Among the news coming out of Iraq today? Al Mada reports that UN Special Envoy on Refugee Issues Angelina Jolie visited Iraq today as part of the UN efforts for Syrian refugees. The American actress will visit Dohuk Province and met with refugees at the camp there. Dohuk and Anbar Province house approximatley 21,000 Syrian refugees. Angelina met with Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, "Jolie and Foreign
Minister Hoshyar Zebari discussed the situation of Syrian refugees in
Iraq while meeting at his office in Baghdad, the foreign ministry said
in a statement. They also talked about the efforts made by the Iraqi government to meet the daily needs of refugees, the statement said."
Alsumaria notes her previous visits to Iraq as a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador and that she's alos visited refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanaon and Turkey to bring a spotlight to the refugee issue and, with regards to Syrian refugees only, Kitabat notes she has visited camps in Lebanon and Jordan. AFP reports she travels next to Erbil and will visit Dohuk's refugee camp.
Her visit comes as the Dohuk camp is planned to remain open but Nouri is attempting to get rid of the refugees in Anbar Province. Nouri doesn't control Dohuk, it is part of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
One way or another, Nouri seems determined to force everyone out of Iraq who will not worship him. For example, in December 2011, Nouri charged Iraq's Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with 'terrorism.' It is widely seen as being politically motivated. A sham of a trial in absentia recently concluded. Sham? Judges aren't allowed to hold press conferences to announce the guilt of someone . . . whose trial has yet to start. But they did that with Tareq. February 16th, they held a press conference, before the trial started, to announce he was guilty. This was in violation of Iraqi law. They tried him in absentia and refused to allow his defense to call witnesses -- such as politicians. The whole thing was a joke.
Sunday, Ramadan al-Fatash (DPA) explained "that
a Baghdad court sentenced in absentia Iraq's vice president, Tareq
al-Hashemi, to death on terrorism charges. Al-Hashemi, Iraq's most
senior Sunni Muslim official, has called the charges a political ploy by
the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Lara Jakes (AP) reported, "The
Baghdad courtroom was silent Sunday as the presiding judge read out the
verdict convicting al-Hashemi and his son-in-law of organizing the
murders of a Shiite security official and a lawyer who had refused to
help the vice president's allies in terror cases. The court sentenced
both men in absentia to death by hanging. They have 30 days to appeal
the verdict." Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall Street Journal) observed,
"Many saw the verdict against Tariq al-Hashemi -- a prominent Sunni
politician who has professed his innocence and has been sheltered by the
Sunni Islamist-led government in Turkey since April -- coupled with
Sunday's attacks as emboldening those among Iraq's Sunni minority who
see violent confrontation rather than politics as the only way to regain
powers lost to the Shiite majority after the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam
Hussein's regime more than nine years ago." Omar al-Jawoshy and Michael Schwirtz (New York Times) quoted
Talabani stating on Monday, "It was regrettable to issue, at this
particular time, a judicial decision against him while he still
officially holds office."
Tareq al-Hashemi remains in Turkey and not only is the government of Turkey, including Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip Erdogan, backing him, Al Mada reports that an amendment to the Turkish Constitution has just been proposed to further protect al-Hashemi. Nouri's using the crisis he created to further attack rights and liberties. Dar Addustour reports that Nouri is insisting the countries of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are working on a plan to invade Iraq and overthrow him -- as a result he's ordered a security crackdown on Baghdad.
While Kitabat notes that Tareq al-Hashemi denies he has any evidence on him that implicates or condemns any officials in Iraq for corruption, Prashant Rao (AFP) reports on Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi who was the Communications Minister until he resigned last month (August 27th) and who is stating that he still has in his possession "documents pointing to graft within the government" and quotes him stating, "100 percent sure that the people surrounding al-Maliki, they are corrupt people, very close to him, they are highly corrupt people. But definitely, he knows the corrupt people, but those who are loyal to him, he never takes any action. He allows them to be more corrupt, and it is very obvious." (Al Mada runs the article in Arabic here.)
In addition violence continued in Iraq as well. Alsumaria reports that an armed attack to the north of Tikrit left a Counter-Terrorism Lt Col and and his driver dead. AAP identifies the Lt Col as Saba Mohammed. AFP adds that a Hajj Ali home invasion left three cousins dead and a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer with three more injured. Reuters notes 4 Turkish soldiers were killed "in a suspected PKK attack." Alsumaria also notes the mass arrests are continuing -- 82 people arrested today alone -- 60 in al-Diwaniya (Qadisiyyah Province) alone. It would be nice if this past week's of mass arrest could be reported by the US press but why would expect them to start doing their job at this late date?
The following community sites -- plus ACLU, Pacifica Evening News, Jane Fonda, Adam Kokesh and Chocolate City -- updated last night and today:
Sami al-Askari made a ridiculous but very informative statement today. Al Mada reports that he has stated that it is not a problem that Iraq has no Minister of Defense, Minister of National Security or Minister of Interiror (the Interior heads the police) and, furthermore, Nouri's second term as prime minister will end without any of the three vacancies being filled.
First, let's note that, through Thursday, Iraq Body Count has 175 people dead in the country due to violence. Violence has increased in the last two years an has increased since December 2011 when most US troops left Iraq. And yet Iraq has no Minister of Defense, no Minister of National Security and no Minister of the Interior. The positions that are supposed to for the protection of the Iraqi people are vacant.
Second, let's deal with the Constitution. How someone becomes prime minister -- outlined in the Constitution -- was largely shoved aside when the White House decided Nouri al-Maliki would have a second term -- the will of the Iraqi people be damned. The White House backed Nouri and then brokered a contract, known as the Erbil Agreement, among the political blocs in which, if they would sign on to Nouri's second term, they would get various concessions. Barack Obama allowed the US to stake its reputation on this contract.
This is a very important point that no one has ever explored in a column or televised discussion in the US. The US image in Iraq is in shambles. There are many reasons for that. Chief among those reasons are this contract. The US vouched for the contract, swore it was legal, brought the parties together, got them to sign in. And then?
Nouri broke it and the US said nothing. The White House made no push for the contract. They did not condemn the breaking of the contract. They ignored it.
Per the Constitution, a prime minister-designate is named and has 30 days to name a Cabinet. Idiots like the Blonde Norwegian Online Boyfriend of Nouri ignore this detail or say it's not a full Cabinet.
There is a 30 day time limit to name the Cabinet. If it's a partial Cabinet, why the time limit? The time limit should make clear to even the most dense that you have 30 days to name a Cabinet means you have 30 days to name every member of your Cabinet.
Due to the Erbil Agreement, Nouri was able to sidestep that. And the Western press rushed to assure, post-Christmas 2010, that Nouri would quickly nonminate people to head the security posts. Iraqiya and its leader Ayad Allawi, at the same time, were saying the posts would not be filled and that this was a power grab on Nouri's part.
(Nouri names a Minister of the Interior nominee, the nominee then goes before Parliament. If Parliament votes to confirm the man or woman, that person is then the Minister of the Interior. They head the ministry. They cannot be removed by Nouri. To remove the minister, Nouri must have the approval of Parliament. This was illustrated most visibly in the last months when Nouri repeatedly attempted to have Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of his post and the Parliament refused. al-Mutlaq remains Deputy Prime Minister and Nouri's had to give up his months-long effort to have him stripped of his post. The process is the same for National Security, Interior and all members of the Cabinet. This gives a Minister independence. By refusing to name nominees, Nouri controls the three ministries. He has resorted to 'acting ministers' -- they have no power. They do Nouri's bidding or he pulls them. They have no power or independence because Parliament never confirmed them to the post.)
Three months shy of 2 years and the positions remain empty.
So let's do a check here: the Western press said that Nouri would provide nominations in weeks, Ayad Allawi and Iraqiya said it was a power grab. Who was right? Ayad Allawi and Iraqiya.
Third, this nonsense sets a very bad precedent. Barack Obama and others in the administration have this on their hands. Iraq is not the US (which has a questionable committment to democracy when it comes to the rights of its own citizens -- among other examples see the indefintate detention of Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning who has still not seen a trial despite being imprisoned by the government for well over 500 days -- in clear violation of the US Constitutional promise of a fair and speedy trial as outlined in the Sixth Amendment). When an emerging government -- that may or may not become a democracy -- is struggling for existence, you do not support going against the legal Constitution -- written and passed in 2005. In the law, there is what is on the books (written) and there is what is done (custom or precedent). The White House has possibly created a precedent as a result of what they did and what Nouri's done since the March 2010 elections. This is disgusting and it would be nice if just once the administration could take responsibility for their actions. But why should they? Check throughout the US press for any outlet or columnist that has ever even once held them accountable for this? Why get honest about your actions if the news outlets aren't even covering them?
No surprise, Sami al-Askari is a member of State of Law. And so when he speaks, he's floating for Nouri. How much push back this gets will determine what happens next. If there is loud condemnation of the trial balloon not to fill the positions, then Nouri may attempt to fill the positions. Otherwise, he'll bob along behind the balloon. And please grasp if he bobs along, it is now possible for Nouri in a third term or any prime minister-designate after the next elections (parliamentary are currently scheduled for 2014) to argue that they don't have to fill the slots and to control them as Nouri has done.
Alsumaria reports that KRG President Massoud Barani's Kurdish Democratic Party issued a statement today noting that they are prepared to work with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to see to it that the Erbil Agreement is returned to.
This is not a minor issue and is at the heart of the political stalemate and the political crisis but the US press ignores it, they downplay, the minimize it. Apparently, it's much more important that the American people not know the US brokered a contract, gave its word and then backed out then it is that the truth be told.
Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi expressed his hope that a break through in the crisis may take place and quotes a statement issued by him where he refers to changes in the political landscape in Iraq and the world that he hopes will benefit the Iraqi people. All Iraq News notes that he also spoke of how national dialogue has been killed and buried and the Iraqi judiciary politicized.
Without the White House honoring their word that the Erbil Agreement would be enforced, it's unlikely anything will change in Iraq. It's a shame so many are so unaware of the promises the current administration made to Iraqi leaders and how the administration has gone back on its word.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love There's a war going on So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove And I'm writing a song about war And it goes Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4488.
Friday, September 14, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, protests continue against the US in the Middle East, rumors abound about Tareq al-Hashemi, Senator Patty Murray weighs in on sequestration, and much more.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: We are closely watching what is happening in Yemen and elsewhere, and we certainly hope and expect that there will be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of protests into violence.
I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue.
Violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful: to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people, because to attack an embassy is to attack the idea that we can work together to build understanding and a better future.
Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today's world with today's technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.
There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. We all -- whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders -- must draw the line at violence. And any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line.
Protests have taken place around the region all week including today. Reem Abdellatif, Ned Parker, Laura King, Hashmat Baktash, Alex Rodriguez, Emily Alpert and staff in Beirut and Khartoum (Los Angeles Times) report, "Infuriated protesters in Tunisia stormed the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Tunis, and tore down the American flag, state media reported. Security forces fired warning shots and tear gas to try to scatter the crowd, the official Tunisian News Agency reported. Black smoke was seen rising around the embassy compound amid reports that an American school nearby had been set on fire. In Sudan, hundreds of riot police fired tear gas and rubber bullets and used batons to prevent a wall of hundreds of protesters reaching the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Khartoum, but a grop managed to break through, breach the wall of the embassy and raise a black Islamic flag."
Protests took place in Iraq today as well. All Iraq News reports a protest was held today in Samarra following morning prayers and that protests also took place today in Wasit, Najaf, Missan and Basra. All Iraq News notes that the Najaf protest saw the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (Ammar al-Hakim's political group) read out a statement denouncing the video and insisting it did serious harm to Muhammed. AFP reports:
In Karbala, Abdul Mehdi al-Karbalai, the representative in the city of top Iraqi Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, said during his Friday sermon that "these repeated abuses could threaten peaceful life, especially among (religiously) mixed peoples."
He also condemned violence in response to the film, which portrays the Prophet Mohammed and Islam in a negative light, and sparked deadly fury in Libya, where four Americans including the ambassador were killed on Tuesday in a mob attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
In Sunni-majority Ramadi, west of Baghdad, hundreds of people demonstrated against the film.
Hamid al-Fahdawi, one of the protest organisers, told AFP that demonstrators want the Iraqi government to dismiss the US ambassador and cut economic ties with the US.
When compiling a list of demands, it's probably a good idea to leave unicorns and other myths off the list. There is no US Ambassador to Iraq currently. The most recent, James Jeffrey, left Iraq months ago.
Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) quotes Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speaking about the possibility that Barack's latest nominee might be placed on hold after his confirmation hearing:
Make no mistake: Our embassy in Baghdad is one of our most important and what happens there is key to our bilateral relationship and our work in the Middle East. By all accounts, Steve Beecroft is a highly capable career Foreign Service officer who has ambassadorial experience, and it is in America's best interest to get him on the ground as quickly as possible.
If the concern is over the empty post of US Ambassador to Iraq, well the administration should have done a better job vetting and never nominated Brett McGurk. Married and sleeping with another married person in Iraq while working for the US government in Iraq? It doesn't matter that he married Gina Chon eventually (after both their divorces -- it does matter that she allowed him to vet her copy, which is why her paper fired her), it matters that he had a reputation for disrespecting marriage in Iraq which meant that any Iraqi woman visiting the US embassy was going to be suspect which really matters in a country that practices so-called 'honor' killings. They never should have nominated him. His prior behavior in Iraq would have made his appointment an insult to the host country.
There should be an ambassador to Iraq. But no one forced the White House to nominate the insulting Brett McGurk and no one forced the White House to wait so long to name a new nominee after McGurk's name was withdrawn. I remember the Attorney General nominations of 1993. That was rough and Republicans were determined to defeat the nominees. Plural. Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for the post. Her nomination was derailed and she withdrew her name January 22, 1993. Clinton goes on to announce a new nominee: Kimba Wood. Kimba Wood withdraws her name February 5, 1993. Clinton then nominated Janet Reno who was confirmed March 11, 1993 on a 98 to zero vote in the Senate. January 20, 1993, Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States. March 11th, Reno -- his third nominee -- was confirmed as Attorney General. That's moving quickly.
The average time between confirmation hearings and a vote is said to be ten days. That would be September 28th and that's awfully close to when senators facing re-election battles have tor return home. That was also foot dragging by the administration which should have planned it much better.
You'd assume the demands would have been hammered out in advance since today wasn't the first day of protests over the video or movie. Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:
Al Mada notes that a group of Iraqi scientists led by Khalid al-Mulla stated that the US needed to use all means necessary to stop the film and others like it. The group lumps the US into abuse by "Zionists" globally -- while wanting tolerance for their own religious beliefs. All Iraq News notes the Iraqi Parliament is calling for the US Congress to stop the film. Freedom of speech has obviously not been explained well. Alsumaria reports hundreds turned out in Kut today to protest the film. All Iraq News notes Sadrists in Karbala launched a protest as well. For the record, there were no protests reported objecting to the murders of four Americans. For the record, the scientists and the Parliament was not reported to have made any comments condemning the four deaths. AGI reports, " Hundreds of people took to the streets in Baghdad, in the suburb district of Sadr City, burning US flags. Protests jointly staged by Sunni and Shia Muslims were also reported in Iraq's southern city of Basra." You can briefly see the Baghdad protest in Danielle Nottingham's CBS report (link is video).
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN -- link is text and video) reports on yesterday's Baghdad protest: Angry protesters in the Sadr City district of northeast Baghdad carried banners, Iraqi flags and images of radical Shiite and anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as they railed against what they see as an insult to their faith.
"America is the enemy of the people," the demonstrators shouted Thursday morning. They also yelled out, "Yes, yes to Islam. Yes, yes to Iraq. Yes, yes to Quran" -- the latter referring to the Muslim holy book.
The attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya on Tuesday claimed the lives of four Americans. Yesterday, I spoke about two: Ambassador Chris Stevens and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. Today, we also recognize the two security personnel who died helping protect their colleagues. Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor and distinction. Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest gratitude are with their families and friends. Our embassies could not carry on our critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of brave people like Tyrone and Glen.
Tyrone's friends and colleagues called him "Rone," and they relied on his courage and skill, honed over two decades as a Navy SEAL. In uniform, he served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010, he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well as the arm of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and certified paramedic. All our hearts go out to Tyrone's wife Dorothy and his three sons, Tyrone Jr., Hunter, and Kai, who was born just a few months ago.
We also grieve for Glen Doherty, called Bub, and his family: his father Bernard, his mother Barbara, his brother Gregory, and his sister Kathleen. Glen was also a former Navy SEAL and an experienced paramedic. And he put his life on the line many times, protecting Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hotspots. In the end, he died the way he lived – with selfless honor and unstinting valor.
We condemn the attack that took the lives of these heroes in the strongest terms, and we are taking additional steps to safeguard American embassies, consulates, and citizens around the world. This violence should shock the conscience of people of all faiths and traditions. We appreciate the statements of support that have poured in from across the region and beyond. People of conscience and goodwill everywhere must stand together in these difficult days against violence, hate, and division.
I am enormously proud of the men and women who risk their lives every day in the service of our country and our values. They help make the United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity that the world has ever known. We honor the memory of our fallen colleagues by continuing their work and carrying on the best traditions of a bold and generous nation.
In addition, Seyhmus Cakan (Retuers) reports, "Turkish armed forces have killed 75 Kurdish militants near the border with Iran and Iraq over the past week, a provincial governor said on Friday, as a major offensive involving air strikes and several thousand ground troops intensifies." AFP adds, "The operation has been concentrated in the Semdinli district and has included nearly 5,000 ground troops backed by air power, according to the army." The Jerusalem Post notes rumors (treats it as fact) that the PKK has entered into a partnership with President Bashar al-Assad's Syrian's government and "Whatever the precise truth regarding casualty figures, the last period has been the bloodiest seen in this conflict since PKK founder and terrorist leader Abdullah Ocalan was captured in 1999. Amidst the ongoing violence and the flurry of claims and counter claims between the Turks and the PKK, a fascinating question remains: why is the PKK choosing to escalate hostilities at the present time? For the Turkish authorities, the reason is very clear: Ankara claims that the Assad regime has in recent months re-kindled its long defunct alliance with the organization. Ankara also alleges the existence of a renewed agreement between the PKK and Iran, and claims that the Iranians are actively aiding the Kurds in the latest round of attacks." The PKK is a Kurdish group that fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk."
Turkey is where Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi has sought refuge after Nouri al-Maliki ordered him arrested for 'terrorism' in what was seen as an attack on Iraqiya (the political slate that bested Nouri's State of Law in March 2010). Sunday, Ramadan al-Fatash (DPA) explained "that a Baghdad court sentenced in absentia Iraq's vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi, to death on terrorism charges. Al-Hashemi, Iraq's most senior Sunni Muslim official, has called the charges a political ploy by the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki." Lara Jakes (AP) reported, "The Baghdad courtroom was silent Sunday as the presiding judge read out the verdict convicting al-Hashemi and his son-in-law of organizing the murders of a Shiite security official and a lawyer who had refused to help the vice president's allies in terror cases. The court sentenced both men in absentia to death by hanging. They have 30 days to appeal the verdict." Sam Dagher and Ali A. Nabhan (Wall Street Journal) observed, "Many saw the verdict against Tariq al-Hashemi -- a prominent Sunni politician who has professed his innocence and has been sheltered by the Sunni Islamist-led government in Turkey since April -- coupled with Sunday's attacks as emboldening those among Iraq's Sunni minority who see violent confrontation rather than politics as the only way to regain powers lost to the Shiite majority after the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein's regime more than nine years ago." Omar al-Jawoshy and Michael Schwirtz (New York Times) quoted Talabani stating on Monday, "It was regrettable to issue, at this particular time, a judicial decision against him while he still officially holds office." Today, Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, Alsumaria notes, has declared that the death sentence for Tareq al-Hashemi could negatively effect any chances of resolving the political crisis. Kholoud Ramzi (Niqash) reports a new rumor circulating regarding Iraqya:
However, pundits believe that something else every different is going on behind the scenes. They believe that the Iraqiya party has actually long since abandoned al-Hashimi.
Because of the wide variety of backgrounds of the various constituent parties, the Iraqiya bloc has been close to fracturing during its time in opposition. And, seeing al-Hashimi as a lost cause, they have decided instead to back Saleh al-Mutlaq, currently one of two Deputy Prime Ministers of Iraq.
Rather than having two of their members lose some of the most senior political jobs in the country, they have decided to back al-Mutlaq.
Al-Mutlaq, one of three deputy prime ministers, has been away from politics since the beginning of the year when he criticized al-Maliki, calling him a dictator. Al-Maliki sacked al-Mutlaq and he, in turn, boycotted Parliament. But he recently returned to work after what was described as a "historic meeting" between himself and al-Maliki.
And it is for this reason, that Iraqiya is supporting al-Hashimi with words rather than deeds.
According to media news, an Iraqi court has issued a death sentence to Sunni Iraqi Vice President Tariq Hashemi and his aides. Tariq Hashemi is in Turkey these days and has said the court's decision was politically motivated. Now, the gulf is widening between the Malaki ruling party and the Sunni national alliance, which is harming the country's interests. The recent decision by the Iraqi court will further fuel sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq. After the departure of international forces, Iraq is facing worse sectarian and ethnic violence.
Talabani said that he continues to hold direct talks in the hope of arranging a comprehensive national meeting, which aims to resolve differences and to reach mutually acceptable solutions to various problems, including the issue of Al Hashemi.
Also, Masoud Barzani, President of the Kurdistan region, feels that Al Hashemi's sentencing to death in absentia will only exacerbate the crisis that has plagued Iraq, possibly even create a bitter sectarian conflict. He called on all parties to find a wise solution to the problem and avoid the temptation of settling scores.
Today we are at a point where the Baathist spirit is flowing freely. The al-Maliki government, particularly in the past year, has employed the most ordinary Baathist strategies. The proclivities of the current regime to spread the use of pressure and violence are becoming more apparent. The human rights organizations voice their dismay about the scarcity of information relating to the identities and alleged crimes of those executed by the al-Maliki government. Iraq's Ministry of Justice has announced that in the first eight months of 2012, 96 people were executed and that an additional 196 people will be executed before the year ends. Many Iraqis claim that the numbers are actually much higher than those given in the official statements. Calling al-Maliki's totalitarian regime sectarian names would be just as wrong as al-Maliki's governing strategies. In fact, the Sunni Arabs, the Shiites, Kurds and Turkmens are all equally voicing their discontent with the al-Maliki government. The al-Maliki forces come close to violently attacking Tariq al-Hashemi one day, and turn from the edge of a violent clash with the Sadr groups the next day. We can infer only one thing from all this: that the Baathist spirit is once again flowing freely within the al-Maliki regime.
That's not widely off the mark from the opinion the editorial board of London's Guardian, shared earlier this week in "Iraq: back to the future:"
Is Nouri al-Maliki becoming Iraq's next dictator and, if he is, does anyone in Washington care? The second half of the question is easy to answer. The Pentagon wanted to keep 8,000 troops in Iraq after withdrawal. But Maliki made it clear there would be no US troops after the agreement expired on 31 December 2011. The state department also planned for an embassy up to 16,000 strong, and a CIA station 700 strong, but the Iraqi strongman made short shrift of a sizeable US civilian presence, by insisting that his office take direct responsibility for approving every US diplomatic visa. Washington could use the soft power of military supply contracts, but is unwilling to do that. Maliki is allowing Iranian overflights to resupply Assad's embattled regime in Syria. Washington still does not want to know.
In the United States, it's a presidential election year. Candidates include Barack Obama who is running for re-election as President of the US on the Democratic Party ticket, Mitt Romney who is running on the GOP ticket and Jill Stein who is running on the Green Party's presidential ticket. A real election requires real debates and real debates require inclusion. Jill Stein's campaign notes:
Spread the word far and wide! This morning, dozens of community leaders, artists, and academics -- including Tom Morello, Leah Bolger, Richard Wolff and Medea Benjamin -- and thousands more joined together to launch Occupy the CPD. Please join them at http://www.OccupytheCPD.org
The presidential debates are the first opportunity for millions of voters to see the presidential contenders themselves, not just their advertising campaigns. These debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) - a supposedly "nonpartisan" corporation which is a puppet of the national Democratic and Republican parties, and the big corporations that fund both of them. The CPD's criteria to be included in these debates are designed to exclude independent contenders who promote ideas that challenge those in power.
Barack and Mitt Romney have been traveling and very busy -- raising billions requires a lot of time. Jill Stein's been busy too but she's been busy standing with the people. Most recently, she was in Chicago where teachers are marching to their beliefs as they conduct the first strike in 25 years. Jill's campaign noted yesterday:
Earlier today, Jill Stein joined the picket lines at Amundsen and Lane Tech, two Chicago high schools. On her way from Ohio, she cancelled her morning appearances in Minnesota in order to visit Chicago teachers, parents, and students who have been engaged in a citywide strike since Monday.
The battle the teachers of the Chicago Public Schools are fighting is not one of their choosing. It is one which has been foisted on them by politicians who have been bankrolled by, and who therefore represent the interests of, the 1%.
Rahm Emanuel's war against the Chicago Teachers Union is not about wages or benefits. It is about the future of quality public education in Chicago and beyond. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, with their "Race to the Top" initiative, are seeking to destroy the influence of the teachers unions, to reroute public dollars to corporate interests, and to undermine the core fabric of public education in America.
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is a staunch defender of public sector workers and for quality public education from pre-school through college. "Obama and Romney have made it clear that they think our kids don't need a quality education," says Stein. "They expect middle class people to bear the tax burden, and are not willing to make the wealthy pay a fair share, in order to fund our schools. The situation in Chicago is about whether the superrich pay their share, or whether we have underfunded schools." Stein, a Harvard-trained physician who once ran against Mitt Romney for Governor of Massachusetts, is proposing a Green New Deal for America - a four part policy strategy for moving America quickly out of crisis into a secure, sustainable future. Inspired by the New Deal programs that helped the U.S. out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Green New Deal proposes to provide similar relief and create an economy that makes communities sustainable, healthy and just. Stein grew up in the Chicago suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.
Lastly, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Today her office released the following on sequestration ($1.2 billion in cuts that are supposed to kick in on the budget automatically since the Congress has been unable to make the cuts thus far -- veterans treatment and care is not supposed to be effected in the cuts per Secretary of Defense Leon Panette and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki):
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) released the following statement after the Office of Management and Budget released their report on the impact of sequestration across both defense as well as non-defense spending. Murray worked with Senator McCain and others to pass the legislation calling for this report.
"This report makes it even clearer that we need to replace sequestration in a balanced
way that works for middle class families and includes both responsible spending cuts and new revenue from the wealthiest Americans.
"These bipartisan automatic cuts were put in place to give both sides a strong incentive to make a deal, and they are not going to go away simply because nobody wants them to be enacted. They are going to have to be replaced, and that replacement is going to have to be balanced.
"What Republicans aren't saying when they are yelling and screaming about these cuts is that they helped pass them into law and that they can just as easily help make them go away. But thus far they have been unwilling to face up to the reality that it will take a balanced approach to make that happen.
"I am pleased to see that true to President Obama's commitment to our nation's heroes, this report exempts veterans and military personnel accounts from cuts. After all these
men and women and their families have been asked to do for our safety and security, they should be the last to be asked to make additional sacrifices.
"Democrats are willing to compromise to get a bipartisan deal to avoid these cuts, and if Republicans are serious about avoiding sequestration, then they will stop fighting to protect the rich from paying a penny more in taxes and work with us on a balanced and
Meanwhile the video/movie online that has recently led many to be enraged is still in the news. Al Mada has a story on the Sadr bloc and they look very ridiculous in it. One member of the Sadr bloc claims that the video/movie (they call it a film) has lowered or devalued Islam. If you're a believer of Islam, I don't see how you believe that anything could lower or devalue your religion. Insult? Sure, I can see that. But if you think a video devalued your core beliefs, aren't you saying your core wasn't that strong to begin with? And then there is the call for Nouri to order the US Ambassador to Iraq to leave the country.
Who?
Who does the Sadr bloc think Nouri's going to order out? James Jeffrey?
Even Nouri could pull that off because James Jeffrey is already gone. He's also the former Ambassador to Iraq, the most recent one. Currently, the US has no Ambassador to Iraq.
Consider me picky if you want, but when you come up with demands, it's generally a good idea to stick to realistic ones and put the fantasies in a letter to Santa.
The Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the article notes, is not pleased with the movie/video/film either and they have also condemned the attack on the Benghazi consulate in the US.
Al Mada notes
that a group of Iraqi scientists led by Khalid al-Mulla stated that the
US needed to use all means necessary to stop the film and others like
it. The group lumps the US into abuse by "Zionists" globally -- while
wanting tolerance for their own religious beliefs. All Iraq News notes
the Iraqi Parliament is calling for the US Congress to stop the film.
Freedom of speech has obviously not been explained well. Alsumaria reports hundreds turned out in Kut today to protest the film. All Iraq News notes
Sadrists in Karbala launched a protest as well. For the record, there
were no protests reported objecting to the murders of four Americans.
For the record, the scientists and the Parliament was not reported to
have made any comments condemning the four deaths. AGI reports,
" Hundreds of people took to the streets in Baghdad, in the suburb
district of Sadr City, burning US flags. Protests jointly staged by
Sunni and Shia Muslims were also reported in Iraq's southern city of
Basra." You can briefly see the Baghdad protest in Danielle Nottingham's CBS report (link is video).
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN -- link is text and video) reports on yesterday's Baghdad protest: Angry protesters in the
Sadr City district of northeast Baghdad carried banners, Iraqi flags and
images of radical Shiite and anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as
they railed against what they see as an insult to their faith.
"America is the enemy of
the people," the demonstrators shouted Thursday morning. They also
yelled out, "Yes, yes to Islam. Yes, yes to Iraq. Yes, yes to Quran" --
the latter referring to the Muslim holy book.
All Iraq News reports a protest was held today in Samarra following morning prayers and that protests also took place today in Wasit, Najaf, Missan and Basra. All Iraq News notes that the Najaf protest saw the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (Ammar al-Hakim's political group) read out a statement denouncing the video and insisting it did serious harm to Muhammed. Again, if your deity is all powerful, a video/film/movie can't harm them. You can be insulted, your beliefs can be offended, but no serious harm is done. I'm not in the mood for it today, sorry. I don't insult relgions here, I don't tell jokes about religions here -- any religions. And I do that be welcoming of all. By the same token, don't distort language. If you believe that Banana created the world and Banana will give you eternal salvation and whatever else and a film comes out mocking Banana, it's insulted Banana and it may have offended you, but the film hasn't done serious harm to Banana if you believe Banana is a god. Gods can't be harmed or did we all miss the powers of gods? You're worshipping someone because you believe they're all powerful. Where's the confusion as to the meaning of all powerful?
If you believe Within your heart you'll know That no one can change The path that you must go Believe what you feel And know you're right because The time will come around When you say its yours
-- "Believe In Yourself," written by Charlie Smalls
Logically, it makes no sense that any deity can be harmed by a film. Equally true, you're giving away your power (and your belief system) when you claim that your religion was harmed by something of this world.
I told a friend at the State Dept I'd note Hillary's remarks regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I'm not noting them because I can't find them. Call me or e-mail them to me and we'll include them in the snapshot. They were not "right there" on the main page of the State Dept as stated and I can't find them in the list of her remarks. But what I did find was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identifying the other two Americans who were killed in the Tuesday attack in Libya. I know State wasn't identifying them in yesterday's press briefing and though there were news reports I made the decision we'd wait until they were identified by the Department. Turns out Hillary announced them yesterday so we'll include her remarks on that:
The attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi,
Libya on Tuesday claimed the lives of four Americans. Yesterday, I spoke
about two: Ambassador Chris Stevens and Information Management Officer
Sean Smith. Today, we also recognize the two security personnel who died
helping protect their colleagues. Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty
were both decorated military veterans who served our country with honor
and distinction. Our thoughts, prayers, and deepest gratitude are with
their families and friends. Our embassies could not carry on our
critical work around the world without the service and sacrifice of
brave people like Tyrone and Glen. Tyrone’s friends and colleagues called him “Rone,” and they relied on
his courage and skill, honed over two decades as a Navy SEAL. In
uniform, he served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2010,
he protected American diplomatic personnel in dangerous posts from
Central America to the Middle East. He had the hands of a healer as well
as the arm of a warrior, earning distinction as a registered nurse and
certified paramedic. All our hearts go out to Tyrone’s wife Dorothy and
his three sons, Tyrone Jr., Hunter, and Kai, who was born just a few
months ago. We also grieve for Glen Doherty, called Bub, and his family: his
father Bernard, his mother Barbara, his brother Gregory, and his sister
Kathleen. Glen was also a former Navy SEAL and an experienced paramedic.
And he put his life on the line many times, protecting Americans in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other hotspots. In the end, he died the way he
lived – with selfless honor and unstinting valor. We condemn the attack that took the lives of these heroes in the
strongest terms, and we are taking additional steps to safeguard
American embassies, consulates, and citizens around the world. This
violence should shock the conscience of people of all faiths and
traditions. We appreciate the statements of support that have poured in
from across the region and beyond. People of conscience and goodwill
everywhere must stand together in these difficult days against violence,
hate, and division. I am enormously proud of the men and women who risk their lives every
day in the service of our country and our values. They help make the
United States the greatest force for peace, progress, and human dignity
that the world has ever known. We honor the memory of our fallen
colleagues by continuing their work and carrying on the best traditions
of a bold and generous nation.
Again, I'm sorry for not including the remarks on freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the US, I can't find those remarks. Call me or e-mail them to me and they'll go in the snapshot. I'll also include the above remarks in the snapshot because we noted the remarks on the deaths of Chris Stevens and Sean Smith in a snapshot this week.
The Partisan Wars of 2012 continue with spinmeisters attempting to prove something appalling and awful is happening. It's just business as usual but hit the heavy drama button and let's all pretend otherwise. Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) writes about US Senator Rand Paul's decision to bring Senate business to a halt over two amendments: " One amendment would withhold all U.S. aid to Pakistan until the Pakistani government releases Shakil Afridi, the doctor who worked with the CIA to help positively identify Osama bin Laden. Afridi was sentenced in June to 33 years in jail for treason. The second would prohibit aid to Libya and Egypt until anyone involved in this week's attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts was arrested and transferred to U.S. custody." Both would appear to be serious issues based on the White House's remarks. The issue of Shakil Afridi would, for example, fit right into the fireworks Joe Biden was shooting off at the DNC just last week -- he aided the US, he allowed them to find the cornerstone of Barack's re-election campaign, so clearly he is owed. As for Libya and Egypt, again, Joe's fireworks.
Maybe certain politicians should watch their own rhetoric unless they don't expect to be believed? Joe probably gave the second best speech at the convention (Bill Clinton gave the best speech -- my opinion). Words have meaning. It's difficult to see how the White House can argue that Rand Paul's
advocating for something off the charts since Barack just declared Egypt wasn't an ally. Mike noted NBC News' chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel expressing disbelief over the remarks:
Richard Engel: For the President to come out and say well, he's not exactly sure if
Egypt is an ally any more but it's not an enemy? That is a significant
change in the perspective of Washington toward this country -- the
biggest country in the Arab world. It makes one wonder: "Well, was it
worth it? Was it worth supporting the Arab Spring, supporting the
demonstrations here in Tahrir Square, when now, in Tahrir Square, there
are clashes going on behind me right in front of the US embassy?"
Considering Barack's dramatic remarks, it's hard to argue that the US shouldn't be re-assessing its relationship with Egypt. (That doesn't mean they do or don't change the relationship, it means they re-asses to figure out where things stand and where they want them to go.)
Paul's stance means that nothing moves forward currently. Rogin feels the need to mention Richard S. Beecroft's nomination to be US Ambassador to Iraq. Considering that it was just announced Monday evening and that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has already scheduled a confirmation hearing (next Tuesday), how is Beecroft's nomination effected?
Because if Paul's amendments aren't voted on, he'll stop all votes including any this month which might include a vote on Beecroft's nomination?
It's September. No one expects major accomplishments from either house in September during an election year. They're all marking time. A third of the members of the Senate will spend October campaigning for re-election in their home states (all of the House seats are up for grabs). I'm not sure what Rand Paul is supposedly delaying. If the concern is over the empty post of US Ambassador to Iraq, well the administration should have done a better job vetting and never nominated Brett McGurk. Married and sleeping with another married person in Iraq while working for the US government in Iraq? It doesn't matter that he married Gina Chon eventually (after both their divorces -- it does matter that she allowed him to vet her copy, which is why her paper fired her), it matters that he had a reputation for disrespecting marriage in Iraq which meant that any Iraqi woman visiting the US embassy was going to be suspect which really matters in a country that practices so-called 'honor' killings. They never should have nominated him. His prior behavior in Iraq would have made his appointment an insult to the host country.
There should be an ambassador to Iraq. But no one forced the White House to nominate the insulting Brett McGurk and no one forced the White House to wait so long to name a new nominee after McGurk's name was withdrawn. I remember the Attorney General nominations of 1993. That was rough and Republicans were determined to defeat the nominees. Plural. Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for the post. Her nomination was derailed and she withdrew her name January 22, 1993. Clinton goes on to announce a new nominee: Kima Wood. Kimba Wood withdraws her name February 5, 1993. Clinton then nominated Janet Reno who was confirmed March 11, 1993 on a 98 to zero vote in the Senate. January 20, 1993, Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States. March 11th, Reno -- his third nominee -- was confirmed as Attorney General. That's moving quickly.
The average time between confirmation hearings and a vote is said to be ten days. That would be September 28th and that's awfully close to when senators facing re-election battles have tor return home. That was also foot dragging by the administration which should have planned it much better.
Not foot dragging by Senator John Kerry. As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he pretty much immediately scheduled the hearing. The nomination announcement was made on Tuesday, Kerry scheduled the hearing yesterday. (And Tuesday, the Senate's not officially in session.)
While Kerry gets praise for that, that's about all he gets praise for. He tells Rogin:
Make no mistake: Our
embassy in Baghdad is one of our most important and what happens there is key
to our bilateral relationship and our work in the Middle East. By all accounts,
Steve Beecroft is a highly capable career Foreign Service
officer who has ambassadorial experience, and it is in America's best interest
to get him on the ground as quickly as possible.
You know what, John, I agree with your sentiment. And that's why -- check the archives -- in June and July and August I was calling for Barack to nominate someone. I was noting that Iraq needed an ambassador. Barack waited eight days shy of three months. And then he picked the guy who was already doing the job -- the most obvious choice in the world (and the easiest). After delaying a nomination for nearly three months, the White House and its surrogates (that would be Kerry) are on shaky ground when they whine about Rand Paul possibly causing a delay.
Rogin also quotes Harry Reid who has quickly become the bitch of the Senate. Like a tired drag queen attempting Joan Collins, Reid declared, "I
just think my friend from Kentucky maybe should have run for secretary of state
rather than the Senate." To be honest, I don't mind bitchy. I do mind poorly crafted bitchy.
He whined on the Senate floor yesterday about the potential delay (but strangely avoided Rand Paul as he went after Mitch McConnell). He wasn't concerned with the nomination of Beecroft, he was talking about a delay in the Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012. The bill was introduced by Bill Nelson and co-sponsored by Patty Murray. We support the bill and have noted it many times here. If it's so important to Harry Reid, maybe it should have come up a lot sooner. In other words, if this bill that Harry Reid is now whining about -- whining that it could be delayed -- was so important, maybe they shouldn't have waited until July 24th to introduce a bill? According to the White House blog, to a blog post by Matt Compton, Barack gave a speech on the need for a veterans jobs corps act February 3rd. Who was draffing their feet? Who was delaying? February 3rd, Barack's calling for one and no Democrat in the Senate bothers to pick up the ball until July 24th?
The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Pacifica Evening News, Susan's On the Edge, and The Diane Rehm Show -- updated last night and this morning:
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and since we're talking about the Veterans Jobs Corps Act in this entry, let's note this from her office:
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Murray Press Office
Wednesday, September 12,
2012 (202)
224-2834
Senator Murray Discusses Veterans
Jobs Corps Bill
Bill would help train and hire
veterans as police officers, firefighters, and at our national and state parks
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Wednesday, September
12th, Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs, spoke on the Senate floor on the Veterans Jobs Corps
legislation currently being considered by the Senate. The Veterans Jobs Corps
bill will increase training and hiring opportunities for all veterans including
helping to hire police officers, firefighters and other first responders. It
will also help train and hire veterans to help restore and protect our national,
state, and tribal forests, our parks, our coastal areas, wildlife refuges, and
VA cemeteries. The Veterans Jobs Corps bill contains ideas from both sides of
the aisle and is fully paid for with bipartisan spending offsets.
“This is a
bill that will increase training and hiring opportunities for all veterans using
proven job training programs from across the country,” Senator Murray said. “It is a bill that is paid for with offsets that both
Republicans and Democrats have supported. And it is a bill unquestionably
represents ideas from both sides of the aisle - including from the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. There is no reason now
that Republicans should not join us in passing this bill, and passing it
quickly.”
Key
excerpts from Senator Murray’s speech:
“I’ve been
working on veterans issues in the Senate for nearly two decades. And in all that
time, under Democratic and Republican controlled Senates, under Administrations
of both parties, and in times of war and peace, if there was one issue that I’ve
seen that rises above the day-to-day bomb throwing that often characterizes
debate here - it’s been the care and benefits for our veterans.”
“This is a
bill that includes both Republican and Democratic ideas. This is a bill that
will increase training and hiring opportunities for all veterans using proven
job training programs from across the country.”
“It is a
bill that is paid for with offsets that both Republicans and Democrats have
supported. And it is a bill unquestionably represents ideas from both sides of
the aisle - including from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee. There is no reason now that Republicans should not
join us in passing this bill, and passing it quickly.”
“I am urging
Republicans to join us in rising above politics – like we have done time and
again for our veterans – to ignore the calendar – and the never-ending chatter
about who’s up and who’s down. Let’s send a message to our veterans this week
that they come first. And that we intend to keep up our commitment to their
service.”
The full
text of Senator Murray’s speech:
“Madam
President, I want to first join with the many Senators today who have strongly
condemned the violent attacks against the men and women serving bravely in our
diplomatic corps.
“The senseless
murders in Libya are a reminder of the dangers these public servants take on
everyday - and the courage they show in furthering our diplomatic goals all
across the globe.
“We are all
grateful to them.
“My
thoughts and prayers go out to the families of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the
other victims of this attack.
“And
I stand, as we all do, with the President in supporting efforts to secure those
who continue to serve us abroad.
“Madam
President, I’ve come to the floor today to respond to statements made here
earlier that are completely inaccurate about the bill that we are currently
considering
“And that run
counter to this body’s long-held tradition of acting in a bipartisan way for our
veterans.
“In particular,
I’d like to respond to the baseless and frankly, offensive charges that the
Senator from Oklahoma made insinuating that supporters of this bill don’t
‘really care about veterans’ and that this bill ‘isn’t about
veterans.’
“Madam
President, I’ve been working on veterans issues in the Senate for nearly two
decades.
“And in all
that time: under Democratic and Republican controlled Senates, under
Administrations of both parties, and in times of war and peace,
“If there was
one issue that I’ve seen that rises above the day-to-day bomb throwing that
often characterizes debate here - it’s been the care and benefits for our
veterans.
“We can
certainly disagree about policy -- of course.
“We can fight
with all our hearts for what we think is right.
“But never,
never have I seen accusations that one party or one group wasn’t fighting for
what they believed to be right for our veterans - the way the Senator from
Oklahoma did a short while ago.
“In fact, the
accusations leveled by the Senator from Oklahoma was the single biggest
departure from the spirit of cooperation around veterans issues I’ve seen in my
time in the Senate.
“So I’d like to
set the record straight about the steps this bill takes to put veterans back to
work.
“And in doing
so, I’m not going to question the motives or the degree to which those who may
oppose this legislation care for our veterans
“Because as
Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee – I see Republican’s
commitment every day.
“I won’t level
allegations designed to make our veterans political pawns.
“And I
certainly won’t mislead anyone about what we have set out to do.
“I won’t,
because honestly, I believe that our veterans deserve far better.
“What they and
the American people deserve is the truth.
“And the truth
is that caring for our veterans - and helping to provide them with the training
they need to find jobs when they return home - is a cost of the wars we have
fought for the last decade.
“The truth is
that less than 1% of U.S. citizens serve and sacrifice for the well being of the
other 99%.
“And the truth
is that what the Senator from Oklahoma calls a charade is actually an effort to
give those veterans as many avenues as possible to find work.
“It’s an effort
to give them the economic security and self-esteem that only a job can provide
and that is so essential to their return home.
“Now I
understand that it has taken some in the Senate a long time to come to grips
with the fact that our fiscal commitment to those who wear the uniform doesn’t
end the day that they are discharged.
“But the
truth is, it’s not enough to give our veterans a pat on the back for their
military service, we have to also give them a helping hand into the job market.
“And as the
jobs report released last month reminded us, we have over 720,000 unemployed
veterans across the nation – including over 225,000 veterans who have served
since September 11th.
“And despite
what the Senator from Oklahoma may have said, this bill makes resources
available to all of them.
“In fact
that is exactly why we brought this bill forward.
“What we
need right now is an ‘all hands on deck, all of the above’ strategy.
“That’s why
this is a bill that includes both Republican and Democratic ideas.
“This is a
bill that will increase training and hiring opportunities for all veterans using
proven job training programs from across the country.
“For
instance, it increases grants under the COPS and SAFER programs that we have
seen work to train and hire qualified veterans as police officers, firefighters
and other first responders.
“All at a
time when 85 percent of law enforcement agencies were forced to reduce their
budget in the past year.
“And at a
time when we face a $10 billion maintenance backlog for our public lands - this
bill will also help train and hire veterans to: restore and protect our
national, state, and tribal forests, our parks, and other public lands.
“And because
training and hiring our veterans has never been, and should never be, an effort
that divides us – we also included a host of Republicans ideas in this bill.
“We included
a bill from Senator Toomey that gives veterans increased access to computers and
internet tools to find jobs in in-demand areas in their community.
“We included
a bill sponsored by Senator Boozman that will increase transition assistance
programs for eligible veterans and their spouses.
“And we
included a very important provision from Senators on both sides of the aisle
that will help force states to consider the military experience of our veterans
when they issue licenses and certifications.
“Now we
figured that this comprehensive, bipartisan approach would certainly be enough
to gain Republican support – even if it did come as we were inching closer to an
election.
“But over
the course of the last 48 hours or so we’ve heard that Republicans – including
Senator Burr, the Ranking member on my Committee – had an alternative version of
the bill that Republicans wanted to push instead.
“His bill
includes a system to have states certify military experience for job skills and
helps veterans get hired into the federal workforce, among a number of other
provisions.
“Now it
appeared for a moment like that this late alternative could derail what I
believe can be and should be a bipartisan effort.
“But again,
we are committed to making this a bipartisan effort.
“So instead
of showing our veterans more gridlock and partisanship here is what we’ve done.
“Because as
I said before this must be an “all of the above approach,” we have added every
one of the provisions in Senator Burr’s alternative to our bill and now have an
even more bipartisan, more inclusive bill: on the floor, right now, awaiting
action.
“It is a bill that is paid for with offsets
that both Republicans and Democrats have supported.
“And it is a
bill unquestionably represents ideas from both sides of the aisle - including
from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans Affairs
Committee.
“There is no
reason now that Republicans should not join us in passing this bill, and passing
it quickly.
“Because
Madam President, this doesn’t have to be an either, or situation.
“Neither
party has the magic bullet to this problem, so we have to open as many proven
opportunities to employment as we can.
“Veterans
are watching and waiting.
“They are
tired of excuses, and they certainly have no stomach for the kind of political
posturing we saw earlier today that comes only at their expense.
“Now, I know
that some Republicans have pointed to the calendar as the reason for their
opposition to this bill.
“And
honestly, I wish it wasn’t September and we didn’t have to deal with silly
season here in Washington D.C.
“But you
know who could care less about what month it is or how many days out from an
election we are: the nearly one million unemployed veterans looking for work.
“Their
concerns are: What jobs are available in my community? What training programs
can I take advantage of? What’s being done to honor my two or three tours
oversees?
“This is a
bill that offers them new resources to answer those questions.
“This is a
bill that will help them serve their communities, help them provide for their
families.
“I truly
hope that with the change we have to add Senator Burr’s alternative to the
overall bill, we have overcome the last hurdle before passage.
“And I am
urging Republicans to join us in rising above politics – like we have done time
and again for our veterans – to ignore the calendar – and the never-ending
chatter about who’s up and who’s down.
“Let’s send
a message to our veterans this week that they come first.
“And that we
intend to keep up our commitment to their service.
