Monday, January 21, 2019

The real MLK

This is very important.


Killed by the for uniting anti-, anti- and civil rights movements.



C.I. has a friend that we speak to when we're in NYC.  She's a Columbia professor.  And she's always got amazing stories.  So the one that pertains to today is her students often don't realize that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. faced the wrath of the US government.  They understand that he was attacked with racism and sometimes they tie that to some racists in government; however, they are not clear about how the US government actively worked to destroy Dr. King.



  1. (From 2017) FBI ‘Honors’ Martin Luther King Jr., 50 Years After Plotting to ‘Neutralize’ Him While US government institutions now whitewash MLK for PR, the FBI plotted to “neutralize” him, blackmailing him, attacking him as a “filthy, abnormal animal.”




The FBI was not a friend.  And it wasn't a 'few bad apples' in the FBI.  Their stated intent was to destroy Dr. King.  They even sent a letter to him urging him to kill himself.



  1. The unredacted version of the famous “suicide letter” the FBI sent to Dr. Martin Luther King. ⁠ ⁠



MLK was a hero.  What the MSM makes him out to be is a Disney-fication of who he was and what he stood for. 



  • It remains an imperative to colonize the meaning of Dr. King. The focus is not King that declared U.S. the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, Instead, it is the “dreamer” of 1963 that state propagandists project as the government-approved King.
  • So much has been written on Dr. King already I don't feel compelled to write anything new. I am glad though that many have moved away from the obscene position that there was any connection between Dr. King & Obama. A theme I wrote about a few years ago:
  • Would Dr. King oppose NATO? That is the question asked by the Black Alliance for Peace on this birthday weekend of Martin Luther King, Jr. The Alliance explains why Dr. King would speak out against NATO if he were alive today:
  • In the sanitized version of Dr. King, a King separated from movement that produced him not the only way around, remember King's late but important opposition to war and militarism. Also remember, or understand, that when he can out against the war liberals turned against him.




  • He was targeted and he was targeted because he took on war and because he took on corruption. 


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


    Monday, January 21, 2019.  The illegal war hits the 16 year mark in March and the same problems continue to plague Iraq: corruption, inability to resolve the issue of disputed territories, inability to stop attacking protesters, inability to form a Cabinet . . .


    Basra, where protests have been taking place since July over the lack of jobs, the government corruption, the lack of potable water (at least 150,000 people have been hospitalized for drinking the water per Iraqi government figures) and, more recently, the call to release the protesters the government keeps arresting.  Glada Lahn and Nouar Shamout (Chatham House) wade into the issue:

    In spite of the region’s oil wealth and foreign investment, many water treatment plants that should be producing potable water were not built (or upgraded) to deal with the high salt levels. This, together with the poor management of upstream urban sewage, agricultural and industrial effluents that end up in the river, was responsible for this summer’s contamination. There is an ongoing legal investigation into why 13 desalination plants provided by donor countries during the reconstruction have not been working since their completion in 2006.
    But this is also a problem that crosses national boundaries. Al-Basra governorate is wedged between Iran and Kuwait, with its Shatt Al-Arab River leading to out into the Persian Gulf. Turkey, Syria and Iraq contribute through the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, both of which join to form the Shatt Al-Arab at Al Qurnah. About 71 per cent of the flow comes from the Tigris and the Euphrates, the remainder from the Iranian rivers Karkheh and Karun (opens in new window). Basra city, the economic capital of Iraq, and its suburbs are heavily dependent on Shatt Al-Arab River to meet demands for water. 
    Historically, Basra city was famous for its date palms, fruits and vegetables. But this has changed as, with few agreements and no real governance of transboundary water, downstream flow has declined dramatically. 
    Turkey, Syria, Iran and northern Iraq have over the last 40 years erected 56 large dams, including many for hydroelectric power, along the Tigris and Euphrates basins, and enlarged agricultural (mainly flood) irrigation. The Euphrates River has lost more than 40 per cent of its flow since 1972.
    Meanwhile, population in the region has increased almost eightfold to 130 million over the last century, with rising demand for fresh water. And climate change is increasing evaporation in summer.



    Basra's a very serious issue and has been for months now.  Finally, the prime minister. Adil Abdul Mahdi, decided to visit yesterday.

    Iraqi PM visited oil rich, protest ridden, service & infrastructure poor for the first time since becoming PM on October 2, 2018. wants to become autonomous region like Region of Iraq ().
     
     




    How did the visit go?



    Also, the Iraqi PM Adel AbdulMehdi during his visit to city checked a hospital inside the city via cellphone flashlights, as the electricity inside the hospital has been unstable for ages.
     
     




    That about says it all.

    Saturday, protesters threw rocks at the police leading AP, ANTIWAR.COM and others to suddenly offer headlines of "violence."  Last week, a protester was shot in the back by police but there were no headlines of "violence."  "Violence," apparently, only takes place when the corrupt police are hit with rocks, not when they fire bullets at protesters.  This was at least the fifth time in the last few weeks that police have fired on protesters.  But, hey, that's not violence.  Throw a few rocks at the police and that's suddenly "violence."  From Saturday:


    What were the protesters protesting on Friday?

    The same things that they have been protesting all along with one addition.

    They had a new call but you won't find that in any US press -- not even the 'independent' press.


    From PARS TODAY:


    Neben dem Ruf nach Beendigung der desolaten Wirtschaftslage in ihrer Stadt forderte die Demonstranten auch die Freilassung aller Demonstranten, die vor einigen Tagen bei Protesten in der Region "Ezzadin Salim" festgenommen worden sind.



    The new demand is a call for the release of the protesters who were arrested earlier this week.


    The same US outlets that ignore that demand ignored the arrest of the protesters earlier this week.  From the January 15th snapshot:


    ALSUMARIA reports Basra Operations Command announced yesterday that they will be releasing protesters . . . shortly.  They insist that this is for the "protection" of the activists.  These protesters were demonstrating yesterday.  And "protection" included, apparently, also shooting one protester in the back.  That's at least the fourth time in recent weeks that Basra Operations Command have used "live ammo" on activists.   The third time was this past Friday.



    The Chatham House report, noted at the top of the snapshot, concludes:

    A recent fact-finding mission to Basra by the Norwegian Refugee Council recommends that donor governments support the development of a framework that supports more equitable water sharing. It is in the interests of those who share the rivers to work on it together as an urgent diplomatic necessity. Cleaning up and enabling ecological regeneration will take a comprehensive effort and integrated action plan involving all the states concerned.


    That is hilarious.  Will they also support resolving the issue of Kirkuk?

    Remember that?  They were going to help there.  Nothing happened.  It's written into the 2005 Constitution, Article 140, that the issue of who controls Kirkuk -- the central government out of Baghdad or the Kurdistan Regional Government -- would be decides by a referendum to be held no later than the end of 2007.

    That referendum never got held.

    Despite the Rand Corporation noting it was a fault-line that had to be addressed.  Despite US forces having to repeatedly mediate over the issue.  It's now 2019 and the issue is still not resolved.


    Last month, the International Crisis Group offered:


    What’s new? Following parliamentary and regional elections this year, Baghdad and Erbil are forming new governments. This presents a fresh opportunity to settle longstanding disputes between them. One of their principal disputes concerns the status of disputed territories, so defined in the Iraqi constitution.
    Why does it matter? In response to a Kurdish independence referendum in 2017, Iraqi forces re-took disputed territories from Kurdish parties’ control. This event shows that the conflict over Kirkuk and its oil fields remains explosive and could reignite without efforts to resolve it.

    What should be done? The UN should revive its stillborn mediation effort of a decade ago and work with regional and international partners to bring the two sides to the table and settle the issues dividing them. In particular, it should work to reach a permanent deal on the disputed territories.


    The International Crisis Group maintains:

      In assuming this task, the incoming UNAMI chief, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, should start by testing the political waters, increasing staff dedicated to the issue and developing a strategy for addressing it. In the meantime, the UN should help defuse the fallout between Baghdad and Erbil from the independence referendum, when the federal government and Iran took punitive measures against the Kurdish region by banning international flights and blocking Kirkuk oil from flowing through the Kurdish pipeline to Turkey. The government has reversed some of these measures, but talks on remaining ones are ongoing and the UN can shepherd them to a successful conclusion. Next, UNAMI should start negotiations focusing on “low-hanging fruit”, such as joint security mechanisms in the disputed territories that would prevent ISIS from exploiting security gaps between contending military actors. Ultimately, UNAMI should focus the two sides on the big questions: revenue sharing (not discussed in this report) and the status of the disputed territories.

    The alternative is letting the issue linger and hoping that it does not turn violent again. Yet the Kurdish aspiration to incorporate the disputed territories into the Kurdish region is undiminished, as is Baghdad’s determination not to give them up. Another violent spasm is just a matter of time, as predictable as the swing of a pendulum. Negotiating a political settlement is a sensible move now that the local and international environments are both conducive to a new UN-led initiative.


    It's interesting how the 'answer' is always to hold more talks and then decide what to do.  The 2005 Constitution was agreed to and signed off on.  Article 140 makes clear how the issue is to be resolved.  Apparently, allowing the Iraqi people themselves to settle it is not a move favored by the 'great thinkers' floating on clouds above the actual issue.

    Iraq has had the most inept governance since the US-led invasion.  Puppets are installed  and then kept in power with the hopes that they will deliver US aims.  We reviewed this in Friday's snapshot when we covered the newly released military reports "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006" and "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War — Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011." From the second volume:


    When it came to Maliki’s commitment to stand up to JAM and mitigate its overtly sectarian agenda, the President voiced similar doubts, finding it ironic that the Iraqi Prime Minister seemed to be the principal “roadblock” to a renewed U.S. effort to stabi- lize the country. “How do we give [Maliki] responsibility without causing a disaster?” Bush asked. When Casey mentioned that Maliki “lacked political will,” the President responded, “One option is to find someone else.” In its discussion the following day, the group revisited the possibility of replacing the Prime Minister. Abizaid observed that he had “yet to see Maliki show backbone on anything” and thus saw danger in basing the “new way forward” on the Iraqi leader’s political will. Bush reiterated his desire for something “dramatic” or “game-changing.” The “new way forward”—whatever form it took—would have to “put us in a position where we can win.” He again suggested that it might be “time to choose somebody else,” but Khalilzad and the secretary of state con- vinced him that positioning Maliki for success was the more prudent course. 


    Puppets.  And that's what they based their 'strategy' on.  They would put a puppet in place and the puppet would deliver.  The puppet never delivered.  Some 'strategy.'

    And the latest puppet?  A complete failure.  Abdil Abdul Mahdi.  Made prime minister in October.  Remember that?  How do you move from prime minister-designate to prime minister?  Per the Constitution, you form a Cabient.  That is your test.  Your only test.  But Mahdi couldn't form a Cabinet in October.  They went ahead and moved him over anyway.

    Remember?

    ’s New Prime Minister Forms Government Five Months After Election - WSJ -Parliament approved 14 of 22 ministers nominated by Prime Minister Adel but several key posts including Interior and Defense are yet to be agreed upon ..
     
     




    Guess what?

    All these months later, there is still no Minister of the Interior (over Iraq's security forces) or Minister of Defense (over Iraq's military forces).

    All these months later.

    It gets worse.

    Parliamentary sources reported that the completion of Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi's cabinet will likely be delayed until the next legislative term in the spring due to continued disagreements between the two major blocs in .
     
     



    The only test for someone named prime minister designate is to form the Cabinet.  Forming the Cabinet is supposed to demonstrate that you can govern, you can get votes, you can work with others.

    Mahdi has failed.  Repeatedly.  And now he's being given time to wait until spring?

    Remember back in November when he threatened to quit?  He should be confronted with that and asked, "When?"

    He is a failure and the western press looks the other way and treats him with kid gloves.  Why?  Because US government policy for Iraq remains to focus on personalities and not results.  Prop up the person and the person will deliver.  Only it hasn't happened.  Not once.


    Jane Arraf did not the report in a series of Tweet and even that Nouri could be replaced.

    Insights from the US Army's extraordinary new history of the war - 'a war that is not over yet' based on declassified documents: In 2006 run-up to military surge US commanders considered trying to replace PM .
     
     



    Of course, she leaves it at "US commanders" -- when they are noted in the second volume but the highest person floating replacing Nouri in that report is Bully Boy Bush who occupied the White House at that time.

    She Tweeted the following as well:


    Analysis says Maliki's sectarianism, authoritarianism later increased as US presence decreased. Post 2011 US withdrawal, 'his actions hollowed out the Iraqi security forces', pushed some Sunnis to rejoin extremists Says Maliki's decisions benefited him more than the Iraqi state.
     
     

    Details moment where US commanding general switches from talk of 'winning' to 'succeeding', says Maliki government focus on Shiite dominance drove moderate Sunnis closer to al-Qaeda. It's a history that's widely accepted but now painstakingly, officially documented by the US Army
     
     



    And that Tweet goes to the limitation of the report as well as the limitation of our 'press.'


    She's referring to Nouri's second term.  But it was 2008 when the world should have been paying attention.  Is she unaware of The Petraeus and Crocker Show -- where the two paraded in front of Congressional Committees for a week.  It was Senator Barbara Boxer who asked why the US taxpayer was paying the Sons of Iraq?  Why  the US taxpayer and not the Iraqi government?  These were Sunnis (largely Sunnis, David Petraeus said) who had fought against the US but were now being paid to stop attacking the US.  They were becoming a force to patrol and secure.  And Boxer wanted to know when the Iraqi government planned to pick up the slack?

    Supposedly, it was going to happen.  But it didn't.  Not in 2008.  Not in 2009.  Not in 2010.

    That was all Nouri's first term.  It was also in his first term that the world learned he was running torture chambers and secret prisons.  But the point was to look away, let Barack Obama give him a second term (via The Erbil Agreement after Iraqi voters rejected him) and pretend and hope that Nouri would deliver.

    What he ended up delivering was ISIS in Iraq.


    New content at THIRD:










    " Retweeted
    Killed by the for uniting anti-, anti- and civil rights movements.

    Sunday, January 20, 2019

    John Stauber calls it

    It really is amazing when idiots -- Meryl Streep, the press, etc -- want to get on a high horse about how the press isn't trusted.

    Huh, that boy with the beef must have had relatives who and the helped ship to an illegal war in , don’t you suspect?


    John Stauber's exactly right.

    The press has lied so often and so repeatedly that they are not to be believed.  They brought it on themselves. 

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

     
    Friday, January 18, 2019.  A new report from the US military reveals that the US government puts puppets in charge and considers removing them as well.


    In Iraq, the same thing is done over and over and always with the idiotic hope that somehow things will turn out differently.  That's never happened.

    As 2006 drew to a close, U.S. leaders in Washington and Baghdad grappled with the reality that the transition strategy the U.S.-led coalition had been pursuing for more than 2 years had failed to stabilize Iraq. In the months since the February 2006 bombing of the Shi’a shrine in Samarra, Iraq had descended into a sectarian civil war, with violence worst in the Iraqi capital and its surrounding areas. By mid-October, three successive U.S.-Iraqi operations to tamp down the sectarian attacks in Baghdad had failed, and violence had only increased. The Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) campaign plan had envisioned a reduction of U.S. forces to about 100,000 by the end of 2006. Instead, MNF-I Commander General George W. Casey, Jr. had been forced to cancel unit redeployments, call forward in-theater reserves from Kuwait, and authorize extensions of U.S. units in response to the dire security situation in Baghdad.

    That's from "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War — Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011" -- what?  Michael R. Gordon (WALL STREET JOURNAL) broke the news last night:


    The Army on Thursday published a long-awaited study of the U.S. war in Iraq that criticizes decisions of some of the service’s most senior officers and outlines some hard-learned lessons from the eight-year-long conflict.
    The two-volume study was commissioned in 2013 by Gen. Ray Odierno, when he was serving as the Army chief of staff, and a draft was finished by June 2016.

    The Wall Street Journal reported in October that the publication of the history had been stymied, as senior officials worried about the study’s impact on the reputation of prominent officers and congressional support for the service. Some lawmakers urged the Army to make the history public as soon as possible.



    "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War – Volume 1: Invasion – Insurgency – Civil War, 2003-2006" and "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War — Volume 2: Surge and Withdrawal, 2007-2011" are the two reports.

    US forces have been in Iraq to support the puppet government the US installed.  That was always the case and that's rather clear in the report:



    When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman objected, questioning whether it was fair to expect Casey to be a military adviser on one hand while demanding he "push" Maliki with the other, Rumsfeld declared, "I don't know who else it would be!" Adamant to put an end to what he saw as a series of "free lunches" enjoyed by Maliki at American expense, Rumsfeld urged Casey to make the Prime Minister understand that actions taken contrary to expressed U.S. interests had consequences -- with troop levels as the most promising lever. "Maybe we should reduce the number of our forces in Baghdad? Maybe you should let him know that you intend to withdraw troops?" suggested Rumsfeld. "Maybe pull a brigade . . . send it after the Iranians and get after EFPs," he added, using the acronym for explosively formed penetrators. Frustrated with Maliki’s sluggishness in reducing sectarian violence in Baghdad, Rumsfeld’s immediate recommendation was to withdraw American troops from the capital.


    If the puppet won't do what the US government wants, pull the US troops out of Baghdad.  That was the threat and it was a real threat because Nouri al-Maliki wasn't 'of the people.'  He had fled Iraq decades prior and only returned after the 2003 US-led invasion.  The Iraqi people?  They didn't know him, he didn't know them.  He was installed by the US government based on the CIA profile which found Nouri to be highly paranoid.  This paranoia let him jump ahead of other candidates because it was thought he would be easier to manipulate.

    Nouri was nothing but a puppet.  Puppets can be replaced.  And, yes, Bully Boy Bush installed him in 2006 but Bully Boy Bush was fine with uninstalling him.  From the report:


    When it came to Maliki’s commitment to stand up to JAM and mitigate its overtly sectarian agenda, the President voiced similar doubts, finding it ironic that the Iraqi Prime Minister seemed to be the principal “roadblock” to a renewed U.S. effort to stabi- lize the country. “How do we give [Maliki] responsibility without causing a disaster?” Bush asked. When Casey mentioned that Maliki “lacked political will,” the President responded, “One option is to find someone else.” In its discussion the following day, the group revisited the possibility of replacing the Prime Minister. Abizaid observed that he had “yet to see Maliki show backbone on anything” and thus saw danger in basing the “new way forward” on the Iraqi leader’s political will. Bush reiterated his desire for something “dramatic” or “game-changing.” The “new way forward”—whatever form it took—would have to “put us in a position where we can win.” He again suggested that it might be “time to choose somebody else,” but Khalilzad and the secretary of state con- vinced him that positioning Maliki for success was the more prudent course.



    A puppet is a puppet.  So much is revealed in the report -- so much that we've said here over the years.  We've called Paddy Cockburn's idiotic b.s. and it's called out in the report as well.  He never knew a damn thing about what was going on in Iraq but was treated as some sort of seer.  He's an embarrassment and the report makes it clear to anyone who's followed Patrick's writing.

    I have no respect for trash like Patrick Cockburn.  He's anti-Arab and he's a known liar.  He's actually a known groupie of the Iranian government.  He writes love letters to them, fan-fiction about their immense power.

    As the report details -- and as we noted in real time -- the US-government backed Nouri in 2010 -- when he lost re-election.  It's July of 2010 when then-Vice President Joe Biden announces in Baghdad that Ayad Allawi will not be prime minister.  The US had then publicly turned on the winner of the election.

    Patrick kept insisting it was all Iran, just Iran.  No, it wasn't.  They were part of it -- and certainly they were the ones who silenced Moqtada al-Sadr's objections and brought him in to support Nouri.  Patrick's one-sided devotion to the government of Iran has always been puzzling.  Read the report, recall his 'reporting' and laugh -- laugh often.

    Our reporting on the November 15, 2011 hearing and the issues at stake especially are backed up by the report -- see that day's snapshot, the November 16th snapshot and:

    At Trina's site last night, Ava covered an exchange with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally covered economic concers expressed over the use of contractors "The costs (Wally)" and Kat offered a look at various claims about the administration's negotiating goals and what Iraqi leaders supposedly sought with "Who wanted what?"


    It was an important hearing and we treated it as such.  The professional media?  They didn't.  They didn't tell you anything except John McCain was cross with Leon Panetta.  They avoided every actual issue -- including why McCain and Panetta had the exchange.

    The American people weren't important enough for the press to cover reality.

    I would guess the reason that the two reports were buried for so long had to do with the fact that the press had been so compliant and willing to cover for the war -- the illegal war they sold.  It would probably be very confusing for a number of Americans to read these two reports.  They would be faced with realities that no one has bothered to include them on.  Key information has been withheld -- and not just by the government, but also by the press.

    Read about Tareq al-Hashemi, for example.  We noted it here for what it was, persecution of Sunni leaders and that's how the report sees it as well.  Because that's what it was.  Imagine a media that refused repeatedly to make that connection in all their 'reporting' on Vice President Tareq?  Imagine if the reality had been actually reported -- and reported loudly and repeatedly?

    ISIS never would have come to power in Iraq.  Nouri would have been stopped.  Maybe he would have been stopped by global condemnation, maybe he would have been stopped by the US government standing down and allowing the Kurds, Moqtada, the Sunnis and others to go forward with their no-confidence vote.

    What comes through in the report is that the US government was as vested in personality as the media is.  They select a puppet and then they tie the puppet's success to their own.

    That's not a strategy.

    It is, however, why Barack Obama gave Nouri the second term as prime minister -- the term that nearly destroyed Iraq.

    With the US government tying success in Iraq to the prime minister (whomever it is), the US media follows suit -- refusing to tell the truth.  So you get Nouri, for example, going after Sunni politicians and a media playing dumb.  Or worse, actively taking part in demonizing whomever Nouri is attacking at the moment.  From the report:



    Almost exactly a year after authorizing the December 2011 ISF raid against Iraq’s most senior Sunni politician, Vice President Tariq Hashimi, Prime Minister Maliki repeated the act, this time against the most senior Sunni minister in his own cabinet, Finance Minis- ter Rafe al-Issawi. Well-regarded by the international community and fellow Iraqis as a non-sectarian, pragmatic technocrat, Issawi had been a tangential target in the Hashimi raids. Both he and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq had seemed to escape the purge by making peace with Maliki in early 2012 despite their vehement criticism of the Prime Minister before that. 
    By late 2012, relations between Maliki and Issawi had soured, and the Finance Minister had become Maliki’s biggest political target. On December 19 and 20, Iraqi special operations forces sur- rounded Issawi’s home and offices in the Green Zone as Iraqi Government spokesmen announced the Finance Minister was being sought on the charge of supporting terrorism through his alleged connections to the Sunni militant group Hamas al-Iraq. Issawi took refuge in the home of Parliament Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, where he reported in a news conference that 150 of his guards, staff, and family members had been arrested.
    The accusation that Issawi was a material supporter of Hamas al-Iraq was a familiar one to U.S. officials, since Maliki had previously leveled it in 2010. At that time, then-USF-I commander Odierno had given the Prime Minister a report from USF-I analysts concluding that the charge was false, and Odierno’s opposition to the charge had helped Issawi survive a potential purge. In December 2012, however, it seemed clear that Maliki intended to use the allegation to sideline yet another senior Sunni leader. U.S. officials had regarded Issawi as a moderate Sunni with whom Maliki could cooperate in 2011, but the push for his removal from the government in 2012 indicated that deeper purges would come.


    The report details the rock hurling at Saleh al-Mutlaq, who'd become a Nouri lackey -- a point we made in real time and that Saleh had no real support among Sunnis.  Let's drop back to the December 31, 2012 snapshot:


     The statement al-Mutlaq's office issued can be seen as an attempt by the politician to cover what happened.  Why he was stupid enough to go to a protest is beyond me.  Yes, he is Sunni and, yes, he is in the Iraqiya slate.  But Saleh al-Mutlaq is not popular.  He and Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi (also Sunni and Iraqiya) were both targeted by Nouri in December of 2011.  While Tareq ended up having to leave the country and being convicted of 'terrorism,' Saleh sailed right through.  In May, Nouri dropped his efforts to strip Saleh of his office.

    By that point, there had been months of speculation in the Iraqi press that Saleh al-Mutlaq had cut a deal to save his own ass, that he was now in partnership with Nouri al-Maliki.  This seemed to be even more true when Saleh was seen as undermining efforts to get a no-confidence vote against Nouri as spring was winding down.

    Saleh al-Mutlaq is seen -- rightly or wrongly -- by Sunni Iraqis as someone who protects himself and does nothing for other Sunnis (whether they're politicians or average citizens).  His actions on Sunday did nothing to alter that opinion.  Today Dar Addustour observes that Mutlaq was seen as attempting to distract protesters from their legitimate demands for and that his words were seen as throwing shoes at the protesters.  (Remember, throwing shoes is a major insult in Iraq.)  Kitabat adds that al-Mutlaq further insulted the protesters by refusing to get on the platform to address them.



    At the most basic level, Americans are denied the realities in Iraq because telling them what's really happening could 'risk' the mission since the entire mission is propaganda -- propaganda targeting Iraqis and Americans.  The US media has repeatedly -- and gladly -- cooperated with that propaganda mission.


    Let's turn to a legal agreement.  Here, we've repeatedly discussed the importance of The Erbil Agreement (the US negotiated contract that gave Nouri al-Maliki the second term the Iraqi voters didn't).  It wasn't followed.  The US said they stood by it and Barack even got on the phone with Ayad Allawi to get him back into the Parliament building when Ayad walked out, Barack swearing the contract had the full backing of the United States.

    Of course, Barack didn't back it.  He never did a damn thing to make sure it was put into practice.  And it bit him in the ass.  Reading the report, I learned Ayad Allawi refused to give the support in the summer of 2011 that Barack wanted -- wanted and needed.  Why?  Because The Erbil Agreement still hadn't been implemented.  How karmic.  I didn't know of that, it was worth a chuckle to read that Barack needed Ayad for a new Status of Forces Agreement and couldn't get him because of the failure to implement The Erbil Agreement.

    I've read the second volume in full and skimmed the first one.  Both are worth reading.  The second volume concludes with these two sentences, "By the end of summer 2014, U.S. forces had begun to return to Iraq to stiffen the ISF and to conduct a new campaign against ISIS, but without the benefit of the military infrastructure the United States had shut down in 2011. The war that had begun in 2003 was far from over."

    And it remains far from over.

    NATIONAL IRAQI NEWS AGENCY reports 2 people have been kidnapped in Kirkuk. ALSUMARIA notes 1 person dead and another injured in Hilla from gunfire and three people were arrested in Baghdad when they were discovered hiding the body of a young girl who had been hanged.



    In 10 years, humanitarian needs have increased and we have scaled up our response...but our humanitarian principles have remained unchanged ب ١٠ سنين زادت الاحتياجات الانسانية وكبرت معها استجابتنا... ولكن اللي ما تغير هوه مبادئنا الانسانية.





    We'll note this from the United Nations:


    17 January 2019
    The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) in Iraq issued a statement on Thursday rejecting allegations made earlier this week by a non-profit organization  there, alleging that personnel had carried out explosive hazard clearance inside two historic churches in Mosul “in a barbaric and arbitrary manner.”
    The allegations, published earlier this week on the website of the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization (HHRO), the Iraqi non-governmental organization in question, accused UNMAS of “crimes no less grievous and insolent than the crimes of [the Islamic State],” and claimed that the clearance was conducted without church authorization, “in a barbaric and arbitrary manner with utter disregard for the holy and religious sanctity” of the two churches, located in the Hosh al-Khan area of the Al Maedan district, in Mosul.
    Although UNMAS – and its partner for the clearance project, G4S – were not directly named, UNMAS Iraq said in a statement that it was taking the allegations seriously, open to further investigation of the allegations, and continuing to work closely with the Iraqi Government.
    The agency has invited HHRO and officials of the Syriac Catholic Archbishopric in the Nineveh Plains, “as well as other relevant Iraqi authorities, to meet in person to carefully consider the facts relative to their statements and hope they will offer to correct the record when known.”
    UNMAS said it was “keen on safeguarding all archeological, religious and historical sites”, from the assessment phase of de-mining and other clearance operations, working “closely with the Iraqi State and religious authorities to ensure this national treasure is secure and safe, to prevent any additional damage to that inflicted by the terrorists and the conflict”.
    To date, UNMAS Iraq and G4S teams have cleared and safely removed 53 suicide belts from the church sites, 74 munitions of various types, seven improvised bombs, and assorted ammunition and materials such as home-made explosives. According to the agency, the site and the accumulated debris remain heavily contaminated with explosives and will require further clearance.
    The UN’s demining agency further explained that, since it started operating in Mosul in November 2017, over 1,500 clearance tasks have been carried out, resulting in the removal of approximately 48,000 explosive hazards of all types, heretofore without any complaints.
    In 2014, the jihadist terrorist group ISIL, known in Arabic as [the Islamic State], occupied Iraq’s second city of Mosul, an historic centre of Christianity in the Middle East for centuries, demanding that they convert to Islam, pay tribute, or face execution. More than 100 churches and other religious sites were destroyed or demolished.
    Many other Christian enclaves across northern Iraq, and those of other religious minorities, were overrun and destroyed by [the Islamic State] fighters during more than three years of occupation. 


    Still with the United Nations, MIDDLE EAST MONITOR reports:


    The Iraqi government has not fulfilled its promises of providing aid to displaced persons returning voluntarily, compensating them and rehabilitating their homes, a spokesman for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) said yesterday. No attention has been paid to the humanitarian appeals by the displaced persons, it is alleged.
    “International and local humanitarian organisations play a significant role in encouraging the Internally Displaced People [IDPs] to stay in camps because they cut aid as soon as they go home,” said the UN statement. An official called on such organisations to continue with their humanitarian programmes for returning IDPs as they are in “dire need” and require rehabilitation to encourage voluntary return.

    In other news, THE JERUSALEM POST reports, "A source in the Iraqi government told the Arabic RT network, a Russian television network, on Thursday that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had informed Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi that Washington would not intervene if Israel bombed bases belonging to Shi'ite militias in Iraq."  ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS adds:

    Russia Today also reported that al-Mahdi expressed concern about such a move and warned of its grave consequences.
    In September, the Reuters news agency reported that Iran had moved missiles to Iraq.

    The report quoted three Iranian officials, two Iraqi intelligence sources, and two Western intelligence sources, all of whom confirmed the transfer of short-range missiles to Iraq over the course of several months.








    The following community sites -- plus BLACK AGENDA REPORT and Jody Watley -- updated: