Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Where was Ron Paul in most of the media?

Hump Day, Hump Day. Another week. Another cold winter. I am so ready to move to Hawaii. here was the I'm not joking.

Soon.

So the media today. Did you follow any of it? Day after New Hampshire?

The big stories, I saw them on cable and heard on radio:

1) Jon Hunstman is doing very bad.

2) Mitt Romney won.

3) Maybe Rick Perry can come back.

4) What makes Newt Gingrich so angry?

Ron Paul had a solid second place win last night and they just ignore him, don't they?

POLITICO was an exception. They actually featured several articles on Paul. Including that Senator Rand Paul (Ron's son) thinks the race is now between his father and Mitt Romney.

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


Wednesday, January 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Kurds say "no" to Nouri, the political crisis continues, the US comes off disinterested, a mayor is assassinated in Iraq, and more.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, burn pits have been used. This means all the waste -- including medical -- is burned in an open area. Many US service members and contractors were exposed to these leading to respiratory illnesses and worse. In 2009, the practice was finally banned by the US government. Sadly, neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan began in 2009. Many service members and contractors suffer from exposure to burn pits. Next month, the first ever scientific symposium will be held in New York.
1st Annual Scientific Symposium on
Lung Health after Deplyoment to Iraq & Afghanistan
February 13, 2012
sponsored by
Office of Continuing Medical Education
School of Medicine
Stony Brook University
Location
Health Sciences Center, Level 3, Lecture Hall 5
Anthony M. Szema, M.D., Program Chair
Stony Brook
University
Medical Center
This program is made possible by support from the Sergeant Thomas Joseph Sullivan Center, Washington, D.C.
2 WAYS TO REGISTER FOR THE CONFERENCE
* Register with your credit card online at: http://www.stonybrookmedicalcenter.org/education/cme.cfm
* Download the registration form from:
fax form to (631) 638-1211
For Information Email: cmeoffice@stonybrook.edu
1st Annual Scientific Symposium on
Lung Health after Deployment to Iraq & Afghanistan
Monday, February 13, 2012
Health Sciences Center
Level 3, Lecture Hall 5
Program Obejctive: Upon completion, participants should be able to recognize new-onset of lung disease after deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.
8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Registration & Continental Breakfast (Honored Guest, Congressman
Tim Bishop
9:00 - 9:30 Peter Sullivan, J.D., Father of Marine from The Sergeant Thomas Joseph
Sullivan Center, Washington, D.C.
9:40 - 10:10 Overview of Exposures in Iraq, Anthony Szema, M.D., (Assistant
Professor of Medicine and Surgery, Stony Brook University)
10:10 - 10:40 Constrictive Bronchiolitis among Soldiers after Deployment, Matt
King, M.D. (Assistant Professor of Medicine, Meharry Medical College,
Nashville, TN)
10:40 - 11:10 BREAK
11:10 - 11:40 Denver Working Group Recommendations and Spirometry Study in
Iraq/Afghanistan, Richard Meehan, M.D., (Chief of Rheumatology and
Professor of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO)
11:40 a.m. - Microbiological Analyses of Dust from Iraq and Afghanistan, Captain Mark
12:10 p.m. Lyles, D.M.D., Ph. D., (Vice Admiral Joel T. Boone Endowed Chair of
Health and Security Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Newport, RI)
12:10 - 12:20 Health Care Resource Utilization among Deployed Veterans at the White
River Junction VA, James Geiling, M.D., (Professor and Chief of Medicine,
Dartmouth Medical School, VA White River Junction, VT)
12:20 - 1:20 LUNCH AND EXHIBITS
Graduate students Millicent Schmidt and Andrea Harrington (Stony Brook
University) present Posters from Lung Studies Analyzed for Spatial
Resolution of Metals at Brookhaven National Laboratory's National
Synchrotron Light Source
1:20 - 1:40 Epidemiologic Survey Instrument on Exposures in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Joseph Abraham, Sc.D., Ph.D., (U.S. Army Public Health Command,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD)
1:40 - 2:10 Overview of the Issue Raised during Roundtable on Pulmonary Issues
and Deployment, Coleen Baird, M.D., M.P.H., (Program Manager
Environmental Medicine, U.S. Army Public Health Command)
2:10 - 2: 40 Reactive Oxygen Species from Iraqi Dust, Martin Schoonen, Ph.D.
(Director Sustainability Studies and Professor of Geochemistry, Stony
Brook University)
2:40 - 2:50 BREAK
2:50 - 3:15 Dust Wind Tunnel Studies, Terrence Sobecki, Ph.D. (Chief Environmental
Studies Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research
and Engineering Laboratory, Manchester, NH)
3:15 - 3:45 Toxicologically Relevant Characteristics of Desert Dust and Other
Atmospheric Particulate Matter, Geoffrey S. Plumlee, Ph.D. (Research
Geochemist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO)
3:44 - 4:15 In-situ Mineralogy of the Lung and Lymph Nodes, Gregory Meeker, M.S.
(Research Geochemist, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO)
Continuing Medical Education Credits
The school of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brooke designates this live activity for a maximum of 6 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)TM. Physicians should only claim the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
We will note that again (probably in several snapshots). Any typos in the above are mine. That was sent to me in a PDF last month. I did two or three lines on it and said we'd note it in full (when I had time to convert the file, print it and then type it up). I completely forgot and they're so kind they're not one of the ones who ever send a reminder. (Some people e-mail you something they want highlighted at 10:20 a.m. And then e-mail you an hour later and an hour later and an hour later and hour later . . .) My sincere apologies for forgetting about it.
And the burn pits cause damage to those breathing in the chemicals. Other damage is unknown. But improperly disposing of chemical waste, for example, has led to the increased cancer risks at Camp Lejeune. That's an issue many work on but Senator Richard Burr -- Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- has long highlighted. He and Senator Kay Hagan introduced the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act of 211 which won the unanimous support of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee but has not had a floor vote. US House Rep Brad Miller has a similar measure in the House of Representatives. Former US Senator Elizabeth Dole (Raleigh-Durham News & Observer) addressed the issue yesterday:
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fought to expose the facts about the Camp Lejeune water contamination and to expedite notification to all potential victims. My legislation requiring the Pentagon to provide such direct notification through a registry was signed into law. The Corps, however, has not utilized the registry to directly inform military families about the EPA's determination.
The provision of medical care for the people made ill by the contaminants in the installation's drinking water must now be addressed through the legislative process. The cost of that care may eventually be high in terms of dollars. We must, nevertheless, meet our nation's ethical and moral responsibilities.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., are to be commended for their sponsorship of legislation that would provide medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for individuals who suffer from one or more of these cancers or other health effects and who are known to have served or lived at Camp Lejeune during the years in question. Passage of their legislation and its enactment into law are the necessary next steps.
Former US Senator Evan Bayh repeatedly attempted to create a national Burn Pit Registry with no success. Maybe now that the Senate's chief objector to the registry is set to leave at the end of the year (Jim Webb -- who also objected to the Agent Orange benefits the VA created), it can be championed again and this time passed?
Camp Lejuene should make you wonder what the effects from these burn pits will be on Iraqis in the future? (As well as the people of Afghanistan, but our focus is Iraq.) And don't expect the US government to make public any risk assessment they've carried out or might carry out in the future as well as the effects from the depleted uranium and white phosophorus used in the second 2004 assault (November) on Falluja. Last week Dahr Jamail reported for Al Jazeera from Falluja and noted the huge increase in birth defects and there has been "a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer" since the second assault. Dahr shares:
Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.
Abdul has trouble controlling his muscles, struggles to walk, cannot control his bladder, and weakens easily. Doctors told his father, Mohamed Jaleel Abdul Rahim, that his son has severe nervous system problems, and could develop fluid build-up in his brain as he ages, which could prove fatal.
"This is the first instance of something like this in all our family," Rahim told Al Jazeera. "We lived in an area that was heavily bombed by the Americans in 2004, and a missile landed right in front of our home. What else could cause these health problems besides this?"
John Glaser (Antiwar.com) adds, "Antiwar.com columnist Kelley B. Vlahos wrote a brilliant piece in April 2011 in The American Conservative cataloguing the scientific support behind the conclusion that this ongoing suffering in Fallujah is caused by the U.S. weapons used in America's siege of the city in 2004."
Thomas Seiberg (The National) reports, "Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime miniser has started a bid to end the power struggle in Iraq, warning that religious strife had turned the neighbouring country into a 'sea of blood'. Mr Erdogan was scheduled to talk to Nouri Al Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, by telephone yesterday. There was no word on whether a statement would be released afterwards." Today's Zaman adds, "In a telephone conversation late on Tuesday, Erdogan told Maliki that transformation of mistrust into animosity toward a coalition partner will negatively affect democracy in Iraq, a veiled warning to the Iraqi prime minister that his latest arrest warrant for Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi is a blow to democracy in the war-torn country." Hurriyet Daily News reports on a speech Erdogan gave Tuesday "to his party's parliamentary group" in which he alluded to Nouri al-Maliki, "Without naming him directly, Erdoğan slammed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, saying 'a positive outcome cannot be expected from a mindset which is sending tanks to besiege the homes of ministers from his own coalition'." Nouri started that as soon as he returned to Iraq after his meet up with Barack Obama in DC. Saturday, December 17th, Liz Sly (Washington Post) reported, "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." Nouri received praise yesterday as well, Al Mada reports. The militant group Army of the Mujahideen declared support for Nouri and his efforts to form a "single and unified Iraq" . . and that they claimed that they had been behind the rocket attack on the Green Zone ceremony celebrating the creation of the Iraqi Army.


Iraq's political crisis continues. Al Mada notes that President Jalal Talabani has called for a meeting next week for a 'wider' conference and that he had a meeting yesterday with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Nouri. Al Sabaah states that KRG President Massoud Barzani has stated he will not attend but will send an emissary to the conference and that US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey has praised the efforts of Talabani to start a national dialogue. But, Al Mada adds, if the conference were held in the KRG, Barzani would attend and that his office is stating any national meet-up should be in a mutually agreed upon location. Supposedly, later this year, the Arab Summit will take place in Baghdad. This summit has been repeatedly postponed due to safety concerns. Safety concerns might be among the reasons that Barzani feels the meet-up should be held in the KRG. Safety concerns might include that another of Nouri's supporters might rocket attack the Green Zones. Dar Addustour explains the wider conference next week will involve more participants -- this is not the often called for national conference but a conference to explore the national conference. Alsumaria TV elaborates that next week's planned conference will include more representatives in the political process. As for the national conference, Aswat al-Iraq quotes State of Law MP Ali al-Alaq stating, "The reason behind holding the conference in Baghdad is to show its sovereign role following US forces withdrawal and as an emblem for national unity."
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Iraq. We still have 15,000, 17,000 civilians there, as I understand it. Are you confident that they're safe?
SECRETARY LEON PANETTA: We're confident that we have an Iraqi government and an Iraqi security force that is capable of dealing with the security threats that are there now. The level of violence has been down. It's been down for a long time. And even though we've had these periodic acts of violence, that's something we've experienced there for a long time. But the bottom line is that the Iraqis can provide good security and that our people can be secure in what we they're doing there.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But I mean, the fact of the matter is, we've had over 100 people killed just this week there, have we not? As this-- these various attacks have come about, and...
SECRETARY LEON PANETTA: Bob, you're right. We're going to see those kinds of acts of violence take place. But when you look at the level of violence overall, it is down and it has been down, mainly because the Iraqis have been able, effectively, to develop good security. And that's important.

Americans (and the world) have heard that bulls**t of "we're going to see those kinds of acts of violence take place" since 2003 following the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. It's Tony Hayward BP time: "We're sorry. We're sorry." Because it is and has been the standard response, it doesn't address the political crisis and makes the administration sound either uninformed or uncaring (or both).
Senator John McCain: Secretary Panetta mentioned in Iraq. In all due respect, Iraq is unraveling. It's unraveling because we didn't keep a residual force there because the President of the United States pledged to get out of Iraq [clears throat] and we could have kept a residual force there and kept some stability. Instead, it's unraveling and Iran's influence is increasing. And there's every possibility you could see a very chaotic situation --

Bob Schieffer: You think there's a civil war coming there?

Senator John McCain: I think there's clearly an unraveling going on which could eventually lead basically into three different kind of states in Iraq. We needed to keep a residual force there and that is what the Bush administration envisioned and that is what we should have done. We never gave them a number until, in the words of General Dempsey, the numbers cascaded down to 3,500. The Iraqis were ready to deal on this issue. The administration did not give them a number. And so what the perception is now, particularly in that part of the world, is that the United States is weak and withdrawing. And that is also having its effect in other places including emboldening Iran. Leading from behind is not what this world needs. And we still do have the best military in the world. And we still do have the most efficient and we still do have the most effective ways --

Bob Schieffer: Well let me just ask you, you heard Secretary Panetta said he's confident that there's an Iraqi army in place that could protect those 15 to 17,000 Americans that are still there. Are you confident that those people are safe?

Senator John McCain: Of course not.

Bob Schieffer: And what would happen? We have to go back?

Senator John McCain: No, I think we would have to withdraw them. Look, what Secretary Panetta may not understand -- and I have great admiration and respect for him -- that the situation is unraveling. The Vice President of Iraq is now hiding out in Erbil. There is militias and death squads operating. There is a breakdown in the Iraqi government. And there will be increased tensions on the border between the Kurdish areas of Iraq and the other areas of Iraq. And all of these could have been avoided if we had led rather than followed.


One party sounds concerned, the other sounds ho-hum. Remember what happened to Tony Hayward as he did his blah-blah over and over and the world grew more and more enraged? He and BP parted ways. And there was no public outcry of, "How could they do that to Tony!" There was a sense of he got what he had coming. Why the administration -- which responded so poorly during the Gulf Disaster -- thinks Tony Hayward's is the behavior to role model is beyond me. If this remains their approach and presentation, don't be surprised if a number of people begin saying, "Well, I don't agree with John McCain but he cares, you can tell he cares."

Ali Hussein (Al Mada) reports on the political crisis and speaks with a member of Parliament to ask whether the current situation was planned by Nouri or whether it was a huge miscalculation on Nouri's part? The feeling is that Nouri's sparked a crisis which leaves the country's very future "hanging by a thread" and Iraqis had expected this time to be one of peace and hope, having survived Saddam and the US occupation; however, now the political scene grows "darker and darker" and Nouri attempts to seize power from his political rivals. Iraqi politicians fear that Barack Obama made a miscalculation (regarding US troops) and that this will be "the last bullet fired on Iraq."
Yes, it is a crisis. Jon Hemming (Reuters) reports the Kurds aren't willing to hand Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi over to Baghdad. Nouri officially started the crisis by charging al-Hashemi with terrorism. The vice president was already in the KRG at the time and has remained there as President Jalal Talabani's house guest. That they weren't just going to hand over was covered in Monday's snapshot, that was the point of the press conference the spokesperson for the judge held. Hemming reports Kurdish officials state that Nouri should accept al-Hashemi's request for a trial held somewhere other than Baghdad. (Nouri controls the Baghdad courts.) It's doubtful any political rival of Nouri's would feel comfortable being tried in Baghdad.
Reuters notes today's violence includes the assassination of Mayor Saeed Hamdan in Hit, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, and, dropping back to Tuesday night for the next two a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left nine people injured and a Qaim attack on a police checkpoint in which 3 police officers were killed (and 1 assailant).
Turning to Iraq discussed in the US. And e-mails. Contrary to what some visitors e-mail, I haven't endorsed anyone for president. I haven't said, "I'll vote for ___ for president." As Elaine noted last night, what I'm actually leaning towards is just not voting for the first time in my adult life. Before yesterday's snapshot went up, before it was even dicated, I knew someone would e-mail to insist that saying Steve Inskeep should focus on policies and not fashion would be seen as an endorsement of Mitt Romney and sure enough it was. Sunday night, I noted John McCain which led to a lot of dumb e-mails. A number of visitors seem to think he's running for president in 2012. A smaller number saw it as my attempt to raise Jon Huntsman profile. Oh, I am crafty! 'Noting John McCain's remarks on Iraq,' I secretly thought, 'will allow Hunstman to win the New Hampshire primaries!' Right? Because McCain endorsed . . . Romney. Get your facts straight. But, some insisted, John was noted and Leon Panetta wasn't and I never, ever noted Rick Perry's comments from the weekend so I must be endorsing Rick Perry.
Let's start with Rick Perry. Of all the GOP contenders, Perry's gotten slammed the hardest here. That's because he was a governor and we cover Iraq and I note deaths and I note when NO ONE in the state of the fallen, not one politician, issues a public statement about the death. He was governor -- he is governor -- and Texas has lost a number of service members in the Iraq War. His failure to do what my governor (Jerry Brown) does immediately is appalling. And we've called him out repeatedly. Saturday night, I wasn't in the mood for Iraq as noted near the end of this entry. I wasn't in the mood for all the people who won't recognize the realities of the deaths and the destruction. I was not in the mood. I did mention the Perry thing to Jim (who was reading over my shoulder as I wrote the Saturday night entries) and he and others (not Ava and I) attempted a piece on that for Third that never worked out. (I didn't read it, I wasn't in the mood.)
Monday's the first time it could have appeared and New Hampshire was Tuesday. I've slammed Perry harder than any other GOP candidate and now, a day before the primary, I'm going to slam him again? I didn't see the point (nor did I want to wade through a transcript of the debate). We've covered his failure to note the fallen, in his role of governor, we've noted his attack on Barack Obama regarding the parades is insane considering (a) he (Perry) can't even note the fallen and (b) he's a governor. He can put on a parade tomorrow if he wants one. (However, I was told Texas had decided to hold their parade in November on Veterans Day. If true, Perry may need to explain why that is if he's going around demanding others hold parades.)
John McCain was noted over Leon Panetta. Panetta is Secretary of Defense. Panetta is also someone I know. That has not prevented me from calling him out on hearings or other issues. But to do that, I need to have the energy to do it. Having worked all Sunday morning on Third Estate Sunday Review (including Ava and I doing a major rewrite of our TV piece at the last minute Sunday night to include other topics and make the piece harder hitting at Jim's request), I just wasn't in the mood to take Leon to task if he needed it. And the way things work, when I have no energy left at all is when I usually have to find it due to events. Also true, I know Leon meaning I know when he's not telling the truth, I know when he's lying. If he was lying -- and these days there's half a chance of it due to administration policies -- I just wasn't in the mood to take someone I know and like to the woodshed. That's why we went with McCain. We'll go into this topic one more time Thursday night (not in the snapshot) and that will be it for this topic here in 2012.
Posted by at

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

John Nichols should slit his own wrists

Tuesday and is there a bigger liar than John Nichols of The Nation magazine and Wisconsin?

He's so cheesy, he s**ts Cheese Whiz.



When's the last time John Nichols highlighted an issue important to the lives of Black America?

Never.

He just writes his horse race crap.

And lies.

He can't stop lying.

In 2008, he lied to whore for Barack. Barack got caught telling voters one thing (he'd repeal NAFTA) and telling the Canadian government that it was just talk to win an election. AP had the documents proving it took place.

So Whore John went on Democracy Now and lied that it was really Hillary and he would be writing an explosive piece on it.

His 'scoop' never came to be. It was just a lie to try to manipulate people.

That's what John Nichols does, he tries to manipulate.

He's such a damn liar.

If the little princess slit his wrists, I think most of America would cheer.



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


Tuesday, January 10, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, if the media doesn't cover realities for Iraqis why would you blame the American people for not knowing about them, the State Dept continues their public lackadaisical presentation, and more.
To put a face on war, Susie Day pens the essay "Dead Iraqis Occupy Wall Street" (Monthly Review):

With the war in Iraq now officially over and the Occupy Wall Street movement less visible, life in New York was expected to return to normal. Instead, several recent passersby in Manhattan's financial district have reported seeing thousands of deceased Iraqi civilians taking up residence at Zuccotti Park. The park served for two months in the fall of 2011 as a protest base for thousands of OWS activists.
Although the Iraqis remain largely silent and immobile, some witnesses claim to have seen individual deceased mothers, students, and the elderly holding up the backs of old pizza boxes, on which have been scrawled the English words, "Remember Me."
Public reaction has been mixed. Some say the dead are "occupying" the park in nonviolent protest; others accuse the Iraqis of faking their own deaths in order to flout U.S. immigration laws. The Bloomberg administration, having evicted hundreds of living protesters from the park in mid-November, has thus far maintained a wary tolerance.

Meanwhile John Robles (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) interviews De
John Tirman (Washington Post) mused on US President Barack Obama's speech. (For the record, as we noted the day Barack gave that speech, if you're president of the United States you don't say "nearly 4,5000 members of the US armed forces who died in Iraq," you give the exact number or you and your staff haven't done the job needed.) Tirman
notes Barack's speech included nothing about the dead or injured Iraqis and offers, "This inattention to civilian deaths in America's wars isn't unique to Iraq. There's little evidence that the American public gives much thought to the people who live in nations where our military interventions take place."

We're always so quick to blame the American people. Why is that? Do they control the newspapers and the radio and the TV? If people should care -- and I believe they should -- then the media should be covering it. If it's not being covered, it's really cowardly to blame the American people when you haven't said one damn word about the American media.
How would the American people know about, for example, Iraqis right now?
Traveling sea gull?
If the media's not covering it, then that's a media issue, it's not an American people issue. Quit blaming We The People for the crimes of The Few The Media. As the year drew to a close on December 31st, McClatchy and NPR closed their Baghdad bureaus, joining ABC, NBC and CBS, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Boston Globe and countless others, go down the list. How are Americans supposed to know the realities for Iraqis when they can't get coverage of Iraq?
But don't worry, they're spending their money and time well. For example, if NPR were still providing coverage from Iraq, listeners of Morning Edition might not know, thanks to Steve Inskeep, that Mitt Romney spoke at a Saturday event in "jeans and an open-collared shirt with the sleeves rolled up." Here's some reality, if Steve Inskeep wants to work for Women's Wear Daily, he needs to try to get hired there. It might not be easy, their standards are a bit higher than those of National Public Radio. But while he's on NPR doing 'news' -- and this is true for others at NPR as well as PBS -- unless Mitt Romney -- or any other candidate -- shows up for a speech in just underwear or nude, it's not really news what they're wearing. It's chatter. It wastes our time. It ensures that real issues are never addressed. It's not news.
While the bulk of All Things Media Big and Small ignore Iraq, independent journalist Dahr Jamail has returned to the country. Dahr (Centre for Global Research) observes, "As a daily drumbeat of violence continues to reverberate across Iraq, people here continue to struggle to find some sense of normality, a task made increasingly difficult due to ongoing violence and the lack of both water and electricity. [. . .] Iraq continues to have a cash economy; meaning there are no credit cards, almost no checking accounts, no transfer of electronic funds, and only a few ATMs. Iraq lacks a functioning postal service, has no public transporation, nor a national airline -- and most goods sold in Iraq are imported."
And if you turn away
because there is no lesson here
I will hold my awkward bowl,
with all its cracked stars shining
like a complicated lie,
and fasten a new skin around it
as if I were dressing an orange
or a strange sun.
Not that it was beautiful,
but that I found some order there.
-- "For John, Who Begs Me Not To Enquire Futher" written by Anne Sexton
As noted Saturday, "What did protesters tell CNN last month? They begged CNN not to leave Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Why? Because when the press left, Nouri's forces would attack the protesters. (And did.) Across the world, we all have the power to shine a light on what's going in Iraq." Today Jomana Karadsheh (CNN -- link is video) files an important report:
Jomana Karadsheh: Last month, Oday al-Zaidy and a small group of people gathered in a Baghdad square to celebrate the US media withdrawal planning to burn the US flag. But more than 200 security forces swarmed around them, banned us from filming and stopped the protests because they said the group had not obtained a permit. But they still managed to burn the flag. Oday and others were beaten up and detained for a day. Security officials say, they assaulted policemen, something the group denies. "Democracy in Iraq is an illusion," Oday says. "An American illusion and an American lie. Whoever wants to see that for themselves, should come and see what's been happening in Iraq since February 25th." That's when thousands of Iraqis -- partly influenced by the Arab Spring -- took to the streets of cities across the country protesting against corruption and a lack of basic services. [Gun shots are heard and security forces move in.] But from the start, they were met by a fierce crackdown. The government denies an orchestrated effort to put down protests, saying there were just minor violations committed by to put down protests by individual security officers. Activists groups disagree. Human Rights Watch says the violations have been systematic and ongoing documenting dozens of cases where protesters were beaten up, detained and, in some cases, even tortured.
Human Rights Watch's Samer Muscati: People are afraid to go to demonstrations, are afraid of being rounded up, of being assaulted, of being beat up, of being followed to their own homes.
Jomana Karadsheh: And this is what has happened almost a year since the protests began here in Baghdad's own Tahrir or Liberation Square the scene is very different from last February. Activists say the crowd here has significantly dwindled over recent months and most of those present on this Friday say they are supporters of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. This crowd behind me has been chanting against two of the prime minister's two main political rivals -- Ayad Allawi and Saleh al-Mutlaq. Banners like these around the square praise "the wisdom and courage" of Mr. Maliki.
Human Rights Watch's Samer Muscati: I think really we are at a critical juncture and we are at a crossroads and Iraq right now, from what we see, is a budding police state. And hopefully that will change but all indications now are that things are actually going to deteriorate even more.
Baghdad Operations Command Spokesperson Qassim Atta: Our country is still suffering from terrorism and security forces are highly sensitive and ready for the worst possibilities and it is their right to protect public security. There should be no generalization. These human rights organizations can visit Tahrir Square every week to see the protests.
Jomana Karadsheh: But those who dare venture out have a different story. As we try to speak to this protester, we're interrupted by government supporters. Protesters say they're intelligence agents. For now, there are still some who refuse to back down despite the intimidation campaign.
Iraqi Male: The Republic of Iraq! Every time he's dead! Kill! Dead! Kill! Why?
Jomana Karadsheh: As this man cries out against the government, Maliki's supporters move right in, drowing out the calls for change. Jomana Karadsheh, CNN, Baghdad.
A police state. Well aren't we lucky the US isn't spending billions training the Iraqi police. Oh. Wait. The US tax payer is on the hook for training the potential police of a police state. Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) explained in October, "Since 2003, the United States has spent about $8 billion to train, staff and equip Iraqi police forces. With the U.S. military preparing to leave Iraq at the end of December, responsibility for the police training program transferred to the State Department this month. The department has requested $887 million to continue operating the program this fiscal year."
When not busying themselves with preventing freedom of assembly, Nouri's thugs focus on other speech issues, like journalism. Dahr Jamal (Al Jazeera) reports:
According to [Iraq's Society for Defending Press Freedom's Oday] Hattem, if a journalists reports critically "that means this journalist will lose his life".
Like Hussein, Hattem sees the situation worsening on all fronts.
"The political and freedom of speech situations are both descending," he said. "Maliki launched an attack on freedom of speech in February 2010, when he arrested tens of journalists and human rights activists after the beginning of demonstrations in Baghdad."
US President Barack Obama, during a December 12, 2011, press conference with Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, had nothing but high praise for the state of press freedom in Maliki's Iraq:
So we're partnering to strengthen the institutions upon which Iraq's democracy depends - free elections, a vibrant press, a strong civil society, professional police and law enforcement that uphold the rule of law, an independent judiciary that delivers justice fairly, and transparent institutions that serve all Iraqis.
Three days later, Iraq's Society for Defending Press Freedom filed an appeal with Iraq's High Federal Court against Maliki's government and its "Journalists Rights Law", which the group said contradicted four articles from Iraq's constitution.
And that's what the US has backed and continues to back. Even now.
Let's note some of today's violence. AFP counts 8 dead and seventeen injured in today's violence including a Saadiyah roadside bombing which claimed the life of Iraqi military Col Hassan Ali and injured three of his bodyguards. Mazin Yahya (AP) counts 10 dead today and emphasizes three young boys -- all ten or under -- killed in a Tikrit roadside bombing. Both note a Shurqat sticky bombing which claimed the lives of 2 people who worked for the Ministry of Agriculture and left another injured. Reuters also notes a Baghdad home invasion in which 1 "Iraqi private bank manager and her husband" were killed last night.
Vestnik Kavkaza reports, "The US has made a big mistake by withdrawing from Iraq, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, 1news.az reports. Erdogan met his Norwegian counterpart Jens Stoltenberg and reminded him that he had warned US president and vice-president about repercussions from such step. The Turkish premier noted that the situation in Iraq remains tense and inter-religious conflicts may arise at any moments. Turkey is a neighboring state and cannot remain indifferent to the situation. He added that Iran is planned to be involved in the process." KUNA also notes Erdogan making public statements of concern about what's taking place in Iraq and they offer this context, "Erdogan made these remarks amidst political conflict between the Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's rule of law coalition and the Iraqiya List after a judicial committee issued an arrest warrant for vice-president Tareq Al-hashimi on terrorism charges."

Meanwhile the US government has nothing to say. As we noted Sunday, that's how you end up the loser. More and more statements are being made about the state of Iraq. By other countries. And the US response? At the State Dept for two weeks they more or less parroted the same response guessing (correctly) that doing so would mean reporters would lose interest. And by the end of last week, journalists had given up -- a stance that continued yesterday.

So as the crisis continues in Iraq and as people -- in the US and around the world -- see various government officials weighing in, don't be surprised when the attitude is: "The US destroyed Iraq and now they just don't care."

They're begging for that to be the image.

And heaven forbid the crisis grow worse and really bloody. At which point the reaction will be, "Why didn't the US government even give a damn?"

(They never gave a damn because, beginning in 2006, they made the decision that Nouri was the US future and mattered more than Iraqis. This lack of concern for Iraqis was a thread in the Bush administration and one picked up and continued by the Barack administration.)

Adam Schreck (AP) notes, "Administration officials acknowledge that Iraq is mired in its worst government crisis since Hussein's ouster, with no obvious answers because of longstanding sectarian and regional rivalries, and newer schisms caused by political maneuvering. The task is Iraq's now, they insist, with the United States only advising and providing aid." On the first sentence, it's a shame they refuse to indicate that publicly on the record. On the second sentence, it's a shame they're such liars. How many billions is the US pumping into Iraq this year? And how many weapons are being sought by Iraq right now? And how desperate is Iraq to get out of Chapter VII at the UN? Those are only some of the influence levers the US has.
In today's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about Iraq and offered more banal statements.
QUESTION: Toria, I forget, is it today that she's speaking with the staff in Iraq?
MS. NULAND: Yes, she spoke to them this morning. She did.
QUESTION: Yeah. What did she say?
MS. NULAND: She had a phone call yesterday with our staff in Afghanistan and she had a phone call today with our staff in Iraq. These were New Year's Day calls. Both of those staffs work extremely hard, seven days a week in most cases. They work under extreme conditions. And I think it was an opportunity to thank them for the work that they both did last year and to give them a pep talk going forward, because they're both also shepherding important transitions in our relationships with both countries.
QUESTION: Right. And on the Iraq part, is there any early indication of how things are going now that the transition is happening?
MS. NULAND: In terms of the State Department picking up --
QUESTION: Troops out. Yeah. Right.
MS. NULAND: -- the lead, we're working it through. As we've said from the beginning, this is -- it's a daunting effort, but we believe that we're up to the task. I think you've seen that that Embassy's been extremely busy, led by Ambassador Jeffrey, in its work with all of the Iraqi political parties to encourage them to talk to each other and encourage an Iraqi-owned process of national dialogue among the key leaders. So that continues, as do all of our civilian support opportunities and our training opportunities.
No concerns expressed at all. You know who the administration is sounding like, right? Tony Hayward, BP's Tony Hayward, during the Gulf Disaster. In fact, they're sounding worse than that, they're sounding like South Park's parody of Tony Hayward.

People are paying attention the political crisis -- people in the US, people around the world. And the administration is choosing to sound like Tony Hayward. Not a smart move.


Along with attempting to have Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested, Nouri is also attempting to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq arrested. Though Parliament has refused to take up Nouri's demand (Nouri cannot strip anyone of their Cabinet post, he needs the approval of Parliament), Dar Addustour notes Nouri is already attempting to find a replacement and is eyeing Jamal Karbouli. Al Mada adds that Nouri began discussions with Karbouli about this post on Sunday. Hayder al-Khoei had an article Sunday at the Guardian which Al Mada summarizes here. al-Khoei is reminding that the conflict is (thus far) between political rivals and not sects. Ayad Allawi, for example, heads Iraqiya and he is of the same sect as Nouri al-Maliki. We'll note the second to the last paragraph from the Guardian article:

Interestingly, and perhaps even more telling, Ayatollah Sistani blamed politicians for the recent crisis without taking sides. In 2005 Sistani stood by the Shia political parties and helped them get into power. Today Sistani refuses to meet politicians, regardless of sect, because he believes they have failed to provide services. Again, there is a Najaf-Baghdad complex at play that has received little attention.

Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Tuesday, January 10, 2012 (202) 224-2834
THURSDAY: MURRAY IN YAKIMA TO HEAR FROM VETERANS
(Washington, D.C.) -- On Thursday, January 12, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. Senator Murray is Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Thursday to bring local concers to Washington, D.C.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Local veterans
WHAT: Veterans listening session with Senator Murray
WHEN: Thursday, January 12, 2012
1:15 PM PT
WHERE: VFW Post 379
118 S. 5th Ave.
Yakima, WA 98902
Map
It is the 10th anniversary of the illegal prison on Guantanamo. John Robles (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) interviews Debra Sweet. Excerpt.

John Robles: My first question regards the National Defense Authorization Act, under which an Indefinite Detention Clause was passed, also censorship under the SOPA act. Starting with the PATRIOT Act, it seems like human rights have been stripped away one after the other in the US. Would you characterize the US as a police state?

Debra Sweet: I don't know that I would characterize the US across the board as a police state. Certainly, in many other countries and historically there are places where people can't even gather, not to mention US-backed states, where protesters have been shot and killed during the Arab Spring with impunity. A lot of that comes back to the US backing of very authoritarian governments around the world. One can say that, since 9/11, since the Bush regime used the attack on the World Trade Center as a pretext to unleash an endless war on the world, apparently it's been continued by the next administration. Civil liberties and the protection of the first ten amendments have been, which are known in the US as the Bill of Rights, has been severely restricted and now we see that what the US instituted 10 years ago, on January 11th 2002, when it opened its illegal prison in Guantanamo, it allowed the US for years to hold men with no access to Habeas Corpus right, no charges against them. And, in fact, there have been very intense court battles within the US to try to get those men any rights at all. And, in fact, 171 are still being held indefinitely. All this has become a model, as a way that the US can keep people indefinitely without charges and now, as you are mentioning, under the law that Barack Obama signed last Saturday, on the last day of the year, there is a situation where the US now, through the President, can hold people indefinitely under custody of the US military. And this definitely includes US citizens, as well as anyone else. This is under charges "suspicion of involvement with terrorism". You may call it a police state -- and it has a real fascist tinge to it, because it's setting out a situation where people can be grabbed based on what the President thinks you are thinking about and presumably held by the military forever either in this country or outside of it. And we understand that the US has employed "black sites", third-country prisons, in addition to what it's done in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo.
Debra Sweet is with The World Can't Wait which is not only noting the 10th anniversary of the opening of the illegal prison in Guantanamo but is also calling for actions this week including Wednesday January 11th:

Sign up for Washington DC action

Andy Worthington's Appearances Around the Country
Protests in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and More

January 11, 2012 is the 10th anniversary of the opening of Guantánamo. A broad coalition of groups: Center for Constitutional Rights, Code Pink, No More Guantánamos, Pax Christi Physicians for Human Rights, Torture Abolition and Survivors Network, Voices for Creative Non-Violence, War Criminals Watch, War Resisters League, Witness Against Torture, Amnesty International USA and World Can't Wait - is calling for a major demonstration in Washington, DC and solidarity actions elsewhere to ensure accountability for torture, unlawful detention and other human rights violations committed by the US government in the name of national security. And to demand:

• the closure of Guantánamo by ending indefinite detention and military commissions;
• the end of torture and impunity for torture;
• the end of unlawful detention at Bagram and all US facilities;
• the end of Islamophobia and discrimination;
• and support for all detainees either being charged and fairly tried, or released to countries that will respect their human rights.

The primary action in DC is a human chain of 2,771 people in orange jumpsuits representing the people still detained without charge or fair trial at Guantánamo and Bagram stretching from the White House to the Capitol. We will chant, we will hold signs, we will not be silent.

Find out more about Guantánamo, Bagram, indefinite detention and torture.

Scroll down to read some of the stories of the people still languishing in these hellholes.

Posted by at

Monday, January 09, 2012

Isaiah, Third, and more

Monday, Monday. A tired day. For me anyway. Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Here's Nouri" went up last night.

Here's Nouri


Barack screws up everything. He screwed up Iraq by backing the loser and thug Nouri al-Maliki. He's screwing up America with his unconstitutional nonsense. This is from Bill Van Auken:

With his December 31 signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing for indefinite military detention without charges or trial, Barack Obama has made an infamous contribution to the steady march towards police-state dictatorship in the United States.

The sweeping implications of this act, pushed through to provide $662 billion to feed the US war machine, could not be concealed by the shamefaced signing ceremony, held in private and late in the day on New Year’s Eve to minimize media coverage and public attention.

Nor is the objective content of the clauses legalizing the military’s locking up of American citizens and non-citizens alike on the sole say-so of the White House changed in the slightest by the hypocritical signing statement the president issued in enacting the legislation.

Claiming “serious reservations” about the law he was enacting, Obama declared that “my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of US citizens.” He allowed that such a practice would “break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Obama’s pledge is as duplicitous as it is worthless. As one of the legislation’s key Democratic sponsors, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, revealed, the Obama White House intervened directly into the legislative process to kill amendments that would have specifically prohibited the military from indefinitely imprisoning US citizens without trial. It viewed such an exemption as an unacceptable restriction on presidential power.


Boy I sure am glad we got rid of that crook Bully Boy Bush and put in . . . that crook Barack?

They're twins and we are f**ked.

Sunday, Dallas and the following worked on the latest 3rd edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.


And we wrote:

It's a Monday. That's all I can manage.




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


Monday, January 9, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the prison at Guantanamo Bay hits the 10 year mark, Iraq is slammed with bombings again, the KRG judiciary makes clear that Baghad doesn't order them to do anything, more Iraqis report they are suffering, Iraqi refugees continue to be stuck in limbo, and more.
Before we get to Iraq, an anniversary. On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) -- topics explored include an update on Guantanamo by Michael Ratner on the tenth anniversary of the Guantanamo Bay prison, attorney Roger Wareham discusses the January 12th International People's Tribunal on War Crimes and Other Violations of International Law, California State University professor David Klein on the plan to build the Cornell and The Technion of Israel in NYC and CCR attorneyy Darius Charney on NYC's stop and frisk policies. Excerpt from opening segment.

Michael Ratner: January 11th, here we are. We've completed ten years after 9-11, going into the eleventh year. The tenth anniversary of Guantanamo opening, entering its 11th year now. On the actual annivesary, January 11th, I will be in London commemotrating the opening of Guantanamo with other lawyers but particularly with men who have been freed from Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners. Commemorating the 11th year of the practices that underlie imprisonment at Guantanamo: the capture of detainees anywhere in the world or their kidnapping; their imprisonment indefinitely or forever under a preventive detention scheme; and their trials, if at all, by rump trials or military commissions. Here we are, the Guantanamo Syndrome -- that series of illnesses, sickness and outrage that represent both Republican and Democratic administrations are still with us. I'm commemorating it with a group set up after Guantanamo, set up by some of the very people who were formerly impisoned in Guantanamo, a group called Caged Prisoners. And I'm in London going through three days of commemoration of not just those who remain in Guantanamo, but of those who remain in secret prisons all over the world, particularly Bagram. And I'm with a number of the people who have been freed -- freed from Guantanamo. Some of those prisoners. for example, Moazzam Begg was freed from Guantanamo even before we won our court case in June 2004. And I'm with him today in London and his story actually tells us a lot about what happened at Guantanamo. And then I want to give a little history of the Center [for Constitutional Rights]'s involvement and my own. I met Moazzam Begg in February 2004 in the United Kingdom. He'd been freed because of the huge amount of efforts by the British citizens -- led by the Redgraves [the late Corin Redgrave and his sister Vanessa Redgrave of the British acting family dynasty] in particular and others to get the British citizens to get the British citizens out of there. And when I walked into the room, I remember it like it was yesterday, here were these young men -- I mean they were young like my own children in a way -- and the idea that these three men were ever kept in Guantanamo as the 'worst of the worst' or 'terrorists' just struck me as completely impossible. They could joke with me, they could tell the stories of what happened, they could talk about Guantanamo, they could talk about their own lives and, of course, they were kept in Guantanamo after being picked up in Pakistan and forced to give 'confessions' when they were at Guantanamo. They figured when they were at Guantanamo that after they were being tortured in various ways that they were better off just saying, 'Yeah, we knew Osama bin Laden, etc.' And they thought it would go better for them but of course it went worse. And even though they had alibis of where they were at the time and why they were in Afghanistan -- and good ones, correct ones -- the government forced these 'confessions' out of them under torture and kept them there year after year. When I met them, they talked about the torture. And when I talk to you, our listeners, about it, you have to understand that when I met them, no one knew publicly what was going on in Guantanamo, there'd been no access to Guantanamo. But there was the testimony of the Tipton Three. And everybody said, 'Oh, they're lying, they're not telling the truth.' And in the room with me that day, they went over what's called a "Rumsfeld Technique." Those are what we now know are everything from hooding, stripping, dogs, sexual assault -- all these kind of terrible things that Rumsfeld Techniques did to people at Guantanamo as a means of coercing what turned out to be false confessions out of people. And I sat there and I believed them. But I had trouble believing it because, of course, I'd always looked at Guantanamo as a horrible place because it was incommunicado detention -- we couldn't get them into court to test their detentions, we couldn't get them lawyers, we couldn't visit -- and I looked at that as the worst aspect. And while I suspected that there might be interrogation issues, I didn't realize that there would be abuse amounting or equivalent to torture. And was I naive in that respect? Possibly so. But of course within a couple of months after my interview with the Guantanamo Three or the Tipton Three, the Abu Ghraib photos came out on April 24th of 2004 and then, of course, it was public for everybody. The Rumfseld Techniques came out and then the Tipton Three's testimony -- that people had said, 'Oh, we don't believe it' -- was proven to be utterly, utterly accurate to the actual use of the Rumsfeld Techniques, the dozen techniques. And so then Guantanamo became synonymous not just with incommunicado detention but with torture as well. And today, of course, Guantanamo is still there. And as we talk about Guantanamo, I want to give people the numbers. Guantanamo is still there. 171 men remain in Guantanamo. 46 have been approved -- whatever that means -- for indefinite detention and will be there forever as far as I know. 36 men have been referred for prosecution. What kind of prosecution? Most likely military commissions which are just rump courts which are just rump trials for nothing. The remainder? Not clear. But most of the remainder have been approved for release. So that means the remainder shouldn't be there at all. People like the Uighurs from western China who were picked up wrongly -- admittedly wrongly -- and have now been there for ten years and will be going on I don't know how many years. So that total is about 89 people, most of whom have been approved for transfer. So of those 89 almost none of them should be there. So there's our numbers again. 46 indefinitely detained forever, 36 supposedly subject to prosecution and 89 who shouldn't be there at all -- or most of whom should not be there at all, some of whom they may not have decided yet. That's Guantanamo today.
This is an important issue, it does have connections to Iraq (including how Rumsfeld Techniques migrated from Guantanamo to Iraq). It's one of the reasons that (offline) this will be a crazy end of the week for me (as I noted last week) and also Michael Ratner's worked like crazy to get attention on this issue for ten years now. Ideally, we will continue to note Guantanamo every day in this week's snapshots due to the anniversary; however, the rest of the week we will save it for the end of the snapshot. And the above is an excerpt, there is more to Michael Ratner's analysis on the topic in the broadcast. And for more on Guantanamo, all this week, World Can't Wait will be drawing attention to Guantanamo. It generally covers Guantanamo every week regardless but due to the anniversary and various actions, there will be even more attention so refer to World Can't Wait throughout the week.
Iraq? AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:
prashantrao Prashant Rao
Yet another terrible day in #Baghdad. #Iraq
2 hours ago
Another day of political crisis, another day of extreme violence. AP notes 2 Baghdad car bombings left "at least 14 people" dead with "dozens" injured. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes the death toll rose to 15 and fifty-two were injured. AFP reports that bombings today targeting pilgrims in Iraq have resulted in one death and twenty-four people being left injured -- 1 dead and nine injured in Owairij and fiften injured in Hilla. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) explains, "Hundreds of thousands of Shiites are making their way to Karbala to commemorate the Arbaeen pilgrimage this weekend. Arbaeen is the pilgrimage marking the end of a 40 day mourning period for the death of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed, a seventh century imam and one of the Shiaa Islam's holiest figures." Al Jazeera adds, "As part of the Arbaeen ceremonies, Shia pilgrims walk to Karbala from across Iraq. Devotees also descend on the city from around the world." Reuters notes the Hilla bombing was yesterday and the injured were Afghanistan pilgrimas, they count 2 dead in a Baghdad roadside bombing with twelve more pilgrims injured, they also note the following Sunday night violence just making the news cycle: a Balad home bombing targeting a police officer which left him "his wife and three children" injured, a Falluja home bombing targeting a police officers home which injured two of the officers' relatives, Baghdad police shot dead a suspect, Iraqi soldiers in Mahmudiya shot dead a suspect, and 1 city government worker was shot dead in Kirkuk.
And the political crisis? Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes today, "The crisis threatens to unravel Iraq's fragile coalition government of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish factions and has raised fears of renewed sectarian violence." The editorial board of Canada's Globe & Mail observes:
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki continues to purge his opponents and consolidate his authority. He is now on the verge of abandoning last year's power-sharing agreement, which formed a government of national unity. Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi has [. . . sought refuge in] Kurdistan after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest, a decision that added to sectarian tensions. In the weeks before the U.S. military withdrawal, Mr. al-Maliki rounded up hundreds of Iraqis accused of being former Baath Party members. Security forces detain and abuse dissenting academics, activists and journalists with impunity [. . .]
Serena Chaudhry (Reuters) quotes the Economist Intelligence Unit's Ali al-Saffar stating, "There is no doubt [the arrest warrant] was choreographed to put down the marker, to eradicate any doubt over who was in charge in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawl." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) offers an analysis and we'll note this paragraph:

"I think it was a bad mistake for the US not to say in 2010 that Maliki was unacceptable to them," said a Western diplomat formerly posted to Baghdad. He argued that Mr Maliki should have been rejected because he was a sectarian Shia intent on building an authoritarian state and that this state is corrupt and dysfunctional. Corruption is at a level whereby state funds are simply transferred abroad to shell companies secretly owned by officials at home. Unemployment is between 25 and 40 per cent. Inability to provide an adequate supply of electricity has been a notorious failing of the post-Saddam state, but the electricity ministry still managed to agree to pay $1.3bn to a bankrupt German company and a non-existent Canadian one. The government's budget is spent mainly on salaries and pensions, with recipients often connected to the ruling parties.


Not only did they refuse to say he was unacceptable, they demanded that he continue as prime minister. The Iraqi people voted in March 2010. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. Instead of respecting the will of the voters and the Iraqi Constitution, the US government set out to circumvent both. It was as ugly and offensive as the US Supreme Court installing second place Bully Boy Bush over first place Al Gore. And it sent the message to Iraqis that (a) their votes didn't matter, (b) the Constitution didn't matter and (c) that the whole thing was a farce. This was a very big thing, the elections. Iraqiya was labeled "Ba'athists" by State Of Law, the Justice and Accountability Commission (whose term had expired) suddenly resurfaced to begin banning Iraqiya candidates from running, in the lead up to the elections, several Iraqiya candidates were shot dead, state media was claiming Nouri's State of Law would come in first. Despite all of that, Iraqis turned out and voted and, thanks to the US, were left to wonder why they even bothered?

This was an issue raised in the Iraqi protests in 2011 -- that the prime minister stayed the same, that Jalal Talabani remained President and the two Vice Presidents remained the same, so why did they even vote? They also protested the corruption, the disappearance of loved ones into the so-called judicial system, the lack of jobs and the lack of public services (reliable electricity, potable water, etc.) Dar Addustour reports that protests took place in Sulaymaniyah Province today over public services and the claims were put forward that there are planned projects. Lots of 'planning' but Iraqis still see no results.
Worse, they saw Nouri al-Maliki -- watching the unrest in Egypt -- insist that problems would be fixed in 100 days. Then 100 days passed and Nouri claimed that he had not promised to fix anything just to identiy the problems. The 100 days was nothing but a stalling technique (as we noted when he announced it) a way to distract Iraqis. The 100 days expired in June. So, according to him, that was time spent identifying problems. And what was done in the over 180 days since Nouri 'identified' the problems? Not a damn thing to impact the average Iraqi in a positive manner. And this as the number of Iraqis who see themselves as sufferin/enduring increases. Gallup has a new poll out today. It's a survey of Iraqis. Stafford Nichols explains, "The percentage of Iraqis who rate their lives poorly enough to be considered 'suffering' rose from 14% in in October 2010 to 25% in September 2011."

And no progress. Nouri's been prime minister since 2006? At what time is held he accountable for this? Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraqiya spokesperson Maysoun Damalougy stating, "No progress has been achieved in both the service and economic levels in the country." In addition, she points out that that "the biggest part of this [political] crisis is the fact that despite the lapse of one within the current government, the cabinet has not been completed." When Jalal Talabani named Nouri prime-minister designate, per the Constitution, he had 30 days to name a Cabinet -- that means his nominating candidates and Parliament voting on each one. He did not do that. Per the Constitution, he never should have been moved to prime minister. Having failed at naming a full Cabinet, he should have been stripped of prime minister-designate and someone else should have been named (by Talabani) and that person would then have 30 days.
Nouri's 30 days ended with the month of December . . . in 2010. For over a year, Iraq has had no Minister of National Security, no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior. That is on Nouri who refused to name people to those posts. Critics stated that this was a power-grab on Nouri's part and that he had no intention of naming ministers to those posts. Over a year later, they appear to have been correct.
Nouri al-Maliki returned to Baghdad from DC last month and promptly began acting as if he had run out of meds. He demanded that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and he would order the arrest of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi soon after. Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya. Nouri insists that al-Hashemi is also a terrorist and to 'prove' it ordered 'confessions' played over state TV -- in violation of the Constitution's innocent until/unless found guilty in a court of law. By the time Nouri ordered the arrest, Tareq al-Hashemi was already visiting the KRG on official business. Since the arrest warrant was announced, he has remained in the KRG as a guest of Jalal Talabani. Bradley Klapper (AP) has an interesting analysis here that hopefully we'll have time for later in the week. Al Mada reports Allawi says that al-Hashemi must be tried before an independent judiciary -- not Baghdad's judicial system which Nouri controls. The paper notes that Allawi met in Sulaymaniyah Saturday night with Talabani and in Erbil yesterday with Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani. And Aswat al-Iraq notes that Talabani had arrived in Baghdad this afternoon. Yesterday, the United Nations' Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Iraq, Martin Kobler, met with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and they discussed the need to resolve the political crisis via an ongoing dialogue.

Al Rafidayn notes that Baghdad made an official request to the KRG to hand over al-Hashemi. Baghdad admits that it has no power to enter the KRG and arrest al-Hashemi. Nor do they have any control over the Kurdish judiciary.

And now we drop back to the roundtable we did at Third on Christmas Day:

Betty: C.I., can the KRG continue to protect al-Hashemi and what's the status on al-Mutlaq?

C.I.: The Parliament has stated that Nouri is incorrect in his assertion that the law is on his side, they've stated the law is unclear. That's only a temporary time saver. If the law is unclear, it's left to the judiciary to resolve the issue and the Iraqi judiciary has long been seen as a rubber stamp for Nouri. So right now, Tareq al-Hashemi can remain in the KRG but what happens if the judiciary rules? I have no idea. Now the Iraqi judiciary could rule and, this could be a trump card, the KRG could respond, "Okay, well that's what it says about Baghdad, but we're the KRG and we have our own courts so we'll take the issue to our courts." That could further delay it. The KRG courts might determine the law -- they'll have to go by intent if they're using Iraqi law but I don't know why the KRG would not use their own law, I think they would and give it greater emphasis -- said Tareq al-Hashemi had to be handed over. In which case, the KRG officials might hand Tareq al-Hashmi over. But what if the KRG courts, citing KRG law, stated the KRG cannot hand him over? Then you'd have a conflict and how that gets resolved would be something the whole world would watch.


That conflict may be arriving. Dar Addustour notes the Baghdad request for al-Hashemi and the fourteen people with him and they note spokesperson for the head of the Kudristan Judicial Council held a press conference yesterday. Judge Dhatiar Hamid Suleiman's spokesperson acknowledged that the request from Baghad had been received; however, he declared that they are not the police and they also do not take orders from Nouri al-Maliki. The judge wondered why al-Hashemi wasn't arrested at the airport (Baghdad International) instead of bringing the KRG into it? Noting that al-Hashemi is Talabani's house guest, the judge wondered how you would even go about arresting him? On al-Hashemi, Press TV runs with a rumor: Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz has ordered that al-Hashemi be murdered and Saudi Prince Muqrin bin Abdul-Azis is the one who will have to oversee the planning of the execution -- this is being done because the Saudi royal family fears what al-Hashemi might tell. If you're not aware, the governments of Saudia Arabia and Iran are in the same level of conflict of, say, the US and North Korea. In other words, the rumor didn't need any verification for Press TV to run with and, in fact, the rumor might have started at Press TV.

Turning to the issue of Iraqi refugees, Press TV also notes:
According to the UNHCR, the victims number some 4.7 million, many of whom are in serious need of humanitarian care.
Of those, more than 2.7 million Iraqis are internally displaced, while more than 2 million have escaped to neighboring states.
Iraq's local authorities are, meanwhile, struggling to provide appropriate accommodation infrastructure for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, who have returned home and are trying to resettle.

The largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1948 was set off by the Iraq War. With violence non-stop, people weren't going to wait for host countries to process any applications for immgration. They went across the borders -- some with travel visas -- some without. They went to Lebanon and Jordan and Syria primarily. (Some also went to Iran and Turkey. And within Iraq, ethnic cleansing meant that many were forced out of their homes and neighborhoods. This made it very difficult to receive rations and subsidies because these people no longer lived in their neighborhoods and the system being used to dole out those services was based upon what neighborhood you lived in. External or internal, Iraqis lost their homes at either bargain basement rates or without even that, their homes were just taken over. The ethnic cleansing is 2006 through 2007 -- Nouri is prime minister during this, for those who've forgotten -- and armed militias go block by block through neighborhoods. And Nouri does what? Not a damn thing.
Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) has spent the last years reporting what she saw with her focus on the truth. A strong argument could be made that her columns have documented the steps that led to the current political crisis. Her focus for some time has been on the Iraqis who helped the US as translators and have now been forgotten. Her most recent column on that topic is "Shame On US: allies betrayed." Excerpt:

Last week, I spoke on the PBS NewsHour about Iraqis who worked for our civilians and military before we left the country - and who now face death threats because we betrayed them.

I've received a slew of e-mail from Iraqi interpreters who are in hiding because Shiite militias have pledged to kill the "traitors" who aided the Americans. I've also received e-mail from U.S. military officers desperately trying to get their "terps" out of the country. And I've heard from ordinary, concerned Americans.

All ask the same question: How can we get the U.S. government to issue the visas it promised to Iraqis who risked their lives to help us?

I'm ashamed to admit that the U.S. government has abandoned these people. No one seems eager to bring more Iraqis into this country in an election year.

President Obama has failed to keep his 2007 campaign pledge to rescue these Iraqis. A group of concerned senators, mostly Democrats, including Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, has made inquiries, but gotten no answers from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta or Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Nor has a peep been heard on behalf of the "terps" from Republican senators who backed our war in Iraq.

Good for Trudy Rubin. And her voice is especially needed since no one has taken up the megaphone Kenneth Bacon had as president of Refugees International (he passed away in 2009). In addition to the stories she shares in her column, she also has a blog post entitled "More Iraq visa horror stories" dealing with stories shared by a US military officer and Refugees International. Kimi Yoshino (Los Angeles Times) writes of a visit to Disneyland with a group of Iraqi refugees who were among the small number able to get into the US:

Since my husband arrived in the U.S. in 2009 after months of red tape, I've heard him remark on numerous occasions how youthful everyone looks here -- and how relaxed. In Iraq, a life of fear and anxiety has taken a toll. Forty-year-old Iraqis look 10 years older. And there's an exhaustion, a sadness, that seems to permanently cloud their eyes.
That was part of the culture shock of Disneyland, so much joy all packed into one place.
"Once I entered inside, I felt like I was transferred into a whole different world of fantasy," my husband said. "Everybody's happy and everybody's nice -- like it's not a real world."
The uncertainty and the violence that still grips their country is what drove them to leave, even if it meant starting over.

And Andrew Lam (New American Media) focuses on the Iraqis forced out of their country due to the violence:

Each time Uncle Sam ventures abroad he leaves an unfinished story, and nowhere is it most unfinished than the story of Iraq, where despite flowery speeches regarding freedom and sovereignty by the Obama administration, despite assurances that tyranny has been "cast aside," the tragedy caused by the United States invasion, occupation and inevitable abandonment is on an epic proportion.

Never mind that sectarian violence continues unabated and much of the populace remains mired in poverty, and that there's a distinct possibility that the country is on its way to becoming a failed state if the Sunnis and Shiites cannot find a way to collectively govern.

The most unfinished story, however, is the population that the war has displaced. Whether tyranny has been cast aside is questionable, but certainly cast aside are the people of Iraq. They have been displaced both internally and internationally and are now imperiled by the sin of our omission.


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)