Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

Wednesday we attended the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. (Some went on to the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing but I honestly went in search of breakfast.) Richard Burr is the Ranking Member on the Committee.

I've been writing about the Committee for a few years now and I usually focus on Burr. He can be cranky at times. I don't consider that a bad thing. He doesn't usually try to pretty it up or find a smiley face stamp to cover everything up with.

I've defended him when he was under Democratic attack for holding up appointments (and would do so again) because he had actual reasons for that. Although he's from 'the other side of the aisle,' as they say on TV, I do like Burr and he's probably my favorite member on the Committee.

So at the end of the business day yesterday, Defense Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary Dr. George Taylor finally got his prepared statement to the Committee.

Burr noted in his opening remarks that this was unacceptable. He noted that it was his preference that Taylor's remarks be ignored since they weren't delivered on time.

Patty Murray is the Chair and she overruled him on that stating that the issues being addressed were too important.

I see her point but I agree with Burr. I believe it was two years ago when the Defense Department pulled this stunt last (maybe three years) and then-Chair Daniel Akaka refused to allow the remarks to go in the record as a result.

Taylor was on the second panel.

When the panel came before the Committee, Burr wanted to know what the hold up was and he was given a song-and-dance. Taylor said he'd look into what the hold up was.

Which led Burr to ask if Taylor wrote his own prepared remarks because, if he had, he should know when they were done.

It was a good point and Taylor tried to stay bright and put a happy face on it.

During this time, for the record, Chair Murray did note that she found it "unacceptable" and that it didn't need to happen again.

I agree. And I do understand her point of view about the remarks needing to be in the record but I still agreed with Burr. And this wasn't the first time for the Defense Department.


Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, May 26, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Patty Murray explores issues of veterans care, Moqtada al-Sadr stages a for-show 'demonstration,' Ali al-Lami is gunned down, and more. Monday is Memorial Day in the United States. Today Senator Patty Murray took to the Senate floor to speak on the topic and about veterans. Her office notes that the video of her remarks can be found here. "M. President, I come to the floor today to honor and commemorate the men and women who died fighting for our great country. "Memorial Day is a day to honor those American heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. "It's because of their sacrifice that we can safely enjoy the freedoms our great country offers. And it is because of their unmatched commitment that America can remain a beacon for democracy and freedom throughout the world. "M. President, Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, but also a day for reflection. When our brave men and women volunteered to protect our nation, we promised them that we would take care of them and their families when they return home. "On this Memorial Day, we need to ask ourselves, are we doing enough for our nation's veterans? "Making sure our veterans can find jobs when they come home is an area where we could do more. "For too long, we have been investing billions of dollars training our young men and women to protect our nation, only to ignore them when they come home. "For too long, we have patted them on the back and pushed them into the job market with no support. This is simply unacceptable, and it doesn't meet the promise we made to our servicemembers. "M. President, our hands-off approach has left us with an unemployment rate of over 27% among young veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. "That is over one in five of our nation's heroes who can't find a job to support their family, and who don't have an income to provide the stability that is so critical to their transition home. "That's why earlier this month I introduced the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, which was cosponsored by 17 senators and garnered bipartisan support. "This legislation will rethink the way we support our men and women in uniform when they come home looking for jobs. "I introduced this critical legislation because I've heard first-hand from so many veterans that we haven't done enough to provide them with the support they need to find work. "I've heard from medics who return home from treating battlefield wounds who can't get certifications to be an EMT or to drive an ambulance. And I've even had veterans tell me that they no longer write that they're a veteran on their resume because they fear the stigma they believe employers attach to the invisible wounds of war. "These stories are as heartbreaking as they are frustrating. But more than anything they're a reminder that we have to act now. "M. President, my bill would allow our servicemembers to capitalize on their service. "For the first time, it would require broad job skills training for everyone leaving the military as part of the military's Transition Assistance Program. Today, nearly one-third of those leaving the Army don't get this training. "My bill would also require the Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable into the civilian sector, and will work to make it simpler to get the licenses and certification our veterans need. "All of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work. All of them come at a pivotal time for our economic recovery and our veterans. "M. President, I grew up with the Vietnam War, and I have dedicated much of my Senate career helping to care for the veterans we left behind at that time. "The mistakes we made then have cost our nation and our veterans dearly. Today we risk repeating those mistakes. "We can't let that happen again. Our nation's veterans are disciplined, team players who have proven they can deliver under pressure like no one else. "M. President, let's not let another year, and another Memorial Day, go by without us delivering for them. "Thank you. I yield the floor." Memorial Day was originally called Decoration Day and begun near the end of the US Civil War in an attempt at healing the nation. It continues today to honor the sacrifices of those who serve. Our focus is Iraq and the most recent US military deaths in Iraq were on Sunday when 2 US soldiers were killed. Tuesday, DoD released the following statement: "The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died May 22 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infrantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan. Killed werre: Sgt. 1st Class Clifford E. Beattie, 37, of Medical Lake, Wash., and Pfc. Ramon Mora Jr., 19, of Ontario, Calif. For more information, the media may contact the 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-240-6359." The Salina Journal News reports today that Clifford Beattie was on his "third deployment to Iraq" and that his survivors include his wife and their two children. He has been "psothumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal (second award) and the Purple Heart." Ramon Mora, who had been on his first tour of Iraq, "was posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart and Combat Infantryman Badge." A photo of Ramon Mora Jr.'s return to Dover Air Force Base this week can be found here [photo by Jose Luis Magana (AP)]. And a photo, also by Jose Luis Magana, of Chaplain Capt Richard Dunbarreads leading a prayer for Ramon Mora Jr at Dover can be found here. Spc 4 Steven A. Bohn: I was born and raised in Salem, Massachusetts. I grew up poor and worked for everything I have. I dropped out of high school with 3 1/2 credits left to graduate so I could get a full time job and help support my family. I joined the Army in 2007 after learning that a friend of mine had been killed in Iraq by an IED blast. After infantry training, I was assigned to the historic 101st Airborne Division, 1/506th Infantry Regiment. My unit deployed to Afghanistan in March 2008 to a remote base in Wardak province near the Pakistan border. The base was the size of a soccer field and held 28 of us. Conditions were pretty basic; having no running water, for example, we cleaned ourselves with baby wipes, and got to shower once a month at a forward operating base. I enjoyed the challenge of our rugged conditions. We went on hundreds of missions while holding down our outpost. But I was devasted when my best friend, Specialist Paul Conlon, from Somerville, Mass., and our first lieutenant were killed in August 2008. Still I knew I had to stay strong to survive. I was badly injured on November 6, 2008, when a suicide bomber driving a dump truck packed with 2000 lbs of explosives drove up to our outpost and detonated it. The building I was in collapsed on me and I suffered severe internal injuries and spinal injuries. I was hospitalized for a total of 6 months, and underwent two major surgeries that included resection of the small intestine, bladder reconstructive surgery and a spinal surgery. I was also diagnosed at Landsthul, Germany with mild Traumatic Brain Injury. While I know your focus today is on the transition from DoD to VA, I experienced some rough tranistions long before my medical retirement from service. After being initially hospitalized at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and then at Landstuhl Germany, I was flown to Fort Campbell, Kentucky rather than to Walter Reed where I was supposed to be sent for surgery. At Fort Campbell, I was initially assigned to a Warrior Transition Unit (WTU). When I was finally evaluated there by physicians, they realized the mistake and I was transferred to Walter Reed. After undergoing spinal surgery at Walter Reed, I was transferred to the VA Boston Healthcare Systme's West Rosbury Campus' spinal cord injury unit so that I could be closer to my family during that convalescence. Whatever coordination should have taken place between Walter Reed, West Rosbury, and the Forst Campbell WTU to which I've been assigned apparently didn't occur, because Fort Campbell threatened to put me on AWOL if I didn't return. As a result, I was flown back to Fort Campbell. Later I was returned to Walter Reed to undergo bladder surgery. And that was before he transitioned to from DoD to VA care. Bohn shared his experiences with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee yesterday. This was the second part of a two-part hearing on the process of transition from DoD health care to VA health care. The first-part of this series of hearings was held May 18th and for more on that you can refer to that day's snapshot as well as Ava's "Scott Brown questions DoD's concept of streamlining," Kat's "DoD embarrasses at Senate hearing" and Wally's "VA can't answer a basic service question." You can also refer to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee's hearing page where a video is posted. If you're reading this in 2011, you'll be able to view it. After that, I have no idea. It currently goes back to 2005. Presumably they would keep these posted. Last week, the Committee heard from VA Deputy Secretary W. Scott Gould and DoD Deputy Secretary William Lynn. Yesterday the Committee heard from two panels of witnessess. The first panel was composed of Afghanistan War veteran Steven A. Bohn (quoted from earlier), Iraq War veteran Tim Horton and the Wounded War Care Project's James R. Lorraine. The second panel was VA's Acting Deputy Chief Officer, Mental Health Services [. . .] Antonette Zeiss and DoD's Deputy Assistant Secretary Dr. George Taylor. Senator Patty Murray is Committee Chair. From her opening remarks, we'll note the following. Committee Chair Patty Murray: I know that VA and DoD have big challenges facing them: servicemembers and veterans continue to take their own lives at an alarming rate, wait times for benefits continue to drag on for an average of a year or far more, and the quality of prosthetic care continues to be inconsistent between the Departments. Now, in some instances, DoD and VA have come to the table to make headway on these issues, and they should be commended for that. But we still have work to do. In fact, sometimes it is the simplest fixes that for some reason the two Departments cannot come together on. A good example of this is the Traumatic Extremity Injuries and Amputation Center of Excellence that was mandated to move forward on October 14th, 2008. This new center was supposed to be a place where best practices could be shared and a resitry of these injuries could begin. But here we are two and a half years later -- and we have not seen any substantial movement toward the creation of this center. When I asked Secretary Lynn last week what progress had been made he could not provide an answer. This is unacceptable. But as our witnesses' testimony today will show, this is unfortunately not the only area where we need better medical collaboration. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that each Department knows what the other is providing to our service members and veterans. [. . .] Today, we will also further discuss the efforts to exand and improve mental health care. We do not need the courts to tell us that much more can and should be done to relieve the invisble wouds of war. Although some steps have been taken, the stigma against mental health issues continue within the military and VA care is still often too difficult to access. This had had a tragic impact. Last month, VA's Veternas Crisis Line had the most calls ever recorded in a single month -- more than 14,000. That means that every day last month, more than 400 calls were received. While it is heartening to know that these calls for help are being answered, it is a sad sign of the desperation and difficulties our veterans face that there are so many in need of a lifeline. I look forward to speaking with all of our witnesses about this most pressing issue. Richard Burr is the Committee's Ranking Member. He had many strong points -- not surprising, he usually does. As usual, Kat will cover Richard Burr at her site, so for his opening statement, his problem with DoD and other things see Kat's report tonight at her site. . Committee Chair Patty Murray: Let me just start by saying it has been four years since the news about Walter Reed broke. In that time, some of it has changed -- some of you have talked about. But I'd like to ask each of you what you think the most important thing the two departments should focus on improving over the next four years. Maybe, Mr. Lorraine, if you would like to start. James Lorraine: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I think the most important thing is you have to know what you know. If you don't know it, you don't. So finding who the wounded warriors are, who the veterans are, identifying -- If you want to change something you have to know who the person is you need to engage with. Right now, I'm not confident we know where the veterans are, nor do we know where there needs are. I think it's represented by my two colleagues here. That would be the number one action I would take, is finding the -- Committee Chair Patty Murray: Do you think the issue is right now nobody reaches to them or waiting for the veterans to reach out too often? James Lorraine: Yes, Madam Chairman. What I've found is that when you talk to different government programs and non-government programs, my first question is, "How do you find the veterans in need?" And, 100% of the answers are, 'They come to us.' And I think in today's world, that's not the way we should be reaching to them. We know where they are while they're on active duty. It's that move from active duty to veterans status where we lose them. And that should be tied in a little bit closer because, once you know where the folks are and you can maintain contact with them, then you can start providing services and offer assistance. Committee Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Horton, Mr. Bohn. What do you think we should focus on? The two departments should focus on? Lance Cpl Tim Horton: I would say that, Chairman Murray, that we should focus on, just like he was saying, finding the veterans. A lot of veterans get lost in the system when they move back. A lot of men and women are from small country towns and there's no one there that can reach them and that's the huge problem. Committe Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Bohn? Spc 4 Steven Bohn: Chairman Murray: My only problem was that they didn't pay for my family to come visit me while I was getting my surgeries. My family had to come down out of their own pocket. The first surgery, my spinal surgery. The second surgery, my family couldn't afford to come down so I went through my second surgery alone. Committee Chair Patty Murray: How far away was your family? Spc 4 Steven Bohn: Salem Massachusetts. His first surgery (once he was back in the US) was his spinal surgery. I believe Bohn's second surgery was his bladder surgery. Both were performed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center -- at dates very far apart and Bohn was moved around repeatedly, including to Boston, between the two surgeries. The distance from Salem, MA to Walter Reed is a (physical) distance of at least 464 to 480 miles (at least) which would take eight to nine hours to drive (at least -- and that's assuming traffic is fastly moving the entire way). It would have been very easy to get the family to Boston Logan International Airport (it's about 20 minutes from Salem to Boston by car). Most Thursdays or Fridays, I fly the opposite way, from the DC area to Boston and it's a 90 minute to almost two hour flight depending upon which airport I depart from. (Generally speaking, Reagan National Airport is the quicker one to depart from.) It would have been so easy for this to have been arranged and it would have meant so much to Bohn or anyone else going through surgery to be able to see someone before surgery and know that they would be there after the surgery. It would be reassuring and it would certainly help with the care because the patient would be in a better mind set. But no one thought to take care of this. Major surgeries for a recently returned veteran and the government plays dumb. And pretends it's normal for an already disabled or physically challenged person to go through a major surgery all by themselves. As Senator Bernie Sanders would later note on this topic, "When people come back, they're in trauma already, we have to be aggressive about reaching out." Back to the exchange. Committee Chair Patty Murray: I think many of us forget that it's not just the service member but it's their family who's involved when somebody's deployed and specifically when they're injured. And, Mr. Bohn, let me ask you to expand on that a little bit because families and loved ones go through stress at this time as well being family members. You mentioned the travel. Tell me a little bit else about difficulties your family had during treatment and share that with us. Spc 4 Steven Bohn: Communication was a big thing also. They didn't know. They weren't contacted until about three hours after I woke up in intensive care to see how I was doing. I know they're sitting there back, when I was getting my surgery, just panicking. You know, it's a big communication error which -- that needs to be changed. Committee Chair Patty Murray: Okay. Anything else that we should be focused on for families that -- Communication, travel, being with the wounded warrior? Spc 4 Steven Bohn: (nodding) Exactly. Committee Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Horton, I was particularly concerned to hear about your difficulties with your prosethic care. It sounds like you got high quality care but it wasn't timely or responsive and you shared a little bit about how it impacts your daily life. You said that, Tell me what you mean by that, if you have to wait months or weeks? Lance Cpl Tim Horton: There's -- The process is you go into the VA -- You actually have to call the VA and set up, there's a certain day they have a prosethic clinic and you have to be seen by them first. And you tell them exactly what you need, whether it's a new socket or a new ankle on your leg or anything like that. And then they write this down. And then they make a script and they send it to your outside provider. And from there it could take a couple of months. Commitee Chair Patty Murray: What are you experiencing in that time period? Is that pain? Is is difficult? Lance Cpl Tim Horton: A socket that's not fitting right which, for an amputee, that's horrible. It's like -- A little rubbing spot on the amputee is like someone having their ankle broken like terribly. So it's a big deal to me. So the time in there, that's something that really needs to be addressed. Committee Chair Patty Murray: And how long were you in this period where you had a problem and it took you to get care? Lance Cpl Tim Horton: It's usually -- I mean, it's usually a couple of months between every time I go to the VA. Once I get the care, it's great but the time it takes to get a prosethic leg or new prosethic is too long. And I've talked to several veterans about this and they -- they would agree on that. If you have to go through the VA, it takes . . . Committee Chair Patty Murray: So it's waiting for an appointment, is it waiting for a speciality? Is it waiting for the right person? Lance Cpl Tim Horton: Waiting for a phone call basically. And a lot of times, I call my prosethics in the VA a couple of times and say, "Where's this script? I need to get in here and get a leg." So I have to advocate for myself a lot That's -- Committee Chair Patty Murray: That's not the way it should be. Lance Cpl Tim Horton: No. Commitee Chair Patty Murray: Okay. Mr Bohn, you're experience trying to make ends meet was really troubling to hear. I learned of another veteran recently, he's a Marine officer who's recuperating at Bethesda and is receiving a housing allowance at a Camp Leijune rate so Senator Burr knows what I'm talking about when I say it's $700 less and that's a huge impact for a family. In the case of that Marine, there was a military coordinator who went out and looked for non-profit resources to help make up the differences for that. But we should be very concerned that this system was unresponsive to a military coordinator. At the very least in this case, the military coordinator did take advantage of community resources but I found that story very troubling. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Bohn, if anybody helped assist you in trying to access similar community or non-profit resources? Spc 4 Steven Bohn: The Wounded Warrior Project directed me to a company Impact Players out of Cincinnati, Ohio which mailed me a check to help pay the differences in my bills I couldn't pay. And the Wounded Warriors, they gave me food cards, gas cards, so I could make my appointments to the VA which is an hour away from where I live in Boston. So having no gas in your car, trying to get to a VA appointment, that's kind of a struggle on its own. Committee Chair Patty Murray: And your family? What kind of family do you have that you're responsible for? Spc 4 Steven Bohn: I'm single. But I live myself. But I try to help out my family. Like I said, I grew up poor so I try to help out my niece, my sister, my mom, my dad. October 6, 2009, Secretary of the Army John McHugh took part in a ceremony to resign the Army Family Covenant that his predecssor, Peter Geren, had already signed. The ceremony got considerable press attention. McHugh served on the House Veterans Affairs Committee prior to becoming Secretary of the Army. On that Committee, he was vocal about his concerns and an advocate for veterans issues. It is doubtful he's suddenly lost interest. But somewhere, something's falling through the cracks. And there was a world of difference between the experiences the Committee heard yesterday and the 'facts' they were told last week. It would appear that both DoD and the VA have a serious problem grasping what is actually happening to veterans. It all the more underscores that Robert Gates, Secretry of Defense, did not have the time he made to advocate on behalf of the State Dept's budget wants. Instead, Gates should have focused on steering his department. Gates is now doing speeches and interviews and various reflections as he does a mini-farewell tour. It would be much smarter for him to just resign and allow the incoming Secretary to take over already. Translation, Cut the farewell tour, you've been celebrated and spit-shined enough and you've done far too little. We'll come back to the hearing tomorrow and not just to note the coverage of the hearing from Kat, Wally and Ava but also to include more from Tim Horton who got less attention in this snapshot. Still on veterans issues, a number of community members from military families have e-mailed to note that some Albertsons grocery stores may be having a 10% discount for military personnel -- ID required and must be active duty, reserve or retired. In Arizona that is the case and Billie states that's the case in Texas as well. So if you have a local Albertson's check with them to see if their store is participating -- not all may be participating -- in the special discount that's going on from today through May 31st. Yesterday's snapshot covered the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing and Ava reported on it last night in "Ron Paul (Ava)" (at Trina's site) focusing on As Ava noted, "US House Rep Ron Paul has declared he's running for the Republican nomination for president. Click here to visit his website. [. . .] We're not supporting Ron Paul or against him, but we will note him because he is currently the only candidate who is against the wars." The big news out of Iraq today is an assassination that demostrates what Carly Simon sang in "One Man Woman" (Boys In The Trees), "In the place where I come from, the people don't grow on trees (Except some of the boys), and you can't treat people like meat without being brought to your knees." It's a lesson Ali al-Lami's death illustrates today. Ahmed Chalbi's friend or lackey used his position on the Justice and Accountability Commission -- a Commission the Parliament considered closed -- to weed out challengers to Nouri and Nouri's allies in the lead up to the 2010 national elections. He used that position to declare people -- including some who held office at the time -- Ba'athists and therefore not able to run for office. As intended, he clearly influenced the elections with his actions. At one point, US Vice President Joe Biden got involved to try to get the charges resolved before the election. That worked for about 48 hours before the candidates were again barred. From AFP's Prashant Rao's Tweets on the death: prashantrao Prashant Rao #AFP: The head of #Iraq's de-Baathification committee Ali al-Lami was killed hours ago, security officials say. 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao #Iraq de-Baathification panel head killed - officials: http://is.gd/9sno1a #AFP 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Friend of Lami's said murder was 'well-planned operation'. Gunshot to head, brother who was driving car unharmed. #Iraq #debaathification 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Lami, born in 1964 in Baghdad, held Bachelor's and Master's degrees in mathematics. He is survived by his wife and six children. 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Lami was killed by a gunshot to the head using a silenced pistol and pronounced dead at 8:00PM. #Iraq #deBaathification #AFP 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Lami refused to join the Baath party while #Saddam was in power, resulted in several arrests before regime overthrown 6 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Lami was notably arrested in 1991, after post-Gulf War uprising, and in 1999, after mourning ceremony for Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr. #Iraq 5 hours ago prashantrao Prashant Rao Our final story on Ali al-Lami's assassination: http://is.gd/sTJhHg #Iraq #deBaathification #AFP 5 hours ago That's a lot of Tweets, especially when you consider all that was left out or is Ali al-Lami being white washed in his death? Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) also presents a pretty rose picture. Let's drop back to February 17, 2010 for a State Dept press briefing (link has text and video) presided over by then-US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. JOSH ROGIN (Foreign Policy): Good to see you in person. Yesterday, General Odierno accused two Iraqi officials – let me read the names – Ali Faisal al-Lami and Ahmed Chalabi, who were both key members of the Accountability and Justice Commission, of being clearly influenced by Iran. I'm wondering if you agree with General Odierno's comments, and are you concerned with Iran's influence over this process concerning the candidates and the election in general? AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah, I absolutely agree with General Odierno on this. And absolutely, these gentlemen are affected by – are certainly under the influence of Iran. These were people, or in the case of Chalabi, he was named by the CPA administrator, Ambassador Bremer, back in '03 as the head of the de-Baathification Committee. It was a committee that went out of existence two years ago, replaced by the Accountability and Justice Committee. Everyone else understood that they – that that would – that their terms expired with the expiration of the committee, except for Mr. Chalabi, who assumed by himself the role of maintaining his – a position in a new committee to which he was never named. From the Congressional Research Office's Kenneth Katzman's March 1st report entitled [PDF format warning] "Iraq: Politics, Elections, and Benchmarks," "The Justice and Accountability Commission is headed by Ali al-Lami, a Shiite who had been in U.S. military custody during 2005 - 2006 for alleged assistance to Iranian agents active in Iraq. He is perceived as answerable to or heavily influenced by Ahmad Chalabi, who had headed the De-Baathification Commission. Both are part of the Iraqi National Alliance slate and both are Shiites, leading many to believe that the disqualifications represented an attempt to exclude prominent Sunnis from the vote." Roy Gutman and Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) break from the pack to note some reality. Jack Healy (New York Times) also manages to offer some reality and notes this on the reaction to the death, "Reactions to Mr. Lami's death were split along political lines. Iraqis with ties to the Baath Party offered bitter remarks. The state-run TV channel Al Iraqiya called Mr. Lami a martyr." Violence swept Iraq today. Reuters notes Col Khalid Mohammad of the Ministry of Interior was shot dead in Baghdad, an attack on a Baghdad police checkpoint left two police officers injured, a Samarra roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with another injured, 2 corpses were discovered in Mousl, 2 police officers were shot dead in the vehicle in Baghdad and the car was then torched, a Baghdad roadside bombing injured two pople, another Baghdad roadside bombing injured a police officer, 12 corpses were discovered in Basra, a Baghdad suicide bomber took his own life and that of 2 Iraqi soldiers (seven more soldiers injured) and, dropping back to last night, a Garma roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers. The violence is real news. Fake news dominated the morning: The 'big' 'protest' staged by Moqtada al-Sadr. Reading reports by Tim Craig (Washington Post) and Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) you could have been left with the impression that "tens of thousands" participated in the march. Sadr City, a slum of Baghdad that's remained a slum despite all of Moqtada al-Sadr's promises to the people there, is supposed to have 2.5 million residents. The march confined itself to Sadr City. Tens of thousands would not have been a good turn out in a city region with 2.5 million inhabitants. But tens of thousands did not turn out to protest. What happened was the Mahdi militia marched through Sadr City. This is Moqtada's goon squad that killed people, that ethnically cleansed and that stole property (homes and land) as well as raped and targeted gay males and males they thought were gay with kidnapping and murder. Nizar Latif (The National) quotes Izzat al Shabander ("a parliamentarian with the ruling National Alliance") stating, "It's an open challenge to the Iraqi armed forces, the Iraqi government and Iraqi democracy [. . .] What I saw at the parade brought Hizbollah immediately to mind. This is a serious challenge to the authorities. It was like there is no government." The protest tells us that the US intelligence community, the British and the French (as well as two Arab states) were correct when they concluded that Moqtada al-Sadr's power in Iraq was slipping. At some point, Moqtada realized he wouldn't be able to turn out the necessary numbers to continue to fool his lovers and fans among the press corps so instead he sent his militia marching through Baghdad. It was a staged event that failed to impress (outside the press corps) leading Moqtada to grant an interview with BBC News ("rare interview") in an attempt to dominate the news cycle and, most likely, to shut out the rumors that he promised Nouri al-Maliki that he would stage no protests to note the end of the 100 days (June 7th). "Tens of thousands" did not participate. They watched. Tim Craig serves up, "The Associated Press estimated at least 70,000 marchers and well-wishers crammed Sadr City, a predominately Shiite slum that was once a hotbed of violence against U.S troops." There is a huge difference between observer and participant. The march through Sadr City (confined to Sadr City) resulted in many inhabitants stepping outside their door to see the goon squad go by. AP's Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports that approximately 70,000 people came out of their homes to shout some form of "No to America!" Wow. That would be impressive if that was even half of the Sadr City population. 250,000 would be 10% of 2.5 million. 70,000 (a generous estimate and AP isn't qualified to estimate that crowd size, just FYI -- in Iraq, they're capable of estimating up to 3,000 fairly accurately -- after that it's just guessing or supplied to them by some official) is unimpressive. Again, the parade went right past their homes. All they had to do was step out on the front yard. About two-thirds chose not to step outside their front door. Moqtada also had a dismal showing last go round. April 23rd, he attempted to stage a protest. Do you remember what happened? "Hundreds" turned out in Baghdad. Sadr City, a slum in Baghdad, has a population of 2.5 million. And only "hundreds" turned out for the protest. So this go round, as the prospective numbers became clear to him, Moqtada decided to turn it into a march by his goon squad. And to ramp up the numbers, they wouldn't go to Tahrir Square -- he'd already learned that anything requiring even a little mobility would reduce numbers -- they'd just parade around Sadr City so curious onlookers could be counted as "participants" in his staged event. AP quotes Mohammed Moyad stating . . . Well basically what the press quoted Haider al-Bahadili stating at one of Moqtada's other staged events. The AP tries to blur it and forgets to tell you that Moyad is Mehdi militia -- just like al-Bahadili was. Is that part of the training? Does the militia go through mock drills on how to schmooze the press? While the press focused on the faux protest, real ones took place today in Nassirya -- we'll cover that tomorrow and Wil S. Hylton (GQ) reporting on war resister Phil McDowell. This is so late because the snapshot was way too long and after I dictated it, I went to do the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. I wasn't aware it wasn't 'hitting' the site until after we finished the roundtable. My apologies. iraq mcclatchy newspapers hannah allem roy gutman cnn mohammed tawfeeq the new york times jack healy

the washington post
tim craig
chelsea j. carter
the associated press
qassim abdul-zahra

Fawing?

I blogged in the weekend about Andrew Marr's soft interview with Barack Obama in the White House ahead of his state visit to the UK. There were plenty of journalists willing to take potshots at Marr's giddiness and obvious excitement at being in the presence of "The One".

But newspaper journalists, commentators, pundits, broadcasters and bloggers alike have been fawning in their coverage of the US president since his arrival on our shores on Monday night.

That's from Mehdi Hasan's "King Obama?" (New Statesman) and when Mehdi -- a fawner of unrivaled powers -- is complaining, you know the issue has reached critical mass. And I love how the photo emphasizes that Barack's reading off his teleprompter while speechifying at Westminister Hall.

He's so like Bush it's scary. He's worse than Bush in fact.

Barack is just not ready for the presidency and every day and every way he proves that.

One day, he won't be president. I hope that's established in the 2012 elections. But even if takes the 2016 elections, he will not be president. And when he and his family have to return to their Chicago mansion (they won't return -- they've burned bridges in Chicago and are more hated by Chicago Dems than in most of the country) and the press will have to stop pretending (a) the Michelle knows how to dress (she doesn't) or (b) that she's pretty (she's a highly unattractive woman who can, on a good day, pass for "well groomed" -- a quality she shares with Madonna) or that (c) the idiot Barack is a 'great thinker' . . . Well life will just be a whole lot better.

I look forward to that day.

And I take comfort in the fact that all that he thinks he's gotten away with will be visited upon his offsprings. It's really biblical, when you think about it.

And fitting.

In 2007, if you will recall, one of the number one issues was the environment. And we were told that it had to be addressed, that the next president had to. That it was already too late but the damage could be somewhat minimized.

Where have those people gone today?

Into hiding. Suddenly okay with all the attempts to trash the environment Barack makes.

Again, I will be so glad when he is out of office. He will be the new Jimmy Carter -- as he should be. And Michelle? She'll be about as necessary and needed as Barbara Bush after George H.W. Bush left the White House.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, May 25, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates states in a speech that he wants the US military to remain in Iraq, the US and Iraq are supposedly in secret talks to extend the SOFA, US House Rep Brad Sherman speaks out on the issues facing the country and the press (outlets, not reporters) ignores it and more, US House Rep Lynn Woolsey writes a column for The Hill noting that the 60 day requirement of the 1973 War Powers Act requiring the president to receive a mandate from Congress to continue any unauthorized conflict which continues past 60 days has been ignored by the White House and that the House is debating altering the Constitutional -- as well as spitting on the founding fathers' intent -- in order to shirk their responsibility under the law to be the only body in the federal government who can delcare law. Woolsey notes: I've had enough over the last decade of this state of permanent warfare. I have five grandchildren and not one of them knows what it's like to live in a country that's not at war with someone and killing someone else's grandchildren. It's time to put the brakes on. It's time for Congress to draw some clear lines, and Libya is the perfect place to do so. That's why I am supporting Rep. John Conyers' (D-Mich.) amendment to the defense authorization bill specifically prohibiting the deployment of ground troops in Libya. We cannot afford any further expansion of this engagement. We owe it to the American people who are footing the bill – and of course to our servicemen and women who are already fighting on two fronts – to keep this mission from mushrooming into a full-blown ground war and military occupation. There were two major hearings today -- one in the Senate, one in the House. I'd planned on noting the Senate one today but we'll try to fit it in tomorrow's snapshot and, hopefully, touch on a number of veterans issues then. Instead we'll focus on the House hearing addressing issues Rep Woolsey noted in her column (to be clear, Woolsey is addressing HR 1540 and that legislation was not addressed in the hearing, the hearing was about war powers). The Constitution is explicit on who has the power to declare war: the Congress. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Caputres on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, bot no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To Make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . ." This morning the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing where the witnesses were all US House Representatives who had proposed legislation regarding war. The witnesses were US House Rep Justin Amash, US House Rep Christopher Gibson and US House Rep Thomas Rooney -- all three are Republicans. As is the Chair of the Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Democrat Howard Berman is the Ranking Member on the Committee. I missed opening statements -- and am told Ros-Lehtinen had an ab-lib joke about Rooney (both are from Florida) -- so this is from the Chair and the Ranking Member's prepared opening remarks (which may differ from how they were delivered). Chair Illean Ros-Lehtinen: We meet today as part of our continuing oversight of the United States involvement in Libya, to hear from our non-Committee colleagues who have introduced legislation on War Powers and on authorities relating to the use of force to address the situation in Libya. The Committee will continue our efforts tomorrow morning at the House-wide Members briefing with legal experts. That briefing had to be rescheduled from May 12th, due to House floor votes. [. . .] The Administration has claimed that Congressional approval was not constitutionally required, and that the use of force in Libya was Constitutional because the President "could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest" -- an extremely broad claim of war-making power. Even some who regard the President's actions as legal are concerned that the endorsement by the Arab League, the United Nations, and NATO seem to figure more prominently in his stated justifications than do clearly identified U.S. national security interests. [. . .] Mr. Rooney's resolution (H.Con.Res. 32) expresses the Sense of Congress that the President should obtain statutory authorization for the use of force pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. The bill introduced by Mr. Amash (H.R. 1212) would cut off funding for the use of force in Libya until it is authorized by Congress. And Mr. Gibson's bill (H.R. 1609) would revise the text of the War Powers Resolution replacing its current Congressional procedures with a shorter provision tied more directly to Congress's power of the purse." US House Rep Howard Berman was apparently elected in order to serve Barack Obama because nothing in his minimizing and justifying statements acknowledged Berman had sworn an oath to the Constitution or that he is elected from a very small district that does not include Barack Obama as an inhabitant. Ranking Member Howard Berman: I believe the efforts to either terminate funding for this effort or force an immediate withdrawal of forces would reverse, to disastrous effect, the very meaningful progress already made in Libya. It's time to end this stalemate, decisively. And that cannot be done by stopping now. I'd like to give the President limited time to pursue this mission. [. . .] Underlying this debate is a central legal question: the War Powers Resolution acknowledges the President may introduce forces into hostilities -- unilaterally -- for a period of up to 60 days. This may not be what the Constitution originally envisioned or consistent with a strict reading of congressional authority, but it quite clearly what Congress in 1973 presumed. Berman went on to insist that "we can't argue theory here" -- as if the Constitution is mere theory? As if laws are mere theory? Let's see someone accused of murder explain, in a court of law, that the laws broken are "mere theory." US House Rep Donald Manzullo noted that "boots on the ground" weren't the test and that drones are assistance -- that a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that the US would not supply Libya's so-called 'rebels' with weapons, Barack announced that the US would be using drones to attack Libya. Manzullo was very clear that drones are assistance and are participation. Via a friend's note (reporter), I'll note Democrat Brad Sherman's remarks in full (again, these are not my notes and I have no hard copy of Sherman's prepared remarks) because he refused to play partisan politics and stuck to the issues. (My comment is in reference to Howard Berman.) US House Rep Brad Sherman: The State Dept is working hard to bring the blessings of democracy and the rule of law to every country . . . except ours. Rome was built with legislative decision making. Rome declined and fell under an imperial executive. We probably should authorize some action with regard to Libya -- although I've got a lot of questions the administration doesn't need to answer because they view us as irrelevant. But any authorization should be limited as to time and scope so that we can then pass additional resolutions with further review. Any authorization should be conditioned on the Libyan rebels expelling from their midst those with American blood on their hands, those who fought us in Afghanistan and Iraq and particularly the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. And, finally, I would want to see any resolution require that this mission be funded by the assets that Ghadaffi was stupid enough to leave in the United States which have been seized by the US Treasury. The Administration takes the extremist view that the Executive can deploy any amount of American force anywhere, anytime for any purpose, for any duration, with any effect, with only the most cursory discussions with only a few members of Congress. Worse than that, they won't even articulate that view. They won't even acknowledge the 60th day and the day on which they began violating that law. But as the Ranking Member points out, the fault is also here with Congress. So many of us would like to evade the tough decisions. Democrats and Republicans know how to vote on contentious issues because we come from Democrat and Republican districts. But this is one that crosses party lines, this is one that divides every one of our districts and a lot of people would just as soon duck the issue. That's not our job. We should put in every appropriations bill that the expenditure of funds in violation of the War Powers Act constitutes a theft of tax payer money. I tried with a few to get Congressional approval of both parties to put in the CR that no money could be spent in violation of the War Powers Act. We got no response. It's time for Congress to step forward. It's time to stop shredding the US Constitution in a presumed effort to bring democracy and constitutional law to Libya. If the above doesn't flow, this section was actually what the snapshot originally ended with. But the friend who passed on Sherman's remarks didn't think their outlet would run with them. That is the case. So since some of those remarks were included in a version of a report but an outlet refused to include it (supposedly they weren't 'pertinent' to the hearing itself), we've moved it up to the opening and we'll also close the snapshot with US House Rep Brad Sherman's remarks. I arrived at the hearing as Howard Berman was finishing his line of questioning to represent the 26th district of Israel and Howard's constitutents should know he had their interests -- Oops. Israel has no district in the US Congress. Berman's from the 26th district of California and it's amazing that he continues to make Israel his foremost issue -- whether it's related to the main points or not -- and the 26th district -- which has a small Jewish population -- continues to elect him (since redistricting). It's past time Howard Berman learned to serve his constitutents but if they're not going to hold him accountable, no one can. We'll note this exchange between US House Rep Renee Ellmers and the witnesses. US House Rep Renee Ellmers: This is a very important exchange of information on an issue that I would consider gray. I do want to ask you directly though -- I know we've talked about the Libyan situation and we've talked about other situations where the War Powers Act has been put forth, do you believe that the President had the authority to do what he did in Libya? And I'll ask both of you that question. Do you believe that the Libyan situation basically adhered to the War Act? US House Rep Christopher Gibson: No, I do not. Not only on the front end but even now. Let's look at the specific language from Public Law 93148 which is the War Powers Act. It says this, because this is a matter of fine point precision, we're talking sixty days here. This is what Section B -- Section 5 B says, "Within sixty calendar days after report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 1543 (a) (1) of this title, whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) had declared war or has enacted a specifiic authorization for such use of the United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day periord, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States." Okay. So it's not so much that the president came here on the sixtieth day, according to the letter of the law, if we don't act within 60 days, the president is to cease operations and we're not in compliance. US House Rep Renee Ellmers: And we've already -- We've met that 60 day marker right now and yet we have nothing going forward. Is that right? US House Rep Christopher Gibson: We have surpassed the sixty days and Congress has taken no action to authorize the force. To be in compliance with the War Powers Act, we would have to cease operations. Now if the president requests, we can then provide stipulations on that withdrawal, we can actually give 30, 60 -- We can authorize how many days we think are prudent to make an orderly withdrawal. Let me also just conclude by saying that this is the current law. I think we should move -- I think we should delete these portions. I think we should either have authorization -- the president either has authority to move or he doesn't. And if he doesn't have authority to move, he comes here if he thinks it's that important. He comes here and the American people give their blessing with stipulations that the Congress may see fit and then we go forward. But to not do so really leaves open this ambiguity. This is what Mr. Connelly is referring to -- that the current War Powers Act -- as written -- really provides so much ambiguity as to expand the powers of the president and that's why we need the reform act is to bring balance back to this situation in line with the way the founders intended for the legislative and the executive branch to interact on these solemn manners. US House Rep Renee Ellmers: Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Mr. Rooney? US House Rep Thomas Rooney: I too and am apprehensive of thinking that Libya was justifiable. But according to my resolution, I can be convinced that it was the greatest resolution in the world. But the problem is that we've never had the debate. US House Rep Renee Ellmers: Right. US House Rep Thomas Rooney: And the president and the administration needs to come here and say more than just we welcome your support. So my predisiposition is no. But I'm open to suggestion. But, you're right, the 60 days has come and gone and just to add on [gestures to Gibson] in the past, there have been members of Congress who have sued, gone to federal court to say 'you're in violation of the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution.' And it's made its way to the Supreme Court without being heard directly on point -- that we, or those members that did sue, lack standing. So that adds to your idea that we're operating in a world of gray and, you know, possibly legislation like Mr. Gibson's would clarify that. But all I'm saying is that if he really thought that Libya was important and he would have come here within the War Powers framework of sixty days, he may very well have gotten the support of the Congress, but he didn't do that. US House Rep Renee Ellmers: Thank you very much. Yes, please, Mr. Gibson? US House Rep Christopher Gibson: Thank you for the opportunity to just to follow up. I just want to agree with my colleague here that it's certainly an arguable point, the one that I made. I mean, that's my read of the current law. It has been debated in other places and there have been opinions and some court cases related to this. That is one of the reasons why I'm not asking today that we take sanctions against the president. I think it's our responsibility to fix this. The ambiguity that exists has been exploited by presidents on both sides of the political aisle. And in a time when we need to create jobs, balance the budget and protect freedoms, now is not the time to be diverting into other matters. Other matters in terms of any other proceedings on whether the president is in concert with the law -- that is not my purpose here today. What I want to do is fix this going forward so we don't end up back here at this very same place spot. Actually, if a president -- any president -- is in violation, that is the issue. That is always the issue. He or she is the people's servant, not a king, not a queen. As the servant to the public, he is bound by the laws. The Courts and the law have made quite clear that no one is above the law. Ava's covering some of Ron Paul's remarks at Trina's site tonight. Will the US ever leave Iraq? Al Rafidayn reports US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave a speech to the American Enterprise Institute in DC declaring that US forces should remain in Iraq beyond December 31, 2011. Julian E. Barnes and Ben Lando (Wall St. Journal) add that Gates notes the US would agree to any request from Iraq for US forces to remain. Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) observes that Gates is set to retire next month, that Gates noted Iran would be uncomfortable with the US staying (Gates: "And that's a good thing") and that his remarks came as AEI released a report by Frederck Kagan. The paper Bumiller refers to is [PDF format warning] "IRAQ THREAT ASSESSMENT: THE DANGERS TO THE UNITED STATES, IRAQ, AND MIDEAST STABILITY OF ABANDONING IRAQ AT THE END OF 2011" and it's released by Kagan and "The Critical Threats Project of the American Enterprise Institute" -- yet another group lacking both the harmony and the grace of Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes. Sadly for Frederick and AEI, we do know them by now, they are the War Cheerleaders, they are the ones who rushed the country into war with lies. And now they want to be seen as trusted voices? They can't even be trusted with "Key findings." Declaring, "The Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to defend Iraq's sovereignty, maintain its independence from Iran, or ensure Iraq's internal stability without American assistance, including some ground forces in Iraq, for a number of years," is not a "key finding." It is a regurgitation of the remarks Nouri al-Maliki and others have been making to the press for over a year now. That's a bit like AEI 'scholars' camping out in fron of The Weather Channel for three hours and then releasing a "key finding" that the eastern seaboard may see rain this weekend. Later on in the 'findings,' it argues the US has to extend the SOFA and Iraq has to agree in order for Iraq to survive. Those actually are "findings" but they're not really supported by any work in the paper. In fact, backing things up is apparently one of those 'extras' the bad economy has forced AEI to cut back on. The unsupported conclusion insists: If Maliki allows the United States to leave Iraq, he is effectively declaring his intent to fall in line with Tehran's wishes, to subordinate Iraq's foreign policy to the Persians, and, possibly, to consolidate his own power as a sort of modern Persian satrap in Baghdad. If Iraq's leaders allow themselves to be daunted by fear of Maliki or Iran, they will be betraying their people, who have shed so much blood to establish a safe, independent, multiethnic, multisectarian, unitary Iraqi state with representative institutions of government. When has post-invasion Iraq ever been "safe, independent, multiethnic, multisectarian" or unitary? Never. If Frederick Kagan and the others who pimped this war had any brains, they never would have pimped illegal war to begin. But if they had even the smallest ability to learn or think on their feet, they'd keep their mouths shut right now. Their plan was a disaster. It was always going to be a disaster (you cannot make or enforce democracy on another group of people). The last eight years have demonstrated the plan to be a disaster. Continuing it under Barack will only further underscore what a disaster is. The smart thing for the War Pimps is to just keep their mouths shut, let the US military leave Iraq (no, that's really not happening, I know) and lay low for a year or two, then emerge beating their chests and insisting 'victory' had almost been reached but Barack Obama stole it from them by refusing to stand up. It's not all that differnt from the revisionary history on Vietnam, for example. But War Pimps are not known for their brains and they tend cry and rage at the thought of the plug being pulled on illegal wars. Far more interesting than the report is the "About The Author" on the last page which notes Frederick Kagan prefers to be called Freddie, has owned seven cats -- all of which ran away from home, states, if he had his life to do all over again, he would do so in angora and dreams of one day being asked to do the Vanity Fair Proust Questionnaire. Okay, truth, "About The Author" doesn't actually say that (or even imply it), but wouldn't it have made the report more interesting if it had? Rezgar (Kurdish Aspect) ponders the prospects of the US pulling out all forces from Iraq: Will the US honor that agreement? It is easier said than done, particularly after having exhausted billions of dollars in Iraq war so far. Cogitating that it the US will so simply bid farewell to Iraq for good is a pure misperception. The US has never had any such plans to dump Iraqi largest oil reserves in the hand of any other imperial major power, nor consent to the hostile Iran to bolster its hegemony in the majority Shiite populated Iraq. There might be another substantial reduction of troops in Southern and Central parts of Iraq to win over anti-American Shiite clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr, but in its place, the US will reposition its troops to the North, mainly Kurdistan, where US Troops are much hailed. Hundreds of CIA operatives have already spread out throughout the North (Kurdistan), monitoring neighboring Iranian military activities and accumulating intelligence, opening clandestine bureaus in building complexes such as Zakaria Apartment Complex. Kurdish officials have long appealed to the US administration to maintain permanent military bases in Kurdistan. Masood Barzani, Kurdistan Government President, held talks with James F. Jeffrey US ambassador, US Ambassador to Iraq, and Frank Helmick, Deputy Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq General to put this vital blueprint into motion. Maintaining the level of current stability in Kurdistan is mutually par for the course for the US administration. Dar Addustour notes today that sources say a coalition is emerging among Nouri's supporters and others in Parliament to push for an extension and an MP for the Liberal Party states that they will resist these efforts to keep US forces on the ground in Iraq. This follows Dar Addustour reporting yesterday that the US State Dept's Deputy for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero arrived Monday in Baghdad and a Kurdish MP says there is movement towards extending the SOFA and keeping US forces in Iraq past 2011. Ayas Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) also reported that "a high political level" unnamed source with State Of Law (Nouri's political slate) was stating that the Iraqi government has decided to extend the current agreement and not seek a new one. The source states that between 20,000 and 25,000 US troops will remain in Iraq and that Iraq will declare they need 13,000 to help with logistics and training while at least 5,000 will be said to be needed by the US Embassy. These particulars, the source stated, will be reviewed with the political blocs over the next ten days. All this while, Aswat al-Iraq reported, Muzhir Hassan, Anbar Province Council member, became the latest official to call for the US military to remain on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011. Hassan stated that "the extension of the U.S. troops presence in Iraq" was necessary because otherwise "a security vacuum" will emerge. At Press TV, Anthony Gregory observes: Last year 559 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan . This is considerably more than the 469 during Bush's last year in office. There has also been an increase in the presence of contractors in both wars, as well as their casualties. Contractors can obscure the true extent of the wars. When Obama has gone on record touting the reduction in U.S. fatalities, he neglects to mention "the contractor personnel now dying in their place," says professor Steven Schooner of George Washington University Law School . In the first half of 2010, 250 civilian contractors died in Iraq and Afghanistan-more than the 235 soldiers who fell during the same period. Obama ran on cutting money from the war budget, but overall the U.S. spends almost as much, deploys nearly as many troops, and is losing as many lives as when Obama took over. Last year's defense budget, at over $700 billion, was the largest ever. In fiscal year 2012 the defense budget will be at least $671 billion, far higher than the budgets under Bush, and much too high given the country's financial problems. Overall, the U.S. is as belligerent under Obama as it was under Bush. Obama has widened the war into Pakistan . Drone attacks have multiplied, killing ten civilians for every militant, according to Daniel L. Byman at the Brookings Institution. Moreover, Obama has bombed Yemen and Somalia , as well as started a war with Libya without congressional approval. Meanwhile, on the political front, Alsumaria TV reports, "A source close to Iraqiya leader Iyad Allawi revealed on Tuesday that certain political leaders some of which are present in southern councils will join on Thursday Iraqiya's coalition during a meeting of members to renew support to Allawi." But the big political news, New Sabah reports, is Nouri al-Maliki's assertion that Iraq's legislative branch, the Parliament, has no power to make laws. He is quoted, from a speech, stating that "the House of Representatives has no right to initiate legislation [. . . -- their edit, not mine] the legislation, the laws must come from the Council of Ministers or the Presidency exclusively." The Council is Nouri's Council and it and the presidency are part of the executive branch. For those who need a review, Iraq -- like the US -- has three branches of government, the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. As Peter Lorre explains, while hurling knives in 1947's My Favorite Brunette (starring Bob Hope and Dorothy Lamour), "The three branches of our government are? Hmm? The legislative, the executive and the judicial. What does the legislative branch of our government do? Hmm? Huh? It makes the laws. What does the executive branch of our government do? It carries out the laws." Somehow that's too much for Nouri to grasp. And this is not just who the US government -- both the Bush administration and the Barack one -- has backed but the puppet they want US forces to remain in Iraq past 2011 in order to back. That's who AEI and the War Pimps have backed as well. Hint to AEI, next time you need a people's support to hail something as a success, try backing the people and not a puppet (though that does go against AEI's nature, I know). But who supports the people? Each Friday, protests take place across Iraq. And the US press ignores them. Yet no one can stop trying to do a roll out for Moqtada al-Sadr, apparently. Maybe Karl Rove's freelancing for Moqtada? Tim Craig and Asaad Majeed (Washington Post) become the latest to 'report' on an event that hasn't taken place. Moqtada wants protests tomorrow in Iraq. This week alone, his desire for a protest has gotten more US press attention than all the protests of the people in Iraq that have taken place this month and last combined. What does that tell you? Meanwhile Human Rights Watch has issued a release which includes the following: Kurdistan regional government officials and security forces are carrying out a growing assault on the freedom of journalists to work in Iraqi Kurdistan, Human Rights Watch said today. Regional officials should stop repressing journalists through libel suits, beatings, detentions, and death threats, Human Rights Watch said. Kurdistan authorities have repeatedly tried to silence Livin Magazine, one of Iraqi Kurdistan's leading independent publications, and other media. The international community should end its silence and condemn these widening attacks, Human Rights Watch said. "The Kurdistan Regional Government promised a new era of freedom for Iraqi Kurds, but it seems no more respectful of Kurdish rights to free speech than the government that preceded it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "In a time when the Middle East is erupting in demands to end repression, the Kurdish authorities are trying to stifle and intimidate critical journalism." On May 17, 2011, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of regional president Massud Barzani brought a defamation lawsuit against the Livin editor-in-chief, Ahmed Mira, for publishing an article about an alleged plot by the KDP and its ruling alliance partner, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), to assassinate opposition leaders. According to court documents obtained by Human Rights Watch, the KDP is seeking total damages of one billion dinars (US$864,000) and an order to shut down the magazine by revoking its license. The court documents say the party is suing Mira because the Livin article "not only has no basis in truth but is a threat to national security [and] a violation to the dignity and glory and the great achievements" of Iraqi Kurdistan. Earlier in May, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, the PUK leader, filed his own lawsuit over the same article. Mira told Human Rights Watch that, as a result, police detained him and a Livin reporter, Zhyar Mohammed, for five hours on May 5. "Such libel suits by Kurdistan government officials are nothing more than a thinly-veiled effort to punish critics and create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship," Whitson said. "The attacks by Barzani and his colleagues on independent journalists do more to undermine Kurdish 'dignity' and 'glory' than anything in the media reports." A Livin reporter told Human Rights Watch that when he called Sheikh Jaffar Mustafa, Minister of Peshmerga (Kurdistan security forces), on April 24, Mustafa threatened Livin's editor, Mira, with death. The reporter had called Mustafa and taped the conversation because he wanted to get an official comment on an unrelated matter. The reporter said that Mustafa was upset over an unflattering article in the magazine that compared Mustafa to the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak. Mira said he decided to report the threat to the regional government's prime minister rather than make it public or go to the police, which he believed would be ineffectual and put him at further risk. Though they ignore the protests in Mousl and Baghdad, Tim Arango and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) did manage to cover the above region last week. And, to clarify, the New York Times will cover (breathlessly, if the pattern holds) Moqtada's protest. Just like Ahmed Chalabi's organized 'protests' get covered. It's only the actions of the people that the US press likes to ignore. Turning to the topic of violence, Al Rafidayn notes that police chief Msderfi Anfjarabbop was killed in Kirkuk today and one of his bodyguards and a police officer were injured in a bombing. In related news. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes, "There has been longstanding sectarian tension among Kurdish, Arab and Turkmen people in Kirkuk. Namat is Kurdish, but there was no immediate information on whether the bombing was tied to ethnic hostilities." Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing injured one police officer, a Baghdad shooting injured an Interior Ministry colonel, 5 Baghdad construction workers were shot and wounded, a Baghdad car bombing injured five people, a police officer in Kirkuk was wounded in an attack and, dropping back to Tuesday for both of the last items, 1 corpse was discovered in Kirkuk and Baghdad's car bombing yesterday resulted in 3 deaths and fifteen people injured. Turning to the US, a verdict was reached in Fort Stewart court-martial today. England's Daily Mail reported earlier this month on the court-martial taking place in Georgia with Army Sgt Joseph Bozicevich accused of killing two US soldiers -- Staff Sgt Darris Dawson and Sgt Wesley Durbin -- in cold blood while he claims self-defense. It was agreed that he was being criticized for his performance (though the accused questions the accuracy of the criticism) and after that? The Associated Press added that the accused was stating he was threatened by "The Black Masons," that the deceased admitted they were masons and claimed they could get away with killing him as a result. The defense offered Dr. Thomas Greiger as a witness to speak about the accused's delusions. Mary Hashemi (WSAV) reports that, "A military jury found Bozicevich guilty on two counts Wednesday of premeditated murder. Bozicevich faces a life sentence. Sentencing will begin on Thursday to decide whether the punishment is with or without parole." One more time from today's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, here are Brad Sherman's opening remarks: US House Rep Brad Sherman: The State Dept is working hard to bring the blessings of democracy and the rule of law to every country . . . except ours. Rome was built with legislative decision making. Rome declined and fell under an imperial executive. We probably should authorize some action with regard to Libya -- although I've got a lot of questions the administration doesn't need to answer because they view us as irrelevant. But any authorization should be limited as to time and scope so that we can then pass additional resolutions with further review. Any authorization should be conditioned on the Libyan rebels expelling from their midst those with American blood on their hands, those who fought us in Afghanistan and Iraq and particularly the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. And, finally, I would want to see any resolution require that this mission be funded by the assets that Ghadaffi was stupid enough to leave in the United States which have been seized by the US Treasury. The Administration takes the extremist view that the Executive can deploy any amount of American force anywhere, anytime for any purpose, for any duration, with any effect, with only the most cursory discussions with only a few members of Congress. Worse than that, they won't even articulate that view. They won't even acknowledge the 60th day and the day on which they began violating that law. But as the Ranking Member points out, the fault is also here with Congress. So many of us would like to evade the tough decisions. Democrats and Republicans know how to vote on contentious issues because we come from Democrat and Republican districts. But this is one that crosses party lines, this is one that divides every one of our districts and a lot of people would just as soon duck the issue. That's not our job. We should put in every appropriations bill that the expenditure of funds in violation of the War Powers Act constitutes a theft of tax payer money. I tried with a few to get Congressional approval of both parties to put in the CR that no money could be spent in violation of the War Powers Act. We got no response. It's time for Congress to step forward. It's time to stop shredding the US Constitution in a presumed effort to bring democracy and constitutional law to Libya. iraq al rafidayn the wall st. journal julian e. barnes ben lando the new york times elisabeth bumiller dar addustour al mada ayas hossam acommok alsumaria tv new sabah cnn mohammed tawfeeq the washington post tim craig tim arango michael s. schmidt

The drone war

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Little Man" went up last night.

Moving over to Barack's drone war on Pakistan, Amir Latif (Global Post) reports, "The drones are operated by the Central Intelligence Agency and were first authorized by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2004. The first drone attack here targeted Taliban commander Moulvi Naik Muhammad on June 18, 2004. It was the only attack that year. Since then, there have been 246 more and every year since they have increased in frequency. In 2008, 38 drone strikes were recorded. In 2009, there were 52 and in 2010 there were 132." You'll note that the attacks increase significantly after Barack takes office. That may be because George W. Bush was a known bully and didn't feel the need to prove anything. Meanwhile, weak sister Barry comes in with a chip on his shoulder because the US is in multiple wars and all he ever did was do a little weed. He didn't serve in the military, he didn't protest the wars. He didn't do a damn thing growing up. Now he's a middle-aged man in charge of the world's largest and most expensive military and he feels like it will make his little penis bigger if he bombs and bombs.

Press TV reports:

Meanwhile, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Director Ahmad Shuja Pasha has asked the United States to stop its drone strikes inside Pakistan, The Daily Express, a local Urdu language newspaper reported on Sunday.
"We will be forced to respond if you do not come up with a strategy that stops the Drone strikes," Pasha said in a meeting with CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell.
In a recent interview with Time Magazine, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani explained that as an elected politician he must choose the Pakistani people over good ties with the US.
The United Nations says the US-operated drone strikes in Pakistan pose a growing challenge to the international rule of law.
Philip Alston, UN special envoy on extrajudicial killings, said in a report in late October 2010 that the attacks were undermining the rules designed to protect the right of life.

Barack has certainly done his part to prove that the biggest threat for innocent civilians remains a girlish boi with a lot to prove.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, May 23, 2011. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces deaths, the British military officially leaves Iraq, David Miliband weighs in on the Iraq War, a meet-up in Erbil offers little for Nouri to spin, and more. In the United States, unemployment among young veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is a critical issue. May 11th, US Senator Patty Murray, the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, held a news conference to note Hiring Heroes Act of 2011. and she also noted that one out of every four young veterans is unemployed. From the news conference. Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Patty Murray: We have an unemployment rate of over 27% among young veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is 1 in 5 of our nation's heroes who cannot find a job to support their families, they don't have income to provide stability and they don't have work that provides them with the self-esteem and pride that is so critical to their transition home. All too often, we read about the results of veterans who come home, often with the invisible wounds of war, who can't find the dignity and security that work provides. We read about it in the sky rocketing suicide statistics, problems at home, substance abuse and even in the rising homelessness among our returning veterans. But I've also heard a lot about it first hand from the veterans that we have failed to provide better job support to. I've had veterans tell me that they no longer write on their resume that they are a veteran because they fear the stigma they believe employers attach to the invisible wounds of war. I've heard from medics who return home from treating battlefield wounds for days on end, in incredible conditions, who cannot get certification to be an EMT or even a ambuldance driver. I've talked to veteran after veteran who's said they didn't have to go through the military's jobs skills training program or that they were never taught how to use the venacular of the business world to describe the job and experience they did when they come home. These stories are heart breaking and they are frustrating. But more than anything, they are a reminder that we have to act now. While we're on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, let's quickly note the following from Senator Murray's office: In second of two major hearings, Chairman Murray will hear directly from veterans and top VA and Pentagon officials about challenges that remain in the care for amputees, rising suicide rates, poor coordination between the agencies, and delays in disability evaluations (Washington, D.C.) – Wednesday, U.S. Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray will hear first-hand accounts from veterans who have faced challenges because of the lack of collaboration between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DoD). The hearing will focus on DoD and VA's joint disability evaluation process, military and veteran suicides, the lack of cooperation in certain areas between the two agencies, and the quality of care at the two Departments for amputees. During the hearing, Chairman Murray will also question VA's top mental health administrator about the recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling finding the mental health care offered by the VA to be so poor that it's unconstitutional. WHO: Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray Tim Horton, Iraq Veteran who was wounded and lost his leg to an IED attack in Iraq Steve Bohn, Iraq Veteran, representing Wounded Warrior Project Janet E. "Jan" Kemp, VA National Suicide Prevention Coordinator Antonette Zeiss, Acting Deputy Chief Officer Mental Health Services, Office of Patient Care Services, Department of Veterans Affairs Jim Lorraine, Lt. Col. ASAF (Ret.), Executive Director, Wounded Warrior Care Project George Peach Taylor, Jr., MD, MPH, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness WHAT: Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Hearing on the State of VA/DoD Collaborations and the Challenges those Agencies Face in Caring for Veterans WHEN: Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 10:00 AM EST/7:00 AM PST WHERE: Russell 418 WEBCAST: http://veterans.senate.gov/ Back to unemployment. "We have to act now." And Murray and senators on the Senate Committee -- Democrats and Republicans -- appear focused on the issue. In the House of Representatives, it's another story. Tomorrow morning, the House of Representatives' Veterans Affairs Committee was supposed to hold "Putting Veterans Back to Work." This hearing has been postponed. "Putting Veterans Back to Work" and "Postponed" -- pair the two up for the message (which I am sure is unintentional) that's being sent. This would have been only the second, only the second, hearing the House Veterans Affairs Committee had held on employment. The other hearing was March 3rd. Is it a crisis or is not one? The figures say it's a crisis. The treatment of it by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee telegraphs it's a crisis. But in the House Comittee the issue gets little attention and when it's finally supposed to get attention, it's "postponed." It sends a message. And, no, this wouldn't have happened under Bob Filner's leadership. But hopefully it's not an issue of political party. US House Rep Bob Filner is a Democrat and, until January, was the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The current Chair is Jeff Miller who is a Republican. Hopefully, it's more an issue of someone new to being a chair failing to grasp the message being sent and also still stumbling with leadership issues. Though addressing the needs of veterans can be ignored and postponed, the wars they serve in don't get put on hold -- or apparently end these days. Yesterday 2 US soldiers were killed while serving in Iraq. AP notes all the US military shares is that the two died "conducting operations in central Iraq" and AP also notes they were the first US soldiers to die in Iraq this month. Their deaths were part of a wave of violence across Iraq yesterday. Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) reported on the two deaths and the deaths of multiple Iraqis, observing, "The bloodshed highlighted the tenuous situation around Baghdad, where assassinations and other attacks still occur almost daily. It also drew attention to Sunni Arab and Shiite militants' continuing efforts to kill American troops, who are scheduled to leave at the end of the year. There has been an increase in the shelling around U.S. military bases within Baghdad's airport grounds as well as the American Embassy compound in the fortified Green Zone enclave." Tim Craig (Washington Post) added, "Most of the explosions were directed at Iraqi police officers and government officials, who have become targets of terrorism in recent months. Security officials estimate that at least 21 people were killed and more than 80 injured during a succession of attacks that came from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m." Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) counts eighty injured today and explains, "There were bombings in both Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods, including two in Sadr City, the stronghold of the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, but it was unclear whether they were coordinated. Insurgents have often attacked both groups simultaneously, in an attempt to incite sectarian strife and further destabilize the country." It was a day that began, Al Sabaah reports, with prime minister and puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki declaring this is the best time (ever) for businesses to invest in Iraq and that he made this declaration yesterday morning at a ribbon cutting ceremony at the opening of the al-Jihad housing complex. Of the violence, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) notes, "It raises again the question of whether a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of 2011 will open the way for a vast increase in extremist violence. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has called for a national debate on whether to ask some U.S combat to remain after December 31." Al Sabaah reports that Nouri al-Maliki has stated that Iraq's political blocs are unclear about an extension. He has called for them to use the next weeks to figure out where they stand. The paper states that he's accused the political blocs of using the issue to attack one another and that he's asking them to come to an understanding before the issue goes to his Cabinet or to the Parliament. He also stated a need for US trainers. US troops were thought to be leaving by the end of the year. Some may, some may not. What the US administration wants is an extension of the SOFA or a new agreement. Barring that, they will go with their back up plan of keeping "hundreds" (possibly "thousands") of US soldiers in Iraq but switching them from the DoD umbrella to the State Dept one. This in addition to the Marines who will guard the US Embassy in Baghdad -- as they guard embassies around the world -- and in addition to the contractors which will also be under State Dept control. As Congress continues to resist turning over billions to the State Dept for "Iraq operations," the back up plan becomes less and less attractive and the White House pushes harder for an extension of the SOFA. Back to Al Sabaah which quotes Kurdish MP Hamid Adel stating that the depature would leave Iraq an easy target for regional countries. Adel states that they need from Nouri an update on the Iraqi military including whether the army can protect its borders and whether the air force can protect the skies. Since Nouri and the military have long ago stated that Iraq will be unable to protect its borders and since the Iraqi air force is not up and running, it's doubtful an update would provide any new information. Al Rafidayn reports Jabbar Yawar, Secretary-General of the Ministry of the Pesmerga, declared in an Erbil press conference yesterday that, "We welcome the move to extend presence of US forces in Iraq." He stated that the army continues to need weapons, the air force continues to need training and that the country needs US military support. Violence continued today. Aswat al-Iraq reports Ayad Ali Akbar, with the Ministry of Defense, was assassinated in Baghdad. UPI reports, a Kirkuk car bombing has claimed at least 7 lives (five were police officers). AFP notes that the 2 others killed were soldiers -- peshmerga or Iraqi is not noted. Aswat al-Iraq reports a Baghdad bombing has claimed 1 life and left nine people injured. Jamal Hashim (XInhua) reports, "Near Baghdad, a member of Awakening Council group of the town of Abu Ghraib, just west of Baghdad, was killed when a sticky bomb attached to his car detonated around midday as he was passing a security checkpoint in al-Shuhadaa neighborhood in central the town, a local police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." Hashim also notes 1 police officer was shot dead in Anbar Province. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) adds, "Also Monday, a taxi driver was killed and his passenger wounded when a magnetic "sticky bomb" attached to their vehicle blew up in Ghazaliyah, west Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said." As the violence continues, Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link is video) reports that the concrete walls are coming down. Excerpt: Jane Arraf: 18,000 concrete walls down and 62,000 more to go. They are meant to protect people and buildings from car bombs Some officials estimate hundreds of miles of the walls have been put up since 2003 -- most of them by the US military. The government says, apart from the Green Zone and government buildings, they'll all come down by the end of the year. Bagdhad Security spokesperson Qassim al- Atta: General security is developing and progressing and there's no need now for barriers and street closings. Jane Arraf: The last time authorities tried to dismantle the blast walls two years ago, suicide truck bombs detonated outside the Foreign and Finance Ministries killing more than 80 people. On Palestine Street, where a lot of walls were taken down a few weeks ago, some are afraid it will happen again. Shop owner Ali Hassan Abdul Jabar: After they removed the blast walls, the next day a bomb was planted and killed two steet cleaners. The poor people, it blew up right in their faces. Jane Arraf: In some parts of Baghdad, the walls have become concrete canvases for Iraqi artists. But no matter how you dress them up, they've still closed off major parts of the city. And during the sectarian violence, they sprung up to divide Sunni and Shia neighborhoods. The walls divided the city, sectioned off. And now they come down? At a time when violence has been increasing and when the bulk of US forces could leave at the end of the year, most wouldn't be taking down the walls. In fact, the only strong reason to do so now would be if you were attempting to nudge the results on stay-or-go over to "US military stay!" by increasing the likelihood of violence. Whether the bulk of US troops stay or go, Saturday Jack Healy (New York Times) noted the following Americans remain missing in Iraq: Jeffrey Ake, Aban Elias, Abbas Kareem Naama, Neenus Khoshaba, Bob Hamze, Dean Sadek, Hussain al-Zurufi and Staff Sgt. Ahmed Altaie." Over the weekend, Al Sabaah reported Nouri was insisting that it's time to push national reconciliation (after, please note, he's bullied his way into getting everything he wanted) and that the statements came as he prepared to for Monday's big meet-up. Dar Addustour noted the big meet-up in Erbil thismroning between the political blocs with the goal of ironing out the many problems (which result from Nouri's failure to live up to the Erbil Agreement). Alsumaria TV reports, "Al Iraqiya List led by Iyad Allawi stressed that it insists on implementing Arbil agreements fully noting that the party is keen on national partnership, a source told Alsumaria. Renouncing national partnership is a way of disclaiming the political process, it argued." In related news, Aswat al-Iraq reports Iraqiya's spokesperson Shaker Kattab has issued a denial of any knowledge that Iraqiya plans to nominate him for Minister of Defense. Iraq still has no Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior and Minister of National Security. Alsumaria TV notes, "Iraqi Vice President Tarek Al Hashemi urged security officials to introduce immediate amendments to the security plan in light of mounting security violations. Al Hashemi called for an urgent stand to accelerate the appointment of security ministers, a source told Alsumaria." Ramzy Mardini (Lebanon's Daily Star) shares this take on the government: Despite its inevitable collapse, the United States strongly supports Iraq's unity government, praising it as a mature step forward. The U.S.-brokered settlement "reflects the results of those elections," wrote Vice President Joseph Biden at the time, and "does not exclude or marginalize anyone." Yet, the deal secured Nouri al-Maliki another term as prime minister, despite his bloc's second-place finish in the elections. The cornerstone of the accord was the foolhardy establishment of a National Council for Higher Policies. The council was intended to hold "executive" and "binding" authorities to check Maliki's power, and was to integrate former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi into the government as its first chairman. But today, little American leverage remains to compel Maliki to cede any of his powers, especially to a committed rival. At best, the council stands to be largely an advisory body with no significant clout. In idly sponsoring a national partnership, the U.S. endorsed a false promise for Iraq's future. The concept represented a gross misreading of Iraqi politics. Since the Sunni boycott of the 2005 elections, misconstrued Western biases have supported such a framework as a way of advancing national unity. But in reality, there are no broadly-shared ideological or overarching visions to sustain such a government. The practice of "governing by consensus" is not indigenous to Iraqi political culture. The experiment today is viewed as an American venture, and Iraqis perceive its foundations as a formula for dividing the spoils, not sharing power. Moreover, the national partnership has reinforced Iraq's dysfunctional polity. To house a gargantuan government, some positions were arbitrarily created to satisfy Iraqi personalities. The new officialdom embraces 42 ministries, three deputy prime ministers, and three vice presidents. Many roles are ill-defined, and in some cases lack a constitutional basis. But unlike titles, governing power has become a zero-sum game: as a rule of thumb, no sharing agreement, however creative, will satisfy all of Iraq's major players. That position is actually similar to Nouri's. Over the weekend, New Sabah quoted Nouri stating that "There is no minority that can control Iraq." Al Rafidayn reported that Nouri made the statement while speaking with Salahuddin Province tribal sheikhs and, with his statements regarding sections and factions, he may also be laying the groundwork for an all State Of Law Cabinet -- or possibly just a Shi'ite one. In the background of all of Nouri's statements is what happens come June 7th. In an attempt to defuse Iraqi outrage, Nouri announced a 100 day period during which corruption would be dealt with. The 100 days comes to an end June 7th and Nouri has very little to show for it. He may have hoped for good news out of the Erbil meet-up but that appears to have gone the way it always does (stalemate). He needs something to distract from no end to corruption and Friday's prison break. From Friday's snapshot: Alsumaria TV reports, "An Iraqi informed security source revealed on Friday that five chiefs of the Mehdi Army managed to escape from Taji prison, north of Baghdad. Three detainees were reported missing while transferring them to Karkh central prison, the Justice Ministry said. A special force from Prime Minister's office headed on Thursday night to Taji Prison, nothern Baghdad, to transfer detainees to one of the capital's prisons, the source told Alsumarianews. Five chiefs of the Mehdi Army including senior leader Saad Sowar managed to escape during the transfer, the source said." New Sabah states that 182 detainees were being transferred when the escape took place. Dar Addustour reported Saturday that the Justice Ministry has announced it is signing a contract with the US to install devices that will allow them to jam cell phones within prisons. Al Mada added that the Taji prison escape has resulted in numerous "conflicting statements" about the prison break. But the announcement regarding jamming cell phones appears to be a response to (if not an acknowledgment of) the veracity of the rumors that the prisoners used cell phones to stay in contact with helpers outside the prison. Cell phones may have also been used to organize and execute a prison riot which provided some cover for the prison break. Sunday British forces kind-of-sort-of withdrew (finally) from Iraq. Rosa Prince (Telegraph of London) reports David Miliband stated, "Iraq obviously divided not only our country, but divided the whole world really. It proved how much easier it is to win wars than to win the peace and I think that is the sort of lesson that we have got to learn. I am afraid the failure of the Western forces to develop a proper strategy for peace, not a strategy for war, has held back the country." David Miliband made his statements on The Andrew Marr Show (BBC). Click here for video, here for transcript. Excerpt: ANDREW MARR: Right now our last forces are pulling out of Iraq and forces will start to pull out of Afghanistan in the not too distant future. So it's a moment of reflection, I suppose, about our engagement across the whole region. At that moment, tell us what you think now about Iraq? DAVID MILIBAND: I think you think, first of all, of the people that we've lost. You think, secondly, that while there have been gains, the list of negatives is long - longer than the list of gains. But you also think, thirdly, that there is still history to be made in Iraq and the possibility of a multi-confessional, multi-denominational political system in Iraq that is more or less democratic, can send out a message to the rest of the Arab world that is consonant with the sort of changes that you've been discussing in Egypt and elsewhere. Iraq obviously divided not just our country, but divided the whole world really. It proved how much easier it is to win wars than to win the peace, and I think that that is the sort of lesson that we've got to learn. ANDREW MARR: And when you say the list of negatives is longer than the list of gains - that's what you mean, is it: that what followed the war was so horrific? DAVID MILIBAND: Yes, exactly. I mean six, seven, even eight months after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the sort of Sunni-Shia conflict that came to mark the Iraq episode - hundreds of thousands of deaths - hadn't really started. It was still in the balance. I'm afraid the failure of the Western forces to develop a proper strategy for peace, not a strategy for war, has held back the country. Now it's still to play for despite the loss of blood and treasure, but I think that that is the key lesson. As disclosed before, I know David Miliband. On Law and Disorder Radio this week ( WBAI had a two hour fundraising live broadcast of Law and Disorder Radio today, but on this week's actual hour long program which broadcasts around the country throughout the week), Michael Ratner, Heidi Boghosian and Michael S. Smith are joined by attorney Abdeen Jabara (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) to discuss events in Egypt and by journalists Arun Gupta. Also, commenting on last week's speech, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Little Man" went up Sunday. iraq the los angeles times ned parker raheem salman the washington post tim craig the new york times michael s. schmidt al sabaah upi afp mcclatchy newspapers laith hammoudi aswat al-iraq dar addustour al jazeera jane arraf the new york times jack healy xinhua jamal hashim wbai law and disorder radio michael s. smith heidi boghosian michael ratner