This morning, I saw some Tweet from Rush Holt saying to vote. I figured I'd surf during my lunch hour and find out what poll he wanted people to vote in. This afternoon, I learned today's was the special election to fill the Senate seat. And that Rush Holt (who is in the House of Representatives) was running for it.
If I'd known about any of that, I would have been blogging for Rush.
I knew Corey was supposedly going to get it whenever the primary election was held. I didn't know when that would be (I don't live in New Jersey) or that Rush was winning.
Rush Holt is the real deal in the way that Russ Feingold was the real deal.
This is a huge loss for us that Rush lost and that Corey won.
Corey is just another corporations. As a long time Black Agenda Report reader, I think I would even give Harold Ford Jr. more credit than I do Corey.
And Corey's so butt ugly on top of everything else. If you're going to shave your head bald, you need to have a decent head shape.
Melon head's probably going to get into the Senate now. There will be a push to overlook how awful his policies and actions are because he's Black. Or it will be distract by making the Republican candidate into a scary monster.
But make no mistake, Booker in the Senate is bad for civil liberties. We needed Rush in the Senate.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Let's start with a new and notable book, a book worth reading.
Law and Disorder Radio is a weekly, hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights). It addresses civil liberties issues, government abuses and more. Heidi is the Executive Director of The National Lawyers Guild (the link with her name goes to that site) and the author of a new book. She's also Queen of the Zeitgeist. Doubt it? Dropping back to the September 24, 2010 snapshot:
Meanwhile Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports, "The FBI is confirming that this morning they began a number of 'raids' against the homes of antiwar activists, claiming that they are 'seeking evidence relating to activities concerning the material support of terrorism'." Karmically, the news breaks on the same day that the National Lawyers Guild issues a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." .In her intro, Boghosian notes, "To know that the United States is undergoing a highly orchestrated curtailment of personal and political liberties, one need not look further than police treatment of protesters in the streets. Those who speak out against government policies increasingly face many of the same types of weaponry used by the U.S. governmen tin its military operations."
In 2010, she was right there with a report on spying just as the news of government spying broke. And in the midst of revelations about Barack's illegal spying on Americans, Heidi's book Spying on Democracy: Government Surveillance, Corporate Power and Public Resistance was released last week. (And discussed on yesterday's Law and Disorder Radio with plans for a longer discussion of the book to take place in three or so weeks -- yesterday's discussion is excerpted in yesterday's snapshot.) From Heidi's new book:
The FBI's counterintelligence programs (COINTELPRO) brought shame to the reputation of the bureau, and for good reason. The covert and manipulative programs sought to destroy influential and effective leaders of civil rights and other political movements, as well as other politically active individuals, through a series of insidious immoral, and frequently illegal actions. Operations aimed at "neutralizing" critics of government policies included defamation, libel, assault, poisoning, entrapment, and even assassination. COINTELPRO illustrates the ease with which domestic intelligence initiatives can escalate to warlike counterintelligence maneuvers, employed unlawfully and with total impunity, accountable to no branch of government.
An FBI wiretap of the Black Panther Party headquarters in 1970 revealed that actress Jean Seberg was pregnant, and not by French writer Romain Gary, her estranged husband. An FBI memo noted, "Jean Seberg has been a financial supporter of the BPP and should be neutralized. Her current pregnancy by [name deleted] while still married affords an opportunity for such efforts." In addition to giving money to the Panthers, Seberg had spoken out against U.S. war policies and racism. The bureau's leaks that she was carrying the child of a Panther resulted in news headlines such as A BLACK PANTHER'S THE PAPPY OF A CERTAIN FILM QUEEN'S EXPECTED BABY. On August 7, Seberg tried to kill herself by taking an overdose of sleeping pills; on August 20 her baby was born prematurely and died. For the next several years, Seberg grew depressed, attempted suicide each year on the anniversary of her baby's death, and finally succeeded on August 20, 1979.
As I've noted before I knew Jean Seberg. When I hear people today say, "I have nothing to hide," my honest thought is, "Oh, you poor, little idiot, you don't have a clue."
The government doesn't need to know your personal business at all. But when it has known, it has generally abused that knowledge. They learned of Jean's pregnancy via a phone call Jean made. And they went after her. And the reality of that is still not honestly told today.
That's not a slam at Heidi. When I heard the book would mention Jean, I got an advanced copy because I wanted to see if Heidi bought into the revisionary lies -- lies only possible because Romain is dead. No, Heidi doesn't. She stays on the factual path and good for her.
But the reality no one wants to talk about -- the reason Joyce Haber, a gossip columnist, is trashed and falsely made into the bad guy -- is because Jean's pregnancy resulted in the full weight of the US government being brought down on her, an American citizen.
The FBI passed a tip to Haber's editor who passed it to Haber without telling her where it came from but while vouching for the source. (The editor, Bill Thomas, may not like that reality being know but the tip is in Joyce's files and it includes his handwritten note vouching for the source.) Haber ran a blind item. In May of 1970. Not a big thing, Haber ran blind items all the time. The only one really 'harmed' by the item was possibly Jane Fonda since the item could have described her in the minds of most Americans who knew she had lived in France and married a French man. Jean Seberg was in many big films and a celebrity but her personal life was not as widely known (and followed) to the degree that Jane's was. Even now, the events of Jane's day to day life are more widely known than that of most other actresses. Jane's personal life has always resulted in the public's interest and the press' coverage. Those who followed coverage of actresses in 1970 might also have concluded the item was about Barbara Hershey, Mia Farrow or some other actress identified with social causes. But, again, for most Americans who read the blind item, the obvious choice would have been Jane Fonda because she was the biggest name and the most widely covered (and publicly active in the Native American Movement as well as in the Black Panther Movement).
Jean tries to take her life in August. That's a result of Edward Behr and Newsweek. Behr is the one who writes a 'report' for Newsweek in August that states Jean Seberg is pregnant by a Black Panther. It's not a blind item: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in October is by another man -- a black activist she met in California."
And unlike Joyce Haber's blind item, Newsweek is all over the country and in public and school libraries including Jean's home state of Iowa where her parents live and where she's now branded an "adulteress." And the Des Moines Register reports on the Newsweek item (they didn't on the Haber item). Jean was not embarrassed that the world would think she was having a child by an African-American male -- a point that is often missed. (And the man was actually Latino -- and not a Black Panther or an American -- or in America.) She was not even thinking, "This will destroy my career!" She was appalled that her personal life was being exposed to the world and specifically to members of her hometown and to her parents. Adulteress. I've been called far worse but I don't give a s**t and never have. Jean didn't splash her personal life in the papers. And being called (the judgmental) term of "adulteress" in 1970 could bring shame to someone's family.
There was no reason for Edward Behr to print that. First off, it wasn't true. (The father was an activist in Mexico.) Second, true or not, Romain was publicly the child's father and Newsweek and Behr had no business stepping into that issue -- there is such a thing as right to privacy and there was no 'right to know' or 'need to know' with regards to who the father of her baby was.
And Romain Gary sued Newsweek and wrote "The Big Knife" for France-Soir blaming Newsweek for the death of the child.
How does this get missed?
Because Jean wasn't just targeted by the FBI. That's the little secret that leads to the lies of "It's Joyce Harber!" Behr and Newsweek were doing the bidding of the CIA. Newsweek frequently did the bidding of the CIA -- a reason so many of us don't give a damn if that piece of trash publication goes down the toilet. Behr was in France. The CIA ran the smear operation against Jean overseas, not the FBI.
Jean was an American citizen. Her life was in France. She returned to the US only for a film role or to visit her family. She was not Jane who was on college campuses, in GI coffee houses and all over the country. Jane was targeted and she did not deserve to be, no American does for exercising their First Amendment rights. But my point here is that Jean was very minor in the US -- both in terms of her actions and in terms of her films. (Even now, she's most famous for the French new wave classic Breathless.)
Yet the US government used information on her, misinformation, to try to destroy her. The FBI and the CIA, under Tricky Dick, went after her and tried to publicly humiliate her while she was in the advance stages of her pregnancy, fully aware that their actions might result in a miscarriage.
So when someone today insists, "I don't have anything to hide," they're being foolish.
Under both Barack and Bully Boy Bush, there have been attempts to spy on foreign diplomats. Under Bully Boy Bush, it was an attempt at the United Nations.
From Friday's snapshot:
KPFA broadcast the (brief) press conference live during Living Room and guest host Kevin Pina and guests Shahid Buttar (Bill of Rights Defense Committee) and Marcia Mitchell (author of The Spy Who Tried To Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq Invasion). Buttar weighed in first on the press conference.
[. . .]
Kevin Pina: Now of course Katharine -- just to remind people, Marcia, Katharine was -- tell us who Katharine Gun was.
Marcia Mitchell: Katharine Gun was a British secret service officer working for GCH2 which, as we know, is NSA's prime partner in the surveillance business. And she was at her computer on the morning of January 31, 2003 during the debate about the legitimacy of invading Iraq.
Kevin Pina: Now this is in the United Nations Security Council debate.
Marcia Mitchell: Yes. And she then saw on her computer from our NSA, from Frank Kosa, from the NSA inviting GCH2 to join in an illegal spy operation against members -- specific members of the UN Security Council -- those who had the swing vote as to whether or not we would have a new resolution to invade Iraq. And those who were supporting the resolution, specifically Bush and Blair, were very passionate about getting this because they were concerned about Resolution 1441 which allowed inspections was not sufficient to allow invasion.
Kevin Pina: So Katharine Gun basically blew the whistle on an NSA--
Marcia Mitchell: Absolutely.
Kevin Pina (Con't): -- surveillance program on members of the United Nations Security Council who had the swing votes to approve a US-sponsored resolution to invade Iraq.
Marcia Mitchell: Right. And the reason given in the message that Katharine read was to influence these voters to the US way of thinking. And that message indicated that they would not only be doing not only the business offices of these UN security members but really their personal lives as well. So what we were looking at really is high stakes blackmail. This was a way to get information on these six men to get them to vote on behalf of the US-UK position.
In 2003, the US government was prepared to spy on and blackmail members of the UN Security Council to get them to vote for war on Iraq. If they wanted to start a war on that scale again, and now having all this stored data on Americans phone calls and e-mails, what makes you think they wouldn't use it against American activists opposed to war in order to try to shut them up?
That's not possible? The US government would only attempt to spy and blackmail foreign diplomats? If you really believe that then Heidi Boghosian's Spying on Democracy: Government Surveillance, Corporate Power and Public Resistance is not only an excellent book, it's also a must read.
And to those who say they have nothing to hide, uh, excuse me, who ever said the US government was an honest broker when it came to smear campaigns. J. Edgar Hoover authorized the FBI to smear Jean. He appears to have believed she was pregnant by a Black Panther. But the CIA spied on Jean in Mexico. They knew of that affair. They also most likely knew the man was the father. That didn't stop them from spreading what they hoped was the more damning rumor: Jean pregnant by a Black Panther! (As opposed to Jean pregnant by a Mexican activist -- which wouldn't alarm as many Americans in 1970. The Black Panthers was a domestic movement, so an activist working in another country would appear 'exotic' and Lucy and Ricky and Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez had long ago made most Americans comfortable with White and Latino coupling.)
Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints, guest host Kevin Pina spoke with the ACLU's Kade Crockford about the ongoing spying.
Kade Crockford: The notion that the government may in fact already be collecting all of this data about every single one of us and holding onto it just in case it wants to dip into someday. And I would simply say to anybody who trusts Barack Obama to do the right thing, and thinks that this isn't such a big deal because they voted for the guy and they think he's pretty cool, what do you think about President Rick Santorum having access to information about when you got an abortion or about when you got, you know, you're getting gay married or any host of other, completely harmless activities which some future president might find a good reason to harass you or to send some G-men to your house spy on you or in fact, even worse.
(You can also listen to that broadcast via this Flashpoints Radio Tweet.)
I don't care for Juan Cole but a KPFK friend asked me to note Ian Masters' Background Briefing which aired in place of Connect The Dots Monday Morning -- the friend pointed out that this was a discussion on Iraq and there hasn't been a lot of that on Pacifica Radio in some time.
Ian Masters: And according to the United Nations, 1057 Iraqis were killed and 2326 were wounded in attacks in July which makes that the highest casualty figures since 2008. Are we to assume that the Sunni - Shi civil war that Gen [David] Petraeus was supposed to have ended with his surge, is that resuming or could it resume?
Juan Cole: No, it's a different phenomenon now. In 2006 and 2007, you had a civil war which was pursued on the ground and it involved ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Shia neighborhoods and vice versa. And you had as many as 2500 people killed per month in that period. Now that ethnic cleansing has happened and a lot of neighborhoods are fairly monochrome and you have to drive for awhile to find somebody of the other sect if you wanted to kill them and so what's going on now is a guerrilla war. It's low intensity conflict by guerrillas, by cadres who are blowing things up. They're interlopers to the places -- like the Shia neighborhoods that were blown up Saturday. The people who blew them up don't live there, they came from elsewhere. So it's not a civil war, it's a guerrilla war.
That's Cole with the CIA disinformation, thank you. First, just this morning, we noted, "These mass arrests target Sunni populations. If you don't get that, find your average lazy reporter covering Iraq who will repeatedly reduce violence to 'attacks on Shi'ites' even when other groups -- including Sunnis -- are being attacked." I should have included CIA contractors in that sentence. Second, Tuz Khormato was singled out by several outlets (such as EFE) as the site of Saturday's worst attack and it's 70% Turkmen. And what of Mosul? Michael Martinez and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported Saturday, "In Mosul, at least eight people were killed and 12 others were wounded in two separate explosions in the city. Mosul is a largely Sunni city about 400 kilometers, or 248 miles, north of Baghdad."
Again, Iraq is not helped by reporters (and CIA contractors) who refuse to recognize violence targeting non-Shi'ites. That's enough of that. (To listen, you have 88 days. Here for the KPFF archives, it's under August 12's programs and under "Connect the Dots.") Good for KPFK for an attempt to discuss Iraq. I'm not really sure who they could bring on these days. Most 'experts' on Iraq are like Phyllis Bennis -- completely not paying attention so, as they rush to catch up, they miss key details. Others -- the grinning fool, you know who I mean -- are too busy offering White House propaganda and extolling Barack to address Iraq honestly. But if you're going to bring on the CIA contractor, why not bring on Brookings Kenneth Pollack. Better yet, Kenneth Katzman does the research for Congress (via Congressional Research Services) on Iraq, so bring him on. I have also strongly suggested Iraqi reporters Sahar Issa and Laith Hammoudi who are both more than qualified to address what is taking place in Iraq.
In complaints to Pacifica Radio friends, we have touched on the fact that part of the lack of Iraq discussions has to do with the inability of most left outlets to follow Iraq. (Robert Dreyfuss is a known idiot to any real lefty. We do not and will not forget his roots -- and his bad 'reporting' so frequently makes it impossible to forget his roots.) So we will applaud KPFK and Ian Masters for attempting a discussion but we will bemoan the fact that a CIA contractor was the best they could do.
Today, the editorial board of the Tampa Bay Tribune notes the escalating violence:
“We did not rise against the Shia,” one Sunni told a British newspaper, The Guardian. “We have lived with them for centuries. We rose against the government which puts our men in prison unfairly and abuses our human rights. That should stop. We will either live in dignity or die in dignity.”
Hussein was a Sunni but considered himself a secularist; there was ample evidence he was cruel to anyone he considered a foe. The Sunnis, long a minority in Iraq, now believe that the Shiites, who felt powerless during Hussein’s rule, are taking liberties with their newfound political advantage and thus inviting the bombings.
You can't discuss the security situation without discussing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who has held the post since 2006. Back in July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." That remains true and that's on Nouri. (It's also on Barack but we don't have time to review that today.) As Ayad Allawi rightly noted in real time, this was a power grab and Nouri had no intention of appointing people to those posts. (Nouri nominates, Parliament approves. Once Parliament approves, the person has the appointment unless they step down -- or die -- or unless Parliament votes to strip them of the appointment. Nouri cannot fire any Minister which is why he has refused to nominate people to head those ministries -- this allows him to control them -- and it is unconstitutional.) Deutsche Welle speaks with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs' Guido Steinberg:
The escalation of violence in Iraq has played out in the context of a long-simmering power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites. Maliki has attempted to establish a dictatorship - at the Sunnis' cost, Steinberg said.
"Sunnis are fighting against their exclusion," Steinberg said. Arabic Sunnis comprise about 20 percent of Iraq's population, he explained, while Shiites comprise about 60 percent.
When Maliki, who is a Shiite, came to power in 2006, he declared that his government would be non-sectarian. He was not supposed to select a cabinet on the basis of their religion or origin, Steinberg said.
However, over the years, Maliki became increasingly autocratic. Officially, the government is made up of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. But Sunni representatives were systematically stripped of power, with critics legally persecuted.
Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi had to flee in 2011 after being accused of killing Shiite officials. He was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death.
Maliki has violently repressed peaceful Sunni protests. Under his rule, the army killed more than 40 Sunni protesters in April 2013 clashes in the town of Hawija.
That analysis echoes Michael Knights' from last May for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
The Iraqi government has tried to deflect blame for its own failing on the Syrian uprising, arguing that it was suffering from the spillover of violence next door. But that excuse doesn't hold weight -- security improvements had already ground to a halt before the Syrian crisis began in spring 2011. Nor can the upswing in violence be ascribed solely to ancient Sunni-Shia hatreds: The embers of sectarianism were stoked back into life by the Baghdad government's unwillingness to meet demands for an end to the collective punishment of Sunnis for the crimes of the Baathist regime.
But the real driver of violence in Iraq is arguably Baghdad's over-centralization of power, which came too soon and was infused with sectarian paranoia. The United States was initially wary of this danger: The formula of all-inclusive power sharing -- muhasasa in Arabic -- was a cornerstone of U.S.-led policy in Iraq until 2008, and the United States also made sure that the principle of administrative decentralization was baked into the Iraqi Constitution. This policy reflected a powerful truth -- that post-Saddam Iraq was not ready for a political system with absolute winners and absolute losers.
But starting in 2008, Maliki re-centralized power, leaning on an increasingly narrow circle of Shia opponents of the previous dictatorship. And like all successful revolutionaries, this clique is paranoid about counterrevolution and has set about rebuilding a version of the authoritarian system it sought for decades to overthrow. Maliki's inner circle dominates the selection of military commanders down to brigade level, controls the federal court, and has seized control of the central bank. The executive branch is rapidly eclipsing all checks and balances that were put in place to guarantee a new autocracy did not emerge.
The root of Iraq's violence is thus not ancient hatreds between Sunni and Shia or Kurd and Arab, but between decentralizers and recentralizers -- and between those who wish to put Iraq's violent past behind them, and those determined to continually refight it. The demands that have been consistently stated by the Kurdish and Sunni Arab anti-Maliki opposition could not be clearer. First, the opposition demands devolution of fiscal authority to the Kurdistan Regional Government and the provinces, encapsulated in a revenue-sharing law that will provide a formula for the proportion of the budget allocated to the KRG and provinces. Second, it demands the implementation of the system of checks and balances on the executive branch -- particularly by empowering parliament and ensuring an independent judiciary. Third, it calls for a comprehensive truth and reconciliation process that provides justice for those damaged by Saddam's regime, but stops short of collectively punishing Sunnis.
Some argue the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a Zionist apparatchik, FYI. Harith Hasan (Al-Monitor via Global Research) offers:
Maliki has exploited the failures and gaps of this system to create a shadow state that is loyal and responsive to him. He managed to maneuver this system and build strong personal influence within the security institutions, armed forces, independent institutions and Iraq’s judiciary. In an oil-dependent country like Iraq, the executive branch tends to become stronger than the legislative branch because it manages more resources and more complex networks of patronage. But these measures have only intensified political conflict while failing to make the state more efficient.
Divided between Maliki’s camp, whose authoritarian disposition is increasing, and his rivals’ camp, whose only alternative is more “apportionment” politics, the political elite is evidently out of touch with the demands of average citizens. Maliki accuses his rivals of doing everything to hinder his government; his rivals say that the failure is caused by his policies. Their contest is more about finding a scapegoat and less about identifying new ways to address the state’s failure.
The problem overrides this short-sighted dispute among opportunistic politicians. It is rather about the way Iraq’s economy is working and the way in which the lack of strong institutions affects a responsible and wise management of the wealth. The Iraqi constitution stipulates: “Oil and gas are the Iraqi people’s property,” but the true story is different. According to the UN Development Program, 75% of Iraqis identified poverty as the most pressing need, 79% of households rated electricity as “bad” or “very bad,” and only 26% of the population is covered by the public sewage network. This, despite Iraq’s GDP growth from $20 billion in 2002 to $128 billion in 2012, thanks to growth in oil production, which accounts for 60% of GDP and 90% of government revenue.
Alsumaria notes the National Dialogue Front's Haider Mulla is calling for a withdrawal of confidence in Nouri. That's what needs to happen. Nouri's ways are not working. Nouri has provided seven years of failure to Iraq. All Iraq News notes Mulla stated, "We had notified the serious monopolization policy adopted by Maliki in running the Ministry of Defense and Interior as well as the Intelligence Department, thus the violence across Iraq demonstrated our worries. Maliki is fully responsible for the bloodshed and the escape of all criminals after proving the involvement of top officers in the process of the jailbreak of Abu Ghraib and Taji prisons." In addition, Ayad Allawi Tweeted today:
On violence, Al Jazeera observes:
As violence continues to surge in Iraq, one Google doc is keeping track of the country's death toll. For the past year, Agence France-Presse (AFP) has listed all reported casualties from attacks across the country. Each day, reporters update a public spreadsheet with body counts based on statements from officials.
Though actual figures vary between news agencies, the spreadsheet paints a grim picture of increased violence in the country. August 10 was Iraq's deadliest day of the year, with at least 91 killed and more than 300 wounded in a series of bombings during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr.
Iraq Body Count has and continues to track and count deaths. Al Jazeera is reporting on a project started by Prashant Rao. We praised it when it started. It was needed and remains needed. If you doubt that, one effect it has had is to force the Iraqi government to stop grossly under-reporting deaths. They were often more than 100 off (sometimes as high as 250). Since Prashant Rao's project began, the under-counting by the government has become much less severe and, for July, was actually close to accurate. From Prashant Rao's Twitter account:
@AJStream If it helps, I wrote about why we update that spreadsheet and make it public here: http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/10/25/Iraq%3A-grim-job-of-tallying-casualties …
All Iraq News notes 2 Tikrit bombings have left 1 Sahwa dead, 2 civilians dead, one Sahwa injured and thee civilians injured, a third Tikrit bombing has left 2 Iraqi soldiers dead (three more injured), 2 suspects were shot dead in Nineveh, a Baghdad car bombing has left 3 people dead and fifteen injured, a mortar attack in Sulaimaniya has left 2 people dead and seven more injured, and a fourth Tikrit bombing has claimed 2 lives and left a small child wounded. PETRA notes the Baghdad bombing was outside a mosque. EFE adds, "A car bombing in Al-Mada'in, a town located 30 kilometers (18 miles) south of Baghdad, killed at least five Shiites and wounded 15 others near a mosque. The bomb was detonated as Shiite worshippers emerged from the mosque after noon prayers." They also note a bombing in Kikruk's Al-Riyadh has left 3 police officers dead and four more injured.
And WG Dunlp (AFP) Tweeted:
Last week, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr floated his retirement from political life. Today All Iraq News reports Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi is publicly calling for Moqtada to reconsider his decisions, "The decision is a loss for all Iraqis. We call all national forces and MPs within Sadr Trend to persude Sadr to reconsider his resolution in order to prevent sides that are conspiring inside and outside Iraq to destroy Iraq national unity. The family of Sadr has a glorious history in fighting injustice and the family involved many figures who built wide reputation for them in supporting justice and combatting corrupted regimes." Moqtada leaving political life would be good news for Nouri. Moqtada has more authority than Nouri whose family history is less glorious and who fled Iraq and, like a coward?, only returned after the US invaded. Moqtada remained in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time and only left -- during the war -- due to a bench warrant the US and Iraq were holding and planning to execute at some point. Moqtada's also seen as more honest. Most importantly, Iran supposedly told him in 2010 that if he would support Nouri for prime minister, the Iranian government would dictate that various Shi'ite political leaders support Moqtada when Nouri's term expires. Tensions remain between Nouri and Moqtada and between their groups -- State of Law and the Sadr bloc. All Iraq News quotes from Sadr Trend MP Eqbal al-Ghurabi who states:
"The Sad Trend is the one that made Maliki as the Premier of Iraq and the one that advises Maliki where the Sadr Trend does not need any advices from Maliki."
"Sadr's history is full of honest Islamic resistance," she added, assuring that "The Sadr Trend always helps and supports the citizens especially the poor."
She called "Maliki to keep his advices for the security files and stop interference in others' affairs."
Moqtada's next move is unknown. What is known is that Michael E. Ruane (Washington Post) writes the most idiotic article on Iraq today. The news will make many in Iraq happy, the Iraqi Jewish Archive will be returned to Iraq:
The trove, named the Iraqi Jewish Archive, was found by U.S. troops on May 6, 2003, in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Hussein’s secret police — who had, among other things, busily gathered intelligence on Iraqi Jews.
Most Jews had fled Iraq years before in the face of the violence and intimidation of the mid- to late 1900s, leaving behind the last traces of their rich 2,500-year history there, Archives officials said.
With the consent of Iraqi authorities, the material was brought to the National Archives for conservation later in 2003, Hamburg said.
But the project stagnated, according to a State Department official, as Iraq descended into insurgency and sectarian bloodshed, and it was not clear who in the Iraqi government would be the contact for the project.
“They wanted it back,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk more freely about the negotiations. “But we wanted guarantees that it was going to be taken care of.”
Why is the article stupid? It notes that Iraq was pro-Nazi in WWII and the 200,000 members of the Jewish community was decimated, etc. Why are these documents going back to Iraq? This is colonialism, it's not modern. By modern standards, we grasp that governments do not have the right to these documents. The Jews were an oppressed people in Iraq, a targeted population from WWII and immediately after. When the US-led illegal war started, a still thriving Iraqi Jewish population was destroyed and less than five Iraqi Jews are said to be left in the country today -- the population fleeing due to threats of violence and being targeted with violence because they were Jewish.
In what world does the Iraqi government have the right to these papers? In a colonial world and time when the rights of the minority populations didn't matter to world leaders.
The article/report refuses to address cultural issues, to speak to anthropologists about who has the right to these papers, etc. It's a stupid article by a person who thinks one-sided is the way to go.
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news