Thursday, March 27, 2014

The 100

The 100 is a new CW show that wrongly airs on Wednesday.

Wrongly?

It's there because the net-lette's big hit "Arrow" is right before it.

So I noted this bad show last week and how bad it was and how Bobby Morely's boy-tits do not excite me.

Leigh Ann e-mailed to ask if I'd give it another chance.

Okay.

First off, Jasper lives.

Yeah, the spear went through his heart last week. But they redo it so that it didn't. It's nonsense but they need Jasper. Badly.

The 100 is about a group of people sent to a post-nuclear earth. 100 people -- two died, so 98 -- and there's so few of interest

Breasty Bobby took off his shirt this episode -- mainly to let everyone know that if the water was polluted, Bobby Morely does have the breast milk to feed them all.

Breasty Bobby trailed along with Clarke and others mainly in the hopes that he could kill her. He didn't get his way.

But at least he kept his boobs covered with a shirt.

The big improvement?

They added a character you can care about, a mechanic who has 9 days to fix a space ship over 150 years old. It will be used to visit the earth and see how the kids are making out.

The mechanic is someone you can relate to -- which is really needed.

She's watching things on the ship and figures out they're being lied to and that's why they bring her in. In part to silence her, in part because they need her skills.

Meanwhile, I'm assuming they'll be dropping a breast pump to the 100 soon so Bobby Morely can pump out enough milk to ensure everyone gets their required calcium dosage.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, March 26, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on Anbar continues, Barack lies about Iraq, Amnesty International reveals Iraq executed even more people in 2013 than in 2012, the Parliament moves to provide the election committee with more powers (and immunity) and much more.

Let's start with the big lie from US President Barack Obama today. Speaking in Brussels today, as he attempted to sell war on Russia, Barack declared that what's going on in Ukraine is nothing like the illegal war in Iraq and the illegal war was benign and helpful:

It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I happened to oppose our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.

It was not a subject of vigorous debate in the US. Those of who spoke out were told to "shut up." If you wanted to hear an argument against going to war on Iraq, your best chance was catching Janeane Garofalo or Michael Moore on Fox News. Fox would attack the guests, so praise for Janeane and Michael for going into the lion's den -- but they would allow the guests to express their views.

Elsewhere, people were just shut out. And worse. We've noted the journalist who left the Dallas Morning News and is at another daily today but remembers full well that orders went out to attack the anti-war critics. Sheryl Crow was attacked and slandered by the paper, said to be unworthy of her Grammy nomination. Why did the music critic write that? Why did she lie by arguing that instead of Sheryl being nominated a baby pop tart should have been nominated? Pop tart wasn't even eligible for a nomination because she had nothing to be nominated for -- the Grammy rules aren't secret and that includes the eligibility time period. She attacked Sheryl because she was under orders. In the local pieces, others were under orders as well. Which is how the local columnist attacked protesters in Dallas and compared their actions to treason. This was a hippie and a stoner. But he marched to the orders he was given.

I can do that on seven other daily newspapers, we're using the Dallas Morning News because its actions were in part an effort to continue to have the government allow it to skirt FCC regulations over ownership in local markets.

Yeah, Big Business profited from the Iraq War. The FCC was used to help sell the war and that is one of the many things that's buried today.

So Barack's a damn liar. There was no vigorous debate. A month before it started, in fact, the day after liar Colin The Blot Powell lied to the United Nations, "case closed" was the phrase the media began using.

Aaron Blake (Washington Post) reports on Barack's remarks and we'll note two comments to Blake's article:

drray-yup

9:13 PM CST

Then get out, as requested by the puppet governor we installed.

And:

macktan894

7:56 PM CST

Sorry, but this has stunned me into speechlessness. Not one country sanctioned the US for invading a sovereign country on a phony pretext, destabilizing it, occupying it, setting up an American govt....

And not one country ever sanctioned the US for its torture of suspects.

The US doesn't need to annex that which it occupies and then controls through puppet regimes.

This was totally unwise.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) is on a streak this week. Yesterday he wrote something (we noted it in the snapshot) that I've already nominated for "Truest statement of the week" at Third and, writing today about Barack's nonsense remarks, Ditz cuts right through the nonsense:

“America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory,” Obama insisted, going on to praise Iraq as a “fully sovereign state” that “could make decisions about its own future.”

Which is to say the US forced a puppet government into power before it left, despite Prime Minister Maliki losing the last election, and put in place an election system so crooked that even the Maliki-appointed election commission resigned en masse yesterday rather than take part in April’s planned vote.

Barack's refusal to note the lies that the US government told to start the Iraq War is understandable when you think of all the lies he and others in the administration (Secretary of State John Kerry, for example) have told to try to sway the public to support a war with Russia.

Everything Barack said above was a lie.

It is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate – not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I happened to oppose our military intervention there.

We've noted there was no vigorous debate. Equally true, his claim to oppose the illegal war? Only before it started. Once it started, he was on board. I know because he told Elaine and I that when he was running for the Senate (and we left the fundraiser immediately and didn't give his campaign a dime).

But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system.

Lie. The United Nations provided no approval of starting a war. The statement that a second resolution would be sought was dropped when the US government learned (by illegal spying on UN representatives) that they didn't have the votes necessary, they started the illegal war anyway.

We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory, nor did we grab its resources for our own gain.

Actually, the US government did and does. The illegal war was about markets -- that includes the oil market. The illegal war 'opened' the oil wells in Iraq. The country's being polluted as it tries to pump out as much oil as possible. There are pools, lakes, of oil in Iraq, on the surface, polluting the land, ensuring that less and less of it can be used for farming. Iraq's giving the world cheap oil and, in the process, destroying itself.

Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state could make decisions about its own future.

We already quoted Jason Ditz addressing the nonsense of a 'fully sovereign' nation. So let's deal with 'we ended our war and left Iraq to its people' instead.

The US drawdown out of Iraq was completed by the end of December 2011. The US military called it a drawdown, not a "withdrawal." It wasn't a withdrawal. Not only did every US service member not leave Iraq at that time (Ted Koppel was the only one to report this in December 2011), but approximately 15,000 US troops were re-positioned to Kuwait. And, almost a year later, at the end of September 2012, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

Barack's such a liar and he gets away with it because so many embrace lies. We'll come back to that at the end of the snapshot. Right now we'll note the immediate effect of Barack's latest nonsense. Julianna Goldman and Mike Dorning (Bloomberg News) report, "As Obama spoke, U.S. stocks fell, erasing earlier gains, on investor concern that the conflict may escalate. The Standard & Poor’s 500 lost 0.3 percent to 1,859.76 at 3:19 p.m. in New York, after earlier climbing to within three points of its record closing level reached March 7. "

Let's note some Tweets on Barack's nonsense:

Nikhil Goyal ‏@nikhilgoya_l 51m

When you didn't think Obama could get any worse, but then he did. Apologist for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/26-7 …

Expand

There's a lot to cover on Iraq today so let's move to "Death sentences and executions in 2013." Amnesty International issued their latest report on executions. Click here for an Amnesty video presentation.

5 BIGGEST EXCUTIONERS
CHINA
IRAN
IRAQ
SAUDI ARABIA
USA

The report notes "an alarming rise in executions in Iran and Iraq." Here's a section on Iraq:

For the third year in a row, a stark rise in executions was reported in Iraq . At least 169 people were executed, an increase of more than 30% over the known total for 2012 (at least 129) and the highest figure since 2003. The vast majority of executions in recent years are believed to have followed convictions under Article 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, Law 13 of 2005. This includes a number of nationals of other predominantly Arab states. The law covers, in vague terms, acts such as provoking, planning, financing, committing or supporting others to commit terrorism. The government claims that the death penalty is needed to confront the high level of attacks by armed groups against civilians. There is no evidence to support the position that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime or attacks. The security situation in the country has actually worsened in recent years. No executions have taken place in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq since 2008.
Amnesty international recorded at least 35 death sentences in Iraq, including one woman. Most were imposed for murder and other killings, but others for non - lethal crimes such as kidnapping or "belonging to a terrorist group". The real figure is likely to be much higher , as many death sentences are not reported. According to an Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights report published early in the year, criminal courts had pronounced more than 2,600 death sentences between 2004 and 2012, or more than 280 per year on average. Death sentences are often handed down after grossly unfair trials, during which prisoners do not have access to proper legal representation . "Confessions" are frequently extracted through torture or other ill-treatment, which according to credible reports can include electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body, being suspended from handcuffs, beatings on the sole of the feet ( falaqa ) and with a cable or a pistol butt, and use of a drill.

Grasp that this is the Iraq Barack was bragging about today. Back to the report:

In statements in September and October, the Iraqi Ministry of Justice stated that all death sentences were reviewed and confirmed by the Court of Cassation before executions took place. However, the generally paper-based procedure does not provide a genuine review, as defendants are limited to written submissions and the court regularly fails to address t he issue of contested evidence such as "confessions" allegedly made following torture and other ill-treatment , and subsequently withdrawn . Hundreds of prisoners are on death row with their sentences ratified by the Presidency, the last formal step before implementation . Executions are often carried out in large groups, and at very short notice. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated in reaction to the execution of 21 prisoners on the same day in April that the justice system in the country was "too seriously flawed to warrant even a limited application of the death penalty, let alone dozens of executions at a time. Executing people in batches like this is obscene. It is like processing animals in a slaughterhouse."

The good news never really emerges out of Iraq. Yesterday brought the news that the entire board of the Independent High Electoral Commission was submitting their resignations -- 35 days prior to expected parliamentary elections April 30th:

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) provides context, "IHEC’s complaints roughly mirror those of the last election, that the Maliki government is trying to use the electoral law’s ban on candidates of “ill repute” to ban potential rivals en masse."

Ken Hanly (Digital Journal) observes, "The existing electoral law allows for candidates of 'ill repute' to be barred from running for office. The De-Baathification laws which prohibit candidates associated with Hussein's old political party are also used to disqualify candidates. Critics claim that the Maliki government is using these laws to ban any potential rivals particularly Sunnis. The Sunnis already feel marginalized in the Shia majority government and radical Sunni groups including some associated with Al Qaeda are rebelling against the government." "Ill repute," by the way, also includes any candidate who is gay or suspected of being gay.

All Iraq News notes the al-Ahra bloc's Mushriq Naji accused Nouri and his State of Law of having interfered with the work of the IHEC. Alsumaria reports that, in his weekly speech today, Nouri al-Maliki blamed the Parliament. He stated Parliament overstepped its bound and said the UNHCR did as well. He declared the board's resignation should be immediately accepted. By contrast, Nihad Qais (Alsumaria) reports Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is calling for the commissioners to reconsider their resignations. Iraq Times notes he conveyed this message today in a meeting with the IHEC board chair.

So where do things stand currently? All Iraq News notes that the planned press conference the IHEC was supposed to hold today was postponed. But apparently, the meeting with Osama al-Nujaifi was productive. Hamza Mustafa (Asharq Al-Awsat) reports:

Iraq’s parliament is set to issue a resolution giving the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) judicial immunity following its decision to resign this week, in a bid to preserve its independence and impartiality.
In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat, Iraqi parliamentary rapporteur Mohamed Al-Khalidi said: “Parliament is moving to pass a resolution granting judicial immunity to the IHEC,” adding, “This will put it in a comfortable position, particularly following the council of commissioners’ decision to resign en masse.”

The US Embassy in Baghdad released the following today:

March 26, 2014

The United States fully supports Iraq’s democracy and democratic institutions as defined and established in the Iraqi Constitution, specifically Article 102, which provides for the independence and neutrality of the Independent High Electoral Commission.

Ensuring that upcoming parliamentary elections are held on schedule is of the utmost importance and we commend the IHEC for its work in preparing for these elections under difficult circumstances. These preparations have ensured that there is no basis for any delay in the elections as scheduled for April 30. We urge the commissioners to continue this important work, to ensure elections proceed as scheduled, and affirm that the United States will stand behind the full independence of IHEC over the weeks and months ahead.

Did you catch it?

The IHEC announces their resignations and cite interference. The US Embassy issues a statement . . . urging the IHEC "to continue this important work" but fails to call out those who have undermined the IHEC.

The Arab Summit wrapped up today in Kuwait. Sylvia Westall, Amena Bakr, Rania El Gamal, Sami Aboudi and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) note, "Arab leaders, at loggerheads over inter-Arab issues including Egypt and Syria, offered little evidence of progress after a two-day summit in Kuwait on Wednesday."

Last night, Elaine noted the first day of the summit:

As Sylvia Westall and Amena Bakr (Reuters) report the Arab Summit kicked off in Kuwait. Among those attending were Qatar's Shaikh Tamim Bin Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani.
March 12th, Thug and Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki gave an interview to France24 in which, among other things, he attacked Qatar saying it was responsible for terrorism in Iraq.
Gulf News notes: "Without naming Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, he criticized what he says were attempts to sideline entire segments of that Arab nation."
Hamza Hendawi (AP) elaborates

Tamim criticized the Iraqi government for discrimination against the country's Sunni minority, which often complains of being excluded from power amid domination by the Shiite majority. Iraq saw a wave of Sunni protests the past year, and Sunni extremists have seized control of the western city of Fallujah.
"It's about time for Iraq to emerge from the vicious circle of violence and differences," Tamim said. "That cannot come about through the sidelining of entire segments of society or accusing them of terrorism if they demand equality and inclusion."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/25/4914418/qatars-emir-criticizes-egypt-iraq.html#storylink=cpy

It must be hard for Nouri to be so incompetent and unloved.
He thinks he can steal a third term. Maybe he can. Barack helped him steal the second term.
But the Iraqi people don't want him.
Eight years and he's failed to improve the lives of Iraqis.
It's time to send him packing.

Nouri's assault on Anbar Province continues. He's had a little new 'success' with regards to targeting civilians. NINA reports the military's shelling targeting Falluja not only left five people injured but also set afire a power plant -- burning over 50% of the plant.

In other violence, National Iraqi News Agency reports Baghdad Operations Command announced they killed 2 suspects, then Baghdad Operations Command announced they killed 6 more suspects, 1 person was shot dead in south Baghdad (Mada'in), former Brigadier General Fa'iz Abdu al-Rahman was shot dead in Baghdad, 3 grenades thrown in Mosul left thirty people injured, a Mosul battle left 2 Iraqi soldiers dead, and 1 corpse was discovered in Baghdad ("riddled with bullet holes in his head"). Alsumaria notes a Tikrit car bombing left 3 people dead and six injured, and 1 elderly man was shot dead in Mosul.

March 8, 2014, International Women's Day, Iraqi women protested in Baghdad against Nouri al-Maliki's proposed bill which would allow father's to marry off daughters as young as nine-years-old, strip away the need for consent to sex, and would strip custodial rights from mothers. The State Dept only commented when pressed during a briefing. The White House -- despite pretending to support women -- has still had no public statement. Human Rights Watch's Erin Evers explains:

Reaction from a wide cross-section of Iraqi society has been swift and scathing, with many protests on International Women’s Day and a plethora of criticism from journalists, members of Parliament and even Shia religious leaders. Resistance has in part been driven by anger over what many Iraqis see as yet another sectarian measure but also by a deep, if too often ignored, concern over deteriorating women’s rights—and the fear that the bill is just the tip of the iceberg.
The Council of Ministers’passage of the Jaafari law highlighted the short shrift Iraq’s government has given to women’s eroding rights, amid political instability and mounting sectarian violence. Some have also claimed that the uproar over the proposal is a distraction from Iraq’s “real” problems. But given that violence, absence of the rule of law and political sectarianism show no sign of waning in Iraq, when would be the “right” time to talk about the abysmal state of women’s rights in the country?

Isobel Coleman (Foreign Affairs) writes about the bill today:

In some respects, the timing of the bill is curious. When it was first introduced last October, the Council of Ministers seemed likely to table it until after the upcoming parliamentary elections, scheduled for April 30. But the council’s approval of the bill on February 25, and the introduction of companion legislation establishing special religious courts, can be viewed only as political pandering to conservative Shia parties and voters in the run-up to the vote. Parliament must still approve the bill for it to become law, but the move has added sectarian tinder to a highly volatile, and increasingly violent, political situation.
But sectarianism is not the only problem. The shocking prospects of Iraqi child brides as young as nine, legally sanctioned marital rape, and restrictions on a woman’s ability to leave her own home have also caught headlines around the world. UN officials have denounced the legislation, as have civil society groups such as Human Rights Watch. And they should continue to do so. International bodies, including the United Nations and the World Bank, which recently signed a loan agreement with Iraq to finance important infrastructure improvements, should express their unambiguous concerns. The United States should also be unequivocal in denouncing the bill. Nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch should continue to track the issue closely.

In the US, Jonathan Schell passed away today. His passing should give many pause. The journalist accomplished a great deal during the Vietnam era. AP writes about his death here. Jonathan died long ago. Sorry. I knew him. He was coward in the '00s. He 'protested' the Iraq War. But he wouldn't write about it. He tried, he was knocked down. He didn't pursue it then, he just whined. As a writer of his stature, he could have pushed back against the power structure. He didn't. His output was embarrassing for the last 14 years.

Probably time for the elderly to wake the hell up. What you did during Vietnam? You can't coast on it through life. There are serious issues going on right now and if you're too much of coward to speak out, then just take your tired ass of the public stage. If you can't find your voice in the midst of The Drone War, with manufactured efforts to attack Syria, the effort to manufacture consent for war on Ukraine, the illegal spying and so much more, you have nothing to say. You're just a coward sitting on a past that helps no one today. I know the excuses, the justifications. Guess what? Class of Vietnam? You're most likely not going to outlive your excuses.

Jonathan's death should be a wake up call to all 70 and above who consider themselves leftits or an 'activst, author and actress' because you will be dead soon and you will be remembered not for something you did 40 or more years ago but for the coward you went out as.

I knew Jonathan very well. I'm personally sad that he passed away. I'm sadder that he made his life so useless by cooperating with the Katrina vanden Heuvel faction which puts electing Democrats above humanity and justice. I knew Tony Benn and we spent a long time on his death. Because he fought to the end. He wasn't a coward. Tony Benn's death was a real loss.

In The Russia House, Michelle Pfeiffer's Katya declares, "I hope you are not being frivolous with me, Barley. My life now only has room for truth." It's a shame so many on the left over 70 seem to think they've got 50 or more years ahead of them and can lay low until a Republican's in the White House and then emerge to pretend they care about the Constitution, human rights and so much more.

Vietnam Generation (and others on the left), should read closely what Glenn Greenwald's wrote yesterday at First Look about how Barack announced he would release photos of detainee abuse and the 'left' applauded but then he retreated from that position and the 'left' applauded:

Now, obviously, the people who had been defending Obama’s original pro-transparency position (which included the ACLU, human rights groups, and civil liberties writers including me) changed course and criticized him. That’s what rational people, by definition, do: if a political official takes a position you agree with, then you support him, but when he does a 180-degree reversal and takes the exact position that you’ve been disagreeing with, then you oppose him. That’s just basic. Thus, those of us who originally defended Obama’s decision to release the photos turned into critics once he took the opposite position – the one we disagreed with all along – and announced that he would try to suppress the photos.
But that’s not what large numbers of Democrats did. Many of them first sided with Obama when his administration originally announced he’d release the photos. But then, with equal vigor, they also sided with Obama when – a mere two weeks later – he took the exact opposition position, the very anti-transparency view these Democrats had been attacking all along when voiced by Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney.
At least for me, back then, that was astonishing to watch. It’s one thing to strongly suspect that people are simply adopting whatever views their party’s leader takes. But this was like the perfect laboratory experiment to prove that: Obama literally took exact opposition positions in a heated debate within a three week period and many Democrats defended him when he was on one side of the debate and then again when he switched to the other side.
[. . .]
That’s when I fully internalized that many Democrats literally had no actual political beliefs other than we support Obama in everything that he does, even when he takes precisely opposite positions in a three week period [. . .].

iraq
the washington post
aaron blake

antiwar.com
jason ditz

sylvia westall
reuters
all iraq news
national iraqi news agency
alsumaria
kitabat
iraq times
hamza mustafa
asharq al-awsat

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Whistle-blowers and reporters

Did you see this on RT?

It's a report about a new organization in the UK, The Whistler. And The Whistler describes itself:

Who We Are

Whistleblowers come from almost every walk of life and our numbers are growing. Many have seen their work supported by the press and public interest campaigners and organisations. Others have risked a great deal but experienced serious difficulties and personal retribution for exposing injustice or corruption.
We have helped many from the NHS, private medical care, financial and regulatory organisations, the police, the military, government and office workers.
What unites us is that we understand the value of bringing these crimes and abuse into public scrutiny, to hold the employers, the wealthy and powerful to account. And to support and defend those who’ve taken these risks.

How We Can Help

If you are considering blowing the whistle at work, it may be useful to talk confidentially with someone who will understand your situation from first-hand experience.
We have begun to assemble a network of pro-bono counselors, lawyers and other professionals with whom you may also seek advice or assistance. We may be able to assist in connecting you with a sympathetic journalist. For more detail on Advice & Assistance, please go to What We Offer
For sensitive cases where confidentiality is important please see our Read Me section.

The Law

Almost everyone who has blown the whistle knows that we need real legal protection which The Public Interest Disclosure Act has failed to provide. We are committed to seeing new legislation drafted, written in consultation with whistleblowers and which will offer protection to all whistleblowers no matter what industry they are in.

Who Funds Us

To assure our independence we do not accept funding from either national or local government, law firms, banks, business or the media. We are not interested in selling stories or making money from any disclosures (this includes any print, broadcast or online media outlet).
For this reason, we have no association with “whistleblowers' agencies” like “Whistleblowers.co.uk” or other similar commercial organisations. We are not connected to any print, broadcast or online media outlet.
We also have no association with business-financed groups seeking compromise, in-house accommodation and gagging orders, where the whistleblower may be exposed in front of the very people he or she has blown the whistle against.
These organisations frequently embroil whistleblowers for months in procedures with no satisfactory result at the end. Many of these organisations have long-term relations with employers and are seen to be significantly limited by accepting industry funding and, by implication, their proximity to companies and institutions that are widely perceived as not having defended whistleblowers rights.
Many whistleblowers are suspicious about employers making cosmetic changes from the top which don't change anything. For many whistleblowers employers can be very much part of the problem, not part of the solution.

In the US, of course, the White House has a war on whistle-blowers. And a war on the press.

I also hope you saw Andrew Beaujon (Poynter):

“It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” Jeffrey Toobin told an audience in New York Friday. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”
The New Yorker staff writer and CNN commentator was appearing on a panel as part of a George Polk Awards conference called Sources and Secrets at the Times Center. A lot has already been written about the conference (links below), so I’m going to pull out a theme that appears again and again in my notes: How much protection do reporters really have with regard to sources, and how much, if any, protection would a federal shield law give them?
New York Times reporter James Risen, who is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, opened the conference earlier by saying the Obama administration is “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”

Barack should be impeached.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, March 25, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the board of the Independent High Electoral Commission announces their resignations, Nouri and the US government continue to try to (mis)use a death to create havoc in Iraq, an 'analysis' embarrasses herself, and much more.

Anadolu Agency reports a bombing targeted 3 Iraqi MPs. 3 bodyguards were killed in the bombing with another four wounded; however MPs Raad al-Dahlaki, Mohamed al-Khaldi and Abd al-Jabouri all three survived. All are members of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's Motahedoum coaltion. All three had planned to run in the upcoming elections; however, in a sign of the state of Iraq, surviving an assassination attempt doesn't mean you've now survived the last obstacle.

They were luckier than others today. National Iraqi News Agency reports Ghaidaa Hussein Khader was shot dead in Mosul (she belonged to the Alfadheelah Party).

But while Iraq is set to hold parliamentary elections on April 30th, that may not happen. Despite the assurances Sarbast Mustafa (head of the Independent High Electoral Commission's board) offered to All Iraq News yesterday that elections would take palce and be held "in every area in Iraq" and that "It is difficult to set a new mechanism to postpone the next elections in any area of Iraq including Anbar," those statements are now in doubt.

Today, AFP reports, "All of Iraq’s election commissioners presented their resignations to parliament Tuesday in a collective protest over political and judicial 'interference' in upcoming legislative polls, sources have said." What sort of interference? An attempt to strip them of their powers via a little noticed clause in a bill Nouri's Cabinet wrote and Parliament passed into law. BBC explains:

A clause approved last year allows for the exclusion of candidates considered not "of good reputation".

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who is seeking a third term, has been accused of using the law to prevent his political enemies from standing.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) provides context, "IHEC’s complaints roughly mirror those of the last election, that the Maliki government is trying to use the electoral law’s ban on candidates of “ill repute” to ban potential rivals en masse." AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:

Indeed.

Al Mada reports that the Dawa Party was specifically accused of exploiting the judiciary to settle scores with political rivals. Dawa, for those who don't know, is Nouri's political party, State of Law is his coalition. Al Mada notes that the commission felt wrongly accused of bowing to Nouri's wishes to dismiss his political opponents, especially when the decisions were coming from the Baghdad judiciary.

In a statement the IHEC posted to their website, they insist the move was due to a need to protect the IHEC's integrity and that they await the approval of their resignations. Raheem Salman and Robin Pomeroy (Reuters) observe, "IHEC's sudden move further complicates the outlook for a vote already clouded by violence across the country where Sunni Islamist militants have regained momentum over the past year."

Staying with this topic, let's drop back to Friday's snapshot:

The editorial board of Arab News argues voting should be postponed and they recap some of the events since the 2010 parliamentary elections including this from December 2011:

[. . ] Al-Maliki began the effective demolition of the National Unity government he headed by having an arrest warrant issued for Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni. Hashimi was accused of involvement in death squads. Helped by Kurds, he fled the country, only to be tried in his absence and found guilty.
Al-Maliki pretended at the time that the prosecution was important because no one should be able to escape punishment for past crimes. But this argument was fatally weakened by the presence in his government of Shiite politicians who were equally suspected of involvement in the inter-communal violence that had threatened to tear the country apart. Besides, however terrible the crimes committed by all parties in Iraq, the country’s future could only be ensured by reconciliation. Iraq desperately needed to put its dark past behind and look to a brighter and more prosperous future.
Unfortunately Al-Maliki hardly tried to convince skeptical Sunni politicians and voters that the prosecution of Hashimi was not motivated by the fact that the vice-president was a Sunni. That this was indeed the reality has since become even more apparent as Shia legislators have moved to exclude former and serving Sunni politicians, including former Finance Minister Rafie Al-Issawi from standing in next month’s elections. Former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite, and leader of the National Iraqi Alliance, has himself warned that in the light of these moves against Sunni politicians, as well as the deteriorating security situation in the country, the vote cannot go ahead.

How did Rafea al-Isawi and others get banned? Niqash attempts to explain it:

The Independent High Electoral Commission, or IHEC, the authority that is supposed to prepare Iraq for elections and run electoral procedures, such as voter registration and the actual voting, recently decided to ban a number of politicians from competing in the elections. These were independent Shiite Muslim MP, Sabah al-Saedi, Shiite Muslim MP, Jawad al-Shuhaili, who is aligned with the Sadrist bloc, MP Haider al-Mulla from the mostly-Sunni Muslim Iraqiya bloc, MP Rafea al-Isawi, also a Sunni Muslim from the Iraqiya bloc and one of the country’s most senior Sunni Muslim politicians as well as a former MP, Mithal al-Alousi, who made headlines in 2004 as one of the first Iraqi politicians to visit Israel and who previously headed the de-Baathification commission.

IHEC says the reason for the ban on these politicians is because they have violated the rule about good conduct. However there are clearly some problems with this clause – many local legal and constitutional experts have already said that it is too general and that it could be used in myriad ways by the unscrupulous.
Iraqi lawyer Munir Haddad, who is perhaps best known outside the country for his time as a judge, presiding over the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, told NIQASH: “Iraqi MPs should have been more careful when they voted on this article. It’s not clearly formulated enough.”
“This paragraph is very general and it can be interpreted any way a person wants,” adds judge Abdul-Raheem al- Ukaili, who formerly worked with Iraq’s Commission on Integrity. “Unfortunately IHEC has interpreted this paragraph in an arbitrary way and it has been used against politicians who are well known for opposing the government.”
Indeed it seemed to many that the “bad behaviour” these MPs had undertaken simply involved publicly criticizing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or his allies.
“Politicians who speak about corruption in the government are now people with bad reputations,” one of the banned MPs, al-Alousi, complained to NIQASH. “There is a deliberate plan to silence al-Maliki’s opponents and to ruin democracy in Iraq. We are going to file a lawsuit at the Supreme Federal Court to defend our rights and we hope this court won’t bow to political pressure,” he argued.

At some point, IHEC is going to have to be asked about the Niqash report. AFP reports:

Several candidates have been barred in recent weeks on the grounds of alleged ties to now executed dictator Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
But a greater source of frustration for the IHEC board has been the exclusion of scores of hopefuls on the basis of what critics say is a vague provision in Iraq's electoral law that requires that parliamentary hopefuls be "of good reputation".

Those barred, who include former finance minister Rafa al-Essawi, a Maliki opponent, have no obvious avenue of appeal against the judicial panel's decision.

So was the IHEC a fall guy or were they going along? Niqash's report was important last week, today's actions only made it more important.

Myriam Benraad is all over the map. In an 'analysis' for Cargnegie Endowment for International Peace, she insists Nouri may win the 2010 elections because Sunnis are at odds. Reading it, it feels like an anlsyis and more like one of those useless tip sheets they try to sell you at the races.

Let's focus on this because it's really what stands out:

Maliki may be the primary reason for the radicalization of the Sunnis and growing sectarian reflexes, but the Anbar standoff is not likely to weaken him electorally. Indeed, renewed violence over the last three months, the absence of Sunni unity (some tribes are even calling for a boycott of the elections), and the fragmentation of the Shia political landscape (Moqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics in February) all create favorable conditions for another term for Maliki. This will be even more the case if the elections are marked by low turnout from the Sunnis because of their disillusionment with the transition. In a context of security vacuum, Maliki depicts himself as the only viable and legitimate leader for the country, the “strong man” that Iraqis need.

Nouri's State of Law underperformed in the 2013 provincial elections. Which is a nice way of saying that, as with the 2010 parliamentary elections, they lost. Among those who did well in the 2013 elections? Many were surprised by how well two young leaders ran their parties -- Ammar al-Hakim (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

The two are Shi'ite. The two are rivals of Nouri al-Maliki's. There's also Nouri original blood rival, the man Nouri loathes but must pretend to respect: Ibrahim al-Jafaari.

That's the man who should have remained prime minister.

Following December 2005 elections, the Parliament wanted to have al-Jafaari as prime minister for a second term. The US government said no. The public reason was that Iraq was too new to have incumbents hold several terms, it might create a new Saddam Hussein. Instead, the US government insisted that Nouri be named prime minister (the safe reason given in whispers to some journalists was that Nouri didn't have his own militia, the real reason was the psyche profile the CIA did on Nouri -- paranoid and pliable). Ibrahiam al-Jafarri is a Shi'ite, a powerful one, and he remains in charge of Iraq's National Alliance coalition.

Ayad Allawi is a Shi'ite. He has stood with mixed coalitions. The previous mentioned stand with Shi'ite coalitions.

While you might leave Allawi out of the mix (despite the fact that his winning Iraqiya in 2010 also received Shi'ite votes), you can't leave Hakim, Moqtada and Ibarhiam out of the mix.

They are very powerful Shi'ite leaders of Shi'ite coalitions.

And there members have not flocked to Nouri. Not in the 2009 provincial elections, not in the 2010 parliamentary elections, not in the 2013 provinical elections.

So what crazy pill did you take that led you to believe this election would be different?

Nouri's actions frustrate and worry me and I'm an American in the United States. Try to grasp what they do to the Shi'ites who don't support him.

It's not just Sunni opinion that's hardening against Nouri.

Shi'ites see the continued violence, actually the violence that increased when Nouri got a second term. They see the nonsense of his "I have a four billion dollar weapons deal with Russia!" followed by "No, I don't! It's corrupt but it is not due to my son who set up a sweet side deal during negotiations!" They see the lights out, the lack of drinking water, the lack of jobs, they see all of this.

And they don't rally around Nouri.

That's especially true of the National Reform Trend which is damn well aware that Parliament was blocked from naming their own Ibrahim to lead the country in 2006.

Shi'ites are not a monolithic group but there's always some simpleton or racist in the press or speaking to it which attempts to portray Shi'ites as such. Despite acknowledging Shi'ite divisions, Myriam Benraad dismisses it when it comes to voting.

The National Reform Trend will not be voting for Nouri. Ammar al-Hakim's group also won't be voting for Nouri. They stuck with his late father Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and, in the fall of 2009, many decided to stick with Ammar as the new leader. As the 2010 elections demonstrated, some chose to leave. But that had actually been evident in the 2009 provincial elections and may have resulted from Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's inability to provide direct oversight of the party and politicians due to his illness (he'd die in the fall of 2009 from cancer). Frances Romero (Time magazine) noted Septemeber 4, 2009, "Ammar al-Hakim was confirmed as the Iranian-backed SIIC's next leader this week and will begin his work promoting Shi'ite policies throughout the country." That only gave him six months to take on the leadership tasks and steer the political party before parliamentary elections were held.

His 2013 wins and post-election wins suggest the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq may see their best parliamentary election performance since the 2005 elections.

His supporters are not Nouri's supporters. This was even more evident in July of last year when he joined with Moqtada in publicly calling for Nouri al-Maliki to resign.

Moqtada al-Sadr announced his political retirement February 15th. February 18th, he delivered a speech -- CounterPunch posted the speech in full -- emphasizing his decision. February 26th, NINA noted the rumors that Moqtada left Iraq, "The sources noted in a press statement that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr left today's afternoon the city of Najaf heading to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to complete his religious studies and stay away from the political scene as he officially announced for all Iraqis." Yet March 14th, Moqtada returned to Iraq.

Why did Moqtada return?

We covered this in the March 14th snapshot:

Background. Nouri's big mouth ended up tanking his own two-day conference. For those who missed it, Nouri's fat mouth was flapping last Saturday insulting many as he spoke to France24. France 24's Mark Perelman interviewed (link is text and video) Nouri for a half hour broadcast which aired Saturday. In the interview, Nouri's well noted paranoia was on full display as he repeatedly declared, in the very first two minutes, his alleged 'victory' over those attempting to turn Iraq and Syria into one country ("there are goals to create a one state," "create a state -- one part in Syria and one part in Iraq"). He continued to gab and began accusing other countries of supporting terrorism (he was supposedly going to reveal proof of his gossip in the conference but, as usual, his fat mouth made empty promises). He also insulted Moqtada.

And let's note what the US and western press didn't, what happened on Saturday March 15th. Moqtada returned to Iraq because of Nouri's insults and to lead the protest against them.

That's Dar Addustour.

That's Alsumaria.

That's Al Mada.

See the turnout? Does it appear Moqtada's faded?

No, it does not.

It's curious that an 'analysis' of the elections would miss the above especially when the analyst takes the time to note the France24 interview but avoid the remarks about Moqtada.

In fact, here's Myriam Benraad's 'analysis' of Moqtada's impact in full, "[. . .] and the fragmentation of the Shia political landscape (Moqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics in February) all create favorable conditions for another term for Maliki."

How can you be so stupid? She's so stupid she must require someone to follow her around reminding her to breathe.

Not only is there what we've charted above, there's more -- in Nouri's Iraq, there always is. NINA reports conflict between Nouri's forces and Sadr followers in Sadr City. A witness tells the news agency, "A group of followers of the Sadrist movement entered into a verbal altercation with the federal police force in the Sadrain checkpoint at the entrance to the area, which led the police to shoot fire in the air to disperse the group. The region has been shut down by the police and helicopters flight in low level has been seen over the area." These Sadrists are voters for Nouri al-Maliki? No, they're not. That's even more the case in the Sadr strong-hold of Basra.

No where in her 'analysis' is anything as fundamental as this by Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com):

The previous election saw the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya Party win the largest plurality, with Maliki’s State of Law faction eventually retaining power in a “power-sharing” deal imposed on them by the US. Maliki reneged on virtually all power-sharing, and retains the position of Prime Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister, and Chief of Staff for the military.

Maybe next time, Carnegie should just ask Jason Ditz to write the analysis?

FYI, I'm being kind by assuming she's dumb. She might be another lie, another whore, another Quil Lawrence. It's much kinder just to assume she's stupid. And, no, Quil, we haven't forgotten you or what you did. Next month, we again acknowledge your role in corrupting democracy in Iraq.

Violence continues across Iraq. National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed battle "between Taji and Tarmiya" left 4 Iraqi soldiers dead and fifteen more injured, the Ministry of the Interior announced they killed 2 suspects in Baiji, 1 police officer was shot dead in Tikrit, Joint Special Operations Command announced they killed suspect Abdul-Jabbar Majid in Samarra, a Baquba bombing left 1 woman and 1 child dead (and three more people injured), an attack "on a civilian car on the road to the Hanarh resort in Arbil" left 2 women dead and three people injured, 1 corpse was discovered northwest Baghdad ("handcuffed with gunshot wounds in his head"), 1 federal police member was shot dead and one soldier left injured at "the entrance to the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Mosul," an an Ein al-Ijel Village attack left 5 Iraqi soldiers, a Ramadi battle left 1 police officer dead, a Balad Ruz bombing left three people injured, an attack on a Jalawla military checkpoint left two Iraqi soldiers injured, an al-Muthanna Bridge truck bombing left ten people injured (and the update on the bridge bombing is 6 dead and twenty-nine injured), and last night a Sensal Village battle left 1 rebel dead.

In addition, Nouri's continued assault on Anbar continues. His shelling of residential neighborhoods in Fallujah today has left 6 civilians dead and ten injured (the injured include two children).

Throughout the assault, which began December 30th, Nouri's shelling of Falluja has killed and wounded many.

But not one word from the US State Dept despite the fact that these are War Crimes.

Yesterday, we noted the Saturday incident in which a Peshmerga (Kurdish military) shot dead Mohamed Bedewi who had worked for years for the US propaganda outlet Radio Free Iraq (which is to Voice of America what Phyllis was to The Mary Tyler Moore Show). We noted how the US government and Nouri al-Maliki were engaging in dangerous behaviors and statements intent upon creating a crisis in Iraq. IANS reports today:

The Kurdish regional government Tuesday accused the central government in Iraq of stirring up political trouble with the Kurds by politically exploiting the killing four days ago of an Iraqi journalist by a Kurdish officer in Baghdad.
"It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used strange and inconvenient words like "blood for blood" after the incident, which is outside law, state governance and the culture of coexistence and democracy," said the office of Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), in a statement.

Middle East Monitor points out that the US government has insisted upon calling the death a "murder." Rudaw reports:

The Kurdistan Region Presidency has warned of attempts by Iraqi leaders, among them Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take the death of journalist Muhammad Bidaiwi out of its judicial context and using it to settle political scores with the Kurds.
“It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used the strange and ugly phrase of "blood for blood" after the incident,” said the office of President Massoud Barzani in a statement. “This is outside the law, governance and the culture of co-existence and democracy.”
The statement expressed condolences to the family of Bidaiwi, an Iraqi academic and journalist who was shot dead by a Kurdish presidential guard in Baghdad on Saturday.

All Iraq News quotes MP Latif Mutafa ("member of the Parliamentary Legal Committee") stating, "The Iraqi constitution assure the independence of the judiciary and no other authority should interfere in the performance of the judicial authority where the interference must be rejected according to the Iraqi Punishment Law No. 11 in 1969. Since Bidaiwi's murder, we witness the interference by the key officials, MPs and Maliki in particular to affect the judicial decision over this case where Maliki should adhere to the oath that he made over preserving the independence of the judiciary." The KRG Presidency issued a statement which announced sorrow and regret over Mohamed Bedaiwi's death (which they term "an unfortunate accident" -- and it well may have been) and dencounces Nouri al-Maliki's statements which are "inappropriate and strange" and a wide stretch from the rule of law that the Iraqi government is supposed to embrace and practice.

Yesterday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued the following:

HVAC Webpage To Track How VA Stonewalls the Press

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

Mar 24, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, Chairman Jeff Miller launched VA Honesty Project, a new web component of Veterans.House.Gov designed to highlight the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lack of transparency with the press, and by extension the public. View the page here.

Because the Department of Veterans Affairs is a taxpayer funded organization, it has a responsibility to fully explain itself to the press and the public. Unfortunately, in many cases, VA is failing in this responsibility, as department officials – including 54 full-time public affairs employees – routinely ignore media inquiries.

VA Honesty Project documents nearly 70 recent instances in which VA has failed to respond to reporters’ requests for information or refused to answer specific questions. The department’s apparent disregard for the press has become an object of reporters’ scorn, leading some to openly accuse VA of “thumbing their nose at us” and others to write entire articles focusing on VA’s stonewalling tactics. VA Honesty Project will be continually updated with new examples of VA refusing to respond to the press as they arise.
Following the launch of VA Honesty Project, Chairman Miller issued the following statement.

“With 54 full-time public affairs employees, VA’s media avoidance strategy can’t be anything other than intentional. What’s worse, the tactic leaves the impression that department leaders think the same taxpayers who fund the department don’t deserve an explanation of VA’s conduct. VA Honesty Project is dedicated to showing America’s veterans, American taxpayers and department leaders how VA’s media avoidance strategy is doing the public an extreme disservice while damaging VA’s reputation in the process. By keeping a running record of VA’s attempts to stonewall the press, we hope to convince the department to put a renewed focus on being responsive and transparent with the media so America’s veterans and taxpayers can get the answers they deserve.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

iraq

antiwar.com
jason ditz

afp

prashant rao

national iraqi news agency

alsumaria

all iraq news

rudaw

cnn
mohammed tawfeeq

anadolu agency
niqash
mustafa habib
al mada

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

The Tomorrow People

I'm going to talk TV but first . . .

That's the new content at Third and it was written by Dallas and the following:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's K itchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

Okay, The CW has The Tomorrow People. The show really came together in Monday's episode.

You had a death and a deception got exposed -- a major one.

Jedekiah is Stephen's uncle. Last week's episode ended with Stephen finding his father Roger frozen. Jedeikiah had told him that Roger was dead (and let John believe that he had killed him causing John to feel guilt for many, many years).

Jedeikiah explained that the founder of Ultra was trying to use Roger for a new machine.

Jedeikiah (Jed for future sentences) explained the founder was evil and worse.

John confronted him on lying.

Now we saw a scene where the founder came in (not a flashback) and Jedeikiah stabbed his own hand while he held it behind his back to prevent the founder from reading his mind and knowing Roger was alive.

Jed told John that this was part of a master plan and John said he didn't believe him and wasn't going to let him pretend he was the hero.

But they brought him into the lair while Stephen broke Cassie (the founder's daughter) out of the cell Ultra was holding her in. She told Stephen he was next on the list, they were trying to make the machine work with Cassie (the one Roger was supposed to run) but it wasn't working and they were going to try Stephen next.

So John, Kara and Stephen were going to go after the founder and Cassie was coming with them but Kara had to bail because her sister was in trouble.

When they confront the founder, he tells them they have it wrong.

Jed is the evil one.

He was jealous of his brother Roger. He was demanding that they find a way to transfer powers to those without them (like Jed).

Cassie doesn't believe her father and uses her powers to move Stephen out of the way and tells John to shoot now which he does but the founder moves his hand to send the bullets flying away -- which they do but into Cassie.

She's killed.

And it looks like the founder was telling the truth.

They go back to their lair and Jed's left.

Stephen goes to Ultra where he finds Jed preparing to escape.

And Jed's comments make it appear he is the evil one.

So now Jed knows where the lair is putting everyone in danger.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, March 24, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on Anbar continues, the death of an Iraqi working for a US propaganda outlet means the US government can't shut up about the death (they really do expose their own hands, don't they?), the Kurds get stabbed in the back again, polio is back in Iraq (great job, Nouri), Juan Cole seems to forget what he did in 2010, and much more.

Nouri's Iraq has another first. As with all his other firsts, it's not good news. Maya Rhodan (Time magazine) reports Iraq has a confirmed polio case, "A six-month old baby near Baghdad was paralyzed as a result of the debilitating virus, which is generally found among children under five years old." IRIN notes it's been 14 years since Ira had a "confirmed case of the virus." And they quote the World Health Organization's Iraq mission head, Syed Jaffar Hussain, declaring:

Knowing that Iraq itself has a lot of security challenges and large amounts of population movement, internally and from outside, this presents a major public health challenge in the country.
We do have a worry that other children may have been infected and that is why we are going door-to-door in the area where this child lives in order to collect samples to see if the virus has spread.

In other news, Robert Scheer's Truthdig runs a piece by CIA contractor Juan Cole where Cole insist:

It just baffles me that failed Neocons like Dan Senor are still given a hearing inside the Beltway. ABC News actually interviewed Senor, the spokesman for the Bush administration’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq on the Crimea crisis!

The necons? The ones who teamed with conservatives (traditional ones) and Democratic Hawks and neoliberals to sell the illegal war? Trash like Juan Cole will never call out neoliberals, et al., but he'll make sure everyone knows the term "neocon."

As for disappointment?

I think it's disappointing that people who cheered on the illegal war continue to be treated as though they're wise or informed.

I mean people like Juan Cole.

He can fool everyone he wants today but even he knows that when push came to shove he was whoring for the Iraq War.

It was over eight years ago that Steve Rendall called him on it during an interview broadcast on the February 9, 2007 of CounterSpin.

Steve Rendall: Professor Juan Cole, you've expressed some reservations about US withdrawal from Iraq. How do you reconcile that with the people poll done by the University of Maryland that finds that strong majorities of Iraqis -- both Shia and Sunni -- want the US out.

Juan Cole: Well, first of all, you're misreading my position. Uh, for a year and a half now I have been maintaining that the US should withdraw from Iraq. I supported [US House] Representative [John] Murtha's position -- and indeed I believe I preceded it -- which is the US should make an orderly withdraw from Iraq and what I oppose -- and I think anybody should oppose -- and something very worrying -- would be for the US to pull precipitously out of Iraq, just pull up stakes and get out in a rush and let the chips fall where they may because this would be a very bad idea.

Juan loves to rewrite the record, he loves to reinvent and spin yarns and do everything except tell the truth.

When the illegal war started 11 years ago, CIA contractor Juan wrote that "the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides" (click here for Wikipedia and his attempts to justify and rewrite what he wrote).

No one was punished or harmed for advocating for the illegal war which is why it's so shameful that Robert Scheer publishes Cole at Truthdig. The MSM protected their own and promoted 'left' bloggers who supported the Iraq War so for an outlet like Truthdig to present the lies of Juan Cole is very upsetting.

Lies?

Juan Cole is a damn liar. He's so very fond of thinking he can intimidate everyone into going along. I'm not cowed by a pudgy bitch like Juan, so sorry.

He writes today:

Senor had the unmitigated gall to blame President Obama for “Iraq unraveling”!!

Let’s see. The American administration of Iraq fired 100,000 Sunni Arabs from their jobs, abruptly abolished the whole Iraqi army, closed all the major state-owned factories, coddled corrupt Shiite politicians, and generally plunged the country into a massive civil war, which at its height was killing 3000 civilians a month and was responsible for 2 million being displaced abroad and 4 million internally, in a country of 26 million.

Not gall, mind you, but unmitigated gall.

That's a strange argument to present but because Dan Senor is correct in the argument. But before we move to facts -- those things that cause Juan to break out in hives -- let's just examine what Dan Senor did that was so wrong.

According to Juan Cole, 'historian,' it is wrong for Senor or anyone to blame Barack for the state of Iraq.

If Barack can't be blamed for it, he also -- pay attention -- can't be praised.

But in January 2010, Uninformed Boob Juan Cole was declaring the Iraq War was over and Barack had won it.

I wouldn't have called the Iraq War ended then (it's ongoing even now) and I wouldn't have declared Barack had won it.

At that point, I'd already called Barack out for entering into negotiations with terrorists (League of Righteous) and agreeing to release their leaders (so that they'd turn over British hostages -- all but one was turned over as a corpse). And I'd called him out for lying about the Status Of Forces Agreement. But, in January 2010, I never said, "He is losing the war!"

In March 2010, it would be different.

That's where Barack ensured the current state of Iraq.

Parliamentary elections took place. Even with the media (western media) in his pocket, Nouri and his State of Law still lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. Nouri screamed voter theft and insisted on a recount which didn't change the results.

So Nouri decided he'd just refuse to step down. He refused for 8 months (this was the political stalemate and Iraq set the world record at the time for the longest duration between an election and the formation of a government).

During this time Barack backed him. More than that, he had US officials broker The Erbil Agreement. The legal contract provided Nouri with a second term as prime minister in exchange for Nouri agreeing to certain demands of the political blocs. For example, the Kurdistan Regional Government demanded that Article 140 be implemented (referendum and census on disputed and oil-rich Kirkuk).

Barack had no business overriding the votes of the Iraqi people or going around the country's constitution to provide Nouri with a second term.

And the man who planned her life
Commanded all that followed
Well they bellowed and they hollered
And they threw each other down
-- "Memorial Day," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy

Today's problems stem from this. It was Barack's decision (urged on by Samantha Power) and he owns it. It cannot be explained away or wiped away.

The administration got the blocs to sign on by insisting the contract had the full backing of the White House. Vice President Joe Biden gave his word personally to Iraq President Jalal Talabani. And the day after the contract was signed, when, in the session of Parliament, it appeared Nouri was refusing to honor it, Ayad Allawi walked as did many other members of Iraqiya.

At which point -- pay attention, Juan Cole -- Barack personally called Allawi and made promises that led to Allawi returning to Parliament and ending the walk out.

But Nouri refused to honor the contract. He used it to get his second term and then his lawyer and his spokesperson both began announcing the contract was illegal (it probably was -- it was extra-constitutional) and so Nouri didn't have to honor it.

By the summer of 2011, aware that the White House and Barack were not backing the contract they insisted they would, the Kurds, Moqtada al-Sadr and Allawi went public demanding that Nouri follow the contract.

He refused.

In April of 2012, they began publicly exploring a vote of no confidence in the Parliament. Moqtada made clear publicly that Nouri could stop the effort at any point by implementing The Erbil Agreement.

He didn't and, per the Constitution, the groups began gathering the signatures needed for a no confidence vote. They got the needed number and then some.

The vote would take place.

But the White House was pressuring Jalal, insisting the vote could not be allowed to go forward. They offered (empty) promises and made demands. Suddenly, Jalal announced that it was his job (it wasn't) to verify every signature. On top of that, he created another new step not in the Constitution, "Did you mean to sign it?" Clearly, if the signature was their own, they meant to sign it.

But Jalal would insist that several, during the verification process, stated they would not sign it today. So he was striking their signatures.

That's not how it works.

They don't have to vote against Nouri in the vote but if they signed it, they signed it. Change of heart (due to the spread of US money) doesn't let you undo your signature.

The people spoke in 2010, they did not want Nouri. The US re-installed him via a legal contract they swore (in November 2010) that they would back. By 2011, the White House was ignoring it (and also insisting it didn't matter since Nouri had promised publicly not to seek a third term -- Nouri's a whore, his word means nothing). In 2012, Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni politicians agreed to pull together and use the means provided in the Constitution to recall Nouri. The White House demanded this not happen.

Juan Cole is a liar.

All of the above has brought Iraq to the brink yet again.

And that is on Barack.

That and so much more. Raya al-Jadir (Muslim Sister via OnIslam.net) observes today:

Iraq has been in gradual decline since the 1980s, but never in all of its modern history has it witnessed such atrocious and devastating conditions as it is currently experiencing. According to the latest UNICEF report, Iraq has about five million orphans, 500,000 homeless children, and more than 100,000 children between the ages of 8 and 15 who have left school to support their families.

Juan Cole likes to pretend the illegal war ended. It didn't. You can overlook the Special-Ops Barack sent back into Iraq in fall 2012, but how do you overlook the billions the State Dept's put into Iraq -- US taxpayer monies -- since the drawdown? And how do you excuse that money doing nothing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people?

If you're honest, you know you can't excuse it.

Honesty? In such short supply today. Saturday, there was a shooting in Baghdad:

One journalist after another has been killed in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki's never cared. In some cases, as with Hadi al-Mahdi, Nouri is likely the one who ordered the murder.
But today, the prime minister and chief thug of Iraq, found a murder he could condemn, that of Mohamed Bedewi.
There are a number of reasons this murder is being condemned and one big reason that's not being stated by the press.
As NINA notes, Bedewi was the "director of Office of Radio al-Iraq Al-Hur" and was shot in Baghdad by 1 member of the Peshmerga who was charged with protecting the area around President Jalal Talabni's Baghdad residence.
Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq. December 2012, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 (see the December 18, 20102 snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently. His residence proper is in northern Iraq in the Kurdistan Regional Government. November 20th, his chief bodyguard was shot dead in Sulaimaniyah.
Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) points out Talabani is Kurdish and so are his protection forces.
It also helps that the Peshmerga has already turned the guard over to the police. All Iraq News notes Nouri arrived on the scene (in time for the press to cover it).
[. . .]
The dead isn't a journalist. He's part of a propaganda outlet.
The stations he works for is better known as "Radio Free Iraq."
And if that sounds vaguely familiar, yes, it is one of those "Radio Free" propaganda stations that the US government waste taxpayer dollars on. Some may remember Hillary Clinton's lunatic ravings against China's outlets and Russia's and demanding Congress -- in her best Nikita Khruschev shoe banging performance -- do more for the propaganda outlets of the US.
Oh, and by the way, Ukraine's about to get Radio Free Europe -- but let's all pretend not to notice that too.
What was the 'journalist' doing?
Who knows maybe he was pursuing a story?
Maybe he was spying for the US government?
Regardless, he was shot in public and by a Kurd so it was a political win for Nouri even before the US government dialed up Nouri announcing this murder be punished. It was after this call that Nouri got his ass to the scene of the crime.
You should have known something more was going on then what the press was telling you just by the fact that Nouri was finally calling for the murderer of a journalist to be punished.

Sunday, Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) falsely reported all newspapers in Iraq took Sunday off in terms of print versions in order to protest the shooting of Mohammed Bdaiwi. Yacoub, as a friend pointed out to me, got that 'info' from a report filed for Voice of America -- only even that propaganda outlet didn't claim "all" -- instead it went with "dozens." As AP rushed to cover Mohammed Bdaiwi's death the day before, they didn't even make time to note that journalist Raji Hamadallah was shot in Babel Sunday and left injured.

I'm going to be real blunt with the next statement: You need to wake the hell up and stop being so stupid.

Journalist after journalist has been killed in Iraq. It never mattered to the US government. In fact, a number were killed by the US.

Suddenly a death matters?

If you're not getting how important this death is to the US government, the BBG Board issued two press releases on it on Saturday. One opens:

The senseless death today of the Baghdad bureau chief of RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq has shocked the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, who called for the immediate arrest of the Iraqi presidential guard accused in his shooting.

The other opens:

An Iraqi presidential guard has shot dead the Baghdad bureau chief of RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq (RFI), Mohammed Bdaiwi Obaid al-Shammari.

The BBG? "The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is both the name of the independent federal agency that oversees all U.S. civilian international media and the name of the board that governs those broadcasts." Radio World explains, "The BBG is the independent federal agency overseeing U.S. civilian international media, including Voice of America, RFE/RL, Radio and Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks." These propaganda outlets are forbidden by law, by US law, from broadcasting over American airwaves because they are propaganda outlets.

Let's go to today's US State Dept press briefing.

Marie Harf: Hello. Happy Monday, everyone. Sorry for the delay. I have a few things at the top, including a travel update, and then I am happy to open it up for your questions. So, first item is on Iraq.
The United States condemns the murder of Radio Free Iraq’s Baghdad bureau chief, Mohammed – excuse me, let me start over here. I haven’t briefed in a while.
The United States condemns the murder of Radio Free Iraq’s Baghdad Bureau Chief Mohammed Bdaiwi al-Shammari, which occurred following a confrontation at a checkpoint in Baghdad on Sunday. We are deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding his death and we call on the Government of Iraq to conduct a full investigation into the incident and to hold the perpetrator of this criminal act to account. The killing of any innocent is to be deplored. The murder of a journalist is a particular affront because it strikes at a fundamental pillar of democracy.

Our understanding is that the case is now with the Iraqi judiciary, and we call on the Iraqi Government to ensure that the investigation is handled in a manner consistent with the constitutions and laws of Iraq. Mr. al-Shammari’s death is a major loss for the entire country of Iraq, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his families – to his family and to his colleagues.

Is your jaw on the floor yet?

For the first time in her life, spokesperson Marie Harf spoke of Iraq at the top of a press briefing and did so without even being asked.

It is a moment.

There have been many for Marie recently. She's become a quite popular topic in the Iraqi press and looked so ridiculous in the photo of an Iraqi newspaper last Friday. Let's hope the US Embassy in Baghdad is tracking her popularity. She's been noted repeatedly in the last three weeks on Arabic social media where she's referred to as the woman who endlessly flaps her mouth but never speaks of Iraq (it's a little more poetic in Arabic).

They know her. They know how useless she is.

It's a shame so few Americans are aware of her.

But she spoke about Iraq all on her own.

Well, she spoke about the shooting death of a propagandist working for the US government.

Let's drop back to the September 8, 2011 snapshot:

In Iraq, a journalist has been murdered. In addition to being a journalist, he was also a leader of change and part of the movement to create an Iraq that was responsive to Iraqis.

Al Mada reports Iraqi journalist Hadi al-Mahdi is dead according to an Interior Ministry source who says police discovered him murdered in his Baghdad home. Along with being a journalist, Al Mada notes he was one of the chief organizers of the demonstrations demanding change and service reform that began on February 25th -- the day he was arrested by Iraqi security forces and beaten in broad daylight as he and others, after the February 25th protest, were eating in a restaurant. The New York Times didn't want to tell you about, the Washington Post did. And now the man is dead. Gee, which paper has the archives that matter to any real degree. Maybe it's time to act like a newspaper and not a "news magazine" with pithy little human interest stories? (That is not a dig at Tim Arango but at the paper's diva male 'reporter' who went on NPR to talk of an Iraqi college this week.) So while the Times missed the story (actaully, they misled on the story -- cowtowing to Nouri as usual), Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported:

Four journalists who had been released described being rounded up well after they had left a protest at Baghdad's Tahrir Square. They said they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit.
"It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists," said Hussam al-Ssairi, a journalist and poet, who was among a group and described seeing hundreds of protesters in black hoods at the detention facility. "Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq."

In fairness to Marie (who's actually said to be a nice person), she wasn't the spokesperson then. Disgusting and vile Victoria Nuland was. On September 8, 2011, did Vicky Nuland note the assassination of Hadi? Nope. How about September 9, 2011? Nope. Vicky didn't have then either.

But today, before a single question can be asked, the State Dept wants to put out a statement noting the death of a propagandist on the US payroll.

You'll notice that even though Raij Jamdallah was injured in a shooting on Sunday, Marie didn't note Jamadallah. He doesn't work for the US government, so his death doesn't matter.

Just like all the other Iraqi deaths that never mattered to the US, never got noted at the top of a State Dept press briefing.

Again, if you're missing the reality now, you're just choosing to wallow in stupidity.

Rudaw reports Nouri's calls for vengeance ("It will be my responsibility to avenge this killing, and blood can only be expiated by blood.") is causing alarm among politicians in Iraq:

Hamid Mutlaq a member of the parliamentary defense and security committee criticized this comment, saying, “Iraq can not be ruled based on blood for blood because it won't get us anywhere.”
Though some Iraqi and Kurdish officials have said that the killing was “an individual act” and shouldn’t incriminate the entire presidential guard unit, the Iraqi prime minister has personally taken up the case and promised to punish those responsible.
Others believe that the Iraqi prime minister is using the death of Muhammad Bidaiwi, a university professor and head of Radio Free Iraq as a means to get back at the Kurds amid political disputes with Erbil.
In a statement, the Change Movement (Gorran) warned of politicizing the incident and inciting nationalist and sectarian feelings, while demanding a fair trial for the Kurdish officer charged with killing Bidaiwi.
Shortly after the shooting, interior ministry forces arrived at the gates of the presidential compound to arrest the Kurdish guard, which led to a tense standoff between both sides. However, it was reported that the guard was eventually handed over to the Iraqis after talks between Iraq’s First Lady, Hero Ibrahim Ahmed and Prime Minister Maliki.

Nouri is using Mohammed Bdaiwi The US government is working hard to help tensions reach the boiling part over the death and Nouri and his office can't stop issuing statements (here for one). The US government and Nouri are spreading lies and rumors.

So much so that the First Lady of Iraq, Hero Ibrahim, has had to issue denials about false rumors.

The 'journalist' was killed by a Peshmerga --Kurdish force -- and the US government and Nouri are trying to use the death to stir up animosity against the Kurds. That's the thank you, they had coming. The Kurds again tried to work with the US government last week -- they came to an understanding on oil with Baghdad at the US government's insisting. A Kurdish MP was thrilled about it and e-mailed this site to insist it was a new day. I dictated back a reply stating that within five days the US government would show how it really feels about the Kurds.

We're seeing it now, aren't we?

The US government has never cared about the Kurds and has a pattern and history of lying to the Kurds..

That is not my opinion. That is what the US Congress found in the Pike Report. February 16, 1976, The Village Voice published Aaron Latham's "Introduction to the Pike Papers." Latham explained:

In 1972, Dr. Henry Kissinger met with the Shah of Iran, who asked the U.S. to aid the Kurds in their rebellion against Iraq, an enemy of the Shah. Kissinger later presented the proposal to President Nixon who approved what would become a $16 million program. Then John B. Connally, the former Nixon Treasury Secretary, was dispatched to Iran to inform the Shah, one oil man to another.
The committee report charges that: "The President, Dr. Kissinger and the foreign head of state [the Shah] hoped our clients would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally's neighboring country [Iraq]. The policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."
During the Arab-Israeli war, when the Kurds might have been able to strike at a distracted Iraqi government, Kissinger, according to the report, "personally restrained the insurgents from an all-out offensive on the one occasion when such an attack might have been successful."
Then, when Iran resolved its border dispute with Iraq, the U.S. summarily dropped the Kurds. And Iraq, knowing aid would be cut off, launched a search-and-destroy campaign the day after the border agreement was signed.
A high U.S. official later explained to the Pike committee staff: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

That is the history. Deception on the part of the US. Promises are made to the Kurds with no intention of them being kept. In part, these promises are made to destabilize all of Iraq, to pit one region against the other which does ensure that while Nouri al-Maliki may get cozy and fall into bed with Iran, the two won't be hitting any wedding registries.

US policy is to lie and deceive and leave other governments, even friendly ones, forever guessing and off balance.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 788 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month. Today the violence continues.

Nouri's continued assault on Anbar, specifically his bombing of residential neighborhoods, left 2 women dead and two children injured. Around 200 people have been killed since the start of the assault -- many elderly, many children. Telling, isn't it, that the State Dept's never objected to those deaths.

National Iraqi News Agency reports a security source states 21 suspects were killed today in Diyala Province, 1 federal police was shot dead "inside the Mosul university campus" and one Iraqi soldier was left injured, a Mosul car bombing left 3 people dead and three injured, a Kirkuk battle left 3 Sahwa dead and two more injured, a southern Baghdad (Dora district) bombing left 1 person dead and another injured, a southern Baghdad roadside bombing (Yusifyah area) left one police member injured, a southwestern Baghdad sticky bombing (Saidiya area) left one person injured, a Mosul bombing left five water department employees injured, and a Mosul car bombing left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and a child injured.

We're way over but we need to go back to today's State Dept press briefing because Said Arikat, Al Quds bureau chief, raised Iraq later in the briefing.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

MS. HARF: Get me back on track here.

QUESTION: Yeah, right. Great. Can we go back to – you started at the top with Iraq.

MS. HARF: I did, yes.

QUESTION: On the killing and the murder of Mohammed Shammari.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Now, are you saying that the government forces may have killed him? Is that what you’re suggesting because he – it was altercation at the checkpoint?

MS. HARF: Well, what I said – I said a couple things. First, the Iraqi judiciary is just beginning their investigation into this crime. I think a lot of the details about what actually happened have already been reported in terms of it being a security guard. As I said, the judiciary is beginning their investigation. I don’t want to speculate on all the facts, other than to say, obviously, we strongly condemn the actions that took place here and want the Iraqi Government to investigate what happened.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, do you – would you describe your relationship with Iraq as being at least precarious at this point? Because yesterday Prime Minister Maliki really criticized your allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He basically accused them of being behind all the terrorism that is taking place in Iraq. I mean, them being your close allies, security, and you have a lot of security coordination, do you also arrive at the same conclusion that the Saudis and the Qataris are behind it?

MS. HARF: Well, I didn’t see his comments specifically. I’ll make a few points. The first is that we have a strong and continuing partnership with the Iraqi Government. We have said since we ended the war there that we will continue working with the government and the people of Iraq to help them build their capacity and move forward past the situation they have been in.
Secondly, what we’ve said is separate from – you’re talking about terrorist attacks in general in Iraq.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS. HARF: In terms of the terrorist activity inside Iraq, we believe it’s a direct result mostly of the situation in Syria and the destabilizing impact that Syria has had on Iraq in terms of foreign fighters being able to flow into Iraq and really wreak havoc there as well. So again, I didn’t see his specific comments, but that’s how we look at the situation. We’re working with the Iraqi Government to increase their capacity to fight these threats on their own.

QUESTION: Okay. So would you give credence to his claims? Because you also --

MS. HARF: I didn’t see the claims, Said. I’d have to take a look at his specific claims.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you one last question on this. There was supposed to be deliveries of Hellfire missiles, other equipment, helicopters and so on to Iraq.

MS. HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: Is that still – or is it on hold now, or is it being delivered?

MS. HARF: Not to my understanding.

QUESTION: Do you know – what is the status?

MS. HARF: It’s my understanding it’s ongoing. And we talked about some Hellfires that we delivered, I think back in December, and some ScanEagle surveillance platforms as well. It’s my understanding it’s ongoing, that’s nothing’s changed there, because we do think this is a very important fight to help the Iraqis build their capacity to go after themselves. But I’m happy to check. I just don’t think anything’s been changed.[1]

[1] The ScanEagles have not yet been delivered to Iraq but are on track for delivery in the next few months. As for equipment recently delivered to Iraq, see the statement issued by Embassy Baghdad on March 16: http://iraq.usembassy.gov/pr-03162014.html.

Greg Mitchell has a Nation post that ties the run up to the illegal war events with something more recent. I told a Nation friend I'd consider linking to it and we just did. That's also all that we have room for.

iraq
counterspin
fair
steve rendall
national iraq news agency
all iraq news
alsumaria
iraq body count

Mikey Likes It!