Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

They do go on

I don't know.

I read a lot of writing about Iraq lately.

And I guess it's good that Iraq's getting some attention.

That said, are we unable to process through Iraqi eyes?

Meaning: Why does everything have to be processed through what a tragedy it is for the US?

I kind of think Iraqis grasp what tragedy real is and is not.

They've lived with it since 2003.

Somehow, though, gas bags keep moving their lips, don't they?

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, August 13, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri doesn't want to go, the Pope Tweets, and much more.

Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) weighs in on Iraq:

The U.S. corporate media were more interested in the rest of al-Baghdadi’s message, in which he warned Washington that “soon enough, you will be in direct confrontation – forced to do so, God willing. And the sons of Islam have prepared themselves for this day. So wait, and we will be waiting, too.” For most self-obsessed Americans, this was received as a threat to attack “the Homeland.” However, downtown Manhattan is not on the Caliphate leader’s map. Al-Baghdadi meant that the American strategy of financing Muslim muppets to fight imperialism’s wars is kaput, and that the Pentagon will soon have to do its own dirty work, dressed in “Crusader” uniform.
Accordingly, the U.S. is sending additional hundreds of “non-combat” troops to northern Iraq – as if Marines and Special Forces are anything but combat soldiers – to join the 1,000 or so American military and “security” personnel already there, by official count. Contrary to what many Americans on the Left believe, U.S. planners are not itching to send large American units to Arab lands (the Kurds are not Arabs), since their presence is counter-productive in the extreme. The problem is, the Pentagon’s proxies are evaporating, in flight, or – in the case of Arab Iraq – growing even more dependent on Iran and (who would have predicted it?) Russia, which is assisting in reconstituting the Iraqi air force.
Some leftists in the U.S. even imagine that Washington has achieved some kind of victory with the imminent departure of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the veteran American stooge. But, Maliki’s ouster was also backed by Iran, Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani (who mobilized millions demanding an end to the U.S. occupation), Muqtada al-Sadr (whose militia fought two wars against the occupation), and even much of Maliki’s own Dawa Party. Only the Kurds remain in Washington’s (and Israel’s) pocket – and this matter of convenience, too, may pass as the neighborhood changes all around Kurdistan.

There's more to the piece than just that.

But on that?

Sorry, Glen, if Barack hadn't pulled US support, the world would not be attempting to rush Nouri off the stage.

That is the power of the United States -- it's frequently misused by presidents, but it can also accomplish good.

And Nouri going is good.

Is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani responsible? Absolutely. As is Moqtada and many leaders and officials not mentioned -- a list which would include KRG President Massoud Barzani, ISCI leader Ammar al-Hakim (who surprised many US participants by not attempting to seek the post himself despite working very hard to ease Nouri out), and Ayad Allawi among others.

But most of all this came about because of the Iraqi people -- Sunni, Shia, Kurd and other.

In the midst of the Arab Spring or 'Arab Spring,' Iraqis took to the streets and protested in large numbers. They were largely ignored by the world. The same was true from December 2012 through January of 2013. That time, they protested non-stop and turned out every week.

They showed up to protest despite threats, despite torture --

In fact, let's stop there.

You didn't have to peacefully participated in protesting for Nouri to sick his goons on you. Hadi al-Mahdi was rounded up for reporting on the protests. Falling 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 collegue 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."

That day's snapshot? That's the day Haidi was murdered. Like so many other journalists killed in Nouri's Iraq, the killer was never found -- mainly because no one ever made a point to look for a killer to begin with.

Did Black Agenda Report cover his murder?

No.

No, they did not.

They didn't cover the hunting of Iraq's LGBTQ community. Nouri's 'acting' Minister of the Interior helped with that on Nouri's orders. Young men and boys who were gay or wrongly thought to be gay were targeted. Death didn't come easy to those killed. To cite two popular examples for ways to murder, some were beaten to pulp with bricks, some had their anuses super glued. This was barbaric not just in that innocents were being killed -- being gay is as normal as being straight -- but in the way they were being killed -- slowly and painfully in an effort to inflict the most pain possible.

Does Glen want to explain why that was?

Better yet, can he?

Nouri's flunkies went into high schools and middle schools handing out pamphlets about how awful these people were -- they had same-sex sex, they were vampires, they were this, they were that. (Of course Nouri and his flunkies denied it -- but both Al Mada and Alsumaria got ahold of the handouts the Ministry of Interior was distributing to children.)

What Nouri's gotten away with? War Crimes.

Has Black Agenda Report objected even once to the bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods? We all know that collective punishment is a legally defined War Crime. But since the start of this year, Nouri has daily attacked and left wounded and dead numerous civilians whose only 'crime' was to live in Falluja.

I like Glen and think he's an important voice.

I also he's a very sad person if he can't, for even one moment, think of the Iraqi people.

The Pope Tweeted a popular message today:

Favorited 5,988 times

‏@Pontifex

I thank all those who are courageously helping our brothers and sisters in Iraq.

Expand

Reuters notes Pope Francis wrote a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today which stated, among other things, "I write to you, Mr. Secretary General, and place before you the tears, the suffering and the heartfelt cries of despair of Christians and other religious minorities of the beloved land of Iraq."

Nouri is a thug and they had to endure 8 years of him.

US President Barack Obama pulled the US government's support.

I wish Barack had done that in 2010 -- when Nouri lost the election -- but I don't for one moment think doing it now didn't make a difference.

I also have no problem praising Barack for taking that step.

If he used the rest of his final term to do similar things, I'd praise him for that as well.

Will he?

I wouldn't bet on it.

I support the air drops of food, water, etc for the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. They are victims and relief missions are something every nation could do and take part in.

Barack's taken that beyond air drops. And today the Defense Dept issued the following:

Release No: NR-427-14
August 13, 2014

Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby

As part of the ongoing humanitarian efforts ordered by President Obama, today a team of U.S. military personnel, accompanied by USAID, conducted an assessment of the situation on Mt. Sinjar and the impact of U.S. military actions to date. The team, which consisted of less than twenty personnel, did not engage in combat operations and all personnel have returned safely to Irbil by military air. The team has assessed that there are far fewer Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar than previously feared, in part because of the success of humanitarian air drops, air strikes on ISIL targets, the efforts of the Peshmerga and the ability of thousands of Yazidis to evacuate from the mountain each night over the last several days. The Yazidis who remain are in better condition than previously believed and continue to have access to the food and water that we have dropped. Based on this assessment the interagency has determined that an evacuation mission is far less likely. Additionally, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance as needed and will protect U.S. personnel and facilities.

The mission Barack's now having US troops carry out in terms of the Yazidis is riskier than air drops but air drops are risky as well. I'm sure Alissa J. Rubin knew that long ago but it was certainly made clear Tuesday when the Kurdish helicopter the New York Times reporter was on crashed after dropping aid and attempting to rescue some Yazidis.

Rubin walked away with painful injuries (broken wrists are painful), Yazidi MP Vian Dakhil was injured, the pilot died and a few more passengers who haven't been named yet were left injured. The pilot hasn't been named either.

We noted this Tweet last week from the Financial Times' Borzou Daragahi:

The MP he was Tweeting about was Vian Dakhil.

I don't support fly over bombings -- nor do I believe for one minute that the bombs being dropped from the air means the US is not in 'combat' in Iraq.

I do not support more US troops going into Iraq (or any being there other than to guard US embassy staff -- which Marines do around the world). All Iraq News notes, "About 130 American military advisers have arrived in Iraq to help with its humanitarian aid in north area of the country, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a press statement." The number of US troops in Iraq keeps increasing. That's not a good thing to those of us opposed to war.

The addition was noted in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Marie Harf:

QUESTION: Okay. And conversely, you deployed – or the United States deployed some 130 --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- advisors and so on to Erbil. Does that mean that the situation in Baghdad or around Baghdad is quiet enough where you don’t need this kind of advisory effort?

MS. HARF: Well, let’s be clear about what these 130 advisors will and will not be doing. They are focused squarely on looking at the humanitarian situation on Mount Sinjar and developing options to potentially move people and relocate people safely from the mountain. As we know, dropping food and water is not a long-term solution for the tens of thousands of people on that mountain. So these U.S. military personnel that have just gone in are assessing the best way to bring these people to safety, whether that’s some sort of airlift, whether that’s a humanitarian corridor. They’re looking at the options, they’ll present them to the President, and then he’ll make decisions about how – the best way that we can help do that will be.

QUESTION: And I know yesterday that you denied that there was any kind of pressure on Maliki to leave August from early June or mid-June right after the fall of Mosul. So no one has talked to him at that time, “It’s time for you to leave?”

MS. HARF: What we’ve always said, Said, is that there is a constitutional process and that process needs to move forward. There are very clear rules under that process for how a new prime minister for a new government is designated. We have encouraged everyone to play by those rules, period. And that’s the message that we’ve been sending for a very long time.

Former Governor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Gary Johnson Tweeted the following today:

Let's turn to the political in Iraq. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) maintains Iraq's prime minister-designate Haider al-Abadi is Nouri al-Maliki circa 2006.

Comically, he does that as Antiwar.com is in the midst of a fund raiser boasting they're always right.

I'm not always right. I'm often wrong.

But I wasn't wrong about Nouri.

And, unlike Jason Ditz, I didn't giggle on air and agree with Scott Horton about how wonderful Nouri was.

Jason Ditz has a lot of nerve. I've been kind but we all know I forget nothing.

I can quote from those chats with Horton -- where Scott and Jason made like the Gabby Gabors enthralled with Nouri.

Is Haider the same?

No.

Is he good or bad, saint or sinner? I already said this week that we don't know.

But what we know is that Nouri's selling point for the American government was chiefly his paranoia which, it was thought, would make him easily manipulated.

I knew about the paranoia and we wrote about it here, what, three or four years before WikiLeaks confirmed what we were saying?

I'm not hitting anyone up for their piggy banks.

I am saying that if you have the nerve, before the prime minister-designate has done anything, to insist he's another Nouri, you damn well better have called out Nouri.

Or you can sit your tired ass down.

This is my last nice, Jason Ditz.

I'm not in the mood.

Back to today's State Dept press briefing:

QUESTION: In Iraq, please. Today Prime Minister al-Maliki said he would not step down from his post until the Iraqi judiciary rules on whether or not his constitutional challenge to the process should go forward or not. I’m wondering if you all have any idea of how long this process might take as it speaks to some concerns people have raised about whether he will try to run out the clock on the 30 days he now – that designate al-Abadi has.

Also I’m wondering if you were able to get an answer to my question yesterday as to what level of confidence does the U.S. have in the Iraqi judiciary system.

MS. HARF: A couple issues, and then we’ll – I’m sure you’ll have follow-ups. The comments made by the prime minister today were similar to ones he’s made in recent days, quite frankly. And as I said yesterday, with all political systems there will be differences with how certain processes unfold. We never expected this to be completely seamless, but the United States firmly rejects any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial processes.

And then look, I don’t want to get ahead of the constitutional process that’s underway. We just began the 30-day time clock for the Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi to form a new government. They are moving along with that process. So we will watch day by day as that plays out, but Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi is moving forward as part of this process, and that’s what we’ll be focused on in the coming days.

QUESTION: So you don’t believe this court challenge that Maliki is posing is going to be slowing that 30-day clock in any way?

MS. HARF: Well, look, the prime minister-designate is the one who is in charge of what happens during the 30-day clock, and he’s working actively towards that. And again, we would reject any efforts by anyone to use the judicial processes to manipulate or coerce the outcomes here. But there is a separate process and it’s the constitutional one, and that’s moving forward.

QUESTION: How is it that the designate has control of the clock when Maliki is still the prime minister?

MS. HARF: Well, he has control of the clock. What I meant was the progress that can be made in the 30 days to form a new government is in the hands of the prime minister-designate, who has the support, as I said over the last few days. He was nominated by the Shiite bloc, including many members of Prime Minister Maliki’s own party.

So we’ve seen these kind of comments from the current prime minister before, but separate from those comments there is a process under the constitution that is moving forward. And we expect that to move forward and we will continue watching what happens in the coming days.

QUESTION: Do you have any expectations of how long this court appeal will last?

MS. HARF: I don’t have any guess on that.

QUESTION: May I just follow up on that? I mean, his words were very critical of the United States, today – Maliki’s speech. He basically said that you espouse democratic values but you go ahead and sabotage the democratic process. What do you have to say to that?

MS. HARF: Well, the Iraqis have their democratic process that’s underway right now, and that process has led to a new prime minister-designate being named by the current prime minister’s own bloc. So the process is playing out how it should. Again, we knew this would not be without complication. Nothing ever is – certainly not here in Iraqi politics. But their own democratically, constitutionally outlined process has been ongoing and that’s what’s happening right now.

QUESTION: I know that you warned against manipulating whatever legal process in the courts or whatever to sow divisions and so on in Iraq. Has anyone talked to the prime minister personally to say refrain from doing that because you’re driving the country further into the abyss?

MS. HARF: We’ve certainly had conversations with a range of leaders, including Prime Minister Maliki, emphasizing, Said, that this is a key, critical time in Iraq on the security front, on the political front – they are very closely intertwined – and that nobody should do anything to prevent the progress that’s laid out under the constitution from taking place and from moving forward. Nobody should.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. HARF: We’ve certainly had those conversations.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, as we – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, they all welcome the prime minister-designate Haider Al-Abadi, but Maliki still has some support within the Shiites. He has some support within some, like, militant type of militias and so on. Are you concerned that he actually might resort to violence?

MS. HARF: I don’t want to venture to guess on that hypothetical, Said. There’s a process in place and that process is moving forward. What’s key here is that the President asked the prime minister-designate to name a government. This was the designate that his own bloc, Prime Minister Maliki’s own bloc selected. So I think that should speak very clearly about the support that Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi has. And, again, the process is moving forward.

We'll note this Tweet.

‏@IranianWoman

Twenty eight women (prostitutes) killed in Iraq! A reminder of Iranian regime when prostitutes were burned to die! pic.twitter.com/tI7bk9f3JM

Expand

I have no idea why a woman would do that to other women.

28 women were killed. By thugs.

The thugs call them whores.

And we repeat that?

That's how we show sympathy for these women who were killed?

The Tweeter's never been there and knows nothing.

'A press report said it!'

Oh, okay then. Press report are never wrong, right?

It would be something wonderful if we could see people rejecting an urge to insult the dead. (I am not attacking women who engage in sex work. I am noting that prostitute is a huge pejorative in Iraq and dead women who can't defend themselves shouldn't have prostitute tied around their dead necks solely because a group of men -- who killed them -- have labeled them whores.)

I'm not interested in running down violence. Monday night, I noted a death and offered Tuesday might be the last snapshot. The friend I dictated it too wisely pulled that. But a friend died this week and it really makes me question the point of online life.

This week saw the passing of actors Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall. (I was referring to Robin in the previous paragraph.) TCM has a video clip entitled "Lauren Bacall -- (TCM Remembers) 1924-2014." PBS' The NewsHour remembers her here.

Maria noted her passing in "The Walker," Ann in "Remembering Lauren Bacall," Stan with "Bacall," Elaine with "The great star Lauren Bacall," Ruth with "Lauren Bacall," Trina with "Lauren Bacall -- one of a kind," Betty with "Lauren" and Kat with "The wrong people keep dying." Robin's passing was noted in Mike's "Robin starred in so much of our childhood," Rebecca's "robin" and Marcia's "Iraq and Robin Williams." In addition, Robin was noted in a statement the Pentagon released earlier this week:

August 11, 2014

Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on the Passing of Robin Williams

The entire Department of Defense community mourns the loss of Robin Williams. Robin was a gifted actor and comedian, but he was also a true friend and supporter of our troops. From entertaining thousands of service men and women in war zones, to his philanthropy that helped veterans struggling with hidden wounds of war, he was a loyal and compassionate advocate for all who serve this nation in uniform. He will be dearly missed by the men and women of DoD - so many of whom were personally touched by his humor and generosity.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The wrong people keep dying

That's Lauren Bacall from How To Marry A Millionaire which we noted at Third (last month) as one of the 20th century's classic films.

Lauren has passed away and she will be missed. Her role in film has still not warranted the kind of attention it deserves.

She could do mystery, suspense, drama and comedy.

The wrong people keep dying.

Why couldn't, for example, Nouri al-Maliki have passed away instead?

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, August 12, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary wants to break with Barack, Hillary doesn't want to talk Iraq, and much more.

Let's drop back to Saturday when US President Barack Obama spoke on the White House lawn and took questions:

Q Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. -- is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.
And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice -- which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.
So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

So he campaigned for re-election on removing troops from Iraq and now he says basically, "That wasn't me." Or, more likely, "That's not on me."

It's worth noting and we'd explore it and fact check it at length at another time but there's too much to cover including Hillary.

We will note this:

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 -- if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.

That qualifies as truth. Nouri has caused the problems and done so over many, many years. It's a reality many need to face. In those remarks, some note the frustration Barack had with Nouri al-Maliki but few are noting the reality in the remarks. I'm especially surprised that Barack's usual supporters are not running with those remarks. They go a long way towards explaining how the crises emerged in the first place.

By the way, I'm being accused of being a Barack groupie due to yesterday's snapshot. Six years of calling him out, mocking him, etc and I give him a few words of praise -- praise that he earned -- and I'm a Barack groupie?

I'm more sympathetic to those who feel I was 'happy talking' yesterday.

I'm sure I was. Nouri has destroyed Iraq.

In addition to the many things we noted yesterday, I also feel he ordered the assassination of journalist Hadi al-Mahdi.

I believe this was a huge moment for Iraq.

Dan Friedman and Corky Siemaszko (New York Daily News) refer to Nouri as "Iraq's power-hungry prime minister." That's a rather nice way of putting it.

I think Nouri set a tone with his violence and his violent language. The videos of the Sunni suspects being burned alive by Iraqi military officers reflected to me not some 'evil' in the heart of a segment of Iraqis but the clear influence of years and years of Nouri demonizing Sunnis and other groups in Iraq.

So, yes, I was upbeat and thrilled for the Iraqi people.

I will gladly confess to being upbeat.

Let's move on. Hillary Clinton is many things -- former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State, etc. What she was when she sat down with Jeffrey Goldberg for a piece in The Atlantic?

Deeply stupid.

Deeply, deeply stupid.

We're not the Gaza snapshot, we're not covering that aspect here. Others can grab it.

We focus on Iraq and sometimes on campaigns.

Hillary, a tip, as an elderly woman -- and putting blond coloring in your gray hair doesn't make you any less elderly -- you really shouldn't be calling yourself "old fashioned." Though it does make clear that a woman can be anything -- even an old coot -- it really doesn't help your own self image.

Outside of that, we're focusing on Iraq.

In a never-ending, mind numbing interview Hillary mentions Iraq.

For example, here:

We have our hands full in Syria and Iraq, just to name two places, maybe increasingly in Lebanon, and who knows what’s going to happen with us and Hamas.

Speaking of Egypt:

I think we’ve learned about the limits of our power to spread freedom and democracy. That’s one of the big lessons out of Iraq. But we’ve also learned about the importance of our power, our influence, and our values appropriately deployed and explained.

Then she insists:

I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing.

And that's it.

She's a deeply stupid woman.

Iraq has been a major issue for weeks now and Hillary's gabbing in a foreign policy interview.

Someone so out of touch maybe shouldn't be slamming Barack?

I have no problem with criticism of any US president or, in Bully Boy Bush's case, Oval Office Occupant -- whether they're still in office or have left. I have a problem with stupid criticism.

If Hillary had just stuck her tongue out at US President Barack Obama, she would have shown more wisdom.

Her attempt to link events in Syria and Iraq is stupid and we'll go into that shortly.

But Hillary gabs where she wants you to look. With her, it's the topics she doesn't bring up that tell the story because she knows her own failings.

Where was her leadership on Iraq?

In 2008, she called Nouri a "thug" and noted he was a threat to the Iraqi people. In 2010, when Nouri al-Maliki lost the elections to Iraqiya, where was Hillary?

Where was she?

When did she lead -- from behind, beneath, above, below, upside down . . . ?

She didn't.

She avoids Iraq for that reason.

While not leading, she did resist. Specifically, she resisted a court order to re-evaluate the status of the MEK. During her husband Bill's presidency, this group of Iranian dissidents were placed on a terrorist list.

As Secretary of State, she was ordered to re-evaluate that.

She resisted.

The court had to remind her of her duty.

Then, when she did act, she 'ruled' not based on potential threat but based on whether the group in Iraq would move from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriyah.

I don't believe the Ashraf community can be labeled terrorists.

But I also don't believe you look at a group -- most of whose members are outside of Iraq -- and make the determination of terrorist or not by how quickly dissidents in Iraq move from one camp to another.

I could go into more detail but I just think, unless she's going to be serving up some personal confessions, now really isn't the time for Hillary to try to cast herself as the foreign policy expert and Barack as the great dunce.

The response from a functioning press should be, "Well, how did you contribute to the process?" And they should follow up with, "You appear comfortable providing oversight over Barack -- at least in retrospect. But in real time, you went four years running the State Dept and did so without any real oversight. John Kerry promised to get a real IG -- not 'acting Inspector General -- in place, promised to Congress and he did so within 5 months of being confirmed as Secretary of State. But you went four years without independent oversight from an IG. What does that say about your beliefs in checks and balances?"

Within the scope of the interview, Hillary seems to be linking Iraq and Syria. She seems to be making the argument -- she needs to learn to speak clearly -- that Barack's failures include his not putting troops on the ground in Iraq.

As Ava and I noted Sunday, Martha Raddatz tried to link the two on ABC's This Week.

RADDATZ (voice-over): The Islamic militant group ISIS in Syria and Iraq is so extreme that traditional al Qaeda has disavowed it. And now, from Vice News, video from inside the militants' stranglehold -- surreal scenes from the Syrian city of Raqqah -- families enjoying the coolness of the Euphrates. But even here, there is always something more sinister, even with the children.

(VIDEO CLIP OF CHILD SPEAKING IN ARABIC)

RADDATZ: And what happens in Syria affects Iraq, and vice-versa. The treasures from the march on Baghdad are proudly paraded through Raqqah, along with new recruits from around the world.

(VIDEO CLIP OF MAN SPEAKING IN ARABIC)

RADDATZ: Here, the group is known simply as IS, or Islamic State. At a nighttime gathering, recruiting continues -- "Beautiful virgins are calling. Enroll me as a martyr, this man sings." A call and response to excite the crowd.

If Eleanor Rigby were around today, she'd be pondering: All the stupid people, where do they all come from?

Let's pretend for a moment that the group of -- wait.

Let's stop. We have to start the pretending by insisting IS in both countries is everyone resisting with violence. From there, let's pretend that the two groups are clones of one another.

For Martha to be correct, these two identical groups would have to have the same reaction in the two lands.

They don't.

IS -- however you define it -- is more embraced in Iraq.

IS was not attracted to Iraq because it's Syria's neighbor.

They share a border.

Syria also shares a border with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

The success in Iraq is based on events in Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki's persecution of Sunnis created outrage and this was followed by

Yesterday Haider al-Abadi was named Iraq's prime minister-designate which means he has 30 days to form a government (Cabinet) and, if successful in that, he becomes prime minister of Iraq. Of al-Abadi, Larry Kaplow and Alice Fordham (NPR via Idea Stream) report:

Abadi is a genial electrical engineer in his early 60s who often served as an intermediary for diplomats and Western journalists in Baghdad. He was comfortable in the role, having been educated in England and serving as the British representative of the Dawa party, a Shiite Islamist group, when it was in exile during the era of dictator Saddam Hussein.
Abadi's prominence in Dawa gives him credibility with the country's Shiite majority. Dawa was formed in the 1950s among Shiite intellectuals following the direction of a respected cleric.
The party fought Saddam, who authorized the executions of thousands of its members.
And while Maliki was working in low-level education bureaucracies in Iraq and on underground activities from Iran and Syria, Abadi was a Dawa spokesman in Britain, where he earned a doctorate and received a broad view of the world.

Along with a prime minister-designate, Iraq now has an outgoing prime minister.

For now, we're going out with this from today's State Dept press briefing by Marie Harf:

QUESTION: So I see the President spoke today with the Canadian prime minister on Iraq. It made me wonder what kind of regional dialogues the United States is having with other partners in the Mideast on how other states in the Mideast can assist militarily or with humanitarian aid to what’s happening.

MS. HARF: Well, we’re having a number of conversations, and to be fair, those conversations have been ongoing. Obviously, one I’d note is the Brits, as you know, who have now also provided – began providing humanitarian aid. We’ve also talked to a number of partners about financial contributions and would note generous financial contributions from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, the EU, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and others already in response. So obviously, we are talking to many of our partners on the humanitarian side and the financial side particularly about how we can all bring more resources to bear here.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering, aside from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, if there are other partners in the Mideast. Particularly, has anybody expressed any willingness to assist militarily with the Government of Iraq or even the Kurds, or what kind of – if not boots on the ground, personnel on the ground, people on the ground?

MS. HARF: I can check with our team here and see if those discussions have been happening. We’ve had discussions with Iraq’s neighbors over the past several weeks and months, I’d say, particularly on the refugee issue and on the foreign fighter issue as well. So these are conversations we’ve had for a while. I can check and see, Lara – and it’s a good question – if there are updates on the military or security assistance piece.

QUESTION: Thank you. Were you aware of the report in Der Spiegel today that apparently some Iranian planes have landed in the Kurdish region with arms and ammunition?

MS. HARF: I am and I’ve seen them, and we can’t confirm them one way or the other at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. And did you get any update from my question yesterday on when was the last time somebody from the U.S. Government spoke with Prime Minister Maliki?

MS. HARF: I believe it was yesterday. We’re not going to outline all the details of who talks to who, but I believe we did have contact with him yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. And can you – you can’t give us any readout on what the --

MS. HARF: I --

QUESTION: -- nature of the conversation was or --

MS. HARF: I don’t have more of a readout for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Marie?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can we follow up on one thing on Maliki, please?

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Yesterday, I had asked if you had – if the U.S. Government had played any role whatsoever in the selection of Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi, and you very clearly said no. Have you seen today’s Daily Beast story which claims – which cites U.S. officials as saying that they had pushed for Maliki for days, weeks? And it suggests maybe – suggests that an effort to oust Maliki had been underway since June. Is there any truth to that report?

MS. HARF: There is not. As I have said multiple times from this podium, this is up for the Iraqis to decide. Of course, we’ve had conversations with them as they’ve gone through this process, but quite frankly, for a number of years, not just in this Iraqi election but in the last one, there were a number of rumors and conspiracy theories about the U.S. role. I would squarely put this report in that category. As I said yesterday, this was a decision for the Iraqis and solely for the Iraqis to decide.

QUESTION: And are you getting the impression that you are getting more cooperation from your allies in the Gulf vis-a-vis Iraq now that an alternative to Prime Minister Maliki has been settled on?

MS. HARF: Well, cooperation in what way? Because certainly on the refugee and humanitarian side, they have, quite frankly, for a while been very concerned about the humanitarian situation and the possibility of refugees and foreign fighters as well. So I don’t think that’s a new concern. I do think that there are a number of partners in the region who want Iraq’s government to govern more inclusively. And so I certainly think that’s a part of it, but I don’t think the two are necessarily linked.

QUESTION: I ask because Secretary Kerry made clear that the U.S. Government could do a number of things with the new government and I therefore wonder if that sentiment is echoed among Iraq’s neighbors and any other close U.S. allies.

MS. HARF: Well, you’d have to ask them. I do think that broadly speaking, all of us are partners. We certainly know that the only way to fight ISIL going forward here is that it requires an inclusive Iraqi Government to be formed quickly. And as that happens, as the Secretary said, we certainly are looking at ways we can do even more to help.

QUESTION: And one more. Are you getting any greater cooperation from allies such as Kuwait, which the Treasury Department recently – I mean, they essentially said that the Kuwaiti Government needed to do more to try to crack down on financing of ISIL, and it identified, I think, three Kuwaiti citizens who were designated for having done so. Are you getting any more cooperation from them on that?

MS. HARF: I know it’s something we work with them and other governments on that there are private citizens in some of these countries who have been providing monetary support. We’re certainly very worried about it. And I think quite frankly, countries like Kuwait are increasingly realizing this is – could also be a threat to them. So it’s an ongoing conversation. I don’t have anything to update, but I’m happy to see if there is anything else to say.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Maliki very --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh, and then we’ll go to you, Michel.

QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly. Given that you said that you’re not aware of any more U.S. Government contacts with him in the last --

MS. HARF: Since yesterday.

QUESTION: -- since yesterday, is there a concern --

MS. HARF: There may have been, though.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: It’s constant communication on the ground in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Right. Is there a concern given his decision to move troops into the green zone over the weekend that he may try yet again to resist what the U.S. considers the orderly transition according to the Iraqi constitution?

MS. HARF: Well, I --

QUESTION: And how worried is the U.S. about this?

MS. HARF: I would note that today Prime Minister Maliki said in remarks that the security forces should not get involved in this matter and should focus on defending the country. Again, we’ll see what happens going forward, but there’s a process that’s been playing out. We never thought it would be without complication. We never thought it would be easy. These things often aren’t. But there is a process that has hit the benchmarks. It’s continued to move forward. And we’ll listen to what he said today and go from here.

QUESTION: And then very quickly, the status of those U.S. diplomats who had to be moved from Erbil temporarily, are they still --

MS. HARF: And some were moved in. As I said yesterday, we’re adjusting staffing, so if we move some people out, we might move other people in. We moved in a DART team over the weekend, a Disaster Assistance Response Team, to help with the humanitarian situation. So a lot of it is really about readjusting is a more appropriate term.

QUESTION: But for the people who had been moved out, is --

MS. HARF: I don’t believe they’ve moved back yet.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Yeah. Some of them are working out of Amman, where we have a contingent of people working on Iraq. Some are working out of Basra.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: I believe some also may be working out of Baghdad. But we’re basically shuffling people around where we have a need and what makes the most sense security-wise.

QUESTION: And perhaps you answered this yesterday, but what is the practical impact not so much on U.S. citizens, but on Iraqis who might need to do business in Erbil with the consulate there?

MS. HARF: The consulate is open, functioning. We believe it’s important to do so. That’s part of the reason the President ordered the military action we’ve seen to protect Erbil.
Lara.

QUESTION: Can I ask just very quickly, are you aware of reports of a bomb that may have gone off in the last hour or so near Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi’s house?

MS. HARF: I am not. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I will check as soon as I get off of the podium.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Marie --

MS. HARF: His house in Baghdad?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: I’ll check.

QUESTION: Iran has endorsed Iraq’s new prime minister-designate. How do you view this statement from Iran?

MS. HARF: Well, we encourage any country to encourage the Iraqis to form an inclusive government as soon as possible to govern inclusively. That’s been our position all along, and so, obviously, we would welcome any statements to that effect.

QUESTION: And have you been in discussion with the Iranians regarding the situation in Iraq?

MS. HARF: We have not. We have not.

QUESTION: And last week during the meeting between the U.S. delegation and the Iranians, have you discussed Iran?

MS. HARF: Have we discussed Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq, sorry.

MS. HARF: To my knowledge it was not raised in the way that it had been raised previously on the sidelines of the P5+1 round. It may have been brought up in casual conversation, but it was not discussed in a substantive way.

QUESTION: And a follow-up question on Roz’s question, too, regarding al-Maliki. To what extent you are confident that he will leave power after the formation of the new government?

MS. HARF: Well, there’s a process in place, and that’s what will happen at the end of it. That’s what should happen at the end of it. Look, we’re not going to entertain hypotheticals at this point. The Iraqis have hit the benchmarks as part of this process. Again, we knew it wouldn’t be entirely smooth. We never thought it would be. But that’s what we’re working towards right now. So let’s hope that happens. We’ll continue to have conversations with all of the Iraqis about making sure that happens.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the – on the Iran angle. You mentioned that you couldn’t comment on the Der Spiegel --

MS. HARF: I just couldn’t confirm it. I just don’t know if --

QUESTION: Couldn’t confirm it, the Der Spiegel report?

MS. HARF: We can’t confirm it one way or the other.

QUESTION: Sure. But the issue of Iranian arms – does the U.S. have a position on that?

MS. HARF: Well --

QUESTION: Should Iran have the right to small arms --

MS. HARF: Well, it’s not a question of a right. There are some sanctionable – there are potential sanctions that could be involved with the export or import of Iran – arms in or out of Iran. There are specific sanctions in place. Without being able to confirm whether or not it’s happening and the specifics, I can’t say whether or not this would be, but there’s a likely chance it could be if this is true. We just have to look at it.

QUESTION: So, in general, the U.S. would be opposed to Iranian arms flowing into Iraq.

MS. HARF: In general, we believe we should --

QUESTION: Even if it’s for the same side.

MS. HARF: -- continue to implement sanctions that are on the books.

QUESTION: One on Afghanistan?

MS. HARF: Let’s stay on Iraq. If people – and then we’ll go to Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Can you just outline specific steps that Prime Minister-designate Abadi can take to be inclusive? We’re hearing the mantra “inclusive governing” often, but I was wondering if there are certain specific steps that could be outlined.

MS. HARF: Well, first of all in terms of specific steps, he now has 30 days under the constitution’s – it’s constitutionally mandated – to put a – to complete a process to put a new government in place. So as part of this process, that will be presenting a cabinet to the Iraqi parliament for approval that represents the aspirations of the Iraqi people. I’m not going to outline what that should look like. That’s for him and his government to decide. But there are things he can do that would demonstrate inclusiveness. Things you can say, things you can do, as part of this formation process. And then going forward, if he does form a government, which we expect and hope that he will, there are ways you can do that.
One of the things we’ve been quite heartened by is the really unprecedented way the Iraqi security forces have been working with the Kurdish forces for example, in a way we never saw them do before. So continuing some of that and encouraging some of that, from the top on down, is really important. So those are some.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: So the government has --

MS. HARF: Thirty days.

QUESTION: -- so as you said, he has 30 days. But if he isn’t able to do that, then the Iraqis are back to square --

MS. HARF: Well, there’s --

QUESTION: I’m just worried -- I’m just wondering if you’re concerned that Prime Minister al-Maliki will take this time to try and prevent him from starting a coalition and not kind of let the process play out.

MS. HARF: Well, we’re going to watch the process play out. It’s played out on – as it should so far. So while I understand people want to jump 28 days from now and guess about all the bad things that might happen, the process has played out. Let’s watch and see what Prime Minister Maliki says – and does, more importantly. We’re having conversations with him and all the other Iraqi leaders about how this can move forward, Elise.

QUESTION: Well, it’s not really 28 – it’s not really 28 days. It’s what happens during the next 28 days.

MS. HARF: Exactly.

QUESTION: You don’t have the luxury, really, of waiting 30 days and --

MS. HARF: It’s not about us not having the luxury. It’s about the Iraqis.

QUESTION: Well, the Iraqis.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Right. So I mean, starting from today --

MS. HARF: So, we’ll wait – we’ll see what happens, Elise. But let’s not assume the worst here.

QUESTION: Aren’t you kind of assuming the worst, that he’ll do that?

MS. HARF: No. I’m not. I don’t think we are, Elise. I think that today you saw Prime Minister Maliki say that security forces should not get involved in this matter. Again, we think that’s a good sign. But we will be watching and we will be in direct conversations if – as we have been with Prime Minister Maliki. And took, if we see signs that anything like that is happening, we would, obviously, be very concerned and immediately express those concerns.
But I think the other point, though, is it’s not about what the U.S. is or isn’t concerned about. The Iraqi people themselves, including the Shia bloc, has nominated someone else with a lot of support from Prime Minister Maliki’s own party. So this is about the Iraqi people standing up and saying this is the government we want.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MS. HARF: It’s not about what we want. It’s about what they want.

QUESTION: I understand that.

MS. HARF: And so the support for the new prime minister-designate, I think, has been fairly clear.

QUESTION: Right, but that’s not stopping Prime Minister Maliki from mounting legal challenges to – I don’t believe he’s dropped that legal challenge.

MS. HARF: Well, we don’t – look, there’s always going to be some differences that people have about how these things should play out. But we would reject any effort, legally or otherwise, to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process. I think I said this on Sunday night and repeating it today: There’s a constitutional process. It is happening, and that is what we support. And we will keep supporting that as the Iraqis go through this process.

QUESTION: But, I mean, you know that in 2010 he did launch a legal challenge. He mounted a legal challenge --

MS. HARF: I’m aware of the history.

QUESTION: -- and he was able to maintain another term.

MS. HARF: I’m aware of the history. I think we need to watch what happens day by day here. We need to see what’s happening on the ground. We need to make clear our position, which is that we would reject any efforts to achieve outcomes through judicial – through coercion or manipulation of judicial processes. And we’ll keep working with them, but they have a process in place. It’s moving forward, and let’s see how that plays out.

QUESTION: Who is the main interlocutor right now with Prime Minister al-Maliki?

MS. HARF: Well, we engage with him and other Iraqi leaders at a number of levels. We’re not going to outline specifically, necessarily, all the time what that engagement looks like. But people on the ground in Baghdad certainly have had conversations with him, as have people in Washington.

QUESTION: Well, has Secretary Kerry or Vice President Biden or, specifically, someone at a senior level reached out to Prime Minister Maliki?

MS. HARF: There are senior people who have --

QUESTION: Who – can you --

MS. HARF: We’re not going to outline --

QUESTION: Why can’t you say --

MS. HARF: Because we --

QUESTION: I mean, you put out press releases of calls --

MS. HARF: I can tell you the Secretary hasn’t, and I can tell you – to my knowledge; let me check with the White House – I don’t believe the Vice President has, either. But people have been in contact with him.

QUESTION: Does this mean that the fact that someone at a very senior – I’m not saying that the ambassador’s not of a senior level, but does the fact that the Secretary or the Vice President or the President is not speaking to Prime Minister al-Maliki meant to send a signal that the Administration is done dealing with him?

MS. HARF: Well no, not that we’re done dealing with him and not that we’re not speaking with him. It’s just that we haven’t. He’s the prime minister still, legally, until a new government is officially formed. So we will continue talking to him and working with him, but what we’re focused on is the way forward and how we can help the Iraqis, as they form this new government, fight ISIL. That’s what we’re focused on every day.

iraq npr larry kaplow alice fordham

all iraq news national iraqi news agency the new york daily news dan friedman corky siemaszko

Monday, August 11, 2014

I'd be a sister on Charmed

Above is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barack's Dance" from Sunday.

If I were any TV character, I'd want to be the three sisters on Charmed.

And I'd use my powers to create a vanishing potion and then use it on thug Nouri al-Maliki before he could harm Iraq further than he already has.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Monday, August 11, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri goes insane and orders troops to surround Baghdad, the White House pulls support for Nouri, Iraq's president names someone other than Nouri to be prime minister-designate, this only makes Nouri crazier, and much more.

If someone refused to step down from office when their term was over, most people would call the man or woman "insane." AFP goes with the softer sounding "defiant" to describe Nouri al-Maliki.

In a scene similar to what many of us on the left in the US feared might happen in 2008, a leader is refusing to leave office. In fairness to Bully Boy Bush, he remains in Dallas and did vacate the White House in January 2009. But the man he insisted (in 2006) become prime minister, the same man that US President Barack Obama insisted (in 2010) remain prime minister just doesn't want to take the hint and go.

The chief thug and outgoing prime minister of Iraq doesn't want to leave office.

The Associated Press is calling it a "foreign policy crisis."

What is the foreign policy crisis?

US President Barack Obama explained this evening from Martha's Vineyard, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort. Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President. Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi. Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

Nouri, the man who brought the Iraq government to a standstill in 2010 when he refused to step down as prime minister after losing the election to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, began acting strangely -- even for him -- last week though most only noticed his strangeness last night.

Nouri had a tantrum yesterday when the President of Iraq, Fuad Masum, refused to name him prime minister. As Loveday Morris (Washington Post) reported:

In actions that had all the markings of a political coup, Maliki gave a defiant late-night speech in Baghdad saying he would lodge a legal case against the country’s president, who has resisted naming him as the candidate for another term as prime minister.
Tanks rumbled onto major bridges and roads in the capital as security forces were put on high alert, with militiamen also patrolling Shiite neighborhoods. The special forces teams surrounding the Green Zone were taking orders directly from the prime minister, security officials said.

The Guardian quotes from a statement by US State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf:

The United States fully supports president Fuad Masum in his role as guarantor of the Iraqi constitution. We reaffirm our support for a process to select a prime minister who can represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people by building a national consensus and governing in an inclusive manner. We reject any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process.

Also yesterday, the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:

Brett McGurk @brett_mcgurk · 6h

Fully support President of #Iraq Fuad Masum as guarantor of the Constitution and a PM nominee who can build a national consensus.

Nouri's most recent crazy had included threatening that the "gates of hell" would open if he didn't receive a third term as prime minister, he bullied the President of Iraq to the point that Masum publicly stated he would not be bullied into naming a prime minister-designate.

So yesterday's stunt, his last minute crazy rambles on state television and his stationing forces around Baghdad appeared to be the last straw. As Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explained, "Washington seems to be losing patience with Maliki, who has placed Shi'ite political loyalists in key positions in the army and military and drawn comparisons with executed former dictator Saddam Hussein, the man he plotted against from exile for years."

This morning, Lolita C. Baldor and Julie Pace (AP) reported that the White House decided to send weapons directly to the Kurdistan Regional Government, bypassing the central government of Baghdad. This was about the loss of patience and trust with Nouri and all his crazy which has destroyed Iraq for years now.

Finally, the US government is walking away from him.

A White House friend asked what I was going to cover? Meaning there's a Saturday remark by Barack (Ava and I covered it in "Media: Barack Lies, Cher Tweets and Martha Plays (Ava and C.I.)" on Sunday) that needs examination -- in that piece, it's also noted that Martha Radditz would be addressed here. She will be -- tomorrow. But the friend's concern was Barack.

As I said on the phone: Relax.

There will be time this week to talk about the history and everything else but right now I just want to be happy that the US government is no longer backing Thug Nouri.

The Iraqi people are strong. But the fact that they have survived and can survive so much is no reason to inflict Nouri on them for a third term.

This evening, Barack declared:

Earlier today, Vice President Biden and I called Dr. Abadi to congratulate him and to urge him to form a new cabinet as quickly as possible -- one that’s inclusive of all Iraqis, and one that represents all Iraqis. I pledged our support to him, as well as to President Masum and Speaker Jabouri, as they work together to form this government. Meanwhile, I urge all Iraqi political leaders to work peacefully through the political process in the days ahead.
This new Iraqi leadership has a difficult task. It has to regain the confidence of its citizens by governing inclusively and by taking steps to demonstrate its resolve. The United States stands ready to support a government that addresses the needs and grievances of all Iraqi people. We are also ready to work with other countries in the region to deal with the humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge in Iraq. Mobilizing that support will be easier once this new government is in place.

These have been difficult days in Iraq -- a country that has faced so many challenges in its recent history. And I’m sure that there will be difficult days ahead. But just as the United States will remain vigilant against the threat posed to our people by ISIL, we stand ready to partner with Iraq in its fight against these terrorist forces. Without question, that effort will be advanced if Iraqis continue to build on today’s progress, and come together to support a new and inclusive government.

Today was a hopeful day for Iraq. I will offer praise for Barack for today: It took courage to pull the support from Nouri. I believe this will be seen as a transformative moment for Iraq and Barack's decision -- and, yes, action -- will be a key moment in not just the history of Iraq or the United States but in world history because Barack just pulled US government support for a despot and a tyrant.

Historically, when a US president -- or any world leader -- does that, it's only after a near universal cry around the globe.

With Iraq, the cries came from the Arab world, from a few NGOs, certainly from Human Rights Watch but that's really it. In terms of non-Arabic press?

Ned Parker deserves huge praise. Tim Aragno is someone I have no problem applauding. Liz Sly deserves applause (and it's a shame she's covering Syria right now -- Loveday Morris has not anything bad but I'm just not seeing applause for her). I'll even give Dexter Filkins a round of applause for his late-in-life turn around. (Yes, I have so much joy I can even give Dexter a round of applause.) I'll applaud Dahr Jamail, of course. But in terms of reporting, that's really about it.

If you include editorial boards, I think you have to praise the New York Times and The Economist. I'm long picturing on this -- I say that because I haven't read an opinion piece in the Times in probably two weeks. But those two editorial boards were not afraid to call out Nouri. It's a shame so many others were silent.

Worse than silent? How about the enablers who lied for Nouri? I'll boo and hiss Jane Araf, McClatchy Newspapers (their Iraqi staff always knew Nouri's number, it was just the American staff that was so very eager to spin), the radio yokel Scott Horton who loved him some Nouri, the woman at WSWS who never should have been allowed to write about Iraq and those pieces are as embarrassing as Horton's radio broadcasts, and so many more.

So many.

So Barack doing what he did was big.

It happened before a tidal wave of global outrage forced it.

Nouri's ordered the targeting of Iraq's LGBTQ community, he's had protesters targeted, he's targeted journalists for torture, his Cabinet pushed the notion that 'women' should have the 'right' to marry at 9-years-old and younger, he's bombed the civilians in Falluja for 8 months now . . . His rap sheet is lengthy.

But the Jane Arrafs of the press ensured that, for example, the world wouldn't know about the rape of Iraqi women and girls in Nouri's prisons -- established prisons and secret ones.

If the world had paid attention to this and so much more, detractors might be able to say, "Well, the public forced Barack to break with Nouri."

But that's not what happened. Barack could have continued his and the US government's policy of backing Nouri.

It's too his credit that he didn't.

It's a rare example of the US government walking away from a tyrant before global outrages forces them to do so.

So, yes, I will offer Barack praise for his decision and action with regards to Nouri.

And, by the way, tomorrow's snapshot, it will call Barack out for various things. It will also defend him from Hillary Clinton's stupidity.

I have no problem with Hillary breaking from Barack (Al Gore had his break from Bill when he ran for president in 2000), it doesn't shock me, it doesn't appall me. But if you're going to break on something, break smartly. Hillary's as idiotic in her remarks to The Atlantic as Martha Raddats was on This Week Sunday.

So it's a new day for Iraq.

Which means Hadier al-Abadi is a saint and . . .

No.

He's not.

He's as flawed as anyone else.

He could, if he can form a Cabinet, end up as one of Iraq's best leaders or as another Nouri.

That'll be up to him.

But he is a reset, he is a chance to start over. He can be a break with the past and a bridge to an Iraq for all Iraqis.

He'll probably fall somewhere in between saint and sinner -- as most of us do.

But hopefully he will not be another Nouri.

And hopefully the Iraqi people will be able to dream and hope again of a country that is their own -- free of invading forces, to be sure, but also free from 'leaders' who betray the Iraqi people.

A strong public works program could finally improve Iraq's faltering and failing infrastructure, could create jobs (which the country sorely needs and which can also put people into the paid workforce vesting them into the society), could do so much.

There are so many things that could be done and right now Iraq can hope that al-Abadi will be a leader very much for the people of Iraq, for all the people of Iraq, one who can move the country forward and let go of the vengeance and hatred that led Nouri to see the position as a way to settle old scores.

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

The MP, of the Watania coalition, Maysoon al-Damluji said the outgoing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki cannot stick to power again, but he will hinder the formation of the government.
She said in a statement to the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / "Maliki is rejected by the other political blocs and even from within the state of law, so he could not cling to power again."
Damluji added, "Maliki has failed in the political, security and economic files, so he has to step down and make way for the most efficient and best suited to manage these files."

Maysoon al-Damluji is a prominent Iraqi politician and one of the few women with a national platform -- another would be MP Susan Said.

As the spokesperson for Iraqiya, al-Damluji regularly challenged Nouri publicly and demonstrated that Iraqi women are part of the political process -- so does Susan Said who comes from a different political perspective than does al-Damluji.

Like Senator Patty Murray and Senator Kelly Ayotte in the US, the two women have different constituencies and that's a good thing because it demonstrates and underscores "Iraqi women are strong" -- not just "Iraqi women who agree with me are strong." Like Murray and Ayotte, they're two potential role models that blaze trails for the future.

And good for al-Damluji for speaking up again.

The Prime Minister of Iraq needs to be someone who loves the country and loves the people and wants to provide opportunities for all.

AFP reports, "Abadi is a low-key figure who spent time in Britain. Educated at the University of Manchester, Abadi served as the head of parliament's finance committee, a political adviser to the prime minister and minister of communications. His Facebook biography says his favourite quotation is 'the key to leadership is tolerance'."

At today's State Dept press briefing in DC, spokesperson Marie Harf outlined where things stood now with regards to al-Abadi.

QUESTION: By your statement, do I understand that the United States is recognizing Dr. Abadi as the --

MS. HARF: Nominee.

QUESTION: -- the nominee, or do you think he is going to be the next prime minister?

MS. HARF: Well, he’s the prime – prime minister-designate, excuse me. There’s a – Prime Minister Maliki is still the prime minister, as of right now. He is still legally the prime minister. I know there’s a lot of confusion about this. The President charged the prime minister nominee to form a new cabinet. The nominee now has 30 days to present a new government and national program to parliament for approval that will address the needs and aspirations of all of Iraq’s diverse communities. So there’s still a process here, but this is an important step in the process, one that we absolutely welcome.

QUESTION: So what would hold up Dr. Abadi from becoming the fully recognized prime minister at this point?

MS. HARF: Well, he now has 30 days to present a new government. There’s a process, an internal Iraqi process there.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the United States believe that the Iraqi National Alliance has the authority to nominate Dr. Abadi even though the Dawa party has not?

MS. HARF: Well, without going too deep in the weeds of Iraqi constitutional politics --

QUESTION: But it’s so fun.

MS. HARF: Isn’t it though? We can leave that up to them to talk about. But in general, look, the Shia bloc nominated Dr. Abadi, a bloc that includes Prime Minister Maliki’s party. There was overwhelming support for Dr. Abadi. We think this is part of the process as it has played out under the constitution. I don’t have any reason to believe otherwise.

While so many look to the future, Nouri -- as usual -- clings to the bitter past. NINA reports:

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused on Monday the United States of supporting those who breach the Constitution in naming the biggest bloc and its candidate to head the next government
He said in his speech this evening that "the United States revealed its support for those who breach the constitution, and it is the first democratic state is supposed to be supportive tothe Constitution and abide by it.

Poor, insane Nouri.

Well it's hard to hide from
Eyes that are all over you
That only some
Make you lose your composure

"Well it's hard on my heart"
Said, "Well open your eyes"
"It gets harder every day"
Said, "I need to know now"

Soon you will be gone
Take your violet and blue mornings with you
-- "Violet and Blue," written by Stevie Nicks who first recorded it for the Against All Odds soundtrack.

Yes, Nouri, take your violet and blue mornings with you.

Tim Arango, Alissa J. Rubin and Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) report:

Secretary of State John Kerry, in Australia, warned that Mr. Maliki must back the constitutional process and not attempt to circumvent it by using his powers as commander in chief to stay in office. He said that any extralegal effort to cling to power would bring a cutoff of international aid.

“There should be no use of force,” Mr. Kerry said in remarks to reporters in Sydney, where he was meeting with government leaders, “no introduction of troops or militias into this moment of democracy for Iraq.”

What Nouri does next is yet again the question on many minds. Yochi Dreazen and John Hudson (Foreign Policy) survey a number of people including Douglas Ollivant:

Douglas Ollivant, who formerly served as the top Iraqi policy official on the National Security Council, said there was "very little" the United States could do to push Maliki out of power, but said he didn't think the Iraqi leader would resort to violence to stay in office.
"I really think its all done but the shouting," Ollivant said. "He's going to talk tough and play out his last legal card, but he doesn't want to be an international pariah. If we pull away, his only friends would be Iran and Syria, and even Maliki doesn't want that."

We'll close with more from the State Dept press briefing today:

QUESTION: Has any senior U.S. official in the last 24 hours spoken to Prime Minister Maliki?

MS. HARF: I can check. I don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Vice President Biden.

MS. HARF: To Prime Minister Maliki?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: Okay. I can --

QUESTION: Not Maliki. To – sorry.

QUESTION: No. I’m asking about Maliki.

MS. HARF: Right. She’s asking about Maliki. But thank you for trying to help me out though. I’ll check on Prime Minister Maliki. I don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Okay. I wonder if there’s any intent to at this point.

MS. HARF: I can check.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: Could I just phrase it a different way?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: What do you consider Prime Minister Maliki now? You say he’s still the prime minister, but --

MS. HARF: He’s still the prime minister legally under the Iraqi constitution.

QUESTION: But do you consider him a lame duck? Do you consider him on his way out? Do you consider him still a person you would work with?

MS. HARF: Well, certainly we will continue working and engaging with him given that he’s still the prime minister of Iraq, absolutely. And Iraq is facing a very dire situation right now. But we’ve said that in order for Iraq to better confront ISIL going forward, they need an inclusive government in place as soon as possible. There’s a process for that government to be in place, and what you saw today was just another step in that process.

QUESTION: Would you say he has a mandate democratically to still make decisions?

MS. HARF: Prime Minister Maliki?

QUESTION: Maliki.

MS. HARF: He’s still the prime minister legally under the constitution.

QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: So Marie --

MS. HARF: Yeah, Said, then we’ll go around.

QUESTION: Marie, what is happening now? You probably addressed this before I came. I’m sorry I was late.

MS. HARF: That’s okay.

QUESTION: Now that he’s deploying tanks and security forces and so on, you don’t think that’s in a way some sort of a coup?

MS. HARF: Well, how can it be a coup if he’s still the prime minister? That seems a strange word to use.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s deploying --

MS. HARF: But he’s still the prime minister.

QUESTION: He’s still the prime minister but he’s --

MS. HARF: So by definition, coup would not be --

QUESTION: Yeah, but he’s --

QUESTION: He’s protecting against a coup, no?

QUESTION: He’s using these forces to consolidate his power and sort of disenfranchise others.

MS. HARF: I think that’s making a number of assumptions about Prime Minister Maliki’s intentions. I don’t want to speak for him. I would note (a) that there’s a huge security threat right now from ISIL even in Baghdad, so (a); but (b), look, there’s a process in place here. Prime Minister Maliki’s party, which is part of this bloc, nominated someone new to be prime minister.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: And it’s the Iraqi people speaking up and choosing their own future. So let’s – we’re watching the situation on the ground, but there’s been no, in our view, discernible change in the security picture in terms of the kind of resources you’re talking about him deploying.

QUESTION: Okay. So are you supporting Haider al-Abadi as a prime minister? Is he someone that is known to you?

MS. HARF: Vice President Biden spoke with him today.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: Congratulated him on his nomination and called to – call on him for very quickly, as soon as possible, to form a new government and develop a national program. The prime minister-designate expressed his intent to move expeditiously to do so, and the Vice President and he had a conversation today. Obviously, we support the process. We have never supported any one person or one party here.

QUESTION: Okay. But you know the fact that the Vice President spoke to him, that’s like a ringing endorsement, isn’t it?

MS. HARF: Well, it’s not about who we speak to on the phone. It’s about who the Iraqis choose through their process, which they’ve done today, to be their next prime minister. That’s how this gets chosen here.

iraq
the washington post
loveday morris
associated press
lolita c. baldor
julie pace
the new york times
tim arango
alissa j. rubin
michael r. gordon