Report: “Israeli Army Killed 114, including 15 Children, In 2011”

Report: “Israeli Army Killed 114, including 15 Children, In 2011”

Saed Bannoura

February 16, 2012 A report released and published by the Mezan Center for Human Rights stated that Israeli troops killed 114 Palestinians, including 15 children and two women, and injured 467 residents, including 120 children and 25 women in dozens of attacks, airstrikes and bombardments carried out against the Gaza Strip in 2011. In its report, Al Mezan stated that the shelling led to the total destruction of 10 homes while at least 152 homes were partially damaged, in addition to the destruction of 31 stores and shops, 23 industrial facilities, 73 public facilities, and 23 vehicles. Also, troops bulldozed and uprooted 8410 square meters of agricultural lands in the coastal region. Furthermore, the Israeli Navy continued its attacks against the Palestinian fishermen and carried out 69 attacks last year leading to the injury of six fishermen. The navy also confiscated six fishing boats, and damaged fishing nets and fishing tools in seven attacks. The Center said that these attacks against the fishermen are depriving dozens of families from their only source of livelihood. The army further confiscated %35 of farmlands in the Gaza Strip, a total of %17 of the lands in the coastal region, and continued to target border areas, including homes and agricultural lands. The Al Mezan said that despite Israeli claims of easing the illegal Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip, the Nahal OZ and the Karni Crossing remained fully closed, while the Beit Hanoun (Erez), Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) and the Rafah crossings were partially opened. The Center denounced the ongoing Israeli violations to the International Law and the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and demanded the International Community to act on obliging Israel to adhere to international regulations, and to stop its violations against the Palestinian people, especially in the Gaza Strip. Source

Iraq snapshot - February 16, 2012

Iraq snapshot - February 16, 2012

The Common Ills

February 16, 2012 Thursday, February 16, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the political crisis continues, another prep meeting for a national conference is scheduled for this weekend, Tareq al-Hashemi turns out to have been right about the Baghdad judiciary, US Senator Patty Murry gives an important speech about veterans, veterans groups wonder where the budget money goes, and more. Big news out of Iraq today and apparently it's so big that the press can't handle it.  Doubt it?  Here's Sinan Salaheddin and Lara Jakes (AP) reporting, "An Iraqi judicial panel said Thursday the country's Sunni vice president and his employees ran death squads that killed security officials and Shiite pilgrims. The findings offer the first independent assessment of accusations that have thrown the nation into political chaos and threaten to re-ignite sectarian tensions." Suadad al-Salhy (Reuters) misses it too.  Here's al-Salhy's opening, "A panel of Iraqi judges detailed Thursday 150 attacks they said were carried out by death squadsunder the command of Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, in accusations likely to reignite political conflict." What follows is how the announcement could have been covered: IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary. BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism.  Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day.  Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial.  Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary.  Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial. Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq.  This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today. A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held.  Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made. Get it?  You can't be the judiciary and declare -- before a trial -- that someone is guilty.  Tareq al-Hashemi is absolutely correct.  He has been proven to be correct.  Whether he was or was not guilty isn't an issue because there's been no trial yet.  But what is known is that the judiciary has already issued a finding of guilt before a trial took place.  There is no reputable legal organization in the world that would support Nouri's argument that al-Hashemi can have a fair trial in Baghdad.  The court's own actions have demonstrated that will not be the case. The Iraqi Constitution is very clear on this point -- and it's really past time that Iraqi officials started following their Constitution.  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  The judiciary chose to skip the trial and just declare him guilty.  They violated their own Constitution.  They didn't hem and haw and treat it like an indictment where they found cause to hold a hearing.  No, they declared him guilty. That is in violation of the Iraq Constitution.  If they had a functioning Parliament, Iraq should be moving to impeach everyone of those nine judgesand remove them from the bench.  Clearly, they do not understand the Constitution that they are supposed to be interpreting. Article 19th's fifth clause is very clear: "The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial.  The accused may not be tried on the same crimefora second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced." The judiciary issued a finding today publicly declaring Tareq al-Hashemi guilty.  In doing so, they violated his right to a fair legal trial and if they'll violate his legal rights -- a vice president of Iraq -- they'll violate any Iraqis legal rights.  Today the judiciary of Iraq has given the Iraq legal system a black eye. We're being very remedial and highly redundant in an attempt to make clear that what just took place demonstrates that Tareq al-Hashemi cannot have a fair trial in Baghdad. There are other points that can be made -- Mike made some this afternoon including that the judiciary releases their finding and provides no evidence -- but in terms of the news value of these events, the news value is that Tareq al-Hashemi's repeated assertions that he would not receive a fair trial in Baghdad have been proven to be correct as evidenced by the fact that, without a trial -- without even a defense, nine members of the Baghdad judiciary have declared him guilty. So what's going on Iraq?  How did a vice president (now in his second term) end up charged with terrorism?  Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) offers a few clues.  From the opening summary: Within days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocratic country governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by institutional arrangements.  Large-scale violence immediately flared up again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i tragets reminiscent of the worst days of 2006. But there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of 2010 has collapsed.  The government of national unity has stopped functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous powers comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon, Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart. To conservatives in the United States, particularly the architects of the war and of the ensuing state-building exercise, the crisis into which Iraq plunged after the U.S. withdrawal was final proof of the ineptitude of the Obama administration in failing to secure an agreement with Maliki that would have allowed a residual U.S. force to stay.  But the lesson is more sobering: Iraq demonstrates the resilience of domestic political forces in the face of even an eight-year occupation, thus the futility of nation-building and political engineering efforts conducted from the outside.  The U.S. occupation tried to superimpose on Iraq a set of political rules that did not reflect either the dominant culture or the power relations among political forces.  And while cultures and power relations are not immutable, they do not change on demand to accomodate the goals of outsiders. For the second timethe 2003 U.S. intervention brought down Saddam Hussein and his regime, Iraq is facing a real threat of political disintegration.  In 2007, the United States held the country together forcibly, but the infusion of new troops could not secure a lasting agreement among Iraqis. This time, the outcome depends on whether the political factions that dominate Iraq and tear it apart find it in their interest to forge a real compromise or conclude that they would benefit more from going in separate directions. Whether you accept their conclusions or not, the observations should make you wonder if the US is effectively using money in Iraq with the 'diplomatic' brigade or if more US taxpayer money is being wasted? Al Mada reports State of Law MP Salman al-Musahwi states that the issue of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq will be discussed but outside of the national conference in a side meeting between State of Law and Iraqiya. Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Iraqiya bloc MP Itab al-Douri stressed today that both cases of vice-president Tariq al-Hashimi and deputy premier Saleh al-Mutlaq will be within the discussions of next Sunday national conference preparatory meeting."   Al Sabbah reports that the next prep meeting is supposed to take place Sunday and that one of the goals is to resolve the written plans various blocs have put forward. Kitabat notes that there's a climate of fear taking hold in Iraq as it appears that Nouri is building a dictatorship. In other political news, Parliament is supposed to review the case of Sabir al-Issawi, Mayor of Baghdad, today. Al Sabaah reports they are supposed to consider whether or not to withdraw confidence in him. Kitabat explains State of Law's Shiran Waeli has brought forward charges of financial and administrative corruption. Parliamentary sources tell Kitabat that Parliament is expected to vote in favor of keeping al-Issawi on as mayor. On the potential targeting of politicians, Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Legal expert Tariq Harb said today that lifting immunity against the MP should be done with the majority of votes, pointing out the formation of a committee to lift the immunity is illegal and intervention in the judicial system." Lastly, CNN is reporting, "A leader of an exiled Iranian opposition group said Thursday that members living in a long-standing camp in Iraq are ready to begin moving to a new temporary site, under a plan agreed to with the United Nations." Small protests took place in January and early February of last year in Iraq.  February 25th, however, marked the national protests around the country with an emphasis on Baghdad's Tahrir Square and Friday protests have followed since.  The anniversary is coming up.  As plans are underway to observe that anniversary, Al Mada reports that Zuhair Muhsin -- member of Parliament's Human Rights Commission -- is calling for peaceful events and for no one to distrupt the work of the government. Muhsin states the hope that all Iraqis are aware of their right to demonstrate in a peaceful manner.  Iraq Detainees notes that there will be a protest Friday, February 24th at 2:00 pm in front of the Iraqi consulate in Frankfurt, Germany to note the firt year anniversary of the February 25th protests.  This will be a protest against corruption and wrongful arrests, against stealing food from the people, against the international intervention in Iraqi affairs, against the puppet government, a protest to support human rights and the rights of all Iraqis. Violence continued today.  Reuters notes a Baghdad attack in which two police officers were left injured, a Baquba raodside bombing which claimed the life of a shop owner (shop sold mobile phones) and, dropping back to last night, 2 Ramadi roadside bombings left six people injured. In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the first panel of the Wednesday House Veteran s Affairs Committee hearing.  Last night, Kat offered her thoughts on the first panel in "Like Corrine Brown's grandmother's sweet potato pie."  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' Jeff Hall, AMVETS Diane Zumatto and the American Legion's Timothy Tetz. US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the Committee, US House Rep Bob Filner is the Ranking Member.  We'll emphasize some remarks regarding budget concerns.  Carl Blake: [. . .]  What is more troubling to me is the discussion that I believe you raised, Mr. Chairman, this excess of resources that apparently they have identified to the tune of approximately $3 billion in 2012, about $2 billion I think they say in 2013.  It sort of begs the question: How has the administration determined that they have $3 billion too much for 2012 when we have seven months of this fiscal year still to finish? If they came back after the fact and said we have all this extra money, that would be one thing.  But in midstream, it is certainly a concern for us.  Doesn't mean that it wouldn't necessarily be realized but it's certainly a concern. They identify health care services, in particular, which is a big chunk of it, they identify long-term care. I wonder, where are those savings for long-term care? Does that mean that there are fewer veterans taking advantage of VA's long-term health care programs? This given the fact that the veterans population is actually aging?  So we have some concerns about that.  And the fact that they don't even meet what they're mandated to meet as far as their capacity requirement for long-term care.  We also have concerns about this roller coaster ride of medical care collection estimates.  I would note that two yars ago, the Fiscal Year 2012 collections estimate was $3.7 billion.  Last year, when they submitted the 2012 budget, it was revised to 3.1 billion.  And I would note that this year's budget's estimate now shows that there are 2.7 billion so that's a one billion dollar change over the course of the last two years and I understand there are factors that play into those changes but the fact is that that difference in resources which they factor into their ability to provide services has to have some sort of an impact on the delivery of services in a timely fashion and quality services to veterans. So I think those things need to be teased out. I go back to the excess resources they have as important as I would consider that issue, I think that there would be more than a couple of bulleted  points in a four-volume document explaining that.  That might be the most important fact that they outline in their entire budget cause that certainly has an impact on everything going forward. So we certainly hope that the Committee will pursue that and the VA will come forward with more information about it. Lastly, I would direct my comments towards the 2014 advance appropriation.  While the -- while the independent budget does not offer specific budget recommendations for that for any number of reasons, a couple of things that jump out at me about the 2014 recommendation, given our concerns about whether 2013 is actually a sufficient budget put forward, it could arguably be a fairly small increase for 2014.  Additionally, they predict a very huge jump in medical support and compliance over previous years' funding.  I would point out that I believe that's a part of the administrative arm of the medical side of the VA so that would certainly give us pause.  At the same time, there's an even larger decrease projected for medical facilities. While I know they project some transfer in resources and staffing in facilities to medical services, I'd also note the budget shows a substantial decrease in non-recurring maintenance in 2014, a very substantial decrease. This thread is picked up at the very end of the hearing. US House Rep Timothy Walz:  The president's budget and the VA budget is a suggestion. Constitutionally, we hold the purse strings.  We hold the final decision.  So this is where democracy works its best and works its will.  And it's very important that we have this so I want to thank you for that.  Again, I would be the first to say members of Congress are experts at gross generalization so I want to be very careful on what I do on this.  But I do concur and I think some of you brought up some things I'm hearing personally and I go out and talk to people in the field, I talk to those directors and I talk to the nurses and I talk to the people that are cleaning the rooms to hear what's going on and one of the things that I am hearing and this came from one of my areas, we have a -- out in Minnesota, to just give one of them -- we have dental equipment and the space needed ready to stand up three new dental facilities -- our ability to deliver that care -- however, we haven't hired anybody to do it, so it's boxed up and sitting there and that's what's going. Does that surprise any of you? Maybe I'm just looking at where you are at?  If that's the case again where our intent was to fund and put it out there. How are we making sure it happens? And I'm wondering -- and I think Carl brought up a good point along with the Chairman -- of how do we account? Is not standing those dental clinics accounting for some of the money that's not spent, that's going back to go elsewhere because I wanted the dental clinics, that's what I voted for and that's what I wanted to see.  So I'm just curious to get with you on this.  And I say that being very careful of a gross generalization and being very careful of the dreaded disease around here "Somebody Told Me And We Did It." It needs to be more accurate than that. I'm hearing it from you somewhat echoed.  If somebody can give me just your feeling on that, is that kind of what's happening here?  Are we not given the ability to follow through on some of the things that we're doing or intended to do? Timothy Tetz: Mr. Walz, the System Saving Task Force that the American Legion stands up and sends around to facilities nationwide has made their visits this year and they continue to do so.  And it's not uncommon for us to come across empty facilities like this or empty rooms or 'Hey, when we have the right people we can have this tele-health center.' The problem with tele-health --  and it's a great program and I agree with Dr. Petzel on the future that it has tele-health requires somebody to be there to open up the office on the one end, the rural end, and somebody to be there,  professional, on the other end to take it. If you don't have those people, all the infrastructure in the world doesn't do anything for veterans. US House Rep Timothy Walz: Yeah and I think it's, for me it's about following through and I think, best laid plans and good intentions, I'm pretty certain if those three dental services were up, they would be full.  We could keep them full if we had the dentists, the dental hygenists, everything else that goes with it.  So I'm concerned and that brings me to my next question. Again, don't want to over-generalize but this comes from a claims processor out there.  They're being asked to do 20 hours of overtime each month, pressures incredibly high, they lost three mid-range folks, they just simply didn't want to do it anymore.  And that happens in every business -- again, I don't want to over-generalize.  But I heard you mention it.  I'm hearing it and it's kind of if: "If there's smoke, there's fire." Is this a problem you're seeing? I think, Mr. Hall, you mentioned this in yours and I know this directly from the person who came to me and, again, said it but with the disclaimer on that, if you're hearing it too? Jeff Hall: We are hearing it, we're hearing it as an organization. I think other members of the IB [Independent Budget -- the VFW, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans and Paralyzed Veterans of America], maybe.  I personally have heard it because I have friends who work for the VA in various places and it was just basically said as mandatory overtime.  There is no choice.  It's not -- US House Rep Timothy Walz: That's the way it's being described to me. Jeff Hall: So the mandatory, however they get the 20 hours -- two and a half Saturdays, an hour extra a day, whatever it may be.  The biggest concern to those individuals and shared by us is not necessarily the mandatory overtime, it's, to quote them, "Where are we getting the money for this if we're cutting training? How are they requiring this for me to come in on a Saturday to do this but we're cutting the training?  We're already disenchanted by the training that we 'don't receive'."  So -- US House Rep Timothy Walz: I want to give them the flexibility if they need to do overtime but I just don't think it's a good model to rely on. It always makes me question Jeff Hall: I think it's certainly sending the wrong message. US House Rep Timothy Walz: It's unsustainable too. There was a budget hearing today -- veterans -- and I'd like to cover that in tomorrow's snapshot.  We have something else to include today.  And to try to squeeze that and the hearing in would mean giving very little attention to the hearing.  Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  There are a number of veterans issues that aren't being addressed in the national press -- either by reporters or by columnists (including veterans writing columns).  (Regional and local press have been very good about covering these issues.) So when Senator Murray speaks in public about those issues, it's news and it's needs to be noted.  One of the issues is employment and when she's speaking to potential employers, what she says is especially important and news worthy.  We're noting the speech in full and closing out with it.  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Murray Press Office Thursday, February 16, 2012 (202) 224-2834 Murray Delivers Keynote Address on Private-Public Partnerships to Help Hire Veterans Murray tells business leaders and veterans "we stand at a cross roads" moment in hiring and transition efforts (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray delivered the following speech on efforts to improve veterans employment through public-private partnerships. Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, delivered the remarks in front of a gathering of national business leaders and veterans seeking employment. The event, which was sponsored by GE and included members of the National Chamber of Commerce, included a workshop for veterans seeking employment. Senator Murray is the author and sponsor of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act which was signed into law last November and provides a comprehensive approach to improving veterans hiring. Senator Murray's full remarks follow: "Thank you Jean for that kind introduction. I also want to thank GE for putting this wonderful, and critically important, event together. And for the tremendous commitment that they have reaffirmed today to hire our nation's returning veterans. "You know, this gathering today of business leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, veterans in need of work, and Congressional leaders could not come at a more pivotal moment for our nation's veterans. As Secretary Shinseki no doubt discussed, we are facing a tremendous influx of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with new and unique needs, and I want to commend him for putting out a budget on Monday that reflects that reality. "But while the needs are often new with more women veterans, more complex medical devices and technology, and more understanding of the invisible wounds of war. The moment is not. "Today, we stand at a cross roads our nation has stood at before. "We are at the end of a conflict that was bruising, but one that also reaffirmed the courage and strength of our service members. We are at a point where we as a nation have to come together to really examine what every single one of us can, and has, been doing to aid those who were asked to make the sacrifices. "It's a moment that in the past we as a nation have responded to well -- such as in the era that built the greatest generation. And one where we as a nation have stumbled -- as in the aftermath of Vietnam when far too many veterans slipped through the cracks. "But it's those moments that must our guide our work today. "I can certainly say that they guide my own work as Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. And that's because those pivotal moments played such an important role in my own life. "As many of you may know, my father was a World War II veteran who was one of the first to storm the beaches of Okinawa. I can remember as a little kid the reverence those in my little town of Bothell, Washington had for his service. "The way he was treated -- not just by neighbors and community members -- but also by the federal government -- that provided him with a GI bill. And that was there with worker training programs for my mom many years later when he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and could no longer work. And that helped him and his fellow veterans prosper. "But my experience with those returning from war was much different decades later when as a college senior I volunteered at the psychiatric ward of the Seattle VA at a time when veterans were coming home with the invisible wounds of war which they didn't yet call PTSD. "I can remember the faces of the veterans, many of whom were even younger than me, who were being told they were shell shocked. I can also remember -- like many of you -- the lack of answers during that period. The feeling that we were not a nation firmly at the back of those who had served. The feeling that as a nation we were quickly turning the page on that war -- and those who fought it. "Those moments have taught us. "And one of the most important things they have taught us is how critically important it is for us to partner with the common purpose of supporting our veterans between the private and public sector. And nowhere is that more true than in the effort to find our veterans good, stable employment. "Now I know that finding work today is a problem our veterans face along with nearly 13 million other Americans....but for our veterans many of the barriers to employment are unique. That's because for those who have worn our nation's uniform -- and particularly for those young veterans who have spent the last decade being shuttled back and forth to war zones half a world away: "The road home isn't always smooth, the red tape is often long, and the transition from the battlefield to the work place is never easy. "Too often our veterans are being left behind by their peers who didn't make the same sacrifices -- who spent their early careers in internships or apprenticeships. Too often our veterans don't realize that their time in the military provided them with similar skills both tangible and intangible that give them tremendous value in the workplace. And too often they are discouraged by a job market that is unfamiliar to them after their service. "But as all those here today who know the character and experiences of our veterans understand, this shouldn't be the case. Our veterans have the leadership ability, discipline, and technical skills to not only find work, but to excel in the workforce of the 21st century. "But despite that being the case -- the statistics have continued to paint a grim picture. According to the Department of Labor, young veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have an unemployment rate that is over 20%. That is one in five of our nation's heroes who can't find a job to support their family, don't have an income that provides stability, and don't have work that provides them with the self-esteem and pride that is so critical to their transition home. "And so the question becomes: How could this be? "How could these young men and women who have performed so admirably, who know how to lead and know how to get a job done be struggling so mightily? "Well over the last few years, that's the question that I set out to answer in preparing my bill to overhaul veterans employment efforts on the federal level. And it's a question that I knew I had to get answered first-hand from those veterans struggling to find work like the veterans with us today. "So I spent a longtime crisscrossing my home state, which as many of you know has a tremendous number of young veterans -- and I visited worker retraining programs, VA facilities, and more than a few veterans' halls. And in discussion after discussion -- I heard from veterans about the roadblocks they face. "What I heard was heartbreaking and frustrating. "I heard from veterans who said they no longer write that they're a veteran on their resume because of the stigma they believe employers attach to the invisible wounds of war. I heard from medics who returned home from treating battlefield wounds and couldn't get certifications to be an EMT or to drive an ambulance. I spoke with veterans who said that many employers had trouble understanding the vernacular they used to describe their experiences in an interview or on a resume. I talked to veterans who told me that the military spent incalculable hours getting them the skills to do their job in the field, but little time teaching them how to translate those skills into the workplace. "The problems were sometimes complicated and sometimes simple. Most importantly though, they were preventable. "But strangely, when I relayed the concerns of my home state's unemployed veterans to some back here in the other Washington for solutions, none came. "What did become clear is that for too long we have invested billions of dollars in training our young men and women with skills to protect our nation -- only to ignore them once they leave the military. For too long, at the end of their career we patted our veterans on the back for their service and then pushed them out into the job market alone. "So in May of last year, I introduced a bipartisan veterans employment bill that takes the challenges I heard and translates them into solutions to ease the transition from the battlefield to the working world. "For the very first time, my bill required broad job skills training for every service member as they leave the military as part of the military's Transition Assistance Program. It allowed service members to begin the federal employment process prior to separation in order to facilitate a truly seamless transition from the military to jobs in government. And it required the Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable into the civilian sector in order to make it simpler for our veterans to get the licenses and certifications they need. "All of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work. "And late this year they were combined with a tax credit for employers that hire veterans and help to train older veterans for in-demand jobs in the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. And I'm so pleased to note that late last year I joined with Secretary Shinseki -- right next to President Obama when he signed my bill into law. "But while that bill is a critical first step -- it should only be that: a first step. The next step is why I'm here today -- to help continue or work of building partnerships with you -- the business leaders who know our military community better than anyone. "Now, I do have to mention, you are already ahead of the curve. The Chamber of Commerce, working with companies like GE on the Hiring our Heroes initiative, has lead the way on veterans hiring. But we all know that more can be done by businesses large and small across the country. "We can better utilize our workforce training system to get veterans the skills they need to fill the jobs that are open in their areas. We can build upon the relationships we have across the country with community colleges and universities. "But in the here and now, we also need to spread the word on what all businesses can do to help. So, as I do whenever I'm given the opportunity to stand in front of so many big wigs that make the hiring decisions, I need to make my pitch. "And I don't want to just encourage you to hire veterans -- because I know many of you are already doing that -- I also want to pass along the things that are working to sustain veterans hiring so that you can pass it along. "First, please help to get the word out to companies to educate their human resources teams about the importance of hiring veterans and how skills learned in the military translate to the work a company does. I can't tell you how often I hear from veterans who tell me that the terms they use in interviews and in resumes fail to get through to interviewers. "Second, please help companies provide job training and resources for transitioning service members. This is something I've seen done at large organizations like Amazon and Microsoft but also at smaller companies in conjunction with local colleges. In fact, the most successful of these programs capitalize on skills developed during military service and on the job training. "Third, let business leaders know how important it is to publicize job openings with Veterans Service Organizations and at local military bases to help connect veterans with jobs; "Fourth, develop an internal veterans group within your company to mentor recently discharged veterans, "And finally, if you can, please reach out to local community colleges and universities to help develop a pipeline of the many, many veterans that are using GI bill benefits to gain employment in your particular area. "If we can spread the message on just a few of these steps, I'm confident that we will be able to continue to build on the success you all have had in hiring veterans. "But there's one other -- even more important thing you can help get the word out on. And that's the often difficult issue of the invisible wounds of war some potential employees face. "As I mentioned earlier, I have heard repeatedly from veterans that they do not put their military service on resumes because they fear it stigmatizes them. They fear that those who have not served see them all as damaged, or unstable. "We must understand what mental health challenges are, and what they are not. "As we seek to employ more veterans, we need future bosses and coworkers to understand that issues like PTSD or depression are natural responses to some of the most stressful events a person can experience. We need them to understand that these illnesses do not afflict every veteran. "And most importantly, we need them to understand that for those who are affected by these illnesses they can get help, they can get better, and they can get back into their lives. "I know GE is doing good work in this area. But we need to let businesses know that if they have a veteran who is facing some challenges, please, do the right thing and encourage him or her get help and get back to their lives. "They need to know it is okay to reach out. Help them take advantage of the excellent mental health care that I know Secretary Shinseki and VA are capable of providing. "The veteran will be better, and they will be an even stronger member of your team. "You know, our veterans don't ask for a lot. Often times they come home and don't even acknowledge their own sacrifices. "My own father never talked about his time fighting. "In fact, I never saw his Purple Heart, or knew that he had a wallet with shrapnel in it, or a diary that detailed his time in combat until after he had died and my family gathered to sort through his belongings. "But our veterans shouldn't have to ask. We should know to provide for them. "When my father's generation came home from the war -- they came home to opportunity. My father came home to a community that supported him. He came home to college, then to a job. A job that gave him pride. A job that helped him start a family. And one that ultimately led to me starting my own. "That's the legacy of opportunity we have to live up to for today's veterans. And it's one that we can only deliver on if we work together. "You know, it's no secret that here in Washington D.C. we are sharply divided on any number of economic and political issues facing average Americans right now. "But this is one issue we are rarely divided on. It unites even the most unlikely partners, even Speaker [of the House John] Boehner and I, because we realize that: "We have all made a promise to those who have signed up to serve. And we all need to keep it because so much is on the line. Because we are once again at that defining moment in how we treat our veterans. And the truth is that we stand perilously close to repeating some of the same mistakes of the past. "But we don't have to. There is a sea of good will in this country. Non-profits, community leaders, and companies like GE who don't just talk about helping -- who actually roll up their sleeves and do it. "Let's continue to take advantage of that support. Let's work together to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's make sure that at this crossroads for our nation's veterans we come together as a nation to help them down the path of opportunity. "Thank you for inviting me to join you today. I look forward to continuing this work together will all of you."

Tareq Aziz and Colleagues - Lives in the Balance

Tareq Aziz and Colleagues - Lives in the Balance

Felicity Arbuthnot

February 16, 2012 Ms Navanethem Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneva. Dear Ms Navanethem Pillay and Colleagues, I am forwarding this self explanatory alert, as is. Iraq has been illegally invaded, occupied and decimated. Surely the UN cannot sit by as these terrible executions - pogroms - go ahead. Death sentences for no other reason than that Mr Aziz and his colleagues were part of the legitimate, sovereign government of Iraq - a "sovereignty and territorial integrity" which was guaranteed by the UN itself, prior to the invasion. Iraq was one of the earliest signaturies to the UN Charter, fourth, when it was opened up beyond the original twenty six initial invitees. In the name of humanity, I beg you to intervene. Silence is surely complicity in shameful, illegal, barbaric murders. Surely the UN Human Rights Commission will not stand by in silence, as a repeat of the horrendous lynching of Saddam Hussein is planned - multiply. From the bottom of my heart, I appeal to you in the matter of extreme urgency, in the name of our common humanity. The humanity of: "We the people ..." Attached are four articles, as an over view. Most recent at top. Thank you, Yours sincerely, Felicity Arbuthnot (Dr.Hon., Phil.) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28619 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25639 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22356 http://www.uruknet.info/?p=71175 From: Iraq_Over_Red_line group "by falcon Iraq" Subject: URGENT AND BREAKING NEWS - SAVE ALL IRAQIS To: "'Iraq_Over_Red_Line'" Date: Wednesday, 15 February, 2012, 0:06 IRAQ_ OVER_ RED_ LINE _ GROUP BREAKING NEWS – URGENT The Maliki occupation government acting under Iranian orders and carrying out the commands of the "Wilayet Al Faqeeh", via Iranian Itilla’at intends to execute all of Iraq’s leaders of the beautiful era. Their only crime is that they were members of a government of a sovereign state that defended Iraq’s rights and protected its soil, its honour and its dignity. Maliki intends to execute Tariq Aziz, Sultan Hashim And Hussain Al Tikreeti as well as 11 other men accused of the crimes of the events of Bloody Wednesday – the bombings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, bearing in mind that the 11 men were subjected to physical torture at a time when the judicial system ignored this fact. These men are: Ali Abdul Sadeh Qati’i, Mustafa Mohammed Abbass, Assim Mazin Hussain, Saddam Hussain Abbass, Firas Abdullah Fathi, Ishaq Mohammed Abbass , Kailan Kamil Ali, Messar Ali Hussain or Khattab Omar, Salim Abd Jassim, Abdul Qadir Naji Hussain, Hamid Khudaier Thuwaini These 11 names are included in the letter written by their advocate, Badie Aref Izzet attached below. It should be noted that it is intende to have them executed either tomorrow, Tuesday 14th February or within the next couple of days. Where are all the international human rights organizations and in particular, where if the High Commission for Human Rights in Geneva , we wonder; for the Iraqi people are being degraded. Is it possible that people of over 70 years old are being executed ; they are both ill as well as old…. Their only crime is that they were part of a state that refused Iranian occupation of Iraqi soil……. This is Iraq…. This is Iraq…. Its blood is being shed but the standard of Allahu Akbar will always fly high. Comrades, Rescue our Comrades….. Iraq’s Falcon from Occupied Iraq with its Degraded Broken People.

Drone Assaults on Civil Liberties

Drone Assaults on Civil Liberties

By Shahdabul Faraz

February 14, 2012 When people typically complain about the lack of bipartisanship in American politics, their outrage is grossly misplaced. While it is certainly true that our political discourse is home to contentious debates, this, in itself, is not the major problem. Rather, it is a distraction from the most potent toxin in American politics, which is our widespread bipartisan disregard for the preservation of civil liberties. When it comes to this issue, the distinction between Democrats and Republicans blurs to the point of non-existence. While right-wing politicians have a well-established history of ignoring civil liberties, Democrats have recently become much worse. The well-deserved condemnation that the Bush administration received from Democrats regarding civil-liberties violations has proven to be simply flowery political rhetoric based on their recent actions. The left’s outrage at Bush’s policies coupled with their acceptance of Obama’s reveals undeniable hypocrisy. For the confused Democrat, let us revisit the outrage present during the Bush years. During his era, Guantanamo was the primary symbol of right-wing radicalism. Most left-wing Democrats saw it as not only counterproductive, but also as a step away from democracy and towards dictatorial governance. Democrats righteously, and correctly, pointed out that it was absurd that the Bush/Cheney duo could imprison individuals who were accused of being a terrorist without a trial. Back then, Democrats laughed at Bush defenders who argued that dangerous terrorists had given up all of their rights, even the right to a trial. Even if you were to subscribe to this cowardly notion that we have to fight terror with terror, it must still be pointed out that the guilt of an individual cannot, and should not, be determined by the whims of the President. The Constitution has made it so that the burden of proving guilt rests with the courts and America’s legal system. Despite Obama’s defense of civil liberties while a Presidential candidate, he has not only retained many of Bush’s policies, but has also invented new ones. He has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or indefinite detentions that the Patriot Act grants. His administration has given themselves the power to kill citizens, American or otherwise, without a fair hearing. In fact, this was the case with drone strikes that killed American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Beyond that, the Obama administration has approved the use of drone strikes in military operations, which kill innocent men, women and children by the hundreds, if not thousands. A drone strike is the use of remotely piloted planes to drop bombs on enemy forces or territories. According to British and Pakistani journalists quoted in the New York Times, these air raids have even repeatedly targeted rescuers who come to help at the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals. The CIA privately insists that civilian casualties are rare, but even conservative estimates suggest otherwise. Noor Behram, a campaigner documenting these strikes, says, "The youth in the area surrounding a strike gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans think it is working, but the damage they’re doing is far greater." As unfortunate as it is to say, much of Obama’s legacy has boiled down to this: he has transformed failed and power-hungry right-wing policies into bipartisan consensus. Under Bush, Democrats and most on the left used to be against these abuses on both moral and practical grounds. Under their beloved leader Obama, they are conveniently more receptive to the same civil liberty abuses and less willing to speak out. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats support keeping Guantanamo Bay open. The same poll reports that 77 percent of liberal Democrats approve of the use of drones, dropping only somewhat when asked about targeting American citizens. It is virtually impossible to imagine that liberals and Democrats would embrace such efforts to undermine our liberties under a Republican president. The problem stems from the fact that both the right wing and left wing have become two different factions of the same pseudo-dictatorial cult. The members of these two factions have no fixed political beliefs, but are rather bound by their unconditional loyalty to their leader. In effect, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been drained of their political values. They serve not as an indicator of loyalty to ideas, but rather to individuals. During the Bush era, conservatism was analogous to loyalty to the man himself, despite any careful analysis as to whether the administration’s views were truly conservative in nature. Similarly, Obama has capitalized on this blind loyalty and hypocrisy in order to pass legislation that would be appalling to much of the idealistic political left. One could even argue that the point of having a Democratic president is invalidated by these statistics. When a Republican president slashes our civil liberties, those of us on the left vehemently oppose it. When a Democrat uses and expands such policies, a much smaller percentage of liberals and Democrats voice their dissenting opinion. Of course, virtually no non-libertarian Republicans, despite their rhetoric, challenge Obama on this issue because this is one area where they both agree. A complete bipartisanship support in Washington usually signals a systematic destruction of our civil liberties or some other policy that expands their power-grabbing tendencies and confines our sphere of freedom. Obama and the Democrats have done the Republicans a great favor. In the past, these policies were seen as fringe products of right-wing politics. Nowadays, since both Democrats and Republicans have adopted them, the framing of the issue has drastically changed. The radical has become the mainstream, and those of us who have remained consistent throughout this devolving transition are now ironically labeled as radical. It is about time that people abandon blind party affiliations and adopt critical thinking. Vehemently opposing policy X under Bush, while tolerating or supporting the same policy X under Obama flies in the face of rational thinking. By utilizing and expanding on Bush’s policies, Obama has given them a sense of universal legitimacy that would otherwise not exist, and this is something that no right-wing president could ever have dreamed of achieving. Assistant Editorials Editor Shahdabul Faraz is a College sophomore from Toronto, Canada.

Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over

Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over

RussiaToday

February 14, 2012 The American public has been told that the Iraq War is a thing of the past. Even still, the US Department of Defense is asking the federal government for almost $3 billion for "activities" in a country that they shouldn’t be in. The last US troops were supposedly withdrawn from Iraq just before 2012 began, but after years of a war that abruptly ended this past December, the Pentagon still wants billions to continue doing…something in Iraq. According to the latest budget request, the DoD think around $2.9 billion should cover the cost of "Post-Operation NEW DAWN (OND)/Iraq Activities." In a report published Monday by Wired.com, they acknowledge that the funding that the Pentagon wants now is almost as bizarre as the war itself. For nearly $3 billion, the DoD says that will be able to afford "Finalizing transition" from Iraq. Only two months earlier, however, President Obama celebrated the end of the Iraqi mission. At the time, some critics called the ending of the war as more of a catapult for Obama re-election campaign than anything else. Now with the revelation that the US Defense Department still wants billions for a war America is told it isn’t fighting, the alleged ending of Operation New Dawn seems just as questionable as its mysterious beginning. After "ending" the war last year, the US government handed Iraqi operations over to the State Department. Three billion dollars — the amount that the DoD wants for a war they aren’t waging — makes up around one-ninth of the State Department’s entire annual budget. In 2012, the Pentagon had asked for $11 billion to fight the War in Iraq — which was, at the time, an actual war. But as the death toll stands at over 4,000 US casualties after nearly eight years overseas, it is clear by the latest cash request that the US, as many had expected but had not hoped, is not ready to just walk away just yet. On the bright side, it might be easier to foot the cost of this make-believe war than you would think. Suspiciously, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction announced in January that upwards of $2 billion that the US was holding onto for Iraq had mysteriously disappeared.

Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem: Israel is turning Jerusalem into a Jewish City

Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem: Israel is turning Jerusalem into a Jewish City

George Rishmawi

February 14, 2012 Former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michael Sabbah said the current municipality of Jerusalem is trying to turn the city into a Jewish one. He told the Italian news Agency AKI, that turning the holy city of Jerusalem into a mono-ethnic city will only cause war instead of stability and peace. The city should maintain its holistic nature that welcomes all people, and should have a special political status by becoming the capital of both, Palestine and Israel. The Patriarch expressed disappointment in the Israeli and American rejection of Palestine joining the UNESCO and the attempts to join the UN.

Palestinian Teen from Qattana: Israeli Soldiers Break His Legs, Force Him to Walk

Palestinian Teen from Qattana: Israeli Soldiers Break His Legs, Force Him to Walk

Palestine News Network

February 15, 2012 Defense for Children International has documented the arrest by Israeli soldiers of 16 year-old Mahmoud Omar Faqeh from Qattana village northwest of Jerusalem. Defense for Children International revealed that the Israelis were in direct violation of many international standards for the treatment of children during arrests. As the teen explained to Defense for Children International, Mahmoud was going with his friends to a place near the Apartheid Wall in Beit Sourek village when they were attacked by Israeli soldiers. "One of the Israeli soldiers fired a rubber bullet at my leg, and then another Israeli soldier caught me and two of my friends. As soon as they arrested me, they forced me to get down and face the ground. They handcuffed me with a plastic tie. They started to severely beat me on my body and my legs with their feet and the black sticks that they were holding," said Mahmoud. "I was screaming from the pain they caused me. Though I was shouting 'my legs are broken,' they continued to beat me for almost 15 minutes." "After that, the soldiers took me off the ground and arrested me. Because I couldn't walk on my legs, the soldiers started to beat me again and asked me to stand up, but I couldn't from the pain. They lifted me and forced me to walk, so I walked a little bit and I fell. Then two soldiers held me by my shoulders and dragged me until we reached the Apartheid Wall. They put me on Ma'bad Street near the wall, and they started to beat me again until a military vehicle came and took me to the nearest military checkpoints. I think it was Beit Eksa checkpoint, but, because the soldiers blindfolded my eyes with the woolen hat I was wearing, I couldn't see anything." The teenager was detained at the checkpoint for almost half an hour and was forced to sit blindfolded in the rain on the cement, with his hands cuffed behind his back suffering from leg pain. Mahmoud said, "The soldiers transferred me from Beit Aksa checkpoint to a place – I caught its name during the investigation – it was Atarot Military Prison. They made me sit on the cement and I couldn't raise my head, because whenever I did a soldier yelled at me, and that was very painful." At mid-night, the soldiers interrogated the teen and he was asked about his reasons for walking near the Apartheid Wall. The interrogator said that the teen was throwing stones at the soldiers and distracted them from doing their jobs, but Mahmoud denied it. When Mahmoud told the interrogator that his legs were hurt, he was told that the soldiers would take him to a doctor who would wrap some gauze around legs and then he would be taken to prison. After one hour, the interrogation ended and Mahmoud was transferred to Ofer Military Prison near Ramallah. There, the doctor refused to touch him or give him treatment, so the soldiers took him to Hadassa Hospital in Jerusalem, after they covered his eyes with an unused plastic garbage bag. "When I reached Ofer, the soldiers dragged me to the prison's clinic, and I was suffering from the pain, I asked them to stop, but one of the soldiers said in Arabic, "Shut up or we will put you with the dogs." The teen reached Hadassa Hospital the morning following his arrest. Since his arrest, Mahmoud hadn't eaten or used the bathroom. Mahmoud said, "In the hospital, two soldiers from the Border Guard accompanied me; they were dragging me. I was asked to take some tests, and then a doctor came to check on my legs and asked for an x-ray. It showed that I have two fractures in my right leg, and the doctors wrapped it in the cast and put me on one of the beds in the hospital. Whenever I tried to sleep, one of the soldiers beat me and the other one said that am going to die here, or I am going to the prison, in addition to other curses from both of them." The next day in the hospital, the doctors put a cast on his left leg, because they discovered that it, too, was broken. At that point, Mahmoud ate his first meal and used the bathroom, with the help of a nurse. The following afternoon, Mahmoud was transferred to Ofer prison accompanied by three soldiers, including one female soldier, who beat Mahmoud before summoning him to the prison's administration. They also forced him to walk for 30 meters, though the soldiers were aware of the doctors' recommendations that Mahmoud not walk for at least 12 hours until the cast dries. Mahmoud said, "One of the soldiers beat me on my chest with his vest, and it was strong, while the female soldier pulled my hair and forced me to walk on my legs." Mahmoud stayed at Ashbal section in Ofer Prison for 16 days where he was tortured by the Israeli soldiers. During the 16 days, he appeared five times before the court, moving in a wheelchair. At the fifth session, he was released on a 1000 NIS bond until the date of his next court summons.

Taliban's spokesman interview with CNN

Taliban's spokesman, Zahibullah Mujahid, 's interview with CNN

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

The spokesman of Islamic Emirate, Zabihullah Mujahid in interview with CNN February 15, 2012 Alemarah website presents to its viewers the interview of Zabihullah Mujahid done with CNN news network on the 14/02/2012 where a range of questions regarding the current ongoing situation and political issues are answered. Q. Is it possible for the Taliban to renounce international terrorism in one of its written statements as per the American demand? A. All praise is due to Allah and may his peace and blessings be upon his chosen servant. To proceed, I must first and foremost say that we do not work according to the guidelines of America or any other country but all of our decisions are based on Islamic principles while giving consideration to our national interests however based on mutual respect, we do believe in reaching an understanding with all the countries of the world. Now, regarding the issue of terrorism: If America and its allies consider the current Jihad and struggle in Afghanistan against the eradication of the occupation and its continuation until all foreign troops leave and an Islamic government is established as terrorism, then we cannot shun this as it would be an un-Islamic act because we consider this Jihad and struggle as our Islamic obligation, the shunning of which is not possible in any circumstance. However, as we continue with this obligation (Jihad and struggle) we are religiously held responsible in preventing civilian casualties. Q. Do you have delegates based in Qatar at the moment who are engaged in talks with America? If you don’t, do you have plans to send delegations in the near future? A. A representative of Islamic Emirate has held meetings with American delegates in Qatar regarding confidence building measures. As for when we will send or not send delegations to Qatar, then it all depends on when we reach the negotiation stage. Up until now, this has not officially occurred and naturally, as we reach the negotiation stage, a delegation or a team of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will be chosen and sent to Qatar. Q. Have you yet been asked to meet with the Karzai administration in Saudi Arabia? If not, will you accept to meet with them in Saudi Arabia if requested? A. Before I answer your question I firstly must say that in order to reach an understanding with America, Qatar was chosen as an intermediary nation by the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. This was our own choice and not on due part to the behest or pressure of another nation, a selection which America also accepted. In regards to Saudi Arabia, no one has put forward such a request to us and even if such a thing was requested, our answer will be that the government of Karzai is not independent and meeting with it will not benefit in any way in solving the problem. Q. Do you believe that the active lower level Taliban will accept you accord if you were to reach a positive outcome with America in Qatar? A. In our system, no consideration is given to the issue of high rank or low rank but rather the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan works as a cohesive administration. All of its offices, its officials and members work for a mutual goal under the leadership of the Commander of the Faithful. The current talks or future negotiations all take place with the permission and guidance of the Amir and all agreements which all done with the consent of the Amir in the light of Islamic principles and national interests are happily accepted by all and they who work earnestly to implement them. Q. Do you think talking with the Karzai administration will be beneficial or do you want to directly talk with the Americans? A. I must say that Karzai, Kabul administration, Afghans and the Americans or Washington is not concerned here as some people say, as a form of protest, that the Taliban only want to talk with the Americans instead of their own Afghans. In reality, the concern is of one exercising power and one with no power. It is well known to the Afghan people as well as the world that the real power holder fighting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan is America. It has used Karzai and his administration as an instrument to maintain its grip and continue its occupation. Q. If those Taliban that are being held in Guantanamo are not released, will your negotiations with the Americans still continue? A. Negotiations have not yet began with the Americans so talking about it continuing does not mean much. Now the question is, when will negotiations begin? I must say that before any negotiations can take place, confidence building measures must first succeed so an atmosphere can be created for negotiations and this confidence building measure rests entirely with the Americans and they must take steps for it which are; exchange of Guantanamo prisoners, the opening of a political office and the termination of the black list of the United Nations as well as the bounty lists of America and her allies.

Iraq snapshot - February 15, 2012

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 @PattyMurray 202-224-2834 Get Updates from Senator Murray       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.