BP and Wendy's -- two things that piss me off

Above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Heck Of A Job" and hasn't it been. Can you believe that the White House waited until Sunday to 'slip in' that the oil spill will likely continue through August. They put that out on Sunday. You think that they didn't know this on Friday when Barack was doing his photo-op?

You think that they didn't know the "top kill" or whatever wasn't working? That was supposed to be announced on Friday. 24 hours and they'd know. That's what they said. Then they waited until Saturday to confirm that it didn't stop the leak.

Everything's put off until Barry's not around so someone else can announce it. In what may be some good news, Theresa Vargas (Washington Post) reports:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Tuesday that his office is using "the full weight" of its investigative power to pursue criminal and civil investigations into the oil spill that has devastated the Gulf Coast.
"The Department of Justice will ensure that the American people do not foot the bill for this disaster and that our laws are enforced to the fullest extent possible," he said.

In other news, being on the road educates you about food if you pay attention. I didn't.

Biggest lesson with fast food, check your oder before you leave the counter or pull off from the drive through.

I needed a salad and there was a Wendy's. I get back to the hotel and pull it out of the paper sack and . . . The tomatoes are squishy (I ate them anyway), the non-green lettuce has wilted and then some. The supposed white parts are brown and/or brown tinged.

I kept the green (even the bad looking green) lettuce, kept the tomatoes and what I could save of the carrots, added the almonds and croutons and ate it but still can't believe that they actually 'prepared' that, sacked it and sold it.

Again, my fault. I know you cehck the sack before you leave.

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

Monday, June 1, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iran may have entered Iraq's borders, a US (Republican operative) goes on Al Jazeera and says the MidEast is occupied by "barbarians," Iraq's Supreme Court certifies election results . . . almost 100%, and more.

The northern region of Iraq is the Kurdistan Regional Government and, throughout the Iraq War, the northern region has been bombed by the Turkish military. These days, Iran's shelling is becoming a concern. (Iran and Turkey share a border above Iraq.) Sherko Raouf, Shamil Aqrawi and Matt Robinson (Reuters) report that there are rumors (denied by Kurdish officials) that Iran has entered northern Iraq but that over 100 Iraqi families have fled the area in the last seven days. Sunday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN)reported the Iranian shelling claimed the life of 1 teenage Iraqi girl in nothern Iraq. Xinhua (link has text and audio) identified the 14-year-old as Basouz Jabbar Agha. As with the Turkish military, Iranian military claims their target is the PKK -- a group identified by many countries (including the US) and the European Union as a terrorist organization and one that has established a base in nothern Iraq (among other places). [They would actually claim their target is PJAK and we're not drawing a line between the PKK and PJAK here -- they have the same leader, the same goals and are 'mingled' in the northern Iraq bases.] The PKK seeks an official Kurdish homeland (usually within Turkey) and points to decades of persecution. One of their leaders is Abudllah Ocalan who has been in a Turkish prison since 1999. The BBC reported over the weekend that he was rumored to have announced "he was abandoning efforts for dialogue with the Turkish government." Hurriyet Daily News reports that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will hold a terrorism summit on Wednesday (Turkey labels the PKK a terrorist organization).

Meanwhile AFP quotes an unnamed "security official" stating that Iranian troops have moved "three kilometers" into northern Iraq. Caroline Alexander and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) quote KRG spokesperson Kawa Mahmoud stating, "These reports about an Iranian incursion into Krudistan are totally false. There may be Iranian activity near the border, but there is no incursion." The reality? At this point unknown. Iran's most recent invasion of Iran (December 2009) was greeted with denials from some Iraqi government officials and from some Iranian government officials. But the violation of sovereignty did take place. From the December 18th snapshot:

Iraq's requesting that Iran withdraw. Caroline Alexander and Margot Habiby (Bloomberg News) report, "Iraq's National Security Council said today that Iran violated their shared border and Iraq's 'territorial integrity' and called on the Islamic republic to withdraw its forces from the region." Timothy Williams and Eric Schmitt (New York Times) add, "The Iraqi government said Friday that Iranian troops had crossed the border and occupied a portion of an oil field situated on disputed land between the two countries, but Iranian officials immediately and vehemently disputed the account." Dow Jones Newswires states they were told that by a Missan Oil Compnay official that "Iranian forces took hold of an Iraqi well in a disputed section of the border after opening fire against Iraqi oil workers"; however, the official tells Dow Jones this action took place "two weeks ago." Suadad al-Salhy, Missy Ryan and Ralph Boulton (Reuters) quote Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji, Deputy Interior Minister, stating, "At 3:30 this afternoon, 11 Iranian [soldiers] infiltrated the Iran-Iraq border and took control of the oil well. They raised the Iranian flag, and they are still there until this moment." Gulf Daily News adds, "Officials have summoned Tehran's envoy in Iraq to discuss the matter, he said. Iraqi officials said the soldiers crossed into Iraqi territory yesterday and raised the Iranian flag at Fakka." Mosab Jasim (Al Jazeera) states, "The Iraqi president called for an emergency session to discuss what they describe as a violation from Iran, but nothing came out of the meeting and whatever actions they are going to take are still not clear." The President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani. However, the report indicates Jasim was referring to Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) offers this context, "Reports of the incident aggravated long-standing tensions between the countries, which fought a 1980-88 war that claimed as many as a million lives. Although Iraq's Shiite Muslim-led government and Shiite Iran have grown closer since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion ousted Iraq's Sunni Muslim dictator, Saddam Hussein, border issues remain thorny, with sporadic posturing from both sides." If it's been seized, what's been seized? Alice Fordham (Times of London) explains, "The well is one of several in the Fakka oil field, which was part of a group offered to foreign investors in June, but no contract was awarded." She also notes that Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani went on state television to insist, "Iraq will not give up its oil wealth" today. Adam Arnold (Sky News) offers US military reaction: "A spokesman for the US military confirmed the soldiers had taken control of the oil well but added it was in 'disputed territory' near the border and happened fairly frequently. 'There has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran,' he said." While that source is unnamed US Col Peter Newell is on the record offering Arnold context. What really happened? Who knows? It will slowly emerge over the weekend, most likely. What is known is that the talk/rumors/incident had one result. Nick Godt (MarketWatch) reports that the rumors led to an initial rise in the price of oil per barrel today.


Today Alsumaria TV reports, "Central Quality Control revealed that local mineral water bottles in Iraq are more polluted than imported water bottles." Look for Nouri al-Maliki to attempt to spin that as yet another reason why he should continue as prime minister despite four failed years in the post already. Alsumaria TV reported Monday that Nouri was in the Kurdistan Region trying to drum up support there. Nouri continues his stay in the Kurdistan region as he continues attempting to woo the Kurdistan bloc. Alsumaria TV reports that he'll talk today with Jalal Talabani. Talabani is the current president and would like to remain as such -- the two will no doubt attempt to cut a deal on that; however, Jalal's not very popular in the KRG these days and, deal or no deal, his support may end up a negative and not a blessing.March 7th, Iraq completed Parliamentary elections. Since then, Nouri has done everything legal and illegal to attempt to remain prime minister despite his political slate's second place win. Saturday Khaled Farhan (Reuters) reported, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Saturday his party would not compromise on its choice of government leader, resisting pressure from potential coalition partners for him to step aside." Saad Abdul-Kadir (AP) added the "comments revealed an unwillingness to budge in negotiations." Mshari al-Zaydi (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reported Saturday that the Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani has stated he is favoring no one and quotes Iraqiya's Raif al-Issawi stating, "Al Sistani expressed no explicit support for anyone." One meeting that has not taken place is between Nouri and Ayad Allawi. Sunday Rahmat al-Salaam (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) reported, "An informed sources who spoke to Ashraq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity revealed that the reason that Iraqi Prime Minister and leader of the State of Law coalition Nuri al-Maliki backed out of a meeting with the leader of the Iraqiya bloc Iyad Allawi, was a visit undertaken by a senior official from one of the neighboring countries. The source said that 'the official's visit which took place two days prior to the meeting that was scheduled to take place between Allawi and al-Maliki was to put pressure to prevent this meeting from taking place, and that is what happened'."


Who should form the government? In Alsumaria TV's ongoing poll, 58.59% currently say Ayad Allawi. Of course it's a nonscientific poll but then so was the one Quil Lawrence and others pimped the day after the election -- the one that had Nouri's State Of Law sweeping the elections with a clear majority. No doubt due to time and space limitations, Quil and the others were unable to explain that Nouri's spokespeople provided them with the poll or that State Of Law paid for the poll. You had to go to the European media to find those facts out. Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) reports that the election results have been certified by Iraq's Supreme Court . . . But it's never that easy. 323 people have been certified as winners. But there were 325 races. The two not certified yet are Iraqiya's Omar al-Karbouly and the Iraqi National Alliance's Furat Muhssein Saeed. Jim Muir (BBC News) points out that this development should not be read as the coalition government is on the verge of being formed and, "The ruling meant that all Mr Maliki's relentless efforts to whittle away at Mr Allawi's narrow lead by lodging complaints and demanding a manual recount in Baghdad were in vain. The court referred the cases of two of the elected MPs for further examination, but only one belonged to the Iraqiyya bloc, and both could be replaced from within their own lists, so this would not make any difference." Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) explains what, according to the Constitution, is supposed to happen next, "Within 15 days, President Jalal Talabani is supposed to summon the new parliament for its first session, at which the 325 legislators are to choose a speaker and two deputies. Within 30 days of that first meeting, the parliament is to elect a new president, who will be empowered to ask the leader of the biggest bloc to name a prime minister and form a government." Andrew England (Financial Times of London) notes, "Diplomats hope the parties will form an inclusive government that represents all groups in a nation blighted by sectarian and ethnic divisions. But the concern is that Iraq will have a Shia-dominated administration, similar to the one that took office in 2005. If so, Arab Sunnis, who turned out in force to vote for Iraqiya, may feel excluded from the political process." US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the following statement today:

I welcome today's action by the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court certifying the results of the national election. Voter turnout in the March 7th vote was strong across Iraq's 18 provinces. Iraq's electoral commission and security forces successfully organized and carried out a credible and competitive election. Since then, the electoral commission has worked in a careful, professional way to bring the process to this concluding point. This experience demonstrates that Iraqis want to use the political process to choose their leaders and settle differences.
With the election results officially certified, we call on Iraq's political leaders to move forward without delay to form an inclusive and representative government that will work on behalf of the Iraqi people.
In the coming months, we will work together as our partnership continues its transition with the goal of building a robust and long-lasting relationship between our two nations -- a partnership that will contribute to growing peace and prosperity in Iraq and stability in the Middle East.

Meanwhile Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that Iraqi exiles with ties to the Ba'ath Party, apparently former leaders, have held meetings in Istanbul and Damascus:
The groups could find receptive audiences in Iraq if the next government is widely seen as having insufficient Sunni representation. Many Sunnis accuse the Shiite-led Iraqi government of being sectarian, pointing to factors such as the disproportionate number of Sunni detainees and efforts to weed out Sunnis from government jobs. Sunnis made a strong showing in the March 7 parliamentary elections, propelling the largely secular Iraqiya bloc to a first-place finish. The bloc did not win enough seats to secure the majority needed to form a government, however, making it likelier that an alliance of two Shiite groups will appoint the new prime minister.


Hannah Allam (McClatchy's Miami Herald) observes, "The nearly three-month delay is frustrating for ordinary Iraqis, who risked their lives to vote, and for American officials, who need to coordinate the full withdrawal of U.S. forces with the next government. The Obama administration hopes to have just 50,000 service members remaining in Iraq by the end of August, but many political observers are skeptical that the incoming Iraqi government will be seated by then." Adam Levine and Paul Steinhauser (CNN) report on a new CNN - Opinion Research Corp poll which found that if an Iraqi government is formed by August, US respondents support the drawdown by 64% but that public approval slips to 51% if there's not a government in place. The term "stable" is used, that's a qualifier and it's meaningless. Go over the polling data and the judgment being made by respondents is whether or not a government is in place. The slip still keeps those favoring the drawdown at above 50%; however, go over the polling data and you see weakening factors. In other words, should a bloodbath take place in Iraq, that over 50% could drop further.

"For seven long years, experts kept telling us Iraq stands at crossroads," Jasim noted on the latest Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera began airing Friday) before beginning a discussion with journalist Robert Fisk, political analyst Anas Altikriti and and noted 'scholarship' provider Jack Burkman.

Jasim Azawi: . . . Robert Fisk, the domino effect that was predicted by Condalezza Rice as well as Bush that once that Iraq becomes a democracy, the rest of the Middle East -- We will wake up and we will find democracy. That was seven years ago. Has that happened?


Robert Fisk: Well flowers grow very well in graveyards and I think that first of all we never planned. We never planned what was going to happen after overthrowing Saddam. And then our own morality -- which has been outrageous -- has always been based on the fact that whatever we do in Iraq is okay because it's always going to be better than Saddam was. The fact that we constantly bring up Saddam as being a kind of linchpin of awfulness against which our actions must always be better -- well they would be, wouldn't they? That applies to Hitler too.


Jack Burkman: (Interrupting and cross talk) What have we done wrong? I'm just curious.

Robert Fisk: Well a million dead. 100,00 dead --

Jack Burkman: You said American morality is terrible, what have we done wrong?Robert Fisk: I didn't. I actually said "we," Jack. I associated you and I together at that point as "the West." America is not the only Western nation. The point --

Jack Burkman: How is Western morality bad? What have we done wrong? Tell me what we've done wrong. You said morality's bad. How is it bad?

Robert Fisk: Well I can tell you straight away. We have more troops per head of population, more Western soldiers in the Muslim world than we did at the time of the Crusades. That's not very good, is it? That's not about --

Jack Burkman: So!

Robert Fisk: -- democracy. That's about --

Jack Burkman: So!

Robert Fisk: -- military domination. That's not about democracy. That's the problem. These people in this region -- including Iraq, which you say you love so much, or you appear to. They would love doctors, they would love our academics, they would love our engineering, everything. But it seems to me, given the situation, they don't want our soldiers. And this is something that America will not realize.

Jasim Azawi: Before Jack responds, let me ask Anas a very simple question posed by Jack: What wrong have we done? Go ahead.

Anas Altikriti: Well I assume from Jack's introduction that he hasn't recently visited Iraq nor has he walked the streets of Iraq, nor has he visited any towns and cities up and down Iraq. Most of which most of us here couldn't even name let alone locate on a map. Anyone who would, anyone who had the experience of doing so would find a totally different story to the one reflected by Jack or at least within the perception of what Jack introduced and that is that this has been a success. I-I-I would like to assume that when he says that this is a success story he's talking about America and American insterests -- which, by the way, even then we could argue that America has been served very badly by this escapade; however, if he also meant to say that this success extends to the Iraqi people then that is not only ludicrous, it is preposterous. And it's extremely offensive to the Iraqi people, as Bob said, 100,000s of whom cannot even be with us today to testify to the fact of whether they like it or not simply because they have perished as a result of this particular escapade.

Like many a woman not paid by Jack, I don't feel the need to feign interest in his babbles. So we'll skip ahead to pick up when he begins getting really offensive and please remember he was speaking on Al Jazeera.

Jack Burkman: You know, I mean, think about it. Your George Bush. It's the aftermath of 9-11. You look at this region. You've got a bunch of, uh, oh, I hate to say it, but you've got a bunch of barbarians in the desert. What do you do with this region? You have to take a step to improve the region. You can't just drift on --

Jasim Azawi: Who are you calling "barbarians in the desert," Jack Burkman?

Jack Burkman: Oh, I mean let's face it, let's face --

Jasim Azawi: No, who are you referring to? I would like you to point that out.

Jack Burkman: I'm referring -- I am referring to the entire MidEast. The world is doing well, the world --

Jasim Azawi: Barbarians? Barbarians?

Jack Burkman: This world -- Sure they are! You've got people living in the sixth century, for God's sake. I mean, most of the Islamic world, Islam has become this crazy ideology where people are living in the sixth century. I mean -- and they want to blame -- they want to blame the colonialism. They want to blame the British and the Americans --

Jasim Azawi: Jack Burkman, if there was ever any sympathy before this show started with you, you lost it when you called "barbarian in the desert."

Jack Burkman: You have to understand something. If you look at, I mean -- George W. Bush -- look at what kind of countries you had. You had Saddam there. The fact that Saddam was taken out -- Bush had to make, uh -- Bush had to do something to improve the region --

Anas Altikriti: Why? Can I ask you why -- why did he have to do something? Was it out of the kindness of his heart? Was it to rescue these "barbarians," as you put it, from their own selves and their own "crazed ideologies," as you put it? I mean, why on earth do you think George W. Bush -- I mean, who's the barbarian here, Jack? You have sent your sons and daughters to bombard peoples' homes, to burn their homes, to obliterate their livings and they have done nothing to you. Yet they are the "barbarians" in this case? I'm sorry. I beg to differ. I beg to differ.

Yesterday was Memorial Day in the US. Terry Gross notes Memorial Day by offering a repeat of a March interview with Military Times' Kelly Kennedy (Fresh Air, NPR), Law & Disorder explores ongoing wars, Korea and military tribunals (in all news segments from Michael Ratner, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian), Amy Goodman uses the hour of Democracy Now! to offer Noam Chomsky explaining inequities and the last two can be listened to at the WBAI archives in addition to the show links. For All Things Considered (NPR -- link has text and audio), Lourdes Garcia-Navarro reported from Iraq:LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO: At 9 a.m. at Forward Operating Base Union in Baghdad's Green Zone, a few dozen soldiers came together to mark Memorial Day. The flag was raised and then lowered to half-mast in honor of America's fallen. Everyone observed a moment of silence. Iraq has faded from the headlines. The U.S. mission is winding down. By summer's end, if all goes according to plan, the U.S. force will be cut in half. But for many here, including Major General Michael Barbero, who has spent a total of 36 months serving in Iraq, the memories of those who have died here live on.
Major General MICHAEL BARBERO (Commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command): Stories of sacrifice are often highlighted in our society for only a short period of time. Over time, the power of their example fades. The strength of their sacrifice diminishes and the nobility of their service is forgotten. And this is why Memorial Day is so important, for on Memorial Day, as a nation, we pause to honor and celebrate our veterans and to remember.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Thirty-seven-year-old Major Leticia Bryant(ph) was also in attendance. This is her first tour. She says she wants her friends and family back home to remember what this day is really about.
Major LETICIA BRYANT: I posted on my Facebook account. I was like, you know, before you guys head off for your long weekend or fire up those grills, you know, just take a moment to think about those families that won't be with their loved ones because, you know, they've laid down their lives for you to have these, you know, these freedoms. And so you got to remember that. So I posted that on my site.

Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports from Camp Victory, "They thought about their families waiting for them to come home. They thought about the fallen comrades lost in the past seven years of occupation and war. They thought about what would come next. "Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) also reports from Camp Victory in Iraq on Memorial Day reflections of service members and notes, "Speeches at the ceremony never mentioned American contractors, who've assumed increased responsibilities with the drawdown of U.S. forces. The Obama administration plans to have just 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq by the end of summer, though the lack of a stable Iraqi government threatens to delay that goal." Meanwhile CBS News' David Martin (link has text and video) used Memorial Day to highlight Iraq and Afghanistan service members who have lost limbs:

David Martin: May was a cruel month. The number of service men and women who have lost an arm or a leg since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began went over 1,000, many of them more than one. They come here to the physical therapy room at Walter Reed. And you lost both legs?
Sgt Maj Raymond Mackey: I lost both legs, yes, sir.

David Martin: Above the knee?

Sgt Maj Raymond Mackey: Both are above the knee, yes, sir.

David Martin: So that makes it tough.

Sgt Maj Raymond Mackey: It does -- but, you know, you gotta' -- you gotta' keep going.

David Martin: Marine Sgt. Maj Raymond Mackey stepped on a mine in Afghanistan last December 23rd. His goal is to be walking again by next December 23rd.

Sgt Maj Raymond Mackey: I have just got my legs, my C-legs, my computer legs, I'm learning how to put them on and how to fire it to where the knee comes forward and everything like that.


Yesterday our survey of veterans noted, "Veterans of the current wars participating in the survey feel that PTSD is an important issue but feel that other wounds -- hearing, blindness, loss of limb -- top three cited and in that order -- are not being addressed in committee hearings." Maybe Martin's report will motivate Congress to explore these wounds. Tomorrow morning at North Dakota's Fargo VA Medical Center, US Senator Kent Conrad will be taking part in PTSD awareness event:

For many of our soldiers returning from war, the battle does not end when they come home. All too many veterans today face Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms like anxiety, anger, and depression as they try to adjust to life after war. We cannot sweep these problems under the rug. PTSD is real. More must be done to educate veterans, families and communities about this illness and the resources and treatments available to them. I recently learned about the efforts of North Dakota National Guardsmen to draw attention to PTSD and pay tribute to Staff Sgt. Joe Biel, their friend and fellow member of the 164th Engineer Combat Battalion. Biel suffered from PTSD and took his life in April 2007 after returning to North Dakota following his second tour in Iraq. The efforts of Sgt. Biel's friends to raise awareness of PTSD inspired me to draft a Senate Resolution declaring June 27 National PTSD Awareness Day. This campaign is all about awareness, assuring our troops -- both past and present -- that it's okay to come forward and say they need help. They need to know that it's a real sign of strength, not weakness, to seek assistance. I will present Sgt. Biel's friends from the 164th Combat Engineer Battalion with a copy of the Senate Resolution on Wednesday, June 2, at the Fargo VA Medical Center. If you are in the area, I encourage you to join me in this effort to raise public awareness about PTSD. Again, the event will be held Wednesday, June 2, at 10:00 am at Fargo VA Medical Center, 2101 Elm Street North in the UND Atrium. I hope you can join us.

Meanwhile US Senator Daniel Akaka's office notes:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kawika Riley (Veterans' Affairs)
May 28, 2010 (202) 224-9126
AKAKA INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE GI BILL
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) introduced S. 3447, a bill to improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits program. Akaka introduced the bill yesterday to provide a starting point for discussion among Members of Congress, veterans service organizations, and concerned Americans who want to improve this important benefit program.
"The World War II GI Bill changed my life, and my generation," said Akaka, one of three current senators who attended college on the original GI Bill. "Hundreds of thousands of troops and veterans are already using the new GI Bill to pursue their education. Now that we have seen the benefit in action, this new legislation can improve the existing framework. I look forward to working through a comprehensive legislative process to pass a good improvement bill," said Akaka.
Senator Akaka chaired an oversight hearing on the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill on April 21: LINK
Akaka cosponsored the Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights Act and was a strong supporter of its passage in 2008. When former President Bush threatened to veto the bill, Akaka vowed that he would fight back. The bill was signed into law on June 30, 2008 and took effect last August.
To read Senator Akaka's introductory remarks on the bill in the Congressional Record, click here: LINK
-END-
Kawika Riley
Communications Director
U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Chairman
http://veterans.senate.gov

On American Public Media's Marketplace yesterday (link has text and audio), Bob Mommn spoke with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Tim Embree about the Post-9/11 GI Bill and modifications that are needed: Moon: One of the issues that I've heard discussed is online courses or distance learning isn't covered under the current law. Why is that important?
Embree: Well, what it is is we have a lot of folks that maybe come home and are dealing with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or recovering from a traumatic brain injury or live in a rural area, and they're trying to attend these non-traditional colleges, online, through correspondence, because a lot of times they can't get to the brick-and-mortar schools. So we want to make sure that their tuition is covered, and also they have a living stipend. Because we know how tough it is where if you're taking a class online -- and the reason for that is because maybe it is tough for you to get out of the house -- we want to be able to make it so these folks can pay their rent or pay their mortgage.
Moon: What about troops returning from service who don't want to go to a four-year college?
Embree: That's a big one. If you actually look at the original GI Bill, over 70 percent of folks in the original GI Bill went to vocational schools, on-the-job training programs, and apprenticeships programs. And that was one of the things that we're really trying to push to be part of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In fact, Senator Akaka just the other day dropped the comprehensive upgrade package that we had been working with his office as well as Senator Webb's office and a few other folks on. And this is one of the things that it points out is making sure that folks can go to vocational schools, can go to on-the-job training, can do that apprenticeship. Because these are the folks that are opening up your mechanic shops, and your repair shops. These are the EMTs and folks like that. So it's a really important thing.



iraq
cnn
mohammed tawfeeqxinhua
bloomberg newscaroline alexander
asharq alawsat newspapermshari al-zaydireuterskhaled farhanthe associated presssaad abdul-kadir
alsumaria tv
rahmat al-salaam
the los angeles timesliz sly
nprfresh airterry grosslaw and disorderwbaidemocracy nowmichael ratnermichael smithheidi boghosian
marketplacebob moonall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarrocbs newsdavid martin
the washington postleila fadel
mcclatchy newspapershannah allem
bbc newsjim muir
adam levinepaul steinhauser
al jazeera
inside iraqjasim azawi

The doctrine continues

The interpretation of US President Barack Obama's National Security Strategy as a break with his predecessor's is flawed and an oversimplification of reality. Setting aside the differences in lexicon and emphasis in tone, the overall thrust of the new security doctrine does not significantly differ from the Bush doctrine. Given the country's history, the use of terms such as unilateralism or multilateral engagement are rhetorical ploys designed to maintain American supremacy. The only difference is that the pursuit of earlier American goals will now acquire a thin diplomatic veneer.

That's from Ajay Vaishnav's "No shift from Bush era" (Times of India). And, yes, I noted this topic on Wednesday and I will probably have to repeatedly note it because there are so many damn liars. Take for examples the Whores of Link TV and their toady Jamal Dajani. What a s**t f**k. I'm so sick of these damn liars and their apologies for empire.

That's the thing about beggars, they never tell the truth. They've always got to keep an out for the next john who'll toss twenty five down on the end table next to the bed. Telling the truth would cut into their list of potential johns. So they whore themselves out for the empire.

That's why you don't give to independent media. No matter how many bucks you toss at them, they'll still sell you out to keep whoring. They're nothing but instruments of the Democratic Party. I have no use for them.

Why'd you turn over every stone
If we're not together
Why don't you leave me alone
Doing fine on my own
Why are you still here day and night
When you left you should have turned off every light
I believe you were right
But I can't walk backwards
And I can't slow down
Well you started the ball rolling
And you can't turn it around
You should leave the dust here
Where it falls
Stop this hanging on
Please
Don't call.

That's from David Saw's "Don't Call." I get e-mails a lot about what reviews I stand by, what reviews I felt I got wrong and stuff like that. I've noted many times that I praised the Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang but that I don't think I praised it enough because it has really held up. Rolling Stones album post-1979 never seem to hold up. They're filler. Meant to sell and bring in a few bucks as the Stones tour yet again. But they really aren't albums. This really was one. A Bigger Bang is probably worthy of their best seventies and sixties work. Other than that, I've never really felt my review was hugely off the mark for any album.

I reviewed David Saw's Broken Down Figure in May of last year. That 2008 album (I was late discovering Saw -- way late) is a piece of magic. I can have the worst headache on the road and go back to the hotel and grab the iPod, put on the headphones and listen to this album and it does more magic than any intended pain reliever.

His voice is just so wonderful. I could listen and listen for hours. There have been mornings where, even though I went to bed at midnight or before, I'm still awake at three a.m., re-listening to Broken Down Figure.

And, in waking hours, it really bothers me that such a great album doesn't appear to have received the response it should. I'm not just talking about sales, I'm also talking about critical reaction.

It shouldn't bother me but it does.

There are so few who have a talent for melody and he's got it and using it so expertly that it breaks my heart that more people aren't aware of his work.

I look back at that review and wonder if I should have tried to sell the album on his looks? He's a cute guy. He's sexy. Was it a mistake not to have emphasized that?

I don't know. I just know that some really great performers fall through the cracks. Maria McKee, for example. And I fear David Saw might be one. Maybe not. Maybe this album laid the foundation for a groundswell of critical opinion when his second album comes out? I hope so. I really think music lovers who've never heard of him are being cheated.


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

Friday, May 29, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Newsweek's end seems poetic, Paul Bremer talks to the Iraq Inquiry, and more.

Starting with The Diane Rehm Show and here is how the website notes their second hour and how it was noted in on air promos leading up to the (live) broadcast:

Vice President Biden says U.S. troops will be out of Iraq as scheduled [C.I. note: For the drawdown, this is not a withdrawal, for the August drawdown]. North and South Korea continue to ratchet up their rhetoric. And drug violence in Jamaica leaves dozens dead. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.

Wow. Iraq the first mentioned. At last, it was going to get some serious attention, right?

Wrong. It was one brief minute badly bungled by the biggest idiot on the show. Diane's guests were Elise Labott (CNN), Michael Hirsh (Newsweek) and David Sanger (New York Times). David Sanger's out of his element as a second hour guest. (The paper's Helene Cooper could handle it though international reporters would actually be better.) Elisa Labott covers the State Dept and has an international background. She would have been the best choice if ONLY ONE guest was going to BRIEFLY speak on Iraq. Of the three, Sanger would be the second choice. Michael Hirsh?

Uh, I believe America's rejected Newseek. I believe that's why it can't find a buyer. The trashy weekly (infamous for falsely printing that Jean Seberg was pregnant with the child of a 'Black activist' -- a willing and knowing cooperation with the US government in an effort to destroy Jean) may get some CIA funding but the publishing industry's done with it because it can't grasp reality: There is no Barack publishing market.

Apparently, the Cult of St. Barack has either stopped drinking the Kool-Aid or they don't read. But as one failed book after another, as one hyped magazine cover after another has failed to move, others in the publishing industry have moved on. Newsweek can't stop dry humping Barack. America has no trust in that rag, American has no interest in it.

So Biden says the drawdown is on track? We addressed that in yesterday's snapshot. Joe says the number of US troops in Iraq will be 50,000 by the end of August. Next week is the start of June. June, July and August. 3 months. The Pentagon states there are 92,000 US troops in Iraq (they fed the press that number this week to trumpet that there were more troops in Afghanistan). 92,000 minus 50,000 is 42,000 troops. The average number of troops in a brigade is 3,500. That's well over ten brigades. Candidate Barack Obama promised one brigade a month would be withdrawn from Iraq over his first sixteen months in office if elected (he broke that promise) and stated that it couldn't be more because more than one brigade a month would put too much stress on the system and put too much at risk. (Those are what as known as "lies.") Over 3 troops must be withdrawn in June, 3 in July and 3 in August for the deadline to be met.

Michael Hirsh couldn't offer any of that. He could stammer like the fool he is uh-uh-uh-uh. He could lick the boots of Barack and pass that off as journalism but he couldn't deal with any of the facts. His babbles summed up Newsweek. A piss poor, piece of s**t, that never cared about the facts and never had anything to offer but opinion.

In partnership with the CIA, they published the lie that Jean Seberg was pregnant with the child of "a Black activist" in an effort to destroy Jean Seberg who was both an actress and a political activist speaking out agains the war in Vietnam and racism. The CIA hooked up with Newsweek's foreign correspondent in France who did an interview with Jean that she described as bland. But Edward Behr had already agreed to write up info the CIA wanted in his report for Newsweek. Kermit Lasner would offer excuses for how he, as editor, allowed the statement into print which would include a tough lunch that gave him 'hard gas' and a spill on scooter. Here's what Newsweek printed in the August 24, 1970 issue: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California." The US government wanted to destroy her and just knew that was the way to do it. Publishing the lie, destroyed Jean personally for other reasons. She lost the baby. Romain sued. He sued Newsweek.

But the CIA has so many helpers that a huge disinformation campaign has taken place over the last years and allowed Joyce Harber, a gossip columnist, to be blamed. Joyce ran a blind item in May of 1970. It could have been about Jean, it could have been about Jane Fonda, it could have been about any number of women and it caused no ripple. Jean did not miscarry in May. Jean didn't go into the hopsital in May. That happened in August after Newsweek published their lie. But Joyce Harber has been the target of the disinformation campaign and you will read the lie all over the net -- or hear from FAIR in any of its forms -- that Joyce is responsible and was working with Hoover's FBI. Joyce didn't get the tip from the FBI. CIty editor Bill Thomas passed that rumor on to Joyce. Joyce was always clear about where she got the information and how. Bill? Bill lied a million and one times and constantly changed his story. He got his tip from the FBI. He was doing Hoover's bidding.

But that attack didn't work out. Harber was smart enough to know what she could and what she couldn't print. And she also didn't think the tale (which she assumed true) was worth more than any other bit of gossip regarding who is sleeping with whom.

Edward Behr, fed by the CIA, ran with as a non-blind item months later. Kermit Lasner knew better but printed it because Newsweek was but an organ. And Jean Seberg lost her baby. So as Newsweek falters and falters, good. Justice for Jean Seberg.

As illegal wars continue today in Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone considering themselves part of today's peace movement needs to reject the disinformation campaign that blames a blind item by Joyce Harber (which ran in May) for Jean's August miscarriage. Anyone who considers themselves part of the peace movement needs to grasp that Newsweek actively and knowingly worked with the CIA to destroy Jean because she spoke out against American actions in Vietnamand against racism at home. The government wanted to destroy Jean Seberg and Newsweek was more than willing to enlist in that campaign. It is very easy to (wrongly) blame Harber and taking a stand against a (dead) gossip columnist never required bravery. A lot of people have spent a lot of time over the last decades rewriting history. Romain sued one and only one publication: Newsweek. It's amazing how that falls from the public record as a disinformation campaign takes hold.

Who has been the most mentioned US citizen in the London inquiry chaired by John Chilcot into the Iraq War? If you followed the coverage, the answer's obvious and it's in many snapshots such as the February 3rd one: "Paul Bremer is mentiioned in the Iraq Inquiry more than any other American (that includes Bush, Tommy Franks, Condi Rice, Blot Powell and all the rest)." And as we noted as well, Bremer wasn't pleased about that. Nor should he have been. He wasn't occupying the Oval Office (that was Bush), he wasn't running things (that was Cheney). As demonstrated with Jay Garner's firing, when the White House was displeased with the way their orders were being carried out in Iraq, they dumped the person immediately. (The second most blamed by witnesses testifying before the Inquiry? Condi Rice and usually for a multi-page article published in 2000 that had approximately one paragraph on Iraq in it.) So it never made sense to hear one British witness after another repeatedly lay the blame on Bremer.

But it always made sense that Bremer would want his say and he has. In addition to offering testimony, he's issued a lengthy statement. So lengthy that were this Monday or Tuesday, we'd serialize it with excerpts in each snapshot of this week. It's Friday and I don't care for the New York Times' bitchy way of 'covering' Bremer which is to repeat charges against him and ignore his responses except on letters page where they usually fail to print his response in full. So we're noting all of Bremer's statement in full. Again, it is lengthy:

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of Commission:

Thank you for the opportunity to address this commission. The purpose of my statement is to convey my understanding of the objectives of the occupying authority in Iraq and to account for the major activities that authority undertook. I take this opportunity to summarize for the commission the points that I consider important to its review. After my statement, I am prepared to answer your questions.

At the outset I would make three general points.

1. I should remind the commission that prior to assuming my duties in Iraq I had been in the private sector for about fourteen years. In the prewar period, I was neither in the US government nor informed of governmental deliberations except through press reports. Therefore I had, and still have, no firsthand knowledge about those prewar deliberations.
2. While I recognize the focus of the commission is on British government decisions involving the CPA's time in Iraq, my perspective is on American government actions with which I am familiar.
3. It is impossible to exaggerate the difficulties created by the chronic under-resourcing of the CPA's efforts. This problem, and the fact that the Coalition was unable to provide adequate security for Iraqi citizens, pervaded virtually everything we did, or tried to do, throughout the fourteen months of the CPA's existence.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
Three weeks after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush asked me to become Presidential Envoy to Iraq. I spent the next several weeks in a round of meetings and briefings with the relevant departments of the US government in Washington. I arrived in Baghdad on May 12, 2003 and stayed until June 28, 2004. During this period, I served as Presidential Envoy to Iraq and Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

I have written an extensive account of my experience in My Year in Iraq; The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (2006).

My authorities as Presidential Envoy, enumerated in a letter from the President, were modeled on the standard letter every American Chief of Mission receives and were consistent with American law concerning those authorities. As with the standard Chief of Mission letter, mine affirmed my authority for all American government employees within Iraq, except for American military personnel serving there under the command of military authorities. Thus, consistent with American law and long-standing practice, I was not in the military chain of command.

The Secretary of Defense appointed me Administrator. His letter stated that in that position I was to exercise all executive, legislative and judicial authority over the government of Iraq. I was given to understand that these authorities derived from the Coalition's status as an "occupying power" under international law, as recognized in the relevant UN Security Council resolution.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In Iraq the Coalition had three major challenges:

1. To provide security for the citizens of Iraq.
2. To help the Iraqis rebuild their economy.
3. To help the Iraqi people put their country on the path to representative government.

The Coalition military had responsibility for the first task; the CPA for the other two.

It was evident to me from the start that the prewar planning had been inadequate, largely because it was based on incorrect assumptions about the nature of the post-war situation on the ground in Iraq.

Pervasive Lack of Security

Even before I left for Baghdad, I was concerned that the Coalition had insufficient troops to carry out its primary duty of providing security for the Iraqi people. I was struck by the evidence to this effect provided in a draft study from the RAND corporation shown to me before I left for Baghdad.

That study examined a number of post-conflict situations to determine in such situations the appropriate ratio of troops on the ground to the host country population. Applying the lessons of that study, the RAND report concluded that the Coalition military in Iraq should number some 480,000. Yet the day I arrived in Iraq, total strength of Coalition forces was less that half that number. Troop strength declined thereafter.

Restrictive Rules of Engagement (ROEs) under which Coalition forces operated in Iraq compounded this numerical deficit. For example, although there were some 40,000 Coalition troops in Baghdad when I arrived, since the collapse of the Saddam regime looters had pillaged at will for more than three weeks undisturbed by Coalition forces. Coalition troops had no orders to stop the looting and the Iraqi police in all major cities had deserted their posts.

The looting was done out of rage, revenge and for profit. It later became evident that some looting was also part of a prewar plan of Saddam Hussein's intelligence services.

The unchecked violence had three consequences. First was the enormous economic damage, not just in Baghdad but throughout Iraq. The CPA's economic experts later calculated the economic cost of the looting to be $12 billion, an amount equal to half Iraq's prewar GDP.

Secondly, focusing much of their rage on hated Iraqi governmental institutions, the looters destroyed a large part of the physical infrastructure of the government. The Baghdad headquarters of 21 of 25 ministries were entirely or largely destroyed. Throughout the CPA's tenure, the crucial Ministry of Finance had room for only half of its civil servants, who therefore worked in shifts throughout that time. The same was true of the Ministry of Education.

All the country's police stations were ransacked, often burned down. Iraq's military bases and barracks in most cases were entirely disassembled -- windows, doors, furniture, pipes and bathroom fixtures--so that often not a brick stood on another.

But the most pernicious effect of the unchecked looting was to send a message to the Iraqi people, and to enemies of the Coalition, that the Coalition military would not, or could not, provide security for Iraqis, the most basic of government functions.

I would like to set the record straight on the decision about the Iraqi army. The decision was based on the nature and role of Iraq's army during Saddam's three decade rule; the status of the army after the fall of Baghdad; and the practical and political considerations about the structure of any future Iraqi army.

Since the establishment of Iraq after the First World War, the army had played an important, and at least initially, constructive role in Iraq. However, for more than three decades Saddam had used that army as an essential element of his brutal repression and terror against the Iraqi people.

During the 1980s, the Iraqi army had conducted a vicious war, considered by some legal experts to be a war of genocide, against Iraq's Kurds. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed, maimed or tortured. More still were made refugees after the army destroyed their homes. This "anfal" campaign culminated in the use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja on March 18, 1988 in which at least 5,000 innocent men, women and children were killed; thousands more were horribly scarred for life.

After the first Gulf War, Saddam used the army to brutally repress a Shia uprising in the South. Again hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens were killed -- machine gunned and thrown into mass graves; for example, one field discovered near al-Hilla the week I arrived contained more than 30,000 bodies. During the 14 months of the CPA, over 300 mass graves were discovered.

Iraq's prewar army had been composed of some 300,000 enlisted men, all of them drafted into the army and the vast majority of them Shia. The officer corps, which was almost as large, was composed almost entirely of Sunnis. The enlisted men were regularly mistreated, even brutalized, by their officers.

When it became clear that Iraq was losing the war, this army had "self-demobilized", as the US Defense Department put it. Shia draftees by the thousands deserted their posts and went back to their villages, farms and families. Before I arrived in Iraq, the top commander of the Coalition forces, General Abizaid, had reported to the Department of Defense that not a single unit of the old army was in place intact anywhere in Iraq.

Thus, any prewar thought of using the army for peaceful reconstruction projects had become simply irrelevant -- unless the Coalition proposed to recall the old army. While some American officers had discussed the possibility of recalling elements of the former army, such a course ran straight into practical and political objections.

The large corps of enlisted men had gone home and would not voluntarily return to serve under brutal Sunnis officers. So the Coalition military would have had to send Coalition troops, already short-handed, into the Shia villages to force draftees back at gunpoint. This was not a course of action which commended itself to anyone of responsibility in the US government. Moreover, since looting had destroyed Iraq's military infrastructure, there would have been no place to train and house the army.

To these practical problems were added decisive political arguments against recalling the army.

Already before the war, the State Department's extensive study for post war Iraq (The Future of Iraq) had stated that: "The Iraqi Army of the future cannot be an extension of the present army, which has been made into a tool of dictatorship." Kurdish leaders, hearing rumors that some Coalition officers were considering reconstituting Saddam's army, made very clear to me that such a move would trigger Kurdish secession from Iraq. That would have provoked an immediate civil war and a broader and more dangerous regional war.

Moreover, Iraq's Shia population, following the counsel of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was openly cooperating with the Coalition. But they, too, had powerful historic reasons to resent the idea of recalling the Iraqi army. Together the Kurds and the Shia make up about 80% of Iraq's population.

So the best course open to the Coalition, announced in late May, was to build a new professional Iraqi army. This decision had been under review by senior Defense Department civilian and military leaders since it became evident in early April that the former army was no longer intact.

The CPA's senior advisor, Walter Slocombe conducted these discussions, first in Washington, then in London and Baghdad. American officials recognized that any prewar plan to make use of the old army had been rendered irrelevant by facts on the ground. On his way to Bagdad on May 13 and 14 2003, Slocombe briefed senior British officials in London on the plans. His British interlocutors recognized that demobilization was a fait accompli. None of them expressed the view that the Coalition should instead try to recall the Iraqi army. In fact, Slocombe reported that the British officials agreed with the need for vigorous de-Baathification, especially in the security sector.

The first battalion of the new army went into training in late July 2003. We made clear at the outset that this would be an all-volunteer army and that enlisted men from the old army were welcome to seek reenlistment. The CPA also announced that officers from Saddam's army up to the rank of Colonel could apply for positions in the new army.

Recognizing the impact of not recalling all of Saddam's army, the Coalition decided to pay all enlisted men a separation bonus. And because the planned new Iraqi army would be much smaller than Saddam's, we also paid all but the most senior former officers a monthly pension set at a level higher than they would have received from Saddam's government. Those payments, made from Iraqi government funds, continued throughout the CPA period and were continued after the return of a sovereign Iraqi government. It was a mistake not to announce the payments at the same time we announced the Coalition's intent to create a new army. As soon as we did announce the payments (in mid June 2003), unrest and demonstrations by former officers immediately stopped.

No doubt some members of the former army may have subsequently joined the insurgency. But if they did so, for most of them it was not because they had been denied an opportunity to serve their country again or otherwise to live on their pensions. It was because they wanted to install a Baathist dictatorship.

Today the new Iraqi army, built from the ground up, is the country's most respected institution; a significant contrast to the police which the CPA did recall and which continues to be plagued by human rights and criminal abuses.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Rebuilding a devastated Economy

The second challenge facing the Coalition was to get Iraq's economy back on its feet and to begin restoring essential services to the Iraqi people.
Through a combination of large-scale corruption, spectacular misallocation of Iraq's capital resources and UN-imposed sanctions, Saddam's three decade rule had destroyed one of the region's best economies. A few specifics show magnitude of the CPA's economic challenge.

1. In 1980, Iraq's per capita income had been greater than Spain's. By 2002 it had fallen below Angola's.
2. During the 1990s, Saddam cut healthcare spending by 90%. The World Bank estimated that Iraq had shortest life expectancy and highest child mortality in region.
3. The UN reported that at least half of Iraq's schools needed to be entirely rebuilt.
4. Iraq's industrial sector was dominated by 192 state-owned enterprises (SOEs), value- destroying entities dependent on politically-mandated loans, often buying goods at politically-fixed prices and making products for non-existent markets.
5. The World Bank estimated that the country needed between $75 and $100 billion in new investment just to repair the country's dilapidated economic infrastructure

The state budget had been a secret under Saddam, but what was clear is that it was in chronic deficit. Every Friday, the central bank would simply print the amount of new currency Saddam estimated would be needed the following week. As a result of this colossal fiscal indiscipline, Saddam's Ministry of Planning estimated that at the end of 2002 inflation had been running at an annual rate of over 100,000%. The same ministry reported that the prewar unemployment was 50%.
Even before the war, Iraq's electricity production was estimated be fulfill less than half demand. At the fall of Baghdad, the entire country was producing less than 300 MW of electricity, about a tenth of prewar levels; no oil was being exported so the Iraqi government had no revenues. Civil servants, by far the majority of the employed population, had not been paid salaries or pensions for months. Hospitals and schools were closed. The primitive banking system was shuttered. In short, Saddam's Iraq had been the equivalent of a well-armed Potemkin village.

The CPA took aggressive action to deal with the economy. Salaries and pensions were increased three to five fold and paid out within a week of my arrival. Barriers to trade were removed by eliminating import tariffs. Taxes were lowered and exchange rate freed to be determined by the market rather than by bureaucrats. Massive employment projects were set on foot to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Over the next 14 months, the CPA and Coalition military units completed over 22,000 individual reconstruction projects all over the country.

Within 4 months, the CPA's actions had begun reviving the economy. By October 1, 2003, the Coalition had rebuilt over 2,000 schools. The CPA had increased Iraq's healthcare budget by 1300%. All Iraq's hospitals and clinics had been reopened and distribution of drugs had been increased 700%. Electricity and oil production had returned to prewar levels. All the nation's bank branches were reopened (though they still lacked capacity for electronic transfer of funds so Iraqi government expenses had to be paid in cash).

At the same time, the CPA worked with Iraqis to establish principles and institutions fitting for a modern economy. Iraqi ministries, working with CPA advisors, produced balanced government budgets for 2003 and 2004. The CPA introduced the principles of monetary responsibility by establishing the independence of Iraq's central bank and freed interest rates to be determined by the marketplace, not by bureaucrats as had been done under Saddam. Working with the Iraqis, the CPA repealed Saddam's prohibition against foreign investment, except in the oil industry. Despite a primitive banking system, poor infrastructure and a war, the CPA succeeding in replacing Saddam's near-worthless currency with a New Iraqi Dinar which has since floated freely against all world currencies.
The CPA evaluated the SOEs and found that most of them probably could not survive in a free market. The economic arguments for privatizing those that could survive and closing the rest were powerful. But because these firms employed over 500,000 people, the CPA decided that the consequences of privatizing or closing the SOEs in the midst of a growing insurgency were too risky. So the CPA did not privatize a single SOE and instead continued to pay the salaries of the all SOE employees, even of those "employed" at SOEs that were definitively closed.

The CPA's economic record has largely gone unreported. In June 2004, when the CPA handed over to a sovereign Iraqi government, the economy was well on the way to recovery. Oil production had been running at prewar levels for 10 months. Bank deposits were 90% over May 2003 levels. Electricity production was half again as high as prewar levels, though still far short of meeting demand. Monthly inflation had been cut to only 2%. And according to a massive study by the United Nations Development Programme, unemployment was just 10.5%. A later study by the International Monetary Fund found that the Iraqi economy rebounded by over 46% in 2004.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Helping Iraq's Transition to Representative Government

The major political goal of the Coalition was to help the Iraqis establish responsible representative government. In this goal, the Coalition was pushing on an open door. The remarkable turnout of Iraqis in four elections and one referendum since 2004 is conclusive evidence that Iraqis wanted to replace Saddam's tyranny with democracy.
The first step toward this goal was to deal with the overhang of Baath Party dictatorship. Saddam's party had been the primary political instrument of repression. Dissent and criticism of his rule were answered with summary brutality, torture and death. The party, consciously modeled on Hitler's Nazi party, even recruited children to spy and report on their parents.
The State Department's prewar plan, The Future of Iraq, recognized that "no member of the Baath party has any stature in the country" and urged that if Saddam were overthrown, steps should be taken "to ensure that Baathist ideology in whatever guise does not seep into the public realm" and to "block the appointment or promotion of any figure who has Baathist sympathies or loyalties of who expresses Baathist 'thought'".
Consistent with this plan, on April 16, 2003, General Tommy Franks, commander of Coalition Forces, outlawed the Baath Party and its repugnant ideology. No responsible official that I am aware of, in Washington or any other capital, nor in Iraq itself seriously suggested any other possibility. It was clear that there would be some level of de-Baathification. The questions were: how much and what would happen to Baathists.
Our intelligence estimated that the party had a membership of two and a half million. The Coalition recognized that many Iraqis had joined the party, not out of conviction, but in order to get access to jobs or favors from Saddam's regime.
So the Coalition's deBaathification decree was narrowly drawn in two respects. First, it affected only the top one percent of party members. Moreover, the only restriction placed on them was that they could not hold government jobs. Thus even top party members were free to work in the private sector, to set up businesses or newspapers, to become farmers, etc. Moreover the CPA authorized scores of exceptions even to this lenient policy, permitting many ranking Baathists to remain in high government positions. The myth that deBaathification collapsed the Iraqi government is simply unsupported by the facts.
Although the CPA's policy was intended to target a small portion of party members, it was later abused by Iraqi politicians and became a political tool with large negative consequences. In retrospect, it was a mistake for the CPA to devolve the implementation of the Debaathfication program to Iraqi politicians who then attempted to broaden the decree's effect. It would have been wiser to have set up an Iraqi judicial panel to oversee implementation. The difficulty three successive sovereign Iraqi governments have had wrestling with deBaathification illustrates the strong emotions Iraqis continue to have about the proper role for former Baath party members.
The CPA moved quickly to get a responsible interim Iraqi government in place, working with the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to establish the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) in just two months. This effort benefited greatly from the professional efforts of British members of the CPA under the able leadership of Ambassador Jonathan Sawers. Hundreds of other able British officials including Ambassadors Greenstock, Sinnott and Richmond, participated in CPA activities over the next 14 months.

All CPA employees were volunteers. They came from 25 different nations and worked long hard hours. But the CPA was never adequately staffed. At its best, the CPA had only 56% of its positions filled.

The IGC was afforded responsibility to oversee drafting a modern constitution for Iraq, a step that all Iraqi political leaders we consulted favored. On September 1, 2003, the IGC also appointed Iraqi Ministers to run the Iraqi government. The CPA gave the Iraqi Ministers responsibility for the policies, personnel and budgets of their respective ministries. I do not recall once overruling a decision by an Iraqi Minister.
After considerable internal debate, the IGC deadlocked over the process by which to draft a constitution. The result was an agreement on November 15, 2003 that the Iraqis would draft an Interim Constitution as an essential step to regaining full sovereignty. This document, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) came into being in March 2004, after months of intense negotiations among Iraqis in which the CPA paid an essential and very active mediating role.
The Interim Constitution was the CPA's most important contribution to Iraq's political future. The law established the principles of democracy, individual rights and federalism on which Iraq's permanent constitution came to be based.
The Interim Constitution laid the foundations for open, representative and legitimate government. The document established the architecture of Iraq's government, based on the separation of powers, and a balance between the executive and legislative branches. It also confirmed an independent judiciary and civilian control over the military. The Interim Constitution established basic rights for all Iraqis, irrespective of gender, sect, religion or ethnicity. It committed Iraq to the rule of law and set out principles such as the right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, to confront his accusers and to have legal counsel. Through the document recognized that the majority of Iraqis are Muslim, it confirmed the freedom of religion.
This document gave Iraq the political structure and opportunity to remain a united, free and democratic country. And although Iraq has been through very difficult times since 2004, the Iraqi people have remained committed to that structure.

Conclusion

The Coalition faced three enormous challenges in Iraq: providing security for Iraqi citizens; helping Iraq move toward representative government and helping them modernize their economy.
The Coalition military had responsibility for security. This task was never adequately resourced throughout the CPA time. Lack of security impinged on the CPA's ability to deliver in the other two areas. Constant attacks on Iraq's fragile infrastructure complicated the task of restarting essential services. Two leading members of the Governing Council were assassinated in office; others subjected to shootings, bombings and harassment. The CPA itself lost staff to insurgent attacks and its work environment was far short of ideal.
Despite these handicaps, and chronic understaffing, the historic record of the CPA's accomplishments is clear. When the CPA left, Iraq's economy was rebounding smartly, not just from post war levels, but well beyond the prewar levels. And by helping Iraqis draft a modern, liberal constitution, the CPA gave the Iraqi people the political structure to define a path to representative government, a path they have followed despite severe provocation by insurgents and terrorists.

We've called Bremer out repeatedly over the years and our points of disagreement are a matter of record. Due to that and due to the fact that the witness testimony against him during each day of public hearings at the Inquiry were covered in the snapshot, we'll let him have his say above without comment. The Inquiry also met with Australia's Ambassador to the US Kim Beazley, John Bellinger (advised Bush and the NSC), Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction's Stuart Bowen and Ginger Cruz, Eliot Cohen, US Ambassador to Iraq (2007-2009) Ryan Crocker, Charles Duelfer (Iraq Survey Group), David Kay (Ibid), Gen David McKiernan, NSC's Franklin Miller, USAID's (2001-2005) Andrew Natsios, CPA's Meghan O'Sullivan, William Taft IV (State Dept legal adviser, 2000-2004), Philip Zelikow and French Ambassador to the US Pierre Vimont.

Khalid Farhan, Muhanad Mohammed and Michael Taylor (Reuters) report a Najaf bank was robbed today after at least one insider (a security guard) drugged his c-owrkers tea allowing robbers to make off with the US equivalent of $5.5 million. AP adds, "A policeman who was guarding the bank offered cups of tea laced with sleeping medication to four guards at the bank, knocking them out for the night, according to a local police and a bank official." In other violence, Alsumaria TV reports a Baquba bombing yesterday which left seven people injured. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Thursday Mosul mortar attack which left twelve people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which left two people injured and, today, Baghdad home bombings "of two Sahwa members and one policeman" which left three bystanders wounded.

In the US, Brian Faler (Bloomberg News) notes, the Senate pushed through the war supplemental bill late last night on a 67 for and 28 against vote. The bill now goes to the House which will debate it sometime after their Memorial Day vacation. At The Huffington Post, US House Rep Jan Schakowsky observes:

As of 10:06 on Sunday, May 30th, we will have spent $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A trillion dollars is a baffling amount of money. If you write it out, use twelve zeros. Even after serving in Congress for over a decade, I, like most Americans, still have a hard time wrapping my head around sums like this.

This month, we mark the seventh anniversary of President Bush's declaration of "mission accomplished" in Iraq, yet five American soldiers have been killed there in May alone. Iraqis went to the polls nearly three months ago, but the political system remains so fractured that no party has been able to piece together a coalition. There are some indications that sectarian violence is again on the rise.

The only clear winner of the Iraq war is Iran. Their mortal enemy, Saddam Hussein, was taken out and fellow Shiites are in charge. Iran has been emboldened to the point of threatening the stability of the region and the world with its growing nuclear capability.

And we'll close with this from Military Families Speak Out:

Contact: Nikki Morse, 347-703-0570, nikki@mfso.org
Deborah Forter, 617-983-0710, deborah@mfso.org

May 27, 2010, Nationwide -- This Memorial Day Weekend, Gold Star Families Speak Out members whose loved ones died as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Military Families Speak Out members who have a loved one who has previously served or is currently serving in Afghanistan or Iraq, can speak a truth Americans need to hear.

Celeste Zappala, a member of Gold Star Families Speak Out from Philadelphia, PA, whose son was killed in Iraq and was the first Pennsylvania National Guardsman to die in combat since World War II, said,

"With great sadness my family and I recognize Memorial Day and the 7 years since we last saw my son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker alive. On April 26, 2004 he died in an explosion while looking for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. We are but one of the over 5,000 American families who mourn the loss of their loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan; physical and spiritual casualties affect thousands more - and yet the wars that kill our young and drain our treasure do not create peace. It is long past time to bring our troops home, and find real solutions for Peace."

Earlier this month, an ABC News /Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans are again opposed to the Afghanistan war, with 52% saying it's not worth fighting.

Military Families Speak Out members Larry and Judy Syverson, of Richmond Virginia, said,

"We are the parents of three active duty sons. Our oldest son, Branden, is in Afghanistan with the Second Infantry (our family's sixth deployment in these wars). We are disheartened by Obama's foreign policy. With the 1,000th American soldier killed in Afghanistan this past week and war spending reaching $1 trillion on May 30th, 100,000 troops are in Afghanistan chasing an illusive target that has not made us safer in this country or closer to achieving peace and stability in Afghanistan. In poll after poll, the American people have repeatedly stated they want these wars to end. President Obama should honor the American people's wishes and end both wars and bring our troops home now."

AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW:

Gold Star Families Speak Out members whose loved ones died as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Military Families Speak Out members who have a loved one who has previously served or is currently serving in Afghanistan or Iraq are available for interview over Memorial Day Weekend. To schedule an interview, contact Nikki Morse at nikki@mfso.org/347-703-0570 or Deborah Forter at deborah@mfso.org/617-983-0710.

ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY: Members of Military Families Speak Out will also be participating in events around the country. To arrange for an interview, contact us at the information above.

Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) is a national organization of over 4,000 families who are opposed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and have loved ones who serve or have served in the military since the fall of 2002. Gold Star Families Speak Out is a national chapter of MFSO with families whose loved ones died as a result of these wars.

For more information about Military Families Speak Out, please visit www.mfso.org
For more information about the chapter Gold Star Families Speak Out see www.gsfso.org

iraq

npr
the diane rehm show

reuters

khalid farhan
muhanad mohammed
michael taylor
alsumaria tv
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
bloomberg news
brian faler

military families speak out