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.
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.
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."
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:
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.The media are asked to respect the family's privacy at this very difficult time.
"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 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.
