Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Spin blows it

As I've noted many times, I love the Afghan Whigs and Gentlemen is a classic album.

So seeing "The Afghan Whigs Dissect 'Gentlemen,' Track By Track" at Spin?


I was thrilled.

And then. . . .

I read it.


My favorite song will always be "When We Two Parted."

I couldn't wait to hear Greg Dulli 'dissect' that song.

Didn't happen.

Instead of doing like they did with the other tracks and dissecting how it came about, the interviewer's off asking about how, in concert right now, they 'mash it up' with a song by Drake.

Whatever.


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



Tuesday, November 18, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Tony Blair gets cheat sheets from the Iraq Inquiry, the bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhood continues, the persecution of Iraqi Christians continue, and much more.



Shocking news out of England where the  Iraq Inquiry appears to have come to some conclusions (finally).  The Inquiry kicked off with Chair John Chilcot declaring:


 This is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors.  It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath.  We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.

The Inquiry held public hearings starting in November 2009 and concluding in February 2011.

That was nearly four years ago and still people wait for the Inquiry to issue its findings.


Well . . .

It turns out only some people wait.

Some people already know the findings.

RT reports:

Letters containing in-depth conclusions of a public inquiry into Britain’s 2003 Iraq War have been dispatched to the probe’s primary participants. Critics charge that the brutal eight-year war divided Britain and blackened Tony Blair’s legacy.
Under UK law, any individual that faces criticism in a public inquiry must be issued with an official letter warning them of allegations in its findings. They are subsequently then permitted to rebut and counter unsavory or unsatisfactory findings. 


The Daily Mail adds:

In May [UK Prime Minister] David Cameron said he expected the report to be published ‘before the end of the year’.
He added: ‘The public wants to see the answers of the inquiry and I think we shouldn’t have to wait too much longer.’
But just four weeks of the Parliamentary term remain – making it unlikely that it will be published before MPs recess for Christmas.

The big fear politically about the report has been Labour's fear that anchor around the neck Tony Blair will sink them all, that the report -- even if it's a whitewash -- has to hold the War Criminal accountable for his actions and words.

If the report doesn't come out by the end of the year, however, Labour could score points by painting Cameron (of the Conservative Party) as an obstructionist refusing to allow the British people to know the truth.

Space has already been created between the current Labour leadership and disgraced War Criminal Tony Blair.  Demanding the release of the report and painting the Conservative Party as a barrier to the report's release could actually help Labour improve their numbers in Parliament.

As for the discarded Tony Blair?


Dominic Grover (IBT) notes:

Blair continues to be a deeply divisive figure in Britain, due to his decision to back George W Bush campaign to topple Saddam and the controversial "sexed up" dossier, which critics claim mis-sold the need for war to the British people.
France's foreign minister recently said Blair was "not best placed" to issue advice on the Middle East, in light of his track record.
There have even been alleged threats to his life, with terror suspect Erol Incedal accused of plotting an attack on him.
To cap it all, Mayor of London Boris Johnson has chosen to compare the three-time New Labour leader to tyrant Adolf Hitler in a new book.



Despite that, War Criminal Tony feels the world needs to listen to him on Iraq.  The criminal doesn't want to confess, please understand, he just laughably believes he has expertise and wisdom to share.


He has nothing to share.

Blair fancies himself a Christian yet he's never taken accountability for how the Iraq War has destroyed the Christian communities in Iraq.









    • He may not want it but it may beyond his control.

    Some people have a hard time giving up control -- even those who consider themselves servants of a God or god.  John Bingham (Telegraph of London) presents the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby explaining that, "I think there is an answer that says we need to do more where there is really no choice but we also need to be deeply committed to enabling solutions to be found enabling communities that have been there for 2,000 years to remain there."

    If Welby's so worried that Christians may vanish, he can always pack a suitcase and go live there.

    The notion that Christian refugees should not be granted asylum outside the region?


    I'm sorry, would you also go back in time and argue that Jews in Germany and surrounding areas not be granted asylum to safety because Jews might vanish from the region?

    Because it sounds sort of like you would.

    Too much time by 'caring' people has already been wasted with faux concerns about how refugees are vanishing from the region when the reality is that refugees want to leave and find safety.  I don't know how this is confusing and I don't believe that this or that religious leader is honestly puzzled.

    I think people are actively looking to look the other way just as they did during the Holocaust.

    The Yazidis swooped in on the wave of outrage the targeting of Christians had created.  I am not accusing the Yazidis of anything.  I am saying that outrage was building and certain members of Congress were calling out the treatment of the Chaldeans which the US press was ignoring and then the religious minority (Yazidis) were trapped on Mount Sinjar and the press glommed on it.

    It was an important story.  (The fact that Yazidis remain trapped on Mount Sinjar is an important story -- even if the US press can't find it.)  But somewhere along the way, the press -- the US press -- completely missed what was happening to Iraq's Christian community in the last months.







    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "At least 91 people were killed today, mostly militants, and another 24 people were wounded."  In addition, Iraqi Spring MC reports the bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhood by the Iraqi military continues -- despite Prime Minister Haider al-Baidi promising September 13th that these War Crimes would end.  Today, 3 civilians were injured in these bombings.


    Moving over to food, Justin Worland (Time magazine) reports, "Iraq’s agriculture minister on Tuesday accused the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) of pilfering more than 1.1 million tons of grain from the country’s northern region and delivering it to militant-controlled cities in Syria."  That news comes as US House Rep Rick Crawford's office issues the following:


     Washington, Nov 18 | Mitchell Nail


    In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. Congressman Rick Crawford (AR-1) and U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) today urged protecting American rice producers against unfair business practices in Iraq.

     In early November, the Iraqi Grain Board (IGB) paid $1.4 million more to buy rice from Brazil and Uruguay rather than accept the competitive, lower bid by U.S. rice.

    “Given the considerable investment of resources by the American taxpayer in Iraq, it is critical that the United States be on ‘equal footing’ with its foreign competitors when it comes to the ability to win bids issued by the IGB. Simply deciding to pick winners and losers in bids for Iraqi rice tenders based on arbitrary reasons is not only unfair, it deprives rice farmers in Arkansas — a leader in rice production — and across America of a vital trading partnership with Iraq,” the members wrote.

     A tender to buy 30,000 metric tons of rice closed on Sunday, November 16th. Winning bids are expected to be announced later this week.

     To read the letter in its entirety, click here.     


    We'll close with this from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:


     WHAT: Coming off Veterans Day 2014 and a week when politicians and lawmakers touted their support for the veterans community, IAVA urges members of Congress to now step up and take action to pass the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Bill of 2014. The bill, dropped Monday, was introduced by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
    IAVA Legislative Director Alex Nicholson and Susan Selke, mother of Clay Hunt, a Marine veteran who died by suicide, will be available for press ahead of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (SVAC) hearing on Mental Health and Suicide Among Veterans at 10 a.m. outside the hearing room in the Russell Senate Office Building SR-418.
    Susan Selke will then testify before SVAC at 10:30 a.m.

     WHO: Alex Nicholson, IAVA Legislative Director and Susan Selke, mother of Clay Hunt, Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and died by suicide in 2011

     WHEN: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 10 a.m.

     WHERE: Outside Hearing Room- Russell Senate Office Building SR-418

     Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.

     Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has nearly 300,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.















    Posted by at

    Monday, November 17, 2014

    Another person unimpressed with Bob Geldof's 'help'

    Aisha Harris (Slate) weighs in on the new version of "Do They Know It's Christmas?" -- this one for Ebola (I wrote about it on Saturday):
    The apparent good intentions of these efforts seem to shield them somewhat from criticism. But “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” is awful on a number of levels, and needs to be criticized. As the economist William Easterly wrote in Slate earlier this year, the song promotes “a worldview in which ‘they,’ Africans, are unable to help themselves in preventing famine, and so passively await rescue from ‘we’ Western famine experts, a category that apparently includes rock stars.” Furthermore, the suggestion that “they” need to know that a Christian holiday is taking place obliviously invokes the sins of colonialism. And the song converts a massive, diverse, and complicated continent into a single, undifferentiated place (a typical Western attitude toward Africa), where, apparently, “nothing ever grows” and “no rivers ever flow.”

    However much money the song raises, these attitudes can do real harm. “These stereotypes,” Easterly writes, “make it harder to recognize how much Africans deserve (and are already fighting for) greater political and economic rights to actively determine their own destinies.”


    I think Harris makes sound points.  I'm sure she'll get some complaining e-mails (I did) but I agree with her.

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



    Monday, November 17, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, a WBUR employee decides to insult the Iraqi people as well as US service members as he badly rewrites history, there's still no move towards inclusion on the part of Iraq's new government, yet the State Dept's decided to fork over millions more US taxpayer dollars to Iraq, and much more.



    In Friday's snapshot we noted US House Rep Tammy Duckworth was being denied the right to vote by proxy on Democratic leadership posts in the House of Representatives:



    Tammy Duckworth is not only a member of Congress, she's also a veteran of the Iraq War.  Nancy Pelosi chose to 'honor' veterans this week by announcing that a veteran who lost both legs in combat would not be allowed to vote by proxy on the issue of who would hold what office -- for example, who would be the next Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    Duckworth is at home in Illinois.  Why doesn't she just fly to DC?
    CBS News notes Duckworth "was told by doctor that it was unsafe for her to fly at this stage in her pregnancy."

    Amanda Marcotte (Slate) notes today:

     This is a sticky situation. Though the principle of fairness in doling out exceptions is compelling, as Nia-Malika Henderson of the Washington Post points out, Democrats "have framed themselves as the party of working women" and this "does put them in an awkward position," particularly as the Supreme Court will soon be hearing a case over whether or not UPS should have given one of its pregnant employees a temporary accommodation, moving her to light work duty during her pregnancy. Making matters worse, the denial of Duckworth's request might be political. Duckworth supports putting Rep. Frank Pallone on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who objected to Duckworth's request, is campaigning for Rep. Anna Eshoo to get the job instead.

    Let's turn to the topic of Iraq.  Alex Kingsbury usually broadcasts his stupidity on WBUR but today brought it to the Boston Globe:


    The goals of the Iraq surge were spelled out explicitly by the White House in Jan. 2007: Stop the raging sectarian bloodletting and reconcile Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in the government. “A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations,” then-President George W. Bush said.
    To believe in the myth of the surge is to absolve Iraqis of their responsibility to resolve their differences. It gives the US government an unrealistic sense of its own capabilities. And it ignores the roots of the conflict now stretching from Damascus to Baghdad.


    I've never like little bitches in my life and Alex Kingsbury is nothing but a little bitch.

    Jaw-dropping?

    That would be American asses who blame the Iraqi people.

    I'm sorry that Kingsbury thinks it's acceptable to rewrite history and blame the Iraqi people.

    First, the 'surge.'  He condescendingly says later in the piece that the lie of a success of the 'surge' lets veterans fool themselves but we need to be honest.

    Let's get honest.

    The 'surge' had two parts.  There was what the US military was tasked with.  There was what the Iraqi government was tasked with.

    People who served in Iraq as part of the US military surge are not fooling themselves or lying to themselves.  They did the job they were tasked to do.

    They did it very well.

    I was -- and remain -- opposed to the 'surge.'  That doesn't mean I have to lie about it.  I'm not an unethical whore -- would that Kingsbury could make the same claim.

    The US military did what it was supposed.

    This does matter.

    It's not academic.

    It matters right now with what's going on and if Kingsbury can't be honest about it, he's not just a dirty whore, he's a dirty whore doing tremendous damage.

    Currently US President Barack is doing a 'surge' in bombing campaigns from the air.  These bombings are killing people -- and not just terrorists -- and they're destroying the country.

    But Barack's justification is that these military efforts are supposed to take on and/or distract the Islamic State allowing the Iraqi government to work towards a political solution.  Barack spent the summer insisting a political solution was the only answer.

    Are you getting why it matters yet?

    I don't doubt for one moment that the US military is capable of carrying out every order they're given.

    They did it during Bully Boy Bush's 'surge' and they're doing it during Barack's 'surge.

    The Iraqi part of the 'surge' did not work under Bully Boy Bush and it doesn't appear to be working under Barack.  Under Barack, a ton of time and attention is being focused on the military aspect and meeting with 30 defense ministers here and there and sending the State Dept's Brett McGurk to meet with defense officials in Jordan and other countries.

    But Brett's State Dept and he -- and other State Dept officials -- should be working on the ground, as diplomats, to attempt to help Iraqi politicians come together and arrive at a political solution.

    There's a degree of blame that can be placed on Bully Boy Bush re the Iraqi part of the surge.

    In 2006, the White House opposed Ibrahim al-Jaffari getting a second term.  He was the choice of the Iraqi Parliament.  But the White House had a number of reasons for which to oppose al-Jaffari (were any of them good? that's another discussion but I'd say overall: No, none of them were good reasons).  The White House insisted upon Nouri al-Maliki.   US officials went to him, prepped him for it and then insisted he be named prime minister.

    2007 is when Nouri agrees to the benchmarks to continue funding -- US tax dollars -- pour into Iraq.

    These benchmarks should have been accomplished before the start of 2008.

    The White House was afraid the Congress might cut off funding and they proposed the benchmarks to measure success.  These were not complex benchmarks.

    But Nouri couldn't pull it off in 2007.

    So the White House (and a whorish press) sought to act as if a law not being passed didn't signify failure if a law had been proposed (but never voted on or voted down).  So there was 'partial' grading by sad little outlets like McClatchy Newspapers.

    In 2008, Nouri couldn't pull off the benchmarks.

    Barack becomes president in January 2009 (he's sworn in) and throughout 2009 Nouri's still unable to get the benchmarks passed -- back in 2007, he agreed he would get them passed. He failed.

    In 2010, still not passed.

    He failed.

    And, in 2010 -- pay attention, this is one main reason we don't blame the Iraqi people -- the country had parliamentary elections.

    Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bested incumbent Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law.  This was amazing.  You could refer to Deborah Amos report and study of the 2010 elections -- we've noted that repeatedly, we've quoted from it repeatedly.  It documents, among other things, how Nouri manipulated the Iraqi military.

    The most important thing about those elections was what it said about the Iraqi people.

    In the 2009 provincial elections, you could see in the votes a move towards a national identity.

    With more voters rejecting Nouri's sectarian ways and embracing the inclusive Iraqiya, the 2010 vote was so important.

    And it wasn't a tiny victory, it was a huge victory for the Iraqi people.

    But Barack Obama decided to stick with Nouri.

    He had US officials broker The Erbil Agreement, a legal contract that went around the Iraqi Constitution and, most importantly, the will of the Iraqi people and gave Nouri a second term.

    Don't you dare blame the Iraqi people for what happened from 2010 to 2014 when they went to the polls and voted for change but Barack Obama decided they'd get a second term of Nouri instead.

    That's not minor.

    And that's not on them.

    So stop insulting the Iraqi people.

    And stop insulting the Iraqi politicians for that time period as well.

    The Erbil Agreement?  A legal contract that political leaders signed off on only after Nouri refused to step down for 8 months following the elction (he had the support of the US government).  They agreed because they wanted the government to move forward (it was at a standstill).  But that contract said, "We give Nouri a second term, we get . . ."  And each political bloc had wants and needs.

    But Nouri used it to get his second term and then refused to honor The Erbil Agreement.

    He took what he wanted, a second term, but refused to honor the promises he made.

    By the summer of 2011, he was being called out for refusing to implement the contract -- called out by the Kurds, by Iraqiya and by Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

    By April 2012, they were tired of waiting, they were tired of asking.  With Shi'ite leader (of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) Ammar al-Hakim and many others, they met and discussed a vote in Parliament of no-confidence.  They gathered signatures on a petition -- per the Iraqi Constitution.  They were then to hand it over to the President of Iraq who would officially present it to the Parliament.

    Throughout the gathering of signatures, Moqtada repeatedly stated Nouri could end the process at any point by implementing The Erbil Agreement.

    During all of this the US government played dumb.  Pretended they didn't broker The Erbil Agreement, pretended they didn't swear this was a legal binding contract with the full backing of the White House, pretended Barack didn't personally call Ayad Allawi after Allawi walked out of Parliament in November 2010 when he (rightly) suspected Nouri was never going to implement The Erbil Agreement.

    Now things got even worse.

    US Vice President Joe Biden used all his persuasion and pressure on Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, to get the vote killed.

    Jalal announced that some people who signed now said they wouldn't sign if the petition was circulated now.

    That's not how it works.  You don't get to retract your signature.  You're not forced to vote no-confidence because you signed the petition, but you're not able to remove your name.

    Nor was Jalal legally able to allow people to remove their names.  Nor was he supposed to 'vet' the signatures.

    He had a purely ceremonial role: Present it to Parliament.

    But Jalal did the White House's bidding.

    He immediately then left Iraq, lying that he had a health emergency and needed immediate surgery.

    Turned out, he went to Germany for knee surgery -- elective surgery.

    Jalal's was karmically punished for his lie a year later when he suffered a stroke that would keep him in Germany and out of the country for nearly 18 months.

    Few things enrage me more than hearing someone say "those people just want to kill each other" or "they don't want peace."

    When have "those people" (Iraqis) been able to determine the outcome of their lives?

    First, the US government (under Bully Boy Bush) imposed Nouri al-Maliki -- a tyrant -- on them in 2006 and then the US government (under Barack Obama) demanded Nouri get a second term in 2010 -- this long after Ned Parker (then with the Los Angeles Times, now with Reuters) had documented Nouri's use of torture chambers and secret prisons.

    Don't blame the Iraqi people.  Don't even blame the Iraqi politicians since more than enough were willing to sign on for a no-confidence vote.

    "Those people"?  "Those people" responsible are Bully Boy Bush and Barack Obama.

    Don't trash the Iraqi people.

    You don't look smart.

    You don't look enlightened.

    You look like a small-minded idiot.

    Bully Boy Bush installed a tyrant and did so largely because the CIA profile of Nouri noted his paranoia and it was thought he could be easily manipulated as a result.  Four years later, Barack kept him because people like Samantha Power insisted that Nouri was providing stability (whatever he provided, it was via terrorizing the Iraqi people) and that the US troop drawdown could take place if Nouri got a second term.

    Never once, did either Bush or Barack make the needs, wants or desires of the Iraqi people the primary focus.

    So don't start blaming people who were victimized by the US government.


    And stop lying.

    This is a lie.


     What follows from the surge mythology is the idea that a few thousand residual US troops could have prevented Maliki from indulging in his worst sectarian impulses, or held off the ISIS rout. 

    It's a known lie to people who bothered to pay attention.

    When did Nouri send the military to surround the homes of Sunni politicians in Iraq?

    After the US drawdown was complete.

    Liz Sly, among others, reported on it.

    Where were you?

    Oh, that's right, thumb up your ass and eyes closed.

    US troops would absolutely have made a difference.

    Nouri held off until they left.

    And I say that as someone who believes -- even now -- all US troops should be out of Iraq.

    But my belief in all US forces out now is not going to lead me to lie or whore or pretend.

    I have integrity.

    If John McCain, US Senator, had won the 2008 presidential election, he might have tried keeping US forces in Iraq throughout his first term (and his second if he'd had one).  Based on his remarks, that is a possibility -- a strong one.

    And, yes, things would be calmer.

    And McCain spoke of a presence similar to what the US has in South Korea -- all these decades after the Korean War.


    I don't pretend to be an expert on Korea.

    But on Iraq?

    All my classes come to bear here as well as personal experience.

    Yes, US troops remaining in Iraq after the end of 2011 (in the thousands) would have led to less violence in Iraq.

    But that wouldn't have solved anything.

    Unless US troops were (or now "are") going to remain in Iraq for multiple decades to come to prop up the government.

    The reason for the violence is the Iraqi people don't have a buy-in with the Iraqi government.

    Most leaders were imposed by the US -- most were exiles who only returned after the US-led invasion.

    A puppet government that worked old grudges didn't prompt a buy-in.

    Barack has said a political solution is the only answer.

    He's 100% right on that.

    But he's not focusing US efforts on that.

    Like Bully Boy Bush, he's more interested in responding to violence with force.

    And the window of opportunity for change in Iraq continues to close.

    There are lessons to learn from the 'surge' of Bully Boy Bush, lessons that apply today.

    It's a damn shame that Alex Kingsbury can't find any.

    Maybe he spent too much time working on his insults of Iraqis and veterans?

    And one more thing, counter-insurgency didn't fail because of US service members, it failed for the reason it always fails -- it's war on a native people. In addition to everything else, it's trickery and deceit and there's nothing 'honorable' about that.


    Before we move to violence, let's get a laugh in.

    Today, US Secretary of State John Kerry declared that the Islamic State was neither "a state nor truly Islamic" -- did he follow it with "discuss"?  John Kerry as Mike Meyers' Linda Richmond.

    Let's move to today's violence.  The United Nations News Centre reports:

    A United Nations convoy of three vehicles proceeding from the Baghdad International Airport to the International Zone was hit with at least one explosion this morning, the Organization’s assistance mission in the country reported today.
    According to a statement from the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), no UN personnel were killed or injured in the incident and all proceeded safely back to the UN Compound. One of the vehicles sustained serious damage.
    “The unfortunate incident this morning will not deter the UN from continuing its work in support of Iraq and its people, who have lived with violence for too long,” UNAMI chief Nickolay Mladenov said.  


    Other violence in today's news cycle?  Al Arabiya News reports:

     Five members of an Iraqi family who refused to marry off their daughter to a fighter in the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have been executed by the militant group in a “horrific crime,” Iraq’s Human Rights Ministry said over the weekend.

    In a statement posted on its website Sunday, the ministry said ISIS militants executed the five family members – mother, father and three children – and then kidnapped the 14-year-old girl, taking her to an undisclosed location.



    In some of today's other violence?  NINA reports that the Islamic State hanged a police officer in the center of Falluja.

    Hanging him in the center of Falluja was intended to send a message.

    And this message comes at a time when the current Iraqi government, presided over by new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi isn't working towards a political solution at all.  Reuters notes there is no genuine effort to bring the Sunni tribe leaders in -- the group that made up Sahwa (Awakenings, Sons of Iraq, Daughters of Iraq).  Reuters notes:
    Iraq's robust official spin machine has certainly suggested the Shi'ite-led government and even its militia allies who have few friends among the Sunni tribesmen, are swinging into action.
    But there are few real signs of momentum needed to bury sectarian differences and create a united force to counter IS in Anbar, which it has engulfed steadily throughout 2014 to the point where senior U.S. military officials last month described the situation there as fraught.

    Sabah Karhoot, provincial council chief of Anbar, home to the Albu Nimr, told Reuters there were still enough fighters to take on Islamic State but they needed effective weapons and ammunition from Baghdad.


    Where is the White House?

    What are they doing?

    The Sunni tribe leaders were supposed to have been brought in back in August.

    It still hasn't happened.


    The World Tribune reports, "The State Department has endorsed two Iraqi military requests from the United States as it struggles to recover territory lost to ISIL. Officials said the requests, which amount to nearly $700 million, would include air weapons as well as spare parts for artillery and trucks."

    That's called leverage.

    You don't hand it over.

    You don't agree to it.

    You say, "You want this?  You believe you need it?  Well we need to see movements towards a political solution.  Step one is you bring Sunnis into the process.  Let's see some tribe leaders brought in.  And why don't we revisit some of those issues that led Sunnis to protest non-stop for over a year -- despite being killed by Nouri's thugs."

    That's what you do.

    You don't hand over things and then say, "Okay, now I need you to do something for me."

    They're the ones wanting.  Extract concessions every step of the way.

    Back to the violence, Alsumaria reports that a roadside bombing outside Samarra left 2 police officers dead and two more injured,  a Saidiya roadside bombing left at least two people injured, an Aden roadside bombing left three people injured, two Baghdad car bombings left 5 people dead and twenty more injured, and Baghdad Operations Command announced that they rescued an 80-year-old man who had been kidnapped.

    On the issue of kidnapping, Mohammed Shafiq (Alsumaria) reports Speaker of Parliament Salem al-Jubouri called today for the government to devise an emergency action plan to deal with the issue of kidnapping.  al-Jubouri noted the terror the kidnappings have caused the Iraqi people and the vast amounts of money the kidnappers have been able to make.



     Thursday, Gen Martin Dempsey told Congress that he may suggest US troops be sent into on the ground combat in Iraq -- as "participants" and not "advisors."  Yesterday, Barbara Starr (CNN) reported Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is now floating increased numbers of US troops in Iraq as well.

    Hagel's not the only one singing that tired song.


    Sunday in Australia, Barack joined the chorus.  Tom Allerd (Sydney Morning Herald) quotes Barack stating, "Yes, there are always circumstances in which the United States might need to deploy US ground troop."  Though Barack stated he would not go into hypotheticals,Allard notes that Barack went on to note a hypothetical.  National Iraqi News Agency reports it this way:

     Obama said in his speech in the top twenty conference in Australia: "The United States is working to train Iraqis and may send combat troops if the terrorist organization getting strategic weapons[.]"


    As for Dempsey, NINA reports:


    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said that "military force will not eliminate / IS / without an Iraqi national unity and the Iraqi government did not succeed in ending the division between / Sunni and Shiaa / in the country.

    He said in a press statement that "the US military helped the Iraqi forces and the Peshmerga in pulling Iraq away from the abyss and the battle with / IS/ begun to bear fruit against a group of dwarves adopting extremist ideology."

    Dempsey said, " building confidence requires time as well as the US mission that may continue years."


    A US mission that may continue [for] years.

    Years.



















    Posted by at

    Saturday, November 15, 2014

    Bob Geldof wants to 'help'

    Hasn't Ebola done enough damage?

    Bob Geldof, who wrote the pompous lyrics to the 1984 Band-Aid single "Do They Know It's Christmas?", has regrouped to bring another band of artists together for a charity remake to benefit Ebola -- or the vicitms of it but when Bob Geldof describes Ebola as "a dirty little virus," you really have to think Ebloa could respond, "Look who's talking."

    The self-righteous lyrics (Bob did not write the melody) were supposedly about starving people in Africa.  So Bob thought the thing to do was to insult them, hence the chorus:


    We KNOOOOOOWWW
    Do they KNOOOOOWW
    Let them KNOOOOOWW
    It's Christmas time
    We KNOOOOOOW
    . . .

    The only thing worse than starving in Africa?

    Having some pompous Brit portray you as too stupid to know it.

    Sadly, the wrong person died hanging.  The INXS lead singer's death was a huge loss.

    If it had been trashy Bob Geldof it would have been a blessing.

    If you missed it, he and his buddy Bono provided cover for Bully Boy Bush and the Iraq War and don't get me started on the cover they've offered to the G20.

    Bob Geldof does tremendous damage.

    Including to the ear.

    But usually that can be ignored because no one listens to him -- solo and with Boomtown Rats, he's never been a radio staple in the US.  For obvious reasons.

    And don't forget the ''inspiring' message Bob wrote in the 'classic' "Do They Know It's Christmas?" -- "And tonight thank God it's them instead of you."


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


    Friday, November 14, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the only person outside the Iraqi government working towards a political solution is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the US sends another military officer into Iraq (while yet again ignoring diplomacy),  General Martin Dempsey's remarks about US troops possibly fighting on the ground in Iraq continues to garner attention, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi makes clear she's neither a friend to veterans or to women, and much more.



    The war on women never ends.  The latest attacking women include US House Rep Nancy Pelosi.


    Tammy Duckworth is not only a member of Congress, she's also a veteran of the Iraq War.  Nancy Pelosi chose to 'honor' veterans this week by announcing that a veteran who lost both legs in combat would not be allowed to vote by proxy on the issue of who would hold what office -- for example, who would be the next Ranking Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Duckworth is at home in Illinois.  Why doesn't she just fly to DC?

    CBS News notes Duckworth "was told by doctor that it was unsafe for her to fly at this stage in her pregnancy."


    Joining Pelosi in the war against women?  US House Rep Rosa DeLauro who feels that if you grant an exception for Duckworth, you might have to grant exceptions for everyone.

    Doesn't Rosa sound like a homophobe against marriage equality?  Is she afraid that granting Duckworth the right to vote by proxy will lead to people marrying goats?

    Who knows.

    What is known is that US Senator Patty Murray busted her rear to ensure that the Senate explored the issues effecting wounded veterans who try to start a family.

    What is known is that Nancy Pelosi and Rosa DeLauro  had other things to do.

    On her website, Rosa proclaims she "believes that as a nation we have an obligation to ensure that these brave men and women who serve our country, as well as their families, have access to the medical care they need" -- wait.  If a doctor's orders prevent Duckworth from flying to DC -- and they do prevent her from doing so -- how is Rosa maintaining her belief?

    Oh, that's right, she's not.

    Again, it was Senator Patty Murray that led on the issue of the needs of wounded veterans when it came to starting families or adding to their families.

    It wasn't Rosa or Nancy.  Those two?  They always seemed to have something 'more important' to do.
    .
    The choice -- or so-called choice -- Tammy Duckworth is being given is, if you want to vote, you'll have to put your pregnancy and your own health at risk.

    That is a war on women and Nancy and Rosa are leading it.

    Nancy doesn't give a damn about rules.  Remember Denver in 2008?  She stopped the delegate vote, remember?

    The vote on the Democratic head for the Energy and Commerce Commission is yet another battle between Nancy and Steny Hoyer who are each backing different candidates.  Nancy's taken to referring to Hoyer -- snidely -- as Martin Frost.  (In 2002, Nancy took on Frost and won.  She also worked hard to ensure that he was redistricted out of office in Texas' redistricting plan.  Nancy worked overtime to save certain House members but not Frost who she tossed to the wolves.)

    For Nancy (and her supporters) this pissing match justifies denying a pregnant woman a vote.

    She should be ashamed of herself.

    AP notes Tammy Duckworth has stated she will abide by the decision and that she thinks her colleagues for considering her request.  That was a classy move -- and again, it didn't come from Nancy.

    Nancy's tasteless and tacky move comes as Disabled American Veterans' Garry J. Augustine (Turlock Jounral) pens a column noting the mistreatment of America's women veterans:

    Based on currently available data, it is clear that our country isn't fully meeting the unique physical, emotional and employment needs of women veterans. When they return home, they receive less support than their male counterparts from government programs primarily designed for men.
    Today, nearly one in five women veterans has delayed or gone without necessary health care in the past year. One in 11 is unemployed. Former servicewomen experience homelessness at between two to four times the rate of their civilian counterparts.
    It's unacceptable that the women who honorably served our country-our mothers, spouses, sisters and daughters-are at risk. A new report released by my organization, Disabled American Veterans, finds that the federal, state, and community programs to support women transitioning out of military service have serious gaps that put some women veterans in jeopardy.


    We might suggest Congress could help with that but as Nancy Pelosi's made very clear, the needs of women veterans don't matter to her at all.

    Yesterday, the House heard from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey.  The main takeaway was Dempsey's reminding that US troops taking part in combat on the ground was not, in fact, off the table and a possible recommendation he might be making shortly.


    Dempsey's reminder was an issue raised in the US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki today.

    QUESTION: Can I stay on ISIS?
    MS. PSAKI: Sure.
    QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Chairman Dempsey’s comments yesterday that he can envision – I’m paraphrasing – that he can envision contingencies in which U.S. troops would accompany Iraqi troops. Is there a disconnect at all between the DOD’s desire to preserve options for the battle and the Administration’s stance that no ground troops will be sent at all to Iraq?
    MS. PSAKI: Well, Chairman Dempsey also made clear in his testimony that he has not made that recommendation. And he also stated that he does not see a scenario when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent. So it was obviously a large hearing, but he was consistent with our view, which is that yes, there are challenges on the ground; yes, there’s a need to continue to train and support and build up the Iraqi Security Forces; but obviously, the President will make any decision, and the chairman hasn’t even made a recommendation to him.
    QUESTION: Sure. And he was talking about the future, but he didn’t explicitly rule it out. And he did say that for example, the fight to retake Mosul could be a situation where the Iraqi army would have difficulty on their own, which might require some close support from the U.S. But do you not agree that that is any – that there’s any kind of gap there between what you and Josh Earnest have said?
    MS. PSAKI: If you look at the full context of his entire remarks, he also made clear that he doesn’t see a scenario where we would get more engaged with a larger military contingent. So yes, he was having a dialogue with members of Congress, and certainly, that’s part of what happens in any testimony, but the fact is the President makes the decision anyway. 

    The fact is Barack told the American people "no boots on the ground" and yet "boots on the ground" remains a possibility -- one discussed as Dempsey attempts to 'inform' Congress.


    As Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) observed:


    Whatever the President’s real views, we are sliding down the Iraqi slope pretty rapidly. Hardly a week goes by when we don’t hear of another few hundred GIs being quietly shipped to Iraq – "non-combat" troops, to be sure. Yes, they’re going over there to engage in some pretty dangerous and potentially lethal "non-combat" – and when they start getting killed in numbers high enough to notice, will they come back in non-bodybags? 


    Bill Van Auken (WSWS) points out:

    The Pentagon is “certainly considering” sending US ground troops into Iraq for inevitably bloody battles to retake Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and to secure the predominantly Sunni Anbar province and its border with Syria, the top uniformed US commander told a Congressional hearing Thursday.
    Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the House Armed Services Committee barely one week after the Obama administration ordered the doubling of the number of US troops deployed in Iraq, with another 1,500 “advisers” being sent into the country, most of them to embattled Anbar province.
    With the new US war in the Middle East now in its fourth month, there is every indication that this was only the first in what will prove a series of military escalations as Washington pursues a strategy that extends well beyond the stated aim of “degrading and destroying” ISIS.


    As the latest wave in the never-ending Iraq War heats up, the White House wants Congress to provide them with legal cover for the actions Barack has already (illegally) taken.  Specifically, the White House wants an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by the US Congress.


    Earlier this week, Laura Koran and Ashley Killough (CNN) reported US Senator Tim Kaine declared that "there's no legal authority for the current U.S. mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria" and quoted him stating, "We have been engaged in a war -- that is not about imminent defense of the United States -- without legal authority."  The reporters notee the senator "has proposed a new, limited authorization specifically targeted to the current mission against ISIS."

    At yesterday's House Armed Services Committee, US House Rep Walter Jones stated:

     US House Rep Walter Jones:   Now we are going to possibly be asked by the President of the United States -- like we were by George W. Bush -- to authorize an AUMF.  This is nothing but an abdication of our Constitutional responsibility.  To give any president an AUMF.  We tried this past year in June when we had the NDAA bill, Adam Schiff tried to sunset out the AUMF that we gave to President Bush -- which is what was used by President Obama.  And I do not understand how we in Congress can continue to abdicate what the Constitution says is our responsibility.  Before I get to a brief question, James Madison once said this, "The power to declare war -- including the power to judging the cause of war  -- is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."  And I do not believe sincerely because when -- this happens to be President Obama.  He wants to have another AUMF or an extension of what we have.  I hope that the Congress -- both parties -- will look seriously at what is our responsibility because it's not going to be but so long.   


    H.A. Goodman (The Hill) weighs in noting:


     Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is correct in claiming that President Obama’s decision to send 1,500 more soldiers back to Iraq is illegal. We now have over 3,000 American soldiers back in a country we left in 2011, when the president fulfilled a promise of ending the Iraq War. The illegality of the Obama’s decision lies in the fact that Congress has not been consulted on matters that could easily lead to another war. Sending military advisers to train Iraqis seems to be a last ditch effort at succumbing to media and political pressure on the part of our president. Nobody wants to be in the White House if Bagdad falls to ISIL, but Saigon fell in 1975 and Gerald Ford didn’t send Americans back to Vietnam. ISIL indeed poses a threat, but not enough of threat to jettison Constitutional principles in the name of national security. 
    Paul, in a recent Daily Beast op-ed, explains exactly why Obama is breaching certain laws by increasing troop levels without consulting the American people. The Kentucky senator cites both the Constitution and the War Powers Act to highlight Obama’s overreach in doubling the size of our military presence in Iraq: 
    "If the Constitution were not enough, the War Powers Act reiterates the legislature’s prerogative. The War Powers Act does not allow for any military action to take place that is not authorized by Congress or to repel imminent attack. Period. The only exception is military action to repel an imminent attack. In that case, the president has 60 days to report to Congress. Obviously, it’s an exception that doesn’t apply to any of our current wars."



    Former US House Rep Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth Kucinich (Huffington Post) point out of the White House's desired  AUMF,  "This new request rests not on fraud, but on hubris -- the vainglorious notion that we will, at last, 'stabilize' (remake) Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, that US military might trumps culture, religion, history. "


    Reuters notes Gen Dempsey has landed in Iraq on an "unannounced visit."  All these years later, US officials still have to sneak into Iraq.  The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:

    Back to the US State Dept press briefing:


     QUESTION: Yesterday Chairman Dempsey said – he was talking about the cost of the fight against ISIL and so on, but he said something very interesting about Iraq. He said that we expect them to have an inclusive government and inclusive participation of all parties, otherwise you are going to leave them – I’m paraphrasing – to their own volition, so to speak. Is there like a time limit to see how inclusive the Iraqi Government is and is functioning and so on before you say, “That’s it, we give up on you”?
    MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t – I don’t think that’s exactly what he said. I know you’re paraphrasing in your own way --
    QUESTION: I’m paraphrasing.
    MS. PSAKI: -- but I think, one, we do think, absolutely, that it’s very important that not only they govern in an inclusive way but that the Iraqi Security Forces are inclusive and the way that they fight back against ISIL is inclusive. Now, Prime Minister Abadi has done a great deal of outreach to the Sunni tribes. He’s visited a number of regions to do that outreach. There was even an event just a couple of days ago earlier this week at the Al Asad Air Base where the speaker made reference to weapons and supplies that tribal fighters will be provided.
    So certainly, just – the proof is in what happens, of course, as is true in any scenario. But we have seen them attempt to do a great deal of outreach. We’ve been doing a great deal of outreach through General Allen, through Ambassador McGurk, and we do feel that’s an important part of how things will be effective moving forward.
    QUESTION: Okay. Seeing how the Sunni tribes were – felt alienated or felt abandoned, as a matter of fact, after the Americans left Iraq and their pay was cut off and so on, and everybody’s talking about some sort of a national guard that will bring in the Sunni tribes, is there any movement in that direction? Has any – has there been any progress, let’s say, in that area?
    MS. PSAKI: Well, I just mentioned the fact that Prime Minister Abadi – he visited Sunni tribal leaders in Amman and Baghdad and stressed in public remarks that he will advocate for all Iraqis. We’re in the implementation stage – they are – of the national guard program, but obviously, beyond that it’s also about incorporating and including people from many different backgrounds into the ISF forces.
    QUESTION: Yes, please --
    QUESTION: So you are satisfied with his efforts so far on bringing the leaders of the --
    MS. PSAKI: We’ve seen him take a number of – make a number of steps – take a number of steps, I should say – as well as people within the Iraqi Government to be more inclusive. Obviously, this is something that they’ll have to continue to work hard at implementing. There’s a great deal of mistrust, as we all know, and it’s going to take some time to incorporate everyone back in together.


    The above would matter at any time but it especially matters when there's no real progress in Iraq.  Months into US President Barack Obama's so-called 'plan' to address the Islamic State, Cassandra Vinograd  (NBC News) reports:
    U.S.-led airstrikes have failed to slow the number of ISIS attacks and its defiant militants are now racking up a higher body count than ever before, according to data provided exclusively to NBC News.
    Analysis of IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center's (JTIC) database shows the current face — and pace — of the group's battle for Syria and Iraq.
    Data showed that ISIS massively stepped up attacks after conquering the Iraqi city of Mosul on June 10 — and has stepped them up further since airstrikes were launched in August. Deaths caused by ISIS also climbed since the key city was overrun and have continued to rise since the U.S.-led coalition started bombing the militants.         


    The plan is a failure thus far.

    That's even more clear in Richard Engel and Carlo Angerer (NBC News -- link is text and video) report:
    Active soldiers in the Iraqi army also told NBC News that they need more training. While they said they were willing to take on ISIS, they said they felt ill-prepared.
    A 32-year-old sergeant from Baghdad, who requested anonymity for security reasons, said that the army was simply not prepared for battle and that it would take a long time to get rid of ISIS.         


    Despite this fact, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, declared at yesterday's House Armed Services Committee,  "There is no change, and there is no different direction."

    He also ridiculously insisted, "I think progress purchases patience."


    There is no progress.

    And, no, the claims of liberating an oil refinery (in Baiji) from the Islamic State (all over the news this morning) would not constitute progress.

    I don't believe Barack sold this latest wave of war on "We must make the oil safe!"


    AP notes Baghdad was struck by a car bombing which killed 15 people and left thirty-four more injured.  But, don't worry, soon Iraq's oil may be safe and doesn't that matter more than the Iraqi people?

    Because if the Iraqi people mattered to the White House, they would be focusing on the government and working to help it on issues of inclusion.

    Near the start of last month, the White House's official liar Susan Rice took to NBC's Meet The Press to specifically cite Mount Sinjar as one of the "very important successes" in Barack Obama's 'plan' to confront the Islamic State.   Yet only dyas later, Alsumaria reported that Yazidi MP Haji Kndorjsmo is calling for the government to rescue 700 families who are still trapped on Mount Sinjar.


    Yazidis remain trapped on Mount Sinjar, months after Barack supposedly liberated them, but the 'rescue' of an inanimate object, an oil refinery, will be sold as 'progress.'

    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports:

    At least 97 people were killed; about half of them were civilians. Another 122 people were wounded as Baghdad suffered a series of bombings today.

    Military forces declared the town of Baiji liberated. Joint Iraqi, Peshmerga and Shi’ite militiamen fought for months to liberate the city and are in the final stages of retaking the refinery just outside of town. That refinery was the largest in Iraq before the Islamic State took over the city. Other sources say the militants are still in control of the city. At the very least, the city is filled with bombs and booby-traps making access difficult. At least 17 militants were killed.



    Barack insisted to the American people that Iraq required a political solution.  But all he and the US government have focused on is a military solution.  In fact, the only figure outside the Iraqi government attempting to aid a political solution is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.



    Last month, he called out the corruption in the Iraqi military.  All Iraq News notes al-Sistani made several calls on Friday.  His representative Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalayi applauded Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's decision earlier this week to relieve military commanders who were not performing their jobs and who were engaging in corruption.  al-Sistani's representative called for the political blocs to do something similar, identity "the sources of corruption" and purge them of their ranks.


    Noting that al-Sistani met with al-Abadi October 20th and with Iraqi President Fouad Massoum November 11th, Mustafa al-Kadhimi (Al-Monitor) explains:


     Concerning Sistani’s previous position of boycotting politicians, there is a fine line between intervention of the religious authority in politics and isolation from it. This is why Sistani insisted on forgoing a political position or interfering in politics. It would not be in line with the democratic path. At the same time, he has been protecting the country's democratic and civil framework through his social authority. This policy sustains the independence of both the state authority and the religious authority within a cooperative and constructive context.
    The independence of the religious authority is a concept that Sistani strongly defends. Even when he opposed a third term for former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he tried not to overstep this principle. Instead, he supported the independence of the state from the religious authority and expressed his discontent through indirect messages. For instance, he continued not to host politicians, and let his spokesmen, including Sheikh Karablai and Sayyid Ahmad al-Safi, deliver statements during Friday prayers in Karbala.
    Sistani welcomed Massoum and Abadi to reaffirm his previous positions, which also clarify what led him to previously boycott politics and reveals why he supported the political shift that brought Abadi to power rather than Maliki. Sistani’s stance toward the Abadi government, his open messages of support in achieving change, fixing past mistakes and implementing reform should not be viewed as unconditional. The religious authority’s support is bound by the government’s ability to keep its promises to the Iraqi people. Sistani has vowed to support the reformist trend of the new government as long as it makes progress. Any slackening or failure by Abadi to follow through with reforms, and Sistani will change his position, turning his support to criticism.
    Sistani’s conditions for backing Abadi’s government are not a secret. They are unrelated to the religious authority and the Shiites' role in it. Rather, they are about the ability of Abadi’s government to bring about social consensus, open itself to others in the country and abroad and fix the imbalance stemming from state corruption and past bad leadership.























    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)