Wednesday, December 21, 2011

3 men, 2 women

Today on the first hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane's guests were Robert L. Walker, Brody Mullins, Donna Nagy and Peter Schweizer.  The second hour was Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde.

Please read Marcia's "Iraq and Hedy Lamar" where she talks about an interview she enjoyed on Diane Rehm's show yesterday and also please read Elaine's "F Ani DiFranco" which I love and support 100%.  Screw Ani DiFranco.  I'm so sick of that fraud.  And on that note, credit to Matt Damon for seeing what a disaster Barack is.  This is from Maggie Bullock's (Elle) interview with Damon:


I've talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level. One of them said to me, "Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician."  You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better.


Barack is a War Hawk who should have been impeached for the Libyan War.  And all he's done is attack our civil liberties and get in bed with Wall St.  Good for Damon.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Wednesday, December 21, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues targeting political rivals, Nouri says 700 more US 'trainers,' the White House and the State Dept continue to be asked about what's taking place in Iraq, and more.
 
Nouri al-Malik held a press conference today.  Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Iraqi Premier Nouri al-Maliki said that 700 US trianers will work to train Iraqi forces, adding that the number of US embassy in Baghdad will not exceed 2000."  Meanwhile Dar Addustour reports that Nouri's also agreed to allow US troops ('trainers') in the Kurdistan Regional Government.  Li Hongmei (Xinhua) offered an analysis yesterday which included " Iraq, however, remains dependent on Washington, as it has no frontier force, navy or airforce. Neither police nor army, now 800,000 strong, can ensure security or provide protection from external attack or meddling.  Meanwhile, there are Iraqi people who are, on the one hand, celebrating the U.S. pull-out, and on the other, believe the U.S. exit is not a withdrawal, but an act on a stage, in that the U.S. military presence and clout would never recede with the withdrawal of its troops."
 
In other news, Arwa Damon and Wolf Blitzer (CNN) report that, yes, indeed, CIA Director David Petraeus was just in Iraq.  While there he spoke to not only Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and thugh) but also to Iraqiya members Osama al-Nujaifi (Speaker of Parliament) and Rafie al-Issawi (Minister of Finance).  For the Tehran Times, Nosratollah Tajik offers an exploration of whether or not the US is really leaving Iraq:
 
 
At a meeting with Obama  at the White House on December 12, al-Maliki was assured a second batch of 18 sophisticated F-16 fighter planes to help rebuild the country's dilapidated air force, whose helicopters and missiles the U.S. destroyed during the war which began in March 2003. The Iraqis have already indicated that their military needs will include a total of 96 F-16 fighter jets in four separate orders. He told the Obama administration that his country will depend on the U.S. not only for new weapons systems but also for training under the U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program.
There's going to be something called the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq after the pullout of troops. It's going to be under the auspices of the U.S. embassy, so there's not going to be a military command in Iraq. It's going to be a pretty small, 150-person office that will do training --  things like helping the Iraqi air force how to operate the F-16s that the U.S. will sell them. That's a pretty typical relationship for countries who have bought American military hardware. So, now it is clear why the U.S. plans to have the largest embassy in the world in Iraq. 18,000 people are going to work for the embassy and very few of those will be diplomats. Others will be American civil service workers and mercenaries of private security contractors: around 3,500 to 5,500.
 
I'm going to disagree with him on the issue of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq.
 
 

Senator Kay Hagan: Well with the drawdown taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue this training process to enable them to continue to do this on their own?

General Martin Dempsey: Well they will be limited. They don't have the airlift to deliver them to the target that we might have been able to provide. They don't have the ISR target to keep persistent surveillance over the top of the target. So they'll be limited to ground movement and they'll be limited to human intelligence and we'll keep -- But part of the Office of Security Cooperation provides the trainers to keep the training to develop those other areas, but we're some time off in reaching that point.

Senator Kay Hagan: We'll, as we continue this drawdown of our military personnel from Iraq, I really remain concerned about their force protection -- the individuals that will be remaining in Iraq. So what are the remaining challenges for our military personnel in Iraq in terms of managing their vulnerabilities, managing their exposures during the drawdown?

General Martin Dempsey: Senator, are you talking about getting from 24,000, the existing force now and having it retrograde through Kuwait?
Senator Kay Hagan: The ones that will remain over there.

General Martin Dempsey: The ones that will remain --

Senator Kay Hagan: Their protection.

General Martin Dempsey: Yes, Senator. Well, they will have -- First and foremost, we've got ten Offices of Security Cooperation in Iraq bases. And their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on delivering the foreign military sales. So F-16s get delivered, there's a team there to help new equipment training and-and helping Iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty. Or there's a 141 M1 Tanks right now, generally located at a tank gunnery range in Besmaya, east of Baghdad and the team supporting that training stays on Besmaya so this isn't about us moving around the country very much at all. This is about our exposure being limited to 10 enduring, if you will, Offices of Security Cooperation base camps. And doing the job of educating and training and equipping on those ten bases. Host nation is always responsible for the outer parameter. We'll have contracted security on the inner parameter. And these young men and women will always have responsibility for their own self-defense.

Senator Kay Hagan: So we'll have contracted security on the inner-paramenter?

General Martin Dempsey: That's right.
 
That's from the November 15th Senate Armed Services Committee -- covered in the November 15th "Iraq snapshot," November 16th "Iraq snapshot," November 17th "Iraq snapshot," Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)," Kat's "Who wanted what?" and Third's "Gen Dempsey talks '10 enduring' US bases in Iraq."  General Martin Dempsey is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  A military position.  Generally speaking, the Congress doesn't ask people for testimony unless they're over something.  So someone, for example, from Health and Human Services would never be asked about loans to small farmers.  Dempsey was asked by a knowledgable senator (Hagan) about a program he should be over and one he spoke of as though he was over. 

On to an anniversary . . .
 
It was 365 days ago today
Thug Nouri got his way
 
 
Today's vote in the Council of Representatives is a significant moment in Iraq's history and a major step forward in advancing national unity.  I congratulate Iraq's political leaders, the members of the Council of Representatives, and the Iraqi people on the formation of a new government of national partnership.
Yet again, the Iraqi people and their elected representatives have demonstrated their commitment to working through a democratic process to resolve their differences and shape Iraq's future.  Their decision to form an inclusive partnership government is a clear rejection of the efforts by extremists to spur sectarian division.
Iraq faces important challenges, but the Iraqi people can also seize a future of opportunity.  The United States will continue to strengthen our long-term partnership with Iraq's people and leaders as they build a prosperous and peaceful nation that is fully integrated into the region and international community. 
 
There was nothing there to praise.  Not only had the process been corrupted -- by the US government -- but the results did not indicate a bright future for Iraq.  First of all, not one of the cabinets had a female head. While the White House was preparing their statement,  Shashank Bengali and Mohammed al-Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) were reporting not one of the ministers approved was a woman.  Did that bother the White House, this step backward?  Not a bit, not a bit.   In 2006, Nouri had been able to name women. In 2006, there were 31 Cabinet ministers.  In order to keep his promises (bribes) he had to expand the Cabinet to 42 in 2010 and yet women disappeared.   Again, the White House was not worried. On that same day,  Liz Sly and Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reported, "Maliki appointed himself acting minister of interior, defense and national security and said the three powerful positions would be filled with permanent appointees once suitable candidates have been agreed on." Did that bother the White House?  Not a bit, not a bit.
 
And all this time later, there is still no Minister of Interior, Minister of Defense or Minister of National Security.  Not because Parliament wouldn't approve the nominees but because Nouri al-Maliki never nominated anyone lending credence to those who charged in real time that thug Nouri was making a power grab.
 
In many, many ways, the White House violated the Iraqi Constitution and the will of the Iraqi people when they backed Nouri (2010) for a second term.  (In 2006, the Bush administration backed Nouri and nixed the choice of the Parliament.)  Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer via San Jose Mercury News) points to the multitude of mistakes by the Bush and Barack administrations in her latest column but we'll zoom in on her commentary about 2010:
 
The White House followed a hands-off policy on Iraqi politics, allowing Maliki to slip back into sectarianism and the eager embrace of Iran's ayatollahs.
When Maliki cracked down on Sunni candidates before March 2010 elections, a visiting Vice President Joe Biden gave him a pass. When a Sunni coalition called Iraqiya edged out Maliki's party and he used Iraq's politicized courts to nullify some Sunni seats, U.S. officials didn't push back.
When Maliki failed to honor a power-sharing deal the United States had brokered between his party and Iraqiya, we failed to press him.
 
 
Last week, Iraq's former Deputy Ambassador to the UN Feisal Istrabadi, discussed Iraq with host Warren Oleny on KCRW's To the Point and Oleny asked what was the biggest mistake the Obama administration had made?

 
Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi The critical mistake the Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010. The administration lobbied hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki get a second term -- which he has done.
 
Istrabdi was a guest on The NewsHour (PBS) last night as the program devoted two segments to the political crisis in the country. In the first segment, Judy Woodruff went over the basics of what's been taking place since Friday.   Judy Woodruff noted (link is text, audio and video), "An arrest warrant was issued for Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on charges that he had run death squads during the sectarian bloodbath of 2006 and 2007. As proof, the purported confession of a man named Ahmed was broadcast. He said Hashemi spoke to him through an intermediary." The second segment on this story (again, text, audio and video) found Judy exploring the events with former Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi and Abbas Kadhim. Excerpt:


FEISAL ISTRABADI: Well, let me start with the proposition that what Iraq needs is a strong leader. With all respect to my very good friend, I think that what we need are rulers in Iraq who are dedicated to the principles of constitutional democracy. Their strength lies not in the elimination or in the harassment of political adversaries, but, on the contrary, in encouraging constitutional discourse. What has been happening in Iraq in the last 24 hours cannot be seen in isolation. For the past 12 months, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has refused to appoint a permanent minister of defense. That was supposed to be one of the portfolios that went to the Iraqiya coalition. They have nominated six people for that position. Each one of them has been rejected. He has appointed a member of his own coalition, the prime minister's own coalition, as acting minister of defense. He is acting as minister of the interior. And one of his cronies is acting minister of state for national security. He has cashiered career officers and appointed cronies to senior officer positions in the armed and security forces in Iraq. In other words, the prime minister has under his control as we speak all the instrumentalities of state security in Iraq. I'll remind your viewers that, in the early 1970s, this is precisely how Saddam Hussein came to power at the time. What we -- I think Iraqis, with our history, we have to be overly cautious when we see similar actions occur as have occurred in our relatively recent past. Strength in the new Iraq must be through constitutional democracy, and not through harassment and intimidation.
 
The story was ignored by the other three networks as noted this morning.  Also see Rebecca's "smelly scott pelley and the sucky cbs evening news."

Jim Muir (BBC News) explains, "Iraq's most senior Sunni Arab politician, Tariq al-Hashemi, is effectively a fugitive. While he hides out under Kurdish protection in the north, the entire al-Iraqiyya political bloc to which he belongs has pulled out of both parliament and the cabinet." (Jim Muir offers a detailed analysis here.) Al Rafidayn reports that Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and chief thug of Iraq, has held a press conference in Baghdad today insisting that Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi leave the KRG and come to Baghdad to stand trial for charges (brought by Nouri) of terrorism. Nouri says that Tareq al-Hashemi must not leave the country and that he should not fear a trial because Saddam Hussein was given a trial. It was fair, Nouri insists. Fair? That's in dispute. The outcome is not. Saddam Hussein was put to death. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, the sentence for the charges (Article IV terrorism) if found guilty are either life in prison or execution. As Anne Barker (AM, Australia's ABC, link is text and audio) explains, "The charges were made by Iraq's Interior ministry, which comes under the control of the Shiite prime minister and al Hashemi's long-time rival Nouri al-Maliki." The charges were made by the ministry -- not the minister because there is no Minister of Interior. Nouri refused to nominate someone to Parliament. So Nouri retains (illegal) control over the ministry.
Yesterday, the White House released the following statement:


The White House
Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release December 20, 2011 Readout of Vice President Biden's Calls to Iraqi Leaders
The Vice President today spoke on the phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and separately with Iraqi Council of Representatives Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi to discuss the current political climate in Baghdad. The Vice President told both leaders that the United States is monitoring events in Iraq closely. He emphasized the United States' commitment to a long-term strategic partnership with Iraq, our support for an inclusive partnership government and the importance of acting in a manner consistent with the rule of law and Iraq's constitution. The Vice President also stressed the urgent need for the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other major blocs to meet and work through their differences together.

At the White House today, Nouri's attacks again resulted in questioning during the press briefing by White House spokesperson Jay Carney.
 
 
Q    On Iraq, the Vice President made a couple of phone calls yesterday, and I guess I'm just wondering, is the President -- has the President or has Vice President Biden spoken with the Vice President of Iraq?  What is -- what was the point of those calls?  How does President Obama feel about the arrest and the charges against this Vice President?  And what, if anything, at this point can the U.S. do about it?  Are you considering pulling aid?  If you're not -- if we're not --
 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, Margaret, let me stop you there.  First of all, I think we read out some of the calls that the Vice President made.  Separately, this kind of political turmoil has been occurring in Iraq periodically, as they have taken steps forward and, occasionally, steps backward, but generally made progress towards political  reconciliation, towards democracy, and away from the use of violence in pursuit of political ends.  That has been progress, but it has often been hard won. That will continue.  We certainly expect that there will be difficult days ahead in Iraq.  But the progress has been substantial.  What is utterly nonsensical is the suggestion that somehow we should have left troops in there, and that would have had any impact on the political disputes.  Because maybe folks weren't paying attention, but political disputes have been happening while there were 40,000 troops, 80,000 troops, 150,000 troops.  The key metric here is that those political disputes have increasingly been resolved through negotiation, not through violence, and elections were held, a government was established -- these are all signs of important progress -- all while violence declined significantly.
 
Jay Carney's head has apparently gotten as fat as his ass (keep stress eating, Jay, you look awful).  This is not about US troops staying or going.  This is about the White House backing Nouri al-Maliki for a second term.  Take accountability for that.  Yes, Senator John McCain is calling out the White House.  And calling them out for taking out the bulk of US troops (not all troops).  That's not the only criticism but focusing on that criticism does allow you to ignore the critical failure of the Barack Obama administration with regards to Iraq.  And the elections were a joke and became that when the US government refused to respect the results of the elections -- that's under Barack Obama.  Jay's a disgrace. 
 

Jay Carney: We will continue to have a robust and important relationship with Iraq.  We will continue to have frequent, I'm sure, discussions with Iraqi leaders.  And we will continue to weigh in and encourage Iraqi leaders to make smart decisions as they continue to move forward with the development of their democracy. I wanted to -- as long as we're on foreign policy, I just want to be clear on a question that Kristen had about Afghanistan.  I just want to say, on 2014, the President will make his decisions on the size and shape of our post-September 2012 presence, after the reduction of the surge forces, at the appropriate time in consultation with our Afghan and NATO partners.  Any post-2014 presence would of course be at the invitation of the Afghan government, and would ensure that we will be able to target terrorists and support a sovereign Afghan government so that our enemies cannot outlast us.  I just want to be clear about that.  But the framework that I discussed at the top was laid out at Lisbon. I think I owe you -- yes, Lesley.

Q    Can I ask a quick question, following on Margaret's question?  Do you have any reaction to the Prime Minister's sort of suggestions today that he wants to shed some of the members of the coalition government that he might not sort of get along with?

MR. CARNEY:  Look, we have -- I would refer you -- I don't have it in front of me -- to -- we did a readout of the Vice President's calls, yes -- to that statement.  And we have worked, the Vice President has and other members of the President's team have, with Iraq on the political process.  It is very important, and has been, and will continue to be, that Iraqi leaders pursue a representative government so that everyone's interests are properly represented.  And beyond that, I would just refer you to the statement we put out.

Q    He also said that the U.S. has asked him to free some of the Hashimi guards that he had jailed.

MR. CARNEY:  Who did?

Q    He said that the U.S. government had asked him to free some --

MR. CARNEY:  Maliki did?  I don't -- I just don't have anything more on that for you today.
 
Looking at the war,  George S. Hishmeh (Gulf News) notes a number of details and we'll include this regarding Anthony Cordesman's analysis:
 
Cordesman believes that the US has mistakenly "tied itself to exiles whose claims and ambitions were not in line with the hopes and needs of the Iraqi people, and were often linked to Iran".
He also points out that the Obama administration has not provided "any picture of the strategy it now intends to adopt in the Gulf region as a whole, or how it will deal with any aspect of the threat posed by Iran".

HDS Greenway (GlobalPost) argues the current events can be seen through the prism of the war itself, "What the invasion of Iraq did do was unleash all the pent-up rivalries that had been suppressed, Sunni versus Shia, and Kurds against the rest. And despite almost a decade of occupation, none of these issues have been resolved. Sunnis still long for their lost ascendency. Shiites want to consolidate their new-found power, and the Kurds still want to be masters of their own region without interference from Baghdad. The current accusations against Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi are a case in point. Either he did organize death squads, as charged, or the case against him is trumped up to intimidate Sunnis. Either way Iraq's fragile power-sharing arrangements suffer."

Iran's Fars News Agency notes, "Commander of Baghdad Police Operations Brigadier General Qassem Ata called on the security officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan region to extradite the country's Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashimi, to Baghdad to be tried for accusations of masterminding the recent bomb attacks on a number of parliamentarians."  Aswat al-Iraq adds, "Kurdish Alliance MP [Shwan Mohammed] described the charge against Vice-President Tariq al-Hashimi as 'political, not criminal'."

Al Mada notes that the Parliament is calling for a meeting with Nouri's Cabinet. In addition to going after Tareq al-Hashemi, Nouri is also targeting Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Both al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq are Sunnis and members of the Iraqiya political slate. The Telegraph of London notes, "Legislators are also due to consider a call from Maliki to sack Sunni Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlak, who has decried the Shiite-led national unity government as a 'dictatorship'." Al Mada reports that Parliament decided Monday that they would not consider Nouri's motion to dismiss al-Mutlaq until after the next year. Al Mada quotes Iraqiya head Ayad Allawi pointing out the al-Mutlaq's position was part of the power sharing agreement and that attempts to remove him besmirch the agreement. Dar Addustour reports there is now a move to request that confidence be withdrawn from Nouri.


Like Marcia, we'll note Roy Gutman, Lesley Clark, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi's McClatchy Newspapers report the latest on the Iraq crisis that finds Nouri targeting political enemies:

However, U.S. officials were aware of at least one previous attempt by Iraqi security forces to coerce confessions that implicated Hashimi, a longtime Maliki critic. A November 2006 diplomatic cable obtained by WikiLeaks reported a meeting between U.S. officials in Iraq and a former Iraqi prisoner named Ahmed Mohammed Sami, who said he'd been tortured with electric shocks and other methods while in Iraqi army custody in Diyala province.
"In total he counted seven times that he lost consciousness during episodes of torture in which he was told to agree to statements implicating Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi ... and Deputy Governor of Diyala Auwf Rahoumi al-Rabai ... in terrorist activities," the cable reports. The cable didn't specify U.S. officials' reaction to the comments.
 
 
 

If the White House -- under either administration -- had given a damn about Iraqis, they wouldn't have backed Nouri for a second term. Especially after knowing he was repeatedly torturing and running secret prisons. The article also notes that Nouri elected to air the 'confessions' on Iraqiya TV -- that's not related to the Iraqiya political slate -- it's Nouri's own personal channel, as it demonstrated in the 2010 parliamentary campaigns.  From Deborah Amos' "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010," Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center:
 
[Immediately after the March 2010 elections] Prime Minister Maliki charged widespread fraud and demanded a recount to prevent "a return to violence." He pointedly noted that he remained the commander in chief of the armed force. 
Was Maliki threatening violence? Was he using the platrform of state-run media to suggest that his Shiite-dominated government would not relinquish power to a Sunni coalition despite the election results?  His meaning was ambiguous, but his choice of media was widely understood to be part of the message.  Iraq's state-run news channel, Iraqiya, is seen as a megaphone for Shiite power in Iraq, which is why Maliki's assertion of his right to retain power raised international concerns.
 

The issue of Iraq was also raised in today's US State Dept press briefing by spokesperson Victoria Nuland:
 
 
QUESTION: (Inaudible) about Iraq?
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
 
QUESTION: Prime Minister Maliki's news conference today? In talking about the Vice President, he said if Kurdish authorities don't release him or if he were to manage to flee the country that there may be problems, I think is how he put it. Is that not sort of a threatening tone? What was the readout here on that? 
 
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the [US] Vice President [Joe Biden] did have good conversations yesterday. I think the White House reported on those yesterday. We do note what the prime minister said in his press conference, and I would say that he also spoke about the need for the parties to get together. I think he called it a summit of political leaders that he wanted to have to discuss the political process and discuss power sharing, and we continue to urge all the sides in Iraq to work through their differences peacefully and within international standards of the rule of law. That's the message that we've given to the prime minister; it's the message that we're giving to all of the political actors in Iraq.
 
 
QUESTION: Does the Ambassador continue to make phone calls and meet with the various parties?
 
MS. NULAND: He does.
 
QUESTION: Do you know when the last meetings or talks were and who they were with?
 
MS. NULAND: He had more talks today. I don't have a list here with me, but as the White House reported, the Vice President spoke to Prime Minister Maliki and Speaker al-Najafi yesterday. I think that Jim Jeffrey -- Ambassador Jeffrey -- over the last couple of days has seen the -- seen or spoken to the leaders of every major group in Iraq.
 
 
QUESTION: Do you have any position on the prime minister's demand that the Kurds essentially return the vice president? Do you think that's the right way to go?
 
 
MS. NULAND: They need to work this out within the rule of law. They need to respect the Iraqi constitution on all sides. If there are charges, they need to be processed appropriately within the Iraqi judicial system, as we said yesterday, and all sides need to cooperate in that.
 
QUESTION: But would releasing the Vice President be -- as the prime minister has requested, be essentially doing that, working within the Iraqi legal framework?
 
MS. NULAND: I think there are conversations going on inside Iraq that we're not going to get into the middle of about how this process ought to move forward. It's  --– release implies that he's being held or prevented from fulfilling the demands of the court, and I don't think that's the stage we're at right now.
 
QUESTION: And just a final one: Also, apparently the prime minister has extended the Camp Ashraf deadline by six months.
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
 
QUESTION: Did they let you know about this formally, and what's your -- do you think that's a good thing?
 
MS. NULAND: We do think it's a good thing. We do think it's a good thing that the Iraqi Government is engaged. We're encouraging those living in Ashraf to also be engaged. The UN, as you know, is in the process of trying to broker an agreement where the residents of Ashraf could be moved safely and securely to another location and where they could take advantage of some of the international offers for resettlement. And so, obviously, that process is going to take a little bit more time. So we're gratified to see that the Iraqi Government's going to give it a little bit more time, and that they are particularly cooperating well with the UN process.
 
QUESTION: And are you confident that the six months would be a sufficient time to get that agreement done?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, we would certainly hope so, and we are encouraging all sides to keep working on it.
 
QUESTION: Well, what's your understanding of that extension? When did it take effect? Because he seemed to suggest that he had actually done this in November.
 
MS. NULAND: Well, as of two days ago, we were still understanding that we had a December 31st --
 
QUESTION: So you guys didn't know anything about it until today? Or maybe not when he spoke, but today was the first time you knew of an extension.
 
MS. NULAND: Well, it was one of the options that we had been discussing, was to extend the deadline that the UN had also been discussing to buy more time for this. In terms of an actual decision of the Iraqi Government and a public announcement of it, I think we became aware shortly before the public announcement.
 
QUESTION: So your understanding is that this six months expires six months from now and not six months from November, when he said that --
 
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I don't have a sense of the final calendar time. But again, the UN is working assiduously to try to come up with a roadmap for the residents of Ashraf. In the best case scenario, it won't take six months, and we'll be able to get them settled in before.
 
QUESTION: Right. And then the other thing, you said that there were outstanding offers for resettlement for these residents? Are you -- can you -- are you aware of any specific -- can you provide names of countries that have offered to take in -- other than Iran, which would like to see some of them back, I'm sure?
 
MS. NULAND: The UN is working on this issue with a number of countries in Europe. I think there is an issue of whether some of the residents of Camp Ashraf would be willing to take up those offers, particularly some of them who have relatives abroad.
 
QUESTION: Victoria?
 
MS. NULAND: Yes.
 
QUESTION: As a matter of fact, European countries, many of them refuse to repatriate -- many of these people are their citizens and, in fact, they failed time and again a UN suggestion that they should return to their countries in the Netherlands and Germany and other places. Are you urging the European countries to take at least their own citizens that are in Camp Ashraf?
 
MS. NULAND: Again, the UN has the lead on this. They are working both with – they are working with the Iraqis, they are working with the residents of Ashraf, they are also working with some of these other countries of citizenship. So we are obviously looking for a settlement that gives these folks a better quality of life and security while maintaining international peace and security.  Please.
 
QUESTION: On Vice President al-Hashimi, are you concerned about his safety? Or has he contacted either Ambassador Jeffrey or any other U.S. official expressing concern about his own safety considering that the immediate members of his family were actually assassinated three or four years ago?
 
MS. NULAND: I'm not aware of conversations of that kind of concern. There is a question about how and whether these Iraqi judicial processes will be carried out.
 
QUESTION: Has there been any discussion with President Talabani of Iraq and President Barzani of Kurdistan as to the safety or maintaining safety and security for Vice President Hashimi?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, the Ambassador has been in touch with both of those leaders in the -- in recent days. I'm not going to speak to the details of those conversations.
 
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Vice President Hashimi: You just said that it should be solved through Iraq judicial system and rule of law. So does it mean you have confidence in the rule of law if he were to go back, and do you think that there''s going to be a fair trial? You have that confidence?
 
MS. NULAND: We went through this conversation exhaustively yesterday. I don't think we need to go through it today.
 
QUESTION: It was (inaudible).
 
MS. NULAND: It was pretty exhaustive, so -- all right.
 
 
Turning to reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa leader, an attack on a Baquba mayor left him injured, 2 Kirkuk sticky bombings claimed the life 1 judge and left the judge's son injured and, dropping back to last night, an attack on a Samarra police checkpoint left two police officers injured.  Aswat al-Iraq notes 1 man was shot dead in Mosul.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

5 men, 1 woman

On the first hour of today's Diane Rehm Show, the guests were Doug Paal, Evan Ramstad, Sarah Yun, Robert Gallucci and Jonathan Pollack.  The second hour was Richard Rhodes.

Now did you read at POLITICO about what Hugo Chavez said?  Here's a taste:


Hugo Chávez blasted President Barack Obama as a “clown” and an “embarrassment” who has turned the United States into a “disaster” after Obama criticized Venezuela’s ties with Iran and Cuba, according to a report Tuesday.
Chávez’s comments came in the wake of Obama’s Monday written interview with the Caracas paper El Universal, where the U.S. president questioned Venezuela’s connections to those countries. Chávez hit back strongly at Obama on state TV Monday, according to The Guardian, saying the president gave the interview only to “win votes” in the 2012 election.

Good for Hugo.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Tuesday, December 20, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's political crisis continues, network news continues to ignore the political crisis, where did David Petreaus supposedly go, Camp Ashraf residents face a looming deadline, and more.
 
 
How bad are things in Iraq right now?  Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) notes a rumor,  "The reported appearance of CIA director David Patraeus at a meeting of Iraqiyya yesterday seems somewhat extraordinary. If true, it could be indicative of how Washington sees the situation in Iraq after the withdrawal. Critics will claim that after two years dominated by Joe Biden diplomacy, it is perhaps somewhat late in the day to begin sending competent special envoys to Iraq."  The rumor may have truth to it, it may be completely false.  But its very existence, it merely being uttered goes to just how out of control things are in Iraq.
 
But the news is ignored repeatedly by broadcast media.  For example, last night the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley led with a 'news' story.  Pelley informed as the theme music faded, "The Secretary of Defense says tonight that the United States will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."   This is your lead?  That Leon Panetta -- that any US Secretary of Defense -- states that?   Where have you been for the last ten years?  This is US policy.  You can explore whether it's wise or stupid, fair or hypocritcal.  But treating it as news?  That's really a joke.  Why would any US network newscast lead with five-day old, moldy mashed potatoes as their main dish?  Oh, Pelley quickly explained that Panetta made these remarks "in an interview for 60 Minutes."  So it wasn't the lead story because it was news, it was the lead story because it was advertising for CBS' Sunday night program.  The NewsHour had no mention of Iraq.  But they did do several segments to tell the country that Kim Jong-Il was dead, that Kim Jong-Il was still dead and that Kim Jong-Il was dead.  PBS will offer more details on Kim Jong-Il's death as they develop.  However, sources do say, today, that Kim Jong-Il remains dead.  World News with Diane Sawyer also jumped on the Kim Jong-Il is dead train.  And a 'hard hitting' look at citrus juices.  NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams offered a mix of what everyone else did because better they should all be wrong together, right? 
 
While they ignored what's taking place in Iraq, Al Rafidayn noted Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani is warning about the potential collapse of the Iraqi government as a result of Nouri's latest power grab. Barzani is calling for a national conference. Dar Addustour quotes Barzani stating that what took place Sunday at Baghdad International Airport-- pulling Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq and Finance Minister Rafie al-Issawi off a flight and detaining them for several hours -- must not happen again. All three pulled from the plane belong to Iraqiya.  Barzani insists that while security is everyone's concern, detentions must be authorized by the judiciary.

The little Nouri who cried Ba'athists. And cried terrorists.  Going to the well on that once too often and among the reasons he's so hard to believe today.   Jomana Karadsheh and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) remind, "Since October, Iraqi security forces have rounded up hundreds of people accused of being members of Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath Party or terrorists. Iraqiya says the majority of those people are members of its political bloc and that the prime minister is simply taking out his opponents."
Which brings us to today.  Though it didn't make last night's newscasts, the issue was raised at the White House today in the press briefing.
 
 
Jake Tapper (ABC News):   On Iraq, the political crisis there seems to be escalating.  Aside from monitoring the situation, is the administration doing anything?  Has Vice President Biden been asked to step in and perhaps oversee this -- or intervene?
 
Jay Carney:  You're referring to?
 
Jake Tapper:  The -- al-Hashimi, the arrest warrant.
 
Jay Carney:  As I discussed yesterday, we're obviously concerned about this and we have -- we are always in conversations with Iraqi leaders.  We closely monitor the reports.  And we urge the Iraqi authorities charged with this responsibility to conduct their investigations into alleged terrorist activities in accordance with international legal norms and full respect for Iraqi law.  As I said, we are talking to all parties to express our concern regarding these developments.  We continue to urge all sides to work to resolve differences peacefully, through dialogue and in a manner that is consistent with the international standards of rule of law, transparency and the democratic political process.  Ambassador James Jeffrey, as well as other U.S. -- senior U.S. officials, have been in frequent contact with Iraqi leaders on this matter and will continue to do so.
 
Jake Tapper:   Is Vice President Biden one of those officials?
 
Jay Carney:  I don't have any conversations involving the Vice President to report out to you.  You correctly identify the fact that the Vice President is very engaged in Iraq as a rule, but I don't have any specific conversations of his to report out.
 

Zhang Ning and Wang Hongbin (Xinhua) observe, "Tension among Iraq's major political blocs has been rising, as the country's highest judiciary body issued an arrest warrant for Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi on terror charges Monday." Tony Karon (Time) explains it began with Iraqiya announcing they were withdrawing from Parliament over Nouri's inability to follow previously agreed to terms (such as the Erbil Agreement):


Maliki's response came a day later with a furious attack on the country's two most senior Sunni politicians. First, he urged parliament to pass a vote of no confidence in Deputy Prime Minister Salih al-Mutlaq, who in a TV interview earlier this month had accused Maliki of creating a new dictatorship. More ominously, perhaps, Maliki on Monday ordered the arrest of Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi. The warrant concerns an investigation into a bombing plot uncovered inside Baghdad's heavily protected Green Zone, in which three members of al-Hashimi's security detail have been under investigation. Maliki has claimed to have been the target of this alleged bomb plot. Critics said the judicial panel that issued the arrest order is under the Prime Minister's sway, and having kept the positions of Defense Minister and Interior Minister for himself, he has ensured that all of the country's security forces answer directly to him.

Nouri aired 'confessions' from al-Hashemi's bodyguards. Like Marcia, we'll note Roy Gutman and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting on the 'confessions':

In more than half an hour of grainy black-and-white video recordings, three men described as al-Hashimi's bodyguards detailed bomb attacks they carried out going back to 2009 that were directed against government security forces. The weapons used were bombs and pistols with silencers.
The men spoke in monotones, and it was impossible to determine if their statements were of their own free will, as claimed by al-Maliki aides, or coerced. It appeared that a small selection of their interrogations was presented, evidently edited to provide maximum support for the government position that al-Hashimi headed the chain of command of what amounted to assassination squads.

Human rights organizations have long documented the use of torture to garner 'confessions' in Iraq. We'll note this from Human Rights Watch's [PDF format warning] "The Quality of Justice: Failings of Iraq's Central Criminal Court:"

The reliance on confessions in the CCCI cases raises serious concerns about the fairness of those proceedings. Torture and other forms of abuse in Iraqi detention facilities, frequently to elicit confessions in early stages of detention, are well-documented. The reliance on confessions in the court's proceedings, coupled with the absence of physical or other corroborating evidence, raises the possibility of serious miscarriages of justice.



Aswat al-Iraq notes that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has declared he was not consulted about the arrest warrant. The Irish Examiner notes that al-Hashemi is currently in the KRG. Al Mada explains the warrant prevents him from leaving the country. The Herald Sun carries a wire story noting that al-Hashemi is stating that the case needs to be transferred to the Kurdistan Regional Government. Al Rafidayn provides a walk-through on the law including the the charges fall under Article IV and that a conviction could result in either life imprisonment or the death penalty. Reuters quotes Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) stating, "We fear the return of dictatorship by this authoritarian way of governing. It's the latest in a build-up of atrocities, arrests and intimidation that has been going on a wide scale."  And Reuters quotes Allawi stating  "It reminds me personally of what Saddam Hussein used to do, where he would accuse his political opponents of being terrorists and conspirators,"  Meanwhile Nouri's flunkies, Dar Addustour notes, are claiming he is the target of a death threat and that a team of assassins have been trained on foreign soil to kill him.
 
 
The arrest warrants were raised at the US State Dept in the press briefing spokesperson Victoria Nuland gave.
QUESTION: Iraq. I have one. I just -- I was wondering if you had anything further on the communications between the U.S. Government and the Iraqi Government on those arrest warrants. Ambassador Jeffrey, as you said, has been in touch with all parties. Did he return to Iraq because of this issue? I know he was in town for the Maliki visit. Was that -- was his return in part because of this sectarian threat posed by these warrants?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, he's been doing laps back and forth. He was here for the Maliki visit, he was back, he was here for another ceremony in the U.S., now he's back. And as I said, we are eager to have him there because he has been talking to all of the interlocutors and encouraging them to work together, to work together within the constitution, within international standards of rule of law, and try to work through these issues. So he continues to be--
 
QUESTION: Is there -- Is there anything more you can tell us specifically on what that advice entails? I mean, what specifically is the U.S. hoping or urging the Iraqis to do to prevent another outbreak of sectarian violence pegged to this case?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, I think I went through the sort of whole menu of things that we're advising yesterday, but just to go through it again if that's helpful --
 
QUESTION: Yes.
 
MS. NULAND: With regard to the arrest warrant for Vice President al-Hashimi, we are urging the Iraqi authorities charged with the responsibility for these investigations to conduct these investigations into alleged terrorist activities in accordance with international legal norms and full respect for Iraqi law. More broadly, we're urging all political parties and activists to try to resolve their political differences peacefully, through dialogue, within the constitutional norms set forth within Iraq, and to really demonstrate their commitment to a unitary, sovereign Iraq that abides by its own constitution.
 
QUESTION: And looking at the -- looking at the warrants that are now out and given your prior experience with al-Hashimi, is -- do you have any reason to believe that these accusations are at all plausible or do you worry that this is a politically motivated legal proceeding?
 
 
MS. NULAND: I think I'm not going to give a value judgment one way or the other here. I think that from our perspective, the proof of this has to be in the conduct of the investigation of the legal procedures in a manner that comports with international law.
 
QUESTION: Toria, could you share with us if Mr. Jeffrey spoke with Vice President al-Hashimi in the last -- let's say this -- today or --
 
MS. NULAND: Without getting into too many details, suffice to say that he's spoken to pretty much every major Iraqi political actor in the last couple of days.
 
QUESTION: Including Vice President al-Hashimi?
 
MS. NULAND: I believe so, yes.
 
QUESTION: And Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq?
 
MS. NULAND: I can't speak to whether he's spoken to him since his arrest, but he --
 
 
QUESTION: Do you know their status? Are they on the run or are they hiding? What's --
 
MS. NULAND: I can't speak to that, Said.
 
QUESTION: [. . .] quick follow-up on this. Has anyone above Ambassador Jeffrey's level been in contact with the Iraqis on this? Assistant Secretary Feltman or the Secretary, anybody like that?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that Vice President Biden has been in contact with a number of Iraqis. I'll refer you to his office. We -- I think I read out some of that earlier in the week.
 
QUESTION: In general, can you -- what's the Administration's opinion of the Iraqi justice system and its ability to provide due process to -- and due process in a fair, transparent trial for those who are charged with crimes?
 
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you know that we've been working with the Iraqis to build their justice system for a number of years now. And again, each --
 
QUESTION: Yeah. How did that go?
 
MS. NULAND: Each case is a new case and has to meet the high standards expected of Iraq by its own constitution, and as I said, we will judge them by their ability to uphold their own constitution and international standards.
 
QUESTION: Right. Well, but I mean, you pronounce judgment on other countries' legal -- on your opinion of other countries' legal systems all the time. What is it -- what's your opinion of the Iraqi justice system?
 
MS. NULAND: The Iraqi justice system, in its latest iteration, has produced justice in some cases. It needs to continue to do so in these cases.
 
QUESTION: Well --
 
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to give them a grade if that's what you're asking for, Matt.
 
 
Patrick Cockburn (Independent) adds, "Two days ago Mr Maliki asked parliament for a vote of no confidence in the Sunni deputy prime minister Saleh al-Mutlaq for incompetence. Mr Mutlaq had accused Mr Maliki of being a dictator. Although Iraq nominally has a power-sharing government in practice it remains divided between parties and communities. All jobs are awarded through a patronage system making political leaders averse to giving up official posts."
 
 
Throughout the Iraq War, waves of attacks have taken place leading to waves of refugees, over 4.7 million refugees. It's the largest refugee crisis in the Middle East since 1948.  The Bush administratioin made a big to do, in its last years, of being concerned about the situation.  In 2008, the Special Immigrant Visa Program for Iraqis who worked with the US started -- created by Congress' Defense Authorization Act for FY08.  This was in addition to other programs already in place.  It had a quota of 5,000 yearly; however, if the 5,000 was not met, the remainder could be rolled over and used the next year.  For example, if in 2009, 4500 were admitted -- 500 short of 5000 -- the remaining 500 could be put on 2010 for a new total of 5500.  Barack Obama, as a candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, repeatedly asserted that he would address the refugee problem.  He is, in fact, doing a worse job than Bush.  Catholic Online covers the US Special Immigration Visas Program:
 
The SIV program is specially designed to expedite the visa application process for as many as 25,000 people over five years who worked with Americans and are found to be facing an ongoing threat in their country.
But, the US has dragged its feet. President Obama mandated more detailed background checks which have only served to lengthen the process. Now, the average wait time for an applicant is at least nine months. That's a long time for someone living under the threat of assassination.
In fact, it's too long for at least 300 people who have been killed for working with US. Today, only 7,000 visas have been issued according to the State Department, and more than 30,000 applications are still pending a decision.
 
 
Al Jazeera also notes the SIV program:
 
More than 140,000 Iraqis worked with the United States during the nearly nine-year war and occupation., and tens of thousands have since applied for immigration visas in the United States.
The US issued only a handful in the early years of the war. A law passed in 2008 created the Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) programme, which was supposed to expedite the process: It allocated 25,000 visas over five years for Iraqis who worked with Americans and face an "ongoing threat" in their home country.
But four years later, only about 7,000 of those visas have been issued, according to the State Department, with more than 30,000 applications pending a decision.
 
In Iraq, many people and groups are targeted.  Currently, Nouri's targeting Iraqiya, but also targeted are Iraqi women, Iraq's LGBT community and many other groups including Iraqi Christians.  Ruthie Epstein (Human Rights First) observed last week:
 
The conversation over the coming weeks must include an acknowledgement of the millions of Iraqis displaced by the war. Thousands lack permanent and safe housing in Iraq; thousands more languish without formal legal status in their countries of first asylum, awaiting protracted and uncertain resettlement processes.  Tens of thousands of children cannot access regular education and their parents cannot work legally.  Single or widowed women, LGBTI individuals, religious minorities, journalists, and academics still face threats or violence in their country, as do Iraqis who worked in some capacity with the United States or a U.S.-based organization. 39,000 Iraqis await resettlement processing by the United States inside Iraq, and 18,000 more are in the U.S. resettlement pipeline in Syria.
 
 
Michelle Bauman (Catholic News Agency) notes that the consequences from the illegal war that Pope John Paul II warned against have turned into realities with Father Firas Behnam Benoka stating "love wouldn't have been killed off in favor of violence and hate" if Pope John Paul II's warnings had been heeded.  Instead over half of the Chrisian population has fled Iraq since the start of the war and, the priest maintains, Iraqi Chrisians now worry about "extinction."
 
 
Meanwhile Irwin Cotler (Toronto Star) observes, "While the world prepares to celebrate the beginning of the New Year, the people of Camp Ashraf, Iraq, live in imminent peril. At the camp -- set up by American forces -- 3,400 Iranian refugees are facing prospective massacre at the hands of the Iraqi government. The majority of residents have survived until now because of U.S. protection, but with American forces leaving by the end of the year, the Iraqi government has imposed an arbitrary deadline of Dec. 31 for residents to leave. Those who have nowhere to go will likely be attacked and killed; yet, the international community has been largely silent to their plight."
 
AP's Matthew Lee raised the issue of Camp Ashraf at the US State Dept briefing today.
 
Matthew Lee:  Yeah. No, though I want to go to my other Iraq question, which is: What is your understanding of the situation right now at Camp Ashraf?
 
Victoria Nuland: Well, I think you know that we've been quite active in support of --
 
Matthew Lee: Well, I'm not asking about the negotiations. I want to know specifically, what's your understanding of the situation there at the camp, like, on the ground right now. There are members of -- residents who claim that the -- they've been subject to a blockade, that nothing is getting in -- food, fuel, that kind of thing.
 
Victoria Nuland: I don't have that information. I will take it and check on the status of the actual camp. As you know, we have been supporting strongly the efforts of the United Nations and Ambassador Kobler to try to negotiate between --
 
Matthew Lee: Right. That's not my question, though.
 
Victoria Nuland: -- the Government of Iraq and the residents of Ashraf to settle these issues peaceably and before the deadline, and particularly to help the Ashrafis get themselves resettled. So those efforts continue. I do not have any information at the moment with regard to difficulties at the camp today, but if that is not accurate, we will get back to you.
 
 
Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people). 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 8th of this year 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." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran. They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely. Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year. UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) has offered, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."


Jamie Crawford (CNN) reports, "The Obama administration 'welcomes' a United Nations-led effort in Iraq to relocate a group on the State Department terrorism list, before an end-of-the-year deadline that could see heavy violence and a large humanitarian disaster unfold, senior administration officials said Monday." Do they welcome a UN-led effort?  The UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler outlined the plan  to the United Nations Security Council on December 6th:
 
SRSG Martin Kobler: The Secretary-General has spoken personally to Mr. Maliki to appeal for flexibility and for full support for the UN's efforts to faciliate this peaceful solution the government has assured that it seeks.  He has asked me to attach the highest priority to this case. In trying to facilitate a solution, we are emphasizing a number of important points.  First, that lives are at stake and must be protected. The government has a responsibility to ensure the safety, security and welfare of the residents.  Any forced action that results in bloodshed or loss of lives would be both ill-advised and unacceptable.  Second, we believe that any workable solution must be acceptable to both the government of Iraq and to the residents of Camp Ashraf. The solution must respect Iraqi soveriegnty on the one hand and applicable international humanitarian human rights and refugee law on the other hand. Third, a solution must also respect the principle of nonrefoulement. No resident of Camp Ashraf should be returned to his or her home country without consent.  While some progess has been made in our latest discussions in Baghdad, many obstacles remain to arriving at a plan that would meet the concerns and requirements of all concerned. Subject to all conditions being met, UNHCR is ready to begin verification and interviews for the purpose of refugee status determination; however, the process will take time to complete and clearly the situation cannot be fully resolved before December 31st.  I, therefore, appeal to the government of Iraq to extend this deadline in order to permit adequate time and space for a solution to be found.  I also appeal to the leadership and residents of Camp Ashraf to engage constructively and with an open mind to this process.  They should give serious consideration to the proposals under discussion.  There should be no provocation or violence from their side nor a challenge to Iraqi sovereignty.  Finally I appeal to the international community to do more to help.  A lasting solution cannot be found and as governments step forward and offer to accept Camp Ashraf residents to resettle in their countries.
 
 
 
What the UN proposed was that the deadline be extended beyond December 31st. This was addressed in an open session of the UN Security Council and the White House is damn well aware of that. I don't know if right now is a time that the White House wants to be viewed as complicit with Nouri al-Maliki. It should also be noted that the US State Dept has been court-ordered -- for over a year now -- to re-evaluate the status of the MEK. The current terrorist designation (already dropped by European countries) is preventing many countries from accepting the Camp Ashraf residents.  Barbara Slavin (IPS) notes, "Sanjeev Bery, advocacy director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, told IPS in an email that the organisation 'is concerned that Camp Ashraf residents are at serious risk of severe human rights violations if the Iraqi government goes ahead with its plans to force the closure of the camp by the end of this month'."  Kasra Nejat (Columbia Tribune) argues, "America was the country that signed a personal pact with every member of the camp giving them protected-person status. It is time they were given what they were promised: protection from the despots in Iran and their henchmen in Iraq. Anything less will leave the United States politically and legally complicit in any future bloodshed."
 
 
 
 
 
 

Monday, December 19, 2011

5 men, 1 woman

Today on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), the first hour guests were Ian Urbina, Dusty Horwitt, Bill Leith, Lee Fuller and Peter Robertson.  The second hour was Pier Forni.


Dallas helps out at Third all the time and "Occupy Dallas" is 3 photos he took Friday of Occupy Dallas' event in Dallas, Texas.

ows.dallas2

ows dallas


ows.dallas1


I think he took some really great pictures.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Monday, December 19, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue -- and that's just within the government as Iraq looks for a handbasket to go to hell in.
 
CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds."
 
What the hell is going on? 
 
Over the weekend, Nouri went for another power grab. 
 
 
It actually started before Saturday but the press was ga-ga over photo-ops.  'Last soldier out! No, really, last US soldier out! Except for the ones still there! Don't look behind the curtain!'   And apparently covering for Barack was more important than telling Americans what was taking place in Iraq.
 
Late Saturday night online (Sunday in print), Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted that the 'government' in Iraq is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated Saturday." Really?  All in one day.  Well,  no, not in one day.  She continued,  "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."
 
Days?
 
Plural.
 
 
"In recent days."  
 
 
Golly, seems to me if you know -- for even just one damn day -- that Nouri's goons -- in tanks, no less -- are 'ringing' his political opponents home, you report it then.  Yet even with Sly reporting this late Saturday -- by which point it was already all over the Iraqi media -- you had Jim Axlerod (CBS News) filing garbage and crap and pretending that was covering Iraq. 
 
There are actually two opponents Nouri is attacking.  Let's walk through.  Saturday,  
Ines Tariq (Al Mada) reported on the controversy over whether or not the country's Supreme Court has issued an arrest warrant for Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Yes, rumors were already swirling about an arrest warrant.
 
Now put al-Hashemi on hold for a moment and let's note the other politcal opponent Nouri's targeting and, don't worry, when we move over to Sunday, the strands come together.  Al Rafidayn reported Nouri al-Maliki was asking Parliament for a vote to withdraw confidence in Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Nouri declared al-Mutlaq is no longer fit for office as a result of an interview he gave to CNN. Last Tuesday, Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported:


Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday.
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was "shocked" to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq." He said Washington is leaving Iraq "with a dictator" who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks.
[. . .]
"America left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said. "People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster. Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."

Like Tareq al-Hashemi, Saleh al-Mutlaq is a member of the Iraqiya political slate. Dar Addustour reported that the homes of al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq as well as the home of Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi had been surrounded by "tanks and special forces." Dr. Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi was the previous Deputy prime minister (2007 through 2010). He was the head of Falluja General Hospital prior to that and he is currently the Minister of Finance. Like the other two, al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya.  Now that's Saturday.

 
And, hopefully, you'll agree that the above should have been news.  That the photo ops should have ceased immediately.  Let's move to Sunday where Nouri's still got a few tricks to play.  AFP reported, "Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and several of his bodyguards were escorted off a plane at Baghdad airport on Sunday because two of the guards were wanted on 'terrorism charges,' officials said, the latest step in a deepening political crisis." Also on the plane, I said the strands would meet, was Saleh al-Mutlaq.
al-Mutlaq was also forced off the plane. On Sunday's All Things Considered (NPR), Kelly McEvers offered this take:

Kelly McEvers: Here in Kuwait, just having crossed over the border, we have all these US commanders telling us that they're leaving Iraq in a better place, that it's a thriving democracy. Yet in Baghdad it looks like you have Prime Minister Maliki -- who is a Shi'ite and whose government is Shi'ite -- going after his rivals who are Sunnis. Just yesterday, charges were announced against the Vice President who is Sunni and troops surrounded his house. The Maliki government accuses him of being involved in a terrorist plot. But Maliki's detractors say this is sectarian revenge. So you know we've got these promises from US commanders that things are going really well but this kind of national reconciliation government looks like it's unraveling.

That should have been the lead story on the Sunday evening newscasts (network evenings news).  Kelly McEvers filed in time for All Things Considered.  Other should have been filing as well.  Instead, you got this piece of garbage report by Jim Axelrod -- who damn well knows better -- airing on the CBS Evening News Sunday (link is text and video). Search in vain for any mention of arrest warrants or tanks around politicians' homes or politicians being pulled off planes in Baghdad.  You won't find them.  Jim whored.  Jim embarrassed himself.  And if I were Jim's age and his health record, I'd be seriously worried about my legacy because there may not be a lot of time left and I really wouldn't want to go out as a whore.
 
 
Are you in the news business or not?  If you are and you're filing a report on Iraq on Sunday, you damn well include what's going on. Sunday, Nizar Latif (The National) observed:

Those moves have added to a fear among the prime minister's critics that he is seeking to eliminate rivals and consolidate power.Iraqiyya warned it would pull out of the coalition government unless Mr Al Maliki agreed to seek a solution that respects "democracy and civil institutions".
"Iraq is now in a very difficult position. This is a critical time," said Eytab Al Douri, an MP with the Iraqiyya bloc. "If solutions are not found quickly, Iraq will be heading towards sectarian and ethnic divisions, and a return to civil war."

Roy Gutman, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that there were claims of confessions being made by other Tareq al-Hashemi guards. If so, it's worth noting that Iraqi 'confessions' often result from torture making them unreliable at best. Gutman, Issa and Hammoudi note Nouri's government planned to air the 'confessions' on TV:

Iraq's Interior Ministry announced Saturday that it would televise the confessions of the first two suspects that night, but the plan touched off a firestorm. The U.S. Embassy, silent for most of the past year in the face of other political excesses, objected publicly. It said in a statement that U.S. officials had not yet seen the actual confessions and urged Iraq to investigate all allegations "in a transparent manner in accordance with Iraqi law."
On Sunday, Iraq's supreme judicial authority ruled that the confessions of the alleged "cell" members couldn't be aired until the investigation is completed.

 
 
 
QUESTION: Yes, ma'am. Almost time for the departure of the last American soldier from Iraq. The Iraqi prosecutor general issued a warrant arrest for the Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and the Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Both are Sunnis and from the Iraqiya or affiliated with the Iraqiya coalition. Do you have any comment on that?
 
 
MS. NULAND: Well, we are closely monitoring these reports that an arrest warrant has been issued, in particular for Vice President al-Hashemi. We are talking to all of the parties. We've expressed our concern regarding these developments. We're urging all political sides in Iraq to work out their differences peaceably, politically, through dialogue, and certainly in a manner that is consistent with democratic political processes and international standards of rule of law. Ambassador Jeffrey has been in contact with all of the parties in recent hours.
 
 
QUESTION: Victoria, I mean, coming so soon after Maliki's visit to Washington, is that Mr. Maliki saying that I'm really in Iran's camp? I mean, is that how it is interpreted in this building? Or should it be interpreted that way?
 
 
MS. NULAND: There are a number of issues that Iraqis have been struggling with for a number of years. We want to see, in this next phase of Iraq's development, this sovereign phase, Iraqis work together within Iraq's democratic institutions to preserve national unity, to address the underlying political issues that form the basis of these kinds of tensions. We want to see Iraq's sovereignty protected and their democratic institutions protected. So that is a goal that we share. We share that goal with most of Iraq's leaders, and we're urging them to work together on these issues.
 
 
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have anything to indicate that these warrants were issued in any way that doesn't comport with democratic processes? Do you doubt the motivation behind these reports of arrest warrants?
 
 
MS. NULAND: Well, I think I've addressed our general view that we want to ensure that, whatever is done, it's within the democratic possibilities of Iraq and within international standards of rule of law. We obviously have not been privy to the underlying documents, et cetera, and we don't know where this is going from here. But again, we want to see dialogue, and we want to see resolution of these things within Iraq's democratic processes.
 
We're being kind and I'm not inserting names but leaving "Question" in place.  Kind?  How the hell do you not know know who Saleh al-Mutlaq is?  When Nouri lodged the complaint with Al Jazeera against Inside Iraq, among the gripes was the charge that al-Mutlaq was able to dispense "propaganda" on Jassim al-Azzawi's program.  The reason we didn't fall of Al Jazeera's garbage passed off as Libyan War coverage is because I knew the background on what vanished Jassim al-Azzawi from his own program and then what got the program killed (he was allowed to host the final episode).  It was Nouri.  Nouri and the government of Qatar.  That's why their coverage is so embarrassing from Iraq. 
 
From Inside Iraq that began airing January 22, 2010, they're discussing the efforts to keep al-Mutlaq off the ballot for the March 7, 2010 elections.
 
 
 
Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people?  Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament.  You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer.  Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on.  Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification?  Is it Prime Minister al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq?  Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this?
 
Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone.  I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this.  And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody.  The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it.  You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that?  We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally.  The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president.  And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party].
 
January 2010, J. Scott Carpenter and Michael Knights' "Iraq's Politics of Fear" (Foreign Policy) explained:

The ban will mainly affect candidates from the Iraqiyya coalition, a cross-sectarian alliance dominated by secular nationalists and led by Iyad Alllawi, the first Iraqi prime minister of the post-Saddam era. Saleh Mutlaq, one of the three most senior leaders in the coalition, was among the candidates struck from the ballot -- along with all candidates from his party, the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue. Wathab Shakir, the Sunni Arab head of the national reconciliation committee, was also banned, alongside numerous candidates of the Unity of Iraq coalition, another cross-sectarian nationalist alliance.       

 
Iraqiya was the slate most targeted with (false) charges of Ba'athism.  The charges came from the Justice and Accountability Committee steered by Ahmed Chalabi and his beloved Ali al-Lami whose fate was to be gunned down in May of 2011 with his brother Jamal Faisal gunned down in June -- reportedly it was Shia on Shia violence stemming from some deals al-Lami had going on the side.  (Deals?  He was allegedly peddling his ability to influence and allegedly either went back on a promise or didn't have the power he claimed.)
 
 
Despite Nouri targeting Iraqiya and picking off candidates (some of whom were barred from running, some of whom were assassinated) and despite the glowing press his State of Law political slate received in Iraq (see Deborah Amos' "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010," Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center) and despite his quickly tossed together projects ahead of the election (oh, look, water at last for our neighborhood), Nouri still couldn't pull out a win.
 
Political Stalemate I begins with the results of the March 7, 2010 elections, even after Nouri al-Maliki bitterly contested them and stamped his feet until a few post-election votes were tossed his way, were that Iraqiya still came in first and Nouri's political slate State of Law still came in second. Iraqis do not elect their prime minister, the Parliament does. Per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, should have had first crack at forming a government. First crack? You become prime minister-designate and then have thirty days to name a Cabinet (nominate people for positions and have Parliament vote in favor of them). If you can't accomplish that in 30 days, per the Constitution, a new prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.

Political Stalemate I ended in November of 2010 with the Erbil Agreement hammered out in Erbil between the major political blocs (and the US) whereby every one was supposed to make concessions. The Kurds would get to keep Jalal Talabani as president. They thought they would get three vice presidents. Iraqiya won the elections in March 2010 and the political bloc was headed by Ayad Allawi. Nouri wasn't stepping down and the White House was backing Nouri. For Nouri to remain prime minister, Allawi was promised he would head a new, independent council over security issues. He was also promised that the Iraqiya candidates demonized as Ba'athists and forced out of the 2010 elections by Nouri's friends would have their names cleared.

On November 11th, the new Parliament held their first real session. They voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker of Parliament (he was from Iraqiya and that was part of the Erbil Agreement), Jalal was named president and Nouri was named prime minister designate (but we were all informed in the following days that this was 'unofficial' -- once named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days, per the Constitution, to put together a Cabinet and get the Parliament to sign off on each member). But what of the security council? What of clearing the names of the falsely accused?

That would come, State of Law insisted, in time.

Allawi and a number of Iraqiya members walked out. They should have refused to participate from that day forward. Instead, they foolishly believed promises (from both State of Law and the White House). Nobember 25th, Jalal 'officially' named Nouri prime minister-designate.

Nouri had created Political Stalemate I by refusing to surrender the prime minister post. He'd done that for eight months. In that time, he should have had some ideas about a Cabinet. But Nouri's problem was he over-promised to get support. So when it was time to name a Cabinet, suddenly the Cabinet had more ministers and deputy ministers than it had previously (from 37 in 2006 to 42 in 2010). And he still couldn't keep his promises to everyone.

December 22nd, the Constitution was tossed by the wayside and Nouri was allowed to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister because he'd assembled a kind of Cabinet. He named 31 out of 42 ministers and people pretended that was good enough. He had failed to meet the Constitutional mandate of naming a Cabinet but everyone looked the other way.

He refused to name the security posts: National Security, Interior and Defense. His defenders (including the White House) swore those posts would be named in a matter of weeks. His detractors saw the refusal as part of a pattern of power grabs on Nouri's part and stated he wouldn't fill the posts. This is the start of Political Stalemate II.
Three days from now, it will be a year since Nouri was wrongly (per the Constitution, per the vote) named prime minister. And Iraq still has no Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior or Minister of National Security. The US press insisted to news consumers, back in December 2010, that it would only be a matter of weeks before Nouri named nominees for these posts.  Wiser Iraqis stated the vacancies were intentional and part of a power grab on Nouri's part. Nearly a year later, who looks like they were right and who looks like they were wrong?
 
Before we go further, al-Mutlaq was telling Al Jazeera viewers about how the political party Dawa controlled the Justice and Accountability Commission in 2010.  The head of Dawa is Nouri al-Maliki. (Visit the party website and use their "Ask the PM" feature if you'd like to communicate with a thug.) State of Law is a political slate.  (Some call it a "coalition."  That's not exactly wrong but, to form a government after parliamentary elections, a coalition is formed.  To avoid confusion, we call it -- and Iraqiya -- political slates and not "political coalitions.") Why bring up Dawa and its control of the Justice and Accountability Commission in 2010?  Because, as explained in the September 20, 2011 snapshot, Nouri was again attempting to continue the committee and to again put it under Dawa control (even Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc objected to that).
 
That should have been totally anticipated by the US government and yet another reason why they shouldn't have backed Nouri for a second term (they got the Kurds to set aside their objections and got SICI's leader to come on board as well, they then made deals with Ayad Allawi -- that the US government went back on -- to get him to go along with the Erbil Agreement).  Saturday night when the Iraqi press was conveying how bad things were going, we noted here that Barack was responsible.  And the Cult of St. Barack descended upon the public e-mail account and the Cult sayeth he is wise and all good and only a hater shall ever blame our modern day Christ-child.  "It was Bush's war!" chants the Cult.
 
No, it's Barack's war.  It became his war the minute he was sworn in.  It continued to be his war and, with the militarization of the State Dept, it remains his war.  As we noted Saturday:

That's not an argument for staying. We have always favored immediate withdrawal. And we noted back when Barack won the election that he needed to get the troops out immediately. Had he done what many voters thought he was promising to do, the disaster that Iraq may become would be a Bush disaster.
If Iraq had broken out into all out war in 2010 -- Barack having pulled all US troops out in 2009 -- that would be Bush's problem. And Barack could say that. And no one could have argued with him. He had a mandate from the voters to immediately end the Iraq War.
But instead, he decided to own the war. And he decided to continue the occupation (by militarizing the State Dept). And he and his gang of idiots made one fatal mistake another another including backing Nouri over and over. Including repeatedly stabbing the Kurds in the back. Asking them time and again to ignore what was best for them and instead do what would help the White House. (That's not even counting all of the US money the CIA funneled into Goran -- a political party in the KRG that challenges the two existing parties.) As a friend in the administration said to me recently, there's really no marker left that the US can call in when it comes to the Kurds. The administration betrayed those who were friends to the US by supporting a thug named Nouri. In supporting a thug named Nouri, they betrayed the Iraqi people. In backing Nouri over the Iraqi Constitution, they sent a message and set a pattern that rule of law does not matter.

 
That's not just my opinion.  Last Tuesday on KCRW's To the Point, Warren Oleny addressed Iraq with many guests.  We'll note part of his conversation with Feisal Amin Rasoul Istrabadi -- the part where the realities of Political Stalemate II are addressed.
 
Warren Oleny: Is there anything the Obama administration should be doing differently from what it is?
 
Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: Well, I mean, that's hard to say because obviously it's influence is somewhat waning.  The critical mistake the Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010.  The administration lobbied hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki get a second term -- which he has done.  Right now, the betting there's some question among Iraq experts whether we'll ever have a set of elections in Iraq worthy of the name.  I mean, you can almost get odds, a la Las Vegas, on that among Iraq experts. It's a very worrisome thing.  What can they do in the future? Well I suppose it would be helpful, it would be useful, if we stopped hearing this sort of Happy Talk coming from the administration -- whether its Jim Jeffreys in Baghdad, the US Ambassador or whether it's the president himself or other cabinet officers.  We're getting a lot of Happy Talk, we're getting a lot of Happy Talk from the Pentagon about how professional the Iraqi Army is when, in fact, the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff himself has said it's going to take another ten years before the Iraqi Army can secure the borders. So it would help, at least, if we would stop hearing this sort of Pollyanna-ish -- if that's a word -- exclamations from the administration about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq and had a little more truth told in public, that would be a very big help to begin with.
 
 
Critical mistake is correct.  As the Washington Post's David Ignatius observed last week, "I have a copy of a 1985 photograph, culled from the archives of a Beirut newspaper, that shows a circle of Iranian-backed conspirators gathered behind the pilots of the hijacked TWA Flight 847.  Some former U.S. officials say the balding man in the front row is Maliki; but even if that's wrong, his own Dawa Party bombed the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait in 1983.  A conspiratorial underground was his political education."
 
 
That's who the US government backed.  That was Bush's decision in 2006 and it was Barack's in 2010.   Things could be different in Iraq.  But the US government made the decision.
 
 
Nouri has often been at odds with Tareq al-Hashemi.  Both came to their current positions in the spring of 2006.  Nouri and State of Law objected strongly to Tareq's visiting neighboring countries in the region during Political Stalemate I and, most importantly, when Nouri was exposed as a liar (again) for lying about secret prisons (again) and prison conditions, al-Hashemi amplified the revelations by visiting the prison.  And Saleh al-Mutlaq?  Dar Addustour notes Nouri is also calling for confidence to be withdrawn on al-Mutlaq and that Shwani Khalid, head of the Parliamentary Legal Committee. Al Sabaah notes Nouri's trusted lackey Yassin Majeed went on television and stated that al-Mutlaq is not fit to hold office. If that is what Nouri is pursuing, that means he's attempting to prosecute al-Mutlaq for the statements that have Nouri enraged. For those who've forgotten, Nouri attempted to sue a member of Parliament (Sabah al-Saadi) only a few months back (September).  From the September 22nd snapshot:

Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports on Moqtada al-Sadr's criticism of Nouri al-Maliki swearing out an arrest warrant for Sabah al-Saadi claiming that criticizing Nouri is a threat to national security (see yesterday's snapshot). al-Sadr has called out the move and compared it to a new dictatorship and issued a call for the government to work on inclusion and not exclusion. Another Al Mada report notes Sadr declaring that Nouri needs to drop this issue and focus on the needed political work. It's noted that the Sadr bloc waited until Moqtada issued a statement to weigh in and that the Kurdish Regional Government President Massoud Barazni declared that the Kurdish bloc would not support a vote to strip al-Saadi of his immunity. As a member of Parliament, Sabah al-Saadi should be immune to Nouri's arrest warrant for the 'crime' of speech. Currently, the warrant exists but cannot be executed due to the immunity members of Parliament have. So in addition to filing charges against al-Saadi, Nouri and State of Law (his political slate) are also attempting to strip a member of Parliament of his immunity.
But that's not all. Nouri has a back up plan. Should the Parliament not agree to strip al-Saadi of his immunity, the warrant will stand through 2014 when al-Saadi's term expires (al-Saadi's decided not to run again or Nouri's made that decision and intends to utilize the Justice and Accountability Commission to keep him from running?) at which point all-Saadi would be a citizen (without immunity) and then the warrant can and will be executed. In addition, Al Mada notes the claim that immunity can be stripped of a member of Parliament if half-plus-one of those in attendance vote in favor of the motion.
For those wondering how an insult, any insult, rises to the level of criminal, this AFP report (in French) explains that Nouri's complaint utilizes a law from the reign of General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Article 226 of the 1969 Criminal Code which made it a crime for anyone to insult a member of Parliament, the government, the courts, armed forces, etc.
 
 

That was in September. Immunity prevented Nouri from going any further. And if MPs want to call Nouri a dictator they can. (Sadly they can only do that, under the current understanding of Iraqi law, because they have immunity as an MP. Citizens, under the current understanding of Iraqi law, most likely lack that freedom of expression in Iraq.) Nouri's efforts to have the man kicked out of Parliament failed so Team Nouri (advisors and attorneys) began telling the press that as soon as the man's term in Parliment expired (they didn't appear to think the man could be re-elected), he would be arrested. (For calling Nouri a dictator.)

al-Mutlaq said Nouri was acting dictatorial. For that 'crime,' Nouri must strip him of his status which confers immunity if he's going to have him arrested.
 
Reuters notes a gun attack on a Mosul checkpoint which claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, 1 grocer was shot dead in Mosul, one man was injured when police shot him n Mosul, a Balad roadside bombing injured three Iranian pilgrims and, dropping back to last night for both, a Kirkuk shooting in which two Sahwa were injured and a Mosul shooting that left two police officers injured.
 
 
Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office
Monday, December 19, 2011 (202) 224-2834

VETERANS: Murray Applauds VA Implementation of Care for Newborn Children of Women Veterans

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
issued regulations to cover the provision of care to newborn children of women veterans as required in the Caregivers and Veteran Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. This provision, authored by Chairman Murray in her Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2009, would provide health services for newborns for up to seven days after the birth of the child if the mother delivered the child in a VA facility or in another facility pursuant to a VA contract for maternity services.

"This is great news for our women veterans who have earned the right to expect high-quality health care services that are tailored to meet their unique needs," said Chairman Murray. "As our remaining troops departed Iraq yesterday and thousands more prepare to leave Afghanistan in the coming months, the VA system must be equipped to help our women veterans step back into their lives as mothers, wives, and citizens. I applaud today's announcement and will continue my push for benefits and services that will help our nation's women veterans receive high quality care."

###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834
 
 
to the point
warren onley
david ignatius