Are these real campaigns?

Mike Dorning (Bloomberg News) reported this morning:

Today’s monthly unemployment report provides Republican Mitt Romney a fresh chance to highlight discontent over the economy even as President Barack Obama pre- empted him with a swing-state ad campaign attacking the challenger’s tax plan.

While payrolls rose by 163,000, more than forecast, the jobless rate increased to 8.3 percent from 8.2 percent, a five- month high, the Labor Department reported.

The jobs report was a known.  Not the figures but the fact that it would be released today was known.

So this afternoon, during lunch (noon to one EST), I checked the political websites.  




That's Mitt Romney.  The report was released, his campaign had it noted prominently at the website.  Roseanne Barr's?  Nothing.  Same with Jill Stein's website.

Again, it was known that a job report would come out today.  That was a known.  So why weren't they ready to post something?

 Sunday at Third, we did "Touring the online campaign offices" which evaluated the online campaign offices.  Make a point to read that if you haven't and try to determine what the websites say to you.

My thought?  That some of the runs aren't really real runs.  If they were, they'd be addressing the jobs report.  There's little that's more important to a person than their job.  That's how most people put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

So if you're not ready with a statement the day the jobs report is released or able to come up with one that day, I'm not sure how you assert you're really running for office.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, August 3, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  Nouri goes nuts over Turkey, his backup singers shimmy behind him and ooh and ahh about suicide, arrests and all things 'evil' about Turkey, depleted uranium gets some press attention, the VA's interesting contract practices are discussed in Congress, and more.

 

In Iraq, Political Stalemate II continues.  Richard Weitz (World Politics Review) offers a strong overview:

 

 

A power-sharing agreement brokered in November 2010 at Erbil among Iraq's key political actors was meant to establish a balanced coalition government, in which key executive branch posts were to be distributed among the main parties in rough proportion to their electoral strength. A newly created National Council for Strategic Policy was also meant to broaden representation in policymaking beyond the cabinet. The resulting checks and balances, it was thought, would prevent the government from adopting extreme positions by requiring compromise policies acceptable to all the major stakeholders. 
Since then, however, Maliki's critics claim he has ignored the Erbil agreement, instead accruing excessive power, bypassing the Iraqi constitution and bringing under his personal control the country's other political institutions, including the judiciary, federal agencies and the nominally independent election and integrity commissions and central bank.
He has also placed many key national security posts in the hands of his supporters, appointing many senior police, military and intelligence officers without parliament's approval, while seeming to exercise undue influence on their activities. The judgments of the supposedly neutral Constitutional Court also consistently favor the government.
Furthermore, Maliki and his allies have blocked the creation of the aforementioned strategic council in parliament and refused to hold referenda in governorates whose provincial councils were seeking to become federal regions to increase their autonomy from Baghdad.

 

Again, it's a very strong overview.  (My own personal favorite observation?  "Finally, to reassure his critics, he has sometimes stated that he may not run for a third term in national elections scheduled for 2014.")  The thing about Nouri is that once he unleashes the crazy, he can't reel it back in, he can't bottle it up.  Which explains the latest development in the Baghdad-based government's attempt to be a 'good neighbor.'  Barry Malone (Reuters) reports, "Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Firday after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's autonomous Kurdistan region."

 

Huh?  Who knew Iraq had it's own Area 51, off-limits to all.  But, wait, it's Kirkuk. A city in the province of Kirkuk, where an estimated 388,000 people live.  And it's not a gated community.  People travel in and out of Kirkuk freely.  But let a Turkish official touring northern Iraq visit the city and Nouri's uncapping the crazy. 

 

 

The backstory: Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived in Erbil on Wednesday and continued his visit on Thursday by visiting various parts of the KRG and, most 'controversially' for Baghdad, Kirkuk.  Kirkuk is a disputed region with both the KRG and Baghdad claiming it.  (How to solve the issue?  Article 140 of the Constitution explains it.  But that census and referendum was supposed to be instituted by the end of 2007, per the Constitution, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to do so and continues to refuse to do so.) 

 

And since it's been months since Nouri created the May 24th international incident -- where 4 Russian bikers were arrested and tortured by Nouri's forces -- he was apparently fearful that someone might mistake him for rational or even competent.  Nouri need not worry.  Kitabat noted this morning that Nouri's Baghdad government continues to complain and carp about the visit.  Marwan Ibrahim (Middle East Online) reports:

Davutolgu visited leaders of Kirkuk's Turkmen community, with which Ankara has long had close ties, as well as religious and historical sites including the city's Ottoman cemetery.

Turkmen Front head Arshad al-Salehi said: "Turkmen should work to enhance relations with Turkey, and Shiites with Iran, and Sunnis with Gulf countries."

The front's deputy leader, Ali Hashem Mukhtar Oglu, said Davutoglu was the highest-ranking Turkish official to visit the city in decades.

Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year.

In July, Iraq warned Ankara against "any violations" of its territory and airspace, and instructed the foreign ministry to register a complaint at the UN Security Council, after Turkish jets bombed Kurdish rebels in Kurdistan.

A few days earlier, Iraq called on Turkey to stop accepting "illegal" transfers of crude oil from Kurdistan, which an official from the region said had begun earlier in the month.

 

Sapa-AFP note that in the meeting between the Turkish ambassador to Iraq and the Iraqi government, it was conveyed to Iraq that "Turkey has no secret agenda."  Nouri's paranoia being what it is, that reassurance most likely meant very little. 

 

Nouri unleashed the dogs.  Al Mada reports that today the Ministry of Health announced that there have been seven suicides -- all under 16-years-old -- as a result of a Turkish soap opera.   Also today State of Law's Abdul Salam al-Maliki is stomping his feet.  All Iraq News reports that he is demanding that the Arab League condemn the visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister and that the Arab League call the visit a breach of Iraq's sovereignty.  The KRG should actually pay Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law political slate a monthly fee.  These little tantrums by State of Law are like a mini-advertisement: "Come to the Kurdistan where adults are in charge."  You have to wonder if Nouri gets how stupid his slate makes Iraq look?  On the world stage, State of Law is a joke.  al-Monitor notes, "According to Rudaw News Agency, parliamentarian Abdulhadi el Hassan from Maliki's party said: 'Turkey is blatantly interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. The Turkish embassy should be closed down. We have the right to detain Davutoglu'."

 

KUNA reports, "Turkey's foreign ministry Friday summoned Iraqi Ambassador in Ankara to protest against Iraqi criticism over Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu's visit to Kirkuk."   Alsumaria notes that Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections) has called on Nouri's government to lower the rhetoric and stop escalating the situation.  Hurriyet Daily News reports Davutoglu met today with Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya).

 

 

Is it any wonder that the KRG is so much more attractive to the international business community?  After all, they don't have to deal with Crazy Nouri in the KRG.  Daniel Graeber (Oil Price) reviews recent deals with the KRG that irk Baghdad:

 

Iraq, more than seven years after the first post-Saddam government was voted in, still lacks effective legislation to govern the oil sector. The central government in Baghdad considers unilateral oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government illegal. U.S. supermajors Chevron [CVX  111.12    1.87  (+1.71%)   ] and Exxon Mobil [XOM  87.55    1.67  (+1.94%)   ] were blacklisted by Baghdad for making deals with Kurdish authorities. In April, the Kurdish government retaliated by blocking oil exports but has since sent some shipments over the border to Turkey. Despite the political infighting, French majors Total and Marathon Oil locked step in the Kurdish north. Total, in a statement, said it was looking for "new opportunities" in Iraq. (More: Investing Lessons in One of the World's Most Volatile Sectors)

That move brought additional fire from Baghdad. A spokesman for the energy ministry said the central government would "punish" companies that made deals without Baghdad's consent, warning Total it could face "severe consequences" for its actions.

 

 

Maybe it was the Kurds announcing a few days ago that they had no problem with the US making efforts to assist Iraq with its ongoing political crisis but Nouri's government lately has made clear that they're not pleased with either the US or the KRG.  Al Mada reports that insiders in Nouri's Cabinet are stating that the rebuffing by the Interior Ministry on police training by the US is only the first step and that they are/will be making it clear that the government has little desire to work with or have a relationship with the US government.  A quote from the article: "Iraq is capable of moving forward without the United States and is no longer needs its assistance in either construction or development."  Apparently, yesterday's phone call with US Vice President Joe Biden did not go as well as Nouri would have liked.

 

 

Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports that a Dhuluiyah roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi soldiers and left four more injured while a Baquba checkpoint was attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 police officers with two more left injured.  In addition to those two incidents today, KUNA reports that late last night there was an attack in al-Rutba in which 2 police officers were killed and two more injured by assailants (three of which were injured in the battle).  Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports that "three drive-by shootings in Baghdad" today resulted in the deaths of 3 Iraqi soldiers and 2 police officers with five soldiers and six police officers left injured.   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes, "The unrest coincides with an emerging political crisis, with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political blocs increasingly at odds in the fractious legislature. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is Shiite, has struggled to forge a power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security."

 

Violence includes what has been done to the country.  On Shihab Rattansi's Inside Story Americas (Al Jazeera), ex-US Marine Ross Caputi, weapons researcher Dai Williams and Raed Jarrar joined Rattansi for a roundtable on whether the United States caused the vast increase in birth defects in Falluja after the November 2004 assault on that city.

 

Raed Jarrar: The second attack on Falluja happened in 2004 and this was the years where the US actuallly used very heavy military weapons to attack the entire country.  I was in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and went around the country before the attack on Falluja and after documenting the US use of depleted uranium.  I think Iraqis were not very familiar with the dangers of depleted uranium.  I documented many cases of kids playing inside tanks that were by DU bullets.

 

Shihab Rattansi: Now, of course, the US has denied using DU in the Iraq War -- in the second Iraq War at least.

 

Raed Jarrar: I mean, in many cases, it is very much documented. They denied it in the first war and then after that it was documented.  And in the second war, I think there are so much documentation --

 

Shihab Rattansi: Is the documentation of DU or simply elevated radiation?

 

Raed Jarrar:  Both. So I've found -- I've personally found documented many DU bullets and DU bullet entry points into tanks and [. . .] of course, elevated radiation.  The DU radiation is very limited so it's usually around a foot from where the DU bullet punctured the tank.  And the radiation there was between 2,000 and 10,000 percent

 

Shihab Rattansi:  We'll get back to that discussion in a moment because I think there might be a discussion about what's -- if there is uranium being used, if it is indeed depleted uranium.  And we'll get back to that later on.  But as far as that second assault on Falluja occurred, I mean just remind us what happened.  There was basically an evacuation order given.

Raed Jarrar: So there was another first attack on Falluja that failed [April 2004].  And there was another attempt to go in.  And they gave evacuation orders to many Iraqi civilians, many people, hundreds of thousands, left the city and everyone knew that the entire town would be destroyed.  Now, of course, the promise was at that time that the US will go get rid of all of the bad guys and rebuild the city.  Now, of course, that did not happen.  We saw a total destruction of Falluja and the use of so many unconventional weapons.  But then after that no reconstruction was --

 

Shihab Rattansi: How many people were behind during that assualt?

 

Raed Jarrar: No one knows the exact numbers because it wasn't documented.  But there were at least tens of thousands of left behind.

 

And there was some 'documentation.'  The New York Times' Dexter Filkins won a little prize for his 'documentation.'  I wasn't aware there was a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil prize for journalism but then again the profession's in shambles these days.  So Dexy's prize winning feature took many, many days to appear in print.  Apparently the US military vetting Dexy's copy didn't feel any pressing deadline.  You know what might be worst than a Go-Go Boy in the Green Zone (whose antics ended there ended his marriage)?  The idiots like Tom Hayden and Terry Gross who fawn over the Look The Other Way When War Crimes Go Down Boy.  Click here to check out the photo of Falluja by Jahi Chikwendiu (Washington Post).  It kicks off a Falluja photo essay.

 

 

 

Still on violence, and consider it the laugh of the day, Kitabat reports that Ali Musa Daqduq being deported to the US (see yesterday's snapshot) was turned down by the Iraqi court because they were worried he might face capital punishment.  Iraq holds something of a record with 68 executions in 2011 and they're prepared to top that this year and, see the July 30th snapshot, have announced 196 more individuals they plan to execute.

Last week,  Amnesty International issued an alert on the latest announced executions:

 

 

Contact: Suzanne Trimel, strimel@aiusa.org, 212-633-4150, @strimel

(New York) – Amnesty International today urged Iraqi authorities to commute

all pending death sentences and impose a moratorium on executions with a

view to abolish the death penalty after the chief of police in the Iraqi

governorate of Anbar announced on Monday a Court of Cassation decision          to uphold 196 death sentences in the region.

It is unclear if the sentences have been ratified by the Iraqi presidency yet.

The announcement gave no timeline for carrying out the executions but expressed a hope that it would be soon.

"After this alarming announcement, Iraqi authorities must move quickly to commute all death sentences and declare a moratorium on executions

across the country," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director

at Amnesty International.

"If the Iraqi authorities carry out these death sentences, they would nearly quadruple Iraq's already shocking execution record so far this year."

In the first half of 2012 alone, Iraq executed at least 70 people, which is

already more than the figure for all of last year.

According to Amnesty International's information, in 2011 a total of at least

68 people were executed in Iraq. Around the country, hundreds of others

are believed to remain on death row.

The death penalty was suspended in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003

but restored in August 2004. Since then, hundreds of people have been sentenced to death and many have been executed.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty – the ultimate cruel,

inhuman and degrading punishment – in all cases without exception, as a violation of the right to life.

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist

organization with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever

justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

 

 

Back in December, he called for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his post.  By May, he was making nice with al-Mutlaq and the push for a vote of no-confidence on al-Mutlaq in Parliament had been dropped by State of Law.  All these weeks later, Al Mada reports, nouri is finally asking Parliament to withdraw his request of a no-confidence vote on al-Mutlaq.  This comes as Dar Addustour notes he's also sent al-Mutlaq a letter asking him to, please, attend the Cabinet meetings. On the Parliament front, the proposed federal court law has been bottled up in Parliament for some time due to various disagreements.  Alsumaria reports that Parliament is planning to vote on the law next week and that they have agreed on the disputed point -- the number of members of the Court will be 17 (9 judges, 4 Islamic law scholars and 4 legal experts).

 

 

 

 

Turning to the United States . . .

 

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  And one final question and then we'll move on to my colleagues, in your analysis -- or your analysis shows that as of April 1, 2012, 60% of the firms listed as eligible in VetBiz had yet to be verified using this more thorough process, we just talked about that, and 134 of these firms received a total of 90 million in new VA SDVOSB contracts during a four month period.  So do you still feel that there is a vulnerability  here until all of the firms have been verified under the new process?

 

 

Richard Hillman: Yes, Mr. Chairman.  Consistent with the VA OIG study which found that for the level of review those that were using  the less rigorous process 70% of the time, upon more detailed review they were found to be ineligble for the program causes us significant pause and believe that we need to ensure that the rigorous process is being followed by all of those within the VetBiz program

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  And given the fact that  we're talking about tens of millions in this case, a total of 90 million in new contracts during a four month period,  there are millions of dollars --  of tax payer dollars -- at risk here of going to companies that are ineligible thereby diminishing the amount of contract awards that should be going to eligible veteran companies. Would you agree with that?

 

 

Richard Hillman:  The VA study, through it's work, determined that for a one year period of time there were potentially $500 million dollars going to ineligible firms.  And if actions weren't taken to address that problem, over a 5-year-period of time 2.5 billion dollars would be provided to ineligible firms.

 

Chair Bill Johnson:  And given the fact that according to your statement a few minutes ago that previous experiences that often times even after they're found ineligible they're allowed to complete those contracts, we're talking about millions, hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars, going to ineligible firms that walk away scott free.  Correct?

 

Richard Hillman:  Seems that's so.

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerny would observe after the exchange, "That was pretty sobering, Mr. Chairman."  And it was.  And distrubing to hear Richard Hillman, with the Government Accountability Office, explain that, in cases where the VA has determined that a firm is not a veterans small business and that the company may have been dishonest (even to the point of fraud), the VA has "allowed [these firms] to complete those contracts even though they had been found to be uneligible."

 

 

It was Thursday's joint-hearing of the House Veterans Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.  Yesterday's snapshot noted the issue of whether or not the VA was breaking the law and the VA's interesting concept of what ownership and control of a business was.  In the real world, if you have at least 51% of a business, you have control of it.  In the VA world, not really.  This is a very big issue because veterans who start small businesses and compete for contracts may find out that they're not a veterans small business . . . by the VA's definition.  The VA's Thomas Leney was the witness we focused on.  Today we look at the second panel made up of GAO's Hillman and the VA's Office of Inspector General's James O'Neill.   We're going to include two excerpts and they will not instill confidence in how the VA is handling its small business program.

 

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerney: I think our first panel showed the difficulty we face in terms of coming up with a non-subjective standard for awarding veteran statuses to businesses.  The 100% control?  Clearly, there was a lot of questions within the Committee.  But the fraud issue is another part of this that we haven't talked about too much.  Mr. Leney was saying that only 5% of applicants tend to be fraud.  But my fear, and I think that's something that you're showing in prior testiomny, is that that 5% can end up awarding a lot of contracts to people who are undeserving and should be prosecuted.  What -- How much of a problem do you think fraud is in the overall program, Mr. Hillman?

 

Richard Hillman:  The work that we have done looking at individual case studies is not something that we can extrapolate to the universe as a whole to give you the percent of fraud that we think may exist within the program.  The closest example of that would be a study done by the VA's OIG [Office of Inspector General] who, in 2011, did a study that was a statistically valid, random sample projecting the extent to which there may be fraud within the program.  What they found with their study was -- in a review of 42 firms -- they found that 32 of the 42 or 76% of those firms were not eligible for the program.  Now that study included a verification process that was the less rigorous process under the 2006 act as well as just a plain self-certification process that was implemented before the 2006 act.  If you look at only those firms that were included as part of the 2006 verification process, you see a similar percentage.  About ten of fourteen firms that were included in the VA's OIG sample was found not to be eligible.  Or 70% of those programs, a very comparable percentage. 

 

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerney: Well do you think this 100% control standard is contributing to fraud?  Is that a standard that's difficult to verify in some ways?  Is there some way that we can improve that standard in order to reduce the appeal of fraud to unscrupulous players?

 

Richard Hillman: Like Jim has said, in the cases we have examined as part of our work, there has been very little ambiguity as it relates to an ownership or control issue -- when we have gone out and conducted our own investigations.  For example, ownership issues are most often validated associated with the operating agreement -- operating plans -- that exist.  And you can document the extent to which on paper the individual is an owner of the business or not. Control on the other hand is a much more subjective determination and, uh -- For example, conversations this morning associated with the fact that if you own 51% of the company, you can decide to sell that company.  You not only own it but you control it.  Well there could be instances in the operating plan or other agreements with that firm that if the principal decides to sell that business there's an agreement that they must consult with the minority owners first to get their agreement.  Well that would be a provision where there was maybe 51% ownership but because of an operating agreement, not 100% control. 

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerney:  Well --

 

Richard Hillman:  So the devil is in the details.

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerney: -- that's informative.  That's informative because then ownership is easily -- it's subjective, it's easy to establish, it means something, everybody can understand it and if people are committing fraud, then they can be prosecuted.  Whereas control is a much more subjective standard that we're having to try and manage.

 

Richard Hillman:  In -- In all our cases we have looked at, we've seen instances and where individuals may be living and working in other practices 500 miles away.  We see instances where they may be receiving a salary of $12,000 where a minority owner may be receiving a salary of $80,000.  You see examples like these which suggest on paper ownership exists but control isn't being afforded that leave you to pause.  In those instances, we provide our cases and our case results to the enforcement organizations and they provide and adjuidcate over those issues. 

 

US House Rep Jerry McNerney:  So ownership has its own risks then with regards to somebody just using a veteran on paper and maybe skimming off some of the profits but not having control.  So this is -- this is still a difficult issue for us.

 

Richard Hillman:  And there is -- there is -- In addition to ownership issues, there's also this issue that you just referred to as a pass through where you do have a service disabled veteran as the owner of the business but that service disabled veteran may pass that contract through to an entity that is run by non-veterans or non-service disabled veterans to manage that activity and, in accordance with provisions of the program, if they don't handle 50% of that service contract or up to 15% of that contract or related contract then they're not fulfilling the provisions of the program as well.  So the details dictate whether or not the program is -- is elibable for the program and I think that's -- that is a source of confusion and something that the program has attempted to clarify.

 

[. . .]

 

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman:  Mr. O'Neal, in your testimony, all of the cases you cite involved companies that self-certified their status as veteran owned and controlled.  CVE has now installed a more rigorous verification program to determine whether a company is truly veteran owned and controlled. Can you tell us how many of your cases -- opened or closed -- involve companies certified under the more rigorous process and whether that process is meeting the goals of eliminating most of the cheaters?

 

James O'Neill:  No.  I can't tell you here.  I can give you a written response. I'd have to do some research but I know of one instance, for example, where the company had been certified under the more rigorous standards but it was at the beginning of the process and mistakes were made in CVE and we -- don't forget, we can execute search warrants, we can get e-mail, we can uncover evidence of fraud that even the most rigorous standard applied by CVE won't find.  So it's going to happen.  I think it's certainly far fewer cases -- I don't think the number would exceed 10, I'd be surprised -- I've actually -- our companies that have passed that level of scrutiny by CVE.  But I will respond to you in a written response.

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman: Okay.  Thank you.  Mr. Hillman, looking at the highlights, you start off the first paragraph saying that the CVE SDVOSB program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse.  And you mention that several times.  And even with your recommendations, at the conclusion of the one paragraph, you say GAO made some changes to the report that you had made after the Veteran Affairs -- after they had challenged some of them or you guys discussed them but you continue to believe that the program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse.  Do you feel that the VA is concerned about this particular program?  Are they -- What kind of response do you get from them when you discuss your concerns about fraud and abuse?  Is it as much of a concern to them as it is a concern to you? 

 

Richard Hillman:  When you review an organization such as the Veterans Administration or perhaps even the Small Business Administration, those entities have largely a role of advocacy and service to those constituent groups -- either veterans or small businesses.  The OSB function which Mr. Leney operates is also more of a service oriented function.  The idea of having a strong controls environment to help deter or detect fraud and abuse isn't necessarily part of that DNA.  So when we're going in and evaluating the extent to which a program has strong prevention controls or detection and monitoring controls or controls to ensure that the program is taking aggressive actions against bad actors, we seem to be looking at it with a lens the extent to which you can identify and address conditions offraud and abuse.  That type of influence -- I believe Mr. Lenny's organization is attempting to develop through additional training, through additional guidance.  But it really hasn't existed to this same degree that we would have hoped that it might to date.

 

Chair Marlin Stutsman: Why do you think that is?

 

Richard Hillman: I believe it has an awful lot to do with what the organization's mission as an advocate for those constituents groups -- in this case veterans -- uh-uh -- The -- uh -- interest in ensuring that there's strong oversight and protection over the fraud, waste and abuse angles isn't something that is really what they see as their primary function.

 

Chair Marlin Stutzman:  What's your opinion of the VA's process for debarring companies? Have they set the thresholds high enough?  Are more companies getting denied verification that should be also considered for debarment?  What is your opinion?

 

Richard Hillman: The statistics that we have seen show that, over time, the debarment committee within VA is making more debarment decisions and has more proposed debarment decisions than they have had in the past.  As of July 26, 2012, there are now 11 SDVOSB [Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program] cases that have been tried by the debarment committee, 5 debarments, 6 proposed debarments.  And these debarments when they occur, occur for a four to five year period of time.  They're taking aggressive action in that regard. However, you use numbers such as five debarments, six proposed and you're seeing many more being provided to them for their review.  The committee itself was established in September 2010 -- almost two years of activity.  I do believe that is sufficient time for someone to go in and take an evaluation of how well that Committee has been functioning over that two year period and what additional steps could possibly be taken with this.

 

Chair Marlin Stutsman: Okay. Last question.  Would you think -- Do you think self-certification was a mistake?  Does it open the door for more fraud and abuse?

 

Richard Hillman:  Absolutely.  The government-wide program which manages 7o percent of all SDVOSB contracts is largely a self-certification program and it is very suseptable to fraud and abuse.  The VA is the only agency that has a certification process for service disabled small veterans business and that has reduced the vulnerability of fraud.  We're hoping that Mr. Lenney will continue to make that level of fraud as low as possible, commiserate with the cost of establishing controls. And we're -- we're very concerned about the government-wide program being a self-certified program and, uh, that is not serving veterans well.

 

 

And we'll close with the war on Syria.  Alex Lantier (WSWS) notes how a Democrat in the White House allows faux peace types to really go to town getting their War On:

 

Obama's reassurance that the US is providing only "non-lethal assistance" to anti-Assad forces is a cynical lie. The US is waging a brutal civil war by proxy that has already cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

Its goal is to install a US puppet regime in Damascus to isolate and prepare for war against Iran, remove a potential enemy of Israel, and advance a broader agenda of complete dominance of the Middle East by US imperialism. This agenda—pursued in the course of a decade of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and intensified after last year's mass uprisings in North Africa with wars in Libya and Syria—is deeply unpopular in the working class in the United States and internationally.

Washington's covert backing for the Syrian "rebels" lays bare the role of pro-imperialist pseudo-left groups—like the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in the US, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in Britain and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France—which have promoted the war in Syria. Their "leftism" amounts to nothing more than giving "left" justifications for the crimes of American and European imperialism.

The ISO openly declares its support for intervention. In an article by Yusuf Khalil and Lee Sustar in its Socialist Worker publication, it writes: "The increasing role of the armed struggle raises the question whether to accept arms and support from the West … While many in the Syrian revolutionary movement are opposed to US and Western intervention, they will take whatever help they can get."

  

 

iraq

afp

kuna

al mada

alsumaria
kitabat

marwan ibrahim

middle east online

hurriyet daily news

cnn

mohammed tawfeeq

Marilyn Monroe

This makes no sense at all.

August 5th will be the 50th anniversary of Marilyn Monroe's death.

The actress famous for Some Like It Hot, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, How To Marry A Millionaire, The Seven Year Itch and more has never left us.






NBC's Smash revolves around an effort to put on a musical about Marilyn's life.

In addition to being a famous actress (who would study with Lee and Anna Strasberg after she became a movie star), she's also famous for the men in her lives and for singing.  "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" may be sung by many but the song belongs to Marilyn.

She wasn't film's first dumb blonde -- in the talking era that might have been Jean Harlow -- but she did dumb and soulful which is very different from what many of her imitators did.

Fox (her studio) was forever attempting to groom some new woman into the new Marilyn.  It never took for any of them.



The illustration above is one we did for Third years and years ago.  Ava and C.I. dug it up when they did their review of Smash.  From that piece:

 Marilyn Monroe is a legend. An actress who moved from key supporting parts in films such as the Marx Brothers' Love Happy and Bette Davis' classic All About Eve to starring roles in The Seven Year Itch (BAFTA nomination for Best Foreign Actress), Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with Jane Russell, Bustop (Golden Globe nomination), How to Marry a Millionaire with Lauren Bacall and Betty Grable, The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier (BAFTA nomination and Crystal Star Award winner) and the film classic, which won her the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture Actress in Comedy or Musical, Some Like It Hot. Her lovers included brothers JFK and RFK, her husbands included playwright Arthur Miller and baseball legend Joe DiMaggio. Details of her 1962 death (at the age of 36) are still argued and disputed. Ashley Judd, Mira Sorvino and Michelle Williams are among the actresses who've played her (Williams is nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress this year for her role in My Week with Marilyn) and Madonna and Mariah Carey are among those who've paid tribute in music videos.


An entire library's worth of books on Marilyn have been published including Joyce Carol Oates' Blonde, Anthony Summers' Goddess, Tim Coates' Marilyn Monroe: The FBI Files, Lena Pepitone and William Stadiem's Marilyn Monroe Confidential (a mass paperback which landed in supermarkets across America in the 80s -- a rarity for a book that contained a fold out of Marilyn's calendar nude), Gloria Steinem's Marilyn: Norma Jean (Gloria discussed her book with Richard Heffner on Open Mind -- link is video and transcript), Truman Capote's Music for Chameleons, Barbara Leaming's Marilyn, Donald Spoto's Marilyn Monroe: The Biography, Susan Strasberg's Marilyn and Me, Colin Clark's The Prince the Showgirl and Me, Bert Stern's The Last Sitting, Peter Harry Brown and Patte B. Barham's The Last Take, Norman Mailer's Marilyn, and J. Randy Taraborrelli's wretched The Secret Life of Marilyn Monroe (so awful it inspired a parody of him -- a bad biographer loose with facts -- in a TV episode that aired last month on ABC). The books are so numerous, in fact, that just last March, Larry McMurtry was reviewing three new ones for The New York Review of Books (Marilyn Monroe's Fragments: Poems, Intimates Notes, Letters; Andrew O'Hagan's The Life and Opinons of Maf the Dog and of His Friend Marilyn Monroe and Lois Banner's MM--Personal: From the Private Archives of Marilyn Monroe) while last June sparked-early-and-then-petered-out playwright David Mamet used Marilyn and Gloria Steinem to flaunt his own sexism at The National Review (the essay is adapted from an equally bad book)*. Point being, this August will be the fiftieth anniversary of her death and she's never left the American imagaination -- left, right, center, apathetic, standing off to the side, above, under, she belongs to all of America and, internationally, may be one of the best ambassadors the United States has ever had.


 So the AP was going to examine her FBI records but can't.  Records are missing.

Why and who has them?

No one's saying.

Marilyn was spied on for political reasons which included sleeping with JFK and RFK but also because she frightened J. Edgar Hoover.  She was born to playwright Arthur Miller who was suffering from the Red Scare when she stood up for him.  Later, the FBI was very interested in her activities in Mexico.

All these years later, someone feels the need to take or hide her files?  She's still pertinent to today. 


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, August 1, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, July is the deadliest month for Iraq in two years, the State Dept issues a statement on Camp Ashraf, Out-FM addresses Bradley Manning, the VA blows off two members of Congress (and veterans), and more.

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  As our veterans so eloquently described in May, prosthetic care is unlike any other care that VA provides and, when we make the mistake of treating it as such, no less than the daily and ongoing functioning and quality of limb of our veterans is at stake.  I was very troubled to hear our veterans voice such strong opposition to the proposed procurement reforms, arguing forcefully that they would lead to substantial delays in care for veterans with amputations and clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little to no experience in prosthetic care.  In mid-June -- following our hearing -- I sent a letter, along with Ranking Member Michaud, to the Secretary [of VA] requesting that the Department respond to a number of questions and provide certain materials regarding the strategy, plans and criteria used to consider, develop, design, implement and evaluate the proposed reforms and the pilot programs that preceded them.  Our goal was to understand the analysis VA employed to develop the reforms and what was behind the decision that this was the best idea for our veterans, especially those who have experienced loss of life as a result of service to our country.  Sadly, the Department's response -- which came a week after the deadline requested in our letter -- did not provide the information or the level of detail we ased for and did nothing to assure me that the plan would be effective or that our veterans concers were unfounded.

 

When the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health's Chair Buerkle and Ranking Member Mike Michaud are blown off -- and the Veteran Affairs Dept did blow them off -- it's not just insulting to Congress.  It's also an insult to veterans.  Buerkle and Michaud aren't looking for pen pals.  They're busy and have a great deal to do.  Their staff is very busy.  So when they're asking about something, when they're trying to provide the oversight and ensure that the veterans are being served, they shouldn't be blown off.  The May hearing [May 16th, covered in the May 16th and May 17th snapshots] was rather intense.  That questions would arise from that hearing is not surprising.  It is surprising that the VA would (a) respond late and (b) offer a non-response as a response.

 

 

It's insulting.  And it's very sad that at the conclusion of the hearing, Chair Buerkle had to ask for a copy of the plan that the hearing was about, a plan discussed throughout the hearing, to be submitted to the Subcommittee and the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  That should have been supplied some time ago.  As she noted, they needed to see that plan to make sure that "the veterans best interests are" being served.

 

 

Yesterday afternoon, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on prosthetics.  They heard from one panel which was the VA's Dr. Robert Petzel with Philip Martovsky, Dr. Lucille Beck and C. Ford Heard (all of the VA).  Two terms to know before we go further.  "VSO" refers to Veterans Service Organizations -- like the VFW, the American Legion, etc. "VISN" is the Veterans Integrated Service Network -- medical care facilities.

 

We're going to emphasize two exchanges early on.  I don't care for Dr. Petzel because I find him to be rude and he tries to run out the clock on his answers.  And he may be wonderful and just come off uncaring.  But as you'll see in the first excerpt, even when he's given the heads up that he's coming off poorly, he doesn't alter his language, he doesn't try to speak in a professional manner that shows care for the veterans.  This is not a new thing with him, this happens every time.

 

 

Committee Chair Ann Marie Buerkle: When I hear words like "equipment" and "pharmaceuticals" and then development possibly of a catalog, what you are talking about in those instances are so very different from the testimony we heard in the last hearing regarding the personal nature of a prosthetic.  Amoxicilliin is Amoxicilliin.  A thermometer is a thermometer.  But a prosthetic is unique to that person and to his needs or her needs.  That's my concern with this.  That you -- That this process will become just as any other procurement.  This is a very different process and I think it's what concerns the VSOs and what concerns the veterans.  This is uniquely personal service that we have to give to that veteran and what I'm hearing here when you talk about cataloging purchases concerns me greatly.

 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Uhm, Madam Chairwoman, we absolutely agree with you.  This -- this is the most personal of work VA does -- crafting and fitting a prosthetic limb to an individual that's lost an arm or a leg is a very personal process.  The reforms that we're talking about in terms of uh procurement will not interfere with that process.  The physician orders the prosthetic and that order can be very specific.  The prosthesist  works with the patient to determine where the best place is to purchase that.  As you know, we have 600 contracts in the private sector and most of our procurement not all but most of our procurement occurs in the private sector. In the process of transitioning during the pilot, we audited the orders that the physician had written, we audited the purchasing contract -- the way the contract --  what was actually purchased. We looked at the timeliness between when that order was actually placed and when that order was purchased.  And we looked at the satisfaction -- particularly at the processes in the physicians as to whether or not the needs of that veteran's as they described them were met.  And, In the pilots, we found that that was true -- that that worked very well. The only misjudgment that we made in the pilots was that we expected a higher level of productivity from the contracting officers than we actually found and we had to revise the number of contracting officers that we felt we needed because we felt that the contracts per day that they originally were going to perform was more than was doable  -- that 2.5 is a better example. But otherwise the pilots indicated that things went very well.

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  Can you talk to us about the pilots?  How many pilots were done? How long?  Over what period of time were the pilots conducted?  What areas, which VISINs were included and how you -- What were the various pilots?  How many were there?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, Madam Chairman, we can.  And I'd like to turn to Mr. Matovsky to give you some of the details about the pilots.  Thank you.

 

Philip Matovsky:  Thank you, sir.  We conducted three pilots.  One of them in VISIN 6 -- I'm sorry, VISIN 6 which is  North Carolina, parts of Virginia, parts of West Virginia.  VISN 11 which is Indiana -- I'm going to test my geography here --  parts of Michigan as well.  VISN 20 which is the upper north west on into Alaska. We selected them because they were a uh-uh broad representation -- some of them highly rural, some of them very large and growing. We also ran them from the period of January through the end of March -- for three months.  I believe one of them scooted into April.  We tested two different processes.  One process utilized fully the ECMS our Electronic Contract Management System to place the order and another one in VISN 6.  a slightly different process.  That's the basis for it.  We tested the onboarding of our staff, the training of our staff, the communication, the collaboration with the prosthesis, the prosthetic purchasing agent and then the contracting management agent staff.  As Dr. Petzel just indicated, we did conduct some audits.  For example, we looked at the technical appropriateness of the contracting action but more importantly we looked at what percentage of the time did the contracting officer adhere to the physician's prescription?  100% of the time, the contracting officer adhered to the prescription.

 

Petzel's saying he agrees with the Chair but he makes no attempt to use language that demonstrates he really does agree.  He comes off in hearing after hearing as someone who does not care.  He doesn't want to be informed.  If he's given a chance to correct and impression, he doesn't want to be bothered. 

 

If I have breakfast with you on a regular basis and your name is Charlie but I keep calling you Carl, that says something.  Especially if it's not a joke between us but it's that I've never cared enough to learn your name.  I bring that up for a reason as we jump into the next excerpt.

 

 

 

Ranking Member Mike Michaud: [. . .] We are alarmed by the possible negative impact on patient care including substantial delays in clinical judgments regarding veterans needs being overridden by individuals with little or no working knowledge of prosthetic care.  And we sent a bipartisan letter to the secretary outlining our concerns and soliciting answers to several of our questions.  And this is the third hearing in an handful of months on this particular issue.  And I remain committed to working with the very dedicated staff at the Dept of Veterans Affairs and the advocacy community to ensure that our veterans are getting the best care that we can deliver in the timely way in this joint-effort and joint-challenges that this Subcommittee stands ready to help. And I read through your testimony and I have a few questions, if I might.  In your testiomny, you said, We believe that many of our reform efforts are acceptable to all concerned parties."  When you say "we believe," have you worked with the VSOs and the veterans to find out whether or not they do take in their -- their concerns?

 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Excuse me, Congressman Michaud, we have.  Since the May hearing, there have been multiple hearings with the -- the service office -- service officers representatives.  I have a breakfast monthly, uhm, with the six of the largest service organizations. We made a presentation and a discussion at that breakfast earlier in July and then just  a day ago on Monday at a conference call with the service organizations.  I'll just quickly [picks up a list in front of him and reads from it] with American Legion, VFW, PPA, the DAV, AmVet and the Blind Veterans of America to discuss [puts list down] what we want to do.  And I can say, that there was no, uh, objection.

 

Really?  Not even from the Blind Veterans of America.  Anybody else questioning that?  I've attended a ton of hearings, I write checks to  many organizations helping the wounded.  But I'm pulling a blank on Blind Veterans of America.  Maybe he meant Blinded Amercian Veterans?  Maybe he didn't. Maybe he meant the Blinded Veterans Association?  Maybe he didn't.   But what he said, reading from his list, was "the Blind Veterans of America."  Most of the time, those who get the name wrong mean Blinded Veterans Association.  Usually Dr. Thomas Zampieri is their spokesperson at Congressional hearings and he just nods when their name is stated wrongly and then, in his testimony, he'll note that they are the Blinded Veterans Association.  My guess is that Petzel meant the Blinded Veterans Association.  It's a shame people can't get the organization's name right in a hearing when they're speaking off the top of their heads.  But Petzel wasn't doing that.  He pulled out a list and read from the list.  And that means he most likely has breakfast with Zampieri and others and wrongly calls them the "Blind Veterans of America."

 

Again, he comes off as someone who just doesn't give a damn.  He meets with this group monthly but he doesn't know their name?  Even when reading off a prepared list, he can't get the name right?  You have to wonder how VA lets stuff that happen.  It's not as if they're image is so sparkling that they can afford to take a few hits from Petzel. 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe is also Dr. Phil Roe, a medical doctor.  He established a few levels in his questioning.  Before a program goes widespread, the VA always swears it's going to work perfect and this person and that person will benefit and there are never any problems with these program that aren't running yet.  Then they start up and, wow, there are problems.  I think Dr. Roe did a very good job establishing what the goals of this transformation are.  If the new standardization is successful, a year from now we should be able to go through the markers Dr. Roe established.

 

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  Just a couple of very quick questions.  The idea, the reason for doing this was back to what the IG -- is that right, Dr. Petzel, trying to standardize the procedures not only in this but in other areas of contracting that the VA does?  Am I right on that?

.

Dr. Robert Petzel:  We have to standardize procurement.  Not procedures per se.  But to professionalize and standardize the way we, uh, procure material.  We have been, as I said, criticized in the past by important groups of people including some Congressional Committees on our procurement stratigies. And this system-wide effort was to try and professionalize that, yes.

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe: Okay, so I guess in what the Chairwoman said is correct and there's obviously a prosthesist sitting right to your left.  That's a very individualized therapy and I know as a physician not everything -- I mean, this has to be tailored per person.  I'm sure there's some standardization to it but  it has to be.  And this is not in any way going to slow the process down. Or make that process not as effective or available to our veterans.  Am I correct on that?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes, sir, you are correct.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  And so they'll be able to come -- a patient will be able to come into the clinic and that patient won't know the difference.  The time won't make any difference.  There's not going to be a difference in timeliness.  The fact that it costs more than $3000, that's not going to affect the time that that veteran that comes in that needs a limb or needs a prosthetic device is going to get that device?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Yes, sir, that's correct.

 

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  Okay, so I think that's extremely important.  And, secondly, once you've catalogued this, is there a way to go outside?  In other words, here's what's in our catalogue.  If the doctor and the prosthetist look at this patient and say, "This is what they need.  It's not right in this little book right here."  Can they get that?  Because this technology is changing faster than cardiac stents are changing.  I mean, it's amazing now the technology in prosthesis.  So as that new technology occurs, it's like these things right here [holds up a cell phone]. As soon as you buy it, it's out of date. And so I see the same thing in prosthesis.  People are doing things -- amazing things -- with this.  So is it once it goes in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue that Sears has, that VA has, can that person get something from the new catalogue? Or something brand new that happened? 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Dr. Roe, absolutely.  One of the nice things about the VA and the procurement regulations  is 8123 which basically says that, uh, with the proper justification, we do not have to do competative buying.  That we can buy specifically what  the doctor has ordered.  So while we may have a catalogue of things that are appropriate in certain kinds of circumstances, the important part in all of this is a doctor writes an order and we will procure for that patient what the doctor has ordered.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So this is not going to negate new technology as it occurs?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So our veterans can get the cutting edge?  They're not going to get stuck with it's not in the book, you can't have it?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Absolutely not, Congressman.  Just to give an example, there are two relatively new knees that were jointly developed by the VA and the Dept of Defense.  The 2X or X2  and the Genium.  Is that how you pronounce that? Those are absolutely cutting edge techonology for artifical knee.  They're available to any veteran that needs and wants that kind of a prosthesis.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  So it's not going to be -- I mean, it's one thing to have all the colonoscopes looking exactly alike.  That was one of the issues when I first got here.  We had that issue that came up.

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Yes.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  This is a little different than that.  And I guess the other question that I had -- and then I'll have no more -- is that you said that you don't believe that the veterans will be negatively impacted.  Well will they be postively impacted by this?  Will this improve?  I know the VA feels like it will be postively impacted  but will the veteran be positively impacted by this?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel:  Well first of all I think --

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:   Or will they even know the difference? 

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: I think first they -- First of all, Congressman, they should not know a difference.  This should be absolutely transparent to them.  But there are things -- a couple of things that I think will happen that will -- even if they don't notice it -- improve prospects.  I expect that once we get this up and running and under our belt that we're going to cut down on the procurement time on average.  That's one.  Number two is that any money that might be saved by getting a fair price -- and that's not our intention but if that should happen -- is money that can be put back into the system to provide more care to more veterans.

 

US House Rep Phil Roe:  One quick question, when will we know that?  When will you evaluate the system and it's up and running?  A year from now or two years from now?

 

Dr. Robert Petzel: Congressman, I think there's going to be two different kinds of evaluation.  One is that, in an ongoing fashion, we have to monitor the things that we described before: timeliness; was a physician's order actually followed 100% of the time; was there a level of satisfaction that was appropriate on the part of the patient, the provider, the doctor and the contracting officer; and certain other technical things about the contract?  That's going to be an ongoing process.  When we have been into this for say a year or six months, we will have to look -- and we will look -- at the overall process and see what it has accomplished?  And see if indeed we're doing overall a better job of purchasing than we were doing before?  So there will be two levels of evaluation.

 

Let's stay with the Genium X2 prosthetic knee for a moment.  KSTP has a video report here of Iraq War veteran Luke Schmitz after he got the prosthetic knee.  He stated, "As I'm walking, I don't have to think about it and it's doing everything for me." It has a microprocessor in it.   Orange Coast Prosthetics has photos and videos of the Genium/X2 here and explains, "The Genium hydraulic knee joint system functions through the use of simulated physiologic rule sets run by a miscroprocessor, with auto-adaptive swing and stand phase control predicted by multi-modal proprioceptive input.  The system also provides flexed-knee loading to traverse obstacles and ascend stairs, and dynamic stability control for intuititve standing and transitional gait.  After purchasing the Genium Microprocessor Knee, the practitioner manufactures a custom-fabricated prosthesis incorporating the component."  If you click here, you can view a video report by WHIO on Air Force member Chris Trobaugh who got the Genium and explains, "I can run on it.  And I can hike on it.  Play basketball, golf.  Those are all my goals.  All the things I want to do."

 

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle noted that  she was concerned about the length of the pilot program.  "three months is a very short period of time."  She was concerned that Dr. Lucille Beck had a number of duties already and could not provide sole supervision of this new program.  She made Dr. Petzel go on the record with the fact that a doctor's order would be followed, that a contracting officer (whom she summed up as someone with a Bachelors of Science and a few hours in business courses) would not be allowed to override a doctor's order.  Petzel insisted that was not the case and that the doctor's order would always be followed.  That's something to remember when the first complaints on the program start coming in.  Buerkle was also concerned that the VSOs and veterans were not being properly and/or fully included in the process.  We'll note some of her concluding remarks.

 

 

Chair Ann Marie Buerkle:  I think it's very important that we get as many Veterans Services Organizations involved in this discussion, as many perspectives.  You know, what you've mentioned, with all due respect, is great but I think we've got additional Veterans Service Organizations that need to be included in this discussion. And to make sure -- there's nothing more important than the veterans -- and to make sure that when they come home without a limb because they've served this nation, that they have what they need, that they're not dealing with some contracting officer who's got some discretion to give him less of a device than he deserves. So that's all of our concern here that we get our veterans exactly what they need. We heard the last time from veterans.  We're talking about the ability of someone to walk his daughter down the aisle. We're talking about intensely personal prosthetics and intensely personal segment of the care that our veterans need. So there's nothing more important.  And while we are all concerned with regards to cost, that we make sure that our veterans who have served this nation get exactly what they need so that they can return to their maximum potential after they've sacrificed so much for this nation.

 

 

 

        

Today was the first of the month, meaning deaths in Iraq got a little media attention.   Iraq Body Count tabulates 436 people were killed from violence in Iraq for the month of July. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) notes that the 'official' count from Nouri's ministries is 325 people dead and 697 injured.   Alsumaria adds the government's 325 toll would make July the deadliest month since August 2010.   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "The killing continued August 1, when five Iraqi police officers were killed and three others were wounded in separate attacks against two Iraqi police checkpoints, police officials said."

 

 In other news Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reports the provincial law election (the UN wants elections held March 2013) is stalled due to a lack of agreement between State of Law and Iraqiya.  Disagreements last week had been over the issues of quotas and representation.  This seems to be different and the draft law isn't even being read aloud due to the disagreement.  Citing non-specified differences between the political blocs, Alsumaria reports that a vote on a judicial bill has been postponed to tomorrow.   Mohammad Akef Jamal (Gulf News) explores the political crisis noting:

After the central stage struggle and differences between Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki and Ayad Alawi, Chairman of the Al Iraqiya List since the elections of 2010, the importance of this struggle dropped to second place in a more profound clash that is threatening the future and unity of the country.

Today, the axis of conflict between Al Maliki and Masoud Barzani, the President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has become more important. However, the clashes and differences are not between the Kurdish Alliance and the Iraqi National Alliance, as all the counterparts of both these alliances are fragmented and in a certain degree of disagreement amongst themselves over this issue or that.

The conflict interfaces are numerous, such as Al Maliki's dictatorship inclinations, the oil and gas law, the Constitution's item 140, the disputed lands, arming the Iraqi forces, arming the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, the region's budget, and the region's right to export oil to Turkey, to mention only a few as the list extends further.

The hawks of this conflict are many especially in the media; however the two prominent and central figures are Al Maliki and Barzani themselves. Moreover, both men are no longer keen on hiding their sentiments towards one another in a diplomatic manner.

Yesterday Total entered into a deal with the KRG -- as had Chevron and ExxonMobil previously.  The Baghdad-based government was furious.  Trade Arabia notes, "Total, which is following US rivals into the area, was warned by Baghdad on Tuesday it faced "severe" consequences for buying the stakes in the Harir and Safen blocks from US peer Marathon Oil without the government's consent." Al Rafidayn notes the Ministry of Oil's Director of Contracts and Licenses Abdul-Mehdi al-Amidi is stating that they are looking into repealing the deal.
 But Peter Mulvany (Middle East Confidential) states that "Total maintains that they kept the Baghdad authorities aware of their intentions. It also claims that contractual conditions are more favorable in the autonomous region than anywhere in the country as the company struggles to meets its annual objectives. The Harir field was drilled on Monday and drilling will begin next year on the Safen one."  Proactive Investors UK attempts to navigate the legal issues:

 

Under the Iraq constitution of 2005, the federal government has exclusive responsibility in a number of areas, including foreign policy and defence.  In other areas responsibility falls to the regions.

Also, the constitution suggests that the federal government does not have exclusive power over matters to do with oil and gas. 

It recognises that oil and gas resources belong to all the people of Iraq but that management of the resource is shared with the regions. 

It also requires federal government and the regions to agree strategic policies to develop oil and gas to the highest benefit of the Iraqi people.  If there is a conflict between regional and federal laws under the constitution then the regional law prevails.

The 2005 constitution identifies the concept of "present fields", meaning those already in production at the time the constitution was agreed. 

Oil and gas already extracted from these fields should be jointly managed by the federal government and regional governments, with fair distribution of revenues to be regulated by law.

However, for non-producing and future fields, the federal government has no right to play a part in management and there is no requirement for a federally regulated distribution of revenues. 

 

And you know Nouri's really pissed because Al Mada reports State of Law's whispering that they're going to call Hoshyar Zebari before Parliament for questioning.  Foreign Minister Zebari is one of the highest ranking Kurds in the government. He has been Foreign Minister since 2006 and has an international reputation.  That reputation might be why he's being targeted.  The Kurds have become very vocal in asking/suggesting that the US government attempt to broker a resolution to the ongoing political crisis. 

 

The US State Dept issued a statement on Camp Ashraf residents today:

 

Press Statement

Patrick Ventrell
Acting Deputy Spokesperson, Office of Press Relations

Washington, DC

August 1, 2012

 

The United States is concerned by the Government of Iraq's reference on July 31 to the possible closure of Camp Ashraf by involuntary relocation of its residents. We urge the Government of Iraq to remain patient and flexible in seeking a voluntary arrangement for continued relocations, as only a peaceful resolution to the situation at Camp Ashraf is acceptable. This requires that continued dialogue be pursued in place of forcible measures and that all sides act in accordance with the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations.

We also call on the Ashraf leadership to immediately resume cooperation with the relocation of residents to Camp Hurriya, especially following the Iraqi Government's delivery of a cargo convoy of goods as demanded by the residents on July 15. Allegations of dire humanitarian conditions at Hurriya are inconsistent with observations made by U.S. Government officials who have visited Hurriya, as well as reporting from UN monitors. Based on these reports, and other information, it is clear that the quality of life at Hurriya exceeds accepted humanitarian standards. The continued intransigence of the residents' leadership in placing preconditions and making demands prior to any agreement to relocate further Ashraf residents is unacceptable and puts in danger protections established in the MOU.

The process established by the MOU has resulted in the safe relocation of nearly 2,000 residents from Camp Ashraf, almost two-thirds of its estimated population. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq's (UNAMI) "Roadmap" provides a peaceful way forward for Ashraf's closure, and the United States urges adherence to this process to finally and peacefully close Camp Ashraf. Ashraf's closure will allow UNAMI, the United States, and our partners to focus attention and efforts on a durable solution for the residents' relocation outside of Iraq.

 

 

It's interesting that now they're concerned.  Before they weren't.  And their indifference and outright hostility sent a message to Nouri al-Maliki and he acted accordingly.  That's what happened and that's what the State Dept's trying to walk back now.

 

Moving over to the US where Bradley Manning's court-martial is scheduled to begin September 21st.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.  Bradley has yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied it.

 

On this week's Out-FM (Tuesday nights, seven p.m. EST, WBAI), John Riley and Bob Lederer covered Bradley by speaking with two reporters covering the case.  Excerpt.

 

 

Bob Lederer:  We're here at Fort Meade, Maryland and today we've just finished the sixth hearing in the court-marital of accused whistle blower Bradley Manning, the openly gay Army intelligence analyst who is facing 22 charges from his alleged disclosure of nearly 3/4 of a million documents and videos to WikiLeaks.  Some of these materials show evidence of War Crimes and other inappropriate conduct by the US government and its allies. The pre-trial hearings have been presided over by military Judge Denise Lind.  The actual court-martial trial -- over which she will also preside -- is not expected to begin until sometime next year.  Joining us to explain the significance of developments at this four day hearing are two guests.  Kevin Gosztola [. . .] blogs for Firedoglake.com.  Adm Klasfeld is a reporter for the Courthouse News Service.  And he's based in New York City. Both of them have covered many of the hearings to date in the Bradley Manning case.  And thank you for joining us on Out-FM and, Kevin, since you literally wrote the book on the case, let me start with you.  Why don't you summarize the 22 charges that Private Manning is facing and what's the maximum sentence he could be looking at?

 

 

Kevin Gostola:  So the most significant charge is the aiding the enemy charge that says he gave intelligence to the enemy through WikiLeaks. So he aided them indirectly.  And that could mean he would be put in prison for life without parole.  That's the max, I would think, he could get.  And then the other charges have to do with violating -- or prejudicing the good order and discipline and dignity of the military.  And those charges are -- there's many charges.  There's more then ten charges that are like that.  And then -- And each of those have about ten years I think that carry with those.  And then there are charges to have to do with whether he exceeded authorized access on his computer.  And I think that those are all ten years as well.  

 

Bob Lederer:  And Adam Klasfeld, how do you see kind of the overall importance of the charges against Bradley Manning?

 

Adam Klasfeld:  Well I think both parties have said -- since the court- martial -- started this is a unique case.  This will help determine the way the military deals with when someone discloses information on the internet.  How will the country handle it?  The repercussions will be felt all over the world?  How freely will people be able to access information?  What restrictions will there be?  It has enormous consequences.  Well, to me, one thing that really stuck out to me, every time we see this, a hearing on this case, someone says -- whether it's the judge or whether it's Bradley Manning's lawyers -- they constantly get back to the fact that it's a completely unique case.  No one has ever dealt with this case before.  Bradley Manning is charged under the Espionage Act yet the government doesn't accuse him of spying.  There wasn't anything on any particular nation.  And if you read Bradley Manning's chat logs which, you know, the authenticity has been disputed by the defense but if you read his words, he says that he did this for public knowledge, not for a country, not for any particular nation.  So it's its own unique thing.  Obviously WikiLeaks has had an enormous influence on global policy and this case will help determine the future of the press, the future of how we access information, what will happen?  It has huge ramifications to the way we think about the nature of information, the way we think about national security, the way we think about all of these issues and what will happen to those who do step forward and-and share information that someone determines to be classified or sensitive or anything like that.

 

Bob Lederer:  This week's hearing gave the prosecution and the defense a chance to argue and the judge to rule on several rules about the conduct of Manning's court-martial as well as what documents the prosecution should be required to turn over to the defense so they can prepare their case.  Kevin Gosztola, what do you think was the most important ruling made by Judge Lind this week and why?

 

Kevin Gosztola: Well the most important ruling was the ruling that found in favor of the government that the defense could be prevented from raising evidence that showed actual damage or harm was caused by WikiLeaks or that it was caused by Manning releasing this information allegedly to WikiLeaks. And this is very significant for the fact that it appears David Coombs, Manning's defense lawyer, built a lot of his case around being able to discuss this evidence.  But now the judge has -- she's been won over by this idea presented by the prosecutors that it is not part of the charges and that the defense should not be able to raise this evidence when they discuss it in court.  And, going forward, what this means is that any discussion about damage from both the government and the defense is going to be entirely hypothetical.  So this ruling is good for the government.  It's good for the government agencies that don't want any attention on what actually happened as a result of the leaks because members of the public who have seen headlines probably know numerous government officials said that there were -- there was damage, national security was placed at risk.  And the whole story, people might be wondering, what exactly did happen?  Well in this trial we're not likely to get too much information about what did happen anymore.  Up to this point, we've gotten some details actually.  In fact, State Dept witnesses testified in June about actual damage to an extent, it came up in testimony.  And now it's all hypothetical.  So when the government talks, they'll be saying, 'Could cause damage.'  And they'll just be talking about the evidence as if it could cause damage.  And the same with the defense, I guess.

 

 

l

 

 

lkkkkkkkk

 

 

that he could be put

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 iraq

afp

ayad al-tamimi

al mada

alsumaria
gulf news

mohammad akef jamal

trade arabia

cnn

mohammed tawfeeq