Saturday, September 24, 2011

Iraqiya and the Kurds on the verge of being screwed over again

From yesterday's snapshot:

Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq reports that protesters gathered in Baghdad's Tahrir Square today to protest over the large amount of money being spent so Jalal Talabani can be in the US. Of the protest, the Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "Our correspondent in Tahrir Square:: A number of ambulances are seen near the Square. By every one of these ambulances stood four intelligence officers, curiously enough, the ambulances' engines were running and later it became apparent that they intended to abduct some of the activists and protestors." And ambulance 1038 was used in the abduction of Sanaa Aldulaimi overseen "by an intelligence officer called Abdullah Al Rikabi" -- Sanaa Aldulaimi was later released.


Today Al Mada reports that there are demands for answers from Iraqiya about the kidnapping of Sanaa al-Dulaimi and who authorized the kidnapping, the "severe beatings" and it's noted that not only were the actions unconstitutional, they also violated the most basic human values. Along with wanting answers, they also want the Erbil Agreement implemented and note that, if followed, it would integrate the security forces of the Ministries of Defense and Interior and prevent attempts to use them for oppression or cruelty or to set up a new dictator.


The Erbil Agreement was something political blocs agreed to in order to end Political Stalemate I (the governmental paralysis which followed the March 7, 2010 elections). It outlined many steps. The only one Nouri cared about was that he would be allowed to remain prime minister. With that accomplished, he promptly discarded the agreement.

Dar Addustour reports that, upon Jalal Talabani's return to Iraq, there are plans for a meet-up at his house, a meet-up among the political blocs. And guess who's mediating?

The US.

The Kurds and Ayad Allawi better stop suffering under the delusions that the US government wants them to be happy. The US government is abusing their long-standing relationship with the Kurds to force them to cave yet again to Nouri's demands. As for Allawi, that Samantha Power can crack "jokes" comparing Allawi to Al Gore and remain in a Democratic administration tells you just what the White House really thinks of Allawi (and how quick they are to stab high profile Dems in the back). The administration one and only goal is to keep Nouri happy.

And Nouri's conveyed he's not feeling loved or happy these days. Which is why the US is yet again planning to force concessions from Iraqiya and the Kurds.

They're idiots if they agree again.

Their position going in should be: We want what was promised in the Erbil Agreement AND we want . . .

At this late date, over nine months after the various deals in the Erbil Agreement were supposed to be implemented, just implementing everything in that agreement should not be good enough all this time later. If they were smart, their attitude would be that it's time for US pet Nouri al-Maliki to make concessions.

The US won't like that but the Kurds aren't supposed to be representing the US government interests nor is Iraqiya.

Reality, Iraqiya won the 2010 elections. That means Ayad Allawi should have had first crack at forming a government. When that didn't happen, Iraqiya gave up a lot, gave up more than they ever should have.

The fact that Nouri agreed to implement other things if he could have the prized prime minister post (continue in it) and that he then went back on his word means a lot more concessions need to be coming from him and State of Law.

The White House personally lobbied Ayad Allawi. That might have been personally flattering for Allawi but what did Iraqiya get out of it?

More importantly, what did the Iraqi people get out of it?

They went to the polls and they made their choice clear: They didn't want a sectarian government. That's why State of Law didn't come in first. (Didn't come in first even after Nouri pitched his fit and got the election commission to 'massage' his totals considerably.)

The US gvoernment doesn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. If Iraqi politicians aren't going to protect the Iraqi people, then no one is.

With the Kurds, Joe Biden has asked them to be the mature ones. Their response should be, "F**k maturity." They've been mature and put others ahead for years now. They are told this and promised that and it never comes to be.

The 2005 Constitution mandates that a census and referendum will be held to decide the dispute oil-rich region of Kirkuk. That was supposed to happen by the end of 2007. Nouri was prime minister. He refused to follow the Constitution. It is now 2011 and Nouri still won't follow Article 140 of the Constitution. There should be no more concessions from the Kurds at this point.

Article 140 is the Constitution. It's not open to debate. It's the law of the land and Nouri al-Maliki knows that and knows that the US will allow him to continue to ignore it.

Article 140 doesn't promise or guarantee the KRG gets Kirkuk. All it does is outline how the issue will be resolved and leave it up to the people of Kirkuk. That's not a big win for the Kurds. A big win would be Article 140 declaring that they get Kirkuk.

My point is, Nouri agreeing to follow the Constitution was no great win for the Kurds or Iraq. The fact that several meet ups were necessary before Nouri would even agree to follow the Constitution goes a long way towards the fact that everyone makes sacrifices for the good of the Iraqi people except for the US pet Nouri.

Nouri's currently telling the administration that he really wants to ram through the continuation of the US military on the ground in Iraq bu the Kurds and Allawi are creating all these other problems for him.

US officials are going into the meeting to please Nouri. Kurds, Iraqiya and all others involved should never for one minute forget that when discussions take place. The US is not an objective, uninterested party and its officials should not be treated as such. Nor should it be forgotten that the US officials also helped negotiate the Erbil Agreement and said nothing, raised no alarms, in the ten months that have followed (nine of which make up Political Stalemate II). They didn't give a damn.

They only give a damn now because Nouri's whining to them and saying it's holding up his efforts to make an agreement with the US to keep US troops in Iraq.

AP reports that the US has decided ("in principle") to provide the Turkish government drones. These are the drones that will be used to patrol and attack northern Iraq. Does that really sound like the behavior of a friend who's interested in the Kurds' outcome? Hell no.

Excuse me, but Iraq can't protect its own air space. Why isn't the US giving Iraq drones? Why is the US giving drones to one of Iraq's aggressive neighbors?

Reuters notes a press conference Turkey's Prime Minister held:


Erdogan, speaking to reporters in New York on Friday where he attended a UN General Assembly, said Turkey has offered to buy or lease the drones and that details are being worked out.

US troops are due to leave Iraq at the end of 2011. Turkish officials have expressed concern the PKK, which has bases in northern Iraq, might exploit any security vacuum left by the departure of the US military from Iraq.


Really? Do you believe that crap? The US military will leave -- scoff there, yes, but let's continue -- at the end off 2011 and that will create a security vacuum that the PKK will exploit?

The US military doesn't patrol the mountains of northern Iraq and never has. There have never been any US bases there. Like the US, the government of Turkey will now use drones non-stop. They're less costly and they don't have to risk the loss of Turkish military pilots. So the drone attacks will be greater then the current bombings. And the land of nothern Iraq will be torn up and scarred, rendered useless for farming and the residents will have long ago given up hopes of returning to their homes.

All of that got ignored by the US government -- reduced to "doesn't matter" -- when they agreed to supply the Turkish government with drones to attack nothern Iraq. It's past time the Kurdish officials in Iraq stopped thinking that, at any minute, their long standing friendship with the US government is finally going to pay off.


Azad Amin (Kurdish Globe) has an important essay which includes:


The ongoing crisis between Erbil and Baghdad radiates mainly around the issue of sovereignty and monopoly of power. The disputes between them are profound and there are no shortcuts for any proper solution. The tension is now even more complicated within the dramatic social and political changes that have been taking place in the Middle East. The regime changes in Yemen, Egypt and Libya, and the bloody conflict in Syria, with a serious possibility of regime change, as well a new turn in Israel-Palestinian conflict as Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas prepares to submit a proposal for independent Palestinian statehood at the U.N., which is combined with the growing conflict between Israel and Turkey, have and will have impact on politics in Iraq as well as the political standoff between Erbil and Baghdad.
The quarrel between Erbil and Baghdad over the disputed territories, over the Oil and Gas Law and on the perception of federalism, primarily related to the exercising sovereign rights and monopoly of power. Accustomed to be a dominant power and single source of authority, the Iraqi Arabs of all spectrums are not ready to recognize the Kurds as their equal partners and share sovereign rights and power. With few exceptions, the Iraqi political actors have a tendency to centralization and are not sincere in supporting the federal structure of Iraq. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki publicly and clearly stands against federalism and pushes for a centrally ruled Iraq. He is not ready and is doubtful whether he will ever be ready to share power with others in a decentralized Iraq.


Aswat al-Iraq notes that Jalal Talabani, Iraqi president, confirmed US troops would be staying in Iraq beyond 2011 as 'trainers.' They also note that a Falluja attack claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded.


Why, e-mails keep insisting, aren't we covering Ron Paul's rise? He's now finally getting serious press attention and time in debates. Isn't it great?

No, it isn't. And he's turning himself into a joke.

When Ron Paul speaks, it needs to be about Ron Paul. He doesn't need to allow himself to be used by the media to take another GOP candidate. He's done that though and it's probably too late for him now. He's played the foil to Rick Perry.

Ron Paul has a legion of supporters and I'm sure for good reason. But I can tell you what's played out on the debate stage has done more to reduce Ron Paul in the eyes of many than all the silence the media might provide.

He's had the microphone, he's had the camera time. Instead of presenting solutions, he's gone to ha-has and funnys about Rick Perry. When Perry's out of the race or should the press decide they love Perry, there's no more role for Ron Paul.

He's now the gnat, the tag along, the sidekick, what have you. When he should have been using the time to say, "I am a serious candidate," he instead did the press' work for them allowing them to write even more articles about Rick Perry.

A candidate with common sense would have long ago said, "I don't want to talk about Rick Perry's ___, I want to talk about my plan for ___. And that's what I'm going to use my debate time tonight for."




The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


































Illiteracy, bad gasoline and lack of housing, it's Iraq

In the June 20th snapshot we were noting that the literacy rate the US was imposing in discussions on Iraq was incorrect and that is impossible for literacy rates to jump from 40% one year to over 70% the next in the midst of a war. Doesn't happen.

Tuesday Al Mada reported on a new crisis in Iraq: illiteracy. The Ministry of Planning says that illiteracy has increased by 40% among Iraqi children. That's more in line with reality. War provides no academic curve for school children caught up in it.

In addition, Suha Sheikhly and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) report on Iraq's unemployment problem noting that Diwanya Province has the highest unemployment rate and speaking to a worker who left there for Baghad only to encounter a lack of jobs there as well. Friday saw a demonstration in Baghad and unemployment has been one of the issues driving the protests but not to the degree, the reporters state, as elsewhere in the Arab region. They spoke with 24-year-old protester Jabbar who said that there were few opportunities for work. Another protester is 26-year-old Mutashar who left his wife and child in Nasiriyah to come to Baghad and find a job only to discover there were no jobs in the capitol either.

Unemployment was not addressed by Nouri al-Maliki despite his promising in February that it would be. He asked for 100 days and he did nothing. The 100 day deadline long ago passed. Dar Addustour notes the response of Najaf's religious authority: Refusing to receive Iraqi politicians. And it's noted that what politicians discussed months earlier with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was not carried out.

Other problems faced include lousy gasoline. Despite being one of the largest oil producing countries in the world, Dar Addustour reports that Iraqis are getting sub-standard gas when they go to fill up and that it's harming the car engines. What's the reason for sub-standard gasoline? Some blame vendors, others blame the transfer of oil in tankers carrying things other than oil. Those blaming vendors are calling for laws to punish gas station owners who are caught mixing other substances into the gasoline.

Then there's the housing issue which we last noted in the September 16th snapshot:

Iraq's in its second consecutive month of inflation and Mayada Al Askari (Gulf News) interviews Iraq's Undersecretary of the Iraqi Ministry of Housing and Construction to talk about the construction boom in Iraq. (When you bomb a country repeatedly, you do create the need for a construction boom.) Excerpt:

GULF NEWS: How can you be so ambitious about building housing when the infrastructure's main element, electricity, is not available? Buildings -- as an example -- require lifts, electric water pumps, etc. How can communities live without electricity?

Faleh Al Ammiri: Certainly, the implementation of these projects requires time during which infrastructure and providing the community with electricity will be completed. As for major investment projects, electric power stations will be built to provide such projects with electricity as well as water and sewage systems.

What about paving roads in Iraq, why are there so many projects in this area?

Road networks in Iraq were previously neglected and the whole system is out-of-date as it was overused by the army, but we now have plans to refurbish the system. A renovation of the roads network is currently underway. Weigh stations across the country's provinces were officially announced lately, as overloads are the main reasons behind the recent road damages. There is also the intent to carry out a highway connecting Umm Qasr with the Turkish border, along with other roads connecting the Iraqi cities. Construction of bridges is also part of the plan, however maintaining roads and bridges require users to abide by load limits, and the provinces need to carry out their commitments in this regard.


The minister's not interested in housing people. It's a corruption scam waiting to be turned over as he confesses that "the ministry-run corporation has dozens of factorizes specialising in the production of concrete products including pipes, bridge pillars as well as asphalt, stone breakers and ready-mix factories". That quote right there also answers the question about why the ministry has placed so much emphasis on building roads at a time when Iraqis continue to lack not just reliable electricity but also potable water.

It's a lot easier to keep approving projects that enrich your own budget.

If you doubt it, why is South Korea winning a construction bid in Iraq? Why is any foreigner? Iraq's never suffered from lack of construction workers.

Iraq also suffers not from a lack of concrete. In fact it's a big mob industry in Iraq. But the Ministry's in it too. Hmm. Al Sabaah reports on how Iraq's got all these new houses and housing areas being built and yet the glut hasn't depressed market prices and the homes are so expensive why? Due to the high cost of the construction materials. Seems like that cost could be somewhat controlled if Iraq's Ministry of Housing and Construction were doing it's job -- and that's before you factor in the fact that the Ministry owns many of those construction material producing businesses.

And all of this comes as the Integrity Commission's finding on Iraqi real estate has embarrassed Nouri and forced him to make a move. Al Rafidayn reminds that he's stopped the sale of Iraqi property as a result of the Commission finding fraud and price manipulation by government employees in the real estate market. Nouri's quoted calling out the "corruption and abuse" in his government on this issue. The Commission has also located over a hundred million smuggled out prior to the start of the Iraq War, this would be under Saddam Hussein.

Annie Gowen (Washington Post) reported
yesterday noting 'hot' properities in Baghdad, Karbala, Erbil and elsewhere were listing for half a million and one million US dollars which has left your average buyer "priced out of the current market, bunking with extended family or riding out the boom in cramped rental apartments, feeling trapped and stuck." In addition, Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) report that many of the buildings go up in Baghad are a threat to the city's look and tradition both because they knock down existing structures -- Baghdad was highly populated city before the start of the war, not wide open spaces -- and because what is constructed is not in keeping with the city's aesthetic.

Wally and Cedric's joint-post went up a little while ago:



And stealing from their post, we'll note the community posts since Thursday night:

"Almond Chicken in the Kitchen"
"Ralph"
"Translating the polling"
"2 bits of news"
"4 men, 2 women"
"3 women, 2 men"
"community"
"dems may lose"
"Danny The Pig Schechter"
"Death Penalty"
"Carney"
"Counter-insurgency and the Senate"
"Whiny Danny"
"Joe was right"
"Duchess & The Dirtwater Fox"
"Blockbuster?"
"Pinocchio Obama"
"Libya"
"Idiot of the Week"
"The hype"
"THIS JUST IN! ROOM UNDER THE BUS?"
"Ted loved Barry (Barry did not love Ted)"

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray applauded the passage of H.R. 2646, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011. This bipartisan legislation will allow for new construction projects in five states and Puerto Rico and will allow VA programs to operate uninterrupted, including vital assistance to homeless veterans. The bill also includes approval for upgrades at the VA Medical Center in Seattle.

"VA has worked tirelessly to get veterans off the streets and into housing. Their efforts are commendable, but there is still work to be done," said Senator Murray. "H.R. 2646, as amended, contains critical extensions to many of VA's programs to end homelessness among veterans. Our nation's veterans have sacrificed much in their service to this country, we must make sure they receive the care and benefits they earned."

"I'm also delighted that this bill would allow VA to begin a $51.8 million project to seismically strengthen the nursing tower and community living center at the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington. It is vital that this building be upgraded so that the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System can continue to deliver world-class healthcare to veterans in a safe environment."

Specifically, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011 will:

· Allow for seismic corrections for Building 100 at the VA Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, in an amount not to exceed $51.8 million;

· Authorize job-creating infrastructure improvements to VA's facilities;

· Authorize increased funding for the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program, which provides prevention and rapid rehousing assistance for homeless veterans;

· Authorize increased funding for the Grant and Per Diem program, which provides transitional housing assistance for homeless veterans;

· Reauthorize the special needs set aside in the Grant and Per Diem program which provides transitional housing for the frail, elderly, terminally ill, women, and those with children; and

· Reauthorize the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program, which provides employment assistance for homeless veterans.

###



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


































Friday, September 23, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, September 23, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's on another power-grab, Jalal Talabani is in the US and making curious statements, a Republican debate demonstrates how DADT may not be over, and more.
 
 
We're going to start in the US because something big happened last night and you might think that with so many people writing online and unable to do any real work of any kind, you just might think they could get the point.  But, yet again, they miss it completely.  It's hard to believe how collectively stupid The New Yorker and all the rest can be.  Last night was a GOP debate.  The Republican Party is currently watching to see who they want to support for their party's presidential candidate.  This is of grave interest to the stutned left as opposed to the real left.  The stunted left can't find a real issue even if you taped it to their ass and let them use both hands. 
 
One of the questions submitted via Google was from Stephen Hill, an Iraq War veteran.  He was booed.  And for homophobes like Amy Davidson, that's the story.  And it's shocking and it's appalling and please vote Democrat!!!!!
 
Amy Davidson is nothing but a homophobe.  If you doubt there are homophobes at The New Yorker, you haven't read very closely. A homophobe looks at a very complex threat to the gays and lesbians and instead reduces it to "mean Republicans booed! Vote Democrat!"
 
Amy has nothing to offer except, "Teacher! Teacher! They booed!  They booed!"  As a second grade tattle tale, she's almost gifted but as a grown woman she's an embarrassment.  For starters, her little tattles were done yesterday and this morning by others.  And I could have called them out then but I didn't take it as seriously until this afternoon when Amy Davidson suddenly 'discovered' the topic and aped everyone else already writing about it.
 
For those who tremble and sob right now, I suggest you grow the hell up.  Anthony Mahchek is an Iraq War veteran, a wounded one.  And he spoke at Columbia this year.  And he was booed and heckled. It was not the end of the world or even of the end of society.  We covered this in "On speaking and being booed in a democracy."
 
The United States is a democracy. I speak all the time, right after the election (2008) to antiwar audiences, I was booed for refusing to lie that the SOFA meant the war ended in 2011. I was booed, I was cursed. It wasn't the first time in my life and surely won't be the last time. Anyone who gets up to speak better be prepared for that. I have a right to speak, you have a right to boo me. You have a right to speak, I have a right to boo you. If the boos become a problem then something may be done. In most settings, including Columbia, booing after comments is not going to get the booer in trouble. An organized boo, a boo-in, if you will, might result in security doing something because a boo-in would prevent anyone from speaking.
But if you get before an audience -- and I have many, many times -- there's a chance you're going to get booed. If you don't want to be booed, don't put yourself out there.
The veteran took a highly unpopular stand. He was allowed to speak, people were allowed to register their objection.
[. . .]
The outrage, I do want to note, that is being churned is being churned by the Daily Mail and the New York Post. The veteran is not quoted boo-hooing that he got booed. He's been in combat, I don't think he's a cry baby. He's seen a lot worse than a negative reaction to his taking what (he must have known) was an unpopular position.
He obviously believes in his position or he wouldn't have taken it. Why did he face an angry crowd? Because he probably hopes that his remarks would lay the groundwork for them to reconsider. And it might. Or it might make it easier for the next person who speaks out in the same manner. The veteran doesn't seem stupid -- the press does -- I doubt he expected a standing ovation. I would guess his hopes were more along the lines of "I'll plant some seeds and maybe they'll sprout in a few weeks or months."
That's what we all do, regardless of the issue and our position, when we speak out on something that's unpopular. He had every right to speak and those that booed had every right to boo. That's what life is in America. Again, he doesn't seem scarred by it (he may be laughing about the whole thing) or surprised by it. There is no caste system in America. We are all equal. Your opinion is something you can share, but you're not able to pull rank on me and silence my dissent because you did this or that or whatever. That's not how free speech works.

That's fairly straightforward.  I would assume most adults and teenagers could follow it.  If someone disagrees with you, there's a chance that you will be booed if you speak in public.  And someone almost always disagrees with you on something.  No one is protectedfrom booing, not a president, not a nun, not a soldier, no one. It's part of the social contract. 
 
Is it good that they booed Anthony Mahchek?  Yeah, it is.  It shows that they have the strength to disagree if nothing else.  And maybe that's true of those who booed Stephen Hill as well?  And like Mahcehck, I doubt Stephen Hill shed any tears over it or was surprised that some members of the audience wished he'd hide in a closet for all time.  Good for him for getting his question out there.
 
But Amy Davidson doesn't want to tell you about that.
 
That seems to be a common element among the press since the 2008 election. Remember how the gas bags just couldn't understand the SOFA?  Remember how confusing tht was for them?  In November 2008, on Thanksgiving Day, when the White House finally released the SOFA, we were able to figure it out.  But then our main concern was the Iraq War not how to spin things for partisan politics. Anyone with even a basic understanding of contract law who took the time to readover the SOFA would have quickly realized it was a three year contract replacing the one year one (the UN mandate).  Yes, the SOFA said that all US troops would leave Iraq at the end of 2011.  And for those completely stupid,  that was the end of it.  But there were kill clauses that would allow the SOFA to be killed and that provision about 2011?  That was only if nothing replaced the SOFA and the SOFA wasn't extended.
 
 
The gas bags misled America on the SOFA. Now they're doing the same on LGBT rights.   I'm not in the mood to play.
 
 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell wasn't repealed, it was vanished.  An important decision on Don't Ask, Don't Tell came from  Judge Virginia Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. She found it unconstitutional.  That was her ruling.  That ruling needs to stand.  As Marcia noted earlier this week, the Justice Department is attempting to get the decision tossed.  If the decision is vacated, Stephen Hill's question becomes even more important. 
 
Here's what Stephen Hill asked:
 
In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier and I didn't want to lose my job.  My question is, under one of your Presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?
 
There was booing.  And that's all the Amy Davidson's care about.  I believe Stephen Hill's concern, however, was about equality in the US military.  I don't think his concern was hurt feelings over what Republicans might do.  Had that been his concern, he probably wouldn't have asked his question.
 
Why did complain about the way Don't Ask, Don't Tell was handled?  Because there's nothing on the books in terms of a law.  As pointed out here repeatedly, Barack didn't sign a law guaranteeing equality.  No law was passed on that.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell was simply removed from the books.  Therefore it could come back under a different president.  If it does come back, one thing that would help gay soldiers would be Judge Phillips' ruling which is why the Justice Dept needs to stop trying to overturn the judge's decision.  It hurts the Justice Dept not one bit for that decision to stand.  It's a historic decision and one that needs to be cited in other cases.  If the decision is vacated, stare decis doesn't apply, no precedent was set via the decision. That matters tremendously and for those who never got why, last night's debate pointed it out.  From the official Fox News transcript, this is the response from Rick Santorum to Stephen Hill's question.
 

SANTORUM: Yeah, I -- I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- and removing "don't ask/don't tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.

We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform.

(APPLAUSE)

And I believe this undermines that ability.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

KELLY: So what -- what -- what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's -- now he's out. He's -- you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?

 

SANTORUM: I think it's -- it's -- it's -- look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with -- with our military right now. And that's tragic.

I would -- I would just say that, going forward, we would -- we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.

That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in -- in -- I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in -- in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is -- it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it -- keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual.

 
 
I don't want to debate Santorum on this issue.  I cleary believe he's wrong and we could play Dumb Ass one step above Amy Davidson and go into all the ways in which Santorum's wrong.  But if we're going to be adults and not homophobes, because we're going to pay attention to what he said in relation to what Stephen Hill asked.
 
 
Would President Rick Santorum "circumvent the progress that's been made for gays and lesbian soldiers in the military?" And Santorum's answer is: Yes, he would reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  By his own words.  (I actually would guess he'd do far worse.  Were he president, I think he would go back to the 1982 directive from Reagan which barred gays from serving.)
 
How is that possible?
 
No, the answer isn't, "Because Rick Santorum's an idiot."  Whether he's smart or not, he's intelligent enough to grasp what the next president can do: Refuse to allow gays and lesbians in the military.
 
That might make Rick Santorum a mad genius, that he sees what so many refuse to.  This is exactly what we pointed out repeatedly on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  You don't vanish it, you overturn it.  If you vanish it, if you just wipe it away, there's nothing to prevent it from coming back. 
 
Congress should have gone with an equality law.  The White House didn't want that. And currently the White House wants to destroy Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling -- even as we now know that at least one Republican wanting to get into the White House plans to ban gays and lesbians from serving if he becomes president.
 
Judge Phillips' ruling needs to stand.  And it was a huge, huge mistake on the part of the Congress and the White House to act as if they did something amazing.  They didn't.  And if you're concern is equality and not scoring partisan points for one side or the other, that's what you address.  You address the realities that Stephen Hill and so many others could be facing.  But The New Yorker and Amy Davidson want to play you and waste your time.  I'm sorry, I don't tolerate or embrace homophobia.  I call it out.  I did so when Barack Obama put homophobes on stage at campaign events.  When an 'ex-gay' preached hate at an official campaign event, I didn't play dumb and stupid.  Amy Davidson is a homophobe because she only cares about homophobia when she score points against a Republican. Furthermore, she'll deliberately confuse the issue and waste everyone's time while risking the hard earned rights of the LBGT community in order to avoid addressing the real issue, the real question Stephen Hill was asking which is that Don't Ask, Don't Tell got erased but nothing was put in to protect gays and lesbians in the military from future discrimination.

Until you'r ready to deal with that, you don't need to weigh in on the issue. You're just causing problems.  The same way those who insisted the SOFA meant US forces all leave Iraq at the end of 2011.  That end is approaching but the US is engaged in engaged in negotitations to extend the US military presence.  Maybe had a lot of uninformed idiots not lied and whored, those of us who believed in "OUT OF IRAQ NOW!" would have stayed focused on the issue and troops would already be out of Iraq.
 
December 21, 2010 was an important day. Iraq is currently in Political Stalemate II which began December 21st when Nouri al-Maliki's inability to follow the Constitution and nominate a Cabinet which Parliament signed off on was overlooked and he was illegally moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister. In the nine months, two days and counting since, Nouri's been unable or unwilling to fill the security ministries. Acting ministers are not real ministers. They've never been voted on by Parliament so they have no real powers and can be dismissed by Nouri at any time without any oversight from Parliament. The puppet has puppets.

The Political Stalemate largely results from the failure of Nouri to abide by the Erbil Agreement -- the understanding which ended Political Stalemate I. Nouri got what he wanted out of the agreement (to remain prime minister) and then trashed the agreement. Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya political slate have been highly critical of Nouri over this. More recently, the Kurdish voice calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement has grown stronger. Currently, Nouri and the Kurds are at logger heads. Earlier this week, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi traveled to the Kurdistan Regional Government to meet with Kurdish officials.

Al Sabaah reports that while al-Nujaifi did carry a few ideas or proposals with him, they were verbal and nothing in writing. Both sides were in agreement that the Constitution needed to be followed and, the paper reports, there are plans for a meet-up between the Kurds, Iraqiya and the National Alliance.  New Sabah spoke with the National Alliance's Hassan al-Jubouri earlier this week and he stressed the need for a consensus to be reached.

Al Mada reports that al-Nujaifi will visit Iran and Turkey to raise the issues of their bombing northern Iraq. In addition, al-Nujaifi told the press that the Constitution must be followed and any oil and gas law must result from dialogue and discussions. One of the Kurds chief complaints is Nouri's proposed oil & gas bill. Kurds have strong reasons to complain, Nouri's staged yet another power grab and gone back on an agreement.  Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reports that the 2007 agreement has been pushed aside, "The amended law would give the oil ministry authority to hold bidding rounds for most oil and gas fields, leaving currently producing fields and discovered but undeveloped fields close to them in the hands of a newly created Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). The 2007 draft version restricted the ministry to auctions for discovered, undeveloped fields. The changes could result in the inclusion of Kurdish fields in future auctions, which the Kurds say they will not accept."  Reuters also provides an overview of past oil laws and bills.  As Nouri attempts this power grab, maybe it's worth noting how Shell Oil got a pending deal under his 'leadership'?  Ben Lando and Ben Van Heuvelen (Iraq Oil Report) utilize WikiLeaks cables to demonstrate that Shell was laughing and mocking Iraqi officials, bragging about how they were so stupid Shell had to teach them basic economics.  The reporters notes that "in contrast to the transparent and competitive bidding rounds that the Iraqi Oil Ministry held in 2009 and 2010 for oil and gas contracts, the Shell deal has been brokered behind closed doors. Critics have charged that the noncompetitive and secret process has put Shell's prerogatives -- particularly its desire to export gas -- ahead of Iraq's interests. And although the draft contract that now stands before the Cabinet is substantially different than the agreement that first drew widespread opposition, the deal remains haunted by its shadowy history."
 
So Nouri's hand-picked team was a laughing stock to Shell?  At what point does this start to reflect on Nouri?  He's not a newbie.  He's been prime minister since 2006.  That's five years.  In that time he has repeatedly demonstrated little concern for the needs of the Iraqi people and he has refused to listen to other politicians.
 
Al Mada quotes Ayad Allawi stating  that he urges dialogue and that Iraq has entered into a "crisis" period which must be resolved. But it's another Al Mada article today in which Allawi voices his thoughts at length including that the only thing the Erbil Agreement achieved was to inaugurate Nouri as prime minister. The article notes that Iraqiya met yesterday and quotes their spokesperson as she states that Iraqiya has repeatedly provided Nouri an opportunity to return to the Erbil Agreement and that this is the last time they will urge him to do so. Whether or not this means Iraqiya will move for a no-confidence vote is not addressed in the article. Since it's not addressed in the article, either it's not being planned or it's being kept a secret plan.  And Al Mada notes the Kurdish bloc is denying that any secret deal has been made between political blocs, that the only deal is the Erbil Agreement.
 
 
Meanwhile Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is out of the country.  He's in the US and today he spoke to the United Nations. Many things about his visit trouble some observers but maybe what should be most eye brow raising is this series of remarks from his speech to the UN:
 
Iraq is concerned about the tragic situation of the Palestinian People which is the result of Israeli Practicis which are incompatible with international laws and customs and international humanitarian law.  Iraq is doing everything in its capacity to support the struggle of Palestinian People in getting all its inalienable rights, in particular establish its independent state on their homeland, with its capital Jerusalem, and inthis regard, Iraq endorses and supports the direction of the Palestinian Authority to go to to the United Nations to achieve full international recognition of a Palestinian state during the meeting of the current session of the General Assembly, and calls on the international community and all peace-loving forces to stand by the Palestinian people in their legitimate struggle to achieve its goals, and demanding the Israeli government to fully withdraw from all Arab territories occupied in 1967.  This would contribute to the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and to bring comprehensive fair peace in this vital region of the world.
 
Those are laughable statements coming from Talabani.  Not only because of Iraq's own problems with human rights, but also because, golly molly jolly gee who could it have been that had Palestinian refugees trapped on the border for almost seven years?  Oh, that's right.  Iraq.  Yeah.  It wasn't until February 2010, when Syria agreed to take them in, that these stranded persons were finally given something other than a desert prison posing as a 'refugee camp.'  And, stay with me, it gets worse, which country was it that saw the Palestinian Human Rights worker kidnapped?  Oh, right again, Iraq.  Wednesday it was reported that "gunmen wearing the attire of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior" kidnapped Qusaia  Abdul-Raouf.  International Middle East Media Center reports:
 
The foundation said that, on Wednesday evening, Qusai Abdul-Raouf was on tour documenting the increasing attacks carried out by the Iraqi Forces against the Palestinian refugees in Al Baladiyyat neighborhood in Baghdad.
During his documentation tour, a black tented shevorleh parked near him, and three gunmen wearing the attire of the Iraqi Forces, operating under the Ministry of Interior, violently placed him in their vehicle and drove away. His whereabouts remain unknown until the time of this report.
Palestinian refugees are subject to kidnap and murder in Iraq as some groups accuse them of being supporters of the former Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.
Dozens of attacks were carried out against the Palestinian refugees since the war on Iraq in 2003 leading to the death, injury, and abduction of hundreds of refugees.

 And the president of Iraq wanted to get up before the UN today and claim concern about the plight of Palestinians?
 
Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq reports that protesters gathered in Baghdad's Tahrir Square today to protest over the large amount of  money being spent so Jalal Talabani can be in the US.  Of the protest, the Great Iraqi Revolution reports, "Our correspondent in Tahrir Square:: A number of ambulances are seen near the Square. By every one of these ambulances stood four intelligence officers, curiously enough, the ambulances' engines were running and later it became apparent that they intended to abduct some of the activists and protestors."  And ambulance 1038 was used in the abduction of Sanaa Aldulaimi overseen "by an intelligence officer called Abdullah Al Rikabi" -- Sanaa Aldulaimi was later released.
 
Turning to other reported violence, Reuters notes multiple bombs went off in a single Baghdad leaving 4 injured and nine wounded.  Aswat al-Iraq notes a Baquba attack left 1 police officer dead and three more injured, and an armed attack in Mosul left 1 Iraqi soldier dead, a second armed assault left 1 woman deadAlsumaria News notes 1 female corpse was discovered outside of Kut.  Three Chrisians were kidnapped on a Kirkuk hunting trip (see yesterday's snapshot).  Alusmaira News reports that the ransom for the three is set at 600,000 dollars.  Aswat al-Iraq reports Ary Mohammed Ali was kidnapped in Kirkuk yesterday and the kidnappers have stated their ransom is $50,000.
 
 
Back to the US, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:
 
 

(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray applauded the passage of H.R. 2646, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011.  This bipartisan legislation will allow for new construction projects in five states and Puerto Rico and will allow VA programs to operate uninterrupted, including vital assistance to homeless veterans. The bill also includes approval for upgrades at the VA Medical Center in Seattle.

 

"VA has worked tirelessly to get veterans off the streets and into housing.   Their efforts are commendable, but there is still work to be done," said Senator Murray. "H.R. 2646, as amended, contains critical extensions to many of VA's programs to end homelessness among veterans.  Our nation's veterans have sacrificed much in their service to this country, we must make sure they receive the care and benefits they earned."

 

"I'm also delighted that this bill would allow VA to begin a $51.8 million project to seismically strengthen the nursing tower and community living center at the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington.  It is vital that this building be upgraded so that the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System can continue to deliver world-class healthcare to veterans in a safe environment."

 

Specifically, the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2011 will:

 

·         Allow for seismic corrections for Building 100 at the VA Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, in an amount not to exceed $51.8 million;

·         Authorize job-creating infrastructure improvements to VA's facilities;

·         Authorize increased funding for the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program, which provides prevention and rapid rehousing assistance for homeless veterans;

·         Authorize increased funding for the Grant and Per Diem program, which provides transitional housing assistance for homeless veterans;

·         Reauthorize the special needs set aside in the Grant and Per Diem program which provides transitional housing for the frail, elderly, terminally ill, women, and those with children; and

·         Reauthorize the Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program, which provides employment assistance for homeless veterans.

 

###

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
 

Nouri's given last chance?

Iraq is currently in Political Stalemate II which began when Nouri al-Maliki's inability to follow the Constitution and nominate a Cabinet which Parliament signed off on was overlooked and he was illegally moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister. In all the months since (nine), Nouri's been unable or unwilling to fill the security ministries. Acting ministers are not real ministers. They've never been voted on by Parliament so they have no real powers and can be dismissed by Nouri at any time without any oversight from Parliament. The puppet has puppets.

The Political Stalemate largely results from the failure of Nouri to abide by the Erbil Agreement -- the understanding which ended Political Stalemate I. Nouri got what he wanted out of the agreement (to remain prime minister) and then trashed the agreement. Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya political slate have been highly critical of Nouri over this. More recently, the Kurdish voice calling for a return to the Erbil Agreement has grown stronger. Currently, Nouri and the Kurds are at logger heads. Earlier this week, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi traveled to the Kurdistan Regional Government to meet with Kurdish officials.

Al Sabaah reports that while al-Nujaifi did carry a few ideas or proposals with him, they were verbal and nothing in writing. Both sides were in agreement that the Constitution needed to be followed and, the paper reports, there are plans for a meet-up between the Kurds, Iraqiya and the National Alliance.

Al Mada reports that al-Nujaifi will visit Iran and Turkey to raise the issues of their bombing northern Iraq. In addition, al-Nujaifi told the press that the Constitution must be followed and any oil and gas law must result from dialogue and discussions. (One of the Kurds chief complaints is Nouri's proposed oil & gas bill.) Ayad Allawi is quoted stating that he urges dialogue and that Iraq has entered into a "crisis" period which must be resolved. But it's another Al Mada article today in which Allawi voices his thoughts at length including that the only thing the Erbil Agreement achieved was to inaugurate Nouri as prime minister. The article notes that Iraqiya met yesterday and quotes their spokesperson as she states that Iraqiya has repeatedly provided Nouri an opportunity to return to the Erbil AGreement and that this is the last time they will urge him to do so. Whether or not this means Iraqiya will move for a no-confidence vote is not addressed in the article. (Since it's not addressed in the article, either it's not being planned or it's being kept a secret plan.)

The following community sites updated pluse Anitwar.com:
Other community sites did as well but they are not showing up on the permalinks:


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

































Relief International's sad gasp

Starting with Iraq and either a fool or fraidy cat. Sunday one story was all over the internet, one story from one outlet. We noted it in two sentences, "Relief International is in the news for a study they've completed. Sameer Yacoub (AP) reports the organization has found that of all Iraqi widows currently, three out of every five are widows as a result of the violence of the Iraq War. We'll explore the topic more when the report is published." We never returned to it because they still haven't published their report. Relief International sent out a press release yesterday (it arrived in the public e-mail inbox at 3:22 PM EST). And it opens with:

A study on the status of Widows in Iraq by Relief International was shared with the Iraqi Parliament on Sunday, Sept. 18, 2011. Portions of the study were reported by the Associated Press on Sept. 18, 2011. The information available on the wire was misinterpreted by some other outlets.
The AP wire stated that: “A study released Sunday by a global humanitarian aid organization concluded that three out of every five widows in Iraq lost their husbands in the years of violence that followed the 2003 invasion. The study by Los Angeles-based Relief International found that about 10 percent of the estimated 15 million women who live in Iraq are widows. Among them, 59 percent have lost their husbands during the U.S.-led war.” Some media reports erroneously equated the period within which women were widowed to a "causal" factor. Therefore many iterations of the newswire misrepresent the Relief International study stating that the study reports that 59 percent of the incidents were caused by the U.S.-led war.

The "US invasion" is the start of the Iraq War. If you die of violence that came about in the years after the "US invasion," then you're dying of Iraq War violence.

If they're not happy with the way some outlets reported their story (and I believe they're specifically referring to one Arabic newspaper's report last Tuesday and the remarks by one MP -- we ignored that article because there was still no published study), then the answer is release your study. If you've feel you've been misinterpreted, release your study.

If you're study wasn't ready to be released, you shouldn't have said a damn thing. It's one thing to give an advance copy to a media outlet with the understanding that they'll note it the day before or morning of release. But if you're not ready to release your study and you're not sure when you will be, you're not running to the press or to a foreign government.

If you're study's not ready to be released then it hasn't been properly vetted and you shouldn't be advancing it to the media let alone passing it to a foreign government.

And you can split hairs all you want but if you're saying violence following the 2003 invasion killed X, that is violence of the Iraq War because the "invasion" is the start of the war. I'm real sorry if you can't understand that.

I'm more sorry that the AP doesn't draw the line that you do in their story but you know you don't dare take on the AP.

The AP article opened with, "Three out of every five widows in Iraq lost their husbands in the years of violence that followed the 2003 invasion, a study by a humanitarian aid organisation has concluded." The third sentence was, "Among them, 59 per cent have lost their husbands during the US-led war." The only widow the article notes is 41-year-old Wafiya Hussein whose "husband was killed in a Baghdad explosion in 2009 as he was heading to work."

If your study wasn't ready to be released, you shouldn't have supplied excerpts to a foreign government. That's a given. Even more so when it's a struggling government. And if comments made by an MP this week were not to your liking (his comments were only slightly stronger than what the AP article quotes Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, stating), that's no one's fault but your own.

Iraq, all of Iraq, is a war zone. To this day, the US government pays US troops combat pay for being anywhere in Iraq. All violence that starts with (and/or follows) the invasion is violence that takes place during the Iraq War.

You can split hairs all you want but the AP story ran on Sunday and does portray that Iraqi women were widowed by violence during the Iraq War. (That would be "Iraq War violence.") In the days that followed, everyone waited for the report. By Tuesday, outlets started running with quotes from MPs familiar in some manner with the report. If you'd done your job correctly, your report would have been available as soon as the story designed to create interest in it (the AP article) was published.

Your failure to do so after you make certain claims is your problem. We had other things to cover so I just ignored it. But I know here there were e-mails asking when we were going to cover it and I can't imagine this being ignored forever by Iraqi media outlets. Nor did they. They waited a few days and when the report still wasn't available they spoke to MPs and used the AP article to cover it. That's Relief International's fault and no one else's.

Sunday, after the Emmys, Ava and I were at the second party of the night (and I was drinking heavily and with a date; Ava, of course, was with Jess) when Jim called to tell us that our TV piece was lost and we needed to rewrite it (out of thin air, we were in LA, our notes weren't). We managed to scribble "TV: The backlash whines 'poor men'" and had to leave the party in order to do so. As noted here in "And the war drags on . . ."

And Ava and my TV piece we had to redo tonight at the last minute. I don't understand (and don't care) how it was lost, we had written, we had typed it and we had gone on about out day and evening (Emmys and after party) when we were called and told that our piece was lost and we needed to redo it. That took an hour and a half so I'm not really in an online mood. I had planned to do this entry and nothing else. (Isaiah's comic goes up after this. That was planned.) I'm tired and I'm pissed (over having to redo the article) and I have to be up in less than two and a half hours. Yea. It is what it is.

Were it not for being tired and pissed, we probably would have ran with the AP article on Sunday and made it the point of the entry. Had I not still been tired on Monday, I would have paired it with an article from Middle East Online on Iraqi women. By Tuesday, there was too much going on and Relief International still hadn't released their study so it was no longer of interest. Time moves on. But I could have very easily ran with that on Sunday and on Monday. And if I had, by Relief International's standards or 'standards,' I would have been wrong. Only (bad) luck (being forced to re-do a piece for Third at the last minute) spared this site from running with the AP article. There but for tequila and vodka . . .

It is not at all surprising that, in the silence that followed Sunday, Iraqi outlets had to move on the story and did so. The supposed study, as portrayed in the sole article Relief International approved, makes extreme claims. It was incumbent on newspapers and TV stations in Iraq to cover it and when they had no help from Relief International, they went with what they could.

The AP article was supposed to create a buzz. It did. If it led to a study being misinterpreted, you should have been immediately prepared to publish your study. Failure to do so calls into question not just your actions but the alleged findings of your report.

The US government wishes to retain a military presence in Iraq. In the past, when studies on Iraq War violence didn't provide a happy spin, the US government has attacked the study and pressured the organization. If that's happened to Relief International and they've buckled to it, they're not just a fool, they're a fraidy cat. Regardless, they've made themselves unnecessary.

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and we'll note this from her office:
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray sent a letter to Secretary Hilda Solis at the Department of Labor urging the Department to reach out to employers who want to hire separating servicemembers. The letter asks the Department to outline the ways it partners with prospective employers committed to hiring veterans and shares such information with veterans. Senator Murray is the sponsor of the comprehensive veterans' employment legislation, the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011, which would require that separating service members attend the Transition Assistance Program. The bill would also create new direct federal hiring authority so that more service members have jobs waiting for them the day they leave the military.
"Every step that can be taken should be taken to fully capitalize on employers' interest in, and commitment to, hiring America's veterans," said Senator Murray in the letter. "This is especially true given President Obama's recent challenge to the private sector to hire 100,000 unemployed veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013. To this end, it is critical that such employers are connected to the right resources, and that veterans have the information they need to be competitive for these employment opportunities."

The full text of Chairman Murray's letter is below:

September 22, 2011

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis

Secretary of Labor

Frances Perkins Building

200 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Solis:

With the unemployment rate for young veterans reaching unprecedented levels in recent months, ensuring that America's veterans can access living-wage jobs is of paramount concern. I know that the Administration shares my concern -- as evidenced by the unveiling of the American Jobs Act.

One area where we have an opportunity to make a real and meaningful difference in addressing the high veteran unemployment rate is outreach to -- and partnership with -- employers who want to hire veterans.

Recently, my office was contacted by an employer regarding a hiring initiative for veterans within his industry. According to the employer, despite the initiative's potential to create thousands of job opportunities for veterans, the employer found it difficult to connect with the right people at the Department regarding his efforts to hire veterans. And every day my staff or I talk with companies that are desperate to find employees to fill good jobs.

Every step that can be taken should be taken to fully capitalize on employers' interest in, and commitment to, hiring America's veterans. This is especially true given President Obama's recent challenge to the private sector to hire 100,000 unemployed veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013. To this end, it is critical that such employers are connected to the right resources, and that veterans have the information they need to be competitive for these employment opportunities.

Therefore, please detail for me the current process by which the Department partners with prospective employers committed to hiring veterans and shares such information with veterans:

§ How does the Department cultivate and foster partnerships with prospective employers?

§ Does the Department coordinate such efforts with the VETS web portal, and if so, how? If not, what portal (if any) does the Department use to engage with prospective employers?

§ Has the Department developed a best practice as to the manner by which it connects separating servicemembers and recently separated veterans with employers who are hiring? If so, please share a description of that practice with my office.

§ Does the Department attempt to match veterans and employers by targeting veterans whose military occupational specialties are aligned with the unique needs of the employer?

§ How does the Department disseminate information to veterans about employers who are currently hiring? Is such information included in the Transition Assistance Program? If not, why?

§ How does the Department communicate information about employers who are currently hiring to the Department's One-Stop Career Centers and coordinate with Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists and relevant Local Veterans' Employment Representatives?

§ How does the Department coordinate efforts to engage employers with the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense? What other departments and agencies are also involved with your efforts?

§ Finally, does the Department possess all the necessary legal authority to partner with prospective employers and connect separating servicemembers and veterans with such employers? If not, what specific authority is lacking.

Secretary Solis, thank you for your leadership and work on behalf of America's veterans, and for your response to these questions. I am confident that the Department, in partnership with private industry, can continue to make real progress against the high rate of veteran unemployment that has persisted for far too long.

I look forward to working with you in the weeks and months ahead to help get our veterans back to work.

Sincerely,

Patty Murray



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.