Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Paul Craig Roberts on Hillary

That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Hillary's Friends" for Sunday.

Tuesday?

Please let it be the day that Bernie Sanders wins New York.

Meanwhile, Paul Craig Roberts has a new piece at INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE:

Hillary Clinton is proving to be the “teflon candidate.” In her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, she has escaped damage from major scandals, any one of which would destroy a politician. Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations. She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation. And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”
Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby. She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.
The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge. For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015 Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

As it became evident that Hillary Clinton would emerge as the likely Democratic presidential candidate, she was paid more. Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000 for one speech, and Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for three speeches. Bank of American Morgan Stanley, UBS, and Fidelity Investments each paid $225,000. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

Hillary needs to release the transcripts.

And her bullies need to stop justifying her actions.

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

Monday, April 18, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Barack will be sending more US troops into Iraq, Moqtada's followers protest in Baghdad, and much more.

Last week, US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced the plan to put more US troops on the ground in combat. He was speaking in generalities.

Today, he offered specifics from Baghdad, after sneaking into the country of Iraq early this morning.

Euan McKirdy, Jim Sciutto and Jamie Crawford (CNN) report Carter announced 217 more US troops would be sent into Iraq "which will raise the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to more than 4,000." In addition, the US "will also offer aviation support and provide force protection, Carter said, during an unannounced visit to Iraq. The U.S. will additionally provide Army Apache attack helicopters -- something the U.S. had been pushing for months in the face of resistance from the Iraqi government."

Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) puts the new number at 4087 and notes, "The Pentagon also expanded its authorities so that U.S. advisers can accompany Iraq's combat battalions as they advance toward Mosul." Tara Copp (Stars & Stripes) notes Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland:

The additional 217 troops are the latest in a series of incremental additions to the U.S. military effort in Iraq. MacFarland left the door open to the possibility that even more U.S. troops would be sent to Iraq if the new additional forces prove "insufficient" to defeating the Islamic State group in Mosul. If that happens, "we'll have another discussion about it," he said.

McFarland is the top US commander in Iraq.

And the number just keeps slowly moving upward. No one's supposed to note that.

For Iraqi officials, the thing that will get the most complaints about the new deal will be the aspect that includes the Kurds. BBC NEWS explains:

The US also plans to give Kurdish Peshmerga forces, which are fighting IS on the ground, more than $400m (£280m; €350m) in assistance.
Co-operation between the two forces was evident on Monday when Kurdish officials said they had killed a senior IS commander in the south of Mosul in a joint raid with US special forces.

Though the issue of joint raids did not come up today, the issue of aid to the KRG did at the State Dept briefing moderated by John Kirby:

QUESTION: Thank you. So Secretary Carter was in Baghdad today and he said – he decided that there will $415 million for the Kurds for the Peshmerga. Was the State Department involved in the process of making this decision?

MR KIRBY: We were certainly – there was a great deal of interagency coordination that was done in the – in arriving at this decision. And we’re fully supportive, of course.

QUESTION: Okay. And another question. The State – the Department of Defense says these funds will be provided by – with – through the Government of Iraq. This is money; it’s not weapons. I just want to know factually whether the – physically the money goes through a bank account in Baghdad and then to Erbil, or how’s that work?

MR KIRBY: I have no idea how the actual funds get released and transferred, but everything – you speak about it as if it’s something so unique. It all goes to assistance that the United States is providing to the Government of Iraq as it conducts a campaign plan against Daesh inside their country. And as we’ve said before, everything, all our aid and assistance, will continue to go through the government, the central government of Iraq in Baghdad. Now, exactly how the electrons gets transferred and the actual dollar figures, I don’t have that level of specificity, and frankly, it’s not relevant. Everything is being done in coordination with Prime Minister Abadi’s government.

QUESTION: Well, because the weapons, they kind of can go to Baghdad for inspection, but I just want to know whether the money can go to Baghdad and then --

MR KIRBY: Well, I would – if you need to know that specific about – information, I would refer you to DOD. I simply don’t have that level of information.

QUESTION: And will it – sorry, one more.

MR KIRBY: Of course.

QUESTION: Just a factual question. Will you send the money in cash as you had after 2003? Because that’s what you did.

MR KIRBY: You really need to talk to DOD. I don’t have that level of detail. This was an announcement by the Defense Department, and I refer you to them for more detail about it.

QUESTION: It’s important, really. Once the money is sent in cash, it can get around to different destinations than the one that you intend.

MR KIRBY: I honestly don’t know the answer to your question. You really should go to DOD for that level of detail on that.

Kirby claims, "We were certainly -- there was a great deal of interagency coordination that was done in the -- in arriving at this decision. And we’re fully supportive, of course." Yet asked a basic question, he's so clueless, he rushes to defer to the Defense Dept.

That tells you how little State actually was involved in the decision process.

Which isn't surprising because State would have killed that aspect if it had a choice. It's the Defense Dept -- and only the Defense Dept -- that's appreciated the work done by Kurdish forces. It's the Defense Dept that has repeatedly advocated for the Kurds when offering testimony to the US Congress.

US 'boots on the ground.'

B-b-b-but Barack swore that would never happen.

In fact, Rebecca Kaplan (CBS NEWS) offered September 17, 2014, "Obama says it again: No ground troops in Iraq."

And, of course, June 14, 2014, US President Barack Obama declared, "American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well."

So many broken promises.

So many broken promises.

Speaking of broken promises, Tom Hayden.

Remember when this started with 300 or so US 'advisors' and Tom insisted we must fight against creeping escalation?

Today, his only concern is serving on the DNC (which is most likely why he endorsed Hillary last week).

He has nothing to say about the escalation in Iraq.

He's just a tired old sell-out. Pock marks of the soul, indeed. Those confused should refer to David Walsh's WSWS piece from 2011 on the old sell-out:

Hayden, in short, personifies a certain strand of American middle-class left politics, by this time a fundamentally conservative and establishment strand.
In relation to Obama’s Afghanistan policy, Hayden enters stage “left” to reinforce the illusions sown by the president and shore up support for the administration. His piece is aimed at smothering the outrage felt by those who believed candidate Obama’s promises in 2008. Hayden’s method of choice is to congratulate antiwar voters and activists on having supposedly forced the current administration’s hand in “quickening” the Afghan withdrawal.
Thus, Hayden asserts that Obama “is responding to massive public pressure for rapid troop withdrawals from Afghanistan.” He declares, “We have crossed the line into de-escalation.”
The Nation journalist goes on to claim that the scheduled withdrawals by the end of 2012 (which, of course, can be vetoed or altered by the military) should make opponents of the war “feel a sense of gratification…about contributing to the vast upswelling of public opinion against Iraq and now Afghanistan… There is a magic about public opinion, which still matters despite the shadows of authoritarianism all around.”

Hayden’s cynical article is a succession of attempts to wear down popular skepticism and anger about Obama’s Afghanistan policy.

Far from the whoring of Tom Hayden, Mark Thomson (TIME) offers:

The incremental U.S. troop growth is more of a White House strategy to wage war on the cheap --especially in a conflict that Obama hailed when all U.S. troops finally came home at the end of 2011. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the armed services committee, called the latest deployment “the kind of grudging incrementalism that rarely wins wars, but could certainly lose one.” It has led to a fingers-crossed kind of fight, with the U.S. seeming to dispatch only sufficient force to handle an immediate need, until it’s no longer adequate—and then sending more. This tendency has generated ire among some U.S. military commanders, but the top brass has gone along with Obama’s desire to keep the U.S. military footprint in Iraq as small as possible.
“Back in Vietnam days, we called this ‘gradual escalation’—a euphemism for trying harder when you don’t know exactly what you’re trying to achieve,” says Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel and author of the just-released America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. “The approach failed then, but Obama appears determined to revive it.”

And Barack appears to be facing no real opposition.

The US Defense Dept announced today:

Strikes in Iraq
Fighter, ground attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Baghdadi, three strikes struck an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL communications facility and an ISIL staging area.

-- Near Fallujah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Hit, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Kirkuk, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL vehicles.

-- Near Kisik, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroyed three ISIL assembly areas and suppressed an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL rocket team.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units; destroyed two ISIL mortar positions, two ISIL assembly areas, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL boat; and suppressed an ISIL rocket team.

-- Near Qayyarah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL safe house.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike suppressed an ISIL tactical unit.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

A great deal of time by Barack is spent propping up Haider al-Abadi, the latest exile that the US has installed a prime minister of Iraq. Currently, Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr is putting pressure on Parliament for them to approve Haider's new nominees for a new Cabinet. But that pressure could easily flip and turn against Haider. AFP's W.G. Dunlop Tweets:

W.G. Dunlop ‏@wgdunlop 14 hours ago

Thousands protest at Baghdad Green Zone for 2nd time in less than a month http://bit.ly/1SpVJEa @AFP #Iraq

5 retweets 2 likes

REUTERS adds:

Thousands held a sit-in on Monday near the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses the parliament and government offices, in support of Sadr's warning to the politicians.

"We're waiting for what Sayyid Moqtada will say tomorrow,'' when the deadline the cleric gave is up, said one of the demonstrators.

Remember all the hand wringing about others using child soldiers? Not the brave west, of course, but others?

Well while the US was lecturing, their partner the United Kingdom appears to have been sending child soldiers into Iraq. Alice Ross (GUARDIAN) reports:

A former senior director at a British firm says that it employed mercenaries from Sierra Leone to work in Iraq because they were cheaper than Europeans and did not check if they were former child soldiers.
James Ellery, who was a director of Aegis Defence Services between 2005 and 2015, said that contractors had a “duty” to recruit from countries such as Sierra Leone, “where there’s high unemployment and a decent workforce”, in order to reduce costs for the US presence in Iraq.

Oh, well, you say, this was the UK.

ADS had contracts in Iraq to protect US bases.

Lastly, activist and Academy Award winning actor Susan Sarandon is Marc Maron's guest on this week's (not safe for work unless you're using headphones) broadcast of WTF. Susan was also on THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW with actress Rose Byrne and director Lorene Scafaria -- Susan and Rose star in Lorene's THE MEDDLER. The film opens in New York and Los Angeles this Friday and then goes into wide release. Susan and Rose are wonderful and Casey Wilson fans should also be sure to check the film out.

iraq
time magazine
mark thompson

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Where are her speeches?

Hillary Clinton likes to make demands of others.

But when it comes to herself, she's always, 'Get you next Friday on payday!'

No where is that more evident than in her refusal to release the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches.

G.A. Casebeer (BERN REPORT) notes:

Last night at the Democratic Debate in New York, Hillary Clinton once again ran away from giving a definite answer about releasing the transcripts. This story has been talked about so much that unless you’ve been living under a rock it needs absolutely no context. But here we are 70 days after the first time she was questioned about it on a broad scale and still no transcripts have been released.
She did however pressure Bernie to release his 2014 Tax Return. Sanders, when questioned about it, explained that he and his wife Jane, who does the taxes for the couple, have been a little busy with the campaign. Sanders promised his return would be a little boring. Guess what, he’s right and BTW, right on time. he released it. To view U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2014 federal tax return, click here.
Now that his boring tax return is out of the way, it is time for Clinton to release the transcripts. Why is it a big deal? Well first of all she said she’d look into releasing them and then it turned into, I’ll release them when everyone else does. At this point in the contest, there isn’t much to talk about regarding Wall Street speeches from anyone but her, so that argument is over. Even when pressed by CNN moderator Dana Bash about the fact that she is running for the Democratic nomination and her opponent clearly has no Wall Street speeches Clinton ran from the subject.

This is where the mainstream media can be pretty frustrating, I mean where in the hell are the journalists that could blow this story out of the water? Instead they joke about it and laugh it off like it’s not that big of a deal. Of course we know that she has accepted big money from the media and they are a big part of the reason she is allowed to run roughshod over our democracy. Independent media sources have talked and talked about it but none have the audience that corporate media has, so the story hits the news cycle for a while and then withers again.

Where are the transcripts, Hillary?

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

Saturday, April 16, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, the US Secretary of Defense announces the administration's goal of more US forces on the ground in Iraq, the Parliament continues to bicker, and much more.

Saturday, the US Defense Dept announced/boasted:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, ground-attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 15 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Fallujah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Hit, two strikes destroyed an ISIL mortar system, 14 ISIL boats and an ISIL vehicle.

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

-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, 14 ISIL modular oil refineries and two ISIL crude oil stills and destroyed an ISIL assembly area and 10 ISIL boats.

-- Near Qayyarah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 24 ISIL boats, two ISIL rocket rails and two ISIL assembly areas.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar system and an ISIL assembly area.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike suppressed an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike suppressed an ISIL tactical unit.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, officials added.

These bombings began in August of 2014 and have continued daily.

And have accomplished so little.

AP reports, "The US wants to do more in the fight, Carter said, and is 'only limited by our own ingenuity' and ideas. Carter expressed confidence that the White House will approve recommendations, saying nothing he has asked President Barack Obama for yet in the conflicts has been turned down."

Or AP 'reports' since that really wasn't the big news of those remarks.

Let's go to the DoD transcript for US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's actual remarks:

SEC. CARTER: Across the whole spectrum. You know we're looking to do more, but it ranges from in the air to on the ground. All consistent with our overall strategic approach, which is to enable local forces ultimately to hold and sustain the defeat of ISIL, after ISIL is defeated, but to enable them to do so and accelerate that process so we continue to look for and identify ways of accelerating that, and as we find those we will do them. Obviously in Iraq we do that with the permission of the Iraqi government.

But we -- you should expect us to -- to see us doing more, to be consistent with the same approach, but it will be across all the domains, right up to cyber, which I mentioned earlier.

Now over the next few days I'll have an opportunity to talk to our commanders, and also to some in the region here, and obviously look for more good opportunities to accelerate the defeat of ISIL here in Syria and Iraq, which is absolutely necessary.

Q: When you say "on the ground," do you mean more U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq?

SEC. CARTER: Yes, I mean, I think some of these have that aspect to it, but I just want to emphasize there's a lot more that goes with this, and our -- and our presence on the ground is -- and will continue to be to enable, not to substitute, for local forces.

So the big takeaway there?

When he says "on the ground," he means "US troops on the ground in Iraq."

". . . We're looking to do more, but it ranges from in the air to on the ground" meaning "more US troops on the ground in Iraq."

The Secretary of Defense is openly addressing the desire of the administration to put more US troops on the ground in Iraq.

Meanwhile in Iraq, the Parliament follies continue.

MIDDLE EAST EYE reports:

A group of Iraqi lawmakers said they would not take part in a Saturday parliament session to select a replacement for the speaker, apparently leaving it without the necessary quorum.
Iraq was on course to have two rival claimants to the speakership, further increasing chaos in parliament, which has already seen a vote to sack speaker Salim al-Juburi, a fistfight among MPs and a sit-in this week.

THE NATIONAL adds:

An official session planned for Saturday had earlier been postponed for “security reasons," according to parliamentary spokesman Imad Al Khafaji. The protesting lawmakers gathered at parliament anyway, but later dispersed when it became clear they did not have the numbers to topple the speaker.

The protesting lawmakers vowed to hold the vote next week. An earlier attempt on Thursday had also failed for lack of a quorum.
The lawmakers are demanding that Iraq’s top political leadership, including prime minister Haider Al Abadi, step down – accusing them of failing to reform a political system steeped in patronage. Earlier this week, MPs held a multi-day sit-in at the assembly.

US Special Envoy Brett McGurk Tweets:

ALL IRAQ NEWS reports that Speaker Salim al-Jubouri spoke with Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr today in an attempt to strengthen support for al-Jubouri. AL MADA notes that Moqtada is calling for the Cabinet of Ministers to be replaced with Haider al-Abadi's latest slate (which is being called a slate of "technocrats").

ALSUMARIA adds that Moqtada says the quota system is depleting resources.

Which really means that Moqtada says that the Constitutional system is depleting resources.

REUTERS notes, "Iraq's powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said on Saturday he would re-start protests in 72 hours if the nation's leaders failed to vote on a technocrats' cabinet proposed by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to stem corruption." ALSUMARIA reports that Moqtada's followers pitched tents in Baghdad's Tahrir Square.

Meanwhile IRAQ TIMES notes that the Dawa Party has called out "hollow statements and slogans" being mouthed by some politicians. ALL IRAQ NEWS explains that was a response to Moqtada who had decried the failure of someone's third term as prime minister -- referring to Nouri al-Maliki who was forced out in August 2014 by the White House.

Nouri is accused of working behind the scenes to destroy any movement one way or another in his efforts to bring down Haider al-Abadi so that he can return as prime minister.

Suadad al-Salhy (MIDDLE EAST MONITOR) reports on some of the behind the scenes maneuvers:

Last week, Amar al-Hakim, head of al-Mouatin Bloc; Osama al-Nujaifi, head of Sunni United Forces; Salih al-Mutlaq, head of al-Hiwar; Hadi al-Amiri, head of Badr; Joubori, speaker of parlamient; Fouad Masoom, the president; Abadi and a few others signed a document called the"National Document of Reformation".
The document aims to maintain the political power-sharing agreement and deepen the influence of the political blocs over top government posts and decisions. The document, which was obtained by MEE, included 12 items. Most were written in a way that serves to maintain the power-sharing system.
"Establish a consultative political council alongside the prime minister, president and speaker of parliament, whose members include the leaders of the essential political forces in the country… to be held monthly to discuss strategies of the country," one of the items reads.
"The political blocs will present their nominees for the cabinet to the prime minister and he can choose them in a way asserting national (power) sharing," another item reads.

And we'll return to the US to close with this from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America:

PaulR

WASHINGTON (April 14, 2016) — Today, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), its members and other veteran service organization partners joined Reps. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Brad Ashford (D-Neb.), Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), Gwen Graham (D-Fla.), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) and Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) at the U.S. Capitol to urge Congress to defend the Post-9/11 GI Bill from funding cuts. The greatest education investment in our veterans since WWII has recently come under attack with the House passage of H.R.3016, which calls for a 50 percent cut to the housing allowance that children receive if their military or veteran parent transfers the benefit to them. A similar bill (S.425) is making its way to the Senate floor and IAVA is calling on all Members of Congress to pledge to defend the Post-9/11 GI Bill from this and any future cuts to the vital program. IAVA will oppose the omnibus as a whole and call on the president to veto the bill if it is passed with the cuts intact.

“It is embarrassing that we have to come here and beg our elected officials not to steal from the pockets of our military, veterans and their families,” said IAVA Founder and CEO Paul Rieckhoff. “As we stand in front of the U.S. Capitol, men and women are fighting in a prolonged war in Afghanistan and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, earning this very benefit. We are once again seeing the impact of a growing civilian-military divide in this country. It is national disgrace that some Members of Congress are willing to use veterans benefits as a piggy bank to pay for other programs. Congress must defend the promise made to our veterans. IAVA’s members — some still in harm’s way — kept their promise to our country; Congress needs to keep theirs to our vets.”

IAVA was joined at the press conference by veteran and military service organizations representing a diverse cross section of community of those who have served, including Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), Association of the United States Navy (AUSN) and Commissioned Officers Association (COA).

“Vietnam Veterans of America has long held that government should never pay for a program for one group of veterans by cutting funding and taking away from any other group of veterans. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how important or vital Paul might be, goes against one of VVA’s core principles,” said Rick Weidman, VVA Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs.

“Officers in the U.S. Public Health Service fought hard to be allowed to transfer GI Bill benefits to their dependents. Because these officers have one or more college degrees when they join the USPHS, they don’t tend to use the bill’s provisions for themselves as much as do members of other services. Transferability means everything to them, and this proposed legislation would take some of that benefit from them,” said Col. (ret.) James T. Currie, Executive Director for Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Since IAVA launched the #DefendTheGIBill campaign in March 2016, IAVA members have sent nearly 14,000 letters to Congress asking representatives to oppose any cuts to the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In addition, every Member of Congress has been challenged to take the pledge to defend the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

IAVA led the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2008 and in championing upgrades in 2010 and 2014. These upgrades simplified and improved tuition benefits, expanded eligibility to the National Guard, included vocational programs, and made nationwide in-state tuition rates a possibility for new veterans beginning this year.

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has been used by nearly one million veterans and their family members to accomplish educational goals and chart new career paths.

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 leading post-9/11 veteran empowerment organization (VEO) with the most diverse and rapidly growing membership in America. As a non-profit founded in 2004, IAVA’s mission is to connect, unite and empower post-9/11 veterans. Celebrating its 11th year anniversary, IAVA has connected more than 1.2 million veterans with resources and community, and provided more than 5,800 veterans with personalized support from IAVA’s Master’s level social workers.

iraq

Hillary War Hawk Clinton

Hillary supporters continue to disgrace themselves.

Take Jane Fonda.

She grandstanded on Iraq when the cameras were around, pretending it mattered and now she's endorsed Hillary.

As has her drunk of an ex-husband Tom Hayden.

They raised Troy, their baby boy.

To be a non-sexist?

Is that why he starred in that revisionist crap ass NBC show glamorizing Hugh Hefner?

I'm just not seeing any integrity or values, sorry.

Not when you support a War Hawk.

Not when you pretend to care about ending wars.

Not when you pretend to care about Latina America.

Did they miss Hillary's actions in Honoduras?

No, they didn't, they're just a family of whores.

This is from RT:

Lew Rockwell: She is a liar. That’s why she won’t. She is attempting to wiggle out of what she did. She promoted the destruction of Libya, the murder of Gaddafi, and murder of many thousands of people in Libya, sending all kinds of horrendous arms with the approval of the US to the Syrian so-called rebels, to kill people in Syria. This was a criminal act and an imperial act. She was cheering it on… You can’t believe her, she is a liar and now she is trying to wiggle out, but she was, if we want to put this in legal terms, she was an accessory before, during and after the fact. Yes, Obama had the final decision. She was egging him on, she was cheering him on, she was pressuring him and she went right along with it and she is co-responsible for all those deaths, for all that blood and destruction, all the families destroyed, all the mountains of corpses in Libya. Just as of course she is co-responsible for what George W. Bush did in Iraq. She is a very nasty lady.

RT: What does Clinton think the Libyan people did to, as she put it, “obstruct” western efforts in Libya? She is blaming the Libyan people.

LR: Because everybody’s job is to salute the US and do what they say. That’s everybody’s job and you better not obstruct US imperial plans: evil, conquering, destructive plans for your country. Or otherwise they are going to kill you. So, she is justifying murder. I was going to compare Hillary Clinton to Lady Macbeth, but Lady Macbeth only killed one person, so she is not in the same category. I am glad to see this attempt at wiggling…it shows us just how her championship of this kind of imperial evil is going over with the American people - they are not liking it. This is one of the great things about this election: all American foreign policy has been questioned for the first time in quite a while and that’s all to the good: the trouble with NATO, the trouble with US bases all over the place, trouble with US troops all over the place, with US intervention all over the world causing constant trouble and death. Maybe we are going to end some of that, fingers crossed anyway. But it is going to have to be over Hillary, she is the most dangerous candidate from a war standpoint I think of anybody running.

Don't pretend you care about peace and support Hillary.

Tell yourself some other lie, sure.

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

Friday, April 15, 2016. Chaos and violence continue . . . and that's just in the Parliament!

Yes, starting with PARLIAMENT GONE WILD.

On Tuesday, the Iraqi Parliament got wild.

On Wednesday, it got wilder.

And Thursday?

It was off the chain.

AFP words it this way:

Iraqi lawmakers voted Thursday to remove the parliament speaker and his deputies from office, increasing political turmoil as the country battles jihadists and struggles with a financial crisis.
The chaos at parliament is a significant setback for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, overshadowing his efforts to replace the current cabinet and preventing nominees from being brought to a vote.

The lead up to Thursday was an ongoing sit-in (against the list of proposed ministers). Wednesday had been an emergency session. Thursday was supposed to see a vote on the list.

Instead, it saw a vote on the Speaker of Parliament Salim al-Jabouri.

Mohammad Sabah (AL MADA) calls it a "dramatic" and a "raucous" session.

REUTERS notes that neither Haider nor al-Jabouri showed up for Thursday's session.

In fact, a lot of MPs failed to show up. That's an important detail.

But those who did show up decided to table the proposed nominees, to table the issue of the three presidencies and instead launch a vote on whether to remove the Speaker.

Ali al-Badri, of the large Shi'ite block the National Alliance, insists the vote was unanimous.

But it wasn't agreed to by all the political blocs.

ALL IRAQ NEWS quotes State of Law Mp Kazem Sayadi declaring that they do not support the vote to remove the Speaker and insisting State of Law is one of the largest blocs in Parliament.

State of Law is the political alliance Nouri al-Maliki started. Nouri was prime minister of Iraq from 2006 through 2014 and left unwillingly. He wants to return to the post.

It's said on Arabic social media that he's formed alliances with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and Ayad Allawi (leader of Iraqiya).

If so, that would be a powerful group banded together in opposition to Haider al-Abadi.

ALSUMARIA reports MP Adnan al-Janabi insists that Saturday should see the Parliament voting on a new Speaker and, oh, by the way, Adnan's declared himself the interim Speaker.

But will such a vote take place?

These days, you can even question whether a session will be held.

But in terms of a vote taking place, the reports of the Speaker being voted out of office, while very dramatic, might not be very realistic.

NATIONAL IRAQI NEWS AGENCY notes 171 MPs were assembled for the session.

They have 328 MPs so 171 did not reach a quorum.

Without a quorum, no real vote took place.

RUDAW quotes Speaker al-Jabouri declaring, "I have no objections if the parliament wants me to leave my position but the vote was both inconclusive and unconstitutional."

Pinned Tweet

Kirk H. Sowell ‏@UticaRisk 21 hours ago

#Iraq sum up today: vote removing speaker, likely invalid, leaves parl't w/o recognized legit leadership. Abadi's 2nd cabinet shuffle fails.

View conversation

11 retweets 9 likes

ALSUMARIA reports that Haider called on the Parliament to wisdom and patience.

Oh, yeah, he should talk, right?

His sudden push for a new Constitution not only is unconstitutional, it also showed no patient or restraint.

His first effort, began March 31st, outright failed.

Instead of learning from his lesson, he tried to shove through a new list this week.

That's what's caused the turmoil.

ALL IRAQ NEWS notes the comments were in a televised address where he offered that this political struggle "could lead, God forbid, Iraq into turmoil."

As though he were somehow above the fray?

And exactly when was turmoil absent from Iraq?

More to the point, what's going on in Parliament is not that disruptive.

Nouri al-Maliki refusing to step down after the 2010 elections for eight months, thereby refusing to allow a new government to form?

That was disruptive.

This just qualifies as lively politics.

Haider's attempting to replace the Cabinet in a manner that goes around the Iraqi Constitution.

He's calling it a 'reform' and a way to address corruption -- which is also an insult to every member of the Cabinet.

What's really going on?

Erin Banco (IBT) notes one aspect of the issue:

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi says he is trying to curtail endemic corruption by appointing a new Cabinet filled with technocrats, but his efforts have so far failed: Several of his nominees have refused to accept his appointments and, amid the ensuing chaos, officials are quietly trying to skew the country’s economy for personal gain.
Ayad Allawi, a former interim prime minister under the U.S. occupation and one of the vice presidents whose position was cut by Abadi in 2015, is one of those officials. The recently released Panama Papers have revealed Allawi’s secret offshore accounts and the scope of his connection to one of the world’s largest energy companies, raising questions not only about his current motivations, but also the motivations of his Kurdish and Sunni confidants.
[. . .]
Although he may not be vying for a leadership position himself, he is looking to put some of his Kurdish allies into power, according to two officials in the Ministry of Natural Resources in Erbil who asked to remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak on the matter.
If Allawi succeeds, he could get massive financial payouts from energy companies. Many of those companies, including the United Arab Emirates' Crescent Petroleum, have received late payments from the Kurdistan Regional Government. Those companies are also interested in keeping allies in top positions in order to continue to maintain profitable contracts.

And that's one aspect -- one oil aspect.

Of course, there are others.

We're dropping back to Tuesday because the above is one oil aspect but it's not the only one:

It certainly says it all.
"Dramatic media hype."
As we noted in last night's snapshot, to push that drama, they had to ignore the pushback which was immediate.
Immediate?
Our April 2nd snapshot noted at length the various objections to what Haider al-Abadi was proposing.
REUTERS didn't report it.
AP didn't cover it.
THE WASHINGTON POST and THE NEW YORK TIMES took a pass.
But if you read Arabic, you could find coverage from the Iraqi press -- and we did.
It was obvious immediately that this plan cooked up by the White House was going to fail.
And it has.
That hydrocarbons legislation?
They want it, they want it so bad.
They being elements of the ruling class in the United States.
They wanted it when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House.
And they tried repeatedly to get it.
Bully Boy Bush even made it one of his 2007 benchmarks -- the passage of that legislation.
He failed repeatedly.
As has Barack.
And bad news -- and, no surprise, unreported by US outlets -- Iraqi officials are calling for the oil wealth to be distributed to the people.
It's not just Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr -- though he has been the most prominent thus far.
The story of Iraq's oil is the story the western press is always skittish to cover -- other than how it's doing in the stock market.
Barack Obama and his underlings tried to present the move as 'democratic' and 'reform.'
And the western press went along.
They ignored that the move went completely against the Constitution of Iraq -- both how it was done and what was being proposed.
They ignored the objections to the proposal.
They did everything they could to propagandize for the White House.
But it all imploded.

ALSUMARIA observes fun and games are to resume on Saturday when Parliament is scheduled to next meet.

The world waits to see what happens next.

Meanwhile, yesterday the US Defense Dept announced more bombs dropped on Iraq:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, ground-attack and fighter aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Hit, four strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL machine gun positions, an ISIL boat, an ISIL boat dock, seven ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL command and control node and denying ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Kisik, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL bunker.

-- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed four ISIL assembly areas, an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb, and an ISIL storage facility.

-- Near Qayyarah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL headquarters and an ISIL financial headquarters and destroyed an ISIL assembly area.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL assembly areas.
Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes destroyed seven ISIL boats and an ISIL mortar position and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley -- updated: