 |
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday,
July 31, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, bombings targeting mosques
rip through Baghdad, the assault on Camp Ashraf continues, the
'withdrawal' is examined, two women tell stories the media hasn't
chosen to share, and more. As anyone even slightly interested in the Iraq War knows, NPR's The Diane Rehm Show
remains the only public radio program -- NPR or Pacifica -- on which
you can get any sort of regular information and discussion on the war.
Most Fridays, during the second hour, the international news hour, Iraq
will be a topic. USA Today's Susan Paige filled in for Diane
(who returns Monday) and they did have a planned segement about Iraq
and they also had callers who asked questions about developments there
but, at the very end of today's show, they had two women share their
stories and we're going to start with that. Susan Paige: Let's go to Pamela. She's calling us from New Jersey. Pamela, thanks so much for calling. Pamela:
Yes. Good morning, how are you? Thank you for taking my call. I am
responding to a comment I heard earlier and it really just like shot me
in my heart. And the comment was that the suicide rates [in the US
military] are skyrocketing and how this has to be addressed. And I
literally like I said stopped dead in my tracks. I . . . lost my
brother in service due to suicide. He was home on a leave and, uh,
about to be, pardon me, to go back and to serve and, uh, was, uh -- the
difficulty in getting the mental health services I believe that he
needed -- I mean he was married with two children -- was most, most
difficult and delayed and a long wait and this and that. And then the
unfathomable happened and, uh, when I, uh, at times decided to share
how he died rather than just say he died in the war and I would say he
died by suicide the remark I would hear unfortunately was, "Oh my
goodness, he didn't die a hero then." And-and I continually hear this
and I guess I want to make a statement that how someone dies, um,
should not be -- that -- that is not a definition of how they lived
their lives. And here was a good man who gave and did so much for the
community and yet because of how he died -- which you know is a mental
illness health related, etc. etc. -- he is now being defined as -- not
-- as a zero. And not being defined. And I think you know this-this
suicide issue is getting way out of control and for every person that
dies by suicide there are at least six to ten people that are horribly
effected as well to the point where their mental health also, uh, you
know, begins to fall apart and the whole mental health, how to get
help, starts all over again. And I should say that the support groups
for those that lose a loved one by suicide are now separated from
regular grief groups and while attending one and sharing how my loved
one died, people were going around the room, people said to me, "Oh my
God, why is she here?" I've been asked to leave meetings because --
grief support meetings -- because of how my brother died and I don't
think that's fair or correct or right and, um, so the issue goes far
beyond the pain of losing a loved one and is extremely complicated.
And, um, I wanted to share all that. And if ever anybody hears of
someone that dies of a suicide please just say "I'm sorry for your
loss" and ask about the person. And don't say anything cruel or unkind
because, again, how one lives their entire life for 38 years should not
be defined by a, you know, a irrational moment that effects -- that
became a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Susan
Page: Yeah well Pamela we certainly thank your brother for his service
and we express our sympathy to your family for this terrible loss. [. .
.] Let's go to Mary, she's calling us from San Antonio, Texas. Hi,
Mary. Mary:
Hi there. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was calling
about. My husband is currently on his fourth tour in Iraq which is his
fifth deployment in six years. As a matter of fact, he's physically
lived at home six months since 2001. There's -- there's two reasons I
think why the high suicide rate You have these up tempo deployments.
When someone comes back from being deployed in Iraq you have what's
called a honeymoon period and it might be a month or several months
where everyone's happy to see you and every thing's going fine and then
the cracks start to show a little bit the stress that every body's been
under -- whether it's the normal stress or maybe PTSD. But by the time
that starts to rear it's head, they're back for another deployment
again and so those issues don't get addressed. And I live in fear for
when my husband is home permanently and I know for certain that we're
going to have to address that. My husband told me once a story when
they were in Iraq, in a combat mission. There was a young gentlemen,
maybe 19, scared to death to go out -- understandably. And he was out
maybe thirty minutes and they got hit by an IED. He was absolutely
terrified and the next day he had to go back out on another mission.
And he did not want to go and he had to. And I asked my husband what
do you do in those circumstances? And my husband said "Charley Mike"
which is an acronym for CM and it means continue mission. That is the
most important thing is you continue the mission and you don't stop
until it's complete and then you look back and maybe try to figure out
what's wrong with these poor people. The -- I don't care what any
senior officials say -- the mental health is abysmal in the military.
It's frowned upon, there's not enough services. Also I think because
the rest -- only the military is at war and the rest of the country is
not, there's not -- there's a big disconnect there and I think that
adds to the situation. My husband is proud to do his service. He's
happy to be there so many other fathers don't have to be. But he would
like at least some acknowledgment and recognition. When you turn on
the TV and very little is talked about. Those
stories are not being told. They weren't being told in the 'meanwhile
back at home' segments of that trashy (and thankfully cancelled) CBS
show and they're not being told on Lifetime's ridiculous Army Wives. There is no place for those stories to be told because there is no interest in telling them. You heard them on The Diane Rehm Show
today and you could hear them on the show again. Hopefully, you will,
hopefully others will call in on Friday's second hour. But in terms of
the media, there's really no where to go except Diane's show. And
that's really sad. These are stories of today and people would rather
serve up propaganda (I'm referring to all the time Pacifica wastes
advocating on behalf of Barack which is not why it has a license and is
also not why Lewis Hill created Pacifica to begin with) or waste their
time (and your time) in other ways. Those are two stories of the Iraq
War. Only two stories of millions. And there's no interest in
covering them. Susan Page was joined by panelists Anne Geran (AP), Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London) and Barbara Slavin (Washington Times). Susan
Page: We had Defense Secretary Robert Gates make an unannounced visit
to Iraq this weekend. Anne, you were with him. Tell us about the trip. Anne
Geran: Well Secretary Gates spent a few days in the Middle East. He
was in Israel and Jordan before his trip to Iraq. The main reasons for
him to go to Iraq now are to get a, kind of a status assessment after
the June 30th handover of Iraqi cities to Iraqis -- Susan Page: Which went well. Right on schedule. Anne
Geran: Yeah, it did go on schedule and the - and the assessments from
the top commanders and from Gates himself is that it went better than
expected and that there really have been -been relatively few
problems. A few hiccups, as Gates put it by -- on the part of people
who didn't get the word on down the chain. There have been some
problems -- in Baghdad, in Mosul which are the cities that had the
greatest problems before June 30th. The other reason he was there was
to impress on both the Kurdish leadership in the north and the Arab led
central government in Baghdad -- they've been increasingly squabbling
with one another -- that the time is running short for US forces to
stay there and to keep the lid on this and it's time for everybody to
figure out where the line is drawn for the Kurdish self-rule area and
figure out their business. Susan
Page: Secretary Gates made some headlines when he said that the United
States may be able to speed up the scheduled troop withdrawal of
American troops. Does it go beyond the symbolic, Barbara? Barbara Slavin: Well there are some interesting things going on there. There was a story in today's New York Times, a leaked memo
that suggested maybe one reason why the US might pull out more troops
sooner is because the Iraqis really don't want us there anymore and
want to take back their country which seems pretty logical after more
than six years now of US occupation, quasi-occupation. But might
understanding is that about 10,000 troops are supposed to come out,
were supposed to come out, by the end of the year, and so Gates is
talking about another 5,000. That would still leave a fair number,
let's see, if I do my -- Anne Geran: About 100,000. Barbara
Slavin: calculation -- over 100,000, during Iraqi elections, national
elections, which are scheduled in January but would quicken the pace
getting down toward 50,000 by the end of next year. Susan
Page: Demetri, this leaked memo which is on the front page of the New
York Times this morning, a memo by a senior US military advisor,
Colonel Timothy Reese, which was plenty blunt in its language Demetri
Sevastopulo: It was very blunt and it's not clear -- to me anyway --
whether he posted it himself on other websites or whether it was leaked
by other people but it was blunt. It was supposed to be to the
American military leaders. He himself is an advisor to the Iraqis.
His basic argument was, as Barbara was explaining, 'We've taught' --
the Americans have taught -- 'the Iraqis how to ride the military
bicyle. Now they can peddle, they're moving along. They may not be
perfect but they're frustrated because the Americans are holding the
saddle and not letting them go full steam ahead.' So his argument is,
'Just let them get on with it, we should get out now. They've basically
accomplished, in terms of training, everything they're going to be able
to do.' But not every one in the American military agrees with that. A
lot of people think, 'Hold on second. They actually can't do a lot of
the things they need to do yet. And General [Ray] Odierno is the top
commander in Iraq -- the top American -- he said while Secretary Gates
was there that one of the things that they [the Iraqis] cannot do, they
won't be able to before the end of next year is to provide air support
for themselves. They don't have the capability or the planes, the
fighter jets, to defend themselves. Susan Page: And what will that mean, Anne, for how this proceeds over the next year or two? Anne
Geran: Well in the very strictly technical sense, it will probably mean
the sale of American F-16s to Iraq. They want to buy them, we want to
sale them. It's a question of how to do that. They can't be built
fast enough or in quantity to get them to the Iraqis before the
scheduled US pull-out, get enough of them there. So they're looking a
different ways to do that. The Iraqis could also buy Russian or French
planes. But beyond that there will - there will have to be a debate
and a resolution of the debate at some point of what sort of help the
United States provides after the cut-off date? Is it -- is it air
support from another countries? Is it air support from inside? Is it
continued advisory role? Is it nothing? Susan
Page: And, you know, US -- President Obama talked during the campaign
about withdrawing most US combat troops by a - by a certain time. I
wonder, Barbara, how many troops will be left when most combat troops
are out? I mean there will still be some US presence there. Barbara
Slavin: Well, you know, the Status Of Forces Agreement says all US
troops are supposed to be out by the end of 2011 but when the Iraqi
Prime Minister Maliki was in town [DC] the other week, he suggested
that he might want to request some of them to stay on and, of
course, there are weapons, not just F-16s but other kinds of weapons
systems, that the Iraqis are - are buying from the US that will need
maintenance. So I think one could forsee a continued US presence but
nothing like the one we have now. Susan Page: And this long war will then actually come to a close for the United States? Demetri
Sevastopulo: Well it will come to a close to the extent -- it depends
on what the Americans are doing. If you have 30, 40, 50,000 Americans
there who are periodically called in to help the Iraqis when they are
fighting in Mosul or somewhere else well then the war will have come
predominately to an end but there will still be lingering fighting. First,
Sevastopulo is confused about the issue of the air force. Anne Geran,
who was present for the remarks Odierno made this week (reported them
here), tries to nicely fix the situation. Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reported Odierno
said right now it did not appear likely that Iraq would be able to
defend their own air space at the end of 2011. It matters because it
goes to the fact that it's not a real withdrawal, a point Sevastopulo
seems aware of in his second answer and was probably just confused
speaking off the top of his head prior. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail ( at CounterCurrents) addresses the realities of the non-withdrawal: "If
the Iraqi forces require further training and further support, we shall
examine this then at that time, based on the needs of Iraq," Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently informed President Barak Obama
in Washington. While Iraqi and US government officials continue to
insist the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is currently on schedule,
only a few thousand US troops have left Iraq since Obama took office,
and few, if any, are expected to be withdrawn through the beginning of
2010. From his recent statement, Maliki appears to be willing to accept
a long-term stay. The
timeline in the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) says that US "combat
troops" were to withdraw from Iraqi cities and villages no later than
June 30, 2009, and all troops are to be out by December 31,
2011. Yet
on November 17, 2008, in the wake of Iraq's cabinet approving the SOFA,
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
highest-ranking member of the US military, immediately began inferring
loopholes and possible grey areas, saying the deadline for withdrawal
by 2011 should depend on conditions on the ground. "I
do think it is important that this be conditions-based," Mullen told
reporters at the time, "And so three years is a long time. Conditions
could change in that period of time." Dahr's latest book is The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan
and it has just been released this month. As the discussion on NPR
noted, the memo by US Col Timothy Reese is still in the news. (It was
noted in yesterday's snapshot.) It's posted at various places online. One of the many places you can read the memo in full is here ( New York Times) and we're noting this section: The
general lack of progress in essential services and good governance is
now so broad that it ought to be clear that we no longer are moving the
Iraqis "forward." Below is an outline of the information on which I
base this assessment:1. The ineffectiveness and corruption of GOI Ministries is the stuff of legend.2. The anti-corruption drive is little more than a campaign tool for Maliki3.
The GOI is failing to take rational steps to improve its electrical
infrastructure and to improve their oil exploration, production and
exports.4. There is no progress towards resolving the Kirkuk situation.5. Sunni Reconciliation is at best at a standstill and probably going backwards.6.
Sons of Iraq (SOI) or Sahwa transition to ISF and GOI civil service is
not happening, and SOI monthly paydays continue to fall further behind.7. The Kurdish situation continues to fester.8. Political violence and intimidation is rampant in the civilian community as well as military and legal institutions.9.
The Vice President received a rather cool reception this past weekend
and was publicly told that the internal affairs of Iraq are none of the
US's business. Michael Gordon (New York Times) broke
the news on the memo yesterday online. His article appears in today's
paper (and link is the story which is longer than his report online
Thursday). Clicking here takes you to the Times offering
various people weighing in -- some of whom seem not to have actually
read the memo. Douglas Macgregor makes the strongest argument. PBS' Online NewsHour notes,
"A spokeswoman for Odierno said that the memo did not reflect the
official stance of the United States military and was not intended for
a broad audience, and that some of the problems the memo referred to
had been solved since it was written in early July, the New York Times reported." Yes, because July was, like, months ago, totally. Nancy Montgomery (Stars and Stripes) tackles the sotry from the entry point of Odierno's friend Lt Gen Kenneth Hunzeker returning to Iraq: Hunzeker,
who was promoted to lieutenant general and named V Corps commander in
August, 2007, said he's always wanted to go back to Iraq. When he
visited two months ago, he said he found that "the performance of the
Iraqi security forces is pretty good." Reese,
the adviser, disagreed in his memo. He detailed corruption, poor
management and a bowing to Shiite political pressure, the Times said.
But he wrote that despite deficiencies, Iraqi security forces are now
able to protect the Iraqi government. But
there has been growing concern among military commanders about a
potentially explosive dispute between the semi-autonomous region of
Kurdistan and the central government in Baghdad over territory, oil and
other resources. The issues couldn't be
settled when the Iraq Constitution was drafted in 2005 -- the parties
couldn't agree even which ethnicities lived there -- so it was put off.
A clause in the constitution, Article 140, calls for a census followed
by a referendum to settle the fate of these areas, including oil-rich
Kirkuk. It was supposed to take place by the end of 2007. It still
hasn't happened. It's the last
day of the month so the little liars crawl out of their holes. Dan
Murphy's had a pretty lousy week but isn't done disgracing the once
fabled Christian Science Monitor. In a 'turned corner' piece (of garbage) Danny's hoping people take him at his word and don't go off and do their own research: "The numbers at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count,
a website that tracks both coalition and Iraqi deaths, appear to
confirm the improvement. Their count is typically lower than APs, but
the trend is the same. They count 200 Iraqi deaths in July, the
third-lowest total for them since January 2006. Their data shows Iraqi
deaths peaked at 3,500 in September of that year." Their data shows? ICCC
does a wonderful job of tracking the number of foreign military service
members killed in Iraq. It deserves huge applause for that. When an
announcement's made by a governmental body, it's noted. And it's great
that it's trying to provide some form of a count on Iraqi civilians.
But ICCC's in California. It's not in Iraq. So why would anyone use
their numbers as anything but a basic guage? Take, for example, the
June Security Forces and Civilian deaths -- which is what ICCC tracks.
They've got how many for the month of June? 367. Really? Because the
Interior Ministry always does an undercount and their count for June
was . . . 373. In May, ICCC's saying 188 deaths. I know that's wrong
because no one wanted to talk May deaths and the lie was 134 from
the Ministry of Health so I went through and counted up reported deaths from Reuters and McClatchy alone and the number -- just those two sources -- was 226.
Each day in May is linked to, you can check the reported deaths and you
can check the math. There is a big difference between 188 and 226.
I'm not attacking ICCC but I am noting that their civilian death count
is not something I'd go with unless making repeated qualifiers and
doing my best to check out the official figures (from the ministries)
and do a count myself to offer the differences. Dan
Murphy's not interested in qualifiers or doing his own research. He's
interested in pimping the lie that things are less violent in Iraq.
We've said it before, we'll say it again. That 'trend' story falls
apart with the month of February and you see an increase in violence.
That is the trend that's held since February. Dan Murphy's a non-stop
embarrassment for his outlet. Earlier in the week, Murphy was in titters over the assault on Camp Ashraf and those 'strange' MEK. Today at the Independent
of London, non-reporter and human stench Patrick Cockburn is giggling
over "the latest episode in the strange history of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq" -- no link to his trash. For the record, when
someone's assaulted, their history (or your opinion of it) really isn't
an issue. For the record, putting the victims on trial is one of the
trashiest things anyone can do. No surprise, Patrick Cockburn does just
that. He's not a reporter. AP reports
that US "medical professionals" (US military medical staff) were at
Camp Ashraf yesterday evening and "evacuated the most seriously wounded
to a U.S. military facility for further treatment." Charles Levinson (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed on Thursday to let a small group
of journalists into the camp. Visitors were given access to only the
few hundred yards of land along the main road controlled by Iraqi
forces." But that wasn't the first group of journalists allowed in.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran explains
that although there is ban on any journalists visiting Camp Ashraf,
Nouri al-Maliki has made exceptions . . . for Iranian news outlets.
They also alleges that the reporters were actually "a number of agents
from the Iranian regime's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)
and terrorist Qods Force". Not all in Iraq are going along with the assault. The Iraqi National Dialogue Front has issued a statement decrying the assault:
"Ashraf residents have been deeply respected during all these years by
the Iraqi people and protecting them against the plots, pressures and
political quid-pro-quo deals has turned into a matter of national pride
for us. However, with the occurrence of yesterday's crimes, which have
left a dark stain on those who ordered and carried it out, Iraq's
political forces and people must only distance themselves from it. We
declare that this crime has no relation to the people and country of
Iraq and demand the trial of all those involved." In addition, 50 Iraqi Members of Paliarment have signed
on to a letter addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon decrying the assault, noting the Fourth Geneva Convention is
supposed to protect those at Camp Ashraf and calling for the UN to
intervene. And NCRI explains: On
Thursday evening at 21:00 local time, the al-Arabiya TV channel
reported that Mr. Tariq al-Hashemi, the Iraqi Deputy President, wrote a
letter to members of the country's presidential council and highlighted
the need to demand sufficient explanations from Nouri al-Maliki about
the military operation carried out recently in Camp Ashraf.He
also demanded to know the reason for performing the operation as well
the political objectives to be pursued by the government in the future
with regards to dealing with the refugees of the camp.In
his letter, al-Hashemi emphasized that from this point on it would be
unacceptable for Iraq's presidential council to be surprised every time
political or security measures are taken without prior consultation
with the council. Susan
Page: Here's an e-mail from C. Harvey who says,"Please speak to the
Camp Ashraf situation in Iraq and any American responsibility for roll
in or lack of ability to prevent the Iraqi attack on Camp Ashraf."
Demetri, tell us what's going on? Demetri
Sevastopulo: Well basically you've had a camp of roughly over 3,000
members of this group, the People's, Barbara, correct me if I'm wrong -- Barbara Slavin: People's Mujahedin. Demetri
Sevastopulo: who have been protected by the Americans in Iraq for
several years even though the American government considers them to be
terrorists. They are dedicated to the overthrow of the Iranian
regime. Saddam Hussein basically supported them because he was
fighting wars against Iran. The current Iraqi government is more
inclined or more aligned towards the Iranian government and so they
have been less willing to brook their-their activities. The Americans
weren't aware, they say, that the Iraqi authorities were going to
authorize their troops to go in and attack this camp. So this is
another indication of how the Iraqis are getting out ahead and saying
to Americans "we're in charge now." Susan Page: Should the Americans have been in a position to protect their camp? Demetri
Sevastopulo: Well I don't think the Americans have the ultimate ability
to do that anymore because they have kind of pulled back and the
problem is when you give a country their solidarity, their soveriegnty,
you have to live with that and that's a problem America faces over and
over again around the world. Anne
Geran: Well the American military had been arguing essentially with the
Iraqi government over what to do about the camp, the MEK as they call
it, for some time and they had pulled out full military protection for
the camp but still had some advisors around the outside. And the
Iraqis did not tell, according to General Odierno, the Iraqis did not
tell the US that they were going to go in and do this raid. Odierno
was encouraged at first that the raid appeared to be relatively
peaceful and bloodless but that changed. Susan Page: Barbara? Barbara
Slavin: Well this is part of a pattern. Demetri mentioned that the
current Iraqi government is much more -- is closer to Iran certainly
than Saddam Hussein was and just a couple of weeks ago, the US released
some Iranian detainees, some members of the Quods of Jerusaelm Force of
the Revolutionary Guards to the Iraqis who immediately turned them back
over to the Iranians even though the US had insisted that these were
somehow dangerous people. Iraq is reclaiming it's soveriegnty and it's
going to do what it's going to do and a lot of these actions might not
be quite what the US had in mind perhaps when we went in in 2003. Leo Shane III (Stars and Stripes) reports,
"US embassy officials on Thursday met formally with Iraqi political
leaders on the issue of the refugee camp . . . State Department
officials said for now the Iraqi government has made no long-term
decisions on whether members of the group may be sent back to Iran". Betty weighed in last night on the topic and her thoughts include: Not
that it should matter but Camp Ashfraf isn't a singles complex.
Meaning, this has been a home for nearly 3,500 people. A home. Meaning
children. And Nouri al-Maliki ordered the assault on the camp Tuesday.
They went in with bulldozers, with wooden batons, with sonic grenades,
with fire hoses to blast people with water. And Nouri order that.
Camp
Ashraf has been a home for the MEK for decades. And their homes are
being destroyed. And this is why I didn't want Hillary to be Secretary
of State. She is going to get blamed for this when it's Barack's fault
for not addressing it and for not being firm with Nouri al-Maliki.
This
is an outrage. And don't give me that bunk about "Iraq's national
soveriegnty." If this happened in India, the US would be decrying it.
We'd do it in almost every nation. (I doubt we would in Israel, we
never really have before.)
I don't care what those people in Camp
Ashraf believe in or stand for. I care that they are human beings. I
care that they are families trying to raise their children. I care that
they are people trying to survive. And I care that a government
assaulted them and continues to do so. It's not right and I am
appalled by the lack of a strong response from the US.
I'm not
talking, "Bomb em!" There are many ways to respond strongly. For
example, those sonic grenades being used? Made in the US. It could be
explained to Nouri that US weaponry used against peaceful citizens of
Iraq means no more weaponry. (I don't think they need weaponry to begin
with.) There is the carrot and the stick and the stick doesn't always
have to be violence. Thus far the US has refused to condemn the actions.
I will. What Nouri is allowing is an international crime. Excuse me, what he has overseen is an international crime. That violence is ongoing. It is not the only violence. Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reports on the violence sweeping Baghdad today as attacks on Shi'ite mosques have claimed 24 lives. Reuters explains the death toll climbed 25 and that there have been five bombings. The death toll has continued to climb. Liz Sly and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report,
"In the bloodiest attack, 24 people were killed and 28 injured when a
parked car exploded outside a mosque in northeastern Baghdad's Shaab
district just as worshippers were leaving prayers.Within the next 10
minutes, four other explosive devices detonated at four other mosques
in southern and eastern Baghdad, killing four and injuring 35. The
timing suggested a high degree of coordination by the attackers."
Citing the Interior Ministry, Sam Dagher (New York Times) counts 136 injured (29 dead) and notes the bombings "took place between 12:46 p.m. and 1:30 p.m." Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) adds
"Iraq army and police officers are interpreting [the bombings] as a
sign that insurgents are determined to destabilize the country a month
now that American forces have withdrawn from Iraqi cities and towns."
In other reported violence . . . Reuters notes a Kirkuk car bombing which claimed 2 lives and left fifteen injured. Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) drops back
to yesterday to report a grenade attack on a home in Mosul that claimed
1 lives (husband and wife) and left a child wounded and a roacket
attack on a home in Basra which left four people injured. The
ministries in Iraq were mentioned earlier. They can't count but might
they take part in kidnappings? News today out of England on the May
29, 2007 kidnappings. Background, 5 British citizens were kidnapped
over two years ago in Iraq. Following the US military handing over two
brothers said to have been responsible for the attack on a US base in
Iraq in which 5 US service members were killed, the group the brothers
belong to released two of the five British hostages: Jason Creswell and
Jason Swindlehurst. Both men were dead. Alan McMenemy and Alec
Maclachlan are also now considered to be dead but the families continue
to hope otherwise and at this point nothing is known. Peter Moore is
hoped to be alive. He is the fifth hostage. There were supposed to be
six kidnappings, not five. The sixth person eluded the kidnappers. He
is among those talking to the press in today's news cycle. And now the
big news out of England on the kidnappings. The Telegraph of London reports: An
unnamed senior Iraqi intelligence source told The Guardian the
highly-organised kidnapping was "one only a government can do".Mr
Moore had been installing a computer system to track billions of pounds
in foreign aid and oil revenue through the finance ministry.The intelligence source told the paper: "Many people don't want a high level of corruption to be revealed."Remember
this is the information technology centre, this is the place where all
the money to do with Iraq and all Iraq's financial matters are housed."Paul
Wood, a former British Army officer who investigated the abduction for
the four bodyguards' employers, GardaWorld, said it was "too perfect"."It
would make sense to think that there was someone on the inside telling
the kidnappers when to come, what to expect and how to deal with any
security issues they were going to face," he told the paper.Meena Muhammed, Maggie O'Kane and Guy Grandjean (Guardian) add: Unknown
to the kidnappers, two intelligence officers were parked opposite the
centre, outside an outpatients' clinic. Through an intermediary – a
former high-level intelligence source – one of the officers described
the operation to the Guardian:"The
cars started coming down the street and surrounding the ministry. The
cars were marked 'ministry of the interior' – they are Toyota Land
Cruisers, they belong to the ministry of the interior ... The operation
was well planned and they were carrying Kalashnikovs. One group came
out with two of the hostages. They put them in the first car. They
weren't hooded or handcuffed. Then they brought the other three men
out. Then they brought out the men's belongings, their briefcases and
rucksacks. They put those things in a separate car."People
started gathering around. It was near the al-Rafidain Bank on Palestine
Street. The people were gathering around and the kidnappers were
shouting: 'Go home now, this is nothing do with anyone. Do not look,
this has nothing to do with you.'"For those who would prefer audio, the Guardian offers Maggie O'Kane explaining the story here (and Seth MacFarlane creator of Family Guy and American Dad is also featured in the arts section of the audio). Staying with England, Alsumaria notes, "Former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called to testify to a panel investigating Britain's involvement in the Iraq war." Wales News reports
that the poodle is going to "be grilled on live TV by the official
inquiry into the Iraq war, it was announced yesterday." This is the
independent inquiry that Gordon Brown (current prime minister of
England) promised long ago but is only now getting started and is no
longer as limited as Brown announced it would be. Karla Adam (Washington Post) reminds,
"When Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he
initially said it would be held behind closed doors. The decision was
reversed after objections from opposition politicians and families of
British soldiers who died in Iraq. The war has claimed the lives of 179
British troops, and Brown has described the inquiry as a chance to
pinpoint 'lessons learned'." Sir John Chilcot heads the inquiry and CNN quotes
him stating, "You can work out for yourself who some of them will be,
but apart from the former prime minister [Tony Blair] -- who it's
obvious we must see -- I don't want to give a longer list today." Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) observes,
"Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, said public hearings were vital
to ensure the inquiry was not seen as a 'whitewash'. 'It is essential
that this inquiry has the teeth it needs to get the job done. The
government must not be able to interfere to keep Blair and Brown out of
the spotlight for the sake of political convenience in the run-up to an
election'." Peter Riddell (Times of London) adds,
"The Chilcot inquiry provides an opportunity for national catharsis
over the Iraq war. Its main value is likely to lie less in any
startling new disclosures about why the war was fought than in allowing
those affected a chance to air their grievances. It will not end the
anger and grief but it provides a chance to balance passion with a
thorough narrative about what happened over the course of the eight
years from 2001 until 2009, and not just in 2002-03." In terms of what
to expect timeline wise, the Guardian offers a basic overview here. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) explains
some of the anger over the timeline from the Conservative Party and the
Liberal Democrats (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown both belong to the
Labour Party): However, the
Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said they were still unhappy
with aspects of the inquiry. They blame Brown for the way he set it up
but, after Chilcot's press conference, they also criticised some of the
decisions Chilcot has taken about how it will proceed – showing that he
has not yet established cross-party support. Chilcot said the inquiry
was unlikely to produce an interim report before the general election –
as the Liberal Democrats have been demanding – and said there was no
chance of final conclusions being published before polling day. Yesterday's snapshot covered the US Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing. Last night, Kat covered
it at her site -- and she's covering witnesses who blame veterans for
the VA's problems so be sure to read her post. The Thursday snapshot
has a typo that I need to clear up. We have typos here all the time --
including especially in what I type (I dictate snapshots) -- and it's
not a big deal or the end of the world. But yesterday's includes, "On
the first panel, Senator Jon Tester asked the VA's Patrick Dunn for
some hard numbers. Tester noted, the VA had 406,000 pending claims and
wondered how that compared to one year age and Dunn responded that it
was about 25,000 to 30,000. " And "year age" should be "one year
ago." In addition, Rebecca's mentioned but not linked to. That's my
fault because I said copy and paste me from that morning and that
morning I hadn't linked to Rebecca in the morning entry. So when it
was copied and pasted into the snapshot, no link. On England, please
note that Rebecca's
covering Gordon Brown and Labour's problems this summer. As she's
explained, a friend is doing polling for Labour and she's been brought
in before (and will be again) to offer her take on the polling data.
She's not being paid for that, she's doing it as a favor for an old
friend. Because she's been looking at the data from time to time for
months now, she's decided to make the summer at her site about Brown's
drag on the Labour party. Rebecca's done a great job and this week the
media in Engalnd started having poll numbers to share. Their numbers
jibe with what Rebecca was explaining to her readers back in June. TV notes, NOW on PBS drops back to May 28, 2008 to air: Child
prostitution is on the rise not just in other countries around the
world, but right here in America. The Department of Justice says, on
any given day, tens of thousands of children across America are
involved in prostitution. But what's being done to stop it?This
week NOW on PBS visits Atlanta, Georgia to see how one American city is
handling the tragic phenomenon of child prostitution. It is one of 27
American cities where the problem seems to be spinning out of control."It's
one of those issues that doesn't get discussed and therefore there's an
assumption that perhaps either it doesn't exist at all or the young
women and girls who are prostitutes are there by their own free will,"
Atlanta's Mayor Shirley Franklin tells NOW.That is a rebroadcast ("This show was originally broadcast on May 30, 2008."), not an update. Bill Moyers Journal feels
like a repeat. Are you tired yet of Wendall Potter? Has any been on
every bad Pacifica radio show already in the last two weeks? Amy
Goodman's had him, even Houston's The Monitor
had him -- in all he's been on at least twelve radio programs airing on
Pacifica Radio in the last few weeks. Bill's been waiting his turn.
Remember, there's no real left, just one dull DULL echo chamber. Washington Week finds Gwen Ifill sitting round the table with Dan Balz ( Washington Post), Alexis Simendinger ( National Journal) and Charles Babington ( AP). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Irene Natividad, Kim Gandy, Tara Setmayer and Margaret Spellings to discuss the week's issues on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Screening The TSA
Are
the hassles passengers endure at airport security checkpoints really
making them safer? The Transportation Security Administration says they
are, but a security adviser who has advised them says those measures
are "security theater." Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
Is It Murder?
With
drunken driving fatalities staying constant despite all the campaigns
against the crime, some prosecutors are pursuing harsher penalties
against perpetrators, including long prison terms for those who caused
deaths. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Wyclef
Wyclef
Jean emigrated to the U.S. as a baby and grew up to live the American
dream as a millionaire rock star. He's now using his extraordinary
talents and wealth to help his native Haiti. Scott Pelley reports.
60 Minutes Sunday, Aug. 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 04:10 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
25 dead in Baghdad bombings
 The
fierce raid this week by Iraqi military and police units on Camp
Ashraf, a base for the militant Iranian dissident outfit -
Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) or "People's Holy Warriors" - was a game
changer in Iran's quest to control the banned organization.The
timing of the intense two-day siege of the camp, which left six people
dead and dozens injured, is clearly linked to the progressive transfer
of security operations from American to Iraqi troops. The above is from Sreeram Chaulia's " Iran, US do a 'war on terror' somersault" ( Asia Times) on the assault on Camp Ashraf. Charles Levinson (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed on Thursday to let a small group
of journalists into the camp. Visitors were given access to only the
few hundred yards of land along the main road controlled by Iraqi
forces." At the Independent
of London, non-reporter and human stench Patrick Cockburn is giggling
over "the latest episode in the strange history of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq" -- no link to his trash. For the record, when
someone's assaulted, their history (or your opinion of it) really isn't
an issue. For the record, putting the victims on trial is one of the
trashiest things anyone can do. No surprise, Patrick Cockburn does just
that. He's not a reporter. AP reports
that US "medical professionals" (US military medical staff) were at
Camp Ashraf yesterday evening and "evacuated the most seriously wounded
to a U.S. military facility for further treatment." The National Council of Resistance of Iran explains
that although there is ban on any journalists visiting Camp Ashraf,
Nouri al-Maliki has made exceptions . . . for Iranian news outlets.
They also alleges that the reporters were actually "a number of agents
from the Iranian regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)
and terrorist Qods Force". This was noted in yesterday's snapshot but
we'll note it again, from the NCRI: Sonic
grenades have been used repeatedly by Iraqi suppressive forces in the
past two days against the residents of Camp Ashraf. On the shell of the
grenades, the following inscriptions have been seen: The grenade must
be used by those who have had training on the use of them to enforce
the law.The environment in which this grenade is thrown must be free of persons.The grenade must not be thrown against rims, obstacles or flammable oil or material.The
grenade must be used only by those trained in using it. It contains
explosive material which can cause severe injuries or death.Ears and eyes must be protected during use.The grenade cannot be refilled if it is tactically emptied.Manufactured by Defense Technology in Casper, Wyoming, USA. Serial No. 754340.The
above points clearly stipulate the deadly nature of these grenades, and
can in any independent court of law establish the intentional use of
them for killing Ashraf residents.Not all in Iraq are going along with the assault. The Iraqi National Dialogue Front has issued a statement decrying the assault:
"Ashraf residents have been deeply respected during all these years by
the Iraqi people and protecting them against the plots, pressures and
political quid-pro-quo deals has turned into a matter of national pride
for us. However, with the occurrence of yesterday’s crimes, which have
left a dark stain on those who ordered and carried it out, Iraq’s
political forces and people must only distance themselves from it. We
declare that this crime has no relation to the people and country of
Iraq and demand the trial of all those involved." In addition, 50 Iraqi Members of Paliarment have signed
on to a letter addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon decrying the assault, noting the Fourth Geneva Convention is
supposed to protect those at Camp Ashraf and calling for the UN to
intervene. And NCRI explains: On
Thursday evening at 21:00 local time, the al-Arabiya TV channel
reported that Mr. Tariq al-Hashemi, the Iraqi Deputy President, wrote a
letter to members of the country’s presidential council and highlighted
the need to demand sufficient explanations from Nouri al-Maliki about
the military operation carried out recently in Camp Ashraf.He
also demanded to know the reason for performing the operation as well
the political objectives to be pursued by the government in the future
with regards to dealing with the refugees of the camp.In
his letter, al-Hashemi emphasized that from this point on it would be
unacceptable for Iraq’s presidential council to be surprised every time
political or security measures are taken without prior consultation
with the council.By the way, Patrick Cockburn was one of
the fools insisting in the last weeks that the Iraqis would be able to
vote yesterday on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces
Agreement. That didn't happen. That was never going to happen. It was
obvious for some time and by June, with no move to organize voting and
poll workers, it was obviously not happening. But fools and liars --
like Cockburn -- continued to insist it would. Just like they continue
to lie that the White House was forced into the SOFA when the White
House got everything they wanted with the SOFA. Timothy Williams and Abeer Mohammed cover some of yesterday's reported violence in today's New York Times and also explain: The
government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has proposed
scheduling the referendum for Jan. 15 to coincide with parliamentary
elections.
On Thursday, one of the few public mentions of the July
30 deadline was made by Tariq al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two vice
presidents.
"This date had been carefully chosen to provide the
necessary time to have a tangible result," Mr. Hashemi said in a
statement. "Failure to meet the date is a delay that denies the Iraqi
people their rights."
In the meantime, various Iraqi governmental entities pointed fingers at one another for failing to convene an election. The
memo by US Col Timothy Reese is in the news. It's posted at various
places online. One of the many places you can read the memo in full is here ( New York Times) and we're noting this section: The
general lack of progress in essential services and good governance is
now so broad that it ought to be clear that we no longer are moving the
Iraqis "forward." Below is an outline of the information on which I
base this assessment:1. The ineffectiveness and corruption of GOI Ministries is the stuff of legend.2. The anti-corruption drive is little more than a campaign tool for Maliki3.
The GOI is failing to take rational steps to improve its electrical
infrastructure and to improve their oil exploration, production and
exports.4. There is no progress towards resolving the Kirkuk situation.5. Sunni Reconciliation is at best at a standstill and probably going backwards.6.
Sons of Iraq (SOI) or Sahwa transition to ISF and GOI civil service is
not happening, and SOI monthly paydays continue to fall further behind.7. The Kurdish situation continues to fester.8. Political violence and intimidation is rampant in the civilian community as well as military and legal institutions.9.
The Vice President received a rather cool reception this past weekend
and was publicly told that the internal affairs of Iraq are none of the
US’s business.As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Michael Gordon (New York Times) broke
the news on the memo yesterday online. His article appears in today's
paper (and link is the story which is longer than his report online
Thursday). Clicking here
takes you to the Times offering various people weighing in -- some of
whom seem not to have actually read the memo. Douglas Macgregor makes
the strongest argument. (His isn't the only strong one, it's just the
most realistic and informed by the memo and events.) Thomas E. Ricks is
the most embarrassing and appears to morph into Thomas Friedman.
Someone tell these men that after a certain age, they don't need to
offer poster-speak from pep rallies. Translation, speak in English not
your idea of current (but really dated) catch phrases. (You come off
like Eileen Brennan's Capt Doreen Lewis in Private Benjamin
yammering away about Fonzie.) The only thing more embarrassing is those
on the 'left' trying to attack Reese (it's not an attack on his
position, it's an attack on him) based on the fact that he's apparently
Tim "The Echanter" of the conservative Townhall and he's against
Barack's health care plan. His thoughts on health care have no bearing
on his memo about Iraq. His political ideology isn't the point of the
memo. If you want to refute his take, do so. But after everyone ran
from MoveOn's Betray-us campaign, it's surprising that the usual hacks
(who do nothing to end the illegal war) are out in force attacking
someone in the military for his possible political beliefs which have
nothing to do with a military memo he prepared. Janine Jackson and
others whoring themselves out for Barack's hideous health care 'plan'
(no plan) are the ones who should be ashamed. To know the 'plan'
wouldn't kick in until 2013 and that it's not single-payer and the
public option (if included) is a joke and whore whatever's left of your
name (not much for Janine but, remember, she moves up by marrying into FAIR
-- not through any real work) is much more embarrassing and shameful
than anything Reese could have penned. Calling yourself an
'independent' media 'watchdog' and whoring yourself to promote bad
government moves is disgraceful. By the way, as Jim pointed out,
laugh as they wonder why the press doesn't invite left 'critics' of
Barack's 'plan' to comment? Why? Because they aren't critics. They're
cheerleaders who defend the indefensible plan for two minutes for every
five seconds of negative criticism they offer. But remember, they're
not independent, they're not a watch dog. They lie and spin -- just
like the right wing liars and spinners -- and pretend otherwise. What's
the biggest problem with US politics today? Frauds and fakes and, no,
we're not talking about elected officials. They should be sued and they
should certainly be taken off the public airwaves and lose their tax
status as 'non-partisan' because they are partisan. US Labor Against the War highlights James Cogan's " Iraqi prime minister: US forces can stay after 2011" (WSWS): The
most noteworthy aspect of the visit by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki to Washington last week was the unscripted remark he made on
July 23 while addressing the foreign policy thinktank, the United
States Institute for Peace (USIP).
In answer to a question
concerning the December 31, 2011 expiry of the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) -- the legal basis for American troops being on Iraqi
soil -- Maliki made clear the date was open to extension.
He stated:
"Pursuant to the agreement, in 2011, the military presence of the
Americans will end in Iraq. Nevertheless, if the Iraqi forces required
further training and further support, we shall examine this then at
that time, based on the needs of Iraq ... the nature of that
relationship as well as the functions and the amount of forces will be
then discussed and re-examined again."
Maliki's statement was a
public admission of what was worked out during the protracted
negotiations last year between the Bush White House—with the support of
president-elect Obama -- and the various factions that make up the
Iraqi government. The so-called "deadline" for the withdrawal of all
American forces was not worth the paper it was written on.Chelsea J. Carter (AP) reports on the violence sweeping Baghdad today as attacks on Shi'ite mosques have claimed 24 lives. Reuters explains the death toll is now 25 and that there have been five bombings. Meanwhile Elizabeth Byrne (Australia's ABC) reports, "The final 11 soldiers have returned to Australia marking the end of the six-year campaign in Iraq." Max Blenkin and Julian Drape (Sydney Morning Herald) add,
"Some 20,000 members of the army, navy and air force have served in
Iraq since 2003. The honour of being the last digger to leave the
strife-torn country went to Corporal Don Mander. He stepped aboard an
RAAF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft at Baghdad International Airport
on Tuesday afternoon, the last of 12 Australian personnel embedded
within US units operating in Baghdad." Meanwhile, Arwa Damon (CNN) reports
that most British troops are supposed to be out of Iraq today, "Now,
almost all British troops are being pulled out because an agreement
that allows them to remain in Iraq expires Friday, according to the
British Ministry of Defence." The Iraqi Parliament refused to approve
the treaty with the UK before going on recess. TV notes, NOW on PBS drops back to May 28, 2008 to air: Child
prostitution is on the rise not just in other countries around the
world, but right here in America. The Department of Justice says, on
any given day, tens of thousands of children across America are
involved in prostitution. But what's being done to stop it?This
week NOW on PBS visits Atlanta, Georgia to see how one American city is
handling the tragic phenomenon of child prostitution. It is one of 27
American cities where the problem seems to be spinning out of control."It's
one of those issues that doesn't get discussed and therefore there's an
assumption that perhaps either it doesn't exist at all or the young
women and girls who are prostitutes are there by their own free will,"
Atlanta's Mayor Shirley Franklin tells NOW.That is a rebroadcast ("This show was originally broadcast on May 30, 2008."), not an update. Bill Moyers Journal feels
like a repeat. Are you tired yet of Wendall Potter? Has any been on
every bad Pacifica radio show already in the last two weeks? Amy
Goodman's had him, even Houston's The Monitor
had him -- in all he's been on at least twelve radio programs airing on
Pacifica Radio in the last few weeks. Bill's been waiting his turn.
Remember, there's no real left, just one dull DULL echo chamber. Washington Week finds Gwen Ifill sitting round the table with Dan Balz ( Washington Post), Alexis Simendinger ( National Journal) and Charles Babington ( AP). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Irene Natividad, Kim Gandy, Tara Setmayer and Margaret Spellings to discuss the week's issues on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all four PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: -
Coming Up On 60 Minutes Screening The TSA
Are
the hassles passengers endure at airport security checkpoints really
making them safer? The Transportation Security Administration says they
are, but a security adviser who has advised them says those measures
are "security theater." Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
Is It Murder?
With
drunken driving fatalities staying constant despite all the campaigns
against the crime, some prosecutors are pursuing harsher penalties
against perpetrators, including long prison terms for those who caused
deaths. Bob Simon reports. | Watch Video
Wyclef
Wyclef
Jean emigrated to the U.S. as a baby and grew up to live the American
dream as a millionaire rock star. He's now using his extraordinary
talents and wealth to help his native Haiti. Scott Pelley reports.
60 Minutes Sunday, Aug. 2, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
NPR's The Diane Rehm Show
begins airing (and streaming online) at 10:00 a.m. EST this morning.
Diane's on vacation so USA Today's Susan Page fills in this morning.
The first hour is the domestic news roundup and the panel is composed
of Tony Blankley (syndicated columnist and McLaughlin Group panelist), David Corn ( Mother Jones), Sheryl Gay Stolberg ( New York Times -- who may address Swine Flu -- she and her daughter wrote a piece for the science section of the paper this week about her daughter being quarantined in China). The second hour is the international news discussion and the panelists are Anne Gearan ( AP, who reported this week on Robert Gates' trip to Iraq), Demetri Sevastopulu ( Financial Times'
resident sexist -- will he speak of his hormonal desire to see Michelle
Obama and Carla Bruni in a "cat fight" again?) and Barbara Slavin ( Washington Times). The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqsreeram chauliathe asia timesthe wall street journalcharles levinjames cogantimothy williamsabeer mohammedthe new york timesmichael r. gordonchelsea j. cartercnnarwa damonmax blenkinjulian drapeelizabeth byrne60 minutescbs news
Posted at 07:39 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Allegations that al-Maliki's government was involved in kidnapping British citizens
News
today out of England on the May 29, 2007 kidnappings. Background, 5
British citizens were kidnapped over two years ago in Iraq. Following
the US military handing over two brothers said to have been responsible
for the attack on a US base in Iraq in which 5 US service members were
killed, the group the brothers belong to released two of the five
British hostages: Jason Creswell and Jason Swindlehurst. Both men were
dead. Alan McMenemy and Alec Maclachlan are also now considered to be
dead but the families continue to hope otherwise and at this point
nothing is known. Peter Moore is hoped to be alive. He is the fifth
hostage. There were supposed to be six kidnappings, not five. The sixth
person eluded the kidnappers. He is among those talking to the press in
today's news cycle. And now the big news out of England on the
kidnappings. The Telegraph of London reports: An
unnamed senior Iraqi intelligence source told The Guardian the
highly-organised kidnapping was "one only a government can do".Mr
Moore had been installing a computer system to track billions of pounds
in foreign aid and oil revenue through the finance ministry.The intelligence source told the paper: "Many people don't want a high level of corruption to be revealed."Remember
this is the information technology centre, this is the place where all
the money to do with Iraq and all Iraq's financial matters are housed."Paul
Wood, a former British Army officer who investigated the abduction for
the four bodyguards' employers, GardaWorld, said it was "too perfect"."It
would make sense to think that there was someone on the inside telling
the kidnappers when to come, what to expect and how to deal with any
security issues they were going to face," he told the paper.Meena Muhammed, Maggie O'Kane and Guy Grandjean (Guardian) add: Unknown
to the kidnappers, two intelligence officers were parked opposite the
centre, outside an outpatients' clinic. Through an intermediary – a
former high-level intelligence source – one of the officers described
the operation to the Guardian:"The
cars started coming down the street and surrounding the ministry. The
cars were marked 'ministry of the interior' – they are Toyota Land
Cruisers, they belong to the ministry of the interior ... The operation
was well planned and they were carrying Kalashnikovs. One group came
out with two of the hostages. They put them in the first car. They
weren't hooded or handcuffed. Then they brought the other three men
out. Then they brought out the men's belongings, their briefcases and
rucksacks. They put those things in a separate car."People
started gathering around. It was near the al-Rafidain Bank on Palestine
Street. The people were gathering around and the kidnappers were
shouting: 'Go home now, this is nothing do with anyone. Do not look,
this has nothing to do with you.'"For those who would prefer audio, the Guardian offers Maggie O'Kane explaining the story here (and Seth MacFarlane creator of Family Guy and American Dad is also featured in the arts section of the audio). Staying with England, Alsumaria notes, "Former Prime Minister Tony Blair will be called to testify to a panel investigating Britain's involvement in the Iraq war." Wales News reports
that the poodle is going to "be grilled on live TV by the official
inquiry into the Iraq war, it was announced yesterday." This is the
independent inquiry that Gordon Brown (current prime minister of
England) promised long ago but is only now getting started and is no
longer as limited as Brown announced it would be. Karla Adam (Washington Post) reminds,
"When Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he
initially said it would be held behind closed doors. The decision was
reversed after objections from opposition politicians and families of
British soldiers who died in Iraq. The war has claimed the lives of 179
British troops, and Brown has described the inquiry as a chance to
pinpoint 'lessons learned'." Sir John Chilcot heads the inquiry and CNN quotes
him stating, "You can work out for yourself who some of them will be,
but apart from the former prime minister [Tony Blair] -- who it's
obvious we must see -- I don't want to give a longer list today." Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) observes,
"Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader, said public hearings were vital
to ensure the inquiry was not seen as a 'whitewash'. 'It is essential
that this inquiry has the teeth it needs to get the job done. The
government must not be able to interfere to keep Blair and Brown out of
the spotlight for the sake of political convenience in the run-up to an
election'." Peter Riddell (Times of London) adds,
"The Chilcot inquiry provides an opportunity for national catharsis
over the Iraq war. Its main value is likely to lie less in any
startling new disclosures about why the war was fought than in allowing
those affected a chance to air their grievances. It will not end the
anger and grief but it provides a chance to balance passion with a
thorough narrative about what happened over the course of the eight
years from 2001 until 2009, and not just in 2002-03." In terms of what
to expect timeline wise, the Guardian offers a basic overview here. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) explains
some of the anger over the timeline from the Conservative Party and the
Liberal Democrats (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown both belong to the
Labour Party): However, the
Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said they were still unhappy
with aspects of the inquiry. They blame Brown for the way he set it up
but, after Chilcot's press conference, they also criticised some of the
decisions Chilcot has taken about how it will proceed – showing that he
has not yet established cross-party support. Chilcot said the inquiry
was unlikely to produce an interim report before the general election –
as the Liberal Democrats have been demanding – and said there was no
chance of final conclusions being published before polling day.In an editorial entitled " Truth on Iraq War," the Financial Times of London offers: Plenty
of leaked information suggests Mr Blair decided to back the Bush
administration’s war policy long before the elaborate diplomatic dance
that preceded the invasion, and that his government exaggerated the
intelligence on Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass
destruction. Critics of this inquiry will say the 2004 Butler report
into the intelligence on WMD dealt with this. Yet testimony to Butler
from Carne Ross, the UK’s Iraq point-man at the UN, that Iraq was not
seen as a threat and there was no intelligence evidence it held
significant chemical or biological weapons, was only to emerge after
the inquiry ended.There are
many other questions. Did the then attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith,
change his advice on the legality of the war? Did the US and UK start
the war in mid-2002, with an air campaign to degrade Iraq’s paltry
defences, at the height of the diplomatic process, while UN weapons
inspectors were on the ground, deprived of the actionable intelligence
Washington and London claimed to have? Why were British forces
committed with so little preparation and resources? It really is time
the truth was told.On England, please note that Rebecca's
covering Gordon Brown and Labour's problems this summer. As she's
explained, a friend is doing polling for Labour and she's been brought
in before (and will be again) to offer her take on the polling data.
She's not being paid for that, she's doing it as a favor for an old
friend. Because she's been looking at the data from time to time for
months now, she's decided to make the summer at her site about Brown's
drag on the Labour party. The following community sites have updated
since last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqguardianmeena muhammedmaggie okaneguy grandjeanthe telegraph of londonthe financial times of londonthe times of londonkarla adamthe washington postcnnwales newsalex barkerandrew sparrowpeter riddellalsumariaanns mega dubthe world today just nutskats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:23 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 30, 2009
"What happens when the US abandons some good friends?" Katie Couric asked that at the start of yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, The footage of the assault was shown. Footage. What other network newscast made time for this story? And while you're checking that, step on over to PBS and find out if The NewsHour made time for the story. (Answer: No.) Footage of the assault. Footage and violence supposedly drive TV news so what's the excuse for the silence from others on Camp Ashraf?
That was in today's snapshot leading to an indignant drive-by (who works for PBS) who insists that The NewsHour did a segment on the assault just like CBS. No, Lara Logan had a segment. (See the snapshot if streaming isn't an option for you.) Gwen Ifill offered a headline. Let's break down PBS' one hour news program. 21:01 were spent on Bernake and the Federal Reserve. (More than anyone needed and this was another chapter in the multi-part segment for the week.) Health care was 12:26. Iran was 6:24. "So why are you complaining? Right there, they're covering the Iranians at Camp Ashraf in Iraq." No, this was on turbulence in Iran. 7:46 was Elvis Costello discussing his new album. (It's a good album, I recommend it. But I don't know that was news or news worth seven minutes plus.) And? They did headlines. 5:02. That was their entire hour. Plus telling you who underwrote the show -- commercials, but don't call them that, PBS doesn't like it when you do. Now the PBS-er (how appropriate) wants me to know they did a segment just like CBS News did. No, they didn't. They touched on it in headlines. They offered a whopping 39 seconds. Color us underwhelmed. There was no segment on it. It got a tiny mention in headlines. It wasn't even the lead headline. It wasn't even the lead headline on Iraq. That's disgusting. People are dead, people are wounded. And viewers heard about Elvis Costello's new album. Now it's a great album, I like Elvis, I know Elvis, I think it can lift you up on a really bad day and I think it can provide you hours and hour of enjoyment. But I don't really think that it couldn't have been trimmed to cover the assault on Camp Ashraf. Although honestly, the Bernanke segment's what should have been ditched. It's nonsense. It's worship the way Alan Greenspan was worshipped -- and don't we all know where that got the country? This wasn't a probe. This was let Bernanke pontificate and, again, I believe that's part of the reason the US is in so much trouble. Not just Alan Greenspan's actions but the lack of a critical press when it came to economic issues. We didn't Bernanke's oratory from the mount and it never qualified as news -- let alone TV worth watching. (Snooze time.) So that segment could have been ditched completely. It certainly didn't deserve 21 minutes last night. And that's before you factor in how many minutes they gave to Bernanke yammering away already this week. That's not news. And it's not probing. It's a static talking head (bad television) and he's being allowed to pontificate (one source) about complex issues with no real check on him (no other guests, no debate). It was boring as hell and it didn't qualify as news. Next up, we'll be calling the speeches aired on CSPAN news? Is that how it works? Bernanke got tons of time from PBS this week to try to sell a plan. Well it's not news. News is an examination of what he's selling and, guess what, you can't do that with just Ben as the expert. There's nothing wrong with Bernanke. There's nothing wrong with Alan Greenspan. Both have economic ideas and if the press wants to do their jobs then the American people can decide whether they like an economic theory or not and they can hear what might and might not happen as a result. But when you do what PBS did, you've left hypothesis and theories and turned Economis into a field with no margin of error and no disputes and it's gospel. That doesn't inform anyone and it just creates the same He Can't Fail image that they did for Alan Greenspan. And that didn't help Greenspan and it certainly didn't help the country. PBS, an informercial -- for any product -- is not news. But the worship of officials, always PBS biggest journalistic crime, helps get the country into one huge problem after another. Two that easily spring to mind: The economic crisis and the Iraq War. And, uh, no, neither's ending. And both were sold to you by an industry that didn't want to inform you, by an industry that wanted you to just take the word of officials. There was no skepticism, just more worship of official-dom. And look where it gets us? PBS has no excuse, public television, for airing the Bernanke nonsense. And it's nonsense. It would be nonsense if it was Hillary talking about foreign policy (while Secretary of State). It is nonsense to hang on every word of any official without challenging it. That would be state TV, not public television. It's nonsense and its hurts the country. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4327. Tonight? 4328.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletpbsthe newshourthe cbs evening news with katie courickatie couriclara logan
Posted at 09:27 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday,
July 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Camp Ashraf
continues, the inquiry into the Iraq War begins in England, a US
military colonel in Iraq advises that the US needs to remove all forces
by August 2010, a Senate committee hears testimony stating the federal
circuit should be removed from the VA appeals process, and more. Yesterday's snapshot included quoting Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) report,
"The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defense after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday. . . . Asked if the
Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air patrols at
the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq calls for all
American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno replied,
'Right now, no'." And then noting, "If you don't realize what a shock
Bumiller's article is and how much it needs to be buried for some, note
how heavily an AP story about Gates declaring maybe some US troops may
leave earlier. Some. May. Some. News gets in the cycle, better dump
a bunch of fluff. " Bumiller was one of the few to cover that but the
fluff made it everywhere. Surprising when you consider, as Katie
Couric noted on yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
that there are 130,000 US forces in Iraq, "10,000 are scheduled to be
withdrawn by the end of this year. According to Gates, 5,000 more could
be home for the holidays." Of the 'news,' Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) notes,
"Obama has broken a campaign promise to take a brigade a month (I think
he was right to do this, but that's neither here nor there.) Right now,
we have about as many troops in Iraq as on average over the last six
years." Instead of actually writing about the assault on Camp Ashraf,
Ricks strings together a small number of words with a link to Juan
Cole. Juan Cole's post
that went up early, early Thursday morning -- this morning --
demonstrates both all that's wrong with the Iraq 'coverage' and all
that's wrong with I'm-for-the-war-I'm-against-it-I'm-for-it-again Juan
(and don't bother disputing that, I'm not Steve Rendall, I can nail it
to the wall because I actually do the work). At his laughably named
"Informed Comment," he had to do an update to a post written this
morning, an update that says "The Iraqi government is now acknowledging
that 7 MEK members were killed in the assault on Camp Ashraf." Prior
to that Juan can't tell you anything about deaths. Not even a "one
side claims . . . and the other claims . . ." But Juan's just
discoved, late today, that the Iraqi government said 7 were killed.
Juan just discovered that. Late today. Informed Comment? From yesterday's snapshot, " Alsumaria quotes
an unnamed Iraqi security source stating '200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces [were] wounded' and that Nouri ordered the
assault. [. . .] Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reveals
Iraq's Interior Ministry is admitting to 7 deaths -- MEK is stating
they have lost 11 members." So 'professor' Juan, at "Informed"
Comment, decides to weigh in this morning and doesn't even know the
basics -- and a death total would be among the basics. Informed, my
ass. "What happens when the US abandons some good friends?" Katie Couric asked that at the start of yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
The footage of the assault was shown. Footage. What other network
newscast made time for this story? And while you're checking that,
step on over to PBS and find out if The NewsHour made time
for the story. (Answer: No.) Footage of the assault. Footage and
violence supposedly drive TV news so what's the excuse for the silence
from others on Camp Ashraf? From the segment on Camp Ashraf (link has text and video): Katie
Couric: When the US began turning over security to the Iraqis, it
stopped protecting some valuable allies, thousands of Iranian exiles.
And their camp outside Baghdad is now under attack. For two days,
Iraqi police have been beating the residents. No food or doctors have
been allowed in. All with the approval of Iran's government. Here's
chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan.
Lara
Logan: It started peacefully but quickly turned violent. Iraqi police
using wooden sticks against these unarmed civilians. These people are
Iranians living inside Iraq, members of an Iranian opposition group
known as the MEK. It was the MEK that provided the US with intelligence
on Iran's nuclear program.
Ali
Safavi (Nationcal Council of Resistance of Iran): Were it not for the
MEK, the world would not be in a position to find out about Iran's
nuclear weapons program and the mullahs may have had the bomb. Lara
Logan: The MEK have lived in this camp, known as Camp Ashraf, for
decades. The Iranian government wants them expelled and accuses them
of being involved in the recent unrest in Iran. Since the US invasion,
the camp's roughly 3,000 residents have been living under US
protection. That ended in January when the Iraqis took control under
the security agreement. Now the US appears to have washed their hands
of the people of Ashraf. US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (speaking at the State Dept): It is
a matter now for the government of Iraq to resolve. Lara
Logan: Images captured by the inside Ashraf showed the dead and
wounded. Residents told CBS News at least 11 people were killed,
hundreds wounded and thirty arrested. The number's impossible to verify
because the Iraqi government has sealed off the camp. The attack was
seen as the latest sign American influence in Iraq is waning as Iranian
influence rises. Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his
government increasingly pro-Iranian. Kenneth Katzman:
The Iranians would have to cross the border to get at them directly
because Camp Ashraf is clearly over the border. But they have an
obviously willing ally in Prime Minister Malik, willing to do their
bidding. Lara Logan: The Iranian
government praised the Iraqi governement action against MEK saying
they're cleaning the country of terrorists. This morning, AFP reported
that while Iraq says everything is under 'control' and a police station
is set up, Iraq's refused to allow reporters to enter the camp. Not
noted in the report, they're also rebuffing requests from human rights
organizations and charities. But today in a US State Dept briefing,
spokesperson Ian Kelly asserted the US military now had access. Ian
Kelly: Embassy officials met yesterday with representatives of the
government of Iraq. We wanted to stress the importance to the
government of Iraq, the importance of Iraq fulfilling its commitment to
the US government to treat the camp residents humanely. And we also
proposed permitting an assessment of injuries and possible deaths, an
assessment by US forces. The government of Iraq did agree to allow US
forces to provide medical assistance to those who were injured in Camp
Ashraf. And there is, right now, a US medical team there performing
this assistance. We're providing medical care and treatment, medical
supplies and assessing any kind of follow-on treatment or support that
these residents might require. And regarding other issues regarding
Camp Ashraf, we'd refer you, of course, to the government of Iraq. UPI notes,
"Statements by members of the PMOI blame Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki for the assault on the Ashraf residents. The PMOI claims
several hundred residents were severely wounded, with at least 12
people dead." An Iraqi security official (unnamed) tells AFP that 11 MEK have died -- seven on Tuesday and two on each day since. Sebastien Malo (The Daily Star) reports
that tensions remain high and that the assault continues -- the most
recent "clashes occurred on Thursday morning according to [MEK
spokesperson Shariar] Kia." Kia refuted rumors that the MEK has
weapons noting that Camp Ashraf has been inspected repeatedly and he
noted that residents had begun a hunger strike. The weapons charge is
ridiculous and it needs to be noted that the Iraqi government is trying
to circulate false rumors that MEK have shot one another to garner
sympathy from the world. Yes, Nouri is just that stupid and sick.
This is the thug the US installed. Oliver August (Times of London) observes
the Iraqi government's "brazen actions show that the balance of power
in Baghdad has shifted in ways unthinkable when President Bush was in
office, or even a few weeks ago." Robin Corbett (Guardian) points out: The
violent attack on the residents of Ashraf City was a clear indication
of the Iranian regime's growing influence in Iraq and the coalition's
failure to uphold international law. In
scenes reminiscent of those seen on the streets of Iran: unarmed
civilians were attacked with batons, chains, hot-water cannons, rocks,
armoured personnel carriers and machine guns. In video footage released
by the residents, civilians inside the camp are brutally beaten, while
bodies of the dead victims show gunshot wounds as the cause of numerous
deaths. The underlying message
of the attack, which is still continuing, is the incredible influence
that the Iranian regime now holds. However far it has infiltrated Iraq
and caused violence there since the 2003 invasion, it seems that the
regime now has a willing partner in Nouri al-Maliki to do its bidding
in eliminating the main Iranian opposition group, the People's
Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI), which is based in
Ashraf. PMOI members there are "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention,
but the attitude of the US administration and UK government has been
far from forceful. To look on as civilians are killed and wounded is
nothing but shameful. Sonic grenades are said to be used by the Iraqis, ones made by Defense Techonology in Casper, Wyoming.
I believe this is exactly what now Vice President Joe Bidenwarned about
in an April 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing back when
he was a senator and chair of that committee. We'll come back to
that. The National Council of Resistance of Iran released the following statement today: NCRI
- The Iranian Resistance's Leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, released a
statement broadcast yesterday by the Simaye Azadi (Iran National
Television), with regards to the brutal assault of Iraqi forces against
Camp Ashraf residents in Iraq. Mr. Rajavi said: Through
his agents in Iraq, the regime's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, took
revenge for the Iranian people's uprising from Ashraf, which is the
strategic nucleus of the struggle for freedom. He wishfully thinks that
by targeting Ashraf the uprising would cease; But, the water that has
already gone over the dam can't be forced back into the regime's
channel and save the disintegrating religious
regime. Mr.
Rajavi urged all Iranians across the world to rush to support the
hunger strike and demands of Ashraf residents, which are: 1. The leaving of Iraqi forces from Ashraf; 2.
Protection of Ashraf to be assumed by US forces, who have disarmed and
signed agreements with every single one of Ashraf residents about
protecting them until the determination of their final
status; 3.
Presence of lawyers and international human rights organizations in
Ashraf, which has been banned for the past 7 months; 4.
Presence of a representative of the UN Security Council or Secretary
General in Ashraf for talks about the determination of the final status
of Ashraf residents; 5.
Compliance of the Iraqi government with the April 24, 2009 resolution
of the European Parliament on the humanitarian situation of Ashraf
residents; 6.
Prosecution and punishment of parties who ordered or perpetrated the
brutal attacks and massacre in Camp Ashraf by an international tribunal
for crimes against humanity. At Thomas Rick's post linked to earlier, the New York Times' Bill Keller leaves
a link promoting an article at the outlet he's executive-editor of.
Are times really that tough? Will Keller next be forced to stand in
the center of Times Square crying, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"?
If so, it would probably be preferable to Bill's attempts to flaunt his
'education.' Translation, his Diogense reference may impress the same
people who thought Diane Chambers ( Cheers character) was
educated. Those of us who studied philosophy in grad school? We're
aware that he doesn't grasp the name he dropped (even if we're generous
and apply to it either Digoenes -- Laertius or Sinope). We're also
aware it was pretty stupid not to have indicated which one he was
speaking of but that it was pretty pretentious to drop to begin with. So what had Bill Keller flaunting his poor education? Michael R. Gordon's report on a memo written by Col Timothy R. Reese ("adviser to the Iraqi military's Baghdad command") which states: As
the old saying goes, "Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three
days. Since the signing of the 2009 Security Agreement, we are guests
in Iraq, and after six years in Iraq, we now smell bad to the Iraqi
nose. [. . . ] The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces
with I.S.F. [Iraqi Security Forces] isn't yielding benefits
commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition.
We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces
from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm
shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months. Because
the US military is now becoming sitting ducks. Barack "stupidly" made
the decision to continue the illegal war. And each day, thug Nouri
takes a piss on the US military. Pressed and aware his puppet masters
are watching, he'll say, "Oh, we shouldn't have prevented the US
miltiary from responding to an attack on them." But it happens again.
(It has happened more than once already.) They're sitting ducks and,
we'll repeat, when a Somolia event happens, Barack's going to finally
learn the meaning of outrage. It won't be pretty. The illegal war is
unjust and needs to end for that reason alone. But it's equally true
that Barack's actions (actually, his inaction, Bully Boy Bush was
better at playing bully and keeping Nouri in line, Barack fawns over
Nouri) are endangering the US miltiary. They need to be out of Iraq
immediately. Col Reese is not a crackpot, nor is he alone in his
assessment within the US military. Many in the brass are making
comments that they may start taking public. The US military, at
present, are sitting ducks. And the military brass blames the
ineffective actions of Barack for that. (Some also think that Barack
fell into the trap the previous administration set for him. Either
way, it's due to his own ignorance.) Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded eighteen people, a Qaem city
suicide car bombing which claimed 3 lives and left twenty injured. Reuters notes
the Qaim bombing death toll has risen to 4 and a bombing of the Reform
and Development Movement's offices in Baquba which resulted in the
deaths of 6 men and 1 woman who were attending a meeting at the time. Shootings? In
England, an inquiry is being conducted into the Iraq War and commenced
this morning. No report is expected to be released prior to their
national elections. Even so, as Rebecca's pointed out, Gordon Brown's
taking a hit on this (deserved). Carole Walker reports on the inquiry for BBC (link has video and text) and we'll note her opening for recap: The
official end of the British military mission in April of this year,
cleared the way for this inquiry. Its aim is to learn the lessons of
the conflict which claimed the lives of 179 British service men and
women. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he said
evidence would be heard in private to protect national security. But
after numerous protests, the man appointed to head the inquiry, Sir
John Chilcot, said he believed that as much as possible should be held
in public. Now some want the scope of his inquiry to be extended.Francis Elliott and Sam Coates (Times of London) explain,
"Tony Blair was today confirmed as one of the witnesses who will appear
before Britain's long awaited inquiry into the Iraq war as it was
launched with a promise to level criticism where necessary. The former
prime minister is likely to be joined by Gordon Brown among those
called to give evidence." Deborah Summers, Andrew Sparrow and Haroon Siddique (Guardian) quote
Chilcott, "The inquiry is not a court of law, and nobody is on trial.
But I want to make something absolutely clear -- the committee will not
shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made,
that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will
say so frankly." Yesterday's snapshot
offered some coverage of the US House Committee on Veterans Affairs
hearing entitled Meeting the Needs of Injured Veterans in the Military
Paralympic Program. Kat offered
more last night at her site, focusing on US House Rep Ann Kirkpatrick's
questioning of the second panel. The snapshot was long (too long) and
had to be edited which meant losing some details of that hearing and
all details of another hearing which we'll cover today, the US Senate's
Committe on Veterans Affairs hearing entitled the Review of Veterans
Disability Compensation: Forging a Path Forward. I had copies of
Senator Daniel Akaka's opening statement and Richard Burr's -- Akaka's
the Chair, Burr's the Ranking Member but I was only present for the
second panel where Michael P. Allen (Steston University College of
Law), Daniel Bertoni (GAO) and John WIlson ( Disabled American Veterans) testified (via a friend, Congressional staffer, we'll briefly note one section from the first panel). In
his prepared opening statement, Chair Akaka noted, "My goal is to
ensure that claims are adjudicated accurately and in a timely fashion.
Everyone involved realizes that there is no quick fix to solving all
the problems with disability claims, but the Committee, teaming with
the Administration and those who work with veterans, intends to do all
it can to improve this situation. To bring optimal change to a process
as complicated and important as this, we must be deliverative, focused,
and open to input from all who are involved in this process. It is in
that spirit that we have held previous hearings, and it is the backdrop
for this hearing as well." Ranking Member Burr's prepared remarks
included, "It takes more than five months on average for VA to make an
initial decision on a claim for veterans' benefits and, if the veteran
decides to appeal, the delays can go on for years. In fact, Professor
Allen noted in a recent article that the average time from when a
veteran files a claim with VA until getting a decision by the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims is between five and seven years! I think a
process that takes that long is indefensible. Our veterans and their
families deserve better." On the first panel,
Senator Jon Tester asked the VA's Patrick Dunn for some hard numbers.
Tester noted, the VA had 406,000 pending claims and wondered how that
compared to one year age and Dunn responded that it was about 25,000 to
30,000. Tester wanted to know at what point a claim gets a red flag
and the VA works on addressing it? At 365 days, Dunne said, the claim
is referred to a team known as the VA Tiger Team. This is not when
appeals make the claim reach 365 days. This is before any appeal is
made. Point being, there are claims being filed by veterans that the
VA is not getting and veterans are waiting over a year. How many,
Tester wanted to know? About 11,000 was the number Dunne provided. And
as outrageous as that number is, grasp that all the numbers are
climbing each month, the number of claims pending. Tester asked about
more employees being added but Dunne didn't want to go for that and
claimed more employees would mean more administrative duties -- Dunne,
in effect, said the VA doesn't need more employees. In one year, these
numbers will be higher. "We haven't hit break even yet, we're still
going the wrong direction," Tester stated. In one year's time, no one
better play surprised when the number have risen yet again. Senator
Patty Murray introduced the second panel and took over the chair
duties. Michael Allen, in his prepared statement, provided an overview
of the process, "A veteran wishing to receive a benefit to which she
believes she is entitled begins the process by submitting an
application with one of the VA's regional offices (RO). If the veteran
is satisfied with the benefits awarded, the process is at an end.
However, there are a number of reasons why the veteran may be
dissatisfied with the RO's decision. When the veteran is dissatisfied
with the RO's decision, she has the option to pursue an appeal within
the Department by filing a 'Notice of Disagreement' (NOD) with the RO.
The NOD triggers the RO's obliagation to prepare a 'Statement of the
Case' (SOC) setting for the bases of the decision being challenged. If
the veteran wishes to pursue her appeal after receiving the SOC, she
must file VA-Form 9 with the RO indicating her desire that the appeal
be considered by the Board of Veterans' Appeals ('Board')." That
provides a strong overview of the process (which continues into the
courts). Having submitted his prepared remarks, Allen wisely used his
opening remarks to speak to the committee, not read from his written
remarks. His verbal remarks can be boiled down to his advocacy for "a
working group to study the system. What changes can be made in the
process from beginning to end including judicial review?" Tester
reviewed the number on the first panel for claims filed, not appeals
(Dunne told Tester he didn't have numbers on the appeals but would get
back to him with them). The GAO's Daniel Bertoni stated on the second
panel that the VA is taking 96 days more to resolve appeals than it
did in 2003 and he stated this had to do with workload. (Remember,
Dunne rejected the idea that the VA needs more employees to handle
caseloads.) Bertoni presented those figures while reading aloud from
his prepared remarks. He ran out of time and never got to this
section, "We have reported that an infusion of a large number of staff
has the potential to improve VA's capacity. However, quickly absorbing
these staff will likely pose human capital challenges for VA, such as
how to train and deploy them. The additional staff has helped VA
process more claims and appeals overall, but as VA has acknowledged, it
has also reduced individual staff productivity. . . . According to VA,
this decline in productivity is attributable primarily to new staff who
have not yet become fully proficient at processing claims and to the
loss of experienced staff due to retirements. VA expects its
productivity to decline further before it improves, in part because of
the challenges of training and integrating new staff."
We'll note this exchange where one witness (and only one) advocated for cuttng the federal court out of the review process.
Senator
Patty Murray: Mr. Bertoni, let me begin with you. You testified that
the VA has not collected date to evaluate the impact of using the
resource centers to redistribute work load. We've heard that mentioned
by several of our colleagues this morning concerning that. Can you
tell us what measurement you would recommend the VA use to evaluate the
effectiveness of these center? Daniel
Bertoni: I think critical to any process -- any of these processes--
timeliness, accuracy and consistency. I-I think it behoves any manager
as opposed to going out talking to the troops trying to discuss issues
on sight -- that's all important and good but I-I think there's no
substitute to the data -- to help management make good date driven
decisions. So if you have a resource center and there is indications
-- and you do the analysis -- and indications of problems in certain
areas, you can take, make remedial interventions. To date, I don't
believe that is occuring. I think even most very recently, I don't
believe there were any quality assurance reviews being conducted. That
would be first and foremost very critical. What type of quality
assurance reviews are being done? What is the MI data showing? And
what do you do with that data going forward to make the interventions
that need to be done? Senator
Patty Murray: Okay, thank you very much for that. Mr. Allen, you
talked about the current structure for judicial review of veterans
benefits and it has two appellate levels of the veterans court and
federal circuit that you indicate increased delays and can be
duplicative. You raised the option of removing the federal circuit
from the structure of the veterans benefits determination process one
way of perahps delaying or reducing some of the delays in this system.
Didn't sound like you were 100% committed to that. Can you tell us why
you sort of lean towards the federal circuit? Michael
Allen: Sure, Senator, let me start out by saying that it seemed to me
that when Congress created the Veterans Corps, one of the things it was
trying to do was to create an independent body to review these issues
outside of the VA and that that body would be the expert in that area
of the law. But since this was a new process, it provided for this
second layer of review at the federal circuit. Now I should say that
the level of review at the federal circuit is not plenary, is not
total. The federal it doesn't have jurisdiction to review any matter
of fact or quite oddly any application of law to fact. It, in theory,
should only review pure questions of law. Now it made perfect sense to
structure the system, at least in my view, at the time like that.
Today I think that on balance it's not worth having the federal
circuit involved anymore. I don't say that lightly because that is a
major change And what it goes to is that what are the competing values
that one wants? Because if the value that was absolutely top on the
list was making sure that the maximum number of judges' eyes looked at
a case, figuring that would reduce over all inaccuracy in decision,
well then it might make sense to have this two level court. To use a
silly analogy if you're absolute 100% number one value in a day in
making sure that your pants don't fall down wearing belt and suspenders
makes perfect sense. It is not irrational because that is your value.
But I think that for the federal circuit employment here it is
not having the maximum number of eyes looking at a case because over
time having that second layer review has increased delay and I am not
sure -- I'm sure myself, that it has not increased the quality
of veterans law sufficiently to justify its continued place in the
system. Senator
Patty Murray: Okay Colonel Wilson have you given any thought to a
proposal to remove the federal circuit from the veterans benefits
determination process and what that would mean? John Wilson: No ma'am, I have not but would be glad to respond later. Senator Patty Murray: If you could respond to the committee, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Bertoni, do you have any input on that? Daniel
Bertoni: I would say we have not looked into that or given any
considerations there but I would say the would be a range of
stakeholders that you would have to bring in to get -- Senator Patty Murray: That's why you suggested the commission, right? Daniel Bertoni: Yes. Michael Allen: Yes, that's right senator. Senator Patty Murray: Alirght. Senator Burr? Senator
Richard Burr: Mr. Allen, you're right. It is a major shift. But I
think we're all challegned to look at it in a different context and I
was serious months ago when I suggested to the service organizations,
let's start with the blank sheet of paper and come in and tell you how
you would design it in the 21st century. To the credit of DAV they
took on the task and I'm appreciative of that. You're right when you
mention the word commission. What little bit of hair I have on the
back of my neck did stand up. So let me ask, what additional
information do you believe a commission would find that we don't have
readily available to us today? Michael
Allen: I thought of two ways to respond to that. The first and most
direct is I don't know what additional information the commission would
have that you don't and I don't mean to refer back to [former]
Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld but there are things that we
know we don't know out there. But more importantly, Senator, I think -- Senator
Richard Burr: And that was sort of the basis of why you had the
creation of the VA appellate process and the federal court. We didn't
know what we were going to run into. Michael
Allen: Absolutely and second, though Senator, I think that the key,
because I think that this has been the key over time as various
veterans benefits issues have been discussed, is it reaches a tipping
point when enough of the relevant constitutincies come together on an
idea. And I don't know whether something can truly be successful if
it's in fact deemed to be imposed. Senator
Richard Burr: How long do you think a commission would need to do --
need to take to accomplish the work that you perceive a commission
should -- should attempt to accomplish? Michael
Allen: Part of it would be how broadly the commission should be
structured. In-in-in my perfect world, I would say that it should
actually be a commission that looks at the claims processing from
cradle to grave because the situation we have now, some have described
it as a spider web, and that's not quite right, I think, because it is
an older spider web -- the administrative process -- on which a new
spider web has been grafted and anything you do to one part is going to
effect another. And I think now that we have a system that we have
seen if it starts at the beginning and looks at the end because
things that are done at claims processing on the administrative level
are going to make a difference in the judicial review arena as well and
vice versa so if the process were from beginning to end, I think, this
could probably be done -- with commitment -- in-in six months. Lastly,
for those wondering about the KRG elections. Some outlets are
reporting things. These are a prelimnary count, not an official one
and the KRG has made no announcement regarding the elections yet -- not
even the most basic assumption that the current president, Masoud
Barzani, was re-elected as president. We'll wait for the official
results or until the KRG issues their statement, which ever comes
first. The KRG does note the following from the US Embassy in Iraq on the elections: The
US Embassy in Baghdad congratulates the people of the Kurdistan Region
of Iraq for coming out to vote in large numbers for the regional
presidential and parliamentary elections, thus demonstrating their
commitment to the democratic process. Representatives from the US
Mission in Iraq closely followed the elections at polling stations
throughout the Kurdistan Region.
The Embassy commends
the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) and its staff for
efficiently organizing and conducting the elections. We call upon all
citizens to remain patient as election results are tabulated and
certified, and as IHEC reviews complaints that have been filed. I
am glad to hear that initial reports from the elections in the
Kurdistan Region indicate a large turnout, especially among women
voters, and which the UN says took place in an orderly environment,
notably free of violence.
We congratulate the Iraqi Kurds on
this and look forward to working with the President, Government and all
parties in Parliament to cement links between Iraqi Kurdistan and the
UK.
As our recent fact finding delegation reported
there are great opportunities for increased trade investment and a host
of cultural sporting social and other exchanges. At present, that's all that's known about Saturday's elections.
Posted at 03:42 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
'Some' equals 5,000 troops and it's still just a maybe
Maybe.
Might. The Iraqi air force is not scheduled to take over control of
their air space by the end of 2011 and Gen Ray Odierno says the US may
have to stay in Iraq longer. A "may" statement largely buried by the
news despite the fact that it jibes with everything Iraqi military
officials and US military officials as well as Iraqi government
spokespeople have said for at least the last three years. US Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates declares yesterday that maybe some US troops
might leave Iraq early and no one can stop yammering about it. If only
the maybe facts could live up to the maybe (and breathless) headlines.
As Katie Couric noted on yesterday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric,
there are 130,000 US forces in Iraq, "10,000 are scheduled to be
withdrawn by the end of this year. According to Gates, 5,000 more could
be home for the holidays." No links to any of the silly and breathless
report on 'withdrawl!' 'early!' 'maybe!' Turning to reality. In
England, an inquiry is being conducted into the Iraq War and commenced
this morning. No report is expected to be released prior to their
national elections. Even so, as Rebecca's pointed out, Gordon Brown's
taking a hit on this (deserved). Carole Walker reports on the inquiry for BBC (link has video and text) and we'll note her opening for recap: The
official end of the British military mission in April of this year,
cleared the way for this inquiry. Its aim is to learn the lessons of
the conflict which claimed the lives of 179 British service men and
women. When Gordon Brown announced the inquiry last month, he said
evidence would be heard in private to protect national security. But
after numerous protests, the man appointed to head the inquiry, Sir
John Chilcot, said he believed that as much as possible should be held
in public. Now some want the scope of his inquiry to be extended.Francis Elliott and Sam Coates (Times of London) explain,
"Tony Blair was today confirmed as one of the witnesses who will appear
before Britain's long awaited inquiry into the Iraq war as it was
launched with a promise to level criticism where necessary. The former
prime minister is likely to be joined by Gordon Brown among those
called to give evidence." Deborah Summers, Andrew Sparrow and Haroon Siddique (Guardian) quote
Chilcott, "The inquiry is not a court of law, and nobody is on trial.
But I want to make something absolutely clear -- the committee will not
shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made,
that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will
say so frankly." From the beginning, many expected it to be a
white wash and, while that may turn out to be the case, it's also true
that Gordon Brown planned on the inquiry to be hidden behind closed
doors and to have a much more limited scope. Public outrage and
pressure forced Gordon to step back from his original plans. Violence contines in Iraq today, Reuters reports
a a bombing of the Reform and Development Movement's offices in Baquba
which resulted in the deaths of 6 men and 1 woman who were attending a
meeting at the time and they note
a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured seven people and, dropping
back to yesterday, 2 police officers shot dead in Mosul. (Other
Wednesday events listed were noted in yesterday's snapshot.) Dan Murphy ( see previous entry)
can take comfort in the fact that he's not the biggest journalistic
fool this week. Trudy Rubin almost always goes for that Fool's Gold.
And, yet again, she's achieved it. In her latest cracked view at reality, she scribbles,
"So al-Maliki only got media notice when he said Iraq might reconsider
the deadline 'if Iraqi forces require further training and support.' But the focus on whether some U.S. trainers and enablers may stay on misses a key aspect of the visit." Trudy goes on to declare that the nonsense Saturday event ( the
one I noted last week and noted I wouldn't be attending but it was
being hyped as his biggest US event after his meeting with Obama --
apparently Trudes does leg work for the US government -- let's hope
they pay her well). But we don't need to go on. We only need to note
that for Trudy, Americans are silly to care about whether or not the US
might remain in Iraq beyond the (supposed) departure date of 2011.
Trudy like to self-style as best-friend-to-the-US-military. Guess she
forgot that pose, huh? Because, point of fact, it does matter. It damn
well matters if a war ends in eight years or beyond. And shame on Trudy
for implying otherwise. It's that sort of stupid mistake that could get
her lousy column pulled from many papers because her bad writing's only
carried due to her I'm-with-the-grunts pose. As she reveals this
go-round, uh, no, she isn't. We jumped into a river on the moonBut the water was too coldWe tried to buy the morning starBut it was already soldI wanted to make it big with youBut my plans must have been too boldAnd it's back down to earth again-- "Back Down To Earth," written by Carly Simon, from her Boys In The Trees album Back here on earth, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) examines on the ground realities in Iraq: The
reality is probably scarier. Iraq is in the throes of what some
officials are calling an environmental catastrophe, and the increased
frequency of dust storms is only the most visible manifestation.Decades
of war and mismanagement, compounded by two years of drought, are
wreaking havoc on Iraq's ecosystem, drying up riverbeds and marshes,
turning arable land into desert, killing trees and plants, and
generally transforming what was once the region's most fertile area
into a wasteland.Falling
agricultural production means that Iraq, once a food exporter, will
this year have to import nearly 80% of its food, spending money that is
urgently needed for reconstruction projects.We started with Robert Gates, we'll end with him. The KRG released the following statement: US Defense Secretary holds talks with Kurdistan Region leadership | | | » | U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, right, shakes hands with Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani |
| Erbil,
Kurdistan -- Iraq (KRG.org) -- United States Secretary of Defense Dr
Robert Gates today in Erbil met President Masoud Barzani, congratulated
him on the recent election and assured him of the US commitment to Iraq. The
US Defense Secretary was accompanied by Multi-National Force in Iraq
Commanding General Ray Odierno, and US Embassy in Baghdad Charge d’
Affaires Ambassador Robert Ford. Secretary Gates congratulated
President Masoud Barzani on the recent election, and assured officials
that the responsible drawdown of troops would not diminish US
commitment to Iraq. He explained that the US values friendship with the
Region and with a united, federal and democratic Iraq, and stands ready
to help the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the federal
government as they address outstanding issues. Mr Gates
reiterated the message he delivered to federal government officials in
Baghdad yesterday – the need to base decisions on the Constitution and
strive for peaceful solutions that account for the needs of all
concerned. He affirmed that the US would remain engaged with all
parties on unresolved issues. Secretary Gates underlined the history of
friendly relations between the Kurdistan Region and the United States
and also welcomed the improved relations between the KRG and Turkey.  President
Barzani outlined his vision for the Region and Iraq. “We have
participated in the construction of a new and better Iraq, with the
understanding that all components of society would be equal under the
rule of law.” He said, “The Constitution, as the supreme law of
the land, must serve as the starting point for dialogue on outstanding
political issues. So long as this is the case, we are ready and willing
to engage in serious discussions at any time. Our only weapon will be
the Constitution of Iraq. Now that our election has passed, and we
expect the official results today, we will resume political discussions
on these matters with Baghdad.” Vice President Kosrat Rasul
added, “We appreciate the role that the United States has played in
Iraq. It is important that the US remains engaged as we move forward in
addressing key issues.” Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said,
“Our insistence on certain demands for our people should not be
misconstrued as separatist demands. We simply want to ensure that our
tragic history is not repeated, and that we can arrive at a formula to
serve the interest of all Iraqi people.” He continued,
“Understanding the culture and background of all components of Iraqi
society is important. We must be considered equal partners in Iraq. And
in this regard I think the passage of revenue sharing legislation will
bring us closer – more than any other political slogan – and promote
dialogue on other outstanding issues. As the US undertakes a
responsible drawdown of forces, we believe there is a moral obligation
for the US to remain politically involved as we strive towards
stability and security.” The meeting, which took place in the
capital of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, was attended by a number of
senior KRG and US officials. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe cbs evening news with katie courickatie couriccarly simonliz slythe los angeles timesbbc newscarole walkerfrancis elliottsam coatesthe times of londondeborah summersandrew sparrowharoon siddiquetrudy rubin
Posted at 07:09 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Lara Logan: "Now the US appears to have washed their hands of the people of Ashraf"
"The raid was the latest assertion of total military independence by Iraqi forces from US control. Video of the event, with Iraqi soldiers delivering severe beatings to unarmed residents, adds evidence of brutal tactics within the new Iraqi Army," giggles Dan Murphy at the Christian Science Monitor disgracing himself in the process as well as the memory of Mary Baker Eddy. What a proud moment for the paper that . . . no longer is a paper. E . . . entertaining elephants . . . F. . . forever fooling . . . G . . . getting gigles . . . H . . . having headaches . . .-- "Alligators All Around," lyrics by Maurice Sendak and music by Carole King, Really Rosie. And when Dan Murphy's out of short pants (and pull ups), we'll work on the next series of letters. Grasp for a moment that Iran's Tehran Times opens with, "On Tuesday, Iraqi soldiers and riot police stormed Camp Ashraf, where Mojahedin Khalq Organization members had been based, triggering violent clashes that left at least 260 people injured." It's all too much for Murphy. Grasp that AFP reports that while Iraq says everything is under 'control' and a police station is set up, Iraq's refusing to allow reporters to enter the camp. Not noted in the report, they're also rebuffing requests from human rights organizations and charities. Grasp that Iraq's Alsumaria treats the issue with more balance and more seriousness than the Christian Science Monitor. "Assertion of total military independence"? No, Nouri did at Camp Ashraf what he did throughout Baghdad to ethnically cleanse neighborhoods. The National Council of Resistance of Iran released the following statement today: NCRI - The Iranian Resistance's Leader, Mr. Massoud Rajavi, released a statement broadcast yesterday by the Simaye Azadi (Iran National Television), with regards to the brutal assault of Iraqi forces against Camp Ashraf residents in Iraq. Mr. Rajavi said:Through his agents in Iraq, the regime's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, took revenge for the Iranian people's uprising from Ashraf, which is the strategic nucleus of the struggle for freedom. He wishfully thinks that by targeting Ashraf the uprising would cease; But, the water that has already gone over the dam can't be forced back into the regime's channel and save the disintegrating religious regime.Mr. Rajavi urged all Iranians across the world to rush to support the hunger strike and demands of Ashraf residents, which are:1. The leaving of Iraqi forces from Ashraf;2. Protection of Ashraf to be assumed by US forces, who have disarmed and signed agreements with every single one of Ashraf residents about protecting them until the determination of their final status;3. Presence of lawyers and international human rights organizations in Ashraf, which has been banned for the past 7 months;4. Presence of a representative of the UN Security Council or Secretary General in Ashraf for talks about the determination of the final status of Ashraf residents;5. Compliance of the Iraqi government with the April 24, 2009 resolution of the European Parliament on the humanitarian situation of Ashraf residents;6. Prosecution and punishment of parties who ordered or perpetrated the brutal attacks and massacre in Camp Ashraf by an international tribunal for crimes against humanity.They also note that sit-ins took place yesterday "in the cities of Washington (US), Berlin (Germany), London (Britain), Dublin (Ireland), Brussels (Belgium), Copenhagen and Aarhus (Denmark), Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmo (Sweden), Geneva (Switzerland), Paris (France), Helsinki (Finland), Ottawa and Vancouver (Canada), Oslo (Norway), Amsterdam and The Hague (The Netherlands), and Sydney (Australia)" to protest the assault on Camp Ashraf. "What happens when the US abandons some good friends?" asked anchor Katie Couric at the top of yesterday's evening news where Lara Logan reported on the assault last night on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric (link has text and video).
Posted at 06:50 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday,
July 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, two of three remaining
British hostages in Iraq are thought to be dead, the assault on Camp
Ashraf continues, there is no binding get-out-of-Iraq for the US, and
more. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
visited Iraq yesterday and, among those he met with were the top US
commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno. Today Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) reports,
"The Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defense after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday. . . . Asked if the
Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air patrols at
the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq calls for all
American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno replied,
'Right now, no'." If you don't realize what a shock Bumiller's article
is and how much it needs to be buried for some, note how heavily an AP
story about Gates declaring maybe some US troops may leave earlier.
Some. May. Some. News gets in the cycle, better dump a bunch of
fluff. We've covered this. This community is fully aware that the
Iraqi air force will not be able to take control at the end of 2011
barring a miracle. Example, from the November 4, 2008 snapshot: There's
no rush to leave Iraq or even a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi
General Nasier Abadi made that pretty clear during Sunday's press
conference in the Green Zone. Questioned by the Washington Post's
Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the Iraqis would be able to handle "their
own internal security . . . how many years are you away from reaching
that goal," Abadi tried to distract by listing duties before declaring,
"We have no duties or missions to protect the air on the borders of the
country. But in case we have this responsibility, there is a brief that
-- to the minister of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a
reportw ent also to the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and
the army's specifics to do those duties?" Asked how many years again,
he responded, "Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy,
but it's still easier than building naval and air force. The naval
force, as I said before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the
fourth will arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . .
Air Force, the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And
that depends on the support and the help that the coalition forces can
secure to Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace
and territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the
neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that
we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval
force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty."
Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the
period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011
through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle
their own airspaceby the end of 2011?
But
Bumiller deserves credit -- a lot of credit -- for covering Odierno's
statments which were news and which are in keeping with statements from
the last three years -- statements made by US and Iraqi military
figures as well as Iraqi government officials. And, again, note the
fluff immediately dumped into the news cycle to undercut Bumiller's
report. Robert Gates didn't just meet with Odierno. Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) reports,
"Before leaving northern Iraq on Wednesday, Gates pressed Kurdish
leaders to resolve their disputes with the Iraqi government in the next
few months, while the United States still had tens of thousands of
soldiers in the country and some influence over Baghdad." In Kurdistan,
Jaffe reports, Gates delivered a lecture to KRG President Massoud
Barzani which began, "We have all sacrificed too much in blood and
treasure to see our gains lost over political differences." That's the
thing about lectures given by those who flit in and out of the area,
they rarely grasp the basics. Political differences? Gates is trying
to defuse pressure from the Kurdish leaders on the issue of Kirkuk.
That's not a political difference. That's a territorial dispute.
Saddam Hussein attempted to Arab-ize Kirkuk and drove many Kurds out
and pushed many Arabs in. Kurds feel they have a historical claim on
Kirkuk. The central government in Baghdad feels that they have a claim
on the region. The fact that it's oil rich adds the layer of economics
to it. This isn't merely a political difference and to attempt to
reduce it to that is to come off as uninformed as Chris Hill did in his
one Senate hearing for the post of US Ambassador to Iraq. And, by the
way, Hill was supposed to be working on that. He was in Iraq for weeks
before he even had a face to face with KRG leaders. Which no one was
bothered by. Certainly Gates wasn't offering lectures as the KRG was
supposed to continue to wait and wait and wait. Iraq's
constitution mandated a census and a referendum on Kirkuk. That was
supposed to take place no later than the end of 2007. In 2007, the
White House devised a list of benchmarks to prove 'progress' in Iraq.
Kirkuk was on that list of benchmarks. Nouri al-Maliki signed off on
those benchmarks, agreeing to strive towards reaching them. There has
been no census (one is currently scheduled for October) and no
referendum. al-Maliki has given numerous interviews in the last six
months stating that Kirkuk will not go to Kurdish region. [For one
interview in English, see Deborah Haynes and Richard Beeston's " Time to go home, Nouri al-Maliki tells Britain" ( Times of London) and pay attention to the transcript of the interview which got
more attention in the Arab world than the interview itself --
statements by Nouri like, "Kirkuk is a city that belongs to the federal
government and is outside the boundaries of the Kurdistan region."}
From the Kurds point of view, they have waited patiently on this
issue. They have backed off when the US asked them to. They have
understood that ethnic cleansing was going on (Nouri's thugs cleaning
neighborhoods in Baghdad) and other serious problems. Their point of
view is that they waited, they went on with business in their area and
now the US is not backing them. The US isn't backing them, the United
Nations isn't backing them. Last summer the UN got involved as
tensions boiled yet again. They were supposed to devise a plan and the
Kurds were supposed to wait. They have waited over six years and
they're not idiots. They can see the United States pulling away from
them and the UN revealed itself to not be an honest broker a week ago
when a UN official and blabber mouth began trashing the Kurds to the press.
Whether the Kurds should have Kirkuk or not is something for the people
of Kirkuk to decide. But the Kurds are not in the 'wrong' for asking
that what was agreed to be followed: a census and a referendum. That
was supposed to have taken place no later than 2007 -- that's promised
in the 2005 Constitution. Again, it was part of the benchmarks. These
things have already been agreed to by all sides and foreign entitites
such as the US and United Nations. They just aren't being
implemented. They need to be. The Kurds don't need lectures from
Gates or to be told to wait another year or another or another. One
side acted on good faith. In any situation, when one side acts on good
faith and sees others get rewarded without doing the same, tensions
build. The tensions on the issue of Kirkuk now are not just between
the central government in Baghdad and the KRG. Sam Dagher (New York Times) reports
that Barzani "rejeacted proposals by the United Nations to resolve
Iraq's explosive internal border disputes, and reiterated his
determination to proceed with a contentious local constitution." Let's
take the latter part first. "Contentious local constitution"? Is it
contentious in Kurdistan? If it is, it won't be passed (the people of
the region have to vote on it). Is it contentious to people outside
Kurdistan? Too damn bad. The people upset are Nouri and his puppet
government. Too damn bad. At this point, Dagher is just a DAMN LIAR.
There's no other term for him right now. His distortions have already
been called out by someone who knows what they're talking about.
Earlier this month, Sam Dagher had another bad article ( click here for critique) which demonstrated either no knowledge on the subject he was covering or a desire to misrepsent it. A letter ran in the July 14th edition of the New York Times setting the record straight: To the Editor: Re "Defiant Kurds Claim Oil, Gas and Territory" (front page, July 10): The
Iraqi Constitution, specifically Article 140, requires a vote by
referendum to resolve Iraq's disputed territories. To cast this as a
"threat" is unfair. The Iraqi Kurds are simply trying to carry out the
constitutionally mandated referendum.Furthermore,
the Iraqi Kurds are not defying Baghdad in formulating a regional
constitution; they are embracing their right to create such a document,
which is allowed in the Iraqi Constitution. The
Kurds, who represent the most stable and progressive element of Iraq,
have made it clear that they desire to be a part of a united Iraqi
nation. To allow for a
responsible and phased withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, which
is the stated policy of the Obama administration, several issues must
first be resolved, the most important of which is that of the disputed
territories. Only then will a stable and united Iraq be able to
thrive. Jay Garner Erbil, Iraq, July 10, 2009 The
writer, a retired lieutenant general in the Army, was director of the
Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq in
2003. Jay Garner knows the promises
made and what's in the Iraq Constitution. The Constitution gives the
KRG the right to write their own Constitution. Not with Baghdad's
approval -- no approval from anyone outside the region is required.
Dagher's been corrected but continues to play Drama Queen. And that's
very sad because he actually had a gift for journalism. Moving from
distorting the Constitution to lying about/for the UN. The UN proposal
for how to address the dispute of borders? Trash
Iraq's Constitution, trash the benchmarks, trash every promise --
including promises from the United Nations -- repeated promises -- that
Kirkuk would hold a referendum. The UN is proposing that neither
Baghdad nor the KRG get Kirkuk, instead make it independent. Why would
the KRG go for that? If you tell me that you'll pay me twenty bucks
tomorrow and then tomorrow comes and you tell me you're not going to
pay me twenty dollars, you're going to instead give it to someone else
so that it's 'independent,' am I supposed to go along with that? The
Kurds are asking for Article 140 to be followed. That's not a new
demand nor is it really a demand. They're asking that the law be
followed. And Dagher's working overtime to paint them as hysterics and
greedy. It would appear the paper spends far too much time attempting
to manipulate what happens on the ground and far too little time
grasping they are outsiders on the ground to report what happens. Jalal
Talabani is the president of Iraq (a ceremonial position with no real
power) and he's a Kurd. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the
political party he belongs to (and heads as the highest official in the
party), is thought to have done less than well in Saturday's elections
(ballots are still be counted -- Saturday, the KRG held provincial and
presidential elections in their three provinces -- preliminary results, not final ones, were released today). From the March 16th snapshot: " Sabah got the interview
and they quote Talabani stating, 'Iraq will not be separated and the
civil war is over' and 'The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream
written in poetry. I do not deny that there are poems devoted to the
notion of a united Kurdistan. But we can not continue to dream.' If
accurate, Talabani's remarks will spark anger among some Kurds." In
the lead up to the election, the big rallying cry was Kirkuk belongs to
the KRG. No surprise that Talabani's party would do poorly with him
making statements like that -- and he's done that for some time. He's
also announced he's not running for re-election as president, wait, he
is, no, he's not, wait . . . As the figure head of his political
party, he's come off as a defeated and confused voice repeatedly. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reports
on him and observes, "Talabani himself was buffeted by criticism from
each direction. Some said he spent too much time in Baghdad, losing
touch with his Kurdish constituency. He acknowledged the criticism.
Others said that as Iraq's president, he belonged in Baghdad." And
demonstrating why Talabani's party may be in trouble, Shadid goes on to
reveal that as the KRG demands that promises be kept, Jala "was much
more conciliatory, even suggesting the possibility of an alliance with
Maliki in January elections that will choose a new national
parliament." And Talabani wants to wonder why his party might be in
trouble? AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC STATEMENT AI Index: MDE 14/021/2009 28 July 2009 Iraq: Camp Ashraf residents attacked Amnesty
International is seriously concerned at today's attacks by Iraqi forces
on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured
and led to the arrest of at least eight others. Hundreds
of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north
of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons
and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them
from entering the camp. Video
footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces
beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the
head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured. Two
of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed
to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan
Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi
Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current
whereabouts are unknown.In
the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it
wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate,
north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh
told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government "will
take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp
Ashraf". The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police
outpost inside the camp. Amnesty
International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent
excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should
reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that
they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from
forcible return to Iran. Background Around
3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the
People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition
organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years.
Until recently the PMOI was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the
European Union and other governments, but in most cases this
designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer
advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran.The
US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were
designated as "protected persons" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the
SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents. Public Document **************************************** For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK www.amnesty.org Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) was reporting on the assault yesterday evening and this morning, he and Greg Jaffe report
the assault continues and they note: "The operation, which caught U.S.
officials off guard, coincided with a visit to Iraq by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. Analysts said it appeared designed to send a
message of Iraqi independence. " This morning, BBC also reports
the assault is still ongoing: "Eyewitnesses say Iraqi police have
surrounded the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) camp and clashes are
continuing inside. Iran wants the camp closed. The exiles fear they
will be forcibly repatriated." (They also quote a portion of the
Amnesty International's statement.) Odierno told AP
that "non-lethal force" was used and "We have had promises from the
government of Iraq that they would deal with the [group] in a humane
fashion." AP goes on to point out, "But a video provided by an exile
group showed Iraqi forces using batons and water cannons against the
residents gathered at the camp's gates. The group also released photos
showing injured people and bloodied bodies, although the authencity of
the images couldn't be independent verified." Alsumaria quotes
an unnamed Iraqi security source stating "200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces [were] wounded" and that Nouri ordered the
assault. Charles Levinson and Yochi J. Dreazen (Wall St. Journal) note,
"Residents of Camp ashraf said hundreds of Iraqi security forces tore
down the camp's walls on Tuesday afternoon with bulldozers." Laith Hammoudi and Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) offer
more on that, "An Iraqi security official in Diyala told McClatchy that
on government orders, security forces from the Ministry of Interior and
riot police entered the camp Tuesday afternoon using bulldozers to tear
down the walls." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports
that Nouri's flunkies are insisting this was not done to please Iran
and Sly notes the actions have other potential impacts as well, "The
pledge to assert the right of Iraqi forces to extend their authority
over all of Iraq has potentially profound implications for another
simmering dispute, over territories claimed by the semiautonomous
region of Kurdistan and currently controlled by Kurdish peshmerga forces." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reveals Iraq's Interior Ministry is admitting to 7 deaths -- MEK is stating they have lost 11 members. Aljazeera airs video of the assault here.
Today at the US State Dept, CBS' Charlie Wolfson asked Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton about the assault. Her response follows with my
snark in brackets. Well first with
respect to the MEK at Camp Ashraf, we are urging restraint on both
sides. [Yes, MEK, please restrain yourself from yelling too loudly as
your homes are bulldozed and you are assaulted.] The government of Iraq
has stated that the residents of Camp Ashraf will be treated in
accordance with Iraq's constitution, laws and international
obligations. [Really? Well that would be a first for Nouri and his
thugs.] The Iraqi govenrment has assumed security responsibility for
Camp Ashraf and its residents which obviously largely consists of MEK
members -- the full transfer from the coalition forces in Iraq to the
Iraqi army forces occured on February 20, 2009. This is part of the
turnover of responsibilities to a sovereign nation. [We washed our
hands clean, in their blood, didn't we?] And although the US government
remains engaged and concerned about this issue, it is a matter now for
the government of Iraq to resolve in accordance with its laws. [No,
she doesn't believe what she's saying. In fairness to Hillary, this
issue was supposed to have been resolved before she was even confirmed
and, in fact, she was kept out of the loop on it. She was not the
person on this issue, assigned by Barack, back in November.] And we are
very clear that we expect that the Government of Iraq, now that it has
assumed this security responsibility, will fulfill its obligations to
show restraint, will not forcibly transfer anyone to a country where
such a transfer might result in the mistreatment or the death of that
person based on their political affiliation and activities. But it is
now the responsibility of the Government of Iraq. [In other words,
MEK, don't fill out refugee applications for the US.] Timothy Williams (New York Times) explains,
"There is a permanent American military presence in the area in the
form of a military police platoon, acting as observers and reporting
directly to Gen. Ray Odierno in Baghdad, an American military officials
said." Over 130,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq for
why? This is exactly what the current vice president warned about in
April, in an April Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when he
noted the thug Nouri al-Maliki would attack the people and the US
military -- if still on the ground -- would be put in a position of
supporting the thug. That's exactly what's happening and it's one more
reason all US troops need to be out of Iraq immediately. Turning to some of the other reported violence . . . Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad cafe bombing which claimed 3 lives and left thirty-one people
injured, a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 police
officer and left a police officer and a child injured, and a Mosul
bombing which injured two children. In Iraq, five British hostages appears to be down to one. For background, we fall back to the June 9th snapshot: This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just
released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times,
"This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the
Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the
governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for
prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if
they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so
while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side
that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages
while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a
prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make
the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the
tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor
declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the
standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that
the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any
organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted
the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really
insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Humphrey
Hawksley: Alan [McMenemy] from Dunbarton, Alec [Maclachlan] from South
Wales believed to be two more victims in this long running Iraq hostage
tragedy. Security guards whose colleagues Jason Swindlehurst from
Lancaster and Jason Creswell from Glasgow were shot dead, their bodies
recovered last month. There's hope that Peter Moore, the IT specialist
they were protecting, is still alive. This is the fortified Finance
Ministry in central Baghdad from where the five men were kidnapped more
than two years ago in May 2007 in a highly organized operation. Forty
men wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi police drove up surrounded the
building and took the hostages off to a secret location. For moths
there was no news then, in November, there came a video from Jason
Swindlehurst and, three months later, another from Peter Moore. He
called for the release of nine Shia Iraqis being held by the Americans,
release them so we can go, he said. And a year ago Alan asked the
British government to try to get them home as soon as possible. The
Foreign Office has adopted a low profile, softly-softly approach
although the families did speak out from time to time hoping their
voices might lead to the freedom of their loved ones. But nothing
until last month. Thousands of suspected insurgents are being held in
Iraq but are slowly being released. On June 7th, one of the nine
referred to in Peter Moore's appeal was freed. Twelve days later, the
two bodies were recovered. They'd been shot some time earlier. It's
not know if there was a connection. The hope now is that somewhere in
the dangerous world of Iraqi militias, Peter Moore is alive with a
chance of being released. Humphrey Hawksley, BBC News. Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes
the news "raises uncomfortable questions about Britain's handling of
the crisis. For more than two years, the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office stuck to the mantra that it was doing everything possible to
secure the 'safe release' of the computer consultant and his four
security guards. Officials warned the media that extensive coverage of
the men's plight could put them in greater danger. It now turns out
that two of the guards had been dead for a long time and the other two
are also thought to have perished." In another report, BBC News notes,
"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the Foreign Office told
the families of Mr McMenemy and Mr Maclachlan last week that the men
had most likely died while in captivity. And he revealed the kidnappers
told the British government a month ago they had two more bodies."
Earlier this month, Kim Howells, former Foreign Office Minister in the UK, told BBC:
"I'm not convinced we were ever negotiating with the right people. I
mean, that's doubtful. And the only real proof of life that I saw were
the videos. And there were stories circulating that a suicide had taken
place, there were deadlines which came and went." To listen to the
interview in the immediate future, click here and go to the July 16th broadcast of The Report. Simon Cox explores the topic of hostage taking in the broadcast and starts with the Telegraph
of London's James Brandon who was one of the first known British
citizens to be kidnapped. "I opened the door," Brandon tells Cox about
the August 13, 2004 kidnapping, "there was just over a half a dozen
guys, mostly wearing police uniforms, mostly with balaclavas and guns.
They pushed their way in. They started hitting me around the head, took
my passport and I was blindfolded, dragged out down the stairs, into a
car and driven off." Brandon escapes and makes it to a police
checkpoint where he thinks he will get help. James
Brandon: They were very welcoming and kind to me, said that, "It's
okay, you're safe now. Sit down and have a drink of water. It's all
okay." And then, um, the guys who I thought were my friends told me to
hide under a sheet. I was under the sheet for about ten seconds. I
heard feet running down the corridor, the blanket was kind of ripped
off of me where I was hiding and all these guys were standing around
with guns and they basically started hitting me, kicking me with guns.
And I thought, "Right. If I had a chance before this time, I don't have
a chance" because they were so angry. Just look in their eyes and see
pure hatred basically. And it's the kind of hatred that you've never
seen before in your life. And then they took me off to another building
and we did one of these hostage videos basically. Brandon wrote about his kidnapping for the Telegraph of London. Simon
Rex explains on that Margaret Hassan and Ken Bigley's kidnappings would
follow also in 2004 (both would be murdered by their kidnappers) and
over 200 foreigners would be kidnapped in Iraq in the next years but it
had slowed down by 2007. Cox asked Howells about what he was
experiencing in the Foreign Office during this period? Simon Cox: And how much were we dependent on the Iraqi government and their contacts in order to try and sort things out? Kim
Howells: Well I became very frustrated with the Iraqi government
because we would hear stories that the kidnappers had influence with
elements of the Iraqi government or that there were ministers in the
Iraqi government who were Sadrists and knew roughly who was involved in
this kidnapping and they would talk in very rational way and they would
persuade people to release the hostages. Now none of this, none of
this, proved to be true. And it really used to frustrate me that the
Iraqi government ministers themselves would hint to you that they knew
something about what was going on but then nothing would happen. Deborah Haynes (Times of London link has text and also has video of the press conference) reports
the families of all five British citizens who were kidnapped appeared
in public today to make a statement: "We are all deeply upset and
troubled to hear the reports that Alec and Alan have died in the hands
of their captors, as well as Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell.
This is a terrible ordeal for us all. We ask those holding our men for
compassion when so many are working hard for reconciliation in Iraq and
we continue to pray for the safe return of our men." Haynes also
reports, "Release efforts will now focus on Peter Moore, the computer
consultant whom the four men had been guarding." CNN quotes
Haley Williams from the press conference but leaves out a bit including
a very important sentence in her remarks. We'll note her remarks,
we'll note Peter Moore's stepmother and then conclude with Alan's wife. Haley
Williams: These reports are the worst possible news for us but we
continue to hope that they cannot be true. But whatever Alec's
condition, he no longer should remain in Iraq. We appeal to those
holding him to please send him home to us. I speak to you as the
mother of Alec's son. We are not the people holding your men but I do
understand your feelings cause you're going through the same pain we
are going through. If we had any influence over the release of your men
we would release them to you but we don't. Please send him home
because as a family we can't cope with this anymore." Pauline
Sweeney: Please let them go now, enough is enough. We've been to the
two funerals of Jason Creswell and Jason Swindelhurst and now we are
informed, allegedly informed, that Alec and Alan are also no longer
with us. I plead with the hostage takers to send home the bodies of
Alec and Alan so that their parents can have, you know, closure and
move on. And I appeal to them to please let Peter come back alive. Rosalyn
McMenemy: You understand how frightened we are to hear these reports
and how hard it is for us to consider what might have happened to
Alan. We continue to hope and pray that these reports cannot be true.
We are desperate to have Alan home with his family. Please return him
so that he can return to me and his children where he belongs. For
anyone wondering, CNN did not include this by Haley Williams "We are
not the people holding your men but I do understand your feelings cause
you're going through the same pain we are going through. If we had any
influence over the release of your men we would release them to you
but we don't." They did include her sentence before those two
statements and her sentence after. They did not note online that they
edited her remarks; however, they did edit her remarks and edited out:
"We are not the people holding your men but I do understand your
feelings cause you're going through the same pain we are going through.
If we had any influence over the release of your men we would release
them to you but we don't." Today the Los Angeles Times editorializes on
the topic of the current government in Iraq's obligations (or not) to
pay reparations for the violence of Saddam Hussein and concludes,
"Kuwait should consider reducing reparations, and its proposal to
reinvest some of the remaining debt in Iraq would benefit both
countries. In return, Iraq should act quickly and decisively to resolve
the other outstanding issues of concern to Kuwait, proving itself to be
a good neighbor." Staying with LAT, yesterday's snapshot noted AFP's estimate of a Baghdad bank robbery resulting in $3.8 million dollars being stolen. Liz Sly and Usama Redha report that the figure was $7 million. "I think we
have a very interesting and important hearing this morning," declared
Chair Bob Filner as he brought the meeting to order. "I think you all
know since the early years of our country, Congress has had to reassess
programs created to care for our men and women in uniform, our veterans
who have courageously answered our call to duty and their families who
have joined in the military experience. For many service members and
veterans who have been severely injured from service to our country,
their rehabilitation can sometimes be quite disheartening. Many become
concerned about having the same quality of life that they had prior to
their injuries. This was known to be true in WWII and has held true
today in the midst of our nation's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan." In
his opening remarks, Ranking Member Steve Buyer noted, "I believe that
sports are the most valuable rehabilitative tools that we can provide
our wounded warriors." On the first panel, Clemons noted that he lost
his right leg in a 2004 roadside bombing in Iraq and explained,
"Paralympic sports has given me opportunities that I never thought
would be possible. Prior to my injury, I was an athlete who absolutely
loved sports. I played football, basketball and baseball in high
school in Little Rock, Mississippi and played football at East
Mississippi Community College before joining the army." Clemons
was recovering in the Brooke Army Medical Center and learned of the
Paralympic Military Program through word of mouth. He explained that
John Register of the US Olympic Committee visited the medical center
and explained the USOC's Paralympic Military Program and,
Clemons explained, "his inspirational message made me realize that
sports could give me the strength, courage and confidence to live a
great life." Little also learned of programs by word of mouth. After
losing both of his legs from the below the knee down in an IED
attack in Iraq, Little went to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "Very
similarly also, sports was huge in my identity being an almost
pro-rollerball hokey player ice hockey player, rugby, tennis, golf,
soccer, football, etc, I had similar concerns, now I'm missing both of
my legs, how am I going to be an excellent sports star like I always
knew I would be? And it was as I was expressing those concerns my first
day of physical therapy a couple of weeks after returning home that
Gunnery Sgt from the marine corps who is a double below the knee
amputee walked in with his set of prosthetic roller blade inline
skates, telling me that they had just custom made them for him He was
the second person to ever receive that style and was already skating
outside. Right then and there, competitive spirit took over and I knew
exactly what I knew before in the military and even prior in sports, I
have to be better than this man, I have to do one more. So I asked my
physical therapist who ironically was also his physical therapist
what-what records had he set? She said pretty much everything for a
double amputee. So after getting a laundry list of those, I set out to
beat every single one." US House Rep Timothy
Walz wondered about how to get the word out and what sort of events
were needed? Little explained that it needed to be community based
because most people don't live in DC and they will be interacting in
their own communities. Clemons agreed with that and added that the
word needed to be out there that "there are things to do when you get
back home to move forward." Waldon spoke on the issue noting, "Pretty
much the daily community programs. Just moving it down to a more, just
like classroom size. The smaller the classroom, the more personal
instruction can be for the students the same thing with this. The more
one-on-one, one-on-three, one-on-four time you can really get with an
instructor, someone to help you out, the better it will be and you know
pretty much being everywhere. It's a far reaching goal but you at
least have something in mind, like something to push towards. No
reason to settle if we can achieve something else." On the second
panel, Julia Ray noted, " I think what we're noticing from the most
recent grop of injured veterans is the extreme diversity in what their
needs and interests are. It's not your classic disabled sports that we
began with back in the Vietnam era -- skiing and so forth. They're
wanting to do the Iron Man in Hawaii. They all want to compete and
train alongside the communities-- people with and without
disabilities. All kinds of diffent things and that kind of support
needs to be individualized, it needs to be adjusted according to the
type of injury. With polytrauma, we're seeing the effects of Traumatic
Brain Injury, multiple amputations and very severe injuries that
require very individualized attention." Kat
will cover some of the hearing at her site tonight and we need to wind
down. We'll close on the hearing with these remarks by Little, "I
would never have known half of what I do about being an amputee, being
a returning disabled veteran and just getting around in life had it not
been for people like my first snow board trip Captain [Nathan] Waldan
who you may have met earlier teaching me how to properly fit my
prosethetic in a snow board boot to get down the hill -- which I did
sucessfully my first time. And then going on to be that person.
There's someone out there right now that's going on about how Capt
Little showed him how to do that the first time he was out there." Finally, independent journalist David Bacon continues to report on labor issues. How did TARP -- the Big Business bail out -- help residents in Oakland? At In These Times, Bacon reveals
that it didn't help them at all: "Tosha Alberty had just left for work,
for her job as a transportation services coordinator for Alameda
County. Her children were still at home, though. Sheriffs told her
adopted son Christian, a nine-year-old with autism still in his
undershorts, to get dressed. Alberty's daughter Sharquita rushed to
collect the bottles and diapers she needed to take care of her
nine-month-old baby Zmylan." And they were evicted, right then, right
there. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST) and his latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).
Posted at 02:58 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Assault on Camp Ashraf continues
Iraqi security forces have stormed the base of the anti-Iranian terrorist group the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization.An Iraqi military official has said that Iraqi forces have taken complete control of the camp.MKO
spokesman Shahriar Kia said that four people were killed and 300
wounded when Iraqi soldiers and police stormed Camp Ashraf on Tuesday,
AFP reported.That's the opening to " Iraqi forces storm MKO's Camp Ashraf" (Iran's Press TV). Alsumaria opens their report with: Iraqi
soldiers and police raided on Tuesday Ashraf camp triggering clashes
using white weapons. Battles left around 200 Iranian residents and 50
Iraqi security forces wounded, an Iraq security source reported. 50
members of the People Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI) were arrested, the
source added."After the
failure of negotiations with the Mujahedeen to enter peacefully, the
Iraqi army entered Camp Ashraf with force and it now controls all of
the interior and all entrances to the camp," the source speaking on
condition of anonymity told AFP. The operation was ordered by Prime
Minister Nuri Al Maliki’s office, the source noted adding that the
decision to enter the camp is included in the agreement signed between
Baghdad and Washington over handing authority to Iraqis. Search in vain through the New York Times,
which files three reports from Iraq in today's paper, for any article
on this. There is none. There's a really bad article we'll note in a
second, but this? Not covered. There was plenty of time to cover it. It was a question at yesterday's State Dept briefing, reports were already coming out. As Elaine noted last night, before I dicated the snapshot
yesterday, I was on the phone with friends at Amnesty in London (who
got photos and film of the assault early on) asking for descriptions of
what was taking place in the footage. A friend with Amnesty asked that
a statement be noted: AMNESTY INTERNATIONALPUBLIC STATEMENTAI Index: MDE 14/021/200928 July 2009Iraq: Camp Ashraf residents attackedAmnesty
International is seriously concerned at today's attacks by Iraqi forces
on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured
and led to the arrest of at least eight others.Hundreds
of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north
of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons
and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them
from entering the camp.Video
footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces
beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the
head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured.Two
of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed
to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan
Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi
Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current
whereabouts are unknown.In
the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it
wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate,
north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh
told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government "will
take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp
Ashraf". The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police
outpost inside the camp.Amnesty
International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent
excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should
reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that
they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from
forcible return to Iran.BackgroundAround
3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the
People's Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition
organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years.
Until recently the PMOI was listed as a "terrorist" organization by the
European Union and other governments, but in most cases this
designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer
advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran.The
US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were
designated as "protected persons" following the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the
SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents.Public Document****************************************For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 207413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.orgInternational Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UKwww.amnesty.orgThat
was e-mailed (to one of my personal e-mail account) and I can't find it
at the website currently. I'll assume it will be there later today. But there is footage, there are photos. An assault took place and the New York Times
isn't interested. (Possibly because Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander
in Iraq, isn't interested? Possibly because the US embassy in Iraq has
told some in the press that covering the assualt will "inflame
tensions"? I don't know, ask the paper.) Not every outlet in the US ignores the story. From Laith Hammoudi and Leila Fadel's " Iraqi authorities raid camp of Iranian opposition group" ( McClatchy Newspapers): Iraqi
authorities raided the camp of a small Iranian opposition group living
in the north of Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least four of the group's
members in a spate of clashes that ensued, members of the group said.At
Camp Ashraf in the northern province of Diyala, about 3,400 members of
the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq group went on a hunger strike following what
they called a "brutal" raid that targeted unarmed members of their
organization.Since the U.S.
handed control of the camp to Iraqi authorities on Jan.1, Iraq has
increased efforts to push the group out. U.S. officials were promised
that the cult-like MEK organization on the U.S. list of terror groups
would be treated "humanely" under Iraqi authority. Also not being silent on the issue is the Wall St. Journal. From Charles Levinson and Yochi J. Dreazen's report: Residents
of Camp Ashraf said hundreds of Iraqi security forces tore down the
camp's walls on Tuesday afternoon with bulldozers. The forces fired
water cannon and tear gas and swung batons against camp residents who
tried to block their entry, residents said.The
operation against the sprawling desert compound 80 miles north of
Baghdad and about 70 miles from Iran's border was continuing into the
night, they said.Gen.
Odierno and a spokesman for Prime Minister Maliki confirmed Iraqi
forces had seized control of the camp by force after the camp's leaders
refused requests by Iraqi police to enter the camp peacefully to
establish a police station there.A
U.S. military official said the Iraqis used primarily tear gas and
smoke grenades, as opposed to live ammunition or other deadly weaponry.AP notes
that Odierno is claiming that Iraq used "non-lethal force" and insists,
"We have had promises from the government of Iraq that they would deal
with the [group] in a humane fashion." However, AP doesn't just swallow official-speak and parrot it: But
a video provided by the exile group showed Iraqi forces using batons
and water cannons against the residents gathered at the camp's gates.
The group also released photos showing injured people and bloodied
bodies, although the authenticity of the images couldn't be
independently verified.Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) was reporting on the assault yesterday evening and this morning, he and Greg Jaffe report
the assault continues and they note: "The operation, which caught U.S.
officials off guard, coincided with a visit to Iraq by Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates. Analysts said it appeared designed to send a
message of Iraqi independence. " This morning, BBC also reports
the assault is still ongoing: "Eyewitnesses say Iraqi police have
surrounded the People's Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI) camp and clashes are
continuing inside. Iran wants the camp closed. The exiles fear they
will be forcibly repatriated." (They also quote a portion of the
Amnesty International's statement.) In today's New York Times, Rod Nordland and Timothy Williams allegedly cover yesterday's violence but somehow miss the assault. As was noted here in January and February and in March ( roundtable in March),
I was asked not to push on that issue here by friends in the
administration who stated they were dealing with it and they knew how
important it was and tensions didn't need to be raised higher (this was
during the transition phase) and I agreed I wouldn't hit on the issue.
It wasn't that much of an issue because US forces were protecting the
group and had been for years. And if the administration was seriously
going to address this and find a peaceful outcome on it, no problem,
there are dozens of other topics having to do with Iraq that can be
covered here. However, that clearly did not happen. Point, I was a
fool. I've been one before and will be one again. So those outlets
thinking, "Oh, well, let's give the administration more time . . ." No.
I stated back then that if the group was assaulted, we'd cover it and
we'd call the administration out. (And the administration did not
protect the group. They sold the group out. This is a huge human rights
stain on Barack's administration.) I was a fool -- not the first time.
I feel foolish. (Not the first time. Not the last time.) But I'd feel
even more foolish if I continued the silence. Those still being silent
better grasp that at some point, they're going to move from foolish to
culpable.
Sam Dagher writes about Kurdistan today and we'll try to note his article in the snapshot later today. Greg Jaffe covers it for the Washington Post as does Anthony Shadid.
But the story this morning is the continued assault on Camp Ashraf.
Even more then the nonsense about "our first blantant betrayal" by the
administration served up by an 'immigration' 'activist' on Democracy
Now! this morning. Nearly one year ago (one month away) Ava and I were
calling out Janet and what she would be bringing to the table
(anti-immigration policies). You're a little a late to the party and
excuse yourself from the table because you've spilled stupid all over
your dress. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqpress tvamnesty internationalthe washington posternesto londonogreg jaffemcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudileila fadelalsumariathe wall street journalcharles levinsonyochi j. dreazenbbc newsthe new york timessam daghertimothy williamsrod nordlandanthony shadidiraq
Posted at 06:41 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Bumiller reveals US may stay in Iraq past 2011
The
Iraqis will be unable to handle their own air defenses after all
American troops withdraw from the country by the end of 2011, the top
commander of American forces in Iraq said Tuesday.Golly. Who could have guessed that? The above is from Elisabeth Bumiller's " Iraq Can’t Defend Its Skies by Pullout Date, U.S. Says" ( New York Times
-- buried inside the paper instead of on the front page where it should
be but if it were on the front page how could the non-news of a 'furor'
over Wikipedia make the front page?). Bumiller's reporting on the
comment made by the top US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno: Asked
if the Iraqis would be in a position to fly their own defensive air
patrols at the end of 2011, when a United States agreement with Iraq
calls for all American troops to be out of the country, General Odierno
replied, "Right now, no."Bumiller's become one of the
strongest reporters on Iraq, poking around at the things others have
just accepted as 'truth' and Odierno's been the closest thing to a
straight talker the US military's had in Iraq. So my (no doubt barbed)
comments which follow aren't aimed at either of them. But they
are aimed at the liars and the fools, the Tom Haydens, the Leslie
Cagans, all the faux peace crew. Because, good for Bumiller for
covering it, this didn't just emerge. And shame on those in the
so-called peace movement especially the worthless ones hiding behind
"we're a religious organization" when, no, they're not and they're not
a peace group. From the June 14, 2007 snapshot: The Pentagon report
has many sections and one of interest considering one of the 2007
developments may be this: "There are currently more than 900 personnel
in the Iraqi Air Force. . . . The fielding of rotary-wing aircraft
continued with the delivery to Taji of five modified UH II (Iroquois)
helicopters, bringing the total delivered to ten. The final six are
scheduled to arrive in June. Aircrews are currently conducting initial
qualifications and tactics training. The Iroquois fleet is expected to
reach initial operation capability by the end of June 2007." By the end
of June 2007? One of the developments of 2007 was the (admission of)
helicopter crashes. US helicopters. British helicopters. Some may find
comfort in the fact that evacuations and mobility will be handled by
Iraqis . . . whenever they are fully staffed and trained. Four years
plus to deliver the equipment, training should be done in ten or twenty
years, right?January 29, 2008, on Ned Parker and Saif Hameed's " Bomb Kills 5 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq" (Los Angeles Times): They
note the claims by puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki made over
the weekend that can only be described as 'get tough' and how
"Additional Iraqi tanks and aircraft arrived in Mosul" and I'll assume
they think we're flat out stupid since there's no Iraqi "aircraft" to
speak of and the Iraqi air force does not conduct missions and is
begging for money to upgrade their air 'power.'From the November 4, 2008 snapshot: There's
no rush to leave Iraq or even a desire. That needs to be grasped. Iraqi
General Nasier Abadi made that pretty clear during Sunday's press
conference in the Green Zone. Questioned by the Washington Post's
Mary Beth Sheridan as to when the Iraqis would be able to handle "their
own internal security . . . how many years are you away from reaching
that goal," Abadi tried to distract by listing duties before declaring,
"We have no duties or missions to protect the air on the borders of the
country. But in case we have this responsibility, there is a brief that
-- to the minister of defense, if he ask us to -- task us with that, a
reportw ent also to the Prime Minister, what are the capabilities and
the army's specifics to do those duties?" Asked how many years again,
he responded, "Building an aerial force, building an Army is not easy,
but it's still easier than building naval and air force. The naval
force, as I said before, that the first ship will come in 2009 and the
fourth will arrive in . . . at the end of 2011. In regard to 200- . . .
Air Force, the first aircraft we will receive in 2011 until 2015. And
that depends on the support and the help that the coalition forces can
secure to Iraq so we can be able to maintain and defend our airspace
and territories. Without that, there will be also agreements with the
neighboring countries on the security of Iraq. But it's possible that
we will go with those missions without having an air force or naval
force because this is a common battle, it's not just an army's duty."
Setting aside the naval force and focusing only on the air, if the
period they'll be taking possession of aircraft will last from 2011
through 2015, how likely is it that they will be prepared to handle
their own airspaceby the end of 2011?We could go on and on. Click here,
at least 100 of the over 600 listed entries address the Iraqi air
force. See, we could go on and on, but we've covered it in real time. While
liars like Patrick Cockburn and Amy Goodman were pimping the treaty
masquearding as a Status Of Forces Agreement as "historic" and the
rumor (repeated at the US Socialist Worker this week) was spreading
that Iraq forced Bush to do something, reality was always obvious. And
on that latter point, LIARS need to stop. The SOFA replaces the UN
mandate. US officials leave Dec. 31, 2008? Nouri is toppled. He knew
it, they knew it. Bush sent a ton of heavy hitters into Iraq in the
lead up to the vote. There was no cave on the part of the White House.
The White House got what it wanted in the SOFA. But idiots and liars
misread the SOFA and idiots and liars (especially Patrick Cockburn who
is the worst 'independent' 'reporter') and put out the rumos that the
US was forced to cave. You stupid, stupid idiots. (Patrick's so stupid,
he was claiming weeks after the White House published the SOFA online
that they wouldn't release it.) There are 275 members of the Iraqi
Parliament. While liars like Patrick wanted to insist a huge majority
had passed the SOFA, reality was far different. How many voted for it?
149. And how many showed up for the vote? This community knows because
we covered it in real time. When the SOFA was forced through the
Parliament -- on Thanksgiving Day -- we covered it. We didn't show up a week later, rested and fat on turkey and thin on facts to start talking the SOFA. The left's 'voices' have been uninformed and have repeatedly betrayed either due to stupidity or some other reason. The
SOFA does not end the illegal war. That was never its purpose. Its
purpose was to replace the UN mandate and Nouri wanted the mandate
replaced for a number of reasons but the US wanted away from it for
numerous reasons as well including legal obligations -- which none of
you Paddy Cockburns or Liar Goodmans bothered to tell you about. The
SOFA only replaced the UN mandate. It did not end anything. And it is
the Bush plan in place and that's what Barack acts under so all the
raving lunatics who think there's something amazing about what Barack's
'doing' better start singing the praises of Bully Boy Bush. The SOFA extends the illegal war, it does not end it. The purpose of the SOFA was not to end the illegal war. And
what's really disgusting about the SOFA is that one organization stood
up and called it out, one organization was telling you in real time
that it was a farce. But they were attacked for doing that, they were
told that it was "hurting Obama" and they dropped it (one of their
board members is a raving lunatic prone to calling Barack a "feminist"
-- yeah, you know the one). So it's not just a case of people didn't
understand, it's a case of they didn't want to. They wanted their
dream, they wanted their lie. It was more important to them than the
Iraqis dying, it was more important to them than ending the Iraq War. Let's
hope they found a way to profit from stupid. It would be a shame to
think they worked so hard to mislead and got nothing out of it. Personal note: Jim, remind me of this entry, editorial idea for Third. Which reminds me, a friend at the paper wants the Los Angeles Times editorial linked to and we'll include it in the snapshot today as well: To
what degree is the elected government of Iraq obligated to pay for the
sins committed by the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Should neighboring
Kuwait forgive Iraq's new leadership $24 billion in outstanding debt
for the destruction wrought by the 1990 invasion, a seven-month
occupation, looting and the violent retreat of Iraqi forces? And is it
relevant that Iraq may need the money more than Kuwait does? These are
some of the questions the United Nations Security Council must consider
when it addresses Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's request to
release his country from the remaining sanctions imposed after the 1991
Gulf War, including a requirement that the country use its oil revenues
to pay reparations.The following community sites updated yesterday: -
-
-
-
Nahal Zamani 10 hours ago -
-
-
-
Gushing radio 10 hours ago -
-
-
-
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timeselisabeth bumillerthe los angeles timesned parkeranns mega dublike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:39 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
