Friday, January 13, 2012, Chaos and violence continue, Iraq arrests 4 American citizens, Nouri unleashes the crazy on the Turkish Prime Minister, Joe Biden and Barack Obama both speak to the Turkish Prime Minister (Recep Tayyip Erdogan) like embarrassed parents attempting to smooth things over, Nouri finally decides that the pilgrimage that's been going on for a week now might need extra security protection, Saleh al-Mutlaq calls for Nouri to step down, and more.
The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War have produced many veterans. Many services are needed, many resources are overtaxed.
In San Diego a vacant building could house close to fifty veterans. KGTV's 10 News reports, "Dr. Robert Smith presented the plan which he said is particularly necessary in the San Diego area as it has the largest population of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the nation at 28,000." But the psychiatric facility found objection at the Mission Hillas Town Council hearing by some parents who say that a school across the street from the vacant building means children could be at risk. Jeanette Steele (San Diego Union-Tribune) adds "neighbors are wary, saying it's not a 'vets versus kids' equation. They ay it's a great facility but there must be better places to put it in sprawling San Diego." If they're worried about danger to the kids, a vacant building in a city, as a general rule, tends to attract more problems than an occupied building. That's drug use and drug dealing, that's a safety hazard for children (who naturally enjoy exploring and may enter a vacant building) and so much more. The facility would be a medical one. There's no guarantee that it would be any more safe than any other medical facility, or any less safe. There are many reasons to oppose a new facility -- veterans or otherwise -- coming into a neighborhood but one that would fill a building that now stands empty? Ex-Navy nurse Mary Rushton is quoted stating, "When these veterans fail the program and are asked to leave, that's the end of the VA's responsibility. Who knows what could happen? From not controlling their emotions and reactions, things along those lines. I don't think these kids need to see anything." And what's really sad is that's from a former Navy nurse. The government sent people to war, there's no need to hdie that reality from children. Are they at risk? By the nurse's argument everyon across the country is at risk. I believe schools are supposted to have their own safety procedures. Does she not trust the school? We know she doesn't trust the veteran. In the comments, Tikvah Organics' owner Cyndi Norwitz makes this point:
Unbelievable. There are children in every neighborhood, so are these people in opposition saying these vets aren't welcome anywhere? There are schools in most neighborhoods too. As for being across the street from a school, that seems ideal to me. When school is in session (plus the hours before and after), the place is swarming with staff. What could be safer than that? My daughter's in first grade and I would have no problem with a center like this being across the street from her school
Hugh Lessig (Virginia's Daily Press) reports on Hampton Veterans Administration Medical Center's program which issues housing vouchers to veterans in need: "The bad news? Business is bomming here in Hampton Roads" and the veteran population they served used to trend to 40 to 60 years old but is now starting to decrease in age to their 20s and 30s. Meanwhile in Illinois, homeless veterans continue to increase in numbers. Susan Frick Carlman (Naperville Sun) reports the Midwest Shelter for Homeless Veterans needs to open a second home and raised the issue at a town hall. US Senator Dick Durbin offered a non-reassuring, "I've got to look for new ways to help you, and if I can, I'll find some. If you've got the dedicated volunteers and professionals to make it work, it's a heck of an investment." If San Diego is the norm 9i hope it's not), then, should money be found, the shelter would next face the issue of finding a location that didn't have all the neighbors clutching the pearls.
Finding the money should be easy, after all the government's worked so very hard to refuse to give veterans the proper disability rating to save money (and cheat veterans). But sometimes veterans win in spite of it all. Michael Doyle (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "After three years of legal maneuvering, a federal judge in late December quietly approved the settlement that covers [Iraq War veteran Chris] Crotte and about 2,100 other veterans who've been medically discharged since 2002 with post-traumatic stress disorder. Under the settlement, one of several similar efforts now under way, affected veterans discharged with PTSD will get better benefits, including lifetime health care and post-exchange privileges. The affected veterans had been discharged with disability ratings that were way too low to receive such benefits." On the subject of PTSD, the University of California San Francisco's Steve Tokar reports of a new study on women veterans and PTSD:
Women who served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and Afghanistan were involved in combat at significantly higher rates than in previous conflicts, and screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder at the same rate as men, according to a study led by researchers at the San Francisco VA Medical Center and the University of California, San Francisco.
"While women technically are not supposed to serve in direct combat, this research demonstrates that, in reality, they are experiencing combat at a higher rate than we had assumed," said lead author Shira Maguen, PhD, a clinical psychologist at SFVAMC and an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at UCSF. "At the same time, it shows that men and women really don't differ in how they react to the stresses of combat."
Women in the U.S. military gradually have been integrated into combat roles since the early 1990s, and today comprise about 14 percent of Americans serving in uniform. Of roughly 2.2 million troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 255,000 have been women, according to the Pentagon. Under current U.S Army rules, women are not officially assigned to units whose primary mission is direct combat on the ground, but can be assigned to other roles in combat zones.
The study of 7,251 active-duty soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is the first study, the authors say, to include gender as a variable in examining responses to four combat-associated traumatic experiences: killing, witnessing someone being killed, exposure to death (seeing dead soldiers or civilians) and injury.
Earlier this week, Laura Unger (Lousiville Courier Journal) observed that "almost 15 percent of today's active-duty troops are women;" however, health service for women continue to lag. For example, "VA hospitals don't provide obstetrics, for example, and most don't offer mammograms on-site. Medical centers on U.S. military bases, meanwhile, transfer women to civilian doctors for certain high-level care." In addition women who serve often face what H. Patricia Hynes (Truthout) calls another battlefield:
These same women have found themselves, concurrently, caught in a second, more damaging war - a private, preemptive one in the barracks. As one female soldier put it, "They basically assume that because you are a girl in the Army, you're obligated to have sex with them." Resisting sexual assault in the barracks spills over to the battlefield, according to many women veterans, in the form of relentless verbal sexual harassment, punitive high-risk assignments and the morbid sense that your back is not being watched.
The double trauma of war and sexual assault by "brothers-in-arms" within a culture of impunity for perpetrators may explain why a 2008 RAND Corporation study  "found that female veterans are suffering double the rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD] than their male counterparts." Patricia Resick, a psychiatrist who researches PTSD in women for the Veterans Administration (VA), asserts "sexual trauma is a more significant risk factor for PTSD than combat or the types of trauma that men generally experience." Resick adds that sexual trauma, unlike combat trauma, is caused by people who are supposed to bond with you and protect you, and that betrayal by those you need to trust with your life deepens the harm.
Military sexual trauma (sometimes referred to as MST) is so extreme that it is even more likely to cause PTSD in women than civilian sexual trauma - because of military culture.
Many veterans and contractors also suffering from exposure to burn pits. For some the exposure has cost their lives. Next next month, the first ever scientific symposium will be held in New York.
In other veterans news, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) has taken up the cause of Cpl Jesse Thorsen who is facing reprimand for sharing the stage, in uniform, with US House Rep Ron Paul in Iowa.
The War Party's lynch mob was out for Thorsen's hide the very next day, with
Democratic party shill Paul Rieckhoff, head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America, declaring:
"Our troops are many things to many people. Heroes, parents, diplomats,
victims, villains, victors. But as the GOP Primary races roll through New
Hampshire this week, there is one thing that all of America must understand
they're not: political props.
And that's not just my opinion, it's the law.
"This is why so many of us in the military and veterans community were
so shocked and outraged last Tuesday night when we saw Corporal Jesse
Thorsen step up to the microphone in uniform and
endorse Ron Paul for President. We know the law -- the military law
under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). We know Article 88
of UCMJ prohibits contemptuous speech by commissioned officers against
the President and certain elected officials at penalty of court-martial."
Rieckhoff is off his rocker: the section of the complicated and often
contradictory regulations being invoked against Thorsen has nothing to do
with "contemptuous speech," but with engaging in partisan political activity
while in uniform. Here is what Thorsen had to say at the Paul rally: do you
hear any "contemptuous speech" in these remarks? I thought not. However,
if you're a Democratic party operative like Rieckhoff -- who has served as
an official party spokesman – you do indeed hear "contemptuous speech" in
Thorsen's condemnation of President Obama's foreign policy. CNN did an
interview with Thorsen earlier, but cut him off when he started to talk about
how our interventionist foreign policy is opposed by most soldiers -- which is
why Paul has garnered more donations from military personnel than all other
In Iraq, Al Mada reported this morning that 4 Americans -- 2 men, 2 women -- have been arrested in Iraq. They were carrying weapons according to the governor of Baghad, Salah Abdul Razak. They were in a BMW which was stopped at a checkpoint and they were discovered with weapons. They displayed some form of identity badges but they were arrested and our in police custody with the Sixth Brigade conducting the investigation. Alsumaria TV quotes the governor stating:
The four Americans were arrested in a popular residential area that doesn't include vital sites. Detainees testified in preliminary investigations that they were ensuring the region's security. [. . .] Security forces could have shot them for penetrating the area without the consent or knowledge of authorities. There are strict orders to shoot any person that penetrates the area without the consent of operations' command. [. . .] Iraq's security is an internal affair that doesn't concern Americans even if they were intelligence members.
Despite the fact that this news, via the Al Mada story, was up, in English, at The Common Ills before 8:00 am EST, no one asked about it at the State Dept press briefing. Despite the fact that many of the reporters attending the State Dept press briefings read Arabic, no one asked about it. Despite the fact that foreign press attends the State Dept press briefings, no one asked about it. And the New York Times didn't report it.
And the history books forgot about us
And the Bible didn't mention us
And the Bible didn't mention us
Not even once
You are my sweetest downfall
I loved you first, I loved you first
Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) states, "Expect a lot of more of these kinds of incidents in the coming days. While there hasn't been much coverage of the incident in English, it's being heavily covered in the Arab and Iraqi media. Arresting and exposing American operatives in Iraq is going to be politically popular and the local media will eat it up. A lot of ambitious political forces might find it useful to be seen on TV arresting an armed American. Armed Americans traveling around Iraq, whether security contractors or intelligence operatives, are going to be an endless source of potential crisis."
In Iraq, the political crisis continues. Nouri started it and now he wants to expand it, apparently, to go beyond Iraq's borders. How else to explain his attacks today on the Prime Minister of Turkey? Today's Zaman reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has harshly criticized Turkey for its what he said 'surprise interference' in his country's internal affair, claiming that Turkey's role could bring disaster and civil war to the region -- something Turkey will itself suffer." Interfere? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has cautioned that the political crisis could lead to a civil war in Iraq and has called on parties to start a real dialogue to resolve the issues. That's really not "interfering." But what has Nouri so ticked off is that Erdogan also stated the very plain fact that Nouri started the political crisis. It's a fact, Nouri doesn't like facts, but that doesn't change the status. AFP quotes Nouri stating, "Recently, we noticed their surprise interventions with statements, as if Iraq is controlled or run by them. Their latest statements interfered in domestic Iraqi affairs . . . and we do not allow that absolutely. If it is acceptable to talk about our judicial authority, then we can talk about theirs, and if they talk about our disputes, we can talk about theirs. Turkey is playing a role that might bring disaster and civil war to the region, and Turkey itself will suffer because it has different sects and ethnicities." It's always funny when Nouri unleashes his crazy in public. That was what bothered the French government the most about the White House backing Nouri in 2010, that Nouri was clearly unstable and that's who Barack wanted to rule Iraq? Crazy Nouri. KUNA reports Nouri and Erdogan were on the phone Thursday discussing the situation in Iraq. And now, today, Nouri's parading the crazy. At this rate, the bullet to the head so many observers feel is in Nouri's immediate future just may come from his own gun.
While Nouri was showing the world how unhinged he is, the Turkish Press reports that Erdogan was speaking on the phone with US Vice President Joe Biden about Iraq: "Reportedly, Erdogan said to Biden that if Iraq distances itself from the culture of democracy, efforts previously exerted for peace and stability will be wasted. Sources added that Erdogan and Biden also indicated that authoritarian and sectarian policies will never benefit Iraq and that Turkey and the US consider benefit in holding dialogue and consultations regarding the developments in Iraq." In addition, Erdogan spoke with President Barack Obama. The White House issued the following today:
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 13, 2012
Readout of the President's Call with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey
President Obama and Prime Minister Erdogan spoke by telephone today about issues related to democracy, security and development in the Middle East and North Africa region; this was their first conversation in the New Year. The two leaders discussed recent developments in Iraq and their continued support for an inclusive, partnership government that brings stability, democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people. They agreed that the U.S. and Turkey should continue to support the legitimate demands for democracy for the Syrian people and condemned the brutal action of the Assad regime. The two leaders discussed Iran's nuclear program and how Iran should engage with the international community in this regard. They agreed that U.S. and Turkish teams would remain in close contact on ways that Turkey and the U.S. can support the democratic transitions underway in the Middle East and North Africa.
Poor Nouri. UPI reports Iraqiya spokesperson Haidar al-Mulla declared today no national conference "can take place so long as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki remains in power". Al Mada reports that the expanded meeting (not the national conference) is set for this Sunday. This follows the meet-up Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had this week. The three are scheduled to attend the Sunday meet-up along with heads of the main political blocs. Whether a national conference follows after that is open to debate. Al Mada also reports that the National Alliance has demands for attending any national conference and they include that the meet-up takes place in Baghdad and that "no Saddamists or terrorists" be invited. Following up on that thread of insults, Al Rafidayn reports that Yusuf Qaradawi, head of the International Association of Muslim Scholars, now stands accused of being an agent of Israel and the United States. Alsumaria TV notes that debate continues on where the national conference would be held (KRG President Massoud Barzani will not attend if it's held in Baghdad). And Barazani is now saying -- from scrawl on Alsumaria website -- that he won't attend any national conference if the Erbil Agreement is not implemented. Continuing his surprising recent pattern of 'elder statesman,' Moqtada al-Sadr continues to talk like a leader. Alsumaria TV reports he is calling on everyone to stay calm and not let differences tear the country apart.
Nouri kicked off the political crisis last month by targeting Iraqiya. Among other things, he wants Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his office and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi arrested. Adam Schreck (AP) reports that al-Mutlaq declared in an interview today that Nouri needs to resign. He fails to quote Saleh al-Mutlaq directly. Considering that these type of interviews lead to endless charges by politicians in Iraq, Schreck needed to quote al-Mutlaq word for word. He didn't. And the confused don't just include Iraqis, they include AP staff. It was really embarrassing for the AP today at the State Dept press breifing to try to ask a question about the interview when the reporter (for AP) was unsure of what AP was stating al-Mutlaq had said. From the State Dept's official transcript (link is text with video option, press briefing was conducted by spokesperson Victoria Nuland):
QUESTION: We have an interview with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister al-Mutlaq today, where he calls Prime Minister Maliki a tyrant or something. I think it was a dictator, and he talks about getting (inaudible) of Iraq. Do you have a comment on that?
MS. NULAND: We saw the interview, obviously. What we are continuing to do, as we've said a number of times in the last few days, is to impress upon senior Iraqi politicians the importance of direct dialogue with each other to resolve their differences and to work towards a solution that represents the interests of all Iraqis for an inclusive government and that's within the Iraqi constitution. We don't think it's helpful for Iraqi politicians to be hashing out their differences in the media. We'd much rather see them sit down together. In that regard, we are encouraged that Prime Minister Maliki, President Talabani, Speaker Nujaifi have all begun a process of working out the parameters for a national conference that will focus on a political solution that represents the interests of all Iraqis. That's something that we support. As you may know, Deputy Secretary Burns arrived in Iraq this evening and will have consultations with a broad cross-section of Iraqi leaders tomorrow.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a quick follow-up?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any expectation of when this conference might finally take place, and would the U.S. participate in some way either as an observer or as a monitor or facilitator to this?
MS. NULAND: Well, certainly, on the latter point, our goal is for Iraqis to talk to each other. There's no expectation that we would be in the room for that. That said, we have encouraged all parties to get to the table. With regard to the timing, I think that's exactly the kind of thing that the Iraqis are trying to hash out now.
Niqash interviews Tareq al-Hashemi:
NIQASH: In terms of the charges of terrorism against you, you have always insisted upon your innocence. But if that is so, then why did you leave Baghdad and why don't you return there?
Tariq al-Hashimi: I left Baghdad on Dec. 17 so I had left the city before the testimonies of my guards [against me] were broadcast on TV. I came to Sulaymaniyah after an official invitation was extended to me on Dec. 15 by His Excellency, the President of the Republic [Kurdish politician Jalal Talabani]. The invitation was extended to me and my colleague Khodair al-Khozaei [also a vice president] in order for us to attend the presidency's council meeting.
NIQASH: So you're saying you were not trying to escape the arrest warrant?
Al-Hashimi: No, I did not run away. I am confident that the judiciary and the Iraqi courts will uphold my name and reputation in due course.
NIQASH: So why don't you just return to Baghdad?
Al-Hashimi: Because I don't trust the judiciary in Baghdad. This is why I officially requested that the government transfer my trial to Kirkuk. This is a legitimate request under Article 55, which gives the defendant the right to request a change of location for a trial.
Meanwhile Sami Moubayed (Asia Times) weighs in on the crisis and possible motivations:
A closer look at Hashemi's arrest warrant shows that Maliki's move had little to do with Hashemi himself. Although the aging statesmen has been a headache for Maliki's coalition in recent years, his mischief was always "controllable" as the man threatened to walk out on cabinets over and over - but never took the bold move.
He does not command a militia that roams the streets, has not been convicted of any treason and certainly is not "Saudi Arabia's number one" in Iraqi politics.
The charge brought against him is of operating a militia in the post-2003 order that is accused of killing political opponents. Big deal - by Iraqi standards. If Maliki wanted to go by an anti-militia yardstick, then he would have to arrest his prime allies Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Ammar al-Hakim, who respectively run the Mehdi Army and Badr Brigade, two Iran-affiliated military groups.
Hashemi's warrant, pretty much as he has been saying all along, is 100% political, aimed at arm-twisting and scaring the Sunni community at large, which he represents.
Maliki is worried that the Arab Spring will soon reach Baghdad, now that the Americans have left, only this time it won't be society at large rising against an aging despot; it will be the Sunni minority that ruled Iraq since creation of the modern country in the 1920s, against the Shi'ite majority that came into power after the 2003 toppling of Saddam.
In other news, Al Mada reports that MP Rafi Abd al-Jabbar (Sadr bloc) is objecting to the continued presence of the (US) CIA in Iraq, stating it undermines Iraqi sovereignty and continues the US occupation. And Press TV reports this morning that 35,000 security forces are now being deployed to protect the pilgrims. The question is, since Arbaeen ends tomorrow, and since the pilgrims have been attacked since last weekend, why, only now, are these 35,000 being deployed? Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) report, "Iraq's Shiite-led government took unprecedented security measures Friday to protect Shiite Muslim pilgrims observing the high point of a religious occasion from attacks by extremists. Meanwhile, car bombs targeted officials in the polarized and volatile northern city of Kirkuk." The two car bombs left twenty-six people injured. In addition, Reuters notes a Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life, a Mosul suicide bomber took his own life and left two police officers injured (two suspects were killed in the assault as well), a Hamman al-Alil roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left another injured, a Baquba roadside bombing injured three Iraqi soldiers and 1 corpse was discovered in Khanaqin.
the louisville courier journal
h. patricia hynes
the asia times
the wall st. journal
last night on abc, the latest episode of 'revenge' aired.
emily (really amanda) went to a bookstore in the hamptons with nolan (the only 1 among the regulars who knows she's amanda, he was friends with her father who was the only 1 who ever believed in nolan). a trashy book author was speaking. think any of the docker boys of the new york times.
and he was speaking about the best selling book he wrote over a decade prior about amanda's father, where he said the man was crazy and a cold blooded killer who plotted the downing of an airplane.
victoria grayson (madeline stowe) was present, of course. she and the author were friends, of course. emily and nolan went up to the author after his talk and victoria had to pretend to be thrilled. emily told the author she now lived in the home of david and amanda and introduced nolan whom the author was (a) a whore for due to nolan's well known name and riches (nolan's a computer genuis whose made millions and on forbes top 100 richest) and (b) obviously sexually attracted to nolan who gave a flirt back and hasn't been with anyone on the show except crazy tyler who apparently was taken off by his brother after last week's episode where he beat nolan and tied him up then pulled a gun on emily, victoria, amanda and the rest at daniel's birthday.
victoria was against using her son to get back at her husband conrad in their divorce proceedings. or at least she gave token verbal resistance. she quickly agreed with her lawyer that with the shares of grayson she should control and the 1s daniel would control if they could get conrad to re-instate the trust, victoria would be able to force conrad out of the company. and do what? i've seen no indication that victoria could or even would want to run the investment company.
and daniel's an idiot. so he couldn't run it. in fact, he's so busy trying to work at the company that, we learned in the beach house on the grayson manor, he hasn't had time to shave his chest.
that's not me saying he should shave it. that's me noting that his pathetic plucked chicken look is even more no more. (i've noticed regrowth in another episode.)
why's he there and not at emily's? he moved out on emily. oh, wimp boy still loves her. but since tyler pulled the gun, now victoria's scared and since tyler no longer lives in the beach house, victoria's all alone now. emily told him he only had 1 mother and he moved back. such a little bitch (daniel). (p.s. i really got the vibe from daniel that he wasn't surprised in tyler's last episode when ty came on to him. i wasn't surprised daniel wasn't surprised.)
daniel meets with conrad and i'm condensing scenes into 1. so conrad agrees that daniel's trust should be reinstated since he's working for the company. (it was stopped when daniel 1st started seeing emily, the 2 of them went to visit the girl who daniel ran over the previous summer when he was drunk and when he refused to work for the family business. that's when daniel briefly went to work as a bartender at jack's bar.) but conrad tells his attorney he's thinking victoria's behind it. he can't not reinstate it or daniel's loyalty goes to victoria (it's already there, conrad just doesn't know). so they'll reinstate the money but he won't get control of his stocks until he turns 30 or marries.
or marries? his attorney asks. isn't daniel getting serious with emily?
conrad makes some dismissive comments that (a) really make you hate conrad and (b) remind you that he and victoria set up david green to take the fall.
victoria finds out and (a) uses ashley and (b) goes to her attorney.
starting with (b) in case you don't know or have forgotten, her attorney was, years ago, supposed to help david green but didn't. as a result he made emily's list. and she blackmailed him long ago. i believe that's why he's working for victoria now. he's faked a pregnancy from years ago (victoria's pregnancy) to say that when she married conrad she was already pregnant and that, therefore, she was signing the prenup under duress (the judge has agreed). i think all of his 'help' is part of emily's scheme to get back at victoria and conrad.
so victoria tells him it didn't work and what conrad did and he tells her that daniel needs to marry emily. when victoria objects that she won't let her son marry some 1 she doesn't trust, he says that he didn't say it had to be a long marriage.
ashley was supposed to be victoria's friend. but she's always had more resentment than beauty. (and she's a very beautiful woman.) even in the days when she seemed nice, you could see the resentment peeking out. for a brief moment, she thought she and ty were going to be happy and become rich and then she caught him kissing nolan and, even though he explained it away, that's where her life falls apart.
now she's just desperate to kiss (her employer) victoria's ass. so victoria gets her to tell emily about daniel's trust with the plan being (and ashley knows this) that they hope to make emily doubt that daniel really loves her so that if he proposes she'll think it's just for the trust.
considering that emily was ashley's only real friend, this was a trashy thing to do. (but remember how tyler would trash emily and daniel to ashley and, in the later episodes, ashley would start to agree?)
declan is jack's brother. declan is dating charlotte (victoria & conrad's daughter). he gets a day off from the bar to go visit her school with her (she's got to set up her classes for the fall) and she's going on about how it's going to be so tough (her schedule) and how she's got to read 'paradise lost' and she's got to take tennis and blah blah. and declan says she wasn't kidding when she said they might not see each other until christmas and she says that's true unless she goes to europe on some project. and so declan tells here he doesn't want to be a things-to-do on her list.
and his feelings are hurt. and later on, back in the hamptons, she visits him (he lives over the bar with jack) and he's asleep. she picks the book he fell asleep reading - 'paradise lost' - and picks up the cliff notes and kisses him on the forehead and walks out.
but hold on for explosive news at the very end on charlotte.
so that's the episode except for emily, nolan, jack and amanda.
amanda remains jealous of emily. that never makes sense to me. i think they slept together in juvie. amanda went wild at the bar - over jack's objections - kissing a woman and hopping on the bar with two bottles and selling shots and acting like jack's bar was coyote ugly. at the end he agreed to take her to atlantic city (which is what she wanted at the start of the episode). she was happy.
nolan knows emily is really amanda green. 'amanda' knows 'emily' is really amanda green because they were in juvie together and then decided to change names.
that was part of the scheme to get back at the people who framed her father for terrorism.
amanda's crazy (i'm talking about really emily now but i think you know that) and killed victoria's bodyguard/henchman/boyfriend when he came sniffing around the strip club she used to work at. (and emily planted the bodyguard's phone on tyler before the police showed up so now every 1 thinks tyler killed him.)
so amanda's just thrilled to be pretending to be amanda green. sometimes jack can sort of realize that she's very different from the little girl he loved as a boy. (i feel sorry for jack and don't see how this ends happy for him. even if amanda doesn't go nuts on him, at some point he does find out the truth and there's no forgiveness there. he won't forgive emily because he's only with amanda right now because he thinks she's the little girl he grew up with.)
the trashy author shows up at the bar - sent there by victoria to find out what amanda's up to (though victoria doesn't like amanda, she doesn't even get that it's not really amanda, she's very self-involved, isn't she?). (and don't give me, 'she was a little girl and victoria didn't even really know her when victoria was sleeping with david green!' why? you'll see at the end, just hold on.)
so the author is surprised amanda doesn't recognize him.
she bluffs and pulls it off, getting him to reveal who he is and how they know each other (remember, she's never seen him before).
when david green was (falsely) convicted, he contacted the author (a journalist) because he thought he'd tell the truth. so he gave him all these hours and hours of exchanges (which the author taped on video) and all this access, including apparently permission to speak with the young amanda.
in the flashbacks and in the videos, we see david really trusted this man and thought he would break the true story in the newspaper.
we see little amanda in flashbacks too but let's jump back to where amanda is emily.
emily and nolan go to visit the author. he's a luddite.
he is pompous and shows them around his home. in a glass cabinet he has all these videotapes of david green and other people he's written of, interviews and interviews. and he shows them the typewriter he uses. and does a little dig at nolan about how he just gets up when he doesn't know a word and looks it up. (a dig at computers and spell check.) he's working on his memoirs. the david green book is his most famous book but he's written other best sellers after (apparently) and is now writing his memoir so he wants to talk to amanda so he can update her story.
he shows them his memoir thus far. a big manuscript. remember, it's not saved on computer because he writes it on the typewrite and emily and nolan exchange a look upon learning it's his only copy. they exchange looks throughout and it's rather obvious but i guess the journalist wasn't very smart.
so emily gets amanda to go the author's place and nolan rigs it so that amanda's got an ear piece and emily can tell her what to say.
that way amanda's able to convincly pretend to be amanda and she tells him he better get honest at victoria's party that afternoon or prepare to pay.
at the party, he makes this statement about how he could have been wrong about david green so he searched his heart and soul and ... turns out he wasn't.
nolan's pissed that he didn't get honest. emily knew he wouldn't.
now i'm talking about the flashbacks emily had to when she was little amanda.
the author came to visit her. he won her trust and she told him she believes her father is innocent but she has to say he's guilty in there (juvie) or they'll put her away for good. she showed him the photo the authorities didn't know she had that she hides.
and i'm leaving the recap of the latest episode for just a second. conrad and victoria controlled what happened to amanda. the social worker was some 1 victoria bribed and turned into a world famous celebrity in exchange for the social worker attacking amanda and telling her that her father was guilty and terrorizing the little girl. emily got even with her in an earlier episode and may have killed her (some 1 killed her). but the point is, as amanda, she suffered all these things that were not typical of juvie or foster homes. and the reason because the graysons wanted to destroy her.
back to the episode. so the author promises her that with her help, he is going to prove her father david green is innocent.
but he goes on to write a book that says david was guilty. and we see little amanda with the book and she's crying and she gets the picture of her father that she's hidden and burns it.
the author - in modern time - is spooked by amanda's threat of how he'd better get honest. he goes to victoria and tells her that if it ever comes out that david green was innocent (he's dead now), the author's reputation will be in ruins. victoria assures him that will never happen.
a flashback to how they met. he came to visit victoria. he tells her that david told him about their affair. and conrad walks in and tells him david's a liar and get out and blah, blah, blah. and the then-journalist nods and rises. he says it's not over. he tells them that he will write the story and prove david is innocent and they can't stop him, in fact there's nothing they can do to him because he has nothing to take away and he is in debt.
conrad just rolls his eyes but victoria gets what he's saying - he wants to sell david out for money. and he does when the offer is made.
nolan takes the author out on a date as arranged.
emily breaks into the house as planned. she breaks into the glass cabinet and grabs all the videotapes. she then puts a lit cigarette on the mansuscript (the author is a smoker). she walks out as the whole thing goes up in flames.
nolan's taking the author back and the author's babbling on when they see the house up in flames. the author gets out of the car and falls to the ground wailing about his house and his manuscript (remember, no copy of it), all gone.
emily's back at her beach house and watching the videos. seeing her father touches her. but she's surprised along with the audience by 1 tape.
the author tells david he wanted to help him but victoria denies the affair.
but the letter, david says, they have that letter from victoria.
it's not signed, the author insists. (and apparently typed if they're not going to try to prove it was her handwriting.)
so there's nothing they can do to prove any of david's story. it's going to look like david lied.
well, david says, there is 1 other way to prove the affair.
the author is interested.
charlotte isn't conrad's daughter. charlotte is david's daughter. victoria got pregnant during her affair with david.
and that's the end of the great episode.
i love 'revenge'!
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Despite the President's new-found populism - rhetorically, anyway - officials in his Administration continue to push an unfair deal designed to conceal the financial Crime of the Century.
The Financial Times reported on new details of the proposed settlement, whose stated purpose is to punish banks and reduce the amount of money owed by underwater homeowners. But it's increasingly clear that the deal wouldn't help homeowners very much and wouldn't punish bankers at all.
Banks could lower those loan balances by reducing the amount owed on mortgages owned by investors and not by the bank itself. That's what Bank of America is accused of doing as part of an $8 billion settlement it reached in 2008. This deal would set the stage for a repeat performance.
This proposed deal is still unfair, unjust, and very unbalanced. And it has the Administration's fingerprints all over it.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Kurds say "no" to Nouri, the political crisis continues, the US comes off disinterested, a mayor is assassinated in Iraq, and more.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, burn pits have been used. This means all the waste -- including medical -- is burned in an open area. Many US service members and contractors were exposed to these leading to respiratory illnesses and worse. In 2009, the practice was finally banned by the US government. Sadly, neither the war in Iraq nor the war in Afghanistan began in 2009. Many service members and contractors suffer from exposure to burn pits. Next month, the first ever scientific symposium will be held in New York.
We will note that again (probably in several snapshots). Any typos in the above are mine. That was sent to me in a PDF last month. I did two or three lines on it and said we'd note it in full (when I had time to convert the file, print it and then type it up). I completely forgot and they're so kind they're not one of the ones who ever send a reminder. (Some people e-mail you something they want highlighted at 10:20 a.m. And then e-mail you an hour later and an hour later and an hour later and hour later . . .) My sincere apologies for forgetting about it.
And the burn pits cause damage to those breathing in the chemicals. Other damage is unknown. But improperly disposing of chemical waste, for example, has led to the increased cancer risks at Camp Lejeune. That's an issue many work on but Senator Richard Burr -- Ranking Member on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- has long highlighted. He and Senator Kay Hagan introduced the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act of 211 which won the unanimous support of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee but has not had a floor vote. US House Rep Brad Miller has a similar measure in the House of Representatives. Former US Senator Elizabeth Dole (Raleigh-Durham News & Observer) addressed the issue yesterday:
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fought to expose the facts about the Camp Lejeune water contamination and to expedite notification to all potential victims. My legislation requiring the Pentagon to provide such direct notification through a registry was signed into law. The Corps, however, has not utilized the registry to directly inform military families about the EPA's determination.
The provision of medical care for the people made ill by the contaminants in the installation's drinking water must now be addressed through the legislative process. The cost of that care may eventually be high in terms of dollars. We must, nevertheless, meet our nation's ethical and moral responsibilities.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., are to be commended for their sponsorship of legislation that would provide medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs for individuals who suffer from one or more of these cancers or other health effects and who are known to have served or lived at Camp Lejeune during the years in question. Passage of their legislation and its enactment into law are the necessary next steps.
Former US Senator Evan Bayh repeatedly attempted to create a national Burn Pit Registry with no success. Maybe now that the Senate's chief objector to the registry is set to leave at the end of the year (Jim Webb -- who also objected to the Agent Orange benefits the VA created), it can be championed again and this time passed?
Camp Lejuene should make you wonder what the effects from these burn pits will be on Iraqis in the future? (As well as the people of Afghanistan, but our focus is Iraq.) And don't expect the US government to make public any risk assessment they've carried out or might carry out in the future as well as the effects from the depleted uranium and white phosophorus used in the second 2004 assault (November) on Falluja. Last week Dahr Jamail reported for Al Jazeera from Falluja and noted the huge increase in birth defects and there has been "a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer" since the second assault. Dahr shares:
Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.
Abdul has trouble controlling his muscles, struggles to walk, cannot control his bladder, and weakens easily. Doctors told his father, Mohamed Jaleel Abdul Rahim, that his son has severe nervous system problems, and could develop fluid build-up in his brain as he ages, which could prove fatal.
"This is the first instance of something like this in all our family," Rahim told Al Jazeera. "We lived in an area that was heavily bombed by the Americans in 2004, and a missile landed right in front of our home. What else could cause these health problems besides this?"
John Glaser (Antiwar.com) adds, "Antiwar.com columnist Kelley B. Vlahos wrote a brilliant piece in April 2011 in The American Conservative cataloguing the scientific support behind the conclusion that this ongoing suffering in Fallujah is caused by the U.S. weapons used in America's siege of the city in 2004."
Thomas Seiberg (The National) reports, "Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish prime miniser has started a bid to end the power struggle in Iraq, warning that religious strife had turned the neighbouring country into a 'sea of blood'. Mr Erdogan was scheduled to talk to Nouri Al Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, by telephone yesterday. There was no word on whether a statement would be released afterwards." Today's Zaman adds, "In a telephone conversation late on Tuesday, Erdogan told Maliki that transformation of mistrust into animosity toward a coalition partner will negatively affect democracy in Iraq, a veiled warning to the Iraqi prime minister that his latest arrest warrant for Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi is a blow to democracy in the war-torn country." Hurriyet Daily News reports on a speech Erdogan gave Tuesday "to his party's parliamentary group" in which he alluded to Nouri al-Maliki, "Without naming him directly, Erdoğan slammed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, saying 'a positive outcome cannot be expected from a mindset which is sending tanks to besiege the homes of ministers from his own coalition'." Nouri started that as soon as he returned to Iraq after his meet up with Barack Obama in DC. Saturday, December 17th, Liz Sly (Washington Post) reported, "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." Nouri received praise yesterday as well, Al Mada reports. The militant group Army of the Mujahideen declared support for Nouri and his efforts to form a "single and unified Iraq" . . and that they claimed that they had been behind the rocket attack on the Green Zone ceremony celebrating the creation of the Iraqi Army.
Iraq's political crisis continues. Al Mada notes that President Jalal Talabani has called for a meeting next week for a 'wider' conference and that he had a meeting yesterday with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Nouri. Al Sabaah states that KRG President Massoud Barzani has stated he will not attend but will send an emissary to the conference and that US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey has praised the efforts of Talabani to start a national dialogue. But, Al Mada adds, if the conference were held in the KRG, Barzani would attend and that his office is stating any national meet-up should be in a mutually agreed upon location. Supposedly, later this year, the Arab Summit will take place in Baghdad. This summit has been repeatedly postponed due to safety concerns. Safety concerns might be among the reasons that Barzani feels the meet-up should be held in the KRG. Safety concerns might include that another of Nouri's supporters might rocket attack the Green Zones. Dar Addustour explains the wider conference next week will involve more participants -- this is not the often called for national conference but a conference to explore the national conference. Alsumaria TV elaborates that next week's planned conference will include more representatives in the political process. As for the national conference, Aswat al-Iraq quotes State of Law MP Ali al-Alaq stating, "The reason behind holding the conference in Baghdad is to show its sovereign role following US forces withdrawal and as an emblem for national unity."
Sunday on Face The Nation (CBS News -- link is transcript), host Bob Schieffer spoke with US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta about Iraq.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Iraq. We still have 15,000, 17,000 civilians there, as I understand it. Are you confident that they're safe?
SECRETARY LEON PANETTA: We're confident that we have an Iraqi government and an Iraqi security force that is capable of dealing with the security threats that are there now. The level of violence has been down. It's been down for a long time. And even though we've had these periodic acts of violence, that's something we've experienced there for a long time. But the bottom line is that the Iraqis can provide good security and that our people can be secure in what we they're doing there.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But I mean, the fact of the matter is, we've had over 100 people killed just this week there, have we not? As this-- these various attacks have come about, and...
SECRETARY LEON PANETTA: Bob, you're right. We're going to see those kinds of acts of violence take place. But when you look at the level of violence overall, it is down and it has been down, mainly because the Iraqis have been able, effectively, to develop good security. And that's important.
Americans (and the world) have heard that bulls**t of "we're going to see those kinds of acts of violence take place" since 2003 following the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. It's Tony Hayward BP time: "We're sorry. We're sorry." Because it is and has been the standard response, it doesn't address the political crisis and makes the administration sound either uninformed or uncaring (or both).
Contrast that with, from the same broadcast, US Senator John McCain addressing the topic (link is video and text).
Senator John McCain: Secretary Panetta mentioned in Iraq. In all due respect, Iraq is unraveling. It's unraveling because we didn't keep a residual force there because the President of the United States pledged to get out of Iraq [clears throat] and we could have kept a residual force there and kept some stability. Instead, it's unraveling and Iran's influence is increasing. And there's every possibility you could see a very chaotic situation --
Bob Schieffer: You think there's a civil war coming there?
Senator John McCain: I think there's clearly an unraveling going on which could eventually lead basically into three different kind of states in Iraq. We needed to keep a residual force there and that is what the Bush administration envisioned and that is what we should have done. We never gave them a number until, in the words of General Dempsey, the numbers cascaded down to 3,500. The Iraqis were ready to deal on this issue. The administration did not give them a number. And so what the perception is now, particularly in that part of the world, is that the United States is weak and withdrawing. And that is also having its effect in other places including emboldening Iran. Leading from behind is not what this world needs. And we still do have the best military in the world. And we still do have the most efficient and we still do have the most effective ways --
Bob Schieffer: Well let me just ask you, you heard Secretary Panetta said he's confident that there's an Iraqi army in place that could protect those 15 to 17,000 Americans that are still there. Are you confident that those people are safe?
Senator John McCain: Of course not.
Bob Schieffer: And what would happen? We have to go back?
Senator John McCain: No, I think we would have to withdraw them. Look, what Secretary Panetta may not understand -- and I have great admiration and respect for him -- that the situation is unraveling. The Vice President of Iraq is now hiding out in Erbil. There is militias and death squads operating. There is a breakdown in the Iraqi government. And there will be increased tensions on the border between the Kurdish areas of Iraq and the other areas of Iraq. And all of these could have been avoided if we had led rather than followed.
One party sounds concerned, the other sounds ho-hum. Remember what happened to Tony Hayward as he did his blah-blah over and over and the world grew more and more enraged? He and BP parted ways. And there was no public outcry of, "How could they do that to Tony!" There was a sense of he got what he had coming. Why the administration -- which responded so poorly during the Gulf Disaster -- thinks Tony Hayward's is the behavior to role model is beyond me. If this remains their approach and presentation, don't be surprised if a number of people begin saying, "Well, I don't agree with John McCain but he cares, you can tell he cares."
Ali Hussein (Al Mada) reports on the political crisis and speaks with a member of Parliament to ask whether the current situation was planned by Nouri or whether it was a huge miscalculation on Nouri's part? The feeling is that Nouri's sparked a crisis which leaves the country's very future "hanging by a thread" and Iraqis had expected this time to be one of peace and hope, having survived Saddam and the US occupation; however, now the political scene grows "darker and darker" and Nouri attempts to seize power from his political rivals. Iraqi politicians fear that Barack Obama made a miscalculation (regarding US troops) and that this will be "the last bullet fired on Iraq."
Yes, it is a crisis. Jon Hemming (Reuters) reports the Kurds aren't willing to hand Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi over to Baghdad. Nouri officially started the crisis by charging al-Hashemi with terrorism. The vice president was already in the KRG at the time and has remained there as President Jalal Talabani's house guest. That they weren't just going to hand over was covered in Monday's snapshot, that was the point of the press conference the spokesperson for the judge held. Hemming reports Kurdish officials state that Nouri should accept al-Hashemi's request for a trial held somewhere other than Baghdad. (Nouri controls the Baghdad courts.) It's doubtful any political rival of Nouri's would feel comfortable being tried in Baghdad.
Reuters notes today's violence includes the assassination of Mayor Saeed Hamdan in Hit, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, and, dropping back to Tuesday night for the next two a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left nine people injured and a Qaim attack on a police checkpoint in which 3 police officers were killed (and 1 assailant).
Turning to Iraq discussed in the US. And e-mails. Contrary to what some visitors e-mail, I haven't endorsed anyone for president. I haven't said, "I'll vote for ___ for president." As Elaine noted last night, what I'm actually leaning towards is just not voting for the first time in my adult life. Before yesterday's snapshot went up, before it was even dicated, I knew someone would e-mail to insist that saying Steve Inskeep should focus on policies and not fashion would be seen as an endorsement of Mitt Romney and sure enough it was. Sunday night, I noted John McCain which led to a lot of dumb e-mails. A number of visitors seem to think he's running for president in 2012. A smaller number saw it as my attempt to raise Jon Huntsman profile. Oh, I am crafty! 'Noting John McCain's remarks on Iraq,' I secretly thought, 'will allow Hunstman to win the New Hampshire primaries!' Right? Because McCain endorsed . . . Romney. Get your facts straight. But, some insisted, John was noted and Leon Panetta wasn't and I never, ever noted Rick Perry's comments from the weekend so I must be endorsing Rick Perry.
Let's start with Rick Perry. Of all the GOP contenders, Perry's gotten slammed the hardest here. That's because he was a governor and we cover Iraq and I note deaths and I note when NO ONE in the state of the fallen, not one politician, issues a public statement about the death. He was governor -- he is governor -- and Texas has lost a number of service members in the Iraq War. His failure to do what my governor (Jerry Brown) does immediately is appalling. And we've called him out repeatedly. Saturday night, I wasn't in the mood for Iraq as noted near the end of this entry. I wasn't in the mood for all the people who won't recognize the realities of the deaths and the destruction. I was not in the mood. I did mention the Perry thing to Jim (who was reading over my shoulder as I wrote the Saturday night entries) and he and others (not Ava and I) attempted a piece on that for Third that never worked out. (I didn't read it, I wasn't in the mood.)
Monday's the first time it could have appeared and New Hampshire was Tuesday. I've slammed Perry harder than any other GOP candidate and now, a day before the primary, I'm going to slam him again? I didn't see the point (nor did I want to wade through a transcript of the debate). We've covered his failure to note the fallen, in his role of governor, we've noted his attack on Barack Obama regarding the parades is insane considering (a) he (Perry) can't even note the fallen and (b) he's a governor. He can put on a parade tomorrow if he wants one. (However, I was told Texas had decided to hold their parade in November on Veterans Day. If true, Perry may need to explain why that is if he's going around demanding others hold parades.)
John McCain was noted over Leon Panetta. Panetta is Secretary of Defense. Panetta is also someone I know. That has not prevented me from calling him out on hearings or other issues. But to do that, I need to have the energy to do it. Having worked all Sunday morning on Third Estate Sunday Review (including Ava and I doing a major rewrite of our TV piece at the last minute Sunday night to include other topics and make the piece harder hitting at Jim's request), I just wasn't in the mood to take Leon to task if he needed it. And the way things work, when I have no energy left at all is when I usually have to find it due to events. Also true, I know Leon meaning I know when he's not telling the truth, I know when he's lying. If he was lying -- and these days there's half a chance of it due to administration policies -- I just wasn't in the mood to take someone I know and like to the woodshed. That's why we went with McCain. We'll go into this topic one more time Thursday night (not in the snapshot) and that will be it for this topic here in 2012.
hurriyet daily news
the washington post
face the nation