Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Lonely Women




 That's singer-songwriter on the cover of her Eli & The Thirteenth Confession album.

"Lonely Women."  Sandra Bernhard does that song from time to time -- it's even in one of her concert movies.

I know about Laura Nyro, I learned about her, because of Sandra Bernhard.

This was back when Madonna was whatever with Warren Beatty while also bumping p____ with Sandra.  Remember when Sandra and Madonna were an item?

It was 1989 and Spin ran this:

Recently, Madonna attended a Laura Nyro concert at the Wilson Theatre in LA with Sandra Bernhard and Warren Beatty.  Madonna held hands with Sandra before the show and giggled through "Wild World," a song about being kind to animals. Beatty reportedly bounced in his seat and sang along during "Wedding Bell Blues."

 How rude.

So I went looking for this "Wild World" and this Laura Nyro.

I found Laura: Live At The Bottom Line.  At whatever it was -- Musicland?

I think that was the music store I went to in order to purchase that cassette in 1989.

And, unlike Madonna, I wasn't laughing.

This concert album was incredible.

And I had to have more but Laura wasn't on the shelves.

And this was pre-internet.

So I had to special order.

I got More Than A New Discovery first.

Why?

Not because it was her debut.

But two songs from Live At The Bottom Line were from this album.  Two were from Eli & The Thirteenth Confession.  That was the one I got second.

And to this day that album thrills me.

No one hurries home to lonely women 
No one hurries home to lonely women 
 A gal could die without her man 
And no one knows it better than lonely women 
And no one knows the blues like lonely women do 
No one knows the blues like lonely women, yeah 

If you don't know the song, the lyrics may make you think it's a pity song.  But Laura's vocals make it so much more than that.

Of all the songs on the album, that one spoke to me the most the first time I listened.  I was in college and it seemed so real.  All the songs on the album did.



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Tuesday, April 29, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, War Crimes past and War Crimes present are discussed, Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty release statements which are embarrassing for their lack of honesty or backbone, the elections get more press attention, fewer voters outside of Iraq filled out a ballot in the overseas elections -- especially when compared 2010's parliamentary elections, and much more.

Today, The New Yorker notes the Abu Ghraib prison scandal which Seymour Hersh broke the news on in 2004 and they highlight this past reporting:
“Torture at Abu Ghraib,” by Seymour M. Hersh (May 10, 2004).
“The Abu Ghraib Pictures” (May 3, 2004).
“Chain of Command,” by Seymour M. Hersh (May 17, 2004).
“The Gray Zone,” by Seymour M. Hersh (May 24, 2004).
“Exposure,” by Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris (March 24, 2008).

“Primary Sources: Abu Ghraib” (March 24, 2008).


Again, Hersh broke the story.  He continues to break stories, he is an investigative reporter.  Sadly, he is shut out by his peers in the US media and now his investigative work -- exposing the current administration -- runs in The London Review of Books.  That's not an insult to that publication.  Applause for them.  But how sad that no American outlet will touch his reports -- not even The New Yorker. They'll pimp his past work, they just don't want to run his current work because the current American fairy tale must be maintained.  Deutsche Welle interviews Hersh today.  Excerpt.
You really haven't noticed any change, not even under President Barack Obama?

 He is more informed (than former President George W. Bush), his domestic programs are in general quite good…But in foreign policy there's not a significant change, no…America would be much better off, if, 30 years ago, we had let Russia continue its war in Afghanistan…The mistake was made by the Carter administration which was trying to stop the Russians from their invasion of Afghanistan. We'd be better off had we let the Russians beat the Taliban. Obama is continuing many of the policies, the war against terrorism...I don't understand why we use drones to kill people when we know that this makes more enemies of us, and we also know that the real problem with many of the jihadists is a lack of jobs, a lack of food, a lack of a real life. And instead of dealing with these problems, we fight. That always seems to me very silly. We're not dealing with the underlying problems that create jihadists.


What happened in the Abu Ghraib prison, what the US military and intelligence agents did?  War Crimes.  Torture, rape, those are War Crimes.


Earlier this month, BRussells Tribunal and others staged a conference on Iraq.  Dahr Jamail reports (here at BRussells Tribunal, here at Truthout):


  Narmeen Saleh and her husband Shawki were detained by US military forces during a violent 2004 raid of their home in Baghdad.
Saleh spent 16 days in prison, where "the interrogations didn't stop for one minute." She was beaten, electrocuted and threatened with rape if she didn't "confess."
"They [US soldiers] tortured and beat me a lot, and when they found out that I was pregnant they told me they would kill the baby in my womb," she was quoted, as her testimony was read at the Iraq Commission conference in Brussels recently. "They then concentrated their beating and electricity on my abdomen area."
Her daughter, who is now 8 years old, has cerebral palsy, and her husband remains in custody of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the bogus charge of "illegally entering Iraq."
This shocking testimony was provided to international lawyers, journalists , and activists converged at a conference titled, "The Iraq Commission," held in Brussels, Belgium, April 16 and 17, with the primary aim of bringing to justice government officials who are guilty of war crimes in Iraq.

The conference represented the most powerful and most current organized movement in the world to hold accountable those responsible for the catastrophic invasion and occupation in Iraq, including UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President George W. Bush, along with others in their administrations.


Again, War Crimes.  Most importantly,  War Crimes continue in Iraq.

Nouri attacked Anbar Province December 30th.  He attacked a camp of peaceful protesters.  From that day's snapshot:


 Here are three plain speaking outlets -- two western and Rudaw. Kamal Namaa, Ahmed Rasheed, Alexander Dziadosz and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) report, "Fighting broke out when Iraqi police moved to dismantle a Sunni Muslim protest camp in the western Anbar province on Monday, leaving at least 13 people dead, police and medical sources said."  Rudaw explains, "As Iraqi forces launched a reportedly deadly crackdown on a months-long protest in the city of Ramadi in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province, Sunni MPs reacted by announcing mass resignations as other leaders called on protesters to resist and soldiers to disobey."  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes, "Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki underscored how little he’s learned, responding to a sit-in protest in Ramadi with heavy-handed police action that killed at least 17 people, 12 of them unarmed civilians."
These murders brought to you by the largess of US President Barack Obama.  Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) explains:

Rashid Fleih, a leader of the Anbar operations, told Al-Monitor that the Iraqi army had received US equipment and supplies to be used in the battle against groups affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The New York Times revealed Dec. 25 that Washington will supply Iraq with a map showing the locations and origins of al-Qaeda in Iraq, besides 75 Hellfire air-to-land missiles and 10 ScanEagle reconnaissance drones. This information was confirmed by the prime minister's spokesperson, Ali al-Moussawi, in a statement released Dec. 27.


Barack arming Nouri with weapons to use against the Iraqi people is in violation human rights agreements as well as the Leahy Amendment.  

In February, Erin Evers (Human Rights Watch) noted:

 Clearly Iraq needs to protect its citizens from armed groups’ violent attacks, which can wreak general havoc and cause a humanitarian crisis, as in Anbar. But the government also takes advantage of fears of the terrorist threat to brutally suppress dissent. The violence in Anbar is just the most recent example of how the government’s use of violent measures in the name of counterterrorism has accelerated the country’s crisis: the Anbar fighting began thanks to the government’s attempt to suppress Sunnis’ legitimate protests against abuses. Security forces’ brutal methods are amply documented in today’s report on abuses of women, which frequently occurred during counterterrorism operations.


December 30th, the slaughter began with Nouri lying that he was combating terrorists.

The US government, led by US President Barack Obama, allowed humans to die for the crime of peaceful protest.  Check the snapshot, despite his claims of "terrorists" overrunning the Ramadi protest camp, Nouri didn't capture one in his deadly raid.  Instead, Nouri claimed that the terrorist all managed to flee.  All of them.  Doesn't explain the slaughter of innocents, does it?

Nouri has used terrorism or 'terrorism' as an excuse to attack civilians -- to attack and kill them.

He's claimed it's al Qaeda in Iraq he's fighting and the White House has gone along with that lie.  As Michael Stephens (Al Jazeera) notes today, "The US has blandly repeated the same platitude that it wishes to see a united Iraq operating under the terms of the strategic framework agreement, yet simultaneously the US has been accelerating its Foreign Military Sales programme in recent months by approving the sale of 36 F-16s, 24 Apaches and 500 Hellfire missiles to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda."  Betty offered, "I keep thinking the US is going to send in a team to kill Nouri but they never kill the tyrants -- no, they just kill the good people like Allende in Chile.  If you're a crook or a War Criminal, the US will prop you up forever and a day.  But if you try to help the people, the US government will try to kill you or overthrow you (Castro in Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela)."  Ann shared, "Nouri al-Maliki should be in a prison or a grave. Instead, he's ruining the country."

The most important report today is by Ned Parker, Ahmed Rasheed and Raheem Salman (Reuters).  They explore the attacks on civilians, explain Nouri's use of Shi'ite militias (which Nouri is calling the "Sons Of Iraq" -- the name previously used for Sahwa).  The reporters note that Nouri's operation hasn't had success, not even in the military:

Military personnel and Iraqi officials say several thousand soldiers have deserted; and well over 1,000, if not more, have been killed. The government has yet to release formal numbers.
Soldiers in Anbar speak with desperation. “We are dumped by our military leadership in these deserted houses in the middle of the orchards, without enough ammunition, without night binoculars,” said one soldier from Ramadi.
His battalion has 120 of its original 750 soldiers; most have deserted and he vows to do the same.

One army officer said Iraq’s Special Forces, who have led the fight against the insurgency, are now taking defensive positions to avoid more casualties.

In an executive summary of their report released yesterday, the International Crisis Group notes:

It is too late for steps that might have been taken to reduce tensions before the elections. Any lasting solution requires addressing the deeper roots of Sunni alienation in a country increasingly gripped by sectarian tension. ISIL’s rise is a symptom, not the main cause, of the poor governance that is the principal reason for Iraq’s instability. The government, UN and U.S. should treat ISIL differently from the military council and Falluja as a whole, rather than bundling them together in an indiscriminate “war on terror”.
When in December 2013 Iraq’s central authorities cleared a year-long sit-in in the city that was demanding better treatment from Baghdad, Falluja’s residents took to the streets. ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) took advantage of the ensuing chaos, moved forces into the city and asserted it had seized control. The claim was greatly exaggerated: while it raised its black flag above some administration buildings in the city centre, locals blocked most of their forays and forced them to retreat to the outskirts.
But Baghdad had a casus belli: it besieged the city, ignored local attempts to mediate an ISIL withdrawal and threatened to attack. Falluja residents held no brief for ISIL, but their hatred of the Iraqi army – seen as the instrument of a Shiite, sectarian regime, directed from Tehran, that discriminates against Sunnis in general and Anbar in particular – ran even deeper. The city’s rebels struck a Faustian bargain, forming an alliance of convenience with ISIL. The jihadis’ military might kept the army at bay, but their presence justified the government’s claim that the entire city was under jihadi control. A self-reinforcing cycle has taken root: jihadi activity encourages government truculence that in turn requires greater jihadi protection.

Falluja’s fighters and Baghdad’s central authorities both are posing as the country’s true patriots, deriding their adversary as a foreign enemy. ISIL has benefited by renewing its base of support in Iraq, which had been shrinking ever since the sahwa (awakening) turned against al-Qaeda in 2006. With a high profile from the fighting in Syria and superior weaponry, they once again have become a magnet for the country’s disaffected. 



Look, some grown ups have joined the discussion.  It's a far cry from the garbage Marie Harf and Jen Psaki swill at the State Dept press briefings.

Nouri has gotten away one War Crime against humanity after another and the same US President who demanded Nouri get a second term as prime minister (despite his State of Law losing the 2010 parliamentary elections) has demanded he be provided with more weapons and with intel to kill Iraqis.

The current assault on Anbar began with War Crimes, the slaughter of peaceful protesters in Ramadi.  It has continued the War Crimes.  In the name of combating so-called terrorism, Nouri bombs the homes of Falluja, he bombs residential areas.  Every day in the last months, civilians have died and been wounded from these bombings.  Where is the international outcry?

Doctors Without Borders issue an alert about the Anbar crisis today but can only muster the courage to mention the refugees created by the crisis, they can't say one word about the killing of civilians by the Iraqi military.  Also cowardly is Amnesty International with their little alert today which lacks the guts and spine to note the daily killing of civilians in Falluja by Nouri's military. Though they can't note the killing of civilians in Falluja, the editorial board of England's Independent can at least call the possible re-election of Nouri "a pity" and write, "Mr Maliki may win the election or stay in office, but more and more of Iraq will be outside his control as the country disintegrates." Even the editorial board of The National Newspaper can point out that "Iraqi security forces have begun employing Shiite militias as shock troops." Hassan Karim ("a university graduate from Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City district") tells AP,  "Al-Maliki has had enough chance to prove himself, but he failed. Iraqis lack security, services and housing. The only two things available in the country right now are corruption and checkpoints."



A few citizens of the world can rightly call out Barack's Drone War and call out the killing of people whose 'crime' it was to attend a wedding.  What about calling the slaughter of people whose only 'crime' it was to be in their homes?


Today, Nouri's continued War Crimes in Iraq left 2 civilians dead today and four more injured as a result of his use of collective punishment in the continued bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods.   "Collective punishment" is so basic that even Wikipedia can explain it:


 The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva Convention and abbreviated as GCIV, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. It was adopted in August 1949, and defines humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone. There are currently 196 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this and the other three treaties.[1]
In 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a report from the Secretary-General and a Commission of Experts which concluded that the Geneva Conventions had passed into the body of customary international law, thus making them binding on non-signatories to the Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts.[2]
[. . .]
Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World War I and World War II. In the First World War, during the Rape of Belgium, the Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, the Germans carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that occurred in them.[3] The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33 is the one more commonly quoted.

Claiming terrorists have taken over sections of Falluja and that this justifies bombing residential neighborhoods is collective punishment, is a War Crime and is, in fact, terrorism against a people.

The White House has elected to embrace, arm and fund terrorism in Iraq.

And, no, it hasn't made things better.  It has only worsened the situation.  A typical incident for Sunnis? Camille Bouissou and Tom Little (AFP) report:

Since soldiers arrested and beat Abu Noor, his son and nephew at their modest house in Baghdad's Adhamiyah neighbourhood, he and his wife have been too scared to leave home.
"I feel sick when I talk about this... I only go to work and I come back," said the 54-year-old, who was too scared to give his real name, remembering the night six months ago when the soldiers arrived.
Like Abu Noor and his wife, many Sunni Arabs complain they are discriminated against by the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is running for a third term in a parliamentary election on Wednesday.
Umm Noor, a smiling woman in her forties wearing a headscarf, grew angry as she recounted the incident six months ago, when she heard a noise late one night.
Her husband went downstairs to check what was happening, and troops grabbed him, his son and nephew and beat them. 



And when the issue isn't direct abuse, the issue is intimidation.  Jamie Tarabay (Al Jazeera) reports on Falluja:


In that storied city, once again controlled by Al-Qaeda allies, there will be polling centers only in surrounding areas controlled by Iraqi security forces. That means residents like Mustafa Mohammed won’t get the chance to cast ballots.
“I’m not going to vote,” he told Al Jazeera over the phone from Fallujah. “The Iraqi army has closed the roads. There are no negotiations happening [for a truce]. The government wants a military solution, not a political one. We want a political one.”
The United Nations estimates that 400,000 people have fled the violence in Anbar and moved to other parts of the country. Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission says they will still be able to vote for their province, using absentee votes.
That won’t help Mohammed cast a ballot. The Fallujah resident, who said he preferred life under Saddam Hussein, found himself admitting that he longs for the Americans to return.

“If [Prime Minister] Nouri al-Maliki wins again, it’ll be the end for Sunnis in Anbar, Kirkuk, Samarra and Tikrit,” Mohammed said, ticking off other parts of Iraq that are predominantly home to Sunnis and have also experienced much violence. “The Americans were more merciful than the government. They weren’t sectarian.”



Al Jazeera discusses the elections with the author of The Struggle for Iraq's Future Zaid al-Ali.  Excerpt.


AJ: In what way would elections contribute to a decrease or increase in social and political divides?
ZA: It will depend on the outcome. If Maliki is returned as prime minister for a third term, many forces in Iraq - some political, some armed - will react negatively. Some may very well withdraw from the political process altogether, while others will certainly increase their armed opposition to the government. In that context, a Maliki third term can only worsen social and political divides.

If, however, Maliki is removed from office, then that opens some space to repair community relations in the country. Obviously that will partially depend on who replaces him, but whoever it is will automatically, if only by virtue of not being Maliki, open up the possibility of reestablishing strong community relations and repairing the damage that has been caused over the past few years.

He's correct.  We'll come back to it in a moment because we're going to note Zaid al-Ali's column for Foreign Policy first:

 There is something truly paradoxical about Iraq's April 30 parliamentary elections. Although there is near unanimity among observers that the past four years have been disastrous for the country, many are still willing to defend Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's tenure -- even going so far as to suggest that there is no one else who is capable of governing the country.
However, the sad reality is that -- given all the developments of his eight years in office -- very few Iraqis are less suitable to be prime minister today than Maliki. Indeed, Maliki's third term would likely be even more disastrous than his second, leading to a deterioration in security and causing the country to relapse into a new authoritarian era.  
[. . .]
There is in fact a serious possibility that Maliki will not obtain sufficient popular support to retain his position. His electoral popularity peaked at around 24 percent of the vote in 2010, when many Iraqis still believed in his nonsectarian and strongman credentials. However, Iraq's complex and dysfunctional parliamentary system has allowed him to negotiate his survival. This election season, Maliki's fortunes will necessarily decline from the previous poll -- the only questions are by how much and how his electoral rivals will react. After the votes are counted, Iraq's future will depend on its leaders' ability to form a post-election alliance without the country's most corrosive elements at its helm.  


Zalmay Khalilzad was the second US Ambassador to Iraq following the 2003 invasion.  At National Interest, he notes, "A new leader, untainted by a record of distrust and broken deals, could offer Iraq a promising way forward."  He's correct,  Zaid al-Ali is correct.

In April 12's "I Hate The War," we explained:


What is termed 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq is actually a group of bodies.  Their only common issue at present is opposting to Nouri's rule.
Want to break them up right now?  Pay attention, Barack -- remove Nouri from power.
That requires no troops.  It only requires an honest election (as took place in 2010) and that the results be honored (which did not happen).
If Nouri is not prime minister for a third term, you're going to see the bond that binds the various groups break away.
Violence, once another person is named prime minister-designate, could actually fall as a result.



In The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: If the US wants to reduce the violence ...," we continued that point:

 No third term for Nouri could provide a brief respite in violence as everyone waits to see what a new leader means.
No third term for Nouri could mean that a loose grouping of rebels, militants and others no longer share a common bond.

If the US could refrain from installing Nouri for a third term -- having already installed him for his first and his second -- Iraq might actually get a moment to breathe and regroup.   Mike noted, "The victims of Anbar are in a violence spiral that Nouri al-Maliki started by attacking the protesters.  Peaceful protesters were attacked, injured and killed repeatedly and the US government did nothing.  The only way to end the current violence is to end Nouri's reign."

By the way, Zalmay Khalilzad's column includes this:

 In exchange for remaining Prime Minister after the 2010 elections, Maliki committed to the Erbil Agreement, which called for reform on issues such as de-Baathification, oil revenues, corruption, and federalism. In the absence of sustained U.S. engagement, however, Maliki failed to deliver on his promises. 

Look at that.  He wrote about The Erbil Agreement and didn't get struck dead by lightening.  It can be done.  The US-brokered Erbil Agreement was used by Nouri to get a second term but he refused to honor the promises he made in the legal contract and that's how Iraq ended up where it is right now.


 You've taken your half out of the middle
Time and time again
But now I'm damned if I'll give you and inch
Till I get even
-- "Vengeance," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy (and was one of MTV's early heavy rotation videos)

Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Reuters) note:

Normally seen behind closed doors and a wall of security, Maliki’s usual message is vengeance for the bombings that have again become a regular feature of Iraqi life and criticism of political opponents, who he says are set on undermining him.
His concentration of power over the past eight years – he holds the Defense, Interior and Security portfolios as well as the premiership – gives him a clear electoral advantage, as does the offensive against the Sunni militants he launched last year.


RT discusses the elections with Eugene Puryear who states, "The fact right now in Iraq is that we see something like confessional system set up by the US occupation. They essentially did everything they could through the invasion to divide the country along ethnic and religious lines, so there is no real national government, even though Maliki is allegedly the head of government of the entire country, it’s clear that there is a number of sectarian and ethnic divides that exist inside of the country that are not bridged to political process."  Reidar Visser offers his thoughts at Epoch Times (remember, Visser is a serial apologist for Nouri al-Maliki -- an analyst who's never called out Nouri's attacks on protesters or his murders of protesters). Matthew Bell (PRI's The World -- link is audio and text) discusses the situation with the BBC's Kevin Connolly.  Terry Gross (NPR's Fresh Air -- link is audio and text) discusses the situation with The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins.  Robin Young (NPR's Here & Now -- link is text and audio) discusses the situation with BBC's Rafid Jaboori.



What does the election mean?

In many ways, Joni Mitchell's "Lesson in Survival" (first appears on For The Roses) captures it:


I came in as bright
As a neon light
And I burned out
Right there before him

That's how it was following the December 2005 parliamentary elections.

That's how it was following the March 2010 parliamentary elections.

Maybe if the White House (first Bully Boy Bush, then Barack Obama) hadn't insisted on naming Iraq's prime minister both times, overriding the choice of Iraqis, maybe then the hope wouldn't have burned out so quickly?

It does appear to have burned out based on one segment of voting in these elections.

Ghassan Hamid and Mohammed Shafiq (Alsumaria) report the Independent High Electoral Commission announced today that 165,000 Iraqis living outside of Iraq have voted in the overseas elections.  Though this is being trumpeted as a large number, it's not.  The last two years have seen an increase yet again in the number of Iraqi leaving the country with some estimates of 250,000 Iraqis having left Iraq since the end of 2011. At the height of the crisis four years earlier, four million Iraqis had left the country.  Not only is 165,000 a small number compared to that, these are post-2003 invasion numbers we're dealing with.  The overseas voting?  One Iraqi profiled by the press left in 1983.  So the voters go back decades.  You probably have around six million potential voters.  (In 2010, it was thought to be as many as 3 million voters, as CNN's Arwa Damon, Jomana Karadsheh, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Zain Verjee noted.) Yet only 200,000 voted in 2010.

And only 165,000 voted in this election.

Granted, Syria's not being allowed to take part in the elections and the last reliable estimate was 300,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria.  Even had Syria been allowed to vote and 300,000 Iraqis there voted, that still wouldn't have brought the number voting to 200,000.  Millions outside of Iraq could have voted.

Not only is the number low when you consider the many who could have voted, it's also low when you consider the 2010 elections.  Rania El Gamal and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) reported March 8, 2010, "There were 272,016 expatriate voters, IHEC said, compared to expectations of more than one million."

This is a significant decrease and violence can't be given as the reason in that it is safer to vote, for example, in New Zealand than in Mosul.

Is this low turnout speaking only to refugee issues or does it indicate a disenchantment with the voting process (or the supposed results) that will also be true within Iraq?

At this point, no one knows and everything is a guess.

But in 2010, there were 272,016 Iraqis voting from outside Iraq and this go around it was only 165,000 -- that's over 100,000 less voters than four years ago.

This may reflect only overseas voters.  Or it may reflect only a Sunni aspect.  The press considers the refugee population to be more Sunni than Shia.  Or it may reflect a feeling of Iraqis regardless of where they live.  It could even be something entirely else including the assimilation issues -- and sociology's long noted the third generation of immigrants is the one that tends to return to roots.

But if this is a sentiment Iraqis are beginning to share, you can blame the US government which has insisted it supports democracy while repeatedly overruling Iraqis' right to select their own prime minister.

Xu Ruiqing and Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) quote Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq stating:

 The future of Iraq will depend on this election. If Iraqis go to vote, Iraq will change. If they are reluctant and make a wrong choice, Iraq will stay as it is now and will even be worse. [. . .] Our country needs politicians and political blocs who believe in the unity of Iraq and their society, those who raise the national identity and the Arab identity above all other identities, because the sectarian identities will tear up the country.




Wednesday, the Iraqi people vote in parliamentary elections.  The results will determine the make up of their next Parliament.  Their next Parliament is supposed to determine their prime minister but that's never happened.  Not so far.  The December 2005 parliamentary elections?  Those elected wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari to be prime minister (again) but the White Hose wanted Nouri al-Maliki.  The March 2010 parliamentary elections saw Nouri's State of Law lose to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya but the White House wanted Nouri to be prime minister (again).

 Osama al-Khafaji and Ghassan Hamid (Alsumaria) have noted that there are over 9000 candidates competing for 328 seats. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains, "Some 277 political entities across Iraq will compete for 328 seats of the Iraqi Council of Representatives the country's parliament."  AFP adds that there are "more than 20 million Iraqis [who] are eligible to vote" on Wednesday. The Latin American Herald Tribune is more specific, "Almost 20.5 million Iraqis are registered to vote in the elections on Wednesday." All Iraq News adds, "The statistics prepared by AIN show that 2607 female candidates compete on 81 seats according to the Iraqi constitution."  Kat noted Diana Moukalled (Al-Arabiya News) report on the female candidates running in the election:

A female Iraqi parliament candidate decided to publish her campaign photos across the country. However in Muslim areas, she published her photos wearing a hijab while in Christian areas, she published them without a hijab.
Though it's funny, it's one of the many trickery dynamics on Iraqi reality. This is not a first time this has happened. A female Iraqi candidate did the same during the 2010 elections.

Days leading up to the elections, Iraq is one big propaganda carnival. This carnival resembles a pattern we've witnessed at many Arab elections: talking about candidates is almost limited to photos and slogans scattered heavily across the country's streets and roads.


Borzou Daragahi (Financial Times of London) observes, "This week’s election is largely seen as a referendum on the performance of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister who has come to dominate the energy-rich country since he first came to power eight years ago and is seen to have contributed to the country’s dramatic deterioration in security."  Or, as Marcia put it, "It's not a surprise that anyone would turn against Nouri.  It's only a surprise that more people in Iraq haven't already turned against him."

Asharq Al-Awsat reports charges of fraud are emerging:

 Candidates have raised questions about the issuance of voter’s e-cards, in addition to calling for investigations into members of Iraq’s military and security forces being pressured to vote for specific candidates. Iraqi military and police personnel began voting on Monday.
In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat independent MP Izzat Al-Shahbandar criticized Iraqi prime minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s State of Law coalition for putting “pressure” on government bodies in order to secure as many votes as possible.
“Violations have taken place in several election centers, and pressure is being put on members of the police and military to vote for a specific candidate.”

Shahbandar, a former member of Maliki’s State of Law coalition, said that the Iraqi prime minister is desperate to win the election outright, without having to resort to forming alliances to secure a third term in office. 


Furthermore, Ayad Allawi tells Mustafa al-Kadhimi (Al-Monitor), "Thousands of electoral e-cards [according to statements by the Independent High Electoral Commission] have been stolen, and 25,000 sent to [the addresses of] dead people in Baghdad. In addition, the cards’ barcode shows who votes for whom, which poses a threat, especially among the armed forces and the internal security forces."  Xinhua notes:

 Allawi was born in Iraq's capital city of Baghdad in 1945. A prominent Iraqi political activist who lived in exile for almost 30 years, the secular Shiite Muslim came back to Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. He was prime minister of Iraq's interim government from June 2004 to April 2005.
The Iraqiya List, a cross-sectarian alliance led by Allawi, came first in the 2010 elections but failed to form a government. With the breakdown of the Iraqiya List, Allawi leads a much smaller National Coalition to participate in this year's elections.

That's part of Xinhua's overview of the politicians they see as major players in the elections. They offer an overview on various political alliances here. AFP offers "key facts" about the elections here.

Isra'al Rubei'i and Ned Parker (Reuters) report that secular candidates are struggling to get media coverage:

The Civil Democratic Alliance which groups independents and smaller parties has struggled to be seen amid the giant city posters of officials in the current government, women candidates in full hijab, others pancaked in Technicolor makeup, and powerful militia members clad in camouflage who fight in Syria.
The glossy billboards testify to the big money necessary for campaigns in Iraq, with politicians whispering of their rivals’ financiers and slush funds.
One Islamist candidate estimated to Reuters the cost of his parliamentary bid at over a million dollars. The lavish sums testify to how entrenched Iraq’s ruling parties are 11 years after the U.S. invasion ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Civil Democratic Alliance’s members say they can’t afford to buy time on satellite news channels or pay for thousands of billboards.


And it wouldn't be campaigning without a politician or lying -- like the one Al Bawaba reports wants to be all things to all people, "We’ve heard of sly tactics used by politicians, but this definitely ranks at the top. In an unusual step to increase his chances of winning this year’s elections, an Iraqi candidate by the name of Sheikh Eyad al Ashoori put up three different posters around various areas in Iraq - each claiming that he is from a different religion or sect, to please the residents of that specific neighborhood."



The United Nations issued the following today:



Secretary-General Hails Timely Progress towards Polls in Iraq, Condemns


Violence Targeting Leaders, Candidates, Electoral Staff



The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:


On 30 April, Iraq will hold nationwide Council of Representatives elections and Governorate Council elections in the Kurdistan region.  These elections mark an important milestone in Iraq’s democratic transition and can contribute to greater peace and stability in the country.


The Secretary-General welcomes the progress made by the Independent High Electoral Commission in holding these elections on time and in line with national commitments and international standards.


The Secretary-General strongly condemns the wave of violence and terrorist attacks that has targeted political leaders, candidates and electoral staff ahead of the elections and conveys his deepest condolences to the families of those affected.  He urges all political leaders and personalities to create the conditions necessary to enable all Iraqi men and women to participate in the electoral process and to have their say on the future of their country.


* *** *



The United Nations isn't the only body making announcements today.  Al-Shorfa reports that clerics are making statements today:


 "Election is a national duty for every Iraqi who desires to see change, security and prosperity and to overcome all problems in the country," Mufti of Iraq Sheikh Rafi al-Rifai said in a statement.
"Therefore, it is a religious and moral duty to go to the ballot boxes and use the chance as a civilised way to change and express opinion," he said.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani also called on Iraqis to take part in the elections.

"All Iraqis must seize this chance to elect the right person in the right place to defeat terrorism, establish security and prosperity in an independent, pluralistic and free Iraq where only law and order have authority and influence," said al-Sistani's Karbala representative Ahmed al-Safi. 



Let's note the violence.  Through yesterday, 942 is the number killed from violence this month according to Iraq Body Count.

Today?

National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed battle "west of Kirkuk" left 8 rebels dead, 2 bombs going off in a Khanaqin market left 15 people dead and forty-five more injured, and, dropping back to last night, a Dora suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of 2 Federal Police members (with nine more left injured) while an al-Mada'en attack left 5 Sahwa dead and eight more injured. On the Khanaqin market bombing, Cassandra Vinograd (NBC News) reports the death toll increased to 24 dead.  Rudaw quotes their reporter in Khanaqin stating, "People are very confused, men, women, young and children come to look for their loved ones.  One can see blood everywhere on the floor in the hospital, people are screaming, it's quite a chaotic situation."  Alsumaria reports a Mafraq roadside bombing (west of Baquba) left 3 people dead and seven more injured, a Radwaniya roadside bombing left 1 police member dead and two more injured, an Abu Ghraib roadside bombing left 1 person dead and four more injured, and 1 male corpse (30-years-old and gunshot wounds) was discovered dumped in the streets of Hawija.


Yesterday's violence included many suicide bombers.  Trina focused on one, a teenager:

They tried to vote thug Nouri al-Maliki out as prime minister in 2010 and actually did.  But Barack wouldn't let it happen and imposed Nouri on them for a second term.
Their lives have been pure hell.  He's killed protesters, he's attacked everyone.
And now he's trying for a third term.
When voting hasn't worked, when protesting hasn't worked, what are you left with?
Violence.
How sad that a young, teenage boy became a (dead) suicide bomber today.
And how sad that there's no grown up to realize Nouri is the problem and that the country can't move forward while he's at the lead. 

Ruth and Elaine wrote about the KRG and we'll try to include that tomorrow but there wasn't space for the KRG today.






















 











Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Thug Nouri al-Maliki




That's Isaiah's lastest The World Today Just Nuts "The Little Princess."

Reuters notes:

 In the western Mansour district of Baghdad, six police died and 16 others were wounded when a suicide bomber dressed as a policeman detonated his explosives at the entrance of a school being used for voting, police and medical sources said.

They always say that.

Whenever an apparent member of the police or the Iraqi military takes part in an attack, they say that they were wearing a uniform.

(I love C.I.'s joke about that, how it must mean the biggest terrorist in Iraq is a seamstress who's sewing up all these uniforms.)

Considering that, for example, Nouri ordered Ramadi police arrested and jailed in January (for refusing to attack the people of Ramadi), it's really not surprising that there are security forces who turn against Nouri's abusive government.

He really is just a thug.

A US-installed Bwana who was selected by Bully Boy Bush to be prime minister.  Then, in 2010, Barack arranged for him to get  a second term even though Nouri lost the elections.

It's not a surprise that anyone would turn against Nouri.

It's only a surprise that more people in Iraq haven't already turned against him.

This is the TV community coverage from last week:

"Unforgettable," "community & scandal," "Again on Arrow," "Elementary," "Arrow," "The 100," "The Mindy Project," "seth gabel is sex on a stick," "The Tomorrow People," "The Originals," "Meet The Press? Not with David Gregory!," "The Good Wife explains It's All About Who You Know," "Reliable Sources," "Sharyl Attkisson is wrong," "Back in the Cold War and we're stuck with Mark Shields" and "TV and other things"



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


 
Monday, April 28, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, violence slams the polling centers in Iraq as security forces vote, refugees outside of Iraq are voting, the press is too busy doing everything but reporting, we do a slow walk through of the myth that the Iranian government (pressuring Moqtada al-Sadr to support Nouri al-Maliki in 2010) ended that political stalemate, and much more.

David A. Andelman (USA Today) notes, "Reuters' veteran Baghdad bureau chief Ned Parker reports fighting in Anbar province alone has displaced over 400,000 people, while thousands of soldiers have deserted or been killed."  We'll focus on Anbar tomorrow but will note chief thug and prime minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki continues his War Crimes of collective punishment in Anbar Province.  Today, NINA reports, his bombing of residential neighborhoods left 1 civilian dead and three more injured.  Again, we'll note Anbar tomorrow -- including the fact that a little bit of maturity came into the picture today in terms of analysis of the situation.


Instead, we're going to focus on the parliamentary vote.

While Iraqis vote in the parliamentary elections on Wednesday, Iraqi security forces voted today.  The Latin American Herald Tribune reports, "The turnout Monday was 91.46 percent" and quote Independent High Electoral Commission member Maqad al Sharifi declared that was "the highest registered since the commission was created in 2005."  Al-Shorfa quotes IHEC spokesperson Aziz al-Khaikany stating, "More than one million Iraqi soldiers and policemen this morning went to 534 election centres around the country to choose their representatives as part of the early voting for members of the security forces, who will be busy Wednesday securing citizens' voting."


Press TV has a video report here. Al Arabiya News has an AFP photo essay here. Loveday Morris (Washington Post) adds that "prisoners and hospital patients and staff members" also voted today.


Iraqi refugees are also voting outside the country and many voted yesterday. Today, in Iraq, the security forces are voting.   What's at stake? Osama al-Khafaji and Ghassan Hamid (Alsumaria) have noted that there are over 9000 candidates competing for 328 seats.


Alice Fordham continues her streak of worst reporting this month.  Having falsely declared on NPR most recently that Anbar Province wouldn't be voting, Alice latest report is an online number and didn't make the broadcast.  In it, she writes:

 Maliki's critics say he has authoritarian tendencies, using the security forces and the judiciary to sideline his enemies. In addition, his rivals say he has a harsh sectarian streak that favors the Shiite majority over Sunni Muslims and other minorities. But a lot of Iraqis keep voting for him. 

How many, Alice, how many vote for him?  You're working for a US outlet -- for the moment, anyway.  And you damn well know most Americans don't have a clue about a parliamentary system.  Reality, less than one million will vote for Nouri al-Maliki.  Prime Minister isn't a position on the ballot.  Nouri's name only appears on the ballots in his district.


Nouri al-Maliki wants a third term.  Apparently using his second term to tear apart the country and increase violence wasn't enough for him. But all of the third term talk confuses a number of people in the US.  Nouri is running for the Parliament.  That's what these elections are and that's why they're called parliamentary elections. He has campaigned outside of Baghdad for others in his State of Law.  He campaigned, for example, this month is Basra.  And Moqtada al-Sadr's supporters staged a very prominent protest against him while he was in Basra.  But Nouri's name won't appear on ballots in Basra.

Confusion weighs heavily and there's no effort made to explain.  Explaining might require telling truths and it's much more important to lie to the people and to pimp Nouri as a sure thing.

For example, listen to what the International Crisis Group's Maria Fantappie tells John Beck (The Vice):

“The security situation there will not allow many to reach the polling stations,” she said, “and those who do will be risking their lives.”
A lack of international observers might mean that those do attempt to participate won’t be voting in a free and fair environment. Fantappie believes this underscores a wider issue: a growing lack of trust in the electoral process, especially in Sunni-populated areas.
“The big difference between this election and the elections in 2010 is that since then, a large portion of the Iraqi population, especially in Sunni populated areas, don’t trust the political process and don’t see the elections as something which can really reshape the power balance in the central government institutions,” she said.

Huh.  Do people read that and think that's an explanation?  Or complete in any form?

She ends stating, "The big difference between this election and the elections in 2010 is that since then, a large portion of the Iraqi population, especially in Sunni populated areas, don’t trust the political process and don’t see the elections as something which can really reshape the power balance in the central government institutions."

That's a conclusion?

Hell no.

Why does "a large portion of the Iraqi population" not "trust the political process" and not "see the elections as something which can really reshape the power balance in the central government institutions"?

Those comments beg an answer and none is provided.

What happened was a country new to democracy turned out in March 2010 to vote and they voted for Iraqiya in enough numbers to allow this new coalition headed by Ayad Allawi to beat the incumbent prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law.

If you'd risked your life to vote in 2010, chances are you weren't thrilled to see your vote rejected.

We're going to review but first let's review how they lie because the press lies so damn much.

Here's Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) pretending to explain how the loser -- Nouri, always Nouri, his whole damn life he's been a loser -- ended up remaining prime minister:


The landscape for the April 30 election differs markedly from 2010, when Maliki faced off with Shiite ex-premier Iyad Allawi, who at the time headed a secular Sunni-backed coalition.
Allawi’s Iraqiya bloc narrowly edged out Maliki, but the incumbent still managed to maneuver to secure the premiership by winning the backing of powerful neighbor Iran and allying with other Shiite parties after the election.
Iraqiya has since fractured into multiple factions and Maliki’s principal Shiite rival in the 2010 polls has also broken down into several blocs.

 
That's a bit of lie.  First, let's deal with the "multiple factions."  People are lying and saying this is something it's not.  The political parties, this is what it is, feel that smaller parties and blocs were given greater weight in the 2010 voting and had more power in the eight-month plus political stalemate that followed the 2010 elections.  I thought Nouri was losing his hold last week when we highlighted Reidar Visser's analysis arguing that.  We highlighted it, however, because Iraqiya has been slammed by the press, insulted, said to be kaput because they had broken into smaller groups.

But since then, two analysts have explained to me on the phone that this is not a sign of breaking up so much as it it's the various political blocs attempting to game the system for the post-election battle.

Now let's deal with the other thing, the whole lie that Nouri was able "to secure the premiership by winning the backing of powerful neighbor Iran and allying with other Shiite parties after the election."

I don't know why you'd lie about this at AFP unless you felt France was so tiny and insignificant that it couldn't publicly take on the US government.

Is that the issue?

Are AFP and Mohamad Ali Harissi so scared of the US government?  Poor little babies, poor little lying cry babies.


Iran?

First off, the US government backed Nouri as well and did so for months and months.  This is from John Barry's 2012  "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

The US government backed Nouri.  So did the Iranian government. No one, however, backed the Iraqi voters who showed real courage in voting and who chose a national Iraqi identity by voting for Iraqiya which was not a secular party but one with Shi'ites (such as Allawi), Sunnis (such as Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi) and various minorities.  Iraqiya was promoting one Iraq.  That's why it also had women -- real women, not 'tell me how to vote' women.  And it was one Iraq, that's what they were campaigning on.  People responded to that message in 2009 during the provincial elections.  These strands became strong roots by the 2010 parliamentary elections.

Nouri has splinted Iraq in his second term, pitted this group against that group and taken Iraqi back to levels of violence not seen since 2008.  Had the US government (or the Iranian government, but I'm a US citizen and I need to hold my government accountable not play it safe by pointing at other countries), had the US government backed Iraqiya, the country would be in a better place today.  What if the government had failed even more than Nouri's?  It wouldn't have mattered, the point would have been that a national identity would have been embraced instead of the warring factions on the ground in Iraq today.


Iran?  October 17, 2010, Martin Chulov (Guardian) reported on pressure from the government in Iran and how it had made cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr back Nouri (after Moqtada had refused to do so for months):

 The Guardian can reveal that the Islamic republic was instrumental in forming an alliance between Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki, who is vying for a second term as prime minister, and the country's powerful radical Shia cleric leader, Moqtada al-Sadr.
The deal – which involved Syria, Lebanon's Hezbollah and the highest authorities in Shia Islam – positions Maliki as a frontrunner to return as leader despite a seven-month stalemate between Iraq's feuding political blocs.
And if you're a real idiot or a coward or a whore, that's how it happened.
But if you have flat lined and you still have brain waves, you might have noticed Chulov mentioned "seven-month stalemate."
Did you catch that?
The political stalemate was the frozen government, the inactive Iraqi government, following the March elections.  At the time, Iraq set the record for longest time between elections and the formation of a government.  That stalemate lasted eight months.
Iran did what they did in month seven.
If that, pay attention, was what ended things then October (month 7 of the stalemate) would have been the last month.
But Iran may have gotten Moqtada on board with Nouri, it did not, however, end the stalemate.
The US government -- who backed Nouri throughout the stalemate -- ended it.  US President Barack Obama ordered US officials to negotiate a contract that would give Nouri a second term.  This is The Erbil Agreement signed by Nouri and all other heads of the political blocs.  In exchange for giving Nouri a second term, the leaders would get various things that they wanted.  Ayad Allawi would head a newly created and independent national security council, for example.  Or the Kurds?  They wanted Article 140 of the Constitution implemented.  All these agreements were put in writing, put into a legal contract to give Nouri a second term as prime minister.
This is from Ned Parker, "Who Lost Iraq?" (POLITICO).
It was the April 2010 national election and its tortured aftermath that sewed the seeds of today’s crisis in Iraq. Beforehand, U.S. state and military officials had prepared for any scenario, including the possibility that Maliki might refuse to leave office for another Shiite Islamist candidate. No one imagined that the secular Iraqiya list, backed by Sunni Arabs, would win the largest number of seats in parliament. Suddenly the Sunnis’ candidate, secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, was poised to be prime minister. But Maliki refused and dug in.
And it is here where America found its standing wounded. Anxious about midterm elections in November and worried about the status of U.S. forces slated to be drawn down to 50,000 by August, the White House decided to pick winners. According to multiple officials in Baghdad at time, Vice President Joseph Biden and then-Ambassador Chris Hill decided in July 2010 to support Maliki for prime minister, but Maliki had to bring the Sunnis and Allawi onboard. Hill and his staff then made America’s support for Maliki clear in meetings with Iraqi political figures.
The stalemate would drag on for months, and in the end both the United States and its arch-foe Iran proved would take credit for forming the government. But Washington would be damaged in the process. It would be forever linked with endorsing Maliki. One U.S. Embassy official I spoke with just months before the government was formed privately expressed regret at how the Americans had played kingmaker.
This is from Ned Parker, "Iraq: The Road to Chaos" (The New York Review of Books)**:
Meanwhile, instead of producing a decisive outcome, the 2010 election left the country deeply divided. The vote was a near draw between Maliki and Allawi’s Iraqiya bloc, and it took nine months of negotiation and heavy involvement from both the Americans and Iranians to forge a new “national unity” government. According to the compromise reached, it was to be headed by Maliki with important cabinet positions allocated to Iraqiya, including the vice presidency and the ministries of finance and defense. Allawi himself would head a new military and political council, a step the US had strongly pushed for. But as soon as the new government was seated, Maliki refused to relinquish control of the defense and interior ministries, and thwarted the establishment of Allawi’s council. He eventually chased his Sunni vice president and finance minister away with the threat of arrest warrants. As Maliki saw it, his political survival depended in part on ruthlessly limiting his opponents’ power, and he could not leave himself exposed to enemies, whether Shiite Islamist rivals or members of the Sunni opposition. 

The voters didn't give him a second term.  Why would they feel dejected today?
Because they voted to replace Nouri.  That was the 2010 winning vote.  Instead, they were stuck with Nouri because the US government, Barack Obama, went around the voters, went around the Iraqi Constitution and went around basic principles of democracy to ensure that Nouri al-Maliki got a second term.
Why would they feel dejected?
Because, in the end, their votes didn't matter.
Because, in the end, the vote was stolen by the US government.  
The Erbil Agreement is in November 2010.  That's what ends the then-ongoing political stalemate.  Not Iran pressuring Moqtada.  

Leila Fadel (Washington Post) notes the latest rumors that a deal has been reached and explains the expected process: "Legislators are expected to meet Thursday afternoon for only the second time since the inconclusive March 7 election. Under the deal reached Wednesday, the parliament is expected to appoint a speaker from Iraqiya, then name the current Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, as president. He, in turn, will name Maliki as prime minister. Maliki will then have to put together a cabinet that a simple majority in Iraq's parliament will have to approve."  Whomever is named PM-designate -- whenever they're named -- will have 30 days to pull together a cabinet.  Nouri's past history of ministers walking out -- as well as his own boasting in April 2006 that he'd put together a cabinet before 30 days -- are forgotten, apparently.  Also forgotten is what this says: Elections are meaningless. 
If the rumors are true about the make up of the next government and that does come to pass, the message is: "Elections are meaningless, voters stay home."  The president and the prime minister remain the same?  Only the speaker changes?
They didn't need a national election to change the speaker.  Mahmoud Mashadani had been the Speaker and was repeatedly the victim of a disinformation campaign by the US State Dept -- with many in the media enlisting (such as in 2006 when he was in Jordan on business and a certain reporter at a certain daily LIED and said he was in Iraq, hurt and sad and refusing to see anyone -- that lie would have taken hold were it not for the Arab press).  He stepped down.  When he did so, Iyad Samarrai became the next Speaker and that was done by Parliament, no national elections required.  So the message from the 2010 elections appears to be -- if rumors are correct -- that there is no point in voting.  Iyad Samarrai got vanished from the narrative.  Reporters and 'reporters' like Quil Lawrence (declaring victory for Nouri March 8th, one day after the elections) might have been a little more informed if they'd bothered to pay attention.  Mahmoud Mashadani stepped down as Speaker.  It took FOUR months for a new speaker to be appointed. And that was in the spring of 2009.  Why anyone thought some magical mood enchancer would change things in 2010 is beyond me.
The rumors Leila reported were accurate.  From the November 11, 2010 snapshot:

Today the KRG website announces:

Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.
 
Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call."  So all is well and good and . . . Ooops!!!! Lando, Dagher and Coker file an update, Iraqiya wasn't happy and walked out of the session.  Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that "a dispute erupted in the Council of Representatives chamber when the mostly Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc argued that the agreement they had signed on to was not being honoured, prompting the bloc's MPs to storm out. [. . .] Specifically, Iraqiya had called for three of their lawmakers, barred for their alleged ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath party, to be reinstated before voting for a president."  As The Economist noted earlier today, "An actual government is not yet in place; last-minute hiccups may yet occur."  AP notes, "A parliament vote on the government could still take several weeks, as the factions work out the details of who gets what posts."  According to Suadad al-Salhy and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters), the Parliament today elected Jalal Talabani to the presidency, voted Osama al-Nujaifi Speaker and "Talabani then nominated Maliki to form a new government."  They had to vote, first, on Speaker.  That was al-Nujaifi and the two deputies -- Qusay al-Suhail and Aref Tayfoor. Nujaifi or Nejefi or Najafi is the brother of Nineveh Province Governor Atheel Nejefi who is part of al-Hadba Party.   

That's what happened.

I don't why AFP is such a coward.

I don't know why they want to lie about what's in the public record.

Maybe they're trying to sell war on Iran?  Maybe that's why they lie and distort.

But the public record is clear on when the stalemate ended and how: The Erbil Agreement ended the stalemate -- the US-brokered Erbil Agreement ended the stalemate.


It ended the stalemate but it brought on the violence.

Al Jazeera counts at least 62 violent deaths.

We'll focus on the violence with regards to voting.  NINA reports a Khanaqin suicide bomber took his own life and the lives of 18 other people "near the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Khanaqin northeast of Baquba," 1 "gunmen attacked a polling center in Kirkuk" (he was arrested), 2 military personnel were killed and four police members injured when a Habbaniyah bombing went off as they "were heading to a polling station," Iraqi soldier Mohammad Qasim was killed at a Hawija voting center by a suicide bomber, 3 suicide bombers were killed by the Iraqi military at a Ramadi polling station, a Tuz Khurmatu suicide bombing targeting a polling station left 3 police members dead and seven more injured, a suicide bomber at a Mansour polling station left 6 police members dead and nineteen more injured, a roadside bombing "near a polling station in eastern Mosul" left five Iraqi soldiers injured, a suicide bomber attacking a central Mosul polling station today left 1 officer and 1 soldier injured, a suicide bomber attacked a Bab Laksh polling station leaving six police members injured, a suicide bomber attacking an al-Hairi school with a polling station killed 7 police members and left twenty-one more injured,  a suicide bomber detonated near a Jawsaq polling station injured four security forces attempting to vote, and a Wasti school in south Kirkuk with a polling station was attacked by a suicide bomber leaving six police dead and nine more injured.




Baghdad Operations Command announced Nouri's forces were in charge of the polling stations as of Saturday.

They do not appear to be 'in charge' at present.

All Iraq News notes Iraq's President Jalal Talabani voted today.

December 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot).  Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.

And Germany's where he cast his vote today. The New York Times posted the video of the vote (or alleged vote) here.  Absentee voting for the absentee president.

AFP notes a Khanaqin suicide bomber killed 30 people and left fifty injured and that they were present "to celebrate the release of a video purportedly showing the ailing Talabani, a Kurdish leader, voting in Germany."  BBC News adds:

 People at the rally had gathered to watch television footage of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, casting his vote in Germany.
Mr Talabani suffered a stroke in December 2012 and has been receiving treatment in Germany.
"The attacker snuck among the crowds near the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's [Mr Talabani's party] headquarters and blew himself up, causing a tragic massacre," a police officer told Reuters news agency.


While Khanaqin saw intended violence, AFP notes that gunfire in Sulaimaniyah was celebratory:

 Car horns blared, people shouted and waved flags of Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party while hanging out of car windows, and some fired off celebratory gunshots in Sulaimaniyah, located in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.
One man shot a pistol through the open sunroof of his SUV, while a taxi driver held a Kalashnikov assault rifle out the window, firing as he drove past a PUK office where a crowd of revellers had gathered, according to an AFP journalist.

Celebratory or not, Rudaw reports that "11 people among them a woman and a child have been wounded by stray bullets" from the celebratory gunfire -- or funfire -- in Sulaimani.

Jalal wasn't the only Iraqi voting from outside Iraq.  Yesterday, CIHAN noted that Iraqi refugees in many countries will be voting, "About 800 thousand Iraq citizens living in 19 foreign countries will vote during upcoming two days at the embassies of the country across the world."  Refugees in Syria won't be allowed to vote.

The Chicago Tribune reported that Agnes Merza (Morton Grove Village in Illinois) voted Sunday and was eager to be the first in line.  Emily Siner (Nashville Public Radio's WPLN) reports Nashville is one of the nine cities in the United States where Iraqi refugees can vote and she quotes Husam Alsawad explaining, "This is one of the great things about freedom.  You get to choose whoever you want.  It means future for Iraq.  I mean, this is a democratic process and we have to participate."

Zerya Shakely (Rudaw) reports Iraqis in Austria voted Sunday and Monday in the parliamentary elections with 850 voting Sunday alone and Shakely quotes Aram Saleh Osman ("head of the local Electoral Commission [who] came to Vienna from Erbil") declaring, "Iraqi citizens abroad can vote from 20 coutnries around the world.  There are polling centres for example in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Iran, Turkey, Sweden and Germany."


All Iraq News reported Iraqi refugees in New Zealand completed voting, approximately 23,000 voted in Jordan, voting started in Egypt where 30,000 Iraqis are expected to vote over two days, and voting started in the United Kingdom. National Iraqi News Agency notes that Sunday's vote in Iran was extended by two hours.  Ali Hashem (Al Monitor) examines the Iran vote:


 Iraqis in Iran are either native Iraqis who fled during the Saddam era, or Iraqis of Iranian origins who were asked to leave the country. Abu Mohammad Taqi is one of the latter, though his story is a bit different. "When I left Iraq I went to Syria. I worked there for years. I was in Kfarbatna but because of the war, I went to Iran." Abu Mohammed said he chose to go to Iran because of its stability and because many of his cousins are here.
The competition over votes from Iran is among Shiite factions, as most of the Iraqis in Iran are from Shiite areas. Maliki and former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari are the most popular here, while Ammar al-Hakim and his bloc come third.
The main reason behind the support of Maliki is his crackdown on radical groups and his support of defiant Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
It's a little pathetic and a little telling about the lack of fairness in human beings that the same Shi'ites in Iraq who refuse to move forward with their lives but instead want to grudge f**k the past over their being marginalized despite being in the majority while at the same time they root for Bashar al-Aasad in Syria's civil war because they don't want to see  the majority Sunni population in Syria power.  That's an observation of hypocrisy, it is not my supporting either side in Syria and it is certainly not my attempt to call for a US war on Syria.  It is simply noting that some Shi'ites in Iraq and especially Iraqi Shi'ites in Iran are the worst to let go of the past when they weren't allowed majority-rule while at the same time they don't want to see majority-rule in any Middle Eastern country where Sunnis are the majority.  This hypocrisy is not exclusive to some Middle Eastern Shi'ites.  In the United States, for example, you can find a lot of Democrats who were opposed to The Drone War and illegal spying when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House but are silent on the topics now that a Democrat, Barack Obama, is in the White House.



Sarah Kneezle (Al Jazeera) notes the views of "Douglas Ollivant, the former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, and Nussaibah Younis, a research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s International Security Program" and we'll include Younis take:


 Younis, who is affiliated with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, disagreed with Ollivant’s assessment, claiming that the political outlook was more positive during the last election, in 2010.
“You had possibly the most stable period that Iraq has ever experienced since the invasion back in 2010,” she said. “And you had two big coalitions that both had sizeable representation of both Sunnis and Shias — and they we reusing nationalist slogans and were encouraging Iraqis to think of themselves as Iraqi first and of whatever sect second.”


Ayad Allawi Tweeted the following today:






Parliamentary elections were last held in 2010.

Allawi surprised many in the western press by leading Iraqiya to victory.

The press learned nothing.  They wasted the lead up to the 2010 elections with horse racing and handicapping and they called the race wrong.  Instead of trying to predict winners, they might try just reporting on who's running.


Though the western media has ignored it, major comments were made over the weekend. Alsumaria reports cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr gave a televised speech today where he stated this election was the last chance to make a change. He called on the United Nations and other bodies to be neutral, to monitor the process closely and not choose sides in the election.  He called on the country's Electoral Commission to be independent as well.
















al arabiya news













Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)