Gilad Atzmon - ZIONISM IS DEAD AND KICKING

ZIONISM IS DEAD AND KICKING

WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012 AT 12:20PM GILAD ATZMON

By Gilad Atzmon

http://www.deliberation.info/

In a recent Haaretz article, leading Israeli columnist Gideon Levy affirms that Zionism is pretty irrelevant as far as Israelis are concerned. Similar to the line I myself develop in The Wandering Who, Levy contends that Israelis do not understand what Zionism stands for. For them it is an archaic notion.

The meaning of it is simple. That which seems as a vivid ‘Zionist’ / ‘anti Zionist’ debate is in practice an internal Jewish Diaspora quarrel with no significant practical meaning.

Levy writes, “In 2012, the 64th year of the (Jewish) state, no one even knows for certain what remains of it (Zionism), what the role of Zionism is and how it is defined.”

“Who is a Zionist?” asks Levy. “The truth is that there is no answer. Not because Zionism was not a just cause – it was, even if it was tainted by unnecessary injustices, and not because it didn’t succeed. It was the greatest national success story of the 20th century. But that century is over and its greatest success story has been established. The national home arose, and now it is a regional power. Anyone who wanted to – about one-third of the Jewish people have – join it, and the door remains open to the rest.”

Zionism was clearly a Judeo-centric revolutionary idea, but as it seems, it achieved its goal in 1948. Hence, it isn’t surprising that contemporary Israelis fail to grasp the meaning of Zionism. If early Zionists promised to transform the Diaspora Jew into an civilised being, the Israelis, for some reason, see themselves as ‘civilised subjects’. They at least in their eyes, are the post revolutionary products.

Hence, Levy argues that “Zionism is no longer relevant, and its place is in the history books alone.” He suggests that “Zionism’s way has been lost to us (the Israelis). That was inevitable, because it has completed its task.”

Similar to the line of thought I develop in The Wandering Who, Levy also differentiates between Israeli patriotism and Zionism. “Anyone who contributes to the state is a worthy citizen and a decent patriot. Anyone who contributes to its institutions is a philanthropist – this has no connection to Zionism. Anyone who is required to serve in its army, exactly like anyone who is supposed to pay taxes to it, is fulfilling his legal obligations. This has no connection to Zionism or its values.”

However, as much as Levy is correct in his reading of the Israeli and the Israeli society, it may be possible that, being an Israeli, he misses the role of Zionism as a Jewish Diaspora collective symbolic identifier. The Jewish State has a clear and significant function within the contemporary Jewish Diaspora discourse. The vast majority of Diaspora Jews and Jewish institutions identify or affiliate with Israel and support its cause. It is also true that some Jews, are critical of Israel and its policies. A few of these Jews identify themselves as ‘anti Zionists.’ Yet, bearing Levy observation in mind , the meaning of it all is that the debate between the Zionists and their Jewish opponents (i.e anti Zionists) has very little political significance for Israelis, Israeli politics and even Palestinians. This debate is there to help Diaspora Jews to identify themselves politically, spiritually and socially. It has very limited practical or pragmatic meaning if any at all.

But it also seems as if Levy ignores the huge impact of Zionist and Lobbies within Western politics. In the USA, it is AIPAC that dominates the country foreign policy. Here in Britain, 80% of the leading party’s MPs are CFI members (Conservative Friends of Israel). The situation in France and Canada is similar. So as much as Zionism is foreign to Israelis, it is pretty relevant for Diaspora Jews.

With AIPAC pushing in the open for an American attack on Iran, Zionism seems to be a serious threat to world peace. And yet, somehow, it is the so-called Jewish Anti Zionists who go out of their way to silence any criticism of Zionist lobbies and Jewish power within Western politics.

As much as Levy is correct in suggesting that Zionism may be dead for Israel, it is certainly alive and kicking in the West. It is probably the most influential and dangerous political school of thought. Especially because it has managed to drift away from the relatively modest notion of a ‘promised land’ into a globally belligerent expansionist ideology aiming at a ‘promised planet.’

IRAN - 3 weeks war

Pentagon encircles Iran: Victory would take 3 weeks

Published: 2 May, 2012, 15:49
Edited: 2 May, 2012, 17:05

As the US beefs up its military presence in the Persian Gulf region, Pentagon strategists estimate that they would need less than a month to defeat Iranian forces should a military conflict take place.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) believes it can destroy or significantly degrade Iran's conventional armed forces in about three weeks using air and sea strikes, a defense source told The Washington Post.

“We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,” Army Lt. Col. T.G. Taylor, a spokesman at CENTCOM told the newspaper. “We take our guidance from the secretary of defense and from our civilian bosses in [Washington] DC. So any kind of guidance they give us, that’s what we go off of [sic].”

The American military has been building up its presence in the region amid rising tension in the area.

The US Navy currently has two aircraft carriers deployed near Iran and is upgrading mine-detection and removal capabilities.

The US Air Force recently dispatched a number of F-22 Raptor strike fighters to a base in the United Arab Emirates. The move caused backlash from Tehran, which said Wednesday it threatened regional stability.

Deploying a “floating base” in the Persian Gulf – a converted transport ship that would serve as a semi-stationary base of operations for the US military – is also on the table. USS Ponce is expected to host mine-sweeping helicopters, speed boats and probably commando teams.

The Pentagon has also intensified training of elite troops of its allies in the region. The members of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council commando team, who serve as instructors, may be ordered to go into the field as well, should such a need arise.

The measures are taken as contingency for possible attack by Iran on US troops or blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital oil transit route, the US says.

CENTCOM says there are about 125,000 US troops in close proximity to Iran. The majority of them – 90,000 – are deployed in or around Afghanistan. Some 20,000 soldiers are ashore elsewhere in the Near East region; and a variable 15,000 to 20,000 serve on naval vessels.

Oil battlefront

The military threat is just part of the mounting pressure on Tehran. Washington says it would use force only as a measure of last resort and is instead focusing on economic pressure.

On Tuesday, US President Barack Obama signed an order giving the Treasury Department more power to impose financial sanctions against those trading with Iran.

"Treasury now has the capability to publicly identify foreign individuals and entities that have engaged in these evasive and deceptive activities, and generally bar access to the US financial and commercial systems," the department said in a statement.

The US and the EU have issued a ban on buying Iran-produced crude in a bid to cripple the country’s export-dependent economy. Part of this effort involves sanctions against companies and institutions engaged in the oil trade with Iran financially. They are banks transferring payment for the crude or firms insuring tankers transporting Iranian oil.

The Iranian oil industry is not suffering from sanctions alone. The country’s Oil Ministry reported last week that it had finally managed to contain a cyber attack on the industry’s facilities.

“The software attack has been fully contained and controlled with the help of experts three days after it was hit,” Iran’s deputy oil minister for engineering affairs, Hamdollah Mohammadnejad, told the state-run Mehr news agency.

In 2010 a malicious computer worm called Stuxnet damaged computer software at Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities. Some computer security experts said the malware was the work of a highly-professional hacker team, which was probably provided with know-how by US or Israeli governments.

Western countries and Israel suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb and are pressuring it to stop enrichment of uranium. Tehran insists it is pursuing a civilian nuclear power program only, which it is entitled to do as a sovereign state.

The row has escalated last year after the publication of a controversial report by UN’s nuclear watchdog, which Iran’s opponents used to justify issuing more sanctions.

Israel Encircles Iran

Israel Encircles Iran

By Philip Giraldi | March 27, 2012

Israel is tightening the noose around Iran. The Israeli government has signed a secret agreement with the government of Azerbaijan to lease two former Soviet military airfields located close to the Iranian border. One of the facilities is being used as an intelligence collection site, with advanced Sigint capabilities and preparations underway for drone operations. The other base is being designated a search-and-rescue facility. It will eventually have helicopters that will presumably be dispatched to aid downed Israeli fliers if there is a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The base will also have limited refueling and recovery capabilities for planes too damaged to make the long flight back to Israel over Iraqi or Saudi airspace. The Azerbaijani bases are much closer to the prime Iranian nuclear targets at Natanz and Fordow than are airfields in Israel itself. Recent Iranian government and media complaints about threatening Azerbaijani activities reflect official concern on the part of Tehran over the new developments.

Tel Aviv is also increasing its presence in neighboring Georgia, which is serving as the conduit for equipment going to Azerbaijan, which is shipped through the Black Sea port of Poti. The Israelis control an airfield in Georgia that is being used for intelligence gathering and logistical support for the large Israeli private-contractor and military-adviser presence in the country. Israeli advisers are training the Georgian army in the use of largely U.S.-supplied military equipment and are effectively partners in the country’s intelligence and security agencies. Drones operating over northwest Iran have been flying out of the Georgian base. John McCain’s 2008 claim when the country went to war with Russia that “we are all Georgians now” becomes a lot more comprehensible when one realizes that the drive to aid the country was largely about supporting Israel.

Israeli intelligence officers and military personnel in mufti are active in Iraqi Kurdistan as well, where they have been recruiting agents to collect information and carry out operations inside Iran. Many of the recruits are affiliated with Pajak, a U.S. State Department-listed terrorist organization. There are concerns within the U.S. intelligence community that the Israelis are playing fast and loose with their affiliation in what are known as false-flag operations, frequently representing themselves as Americans in actions similar to those relating to Mossad’s efforts to recruit Jundallah militants in Western Europe. Israel also reportedly attempted to hide behind a false flag in January when one of its drones that had been operating over Syria went down in Turkey. The Israeli Foreign Ministry initially denied any knowledge, suggesting that the device was American. But the Turks, who have U.S. drones flying from airbases in their own country, recognized that the drone was not of American manufacture, and the Israeli Embassy was forced to recant and eventually apologize. No apology was forthcoming to the United States. Back at home, the FBI is investigating persistent reports that Israeli intelligence officers operating in the U.S. are again pretending to be FBI or CIA to obtain the cooperation of Arab-Americans.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

Israeli Occupation Forces order Palestinian farmers in Deir Istiya to uproot 1,400 olive trees

Israeli Occupation Forces order Palestinian farmers in Deir Istiya to uproot 1,400 olive trees

by Allison Deger

Villagers relaxing in Deir Istiya, 2009. (Photo: Genevieve Long) Major olive producing village ordered to uproot 1,400 trees by May 1 April 28, 2012 Earlier this week, Israel ordered Palestinian farmers in Deir Istiya, a major West Bank olive producing village, to uproot 1,400 trees by the end of this month. By comparison, this order is 400 more trees than the total number uprooted in all of 2011. "This is the largest order for uprooting trees that the farmers of Wadi Qana have ever been given," said the International Women's Peace Service (IWPS). And Amal Salem, 63, from Deir Istiya, but now living in St. Louis says unearthing olive trees effects everyone in the village, "When I visited last year, every house I went to has had uprooted trees." Amal's family has farmed olive for five generations.  It was their livelihood, and afforded her to attend school in Cairo. "I went to school because of the olive trees. I went to school because in Cairo because of the trees. My father had no other income but the olive trees." In Amal's family, Israeli authorities uprooted 300 trees of her 83-year old uncle's land. Amal described them as ancient growth, "1,000 years old," stemming from the Roman period. The day the bulldozers arrived, her cousins protested, clinging to the trees, although they were uprooted regardless. But within a day or two, her family proudly re-planted what was unearthed. Yet Amal's uncle has night terrors from this incident, stirring over the sight of seeing his child nearly smashed by a bulldozer. Since the Mamluk period, Deir Istiya has been one of the largest olive producing regions in the West Bank. But, even with 10,000 dunums of agricultural land, the village's full farming capacity is weakened by Israel's military and civilian occupation. Nearby, eight settlements are built on, or adjacent to, a total of 15,000 dunums of Palestinian land. "From my parents' house we can see were they built a settlement on our land," says Amal. And from the outposts, wastewater seeps into and is illegally dumped into a natural spring used by Palestinians producing olives.  Amal says the wastewater flows down from the settlements like a river, "but it isn't a river." At times, the wastewater overflows from the dumping site to onto Palestinian orchards. Last fall, over 100 trees in Deir Istiya were destroyed by flooded wastewater. Additionally, the settlers themselves cause problems to Deir Istiya's farmers through acts of harassment and violence, including arson to agricultural lands and "price tag" attacks. Amal has seen them holding guns a schoolchildren and earlier this year, settlers desecrated a mosque during a wave of price tag actions sparked by the demolition of an illegal Israeli outpost.  And devastatingly, Amal says a few years ago a settler ran over one villager with a car. Today IWPS held an action in support of the farmers and released the following statement: On April 25, 2012 nine farmers of Deir Istiya, Salfit were given orders to uproot 1400 olive trees in the Wadi Qana agricultural area by May 1, 2012. This is the largest order for uprooting trees that the farmers of Wadi Qana have ever been given. Most of the trees were planted approximately 5 years ago on privately owned Palestinian property. The orders, placed on retaining terraces, rocks and fences in the vicinity of the trees, state that if the farmers do not uproot their trees they will face punishment which could, according to Deir Istiya mayor Nazmi Salman include large fines and imprisonment.

Mossad, Blackwater, CIA Led Operations in Homs

AL MANAR NEWS AGENCY

Mossad, Blackwater, CIA Led Operations in Homs

Israa Al-Fass “The crisis is at its end” is no longer a relieving statement made by some political analysts, as the crisis is really close to its end. Baba Amro is now under the control of the Syrian army… and so are the armed groups of which a big number escaped to the Lebanese borders dubbing their retreat “tactical”. Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.” The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days. Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro For his part, Syrian expert in strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen. Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France. “The Syrian army also uncovered tunnels and equipments there,” he added, pointing out that “advanced Israeli, European, and American arms that have not yet been tested in the countries of manufacture, in addition to Israeli grenades, night binoculars, and communication systems were confiscated by the security forces.” Harba went on saying that “communication stations where established on the Lebanese borders to oversee the military operations in Baba Amro, and to ensure contact between field commanders and a coordination office led by members of information in the Qatari capital Doha.” He clarified that “the escape of British journalists from Homs through the Lebanese-Syrian borders was the result of this coordination.” In parallel, the Syrian strategic expert revealed that “the communication stations were being operated by Lebanese figures; some of them were members of the Future parliamentary bloc,” and considered that “these figures worked on transforming Wadi Khaled region into a strategic depth for Baba Amro.” Mossad, Blackwater Directed from Qatar Operations in Homs Additionally, Salim Harba revealed to Al-Manar website that “a coordination office was established in Qatar under American-Gulf sponsorship. The office includes American, French, and Gulf –specifically from Qatar and Saudi Arabia- intelligence agents, as well as CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents and members of the Syrian Transitional Council.” “Qatar has also made deals with Israeli and American companies to arm the armed groups, and Gulf countries have been financing the agreements,” he added. The Syrian expert pointed out that “the significance of the security operation in Homs is due to the high expectations that regional and international sides had from the armed gangs in Baba Amro … they wanted Homs to be turned into a new Benghazi.” Indicating that the operation was implemented with high professionalism and accuracy, Harba reassured that documents will be exposed at the right time. “The authority will not reveal everything it has now… the Syrian security forces have documents and confessions that could harm everyone who conspired against Syria, and could make a security and political change, not just on the internal Syrian level, but also on the regional level,” he assured. In the same context, Harba considered that all the conferences and meetings by what he referred to as the “enemies of Syria” were aimed at paving the way for an American initiative under a “humanitarian” title. He concluded: “At the end, the US will submit to the Russian initiative after it realized that confrontations will only result in its defeat, and that the Syrian regime is still strong enough to deal with any conspiracy.” http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?fromval=1&cid=31&frid=31&eid=47719

Eviction in Beit Hanina: New site of East Jerusalem settlement

Eviction in Beit Hanina: New site of East Jerusalem settlement

By Moriel Rothman

The women of the family evicted from their home, Beit Hanina (Photo: Moriel Rothman) April 18, 2012 A family in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina has now joined the story of the families in Sheikh Jarrah, evicted from their home with the same legal tactics, in order to make way for a new Jewish settlement. Beit Hanina – Wednesday morning, a Palestinian family of 11, the Natche family, was evicted from their home in Beit Hanina (Hebrew report). The legal process behind the eviction was launched by Aryeh King, the head of a group known as "The Israel Lands Fund." Their claim to the property was based, like in the cases in Sheikh Jarrah, on land deeds held by Jews before 1948. Last month, King and his group posted a notice looking for "strong men" to carry out this eviction. According to the notice, if the police did not carry out the eviction, "the Jews will do without the police." In the end, "the Jews" (note: as a religious Jew myself, I am incensed by King’s collective language) did not have to do it themselves, and the police carried out the eviction. Beit Hanina is a neighborhood in the north of East Jerusalem. Unlike the neighborhoods closer to the Old City, like  Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, Beit Hanina has not been an epicenter of conflict between the settlers/state and the Palestinians. However, King and his Israel Lands Fund are looking to change that. According to a notice in the media in Hebrew, King and his group are planning a series of evictions in Beit Hanina, which they are calling "Nof Shimon," as well as in Sheikh Jarrah, which they call "Shimon HaTzadik." The eviction itself was carried out early Wednesday morning by the police, who detained or arrested all of the male members of the Natche family, leaving only the mother, who is pregnant, and her daughters to watch as a rented moving company loaded all of the family’s belongings onto a truck and drove off. The settlers are expected to move into the Natche house as early as Wednesday evening. Moriel Rothman is an American-Israeli currently living in Jerusalem and active with Rabbis for Human Rights and the Solidarity Movement.

Settlers Chop Down 250 Olive Trees Near Ramallah

Settlers Chop Down 250 Olive Trees Near Ramallah

Saed Bannoura

Palestinian Woman Lamenting Destruction Of Her Olive Trees – Palinfo April 17, 2012 Israeli settlers chopped down 250 Palestinian owned olive trees on Tuesday, belonging to residents of Betello village northwest of the central West Bank city of Ramallah. Orchard owner Fawzi Dar Bazar discovered that his olive trees had been chopped down and destroyed when he and his family went to their orchard on Tuesday. He added that this was not the first time his orchard and several others belonging to other residents of his village had been attacked. He added that Israeli settlers of the nearby Nahleel illegal settlement carried out repeated attacks against Betello residents and their land, seemingly encouraged by the lack of action on the part of the Israeli army. He further stated that in his view settlers are trying to force the residents off their land so that they can expand their illegal settlement. Last month, Israeli settlers chopped down at least 1576 olive trees across the West Bank - in three Palestinian villages near the northern West Bank city of Nablus, Al-Kahder town near Bethlehem, the towns of Sa’ir and Beit Ummar near the southern West Bank city of Hebron, Beit Ello village near the central West Bank city of Ramallah, Far’ata village near the northern West Bank city of Qalqilia and Mas-ha village near the central West Bank city of Salfit. In addition five Dunams (1.23 Acres) of farmland have been uprooted near Qalqilia.

Photos of US troops defiling corpses expose Afghan war’s savagery

Photos of US troops defiling corpses expose Afghan war’s savagery

By David Walsh

April 19, 2012 On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times published horrific photographs of American troops in Afghanistan posing with dead and dismembered insurgents. The grisly images expose Washington’s claim that the occupation of the country is aimed at liberating the Afghan people. They reflect the savage reality of the US-led operation, intended to crush popular opposition to foreign rule and establish Afghanistan as a base from which the US ruling elite can pursue its efforts to dominate the geo-strategically critical region. The Los Angeles Times photos, recently supplied to the newspaper by an unnamed US soldier, were apparently taken on two separate occasions in 2010. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were first dispatched to a police station in Zabul Province in southern Afghanistan in February 2010 to examine the remains of a suicide bomber for identification purposes. As the newspaper describes it: "The paratroopers posed for photos next to Afghan police, grinning while some held—and others squatted beside—the corpse’s severed legs." A few months later, in April 2010, the same platoon was sent to a morgue in Qalat, Zabul’s capital, to investigate the remains of three insurgents who had blown themselves up. The soldiers again posed with the body parts, "grinning and mugging for photographs." Describing this set of photos, the Times wrote: "Two soldiers posed holding a dead man’s hand with the middle finger raised. A soldier leaned over the bearded corpse while clutching the man’s hand. Someone placed an unofficial platoon patch reading 'Zombie Hunter’ next to other remains and took a picture." The images are an indictment of the American political and military establishment, which has unleashed untold humiliation, death and destruction on the Afghan people for more than a decade. The soldiers involved deserve to be prosecuted, but the principal criminals are to be found in the White House, the Pentagon and the US Congress. After the exposure of each US atrocity—including the slaughter of civilians, the abuse and torture of prisoners, the mutilation of corpses for trophies, Marines urinating on the Afghan dead, the desecration of the Koran—American officials express dismay and describe the incidents as the actions of "individuals" who have perverted a righteous cause. This is a lie. First, considering the unprecedented level of censorship of the war in Afghanistan, the episodes that come to light are undoubtedly only the tip of the iceberg. It can be asserted without hesitation that these sorts of crimes occur on virtually a daily basis. The exposure of the Qalat desecrations depended entirely on one soldier’s courageous act. Second, the incidents that have been publicized make clear a pattern of barbaric behavior on the part of US and allied troops. This flows inevitably from the predatory character of the war and the situation in which American and other occupying forces find themselves: resented and hated by the Afghan population (the brigade lost 35 members during the year-long deployment, 23 of them to homemade bombs or suicide bombers), the soldiers’ increasing demoralization finds expression in acts of brutality. How many individual atrocities have to take place before it becomes clear that an entire operation is criminal to its core? The military and the White House claim an investigation will be launched. Why should anyone place the slightest confidence in this transparent effort to placate Afghan and American public opinion? There have been inquiries before into various murderous incidents. No one responsible has been punished and the atrocities continue and grow worse. An Afghan human rights activist in Kabul, Nadir Nadiry, told the New York Times, "Each time they [American and NATO officials] say they will conduct a thorough investigation, but these investigations are not being made public so the results are not known to the Afghan people. So it’s hard for them to believe the investigations were real and that measures were taken to change things." The various mainstream media outlets cautioned nervously Wednesday that the new scandal comes at a "particularly sensitive moment" for already "strained" and "tense" US-Afghan relations, as talks continue on how to ensure the long-term US and foreign presence beyond the official deadline for withdrawal in 2014. The US television network evening news programs relegated the atrocity to third spot, following the death of television and music business personality Dick Clark and the ongoing Secret Service prostitution scandal. The Los Angeles Times has published only a few of the images, withholding the more graphic ones. According to the newspaper, the soldier who provided the 18 photos served in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne’s 4th Brigade Combat Team from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He told the Times that the photos "point to a breakdown in leadership and discipline that he believed compromised the safety of the troops." The newspaper added, "The Qalat photos were circulated among several members of the platoon, the soldier said, and soldiers often joked about them. Most of the soldiers in the photos were low-ranking—including six specialists or privates." This type of sadism and backwardness is consciously cultivated by the US military, whose global operations require a mercenary force devoid of conscience and humanity. The Times has come under attack from the Obama administration, the Pentagon and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the official occupying force in Afghanistan, for its decision to release a small portion of the photos. The US military, which was first consulted and shown the pictures, asked the Times not to publish them. In a defensive statement, Times editor Davan Maharaj explained, "After careful consideration, we decided that publishing a small but representative selection of the photos would fulfill our obligation to readers to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan." The various comments by government and military officials in response to the publication of the Afghan images express imperialist arrogance and hypocrisy. While feigning shock over the soldiers’ actions, the White House and Pentagon spokesmen made clear that they were angered, above all, by the exposure of further crimes. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on board Air Force One that President Barack Obama considered the behavior demonstrated in Qalat by the US soldiers to be "reprehensible" and insisted, "Those responsible will be held accountable." On behalf of Obama, however, Carney added that he was "very disappointed" that the Los Angeles Times had published the photos. In Brussels, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta declared that the conduct revealed in the photos "absolutely violates" American regulations and values. "This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there," Panetta asserted. The degraded behavior captured in the photos certainly is who the American ruling elite and its hacks like Panetta are. The defense secretary explained that he had personally called on the Times to suppress the photos, noted CNN, "because the enemy uses these kinds of images to incite violence. Lives have been lost due to publication of similar images in the past, he said." Panetta told the media that he was not excusing the soldiers involved, "but neither do I want these images to bring further injury to our people or to our relationship with the Afghan people." Other spokesmen for the Pentagon, as well as for NATO, ISAF and the US embassy in Kabul, echoed these sentiments. The reasoning is fantastic. If we let the Afghan people know the truth about what we are doing in their country, Panetta and the others are saying, they will be more outraged and have even more reason to want to drive us out. True, and they will be completely justified in fighting to oust their foreign oppressors. Even more to the point, this is an argument for concealing the reality of the war from the American people, in whose name it is being waged. This underscores the link between imperialist aggression abroad and the destruction of democratic rights at home. The source of American officials’ anxiety is not simply or even primarily the state of public opinion in Afghanistan, but the growing disgust with the war within the American population. Polls indicate mass opposition in the US to the war, with a majority of Republican voters for the first time indicating they feel the conflict has not been worth fighting. This will not stop whichever big business politician is elected in November from continuing the bloody neocolonial occupation.

America’s drone sickness

America’s drone sickness

By Glenn Greenwald

General David Petraeus in Kabul, Afghanistan on July 18, 2011 April 19, 2012 This headline and first paragraph from today’s Washington Post scoop by Greg Miller speaks volumes about so many things:

There are many evils in the world, but extinguishing people’s lives with targeted, extra-judicial killings, when you don’t even know their names, based on "patterns" of behavior judged from thousands of miles away, definitely ranks high on the list. Although the Obama White House has not approved of this request from CIA Director David Petraeus, these so-called "signature strikes" that "allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior" are already robustly used in Pakistan — having been started by George Bush in 2008 and aggressively escalated by Barack Obama. There is much to say on this new report, but in order for me to focus on three discrete points, permit me to highly recommend two superb articles that highlight other vital aspects of this policy: (1) this article from my Salon colleague Jefferson Morley this morning on why this form of drone-targeting is pure American Terrorism, and (2) this essay from Chris Floyd about a recently published Rolling Stone article by Michael Hastings on Obama’s love of drones and secret wars and how the military’s slang for drone victims — "bug splat" — reflects the sociopathic mindset that drive them.

Initially, it’s critical to note how removed all of these questions are from democratic debate or accountability, thanks to the Obama administration’s insistence that even the basic question of whether the CIA has a drone program is too secret to permit it to publicly acknowledge, even though everyone knows it exists — especially in the countries where it routinely kills people. Recall that Obama officials refused to tell the ACLU, in response to a FOIA request, whether any documents relating to a CIA drone program even exist because even that is too much of a secret to address, and when the ACLU then sued the Obama administration — seeking the most basic information about why the Obama administration thinks it has the power to kill people this way and how it decides who will die — the Obama DOJ again insisted in court that it cannot even acknowledge that such a program exists, let alone provide any basic disclosure or transparency about it.
So here we have this incredibly consequential policy adopted in total secrecy by the Obama administration, one that empowers the President to secretly target people, including American citizens, for instant, due-process-free death. They have placed the policy beyond the rule of law — by insisting that it’s too secret for courts to examine — and shielded it completely from democratic debate. The only time we are permitted even to hear about it is when the President, his aides and loyalists politically exploit the corpses they create by strutting around with chest-beating, tough-guy boasting about how Strong it shows Obama to be (because, really, what is more courageous, more embodying of the noble American warrior spirit, than killing people by remote-controlled video game while the killers are ensconced in secure bunkers in the U.S.?).
And the only time we are permitted glimpses of the debate over these policies is when someone decides to leak it anonymously to reporters like Greg Miller. So here’s a policy — CIA drone strikes — which anonymous administration officials are defending yet again on the front page of The Washington Post at the very same time the Obama DOJ tells courts that it cannot explain itself in a judicial proceeding because it cannot even safely confirm that such a program exists. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton spoke at an "Open Government" conference in Brazil, and — while serving in an administration that is waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers and is fixated with self-mocking levels of secrecy — had the audacity to say things like this, apparently with a straight face:

In the 21^st century, the United States is convinced that one of the most significant divisions among nations will not be north/south, east/west, religious, or any other category so much as whether they are open or closed societies. We believe that countries with open governments, open economies, and open societies will increasingly flourish. They will become more prosperous, healthier, more secure, and more peaceful. . . .
I know we don’t need to make the case for openness to you. You’re here. But what we have to do is make a convincing case that those of us who have joined up to the Open Government Partnership really mean what we say. It’s not enough to assert that we are committed to openness. We have to deliver on the commitments that we have made. 
Let me mention a few examples of how that is already occurring. . . .  I want to commend the Slovak Republic and Montenegro for also introducing whistle-blowing protection laws to ensure that those who expose corruption are not punished or harmed. . . .
These initiatives are designed to reduce corruption because we know corruption kills a country’s potential. It drains resources. It protects dishonest leaders. It takes away people’s drive to improve themselves or their communities. So the cure for corruption is openness, and by belonging to the Open Government Partnership, every country here is sending a message to their own people that we will stand for openness. And we’re going to hold ourselves accountable. . . 
So we now have a chance to set a new global standard for good governance and to strengthen a global ethos of transparency and accountability. . . .[W]e intend to do all we can to help make the Open Government Partnership a leader in ensuring that the 21^st century is an era of openness, transparency, accountability, freedom, democracy, and results for people everywhere. Thank you. (Applause.)

Last week, the Obama administration indicted its 7th whistleblower on charges of espionage — more than double the number of such cases under all prior Presidents combined — and it continues to insist that its CIA drone program is too secret even to acknowledge for purposes of court cases or public debate, even as it boasts of that same program on the front pages of newspapers. That’s apparently what Clinton means when she trumpets the "global ethos of accountability and transparency."
Secondly, one can never emphasize enough how the U.S., through the policies undertaken in the name of the Terorrist Threat, is principally responsible for sustaining and continuously increasing that threat. In February, Jeremy Schaill returned from Yemen and documented how U.S. drone attacks are the primary source of Al Qaeda’s strength in that country. In March, David Rohde — the former New York Times reporter who was kidnapped and held in Pakistan by the Taliban for seven months — documented how Obama’s "signature strikes" in Pakistan are also "backfiring":

From Pakistan to Yemen to post-American Iraq, drones often spark deep resentment where they operate. When they do attack, they kill as brutally as any weapon of war. The administration’s practice of classifying the strikes as secret only exacerbates local anger and suspicion. Under Obama, drone strikes have become too frequent, too unilateral, and too much associated with the heavy-handed use of American power.

Rohde also noted: "after promising to make counterterrorism operations more transparent and rein in executive power, Obama has arguably done the opposite, maintaining secrecy and expanding presidential authority." Last night, in response to this Post article, Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen wrote: "At some point – as the bombs continues to fall – people are going to come to the conclusion that Yemen is under western military attack" and "signature strikes in Yemen could easily expand the war well beyond one the US could ever kill its way out of." He observed that "signature strikes" are likely to kill far more civilians since "in Yemen just because it has a beard, carries a gun, and talks about Islamic law doesn’t mean its al-Qaeda" and then asked: "If US has been carrying out strikes in Yemen since Dec. 2009 then why does AQAP keep getting stronger?"
In late 2009, an Obama-approved attack with Tomahawk cruise missiles and cluster bombs killed dozens of innocent Yemenis, including 21 children. In May, 2010, a U.S. drone attack killed a popular Deputy Governor of a Yemeni province. In October of last year, two weeks after Obama successfully ordered the death of U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki, a U.S. drone strike killed his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman (today’s Post article asserted, seemingly without any basis, that that killing was "inadvertent," even though the alleged target was apparently nowhere near the scene). It’s not hard to imagine what ordinary Yemenis think of the U.S., and whether they’d be more sypmathetic to Al Qaeda’s message after all of this.
So here we have — yet again — the U.S. doing more than anyone else could to increase the threat of Terrorism with the very policies it claims are necessary to combat Terrorism. It’s impossible to know whether that outcome is a feature or a bug for U.S. policy makers, but what is certain is that the threat that continues to fuel impenetrable American secrecy, massive erosions of civil liberties, the proliferation of the Surveillance State, and the ongoing expansion of endless war and militarism, is the very same threat which the American National Security State — as it well knows — is primarily responsible for sustaining with its actions.
Finally, none of this will matter politically. That’s because, as both Hastings and Floyd highlight, most Democrats are now fully on board with whatever policies of slaughter and secrecy Obama endorses. As Hastings put it:

A recent poll shows that most Democrats overwhelmingly support the drone program, and Congress passed a law in February that calls for the Federal Aviation Administration to "accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial systems" in the skies over America. Drones, which are already used to fight wildfires out West and keep an eye on the Mexican border, may soon be used to spy on U.S. citizens at home: Police in Miami and Houston have reportedly tested them for domestic use, and their counterparts in New York are also eager to deploy them.

Indeed, one Obama-loyal writer at a popular Democratic blog — echoed by another — recently explained that he has little interest "in civil liberties" and what he euphemistically called "a less bellicose foreign policy." That’s because he instead "is primarily interested in the well-being of the American middle-class" — not poor brown Muslims in Yemen whose children are being wiped out of existence by the Democratic Nobel Peace Prize winner whom he adores — as well racism on U.S. soil (but not, obviously, outside of it). To the extent Democratic groups talk about any of these things at all, it is, disgustingly, to hail them as glorious "Obama foreign policy successes." Put another way, there is now about as much objection to these ongoing policies of rampant slaughter, secrecy and lawlessness in most Democratic and progressive venues as there was at The Weekly Standard and Fox News during the Bush years (though at least The Weekly Standard and Fox are consistent and intellectually honest about it: they supported these things under Bush and now do the same under Obama).
It’s unclear whether Obama will approve Petraeus’ request for the use of "signature strikes" in Yemen, so most Democrats will avoid taking a position until that happens (I still so fondly recall when Democratic partisans cheered Obama for transparency when he announced he’d disclose torture photos in the possession of the U.S., then cheered him again for Protecting Our Troops when, two weeks later, Obama reversed himself and said he would instead conceal the photos). But whatever else is true, the policies of rampant drone slaughter — and the secrecy and radical executive power theories that shield them from legal and political scrutiny — are well entrenched, now more so than ever.

Iraq snapshot - April 19, 2012

Iraq snapshot - April 19, 2012

The Common Ills

Thursday, April 19, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed with violence, former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill mocked the assassination of JFK (while being paid by US taxpayers), Tareq al-Hashemi talks to the BBC about future steps in Iraq, Nouri continues his war with ExxonMobil, and more.     As dust storms swept many areas today, AGI notes "a wave of attacks" slammed Iraq.  Al Arabiya reports, "More than 20 bombs hit cities and towns across Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 36 and wounding more than 100, police and hospital sources said, raising fears of sectarian strife in a country keen to show it can now maintain security." Adnkronos International quotes Baghdad security chief Diya al-Wakil saying of the attacks, "It's an attempt to cause our efforts to return security to the country to collapse.  It's a way to make the Iraqi people have a bad opinion about our work." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) explains "The blasts were a series of co-ordinated attacks in Baghdad and northern cities but mostly within Shia neighbourhoods." Prensa Latina notes, "An Interior Ministry's spokesman said the first explosion occurred at rush hour this morning, when a car bomb exploded in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah, in northern Baghdad, killing three and injuring 11."  The Belfast Telegraph adds, "Extremists launched 12 attacks in the Iraqi capital and in the cities of Kirkuk, Samarra, Baqouba, Dibis and Taji. Mortars were fired into the northern cities of Beiji and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, but no injuries were reported there." UPI counts 35 dead and over seventy-three injured while the Voice of Russia counts 36 dead and over one hundred dead. ITV also goes with 36 killed.  Salam Faraj (AFP) counts it out this way, "Twenty-two civilians, eight police, three members of an anti-Qaeda militia and two soldiers were killed in dozens of attacks, including 14 separate car bombings."  Alsumaria puts the number injured at over 146.  As the day ended, AFP noted the death toll -- per security officials -- had risen to 38 with over one-hundred and sixty people wounded.   The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following:   The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG) for Iraq, Mr. Martin Kobler, condemned in the strongest terms the series of bomb attacks that took place today across Iraq and that have reportedly resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries. SRSG Kobler expressed concern at the continuation of violence in the country and the targeting of security officials and personnel as well as the indiscriminate attacks on civilians. "These horrendous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people need to stop for Iraq to achieve the prosperous and secure future its people duly deserve," SRSG Kobler said. SRSG Kobler reiterated the need for all Iraqis to work together to end the hideous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people to hamper its success as a democratic, stable and prosperous nation. SRSG Kobler extends his condolences to the families of those who were killed and his wishes for the speedy recovery of those who were injured, and called on the Iraqi people to remain steadfast in the face of the attempts to derail Iraq's quest for a better future.     This would be a good place to note the lousy performance of the US State Dept, but we'll pick that up after the day's violence.   The Los Angeles Times explains, "The attacks drew sharp criticism of the country's security apparatus, with Maysoon Damalooji, spokeswoman for the Iraqiya political bloc, saying they reflected planning weakness. Parliament Speaker Usama Nujaifi demanded that leaders of the security forces bear responsibility."  Peter Cave (Radio Australia News)quotes Maysoon al-Damaluji stating, "The continuation of bloody explosions, although it has been already announced that tight security measures have been taken, reflects the weak security plans and the necessity to reconsider them.  The commander of the armed forces [Nouri al-Maliki] is responsible for providing security and complete safety for citizens."  Alsumaria reports that the Kirkuk Provincial Council is calling for all security plans to be reviewed stating that the plans clearly are not preventing attacks or providing security.  John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers, "Many criticize Maliki with being preoccupied with his own authority instead of ensuring security in the country."  Al Bawaba also stresses that perception, "These attacks occur amid a highly tense political climate. Several political parties have accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is in office since 2006, of seeking to impose a new dictatorship in Iraq."   Last month, Iraq Body Count reported at least 295 people died from violence in Iraq. And that March total came about only after Baghdad was under lockdown for a full week in the days leading up to the Arab League Summit. Already this week, Xinhua has reported 13 dead in Monday's violence alone (nine injured). BBC News (link is text and video) breaks down today's violence as follows: In Baghdad, a series of at least five blasts struck in various Shia neighbourhoods Police say two car bombs went off in Kirkuk, 180 miles (290km) north of Baghdad A suicide bomber killed a police officer in Baquba, an army officer said Two car bombs targeted security forces in Samarra A parked car exploded killing passers-by in Dibis A roadside device exploded in Taji Rami Ruhayem declares, "The targets have been varied. Some of them are civilian targets such as shops, Iranian pilgrims in Baghdad and also army and police forces." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) observes, "Five members of the Sahwa, or Awakening Council, a Sunni militia formed by the American forces before they left the country to combat Al-Qaeda in their own areas, were killed in a bomb attack on a checkpoint in Samarra."  Deutsche Welle adds, "The blasts unfolded closely, over an hour and a quarter." Xinhua notes there were car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombs and shootings. Press TV states, "Police officials in the provincial capital city of Mosul in Nineveh said three people sustained injuries in a bomb attack carried out in a restaurant." ITN quotes a wounded police officer in Kirkuk stating, "I was trying to stop traffic to let a police patrol pass. When it passed, a car bomb exploded and I fell on the ground and police took me to the hospital."   In addition to the above, Alsumaria notes a Baiji refinery came under a mortar attack causing minor damage to the refinery and fence but leaving one worker injured.     While the UN spoke clearly, the US State Dept continued its role as eternal disappointment. Spokesperson Mark C. Toner handled the breifing today and wouldn't have even raised the issue of Iraq if, in the last five, the issue of Iraq and a meeting with Iran May 23rd to discuss nuclear issues, hadn't been raised. Once the issue was raised, the spokesperson suddenly remembered Iraq.     Mark C. Toner: Oh, absolutely. We are -- first of all, I want to strongly condemn today's attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it's cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are -- they just hosted a very successful Arab League Summit and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.     The State Dept spends more on Iraq than any other country. They claim they need 6 billion dollars yearly and aren't prepared to say when that 'need' might end but admit to Congress that it will be "years." Yet as violence sweeps Iraq today, they can't even think to weigh in on the subject? They have to be asked to remember? And that's in the last three minutes of a lengthy press conference?     Someone needs to explain it to the State Dept. First, if you ask the American people if the State Dept needs $6 billion annually just for Iraq, the answer back is going to be NO. Not by a plurality but by a strong majority. Second, if you're spending taxpayer money, taxpayers have a right to expect updates. Under Barack Obama (US President) and Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), the State Department has become as secretive as the Department of Justice under Bully Boy Bush -- and that's nothing to be proud of. The secrecy is evident in the continued attacks on Foreign Service Officer Peter Van Buren. At his blog today, Van Buren's notes the violence in this post and the US Embassy in Baghdad's silence as well as including a photo that was also up in a post yesterday while everyone was focused on the US official who received a blow job on a Baghdad roof. The photo is of former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. It's Halloween and some woman has dressed as then-Jackie Kennedy which is in poor taste since she and Chris Hill are a 'couple' (at least for Halloween). Hill's dressed as? A Secret Service bodyguard of JFK's. That's not funny. I hate Bill Maher, but if he did it, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care about any private citizen. But Hill was the US Ambassador to Baghdad and he thought it was hilarious to mock the day JFK was assassinated? What kind of leadership did this asshole provide?     All the manic depressive kook did was rip apart the diplomtic ground work Ryan Crocker had established. Hill was afraid of Nouri al-Maliki. Gen Ray Odierno had to repeatedly calm the fretful Chris Hill down. So not only was he not up to the job (as we said in real time after he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he was a total creep. What he did was disgusting and that he did it an Embassy Halloween function? Chris Hill needs to be loudly condemned. I knew he was an ass and I knew he was an idiot but I was passed his personnel file before he was confirmed. Based on that record alone, he shouldn't have been confirmed.     But to now find out that the ass thought it was appropriate to mock one of the worst days in American history? To dress up as a Secret Service agent who wasn't able to protect Kennedy and some State Dept Woman (referred to as SDW from this point on) who thought she could dress up as Jackie Kennedy from the same day?  Cause what's funnier than seeing your husband shot dead before your eyes?  What's funnier than have bullets flying all around you?    Did Jacqueline Kenney Onassis really deserve that 'joke'?  She conducted herself on the day and the immediate days after in a manner that still sets a standard for First Ladies.  And some employee of the State Dept thinks they can go to a department party mocking her?  Mocking her on what was one of the scariest and saddest days of her life?     (FYI, SDW is an idiot for many reasons including her pink ensemble isn't what Jackie was wearing that day -- Jackie had on a pink skirt, a black top, a pink jacket and a pink hat, the idiot doesn't even the outfit right.)   And Chris Hill didn't just give it a thumbs up which would have been bad enough, he actively participated in the sick 'joke' by dressing as a Secret Service agent.  (In fairness to the Secret Service which is under fire right now, it should be noted that the 'joke' was in poor taste to their efforts that November day as well.)   That is disgusting. That is offensive and grasp, please grasp, that Hill was supposed to be a diplomat. He's an idiot and he owes the American people an apology. That little stunt wasn't funny and it wasn't cute. Apparently, if he'd remained in government service, he'd be dressed as a 9-11 victim this year and his date as the Twin Towers. This was beyond tasteless. Chris Hill needs to answer for this.  And I think Hillary does as well.  What did the White House think when they learned Chris Hill, at a party in Baghdad, thought it would be funny to lampoon the assassination of JFK?    That is beyond tacky, it's beyond offensive, there's no excuse for it. Chris Hill is trash, 100% trash.     Tacky?  Offensive?  Nouri al-Maliki.   As he's pushed his power-grab, he's targeted nearly every classification in Iraq.  In December, he was targeting Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq (demanding he be stripped of his post) and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi (demanding he be arrested for 'terrorism.'  Until recently, al-Hashemi was in the KRG which provided him with asylum.  He is currently on a diplomatic mission and has visited Qatar, Saudi Arabia and now Turkey.    From Turkey, he spoke with the BBC (link is text and audio) today and explained, "The difference is now between me and Maliki.   It's the difference between somebody who is interested in democratic model in the Middle East and somebody else who's still very much interested in divert the political process into some sort of autocractic regime.  This is the basic difference, in fact."  He also stated that he intends to return to the KRG and that, whent he political crisis is over, he intends to return to Baghdad.     Al Sabaah notes the National Alliance's call for a return to the Erbil Agreement. The Erbil Agreement ended Political Stalemate I, eight months of gridlock following the March 2010 elections. The US-brokered agreement managed that feat by getting all sides to make concessions. The White House wanted Nouri al-Maliki to have a second term as prime minister so that was the biggest concessions after Nouri's State of Law came in second place in the elections. But Nouri agreed to minor concessions to hold onto the post. This was November 2010. By the end of December, after he was named prime minister for a second term, he trashed the agreement. This is Political Stalemate II and the current crisis. National Alliance MP Hassan Sinead notes they remain committed to the Erbil Agreement, they have not rejected it and the agreement is an example of solidarity for Iraq so it is the responsibility of the political blocs, the Parliament, the executive branch and the judicial branch to implement the agreement. Kitabat notes Moqtada al-Sadr's call for his followers to direct their questions about the political impasse towards Nouri. As noted yesterday, these events may indicate some motion in the impasse. Dar Addustour notes that the National Alliance has postponed a scheduled meeting; however, one component of the National Alliance, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has announced that they aren't opposed to someone from the Sadrist bloc being nominated for prime minister (that refers to Moqtada). An MP from State of Law and one from Sadr's bloc are both quoted insisting that there's no move to hold a vote to withdraw confidence in the current government.  With BBC today, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi declared of his meeting in Istanbul with KRG President Massoud Barzan:       I'm scheduled to meet Mr. Barzani this afternoon.  We had an agreement on various steps and this step is going to be escalated depending on the reaction of Maliki.  If Maliki responded positively we will be very much happy to sit down and negotiate in a courageous way.  If he declined to attend then definitely we have to go into other options.  And the other option could be a vote for confidence. This has already been agreed principally to.  This  could be a political opportunity to sort out our political differences.     Elsewhere,  Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram) concludes of the current crisis,  "What happens next is largely al-Maliki's choice.  He could respond to the pressure for change by sharing power with others, or he could go his own way.  His record in government and rhetoric suggest that he will lean towards the second course."  Rebwar Karim Wali (Rudaw) offers this reflection on the political crisis:   Iraq is in deep crisis and it is nothing new. It is not that Iraq has started moving toward dictatorship and totalitarianism just now. No! And in fact the Americans and Kurds have contributed to the creation of the dictator. The constitution of the "New Iraq" does not stipulate a just power sharing among the country's various components. That is the main reason as to why the situation has ended up where it is now. The Kurds thought they were able to devolve the powers through the Erbil agreement of 2010, but that agreement only gave legitimacy to the current system. Iraq's constitution was violated the day Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bloc won the elections and was not allowed to form the government. Instead, it was Maliki's bloc that formed the government. Both then and now, the Kurds were part of creating a new dictator in Iraq. Daniel Fineren (Reuters) reports that, at this point, ExxonMobil is not on Iraq's "list of 47 pre-qualified bidders for the next round of Iraq energy exploration rights." For any wondering, Total is among the 47. In the press release, the Ministry of Oil notes: The Petroleum Contracts and Licensing Directorate (PCLD) at the Ministry of Oil announced Thursday (20/4/2012) that Iraq's Fourth Petroleum Licensing Round will take place as scheduled on May 30-31, 2012. The Final Tender Protocol and the final model Exploration, Development and Production Service Contract (EDPSC) were sent Thursday to all prequalified companies. The final list of prequalified companies includes a total of 47 entities, split between operators and non-operators. "We are happy to announce that the next bid round is on schedule. The Final Tender Protocol and the definitive model Contract have been issued to all prequalified companies" said Abdul Mahdy Al-Ameedi, director general of the PCLD. Iraq is offering 12 large exploration blocks of an average size of 6,500 square kilometers for bidding. Winning companies, or consortia of companies, will carry out exploration, appraisal, development and production activities within the 12 Contract Areas. The aim of the fourth round is primarily to expand Iraq's natural gas production capacity to satisfy the power generation sector and create gas-based industries, as well as increase the country's oil reserves. "We are looking forward to welcoming all participating companies in Baghdad. The fourth licensing round will be conducted in a transparent and public manner and according to the same procedures as the first three rounds," Al-Ameedi said. Since launching the first licensing round in 2008, Iraq has awarded 14 service contracts for the development of discovered oil and gas fields in three licensing rounds in addition to the Ahdeb contract. It also signed a major joint venture with a consortium of Royal Dutch Shell and Mitsubishi to capture and monetize associated natural gas produced in southern Iraq. The press release continues with a list of the 47 companies. AP speaks with Sabah al-Saidi ("Deputy head of the Oil Ministry's Licensing and Petroleum Contracts Department") who states, "Exxon has been removed from the list of qualified companies because it refused to abandon the deals with the Kurdish region as requested by the Ministry of Oil." Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot: Reuters reports, "Exxon Mobil has told Baghdad it will not break ground on its oil blocs in the semi-autonomous Kurdish north until the centeral government approves the contracts, Iraq's top energy official said on Wednesday." The official is Deputy Prime Minister for Energy Hussain al-Shahristani. That alone makes the claim questionable -- remember, April 3rd, he was in the news for insisting the Kurds were secretly selling oil to Iran. He's not seen as someone impartial or particularly honest. And apparently for good reason, he's not seen as someone impartial or particularly honest. So we're pleased with ExxonMobil one day for allegedly promising it won't "break ground" with regards to that contract and the next day we're punishing it? Iraq better figure out where they stand on ExxonMobil real quick because this isn't about ExxonMobil, this is about how Iraq looks on the world stage. Contracts were signed months ago. Are they valid or not? If they're not valid, then they don't exist. If they don't exist, then why is ExxonMobil being punished? The punishment phase would indicate that the contracts are valid (the KRG certainly considers them valid). It's petty and indicates the Baghdad-based government has no eral power so they just lash out. Iraq needs to diversify its economy and it needs to do so quickly. It also keeps insisting it needs international investment. If that's true, they need to stop alienating businesses and looking so ridiculous. A contract's legal or it's not. Clearly for all the bluster, Baghdad can't cancel the contract ExxonMobil signed with the KRG. So they think they'll pick a fight. ExxonMobil's not going to be hurt by any of this. They're a multi-national corporation that managed to survive the Exxon Valdez disaster.  Whether Nouri will survive is a political question.  But everything he's currently doing on the world stage -- from the power grab to the nonsense on the ExxonMobil contracts, is bad for Iraq and creates the wrong image for the country.   In the US, Senator Patty Murray chairs the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:     FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, April 19, 2012 Contact:  Murray Press Office (202) 224-2834   Senator Murray's Statement on VA Hiring Announcement (Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, made the following statement after the VA announced that it would be moving to hire 1,600 mental health care professionals.  The announcement comes just days before the findings of a major VA Inspector General report that Senator Murray requested on long wait times for VA mental health care are expected to be announced.  VA's action is welcome news to Senator Murray who has held multiple hearings over the past year on overcoming barriers to VA mental health care.  Murray will hold a third hearing on this subject in order to hear the Inspector General's findings on Wednesday, April 25th.   "I am pleased that the VA has taken this desperately needed step toward providing timely access to mental health care.  Too often we have seen staff vacancies, scheduling delays, and red tape leave those veterans who have been brave enough to seek help in the first place left with nowhere to turn. With suicide rates that continue to be high and an influx of new veterans into the system these barriers to mental health care are completely unacceptable.  I look forward to fighting for the resources needed to meet this staffing request as it is clearly a cost of the decade of war that has taken such a toll on our veterans and their families."