Saturday, February 11, 2012

All in the Norman, One Day at a Norman

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

APPEARING TO SHAKE THE CAREER DIVE THAT SILVER SPOONS SET HIM ON, COMEDY PRODUCER NORMAN LEAR HAS JUST PUBLISHED A COMIC ESSAY THAT HAS PEOPLE ONCE AGAIN COMMENTING ON HIS WIT AND WAY WITH WORDS.

"HE'S POSITIVELY THE NEW NORA EPHRON!" DECLARED ONE WAG.

WHILE ANOTHER FELT THAT THE PIECE READ "LIKE ERMA BOMBECK ON ACID! VERY POST-POST MODERN."

IN THE PIECE, LEAR TOYS WITH COMEDIC ELEMENTS FROM MARK TWAIN TO JANE WAGNER IN ORDER TO SEND UP A DELUSIONAL BARRY O SUPPORTER.

THE BASIC PREMISE IS THAT THE CULT OF ST. BARACK MEMBERS BELIEVES BARRY O IS ONE OF THE LITTLE PEOPLE AND THAT BY REJECTING BIG DONATIONS, HE WILL BE EMBRACED BY THEM BECAUSE BARRY O IS THE 99%.

IT'S HILARIOUS BECAUSE THE 99% DID NOT GO TO PREP SCHOOLS OR HAVE A MOTHER WHO WORKED FOR THE C.I.A. OR GO TO HARVARD OR WORK FOR THE CIA THEMSELVES. IT'S HILARIOUS BECAUSE WALL STREET BOUGHT BARRY O IN 2008.

REACHED FOR COMMENT ON HIS MIRACULOUS COMEDY COMEBACK, NORMAN LEAR ATTEMPTED TO KEEP THE HUMOR GOING BY INSISTING TO THESE REPORTERS, "I MEANT EVERY WORD."

WELL PLAYED, MR. LEAR, WELL PLAYED.


"What my clients want to know is why -- when they're living at home or under supervised care -- their veteran suddenly has to have a VA fiduciary at all?" attorney Douglas J. Rosinski asked Congress yesterday. "My veterans have had decades of family members giving them care and handling their benefits without VA interruption. Suddenly, VA appoints a perfect stranger -- perfectly unknown to the veteran -- who has never contacted a veteran, who will not contact a veteran and is paid money from that veterans account to withhold the money from the veteran, to place it in bank accounts that they will not disclose to the veteran and they will not even disclose under FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act]. They will redact the veterans own information about his own money from the files they give out. My clients want to know why, that if there is a need, for a VA-appointed fiduciary, it has to be this stranger. They want to know why this veteran is told to take all of the veterans finances, all of his bank accounts and ask questions about his CDs [Certificate of Deposit] and whether he owns a boat and what his wife's salary is and where is that salary put and then go into the banks and take all of it and not tell them where it is. They want to know why VA not only will not correct that when I've had personal discussions with members sitting -- or people sitting -- in this hearing today and then they will not fix that problem? They want to know why VA defends those practices at every turn, in every court, in every discussion? This is not about numbers and procedures and policies. My clients don't care about policies and procedures. They want to know why they have $100,000 in the bank and they cannot afford the medicine that the VA doctors prescribed last month? They want to know why the power company's in the front yard when they have $50,000 in the bank? And it takes an emergency motion to the Veterans Court before these people will call the power company and tell them they'll pay $178."


Rosinkski was appearing before the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations yesterday as they held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system -- where someone's appointed by the veteran or by the VA to manage/oversee/control the veterans benefits. Rosinski appeared on the second panel and noted, "That's what my clients would like to hear today. And I did not hear any of that from the prior panel."


The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Rosinski with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman. We covered the first panel in yesterday's snapshot. US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee. We'll note this exchange.


Chair Bill Johnson: Ms. Eagle, if VA is paying a fiduciary a percentage of a veterans' compensation, only to allow VA to have the final say , then why pay a fiduciary in the first place?


Katrina Eagle: I have many veterans and clients who ask that same question. I don't understand it myself. I find it ironic that I have several cases where the veteran is paid also [clears throat], excuse me, his Social Security benefits and he has no fiduciary managing his Social Security benefits but the VA finds that he must be appointed a fidcuiary for his VA benefits which also then get sucked into including his Social Security benefits. Moreover, as Mr. Weidman was saying, with respect to veterans who try to get out of the program, I've seen many instances of retribution, so to speak, in that when the veteran applies to get out of the fiduciary program, he is then found perfectly fine with his medical condition, the underlying medical condtion be it physical or often a psychiatric condition, and therefore he [his benefits] is reduced. And that is encouraging the veteran to say nothing, go along and not question or cause problems.


Chair Bill Johnson: I want to read this paragraph for everyone's attention out of that form we're discussing. It says, "Approval for use of VA funds" -- and this is the 21-4703 that we're discussing -- "VA must approve any use of a veterans VA funds. You" -- and I'm presuming that's the fiduciary -- "agree to use these funds only as specifically authorized by VA. You agree to request VA approval for all spending of these funds unless VA has previously authorized the expenditures. Any questions regarding authorized expenditures should be addressed to the fiduciary activity at the address and phone number on the front side of this form." Ms. Eagle, in your opinion, should VA remove this paragraph in question of form 21-4703?


Katrina Eagle: Yes.


Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, thank you. Ms. Estes, you mentioned that you submitted the anual report to VA but have heard nothing since. When is your last date to be informed of the status of this issue? You said today, correct?

Pam Estes: They told me I had 30 days so I'm assuming -- I took 30 days from the postmark, that would be today.

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. What results good or bad have you experienced in the fiduciary program. Now that's -- that's a big question but . . .

Pam Estes: When there is contact, it's fine. They come out and I talk to them and we go over the expenditures and stuff. I don't have a problem there. It's like a black hole. I don't get any return calls when I leave a message. I was afraid to send the accounting because they require originals of everything -- original bank statement and stuff like -- and you're not handing it, you're mailing it so I suspected something like that might happen so we sent it certified and everything. And I followed up with a phone call saying I did this. I know I'm supposed to have an audit but nobody came out so I'm submitting it. And so then we got the letter that said I hadn't submitted it at all.

Chair Bill Johnson: So basically, it's miscommunication, lack of communication?

Pam Estes: They were being -- No communication.

Chair Bill Johnson: No communication.

Pam Estes: It's no communication.

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Ms. Eagle, on the first panel, we discussed VA waivers for fiduciaries. And if I recall the testimony, they were not aware of waivers being granted for certification or fiduciary qualifications. Do you have any experience with VA fiduciary requirements being waived?


Katrina Eagle: I do. And what I find and what Mr. McLenachen was talking about is a fiduciary for the first time will be reviewed, background checks perhaps performed. What I see happen in all of the cases I have reviewed in assisting the veteran is that if that fiduciary has been at all ever in the VA system as a fiduciary previously, the background check is waived, criminal background checks are waived, etc., etc. So once he's in, it's good to go.


Chair Bill Johnson: Mr. Rosinski, is the issue of a person with a criminal background being allowed to serve as a VA fiduciary an isolated incident in your view?


Doug Rosinski: Mr. Chairman, there's no way to tell. As Ms. Eagle just said, they waive all the background checks I've ever seen. And my experience is all they ask is they're asking, 'Check a box, have you ever been convicted and served more than one year for a felony, yes or no?' So I'll leave it to you whether a convicted felon is going to answer that yes or no. That is, as far as I know, the background check. And that is what is waived on top of it.

Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Mr. Rosinski, in your experience and clients you've represented, what is your background of some of the VA fidcuiaries? Have you -- have you seen incidents where fiduciaries have been removed?
Doug Rosinski: The only fiduciary that I know that was removed was the daughter who was taking care of her 81-year-old father and was a registered nurse and had been taking care of her father full time for two decades, had retired from being a nurse to do that. She took her father to an Alzheimers clinic because he has advancing Alzheimers and VA turned around and fired her as fiduciary and registered a complaint for misuse of those funds because they were not pre-authorized. I've also -- that's my example of firing. The issue of qualifications, I had the privilege of deposing two actual fiduciaries in the state of Texas. One was a cabinet salesman who in 2009 got his first fiduciary appointment. In 2011, November 2011, when I deposed him, [he] had 53. He had never heard of a fiduciary until someone suggested that this would be a good job to have since he had had a heart attack. The other fiduciary there is the full-time, single working mother who said her father had been a VA fiduciary and that's how she found out about the program.


Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. Ms. Eagle, given the 3 to 5% paid to a fiduciary for administering a veterans account, what purpose would a fiduciary have for hoarding a veteran's money?


Katrina Eagle: I think that the issue of hoarding has nothing to do with how much they're being authorized from the veteran's money on a monthly basis. The reason they would be hoarding -- and there's two kinds of fiduciaries that I've dealt with. The hoarding is encouraged by the VA program leadership because they are to save as much money as possible in case of certain emergencies. Keep in mind that these are monthly recurring benefits. So needing to save $100,000 when the veterans going to get paid $3,000 every month until and unless he passes, there's no need to save that much money. Second of all, lots of these fiduciaries are banks. It is in their best interest to keep as much money in their accounts as possible.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Unemployment stands at 11%

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS LONG BEEN ABLE TO BAT HIS EYE LASHES AND CHARM MOST OF THE PRESS WHO FALL FOR HIS DAMSEL IN DISTRESS ROUTINE AND RUSH TO PROTECT HIM FROM REALITY.

BUT FORBES JUST SERVED UP SOME REALITY BARRY O WAS PROBABLY HOPING NO ONE WOULD NOTICE: UNEMPLOYMENT IS ACTUALLY 11%.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O STOMPED HIS FEET AND CRIED, "DARN IT! DARN IT! THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! I KNOW! I'LL TAKE OFF MY SHIRT AGAIN! THAT WILL CHANGE THE STORY!"



Today the House Veterans Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on the VA's fiduciary system. There are veterans who are unable to overseeing or manage their benefits solely by themselves so they might ask that someone be a fiduciary -- thereby putting someone in charge of overseeing the benefits. The veteran might pick someone they know or they might ask the VA to select someone. There are problems with the system currently. The Subcommittee attempted to determine why that was.
The hearing had two panels (and many breaks due to votes on the House floor). The first panel was the VA's Dave McLenachen (with the VA's Diana Rubin), the second panel was composed of Katrina Eagle with the Veterans Law Office of Michael Wildhaber, Veteran Fiduciary Pam Estes, attorney Doug Rosinski with the Law Office of Douglas J. Rosinski, and Vietnam Veterans of America's Rick Weidman. US House Rep Bill Johnson is the Chair of the Subcommittee. And we'll note this exchange.
Chair Bill Johnson: What are the criteria for choosing a fiduciary:
Dave McLenachen: Mr. Chairman, the criteria for choosing a fiduciary is-is controlled by law. Congress required us when looking to see who should be a fiduciary to check a number of things: criminal history, credit and general willingness to act as a fidcuairy for a beneficiary. VA's policy, Mr. Chairman, is to always try to select the least restrictive and most effective payment for a beneficiary. To do that, the first thing that we do is look at who does the beneficiary want us to appoint? That's our first step. If we can qualify that person we will -- we will appoint that person. If that person cannot be qualified, we'll look to the person who has the care and custody of the beneficiary. That may be a family member that lives with the beneficiary and provides care or maybe a guardian? That's who we look to next. The next step is any other family member of person interested in performing these functions for a beneficiary. Only as a last resort, Mr. Chairman, will we look to a paid fiduciary or a court-appointed fiduciary. That is because we're looking for the least restrictive method. And I -- And I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that that is our policy and that Just so there's no misunderstanding, currently only about 8% of the roughtly 120,000 beneficiaries pay a commission for fiduciary services.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay, the CFR states that a commission is only given to a beneficiary when it is necessary to obtain his or her services. Further it states that commissions should only be used if the veterans best interests would be served by the appointment of a qualified professional or a qualified person. What does qualified mean to the VA?
Dave McLenachen: To us, Mr. Chairman, qualified -- as I've described -- means that it's a person that has the interest of the beneficiary in mind, is willing to perform the service and meets the qualifications that have been prescribed by Congress for us to implement. That is what the regulations are referring to. So if it's an individual who has a criminal history or that has bad credit history or for some other reason cannot be bonded, that individual will not be appointed as a fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: Are there -- are there any educational or other qualifications required to be classified as a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Not at this time, sir. However, one of the first things that I did when I took this job approximately five months ago was to initiate a complete review of our current regulations which Congressman [Jon] Runyan mentioned during his statement. I think there's a real need to update those regulations. We've reviewed all of those regulations and are currently revising them now. That is one issue that I would like to address in our regulations is whether there should be such requirements for fiduciaries?
Chair Bill Johnson: Would it -- would it surprise you to know that we have sworn testimony that a VA fiduciary stated that she had approximately one semester of community college education while she is the appointed fiduciary for 43 veterans, as a single mother working full time. Is that -- Would that be the VA's acceptable criteria for a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I can tell you that with our current regulations, there is nothing to prohibit that fiduciary from serving in that role.
Chair Bill Johnson: In your opinion, would that be a qualified fiduciary? If you're a veteran would you want -- is that who you would want to put in charge of your daily care?
Dave McLenachen: It may be, sir. If that's the wishes of the veteran to have that particular --
Chair Bill Johnson: No, not this wasn't the wishes of the veteran. I'm talking about the VA appointing someone who is a qualified person. The veteran has gone to the VA saying I need a fiduciary and you request a fiduciary. Would that be your idea of a qualified person?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, I would like to strengthen the requirements to be a fudiciary. So in that instance, I think that there should be some more stringent requirements.
Chair Bill Johnson: Okay. How many fiduciaries have the background checks or certifications waived?
Dave McLenachen: Sir, we just recently issued new guidance that affirms our responsibility to check the background --
Chair Bill Johnson: Does the VA waive fiduciary background checks and certifications?
Dave McLenachen: It's not my knowledge that we do. Uh, the guidance out there now is to check background in every fiduciary --
Chair Bill Johnson: I hope you're going to stay around for all of the testimony today then.
As Johnson noted in the hearing, ten veterans saw their fiduciary walk away with $900,000 of their money. 4% is supposed to be the largest amount the fiduciary can take of the veterans annual benefits. However, the Subcommittee was already aware of fiduciaries taking more than 4%. As the exchange above made clear, there appears to be a lack of serious oversight. The House Veterans Disability Subcommittee has also been examining this issue and a number of them sat in on the hearing. The Ranking Member on that Subcommittee is Jerry Mcnerny and he noted the lack of "oversight and accountability." He noted a 2010 field hearing where family members serving as fiduciaries were actually experiencing more government oversight than were strangers the VA picked to serve as fiduciaries. (One of the most public cases in the news during the current wars was of a family -- parents -- who used their disabled war veteran son's VA benefit checks to buy themselves a new truck, to go gambling and much more. I'm not implying that family members don't need oversight nor was Mcnerny implying that. He was noting that hand picked choices by the veterans, people who had the veterans trust, were getting more oversight than these people who are professional fiduciaries -- meaning they are primarly being fiduciaries for strangers due to the pay.) Mcnerny noted that most fiduciaries are doing an outstanding job. Rubens agreed noting that 90% of the fiduciaries are taking care of only one veteran.
Still on veterans issues, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Commitee and her office notes the following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Senator Murray Participates in Virtual Town Hall Meeting hosted by Disabled American Veterans
Murray fielded questions, concerns, and suggestions from veterans, members of the military, and their family members across the country.
View full transcript of the Disabled American Veterans' Virtual Town Hall HERE.
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, had the opportunity to chat one-on-one with veterans across the country in a Virtual Town Hall Meeting, organized by Disabled American Veterans, a non-profit charity dedicated to building better lives for America's disabled veterans and their families. In the hour-long chat, Senator Murray discussed a wide range of issues including mental health care, VA claims wait times, women veterans, and veteran jobs. Over 3,000 veterans, members of the military and family members participated in the chat. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she heard today to continue to fight for veterans in Washington, D.C.
###
On this week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), featured an interview with journalist Ralph Poynter, husband of the people's attorney, political prisoner Lynne Stewart. Excerpt.
Glen Ford: On the last day of Feburary, a court will hear the appeal of movement lawyer Lynne Stewart imprisoned for 10 years on charges of supporting terrorism. Stewart was the attorney for Omar Abdul Rahman the so-called "blind Sheikh" charged with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Attorney Stewart is in federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas. She was first sentenced to only two-and-a-half years but then the courts decided to pile on some more years. Her husband and co-activist Ralph Poynter explains.
Ralph Poynter: This is an appeal of the re-sentencing Lynne received. She received a sentence of two-and-a-half years. 28 to 30 months. Then, when she was appealing, when she was free on her appeal, they called her back for a re-sentencing because a government appeal to the 2nd Circuit of a sentence 'too light' was taken up and two of the three judges agreed that the sentence was 'too light.' And besides Lynne Stewart continued "traveling around the country at the law schools and universities corrupting our youth." These are the words of the judges of the 2nd Circuit.
Glen Ford: In other words, her sentence was increased -- five times -- to ten years based upon her speech?
Ralph Poynter: Based upon her speech and they said it: "traveling around the country at law schools and universities corrupting our youth." Now Lynne Stewart said that the treatment of Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman was racist and government funded and that there was no terror plot, that the government had done it. And it was all done by an Egyptian double agent, Emad Salem, who was hired by the Egyptian government and the American FBI --or CIA -- and so she had him on the witness stand and she caught him lying 32 times. And it got to the point where he just said, "Well I guess, Miss Stewart, I mis-stated, I lied," and put his head down. The jury heard that and yet they convicted Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne went to these universities and law schools, she was not just exercising her own freedom of speech to say whatever she said, but also she was speaking on behalf of her client as a lawyer?
Ralph Poynter: Yes, the blind Sheikh, on his appeals, and his right for the First Amendment. And she answered all questions and she gave these law students a history lesson on racism in America. And she would use her own experiences -- experiences the people of the sixties, the activists, because remember Lynne Stewart was a teacher and an activist, she was a Christian Dutch Reform and honor student. And when she came to New York City as a 23-year-old who was born not five miles from Harlem, she didn't know it existed. So she said, "This is American miseducation. Not only do they not treat the Black children to read, write and count, they don't teach White children what America is and I'm the example." And you could imagine what effect that had on the students. So no wonder we are where we are: Islamophobia. And then she went into law, what law is about, understanding the Bill of Rights and what a lawyer's job is and how it came to this formulation. And one of the things that Lynne and I have an argument about, she says that with all of the warts and flaws in the new US justice system, she thinks it's the best model. But it will only be that if the lawyers play their proper role of being the person between the government and the accused and explaining that that is what protects all of us -- a vigorous defense by attorneys -- and if one person doesn't have that defense, none of us do.
Glen Ford: So when Lynne is talking to university students and law students about her principles and explaining her actions and what she thinks it means to be a citizen and a lawyer she is then faced with this massive retribution -- an increase of five times her sentence -- and in her appeal she's calling that substantial unreasonableness in terms of legalese.
Ralph Poynter: And this is what the appeal is. Now, before you can appeal your basic sentence, you know, her basic guilt -- she was found guilty in the federal court of terrorism, supporting terrorism, she has to go through the Second Circuit so this is a double. She's opposing the unreasonableness and the unfairness and the illegal upping of her sentence before she can before the Supreme Court on her original trial, the trial of being found guilty of supporting terrorism. Now the question is: How are they going to defend this? My answer to that is: If there were law in the first place, Lynne would never be in jail. And one of the first speeches that she made, they were holding a conference in California on the coming of the police state and Lynne was the speaker and she said, "The coming of the police state? The police state has always been here for certain members of our nation and now it's coming to White people and I'm the evidence." And it was standing ovation. The police state has always been here, the people didn't recognize it because it was against us [persons of color -- Ralph Poynter is African-American].
Glen Ford: And that statement was one of those -- and reports on that statement in the press was one of those factors in the judge multiplying her sentence by five?
Ralph Poynter: You got that 100% right.
Glen Ford: And thus verifying that the police state had arrived.
Ralph Poynter: And as I said to Lynne, you have to understand, we just got out of COINTELPRO, they listened to everything. She felt that one of the most embarrassing things of the left was allowing our defenders of the community to lay in jail all of these years.
Lynne's appeal takes place at the end of this month. She notes:
The same group of 3 Judges that heard and decided the original appeal will also hear the arguments on the 29th. The government is not asking for more time; they are satisfied with their pound of flesh but it is not likely that this Court will take any action that will help me. The times are askew for prisoners and their lawsuits.
The lawyers that argued in July of 2010 will be on board with the addition of Herald Price Fahringer, an eminent attorney in the First Amendment field (the win in the Larry Flynt Hustler case in the US Supreme Court was his. He was also in the line of fire (no injuries) when the shooting took place.) He will enthusiastically present our case. I will not be present -- not unusual once imprisoned. But my spirit will be there to inspire !!!
Of course, my case has always been government firing warning shots to Lawyers, that a vigorous defense, of certain clients, if not conforming to government specifications, will be punished severely . This chill effect in these days that we are confronted with Grand Jury investigations and dismantling of Occupations is not something we should contemplate with anything less than alarm. I have just finished David Gilbert's book (Love Struggle) and the intercession of lawyers when there are arrests of designated enemies of the "state" are the only meaningful protection available.
A Large Outpouring of Support in Foley Square and Tom Paine Park and in the Courtroom will signal to these arbiters of "Justice" that attention must be paid, the 99% are watching them with suspicion and tallying up the roads not taken.


Posted by at No comments:

Joe's the last one to talk

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

U.S. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN WENT TO TALLAHASSEE ON MONDAY AND OBVIOUSLY STOPPED BY STUPID SHACK.

SPEAKING AT A FUND RAISER -- IF YOU HAVE DOLLARS, THEY WILL COME -- JOE FELT THE NEED TO ACCUSE OTHERS, "THESE ARE THE SAME GUYS CALLING THE PRESIDENT A, YOU KNOW, A FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT -- A THINLY VEILED -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE. IT'S INAPPROPRIATE."

INTERESTING. IT WAS JANUARY 2007, REMEMBER, WHEN JOE BIDEN WAS APOLOGIZING FOR REMARKS -- ONE'S BARRY O CALLED "HISTORICALLY INACCURATE."

YOU GO SON OF FLUBBER.


After "ALL" US forces left Iraq, a number of Marines remain to guard the diplomatic missions (Embassy and consulates), a number of US service members remain to provide training (Nouri al-Maliki publicly stated that number was 700), Special Ops remain, the FBI remained and the CIA remain. Today Greg Miller (Washington Post) reports which explains:


The CIA is expected to maintain a large clandestine presence in Iraq and Afghanistan long after the departure of conventional U.S. troops as part of a plan by the Obama administration to rely on a combination of spies and Special Operations forces to protect U.S. interests in the two longtime war zones, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials said that the CIA's stations in Kabul and Baghdad will probably remain the agency's largest overseas outposts for years, even if they shrink from record staffing levels set at the height of American efforts in those nations to fend off insurgencies and install capable governments.
Although "agencies" have picked up the story and Russia' Interfax and Iran's Press TV as well, US outlets have studiously avoided the report. Instead they focus on Tim Arango's New York Times report on the US State Dept's Iraq mission. Yesterday on NBC Nightly News, Richard Engel (link is is text and video) attempted to push the notion that this was a cost-saving measure for the good of the American people, quoting US State Dept spokesperson Victoria Nuland insisting, "We're trying to do our best to save the American taxpayer money in the way we support our diplomatic personnel."

Aswat al-Iraq reported what US outlets wouldn't last month: "Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr clled his 'resistance' followers to be prepared to face the US Embassy in Baghdad, if they did not stop their breaches. In response to a question made to his followers, received by Aswat al-Iraq, he expressed rejection that US officials walk in Baghdad streets with their weapons."


Now since then, a US helicopter emergency landed in Baghdad (with another transporting the Americans away), reports of F-16 jets flying overhead are coming from the Iraqi Parliament and there is the drone issue which enraged Iraqis last week. Tuesday morning,Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reported that the US is stating that they are only flying planes and drones and helicopters in Iraq airspace to provide protection for the US Embassy in Baghdad (and its various consulates throughout the country). Parliaments Security and Defense wants answers as to exactly what the US is doing in Iraq's skies.


In this climate, a decision may (or may not have) been made. Equally true, we were informed last week that the US and Iraq were back in negotiations regarding the US military presence. If a pull out of diplomatic 'forces' is going to happen, at present, the American people have no idea whether this is happening on its own or as part of the negotiation process for US troops in Iraq.
But Victoria Nuland wants to assert that it's a cost-cutting measure?
Strange that the billions didn't bother anyone in the administration until after Congress allocated them. BBC News notes that the US Embassy in Baghdad alone cost $750 million and that the "huge diplomatic operations [. . .] reportedly costs $6bn a year" -- that doesn't count the embassy cost, construction was completed on that back when Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq. Reportedly? The current US Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, told a media roundtable in November of last year, "We are standing up an embassy to carry out a $6.5 billion program, when you throw in the refugee program as well as the actual State Department budget for 2012, of assistance in support for Iraq on a very broad variety of security and non-security issues. The direct budget, operating and assistance (to Iraq), was $6.2 billion [and] a little less than $300 million [of] that goes to refugee and displace person programs." Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) observes of the State Dept mission in Iraq, "It has a $6 billion budget, its on airline and three hospitals, and imports virtually all of its food. Its central fortress, otherwise known as the Baghdad embassy compound, is nearly as Vatican City." She quotes US Senator Patrick Leahy calling the embassy "a relic before the paint was dry" and insisting that Congress may have to make cuts in the costs if the White House is unwilling to. Writing it up for NPR, Eyder Peralta declared, "The Times story [Tim Arango] today as well as the Al Jazeera story from December mention a program run by the embassy, which trains Iraqi police officers. The program cost $1 billion last year and will cost about $500 million this year. Al Jazeera noted that an audit found there's no way to know whether the program is working." Al Jazeera noted that? No, they didn't. The error is Peralta's. An audit can only "find" what is there. It's not an abstract, an audit is basic inventory, addition and subtraction. No audit "found" what Peralta insists it did. The Al Jazeera piece was published December 16th. We're falling back to December 7th and the report we did in that day's snapshot on the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing -- US House Rep Jason Chaffetz is the Chair of the Subcommittee.
Appearing before the Subcommittee that day were the Defense Dept's Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell, the State Dept's Deputy Inspector General Harold Geisel, the acting inspector general of US AID Michael Carroll, the acting inspector general for the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction Steven J. Trent and the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen.
US House Rep Raul Labrador: Mr. Bowen, right now the police development program is the administration's largest foreign aid project for Iraq going forward. And there's some evidence that the Iraqis don't even want this program. So have you or your staff asked the Iraqi police forces if they need the $500 million a year program that the Obama administration is planning to spend on the police development program?
SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Yes, Mr. Labrador, we have and we reported on that in our last quarterly report noting that the senior official at the Ministry of the Interior, Senior Deputy Minister al-Assadi said "he didn't see any real benefit from the police development program." I addressed that with him when I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and I asked him, "Did you mean what you said?" And his response was, "Well we welcome any support that the American government will provide us; however, my statements as quoted in your recent quarterly are still posted on my website."
US House Rep Raul Labrador: So why is the administration still spending $500 million a year to provide this program?
SIGIR Stuart Bowen: There's a beliff that security continues to be a challenge in Iraq, a well founded belief, I might add, given the events of this week. Killings of pilgrims again, on the way to Najaf, on the eve of Ashura. The focus though on trying to address those problems has been a widely scattered, high level training program involving about 150 police trainers who, as we've seen again this week, are going to have a very difficult time moving about the country.
US House Rep Raul Labrador: So what other problems have you found with the police development program, if any?
SIGIR Stuart Bowen: Several. Well, Mr. Labrador, we pointed out in our audit that, one Iraqi buy-in, something that the Congress requires from Iraq, by law, that is a contribution of 50% to such programs,has not been secured -- in writing, in fact, or by any other means. That's of great concern. Especially for a Ministry that has a budget of over $6 billion, a government that just approved, notionally, a hundred billion dollar budget for next year. It's not Afghanistan. This is a country that has signficant wealth, should be able to contribute but has not been forced to do so, in a program as crucial as this.
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
After 8 years of spending US tax payer dollars on this program and on the verge of spending $500 million, why is the US not talking to the person in charge ofthe Interior Ministry?
Because Nouri never named a nominee to head it so Parliament had no one to vote on. Nouri refused to name someone to head the US ministry but the administration thinks it's okay to use $500 million of US tax payer dollars to train people with a ministry that has no head?
None of that raised a concern on the part of the US State Dept about spending but we're supposed to believe some magical change of the 'mission' now is the result of concern about spending?


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 08, 2012

More donor issues

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

IN 2008, THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN REFUSED TO DO THE VERIFICATION REQUIRED ON DONORS INCLUDING MAKING SURE THAT DONORS DID NOT EXCEED THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR DONATIONS. FOUR YEARS LATER, THE GANG THAT COULDN'T PISS STRAIGHT IS BACK AND WITH MORE DONOR PROBLEMS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, DAVID AXELROD SAID OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, "OUR FOCUS IS NOT ON THE MONEY STUFFED INTO HIS G-STRING. OUR FOCUS IS ON THE LAP DANCE."



We're now going to turn to veterans issues. And there are real veterans issues. There's health care, there's recovering the fallen and so much more. But there's veterans issues and then there's an attitude of entitlement. Grasp real damn quick that the public only cares for so long. About the time they're bored with the politicians using veterans to wrap themselves in the flag, they're bored with the whole damn issue. When that happens significant ground is lost.

And that's not key to this war, it's true of all wars. And politicians know that, especially White House occupants, which is why veterans of every US war or combat deployment have complained and/or protested their treatment by the government. (Click here for the example of President Herbert Hoover's relationship with veterans.) So how about this group of veterans be a smart group of veterans?

The best way to do that is to grasp that your moment in the spotlight is limited and brief outside the Fourth of July and Veterans Day and to realize that's the way it has always been and always will be. That predates the creation of the United States and goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks. It is not a plot against you. It's the simple reality that you've bought into the empty praise politicians have given you. You are not gods because you served, you're not even heroes because you served. You may have done something heroic while you served and been decorated as a result (or not) but service alone doesn't make you a hero and that reality was grasped by past veterans. What you are is a veteran. As such, you are owed certain things that were promised to you. You're not going to get them all because, pay attention, no group of veterans in this country ever has. Which is why this group needs to be smart.

Paul Reickhoff can't shut up about a parade. Apparently having grown up singing along with every sixties musical Barbra Streisand ever made, Paul loves a parade. And he ridiculously showed up last week in a variety of outlets (here for Huffington Post) with a bad column whining that, after the Superbowl, the Giants or the Patriots would get a parade.

Let me take a moment here to cloud up and rain on Paul's parade: a sports competition produces a winner and a loser. The winners often get parades.

I'm sorry that Paul can't grasp the obvious, there was nothing won in Iraq. Thank goodness so many Americans made it out alive. But there was nothing won in that illegal war. If a parade were to have taken place, the best time would have been after the fall of Baghdad. Had Bush pulled all the troops out of Iraq then and returned them to the US, the spring of 2003 could have seen a parade.

But there's no win in Iraq. And you have to incredibly uninformed as to the rising violence and the political crisis and so much more to not grasp that Iraq can't be seen as a "win." There's no end zone dance for you to do, Paul Reickhoff. (68NamVet has the best reply to Paul.)

Now you can continue to insist upon a national parade and maybe even get one. (NPR's Talk of the Nation offers a bad program on the topic today -- not every veteran is calling for a parade and some are stating that it is not needed.) But don't think you're going to be applauded around the country for that. The country's in a huge recession and while Barack Obama may try to spend 8.3% official unemployment rate as 'good news,' it's anything but. And the American people are suffering and have been suffering and are about to suffer even more because basic groceries are going up which kicks the price of everything up (that's how the cycle of inflation works). And with people barely holding on the idea that the country needs to spend millions for a parade is not going to go over universally well.

It will go a long, long way towards putting most Americans in the attitude of, "What do they want now?" Even more so than in past wars because there wasn't a draft. As those of us who spoke up for war resisters repeatedly know, the attitude is out there: 'There was no draft, you signed up and you were paid for it.' (In fact, I believe that's what Paul Rieckhoff dismissively said about Lt Ehren Watada.) And now veterans are coming back and a small number are making public fools of themselves. There's Paul prepping for the tugboat scene in Funny Girl as he demands his parade. There's also Darcy Kempa who demonstrates that Richard Daley didn't teach style or substance to his underlings. Kempa writes at PolicyMic that Veterans are having a difficult time getting jobs today because of the "ignorance and arrogance among many Americans."

Notice how I used "some" to describe a tiny number of cry babies who've fallen to the floor and are now throwing tantrums whereas Darcy Kempa believes you describe most Americans as 'ignorant and arrogant' and that's the way to get what you want from them. No, you idiot, that's how you piss the general population. If that's how stupid you are, you have nothing to share in public. Every word out of your mouth hurts veterans because no one ever taught you how to speak persuasively and you think you can snarl and hiss like Richard Daley but seem unaware that nepotism explains Richard's rise, not his personality.

Having called "many" Americans ignorant and arrogant, Darcy Kempa (a man, by the way, maybe having a Jane Austen character's first name has left Darcy feeling he has to be overbearing to prove something), wants to further insult the American people: "There is also the arrogance, or overbearing self-importance, that some civilians hold against veterans."

Wow.

Don't look for Darcy to start a charm school anytime soon and only an idiot at this point would want to take part in any action with Darcy because he is off-putting, he insults the American people and doesn't even have the good form to say it's just "some" or "a small number," he says "many."

When then-Senator Evan Bayh proposed a burn pit registry, we supported it -- check the archives. I still support. But what we noted about when Bayh was championing it was how long it took to get that for victims of Agent Orange. And we pointed out that right now is the best chance for a burn pit registry. That once the wars wind down, the limited attention they and those who served in them receive, dwindles. And it's a lot harder to fight for a registry afterwards. We noted then that health issues need to be covered -- beyond burn pit issues -- and that this needs to be addressed now.

There is no time to waste -- in the limited amount of time that veterans will receive from the public -- to be embracing a bunch of nonsense. Veterans groups need to be talking to their members and figuring out what the most important things are to membership and pressing for those now. Two years from now, people aren't going to care. They will have moved on with their lives and the attitude will be (as it with each group of veterans), "Are they ever going to stop begging?" Politicans count on that attitude. A number are relieved when that attitude sets in among the public. Because then they don't have to do a damn thing.

Paul Reikoff doesn't know a thing. The VFW actually has members who can talk about this at length (and some of them would favor a parade -- if they felt veterans needs and a parade could both take place, that would be their vote, I'm sure). But in three years, Paul's lonely little column's going to run in less outlets. And, at the rate we're going, we may have a new group of veterans in a new group of wars. And especially when that comes, forget about getting your needs met. Senator Richard Burr fights a lonely battle trying repeatedly every year to bring attention to long standing issues and the media really doesn't care. He continues to fight and good for him. But even when Republicans controlled the Senate (Burr is a Republican) his own colleagues couldn't get it together to support him. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has done heroic and amazing things during the last nine years. That's chiefly due to members like Burr and leadership at the start of that time from Senator Daniel Akaka and now Senator Patty Murray. But look at the Hire Heroes Act that Murray and the entire Veterans Affairs Committee championed and still it needed a push and a push there to get it through the Senate. And that's while the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War were semi on the public's mind.

This is your fifteen minutes of fame to put it most crudely. You need to be prepared to make the demands you want right now. So if that's academic pursuit, better benefits in terms of retirement (medical or otherwise), medical treatment, etc., this is the time to make them. If a national parade is the most important thing to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, then that's what they should be going for. But before they make that decision, someone needs to explain very clearly that Christmas won't come every year. The nation will be Santa Claus once and only once and then they'll move onto something else. And that's not out of "arrogance" or "hatred" or anything else. That is the human condition and it has been the human condition.

And once the public moves on to other issues, you'll quickly realize how rare a Patty Murray or Richard Burr in the Senate actually is. When there's no more strong applause for politicians using today's veterans to campaign off of, watch how quickly they instead rush to another topic that's currently getting media attention. (And, no, the answer isn't "Elect veterans!" Senator Jim Webb is the reason there is no burn pit registry. He felt it would cost the government to much money to assume responsibility for the illnesses. Just as he publicly attacked VA Secretary Eric Shinseki for expanding the number of people recognized as suffering from Agent Orange.)

Across the country, teachers are suffering, schools are being closed down. If you really think this is the climate to insist on a national parade, go for it. But make sure you realize that the next request veterans attempt to make as a unified group may be the one that Americans respond to with a sigh and, "Didn't we just give them a parade? What more do they want?"

and i know what this means
me and jesus a few years back
used to hang
and he said "it's your choice babe
just remember
i don't think you'll be back
in 3 days time so you choose well"
-- "Me and a Gun," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her Little Earthquakes





Posted by at No comments:

Monday, February 06, 2012

Choose your moments, Joe

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

GAFFE PRONE JOE BIDEN APPEARED TO HAVE SCORED A WIN MONDAY NIGHT WHEN HE DECLARED, "OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD AND GENERAL MOTORS IS ALIVE."

HOWEVER, HE QUICKLY ADDED, "MY BRAIN IS DEAD AND I'M ALIVE."

PAUSING, HE THEN CONTINUED, "YOU REALLY DON'T NEED A BRAIN TO LIVE. OR A POT TO PEE IN. THE HOMELESS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT."

"SO EVERYBODY ENJOY BRUNCH AND LET'S GET STARTED ON OUR MORNING RUN RIGHT NOW."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In the US, an album was released today as a download. That's news for many reasons including that albums are released on Tuesday in the US. So what album's so special that it alters the street date? Let It Be Roberta: Roberta Flack Sings The Beatles. Amazon currently is preselling the new collection on sale for $9.99 on disc but you can download it right now from Amazon, all 14 tracks (one is a live track from 1972, all the others are studio tracks recorded for this album), and if you do it right now, you're getting an amazing bargain because it's only $3.99. Roberta Flack's not just someone I've called a friend for years, she's also a living legend, one of the all time music greats, a four-time Grammy winner known for such classics as "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face," "Killing Me Softly With His Song," "Oasis," "Set The Night To Music" (with Maxi Priest), "Where Is The Love?" (with the late Donny Hathaway, we'll link to his daughter Lalah Hathaway), "The Closer I Get To You" (with Donny)," "Feel Like Making Love," "Tonight, I Celebrate My Love" (with Peabo Bryson), the Ashford & Simpson classic "Uh-Uh-Ooh-Ooh Look Out (Here It Comes)," "Making Love" and Janis Ian's"Jesse." Kat will have a review up here tomorrow of the album. The songs she covers are "In My Life," "Hey Jude," "We Can Work It Out" (the first single for the album), "Let It Be," "Oh Darling," "I Should Have Known Better," "The Long & Winding Road," "Come Together," "Isn't It A Pity," "If I Fell," "And I Love Him," "Here, There And Everywhere" (this is the live track, from her 1972 Carnegie Hall concert), "I'm Looking Through You" and "Yesterday." John Lennon collectors take note, the album booklet includes a little seen photo of Yoko Ono, John and Roberta. It's a great album, it's been almost 9 years since Roberta put out her last album and, again, right now, it's $3.99 to download the entire album, all 14 tracks, at Amazon. That's a sale price, not a regular price. The sale won't last forever.
Moving over to Iraq, Aswat al-Iraq quotes Iraq's Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi stating today, "The Constitution must be adjusted in such a way that it shares in transforming Iraq into a State of Modern Civilian Institutions, enablingthe citizen to enjoy his national fortunes, and to activiate a balance between the Constitution and the nation to evaluate civilian institutions rather than looking for loopholes that marginalize partners." The news outlet reports he was responding to "certain paties that he did not name [who were] . . . exerting pressure on the Iraqi Judiciary." Al Rafidayn reports that the Supreme Judicial Council has notified the Parliament that they want the immunity (that all members of Parliament are granted) lifted from MP Haidar al-Mullah because he noted that the judiciary was politicized. One of the judges over Iraq's 160 courts is stating that this statement was a personal "assault" and is demanding that the immunity be lifted. (If this lifting of immunity took place, not noted in the story, it would the first time such a thing happened. It would set a very dangerous precedent.) al-Mullah, no surprise, is a member of Iraqiya. Nouri's targeting them and now the court he controls is as well. al-Mullah states the judge in question is Judge Sayad al-Lami. The article notes other members of Iraqiya may be targeted -- two who share stories of requests from months ago that were apparently not followed up on. Barbara Surk (AP) notes that Haidar al-Mullah is a Shi'ite member of Iraqiya and that he told the AP, "We will not be silenced. I have the right to express my opinion and criticize inappropriate acts."

Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections. That should have been the end of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister (his State of Law came in second). But the White House wouldn't hear of it. With their backing, he began an eight-month long stalemate where nothing could move forward. And like the spoiled child he is, he got humored. In November 2010, various parties met in Erbil and signed off on the US brokered Erbil Agreement which would allow Nouri to remain prime minister in exchange for other agreements -- such as Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) leading an independent national security counsel and the referendum on Kirkuk finally taking place (the Constitution required that it take place at the end of 2007, Nouri refused to obey the Constitution in his first term). Nouri got the post he wanted and then trashed the Erbil Agreement. Since this summer, the Kurds have been calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement. Iraqiya joined them in that call. In October, Nouri insisted a "coup" had been discovered -- by Libya, no less -- and ordered the arrests of over 800 Sunnis -- including elderly college professors -- and this was the beginning of his targeting of Sunnis and Iraqiya (a mixed coaltion which recognizes Sunni, Shi'ites, Turkmen, et al -- all Iraqis). In December, after several photo ops with US President Barack Obama -- who couldn't stop slobbering over Nouri and the 'democracy' he was leading in Iraq -- Nouri returned to Iraq and immediately had tanks surround various Iraqiya officials homes in Baghdad. He declared that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq should be stripped of his post (and immunity) for remarks al-Multaq made comparing Nouri to Saddam Hussein and began insisting that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi was a terrorist. After making this assertion for several days (Saturday and Sunday) and having al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq (and their bodyguards) pulled off a flight to the KRG (they were then allowed to fly out there for their meetings), Monday (December 19th) arrived and Nouri issued an arrest warrant for Tareq al-Hashemi.

Al Mada notes al-Hashemi has filed another request for his case to be transferred to Kirkuk. Rudaw interviews al-Hashemi. Excerpt:

Rudaw: Are you sure you can prove your innocence in a court of law?

Tariq al-Hashimi: I can defend myself and my bodyguards. According to what I have heard, one of my bodyguards, Major Ahmed Shawqi, had bought a car and sold it later. The car was later used in a suicide car bomb in Madayin area. I didn't know about it at that time but knew that he was a car dealer before he started working with me. That's all I have heard and frankly I wouldn't expect him to be involved in any illegal acts. Regarding myself, I can defend myself anytime in a fair trial. I hope my guards are also provided that opportunity, and justice according to the law. I am optimistic that whenever there is proper justice, then I will go before a court and defend myself. Because there is a lawsuit, I am not evading responsibility. All I have asked for is a fair trial. That kind of trial cannot be provided under the current circumstances in Baghdad. Therefore, I have asked the trial to be transferred to another place, based on Article 55 of Iraq's Penal Code. This is a normal procedure and has to do with protecting my life and will also provide the chance for the facts to be discovered. I have been deprived of this legal right and they won't allow for the trial to be transferred to Kirkuk.

Rudaw: Do you feel that your presence in the Kurdistan Region has put the Kurdish authorities in a tough position?

Tariq al-Hashimi: I am now a guest of the leadership and all citizens of this (Kurdistan) Region. If they feel Tariq al-Hashimi's presence has embarrassed them, then God's land is immense and I have not really forced them (to have me here). I came here based on a demand from President Jalal Talabani. I am still holding the vice-president's post and have not resigned. I have not been also removed from my position by Parliament. So, I am still a government employee. The president has asked me to stay in Kurdistan and Mr. Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Region, has said 'Tariq al-Hashimi is our guest.' I have been staying in Kurdistan based on this. Whenever the people of this region no longer want to host me, then God's land is vast. I really do not want my presence here to cause the smallest embarrassment to the leadership and people of Kurdistan.

Abdul Aziz al-Talabani is a member of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's clan or tribe. Al Rafidayn reports that he states the clan met in Sulaymaniyah Friday to discuss Tareq al-Hashemi and they are demanding that the KRG turn al-Hashemi over to Baghdad.
From al-Hashemi to al-Mutlaq, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Deputy Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq discussed with a delegation from Ahrar Bloc the recent political situation in Iraq and the importance of unifying ranks to contain the present crisis, according to a statement issued by his office. The statement, as was received by Aswat al-Iraq, said that Mutlaq valued the initiatives made by Ahrar Bloc and the Sadrist Trend to minimize the gaps among political blocs in order to achieve political stability." Al Rafidayn notes the rumors that al-Mutlaq is expected to put a formal apology to Nouri in writing and that Sadrist MP Odai Awad explains that they've been working on this for some time but only now have they had significant results.





RECOMMENDED:




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)