Tuesday, September 02, 2014

On this and that

"Kat, you failed us."

That's Barry's e-mail.

And he's speaking for a number of you who assumed I'd be doing a Labor Day music piece.

Nope.

Sorry. As C.I. explained on Sunday, we have been speaking like crazy.

The increased action out of Iraq means more interest in the topic and we have been booked like crazy. There are many days when I call it a 'night' around five p.m. I just can't do it anymore. But C.I. and Ava will continue on.

I am worn out.

I will not be doing a music piece this weekend.

I may try to do one two weekends from now.

I just don't have that kind of time right now, sorry. :(

And it's not like it's due to fooling around or wasting time.

What's happening in Iraq is very important.and that people speak out against continued war is very important.

As you may have noticed, our peace 'leaders' have no plans, have nothing to say.

Someone's got to speak up and that does take time.

But thing is, Barack is a joke to the youth.

It's not like 2009.

They're tired of him, they're bored with him, they think he's a liar.

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

Monday, September 2, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, cowardice continues (Barack's being tricked into doing bad things -- just like Ross on Friends!), bad things including sending more US troops into Iraq, Amnesty International thinks peace is achieved by being one-sided and silent when governments do wrong, Tony Blair wins an award, and much more (much worse?).

We spoke to one professor's three classes today and, after the second one, he asked, "Does this make you feel better or worse?"

He handed me a print out of Tom Engelhardt's "The Escalation Follies." And the answer?

I'm so sick of this nonsense.

TE writes:

ISIS's urge was undoubtedly to bait the Obama administration into a significant intervention. And in that, it may prove successful. We are now, after all, watching a familiar version of the escalation follies at work in Washington. Obama and his top officials are clearly on the up escalator. In the Oval Office is a visibly reluctant president, who undoubtedly desires neither to intervene in a major way in Iraq (from which he proudly withdrew American troops in 2011 with their "heads held high"), nor in Syria (a place where he avoided sending in the bombers and missiles back in 2013).

Astounding. If only we had thought to write about that! Oh, wait, we did. Some time ago. Again, welcome to the party, food's all gone but if you ask my housekeeper she might be able to scare you up a sandwich.

The slow to the table nature wouldn't bother me if there was something of value. Although I was the one who took all the flack for calling out the nonsense of 'The Baghdad Embassy would be flooded! We must bomb in Mosul to save the Embassy from flooding!' I called it out the minute two friends (engineers) explained to me how the distance, the heat, the state of the ground, et al made Barack's claim impossible. It was a lie (TE calls it "a lame cover story" -- oh, the bravery of the spineless). Long after I took the heat for calling a lie what it was (a lie), TE shows up to offer "lame cover story."

But I could get over it gladly were it not for crap like this:

Five and a half years later, the president is once again under pressure and being criticized by assorted neocons, McCainites, and this time, it seems, the military high command evidently eager to be set loose yet one more time to take out barbarism globally—that is, to up the ante on a losing hand. As in 2009, so today, he's slowly but surely giving ground. By now, the process of "mission creep"—a term strongly rejected by the Obama administration—is well underway.

Shorter Tom: "Mr. and Mrs. Obama, Barack Junior really wanted to go to the bathroom but we were in a hurry so he wet his pants."

That's really what he's saying: Barack is immature and not responsible for his own actions.

In my harshest criticism of Barack, I've never robbed him of his agency. Maybe because I grasp that would be racism?

(It would be.)

Or maybe because as a feminist I realize the first step in stripping someone of power is arguing that they don't have any?

(Also true.)

Barack will do whatever he wants to do.

A large number of Americans favor single-payer, universal health care similar to what they have in Canada and other countries dubbed "first world countries." (Iraq has this sort of health care, by the way.) But that didn't force Barack into pushing that through Congress. No, Americans were made prisoners of insurance companies -- sheer coincidence, you understand, that the insurance lobby had been big donors to his 2008 campaign.

Time and again, Barack does what he wants -- which is generally move further to the right.

So stop typing up your sexual fantasies of the maiden Barack spirited out the window of his bedroom, tossed over the shoulder of some kissy-faced brute.

They're insulting.

Barack does what he wants to do.

TE and others repeatedly offer excuses not to be mad at Barack. A flat out lie becomes "a lame cover story" and Barack's actions of war are things he really, cross TE's heart, didn't want to do. So don't feel outrage, don't wonder if you should be in the streets.

Barack is really, really like torn and stuff, he's like really, really not wanting to do this. So, you feel me, cut him some slack. Being president is like a really tough job and stuff.

Digging ditches is a tough job. Scrubbing toilets is a tough job. Raising kids is a tough job.

Giving four years of your life so you get pension and health care and you and your family get bodyguards for life? So your wife gets her own pension because you were president?

These and so many other perks don't go to ditch diggers. Or maids. Or stay-at-home parents, day care workers, nannies, etc.

In addition to the fact that the job should be one of the greatest professional honors any American citizen could have.

So let's all stop supplicating and whining about 'poor Barack.'

He does what he wants to do.

So today what he wants to do is send more US troops into Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest issued the following statement tonight:

Today, the President authorized the Department of Defense to fulfill a Department of State request for approximately 350 additional U.S. military personnel to protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel in Baghdad, Iraq. This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). These additional forces will not serve in a combat role.
The President has made clear his commitment to doing whatever is required to provide the necessary security for U.S. personnel and facilities around the world. The request he approved today will allow some previously deployed military personnel to depart Iraq, while at the same time providing a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.
In addition to our efforts to protect our personnel, we will continue to support the Government of Iraq’s efforts to counter ISIL, which poses a threat not only to Iraq, but to the broader Middle East and U.S. personnel and interests in the region. The President will be consulting this week with NATO allies regarding additional actions to take against ISIL and to develop a broad-based international coalition to implement a comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners in the fight against ISIL. As part of this effort, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, Lisa Monaco, will be traveling separately to the region in the near-term to build a stronger regional partnership.

Chelsea J. Carter and Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) report, "The new troops will bring the number of American troops in Iraq to well over 1,000, with most serving either as diplomatic security or military advisers to Iraq's security forces." Jamie Dupree (WSB Radio, Cox Media Group) adds, "The extra 350 military personnel would bring the total of American servicemembers in Iraq to around 1,300, acting in roles as military advisers or for protection of U.S. diplomats inside Iraq." Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) offers, "Intentionally or not, Obama has effectively responded to Isis by signaling an intensification of the latest US war in Iraq. Obama has now launched 124 airstrikes against Isis since 8 August, while swearing not to introduce 'combat boots on the ground'."

For all the claims by the government -- repeated so often by the press -- that US troops are not in combat in Iraq, do you believe it?

If so, maybe you shouldn't. Ford Sypher (Daily Beast) reports:

The role of American Special Operations Forces in Iraq has remained hidden even while the U.S. air war expands. As momentum against ISIS picks up, they may be emerging from the shadows. In a pitched battle on Monday, Kurdish Peshmerga, backed by American airpower and what appeared to be U.S. troops, struck at ISIS positions in the strategic crossroads of Zumar.
Scenes from Monday’s battle provide a tentative but valuable glimpse into the evolving role of special operations troops and how that might be playing out on the ground in Iraq.

The announcement comes as Steven Sotloff has become the second American journalist killed by the Islamic State (James Foley was the first). Sotoloff came up in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki:

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s a lot of humor --

QUESTION: Both?

MS. PSAKI: -- happening in the front of the room today. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No --

MS. PSAKI: I think you can interview them – no, just kidding. Don’t worry. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Unfortunately – yeah --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Unfortunately not a lot of humor right now. Have you seen this purported video of the beheading of Steven Sotloff?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we --

QUESTION: And if you have, are you in any position to confirm it?

MS. PSAKI: Let me share with you everything I can at this point in time. We’ve seen reports of a video that purports to be the murder of U.S. citizen Steven Sotloff by ISIL. The intelligence community will work as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity. If the video is genuine, we are sickened by this brutal act taking the life of another innocent American citizen. Our hearts go out to the Sotloff family and we will provide more information as it becomes available.
I don’t have additional information at this point, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t – I mean, I don’t want to waste everyone’s time if you don’t – if you really don’t have anything else to say about this.

MS. PSAKI: I really don’t. Should we do just a couple and see --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: -- if there are other relevant – go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to ask you if you’ve determined the number of Americans that might be held by ISIL.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, as you know, we don’t get into specific numbers for the safety and security of individuals. We’ve said a few. That continues to be accurate.

QUESTION: Jen, what is your last information regarding Sotloff? Was he alive as of last week? What was your last information from him?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have any other additional information to provide. Certainly understand the interest.
Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, you said you’ve seen reports. Does the U.S. Government actually have the video in its possession, or are you just citing media reports?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the video has been out there through many media outlets. That’s what I’m referring to.

QUESTION: Okay. So the authentication process has begun?

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is obviously a process that would have to be undergone by our intelligence community. I don’t know if it’s officially started. But obviously, in any case, that would be happening rapidly.

QUESTION: Just one more on the logistic --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you know when you were made aware of this? Was it before this extremist monitoring group put it out, or do you know if the intel community was aware of it before then?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure there’s more I’m going to be able to say, Matt. I’m happy to take it and see if there’s more we can on that front.
Go ahead, James.

QUESTION: All right. I will defer to James.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Does the Obama Administration consider this an act of war?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly – I’m not going to put new labels on it, James. I would say we certainly consider this act, this reported act, the act of the killing of James Foley, as a horrific terrorist act that we certainly have – has helped – has not helped to, I should say – has been one of the motivating factors in the effort to undergo the creation of international coalition to address this threat.

QUESTION: So now we have on the books two American journalists beheaded by this group. Is there any doubt on your part or the part of this Administration that, in fact, the United States is at war with ISIS?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I want to be very careful here, just that we have not confirmed through the proper processes. And I just need to restate that as a U.S. – speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government. I know that wasn’t your intention.
I’m not going to, again, put new labels on it. I think it’s clear that we are concerned about the threat of ISIL to Western interests, to interests in the region. That’s why the Secretary, the President, Secretary Hagel are all going to be working every contact they have to continue to build a coalition to address this threat.

QUESTION: Will this event make any difference in our planning vis-a-vis airstrikes against ISIS?

MS. PSAKI: There are a range of factors, as you know, that are taken into account, including the interests of the United States. And I’m not going to read out further what the President will be looking at, but certainly, we look at a range of factors as those decisions are made.

QUESTION: I just want to try to address this one more --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- one more way. A lot of Americans sit at home and they see Americans who are not even combatants but who are journalists being beheaded by this group overseas. And from a sort of common sense point of view, the average American will say to himself, “This group is at war with us. Why does our President or our Secretary of State not recognize that and say, ‘Indeed, we are at war with this group and we will destroy them’”?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think first of all, James, our actions speak for our commitment to this. And this President has authorized more than a hundred strikes in Iraq, as has been confirmed by the Department of Defense. There are a range of reasons, but part of it is to take on the threat of ISIL. Part of the reason we are leading the effort – and the United States has done more than any country in the world, whether it’s humanitarian assistance or other military efforts to take on this threat in Iraq.
So I think any American sitting at home should sit and look at the actions that we’re taking. I don’t think it’s a useful exercise to go back and forth about new terms. What’s important is what we’re doing about it, and the President’s authorization, what the Secretary will be doing over the next couple of weeks, is action in that regard.

The conversation continued. We'll try to note it here in a morning or afternoon entry tomorrow.

The White House announcement of Barack sending more US troops into Iraq also comes, Justin Sink and Amie Parnes (The Hill) report, as Democrats (such as Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Dianne Feinstein) and Republicans (such as House Rep Mike Rogers and House Rep Ed Royce) are calling for attacks on IS.

War fever, Barack hopes you catch it!

Amnesty has.

Backing up.

On Monday, it was announced that the United Nations were sending investigators into Iraq.

To investigate the atrocities of the last four years?

Nope.

Not too concerned about that.

They're going in for the more recent actions of the Islamic State.

Ian Black (Guardian) reports Iraq's Minister of Human Rights -- yeah, that's good for a chuckle -- Mohammed Shia al-Sudani told the UN Human Rights Council that he sees Islamic State members "oozing with barbarity." Reuters quotes him calling IS "a terrorist monster" and notes of UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Flavia Pansieri:

Pansieri raised concerns that Iraqi government forces had also engaged in acts that may amount to war crimes. She said government-allied militias had opened fire on a mosque in Khanaqin district, northeast of Baghdad, killing 73 men and boys.
Iraqi soldiers had shelled towns and carried out air strikes killing and injuring dozens of civilians, she added.

But that didn't result in investigators. Still, it's one more than anything Amnesty International has recognized.

The organization issued a lengthy press release which opens:

Fresh evidence uncovered by Amnesty International indicates that members of the armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) have launched a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq, carrying out war crimes, including mass summary killings and abductions, against ethnic and religious minorities.
A new briefing, Ethnic cleansing on historic scale: the Islamic State’s systematic targeting of minorities in northern Iraq, published today presents a series of hair-raising accounts from survivors of massacres who describe how dozens of men and boys in the Sinjar region of northern Iraq were rounded up by Islamic State fighters, bundled into pick-up trucks and taken to village outskirts to be massacred in groups or shot individually. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of women and children, along with scores of men, from the Yezidi minority have also been abducted since the Islamic State took control of the area.
"The massacres and abductions being carried out by the Islamic State provide harrowing new evidence that a wave of ethnic cleansing against minorities is sweeping across northern Iraq,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis Response Adviser currently in northern in Iraq.
“The Islamic State is carrying out despicable crimes and has transformed rural areas of Sinjar into blood-soaked killing fields in its brutal campaign to obliterate all trace of non- Arabs and non-Sunni Muslims.”

When Iraqi troops set Sunnis on fire repeatedly in the last months -- videos have been all over the internet -- no one was too concerned. Burned alive, no trial, no jury.

And not a peep from Amnesty.

Today, they offered a one-sided alert that, by pure accident I'm sure, just happens to promote war.

Human Rights Watch issued a press release today which included:

New evidence about executions carried out by the Islamic State (IS) in Tikrit after it seized the city in June 2014 triples the estimated death toll and shows additional execution sites, Human Rights Watch said today.

Information from a survivor and analysis of videos and satellite imagery has confirmed the existence of three more mass execution sites, bringing the total to five, and the number of dead to between 560 and 770 men, all or most of them apparently captured Iraqi army soldiers.
“Another piece of this gruesome puzzle has come into place, with many more executions now confirmed,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch. “The barbarity of the Islamic State violates the law and grossly offends the conscience.”

More space and we'd note HRW in full. HRW has called out the Islamic State. It's also called out the Iraqi government (such as in "Iraq: Civilian Toll of Government Airstrikes"). Unlike Amnesty, they haven't been one side, nor have they been frightened to call out a sitting government.

Amnesty? They're just a dirty joke, aren't they?

Let's stay on the obscenity beat. The laughable GQ magazine just became more so. In England, the UK version handed out a ton of awards to men (and one to a reality TV celebrity female) including one to noted War Criminal Tony Blair for 'philanthropist of the year.' A few onlookers may have been mistaken and thought Tones was accepting on behalf of Augusto Pinochet whose 2006 death prevented from attending. Rumors abound that congratulatory telegrams flooded in from various noted despots and tyrant such as Manuel Noriega ("This is how we roll, my man!"), Islam Karimov ("Tony, however many you had to kill ahead of you on the list to take home the prize, it was worth it! And I can get any Uzebekistan court to back me up on that!"), Dick Cheney ("Ain't nobody got waterboarded that didn't already have it coming!") and Nouri al-Maliki ("Tony, let's celebrate this, get together and kill some Sunnis!"). A dejected Amnesty International announced they had planned to name Tony philanthropist of the year but now that GQ had scooped them they'd probably give their award to Billy Joya.

iraq
chelsea j. carter

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Eugene Robinson finds his voice

I used to agree with the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson a lot. During the Bully Boy Bush years, he was a hard hitting columnist who pulled no punches.

Then came the ascension of Barack and Robinson's been a near constant embarrassment.

It got to the point where I finally gave up about a year and a half ago, even thinking he might find a way to reroute himself back to a columnist worth reading.

But my friend Maggie continued to have hope and she sent me his latest "Have We Gone To War Again?" which offers:

I’d like to know whether the United States is at war with the Islamic State. I’d like to know why — or why not. I’d like to know whether the goal of U.S. policy is to contain the jihadist militia or destroy it.
President Obama? Members of Congress? Please pay attention. I’m talking to you.

It's good to see there is something that matters to him enough to abandon blind devotion to a Democratic party president.

I'd like to see this as a beginning of a needed change but I'm not all that hopeful these days.

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

Saturday, August 30th, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, serious questions should be raised about Barack's recent speech and statements, is Barack raising IS' profile, and much more.

We'll start with this Tweet.

US Mission to NATO @USNATO · 8h

Iraq -- US F-18 fighter jet refuels from a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft over northern Iraq

US Mission to NATO @USNATO · 8h

View more photos and videos

Thursday, the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted, "Today in #Iraq, US air strikes against #ISIS terrorists destroyed four armed vehicles, a humvee, tank, construction vehicle, & checkpoint." AP notes this was the 106th US bombing in Iraq since August 8th.

Cedric and Wally emphasized the financial cost on Friday noting that a cost of $7.5 million a day means at least $555 million through Friday which would be over a half-billion dollars.

That's not coming out of US President Barack Obama's pocket, the US tax payer is footing the bill.

It's a bill that continues to grow.

The US taxpayer didn't authorize the bill and certainly wasn't consulted about putting more money on the tab.
They're not even informed what the plan is because there is no plan. Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) reports:

Amid conflicting congressional demands, impatient Arab allies, and public concern that he will do too much or too little, President Obama made bluntly clear Thursday why he has not yet implemented a comprehensive U.S. response to the Islamist insurgency that is rapidly spreading across the Middle East.
“We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said, in response to questions about when he is prepared to begin military action in Syria, and, if not, why not?

White House spokesperson Josh Earnest has made the media rounds insisting that Iraq is not without a strategy, just Syria.

That's spin, not truth.

The White House continues to link Syria and Iraq so, if they have no plan for Syria, then they have no plan for Iraq.

The White House presents the Islamic State as darting back and forth between Syria and Iraq -- which share a border -- and doing damage in both countries as part of a larger, coherent plan to implement a fundamentalist state.

Is that correct?

Who knows. They've never backed it up.

Asked why what is taking place is taking place, from the State Dept to the White House, they can't provide concrete answers. They can talk 'barbaric' and other rhetoric. They can assert that the entire Middle East is at risk and, more recently, that the US mainland is at risk.

It's a cute little fear fantasy.

It dissolves a bit if you apply common sense to it.

Syria and Iraq share a border.

Syria also shares a border with Turkey.

Is the Islamic State somehow intimidated by Turkey?

Or by Israel or Jordan?

Syria borders Iraq, Turkey, Israel and Jordan.

And just off the coast of Syria, to its west, you have the Republic of Cyprus.

If you were a terrorist group intent on taking territory -- which really seems more like the goal of a group of invaders (and historically we've not referred to such groups as terrorists) -- wouldn't Cyprus be your first target?

It's small. It's an island -- meaning you could monitor incoming and outgoing traffic much easier than with landlocked countries.

It's a bit of a resort island which, for most people, would say 'soft target' -- especially when contrasted with a large country.

Syria's not responsible for Iraq but the US government has wanted war with the Syrian government for some time. They wanted it under Bully Boy Bush -- remember the diplomatic tiffs -- and they want it under Barack.

A connection that Syria and Iraq do have -- that can be established factually -- is that Sunnis and Shi'ites are going into both countries to fight. In both countries -- and this is what has given IS its power -- Sunnis feel persecuted.

You can argue whether they are or not.

That's really pointless.

The perception is they are being persecuted.

That perception is strong and growing.

Friday the 22nd saw an attack that the White House and State Dept handled poorly in terms of perception. The White House has worked since to improve their communication skills and tools. They did a better job this week.

I will give them credit for it.

I'll note that they are addressing this internally.

I'll also point out that the press has been no where on this story.

They've been out to lunch on pretty much everything.

Currently, Barack is being consistently slammed by one country repeatedly for his Middle East actions.

And the slams getting plenty of attention.

Why?

Because Barack was an idiot in 2013.

We said here that Barack needed to cool the rhetoric. We said he was using the office of the presidency to elevate Vladimir Putin.

He was and he did.

That wasn't his intent.

Putin went from fading world stage player to Barack's rival and, yes, equal.

No one wanted to face that -- or maybe they wanted more conflict? Certainly some long for a return of the Cold War.

Barack's making -- repeatedly -- the same mistake now with regards to the Islamic State.

As defined by the White House, we're talking about a minor group of crooks.

So why is the US President obsessing publicly? Why are the White House and the State Dept yacking non-stop?

They're elevating IS daily.

That may be part of an attempt to scare the American public into supporting attacks. Or it may just be stupidity.

Unless someone was wanting a return of Cold War tensions -- and a number of people do want that -- it's obvious that Barack's 2013 actions were a mistake. That's why we called them out when they were happening.

Unless the point is to use fear the way Bully Boy Bush did, to elevate IS to the point that the entire world trembles, Barack is making another huge mistake.

Let's move back to fighter jets bombing Iraq -- US fighter jets.

But it's not war, US President Barack Obama insists.

Zeke J. Miller (Time magazine) notes of Barack's Thursday speech on Iraq and the brief questions and answers that followed:

The President defended his decision not to seek authorization from Congress before beginning strikes on ISIS targets in Iraq three weeks ago, saying the urgency of the threat to the U.S. consulate in Erbil required immediate action. “I can’t afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected,” Obama said. Since Aug. 8, the military has conducted 106 air strikes in Iraq, according to U.S. Central Command.

This week, Leon Wieseltier had an article published. It's an article wanting war on Iraq. So, of course, it's published by The New Republic. Wieseltier skewers some of the 'facts' offered by Barack and the administration -- 'facts' the pres has run with. Here's an excerpt:

His announcement of the authorization for the air drops and the air strikes was so riddled with qualifications and circumscriptions, so casuistic, so replete with assurances about his own lack of enthusiasm for his course of action, that it sounded almost like an apology for what he was authorizing. He intended to engage the effects, not the causes. The important thing was that this act of humanitarian intervention not be mistaken for an act of humanitarian intervention. Rand Paul and the liberals were to be given no occasion for panic.

But the president’s actions have already exceeded the president’s reasons. Most of the American air strikes in northern Iraq have had the proper objective of protecting the dam. Is this because Americans might get wet if the dam were exploded?

While it's good to see the nonsense offered for bombing Mosul mocked, it's also true that Barack's claims have other implications.

Reality, Barack failed in Benghazi.

The attack on US facilities on September 11, 2012 (resulting in the deaths of Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Ambassador Chris Stevens) were a failure on Barack's watch and a failure for Barack.

(They may or may not have been more than a failure, for the purpose of the point that follows, we're not pondering that.)

As a result of that failure and all the fallout that has followed, Barack needs to be cautious. He owes it to the diplomatic service (whose interests the press has never really given a damn about when covering Benghazi) and he owes it to the American public.

He knows that and may have overreacted out of caution and a desire to prevent loss of lives.

The bombing of Mosul on the pretext that a damn could fall apart and flood the US Embassy in Baghdad is a joke. It's one the press treated seriously for far too long.

But was the spin on that, from Barack and the administration, about concern -- or sole concern -- over protecting US personnel?

For years, just war theory was in play. Bully Boy Bush appeared to do away with that concept when he started the illegal war on Iraq.

Suddenly, he proposed a notion that you could declare war not because you had been attacked but because you might be attacked -- by mythical WMD -- at some point in the future. Barack appears to have run with that notion -- one with no legal backing or support.

From Thursday's Iraq speech by Barack:

Zeke Miller: Thank you, Mr. President. Last year, you said that you believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. In response to Chuck’s question you said you don’t have a strategy yet, but you’ll reconsider that going forward. But why didn’t you go to Congress before this current round of strikes in Iraq? Do you not believe that that’s the case anymore, what you said last year? And throughout your career you’ve also said that -- you raised concerns with the expansion of powers of the executive. Are you concerned that your recent actions, unilaterally, had maybe -- have cut against that?

THE PRESIDENT: No. And here’s why: It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people. And that requires me to act fast, based on information I receive, if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened. The decisions I made were based on very concrete assessments about the possibility that Erbil might be overrun in the Kurdish region and that our consulate could be in danger. And I can’t afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected.

At least he didn't use the lie about Baghdad being flooded. (When we called it out here, FYI, we did so because two engineers raised the issue to me. I wouldn't have thought to question it had it not been pointed out to me how ridiculous it was and how the claim was backed up not by engineers or an engineering study but by the words of a general -- who would leave office in disgrace -- and an ambassador.)

But this is another example of Barack building on questionable (I would say "illegal") activities of Bully Boy Bush and this 'building on' has serious consequences.

These actions can become legal by custom.

They need to be objected to.

But Barack's not just taken Bully Boy Bush's plan, he's expanded upon it.

Bully Boy Bush argued that a war was necessary because the country in question (Iraq) might someday hurt the US mainland. Barack is arguing that this 'maybe' can be expanded beyond the country's national borders. Now acts of war can be carried out for a 'maybe' that might be an attack on a US consulate.

Since the US government has diplomatic embassies and consulates in pretty much every country, what Barack's maintaining has huge implications and serious consequences.

It would be great if maybe, just for a few minutes, we could address that.

iraq
karen deyoung
the washington post
time
zeke j. miller

Friday, August 29, 2014

Bruce The Fool Springsteen

Or maybe he wants it for cash.

He's turning a song -- "Out law Pete" -- into a children's book.

Didn't realize he was that hard up for cash.

Or that the children's market was that hard up for authors.

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

Thursday, August 28, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Barack speaks about Iraq, we note Chris Hill's continued stupidity as he continues to lie about Iraq, over 800 civilians in Falluja have been killed from Nouri al-Maliki's bombings, and much more.

Today on a KPFA newsbreak, Mark Mericle noted:

Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee is one of three lawmakers who have sent a letter to Republican House Speaker John Boehner calling for a debate and a vote on an authorization for the use of military force in Iraq when the House of Representatives returns on September 8th. In a statement, Lee says that it's clear that the current US mission in Iraq is extended beyond the limited, specific and targeted scope of preventing genocide and ensuring the security of US personnel there. Lee said the president must seek Congressional authorization before the situation escalates further. She was joined by Democrat Jim McGovern and Republican Walter Jones. The three were the principle co-sponsers of a resolution that overwhelming passed the House with 370 votes. It said the president should not deploy or maintain United States armed forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without the specific authorization from Congress.

Time's Jay Newton-Small explains:

There are some in Congress who are calling on Obama to push through a War Powers Resolution. Article II of the Constitution grants the President the power to defend the country. But Article I gives only Congress the power to declare war. So, what in a post-war-on-terrorism era constitutes an actual war? In 1973, afraid of Vietnam mission creep, Congress passed the War Powers Act, which requires the President to consult Congress 60 days after engaging in hostilities. If you count bombing a foreign country as hostile — as the U.S. did against militants in northern Iraq on Aug. 7 — then the 60 days expires Oct. 7.
Theoretically, if Congress cares about not further weakening its oversight of the President’s ability to bomb whatever country he pleases, lawmakers will move to pass a War Powers Resolution in the next month. Presidents, including Obama, have argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. But a turf fight over who gets to go to war is the last thing on Congress’ mind weeks before the midterm elections.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama insisted today that "throughout this process, we've consulted closely with Congress, and the feedback I've gotten from Congress is, is that we're doing the right thing."

He was speaking this afternoon at the White House -- in the suit that gave Cedric and Wally pause.

US President Barack Obama: Second, in Iraq, our dedicated pilots and crews continue to carry out the targeted strikes that I authorized to protect Americans there and to address the humanitarian situation on the ground. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always do what is necessary to protect the American people and defend against evolving threats to our homeland. Because of our strikes, the terrorists of ISIL are losing arms and equipment. In some areas, Iraqi government and Kurdish forces have begun to push them back. And we continue to be proud and grateful to our extraordinary personnel serving in this mission. Now, ISIL poses an immediate threat to the people of Iraq and to people throughout the region. And that’s why our military action in Iraq has to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners who are taking the fight to ISIL. And that starts with Iraq’s leaders building on the progress that they've made so far and forming an inclusive government that will unite their country and strengthen their security forces to confront ISIL. Any successful strategy, though, also needs strong regional partners. I'm encouraged so far that countries in the region -- countries that don't always agree on many things -- increasingly recognize the primacy of the threat that ISIL poses to all of them. And I've asked Secretary Kerry to travel to the region to continue to build the coalition that’s needed to meet this threat. As I've said, rooting out a cancer like ISIL will not be quick or easy, but I'm confident that we can -- and we will -- working closely with our allies and our partners. For our part, I've directed Secretary Hagel and our Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a range of options. I'll be meeting with my National Security Council again this evening as we continue to develop that strategy. And I've been consulting with members of Congress and I’ll continue to do so in the days ahead.

Barack was several minutes late for the appearance which is strange until you realize he was supposed to begin speaking at four but had been scheduled to meet, also at four, with US Vice President Joe Biden and the National Security Council. Barack is said to have met for four minutes ahead of the meeting. A quick four minutes. And, as he noted in his remarks, he was meeting with them later that evening as well.

"Them" was identified in this White House press release:

Readout of the President’s Meeting with the National Security Council on Iraq and ISIL

This afternoon the President met with his National Security Council to discuss the situation in Iraq, our ongoing efforts to support the Iraqi government, and our comprehensive strategy to counter the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. The President will continue to consult with his national security team in the days to come.
Participants in today’s meeting included:
The Vice President (via secure video)
Secretary of State John Kerry (via secure video)
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (via secure video)
Attorney General Eric Holder
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson (via secure video)
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough
National Security Advisor Susan Rice
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power (via secure video)
White House Counsel Neil Eggleston
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey (via secure video)
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Winnefeld
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen
U.S. Central Command Commander Lloyd Austin (via secure video)
Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shaun Donovan
Deputy National Security Advisor Antony Blinken
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco
Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics Caroline Atkinson
Deputy Secretary of State William Burns
White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and Gulf Region Philip Gordon
Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs Katie Fallon
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran Brett McGurk
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Robert Stephen Beecroft (via secure video)

Suzanne George, Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff of the National Security Council

In an embarrassing article for the Guardian (Barack is seen as torn -- deer in the headlights, little puppy, etc.), Spencer Ackerman does note, "Obama’s national security team convened at the White House Thursday afternoon to discuss the contours of a still-inchoate strategy. Administration officials have recently begun describing Isis in apocalyptic and near-hysterical terms, even as they decline to endorse additional military action against it, a discrepancy that has prompted confusion in Washington and beyond."

Maybe these sketchy meetings explain in part why the 'mission' in Iraq still lacks a mission?

Josh Jordan Tweeted the following today:

Francis Matthew (Gulf News) notes:

This alarming lack of purpose is reflected in how the world’s superpower is confused about what it is trying to do. President Barack Obama has offered some deeply contradictory messages as he first authorised humanitarian support on a strictly limited basis, but then talked of refusing to allow Isil to continue and the necessity of a long drawn-out struggle.

It is clear that the growing acceptance of the importance of defeating Isil is creating some very uneasy alliances, as the Iranians and Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria offer to work with the Americans and Saudis. This fits into the new pragmatic search for stability that will dominate the Arab world for the next few years, as regional and world powers work with any non-Islamist who can regain control of a nation state and impose an end to civil war and chaos.

Here are some Tweets in reaction to Barack's speech:

We'll come back to Barack's event later in the snapshot.

Let's knock out the discussion at the State Dept today in the press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:

QUESTION: We talked about – yesterday on Iraq we talked about the situation for – of the Turkmen in the north of the country.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any more information about the supposedly dire situation they’re in and what the United States might be planning?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I have a little bit on information. We are very concerned about the dire conditions for the mainly Turkmen population in Amirli as well as the ongoing humanitarian situation throughout northern and central Iraq. We’re focused on reviewing options to assess how we can best help alleviate the situation in Amirli. Our embassy and military personnel at our joint operation centers in Iraq are already working closely with the Iraqi Government to share information and discuss ways to provide relief to those in need, and certainly we’re having ongoing internal discussions as well.

The Turkmen are the latest in-need in Iraq.

It's a real shame when the in-need included gay and perceived gay teenagers that the US government couldn't and wouldn't do a damn thing. Since Hillary was Secretary of State then, should she run for the presidential nomination, let's hope reporters have done their work and are willing to ask her why she failed so many in need?

And will the in-need ever include the civilians of Falluja?

We've noted repeatedly that Nouri is shelling civilian neighborhoods in Falluja and has been since the start of this year. We've noted repeatedly that this is a War Crime and is legally defined as such.

At what point does the White House intend to object to ongoing War Crimes?

Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports:

Many of the buildings are damaged or completely destroyed. Anyone who manages to get into Fallujah will see a city that looks as though it’s out of a picture taken just after World War II.

“Some areas – such as al-Hay al-Sinaie and Nazzal – have been completely levelled,” one of the city’s tribal leaders, Ahmed al-Halbusi, told NIQASH. “It would be almost impossible for people to go back and live in those areas again because they are so damaged. Additionally the Iraqi air force is still shelling those areas even though we have no idea why.”

Al-Halbusi was now looking after a five-year-old boy named Othman. “His whole family was killed in the Nazzal area,” al-Halbusi explains. “He was playing in his garden and his family were in the house when the house was hit. He was the only survivor.”

There are dozens of similar stories. The Iraqi army has been attacking Fallujah since the beginning of the year. Every day the army shells the city two different ways – with ground artillery from their camps near the city. One of the major camps is the nearby Mazra camp.

The people of Fallujah say that this method seems to be fairly ineffective and doesn’t cause a lot of damage. They are far more concerned about the second method the Iraqi army is using: air bombardment.

Military helicopters bomb the city too – some of these helicopters are old ones, dating back to Saddam Hussein’s army, and some are new Russian-made machines, received recently. The helicopters often use barrel bombs, locals say. When these land and don’t explode, they try to disarm them.

Niqash can do a major piece on this, why are they the only ones who can?

These War Crimes take place every day.

We used the April 16th snapshot to demonstrate this, covering Nouri's bombings in January, February, March and April.

Do we need to do that again?

Spend an entire snapshot documenting these bombings and how many are left wounded or dead?

Nouri gets away with it because it is often just a few this day and a few that.

But we've pointed out that, over a prolonged period, these small daily numbers add up.

Doubt it?

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Spokesman for the hospital in Fallujah Dr. Ahmed Al-Shami said on Thursday that the number of the martyrs in Fallujah since the beginning of military operations by more than 8 months amounted to 812 people, while the total number of wounded to 2488 people.
He told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that this is not the final statistics due to the continued bombardment of the city in addition to that a number of the martyrs were buried without arriving to the hospital and the wounded were treated in homes and health centers.
He added that 16 percent of the martyrs are children and 19 percent of them women, while the injured proportion of children reached 11 percent and women 17 percent.

What is the number that will prompt disgust and lead to vocal rejection of Nouri's assault on Sunni civilians?

The embarrassing UNHCR wanted to whine about 'terrorism' in Iraq.

What is terrorism but not being safe in your own home?

Read Mustafa Habib's piece for Niqash -- it's very clear that those civilians in the city are pretty much stuck there.

They shouldn't have to leave their homes to begin with but now they have no choice.

And these are the civilians Nouri kills and wounds daily.

When does this become an issue?

When the number killed hits a thousand?

At the end of February, I was speaking to a friend in the administration about these murders -- they are murders, Nouri is a murderer. And it was just so small, I was told, these deaths, and, besides, the US was working with him on getting a cease fire. They'd eventually get a '48' hour cease fire. But Nouri couldn't even honor that.

I want to know what the magic number is that leads to an international outcry?

I would have thought, myself, that the fact that these are War Crimes would prompt outrage.

Nope.

Very few acknowledge what's taking place.

What continues to take place.

And the silence that surrounds it goes to Nouri's enablers. Patrick Cockburn is only one of many who have been silent. Nouri has had many, many enablers.

Take Barack's first US Ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill.

Chris Hill was a joke. A lazy idiot who showed up for his confirmation hearing with his hair sticking out at all angles and food stains on his shirt (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th one).

Isaiah captured the moment in The World Today Just Nuts "The Pig-Pen Ambassador."

That alone should have raised alarms.

Hill's answers were even worse than his failure to dress to impress for a Senate hearing.

And once he became ambassador, he dresses up as a Secret Service agent with some tawdry idiot dressing as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy to spoof the assassination of JFK.

That's what trashy Chris Hill thinks passes for professional. (Peter Van Buren posted the photo to his blog here and here.)

I'd love to leave Chris alone but he can't stop being a danger to himself and others.

Gulf News runs Chris' latest crap today. It opens:

Nouri Al Maliki’s fitful departure from Iraq’s premiership recalled many other cliffhanger exits by unpopular political leaders. His leaving did not come a moment too soon for the many Iraqis who have laid all of the country’s current troubles at his doorstep.

Do we see a problem already?

Sunday morning, we offered "Nouri's not gone yet -- as Falluja civilians can attest."

Chris is an idiot, over and over he's an idiot.

When he left Iraq August 13, 2010, he swore to Anthony Shadid (New York Times) that the political stalemate he'd been no help in resolving was nearly over and that a power-sharing agreement "was just weeks away."

Weeks away?

Did he mean 12 weeks -- which is also known as three months -- because that's how much longer Nouri drug out the political stalemate.

The idiot told NPR that Nouri would abide by the results of the 2010 election.

But Nouri didn't.

Over and over, Chris Hill has been wrong.

Now he writes:

Al Maliki, according to this view, was endlessly divisive, driven by authoritarian tendencies, lacking in elementary political skills, and incapable of leading an army in disarray. But his greatest failure was his inability to grasp that successful governance in Iraq requires reaching out to other communities, notably the Sunnis and Kurds.

Instead, Al Maliki ordered preventive arrests of young Sunni men, supposedly in anticipation of their defection to terrorist groups, and hounded his political opponents, in some instances driving them out of government (and in one case into exile).

No doubt, much of this narrative has a basis in fact. But if it were the whole story, the mild-mannered, western-educated prime minister-designate, Haider Al Abadi, would have an easy task in stitching things back together. After all, Iraq’s Sunnis would have every reason to support Al Abadi now that Al Maliki has gone.

Chris needs to spare Nouri because he enabled him. Calling him out now is calling out himself.

If you don't get what a liar Chris -- or Patrick Cockburn or any of Nouri's concubines -- don't listen to me. I've talked this issue to death.

Let's instead hear from Barack again. Here's what he said today:

Keep in mind we had been in communications with the Iraqi government for more than a year indicating that we saw significant problems in the Sunni areas. Prime Minister Maliki was not as responsive perhaps as we would have liked to some of the underlying political grievances that existed at the time.There is no doubt that in order for Iraq security forces to be successful, they're going to need help. They're going to need help from us. They're going to need help from our international partners. They're going to need additional training. They're going to need additional equipment. And we are going to be prepared to offer that support.
There may be a role for an international coalition providing additional air support for their operations. But the reason it’s so important that an Iraqi government be in place is this is not simply a military problem. The problem we have had consistently is a Sunni population that feels alienated from Baghdad and does not feel invested in what’s happening, and does not feel as if anybody is looking out for them.
If we can get a government in place that provides Sunnis some hope that a national government serves their interest, if they can regain some confidence and trust that it will follow through on commitments that were made way back in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 and earlier about how you arrive at, for example, de-Baathification laws and give people opportunities so they're not locked out of government positions -- if those things are followed through on, and we are able to combine it with a sound military strategy, then I think we can be successful. If we can't, then the idea that the United States or any outside power would perpetually defeat ISIS I think is unrealistic.
As I’ve said before -- I think I said in the previous press conference -- our military is the best in the world. We can route ISIS on the ground and keep a lid on things temporarily. But then as soon as we leave, the same problems come back again. So we’ve got to make sure that Iraqis understand in the end they're going to be responsible for their own security. And part of that is going to be the capacity for them to make compromises.

Barack needs to rebuke Chris Hill publicly.

The White House fired Chris.

Fired him for cause, in fact.

Hill was a failure who couldn't hold onto his job.

Now he's going to be presented as a trusted source?

We'll close with this, Zeke Miller (Time magazine) asking Barack a question and Barack's response:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Last year, you said that you believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. In response to Chuck’s question you said you don’t have a strategy yet, but you’ll reconsider that going forward. But why didn’t you go to Congress before this current round of strikes in Iraq? Do you not believe that that’s the case anymore, what you said last year? And throughout your career you’ve also said that -- you raised concerns with the expansion of powers of the executive. Are you concerned that your recent actions, unilaterally, had maybe -- have cut against that?

THE PRESIDENT: No. And here’s why: It is not just part of my responsibility, but it is a sacred duty for me as Commander-in-Chief to protect the American people. And that requires me to act fast, based on information I receive, if an embassy of ours or a consulate of ours is being threatened. The decisions I made were based on very concrete assessments about the possibility that Erbil might be overrun in the Kurdish region and that our consulate could be in danger. And I can’t afford to wait in order to make sure that those folks are protected.
But throughout this process, we’ve consulted closely with Congress, and the feedback I’ve gotten from Congress is, is that we’re doing the right thing. Now, as we go forward -- as I’ve described to Chuck -- and look at a broader regional strategy with an international coalition and partners to systematically degrade ISIL’s capacity to engage in the terrible violence and disruptions that they’ve been engaging in not just in Syria, not just in Iraq, but potentially elsewhere if we don’t nip this at the bud, then those consultations with Congress for something that is longer term I think become more relevant.
And it is my intention that Congress has to have some buy-in as representatives of the American people. And, by the way, the American people need to hear what that strategy is. But as I said to Chuck, I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. And in some of the media reports the suggestion seems to have been that we’re about to go full scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating ISIL, and the suggestion, I guess, has been that we’ll start moving forward imminently and somehow Congress -- still out of town -- is going to be left in the dark. That’s not what’s going to happen.

We are going to continue to focus on protecting the American people. We’re going to continue, where we can, to engage in the sort of humanitarian acts that saved so many folks who were trapped on a mountain. We are going to work politically and diplomatically with folks in the region. And we’re going to cobble together the kind of coalition that we need for a long-term strategy as soon as we are able to fit together the military, political and economic components of that strategy. There will be a military aspect to that, and it’s going to be important for Congress to know what that is, in part because it may cost some money.

iraq
mark mericle
niqash
mustafa habib
time
zeke j. miller

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)