No other views were permitted and Judy Woodruff knew nothing about the topic as evidenced by her refusal to push back on his claims.
It wasn't reporting, it was pure propaganda. I was too tired to write about that last night but Ann was ticked off by something similar and is blogging about it today so I thought I'd toss that out there. Be sure to read Ann tonight.
Nikita quickly. It airs on the CW. Friday nights.
On the latest episode, they were trying to cut off Percy's funding and using the bank accounts that Percy gave Alex access to back when he was a prisoner at Division.
So they needed to find out where they were and how much. So Alex went into the bank as herself and Michael and Nikita came in as bank robbers, that gave Alex time to search the bank's computer and to attach a flash drive to it. They got their info.
Now they needed to meet with the guy representing Percy's funds. They needed money for that. Berkoff (computer guy) has 20 million. What? He stole that over the years. So they need to use that Nikita insists. He finally gives.
They lose the money because Percy orders a strike on the man while they're their. Nikita gets shot (she's fine) and Berkoff's furious about many things including losing 20 mil. He storms off with his laptop, goes into a coffee shop and begins to steal money online only to have the police surround the coffee shop and arrest him.
While Alex and Michael try to get money back -- there are three trucks leaving -- one has the money, Nikita rescues Berkoff. The two make up and all is fine for them after a big gun battle with Division. But Alex and Michael aren't successful in getting back the money.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday,
May 1, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, talk of Iraq splitting into
three regions, whispers of Iran's control of Iraq, Kuwait wants Iraq to
pay a bill in full, the western press embarrasses itself again on the
monthly count, Barack 'proudly' sneaks into Afghanistan, a US veteran
wrongly fired wins in court, and more.
Starting in the US with a jury verdict. Levi Pulkkinen (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) reports
a federal Jury in Seattle has returned a verdict "late Monday" which
found Catholic Community Services wrongly terminated Grace Campbell's
employment upon learning that the Washington National Guard sergeant had
been ordered to deploy to Iraq. It is against the law to fire someone
because they are being deployed or will be deployed. The Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is among the legislation
that forbids this. However, at a February 2nd House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee hearing,
many witnesses and House members seemed unaware of this fact. There
was talk of the need for a law. No, there is only the need for
education of that law and enforcing that law is the quickest way in the
world to educate employers about it. They start having to pay hefty
fines, they'll suddenly learn that law.
Gordon Thomas Honeywell LLP represented Grace Campbell and they've released the following statement:
A federal jury today in Seattle awarded $485,000 to Washington National Guard Sergeant Grace Campbell and found that her employer had engaged in willful discrimination and harassment based on her military service. In 2008, Sergeant Campbell's
civilian employer Catholic Community Services fired her from her
position of ten years when it learned that she was set to deploy for
active service in Iraq. After her termination, Sergeant Campbell served in Iraq from October 2008 to August 2009, returning home to the Everett area without civilian work.
Catholic
Community Services' hostile treatment of Campbell began in 2006 after
she returned from active duty at the U.S. Mexican border. During
Campbell's activation, her position with CCS was left unstaffed.
Campbell's manager and her co-workers resented Campbell's absence and
the increased workload. Upon her return, Campbell's manager and
co-workers began a systematic campaign of harassment and discrimination
that included threats by Campbell's manager to fire Campbell if it was
learned that she had volunteered for duty.
Campbell
complained repeatedly to multiple levels of management at Catholic
Community Services about the discrimination, but it continued unchecked.
In an effort to find relief, Campbell made a complaint to the Employer
Support for Guard and Reserve (ESGR), the Department of Defense national
committee tasked with providing support to the Guard and Reserve in
their civilian employment. In December of 2006, a retired Naval Reserve
Commander with ESGR met with Campbell's managers in an attempt to
resolve the problems Campbell was facing at work. Despite ESGR's
involvement, the hostile treatment of Campbell continued on into 2007
and 2008.
In February 2008, Campbell told CCS co-workers that she was preparing to deploy to Iraq later that year with the Washington National Guard 81st Brigade. On March 20, 2008, Catholic Community Services fired Campbell.
Campbell's attorneys James W. Beck and Andrea H. McNeely,
Partners at Gordon Thomas Honeywell, are pleased with the verdict.
"This was a situation which never should have occurred," said Beck. "Sergeant Campbell
told her employer about the ongoing discrimination on at least three
occasions, but there was never any formal investigation or decisive
action to stop the treatment." The Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") prohibits harassment, discrimination,
and retaliation against Guard members related to their service. "This
is a vindication of the rights of Grace Campbell
and those like her who make sacrifices in their civilian lives to serve
their country," said McNeely. "Moreover," said Beck, "when the time
came at trial for CCS to produce a key document that it claimed was
central to its reason for terminating Campbell, the company had
destroyed the document." After a two year job search, Campbell is now
employed as a receptionist with the Department of Social and Health
Services in Seattle.
What
happened is not an isolated incident, it's happened across the country
and unless businesses realize it's much smarter to settle out of court,
look for more reports on jury verdicts against companies who have
illegaly fired people because they were deployed or were going to be
deployed. Again, firing someone for a military deployment is against
federal law.
Elsewhere, Kuwait wants justice as well. The Kuwait Times reports,
"Kuwait yesterday 'stressed need' for Ira'qs continuing regular
deposits in the UN war compensation fund in line with relevant
international resolutions. Kuwait stressed the need for continuation of
reuglar deposits in the Compensation Fund, as provided for in UN
Security Council Resolution 1956 (2010), of five percent of the proceeds
from all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas
of Iraq . . ." This position was made clear by Khaled al-Mudhaf who
addressed the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation
Commission yesterday. al-Mudhaf chairs the Public Ahtority for
Assessment of Compensations for Damages Resulting from the Iraqi
Agression. (Kuwait also has a successful international race car
driver by that name and a World Champion Trap Shooter by that name --
the latter of which competed in the 2000 and 2004 Olympics.) The amount
still owed, according to al-Mudhaf's statements, is $16 billion.
The
remarks are not just a call for billions to be paid, they're also a bit
of realtiy for Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and chief thug of Iraq.
In the lead up to the March 27th Arab League Summit in March, Nouri
made efforts to establish ties to Kuwait and Kuwait ended up standing by
Nouri at the Summit, the only major country that did. Over half the
heads of state of Arab countries refused to attend with some, like
Qatar, making a public statement that this was an intentional boycott.
But Nouri had Kuwait and some Arab officials whispered to the press that
Kuwait was prostituting itself. If that were true, it would appear
that Kuwait has now made clear to Nouri the bill for a paid escort. If
the whisper was a slur against the reputation of Kuwait, then
Nouri's still learned that all his visits and public woo-ing didn't mean
a thing. This also hurts
26 April 2012 –
The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC),
which settles the damage claims of those who suffered losses due to
Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, today made a total of $1.02 billion
available to six successful claimants.
The
latest round of payments brings the total amount of compensation
disbursed by the Commission to $36.4 billion for more than 1.5 million
successful claims of individuals, corporations, Governments and
international organizations, according to a UNCC news release.
Successful
claims are paid with funds drawn from the UN Compensation Fund, which
is funded by a percentage of the proceeds generated by the export sales
of Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products.
The
Geneva-based UNCC's Governing Council has identified six categories of
claims: four are for individuals' claims, one for corporations and one
for governments and international organizations, which also includes
claims for environmental damage.
The
Commission was established in 1991 as a subsidiary organ of the UN
Security Council. It has received nearly three million claims, including
from close to 100 governments for themselves, their nationals or their
corporations.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey (Pravda) weighs in
calling international compensation a "joke" and insisting that Iraq has
been treated unfairly due to the fact that there's "no mention of
cross-drilling of oil, tapping into Iraqi fields, there has been no
mention of compensation payable to Iraq, and other countries, for the
invasion by NATO countries." On the topic of big money, AFP runs
today with the report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction's report that US taxpayer dollars may have gone to Iraqi
insurgents, resistance, al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, etc. This is the topic
Eli Lake (Daily Beast) was reporting on yesterday,
"A 2012 audit conducted by the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction (SIGIR) and released to the public on Monday found that
76 percent of the battalion commanders surveyed believed at least some
of the CERP funds had been lost to fraud and corruption."
Yesterday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released April 2012: Quarterly Report To Congress.
As the report notes, the US State Dept is spending $500 million of US
taxpayer dollars on training the Iraqi police for the 2012 Fiscal Year.
Let's talk about that training:
AFP reports they're on a US military base being retrained. BBC reports:
"A programme has been under way for more than a month for comprehensive
assessment and re-training of all national police unites -- a process
called by the Americans 'transofrmational training.'" James Hider (Times of London) reports
that since 2004, "US forces have been re-training the Iraqi police, but
the programme has had little impact" and that a "survivor of Monday's
mass kidnapping . . . described how half a dozen vehicles, with official
security forces markings on them, pulled up and men in military
fatigues rounded up all the Sunnis in the shops."
That's not today. That's from the October 4, 2006 snapshot. Let's drop back to February 8th:
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot
and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He
declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we
intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews
with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that
might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that
Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already
spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer
as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was
complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it."
She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior
Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and
Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but
not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was
referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do
things instead that are good for the United States." He made that
remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke Darby
noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had
spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was
needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US
government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend
covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why
are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
After
8 years of spending US tax payer dollars on this program and on the
verge of spending $500 million, why is the US not talking to the person
in charge ofthe Interior Ministry?
Because
Nouri never named a nominee to head it so Parliament had no one to vote
on. Nouri refused to name someone to head the US ministry but the
administration thinks it's okay to use $500 million of US tax payer
dollars to train people with a ministry that has no head?
There's
no mention in the report that the Iraqi government is matching that
$500 million with $500 million of their own. That may be one of those
facts we have to wait to find out about "later this year," to quote
another section of the report. Going through "Iraqi Funding" notes many
efforts but not on police. And yet last December 7th,
Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconsturction,
specifically raised that required matching fund when he appeared before
the House Oversight and Government Reform's Nationl Security
Subcommittee.
US House Rep Raul Labrador: So what other problems have you found with the police development program, if any?
SIGIR
Stuart Bowen: Several. Well, Mr. Labrador, we pointed out in our audit
that, one Iraqi buy-in, something that the Congress requires from
Iraq, by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs,has not
been secured -- in writing, in fact, or by any other means. That's of
great concern. Especially for a Ministry that has a budget of over $6
billion, a government that just approved, notionally, a hundred billion
dollar budget for next year. It's not Afghanistan. This is a country
that has signficant wealth, should be able to contribute but has not
been forced to do so, in a program as crucial as this.
To
be clear, this isn't optional. To be even more clear, the White House
should never have committed $500 million without Iraq having met the
matching fund requirement -- required by Congress.
Where is the oversight?
It's not coming from the press.
Eager to flaunt both ignorance and incompetence Kareem Raheem, Aseel Kami and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) and AFP
ran with the 'official' figures provided by the Iraqi government for
deaths due to violence in the month of April. The death toll is 126.
That's based on figures from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of
Defense and the Ministry of the Interior.
That's
what the incompetent wire services told us. They forgot to tell you
that the Ministry of Defense has no minister -- Nouri never nominated
anyone so he could illegaly take charge of it -- and the that Ministry
of the Interior has no minister -- for the same reason.
And the Minister of Health?
This
may be the worst demonstration of press whoring in Iraq currently.
Salih Mahdi Motalab al-Hasanawi held that post in Nouri's first term and
holds it in the second term and is falsely described as "a Shi'ite
Muslim, but independent of any political party." That's not how you
describe him -- though the press does and he does on his Facebook page.
Reality: In 2009, he joined what political slate? State of Law.
Nouri's State of Law. He's not independent. He may not be a member of a
political party (Nouri's political party is Dawa) but he chose to join
-- in September of 2009 -- Nouri's State of Law. He belongs to a
political slate, he is not independent.
So
Nouri's flunkies issue some figures and whores in the press who don't
have the self-respect or training to do what a reporter does runs with
those awful lies. They make no effort to provide alternate counts or
any context at all. They simply take dictation and say, 'This is what
offiicals say.' It's whoring, it's not reporting.
The IBC count is 290 for the month of April. (Click here for screen snap.)
Iraq Body Count tracks reported deaths in the press and notes that
their count is not a complete count. Once upon a time, the press was
happy to provide the IBC count, now they just whore.
Like most whores when busted, they have an excuse of how they weren't really whoring, you understand. And AFP and Reuters would insist that these are official figures from a government. Official figures, yes. But ones that are known to be false.
Not
just known because I say so (and have said so for months and years) but
because what got released yesterday. Let's return to the Special
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released April 2012: Quarterly Report To Congress.
For the non-reading and apparently illiterates working for wire
services, we'll even provide the page number: Page 3. Here it is:
Record Low Casualty Figures for March.
The
GOI [Government of Iraq] reported that 112 Iraqis -- 78 civilians and
34 ISF personnel -- died as a result of violent attacks in March 2012,
the lowest monthly death toll reported by the GOI since the U.S.-led
invasion nine years ago. For the quater, the GOI reported that 413
Iraqis died in violent incidents, with 151 deaths in January and 150 in
February. However, according to data collected by the UN, 1,048 Iraqis
died this quarter, more than twice the total provided by the GOI.
And, AFP and Reuters,
that report? It also references the Iraq Body Count. It's a shame
that the press is too lazy to do the job they're paid for. And, yes, I
realize the press in Iraq is scared. Another story you refuse to report
on, by the way. That's why the Los Angeles Times runs stories
from Iraq with no byline and has for months since Ned Parker left. But
no one's supposed to talk about that either. The fact that those
working for western outlets are scared to death to tell the truth about
Iraq for fear of retaliation is a secret we're all supposed to keep. I
believe the saying is: Secrets keep us sick. They certainly do no
favors to the alleged profession of journalism. And they distort the
reality of Iraq which provides even more cover for a petty tyrant like
Nouri al-Maliki.
Today's violence? Alsumaria reports
that a Mosul car bombing left sixteen people injured while an attack on
a Mosul checkpoint killed 1 security officer, 1 Yezidi died in Mosul
(possibly a suicide), 1 corpse was discovered on the side of the raod
outside Baghdad and the body of Ahmed Ajeel Aftan was found shot dead
and tossed to the side of the road over 30 miles outside of Hillah.
Turning
to the political crisis Nouri al-Maliki has created in Iraq. Peter
Galbraith is a US diplomat. When needed, we've called him out here.
I've known Peter for years and that didn't cut him any slack here.
We're not rehashing that past, we're focusing on his political insights
which I have never had cause to question. Galbraith speaks to Rudaw about the ongoing crisis:
Rudaw:
Right now, Iraq is in political turmoil and most parties accuse PM Nuri
al-Maliki of violating the constitution. Do you think he has violated
the constitution?
Peter
Galbraith: Clearly, he is not following the constitution. He is not
respecting Kurdistan's rights, including those over natural resources,
and he has not held the constitutionally required referendum on Kirkuk
and other disputed areas.
Rudaw:
Kurdish leaders blame Maliki for not sharing power and consolidating
all of it in his own hands. Do you think those accusations are correct?
Peter Galbraith: Yes. They are correct.
Rudaw:
Barzani says that Maliki is only killing time and doesn't want to solve
important issues such as Article 140 regarding the disputed territories
and the oil and gas issue. He also says that if the situation continues
like this, he will let the people of Kurdistan decide their own future
through a referendum. Does the Iraqi constitution give the Kurds the
right to separate from Iraq?
Peter
Galbraith: The Kurds agreed to stay in Iraq on the basis of the
constitution in its entirety. If the Baghdad government does not keep
its part of the bargain, then the basis for Kurdistan's continued
membership in Iraq no longer exists.
The political crisis has deep roots. It's best explained in Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But there is
more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
Kurdish MP Mahmoud Othman Tweeted the following today:
After the meetings in#Erbil a date must be set for the general meeting in #Baghdad to try to settle the problems as per the constitution.
Over the weekend, there was a big meet-up in Erbil attended by many -- Nouri al-Maliki was not invited. Hurriyet Daily News observes:
After the meetings in
Over the weekend, there was a big meet-up in Erbil attended by many -- Nouri al-Maliki was not invited. Hurriyet Daily News observes:
A
statement issued after the meeting in Arbil said the leaders "stressed
the need for finding ways to dismantle the crisis, the continuation of
which puts the supreme national interests in danger." They also
discussed "ways to strengthen the democratic process." The talks were
hosted by Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG), and included Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd,
as well as former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and hard-line cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr, both Shiites. Parliamentary Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, a
Sunni, also took part.
Al Mada notes
that Moqtada is denying that he was pressured in 2010 to throw his
support behind Nouri al-Maliki. There is some blame being tossed
Moqtada's way for his support of Nouri and he was asked about this issue
in his online column where he plays Dear Abby to his followers. Again,
he denied there was any pressure. (He was pressured by Tehran.) On
the subject of Iran, Heather Robinson (The Algemeiner) reports
form Iraqi MP Mithal al-Alusi is calling Iraq a client state of Iran
("tool of Iran") and Robinson's article covers a wide range of topics
including:
In February, he told
this reporter that Iraq's Central Bank was processing hundreds of
millions of dollars a day more than usual, and that, according to
sources within the bank, Iran's agents were behind this financial
maneuvering. He also said that, according to sources within the Iraqi
intelligence community, the same individuals who were "buying hundreds
of millions of dollars in cash" from Iraq's Central Bank were arranging
for these dollars to be carried from Iraq into Syria, and then
transported to Iran in order to skirt the U.S.-led sanctions.
"We
are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in cash going in to
Syria–in suitcases–and then it goes to Iran," he said at the time.
In early April, it was reported
that the Central Bank of Iraq had tightened its clampdown on its sales
of dollars -- due to concerns that buyers were using them to launder
money and circumvent U.S.-led sanctions against Iran and Syria.
Last
week Alusi provided more examples of what he characterized as
large-scale Iranian interference in Iraq that he believes are intended
to pave the way for Iranian domination of the Mideast.
Iran
may or may not dominate Iraq but it's not going to be able to dominate
the MidEast. The Arab states would never allow that to happen. Iraq
truly is Iran's best shot at domination. While the Iraqi people --
regardless of sect -- are not keen to be controlled by Iran, the US or
any other country, the loyalities of many officials and rulers to Iraq
have long been in question -- Nouri's loyalties have probably been the
most questioned -- even more so than Ahmed Chalabi's.
While
US efforts (largely led by Vice President Joe Biden) and UN efforts
(largely led by the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Martin Kobler),
they haven't been the only ones. There's Tehran, of course. Other
players also include England. The Kurdish Globe reports:
Britain's Ambassador to Iraq on Friday concluded a one-week visit to the Kurdistan Region by meetingwith President Masoud Barzani and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. He visited all three of the Region's governorates, meeting students, officials and civil society representatives.
Ambassador Michael Aron met with Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials and visited all three provinces of the Kurdistan Region to discuss the ongoing political crisis in Iraq as well as recent developments inthe Middle East as a whole. He also explored how to further develop the already strong links between the United Kingdom and the Kurdistan Region.
At Saturday's meet-up it was decided that the Erbil Agreement must be implemented (Nouri used the agreement to become prime minister and then trashed it). In addition, Moqtada pushed his 18 point plan. Al Mada reports that State of Law is insisting that the 18-point plan is an accordance with the National Alliance . The Iraqi Communist Party's newspaper reports that the Erbil meeting found Moqtada completely rejecting the notion of withdrawing confidence from Nouri. A no-confidence vote would mean a new prime minister could be voted on by the Parliament. What comes next in Iraq is not known but Ipek Yezdani (Hurriyet Daily News) has a provocative article which includes:
Britain's Ambassador to Iraq on Friday concluded a one-week visit to the Kurdistan Region by meetingwith President Masoud Barzani and Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. He visited all three of the Region's governorates, meeting students, officials and civil society representatives.
Ambassador Michael Aron met with Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials and visited all three provinces of the Kurdistan Region to discuss the ongoing political crisis in Iraq as well as recent developments inthe Middle East as a whole. He also explored how to further develop the already strong links between the United Kingdom and the Kurdistan Region.
At Saturday's meet-up it was decided that the Erbil Agreement must be implemented (Nouri used the agreement to become prime minister and then trashed it). In addition, Moqtada pushed his 18 point plan. Al Mada reports that State of Law is insisting that the 18-point plan is an accordance with the National Alliance . The Iraqi Communist Party's newspaper reports that the Erbil meeting found Moqtada completely rejecting the notion of withdrawing confidence from Nouri. A no-confidence vote would mean a new prime minister could be voted on by the Parliament. What comes next in Iraq is not known but Ipek Yezdani (Hurriyet Daily News) has a provocative article which includes:
"Almost
all the political figures in the region assume that Iraq will be
divided into three in the end. The crucial thing is this division should
not lead to a civil and sectarian war in Iraq," Rebwar Kerim Wali told
the Hürriyet Daily News in a recent interview.
Leaders from almost all of Iraq's top political blocs will convene at a unity meeting in Arbil, the capital of Iraq's Kurdish region, on May 7, in order to find a solution to the political crisis between the Shiite-led government and the country's Sunnis and Kurds.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will probably not attend the unity meeting, Wali also a managing editor of Rudaw, the first international newspaper of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) said. "KRG leader Barzani; Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite leader of the Iraqi National Alliance; Iyad Allawi, the leader of the Al Iraqiyya group, and Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi are all expected to attend the meeting. They will be seeking a solution to the current crisis in order to prevent any ethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq as well as searching for alternatives to al-Maliki's rule."
Leaders from almost all of Iraq's top political blocs will convene at a unity meeting in Arbil, the capital of Iraq's Kurdish region, on May 7, in order to find a solution to the political crisis between the Shiite-led government and the country's Sunnis and Kurds.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will probably not attend the unity meeting, Wali also a managing editor of Rudaw, the first international newspaper of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) said. "KRG leader Barzani; Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite leader of the Iraqi National Alliance; Iyad Allawi, the leader of the Al Iraqiyya group, and Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi are all expected to attend the meeting. They will be seeking a solution to the current crisis in order to prevent any ethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq as well as searching for alternatives to al-Maliki's rule."
Meanwhile in what may be a minor effort at reconciliation, Al Mada reports Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law is saying they can resolve the issue of Saleh al-Mutlaq.
In the middle of December, Nouri al-Maliki met with US President Barack Obama in DC. Upon returning home he began targeting polical rivals in Iraqiya. (Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 Parliamentary elections besting Nouri's State of Law.) Nouri demanded that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on charges of terrorism and that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post.
State of Law is stating currently that the issue of al-Multaq can be resolved by the political blocs. It's very minor in terms of reconciliation. Very minor. Inconsequential.
Nouri's been calling for al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his post since December. Nouri can flap his wings and crow all he wants, the only one a Cabinet member can be removed from their post is a vote by the Parliament. Nouri's stomped his feet for months now and al-Mutlaq's still Deputy Prime Minister. The Constitution explains the issue is resolved by the Parliament. So State of Law offers that political blocs can resolve this issue? They're actually still refusing to follow the Constitution.
That needs to be pointed out.
You want to remove a member of the Cabinet? The Iraqi Constitution explains how that's done. If you can't get enough votes for that, the person remains a member of the Cabinet. Nouri knows that. It's why he refused to nominate ministers to head the security ministries. If there was a Minister of Interior, Nouri might not be able to control the ministry because the minister wouldn't fear losing their job.
In the middle of December, Nouri al-Maliki met with US President Barack Obama in DC. Upon returning home he began targeting polical rivals in Iraqiya. (Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 Parliamentary elections besting Nouri's State of Law.) Nouri demanded that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on charges of terrorism and that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post.
State of Law is stating currently that the issue of al-Multaq can be resolved by the political blocs. It's very minor in terms of reconciliation. Very minor. Inconsequential.
Nouri's been calling for al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his post since December. Nouri can flap his wings and crow all he wants, the only one a Cabinet member can be removed from their post is a vote by the Parliament. Nouri's stomped his feet for months now and al-Mutlaq's still Deputy Prime Minister. The Constitution explains the issue is resolved by the Parliament. So State of Law offers that political blocs can resolve this issue? They're actually still refusing to follow the Constitution.
That needs to be pointed out.
You want to remove a member of the Cabinet? The Iraqi Constitution explains how that's done. If you can't get enough votes for that, the person remains a member of the Cabinet. Nouri knows that. It's why he refused to nominate ministers to head the security ministries. If there was a Minister of Interior, Nouri might not be able to control the ministry because the minister wouldn't fear losing their job.
As
for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, a trial against him is scheduled
to begin Thursday. He will remain in Turkey having already noted that
the Baghdad judiciary is not independent. That judiciary also
demonstrated that they refuse to follow the Constitution and that they
pre-judged him as guilty before any hearing took place. Today Alsumaria reports
Iraiqya noted that the trial is a violation of both the law and the
Constitution for many reasons, chief among them that the Vice President
still holds his post and cannot be put on trial unless Parliament
dismisses him.
Around the world today, May Day was celebrated. That includes in Iraq and AFP has ten photos of May Day actions in Iraq here. US political prisoner Lynne Stewart (Black Agenda Report) explains:
May
Day, a celebration of the Worker and May Day, a commemoration of the
Immigrant migration has now become a single holiday -- and how
appropriate that is !! The massive immigrant influx of the late 19
century was primarily a new supply of workers for the unending appetite
of capitalism. Cheap Labor. Europe had become a dead end -- wars, a
class and land system that allowed no upward mobility and less and less
opportunity for their children to learn or be somebody. My own Swedish
great grandparents came over as indentured workers--having to pay for
their passage by the sweat of their (yes, women too) brows doing farm
labor for two years. This is a story that had been repeated through all
the waves of immigrants -- Italian, Greek, Slavic, Eastern European,
Asian (Chinese, Filipino), Caribbean and now Latin American and African.
What has shifted is the structure that now has the United States as the
Great Imperialist, first ravaging their homes militarily and
economically and then casting large numbers of newly created displaced
people adrift on the economic seas. As one Jamaican friend and immigrant
once said to me "Why shouldn't we come here? You have everything stolen
from us !!"
Cindy Sheehan issues her May Day call, Noam Chomsky writes about it here and Jerry Elmer (Dissident Voice) explores the history of the day here.
The
US hasn't left Iraq though US President Barack Obama claims otherwise.
Today he made a speech on Afghanistan that was supposed to be a
triumph because he was in Afghanistan (click here for PRI's report from The World) but a triumph doesn't include sneaking into a country like a thief in the night. Emma Graham-Harrison and Paul Harris (Guardian) report:
Addressing
the viewing public back home, and opening himself up to Republican
criticisms of electioneering, Obama said that America's war aims of
destroying al-Qaida in Afghanistan
were nearly achieved. "The goal that I set – to defeat al-Qaida and
deny it a base to rebuild – is now within reach," he said from Bagram
airbase near the country's capital Kabul.
Framing
more than a decade of conflict as being in its final stages, Obama
added: "We can see the light of a new day on the horizon … This time of
war began in Afghanistan and this is where it will end. With faith in
each other and eyes fixed on the future."
Wrong.
The US military may kind-of leave another country that they never
should have been sent to. There is no victory to claim only the proof
that illegal wars bring shame on all involved. There will be no real
withdrawal, there will be no real control for the Afghans of their own
country. Barack will spin and lie and try to pretend honor's been
brought to America but shame can never be disguised as honor -- no
matter how you spin it. Gary Younge (Guardian) observes:
This week, the White House will celebrate the anniversary of the assassination of Osama bin Laden as though it were the crowning achievement of its foreign policy. On Wednesday, Obama will hold a rare televised interview in the situation room to discuss the raid in Abbottabad. His campaign has released of a web video
in which Bill Clinton says President Obama "took the harder and the
more honorable path, and the one that produced, in my opinion, the
best result". The video then asks, "Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?"
The
man who entered the White House with the message of "hope" and "change"
wants to hold on to it with a record of "shoot to kill".
bin
Laden's death actually hurt the United States in ways that few ever
want to talk about. Are we a nation of laws? Then we conduct ourselves
as such. Barack Obama acted like the lawless Al Capone when he sent
forces in to kill bin Laden (and terrorize family members). The same
forces could have captured him and he could have been put on trial.
That is what you do in a nation of laws. (This is not a slam on those
who were given the mission. They followed the orders they were given
and executed them remarkably well. This is a slam on the orders Barack
gave.) As the US gets further and further from democracy, as rule of
law means less and less, Barack wants to crow about an 'achievement'
that was nothing but spitting on law and liberty. That's not to be
applauded. If you think someone is guilty -- and, clearly, millions
around the world believed bin Laden was guilty -- you put them before a
court. The US once prided itself on being about the rule of law (that
may have been an illusion, others can debate that) but under Barack
Obama, what's been exposed is that Bully Boy Bush and those eight awful
years weren't an errant strain but instead the emerging character of the
United States government. That's not a democracy. And it's nothing to
take pride in. May Day is today but US democracy is crying "Mayday!
Mayday!" It's sending a distress signal -- one that few want to hear.
