|
Tuesday, March 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, CIA Director David
Petraeus talks to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about Iraq's
political crisis, the State Dept and White House remain silent on the targeting
of Iraqi youth, French oil giant Total is interested in a deal with the KRG, the
US is bound by international law to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, and
more.
Today's Zayman notes Turkish media is
reporting that US CIA Director David Petraues visited Turkey today to speak with
the country's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about Iraq and Syria with an
empahsis on "the latest specter of sectarian strife in Iraq amid its worst
political conundrum." AFP adds, "The talks were not part of
Erdogan's official itinerary."
The political conundrum? It includes many aspects. Let's start with Iraqi
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Nouri al-Maliki has charged him with terrorism
and issued an arrest warrant. He waited until al-Hashemi was in the Kurdistan
Regional Government (three semin-autonomous provinces which do not answer to
Baghdad) to issue the warrant. al-Hashemi chose to remain in the KRG where he
has been a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud
Barzani. al-Hashemi has asked that his trial be moved to Kirkuk where he feels
he could get a fair trial. He does not feel he will get one in Baghdad and he's
correct. This was demonstrated when 9 members of the Baghdad judiciary held a
press conference to announce that Tareq al-Hashemi -- who has not been before a
court of law -- was guilty. These statements (and others) were made in
violation of the Constitution and of the oath the judges took. They should
actually be censored for their comments. But they were doing Nouri's bidding
and no one will hold them accountable.
At the start of the week, the Sunday Zaman reported al-Hashemi states
"he has Turkey's support not because he is a Sunni politician but because Turkey
is protesting injustice in Iraq's worst political crisis since the US invasion
nine years ago."
Aqeel Abas (Al
Mada) reviews and notes that Nouri al-Maliki was declaring in July
2010 (four months after his State of Law came in second to Iraqiya in the 2010
elections) that Ayad Allawi would never be prime minister. As Abas observes,
Nouri appeared to claim the right to determine who his successor would be -- a
right not written into the Constitution -- and Abas explores how this was part
of many statements from Nouri which have run contrary to the Constitution and to
democracy. It's noted that the judiciary has become less and less independent.
The Erbil Agreement, Tareq al-Hashemi and more are noted. The 2010
elections did not go Nouri's way. He should have, therefore, not been named
prime minister-designate and given a chance at creating a Cabinet. He knew that
but he also knew he had the White House's support (and the Iranian government's)
so he refused to budget creating a stalemate, Political Stalemate I, that lasted
eight months. This ended only after the blocs agreed to the US-brokered Erbil
Agreement which found political blocs making very concessions. It also allowed
Nouri to remain as prime minister. When he got that aspect, he refused to follow
the Erbil Agreement. He refused to stand by what he had signed off on. Since
last summer, the Kurds have been calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement and
Iraqiya joined them. Iraq is in Political Stalemate II and has been for some
time. Hurriyet Daily
News reports today that Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi states, "There are
three options for the future [of Iraq]: Either a full partnership [will be
implemented], as we agreed in Arbil, or we'll hold an early election. Thirdly,
the National Alliance [could] replace Nouri al-Maliki [Iraq's prime minister]
until the next elections."
Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that the Kurdistan Alliance
declared today that they remained committed to an independent Kurdistan. The
article never uses "independence." It repeatedly uses "Kurdish revolution" and
talks around the point. The point of the KRG, the dream -- as Jalal Talabani
often refers to it -- is an independent Kurdistan.
Late yesterday, Alsumaria TV rans a story with a headline that
Washington (DC) has strongly condemned the targeting of Iraqi youth. I wish. DC
hasn't said a damn word. You might think it was James Jeffrey, US Ambassador to
Iraq, speaking out. You'd be wrong there too. He's not in Iraq. He's in DC. The
person offering a condemnation was the Embassy spokesperson Michael W. McClellan
who told Alsumaria -- in an interview -- that the US strongly condemns the
violence and the targeting based on sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression. I believe McClellan's been with the State Dept for 28
years. Good for him. But DC hasn't condemned the actions. If DC wanted to
condemn the actions, Hillary Clinton could have done so to the UN Security
Council yesterday or at the UN press conference she gave, Mark Toner could have
read a statement at the beginning of yesterday's press conference, etc. And of
course the White House could have issued a statement via any of the many
interviews Barack Obama gave yesterday -- it's more important, apparently, that
he yammer on about Peyton Manning than he stick up for the targeted, Jay Carney
could have delivered a statement on behalf of the White House, etc.
The administration chose not to take any of those steps. Instead, an
embassy spokesperson gave an interview to a TV network most Americans have never
heard of and one that broadcasts in Arabic.
Any of the previous steps would have resulted in media coverage. They
really didn't want media coverage. But, thankfully, that is what they're
getting. Chris Geidner (Metro Weekly) reports
(correctly) that the US Embassy in Baghdad called out the killings and note that
a statement had been conveyed to Gays Without Border and that Metro
Weekly confirmed with Michael McClellan that the Embassy sent the e-mail
which read, "Along with the Embassy, the U.S. Department of State strongly
condemns the recent violence and killings in Iraq by groups who appear to be
targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or
personal expression. These acts of intolerance should have no place in
society." That's the Embassy, that's not the State Dept. And please note, the
Embassy had an e-mail exchange with a group in San Francisco and then confirmed
that exchange to Metro Weekly. That becomes more clear as we turn to
broadcast media.
Brian Todd: On the streets of Baghdad, this is a very different
and dangerous look. A western style with longer hair, tighter clothes. It's
called Emo and if you're a young man in Iraq who wants to look like this, it
could get you killed.
Iraqi Male Activist: There is a very strong wave of killing people
who are such called Emos of gays. You know, people who look different than the
usual Iraqi people, tight jeans, long hair maybe goatee.
Brian Todd: We spoke to a human rights activst who didn't want us
to use his name or show his face. He says he's not gay or Emo but has longer
hair. listens to heavy metal music. He said he shaved his goatee out of fear.
What is the atmosphere like in Baghdad right now for people like yourself just
to walk around?
Iraqi Male Activist: Well basically when I was coming to the CNN
bureau here in Baghdad, there were two checkpoints who told me to cut my hair,
they will kill me with the blocks of -- not them, but they were like advising me
so people won't kill me with the blocks of cement, cement blocks.
Brian Todd: A senior Iraqi Ministry of the Interior official not
authorized to talk to the media tells CNN at least 14 young men perceived to be
either gay or dressed in Emo style have been killed in Baghdad in recent weeks.
Human rights activists put the number much higher and they provide graphic
evidence. Photos posted online show people believed to be victims because of
their appearance. It's not clear exatly who's killing them. But activists have
given CNN copies of warning letters and lists like this one distributed in
conservative neighborhoods like Sadr City in Baghdad, lists identifying
potential gay or Emo targets. There are also serious questions about whether
the Iraqi government is able or willing to protect these men. Last month,
Iraq's Interior Ministry released a statement saying it was following the "Emo
phenomenon or Devil worshipping." Also saying "we have the approval to
eliminate it as soon as possible and that the so-called moral police would enter
schools in Baghdad. The Ministry later issued a statement saying it's received
no reports of Emos being murdered. It warns vigilantes from attacking and says
those dressed in Emo style will be protected. One young man who says he's not
gay but wears tight jeans and shirts says he's not taking
chances.
Iraqi Male: I can't do like the Emo thing and the clothes. I can't
do that anymore. I'm afraid I might get killed.
Brian Todd: Contacted by CNN, a State Dept spokesperson says it is
monitoring this closely, has expressed concern to the Iraqi government, and "We
strongly condemn the recent violence and killings in Iraq by groups who appear
to be targeting individuals based on their sexual orientation, gender identity
or personal expression." The spokesman also points out that in recent days,
Iraqi Parliamentarians and religious leaders including Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani have denounced these attacks. Brian Todd, CNN, Washington.
Well, at last! The State Dept spoke!
No, it didn't.
When the State Dept decries something, it does so with a name. It doesn't
do so anonymously.
Do you realize how cowardly what the State Dept did was?
Let's address the CNN report for a second and then come back to the State
Dept. They credit to the Feburary Ministry of Interior statement to Col Mushtaq
Taleb Muhammadawi. Remember that. Remember there was a name attached to it.
When no one gets punished for the targeting of Iraqi youth, remember that there
was an official call for them to be targeted and that it had name attached to
it: Col Mushtaq Taleb Muhammadawi.
Yes, the State Dept wants you to know "clerics" have called out the
attacks? Clerics? The Grand Ayatollah has called them out. Many more have
supported the attacks and that includes Moqtada al-Sadr who made statements on
Saturday.
Now back to the State Dept's cowardly refusal to play anonymous when it
came to callingo ut the targeting of Iraqi youth. If the State Dept wanted to
condemn these acts of terrorism, they know how to do so. They issue a
statements not cloaked in the unnamed. They can do that in text form, they can
do it via an announcement. They chose to do neither.
Victoria Nuland, State Dept spokesperson, gave the press briefing today and
opened with, "Good morning, everybody. It is still morning and we are out
here. Can you feel the buzz of energy in this building? We have Chiefs of
Mission from all over the world here at the mother ship for the annual
conference." I'm not making this up, yes, she does sound like she's dropped
acid. She wasn't done with her opening remarks yet, so let's resume where we
left off: "I have nothing at the top." Nothing to share. No
announcements?
Because if the State Dept wishes to condemn some action in another country,
right there, right at the start of the day's press briefing, that's where they
put it.
But the State Dept had "nothing at the top."
Surely, you insist, some reporter asked her of Iraq today!
Wrong. They don't ask. They check themselves for fleas and lice, they
thump their tails on the carpet while they wait for treats and snacks, but they
don't ask.
At the White House today, Jay Carney gave the press briefing. Not one
reported asked of Iraq. Jay Carney delivered no opening statement condemning
the killings. Nor did the White House write up a statement that they
issued.
If they had, it might resemble (in appearance) this statement that the
White House did issue on Iraq yesterday.
Readout of Vice President Biden's Calls with Prime Minister Maliki
and Amir Al-Sabah
Vice President Biden spoke by phone this morning with Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki and this afternoon with Kuwaiti Amir Sheikh Sabah
Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. The Vice President discussed with the two leaders
recent regional developments, including their upcoming meeting in Kuwait City
and the March 29 Arab League Summit in Baghdad, and reaffirmed the United
States' enduring partnership with both nations.
See, they know how to issue statements. They just choose not to.
So to delcare that the State Dept, the White House or the administration
has denounced -- strongly or otherwise -- the targeting of Iraqi youth is to
make a false statement. The US Embassy in Baghdad has denounced the targeting
-- to one Iraqi television network and to one LGBT weekly in the US that
happened to ask of a private e-mail exchange that had taken place. An anonymous
State Dept employee, on background, called out the targeting.
What happened to all the talk about bravery and leadership we got from US
President Barack Obama once upon a time? He can't even call out the murders of
kids in Iraq. And we're supposed to see him as capable for the job?
When trashy Samantha Power is no longer part of the government and tries to
pretend to be outraged over something taking place somewhere on the earth (where
ever it is that she wants war at that moment), remember she said not one damn
word about the Iraqi youth. Remember that, as is always the case, The Problem
From Hell very much is Samantha Power.
Their silence is actually a gift. It demonstrates to whatever's left of
the anti-war movement that they truly don't care about human rights or human
suffering, that they only pretend to care when it helps them market their war
plans, that they are as cowardly as they are insufferable and that no one should
take them at all seriously.
Aswat al-Iraq reports Speaker of Parliament
Osama al-Nujaifi declared today that the liquidation of Emo is a crime. Pay
attention, US State Dept and White House, that's how you denounce the
targeting.
Turning to the issue of oil, AFP reports that French oil giant Total
is in talks with the KRG and quotes CEO Chritophe de Margerie stating,
"Kurdistan is part of Iraq. A lot of companies are investing in Kurdistan-Iraq
and we don't see why Total couldn't do it. We are looking at opportunities. We
are discussing, but there is nothing done yet." Emily Knapp (Wall St Cheat Sheet) points
out, "Foreign oil companies involved in Iraq's oil expansion generally
prefer to be compensated for capital expenditure and service fees in oil because
cash payments are more complicated to arrange. Now the parties have reached an
agreement in which they will be paid in crude. Exxon and Shell spent $910
million on West Qurna-1 last year, and were repaid $470 million in cash." They
are not the first to seek a relationship with the KRG. Benoit Faucon (Wall St. Journal)
observes, "The news come after the U.S.'s Exxon Mobil Corp. recently signed
a deal to enter the region, rebuffing opposition from Iraq's central government,
which says the Kurdish deals are illegal." Yesterday, Peg Mackey (Reuters) reported, "Exxon
Mobil and Baghdad have reached agreement for the U.S.-based company to be paid
in oil for work on the huge West Qurna-1 oilfield, after months of negotiations
over contract terms, an Iraqi official said." Steve Gelsi (MarketWatch) added, "The
reported agreement comes despite moves by Exxon Mobil to ink exploration
agreements with the Kurdistan Regional Government, an entitity considered
illegal by the Iraq central government."
On the topic of energy, workers are striking. Alsumaria TV reports "hundreds" of temporary
workers with Basra's Electrical Distribution threatened to cut off electricity
to homes if they're demands were not met. What are they demanding? Temporary
contracts, a daily wage and they want to become permanent workers. Last month,
Falh Alwan (Workers Liberty) reported on
Karbala workers striking and safety concerns were among the issues but so was
their demand for a daily wage.
Turning to violence, AKnews reports that Professor Abdulah
Ahmed al-Hamdani and his sister, a final year student at Mosul University's
College of Denistry were shot dead in Mosul. Alsumaria TV reports that the Ministry of the
Interiror announced today that a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed the life of the
head of a security committee and left a bystander injured.
Onto the issue of Camp Ashraf -- which houses Iranian dissidents in Iraq
and which now demostrates that there's not a bit of difference between George W.
Bush and Barack Obama except, of course, the fact that Barack's even worse. Jennifer Lin (Philadelphia
Inquirer) reports on former Governor Ed Rendell who is now under
investigation by the US Treasury Dept. As disclosed before I know and like Ed.
For how this is being used to silence dissent, read this morning's entry.
Camp Ashraf, for those who need a reminder, a refresher or who are
completely new to the topic, houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately
3,000 people -- 400 were moved to Camp Liberty last month). Iranian dissidents
were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and
six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US
government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp
Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised
protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf
into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. As 2008 drew to a close, the
Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked
twice. July 28,
2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled " Iraqi government
must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty
International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009,
Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed
and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were
allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009;
by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8,
2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the
assault took place). Amnesty
International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on
8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive,
including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used
live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including
eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following
international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had
appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities
have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation
was, in fact, carried out." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes that "since 2004,
the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants'
and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." The White House
doesn't want to live up to the agreement. The issue is whether or not we, the
United States, are bound by the law or not. That's the only issue. So many have
confused the issue telling you Camp Ashraf was 'icky' or a 'cult' or whatever
else. International law and the Geneva Conventions kicked in and when
they did the US government was honor bound to protect the residents of Camp
Ashraf. They could be mass murdering pedophiles. It wouldn't matter. The US
could certainly attempt to prosecute them for that, but in terms of the safety
issue, the US would still be bound to protect the residents. (I am not calling
them pedophiles or mass murderers.) The residents are protected, the MEK
is not. The MEK is Iranian opposition dispersed throughout the globe. Regardless
of whether or not the MEK is removed from the terrorist list, the US government
entered into a relationship with the residents of Camp Ashraf that requires the
US to protect them now. That's not in dispute. The governments own official
documents back that up.
There's no walking away from international law without another blow to the
US image abroad. If that's what Barack wants to deliver, I believe he's now
destroyed every reason people were supposed to vote for him in 2008. Or have we
forgotten the lie that Barack in the White House would make the United States
beloved around the world?
The majority members of the U.S. House of Representatives and
dozens of the most prominent former U.S. national security officials have
defended the rights of Ashraf residents and have been critical of the U.S. for
reneging of its legal, political, and moral obligation to the
residents.
You can add the Senate Armed Services Committee to that list. Chair Carl
Levin, Ranking Member John McCain, independent Joe Lieberman have publicly led
on the obligation the US has to the residents and how Nouri's failure to provide
protection will have consequences.
The press 'forgot' to report on that hearing. (Insisting John McCain was
'mean' to Leon Panetta is not reporting -- only Elisabeth Bumiller reported on
the hearing.) We covered it in repeated snapshots. The hearing was Tuesday
November 15th and we covered it in that day's snapshot and every snapshot for
the rest of that week. November 17th, we emphasized the Camp Ashraf
portion of the hearing. We'll note the beginning of the excerpt with
"***************" and note the end that way as well.
****************************************
"The status of the residents at Camp Ashraf from the Iranian dissident
group MEK remains unresolved," Senator Carl Levin declared Tuesday. "As the
December 2011 deadline approaches, the administration needs to remain vigilant
that the government of Iraq lives up to its commitments to provide for the
safety of the Camp Ashraf residents until a resolution of their status can be
reached. We need to make it clear to the government of Iraq that there cannot
be a repeat of the deadly confrontation began last April by Iraqi security
forces against Camp Ashraf residents."
He was speaking Tuesday morning at the Senate Armed Services Comittee
hearing while delivering his opening remarks as Chair of the Committee. Senator
John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee. The first panel the Committee
heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and
the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy. Camp Ashraf came
up in Chair Levin's opening remarks and it came up later during the first panel.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in
Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to
them?
General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State
Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government
---
Senator Lindsey Graham: Can you tell the people back here that the
likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there
are no American forces up there policing the problem?
General Martin Dempsey: I won't say anything to those people
because I'm not involved in the outcome.
Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough.
In what was now the second round, John McCain went on to laugh with Leon
Panetta and to thank him for appearing before the Comittee and putting up with
pointed questions. He brought up a request that Panetta had made to him and
Senator Graham (formally, in a letter) and noted they were working on that issue
(defense funding). We're not going to excerpt that but since so much was made
of the first round of questioning between Panetta and McCain, we will note that
both laughed with one another in an exchange in the second round. (The
hysterical gossip corps portrayed McCain being testy as new or novel and may
have left many with images of poor Leon struggling for the vapors. Neither
person was harmed by the exchange in the first round nor appeared to hold a
grudge or ill will towards the other.) Near the end of his second round, McCain
did bring up the issue of Camp Ashraf.
Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp
Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is
addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I
hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I
think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk
and I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate
that.
Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question --
and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's
obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment.
What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep
that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of
-- not them, the organization from the terrorist list?
General Martin Dempsey: Well, Senator --
Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this
--
General Martin Dempsey: And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd
Austin shares your concern. And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the
concern and there is no -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage
the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection
of those folks in Camp Ashraf. But right now, actually, the Iraqi security
forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them. And
so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one. And But I
actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government
diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct.
Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a
real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to
protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't
been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations --
that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely
negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the
Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of
concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will
severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it
at that.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Senator, I want to assure you that
Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the
Iraqis.
Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman?
Senator Joe Lieberman: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and
I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in
expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf.
*******************************
From the Congress to diplomacy, Laura Rozen (Yahoo's The Envoy) reports that Brett McGurk is
being whispered to be the new nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq. For
those keeping track, McGurk would become the fourth US Ambassador to Iraq since
Barack was sworn in. US Ambassador Ryan Crocker was already in the spot in 2009
but agreed to stay on while they scrambled to find a replacement -- that they
had to scramble demonstrates how little Iraq ever really mattered. They manic
depressive Christopher Hill was next. Third was the present US Ambassador James
Jeffrey. For those wondering, no that is not normal. Some would even make the
case that it's unacceptable and that the post needs stability not constant
fluxuation. Proving yet again that the War Hawks get rewarded for illegal
war, the Council of Foreign Relations notes of their
member Brett: He served on the
National Security Council staff of President George W. Bush (2005-2009), first
as director for Iraq and then as special assistant to the president and senior
director for Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Barack Obama, as a special
advisor. And it just gets 'better': He is a former Supreme Court law clerk, clerking for
the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist from 2001 to 2002, and in 2004-05
served as an attorney with the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S.
Embassy in Baghdad, focusing on issues of constitutional reform, elections, and
government formation. He also applauded the "surge" which, you
may recall, when Barack was attempting to get the Democratic Party's
presidential nomination he was against. But not so much against that today he
sees it is an indication that maybe someone's judgment was misguided. And he's
never really been opposed to the Iraq War so he has no problem bringing in the
planners of the illegal war. Time and again, America's seen -- if they looked
closely -- that Barack poses wonderfully but he's got all the depth of a glossy
8 x 10.
Lastly, US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee and her office notes this Wednesday hearing on the issue of homeless
veterans (it should be an important hearing, the witnesses are impressive and
well versed in this issue):
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES:
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202)
224-2834
Monday, March 12, 2012
TOMMORROW: VETERANS: Murray to Hold Hearing on Veteran
Homelessness
Hearing will discuss VA's progress on 5-year plan to end
homelessness among veterans
(Washington, D.C.) -- Tomorrow, March
14th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs
Committee, will hold a hearing to discuss the progress the VA has made in its
5-year plan to end homelessness among veterans. During the hearing, the
Committee will hear from 2 homeless female veterans, service providers, and
officials from the VA.
WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
Homeless Veterans
Marsha Four,
Executive Director of Philadelphia Veterans Multi-Service & Education
Center
Reverend Scott Rogers, Executive Director, Asheville Buncombe
Community Christian Ministry
Linda Halliday, Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, Department of
Veterans Affairs
Pete Dougherty, Acting Executive Director, Homeless
Veterans Initiatives Office
WHAT: Hearing to discuss VA's progress on its
5-year plan to end homelessness among veterans, including the unique needs of
homeless women veterans
WHEN: Tomorrow, March 14th, 2012
10:00
AM ET
WHERE: Russell Senate Office Building
Room
418
Washington, D.C.
###
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment