Thursday, July 12, 2012

Al Distraction


Al Distraction


From Feburary 22, 2009, that's  "Al Distraction." Rev Al Distraction is Al Sharpton who was waging a war on comics at the time.

Of all the ones I've done since Barack was sworn in, this is one of my top two favorites. 

I like that while most people cowered before Sharpton, I took him on with a series where he popped up several times attacking comics.

So I would rank this series number two on my own personal charts. 


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, July 12, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Human Rights Watch draws attention to a proposed law that could greatly harm Iraqis, Ammar al-Hakim publicly played Nouri's steady but behind closed doors . . .,  Katie Couric's image pops up in Iraq, the White House blusters about wanting a prisoner (that they turned over to Iraq), and more.


Starting with sports, today Emily Alpert (Los Angeles Times) reports an important event, "For the first time in Olympic history, every country will have a woman competing on its team, including longtime holdout Saudi Arabia, the International Olympic Committee announced Thursday. Brunei and Qatar will also send female athletes to the London Games for the first time." Alsumaira notes Iraq will be sending 8 athletes to the Olympics in London and the goal of the Iraqi team is participation in the sport and to gain knowledge for future Olympic competitions according to Samir al-Moussawi who is over the team which will compete in the 100 meter run (Dania Hussein), the 800 meter run (Adnan Taas), shooting (Nour Amer), crossbow (Rana al-Mashadani), weighlifting (Safa Rashed), swimming (Muhannad Ahmad -- and I'm saying the rest of this parenthetical not Alsumaria, Muhannad Ahmad is gathering a lot of talk as the Arab male athlete to watch in this year's competition -- and only some of that talk is due to Ahmad's good looks), boxing (Ahmed Abdel-Karim) and wreslting (Ali Nazim). Iraqi Olympic Committee notes that Safa Rashed has been at a Ukrainian training camp for weight lifters since June.




On Good Afternoon America (ABC) today, they noted Iraq.

Lara Spencer: And we start with Katie Couric. Her mega-watt is being seen an unlikely place. She's become the poster child, if you will, for the Iraqi Electricity Ministry to cool people's impatience over the lack of electrical power in the country. But is it working? One Iraqi local told the New York Times, "It doesn't give me hope about electricity. But I do like to see her beautiful face." Popping in to talk about it is Katie Couric herself. Hi, Katie.





Katie Couric [via phone line]: Hello, Lara. How are you?




Lara Spencer: I'm great. And I'm looking at your mega-watt smile. Can you tell us -- Can you tell us how this happened?




Katie Couric [via phone line]: Well Lara, as you recall, we actually broke the story during the pop news segment of GMA [Good Morning America] a few months ago when I was filling in for Robin Roberts.



Lara Spencer: I do recall.



Katie Couric: So actually, we did break the story and, sadly, the New York Times is once again following GMA.



Lara Spencer: That's right. We have scooped the New York Times.



Katie Couric: I thought it was really weird so we got a translator to translate it and they said, "It's a billboard for the local utility company."



Lara Spencer: And, hey, it's good promotion for your upcoming show.


Katie Couric's upcoming show is Katie, set to debut September 10th, a syndicated daily (Monday through Friday), hour long talk show with a studio audience.

Lara Spencer:  Just how high wattage is our guest host Katie Couric?  Well this is a billboard in Iraq Tweeted by a reporter there and it turns out, there it is, and it turns out it's a public service announcement by Iraq's Electricity Ministry.  It says, "Daily Electricity Bulletin" which -- ironically, Katie -- is what we were thinking of renaming the show this week.

Katie Couric: Somebody sent that to me on Twitter and they said, "I think this is your face on this bulletin board."

Lara Spencer: I think so.

Katie Couric:  And I'm like, "Yeah.  Isn't that weird."

Today Katie Tweeted:
6h
Bizarrely... flattering? Or something!! RT @nytimes: Iraq's Electricity Ministry Puts Katie Couric on Billboards http://nyti.ms/MmAhdI 
Expand

Katie Couric has a very nice smile.  And if you were the Minister of Electricity in Iraq, you might latch onto it.  Right about now is when the person -- all men so far -- in this position usually steps down and usually because of public outcry over the fact that there is no improvement in providing Iraqis with electricity.  While the average minister serves all four years of their term, the Minister of the Electricity is far more likely to just serve two years.

Hadeel al Sayegh (The National) reports today, "Iraq's economic development is being held back by a critical shortage of electricity - with businesses and homes across the country forced to endure blackouts of as long as 15 hours a day."  al Sayegh offers another article today which provides a walk through on what that means to one business:


At least four times a day, Hadi Ahmed leaves his Baghdad home and goes out into the sweltering heat to restart his generator.
"We are dying in this heat," he says. "I feel like every day this country is going backwards. The lack of electricity is destroying my business."
Mr Ahmed spends about US$3,000 (Dh11,018) a month producing electricity to power a plastics factory that manufactures household items. He says he can afford to operate the factory at only a third of capacity.
"Out of six machines, because of the current circumstances, I only have two operational," said Mr Ahmed.



Still on the energy issue, over the weekend AFP reported, "Iraqi Kurdistan has begun sending oil produced in its three-province autonomous region out of the country without the express permission of the central government, an official said on Sunday."  UPI states the Turkish government is seeking the same sort of deal from the Baghdad-central government and "Ankara's maneuvering is also interwoven with Turkey's drive to restore itself as the region's paramount power, which puts it in direct competition with Iran."  Trend News Agency notes that Turkey and the KRG border one another but that they have not had a history of cooperation.  What changed?  Nouri went wacko and began charging the Turkish government with all these accusations.  He took a working relationship he had with the Turkish government and destroyed it.  Meanwhile, the KRG and Turkey have grown closer.  Nouri's own lunacy helped facilitate that.



Shwan Zulal (Niqash) explores the possibility that the semi-autonomous KRG's desire to go fully autonomous:

It is no secret that the majority of Kurds, if not in fact, all of them, would love to see an independent Kurdistan. And the easiest way for a Kurdish politician to become popular is to call for an independent state.
Although the Kurdish president, Massoud Barzani, has recently given the impression that he wants to see an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, the political party to which he belongs, the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), and the other major political party in the area, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), have so far resisted similar temptations. In fact, most Kurdish politicians are still talking about a "united Iraq" despite Kurdish public opinion against this idea.
And they have a point. If you are a Kurdish politician and you need to maintain diplomatic relations with your neighbours, and if you're aware of the economic and political realities for Iraqi Kurdistan, then it's very hard to call for Kurdish independence and really mean it.
It is possible that Iraqi Kurdistan is politically mature enough to be independent – but the region is not ready for such a step in economic or military terms. And it is true that, over time, the political consequences of Kurdish independence have always been considered greater than the economic consequences. But that no longer applies.



One News Now reports that the KRG is considering a "blasphemy law" and that: 



The draft bill calls for up to 10 years in prison and closing a publication for vaguely worded offenses such as "portraying the prophets inappropriately." It is expected to be voted on in the near future.
The legislation came about after the publication of an article in May 2010 that was an imaginary discussion with God that included profanity. Outrage over the article boiled into rioting that caused property damage and led to arrests and injuries.
Because it was an apparent response to a free speech issue, there were concerns that the bill would also limit free speech. Estabrooks says, "Basher Hadad, the head of the committee that's drafting this bill in Iraq, has told different news services that this is not going to be any kind of censorship," but he believes that's a total front.
By the vague nature of the bill's wording, it will do exactly that, even though people are assured that they will still be free to criticize mullahs, scholars, Islam, or the history of Islam. Estabrooks says,


Still on the issue of proposed laws, a major organization is calling out a different proposed law.   Human Rights Watch released a new report today entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq's Information Crime Law: Badly Written Provisions and Draconian Punishments Violate Due Process and Free Speech."  From the opening summary of the report:



Iraq's government is in the process of enacting what it refers to as an Information Crimes Law to regulate the use of information networks, computers, and other electronic devices and systems.  The proposed law had its first reading before Iraq's Council of Representatives on July 27, 2011; a second reading is expected as early as July 2012.  As currently drafted, the proposed legislation violates international standards protecting due process, freedom of speech and freedom of association.






This is not a minor point and HRW connects the law with the broader attack on liberties taking place in Iraq:



Since February 2011, Human Rights Watch has documented often violent attacks by Iraqi security forces and gangs, apparently acting with the support of the Iraqi government, against peaceful demonstrators demanding human rights, better services, and an end to corruption.  During nationwide demonstrations on February 25, 2011, for example, security forces killed at least 12 protesters across the country and injured more than 100.  Iraqi security forces beat unarmed journalists and protesters that day, smashing cameras and confiscating memory cards.  On June 10 in Baghdad, government-backed gangs armed with wooden planks, knives, iron pipes, and other weapons beat and stabbed peaceful protesters and sexually molested female demonstrators as security forces stood by and watched, sometimes laughing at the victims.
Given this backdrop, the draft Information Crimes Law appears to be part of a broad effort to suppress peaceful dissent by criminalizing legitimate activities involving information sharing and networking.  Iraq's Council of Representatives should insist that the government significantly revise the proposed Information Crimes Law to conform to the requirements of international law, and the council should reject its passage into law in its present form.  Without substantial revison, the proposed legislation would sharply undercut both freedom of expression and association.


Further in, the report notes:


Among other things, the law threatens life imprisonment and large fines for those found guilty of "inflaming sectarian tensions or strife;" "defaming the country;" "[u]ndermining the independence, untiy, or safety of the country, or its supreme economic, political, military, or security interests;" or "[p]ublishing or broadcasting false or misleading events for the purpose of weakening confidence in the electronic financial system, electronic commercial or financial documents, or similar things, or damaging the national economy and financial confidence in the state."  The law also imposes imprisonment and a fine on anyone who "encroaches on any religious, moral, family, or social values or principles," or "[c]reates, administers, or helps to create . . . any programs, information, photographs, or films that infringe on probity or public morals or advocate or propagate such things."


And let's point out this under Thug Nouri.  Nouri who sued the Guardian newspaper in England because he didn't like their story on him where some officials were talking about his power grabs.  Nouri who has tried to shut down press outlets repeatedly -- most recently wanting to close a list of outlets -- which included the BBC -- because they didn't have the correct 'papers.'



Let's remember this is Nouri al-Maliki, Little Saddam.



The man who had barely become prime minister in 2006 before he was stating that reporters covering bombings were terrorists and tried to stop all coverage of violence in the country.  It's a detail that so many of the foreign (non-Iraqi) press overlooks today -- probably because they were covering something else (another country, another beat) in 2006.  This is the thug who has repeatedly targeted one news outlet after another.  One example, dropping back to November 2, 2011:

In other news, Iraq continues its crackdown on a free press. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports:
On Monday, the Iraqi Communication and Media Commission accused al-Baghdadiya television of having a link to the church kidnappers and ordered the station to close, state television reported. Iraqi security forces surrounded the bureau of al-Baghdadiya TV in Baghdad.
Two of the station's employees were detained, according to a statement posted on the al-Baghdadiya TV website. It said the two employees had received a call from the church kidnappers demanding the release of female prisoners in Egypt in return for the hostages' freedom. The demand was later broadcast on al-Baghdadiya TV.
The station, which which is an Iraqi-owned, Egypt-based network, subsequently reported that its employees had been released.

Daily News World adds:

Al-Baghdadia, the TV station in Baghdad that said it was contacted by gunmen during Sunday's church hostage drama, has been taken off air.
It stopped transmitting shortly after its building was taken over, reportedly by a large number of government troops.
The station says its director and another employee have been charged with terrorism-related offences.
[. . .]
Al-Baghdadia – an independent station based in Egypt – says its public hotline number was phoned by the gunmen who requested it broadcast the news that they wanted to negotiate.
As the station was being taken over, it broadcast pictures of security forces surrounding the building, before the screen went blank. Transmission then resumed from al-Baghdadia's Cairo studio. The station says its office in Basra has also been taken over by security forces.
It has called a sit-in at the building and appealed to local and foreign media to attend in soldidarity.




Nouri's long pattern of attacks on the press and what appears to be at best weak 'evidence' would indicate that the station's biggest 'crime' was broadcasting news of an event that was internationally embarrassing to Nouri.  Reporters Without Borders issued a statement today which includes:

Reporters Without Borders condemns yesterday's decision by the Iraqi authorities to close the Baghdad, Kerbala and Basra bureaux of Cairo-based satellite TV station Al-Baghdadia in connection with its coverage of the previous day's hostage-taking in a Baghdad church, which ended in a bloodbath. 
Two of the station's employees, producer Haidar Salam and video editor Mohammed Al-Johair, were arrested under article 1/2/4 of the anti-terrorism law. Al-Johair was released today, after being held overnight, but Salam is still being held in an unknown location, Reporters Without Borders has learned from Al-Baghdadia representatives in Egypt.


That's Nouri and it takes the world's attention to stop him.  Grasp that.  Grasp that if this bill becomes a law, as bad as Iraq is now, it will get a lot worse.  Let's also remember this is Nouri who is waiting for the current Parliament to finish its term so he can use one MP and this is also the same Thug Nouri who tried to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his post for saying Nouri was becoming a dictator.



The Human Rights Watch report notes that it threatens all Iraqis -- all Iraqis and yet the news cycle is obsessed with one defector today -- journalists, activists, everyone due to it being vaguely written and due to the harsh punishments proposed. It would threaten and intimidate free speech, a major issue in a society already struggling against a government that seems allergic to openess.
Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, continues his visit in Iran meeting with various dignitaries.  Ahlul Byat News Agency reports he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Press TV notes he met with Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani.  One wonders what they talked about.

His desire to oust Nouri al-Maliki?  His push for a no-confidence vote?


In spite of Ammar acting as if he was going steady with Nouri al-Maliki, a new interview reveals that, privately, Ammar was less than supportive of Nouri.  Rudaw interviews the Kurdistan Democratic Party's spokesperson Jaafar Ibrahim.  KDP is President Massoud Barzani's political party.  As they discuss the ongoing political crisis, Ibrahim offers some interesting revelations.  Asked if possibly the no-confidence vote was floated too soon, Ibrahim declares they weren't the ones bringing it up, that Shi'ites were when they came to the KRG, "For example, Ammar Hakim was the first to complain about the dysfunction of the Baghdad government." He repeats this later in the interview noting again, "Mr. Ammar Hakim was here in Kurdistan and was complaining."  And is the effort to withdraw confidence from Nouri over?  "Attempts are ongoing," Ibrahim notes.



Meanwhile Alsumaria notes the Sadr bloc is backing a bill to limit the three presidencies -- Prime Minister, President of Iraq and Speaker of Parliament -- to two sessions and, in a press conference today, MP Baha al-Araji discussed it.  He was joined by independent MP Sabah al-Saadi who has already noted that such a change would be done by law in Parliament and does not require a Constitutional amendment.



All Iraqi News notes that MP Sabah al-Saadi also told the press that the judiciary has been polticized, that in the past it was a slave to Saddam Hussein and that today it is a slave to someone else.  He means, but does not say, Nouri al-Maliki.  The article notes he's talking about Nouri but none of the quotes have him naming Nouri.  All Iraqi News also notes that National Alliance held a meeting yesterday to discuss the political crisis.



The Reform Committee is a lot like the earlier call for a national council -- a lot of meetings get held but nothing is accomplished.



Alsumaria reports that a corpse was discovered outside Tikrit.  The man was feed shop owner and the body had multiple gunshot wounds.  In addition, Alsumaria notes a Babylon attack on the home of an Awakening (Sahwa, Sons of Iraq/Daughters of Iraq) and four members of his family were also shot dead, a Kirkuk bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer with two more injured and a Salah al-Din attack left one truck driver injured.  Through Wednesday, Iraq Body Count counts 151 dead from violence in Iraq so far this month.

But don't worry, the same Nation magazine that once railed against the undercounting of Iraqi deaths, the one that grandstanded -- remember? -- will allow their Lyndon LaRouche refugee to undercount the deaths as he did this week.  The United Nations may say over 400 died but that's not good enough for The Nation magazine, you understand.  The rag that used to be outraged by the refusal to pay attention to the Lancet study finding over one million Iraqis had died in the Iraq War now proves what a cheap and whorish rag it is by joining in the undercount because The Nation only really opposed wars today when a Republican occupies the White House.

Turning to England and other liars.  Ed West can't grow a man's beard and he also apparently struggles with honesty which would explain this nonsense at the Telegraph:


But one thing Blair is not is a war criminal. Iraq was a dreadful mistake, a mistake that cost thousands of American and British lives, and the lives of between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqis, and strengthened the most hostile power in the region (not to mention driving out Iraq's Christian population). But it was not illegal, nor was it opportunist on Blair's part; people forget that the prime minister was not jumping on the 9/11 bandwagon, but had been rooting to remove Saddam since 1997.

What a liar.

One thing Tony Blair is is a War Criminal.  Iraq was a criminal enterprise for Blair who lied about weapons that Saddam Hussein DID NOT have and how they could reach England in 45 minutes.  Tony refused to listen to the legal advice offered in the lead up to the illegal war.  To 'prove' it's not illegal, the under-educated links to Crapapedia (Wikipedia).  What a moron.  And that fact becomes especially clear when he insists that Tones was not jumping on the 9-11 bandwagon because he wasn "opportunist" since he had wanted war on Iraq for years.  No, Ed, that is the defenition of "opportunistic."

1) taking advantage of opportunities as they arise

Which would be Blair using the tragedy of 9-11 to get the war he'd always wanted (Iraq was not involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US).

2) exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle or consequences

Which would be Blair -- the alleged Christian whose illegal war drove Christians out of Iraq.  We can provide tons of examples on the second definition but that does it. Tony pretends to be pious and envoke's a deity's name repeatedly in public -- in a manner that the UK hasn't seen to that degree from a prime minister in the last 100 years and yet for all his lofty Christian ideals, the Christians and Iraq suffer because of what Tony Blair did.  Suffer and die. 

He's a war criminal.

Ed West further argues that Stop the War Coalition's Lindsey German shouldn't be listened to about Tony Blair because Tony Blair got move votes than German.  Uh, that's not how it works but if Ed wants to play it that way let's note.  1) Ed West is nothing, a nobody outside of England.  2) In the US many of us make a point to give Lindsey our attention with any column, interview or speech and that's true around the world.  Where there are people who've made a point to oppose the Iraq War, you'll find people who know of Lindsey German.  Repeating, no one knows Ed West globally, no one cares.  Lindsey German?  A fine example of citizenship lived fully.  Lindsey German had a Guardian column on Tony Blair.


Five years after he left Downing Street, Tony Blair's attempted comeback to political life shows how little he understands about what went wrong with his career, and about the level of opposition to him that still remains.
He has planned a series of fundraising events to facilitate his return to grace, including an "in conversation" with Tessa Jowell and a £500-a-head dinner alongside Ed Miliband tomorrow. Jowell had to hastily cancel her appearance for fear of demonstrations. Tonight's Blair event at Arsenal's Emirates stadium in north London will be met by protests organised by the Stop the War coalition over his role in the Iraq war.
It appears that his old friend and partner in crime, Alastair Campbell, will be there. While we have to assume that those attending will not choke on their dinners, many Labour members and voters will find all this too much to stomach. 


From England and Iraq to the US and Iraq.  Ali Mussa Daqduq is someone that I believe likely killed 5 Americans and 4 British citizens.  There are probably others as well.  But my "likely" doesn't matter.  A court of law makes that decision.  As December 2011 approached and the US government prepared to pull most US troops out of Iraq, Republicans and Democrats in Congress began asking the White House about Ali Mussa Daqduq who was then in US custody.  Many Republicans were vocal that the US should keep him in custody and try him in the US, in a military court, at Guantanamo or somewhere.  As with the leases and everything else about Iraq, the Barack Obama administration bungled it.  They handed him over to the Iraqis.

Once that happened, that was the end of it.  The White House played idiot and insisted they had promises that Ali Mussa Daqduq would be prosecuted and, though he might not be found guilty in the death of the 5 Americans, he could be busted for entering Iraq 'illegally.'  What a comfort to the families of the fallen.  (That was sarcasm.)



So Iraq tried him.  And said he was innocent of all charges.  The US government whined and moaned and the verdict was appealed.  The appeals court rendered a not-guilty verdict.  Moqtada al-Sadr has called for Daqduq to be released.  US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said Daqduq should continue to be held.

Who's right?

I like Leon but he's wrong.  I agree there is no 'justice' in the Iraqi 'justice' system.  But the US handed him over and knew he would be tried by Iraqi courts.  When that happened and he was twice found not guilty, that was the end of the story.  He needs to be set free.

Dropping back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot to note this:

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."

I am very sorry that the families did not see justice.  I'm very sorry that Barack Obama traded others involved in the killings (he let go the head of the League of Righteous and others who were involved in this attack -- let them go in the summer of 2009 from US prisons and did so -- as they would reveal themselves -- because he wanted the 5 kidnapped British citizens released by the League).  I'm sorry that American lives mattered so little to Barack Obama.  I'm sorry that he wants to grandstand on the backs of US service members after releasing the ringleaders involved in killing 5 Americans.

But at this point, it's too late.  The legal system is followed or it isn't.  The US is interfering with Iraqi law and the legal system.  Not to try to save someone from being executed but to try to prevent someone from being released.  If Barack didn't want him released, he should have kept in US custody.  Barack chose not to and the man was turned over to Iraq.  He's now stood in trial twice.  He was found not guilty.  By the rule of the law, he's free.  I don't like it, I don't think it's fair, but it's the law.



And think about the message that the US sends when they ask Iraqi to continue to hold a man twice found innocent. 

My heart goes out to the families of the fallen but when Barack made the choice to release Daqduq to Iraqi custody, it became a matter for the Iraqis.  Now Barack doesn't like their decision and wants a do-over. 


That's not how it works.


Lara Jakes and Qassim abdul-Zahra (AP) report that Antony Blinken -- Vice President Joe Biden's national security adviser -- states that the US wants Daqduq to be hld and that they not only want to see him extradited to the US, they've already made that request. They also note, "Abdul-Sattar Bayrkdar, spokesman for Iraq's Supreme Judicial Council said the appeals court ruling is final and there are no charges pending against Daqduq. Ali al-Moussawi, media adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said he was unaware of any U.S. request to extradite Daqduq."

Barack is the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee . . .  
(presumptive, that's what his attorneys just argued in the Florida case, remember?).  The presumed Republican nominee is Mitt Romney.  Yesterday, he spoke to the NAACP. 
Marcia's "Romney and the NAACP," Stan's "Talk about embarrassing," Betty's "Mitt's speech"
and Ann's "4 men, 2 women" weigh in on that speech and the event.  Jill Stein is the presumptive
Green Party presidential nominee.  Yesterday, in DC, she announced that Cheri Honkala would be
her running mate.  Ruth's "Roseanne Barr's sour grapes," Trina's "Time for some brave move,"
Elaine's "Big Day for the Green Party" and my (filling in for Kat) "Stein's choice is Honkala" cover
that.  Leigh Ann Caldwell (CBS News) interviewed Stein yesterday.  Excerpt:
As a physician, what is your response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the president's health care bill?

Stein: It's very problematic. I think the Supreme Court's decision destroys the most useful part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - that is the Medicaid extension. We have a track record here. We don't have to just guess what he impact of the ACA will be. We already have it in Massachusetts, where I live. We've already had it for five years. It has not been a solution. The cost of health care continues to skyrocket. On the other hand we have a real track record of what does work. It's called national health insurance, Medicare for all. We actually achieve health and we do it in a way that provides health care to everyone at less than half the cost per person. We know that under Medicare for all, we would be saving trillions of dollars over the next decade because it eliminates the wasteful health insurance bureaucracy and it stabilizes medical inflation. This is the way to go.

You have a "Green New Deal" to employ "every American willing and able to work." Is this your economic plan? And how do you plan to do it?


Stein: By using our tax dollars instead of to provide a stimulus package that's predominately tax breaks for corporations, instead we use a comparable amount of money and put it into the direct creation of jobs. And again, this is not a hypothetical idea. It's based on a plan that helped markedly to get us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. This would not be a cookie cutter, top-down Washington-controlled program. Rather it would be nationally funded but locally controlled where by communities decide what kinds of jobs they need to become sustainable. It would create jobs in what we think of as the Green economy, but it would also create jobs meeting our social needs - hiring back teaches, nurses, after-school care [providers], violence prevention.

Stein is the presumptive nominee.  The candidate will be announced at the Green Party's national
convention which kicks off tomorrow in Baltimore.
Read on ...
Posted by Isaiah at 9:00 PM 0 comments

Thursday, July 5, 2012

The Rose Ceremony


The Rose Ceremony

From February 15, 2009, that's "The Rose Ceremony."  For various reasons, Judd Gregg, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, and Tom Daschle flee their cabinet nomination. And there's Little Dicky, with his dog by his side, declaring, "If he had picked me, I would have been Mrs. Barack Obama, Secretary of the Whatever so fast, his head would have spun."  Poor Little Dicky.

I did a Little Dicky this week as well.  We hadn't seen him and his dog for awhile.  And as I explained here last week, that is a parody of Kos.  Poor Little Dicky.  So helpless.  So worthless.  So pathetic. 


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Tuesday, July 5, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, already July has seen 88 violent deaths, Nouri continues his Diyala Province crackdown, the Iraqi Communist Party leadership rushes to demonstrate why they've been ineffective for so many years, a mother wants the UK government to answer to the circumstances of her son's death, and more.
 
 
Today is only the fifth day of the new month yet Iraq Body Count tabulates 88 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month -- and that's just July 1st through the 4th.  And the violence continued today.  Alsumaria reports a suicide bomber went into a Mosul shopping mall and blew himself up also killing 4 other people and leaving twelve more injured.  As ambulances rushed the injured to the hospital, security forces closed down the area. In addition, Trend News Agency reports a car bombing in Baghdad which left four people injured. Bushra Juhi (AP) reports that local government official Ali Abdul-Amir's Baghdad home has bombed resulting in the deaths of his wife and their two daughters while he and two sons were left injured.  Alsumaria notes a Diayala Province bombing (near Baquba) which claimed 1 life, also in Diyala (Tahrir) 1 Sawha was killed and three of other Sahwa were injured by a bombing, and a Tirkit suicide car bomber took their own life and left three people injured.  Wednesday saw violence as well.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) noted 3 "Iraqi officials" were shot dead today and a Taji roadside bombing left six people injured while a Zubaidiya car bombing claimed 8 lives and left twenty-five people injured.  AFP added the 3 shot dead in Baghdad: "policewoman Ibtisam Ibrahim[, . . .] police First Lt Ahmed Swadi [and] employee at Iraq's parliament, Farhan Kadhim Mussa."  Alsumaria noted a Baquba roadside bombing injured three people.   Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counted 63 dead and 152 injured on Tuesday.  This week has seen attacks on Shi'ites making a holy pilgrimage.  Jaber Ali (Middle East Confidential) explains, "There are fears that the trend will continue, especially on Friday. Analysts believe that the Shiite pilgrims will be the principal targets of bombings and security is being beefed up around Karbala." Press TV reports that 40,000 security forces will provide security within Karbala and that security forces are also deployed "around the central city."
 
Yesterday, Alsumaria reported that Nouri has ordered raids and arrests in Diyala Province.  Baquba is the capital and it borders Iran in the north.  It is predominately Sunni with a signficiant number of Shi'ites Kurds and Turkmen.  "Home to every major sect and ethnicity of Iraq," the Institute for the Study of War has noted.  The organization also noted:


Shia and Kurdish power blocs saw the organization of the Sunnis into legitimized security forces in Diyala as a threat to their strategic interests within a critical province. In response to the IIPs growing power, Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki created the Diyala Support Council (DSC) in mid-2007 in an attempt to influence Diyala from Baghdad. Further, Maliki employed the ISF to reduce the strength of Sunni power bloc in Diyala by arresting hundreds of Sunni fighters and ejecting Popular Committee leaders from their offices. Lastly, in February of 2008, Prime Minister Maliki won the approval of the Government of Iraq to form Tribal Support Councils (TSC) throughout Iraq. The Diyala TSCs allowed Maliki to check growing Sunni influence within the province and play one Sunni group off another, effectively preventing the Sunnis from creating a single, consolidated political bloc.
 
 
With at least 13 arrested in Diyala Wednesday and security sources telling Alsumaria that 20 more have been arrested in Diyala already this month, chances are the arrests will be seen as part of Nouri al-Maliki's continued attack on Iraq's Sunni population.  Today, Bryar Mohammed (AK News) reports Iraqiya's Suhad al-Hayali is stating that police are stating, "You are Sunnis and are behind the terrorist attacks. The Security forces coming from Baghdad to Baquba attack people in violation of the human rights and speak sectarian slogans and remarks."
 
In addition, Iraq's Journalists Freedom Observatory noted yesterday that when journalists attempted to cover Minister of Electricity Abdul Karim Aftan's appearance at the opening of a new power plant in Baghdad July 2nd (Monday) they witnessed the minister's security guards begin beating people -- including journalists -- to clear a route for the minister's departure. 
 
As the violence continues, Kay Johnson and Lara Jakes (AP) observe, "Part of the problem is the dysfunctional Iraqi government that, so far this year, has failed to protect its public or settle internal power squabbles."  Michael Knights (Foreign Policy) weighed in today on the violence and shifting landscape:
 
 
But just as Iraqi politics heats up, the United States is rapidly losing its ability to decipher events in the country. "Half of our situational awareness is gone," an unnamed U.S. official told the Wall Street Journal in June. "More than half," a serving U.S. military officer told me when I asked about the accuracy of that statement.
To Iraq experts, these statements ring true: At the height of the "surge," the United States collected fine-grain data from the 166,000 U.S. troops and 700 CIA personnel in Iraq, as well as a network of 31 Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Now, U.S. embassy staff enjoy very limited freedom of movement -- hemmed in by a suspicious government in Baghdad and a still-dangerous security situation. According to the Journal, the CIA station in Iraq may be reduced to 40 percent of its peak levels because the Iraqi government is extremely sensitive about its intelligence work with the Iraqi security forces.
 
 
 
The concerns come at a time when the US government continues to spend massive amounts of taxpayer money in Iraq despite the decreased US oversight.  Joshua Altman (The Hill -- link has text and video) reports US House Rep Jason Chaffetz was on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzter Tuesday and declared, "The degree in which our assets are being treated in very troublesome.  There's some 50 billion dollars worth of projects that the American taxpayers have footed ... yet when we try to go through checkpoints and try to travel through the country and do other types of things we're having a very difficult time."

Last week, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations held a hearing on Iraq.  Committee Chair Chaffetz heard many disturbing reports from the various governmental IG (inspector generals) about what was taking place in Iraq.

Chair Jason Chaffetz: The State Dept has greatly expanded its footprint in Iraq. 
 There are approximately 2,000 direct-hire personnel and 14,000 support contractors -- roughly a seven-to-one ratio.  This includes 7,000 private security contractors to guard our facilities and move personnel throughout Iraq.  Leading up to the withdrawal, the State Dept's mission seemed clear.  Ambassador Patrick Kennedy testified that the diplomatic mission was "designed to maximize influence in key locations."  And later said, "State will continue the police development programs moving beyond basic policing skills to provide police forces with the capabilities to uphold the rule of law.  
The Office of Security Cooperation will help close gaps in Iraq's security forces 
capabilities through security assistance and cooperation."  This is an unprecedented mission for the State Dept. Nonetheless, our diplomatic corps has functioned without  the protections of  a typical host nation.  It's also carried on without troop support that  many believed it would have. As a result, the Embassy spends roughly 93% of its budget  on security alone.  Without a doubt, this is an enormously complex and difficult mission.  Six months into the transition, the Congress must assess whether the administration 
is accomplishing its mission?  While the State Dept has made progress, it appears to be facing difficult challenges in a number of areas. The Oversight Committee has offered some criticism based on their testimony today.  Including the Government Accountability Office noting that the State and Defense Dept's security capabilities are not finalized.  
The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction states that, "Thousands of projects completed by the United States and transferred to the government of Iraq will not be sustained and thus will fail to meet their intended purposes."  The Defense Dept's Inspector General's Office explains that the lack of Status of Forces Agreement has impacted land use agreements, force protection, passport visa requirements, air and ground movement and our foreign military sales program.  And the US AID Inspector General's office testifies, "According to US AID mission, the security situation has hampered its ability to monitor programs. Mission personnel are only occassionally able to travel to the field for site visits."  Embassy personnel have also told Committee staff that the United States government has difficulty registering its vehicles with the
 Iraqi government and Iraqis have stood up checkpoints along supply lines.  According to one embassy official, the team must dispatch a liason to "have tea and figure out how we're going to get our trucks through."  These are just some of the challenges the State Dept is facing in Iraq today.  Perhaps as a result of these conditions, Mission Iraq appears to be evolving.  In an effort to be more efficient, the State Dept is evaluating its footprint, reducing personnel and identifying possible reductions.  This rapid change in strategy, however, raises a number of questions. Are we on the right track?  Are we redefining the mission?  What should we expect in the coming months?  And, in hindsight,  was this a well managed withdrawal?

The Subcommittee heard about it being impossible for Americans to check on the various costly projects the US taxpayers continue paying for (so there is no direct US supervision) and that there was a failure to get lease agreements so that most of the facilities could be lost.  (Only 5 of 14 have land lease agreements, as the US Government Accountability Office's Michael Courts testified.)) This matters because?  It matters because of the money the US government is spending -- taxpayer money -- in Iraq. US House Rep Blake Farenthold conveyed his displeasure to the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy over the fact that the Police College Annex in Baghdad was a US facility that cost US taxpayers "more than $100 million in improvements to the site" only to "be turned over to Iraq for free" as a result of the US not securing a land lease.  And don't forget that last week, Walter Pincus (Washington Post via Stars and  Stripes) reported, "The State Department is planning to spend as much as $115 million to upgrade the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, already its biggest and most expensive in the world, according to pre-solicitation notices published this month.  Remember, it has been 3 1/2 years since American diplomats moved into the 104-acre, $700 million facility and only four months after State Department officials in February talked about trying to cut back the U.S. presence there."
 
 
US officials had no trouble visiting the KRG today.  All Iraqi News reports they met with KRG President Massoud Barzani and discussed the ongoing political crisis as well as the US relationship with the KRG.  The article notes that Barzani also attended the July 4th celebration held by the US Consulate in Erbil and spoke there with remarks which included a reminder to the "US leadership" of the obligations they have to the Kurds as a result of promises and he noted the Kurds aren't a threat to unity, that the Kurds support unity and freedom and that they do not and will not support a dictatorship. The article gets the titles wrong of the two US officials.  One is Alex Laskaris is the Counsul General for the Erbil consulate and he is expected to leave shortly (US President Barack Obama has nominated Laskaris to be the US Ambassador to Guinea).   The other official is Robert Stephen Beecroft who is the Charge d'affaires and running the US mission in Iraq since the US Ambassador James Jeffrey stepped down from his post last month.  If you click here (KRG official government website), you can see a photo of President Massoud Barzani receiving the US officials. At a time when the US government has less and less eyes in Iraq, it's worth nothing that among the 'missing' eyes is a US Ambassador to Iraq.  Laura Rozen scooped everyone (by weeks) with the news that Brett McGurk would be Barack Obama's third nominee for the post.  Unlike the other two (Jeffrey and, before him, Chris Hill), McGurk did not make it through the confirmation process.  Last week at Al-Monitor, Laura Rozen shared:
 
In the wake of Obama's nominee for Iraq ambassador withdrawing his name from consideration last week after an unusually bruising ordeal, it's a fair bet the Obama administration is inclined to go with a safe, more easily confirm-able pick for its next nominee for the post.
Washington Iraq experts say they expect the new nominee to be announced in the next couple weeks, and have offered a somewhat lengthy list of diplomats they have heard are in the mix for the post overseeing the largest US embassy in the world.
 
She goes on to note the names she's hearing for the post including Robert Stephen Beecroft, Stuart Jones (US Ambassador to Jordan) and Robert Ford (former US Ambassador to Syria).  As with Barack's previous three nominees for US Ambassador to Iraq -- and all the ones under Bush -- they're all male.
 
Speaking to various participants, Hevidear Ahmed (Rudaw) attempts to figure out where the political crisis in Iraq now stands:
 
 

"If the issue is collecting signatures, we can now collect enough. But when it comes to voting, I don't know who will vote in favor of the case or not. Therefore, until the actual voting takes place, we won't have a clear view on the issue," Hussein added.
Abdul Sattar Bayati, a senior official from Sadr's faction in Iraqi Parliament, confirms their stance on the issue, saying they have not given up on the attempt to unseat Maliki.
"Maliki must be removed from office. Whenever 124 votes in favor of withdrawing confidence are collected, we will add the other 40 votes needed. His Excellency Muqtada Sadr has already said this." Bayati said.
 
 
 
The campaign to oust current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from his job by having a majority in Parliament vote him out seems to have failed. But the campaign against al-Maliki continues.
Currently the alliance of political parties ranged against him - the Iraqiya Bloc, headed by former Prime Minister Ayed Allawi, the Kurdish politicians and the Sadrist bloc - are working on a second plan and that is to bring al-Maliki before Parliament for questioning about legal and constitutional violations. If they succeed Parliament could then dismiss their Prime Minister. According to local analysts though, this process could take months.
And it seems that al-Maliki is now responding to attempts to oust him with some serious moves of his own. He has threatened early elections and now says he will also work on some political reforms.
"Those calling for a withdrawal of confidence have retreated," MP Ali al-Shalalah, who belongs to al-Maliki's State of Law bloc, says. "Recently there have more calls to start a dialogue with al-Maliki instead. This option is seen as more relevant."
Especially because al-Maliki announced that his political alliance was creating a committee to reform the political process in Iraq. This week senior politician Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced that a special committee had been formed to review differences between the political blocs in Iraq and look at problems related to legislative, executive and judicial authorities.

 
Dar Addustour reports that he's declaring all these grand accomplishments that the Reform Commission will be responsible for including the appointment of a Minister of Defense and a Minister of Interior.  Maybe that will happen, maybe it won't.  Probably not a good idea to be promising it will or to declare that the Reform Commission is a replacement to the no-confidence vote on Nouri.  al-Jaafari was never part of that movement and can't speak for it with any degree of accuracy.
 
But some people appear to be buying it.  (The opinion on Moqtada al-Sadr currently in diplomatic circles -- US and France -- is that he's taking a leadership role that will assist him in two years.  He is portraying himself -- and this may be genuine but it is the image he's trying to convey -- as someone more interested in Iraq than in any individuals or parties.  Should a vote of no-confidence take place in the Parliament, the expected outcome is that Moqtada would slide his forty seats over if they would allow for the no-confidence outcome.) 
 
Remember when Judy Collins sang "Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime" ("Marat/Sade")?   Is there a better description of the Iraqi Communist Party?  Despite one alrm sounded after another over and over about how Nouri's doing this to them or that to their headquarters, they can't stop slobbering over Nouri. Today they announced their love for the Reform Commission and met with Nouri.  No wonder they never got anywhere in Iraq.  And they won't get anywhere until their leaders stop rushing to side with power at the expense of the people.  "Sons of the ass licking dying regime," indeed.
 
 
Concessions?
 
First off, Nouri al-Maliki is not bound to any of the decisions (or, more aptly worded, "recommendations") the Reform Commission makes.  Second, concessions were already promised even if the Iraqi Communist Party chooses to be willfully ignorant of that fact.
 
In March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections.  Nouri's State of Law came in second.  Iraqiya came in first.  Per the Constitution, Iraqiya should have had first crack at forming a government.  Nouri refused to let that happen.  For eight months he refused.  He got away with it because he had Barack Obama's backing.  Then the US further subverted democracy and the will of the people by approaching the leaders of the political blocs and insisting that the only way to end the Political Stalemate was for them to agree to let Nouri have a second term as prime minister and that, in exchange, Nouri would make concessions.  Nouri's word was dirt as a result of his first term.  What made what the US government was proposing believable was the fact that US officials swore this would be a legal, binding contract and that the US would back it and ensure it was carried out.
 
In November 2010, the political blocs signed on to the Erbil Agreement.  Nouri used it to get his second term as prime minister.
 
And then?
 
He tossed the contract.  And the US played dumb by first insisting that Nouri would get around to it, give him a month or two; then they'd play like they never heard of the contract that they, in fact, drew up.  (Some say "wrote.")
 
Those concessions were not honored.  Nouri stabbed everyone in the back.  Now maybe this time he won't do it.  But there's no indication that he's going to honor his word this time and at least you'd expect alleged independent radicals like the Communist Party to stop slobbering in public and provide a little reality.
 
Such as the many violations of the Constitution resulting from Nouri currently.  We're not just talking about his refusal to follow the Constitution and implement Article 140 (he was supposed to do so in his first term but refused then too). We're also talking about his refusing to appear before Parliament for questioning.  That's not really an option he has, per the Constitution. 
 
We haven't covered this but, as usual, State of Law tries to distract.  So they've got a 'movement' to question Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi who they have spread rumors about (specifically he allegedly has millions -- over 20 million dollars -- and they want to know where it came from).  That they want to distract with.  And they may succeed.  Nouri has a lot of enablers in the press and certainly in the United States.  But you really don't expect to see the always screaming-their-heads-off-about-what-Nouri-just-did-to-them Communist Party rush to prop up Nouri.  This is truly a very sad moment but it does explain why the Communist Party is and has been meaningless in Iraqi politics.  'They opposed Saddam Hussein!'  Yes, they did.  With the same sort of weak-spined opposition they've offered Nouri.  They apparently exist solely to mislead the Iraqi people into believing there is a token of opposition in the country.
 
 They're about as real as the CIA-created and backed Gorran Party ("Change") in the KRG.  Press TV reports, "The general coordiantor of the Kurdistan Region's Movement for Change opposition party met with Iranian officials this week to discuss the ongoing political disputes between Iraq and the Kurdistan Region. For the first time, Nawshirwan Mustafa met with Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, parliament speaker Ali Larijani and Saeed Jalili, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council." If they weren't gathering data, the CIA sure wasted a lot of taxpayer money funding and 'developing' them.
 
 
 Meanwhile in England there are developments in a 2003 Iraq attack.  The mother of  Copral Paul Long has filed a lawsuit.  In June 2003, 24-year-old Paul Long was killed while serving in Iraq.  The UK Ministry of Defence issued the following statement and photo:
 
It is with very deep regret that the Ministry of Defence has to confirm that Corporal Paul Graham Long was killed in action in southern Iraq on 24 June 2003 whilst serving with 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police.
Aged 24, he came from Colchester in Essex.
Born in Portsmouth, Paul Long attended Blackmoor CofE Primary School and All Hallows RC Comprehensive in Aldershot, before moving to South Shields where he attended Hebburn College. He joined the Regular Army in April 1999, having served two years with the Territorial Army, and was posted to 156 Provost Company in March 2000. A member of the Parachute Provost Platoon, he was a qualified radio operator. This was his first operational deployment. Paul was a dedicated soldier who loved his work.
His mother Patricia Long, supported by her other two children and other family members, said that, "the Army was his life."
A requiem was held at a Roman Catholic church in South Shields on 4 July, after which his brother and sister, Byron and Maria, paid the following tribute:
"Our brother, Paul Graham Long, known affectionately by all his family, friends and Army colleagues as Paul, joined the Royal Military Police in 1999. He wanted only to help others less fortunate than himself.
"Paul leaves behind a loving wife Gemma and a baby son of 11 months, Benjamin David, and our devoted mother Patricia.
"We would really appreciate it if there were no further visits from the press and other media, so that we can be left to mourn Paul in peace. Paul, who was loved dearly and will be sadly missed, died doing what he did best: helping others.
"Our hearts and prayers go out to the families and friends of all the Royal Military Police killed in Iraq."
The media are asked to respect the family's privacy at this very difficult time.
 
 
The Jarrow & Hebburn Gazette reports Pat Long, Paul Long's mother, is petitioning the court "for a fresh independent inquiry into her son's death "by a mob of Iraqis at a police station in Majar-al-Kabir."  The British troops had "little ammunition" and an out of date radio/walkie talkie that "was completely useless in a built-up area and could only be used in open fileds."  ITV explains the Secretary of Defence Philip Hammond has thus far refused to grant a fresh inquest and so Pat Long has taken the issue to the High Court. 
 
 
 
cnn
cnn
Read on ...
Posted by Isaiah at 8:00 PM 0 comments

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Little Dicky (and Orphan Annie)

 Little Dicky Breaks It Down
From February 8, 2009, that's "Little Dicky Breaks It Down."

Little Dicky (and his unnamed dog -- it is a boy dog, I have a joke on that when I do the last Little Dicky) was introduced in 2009 to have a regular character to rely on.  He is a charter member of the Cult of St. Barack.  He drools over Barry O.

He's pathetic and wimpy.

Many people thought it was supposed to be based on "Kos."

Many people were correct.

That's who Little Dicky is based on, in looks and in attitude.

He's worthless because he won't stand up for anything, he just runs around with his dog mooning over Barack.  To call him a cheerleader is to give him too much credit because cheerleaders work much harder than he does.

Again Little Dicky is a character who pops up every now and then.  You haven't seen the last of him yet.

Little Whore Dicky gets to meet Little Orphan Annie?

Kind of.  We're doing theme posts where we pick out a section of film criticism and include it.  It can be because we agree or disagree or whatever.  I'm picking out this from Pauline Kael's review of Annie because it's wickedly funny:

The comic strip Little Orphan Annie was once the most popular strip in American funny papers.  The child-Cinderella story of the orphan who in 1933, during the Depression, is taken for a week into the home of the billionaire Daddy Warbucks and proceeds to spread sunshine and to inspire President Roosevelt to create the New Deal cries out for a cockeyed fairy-tale tone.  But the movie has the feel of a manufactured romp, and Annie (Aileen Quinn), a ten-year-old with a heart-shaped face and brass lungs, bawls out "Tomorrow" regularly, on schedule.  The child is almost frighteningly assured; she's a little freckled, red-haired engine, designed to be cheerful, inspirational, and spunky -- a fearless toughie who uses her fists on any boys who mistreat animals.  Aileen Quinn has a pleasant enough voice when she does a more subdued reprise of "Tomorrow" at the White House, yet even in her restrained song, "Maybe," when her voice is at its softest and most musical, she's too professional a Broadway babe, there's nothing spontaneous or touching about her.  All the little orphans seem to have been trained by Ethel Merman; they belt in unison.  And when they dance it's showy leaping about, and the editing breaks it up, making it more hectic.  Annie arrives at Daddy Warbucks' mansion, and his household staff dances; the cutting is so choppy that the pump-and-tumble dancing -- arms like pistons and stomping feet -- turns into commotion.


You can find the full review in Kael's Taking It All In.  Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, June 28, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  some wonder who will eventually replace Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, attacks on the press in Iraq continue, we note the attacks on Al Mada, Nouri offers name calling of his rivals, the return of the VA's dreaded Madhulika Agarwal, and much more.
 
In an new article published by the Navy Times today, Patricia Kime reports on a study for the US military's Trauma Combat Casualty Care Committee which found "that nearly a quarter of the 4,596 combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011 were 'potentially survivable'."
 
There's not been a comprehnsive evaluation of deaths in Iraq but that's probably partly due to the fact that the violence has never stopped.  This morning kicked off with Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reporting 3 Taji car bombings have left at least two people dead and another fifteen injured.  AP noted those numbers increased to 5 dead and eighteen injured.  In addition, AFP noted a Baghdad car bombing has claimed 8 lives and left thirty injured.  Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quotes Baghdad police officer Ahmed Nouri stating, "There were bodies scattered everywhere.  Glass and vegetables covered the whole place.  I feel lik my clothes are completely covered in blood and the smell of it is in my nose.  In some places you cannot tell the blood from the (pulverized) vegetables."  On the Baghdad bombing, AP quotes Hadil Maytham who was with her children when the explosions took place, "It shook the doors and the windows of the house.  Then we heard shooting, probably by police who usually shoot randomly after explosions."   AFP also noted a Baquba bombing claimed 2 lives and left four people injured and a Ramadi car bombing left five people injured.  Reuters added, "A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed one and wounded five in Abu Dsheer, a Shi'ite area in southern Baghdad, police said."  In addition, KUNA reports, "In Diyala Governorate southewest of Baghdad, unknown armed men killed four security elements at a checkpoint in Baqubah city."  AFP added this evening that 2 Shawa were killed in Samarra with an additional two left injured.  As the day ended in the US, AP was counting 22 deaths and over fifty injured.  It has been a very violent month in Iraq with Iraq Body Count counting 404 deaths by violence this month (June 1st through yesterday).
 
Meanwhile many speculate about Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's health and his eventual death, specifically who would take over.  Hayder al-Khoei (Niqash) argues it's very unlikely that Grand Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi (born in Iraq, adult life spent in Iran) would be named the replacement as some hope and some fear:
 
Shahroudi is a well-regarded scholar but his political position in Iran hinders, rather than helps, his prospects in Iraq. In fact, any political position a cleric holds actually has direct – and negative – implications on his religious credentials in Najaf. In Iran, religion and politics may be symbiotic. But in Iraq they do not go hand in hand.
The Shiite schools in Najaf, headed by al-Sistani have been practicing what is known as a tradition of quietism here for centuries: that is, a policy of religious leaders not interfering in political affairs. Clerics in Iraq do get involved in politics and the Grand Ayatollah does intervene in political affairs, but unlike in Iran, only on rare occasions.
Additionally, the process by which a successor to the religious movement is selected must be considered.  As Iraqi government spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, put it: "there will be a transition period for a few years after the leading cleric dies but there are set mechanisms in place [for choosing a successor] and anyone who attempts to fill this gap using financial and political power from outside Iraq will fail".
Al-Dabbagh is referring to the gradual process of selection, involving other senior clerics in Najaf who will have a role in persuading the masses toward one, or several, clerics suitable to eventually take al-Sistani's place. It will not be clear cut at first and it may take some years for one strong, leading cleric to emerge.
As political and financial independence is crucial, it seems unlikely that senior clerics in Najaf will persuade the masses to start following someone like Shahroudi, with such an overt political role in Iran.
But the likelihood of Shahroudi replacing al-Sistani does not just depend on theological differences between clerics in Iraq and Iran. It also depends on the attitude of the masses. By following al-Sistani, Shiite Muslims indicate their reluctance to tie their religious and spiritual identity to a modern political system.
 
In 2009, Hashemi-Shahroudi ordered 'measures' to be taken to curb the press which frightened him -- specifically websites and satellite TV.  Whether he could replace Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani or not, he would certainly fit in with Nouri's never-ending attacks on the media. 
 
 
Today, AFP reports, "Baghdad: Iraq's interior ministry has given dozens of media outlets 45 days to comply with Communications and Media Commission (CMC) regulations over licences, or they will face 'legal procedures'."  Reporters Without Borders issues a statement which includes:
Tension between authorities and media have peaked this month with a decision by the Communications and Media Commission (CMC) – still pending implementation – to close 47 radio and TV stations on the grounds they lack official permits, and with demonstrations by journalists calling for the repeal of the Law on Journalists' Rights, which parliament adopted in August 2011 and which is widely regarded as violating the rights it claims to defend.

Disturbing decision by panel of questionable independence

Reporters Without Borders is alarmed by the CMC's decision, which triggered such an outcry that the interior ministry has given the radio and TV stations concerned 45 days from 25 June to comply with regulations.
The CMC took its decision more than a month ago but it was only revealed on 23 June by the Journalism Freedoms Observatory (JFO), which obtained documentary evidence of the plan. It concerns both local and foreign TV stations such as the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Monte Carlo, Radio Sawa, Al-Baghdadia TV and Al-Sharqiya News.
Many journalists and some politicians have criticized the decision as an attempt to gag the media, pointing out that the head of the CMC is appointed by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and that many of the targeted media are noted either for the non-partisan nature of their Iraqi coverage or, in some cases such as Al-Baghdadia and Al-Sharqiya, for their frequent criticism of the Iraqi government.
Iraq is currently experiencing a major political crisis with the prime minister facing mounting opposition. He is often accused of authoritarianism, nepotism and corruption.

 
Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) head Ziyad al-Aajey told the Associated Press in a telephone interview that he believes the latest action against international news outlets is a direct warning from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
"It is a government message to the media outlets that if you are not with us, then you are against us," he said.
 
Nouri has a long history of attacking the press.  We noted some of that Sunday:
 
But Nouri began his crackdown on the press in July of 2006, he was freshly named prime minister.  He continued it.  At one point, his attacks translated into a reporter for the New York Times having an Iraqi soldier aim a gun at him, pull the trigger and then laugh because there was no chamber in the round.  This is what Nouri's encouraged and fostered in Iraq.  He's sued the Guardian, he's sued everyone.  Saleh al-Mutlaq tells CNN in December that Nouri's acting like a dictator and Nouri spends months trying to get al-Mutlaq stripped of his Deputy Prime Minister post.

In 2012, Nouri's favorite thing is to storm Iraqi news websites with hits to try to get them denied service.  No one comments on that because there's hardly any foreign press in Iraq anymore.  But there's too much still for Nouri.  Little Saddam can't do what he wants to do if there's a chance that the world's watching.
 
This led some to insist that there are no web attacks in Iraq.  Yes, there are.  It's pretty much destroying Al Mada which, today, is temporarily back online.  You won't find new content.  The daily has been hard by these attacks and hasn't published since the end of May.  However, May 25th they did report that their website was exposed to daily attacks that were causing it to crash.  They apologized to their readers and noted that tehcnical staff was attempting to prevent the hacks and the disruption of service.
 
 
Al Mada is one of Iraq's finest newspapers -- a newspaper that repeatedly puts US coverage to shame.  It could be a leader in the Middle East.  Instead, it's repeatedly attacked and the US press can't even be bothered with noting that fact.  Is it professional jealousy or just the US press forever being self-absorbed.
 
 
In Iraq, the political crisis continues.  Kitabat reports that Ibrahim al-Jaafair hosted a meeting at his home last night and that various factions of the National Alliance met in what is seen as an effort to save Nouri al-Maliki.  Whether the Sadr bloc supports the effort or not, Bahaa al-Araji did attend.  Alsumaria reports that Nouri is insisting that a no-confidence vote is over and that it's either a dialogue or early elections.

 Nouri wasn't the one calling for a no-confidence vote in himself so he's really not the one with the power to decide when such an effort is over.  Dar Addustour notes the Kurdish Alliance sees Nouri's threat of early elections as his effort to avoid being questioned by the Parliament.  Alsumaria reports Nouri is stating today that a campaign to sew confusion is being waged in Iraq and, while that would make a good confession from Nouri, he is yet again pointing the finger at others.  Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that the answer to the problems is not rushing to the Constitution.  Well he would say that. When has he ever respected the Iraqi Constitution?  Just one example, he's been prime minister since 2006.  The Iraqi Constitituion's Article 140 insists a referendum and census on Kirkuk will be held.  It insists it is not to take place any later than the end of 2007.  Despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, Nouri has repeatedly refused to implement Article 140 and offered one excuse after another of why it's not a good time.  Nouri has no respect for the Constitution and, over Article 140 alone, should be impeached and removed from office.  Despite his inability to follow his oath, Nouri managed to insist that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is not netural and is not professional. 

Kitabat notes the call remains for Nouri to appear before Parliament for questioning.  One thing they might question him on is the topic Dar Addustour's reporting: Parliament's Human Rights Commission has found proof of torture in Iraq prisons -- something Nouri has repeatedly denied takes place.  While ignoring that finding, Nouri has insisted today that there are no journalists in prison.  Which probably means there are many.
 
Turning to the United States . . .
 
 
Senator Barbara Boxer:  I want to say I came here to talk to you about the epidemic of veteran homelessness and to offer up an idea that doesn't cost any money that I think would be terrific in involving the American people in this -- fighting this epidemic. You know, I would say probably all of us in this room -- I certainly hope all of us in this room -- have safe, comfortable homes to live in and we take it for granted.  But every night, 67,500 of our nation's veterans are homeless.  67,500 of our veterans are homeless. This is inexcusable because no veteran should ever have to spend a night on the streets and I know we all agree with that.  Ensuring that our veterans have safe, stable housing is also a smart thing to do because research has shown that a home is the very foundation that a veteran can build and sustain a successful life.  In my home state of California, I met a veteran, Holbert Lee.  And when Mr. Lee returned home from Vietnam, he ended up addicted to drugs and homeless on the streets of San Francisco.  We have an organization there called Swords to Plowshares and they helped him turn his life around, Madam Chairwoman, with the help of a housing voucher and VA support services, Mr. Lee now has a home to call his own.  And today as a vocational specialist at the San Francisco VA, he is working to assist other veterans.  Holbert Lee is a success story and proof of what can happen when we end the cycle of homelessness.  But there are too many more men and women who we have not reached. Now our government announced a goal to end veterans homelessness by 2015.  And I like to think that when we announce a goal like that, we mean it.  This isn't just something we throw out.   But yet [VA] Secretary [Eric] Shinseki admitted, "While we're not where we need to be just yet, we have movement but it's too early to begin high-fiving one another." And it is clear from those words that we have a long way to go.  So I introduced S. 1806, the Check the Box for Homeless Veterans Act of 2011.  Very straightforward.  It creates a check off box on the annual federal tax return. Tax payers can decide to make a voluntary contribution of one-dollar or more to support programs that prevent and combat veterans homelessness.  The donations are deposited in a new homeless veterans assistance fund established at the treasury that can only be used to supplement Congressionally appropriated funds for these various programs to help veterans.  Now let me be very clear, the funds in the check off box will not be allowed by law to replace any budgeted dollars -- there needs to be a maintenance of effort -- but they would be used to supplement those dollars.  So colleagues, I want to say -- Well, before I do my real close, I want to place in the record with your permission, Madam Chair, letters of support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, from TEAM AMVETS, from the Center for American Homeless Veterans Inc. and from the California Association of County Veterans Services Officers and Swords to Plowshares.  I think -- If I might put those in the record, if that is alright?
 
Chair Patty Murray:  We will do that.
 
Senator Barbara Boxer:  And I think that they -- If you read these letters, there's -- They strongly support this approach.  So in conclusion I would say that our veterans have given so much. You're dealing with this every day and a lot of them suffer, they suffer mightily.  And having a home is the least we can do and I think that all of Americans want a chance to help.  They -- they feel sometimes helpless.  But with a dollar on a check-off, if every American paying their taxes did that, we could do something special.  I hope you will consider this.  I will work with you to make it happen.  I thank you for your dedication.
 
Boxer was speaking at yesterday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on proposed legislation.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Committee.  Yesterday, we noted her bills S. 3340 The Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012 and S. 3313, The Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012.  On the latter, we also noted some of the testimony of Tracy Keil.  Tracy and her husband Iraq War veteran Matt Keil faced obstacles to having a child following Matt Keil being shot on February 24, 2007 while on patrol in Ramadi.  If Matt Keil had a basic insurance policy with any corporation, fertility and conception issues and care would not have been an issue.  As a veteran, Matt Keil's 'insurance' -- and that of his family -- comes via the VA.  And Murray's bill brings the VA up to 2012 and puts veterans and their families on equal footing when it comes to reproductive health.  Tracy Keil probably said it best yesterday, "War time changes a family, it shouldn't take away the ability to have one."
 
This is a basic issue that shouldn't be surrounded with any controversy or resistance.  It's not 1980, we're not just learning of Baby Louise (Louise Joy Brown, born in 1978, the first child conceived via in vitro fertilization).  Though the VA has dragged its feet for decades, these are not new issues.   Tracy Keil was part of the second panel along with VetsFirst's Heather Ansley, Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem and the American Urological Association's Dr. Mark Thomas Edney.  The first panel was VA's Dr. Madhulika Agarwal, William Schoenhard, Thomas Murphy and Robert Hipolit.  Excerpt of the first panel on this issue.
 
Chair Patty Murray:  Well the VA can't offer much in the way of care for spouses.  What does that mean for couples who need extra assistance conceiving a child because of a war injury?
 
Dr. Madhulika Agarwal:  Thank you again, for this question, Madam Chair.  Uh, Congress has generally restricted eligibility of health care services in VA to spouses.  There are some rare exceptions such as in [one word here -- no idea what she said, speak into the microphone] VA.  S. 3313 is aimed at expanding that authority to include infertility management for spouses under some circumstances when the veteran's injury has precluded their ability to procreate naturally.  Uh, we do not have a position on this yet but are reviewing it.  And, again, look forward to working with you and the Committee.
 
Agarwal?  We last encountered her in the June 4, 2009 House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health.  That performance led to the next day's entry here of "The VA's Madhulika Agarwal: Lying or grossly uninformed?"  In the three years, she's clearly not improved.  For example, I think Chair Murray knows S. 3313 and doesn't need anyone from the VA to tell her what it would do -- Murray is the sponsor of the bill.  We all caught that, right? Murray asked what services VA provided.  The answer is really none.  But to eat up time and give a false impression or who knows what, Agarwal starts babbling about what Murray's bill will do.  And, in her opening statement, Agarwal had already declared that the VA had no position on Murray's bill.  (Which I think is both offensive and a medical dereliction of duty.)
 
 
In addition to the snapshot, coverage came last night with Kat's "Justice for Camp Lejeune families?" offering the latest on the issue Ranking Member Richard Burr has long championed;   Ava's "Scott Brown backs two veterans bills" noted Brown's S. 3324 Housing for Families of Ill and Injured Veterans and S. 3308 The Women's Homeless Veterans Act; and  Wally offered "Veterans' cemeteries" on Senator Kelly Ayotte's S. 2320 Remembering America's Forgotten Veterans Cemetery Act of 2012 about the untended graves at Clakr Veterans Cemetery in the Philippines.  With those items covered, we'll note a Bill of Rights issue.  Specifically the Second Amendment. 
 
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Mr. Murphy, you addressed the Second Amendment issue. If individuals -- Let me ask you this, how many veterans names have been turned over to NICIS?  How many are currently on that list?
 
Thomas Murphy: I don't have the details on the number of names that are currently on that list.  I can tell you the details around the number of requests for relief or removal from that list.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  How many names have been requested to be relieved?
 
Thomas Murphy: 185, Senator.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: And how many have been granted?
 
Thomas Murphy: A total of 19.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  And that's out of 127,000 names that have been turned over on the NICIS list.
 
Thomas Murphy:  Correct.  I'm assuming your numbers are correct. I don't have those in front of me.
 
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Trust me, they are. 
 
Thomas Murphy:  Okay.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  If individuals seek releif from the NICIS list,reporting requirements, does the VA assist them in coming up with the evidence needed to show whether they're dangerous?
 
Thomas Murphy: Yes, Senator, we do.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  What do you do?
 
Thomas Murphy:  The Duty to Assist Act requires us to fully develop the case.  This is not a light matter in the Veterans Administration.  This is a fully adjudicated, full developed claim with a-a full decision letter with an explanation of how the decision was arrived to with a lot of supporting evidence and documentation provided.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Are there any veterans that are determined incapable to handle their own personal finances that's name is not put on the NICIS list?
 
Thomas Murphy:  Let me make sure I understand the question.  Are there veterans who --
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Do you -- You have sombody who's determined that a veteran cannot write a check so they cannot handle their finances.  They have now assigned a spouse to be in charge of the finances. Is there anybody that that's happened to that that veteran was not then listed on the NICIS list?
 
Thomas Murphy:  I can say that there are not supposed to be.  I'm not saying that through an administrative process of errors that it hasn't occurred.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  My understanding -- and I'll get you to go back and clarify this if I'm wrong -- every veteran who is relieved of their financial -- or deemed that they can't handle their own finances is automatically put on the list?
 
Thomas Murphy: They're placed on the list by the Veterans Administration, yes.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  So what are the qualifications of the VA employees who make the decisions about whether veterans and their families should be stripped of their Second Amendment? What training do these people go through? 
 
Thomas Murphy:  I-I don't believe we have an option in this, Senator.  We're directed --
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Well you've got VA -- You've got VA employees that are making a decision about whether somebody is capable of doing their own personal finances.  That determination that they're not capable of doing that strips them of their Second Amendment right.  It's very simple.  What training does that VA employee go through to be qualified to make a determination that would strip someone of their Constitutional rights?
 
Thomas Murphy:  Our employees -- Our adjudicators are trained in determining whether or not that veteran is capable of making the financial determinations they have with the funds that Veterans Administration provides that individual.  As a result of that decision, they are placed on the NICIS list.  It's not a determination of whether the individual is capable of handling firearms or not, it's can they manage their personal finances.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  I know.  But when they go on the NICIS list, they are now deprived of firearm ownership. 
 
Thomas Murphy:  That's correct.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay.  So a determination that they can't handle their personal finances strips them of their Second Amendment right and also, the way that it's written, it forbids any firearm to be handled by anyone in the household.  So you, in essence, strip the spouse of the Second Amendment right, you strip children of the Second Amendment right because you've determined that a veteran can't handle their own personal finances.  Are we in agreement?
 
Thomas Murphy:  We are.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: Okay.  Now I don't want to make this too simplistic.  If a veteran can't sign their name to a check and the VA determines that their spouse should be assigned the financial responsibilities because you're transferring money into an account, do we agree that that would trigger their listing on the NICIS list and that would lose their Second Amendment right and everyone else in the household.
 
 
Thomas Murphy: That's one I need to ask Mr. Hipolit to verify for me.  I'm not -- I'm unaware of the requirements for other people in the household on the restriction to own firearms.
 
Richard Hipolit:  Yeah, that's correct as well.  I was also not personally aware of the household restriction.  I know that if VA determines the person is incapable of handling their financial affairs that does get them on the NICIS list but
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  But you would agree, Mr. Hipolit, that a determination that they can't handle their finances has a wide definition to it.
 
 
Richard Hipolit:   I would say that if VA determines that they're unable to handle their finances that does qualify them to get on the NICIS list and their names are referred for the list.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  That's not necessarily a mental determination.  It could be a physical determination, correct?
 
Richard Hipolit:  Uh --
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  -- that they're not capable of handling their finances.
 
Richard Hipolit: If they had a physical disability that impaired their ability to handle they're financial affairs, yes.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  So they're automatically classified as dangerous?
 
Richard Hipolit:  Our determination is just whether they can handle their financial affairs and then that automatically triggers the requirement to refer their names.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr: So would you agree that the purpose of the NICIC list which was to take guns away from dangerous people and the threshold that VA currently uses to determine who goes on the NICIS list are potentially two very different things?
 
Richard Hipolit:  I think that the law enforcement forces determined who should be put on the NICIS list and they determine that person --
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  But they don't in the case of veterans.  In the case of veterans, the only person that determines whether they get on the NICIC list is the VA and it's determined based upon are they capable of handling their own finances.
 
Richard Hipolit:  Well the law that requires us to make a referral is --
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  And you're the only agency in the federal government that across the board sends every person that's not qualified to handle their personal finances to the NICIC list?
 
Richard Hipolit:  That's not my understanding -- 
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Are you ware of that?
 
Richard Hipolit:  It's my understanding that other agencies refer people as well.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  Other agencies refer people but they have a different threshold for the ones that they  refer.  I think they might use the definition of dangerous and what I've heard you say is dangerous does not come into play. Mental capacity does not come into play.  Capability of handling your own personal finances is the only threshold and when they hit that, they're automatically put on the NICIS list.
 
Richard Hipolit:  From VA's standpoint, if they're determined to be unable to handle their financial affairs, we have to refer them.
 
Ranking Member Richard Burr:  I hate to dig in on this. I just want to point out to you that the threshold is very, very different at VA.  There are many veterans, spouses, and family members who are deprived of their Second Amendment right to own firearms based upon an arbitary decision by somebody at VA that they can't handle their own personal finances.  These people are all of the sudden labeled as dangerous when in fact the decision may have been a physical disability that didn't permit them to handle their own finances.  I hope this is something the Committee will look at.  I -- I'm actually shocked that the Veterans Affairs Committee is not outraged at the way this is being implemented.  127,000 of our country's veterans are stripped of a Constitutional right.  Some probably should.  Many of those 127,000 never have had that right take away. I thank you.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
afp
cnn
 
Read on ...
Posted by Isaiah at 8:00 PM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.