Iraq snapshot - February 15, 2012
The Common Ills
February 15, 2012
Wednesday, February
15, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
talks Camp Ashraf, another prep meet-up for a national conference takes
place, Iraq continues to struggle to pass a 2012 budget, the US House
Veterans Affairs Committee hears from the VA about their budget requests
and more.
President
Barack Obama, don't threaten veterans. That was the message of House
Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller this morning. What was he
talking about? He was noting that other departments know whether or not
sequestration would effect them but VA doesn't. In 1985, the Congress
passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act. If the budget triggers
sequestration, then automatic cuts would take place. Chair Miller
explained that they had repeatedly attempted to get a clear answer from
the White House on this issue but that they still had no answer. "If
the president won't lead on this issue," Chair Miller declared, "then we
will."
It was a lively hearing. So much so that all overshadowed Miller's opening remarks.
The
hearing was about the 2013 budget and two panels appeared before the
Committee. The first panel was Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric
Shinseki (with the VA's Robert Petzel, Allison Hickey, Steve Muro, Roger
Baker and Todd Grams). Paralyzed Veterans of America's Carl Blake, VFW's Ramond Kelley, Disabled American Veterans' Joseph Violante, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's
Timothy Tetz. We'll note the second panel in tomorrow's snapshot and
focus on the first panel today. The White House has put out their trial
budget. The House Veterans Affairs Committee was focusing on the
budget in terms of veterans issues.
Chair
Jeff Miller: In the -- in the current budget submission, it has a
billion dollars for Veterans Job Corps. We all are keenly aware of the
high number of unemployed veterans in our country today. And not a
single member of this Committee nor this Congress should be in any way
satisifed with that number. And we have tried to do things in this
Commitee to help bring those numbers down. My concern is there's no
detail in the budget submission. Where did the number one billion
dollars come from? You know, it was chosen to be provided in your
entitlement accounts to be dispensed over a five year period. And so I
think we all benefit from a conversation, Mr. Secretary, as to who's
going to be focused on, what area of the veteran population, how's it
going to work and what will happen to these jobs once the funds run out?
Secretary
Eric Shinseki: Mr. Chairman, the proposal for the Veterans Job Corps,
the $1 billion piece of that, is a program that we're seeking
Congressional authorization on and we are putting together the details
of that which we would provide to you and you would have a chance to
review. I would say that the intent here is to put up to 20,000 veterans
back to work over the next five years on projects that will protect and
restore our public lands. Projects would be in national parks, forests,
rivers and trails, wild life refuge, national monuments, other public
lands. Veterans could work on park maintenance projects, patrolling
public lands, rehabilitating natural and recreational areas and in
administrative, technical, law enforcement-related activities. The
Veterans Job Corps program is a project that's going to be coordinated
with other departments and we are a -- sort of a oversight of the
distribution of funds but there are others who will be participating.
I'm told that uh -- and I'm confident that uh VA resources won't be
diverted to fund this $1 billion that it will come from elsewhere. And I
don't know exactly where at the moment. But, Mr. Chairman, I'll share
that with you as soon as I have clarity.
And
we'll note, from his written statement about the Veterans Job Corps,
"The program will serve all Veterans, but will have a particular focus
on post-9/11 Veterans." So the 20,000 jobs are not guaranteed to
veterans of today's wars. I'm not saying they should be but I am saying
20,000 wasn't, to me, an impressive number, and became less so when it
was going to address not only the largest unemployed veterans population
(young veterans of today's wars) but all veterans. US House Rep
Corrine Brown would bring up the issue of contracts and outsourcing and
asking why every contract the VA outsourced didn't have a clause in it
about hiring veterans? Not really an answer. "You're not answering the
question," Ranking Member Bob Filner pointed out to the VA's Allison
Hickey as she went on about how one contract has seen a company hire 15%
veterans and how they have conversations with contractors.
Filner pointed out that Brown's question was why didn't they mandate
this in the contract, why have conversations when you should be writing
it into the contract? Hickey attempted to reply but Shinseki took over.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: Mr. Filner, we'll take a look at this.
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on, you can give me some kind of answer. Are you saying we can't do it legally?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: She must know the answer [gesturing to Hickey]. I
mean, come on. This is not rocket science here. You issue contracts 100
times a day. Why can't we have contracts that do this?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: You can. And I don't know the circumstances of this contract. And I would --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: But she apparently does. Why didn't we do it here?
Allison Hickey: So, Congressman, I will go back to our physician folks to ask --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Oh, come on. You guys know the answer to this. Why are you so afraid to just tell us?
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm not sure it wasn't in the contract, Mr. Filner. That's why --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: Well she's sure --
Allison Hickey: Congressman --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: You started off your testimony, "I know the contract." So did it specify or not?
Allison Hickey: I will find out and get back to you for the record --
Ranking Member Bob Filner: I don't understand this. You know this better than you're saying here.
US
House Rep Corrine Brown then noted that one of the biggest complaints
she gets is that VA does billions of dollars of work and they're not
doing it with veterans, they're not hiring them and this at a time when
so many veterans are unemployed. Brown noted employment elsewhere in the
hearing as well. US House Rep and Dr. Roe raised the issue of the
large number of suicides and shared that one thing he's hearing from
veterans is that they're doing well in one-on-one sessions and then
they're moved on to groups and that's not working. "These needs aren't
being met in large group settings," he explained. The short answer is
that the VA is currently evaluating with plans to increase in the
numbers hired where needed.
US House Rep
Corrine Brown: Sir, I have a follow up on that, you said can we hire --
are we not -- are we trying to hire all those people or are we working
with other agencies as far as subcontracting out? Because we're not
going to be able to hire enough people. He talked about the group
setting, some people can benefit from the group setting, everbody don't
need that one-on-one but some people do. So based on the resources, how
can we better utilize the dollars to meet the needs?
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Thank you, Congressman Brown. We do contract in the
community. We do provide on a fee basis mental health care. And as the
Secretary was just pointing out to me a new modality that's becoming
increasingly important is tele-mental health where we provide both
evaluation and therapy in a tele-health setting -- where the patient may
be remotely, a hundred miles away. They're on a television screen with
an appropriate supervisor and the psychiatrist or psychologist is back
at a larger medical center. It has been very successful in treating
PTSD and other mental health disorders. And I think that this is going
to become a more common practice as we move forward.
FYI,
Petzel called every female House Rep, throughout the hearing,
"Congressman." Maybe here we'll call him "Mrs. Dr. Petzel" in the
future?
Last week, Senator Patty Murray, Chair
of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, participated in a Virtual Town
Hall, an online Town Hall which allowed her and veterans all over the
country to interact. The Virtual Town Hall was sponsored by Disabled American Veterans and a full transcript of the exchange can be found here.
Various veterans participating in the Virtual Town Hall noted the
delays and backlog with regards to claims -- not surprising, over
500,000 claims are currently backlogged according to the VA's Allison
Hickey testimony in today's hearing. Senator Murray observed, "I
receive so many complaints from veterans and their families about long
waits for claims. I visited the Seattle Regional Office a few months
ago and was astounded at the mountain of paper work and had the
opportunity to really see what we are facing. I am working hard to try
and help the VA get a handle on this. We do have to recognize that the
claims are increasingly complex and there are more of them with the
number of service members coming home today. We want them to be done
efficiently but correctly. This will remain a top priority for me."
And in today's hearing, Ranking Member Bob Filner touched on the issues
of backlog and Agent Orange.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: And I just want to ask a couple -- focus on a couple
areas that I've been involved with over the years. One is the claims
backlog. In your budget presentation ou title it "Eliminate The Claims
Backlog." But I don't see any real estimate or projection or anything of
when you think you're going to do that but I still think that -- in the
short run, at least -- to get this turned around your notion of -- I
think you used the word "brute force" a few years ago, if I recall that.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: It was probably a poor choice of words.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: No, it's okay. It was good. Gives me something to
shoot at, you know? I don't think it's going to work. I just think all
this stuff you have is good stuff but it's too big and, as you point
out, there's all kind of factors making it bigger. I still think you
have to take some, I'll say, radical step in the short run -- whether
it's to grant all the Agent Orange claims that have been submitted or
have been there for X number of years or, as I've suggested at other
times, all claims that have the medical information in it and have been
submitted with the help of a Veterans Service Officer you accept subject
to audit. That is, unless you take some real radical step to eliminate a
million of them or 500,000 of them, you're never going to get there.
It's going to always be there. You don't want that as your legacy -- I
don't think. So -- Nor do we. I think you're going to have to take
some really strong steps in terms of accepting stuff that's been in the
pipeline a long time, again, that has adequate -- by whatever
definition -- documentation and help from professional support. Plus
this incredible situation of Agent Orange where, as you know, not only
have those claims increaded but we're talking about -- as you well know
-- your comrades for thirty or more years that have been wrestling with
this. Let's give the Vietnam vets some peace. Let's give them a real
welcome home. Let's grant those Agent Orange claims. Let's get those --
whatever it is, 100,000 or 200,000 of our backlog -- just get them off
the books. I don't know if you want to comment on that but I still
think you're never going to get there with -- All this is good stuff.
We've talked about it on many occasions. But it's not going to
fundamentally -- or at least in the short run change it around so you
can get to a base level of zero or whatever you want to be and move
forward from there.
Secretary
Eric Shinseki: Mr. Filner, I'll call on Secretary Hickey for the final
details but we've pretty much worked through the Agent Orange -- the
increase in Agent Orange claims. I think we're well down on the numbers.
I'll rely on her statistic here.
Many other issues were touched on. We'll note the exchanges on women veterans.
Ranking
Member Bob Filner: The House passed a bill that I had put forward a
year or two ago called a Women's Veterans Bill of Rights. It got
through the House, it got stuck in the Senate. [He's referring to HR
809 which he introduced in the 111th Congress and which the Senate
didn't pass. He reintroduced HR 809
in the new Congress in February of 2010.] I would just ask that you
look at that. You can do stuff administratively. You could post
something in each of our centers and clinics. We have a long way to go
on this but women veterans need to feel that this institution is
evolving to meet their needs. And a statement at the front door of
their rights, I think, would be very helpful. So I would just ask you to
look at that. We didn't do it legislatively but I think you could do
some stuff administratively.
Shinseki
replied that women veterans' issues in the proposed budget increased by
17%. Dropping back to his written statement, he gives 8% as the number
women make up in VA's total population, women are "nearly 15 percent of
today's active duty military forces and 18 percent of National Guard and
Reserves." 337,000 women access care through VA and, "The 2013 budget
includes $403 million for the gender-specific healthcare needs of women
Veterans, an increase of 17.5 percent over the 2012 level." Later in
the hearing, US House Rep Linda Sanchez would raise the issue of women
veterans and we'll jump to her exchange.
US
House Rep Linda Sanchez: Secretary Shinseki, I recently had the
opportunity to visit the Patient Alligned Care Center at the Long
Beach VA facility and I want to applaud the efforts there to provide an
integrated system of care. But one of the things that's been brought to
my attention is the levels of staffing for the new models that will be
put in place. I heard from doctors, nurses and other pracitioners to
discuss how thinly they feel they are being stretched in this new
system. And it's a system that they want to see succeed. They're
employed there because they believe in the mission, they want to provide
the service. But I'm wondering if you could maybe go into a little bit
of detail as to how the $433 million that is proposed for
patient-centered care -- how that will go towards staffing to make sure
that we have the staff availble to meet the needs of those veterans.
Secretary Eric Shinseki: I'm going to call on Dr. Petzel for the details.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Sure.
Dr.
Robert Petzel: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Congressman Sanchez, when we
implemented the PAC [Patient Aligned Care] program, several years ago,
the first thing that we did was a survey of what we call PAC readiness.
One of which was to determine how many support people there were in
place for each one of the providers in a PAC clinic. The desirable
ratio agreed to in the entire health care community is 3 people per
provider. We found that there were places that were reaching that goal
and then others that weren't. One of the major things that has been
involved in the PAC model financing has been to provide the medical
centers with -- and the clinics with -- the number of people that they
need to support the provider. I will look specifically at Long Beach
and I can, in fact, get back to you. But our goal -- and we're very
close to it as I understand -- is to have 3 support people per provider
in each one of our clinics.
US
House Rep Linda Sanchez: Okay because I hear stories about staffing
being stretched and no new hires or people leave and are not replaced.
And so the concern is to have the appropriate amount of people available
to provide the services that are needed. And I would appreciate you
following up with me about that. To the Secretary, I know that you and I
have previously discussed some of my concerns -- specifically with
respect to the VA employing female specialists to assist specifically
female veterans with VA services. And I know that the administration's
budget contains $403 million to address the needs of women veterans.
I'm wondering if you can tease that out a little bit and provide more
specifics on how that money will be used to address the growing needs of
the female veteran population?
Secretary
Eric Shinseki: Uh, thank you, Congresswoman. I'm going to call on Dr.
Petzel for the details but this is confirmed that you and I have had
discussions about this.
US House Rep Linda Sanchez: Yes.
Dr.
Robert Petzel: I thank you, Mr. Secretary. Uh, the -- our goal is to
ensure that every female veteran has a choice of providers and that, if
they wish to, they will be able to be seen by a female provider. About
75% of women choose to have a female provider. And we are able to meet
that need in virtually every setting except perhaps some remote
community-based outpatient clinics where we just don't have those sort
of uh facilities. I can, for the record, give you the details about how
much staffing -- what kind of staffing is to be associated with the
$403 million increase we're seeing in women's health programs. I don't
have that number at the tip of my fingers but it is important to us as
I'm sure it is to you that women have a choice, that if they wish to see
a female provider, they are afforded that opportunity.
US
House Rep Linda Sanchez: Yeah, one of the things on my tour of the
Long Beach facility is that they do have a sort of separate women's
clinic area where women can choose that to be their point of entry to
the system.
Dr.
Robert Petzel: About sixty of our largest medical centers have specific
women's centers, women's health centers where all of the services are
provided in that same environment. The rest of them are sort of
associated with women specific primary care clinics when they're not as
large. And then, in community based outpatient clinics we have trained
the primary care providers in the necessities of women's health.
Homelessness
was touched on by US House Reps Corrine Brown and Dr. Phil Roe. We're
ignoring that for two reasons. 1) Roe brought up that once a case
worker has X number of clients, the VA isn't issuing vouchers so even
though there is space a veterans left sleeping on the street or
somewhere else (he or she receives no voucher). Shinseki noted that
homeless veterans were decreasing. Are they? Or is this program --
which tracks beds used in shelters -- not factoring in that veterans
aren't receiving vouchers if their caseworker is maxed out? That's not
addressed and until it is, I'm not interested in going into the
figures. 2) What we do know is that one group of homeless veterans is
increasing and it's not the stereotype of the homeless veteran. Earlier
this week, Peggy McCarthy (The Day) reports
on homeless veterans. Andy and Miriam Miranda live with their young
son in a New Haven shelter. Andy's a veteran, they both have degrees and
were teachers and their home was foreclosed during these economic hard
times. McCarthy reports an emerging trend for homeless veterans is that
it's no longer a single veteran but families. Connecticut saw 15
veterans family appealing for help via the homeless programs in 2008 but
last year saw 135 families which mirrors what's happening on a national
level (2010 saw "an 86 percent increase over 2009"). This increasing
group -- homeless veterans with their femilies -- was not addressed in
the hearing. The VA budget calls for "$1.352 billion for programs that
will prevent and treat Veteran homelessness" (Shinseki's written
statement) and I'm fine with noting that figure but, repeating, if VA is
saying that the number of homeless veterans is decreasing and US House
Rep Roe is telling us -- without any dispute from Shinseki or anyone
from the VA on the panel -- that homeless people are being turned away
when beds are available, that they're not being given vouchers, then I
think the VA needs to clarify how they're collecting their numbers.
I'll also note that Shinseki's defined as "VA's goal" for 2013 "to serve
32,000 homeless veterans." Also on the issue of homeless veterans,
Senator Patty Murray's office released the following this afternoon:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834 Wednesday, February 15, 2012 Tester Press Office (202) 228-0371 Snowe Press Office (202) 224-8667 VETERANS: Chairman Murray and Senators Tester and Snowe Call on VA and HUD to Provide Answers about Homeless Women Veterans After GAO report emphasizes data collection partnership opportunities between VA and HUD, Murray, Tester, and Snowe ask Secretaries for answers ahead of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on veteran homelessness READ FULL GAO REPORT HERE (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Patty Murray, Committee Member Jon Tester, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe sent a joint letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinkseki and Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan asking for explicit answers to questions in light of a GAO report highlighting missed opportunities for the two departments to improve services for homeless women veterans. The report also highlighted limitations in available housing options for women veterans with children and an inability to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of women veterans in mixed-gender housing facilities. "It is critical that we continue doing absolutely everything we can on behalf of the brave men and women who have already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation," the Senators wrote. "Until every single veteran is off the street, we must not relent in our efforts to provide the services and assistance they need to find adequate and long-term housing for them and their families. In doing so, we must make every effort to ensure we are addressing the needs of our entire veteran population, particularly our women veterans, to ensure their needs are being met and they are not falling through the cracks." The Senators have requested a response in advance of the March 14 Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing scheduled on veteran homelessness. The full text of the Senators' letter follows: The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki Secretary of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 Honorable Shaun L.S. Donovan Secretary United States Department of Housing & Urband Development 451 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20410 Dear Secretary Shinseki and Secretary Donovan, We appreciate your ongoing efforts to reduce homelessness among our nation's veterans, and applaud your request for an increase of $333 million for programs to end veteran homelessness in the fiscal year 2013 budget. Recent reports of a 12 percent reduction in the homeless veteran population over the last year are certainly a testament to your hard work and leadership. Despite these gains, we have concerns that the particular needs of homeless women veterans are frequently being overlooked. As we see more and more women veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is increasingly critical that we do more to help them transition home. As you know, a recent Government Accountability Office report, "Homeless Women Veterans: Actions Needed to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Housing," highlighted an opportunity to increase collaboration between your two agencies when it comes to gathering data about homeless women veterans. As you would undoubtedly agree, without that data, it is impossible for us to have a clear understanding of the demographics of this population or to develop a strategy that can effectively address their particular needs. The report also highlighted limitations in available housing options for women veterans with children. Although VA has a referral policy in place for temporary housing, it is not being implemented uniformly nationwide. As a result, homeless women veterans in some parts of the country are forced to return to the streets until they are admitted into the Grant and Per Diem or HUD-VASH programs. Additionally, infrastructure needs such as private and secure rooms and showering facilities are often lacking -- placing women veterans in uncomfortable and potentially unsafe situations. We can and should do better. In light of this report, we request responses to the following questions: * What steps are your agencies taking to better capture information on our homeless women veteran population? * How do you track both the demographics and particular needs of this population? * What strategies are being employed to effectively address their unique needs? * What improvements will be made to VA's implementation of its referral policy? * What type of gender-specific safety and security standards will be implemented for VA's Grant and Per Diem program? * What additional steps need to be taken to reduce the rate of homelessness among female veterans? Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that, although the overall number of unemployed veterans has decreased significantly over the past year, the unemployment rate amongst women veterans is now more than double the national average. As unemployment rates often directly correlate with rates of homelessness, how closely are your Agencies working with the Department of Labor to reduce the homeless women veteran population by addressing one of the underlying symptoms of their unemployment or underemployment? It is critical that we continue doing absolutely everything we can on behalf of the brave men and women who have already made tremendous sacrifices for our nation. Until every single veteran is off the street, we must not relent in our efforts to provide the services and assistance they need to find adequate and long-term housing for them and their families. In doing so, we must make every effort to ensure we are addressing the needs of our entire veteran population, particularly our women veterans, to ensure their needs are being met and they are not falling through the cracks. We appreciate your attention to this matter, and request a response to inform our views in advance of the March 14 hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs on veteran homelessness. We look forward to working closely with both of you to address this critical issue. Sincerely, Chairman Patty Murray Senator Jon Tester Senator Olympia J. Snowe ###
Meghan Roh
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834
Violence continued in Iraq today. Reuters notes
a police officer's Jurf al-Sakhar home was attacked with gunfire and
grenades leaving his wife and their two daughters dead and him injured
and a Baquba roadside bombing left two people injured. Aswat al-Iraq adds that a Mosul bombing left 1 person dead and one police officer injured.
From the never-ending violence to confusion. Confusion over AFP and Reuters' reporting and confusion over United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Let's set the stage by noting what we were noting this morning.
We're talking about the residents of Camp Ashraf, approximately 3,500
Iranian dissidents who were welcomed into Iraq decades ago, following
the Iranian revolution. Nouri al-Maliki does not care for the residents
and has, since Barack Obama was sworn in as US President, twice ordered
their assault. They are protected persons under international law and
Nouri gave his word that he would ensure their protection. Nouri's word
is worthless. They are being relocated to Camp Liberty. The British
Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom's Muriel Turner offers this in a guest column for UPI:
The 3,400 residents will be housed it what can only be described as veal crates, in an area not much more than half-a-kilometer-square. Martin Kobler, the U.N. special representative to Iraq, has admitted to Ashraf residents that they will still be denied medical facilities. There will be no way to care for the disabled and nowhere to tend to the injured. There isn't even any drinking water! Their instructions mandate that, residents can only take "individual belongings" with them -- basically as much as they can carry. Vehicles and other property that they have worked hard for over the 30 years in Ashraf will have to be abandoned. The Iraqi government has designated Camp Liberty to be a "temporary transfer location." That's because it does not meet the standards required of a refugee camp. Once inside Camp Liberty, the 13-foot-high walls will close in on them and they will no doubt be forgotten. They will have no way of contacting U.N. observers other than by telephone, which the Iraqis will disconnect as they please. They are to be fingerprinted upon arrival, as if they were prisoners of war. One report said Iraqi guards, perhaps even the same guards who killed their friends and relatives, will be based inside the camp. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy to Iraq is Martin Kobler. He penned a column on Camp Ashraf for the International Herald Tribune which includes: As a first step, it calls for the camp residents to voluntarily relocate to a transit site at the Baghdad airport. In contrast to Camp Ashraf, this site would be monitored around the clock by observers from the United Nations. There, the residents would be interviewed by the U.N. refugee agency, the UNHCR, to determine their eligibility for refugee status, paving the way for their resettlement outside of Iraq. Most have filed refugee claims. A small number have returned to Iran in recent years, but many others will want to go elsewhere. Under the same agreement, the government of Iraq has made two key commitments that it must uphold. First, it has accepted full responsibility for the safety and security of the residents, from the relocation process throughout their stay at the new facility. Secondly, it has promised that nobody would be forced to go to Iran or elsewhere against their wishes. The new site is a former U.S. Marine base that can hold more than 5,000 people. It has been equipped at considerable expense to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf. It has cooking and medical facilities, space for recreational activities and provisions for women and religious observance. UNHCR has carried out a careful technical assessment and determined that the new camp meets the humanitarian standards it applies for refugee situations around the world.
Yes, the two are at odds over the conditions of Camp Liberty. First, Reuters, Kobler's column was not "an article in Wednesday's New York Times." It was a column run by the International Herald Tribune. The New York Times is now the sole owner of that paper and it elected to repost the column to the New York Times website today. It did not run it in the paper. This should have been clear with the note the Times' website attached to the column at the end:
"A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 16, 2012, in The
International Herald Tribune." Repeating, the column did not run "in
Wednesday's New York Times." That is an error you should correct. It's
also a minor point except to note that the wires obviously don't read
the daily New York Times -- either in print or digital form. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, just something worth noting.
Confusion.
For some reason, Ban Ki-moon weighed in today. No indicationthat this
would be happening from Kobler's column. More confusing are his
remarks. The UN News Centre notes:
Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon today called for the start of the relocation of residents
of the settlement in Iraq formerly known as Camp Ashraf, urging the
Government and the camp dwellers to continue to cooperate so that the
process can be carried out in a peaceful manner.
"The
Secretary-General reiterates that the Government of Iraq bears the
primary responsibility for the security and the welfare of the residents
of Camp Ashraf," said a statement issued by his spokesperson.
"At
the same time, the residents of Camp Ashraf also bear a responsibility
to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation or violence must be
avoided and would be unacceptable."
I'm
confused why he made that last statement? Are Camp Ashraf residents
threating to riot or attack? There's been no reports indicating that.
They aren't supposed to have any weapons, the US disarmed them. It's a
very interesting remark. Did he say it? Let's go to the UN's post of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's remarks:
The
Secretary-General continues to closely follow the situation in Camp
Ashraf. Over the past few months, the United Nations Assistance Mission
for Iraq (UNAMI), under the leadership of his Special Representative,
Martin Kobler, and in close cooperation with UNHCR, the European Union,
the United States and other interested Member States, has been
tirelessly working as an impartial facilitator to promote a peaceful
resolution of this issue, within the framework of UNAMI's humanitarian
mandate.
At the request of the Secretary-General, the Government of Iraq extended its deadline to close Camp Ashraf from 31 December 2011 to 30 April 2012. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 25 December 2011 between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq has laid the foundation for a peaceful and durable solution, respecting both the sovereignty of Iraq and meeting Iraq's international humanitarian and human rights obligations. The Secretary-General acknowledges the efforts of the Government of Iraq to prepare the temporary transit location to host the residents and allow UNHCR to undertake refugee status determination. On 31 January 2012, UNHCR confirmed that the infrastructure and facilities at the temporary transit location are in accordance with the international humanitarian standards stipulated in the MoU. The Secretary-General believes that the time has come to start the relocation process without further delay. He urges the Iraqi authorities and the residents of Camp Ashraf to continue to cooperate and complete the process in a peaceful manner. The Secretary-General reiterates that the Government of Iraq bears the primary responsibility for the security and the welfare of the residents of Camp Ashraf. At the same time, the residents of Camp Ashraf also bear a responsibility to abide by the laws of Iraq. Any provocation or violence must be avoided and would be unacceptable. The Secretary-General reiterates his call to Member States to contribute to a durable solution by demonstrating their readiness to accept eligible residents of Camp Ashraf who wish to resettle in third countries. The Secretary-General stresses that the United Nations remains strongly committed to continue to do its utmost to facilitate a peaceful and durable solution.
Yes, the remarks the UN intended to be attributed to him carry it. So where is that in the Retuers report? Or the AFP report?
Not present in either. That's the part that confuses me regarding the
two news outlets. In terms of Ban Ki-Moon, the remarks admonishing Camp
Ashraf residents not to resort to violence and the timing of the 'you
must move now' statements are confusing.
Turning to the political scene, Al Mada notes
that the Parliament discussed the 2012 federal budget yesterday, they
also did a reading (the first reading) of it. The article mainly
addresses MP Jaafar al-Moussawi. He is a part of the National Alliance
and a member of the Sadr bloc. He is also an opponent/rival of Nouri's
for many years now. He has repeatedly, over the years, called for the
Constitution to be followed and castigated Nouri when Nouri refused to
do so. November 28th, a bomb went off outside Parliament. Dropping back
to that day's snapshot:
In the one that will probably have the most impact the Baghdad-based government, Parliament was attacked. Confusion remains as to what it was attacked with. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) puts it this way, "Also Monday, a mortar round landed inside the heavily fortified Green Zone, killing at least two people, police said. The round landed on the outdoor car park that belongs to the Iraqi Parliament compound and hit a car. " Citing the news channel Al-Arabiya, Adnkronos Security maintains it was a rocket. KUNA states mortars and that it "hit a parking lot near the parliament" leaving at least four injured. Aswat al-Iraq notes Parliament's Mohammed al-Khalidi states it was a car and a suicide bombing, "the car exploded outside the parliament building, where the driver was trying enter, but blocked by a military hummer, which obliged him to commit suicide." AFP emphasizes the confusion over details, "The explosion in the parking lot of the Iraqi parliament was caused by a mortar round, said Baghdad security spokesman Qassem al-Moussawi and several other sources. However, at least two sources at parliament said it was a car bomb." Parliament's spokesperson Aidan Helmi declares the attack was an attempted assassination of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and states the car involved was similar to the cars used in Nujaifi's security detail and that when asked to display a security badge, the car slammed into anothe car, the driver got out and detonated a bomb on his person. Jack Healy, Yasir Ghazi, Andrew E. Kramer and Zaid Thaker (New York Times) observe, "An attempted bombing steps outside Parliament would represent a serious security breach inside one of the capital's most heavily guarded sectors, raising questions about the competence -- or complicity -- of security forces. Parliament sits inside the Green Zone, the locked-down expanse along the Tigris River that houses many Iraqi governmetn buildings and the American Embassy." Immediately came the lies. In order to try to elevate Nouri to martyr status, he and his lackeys began declaring that it was an attack on him. He was no where near the Parliament nor scheduled to be. But his vanity is so great that everything must be about him. The attacks were blamed -- by the press -- on the usual catch-all: al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
More
recently, Nouri's asked that the Supreme Court lift Jaafar
al-Moussawi's immunity and accused him of being responsible for the
bombing. al-Moussawi held his press conference yesterday at the
Parliament building and denied any involvement in the bombing or guilt
of the charges. He decried unnamed politicians who were attempting to
use the media to smear his name. He stated that a DNA test on the body
of a corpse thought to be the suicide bomber demonstrates that the man,
two hours prior to the bombing, killed someone working for al-Moussawi
(a bodyguard). al-Moussawi states he has other information and will be
sharing it. Dar Addustour has him declaring
that it was not him or people supporting him that did the bombing but
people wanting to harm him for Saddam Hussein's execution. Alsumaria TV reports
this morning that Spain's Ambassador to Iraq, Jose Turbine, is stating
that the national conference is going to resolve the al-Hashemi issue.
Today Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The preparatory committee for the National Conference held its third meeting today with the attendance of all parties, according to a Parliament statement issued today." Since December, President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for a national conference to address the political crisis. All this time later, all that's taken place is meetings to prepare for it. Al Mada reports that al-Nujaifi attempted to meet with State of Law for a discussion but they rebuffed him. al-Nujaifi is a member of the Iraqiya political slate headed by Ayad Allawi. They came in first in the March 2010 elections. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law slate came in second. Iraqiya's Haider Mullah is calling for the issues of Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi to be addressed prior to the national conference. Nouri is demanding that al-Mutlaq (a Sunni and member of Iraqiya) be stripped of his title (and immunity -- so Nouri can sue him for "libel" for his comparison of Nouri to Saddam Hussein) and he issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi (a Sunni and member of Iraqiya) on charges of 'terrorism.' This is what finally prompted press attention in the political crisis that's gone on since December 2010. |
No comments:
Post a Comment