A tale of two Dannys

Hump day.  And my mouth is burning.  I don't know what the orange sauce is that they lace across salmon sushi but it is hot.  And I just crammed it down my throat despite the heat because I love sushi.

I wish we were still on vacation.  I miss it.

And I have a question.

What the hell happened to Danny Schechter?

For the third week in a row, he's got a column that you really have to read.  Not to laugh at.  He's been on a streak for three weeks now.  It's almost like we've got the old, pre-2008 Danny back.  This is from his essay at ZNet:

The United States today has a vast intelligence apparatus, on the ground, in the sky and even in space. Technically it puts the old Soviet Union to shame, and sucks up millions of terabytes of data daily.

But, that doesn’t mean that what is reported is understood. The analysts seek to make sense of it but the policy makers are often so locked into templates of action and pre-formulated strategies that insure the input doesn’t lead to course corrections or changes in direction. They operate with a kind of intellectual “locked-in” disease that freezes out new ideas.

The system is manned by ideologists and choked with ideology, constantly leading to so-called intelligence ‘failures’ that fill many library shelves. Yet even when post mortems are filed, few in the commanding heights of our national security apparatus is willing to look back and draw lessons. They are too busy, lazy or just hacks (as opposed to hackers.)

One reason: so much money is invested in covert media operations that spin and distort reality that the people inside the “deception machine” believe the news that they themselves plant and fabricate. Perception guides reality more than reality guides perception.

Isn't that good writing?

Meanwhile my nose is running from the heat of that orange sauce.  Elaine just told me, it's a mixture of mayo and chili sauce.  I told her I was going to look it up online and she told me what it was.  If I'd known she knew, I would've thought to ask her.  She'll eat sushi but she's not an addict the way I am.

In fact, she made some rosemary and sweet potatoes dish for herself and our daughter.  They loved it.
(We don't let our daughter have sushi due to the fact that she's five and there's mercury in so much of the fish.)


Now this is Chris Marsden (WSWS) on the Olympics opening musical numbers:

It is to film director Danny Boyle’s credit that his Olympic Games opening ceremony aroused such a hostile reaction from a section of the Conservative right.

Boyle’s ceremony was ambitious, often spectacular and sometimes engaging. Public reaction internationally was positive and in the UK, where the myriad references were more familiar, yet more warm and appreciative.

It is not hard to see why.

Boyle’s initial historical tableau, inspired by poet William Blake’s millenarian vision, showed a “green and pleasant land” recast in the burning heat of the industrial revolution. When dealing with the 20th century, his actors and dancers portrayed suffragettes, Jarrow hunger marchers, anti-nuclear activists and Caribbean immigrants arriving on the Windrush in 1948.

His cultural pageant began with Edward Elgar’s “Nimrod” and included Charles H.H. Parry’s hymn “Jerusalem” and “Abide with Me”, sung beautifully by Emeli Sande. It centred, however, on pop music. Not only the more obvious commercial giants, but bands that have had a cultural impact: The Rolling Stones and The Beatles, yes, but also The Sex Pistols, The Clash and The Specials.

I like Danny Boyle's movies.  Shallow Grave is one of my all time favorites as is 28 Days Later.  I even like A Life Less Ordinary.  And I appreciate that he tried to say something at the Olympics; however, that message was not clear.  I'm sorry.  Maybe it was to British audiences?  If so, fine.  They were the host.  But if this was supposed to excite me about England or inform me about their history, it didn't do that.


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

Wednesday, August 1, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, July is the deadliest month for Iraq in two years, the State Dept issues a statement on Camp Ashraf, Out-FM addresses Bradley Manning, the VA blows off two members of Congress (and veterans), and more.   Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  As our veterans so eloquently described in May, prosthetic care is unlike any other care that VA provides and, when we make the mistake of treating it as such, no less than the daily and ongoing functioning and quality of limb of our veterans is at stake.  I was very troubled to hear our veterans voice such strong opposition to the proposed procurement reforms, arguing forcefully that they would lead to substantial delays in care for veterans with amputations and clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little to no experience in prosthetic care.  In mid-June -- following our hearing -- I sent a letter, along with Ranking Member Michaud, to the Secretary [of VA] requesting that the Department respond to a number of questions and provide certain materials regarding the strategy, plans and criteria used to consider, develop, design, implement and evaluate the proposed reforms and the pilot programs that preceded them.  Our goal was to understand the analysis VA employed to develop the reforms and what was behind the decision that this was the best idea for our veterans, especially those who have experienced loss of life as a result of service to our country.  Sadly, the Department's response -- which came a week after the deadline requested in our letter -- did not provide the information or the level of detail we ased for and did nothing to assure me that the plan would be effective or that our veterans concers were unfounded.   When the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health's Chair Buerkle and Ranking Member Mike Michaud are blown off -- and the Veteran Affairs Dept did blow them off -- it's not just insulting to Congress.  It's also an insult to veterans.  Buerkle and Michaud aren't looking for pen pals.  They're busy and have a great deal to do.  Their staff is very busy.  So when they're asking about something, when they're trying to provide the oversight and ensure that the veterans are being served, they shouldn't be blown off.  The May hearing [May 16th, covered in the May 16th and May 17th snapshots] was rather intense.  That questions would arise from that hearing is not surprising.  It is surprising that the VA would (a) respond late and (b) offer a non-response as a response.     It's insulting.  And it's very sad that at the conclusion of the hearing, Chair Buerkle had to ask for a copy of the plan that the hearing was about, a plan discussed throughout the hearing, to be submitted to the Subcommittee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  That should have been supplied some time ago.  As she noted, they needed to see that plan to make sure that "the veterans best interests are" being served.     Yesterday afternoon, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on prosthetics.  They heard from one panel which was the VA's Dr. Robert Petzel with Philip Martovsky, Dr. Lucille Beck and C. Ford Heard (all of the VA).  Two terms to know before we go further.  "VSO" refers to Veterans Service Organizations -- like the VFW, the American Legion, etc. "VISN" is the Veterans Integrated Service Network -- medical care facilities.   We're going to emphasize two exchanges early on.  I don't care for Dr. Petzel because I find him to be rude and he tries to run out the clock on his answers.  And he may be wonderful and just come off uncaring.  But as you'll see in the first excerpt, even when he's given the heads up that he's coming off poorly, he doesn't alter his language, he doesn't try to speak in a professional manner that shows care for the veterans.  This is not a new thing with him, this happens every time.     Committee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: When I hear words like "equipment" and "pharmaceuticals" and then development possibly of a catalog, what you are talking about in those instances are so very different from the testimony we heard in the last hearing regarding the personal nature of a prosthetic.  Amoxicilliin is Amoxicilliin.  A thermometer is a thermometer.  But a prosthetic is unique to that person and to his needs or her needs.  That's my concern with this.  That you -- That this process will become just as any other procurement.  This is a very different process and I think it's what concerns the VSOs and what concerns the veterans.  This is uniquely personal service that we have to give to that veteran and what I'm hearing here when you talk about cataloging purchases concerns me greatly.     Dr. Robert Petzel: Uhm, Madam Chairwoman, we absolutely agree with you.  This -- this is the most personal of work VA does -- crafting and fitting a prosthetic limb to an individual that's lost an arm or a leg is a very personal process.  The reforms that we're talking about in terms of uh procurement will not interfere with that process.  The physician orders the prosthetic and that order can be very specific.  The prosthesist  works with the patient to determine where the best place is to purchase that.  As you know, we have 600 contracts in the private sector and most of our procurement not all but most of our procurement occurs in the private sector. In the process of transitioning during the pilot, we audited the orders that the physician had written, we audited the purchasing contract -- the way the contract --  what was actually purchased. We looked at the timeliness between when that order was actually placed and when that order was purchased.  And we looked at the satisfaction -- particularly at the processes in the physicians as to whether or not the needs of that veteran's as they described them were met.  And, In the pilots, we found that that was true -- that that worked very well. The only misjudgment that we made in the pilots was that we expected a higher level of productivity from the contracting officers than we actually found and we had to revise the number of contracting officers that we felt we needed because we felt that the contracts per day that they originally were going to perform was more than was doable  -- that 2.5 is a better example. But otherwise the pilots indicated that things went very well.   Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  Can you talk to us about the pilots?  How many pilots were done? How long?  Over what period of time were the pilots conducted?  What areas, which VISINs were included and how you -- What were the various pilots?  How many were there?   Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, Madam Chairman, we can.  And I'd like to turn to Mr. Matovsky to give you some of the details about the pilots.  Thank you.   Philip Matovsky:  Thank you, sir.  We conducted three pilots.  One of them in VISIN 6 -- I'm sorry, VISIN 6 which is  North Carolina, parts of Virginia, parts of West Virginia.  VISN 11 which is Indiana -- I'm going to test my geography here --  parts of Michigan as well.  VISN 20 which is the upper north west on into Alaska. We selected them because they were a uh-uh broad representation -- some of them highly rural, some of them very large and growing. We also ran them from the period of January through the end of March -- for three months.  I believe one of them scooted into April.  We tested two different processes.  One process utilized fully the ECMS our Electronic Contract Management System to place the order and another one in VISN 6.  a slightly different process.  That's the basis for it.  We tested the onboarding of our staff, the training of our staff, the communication, the collaboration with the prosthesis, the prosthetic purchasing agent and then the contracting management agent staff.  As Dr. Petzel just indicated, we did conduct some audits.  For example, we looked at the technical appropriateness of the contracting action but more importantly we looked at what percentage of the time did the contracting officer adhere to the physician's prescription?  100% of the time, the contracting officer adhered to the prescription.   Petzel's saying he agrees with the Chair but he makes no attempt to use language that demonstrates he really does agree.  He comes off in hearing after hearing as someone who does not care.  He doesn't want to be informed.  If he's given a chance to correct and impression, he doesn't want to be bothered.    If I have breakfast with you on a regular basis and your name is Charlie but I keep calling you Carl, that says something.  Especially if it's not a joke between us but it's that I've never cared enough to learn your name.  I bring that up for a reason as we jump into the next excerpt.       Ranking Member Mike Michaud: [. . .] We are alarmed by the possible negative impact on patient care including substantial delays in clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little or no working knowledge of prosthetic care.  And we sent a bipartisan letter to the secretary outlining our concerns and soliciting answers to several of our questions.  And this is the third hearing in an handful of months on this particular issue.  And I remain committed to working with the very dedicated staff at the Dept of Veterans Affairs and the advocacy community to ensure that our veterans are getting the best care that we can deliver in the timely way in this joint-effort and joint-challenges that this Subcommittee stands ready to help. And I read through your testimony and I have a few questions, if I might.  In your testiomny, you said, We believe that many of our reform efforts are acceptable to all concerned parties."  When you say "we believe," have you worked with the VSOs and the veterans to find out whether or not they do take in their -- their concerns?     Dr. Robert Petzel: Excuse me, Congressman Michaud, we have.  Since the May hearing, there have been multiple hearings with the -- the service office -- service officers representatives.  I have a breakfast monthly, uhm, with the six of the largest service organizations. We made a presentation and a discussion at that breakfast earlier in July and then just  a day ago on Monday at a conference call with the service organizations.  I'll just quickly [picks up a list in front of him and reads from it] with American Legion, VFW, PPA, the DAV, AmVet and the Blind Veterans of America to discuss [puts list down] what we want to do.  And I can say, that there was no, uh, objection.   Really?  Not even from the Blind Veterans of America.  Anybody else questioning that?  I've attended a ton of hearings, I write checks to  many organizations helping the wounded.  But I'm pulling a blank on Blind Veterans of America.  Maybe he meant Blinded Amercian Veterans?  Maybe he didn't. Maybe he meant the Blinded Veterans Association?  Maybe he didn't.   But what he said, reading from his list, was "the Blind Veterans of America."  Most of the time, those who get the name wrong mean Blinded Veterans Association.  Usually Dr. Thomas Zampieri is their spokesperson at Congressional hearings and he just nods when their name is stated wrongly and then, in his testimony, he'll note that they are the Blinded Veterans Association.  My guess is that Petzel meant the Blinded Veterans Association.  It's a shame people can't get the organization's name right in a hearing when they're speaking off the top of their heads.  But Petzel wasn't doing that.  He pulled out a list and read from the list.  And that means he most likely has breakfast with Zampieri and others and wrongly calls them the "Blind Veterans of America."   Again, he comes off as someone who just doesn't give a damn.  He meets with this group monthly but he doesn't know their name?  Even when reading off a prepared list, he can't get the name right?  You have to wonder how VA lets stuff that happen.  It's not as if they're image is so sparkling that they can afford to take a few hits from Petzel.    US House Rep Phil Roe is also Dr. Phil Roe, a medical doctor.  He established a few levels in his questioning.  Before a program goes widespread, the VA always swears it's going to work perfect and this person and that person will benefit and there are never any problems with these program that aren't running yet.  Then they start up and, wow, there are problems.  I think Dr. Roe did a very good job establishing what the goals of this transformation are.  If the new standardization is successful, a year from now we should be able to go through the markers Dr. Roe established.       US House Rep Phil Roe:  Just a couple of very quick questions.  The idea, the reason for doing this was back to what the IG -- is that right, Dr. Petzel, trying to standardize the procedures not only in this but in other areas of contracting that the VA does?  Am I right on that? . Dr. Robert Petzel:  We have to standardize procurement.  Not procedures per se.  But to professionalize and standardize the way we, uh, procure material.  We have been, as I said, criticized in the past by important groups of people including some Congressional Committees on our procurement stratigies. And this system-wide effort was to try and professionalize that, yes.     US House Rep Phil Roe: Okay, so I guess in what the Chairwoman said is correct and there's obviously a prosthesist sitting right to your left.  That's a very individualized therapy and I know as a physician not everything -- I mean, this has to be tailored per person.  I'm sure there's some standardization to it but  it has to be.  And this is not in any way going to slow the process down. Or make that process not as effective or available to our veterans.  Am I correct on that?   Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes, sir, you are correct.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  And so they'll be able to come -- a patient will be able to come into the clinic and that patient won't know the difference.  The time won't make any difference.  There's not going to be a difference in timeliness.  The fact that it costs more than $3000, that's not going to affect the time that that veteran that comes in that needs a limb or needs a prosthetic device is going to get that device?   Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, sir, that's correct.     US House Rep Phil Roe:  Okay, so I think that's extremely important.  And, secondly, once you've catalogued this, is there a way to go outside?  In other words, here's what's in our catalogue.  If the doctor and the prosthetist look at this patient and say, "This is what they need.  It's not right in this little book right here."  Can they get that?  Because this technology is changing faster than cardiac stents are changing.  I mean, it's amazing now the technology in prosthesis.  So as that new technology occurs, it's like these things right here [holds up a cell phone]. As soon as you buy it, it's out of date. And so I see the same thing in prosthesis.  People are doing things -- amazing things -- with this.  So is it once it goes in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue that Sears has, that VA has, can that person get something from the new catalogue? Or something brand new that happened?    Dr. Robert Petzel:  Dr. Roe, absolutely.  One of the nice things about the VA and the procurement regulations  is 8123 which basically says that, uh, with the proper justification, we do not have to do competative buying.  That we can buy specifically what  the doctor has ordered.  So while we may have a catalogue of things that are appropriate in certain kinds of circumstances, the important part in all of this is a doctor writes an order and we will procure for that patient what the doctor has ordered.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  So this is not going to negate new technology as it occurs?   Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  So our veterans can get the cutting edge?  They're not going to get stuck with it's not in the book, you can't have it?   Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not, Congressman.  Just to give an example, there are two relatively new knees that were jointly developed by the VA and the Dept of Defense.  The 2X or X2  and the Genium.  Is that how you pronounce that? Those are absolutely cutting edge techonology for artifical knee.  They're available to any veteran that needs and wants that kind of a prosthesis.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  So it's not going to be -- I mean, it's one thing to have all the colonoscopes looking exactly alike.  That was one of the issues when I first got here.  We had that issue that came up.   Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  This is a little different than that.  And I guess the other question that I had -- and then I'll have no more -- is that you said that you don't believe that the veterans will be negatively impacted.  Well will they be postively impacted by this?  Will this improve?  I know the VA feels like it will be postively impacted  but will the veteran be positively impacted by this?   Dr. Robert Petzel:  Well first of all I think --   US House Rep Phil Roe:   Or will they even know the difference?    Dr. Robert Petzel: I think first they -- First of all, Congressman, they should not know a difference.  This should be absolutely transparent to them.  But there are things -- a couple of things that I think will happen that will -- even if they don't notice it -- improve prospects.  I expect that once we get this up and running and under our belt that we're going to cut down on the procurement time on average.  That's one.  Number two is that any money that might be saved by getting a fair price -- and that's not our intention but if that should happen -- is money that can be put back into the system to provide more care to more veterans.   US House Rep Phil Roe:  One quick question, when will we know that?  When will you evaluate the system and it's up and running?  A year from now or two years from now?   Dr. Robert Petzel: Congressman, I think there's going to be two different kinds of evaluation.  One is that, in an ongoing fashion, we have to monitor the things that we described before: timeliness; was a physician's order actually followed 100% of the time; was there a level of satisfaction that was appropriate on the part of the patient, the provider, the doctor and the contracting officer; and certain other technical things about the contract?  That's going to be an ongoing process.  When we have been into this for say a year or six months, we will have to look -- and we will look -- at the overall process and see what it has accomplished?  And see if indeed we're doing overall a better job of purchasing than we were doing before?  So there will be two levels of evaluation.   Let's stay with the Genium X2 prosthetic knee for a moment.  KSTP has a video report here of Iraq War veteran Luke Schmitz after he got the prosthetic knee.  He stated, "As I'm walking, I don't have to think about it and it's doing everything for me." It has a microprocessor in it.   Orange Coast Prosthetics has photos and videos of the Genium/X2 here and explains, "The Genium hydraulic knee joint system functions through the use of simulated physiologic rule sets run by a miscroprocessor, with auto-adaptive swing and stand phase control predicted by multi-modal proprioceptive input.  The system also provides flexed-knee loading to traverse obstacles and ascend stairs, and dynamic stability control for intuititve standing and transitional gait.  After purchasing the Genium Microprocessor Knee, the practitioner manufactures a custom-fabricated prosthesis incorporating the component."  If you click here, you can view a video report by WHIO on Air Force member Chris Trobaugh who got the Genium and explains, "I can run on it.  And I can hike on it.  Play basketball, golf.  Those are all my goals.  All the things I want to do."     Chair Ann Marie Buerkle noted that  she was concerned about the length of the pilot program.  "three months is a very short period of time."  She was concerned that Dr. Lucille Beck had a number of duties already and could not provide sole supervision of this new program.  She made Dr. Petzel go on the record with the fact that a doctor's order would be followed, that a contracting officer (whom she summed up as someone with a Bachelors of Science and a few hours in business courses) would not be allowed to override a doctor's order.  Petzel insisted that was not the case and that the doctor's order would always be followed.  That's something to remember when the first complaints on the program start coming in.  Buerkle was also concerned that the VSOs and veterans were not being properly and/or fully included in the process.  We'll note some of her concluding remarks.     Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  I think it's very important that we get as many Veterans Services Organizations involved in this discussion, as many perspectives.  You know, what you've mentioned, with all due respect, is great but I think we've got additional Veterans Service Organizations that need to be included in this discussion. And to make sure -- there's nothing more important than the veterans -- and to make sure that when they come home without a limb because they've served this nation, that they have what they need, that they're not dealing with some contracting officer who's got some discretion to give him less of a device than he deserves. So that's all of our concern here that we get our veterans exactly what they need. We heard the last time from veterans.  We're talking about the ability of someone to walk his daughter down the aisle. We're talking about intensely personal prosthetics and intensely personal segment of the care that our veterans need. So there's nothing more important.  And while we are all concerned with regards to cost, that we make sure that our veterans who have served this nation get exactly what they need so that they can return to their maximum potential after they've sacrificed so much for this nation.                Today was the first of the month, meaning deaths in Iraq got a little media attention.   Iraq Body Count tabulates 436 people were killed from violence in Iraq for the month of July. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) notes that the 'official' count from Nouri's ministries is 325 people dead and 697 injured.   Alsumaria adds the government's 325 toll would make July the deadliest month since August 2010.   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "The killing continued August 1, when five Iraqi police officers were killed and three others were wounded in separate attacks against two Iraqi police checkpoints, police officials said."    In other news Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports the provincial law election (the UN wants elections held March 2013) is stalled due to a lack of agreement between State of Law and Iraqiya.  Disagreements last week had been over the issues of quotas and representation.  This seems to be different and the draft law isn't even being read aloud due to the disagreement.  Citing non-specified differences between the political blocs, Alsumaria reports that a vote on a judicial bill has been postponed to tomorrow.   Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) explores the political crisis noting: After the central stage struggle and differences between Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki and Ayad Alawi, Chairman of the Al Iraqiya List since the elections of 2010, the importance of this struggle dropped to second place in a more profound clash that is threatening the future and unity of the country. Today, the axis of conflict between Al Maliki and Masoud Barzani, the President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has become more important. However, the clashes and differences are not between the Kurdish Alliance and the Iraqi National Alliance, as all the counterparts of both these alliances are fragmented and in a certain degree of disagreement amongst themselves over this issue or that. The conflict interfaces are numerous, such as Al Maliki's dictatorship inclinations, the oil and gas law, the Constitution's item 140, the disputed lands, arming the Iraqi forces, arming the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, the region's budget, and the region's right to export oil to Turkey, to mention only a few as the list extends further. The hawks of this conflict are many especially in the media; however the two prominent and central figures are Al Maliki and Barzani themselves. Moreover, both men are no longer keen on hiding their sentiments towards one another in a diplomatic manner. Yesterday Total entered into a deal with the KRG -- as had Chevron and ExxonMobil previously.  The Baghdad-based government was furious.  Trade Arabia notes, "Total, which is following US rivals into the area, was warned by Baghdad on Tuesday it faced "severe" consequences for buying the stakes in the Harir and Safen blocks from US peer Marathon Oil without the government's consent." Al Rafidayn notes the Ministry of Oil's Director of Contracts and Licenses Abdul-Mehdi al-Amidi is stating that they are looking into repealing the deal.  But Peter Mulvany (Middle East Confidential) states that "Total maintains that they kept the Baghdad authorities aware of their intentions. It also claims that contractual conditions are more favorable in the autonomous region than anywhere in the country as the company struggles to meets its annual objectives. The Harir field was drilled on Monday and drilling will begin next year on the Safen one."  Proactive Investors UK attempts to navigate the legal issues:   Under the Iraq constitution of 2005, the federal government has exclusive responsibility in a number of areas, including foreign policy and defence.  In other areas responsibility falls to the regions. Also, the constitution suggests that the federal government does not have exclusive power over matters to do with oil and gas.  It recognises that oil and gas resources belong to all the people of Iraq but that management of the resource is shared with the regions.  It also requires federal government and the regions to agree strategic policies to develop oil and gas to the highest benefit of the Iraqi people.  If there is a conflict between regional and federal laws under the constitution then the regional law prevails. The 2005 constitution identifies the concept of "present fields", meaning those already in production at the time the constitution was agreed.  Oil and gas already extracted from these fields should be jointly managed by the federal government and regional governments, with fair distribution of revenues to be regulated by law. However, for non-producing and future fields, the federal government has no right to play a part in management and there is no requirement for a federally regulated distribution of revenues.    And you know Nouri's really pissed because Al Mada reports State of Law's whispering that they're going to call Hoshyar Zebari before Parliament for questioning.  Foreign Minister Zebari is one of the highest ranking Kurds in the government. He has been Foreign Minister since 2006 and has an international reputation.  That reputation might be why he's being targeted.  The Kurds have become very vocal in asking/suggesting that the US government attempt to broker a resolution to the ongoing political crisis.    The US State Dept issued a statement on Camp Ashraf residents today:   Press Statement Patrick Ventrell Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of Press Relations Washington, DC August 1, 2012   The United States is concerned by the Government of Iraq's reference on July 31 to the possible closure of Camp Ashraf by involuntary relocation of its residents. We urge the Government of Iraq to remain patient and flexible in seeking a voluntary arrangement for continued relocations, as only a peaceful resolution to the situation at Camp Ashraf is acceptable. This requires that continued dialogue be pursued in place of forcible measures and that all sides act in accordance with the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations. We also call on the Ashraf leadership to immediately resume cooperation with the relocation of residents to Camp Hurriya, especially following the Iraqi Government's delivery of a cargo convoy of goods as demanded by the residents on July 15. Allegations of dire humanitarian conditions at Hurriya are inconsistent with observations made by U.S. Government officials who have visited Hurriya, as well as reporting from UN monitors. Based on these reports, and other information, it is clear that the quality of life at Hurriya exceeds accepted humanitarian standards. The continued intransigence of the residents' leadership in placing preconditions and making demands prior to any agreement to relocate further Ashraf residents is unacceptable and puts in danger protections established in the MOU. The process established by the MOU has resulted in the safe relocation of nearly 2,000 residents from Camp Ashraf, almost two-thirds of its estimated population. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's (UNAMI) "Roadmap" provides a peaceful way forward for Ashraf's closure, and the United States urges adherence to this process to finally and peacefully close Camp Ashraf. Ashraf's closure will allow UNAMI, the United States, and our partners to focus attention and efforts on a durable solution for the residents' relocation outside of Iraq.     It's interesting that now they're concerned.  Before they weren't.  And their indifference and outright hostility sent a message to Nouri al-Maliki and he acted accordingly.  That's what happened and that's what the State Dept's trying to walk back now.   Moving over to the US where Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.   On this week's Out-FM (Tuesday nights, seven p.m. EST, WBAI), John Riley and Bob Lederer covered Bradley by speaking with two reporters covering the case.  Excerpt.     Bob Lederer:  We're here at Fort Meade, Maryland and today we've just finished the sixth hearing in the court-marital of accused whistle blower Bradley Manning, the openly gay Army intelligence analyst who is facing 22 charges from his alleged disclosure of nearly 3/4 of a million documents and videos to WikiLeaks.  Some of these materials show evidence of War Crimes and other inappropriate conduct by the US government and its allies. The pre-trial hearings have been presided over by military Judge Denise Lind.  The actual court-martial trial -- over which she will also preside -- is not expected to begin until sometime next year.  Joining us to explain the significance of developments at this four day hearing are two guests.  Kevin Gosztola [. . .] blogs for Firedoglake.com.  Adm Klasfeld is a reporter for the Courthouse News Service.  And he's based in New York City. Both of them have covered many of the hearings to date in the Bradley Manning case.  And thank you for joining us on Out-FM and, Kevin, since you literally wrote the book on the case, let me start with you.  Why don't you summarize the 22 charges that Private Manning is facing and what's the maximum sentence he could be looking at?     Kevin Gostola:  So the most significant charge is the aiding the enemy charge that says he gave intelligence to the enemy through WikiLeaks. So he aided them indirectly.  And that could mean he would be put in prison for life without parole.  That's the max, I would think, he could get.  And then the other charges have to do with violating -- or prejudicing the good order and discipline and dignity of the military.  And those charges are -- there's many charges.  There's more then ten charges that are like that.  And then -- And each of those have about ten years I think that carry with those.  And then there are charges to have to do with whether he exceeded authorized access on his computer.  And I think that those are all ten years as well.     Bob Lederer:  And Adam Klasfeld, how do you see kind of the overall importance of the charges against Bradley Manning?   Adam Klasfeld:  Well I think both parties have said -- since the court- martial -- started this is a unique case.  This will help determine the way the military deals with when someone discloses information on the internet.  How will the country handle it?  The repercussions will be felt all over the world?  How freely will people be able to access information?  What restrictions will there be?  It has enormous consequences.  Well, to me, one thing that really stuck out to me, every time we see this, a hearing on this case, someone says -- whether it's the judge or whether it's Bradley Manning's lawyers -- they constantly get back to the fact that it's a completely unique case.  No one has ever dealt with this case before.  Bradley Manning is charged under the Espionage Act yet the government doesn't accuse him of spying.  There wasn't anything on any particular nation.  And if you read Bradley Manning's chat logs which, you know, the authenticity has been disputed by the defense but if you read his words, he says that he did this for public knowledge, not for a country, not for any particular nation.  So it's its own unique thing.  Obviously WikiLeaks has had an enormous influence on global policy and this case will help determine the future of the press, the future of how we access information, what will happen?  It has huge ramifications to the way we think about the nature of information, the way we think about national security, the way we think about all of these issues and what will happen to those who do step forward and-and share information that someone determines to be classified or sensitive or anything like that.   Bob Lederer:  This week's hearing gave the prosecution and the defense a chance to argue and the judge to rule on several rules about the conduct of Manning's court-martial as well as what documents the prosecution should be required to turn over to the defense so they can prepare their case.  Kevin Gosztola, what do you think was the most important ruling made by Judge Lind this week and why?   Kevin Gosztola: Well the most important ruling was the ruling that found in favor of the government that the defense could be prevented from raising evidence that showed actual damage or harm was caused by WikiLeaks or that it was caused by Manning releasing this information allegedly to WikiLeaks. And this is very significant for the fact that it appears David Coombs, Manning's defense lawyer, built a lot of his case around being able to discuss this evidence.  But now the judge has -- she's been won over by this idea presented by the prosecutors that it is not part of the charges and that the defense should not be able to raise this evidence when they discuss it in court.  And, going forward, what this means is that any discussion about damage from both the government and the defense is going to be entirely hypothetical.  So this ruling is good for the government.  It's good for the government agencies that don't want any attention on what actually happened as a result of the leaks because members of the public who have seen headlines probably know numerous government officials said that there were -- there was damage, national security was placed at risk.  And the whole story, people might be wondering, what exactly did happen?  Well in this trial we're not likely to get too much information about what did happen anymore.  Up to this point, we've gotten some details actually.  In fact, State Dept witnesses testified in June about actual damage to an extent, it came up in testimony.  And now it's all hypothetical.  So when the government talks, they'll be saying, 'Could cause damage.'  And they'll just be talking about the evidence as if it could cause damage.  And the same with the defense, I guess.     l     lkkkkkkkk     that he could be put                      iraq afp ayad al-tamimi al mada alsumaria gulf news mohammad akef jamal trade arabia cnn mohammed tawfeeq

Another war?

Tuesday.  And the White House apparently won't be happy until they have yet another war going.  That's the only explanation for what Alex Lantier (WSWS) is reporting:

Beginning his week-long Middle East tour in Tunis yesterday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called for regime change in Syria and threatened Iran with sanctions and war.
Panetta will visit the Tunisian Islamist regime of Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali of the Ennadha Party, as well as Egypt’s Islamist President Mohammed Mursi and Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the leader of the US-backed Egyptian military junta. Panetta will then continue on to visit Israel and King Abdullah in Jordan.
Panetta’s trip aims to deepen the US military’s ties to the Islamist regimes that have come to power after the mass working class uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, while pursuing Washington’s deepening military intervention throughout the region.

At least some people are awake to what's going on.  This is from World Can't Wait:


Monday, July 23, 2012, as Obama came to the Bay Area for multiple campaign fundraising appearances, a large protest crowd was in the streets of downtown Oakland for hours.  An anti-war action was called by World Can’t Wait, Afghans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Code Pink, the Bradley Manning Support Network and Courage to Resist and we were there with banners and signs aloft.  Near the Fox Theater (the Obama rally site) we gathered with more groups: Occupy Oakland and Redwood City, Vets for Peace, students.  There were other clusters of protest scattered around the area at different times: youth protesting for immigrant rights, Occupiers, environmentalists.  Also there were lots of people who had earlier been at a large rally for medical marijuana  (the feds have raided major Oakland dispensaries despite their legality and despite Obama’s “promises”). 

The police had barricaded the entire area around the Fox Theater for several blocks in all directions.  They had also ordered all businesses to close early.  People with Obama tickets had to snake through a barricaded line from blocks away.  But still about 200 protesters gathered within eyesight of the theater by 4:30, eventually growing to 300.  Right against the barricades and police cars, we lofted banners and signs about Bradley Manning, about drones, about the wars.  World Can’t Wait had big No Drones and “Crimes Are Crimes” signs.  We also carried two huge banners that no one could miss:  “Stop the U.S. Criminal War in Afghanistan” in English, Dari and Pashto, and “The Richest Country In the World Is Destroying One of the Poorest” in English and Spanish.


I don't know how many wars Barack wants to exhaust whatever's left of America's dollars on, do you?  This is just stupidity plain and simple.  And we're so broke as it is that we can't afford to be spending a dime on more warfare. 

But try telling the White House that.

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the press misreported yesterday on why the US government gave up the Baghdad police training facility because the SIGIR was less than clear in his report (to put it nicely), Baghdad is slammed with twin bombings, July sees more deaths from violence than June, Total becomes the latest oil company ready to do business with the KRG, and more.      Emily Alpert (Los Angeles Times) reports, "The United States wasted more than $200 million on an Iraqi police-training program that has little backing on the ground, a new U.S. government audit released Monday found."  The Office of the Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction issued [PDF format warning] "Iraq Police Development Program: Lack Of Iraqi Support And Security Problems Raise Questions About The Continued Viability Of The Program."  From the report:   The DoS is wisely reducing the PDP's scope and size in the face of weak Iraq Ministry of Interior (MOI) support.  In July 2012, the number of in-country advisors was reduced to 36: 18 in Baghdad and 18 in Erbil, down from the 85 advisors supporting the program in January.  These latest reductions steemed, in part, from the MOI's rejection of some planned PDP training that was to be the centerpiece of the DoS program.  DoS is currently refocusing its training on five technical areas requested by the MOI. Along with Iraqi disinterest, security concerns also affected the program. The Embassy's Regional Security Office deemed it unsafe for advisors to travel to Iraqi-controlled facilities in Baghdad on a frequent basis.  Thus, the PDP's advisors conducted more training at the U.S.-controlled Baghdad Police College Annex (BPAX). DoS constructed significant training and housing facilities at BPAX at an estimated cost of about $108 million.  But the DoS has decided to close the facility just months after the PDP started, due to security costs and program revisions.  Although BPAX's facilities will be given to the Iraqis, its closure amounts to a de facto waste of the estimated $108 million to be invested in its construction. In addition, DoS contributed $98 million in PDP funds for constructing the Basrah Consulate so it could be used for PDP training.  It too will not be used because the MOI decided to terminate training at that location. This brings the total amount of de facto waste in the PDP -- that is, funds not meaningfully used for the purpose of their appropriations -- to about $206 million.   I wasn't in the mood for the report yesterday.  My attitude was we covered waste in this program  last week (see, for example, "Did the US government have 1.5 billion to throw away" ) and the thing everyone was running with was the Baghdad Police College Annex.  That was the headline in piece for piece after piece.     Why is the Police College Annex being given to the Iraqi government?   It's not difficult to explain and it has been explained.   But not in reports yesterday and not in Stuart Bowen's SIGIR report everyone treated as gospel.   This was addressed in Congressional hearings.  And the press needs to pay attention to what's going on because the reason the Police College Annex is being handed over?  That can effect other US complexes in Iraq.   The June 29th snapshot covered the most recent hearing on this topic (the June 28th House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations hearing).  Jason Chaffetz is the Subcommittee Chair but he'd stepped out of the hearing and US House Rep Black Farenthold was Acting Chair.  As he established in his line of questions (to the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy and Peter Verga and the State Dept's Acting IG Harold Geisel, DoD's Special Deputy IG for Southwest Asia Mickey McDermott, US GAO's Michael Courts and SIGIR's Stuart Bowen Jr.), the US government did not secure a lease for the land.  As Farenthold noted of the Baghdad Police College Annex, "It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's currently being downsized.  And as a result of the State Dept's failure to secure land use rights, the entire facility is being turned over to the Iraqis at no cost.  The GAO reports Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all of the sites that it operates."  That number has increased by one since that hearing.  From the July 9th snapshot:     The Kurdistan Regional Government really wasn't the concern there.  But Sunday the KRG announced that Foreign Relations Minister Falah Mustafa met with outgoing US Consul General Alexander Laskaris: "As his last official act in the Region, prior to the meeting Consul General Laskaris signed an agreement regarding the allocation of land for the permanent premises of the US Consulate to be built on. Commenting on this agreement, Mr Laskaris said, 'We thank the government of Kurdistan for allocating this land as part of enhancing our permanent diplomatic presence in Iraq including Baghdad, Basra and Erbil. We look forward to breaking ground and thank the leadership of the KRG for their continuing support and partnership'."     AP and others yesterday wrongly conflated two separate aspects of the waste.  If they'd bothered to attend Congressional hearings, maybe they wouldn't have.  But the police college was not turned over because people didn't want to participate.  That's not the issue on the turnover. The issue on the turnover is the lack of land-lease agreements.  These should have been in place.  They weren't.   Michael Courts testified in the June 28th hearing referenced above that "there's still only 5 of 14 [US facilities in Iraq] for which we actually have explicit title land use agreements or leases." If you are alarmed by the waste trumpeted yesterday, then you need to pay attention to this topic.  There are now 6 out of 14 facilities with agreements.  (Courts used "explicit agreements" to draw a line between actual agreements and the diplomatic notes Patrick Kennedy was trying to falsely pass off as agreements.)   Point being, this could happen again and again.  This story was completely missed because the press is not doing the work required.   Article after article yesterday acted alarmed about the handover of the building and the numbers they used in the headlines relied largely on that building.  But no one wants to tell you that this could happen with 8 other US buildings in Iraq if the administration doesn't get land agreements?  No  one wants to be the one to step up to the plate and discuss how the administration failed?   In fairness to the reporters, they're covering a SIGIR report (though should they be adding context and a bit more in their so-called reports) and that report makes the same conflation between two separate things.     Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) speaks to Bowen and even that doesn't allow Rogin to get it right. For all not at the June 28th hearing, that's when the American people learned (or would have if the press attended and reported) that the Baghdad Police College Annex was being handed over to the Iraqi government and that this was happening because of the lack of lease agreement.     It is not because of security concerns -- as Rogin and Bowen discuss. That was discussed in the hearing as well. That had nothing to do with it. Issues are being confused and it's hard to believe it's not intentional.   It is not because of the lack of participation by the Iraqi police.     It is being handed over because no land agreement was finalized and apparently the White House doesn't think one can be on that area of land. This is important and to have an honest discussion, people need to know the issues at play.   Let's deal with another issue because it goes to failure as well and it didn't happen this week or last month, it happened months ago but Rogin -- who I'll assume was trying to be honest on this -- quotes from the SIGIR report, "Without the MOI [Ministry of Interior]'s written commitment to the program, there is little reason to have confidence that the training program currently being planned will be accepted six months from now."     I'm appalled by that statement.     I don't disagree with it but it's more than a little late for that statement. This dishonesty's coming from Bowen who I'll assume is under a lot of pressure and is trying to pretty things up. But why is it appalling to read a juts-released SIGIR report stating there's no buy-in by the Ministry of Defense on a police training program?     Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: He [Bowen] has testified before other bodies of Congress, he has released written quarterly reports, as well as specific audits and the message is the same: The program for which the Department of State officially took responsibility on October 1st is nearly a text book case of government procurement -- in this case, foreign assistance -- doesn't buy what we think we're paying for, what we want and why more money will only make the problem worse. Failed procurement is not a problem unique to the State Department. And when it comes to frittering away millions, Foggy Bottom is a rank amateur compared to the Department of Defense. As our colleagues on the Armed Services committees have learned, the best of projects with the most desirable of purposes can go horribly, horribly off-track; and the hardest thing it seems that any bureaucracy can do is pull the plug on a failed initiative. How do we know the Police Development Program is going off-track? Very simple things demonstrate a strong likelihood of waste and mismanagement. Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue.   That's US House Rep Gary Ackerman rightly noting there is no buy-in on the police training program and that's not last week, that's not last month. That's last year. That's from the December 1, 2011 snapshot and the hearing was November 30, 2011. And Stuart Bowen knows these remarks because he was testifying to the hearing.   Hundreds of millions have been wasted according to the latest report (billions have been wasted) and the American tax payer is paying for this 'oversight'? This lack of buy-in was established in Congress last year. From that House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing:   Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue.   The report didn't uncover anything.  It was already known at the end of last year.  This is why Congress was so upset with the stone walling from the administration.  They felt the Iraq goals were not clearly defined, that the -- wait.  We don't need me.  Again, Ackerman, from that hearing, explained the problem was "the program's objectives remain a mushy bowl of vague platitudes" with "no comprehensive and detailed plan for execution."  He referred to the "flashing-red warning light."   This is a failure of the administration and the press can't tell you that because they don't know the story they think they're covering.  In part, that's because Bowen's written an embarrassing report that doesn't clearly document.  In part, that's because they didn't do their jobs.   Adnan al-Asadi had been questioned by Bowen last year and Bowen was told by Adnan al-Asadi that they didn't need the US to train Iraqi police.  Who is? Adnan al-Asadi? The Acting Minister of Interior.  He's not Minister of Interior.  Nouri never nominated anyone for that position so Parliament never confirmed anyone.  Which means Adnan al-Asadi does what Nouri tells him to do and serves at Nouri's pleasure.  Nouri must have been pleased with al-Asadi's actions.    Though Nouri was supposed to nominate heads for the security ministries in 2010, he never did.  As  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed last week, "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."  And while those positions have remained vacant, the violence in Iraq has increased.   Today Baghdad was slammed with bombings.  Bushra Juhi (AP) reports two Baghdad car bombings have left 21 dead and fifty-seven injured. RTT News explains, "The first of the bomb explosions occurred outside a restaurant near the headquarters of the police major crime division in Baghdad's central Shiite district of Karrada.  Minutes later, a second car bomb exploded outside a passport office located just a few kilometers away."  Aseel Kami and Kareem Raheem (Reuters) quote police officer Ahmed Hassan, "We were in a patrol when we heard the first explosion.  The second explosion hit another square, and we went to help . . . There was a minibus with six dead passengers inside it."  The two bombings weren't the only violence today.   On the day Reporters Without Borders notes 6 countries have seen more than one reporter killed in 2012 so far while 7 -- including Iraq -- have seen at least one killed, Iraq moves up into the first category.  Iraq just moved up to the other category, the more than one.  Bushra Juhi (AP) reports police announced today that last night in Mosul, Ghazwan Anas was shot dead in an attack which left his wife and mother injured. Al Rafidayn reports that unknown assailants stormed Anas' home and shot him dead while leaving his wife injured.  Xinhua adds that it was his wife and their 4-month-old child that were injured in the attack and, "The Iraqi Union of Journalists condemned in a statement the assassination of Anas and called on Nineveh's Operations Command, responsible for the security of the province, to exert every effort to bring the killers to justice. The Union said that more than 280 of its members and media workers have been killed since the start of the US-led war in March 2003." In addition, Bahrain News Agency reports an al-Ramadi roadside bombing has claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured. Basil El-Dabh (Daily News Egypt) observes, "An escalation of violence in Iraq comes with a renewed effort by Iraqi Al-Qaeda forces to energize its presence in the Anbar province. "  AFP adds that "two people were killed and three wounded by a car bomb north of Falluja, a police major in the western province of Anbar and Doctor Assem al-Hamdani of Fallujah Hospital said." On the topic of violence, Iraq Body Count counts 403 deaths from violence through yesterday.  That does not include the violence noted above.  The month of July ends in a few hours and it has already resulted in more deaths than in the month of June.   Mission News Network notes that Iraq's Christian community continues to flee due to threats and violence and they note:   Open Doors USA recently received this e-mail from one of their contacts in Baghdad: "The terror in Iraq recently was the worst for several years. Each hour the news of what happened gets worse. There have also been major al-Qaeda threats to everyone, especially the Christians. After last week's violence, communication is terrible. "It is not really possible to describe the devastation here in Baghdad. Over 100 have been killed. Security has been a target. We have none. I came back early because things were getting worse, and they sure are! We are all okay, though. "We are used to bad problems here in Baghdad, but the violence is just quite unbelievable. 12 car bombs, 2 suicide bombers on motor bikes. Scores of police and soldiers killed. We no longer have any security. It was all Iraqi police and soldiers. Whilst our people have not been killed, the injuries are so severe to so many."   While the e-mailer offers reality, the head of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq, Amaar al-Hakeem spun like crazy in Kuwait.  Nawara Fattahous (Kuwait Times) quotes al-Hakeem stating, "Compared to two years ago the situation today is much better. After 150,000 American soldiers withdrew from Iraq, our government has been working alone to insure security."   Poor Ammar.  To be spanked in public by events of the day must be so humiliating for him.  And he's worked so hard trying to prove he's as much of a leader as his father was.  Then along comes reality, taking him over the knee and leaving him sobbing.   Al Rafidayn reports that the US Embassy is using "live ammunition" when training the Iraqi military (not the police) such as their recent July 17th exercise.  The Embassy issued a statement insisting that this training is covered under the 2008 Stratgice Framework Agreeement. If you're picturing supposed diplomats strapping guns, don't.  The mission is overseen by the US military's Maj Gen Robert Kaslen who is utilizing an undisclosed number of US forces.  But don't say that too loud.  Remember Barack lied to the VFW that all the troops came home.  (Truth, thousands were moved to countries surrounding Iraq.  Truth, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report recently arguing the ones in Kuwait needed to be left there for some time to come.  Truth, Special-Ops, CIA, the FBI and an undisclosed number of US troops who are 'trainers' remain in Iraq.)   There is no improved security and the US military still provides training -- unless Amaar al-Hakeem thinks Maj Gen Robert Kaslen is just a flight attendent with a fancy title.     Remember how Nouri still refuses to nominate people to head the security ministries?  That's part of the current, ongoing political stalemate.     This is Political Stalemate II.  In March 2010, parliamentary elections were held.  Nouri was convinced his State of Law would come in first.  He had many reasons to think this.  The Justice and Accountability Commission popped up when it was supposed to be no more and went around banning various politicians who were seen as rivals of Nouri.  They were falsely charged with being a Ba'athist and they were banned from running.  A large number of Iraqiya members were taken out of the race as a result.  State of Law was a fundamentalist grouping of Shi'ites.  Iraqiya is, like Iraq, a mixture of a little bit of everything.  Leader Ayad Allawi is a Shi'ite.  In addition to Iraqiya having members forced out of the election, in the weeks ahead of the election a number of Iraqiya candidates and officials were shot dead.  Just luck, you understand, no one's saying Nouri ordered the murders just because he benefited from them.  Pure coincidence. When not 'taking care' of political rivals, Nouri busied himself bringing water (usually frozen) to various areas without potable water.  He thought that little bribe had worked so well in 2009's provincial elections so he repeated it.   But his favorite tactic was just to smear Iraqiya as "Ba'athists" and "terrorists."  (Ba'ath was the political party of Saddam Hussein.  For background on the party refer to this BBC News article.)   It didn't work out the way he'd planned.  Iraiqya came in first.  He was runner up.  Per the Constitution, Iraqiya was supposed to be given first crack at forming a government.  Nouri wanted a second term as prime minister and refused to allow anything to move forward.  Things ground to a standstill.  For eight months.  Nouri couldn't have pulled that off without the backing of the White House.    In November 2010, the stalemate finally ended when the US ensured that Nouri got his way.  They brokered the Erbil Agreement which gave all the blocs something in exchange for their agreeing to allow Nouri to have a second term.  All the leaders of the blocs signed off on the contract (including Nouri) and Nouri got his second term as prime minister.  And Nouri then refused to honor the Erbil Agreement.  He refused to keep the promises he'd made.  Beginning in the summer of last year, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr began calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement.   From there, we'll pick up the thread via the International Crisis Group's .  "Iraq's Secular Opposition: The Rise and Decline of Al-Iraqiya:"     The goal of the Erbil accord had been to limit the powers of the prime minister. It was not to be. Since taking office in December 2010, Maliki steadily has built up his power, making no concessions to his governing partners. He has retained control over the interior and defence ministries as well as of elite military brigades. As a result, Iraqiya has found itself marginalised in government, its leaders and members exposed to intimidation and arrest by security forces, often under the banner of de-Baathification and anti-terrorism. Having campaigned partially on the promise it would bring such practices to an end, Iraqiya proved itself powerless in the eyes of its supporters. Matters came close to breaking point in December 2011, as the last U.S. troops left the country, when Maliki's government issued an arrest warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi, a senior Sunni leader, while declaring Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlak, another Sunni leader – both of them from Iraqiya – persona non grata for having referred to Maliki as a "dictator". In April 2012, tensions between Maliki and his governing partners escalated further. Joining forces, Iraqiya leaders, Barzani and other Kurdish leaders as well as some of Maliki's Shiite rivals such as the powerful Sadrist movement, accused the prime minister of violating the Erbil agreement and amassing power by undemocratic and unconstitutional means. Their efforts ever since to hold a parliamentary no-confidence vote against Maliki have been hampered by internal divisions. The crisis is at a stalemate: Maliki hangs on to power, even enjoying a surge in popularity in Shiite areas; his rivals lack a viable strategy to unseat him until the next parliamentary elections, which should take place in 2014. This, they fear, leaves plenty of time for the prime minister to further consolidate his hold over the security forces and carry out further repression to achieve the kind of parliamentary majority in the next elections that has eluded him so far. An emboldened prime minister, growing sectarian tensions and a deeply mistrustful opposition are a recipe for violent conflict, especially in light of troubling developments in neighbouring Syria. Iraqis across the divide express fears that a spiralling sectarian-tinged civil war in their neighbour could exacerbate tensions at home and usher the country into another round of sectarian conflict. In a separate report, Crisis Group has proposed some ways to mitigate the chances of such a scenario.     Now here's Kurdish Regional President Massoud Barzani explaining the current stalemate:    I lost hope in Maliki when, in 2008, he deployed the Iraqi Army with tanks and other heavy weapons to Khanaqin to fight the Peshmargas. We have problem with this mentality, that instead of dialogue, he believes in the language of arms. My concern is not for now; it is for the coming years. If this mentality is allowed to grow this way while he has power, he will create great problems for Kurdistan and Iraq. According to the constitutional authority and responsibility that I have (as KRG president), I did not create new problems when I broke the silence about this (authoritarian) mentality (in Baghdad) this year, although some people see it that way. Rather, I only brought issues on the table that have existed for years now but have not been addressed seriously. Many years have passed since the promise was made to solve the pending issues (between Kurdistan Region and Bagdad) without taking serious steps in that direction. No serious steps have been taken for Article 140, or the issue of the budget and the (financial) needs of the Peshmarga, nor has the draft for oil and gas been passed. Moreover, Kurdish officers and officials are sidelined and alienated inside the Iraqi Army. After the Erbil Agreement they always hid themselves from implementing the articles of the agreement, so, the real power-sharing term has almost faded away and what has been felt is only monopolization and a return to the dictatorship mentality. They ignored all the promises in regard to the internal procedures of the ministerial council, and only Maliki's unlimited authority could be seen there in all administrative, security, military and economic aspects, which is breaching the constitutional definition of the government type of Iraq, since according to the constitution the head of the government is the head of the council of ministers and not a prime minister. There is a large difference between these two terms, since the head of the council of ministers will follow and execute the internal policies and procedures of the council and cannot act on his own.     That's from the speech he delivered Saturday which the Kurdish Globe has translated into English.   The conflicts between Nouri and the Kurds only increase.  Geraldine Amiel (Nasdaq) reports, "Total SA (TOT) challenged the Iraqi authorities Tuesday as it announced the acquisition of a 35% interest in two oil-exploration blocks in Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq, just days after the central government in Baghdad blacklisted Chevron Corp. (CVX) from contracts in the rest of the country after it entered the Kurdish region."  Meanwhile the Kurdish Globe notes, "Oil giant Exxon Mobil announced that it is planning to start its operations for drilling in six oil fields in the Kurdistan Region.  Chevron, the second largest American oil company after Exxon Mobil, did not take Baghdad's threats about depriving the company from exploration and investment opportunities in the centeral and southern oil fields into consideration and insists on investing in Kurdistan Region's vast oil reserves."     Dropping back to yesterday: Meanwhile AFP reports on the latest round of rumors Nouri and his cronies are spreading about others: KRG President Massoud Barzani has been caught attempting to buy weapons from "an unnamed foreign country."  Doesn't it all just reek of "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."?  Starting to understand why Bully Boy bush chose Nouri in the first place?  Could it be true?  It could be.  Would it matter if it was?  The KRG can arm themselves.  That was established when Saddam Hussein was still the president of Iraq.  Nouri al-Maliki may not like it, but they've got that right and they established that right long before Baghdad fell in 2003 to foreign forces.  In other words, unlike Nouri and his chicken s**t exiles, the Kurds actually participated in their own liberation (1991).  Nouri and the other hens in his squawk party just bitched and moaned to get other countries to do what they were to chicken to do themselves and only returned to Iraq after Baghdad fell.  What a bunch of losers.  And now, on top of that, they're a bunch of backbiting gossips? Naturally Iran's Press TV jumps all over the unsourced story and doesn't bother to weigh the veracity of the claims.  Press TV is almost as pathetic as the Chicken Hawk Exiles who now rule Iraq. Alsumaria notes that State of Law MP Hassan al-Awadi is publicly accusing the KRG of trying to get weapons.  His proof?  He's State of Law.  They never have proof.  They're lucky to have a functioning brain.  Alsumaria notes that Kurdistan Alliance MP Chaun Mohammed Taha is denying the charge. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Nouri and his lackeys are also insiting that KRG President Massoud Barzani is going to be questioned by the Iraqi Parliament.  However, today Alsumaria notes that the Parliament has received no such request to question Barzani.      Nouri's targets have included office holders and every day citizens.  The latter group was targeted last fall and are being targeted again with mass arrests.  Because they are not 'names,' they are invisible to the world's press.    One 'name' Nouri's targeted is Iraq's Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.  He has insisted al-Hashemi is a terrorist.  A rather strange accusation when al-Hashemi has been a vice president since 2006 (this is his second term) and it's not a charge Nouri wanted to make until after the bulk of US forces pulled out of the country in December.  al-Hashemi's staff have been rounded up and tortured.  At least one bodyguard was tortured to death.  That's the way it goes in Nouri's Iraq and that's the Iraq that Barack Obama decided to back when he threw the weight of the United States behind Nouri in 2010.      Margret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi has a resident permit from Turkey.  AKnews adds, "Today's Zaman reported Monday that the Turkish Interior Ministry has issued a residence permit to Hashimi so that he would not face legal troubles for staying in the country."         iraq  iraq body count the los angeles times emily alpert

foreign policy
josh rogin

antiwar.com
margaret griffis

afp

rudaw

al mada

alsumaria
xinhua

reporters without borders

the associated press

bushra juhi

bahrain news agency

daily egypt news

basil el-dabh