Wednesday, November 04, 2015

How stupid is their government?


I thought Sweden was smart.

The people may be but their government isn't.

La Prensa reports that they are going to extend their Iraq mission (to destroy) to 2016.

That's just beyond stupid.

They think bombing Iraq will save it.

We truly are back in Vietnam ('to save the village, we had to burn the village') -- only no one wants to acknowledge it.


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


Wednesday, November 4, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Ahmed Chalabi has left the earth, the media keeps selling war on Iraq, and much more.


We're going to start with US politics.  Cynthia McKinney is a former member of the US House of Representatives and was the 2008 Green Party presidential candidate.  There are many people urging her to run again for the 2016 Green Party presidential nomination.


If you don't understand why there is a growing chorus of voices asking Cynthia to yet again step up again, note the opening of her latest column:



The one question that has not been answered during Hillary Clinton’s grilling before a US Congress committee over the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, was: “What was the policy that was being carried out that led to the deaths of these four men?”
The attack on the US consulate in Libya resulted in the deaths of four US citizens on September 11, 2012.
The four who were found dead in the aftermath of the Benghazi chaos of that night were the US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens; Sean Smith who, significantly, was known as “Vile Rat” in his online gaming community; and two former US Navy SEALs and Central Intelligence Agency contractors (CIA), Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
These four public servants answered the call to serve the policy of the US government. Their deaths in the service of their country are truly tragic. However, the question that has not been answered in all of the hoopla over the proceedings of the Select Committee are: “What was the policy that was being carried out that led to the deaths of these four men?” It is the avoidance of even asking that question in public, let alone answering it, that is the proverbial elephant in the room.

The top Democrat on the Select Committee is Representative Elijah Cummings from Maryland, who in a moment of selective outrage, exclaimed to rousing applause from the audience, “We’re better than that! We are so much better! We’re a better country! We’re better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign! That’s not what America is all about!” But, apparently, using taxpayer dollars to destroy one country and literally wipe another country off the map – that’s OK, I guess. Because, at the time of the televised hearings, U.S. Embassy in Libya personnel weren’t even in Libya! They’re operating from Malta, after President Obama’s policy to destroy Libya was so effective. How much questioning about that took place in the eleven-hour hearing?



Contrast that straight talk, that strong voice of humanity with the gauze covered piffle Jill Stein -- who is not the 2016 Green Party presidential nominee (the nominee will be selected in August of 2016 at the national convention) -- regularly offers.

Cynthia McKinney is a leader.


Turning to Iraq . . . 
The failed Operation Inherent Resolve continues with US President Barack Obama promising 'liberation' to Iraq via bombs dropped from overhead.  The Defense Dept announced today:

Strikes in Iraq

Attack, bomber, fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 19 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Baghdadi, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Albu Hayat, two strikes struck two separate large ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb, an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL building, and four ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Beiji, one strike wounded an ISIL fighter.

-- Near Mosul, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Ramadi, five strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle bomb, an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL building and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Sinjar, nine strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bomb-making facility, an ISIL staging facility, three ISIL staging areas, four ISIL weapons caches, an ISIL headquarters location, an ISIL bed-down location, 10 ISIL fighting positions, and two ISIL vehicles.
Since August of 2014, these bombings have taken place.
And the Islamic State is still not on the run.

All the money wasted on these bombs and the Islamic State is still not on the run.

All the civilians killed in these bombings and the Islamic State is still not on the run.

All this destruction to Iraq -- yes, bombs dropped from the air landing on Iraq causes destruction -- and the Islamic State is still not on the run.

Operation Inherent Failure is Barack's big solution.
It it any wonder a growing chorus of voices register that they are unimpressed with Barack's plan or 'plan.'  
For example, Nicholas Watt (Guardian) reports, "Jeremy Corbyn has suggested Britain should review its involvement in coalition airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq, as the government confirmed it had no current plans to seek parliamentary approval to extend the bombing campaign to Syria."
ITV's Chris Ship interviewed Corbyn and they note:

"I'm not sure how successful it [military action in Iraq] has been because most of the action appears to have moved into Syria so I think we have to look again at that decision," the Labour leader told Chris Ship.
Mr Corbyn was speaking as Downing Street denied reports that Prime Minister David Cameron has abandoned hope of winning parliamentary approval to extend RAF operations into Syria.
The name changes of the groups fighting in Syria and Iraq should not fool anyone. In essence they are the same forces; they are “agents of chaos” being using to create insecurity against U.S. rivals and any governments or entities that are resisting U.S. edicts. With the erosion of Al-Qaeda and the fading of Osama bin Laden from the limelight, Washington created new legends or myths to replace them in the eyes of the public and the world as a means to sustain its foreign policy. Soon Jubhat Al-Nusra, ISIL/ISIS, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi were all conjured up and fostered as new bogeymen and monsters to sustain Washington’s “long war” and to justify the militarism of the United States. These bogymen also have been used to fan the flames of sedition, drive out Christians and other minorities, and fuel sectarianism among Muslims with the objective of dividing the region and pushing Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims to kill one another.

He was a destructive force who did huge damage.

We noted his role in fueling the Iraq War Tuesday.  We did not blame him for the Iraq War.


Adam Johnson (FAIR) and a 'writer' at Salon are among a group of xenophobic and, yes, racist whiners.

They're offended that some news outlets are taking so much blame to Chalabi.

They whine that Bully Boy Bush and Dick Cheney are getting off easy.

Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal and Dick Cheney is so much worse that there's not even a term -- not one we can use in a work safe environment -- that can describe him.

But let's stop being so damn xenophobic.

America is not the great god of the world.

Every thing that happens does not require an American lead or guide.

For Sunnis in Iraq, Chalabi was a bigger obstacle than Bully Boy Bush.

Bully Boy Bush (with aid from Democrats and Republicans in Congress) went to war on Iraq.

Guess what?

The history of Iraq is a history of western countries going to war on it.

Bully Boy Bush is just one in a long parade of ants masking as leaders who tried to destroy Iraq.

He inflicted harm, no question.

But stop pretending that the story begins and ends there.

Chalabi destroyed Iraq and did so in many ways.  Most notoriously, there was his role in de-Ba'athification.  Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) notes:

While the original decision to bar Baathists from senior government positions was an American one, driven by the goal of ensuring that Hussein’s political bloc never returned to power, it was Mr. Chalabi who became its champion and quickly seized the reins as the implementer of the new policy.
“He used it as a political weapon,” said Ryan Crocker, a former United States ambassador to Iraq, who knew Mr. Chalabi from before the invasion as well as afterward.
“I never could figure out if he had the deep anti-Baathist passion of some of the other political figures or whether this was just a tool to be used,” added Mr. Crocker, who is now the dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.

And he used the Justice and Accountability Commission to do further damage.

This included when the supposed-to-have-disbanded commission popped back up ahead of the 2010 parliamentary elections and Ahmed used it to go after Sunni politicians.  One politician he went after was Saleh al-Mutlaq.

al-Mutlaq discussed this with Jassim al-Azzawi on a January broadcast of Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq:

 
 
Jassim al-Azzawi: [Overlapping] Yes, I shall come to the scare tactics and the fear politics that you mention but before that, I guess our international audience would like to know, who stands behind this campaign to disbar more then 500 people?  Some of them such senior figures as yourself. The National Dialogue Front has about 12 members in Parliament.  You've been in politics for many, many years. I guess the logical question is: Who's behind it? It is my role as a presenter and a journalist to ask the tough questions and perhaps it's your role as a politician and even your perogative not to answer.  Let me give you a couple of options and see which one you lean on.  Is it Ahmed Chalabi, the former head of the de-Ba'athification?  Is it Prime Minister [Nouri] al-Maliki fearing that Saleh al-Mutlaq has the wind behind him and one day he might even become the president of Iraq?  Or is it another force? Who is exactly orchestrating this?
 



Saleh al-Mutlaq: Well Ahmed Chalabi could not do what was done alone.  I think there's a power behind that and my belief is that Iran is behind that and Ahmed Chalabi is only a tool -- Ahmed Chalabi agenda is a tool to do this.  And Ahmed Chalabi is not alone. We discovered that Ahmed Chalabi now has an intelligence association in Iraq and he worked with so many people outside the Iraqi government. And what happened really surprised everybody.  The same day that this decision was taken, everybody was saying, "I know nothing about it." You ask al-Maliki, he says, "I know nothing about it." You ask the president [Jalal Talabani], he says he knows nothing about it.  You ask the Chairman of the Parliament, he knows nothing about it. Then who is doing that?  We discover there is a small organization which does not exist legally.  The de-Ba'athification committee has been frozen -- including Ahmed Chalabi himself -- has been frozen by the prime minister and by the president.  And another committee, which is the Accountability, came in but it was not formed because the Parliament did not vote on the names that were being proposed by the prime minister because most of them are from al Dahwa Party [Nouri's party].


 
And in a Inside Iraq broadcast at the end of February 2010, Jasim faced off against a very loud Ahmed:
  
Jasim al-Azawi: And now I'm delighted to welcome from Baghdad, Ahmed Chalabi, chairman of the Accountability and Justice Commission and a candidate of the Iraqi National Alliance for Parliament.  Ahmed Chalabi, welcome to Inside Iraq.  And let me start from the beginning and that is Prime Minister [Nouri] al-Malliki has decided to rescind a recent act issued by your commission.  Lately you have submitted a list of 376 members of the army, the police and the intelligence. They are supposed to be Ba'athists and you are going to remove them. al-Maliki is saying, "Stop it, Ahmed Chalabi. You have no idea the damage you are cuasing."
 

Ahmed Chalabi: The prime minister has no authority on his own to exempt anyone from the decisions of the Justice and Accountability Commission. Article 12 of Law Number 10 from 2008 specifies that the Council of Ministers has the authority to request exemption for anybody who is uh subject to the Justice and Accountability law provided he gets the approval of the Parliament.
 

Jasim al-Azawi: What makes you think that he cannot get the ministers to sanction his authority and more significantly --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: He may get the ministers to sanction his authority but he needs to get Parliament to approve what he does.
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Well since you mentioned Parliament, in that case let me turn the table on you. Parliament has never sanctioned your commission -- the Justice and Accountability -- that bill never went to Parliament and more importantly you and your executive director Mr. Ali al-Lami were never appointed by Parliament so on what authority you are expunging people and banning people?
 
Ahmed Chalabi: On the authority of Law Number 10, Justice and Accountability Law of 2008. This argument has been settled by the uh Appeals Commission of the uhm uh Justice and Accountability that was appointed by Parliament a few weeks ago. In their ruling on the case of Mr. Saleh al-Mutlaq, they said that the Justice and Accountability Commission is valid and is active and is authorized by the law --
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Ahmed Chalabi, you know very well, you know very well,
 
Ahmed Chalabi: -- so therefore this argument does not hold water anymore because the highest court in Iraq has approved the legality of the current commission.
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Ahmed Chalabi, that is -- that is absolutely not right, not true. Parliament has --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: How do you know that!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Because --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: I read you -- I read you the statement!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Before you read me that statement, Parliament has never voted on the Accountability and Justice Commission --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: I will tell you! I will read the statement!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: -- and --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: I will readyyou the statement! It doesn't matter what you say.  It's just an argument to detract from the legality of the commission. It says here that the law, Law Number 10 will only specify that they rename the de-Ba'athification Comission into the Justice and Accountability Commission -- rename. Therefore, this commission is working according to the law and has the legality for the reasons specified above.'  That's the decision of the court.
 
Jasim al-Azawi:  At any rate, we don't want to get into the legal aspect, we will let the viewers to judge -- We will let the viewers and the Iraqis --
 
Ahmed Chalibi: It's not the viewers! It's the Iraqi court!
 
[too much cross talk and too much shouting by Ahmed]
 
Jasim al-Azawi: -- by Parliament, but the federal government has not given it's final verdict yet.
 
[too much cross talk and too much shouting by Ahmed, we'll skip ahead]
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Fine. Let us go to the second gentleman in this commission. I am talking to you but there is somebody behind you, your executive director, Mr. Ali al-Lami.  Just for the viewers to know who Mr. al-Lami is, correct me if the statement and the story I'm going to tell is wrong. This gentleman was released by US forces back in August of 2009 [Ahmed giggles -- giggles is the term, watch and see] under the charges of terrorism.  He was --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: [Waving finger] No charges!
 
Jasim al-Azawi:  He was -- he was released from prison --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: No charges!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: I will come to the story completely, but now let's just say, now he finds --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: He was kidnapped!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: He was captured by the Americans because they think --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: He was kidnapped!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Hold on --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: By contractors at the airpot.
 
Jasim al-Azawi: Hold on, Mr. Chalabi. He was -- he was not charged directly --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: He was not charged.
 
Jasim al-Azawi: I am the first one to say that. Mr. Odierno --
 
Ahmed Chalabi: He was not charged!
 
Jasim al-Azawi: I said that. I said that. Let me finish the story. He was believed to be the mastermind of a terrorist act that happened in al-Sadr City where American forces and civilian administrations along with Iraqi officials, they were meeting with some council members in Sadr City  the American officials they were on the way out there was an IED and there was an explosion and many people killed. Odierno believes that Mr. al-Lami is directly responsible for that.
 
Ahmed Chalabi: This is patent nonsense. There is no charge. They have no evidence. And it is based on an intelligence report of one unreliable informer for the American tactical units in the area. They -- Mr. Lami was not arrested. He was kidnapped at the airport by US contractors, taken to a US prison, put under pressure and almost tortured for 38 days and they could get nothing from him on this issue. They have no evidence. He stayed 351 days in jail. And the Iraqi government has no case, n-n-n-n-n-o authority, no legal entity and no intelligence entity of the Iraqi government, there is any charge against Mr. Ali --- Ali al-Lami.  And the US has not charged him and he was released without charges. Therefore, legally, he was kidnapped. And as for this issue of the uh-buh-uh-uh people who were killed by-by the IED, he had nothing to do with it. I am certain he had nothing to do with it. And this charge has not been proven.

 
In the US press, they note that he supported Shi'ite militias and offer excuses for him.
He didn't just support them from afar.  Ali al-Lami was a militia member.  Actually, he was a terrorist and he died a terrorist's death.

Dina al-Shibeeb's Al Arabiya column is headlined "Iraqi warmonger Ahmad Chalabi dies."
But with all the damage Ahmed did two Americans want to whine that their pin up Bully Boy Bush isn't getting enough attention.

They want to insist that America must be injected into every story ever reported and that the US must always be the lead in any play or the star in any film.

They want to whine that the US is not dominating a narrative about an Iraqi politician (a crooked one) who died in Iraq.


They don't have the good sense to grasp that everything that happens in the world is not about them or their personal likes or dislikes.

Pity the uninformed helpers . . . 
Brian Bomberger (Bay Area Reporter) uses the release of Hasan Namir's novel God in Pink to flaunt his own ignorance:
The plight of gay and lesbian Iraqis has been much in the news in the last five years, mainly because they are at great risk for being killed, having little to no family or community support and no legal rights or government protection. LGBTQ Iraqis are hated by both the Islamic State (ISIS) forces and the pro-government militias, especially the infamous Shiite Asaib Ahl al-Haq, currently engaging in a civil war. This places them in a no-win situation. Among the terrible tortures/deaths inflicted on them: gang rape, beheading (with their heads tossed onto garbage dumps), bludgeoning (i.e., beaten with concrete blocks), stoning, being thrown from the rooftop of high-rise buildings, and the most ghastly of all, having their anuses closed up with a crazy glue-type substance that can only be removed by surgery, then being forced to drink a laxative causing diarrhea resulting in a painful death. Because coming out can be fatal, gay and lesbian Iraqis are virtually publicly invisible, which is why former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his infamous comment years ago that "there are no gays in Iraq."
Who will help the uniformed helpers?
First off, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there were no gays in Iran.  This inspired the Saturday Night Live short "Iran So Far Away" in which Andy Samberg makes a plea for love to Mahmoud.
You're crazy for this one Mahmoud
you can deny the holocaust all you want 
but you can't deny that there's something between us
I know you say there's no gays in Iran
but you're in New York now, baby
it's time to stop hiding
and start living
-- "Iran So Far Away," written by Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone and Akiva Schaffer (The Lonely Island), first aired on Saturday Night Live's September 29, 2007 broadcast
Iran.
Iran so far away. 
Check it out if you have to -- it was Iran, not Iraq.  
Iran.
Then there's this: LGBTQ Iraqis are hated by both the Islamic State (ISIS) forces and the pro-government militias, especially the infamous Shiite Asaib Ahl al-Haq, currently engaging in a civil war.
Islamic State, huh?
They've tossed suspected gay men to their deaths off tall buildings, yes.
But this list?
This: 
Among the terrible tortures/deaths inflicted on them: gang rape, beheading (with their heads tossed onto garbage dumps), bludgeoning (i.e., beaten with concrete blocks), stoning, being thrown from the rooftop of high-rise buildings, and the most ghastly of all, having their anuses closed up with a crazy glue-type substance that can only be removed by surgery, then being forced to drink a laxative causing diarrhea resulting in a painful death. 
Gang rape, beheading, bludgeoning, stoning, anuses glued shut?
This was Shi'ites.
And it really isn't fair to say it was Shi'ite militias.
It was the government.
The government of Iraq.
Specifically, it was the Minister of the Interior -- which Nouri al-Maliki was in charge of.
As prime minister, he refused (in his second term) to nominate anyone to head it.  This allowed him to bypass Parliamentary approval and control the ministry himself.
Which allowed him to send Interior employees -- including police -- into Iraqi schools to encourage the harm and deaths of gay people.
Now, of course, when questions were asked, the Ministry of Interior denied these visits.
But then Alsumaria and Al Mada got a hold of the handouts the Ministry had provided to the students.  They called for the death of gays.  They carried lies about gays and encouraged people to 'purge' them from Iraq.

As noted this morning in "The media: Still selling war on Iraq all these years later," certain elements of the US press are suddenly interested in activities if they can express outrage over the Islamic State.  But they have little to no outrage over the crimes of the Iraqi government.


And we'll close with this Tweet on violence . . .





  •   

    Tuesday, November 03, 2015

    Who would I support for president?

    That's the question in an e-mail from somebody who bills herself "Jane The Non-Virgin."

    The honest truth is: No one.

    Not right now.

    I mean of those running, Martin O'Malley looks the most interesting but the press doesn't care about him so he probably doesn't stand a shot.

    Otherwise?

    No one.

    If Cynthia McKinney jumped into the race, okay, I'd support her.

    If that Kat from Texas of the Green Party, I forget her last name, ran for the Green Party nomination, I'd support her.  I think she has energy and motivation and a lot to offer and would use the nomination to increase Green Party turnout.

    Otherwise, no one excites me.

    Sorry.




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


    Monday, November 3, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the US government continues bombing Iraq, the United Nations releases their monthly death toll for Iraq, Parliament turns on Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and much more.





    US President Barack Obama continues to bomb Iraq to 'liberate' it.  The US Defense Dept announced the following strikes today:


    Airstrikes in Iraq

    Attack, bomber, fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Beiji, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Habbaniyah, one strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL tactical vehicle.

    -- Near Kisik, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Makhmur, one strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns, three ISIL fighting positions, and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

    -- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, and destroyed two ISIL tactical vehicles, an ISIL vehicle bomb, two ISIL command and control nodes, four ISIL buildings, two ISIL fighting positions, and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Sinjar, five strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL weapons cache, and two ISIL fighting positions.


    -- Near Tal Afar, one strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position.




    The Defense Dept always alleges that all bombs landed on the Islamic State.  That's only sometimes the truth.

    But read the above and grasp (a) the Iraq War is never ending and (b) a couple of hundred thousand were spent by US taxpayers for the Tal Afar strike alone and all it can really claim is that it "destroyed an ISIL vehicle."


    Saturday saw the end of October which means it's time for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq to release their monthly totals:


    Baghdad, 1 November 2015 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 714 Iraqis were killed and another 1,269 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in October 2015*.


    The number of civilians killed was 559 (including 25 civilian police), and the number of civilians injured was 1,067 (including 43 civilian police).
    A further 155 members of the Iraqi Security Forces (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army / Not including casualties from Anbar Operations) were killed and 202 were injured.
    “Once again, these figures illustrate the suffering of the people of Iraq from terrorism and conflict,” the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Ján KubiÅ¡ said. “I am hopeful that the this suffering of the Iraqi people will come to an end with the support of the international community,” he added.
    Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,150 civilian casualties (298 killed, 852 injured). Diyala suffered 92 killed and 141 injured, Ninewa 86 killed, Salahadin 28 killed and 40 injured, and Kirkuk 39 killed and 7 injured.
    *CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas. UNAMI could not obtain the casualty figures for the month of October from the Anbar Health Directorate. In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents. UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care. For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.


    Like the war itself, the monthly death tolls never end.


    Maybe some are confused by this?


    It can be confusing keeping track of Barack's many wars.  To avoid any confusion, we'll include Bill Press (The Hill) explaining the basics:


    Sending the first ground forces into Syria comes on top of June’s decision to dispatch an additional 450 troops to Iraq, for a total of 3,500, and last month’s announcement that American troops would remain in Afghanistan through the end of 2017. 
    That makes three wars at one time under Obama’s administration: a rekindled war in Iraq, an extended war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Syria, with no end in sight. In fact, it’s looking more and more like Syria could become Obama’s Vietnam. 


    Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) added to the list, " In addition to the wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the U.S. continues to carry out drone strikes across the globe, from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia."


    On Democracy Now!, Phyllis Bennis addressed the fact that the announcement of increased US troop participation (announced Friday) from the White House came not from the president but from the White House spokesperson.



    AMY GOODMAN: And then, the announcement of the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Syria, and would continue to do this in Iraq and Afghanistan, came in an almost offhand way. It wasn’t the president making a formal announcement on Friday; it was Josh Earnest, the press secretary. And before that, it was Ash Carter in a hearing in the Senate, almost a offhand comment.


    PHYLLIS BENNIS: Right. I think that what we’re seeing here is an effort—we heard it in the words of Josh Earnest, that—an effort to claim this is not an escalation. It is clearly an escalation. Now, it may well be that there have been special operations forces, CIA agents and others on the ground in Syria already. We can assume that’s the case, given that the priority of U.S. strategy has involved training and arming various militias, some of which never existed, and then they tried to create a new militia that would be pro-Western, pro-American, democratic, secular, anti-Assad, but not too much because it mainly should be anti-ISIS—very specific categories. They couldn’t really find exactly those militias, so last year they decided to create such a militia, train it, arm it, send it in to fight. And as we know, the result of that was the $500 million—half a billion dollars of our tax money—that went to arm and create a militia that was supposed to be 5,400 people, started with only 120, because that’s all they could find. They trained them, sent them in to fight. Half of them immediately defected. The other half—well, 54—who went to fight, very quickly were either captured, defected, killed, so that when the officials testified in Congress and were asked, "So, how many are left?" the general said, "Well, it’s a very tiny number." And when pushed, he admitted it was four or five—not four or five hundred, but four or five. So this is the kind of failure that we’re seeing in these efforts. I think what we saw with the language used by the White House spokesman, by the secretary of defense, was designed to say, "This is just more of the same. This isn’t different, even though we’re now acknowledging that there are boots on the ground." Maybe it’s because they wear sneakers, because they’re special forces, so it’s sneakers on the ground. But the key question here is, this is an escalation.



    Also weighing in on the announcement -- and Barack avoiding making it -- is Aaron MacLean (Washington Free Beacon):

    But as cynical as most of us have become about the national security policy of this White House, it did nevertheless seem jarring that rather than announce the deployment himself, the president left the task to the Pentagon and to the ironically named Josh Earnest. The White House spokesman certainly earned his paycheck on Friday, explaining to a skeptical press corps how Barack Obama sending American troops to Syria (!) was no big deal, and achieving Thomistic levels of nuance in his insistence that “combat” is completely different from a “combat mission.”

    Iraq's facing more than violence, of course.  There is the political instability.  Today, it's even effected US puppet Haider al-Abadi.

    Ahmed Rasheed, Michael Gregory and Mark Heinrich (Reuters) report that the Parliament has put the brakes on the Iraq prime minister's reforms or 'reforms.'

    How so?

    They've voted to prevent him from unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) implementing reforms.

    And they did so, Matt Bradley and Safa Majeed (Wall Street Journal) report, in a "unanimous vote."


    As anyone who's paid attention to Iraq in the last years should grasp, that means the end of Haider's reforms or 'reforms.'

    Parliamentary approval will be hard to come by -- as it has been since 2006.

    Back in June 2014, US President Barack Obama began pressing for Iraq to create a national guard.  And to this day, that proposal remains blocked in Parliament.

    That is but one example.

    The Iraqi Group for Stategic Studies' Wathiq al-Hashimi tells Reuters he believes the next move could be a vote of no-confidence.  State of Law MP Hussein al-Maliki tells the Wall Street Journal, "What happened today was like an alarm for withdrawing confidence from the prime minister and the cabinet.  We are all with the reforms, but these should be within the constitution and shouldn't exceed the constitution or overlap with parliamentary authority."

    Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki created the State of Law coalition and remains its leader.  It's become a given among his insiders that Nouri wants to return to the post of prime minister.


    AFP observes, "A dispute between parliament and Abadi could further hinder reform efforts by the premier, who has already struggled to effect signficant or lasting changes."  MWC News adds:

    Saad Jawad, a professor of political science and a senior fellow at the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics, said Abadi had failed since August to take constructive measures to enforce the reforms in time.
    "Unfortunately, he did not take advantage the support the Iraqis gave to him. He kept on speaking without taking measures. This is his problem," said Jawad. "Gradually, his enemies started to undermine his move."
    When Haider still had power, the US government failed to press him to work on the political solution.

    That's the only thing that will defeat the Islamic State.


    But Haider can't find or broker political solutions -- can't or won't -- and he can't even protect the Iraqi people from cholera.




    James Cullum (Talk Radio News Service) explains, "The World Health Organization has mobilized over a half million doses of cholera vaccine (OCV) to counter an outbreak in war-ravaged Iraq. The inoculation effort, now in the preparation stage, will target 250,000 displaced persons to spreading over 62 refugee camps."







  • The US government might have raised some good will by focusing some aid on addressing the cholera epidemic.  Then again, after their use of immunizations as a cover in Pakistan, the US government leading on antidotes and immunizations probably would have been immediately suspect.




    Sunday, the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted the following:






  • Returned to for consults in , , , as multiple offensives launch against terrorists in & .




  • It was pretty straightforward but it produced the only question about Iraq in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau.


    QUESTION: Iraq?

    MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

    QUESTION: Brett McGurk tweeted that he is now in Iraq or he would be in Iraq shortly. He mentioned three cities where he will be meeting, two of them Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Baghdad. So can you talk about the meeting that he would have in Sulaymaniyah and Erbil? Anything that you have to share with us?


    MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to preview his meetings. But we’ll see if we can get you a readout, perhaps, after.


    QUESTION: Is it related to the Kurdish presidency crisis?




    MS TRUDEAU: Again, that’s a good effort. I’m not going to preview his meetings. If there’s anything to read out afterwards, we’ll get back to you on that.






    While she won't talk, the world can't stop talking about global train wreck Tony Blair.  Yes, it's another week of headlines for the walking, talking tabloid scandal Blair.

    The disgraced former prime minister of the United Kingdom remains a War Criminal at large.

    Some, however, see the knoose tightening.

    Those who feel Blair will soon be arrested will no doubt feel even more that way with the latest allegations.


    Ben Riley-Smith (Telegraph of London) reports:

    Ministers in Tony Blair’s government were told to “burn” a private document warning that the Iraq War was illegal, it has been claimed. 
    A 13-page legal note from Lord Goldsmith, then-attorney general, produced in the run-up to war suggested it could be challenged under international law.
    However senior figures were told “burn” and “destroy” the document after it was circulated, according to the Mail on Sunday.  


    BBC News notes Blair's spokesperson dismisses the reports as "nonsense."


    The latest scandal comes as the world is still rejecting Blair's non-apology last week.

    Pakistan's News International offers a typical reaction in a letter to the editor from Masood Khan:

    Millions of people dead, injured or displaced, a country devastated for ages – and you just say, ‘sorry’? What if this were the other way around – Iraqi forces invading and occupying Britain and America and later saying: sorry. But as Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has very correctly spotted, ‘Blair’s spin operation’ had swung into action as Sir John Chilcot prepares to publish the long-awaited enquiry report into the Iraq war. One thing is for sure, it is the Chilcot report that forced Tony Blair to spill a few beans of truth, otherwise till the recent past he was the only person on this globe to defend the invasion. I am sure a war crime tribunal can get far more facts from the people who planted, planned and executed the invasion in a systematic way and then forgot to put the genie of sectarianism back in the bottle.



    The faux apology didn't take.  And now he's facing even more public criticism.  He should get used to it.  This is the lot for War Criminals.



    New content went up at Third:












    iraq

    Sunday, November 01, 2015

    2016 album I'm looking forward to?

    ECHO IN THE CANYON.

    I'm assuming that will be the title.

    It's Jakob Dylan performing 60s folk-rock classics by the Mamas and the Papas, the Turtles and others.  He'll be performing with Cat Power, Regina Spektor, Fiona Apple, Beck and others.

    There was an October 12 concert that was kind of the preview of what the album is supposed to be.

    I'm looking forward to it.

    In terms of the rest of the year?

    I want to hear Natalie Merchant's new album (out next week).

    And I'll be Carly Simon's latest collection when it comes out this month.




      Click here for Amazon pre-order -- it gets released November 20th.

    The same day as her memoir.




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


    Saturday, October 31, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Cult of St. Barack plays cat-got-their-tongue while Obama ramps up more war, Amnesty International calls out the attack on the Ashraf community at Camp Liberty, and much more.




    The silence is deafening.


    More war is declared and the so-called leaders of what was once a peace movement are playing duck-and-cover to avoid standing up.



    The New York Daily News declares, "Mark another awkward milestone in President Obama’s foreign policy: The United States of America has kind of, sort of backed into combat operations in Syria and Iraq."  Trevor Timm (Guardian) goes further:


    In 2012, Obama unequivocally said he would end the war in Afghanistan, and chided Mitt Romney the Republican nominee for not promising that. In 2013, Obama said: “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.” In 2014, Obama said: “We will not be sending US troops back into combat in Iraq”. At this point, all of those promises have been completely broken.
    Worse, the Obama administration has effectively removed the democratic process (and Congress) from any decision making on whether to go to war. We now have ground troops inside Syria without any sort of legal authorization from Congress. Obama explicitly campaigned in 2012 on ending the Afghanistan war, which he has now extended beyond his term. The Obama administration also went into Libya and removed Muammar Gaddafi, despite the House voting against it beforehand. 




    The war against the Islamic State is morphing yet again despite Operation Inherent Failure's lack of measurable success.  Bill van Auken (WSWS) reminds:

    When ISIS headed eastward from Syria and overran roughly a third of Iraq, including its third-largest city, Mosul, the Obama administration launched its direct intervention in both countries, conducting air strikes and redeploying some 3,500 US troops to Iraq. Now the intervention has morphed into a war against ISIS dubbed “Operation Inherent Resolve.”
    More than a year after that “war” was launched, the grip of ISIS over large swathes of both Iraq and Syria remains virtually unchanged. The desultory character of the US campaign is explicable only from the standpoint that Washington has no desire to destroy the Islamist militia, which it still counts as one of the main fighting forces in the war for regime change, which remains the principal US objective.




    The White House announced troops would be sent into Syria.


    Repeating, the White House announced troops would be sent into Syria.


    Barack declared,  "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."

    But, too bad, that was September 10, 2013.

    So many broken promises.



    And all those promises
    that you made me from the start
    were filled with emptiness
    from the desert of your heart
    Every sweet caress
    was just your second best
    Broken promises


    Baby, I'm amazed
    at how long I still believed
    How many lies it takes
    before someone like me sees
    All the tears you cried
    They never could deny
    that you made love a lie
    All those tears you cried
    They never could deny
    that you made love a lie

    -- "All Those Promises," written by Janis Ian, first appears on her album Folk Is The New Black



    It's as though Janis composed the theme song for the deprogrammed members of The Cult of St. Barack.


    Dan Roberts (Guardian) explains the pretzel 'logic' liars now find themselves in:


    Administration officials were left squirming on Friday to explain how sending special forces to work alongside Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State was compatible with Obama’s earlier promises not to “put boots on the ground” in Syria or “engage in combat operations” against Isis.
    White House spokesman Josh Earnest claimed there was still a difference of “night and day” compared with the Bush administration’s invasions, but in the space of a few short weeks a central promise of Obama’s presidential campaign has been undermined: first by conceding that he will not meet his pledge of removing troops from Afghanistan before he leaves office and now by acknowledging a long-term ground presence is necessary not just in Iraq, but Syria too.
    Earnest would not say whether the deployments were permanent or would be bolstered, insisting: “I don’t want to try to predict the future here.”

    Yet arguably that was exactly what Obama claimed he could do when he ran for office promising to bring US troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.



    In light of all this, all the broken promises, all the wars, Tom Hayden Tweeted:





  • Hillary will gain presidential stature


  • Oh, that wasn't in response to that.


    The old drunk couldn't Tweet in response to the White House plans because he's never had the spine to stand up to anyone.  He's just an ugly gigolo who took his second wife for all the millions he could -- despite his non-stop cheating -- and now bills himself as the "leader of sixties peace, justice and environmental movement."


    That's hilarious.

    His colleague Katrina vanden Heuvel also couldn't call out Barack.

    What of 'brave' Ruth Conniff, the editor of The Progressive?

    The woman, the trash, that once bragged on KPFA's The Morning Show that no one she knew had been touched by the Iraq War managed to Tweet or re-Tweet 37 times during the CNBC GOP presidential aspirants debate but on Iraq and Syria on Friday or even today . . .


    That's right, boys and girls, zero.

    Zilch.

    Nada.


    Remember: No one she knows was touched by the Iraq War.

    Jill Stein's a liar.  She's a lot of things but mainly she's a liar.   October saw Amy Goodman again announce Jill's appearance in the NYC studio of Democracy Now -- with Goodman hailing her as the Green Party's 2016 nominee.

    For Jill's failure to correct that -- repeatedly, she's failed with every media outlet -- the Green Party should select someone else . . . when they pick a presidential candidate in August 2016.

    Jill Stein is a liar.

    She's not the Green Party's presidential candidate.

    Goody Whore and her ilk get so upset when the press does something like this -- the real press, not the beggar media crying "send money!" -- but they have no ethics themselves.

    Nor does Jill.

    When she started campaigning for the nomination (2016 nomination) we noted her silence on Iraq here and that prompted her to pretend she cared.

    But we were right: She doesn't.

    And if you doubt it grasp that she's been Tweeting but has nothing to say about Iraq or Syria.

    This is an alternative to Democratic Party candidates?


    The person who should be the nominee noted:




  • Frustrated with the treatment of events in Syria? Listen to CPR News that really needs your support!




  • Cynthia may run for the Green Party's 2016 presidential nomination.


    Until then, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only candidate running for a political party's presidential nomination who is issuing any sort of statement on the White House's plans:


    DERRY, N.H. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday expressed concern about President Barack Obama’s decision to dispatch U.S. special operations forces to Syria to help battle the Islamic State, a spokesman said.
    “Sen. Sanders expressed concern about the United States being drawn into the quagmire of the Syrian civil war which could lead to perpetual warfare in that region,” spokesman Michael Briggs said. “The senator believes that the crisis in Syria will be solved diplomatically, not militarily.”

    Sanders also expressed strong support for the effort by Secretary of State John Kerry to bring Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other nations into discussions on how to end the bloody civil war, his spokesman added.



    For those wondering, I checked Senator Rand Paul's campaign site as well as his Twitter feed -- nothing.

    And I checked Jim Webb's Twitter and site.  He can hint that he's considering a third party run (after failing to take off among Democratic Party voters), he just can't weigh in on Iraq and/or Syria.


    To be clear, Donald Trump (running for the GOP's presidential nomination) had something to say on the matter -- but like CNN, I can't make sense of it.


    Though they have nothing to say about Iraq, CodePink, to their credit, did rebuke the Syrian part of the plan:


    CODEPINK condemns the decision by the Obama Administration to send US special forces into Syria.
    By CODEPINK Staff
    CODEPINK condemns the decision by the Obama Administration on Friday, October 30, to send special forces into Kurdish-held areas of Syria.
    This decision by the administration moves the United States away from pursuing a political solution and instead follows a failed pattern of using short-term military tactics to address conflicts in the Middle East. We know that "special forces" means putting boots on the ground, something Obama promised in 2013 he wouldn't do in Syria, and puts more American lives at risk. 
    Alternatives exist to increasing United States' military involvement in the region, which, for over a decade, has delivered death, destruction, and increased extremism including the rise of ISIL . Instead, the U.S. government CAN:
    Diplomacy works. Military “solutions” create more problems and tragedies.





    And US House Rep Adam Schiff had something to say:



      1. My statement on Obama Administration's decision to send U.S. special operations forces into Syria to fight .
        Embedded image permalink



    CNN notes that Barack is getting criticism from both Democrats and Republicans over his latest move:

    And both parties called for the administration to sketch out a more detailed strategy for taking on ISIS, also called ISIL.
    "This commitment of U.S. forces must come with a coherent strategy to defeat ISIL. Otherwise, we are likely to see the same results in the region," newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement Friday. "I look forward to reviewing the details of this announcement."
    Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and once Obama's handpicked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, urged the administration "to detail to the America people a comprehensive strategy to bring both the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, which are metastasizing around the globe, to a peaceful end."




    Though he couldn't respond to calls for clarification, Barack did make a call to Haider al-Abadi on Friday.  The White House announced:


    President Obama today spoke by phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi to discuss the political and security situation in Iraq and underscore the United States' enduring support for Iraq in its fight against ISIL.  The President commended the recent progress that Iraqi forces have made against ISIL in Bayji and welcomed the ongoing campaign to isolate ISIL in Ramadi, noting that the United States in partnership with the Iraqi Government will intensify support for the Iraqi Security Forces in these efforts.  The President also voiced support for Prime Minister al-Abadi's leadership in his efforts to combat corruption and implement governance reforms critical to promoting Iraq's political stability and economic prosperity.  The two leaders noted their full support for the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, emphasizing that both the United States and Iraq are fully committed to partnering with the international community to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.  They also reaffirmed their commitment to the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq.


    If you missed it, with former prime minister and forever thug Nouri attempting to use the Iraqi Parliament to unseat Haider, al-Abadi's openly fleeing Russia for the warm hug from Barack that might, if he's lucky, quell the rebellion he's facing from a growing number of Shi'ite law makers.



    Lastly, Amnesty International issued a statement on this week's attack on Camp Liberty:


    A rocket attack on a camp of Iranian exiles in Iraq is a despicable and callous crime, Amnesty International said as it called for an immediate investigation, urgent protection and assistance for the camp’s residents.
    Camp Liberty, in north-east Baghdad, was struck by a barrage of rockets last night, which killed at least 23 people, including one woman, and injured dozens. An Iraqi Shi’a militia, the al-Mukhtar Army, claimed responsibility for the attack and warned that the attack may be repeated.
    The camp is home to around 2,250 unarmed Iranian exiles, mostly members and supporters of the Iranian opposition group, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). 
    “This was a horrific act of violence against the residents of Camp Liberty, which cannot simply be ignored by the Iraqi authorities. They must ensure a prompt, independent and effective investigation into this attack and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice,” said Said Boumedouha, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. 
    “Their utter failure to investigate previous deadly attacks against the camp sends the message that its residents can be murdered with impunity.”
    Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International that the attack started around 7.40pm local time as camp residents were gathering for dinner. Twenty people were killed instantly while another three later died from injuries in a Baghdad hospital.
    Residents said around 80 rockets hit the camp, which they identified as Iranian built Falaq Katyusha rockets, though Iraqi media reported that between 12 and 38 rockets were fired.
    The attack caused widespread destruction as it hit the camp’s electricity generators while hundreds of residents have been left homeless after at least 200 trailers were destroyed. The Iraqi government has yet to make a statement on the events, but other governments as well as the UN Refugee Agency – which considers Camp Liberty residents “people of concern” – have condemned the attack.
    “The Iraqi authorities’ silence about the killing of 23 people is inexcusable. They are manifestly failing in their duty under international law to protect everyone in the camp, many of whom are asylum-seekers. On top of the loss of life, the destruction caused by the attack has left many residents facing desperate conditions,” said Said Boumedouha.
    “The government must urgently ensure that electricity and water are restored, and that those whose homes have been destroyed are provided with adequate temporary shelter without delay.”
    Background
    All the exiles living in Camp Liberty had lived in Camp Ashraf since the mid-1980s. After the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq the camp and its residents were placed under US protection but this ended in mid-2009 following an agreement between the US authorities and the Iraqi government.
    Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten.
    In 2011 the Iraqi government announced the closure of Camp Ashraf after relocating its residents to Camp Liberty in the north-east of Baghdad.
    According to a December 2011 memorandum of understanding between the UN and the government of Iraq, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) may process requests for international protection from residents of the camps. Those residents who apply for international protection are asylum-seekers under international law.
    The government failed to investigate previous attacks on Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, and no one has ever been brought to account. In fact, senior Iraqi government officials have in the past made it clear that the camp residents were not welcomed in Iraq. 






    iraq
    bill van auken