as the Vice
President's advisor on national security. So Tony's been around long
enough to know that Operation Happy Talk never ends well. Each time an
administration tries to launch a wave, they quickly capsize as reality
knocks them upside the head.
Ned Parker wrote " The Iraq We Left Behind" for the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine. Blinken's poorly named " Morning In Mesopotamia"
went online this morning. (Poorly named? "Mourning in Mesopotamia"
after all the attacks on pilgrims in the last seven days.)
In his piece, Blinken argues Ned Parker "glossed over, or ignored
altogether, the clear, measurable progress Iraq has made in the few
short years since it lurched to the brink of sectarian war." In the
snapshot today -- barring other breaking news dominating -- we may
spend several paragraphs refuting that.
But this morning, we'll just laugh at the claim of "progess" from a
staffer for Vice President Biden. Because it's published the same
morning that Iran's Fars News Agency is reporting:
"Nuri al-Maliki did not allowed US Vice-President Joe Biden to visit
Iraq," an informed source in the Iraqi prime minister's information
bureau told FNA in Baghdad on Tuesday.
Noting that Biden was scheduled to visit Baghdad in coming days to
meet with Iraqi officials to discuss the recent differences and the
political standoff between different parties and factions in the
country, he added that Maliki informed Biden via the US embassy in
Baghdad that Iraq is not ready to host him.
The source said the Iraqi embassy in the US has also conveyed a
similar message from Maliki to the White House and State Department's
officials.
Earlier reports by a website affiliated to the Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq said that the cancellation of Biden's visit by Maliki
was ordered after it was revealed that the US vice-president is due to
visit Erbil and meet President of Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government
(KRG) Massoud Barzani.
When the US Vice President's visit is cancelled by Nouri, that kind of
refutes Tony's article. Again, reality will always crash into and
overwhelm a wave of Operation Happy Talk. It's happened over and over
since 2003.
The Fars News Agency has the must-read on Iraq this morning. Runner up is AP's report
which opens, "The United States is planning a significant military
presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to
respond to sudden conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the
withdrawal of American combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran,
according to a congressional report." Aren't we glad Barack 'ended'
the Iraq War? Aren't we all glad ALL troops came home? Oh, wait, they
didn't. Not even all the living.
Say a little prayer till they all get home
Say a little prayer till they all get home
I knew when we woke up
You would be leaving
You knew when you left me
It might be too long
That kiss on your shoulder
It's me looking over
Close to your heart
So you're never alone
Say a little prayer till they all get home
Say a little prayer till they all get home
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following yesterday:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 18, 2012
Contaact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray to Introduce Women Veterans' and Other Health Care Improvment Act of 2012
Legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and severely injured veterans who want to start families
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, will outline her new legislation, the
Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and for
severely injured veterans who want to start families. Currently, VA's
fertility treatment services do not meet the complex needs of severely
wounded veterans. The nature of the current conflict and increasing
use of improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more
susceptible to blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma
to the reproductive and urinary tracts. Army data shows that between
2003 and 2011 more than 600 soldiers experienced these life-changing
battle injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. As these injured
servicemembers return home, they work to move forward with their lives
and pursue their goals and dreams. For some this includes starting
their own family. The Department of Defense and Tricare program are
already able to provide fertility treatment
to servicemembers with these injuries. Senator Murray's new
legislation would address these issues by enhancing fertility treatment
and care at VA, and allowing for fertility treatment for spouses.
Following Senator Murray's speech, a documentary
highlighting the stories of 8 women veterans and the physical and
emotional challenges they face as they transition home following
military service will be shown. More on Senator Murray's Women Veterans
and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012 HERE.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray
WHAT:
Introduction of Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
screening of documentary that highlights the stories of 8 women vets
WHEN: TOMORROW: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
2:30 PM ET/ 11:30 AM PST
WHERE: Russell 325
###
Kathryn Robertson
Press Assistant
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2834
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
foreign relations
anthony j. blinken
fars news agency
alsumaria
al rafidayn
judith s. yaphe
Posted at 07:33 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Let's address this and then get back to our focus
We're going to be late with entries this morning and we're going to be
late because I've spent forever in the e-mails and forever on the phone
with friends about the e-mails. This would be a perfect topic for a
Saturday "I Hate The War" but it can't wait until Saturday.
I understand that a number of you are upset, outraged or offended.
You've made that clear in your e-mails and I appreciate your passion
and your desire to stick up for the community. But at the end of the
day, it really doesn't matter.
Ann (links to all
the community posts at the end) is enraged and has written about at her
site. Ann's a sweetheart and I'm not mad at her. That's the sort of
post that Mike
first wrote and the same reason he started his site. Ann feels that
credit is not being given where it's due because various 'news' outlets
are reporting that this or that site "first reported" on the McGurk -
Chon e-mails June 7th when, in fact, we covered them June 5th.
What e-mails? The ones that helped end Brett McGurk's nomination. If you read one thing on that this morning, read Nancy Cordes (CBS News) because she's got a really strong article which ends with:
Of course, this means the administration needs to find a new nominee, and fast.
Whoever it is will have to deal with a deteriorating political situation in Iraq.
To date, the U.S. has spent $800 billion fighting in Iraq, and rebuilding.
Yes, we were the first ones. And the archives prove it as does the
fact that the snapshot's carried not only at the TCI backup sites but
also at all community sites that post that day. The public record is
the public record.
In terms of what has so many upset, I can't focus on it and I don't want Martha, Eli, Shirley
and everyone else going through the e-mails today to have to. But I
sure can't focus on it. We have to have new content on Iraq today and
that's not going to be possible if I'm all caught up in which 'news'
outlet slighted us and which didn't.
In the end, it doesn't matter.
It never has.
We've built up online without that kind of support and, in fact, each
time we're ripped off or not credited (this is hardly the first time),
we actually get more popular because others get offended that, for
whatever reason, someone didn't get the proper credit.
But at the end of the day it does not matter.
You're mad because the press isn't being factual.
Sinan Salaheddin (AP) has an article
on Iraqi Vice President today which maintains, "Shortly after the
warrant was issued, al-Hashemi fled to the Kurdish-run region in Iraq's
north."
That's a flat out lie.
We have gone over this repeatedly and it is public record. Let's drop back to the April 30th snapshot:
Today's big news was Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. The political
crisis was already well in effect when December 2011 rolled around. The
press rarely gets that fact correct. When December 2011 rolls around
you see Iraqiya announce a boycott of the council and the Parliament,
that's in the December 16th snapshot and again in a December 17th entry
. Tareq al-Hashemi is a member of Iraqiya but he's not in the news at
that point. Later, we'll learn that Nouri -- just returned from DC
where he met with Barack Obama -- has ordered tanks to surround the
homes of high ranking members of Iraqiya. December 18th
is when al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq are pulled
from a Baghdad flight to the KRG but then allowed to reboard the plane.
December 19th is when the arrest warrant is issued for Tareq al-Hashemi by Nouri al-Maliki who claims the vice president is a 'terrorist.' .
If he left Baghdad December 18th on a plane to the KRG (and arrived
there, it's not around the world) and the warrant was issued on the
19th, no, he did not leave for the KRG after a warrant was issued.
We have gone over this repeatedly. The failure to get it correct at
this late date would suggest that the report was anti-Sunni. If I were
running AP and that error came up today, I would be speaking to the
reporter and we would either fix the problem right away or the reporter
would be re-assigned due to the appearance of bias against Sunnis.
Now all this time later, AP still can't get that fact right and you're surprised that other 'news' outlets can't get credit right?
There's nothing in it for them in crediting us. It's not like
crediting us means I say, "Oh, we won't ever negatively critique
them!" We're independent in the true sense of the word and we're not
part of the circle jerk. Never wanted to be part of it.
But try to understand this, reading one e-mail after another about how
we were ripped off and we were wronged makes it very hard to write
about Iraq. Honestly? We were ripped off. We were wronged. And?
Iraqis still suffer and us stopping everything isn't really going to
accomplish anything.
I know from past experience here that ignoring this means it festers
and gets bigger and bigger and bigger. So we're addressing it right
now.
Back in 2004 and 2005, a newspaper would send links to everything that
they had on Iraq to the public account -- and this is when Iraq was
actually covered in US newspapers. And after a few weeks, I called a
friend who was an editor and asked, "Why am I getting all of this?" He
explained that this was an outreach effort where they were contacting
websites and trying to get links.
That made sense. They are trying to make a living. They need this.
I'm not trying to make a living. This is a free site, there are no
ads, there never will be any ads. There is no effort to profit from
this site. But I don't lack for money.
Reporters do. (Or usually do.) And they have to make their careers.
And it's good to understand that because then you grasp why there's not
a lot of truth in the news. When people are constantly worried about
layoffs or losing their jobs, they're not going to tell the truth or
all the truth.
It is irritating that some websites (not news outlets) repeatedly
e-mail the public account wanting this article noted and that article
noted when they never do anything for this site in return. That does
get old because basic manners would dictate that if you've e-mailed me
for over three years and I've highlighted your stuff in all that time
you'd have something to offer. (Friends rarely e-mail for links. They
instead call. I'm not referring to friends who can always ask for
links.)
But it doesn't happen. And that's just the way it is.
It doesn't matter in the end.
The record is what the record is.
If you're worried that I'm not getting credit, think about it this
wa:. I'll be dead in 20 or 30 years. After that happens there will be
yet another book on my life and nobody avenges better than celebrity
biographers. So some friend (I think I know who, we'll call him "Baby
Mogul") will speak to the biographer and say, "Look, you know that in
addition to this career, she had an online persona?" And this site
will be a treasure trove. The biographer will go through it like crazy
and will even scores that even you and I may not have grasped needed to
be settled.
So the record will right itself and those who have been less than honest will be outed.
Example, one thing we've done here non-Iraq wise but public record wise was to make very clear that a lot of COWARDS exist in Panhandle Media (Pacifica Radio and the various 'indy' outlets). What a bunch of cowards.
I knew Jean Seberg and we've never lied here. So many others have lied non-stop. But you can refer to " Spying and Seberg" and " Steve Rendall and other idiots lie about Jean Seberg" among others.
Joyce Haber wrote a gossip column and, on top of that, what she ran was
a blind item. But damned if the Amy Goodmans will tell you that as
they rush to blame Joyce. Why? Because it's real damn easy to call out
a gossip columnist. Jean and Roman didn't sue Joyce Harber. They blew
off the blind item. They sued Newsweek which printed the false rumor (Jean pregnant with the child of a Black Panther!) and did so not as a blind item.
This is public record. But for years, the Amy Goodmans and the FAIRs
and all the other supposed brave 'independent' media have beat up on a
gossip columnist who ran a blind item while ignoring Newsweek. (They've also ignored that Joyce's editor at the Los Angeles Times,
Bill Thomas, passed on that blind item and vouched for the source --
Joyce never knew it was an FBI plant but her editor should have.) They
don't tell you about Edward Behr and Kermit Lansner -- the Newsweek writer and editor. It's a little harder to take on Newsweek,
to call it out. So they lie and pretend like they've done something
brave. And then someone who never knew what happened (for example,
Davey D) thinks they've been told the truth and they start writing
about that 'evil' Joyce Haber.
And as 2009's " Steve Rendall and other idiots lie about Jean Seberg" demonstrates, this isn't a long ago lie. People are still vested in lying about what happened.
I'll get angry if I go over it again so we'll just note this from the 2007 " Roundtable" when we were discussing a new book by an 'independent' press and even it included the lie.
C.I.:
Thank you. That is such a [f**king] lie -- and I just told one member
last week I'd try to watch my own language in these editions. I do not
take kindly to anyone lying about Jean Seberg. Rebecca said skip the
book or you'll be pissed. Jean Seberg went into the hospital in August.
The trauma at that time was Newsweek, not The Los Angeles Times. When the Harber blind item ran it was May of 1970.
Betty: May 19, 1970 according to the endnote.
C.I.:
Thank you. Seberg ends up in the hospital in August, after Seberg
o.d.ed on sleeping pills, which was not thought by all to be a suicide
attempt, she was taken to the hospital. While she was in the hospital,
Edward Behr wrote up a bit on her for Newsweek. He maintained that he included the 'news' that the baby's father was a Black Panther in his cable to Newsweek's
NY headquarters because he was just trying to prove he was 'on' the
story and in the know but it wasn't for publication. In the cable he
does mark that "Strictly FYI". That ends up running in Newsweek.
Kermit Lasner will offer the laughable excuse that he had no idea how
that piece of shit made it into the magazine because he'd had a scooter
accident at lunch. Newseek
printed, August 24th issue, 1970, that, this is a quote, I damn well
know what they printed: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are
reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in
Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California."
That's what got picked up everywhere, including in The Des Moines Register,
Seberg's hometown paper. Now that book is supposed to utilize
government documents and the FBI had Seberg's phones tapped, including
her hospital phone, so they knew very well that her state of mind was
frantic after Newsweek published the item. She lost the baby because of the Newsweek article. I question everything that Betty quoted including the timeline. Newsweek
printed it, it got picked up everywhere, Jean Seberg lost her baby, and
Romain Gary was quite clear whom he blamed when he wrote "The Big
Knife" which was published in France-Soir.
This was a very huge thing, in press on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's still a huge deal to many and one of the main reasons I never link
to the piece of crap Newsweek.
Let's be really clear on this, the FBI did not tip off Newsweek
in France. The CIA did. The FBI wasn't operating in France. The CIA
was. It's interesting that despite the public record, despite the
lawsuit, despite the fact that Joyce's item is in May and Jean
miscarries in August (and after the Newsweek item runs which is
why Romain sued them), supposed 'defenders' of Jean can't tell the damn
truth. They should ashamed of themselves. (If you're late to the
party, Jean Seberg is an actress and was part of the left wing movement
in both France and the US. She was targeted by the US government -- as
her FBI files have demonstrated -- because they wanted to neutralize
her.)
I will always defend Jean.
And I would never be mad at Ann for sticking up for me (or at Mike or anyone). But the point is that the truth does come out.
And for those who get attention for things they didn't really do? Cass Elliot
said it best when people were pointing out that the Monkees were having
these big hits, "They'll have the fame, we'll have the legend."
So it doens't matter. If it does to you, thank you, I appreciate
that. But do us all a favor, take it to the community newsletters --
have a roundtable on it there, write a piece on it there -- or share
with another community site. But I can't get bogged down it here.
Late this afternoon/evening, I'm going to need to dictate a mutli-K
Iraq snapshot. I can't be caught up in, "This site didn't do this for
us! That site overlooked me!" A) We have to link to whatever these
days because there's so little Iraq coverage. B) I have to be focused
on that. C) This is not a robbery like Barbra didn't get nominated for Best Director for Prince of Tides. I appreciate the e-mails, the kind words and the concern but it's not a big deal and let's not make it our focus here.
Laugh at it, trust that the truth comes out at some point and let's apply our attention to more important things.
The following community sites -- plus Jane Fonda, Dissident Voice, The
Diane Rehm Show, CSPAN, Antiwar.com, Cindy Sheehan and Adam Kokesh --
updated last night and this morning:
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following yesterday:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 18, 2012
Contaact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray to Introduce Women Veterans' and Other Health Care Improvment Act of 2012
Legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and severely injured veterans who want to start families
(Washington,
D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, will outline her new legislation, the
Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and for
severely injured veterans who want to start families. Currently, VA's
fertility treatment services do not meet the complex needs of severely
wounded veterans. The nature of the current conflict and increasing
use of improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more
susceptible to blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma
to the reproductive and urinary tracts. Army data shows that between
2003 and 2011 more than 600 soldiers experienced these life-changing
battle injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. As these injured
servicemembers return home, they work to move forward with their lives
and pursue their goals and dreams. For some this includes starting
their own family. The Department of Defense and Tricare program are
already able to provide fertility treatment
to servicemembers with these injuries. Senator Murray's new
legislation would address these issues by enhancing fertility treatment
and care at VA, and allowing for fertility treatment for spouses.
Following Senator Murray's speech, a documentary
highlighting the stories of 8 women veterans and the physical and
emotional challenges they face as they transition home following
military service will be shown. More on Senator Murray's Women Veterans
and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012 HERE.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray
WHAT:
Introduction of Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
screening of documentary that highlights the stories of 8 women vets
WHEN: TOMORROW: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
2:30 PM ET/ 11:30 AM PST
WHERE: Russell 325
###
Kathryn Robertson
Press Assistant
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
202-224-2834
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the associated press
sinan salaheddin
cbs news
nancy cordes
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted at 07:08 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, June 18, 2012
Monday,
June 18, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, a funeral for pilgrims
turns into another bloodbath, Brett McGurk waves bye-bye, Camp Ashraf is
strangely confusing to US State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland, and
more. Wednesday is World Refugee Day. UNHCR notes that the last year alone saw an additional 800,000 refugees. In the just released UNHCR Global Trends 2011,
details such as 46% of refugees are under the age of 18, that three
areas of concern are the displaced of Columbia, of the Democratic
Republic of Congo and of Iraq, and that the Middle East and North Africa
have a larger number of refugees than the Americas and and Asia and
Pacific combined. (Africa has the largest number of refugees with 2.1
million to the Middle East and North Africa's 1.9 million.) Through the
end of last year, Iraq could claim 1,428,3000 refugees. Only
Afghanistan topped that figure (Afghanistan had 2.6 million).
Yesterday, Oliver Maksan (Aid to the Church in Need) noted
Iraqi Christian refugees in Jordan like Lina who declares, "I never
want to go back to Iraq, ever." Why? Because she was almost killed.
Because her nephew was among the many killed in the October 31, 2010
attack on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. NPR's Deborah Amos
has documented the refugee crisis and written the book on it with Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East (now out in soft cover -- available at Amazon right now for $6.40). We'll try to note World Refugee Day again tomorrow. But turning to the big news of the day . . . . . . the ridiculous nomination of Brett McGurk to be the US Ambassador to Iraq. Andre Tartar (New York magazine) reported yesterday, "Just days after seven Republican senator on the Foreign Relations Committee urged President Obama to pick a new nominee for the ambassadorship to Iraq, the White House is doubling down on Brett McGurk. Speaking on CNN's State of the Union
this morning, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said, 'We've
made this nomination and we think he will ably serve as ambassador'."
Plouffe sounded as confident in the nomination as Gina Chon when she wrote in her fantasy e-mail,
"The question I continue to have is when will the conversation return
to issues? Because when they do, I know Brett will become the next
ambassador to Iraq." She wasn't much of a reporter (the Wall St. Journal allowed her to save face by announcing her resignation last week) and it turns out she's not psychic either. CNN makes the news of the no-longer nomination a "Gut Check" for the day. Jon Swaine (Telegraph of London) notes,
"Flirtatious emails between Mr McGurk and Ms Chon from 2008, when both
were working in Baghdad and married to different spouses, were leaked
last month, throwing his nomination into crisis. [. . .] Ms Chon, who
worked at the Wall Street Journal, resigned last week after the
newspaper said she had broken its in-house rules by sharing details of
forthcoming articles with an outsider [McGurk]." Among the questions
McGurk would have faced had the process gone forward were what, if any,
information was leaked to Gina Chon in her capacity as a reporter.
With leaks being a big issue in DC these days and with Chon and McGurk
mentioning trading favors in their e-mails to one another, this issue
was on the minds of some. Ted Barrett and Kate Bolduan (CNN) point out,
"In an e-mail to friends Friday, she said the e-mails she traded with
McGurk 'which were exposed just before Brett's confirmation hearing
reflected flirtatious banter and nothing more'." Emily Heil (Washington Post) reminds,
"The e-mails were not the only hurdle to Senate confirmation for
McGurk. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had previously criticized his
handling of U.S. policy in Iraq, including the inability of U.S. and
Iraqi negotiators to reach a deal that would have left a small U.S.
military presence behind." There were many reasons not to support him.
That includes the e-mails which made it very unlikely that Iraqi women
could access the US Embassy. While stupid sob sisters in the US would
huff, "They got married!," that doesn't mean a damn thing in Iraq. That
he entered into an affair with Chon while he was married and while she
was does matter in Iraq. And Iraqi women would have to fear accusations
-- which could result in the so-called 'honor' killings -- if they
didn't avoid the embassy. In addition, as a community member in Tikrit pointed out
early this morning, the e-mails meant that Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani and other clerics probably wouldn't meet with him. He
wouldn't just be seen as a non-believer or follower of another religion,
his actions portrayed in the e-mails would mean they would shun him.
You also have to wonder that since he was e-mailing Chon about his "blue
balls" before they'd slept together or kissed, exactly how were US
State Dept employees who were women going to be treated by new boss
McGurk? He couldn't speak Arabic. Iraqiya -- the political slate that
won the most votes in the 2010 elections -- was against him and lodged
an official complaint objecting to his being the new US Ambassador. McGurk took credit for the surge.
The only aspect of the surge that was successful was what Gen David
Petraeus implemented and US service members carried out. That was not
what McGurk and other civilians were tasked with. Their part of the
surge? The military effort was supposed to create a space that the
politicians would put to good use by passing legislation. It didn't
happen. McGurk's part of the surge was a failure.
He
revealed incredible ignorance about al Qaeda in Iraq and seemed unaware
that, in 2011, then-CIA Director (now Secretary of Defense) Leon
Panetta told Congress it amounted to less than 1,000 people or that in
February of this year, the Director of National Intelligence declared
that a significnat number (of that less than 1,000) had gone to Syria.
Though
the press has reported for years about Nouri's refusal to bring Sahwa
members into the process (give them jobs) and how he refuses to pay
these security forces (also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq"),
McGurk told Congress that Nouri was paying them all and had given
government jobs to approximately 70,000. (For point of reference, in 2008, Gen David Petraues told Congress there were approximately 91,000 Sahwa.) Links
go to the three snapshot where we reported on the hearing. Those
issues and more go to his qualifications. He is not the 'expert' the
White House has made him out to be. Adam Entous and Janet Hook (Wall St. Journal) add,
"Some Republican senators said Mr. McGurk lacked the experience to head
a major embassy in a volatile region. Mr. McGurk, 39 years old, hasn't
served as ambassador to any other countries." They also quote James
Jeffrey making some idiotic remarks. Word to Jeffrey, when you're a US
diplomat and you put your foot in your mouth like you did last week
(signing the letter declaring Brett McGurk "the best man for the job" --
not person), probably a good idea to lower your profile. You have no
idea how many women in the State Dept your little letter pissed off --
rightfully so. Matthew Lee (AP) plays nice
insisting Jeffrey "and his two predecssors in Baghdad" along with the
administration "had staunchly defended McGurk as the right person for
the job". But Matthew Lee is aware of the actual word choice since he
reported on the letter Jeffrey, Chris Hill and Ryan Crocker sent,
noting he was quoting from "a copy of the letter obtained by The
Associated Press" when he included this statement the 'diplomats' signed
off on, "Brett is the right man for the job." Funny, at a time
when Hillary Clinton is the second female Secretary of State, you might
think the notion of "right man for the job" would have flown out the
window. Again, women at the State Dept, career employees, were not
pleased with the letter and if Jeffrey feels the need to speak again, he
might want to issue an apology for his word choice. That would be
the 'diplomatic' thing to do. He should have
stepped down as soon as the e-mails became public. It was idiotic not
to. What is acceptable in the US really didn't matter though CJR and
others didn't seem to get it, so gripped with their own feelings of
superiority and xenophobia. What mattered was the way Iraqis would respond to a US Ambassador with that history. That
was the most important thing. Not what the US press thought, what the
Iraqis would think. He was supposed to be the US Ambassador to Iraq but
for some reason the US press repeatedly chose to ignore Iraqis and to
ignore how Iraqis would react to him. This is not a minor thing and
the host country should be considered with all nominations. That
doesn't mean, for example, we don't nominate an openly gay person to be
an ambassador to a country where there is tremendous homophobia. It
does mean that we have to be aware of it and we have to ask, "Can we
send a message that helps the LGBT community in the host country with
this potential pick?" If we can, it can very well be worth it. The
US government, with the illegal war, turned Iraq over to exile thugs
and thugs. They did so at the expense of Iraq's educated class (why do
you think the 'brain drain' took place to begin with -- they left
because of who the US installed). In the process, they destroyed the
rights of women and they turned a secular country into a fundamentalist
one. And someone thought the answer was to send an adulterer -- who
committed adultry in the host country? Do they not get how insulting
that was? Does no one in the administration understand the Arab world? Today Reuters notes,
"McGurk's withdrawal throws a fresh question mark over Washington's
uncertain relations with Iraq following the departure of U.S. forces
last year." I'm sure it does. I'm also sure that confirming McGurk would have been seen as an offense by a significant number of Iraqis. Brett,
all joking aside, I feel for you man. I know how it is to have State
turn on you, push you out of a job and all that. Despite some water
under the bridge between us, I think maybe we could get along, you know,
maybe hang out now that both of us have afternoons free. Whattaya say,
we leave the wives at home and hit a few rooftop bars, see what comes
up, um, goes down, aw dammit, I just did it again didn't I?
But we're
moving on. Who's next to claim the head job at the world's largest and
most expensive embassy? The previous landlord, Jim Jeffrey, quit the job
so quickly that he didn't even wait for his replacement to arrive. Now
everyone else in Iraq falls under a State Department policy requiring
the outgoing person to stay on for a week overlap with his/her
replacement, but like lots of things at State, that only applies to the
little people. So who will it be? One rumor is that Obama will nominate Meghan O'Sullivan. Sully, like McGurk, is another Bush administration left over covered in Iraqi blood. Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports
that as mourners gathered in Baquba funeral tents to pay their respects
to pilgrims killed in recent violence, a suicide bomber blew himself up
and claimed at least 15 other lives. Deutsche Welle explains,
"The blast occurred in a tnet where mourners, including several
high-ranking armed forces members, were paying respects to the family of
a Shiite tribal leader in Baquba, authorities said." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds,
"Neither of the military officials -- identified by police officials as
Lt. Gen. Ali Ghaidan, commander of the Iraqi army's ground forces, and
Abdul Ameer al-Zaidi, commander of Diyala military operations -- were
killed, though at least three guards for Ghaidan died." KUNA offers,
"The source told KUNA that a suicide bomber, wearing an explosive belt,
blew up himself while being inside a mourning house in Baquba, the
largest city in Diyala." BBC News counts forty injured. AFP notes
the death toll rose to 22 with fifty injured and that these two totals
were verified by Baquba General Hospital's Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim. Wednesday, Iraq was slammed with bombings which Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported the Ministry of the Interior stated claimed 93 lives and left three hundred and 12 injured. Of Saturday's bombings, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported,
"Two car bombs targeted Shiite pilgrims Saturday in Baghdad, killing at
least 32 people and injuring 68 others, police said." Ahlul Bayt News Agency put the injured toll at "more than 140." As Kitabat noted earlier this week, the pilgrims were taking part in the holy journey on the anniversary of the death of Imam Musa al-Kadhim. Deutsche Welle noted Saturday,
"Crowds carried symbolic coffins through the streets as pilgrims beat
their chests in mourning as they made their way toward the mosque's two
gold domes." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) explained,
"The pilgrims were marching on foot to return to their homes after they
participated in the observation of one of the major Shiite rituals at
Kadmiyah's masusoleum of Imam Mussa al-Kadhim the 7th of the most
sacred 12 Shiite Imams. During the past few days, large crowds of
pilgrims from Iraqi cities and some Muslim countries flocked to
Kadhmiyah to observe the annual commemoration of the Imam's death."
Hsahim also notes that Nouri's security measures included a ban on all
vehicles in "and around the district of Kadhmiyah," as well as closing
roads, dispatching military helicopters to fly overhead, adding
checkpoints and dispatching "dozens of thousands of Iraqi security
troops." AP quoted Mohamed Ali who state, "There is no real security, no real searches." AFP notes
that today's violence also included a Baquba roadside bombing which
claimed the life of 1 police officer and left two more injured and a
Baquba roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 shepherd. Reporting on Saturday's attacks, Duraid Adnan and Tim Arango (New York Times) observed,
"The attacks represented an embarrassment to the army and police, and
their top commander, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and raised
questions about the ability of Iraq's security forces to protect the
population." And that's what happens when you refuse to name heads to
the security ministries. Nouri was named prime minister-designate in
November 2010. Per the Constitution, he was supposed to name a
Cabinet -- full, not partial -- within 30 days. Failure to do so meant
that someone else would be named prime minister-designate. Instead of
following the Constitution, Nouri was allowed to become prime minister
in December 2010. The press assured us that Nouri would quickly
nominate people to head the security posts. Iraqiya, at the same time,
warned Nouri would avoid nominating anyone because then he could
control the posts. The minute he nominates someone, it goes to the
Parliament. If they vote to confirm the nominee, the nominee remains in
office until the end of the term unless the nominee dies or resigns.
Another way to remove the nominee (actually a minister at this point)
would be for Parliament to vote them out of office. You may remember
that from December through May, Nouri attempted to get Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq voted out of office; however, he wasn't able
to. It's very difficult to remove a minister without just cause. By
naming 'acting ministers,' Nouri ensures that they only occupy the post
as long as they please him. If you're an 'acting minister,' you haven't
been approved by Parliament so Nouri can toss you aside as he
pleases. (There are not "acting ministers" in the Iraqi Constitution.) AP quotes
Brookings Doha Center's analyst and director Salman Shaikh stating,
"Those behind the attacks, they've become more determined now and see
more of an opportunity because of the dysfunctional political process."
Jalal Talabani's been huffing all week. We'll cover it tomorrow. For six weeks now, the last remaining residents of Camp Ashraf have been refusing to move. Who? May 30th, United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) released " Report on Human Rights in Iraq: 2011."
As the report notes, Camp Ashraf is "over 3,000 residents affiliated
with the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI)" that are being moved to Camp
Liberty. These are Iranian dissidents who were welcomed into Iraq
decades. That changed with Nouri's Iraq. The report notes the 36
deaths when Nouri's forces went into the camp April 8, 2011 and that it
followed the assault of July 2009. The report notes that the United
Nations -- specifically UNAMI and UNHCR -- have been attempting to act
"as an impartial facilitator" in moving the residents to Camp Liberty.
Approximately 2,000 have been moved. The UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler declared June 11th,
"I urge the remaining residents of Camp Ashraf to relocate to Camp
Hurriya without delay. The relocation process should not be stalled. I
am concerned that there will be violence if the relocation doesn't
recommence. Any violence would be unacceptable. I call on the
Government of Iraq to avoid any forceful relocation. Each relocation
must be voluntary. The United Nations supports only a peaceful,
humanitarian solution and stands ready to facilitate." One
of the main reasons the residents stopped the process is that they want
the US to come and search the camp now because the US State Dept has
made it an issue stating such a search will determine their
classification of 'terrorist' or not 'terrorist.' If you're late to
the party, from the June 1st snapshot:
Which takes us into legal news, it's a shock to the administration but most others saw the ruling coming. Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports,
"A federal appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to make a prompt decision on whether to remove an Iranian dissident
group from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist
organizations." This was a unanimous decision handed down by the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Why was it
unanimous? Because the administration has been in violation for some
time now. James Vicini (Reuters) reminds,
"The appeals court ruled nearly two years ago that Clinton had violated
the group's rights and instructed her to 'review and rebut'
unclassified parts of the record she initially relied on and say if she
regards the sources as sufficiently credible. It said Clinton had yet
to make a final decision." The administration was in contempt. The
courts and the executive branch were in conflict. (They still are.)
What generally happens there is the court of appeals makes a united
front because this is now a court issue (as opposed to the merits of the
case from when it was heard earlier). Unlike the executive branch, the
judicial branch has no security forces. So they want to send a message
but they also want to do so without looking weak if the administration
ignores them. So since two months was the target date for the State
Dept to finish a review on the MEK, they gave State four months which,
they hope, is more than enough time. However, the two months (as the
judges know) was a guideline, not a promise. State made very clear
before the court that they were not promising two months. So it could
go on past four months. Four months carries them into October. If
they're not complying by then, there's a good chance they won't.
Whether Barack Obama wins a second term as US President or not, Hillary
Clinton has already stated she was only doing one term as Secretary of
State. So when November arrives, if there's no decision, there won't be
a rush for one. If Barack wins re-election, he'll state that he has to
find someone to oversee the department first. If Barack loses, they've
already blown off the appeals court for over two years now, continuing
to blow them off for sixty more days will be a breeze.
Nouri
al-Maliki has twice attacked Camp Ashraf -- and done so -- both times
-- while US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in
Iraq. He loathes the residents and has repeatedly attempted to force
them back to Iran (where they would most likely be hamed and possibly
put to death). This is not an unreasonable request on their part. If
the US State Dept is declaring that a search must take place of Camp
Ashraf and that the search will determine whether the group is terrorist
or not, of course that search needs to take place immediately. Not
after they've relocated every resident and no one is there to say,
"Wait! They're planting weapons!" They being Nouri's forces. The
residents have been attacked by them twice, they have no reason to trust
them.
An unidentified "senior U.S. official" tells Reuters,
"We don't know why the MEK slowdown is underway." Seriously? It's no
secret that they have requested that Camp Ashraf be searched now. The
US should do that. If they want to follow up after as well, fine. But
this is a group of people who are spooked and spooked for good reason.
They are being forced out of their home. They are aware that the UN
hasn't secured passage to other countries for those who've been
transferred to Camp Liberty. They are aware that Iran wants them and
that Nouri is in close contact with Iran. A search is a very simple
thing that the US and the UN can conduct. It doesn't have to be the
final search but it would bring peace of mind to the residents, so you
do it. You don't fight it, you don't play stupid. If you're really
not taking sides and you're attempting to do right by all, you do the
search because you know (a) it will lower the stress and (b) it will
allow the process of moving Ashraf residents to Liberty to start back
up. Here's the statement US State Dept Victoria Nuland issued today: The
United States remains concerned about the situation at Camp Ashraf and
urges the residents of Camp Ashraf to resume full cooperation
immediately with the Iraqi Government and United Nations Assistance
Mission for Iraq (UNAMI). The United States also urges the Iraqi
Government to intensify its efforts to fulfill its commitments to
provide for the safety, security, and humanitarian treatment of the
residents. With almost 2,000 former Camp
Ashraf residents now relocated to Camp Hurriya, the peaceful closure of
Camp Ashraf is achievable, but requires continued patience and practical
engagement to be realized. Constructive offers must be met with a
constructive spirit, and not with refusals or preconditions to engage in
dialogue. Recent publicly-declared conditions for cooperation,
including calls for the Department to inspect Camp Ashraf as a
precondition for further relocations to Camp Hurriya, are an unnecessary
distraction. The United States has made
clear that cooperation in the closure of Camp Ashraf, the Mujahedin-e
Khalq's (MEK's) main paramilitary base, is a key factor in determining
whether the organization remains invested in its violent past or is
committed to leaving that past behind. We fully support the path laid
out by the United Nations for the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf along
with sustainable solutions for its former residents. The Camp residents
and their leadership - both in Iraq and in Paris - should recognize this
path as a safe and humane resolution to this situation. Only a peaceful
implementation of the Iraqi government's decision to close the Camp is
acceptable, and the Iraqi government bears the responsibility for the
security and humane treatment of the individuals at Camp Ashraf. I find her statement less than genuine. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, June 18, 2012 Contaact: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 VETERANS: Senator Murray to Introduce Women Veterans' and Other Health Care Improvment Act of 2012 Legislation to strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and severely injured veterans who want to start families (Washington,
D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, will outline her new legislation, the Women
Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, legislation to
strengthen VA's programs for female veterans and for severely injured
veterans who want to start families. Currently, VA's fertility
treatment services do not meet the complex needs of severely wounded
veterans. The nature of the current conflict and increasing use of
improvised explosive devices leaves servicemembers far more susceptible
to blast injuries including spinal cord injury and trauma to the
reproductive and urinary tracts. Army data shows that between 2003 and
2011 more than 600 soldiers experienced these life-changing battle
injuries while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. As these injured
servicemembers return home, they work to move forward with their lives
and pursue their goals and dreams. For some this includes starting
their own family. The Department of Defense and Tricare program are
already able to provide fertility treatment
to servicemembers with these injuries. Senator Murray's new
legislation would address these issues by enhancing fertility treatment
and care at VA, and allowing for fertility treatment for spouses. Following Senator Murray's speech, a documentary
highlighting the stories of 8 women veterans and the physical and
emotional challenges they face as they transition home following
military service will be shown. More on Senator Murray's Women Veterans
and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012 HERE. WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray WHAT:
Introduction of Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2012,
screening of documentary that highlights the stories of 8 women vets WHEN: TOMORROW: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 2:30 PM ET/ 11:30 AM PST WHERE: Russell 325 ### Kathryn Robertson Press Assistant Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray 448 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202-224-2834
Posted at 05:59 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
White House wants Iraq crisis resolved before Nov. elections?
Alsumaria is trumpeting a major get.
Tomorrow evening (Iraq time), they will air an exclusive interview with
Moqtada al-Sadr. Though Moqtada has participated in a few press
conferences of late (such as the one following the April 28th meet-up
in Erbil), he largely communicates via his online forum. It is being
called his first major interview since 2010.
Nouri al-Maliki may face questions in Parliament. If he does, there
may be a vote after to determine whether or not he should remain as
prime minister. But even without knowing that, a reader could tell
Nouri was in big trouble just going through the news in Iraq this
morning. Dar Addustour reports that Nouri has proclaimed 200,000 housing units will soon be constructed. And they will be given away free!!!!! And the electricity crisis will end next year!!!!!
Nouri always unrolls the promises when his political career is at
risk. So despite the fact that Baghdad still doesn't have more than
six hours a day of electricity (outside the Green Zone), it'll all be
fixed next year? Despite the fact that this hasn't taken place thus
far?
Meanwhile Kitabat reports
what everyone's thinking, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani fled to
Germany in order to avoid the increasing pressure around the issue.
The paper says Talabani has fled to avoid continued pressure from
Iran. Before fleeing, Jalal was again calling for a national
conference. Al Rafidayn has a non-scientific, ongoing readers' poll asking
"What are your expectations for the national conference of political
leaders in Iraq?" 976 readers have voted. Their top expectation?
28.4% say they expect to see the current government survive. Just
behind that, with 25.1% of the vote is a group that expects to see
early elections called.
Dar Addustour reports
that the Sadr bloc is denying they have agreed to side with Nouri in
order to have the presidency of the Justice and Accountability
Commission. This is the commission that was used in 2010 to disqualify
various candidates -- mainly Iraqiya and other rivals of Nouri -- ahead
of the elections. The National Alliance states that this position was
decided upon some time ago.
Kitabat notes the US government (via Vice President Joe Biden's office) continues to apply pressure to the situation in Iraq. Dar Addustour states
Nouri was told to wrap it up (what that means isn't explained: Return
to the Erbil Agreement, take out his rivals?) because the White House
is worried how the continued turmoil will reflect on them as November
elections approach. There are rumors of a meeting being held on
Wednesday that will be "crucial."
Alsumaria notes that Iraq is hit by dust storms today. Kitabat's more concerned with ambassadors. They note
that England's Ambassador to Syria Simon Paul Collis was kicked out of
that country but has now been named Ambassador to Iraq. And here's the official United Kingdom announcement on that:
Mr Simon Paul Collis has been appointed Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq.
He will succeed Mr Michael Aron who will be transferring to another
Diplomatic Service appointment. Mr Collis will take up his appointment
at the end of June 2012.
Mr Collis joined the FCO in 1978 and after studying Arabic has served
mainly in the Middle East. His most recent postings have been as Her
Majesty's Consul General in Dubai and in Basra, and Her Majesty's
Ambassador in Doha and in Damascus. He left Syria on the withdrawal of
remaining staff in February 2012, and was declared persona non grata by
the Syrian regime in June 2012.
On his appointment as Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of
Iraq, Mr Collis has said "I am honoured to be appointed Ambassador to
Iraq and look forward to returning there. I will do my best to work with
the Government and people of Iraq to strengthen relations between our
countries.
At a time of change in the region and in the wider world there are
many challenges and opportunities across political, economic, security
and cultural fields where both countries can benefit from working more
closely together in pursuit of our shared interests and objectives.
I believe that success in these endeavours must be rooted in a sound
appreciation of our historical links while remaining firmly focused on
building the future. I am very happy to have been afforded this
opportunity to contribute to that exciting and valuable work."
Curriculum vitae
| Full name: |
Simon Paul Collis
|
| Married to:
|
Huda Mujarkech
|
| Children:
|
Five adult children
|
| October 2007 – Present |
Her Majesty’s Ambassador, Damascus
|
| 2005 – 2007
|
Her Majesty’s Ambassador, Doha
|
| 2004 – 2005
|
Basra, Consul General
|
| 2000 – 2004
|
Dubai, Consul General
|
| 1999 – 2000
|
Secondment to BP
|
| 1996 – 1999
|
Amman, Deputy Head of Mission
|
| 1994 – 1996
|
FCO, Deputy Head, Near East & North Africa Dept
|
| 1991 – 1994
|
New Delhi, First Secretary
|
| 1990 – 1991
|
FCO, Gulf War Emergency Unit
|
| 1988 – 1990
|
Tunis, Deputy Head of Mission
|
| 1987 – 1988
|
FCO, Head of India Section, South Asia Department
|
| 1986
|
UKMis New York, Temporary Duty
|
| 1984 – 1986
|
FCO, Middle East Spokesman, News Department
|
| 1981 – 1984
|
Bahrain, Second Secretary
|
| 1980 – 1981
|
Full Time Arabic Language Training
|
| 1978 – 1979
|
FCO, Desk Officer, Southern European Department
|
Those are some serious qualifiacations. As opposed to the US where any fool gets made Ambassador. Yeah, Kitabt goes there
yet again noting that the White House refuses to back down from the
nomination of Brett McGurk despite his sexual scandal and Congressional
opposition. I don't know if there can be a worse scandal in the
current Iraq other than a "sexual scandal." We've noted that women
would be at risk if McGurk was confirmed and they visited the US
Embassy. But a community member in Tirkit thinks it's much more than
just Iraqi women. He wonders how, for example, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani could meet with McGurk after all the coverage in Iraq about
the sex scandal? He assumes that al-Sistani and other clerics would
have to avoid McGurk whom he feels would be seen as "an infindel" who
brought dishonor upon the United States while on Iraqi soil (in 2008,
while in Iraq as a Bush official, the married McGurk began an affair
with the married Gina Chon -- both subsequently divorced their spouses
-- divorce is not a minor thing in Iraq). So why in the world, our
community member in Tikrit wonders, is the US government trying to
force McGurk as Ambassador when his actions mean most Iraqis will avoid
him and whisper about him?
It's a very good point and you have to wonder how many strikes one
person gets before the White House wakes up and pulls the nomination?
And it would probably be a good thing for the xenophobia in the US
press to stop. For all the dumb idiots who want to claim, "They got
married!," McGurk isn't trying to be ambassador to the US, he's trying
to be the US ambassador to Iraq. And he's really not the best face for
that.
Peter Van Buren notes that Cryptome has published some of Brett McGurk's blogging. Peter Van Buren is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the War for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . And we'll note this from Peter Van Buren:
Let’s also talk about whether not speaking any Arabic is a good or bad thing for McGurk. Let’s ask what experience
he has had managing a $6.5 billion enterprise with 16,000 employees.
Let’s ask what job if any he has held other than appointed political
hack. Let’s talk about how many Iraqi groups see him as so close to PM Malaki that they initially refused to even work with him. Let’s talk about the little paid-for nooky at Harvard.
Let’s talk about whether using US Government email to conduct an
extra-marital affair suggests you have the discretion, maturity and
personal credibility to be an ambassador. Let’s talk about John McCain’s objections. Let’s talk about Inoufe’s objections.
Let’s talk about all those issues, and whether they add up to someone who deserves to be an ambassador.
And as if to make sure the story drags on for another news cycle,
Chon also spoke to CNN. Better yet, some apology email Chon sent to her
“friends” ended up leaked to CNN by one of them. The embattled spouse told CNN:
People have jumped to unfair and inaccurate conclusions using our own words against us.
Oh, the old “using our own words” defense. We call that taking
responsibility for what you say and write. And this woman worked for a
major newspaper?
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " The Gentlemen's Journalism Club" went up Saturday and Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " Standing Behind McGurk" went up last night.
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio, an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner ( Center for Constitutional Rights)
topics addressed include Jose Padilla, austerity moves in Greece, student protests in Quebec and more.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
afp
reuters
al rafidayn
kitabat
foreign policy
judith s. yaphe
suadad al-salhy
al mada
bloomberg news
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted at 06:20 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Alastair Campbell's Liary
But I still love the relative, not the absolute, the cabbage and the
warmth of a fire, Bach on the phonograph, and laughter, and talk in the
cafes, and a turnk packed for departure, with copies of Tropic of
Cancer, and Rank's last SOS and the telephone ringing all day,
good-bye, good-bye, good-bye . . .
So ends 1965's The Dairy of Anais Nin Volume I. Few
published diaries every create a stir. Nin's diaries created a major
stir that has lasted years. Currently, in England, another diary is
making a splash, Alastair Campbell's. Andrew Grice (Independent of London) reported over the weekend:
Rupert Murdoch launched an “over-crude” campaign to force Tony Blair
to speed up Britain's entry into the Iraq war, according to the final
volume of Alastair Campbell's diaries.
Mr Blair's former communications director accuses the media
mogul of being part of a drive by American Republicans to drag
Britain into the controversial war a week before the House of
Commons even voted to approve the intervention in 2003.
You can read the excerpt at the Guardian. BBC News noted,
"Rupert Murdoch called Tony Blair urging him not to delay the invasion
of Iraq, former Number 10 communications chief Alastair Campbell has
said." Nicholas Watt (Guardian) adds, "In another blow to the media mogul, who told the Leveson inquiry that he
had never tried to influence any prime minister, Campbell's diary says
Murdoch warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers of a delay in Iraq.
The disclosure by Campbell, whose diaries are serialised in the
Guardian, will pile the pressure on Murdoch in light of his evidence to
the Leveson inquiry." However, Erik Larson (Bloomberg) notes that Campbell immediately insisted that's not what he was saying and went on BBC Radio 4 and his blog to issue his denials.
AFP pounces on the diary to note " Blair though Brown was 'bonkers'."
(Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister. Both were
members of Labour Party and Brown had been groomed for that position
for several decades.) Tony Blair's online beloved, John Rentoul, runs with it at the Independent because he grasps wildly at any hint of masculinity that might waft off on Tony.
As everyone rushes to weigh in, it might be smart to consider the author of the diary.
In 2010, Chris Ames (Guardian) noted Alastair Campbell less than honest responses to the Iraq Inquiry:
Last week, I wrote that "showing how, when and why [Alastair] Campbell said something that was false is very easy".
It has become easier as Campbell has now taken to contradicting
himself. It remains to be seen whether the Iraq inquiry noticed.
Although
the inquiry members certainly upped their game on Tuesday and showed
considerable scepticism over Campbell's evidence, they still didn't
quite nail him down over the involvement of his fellow spin doctors in
what former cabinet secretary Lord Turnbull described this week as the
"granny's footsteps" process of strengthening the September 2002 Iraq
dossier from one draft to the next.
Spin
doctors such as John Williams, who produced the first full draft,
Daniel Pruce of No 10 and Paul Hamill, who was responsible for the
February 2003 (really) "dodgy dossier", were involved throughout the
process, as this letter from intelligence chief John Scarlett to Tony Blair shows.
Campbell
gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry before the letter was handed over
and published, so Tuesday's session was the first time he has been
questioned publicly about it and other evidence of spin doctor
involvement. This allows us to compare what Campbell told Hutton with what he said this week. The two versions of the story could not be more different.
The diary?
Anais Nin's remains
the most popular and most influential one of the last 100 years. Some
took it as truth. It is called a "diary" after all. Others knew it
wasn't. Some, like Gore Vidal, were very bitchy about it. "Bitchy"
really is the only term when Gore was well aware that Anais couldn't
tell some things due to mores (sex with her father) and other things
due to the law (she was married to a man in New York and to a man in
California at the same time -- bigamy). Gore didn't invent the term
"liary" but he popularized it as applied to Anais' diaries. After her
death (and the death of the New York husband), Anais' journals would
start to come out. Covering the same time periods and much more
explicit. While people such as Gore participated in their portraits in
the diaries, they aren't getting the same say in the journals. (A scary
thought for Gore -- Anais uncensored on him will, among other things,
refute many rumors about the two of them that he used to float.)
In his review of the fourth volume of the diary, Gore states of the
diary's ability to cement Nin's literay reputation, "I am not so
certain." And "I am not so certain" -- a skepticism -- should greet
all diaries published while the writer is still alive.
That is especially true when the author, like Campbell, is known to be
less than honest. Translation, he and his publishing house will
promote 'salacious' details for publicity only to walk them back
later. No one should take the book or Campbell seriously.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " The Gentlemen's Journalism Club" went up Saturday and Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " Standing Behind McGurk" went up last night.
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio, an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner ( Center for Constitutional Rights)
topics addressed include Jose Padilla, austerity moves in Greece, student protests in Quebec and more.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the independent
andrew grice
bbc news
the guardian
nicholas watt
afp
suadad al-salhy
al mada
bloomberg news
erik larson
chris ames
wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner
Posted at 06:13 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Standing Behind McGurk"
Posted at 10:31 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
