|
Tuesday,
June 26, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraqi political crisis
continues, 5 members of the Kurdish Alliance prepare to question Nouri
al-Maliki, Mad Maddie Albright repeats herself, Tony Blair remains in
hot water, the ICRC continues their work in Iraq, and more.
Perhaps
the saddest thing for the White House was realizing that it you want
bi-partisanship, don't piss off Republicans. Specifically, don't piss
off [a] Republican on the issue of Iraq. (Think about it, you'll
quickly guess which US Senator I mean.) Not only did he rally
opposition to keep the International Republican Institute from being
used to rubber stamp numbers that were going to be called results for a
poll, he's gone away making sure many know that an upcoming National
Democratic Institute for International Affairs 'poll' was nothing but
propaganda on behalf of the White House. The poll will insist --
abusrdly -- that Nouri al-Maliki's popularity is on the rise.
It
would have been unbelievable coming from a reputable polling
organization. It would have been laughable coming from the NDI (a
notorious tool to oppress and suppress freedom around the world -- as is
its Republican counterpart) but with the senator telling anyone who
will listen how the White House shopped it first as a joint-poll and the
had no interest in it, the White House looks like its in the business
of non-stop lying. But maybe that's every administration's business?
Regardless, it's not a good time for the administration.
Maginnis
and I will never agree on the illegal war but good for him for calling
out the 'poll' ("Obama loyalists hosted and conducted the survey.").
It's a surprisingly strong article:
On
the day the U.S. withdrew from Baghdad Maliki's security forces
surrounded the residences of prominent Sunni politicians including Vice
President al-Hashemi, to arrest him on charges of running death squads.
But Hashemi escaped to northern Iraq and sectarian violence has since
skyrocketed.
"It is very troubling the
Maliki-led government is operating on cultivating sectarian tensions and
executing policies to suppress democracy at the expense of the Iraqi
people," said Vice President al-Hashimi from his exiled refuge. He
continued, "Iraqi politicians must put the past and our differences
behind us to improve the lives of our people."
But
Maliki isn't putting past differences behind him. Rather he is
resurrecting memories Iraqis associate with their former dictator,
Saddam Hussein.
Second, the DNI/GQRR survey
found most non-Shia Iraqis believe Maliki has too much power and 64
percent say he acts like a dictator. Iraqis have good reason to
associate Maliki's actions with their former dictator.
The
prime minister is consolidating personal power as did Saddam Hussein
says British scholar Toby Dodge who outlined Maliki's power grab at a
forum hosted by the National Defense University and reported in Foreign
Affairs.
Maliki completely transformed
Iraq's security and intelligence forces to be at his beck and call,
explained Dodge. The prime minister retained the title and role of
defense and interior ministers, controls all high-ranking appointments,
and created special counter-terrorism brigades that report directly to
him. These special forces, which some Iraqis label fedayeen [Arabic for "those who sacrifice"] al-Maliki, remind them of Hussein's fedayeen Saddam which performed the dictator's dirty work.
And
"surprisingly strong" is not due to, 'From the left, I can't believe
anyone on the right can get anything about Iraq correct!' "Surprisingly
strong" means that at a time when the US media clearly doesn't give a
damn about Iraq, it's surprising to find a strong article in any US
media. Good for Robert Maginnis. And for any who are surprised that
Republicans might want to make an issue out of Iraq, weren't you paying
attention? We told you that was the plan back in 2009. That's why the
questions and issues about Chris Hill were raised at his confirmation
hearing. We went all into that and how he would get confirmed but
Republicans were getting it on the record.
Many
Democrats supported the war and many went along. If they didn't, they
could have stopped it at any time. Former US Senator Mike Gravel
discussed how you do that repeatedly in 2007 and 2008 but no one wanted
to end it, not even 'brave' Dennis Kucinich. And along with supporters
and tag-alongs, you also had the evil that actively worked to get the
illegal war up and going. Indo-Asian News Service reports
on the human garbage dump that is Mad Maddie Albright who declared in
New Dehli today that "the war on Iraq was the biggest mistake we could
make and are still hurt because of it." Lest anyone think the woman
known as " Iraq's Grim Reaper"
has come to her senses, she rushed to insist "that the international
community has a responsibility to act if a country's leaders deny the
people their rights, despite such actions being an encroachment of that
country's sovereignty." But Mad Maddie, as you damn well know, the
costly and illegal Iraq War wasn't sold to the American people as,
"Let's go kill millions and send our own off to die in a foreign land
because we think the people are being denied rights!" That never would
have sold the illegal war. Just last week a Dartmouth YouGov poll
(with a +/- 3.18% margin of error) found only 32.1% of Americans
surveyed would support using US military force "To stop small-scale or
moderate human rights abuses by the government, such as the killing of
tens or hundreds of civilians."
The
sentiment is similar around the world and not surprising. It's why the
United Kingdom required Tony Blair's endless lies -- including silencing
objection from his government's legal expert about the legality of the
Iraq War -- to sell the war there. And in England, the war refuses to
fade as an issue and the publication of Alistair Campbell's liary has only led to more attention. More news from the book broke over the weekend. Jane Merrick and Matt Chorley (Independent) reported: MPs
demanded an emergency recall of the Chilcot inquiry last night after
new revelations that Tony Blair blocked the Government's most senior
lawyer from explaining to Cabinet the legality of the war in Iraq. According
to the newly published full version of Alastair Campbell's diaries, the
Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wanted to "put the reality" to cabinet
ministers that there was a case against, as well as for, military action
in March 2003. But, according to his former spin doctor, the then Prime
Minister feared that the legal opinion was too "nuanced" and would
allow the war's ministerial critics Robin Cook and Clare Short to say
that the case had not been made."Why does Alastair Campbell's account of cabinet decision-making about Iraq nine years ago still matter?" asked the editorial board of the Independent before answering: Because,
more than any that a government can make, the decision to join military
action is the most serious. Millions of British people believed at the
time that they were being taken to war on a false premise. They, and The
Independent on Sunday, feared that Tony Blair had committed himself to
the US. George Bush's motives were an unhealthy mixture of wanting to
impress US voters with a vigorous response to the humiliation of 9/11,
completing his father's unfinished business from the first Gulf War and a
strategic concern about security of oil supplies.
By Monday, Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) was reporting
that Campbell had already rushed to deny that what he wrote meant what
it said: "Mr Campbell said on his blog yesterday that the entry had been
misinterpreted, and that Lord Goldsmith had addressed Cabinet after the
meeting referred to in the diary. He had argued in Cabinet that there
was a legal case for war and was cross-questioned by ministers."
On my previous post on the issue of the Independent on Sunday article
claiming that "Tony Blair blocked the Government's most senior lawyer
[the attorney general] from explaining to Cabinet the legality of the
war in Iraq", it was noted that Alastair Campbell had responded to the
story on his blog. Campbell's (attempted) rebuttal
largely misses the point but does make a very good point about what the
views of the attorney general (Lord Peter Goldsmith] were at the
time.
Campbell is so hooked on his self
justifying claim that "The Real Spin Doctors Are The Journalists" that
he does exactly what he accuses one of the IoS story's authors of doing.
I
also drew attention to various passages of former Attorney General
Peter Goldsmith's evidence to Chilcot, and asked if the IoS had bothered
to study it before rushing to print a story which conformed to their
view of the Iraq war.
e.g. when Sir Roderic
Lyne asks: 'so no one at any stage asked you to restrict what you said
to cabinet to the fairly limited terms in which you presented this to
cabinet?' And Goldsmith replies 'No.'
If
Campbell had bothered to read the IoS story properly, he would have
seen -- as I pointed out yesterday -- that it did quote exactly that
piece of evidence to the Inquiry. He later claims that what he recorded
in his diary – that Blair "made it clear he did not particularly want
Goldsmith to launch a detailed discussion at Cabinet" – is "consistent"
with this.
Poodle Tony and Mad
Maddie, two War Hawks. The Albright article notes that Mad Maddie's
supporting Barack in the 2012 elections -- of course she is. War Hawks
of a feather bind and teather. Just last month, Barack gave her the Presidential Medal of Freedom (she also chairs the laughable National Democratic Institute we were just mentioning).
With
the impact of Iraq's long years of war and insecurity still marring the
future, older problems, such as water scarcity and weak infrastructure,
are also harming prospects for development and stability. The ICRC is
striving to improve the situation in the areas hardest hit.
The
ICRC has been working in Iraq for the past 30 years, attending to the
mounting humanitarian needs. During this period, the challenges relating
to water and basic public infrastructure have taken various shapes.
The fall in the water levels of the Tigris and Euphrates river, which
provide the bulk of Iraq's water supply, is not new. The ICRC has long
been warning of the serious consequences of a dwindling water supply.
But present-day Iraq faces challenges that are even more daunting.
How
very sad that the ICRC has to depend upon donations for their work in
Iraq when so much of it could be done by the Iraqi government which is
too cheap to spend the billions on making life better for the Iraqi
people. Iraq's not a poor country. Kadhim Ajrash and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report today, "Iraq's crude output rose to the highest in 20 years as the Halfaya field increased production."
The Red Cross update, covering March 2012 through May 2012, is entitled [PDF format warning] " Iraq: The Challenge of Providing Clean Water and Rebuilding Infrastructure"
which quotes the ICRC's Alexandre Farine stating, "Access to clean
water is not the only problem faced by Iraqis today, though it is one of
the major ones. There are areas in Iraq where entire systems are in
need of repair. We are focusing on the areas that have been hardest
hit, where such problems have posed the greatest challenge for the
population. People's daily lives are affected by the scarcity of clean
water, which in turn causes health and hygiene problems." The update
notes the ICRC's work on behalf of the disabled:
* treated 8,398 patients, 4, 266 of whom were amputees;
* manufactured 4,840 devices and fitted patients with them so they could walk again;
* distributed 227 crutches and 40 wheelchairs to needy patients;
* provided training in wheelchair adaptation and assembling and in management of ankle-foot orthosis services in three centres;
*
provided on-site support for nine primary health-care centres in areas
including Ninawa, Kirkuk, Diyala, Babil, Baghdad and Diwaniya, serving
approximately 260,000 people
There are many other findings in the report but here's what the ICRC is emphasizing from the update:
- supported
the upgrade of more than 100 kilometres of irrigation schemes in Rabea
and Qaratapa, in Dohuk and Diyala governorates respectively, which will
help increase agricultural production and income for more than 1,500
families;
- enrolled 437 needy community
members in cash-for-work activities in connection with the irrigation
works, enabling those taking part to temporarily increase their
household income;
- awarded 183 grants to
disabled people and to women heading households in Kirkuk, Diyala,
Ninewa, Suleymaniyah, Basra and Missan and Erbil, enabling them to start
small businesses and regain economic self-sufficiency;
- distributed
essential hygiene and household items to over 17,300 displaced people
in Salah Al-Din, Anbar, Sulaimaniyah, Kirkuk, Dohuq and Mosul; 527 of
the beneficiaries also received basic food items for one month for their
families;
- provided aid for 1,092 women
heading households in Baghdad and Anbar governorates, and helped them
register with the State welfare allowance system.
The
update notes other topics including their work on identifying the dead
-- such as from Iraq's war with Kuwait -- allowing the remains to be
returned home. Iraq released the remains of a US citizens. Dropping
back to the June 20th snapshot:
An
Iraq War veteran returned to Iraq as a DynaCorp [worker] and was dead a
week later. Now his family fights to have his body returned to the
US. Steve Shaw of Oklahoma's News 9 (link is text and video) reports:
Angela Copeland: They came in and they told me that they had found Michael deceased in his living quarters.
Steve
Shaw: Michael Copeland's widow Angela is distraught -- not only
because of Michael's sudden death but because our State Dept told
Copeland's family Iraqi leaders say Copeland died of Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome -- or SARS -- an extemely rare disease, and our
State Dept bought it. Iraq says it can't release the body. Michael
Copeland's fathe says he talked to his son by phone just 12 hours
before his death, nobody's died from SARS since 2003, and he says that
his son showed no signs of the disease.
Mike Copeland:
Everyone that I've spoke with is always sorry for our loss but they say
there's nothing they can do. I find that very difficult to believe.
That my government? There's nothing they can do to bring my son home
fom Iraq?
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's SARS page notes:
Severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused
by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). SARS
was first reported in Asia in February 2003. The illness spread to more
than two dozen countries in North America, South America, Europe, and
Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was contained. Since 2004,
there have not been any known cases of SARS reported anywhere in the
world. The content in this Web site was developed for the 2003 SARS
epidemic. But, some guidelines are still being used. Any new SARS
updates will be posted on this Web site.
No new updates have been posted to the CDC's page.
"Not only are we having to deal with the loss," Angela Copeland tells NewsOn6, "but we're having to deal with the battle to get him back home." Michael Copeland died June 9th. She tells Victoria Maranan (KXII -- link is video), "There is absolutely no excuse in this world that you could give me that could convince me why he should not be home." Jerry Wofford (Tulsa World) reports
on the case and quotes Oklahoma State Rep. Dustin Roberts stating,
"Michael David Copeland was a man who served our nation as a Marine and
our state as a National Guardsman, and his family deserves better than
this." Zach Maxwell (Durant Democrat) reports
this evening, "The family of Michael Copeland is still waiting for
answers more than 10 days after the former Marine and National Guardsman
passed away in Iraq."
Lara Jakes (AP) reports
Michael David Copelad's body is back in the US and that the long delay
resulted from disputes "over whether the Iraqi government would perform
the autopsy on his remains."
In Iraq, the
political crisis continues as efforts are pursued to question thug and
prime minister Nouri al-Maliki before Parliament and, if answers do not
reassure, move towards a vote to withdraw confidence in Nouri. Because
there is so much confusion in the press about what's required and what's
allowed, we'll note the following from Article 58 of the Iraqi Constitution:
Seventh: A.
The Council of Representatives member may direct questions to the Prime
Minister and the Ministers on any subject within their specialty and
they may answer the members' questions. The Member who has asked the
question solely has the right to comment on the answer. B. At
least twenty-five members of the Council of representatives may table a
general issue for discussion to obtain clarity on the policy and the
performance of the Cabinet or one of the Ministries. It must be
submitted to the President of the Council of Representatives, and the
Prime Minister or the Ministers shall specify a date to come before the
Council of Representatives to discuss it. C. A Council of
Representatives member with the agreement of twenty-five members may
direct a question to the Prime Minister or the Ministers to call them to
account on the issues within their authority. The discussion on the
question shall begin at least seven days after submitting the question. Eighth: A.
The Council of Representatives may withdraw confidence from one of the
Ministers by an absolute majority and he is considered resigned from the
date of the decision of confidence withdrawal. The issue of no
confidence in the Minister may be tabled only on that Minister's wish or
on a signed request of fifty members after an inquiry discussion
directed at him. The Council of Representatives shall not issue its
decision regarding the request except after at least seven days of its
submission. B. 1- The President of the Republic
may submit a request to the Council of Representatives to withdraw
confidence from the Prime Minister. 2- The Council of
Representatives may withdraw confidence from the Prime Minister based on
the request of one-fifth (1/5) of its members. This request may be
submitted only after a question has been put to the Prime Minister and
after at least seven days from submitting the request. 3- The
Council of Representatives shall decide to withdraw confidence from the
Prime Minister by an absolute majority of its members. C. The Government is considered resigned in case of withdrawal of confidence from the Prime Minister. D.
In case of a vote of withdrawal of confidence in the Cabinet as a
whole, the Prime Minister and the Ministers continue in their
positions to run everyday business for a period not to exceed thirty
days until a new cabinet is formed in accordance with the provisions of
article 73 of this constitution. As you can see from the
above, there really wasn't a requirement for Jalal Talabani to 'vet'
the petition he was given nor for X-number of signatures to be on it.
It had 176 but that wasn't good enough for President Jalal who stabbed
his partners (Moqtada al-Sadr, KRG President Massoud Barzani, Iraqiya's
Ayad Allawi, etc.) in the back. Last week, Mustafa Habib (Niqash) interviewed MP Diaa N. al-Asadi who heads Moqtada's bloc in Parliament. Excerpt:
NIQASH: So how did this initiative – to withdraw confidence from al-Maliki's regime – get started?
Al-Asadi:
A series of events. There were a lot of negative indicators regarding
the performance of the government; the Iraqi people went to protest on
the streets to demand reform and improved levels of services; those
demands were not politically driven.
Additionally
the government has not respected the Erbil agreement [formulated to end
a nine month dispute over who should run the government following 2010
elections] and they have caused political crises over [deputy PM] Saleh
al-Mutlaq and Vice President Tareq al-Hashimi. All of these factors have
combined to create a lot of pressure. There was an urgent need to find a
definitive solution.
NIQASH: Can you give us more details about this initiative to withdraw confidence?
Al-Asadi:
Other political parties – the Iraqiya bloc and the Kurdish bloc - came
to us, complaining about the way al-Maliki was governing. They felt that
al-Maliki was creating these crises and then resolving them in ways
that served only his interests.
We, the Sadrists, were already unhappy with him. And they asked us to take a patriotic stand.
That's
why Muqtada al-Sadr met with al-Maliki in Tehran, when al-Maliki was
there. We discussed with him what his version of the crises was and his
ideas on how to solve them.
But al-Sadr
also wanted to hear what other parties had to say. That's why he went to
Erbil to meet with Masoud al-Barzani, the president of [the
semi-autonomous region] Iraqi Kurdistan.
It
was at this stage that al-Sadr said he was for the use of constitution
and legislation [to get out of the political impasse]. The results of
that meeting in Erbil and of another in Najaf ended in a letter that was
sent to al-Maliki's office.
This letter
contained nine points, suggestions for the resolution of the political
crisis in Iraq. Seven of the nine points focused on reform and the other
two suggested a motion of no confidence was possible if the other seven
points were not dealt with, and if limits were not put on how long the
Iraqi prime minister could be in power. This letter was ignored by
al-Maliki's office.
Alsumaria reports
that Moqtada does not plan to question Nouri himself. That's not
surprising. Throughout this process, Moqtada has stated that if Nouri
would agree to return to the Erbil Agreement (contract between the
political blocs that the US government drew up with gave Nouri a second
term as prime minister -- despite his State of Law coming in second in
the 2010 elections -- in exchange for concessions from Nouri), they
would drop the move to vote him out of office. Moqtada has stated that
over and over. He's also stated that he plans to listen to the answers
Nouri provides to the Parliament (Nouri's refusing to appear so he may
not provide any answers) and then make up his mind on the vote. Who would question Nouri? Alsumaria reports
that the Kurdistan Alliance has five deputies prepared to question
Nouri before Parliament and the Kurds state they will not be silent even
in Nouri (appears before Parliament, faces questions) and manages to
stay in power. This is becoming a very big issue in the KRG and may
become a position of honor. Nouri became prime minister in 2006. The
Constitution -- Article 140 -- called for him to hold a referendum and
census for Kirkuk by the end of 2007. He refused. He still refuses.
The Kurds feel Kirkuk is their province and this is only one of the
many disputes between them and Nouri's Baghdad government. You've also
got the shrinking Jalal Talabani (his influence is on the wane at
present) and his disregarding the Kurdish hope of an independent Kurdish
homeland. So there are a lot of details at play as a confrontation
looms and a lot of tangled emotions can become vested in this move
towards no-confidence. Dar Addustour reports
the National Alliances Ibrahim al-Jaafari declared Nouri is not
planning to face Parliament and that he is questioning the process. (He
should refer to the Constitution.) Meanwhile Nouri's trying another
stalling technique. Al Rafidayn reports
that he's calling for a national dialogue. He only wants that when
he's in trouble, then when it's 'about to happen' or even scheduled, he
manages to subvert it as well. Kitabat reports Nouri's threatening to dissolve the Parliament and call for early elections.
Some
might see that as a good way to go and possibly it is. But there is a
potential negative side. Parliament gets dissolved and Nouri rules
through the next elections. The next elections would not be in a
matter of weeks. The KRG is currently working on their laws ahead of
the 2013 provincial election. This could take months and the KRG runs
smoother than any other part of Iraq. Meaning parlimentary elections
are scheduled for 2014. The Nouri al-Maliki who let over 8 months of
gridlock pass following the March 2010 elections isn't necessarily
someone who feels pressure to move in a speedy manner. He could easily
stall and delay it so that there are no elections until 2014 when they
ae scheduled to take place.
And?
If
Nouri dissoled the Parliament, who would act as a check on his power?
New elections might not come until 2014. During the time between that
and right now, Nouri would have no check on his power.
That's something for Iraqis to consider as they weigh what's going on.
It could get very hard to determine what's going on if Nouri is successful in attacking the media.
Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) quotes
Moqtada al-Sadr stating, "In our beloved Iraq, the government is always
interfering in the affairs of media outlets and tring to politicize
them." Saturday the Journalism Freedoms Observatory published an alert about a government list of 44 news outlets Nouri's government was planning to close. Ruchi Shroff (Digital Production) observes,
"Organizations targeted for shutdown reportedly include BBC, Voice of
America, U.S.-financed Radio Sawa, as well as privately-owned TV
channels Sharqiya and Baghdadia." AFP notes,
"Iraq regularly ranks near the bottom of global press freedom rankings.
It placed 152nd out of 179 countries in media rights watchdog Reporters
Without Borders' 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index, down 22 from the
year before." Kitabat notes
the Ministry of the Interior has rushed to distance itself from the
issue, declaring it had no issued the orders and that its role in
implementing them would be minimal. Today Alsumaria reports the commission says it is putting the list (temporarily) on hold. On hold. It's not been dropped.
Turning
to the US where Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes that proposed legislation
will be discussed in a hearing of the Committee tomorrow and that Murray
will discuss her bills to ensure equality for veterans the Mental
Health ACCESS bill and the Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act --
the latter will also be championed with testimony from Iraq War veteran
Matt Keil's wife Tracy Keil:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
TOMORROW: Spouse of Severely Wounded Veteran to Testify on VA's Fertility Services
At
a hearing on pending health and benefits legislation, Senator Murray
will discuss her Mental Health ACCESS bill and Women Veterans Health
Care Improvement Act
(Washington,
D.C.) – Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 27, 2012, U.S. Senator Patty Murray,
Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will chair a hearing
to examine health and benefits legislation pending before the
Committee. At the hearing, Tracy Keil, the spouse of a severely wounded OIF veteran will discuss her family's experience with VA's fertility services.
Veterans who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and
spinal cord injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and
procedures like IVF to conceive. However, under current law, IVF is
expressly excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA
to veterans or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for
veterans with SCI and genital and urinary tract injuries and as a result
they have to seek care outside of the VA. Senator Murray's Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvements Act of 2012 ,
which she introduced last week, would expand fertility treatment and
care for seriously wounded veterans, their spouses, and surrogates.
In addition, Senator Murray will discuss her new servicemembers and veterans mental health legislation, the Mental Health ACCESS Act of 2012,
S. 3340. Vets First will testify on the Mental Health ACCESS Act of
2012, which Senator Murray introduced yesterday. Six other Senators are
expected to appear in support of their legislation, including Senators
Ayotte, Boxer, Franken, Heller, Wyden, and Portman. VA and stakeholder
groups will provide their views on the legislation as well. View the
full agenda for tomorrow's hearing below.
| 
