The weekend at last. First, let's deal with the trivial.
Matt Damon. Ace Showbiz explains that Matt Damon declared that the reason he never denied rumors that he was gay was because he was offended.
Offended?
I thought he didn't deny them because he had a cock in his mouth!
:D Seriously. I wouldn't have made that joke if Matt hadn't lied.
I think we all know the I'm F**king videos he and Ben made. They turned it into a joke. But they did that over and over long before. One of the reasons people asked was because of them. They were always implying they were lovers and then doing a laugh.
Leading many to believe the laugh was a wink and they really were gay.
I can remember asking my father what a catanite (spelling?) was? I asked because we were at the barber shop and I was probably in middle school. I'm flipping through a magazine there (GQ?) and Matt's the cover story. He's doing jokes about being that c-word.
I've never heard of it. So I ask my dad who doesn't know. And the barber's don't know. A guy grabs the magazine. He goes. "Oh, okay, he's saying Ben's the sodomite and he's the catanite so what he means is Ben pokes it in Matt's butt."
And we're all kind of like "okay" real slow while we're probably all thinking, "I didn't expect that." But the point is that Matt and Ben were always doing this crap.
So for him to now talk about it and say that he thought it was offensive to be asked?
So it's a shame that Matt couldn't be honest about how their nonstop references to being gay was the reason people thought it.
And I'll be honest. I'll still think they are.
I like Ben Affleck. I loved his new movie. I'm not a homophobe. But I honestly felt -- as did others I went to school with (in Boston!) -- that this was their way of being semi-out and later claiming, "Oh, we were always out. We used to talk about being lovers."
If they're not gay, that's fine. I still like Ben's movies and will pay to see them. Whether he's straight gay or what. But the reason I think they're gay is because of all those jokes for years and years.
Matt's movies. He seems to have stopped being so George Clooney nutty. (By the way, remember when Matt 'joked' that he was with Clooney?) If that holds, I'll go back to seeing his films.
But if he goes back to raving lunatic, I'm gone baby gone.
Matt got way too personal in his political attacks.
Not interested. Not interested in that crap at all.
I like Barbra Streisand. I was all excited to see her new film. Elaine and I were planning to see it on Christmas Day.
Now? I told her I didn't want to see it. Because of that crap Streisand wrote about Susan Rice.
She didn't know what the hell she was talking about but was happy to throw around accusations.
I'm not in the mood.
The country's polarized enough without a bunch of dumb idiots screeching like they're on MSNBC or Fox.
I'm tired of all the attacks because someone believes this or believes that. On issues of war, I'll nail you to the wall. But on the other issues, I'm just not into all the hatred.
A lot of my family members are Socialist (my granddad included). Some are Greens. Some are Democrats. We managed to get along and disagree on politics my whole life. I'm just not in the mood for all the attacks just because someone belongs to a different party.
What party do I belong to? I figured I'd be a Socialist by now but they're so craven (at least US Socialists -- the mag) and they don't stand for core beliefs. (WSWS does a better job of being ethical.) I feel estranged from the Democratic Party because of Barack's Drone Wars and other wars. So I don't know. But I'm tired of all the attacks.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday,
December 14, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, protests against Nouri
continue for day four in Iraq, Nouri's lashing out that means he feels
comfy, US House Rep Lynn Woolsey winds down her Congressional service, a
needed bill that Senator Patty Murray fought for in the Senate may die
because the House doesn't think it's the 'right time' to vote on it, the
Pentagon releases the latest suicide data for the Army, and more.
US
House Rep Lynn Woolsey was one of the creators of the Out of Iraq
Caucus in the House of Representatives. Alongside other brave voices in
the House like Maxine Waters, Woolsey stood firmly against the Iraq
War. She did not seek re-election this year and this week spoke on the
House floor about war and peace (video here).
US
House Rep Lynn Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in public
life and even before, nothing has motivated me more than a desire to end
wars and violent conflict. When I was a small girl saying bedtime
prayers or making a birthday wish blowing out the candles, I always
asked for world peace. So no surprise that, over a decade ago, I
opposed the Iraq War before it even started. It was appalling that we
would invade a nation that hadn't provoked us, that had nothing to do
with 9-11 and did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was a lonely
fight at that time. But I didn't do it to be loved. It was a matter of
principle. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and I formed the triad, Woolsey,
Waters and Lee, to organize our opposition. We held forums, we
developed an Out Of Iraq Caucus, we traveled around the country. And in
January 2005, I offered the first amendment here on the House floor
calling for our troops to be brought home. Some of my own party thought
that it was a mistake, that we wouldn't get any votes or enough votes
and that we would be embarrassed. Well I told them that even if I were
the only one voting to bring our troops home, I would not be
embarrassed. Well as it happened, we got 128 bi-partisan votes that
very first time. So you see, Mr. Speaker, when you lead, people
follow. Because a handful of progressive leaders and progressives in
our country that were vocal and fearless, eventually public opinion
turned. It turned against the Iraq War. It turned towards peace. If we
and other outspoken political advocates hadn't ignored conventional
wisdom and hadn't pressed for peace, the war in Iraq could still be
going on today. In April, Mr. Speaker, of 2004, I began speaking on
this very spot of the House floor about my very strong anti-Iraq War
convictions. Eventually, these speeches focused on Afghanistan where
we've now been waging war for more than 11 years despite more than 2,000
Americans dead and nearly $600 billion wasted. Even though, we are
undermining our own interests and failing to bring security and
stability to Afghanistan. Over the last eight-plus-years, I've spoken
here nearly every day that I could to drive home what a moral disaster
and strategic failure these wars have been. When constituents and
others call or come up to me and thank me, I say, "But we're still
there." I don't deserve thanks until all of our troops are home. You
know, Mr. Speaker, because you've been here for many of them, my
speeches haven't been just about bringing our troops home. They've
offered a new vision for global engagement. From here, I've outlined my
Smart Security Platform which calls for development in diplomacy instead
of invasions and occupations, civilian surges instead of military
surges. Smart Security means helping other nations educate their
children, care for their sick and strengthen their democratic
institutions. Smart Security says we can make America safe by building
international goodwill, by empowering people with humanitarian
assistance instead of sending troops or launching drone attacks. It's
the right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do. And it costs
pennies on the dollar compared to military force. So, Mr. Speaker, today
I'm delivering that message for the 444th time and my final time on the
House floor to speak on five minute special order. This is the last of
my special order speeches on war and peace and Smart Security. I'm
retiring from Congress at the end of this year and I believe part of my
legacy will be that I worked diligently for peace and a safer world. So
in closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge that sometimes I've
been accused of wanting a perfect world but I consider that a
compliment. Our founders strove for a more perfect union. Why
shouldn't we aim for a perfect world? You see, I'm perfectly and
absolutely certain that if we don't work towards a perfect world we
won't ever come close to providing a safe, healthy and secure world for
our grandchildren and their grandchildren. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I thank my wonderful staff who have helped me over the last twenty
years to work for a perfect world which means peace, health and security
for all. I yield back. Thank you all.
Lynn
Woolsey is a Democrat who was first elected in the Novembe 1992
elections (a "Year of the Woman" in real time and the first time the
genderquake was undeniable in the elections). She has served
California's sixth district. Lynn Woolsey succeeded Barbara Boxer in
the seat, Boxer, in the "Year of the Woman" 1992, was elected to the US
Senate. Greg Cahill (Pacific Sun) interviewed Lynn on her time in the US Congress. Excerpt:
Now the wars are winding down, and the economy is in recovery. Why leave the job now?
[Lynn
Woolsey:] I'm a person whose timing has worked for her. Actually, I
thought I'd be in Congress for 10 years. And then all of a sudden, zip,
it's 20. I'm 75 years old. And I've gotten on an airplane every week
that we're in session on a Monday or Tuesday morning and fly back on a
Thursday or Friday afternoon. Week after week after week. And I'm tired
of doing that. It doesn't work for my body and it doesn't work for my
soul. During the last Congress, the 111th Congress, I toyed with the
notion that that should be my last term. But Jared Huffman hadn't termed
out in the state Legislature yet. And I wasn't 100 percent sure about
that decision. So I ran and got re-elected knowing that would be my last
term. [House minority leader Rep.] Nancy Pelosi asked me, "When did you
know?" And I said I knew when I walked backed into Congress and said to
myself, "I really wish I hadn't done it this time." I felt like, I
don't know why I'm here--I don't want to be here. I didn't stop
working--we worked our hearts out these last two years. But I just knew
it was time. I was sick and tired of money and politics. I mean, it's
going to ruin our democracy if we don't do something [about campaign
finance reform]. And I gave lots of notice.
You're retiring from politics but it sounds as though you plan to stay quite active.
[Lynn
Woolsey:] Oh, I am going to retire. If Lynn Woolsey doesn't learn to
sit down and be calm in what I consider to be the last quarter of her
life, she'll be in trouble. I want to enjoy my life without all the
spin. I mean, I've raised four kids and was a working mom and active in
my community. I get to sit down.
As
a member of Congress, Lynn didn't just mouth words. Nor did she cave
when she made a stand. Her word counted for something and she took it
very seriously. She will be missed.
And
sad to say that as one of the strong left leaders leaves Congree, I
find myself wondering if maybe on the left we just need to throw in the
towel? I wondered that not because of the loss of Lynn Woolsey in the
Congress but because of the garbage by Gareth Porter at Truthout.
I'd seen him in his too long Real News Network interview and thought,
"Maybe he just doesn't speak well on the subject." But now his promised
'big piece' on counter-insurgency is out and the natural response to
it is to string together numerous curse words. Let's get two of his
paragraphs in here.
The COIN manual
ducked some central issues in the US wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan -
most notably whether US troops should have been carrying out violent
"cordon and search" operations, especially when they had little or no
real intelligence to go on. Intent on staying within the political
consensus of the military establishment, Petraeus opted not to criticize
the tactic of violently invading private homes and seizing military-age
males in the middle of the night in front of their families, which had
become routine in Iraq.
But in one area,
the manual staked out a bold new position. It called for the commander
in a counterinsurgency war to influence the coverage of the war by the
news media. "The media directly influence the attitude of key audiences
toward counterinsurgents, their operations and the opposing insurgency,"
the section on "information operations" said. "This situation creates a
war of perceptions between insurgents and counterinsurgents conducted
continuously using the news media."
Did
it duck "some central issues"? Well Gareth did too. Gareth's
apparently opposed to searches that cart away males but that's about all
he can really call out. The very notion of counter-insurgency -- long
called out on the left in past wars -- is just accepted by Porter. As
for "a bold new position," your ignorance exceeds your ethical decay. I
don't care what your damn manual told you. I don't give a damn.
Counter-insurgency has always included the media and 'messaging.' That
you're too stupid to know that is appalling.
Here's
the way this will go. I'll get e-mails about how "Gareth is really
trying hard and, gosh, it's not easy and if you want someone to call out
David Petraeus . . ." Gareth has a job to do. Does he do his job or
not? No, he's not doing his job -- or he's doing it very poorly. As
for calling out Petraeus, it may be a media fad at present but here
we've always called out Petraeus.
If you're
going to write about counter-insurgency, you need to know about it.
It's war on a native people. The occupier tries to make a group of
natives undesirable so that the rest of the population will turn on the
undesirables. To make people undesirable, you demonize them, you make
it difficult for people to befriend or help them. You do other things
as well. To do these other things, you tell yourself lies. For
example, labeling the native (non-South) Vietnamese media "propaganda"
allowed counter-insurgency to target the media and to justify the
lying. Counter-insurgency includes outright murder. People are
targeted for murder to frighten the population at large. You saw that
in Iraq and you've seen it throughout the US usage of
counter-insurgency. Take the Phoenix Program during Vietnam. As the RAND Corporation noted, while its supporters cheer the program, its "detractors condemn it as a merciless assassination campaign." Let's go to the CIA for some whining:
The
Phoenix program is arguably the most misunderstood and controversial
program undertaken by the governments of the United States and South
Vietnam during the Vietnam War. It was, quite simply, a set of programs
that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the
Lao Dong Party (hereafter referred to as the Viet Cong infrastructure or
VCI) in South Vietnam. 1
Phoenix
was misunderstood because it was classified, and the information
obtained by the press and others was often anecdotal, unsubstantiated,
or false. The program was controversial because the antiwar movement and
critical scholars in the United States and elsewhere portrayed it as an
unlawful and immoral assassination program targeting civilians.
We
called it out because it was unethical and it was illegal and, yes, we
called it out. Today Gareth Porter can't even do that. A ho-hum piece
where this may be objectionable . . . The ignorance and the cowardice
is appalling. At this late date, if we on the left can't call out
counter-insurgency, that's on us, we're just pathetic and ineffective.
Via Z-Net, here's an excerpt of a January 10, 2005 broadcast, Katie Couric (then host of NBC's Today) discussing with retired Gen Wayne Downing the article Newsweek published on the Salvador option possibly being brought to Iraq (Michael Hirsh and John Barry were the authors of the Newsweek article).
"Gen.
DOWNING: Well, Katie, I -- I think this term is very unfortunate
because this El Salvador thing brings up the connotation of death
squads, of illegal activity that took place in -- in -- by some of the
El Salvadorian military 20 years ago. But I think what they're
considering is to use a special -- or more special Iraqi units trained
and equipped and perhaps even led by US Special Forces to conduct strike
operations against this -- this insurgency, against the leaders of it,
which of course is a very valid strategy, a very valid tactic. And it's
actually something we've been doing since we started the war back in
March of 2003.
"COURIC:
But is this going to be used more, or in greater numbers? According to
Newsweek, they're going to -- the -- the US Special Forces will train
specially chosen Kurdish forces and Shiite militiamen.
"Gen. DOWNING: Right.
"COURIC: So does this signal a -- a -- I guess an escalation of this technique at least?
"Gen.
DOWNING: I wouldn't say an escalation, Katie. I -- I think what we're
looking at is -- there are already some special units formed. We have
special police commandos now of the Iraqi forces which conduct these
kind of strike operations. I think what we're looking at is another type
of unit. In other words, they -- they've got 10 tools right now in
their tool box, this is probably adding a -- an 11th or perhaps even a
12th tool. But -- but, Katie, I -- I really want to emphasize what they
are going after here. These -- these insurgents leaders, these are
terrorists. These are people who have been decapitating hostages. These
are the people who have been planning and -- and perpetrating these
suicide bombers...that has killed thousands of -- of friendly Iraqis.
These are very, very legitimate targets, and actually part of the
overall strategy for countering this insurgency...
"COURIC: But in El Salvador
many innocent civilians were killed when these kind of tactics were
employed. Are you concerned about that, or the possibility this will
increase anti-American sentiment in the general Iraqi population?
"Gen. DOWNING: Katie, this has nothing to do with El Salvador.
Those operations that were conducted down there were conducted by -- by
renegade military leaders. This is under the control of the US
forces, of the current interim Iraqi government. There -- there's no
need to think that we're going to have any kind of a -- a killing
campaign that's going to maim innocent civilians.
The
government pretends that counter-insurgency has been proved to be
effective. That actually hasn't happened and I don't understand why a
Gareth Porter or anyone else would accept the premise that
counter-insurgency is 'good' but has a few aspects that may be
troubling? I don't get that at all. Tom Hayden called out
counter-insurgency during Vietnam. He's one of the few voices who've
called it out during the Iraq War. In a column on Petraeus a few weeks ago, he included this paragraph:
As
this test of wills unfolded, Petraeus, with the help of an inbred,
fawning mass media, had become knwon as "the greatest soldier of his
generation," the counterinsurgency strategist who staved off a
dishonorable American retreat in Iraq, the guiding hand behind The U.S. Army-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual,
the man who would revive the South Vietnam "Phoenix Program" from the
ashes of disgrace. The Petraeus field manual rallied a cult of true
believers who have been convinced for thirty years that America's war in
Vietnam would have been won if only the politicians back in the States
had not pulled the plug on Phoenix because of claims of torture plus
photos of emaciated Vietcong prisoners held in tiny cages. (This is all
true, not a screenplay. Please see the Field Manual for more on the pacification program, pp. 73-75; see also, "Countering Global Insurgency," by Petraeus top counterinsurgency advisor, David Kllkullen, in the Small Wars Journal, November 30, 2004)
In
that paragraph, Tom Hayden makes it clear how disgusting
counter-insurgency is. In one paragraph. In his very long article,
Gareth Porter never manages to do the same. Click
here for audio of Douglas Valentine on Between The Lines discussing the
various assassination programs in the early days of the Iraq War.
Nicola Anderson (Independent) reports
that Kallada Abdul has just become a citizen of Ireland. Six years
ago, she left Iraq due to the violence and went to Ireland where her son
Dr. Mudafar Altawash had already moved to several decades ago. At 83,
it is thought that Kallada might be the oldest "to ever become a new
citizen." She is among millions of refugees who have left Iraq since
the start of the Iraq War in 2003. She is also among a small number of
lucky refugees who have been granted asylum and/or citizenship in a host
country. Deborah Amos's excellent 2010 book Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East
charts the lives of some who fled Iraq due to the violence. Among
those who have fled Iraq or moved to the KRG (Kurdistan Regional
Government -- semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq) due to safety
concerns are Iraqi Christians. As Sean McLachlan (Gadling) observed earlier this month:
The Christian Community in Iraq
is a lot smaller than it was in 2003 when the Coalition invaded. During
the occupation, radical Muslims claimed the Christians were helping the
invaders and used this as an excuse to attack them. Churches and shops
were bombed and individual Christians were murdered or told to leave on
pain of death.
In an interview with the BBC, the priest at St Joseph's Chaldean Church in Baghdad said that in the past nine years his parish has shrunk from 1,200 families to 300. The New York Times reports that before the war the Christian population was estimated to be as high as 1.4 million, and has now dropped to less than 500,000.
In an interview with the BBC, the priest at St Joseph's Chaldean Church in Baghdad said that in the past nine years his parish has shrunk from 1,200 families to 300. The New York Times reports that before the war the Christian population was estimated to be as high as 1.4 million, and has now dropped to less than 500,000.
The violence and the targeting has led surviving Iraqi Christians to consider leaving. Among the violence, the October 31st, 2010 attack on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad. Today, Nouri attended the latest reported opening of the Church (this one's supposed to finally be the real one) and Alsumaria reports
he used the opportunity to accuse the European Union of being
responsible for Iraqi Christians leaving Iraq. He gave a speech at the
Church where he declared the EU had needed to stop encouraging
Christians to leave and that all can live in Iraq in harmony. All Iraq News notes
the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Ammar al-Hakim
attended the ceremony. Nouri's blaming the European Union for his own
failure to protect Iraqi Chrisitans. He hasn't felt able to lash out
like this since November of 2010 when he publicly attacked France
for providing medical treatment for survivors of the assault on Our Lady
of Salvation Church.
When Nouri's cocky, it's
usually a sign that he's about to screw someone over. The breathing
space some believe was created yesterday when Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani announced Nouri and the KRG had reached an agreement with
regards to the military stand-off that was taking place in disputed
areas may have just gotten a lot smaller. With Nouri, the pattern is he
makes deals that he then refuses to honor. That's not just my opinion,
Al Mada notes
Nouri's refusal to honor agreements in his second term as prime
minister and they zoom in on the Erbil Agreement (publishing it in
full). As they note, the longest political stalemate in Iraq followed
the 2010 elections. In those parliamentary elections that Nouri's State
of Law was supposed to overwhelmingly win, the voters went another
way. Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya came in first place. Nouri's State of Law
came in second place.
Per the Constitution,
Jalal Talabani should have named someone from Iraqiya prime
minister-designate. Per the Constitution, that person would then have
30 days to create a Cabinet (select people, nominate them to be
Ministers and have Parliament vote to approve them). Success at that
would mean the person was no longer prime minister-designate but was now
prime minister. Failure to create a Cabinet in 30 days would result in
Jalal naming someone else to be prime minister-designate, per the
Constitution.
Nouri wanted a second term. And
US President Barack Obama didn't give a damn about democracy, will of
the people, the Iraqi Constitution or the Iraqi people who turned out to
vote. Let's again note this from John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
Bully
Boy Bush installed Nouri as prime minister in 2006 (the Iraqi
Parliament wanted Ibrahim al-Jafaari to be prime minister). In 2010,
Barack loved Nouri. How do you make someone prime minister when they
didn't meet the criteria outlined in the Constitution?
You
set aside the Constitution. Barack had the US government spend forever
negotiating a contract, popularly known as the Erbil Agreement because
it was signed in November of 2010 at a political meet-up held in the KRG
capital of Erbil. The US government went around asking the leaders of
the political blocs what they really wanted. A wish list was prepared.
These things were then offered in the contract in exchange for their
agreeing (in the contract) to allow Nouri al-Maliki to have a second
term. He'd already held up the process by 8 months. Eight months after
the election, Iraq still didn't have a prime minister. Nouri brought
things to a stand still and was able to do that because he had Barack's
support.
So what do you do if you're an Iraqi
politician? You can hold out forever for the Constitution and I
honestly believe that's what they should have done. (I don't live in
Iraq, however. Fakhri
Karim does and he's being targeted by Nouri -- Nouri's office issued a
statement this week attacking the editor -- because Karim believes Iraq
can be and should be everything outlined in the country's Constitution.
For that, for faith in Iraq's future, Karim is being publicly attacked
by Nouri al-Maliki.) But to move things forward, they signed off on the contract. It gave Nouri a second term.
And
what of the rewards the political leaders were supposed to receive
(such as the implementation of Article 140 in the Constitution, the
creation of an independent national security body, etc.)? It just
wasn't time, Nouri insisted. Within weeks, Iraqiya was stating Nouri
was breaking the contract. The US government swore it wasn't so. The
same US government that swore it was a valid contract and that the
President of the United States gave his word to fully back. But Nouri
tossed it aside -- Iraqiya was right -- and the White House revealed
themselves to be a snake pit of liars and users who say anything to get
what they want. (Yes, that is Barack's reputation in Iraq. No, it's not
pretty but it was earned by his actions.)
Since
the summer of 2011 the current stalemate (Political Stalemate II) has
been going on as Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada al-Sadr have called for
the Erbil Agreement to be implemented. The US government has remained
silent on the issue -- the White House is always silent when it's time
to call Nouri al-Maliki out.
They've
rewarded the tyrant -- in Republican and Democratic administrations --
who has repeatedly been caught running torture cells in prisons and
detention centers. Nouri won nothing in the recent battle which is
another reason to watch him closely. But, more importantly, no one else
did. The deal Iraqi President Jalal Talabani outlined basically just
turns the clock back to a time right before Nouri sent the Tigris
Operation Command forces into the disputed areas. There is no
concession won that Nouri will now suddenly follow the Constitution and
implement Article 140 as he's required to do -- as he was supposed to
some time ago. Fakhri Karim (chair and editor of Al Mada) observes
in a column today that Jalal has wasted too much time appeasing and has
refused to use his powers as president to hold Nouri in check. He
notes Nouri's blatant violation of the Constituion and how, despite this
increasing, Jalal just ignores it and works on repairing dialogue when
he should be using his role as president to protect the Constitution.
He's correct. And a growing number of people find Nouri's actions and statements outrageous and embarrassing. Kitabat reports
hundreds turned out in Nasiriyah yesterday to protest the verbal attack
Nouri launched Monday on Moqtada al-Sadr and that some of the signs
carried call for an Iraqi Spring -- similar to 2011's Arab Spring. As
Kitabat has previously reported, there are already plans by Iraqi youth
to take to the streets in January Protesters in Nasiriyah said Nouri
was guilty of covering up corruptions and protecting thieves of the
public money. They burned photos of Nouri al-Maliki and chanted that
this was the final warning. This was only the latest protest this
week following Nouri al-Maliki publicly attacking cleric and movement
leader Moqtada al-Sadr in a speech on Monday. Dropping back to Tuesday's snapshot:
In Basra and Baghdad today, protests took place against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Al Mada reports photos of Nouri were burned and he was denounced loudly. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Nouri used a Monday speech allegedly about human rights to attack Moqtada al-Sadr -- cleric and movement leader. Dar Addustour adds
"thousands" poured into the streets in Baghdad at two o'clock in the
afternoon. As they marched to a central location, Muzaffar Square, they
chanted slogans. Nouri can take comfort in that his wasn't the only
photo burned -- there were also a few photos of former leader Saddam
Hussein that were set on fire. All Iraq News notes
that as the protests took place, Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement
noting that the Iraqi army must be armed but not via corrupt deals (like
the Russian deal Nouri signed and then called off) and that all arms
must be to defend Iraq and not used to attack Iraqis. Please note
that all three previous links have a photo of the turnout in Baghdad, it
was huge. Just how large it was may be best captured in the photo Kitabat runs. At the Basra protest, Sheikh Khalid al-Issawi tells Al Mada
that the protest is to convey the outrage over Nouri's verbal attack on
Moqtada while, in Baghdad, Sheikh Taha Altablawbawi explains that the
people of Sadr City, elders, intellectuals, children, all, are serving
notice that attacks on Moqtada al-Sadr will not go unnoticed and will
result in a response. Protester Sam Abdul-Mahdi tells Alsumaria that this is the start of protests in Basra and that Nouri should retract his attack on Moqtada. The Iraq Times reports
that Nouri ordered helicopters to fly overhead during the Baghdad
protest and that some Sadrists saw that as an attempt at intimidation.
Al Mada reports
that Iraqiya is warning that if changes do not take place in Iraq
quickly, popular uprisings will take to the streets. Protests were
taking place around Iraq in January. Demonstrators were calling out the
disappearance of their loved ones into the 'justice system,' they were
calling out the lack of jobs and the lack of basic services. This
swelled into the massive protests that took place across Iraq February
25th. Iraqis took to the streets and, in Baghdad, Nouri sent his forces
to attack. Iraqi reporters were kidnapped by the police after
covering the protests, they were then tortured and forced to sign
statements saying they had not been tortured. Haidi al-Mahdi was one of
those reporters. It was after the protests, he and some other
reporters were ordering lunch and seated a table when Nouri's forces
barged over, used the butt of their guns to strike people and rounded up
Haidi and the other reporters.
Al Mada notes
that protesters also showed their support for Moqtada on Wednesday in
Baghdad, Najaf, Basra and Maysan and that they called out Nouri and
burned photos of Nouri. Al Mada reports
that the protests continued in Baghdad and Najaf today for the fourth
consecutive day. If you're not aware of those protests, it's because
the non-Iraqi media hasn't been reporting them.
Late Thursday, a Baghdad bombing took place. Details on the numbers weren't in when we did the snapshot. All Iraq News reports that it was 2 bombs and that 1 person died and five more were injured. And violence today? All Iraq News reports 1 corpse was discovered in Babylon (shot to death), and a Falluja car bombing claimed 3 lives. Alsumaria notes a Samarra car bombing has claimed the life of 1 woman with sixteen injured. The Iraq Times notes that journalist Saifi Qaisi remains missing. Yesterday's snapshot noted, "The Journalistic Freedom Observatory also notes
that Saifi Qaisi, editori-in-chief of Safir newspaper, disappeared
Sunday when he left a management and editorial meeting to return home by
cab but never made it home. The fifty-year-old has a wife and three
children and has been a journalist since the 1980s." The paper notes
that all the hospitals in Baghdad were contacted and that police were
given information on Sunday and that he was targeted for assassination
in July 2008 but survived the bombing with injuries to his head and
back. The paper also notes the murder of journalist Samir Sheikh a few
weeks ago. He was shot dead November 17th while driving his car in Baghdad.
Turning to the US, Rick Wills (Tribune-Review) reports
a memorial service was held today for Iraq War veteran and Afghanistan
War veteran Major Benjamin Follansbee who "apparently hanged himself on
Monday in his Fayetteville, N.C., residence". At this point, the death
is not ruled a suicide. Yesterday, the Pentagon released their data on Army suicides for November.
In October, there were 20 possible suicides according to last month's
data. The Pentagon notes that 1 of the 20 has been ruled to not be a
suicide. 9 of the remaining 19 were confirmed suicides and "10 remain
under investigation." That's an update on October. For November? They
believe there are 15 potential suicides and 2 have been confirmed as
that while 13 remain under inviestigation. The Pentagon statement
notes: "For 2012, there have been 177 potential active-duty suicides:
113 have been confirmed as suicides and 64 remain under investigation.
Active-duty suicide number for 2011: 165 confirmed as suicides and no
cases under investigation."
From
service members to veterans, June 27th, the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee -- which Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of -- held a
hearing (we covered that hearing in the June 27th and June 28th snapshots). Tracy Keil was one of the witnesses and her testimony included:
My
husband Matt was shot in the neck while on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq on
February 24, 2007 just 6 weeks after we were married. The bullet went
through the right side of his neck, hit his vertebral artery, went
through his spinal cord and exited through his left shoulder blade.
Matt instantly because a quadriplegic. When I first saw him 3 days
after he was injured I was in shock, they explained to me that he had a
"Christopher Reeve type injury." He would be on a ventilator for the
rest of his life and would never move his arms or legs.
Matt
and I looked at each other in his hospital room at Walter Reed and he
asked me if I still loved him? I said "baby you're stuck with me!" at
that moment we knew that we would be okay if we stayed in this
together. I knew that we just needed to work really hard to get Matt
off his ventilator to increase his life expectancy. Ultimately we moved
to Craigh Hospital in Denver to be closer to family support.
Four
weeks to the day of arriving at Craig Hospital in Denver, Matt was
officially off of his ventilator and we could truly concentrate on him
doing physical rehabilitation. Matt has regained about 10% function of
his left arm but not his hand. He was feeling good and getting used to
his new normal of being in a wheelchair and asking for help for
everything.
It was while we were at Craigh hospital
that we started talking about having a family. Craig doctors talked to
us about in vitro fertilization and recommended some doctors for us to
speak to when we were ready to start a family. We started to get really
excited that even though so much had been taken away from Matt
physically that we could still have the future we always dreamed of.
My
husband is the most amazing man I have ever met, he is strong, honest
and loyal and he wanted us to both have everything we always wanted
before his injury and we agreed that this injury wasn't the end, it was
the beginning of a new life, and we were in this together.
We
had our whole lives ahead of us. Matt was just 24 when he was injured
and I was 28. We are very fortunate that he survived his injuries that
day and we made a promise to each other on our wedding day "For better
or worse, in sickness and in health" I meant every word and still do
today. It is a challenge for my husband and I everyday but we knew we
still wanted to start a family. I remember back when he was in
rehabilitation at Craigh Hospital it's all we could talk about was when
we were going to be adjusted to our new normal and when we would we be
ready to have children. We always knew we had wanted children.
In
2008 we moved into a fully handicap accessible home built for us by
Homes For Our Troops. We were starting to feel like things were falling
into place in our lives. We felt like we were starting to get back on
track to where we were before Matt was injured.
His
injury unfortunately prevents him from having children naturally. In
mid 2008 I started asking the VA what services they could offer my
husband and I to assist us with fertility. I can remember hitting road
blocks at every turn. I decided to take things into my own hands and
write letters and make phone calls to try and get anyone to listen to us
that we needed help. Fertility treatments are very expensive and since
I had left my full time job we were still adjusting to living on one
income.
I felt helpless and hopeless and thought that
our dreams of having a family may never come true. The VA finally said
that they would cover the sperm withdrawal from my husband . . . that
costs $1,000 and that they would store the sperm for us at no charge.
It
was very difficult when I found out there was no help available for us
from the VA or Tricare. I felt very defeated, sad, disappointed and in
some ways I felt helpless. I researched everything I could about how to
get Tricare to cover some of the costs but they couldn't because it was
a direct result of my husband's injury and that fell under the VA. The
VA said that they had no programs in place for this sort of thing. I
even started asking non profits to assist with the cost and they
couldn't help due to the other immediate needs of injured service
members.
That's the story of one family. The Defense Dept estimates that there are nearly 2,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars who have suffered injuries that could impact reproduction. If you are a service member, you can get coverage via Tricare. But if you are a veteran, you currently have no coverage. Yesterday, Tracy Keil and her husband Iraq War veteran Matt Keil and their twins Faith and Matthew were in the Senate. They were present to hear Senator Patty Murray explain from the floor why her bill, the Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, was needed. Murray explained, "This is about giving veterans who have sacrificed everything -- every option we have to help them fulfill the simple dream of starting a family. It says that we are not turning our back on the catastrophic reproductive wounds that have become a signature of these wars. It says to all those brave men and women that didn't ask questions when they were put in harm's way, that we won't let politics get in the way of our commitment to you." Lawrence Downes (New York Times) observes, "Disabled veterans won a big, unexpected victory today: the Senate passed Senator Patty Murray's bill to expand fertility services, including in-vitro fertilization, at the Veterans Affairs Department. Ms. Murray, the Washington Democrat and chairwoman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, sponsored the bill, S.3313, to help service members whose war wounds have left them unable to have children." Rick Maze (Marine Corps Times) states the just passed bill is already dead. Why? US House Rep Jeff Miller, Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, supposedly doesn't want it to be brought to a vote. As Miller's presented in a quote in that article by Maze, Miller favors it for the 113th session of Congress that will begin in January. If that's a correct reading of Miller (and Maze is one of the country's strongest reporters so it most likely is a correct reading), Miller's fiscal responsibility that he always touches on and how important it is to be a strong steward of public monies (tax payer money) is not being followed. There's no reason in the world that it can't be voted on in the House. They're not even on vacation yet. And why would you want to waste tax payer money starting the process up all over again in the 113th Congress? The bill needs to be put to a vote. It's not fair to veterans not to and it's not fair to tax payers. If every bill that passed in December was put on hold until the 113th Congress (when I say 'put on hold,' I mean it's stopped in its tracks. It will have to be revoted on in the 113th Congress, the entire process will have to start over), when are they going to accomplish anything. Tax payers paid for the printing of the bill, for the time spent researching the bill, for the time spent writing the bill and for the time spent presenting the bill. Tax payers have footed the bill on this. To not vote on it in the House is to waste the tax payer dollar.
