|
|
 |
|
|
Oct 27, 2009
carly releases new album, blowhard attacks
carly simon
has a new album out today, never been gone. i strongly urge you to get
a copy or download a copy or grab a copy & run really fast out of a
store without paying - joking on the last. the album's called never been gone and it's wonderful. carly will be on nbc's today show tomorrow morning. i really don't care for uninformed people who try to pretend they know what they're talking about. steve leftridge attacked the album at pop matters and attacked from his gross ignorance: While
the project is billed as a re-recording of her classics, some of
Carly’s best-loved tunes are missing—where is “Haven’t Got Time for the
Pain” or “Nobody Does It Better”? By leaving out essential Simon tunes,
any newbie will be way better served by one of the best-of compilations
(2004’s Reflections would do the trick, although the classic ten-song The Best of Carly Simon from 1975 contains nothing but the most indelible singles from her peak period). Otherwise, Never Been Gone
(that title sounds a tad defensive) includes non-canon tracks like the
awful “Boys in the Trees”, the title cut of her 1973 album, and the
deeply-buried “Never Been Gone” from 1979’s Spy. Neither song deserves much of an excavation, although “It Happens Everyday” from 1983’s Hello Big Man is a hidden gem worthy of a second chance, even if the version here features a far weaker vocal delivery than the original.okay, let's unpack the errors bit by bit. While
the project is billed as a re-recording of her classics, some of
Carly’s best-loved tunes are missing—where is “Haven’t Got Time for the
Pain” or “Nobody Does It Better”? carly's re-recording
songs she's written. that's been established. so why would she do
'nobody does it better'? does idiot steve not know that carly didn't
write that song? does he know who carole bayer sager is? she wrote the
lyrics. marvin hamlisch wrote the music. By leaving out essential Simon tunes, any newbie will be way better served by one of the best-of compilations (2004’s Reflections would do the trick, although the classic ten-song The Best of Carly Simon from 1975 contains nothing but the most indelible singles from her peak period). reflections
would be the better choice because it has more tracks (many more) and
because it's the better buy economically. i'm sorry steve's such an
idiot but he is. Otherwise, Never Been Gone
(that title sounds a tad defensive) includes non-canon tracks like the
awful “Boys in the Trees”, the title cut of her 1973 album, and the
deeply-buried “Never Been Gone” from 1979’s Spy. boys
in the trees? the album came out in 1978. no secrets came out in 1973.
only an idiot who didn't know the 1st thing he was writing about would
make a mistake like that. 'never been gone' is deeply buried? uh. no. it
does appear on spy 1st. however, it also was in carly simon's hugely
successful hbo concert - her 1st hbo concert and the concert aired when
she was making her comeback with coming around again. that concert? it was turned into a multi-platinum album and 'never been gone' appears on it. Neither song deserves much of an excavation, although “It Happens Everyday” from 1983’s Hello Big Man is a hidden gem worthy of a second chance, even if the version here features a far weaker vocal delivery than the original. 'it
happens everyday'? i seriously doubt that idiot steve knows the song
from hello big man. he may (or may not) know it from carly's greatest
hits live. but on hello big man? on hello big man, the entire
song is in the wrong key. it adds to the mood of the song but let's not
pretend it allows carly to have a strong vocal delivery. (she does it
fine on the live album.) so with 1 paragraph we've learned that
yet another man thought he knew something when he didn't. we've learned
that, as usual, a blowhard thought he could rip apart a woman's work
and didn't even think he needed to familiarize himself with it 1st. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' Tuesday,
October 27, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq wants to go
nuclear, Thomas E. Ricks repeats the lies that sold the illegal war
(connecting Iraq to you know what), if your loved one takes his or her
own life while serving in a war zone the President of the United States
sends you no letter expressing sorrow, and more. Frank Sesno was the guest host on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today and the first hour was devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sesno spoke with McClatchy Newspapers Nancy A. Youssef, Wall St. Journal's Peter Spiegel and Crazy Ass Thomas E. Ricks. Frank
Sesno: Tom Ricks, let's start with these incredible bombings in Iraq
and the shockwave they've sent through the military and the political
systems there. What signal were they intended -- intending to send? Thomas
E. Ricks: I think they were intended to send the signal that [Prime
Minister Nouri al-] Maliki does not have the control over Iraq that he
asserts and that's really his sole campaign plank -- is look "You may
not like me, you may not like how we're running the government but at
least you're feeling safer" and I think was designed to undermine that.
I was struck -- I read this morning that one of the trucks used to do
the bombings was stolen in Falluja which indicates it probably came out
of Anbar Province. Frank Sesno: Which means? Thomas
E. Ricks: Which means a Sunni extrimist probably working with al Qaeda.
Simeloutaneous large blast is one of the al Qaeda signatures that they
like to do. We all remember that from 9-11. Did
Thomas E. Ricks just make a total idiot of himself? Yes, he did. He
attempted to conflate al Qaeda in Mesopotomia with the al Qaeda group
thought to be responsible for 9-11. The two are not related. Thomas E.
Ricks is worse than George W. Bush because Ricks actually had a
semi-functioning brain that wasn't destroyed via drink and cocaine. But
that didn't stop him from conflating two separate things. al Qaeda in
Mespotamia is a homegrown (Iraqi) group. It did not exist prior to the
2003 invasion. It is a response to the 2003 invasion. And Thomas E.
Ricks needs to learn to choose his words a little more carefully. With
each day, he drifts further and further from journalism. What
a moron. That anyone -- let alone a journalist -- would attempt to
conflate 9-11 and Iraq at this late date is offensive. That a
journalist would do so -- knowing full well that this conflation helped
sell the illegal war -- helped sell it because the news media refused
to call it out -- the same ones that will fact check a Saturday Night Live
skit -- is just beyond belief. But notice that on the program, they
just moved along past Crazy Ass Thomas Ricks -- not unlike they ignored
that LIE when it was sold by the Bush administration. There WAS NO and
IS NO connection between Iraq and 9-11 -- no matter what Thomas E.
Ricks jibber-jabbers. Frank Sesno: Which means, Nancy Youseff that Iraq is what? No where near as stable as the previous lull had indicated? Nancy
A. Youssef: Well it indicates that sectarian violence is still
continuing despite the US military assertion that it's not as
aggressive as it would be. These were Sunni attackers hitting Shia
government buildings. It's an effort to sort of revitalize the
sectarian fighting and I think it raises questions about ultimately
what Iraqis and what Americans consider acceptable levels of violence
in Iraq. Can these sort of occassional bombings -- you'll remember that
the last one was in August -- will the Iraqis accept it? Will the
Americans accept it as a condition for their leaving? That-that attacks
will continue to go on? There are fewer attacks but they're becoming
more and more spectacular. Frank Sesno: And, Peter, at a critical critical moment. Peter
Spiegel: It is a critical moment because you have elections coming up
in January. And just to not be overly pessimistic here 'cause, as Nancy
mentioned, there was a very similar attack in August, we did not see
the country descend into another round of sectarian violence. That's
the good news. The other good news, as Tom pointed out, they seemed to
be very political oriented. There are elections coming up. You know
Maliki is vying for position with other Shia parties, with other Sunni
parties. Is this just a domestic political issue being expressed
through violence? If that's the case, there's an argument that as long
as there's some sort of Sunni outlet through the political system, this
may eventually go away. Now the problem is there appears to be no Sunni
outlet for legitimate political expression right now because most of
the parties are still dominated by Shi'ites and a lot of the government
institutions are dominated by Shias -- they're using them to suppress
Sunnis in the country. So as long as that continues, as long as there's
no legitimate way for Sunnis to express their political outrage this
stuff could continue. Frank Sesno: Do you expect this stuff to continue? Thomas
E. Ricks: I do actually. The last line in the last book I've written on
Iraq, The Gamble, is a quote from [former US] Ambassador [to Iraq] Ryan
Crocker. He said to me twice in the course of 2008, "The events for
which the Iraq War will be remembered have not yet occurred." There's a
significant chance that the war will go on for another five to ten
years. I think we're going to have American troops there for many, many
years. They'll call them "trainers" and "advisors" but this war is far
from over. Frank
Sesno: But Tom as they leave, as we have pulled out of the cities and
as we withdraw to concentrated areas around the country, what
vulnerability then does this latest string of events suggest for the
innocent public in Iraq trying desparately to put their lives back
together again because it suggest the vulnarability is extreme. Thomas
E. Ricks: Recently, the former mayor of Tal Afar, a city up in the
northwest, wrote a very interesting essay in which he said all the
conditions for civil war in Iraq are still there. This is why I think
the civil war failed. It succeeded tactically, it improved security. Frank Sesno: For the moment. Thomas
E. Ricks: Yes, but it's purpose was to lead to a political breakthrough
and that didn't happen. That's not my saying what the purpose was,
that's what the president said the purpose was. Frarnk Sesno: Nancy, I see you nodding your head. Nancy
A. Youssef: Yeah, you know, what's interesting is that when you ask
them at the Pentagon, "Look there have been two massive attacks in the
last few months and what are you going to do?" And there's sort of a
shrugging of the shoulders. The Status Of Forces Agreement calls for us
to leave and the Pentagon's focused on Afghanistan now and yet if you
go right below the surface you can feel from soldiers who have served,
who wear braclets of fallen comrades, the frustration that potentially
the United States is leaving as sloppily as it entered, that you've got
120,000 troops still based in Iraq and yet nothing is being done
to-to-to stop this. The-the line -- Frarnk Sesno: Nothing is being done to stop this? Nancy
A. Youssef: No, because the line at the Pentagon is "We're asking for
Maliki to ask us for help" or we're waiting for something like the
Samarra mosque bombing. But if it gets to that level, it's already too
late. I mean the Samarra mosque bombing didn't happen in a vacuum. That
was a building of sectarian violence that manifested itself in a very
violent way. Peter
Spiegel: One other issue, there are still 120,000 troops in Iraq which
everyone seems to forget, which is about the levels they were
pre-surge, which is still a very big level. But what is happening in
sort of the granularity of that is a lot of assets that are needed to
track down these bombing networks -- the UAVs, the unmanned drones, the
intelligence assets -- all that is being sucked away to Afghanistan.
And having spent time with General [Ray] Odierno, who is the commander
there, a year ago, his-his real -- the thing he's most proud of is the
ability to track down these networks through human intelligence through
systems like unmanned drones and dismantle them. Well if you move all
those assets to Afghanistan, are you still able to dismantle all those
bombing networks that are still clearly sort of roving freely in
Baghdad and be able to do these kind of things? Frarnk
Sesno: These bombs went off near three government buildings -- three
important government buildings. How much of a set back does this
present to the fledgling, struggling Iraqi government itself? Nancy
A. Youssef: I don't think we know yet. I mean, you saw the government
try to respond by passing an election law which they've been debating
for several months now as a way to sort of speak up. I think you're
seeing Maliki -- it hurts Maliki the most, as Tom mentioned, because
his political platform, his election platform is "I bring security to
you." You saw rival political parties trying to exploit that. Nancy
A. Youssef was referring to a proposal put together by the Political
Council for National Security and then passed on to Parliament. That was a proposal made (with much fanfare) yesterday. Like just about everything else on the governance front in Iraq, it fell apart. John Leland (New York Times) reports
there was no consensus today and that they are at a stalemate, "another
blockage in negotiations that have dragged on for weeks, threatening
national elections scheduled for January 16th." 'Scheduled'? I believe
the appropriate term is intended. Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) adds
that the issue of Kirkuk was the falling out point for the "proposal
submitted by a high-ranking council that included Maliki and President
Jalal Talabani." Repeating, no election law. Still. The
perpetrators of the huge bomb attacks are unknown. Not unexpectedly,
every Iraqi faction is blaming its enemies. Maliki is blaming Al Qaeda
in Iraq and the Baathists, but at the very least the attacks have
severely hurt Maliki's main cliam to leadership, namely, that he's kept
Iraq safe. Many Sunnis are blaming Iran, charging that Iran's
intelligence service is orchestrating the Baghdad attacks in order to
force Maliki to abandon his independent electoral stance and sign on to
the Shiite bloc, the Iraqi National Alliance. And, indirectly speaking
for the Shiite bloc, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has blamed "foreign
agents" for the attacks: "The
bloody actions being committed in some Islamic countries, including
Iraq, Pakistan and in some parts of the country (Iran), are aimed at
creating division between the Shiites and Sunnis.... Those who carry
out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents."
Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombings, but such claims have to be taken with a grain of salt. Ann
Curry: We turn now to Iraq, still reeling from massive explosions that
wrecked three buildings in Baghdad on Sunday. The dead now number more
than 150. Hundreds more are injured. And the attacks raise the
question: can the Iraqi government keep the lid on? The latest tonight
from NBC's Tom Aspell.
Tom Aspell: Grief and shock today at
some of the funerals for bombings in Baghdad. Iraqi police and
hospitals now say that up to thirty children from a day care center at
the Justice Ministry are among the dead. The second blast was captured
on a cell phone. The blast destroyed two government buildings outside
the Green Zone in central Baghdad. Iraqi officials said at least 150
people were killed, at least 500 people were wounded. A security
spokesman said two buses were used to carry the explosives -- 2,000
pounds in one and 1500 pounds in the other. It was the worst attack in
Baghdad for two years. This morning Iraqis were blaming the government
for lax security issues. There are checkpoints every one-hundred yards
How did these vehicles come here" asked this man. Iraqi troops were
patrolling Baghdad streets this morning. The government is warning
there could be more attacks before elections in three months time. Tom
Aspell, NBC News, London. Also covering the bombings was PBS' NewsHour (link has text, audio and video options) and this an excerpt: JANE ARRAF [ Christian Science Monitor]:
It has. The death toll looks like it's going past about 150, Ray, and
hundreds more wounded. And more than that, a lot of questions being
raised as to how this actually could have happened just two months
after the horrific bombing of the Finance and Foreign Ministries. Now,
yesterday, at the site, there were absolute scenes of devastation,
people sobbing, carrying away wounded relatives, trying to find their
relatives, and pretty much chaos for the first little while. The
streets were flooded. Rescue workers were trying to wade through
bystanders. It really was one of the most horrific scenes that many of
us have seen in quite a long time. We had kind of thought this was over
with. And now it seems to have started again. And that is definitely
the feeling that you feel on the streets, that things could very much
get worse again. RAY SUAREZ: You mentioned that August attack.
At the time, weren't measures put in place to make this kind of
operation less likely in Baghdad? JANE ARRAF: Absolutely. That
August attack, which killed at least 100 people with an eerily similar
attack, a truck packed with explosives in two different places, and a
suicide attack, at that, was actually a wakeup call. And it was said to
have been a systemic failure -- failure of security. Now, the Iraqi
government responded by firing some senior Iraqi security officials. It
said it put new measures in place. I spoke with a senior American
official today who said, indeed, they had put measures in place. But it
has not prevented these two bombings, which, again, were eerily
similar. These were trucks traveling streets where no trucks are
supposed to be in daytime. They apparently went through checkpoints,
where they should have been checked, but weren't. And they managed to
explode in one of the busiest times of the day, in one of the most
packed places in Baghdad, killing government workers, as well as
passersby, including children. ABC World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson covered the bombings. Charlie
Gibson: In Iraq meanwhile the funerals began today in the wake of the
stunning twin bombings that tore through the heart of Baghdad
yesterday. The death toll is now 155 with the grim discovery that 24
children at a day care center were among those killed. The attacks
raised questions about Iraq's security. Miguel Marquez was at the scene
of the blasts. Miguel Marquez: The devastation is almost
unimaginable, buildings shredded as far as the eye can see, glass,
blood splattered clothing and burned rubber. When the bombs went off
they shattered the relative calm here. Six months ago this street was
off limits to traffic but with security improving the barriers were
lifted. An investigation is now underway into how two vehicles carrying
1500 pounds of explosives each including military grade C4, got through
multiple military checkpoints before reaching their targets. Despite
all the security agencies the government here is helpless he says, they
only cause traffic jams. Today Iraqis begin the wrenching task of
burying their loved ones. Comfort was in short supply. They blame their
government for failing to stop the violence. This is the hole created
by the explosion. It goes down about twenty-five feet. The blast was so
powerful they burst a water main, flooding this section of Baghdad.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who faces re-election in January has
campaigned on his ability to make Iraq safer. His opponents say this
bombings proves the military is infiltrated Iraqi National
Security Advisor Mouwaffak Rubaie: What we need to concentrate on is
enabling our intelligence agencies. This is an intelligence led war
now. Miguel Marquez: The bombings are especially shocking
because security here has improved by leaps and bounds in the last two
years. Construction is everywhere and night life has made a roaring
comeback. [An Iraqi woman speaks.] "We have one quiet week and then the
next week things get worse," she says. "The security situation is still
the same." The US military says it is assisting in the investigation
but there are no plans to increase US patrols here nor slow the rate of
pulling US forces out of Iraq. Miguel Marquez, ABC News, Baghdad. Not everyone provided significant time for the news. CBS Evening News
(Harry Smith sitting in for Katie Couric) reduced it to a five-sentence
headline. Remember that when you've heard a story and are trying to
select an evening newscast in order to find out what happened. It was
just a headline to CBS Evening News. Oliver August (Times of London) quotes
a government employee stating, "Sadness is overwhelming today in the
office. It's as if we are sitting at a funeral in the office because
many of our colleagues and people we know were killed." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes
an employee injured in the bombings, Shauki Abdul Jabar, stating,
"There is no security, no hope." And he reports on three men searching
through the rubble for some sign of Youssef Musen Nouri, their
four-year-old nephew whom they now assume is dead. It wasn't just a
passing headline to any of those people. The heartbeat went out of our house The rhythm went out of our romance But in life that happens and you just have to remember to breathe . . . -- "Coming Around Again," written by Carly Simon from her new recording on Never Been Gone. Meanwhile Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports,
"Baghdad governor on Tuesday said that his council voted to demand
resignation of Iraqi minister of interior and chief of Baghdad
operations command over Sunday's bloody blasts that enraged Iraqis and
shaped a setback to the Iraqi government which struggle to restore
normalcy in the country nearly three months ahead of the country's
national elections." Sammy Ketz (Mail & Guardian) adds
that Baghdad Governor Salah Abdul Razzaq said of the bombings (after
viewing video footage of it), "It's a human failure . . . It can only
be negligence or collusion." And
while these bombings are fresh on everyone's mind, someone might want
to ask who in the world thinks nuclear power is needed in Iraq? What if
a nuclear reactor were in Iraq and had been targeted on Sunday. It's
something people better start considering. Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports: Iraq
has started lobbying for approval to again become a nuclear player,
almost 19 years after British and American war planes destroyed Saddam
Hussein's last two reactors, the Guardian has learned. The
Iraqi government has approached the French nuclear industry about
rebuilding at least one of the reactors that was bombed at the start of
the first Gulf war. The government has also contacted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations to seek ways around resolutions that ban Iraq's re-entry into the nuclear field. Iraq
says it envisages that a reactor would be used initially for research
purposes. "We are co-operating with the IAEA and expanding and defining
areas of research where we can implement nuclear technology for
peaceful means," the science and technology minister, Raid Fahmi, told
the Guardian. JANNETT
KEESLING: I spoke to Chancellor the night before he died for about four
minutes. And as always, he wore a really tough exterior, because even
after conversations with some of the soldiers after he died, no one saw
that he was in any type of distress or trouble. I know they say he was
sleeping. He was happy that morning. He was singing.
But
what he did tell me that night is that he was going to have a very
long, difficult day. His conversation was quite brief. Normally he
would say that he loves me, and he would say goodbye. But this time he
simply hung up. I had the feeling that something was definitely
bothering him more than the norm. And the next thing we knew, they were
at our door saying that he had --
GREGG KEESLING: He had passed.
JANNETT KEESLING: -- passed away.
AMY GOODMAN: Where was he?
JANNETT KEESLING: But nobody saw.
GREGG KEESLING: He was at Camp Stryker in Baghdad. And he --
AMY GOODMAN: And what did they explain to you? What happened?
GREGG KEESLING: That he had gone to a latrine and locked himself in the latrine and took his own life, with his M4. [. . .] GREGG
KEESLING: Well, I just -- we do not believe our son would have taken
his life if he had been here at home. This would not have happened.
This is directly related to his military service. Our casualty officer
-- the military has been very, very, very good to us in helping us. And
our casualty officer, though, said the same thing, that "We do not
believe your son would have taken his life if he was back home." And,
you know, every other benefit that the military provides to families
has been afforded to us. We were flown to Dover to greet the body, in a
very emotional experience. And we had a military burial and the
twenty-one-gun salute. And Jannett was presented the American flag,
which is a very moving ceremony.
But the issue of presidential
condolences -- in fact, we were shocked. I began -- President Obama has
set up the suicide task force, and I began to talk with Brigadier
General Colleen McGuire and members of staff there, and they were very
helpful and wonderful. And during those conversations, I mentioned, "By
the way, you know, when do you think the letter comes from the
President?" And she goes, "I don't know. I'll check it out." And we
talked again a few times. And every time at the end of the
conversation, you know, "How are you guys doing?" and all that. And I
said, "By the way, when are we going to get the letter from the
President?" And on our third conversation, one of the staff members
said to me, "Oh, my god, Mr. Keesling, I've just discovered there's a
longstanding policy that prevents the President from acknowledging the
death of a soldier who takes his life in the war theater by his own
hand." And I nearly dropped to my knees. I was shocked. And I just said
to her that I think this is a policy that should change.
Our
loss is no different. He was on his second tour. The investigative
report shows that he was a good soldier. One of my favorite comments in
the report is that his unit commander said, or unit leader says, "I
wish I had fifteen Keeslings." He was a good soldier. He helped other
soldiers. In fact, there's a soldier back stateside today who was at
risk of suicide that Chancy intervened to help. And we got his uniform
back, and when my sister was packing away the uniform, she found in the
pocket and pulled out the suicide information card. He had it in his
pocket of his uniform. And he helped other soldiers, but he was unable
to help himself.
And so, our grief is deep.
And, you know, the letter won't stop -- we'll still be hollow inside
for the rest of our lives, but the acknowledgement from the President
that our son gave his life in service to the causes of the United
States is important to us, and I think it should be important to the
hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of suicide victims in this war in
Iraq and Afghanistan, as well. It's my understanding that the suicide
rate in the military has, for the first time, surpassed the civilian
suicide rate. The mental health issues are quite severe. And so, we're
just simply appealing to the President to change the policy, to offer
condolences to the families, like ours, that are struggling and
suffering with the unique form of suffering a military suicide leaves
in its wake. And it's been especially hard for us. The
suicide rate has repeatedly increased and the stories of it are usually
'this happened, then that happened' in a sort of timeline manner that
rarely connects the death to the loss those who survive feel. The
parents expressed their loss today and on July 31st, on the second hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, guest host Susan Paige spoke with a caller who wanted to address this topic. Susan Paige: Let's go to Pamela. She's calling us from New Jersey. Pamela, thanks so much for calling. Pamela:
Yes. Good morning, how are you? Thank you for taking my call. I am
responding to a comment I heard earlier and it really just like shot me
in my heart. And the comment was that the suicide rates [in the US
military] are skyrocketing and how this has to be addressed. And I
literally like I said stopped dead in my tracks. I . . . lost my
brother in service due to suicide. He was home on a leave and, uh,
about to be, pardon me, to go back and to serve and, uh, was, uh -- the
difficulty in getting the mental health services I believe that he
needed -- I mean he was married with two children -- was most, most
difficult and delayed and a long wait and this and that. And then the
unfathomable happened and, uh, when I, uh, at times decided to share
how he died rather than just say he died in the war and I would say he
died by suicide the remark I would hear unfortunately was, "Oh my
goodness, he didn't die a hero then." And-and I continually hear this
and I guess I want to make a statement that how someone dies, um,
should not be -- that -- that is not a definition of how they lived
their lives. And here was a good man who gave and did so much for the
community and yet because of how he died -- which you know is a mental
illness health related, etc. etc. -- he is now being defined as -- not
-- as a zero. And not being defined. And I think you know this-this
suicide issue is getting way out of control and for every person that
dies by suicide there are at least six to ten people that are horribly
effected as well to the point where their mental health also, uh, you
know, begins to fall apart and the whole mental health, how to get
help, starts all over again. And I should say that the support groups
for those that lose a loved one by suicide are now separated from
regular grief groups and while attending one and sharing how my loved
one died, people were going around the room, people said to me, "Oh my
God, why is she here?" I've been asked to leave meetings because --
grief support meetings -- because of how my brother died and I don't
think that's fair or correct or right and, um, so the issue goes far
beyond the pain of losing a loved one and is extremely complicated.
And, um, I wanted to share all that. And if ever anybody hears of
someone that dies of a suicide please just say "I'm sorry for your
loss" and ask about the person. And don't say anything cruel or unkind
because, again, how one lives their entire life for 38 years should not
be defined by a, you know, a irrational moment that effects -- that
became a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Changing topics, Senator Carl Levin's office released the following statement yesterday: WASHINGTON
-- Calling the plight of religious minorities in Iraq "a tragic
consequence" of the war there, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today
introduced a Senate resolution calling on the U.S. government, Iraqi
government and United Nations Mission in Iraq to take steps to
alleviate the dangers facing these minority groups. Sens. Sam
Brownback, R-Kan., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined Levin in sponsoring
the sense of the Senate resolution. "While violence has declined
in Iraq overall, religious minorities continue to be the targets of
violence and intimidation," Levin said. "Members of many minority
groups who have fled other parts of the country have settled in the
north, only to find themselves living in some of the most unstable and
violent regions of Iraq. We strongly urge the Iraqi government, the
United Nations and the U.S. government to address this crisis without
delay." Of approximately 1.4 million Christians of various
denominations living in Iraq in 2003, only 500,000 to 700,000 remain.
Another minority group, the Sabean Mandeans, has seen its population
decline by more than 90 percent. Iraq's Jewish community, once one of
the largest in the Arab world, has almost ceased to exist. According
to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, members of
religious minorities "have experienced targeted intimidation and
violence, including killings, beatings, abductions, and rapes, forced
conversions, forced marriages, forced displacement from their homes and
businesses, and violent attacks on their houses of worship and
religious leaders." The U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees reported
that in 2008, there were an estimated 2.8 million internally displaced
persons living in Iraq. Of that 2.8 million, nearly two out of three
reported fleeing their home because of a direct threat to their lives,
and, of that number, almost nine out of ten said they were targeted
because of their ethnic or religious identity. The resolution
introduced by the senators addresses the tragedy in several ways. It
states the sense of the Senate that the fate of Iraqi religious
minorities is a matter of grave concern and calls on the U.S.
government and the United Nations to urge Iraq's government to increase
security at places of worship, particularly where members of religious
minorities are known to face risks. The resolution calls for the
integration of regional and religious minorities into the Iraqi
security forces, and for those minority members to be stationed within
their own communities. The resolution calls on the Iraqi government to
ensure that minority citizens can participate in upcoming elections,
and to enforce its constitution, which guarantees "the administrative,
political, cultural, and educational rights" of minorities. Finally, it
urges a series of steps to ensure that development aid and other forms
of support flow to minority communities in Iraq. And lastly Carly Simon's latest album is released, Never Been Gone.
The twelve track album is Carly dipping into her songwriting canon and
providing two new songs and ten re-imaginings of earlier favorites
including "You're So Vain," "Let The River Run" (her Grammy, Academy
Award and Golden Globe winning song as Diane Sawyer pointed out yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America),
"Anticipation," "You Belong To Me," "That's The Way I've Always Heard
It Should Be" and "The Right Thing To Do." Tomorrow Carly's on NBC's The Today Show, Thursday's she's on Tavis Smiley (PBS) and also on NPR's Talk Of The Nation.
Posted at 08:18 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 26, 2009
 that's Isaiah's The World Today
Just Nuts " 'Feminist'
Naomi Wolf speaks" and who doesn't need a laugh today? the death toll
in iraq keeps climbing from sunday's bombings (it's up to 160) and it does
include some children. cnn has a strong report (video and text) here so
check that out. and a strong recording is what carly simon has with her new album
never been gone. it's pretty much an acoustic album, she's redoing 10
of her favorite songs from her songwriting canon and debuting 2 never before
recorded songs. abc's website
offers an interview with carly done by gail mitchell (billboard) and here's
a taste: Billboard: Why did you record this album?
Carly
Simon: After what happened with "This Kind of Love," I was devastated. It felt
like carrying a child to term and then having it die in childbirth. But (Iris
Records partners) Ben (Taylor, her son) and Larry (Ciancia) said, "Let's not sit
around and waste time. You've got these incredible songs you've written. Let's
rethink some of them and have fun." And "fun" was the operative word. We all got
together in the same room and started rethinking my songs. When I say
rethinking, I don't mean in an intellectual way. I mean, we all had a couple of
glasses of wine or beer and just started having a good time.
Billboard: Were
the two new songs written specifically for the album?
Simon: "No Freedom" is
a lyric I wrote a few years ago. Ben and singer-songwriter David Saw wrote a
melody to it. It had originally been a folk song, but I woke up one morning and
said, "It's got to be in 2/4 time like (Elton John's) 'Bennie and the Jets.'"
Ben did an absolutely amazing job on the production; it's a great song to dance
to.
The album ends with "Songbird," which I wrote in 1970 but never finished.
I have hundreds of songs on cassettes around the house. I was listening to one
when I heard this song and said, "Wow." The first verse actually came from a
different song; I had obviously written the songs around the same time. I also
remembered there was a songbird that used to come to my landing when I lived in
a little New York apartment on 35th Street, and I'd try to get melodies from its
singing. You couldn't do better than a
bird.the album's out tomorrow and among the
songs she covers are 'you're so vain' and 'anticipation.' so you've got carly
doing carly. who could ask for more? let's close with
c.i.'s 'Iraq
snapshot:' Monday, October 26, 2009. Chaos and violence
continue, Iraq's death toll from yesterday's massive bombings rises and includes
children, finger-pointing becomes the favorite past-time, a US 'helper' and his
ties to an oil company are explored, a US Iraq War resister seeks sanctuary in a
Canadian church, and more.
Sunday Baghdad saw bombings resulting in a
higher death total than Black Wednesday, Bloody Wednesday, Gory Wednesday
August 19th. Eleanor Hall (Australia's ABC's The World Today -- link
has text and audio) explained, "Twin suicide bombers
targeted the Iraqi Ministry of Justice all but destroying the government
department's headquarters, which are just outside the high-security 'green zone'
in the centre of Baghdad." Shane McLeod added, "The sound of the second blast
was captured by a mobile phone video camera being used to survey the aftermath
of the first. Targeted was the headquarters of the Ministry of Justice, just a
few hundred metres from the fortified green zone in Baghdad." Sahar Issa and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers)
report that Iraqi government figures are stating that "a
water tanker and a refrigerated food truck" were used in the attacks. This
morning, Jack Kimball and Michael Christie (Reuters)
report that the death toll has climbed and is currently at
155 with over five hundred left injured. Rod Nordland (New York Times)
observes that "an uncertain number of children" are among
the dead. CBS News and AP add that
24 "children who were killed were on a bus leaving a daycare center near the
Justice Ministry when the attack occurred".
Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles
Times) sketch out yesterday's assault, "Cars clogges the
road as tehy approached the traffic circle in front of the Justice Ministry,
with its statue of modern Iraq's first ruler, King Faisal, mounted on a horse.
An old white pickup truck had broken down by the traffic circle and its driver
approached a policeman and started yelling. [. . .] It was then that the first
of two car bombs exploded on opposite ends of the block." Xinhua adds, "Xinhua
correspondent at the scene said that he saw ponds of blood and parts of human
bodies scattered close to the blast site near the Mansour Hotel where the
wreckage of dozens of civilian cars could be seen near the site." Martin Chulov (Guardian)
offers, "Witnesses described body parts sprawled across the
area. Mohammed Falah, was caught in the blast: 'There was a woman's leg next to
me. I picked it up and gave it to the ambulance'."
Sharif Abdel Kouddous (Democracy Now! -- link
has text, video and audio) asked Rick Rowley for his take
on the bombings today:
Well, first of all, the first thing to say is
that, you know, there is no peace in Iraq, that these bombings, first of all,
put the lie once again to the three myths that we've been pushed about the war
in Iraq: first, the story that the war is over; second, that we won the war; and
third, that the lessons of this victory can be applied to Afghanistan. The fact
is that what passes for calm in Iraq today isn't peace at all; it's a fragile,
fraying truce after a brutal sectarian civil war, and it's a truce without
reconciliation that -- because it's put in place a system that is a continuing
engine for violence, and tragedies like these are a legacy of the American
occupation and will remain one for years to come. So, bombings like these today
-- or on Sunday were attempts -- I mean, you know, they're being blamed on
al-Qaeda in Iraq, and it seems likely that it was a group like al-Qaeda in Iraq
that carried them out. And there are attempts by those extreme elements inside
the Sunni insurgency to target the Shiite-led government, which they see as
their sectarian enemy, but also to try to draw the Shiite militias back into an
all-out civil war that could unite the Shiites again in their resistance. I
mean, bombings like the ones on Sunday are remarkable for their massive scale,
the carnage they cause, but there are multiple bombings in Iraq every single
week.
[. . .]
And yeah, absolutely, I mean, the government in
Baghdad is seen by al-Qaeda in Iraq and by the extremists inside the Sunni
resistance as a proxy, as an Iranian proxy, dominated by the Supreme Council and
by the Dawa Party, both parties that were -- well, I mean, the Supreme Council
was formed in Iran, and Dawa, you know, spent most of its existence in Iran.
And, you know, these parties were put by the US in mid-2004, were put in charge
of the government, and their militias were turned into the core of the Iraqi
security structure. So, as the civil war kicked off, the main protagonists in
the civil war were militias inside the police force that were -- came from these
parties and, you know, versus Sunni insurgents on the outside who were doing
bombings and these kinds of soft-target attacks on civilians. So, you know,
clearly, I mean, institutions and ministries that are controlled by ISCI, the
Supreme Council, and by Dawa are definitely seen as sectarian enemies. I mean,
the Ministry of Justice, as well, you know, it's -- the police and the court
system have been seen in the -- I mean, not so much the court system. The police
and the prison system in Iraq have been seen as one of the tools in the
sectarian fight that the Shiite militias have used from the very
beginning.
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal)
noted yesterday that the charge of "al Qaeda in Iraq" was
instantly being made by some including Nouri al-Maliki, US-installed thug of the
occupation. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam
(McClatchy Newspapers -- link has text and video) add,
"Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, released a statement blaming elements of Saddam
Hussein's predominantly Sunni Baath Party and militants from al Qaida in Iraq
for the attack. As of late Sunday, no group had claimed responsibility." Yes,
Maliki couldn't wait to start (yet again) blaming former
Ba'athists.
ELEANOR HALL: Given the number of people killed though in
these two recent attacks and the outrage from the public that we are already
hearing, I mean what is this attack and the August one likely to mean for the
elections in January?
SAM PARKER: Well, clearly it undercuts Prime Minister
Maliki's main narrative which is Iraq was chaos and he brought it back from the
brink. It definitely hurts him and certainly if you look at what has followed
the August bombings there has been a lot of that, a lot of finger pointing and a
lot of people saying your claims are bogus. That Iraq is just as unsafe as it
has always been and that generally is not true.I mean, yes you can point to
these like high-profile mass casualty attacks and as tragic as they are, overall
death counts in Iraq are still, even despite these attacks, are still much lower
than they have been at any period except for right after the invasions. So for
the entire war, we are still at the lowest points and so these large scale
attacks largely had propaganda value to them.
Liz Sly and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times)
explain, "It is Maliki who stands to lose the most from a
security breakdown, because he is campaigning on his record as the leader who
helped restore a good measure of security after the sectarian warfare that raged
after the U.S.-led invasion. Overall, violence is down 90% since the peak in
2006, U.S. commanders say." Anthony Shadid (Washington Post)
adds, "The attacks came at a precarious moment in Iraqi
politics. Parliament has yet to agree on legislation to organize the planned
Jan. 16 vote, despite warnings by the United States and the United Nations that
time will probably run out by next weekend. Critics have also complained that
some of the key officials charged with security -- Maliki and Interior Minister
Jawad Bolani -- are more engaged in the election than in running the country."
Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman tells Al
Jazeera, "This sends two messages, one of them is to the
investment conference in Washington held just a few days ago as if to tell
investors not to come to Iraq . . . At the same time I think it may be a message
to the meeting today of the political council of national security." Baghdad governor Salah Abdel Razaq tells
Elizabeth Palmer (CBS News), "The bodies I have seen --
these innocent people, what have they done? To have this destiny, it is very
terrible." Timothy Williams (New York Times)
explains, "In large part, Mr. Maliki's popularity has
rested on the belief that he has kept the country reasonably safe. But the
bombings at four high-profile, well-protected government buildings within a
two-month span led some Iraqis to say Sunday that they were reconsidering their
support for Mr. Maliki." It should be noted that "Mr. Maliki's popularity" --
like Ashlee Simpson's talent
-- is something that's been assumed but never verified. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor)
provides a voice for people on the streets such as vendor
Abbas Fadhil who states, "This is all from the political parties -- they want to
gain seats in the election." Um Ali tells Arraf, "There had to be someone with
official backing behind this -- how could they get through the checkpoints? Why
are our children, our sisters still being killed? For 20 years we've been
fighting."
Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal)
puts the bombings into the larger instability landscape
that is Iraq: "The timing of the Sunday bombings coincided with plans by Iraq's
top political body, the Political Council for National Security, comprising top
political leaders and cabinet ministers, to consider ways to end a stalemate
over a crucial election law needed to begin work ahead of the vote. The
legislation has stalled over disagreements between factions over how the vote
will be conducted in Kirkuk, an oil-rich region in the north torn by sectarian
and ethnic tensions among the area's Kurds, Arabs and
Turkomen."
Ranj Alaaldin (Guardian)
offers his take on the bombings:
A broad analysis
suggests complicity on the part of the Sunni-Arab world: keep Iraq unstable and
you stop the country from becoming an effective Iranian client state when the US
withdraws; or, at the very least, facilitate terrorist attacks in the country
and you have some form of a counter-measure to Iran's unmatched influence.
Alternatively, the attacks on Kurdish-run and Shia-run ministries may have
sought to encourage incorporation of the
Sunnis, specifically the Sons of Iraq fighters, into the Shia-led government,
which has so far been slow in doing so. The objectives are not necessarily
independent of each other.
A more straightforward analysis suggests prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki as the prime target of all this: destabilise Iraq in
the run-up to January's parliamentary elections and you hurt Maliki's chances of
success, as he will be campaigning on the same security platform that won him
this year's provincial elections. Indeed, things are not looking too rosy for
the premier now that he has lost his security card. Iraqis will struggle to list
his achievements in recent times and find the country no closer to better
services and increased employment levels.
As far as observations go,
James Denselow (Guardian) is on stronger
ground than anyone when he observes:
It takes a
certain death toll for Iraq to make it back on to the headlines. Despite the
presence of some 120,000 US troops (and 100 or so British naval trainers who
were recently let back into the country) Iraq appears to be
old news. In many people's minds it is yesterday's conflict; the surge was a
success and the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is a democratically mandated
strongman who is bringing economic success to the country -- or so the narrative
goes.
And as the instability thrives, Nouri depends upon US forces to
prop him up. Mohammed al Dulaimy and Hannah Allam
(McClatchy Newspapers) explain, "U.S. Marines arrived at
the scene of Sunday's attack with Iraqi forces, in accordance with a U.S.-Iraq
security pact that requires American forces to coordinate with their Iraqi
counterparts before getting involved in combat or other operations. Americans at
the scene asked Iraqi security guards for surveillance videos from buildings in
the area, and investigators took soil samples and carted off pieces of twisted
metal." The US government has attempted to call the assault a "terrorist" attack
-- it's a war. All sides could be labled "terrorists." That would inclue the US
which bombed and raided Iraq for the last six years and counting. It was an
attack, it was an assault. It was not "terrorism." It was an attack which took
place in an ongoing war and was most likely aimed at a government installed by
foreigners and made up of Iraqi exiles who spent most of the last decade living
abroad. Wamith al-Kassab (MideastYouth) ponders the
bombings:
what just happened? Cause I watch the news
every day ,and I saw Hilary Clinton give a speech on Iraq-American conference in
Washington and she was promising the Iraqi displace families that there will be
efforts to return them to Iraq as security improved , Almalky said in his speech
in the same conference that security in Iraq has improved and today Iraqi people
can go outside at night and drive safely to visit the holly shrines in Najaf (
Iraqi leaders measure security by the times when people get killed visiting
holly shrines and days when people can go safely ,which brings us to bigger
question , is security in Iraq related to shiaa visits to shrines or it is a
whole state security?)
yes , the Iraq I left after working for 7 years in
medical camps for refugees ,was a safe place ,I mean it was not totally safe ,
cause there is few nasty bad boys who usually beats the hell of journalists in
the middle of the streets ,and threats to kill you cause you post some bloges on
human rights every now and then , and yes ,if I return today my chances is zero
to go out of Baghdad airport alive ,but come on ,I am only 1 person and this is
small terrorist attacks that should not effect the magnificent large picture of
security change in Iraq ,we had 600,000 Iraqi soldiers most of them trained in
Jordan ,Kurdistan ,few went to USA ,all of them were train by Americans ,we had
security companies( they work to protect the VIP only ,but any way we had ones)
,we bought armed cars ,we bought weapons ,we had police forces ,the support
forces from Sunni ( waking councils) ,we had beshmerka ( Kurdish army which
sometimes goverment say they are militia ,others time they are official army)
,we had small armies for each party in Iraq ,we had many people who carry guns
and I do not know why ,just I know you do not whanna mess with them.
So we
had allot of people who formed check points with metal and weapons and explosive
detectors devices ,we had concrete walls all over Baghdad and we had traffic jam
because of the check points has to check each car to prevent terrorist from
attacking the innocent
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor)
reports, "On Monday, streets around the devastated
buildings remained closed to traffic. The blasts sheared the front off the
Justice and Municipality ministry buildings, leaving floors caving under
collapsed ceilings." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal)
adds that "Iraqi police and soldiers were carrying out
intense searches at checkpoints" today.
Violence continued today in
Iraq.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports a Karbala suicide car bombing which claimed the
life of the driver and 4 civilians leaving fourteen more people injured, a Mosul
sticky bombing which wounded one person and a Falluja roadside bombing which
injured four people.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports 1 Turkoman shot dead in Mosul. Reuters drops back to Sunday to note
that 2 people were shot dead (two more injured) in
Mosul.
Kidnappings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports 1 "young boy" kidnapped in
Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk
(man who had
been kidnapped Saturday).
We'll move over to Canada to note, as
requested, Krystalline Kraus (Rabble) reporting on US
War Resister Rodney Watson:
The latest flashpoint in
the battle to keep war resisters in Canada has been
the case of Rodney Watson
who on Monday October 19, 2009, decided to seek
sanctuary in a B.C. [British
Columbia] church rather than face deporation to the United States to face
desertion charges. Watson, who is originally from Kansas City, Kansas, enlisted
in the US Army in 2004 for a three-year contract with the intentions of becoming
a cook since he wanted to serve the troops in a non-combat capactiy.
In 2005,
he was deployed to Iraq just north of Mosul, where he was put in
charge of
searching vehicles and Iraqi civilians for explosives, contraband and
weapons
before they entered the base. He was also expected to "keep the
peace" by
monitoring Iraqi civilians who worked on the base and fire his weapon
at
Iraqi children who approached the perimeter.
When he was informed he was
being deported, Rodney sought asylum at the church. Earlier this month,
Stig Nielsen (Metro Vancouver)
reported:Rodney Watson of Kansas City had just returned
from a deployment in Iraq in 2006 when the U.S. army extended his contract for
three years. Watson said he felt he had served his time and that he wasn't about
to go back to a war he doesn't agree with. "The main thing was the disrespect
for the people -- some guys would have a bad day and they would just beat up on
some Iraqi civilians," Watson said.He deserted three years ago and crossed the
border into Canada, where he fell in love and became a father.The 31-year-old is
at First United Church on Hastings Street in Vancouver where he's been granted
asylum since September. Camille Bains (Canadian Press)
reported that he was ordered deported September 11th:Ric
Matthews, lead minister of First United Church in Vancouver, said the board and
the congregation support Watson. Matthews said he met Watson at a rally
organized on his behalf by the War Resisters Support Campaign and that Watson
later approached him about staying at the church. "There will be an effort to
try and help create the momentum for something constructive to come out of
this," he said. "I think the United Church in general, beyond just us, would now
be working through some of our people who have experience in working with
refugee claims and in engaging with government in conversation." Matthews said
Watson's fiancee and son often visit him at the church, which provides daily
meals for people in need.
Back to Iraq. On the latest installment of Inside Iraq (Al
Jazeera) which began broadcasting Friday (streams online as
well), Jasim al-Azzawi explored the conflict of 'help' and
enrichment by examining the apparent conflicts of interests which have
ensnared
Peter Galbraith.
Jasim al-Azzawi: When Norway's most
respected financial newspaper, Dagens Noeringsliv, covered the activities of a
small, Norwegian oil company called DNO operating in northern Iraq, no one
expected subsequent investigations to implicate the former US politician Peter
Galbraith. Ambassador Galbraith is now suing DNO for a quarter of a billion
dollars because the Kurdistan Regional Government has squeezed him out of his 5%
stake in the company. What is more devastating for Iraq is the role Mr.
Galbraith played as a political consultant to the KRG writing Iraq's
Constitution in a way that can only be described as a potential ticking time
bomb. This story has all the marks of dual loyalty, betrayal and international
intrigue. [. . .] I am now joined from Oslo by Terje Erikstad, a financial news
editor at Dagens Naeringsliv and from London by Sabah al-Mukhtar, president of
Arab Layers Association in London. And we were also supposed to be joined by
Mohammad Ihsan, Minister for Extra-Regional Affairs of the KRG but unfortunately
we were informed at the last minute that he fell sick and cannot join the
program. Sabah and Terje, welcome to Inside Iraq. Terje, let me start with you.
Were you surprised to discover that the name of Mr. Peter Galbraith, former US
Ambassador to Croatia and a leading figure in Washington, he had a 5% stake in
the DNO?
Terje Erikstad: Yes, indeed we were very much surprised because
it all started with a Norwegian company being fined by the Oslo stock exchange.
And we started working on this case as an ordinary conflict between a company on
the stock exchange and the stock exchange. And it ended up with Peter Galbraith
owning oil interests or having oil interests in Kurdistan. That was very
surprising for us indeed.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Sabah, who is Peter Galbraith?
Set the situation for us.
Sabah al-Mukhtar: Galbraith is a professor of
international politics in the USA. He was an ambassador in a variety of
capacities -- in Croatia and Afghanistan. He was advisor to the US government.
He was a man who was being paid a salary by the government of the United States
of America. He was at the same time being paid a salary by the Kurdish
government as an advisor. And at the same time, he was taking money from a
company which is going to apply for oil in Iraq. He has been instrumental in
assisting the Americans and the Kurds to produce a Constitution for Iraq which
is a designer made country, which is a failed state, to install a government and
a regime there that has been looking after the interests of-of Mr. Galbraith.
And this reminds us and reminds the listeners and the viewers that this is again
history repeating itself. In the past, there was a Mr. [Calouste] Gulbenkian --
Mr. 5% -- during the Ottoman Empire who had five-percent of the oil of Iraq and
now we have this man having a 5% interest in the Kurdish area -- in Tawke field
in particular -- but now they seem to have turned the table on him. That's why
he's on an arbitration course with them.
Jasim al-Azzawi: If that is the
case, Terje, explain to me how come in a very lengthy explanation and
justification by the Minister of Natural Resources of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara,
at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what happened, the genesis of the
story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for almost five, six pages and yet
the name of Peter Galbraith has not been mentioned even once. How do you explain
that?
Terje Erikstad: Because Peter Galbraith was a secret partner with
the Norwegian company you mentioned, DNO International, and this company had two
secret partners in their exploration in Kurdistan. The interest of Mr. Galbraith
was hidden behind the company name -- behind the company named Porcupine and
this Porcupine is incorporated in one of the states in the USA, Deleware, and it
was very difficult to know about his identity. We found it through the company
registry and it was all hidden, it was -- He is in a conflict with the DNO
because the Kurdish government did not recognize his interests when the new oil
law was applied to this field, the Tawke field in Kurdistan. And he is now in an
arbitration process with DNO. And it was all kept secret until we found out
the-the identity of the company in this arbitration process and the man behind
it, Mr. Galbraith. The Kurdish government say that they know nothing about this
but that is very difficult to understand.
Jasim al-Azzawi: Indeed it
is very difficult to understand. Sabah al-Mukhtar, if you were Peter Galbraith,
here's a man who spent the better part of almost four years consulting and
advising the KRG. He shepparded them through the lengthy process of the
Constitution writing. He insterted some very important clauses to the benefit of
the KRG regarding the relationship between Baghdad and Irbil, regarding the oil
law, regarding the peshmerga, regarding their territorial authorization. And
yet, at the very last minute, they squeezed him out and they crossed him and the
five-percent that he was banking on never materialized.
Sabah al-Mukhtar:
Well I think this is a -- when you have, when you have a dispute between the
forty thieves of Baghdad that's what you end up with. You end up with
disclosures that I think this is going to run a little more. Galbraith at the
present moment has a problem with the KRG but I think within the KRG itself
there are a variety of individuals who may have interests vested interests, who
may have conflict of interests and that is part of the problem. But to go back
to what Galbraith did, in the Constitution, he's the one who instigated the idea
that a federation is set up in Iraq, but based on ethnicity which is not the
concept of federal government He has encouraged the Kurds and insisted on having
the local government -- the local government having priority over the federal
government. He has given the local government the final say. He's given the oil
rights to the regional government rather than the federal government. He has
assisted them in drafting the Constitution which by any stretch of imagination
could not be accepted as a proper Constitution to the extent that there is
Article 142 of the Constitution which called for a revision and review of that
Constitution within four months which -- until now -- they have failed to do. He
then -- he assisted them in working on the idea, what's called "the land grab"
-- i.e. taking areas which were not within the regional government of Kurdistan
to be part of Kurdistan so that he can have the oil. He has encouraged them to
have the -- the type of contract that he signed with them but then subsequently
the problem with the federal government and the regional government stopped that
contract from going on and I think, for reasons I don't know, there is, they
have fallen out. Having paved the way for them to set up this arrangement, he
now stands to lose the money but I think he's a man who has been working on
conflict of interests on a variety of levels from the USA to Iraq, to the
politics, to the Kurdish government and at the same time working for a company
which is going to contract with the Kurdish government and this is an extreme
case of conflict of interest which I think amounts to an illegal act but I think
this is a matter for the US to deal with.
Picking back up on "in a
very lengthy explanation and justification by the Minister of Natural Resources
of the KRG, Mr. Ashti Hara, at the website of the KRG.org, he mentioned what
happened, the genesis of the story of DNO and its operations in Kurdistan for
almost five, six pages and yet the name of Peter Galbraith has not been
mentioned even once"? Jasim al-Azzawi appears to be referring to the letter from
Dr. Ashti Hawrami to DNO ("Subject: Causing Serious Harm to KRG Reputation")
that the KRG posted -- in PDF format -- September 21st. The KRG has now removed
the letter from their website. You can find a copy of it (PDF format warning)
here. The letter was quoted from in
the September 22nd
snapshot.
We'll note this from Sherwood Ross'
"U.S. FORCIBLY DEPORTED ISLANDERS AND GASSED
THEIR DOGS TO MAKE WAY FOR DIEGO GARCIA MILITARY BASE"
(Veterans Today):In order to convert the sleepy, Indian Ocean island of Diego
Garcia into a dominating military base, the U.S. forcibly transported its 2,000
Chagossian inhabitants into exile and gassed their dogs.By banning journalists
from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press
coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American
University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S.
Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press).""The Chagossians were put
on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where
they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for
themselves," Vine said on the interview show ""Books Of Our Time," sponsored by
the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover."They were promised jobs that never
materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and
full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned
to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were
the poorest of the poor," Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the
law school.Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned,
before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said."They were moved
because they were few in number and not white," Vine added. The U.S. government
circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had
taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego
Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported
them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government
induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the
island."Through Diego Garcia," Vine pointed out, "the U.S. can project its power
throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and
Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the
U.S." He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130
in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.iraqabcthe
world todayeleanor hallshane mcleodjack
kimballmichael christiereutersmcclatchy newspapershannah
allammohammed al dulaimythe los angeles timesned
parkercaesar ahmedthe christian science monitorjane
arrafthe wall street journalgina chonxinhuamartin
chulovliz slyusama redhaal
jazeeratimothy williamsthe new york timesrod
nordlandcbs newselizabeth palmerthe
guardianjames denselowstig
nielsenmetro vancouverthe canadian presscamille bainsinside
iraqjasim al-azzawisherwood ross
Posted at 08:09 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 23, 2009
tony blair and gordon brown - war hawks of a feather
The mother of a
teenage soldier killed in Iraq broke down today as she told an inquiry she
wanted Tony Blair to be held to account for the "illegal war".
Anne
Donnachie, whose son Rifleman Paul Donnachie was killed in Basra in April 2007,
was among a number of families addressing the Iraq inquiry committee at a
regional meeting in Bristol.
Earlier this month in a similar meeting in
London, Sir John Chilcot, the committee chairman who had invited the bereaved
families to tell him the issues they believe he should focus on, was left in no
doubt what they wanted investigated – legality, equipment and the role of
Blair.
Today it was the turn of Donnachie to add her voice to the growing
clamour for accountability, as committee members Sir Roderick Lyne, Sir Lawrence
Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert looked on.the above is from karen
mcveigh's ' Soldier's
mother wants Tony Blair to answer for Iraq war' ( guardian). and the illegal war tony blair
started? gordown brown continues it. this is from the bbc:
'British naval personnel are to return to Iraq to train local forces, Armed
Forces Minister Bill Rammell has said. The announcement comes after politicians
in Baghdad passed legislation allowing their return.' where's the protest
in england? the uk is sending troops back to iraq ... to guard
oil. and where's the protest? let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq
snapshot:'
Friday, October 23, 2009. Chaos and violence
continue, still no 'progress' on Iraq's election law, Iraqi Christians consider
fleeing due to violence, the United Nations says Iraqis should not be forced to
return to Iraq (pay attention England and Denmark), Gordo Brown decides British
lives are worth less than Iraqi oil, the US Congress forgets Iraq, and
more.
This morning on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show (second hour, international hour), Diane
was joined by panelists Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera), Moises Naim (Foreign
Policy) and Janine Zacharia (Bloomberg News). Iraq was noted in the
following: Diane Rehm: Let's go right back to the
phones, to Kansas City, MO. Good morning, Ron.
Ron: Good morning. My question deals with
the economic development. I was -- I traveled in Iraq and one of the things that
I saw there wasn't really -- for all the billions of dollars that we were
spending over there -- there's not a lot of economic development taking place.
So, you know, that's lacking. My understanding of Afghanistan is that they were
once -- they are geographically located in what was known as "The Old Silk
Trade" -- that's between the Middle East and Asia. And I want to know what's
going on to try to redevelop that in the way of infrastructure with roads and
railroads which would allow them to have a place into the global economy which
should be the essential goal that the United States would want?
Diane Rehm: Let's take Iraq first.
Abderrahim?
Abderrahim Foukara: Well the issue of
economic development, it has at least two impediments in Iraq. One is
corruption. And the second one is political instability. Now Prime Minister
Maliki was here in Washington recently. They're saying -- both he and President
Obama have been saying -- Iraq is now stable enough to start focusing on
economic development. Now that's one way of looking at it. The other way of
looking at it is that the whole focus on economic development as we have seen it
talked about here in Washington during Prime Minister -- Prime Minister Maliki's
visit is that Iraq, which has sort of fallen off the radar here in the United
States, is actually still not doing well politically. And talking economic
development is one way of diverting attention -- people's attention -- from the
real problems that continue to bedevil Iraq. [. . .]
Diane Rehm: Janine?
Janine Zacharia: Well you know too echo
what Abderrahim said, Prime Minister Maliki came again this week to say "Iraq's
open for business" but it truly is not open for business when you still have the
sec -- Correct, the political situation is involved so we don't know what's
going to happen with January elections, but the security issues is still
paramount. You cannot -- American businessmen or international businessmen
cannot go and roam around Iraq and set up shop right now and import Coca Cola
and do all these things without being worried about being blown up. [. .
.]
Diane Rehm: Moises?
Moises Naim: Economic development is
very, very difficult. Economic development in the middle of a war is impossible.
So it doesn't matter. There's no country ever that's developed on the basis of
foreign aid. You can pour as much money as you want and unless you have a
functioning market and investors, commercial activity -- development will not
happen. And it's impossible to have that if you have a war going on.
We're not doing the "Afghanistan snapshot" so "[.
. .]" indicates they then turned to the issue of Afghanistan. We will note
Afghanistan in a moment, in terms of a Congressional exchange led by US House
Rep Susan Davis. But first, let's note the political referred to above.
Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor)
observes, "Once again the US finds itself hostage to Iraqi politics -- this
time as a result of a standoff among Iraqi political parties over an overdue
election law." If you're saying "Huh?", you were sleeping last week when Gina
Chon was warning the Thursday date was approaching and Iraq appeared to be
missing it. Parliamentary elections in Iraq are said to take place this coming
January. That's after they were already kicked back. They were supposed to take
place in December. They kicked it back to January. Last week, on Thursday, they
were supposed to have passed the law and didn't. And still haven't. On Wednesday, the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy
appeared before the House Armed Services Committee and stated that Iraq actually
had two more weeks to pass it. ( Kat covered the hearing here.)
Flournoy also stated they could just pass legislation on what day to hold the
election and leave all matters to the 2005 election law -- which, no, would not
be 'progress'. She left out the part about Iraq's court system finding that law
to be unconstitutional. While Flournoy attempted to downplay, others aren't
doing so. Michael Jansen (Irish Times) observes,
"The US military may have to put on indefinite hold its plan to dispatch
additional troops to Afghanistan if Iraq's election does not take place on time
in January. [. . .] On Wednesday, after prolonged debate, the Iraqi parliament
admitted failure in its efforts to draft a new election law to govern the coming
contest and asked the Political Council for National Security to take on the
task." "Thrown in doubt" is the call Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) makes and goes on to
note of the High Electoral Commission: "The commission, responsible for
organizing polls in Iraq, has said that it needs 90 days to print and distribute
ballots. Iraqi and UN officials fear that the election could be delayed if
lawmakers fail to pass a revised election law this week." The New York Times
editorializes in " Counting Backward" that when it comes to the elections, Iraq's
Constitution must be followed (they appear to forget that Iraq's Constitution
also covers Kirkuk -- click here for more on that and don't miss the latest Inside Iraq for the issue as
well). Barbara Surk (AP) reports today that
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's spokesperson stated the Ayatollah wants the
elections to take place January 16th as has been announced. Howard LaFranchi explains:
The situation, which caught Obama administration diplomats off
guard as they have focused attention on Afghanistan and the electoral crisis
there, is reminiscent of the stalemate the Bush administration faced in 2007
concerning a series of "benchmark" laws the US Congress sought in return for
continuing support to Iraq.
At that time, US diplomats spoke of "two clocks" in the two
capitals to explain the discrepancy between Washington's demand for quick
political action and Baghdad's refusal to be rushed.
The two clocks are on display again, with US diplomats including
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton imploring Iraqi leaders to pass an
election law. For their part, some Iraqi politicians say it is Americans and not
Iraqis who feel a need to hurry on legislation that cuts to the heart of Iraq's
power struggles.
The election law should have been approved by Oct. 15 in order for
elections scheduled for Jan. 16 to go forward, according to the Iraqi
constitution.
Iraq is a fragile state, and it can
become a stable or failed state depending on whether the government increases or
decreases in legitimacy and competence. If it does not become more competent or
regresses, there is danger of a coup. Losing legitimacy could lead to a civil
war.
From Parliament issues to the US Congress, we're
dropping back to yesterday. And we'll start with a question: Does the US
Congress exist to help scoundrels rake in more ill gotten gain?
Thursday, we ( Ava, Wally, Kat and myself) attended a hearing that was a
complete waste of time unless you're a lobbyist/business person needing Congress
to give you a stamp of approval. We attended the waste of time hearing because
it was entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on US Strategy." Due to
votes, there was a lengthy break in there and, if we'd been smart, we would have
bailed during the break because after one hour of that hearing, one hour when NO
ONE mentioned Iraq, it was as obvious as it was embarrassing -- embarrassing for
the US House Armed Services Committee's Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee. Do they have trouble reading on the Hill? For most of us in the United States, a hearing
entitled "Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy" would be about .
. . Afghanistan and Iraq. So where the hell was Iraq?
They didn't have time for it. They had time to
call war mongers "public servants."
What the hell is Barry McCaffrey doing testifying
to Congress to begin with? Retired general? BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC is his
company. And his company is in the business of prolonging wars so when he says
the military has to stay and when he refers to the 'justifiable' "anger"
Americans had towards Afghanistan -- and laments it being gone -- every damn
word out of his mouth is suspect because he's working the street, under the
street lamp, trolling for bucks.
In April 2008 documents obtained by
New York Times reporter David Barstow revealed that McCaffrey had been
recruited as one of over 75 retired military officers involved in the
Pentagon military analyst
program. Participants appeared on television and radio news
shows as military analysts, and/or penned newspaper op/ed columns. The program
was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public
Affairs Victoria Clarke. The idea was to
recruit "key influentials" to help sell a wary public on "a possible Iraq invasion."[1]
[. . .]
Shortly after the March 2003 U.S.
invasion of Iraq, McCaffrey exclaimed on MSNBC: "Thank God for the Abrams tank
and... the Bradley fighting vehicle." The "war isn't over until we've got a tank
sitting on top of Saddam's bunker," he added. The Nation noted, "in March
[2003] alone, [Integrated Defense Technologies] received more than $14 million
worth of contracts relating to Abrams and Bradley machinery parts and support
hardware." [15]
The above says he's got nothing to say that isn't
either suspect or paid for. He sells war and he profits from it. There is no
reason the US Congress needs to waste their time or US tax payer dollars getting
Barry's opinion on Afghanistan. He is not, no matter how many times some members
of Congress got it wrong, "a public servant." He is a lobbyist and he lobbies
for war. That's reality.
Reality is also that if you're hearing's entitled
Iraq and if US forces are in Iraq -- more than are in Afghanistan -- it's pretty
damn stupid and insulting not to even shoot the s**t about Iraq in passing
during the hearing. Now Pakistan the subcommitee made time for in the hearing
despite Pakistan not being in the hearing's title.
Bob Herbert: David, the president is
deciding what we should be doing with regard to troop deployments in
Afghanistan. It seems to me that however one feels about this war and the war in
Iraq, the environment here on the home front is bizarre. This is as weird a
wartime atmosphere as I can imagine. For most Americans, there is nothing in the
way of shared wartime sacrifices. There is no draft. We have not raised taxes to
pay for the wars. Except for the families of those in the military, most
Americans are paying very little attention to these conflicts. I've brought this
matter up a few times on college campuses and the response has been, in essence,
a collective shrug.
We addressed that in terms of the press last
night ( click here). But, hey, Bob Herbert, what does it
say when the US Congress forgets the Iraq War? Riddle me that, Bob
Herbert. Here's a section of the hearing:
US House Rep Susan Davis: Help me with
this issue because we are continuing to raise the issue of the role of women and
whether or not we're abandoning them in any way if we move into negotiating or
how we're able to have some kind of reconciliation in Afghanistan -- we want to
focus on them. Where -- where does security lie because clearly the military has
paved the way for many efforts in Afghanistan. I mean there's no doubt about
that. And yet on the other hand, I understand that it's perhaps overly ambitious
of us to believe that all of those efforts with the military and civilian
capacity both are not necessarily in the best -- are picking up the best -- the
best interests of the Afghan people -- or the region, assuming that Pakistan
we're talking about as well. Do you want to -- Ms. Cole?
Beth Ellen Cole: I think that with
governance -- like all of these issues -- we have to enlarge our view of
security. I mean security is not just something that military forces can bring
to the communities of Afghanistan. In the United States, we think of the
security as school guards and bank guards and people who protect judges. And
it's not just a question of military or police forces. Border guards, people
that are dealing with looking at money laundering and bank operations and we --
in that sense, this -- the debate about troops is a very, very important debate
but we have to think about the other assets that we have to bring to bear
including -- with the Afghans -- including putting women as police officers in
certain places or as school guards which we've shown we can do in Liberia. [. .
.]
US House Rep Susan Davis: General Barno,
do you have any thoughts?
Lt Gen Dave Barno (retired general): Two
things. I think one, on the issue of security, you're absolutely correct that
there -- it's not a sequential problem of security and reconstruction and
development, these things are concurrent , these things have to parallel with
one another. [. . .] The other question I think you alluded to was this idea of
"What does it mean to women if we negotiate with the Taliban?" That's a
paraphrase of what, perhaps, I think you were saying you were saying. And-and I
do think we have to be aware that in my estimation, I think from a policy
standpoint right now, having the Taliban be part of the government of
Afghanistan is not where this is going, is not the objective. Having reformed
Taliban, ex-Taliban, Taliban that have rejected violence, put down their weapons
and join the political process, that's a very different outlook. The small "t"
if you will, the individuals, not-not the movement. And I think that's where we
have to be careful that we don't inadvertently send this message that we're
willing to negotiate with the Taliban because we're really trying to exit -- as
opposed to we're willing these Taliban, former Taliban fighters, lay down their
arms and become part of this political process. Our goal when I was there was
not to kill the Taliban -- collectively in the big strategic picture, it was to
make the Taliban irrelevant, make no one want to become part of the Taliban, no
one aspire to the Taliban and that takes a very nuanced approach of many
different elements of simply security and military forces.
US House Rep Susan Davis: Mm-hm. Mr.
Waldman, can I just real quickly get a response from you on that?
Matthew Waldman: Sure. I-I-I mean, in
terms of security [. . .] But as has been said by Ms. Cole, the notion of
security is much broader and-and of course, really security will political
strategy which is indigenous In terms of women, you're absolutely right to raise
this, I think it's a very serious issue. I think the-the-the -- when one travels
the country and talks to Afghans, it's very clear that they want their girls to
go to school -- if you look at the numbers now, over 2 million girls in school,
yeah, you know, there's this universal desire to see that happen and for women
to have the uh, in most areas, for women to be able to work and have rights,
freedoms and rights that-that men have. It is alarming that the Shia law was
passed recently, which you're probably aware of. And I certainly think that one
has to ask about the commitment to the current administration to
--
Us House Rep Susan Davis: Yes
--
Matthew Waldman: -- women's rights.
US House Rep Susan Davis: -- which is
doubtful.
Matthew Waldman: Yeah, yes. It certainly
is. And uh we've yet to see real substance behind the-the-the work to try to-to
empower women and to uh support their opportunities and rights. But you're also
right that there is concern about women's rights after -- as negotiations move
forward. Now of course reconciliation -- truth and reconciliation -- is
essential in Afghanistan.
To review the participants above: Cole works for
the US Institute of Peace (US government), Waldman works for the Carr Center
AGAINST Human Rights (US government mouthpiece with a major in
counter-insurgency studies and cheerleading) and Barno (Near East South Asia
Center For Strategic Studies -- billed as "the preeminent U.S. Government institution for
building relationships and understanding in the NESA region"). So the US
government is more than well represented and we can all chuckle and pretend the
stammering and stumbling Waldman represented the land of academia as well. So
what did Barry represent? The War Machine. So that gets a seat at the table in
front of Congress? That's really pathetic and really shameful and it's past time
that Barry was pulled from Congressional panels because he's not an expert and
he uses the fact that Congress calls on him as part of his business portfolio.
Now we didn't highlight the above exchange to
say: The US must stay in Afghanistan for the women! That's b.s. The Afghanistan
War's gone on long enough. Suddenly, the US gives a damn about women's rights?
No, it's time to fly that false flag and see if you can get anyone to salute it.
No one should.
And you need to relate it back to Iraq where
women did have a higher social standing, the highest in the region. And they've
lost all that. It's much too late to worry about women's rights. Women were sold
out by the US government and it was not by accident or happen-stance. In both
Iraq and Afghanistan, the US government made the decision (after making the
decision for illegal war) to install thugs with US ties that they thought they
could interact with (in stealing the natural resources of both countries) and
that they thought could terrorize the local population (the non-exiles) into a
state of fear where they would not fight back.
They went for thugs. They installed thugs. Thugs
don't respect rights. They don't respect women's rights, they don't respect
women. At the start of this month, Najaf banned alcohol -- and not out of any
concern over alcoholism but to 'condemn' the 'sin' of drinking alcohol. They're
reactionary zealots and thugs and they were installed because that's what they
were.
We do not need to get caught up in the cry of
"for the women!" -- of Iraq or Afghanistan. The US has destroyed the lives for
women in both countries and the US is not the one who can fix it. They've had
more than enough time to try. They don't give a damn. With Iraq, US President
Barack Obama could have sent a powerful message by making the US Ambassador to
Iraq a woman. He wasn't interested. He went with the inept Chris Hill. And, as
Republicans in the Senate knew, Chris Hill would screw things up because that's
what he does -- as his personnel file demonstrates -- and they knew they could
turn around and use him in any campaign. "Chris Hill screwed up Iraq!" "We had
the surge and everything was wonderful! Then Chris Hill was installed!"
The Obama administration refuses to learn from
mistakes and refuses to anticipate them. The arrogance is what is bringing them
down (and, yes, they are being brought down -- the hero worship is over).
Republicans (the current incarnation) would not attack Ray Odierno. He's
military. So if they wanted to attack on Iraq -- a very serious issue to many
voters -- they were going to go civilian. Therefore, who Barack appointed as
ambassador was a serious issue. He or she was going to be attacked regardless. A
competent woman doing a wonderful job would still have been attacked by the
Republicans. But that said (whomever was installed in the post would be
attacked), it's no excuse to install an incompetent of either gender but that's
what happened with Chris Hill.
As Janine Zacharia observed on NPR today,
violence continues in Iraq.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports a Baghdad sticky bombing last night (no one wounded or killed
apparently), a Mosul roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.
Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed
the life of 1 man and left his wife and their three children wounded and a Baaj
roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier.
Shootings?
Tuesday Mike noted, "Reuters reports, 'Iraq will temporarily shut down thousands of
schools in two provinces and some in Baghdad after discovering 36 new cases of
the H1N1 flu virus, Iraqi officials said on Tuesday'." Today John Leland (New
York Times) reports on the "nearly 2,500 school closings" which have
resulted from the fears or concerns: "Dr. Ihsan Jaafar, general director of the
Public Health Directorate in the Health Ministry, said the number of cases was
insignificant, especially compared with neighboring countries, where infection
rates were much higher."
UNHCR is concerned about the fact that some European states have
begun forcibly returning Iraqi originating from the region of Central Iraq over
the last few months. In our guidelines issued last April, we noted that in view
of the serious human rights violations and continuing security incidents
throughout Iraq, most predominantly in the central governorates, asylum-seekers
from these governorates should be considered to be in need of international
protection. UNHCR therefore advises against involuntary returns to Iraq of
persons originating from Central Iraq until there is a substantial improvement
in the security and human rights situation in the country.
This reminder comes after the UK attempted to forcibly return 44
Iraqi men to Baghdad earlier this month. They were reportedly unsuccessful
asylum claimants held in immigration removal centres in the UK. Iraq only
accepted 10 who were allowed to leave the chartered aircraft in Baghdad, and the
remaining 34 were returned to the UK and placed in immigration centres.
Other European states have signed readmission agreements with Iraq
for voluntary and forced return. Denmark has forcibly returned 38 people
originating mainly from Central and Southern Iraq since signing its agreement in
May 2009. Sweden has undertaken some 250 forced returns with an unspecified
number of returnees originating from the five central governorates of Iraq since
signing an agreement in February 2008. UNHCR has also concerns about the safety
and dignity of these returns.
Concerning asylum-seekers from the three northern governorates, as
well as those from the southern governorates and Al Anbar, UNHCR recommends that
their protection needs are assessed on an individual
basis.
A significant number of Iraqi refugees are Christians. Mindy
Belz (World Magazine) recounts some of the recent violence aimed at
Iraqi Christians: "In May a 32-year-old Christian teacher was kidnapped in
Kirkuk, but freed two weeks later by a joint operation between the Iraqi army
and Awakening forces, or former insurgents now siding with Iraqi and U.S.
forces. On Aug. 18 insurgents kidnapped a 50-year-old Christian physician named
Samir Gorj. A passerby, also a Christian, who tried to come to his aid during
the abduction was shot and killed." After his family piad a larger ransom, Gorj
was released. "Then on Oct. 3 Imad Elia, a Christian nurse in Kirkuk, was
kidnapped in front of his home and found dead in the street two days later."
Meanwhile Sardar Muhammad (niqash) reports that
Iraqi Christians are weighing whether or not to flee Kirkuk due to an increasing
violence, "Local Christians say that they are now targets of armed groups and
tens of them have been killed and kidnapped, while their churches have been
bombed."
Iraqi refugees aren't the only ones being returned by others. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News)
reports the British government is sending the country's Royal Navy back to
Iraq "to help train Iraqi sailors and protect oil platforms" according to the
UK's Armed Forces Minister Bill Rammell. To protect the oil, imagine that. Of
especial interest to the US is this section of Rammell's statement: The House will be aware that the UK concluded
combat operations in Iraq on 30 April, and that our combat forces were withdrawn
by the end of July in accordance with our previous arrangement with the
Government of Iraq.
"Combat forces" are 'gone.' Because "protecting oil" is a non-violent
effort? Point: The UK returns to Iraq. There was no withdrawal. "Combat" forces
is a joke. Combat forces as opposed to that brigade of Iyengar Yoga instructors
the US military usually deploys? On the UK's return, as Rebecca
observed last week, " gordo even screws up a withdrawal." In the September 4th snapshot, the following
appeared:
Meanwhile Quil Lawrence (NPR -- text only) reports that
Iraqi security forces are using an instrumbent to detect bombs that probably
doesn't do that: "Many U.S. officials say the science is about as sound as
searching for groundwater with a stick. [. . .] One American expert in Baghdad
compared the machine with a Ouija board but wouldn't comment on the record. A
U.S. Navy investigation exposed a similar device made by a company called
Sniffex as a sham."
SniffexQuestions comments:
The NPR story you mentioned about a
dubious explosive detector understates the problem. This is the latest in a long
history of fraudulent explosive detectors that are dowsing rods. 15 years ago,
the FBI busted the company, and when they opened the detectors they found they
were empty. When they raided the factory, the FBI found the company was
photocopying a Polaroid photo of cocaine in order to tell the detector what the
molecular signature was. And in a stroke of genius so that competitors or
foreign countries could not reverse engineer the "detection signature chip" they
printed the photocopies on black paper. The company moved overseas, has changed
the name of the product multiple times, but it has never passed a test showing
it is more effective than flipping a coin as to finding explosives or drugs.
Sniffex was a copycat product by a Bulgarian "inventor" that came
out a few years ago. The US distributors were arrested and prosecuted by the
Securities and Exchange Commission for using the device as the basis of a stock
scam, but the new Sniffex Plus is still for sale to consumers overseas. I have
been to the Middle East, and seen these in use outside hotels and other
businesses.
TV notes. Tonight on most PBS
stations (check local listings), NOW on PBS
explores global warming: Is climate change turning coastal countries into
water worlds? NOW travels to Bangladesh to examine some innovative solutions
being implemented in a country where entire communities are inundated by water,
battered by cyclones, and flooded from their homes. Imagine you lived in a
world of water. Your home is two-feet under. You wade through it, cook on it,
and sleep above it. This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of people
around the world, coastal populations on the front lines of climate
change. Only weeks before world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate
change, NOW senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa travels to Bangladesh to examine
some innovative solutions -- from floating schools to rice that can "hold its
breath" underwater -- being implemented in a country where entire communities
are inundated by water, battered by cyclones, and flooded from their
homes. Many PBS stations begin airing Washington Week tonight as well (remember there
is a web extra to each show if you podcast and you can check out the web extra
the following Mondays when it is also posted to the website). Joining Gwen
around the table this week is Dan Balz (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los
Angeles Times), David Sanger (New York Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St.
Journal) -- and the show plans to remember journalist and Washington Week panelist Jack Nelson who passed away earlier this week.
Meanwhile Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Linda Chavez, Bernadine Healy,
Avis Jones-DeWeever and Patricia Sosa to discuss the week's events on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many stations, it
begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Medicare/Medicaid FraudMedicare and Medicaid
fraudsters are beating U.S. taxpayers out of an estimated $90 billion a year
using a billing scam that is surprisingly easy to execute. Steve Kroft
investigates.
Fighting For The CureMore Americans are
suffering from epilepsy than Parkinson's, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis
combined. Katie Couric reports on a disease that may not be getting the
attention it deserves. | Watch Video
Tyler PerryWhen Hollywood refused to produce
his films his way, Tyler Perry started his own studio in Atlanta and now his
movies - including the popular "Madea" series - are drawing huge audiences.
Byron Pitts profiles the new and unlikely movie mogul. | Watch Video
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 25, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Posted at 08:23 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 22, 2009
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & SPSA BULLETIN -- THE KOOL-AID TABLETHESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TODAY TO ASK HIM WHAT IT FELT LIKE TO SUFFER THE BIGGEST DECLINE IN POPULARITY OF ANY PRESIDENT IN THE LAST 50 YEARS? "YOU THINK THAT'S SCARY," RESPONDED BARACK. "TRY THIS, MORE PEOPLE LIKE MICHELLE THAN LIKE ME. WHAT ARE THEY? ON CRACK!" FROM THE TCI WIRE:
The United Nations High Commisoner for Refguees (UNHCR) released a new report entitled " Asylum
Levels and Trends in Inudstrialized Countries First Half 2009:
Statistical overview of asylum applications lodged in Europe and
selected non-European countries." From the introduction: This
report summarizes patterns and trends in the number of individual
asylum claims submitted in Europe and selected non-European countries
during the first six months of 2009. The data in this report is based
on information available as of 28 September 2009 unless otherwise
indicated. It covers the 38 European and six non-European States that
currently provides monthly asylum statistics to UNHCR. The numbers
in this report reflect asylum claims made at the first instance of
asylum procedures: applications on appeal or review are not included.
Also, this report does not include information on the outcome of asylum
procedures, or on the adminission of refugees through resettlement
programmes, as this information is available in other UNHCR reports. The
report uses the terms "the 44 industrialized countries" referring to:
"27 Member States of the European Union, Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway,
Serbia, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and
Turkey, as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic
of Korea and the United States of America." The study found that all
the countries are seeing increased claims for asylum and the US
"continued to be the largest single recipient of new asylum claims
during the first six months of 2009." The top five countries for most
asylum claims are (in descending order) the US, France, Canada, UK and
Germany. Number one country of origin for aslyum seekers? From the report: Iraq
again became the main country of orgin of asylum-seekers in
industrialized countries in 2006, having previously been the main
source country in 2000 and 2002. Iraq also continued to be the leading
country of origin of asylum applicants during the first six months of
2009 with 13,200 asylum claims lodged by its citizens. The latest
figures, however, show a decreasing trend, with roughly one third fewer
Iraqis requesting international protection compared to the previous two
semesters. The decrease in Iraqi claims was particularly signficant
during the second quarter of 2009 when 5,400 applied for asylum in the
44 industrialized countreis, the lowest quarterly level since the
second quarter of 2006. During the first six months of 2009, Iraqis
lodged asylum applications in 38 out of the 44 industrialized countries
covered by this report, but the distribution of claims is not equally
spread across countries. More than half of all Iraqi claims were
submitted in just four countries: Germany (3,000), Turkey (2,600),
Sweden (1,000) and the Netherlands (950). The decrease in Iraqi asylums
was observed among all major receiving countries, and in particular in
Sweden, where figures plummeted, from an average of roughtly 9,300
claims per semester during 2007, to 1,000 during the reporting period.
Although the levels and trends in asylum flows are often difficult to
explain, they can sometimes be related to concrete policy changes. In
the case of Sweden, the change in Swedish decision making on Iraqi
asylum claims, following the Migration Court's determination that the
situation in Iraq is not one of "armed conflict", may have led to a
shift in flows to other countries such as Germany, Finland and Norway. This was the fourth year in a row that the number one country of origin was Iraq. UNHCR also released [PDF format warning] " Developing a Livelihoods Assessment and Strategy: Case Stduy from UNCHR Jordan." The report estimates there are currently 685 Iraqis seeking asylum in Jordan and 500,413 Iraqi refugees in Jordan. The
Iraqi refugee population in Jordan has come from various educational
and societal backgrounds. Many had become very frustrated and suffer
psychological distress due to the isolation and idleness that they
face. Many were asking for an opportunity to be involved in delivering
services to the refugee community (which also can be used as a method
to enhance the community based approach), and many asked for
opportunities to expand their existing skills and capacities. And how many Iraqi refugees did the US accept? In the August 19th snapshot
the Eric Schwartz (Asst Sect of Population, Refugees and Migration)
State Dept press conference was covered. He asserted in that press
conference, regarding Iraqi refugees being accepted by the US, "The
numbers -- let me -- I think I may answer your next question. The
numbers for fiscal year 2008, I think are on the order of about 13,000.
I'm looking to my team here. And the numbers for fiscal year 2009 will
get us -- will probably be up to about 20,000." Click here for transcript and video of the press conference. Following the November 2008 election, Sheri Fink (ProPublica) reported
on the issue and noted, "A State Department official contacted by
ProPublica said, 'We really do recognize a special responsibility.' The
official said that resettling 17,000 Iraqi refugees in fiscal 2009 was
a minimum target. 'We hope to bring in many more.' The U.S. will also
be accepting Iraqis who worked for the US through special immigrant
visas, a program [7] that resulted from legislation introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy ( discussed
[8] recently by Ambassador James Foley, the State Department's senior
coordinator on Iraqi refugee issues)." So how many Iraqi refugees
resettle in Fiscal Year 2009? According to the US State Dept this
month, the number is 18,838. Bare minimum was reached and a tiny bit
passed. So what is that? The partially nude minimum? What a proud
moment for the US government. Staying with the US government, at
the State Dept today, spokesperson Ian Kelly was asked about Iraq and
the 'intended' elections for January 2010 and he responded: The
Iraqi legislative branch, which is called the Council of
Representatives, has had two readings of the bill, two sessions
debating the bill and -- I guess -- Iraqi law or the-the Iraqi
parliamentary rules call for three readings before it comes to a vote.
What's happened is that because there is this inability to agree on a
text. The whole process has been passed to the Political Council for
National Security which is composed of the head of the main parties and
the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, President and (two) Vice
Presidents. This is to see if they can come to some kind of agreement.
And, of course, we encourage them to come up with a reconciled text and
rapidly pass the legislation. Ultimately, of course, this is a -- this
is for the Iraqis to decide. And this is a -- this is the kind of a
process that you don't see very often in Baghdad. So, in some ways,
it's encouraging that we have this kind of lively debate. But having
said that, this has to move expeditiously. We see the elections in
January as a real milestone in the development of Iraqi democracy. And
we would like to see this law passed and the elections carried out in a
fair and open way. McClatchy's Jospeh Galloway notes
the 'intended' elections in a piece where he weighs in on the 'change'
(non)delivered by US President Barack Obama, "The president-to-be
promised a swift withdrawal from the Iraqi quicksand, but that hasn't
come to pass, either. Instead, we witness a slow-mo pullout that will
sort of end things on the Bush administration's timetable of late 2011
for the last American combat troops to be gone, and God only knows when
for the rest to leave. That's if the Iraqi parliament can pass a new
election law in time for elections to be held on schedule in January." Yesterday,
the Pentagon's Michele Flournoy told the US House Armed Services
Committee that the delay was not currently a problem. She stated that
Parliament had two weeks to act and that they could "simply have a vote
on an election date" and leave all other issues by the wayside as they
utilized the law from the 2005 elections. This would not only mean that
the elections would be on a closed-list, it would also mean the issue
of Kirkuk was not being addressed. (The long post-poned issue of Kirkuk
was not being addressed.) On the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday
(a new one begins airing tomorrow night), Jasim Azawi explained "an
open list is where a group, they list every single candidate running
for office, for parliament. While a closed list-- just like happened in
2005 -- you really don't know who you are voting for." Former Prime
Minister Ayad Allawi was on the show and he is among those calling for
an open list -- as is current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- and
Allawi offered this, "In fact, this is another failure by the Iraqi
Parliament to produce a strategic law that would -- hopefully would be
cementing democracy. But unfortunately, that's not the case. Likewise,
the Parliament has failed in producing a law for the parties -- to say
where the funding for these parties are coming from, what they are, who
they are, are they national, are they sectarian, are they secular. So
there are no laws -- no laws of election. Indeed, the Iraqi people are
disenchanted with the so-called closed list because usually it's either
voting for the sect or voting for the -- for the leader of the list."
Along with using the former election law being seen as a failure by
Iraqs, there's also the what Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported yesterday,
"Iraq's existing election law was declared unconstitutional by its
highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or amended." Michele
Flournoy did not reference that decision to the committee yesterday.
Which doesn't mean it doesn't apply. Other problems include Faleh Hassan (Middle East Online) reports
that the country's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) is
currently "facing allegations of corruption and of poorly supervising
elections" Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
the "supreme Shiite religious tuhorities," the Marajiya, have concerns
about the elections including the issue of the lists, "Another Iraqi
who's close to the Marjaiya said their foremost goal was to preserve
the unity of Iraq, and that replacing the system of party lists of
candidates with direct votes for representatives would serve this aim." US
State Dept spokesperson Ian Kelly was also asked today about the US
Embassy in Baghdad and "shoddy work" and he sidestepped the issue with,
"Let me take that question and see if I can get a reaction to you."
What was he avoiding? Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
the costly ($736 million) US Embassy is the subject of a new study by
the State Dept's Inspector General which finds, "contractor, First
Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co., failed to properly
design, construct and commission the largest U.S. Embassy overseas. It
also cites failures by the former leadership of the State Department
bureau that's responsible for constructing overseas diplomatic posts.
Officials there said that those failures had been rectified, and they
took issue with some aspects of the inspector general's report." And
they note McClatchy's previous coverage of the US Embassy construction
issues including the following: New U.S. Embassy in Baghdad ready — six months late At new U.S. Embassy in Iraq, even kitchens are fire hazards Mammoth new U.S. Embassy marks new stage for IraqRECOMMENDED: " Iraq snapshot" " Iraq's 'intended' January elections" " Those amazing and wonderful Iraqi security forces" " Stop 'nation building" " Where it stands" " The joke that is Norman Solomon" " russ feingold on citizens united" " A new Watergate?" " US House Armed Services Committee: Define stability" " Iraqi elections" " No government should attack the press" " Barack's still a pig" " Faded glory" " THIS JUST IN! WORK IT, BARRY! "
Posted at 09:18 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 21, 2009
russ feingold on citizens united
longterm reader sherry e-mailed saying, 'you
never note russ feingold anymore. are you off him?' no. just forgot. this is his statement on
citizens united vs. the f.e.c.:Wednesday, October 21,
2009
Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Arizona for all the work
he has done over many years to improve our campaign finance system. We have been
partners in this effort for over a decade, and there is no one in this body whom
I admire more than John McCain.
In early September, Senator McCain and I had
the opportunity to walk across the street to the Supreme Court and hear the oral
argument in the Citizens United case. It was a morning of firsts: The first case
that Justice Sonia Sotomayor has heard since the Senate confirmed her nomination
to become only the third woman to sit on our nation’s highest court. And the
first oral argument that Solicitor General Elena Kagan has done since becoming
the first woman to hold that important position in our government.
And it
was the first time since the Tillman Act was passed in 1907 prohibiting spending
by corporations on elections, and the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 clarified and
strengthened that prohibition, that a majority of the Court has suggested it is
prepared to hold that Congress and the many state legislatures that have passed
similar laws have violated the Constitution. Such a decision could have a truly
calamitous impact on our democracy.
Until a few months ago, no one had any
idea that the Citizens United case would potentially become the vehicle for such
a wholesale uprooting of the principles that have governed the financing of our
elections for so long. The case started out as a simple challenge to the
application of Title II of the law that Senator McCain and I sponsored, the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The issue was whether the provisions of
BCRA relating to so-called issue ads could constitutionally be applied to a full
length feature film about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The movie
was to be distributed solely as video on demand.
Yet at the end of its last
term, instead of deciding the case on the basis of the briefs and arguments
submitted by the parties early this year, the Court reached out and asked for
supplemental briefing on whether it should overturn its decisions in McConnell
v. FEC, the case that upheld BCRA in 2003, and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce, a 1991 decision that upheld a state statute prohibiting corporate
funding of campaign ads expressly advocating the election or defeat of a
candidate. That set the stage for the recent special session to hear reargument
in the case. And now we await the Court’s verdict on whether these longstanding
laws will be in jeopardy.
I certainly hope the Court steps back from the
brink. A decision to overturn the Austin decision would open the door to
corporate spending on elections the likes of which this nation truly has never
seen. Our elections would become like NASCAR races – underwritten by companies.
Only in this case, the corporate underwriters wouldn’t just be seeking
publicity, they would be seeking laws and policies that the candidates have the
power to provide.
We were headed well down that road in the soft money
system that BCRA stopped. It may seem like a long time ago, but hundreds of
millions of dollars were contributed by corporations and unions to the political
parties between 1988 and 2002. The system led to scandals like the White House
coffees and the sale of overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom. The appearance
of corruption was well documented in congressional hearings and fully justified
the step that Congress took in 2002 – prohibiting the political parties from
accepting soft money contributions.
Before BCRA was passed, corporations
were making huge soft money donations. They were also spending money on phony
issue ads. That’s what Title II was aimed at. But what they were not doing was
running election ads that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a
candidate. That has been prohibited in this country for at least 60 years,
though it is arguable that the Tillman Act in 1907 prohibited it forty years
before that. So it is possible that the Court’s decision will not just take us
back to a pre-McCain-Feingold era, but back to the era of the robber baron in
the 19th century. That result should frighten every citizen of this country. The
Court seems poised to ignite a revolution in campaign financing with a stroke of
its collective pen that no one contemplated even six months ago.
Mr.
President, while I have disagreed with many Supreme Court decisions, I have
great respect for that institution and for the men and women who serve on the
Court. But this step would be so damaging to our democracy and is so unwarranted
and unnecessary that I must speak out. That is why Senator McCain and I have
come to the floor today.
To overrule the Austin decision in this case, the
Court would have to ignore several time-honored principles that have served for
the past two centuries to preserve the public’s respect for and acceptance of
its decisions. First, it is a basic tenet of constitutional law that the Court
will not decide a case on constitutional grounds unless absolutely necessary,
and that it if there is no choice but to reach a constitutional issue, the Court
will decide the case as narrowly as possible.
This is the essence of what
some have called “judicial restraint.” What seems to be happening here though is
the antithesis of judicial restraint. The Court seems ready to decide the
broadest possible constitutional question – the constitutionality of all
restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure
case in which many far more narrow rulings are possible.
The second
principle is known as stare decisis, meaning that the Court respects its
precedent and overrules them only in the most unusual of cases. Chief Justice
John Roberts, whom many believe to be the swing justice in this case, made grand
promises of what he called “judicial modesty,” when he came before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in 2005. Respect for precedent was a key component of the
approach that he asked us to believe he possessed. Here’s what he said:
I do
think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent.
Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It
is not enough -- and the court has emphasized this on several occasions -- it is
not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That
really doesn't answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look
at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the
court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a
precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go
into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of
stare decisis.
Talk about a jolt to the legal system. It’s hard to imagine a
bigger jolt than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that
has been the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign finance system for 100 years.
The settled expectations that would be upset by this decision are enormous. And
subsequent developments surely have not shown that the Austin decision is
unworkable. Indeed, the Court relied on it as recently as 2003 in the McConnell
case and even cited it in the Wisconsin Right to Life decision just two years
ago, written by none other than Chief Justice Roberts. To be sure, there are
justices on the Court who dissented from the Austin decision when it came down
and continue to do so today. But if stare decisis means anything, a precedent on
which so many state legislatures and the American people have relied should not
be cast aside simply because a few new justices have arrived on the Court.
Third, the courts decide cases only on a full evidentiary record so that all
sides have a chance to put forward their best arguments and the court can be
confident that it is making a decision based on the best information available.
In this case, precisely because the Supreme Court reached out to pose a broad
constitutional question that had not been raised below, there is no record
whatsoever to which the Court can turn. None. And the question here demands a
complete record because the legal standard under prevailing First Amendment law
is whether the statute is designed to address a compelling state interest and is
narrowly tailored to achieve that result. My colleagues may recall that when we
passed the McCain-Feingold bill, a massive legislative record was developed to
demonstrate the corrupting influence of soft money. And the facial
constitutional challenge to that bill led to months of depositions and the
building of an enormous factual record for the court. None of that occurred
here. And furthermore, the over 20 states whose laws would be upended if Austin
is overruled were given no opportunity to defend their legislation and show
whatever legislative record had been developed when their statutes were
enacted.
Instead, the Court seems to be ready to rely on its intuition, its
general sense of the political process. From what I observed at oral argument,
that intuition is sorely lacking. One justice blithely asserted that the
100-year-old congressional decision to bar corporate expenditures must have been
motivated by the self-interest of members of Congress as incumbent candidates,
ignoring the fact that the modern Congress prohibited soft money contributions
even though the vast majority of those contributions were used to support
incumbents. Another justice opined that it was paternalistic for Congress to be
concerned about corporations using their shareholders’ money for political
purposes, even though most Americans invest through mutual funds and have little
or no idea what corporations their money has actually gone to.
For the Court
to overrule Austin and McConnell in this case would require it to reject these
three important principles of judicial modesty. It would amount to the unelected
branch of government reaching out to strike down carefully considered and
longstanding judgments of the most democratic branch. It would be, in my view, a
completely improper exercise of judicial power.
Let me discuss for a moment
the consequences of this decision. A fundamental principle of our democracy is
that the people elect their representatives. Each citizen gets just one vote.
Our system of financing campaigns with private money obviously gives people of
means more influence than average voters, but Congress over the years has sought
to provide some reasonable limits and preserve the importance of individual
citizens’ votes. One of the most important and longstanding limits is that only
individuals can contribute to candidates or spend money in support of or against
candidates. Corporations and unions are prohibited from doing so, except through
their PACs, which themselves raise money only from individuals. The Supreme
Court may very well be about to change that forever.
According to a 2005 IRS
estimate, the total net worth of U.S. corporations was $23.5 trillion, and after
tax profits were nearly $1 trillion. During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100
companies alone had profits of $605 billion. That’s quite a war chest that may
be soon unleashed on our political system. Just for comparison, spending by
candidates, outside groups, and political parties on the last presidential
election totaled just over $2 billion. Federal and state parties spent about
$1.5 billion on all federal elections in 2008. PACs spent about $1.2 billion.
That usually sounds like a lot of money, but it’s nothing compared to what
corporations and unions have in their treasuries. So we are talking here about a
system that could very easily be completely transformed by corporate spending in
2010.
Does the Supreme Court really believe that the First Amendment
requires the American people to accept a system where banks and investment
firms, having just taken our country into its worst economic collapse since the
Great Depression, can spend millions upon millions of dollars of ads directly
advocating the defeat of those candidates who didn’t vote to bail them out or
want to prevent future economic disaster by imposing strict new financial
services regulations? Because that is where we are headed. Is the Court really
going to say that oil companies that oppose action on global warming are
constitutionally entitled to spend their profits to elect candidates who will
oppose legislation to address that problem?
The average winning Senate
candidate in 2008 spent $8.5 million. The average House winner spent a little
under $1.4 million. A single major corporation could spend three or four times
those amounts without causing even a smudge on its balance sheet. Mr. President,
this is not about the self-interest of legislators who will undoubtedly fear the
economic might that might be brought against them if they vote the wrong way.
This is about the people they represent, who live in a democracy, and who
deserve a political system where their views and their interests are not drowned
out by corporate spending.
At the oral argument last month, one justice
seemed to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for a tobacco company to try
to defeat a candidate who wants to regulate tobacco, and to use its
shareholders’ money to do so. This is the system that the Supreme Court may
bequeath to this country if it doesn’t turn back. Some will say that corporate
interests already have too much power, and that members of Congress listen to
the wishes of corporations instead of their constituents. I won’t defend the
current system, but I will say -- imagine how much worse things would be in a
system where every decision by a member of Congress that contradicts the wishes
of a corporation could unleash a tsunami of negative advertising in the next
election. In light of the immense wealth that a corporation can bring to bear on
such a project, I frankly wonder how our democracy would function under such a
system. We are talking about a political system where corporate wealth rules in
a way that we have never seen in our history.
Once again, I thank my friend
from Arizona for his friendship and his courage. We will continue to fight for a
campaign finance system that allows the American people’s voices to be
heard.i know that's a lot and hadn't intended to slap you with
so much tonight. longterm readers know i have a huge crush on feingold.
it's my only senate crush, believe it or not. i wish he'd run for president and
believe he would have gotten the nomination. maybe next time. (maybe in 2012
because i don't see barry as re-electable.) let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq
snapshot:' Wednesday, October 21, 2009. Chaos and violence
continue, the Iraqi Parliament still has not passed an election law, the issue
was raised by the US Congress today, Congress has a problem getting the Defense
Department to show them a draw-down plan, and more.
"Today the Committee
meets to receive testimony on the status of the US Military Redeployment From
Iraq: Issues and Challenges," explained US House Armed Services Committee Chair
Ike Skelton this morning. The Committee heard from the Pentagon's Michele
Flournoy, Vice Admiral James Winnefeld, Alan Estevez and Lt Gen Kathleen Gainey.
Chair Skelton observed, "I don't think anyone on this committee thinks this will
be the last hearing on this subject. We have been involved in Iraq for a long
time, and I believe we will be involved there for a long time to come." In her
opening remarks, Flournoy noted that
Michele Flournoy: Examples of the
kinds of excess equipment that we intend to transfer to the ISF [Iraqi Security
Forces] are tool kits and sets, individual clothing and equipment items such as
helmets and body armor and commercial trucks. We requested the authority to
streamline the material process and transfer some non-excess equipment such as
9mm pistols, cargo trucks, airfield control and operations systems, M1114
up-armored HWMMVs and armored gun trucks. We would like thank the Committee for
including this authority as it will help ensure that the ISF can fulfill their
mission by the time US forces depart, an absolutely vital step toward the goal
of a soverign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.
Meanwhile Vice Admiral James
Winnefeld made like Fatboy Slim.
The original . . .
Fatboy Slim: We've come a long, long way
together
Through the hard times and the good
I have to celebrate you
baby
I have to praise you like I
should-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d
The pale copy .
. .
Vice Admiral James Winnefeld: Meanwhile the Iraqi Security
Forces
which we'll refer to as "ISF"
have come a long way
since the
security agreement was signed in November 2008.
Like most people, I
prefer the original; however, it should be noted that both are creative -- even
if only one is recognized as such while the other is treated as 'fact' by a
cowed media.
Chair Ike Skelton: Back on July 22nd, Madame
Undersecretary, we asked that the Department of Defense provide our committee
with a copy of Up Forward 0901 which is, so the members will remember, the order
that lays out the organizations and responsibilities for various functions and
how the redeployment will work. Despite repeated requests, by our staff, of the
Dept of Defense, that Up Forward 0901 has not been provided nor has their been a
legal reason given for not providing it for us. Now we pass legislation based
upon testimony, based upon briefings, based upon documents. And all of this goes
together to put us in position to receive compliments like Admiral Winnefeld
just gave us on putting out good legislation. But this one piece of legislation,
which is highly important on redeployment from Iraq, thus far, unless you're
willing to give it to us this morning, has not been furnished.
Michele
Flournoy: Sir, I am -- we are quite happy to have -- to bring that O plan over
to you to have staff brief you on the details --
Chair Ike Skelton: And
you will leave it with us in our classified --
Michele Flournoy: And I
regret that we were not more responsive to your request earlier. But what we'd
like to do is come over and-and share it with you, brief you on it and we can
work out the details of how it should be handled.
Chair Ike Skelton: Well
the details are not just coming over and show it to us and then walk back with
it.
Michele Flournoy: I understand.
Chair Ike Skelton: We are
very responsible in this committee and responsible with classified material as
you know.
Michele Flournoy: I understand. Right.
Chair Ike
Skelton: It's some 400 pages long --
Michele Flournoy: [Overlapping] I
understand.
Chair Ike Skelton: -- and come over and give us a rough look
in 400 pages is pretty difficult. And we would expect full cooperation. And
really, is there some reason? We really want to know --
Michele Flournoy:
There is --
Chair Ike Skelton: I'm not trying to be difficult I just
really want to know.
Michele Flournoy: There is no intention to keep the
information from you at all and-and we want to be responsive to your
requests.
Chair Ike Skelton: But that was July 22nd?
Michele
Flournoy: I understand. I think it was recently brought to my attention and we
want to make sure that we are responsive to your response as quick -- as soon as
possible. I don't have it physically with me today but I can promise you that we
will get it to you.
Chair Ike Skelton: You'll bring it over and leave it
with us in a classified manner so we will have the time to go through the 400
pages? Is that correct?
Michele Flournoy: Yes.
Requested July 22nd
and three months later still not provided. Why would the administration work so
hard to avoid sharing the plan with Congress? And didn't the secrecy leave with
George W. Bush? ("No" on the latter.)
Iraq still hasn't passed the
election law. The one that was supposed to have been passed by Parliament no
later than . . . last Thursday. Jeff Mason (Reuters)
reports that "Barack Obama urged Iraq on Tuesday to
complete an election law so that a January poll is not delayed" and it didn't
make a damn bit of difference. Iran's Press TV reports the
Parliament took a pass again today and quotes Speaker of Parliament Iyad
al-Samarrai, "The issue has failed and has been moved on to the Political
Council for National Security." Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) quotes
al-Sammaraie stating, "Lawmakers felt they had reached a dead end and couldn't
move forward any further so we are giving this to the political leaders." They
are now 'planning' to vote on Monday . . . "if the council, comprising of Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and the leaders of major
political parties, make a proposal by Sunday." Laith Hammoudi and Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers)
report that Dawa Party member Ali al "Adeeb told McClatchy
in a phone call that the Kirkuk issue is the main problem with the new law. He
added that Arab and Turkomen want to use 2004 voter records, because those after
the 2005 election reflect a large increase in the province's Kurdish population.
The Kurdish bloc in the parliament, however, wants the province's representation
to reflect that increase, which Kurds argue merely reverses Saddam's
'Arabization' campaign." Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) reports,
"The United Nations envoy to Iraq, Ad Melkert, said further delays in passing
the law may call into doubt not only the Jan. 16 election date, but also the
credibility of the result." Melkert is quoted stating, "It is the collective
responsibility of members of parliament to now rise to the occassion and be
ready to account to the Iraqi people, who expect to exercise their right to
express their preference in the upcoming elecitons." Rod Nordland (New York Times)
adds, "The Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission and
United Nations elections experts have said Iraq needs at least 90 days to
adequately prepare for the vote. Iraq's existing election law was declared
unconstitutional by its highest court, which said it needs to be replaced or
amended." Jane Arraf observes in "Discord as elections looms in
Iraq" (Global Post):As Iraqi parliamentarians struggled
over the past week with exactly how democratic they really want to be, it was
telling that the brightest spot of democracy and certainly the savviest public
relations campaign was playing out across town in Sadr City. Members of
parliament for the past two weeks have been trying to pass an election law that
would pave the way for national elections by the end of January, which are
wanted by the voters and required by the Constitution. A vote Thursday became
bogged down in a dispute over how voting would take place in Kirkuk, the city
disputed by Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen and every other group that wants to lay claim
to its oil and historic homelands. It stalled again on Monday.The delay has so
alarmed both the U.S. and the U.N. that they've both issued statements urging
parliament to get its act together and pass the law. The U.S. has been so
fixated on the January elections that worry over the timing and type of
elections has eclipsed the almost unspoken fear lurking in the background that
elections done badly could be even more destabilizing than no vote at
all.
The lack of an election law was raised during today's
hearing.
Ranking Member Howard McKeon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
this article that was written [by Oliver August] in the London Times yesterday.
The title is "Violence Threatens Barack Obama's pledge to
pull troops out of Iraq." And what they're basically saying
is that they're threatening to move back the election from January. The election
can't be held until their Parliament passes an election law. And, uh, al Qaeda
doesn't want to have an election. And they want to do what they can to disrupt
it. [The top US commander in Iraq] General [Ray] Odierno feels that he needs to
keep his troops there thirty to sixty days after the election to ensure a
peaceful transition of government. Do you have any intelligence showing that --
or any feeling that the election is going to be postponed?
Michele
Flournoy: Uh, let me start by saying, you know, the draw-down plan that we have,
is conditions based and it creates multiple decision points for re-evaluating
and, if necessary, changing our plans based on developments on the ground.
Although the government of Iraq's self-imposed deadline of October 15th for
passing the elections law has passed, we judge that the COR [Council Of
Representatives] still has another week or two to come to some kind of an
agreement on the elections law before it will put the January date -- the early
January date -- in jeopardy in terms of the election commission's ability to
actually physically execute the, uh, the election. If a new law with open lists
is not passed, the fall back solution for them is to return to the 2005 election
law which is based on a closed list system. But that could be used for upcoming
elections, the COR would simply have to vote on an election date. If that law is
not passed in the next two weeks, they will be looking at slipping the date to
later in January which would still be compliant with the [Iraqi] Constitution
but would be later than originally planned. In that instance, M-NF-I
[Multi-National Forces Iraq] would need to engage with the government of Iraq to
do some contingency planning on how to secure the elections at a later date and
that might well have-have implications. But I just want to reinforce, right now,
on the ground in Baghdad, here in Washington, just yesterday, our focus is on
trying to stick to the current election timeline. The [US] President [Barack
Obama] personally impressed upon Prime Minister [Nouri al-] Maliki the
importance of sticking to the Constitutionally specified timeline for the Iraqi
elections and we are putting all of our diplomatic effort towards that end. That
said, of course we will have contingency plans to adjust if necessary. But right
now, we're using all of our diplomatic and other leverage to try to make sure
the elections happen on time.
Ranking Member Howard McKeon: We won't be
forcing General Odierno to withdraw our troops if they don't hold the election
in a timely manner? We will still be flexible and allow him to keep the troops
there? To provide the national security so they don't -- they don't put
themselves at risk in trying to rush out in the couple of month
period?
Michele Flournoy: The draw-down plan is not rigid. It is got --
it is conditions based, it leaves room for re-evaluation and adjustment in terms
of the pace of the draw-down between now and the end of 2011 so, if need be, we
will re-examine things based on conditions on the ground.
The above will
shock a few. Especially those who, for example, foolishly believed Barack wanted
all troops out and was promising that when he ran for the Democratic Party's
presidential nomination. Barack made clear to the New York Times that everything
was contingent and that he would send troops back in if there was a problem. Of
course, the New York Times confused the issue with their write up of that
interview (Tom Hayden got confused, for instance) and it was only if you read
the transcript of the interview that you discovered what Barack was actually
saying (when Hayden discovered that, he suddenly was alarmed but, like all of
his alarms, it was a twenty-four hour, viral kind of alarm).
From the
November 2, 2007
snapshot
Though Obama says he wants "to be clear,"
he refuses to answer that yes or no question and the interview is over."
So
let's be clear that the 'anti-war' Obama told the paper he would send troops
back into Iraq. Furthermore, when asked if he would be willing to do that
unilaterally, he attempts to beg off with, "We're talking too speculatively
right now for me to answer." But this is his heavily pimped September (non)plan,
dusted off again, with a shiny new binder. The story is that Barack Obama will
NOT bring all US troops home. Even if the illegal war ended, Obama would still
keep troops stationed in Iraq (although he'd really, really love it US forces
could be stationed in Kuwait exclusively), he would still use them to train (the
police0 and still use them to protect the US fortress/embassy and still use them
to conduct counter-terrorism actions.
You can also see Third's article and
the actual transcript of
the interview.
Or we could paraphrase Samantha Power (to the BBC in
March of 2008) and offer that Barack can't be held, in 2011, to any promise he
might make as a president in 2009 because things on the ground change. And
though many work overtime to avoid that potential occurence, it was raised in
the hearing today.
US House Rep Vic Synder: What if things really go
badly in Iraq and President Obama who has already made the decision, he's
already sent 17,000 additional troops has changed the leadership in Afghanistan
and clearly is making Afghanistan a higher priority, what if he were to decide,
in the Secretary's words, be flexible, we're going to have put troops back in?
Uh, you say we have adequate capacity, we didn't. We didn't for six or seven
years. If we had it, I don't know where they were but we didn't as a country
respond to the need in Afghanistan. What assurance do we have adequate capacity
should we decide that we need to return troops to Iraq.
Vice Adm James
Winnefeld: I'd say right now our-our principal focus right now is to make sure
that-that-that Iraq goes on the same trajectory that it's on and we don't have
to confront that decision. And so far [. . .]
So far. So far. So far
isn't a concrete state, now is it?
In one of the more interesting
exchanges, Chair Skelton brought up an issue from the prepared statements that
he found puzzling and it was interesting to watch as Flournoy fumbled and
stumbled.
Chair Ike Skelton: Before I call on Mr. Hunted, Madame Under
Secretary, let me add, on page six of the written [opening] statement furnished
us, it says that "we have made contingent support of the Iraqi Security Forces
contingent on their non-sectarian performance. Now, I suppose that means,
contingent upon the Shi'ites not shooting Sunnis. How will this work? How will
we make judgments on this? Have we placed any other conditions on future
assistance? Tell us about it.
Michele Flournoy: Well, I think, this is
something that we are in dialogue with the Iraqi government about and Iraqi
commanders about on an ongoing basis. We are supporting the development of the
ISF towards a certain objectives and one of those is a -- is making sure that
the military is truly representative of Iraq, it's a national institution, it is
not a tool that anyone individual or party or person in power can use for
sectarian aims. We continue to monitor that. In many instances, we've had uh-uh
many opportunities to work through specific issues and frankly the Iraqis have
been very responsive over time on this point. They understand that the only way
we can get the support here to support them is to demonstrate that truly are a
non-sectarian institution. So we continue to bring that home at every level --
from the tactical all the way up to the headquarters to here in Washington when
we have interactions.
Chair Ike Skelton: If we do see some sectarian
performance, what do we do?
Michele Flournoy: Uh, generally what's
happened is the ambassador [Chris Hill] and General Odierno have uh have gone --
have called the, uh, the government and the military on the issue, immediately
gone in to discuss it with them and-and worked out remedial steps to either
isolate a unit, to step in and deal with a situation and so forth. They've also
taken very proactive initiatives such as to try to get the ISF, for example, and
the [Kurdish forces] peshmerga much more closely in border areas where the two
forces come up against each other. So I think that they've done both reactive
steps and proactive steps but, again, we have seen -- you know, we've seen a
decrease, a decline, in that kind of behavior over time, uhm, and so that is the
good news. Something we need to continue to be watchful for but it's something
that has been very well managed up to this point.
Chair Ike Skelton: If
there is a severe sectarian act, at what point do we say, 'Sorry, we're out of
here?'
Michele Flournoy: Well I, uh, again, I think, uhm, you -- you
know, I don't want to speculate on what exactly could provoke that kind of
thing. What-what I can say is we take it very seriously, we've taken it very
seriously and
Chair Ike Skelton: Well the important thing is do they take
it very seriously?
Michele Flournoy: They-they certainly understand when
this is happen -- you know, in the instances this has happened, the reaction
from us has been very swift and very clear and uhm it's had impact. So I don't
think there's any question in the minds of the Iraqi government where our red
lines are on this issue.
Let's zoom in on one section of that
exchange:
Chair Ike Skelton: If there is a severe sectarian act, at
what point do we say, 'Sorry, we're out of here?'
Michele Flournoy: Well
I, uh, again, I think, uhm, you -- you know, I don't want to speculate on what
exactly could provoke that kind of thing. What-what I can say is we take it very
seriously, we've taken it very seriously and
You don't want to speculate?
Interesting because I can't think of a single time when the United States
government would be involved with another government known for human rights
abuses and they would not stick a qualifier on it as in, "You do X and we pull
our backing." Now "X" might be far after the point that I'd want the backing
pulled, but there is always a line that will not be crossed and there is nothing
speculative about it. So it's interesting that Flournoy wants to claim otherwise
and what it really indicates is that the US government has no intention of
pulling out for any reason. Her claims that, in the past, a 'scolding' led to
changes is ridiculous. It was not a civil war in 2006 and 2007. I've used that
term here myself and I've stated in the last twelve or so months that I was
wrong on that. It was genocide. There were not two equal sides in that 2006 and
2007 conflict. There was an armed and funded side and there was the Sunni side.
It was genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. And it only stopped because it
'worked' for the Shi'ites. Had it not worked, it would continue to this day.
There was no desire on the part of Nouri to stop it because he was getting a
scolding from the US and you really have to be in a child-like state (to put it
nicely) to buy that or what Flournoy attempted to sell in that
exchange.
Violence continued in Iraq today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports a Kirkuk bombing which claimed the life of 1
journalist (cameraman) and wounded another. Reuters notes an Iskandariya bombing
which left six people injured. Xinhua reports that
twelve people were wounded in the Iskandariya bombing and that it took place "at
a busy marketplace".
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports 1 adult and 1 child were shot dead in Nineveh
Province. Reuters notes that 2 people (parents
of a police officer) were shot dead in
Mosul.
Stabbings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports 1 Iraqi police officer was stabbed to death in
Falluja.
Nouri al-Maliki continues his stay in the US. Carl Azuz (CNN Student News)
reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is visiting
the U.S. this week, meeting with American leaders and taking part in a
conference about his country's business opportunities. During yesterday's
meeting with President Obama, the two talked about Iraq's economy, but they also
discussed that nation's security situation. President Obama says he's committed
to all U.S. troops leaving Iraq by the end of 2011. But both leaders are
concerned about an increase in violence in Iraq and the possibility that the
country's upcoming parliamentary elections could be delayed."
Two US
service members have been announced dead in Iraq this week. One was Bradley
Espinoza, the other was Daniel Rivera. Myrian Rivera is Daniel Rivera's mother
and she tells WIVB (link has text and
video), "This war has to end . . . because they're little,
they're kids. He's 22, he's a kid. They're kids dying." Susan Reimer (Baltimore Sun)
reports on Peg Mullern who recently passed away and fought
to find out why her son Michael died while serving. Reimer traces Peg Mullen's
legacy on through Cindy Sheehan (mother of Casey Sheehan) and Marty Tillman
(mother of Pat Tillman). Meanwhile Lauren DeFranco (WABC -- link has text and
video) reports Christal Wagenhauser gave birth to a two
month premature daughter and she and the family want Cpl Kieth Wagenhouser --
currently stationed in Iraq -- home to see the baby: "If the baby's condition
deteriorates, it would take Wagenhauser a week to get home. At that point, it
would be too late."
In the US yesterday, a twenty-year-old Iraqi
woman was run over along with her 43-year-old friend. James King (Phoenix News)
reports that police are looking for the twenty-year-old's
father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, whom they supsect of running the two women down
and that the alleged motive is that the daughter was "becoming too westernized."
Katie Fisher (ABC 15 -- link has text and
video) reports the 20-year-old woman is Noor Faleh Almaleki
and her 43-year-old friend is Amal Edan Khalaf and the friend is also the mother
of the twenty-year-old's boyfriend.
iraqmcclatchy newspaperslaith
hammoudithe wall street journalgina
chonjane arrafthe new york timesrod
nordlandlauren de francocnnreutersoliver augustthe times of london
Posted at 08:27 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 20, 2009
i'm a big jackie deshannon fan and c.i. told me
jackie
was a nominee this year for the songwriters hall of fame, i was so
happy. you can click
here to visit the songwriters hall of fame online - and note that each time
you click on the page you get photos of 4 songwriters displayed. see how often
you see women. i saw carly simon. but
mainly - clicking on it 6 times in a row, i saw 4 photos of men each
time. and you can click here for carly's page at the
hall of fame. we
covered jackie deshannon's laurel canyon
at 3rd and hope to do another piece on jackie's work before the end of the
year.
wnyc today
(audio link) had a segment where they debated barbra streisand's new album love is
the answer. soundcheck smackdown is a pro-con segment where they have 1 who
takes the pro side and 1 who takes the anti side. let's close with
c.i.'s ' Iraq
snapshot:'
Tuesday, October 20, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military
announces another death, still no election law passed in Iraq, Nouri remains in
DC, Cindy Sheehan prepares to interview Noam Chomsky, Ryan Crocker tries to talk
SOFA (will the press listen) and more.
Today the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING
BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq - A Multi-National Division - North Soldier was
killed and two were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated near
their vehicle in Ninawa province, Iraq, Oct. 19. The name of the deceased is
being withhled pending notifcation of next of kin and release by the Department
of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S.
Department of Defense official website [. . .]. The announcements are made
on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service
member's primary kin." The announcement brings to 4351 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the
start of the illegal war.
Before we go into other violence in Iraq, let's go to the heart of the
violence: The continued war. And some people try to pretend it's over -- when
it's not. And some try to pretend that SOFA means the end of the war -- when it
doesn't. Golly, with even Ryan Crocker, former US Ambassador to Iraq, making it
clear, you think the press will try to get it right now?
Like any international agreement the Sofa can be modified if, at
some point in the future, both governments agree there is a need to do so. It is
rarely said in Washington, but widely assumed, that this means the actual
implementation of the withdrawal agreement is essentially situational: that is,
it will go ahead only if conditions on the ground warrant it.
Despite the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has
emerged as a stronger, and far more savvy, political player than almost anyone
expected; and despite the fact that the existing Sofa was only grudgingly
approved by the Iraqi parliament, there remains a near universal assumption in
Washington that if, come 2011, Washington decides we need to stay longer, then
so be it. Last May, the army chief of staff, General George Casey, acknowledged
as much, telling a group of journalists and think tank specialists that his
planning scenarios envision the presence of US combat troops in Iraq for another
decade.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there has been little
discussion here in the United States about what 'withdrawal' really means. As
Crocker emphasised last week at Harvard, the US policy has always been that it
wants no permanent bases in Iraq. Crocker, however, failed to note that
government officials and the general public often have starkly different
definitions of "permanent base."
[. . .]
Beyond that there is the question of what 'withdrawal' actually
means. The military tends to make a distinction between training or advisory
troops and combat forces. The American approach to Iraq raises the very real
possibility of combat forces heading home while tens of thousands of trainers,
advisers and their accompanying support troops remain in place. A military
professional might call such a situation 'withdrawal', but a lot of ordinary
Americans and Iraqis are likely to think otherwise.
[. . .]
It is time, as Ambassador Crocker says, for a more public, more
focused, discussion about what 'getting out' of Iraq really means. Americans and
Iraqis alike may well be unhappy with what they hear.
The Iraq War has not ended. The SOFA does not mean -- and never did --
that the Iraq War ends. The UN mandate expired yearly. When the US operated
under the UN mandate, the expiration of the mandate never meant the war ended.
It only mean the US had to leave . . . if no other agreement was reached.
Instead of doing the yearly renewal, the SOFA was an agreement allowing for
three more years of occupation. That's all it has to mean (and that's provided
neither side decides to kill it -- and killing it can be to replace it). James Circello (Party for Socialism and Liberation)
addressed the realites of the illegal war this week: The fact that dozens of bases will remain in Iraq long after the United
States puts the Iraq war "behind it" clearly demonstrates that the U.S. ruling
class has no intention of truly relinquishing Iraq. These bases—six of which are
so-called "supersize bases" -- will continue to be filled with the boots and
rifles of U.S. occupational forces.
The same NY Times article notes that at
least 50,000 troops will be left in Iraq through at least 2011. Soldiers, airmen
and marines will continue to kill innocent Iraqis, while simultaneously building
the military might of a puppet Iraqi army. The purpose of that reduction in
Iraq, according to the senior commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, is to free
up U.S. soldiers to go to Afghanistan.
[. . .]
This so-called withdrawal is a continuation of using different tactics to
achieve the same goal: imperialist domination and exploitation. The U.S. ruling
class is invested in maintaining the occupation and due to multiple factors --
most notably the heroic resistance by the Iraqi people against its occupiers --
has now chosen to change its policies and the appearance of the occupation in
Iraq.
For the millions of families in Iraq and Afghanistan that have seen
loved ones die while living under occupation, the nature of the experience
doesn't change by simply lowering troop levels from 125,000 to 50,000. Foreign
soldiers armed and under the direction of foreign governments in Iraq mean that
Iraq is still occupied.
Now to some of today's violence in the continued Iraq War.
Bombings?
Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports a Baghdad roadside bombing injured three people, a Baghdad sticky
bombing injured three people, a second Baghdad roadside bombing left two people
wounded, a third one injured four people, a Falluja car bombing claimed the
lives of 4 people with an ten more injured, a Mosul roadside bombing injured 2
Iraqi soldiers, a Mosul sticky bombing which injured two people and, dropping
back to Monday, a Mosul mortar attack which left four Iraqi military recruits
injured.
Shootings?
Corpses?
An Iraqi doctor has told Sky News the number of babies born with
deformities in the heavily-bombed area of Fallujah is still on the increase.
Fifteen months ago a Sky News investigation revealed growing numbers of
children being born with defects in Fallujah. Concerns were that the rise in deformities may
have been linked to the use of chemical weapons by US forces. We recently
returned to find out the current situation and what has happened to some of the
children we featured. In May last year we told the story of a three-year-old
girl called Fatima Ahmed who was born with two heads. When we filmed her she
seemed like a listless bundle - she lay there barely able to breathe and unable
to move. Even now and having seen the pictures many times since I still feel
shocked and saddened when I look at her. But the prognosis for Fatima never
looked good and, as feared, she never made it to her fourth birthday. Her
mother Shukriya told us about the night her daughter died. Wiping away her
tears, Shukriya said she had put her daughter to bed as normal one night but
woke with the dreadful sense that something was wrong. She told us she felt
it was her daughter's moment to die, but of course that does not make the pain
any easier.
While
the Pentagon has continued to claim, against all scientific evidence, there is
no hazard posed by depleted uranium, US troops in Iraq have reportedly been
instructed to avoid any sites where these weapons have been used -- destroyed
Iraqi tanks, exploded bunkers, etc. Suspiciously, international health officials
have been prevented from doing medical studies of DU sites. A series of articles
several years ago by the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02-woiq.html) described how
reporters from that newspaper had visited such sites with Geiger-counters and
had found them to be extremely "hot" with radioactivity. The big danger with DU
is not as a metal, but after it has exploded and burned, when the particles of
uranium oxide, which are just as radioactive as the pure isotopes, can be
inhaled or injested. Even the smallest particle of uranium is both deadly
poisonous as a chemical, and can cause cancer.
There are reports of a
dramatic increase in the incidence of deformed babies being born in the city of
Fallujah, where DU weapons were in wide use during the November 2004 assault on
that city by US Marines.
While that goes on, the US-installed thug of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki
visits the US. Yesterday in DC, he met with US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton and US Vice President Joe Biden. Kenneth R. Bazinet (New York Daily News)
reports Nouri met with US President Barack Obama today and quotes al-Maliki
stating, "Today Iraq has moved beyond a dictatorship and beyond the destruction,
and we are trying to rebuild all our sectors of agriculture, oil sectors,
tourism and so forth." Bazinet also notes, "Maliki acknowledged he understands
the importance of holding the elections on time." Joseph Weber (Washington Times) reports
Nouri stated, "Our relationship will no longer be confined to security
cooperation."
Guerilla war vs. conventional army: Hi, I've wondered when
republicans talk about win in Iraq, Afghanistan (or VietNam) what does that
mean? What is win in a guerilla war, when anyone with a political, religious,
poverty driven dispute can cause havoc? IMO there's no way to defend or win,
what do you think?
Eugene Robinson: I don't know what it means to "win" this kind of
conflict, and that's a big problem. We should figure that out, because this is
the nature of war these days.
There is no 'win' in Iraq (or Afgahnistan, but this is the "Iraq
snapshot") and there is no 'progress.' Perfect illustration of the latter, the
Iraqi Parliament had the deadline of last Thursday to pass their election law
and . . . they missed it. Yesterday the Iraqi Parliament decided to put off
voting on the election law. Anthony Shadid and Nada Bakri (Washington Post) explain, "Lawmakers
resumed negotiations into the evening, as U.N. officials and representatives of
the American Embassy lingered on the sidelines. As each hour passed, confidence
receded that any quick compromise would cut through a Gordian knot of issues as
arcane as the number of seats in a new parliament and the way an election would
be organized in Kirkuk, a city in northern Iraq contested by Kurds, Arabs and
Turkmens." Liz Sly (Los Angeles
Times) adds: "In recent years, thousands of Kurds have moved into the
area from Kurdistan, supposedly to reverse the Arabization policies of Saddam
Hussein, who expelled Kurds and settled Arabs there." Oliver August (Times of London) observes, "The Iraqi
parliament has failed repeatedly to pass a new election law because of arguments
over whether ballot papers should give the names of candidates, or of parties
only. MPs are now talking about delaying the election, planned for January 16."
It's early morning in the city of Kirkuk. The Americans are back.
Sure the Iraqi security forces here are in charge now but they like to have
American soldiers along with them -- especially on operations like this one.
Together they're conducting what's called a clearing up operation, sweeping
through an area of the city searching houses for weapons explosives and
insurgents. The Americans are suspicious of this house here because it's got a
group of younger men in it and also a car with license plates from out of town.
Now they've got a list of around sixty names of people they suspect of belonging
to al Qaeda or other insurgent groups. Three hours of searching produces three
arrests.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Iraq's
parliament failed again Tuesday to vote on legislation that would allow Iraqis
to cast ballots directly for candidates in parliamentary elections scheduled for
January, rather than choosing political party lists that don't name the
candidates." Liz Sly reports of today, "There was certainly no
sense of urgency in the halls of parliament, where several lawmakers from the
Shiite Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council bloc said they believed the election
commission needed only two months to prepare for the election, not three."
Meanwhile, the Telegraph of
London quotes the top US commander Gen Ray Odierno on the developments:
"It's clear that al-Qaeda and other groups do not want the elections to occur.
What I think they will try to do is discourage peopel from voting by undermining
the authority of the government of Iraq with attacks, so that people lose faith
in the democratic process. If the parliament doesn't pass the election law and
they delay the elections, that violates their own constitution, which says they
have to have elections in January."
In other election news, Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) reports that the Sunni
Iraqi Accordance Front "is promising its constituency a major breakthrough in
the parliamentary elections"; however, many "Iraqis believe that the Accordance
Front's days in the sun are over, due to the absence of so many influential
players from the Sunni coalition." As noted earlier, Megan McCloskey (Stars and Stripes) reported on the
findings of a [PDF format warning] military investigation into health policy in the
wake of a violent incident last May, "The report, released late Friday, was
prompted by a shooting at a Baghdad combat stress clinic last May that left four
soldiers and a sailor dead." The incident took place May 11th at 2:00 pm (Iraq time) on Camp Liberty
base, five US service members were shot dead. John Russell is the accused. Nishant Dahiya (NPR -- text only) adds, "The
findings of the report (pg. 302 onwards) are critical of the operational tools
and training aimed at preventing such tragedies as occurred at Camp Liberty. The
findings show that policies were unclear; those that existed are improperly
implemented; and soldiers were unsure of how to deal with fellow soldiers who
have behavioral health problems. The findings highlight lapses in dealing with
the situation, on or before the day of the incident, right from the soldier's
unit, to the Combat Stress Clinic, to the Military Police." From some of the
conclusions (page 303): After abruptly leaving his session with
(b)(3)(b)(6) and asking the MPs to take him in, (b)(3)(b)(60 tossed a knife to
the ground. The 54th EN BN has no template for setting a unit watch, and neither
did any of the unit leaders we interviewed in the course of this investigation.
There is no standard for escorts, how many, how senior, and what type of escort
should be assigned to a troubled Soldier, a suicidal Soldier or a homicidal
Soldier. Additionally, at the unit level, there is no real conception of when to
Command refer Soldiers for assistance. (b)(3)(b)(6) unit encouraged him to
self-refer for 3 appointments within 3 days. Access to care is not an issue. On
the fourth day, the Behavioral Health clinic asked the 54th, to make it a
"Command referral." Granted our Commands want to reduce the stigma associated
with ill health, but there is a lack of emphasis upon Command involvement and
responsibility for behavioral problems. There is no message, SITREP, or verbal
notification required for Soldiers with suicidal ideations. The Commander, 54th
EN BN, was never notified that his subordinates had removed (b)(3)(b)(6) bolt
from his weapon. Correspondingly, when his bolt was removed, (b)(3)(b)(6) was
not put on buddy or unit watch. Unit Commanding Officers at the 03-05 level need
more than awareness training, they require precise instruction in effective
suicide and behavioral problem remediation measures to effectively support our
Behavioral Health professionals.
Cindy Sheehan notes that her show this Sunday features
Noam Chomsky and she's requesting that you e-mail the questions you would like
to ask Chomsky:
This
upcoming Sunday (October 25, 2PM Pacific on the website or 3PM Central at
1360am Rational Radio, Dallas, Tx), Professor Noam Chomsky will be on the
Soapbox.
This
is your chance to ask the author of Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez' favorite
book,
Hegemony or
Survival (I like it
too!)
the
question you've always wanted to ask the good Professor.
Please
submit your questions (with your name and city)
to:
Cindy@CindySheehansSoapbox.com
I
will do my best to ask Professor Chomsky as many of your questions as I
can!
The
Bills for the Soapbox are coming due soon! (Studio, engineer, asst.
producer)
Please
make a donation to support this fantastic progressive radio show that is totally
listener supported!
And we'll close with this from Sherwood
Ross' "AN APPEAL: TIME TO OPPOSE MILITARY
RECRUITING" (Grant Lawrence):From
every appearance, President Obama intends to step up the war in Afghanistan.
Even though the American people voted for peace last November and would prefer
to devote themselves to the ways of peace -- working a full-time job if they can
find one, educating their children, providing essential services in their
communities, etc., Obama plans to remain in Afghanistan, squandering billions
more on a war that the latest poll shows 57% of the American people oppose.
Obama also has given no signal that he will withdraw the remaining U.S. troops
from Iraq and is providing the Pakistanis with the money, means, and
encouragement to expand President Bush's criminal wars' into yet a third
nation.We need to ask ourselves: who
is better off for all these wars? Are Americans better off today than nine years
ago? What of our 30,000 wounded? What of our 5,000 dead? (Contractors are human
beings, too, so I count them.) What of the 1-million slaughtered Iraqis? What of
the millions of Iraqi civilians wounded and/or driven from their homes? What of
the ruined Iraq infrastructure and economy? What of millions of motorists and
homeowners world-wide who have seen oil prices escalate? What of the homeless
and malnourished Iraqi children? The only ones who appear to be better off from
the Bush-Obama wars are the arms manufacturers and various public officials
vegetating on the government payrolls in Washington. From steel mills to banks
and from airlines to automobiles, the rest of American industry is suffering.
Long ago, Count Lev Nikolayevich
Tolstoy (1828-1910), the author of "War and Peace," wrote these harsh words
about Russia: "The truth is that the state is a conspiracy designed not only to
exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens." It takes little imagination to
divine what the good Count would have said about America today and its serial
wars of aggression centered upon the Middle East oil fields and the proposed
pipeline access routes to and from them. Face it: USA today is corrupting its
people, turning its children into killers, and sending them out to fight and die
in wrong wars half way around the world. "Only one thing remains," Count Tolstoy wrote: "to
fight the government with weapons of thought, word and way of life, not making
any concessions to it, not joining its ranks, not increasing its powers oneself.
That's the one thing needful and it will probably be successful. And this is
what God wants and this is what Christ taught." What was true of Russia under the tsars---of a state
that corrupted its children---unfortunately happens to be true of America in
2009. America's No. 1 cash crop today is armaments and our military-industrial
complex is making big bucks peddling 68% of total arms' sold! Fifty-two cents
out of every tax dollar is being chewed up by the Pentagon, busy night-and-day
turning out ever more horrific killing machines to destroy people. The Pentagon
has covered the globe with 1,000 military bases for "defense" and is busy
devising ingenious ways to attack the earth from space, develop germ warfare and
threaten and control any and every other country with its 11 mobile nuclear
navies.
|
Posted at 08:19 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 19, 2009
 that's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts " White House On Attack" which went up last night. in
today's snapshot (at the end of my post), c.i. talks about the iraqi
refugees great britain tried to deport - gordon brown tried to deport. bbc is reporting that they are on a hunger strike: The
Home Office says there is "no suggestion" that nearly 50 asylum seekers
have gone on hunger strike at a detention centre in West Sussex.
A
group called the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees says the
men have not eaten since Sunday and will continue until they are
released.
Most of them were on board a deportation flight to Baghdad last week that Iraqi authorities turned back.
The Home Office said the Brook House centre was "operating normally". and the british government has maintained they were trying to deport iraqis. according to zaina sami (azzaman) that's not quite true: The
British authorities wanted to deport to Iraq Syrian, Palestinian and
Israeli nationals, the minister of displacement and migration said.
Abdulsamad
Sultan said Iraqi authorities were forced to turn them back because
they lacked proper documents that they were Iraqis.
Sultan made the
remarks in the aftermath of the row over the 30 refugees Iraq refused
to enter its territory and sent them back to Britain.in
the snapshot, c.i. quotes the british government stating that they
don't want to provide a 'running commentary' - well, no, you wouldn't.
not when you've screwed up. and not when there's a good chance you were
attempting to ship people back to iraq who are not iraqi. if that is
true, it needs to be answered. and i would think the issue of
israelis would certainly raise a red flag. iraq is not going to be
hospitable to israeli nationals. who in their right mind would attempt
that sort of a dump? (i'm not insulting the refugees. they are
human beings. i know human beings aren't supposed to be 'dumped.' i
also know that is what the british government just attempted.) let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:' Monday,
October 19, 2009. Chaos and violence, the US military announces another
death, bridge bombings continued over the weekend, Nouri visits the US,
there is still no election law for the 'intended' elections to be held
in Iraq in January, and more.
Today the US military announced:
"CONTINGENY OPERATION BASE SPEICHER, TIKRIT, Iraq -- a Multi-National
Division - North Soldier was killed and two were injured in a vehicle
accident approximately five miles west of Mosul, Iraq, Oct. 18. The
name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of
kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service
members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official
website [. . .]. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier
than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next
of kin. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings
to 4350 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
As always, violence continued in Iraq today.
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad diner bombing claimed 1 life and left ten people injured, a
Baghdad bus bombing claimed 1 life and left eight people injured, a
Baghdad roadside bombing wounded three people, a Diyala Province
roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 person, a Faulluja suicide
bombing claimed the life of the bomber and the lives of 2 police
officers (four more injured) while there were two assassination
attempts by bombings: In Kirkuk, Qais Amer Naji, Head of Criminal
Investigation Bureau, survived a sticky bombing and, in Salahuddin
Province, Abdulrahman Khalid (District Commissioner) was targeted with
an assassination attempt via bombing but survived. Reuters notes
a Mosul mortar attack which resulted in four people being injured, a
Mosul car bombing claimed the life of "a former army officer, who heads
a small political party" and a Garma car bombing which left four police
officers injured.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the Head of the Bureau of Tribal Affairs Thenoon Younis was assassinated in Mosul today and two by-standers were injured. Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul.
Still with the violence, Friday Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported "a pontoon bridge in Ameriyah" was blown up leaving the "area which is now completely isolated." As noted in Friday's snapshot,
"Those who remember the 2006 bridge bombings and the violence that
followed, should take into account that this could be step-one of a
multi-violence attack that follows." The bridge bombings are back. Uthman al-Mokhtar (Washington Post) reported Saturday,
"Insurgents detonated a truck loaded with five tons of explosives
Saturday on a bridge here that links western Iraq to Jordan and Syria,
pulverizing part of the overpass and paralyzing traffic for hours.
Another, smaller bridge was also destroyed in Fallujah, where a
roadside bomb struck an Iraqi military patrol on the highway, killing
four soldiers and wounding 14 others, said Sulaiman al-Dulaimi, a
spokesman for the Fallujah General Hospital." Iran's Press TV notes,
"'A truck was driven over the bridge on a highway in Ramadi at around
4:00 am (0100 GMT) and subsequently exploded,' police Major Imad Abboud
told AFP, adding that the highway is used heavily by the departing US
military to transport equipment out of the country. It is also being
used by local civilians."
Meanwhile Thomas Grove, Shamal Aqrawi and Janet Lawrence (Reuters) report
that today eight members of the PKK would cross the border into Turkey
(from Iraq) and turn themselves over "to Turkish military forces [. .
.] in a gesture of support for Turkey's Kurdish initiative". AP says it is 34 turning themselves over but only 8 of the 34 "are rebels". Hurriyet Daily News reports
this took place at 4:00 pm: "The group comprised 26 people, including
nine women and four children, from the Mahmur camp in northern Iraq and
eight PKK members from the Kandil Mountains. The group is coming 'not
to surrender but to open the way for peace,' DTP co-leader Ahmet Türk
said earlier Monday at a press conference in Silopi, on the Turkish
side of the border. NTV television reported that they would be taken in
by Turkish authorities for questioning once they're in the country." BBC News adds,
"As Kurdish Turks gathered in Istanbul, thousands of supporters waving
PKK flags were waiting in Silopi to greet the 34 Kurds as they crossed
the border. Some had come from a refugee camp in Makhmour, south of
Mosul in Iraq." Deutsche Welle quotes
Turkish government spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin Allen stating, "It is a
very good sign, it is one first fruit of the democratic initiative."
Last Tuesday's snapshot included the news that England was attempting to forcibly deport Iraqis back to Iraq. Over the weekend, BBC reported
that approximately 30 refugees are "being refused re-entry to Iraqi"
allowing the UK to 'only' unload ten of them Thursday. Even so, the
inhumane UK Border Agency announces it will be sending even more back.
Coalition illegal war of choice partner Italy's Aire Italy provided the
flight to Baghdad. Rod Nordland and John F. Burns (New York Times) numbered the forced deported at 50 with Iraq only accepting 9 of them. Amnesty International's London office issued "Asylum removals to Iraq put lives in danger, says Amnesty:"Reacting
to news reports that a plane carrying refused Iraqi asylum-seekers from
the UK arrived in Baghdad yesterday (15 October), Amnesty International
stressed that removals to southern and central Iraq are not safe and
should not take place.An Amnesty International spokesperson said:
'Given the reports of killings, bombings and other human rights abuses
that continue to come out of Baghdad, it is hard to comprehend that the
UK government considers it a safe place to return people. 'As far as we
are concerned, removing someone to Baghdad, or elsewhere in central or
southern Iraq, is likely to put their life in danger. Amnesty is
opposed to all forcible returns to southern and central Iraq. 'Until
the situation improves and it is safe to return to Iraq, these people
should be offered some form of protection in the UK.' Reports have
stated that the plane carrying the refused Iraqi asylum-seekers was
turned around upon arrival and returned to the UK with the people still
on board.
Owen Bowcott and Alan Travis (Guardian) report
the Iternational Federation of Iraqi Refugees state it was one "Iraqi
army officer" who allowed the others on board the plane not to depart
and that he told them, "Those of you who want to come back, you get
off, the rest stay where you are." Richard Ford and Mary Bowers (Times of London) observe,
"The [UK] Home Office refused to give any explanation for the debacle
at Baghdad, referring all inquiries to the Iraqi Government. A Home
Office spokesman said: 'We are not giving a running commentary on
this'." Those who returned? Last night, Owen Bowcott reported
that they they are reporting "they were beaten by British security
guards and that no Arabic translator accompanied them. Refugee Kawa Ali
Azada tells Bowcott:
It was like a kidnapping. We had no food
for 12 hours. We were kept out of sight at the airport then put on an
Italian charter flight. We we arrived in Baghdad, there was an Iraqi
officer with sunglasses and eagle decorations on his shoulders. [The
British immigration official] started to talk to him but his English
was not good so I went to help translate. The British officials didn't
have an Arabic translator. [The airport commander] said he had received
a message from his boss there was an Italian flight but was never told
it was transporting deported Iraqis -- otherwise he would not have let
it land. He said to the immigration official he had two hours to refuel
the plane and leave or he would take further action. He would not take
responsibility for the Iraqis because of the danger of kidnapping and
bombs. The immigration officer asked what 'further action' meant and he
said would burn the plane with all the people on board if it didn't
leave."
Traveling this week is Nouri al-Maliki. But first he had to grandstand. Alsumaria reports
that US-installed thug of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki spent Saturday
bloviating and puffing his chest about how the 'evil-doers' would be
brought to 'justice' as he appeared at Baghdad's Al Rashid Hotel to
grand stand on the two month anniversary of Black Wednesday or Bloody
Wednesday or Gory Wednesday. That was August 19th
and yesterday was August 17th but apparently a photo-op was needed for
Nouri. Try to remember a two-month 'anniversary' 9-11 photo-op by Bully
Boy Bush. There wasn't one. But Nouri's damn determined to milk Black
Wednesday for all it's worth. As he grand stands on a pile of corpses,
remember the US installed him in 2006 and US forces have been trapped
in Iraq attempting to prop up the exile's illegitimate regime. That was
Saturday. Now Nouri's on the move.
At the US State Dept today,
spokesperson Ian Kelly noted, "First of all, you've seen that the
Secretary [of State Hillary Clinton] has a meeting with Prime Minister
Maliki. That's in about 40 minutes. There'll be a camera spray before
the meeting and then I expect the Secretary will make some brief
remarks as well. There will be, of course, a discussion of bilateral
issues, but I think one of the more important items on the agenda for
the meeting will be tomorrow's US-Iraq business and investment
conference. This conference we see as a stepping stone to greater
private sector involvement and investment in the Iraqi economy. And, of
course, we have had very intensive government-to-government relations,
but we think that the next step is greater involvement of the private
sector. So this conference is intended to encourage
business-to-business connections and partner our respective business
communities."
At the US State Dept, Hillary and al-Maliki greeted reporters (click here for text and video)
Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton: Today, the prime minister and I discussed a
range of issues, and we agreed to establish a diplomatic joint
coordinating committee under the Strategic Framework Agreement. In that
committee, we will discuss all Chapter 7 issues that need to be
resolved. Tomorrow's U.S-Iraq Business and Investment Conference will
be a very important priority for both of us. By bringing together
business and government leaders from both countries, we hope to pave
the way for greater international investment in Iraq and closer
economic ties between us. As Iraq emerges from conflict, the stability
that is occurring will drive greater prosperity, which will help create
a lasting peace and bring jobs that will lift families' income and give
Iraqis a greater opportunity to chart their own futures. I want to
thank Prime Minister Maliki and the other Iraqi leaders who are here
today for their leadership on this important conference and the issue,
and I want to express our pleasure at seeing the recent amendments to
Iraq's national investment law. We also discussed the upcoming national
elections which are critical to Iraq's future. Obviously, we are
supporting the efforts to ensure that the elections are credible and
legitimate, and that a new government is formed in a timely way to
continue the peaceful stability and economic growth that is so
important. And finally, Mr. Prime Minister, I really salute the Iraqi
people. They have withstood the challenges of sectarianism, violence,
and terrorism. They have made tremendous sacrifices and have achieved
the right for a secure and peaceful future of progress and prosperity.
The United States remains committed to Iraq and the people of Iraq.
Installed
Thug Nouri al-Maliki: In the name of God, peace be upon you. In this
occasion, I take the opportunity to express my happiness and pleasure
to be here inaugurating the investment conference between Iraq and
America. We have met Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of State, and it was
the second meeting with Mrs. Clinton. The first one was in July this
year. We had talks, and our talks, in fact, concentrated on the
importance of activating the strategic agreement -- framework agreement
between Iraq and America. This conference, which will be held tomorrow,
and the strategic agreement between Iraq and America means that the
relationship between Iraq are no more on the militant level. In fact,
it moved to the economic level and other horizons. Iraq, in fact,
attempts to inaugurate an extensive and comprehensive investment
process, especially after the stability achieved in the country. In
addition, and besides the task of reconstruction, in fact, Iraq seeks
and attempts to find revenues to find new ways for increasing and
promoting its revenues to cover the cost of reconstruction. In fact, we
have waited to carry out or to make amendments on the investment laws
in Iraq. And this conference is -- will be held after achieving these
amendments. The governors and the representative of provincial councils
will stay in the United States of America to coordinate and to
strengthen the ties and relationships between the Iraqi governors and
the American governors. The meeting with Mrs. Clinton, in fact, was
fruitful and very important. We have talked and tackled different
issues related to Iraq and to different -- to many issues, especially
the problem of the Chapter 7. And we, in fact, discussed to get Iraq
out of this chapter eventually. In fact, we have the same points of
view and we have the same ambitions. And our ambitions for future are
sure and as addressed. In fact, this means that we have succeeded in
confronting and defeating terrorism, but we have another task, which is
creating new opportunities, to create welfare and economic development.
The next meeting, I hope it will be in Baghdad. Thank you very much.
Also meeting Nouri was US Vice President Joe Biden. Xinhua quotes
the vice president's office stating, "The Vice president also
encouraged the Iraqi Council of Representatives to act expeditiously on
an election law that will set the terms for transparent political
participation in the upcoming Iraqi national elections." This is the
election law which was supposed to be passed no later than last
Thursday. Needless to say, it was not passed. It wasnt passed over the
weekened either. Today? Xinhua explains
the Parliament decided not to consider the law today but may pick it up
tomorrow. Which appears to be Scarlett O'Hara Rules of Order: "Oh
fiddle-dee-dee, I'll think about it tomorrow." Who knew Turner Classic
Movies (TCM) was so popular in Baghdad?
The Center for American Progress' Lawrence J. Korb (Reagan-ite) is in Iraq, and blogging about it for CAP, and he notes,
"A real but often overlooked danger of the upcoming Iraqi election in
January 2010 is whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will go
quietly if his party loses and he does not stay in power. History tells
us that only when there is a peaceful transfer of power can a country
be considered a democracy."
The latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera) began airing Friday and Jasim Azawi spoke with former CIA asset and Iraq's former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on a number of topics and we'll excerpt a section on the elections.
Jasim
Azawi: The former Iraqi interim prime miniters Ayad Allawi has been
living in a political wilderness for more than four years but now he's
banking on returning to power in the upcoming parliamentary election
next January. Yet so far he has failed to build a powerful political
bloc to challenge either the coalition headed by his chief nemesis, the
current Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki or the Iraqi National
Alliance headed by Amar al-Hakim. Ayad Allawi has few friends in
neighboring Iran due to his constant accusations of Iranian
interference in Iraq. His critics -- and even some of his supporters --
say his style of rule is authoritarian and it is bound to harm him and
his cause. And now I'm joined from Baghdad by Dr. Ayad Allawi, Iraq's
former interim prime minister. Dr. Allawi, welcome to Inside Iraq, let
us start with the latest
Ayad Allawi: Thank you.
Jasim
Azawi: and that is the Iraqi Parliament has just postponed a vote on a
new election bill until Monday and this constant delay and postponement
definitely is helping somebody because what is at stake is an open list
vis a vis a closed list. To explain to our international viewers, an
open list is where a group, they list every single candidate running
for office, for parliament. While a closed list -- just like happened
in 2005 -- you really don't know who you are voting for. So I'm asking
you who is scheming behind this postponement?
Ayad Allawi: In
fact this is another failure by the Iraqi Parliament to produce a
strategic law that would -- hopefully would be cementing democracy. But
unfortunately that's not the case. Likewise, the Parliament has failed
in producing a law for the parties -- to say where the funding for
these parties are coming from, what they are, who they are, are they
national, are they sectarian, are they secular. So there are no laws --
no laws of election. Indeed, the Iraqi people are disenchanted with the
so-called closed list because usually it's either voting for the sect
or voting for the -- for the leader of the list.
Jasim Azawi: Who will benefit from this? I understand you are for the open list.
Ayad Allawi: Yes, absolutely.
Jasim
Azawi: Many other politicians are for the open list including the prime
minister and he said we will not accept any postponement of the
elections under any circumstances. So tell me, if everyone says 'we are
with the open list,' who is delaying it?
Ayad Allawi: Well
frankly we -- we are -- we have been lobbying for an open list. But it
is the government, it is the sectarian forces that have been lobbying
in the government --
Jasim Azawi: Are you alluding to the Iraqi National Alliance headed by Amar Hakim?
Ayad
Allawi: I am alluding to most of the sectarian groups in the Parliament
because they were in control of Parliament -- last Parliament -- in the
first elections and they decided that they should go on the closed list
not the open list. And this remains the case until now. Although there
are very strong calls and lobbying from other forces in Iraq, that we
need to have an open list rather than a closed list.
Jasim
Azawi: Since you mention sectarian parties and sectarian blocs, perhaps
some of them are affiliated with Iran? One thing I know for sure, over
the past several years, you've been attacking Iran for its
interferences in Iraq and there is almost like a veto by Iran against
you. Is that true? Are you and Iran on the out?
Ayad Allawi: No
[. . .], I've always -- I've been calling for a stable region where the
trade links and economic links are the predominant feature. Where there
is a kind of security and kind of dialogue between our regional forces.
I think this remains a must in the region and there is no way really to
go into stability in this region without talking to each other. That's
why I personally was behind the first Sharm el-Sheikh [International
Conference held in Egypy which included ministers and secretaries from
twenty countries as well as then UN Secretary-General Kofia Annan,
November 22nd to 24th, 2004] where original forces met under the
umbrella of the UN and the presence of the Gulf Cooperation Council and
the Arab League. Unfortunately this conference was not followed through
by successive governments who came after me.
Jasim Azawi: We
will talk about that and your relationship with the current prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki. But, please, put to the rest -- to put to
rest a rumor that it has been circulating as a matter of fact it was
mentioned in one of the PanArab newspapers that says Ayad Allawi had a
secret trip to Iran to get the green light from Iran's Revolutionary
Force to run as the sole candidate for the Iraqi National Alliance. Is
that true? Did you visit Iran secretly?
Ayad Allawi: Wll it is
not true, Jasim, because it is very difficult for me to travel
secretly. I can't be hiding in a suitcase. I am a known figure. It's
difficult to travel. I don't travel alone usually. With a -- with a
secretaries, I travel with body guards. So really this is not the case.
I haven't been to Iran. I don't have an invitation to go to Iran. And
my schedule, in the future, I don't have visit to Iran. So this is all
fabrication --
Jasim Azawi: I'm glad we put this to rest, this
fabrication at least. The newspaper perhaps will retract this
information. Iraqi politicians are at a frenzy to create coalition
alliances.
Meanwhile the US Boob to Iraq, Chris Hill is in the news. Mohammed Jamjoom (CNN) reports
he told them Friday that the delay in the election law (still not
passed -- supposed to have been passed no later than Thursday) was no
big deal: "Would we like them [to] kind of get this over with early
rather than late? We would, but sometimes in this country there's a
tendency to do things at the last minute. So we'll see." If you were
supposed to be explaining the need for political movement to the puppet
government and you had FAILED you would no doubt make similar
statements. The Boob is also reported on by Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) who reveals
that Chris Hill went to Basra and told the business leaders "to project
positive energy instead of complaining about all the things that are
wrong with Iraq." Deception lessons from the Boob. As for withdrawal,
Chris Hill is quoted stating, "as long as your people want us here, we
will be here."
We'll note the opening of a new piece by Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait):
Tuesday
I was on Anti-war Radio with Scott Horton and Angela Keaton. As an
announcement for the show read, "Debra Sweet, Director of World Can't Wait, discusses the post-Obama antiwar movement collapse, the strange confluence of The Feminist Majority
and the Bush administration in selling the War in Afghanistan, the
laughable notion that the Pentagon can be used to secure human rights, Afghan warlords allied with the Karzai government whose human rights records are no better than the Taliban's and how activists can make their voices heard on antiwar issues."
Listen here.
In
an early evening edition of the San Francisco Chronicle Thursday,
coverage of the Obama fundraiser there included: "Mike Dean of San
Francisco , with the left-wing group World Can't Wait, paid tribute to
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize with a huge poster showing the president
wearing a medallion inscribed 'Orwell War Is Peace 2009'."
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan has a must read column entitled "Hopeless?" and we'll note this from it:
Not
only have we collectively marched millions of miles and signed millions
of petitions and made millions of phone calls to our elected officials,
but many people also put all of their hope eggs in the basket of
another war-monger and where has that gotten us? Nowhere except deeper
into quagmires and please don't tell me that Obama wants peace when he
is a pawn of the Machine that I have been trying so hard to stop.
Since
my son was killed, I have thrown everything I have at the machine.
Every penny I have, every ounce of energy, every relationship and even
my health have been sacrificed to end the wars and five years later
there is very little to show for such a profound investment and the
even sadder part is that I am not the only one in the struggle.
Multiply these sacrifices by thousands of us and there's a whole lot of
heartache for zippity-do-dah.
As evidenced by poor showings at
anti-war marches and rallies all over the country since the Democrats
came back into power in 2006, I am growing more convinced that very few
people care at all about the wars and the killing and those of that do
are growing weary and teary.
Americans care about issues when
those issues directly affect Americans. I believe that one thing that
will get people out into the streets is a forced military conscription,
or draft. But even with the threats of sending tens of thousands of
more troops to the war zone, the economy is swelling the ranks of the
military and for the first time in six years, recruitment is meeting
its quotas. So forced conscription is unnecessary. Obama's "job's plan"
turned out to be enlistment in the military. Who knew?
Read the entire thing
if you're able. I think we'll probably try to do something on it at
Third on Sunday, Cindy's covering a lot of ground and she's offered the
thought piece for the year. Lastly, community member Dallas, after he
read Ava and my TV piece on the faux peace activists mentioned Justin Raimondo, "Code Yellow: The selling-out of the antiwar movement"
(Antiwar.com) which we'd all missed last week (except for Dallas) so
please make a point to check that out and here's a sample:
A
political whore isn't "born again," as it were, on account of a single
visit to Afghanistan and a talking to by the "minister of women" --
this lady has been operating the political equivalent of a house of ill
repute at least since 2004.iraqthe new york timesrod nordlandjohn f. burnsthe guardianalan travisthe times of londonrichard fordthomas groveshamal aqrawijanet lawrencereutershurriyet daily newsthe washington postuthman al-mokhtarmcclatchy newspaperssahar issacnnmohammed jamjoomroy gutman cindy sheehandebra sweet
Posted at 08:20 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 18, 2009
barbra streisand news from sony/columbia:
|
Barbra Set To Auction Her Personal Possessions
Tomorrow
Having trouble viewing this message? Click here | Add to your address book |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Barbra Set To Auction Her Personal Possessions
Tomorrow
Don't forget -- if
you can't get to the Beverly Hills Hilton tomorrow for the Julien's Streisand
Auction, you can register to view the auction online, and make live bids. Visit
http://www.julienslive.com/
The Collection of Barbra Streisand will include over 500
unique items from the legendary actress/singer/producer/director's original New
York apartment, her Carolwood home in Beverly Hills, and her Malibu Ranch house.
The sale will also feature memorabilia including stage-worn clothing and
film-worn costumes, in addition to pieces from Streisand's personal wardrobe.
These items will cross the Atlantic on special exhibit onboard the Queen Mary 2
and auctioned at the historic Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills.
Highlights from Streisand's decorative and fine arts collection include
a Dirk Van Erp table lamp and a Arts and Crafts L&JG Stickley china cabinet,
as well as some of her first antique purchases made as a young woman in New York
City. Additional fine art selections include a painting by Kees van Dongen, a
group of Edward Curtis photographs and a number of American school floral and
genre scenes. Among the other offerings is a selection of Americana furnishings,
Art Deco fixtures, Oriental rugs and Native American baskets.
The auction
features examples of Streisand's impeccable style and pioneering fashion, such
as her pink robe from The Way We Were and ensembles from Meet The Fockers, to
custom Donna Karan and designer pieces, including two vintage Christian Dior
fashions. Other highlights include costumes from Funny Lady, On A Clear Day,
Yentl, Nuts, Prince of Tides, and other productions and public appearances,
including a stage-worn concert gown from her 1994 CONCERT tour and a gown from
her 2000 TIMELESS tour.
For two decades the Streisand Foundation has
championed human rights and humanitarian causes worldwide. All funds raised from
this auction will go toward furthering the Streisand Foundation's goal of
reaching universal equality.
Beverly Hills, California Public Exhibition
9876 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90210 Saturday, October 10 –
Friday, October 16 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
 | | |
|
|
|
| | here's a
piece of crap story that i encourage you to read and rate very, very
low. it's current rating, after 200 votes, is 1 which is the lowest. read
it and you'll understand why you too have to rate it low. let's close
with c.i.'s ' Iraq
snapshot:'
Friday, October 16, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, US House Rep Harry
Mitchell asks a VA rep "How are we supposed to believe the assurances you're
offering today?," an attack on a Sunni mosque results in multiple deaths, bridge
attacks are also back, Moqtada al-Sadr performs a miracle by turning 250,000
people into 1.5 million, and more.
Yesterday the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity met to address the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Chair Stephanie Herseth
Sandlin called the hearing to order and noted that US House Reps Vic Snyder and
Harry Mitchell were joining the committee (she asked for the Subcommittee's
consent, which was given) and then explained, "Today we seek to administer our
oversight jurisdiction on the VA's implementation efforts of the Post-9/11 GI
Bill. I expect that this hearing will provide the VA the opportunity to update
us on recent actions taken to address delays in distribution of education
benefits and its plan moving forward to ensure the same mistakes do not occur in
the future."
In his opening remarks, the VA's Keith M. Wilson stated that the VA was
unable to find an outside contractor due to a low number of bids so the computer
issues were handled in-house by VA's IT. He declared, "Post-911 GI Bill claims
currently require manual processing using four separate IT systems that do not
interface to each other. When an application or enrollment certification is
received, the documents are captured into The Image Management System (TIMS).
The documents are routed electronically to a claims examiner for processing. The
claims examiner reviews the documents in TIMS and determines the student's
eligibility, entitlement and benefit rate using the Front End Tool [FET]. The
FET is used to calculate and store student information to support the Post-9/11
GI Bill claims adjudication process. However, the FET has limited capability for
processing the multiple scenarios encountered in determining eligibility and
entitlement under the new program." If that was an attempt at an explanation for
the delay or even just a whine, the Pity Party's already seated and he needs to
join others at the VA table -- the VA designed the system and if it doesn't work
(so far it hasn't worked well) that falls back on the VA.
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin The issue of outreach prior to the
fall semester starting starting, we have repeatedly heard from veterans
believing that their housing allowance would be issued to them at the beginning
of the month or that this would be paid "upfront." What is creating this
disconnect?
Keith M. Wilson: We've heard that as well. First let me clarify in
terms of how it is paid. The monthly housing benefit is paid in the same manner
as VA education benefits are paid under the same existing program -programs in
that it is paid in arrays at the end of the month following the month of
attendance. There -- and quite honestly this is speculation -- the tuition
payment is paid to the school at the beginning of the year, the housing
allowance -- I'm sorry the book and stipend allowance is paid to the student at
the beginning of the semester. I think it would be logical for some individuals
to make a connection between the manner in which those payments were made and
the manner in which they would presume that the housing allowance would be
paid.
Chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Before recognizing other members
and we'll have another round of questions for everybody, yesterday at our full
committee meeting when Secretary [Eric] Shinseki was testifying, we heard from
several members that were proposing legislative fixes to make your job easier in
the future because as you described it in your written testimony, your oral
testimony today, I know you're laying the groundwork for your long-term IT
solution but you're dealing with legacy systems and we had the recession
effecting states and their decisions, and so some factors and some variables
which, in a perfect world, we would have liked to have anticipated all of them
and had you prepare for every possible scenario. But we do know that, uh, many
members are interested in streamlining the administration of all the education
benefits. I don't know if you're prepared to say which legislative fixes you'd
endorse today or if you're starting to give those thoughts but any
suggestions?
Keith M. Wilson: We are giving that a lot of thought. Clearly there
are issues that have been discussed that conceptually are very appealing. Paying
housing allowances in advance has been talked about as a possibility. Delinking
the tuition payment with the schools with the need to get the housing payment
out as quickly as possible to students, etc. The -- and I would -- I would agree
that those are appealing from a conceptual perspective. The challenge I believe
will be making sure that any legislative fixes are immediately implementable,
taking into account the-the issues that you rightly brought up considering the
legacy systems that we have in place, the limitations in our short term
initiative that we are currently essentially locked into process claims. One
thing we absolutely don't want to do is make the situation worse.
And what about when the VA gave out the wrong information? That was pursued
at one point in the hearing.
US House Rep Harry Teague: You know we've had a problem with some
contradictory information coming out. You know when the checks didn't go out the
first of the month, well then we issued the letter that they would be cut on
Friday the second. And then there was also some letters sent out that if, like
in places like New Mexico, it's 320 miles to the only hospital and the only
facility in the state that they would be going to some of the larger
universities around and handing the checks out. That didn't happen. At the same
time, they got a website up where they could go to but we didn't get that
information to people. So I was just wondering if we're streamlining our
communications within our office there so that we don't continually jerk the
veterans around and have some of them misinformed.
Keith Wilson: I understand your concerns, Congressman. And we-we
have, I believe, we have a better process in place to make sure that we are
communicating more effectively on that. The issues that we are dealing with was
trying to get -- make sure we had something out the gate and-and informed our
student population prior to 10-1 [October 1st] -- around the 10-1 time frame.
The 10-1 was important because most folks were at that point where they were due
their first housing allowance payments. .We thought it was important to get
something up as soon as possible. We were dealing -- and continued to deal -- at
the time of that press release, with some technical issues concerning how we get
to the other locations beyond our 57 regional offices. We very early on wanted a
desire to spread this out as much as possible. We felt that the most effective
way of doing this was leveraging technology. Taking into account that we've got
technology students at thousands of locations across the country. We felt the
most effective way of uh getting those folk that weren't within distance of a
regional office was to allow technology and so that was the driver for our
decision on the follow up --
US House Rep Harry Teague: Yes and I agree with that and I think
that the webpage is working good. It's just that during that week prior to that,
when I was at New Mexico State University, they were expecting someone to be
there with the checks and then, on Friday when there's not, that's when we find
out about the webpage.
Keith Wilson: I understand.
US House Rep Harry Teague: Another thing I don't know, I guess it's
a misunderstanding on their part and I guess I was wondering where the
information came from that so many of the veterans thought that they were going
to be paid in advance both for tuition and housing?
Keith Wilson: I-I-I uh -- The advance payment issue has been
troubling. We have had, in our outreach material, going back to the winter
period -- early spring, winter period, information providing the student
experience. In other words, what would the student experience. We have worked
very hard to make individuals understand when they will be paid. The example
that we used was for the individual who would be having their first day of class
toward the end of August, come September 1st, they were only eligible for a
partial housing allowance for those couple of days of attendance in September
followed by the first full housing allowance paid October 1st. For whatever
reason, and again, I would be speculating that didn't seem to be fully
understood. Largely it did because most of our current participants are
transferees from the Montgomery GI Bill and this past benefit is paid in the
same manner but we didn't get that word out to everybody and there were pockets
of communication and we need to continue to work hard on that
issue.
US House Rep Harry Teague: You know, and you brought up another
thing there with the transferring from the Montgomery GI Bill to the Post-9/11
GI Bill and sometimes before they understand the full benefits of both programs,
people have committed the Post-9/11 GI Bill and then found out that it really
didn't have as many benefits for them individually as the Montgomery GI Bill but
they can't switch back. Is there anything that we can do there where they can
reconsider if -- through oversight on their part or misinformation -- they want
to go back to the Montgomery Bill?
Keith Wilson: The structure of the Post-9/11 GI Bill calls for an
irrevocable decision so currently that's a statutory requirement -- is an
individual has to revoke, there's no mechanism in the statute allow -- that
would allow a person to unrevoke the irrevocable election. Our-our mechanism by
which we have been educating people on that is making sure that they can
understand the an -- the questions that need to be answered. The answers to the
questions themselves are going to be unique to each individual person. You're
absolutely right for raising this concern. Individuals do have to be well armed,
they have to know what questions to ask and our efforts have been designed
towards ensuring they can answer those questions.
A friend who is an Iraq War veteran and a veterans' advocate was at
yesterday's hearing and wanted it pointed out how the VA is taking no
accountability for all of this. He points out what a huge, huge amount of
information is required for all of this -- for deciding to go with the
Montgomery GI Bill or the Post-9/11 GI Bill just for starters. At this site, we
repeatedly referred to the VFW which offered advocates by phone who would
explain what was going on and that's because the VFW is going to know what's
going on, is going to have explored every facet. And people who called the VFW
got information they could use -- the VFW provided that service at no charge --
in determining which plan would be best for them and details of each. But why
does the VFW have to do that? It's great that they did. Praise to them for it.
They did a wonderful job. But this is the VA's program. This is a government
program run by a government department. It shouldn't require a veterans service
organization -- which is what the VFW is -- to help veterans sort through the
maze.
That was the VA's responsibility, not the VFW's. (And to be clear, the
friend I'm speaking is a member of the VFW but his advocacy is not with/for the
VFW. It would be fine if it were and if it it were, I would identify him as
such.) The VA did not live up to its obligations. A new program is run by the
VA. Guess whose job it is to explain that program? The VA's. No one else has
that obligation. Many veterans service organizations took it upon themselves to
assist their members and that's wonderful. But that's the bonus, that's the
added detail. The VA is not supposed to count on or rely on veterans service
organizations to do their job.
The VA did not do their job and this is why there is confusion now. The VA
has put the blame off on colleges, it's pushed the blame off on individuals. It
is a VA program. The VA is responsible for administering it and administering it
properly. Now anyone can put a program in place and have it fall apart. That's,
in fact, what the VA did. But their role also includes "administering it
properly" and that is what they did not do and what they have not taken
accountability for. Once Congress made the program law, it was in the VA's court
and they were responsible. Having made it a law, the Congress repeatedly asked
the VA what they could do to help? Did they need more employees? Did they need
more money? What did they need? And the VA led the Congress to believe -- as
they led the veterans and as they led the American people to believe -- that
there was no problem. But Wednesday, truth emerged when Eric Shinseki informed
Congress that the VA always knew there would be a problem, that he had hired an
outside consultant who had backed up internal opinions that it wasn't
manageable. And until Wednesday, the VA never informed Congress of this
problem.
If internal estimates showed that there would be delays in
processing tuition payments, why did the Department of Veterans Affairs not seek
additional resources or support prior to the start of the academic
year?
Nye has additional points and other strong statements but that question
above is the main one and it needs to be answered.
US House Rep Harry Mitchell grasps that. Let's jump into his exchange from
yesterday. He began by noting that the VA had not yet given out Fiscal Year 2009
bonuses and he strongly suggested that before any "plush bonuses" were handed
out, the VA think long and hard about the veterans struggling to receive the
benefits that they have earned.
US House Rep Harry Mitchell: Mr. Wilson, this is not your first
appearance before this subcommittee. You have appeared before it several times
since the GI Bill was signed into law to keep the committee members apprised of
the VA's efforts to implement the GI Bill. And you offered assurances that the
VA would be ready by August 1st. You even brought in a detailed timeline to show
us how the VA would be ready by August 1st. In February, [John] Adler of this
Committee asked if the VA needed more tools to accomplish the goal of program
implementation and you responded by stating, "This legislation itself came with
funding. This funding at this point has adequately provided us with what we need
for implementing payments on August 1, 2009." If this legislation provided you
with what you needed then why did you go to the VA -- or then where did you and
the VA go wrong in meeting the implementation goal? So I'd like to ask two
questions. How are we supposed to believe the assurances you're offering today?
And, two, knowing how interested Congress is in implementing the GI Bill, once
you knew you were running into problems, why didn't you let us know? Why did we
have to first hear about it from veterans and read about it in the Army
Times?
Keith Wilson: You rightly call us out in terms of not providing
timely service to all veterans. We acknowledge that and uh are working as hard
as humanly possible uh to make sure that we are meeting those goals. Uh the
timeline that we provided to the subcommittee uh I believe was largely met uh in
terms of our ability to generate payments on the date that we were required to
deliver the first checks -- first payments did go out August 3rd. Uh there were
a couple of significant challenges uh that we had not anticipated. One was uh
the volume of work created by the increase in applications for eligibility
determinations that did not translate into student population dropping off other
programs. But we had significantly more work in our existing programs than we
would have expected to have to maintain going into the fall enrollment. One of
the other primary challenges that we have responded to is uh when we began our
ability to use the tools that were developed uh to implement the program in the
short term. Uh May 1st is when we began using those tools and it was very clear
to us from the get-go that even accounting for our understanding that they
weren't perfect, we underestimated the complexity and the labor-intensive nature
of what needed to be done. We responded by hiring 230 additional people to
account for that.
US House Rep Harry Mitchell: And I read all of that in your
testimony. My point is, once you knew you were running into problems, why didn't
you come back to us? We heard it first by veterans and through the Army
Times that you were having problems.
Keith Wilson: [Heavy, audible sigh] It has been our desire from the
get-go to make sure that the subcommittee has been informed all along. If we did
not meet those expectations, then we need to be held accountable for that. We
provided information that we had at each of the hearings and we have had a long
standing mechanism by which we have provided updates to staff on a regular
basis. Uh we did notify the Subcommittee at the time of the hiring of the 230
additional people.
Mitchell was obviously not impressed with the response. They had to break
to take votes. But everyone should grasp how offensive Wilson's answer is: "If
we did not meet those expectations, then we need to be held accountable for
that." If? Veterans were in danger of losing their homes, some of those veterans
were parents, some were single-parents. They were not getting their checks will
into October (and some still haven't gotten their checks). Did Congress hear
that and say, "Sure, fine, you do whatever you want." No. Congress would not
have taken that attitude and Congress was not informed. There is no "if."
Congress was not informed of the problems and Democrat or Republican, every
member of the Veterans Affairs Committee -- in Committee meetings and
Subcommittee meetings throughout 2008 -- has asked the VA (a) do they need any
other resources and (b) please come to us immediately if you have any
problems.
There is no "if." The VA did not meet expectations. I'll go further. They
lied -- and that includes Wilson -- to the Congress. Repeatedly. Shinseki
testified on Wednesday that when he stepped into his role as VA Secretary at the
start of this year, he knew. He was told that the VA could not meet the
expectations. He then went and hired an outside consultant to determine whether
or not that was true. The consultant determined the same thing. Shinseki: "And
in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting
together the plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate
it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me
this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was
going to be here before we could have everything in place. Uh, to the credit of
the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an outside consultant, brought in an
independent view, same kind of assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here,
this is not possible.' To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they
took it on and they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had to
train them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not very helpful
but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about May that the 530 were
probably a little short so we went and hired 230 more people. So in excess of
700 people were trained to use the tools that were coming together even as
certificates were being executed. Uhm, we were short on the assumption of how
many people it would take." When did the VA share the problem with the Congress?
Never.
That's what US Rep Mitchell was getting at in his testimony -- how the
Congress had to learn about the problems from veterans and the Army
Times. That's ridiculous. As he pointed out, they had multiple hearings,
they made requests and the VA never indicated any problems in testimony or in
one-on-one discussions.
The VA's failure is an issue. It's an issue that many veterans are still
living with as they wait for education benefit checks to arrive. But the issue
Congress needs to resolve is why they were misled. If that's not resolved, what
is the point?
US House Rep Harry Mitchell: Mr. Wilson, I believe that no veteran,
and I'm talking as a former school teacher who values education very, very much,
I don't believe any veteran should fall behind even a semester because of the
VA's inability to meet the goals that we've set out for them. And I'd like to
know what the VA's doing to ensure that future payments will not be delayed? As
well as, what assurances can you offer that these measures will
work?
Keith Wilson: Everything that we're putting into place right now is
designed to ensure that we go into the spring semester fully loaded with what we
need to have on board. We will take every step that we need to to make sure that
veterans have access to payment. If that means that we have to keep an advance
payment mechanism some -- some sort in process, we will do that. But our goal is
to make sure that those mechanisms are not needed, that we have this issue
resolved prior to the spring semester and we move forward. The Secretary has
been very clear that any delay in payment is unacceptable. Everybody in VA
agrees wholeheartedly with that. On a personal level, I can say first hand, I
know exactly what these students are going through.
Liar. He went to college. On a GI Bill. That doesn't mean he knows what the
veteran students are going through today. A program was in place for him and it
administered the checks in a timely manner. For him to try to use his 'personal
experience' should have resulted in someone on the Subcommittee coming back
with, "Well if you know what it's like, why did you and others mislead the
Veterans Affairs Committee instead of coming to us and asking for help as we
repeatedly requested you to do?"
Stephanie Herseth asked if he needed additional staff at the call center
for educational benefits. She also underscored that "we need to be made aware of
the problems immediately if there's any complications that arise" and "if you
start anticipating problems or start experiencing problems" then let the
Committee know. US House Rep John Adler also touched on this repeatedly such as
asking Wilson "are there any other tools you need from Congress" and reminding
him that "we would like to hear from you as needs arise, before the crisis
arise" and "tell us what you need from us."
But here's the thing, these statements? Made throughout 2008. And we know
how that didn't work out. There needs to be accountability. There was none. And
it was really cheap and dishonest for this man who has worked at the VA since
1989 to pretend he understood what it was like for the veterans who worried (and
some still do) that they will be homeless because their education checks have
not arrived. Translation: The hearing accomplished nothing. The friend I spoke
of earlier stated he felt the Subcommittee made Wilson squirm but he didn't feel
that anything else was accomplished: "There was no effort to track down where
the accountability was or where the breakdown came in. Even the most basic
question was not asked: 'Were you ordered not to tell the Congress that there
were problems coming up, problems that the department knew were coming?'"
Yesterday's snapshot noted the House Veterans
Affairs Committee's Subcommittee On Health hearing and Kat offered her impressions of it
last night. The exchange between Subcommittee Chair Michael Michaud and Gary
Baker should have included ". . ." after Baker's first lengthy excerpt and
before Micahud's next question. My apologies for the error which was most likely
my fault when dictating -- I probably wasn't clear. I apologize and claim that
error as my own.
Today violence continued in Iraq. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports on a Tal Afar suicide bombing, "Checkpoint security opened fire upon
four gunmen in a sedan who refused to stop for searching near al Taqwa Mosque in
the town of Tel Afar west of Mosul, Friday. At last the car stopped and three of
the four men ran away, while the fourth ran into the mosque just as Friday
prayers ended, and shot and killed the imam and a judge who was sitting with
him." Issa reveals the man attempted to leave the mosque but was prevented and
then set off his bomb. BBC News adds, "The explosion was triggered as
people gathered for the main congregational prayers of the week." Timothy Williams and Sa'ad al-Izzi (New York
Times) quote Akram Haseeb stating, "I was sitting in the back rows in
the mosque when one of the worshipers in the front stood up and loudly
interrupted the iman while he was preaching." Al Jazeera quotes eye witness Sahir Jalal on the
bomber standing up in the mosque, "Then he took out a small rifle from under his
jacket and start to shoot." Jamal al-Badrani, Jack Kimball and Michael Christie (Reuters) quote Qassim Ahmed who was
wounded in the attack, "I came to the mosque late and when I went to enter, I
heard shooting. Seconds later, a big explosion happened." Sun Yunlong (Xinhua) adds, "Abdul A'al,
the mayor of the town told Xinhua that the attacker shot dead Abdul-Sattar
Abdul-Hussein, the imam of the mosque and another person believed to be a judge
in the town before blowing himself and causing the destruction." Nada Bakri (Washington Post) offers this
context, "Tal Afar, 260 miles north of Baghdad and near the Syrian border, has
long been the target of suicide attackers and car bombers, but Friday's attack
marked one of the few times that a Sunni mosque there was attacked. Security
officials said they believe the mosque was targeted because its preacher, Abdel
Satar Hassan, who was among the dead, was a staunch critic of al-Qaeda." Timothy Williams and Sa-ad al-Izzi state 15 are
dead from the assault and one-hundred more injured. Turning to other violence .
. . Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers)
reports "a pontoon bridge in Ameriyah" was blown up leaving the "area which
is now completely isolated." Those who remember the 2006 bridge bombings and the
violence that followed, should take into account that this could be step-one of
a multi-violence attack that follows. Reuters notes a Mosul suicide car bombing which
claimed the life of the car driver and 1 Iraqi soldier. Dropping back to
yesterday, Reuters
notes a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left
four more injured
Shootings?
Still dropping back to yesterday, Reuters notes Mosul
police attacked an ambulance "killing one civilian inside and wounding two
others including a paramedic". On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show today, second hour, Iraq was
noted by Diane and the panel of James Kitfield ( National Journal), Hisham Melhem (Al-Arabiya
TV and An-Nahar) and Nancy A. Youssef
(McClatchy). Diane Rehm: Alright, let's turn to Iraq and the reputed death toll.
James Ki , Iraq's Human Rights Ministry said more than 85,000 Iraqis were killed
from 2004 to 2008. We really have no idea about the total loss of humanity
there.
James Kitfield: No, we don't. And we know it was a very violent
war. And it was not only a violent war that we were fighting trying to attack
Sunni insurgent groups that were trying to destabilize that government but it
devolved almost into an entire civil war, 2006, 2007, where Shi'ite death squads
were killing Sunnis and Sunnis were responding with suicide bombings against
Shi'ite mosques. You know it really was an awful bloodshed --
Diane Rehm: Judges, lawyers, everybody was being
targeted.
James Kitfield: I remember being on the street with a unit there
and you would go and there would be piles of bodies every morning lying on the
side of the road. It was disgusting.
Diane Rehm: And now you've got a total of how many American troops,
Nancy?
Nancy A. Youssef: In Iraq now? It's 120,000 [she stops at
one-hundred-and twenty-thou] --
Diane Rehm: Killed.
Nancy A. Youssef: Oh, killed. We're at 4200 for the
total.
Diane Rehm: No, a little bit more.
Diane Rehm: 4300, something like that.
Nancy A. Youssef: 4300. For the total span of the war. What I
thought was interesting with the 85,000, in my mind, it's the minimum because as
James was describing at the height of the war, and I was there for it, the group
was basing it on documents. People with death certificates and reports to the
morgue and sort of official tracks. At the height of the war people were not
going through that. If someone was killed, they buried their dead and then moved
out.
Diane Rehm: So we don't know.
Nancy A. Youssef: We will never know. We will never know. And so
it's this first effort to try to quantify that number which has been uhm, uhm,
almost impossible to get. To me what's important is anecdotally, you talk to any
Iraqi and they have had a friend a family member killed and that's the real
effect of the Iraq War, they've all felt it.
Diane Rehm: What about these parliamentary elections coming up? Is
there a chance they could be postponed?
James Kitfield: The chance just got better this week. They missed a
Thursday deadline yesterday to uh vote on --
Hisham Melhem: Now it's Monday.
James Kitfield: Now it's Monday and we'll see if they keep pushing
it off.
Diane Rehm: The deadline is Monday.
James Kitfield: Yeah they pushed the deadline back but there's
major concern amongst the Americans there that if these elections don't happen
in January, we can't pull out on the schedule we plan on next year which is very
ambitious, we're going down from 120,000 troops in January to just 50,000 troops
by the end of August. That is a very ambitious schedule. And oh by the way the
troops that Obama's going to need if he does surge 40,000 to Afghanistan are
going to be coming out of Iraq or being replaced by units scheduled to go to
Iraq. So that needs to go smoothly.
As a note requested by an NPR friend, last Friday, when Susan Paige guest
hosted, Iraq was dealt with in the second hour. They had some e-mails
complaining that it wasn't featured. I said I'd note it here and also pointed
out we quoted from it in last week's snapshot. (Most likely, people had turned off
before the final two minutes of the program when Iraq was raised.) I am noting:
Today the panel appeared to get lost in fantasies of go-get-Osama. They were a
blood thirsty group and one (James Kitfield) got a little peevish when Diane
corrected him of those US drones attacks in Pakistan, they do kill civilians. He
dismissed the concern and the whole panel seemed to run on the fumes of the dead
and a desire for more dead. The panel was living in a fantasy world of Where Is
Osama and We Must Get Osama. (They are all so convinced that he is the biggest
issue and that he's in Pakistan that you wanted someone to give the three guests
a map and let them put their Xs on the exact spot Osama was at.) On the election issue, let's first note a primary. Jenan Hussein and Mohammad al Dulaimy (McClatchy
Newspapers) report on the primary that took place today for Moqtada
al-Sadr supporters. They explain it's an effort to restore luster to the al-Sadr
brand and that "there were few safeguards against double voting, and the party
claimed far more votes [1.5 million] than the number it had registered [250,000]
a few days earlier." They also note that women voted in large numbers "at some
polling stations where entire families" went to vote. al-Sadr is thought to be
attempting to improve his standing ahead of the 'intended' January elections. Oliver August (Times of London) notes the draft election
law is still in a state of limbo and that, "The deadlock on election law
concerns whether ballot papers should list only the competing parties or also
include candidates' names. Some prominent MPs fear that having their names on
display will harm their chances of re-election." I wanted to take a moment to share with you some exciting
information. The Center for American Progress (CAP), in partnership with Maria
Shriver, has broken new ground with the publication of "The
Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes
Everything."
The report takes a hard look at
how women's changing roles are affecting our major societal institutions, from
government and businesses to our faith communities, and examines how our society
is responding to one of the greatest social transformations of our time.
I wrote an essay for the report, "Single in a Married-Centered World,"
exploring the unique challenges facing unmarried women in these times. You can
read my essay here and the entire report
here at CAP's website.
In conjunction with the report, I also sat down for an interview with
Heather Boushey, a CAP senior economist and co-editor of the report, to discuss
how unmarried women are faring in the economy and the workplace. You can see the
video of the interview here at WVWV's website.
The kind of monumental change the Shriver Report says government and
business need to make to adapt to the realities of the modern American family
requires an informed, engaged citizenry willing to stand up and demand it. At
WVWV, we are finding ways to both engage and inform women on issues that matter most in their
lives. Theirs is an important voice to be heard in the national conversation about modernizing public policies
and business practices to better meet their circumstances.
I encourage
you to read this important report. I am honored to be
in such esteemed company as an essay contributor. Please
read my essay and view the short video conversation about
how unmarried women are affecting and being affected by this social
transformation.
Meanwhile, Tom Hayden composes his most useful piece in two years, " Will We Stay 50 Years In Afghanistan?" (link goes
to CBS News' reposting) which is a contribution for the section on the war on
the native people counter-insurgency: The counterinsurgency doctrine is
promoted as being "population-centric" as opposed to "enemy-centric," leading
some to think it means a combination of Peace Corps-style development and
community-based policing. Indeed, counterinsurgency differs sharply from
"kinetic" war, which is based on conventional use of combat troops and
bombardment. This is why Kilcullen disapproved of the ground invasion of Iraq
and is critical of the current use of Predator strikes from the air, which
alienate the very civilian populations whose hearts and minds must be won.
The central flaw in Kilcullen's model is his belief in the "accidental
guerrilla" syndrome. Drawing partly on a public-health analogy, he defines Al
Qaeda as a dangerous virus that grows into a contagion when its Muslim hosts
face foreign intervention. The real enemy, he thinks, is the global network of
hard-core Al Qaeda revolutionaries who want to bring down the West, overthrow
Arab regimes and restore a centuries-old Islamic caliphate. Like Obama,
Kilcullen hopes to "disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda" without
provoking the contagion of resistance from the broader Muslim world. The
"accidental guerrillas" who fight us, he writes, do so not because they hate the
West and seek our overthrow but because we have invaded their space to deal with
a small extremist element that has manipulated and exploited local grievances to
gain power in their societies. They fight us not because they seek our
destruction but because they believe we seek theirs. But of course, these
accidental guerrillas are no accident at all. They inevitably and predictably
emerge as a nationalist force against foreign invaders. Their resistance to
imperialism stretches back far before Al Qaeda. In fact, Al Qaeda was born with
US resources, as a byproduct of resistance to the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan and earlier oppression of hundreds of Islamic radicals in Egyptian
prisons. Kilcullen would like to believe that the "accidental guerrilla"
syndrome can be avoided by a surgical counterinsurgency combined with Western
liberal reform, as opposed to a ham-fisted, knock-down-the-doors combat
approach. But he admits that imposing law and order American-style in
Afghanistan is a "temporary" form of neocolonialism that will produce violent
popular resistance. The strategic dilemma is created when this
neocolonialism fosters a corrupt regime of warlords, drug lords and landlords,
as it has in Kabul. The first priority of Kilcullen's counterinsurgency doctrine
is "a political strategy that builds government effectiveness and legitimacy
while marginalizing insurgents, winning over their sympathizers, and coopting
local allies." Obama's recent surge in Afghanistan, whose purpose was to protect
Afghanistan's presidential election process, had the opposite result: sending
Americans to fight for an unpopular Kabul machine that committed fraud on a
massive scale. TV notes. NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on most PBS
stations and examines the expected nursing shortage that looms in the near
future. On Bill Moyers Journal, Bill Moyers sits down with Maurice
Sendak. Bonnie Erbe will sit down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, Tara Setmayer and Genevieve Wood to discuss the week's events on
PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, on many
stations, it begins airing tonight. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
H1N1
Scott Pelley reports on the H1N1 flu -
which is increasingly targeting young, healthy people - and how the government
plans to fight the flu pandemic.
The Kanzius Machine
John Kanzius fought his
leukemia head on, inventing a machine that may someday offer effective treatment
for cancers without the debilitating side effects of radiation and chemotherapy.
Lesley Stahl reports. | Watch Video
Drew Barrymore
The remarkable former child
star, actress and now director is profiled by CNN's Anderson
Cooper.
60 Minutes, this Sunday, Oct. 18, at 7 p.m.
ET/PT.
|
Posted at 12:34 am by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 15, 2009
glen nye, barbra streisand
that's glen nye. he's a member of the u.s. congress from virginia. kat's writing about this morning's hearing at her site tonight and she told me, right after tonight's roundtable, 'rebecca, his skin is amazing!' i had to take a peak. and then i thought i'd share. i think his skin looks good in the photo but to hear kat rave it was supposed to look even better. c.i. said it did look better than in the portrait and that the video would be at the committee website. i said, 'i'll take your word on it, i was just checking.' but c.i. said if i was still at nye's site (i was), i should pull his statement on the shinseki hearing and post it, so i will:
Nye Seeks Answers on GI Bill Delays10/14/09
Washington, DC – Just days after meeting with local veterans who have been struggling to obtain benefits under the new Post-9/11 GI Bill, Congressman Glenn Nye (VA-02) is asking for answers from Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki.
At a hearing of the House Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday morning, Secretary Shinseki told Congressman Nye and others that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) had anticipated that there would be delays in administering the tuition benefit program, but that they had underestimated the magnitude of the problem.
“The new GI Bill has the potential to boost the economy and to help returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan build a strong future for themselves and their families. I’m pleased that the VA has taken steps to ensure these delays don’t happen again, but the fact remains that this problem should have been prevented,” said Congressman Glenn Nye.
“Excuses don’t help veterans who are waiting for their benefits right now. If the VA knows they are going to need additional resources to get the job done, they need to ask for them in advance, not after the fact,” Nye added.
Following the hearing, Nye submitted a series of follow-up questions for Shinseki, asking for answers about what went wrong and what steps the VA is taking to solve the problem before the start of the spring semester.
Nye’s questions for Shinseki included:
- If internal estimates showed that there would be delays in processing tuition payments, why did the Department of Veterans Affairs not seek additional resources or support prior to the start of the academic year?
- Is there a system now in place at the VA to evaluate the Department’s readiness to process benefit claims for the upcoming semester, and if shortfalls are again expected, will the VA request assistance in advance?
- What steps is the VA taking to ensure that students receive the full benefits to which they are entitled?
This past Saturday afternoon in Virginia Beach, Nye met with several local veterans who have not yet received tuition benefits from the new GI Bill. Nye has been working with the VA to help expedite tuition benefits for veterans facing severe hardship as a result of the delayed payments.
Veterans who have not received their GI Bill tuition benefits can apply for an emergency $3,000 payment online at http://www.va.gov or at a VA Regional Office. Anyone needing additional assistance is encouraged to contact Congressman Glenn Nye’s office at 757-326-6201 or online at http://nye.house.gov/.
Congressman Glenn Nye is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee. A former Foreign Service Officer, Nye volunteered to serve with the State Department alongside American troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since arriving in Congress, Nye has earned a strong reputation as a tireless advocate for military personnel, veterans and their families. while i was on the phone with c.i., she asked me why i didn't note barbra had the number 1 album? i didn't know. i forgot to check this week. turns out it was known last week. from simon vozick-levinson's ' barbra streisand tops the albums chart in a busy week; paramore bests mariah carey:' Barbra Streisand fans are certainly a devoted bunch. Today they’ve put Babs atop the Billboard 200 with a healthy 180,000 copies sold of her jazz standards album Love Is the Answer, according to Nielsen SoundScan, beating a host of new releases by buzzier artists. By way of comparison, that’s equivalent to every one of the die-hard fans who attended Barbra’s recent gig at NYC’s Village Vanguard club going out and buying 1,800 copies of her new record. Not bad at all.she is now the only artist to have a number 1 album in five decades. (she's also the only 1 to have it in 4 decades, but she extended her honor/accomplishment.) yea!!!!!! and barbra says:
When the album went to #1 in the States I was surprised and thrilled. To have the same thing happen on "the other side of the pond" is just as exciting. I've always loved spending time in the UK and it's so gratifying to learn how this album has been embraced. With all my appreciation and thanks! Barbra and if you're needing a connection for glen nye and barbra streisand, both have beautiful skin. barbra's skin is amazing. if you haven't picked up love is the answer, it's amazing too. give it a listen - but get the deluxe version. see kat's review. let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:'
Thursday, October 15, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the VA appears before Congress about their billing problems, the governments of Turkey and Iraq enter into a series of agreements, charges against Syria continue to be floated by Iraqi government officials, Blackwater does a pre-trial in private, and more.
Today's hearing will focus on the inappropriate billing practices of the VA where veterans receive a bill for the wrong amount or get a bill that they should not have received in the first place," explained US House Rep Glen Nye bringing the House Veterans Affairs Committee's Subcommittee On Health hearing to order. "Unfortunately inappropriate billing effects both service-connected veterans and non-service connected veterans. For example, a veteran with a service-related spinal cord injury may be billed for the treatment of a urinary tract infection. Now the urinary tract infection may clearly be linked to and the result of the service-connected injury; however, veterans are still receiving bills for the treatment of such secondary conditions. As a result, these veterans may be forced to seek a time consuming and burdensome re-adjudication of their claim indicating the original service-connected ratings. It is my understanding that one of the reasons for inappropriate billing of secondary conditions is that the VA cannot store more than six service-connected conditions in their IT system. It is also my understanding that the VA is taking steps to correct the deficiency but the problem has not been fully resolved and our veterans continue to receive inaccurate bills. Non-service-connected veterans also encounter over-billing and inappropriate charges for co-payments. One issue that I've been made aware of repeatedly is that some non-service connected veterans receive multiple bills for a single medical treatment or health care visit."
Nye was bringing the hearing to order in place of Subcommittee Chair Michael Michaud. The hearing was divided into three panels. The first panel was composed of Adrian Atizado ( Disabled American Veterans), Fred Cowell ( Paralyzed Veterans of America) and Denise A. Williams ( American Legion). The second panel was the GAO's Kay L. Daly. Panel three was composed of the VA's Dr. Gary M. Baker with the VA's Stephanie Mardon and Kristin Cunningham. US House Rep Henry E. Brown is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee. We'll note this from his opening remarks:
It is the solemn mission -- mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the federal government to care for the men and women in uniform who sustain injuries and illnesses as a result of their service to our nation; therefore, I find it deeply troubling to hear about veterans being inappropriately billed for co-payments for medical care and the medication to treat service-connected conditions. A similar issue arose earlier this year when the Obama administration was considering a plan to bill veterans private insurance for service-connected care. Fortunately, this ill-conceived proposal never saw the light of day given the fierce opposition of members from both sides of the aisle and the veterans' service organizations. As I said then, "This flies in the face of our moral obligation as a grateful nation to care for those wounded heroes."
On the first panel, Cowell noted the maze veterans go through when attempting to use the phone to address a billing issue. He noted the differing problems facing service-connected veterans and non-service connected veterans with billing errors, "Service-connected veterans are faced with a scenario where they, or their insurance company, may be billed for treatment of a service-connected condition. Meanwhile non-service connected disabled veterans are usually billed multiple times for the same treatment episode or have difficulty getting their insurance companies to pay for treatment provided by the VA." Paralyzed Veterans of America surveyed 4,000 of their members and 449 responded. Of that 449, 30% told of being "either billed directly by the VA for care that they receive or have tehir insurance companies billed for their care." From there, 22% reported their insurance companies were wrongly billed for the care or "treatment of a service-connected condtion," 17% stated they themselves were "billed directly for treatment of a service-connected condition" and 9% stated they were billed multiple times "for the same treatment episode."
Along with citing PVA's survey, Cowell shared that he himself faces these problems, "But almost every billing statement I receive has several charges that are incorrect. For several years, I simply paid these charges because I did not realize they were eroneus. For at least the past three years, I now work with my visiting nurse to review my bills for incorrect charges. She then corrects the social worker on my team and they work with the DC business office to remove incorrect charges. This is a monthly process because somehow the problem cannot be fixed on a local level and these errors continue to happen. This means that important, front-line health care workers are spending their valuable time on correcting billing issues rather than caring for veterans."
Like PVA, DVA conducted their own survey. Atizado explained that 402 members responded. 62% of respondents stated their insurance companies were "billed for their care at the VA," 43% stated they "receive bills for their care from the VA, 55% stated "that their insurance companies are being billed for treatment from VA of a service-connected condtion," and 43% stated that they were "billed for treatment at the VA for a service-connected condtion." He observed, "What is most troubling is the perception these veterans carry about the VA being indiscriminating in their billing and collections and VA being unresponsive when veterans bring their concerns to the local facility for corrective action."
Denise Williams noted the American Legion's long committment to veterans:
Denise Williams: A very notable instance where this was evident was in March 2009 when past national commander David Rehbein met with President Obama and learned that the administration planned to move forward on a proposal to charge veterans with private insurance for the treatment of service-connected injuries and illnesses at VA facilities. Under the proposed change, VA would bill the veterans' private insurance company for treatment of their service-connected disabilities. After fierce opposition from the American Legion and other veterans' service organizations, the administration dropped their plan to bill private insurance companies for treatment of service-connected medical conditions.
US House Rep Glen Nye observed, "First of all I'd just like to I want to say I appreciate Mr. Brown, the Rankig Member's comments, when he mentioned something that a number of our panelists also mentioned about the notion that the administration was kicking around earlier in the year about potentially charging veterans' private-insurance for service-connected injuries. And I want to say I was also proud to be part of that bi-partisan effort to raise the issue quickly -- along with our VSOs -- to the White House and fortunately we were able to resolve that and get that taken off the table early."
In her written opening remarks (but not in the opening remarks she delivered), Williams also noted the American Legion haa recently documented ten cases "where VA erroneaously billed service-connected veterans' private insurances for their service-connected medical care. In one case, a veteran passed away in the Tampa VA Medical Center, November 27, 2009. He was 100% service-conected for several conditions, and was also a military retiree enrolled in TRICARE for Life."
Nye asked the panel the typical amount of time their members state it takes to resolve the billing issues.
Fred Cowell: In my personal experience, I generally receive a VA billing statement three or four months from the actual date of treatment. At that point, I have to go through the bill match it -- I have learned over time to match it to a home calendar that I keep so I can track actual visit dates from my home calendars. If I notice more than one billing in that particular month, generally I get a single visit in a month from my home care nurse. Sometimes I'm bill as often as three or four times in that month for that single service. I then have to wait for the following visit which is the following month to talk with her about the issue. She checks her calendar, verifies that there is erroneous billing going on and then she goes back to the DC hospital and contacts the social worker on that team who then reviews the chart and they go up to the business office. So sometimes it can take six to eight months to get a correction for a billing error. And most months, there's more than one billing error on my -- on my statement. And we're hearing the same thing from veterans across the country, PVA members, that it takes six to eight months if they even know that there's a billing error to get it corrected.
US House Rep Glen Nye: Did you say that most months there's a billing error on your statements?
Fred Cowell: That's correct.
US House Rep Glen Nye: Alright, thank you. Mr. Atizado?
Adrian Atizado: Thank you for that question. The veterans that I ended up calling from our survey who said -- who said it was -- that it was okay for us to contact them, the reasons -- or the time runs the gamut from having it corrected within a few weeks to not being corrected at all -- to being corrected for one bill and having a recurring bill, I should say recurring inappropriate bill happen the following treatment episode or the following month. So I can certainly tell you that there's no consistency in the corrective actions. There just isn't. Some veterans have given up, some veterans will pay and some veterans will hold themselves in debt and end up having an offset put on either their compensation or their pension despite the fact that that's an inappropriate bill.
US House Rep Glen Nye: Okay, thank you. Ms. Williams?
Denise Williams: Mr. Chairman, I believe it varies based on the case. But those ten cases that we compiled in April, one of our assistant directors did follow up with the veterans and I believe there were some cases that were not resolved. And this was last week. I must say that our executive director did meet with our VA liason last week and I believe that they are working on resolving those cases so it does vary. We don't have an exact time for when they're resolved but there's still some cases out there that has not been rectified.
Kay L. Daly read her lengthy prepared remarks about . . . a 2008 GAO study. I have no idea why the members were polite and sat through that. That study's been gone over before and, check the calendar, it's 2009 -- almost 2010 (and it is fiscal year 2010). When asked questions, she repeatedly stated something was beyond her scope or she did not know but would get back to the committee. Apparently dusting off a year-old GAO report already discussed at length with Congress was all the time she had for homework and preparation. Not surprisingly, the committee didn't keep her around for long and moved on to the third panel.
Subcommittee Chair Michael Michaud: I appreciate what VA is trying to do to solve this problem; however, as you heard from the first panel, there seems to be a disconnect when you're looking at billing for service-connected disability. That's a big concern I have because, at the beginning of the year, we heard through the grapevine that this adminstration was going to go after third party collections for service-connected disability. So I'm wondering whether or not there is someone in the VA who believes that is still a good policy? And, even though they're not supposed to, that they're doing it? Unfortunately what I think happens sometimes is the veterans who -- there will be veterans who fight it, then there will be veterans who will not fight it and will actually pay and that's the big concern that I have. And I know that the GAO made seven recommendations on how the VA could correct this. Has the VA adopted all seven of those seven recommendations?
Gary Baker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, VA has provided information to GAO. As we mentioned, a meeting was held earlier last week. But we had provided written response some time ago indicating our actions on all seven activities. And we have incorporated their recommendations into our policies and practices, issued new handbooks, new policy guidelines and training and follow-up. If I might address the service-connected issue, it has never been VA's authority to bill for service-connected conditions. While I understand that there was earlier this year some discussion of changing that practice, that was never communicated to our field facilities and providers as a change in policy. And our information systems, as I indicated earlier, automatically exempt service-connected veterans who are [. . .] service-connected from co-pay billing for inpatient and outpatient care and other exemptions as they relate to eligibility. And our providers received no change of instructions in exempting veterans for treatment of their service-connected conditions. In terms of the concerns that were addressed by the first panel, in terms of billing for service-connected conditions, I wouldn't sit here and say that VA is perfect in its billing practices. Certainly there are times when we make errors. And we stand ready and willing to correct those errors. And if there are instances where we're not being timely in terms of follow-up on that, we certainly want to hear about that so that we can improve not only on individual situations but if we have a systemic problem we're more than happy to address that.
Subcommittee Chair Michael Michaud: Do you view improper billing as a problem or do you feel it's just an isolated case from what you heard from the first panel?
Gary Baker: In terms of improper billing? I think VA billed almost 16 million -- or 13 million co-pay bills last year total. I think there's a possibility that VA makes errors in making co-pay bills or in the millions of third-party bills that we make. I don't believe that we have a large-scale, systemic problem in terms of identification of service-connected conditions. But it is related to the frontline provider who delivers service identifying that the care is related or not related to the veterans service-connected condition. We recognize that there can occassionally be errors made in that situation and that there are interpretation issues that can arise [. . .]
"A plan was written, very quickly put together, uh, very short timelines," declared VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to the US House Veterans Affairs Committee yesterday as to why the VA had screwed up the payments for veterans attempting to pursue higher education. "I'm looking at the certificates of eligibility uh being processed on 1 May and enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow through August. A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that, we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it. I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen. Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in place. Uh, to the credit of the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an outside consultant, brought in an independent view, same kind of assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here, this is not possible.' To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they took it on and they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had to train them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not very helpful but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about May that the 530 were probably a little short so we went and hired 230 more people. So in excess of 700 people were trained to use the tools that were coming together even as certificates were being executed. Uhm, we were short on the assumption of how many people it would take." Shinseki admits, for the first damn time, that he knew the Post-9/11 GI Bill would not be ready and had even hired an outside consultant to weigh in. But he never got around to telling Congress until after -- AFTER -- veterans were suffering. And Congress never got around to be offended on behalf of veterans or on behalf of themselves.
US House Rep Corinne Brown was called out in yesterday's snapshot and deserved to be called out a lot worse. Last night, a veteran and veterans' advocate at yesterday hearing shared how disgusted he was with her remarks and asked that I add that Brown spoke as if the GI Bill was "for ex-cons. She spoke about us like we were uneducated felons who'd committed capital murder and should be saying, 'Thank you, VA, for taking pity on our criminal asses'." And he's exactly right. Brown's statements were appalling clueless and shamefully offensive. If you looked around while she was speaking, you could see the veterans and veterans families present just recoil as Brown spoke. She was also of the opinion that Shinseki was doing something wonderful and good and noble.
What world does she live in? Is she not a member of Congress? Senator Jim Webb championed the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as did others but he was a leader. Congress passed it, it became a law. The Secretary of any department following the law is not a gift and it's a damn shame Corrine Brown thought it was. A congressional aide pointed that out today, to give credit where it's due.
After Shinseki volunteered that the VA always, ALWAYS, knew this would happen, the Committee should have exploded with righteous indignation over the fact that (a) this was done to veterans and (b) the VA failed to inform Congress of what they knew. That never happened. The entire hearing was treated like a joke with jokes at the start of it. (See Kat's " House Committee on Veterans Affairs" from last night.) Today Stephanie Herseth Sandlin chaired a Subcommitte hearing on the GI Bill. She and others did a strong job and we'll go over that hearing tomorrow but listening to her and and US House Rep John Adler have to remind the VA that they are supposed to keep Congress informed of any problems -- real or potential -- that may arise or do arise and watching VA's witnesses nod along as if they'd done that was just unbelievable. We'll cover the hearing tomorrow. In part because I'm not in the mood to go into it right now and in part because a friend who was at the hearing wants to share a few thoughts before I write it up.
Today Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's Prime Minister, arrived in Baghdad. The Pakistan Times notes that he met with Nouri al-Maliki whose spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, declared that "about 50 agreements" between Turkey and Iraq "will be signed" during the visit. Pinar Aydinli, Thomas Grove, Ibon Villelabeitia and William Hardy (Reuters) note that chief among the expected agreements is one that would allow for the transporation of "Iraqi natural gas to Europe via Turkey". Hurriyet Daily News adds, "The two nations will also discuss cooperation against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party of PKK, Prime Minister Erdogan said. He urged European countries to do more to combat drug smuggling by the PKK." Today's Zaman hails the meeting as "a giant step forward to boost ties" and notes agreements also cover "sharing water" before adding, "Erdogan's visit to Iraq came just days after Turkey and another southern neighbor, Syria, signed deals to create a similar mechanism of cooperation and formally abolish visa requirements on Tuesday. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who was one of the nine ministers accompanying Erdogan on his Baghdad visit, walked across the border with his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Moallem, in a symbolic move underling the growing cooperation between their countries after signing the agreement to end the visa requirements and create a Turkey-Syria High-Level Strategic Cooperation Council." This comes as Alsumaira reports that Hosheyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, announced today that talks between Iraq and Syria "to solve the security crisis have been halted" and found Zebari again declaring that the United Nations is launching an envoy mission/investigation into the bombings of Black Wednesday/ Bloody Wednesday/ Gory Wednesday. AFP quotes Zebari claiming, "What we agreed in New York, with the UN Secretary General, is the nomination of a UN employee who will make an assessment on foreign intervention in Iraq, and will also investigate the causes and consequences of the crimes of August 19." AFP notes the UN has thus far refused to confirm or deny Zebari's assertion. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Zebari declaring the meetings between Syria and Iraq ended: "After four meetings the government realized that these meetings are pointless and they have not produced any . . . tangible results or any movement." She adds any "investigation into foreign interference in Iraq would also include Iran and other neighbors but the Iraqi government has focused on the suicide truck bombs which Iraq has blamed on Baath Party extremists living in Syria." Strangely for someone claiming that an investigation would take place, Zebari also declared that if there is no special envoy, then his country would take the matter to the UN Security Council. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) notes that Zebari was originally advocating for an international court and the United Nations did not sign off that. Meanwhile AFP reports that Iraq's Parliament announced yesterday the draft election law was being "delayed until next week" with claims that it will be addressed on Monday. UPI and Official Wire report the law will be addressed Saturday. However, Alsumaria reports it will be Monday and reports on the draft law amdendments: According to the amendments, the number of lawmakers would become 311. Elections would be carried out following the province considered as one electoral district. Seats would be proportionate to the number of inhabitants according to ratio cards' statistics. The pending issue of the open list brought up several views. The first view: Candidacy would follow the open list system. Voters may vote to the whole entity slate, to one of the candidates on the list or to an individual candidate. The second view: Candidacy would follow the open list system with a maximum of three candidates who should not exceed the double number of seats allocated for the electoral district. Voters may vote to the whole entity slate, to one of the candidates on the list or to an individual candidate. The third view: Candidacy would follow the open list system with a maximum of three candidates who should not exceed the double number of seats allocated for the electoral district. Voters may vote to the whole entity slate, to at least three candidates on the list or to an individual candidate. NPR's Quil Lawrence (Morning Edition -- link has text and audio) reports, "Parliament is now expecting to vote on the election law this Sunday, but that may again be delayed. If Iraq does not carry out elections by January, it will raise serious questions about the government's legitimacy." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 person and left three more wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which injured four police officers, a Mosul bicycle bombing injured three people and, dropping back to last night, a Toz Khurmatu sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 "Kurdish security member" and left his wife and their two children wounded. Reuters notes 2 Mosul roadside bombing which resulted in the death of 1 police officer (four people left injured) and the other injured one person. Lin Zhi (Xinhua) notes a Saadiyah roadside bombing which left an Iraqi officer and an Iraqi soldier injured, a Baladruz roadside bombing that left three Iraqi soldiers injured "when a roadside bomb hit their vehicle" and a Baquba bombing near a home which injured two people.
Reuters notes 1 journalist was injured in a Ramadi attack yesterday.
Turning to the US, September 16, 2007, Blackwater shot up Baghdad. The death toll was at least 14. The press reaction was to undercount and to make jokes. No, Gwen Ifill, it is not and never will be forgotten. Pretrial hearings are taking place in DC; however, the press has been blocked from attending. Del Quentin Wilber (Washington Post) reports US District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina has shut the press and the public out of the pre-trial hearings and the judge asserts he is doing so to guarantee a fair trial: In a letter Tuesday, The Post asked Urbina to reconsider. Post attorney James McLaughlin said the court should have put the proceedings on the open docket and given the public an earlier chance to challenge the basis for the closure of the hearing. He said concerns about the impact of pretrial publicity were "highly speculative" unless supported by factual findings in open court. Urbina denied The Post's request. He said the rights of the five guards to a fair trial outweighed the public's interest in attending the proceedings. He said he was concerned about how news accounts of the statements might affect witnesses, some as far away as Baghdad. Meanwhile Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) reports that the Parliament did manage to push through the legislation necessary to get 100 British soldiers back in Iraq to "protect its vital southern oil export terminals." They did that yesterday and Watkins doesn't find the offense in it. Foreign troops in Iraq are supposedly there for 'safety' but Watkins has just revealed British troops are being brought back in to protect the oil. Nouri sure is lucky he doesn't have to foot that bill too, isn't he? British soldiers? Less lucky. Mehdi Hasan (New Statesman) covers the Iraq inquiry in England. So British troops can be used to protect Iraqi oil -- their lives are judged that unimportant by the UK and corporations. In the US? Adam Lichtenheld and Ron Moore's " No Contractor Left Behind Part IV: Congress's Powerless Probe" ( DC Bureau): After a flurry of Pentagon contracting scandals involving KBR went unaddressed by Republican lawmakers under the Bush administration, Democrats ran on promises of "real and serious" oversight in their successful 2006 campaign to win back Congress.
But American soldiers poisoned by KBR in Iraq six years ago have found weak refuge on Capitol Hill. Democratic leaders have left the Qarmat Ali probe to a lone senator, Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and a largely powerless Congressional panel, the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC). Having traditionally operated as a partisan support forum, the DPC lacks the capabilities to ensure accountability for the sick veterans of Qarmat Ali -- who have struggled to afford costly medical treatments while the company that endangered them continues to reap millions of dollars in windfall profits.
It was Sen. Dorgan, the DPC's chairman, who first uncovered the Qarmat Ali incident and brought it to Congress last year. Since then, the Senate committee charged with direct oversight of the U.S. military -- the powerful and highly influential Armed Services Committee -- has largely stayed silent. When DCBureau called Armed Services chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), spokesman Bryan Thomas declined comment.
"I've tried to do as much as I can with the limited capacity I have," Dorgan said. "It just begs for investigation."
The Democratic Policy Committee issued the following: (WASHINGTON , D.C. ) --- The U.S. Army is ramping up its response to the exposure of U.S. troops in Iraq to the deadly chemical sodium dichromate, U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said Friday. He said it has also doubled the Army estimate of the number of U.S. troops who may have been exposed to the cancer-causing chemical from 347 to more than 1,164. Department of Veterans Affairs is also stepping up its effort to respond to the exposures to better monitor and treat exposed soldiers. "These are significant breakthroughs," Dorgan said Friday. "Lives will be saved because of these actions." As Chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee (DPC), Dorgan chaired hearings on the exposure, and the Army's response in June 2008 and August 2009. Multiple failures by the contractor, KBR, were revealed at the 2008 hearing. The hearing in August focused on the Army's response to the exposure and its failure to adequately monitor, test, and notify soldiers who may have been exposed of the health risks they may now face. Dorgan has been pushing the Army, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch a more vigorous effort to reach, warn, monitor and treat soldiers who may have been exposed to the chemical at the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility in 2003. Dorgan released a letter Friday from Army Secretary Pete Geren who said the Army is now working to track down and notify all 1,164 exposed soldiers to alert them to the health risk they now face. Geren told Dorgan the Army is now working more closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that VA health professionals know to be looking for sodium dichromate exposure symptoms and how to treat them. Dorgan also released a letter from Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Eric Shinseki informing him that the VA is stepping up its response to the exposure. Shinseki wrote that the VA is now offering veterans who were at the site free medical monitoring and treatment. Previously, soldiers exhibiting symptoms consistent with sodium dichromate had to prove their conditions were service connected. That burden of proof, which the VA has lifted,often delayed or prevented treatment for illnesses for which prompt and urgent treatment often means the difference between life and death. National Guard troops from West Virginia , Oregon , South Carolina , Indiana and members of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division were among those at the Qarmat Ali site who were exposed to the deadly chemical.
Posted at 09:11 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
Oct 14, 2009
before there was gordo, there was tony
The
Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war has appointed one of the most
renowned experts on international law as an adviser, in what is viewed
as an indication that the Blair government's legal justification for
the invasion is to come under serious scrutiny.
Dame Rosalyn
Higgins, who was the most senior female judge in the world when she was
the president of the International Court of Justice, will advise the
panel on legal issues as well as the wider investigation.that is from kim sengupta's ' Chilcot inquiry may consider legality of Iraq war'
(independent of london). i don't know if it's true or not, but good.
tony blair and others need to be held accountability. and even if
chilcot doesn't intend to do that, putting it out there will help cause
others to demand accountability. jim holstun reflects on tony's current misdeeds:
In
short, Blair guides us gently away from the fussy, contentious,
legalistic and impractical world of international law, which makes us
throw our hands up in the air, Rashomon-style, and toward that warm and
empathetic place where we feel each other's pain. This empathetic pain
seems to be quite distinct from and finer than the everyday pain
experienced by mere Palestinians in Gaza, as they bleed and die in
particular places. In the classic mode of conservative ideologists,
Blair insists that, if we ever hope to change social institutions, we
must first change the human heart.
For all its faults, the
Goldstone report never descends to this sort of vacuous moral idiocy.
It combines an analysis of massive violations of international law with
a chronicle of the human pain those violations have caused: the
suffering of people in Gaza crushed in their homes beneath debris
(239), wounded and denied medical care (232-33, 377), shot down while
waving white flags (199-203), seared by white phosphorus (533), and
left to sicken and die in a state of permanent siege (9-10, 22-25,
95-100, 335-71). And the ongoing reality of war crimes arising from an
illegal military occupation pervades the report.
But of course,
this is Tony Blair, so there's a cheery upside to things, too, thanks
to the Palestinian Authority's neoliberal development projects and its
West Bank security gang: "And just to tell you some good news out of
Israel and Palestine this week. ... When I first became the Envoy ... I
couldn't have gone to a city like Jenin or Nablus on the West Bank.
Today, I go to Jenin or Nablus, where they opened a hotel in Nablus
just the other day. I go to places like Qalqilyah, I go to Hebron, I go
to Jericho, Ramallah obviously. In other words, I can go around the
West Bank."for those tony blair fans, both of you, you can read irwin stelzer's insane defense of tony - where else - at the guardian. but ask yourself why a right-wing american is writing for the guardian to begin with? let's close with c.i.'s ' Iraq snapshot:' October
14, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Congress hears from VA Secretary
Eric Shinseki who explains that the VA always knew the Post-9/11 GI
Bill would be 'problematic,' three senators stand up for a family who's
loved one died serving in Iraq, and more. Today
Veterans Affaris Secretary Eric Shinseki appeared before the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs for a hearing entitled "Update of the
State of the VA." Shinseki was the only witness appearing before the
committee. Ranking Member Steve Buyer made an idiot out of himself repeatedly. Kat
will be grabbing most of that at her site tonight (and I agree with her
100%) but to claim, as Buyer did, that Congress is responsible or
equally responsible for the VA backlog on the Post-9/11 GI Bill is
beyond uninformed. It goes to Buyer not paying attention to what
Congress did do. We'll address that tomorrow when the Committee hears
about the VA backlog on education benefits but the fault lies with the
VA and that was clear to anyone attending hearings over the summer.
Buyer apparently has no long term memory. He can take comfort in the
fact that the press was snoozing as well. But the VA was offered
additional help and the VA turned it down. June 25th,
US House Rep Harry Teague chaired the US House Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (filling in for US House Rep
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin). He and Ranking Member Boozman noted the VA
needed to step forward immediately if there were any problems with the
Post-9/11 GI Bill with Boozman especially stressing that if problems
came up, let the committee know immediately so they can assist. July 29th Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing
found Senator Jon Tester suggesting that -- due to the VA's huge
backlog on claims -- the VA might need to add some employees. The VA's
Patrick Dunne insisted more employees weren't needed and that they
would mean more administrative duties which would cause even more
delays. This was echoed by the GAO's Danile Bertoni who 'said', "We
have reported that an infusion of a large number of staff has the
potential to improve VA's capacity. However, quickly absorbing these
staff will likely pose human capital challenges for VA, such as how to
train and deploy them. The additional staff has helped VA process more
claims and appeals overall, but as VA has acknowledged, it has also
reduced individual staff productivity. . . . According to VA, this
decline in productivity is attributable primarily to new staff who have
not yet become fully proficient at processing claims and to the loss of
experienced staff due to retirements. VA expects its productivity to
decline further before it improves, in part because of the challenges
of training and integrating new staff." "Said"? It's part of his prepared statement but his time ran out before he completed reading it. It is part of the record. And
Buyer and the press should be familiar with and Shinseki should have
been asked about this. Did the VA refuse to ask for the help they
needed? Maybe the question will come up tomorrow when a hearing on the
Post-9/11 GI Bill is held? Reading a statement
today at the start of the hearing, different from the prepared one,
Shinseki did note, briefly, the problems with the education bill. Eric
Shinseki: Complications in implementing the Post-9/11 GI Bill required
VA to make advance payments to effected veterans to cover their
expenses and to relieve their uncertainty and stress. There are many
reasons for those complications but the delays were unacceptable.
Advance payments remain in effect -- that's the emergency procedure we
put in place two weeks ago. Advance payments remain in effect as we
mature our IT tools to assure timely delivery of checks in the future.
And I'm hopeful that early November, we'll have the Phase III automated
tool for our use. IT? The VA's had a
lot of IT problems. Equally true is that the VA attempted to blame
colleges for the delay. Or are we all supposed to forget that? Now
Congress is told that it was an IT problem? Buyer
wasn't the only one looking foolish, US House Rep Corrine Brown,
informing that she was "watching television" yesterday morning,
insisted that the media had it wrong and the delays in veterans
receiving their checks wasn't the VA's fault it was the institutions
who weren't verifying adds and drops for their colleges. Brown doesn't
know what she's talking about. She then wanted a response from
Shinseki. Chair Bob Filner attempted to move on and she stopped him
asking if she could get a response? Shinseki
avoided it. Brown couldn't take a hint so she brought it up again, "Can
you discuss the VA's wonderful program that we're having some
challenges with? But it's a win-win for the veterans, you know the
community, especially with these hard times, the opportunity to go back
to school and retrain is a win-win." Does she grasp how uninformed
and/or insulting she sounds? You have veterans across the country who
have still not received payment. Some of them are single-parents.
Several are single mothers with small children and the press has
covered this and covered how they are taking out loans as they wait for
the VA to get it together, how they fear they may end up homeless. Is
Corrine Brown that out of touch? She waited for Shinseki to back her up. He didn't. Eric
Shinseki: I've-I've-I've been very clear about how important this is.
Not just to the VA but to me personally. Uh, it is, uh, a you know an
aspect of myself coming back although not in a program like this.
Coming back from Vietnam and having the opportunity to go back and do
graduate schooling, I understand the importance of this program. But
it's even more important to the country. The potential that will come
out of this -- we go back and look at what came after WWII, what that
country provided to our country in terms of leadership for the second
half of the 20th century, that's what we're about to realize here. And
the VA has an important role to make sure this happens. As he continued to speak, he said a number of things that should have been red flags. Erick
Shinseki: A plan was written, very quickly put together, uh, very short
timelines, I'm looking at the certifcates of elegibility uh being
processed on 1 May and enrollments 6 July, checks having to flow
through August. A very compressed timeframe. And in order to do that,
we essentially began as I arrived in January, uh, putting together the
plan -- reviewing the plan that was there and trying to validate it.
I'll be frank, when I arrived, uh, there were a number of people
telling me this was simply not executable. It wasn't going to happen.
Three August was going to be here before we could have everything in
place. Uh, to the credit of the folks in uh VA, I, uh, I consulted an
outside consulatant, brought in an independent view, same kind of
assessment. 'Unless you do some big things here, this is not possible.'
To the credit of the folks, the good folks in VBA, they took it on and
they went at it hard. We hired 530 people to do this and had to train
them. We had a manual system that was computer assisted. Not very
helpful but that's what they inherited. And we realized in about May
that the 530 were probably a little short so we went and hired 230 more
people. So in excess of 700 people were trained to use the tools that
were coming together even as certificates were being executed. Uhm, we
were short on the assumption of how many people it would take. We based
our numbers on the Montgomery GI Bill which is about a 15 minute
procedure. The uh chapter thirty-three procedures about an hour on
average, maybe an hour and 15 minutes. So right off the bat, we had
some issues with assumptions. Uh, we are still receiving certificates
of enrollment. This week alone, we received 36,000 certificates of
enrollment coming from schools who are working through the process and
we put them into the execute of providing those checks -- three checks. Shinskeki
wasn't honest. The 36,000 certificates this week alone? These are not
36,000 new certificates. I asked a friend at the VA and these include a
large number of schools refiling in an attempt to help the veterans who
are waiting. Each week, some schools are refiling certifications
because their students still do not have funding. In addition, there is
late enrollment and some of the forms being processed are late
enrollments. As for the employees, Shinseki
made a big to do about grasping 530 wasn't enough employees (as claims
examiners) so, apparently quickly, 230 more were hired and trained.
Quickly? No. June 25th, VA's Director from the Office of Education
Service, Keith Wilson, was stating that they expected to have those 230
"on board by August 31, 2009." Shinseki
testified he was told it wasn't possible by the VA and by some outside
contractor. I'm sorry, I've attended all the Congressional committee
and subcommittee hearings on the Post-9/11 GI Bill and never once did
the VA express that to the Congress. Never once did they say, "We won't
be able to do it." They stated they were on track repeatedly. They were
asked if they were worried about a crunch as deadlines for fall
enrollment approached, they never blinked an eyelash, they never raised
a concern. Now, after the system falls down in front of the whole
country, Shinseki wants to say, 'Oh, we knew back when I started as VA
Secretary that it wasn't going to go smoothly.' At what point in the
'planning' did the VA expect to inform of Congress of that? This
add and drop crap? It's getting real old and it's amazing that the VA
attempted to lie (and got away with it) when the problem emerged. They
blamed the colleges. Shinseki himself blamed the colleges and said that
it was an add and drop issue. Did no one ever think to ask about the
first checks issued? If you issue a check before the semester even
starts, you're not waiting for adds and drops. Did no one grasp that
this took place? Did everyone sleep through testimony over the summer
when the VA was bragging about how many they had already processed --
before any semester even began? "But again, we
adjusted to the assumptions that didn't bear out and we'll make
adjustments in the future," Shinseki declared. Where in that statement
do you find "It's the fault of the colleges!"? Only Corrine Brown,
watching television at five in the morning, and not liking what she
sees, can see that. John Boozman also rushed to
excuse the VA. He's a Republican and, as a result, I may not expect him
to be reality based but even he did come off as nutty as Corrine Brown.
But this idea that the VA is not responsible for the current mess goes
to the Culture of No Accountability in DC. The VA didn't just issue the
checks (or not issue them), it also designed the entire system.
Columbia in New York, UCLA, etc did not design the VA's programs. If
there were problems in the system designed by the VA then that falls
back on the VA and there needs to be accountability. There
is none. Despite Shinseki's claim at the hearing that "accountability
does count with me." Shinseki admits before Congress that he knew,
stepping in as Secretary, that the program wouldn't work as it was
being presented. He admits that today. The Congress should have been
informed of that long ago. And a Committee less concerned with fawning
over a former general and more concerned with serving veterans would
have raised the issues noted here. In other testimony, Shinseki stated
that he had heard the stories about women arriving for VA appointments
and being turned away because they had brought their children: "I know
there were a couple of anecdotal incidents in where -- in which women
veterans reported not being able to keep their appointments because
they showed up with children and I can assure the chairman that
guidance has gone out, correct any of that. Uh, women veterans showing
up with children will be seen. With the exceptions that uh would make
sense here and the exceptions being those settings uh in ICU or mental
health where uh it would not be good to have children in that
environment. We would find other ways to take-take the child and care
for it. But right-right now the authorities are not within the
department to be able to provide child care on our own and this may be
one of those things that we uh have a discussion with the chairman and
the committee on how we might look for some help here." Meanwhile Al Jazeera notes, " At
least 85,000 people have been killed in Iraq by bombs, murders and
fighting from 2004 until 2008, Iraq's human rights ministry says." Really? Because Betty noted Aadel Rashid's " Finding
Husbands for Iraq's Widows: As Some Iraqis Embrace the Program, Others
Say Efforts to Help Widows Remarry Is Exploitative" (ABC News) last
night and, as Betty pointed out, "The article tells us that Women and
Child Committee head Samira al Musawi states Iraq saw more than 1
million women become widows since 2005. " Widows. To be a widow, your
spouse has to die. So that would mean 1 million men have died since
2005. Which ministry is telling the truth? Or did 925,000 Iraqi males
die since 2005 of natural causes? That would be a staggering number in
a country's whose population is less than 26 million. Reuters notes the first count here. BBC News adds, "The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Baghdad says the numbers may be staggering but they are relatively conservative." Violence continued in Iraq today and some tried to mask it. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
an attack mortars, gunfire and grenades on one Baghdad neighbourhood
today was, according to the Defense Ministry's spokesmodel Mohammed al
Askari, was "a normal one that could happen in any country." Right. I
believe just yesterday, downtown Dulith was shelled with mortars,
suffered gunfire and grenades. Hammoudi quotes cosmetic shop owner
Maitham Abu Zahra stating, "I was in my shop when I heard the sound of
the explosion. It was very loud sound followed by white smoke (that)
covered market." Nada Bakri (Washington Post) notes
8 dead and nine injured, "A checkpoint was a few miles away, and many
residents said they believed soldiers there had allowed the assailants
to pass unhindered." Timothy Williams and Anwar J. Ali (New York Times) add 7 of the sodliers "assigned to the market" have been arrested. In other reported violence? Bombings? Shootings? CNN reports fears abound that if an election law is not passed quickly, there may not be national elections in January. Gina Chon ( Wall St. Journal) has repeatedly reminded that the Parliament has until Thursday to pass the legislation ( here and here
for Chon's report). Now let's repeat, these elections were supposed to
take place in December. US President Barack Obama has used these
elections as his 'excuse' for breaking his campaign promise of US
troops out of Iraq in ten months (sixteen on the campaign trail until
Feb. 2008 when he dropped it down to ten). And there's no law passed. Dow Jones notes that Nouri's cabinet did ratify the 2010 budget -- $67.29 billion. Reuters explains
that they came close to making the budget . . . sort of. Iraq's set the
budget at $67.29 billion even though that means a $15.3 billion budget
deficit. Remember that when the US Congress talks about loaning money
to Iraq. (The US needs to make reparations for the Iraq War.
Reparations do not need to be made to a puppet government that does
nothing for the people.) The US Congress might give Iraq money but if
they loan it, don't pretend like (a) Congress knows what they're doing
or (b) there's any chance Iraq will ever repay their debt. (Ask Kuwait.) NPR's Quil Lawrence (Morning Edition -- link has text and audio) reports that
as Iraqi children return to school, "[m]any of Iraq's schools lack
electricity and running water, but they will be getting something new
this year: a history book that reflects the enormous changes the
country has been through and includes historical events that were once
forbidden topics." Quil leaves out what Xinhua and others have been
reporting since school started: Overcrowding, lack of desks, lack of
supplies, etc. A modern history book? How about a modern school? While
he can't appear to address anything, let alone fix it, to improve the
quality of life for Iraqis, Nouri al-Maliki isn't sitting around doing
nothing. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports
Nouri "suspended classes and banned political activities at"
Mustraniriyah University and "banned the student union" on campus.
Never forget all the blood that was spilled -- Iraqi and foreign -- for
the US to install a thug with hopes of becoming the new Saddam. In England, Stephen Adams (Telegraph of London) reports,
"Parents of soldiers who died in Iraq have accused [former British
Prime Minister] Tony Blair of lying to Britain over the decision to
invade in 2003 and one said she wanted him indicted as a 'war
criminal', in an emotional first day of the Iraq Inquiry." Caroline Davies (Guardian) adds
that "it became clear that most, if not all, fingers were pointing to
one man -- the former prime minister Tony Blair. And the clapping
erupted. They had found a common voice -- and it was demanding
'accountability'." Meanwhile the Brussels Tribunal released the following last week: FOR JUSTICE FOR IRAQ:
LEGAL CASE FILED AGAINST
FOUR US PRESIDENTS
AND FOUR UK PRIME MINISTERS
FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
AND GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
For immediate release
[Spanish] - [Arabic]
Date: 7 October 2009
MADRID:
Today the Spanish Senate, acting to confirm a decision already taken
under pressure from powerful governments accused of grave crimes, will
limit Spain's laws of universal jurisdiction. Yesterday, ahead of the
change of law, a legal case was filed at the Audiencia Nacional against
four United States presidents and four United Kingdom prime ministers
for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes,
crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq.
This case,
naming George H W Bush, William J Clinton, George W Bush, Barack H
Obama, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown,
is brought by Iraqis and others who stand in solidarity with the Iraqi
people and in defence of their rights and international law.
Iraq: 19 years of intended destruction
The
intended destruction -- or genocide -- of Iraq as a state and nation
has been ongoing for 19 years, combining the imposition of the most
draconian sanctions regime ever designed and that led to 1.5 million
Iraqi deaths, including 500,000 children, with a war of aggression that
led to the violent deaths of over one million more.
Destroying
Iraq included the purposeful targeting of its water and sanitation
system, attacking the health of the civilian population. Since 1990,
thousands of tons of depleted uranium have been dropped on Iraq,
leading in some places to a 600 per cent rise in cancer and leukaemia
cases, especially among children. In both the first Gulf War and "Shock
and Awe" in 2003, an air campaign that openly threatened "total
destruction", waves of disproportionate bombing made no distinction
between military and civilian targets, with schools, hospitals,
mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, and historical sites
all destroyed.
Destroying Iraq included promoting, funding and
organizing sectarian and ethnic groups bent on dividing Iraq into three
or more sectarian or ethnic entities, backed by armed militias that
would terrorize the Iraqi people. Since 2003, some 4.7 million Iraqis
-- one fifth of the population -- have been forcibly displaced. Under
occupation, kidnappings, killings, extortion and mutilation became
endemic, targeting men, women and even children and the elderly.
Destroying
Iraq included purposefully dismantling the state by refusing to stop or
stem or by instigating mass looting, and by engaging in ideological
persecution, entailing "manhunting", extrajudicial assassinations, mass
imprisonment and torture, of Baathists, the entire educated class of
the state apparatus, religious and linguistic minorities and Arab
Sunnis, resulting in the total collapse of all public services and
other economic functions and promoting civil strife and systematic
corruption.
In parallel, Iraq's rich heritage and unique cultural and archaeological patrimony has been wantonly destroyed.
In
order to render Iraq dependent on US and UK strategic designs,
successive US and UK governments have attempted to partition Iraq and
to establish by military force a pro-occupation Iraqi government and
political system. They have promoted and engaged in the massive plunder
of Iraqi natural resources, attempting to privatize this property and
wealth of the Iraqi nation.
Humanity at stake
This
is but the barest summary of the horrors Iraq has endured, based on
lies that nobody but cowed governments and complicit media believed. In
2003, millions worldwide were mobilized in opposition to US/UK plans.
In going ahead, the US and UK launched an illegal war of aggression.
Accountability has not been established.
The persons named in
this case have each played a key role in Iraq's intended destruction.
They instigated, supported, condoned, rationalized, executed and/or
perpetuated or excused this destruction based on lies and narrow
strategic and economic interests, and against the will of their own
people. Allowing those responsible to escape accountability means such
actions could be repeated elsewhere.
It is imperative now to
establish accountability for US and UK war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide in Iraq because:
Every Iraqi victim deserves justice.
Everyone responsible should be accountable.
We
are before immoral and unlawful acts, contrary to the basis on which
the international order of state sovereignty and peace and security
rests. Whereas the official international justice system is closed
before the suffering of those that imperialism makes a target, through
this case we try to open a channel whereby the conscience of humanity
can express its solidarity with justice for victims of imperial crimes.
Ad Hoc Committee For Justice For Iraq
Press contacts:
Hana Al Bayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal
+34 657 52 70 77 or +20 10 027 7964 (English and French) hanaalbayaty@gmail.com
Dr
Ian Douglas, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal, coordinator,
International Initiative to Prosecute US Genocide in Iraq
+20 12 167 1660 (English) iandouglas@USgenocide.org
Amanda Nuredin, +34 657 52 70 77 (Spanish) justiciaparairak@gmail.com
Abdul Ilah Albayaty, Executive Committee, BRussells Tribunal
+33 471 461 197 (Arabic) albayaty_abdul@hotmail.com
Web:
www.brusselstribunal.org
www.USgenocide.org
www.twitter.com/USgenocide
www.facebook.com/USgenocide Turning
to the US where an woman whose husband was killed serving in the Iraq
War may have some good news for herself and their son. Dropping back to
the September 25th snapshot, "While some veterans go homeless, efforts are made to deport the spouses of some deceased veterans. Most recently, the September 17th snapshot, we noted Kristin M. Hall (AP) report
Hotaru Ferschke, a military widow. Her husband, Sgt. Michael Ferschke,
died serving in Iraq August 10, 2008. They had tried to have children
for some time and when they learned she was pregnant, he was already in
Iraq so they got married by proxy and the US military recognizes the
marriage but the US Immigration and Naturalization Service plays dumb.
She and their son Michael "Mikey" Ferschke III, are now facing
deportation. INS is stating that the proxy marriage could be a fake
because it wasn't consumated. Consumated? He remained in Iraq and
they're not counting their long relationship prior to the proxy
marriage. Her mother-in-law, Robin Ferschke told Hall, 'She's like my
daughter. I know my child chose the perfect wife and mother of his
child'." Senator
Jim Webb (D-VA) today introduced legislation to recognize the marriage
of fallen U.S. Marine Sgt. Michael Ferschke and his Japanese wife who
were married by proxy while Sgt. Ferschke was deployed in Iraq. The
Ferschkes' marriage is formally recognized by the military but not the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- leaving the immigration status
of Mrs. Ferschke in jeopardy. Michael
Ferschke and Hotaru Nakama were married by telephone on July 10, 2008,
three months after the couple learned they were having a child. Sgt.
Ferschke was killed in combat one month later. The couple's marriage is
not recognized by DHS because it was never consummated as dictated by
an outdated 1952 immigration law passed during the Korean War. Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee joined Senator Webb in cosponsoring the legislation. "Every
now and then, there comes an issue that tells us a lot about who we
are, and how we live up to our promised, great and small," said Senator
Webb today in a speech on the Senate floor. "And particularly the
promises we make to those who step forward and place their lives on the
line in order to carry out the policies that we create." Senator
Webb's bill would allow Mrs. Hotaru Ferschke, who is currently here
under a tourist visa, permanent residency in the U.S., a right granted
to all military widows. Mrs. Ferschke and their 8-month-old son,
Michael "Mikey" Ferschke III, are currently staying at the Tennessee
home of Sgt. Ferschke's parents surrounded by photos and memories of
the father Mikey will never meet. The
targeted legislation will have no impact on broader immigration
policies. It will allow immigration authorities to recognize the
Ferschkes' lawful marriage and, according to Senator Webb: "right a
wrong for a Marine's family who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his
country." Travis J. Tritten (Stars and Stripes) reports that the bill was introduced in the Senate today. We'll close with this from World Can't Wait's "'The US Military is Out There Spreading Death Right Now':"Death,
rather than nation building -- that is what the US army has brought to
Iraq and is bringing to Afghanistan according to former US army
sergeant and anti-war activist Matthis Chiroux. He shared his views with RT. For
some, Matthis Chiroux is a hero. Others label him a US traitor. The
25-year-old is an army sergeant-turned-war-resistor, and one of roughly
8,000 US soldiers who have reportedly deserted the army since 2003. He
accuses the US military of having become a corrupt institution built
upon spreading death as a response to nations' problems by means of
conducting illegal wars. "One
hundred per cent, Afghanistan war is absolutely an illegal war under
the same conventions that Iraq was an illegal war," Chiroux says."They
are virtually the same thing," he continues. "They are both experiments
in going in, smashing the country and trying to rebuild it in our own
image as a trading partner. They are both about resources. They are
both defined as illegal wars of aggression by the UN Charter -- that's
something people don't understand."Speaking
of President Obama's decision to deploy even more troops in
Afghanistan, the activist has said that "more troops in an illegal war
aren't going to somehow make it inherently right or even winnable."
Posted at 08:06 pm by politicsscree
Permalink
|
|
|
Facebook
Myspace
iTunes
Amazon
Official Site
