5 men

On Talk of the Nation (NPR) today, the guests were Shawn Johnson, Ken Rudin, David Freed, David Brancaccio and Jackson Diehl,.  Five guests, all were men.

How long am I going to cover this show?  I'm planning on doing it through June 30th to get three months worth.

Ms. blog has a good post and I also loved the comments.  One was by a Heather and mentioned The Common Ills so I thought it might be our community member Heather who is among the people helping C.I. out with the e-mails.  So I texted her to say, "Great comment!"  She texted back, "???"  So I e-mailed her a link to the Ms. post and she e-mailed back, "It is a great comment but it's not me." 


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

Wednesday, April 4, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the Thursday national conference gets the axe, Tareq al-Hashemi continues his diplomatic tour of the region, PTSD issues, and more.

 

This week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network),  features coverage of the United National Anti-War Coalition conference in Stamford, Connecticut where both hosts were among the speakers.  Another speaker was International Action Center's Sara Flounders.

 

Sara Flounders:  In fighting today's wars, it's more important step is building a movement that acknowledges the relationship between the war at home and the war abroad.  It's a big challenge.  How dare any US official lecture any, any other country on prisoners, human rights or on democracy.  What hypocrisy.  This -- this country has the largest prison population in the world and that's not counting the secret prisons, the secret renditions, the secret kidnappings, the drones, it's not counting immigration detention. We need to consciously step back from ever being an echo of the State Dept and their arrogant charges and target other countries.  US wars, they rely on an arrogance of empire. Can they once again get a population to believe that humanitarian war is possible? That they're bringing democracy, advancement for women, an end to sectarian violence.  We need an anti-war movement that is really, consciously against  all US wars.  That's simple.  And against all the forms that US wars take today.  Bombs and occupations, yes.  But sanctions, sabotage, drones, media onslaughts, demonetization of leaders, racist stereotypings of whole peoples.  We represent here many different political currents and traditions here in this room.  And we can't and won't agree on many issues. So how do we proceed how do we stay united and keep our focus?  If we focus on US imperialism, on its crimes, whatever our views on many social issues, we will be together because we need an antiwar movement that opposes US war.  Consider the US-NATO war against Libya.  Eleven countries simultaneously dropping bombs on a country with no means of defense all claiming they were on a humanitarian mission while they target the electric grid, the water supply, civilian communications. Now let's talk about WikiLeaks' latest Stratfor revelation -- and, by the way, Free Bradley Manning -- the latest WikiLeaks' document in the Stratfor files, they describe in some detail the White House meeting that reviews British and French and US Special Forces, units on the ground in Syria, planting bombs, running guns, training and seeking total destabilization.  Now that's the truth.  UNAC today stands for self-determination and demands that all US troops, drones and sabotage teams out.  Unconditional US withdrawal. That's a big contribution, a big step. We can't be making demands on any country at the very time it's under attack, at the time that the bombs are falling, at the time the sanctions are strangling, Today, in the last weeks, we see the most cynical and arrogant approach.  Kony.  Kony 2012.  Right? Invisible children?  And what is it?  Young people cheering AFRICOM, US troops in Africa?  That's the way they sell US wars today.  There's a rapidly expanding US military presence in Africa.  It includes  troops in Uganda, a military mission in Mali, drone bombings in Somalia, political intervention in Sudan, all under the umbrella of AFRICOM.  It's blame the victim.  It saturates the media and it saturates the mass movement.  We need to stand up to it.  And a just on a personal level and to give a comparison, there was a time when if a woman was attacked, sexually assaulted, what was the defense of the attacker, of the courts and of the police?   It was to ask, what was she wearing? Doing? Where was she walking?  That she invited or deserved this attack.  And one gain of the women's movement was to say: It's irrelevant.  That is irrelevant.  That's the way we have to see US wars.  That is the way. Let's talk about Syria and Libya and Iraq and Iran and Venezuela  and Bolivia and Sudan.  US imperialism wants to destroy each of these countries. Not because they've made any compromises to survive -- and they have.  But because they've nationalized the source of wealth, because it's US domination, corporate domination, that they want. This empire has problems they can no longer solve. Capitalism can no longer bail itself out with war. The capitalist crisis is global. It's unsolvable So our unity is more important.  The United National Anti-War Coalition, UNAC, was founded on the principle of self-determination for all the oppressed nations and people. What do we want to demand that they abolish NATO, we want to talk about march on the RNC and the DNC.  Abolish NATO and end the wars abroad.

 

Yesterday, we noted Margaret Kimberley's speech to the conference.  Of the conference, Glen Ford explains:

 

I was privileged to present the coordinating committee's draft of the Action Plan to UNAC's national conference in Stamford, Connecticut, this past weekend. "This action plan does not just target some U.S. wars," said the committee's statement. "It does not target the currently unpopular wars. It does not shy away from condemning wars that remain acceptable to half the population because the real reasons for them are obscured in the rhetoric of humanitarian intervention. It does not advocate that we avoid putting U.S. boots on the ground by mounting embargoes that bring economic devastation on the peoples of Iran. It does not condone war by other, more sanitized, means. It does not cheer on wars that minimize U.S. combat deaths by the use of robotic unmanned planes or the highly trained murder squads of the Joint Special Operations Command. It does not see war by mercenary as somehow less threatening to the peoples of the world and the U.S. than war by economic draft. It does not give credit to Washington for removing brigades from one country in order to deploy them in the next."

The document demands an end to "all wars, interventions, targeted assassinations and occupations" and U.S. withdrawal from "NATO and all other interventionist military alliances."

UNAC's reasoning is rooted in the principle that all the world's peoples have the inherent right to self-determination, to pursue their own destinies -- the foundation of relations among peoples, enshrined in international law but daily violated by the United States.

 

 

Moving from wars to one, Iraq.  We're going to do a little exercise first.  It's 2016.  I decide to throw a party and send out invites to Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera), Sam Dagher and Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal), Liz Sly, Alice Fordham, Ernesto Londono and Ed O'Keefe  (Washington Post), Jack Healy,  Tim Arango. Alissa J. Rubin, Damien Cave, Sabrina Tavernise and Stephen Farrell (New York Times), Nancy A. Youssef, Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers), Deborah Haynes and James Hider (Times of London), Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, Quil Lawrence and Kelly McEvers (NPR), Borzou Daragahi, Ned Parker, Alexandra Zavis, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times), Lara Jakes, Rebecca Santana, Hamza Hendawi and Brett Barrouquere (Associated Press), Jomana Karadsheh, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Arwa Damon (CNN), Trudy Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) and Anna Badkhen (San Francisco Chronicle, among others).

 

That's 34 people.  I need a head count so I'm asking everyone to RSVP.  It's a week away and only 10 have.  That's not a really good sign.  12 show up (11 invited, one not invited).  Tim Arango insists he Tweeted his RSVP and since I'm not on Twitter, I missed it.  5 show up just to be kind (Damien Cave, Liz Sly, Borzou Daragahi, Ed O'Keefe and Alissa J. Rubin).  5 show up to tell off the crazy bitch that's slammed everyone online for so many years (Jane Arraf, Arwa Damon, Stephen Farrell, Sam Dagher, Jomana Karadsheh and party crasher David E. Sanger).  As we sit down to eat, there is silence that only momentarily vanished during dinner, most people talk to one another, I make some idiotic toast that further alienates everyone present.

 

The next morning, not even I am stupid enough to delude myself into thinking my dinner party was a success.  If someone says to me, "Well people showed up," even I'm not stupid enough to assume they showed up due to some love for me.  They showed up for various reasons including manners and to tell me off.  I am not idiotic enough to assume that my decision to host a party means my hosting a party makes it a success.  Good or bad (and mine was bad), my just hosting a party I invited people too does not make it a success.

 

The Arab League Summit was not a success for Iraq.  Less than half of the heads of countries who are members of the Arab League attended.  With the exception of Kuwait, no leader attended because of Nouri. Those other heads of state that attended did so for a variety of reasons but Iraq and Nouri weren't among them.

 

Today, Liz Sly (Washington Post) offers that "the goodwill generated between Iraq and its Arab neighbors by an extravagant summit in Baghdad last week began unraveling at speed." No goodwill was generated.  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was lavishly praised in public remarks by those attending.  And some of that praise was probably for him (he was a gregarious host from all account) but some of the heavy praise was just to make a point -- via contrast -- about Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and thug of Iraq) who got far less public praise from those attending. When you grasp that most were not there for Nouri and not impressed by Nouri, you can grasp that he's shot himself in the foot every day since as he's verbally attacked Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  He has no real ties to the Arab neighbors.  If Kuwait didn't want the borders redrawn, they probably wouldn't be as chummy with him as they are. 

 

 

 Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) broke the news this morning that the national conference had been called off according to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi.   Yamei Wang (Xinhua) adds that the the Speaker "attributed the postponement to the mounting differences among political blocs during a meeting by the prepatory committee held on Tuesday."  The national conference is something that Jalal Talabani and Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for since December 21st in order to address the ongoing political crisis.

 

Political Stalemate I (when Nouri wouldn't honor the results of the March 7, 2010 elections) only ended in November 2010 because all parties -- including Nouri -- agreed to the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. Once he was made prime minister -- the main gift to Nouri in the Erbil Agreement -- he tossed it aside, that's December 2010 and the start of Political Stalemate II which has been ongoing ever since. Over the summer, the Kurds began calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. They were then joined by Iraqiya (who came in first in the March 7, 2010 elections) and Moqtada al-Sadr, among others. The Erbil Agreement found Nouri making various concessions if the others would allow him to remain prime minister.  But he got to be prime minister and trashed the agreement, refusing to honor what he agreed to, the very things that made the other political blocs sign off on the agreement.

 

Liz Sly reports:

 

Maliki had agreed to hold the reconciliation conference as a last-minute concession to the Sunnis and Kurds ahead of the Baghdad summit, which the government hoped would showcase Iraq as stable, safe and assuming its rightful place in the firmament of Arab nations after the withdrawal of U.S. troops late last year.

But relations with Arab states have since been deteriorating fast, along with any hopes that Iraq will soon be able to resolve its own internal problems. On Sunday, Maliki issued a forceful defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, saying his ouster would destabilize the region. On the same day, at a U.S.-backed gathering of "Friends of Syria" in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia endorsed a plan to fund and equip Syrian rebels.

 

Did Nouri want the meet up to take place?  Rami Ruhayem (BBC News) argues that today "his opponents said they would not attend, and his allies said there was no point."

 

 

This morning, before the meet-up got the axe, Dar Addustour reported on Nouri's paranoia and how he was girding himself for a possible takeover attempt. He doesn't name Barzani but, as Dar Addustour points out, that is who he's referring to when he frets that he may be replaced. Nouri fears his puppet masters in the US may be about to dump him and that's why Barzani is in DC. (Why would the White House dump him? Nouri thinks they might move towards someone more willing to favor an attack on Syria.) He also fears Tareq al-Hashemi's current diplomatic tour of other countries might have something to do with Arab leaders of other countries gearing up for a coup. Unnamed confidants of Nouri state that he is preparing himself for those possibilities and also for a military coup staged by Iraqi security forces loyal to DC. (Last month, State of Law repeatedly floated that there were several Iraqi military officers -- high ranking -- who were spying for the United States.)

 

Does that really sound like he wanted the meet-up?

 

Yamei Wang (Xinhua) reports, "Nujaifi attributed the postponement to the mounting differences among political blocs during a meeting by the prepatory committee held on Tuesday."  Wang's reporting that the agenda was agreed to but some other issues came up on Tuesday. 

 

Nouri al-Maliki is not a genius, he's barely literate.  But when throwing out possibilities, it's worth remembering that Nouri stalls and stalls and stalls again.  He stalled on the national conference to begin with.  As Liz Sly noted he postponed it until after the Arab League Summit.  Most of the other players -- not just Iraqiya -- were saying that it needed to be held in February, then that it needed to take place before the summit.

 

The reason for the national conference is what?  The Erbil Agreement.  He's stalled on implementing that for over a year.  When the major protests hit Iraq on February 25, 2011 and the people were demanding basic services, jobs and end to corruption and to the 'disappearing' of people in Iraq's legal system, what did Nouri do?

 

He said, "Give me 100 days and I'll address it."  He took 100 days, he never addressed it.  Even now, approximately 400 days after he asked for 100 days, he's never addressed the issues that Iraqis raised.  He stalls and stalls.  He hopes people forget or that he can exhaust them.  That's what he did in his first term as prime minister. 

 

Others may have called off the meet-up (they may not).  But if something happened on Tuesday night to bring about this decision, don't put it past Nouri to have instigated that.  It his pattern.

 

The political crisis did not start half-way into December when Nouri started demanding Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and then that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested.  That is, however, when certain media outlets began to take the ongoing political crisis seriously.  (Please note, that week that started with Nouri ordering al-Hashemi arrested, it was never news to American broadcast network news because the only one that reported on it that week was The NewsHour on PBS -- CBS Evening News, ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News all ignored the prime minister ordering the arrest of the vice president.)

 

An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reviewed much of that time yesterday at Inside Iraq noting:

 

In a press conference Maliki said that he had a criminal file on Hashimi that he had been sitting on for three years, and was now ready to prosecute him.  For the objective observer, the timing of this announcement was telling. [. . .] Confessions of Hashimi's security personnel were aired on state television and an arrest warrent for Hashim himself was issued and also made public on state TV -- All this publicity on Maliki's side in order to burn the bridges and make any political deal impossible in this country where government is glued together with political deals.

 

 

A day after al-Hashemi went to the KRG, Nouri issued the arrest warrant.  Tareq al-Hashemi has remained in the KRG as a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.  Until Sunday when he traveled to Qatar.  Despite Nouri's bluster, Qatar refused his request to extradite al-Hashemi (who stated it was a visit and that he'd return to the KRG when he finished his diplomatic tour.  Habib Toumi (Gulf News) explains, "Al Hashemi was received by the Qatari Emir Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani received Al Hashemi at his court."   Alsumaria notes that when asked at a press conference today, Osama al-Nujaifi declared that he understood al-Hashemi to be making an official trip and that, as he understood it, al-Hashemi would be returning to the KRG.

 

Mohammed Jamjoon (CNN) reports that al-Hashemi has now traveled onto Sadui Arabia.  Jamjoon quotes Usama al-Nugali, spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry, stating, "He came to Saudi Arabia and met with Prince Saudi Al-Faisal, the foreign minister.  He is, after all, the vice president of Iraq."

 

Turning to the topic of violence, AFP reports that a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life today.  AGI notes 5 people have been killed in a Dhuluiya car bombing with at least ten more injured. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "The booby-trapped car went off when a team of police explosive experts were defusing a roadside bomb nearby in the town of al-Duluiyah, some 90 km north of Baghdad, the source from Salahudin's operations command said on condition of anonymity." AFP offers, "The police officer said that the explosion took place at about 8:30 am (5:30 GMT) when Dhuluiyah police chief Colonel Qandil Khalil's convoy was passing by." And they also note, "It was the second attack against Colonel Khalil's convoy this year, after a previous car bombing in January that he also survived."  Dhuluiya is in Salahuddin Province. Yesterday journalist Kamiran Salahudin was killed in the province by a sticky bombing.  Also yesterday, Al Sabaah reports, the Turkish military shelled Dohuk and Erbil in their continued pursuit of the PKK.   The paper notes that the shelling was continuous and lasted for approximately 30 hours. 

 

 

Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:

Lastly, Jonathan Fisher (WebProNews) covers new threats to the internet from around the world and he notes this on Iraq:

According to a translation from the Centre for Law and Democracy, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Iraq's Informatics Crimes Law would impose a mandatory life sentence for anyone using a computer or the Internet to do any of the following:

"compromise" the "unity" of the state;
subscribe, participate, negotiate, promote, contract or deal with an enemy … in order to destabilize security and public order or expose the country to danger;
damage, cause defects, or hinder [systems or networks] belonging to security military, or intelligence authorities with a deliberate intention to harm [state security].
promote "ideas which are disruptive to public order";
"implement terrorist operations under fake names or to facilitate communication with members or leaders of terrorist groups";
"promote terrorist activites and ideologies or to publish information regarding the manufacturing, preparation and implementation of flammable or explosive devices, or any tools or materials used in the planning or execution of terrorist acts";
facilitate or promote human trafficking "in any form";
engage in "trafficking, promoting or facilitating the abuse of drugs".

The Act also includes provisions to punish network users who "create chaos in order to weaken the trust of the electronic system of the state," "provoke or promote armed disobedience," "disturb public order or harm the reputation of the country," or "intrude, annoy or call computer and information network users without authorization or hinders their use," the Electronic Freedom Foundation reports. Copyright infringement and hacking would also land users in big trouble under the Act, which proposes a 2- to 3-year prison term for either offense.

Today Alice Fordham (Washington Post) reports on attempts to curb speech in Iraq where bills are being considered that could imprison people who criticize the government or make new requirements/hurdles for demonstrating. She speaks with Iraqi blogger Hayder Hamzoz:

The law also contains a sentence of life imprisonment for using computers or social networks to compromise "the independence of the state or its unity, integrity, safety."
Hamzoz, who does not use his real name out of concern for his safety, said he believes the legislationis intended to allow the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to control social media. The government essentially did just that more than a year ago, when it swiftly smothered an uprising inspired by the Arab Spring revolts sweeping the region.
"It's to attack the activists," he said.

 

 

 

Moving over to the United States, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:

 

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

Wednesday, April 4th,

CONTACT: Murray Press Office
2012 (202) 224-2834



TOMORROW: Murray in Spokane with VA Health Officials to Host Roundtable Discussion with Local Veterans, Tour Homeless Veterans Facility

Veterans will discuss experiences with homelessness, mental health issues, and transition

(Washington, D.C.) – Tomorrow, Thursday, April 5th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray will hold a roundtable discussion with VA officials and local veterans in Spokane to discuss a range of topics including veterans homelessness, issues specific to female veterans, mental health, basic service problems in rural Washington, and transition. Following the roundtable, Senator Murray and Dr. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health in the Department of Veterans Affairs, will tour the Spokane Veterans Homelessness Outreach Center. Senator Murray will discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide, and will use the stories and suggestions she hears on Thursday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.


WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Dr. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health in the Department of Veterans Affairs

Dr. Bastian, Chief of Behavioral Health at the SVAMC

Julie Liss, Women's Veterans Coordinator at the SVAMC

John Davis, Program Coordinator, Healthcare for Homeless Veterans

Monica Giles, Program Coordinator at the SVAMC

Local veterans



WHAT: Roundtable with local veterans and service providers about the difficulties they face in regards to:

homelessness, women veteran's issues, mental health, and transition.



WHEN: TOMORROW: THURSDAY, April 5, 2012

Roundtable begins at 12:00 PM PT, tour will take place immediately following roundtable



WHERE: Spokane Veterans Homelessness Outreach Center

705 W. Second Avenue

Spokane, WA 99201-4412
Map

 

 

 

A new study of PTSD by UCLA's Semel Institute (and published in the Journal of Affective Disorders) is garnering attention. Stephanie O'Neill (KPCC -- link is text and audio) reports, "The new study suggests that a person is more likely to suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or if they carry two particular gene variations that interfere with the body's ability to produce Serotonin. That's the brain chemical that regulates, mood, sleep and alertness." Medical News Today quotes the study's lead author, Dr. Armen Goenjian, stating, "People can develop post-traumatic stress disorder after surviving a life-threatening ordeal like war, rape or a natural disaster ... If confirmed, our findings could eventually lead to new ways to screen people at risk for PTSD and target specific medicines for preventing and treating the disorder." Science Daily notes, "PTSD can arise following child abuse, terrorist attacks, sexual or physical assault, major accidents, natural disasters or exposure to war or combat. Symptoms include flashbacks, feeling emotionally numb or hyper-alert to danger, and avoiding situations that remind one of the original trauma." The study examined 200 survivors of the December 7, 1988 Armenian earthquake which claimed at least 45,000 lives.

On the topic of PTSD, Randy Griffith (Tribune-Democrat) explains, "There are three general characteristics of the disorder, Zitnay said. They are re-experiencing the trauma, avoidance and hyper-arousal. Those with PTSD re-experience the event through nightmares, flashbacks and increased anxiety when reminded of the event. Avoidance is characterized by seclusion, amnesia of the incident and taking pains to stay away from locations, people or objects associated with the trauma." Shuka Kalantari (KALW) reports on PTSD by speaking to Iraqi refugee Jasmine who studies engineering in California.

Shuka Kalantari: Jasmine remembers one of those flashbacks. She was at a women's studies class at her college in San Jose. They were watching a documentary about a war in Chile. After the film, the teacher asked students to try and imagine how their life would be if they lived in war.

Jasmine: So she tried like to make the student feel like the feelings of these people. So she stated [. . .] to the class, "You imagine that you lost your husband." As she came to me, "You imagine that they tried to kidnap you."

Shuka Kalantari: Jasmine didn't have to imagine.

Jasmine: I feel like I'm out of air. I left the class and I remained outside -- for over like 20 hours just like crying in a way.

Shuka Kalantari: For the next her mind was flooded with bad memories. She said that even seemingly unrelated things would trigger her symptoms.

Jasmine: Sometimes like part of songs would make me like really like sad and depression if something happened to me. I feel like I'm out of the war for a couple of days.

Shuka Kalantari speaks to the Center for Survivors of Torture's Dr. James Livingston who explains PTSD is fairly common among those forced to flee their homes. Jasmine's father was shot dead in Baghdad and she left the country when it appeared she was being targeted for kidnapping.

 

The Defense Dept needs to get out the message that PTSD knows no boundaries, that it could happen to anyone and that seeking treatment is taking control of PTSD.  As part of that effort, they have released this video of Chaplain Steve Dundas discussing his PTSD.

Chaplain: Steve Dudnas: I am Lt Commander Steve Dundas. I've been in the military 30 years, the Navy since 1999. When we got to Iraq our mission was to support US Marine Corps and Army advisers across the entire Al Anbar Province. These teams were out by themselves and they would very seldom if ever see a chaplain because of their isolation. I would go out and provide counseling, religious services. The hardest parts of the deployment? One, I've had a lot of experience as a trauma department chaplain and seen a lot of death. But when I got there and actually saw our wounded Marines and soldiers, prayed with them, anointed them, that was one of the really hard things -- was to see what war does to these warriors. I had studied a lot about PTSD and dealt with Marines who had it. I thought I was pretty much untouchable to it because I thought I'd seen everything. But I was really surprised by some of the things I saw and the impact that they had. The sites, the smells especially. The exhaustion. The travel. We went through some of the most dangerous areas of Iraq. Occasionally got shot at. And there was always an understanding that al Qaeda had chaplains at the top of their target list. When I came back to the States, I just felt so disconnected from people, church. I didn't even know if God still existed. And that was one of the most painful parts of my life. Prayer became really hard. Just going -- Doing life became really hard. I was depressed, angry, on edge all of the time. Finally, our medical officer did an assessment and was convinced that I was really starting to suffer PTSD and got me connected with the Deployment Health Clinic at Portsmouth Naval Medical Center and I started seeing a therapist there trying to figure out how to deal with my experiences. For me, writing is something that allows me to work through things and if I didn't write them out [they] would gnaw at me. And some of that deals with my own struggles with PTSD and faith, some of it deals with how I see the world now, and part of it are those things that are part of me: my dad, growing up, baseball. About the only place I can be in a crowd of people and still feel really safe is at a baseball game. And part of it is just the way the diamond's laid out and just the peacefulness of it. My role as a chaplain is to provide the spiritual support as they make this journey and as they begin to open up about what they've gone through. But many times, it requires more than just the chaplain. And so, I'll say, I know it's scary but I think that you need to seek the help of a mental health professional because it's a way to get better. And I tell them my experiences which are good experiences with both the therapists I've had. That they understood and they didn't push me to some track that I was unable to go to. I realize that you can't go back, you can't go back to what you were, you have to adapt to what you are. Do you want to be healthy? Yes. Do you want to be well adjusted? Yes. Does that mean you're going to be the same person you were before you went to war? No. Nobody is. But that's okay if we open ourselves up to get help. It's not something that we're going to be better overnight. What it will be though is a step on the way to healing, a step on the way to integrating those experiences with our daily life now. I don't think it is weakness to seek help. In fact, I think it's a sign of strength. I think it's a sign that you want to move forward. And what I hope is that when I spend time with people, when I share with people, when I listen to people, that I can help them to begin that process if they haven't already started. And to encourage them if they're already getting some therapy. Provide that extra bit of support, that extra bit of connection so that they don't feel that they're alone.

 

 

iraq

black agenda radio
glen ford
nellie bailey

the washington post
liz sly
al mada
alsumaria tv
dar addustour
the associated press
sameer n. yacoub
the kurdish globe
rawaz koyee
webpronews
jonathan fisher
alice fordham
agi
afp
xinhua
fang yang
yamei wang 

kpcc
stephanie oneill
medical news today
science daily
science daily
the tribune-democrat
randy griffith
kalw
shuka kalantari

6 and 6

Monday on Talk of the Nation (NPR), the guests were Aaron David Miller, Steve Heydemann, Donna Britt, David Crystal, Anne-Marie Slaughter and Caremlo Valone.  That's four men and two women.

Tuesday's guests were Stephanie Clifford, Isabel Wilkerson, David Carr, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Amy Mitchell and Jane Leavy.  That's four women and two men.

All of Monday's segments were fine but Tuesday included Ta-Ta who always gets on my last nerve.  I'm going to note a section of his speaking and comment as we go through.





CONAN: Well, we've had people being pulled off the sidelines and being crazy, not about this issue, but about other issues in other administrations. Certainly people were not above calling George W. Bush any number of vitriolic names, and certainly not Bill Clinton, too.
COATES: No, I think that's definitely right, Neal, but one doesn't make the other any less depressing. That's the only thing I would add to that. Even if you say, people on the left maybe called, you know, called President Bush stupid, ignorant, whatever you heard before...
CONAN: Fascist and...
COATES: Fascist, certainly so, not too strongly thrown out there.

He's such a damn liar.  I have no use for people like Ta-Ta.  Bush was called a Nazi.  By many.  Including the producer of the CBS Hitler mini-series. (And they were probably right to call him that.)

People said he was behind 9-11.

Barack's accused of a false birth certificate.  Bush was accused of a false service record.  Grow the hell up, Ta-Ta.


CONAN: Yeah, thrown out there, too.
COATES: But I think the insult of - not to, you know, take this to another place, but I think the insult of - the Kenyan insult is a particular insult that, you know, has been lodged at African-Americans, basically since we came here - and that is that you are not truly an American. The victory of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidency represented, at least for African-Americans, some symbolic level of acceptance.
When you say he's a Kenyan, he's not a Muslim, you know, being code for not being mainstream America, it really stands in an ugly, ugly tradition that goes beyond presidential politics, I think.
CONAN: We want to hear from our listeners today. Where do you turn - where else do you turn for coverage of the Ta-Nehisi - not the...

Ta-Ta, quit your damn lying.  I've never been accused of being Kenyan.  My parents have never been called that either.

"The son of Kenya" is how some (supporters) billed Barack.  There was blowback.  Get over it.


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

Tuesday, April 3, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Qatar offers a message to Nouri al-Maliki, tensions continue between Nouri and the Kurds, Barack Obama calls Nouri ahead of a planned national conference in Iraq, a journalist is assassinated in Baghdad, and more.

 

 

This week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey (first airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network),  features coverage of the United National Anti-War Coalition conference in Stamford, Connecticut where both hosts were among the speakers.  Another speaker was Black Agenda Report's Margaret Kimberley:

 

Margaret Kimberley: It's a great pleasure to be here today, speaking to a group of people who proudly proclaim themselves to be anti-war.  Now I was told I only had three minutes to speak which is both a hard and easy task at the same time so I'll get to my main point which is pretty simple: You cannot be anti-war and pro-Obama.  We can't discuss the issue of NATO and the G8 without talking about Barack Obama. The two events were initially planned to take place in Chicago which is no coincidence -- it's the President's home and his political base.  His former Chief of Staff [Rahm Emanuel] now serves as the mayor there.  And these events were intended to be coronations for the Obama Doctrine which states that the United States can kill and steal whenever it wants to and wherever it wants to and does so in a fashion which keeps liberals happy even as acts which they decried under Bush are carried out by Obama.  Those of us who are anti-war are not fooled because a Democrat makes war instead of a Repbulican or because the current war making Democrat is a Black man.  As we all know, the G8 meeting was moved from Chicago to Camp David because the President and his G8 friends are afraid of protest.  They are afraid of us. The change of venue for the G8 summit is a sign of success but we can't rest on our laurels and forget the awful forces represented by NATO and the G8. These forces will not be happy until the people of the world accept their rule without question or protest. We know that the goal of the G8 is to turn the whole world into Greece -- a country which, among other things now, has no mimimum wage, no regulation of corporate activities and a shrunken welfare safety net.  NATO is an organization which should have outlived its usefulness.  It was always a counter-weight to the Warsaw Pact nations but the Soviet Union no longer exists and former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics like Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Latvia and Estonia are now all NATO members.  Actually, I should correct myself there.  There is a reason for NATO to exist and that is to further the interest of empire and western capitol.  NATO is a tool of western imperialism and we saw that all very clearly in Libya.  The United States, France and the UK conspired to bring down a sovereign nation's government, kill its leader,spread a race war and lynch law and divide Libya into weak fiefdoms incapable of stopping their collaborators from turning over their resources to NATO and G8 countries.  The bombings of civilians and the lies told to the world about a phony humanitarian agenda were all carried out in NATO's name. Now I know that anti-NATO and G8 protests are being planned this weekend and I also know that the Nobel Peace Prize winning president recently signed legislation which makes it a felony to protest at national security events where Secret Service are present and that makes these actions very dangerous.  But speaking of protest just as an aside, the actions at political conventions this summer should be restricted to the Democrats.  They are, after all, the party in power. They are the only ones who we need to protest to.  But even so -- even so, resistance is still the order of the day. Thank you very much.

 

 

Of the conference, Glen Ford explains:

 

I was privileged to present the coordinating committee's draft of the Action Plan to UNAC's national conference in Stamford, Connecticut, this past weekend. "This action plan does not just target some U.S. wars," said the committee's statement. "It does not target the currently unpopular wars. It does not shy away from condemning wars that remain acceptable to half the population because the real reasons for them are obscured in the rhetoric of humanitarian intervention. It does not advocate that we avoid putting U.S. boots on the ground by mounting embargoes that bring economic devastation on the peoples of Iran. It does not condone war by other, more sanitized, means. It does not cheer on wars that minimize U.S. combat deaths by the use of robotic unmanned planes or the highly trained murder squads of the Joint Special Operations Command. It does not see war by mercenary as somehow less threatening to the peoples of the world and the U.S. than war by economic draft. It does not give credit to Washington for removing brigades from one country in order to deploy them in the next."

The document demands an end to "all wars, interventions, targeted assassinations and occupations" and U.S. withdrawal from "NATO and all other interventionist military alliances."

UNAC's reasoning is rooted in the principle that all the world's peoples have the inherent right to self-determination, to pursue their own destinies -- the foundation of relations among peoples, enshrined in international law but daily violated by the United States.

 

 

Alsumaria TV reports a TV broadcaster was killed by a sticky bombing in Tirkit yesterday.  AGI notes that the journalist's name is Kamiran Salaheddin and that he "worked for the Salaheddin channel, which was founded in 2004" by US forces. The Journalistic Freedoms Observatory has a photo of the 35-year-old here and they explain that he held a Masters degree in the Arabic language, had previously worked for the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, that he had been working for the channel since 2005 and that his survivors include his wife and their two children. Reporters Without Borders notes:

 

Reporters Without Borders condemns Salahaddin TV presenter Kamiran Salaheddin's murder last night in the centre of Tikrit (170 km north of Baghdad). Aged 35 and the father of two children, he was killed at around 9 p.m. by a bomb placed under his car.

"We offer our condolences to Salaheddin's family, friends and colleagues," Reporters Without Borders said. "The Iraqi authorities must do everything possible to ensure that those responsible for his death are brought to justice. His murder must not go unpunished."

 

 

 

 

In addition, Alsumaria TV notes the Hilla home of one of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was bombed today and the iman of one of the al-Sistani mosques in Diwaniya Province was injured today when assailants attacked it firing machine guns. Aswat al-Iraq reports the man died.

 

The White House released the following today:

 

 

Read out of the President's Call with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki

President Obama called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki today to congratulate the Iraqi people on the success of the Arab Summit hosted in Baghdad last week, and on Iraq's continued reintegration into the region as a sovereign, independent state.  The two leaders discussed the United States and Iraq's joint efforts to advance peace and security in the region as strategic partners.  The discussion also covered the political situation in Iraq, and a range of other shared interests.  President Obama expressed the United States' firm commitment to a unified, democratic Iraq as defined by Iraq's constitution, as well as his support for Prime Minister Maliki's participation in the ongoing dialogue convened by President Talabani tasked to reconcile Iraqi political blocs in a flexible and open manner. 

 

Barack must have been bored and needing to play with his puppet today.  The Arab League Summit, for Iraq, was a failure (see "Editorial: Successful summit for Iraq?").  But for those who delude themselves otherwise, the question to ask is why Barack called Nouri today?  The summit was Thursday.  Had Barack run out of his March minutes?  Exactly what was the hold up on that call?

 

Oh, because the summit praise was smoke up the ass.  The actual point of the call was to try to coax the puppet into playing nice tomorrow when a national conference is supposed to be held.

 

Iraq's been in political crisis for over a year now. Since December 21st, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a National Conference. Supposedly that will take place tomorrow. Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) reports that Iraqiya's Haidar Mulla states they "will only paticipate in the convention if the Erbil Agreement is implemented and the security posts are finalized beforehand." The three security ministries -- Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of the Defense and Ministry of National Security -- were supposed to be named by the end of December 2010. That was how Nouri al-Maliki would move from prime minister-designate to prime minister -- per the Constitution. Instead, he was moved without naming a full Cabinet and those posts remain empty all this time later, have never been filled while violence has increased in Iraq.

By not filling them, Nouri controls them. He ignores the Constitution and declares someone 'acting' minister. Then they do what he tells them or he fires them. If he nominated someone for the post and the person was confirmed, Nouri could not fire them. He would not Parliament's backing. Since December, he's been trying to strip Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq of his post. Thus far Parliament has refused to go along with him so al-Multaq retains his post.

Ahmed reports:


Muayad Taiyb, spokesperson for the Kurdistani bloc in Iraqi Parliament, believes Barzani is avoiding the convention because he believes it won't solve anything.
"Massud Barzani is not hopeful about the results of the convention; that's why he will not participate in it."
Mulla believes that Barzani's decision to not attend the convention will affect the positions of other political leaders.
"If President Barzani does not participate in the convention, then neither will Alawi," he said. "Massoud Barzani is a key figure in the political process in Iraq. His absence at the convention will make it have no value."
The State of Law Coalition has left many political issues unresolved with the Kurdistan Region and the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya bloc.
Taiyb says, "The State of Law bloc has issues with both the Iraqiya bloc and the Kurds. The convention is meaningless without Iraqiya's participation because the main issues in the political process in Iraq are between Iraqiya and the State of Law."

 

Earlier this week, Al Rafidayn noted that Iraqiya's concerns include Saleh al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi and that, for the conference to have real meaning, KRG President Massoud Barzani, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq's Ammar al-Hakim and Moqtada al-Sadr would need to attend.  Barzani will not be attending.  He's out of the country on a diplomatic tour and has already arrived in the United States.  Today he spoke with the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl and Jim Hoagland and Diehl reports:

 

"The more you look at it, the more you see the situation going toward conflict and chaos," he said Tuesday.

To the south, in Baghdad, Barzani sees Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "concentrating power," having driven the leader of Iraq's Sunni population to seek de facto asylum in Kurdistan. "Iraq right now is facing a crisis," he told me and The Post's Jim Hoagland during a visit to Washington. "There may be some people who do not want to call it a crisis, but it is a crisis. This is not the Iraq we struggled for: We are seeing the consolidation of power under one party and one ruler."

 

Hadi Jalo tells Hamza Hendawi (AP), "The sectarian war has moved away from violence to soft conflict fought int he state institutions, government ministries and on the street.  What was once an armed conflict has turned into territorial, instituationalized and psychological segregation."  Henawi explains that Sunnis are basically blacklisted from employment in the government and at colleges and that Shi'ites in charge "stonewall them when they seek help locating the remains of loved ones."

 

Iraqiya members Saleh al-Mutlaq and Tareq al-Hashemi are political rivals of Nouri al-Maliki's -- he leads State of Law, they belong to Iraqiya.  (Iraqiya came in first in the March 7, 2010 elections.)  In addition, while Nouri is a Shi'ite, al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are both Sunni and some see the attacks on the two men by Nouri as both political attacks and sectarian attacks. 

 

Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, whom Nouri wants arrrested but has been in the KRG as a guest of KRG President Barzani and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, went to Qatar on Sunday (and states he will return to Iraq when he finishes up his diplomatic tour that will include visits to other countries).  Nouri's government is engaging in a war of words with the government of Qatar over Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's visit to the country.  Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister of Energy al-Sharistani -- who apparently believes his title is much more elastic than it would appear to be -- declared that Qatar should hand over al-Hashemi. It was never going to happen. But Nouri and his minions have their answer today. AP  reports that Qatar's State Minister Khaled al-Aiityah has stated that they will do no such thing.  RTT News adds, "Qatar's State Minister for Foreign Affairs Khaled al-Attiyah stated at a press conference held Tuesday that Hashemi could not be extradited to Iraq as requested by Baghdad because there was no court judgment against him. The minister also noted that Hashemi still holds the post of vice-president." Alex Delmar-Morgan (Wall Street Journal) offers, "Qatar's stance is likely to sour already strained ties with Iraq where the pursuit of Mr. Hashemi by the Shiite-led government is stoking political tensions and threatening to destabilize the country's delicate sectarian balance."

 

Jermone McDonnell spoke with DePaul University's Laith Saud about the current conflicts on Worldview (WBEZ) today.  Excerpt.

 

Laith Saud:  Well let's look at this from three different angles.  The first angle being that the moment the United States departed from Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, began to consolidate his power and go after any potential political rivals. So, in terms of analysis, there's a great deal -- a great deal of evidence to suggest that these are trumped up charges against Tareq al-Hashemi, the Vice President of Iraq.  So he seeks refuge in the Kurdish region, in northern Iraq, which is semi-qutonomous and has its own security forces and which he was there until very recently.  He decides to go to Qatar this past Sunday in order to engage in diplomatic talks with the Qataries, in particular the Prime Minister of Qatar, which was a huge slap in the face to al-Maliki considering that the vice president is wanted.  However, if you look at what happened at the Arab League just these recent days ago --

 

Jerome McDonnell:  And it took place in --

 

Laith Saud: In Baghdad. 

 

Jerome McDonnell: For the first time in forever.

 

Laith Saud: Yeah, for the first time since 1990.  The Qataries sent very low-level representation to that Arab Summit which was kind of a slap in the face of Iraq again or, in particular, Nouri al-Maliki.  The message that the Qataries were sending was that they believe the Sunnis in Iraq are being marginalized, that, in fact, they are being repressed, and this was their way of challenging what they see as the more sectarian role that they feel that Iraq is playing in the Middle East.

 

Jerome McDonnell:  And Iraq sees that there are some Shi'ites that are being marginalized in Bahrain.

 

Laith Saud: Exactly.

 

Jerome McDonnell:  And they see some actions where they think the Saudis drive -- driving the old army into Bahrain is not cricket with some of the Shi'ites there.

 

Laith Saud: No, you're absolutely right, Jerome. And what's happening is the sectarian discourse, the sectarian narrative is really reaching a high level pitch in recent years.  So you have Shi'ite governments or so-called Shi'ite governments if we could use such a term talking about the persecution of Shias in Bahrain and, on the flip side, you have Sunni governments -- if you want to use such a term -- talking about the persecution of Sunnis in Shi'ite countries like Iraq and in the middle of all of this is Syria where you have a -- an essentially Shi'ite government that is seen to be persecuting its largely Sunni population.  Now, is this posturing?  Are these really sectarian conflicts? Are these essentially not sectarian conflicts and this is a guise by which people are battling out for resources? I tend to think so.  But there's no question that the sectarian nature of the narrative has reached a new level.

 

And of course it's not just Qatar.  AP notes, "Nouri al-Maliki, launched a thinly veiled attack on both nations during a news conference on Sunday in Baghdad, saying their desire to arm Syrian rebels would deepen the conflict there."  They go on to note "a column published in Tuesday's Saudi-owned, pan-Arab Al-Sharq al-Awsat, editor-in chief Tariq al-Hamid  . . ."  That's this column.  We noted it yesterday, we noted Tariq Alhomayed's column yesterday, when Arab News ran it.  Excerpt.

 

 

Likewise, the Al-Maliki government has remained in power as a result of Iranian pressure, despite Al-Maliki losing the elections and coming second behind Iyad Allawi, so how can he fear for the region now if Assad is overthrown by force?

How can Al-Maliki attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar following the Arab summit in Baghdad, after both countries attended the meeting, and especially given the positions of both countries in the days leading up to the event.

Meanwhile, ahead of the summit Al-Maliki had announced that his government could not defend Assad. So how, nearly three days after the Baghdad summit, can Al-Maliki turn on Saudi Arabia and Qatar today? Of course, this is clear deception, and evidence that Al-Maliki's government cannot be trusted. Had he attacked "these two countries" before the Baghdad summit, then matters would have turned out differently.

Most important of all, in addition to the fact that we cannot trust the Al-Maliki government, is that the Iraqi government is trying to secure a safe passageway for the transfer of Iranian weapons to the Assad regime, and this is what a witness -- a dissident Syrian official -- reported to the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul.

 

 

 

 

It's not enough for Nouri and his lackeys to be engaged in a public feud with Iraqiya, it's not enough enough for them to be involved in a public feud with Iraqiya and the government of Qatar.  It's not enough for them to be in a public feud with Iraqiya, the government of Qatar and the government of Saudi Arabia, no, they have to also attack the Kurds.  Al Rafidayn notes Deputy Prime Minister of Energy Hussein al-Shahristani asserts that the Kurds are diverting oil to Iran. Alsumaria TV reports the Kurdistan Alliance is accusing al-Shahristani of declaring war on them and they are calling for him to apologize to the Kurdish people for his accusations. They deny that they are smuggling oil to Iran.  RT observes:

 

A bitter dispute over oil revenues between Baghdad and Kurdish authorities highlights the escalating tensions that could split war-torn Iraq apart. However, anti-war activist Mike Raddie says the chaos is 'all part of the plan.'

Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region halted oil deliveries to Baghdad on Monday, claiming the central government owed it $1.5 billion. The region's Ministry of Natural Resources said that despite exporting 50,000 barrels per day, "there have been no payments for 10 months, nor any indication from federal authorities that payments are forthcoming."

Baghdad shot back, saying they have incurred $6.65 billion in lost revenue over the past few years after Kurdish authorities short-changed them on crude exports. The central government has further accused Kurdistan of smuggling oil through Iran.

The National notes, "It is yet another example of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's government consolidating power, which in turn is deepening the divisions within the country."


In other news, Alsumaria reports that Minister of Planning and Development Ali Shukri declared that Iraq's budget depends 92% on oil and that they need to diversify and find other avenues for income. That's a call Tareq al-Hashemi's been making publicly since 2009.

 

Turning to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:

 

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Contact: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

 

TOMORROW: MURRAY TO HOLD SENATE HEARING IN TACOMA ON THE CHALLENGES OUR VETERANS AND SERVICEMEMBERS FACE RETURNING HOME

 

Official U.S. Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing will bring to top VA and Pentagon officials to the region to answer questions and discuss mental health care concerns, putting local veterans to work, and improving transition services

Hearing will also feature the stories of local veterans and servicemembers, veterans advocates, and businesses in order to highlight challenges and ongoing community efforts

 

(Washington, D.C.) -- Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will hold a field hearing tomorrow in Tacoma on the unique opportunities and challenges that the South Sound and Washington state continue to face as thousands of veterans return to the region.  This official Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee field hearing will explore how the military, veterans, business, and non-profit communities can work together to improve the transition home for those returning to Washington state.  In particular, the hearing will focus on improving mental health care, employment opportunities, and community outreach for returning veterans.

The hearing will feature testimony from top VA and Pentagon officials, local servicemembers and veterans, business leaders, and veterans' advocates.  Members of the public are encouraged to RSVP if they plan to attend the hearing to fieldhearing@murray.senate.gov

 

WHAT:       U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs Field Hearing

"Washington's Veterams: Helping the Newest Generation Transition Home"

 

WHO:         U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee

                  Dr. Robert A. Petzel, Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration,

                  Department of Veterans Affairs

                  Dr. Susan Pendergrass, Director, VA Northwest Network (VISN 20), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs

                  Willie Clark, Western Area Director, Veterans Affairs

Dr. Jo Ann Rooney: Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

                  Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, United States  Army

                  Major General Richard W. Thomas, Commanding General Western Regional Medical Command, Senior Market Executives for TRICARE Puget Sound, United States Army

                 Local Servicemembers and Veterans

                 Business Leaders

                 Veterans' Advocates

 

WHEN:      TOMORROW: Wednesday, April 4, 2012

                 Hearing Starts at 10:39 A.M. PST | Doors Open at 9:45 A.M. PST | Cameras

                 are encouraged to come early for set-up

 

WHERE:    The STAR Center

                 3873 South 66th Street

                 Tacoma, WA 98409

 

Map it

 

Public Transportation Routes:  Pierce Transit Bus Route 53

Parking                                    On-site Parking is available

 

For more information about this hearing or other activities of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, please visit www.veterans.senate.gov

 

Press interested in coming are encouraged to RSVP to eli_zupnick@murray.senate.gov

 

 

 

iraq

black agenda radio
glen ford
nellie bailey

margaret kimberley

alsumaria tv
al mada
al rafidayn
the associated press
rudaw
hevidar ahmed

the washington post
jackson diehl

the associated press
hamza hendawi

 

David Ovalle is an Idiot

I'm not a Trayvon writer.  I think more than enough has been said and we all need to cool down before we start screaming for vigilante justice.  But I will note David Ovalle's awful article for the Miami Herald.  What's wrong with it?

He's writing about George Zimmerman (the shooter) and he is talking about his relationship with an ex-girlfriend who says she suffered violence at his hands.  Read the following and see if you get why I have a problem:


Zuazo claimed that three years earlier, Zimmerman had attacked her when they were driving to counseling. She claimed she popped her gum in his face, spurring him to call her names and smacking her mouth with his open hand.
In January 2002, she also claimed, Zimmerman got upset because she got home too late. They tussled. He threw her on the bed. She smacked him. Zimmerman left for the night.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706141/trayvon-martins-shooter-had-a.html#storylink=cpy

Hit.  The word is "hit."  Not smacked.  Someone tell tiny dicked Ovalle that he is not writing for Maxim but for a newspaper and, in the real world, domestic violence is a serious issue.  This is not time to play Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up."

Here's a picture of him.




No surprise, he is young.  Someone needs to tell him that the splash and sizzle? It's not needed in domestic violence.  Someone should have told him that already.  Someone should have made damn clear that those of us who have been the victims of violent crimes do not find him humorous or colorful.  We just stare open jawed in amazement at his lack of taste.

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Falling in (and out of) love with M. Ward" went up yesterday, be sure to read it.  


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

Monday, April 2, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Tareq al-Hashemi is Qatar, Nouri's threatning to sink INTERPOL on him (no, it's not what INTERPOL does), the Iraqi government low balls the death toll for March (and some reporters assist in the low balling), the 'experts' go nutty (prolonged exposure to to gas baggery can be damaging), and more. It's not a good day to be an 'expert.' Marc Lynch (Foreign Policy) is often insightful. This isn't one of those times. We'll get to his larger points in a moment but first we'll note these supporting 'facts' Lynch supplies: The real story of America's withdrawal from Iraq is how little impact it has really had on either Iraq or the region. There are even signs that the withdrawal has helped to nudge Iraqis onto the right path, though not as quickly or directly as I might have hoped. This month's death toll was the lowest on record since the 2003 invasion, while Iraqi oil exports are at their highest level since 1980. Baghdad successfully hosted an Arab Summit meeting, which may have done little for Syria but did go further to bring Iraq back into the Arab fold than anything since 2003. Let's address this lowest toll first. Ben Armbruster (Think Progress) is also running with that, opening with, "The AP reports that according to data released . . ." No, they're not really reporting. They're repeating. They're not reporting. Reporting isn't just repeating what someone said. What the Iraq Ministry of Defense (no head to the ministry) and the Ministry of Interior (no head to the ministry) and the Ministry of Health released was 112 people died in March. That's those classified as civilians or security. And the Iraqi government said that 357 were injured. That is a low figure. Reuters stopped tracking the violence because . . . Well, ask them. So I guess there's just no way to confirm or refute . . . Oh, wait, there's Iraq Body Count. Their March total is 295. Let's see, the independent Iraq Body Count or the two ministries Nouri controls (by refusing to appoint a Minister to head them) and the Ministry of Health, who do we believe? Any rational, sentient person would tell you you don't believe the struggling government sliding further towards authoritarianism. We can also go over AKE's totals. March 5th, they reported 63 dead the previous week (41 wounded), March 12th they noted 70 killed (76 injured) the week prior and reminded that this did not include Iraqi youth who were or perceived to be either Emo or LGBT. March 19th they reported 26 dead (22 injured) the week before. March 26th they reported 73 dead (270 injured) the week prior. Today they report 29 people were killed the week prior (22 injured). Leaving out the first week of March, we're already at 198. Repeating that's leaving out the first week of March (due to the fact that the first week of March also included four days of February). AKE advertises it's Iraq Services: AKE can fully support your business in Iraq. We can provide transport, security and accomodation in a home-from-home environment in central Baghdad. [. . .] We can provide logistical support in and out of the country, giving you access to clients, partners, business opoerations and government ministries. Visa faciliation is available (subject to status) and we can provide recommendations for drivers, fixers as well as local translators and other services. Do you know how much AKE charges? Do you know they couldn't get five cents if they weren't seen as much more than merely competent. So 112 is rejected by both IBC's count and AKE's count? Maybe in the future, allegedly educated people could remember that governments have an interest in lying about how much violence takes place in their country. That's true of the US, that's true of all countries. And maybe in the future, when you 'report' a number, you could try confirming it and even contrasting it with counts from other outlets? As for the nonsense about the Arab League Summit being a success for Iraq, we've addressed those false claims here and we addressed it yesterday at Third in "Editorial: Successful summit for Iraq?" which goes over one aspect after another demonstrating that you cannot grade it a success for Iraq. And that was before Ahmed Hussein (Al Mada) was reporting that the number of Iraqis living at the poverty level or below is five and a half million persons. That's outrageous in any country but especially in Iraq which has somewhere between 25 to 30 million people (the population is an estimate, there has not been a census in decades). So basically, one-fifth of the country lives in poverty and yet Nouri wasted at least a billion dollars on the summit. Back to Marc Lynch. His argument is that Barack did no great harm to Iraq by withdrawing most of the troops. And I would agree with that and agree that US troops feed into resentments. Even more their presence postpones the sorting out -- violent or otherwise that Iraqis have to do. But there's another problem besides being gullible about government figures. Lynch writes: This is not to say that there aren't reasons to worry about Iraq's future. There are many. It is troubling that Maliki has driven Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi into exile on terrorism charges and has rebuffed all efforts at meaningful cooperation with his political rivals. It is troubling that core constitutional issues such as the oil law and the limits of federalism remain unresolved. It is troubling that violence and terrorism continues to claim Iraqi lives and unsettle its politics. It is troubling that the Iraqi Parliament appears inept and incompetent [. . .] But what's striking is that these problems are the same ones which kept us all up nights in previous years. None of these trends is remotely new, and few have become palpably worse since the American departure. Iraqis have been worried about the centralization of power in Maliki's office and his authoritarian tendencies for the last four years. Yes, those things are, to say the least, troubling. As for it be striking that these are the same problems from the previous years and that Nouri's "authoritarian tendences" have been a concern "for the last four years," Marc Lynch, what do you think Iraqis could have done about that? Gee, I guess March 7, 2010, they could have gone and voted for someone other than Nouri's political slate State of Law. If they'd done that, they'd be rid of Nouri. Oh, wait. They did do that. That's why despite the threats, despite the demonization of Iraqiya as "terrorists" and "Ba'athists" (the latter especially a serious charge in the Shi'ite majority Iraq), Iraqiya won more votes. Who backed Nouri, Marc Lynch? That's right, Barack Obama. The White House backed Nouri. The White House didn't give a damn about the vote, didn't give a dam about democracy, didn't give a damn about the will of the Iraqi people, didn't give a damn about the Iraqi Constitution. So if you're going to note that the problems are similar or claim they're the same (they're not the same, they're far worse and today's events after Lynch's piece went up demonstrate that they're worse), then you better be willing to talk about why they're the same. They're not the same because the Iraqi people didn't attempt to solve the problem. They're not the same because the Iraqi people believed that their votes would matter. The problems are similar because the White House overruled the voice of the Iraqi people. At least Marc Lynch is consistent. (And, again, often insightful.) If Phyllis Bennis suffering from MPD? Which personality is attempting to communicate with us today? In a piece at Real News Network she attempts to cover various wars. Here she is on Iraq: Last week was the 9th anniversary of that war. And looking back, it's clearer than ever that the U.S. failed to achieve any of its goals. I don't mean the lying goals, the fake goals, of finding weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq. I mean the real goals, the ones that kept hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Pentagon-paid mercenaries in Iraq for so many years: Consolidating U.S. control over Iraqi oil -- nope, U.S. oil companies are just some among many of the myriad of foreign interests in Iraq's oil fields. Leaving behind a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad -- hardly, Prime Minister Maliki is barely on speaking terms with anyone in Washington. Permanent access to U.S. bases across Iraq -- not even close, every one of the several hundred bases was either closed down or turned over to the Iraqi government; even the giant 5,000-person embassy, biggest in the world, had to be scaled back when Iraq refused to guarantee immunity to enough U.S. troops to protect it. Creating a government and military more accountable to the U.S. than to Iran -- oops, seems we got that one wrong too; despite continuing billions of dollars of our tax money to prop it up, Baghdad today is allied more closely to Iran than to the U.S. So the U.S. lost in Iraq too. Iraq hasn't been "liberated" -- violence is rampant, the sectarian violence resulting from early U.S. policies after the 2003 invasion continues to escalate. And U.S.-paid contractors (paid by the State Dept this round, instead of the Pentagon, that's the technical difference) are still there. Thousands of them. What's not there, so far, is one dollar for reparations or compensation. That's the battle that lies ahead. The U.S. war in Iraq may be over, but our responsibilities are not. Okay, help me out, was it not Phyllis insisting the Iraq War wasn't over after December 19th (the big withdrawal). And now she's insisting it is? Again, which personality is attempting to communicate with us? January 23rd, she was at US News & World Reports and, in her opening sentence, telling readers, "Far from being 'too soon,' the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq came more than eight years too late -- and still, the war isn't over." How did the US troops in the region -- still in the region around Iraq -- depart, how did the CIA depart Iraq, how did Special Ops depart Iraq, how did all the contractors depart, the 700 US soldiers who are 'trainers,' the Marines guarding the embassy, how did all of those people leave between December 19th and today and we didn't even notice? How did that happen? To the personality now insisting that the war is over, let us speak to Phyllis. We want to speak with Phyllis. Nouri al-Maliki pretends he wants to speak with Tareq al-Hashemi. Really he wants him imprisoned. The Vice President is a member of Iraqiya, a Sunni and in his second term as vice president. Iraqiya and State of Law are political rivals. Nouri doesn't play well with others. Iraqiya announced they were boycotting the government December 16th and did so on December 17th entry. December 18th is al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq are attempting to fly to the KRG from Baghdad when they and their bodyguards are pulled off the flight by Nouri's forces. For less than an hour, they are detained. Then they're waived through and allowed to fly out. December 19th, Nouri issues an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi -- after the Vice President is in the KRG. At this late date, anyone who falsely states that Tareq al-Hashemi fled to the KRG after an arrest warrant was issued for him has problems far larger than chronology. Yesterday, al-Hashemi went to Qatar. In reporting that development, both . Aseel Kami (Reuters) and Jack Healy and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) were unable to get the facts right. In addition, while reporting on the trip to Qatar and the outrage by Nouri, they failed to bring in Qatar's message to Nouri last week. Dropping back to Friday's snapshot: There are 22 countries in the Arab League. Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." If Nouri is outraged and furious, it seems like you might want to note the above. Because it makes clear that receiving al-Hashemi wasn't accidental and that all of Nouri's thundering really isn't going to make too much of an impression on Qatar. Only Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) managed to touch on that issue yesterday: The vice president's trip comes several days after Qatar's foreign minister said his country had sent a low-ranking representative to last week's Arab League summit in Baghdad in order to send a message over "factionalism in Iraq," the state-run Qatar News Agency reported. The US State Dept was not bothered by the news and had hoped/urged it for weeks now. They feel the issues surrounding Tareq al-Hashemi prevent Iraq from focusing on other needed issues. They also feel al-Hashemi can't get a fair trial. They worry that he will return to Iraq as he has stated he intendes to do (not years from now, but when this current diplomatic tour is over). Nouri's blustered over al-Hashemi's departure making an idiot of himself to the global village as he and his spokespeople have insisted that al-Hashemi will be rounded up by "international authorities." This morning, Al Mada reported Nouri is stating he'll use INTERPOL. Al Sabaah quoted Nouri at a news conference claiming that being a founding member of the Arab League gives Iraq 'legal status' in this issue. State of Law's Sa'ad al-Moutallebi echoed the use of INTERPOL when speaking to Press TV today: The Minister of Interior, the Minister of Justice will launch a complaint and present documents and evidence to INTERPOL, the international police, to aid us and help in securing the arrest for the fugitive. Poor State of Law -- all those members and not a functioning brain among them. INTERPOL doesn't get involved in politics. They have to remain neutral. This isn't something you can sidestep, it's written into INTERPOL's charter. By attempting to have Tareq al-Hashemi arrested while he was also attempting to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his post -- both al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq are members of Iraqiya -- Nouri helped drive home that the arrest warrant was political. Again, INTERPOL can't get involved in political. AFP quotes al-Hashemi stating: "There has not been a judicial decision against me from any court, and the demand does not respect Article 93 of the constitution, which provides me with immunity," he said in the Qatari capital. [. . .] "Why do they demand that Qatar extradite me?... Officials in Kurdistan have responded to a similar request by telling them that I have immunity according to Article 93[.]" Al Jazeera notes, "After arriving in Doha, Hashemi met Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani to discuss 'relations between the two brotherly countries and developments in the region', according to Qatari state news agency QNA. QNA added that he was to meet Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr Al Thani, before visiting unnamed other countries and returning to Kurdistan." On Press TV today, Sa'ad al-Motallebi was accusing the Kurds of being involved: Well, obviously the Qataris are involved in this matter. The Kurdish authority is involved. And there is a possibility of a Turkish involvement which is not confirmed yet. There were some reports that there might've been a combination of a Turkish, Qatari and Kurdish cooperation in this matter, all working together in the matter of his escape. This could develop into a very serious issue and could definitely effect an international relationship between Iraq and those countries. And the attacks on the KRG come as the region puts a freeze on their oil. April Yee (The National) reports, "The Kurdish oil ministry said companies are not being paid for their oil, which is exported through a shared Iraqi pipeline to Turkey. The same issue led Kurdistan to halt exports in October 2009; exports restarted in February last year only after a compromise between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the central government in Baghdad." Jumana al-Tamimi (Gulf News) observes, "Baghdad also criticised Kurdistan for stopping its crude oil exports on Sunday after arguing the central government had withheld $1.5 billion owed to foreign oil companies working in the region." And Hassan Hafidh and Ali Nabhan (Wall St. Journal) add, "Iraq's deputy prime minister for energy, Hussein al-Shahristani, lashed out at Iraq's Kurdistan authorities for halting crude oil exports, accusing them of separately allowing billions of dollars worth of oil-smuggling over its northern borders, mainly to Iran." Nayla Razzouk and Kadhim Ajrash (Daily Star) note: The Iraqi government incurred $6.65 billion in lost revenue over the past few years after the regional Kurdish government didn't supply it with the agreed amount of crude for export, said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Affairs Hussain al-Shahristani. "Lost revenue this year will be even more than last year," he said at a news conference in Baghdad Monday. In addition, Nouri's verbal attacks on Qatar and Saudi Arabia are stirring up trouble with Iraq's neighobrs. Tariq al-Homayed (Arab News) notes the attacks and argues that Nouri cannot be trusted: Likewise, the Al-Maliki government has remained in power as a result of Iranian pressure, despite Al-Maliki losing the elections and coming second behind Iyad Allawi, so how can he fear for the region now if Assad is overthrown by force? How can Al-Maliki attack Saudi Arabia and Qatar following the Arab summit in Baghdad, after both countries attended the meeting, and especially given the positions of both countries in the days leading up to the event. Meanwhile, ahead of the summit Al-Maliki had announced that his government could not defend Assad. So how, nearly three days after the Baghdad summit, can Al-Maliki turn on Saudi Arabia and Qatar today? Of course, this is clear deception, and evidence that Al-Maliki's government cannot be trusted. Had he attacked "these two countries" before the Baghdad summit, then matters would have turned out differently. Most important of all, in addition to the fact that we cannot trust the Al-Maliki government, is that the Iraqi government is trying to secure a safe passageway for the transfer of Iranian weapons to the Assad regime, and this is what a witness -- a dissident Syrian official -- reported to the Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul. All the above does not smooth things over ahead of the National Conference. Iraq is in the midst of a political stalemate. Political Stalemate I was when the government was faced with gridlock following the March 2010 elections. For eight months, Nouri refused to allow Ayad Allawi the right to try to form a government, refused to allow anyone to be named prime minister-designate. Per the Constitution, that should have been Allawi. Iraqiya, his political slate, came in first. He should have been given the chance to put together a coalition and then name a Cabinet. Were he unable to do so in 30 days, per the Constitution, someone else should be named prime minister-designate. With the backing of the White House, Nouri refused to budge. After eight months, Political Stalemate I finally ended when Iraq's various political actors signed off on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. Nouri would be prime minister, the agreement decreed, in exchange for that, he would have to make concessions including the creation of an independent, national security commission to be headed by Ayad Allawi and a vote on the disputed Kirkuk. Nouri was named prime minister-designate when the agreement resulted in the Parliament holding its first real session since the March 2010 vote. But most of Iraqiya walked out. Why? Because Nouri was saying that the independent commission would have to wait until after he named his Cabinet and that they couldn't clear the various Iraqiya members of trumped up charges right away. He was already trashing the agreement he signed off on. It would not get better. As December 2010 came to a close, he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister despite the fact that he had not named a Cabinet. There were posts unfilled and Iraqiya and other critics stated he would not fill three of the posts, the security posts (Minister of the Interior, Minister of Defense and Minister of National Security) because this was a power grab. By refusing to fill the spots, he controlled them. (Ministers are nominated by the prime minister-designate, they are confirmed by Parliament. Once confirmed, they can only be fired with the approval of Parliament.) Nonsense, said the US press, Nouri would be naming those posts in a matter of weeks. It's April 2012. 16 months later. Who was right, who was wrong? Critics of Nouri were correct and the US press was wrong. Grossly wrong. Once he was moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister, any pretense of following the Erbil Agreement was tossed aside. This is Political Stalemate II and Iraq's been in it for some time. Over the summer, the Kurds insisted that Nouri return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya has echoed that call as had Moqtada al-Sadr and other elements of the National Alliance. This is Iraq's ongoing political crisis. Since December 21, 2011, Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to address the crisis. This is from an analysis done by Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) on Iraqiya: The Al Iraqiya List, which includes leaders like Eyad Alawi and Saleh Al Mutlaq, has been for the past two years a competitor to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's State of Law coalition, which is the influential bloc in Iraq. Al Iraqiya did not become part of the opposition despite the fact that it is an opposition party with an agenda that differs from that of the State of Law. Al Iraqiya did not become part of the opposition despite the fact that it is an opposition party with an agenda that differs from that of the State of Law. And although the State of Law coalition, which is headed by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, has worked hard to weaken and marginalise other political blocs — including its own allies in the National Alliance, and its close partners in the Kurdish Alliance — its stand regarding Al Iraqiya is somewhat different. The conflict between the State of Law and Al Iraqiya goes beyond the political framework of new structures. The Al Iraqiya has been targeted systematically since the last elections in 2010, when it came first. It was deprived of its right to form the government at a tense time, riddled with sectarian alignments. Al Iraqiya was not allowed any kind of influence or power that had been agreed upon in the Arbil agreement, which ended the government-formation stalemate at the time. The National Conference is said to take place this week; however, Dar Addustour notes the Thursday meet-up is not a done deal and that Ibrahim al-Jaafari has called a meeting on Tuesday night to review certain aspects of the conference. They also note that State of Law is insisting (lying) that all aspects of the Erbil Agreement have been implemented except the naming of heads of the security ministries (Interior, Defense and National Security). Of course Kirkuk has not been resolved. Nouri al-Maliki has never wanted to resolve the issue. He became prime minister in the spring of 2006. The Iraqi Constitution mandated (Article 140) that a census and referendum be held on Kirkuk no later than the end of 2007. Nouri ignored the Constitution. Nouri violated the Constitution. The Iraqi Communist Party has reposted an Alsumaria report on the United Nations Mission in Iraq calling for Article 140 to be implemented, calling for that yesterday. And, again, that was also part of the 2010 Erbil Agreement. Lastly, Jonathan Fisher (WebProNews) covers new threats to the internet from around the world and he notes this on Iraq: According to a translation from the Centre for Law and Democracy, Articles 3, 4, and 5 of Iraq's Informatics Crimes Law would impose a mandatory life sentence for anyone using a computer or the Internet to do any of the following: "compromise" the "unity" of the state; subscribe, participate, negotiate, promote, contract or deal with an enemy … in order to destabilize security and public order or expose the country to danger; damage, cause defects, or hinder [systems or networks] belonging to security military, or intelligence authorities with a deliberate intention to harm [state security]. promote "ideas which are disruptive to public order"; "implement terrorist operations under fake names or to facilitate communication with members or leaders of terrorist groups"; "promote terrorist activites and ideologies or to publish information regarding the manufacturing, preparation and implementation of flammable or explosive devices, or any tools or materials used in the planning or execution of terrorist acts"; facilitate or promote human trafficking "in any form"; engage in "trafficking, promoting or facilitating the abuse of drugs". The Act also includes provisions to punish network users who "create chaos in order to weaken the trust of the electronic system of the state," "provoke or promote armed disobedience," "disturb public order or harm the reputation of the country," or "intrude, annoy or call computer and information network users without authorization or hinders their use," the Electronic Freedom Foundation reports. Copyright infringement and hacking would also land users in big trouble under the Act, which proposes a 2- to 3-year prison term for either offense. iraq us news and world report phyllis bennis reuters aseel kami the associated press the new york times jack healy cnn jomana karadsheh