Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The game for them


This Tweet -- actually the two Tweets -- gets to what's wrong:

  1. Instapundit.com retweeted Erick Erickson
    I think as mideast collapses under Obama, Iraq questions won't help Dems.
    Instapundit.com added,


It's all a game for them.

They try to make it about which side is worse.

Bully Boy Bush deserves blame.

So does Barack.

It's not an either/or.

And until we can get honest about that, we're not going to do any real move to end the STILL ongoing Iraq War.


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

 
Tuesday, May 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues to mount, Haider al-Abadi's half-hearted Sunni inclusion measures yield half-hearted results, how Jeb Bush is working the GOP base to improve his struggling political campaign, and much more.



It was not a good day for US President Barack Obama.  Alexander Bolton (The Hill) notes, "Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama's trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from tackling fast-track legislation."  Today also saw him criticized as sexist for his remarks on Senator Elizabeth Warren with NOW's Terry O'Neill declaring his remarks were sexist and that their "clear subtext is that 'the little lady' just doesn't know what she's talking about" while Senator Sherrod Brown stated, "I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that.  I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to."

As bad as today may be for Barack, next month may be worse.

June 2015 will mark the one year anniversary of Barack rebuking Iraq's then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and insisting the only way for the country to emerge from its crises was via a "political solution."  That publicly stated realization has been followed by months and months of the US government refusing to work with Iraq towards a political solution or to demand that Iraq's leaders take necessary steps.

Iraq came up in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.



QUESTION: Okay. And then some Sunni – Iraqi Sunni leaders are here in town in Washington, D.C., including Rafe al-Essawi, who is wanted by the Iraqi court. Can you tell us why they are here and whether they have met any State Department officials?


MR RATHKE: Well, we’re aware that the former Iraqi deputy prime minister and the governor of Nineveh province are visiting Washington this week. It’s an unofficial visit, not organized by the U.S. Government. They have requested meetings at the Department of State, so we expect that senior department officials who work on issues related to Iraq and ISIL will meet with them during their stay, but I don’t have further --


QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi?


MR RATHKE: I’m sorry?


QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi as well?


MR RATHKE: I don’t have further information on the meetings. As again – as I said, this is an unofficial visit. So they’ve requested meetings here, and we will meet with them. I don’t have a full lineup of exactly who’s going to participate.


QUESTION: Well, when you meet with them, will you be able to share some more information?



MR RATHKE: I don’t have any further information. I’d refer you back to their delegation to talk about the details.

Yesterday in DC, Rafe al-Issawi appeared at Brookings Institution event with Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi.  The event was moderated by Kenneth Pollack.


Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: [. . .]  the volunteers are ready to fight as soon as they get weapons.  By now we have thousands of fighters who have graduated from these camps [run by international trainers] and are ready to fight but they don't have weapons.  They don't have the weapons they need for the fight for the liberation of Mosul from Da'ash.  Since last January -- now five months ago -- we are still waiting for the promises of weapons that have been made by our government in Baghdad.  Promises are nice but it's the weapons that our volunteers need, not the promises.  The force which hold Mosul after liberation  must be trusted by the people of Mosul.  That means the force must be from Mosul and its surrounding province in Nineveh. If these forces to be trusted by Mosul community the Mosul people will be on the side of the liberation and Da'ash cannot make a comeback into Mosul.  The liberation comes first, of course, but its the period after the liberation that will be decided.  Our people will be watching. 



al-Nujaifi's remarks work with regards to Mosul.  He identified the Nineveh Province city as the equivalent of Chicago or San Francisco in the United States.

But the remarks also go to the ongoing operation in Anbar Province where non-Sunnis are failing in their assault on Ramadi and Shi'ite militias have also found no success.  The news that 1,000 Sunni fighters might take part is seen as too little and way too late.

Only 1,000, Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) notes as he explains:


 In response to mounting criticism that sectarian Shiite Muslim militias are committing crimes against the mostly Sunni Muslim residents of embattled Anbar province, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi has authorized training and arming Sunni militiamen to combat the Islamic State.
But as the first class of local Sunnis began training this week, analysts, security experts and government officials expressed concerns that the program is too small and poorly coordinated to make a difference, while others are concerned that arming the Sunnis will alienate Abadi’s Shiite militia allies, who’ve already complained about the government’s cooperation with the American-led coalition.



Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/05/12/4521699/few-sunni-tribesmen-in-iraq-sign.html#storylink=cpy

The remarks by Atheel al-Nujaifi  also go to the failures of Prime Minister Haider al-Obadi to live up to his part of the deal:  The US government arms Iraq to fight the Islamic State and Haider distributes those arms to the fighters -- all those fighting against the Islamic State -- Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis.


But Haider has refused to supply the needed arms to the Sunnis and the Kurds.  Atheel al-Nujaifi noted the failure to provide Sunni fighters with the needed arms.

Last week, KRG President Massoud Barzani visited DC and he noted, again, the failure of Haider and the Baghdad-based government to arm the Kurds.

Rudaw examined Barzani's visit in a discussion featuring Nussaibah Younis and Ernie Audino with Rudaw's Namo Abdulla moderating.

Nussaibah Younis:  I'm not at all surprised that President Barzani was well recieved in the United States. After all, the Kurdish Peshmerga -- and particularly the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga -- are the only responsible, very well equipped, very effective forces on the ground in the fight against ISIS and the United States has been absolutely desperate to support forces on the ground so that the US  is not again in the position where it has to send ground troops into Iraq.  So it makes absolute sense that President Barzani and other Kurdish leaders would be very well received in Washington.

[. . .]

Ernie Audino:  I think President Barzani left the meeting seemingly happy with the results of the meeting maybe not because of the independence issue -- maybe not because of that.  But we can presume that that was one of several issues he very likely discussed.  Now I wasn't in the meeting, but it's clear he certainly had to articulate a case for direct arming of the Peshmerga -- something that has not happened yet, okay?  Arms and equipment go directly to Baghdad first  and -- from my experience on the ground trying to equip the Kurdish government back in 2006, I can tell you the equipment, very little of that gets into the hands of the Peshmerga.  And right now if its on the manifest of the carrier that's landing in Baghdad and Baghdad does not want that in the hands of the Peshmerga, the Peshmerga do not get it. And the Peshmerga just got 25 mwraps.  And that's good, I'm glad   That's 10% of all the Mwraps that were delivered to Baghdad.

Namo Abdullah:  That's mine resistant vehichles, right?

Ernie Audino:  That's correct.  That's correct.  The Peshmerga desperately need those vehicles to cross the open ground.  But 10% landing on the ground in Baghdad going to the main effort in the fight? The Peshmerga?  That's inconsistent with sound military doctrine. 



If Haider wants to continue to oversee the distribution, he needs to honor his word to distribute the arms and equipment.  If he can't, the US Congress is prepared to handle the responsibility he's shirked.

There is genuine concern in Iraq over Haider's inability to deal fairly.

At Monday's event, Atheel al-Nujaifi also noted, "President Obama last month pledged $200 million in humanitarian aid.  With this humanitarian aid, President Obama promised, to be on hand immediately in Mosul after liberation.  Or  will it be tied up in Baghdad's bureaucracy?"

And that's a very good question since so much of the money in Iraq tends to vanish and never reached the intended or the needy.

The refugee crisis once prompted Nouri al-Maliki to insist that neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would receive money from the Iraqi government due to all the Iraqi refugees they were hosting.  That never happened.

But long after Nouri is no longer prime minister, the refugee crisis continues to grow.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following today:



12 May 2015,Iraq - IOM Iraq’s new Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) published this week recorded 2,834,676 internally displaced Iraqis from January 2014 through 25 April
2015. The majority of the new displacement identified in the two-week period was caused by conflict in the Ramadi area of Anbar governorate.
Following the outbreak of the Ramadi crisis, which occurred around 10 April, DTM tracked 133,104 individuals displaced to 15 of Iraq’s 18 governorates. The governorates receiving the greatest number of displaced people as a result of the Ramadi crisis are Baghdad (83,172), Anbar (24,552), Babylon (7,392) and Sulaymaniyah (6,504). An estimated 65 per cent of the total population tracked as “in transit” has been recorded in this DTM report.
Within the reporting period, more than 16,000 individuals returned to the Markaz Ramadi sub-district, in the center of Ramadi district. The majority of this population cited the lack of a required sponsor to enter Baghdad as the reason they returned to Ramadi. Based on initial field reports, areas of return are under the control of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
Recent clashes between the ISF and armed groups also triggered displacements from Karmah district in Anbar. As of 8 May, 47,256 individuals were displaced; 94 per cent to Fallujah district and 6 per cent to Abu Ghraib district in Baghdad.
This is the second DTM report to present returnee tracking figures across Iraq. A total of 116,850 individuals (19,475 families) are monitored as having returned to their districts of origin. Diyala governorate shows the highest returnee population with 37 per cent (43,044 individuals), of which 73 per cent are reported to be returning from other areas within the governorate. Preliminary findings indicate that 77 per cent of the total returnee population resettled in their locations of former residence, while 19 per cent have returned to unfinished or abandoned buildings.
IOM Iraq Chief of Mission Thomas Lothar Weiss said: “We are deeply concerned about the new and continuing displacement in Iraq. IOM Iraq has provided over 115,000 non-food item kits since the beginning of the current crisis, and tens of thousands of displaced people have benefitted from our shelter, livelihoods, and health programme assistance. But the quantity of life-saving humanitarian aid available is insufficient. Funding constraints limit IOM and the humanitarian communities’ ability to offer the breadth of response required to the meet vast humanitarian needs. IOM is committed to provide continued assistance in coordination with the Government of Iraq and humanitarian partners in its efforts to assist displaced people.”
Salam Zidan fled from his home just outside of Ramadi in Anbar district on 19 April with his wife and six children. They left when shelling drew near to their neighbourhood. They spoke with IOM staff at a non-food item kit distribution in western Baghdad on 21 April.
“We spent two days travelling to Baghdad, between walking and hiring transport. I was shot in the leg during the displacement, so I can’t work. We came with nothing. Now after this distribution we have mattresses and stoves and other items. There are no words to describe our gratitude for what IOM gave us,” he said.
The DTM is an IOM information management tool that gathers specific information regarding the status and location of displaced people.
The most recent IOM Iraq DTM Dataset, Dashboards, and Dynamic Displacement Map, in addition to previous DTM products, can be found at: http://iomiraq.net/dtm-page

For more information please contact IOM Iraq. Laura Nistri, Tel. +964 751 234 2549, Email: lnistri@iom.int or Sandra Black, Tel. +964 751 234 2550, Email: sblack@iom.int




Turning to the topic of the ongoing killings, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 137 violent deaths in Iraq today.


On violence, there are many ways to prevent it.  There are also ways to detect it.

For example, a bomb threat might lead to bomb sniffing dogs being used in an area.

Some aren't smart enough to resort to that and instead prefer to resort to 'magic.'  For a reminder of that, let's drop back to May 20, 2013:




Violence slams Iraq today.  Brisband Times notes (in a video report),  "Washing the blood off the streets, the clear up begins after another deadly day of violence in Iraq."  Fiji Broadcasting Corporation observes, "Baghdad was the worst hit."  This morning,  Al Jazeera noted, "Eight car bombs in mainly Shia districts of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killed 20 people on Monday."   By the end of the day, AP reported the bombing toll was up to 10 and the death toll to 48 (with over 150 injured).  On this AP video report, a Baghdad man states, "We have become accustom to such explosions.  We have seen blasts every day. These attacks will never frighten us, God willing."  As Baghdad is slammed with bombings, it's worth dropping back to the May 10th snapshot:

Alsumaria reports that cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr declared his sympathy for the Iraqis who've lost family members as a result of the purchase and use by Nouri's government of 'magic' wands -- which have been known not to work since 2009.  Moqtada urged the families who lost loved ones and those who were injured as a result to sue the person who purchased the items. (That would be Nouri.)  April 23rd (see the  April 24, 2013 snapshot), James McCormick, the man who made and sold the wands, who was on trial for those wands, was pronounced guilty on three counts of fraud.  And still Nouri has allowed -- no, insisted that the wands be used.   May 2nd, McCormick was sentenced to a maxium of 10 years.  Jake Ryan (Sun) quoted Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse." And yet last Friday, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that the 'magic'  wands to 'detect' bombs (and drugs and, no doubt, spirits from the other world) are still being used in Iraq.  He spoke with a police officer in Baghdad who admits that everyone knows that they don't work but that the police are under orders to use the wands.

Last Saturday,   NINA reported,  "Leader of the Sadrist Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, demanded Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to apologize and stand before Parliament to answer about the deal of the explosives detection instruments."  Moqtada suspects some Iraqis were bribed in this deal and wants names he also demands that the 'magic' wands stop being used immediately stating that they are "an insult to the Iraqis' intelligence."  Moqtada and Iraqiya have called for Nouri to appear before Parliament and explain why the wands were purchased, who profited from them and the various details of the deal that was made for them.

Al Mada reports that the Ministry of the Interior claimed today that they would recover all the money spent on the magic wands.  Ministry of the Interior Inspector General Aqeel Turaihi states that they have known and acknowledged since October 2010 that the magic wands do not work.

Regardless of whether money is recovered for the purchase, as Moqtada al-Sadr points out, lives have been lost and people have been injured.


So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.  May 2nd, the seller and maker was sentenced:

The Belfast Telegraph notes that [James] McCormick "showed no reaction as he was told his 'callous confidence trick' was the worst fraud imaginable."  Jake Ryan (Sun) quotes Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse."


The use of these 'magic' wands in Iraq still is criminal.





It was criminal.

Even more criminal is that those useless wands are still in use today.  Jacob Siegel (Daily Beast) reports Iraq is still using those worthless sticks designed to find golf balls -- they couldn't even do that -- but sold to Iraq as bomb dectectors.  You hold it and jog in place and that job turns the stick into a magical diving rod that can sense bombs. Sigel reports:


The wands provide a visible symbol of Iraq’s rampant corruption. They were bought despite warnings that they didn’t work and kept in service after it was proved they didn’t work. A 2010 investigation into their purchase ended before it started, without any officials held accountable, after Iraq’s interior minister used an article in the country’s criminal code that gives senior officials control over whether their subordinates are prosecuted for corruption. 
 “The government in Maliki’s era was corrupt and strong; now it is corrupt and weak,” said Dr. Abbas Kadhim, a senior foreign policy fellow at Johns Hopkins University, in a recent interview about the legacy of former Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki and current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.



The craftiness that is Jeb Bush, the stupidity that is us.

Last week, Jeb's struggling political campaign to win the GOP's presidential nomination was dealing with the kind of poll results that do real damage --- the ones that tell the media you're not really a serious candidate.

When that sinks in, the media tends to run from you.

And Jeb was supposed to be the front runner.

He's the son of a president (George HW Bush) and the brother of a man the Supreme Court installed in the Oval Office (Bully Boy Bush).  His grandfather (Prescott Bush) was a US Senator.  Himself, he's the former governor of Florida.

Those are the sort of credits that let you step to the front when you announce your running for public office.

But they didn't work for Jeb.

Throughout April, he found himself either only slightly ahead in the polls (within the margin of error) or running behind Senator Marco Rubio.

And in some polls, he was running behind Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

And in some polls, he was running behind Rubio, Walker and Senator Rand Paul.

In a crowded field, he was being overlooked.

His statements broadcast Monday, but leaked to the press on Sunday, that he would have gone to war on Iraq the way his brother did (and, he pointed out, the way Hillary Clinton had voted to support) moved him to the forefront.

He is the focus.

B-b-but the media is calling him out!

And what's your point?

We're talking about the Republican Party.

The party who invented the myth of a liberal media to take the heat off journalistic exposes and stinging commentaries.

The media attacking Jeb -- and that is what they're doing as they obsess over him -- only make Jeb more viable -- and relatable -- to the GOP base.

We all realize, right, that Jeb's running to appeal to the GOP base right now, right?

We get that?

Most of us are smart enough to know that Dems run left (or what they think is left) in the presidential primary and then veer towards the center in the general.

Guess what?

The Republicans do the same.

Jeb Bush is running for the GOP presidential nomination.

He may or may not make it to the general election.  But to get there, he's first got to appeal to the base.  And he's never been the 'regular guy' his brother Bully Boy Bush was portrayed as by the media.

So these attacks on him?

They're actually helping him.

And the Republican base which supported the Iraq War -- and a significant portion of which does not regret the Iraq War -- aren't bothered by his remarks but are watching with interest how he is attacked for expressing an opinion that they feel is very similar to their own opinion.

He's walked it back a bit, clarified his remarks.

He can say whatever he wants now.  To the base, he expressed their opinion and he was trashed for it. That provides identification with Jeb that they've never had before.

In some of the comments being made -- in Tweets, columns, etc -- Jeb is taken to task for not calling out his brother.  I have no idea what world these people live in.

But fueled by their own hatred, they suddenly believe it's normal to ask or expect Jeb to take on his brother.

That's never been considered noble or the thing to do.



My name is Joe Roberts I work for the state
I'm a sergeant out of Perrineville barracks number 8
I always done an honest job as honest as I could
I got a brother named Franky and Franky ain't no good

Now ever since we was young kids it's been the same come down
I get a call over the radio Franky's in trouble downtown
Well if it was any other man, I'd put him straight away
But when it's your brother sometimes you look the other way

Me and Franky laughin' and drinkin' nothin' feels better than blood on blood
Takin' turns dancin' with Maria as the band played "Night of the Johnstown Flood"

I catch him when he's strayin' like any brother would
Man turns his back on his family well he just ain't no good

-- "Highway Patrolman," written by Bruce Springsteen, first appears on his album Nebraska



Get it?

Get it, yet?

My side (the left) has now spent nearly three days being ridiculous with attacks that only help Jeb Bush with the GOP base.

By the end of last month, it really seemed like Jeb's run for the GOP presidential nomination was over.

Yet thanks to remarks -- and the reaction (over reaction) to them by the media and the left -- this week, he's now soaked up all the media focus and been treated in such a manner that the Republican base that wasn't sure about him now could very well identify with him.









Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Stalker

Blah day.

Dallas and the following worked on Third:



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 Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.



And here's the content we came up with:




And I'm in a funk, yes.

C.I. told me this weekend that Stalker was cancelled and that the announcement would be made on Monday.  I didn't want to believe her.

Even after I saw Maggie Q instagram a 'thank you' for all those who had supported and talked about the next project . . .

I still didn't want to believe.

But they announced it today.

I knew it was true.

C.I. wasn't going to lie to me.

But I just didn't want to believe it.

I'm really pissed because they made the decision based on one rating -- two Mondays ago.

And though Stalker delivered a great rating, it didn't match the season finale of Scorpion.

How was it going to?

That was a cliff hanger.

(I like Scorpion.)

Match it against a non-season finale episode.

Or wait until Stalker airs its season finale and match that rating against Scorpion's season finale.

But they didn't support Stalker and they just wanted to get rid of it.

I hate it when my shows get cancelled -- Fringe, Nikita, Chuck, etc, etc.


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

 
Monday, May 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, two prominent Sunni officials visit the US and talk Iraq, Barack's big Camp David summit photo-op is in danger, Congress gives some attention to the dangers of burn pits, and much more.


The month's not even at the half-way point and already a new calamity for US Pesident danger prone Barack Obama.  Terry Atlas (Australia's The Age) notes, "Mr Obama is convening the summit as the administration is trying to restore the flagging confidence of Gulf Arab leaders in US leadership in the face of an emboldened Iran. Several heads of state are sending lower level officials to meet with Mr Obama, sparking questions about whether the president had been snubbed by frustrated allies."

Raghida Dergham (Al Arabiya) offers this take:


The security concerns of the Gulf nations will be strongly present on the agenda of the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, who has linked his historical legacy to a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Any attempt to dissuade Obama from his eagerness for a deal with Tehran would draw the ire of the man who does not accept criticism easily and who has no wish to deviate from the path he set with Iran. Any attempt to remind him that he had backed away from his own red line on the 11th hour will be sure to anger him and make him more critical of his interlocutors. Barack Obama is not an easy man, but he is more complicated now on the verge of a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has little patience and he has no room for bargaining. 



The summit is set to take place at Camp David and was supposed to be a major photo op for the White House which has so frequently stumbled in the Middle East.  It was supposed to reassure the world that Barack was a friend of and to Arabs and that he stood alongside Arab rulers.


Instead?

Reuters reports:

The White House scrambled on Monday to counter perceptions that the Saudi king's absence from a summit later this week could undermine U.S. efforts to assure Gulf states it remains committed to their security against Iran.
King Salman's abrupt decision to skip the U.S.-hosted regional talks shows how Gulf rulers, displeased by what they see as U.S. indifference to Iranian meddling in the Arab world, may hesitate to bless any final nuclear deal that President Barack Obama reaches with Tehran.

What's going on?

The Brookings Institution's Bruce Riedel offers an explanation which includes:

The Saudis are unhappy with U.S. policy toward Iran, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. They don't want a public argument with the Obama administration (unlike Israel) but they want a very public display of their dissatisfaction.
The timing of the decision, on the eve of the Camp David summit, is especially symbolic and intended to be embarrassing. Saudi sources are suggesting the summit was poorly prepared and lacked substantive deliverables. A reaffirmation of the Carter Doctrine of American support for the Gulf States is regarded as too little. More arms are too late. But the Saudis have known for weeks the constraints on Washington. They deliberately choose the last minute to cancel the king's trip to send a potent signal.

At the heart of Saudi unhappiness is the Saudi fear that the nuclear deal between the P5 and Iran will lift sanctions and end Iran's isolation. The Saudis, Emirates, and Bahrainis want Iran to be a permanent pariah under sanctions indefinitely. They are not worried about centrifuges; they are worried about subversion and intimidation. A rapprochement between the P5 and Iran leaves them dangerously exposed in their view.



In 2012 and '13, "  Kenneth Pollack said as he wound down his introduction of Iraqi official Rafe al-Issawi this morning, "Rafe came under attack by the previous government [Nouri al-Maliki].  His body guards were arrested. He was the target of an assassination attempt.  And he was forced to resign from the government.  He is the personification of the events that led to alienation of the Sunni community in 2012 and '13."

Pollack was speaking at the Brookings Institution as the host of an event featuring al-Assawi and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nujaifi (who is also the brother of Osama al-Nujaifi, the former Speaker of Parliament and one of Iraq's current three vice presidents -- the other two are Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki).



Pollack noted the need for a political solution and how that was not possible until there was a Sunni buy-in of the government.  For that to happen, Pollack stressed, the Sunnis need a picture of what they would be buying into and they would require a vision/plan that recognized them as full citizens of Iraq.

Barack once spoke of the need for a political solution -- in fact, he did so 11 months ago.  Last June, Barack declared that a "political solution" was the only way to resolve the crises Iraq was facing.

Despite that public declaration, Barack and the administration have worked on bombing Iraq and lining up other countries to fly war planes and drop bombs, and send 'trainers' into Iraq and lining up other countries to do the same.

The US State Dept has confused itself with the Defense Dept.  That's Secretary of State John Kerry who's confused the department's mission, that's Brett McGurk and that's especially Special Envoy John Allen who doesn't want to be billed as "special envoy" or "ambassador" but instead as "General" even though (a) he's retired and (b) he's working for the State Dept.

Diplomacy has not just been given a bad name, it's been given figure heads who seem embarrassed by any form of diplomacy that isn't gun point diplomacy.



Rafe al-Issawi noted that in the short term, the most immediate danger to Iraq was the Islamic State and its actions of violence and terror.  But that's not the only danger the country faces.  He explained,
"On the long run, you cannot deal with a country filled with militia which is illegal and which is non-state actors."

He detailed the many Sunnis forced into exile by Nouri al-Maliki and "politicized judiciary decisions" and noted the list of the Sunnis included Tareq al-Hashemi, a vice president of Iraq during Nouri's second term, who was forced into exile by the actions of Nouri.

And I'm noting, these actions did not follow the Constitution.  Charges were brought against Tareq despite the fact that this was not allowed to happen while he was a member of Parliament.  Nouri either had to get the Parliament to strip Tareq of his elected position (they refused to do so) or Nouri had to wait until Tareq's elected position expired.

Instead, Nouri refused to follow the law and had a laughable Court convict him (repeatedly he was convicted, one death penalty sentence after another) -- and the Court was laughable because before the case ever began, they held a press conference in Baghdad, these so-called judges, announcing Tareq was guilty.  This before a single argument was heard in court, before a single piece of evidence was introduced.  This despite the fact that the Iraqi Constitution insists all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

This was a major moment.

So naturally the world press treated it as nothing.  Treated it as normal.  Underplayed it or outright ignored it.

It took place February 16, 2012 and we noted how it should have been reported:


IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism.  Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day.  Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial.  Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary.  Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq.  This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held. 
Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made.


Let's also state that the world press saw their role as trash talking Tareq.  They didn't play objective.  They certainly didn't play supportive.  They were too busy propping up thug Nouri.

They were too busy trashing the Sunnis.

Take AFP.

When allegations surfaced that Iraqi women and girls (predominately Sunni) were being beaten and raped in Iraqi jails and prison, AFP ignored the allegations.

When the Parliament began investigating and found the charges to be true, AFP ignored the allegations.

When this issue was one of the issues that led to series of protests lasting over a year in Iraq, AFP ignored the allegations.

When Nouri, months after the allegations surfaced, did a for-show release of a small number of Iraqi women and girls, AFP hailed the moment.

They 'forgot' to follow up on the fact that those females participating in Nouri's photo op never made it home -- their families publicly stated that (and the Iraqi press covered it).

AFP was only interested in the rapes and beatings when Nouri was insisting they weren't true and that, as proof, he'd be releasing a small number of females.

It wasn't just Nouri that brought Iraq to the brink from 2010 to 2014.

It was also the world press which refused to accurately and honestly report what was taking place on the ground in Iraq.

"We keep saying the solution should be political," Rafe al-Issawi noted at the event today. But that's not being focused on and "we don't need America to build its partnership with militias."


al-Issawi noted he had worked with Haider al-Abadi when they both served in Parliament.  He declared that he believed al-Abadi was trying.  But that more needed to be done than trying and that results have not been forthcoming.

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: After 11 years of just talking about reconciliation but no actual steps taken the Sunni in Iraq will no longer be interested in more talk.  The Sunni need to see actual and concrete steps. [. . .] I will give and only outline these points so we can have your questions and a good discussion.  I'm talking about Mosul as a model but I think what I'm talking can be for all the Sunni areas.  First, the people of Mosul are the key to the liberation of Mosul.  The Mosul people must be shown why liberation is better for them than the regime of Da'ash.  History shows that the people are the reason armies succeed or fail.  In a city of nearly 2 million people, soldiers -- no matter how many, even in thousands, or how well equipped and trained -- can do only so much.  We need the people of Mosul to rise up and to help the soldiers throw out Da'ash.  Will the people throw out Da'ash?  I believe they will but we must give them a vision of what their life will be like after the liberation of Mosul -- in addition to the support they need during and immediately after liberation.  


Sunni leaders have gotten far too little attention from the world press -- or the White House -- and we'll be noting this event again.  I have enough marked in my notes to cover at least one more snapshot.  We may end up bringing this into all the snapshots this week, however.



On the issue of a political solution, some will argue Barack's arms are tied.  This seems to be the fall back position for The Cult of St. Barack whenever he fails.

Unlike War Hawks, we never argue that the answer is bombing or sending US ground troops into combat.

There is a diplomatic tool box.  You use it.

If Haider al-Abadi's government wants X and you can give it, you do so on the condition that he does Y in exchange.

So Army Technology reports:

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has notified Congress of a potential foreign military sale (FMS) of additional ammunition and associated equipment to Iraq.
Under the estimated $395m sale, the Iraqi Government has requested the supply of 5,000, 81mm high-explosive mortar ammunition, 684,000 M203 40mm high-explosive ammunition, 532,000 MK19 40mm high-explosive dual-purpose ammunition, and 40,000, 155mm high-explosives.


That's what Iraq's government wants.

To receive it, Barack should demand that certain steps (he can define them) take place on the political reconciliation efforts.

Until a law is passed and implemented, for instance, the ammunition and equipment will not be delivered.

This can also be done with the $200 million he's promised Haider for reconstruction.

To have influence and impact, you don't have to rely on combat.

It's a point that's escaped Barack and his administration -- repeatedly.




Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 55 violent deaths today across Iraq.  In the last week, there have been two high profile murders of Iraqi journalists.  Raed al-Joubri and Thaer Ali's deaths have been covered here and we've noted the silence outside of the Iraqi media and La Prensa when it came to covering these deaths.  Today Reporters Without Borders issued a press release which includes:


Reporters Without Borders is deeply worried by journalist Raed Al-Joubouri’s murder at his Baghdad home last week just days after another journalist, Thaer Alali, was publicly killed after being abducted by Islamic State. The generalized violence and impunity is making the situation of journalists very difficult in Iraq.
Raed Al-Joubouri was found dead in his home in the Qadissiyah district of east Baghdad on 5 May. He had been shot several times, including once in the heart. The circumstances of his death are still unclear but his father told the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) he thought his son’s death was premeditated and organized.
Employed by the newspaper Azzaman and the host of a business programme on Al Rasheed TV, Joubouri was a critic of Iraqi politics and feared for his life, to the point that he had given those close to him a list of contacts to be alerted if anything happened to him, JFO director Ziad Ajili said.
Thaer Alali, 56, the editor of the local newspaper Rai’ al Nas, was murdered by Islamic State in the northern city of Mosul on 28 April, 20 days after being abducted while making phone calls in a café in the city’s Al-Dawasa district.

According to the JFO, he was the second journalist to be publicly executed by Islamic State this year, following Sama Mosul TV correspondent Qais Talal, 27, who was abducted in June 2014 and executed on 18 February.



We're going to close with a press release.  It was issued Friday.  We noted it here on Saturday.  I was in a hurry and just copy and pasted it from the e-mail and used the title the Congressional office gave it.  Hours later, I realized I shouldn't have.

The title was long.

And the main words, the key word, came way too late in the title.

At Third, we posted it with two words: "Burn Pits."

I asked Jim to check the stats for me and, sure enough, "Burn Pits" more than trumped "Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty Hears from Veterans i..." when it came to page views.

That's because -- here and at Third -- we've long covered burn pits.  And we have people who will eagerly read any news of burn pits if they know that's what it is.

So my apologies for not thinking of that before I posted the press release here on Saturday.


But we are closing with it now, this is from US House Rep Elizabeth Esty's office:


 



     
May 8, 2015
Press Release


WATERBURY, CT – Today, Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) met with veterans at Naugatuck Valley Community College in Waterbury to discuss the consequences of exposure to burn pits while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Burn pits are areas on military bases where waste, such as human waste, batteries, and other garbage, is incinerated and toxic fumes are released into the atmosphere. Esty was inspired to introduce legislation, the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act, H.R. 2237, after veterans in her district contacted her office to inform her of the negative health consequences they suffered.


“While much attention is rightly paid to the visible wounds of war, our veterans also suffer from numerous less visible conditions that result from exposure to the environmental hazards found in war zones,” said Congresswoman Esty. “I’ve heard from veterans in central and northwest Connecticut who suffer from or who know fellow service members who suffer from respiratory and gastrointestinal issues that were likely caused by exposure to burn pits. This is exactly why I introduced the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act to expand care to those exposed to burn pits. Our veterans deserve real attention and quality care for the full range of health conditions from their service to our country.”


“Burn pits are the Agent Orange of our generation,” said James Rizzio, president of NVCC’s Veterans’ Club. “I was around burn pits a lot and it can lead to very serious medical issues later in life. Getting this legislation passed is the right thing to do.”


Rizzio spent six years in the U.S. Army and served in Iraq from 2009 to 2010.


Military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are exposed to a variety of potentially harmful substances including the smoke produced from the burning of waste on military bases. Items such as plastics, aerosol cans, electronic equipment, human waste, metal containers, tires, and batteries are thrown into open pits, sometimes doused with jet fuel, and set ablaze. Smoke from these open-air burn pits can waft throughout the entire base and even into living areas. Health effects from exposure to chemicals found in burn pits can include cancer, neurological and reproductive effects, respiratory toxicity, and cardiovascular toxicity.


The Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act would create a center of excellence within the Department of Veterans Affairs in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of health conditions related to exposure to burn pits.


Currently, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs maintains an Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry for veterans who are suffering from conditions related to exposure to burn pits.
Full text of Esty’s bill, the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act can be found here.
###















iraq

Sunday, May 10, 2015

The Following

I used to love The Following on Fox and used to blog about it.

Then season two started with the death of Claire (Natalie Zea) and the show never recovered.

Immediately, the ratings plunged.

I think it was intended to kill her off and then, due to the plunging ratings, they brought her back about half-way in season two and had her death faked to protect her from serial killer and ex-husband Joe.


Without Claire, Ryan (Kevin Bacon) had nothing redeemable.

He was just a sleazy, drunken FBI agent (former) who tortured and broke rules and didn't respect people's rights.

His love for Claire didn't excuse his actions but they did (a) let you see why he was so obsessed with taking Joe down and (b) give him a higher purpose to strive for.

With Claire gone in season three, they paired Ryan with a nagging idiot for a girlfriend.

She was always whining about his secrets and how he shut her out but anytime he tried to discuss what was going on with Joe, she was having a fit.  Or nagging turn the TV when they were reporting on Joe's impending executions.

And secrets?

She gets pregnant and, woops, forgets to share that.

She was this blah and bloated nothing who pulled Ryan down further into the gutter.

Joe's going to be executed -- after killing hundreds of people and training others to kill.

And dumb nag invites her boss at the hospital -- who she knows is against execution -- to their home and lets him whine during dinner about poor Joe.and gets mad when Ryan explodes.

What did she ever think he would do?

And who invites their boss to dinner?

She's a nurse in 2015, not a character on The Dick Van Dyke Show.

The show had so much promise but it always had to find a way out of the sewer, to give Ryan's life, his cause, something more than revenge.  With Claire out of the picture, there really was nothing.  So I guess it's good that the show's getting the axe.

That said, I've really enjoyed the story this season between Max and Mike and their romance and that includes last Monday when Max's boyfriend was hiding from internal affairs that he had the laptop (which he saw Max and Mike making out on because their are cameras in Max's apartment) and, when his lies became obvious, the detective thought he was one of the killers, pulled her gun on the man, they struggled and she was shot dead.




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

 
Saturday, May 9, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Barzani liars are exposed as the week comes to a close, we refute the claim that Haider al-Abadi's abuses must be ignored, and much more.


Deb Riechmann (AP) reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani declared "he had not backtracked on his request for the U.S. to bypass Baghdad and directly supply" the KRG with weapons.

What?

It's shocking . . . if you're a useless liar



That would be Huffington Post's  Akbar Shahid Ahmed who refused to rely Wednesday on what Barzani said because it was so much more 'fun' (if not journalistic) to go with what Ahmed really, really wanted Barzani to have said instead.

(See Wednesday's snapshot for what Barzani said as opposed to what liars like Akbar insisted Barzani meant or would have said or should have said.)


Friday,  Rudaw reported:

The United States has reassured Iraq’s Kurds they will have the weapons they need in the war with ISIS, promising the arms will continue to be expedited by Baghdad, a member of the Kurdish presidential delegation in Washington told Rudaw.The official, speaking to Rudaw on background and refusing to be named or directly quoted, said US officials had told Kurdish President Masoud Barzani’s delegation that Baghdad would be courting problems with Washington if it tried to delay weapons funneled to Erbil through the Iraqi central government.



Deb Riechmann quotes Barzani declaring the KRG and the Peshmerga have not seen "a bullet or a piece" of the many arms and weapons the White House has insisted the US government had to supply Iraq with to fight the Islamic State.

These are weapons that were supposed to be distributed by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The one who lied, the one who failed?

That's Haider al-Abadi who has refused to arm anyone but the Shi'ites except for a few token items here and there.

That's the reality of the story.

That's the crux.

That's what it all boils down to.

But whores passing themselves off as journalists have bent over backwards to avoid that reality.

They've attacked the US House of Representatives instead.

They've lied and passed a bill that was voted out of Committee on a vote of 60 for and 2 against as a "Republican bill."

No, that's a bi-partisan bill.

And the fact that whores think they can get away with lying about that bill goes too how deeply troubled the US press truly is because it's decided since 2008 that they were an advocacy organization for then-Senator Barack Obama and not a functioning press.


The White House has refused to address what is going on in Iraq.

That's why the country's in shambles.

Bully Boy Bush invaded in 2003!

Yes, he did.

Is that going to be your excuse forever because you're really going to the well one time too many on that.

Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal.

He's also out of office -- thank heaven for that and for the fact that he can never, ever occupy the Oval Office again.

Bully Boy Bush left the White House in January of 2009.

The country he (and the US Congress) attacked was not 'fixed' or 'safe' or maybe even 'better,' but it hadn't fallen apart to the extent that it has today.


The United States is supposed to stand for democracy.  It's supposed to stand for elections.

It gives lip service to the people having a say.

In 2010, Iraqis went to the polls and voted.  They did so in the face of violence.

They endured checkpoints, they endured threats, they endured making it to a polling station only to be told they couldn't vote there but had to go through checkpoints in the opposite direction and, did we mention, they did this in areas with bans on cars.

They did all of this to make their voice heard.

Few will ever go through so much to have a say in their government.

And for Barack Obama to overturn their votes is not a minor thing and Iraq falls apart as a result.

This was briefly touched on this week on The NewsHour (PBS) when Margaret Warner spoke with Emma Sky, author of  The Unraveling: High Hopes And Missed Opportunities In Iraq


MARGARET WARNER: But, in 2010, after quelling the Sunni-Shia civil war and al-Qaida, the Americans, Sky says, made a fateful mistake, throwing their weight Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after he narrowly lost the 2010 election against a non-sectarian rival.



EMMA SKY: There was a sense of, do we uphold the election results or do we keep Maliki in power? And General Odierno was, we’re Americans, there’s been an election, we must uphold the results.
But there were others who thought, we know Maliki. He will give us a follow-on security agreement. So, that was the debate. And, unfortunately, Vice President Biden came down on the side of, there’s no one but al-Maliki, this is the quickest option, keep the status quo, and we can get an security agreement, and then just really disengage.


Nouri didn't keep the status quo, he made things much worse.  And the US didn't get the new Status Of Forces Agreement that Barack and Joe Biden just knew was going to happen.

The Iraq people?

They got four more years of a despot they voted to get rid of.

2009's provincial elections seemed to suggest that Iraq was resisting sectarianism and moving towards a national identity.  This was born out in the 2010 results.

This was something to encourage, something to foster.

Instead, Barack Obama ripped it apart.

Doing so, he didn't just saddle Iraq with four more years of thug Nouri, he destroyed hope and belief in the democratic process.

How are Iraqis to trust their own votes when they see Barack Obama overrule their intent?

And it only got worse.

To ram through a second term of Nouri, Barack orchestrated The Erbil Agreement.  Nouri didn't win a second term.  The legal contract gave him one -- in exchange for concessions on his part.

But Nouri refused to honor his written, contractual promises after he got his second term.

Which led political leaders -- including Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr and Massoud Barzani -- to demand that he honor the contract.

When he refused, they moved for a no-confidence vote to remove Nouri.

This is a legal procedure, one outlined in the Iraqi Constitution.

And they met the legal requirements, they gathered the petition with enough signatures of MPs.

But Barack couldn't leave that alone, he had to have Nouri.  So, in the spring of 2012, pressure was brought on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to bring a stop to the no-confidence vote.

Per the Constitution, the signed petition was handed to Jalal who then, in his ceremonial role as president, had only one duty: formally introduce it to Parliament.


Jalal insisted he needed to verify the signatures.

Not in the Constitution, but people indulged him.

Only he wasn't verifying.

Verifying is making sure the MP signed the petition.

Verifying is not browbeating the MP into saying they wouldn't sign it today.

Didn't matter if they'd sign it today or not, it mattered did they sign it.

But Jalal claimed enough had begged off to him that he was refusing to introduce the petition.

He then claimed a medical emergency and fled to Germany where he actually had elective surgery (on his knee).  Fate and karma don't like whores which is probably how, months later, Jalal had a massive heart attack and/or stroke and ended up in Germany again and how he'd never, ever serve another day as president and how, to this day, he's an invalid who requires 24 hour care.

All of this is Barack, none of this is Bully Boy Bush.


And if we want to tell the ugly truth -- let's tell the ugly truth.

The insipid and whorish US press couldn't have sold the myth of St. Barack as successfully as they did if a large number of the US public wasn't so desperate to believe in it.

How'd that work out for you anyway?

You've got a secret trade pack that sees Barack threatening members of Congress over.

You've got the continued illegal spying which has only increased under St. Barack.

You've got more wars than you did under Bully Boy Bush which includes the never-ending military (and, yes, combat) presence in Iraq.

You've got the war on whistle blowers.

And you didn't even get Medicare for all.  You didn't even get what FDR wanted to give the American people back in the 1940s.  Instead, you're shackled to corporations and if you're working poor you're screwed because you make too much for real assistance and you've have to purchase a policy with some ridiculous deductible like $6,000 before you see any benefits at all.  That's not universal health care and only a lying whore would pretend that it was.

But the US press pretended.


The left didn't get anything out of Barack's presidency. There are 19 more months left -- maybe that's when St. Barack begins delivering miracles.

But thus far, he's failed to live up to all the promises The Cult of St. Barack swore were coming.

What he did with Iraq?

He destroyed it.

In 2011, he could have stood with the Iraqi people as they hit the streets protesting.

He did not.

When Nouri began sending his goons into schools to tell Iraqi teenagers that gay men should be killed that they were vampires who would suck blood from the innocents, Barack could have stood up to the thug but he did not.

When Iraqi women and girls were being wrongly imprisoned by Nouri, Barack didn't stand up.

When Iraqi women and girls were being tortured and raped in Iraqi prisons and jails, Barack didn't stand up.

When Nouri's secret torture chambers were revealed by the press, Barack stayed silent.


When Nouri called peaceful protesters "terrorists," Barack said nothing.

When Nouri began targeting protesters, Barack said nothing.


Then came the major attack, the April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the toll increased to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).


And Barack said . . .

nothing.

Now the useless trash on Twitter obsessed with Dick Cheney or Bully Boy Bush can pretend they're focused on Iraq but they're not.

And the reality is that these types of people weren't misled by the press, they willingly followed the liars because they just didn't give a damn about Iraq.

They prove it by having a meaningless conversation about events ten years ago while refusing to focus on the factors the led Iraq to the current state today.

And this matters now more than ever.

Last month, I was at a hearing where various 'officials' think tankers explained to Congress that pressure couldn't be put on Haider al-Abadi to live up the human rights or even to distribute weapons fairly.


Tamara Cofman Wittes of Brookings,  the RAND Corporation's Dr. Seth Jones and the Institute for the Study of War's Jack Keane (who is a retired US General) are the ones I'm referring to and you can find coverage of that April 30th Congressional hearing in the May 2nd snapshot.


Instead of demanding accountability, these RAND, Brookings types insisted that Haider had to be indulged and challenged because, apparently, Iraq needs a thug and can only respect a thug.

Putting pressure on Haider to follow the law would risk weakening him.


If there's a bigger load of s**t delivered to Congress, I've failed to see it.

But, pay attention, this is what they said about Nouri.

This is why Nouri indulged throughout his second term as things in Iraq only worsened.

The same pack of lies that were used to justify looking the other way on Nouri's human rights abuses and War Crimes are now being used to cover for Haider al-Abadi.


If you care about Iraq and the Iraq people, you need to pay attention.

To right now, you need to pay attention.

You need to reject the notion that the US government can arm and financially aid a government led by a thug who attacks whole sections of the Iraqi population.

Long after Barack's out of office, future generations in the United States will talk about, for example, the Hawija massacre and denounce those Americans who stayed silent in real time, who refused to call it out.

Those on the left will, anyway.

That's what we do.

How could we have gotten in bed with _____?  How could we have looked the other way on ____?

What Nouri al-Maliki did, he did openly.

And The World Can't Wait was too busy attacking this film or that film to call out the slaughter of peaceful protesters.

What Haider's doing, he's doing openly.

There are no more excuses.

At this late date, if you're going to lie about Iraq for Barack at least admit it.


Massoud Barazni never denounced the moves of the US Congress to arm the KRG directly.

But that didn't stop a lot of 'reporters' from pretending otherwise this week.


Turning to violence,

Iraq jail riot leaves up to 50 prisoners and 12 police dead as dozens escape










And Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 149 violent deaths on Friday in Iraq with 81 more people left injured.



Lastly, David Bacon's latest book is The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration.  We'll close with this from Bacon's photo essay "Hard Labor In The Organic Potato Field" (gatronomica: the journal of critical food studies, Spring 2015):






Workers in the potato field bundle up against the sun and the heat.


By seven thirty in the morning it is already 80 degrees in a potato field in Lamont, in the southern San Joaquin Valley. By mid-afternoon here it will reach 107. The workers moving up and down the rows are not dressed in shorts and tank tops, though. They wear multiple layers of clothing, including long sleeves and, in the case of women, bandannas that cover their faces, leaving only their eyes visible.

Farmworkers know how to handle heat. They work in these intense conditions every day. ''Clothing is like insulation,'' says Evelina Arellano. ''It actually protects you. And if I didn't wear my bandanna, by the end of the day it would be hard to breathe because of the dust.'' [The names of the workers in the field have been changed-Ed.]

The rows are as long as two football fields, each a deep furrow next to a mound bearing the potato plants. Between the potatoes grow weeds, some spreading out next to the dirt and others growing as tall as the workers themselves. On this day in mid-June the farm labor crew is pulling the weeds.














 pbs
the newshour
margaret warner




 

Friday, May 08, 2015

What ABC's keeping, what they're trashing

After reading Ava and C.I.'s "TV: ABC in shambles, pretend not to notice" on Sunday, I was very curious to see what ABC would renew.

E reports:


ABC
CANCELED: Forever, Cristela, Resurrection
RENEWED: Nashville, Marvel's Agent Carter, Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Scandal, Grey's Anatomy, American Crime, Secrets and Lies, Modern Family, The Middle, Black-ish, Fresh Off the Boat, The Goldbergs, Dancing With the Stars, The Bachelor, America's Funniest Home Videos, Shark Tank, Beyond the Tank, 20/20
Renewed: How to Get Away With Murder, Once Upon a Time, Galavant 
Canceled: Revenge, Manhattan Love Story, Selfie
What's in Limbo: The TasteWipeout, Last Man Standing


I'm glad about Shield and Peggy Carter.

I can't believe the low rated bomb American Crime got renewed.

That's really shocking.

Revenge got higher ratings this week despite being cancelled.

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

 
Thursday, May 7, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue,  reporters killed got a tiny bit of attention from the US State Dept (if their deaths could be used for propaganda), Senator Tim Kaine wants Congress to discuss authorizing Barack's latest wave of war on Iraq, the Baiji refinery is said to be controlled (80%) by the Islamic State, and much more.



In the US Congress today, Senator Tim Kaine took to the floor of the Senate to weigh in on the still lack of legal authorization for US President Barack Obama's action's in Iraq:


Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate an anniversary and challenge my colleagues in Congress.
Today marks the completion of nine months of America’s war against ISIL.  Tomorrow, May 8, starts the tenth month of this war. 
In the war on ISIL, here is what’s happened so far. We’ve deployed thousands of troops far from home to support military operations in Iraq and Syria—a significant number are from Virginia, including the Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, based in Norfolk. We’ve conducted more than 3,000 U.S. airstrikes on ISIL from land bases in the region and also from aircraft carriers. We’ve spent more than 2 billion American taxpayer dollars and counting. We’ve lost the lives of American servicemembers and seen American hostages killed by ISIL in barbaric ways. And while we’ve seen some progress on the battlefield in Iraq, we’ve also witnessed ISIL spread and take responsibility for attacks in Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen.   We’ve seen other terrorist groups, such as Nigeria’s Boko Haram, pledge alliance with ISIL.   We’ve seen acts of terrorism in Europe and now the United States that have been influenced or at least inspired by ISIL.
All this has happened in nine months. But here is what hasn’t happened, Mr. President.  Congress, the Article I branch, whose most solemn power is the duty to declare war, has not done its job, has not debated this war, has not taken any formal steps to authorize what was started unilaterally by the President 9 months ago.
As of today, ISIL has no indication whether Congress cares one iota about the ongoing war. Our allies in the region, who are most directly affected by the threat of ISIL, have no indication whether Congress cares one iota about the ongoing war.  And, most importantly, the thousands of American troops serving in the region, serving in the theater of battle have no indication whether Congress cares one iota about this ongoing war.
In the Senate, there has been no authorization vote or even debate on the floor.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee did report out a war authorization in December, but it died without floor action at the end of the 113th Congress. In the House, there has been no debate or authorization on the floor,  and, in fact, there has been no action in any House Committee in the 9 months of this war.
The silence of Congress in the midst of this war is cowardly and shameful. How can we explain to our troops, our public or ourselves this complete unwillingness of Congress to take up this important responsibility?
President Obama maintains that the authorizations voted on by Congress in 2001 and 2002 give him the power to wage this war without Congress. Having reviewed the authorizations carefully, I find that claim completely without merit. The 2001 Authorization allows the president to take action against groups that perpetrated the attacks of 9/11. ISIL was not a perpetrator of the 9/11 attack; it was not formed until two years after the attacks in 2003. It is not an ally of Al Qaeda; it’s fighting against Al Qaeda now in certain theaters. The only way the 2001 authorization could be stretched to cover ISIL is if we pretend that it was a blank check giving the president the power to wage war against any terrorist group. But, Mr. President, that was precisely the power that President Bush asked for in 2001, and Congress explicitly refused to grant that broad grant of power to the president even in the days right after the 9/11 attacks.
The 2002 Authorization to wage war in Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein also has no relevance here. That regime disappeared years ago.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 does grant the president some ability to initiate military action for 60-90 days prior to congressional approval, but it also mandates that the president must cease military activity unless Congress formally approves it.  Here, we’ve blown long past all of the deadlines in that Act, Congress has said nothing, and yet the war continues.
So the President does not have the legal power to maintain this war without Congress. And yet Congress, this Congress, the very body that is so quick to argue against President Obama’s use of executive power, even threatening him with lawsuits over immigration actions and other executive decisions, is strangely silent and allows an executive war to go on undeclared, unapproved, undefined and unchecked.
Nine months of silence leaves the impression that Congress is either indifferent about ISIL and the threat that it poses or lacks the backbone to do the job it is supposed to do. And that is why I rise today—to challenge my colleagues to take this seriously and promptly debate and pass an authorization for military action against ISIL. We should have done this months ago. By now, all know that ISIL is not going away soon. This problem will not just solve itself.
Mr. President, I am given some hope by recent actions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and this body on a pending matter – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. On a challenging and important national security issue, because of strong leadership by Senators Corker, Cardin and Menendez, we have shown the ability to act in a bipartisan way to assert an appropriate congressional role in reviewing any final nuclear deal with Iran. We are taking an important stand for the congressional role in matters touching upon diplomacy, war and peace. And we have fought off, thus far, the temptation to play politics with this important matter.
This gives me some hope that we might do the same with respect to the war on ISIL. Because, Mr. President, the role of Congress in war is undisputable. The framers of the Constitution were familiar with a world where war was for the monarch, or the king, or the sultan or the executive. But they made a revolutionary decision to choose a different path and placed decisions about the initiation of war in the hands of the people’s elected legislative branch. They did so because of an important underlying value. The value is this: we shouldn’t order young servicemembers to risk their lives in a military mission unless Congress has debated the mission and reached the conclusion that it is in the nation’s best interest. That value surely is as important today as it was in 1787.
So to conclude, Mr. President, I hope we remember that right now, in places far from their homes and families, thousands of members of the American Armed Forces are risking their lives on behalf of a mission that Congress has refused to address for 9 long months.  Their sacrifice should call us to step up, do our job and finally define and authorize this ongoing war.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.


Jeremy Diamond (CNN) notes Kaine also took the issue to CNN's New Day:


Congress has largely dropped the ball since then and Kaine pointed out that the AUMF hasn't made it to either the House or Senate floor for debate.
But it also took the White House six months to send an AUMF proposal.
Kaine said both the White House and Capitol Hill shoulder some of the blame for the drawn-out inaction.



Kaine tells Markus Schmidt (Richmond Times-Dispatch), "There is no power that is more clearly a congressional power than the power to declare war, and yet there has been this strange conspiracy of silence for nine months when Congress hasn't been willing to even have a meaningful floor debate on it, which is so unusual. But it's just the proof of the longer historical tradition in Congress, members in Congress want to avoid hard votes, and there is no harder vote than a war vote."


We've been noting the threats Shi'ite officials have made, threats of violence, against the United States over a bill in the House which calls for the Sunnis and the Kurds to be armed independently of Baghdad since Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, has failed to keep his promise to distribute the US provided equipment and weapons equally to the Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis.  See yesterday's snapshot and this from this morning especially.

Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports on the controversy:

The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and a number of his ministers denounced the plan and some prominent Shiite Muslim figures, such as the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, threatened US interests with violence. The military wing of al-Sadr's supporters organised parades in two southern Iraqi cities in a demonstration of strength. And one of the best known female MPs, Hanan al-Fatlawi, a member of the State of Law coalition previously headed by al-Maliki, said that the US embassy in Baghdad should be closed and the US ambassador expelled.


[. . .] 
When al-Abadi took on the Prime Ministership he declared his willingness to form a National Guard in Iraq. Such a force would effectively allow local people to form their own military units and police their own areas and was considered an antidote for the marginalization of Iraq's Sunnis and Kurds that seemed to be one of al-Maliki's central policies.


Two months after al-Abadi's government formed, the different parties in Parliament agreed that the National Guard should happen, with tens of thousands of members; around 70,000 from Iraq's Shiite-dominated provinces, 50,000 fighters from Sunni-dominated provinces and further additions from the Iraqi Kurdish forces. The plan was to have the National Guard armed and controlled by the Iraqi government, so that all of those currently fighting in, and being paid through, informal militias would be back under state control.

But that was months ago. 




From Congress to the State Dept, if you missed it, there's a propaganda war and supposedly ISIS is winning.  Like anyone could ever be better at propaganda than the US State Dept?



They released the following video to 'honor' World Press Day.





For those with streaming issues, the piece is basically a silent film -- set to bad music.  It's one screen shot after another with title cards.


Journalists often put their lives and safety at risk to keep the world informed 

In Iraq and Syria, ISIS has kidnapped, tortured, and murdered journalists.

ISIS has used these acts of brutality to terrorize journalists, extort ransoms, and silence reporting on their atrocities.

Here are some of the Iraqi and Syrian journalists whom ISIS has killed.

Yasser Faysal al-Joumaili, an Iraqi freelance cameraman who was filming the fighting in the Aleppo province. 

On 4 December 2013, he was detained and shot by ISIS at the Syria-Turkey border.

Bashar al-Nuaimi, a cameraman with al-Mosuliya TV. 

On 24 October 2013, he was shot to death near his home in Mosul. 

Nawras al-Nouaimi, an Iraqi presenter working for al-Mosuliya TV, covering stories related to women and children. 

On 15 December 2013, she was shot near her home returning from school

Employees at the Salaheddin TV station -- cameraman Jamal Abdulnasir; Arabic language expert Ahmed Khattab Omar, newsroom director Raad Yassin al-Baddi; archives director Mohammed Abdul-Hameed and news anchor Wassan al-Azzawi.  

On 23 December 2013, following a car bomb detonation outside the TV station near Tikrit, suicide bombers entered the station and shot all five before detonating their vests. 

Al-Mutaz Billah Ibrahim, an anchor with the Sham News Network. 

On 4 May 2014, he was executed after being held hostage and tortured for over two months.

Bassam al-Rayes, a freelance cameraman who was shooting footage of the Syrian opposition.

On 30 June 2014, he was abducted, tortured, and murdered. 

ISIS Threatens Journalists with:
Torture
Crucifixion
Threats against their families
Murder

Under ISIS rule, there is no freedom of speech, there is no truth beyond what they say, and there is no such thing as mercy. 

Think Again Turn Away



The State Dept ignored the assassination of Iraqi journalist Thaer Ali last week in Mosul by the Islamic State.  Ignored it all last week -- in one briefing after another.  But then created the video above to pretend to care about Iraq and journalists (and Syria).

They don't care.  They're little liars.  Ned Parker had to flee Iraq last month due to threats against him as a result of his reporting.  The threats came from Shi'ite militias supporting the Iraqi government.

They don't care about that, not the State Dept.


I recognized one of the faces immediately in the slide show video.  Let's drop back to the December 23, 2013 snapshot:

December 15th, journalist Nawras al-Nuaimi was assassinated.


This is all the attention AFP gave her when she was killed:


GUNMEN murdered a female TV presenter in northern Iraq on Sunday, her station and police said, making her the sixth journalist to be killed in the country since October. Nawras al-Nuaimi was shot near her home in Mosul, Al-Mosuliyah TV said, and was the fifth journalist killed in the northern city in the same period.




Her life was worth a grand total of 55 words to AFP when she died.



She was the fifth journalist killed in Mosul from October to December 2013 -- but where are the four others?

Oh, that's right.

If they were killed by Iraqi forces, for example, or militias, they're not going to be noted in the video supposedly expressing concern for journalists.


Earlier this week, CNN noted the countries with the most journalists killed since 1992.  Topping the list was Iraq with 166 journalists killed -- more than double the second place county (Syria with 80).


The issue of Iraq was briefly raised in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke:


QUESTION: Iraq?


MR RATHKE: Yeah, Iraq and then we’ll --


QUESTION: Iraq, very quick.


MR RATHKE: Yes.


QUESTION: Yesterday at an event at the Atlantic Council, the KRG President Massoud Barzani – I asked him a pointed question about the independent --


MR RATHKE: I’m sure you did.


QUESTION: -- Kurdistan. And he said that for sure, it’s coming. 


Let's put the briefing on hold for a minute because we did note Said and his question in yesterday's snapshot:


Said Arikat: Are we likely to see the rise of an independent Kurdistan over the next year?  And, if not, why not?  Thank you.

President Massoud Barzani: I cannot say -- I cannot confirm whether it will be next year or when but certainly the independent Kurdistan is coming.



Back to today's State Dept press briefing:




QUESTION: So you guys are fine with that? So we are likely to see an independent Kurdistan and you are likely to support it?


MR RATHKE: You’ve made several leaps there from the question to our policy. There’s been no change in U.S. policy, as I think we’ve talked about in advance of the visit. We believe that a united Iraq is a stronger Iraq. We continue to support an Iraq that is federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified, as envisioned by the Iraqi constitution. So there’s been no change in the U.S. view. And I think also – President Barzani spoke to this as well – Iraq’s territorial integrity is under threat from ISIL, and the only effective way to address this threat is for all communities – Sunni, Shia, Kurd – to work together and address these security needs as well as in the political realm. And I think President Barzani also stated yesterday that the fight against ISIL needs to be the priority.


QUESTION: Well, once that priority is handled and taken care of, or Mosul is liberated and and ISIL is defeated, then the independence of Kurdistan would be fine, wouldn’t it? Would be --


MR RATHKE: That’s – again, I’m sure you were listening to my answer --


QUESTION: Are you – okay --


MR RATHKE: -- but I’m going to repeat it because it’s important: There’s been no change in U.S. policy. We believe that a united Iraq is a stronger Iraq, and we believe in an Iraq that is federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified, as envisioned by the Iraqi constitution.


QUESTION: Would you sort of support a more robust autonomy in the northern region of Kurdistan?



MR RATHKE: Again, we support the Iraqi constitution and an Iraq that is federal, that is democratic, it’s pluralistic. I don’t have any further comment on it than that.





Baiji is in the news today.  Yesterday, the Washington Post's Liz Sly Tweeted:




  • The Pentagon said Ramadi isn't as strategic as Baiji. Now Baiji is threatened, it says Baiji isn't important either



  • Today, AFP explains, "The Islamic State jihadist group launched a fresh offensive against Iraq’s largest refinery, where a military official says security forces are facing one of their toughest battles." IANS adds, "A refinery site in Baiji city of northern Iraq was captured by Islamic State (IS) militants recently and Iraqi security forces now control only 20 percent of the facility, a senior US official said." CNN's Wolf Blitzer Tweets:



    Pentagon correspondent reports Iraq's huge oil refinery at Baiji is now 80 percent controlled by


    Here for Starr's article which notes, "U.S. and coalition fighter jets have been able to strike ISIS fighting positions and supply routes around the refinery, but are not striking inside, the official said. The reason, in part, is to preserve as much of the infrastructure as possible for the future."

    Oh, that's wonderful -- isn't that wonderful? -- when it comes to an oil refinery, care is taken but when it's bombing areas with civilians, little care is taken to protect either the people or the structures.



     Reuters reports, "American forces are trying to relieve pressure on Iraqi forces at the geographically important Baiji oil refinery, hitting militants with 26 air strikes since Tuesday and helping drop 18 pallets of supplies, the top US general [Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey] said on Thursday."  And Jennifer Hlad (Stars and Stripes) notes, "Although the Beiji refinery has not operated in recent months, it's a critical part of Iraq’s oil infrastructure. It also sits along the main route from Baghdad to Mosul, which has been controlled by the Islamic State since last summer’s offensive. Beiji also controls a corridor linking the valleys along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers."



    In other violence, Alsumaria reports 1 corpse was discovered to the north of Baghdad -- cut up into sections, 2 corpses were discovered dumped in the streets of Baghdad, 3 corpses were discovered in Rasheed (all three men were shot to death),  assailants in military uniforms kidnapped five people in eastern Baghdad, 1 government employee was shot dead to the east of Muqdadiyah, and a  Radwaniyah home invasion left 6 family members (including two children) dead.  In addition those incidents, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports 68 violent deaths across Iraq today ("no civilian casualties" are noted in her report so all that Alsumaria noted can be added to her total).



    Lastly, on The NewsHour (PBS) tonight, Margaret Warner had a report on Emma Sky which included:


    But their success was short-lived. As Sky tells it, as the Americans left, rushing to meet an Administration deadline to get all U.S. forces out of Iraq, Vice President Biden threw the U.S. weight behind Maliki remaining as Prime Minister, even after he’d narrowly lost the 2010 election to a non-sectarian party and its candidate Ayad Allawi. With the Americans gone, Maliki reverted to type, instituting a hype-sectarian Shiite rule, pushing Sunni politicians out of the arena, and reneging on his promises to keep Sunnis in the armed forces. After four years of this, Iraq’s 3 sects — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — were so alienated that Islamic State group fighters had no trouble rolling into Iraq and seizing a third of the country’s territory last summer.


    Click here for video and transcript of interview.  And Emma Sky's book published last month is The Unraveling: High Hopes And Missed Opportunities In Iraq













     pbs
    the newshour
    margaret warner