Cedric's Big Mix: 2010-03-28

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Celeb meow!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS HOPING TO LAND MORE HEADLINES BY LEAVING THE COUNTRY YET AGAIN.

BUT MOST OF THE PRESS IS FOCUSING ON HIS CAT FIGHT WITH HIS CHIEF RIVAL.

SAID BARRY O, "IT'S LIKE HE'S LINDSAY AND I'M PARIS!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Amnesty International issued the following today:

Amnesty International has condemned the killings of over 100 Iraqi civilians in suicide bomb and other attacks mounted by armed groups in and around Baghdad in the last week.
Hundreds were injured in the attacks, some of which appear to have targeted civilians and to have been intended to cause maximum loss of life.
"Most of these attacks targeted civilians directly and therefore constitute war crimes," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme.
"If the attacks are part of a widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population in Iraq in furtherance of a particular organization or armed group's policy, they also constitute crimes against humanity."
"War crimes and crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes under international law. These attacks must be stopped immediately and those responsible must be brought to justice."
Coordinated bomb attacks in several Baghdad districts on Tuesday destroyed seven apartment buildings and left at least 35 people, possibly all civilians, dead and more than 140 other people injured.
On Monday, a Shi'a couple and four of their children were assassinated in their house outside Baghdad.
Three suicide car bomb attacks on Sunday targeted the Iranian, German and Egyptian embassies in Baghdad and resulted in the killing of at least 41 people. More than 200 others were injured.
On Friday, armed men attacked a pre-dominantly Sunni village, south of Baghdad killing 24 people.
No armed group has claimed responsibility for any of the attacks, but Iraqi politicians have attributed at least some of them to al-Qa'ida in Iraq and its allies.
This latest upsurge in violence appears to be exploiting the political vacuum that now exists in Iraq as leaders of the major political groups have so far failed to garner enough support to form a government following the 7 March elections which did not produce a clear winner.
"Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified," said Malcolm Smart."Those perpetrating such attacks must desist from such crimes. They must be brought to justice but without resort to the death penalty; use of the death penalty serves only to further brutalize Iraqi society."

So much violence and yet so little TV coverage. Yesterday, three commercial, broadcast networks served up their evening news casts. Two reduced the violence to a brief headline, the third offered even less. ABC World News with Diane Sawyer went with headline.

Diane Sawyer: And in Iraq, a day of devastating violence across Baghdad. A series of seven bombs tore through apartment buildings in the city, another blew up a market, killing at least 50 people, injuring more than 180. US and Iraqi officials blamed today's bombing spree on al Qaeda insurgents, saying the attacks were carefully coordinated and took time to plan with terrorists renting apartments to plant the bombs.

As did NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams :

Brian Williams: We turn to other news overseas tonight, this has been an another violent day in Iraq and this time there was a new tactic: Bombs planted in apartments. At least seven bombs exploded at apartment buildings across Baghdad, another one exploded at a market. In all, at least 50 people were killed, nearly 200 wounded. This was the latest in what many worry was a new wave of violence in the capital city.

On the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Harry Smith and Maggie Rodriguez filled in for Katie and Iraq didn't interest them so they skipped the story but did make time for a wordy, touchy-feely, free-association 'essay' from Smith which began, "Spring is a time of renewal." It never got any better or deeper than that. On The News Hour (PBS -- link has video, audio and transcript), Gwen Ifill spoke with the New York Times' Rod Nordland about yesterday's violence for nearly six minutes, including raising the issue of the March 7th elections:

GWEN IFILL: Is there any way to know whether there's any connection between these attacks, this latest spurt of attacks, and the -- the political upheaval we have seen with the outcome of the most recent elections?

ROD NORDLAND: Well, we can only assume that -- that, with the government and the politicians in -- in the middle of intense negotiations now at putting together a coalition that can rule the country after the elections, that these attacks are timed to coincide with that, and to have some sort of effect on that process, or at least to attempt to do so. What's -- what's very striking, though, is that, despite the attacks and despite the way they have practically paralyzed the city, because they have been -- they were so widespread, despite that, high-level meetings have continued to go on at a very rapid pace.

On Morning Edition (NPR) today, host Steve Inskeep spoke with correspondent Quil Lawrence who expressed the believe that the violence might be an attempt of "pushing Iraqis back toward the sectarian violence that we saw that nearly took the country apart in 2006, 07 and 08."

Steve Inskeep: [. . .] But we mentioned that there is no -- They have no political bosses. There is no formal government that has been formed. Is the violence affecting the effort to actually form a coalition that can rule Baghdad and rule Iraq?

Quil Lawrence: I have to say, talking to political leaders, they don't seem concerned by it. Many of these people were resistance fighters for so many years. They seeem to take this violence in stridge. I think the violence seems to be more of a filling in this gap, this lame duck caretaker government for the next bunch of weeks and months. The place it might come to a crunch is if this level of violence we saw this week continues and the government has to take some sort of decisive action, something verging on martial law. Well -- the question would be, "What legitimacy does this government have?" Several hundred of the Parliamentarians were voted out in this last election. Only 62 remain of the incumbents. It's possible that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won't return to office. And if he starts having to take very strong and decisive measures again, there might be serious questions about legitmacy and that could really stoke some of these underlying tensions.

Today on All Things Considered (NPR), Quil Lawrence spoke with, among others, Cameron Munter who serves in the US Embassy in Baghdad.

Quil Lawrence: And while the negotiations are fierce over building a governing coaltion, Munter says the violence is not intimidating Iraq's politicians either.

Cameron Munter: We don't see that they're having an impact on the leadership of the country to move ahead on government formation and indeed we don't think it's had an impact on the people of the country moving ahead towards their commitment towards a better future.

Lawrence reported that while no coalition-sharing arrangement had been reached yet, "The two leading candidates [for prime minister] -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and former Prime Minsiter Ayad Allawi -- condemned the bombings and in some ways they both remain in campaign mode. Maliki announced what he said would be a doubling of security in Baghdad and Allawi announced a blood drive and gave a press statement while donating." Nouri's 'increased' security may include closures. AFP reports that no one is talking as to why Baghdad International Airport was shut down today. Tom King (text) and Christiane Amanpour (video -- CNN) report on Allawi's statements that Iran is interfering with the process with Allawi stating that the Iranian government has now extended an invitation to his political slate to visit. And while all eyes are on the Sadr bloc, Scott Peterson and Alice Fordham (Chrisian Science Monitor) remind there's another group which has been dubbed "kingmakers:"

Kurdish parties, which won more than 50 seats, likewise have issues with Maliki's forays against Kurdish peshmerga, or militia, and are worried about both men's strong Iraqi nationalism.

Maliki's "overt threat of violence if he doesn't get his own way has alienated even more the people who would need to back him" in a coalition government, says Mr. Dodge. But Dodge is also unsure that Allawi has matured as a leader since getting bumped out in 2005. "I'm yet to be convinced that he has the modesty and diplomatic skills to form a working coalition."

Staying with ambassadors, Laura Rozen (Politico) highlights an interview her outlet's Zeeshan Aleem did with the Iraqi Ambassador to the US, Sami Sumaida'ie:

POLITICO: Muqtada al-Sadr -- the vehemently anti-occupation Shiite cleric -- held an informal intraparty referendum during the weekend. Having won 39 seats in parliament, his party represents a valuable voting bloc. Both outgoing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi are competing to head the next government that an alliance with Sadr is so critical that the cleric is now seen as a kingmaker.

Sumaida'ie: Al-Sadr's party is now completely within the political process -- that represents a huge step forward. We don't mind them holding any views, provided they fight for them inside parliament and not in the streets using guns.

POLITICO: Given al-Sadr's aggressive stance against the occupation, might he impact the future of Iraqi relations with the U.S.?

Sumaida'ie: The Sadrists are resigned to the fact that the Americans are there according to an agreement signed with the Iraqi government. . . . The Sadrists know the realities of the situation; their stance is more populist than real.

That interview took place Monday and while there is no coalition-sharing government/arrangement as yet from the March 7th elections, Friday and Saturday, another round of elections were held -- this to determine whom the Sadr bloc should back. Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc won 40 seats in the Parliament. Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) report that Ibrahim al-Jaafari "won 24 percent of the 428,000 ballots cast in the internal referendum, ahead of al-Sadr's second cousin, Jafar Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, who obtained 23 percent, Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said today in the southern city of Najaf." Al Jazeera notes that Nouri al-Maliki received 10$ of the vote and Ayad Allawi 9%. The US military invaded Iraq in March 2003 (and still hasn't left). Following the invasion, Ayad Allawi became Iraq's first prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari became the second and Nouri al-Maliki became the third. It's a little more complicated.

Nouri wasn't wanted, Nouri wasn't chosen. Following the December 2005 elections, coalition building took place and the choice for prime minister was al-Jaafari. But the US government refused to allow him to continue as prime minister. The Bush administration was adamant that he would not continue and faulted him for, among other things, delays in the privatization of Iraq's oil. Though the US had no Parliamentary vote, they got their way and Nouri became the prime minister. al-Jaafari had won the vote with the backing of al-Sadr's bloc, just as he won the vote that took place this weekend. The vote can be seen as (a) a show of support for al-Jaafari whom Sadarists have long supported and (b) a message to the US government.

An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers explained (at Inside Iraq) that terror acts as a strong recruiting tool:

Unemployment is one of the sources of terror in Iraq. Militias and insurgents' groups depend basically on unemployed people using them to achieve their aims. May be the young man I saw was lucky to survive from both insurgents groups and death but other are not. in spite of the promises made by all the government to improve Iraqis lives and provide work opportunities, nothing really big had been achieved on ground until now. That means more easy tools for insurgents groups and militias will be provided which means more violence and more bloody days.

This as Jim Loney and Paul Taylor (Reuters) report Iraqi "forces arrested 13 suspects" in the Friday night/Saturday morning assualt on Sahwa and as Reuters reports a teenage boy with a vest full of explosives was arrested in Amiriya Monday. Turning to some of today's violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad bombing "inside a funeral tent" which wounded four people and, dropping back to yesterday, 1 taxi driver was shot dead in Mosul and 1 corpse (also shot dead) was discovered in Mosul.

Club Kids: The Ugly Side of Excess

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

AS RUMORS SWIRL THAT HAMID KARZAI IS A DRUG ADDICT AND CLUB BOY, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O FELT THE NEED TO WEIGH IN WITH A STERN WARNING.

"YOU'VE GOT TO GET AT LEAST 8 HOURS SLEEP AND KEEP YOUR NOSE CLEAN," SCOLDED BARRY O. "LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO LITTLE LINDSAY LOHAN. DON'T THEY READ PEREZ HILTON IN AFGHANISTAN?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Baghdad has again been slammed by bombings. BBC News counted "at least 28 people" dead and another seventy-five injured following multiple bombings in the Iraqi capital this morning. The link has video as well as text and the video shows rubble and people attempting to clear it. AFP explains, "Ambulance sirens were heard across the city as emergency service workers rushed to the scenes of the blasts, and a large plume of smoke rose from near a destroyed building in the neighbourhood of Allawi, central Baghdad." Xiong Tong (Xinhua) adds that the death toll increased to 35 and the number injured to 140 and cites a source in the Ministry of the Interior for those numbers and for the assertion that there were seven bombings today. DPA observes, "Tuesday's deadly attacks came only two days after three, apparently coordinated, car bombs killed dozens of people and injured hundreds in the capital, amid tense negotiations on forming a new government after March 7 parliamentary polls." On NPR's hourly news break at 9:00 a.m. EST, Quil Lawrence went with 35 dead and 140 injured as well and noted seven bombings, some of which were strong enough to "bring down buildings." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) adds, "Security sources said the attacks were implemented by bombs planted near the gates of the buildings in the neighborhoods of Chkook, Shaula, Alawi Al Hilla, Shurta the 4th, Amil and Elam. The attacks came two days after explosions that targeted diplomatic missions in the Iraqi capital, in which more than 40 Iraqis were killed and 224 were wounded." Hammoudi and Hannah Allam also reported that it appears vacant apartments were used as the staging platform for the bombings and they note that, "The story was the same in at least three of the bombed residential complexes: Residents said that unknown renters had leased space in the two-story buildings and never moved in." Echoing that Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) state, "In some of the cases, unknown men had rented rooms in buildings around the city, wired them with explosives and detonated their devices on Tuesday morning." Leila Fadel and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) remind, "A similar tactic was used on Election Day, when more than 30 people were killed." Timothy Williams and Yasmine Mousa (New York Times) add, "At least five of the bombs were homemade devices placed inside apartment buildings, an unusual tactic. A parker car packed with explosives was also detonated in a Shiite neighborhood in south Baghdad." On today's The World (PRI), the BBC News' Jim Muir.

Marco Werman: Jim, it's kind of rare for these attacks to target apartments, randomly killing these civilians so what do these targets have in common?

Jim Muir: Well they had in common, as you say, that they hit residential buildings. What I would say is this, that since last year we've seen that these coordinated waves of attacks have what I'm calling "themes" to them. Last year, they were hitting government buildings and ministries and so on. In January, we saw a series of attacks, coordinated suicide attacks, nearly simultaneous, on some of the big hotels in Baghdad. This Sunday, it was the turn of foreign embassies in various parts of Baghdad. And now we have the ordinary residential buildings with no particular special people or special facilities there -- just ordinary buildings housing ordinary people. You may ask why? I think they're partly out to show that they can hit all over town at a selected kind of target. They may also be trying once again to provoke the Shi'ite population because most in fact all of these buildings were in areas mainly populated by the Shia Muslims. Now when you had those kind of provocative attacks four years ago it did trigger off a very vicious two years of sectarian warfare which everybody hopes has run its course but the insurgents may be trying to -- or hoping -- to trigger it off once again.

Marco Werman: So if these apartment buildings were targeted in part because they're in Shi'ite neighborhoods -- I mean, does this mean that somebody's trying or some group is trying to stoke sectarian hatreds again?

Jim Muir: That definitely seems to be part of the sub-theme. I mean, I think the overall message is, as I say, they're trying to show that Iraq is deeply unstable, that the political progress and the security progress of the last three years are for nothing and that the insurgents can still strike at random. [. . .]

"Actually, the security situation has improved." Who said that? Here's your hint: Biggest Idiot in US Government. Usually forgets to comb what's left of his hair. Chris Hill. Ambassador to Iraq. Imran Garda (Al Jazeera) spoke with Hill following Sunday's bombings (link has video) and Hill was trying to Happy Talk his way through the interview. They ought to take that one sentence and just show it over and over at the top of each hour. "There's clear improvement in the security situation," insisted Hill. Hill's US stupid. There's a lot of stupid to go around. But let's move to the White House where the laughable White House press corps asked one of those oh-so-rare questions about Iraq leading Robert Gibbs, White House spokesperson and Spanx spokesperson, to respond, "Well I think many expected that insurgents would use this time to roll back the progress, both militarily and politically, that we've seen in Iraq. The leadership and team here have spoken with our ambassador and with General [Ray] Odierno. He believes that this does not threaten our ability to draw down our roces later in the year. And obviously we are very focused on, and Vice President [Joe] Biden is very focused on, the steps that need to be taken to ensure political advancement in Iraq after these elections." Whole lot of stupid to go around, remember?

None of the reports noting the obvious, maybe in an effort to make-nice with Nouri? But the bombings took place today, yes. Baghdad was slammed with bombings today. And what was the world told yesterday? That's kind of a key detail.

On Monday, Nouri put security forces on high alert. Doubt it? AFP: "Iraq's security forces were on high alert Monday after three suicide car bombs targeting regional and European embassies rocked Baghdad, killing 30 people. [. . .] Incumbent Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, whose coalition finished second in the March 7 general election, held a meeting with Iraq's national security council over Sunday's blasts, a statement from his office said." Wait, it gets better. Sundays bombings? AP reported Monday that one suicide bomber was taken alive, "The official said Iraqi forces were tipped off about a possible attack against diplomatic targets and had begun beefing up security precautions Saturday -- measures he credited with keeping the embassies themselves from serious damage." Beefing up security in Baghdad on Saturday but unable to stop the bombings you've been tipped off regarding. High alert starting Monday and Baghdad's again slammed today by bombings.

Conventional wisdom continues to be that Iraq's elections resulted in 'confusion' and a 'power vacuum' now exists leading to violence. Sounds like too many reporters talking to themselves. It's not as if Nouri doesn't remain sitting prime minister today with the same security forces and militia at his command. He may be ineffective but, even so, that's not a new development. Violence has increased? Following the election? Like the 2005 election? Well the key there, according to poli sci analysts, was not a power vacuum but the stoking of sectarian tensions as campaign strategy. That may or may not be what's happening currently. However, the conventional wisdom doesn't hold up to scrutiny though it does increase in popularity (Allawi is now repeating it).

In other reported violence, Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing injured one person, a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left three preople wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing injured a child, 1 car mechanic was shot dead in Mosul and, dropping back to Monday, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left five people wounded.

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, Wikileaks released video Monday of the deaths of Reuters reporters Nami Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, killed by the US military. For a critique of Tom Bowman's Morning Edition nonsense, click here. Today, Neal Conan spoke to the Washington Post's David Finkel (who's written about the incident in The Good Soldiers and link has an exerpt of the book) on NPR's Talk of the Nation.

David Finkel: These guys, the Reuters guys, walked into the hottest spot of a very hot morning. There had been running gun battles, there had been a lot of RPG grenade fire and so on. And they were doing what journalists do. They heard about something. They came to it. And they just wanted, from everything I've learned since, they were just there to get that side of the story.
Neal Conan: Can you understand the pain of their families at seeing these videos at last because they'd been pressing for them, Reuters had been pressing for their release, and saying, "How could those helicopter pilots not see that my son was carrying a camera?"

David Finkel: Sure, sure. I can't imagine what it would be like to be them, to be those families and suddenly this video pops up and it would be unimaginable. It's -- I wasn't up in the helicopters, I think that's fair to say. They were a good distance. I'm not quite sure how clear their monitors are. I was told they're only a few inches wide. We're hearing basically intercom chatter [on the video]. It's not like clear radio chatter. Nonetheless, uhm, here comes a group of guys and one of the things they cited on that led to the first burst of fire was an RPG launcher that turned out to be a telephoto lens hanging around a guy's neck.

Finkel did not weigh in on responsibility and noted specifically that he was not villifying anyone or justifying anyone. He repeated this point more than once. We emphasized the above to note the reporters. Jenny Booth (Times of London) profiles the two reporters and quotes the then-chief photographer for Reuters Bob Strong stating, "Namir was an editor's dream . . . on top of every story. His nose had been broken more than once, he'd been shot in the leg, detained, harassed and threatened, but his quick smile and energy never faded." Of Saeed, Chris Helgren states, "Saeed had a reputation of being fiercely loyal and appeared fearless to me. If you ever needed to get quickly to a dangerous area, passing chicanes of barbed wire and boobytraps, Saeed was your man. But he also had a very quiet, loving side and spoke often of his kids." Mujahid Yousef (New York Times) reports:The family of a Reuters photographer killed in an American military airstrike watched the video of it late Monday and burst into tears as they saw what appeared to be the crews of two American Apache attack helicopters kill their son and 11 other people, gloating at what the crewmen seemed to think was a successful strike on insurgents. "At last the truth has been revealed, and I'm satisfied God revealed the truth," said Noor Eldeen, the father of the photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, who was 22 when he was killed in July 2007. "If such an incident took place in America, even if an animal were killed like this, what would they do?"

Kim Sengupta (Indpedent of London) adds:

Reuters had consistently pointed out that its staff were simply carrying out their job. David Schlesinger, the editor-in-chief of Reuters news, said the footage was "graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result".
In Baghdad, the Iraqi Journalists' Union called on the government to carry out an investigation into the killings. The Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, supported the demand for an inquiry.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Baghdad slammed by bombings"
"Tom Bowman: Little Miss Judy Miller 2010"
"Does Terry Gross work hard to be such a bitch?"
"The vile Terry Gross"
"Radio"
"furry vengeance"
"Walter Trochez"
"Carly, Joni, Joanna"
"Brief"
"Econ"
"Isaiah, Michael Doliner, Ava and C.I. weigh in on V"
"Mondays"
"THIS JUST IN! JUST AN AMERICAN GIRL!"
"Apparently, he grew up playing with dolls"

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Apparently, he grew up playing with dolls

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WAS BOOED NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE YESTERDAY AT NATIONAL PARK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO PULL OFF THE HIGHLY SKILLED MANUEVER OF STANDING AND TOSSING A BALL.

TOSSED BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T REALLY CALL IT A "PITCH." AND HE MADE SOME INTERESTING FACES INDICATING THAT A MERE TOSS WAS A SERIOUS STRAIN ON HIS DELICATE FRAME.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, RAHM EMANUEL INSISTED YESTERDAY WASN'T A TOTAL BUST, "WE'LL BE IN CHICAGO SHORTLY TO UNLEASH THE NEW BARRY O ACTION FIGURE AS PART OF THE LATEST IN THE AMERICAN GIRL LINE AND THIS REALLY HELPS GIRL UP THE PRODUCT."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with elections, on the latest Inside Iraq (which Al Jazeera began airing Friday), Jasim al-Azawi spoke with the Ministry of National Dialogue's Saad al-Mutallibi and King's College's Mundher al-Adhami.

Jasim al-Azawi: Saad al-Mutallibi, back in the 2005 election the ruling was that the biggest winner of the election would be called upon to form the government. Now the rulings have changed, the game has changed and, instead, the biggest bloc in Parliament will be called upon to form the government. Isn't that a manipulation?

Saad al-Mutallibi: Uh, I don't know. I wouldn't call it a manipulation. I call it a necessity of circumstances. In 2005, there was a clear majority to one political bloc, 132 to one political bloc. That naturally, that inherited the formation of the government which looked normal in the circumstances. Today we don't have such a clear cut. Nobody achieved majority. Everybody achieved minority, really. Unfortunately, we do not have a Constitutional Court. That was another failing of the last Parliament. They could not reach an agreement on forming the Constitutional Court so we have to rely on the federal court. The federal court ruled that if a group, by election, forms a majority then that group will be called upon to form the government. If no such group exists, then a coalition of political parties should form together to reach the 163 margin, then they will be able to form the government.

Jasim al-Azawi: Perhaps we should clarify, Mundher al-Adhami, that federal court is a left over from the previous government and this Constitutional Court Saad al-Mutallibi referred to has never been established, was never formed, although Articl 92 in the Constitution calls upon the formation of a Constitutional Court in order to have the jurisidiction over Constitutional problems like the election. The federal court is simply a one-man person. This is Madhat Al Mahmood and his ruling is not even binding so why is is that the government as well as all of the political rivals are taking heat from him?

Mundher al-Adhami: You know, Jasim, I am sickened by the whole process in Iraq. That's from the beginning of the occupation. These elites -- the new elites, the new political class created by the American invasion has been playing these games from the beginning. And while Iraqis are dying or they are [. . .] by an education, they are deprived of basic services. These politicians are after the one thing for themselves and they're not -- they can't even agree among themselves to share the spoils of this destruction of the country between themselves. It is a sickening process. This so-called court has been changing their mind every now and then according to the pressures applied by this quarter or the others.

Jasim al-Azawi: Since you mentioned changing of minds and subcoming to pressures and Saad al-Mutallibi is in the camp of the State of Law bloc headed by the prime minister, Saad al-Mutallibi, how conveinent for the prime minister when he was edging and he was leading in the poll he said, "The biggest winner should be called on to form the government." Now that he is lagging behind not only he is using scare tactics, the policy of fear, that unless there is a recount the country will deginerate into civil war. What kind of scare tactics is this?

Saad al-Mutallibi: Well, it's not exactly like this. What happened is that three months ago Madhat Al Mahmood ruled that the biggest bloc in the Parliament should form the government and Mr. Maliki was upset with that ruling because naturally he thought he would form a majority or gain a majority of the Parliament. But he didn't do anything about it. He just leaves it to express his feelings that he wasn't happy about it. Now the ruling has turned to his advantage, he has expressed his feelings again. And there wasn't any idea that people would right in the streets and going to start violence. Far, far from that. Actually the political, the security environment is not bad at all in Baghdad. It's quite comfortable. People are moving about daily life.

We'll stop there. The problem with waves of Operation Happy Talk is you're not always able to ride one to the shore. Reality often has a way of slamming into you before you make it that far. Such is the case with al-Mutallabi's ridiculous claims that Baghdad's "security environment is not bad at all". Yesterday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings. Focusing only on the three aimed at foreign embassies, at least 41 people were killed and over 200 were left injured. Laith Hammoudi's McClatchy Newspapers observed, "The blasts will color the intense political negotiations that are under way after the March 7 parliamentary election, raising questions about which candidates have the security credentials and the ability to cut across sectarian lines to lead a still-unstable Iraq". Alice Fordham (Times of London) quoted survivor Ali Sanz Ali stating, "I heard the sound of the explosion and ran out into the street to see a big cloud of dust and smoke. On the other side of the street, many cars had been destroyed and burnt. You could see the dead." Fordham also notes that the Iranian and Egyptian embassies were clearly targeted but the other bombing may have been meant for the Syrian Embassy, the Spanish Embassy or the German Embassy. Or it might have been a way to strike all three ("the third struck an intersection near the Germany, Spanish and Syrian missions"). Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) notes that they were suicide bombers who "detonated car bombs wihtin minutes of each other" at the three embassies with the Iranian Embassy being the third one attacked. Cab driver Abu Ahmed tells Prashant Rao (Australia's The Age), "The explosion was really strong. They never kill ministers, officials or heads of state. They kill tax drivers, public employees and shopkeepers. How much longer will this last?" Adam Schreck (Daily Record) adds, "TV news footage showed civilians loading casualties into police vehicles and ambulances as bloodied survivors tried to flee." Jim Muir (BBC News) explains of the near bi-montly Baghdad bombings targeting government buildings since August of 2009, "Each of the multiple bombings which have hit Baghdad over the past year has been 'themed' - clearly with the aim of conveying the message not only that the insurgents can strike several targets simultaneously, but that they can focus on a particular type of target each time." Martin Chulov (Guardian) gets reactions from Iraqi men and women such as Abeer Ahmed who states, "Security won't be sorted out here any time soon. Look at the situation. All our leaders are busy fighting with each other for good positions for themselves and leaving the country to drown in blood. My child refuses to go to school and how can I blame her. There are many parties to blame for this carnage, firstly the current government, which can't stop it, and secondly the regional countries who are not happy with democracy in Iraq." Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr reports (video link embedded in page) in the aftermath and shows much of the damage from the bombings.

That was Sunday. Saturday brought news of an early morning attack. Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Gunmen dressed in Iraqi army uniforms stormed three houses overnight Saturday in a Sunni Muslim village south of Baghdad and killed 24 people, including five women, Iraqi authorities said. Most of the slain villagers belonged to 'Awakening' groups, the bands of U.S.-backed Sunni fighters who helped in the fight against al Qaida in Iraq. The attack occurred in Al Bu Saifi village south of Baghdad." Muhammed al-Obaidi and Timothy Williams (New York Times) added that the nineteen males were predominately Sahwa members and quote Luyai Khadum stating of his four brothers and father, "They were all killed. I lost five family members. We are a Dulaimi family, so why would they do this to us." David Batty (Guardian) revealed, "The victims were bound with handcuffs and sprayed with machine-gun fire. Some of the bodies were 'beyond recognition', according to a senior Iraqi army official who wished to remain anonymous." BBC News quoted Muhammad Mubarak stating, "A group wearing National Guard uniforms and carrying night vision equipment stormed the homes of the victims and took them to their front gardens. Then they handcuffed them with plastic tape and shot them in the head with guns fitted with silencers." Leila Fadel and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) reported the assailants arrived with a list, gathered all the possible Sahwa members, "looked through a list of names and then used guns with silencers attached, shooting people one at a time" and that the murders "were reminiscent of those carried out against Sunni Arabs by Shiite death squads from Iraq's interior ministry." Sara Hashash (Times of London) observes, "The massacre intensified fears of renewed violence as Iraq's two main political coalitions (led by Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister, and Nuri Al-Maliki, the incumbent prime minister) battle to form a government following elections that left neither with enough seats to rule alone." Meanwhile Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr wonders if this "could be the Iraqi style of negotiating." Today violence continued and Saad Abdul-Kadir and Elizabeth A. Kennedy (AP) reports that a family was shot dead outside their Baghdad home -- both parents and four children ages six to eleven. Two daughters, who were upstairs when the assailants came to the the home, survived. Reuters notes a Basra roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured and, dropping back to yesterday, that 1 man was shot dead outside his Mosul home.

Violence is in the news today as WikiLeaks has released "classified US military video" from 2007 "depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff" Nami Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Reuters has repeatedly been denied the video despite multiple FOIA requests. Al Jazeera interviews Julian Assange about the leaked video.

Imran Garda: Now a video has been released on the internet purporting to show US military personnel firing at civilians in a Baghdad square in 2007. Two journalists -- one journalist, Reuters journalist and his driver were killed in that attack. This video has just been released by the online whistler blower WikiLeaks. We can now speak to a member of WikiLeaks. Joining us from Washington is the editor of WikiLeaks.org Julian Assange. Thank you very much for joining us. So, first of all, take us through what exactly, in a nutshell, this video shows.

Julian Assange: This is a video of an Apache helicopter on the 12th of July, 2007 in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. It shows a number of things. It shows an attack on a group of people. Two of which are Reuters journalists from Baghdad. Those men are killed by 30 milimeter cannon fire. There seems to be some initial confusion as to whether those people are carrying weapons and that the Reuters' photographer's camera was a weapon. But it proceeds from what might have been an excuse for not concentrating too much, to something far more serious. When one of the Reuters photographers is crawling away, wounded, clearly he doesn't have a weapon, clearly of no threat and a van tries to rescue him which passes by and two children inside. That van is then attacked and the Reuters staff member, Saeed, is killed along with all the people in that van except for the two children who survived but were seriously wounded.

Imran Garda: Yes, I was --

Julian Assange: After that -- I'm sorry, go on.

Imran Garda: No, no. Please continue. Please continue.

Julian Assange: Just 20 minutes after that serious and disturbing event, a Hellfire missile attack is conducted on a nearby house. That from -- The roof appears to be under construction. And that attacks kills another -- by the military record -- six people. But maybe potentially more, anotehr six. The military say that insurgents went in that hour or lived in the house or went into the building. But our people have shown that in fact there were three families in that house and we have the records of some of their deaths -- including two women. And so on. It is possible that some armed men walked into that house but the majority of the people in that house seemed -- at least the majority of the people that lived there seemed to be regular families and we have evidence from the person who owned the house and photographic evidence of the Hellfire missile and so on.

Imran Garda: How sure can we be of the authenticy of this video? Not only the picture itself but also the voice over -- the voices we hear which I'm assuming are the pilots in the cockpit of the helicopter.

Julian Assange: Yes, yes.
Imran Garda: Because those are quite revealing in many ways.

Julian Assange: Yes.

Imran Garda: How sure can we be that this is the real deal?

Julian Assange: As sure as one can be of anything in life. The material is internally totally consistent but also there was a Washington Post reporter [David Finkel] who was with that unit, the US military unit, on the ground, on the day. And he wrote a chapter in a book which was published last year, a book called The Good Soldiers which correlates directly to the material in that video, including to the radio transcript for the first half.

Imran Garda: Right.

Julian Assange: That's a strong correlation. Also Reuters conducted a number of investigations, interviewed two ground witnesses at the time.

Imran Garda: Right.

Julian Assange: That report really wasn't taken seriously by [. . .] 'It's just another few reporters dying in Baghdad.' And nothing to back up the witnesses. But now we have the video that shows the witnesses were correct. Also there was an Iraqi police report that Reuters says agrees with with their witnesses and all of them agree with the video.

Imran Garda: Sorry to interrupt you. Not long afterwards, Lt Col Scott Blackwell from the US military told the New York Times that, "There's no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force." You even mention that quote on your website and on the video itself. And, of course, when Reuters requested the video from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act, they didn't get it. With all of that in mind, do you firmly believe that there was a cover up at play here?

Julian Assange: They were certainly spinning the message and it does seem like there has been a cover up. The Rules of Engagement that were used for that circumstances, if the internal assessment was -- those rules were correctly applied -- and that is the statement the US military applied, that is the statement the US military made to Reuters, then those rules are a serious, serious problem if they permit such events. But-but there were clear lies made at the time and shortly after about the military not knowing, for example, not knowing how the children were injured and trying to suggest they didn't know how the jounalists were killed. And very early on they listed all the people killed -- other than the children -- as insurgents.

Imran Garda: Julian Assange, pleasure hearing your thoughts. Thank you fvery much for agreenin to talk to us here on Al Jazeera

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Election aftermath, refugees"
"The fallen honored by Michael Reagan, veterans issues"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "These days, puppets pull the strings"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Slaughtering Sahwa and the Guardian kills their own story"
"The elections"

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: No, it's not over
TV: The weird and the weirder
Roundtable
Final words
WMC: Too pathetic (Ava and C.I.)
Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines
No, everyone's not about equality
Go ask Alice . . . and Kimberly
Highlights
"O-palling!"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY'S BAD WEEK"

Saturday, April 03, 2010

O-palling!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

IT WAS NOT A GOOD WEEK FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

CONSERVATIVES WERE UP IN ARMS OVER HIS THIN SKINNED (IT WAS THIN SKINNED) CRITICISMS OF THEM. ENVIRONMENTALISTS WERE CALLING OUT HIS PLANS TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT. AND THE TALIBAN IS CALLING HIM A "THIEF IN THE NIGHT" FOR HIS SECRET IN AND OUT OF AFGHANISTAN.

AND IN THE MOST DEVESTATING BLOW FOR THE KING OF SELF-ADORATION, A NEW CBS POLL FINDS THAT HE CONTINUES TO BE TREMENDOUSLY UNPOPULAR AND DIVISIVE AND LONG GONE ARE THE DAYS OF 2009 WHEN HE WAS SEEN AS AN ANSWER TO A WEARY NATION.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O INSISTED THINGS WERE "GOING GOOD AND I AM IN TALKS FOR A GUEST SPOT ON THE SEASON FINALE OF TWO AND A HALF MEN."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane and her guests -- joined by Tom Gjelten (NPR), Moises Naim (Foreign Policy) and Mary Beth Sheridan (Washington Post) -- addressed Iraq.

Diane Rehm: Let's turn now to Iraq and the elections there. Are we any closer to knowing who is going to be the next prime minister, Mary Beth?

Mary Beth Sheridan: You know, I think that we are probably weeks away. And, you know, I think what's really important about this issue -- it's so easy over here I think for your listeners to find the whole thing rather baffling all these parties that are jockeying and so on and one guy won but will he form a coalition? You know, I guess for me -- I've spent some time in Iraq -- the main question is: Can they work this out peacefully? Because Iraq has a history of resolving its political disputes by force and, of course, President Obama wants to end combat operations in August and you're looking at weeks, months of jockeying to form a government so I think there's a real question here about -- and real implications for -- US strategy.

Diane Rehm: And what role is Iran trying to play in this election?

Mary Beth Sheridan: Well that's a very interesting point. A lot of the leaders of the Shi'ite parties have gone to Iran to consult. They are very influential. They have some control over militia groups. There's money that flows in. So they're definitely a big player in this -- uh -- in this political issue.

Diane Rehm: And there's going to be a vetting panel, Tom?

Tom Gjelten: Well, the problem is that the alliance that won, Mr. Ayad Allawi, a secular, sort of largely Sunni group, uhm, is uh just two seats ahead of the alliance led by Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister. Well the government is in the hands of Maliki and therefore --

Diane Rehm: And he says it's fraud.

Tom Gjelten: -- he has a real interest in disqualifying some of these candidates because that would then put him ahead and with just a two seat margin, there's not a lot of leeaway here, in fact, it's interesting, some of the -- some of the -- some of the candidates -- some of the Parliementary candidates in Mr. Allawi's group have basically gone underground to stay out of reach of the law because the government is trying to come after them.

Diane Rehm: Ah-hah. So Mary Beth's concerns are valid. Go ahead, Moses.

Moises Naim: And both Mary Beth and Joe -- Tom, are right, this is not any election. Because you could say, "Well this is democracy at work, you know. It happens all the time that you have to build coalitions and do some horse trading and create a government and so on." But here we are in a different game because, as Mary Beth says, if this ends up with violence or if there is huge fraud then the exit of American troops will also be more difficult.

Diane Rehm has been awarded a Peabody for her work this year (here for the list of winners) and they note of her show, "Now available to National Public Radio listeners after decades on Washington's WAMU-FM, Rehm's talk show is the gold standard for civil, civic discourse." Congratulations to Diane and her team. Earlier this year The Diane Rehm Show won a Shorty Award for their real-time Twitter platform, so she leads the year with traditional media (Peabody Award) and new media (Shorty Award).

Back to the elections, the Washington Post's Leila Fadel (via Sydney Morning Herald) explains, "In a sign of hardening sectarian divisions, the secular, largely Sunni-backed bloc that won the most seats in Iraq's recent parliamentary elections says its victorious candidates are being subjected to a campaign of detention and intimidation by the government of the Shiite Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki." For background on the attempts to target/smear successfully elected candidates as "Ba'athists," CNN notes:

A controversial committee that nearly derailed the Iraqi election in January has resurfaced. Led by Ahmed Chalabi, a former ally of the Pentagon, the committee this week announced that six winning candidates in the March 7 parliamentary election are connected to the former regime of Saddam Hussein and must be disqualified.
Critics say it's no coincidence -- disqualifying them will erase the lead of secular candidate Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya alliance of Shiites and Sunnis. Allawi's electoral list won 91 seats in parliament and topped the State Of Law coalition of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, which won 89 seats.

Tom Gjelten's point about people going into hiding was reported on by Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) who reported in today's paper on Sheik Qais Jabouri, a memer of Allawi's slate elected to the Parliament, who went into hiding yesterday after Nouri's security forces ransacked his home looking for him and this has led to allegations (I'd say truthful statements) "that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is carrying out politically motivated arrests to stay in power after his own Shiite Muslim-led slate finished a close second in national elections March 7."

Returning to Iraqi blogger Wamith al-Kassab who shares thoughts on the post-election actions at Mideast Youth:

This attack was a continue to the attack launched by officials from the Justice and Accountability Committee Started before the elections under assuming of preventing candidates connected to Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party from standing for elected office. As they prevented About 500 candidates were from standing before the election by the commission Another attacks were in changing the constitution translation for paragraphs that say that the top vote-getter should have the first shot at forming a government. to those who got bigger collation from sets holders as the Supreme Court concluded, at Maliki's urging, that the right to form the next government could go to alliances and super-coalitions formed after the election, if they prove to have the most seats. Maliki promptly launched negotiations with other religious Shiite and Kurdish parties. They current leaders of the government concentrate of staying in power than focusing instead on building peace and stability in Iraq. Many of the votes for Allawi were votes for a strong national government in Baghdad and against sectarianism.

As Nouri and his cronies attempt to overturn the will of the people, Moqtada al-Sadr comes off looking like he's committed to giving the people a voice (and he may well be). Xinhua reports that voting has begun to determine whom the Sadr bloc (which won 40 seats in the election) should back for prime minister. Voting takes place today and continues tomorrow. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) quotes a statement from Moqtada al-Sadr which was "read to his followers before Friday prayers" in which he states, "According to political developments, a mistake might occur in choosing the next prime minister, and for that I think it is in the (national) interest to assign it directly to the people." Leila Fadel and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) report on the developments and offer an in-depth walk through on the past tensions between al-Sadr and Nouri al-Maliki stemming from Nouri's attack on followers of Moqtada al-Sadr in Basra and Baghdad. They noted, "Sadrists may use the informal referendum, which continues Saturday, as an excuse not to bak Maliki who already endured a blow earlier this week when another Shi'ite party appeared to back former primer minister Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bloc." That move that may halt Nouri's attempt to nullify the voice of the people, Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) reports, came via Ammar al-Hakim, head of the Iraqi National Alliance (which al-Sadr's bloc is a part of), who posted online, "We will not participate in a government that does not include Iraqiya." Zaid Thaker and Timothy Williams (New York Times) inform that the voting today and tomorrow is open to all and they describe a scene of voting, "A crowd of about 100 would-be voters excitedly mobbed tables where the official green paper ballots were being distributed. Some people took several ballots and handed them to friends and relatives in the throng behind them. As pushing and shoving intensified, people began to shout at one another."

"The war in Iraq is not over and we as a nation will be dealing with its aftermath for a long time," noted The World (PRI) today in the intro to Ben Gilbert's report on some of those serving in Iraq (US Army's 3rd Infantry Division's 1-64 amor):.

David Shumate: My name is David Shumate. I'm from Palm Bay, Florida and I'm 27-years-old. And I'm from Alpha Company 1-64 Amor. This is my fourth tour in Iraq. I've been in the invasion OIF3, OIF5 and OIF8. I was active army right after September 11th and then deployed to Kuwait and then a few months after a lot of training, we invaded Iraq. So, yeah, we lost two guys and had eighteen wounded. But I mean, really, once we got into Baghdad, basically it was kind of over. It was just once we got there, we did -- It all stopped basically and it was kind of amazing. When I was on my first combat -- my first patrols into Baghdad, it was amazing. I was actually getting flowers from people, bouquets of flowers from women and they were happy and cheering that we were there. So a lot has changed from the first few weeks of Baghdad. It's a couple of weeks after that when the insurgency really started its effect on the people.

Mike Bailey: My name is Mike Bailey. I'm from Belle Chasse, Louisiana and I'm 27-years-old. This is my fourth time to Iraq. The first time I was here, with 1st Marine Division, was down in Babel Province. The second round, I switched over and came as part of 1st Marine Regiment in Feburary 2004. We went to just outside Falluja in Anbar Province and the word of the day was IEDs, they were everywhere I mean people were more worried about what was going on the side of the road than what was going on on the roads and that one definitely started off with a bang with the four Blackwater conrtactors that got killed two or three weeks after we got there. Not too long after the Blackwater contractors were killed we moved into the city of Falluja with several battalions and started, basically, rooting out the guys that were coming out to fight us. And there was a lot of them, a whole lot of them. It seemed like everybody had an RPG or a gun in Falluja back then. You couldn't get very far into the city before you started hearing booms and richochets coming off vehicles and stuff like that. They definitely wanted to fight us head on.

James Ausmann: My name is Staff Sgt James Ausmann. I live at Fort Stewart, with my wife and kids, so that's home. I was with the 1st Batallion, 18th Infantry, first ID. We were based out of Tikrit, just south of here. Saw the end of all the major combat and the beginning of all the IEDs. There was no armor on our vehicles, so that made it for interesting times

Ben Gilbert: This was back before armored humvees, right?

James Ausmann: (Laughs) Yeah, yeah. So we had all the soft skin humvees with all of the Secretary of Defense trying to get us the armor in a rush. And you know, to their credit, nobody knew what the IED threat was until we hit it. So.

Ben Gilbert: Yeah, right. Did you -- did you guys hillbillly armor your vehicles?

James Ausmann: Oh yeah. Plywood, sheet metal, sandbags, everything you could of think of, we put on there. Some of it worked.

David Shumate: David Shumate. I was twenty when we invaded and now I'm fixing to turn, about to turn 28 so a big chunk of the 20s. Wow, it's from OIF3 to today, it's night and day. The Iraqi army is a lot more established. We no longer, really, can go into the cities without Iraqi escorts. We can't go into an Iraqi house without an Iraqi escort and without a warrant or permission. So, um, it's night and day. So basically OIF3 was if we felt something was suspicious or something was going bad in that house, we went into that house and took care of business and so now basically the Iraqis have control of everything and we're just there to support them.

Mike Bailey: Mike Bailey. You get the feeling that it's the last deployment. Basically told that you guys are going to turn the lights off on the way out the door.

Ben Gilbert: How much time have you spent in Iraq?

Mike Bailey: Let's see here. Three years of my twenties have been spent in Iraq. Parts of me are sick of coming here, being away from a toddler -- my daughter was just born, I actually missed her birth the last time I was here -- and being away from my wife of eight years. But this is what I signed up for when I was 18-years-old and this is what I know, and my wife came into and we know it's one of those things that's going to happen we're prepared for it.

James Ausmann: I'm one of those guys, I want to see it all the way through. I'd rather stay here another year or two and get it done right then leave to early. I want us to leave and for this to work out, not for us to leave and the country have issues.

Turning to KBR -- and isn't it a rare week when we don't -- often several times -- February 25th a federal judge dimissed a case against KBR -- not ruling on the merits of the case, just addressing the issue of jurisdiction. Jeffrey Rainzer (Doyle Rainzer LLP) explained, "Today, the federal court dismissed the claims of the Indiana National Guardsmen in 'McManaway et al v. KBR, Inc.' pending in Evansville, Indiana. The Court found that the KBR defendants could not be sued in Indiana. We are disappointed by the ruling, particularly since so many of the veterans we represent are exhibiting symptoms of exposure to toxic sodium dichromate / hexavalent chromium. We will fight to hold KBR accountable for what happened to our Iraq veterans at Qarmat Ali. Doyle Raizner and co-counsel intend to refile the veterans' claims in another federal-court jurisdiction as soon as possible. This development delays but does not deny justice for the Indiana Guardsmen in this case. The truth of what happened at Qarmat Ali will be told, and we believe it will be told in a federal court. The firm and co-counsel represent other veterans in Qarmat Ali-related cases pending in West Virginia and Oregon federal courts." The Indianapolis Star reports that Mike Doyle ("Doyle" of Doyle Raizner LLP) refiled the case in Houston, Texas on Wednesday. Eric Brander (Evansville Courier & Press) notes, "Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., has drafted legislation that would create a registry similar to the one created for soldiers exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam. That registry would ensure that those suffering symptoms possibly related to the exposure receive treatment from U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs doctors, but it has not become law." Because it is buried in committee. October 21st, US Senator Evan Bayh appeared before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and made the following statement:

I am here today to testify about a tragedy that took place in 2003 on the outskirts of Basrah, Iraq.

I'm here on behalf of Lt. Colonel James Gentry and the brave men and women who served under his command in the 1st Battalion, 152nd Infantry of the Indiana National Guard.

I spoke with Lt. Col. Gentry by phone last week. He is at his home with his wife, Lou Ann, waging a valiant fight against terminal cancer.

The lieutenant colonel was a healthy man when he left for Iraq. Today, he is fighting for his life.

Tragically, many of his men are facing their own bleak prognoses as a result of their exposure to sodium dichromate -- one of the most lethal carcinogens in existence.

The chemical is used as an anti-corrosive for pipes. It was strewn all over the water treatment facility guarded by the 152nd Infantry. More than 600 soldiers from Indiana, Oregon, West Virginia and South Carolina were exposed.

One Indiana Guardsman has already died from lung disease. The Army has classified it a service-related death. Dozens of others have come forward with a range of serious respiratory symptoms.

The DoD Inspector General just launched an investigation into the breakdowns and gaps in our system that allowed this tragic exposure to happen. Neither the Army nor the private contractor KBR performed an environmental risk assessment of the site, so our soldiers were breathing in this chemical and swallowing it for months.

Our country's reliance on military contractors -- and their responsibility to their bottom line vs. our soldiers' safety -- is a topic for another day and another hearing.

Mr. Chairman, today, I would like to tell this committee about S.1779. It is legislation I have written to ensure we provide full and timely medical care to soldiers exposed to hazardous chemicals during wartime military service.

The Health Care for Veterans Exposed to Chemical Hazards Act of 2009 is bipartisan legislation that has been cosponsored by Senators Lugar, Dorgan, Rockefeller, Byrd, Wyden, Merkley and Specter.

My bill is modeled after similar legislation that Congress approved in 1978 following the Agent Orange exposure in the Vietnam conflict.

The bill ensured lifelong VA care for soldiers unwittingly exposed to the cancer-causing herbicide in the jungles of Vietnam.

Some have called toxic industrial hazards the Agent Orange of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

My legislation would make soldiers eligible for medical examinations, laboratory tests, hospital care and nursing services. It would ensure soldiers receive priority health care at VA facilities. It would recognize a veteran's own report of exposure and inclusion on a Department of Defense registry as sufficient proof to receive medical care, barring evidence to the contrary.

My legislation will help ensure that we provide the best possible care for American soldiers exposed to environmental hazards during the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. At a bare minimum, my bill will ensure compassionate care so families are spared the added grief of going from doctor to doctor in their loved ones' final days, searching for a diagnosis.

The 1978 Agent Orange registry only covered one chemical compound. But my bill is broader. It covers all members of the armed forces who have been exposed to any environmental chemical hazard, not just sodium dichromate. It recognizes a new set of risks that soldiers face today throughout the world.

Senate testimony last year identified at least seven serious instances of potential contamination involving different industrial hazards -- sulfur fires, ionizing radiation, sarin gas, and depleted uranium, to name a few.

S.1779 ensures that veterans who were exposed to these chemicals will be eligible for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care.
It allows the Secretary of Defense to identify the hazards of greatest concern that warrant special attention from the VA.

My bill switches the burden of proof from the soldier to the government. Soldiers exposed to toxic chemicals will receive care presumptively, unless the VA can show their illness is not related to their service.

Exposure to toxic chemicals is a threat no service member should have to face. It is our moral obligation to offer access to prompt, quality care. We should cut the red tape for these heroes.

Mr. Chairman, I promised Lt. Col. Gentry that I would fight for his men here in Congress. I promise I would use my position to get them the care they deserve and to make sure we protect our soldiers from preventable risks like this in the future.

This tragedy will be compounded if we do not take the steps to provide the best medical care this country has to offer.

Thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony today. I urge this committee to adopt S. 1779 to honor the sacrifice of Lt. Colonel Gentry and all of our brave men and women doing the hard, dangerous work of keeping America safe.

December 1st, Lt Col James C. Gentry was buried. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has refused to move on Bayh's legislation. Is someone being paid off? There's no reason in the world to have sat on this legislation. Bayh, who doesn't serve on the Committee, is not seeking re-election and when he spoke about what he believed was conflict from both sides of the aisle and how it was preventing Congress from doing the needed business, maybe some of the smart mouths attacking Evan could have stopped a moment and looked at the bills he was proposing, such as the registry, and how there was no action on them despite overwhelming public support for them. Mike Doyle (Doyle Raizner LLP) notes, "The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, where KBR maintains its corporate headquarters. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Vanessa Gilmore, and the judge ordered a Scheduling Conference on July 9, 2010, to select a trial date for the case. Judge Gilmore at the time of her appointment by President Bill Clinton was the youngest sitting federal judge, and she has presided over a number of important trials (including the Enron Broadband trial) during her tenure on the bench."

Doyle Raizner LLP notes:

At Doyle Raizner, our recent work pursuing claims against military contractors has focused on continuing litigation over our soldiers' exposure to the known cancer-causing chemical hexavalent chromium -- also known as sodium dichromate -- at facilities and sites operated by the Houston-based engineering and construction company KBR, Inc.

This major, determined effort has further prepared our attorneys to handle other potential negligence and damage claims on behalf of U.S. and U.K. military personnel. We encourage you to contact us if you are:

Experiencing respiratory problems or symptoms of toxic exposure you believe are due to your service at the Qarmat Ali water treatment plant in Iraq in 2003, where exposure to the potentially deadly carcinogen sodium dichromate occurred and has come to light
A family grieving a soldier tragically lost in an electrocution on a military base or deployment location
Among many thousands of former and current military personnel suffering the harmful effects of exposure to fumes emitted from contractors' toxic burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan
A victim of some other form of toxic chemical exposure you believe occurred while you were serving in the U.S. or U.K. armed forces

[. . .]

To discuss your potential military contractor claim with an attorney who will take you seriously and treat you with care and respect, call or e-mail us anytime.

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Only a week insists cry baby

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAD A SNIT WITH THE PRESS TODAY.

BARRY O TOSSED HIS NOSE IN THE AIR AND DECLARED THE PRESS NEEDED TO SHOW SOME PATIENCE AND STOP POLLING ON HOW MUCH AMERICA HATES OBAMACARE.

BUT AMERICA DOES HATE IT AND WASN'T BARRY O THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO SHOW PATIENCE? THE ONE WHO INSISTED HIS BAD LAW BE PASSED IMMEDIATELY?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"Many men and women return from the war zone successfully and adjust to their lives out of theater, but others have had difficulty in readjusting or transitioning to family life, to their jobs, and to living in their communities after deployment." That statement appears on page one of the 192 page report issued yesterday by the Committee on the Initial Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Military Personnel, Veterans, and Their Families; Board on the Health of Selected Populations; Institute Of Medicine. The report is entitled Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Preliminary Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. The Institute Of Medicine defined the task as (a) "identify preliminary findings regarding the physical and mental health and other readjustments needs for members and former members of the armed forces who were deployed to OEF or OIF and their families as a result of such deployment" and (b) "determine how it would approach [. . .] a comprehensive assessment of the physical, mental, social and economic effects and to identify gaps in care for members and former member of the armed forces who were deployed" in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Among other things, IOM found many programs had been created to help the veterans of both wars; however, little evaluation of the programs had been done. The report states that little attention has been paid to either the costs or helath condition needs in long-term care for TBI. In addition, it notes that there "is the critical shortage of health-care professionals -- especially those specializing in mental health -- to meet the demands of those returning from theater in Iraq and Afghanistan and their family members."

The report refers to all levels of care. Last week, US House Rep Michael Michaud chaired a hearing of the House Veterans Subcommittee on Health and US House Rep Gabrielle Giffords spoke of the bills she is sponsoring HR 2698 and 2699 -- both of which are concerned with treatment for PTSD. The first would provide a scholarship to train VA workers and allow veterans to access PTSD health care at the VAs even if -- especially if -- the PTSD is newly emerging/manifesting. The first bill would put more and better trained workers in the VA and allow the veterans greater access to treatment. The second bill would create pilot pograms that would provide treatment but also track feedback from the veterans and their families in order to devise better treatments. The bills she is sponsoring are both in keeping with the recommendations of the 192-page report. HR 2698 currently has 48 co-sponsors including the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee Bob Filner. At least 13 of the co-sponsors are Republicans; however, the Committee's Ranking Member, Steve Buyer, has not signed on as a co-sponsor.

The report notes a barrier to receiving help: "Stigma, real or imagined, is perceived by military personnel who are (or are considering) seeking care for mental health or substance-abuse problems. And active-duty military and veterans fear that vistis to a mental health provider will jeopardize their careers because of the military's long-standing and understandable policy of reporting mental health and substance-abuse problems to the chain of command."

They will argue that they recommended "a review" of confidentiality policies. Yes, they did. And I will turn around and argue that Deborah Mullen (wife of Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen) made stronger remarks on this topic (stigmas as barriers to treatment) in her speech at the DoD-VA Suicide Prevention Conference in DC last January.

As you read through the report, it becomes obvious that there are few solutions offered, just calls for more study. If you doubt that, check out the section on "Identify policy remedies" which reads:

Implicit in much of what the committee has found and has written is that dealing with the population-level consequences of OEF and OIF will require policy changes. The scope of the potential policy rememdies will be targeted at preventing, minimizing, or addressing the impacts, gaps, and needs identified during the committee's work. It is anticipated that this work will generate specific recommendations that may require statutory changes to implement.

They may feel they have met their mission's mandate but what it reads like is "there are problems, we recommend further study." In other words, kick the can. Or maybe hot potato. Though weak on solutions, the study does provide interesting raw data such as the fact that 1.9 million members of the service have been deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq for over 30 days since 2001. That these 1.9 million have been deployed "in 3 million tours of duty". 7,944 women served in Vietnam while "over 200,000 women" have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (accounting for 11% of the personnel). Non-reserve personnel? Nearly half the officers "are over 35 years old" compared to the reserve officers figure of 73.6% "are over 35 years old." Well over half the reserve, non-officer members are 30 or less while in the non-reserve category, 85% are under the age of 35 with the greatest number being between the ages of 20 and 24. That group makes up 43.9% of the Army (non-officers, remember), 45.9% of the Navy, 39.1% of the Air Force and 65.6% of the Marine Corps. For the non-officers in the reserves, there is no one age group that consistently tracks across the branches. In the Army national Guard, the largest portion (30%) are between the ages of 20 and 24 and that is true also for the Army Reserve (32.1%) and the Marine Corps Reserve (58.1%); however, for the Navy Reserve, most members (24.3%) are between the ages of 35 and 39 (with the second highest being the ages 40 to 44), ages 40 to 44 make up the largest percent of the Air Force Reserve (18.4%). That's all the reserve branches except for the Air National Guard and their highest percentage is 16.6% which is the percentage of their deployed members ages 20 to 24 but it is also the percentage of their deployed members age 35 to 39.

With no distinction made between officers and non-officers, service members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been "66% [. . .] white, 16% black, 10% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 4% other race." That's reserve and non-reserve. Of the non-reserve, 55.2% are married and that number is 49% for the reserves. Children? 43% non-reserves are a parent and reserves? They aren't tracked. Which appears to echo the RAND Corporation critieria for their recent study which Anita Chandra discussed with Congress last month. Reserves and non-reserves (the report calls it "active component" but I've heard too many reserves note that they are active and have been active month after month) share one thing in common, for both over 60% of the Navy branches have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. For non-reserves, that is the highest of any branch. For the reserves, the Air Force Reserve has deployed even more with over 80% of their members have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. [See Figure 2.5 and 2.6 of the report for more on that breakdown.] The report notes:

The rate of domestic violence is higher in military couples than in civilian couples. Marshall et al. (2005) reported that wives of Army servicemen reported significantly higher rates of husband-to-wife violence than demographically matched civilian wives. Although it has bee nreported that spousal abuse has declined over the last few years, domestic violence still affects 20% of military couples in which the service member has been deployed for at least 6 months (Booth et al., 2007).

On the topic of families:

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on the children of US troops deployed there. Children of US troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan reportedly sought outpatient mental health services 2 million times in 2008 (Andrews et al, 2008). Impatient visits by military children have increased by 50% since 2003. Additionally, an increase in the rate of child maltreatment has been reported since the start of the conflict. Rentz et al (2007) conducted a time-series analysis from 2000 to 2003 to investigate the effect of deployment on the occurrence of child maltreatment in military and nonmilitary families. They reported a statisically significant two-fold increase in substantial maltreatment in military families in the 1-year period after Septemeber 11, 2001, compared with the period before then. A recent study of over 1,700 military families (Gibbs et al, 2007) found that the overall rate of child maltreatment, especially child neglect, was higher when the soldier-parents were deployed than when theyw ere not deployed. Because of the demographics of those who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (older service members who are married and have children), the number of children who have been affected by these conflicts is clearly larger than in past conflicts.

Julie Sullivan (Oregonian) examines the report with a focus on Oregon service members, "Nearly 51 percent of the returning soldiers told commanders they have no job waiting. More than 170 have no permanent address. And, an exhaustive new national report finds that the most challenging transition for their families will come after they arrive." Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) boils the report down to the VA "has no way of determining long-range health care costs for the veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan".

Monday's snapshot covered the Commission on Wartime Conracting in Iraq and Afghanistan in DC which heard about abuses and problems to do with KBR and also heard from KBR. Kat covered the hearing in "Commission on Wartime Contracting," Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Fraud and waste" and Wally covered it at Rebecca's site with "The arrogance and waste of KBR." The Commission's attention isn't the only negative attention KBR is receiving this week. The US Justice Dept issued the following today:

WASHINGTON -- The United States has filed a lawsuit against Kellogg Brown & Root Services (KBR) alleging that the defense contractor violated the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, alleges that KBR knowingly included impermissible costs for private armed security in billings to the Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract. The LOGCAP III contract provides for civilian contractor logistical support, such as food services, transportation, laundry and mail, for military operations in Iraq.
The government's lawsuit alleges that some 33 KBR subcontractors, as well as the company itself, used private armed security at various times during the 2003-2006 time period. KBR allegedly violated the LOGCAP III contract by failing to obtain Army authorization for arming subcontractors and by allowing the use of private security contractors who were not registered with the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The subcontractors using private security are alleged to have also violated subcontract terms requiring travel only in military convoys. The government's lawsuit further alleges that at the time, KBR managers considered the use of private security unacceptable and were concerned that the Army would disallow any costs for such services. KBR nonetheless charged the United States for the costs of the unauthorized services.
"Defense contractors cannot ignore their contractual obligations to the military and pass along improper charges to the United States," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "We are committed to ensuring that the Department of Defense's rules are enforced and that funds so vital to the war effort are not misused."
This case is being brought as part of a National Procurement Fraud Initiative. In October 2006, the Deputy Attorney General announced the formation of a National Procurement Fraud Task Force designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in government contracting activity for national security and other government programs. The Procurement Fraud Task Force is chaired by the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and includes the Civil Division, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, the FBI, the U.S. Inspectors General community, and a number of other federal law enforcement agencies.
Along with the Justice Department's Civil Division, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Army Criminal Investigation Division and FBI participated in the investigation of this matter. This case, as well as others brought by members of the task force, demonstrates the Department of Justice's commitment to helping ensure the integrity of the government procurement process.

NOW on PBS begins airing on most PBS stations Friday night (check local listings) and this week's program:The number of inmates in American prisons is outpacing the system's ability to hold them all. In one startling example, California prisons hold well over 50,000 more inmates than they're designed for, even though the state has built a dozen new prisons in the last 15 years. One of the biggest reasons is rampant recidivism. On Friday, April 2 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW goes inside an Illinois prison that may have the answer to California's problems. With its innovative plan to keep released inmates from coming back, the Sheridan Correctional Center is trying to redefine "tough on crime" by being the largest fully dedicated drug prison in the country. The approach involves aggressive counseling, job training, and following the convicts after they get out. Can their novel approach keep convicts out of jail for good?

And we'll close with this from Tom Over (OpEd News) report on the activities of World Can't Wait and speaks with Debra Sweet, national director of World Can't Wait:Sweet said that during the Bush presidency, protests against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had a lot more people participating. "A Presidential candidate and then a president was brought forward who represented on the surface something very different. This was change we were supposed to believe in and huge numbers of people, including anti-war leaders, put all their energy into electing Obama, regardless of the fact that he was promising to expand the war in Afghanistan," Sweet said. Perhaps interestingly, as Sweet and I spoke, Public Enemy's "Don't Believe The Hype" played on the PA system. Also interesting was that Sweet uttered a combination of words-- 'hoodwinked and bamboozled ' -- Malcolm X used to famous effect, which was made more famous by way of Spike Lee's film about the civil rights leader. "A lot of people have been hoodwinked and bamboozled. Many of us weren't, but we need to be all that much more visible and protesting now, because even more than ever, we need a movement that says 'no' to this whole package of continuing the Bush direction," Sweet said.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The food rations program gets slashed again"
"No way to determine the cost of veterans care"
"Drill, Baby, Drill"
"The joke that is Jodie Evans"
"War resisters"
"all about bradley (hot, hot, hot)"
"Francis Fox Piven is a racist and sexist"
"What comes next?"
"Francy Fox's Piven and the Schecters Who Love 'Em"
"War resister quiz"
"When Tom Hayden went to Russia . . ."
"Set back for Bush and Barack"
"He's a little gassy"
"THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S GAS PROBLEM!"

Cedric's Big Mix