Thursday, February 06, 2014

Arrow and the sad, sad Dylan Farrow


This isn't going to be a heavy post, I just want to catch up so I can do Thursday's snapshot tonight.

I just got off the phone with Stan to ask him, "Can you believe that opening?"  On Arrow.

Stan covers the show at his site to be sure to check him out late tonight.

But we were laughing about it and he said I should note it.

I don't doubt that the woman we see in the opening could do it.

I like action women.

So her being in an airport and taking out like four security people, I have no problem with it.

But everything else?

Yeah, big problems.

She's trying to board a plane so she's at the airport.  She goes to the ticket counter and the ticket guy lies that his computer froze.  Some kind of warning popped up so he's getting out of the way.

But he's going to safety while all the other people in line are at risk?

Then the security guards come and she takes them out.

But then she walks through the gate to go board a plane.

No one is going to stop her?  The plane's just going to take off?

They're going to let her board?

Seems like before she can even get to the plane, they could have the doors closed and prevent her from boarding. 

In other unbelievable things, let me weigh in on the ridiculous Dylan Farrow.

I don't know if she was molested or not.

I do know she's a liar and little trouble maker.  Just like her mother -- I've long noted that Mia Farrow is not who she pretends to be.


In her self-serving letter, Dylan writes crap like, "You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?"

Dylan claims she was molested at 7.

When did she and Diane bond?

They didn't.

Diane filmed one scene in Radio Days.  That's when she met Dylan.  Dylan wasn't even two.  She met her on the set.

Diane and Mia were not friends.

Diane was Woody's ex-girlfriend and was Woody's friend.

Diane spent time with Woody and Mia was jealous of that time spent together.

That's all of Diane's contact with Dylan.  Mia brought her to the set of Radio Days and that's when Diane met her.

And Dylan tries to lie about it in a letter.

"You knew me when I was a little girl!"

Shut your damn lying mouth.

Diane knew you about as much as she knew someone asking her for an autograph.

Dylan's a damn liar.

And Mia hates Diane.

She hated her for being with Woody.  She hated her for getting the part of in Father of the Bride.  (Mia had been up for that role.)

Diane's an Academy Award winning actress, she's also a working actress.

Mia's got one film to point to with pride on her own (Rosemary's Baby) and everything else is her Woody Allen films.

She was wretched in more movies than most people can count.

Part of the reason she has no career today.

And Dylan's letter reads like she's doing Mommy's bidding.

I don't know if she was molested or not.

But Diane Keaton is Woody Allen's friend and has been for decades.  She met Dylan -- who was one years old -- briefly and only once and Dylan tries to shame Diane Keaton publicly for standing by her friend.

Whatever else she is, Dylan's a damn liar and trouble maker.  She proved that by trying to smear Diane Keaton's name.




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

 

Wednesday, February 5, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, attacks in Baghdad scare the politicians, the Anbar assault continues with Nouri planning to hide behind Sunnis because he's lost so many soldiers in the Iraqi army, Brett McGurk spins for Congress, Jen Psaki tries to pretend 7 years isn't a big time to wait on a promise, and much more.

Nouri al-Maliki is the chief thug and prime minister of Iraq and his assault on Anbar Province continues. Ramzy Baroud (International Policy Digest) offers an explanation at how arrived where they are now:


Mostly Muslim Sunni tribesmen were fed up with the political paradigm imposed by the Americans almost immediately upon their arrival, which divided the country based on sectarian lines. The Sunni areas, in the center and west of the country, paid a terrible price for the US invasion that empowered political elites purported to speak on behalf of the Shia. The latter, who were mostly predisposed by Iranian interests, began to slowly diversify their allegiance. Initially, they played the game per US rules, and served as an iron fist against those who dared resist the occupation. But as years passed, the likes of current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, found in Iran a more stable ally: where sect, politics and economic interests seamlessly align. Thus, Iraq was ruled over by a strange, albeit undeclared troika in which the US and Iran had great political leverage where the Shia-dominated government cleverly attempted to find balance, and survive.
Of course, a country with the size and history of Iraq doesn’t easily descend into sectarian madness on its own. But Shia and Sunni politicians and intellectuals who refused to adhere to the prevailing intolerant political archetype were long sidelined -- killed, imprisoned, deported and simply had no space in today’s Iraq- as national identity was banished by sect, tribe, religion and race. Currently, the staff of the US embassy stands at 5,100, and American companies are abandoning their investments in the south of Iraq where the vast majority of the country’s oil exists. It is in the south that al-Maliki has the upper hand. He, of course, doesn’t speak on behalf of all Shia, and is extremely intolerant of dissidents. In 2008, he fought a brutal war to seize control of Basra from Shia militias who challenged his rule. Later, he struck the Mehdi Army of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr in a Baghdad suburb. He won in both instances, but at a terrible toll. His Shia rivals would be glad to see him go.
Maliki’s most brutal battles however have been reserved for dissenting Sunnis. His government, as has become the habit of most Arab dictators, is claiming to have been fighting terrorism since day one, and is yet to abandon the slogans it propagates. While militant Sunni groups, some affiliated with al-Qaeda, have indeed taken advantage of the ensuing chaos to promote their own ideology, and solicit greater support for their cause, Iraq’s Sunnis have suffered humiliation of many folds throughout the years long before al-Qaeda was introduced to Iraq --  courtesy of the US invasion.

The assault on Anbar is only a more public and more extreme version of what Nouri's carried out for years.  He's done so with the criminal participation of the US government.  And now the US government is actively involved in War Crimes.


"While al-Qaeda in Iraq has been powered by prison breaks and the Syrian civil war, it has also been fueled by the alienation of much of the Sunni population from the Shi’a dominated government in Baghdad," declared US House Rep . Ed Royce today.  "Al-Qaeda has become very skilled at exploiting this sectarian rift; and Maliki’s power grab has given them much ammunition.  This is a point that Ranking Member Engel and I underscored with President Maliki when he visited Washington last fall."

He was speaking this morning at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.  Appearing before the Committee this morning was  the US State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk.

In his opening remarks, Chair Ed Royce cautioned, "But Iraqis should know that their relations with Iran and the slow pace of political reconciliation with minority groups raise serious Congressional concerns.  While he may not be up to it, Maliki must take steps to lead Iraq to a post-sectarian era."

We're going to note some positions expressed from others.  We'll start with the Ranking Member.  Please note, I usually only add (in brackets: "[]") to illuminate what's being said.  But War Hawk Engel is not going to get to lie here.  He can offer his opinion, and he does, but when he lies that all US troops are out of Iraq?

We're not going to play that game.  We're also not ever going to include his crocodile tears.

Like Hillary Clinton, Engel voted for the Iraq War.  If you feel her clarification that her vote was wrong -- but after Gates' book who can believe her when he reveals she lied to the American people with regards to the so-called "surge" of US troops into Iraq because she was trying to get votes -- you should also be aware that Engel has never apologized.  So he should cry for the American dead, he should be haunted by them.  He voted for an illegal war.  That said, the people killed in Falluja when the US military was ordered to attack twice in 2004 matter as well.  Even if Engel doesn't think so.
.


Ranking Member Eliot Engel: Iraq continues to be ravaged by sectarian violence and the situation's getting worse.  Last year, more than 8500 Iraqis were killed in bombings, shootings and other acts -- the most since 2008.  I should note that on Monday of this week, the senior leadership of al Qaeda excommunicated and disowned their affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria -- ISIS -- as a result of that group's tactics in Syria. For the purpose of this hearing, ISIS remains a threat to stability in Falluja, other areas of Anbar Province and the whole of Iraq.  Some may argue that the lack of an enduring US presence in Iraq  has contributed to the resurgence of violence -- especially in Sunni terrorism related to al Qaeda.  But let's be honest, the dire security situation in Anbar Province is much more about Iraqi politics than it is about the United States.  In any case, the direct use of US military force in Iraq is virtually unthinkable at this point.  We've withdrawn from Iraq and we aren't going back.  Although we no longer have boots on the ground [except for Special-Ops and the 100 or so Brett McGurk noted today were guarding the Embassy and its diplomatic staff and, as Brett noted, various 'trainers' and persons who facilitate the selling of weapons], the US does maintain a huge stake in Iraq's security.  And I believe we should continue to provide appropriate assistance  to the Iraqi military and their fight against ISIS.  But we must also recognize that the current situation in Anbar cannot be resolved through military means alone. An all-out assault on Falluja by the Iraqi security forces would play right into the hands of ISIS, reinforcing the perception among Sunnis that they have been systematically victimized by Prime Minister Maliki's Shia-led government.  To defeat al Qaeada, the Iraqi government must take a page  out of our playbook from the Iraq War and enlist moderate Sunni tribes in the fight.  I understand that [US] Vice President [Joe] Biden recently discussed this issue with Prime Minister Maliki encouraging him to incorporate tribal militias fighting al Qaeda into security -- into Iraqi security forces and to compensate those injured and killed in battle.  By taking these steps, I'm hopeful that Maliki can begin to bridge the widening sectarian gulf  in Iraq.  

Did Joe Biden talk to him?  I'm really tired of  Joe and his talk right now and probably going to let it rip on him next week.  But for now, we'll note that Joe  did do that.  As he's done repeatedly and, apparently, ineffectively since 2009.  In other words, he's accomplished nothing and is still trying the same tactics which is a complete waste of time.  Iraq is now on him in the minds of Americans.  He might want to try something new real quick or he might want to accept the fact that the destruction of Iraq will be hung around his neck should he choose to run for the presidency.



US House Rep Ted Poe:  al Qaeda's resurgence is directly related to Prime Minister Maliki's mishandling of his government.  Incompetence and corruption seem to be the norm.  The centralized power alienated the Sunnis and brought back Shia hit squads. He has allowed Iranian supportive operatives to kill MEK Iranian dissidents [the Ashraf community] now on seven occasions without consequences. The last time you were here, Mr. McGurk, you testified before my Subcommittee and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's Subcommittee, I predicted that there would be another attack.  Seven days after you testified in December, Camp Liberty was attacked again.  All this chaos has created an environment ripe for al Qaeda.  al Qaeda's re-establishing a safe haven to launch attacks outside the region.  That is a totally unacceptable trend.  The question is: What is the United States going to do?


Now we'll note another opinion expressed:

US House Rep Brad Sherman:  In the 1940s, we occupied countries no one doubted our right to occupy. We took our time, we created new governments and those governments created new societies.  At various other times, we've invaded countries, achieved a limited objective or as much as could be achieved at reasonable cost and we left.   The first example of that was Thomas Jefferson's military intervention in Libya.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, we established a bad example. The world -- and even some in the United States -- doubted our right to occupy, so we hastily installed [Hamid] Karzai in Afghanistan and in Iraq we installed a structure which is now presided over by Mr. Maliki.  It is not surprising that Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be problems since we hastily handed over governance to those who are ill prepared. Iraq is not the most important Arab state strategically.  It does not become more important in the future because we made a mistake in the past that cost us dearly in blood and treasure.  We should not compound that mistake.  On the other hand, Iraq is important in part because of its proximity to Iran which I believe is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Finally, I agree with several of the prior speakers that we need to, with regard to Camp Liberty and the T-Walls



T-Walls are basically barrier walls which would protect from bombs placed outside the walls and which would also heighten security within the camp.

If you don't understand how inept the White House and the State Dept are, let's do a walk through.  Starting with the October 3rd snapshot which reported on that day's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.  We'll again note this exchange between Senator John McCain and  the State Dept's Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman as well as Committee Chair Robert Menendez' follow up.



Senator John McCain:  In the situation as it relates to the Camp Ashraf people, we know that they were Iranian dissidents.  At one point,  they were designated as a terrorist organization.  But the United States government, it's true, gave them an assurance that if they moved [to Camp Liberty] they would be protected.  We know that the Iranian influence has increased in, uh, in Iraq.  In fact, we know now that Iraq is alive and well and doing extremely well moving back and forth across the two countries.  Now there was a murder of, I believe, 51 people who were members of this  camp and many of them had in their possession guarantees from the United States of America that they would not be harmed.   What-what lessons -- First, are these facts true?  And, second, if they are true, what message does that send to people who we say will be under our protection?


Wendy Sherman:  Senator, uh, I share your, deep concern about what happened, uh, at Camp Ashraf.  This was a vicious attack in September 1st and many lives were lost.  And the US continues to press the government of Iraq at every opportunity, at very senior -- at the most senior levels to ensure the safety and security of residents at Camp Hurriya where many of the MEK were moved for better safety.  We strongly and swiftly condemned the attack.  We of course extend  our condolences to the victims' families and we are working with the government of Iraq and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, to peacefully and voluntarily transfer the surviving residents to safety at Camp Hurriya on September 12th.  And we are working for the protection of the people in Camp Hurriya because we do not want a repeat of this.   So, to date, the government of Iran -- of Iraq has moved in over 700 large T-walls, over 500 bunkers, over 600 small T-walls and nearly 50,000 sandbags.  UN monitors visit the camp daily in accordance with the MOU to asses human rights and humanitarian conditions.  But I must say, Senator, the real answer to this, to the safety and security of all the people in the camps -- who wants to live in a camp? -- is resettlement to third countries to get out of Iraq and to get out of harms way.  And I would call on all the people who are here today representing the rights and the interests of the MEK and the leaders of the MEK in the camps and in Paris, uh, to allow this resettlement to go forward because until the resettlement happens safety and security is going to be a risk.  We will do everything in our power to keep people safe in these camps.  But, as you point out, the al Qaeda threat is increasing in Iraq and it is difficult.


Senator John McCain:  And I hope that this issue will be raised with the Iraqi government.  And we in Congress may have to look at the kind of aid and how we are extending that to Iraq if this kind of thing is going to be countenanced by the Iraqi government.  I don't -- I've used up all my time.  And I thank you for your response.

Chair Robert Menendez: Before I turn to Senator [Edward] Markey let me echo what Senator McCain has said in this regard.  And I put out a statement in this regard, I also talked to our Department.  You know, America went to the MEK and we said, 'Disarm and we will protect you.'  And then we ultimately left and that protection has not been there.  You can put up I don't care how many tons of sand bags but when elements of the Iraqi forces actually may very well be complicit in what took place, sand bags aren't going to take care of the problem.  And I agree with you that resettlement is a critical part.  Maybe the United States could be part of leading the way in saying to a universe of these individuals that in fact you can be resettled to the United States.  And that would get the rest of the world to offer further resettlement. But it is unacceptable to lose one more life when American commanders gave these individuals a written guarantee towards their safety.  And it sends a message to others in the world that when we say we are going to do that and we do not, they should not trust us.  And for one thing that this Committee can do since it has jurisdiction over all weapon sales is that I doubt very much that we are going to see any approval of any weapon sales to Iraq until we get this situation in  a place where people's lives are safe.   

,
They moved them there, they just refused to put them up.  But don't worry, insisted the State Dept, they're going up immediately.

No, they aren't.  And the US government is obligated under the Geneva Conventions to maintain the safety of the Ashraf community as long as it is in Iraq.

November 13th, Brett McGurk appeared -- we reported on that hearing in the November 13th snapshot, the November 14th snapshot and the November 15th snapshot.  Like that hearing, we'll be covering today's in multiple snapshots.  This following exchange is from the November 14th snapshot.


US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher:  You believe them that that there's really a security reason that they haven't put those T-walls up at Camp Liberty?


Brett McGurk:  No, I do not think that there are legitimate security reasons that the T-walls have not been put up.



US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: You sounded to me when I was listening to you -- and I listened very closely to what you said -- that we can't blame the leadership -- the Maliki leadership for the lack of security at Camp Liberty?


Brett McGurk:  Uh, no.  And in fact my conversation with Maliki was that you need to get as many T-walls into that facility as possible without any excuses.  Period.  Full stop.  So I -- if I -- You may have heard me say something differently but I --



In November, the promised T-Walls were still not up.  In the December 26th snapshot, we noted a statement from State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki which included:



We continue to call on the GOI to take additional measures to secure the camp against further violence, including by immediately installing additional protective barriers, such as bunkers and t-walls. 


Wait?  You're still calling, in December, for the T-Walls to go up?  The ones the State Dept said in October were going up?

The next month, in the January 28th snapshot, we noted the US Embassy in Iraq's press statement which included:

He [Brett McGurk] noted that in meetings with senior Iraqi officials the U.S. will continue to press the Government of Iraq (GOI) to buttress security inside the camp, and welcomed the commitment to install additional t-walls following the next Camp Management meeting among camp residents, UNAMI and the GOI. DAS McGurk stressed the urgency of relocating the residents of Camp Hurriya to third countries as soon as possible and noted the full-time efforts of Jonathan Winer, Senior Advisor for MeK Resettlement, towards that objective. Given the special challenges involved in addressing these issues, DAS McGurk expressed deep appreciation to UNAMI and UNHCR for their work and ensured ongoing U.S. Government support of their efforts.


And today we learn that T-Walls are still not up.

The same conversations take place over and over with no results from Nouri al-Maliki.  So why are the conversations happening?

No, I'm not saying shoot him the way they did int he past.  (Though no one will mourn the death of Nouri whenever it comes.)  I'm saying you stop arming him.  You stop taking, "I'm going to do it."  He wants a helicopter?  Let him put up all the T-Walls first.  Then give him one.  For the second one?  Don't swallow his "I'll work on it" about national reconciliation.

He agreed to that formally in 2007 to keep US funding.  And he never followed up on it.  The de-Ba'athifcation was supposed to end.  That was a promise he made the US government.  And not something that was supposed to take years to end.  It was supposed by 2008.  It never has.

Why are you arming him?

Not only is hurting the Iraqi people, it is hurting the government's prestige and strength around the world as various world leaders look on and watch Nouri get what he wants from the US government without ever following up on any promises he makes to them.

If I'm the government of Algeria, for example, why should I worry about keeping my word in any dealings with the US government when Nouri al-Maliki has at least a seven year pattern (going back to 2007) of failing to live up to his promises and yet still getting billions of US aid to his country as well as weapons?

The White House looks weak and ineffectual because that's how it's acting.  And it's shameful and embarrassing but, most importantly, it is contributing to the deaths and injuries of thousands of Iraqis.

And with all these failures, the one Brett wanted to focus on was the flights over Iraq from Iran to Syria (supposedly providing Syria with weapons)?

That's the issue that Brett says is " where the Iraqi government has not done enough"?  Not the failure to protest the Ashraf community?  Not the failure to end the de-Ba'athifcation process as Nouri promised he would in 2007?

Repeating, the White House looks weak and ineffective.  Even journalists are bringing it up now.  Today Jen Psaki presided over the State Dept press briefing and the State Dept spokesperson Psaki got asked about another promise made but never kept.


QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about your efforts regarding having a hydrocarbon law and why is it being held up. And how does that affect all the contracts that many American companies have already signed with the north – with the northern region of Kurdistan?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think broadly speaking on the specific – excuse me – hydrocarbon issue, I’d have to connect you with one of our experts on that, and I’m happy to.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: As you know, our position has long been that we believe that all of these contracts and any revenue should go through the central government, and that’s been the case we’ve continued to make. But obviously, the Media Note we sent was pretty detailed, and if you have a specific question about an energy resource, I can connect you with some experts.

QUESTION: Well, I do, because one of the main stumbling blocks and the points of contention between the central government and the regional government of Kurdistan is basically the hydrocarbon law that has been held up for the past --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- I mean, for the past six years or so. So, I mean --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, why don’t we connect you with someone --

QUESTION: Okay.


MS. PSAKI: -- from our Iraq desk who can get into more level of detail about specific forms of energy.


The hydrocarbons law?  Go look at the 2007 benchmarks Nouri signed off on?  He promised in 2007 to see that was passed.  Seven years ago.  The White House looks ridiculous.


Again, we're not done with today's hearing. It is important and we will cover it in two more snapshots (including tomorrow's).  But let's move to the Iraqi people who are suffering now and who will suffer even more when/if the US government makes good on Brett McGurk's revelation at the hearing today that the White House wants to send even more Apache helicopters and Hellfire missiles as well as fifty more drones.  By the way, Brett's a liar, a cheap liar.  And his lie today that the tribes will be the ones leading an attack on Falluja and just be backed by the military.?

What Anbar tribe leader or member will be flying any of the existing helicopters?  Or over the Hellifre missiles.  Oh, that's right, they won't be.

They'll be cannon fodder.  And there's primary reason for that which is a cheap little hustler like Brett will never tell.  The Iraqi military is thinned out.  The assault on Anbar has led -- as the 2008 assaults on Basra and the Sadr City section of Baghdad -- to numerous defections.  Nouri tried arresting some in early January and had to drop that plan because arresting those who walked out only made more Iraqi soldiers walk off the job.  This was before the reports/spin/rumors that 'al Qaeda in Iraq' had enough weapons to destroy the government -- more weapons than Nouri's government.

Nouri doesn't have the forces to take Falluja based on the desertion rate in the Iraqi military currently and it's a little whorish that Brett McGurk before Congress and didn't inform them of that but Brett's a little whorish anyway, right?


As the assault on Anbar Province continues, things heat up across Iraq including a curfew gets imposed on Tikrit, Mosul's curfew is extended -- for 7 more days, and a section of Baghdad's already sealed off Green Zone gets further sealed off.

The Green Zone is the 'secure' area of the capital where the US set up headquarters during the invasion and initial occupation.  It's where the US Embassy is today as well as many of the Iraqi government buildings and where many of Iraq's 'elite' (such as Nouri) live. Marcy Casey and Cortini Kerr (Foreign Policy) note that the Parliament is also in the the Green Zone.  The Green Zone never suffers from lack of electricity the way the rest of Baghdad -- or the country, for that matter -- so often does.

Iraqis deride it as where politicians hide out to.   But the fortified part of the capital isn't so fortified.  NINA reports:

Foreign Ministry announced that " one of the terrorists riding a motorcycle bombers tried to enter the security perimeter of the building of the ministry at about nine in the morning but he blew himself up at the first external checkpoint of the Ministry headquarters .  

And then came the car bomb outside the Foreign Ministry. Seven people dead and more injured.

Then the Ministry of the Interior spokesperson Saad Maan announced that "the number of victims of the bombings which occured today near the Ministry of Foreign [Affairs] by two suicide bombers reach 20 dead and 28 injured."  All Iraq News also notes the statement and that both bombings are now identified as suicide bombings by the Ministry.  Laura Smith-Spark, Jomana Karadsheh and Saad Abedine (CNN) observe, "Conflicting accounts have emerged, with initial reports from security sources indicating all three of the morning blasts were car bombings."  Kareem Raheem (Reuters) reminds, "The blasts came a day after two rockets were fired into the Green Zone, home to the prime minister’s office and Western embassies, and are likely to heighten concerns about Iraq’s ability to protect strategic sites as security deteriorates."

The US Embassy in Baghdad issued the following today:
February 5, 2014
U.S. Embassy Baghdad
Office of the Spokesperson

For Immediate Release                                                     

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad condemns the vicious terrorist attack today on the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  We extend our sincere condolences to the families of the victims, to Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari, and to our colleagues and friends at the Ministry, and hope for a rapid recovery for those who were injured.

The United States stands with the Iraqi people and will continue to work closely with the Government of Iraq to combat those who commit such senseless acts.   

National Iraqi News Agency reports 3 Baghdad car bombings left 1 person dead and eight more injured, in an update on this attack it is noted that the death toll rose by 9 (to ten) with a total of thirty-two injured,  a Baghdad car bombing in al-Saha district left 2 people dead and ten injured, an oil pipeline outside of Tikrit was blown up, a suicide bomber (wearing an explosive belt) and a car bombing attacked a west Mosul police station leaving five police members injured, a suicide bomber attacked the al-Shurta army headquaters and took his own life as well as the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers with six more left injured,  a Baghdad bombing (Dora district) left six people injured, the Ministry of Defense announced security forces had "killed 35 members of the terrorist organization 'Daash'," a Mosul car bombing left four SWAT members injured, a suicide tanker bombing north of Tikrit left the bomber dead as well as 3 Iraqi soldiers and 7 police members, an Abi Tammam bombing left three people injured, a Jisr Diyala roadside bombing left 3 people dead and five injured, a Katyusha rocket attack on central Baghdad (Haifa Street) left six people injured, a Sharqat roadside bombing left 1 military officer dead and five other people injured, 2 Iraqi soldiers were shot dead at an eastern Mosul checkpoint (Zebour), a suicide bombing attack on a Baghdad checkpoint (Karada Mariam) claimed the life of the bomber and 2 Iraqi soldiers, 1 police member and 1 civilian, another suicide bomber in Baghdad's Karada Mariam district blew himself up and killed 1 civilian and left five more injured,  and a Baghdad car bombing near the Baghdad Municipality left 1 person dead and four more injured.  All Iraq News adds 3 corpses were discovered in Basra. Alsumaria adds that there was a mortar attack on a Nineveh Province prison northwest of Mosul.


On "another suicide bomber in Baghdad's Karada Mariam district blew himself up and killed 1 civilian and left five more injured, " this was at the Ibn Zanbour restaurant.  AP explains that the "nearby falafel restaurant frequented by officials and visitors waiting for security escorts to take them inside the Green Zone, a walled-off area that houses the prime minister's office and the U.S. and other foreign embassies."


Above is  22 dead from the attack on the ministry (20 dead from spokesperson plus 2 dead -- the suicide bombers) and plus the ones in the paragraph above that comes to 101 dead.  There's also 127 noted as injured.

Duraid Salman and Ammar al-Ani (Alsumaria) note Nouri announced today that the assault on Anbar is "nearing the end."

Which means what?

Two more weeks?

Four?

Iraq's supposed to hold parliamentary elections April 30th.  Those ballots have to start being printed March 1st.  That's 23 days from now.

As the assault continues, into its third month, this started in December, Karl Vick (Time magazine) asks:


What has changed? Not as much as hoped from a U.S. investment of well over $1 trillion. Iraqis no longer have an American occupation to resist, but combatants find ample fuel in the sectarianism that claimed  50,000 lives there from 2006 to 2008. The situation is aggravated on the one hand by the exclusionary performance of the Shiite-heavy government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s, and the resurgence of Sunni extremism in the heavily sectarian civil war in neighboring Syria, which has spilled across the border. Last month Iraq’s deputy interior minister said al-Qaeda-linked forces now back in Fallujah, 44 miles west of the capital, held weapons “huge and advanced and frankly enough to occupy Baghdad.” 

Today, the US State Dept issued the following:


Joint Statement of the Iraq-U.S. Joint Coordination Committee on Energy

February 5, 2014


The Governments of the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America reaffirmed their commitment to joint cooperation in the areas of oil production and export, natural gas, electricity resiliency and reliability, clean energy, and critical energy infrastructure protection during the second meeting of the Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) on Energy, held February 5, 2014 in Baghdad.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Dr. Hussain Al Shahristani chaired the meeting with U.S. co-Chairs Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman and Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs at the State Department Carlos Pascual.
During today’s meeting, both sides reiterated the significance of Iraq’s future energy sector development and its contribution to greater economic prosperity, as well as the valuable role that Iraq plays in providing a steady flow of petroleum resources to global markets. Both sides lauded Iraq’s offshore installation of the central metering manifold platform for the new single point moorings (SPMs) and recognized Iraq’s bold plans to increase further its oil production and exports.
The delegations discussed Iraq’s Integrated National Energy Strategy; opportunities to strengthen production and export infrastructure in order to meet Iraq’s mid- and long-range export goals; Iraqi and U.S. lessons learned in the field of natural gas capture and distribution; and best practices from the United States and the region.
The two sides discussed the importance of improving the protection of critical energy infrastructure for oil, natural gas, and electricity installations. To this end, Iraq and the United States are embarking on a significant new area of cooperation by having experts from the U.S. Departments of Energy and State work with Iraq to develop approaches to protect Iraq’s energy infrastructure from terrorist attack or natural disaster.
The two governments discussed the importance of supporting Iraq’s efforts to harness its vast natural gas resources. They reviewed the status of Iraq’s work to capture natural gas that is currently flared and redirect it to meet Iraq’s growing energy demand. We have agreed to form a new working group under the JCC focused on combining mobile power generation technologies with reduction in gas flaring. We hope to engage both government and industrial actors in bringing forward rapid, deployable solutions. The delegations also discussed continued efforts to build Iraqi Government capacity to oversee and regulate the natural gas sector, including through programs under the Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program. The U.S. delegation discussed the current development of shale gas resources and its impact on international markets.
For its part, the United States expressed its continued support of Iraq’s energy sector, committing to workshops and technical assistance that built upon the success of earlier programs. One such earlier program provided 230 key engineers and managers in Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity on best practices in energy security, operations, maintenance, and safety. We have agreed to form a new working group under the JCC on the roles energy efficiency and renewable energy can play in meeting electricity needs, including energy efficient standards and business models for renewable energy.
The JCC on Energy was established by the 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement between Iraq and the United States to strengthen the two nations’ strategic partnership on a variety of initiatives. The United States hosted the first JCC on Energy in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2012 at the Department of Energy. The November 1, 2013 meeting of the Higher Coordinating Committee, chaired by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Joseph Biden, reaffirmed the value of the JCC on Energy. The Republic of Iraq and the United States committed to convening the next JCC on Energy in Washington, D.C., at a date to be agreed.



Quickly.  In yesterday's snapshot, I stated, "Oil. Well someone might want to inform the State Dept that currently Iraq's shipment of oil to Jordan has ceased due to the assault Anbar. Maybe that will give our 'diplomatic geniuses' -- who, remember, are now the government department responsible for Iraq -- a needed push to attempt to stop the assault on Anbar."

Proof insisted an e-mailer.  I had none.  I was going by what a US Senator told me in private yesterday.  But today, today, you've got a news story on it.  Raheem Salman, Ahmed Rasheed, Isabel Coles and Jason Neely (Reuters) report: "Trucked exports of oil from Iraq to neighboring Jordan have been halted due to deteriorating security in Anbar province where militants have overrun the city of Falluja, an oil ministry spokesman said."  There's your proof.

Now this:

US House Rep Jon Runyan:  Today's hearings will focus on technological incentives  initiatives of the Veterans Benefits Administration as well as the secondary effects of those initiatives.  Specifially, we'll hear information on the status of the Veterans Benefit Management System 6.0 release and the Veterans Relationships Management System including E-Benefits.  We will also address the recently implemented secure electronic transition of service treatment records between health care artifacts in the image management solution in the Dept of Defense and VA's VBMS.  Additionally, the Subcommittee will seek information on VA's Work Credit System within the new electronic framework of their regional offices and the national work que, the propose rule of VA as it relates to the standardized forms. Many of these technological advances will reduce the reliance on paper processes and were designed to simplify and streamline the VA's services to veterans, their families and survivors.

I would like to cover that hearing, I was at it this afternoon.  There may or may not be time for it tomorrow.
If there's not, I'll see if there's a chance of covering it at Third on Sunday.  And he was speaking this afternoon as he Chaired the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.














cnn
jomana karadsheh

saad abedine

The NSA illegally spies on Congress too

I know I'm a day behind still on the snapshots, sorry. 

But did you catch Noam Chomsky's piece at ICH?  Here's the opening:

February 05, 2014 "Information Clearing House - As the year 2013 drew to an end, the BBC reported on the results of the WIN/Gallup International poll on the question: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” 
The United States was the champion by a substantial margin, winning three times the votes of second-place Pakistan. 
By contrast, the debate in American scholarly and media circles is about whether Iran can be contained, and whether the huge NSA surveillance system is needed to protect U.S. security. 
In view of the poll, it would seem that there are more pertinent questions: Can the United States be contained and other nations secured in the face of the U.S. threat? 
In some parts of the world the United States ranks even higher as a perceived menace to world peace, notably in the Middle East, where overwhelming majorities regard the U.S. and its close ally Israel as the major threats they face, not the U.S.-Israeli favorite: Iran. 
Few Latin Americans are likely to question the judgment of Cuban nationalist hero José Martí, who wrote in 1894 that “The further they draw away from the United States, the freer and more prosperous the [Latin] American people will be.”

As they say in old movies of The Lethal Weapon era, "That's what I'm talking about!"

And seriously, applause to him for that piece of writing.  It's important and it matters.  Great job by Noam Chomsky.

And did you catch the latest illegal spying revelation?  AFP via ICH reports on a House Judiciary Committee hearing today that Deputy Attorney General James Cole testified at.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, hesitated when asked whether the controversial NSA programme that gathers the numbers, call times and lengths of virtually every US phone call extended to communications by members of Congress and executive branch officials.

Congressman Darrell Issa, a House Republican known for his criticism of the Obama White House, asked specifically whether the programme was scooping up information from "202-225-and four digits", the phone exchange for House of Representatives offices.

"Without going specifically, probably we do, congressman," Cole said.


It is time to shut down the NSA, they're just out of control.

There's no excuse for them and each new revelation makes clear that this has nothing to do with terrorism.

It's time to shut it down.

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

 
Tuesday, February 5, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Anbar continue, the US Ambassador in Iraq says Iraq goes up in flames with one wrong move, military recruiters are caught stealing, yet a Senate Subcommittee praises them, Barack Obama's administration (like Bully Boy Bush's administration before him) is only concerned about getting Iraq's oil on the world market,  and much more.

In 1980, the comedy classic (on the American Film Institute's 100 Funniest Movies), Private Benjamin was released.  Jewish American Princess Judy Benjamin (Goldie Hawn in an Academy Award nominated performance) becomes a widow on her wedding night when Yale (Albert Brooks) dies while they're having sex.  With no husband, no plans for her future and in a state of grief, Judy ends up spilling her problems on talk radio and a man schedules a meeting with her to help her address them.  The man is army recruiter Jim Ballard (Harry Dean Stanton).  Spinning a series of lies to make his recruitment number, he gets her signed up.

On base, she refuses to unpack due to a mix up.  Captain Doreen Lewis (the late Eileen Brennan, in an Academy Award nominated performance) is shown the new recruits by Sgt LC Ross (Hal Williams) and is addressing them as they stand at order -- all at order except for Judy Benjamin who files her nails before going over and touching the Captain on the shoulder.

Judy: Excuse me, 

Captain Lewis:  Huh?

Judy:  I hate to interrupt you but, uhm, could I speak to you for a sec?

Captain Lewis: Oh, my Lord.  Sgt, would you look at this.

Sgt Ross:  I've seen it, ma'am. 

Captain Lewis:  What's -- what's your name, princess, huh?

Judy: Judy.  

Captain Lewis:  Judy.

Judy:  Judy Benjamin.

Captain Lewis:  Judy Benjamin.

Judy:  Uhm, I think they sent me to the wrong place.

Captain Lewis:  Uh-huh.

Judy:  See, I did join the army but I joined a different army.

Captain Lewis:  Uh-huh.

Judy:  I joined the one with the condos and the private rooms. 

Captain Lewis and Sgt Ross laugh.

Judy: What?


Judy: No, really.  My-my recruiter, Jim Ballard, told me that --

Captain Lewis: I don't care! I don't care what your lousy recruiter told you, Benjamin. Now I'm telling you there is no other army. 

Judy:  Wait a minute.  I don't want to have to go to your boss or anything, okay? 

Captain Lewis mouths the words "my boss."

Judy:  I just  -- Look, to be truthful with you, I can't sleep in a room with 20 strangers.

Captain Lewis:  Oh, dear.

Judy: And I mean look at this place.  The army couldn't afford drapes?  I mean I'll be up at the crack of dawn here.  And I have to tell you, I am frankly a little shocked

Captain Lewis: You're shocked?

Judy: Yes.

Captain Lewis: Why?

Judy: This place is a sty.  

Captain Lewis:  It's a sty?

Judy:  Yeah, I mean, look-look.

Judy lifts up a pillow on a bed and points to it.

Judy:  Look-look at these stains.

Captain Lewis:  Mm-hmm.

Judy:  God knows where this has been 

Captain Lewis:  Yeah.

Judy:  And have you seen the bathroom?


Captain Lewis:  What, uh -- Do you think that the latrine -- Do you think that it's unsanitary? 

Judy:  Oh, it's disgusting. 

Captain Lewis:  Disgusting?

Judy:  There are urinals in there. 

Captain Lewis:  Well that's because this is the army, Benjamin, it's not a sorority house.  Uh, may I see your toothbrush?  Please?  Please?


I don't care what your lousy recruiter said, Captain Lewis snarls.  Recruiters have probably the worst image of anyone in the military.  They have that image for a number of reasons.

During wartime, they are the people seen as luring innocents into becoming cannon fodder.  That's why recruiting stations are protested during wars.  It's why many people believe military recruiters should not be allowed on campus.

Their job is to meet quotas.  They have lied to do so.  Iraq War veteran and war resister Joshua Key has spoken and written of how his recruiter swore to him that if he signed up he would be stationed in Oklahoma and never sent out of the country.

They get away with these lies.  Even if their lies are recorded, no court holds them accountable and the brass doesn't give a damn what recruiters say, only that they make their quotas.

I note that because I had to sit through a Senate hearing this morning where people were praising the 'good' recruiters.  Who are the good ones?

Nancy Meyers, Charles Shyer and Harvey Miller wrote a very funny script (and were nominated for an Academy Award for this screenplay).  When we laugh, we're generally responding to one of two things: shock (disbelief) or recognition.   Private Benjamin had a lot of scenes people could laugh at due to recognition.


Recruiter Ballard: What does that look like to you?

Judy:  What?  Club Med?

Recruiter Ballard:  It's the Fort Ord Army Base in Monterey, California. 

Judy:  Those look like condos.

Recruiter Ballard:  Mm-hmm.  And every soldier gets his or her own private room. 

Judy:  What are these?  Yachts?

Recruiter Ballard:  The army is the best kept secret in the world, Judy.

Judy:  Looks great.  But, see, you don't know me.  I'm not -- I'm not the army type.

Recruiter Ballard:  You can forget that old brown boot image of the army. It's the army of the 80s.  You'd love it.  All the ladies do -- all 89,000 of them. Here, check out this list of jobs. There's over 300 jobs there and there's only a couple of them not offered to the ladies -- trained killers, stuff like that.  How much do you earn now per month?

Judy:  Now? 

Recruiter Ballard:  Mm-hmm.

Judy: Nothing. 

Recruiter Ballard: Nothing?

Judy:  Thanks.

Judy starts to cry.

Recruiter Ballard:  What are you thinking 

Judy:  I'm thinking about . . . my family . . . and my house . . . and all the gifts I have to return 

Recruiter Ballard:  Judy, you shouldn't be saddled with a lot of decisions and a lot of responsibilities right now.  Now I'm prepared to offer you $458 a month, train you in the job of your choice, pay for your food, your housing, all your medical  and give you a thirty-day paid vacation.  And let me tell you something else.  A lady with your education and background could easily land an assignment in Europe.

Judy:  Europe?  I do need to get away.

Recruiter Ballard:  And I promise you we'll get you in the best physical shape you've ever been in in your life.

Judy:  It'd be like three years at La Costa. 

Recruiter Ballard:  La Costa, that's good.

Judy:  What if I hate it once I get there?

Recruiter Ballard:  Quit.  It's a job like anything else. 


That's a recognizable scene.  And it's funny that it happens to Judy Benjamin.  She's a film character -- a great one -- and without those lies, you've got no storyline for the film.

But this happens over and over in real life and that's not funny.

I had to sit through a hearing where the Chair praised recruiters and the great work they do.  And was bothered by the latest recruiting scandal -- and surprised by it.  There's nothing surprising about it.


"However, I'm disappointed that it took a small story in the Washington Post in 2012 for this Subcommittee to even have an inkling about problems with this large contract," declared Senator Claire McCaskill this morning, "and that it took almost two years and our repeated insistence for the Army to inform the Subcommittee that the problems that the Post reported were just the tip of the iceberg."


Yesterday cam news of fraud in a government program used to recruit for the US military.  We had other things to cover in Monday's snapshot and that was fine because I knew we could grab the issue  via today's hearing.

This morning the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight held a hearing and heard from a series of witnesses: Lt Gen William T. Grisoli (Director of the Army Staff), Maj Gen David E. Quantock (Commanding General of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command and Army Corrections Command), Joseph P. Bentz (Army Audit Agency's Principal Deputy Auditor General), retired Lt Gen Clyde A. Vaugh (former Director of Army National Guard), retired Col Michael L. Jones (former Division Chief Army National Guard Strength Maintenance Division), Philip Crane (president of Docupak) and retired Lt Col Kay Hensen (former contracting officer National Guard).  The Subcommittee Chair is Clare McCaskill and the Ranking Member is Rob Johnson.


We'll note this overview of the scandal that the Chair provided.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  The Recruiting Assistance Program was born in 2005 when the Army National Guard was struggling to meet its recruitment numbers due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The National Guard's Recruiting Assistance Program, known as GRAP,  would provide incentives to the National Guard soldiers and civilians to act as informal recruiters or recruiting assistants.  These recruiting assistants would receive a payment between $2,000 and $7,500 for every new recruit.  The contract was run out of the Army National Guard's Strength Maintenance Division, known as ASM, and administered by a contractor Docupak.  The recruiting assistants were hired by Docupak as subcontractors.  After the program was put in place, the National Guard began to meet its recruiting goals and the active Army and Army Reserve began their own similar programs.  In 2007, however, Docupak discovered instances of potential fraud which it referred to -- which it referred to the Army.  Four years later, after suspecting a pattern of fraud, the Army requested a program wide audit.  And what the audit found was astounding.  Thousand of National Guard and Army Reserve participants who are associated with payments that are high or medium risk for fraud with an estimated total amount of 29 million dollars paid fraudulently.  This criminal fraud investigation is one of the largest that the Army has ever conducted -- both in terms of sheer volume of fraud and the number of participants. Although recruiters were prohibited from participating in the RAP program because recruiting was already part of their job duties.  Investigators found that potentially over 1200 recruiters fraudulently obtained payments.  For example, in Texas, a former member of the National Guard was sentenced to four years and nine months in prison for leading a conspiracy to obtain $240,000 in fraudulent recruiting bonuses.  He did this by providing kickbacks to National Guard recruiters in return for the names and Social Security numbers of  recruits who had in fact already been recruited.  The fraud was not limited to service members because anyone could sign up to be a recruiting member.  There were also cases of people not affiliated with the Army stealing names and Social Security numbers of potential recruits and receiving referral payments that they were not entitled to.   Even one case of fraud would have been too many.  Instead, we now know that thousands of service members, their family and friends may have participated in schemes to defraud the government they served and the tax payers.


In 2005, the 'brief' Iraq War -- sold as a cake walk and one that, Rumsfeld and others insisted, would find the US greeted as heroes with roses strewn in their paths -- was already obviously not going to be brief.

In 1990, Bully Boy Bush's father, US President George HW Bush, went to war on Iraq.  That was the Gulf War and it lasted from August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991.  By 2005, it was clear that the Iraq War was not going to be brief.  In 2005, the Afghanistan War would hit the four-year mark.

That alone was enough to depress recruitment.  In addition, January 29, 2002, Bully Boy Bush gave a State of the Union Address in which he referred to the "axis of evil" -- a group of countries: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.   Reports that the US government would declare war on Iran were already making the rounds -- and would continue to including in The New Yorker -- and it was thought that a war on Iran or North Korea or both was likely.

This depressed recruitment.

The Iraq War was illegal.  That depressed recruitment.

War resisters within the ranks were increasing and the rah-rah 'turned corner, democracy created' of the administration was countered with the voices as well as due to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse and War Crimes scandal -- Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker) and CBS News broke the news on that.

"We needed recruits,"  Chair McCaskill  noted.  "We were in a very stressful position for command.  We were. really, for one of the first times in our history, beginning to use the Guard and the Reserves in operational capacity.  They were being asked to do what they were never asked to do before."

And that depressed recruitment as "weekend warriors" were now on a never-ending weekend outside the country.  The recruitment was also depressed by the stop-loss policy -- where, when your contract was up and you were out, the US government would inform you that you weren't leaving, you were being stop-lossed and kept in the military.  This was referred to as "the backdoor draft."

Recruitment was also depressed by the tours of duty. During Vietnam, you did a tour and that was that unless you wanted to go back.  In the '00s, you did a tour and it stretched out and was longer and you then found out you were being deployed again and again.  And the down time was non-existent.

In this environment, the program was embraced and embraced so warmly, apparently, that legal aspects were not considered by the military command before this program was implemented.  Chair McCaskill and Ranking Member  Johnson attempted to establish the vetting of the program, by the military, before it was implemented and the witness before them were unable to confirm if it was ever vetted or examined before it was utilized.

We'll note this exchange from the hearing.


Chair Claire McCaskill:  The first is let me get a sense of why it took four years from the time that Docupak gave you some indication that there was a problem?  Can you lay out for us in a way that would make me feel more comfortable, why it took until 2011 for the audit to be called for.

Maj Gen Daivd Quantock:  Chairman McCaskill, I'd like to take a shot at that question.

Chair Claire McCaskill: Thank you.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  If you look at the -- at the -- at how the case came to everybody's attention.  First off, it's only two cases in 2007 that are CID investigations and they came through a fraud hotline.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Okay.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  So understand that over this period of time, CID investigated over 43,000 criminal investigations.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Right.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  So two cases in 2007 wouldn't have raised.  Then in 2008, there were five cases.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Okay.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  And then of course that would not send a signal.  And then two more cases in 2009.  And then in 2010 we had ten cases in one year that one of our, uh, Huntsville agents, in Huntsville, Alabama, realized there's something that could be misconstrued -- or cause some kind of systematic concern.  So they raised it to us, we took a kind of hard look at it and that's when we basically went over to Triple A and said, 'Can you take a hard look at this, there looks to be -- there could be some kind of systematic failures in this program.  Could you do a D dive on this program? to see if there's something we should be concerned about other than the 19 cases  that we're doing?'  In addition to that, Docupak came to us in 2010 because they got the same ten cases we did.  And they also made us aware that there seeing some irregularities as well.  So it was a combination of Docupak, our agents at Huntsville -- Huntsville, Alabama office.  They really brought this to life and that's when we asked Triple A to take a look at the entire program.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Well make sure you convey to, uhm, that investigator, that law enforcement professional in Huntsville our appreciation that he raised the flag in 2010.  So basically what you're saying, General, is that, up until 2010, this appeared to be isolated incidents as opposed to a pattern and a systemic fraud?


Maj Gen David Quantock:  Yes, ma'am.  I've got 150 fraud investigators, civilians, and we look at dozens of fraud investigations.  So this was just another one of those kind of dots on a map that crossed the entire United States.  Not only that the 19 cases were, again, across the United States.  So there was really nothing that just jumped to our attention that would --

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Okay.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  -- direct us that we've got a major problem here.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Uhm, Gen Grisoli, one of the things -- and I'll get to questions for the auditor after Senator Johnson has a chance to question -- but one of the things I'm worried about is holding people accountable.  And this is maybe a question for both you and Gen Quantock.  I know that two years ago we identified 1,200 recruiters and over 2,000 recruiting assistants.  I know we're looking at a statue of limitations.  I'm really concerned that there are going to be people that there are people that wear a uniform that are going to beat this by virtue of the statute of limitations or they're only going to get "titled," not going to lose benefits, be allowed to retire and go their way.  I mean, these are criminals that have dishonored the uniform that we are all so proud of.  And I'd like you to address that briefly, if you would, what we need to be doing statutorily so that either lengthening the statute of limitations or making sure that if there is some kind of procedure internally that you lose your benefits because I don't want to mess with anybody's benefits if you've served our country honorably but if you've served dishonorably I think you deserve more than the word titled in your file.

Lt Gen William Grisoli:   Madam Chairwoman, we-we have the same concern you have on this particular issue.  And as we prioritize our efforts, we try to prioritize the greater risk of falling into that category where the statute of limitations.  As far as looking at some assistance from Congress?  We're okay now but I think we may have to come back and ask for some assistance.  We'll let you know as we work with you through these problem sets and we address the highest priority first and the ones that are closest to the statutory limits.  We'll work with that and communicate with your staff.


Chair Claire McCaskill:  It's going to break my heart if a lot of people get away with this on behalf of the amazingly brave and courageous people who step across the line.  It's just going to break my heart.  And we've got to figure out a way to hold every single one of them accountable.  If nothing else, just for the benefit of all those, the vast, vast majority that serve so well.


Lt Gen William Grisoli:  I would --

Maj Gen David Quantock: Madam Chairwoman --

Lt Gen William Grisoli:  --  agree.  Go ahead, sir.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Madam Chairwoman, I would just say that was one of our major points, about prioritizing the cases was based on the age of these case so that we could get after and do exactly that.  The other thing was going through basically over a hundred thousand people that could be held accountable in trying to figure out the high, medium and low risk so we didn't waste our time on the low risk cases and we went after the high and the medium risk and also the biggest dollar cost that was lost. All of those things were sort of our focus so we could really focus in.  That's why today we've got 104 cases adjudicated and 16 individuals already in confinement.  And we, again, continue to go after this very aggressively across the entire [word not audible, the general's accidentally hit the microphone as he waived his hand and the 'thump' was louder than his voice] force.


Has anyone been punished?  I don't believe so but decide for yourself based on this exchange.


Chair Claire McCaskill:  Let's talk about leadership and fraud in this instance. There is evidence that one major general committed fraud, 18 full colonels, 11 lieutenant colonels and dozens of other mid-level and junior officers.  I need to know -- and if you can't give me specifically all of those today -- I need to know for the record what has occurred in all of those instances in terms of holding them accountable.  It is particularly egregious when it is our leadership.  And that's why I hope they've gotten priority and I'd love you to speak to that Gen Quantock. 

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Yes, ma'am.  Actually, that was our first priority, was to look at all senior level misconduct up front. So in addition to age, we also looked at senior level conduct.  I'd have to take it for the record to go back and, uh, breakdown all those cases.  But again it was dollar value, it was age of the case and it was, of course, our first priority was senior leader misconduct before we looked at anything else.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  To your knowledge, have any of them gone to prison?

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Uh, no, ma'am, to my knowledge, none of them have gone to prison.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Have any of them lost benefits to your knowledge?

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Uh, no, ma'am, not to my knowledge.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Have any of them been forced to resign from their service?

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Uh . . . [long pause] I'd have to take that one for the record, ma'am.

Chair Claire McCaskill:  Okay. It's very important that we know that.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  Yes, ma'am.  Absolutely. 

Chair Claire McCaskill:  I think we've learned one thing over the last six or seven years of contracting oversight and that is the way you really begin to change a culture that would allow this to happen is to have everyone see that the folks with all the stuff [gestures to shoulders indicating military ribbons and decorations -- the military brass] were held as accountable as a young member of the Guard who figured out he could scam the system and game this to make thousands of dollars he was not entitled to -- or she.

Maj Gen David Quantock:  I will tell you, though, one of the leaders was-was for one case and it was for $7,500  because they brought in a doctor.  In that particular case, the statute of limitations did rise up and the Assistant US Attorney failed to go forward with the case because it wasn't that the statue of limitations had then expired at that point but, by the time it went through the courts, it would have.


Again, doesn't sound like anyone's been punished.  And if, in 2010, you put a priority on investigating officers involved in this?

By 2014, you would have handed out some punishments.

Quit lying.  The whole thing's a joke.  And why are we surprised that some recruiters would steal?

There is a code for the military and it does include forbidding lying.

But the lies of recruiters are tolerated and laughed about within the military.

But now you're surprised that thousands of dollars would be stolen by people?

If you tolerate, if you encourage lying in recruitment, why are you shocked when the same people move on up to theft?

If there's no honor code being followed, why are you surprised that there are no ethics?

McCaskill and others went on and on about the horror of stolen money and it is a horror and I'm not dismissing it on some nonsense grounds of, "It's only thousands!  Do you know how much was spent on the Iraq War!"

I'm not dismissing at all.

It is theft and it should be punished.

But hop off your high horses because Congress never explores what recruiters do and recruiters are never held accountable for misleading and lying.

If you went to a job interview with McDonalds tomorrow and they told you they'd pay you $16 an hour and then didn't, you'd have a grievance, a legal claim based on what you were promised.

But Congress doesn't give a damn about the lies recruiters tell and yet now they want act outraged that the same people whose job includes lying on a regular basis, deceiving American citizens, are also petty thieves?

Where is the sense of perspective?

Not to be found among the US personnel in Iraq.   ABC News Radio quotes US Ambassador to Iraq Robert Beecroft stating of Iraq, "We're in a very precarious situation where a misstep anywhere could set off larger conflicts within the country, and that's what we need to stay away from.  The wrong person gets killed, the wrong mosque gets attacked and exploded and you run the risk of sectarian conflict."

Beecroft goes on to make ridiculous statements that we won't even bother to quote.  But on that?  How did it come to that?  Beecroft won't say.  He won't note that this didn't happen yesterday, or even last year.  This is the fallout of the political crisis -- all of today's Iraq crises stem from that.

In 2010, Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

Allawi should have been the winner.  He's like Al Gore in that regard only the press wouldn't admit Al Gore actually won Florida (not just the popular vote but the state of Florida as well) in the 2000 elections until about a year after the election.  It was known in March 2010 that Nouri had lost.

But US President Barack Obama wasn't going to let the US puppet Nouri down.  So while Nouri dug his heels in refusing to step down and bringing the Iraqi government to a half for eight months, the US government brokered a contract: The Erbil Agreement.

To get the heads of all the political blocs to sign on, the contract had to give them something in exchange for their giving Nouri a second term.  The power-sharing arrangement was written into the Constitution.  The US officials in Iraq swore they would stand by it.  Barack personally gave his assurance in November to Ayad Allawi.

Nouri used the contract to get his second term, insisted that the contract couldn't be implemented right away and then, as usual, broke his promise and never implemented it.

And Barack broke his promises and didn't stand behind the agreement.

Nouri didn't get the votes for a second term.  The only reason he's prime minister right now is because of that contract and he refused to honor it.  In fact, nearly 8 months after he became prime minister, his spokesperson suggested The Erbil Agreement was illegal and, therefore, Nouri didn't have to honor it.

Cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraqiya and the Kurds were all calling on Nouri to implement the agreement -- calling publicly -- by the summer of 2011.

This is the failure from which the other problems arise.

'No, it's not!  The Kurdish issue is an important issue!  It has not been resolved!  That has nothing to do with The Erbil Agreement!'

The issue existed before The Erbil Agreement.  Nouri became prime minister in 2006 and the Constitution (Article 140) commanded him to do a census and referendum in Kirkuk to allow the people to determine whether they would be part of the central government out of Baghdad or part of the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government in the north.

Nouri refused to obey the Constitution.

But The Erbil Agreement?  One of the things the Kurds had put into this document -- which all leaders including Nouri signed off on -- was that Article 140 would be immediately implemented.  And they believed that because before they signed it, liar Nouri had announced this would take place at the start of December 2010.

It was only after the contract gave him a second term that Nouri immediately announced the census and referendum to take place in weeks was now off.

All of the problems stem from this. Nouri is an illegitimate leader who rules as a dictator.

He loathes Sunnis and is trying to prove himself a man by covering for his weakness and frailty when he ran out of Iraq like a little chicken in the 70s and hid out for decades while begging the US government to go to war on Iraq.  He only returned after they did.

So he works that inadequacy out on the Sunni population today.  (Nouri's a Shi'ite, Saddam Hussein was a Sunni.)

And that's why he's launched the Assault on Anbar which has only served to add to the list of his War Crimes while demonstrating he's even weaker -- in every way -- than his opponents have alleged.

Will Morrow (WSWS) reports:



Iraqi military forces renewed their shelling and aerial bombardment of Fallujah over the weekend, in preparation for a ground assault to reclaim the city, located in Iraq’s western Anbar province.
Government forces are reportedly stationed 15 minutes from Fallujah, awaiting a final go-ahead from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to launch their invasion. For several weeks the city has been subjected to indiscriminate artillery fire and aerial strikes that have killed an unknown number of civilians, and a blockade that has restricted access to food, medicine and water.
The government has delivered an ultimatum to anyone still inside the city to leave or be treated as a supporter of the Al Qaeda-affiliate Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Maliki administration officials had previously sought to negotiate with local tribal forces who took control of the city at the beginning of January. A top Iraqi security official told Reuters on Sunday: “That’s it. They were given enough time to make their choice, but they failed ... The message was clear, we offered them to leave the city and be a part of the national reconciliation project. But, if anyone insists on fighting our forces, he will be considered an ISIS militant whether he is or not.”
The Turkish Weekly reported yesterday that government forces, backed by helicopters, are fighting local tribesmen to retake parts of the capital of Anbar province, Ramadi. The newspaper said that seven bodies had been brought to the Ramadi hospital. The government declared that it had killed 50 “terrorists” in Ramadi and 15 “militants” in Fallujah over the weekend. However, it is impossible to confirm the identity of those killed, as the government labels all those fighting the military as “terrorists.”
The government is acting with the full support of the Obama administration. Vice President Joe Biden called al-Maliki on January 26 to tell him “that the United States continues to support Iraq in its fight against the Al Qaeda-linked militants,” according to the Washington Post. The fighting recalls the devastating sieges of Fallujah by US occupation forces in 2004 that levelled much of the city and transformed it into a deserted ruins.




Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 93 violent deaths so far this month.  Last month saw over a thousand deaths -- and even the United Nations made a point to note that their count did not include those killed in the assault on Anbar.  Nouri's assault hasn't decreased the violence, it's increased it.


Today, National Iraqi News Agency reports 3 Pajwan bombing (Kirkuk) left five people injured, a Mosul car bombing left eight people injured (six are Iraqi soldiers), a Mosul suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers with six more left injured, a southwest Baghdad car bombing (Bayaa area) left 1 person dead and eight more injured, Baghdad Operations command notes a second bombing (same are) left 2 people dead and ten more injured, another southwest Baghdad car bombing left six people injured,  a Taji roadside bombing left four police officers injured, an eastern Baghdad sticky bombing (Palestine Street) left one police member injured, a Mosul attack left 1 Turkmen woman dead and her husband injured, 1 "of the leaders in 'Daash' terrorist organization" was killed "west of Mousl,"  2 "Katyusha rockets hit an army headquarters of Baghdad's Green Zone," the Green Zone was also hit by a mortar shell,  and 2 corpses were discovered in Baghdad (one had gunshot wounds, the other's head had been bashed in).


Attacks on the Green Zone -- successful ones.  It appears the clock is turning back, beyond 2008, to 2007 and 2006.

Beecroft better start showing some diplomacy skills real quick.  And Nouri should be ordered -- yes, "ordered," he's a US puppet and wants weapons, that's your tool -- to stop the assault on Anbar immediately.

It started in December.  It's now February.  Those Iraqis who stated at the start of the assault that the deeper point of the assault was to halt the intended April 30th parliamentary elections are looking extremely clairvoyant.

But note what US officials focus on:  Oil.

From today's State Dept press briefing:


QUESTION: On Iraq.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What are your thoughts about Iraqi intentions to triple its oil production, more specifically doing so in closer cooperation with Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, broadly speaking the United States has a strong interest in well-supplied global energy markets, which growing oil and gas exports from Iraq can help ensure. And we support any production gains made by Iraq and encourage its increasing investments in developing its energy infrastructure. As you know, this is a long way off or a longer-term process. As we’ve made very clear, not just to Iraq but to any country in the global community, as a matter of policy, engaging with Iran’s energy sector runs risks, including violating and running afoul of U.S. and international sanctions. It is not that we think that has happened at this point, but it is just something that we have cautioned and been clear about with countries around the world, including Iraq.

QUESTION: Have Saudis – Saudi officials expressed their concern over this arrangement to their American colleagues?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on that, Scott. Obviously, we’re closely engaged with the Saudis. We would share a concern about any violation, of course, of our U.S. international sanctions. But again, this is a long-term process in terms of oil production, but I’ll check and see if there’ve been conversations we can read out to all of you.



Not War Crimes, not the 140,000 refugees the assault has created.

Oil.

Well someone might want to inform the State Dept that currently Iraq's shipment of oil to Jordan has ceased due to the assault Anbar.

Maybe that will give our 'diplomatic geniuses' -- who, remember, are now the government department responsible for Iraq -- a needed push to attempt to stop the assault on Anbar.
















Wednesday, February 05, 2014

Illegal spying, Norman Pollack, Third

Yeah, I'm behind.  I'll catch up at some point this week.

My mom's visiting us and Monday all I wanted to do was hangout with her and my niece, show them Hawaii a bit and let them have some fun and then we got back and my niece and my daughter were soon asleep and Mom, Elaine and I were up forever listening to music and talking. 

And I did try to blog when they sat down and blogged.  But they knew what they wanted to say and I started reading  Robert Stevens WSWS article about the Guardian.


I thought it would be a quick read and that I'd pull something from it after I read it and note that here.

But it was a long read.

And a strong read.

Remember when the Guardian let the UK government destroy their servers and all last August?

And I thought at the time, "How cowardly."

I didn't blog that because why kick someone when they're down?

But I really was disgusted by it.

Turns out, we didn't know the half of it.

I can't believe the pressure and threats -- from the British government -- the Guardian was facing at that time.

I'm so glad now that I didn't call them out.

You should read the article, it's pretty major.


By the way, Norman Pollack has a great article at CounterPunch.  Here's a taste:



“Obamacare,” the felicitous handle to disguise corporate pre-emption of the ideological-political-structural ground which deals with what should be viewed as a justifiable, humane entitlement affecting all people: health insurance as a basic, non-negotiable right integral to the constitutional foundation of the State. I capitalize “State,” not as an appeal to isms at either pole of the spectrum, but to signify “All-of-us,” the nation as its people, not as, and in contrast to the supposed legitimacy of, its ruling class. By firmly endowing health care, i.e., institutionalizing it, with privatization as the antecedent condition, we place our lives at the mercy of the centers of profit and the structure reinforcing them.
Serves us right. Capitalism, especially as it historically developed in America, in which alternatives to its puristic organization were steadily ruled out (the Lockean primacy of property as be-all and end-all of society almost by definition—all else a variety of communism), has resulted in a systemic cohesion wherein strengthening the private sector in one area, here, health care, redounds to the further benefit of property-concentration in all other sectors. Think of it. Could the single-payer system, proven quite compatible with extant capitalisms (plural, because few other capitalist nations are as rigidly organized and ideologically defended so unmercifully as ours) elsewhere, be absorbed into the American system without affecting its whole ethos and structure of power?
“Obamacare” is at one with every other recognizable facet of contemporary US policy, domestic and foreign. Capitalism as successfully consolidated in America over now going on four centuries (even the New Deal constituted a series of emergency measures for the purpose of saving capitalism, its success allowing for systemic continuities in further wealth-concentration, despite efforts to introduce a genuine and lasting public realm truly crediting welfare entitlements) makes little allowance for what appear as dysfunctional elements in the formation (successively, I fear) of a Class-State, then National-Security State, and now, closing in through massive surveillance and the disregard for civil liberties, an emerging Police State. How, therefore, expect or anticipate an authentic health-care framework, when the social order is prior-systematized to bring together in common purpose industry, finance, military, service, educational, media, indeed, every dimension of elite centralized control defining and promoting its functional operation?



Okay.  Do you recognize this:




Since I didn't blog on Monday, you probably already recognize that as the new content from Third.  It was created by Dallas and the following:



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),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
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 that's going to be it, we're about to watch a movie




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


 
Monday, February 3, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Anbar continues, Nouri files lawsuits against a judge and a reporter, KRG President Massoud Barazni gives DC the cold shoulder, and much more.




Saturday, UNAMI issued the following:

Baghdad, 1 February 2014 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 733 Iraqis were killed and another 1,229 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in January*.

The number of civilians killed was 618 (including 178 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,052 (including 237 civilian police). A further 115 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 177 were injured not including casualties from Anbar operations.
“Iraq continues to face substantial security challenges by armed groups who promote violence and seek to divide people. Political, religious and civil leaders urgently need to show national unity in dealing with violence and in promoting social peace. Security operations need to go hand-in-hand with inclusive policies, based on the respect for human rights, the rule of law, social development”, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG), Mr. Mladenov said. “As fighting continues to affect the people of Anbar, I am deeply alarmed by the humanitarian situation of thousands of displaced families and particularly of those stranded in Fallujah. They lack water, fuel, food, medicine and other basic commodities”, the UN Envoy added.  “It is vital that everything possible is done to ensure that urgent humanitarian aid reaches those affected people”, he said. 
*Casualty figures for January do NOT include casualties resulting from the ongoing fighting in Anbar, owing to problems in verification and in ascertaining the status of those killed and injured
Anbar excluded, Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 882 civilian casualties (297 killed 585 injured), followed by Salahuddine (105 killed 169 injured), Diyala (89 killed 90 injured), Ninewa (81 killed 82 injured), and Kirkuk (21 Killed, 101 injured).
According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the total of civilian casualties in Anbar up to 27 January was 138 killed and 598 injured, with 79 killed and 287 injured in Ramadi and 59 killed and 311 injured in Fallujah. Media sources as of 31 January quoted health officials from the Anbar health department stating that civilian casualties in Anbar in January 2014 have been 140 killed and 660 injured.

Saturday, Iraq Body Count also released their total for violent deaths in the month of January: 1076.  The Iraqi ministries offered their count Friday and Press TV covered it, "According to the figures, compiled by the ministries of health, interior and defense and released on Friday, 1,013 people were killed in January, including 795 civilians, 122 soldiers and 96 policemen." Historically, the ministries -- two of which remain headless and controlled by Nouri (Ministry of Defnese and Ministry of Interior) -- have provided an undercount. Friday, Jason Ditz noted Antiwar.com's count is 1,840.  Ditz also notes that Iraq's toll is 1,202.



Friday's snapshot included this from Felicity Aruthnot's  Pravada column on Nouri al-Maliki's assualt on Abnar:.


However, the US and UK are seemingly remarkably selective when it comes to tyrants who "kill their own people", and not only have failed to censure their tyrannical Iraqi puppet, Nuri al-Maliki, but are arming him to the teeth with the same weapons which are linked to the horrific birth defects, and cancers throughout Iraq, which he is now using on "his own people." Moreover, if allegations from very well informed sources that he holds an Iranian passport are correct, to say that US-UK's despot of choice appears in a whole new political light would be to massively understate.To facilitate Al-Maliki's assault on Iraq's citizens, the US "rushed" seventy five Hellfire missiles to Baghdad in mid-December. On 23rd January Iraq requested a further five hundred Hellfires, costing $82 million - small change compared to the $14 Billion in weapons provided by America since 2005.The AGM-114R Hellfire II, nauseatingly named "Romeo", clocked in at: $94,000 each - in 2012. Such spending on weaponry in a country where electricity, clean water, education and health services have all but collapsed since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Last week an "American cargo jet loaded with weapons" including 2,400 rockets to arm Iraqi attack helicopters also arrived in Baghdad.(iii)
This week a contract was agreed to sell a further twenty four AH-64E attack helicopters to Iraq "along with spare parts and maintenance, in a massive $6.2 Billion deal." With them comes the reinvasion of Iraq, with: "hundreds of Americans" to be shipped out "to oversee the training and fielding of equipment", some are "US government employees", read military, plus a plethora of "contractors", read mercenaries. (iv)
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, on November 15th 2013 Iraq also took delivery of: " its first shipment of highly advanced Mi-35 attack helicopters as part of a $4.3 Billion arms purchase from Russia", of an order of: "about 40 Mi-35 and 40 Mi-28 Havoc attack helicopters." 

The all to "attack his own people" in the guise of defeating "Al Qaida" in Anbar province and elsewhere where the people have been peacefully protesting a near one man regime of torture, sectarianism, kangaroo courts which sentence victims who have also had confessions extracted under torture.

My apologies to Felicity Aruthnot because I wrongly credited this to Ramsey Clark and did not realize my error until I read her same column at Dissident Voice Saturday morning  Again, my apologies for my error.


Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki continues his assault on Anbar Province.  Ramzy Baroud (Arab News) comments:


As US Secretary of State John Kerry hurried to his helicopter ready to take off at the end of a visit to Iraq last year, it was becoming clearer that the Americans have lost control of a country they wished to mold to their liking. His departure on March 24, 2013 was the conclusion of a “surprise” visit meant to mark the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Ten years prior, the US had stormed Baghdad, unleashing one of the 20th century’s most brutal and longest conflicts. Since then, Iraq has not ceased to bleed.
Kerry offered nothing of value on that visit, save the same predictable clichés of Iraq’s supposedly successful democracy, as a testament to some imagined triumph of American values. But it was telling that a decade of war was not even enough to assure an ordinary trip for the American diplomat. It was a “surprise” because no amount of coordination between the US Embassy, then consisting of 16,000 staff, and the Iraqi government, could guarantee Kerry’s safety.
Yet something sinister was brewing in Iraq. Mostly Muslim Sunni tribesmen were fed up with the political paradigm imposed by the Americans almost immediately upon their arrival, which divided the country on sectarian lines. The Sunni areas, in the center and west of the country, paid a terrible price for the US invasion that empowered political elites purported to speak on behalf of the Shiites. The latter, who were mostly predisposed by Iranian interests, began to slowly diversify their allegiance. Initially, they played the game per US rules and served as an iron fist against those who dared resist the occupation. But as years passed, the likes of current Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, found in Iran a more stable ally: Where sect, politics and economic interests seamlessly align. Thus, Iraq was ruled over by a strange, albeit undeclared troika in which the US and Iran had great political leverage where the Shiite-dominated government cleverly attempted to find balance and survive.
Of course, a country with the size and history of Iraq doesn’t easily descend into sectarian madness on its own. But Shiite and Sunni politicians and intellectuals who refused to adhere to the prevailing intolerant political archetype were long sidelined — killed, imprisoned, deported and simply had no space in today’s Iraq — as national identity was banished by sect, tribe, religion and race.


Also offering a take on the current events is Saadula Aqrawi (Kurdish Globe):



Nothing seems to have changed in the new federal democracy of Iraq: the government is ruled by the same ideology, the same minds, the same policies. Personally, I don't think the democratic system is to blame, it's more about the cultures of the Middle East.

Nothing seems to have changed in the new federal democracy of Iraq: the government is ruled by the same ideology, the same minds, the same policies.
Personally, I don?t think the democratic system is to blame, it's more about the cultures of the Middle East.
The Kurds have taken the Iraqi government to task over the political cost of excluding Sunnis, Kurds and other ethnic minorities.
The Iraqi government's mismanagement of Iraqi politics has contributing to the recent surge in violence.
The insurgents believe the Iraqi government is too dominated by Iran, and Baghdad's mistreatment of the Sunnis and the Kurds is pushing the former towards extremism.
The unwise policies currently being pursued by the Iraqi Government are the same that drove Iraq to civil war over the last decade, and there is every reason to fear the same fate may befall Iraq once more. 




Iraqi novelist and activist Haifa Zangana delivered a presentation before the European Parliament last Thursday.  BRussells Tribunal carries the presentation in full and we'll note the opening here:

National Iraqi News Agency reported on Fri 24th January that the Iraqi military's mortar shelling the night before left 4 people dead and 32 more injured "including women and children" and Saturday’s military shelling of Falluja left 5 people dead and 14 more injured -- "most of them women and children." Falluja General Hospital was shelled as well.
Iraqi’s government assault on Anbar continues.  Maliki’s Collective punishment is called “Revenge for the martyr Mohamed” which was preceded by a campaign with the title: “Revenge for martyrs”.
And the attacks have been indiscriminate leading many civilians to flee.  – The UN refugee agency on Friday reported[1] that more than 65,000 people had over the past week fled the conflict in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi in central Iraq's Anbar province. Since fighting broke out at the end of last year, more than 140,000 people have been made homeless by fighting according to Iraq's Ministry of Displacement and Migration.
This number comes on top of the 1.13 million people already internally displaced in Iraq and who are mostly residing in Baghdad, Diyala and Ninewa provinces.
"Many of the displaced, nonetheless, are still in desperate need of food, medical care, and other aid. As the insecurity has spread, many families who fled several weeks ago have been displaced again," according to UN.
The UN in Iraq has asked the government to facilitate the opening of a humanitarian corridor to reach displaced and stranded families in Anbar province. Currently, it is impossible to reach the area from Baghdad and relief agencies are using roads coming from northern Iraq.
Why am I talking about this and not about workshops for women’s empowerment and gender equality and political participation?  Because In order to fully address women’s issues and come with helpful policy suggestions we need to address women not as separate from the rest of society, but as a part of it  together with men.
.. and allow me to read the rest of the report :
“Other areas of Iraq including Baghdad, Erbil, Kerbala, Salah-al-Din and Ninewa have witnessed the arrival of thousands of displaced people. People are reportedly without money for food and lack suitable clothing for the rainy conditions. Children are not in school and sanitary conditions, particularly for women, are inadequate.”
The suffering of the displaced is far beyond the sheer loss of a house, it is the loss of neighborhood, community; schools and health service, the feeling of safety associated with familiarities and on the long run the submission to the newly manufactured identity   . The lack of one of these or the combination of all leads to extreme levels of trauma, fear, depression, anxiety and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder[2].
The regression in women’s situation is so devastating that she has reached the bottom of human needs. Just to survive.
I will focus on violence in the public sphere and how it became so prominent that women have been forced to give up hard earned rights, such as employment, freedom of movement, abolition of polygamy, and the right for education and health service, seeking instead, protection for themselves and their families.


All Iraq News repors a security source has told them "that the security forces are preparing to storm in Fallujah city."  Ammar Karim and, Salam Faraj (AFP)  add, "A security official told AFP that an assault on the city was imminent, but a journalist in Fallujah said it was largely calm on Monday."

In reaction to the announcement of an impending all-out assault on Falluja, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports Anbar government officials are calling such an attack "madness" and stating it will only increase the national crisis.  MP Hamid al-Mutlaq denounces the plan as "insane" and declares that it can only lead to more blood spilled and more cracks and fissures in the national unity.  He states you cannot call for peace while screaming war.

Khaled Qaraghouli (Kitabat) notes the military assault on the cities of Anbar has resulted in indiscriminate bombing and shelling which have in turn led many to flee their homes -- fleeing from the military, which is supposed to provide safety -- and becoming displaced while the public infrastructure in Anbar is being destroyed by the bombings and shellings.

Friday, a horrific video came out of Anbar and made it to YouTube.  From that day's snapshot:

On YouTube video has surfaced of Nouri's forces today . . . next to a man being burned alive.  Did they set the Sunni male on fire?  It appears they're not concerned with putting out the fire so it's fair to conclude they started it.   It's the sort of government cruelty that's led Iraqis to protest in the first place.


That video is impossible to forget.

Mahdi Jassim (Kitabat) notes the video  today in a column that opens noting how Iraq (which created the zero) is seen as the owners of the written word, that a Moroccan friend points this out to Mahdi Jassim.  And how Jassim wonders what the impact of that video will be on the way people see Iraq, watching soldiers dancing next to corpses being burned?  Mahdi Jassim asks where is God's humanity and how can that soldier be dancing while the corpse is burning?   Jassim writes of wanting to believe it was a lie, wanting to believe it was being seen wrong somehow  Jassim writes that it appears the government is now beyond all laws -- international and humanitarian -- and that shameful crimes, barbaric crimes are being carried out.   Jassim says that as the government continues to fail to rebuke the actions captured on video, it sends a message that these actions are not the plans of a few soldiers but the direction that the government itself has trained the soldiers to carry out.

It's a very strong column.

Nothing like it has appeared in the US press but the US press hasn't even noted the video which surfaced Friday -- still hasn't noted the video.

Let's note some of the day's violence thus far. National Iraqi News Agency reports 2 Abu Deshir car bombings left 1 person dead and sixteen more injured, Joint Operations Command announced they killed 3 suspects in Mosul and burned their car as well, 1 civilian was shot dead in Baquba, a Taj al-Din car bombing left three people injured, an eastern Baghdad sticky bombing (Palestine Street) left 1 police member killed and another injured, a Sadr City car bombing left five people injured, attacks in Abu Garma and al-Mukhisa villages left 2 Iraqi soldiers dead and two more and one Sahwa injured,  the Ministry of Defense announced their forces had killed 57 people in Anbar Province today, this apparently does not include the 57 that the MoD announced they had killed last night and today in Ramadi alone, an attack on a checkpoint "northeast of Baquba" left three Iraqi soldiers injured, 4 corpses were discovered dumped in Baghdad (all were shot dead), 2 Baghdad shootings left 1 person dead and another injured, Tigris Operations Command announced they had killed "the Emir of the ISIS and four of his aids" in Diyala Province, security forces announced that northeast of Baquba they killed "a close relative" of a man they suspect of being a terrorist, and Dr. Essam Hassan (the "Acting Iraqiya Rector" -- Iraqiya University) survived an assassination attempt (by grenade) in Baghdad todayAll Iraq News adds a Mahmoudiya suicide car bomber took his own life and that of four other people while leaving fifteen more injured.


That's 138 reported dead and forty-seven reported injured.  And you can drop it by 57 and insist that the two government press releases are covering the same 57 dead.  So that would make 81 dead.

How do you misreport that?

Never underestimate the desire of western outlets to whore.

Sinan Salaheddin and the Associated Press do it with an article headlined "Iraqi officials say car bombings in and around Baghdad kill at least 23 people" which opens, "A new series of car bombings in and around Baghdad on Monday killed at least 23 people, officials said, as Iraq's Shiite-led government grapples with a stubborn Sunni extremist-led insurgency in the western Anbar province." So they just ignore the Iraqi government's announcement?  They wait until paragraph eleven to include, "Also on Monday, a Defense Ministry statement said military operations overnight in Ramadi killed 57 militants."  They don't ignore it, they bury it.  Ignoring it?  That's what Ammar Karim and Salem Faraj (AFP) do here.


Nouri's never content with just one crisis, he always needs to create more.  Today, AFP reports he's filed lawsuits against a judge and a report:

Warrants were issued last month for Munir Haddad and Sarmad al-Taie, apparently for criticising Nuri al-Maliki, under an article of the criminal code that prohibits defaming or insulting government employees.
A local press watchdog said the warrant for Taie, who writes a regular column for the Al-Mada newspaper and is a frequent guest on television current affairs programmes, was the first against a journalist since the US-led invasion in 2003.


Friday's snapshot noted US Vice President Joe Biden's phone call to KRG President Massoud Barzani, carried the White House statement and I pointed out, "It's a shame that they [the White House] have more concern over pleasing Nouri than they do over the safety of the Iraqi citizens."  Today Rudaw reports:


Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani has postponed a planned visit to Washington this week because of other commitments, said his chief of staff, Fuad Hussein.
“President Barzani told Joe Biden (the US vice president) that because of some other commitments he couldn’t visit Washington at this time,” Hussein told Rudaw. “That is why the visit was postponed.”


That's only surprising if you weren't paying attention.  In 2012, Barazni made clear his opposition to the US giving Nouri F-16s.  And today?  Not only are those going to be handed over, helicopters and Hellfire missiles are being provided to Nouri.  And on top of all of that, Joe Biden wants to hold Nouri's hand and reassure him while telling Barzani that concessions (to Nouri) need to be made.

President Massoud Barzani is a much admired figure in the KRG and he's a leader on the world stage but Biden wants to treat like an errand boy and hand him a grocery list?

Of course, Barazni's insulted.  And that's before you get to the White House's historic betrayal of Baraniz on the 2010 US-brokered Erbil Agreement that they used Barazni's name and reputation to sell and then refused, after everyone signed the contract, to stand by it.  Yeah, it's about time Barzani put some distance between himself and the US government.

Maybe even a brief spell will force the White House to take Barzani a little more seriously?


Moving on to a new topic,  Iran's FARS News Agency reports:


"The MKO is like a cancer that Iraq has been afflicted with, but uprooting it is nearly complete and it has reached its final days,” former Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie told FNA on Sunday.
He pointed to meddling in Iraq’s internal affairs as one of MKO’s goals, and said, “This grouplet should have been driven out from Iraq and its members should have been handed over to the Iranian government many years ago.”
Al-Rubaie reiterated that there is no other option left for Iraq, but to expel the MKO members.
In January, Iraqi Prime Minsiter Nuri al-Maliki underlined his government’s resolve to speed up efforts to expel the MKO members from Iraq.

Speaking in a joint press conference with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Baghdad, Maliki blamed the UN for prolonging the presence of the MKO members in Iraq.

We need background.  Let's star with Mowaddak al-Rubaie.  He's a Shi'ite who was a member of Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa Party until 1991 when he wanted the party -- still operating in Iraq at the time -- to publicly declare their goal was to kill then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  They refused and he left the party.  Making that declaration would have been a suicide mission for the party members in Iraq.  It wouldn't have had an effect on al-Rubaie -- he wasn't in Iraq.

From 1979 until after the US-led invasion of Iraq (March 2003), al-Rubaie lived in London.

Despite being out of the country for 24 years, the US immediately appoints him to the Iraqi governing council and, the following year, he's given the post of National Security Advisor.  Based on what?

National Security?  He studied medicine in London, he'd fled the country for 24 years.  But he was one of the useless, chicken s**t Iraqis who wouldn't fight Saddam but would lee the country and spend 24 years advocating the US government to topple Saddam Hussein.  What a loser, what a chicken.  Until April of 2009, he held the post of Natioanl Security Advisor.   At which point, he left the post and was named a member of Parliament and held that post until the March 2010 parliamentary elections.

Are you confused?

Don't think it's you.  There was no 2009 parliamentary elections.  Rules are broken for trash like al-Rubaie.  No elections doesn't mean he can be (illegally) named to be a Member of Parliament.  But then came the elections and al-Rubaie had to leave.  He wasn't re-elected, no political slate wanted to appoint him to any open seat.

We've noted the coward weakling here many, many times.  Such as May 9, 2007:

Mowaffak al-Rubaie goes to DC and Gordo tries to keep it in his pants but has a difficult time doing so. The article's entitled "Official Takes Case to U.S., but Skeptics Don’t Budge" (New York Times) but it might as well be called, "Gordo gets The Bedroom Tapes and Performs 'I Forget'." Check my math, but I count twelve. Twelve paragraphs before Gordo tells readers that we're dealing with yet another Iraqi who left the country and didn't come back until after the start of the illegal war. Gordo can't bring himself to tell readers when. It was near the start of the 80s. He was gone for roughly 20 years.
It's not minor. At one point, near the end, al-Rubaie is trying to sell Congress on the idea that Iraq will be a 'generational' thing and Carl Levin states that's too long. The paternalistic attitude doesn't just come from the US administration, it comes from their proxies: a whole host of exiles who saw an illegal war as just the thing to put themselves into power.
He returns in 2003 and the US government appoints him to the Iraqi Governing Council, then in 2004 he's appointed to the Coalition Provisional Authority and then, in 2006, puppet Nouri al-Maliki appoints him the country's national security adviser.
Now does anyone, for even one damn second, believe that someone gone for two decades has the popular support among Iraqis to lead? No, of course not.
In June 2006, he penned an op-ed for the Washington Post:


The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." If the sectarian issue continues to cause conflict with Iraq's neighbors, this matter needs to be addressed urgently and openly -- not in the guise of aversion to the presence of foreign troops.
Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. It has taken what some feel is an eternity to form a government of national unity. This has not been an easy or enviable task, but it represents a significant achievement, considering that many new ministers are working in partisan situations, often with people with whom they share a history of enmity and distrust. By its nature, the government of national unity, because it is working through consensus, could be perceived to be weak. But, again, the drawdown of foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four years it is supposed to.


The exile nature of the puppet government goes a long way towards explaining what someone who's had a seat in all the post-invasion Iraq governments would have tow rite about 'legitimizing' the puppet governments. The government is not made up of Iraqis and never has been. The ones in charge are repeatedly exiles. They are handpicked by the United States.
They have no legitimacy. When it happens once, an Iraqi might think, "Well, good he came back." (It's always a "he.") When it happens over and over?
al-Rubaie came to DC to do a song and dance: Keep sending money, keep letting your service members die to prop a government by those of us who spent decades in exile.
They aren't Iraqis. They were born there, they chose to leave. After US troops are on the ground, they choose to return, after having made their homes elsewhere for decades (al-Rubaie set up shop -- like many -- in England). They have no legitimacy and they have no right to rule. When they speak of the 'time under Saddam,' it's greeted with derision because while many Iraqis lived through that time, the exiles were off in other countries.
All they've brought back is a patronizing attitude that they are so much better than the people of Iraq. That's been one of the many repeated reasons that, government after government, the puppets have no legitmacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people.
There is no 'generational' thing to overcome, just excuses offered by the US government and exiles for why Iraqi people are not allowed self-rule. As hollow as the excuses seem from the outside, they seem even worse on the ground in Iraq.



So that's the Chatty Cathy, now for the group he was speaking of.  When he says "MEK in Iraq" he means the Ashraf community.   As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1st.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.  In addition, 7 Ashraf residents were taken in the assault.  Last November, in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, the  State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, stated, "The seven are not in Iraq."  McGurk's sworn testimony wasn't taken seriously.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran issued a press release today which includes:

The United States must keep its promise to protect the residents of Camp Liberty before they can be transferred to safe havens outside Iraq, former Governor Howard Dean has told a meeting at the US Senate.
Mr Dean also condemned Iran's terrorist meddling in the Middle East and accused the US of sacrificing Liberty residents to keep Iran at the nuclear arms negotiating table.
He said: "These 3,000 people in Camp Liberty were disarmed by American troops in 2004 voluntarily in exchange for a piece of paper... that said these are protected people under the Geneva Convention and the Americans will take responsibility for protecting them.
"Now there is loose talk in the state department that our obligation ran out in 2009 when we turned everything over to Iraq. That is the kind of talk that we cannot have. That is the path to cynicism.

"You do not sell out 3,000 unarmed people because they become inconvenient, because you hope to pacify a group of people that do not have a history of keeping their word and who are as we sit at the table, killing Americans by supplying IED’s to Afghan Taliban."