From September 20, 2009, that's "The Grouch of Wrath" and how cool is it that the night 30 Rock airs their series finale (thank God!), the comic is a Tina Fey one.
Tina Fey had so much promise on SNL and then 30 Rock, it's a show you gave a ton of chances. By years four and five, it had not just jumped the shark, it had demonstrated that it was a really bad show.
So thank goodness it finally ended.
Tina was supposed to be a sure thing to win Best Actress when the Emmys rolled around in September 2009. It was the first time she'd been nominated since she started doing Sarah Palin on SNL. So everyone thought she'd grab a second acting Emmy. Instead, it was made clear that everyone was tired of her and Toni Collette won instead.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Thursday, January 31, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq confirms
they are holding a Le Monde journalist, flooding throughout Iraq, a dam
breaks, people are evacuated, former US Senator Chuck Hagel (Barack's
nominee to be US Secretary of Defense) appears before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and more.
In the moment that probably
best captured 'support' for Chuck Hagel and his 'team skills' in today's
Senate Armed Services Committee, 85-year-old John Warner was pulled out
of mouthballs to drone on about Hagel ("of how he will serve the
president") this afternoon. Warner left the Senate four years ago.
And, if you know Warner (I do), you know if he's talking his time in the
Senate, he can't shut up about his attendance record. Some might point
out with that voting record, attendance is better focused on. But
that's what Hagel had to offer for his defense, a retired US Senator,
someone who only got into the Senate to begin with because of Elizabeth Taylor,
someone who thought small and played the country mouse in the big bad
Senate. That was what Hagel was reduced to: A geriatric with no notable
achievements singing his praises. The hair deserves remarking on as
well. Hagel probably thought he was wearing a longer Caesar cut but with
it bushing out on the sides it looked more like a modified Bea Arthur
from The Golden Girls era but with a tad more length in the back, it could have been a Maude.
But it seemed more Golden Girl, especially as he stumbled throughout
the hearing, often taking long pauses to complete his thought in the
midst of a sentence. Is Hagel mentally up to the challenge of being
Secretary of Defense?
We've noted before the position needs
someone with passion and energy and, for that reason, stated that former
US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy should be considered
and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice should be considered
for the post. Those aren't the only two. But watching today as Hagel
looked like Bea Arthur and testified like Deputy Dawg, the issue of energy level needs to be raised.
In
the questioning, Committee Chair Carl Levin was most concerned with the
issue of the relationships between the governments of Iran and the US
and whether Hagel could reconcile his various positions over the years
on sanctions. Hagel stated he was for sanctions -- when they were
multi-lateral. But he admitted he had opposed unilateral sanctions in
the past.
Senator Chuck Hagel: As to my records on votes in
the Senate regarding unilateral sanctions, I have differed on some of
those. I have voted for some as well. Uh, it was always on a
case-by-case basis when I, uh, voted against some of those unilateral
sanctions on Iran. It was a different time. For example, I believe one
was in, uh, 2001, 2002. We were in a different place with Iran during
that time. Matter of fact, uh, I recall the Bush administration did not
want a renewal -- a five-year renewal of ILSA [the Iran and Libya
Sanctions Act of 1996] during that time because, uh, they weren't sure
of the effectiveness on sanctions. That, uh, wasn't the only reason I
voted against it. It was because I thought that there might be other
ways to, uh, employ-employ our, uh, vast ability to harness power and
allies. It was never a question of did I disagree with the objective.
The objective is, I think, very clear uh-uh to both of us. Uhm, I
recall for example in, uh, 2008, Secretary of State [Condi] Rice sending
a letter to the Finance Committee, Senator [Max] Baucus requesting
that, uh, a sanction resolution, unilateral, in the Finance Committee,
not come out of the, uh, Finance Committee because the Bush
administration at the time was working with the, uh, Russians
specifically but with the Security-Council of the United Nations to try
to get international sanctions which, I think, that effort in 2008 led
to the, uh, 2010 international sanctions
Committee Chair Carl
Levin: Can you give us your view on the size of the US force which might
be necessary, or would be necessary, after 2014? The so-called
'residual force,' if you have an opinion on the size. You indicated in
your opening statements, two missions for that residual force. Can you
also give us your opinion of the size of the Afghan National Security
force after 2014 and whether you agree with me and Senator Lindsay
Graham on this Committee and others that we ought to reconsider the
position that the Afghan National Security Force should be reduced by a
third starting in 2014 -- to about 230,000 from what it's current goal
is which is about 350,000.
Chuck Hagel: Uh, as you all, uh,
know now, General Allen has presented his options to the president for
the president's consideration. As far as I know, as of this morning,
the president had not made a decision, uhm, uh, on what a residual force
-- numbers-wise -- would look like? I have not been included inn those
discussions, so I-I don't know other than knowing that he's got a range
of options as you do. But I would say that from what the president has
told me, what Secretary Panetta has told me, that that decision will
be made to assure resourcing the mission and the capability of that
mission. As to, uh, what kind of a force structure should, uh,
eventually be in place by the Afghans, I don't know enough about the
specifics to give you, uh, a good answer other than that I think that
has to be uh-uh a decision that is, uh, made certainly with the
president of Afghanistan, uh, what we can do to continue to support and
train and, uh, protect our interests within the scope of our ability to
do that. Obviously, the immunity for our troops is an issue which was
an issue in Iraq. All of those consider -- considerations will be --
will be important and will be made if I'm confirmed and in the position
to give the President advice on that. I will, with consultations of our
commanders on the ground and our chiefs, give him, the best, uh,
options that we can provide.
Hagel was willing to say
anything. Fortunately for him, the senators were, with few exceptions,
willing to play along and nod. Far too much time was spent on Israel --
that includes some very annoying testimony from Senators Jack Reed and
Kay Hagen who seemed to be in a competition over who would win Most
Loyal To Israel (Hagan won by a hair, if only because she could boast of
the most recent visit). Senators -- and those were just two of them --
felt the need to discuss Israel and what Hagel had told them privately
and how they were so glad to know that it would be an act of war for
Palestine to declare the area their own, that Hagel favored a two-state
solution and all the other sop that's always tossed out.
I find
Hagel's remark referring to the "Jewish lobby" objectionable. I've
stated that before. Hagel addressed that (more than once) in his
testimony. He said, on the record, that he mispoke and that it was one
time. For me, that one time on the record (answering on the record) was
more than enough. I found him to be believable on that issue because
he spoke in what I took to be an honest manner. Also true, he proved
himself to be a very poor speaker throughout his testimony. When
Senator Bill Nelson (I know Bill and like Bill) wasted everyone's time
giving Hagel a make up test (after he failed to answer Senator John
McCain's basic question), Hagel insisted his opposition to the 'surge'
in Iraq, "We lost almost 1200 dead Americans in the surge." The 'surge'
was an escalation, an increase, in the number of US troops on the
ground in Iraq following the 2006 elections. The 'surge' was a
failure. We'll talk about that in a moment but "We lost almost 1200
dead Americans in the surge"? We lost those dead Americans? And we're
not searching for them still? "We lost almost 1200 Americans in the
surge" is how you word what he was attempting to say.
Let's go
back to the surge. It allowed Iraq to be noted for a few seconds by a
body that did nothing to stop the Iraq War. Hagel did nothing to stop
it and that's on him.
Senator John McCain: Senator Hagel,
members of this Committee will raise questions reflecting concerns with
your policy positions. They're not reasonable people disagreeing,
they're fundamental disagreements. Our concerns pertain to the quality
of your professional judgment and your world view on critical areas of
national security including security in the Middle East. With that in
mind, let me begin with your opposition to the surge in Iraq. 2006, we
lost -- Republicans lost -- the election and we began the surge and you
wrote a piece in the Washington Post called "Leaving Iraq Honorably."
In 2007, you said it's not in the national interest to deepen its
involvement. In January, 2007, in a rather bizarre exchange with
Secretary Rice, in the Foreign Relations Committee, after some nonsense
about Syria and crossing the border into Iran and Syria because of the
surge and a reference to Cambodia in 1970, you said, "When you set in
motion the kind of policy the president's talking about here, it's very,
very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, I
think the speech given last night by this president represents the most
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it's
carried out, I will resist it." And then, of course, you continued on
and on for months afterwards talking about what a disaster the surge
would be, even to the point where it was clear the surge was
succeeding. In March 2008, you said, "Here the term quagmire could
apply. Some reject that term, but if that's not a quagmire, then what
is?" Even as late as August 29, 2011, in an interview -- 2011 -- in an
interview with the Financial Times, you said, "I disagreed with the
president -- Obama -- his decision to surge in Iraq, because I
disagreed with President Bush on the surge in Iraq." Do you -- do you
stand by that -- those -- those comments, Senator Hagel?
Senator Chuck Hagel: Well, Senator, I stand by them because I made them and --
Senator John McCain: -- stand by -- Were you right?
Chuck Hagel: Well --
Senator John McCain: Were you correct in your assessment?
Chuck Hagel: Well I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out. But I'll --
Senator John McCain: I think -- this Committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge.
Chuck Hagel: I'll explain why I made those comments and I believe I had but --
Senator John McCain: I want to know if you were right or wrong? That's a direct question, I expect a direct answer.
Chuck Hagel: The surge assisted in the objective. But-but if we review the record a little bit --
Senator
John McCain: Will you please answer the question? Were you correct or
incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous
foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam? Were you correct
or incorrect?
Chuck Hagel: My --
Senator John McCain: Yes or no?
Chuck Hagel: My reference to the surge being --
Senator
John McCain: Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel? The
question is: Were you right or wrong? That's a pretty straighforward
question.
Chuck Hagel: Well --
Senator John McCain: I would -- I would like to answer whether you were right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate.
Chuck Hagel: Well I'm not going to give you a "yes" or "no" answer on a lot of things today.
Senator John McCain: Well let the the record show that you refused to answer that question. Now please go ahead.
Chuck Hagel: Well, if you would like me to explain why --
Senator John McCain: No, I actually would like an answer. Yes or no?
Chuck Hagel: Well I'm not going to give you a yes or no. I think it's --
Senator John McCain: Okay.
Chuck
Hagel: -- far more complicated than that. As I've already said, my
answer is I'll defer that judgment to history. As to the comment I made
about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam? Was
about not just the surge but the overall war of choice going into Iraq.
That particular decision that was made on the surge -- but more to the
point, our war in Iraq -- I think was the most fundamentally bad,
dangerous decision since Vietnam. Aside, uh, from the costs that
occurred in this country, uh, in blood and treasure, aside from what
that did to, uh, take our focus off of Afghanistan -- which in fact,
uh, was-was the original and real focus of a national threat to this
country -- uh, Iraq wa-wa-was not -- I always, uh, tried to frame all
the different issues before I made a decision on anything. Now just as
you said, Senator, we can have differences of opinion, uh, --
Senator John McCain: But --
Chuck Hagel: -- that's essentially why I took the position I did.
Senator
John McCain: It's a fundamental difference of opinion, Senator Hagel.
And Senator Graham and I and Senator [Joe] Lieberman -- when there were
59 votes in the United States Senate -- spent our time trying to
prevent that 60th. Thank God for Senator Lieberman. I think history
has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the
wrong side of it. And your refusal to answer whether you were right or
wrong about it is going to have an impact on my judgment as to whether
to vote for your confirmation or not. I hope you will reconsider the
fact that you refused to answer a fundamental question about an issue
that took the lives of thousands of young Americans.
Chuck Hagel: Well, Senator, there was --there was more to it than just flooding a zone.
Senator John McCain: I'm asking about the surge, Senator Hagel.
Chuck
Hagel: I know you are and I'm trying to explain my position. The
beginning of the surge also factored in what General Allen had put into
place in Anbar Province -- the Sunni Awakening. We put over, as you
know, a hundred thousand young --
Senator John McCain: Senator
Hagel, I'm very aware of the history of the surge and the Anbar
Awakening and I also am aware that any casual observer will know that
the surge was the fundamental factor, led by two great leaders, General
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
.
Chuck
Hagel: Well I don't know if-if that would have been required and cost
us over a thousand American lives and thousands of wounded.
Senator
John McCain: So you don't know if the surge would have been required?
Okay, Senator Hagel, let me go back -- to to Syria now. More than
60,000 people have been killed in Syria. Do you believe --
The
surge was a failure. That Hagel can't answer the question --
regardless of where he stands -- is disturbing. If you can't answer
that basic of a question, what questions will you be able to answer
before the Congress? We are aware that if Hagel's confirmed, he'll be
appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee to provide
testimony many times in the future, right?
I say the surge was a
failure. The US military did what was asked of them. And the military
was supposed to provide stability and security. They did that. Ethnic
cleansing -- popularly called "a civil war" -- had taken place (2006
through 2007) and violence went down. Some will argue that it went down
because the ethnic cleansing was over. No. As we've seen since, it
has not been over. The ethnic cleansing that takes place also creates a
'surge' in refugees -- Iraq becomes the largest refugee crisis in the
Middle East during this period. Over 4 million external refugees, many
displaced internally within the country as well. Others try to tie in
the Sahwa ("Awakening") and point that the purchasing of loyalty
(resistance fighters paid to stop attacking US equipment and US troops)
and that can be a factor as well. But the US military was given a task
and they performed it and they achieved their goal.
So why is the
surge a failure? Bully Boy Bush did not just send more troops over to
Iraq. He also gave 12 benchmarks to measure 'success' and Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed to those benchmarks. The surge had two
parts, the military would provide security and stability and, during
this calmer period, US diplomatic staff would work with Iraqi
politicians so that the needed political actions could take place. What
was needed? That was defined in the benchmarks. (No surprise, the US
government was most interested in an oil and gas law.)
The US
military did what was asked of them and they were successful in that
task. But the space they successfully created was not utilized. Bully
Boy Bush was not speaking publicly about the ethnic cleansing. He was
concerned -- by his own remarks -- with creating the space that he just
knew would allow Iraq to move forward. That did not happen.
Is
that what Hagel believes? We don't know because he wouldn't answer. He
wouldn't answer what McCain rightly pointed out was a very basic
question. That's really bothersome. If you can't defend your
statements, how are you going to defend a department? If you can't
answer a basic question the Congress asks, how are you going to answer
tough questions from the Congress if confirmed? If you care so little
about being upfront with the American people (and members of Congress
are the representatives of the American people) during your nomination
period, are we supposed to believe that you'll suddenly be more
interested in being upfront after a confirmation vote?
Hagel's
confirmation hearing put to rest (for me) the issue of the "Jewish
lobby." It also provided a number of senators with the time to compete
for the title of Israel's BFF. But it also provided Hagel and Hagel --
his low energy level, his inability to answer basic questions --
actually raised more issues and questions than a confirmation hearing is
expected to.
Senator Claire McCaskill moved quickly through her
questioning and was probably one of the three strongest in the hearing
of any senator. (The weakest? Senator Joe Manchin who couldn't stop
whining or whimpering about wishing he could have served in the Senate
with Hagel -- at one point his voice quivered on this topic and you had
to wonder if Manchin has Daddy issues.) We'll jump in near the end of
McCaskill's exchange for a question that will determine his tenure if
he's confirmed and for an important issue that will be a huge issue in
the next four years.
Senator Claire McCaskill: . . . and
some people on the Committee are going, "Oh, here she goes on
contracting," but auditability of the Defense Dept. I know that you've
stated in some of the advanced policy questions that you want to hold
people accountable on auditability. I don't think most Americans
realize that as we face shrinking budgets and as we want to secure the
pre-eminance of our military and not hollow out the spending at the
Defense Dept, that auditability is a crucial ingredient to us being able
to figure out whether all the money being spent there is being spent
like Americans would want it to be spent. Can you reassure me that
auditability -- as prescribed by law, coming through this Committee --
that it needs to happen no later than 2017 -- can you make a commitment
to me today on the record, that that will be a priority of yours, making
sure that, as Secretary Panetta did and Secretary Gates before him,
that auditability will be an essential priority in your time at defense?
Chuck Hagel: As I told you, Senator, I will. Uh, I make that commitment to this Committee.
Senator
Claire McCaskill: And then turning to contracting, I have yet to have,
uhm, provided to me other than raw numbers that we spent any data that
would indicate that major infrastructure rebuilding as part of a
counter-insurgency strategy works. There are many things that work in a
counter-insurgency strategy and one of them, as it was originally posed
to me, back some six years ago on this Committee by General Petraeus
was that the CERP Funds -- the Commander Emergency Response Program --
that walking around money to fix plate glass windows and neighborhoods,
that that was an essential part of the COIN strategy. That morphed into
our military building major infrastructure projects without really any
data ever to indicate that the billions of dollars that we were spending
was in fact advancing our mission -- our military mission. In addition
to that, it is clear if you want to look at Iraq and the failures that
Iraq represents in some ways, one of the failures is the crumbling
investments that this country made in Iraq -- the health centers that
never opened, the water parks that sit crumbling, the power facilities
that were blown up before they even had an opportunity to operate. I
can go down billions of dollars of waste because we didn't do the
analysis on sustainability after we have left. I am convinced that we
have made the same mistakes in Afghanistan and I would like your
response to this issue of major infrastructure building while we are in a
conflict being conducted by our military -- not by AID, not by our
State Dept -- and whether or not you would make a commitment to come
back to this Committee with a report analyzing whether or not there is
data to support that aspect of the COIN strategy?
Chuck Hagel:
Well I will make that commitment and, uh, it is part of the larger, uh,
series of questions and, uh, factors always involved, uh, when, uh, a
nation gets uh-uh clearly committed as we were -- still are -- in
Afghanistan and were in Iraq for years. When you are at war, the
highest first priority is to take care of your people and uh, and,
uh-uh, as a result of that, uh, all the rest of the-the normal latitude
and guidance, uhm, theory and policy, uh, is secondary. And so I think
in both of those wars, uhm, because we got ourselves in so deep with so
many people and, uh, the welfare of our men and women was, uh,
paramount, we tried a lot of things. We had never been this way
before. We had never seen anything like these two situations. And, uh,
as a result, and you know, our Special Inspector Generals have come up
with billions and billions of dollars that are unaccounted for, uhm,
corruption, fraud, waste, abuse. Uh, it really is quite astounding.
And
we'll stop him there. He's committed to a report of some form -- if
confirmed -- about the infrastructure building's impact on the invaded
land and the issue of open accountability with regards to spending. If
he is confirmed, those are two of the metrics by which he should be
measured while he holds the post of Secretary of Defense.
While
Joe Manchin (dubbed "Joe Manchild" by one friend in the press who
covered today's hearing) whimpered about the lost or stolen time he
could have spent with Hagel, he ignored the most pressing issues. Hagel
should have been asked over and over -- the way he was about Israel --
about something that actually has to do with the job: the crises in
DoD. That's the suicide crisis and that's the rape and assault crisis.
The only one to spend any time on either of these issues was
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand but even she had to waste everyone's time.
Israel, Afghanistan and personnel issues, she ranked as the three topics
-- in that order -- she wanted to ask about. But she quickly launched
into Iran. Iran and Israel were covered at length in the long hearing
before Gillibrand ever spoke. But maybe she just had to insist she had
"been one of the strongest advocates" for Israel? You know what the
military needs, they need a strong advocate for the victims of assault
and rape.
And though Gillibrand is getting applause for her
glancing comments on the issue of assault and rape, she was not their
strong advocate in the hearing today unless you just do the "by
comparison" verdict. From Iran and Israel, she went to Egypt, and
"okay, for my last minute, with regard to Afghanistan, we've heard . .
."
Easy, cheesy applause greeted Gillibrand's nonsense. Bridgette P. LaVictoire (Lez Get Real) can't quote
Gillibrand so I'll assume she's working from the same press release we
were sent. But unlike LaVictoire, I attended the hearing and I know
what Gillibrand said. The Service Women's Network rushed to applaud
Gillibrand who really only succeeded in reminding most of us that
Carolyn Maloney would have made a better US Senator. Here's what
they're applauding:
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand: My last
question that I'll submit for the record but you and I have talked about
it obviously the personnel in our military is our most important
asset. And when we hear reports that there are upwards of 19,000 sexual
assaults in the military against women, it's unacceptable. Uhm, we
also have finally repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell but it's difficult for a
military spouse to even go to a commissary and be on base or be
notified if a spouse is killed in action. I would need a strong
commitment from you that you will treat our military families and look
after them in the way that you would look after your own. I want you to
be concerned about every man and woman in the military, that their well
being is being looked after and seeing real advocacy and leadership,
not status quo, not implementing whatever we put forward but actually
fighting for them every single day.
Chuck Hagel: Well you have my complete commitment on that.
For
eight minutes, she went on about everything else before getting to her
so-called "last question." 19 words. She got applauded for 19 words.
She spent more than that vouching for sleep overs and pillow fights with
Israel. Come on, let's get serious. 19 words deserves a press
release? She wasted her time and everyone else's.
If assaults
matter -- and I believe they do -- you spend something more than 19
words on them in a hearing. Again, Iran and Israel were covered at
length over and over.
Maybe I'm supposed to dance for joy because
Gillibrand did mention it? If she'd given it serious time, maybe so.
But she really made a mockery out of the whole thing, if you ask me.
If
every website in the world is covering what Hagel thinks of Israel (and
today I'm sure many were), then the last thing that's needed is one
more doing the same. Equally true, if senator after senator is asking
the same questions, you need to spend your time asking something
different. Gillibrand deserves no praise for her performance in the
hearing. You will not read reports about her 'question' or her
'statements' due to some press conspiracy to cover up rape and assault.
The reason you won't read about it or hear about it is because she
didn't take it seriously. 19 words? That's embarrassing.
They should have applauded Senator Richard Blumenthal who took more time on this topic. Blumenthal is Ruth's Senator and she'll be covering it at her site tonight.
Turning to Iraq, this morning Alsumaria reported
that Reporters Without Borders and Iraq's JFO (Journalistic Freedoms
Observatory) are demanding the release of French journalist Nadir
Dendoune. From Monday's snapshot:
As we noted this morning, Nadir
Dendoune, who holds dual Algerian and Australian citizenship was
covering Iraq for the fabled French newspaper Le Monde's monthly
magazine. His assignment was to document Iraq 10 years after the start
of the Iraq War. Alsumaria explains
the journalist was grabbed by authorities in Baghdad last week for the
'crime' of taking pictures. (Nouri has imposed a required permit,
issued by his government, to 'report' in Iraq.) All Iraq News adds the journalist has been imprisoned for over a week now without charges.
Iraq's Journalistic Freedoms Observatory and Reporters Without Borders issued a joint-statement
noting Nadir Dendoune holds Algerian, Australian and French
nationalities and that while they do not know the date of his arrest,
they know he made a January 28th phone call from custody to a friend to
pass on that he'd been arrested. They call for his release and urge
that the government be forthcoming about the details of his arrest and
imprisonment. Yesterday, the Committee to Protect Journalists finally issued a statement on the matter:
"The arbitrary jailing of a journalist is a
vestige of the Saddam Hussein regime that is completely out of place in Iraq's
democracy today," said CPJ's Middle East and North Africa Coordinator Sherif
Mansour. "Nadir Dendoune should be released immediately."
The Iraqi Syndicate
for Journalists condemned Dendoune's detention, calling it a violation
of Iraqi law and the constitution and saying that it distorted the country's
image in front of the international community.
- For more data and analysis on Iraq, visit CPJ's Iraq page here.
This morning, AP reported that Ministry of the Interior spokesperson Saad Maan Ibrahim confirms that they are holding Nadir Dendoune. Reporters Without Borders issued the following:
Despite widespread outcry over abuse and rape of women in pre-trial detention, the government has not investigated or held the abusers accountable. In response to mass protests over the treatment of female detainees, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a pardon for 11 detainees. However, hundreds more women remain in detention, many of whom allege they have been tortured and have not had access to a proper defense.
They also note:
Iraq’s leadership used draconian measures against opposition politicians, detainees, demonstrators, and journalists, effectively squeezing the space for independent civil society and political freedoms in Iraq, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2013.
The number of violent civilian deaths in Iraq increased in 2012, for the first time since 2009. Thousands of civilians and police were killed in spates of violence, including targeted assassinations, amid a political crisis that has dragged on since December 2011. Alongside the uptick in violence, Iraqi security forces arbitrarily conducted mass arrests and tortured detainees to extract confessions with little or no evidence of wrongdoing.
“As insurgent groups targeted innocent Iraqis in a multitude of coordinated attacks throughout the year, Iraq’s security forces targeted innocent civilians in mass campaigns of arbitrary arrests and abusive interrogations,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “After decades of dictatorship, occupation, and terrorism, the Iraqi people today face a government that is slipping further into authoritarianism and doing little to make them safer.”
Al Mada reports preparations are beginning already for tomorrow's protests and that organizers are speaking of solidarity with the Falluja martyrs. (Last Friday saw the Falluja Massacre -- seven people dead and sixty injured when the military opened fire on the protesters.) All Iraq News reports that the Falluja Criminal Court has announced arrest warrants for military personnel involved in the shootings.
From yesterday's snapshot:
Meanwhile in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki is stripping political rivals of their protection according to charges made to Alsumaria. Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, a leader in the Sahwa forces, told the network that he had lost his bodyguards and when he asked why he was told it was on the orders of Nouri al-Maliki. What seems to be happening is this: government forces providing protection to various politicians throughout Iraq are being ordered by Nouri to return to Baghdad out of some fear -- real or imagined -- on the part of Nouri that he's about to be overthrown.
The Iraq Times sees the removal of the bodyguards as Nouri attempting to punish Abu Risha for his backing of the protests. Abu Rhisa tells Kitabat that the protests will continue until the legitimate demands are met. In violence this morning, Alsumaria reports a Mosul bombing has left two federal police officers injured and a Diyala explosion killed 1 shepherd.
Lastly, the rains continue in Iraq. Alsumaria reports that rain's expected in Baghdad today and for the next three. This is not a minor issue. Not only have Baghdad streets been flooded, there have been dangers of electrical shocks, street lights have been out, outside of Baghdad there have been homes collapsing and much worse. All Iraq News notes that 1500 families in Baiji (Salahuddin Province) have been evacuated from their homes due to flooding and they are currently in tents and receiving food and aid from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society. All Iraq News notes a dam collapsed in Salahuddin Province (a village near Tikrit) and the provincial government is evacuating residents in Samarra. If you click here, you can watch an Alsumuria video of the flooding in Baghdad. In most places, the water comes up to the knees.
iraq
alsumaria
reporters without borders
all iraq news
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.