Thursday, December 06, 2012

Scary

Thursday, here comes the weekend.  I thought I did everything on my Christmas list (remember last week). Nope.  That was only one list.

And before you think, "Isn't Elaine doing anything?," she's doing the bulk of the shopping.  I'm just doing for the kids.  She's got all the adults.  She showed me her still to do list. I couldn't believe how  much she had knocked out and how much still to go.

Anyway.  At least it's not December 22nd and I'm trying to shop -- or worse, December 24th.

Okay, Alexander Fangmann has a report about fakery at WSWS:

Anyone who may still harbor any illusion that the International Socialist Organization is an oppositional or “left”—let alone socialist—organization should take a look at the video of ISO leader Jesse Sharkey’s appearance on Chicago Tonight, a news program produced by local public television station WTTW.Sharkey—the vice-president of the Chicago Teachers Union and the right-hand man of Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis—was one of the two guests on the November 27 program, which discussed the Chicago Public Schools plan to close approximately 100 schools and an open up another 60 charter schools.
During the course of the 12-minute discussion nothing Sharkey said could be remotely construed as oppositional towards the closings, which will devastate working class families and eliminate the jobs of hundreds of teachers and educational staff. There was not the slightest hint in his remarks of the deep anger felt by teachers, parents and students towards Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the billionaire “school reform” advocates behind this attack on public education.

I was one of the people who didn't know what ISO was when they were attacking us in e-mails at Third.  They hate, HATE, Ava and C.I.  (who actually did know who they were).  I can't think of their names but it was the women with US Socialist Worker especially that were just outraged.  That's because Ava and C.I. don't play.  They're hard hitting when it needs to be and the gals of ISO couldn't take that or being called out on their whoring for men. 

But when one of them, I think it was Sharon Smith, started in on that ISO stuff, I had no idea what they were talking about when Ty was reading the e-mail to me over the phone.  I was like, "What's ISO?"

I wonder if they'll swarm Fangmann's inbox? 

Who knows.  But the ISO is all about covering for Democrats.  Not just any Dems, mind you, but the most craven in the world.  They'll lie for them, they'll attack for them, they'll whore for them.

They have no self-respect and they have no scruples.

It's really scary to grasp how few of us there are on the left. 

No wonder Barack's closer than ever to going to war on Syria. 


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

Thursday, December 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visits Iraq, AP is so busy misreporting that they miss out on the visit, the standoff remains, the US and Iraq just signed a new agreement, an Iraqi official used the signing opportunity to publicly call out what Iraq has alleged are Israeli spying devices that have been hidden on the F-16s that Iraq has purchased, in a tale of two press releases we find the US State Dept can get a title correct while the US Defense Dept doesn't have a clue, and more.
 
 
The press is supposed to want to report. If they can be accused -- collectively -- of a bias its having a desire for conflict because conflict makes news. So explain Qassim Abdul-Zahra's AP story this morning which has only been teased out to a longer story by this afternoon despite it grossly misunderstanding what was stated by Nouri al-Maliki about the country's most recent crisis which Nouri sparked when he sent forces into the disputed regions of northern Iraq. Let's deal first with what actually happened today. All Iraq News notes Nouri held a news conference with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today and Nouri declared that there were proposals (plural) to resolve the current standoff between Baghdad and Erbil. Alsumaria reports Nouri said there were two proposals for ending the military standoff in disputed areas between Nouri's Tigris Operation Command and the Kurdish Peshmerga. One proposal is locals are in charge of security while another proposal is a joint patrol by Nouri's Tigris forces and the Peshmerga. The key on the second proposal would be whether or not the Peshmerga remains under Kurdish control.
 
 
Also today All Iraq News reports Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gave a speech about how this crisis is threatening the security and the peace. Al Mada adds that Talabani declared that threatening language -- a reference to Nouri's speech on Saturday -- has no place in this discussion. And as Thursday ended in Iraq, Alsumaria reported that Talabani met with Ahmed Chalabi who gave his support to Talabani and his efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis. All Iraq News notes that Talabani also met with US Ambassador to Iraq Robert S. Beecroft today and they agreed on the need for a peaceful solution to this ongoing dispute.
 
That's all really basic. Yet this morning, AP wanted to report that Nouri stated an agreement had been reached on how to resolve the crisis. That's not what's reported by Arabic outlets. They report Nouri held a press conferences and talked about proposal(s). They continued to insist an agreement had been reached as the day went along. No agreement's been reached. Jalal Talabani wouldn't have given the speech he did today or met with Chalabi to discuss the crisis if it was resolved.
 
 
 
Let's drop back to the November 26th snapshot:
 
 
 
In a development everyone is trumpeting, representatives from the KRG and the central Iraqi government met in Baghdad today. KUNA notes, "Iraq's federal government and provincial government of Iraq's Kurdistan region reached an agreement in principle stipulating return of all military foces to their previous locations." In principal? And that's the more upbeat version. Isabel Coles and Alison Williams (Reuters) lead with, "Iraqi military leaders agreed on Monday with commanders from the Kurdistan region to defuse tension and discuss pulling their troops back from an area over which they both claim jurisdiction." That's not quite the same thing and when you include a quote from Iraq's "commander in chief of the Iraqi armed forces" (that would be Nouri) that states the two sides will "discuss a mechanism to return the forces which were deployed after the crisis to their previous positions." So they're going to discuss that. And even less has been accomplished according to Almanar, "Top federal and Kurdish security officials agreed in Baghdad on Monday to 'activate' coordinating committees between their forces and work to calm the situation in northern Iraq, a statement said." Almanar also notes that those attending the meeting including US Lt Gen Robert Caslen.
 
 
As we noted the next morning, that story fell apart. AP was one of the outlets that got that story grossly wrong. You'd think they'd have learned and you think the fact that the press feeds on conflict would mean that the same reporters wouldn't repeatedly fall for the same "Everything solved! Nothing here to see!" This morning, we pointed out that if an agreement had been reached, KRG President Massoud Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani would probably be making announcements. That didn't strike AP as strange? That the person who initiated the conflict would be the one to announce it was over?
 
 
 
And if that doesn't seem plausible how about the fact that there's nothing on the KRG website about an agreement being reached? There is this article in Arabic (probably there in Kurdish as well but I can't read Kurdish). It's about today's meeting of Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and his Cabinet and among the topics discussed was the conflict and the Tigris Operation Command and how the General Command of the Peshmerga states that they are prepared to defend and protect if violence breaks out. Barzani noted that he was speaking with all Kurdish leaders including KRG President Massoud Barzani.
 
 
Seems to me if a deal was reached, KRG President Massoud Barzani would know and I don't see why he'd keep it from the Prime Minister (who is also his nephew). Again, it's just not plausible. Last time when AP and others pulled this nonsense, I didn't name them, I just said outlets. Well I'm sorry this is the second time you're claiming events happened when they didn't, the second time that your 'solution' story tells the world "Look away, nothing to see here." It's a bit hard to excuse it. It goes against what Iraqi outlets are reporting happened, it goes against what's plausible and it goes against the nature of journalism.
 
 
On the standoff, let's note two views of what's unfolding. First, David Romano (Rudaw) offers this take:
 
 

From my perch in the West, far outside the halls of power in Baghdad or Erbil, it's hard for me to know how serious the threat of outright conflict between the Kurds and Maliki has become. As a political scientist, however, I know of too many historical cases where such tensions led to wars that none of the parties intended or really wanted. In other cases, some of those who chose or desired war expected a quick victory, only to become mired in terrible, grinding and long lasting fighting. The region remembers when Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967 famously took provocative action after action, from threats and blockades against Israeli shipping to demanding the withdrawal of United Nations observer forces from the Sinai. Finally the Israelis attacked, and somehow took him by surprise and then proceeded to defeat the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 6 days. Several years later, Saddam Hussein thought to launch a similar surprise attack on Iran, after its new religious leaders began inciting Iraqi shiites to revolt. Expecting quick victory similar to Israel's lightning war of 1967, he instead condemned Iraq and Iraq to eight years of war, poverty and over a million war dead. The point is that when you overturn the cart, or even threaten to turn it over, no one really knows where its contents will fall.
If serious armed conflict between Maliki and the Kurds does erupt, intentionally or not, the media war of interpretation will undoubtedly rage as well. How such conflict gets framed will likely play a crucial war in determining the winner, in fact. If Mr. Maliki manages to cast the issue as a war between Kurds and Arabs (or "an ethnic war," as he recently referred to a possible conflict), the advantage will go to him. Given how seriously Arabs outnumber Kurds in Iraq, the medium and long-term consequences of such a framing of the conflict would prove extremely disadvantageous to Kurdistan. Mr. Maliki and his "State of Law" Party will tell Iraqis that Barzani is trying to expand Kurdistan's borders at Arab expense. Under such circumstances, it would be hard even for Arabs who oppose Maliki not to rally to his cause of protecting Arabs against Kurdish maximalism. As long as leaders in Kurdistan insist that Article 140 be implemented and the disputed territories be given a chance to join Kurdistan, it will prove extremely difficult to oppose Maliki's framing of the issue as one of "Arab vs. Kurd."

 
 
 
And for another view, Qassim Khidhir Hamad (Niqash) speaks with the Islamic Supreme Council's Bashir Adel Gli

 
NIQASH: Despite all this though, it seems that both sides are sending more military into the disputed areas every day. People here in Iraqi Kurdistan are frightened, they think that war is inevitable.
 
 
Bashir Adel Gli: I have no fear. There won't be a war.
 
 
NIQASH: And what makes you so sure of that?
 
 
Bashir Adel Gli: Because al-Maliki has a lot of opponents in Baghdad – such as the Islamic Virtue Party [the Fadhila party], the Islamic Supreme Council, the Sadrists [Editor's note: the latter three are all Shiite-Muslim dominated] and the Iraqiya party. All of his opponents simply won't let this happen. And the Kurdish won't allow the Kurdish military [the peshmerga] to attack the Iraqi army either.
 
 
NIQASH: So what do you think will happen in Iraqi politics in 2013?
 
 
Bashir Adel Gli: I can't really predict that. But I do think it will be the end of al-Maliki. I think if al-Maliki tries to run for the third term, he will find that those opposed to him will multiply.

 
 
On a related note, Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports that the National Alliance (Shi'ite political body headed by Ibrahim al-Jafaari) declared that they believe Nouri is attempting to isolate them politically. Dar Addustour notes the talks going on between KRG President Massoud Barzani, Moqtada al-Sadr (cleric and leader of the Sadr movement) and Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi over the current crisis and the belief that Nouri has escalated this.

From yesterday's snapshot, more problems for Nouri:
 
 
A few weeks ago, Nouri attempted to end the food-rations card system and his spokesperson announced, November 6th, that it was over. It wasn't over because it's too popular. The Iraqi people wouldn't stand for it nor would the politicians (except for those in Nouri's State of Law). So Nouri had to back down. Moqtada al-Sadr was one of the leaders on that issue.
But he and Moqtada tangled weeks before that as well. It happened when Nouri said there was no oil surplus money that could become dividends for the Iraqi people and Moqtada al-Sadr expressed doubt and disapproval. All Iraq News explained in October that Moqtada and his poltical bloc have not let the matter die or just resorted to words, they're actively working with the Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi and the Minister of Planning Ali Shukri to find oil money that can go to the Iraqi people with plans to set aside 25% of future revenues for that. Moqtada and his bloc continued working on the issue and had the people's support. In November, All Iraq News reported that a delegation from the Sadr bloc met with Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi to discuss this issue and find out what the progess was on it and to announce that they will continue to stay focused on this and ensure that the country and its children benefit from the oil.
While Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was fighting for the people and doing so in the open, Nouri was doing something else. Alsumaria reports that MP Bahaa al-Araji of the Sadr bloc held a press conference today outside Parliament to reveal that Nouri al-Maliki filed a lawsuit to dismiss the budget item on sharing the oil suprlus with the citizens from the year's budget. The court -- no surprise, it's not a real court -- ruled in Nouri's favor. Only now, after the ruling, do they find out what Nouri was doing behind everyone's back.
 
 
Today Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports that the Sadr bloc stated the surplus amount was $20 billion and that the lawsuit Nouri brought will prevent the Iraqi pepole from receiving 25% of the surplus. All Iraq News notes that Sadr-bloc MP Iqbal al-Ghurabi declared today that denying the Iraqi people their portion of the surplus was part of a war Nouri is waging on the Iraqi people.
 
 
How nice for the White House -- which kept Nouri on as prime minister even after the Iraqi people voted otherwise -- that just as Iraq gets a high profile visitor who commands international attention, UN Secretaty-General Ban Ki-moon, the English language outlet that most Americans will see Iraq news from is saying the conflict is over.
 
 
 
The Voice of Russia noted the Secretary-General went to Baghdad today from Kuwait. They were one of many news outlets around the world noting the visit. Why was the Secretary-General in Kuwait? To talk about Iraq and Chapter VII.
Thursday his Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler delivered a report on Iraq to the Security Council (see Thursday and Friday's snapshot).


 
Martin Kobler: In addition to the hydrocarbons legislation, we are continuing to provide technical advice and assistance on the establishment of the Federation Council, the reform of the judicial system, and the adoption of laws on minority communities and political parties. At the regional level, Iraq continues its re-emergence onto the international stage. Earlier this year, Iraq demonstrated renewed commitment to meeting its remaining obligations under Chapter VII of the Charter and to improving its bilateral relations with Kuwait. Progress will, however, depend upon the restoration of confidence between both sides. Over the past few months, I stepped up my engagement with Iraq and Kuwait to see how the United Nations could best facilitate the resolution of outstanding issuse in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. And, in this context, I recently held high-level meetings in Iraq and Kuwait in which I was encouraged by the strong commitment that both Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Amir of Kuwait expressed by normalizing relations between their two countries. I very much hope that they will now be able to move quickly. They can count on the UN in this regard. I am happy to report to the Council today that I spoke to Foreign Minister [Hoshyard] Zaebari this morning. He informed me that, first, his government had nominated the names for the technical team of the border maintenance project today and, second, the government would start immediately to update the list of farmers entitled to compensation. A meeting with the farmers will take place as soon as possible. I welcome those steps and call on the Government of Iraq to initiate work on the border mainenance project without further delay. I also appeal to the government of Iraq to continue to demonstrate the goodwill necessary to fulfil Iraq's other outstanding obligations, in particular with regard to missing persons and property. The commitment of Iraq to fulfil those obliations will be conducive to the normalization of relations between the two countries. And I equally call on the government of Kuwait to continue to act in a spirit of flexibility and reciprocity, as reflected earlier this year by the important reciprocal visits of the Amir in Baghdad and the Prime Minister in Kuwait. On a different note, I remain fully committed to continue to work with both governments to resolve bilateral issues, at their request. I am hopeful that the agreement between Kuwait and Iraq for the cancelation of pending lawsuits against Iraqi Airways and on navigational rights in the Khor Abdullah waterway will facilitate improved relations between the two neighbors.


 
 
That was part of the reason for his visit. AFP also notes, "The visit also comes at a time of high tensions between Iraq's federal government and the autonomous Kurdistan region, during which military reinforcements have been sent to disputed areas in the country's north." Nouri's remarks -- the ones the Iraqi outlets got correct but AP got 'creative' on, those remarks -- were made at the joint press conference that Nouri held with Ban Ki-moon. Here's what the UN Secretary-General said at that press conference:
 
 
Assalamo Alaykom, Good afternoon,
I am pleased to be back in Baghdad for the fourth time, and second time this year. My last visit was in March when Iraq hosted the Summit meeting of the League of Arab States. That Summit showed Iraq's steady progress toward regaining its rightful place in the region, the Arab world and the broader international community. I congratulate such leadership and achievement.
Today, I had productive meetings with President Talabani, Prime Minister Al-Maliki and and I am going to have a separate meeting with Foreign Minister Zebari, and also I will be meeting the Speaker of the Council of Representatives. I will also have the honour of addressing the Heads of Political blocs and elected members of the Council of Representatives.
We have discussed a wide range of issues, particularly relations between Iraq and Kuwait. We also addressed relations between the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government. And we reviewed the situation in Syria – which we are all deeply concerned about.
Iraq-Kuwait relations have improved much since March. I believe that a historic opportunity is at hand to fully normalize relations between the two States.
It is time for both countries to put the past behind and usher in a new era of cooperation. I strongly support the efforts of Prime Minister al-Maliki to fulfil without further delay Iraq's outstanding Chapter VII obligations – especially the maintenance of the boundary and the compensation of the farmers.
I have come here from Kuwait. I had good meetings with both Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Emir of Kuwait. I appealed to their statesmanship and asked that they redouble their efforts. This will greatly benefit the people of both countries in the long-term.
In my meetings with the Iraqi leadership, we also discussed the political situation here. The ongoing impasse between political blocs is a disservice to the people of Iraq, who look to their leaders to deliver a better future.
I also expressed hope that divergences over disputed territories in Northern Iraq can be resolved. There is no alternative to peaceful coexistence within a united federal Iraq. The United Nations Assistance Mission (UNAMI) stands ready to help reach this goal.
We discussed the situation in Syria and its impact on Iraq. I am particularly concerned about the humanitarian situation. I thank the Government of Iraq for its generosity and hospitality towards Syrian refugees. I urge the Government to continue to keep the borders open to enable Syrian refugees and Iraqi returnees to seek safety in Iraq.
UNAMI, led by my Special Representative, Martin Kobler, will remain steadfast in supporting the people and Government of Iraq in securing peace, stability and prosperity. I can assure you that the United Nations will stand by the people and Government of Iraq in promoting further stability and peace and sustainable development under the leadership of Prime Minister Al-Maliki. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with you and I will continue to work with the Iraqi Government and people.
 
 
 
For AP to be right, Ban Ki-moon would have to be congratulating both sides on resolving the dispute. He would not have stated, "I also expressed hope that divergences over disputed territories in Northern Iraq can be resolved." Ban Ki-moon was at the press conference and didn't even notice what Nouri was saying? It's not plausible. AP got the story wrong. We called it out this morning, I was on the phone with a friend at AP early this afternoon, they should have killed the story then. Instead they've passed on myth and lies.
 
 
 
Why? You need to ask them.
 
 
 
Ask them also why they ignored Rose Gottemoeller's press conference in Baghdad. She's with the US State Dept. Alsumaria reports that she held a joint-press conference with the acting Minister of Defense and she noted that the US is watching what is developing and is calling for a peaceful solution which avoids military escalation.
 
 
And while AP was lying, it was missing not just the reality of that crisis, it was ignoring important things that were actually said. The UN News Centre notes:
 
 
 
While Mr. Ban also used his address before the political blocs to praise Iraq for making "important progress" in strengthening its state institutions, he said women in the country were "still marginalized."
The UN chief noted that quotas made it possible for women to make up one quarter of Iraq's Council of Representatives, the country's main elected body, before pointing out there was minimal female representation in other key posts.
"Iraqi women are bright and talented," he said. "They should be empowered to engage in building the future of this great country."
 
 
 
There was much more of importance that the Secretary-General spoke of and we'll note some more of it tomorrow, hopefully, however a UN friend made a point to call me and say the Secretary-General spoke of women (I called out Kobler's report to the Security Council last week for ignoring women -- see the snapshots from last week). So we will include the above, I will not that he spoke about women and I will say that what the Secretary-General said on that topic was needed and helpful. And what would have been even more helpful? If, instead of making stuff up, AP could have reported on those remarks.
 
 
Turning to violence, All Iraq News reports 1 corpse was discovered in a village to the south of Mosul, a Jurf Naddaf attack left 5 police officers dead and last night a Mosul car bombing left one police officer injured. Alsumaria adds that 1 military officer was injured in a Falluja shooting, a bombing on a road between Baghdad and Anbar Province left two Iraqi soldiers injured, a Falluja bombing left three Iraqi soldiers wounded, a Mosul attack left 1 Iman wounded, a Mosul armed attack claimed the life of 1 shop owner, 1 person was killed in an attack on a Mosul clinic and a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one soldier injured.
 
 
 
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta made news today with regards to Iraq. The Defense Dept issued the following:
 
 
 
Under the auspices of the Strategic Framework Agreement, the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq reaffirmed their commitment to an enduring strategic partnership during the second meeting of the Defense and Security Joint Coordination Committee on December 5-6, 2012 in Baghdad.
The meetings held at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense were co-chaired by Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun Al-Dlimi, the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, and the Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.
Defense and Security Cooperation is one of the cooperation areas that were agreed upon in the Strategic Framework Agreement signed in 2008 between the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Iraq in order to strengthen cooperation in areas of mutual interest for the two countries.
The United States and Iraq discussed efforts to continue strengthening their security cooperation, enhance Iraq's defense capabilities, modernize Iraq's military forces, and facilitate both countries' contributions to regional security. The two delegations explored U.S.-Iraq training opportunities and Iraq's participation in regional exercises.
The United States and Iraq also discussed the strong and growing foreign military sales program, a symbol of the long-term security partnership envisioned by both countries. The United States stated its support for Iraq's efforts to meet its defense and security needs.
Both delegations reviewed regional security issues. They exchanged views on the conflict in Syria and its effects on regional stability, with both sides urging an end to the violence and support for a political transition that would represent the will of the Syrian people. The two sides agreed to continue consulting closely on regional security matters.
The capstone event was the exchange of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Defense Minister Saadoun Al-Dlimi and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. This agreement represents the enduring strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq, and provides mechanisms for increased defense cooperation in areas including defense planning, counterterrorism cooperation, and combined exercises.
Finally, the United States and the Republic of Iraq committed to convene a third recurring Defense and Security Cooperation Joint Coordination Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., during 2013 to continue discussions on the enduring security and military cooperation between the two countries.
View the Memorandum of Understanding at: http://www.defense.gov/releases/US-IraqMOUDefenseCooperation.pdf
 
 
 
Saadoun al-Dulaimi is not Minister of Defense. I don't know why the US government can't be accurate, I expect more from the Pentagon. Iraq has no Minister of Defense. This position was supposed to have been filled back in 2010. However, Nouri never nominated anyone for that post. al-Dlimi is a deputy defense minister and he is called "acting Defense Minister" by Nouri. But he is not the Minister of Defense -- that's a position that Parliament confirms you for and he's never gone before Parliament for confirmation. It's sad when the Pentagon is either willing to lie or just that ignorant. But they get the name wrong as well: It's Saadoun al-Dulaimi -- not "Saadoun al-Dlimi" as the press release reads. Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."
 
 
There's no excuse for the DoD either lying or getting this wrong. If you think this is something minor, ask yourself why State could get it right when Defense couldn't? That's right, the State Dept has a press release on the meet-up as well:
 
 
 
Under the auspices of the Strategic Framework Agreement, the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq reaffirmed their commitment to an enduring strategic partnership during the second meeting of the Defense and Security Joint Coordination Committee on December 5-6, 2012 in Baghdad.
The meetings held at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense were co-chaired by Iraqi Acting Minister of Defense Saadoun Al-Dlimi, the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, and the Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.
Defense and Security Coordination is one of the areas that were agreed upon in the Strategic Framework Agreement signed in 2008 between the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Iraq in order to strengthen cooperation in areas of mutual interest for the two countries.
The United States and Iraq discussed efforts to continue strengthening their security cooperation, enhance Iraq's defense capabilities, modernize Iraq's military forces, and facilitate both countries' contributions to regional security. The two delegations explored U.S.-Iraq training opportunities and Iraq's participation in regional exercises.
The United States and Iraq also discussed the strong and growing foreign military sales program, a symbol of the long-term security partnership envisioned by both countries. The United States reaffirmed its support for Iraq's efforts to meet its defense and security needs.
Both delegations reviewed regional security issues. They exchanged views on the conflict in Syria and its effects on regional stability, with both sides urging an end to the violence and support for a political transition that would represent the will of the Syrian people. The two sides agreed to continue consulting closely on regional security matters.
The capstone event was the exchange of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Defense Minister Saadoun Al-Dlimi and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. This agreement represents the enduring strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq, and provides mechanisms for increased defense cooperation in areas including defense planning, counterterrorism cooperation, and combined exercises.
Finally, the United States and the Republic of Iraq committed to convene a third recurring Defense and Security Joint Coordination Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. during 2013 to continue discussions on the enduring security and military cooperation between the two countries.
 
 
 
"Acting Minister of Defense." State got it right. Why couldn't the Defense Dept?
 
 
Currently, you can't view the Memorandum of Understanding mentioned in the DOD announcement. The link in the press release above returns an error message. Since Panetta's been working on a number of issues and since Brett McGurk has been saying the easiest way to send some US troops back into Iraq (not all left) was with a Memo of Understanding, it's a shame we're not able to read the document at present. Alsumaria reports that Saadoun al-Dulaimi and US Deputy Defense Secretary Jim Miller held a joint-press conference in Baghdad with al-Dulaimi stressing that the delivery schedule on the F-16s was too slow and had too much red tape but the US had agreed to change that. He also used the opportunity to publicy repeat the charges that Iraq found the first delivery of F-16s contained Israeli spy equipment inside the cockpits of the planes -- these were devices to spy on whomever was in the plane -- these were not devices the pilot would use to spy. From the November 1st snapshot:
 
 
 
Yesterday's snapshot: noted that the current US Ambassador to Iraq Robert S. Beecroft had blown his credibility (claiming there were no US troops remaining in Iraq to the Iraqi press and, as All Iraq News pointed out, also claiming that there was no desire for US troops to be sent back into Iraq) and that this wasn't a good time for that to happen:
 
All Iraq News reports Iraqis state they have found Israeli recording devices on the
F-16s the US has supplied so far. The Iraqi Air Force leadership has sent a letter objecting to the device to Lockheed Martin, manufacturers of the F-16s. Fars News Agency adds, "Iraq's air force has found out Israeli company RADA has planted information recording systems in its F-16 fighters recently purchased from the American Lockheed Martin Company."
 
Dar Addustour reports today that the Iraqi Air Force first sought comment from the US government and when they received no answer from the US government, about what they see as spying devices, they asked Lockheed Martin. I have no idea of whether they're spying devices or not. But at some point, someone in leadership in Iraq is going to realize that if there is one set of spying devices, there may be two or more. Someone will shortly grasp that the set discovered may have been intended to be discovered in order to conceal more important devices. That's sleight of hand -- look here, not over there. Again, this wasn't a time where the US face to Iraq should have thrown away credibility by lying that all US troops were out of Iraq and that the US government wasn't attempting to work on a new agreement with Iraq governing US troops.
 
 
 
If Miller had a public comment on that during the news conference, Alsumaria doesn't note it.
Leon Panetta had public comments aplenty when the Secretary of Defense joined VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to discuss the new transition assistance program. Former US House Rep Bob Filner (the newly elected Mayor of San Diego) has long used his time on the House Veterans Affairs Committee (where he alternated being Ranking Member with being Committee Chair) to point out that the service member gets training on going into the military but, when it's time for a discharge, they're frequently rushed on out. Panetta and Shinseki held a press conference to note that they were working on the Transition Assistance Program.
 
 
Secretary Leon Panetta: The Vow to Hire Heroes Act mandated that all service members participate in the TAP program in order to prepare them for life after the military. We've got a large number of -- of individuals in the military, you know, as we transition over these next few years in terms of our force structure, we're going to have a lot of people going into this system.
 
 
Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, championed The Vow to Hire Heroes Act. Panetta also noted, "We also know that we're dealing with the problem of suicide in the military and among our veterans. It's a terrible, terrible challenge that we are dealing with. And we have got to do everything we can, between DOD and VA, to ensure that our systems are equipped to give our people the help they need in order to deal with these unique circumstances that we're confronting." And Senator Murray is calling for more mental health resources as well as for DoD and VA to come up with a joint-suicide prevention plan.
As Secretary Erik Shinseki noted, they were also there to discuss the new documentation methods for veterans, the IEHR [Integrated Electronic Health Record]. This was the focus of a Congressional hearing earlier this week.
 
 
 
US House Rep Mike Michaud: On July 18th, the Subcommittee held a hearing on military sexual trauma in which we explored how veterans who suffered from MST related PTSD have only one in three chances of having their claims approved. You talked about the challenges of these veterans in your testimony today. Can you elaborate further on your testimony on how and why VA regulations should be relaxed to improve these outcomes?
 
 
 
Richard Dumancas: Uh, yes, sir. What we've experienced is at the RO [Regional Office] level is raters are still confused on the regulations, the policy that's set in place and we don't know if it's a lack of training or guidance. They're just so confused on the actual policy so they're basically just denying it and letting the Board of Veteran Appeals handle it. So it comes up here to DC, we get remanded because -- It's frustrating. It's very frustrating. So that's -- I hope that answers a little bit for you.
 
 
 
 
That's from Wednesday afternoon's House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. US House Rep Jon Runyan is the Chair of the Subcommittee, US House Rep Jerry McNerney is Ranking Member. The Subcomittee heard from two panels. The first panel was The American Legion's Richad Dumancas, the National Organization of Veterans Advocates' Michael Viterna and Disabled American Veterans' Jeffrey Hall. The second panel was the VA's James Neighbors, the National Archives and Record Administration's Scott Levins and VBA's Alan Bozeman.
 
 
Both the Chair and the Ranking Members spoke of reports about lost , mishandled and inaccurate records. At the start, Chair Runyan explained, "I called today's oversight hearing to discuss an important yet often overlooked apsect of the veterans' benefits process -- access to various service department records. Such records are often necessary and vital for a veteran to prove their claim. As Chairman of DAMA, I am troubled by information regarding the handling of records that has come to my attention. [. . .] Often, a single record or notation can be the difference in whether a veterans' disability claim is granted or denied. This is why we must work together to ensure that no records are lost, overlooked or otherwise unable to be associated with an individual disability claim."   We'll note this key exchange that may explain one reason things get lost in the system.
 
 
 
Chair Jon Runyan: What is the rationale for handling service members' records differently -- the personnel record differently from the health and dental? Common sense would say if you kept it all one, it wouldn't be fragmented.
 
 
James Neighbors: I understand sir. I do know the rationale that I understand is that different organizations within the military services are developing the records. Beyond that point, I believe also how they've grown up through time -- as far as where the records were developed, as far as paper based, now moving into an electronic base is another piece that has possibly kept them apart. How we're obviously going into the future will be aligning and moving those things together. I do understand, uhm, your rationale and your understanding of why that makes common sense. It does. Pulling things together and ensuring that does make great sense. I do
know that when we outprocess these patients -- excuse me, these service members -- when the outprocessing center person, they look and ensure that all of those records are put into one binder. So in other words medical, dental and personnel records -- the popular DD214 as it's known -- all go into one binder as it's shipped off to them and the various copies going to the various locations. As we're moving forward in the electronic age, we're going to be moving into a kind of similar arrangement with the two that we just talked of the IHR and the paper. Does that answer your question, sir?
 
 
Chair Jon Runyan: Yeah, I think getting there is the key to it.
 
 
James Neighbors: Yes, sir. I understand.
 
 
Chair Jon Runyan: And also what challenges have the DoD really encountered in implementing the integrated health record -- electronic health record?
James Neighbors: I can tell you, sir, that I have viewed what we call the initial operating capability timeline and that timeline is being met right now. I know that the initial design review has just been met. In fact, just earlier -- the 27th through 29th of November. It is -- It is a large undertaking, there is no doubt. I mean, it is billions of dollars. I would say from my perspective and from the DoD's perspective, it is an endeavor like we've probably not done on the business side before other than what we have done within the DoD itself. We have actually brought DoD together, I think. And while we are working very closely with VA and partners in getting there -- I don't want to say it is necessarily challenging but it is pulling cultures together that are obviously between our two organizations.
 
 
That's a small sample of the hearing. I've edited out a ton. We may revisit the hearing in tomorrow's snapshot if there's time and room. We will finish up Martin Kobler's UN Security Council presentation. We've covered everything but the last few paragraphs of his report -- those paragraphs focused on Camp Ashraf.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cnn

Here comes the war repeat

Hump day.  I'm not really in a mood tonight.  How come?

The news about Syria.  Like this Xinhua article.

Or Barack saying there's a red line Syria must not cross.

Watching that wuss try to act like a man.  I've seen it before.  A puny boy trying to pretend to be a man by declaring war on an already suffering nation.

I saw this in 2003.  It's repeating now.

And it's disgusting.  And it goes to how crooked the system is and what a liar Barack Obama is.  The only good thing?

As the blood bath sets in, maybe it will force people to confront the lies that they've been told by Barack.  But what's really sad is that I can see them continuing to lie and make excuses.

It's not like the Drone War Barack's been over hasn't been killing people.  And the Cult didn't give a damn about that. 

So I'm just a little depressed tonight.  Sorry.



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

Wednesday, December 5, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  the standoff between Baghdad and Erbil continues, Nouri wants his face adorning checkpoints,  news emerges of a lawsuit Nouri filed to slap down the Iraqi people, Iraq's First Lady calls for honoring diversity, the US Congress discusses Iraqi refugees, and more.
 
 
Chair Patrick Meehan:  From 2004 - 2007, the insurgency in Iraq produced substantial civilian displacement and emigration from the country.  In response to the growing humanitarian crisis, Congress passed legislation which gave Iraqis who helped the US government or military the opportunity to receive special refugee status and resettlement in the United States.  While the motivation behind creating these special immigrant categories were well intentioned, the fact remains that in May 2011, two Iraqi nationals who were given refugee status and resettled in the US were arrested and accused by the FBI of plotting to send weapons and money to al Qaeda in Iraq.  One of the men arrested had openly discussed his prior experience as an insurgent in Iraq and the IED attacks he participated against US troops.  The fingerprints of the other Iraqi refugee who was charged were traced by the FBI to a component of an unexploded IED that was recovered by US forces in northern Iraq.  In the wake of these arrests, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and others have publicly acknowledged that security screenings have been expanded to the more than 58,000 Iraqi refugees who had already been settled in the United States.
 
US House Rep Patrick Meehan was speaking at the House Homeland Security Subccomittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence yesterday as they explored the topic of refugees.
 
 
The Iraq War created the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1949.  Millions were displaced within Iraq (internal refugees) and millions were forced to leave the country (external refugee).  There's a mistaken impression that the United States government did something wonderful.  They didn't.  The high water mark for Iraqi refugees being admitted into the US was in the year Bully Boy Bush and Barack share.  Under President Barack Obama, the number has gone down each year.  Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009) saw 18,838 Iraqis admitted to the US.  That number dropped to 9,388 in FY2011.  The 2012 Fiscal Year ended two months ago but the government has yet to release figures for the full year.  Through the end of March 2012, the number of Iraqis admitted to the US stood at 2,501. And the number 12,000 was used by Homeland Security officials for FY2012 during yesterday's hearing.   In the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama won a lot of support for promises on Iraqi refugees -- promises that were not kept.
 
Some may look at the case of the two Iraqis Chair Meehan was referring to -- Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanand Shareef Hammadi -- and think the low numbers count as good news.  That's a judgment call.  If that's what you feel, you're entitled to feel that way.  I don't feel that way.  
 
As for the two men making it through the system with one being an obvious mistake -- security concerns should have resulted in his being kicked out of the program.   The fact that he wasn't goes to information sharing and not to the program itself.   As Ranking Member Janice Han pointed out, "In 2005, Alwan's finger print was found on a roadside bomb in Iraq.  This information was in a Department of Defense data base that was not checked during his background investigation when he applied to the refugees admissions program.  This illustrates that  we still have failed to close the remaining information sharing gaps that continue to persist since the September 11th terrorist attacks." So the issue in one of the cases was a failure to utilize information the government already had access to. 
 
Two people isn't enough to alarm me.  That's me.  For others, that number may be way too high.  Regardless of where you fall on that spectrum, it is a serious issue and we'll go into what was said about it during the hearing. 
 
Appearing before the Subcommittee were the State Dept's Director of the Refugee Admissions Office Lawrence Bartlett, Homeland Security's Chief in the Refugee Affairs Division Barbara Strack and Homeland Security's Deputy Undersecretary for Analysis Dawn Scalici.   The hearing covered many aspects.  I sat through it for the issue of Iraqi refugees and that's what we'll focus on.
 
From Barbara Strack and Dawn Scalici's prepared (written) statement:
 
USCIS officers conduct refugee status interviews for applicants from more than 60 countries each year, though the vast majority of these applicants are currently Iraqi, Bhutanese and Burmese nationals.  Refugee processing operations in the Middle East are primarily focused on Iraqi nationals with interviews taking place in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt as well as in-country processing of Iraqi nationals in Baghdad.  Operations in Damascus, Syria, previously a large refugee processing site, have been suspended since March 2011.  In FY2012, over 12,000 Iraqi refugees were admitted to the United States, and since 2007, over 71,000 Iraqi nationals have been resettled, many of whom have ties to the United States through work or family.
 
 
Strack testified that the Iraqi program was modified as it went along, fine-tuned, and that it is now the standard for all refugees (age 14 to 65, Scalici explained) attempting to enter the US regardless of their nationality -- this is the standard across the board whether you're attempting to become a refugee from Eastern Europe or from Iraq. And prior to that?
 
Dawn Scalici:  [. . .] what we have done as an interagency process is to go back and do retroactive checks on those individuals that were earlier admitted to the United States and any relevant information that comes to light is then shared with releveant intelligence community or law enforcement agencies as appropriate.  One other thing I think I would mention as well, not only do we have analysts who are looking at all the relevant intelligence and data at the time that an applicant originally puts forward their application, we review it again before that applicant actually enters the United States in case any derogatory information has arisen in the intervening time. So we do believe, again, this interagency process drawing on more intelligence and data than we ever did before as well as the recurring and retroactive checks has greatly enhanced our ability to identify individuals of concern.
 
Now we're going to an exchange on the same topic.
 
 
Ranking Member Janice Hahn: How did we miss that initial information? And could you speak to what are we doing? I hear vague comments about information sharing but we know that is key as we move forward that was one of the one lessons we learned from 9-11. So what, without divulging any classified information, how did we miss that information the first time around and what can you tell us that will give us some confidence that we really are able to look at all the data available out there to make responsible decisions as we move forward in this refugee program?
 
 
Dawn Scalici: Well for those two individuals of concern that we've been talking about, at the time that they made their original application to enter the refugee program in the United States both their biographic and biometric information that we had available on them at the time and that were used in the screening processes came in clean. So we did not have any derogatory information on those two individuals that we used as part of the screening effort when they entered the United States. And the finger print clearance came through as well from DoD, FBI as well as DHS --
 
Ranking Member Janice Hahn:  Even though their finger prints were found to have been on a roadside bomb?
 
 
Dawn Scalici:  That's what we have learned in the aftermath. I would have to refer to DoD and FBI for any specific information on that but again all the biographic and biometric information as well as the biometric checks that were performed at the time did come back clean. But since that time, as I think we've noted, we've actually enhanced the program and the security checks. We now draw upon a greater wealth of intelligence and data holdings on individuals seeking application to the refugee program which greatly enhances our ability to identify derogatory compared to earlier.
 
Janice Hahn: Anyone else want to comment on that? [The other two witnesses didn't.] So other than the recent Iraqi refugee case, have there been --
 
 
We're cutting Hahn there because our focus is Iraq and she goes on to expand.  We're not including the witness responses because they had no other cases.
 
But before someone e-mails to tell me there may be another terrorist case . . .  Yes, there was a bombing of a Social Securtiy building last Friday in Casa Grande, Arizona.  The suspect is a man the media has identified as Iraqi-American (Abdullatif Aldosary).  When did he come to the US?  Reports differ with some saying before 2008 and some saying 1998.  If he were found guilty -- and currently he has the presumption of innocence -- and he entered the US before Fiscal Year 2007 (so before September 30, 2006), he predates the screening system that was being discussed.  If he were found guilty and he was admitted to the US after October 1, 2006, he would have been admitted under the system that was being discussed. That doesn't mean that, if guilty, he necessarily had any indicators that should have been caught in the screening. 
 
 
Though lumped together, there are actually two groups of Iraqis who can work through the current system. There are the refugees who are threatened and there are also the Iraqis who worked with US forces or US-approved missions. 
 
Chair Chair Patrick Meehan:  Ms. Strack, Ms. Scalici,  could you, identify if you will -- we're talking about those who are eligible for consideration.  There has been the identification of an emphasis on those who have participated in assisting United States efforts -- either in the military, intelligence, otherwise non-governmental organizations -- who then put themselves into some peril.  What is the distinction between those who are humanitarain versus those who have performed to the benefit of our interests and are therefore being given some consideration because of the exposure that may result from that service?
 
Barbara Strack: It's a -- The programs work in several ways to address both humanitarian concerns and those who worked side-by-side, employed directly by the US or with US affiliated organizations, NGOs or media organizations.  The SIV program that we've talked about is often conflated with the refugee program but it's actually distinct so --
 
Chair Patrick Meehan: Could you explain that for me please?  What an SIV stands for --
 
Barbara Strack:  I'm sorry --
 
Chair Patrick Meehan: -- because we've seen this before and I want to see how that's different from the other program?
 
 
Barbara Strack:  Yes, sir.  It stands for Special Immigrant Visa program.   And so unlike the refugee program, the fundamental focus of the refugee program is on whether someone has been persecuted, have they been persecuted in the past or do they have a well founded fear of persecution in the future based on a protected category: Race, religion, nationality,  political opinion or membership in a particular social group.  The SIV program traditionally is -- Special Immigrant Visa -- is really based on service with the United States.  And this is something Mr. Bartlett is a little bit more of an expert on.  But Congress legislated familiar a program -- Special Immigrant Visas -- to say that those who've worked for the United States government in -- there are actually three sub-categories within the Special Immigrant Visa program.  Initially, it was small: If you were a translator with the military.  But it expanded beyond that to include embassy employees.   And really, for them, it's the fact that their service with the United States that makes them eligible.  And when they come to the United States, its' -- both our agencies -- it is handled through a different bueractric stream,  They don't come as a refugee.  They come as a lawful, permanent resident.  So when they arrive, they get a green card based on their service.  Now there are some individuals who may be eligble to apply for both programs, they may have worked with the US embassy or the US military so they're eligible to apply for an SIV but they may very well be able to articulate a refugee claim because -- because of that service -- they have also faced persecution.  So we work -- we work on the refugee side of the program.  But individuals may choose which of those two avenues is better for them, which they think operates more quickly depending on whether they're in Iraq or somewhere else --
 
Chair Patrick Meehan: Well that's an interesting question.  Do they operate on a parallel track or is there some preference given to somebody who has served as an interpreter for our troops that are, you know, out in the midst of the mountains in Afghanistan?  Do they get a preference or is there not any difference?
 
Barbara Strack:  I can tell you that they do operate on a parallel track so an individual -- an individual who is eligible -- has the opportunity to file for an SIV and, again, that would be filed with the State Department.  And, in the refugee program, having worked with the United States or a US affiliated organization is one of the criteria that can help you get access to the program but it is not the sole criteria.
 
 
It was an informative hearing.  And while the State Dept has yet to release a complete figure for FY2012, again, the number used in the hearing was 12,000 and "over 12,000."
 
That is not in keeping with the promises made in the 2008 campaign.  The International Rescue Committee notes on their Iraq page, "A small number of vulnerable Iraqi refugees are being granted refuge in the United States."  And, as Refugees International observes, "the country continues to face large scale displacement and pressing humanitarian needs.  Millions of Iraqis have fled their homes -- either for safer locations within Iraq or to other countreis in the region -- and are living in increasingly desperate circumstances."  The Iraqi Refugee Assistand Program highlights the Ibrahims with a video of the mother and two of her sons and one of her daughters. 
 
 
Ekhlas Zaky:  My name is Ekhlas Zaky.  I'm from Mosul. I was born in '72. Married with five kids.
 
Mustafa:  Mustafa.  I'm from Mosul.
 
Ekhlas Zaky:  You're in second year.
 
Mustafa:  I'm in second year.
 
Tuhama:  My name is Tuhama.  From Mosul.  Second year.
 
Ekhlas Zaky: Ibrahim doesn't speak.  Our main reason for leaving Iraq was the children.  I'm sure the war is to blame for my children's illness. The doctors talked about the chemicals that had been dropped on Iraq. They said that they affect the kidneys and the heart. So the chemicals affected Tuhama's kidneys.  It's a rare disease. Provision of medical treatment was unreliable.   Most often Tuhama's fits would happen at night.  Getting her to hospital was very difficult. The closest hospital was surrounded by military forces.  So my husband and I had to risk our lives to get her there. Otherwise she would have died in front of our eyes.  Ibrahim is unable to speak.  And he can't see out of one eye.  One day he was with me at the market.  A truck drove in, loaded with melons.  It drove past and then exploded.  Of course Ibrahim is just a child.  The explosion terrified him. He kept screaming and crying. Afterwards, he wouldn't talk so I took him to see the sheiks. They said that the shock had caused him not to speak. Many doctors advised us to seek medical treatment abroad.  There, medicine is more advanced and equipment is more modern.  The doctors said the children would benefit.  Even if they found good reason to deny me and my husband resettlement what about the fate of the children? 
 
 
 
Refugees are people in need.  As Barbara Strack pointed out in yesterday's hearing, "Bad actors will try to take advantage of any admission program to the United States -- whether its visa programs or refugee programs."  Part of the job Strack and others do is determining who meets the criteria and who doesn't.  In many ways, the criteria is a failure.  One example: Iraq's LGBT community is at risk because they have been repeatedly targeted throughout the war.  The Ministry of the Interior targeted them this year alone with 'teach-ins' at schools where they demonized and, yes, justified killing LGBTs.  But Iraq's LGBT community does readily make one of the five categories for refugee status.  They are a targeted group.  Another example of the criteria?  In Iraq, "nationality" -- one of the five at risk categories the US government recognizes -- really isn't an issue.  Religious sect? Yeah.  Nationality, not really.  (Palestinian Iraqis would be one notable exception but the international community has been more than happy to leave them in refugee camps on the outskirts of Iraq for years now.)  At Iraqi Refugee Stories, you can learn about the many reasons Iraqis seek asylum.  And, as Catholic Relief Services notes, making it out of Iraq doesn't mean problems all vanish since "a majority of Iraqi refugees cannot legally work and lack access to basic health, social services and education.  As a result many Iraqi refugees are destitute.  They have depleted all of their savings after several years in exile.  Many suffer from debilitating illnesses, such as diabetes, hypertension, kidney problems and cancer with limited or not access to health care."
 
 
 
Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were "exterminated" by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.
The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.
 
 
Boyle explained the basics at The International Conference on War-affected Children at Kuala Lampur in Malaysia last month (click here for the speech in full),  "The United States and the United Kingdom obstinately insisted that the genocidal economic sanctions imposed against Iraq remain in place until after the conclusion of the internationally illegal Gulf War II of aggression perpetrated by the Bush Junior administration and the Tony Blair government against Iraq in March of 2003. Then, on 22 May 2003 the United States and the United Kingdom procured U.N. Security Council Resolution 1483 lifting these genocidal economic sanctions; yet not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children. But rather so as to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people and their children."
 
In Iraq, it's difficult to keep track of the many crises plaguing the country.  The latest one revolves around the disputed areas.  Having refused to obey the Constitution he took an oath to uphold, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki  has refused to implement Article 140 which addresses how to resolve the disputes (census and referendum).  Having refused to follow the Constitution for six years, Nouri decided this was the year to send his forces (Tigris Operation Command) into the disputed areas.  The Kurds sees this as Nouri's attempt to take over the regions.  The Peshmerga (elite Kurdish forces) and Nouri's forces are now in a standoff.  Observers and Iraqi politicians fear the outbreak of war if tensions are not eased quickly.  By the way, the Tigris forces?  The unit heads were not approved by Parliament in violation of the Constitution. 
 
 
Critics say Maliki is concentrating power in his office (the office of the prime minister) and his advisers are running "a government inside a government", bypassing ministers and parliament. In his role as commander in chief, he appoints generals as heads of military units without the approval of parliament. The officers, critics say, are all loyal to him. He has created at least one intelligence service, dominated by his clan and party members, and taken two military units - the anti-terrorism unit and the Baghdad brigade - under his direct command. At the same time he has inflated the size of the ministry of national security that is run by one of his allies.

Does that not describe everything?
 
 
Thing is though, the Guardian ran Ghait Abdul-Ahad's article April 29, 2009.
 
Yeah, Nouri's completely predictable and completely out of control.  And this has been obvious for years now to anyone paying attention.

Last week, the Baghdad generals and the Peshmerga leaders met and came up with a 14-point agreement that would ease the situation but Nouri rejected the agreement and tensions have only increased.  The Kurdish Globe today carries an Al-Monitor article on the crisis:

The president of the Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, has said that the formation of the Tigris Operations Command (TOC) is illegal, unconstitutional and provocative. In an interview with Azzaman to be published in the paper?s Iraqi, Arab and international editions, Barzani said that the policy of gradual takeover and establishing facts on the ground in disputed areas is rejected. He said that the best options for the Kurds and for all Iraqis is to reach an agreement, to return to the constitution and to solve the differences through dialogue.
Barzani stressed that Baghdad does not belong to one person, one party or one group. He said that the Kurds are willing to assume all results and consequences, but that they cannot accept a new dictatorship. 



 
Alsumaria reports that a delegation from the Kurdish Regional Government, headed by former Preisdent Barham Salih, has arrived in Baghdad and been met with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.  al-Nujaifi has just returned from the KRG.  Alsumaria notes that he met with KRG Presidnet Massoud Barzani yesterday to discuss the continued tensions and what has become an armed standoff between Nouri's forces and the Peshmerga.  All Iraq News notes that al-Nuajifi is hoping to meet with Nouri.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani arrived in Baghdad yesterday.  Al Mada notes that he held meetings to address the crisis including one with Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq leader Ammar al-Hakim.  On the topic of Talabani, a news flash scrawling across the screen of Alsumaria's live feed this morning notes that Nouri's office is denying rumors that Nouri is cutting the salaries for the guards protecting Talabani.



New Europe reports that the European Union's Foreign Affairs Committee is calling for a stronger European Union presence in Iraq.  The Iraq Times adds that British and US officials are working to de-escalate the situation.  Others calling for calm?  Al-Monitor provides a translation of an Al-Hayat article which includes:
 
The supreme authority Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called on the central government to "be patient and stay away from bloody conflicts." For his part, Ayatollah Hussein al-Sadr mentioned previous fatwas issued by senior authorities that prohibited fighting the Kurds.
[. . .]
In a statement yesterday [Dec. 4], Sistani called on Maliki to "be patient and refrain from pushing Iraqis into any bloody conflict, which would only harm the people."
Furthermore, Ayatollah Hussein Ismail al-Sadr said in a statement yesterday that the authorities are "committed to the fatwa of Ayatollah Mohsen al-Hakim and his uncle the martyr Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr prohibiting fighting the Kurds. The fatwa was issued during the 1960s." He emphasized his commitment to "put in place efforts to bridge the gap between the two parties and adopt dialogue under the governorship of the constitution, the principles of brotherhood and the long record of struggle that weighed down the oppressed.

 
 
All Iraq News notes that Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani declared today his thanks to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the other religious clerics for the supervision they have provided throughout the current crisis.

 The concerns come as a new wrinkle emerges.  Nouri is a paranoid tyrant and that was known well before the end of his first term in 2010.  But some 'reporters' have repeatedly felt the need to say that Nouri's not that bad because, goodness, Saddam Hussein has statues and pictures of himself posted throughout Iraq and Nouri's done nothing like that.  Take a loook at the photo to this Iraq Times report -- see the standing photo of Nouri?  The article explains that Nouri issued orders Sunday that his image must be displayed at all checkpoints.


Meanwhile Chief Justice Medhat al-Mahmoud is considered a Ba'athist by many Iraqis.  It's not even 'whispered' anymore.  And possibly he's in the bag for Nouri for that reason?  Regardless, Nouri does control the Baghdad judiciary and the Iraq Times reports that al-Mahmoud has issued an order to all the judges under him that they will not execute an arrest warrant for Nouri.  Strange isn't it, Nouri claims that arrest warrants have to be executed.  Remember his claim publicly that he didn't want to execute the one on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, that he was forced to do so?  But when its an arrest warrant for Nouri, it gets buried.  The judiciary jumps for Nouri.  A few weeks ago, Nouri attempted to end the food-rations card system and his spokesperson announced, November 6th, that it was over.  It wasn't over because it's too popular.  The Iraqi people wouldn't stand for it nor would the politicians (except for those in Nouri's State of Law).  So Nouri had to back down.  Moqtada al-Sadr was one of the leaders on that issue.  
 
But he and Moqtada tangled weeks before that as well.  It happened when Nouri said there was no oil surplus money that could become dividends for the Iraqi people and Moqtada al-Sadr expressed doubt and disapproval.  All Iraq News explained in October that Moqtada and his poltical bloc have not let the matter die or just resorted to words, they're actively working with the Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi and the Minister of Planning Ali Shukri to find oil money that can go to the Iraqi people with plans to set aside 25% of future revenues for that.  Moqtada and his bloc continued working on the issue and had the people's support.  In November,  All Iraq News reported that a delegation from the Sadr bloc met  with Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi to discuss this issue and find out what the progess was on it and to announce that  they will continue to stay focused on this and ensure that the country and its children benefit from the oil.
 
While Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was fighting for the people and doing so in the open, Nouri was doing something else.  Alsumaria reports that MP Bahaa al-Araji of the Sadr bloc held a press conference today outside Parliament to reveal that Nouri al-Maliki filed a lawsuit to dismiss the budget item on sharing the oil suprlus with the citizens from the year's budget.   The court -- no surprise, it's not a real court -- ruled in Nouri's favor.  Only now, after the ruling, do they find out what Nouri was doing behind everyone's back.
Violence never gets buried, it's always right there on the surface with Iraqis unable to escape it and Nouri unable/unwilling to provide security.   Alsumaria reports 1 soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk today by unknown assailants in a passing car.  All Iraq News notes a Baquba car bomb and a second bomb went off together claiming 2 lives and leaving ten people injured. In addition, All Iraq News reports that Zia Ahmed Shehab, the brother of the Governor of Salahuddin Province, was kidnapped today in Tikrit.
 
 
In other news,  Hero Ibrahim Ahmed has grabbed some headlines.  Among other things, she is over the charity Kurdistan Save the Children.  Like many notable Iraqis, her family has a long history of involvement in Iraqi politics and in being persecuted.  Novelist Ibrahim Ahmad was her father.  He was also a judge and one of the first chairs of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (the first after it changed its name).  Moving up the political chain in Iraq has always meant creating enemies.  He would end up in Abu Ghraib prison for two years.  He would go on to become an editor of a newspaper and, more importantly to the political situation, the voice of the KDP following it's split into two parties -- the other, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, would be headed by Mustafa Barzani.    Today the PUK is headed by Massoud Barzani who is also the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government.  He is the son of the late Mustafa Barzani.  Mustafa's grandson is KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani. 

And if those links and connections alone make Hero Ibrahim Ahmed's story one of the basic histories of Iraq, let's note that she's also the First Lady of Iraq, she's married to President Jalal Talabani.  She's also begun a new project aimed at celebrating the rich diversity in Iraq.   Al Mada reports that she initated yesterday Kirkuk for Social Awareness, a program to ensure that diversity and nationality is protected in Kirkuk.  One aspect of the program, she explained to government officials in Kirkuk yesterday, is the creation of a song that will bring in all the languages spoken by the people of Iraq and recognize the diversity.  She stressed that this would include the Mandaeans whose language, UNESCO has warned, is in danger of vanishing.   The Mandaeans numbered a little over 50,000 in Iraq prior to the start of the war in 2003.  Some estimates now put their number as low as 5,000.   Many fled to Jordan and Syria during the ethnic cleansing years of roughly 2006 through 2008.  They have a special issue regarding immigration in that it is a water-based religion (for baptisms) and they prefer natural bodies of water for their ceremonies.   In 2009, David Grant (AP) reported on a community in Detroit.
 
 
 
 
In the US,  the House Veterans Affairs Committee which released the following:
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, issued the following statement on the appointment of Rep. Michael Michaud as the Ranking Member of the Committee:
"I heartily congratulate Mike on becoming the Ranking Member of the Committee.  Mike has been an invaluable member and colleague, serving in a variety of positions over the past 10 years, including most recently as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health. 
"Mike has been a vocal advocate for America's veterans and their families, and has been instrumental in the passage of several pieces of major legislation to uphold benefits earned through service to our nation.  Mike has also been a leader, ensuring the Department of Veterans Affairs provides the best healthcare available.  I look forward to working with Mike to address the major issues facing our veterans today, and ensuring the bipartisanship of the Committee continues in the 113th Congress."
The 113th Full Committee is expected to be announced in the next two weeks.
 
 
Last week, the  ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of four service members in an attempt to remedy the inequality in the current military system:
 
The Defense Department's longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions was challenged today in a federal lawsuit by four servicewomen and the Service Women's Action Network.
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Northern California and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.
The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan -- some deploying multiple times --where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.
 
 
 
 
Women have been killed on the battlefield, and many more have been wounded in the course of their service. Take plaintiff Army Staff Sergeant Jennifer Hunt, who was awarded the Purple Heart, was wounded after serving in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. While women have an equal opportunity of being hurt or killed, the policy limits their ability to receive equal, integrated training and to advance in the ranks. Because their combat experience often is unofficial or outside of their official career field, it doesn't count in the same way for promotions resulting in a "brass ceiling" that keeps our military leadership overwhelmingly male.
The Constitution forbids the government from imposing a blanket ban on women's participation, especially where the rule is outdated and doesn't accurately capture how war is being waged today. Now, after a decade of armed service abroad, our servicewomen are demanding the opportunity to compete for official assignment to the combat jobs they've been doing for years.
 
 
 
On women, Sunday "How NPR Silences Women (Ann, Ava and C.I.)" went up at Third.  As we observed:
 
We documented how only 18% of Terry Gross' 2010 guests on Fresh Air were women. Next,  we documented how over 66% of Diane Rehm's guests in were men.  We then went on to document that only 30% of Talk of the Nation's guests were women.
People are always 'puzzled' how this happens.  NPR friends insist it's an accident.
Really?
An accident can have a multitude of outcomes.
If these are accidents how come the outcomes is always the same: Men booked more often than women on NPR?
That's not accidental, that sound likes engineering.
 
 
Ann tracks this gender imbalance at her site all the time and, Sunday, we explained how it happens -- it happens when Tell Me More airs a segment entitled "Women Fire Back At Working Dads" where there are two male guests and only one woman (and the woman's actually a listener comment left on the NPR answering line).  It happens when Don Gonyea decides he's going to 'explore' a female US Senator and decides that it's perfectly natural to go to 3 men and no women, and to pretend like it's perfectly natural to air two of those men insulting her but not backing up the insults.  That's the mind-set that repeatedly allows NPR programming to feature more female guests than male guests over and over every day of the year.
 
And the reason I'm working that in is because Women's Media Center has an article we need to note, Rachel Larris' "A Closer Look: Who's Writing Nine Newspapers' Presidential Election Coverage."  That went up in August.  I only learned of it Monday night when I was speaking with a WMC friend who mentioned the Third piece and said that they were doing stuff like that at WMC and I said, "Let me know when it goes up and I'll link to it."  It went up at the end of August.  As I explained, I avoid WMC for about six months every four years and there's fault because -- my opinion -- they fall to their knees swooning over the Democratic Party.  (If you're late to the party, I am a Democrat.  I don't tell anyone else how to vote.  If you're voting you're an adult and you should be able to figure it out yourself.  I did not vote in the presidential race this year -- no candidate running earned my vote.)   Life is too short, I don't need to be upset by that so I completely avoid the website during that time period.  It's happened two presidential election cycles so when 2012 rolled around -- and when 2016 rolls around -- I won't be visiting that site.  Now maybe that will change and I hope it does.  Women are a varied group, even women on the left.  And we've been told what to do for so long that telling us who to vote for these days is not 'sweetened' by the fact that the attempted marching order is coming from a woman.  We'll note the WMC article at Third on Sunday.  It's an important article and it's the kind we need.  NPR wouldn't be able to get away with bringing so few women on were it not for the fact that they know feminists will see them as a 'friend' and refuse to call them out.  Equality isn't something that we should wait on.  Women have been told to wait for centuries.  Good for WMC for tracking the gender imbalance.  Good for Rachel Larris for writing such a strong article.  Hopefully, you caught it in real time.  If you missed it, please make a point to check it out.
 
 
 
 
cnn