Did you read the snapshot? If not, pretend you already have.
Nouri al-Maliki is a huge, huge idiot.
He's declaring verbal war on Turkey again. It's as though he wants them to become best buds with the KRG.
My grandfather (a Socialist) likes to point out that while the Iraqis are suffering today, in the days when the US empire was cloaked in nobility, the CIA would have already dispatched someone to kill Nouri. Not out of concern for the Iraqi people but because he repeatedly failed to deliver on the oil & gas law after all these years.
I don't support assassinations (nor does my grandfather) but it's sad that previous administrations would have judged Nouri a failure while today he's managed to get the support of two administrations. Bush installed Nouri as prime minister in the spring of 2006. He didn't want Ibrahim al-Jaafari to be prime minister (again) so he backed Nouri. And then, in 2010, when the Iraqi people voted, they made clear Nouri wasn't their choice.
But instead of honoring the vote or the constitution or democracy, Barack Obama decided to stick by Nouri (whose political slate came in second in the elections). He did that and trashed any pretense that the US gave a damn about democracy in Iraq.
Nouri is the pet of the White House, the pet of the US. He's still not house broken but he knows how to rise up on his hind legs and beg.
He's going to end up as bad as Saddam Hussein barring a sex scandal or something else knocking him out.
We betrayed the Iraqi people in so many ways. We should be so ashamed. Even the lies of wanting Iraq to be a better place for Iraqis, even those lies have been revealed to be lies.
If the Kurds have any sense, they'll refuse to be adults this go round. That's what the White House does to make sure Nouri stays prime minister and gets his way, they guilt Kurds and Iraqiya and others into going along with Nouri and sell it as 'maturity.' But it's selling out, it's destroying Iraq's future. It's time for people to stand up to Nouri before it's forever too late.
If you haven't read the snapshot yet, it's below and also be sure to read C.I.'s reporting on the Congressional committee discussing war on Syria.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday,
April 19, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri bombs with Turkey
but Barzani's a hit, US journalists are targeted, the political crisis
continues, Rob Andrews justifies war for any reason, Panetta tries to
dance around Congress, and more.
Starting in the US where journalists Tom Vaden Brook and Ray Locker have been targeted. Gregory Korte (USA Today) reports
that when Vanden Brook and his editor Locker began working on an
article about fraud and waste in Pentagon contracting, the push-back was
for fake websites and accounts to be created in their name to spread
false rumors about them with the apparent hope that the two would be
discredited and discouraged. Vanden Brook is quoted stating he is still
on the story, "If they thought it would determ from writing about this,
they're wrong." Locker echoes that sentiment stating, "This is a clear
attempt at intimidation that has failed." Why would anyone want to
intimidate the two? Because this is about a lot of money. Vanden Brook and Locker reported at the end of February:
As
the Pentagon has sought to sell wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to
often-hostile populations there, it has spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on poorly tracked marketing and propaganda campaigns that
military leaders like to call "information operations," the modern
equivalent of psychological warfare.
From
2005 to 2009, such spending rose from $9 million to $580 million a year
mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon and congressional records show.
Last year, spending dropped to $202 million as the Iraq War
wrapped up. A USA TODAY investigation, based on dozens of interviews
and a series of internal military reports, shows that Pentagon officials
have little proof the programs work and they won't make public where
the money goes. In Iraq alone, more than $173 million was paid to what
were identified only as "miscellaneous foreign contractors."
Again, that's a great deal of money. Ali Gharib (Think Progress) adds:
The
Pentagon said it was "unaware" of such activity and deemed it
"unacceptable." A source told Korte that the Pentagon had asked the
related contractors if there had been any such activity, and all had
denied it, but the inquiries were "informal and did not amount to an
official investigation." After USA Today made inquiries to the Pentagon
about the websites, they were taken down.
Meanwhile
there is the ongoing conflict between Turkey and the PKK -- the PKK is a
group that fights for Kurdish sovereignty and a Kurdish homeland. The
Turkish government sees the PKK as a terrorist organization. Today's Zayman reports
1 female member of the PKK was killed by Turkey forces when the Turkish
forces moved and notes, "The conflict has claimed tens of thousands of
lives. The group is labled a terrorist organization by the European
Union and the United States, which has supplied Predator drones to
assist Turkey." The PKK operates out of southern Turkey and nothern
Iraq chiefly. AFP reports
that KRG President Massoud Barzani and Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu met today in Ankara and discussed many issues including the
PKK. The Sunday Zaman notes,
"Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the Turkish military
would 'completely' halt military operations against the terrorist
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) if the organization were to lay down its
arms." And they note,
"The terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) should lay down its
weapons for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue, Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani said on Friday during an
official visit to Turkey." Hurriyet Daily News sums up,
"Speaking separately but in unison, Turkish PM Erdogan and Iraqi
Kurdish leader Barzani implore the outlawed PKK to cease its armed
fight."
On the topic of Iraq and its northern neighbor Turkey, let's drop back to April 7th:
How bad are relations between Iraq and its neighbors? AFP reports Falih al-Fayaad went toTurky this week to meet with Turkish officials on Nour's behalf. As 2011 was winding down, what was Nouri doing? Oh, that's right, he was trashing the president and the prime minister of Turkey and doing so publicly and repeatedly. And when not issuing insults about them, he was accusing them of trying to control Iraq.
That was April 7th. Today, thirteen days later? Today's Zaman reports,
"Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said Turkey is becoming an
enemy state in the region in a sign of growing tensions between Turkey
and Iraq. Maliki's harshest remarks so far came at a time when Turkey
was hosting two senior Iraqi politicians who are at odds with his
government." AFP quotes from a statement by Nouri posted to his website:
The
latest statements of [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan are
another return to the process of interfering in Iraqi internal affairs
and it confirms that Mr. Erdogan is still living the illusion of
regional hegemon. It is regrettable that his statements have a
sectarian dimension which he used to deny before but which have become
clear, and are rejected by all Iraqis. Insisting on continuing these
internal and regional policies will damage Turkey's interests and makes
it a hostile state for all.
Maybe if Nouri had stopped his verbal attacks on the Turkish government, M. Alihan Hasanoglu (Today's Zaman) would be reporting
Baghdad had many projects in development with Turkey including a $36
million one. Instead, that reports on the projects Turkey's developing
with the KRG. Equally true, Nouri was making catty comments about
Barzani earlier this week. It would appear Barzani's getting along with
everyone on his trips to other countries. The same can't be said of
Nouri.
Staying with the political crisis, if
the Western media has made one mistake repeatedly in the last few
months, it has been the failure to understand the political crisis. Or
maybe they understand it and just don't care to convey it properly?
The political crisis in Iraq did not start December 19th or 21st as
Nouri went after political rivals from Iraqiya (Iraqiya came in first in
the 2010 elections). From Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF
format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):
Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.
But
there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.
This
month has seen Nouri even the score on the results of the 2010
elections by going after the Independent High Electoral Commission
which, in 2010, refused to falsify the results in Nouri's favor. So last
week, Nouri had the commission chair Farah al-Haidari and commission
member Karim al-Tamimi arrested. But, don't worry, Jalal assures us
Nouri's not becoming a dictator. In fairness, maybe what Jalal meant was
that Nouri was already a dicatator, not headed towards becoming one?
Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) notes that the options of ending the political crisis include a true partnership in government, implementing the Erbil Agreement, moving towards early elections or Nouri can step down as prime minister.
Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya) notes that the options of ending the political crisis include a true partnership in government, implementing the Erbil Agreement, moving towards early elections or Nouri can step down as prime minister.
As the crisis continues, criticism mounts. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) observes that participants appear to have lost site of the priorities, that there is a lack of vision and all it's about now is the political process and not about Iraqis or the country. What usually happens around now is that the Kurds and Iraqiya heed the call to be 'reasonable' and 'mature.' They put aside differences and Nouri continues acting exactly the same. If anything's going ot change, this time Nouri's the one who's going to have to give.
An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reports that the death toll from yesterday's attacks has risen to 39 with over 190 injured.
Syria
is a neighbor of Iraq. Iraq remains neutral on the issue of war on
Syria or no war on Syria. They remain neutral for a number of reasons
including fear of huge influx of refugees and also the fear that taking
sides would further harden divisions inside Iraq, existing divisions.
Yesterday the US Congress discussed Syria. Appearing before the House
Armed Services Committee were Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the
Chair of the Joint-Chiefs General Martin Dempsey.
US
House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, if the situation changes and
you believe the use of force in Syria becomes necessary, will this
administration seek authorization from Congress before taking action?
Secretary
Leon Panetta: We will, uh -- We will clearly work with Congress if it,
uh -- if it, comes to the issue of force. I think this administration
wants to work within the War Powers Provision to make sure that we work
together, not separately.
US
House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, as a former member of Congress
-- I have the biggest concern and this is not pointed at this
administration, it could be at any administration -- they seem to want
to take the authority to decide whether or not they need to go into a
country that's not been a threat. They may have evil dictators, they
might have problems in those countries. But I have been very
concerned. I actually went to the federal courts for [US House Rep]
Dennis Kucinich and two other Republicans and two other Democrats. We
went to the courts because of the decision and how it was made -- I
realize you were not there at the time [Panetta was heading the CIA,
Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense] -- about Libya. I continue
to believe -- and the American people seem to agree -- that we in
Congress have not exercted our Constitutional responsibilities when it
comes to war. And I hate that if there is a decision -- including Iran
and Syria -- if a decision is made to commit American forces that the
president would feel an obligation to the American people -- not to
Congress necessarily, but the American people -- to explain and justify
why we would take that kind of action. And, again, I'm talking about a
situation where we're not being attacked, we just see things
happening in other countries that we don't approve of. And I would hope
-- and I think you did give me this answer, but if you would
reaffirm -- that if we have to use military force and we're going to
initiate that force, it's going to be our initation that causes
that force, that the president, any president, would come to Congress
and the American people and justify the need to attack.
Secretary
of Defense Leon Panetta: Congressman, as-as you understand uh-uh-uh
this president -- as other presidents will -- will operate pursuant to
the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the Commander in
Chief should, uh, act when the vital interests of this country are in
jeopardy. Uh-and-uh I believe this president believes that if that in
fact is the case he would do that in partnership with the Congress in
terms of taking any action.
US
House Rep Walter Jones: Well I'll make another statement and then I'll
work towards a close, Mr. Chairman [Buck McKeon]. I remember my good
friend [US House Rep] Randy Forbes from Viriginia asked Secretary Gates
when we went in [Libyan War], it seemed like the administration, if they
called the leadership of the House and Senate, it must have been one
call each house, each Senate. And Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Gates, if the
Libyans fired a missile in New York City would that be an act of war?
And I have to say, because my friend from Virginia is very articulate
and very intelligent gentleman, that he never got a straight answer.
So I hope that you will prevail upon the administration not to take
those kinds of actions as they did in Libya -- whether it was justified
or not, I won't get into that debate. But, in my opinion, that was
really a kind of snub of Congress and the responsibility of Congress --
based on the Constitution.
Secretary
Leon Panetta: Congressman, what I can assure you of is that, as long as
I am Secretary, we won't take any action without proper legal
authority.
One of the
most disgusting things about the hearing was realizing how the coin had
flipped. Meaning that if Bully Bush were still in the White House, US
House Rep Rob Andrews (Democrat from New Jersey) would have followed up
Walter Jones' questions by attempting to hit on the main points.
Instead, with the Oval Office occupied by a Democrat, Andrews felt the
need was to take wiggle room, shake it out repeatedly and turn wiggle
room into a summer getaway home. Our 'national interests' Andrews
wanted it known, were reasons to go to war and, of course, Panetta
agreed. That's a different standard then 'you are attacked.' In fact,
that's even worse, this must be the Obama Doctrine, than Bully Boy Bush
claiming he had the right to declare war on someone he thought might
harm the US in the future -- near or distant. Barack's policy -- as
discussed by Andrews and Panetta -- allows war for no threat. Just the
idea that you might do something, as a country, that isn't in the US'
national interests. Andrews defined national interest with "the weaker
Hezbollah is, the better the United States is" and Panetta agreed and
went on to add that "anything to weaken a terrorist organization is in
our best interest." And these are the grounds for war? How sickening
two little War Hawks all but mounting one another in public.
Republican J. Randy Forbes tried to get the conversation back to reality.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: When we talk about vital national
interests, probably there's no greater vital interest that we have than
the rule of law. So sometimes we have to just ferret that out and see
what that is. As I understand what you have indicated to this
Committee, Mr. Secretary -- and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe
that before we would take military action against Syria that it would be
a requirement to have a consensus of permission with the international
community before that would happen? Is that a fair statement? And if
not, would you tell me what the proper --
Secretary Leon Panetta: I think that's a -- I think that's a fair statement.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: If that's fair, than I'd like to come back
to the question Mr. Jones asked, just so we know. I know you would
never do anything that you didn't think was legally proper and you said
the administration would have proper, legal authority before they would
take military action. So my question is what is proper, legal
authority? And I come back to -- as Mr. Jones pointed out -- in the
War Powers Act, it's unlikely we would have a declaration of war. But
that would be one of the things. Certainly we know if there's a
national attack that would be one of them. And the second thing in the
War Powers Act would be specific statutory authorization. Do you feel
that it would be a requirement to have proper legal authority? That if
you did not have a declaration of war or an attack on the United States,
that you would have to have specific statutory authority -- in other
words, the permission of Congress, before you'd take military action?
Secretary Leon Panetta: We would not take action without proper legal authority. That's --
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And I understand. And in all due respect, I
don't want to put you in an interrogation. But we're trying to find
out what exactly proper legal authoirty is because that's what we have
to act under. And we don't have the president here to chat with him or
have a cup of coffee with him and ask him. You're the closest we get.
And so we're asking for your understanding and as Secretary of Defense
what is proper legal authority? Would that require specific statutory
authorization from the United States Congress if we had not had a
declaration of war or an attack upon the United States?
Secretary
Leon Panetta: Well, again, let me put it on this basis. Uh, this
administration intends to operate pursuant to the War Power Act. And
whatever the War Powers Act would require in order for us to engage, we
would abide by.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for
putting up with me as I just try to stumble through this and understand
it. But as I read the War Powers Act, it has those three requirements.
Are there any other requirements in there that you're familiar with
that I'm leaving out or not reading?
Secretary Leon Panetta: No.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes:If that's the case, then again I just come
back to, if there's no declaration of war, no attack upon the United
States and if we're going to comply with the War Powers Act would that
require specific statutory authority by Congress before we took military
actions?
Secretary
Leon Panetta: Again, under the Constitution, as I indicated, the
commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the
vital interests of this country. But then pursuant to the War Powers
Act, we would have to take steps to get Congressional approval. And
that's -- that's the process that we would follow.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes: Uhm, you'd have to take steps to get that
approval but would the approval be required before you would take
military action against Syria?
Secretary
Leon Panetta: As I understand the Constitution and the power of the
president, the president could in fact deploy forces if he to under --
if-if-if our vital interests were at stake. But then, under the War
Powers Act, we would have to come here for your support and permission.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: So you get the support of Congress after you begin military operations.
Secretary Leon Panetta: In that -- In that particular situation, yes.
US
House Rep J. Randy Forbes:Then just one last thing and make sure I'm
stating this correctly, it's your position that the administration's
position would be that we'd have to get a consensus of permission from
the international community before we would act but we wouldn't have to
get specific statutory authority from Congress before we would act.
Secretary
Leon Panetta: Well I think in that situation, if international action
is taken pursuant to a [UN] security council resolution or under our
treaty obligations with regards to NATO that obviously we would
participate with the international community. But then ultimately the
Congress of the United States, pursuant to its powers of the purse,
would be able to determine whether or not that action is appropriate or
not.
Panetta's song and
dance wasn't amusing. And the War Powers Act did not matter to the
White Houe when it came to the Libyan War. (Panetta's exchange with
Andrews suggested it wouldn't matter with regards to Libya.) For those
who've forgotten the illegality of the Libyan War, we're dropping back
to an episode of Law and Disorder Radio -- which began airing on WBAI July 11th and around the country throughout that week. Attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discussed a number of issues including impeachment. Excerpt.
Michael
Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against
Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in
order to justify not going to Congress.
Michael
Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be
authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's
very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities,
it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in
self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions,
whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be
authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the
authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave
him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked
power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that
the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress.
Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents
whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a
safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go
to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going
to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in
hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do
under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and
get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically
withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president
would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put
in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if
you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the
troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the
90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all
those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is
that clear, Michael?
Michael
Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country
is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he
can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't
think that's going to happen.
Michael
Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the
Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could
impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully
impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the
Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that
was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made
it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It
looks like it's not a really good lever.
