Why the change?
I'm having a very hard time logging into my e-mail. This has been going on off and on for about two weeks now. Today through tonight, I have attempted to log in over 70 times with no success.
So I'm just doing this to be sure I'll be able to read any comments.
It would help if you would put "Marcia" (my name) in the subject heading.
There are 3361 unread e-mails right now in email@example.com -- and that's not counting spam. And that's after six or more people were working that account today. So it would be really helpful for everyone if you could put "Marcia" on the heading.
The Guardian has an article entitled "Women being masturbated at in public isn't as rare as you might think" and the author wants you take a stand.
I agree it's time to take a stand.
Against damaging images.
Why do they need a photo of a man's crotch as he unzips his pants?
What the f**k was that?
If you are a woman who's had that happen to you, I don't think that photo makes you feel good.
There was no reason for that photo.
I imagine it was rather traumatic for at least a few readers who had experienced what the column was about.
What the image really says to me?
That someone thought this was a 'sexy' photo that would up the clicks.
They're using sex to sell harassment as a story.
I'll take a stand against that.
And I have to wonder if they think they'd get away with using that photo for a story on rape?
(I did not mention the name of the woman who wrote the column because I doubt she picked the photo. I do not want to bring her into it for that reason. You can click on the link and find out her name and read her column.)
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Today's big news? The Peshmerga, elite Kurdish forces, entered Kirkuk this month to provide protection. Aslumaria reports KRG President Massoud Barzani declares that action is a form of Article 140 and the issue of who has the right to Kirkuk -- the KRG or the central government out of Baghdad -- has been decided with this action. Of Article 140, Chelsea J. Carter, Arwa Damon and Raja Razek (CNN) maintain, "However, the vote never took place because of instability in most of the disputed areas."
That's spin, that's not reality.
First, it wasn't just a vote. It was a census and a referendum.
Second, in October of 2010, Nouri was backing holding a census in Kirkuk at the start of December 2010. He only dropped that idea after The Erbil Agreement gave him a second term as prime minister. Shortly after that happened, he announced the census was being put 'on hold.' And, no, he did not give violence as a reason.
Dropping back to the July 26, 2011 snapshot for more on this issue:
Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops." The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing else happens, you may have read the already read the report. CBMs may strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were constantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a patrol program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage counselor. (And the report admits CBMs are based on that.) Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years. And had outside actors. The authors acknowledge:
Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds.
The issue should have been resolved long ago. Equally true, Nouri took an oath to uphold the Constitution in 2006. The Constitution said a census and referendum had to be held by the end of 2007. Nouri blew it off. In 2010, when his State of Law lost the elections, he refused to step down as prime minister and the US-brokered Erbil Agreement gave him a second term. The Kurds insisted that the contract include Nouri's promise that he would implement Article 140. He never did.
As tensions increase between Nouri and the Kurds, the editorial board of the Times of India looks at what it would mean for other nations if Iraq split into three self-governing sections (Shi'ite, Kurd and Sunni) and they conclude, "With Iraq's blundering PM Nouri al-Maliki refusing to accede to a national unity government, the US and Iran should work together to stabilise the region and deal with new sovereign entities that may emerge." AP reports Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has called on Iraq's political blocs to decide on a prime minister-designate before Tuesday's expected session of Parliament.
RT reports, "Jets from Russia and Belarus will hopefully make a key difference in the fight against ISIS in Iraq, the country’s Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said. He expressed regrets over Iraq's contract with the US, saying their jets are taking too long to arrive."
Yes, thug Nouri is complaining that he's been hampered in the tools he needs to attack the Iraqi people. The delay, for those who've forgotten, was to avoid allowing a despot to use them before the parliamentary elections. All Iraq News notes Nouri declares it a mistake to have "just bought US jets." A mistake by whom?
Alsumaria reports the UK has announced they will not participate militarily in Iraq. Unlikey the US which clearly does not fear angry voters the way the UK does. Today, UPI reports:
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steven Warren said, of the 500 American military personnel in Iraq, "Some of them are conducting an advise and assist mission, some are manning the joint operations center, some of them are part of the [Office of Security Cooperation] and yet others are Marines that are part of a [fleet anti-terrorism security team] platoon."
All Iraq News notes only 180 of the 500 are 'advisors' so 120 are still en route to make up Barack's 300 'advisors.'
Meanwhile, is Nouri lying about drones or is US President Barack Obama?
Weaponized drone aren't being used in Iraq, we're told by Barack. However, Duraid Salman (Alsumaria) reported this morning weaponized drones are being flown in Iraq. And, no, it's not the Russians. Salman reports they are US drones and sources it to Iraqi officials including MP Abbas al-Bayati who sat on the Defense and Security Committee. Chelsea J. Carter, Arwa Damon and Raja Razek (CNN) report, "A U.S. official confirmed to CNN that armed American drones started flying over Baghdad in the previous 24 hours to provide additional protection for 180 U.S. military advisers in the area. Until now, U.S. officials had said all drone reconnaissance flights over Iraq were unarmed."
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio, an 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) topics addressed include Julian Assange and, it looked like, drones in Iraq. But that apparently would have required too much work so instead a host chose to make an argument that will make anyone's skin crawl if they remember the Palmer raids and the attacks on Socialists in the early part of the 20th century.
Heidi Boghosian: Michael Ratner, at the time that we're taping this show, it looks as though the US might be considering drone attacks on Iraq.
Michael Ratner: It's hard to believe this country sometimes. I mean, it's impossible. Michael and I are the same age, you're a little younger, Heidi -- I don't know, a lot younger. What are you, thirty now?
Michael Ratner: But in any case, not to make fun of this, but Michael and I have been basically fighting against war since we were kids. I mean, WWII was one thing -- of course, they could have done something by not arming the Germans. But then we had the Korean War. Then we had Vietnam. I mean a lot of other stuff. Then we have Central American wars. Then we had the Iraq War -- first number one then number two Iraq War. And, of course, that's the one that you could argue brought us to where we are now. Where we had a war that was utterly supported by the press, the [New York] Times, the media, by all these people -- from people like Anne Marie Slaughter who supported it and now regrets it, George Packer "New Yorker liberal" now regrets it, all these people who our friend Tony Judt, the writer from the UK called "Bush's useful idiots." So you have all of these Bush's useful idiots who supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- which is about all the stability Iraq has probably seen in a hundred years -- and now, they basically -- the Biblical expression is "sew the wind and reap the whirlwind." So now we're reaping the whirlwind. And one of the things that we talk about here is how do these people who gave us the illegal war in Iraq and supported it -- including Tom Friedman, our wonderful guy at the New York Times -- all of these people, Bush's useful idiots, how are they put in newspapers, how are they put on TV to tell us again that we have to go to war with Iraq? Or with Syria? Or with name your country in the Middle East. I mean these people should be drummed out of the country. They should [. . .]
We stop there.
That's quite enough.
And those words he said? That's how we lose. That's how we on the left lose. Thomas Friedman is a bad writer -- more prone to cornball than Dan Rather. Forever in search of a cab driver he can mold a column around -- preferably one who repeats what Friedman wants to hear. Anne Marie is a War Hawk and we've long called her out here -- even when she was in Barack's administration.
But I've never said Ann Marie or Friedman needed to be "drummed out of the country."
And it's disgusting that Michael Ratner, of the Center for Constitutional Rights -- Constitutional Rights -- thinks being wrong about a war means you "should be drummed out of the country."
I took a stand February 2003 on the impending war. I was opposed to it, I spoke out against it. I never waivered on that.
But, newsflash, I could have been wrong. History backed me up. Reality had my back.
But I could have been wrong.
If I had been wrong, did that mean I "should be drummed out of the country"?
What in the world are we coming to on the left.
Anne Marie and Friedman were not in the Bully Boy Bush administration. As far as we know, the two of them were not plotting the war and choosing the spin. They chose a side.
Those two, and others like them, always choose war.
And at some point, they'll be right, those are the odds. (Or if not right -- I don't believe in war -- they'll have the majority of the US population agreeing with them.)
When that time rolls around, I really don't want hear people screaming that those of us against the war "should be drummed out of the country."
That is an outrageous statement to come from the left.
'You can't yell fire in a crowded theater!'
That Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with a fire or a movie theater or a Broadway theater.
It's from Oliver Wendell Holmes' outrageous opinion in Schenck v. United States. That 1919 case was about free speech. Specifically it was about brave people -- like Eugene V. Debs (who would spend two years in prison) -- speaking out against the WWI draft. Holmes was notorious for distracting in his decisions. A number of people love him to this day because we're really kind of stupid and tend to praise things we know nothing of instead of just saying, "I've never read one of his legal opinions." Holmes clearly has no lasting positive impact -- he found rights for property that didn't exist while suppressing the rights of the people. But what's really going to harm him is that he repeatedly degraded his arguments by making them straw man arguments.
Again, fire and a theater had nothing to do with urging people to resist the draft.
But because he was such a mental midget, he couldn't craft an opinion on the issues. He would have said he was using 'metaphors.' No, he was not. He was unable to argue the points of the case in his opinions so he created straw men arguments.
Michael Ratner is a smart person who made a very offensive statement.
That statement justifies the Palmer Raids and every bit of ugly that attacked Socialists in that time period.
Michael's a Socialist so that really wasn't his intent.
But if he's going to criticize people for opinions, he needs to think before he speaks.
Michael can be one of the strongest and one of the smartest people on the left. He is 100 times more intelligent than I could ever hope to become.
But what was stupid and dangerous.
This urge to hate and demonize is something we need to be aware of. We should never, ever on the left allow those impulses to run over the basic principles of speech and freedom we believe in.
Anne Marie Slaughter got it wrong. I'm not surprised.
I've mocked her repeatedly here. And, unlike Michael Ratner, that includes when Barack was attacking Libya. To be clear, Michael called that action illegal as it was. But there was no time to take on the cheerleaders for those actions. I can remember being on a campus with an earbud in one ear and a cellphone in another and saying to a friend, "F**k, is there one NPR program that's not going to trout out Anne this week?" Because she was on every damn one.
And that's the problem.
It's not, "Shut up, Anne!"
She's an American citizen living in what's supposed to still be a democracy. She can speak as much as she wants and should. She can write as much as she wants and should.
Where there's a problem is when the media doesn't play fair. They shut out voices all the time. The ridiculous and non-left Bill Maher is applauded by stupid idiots on the left who never seem to notice that Glen Ford, for example, isn't shy about opinions. Why isn't Glen Ford, a genuine voice of the left, ever invited on Maher's programs.
I don't like whiners.
I define a whiner as someone who abdicates their own power while complaining about others.
Michael Ratner, you co-host an hour long weekly program heard across the country. What voices who got it right on Iraq have you featured this month?
Last week, Michael gave fiery and passionate remarks which I applaud. This week he offered another commentary.
But it's whining, Michael.
You have the power to book whomever you want on the show. There are hundreds of people who got it right in real time, book them. (I've noted this before but to be clear, I do not do press as C.I. I am very standoffish to the press these days in my real life though I will do favors for friends. But I do not do press as C.I.) You can book these people. You can bring on Janeane Garofalo, Tim Robbins, Debra Sweet, Alice Walker and so many others. Yes, the start was so long ago that we've lost too many of those voices -- Norman Mailer, Howard Zinn, etc. -- but there are millions still around. February 2003 saw the largest global protest against a war ever. Those people are not in hiding.
To Michael's credit, he, Heidi, Michael Smith and Dahlia Hashad booked them in real time when it mattered. But obviously he thinks it still matters today. I happen to support him on that. So book these people.
Because if you don't use your own power, your just whining. You're not protesting, you're not standing up, you're whining.
Ava and I called out Rachel Maddow for this nonsense in "TV: That awful Rachel BadFoul:"
Watching Rachel Maddow last week, between grimaces and shielding our eyes, we caught something else.
Rachel wants X voices shut out.
It's so unfair, she insists, that those who were right aren't on these shows, so unfair!!!!
But she's got an hour show on MSNBC Monday through Friday.
What guest did she have on last week who got it right?
She had on Condi Rice's former speech writer -- a fact she refused to inform her audience of.
That's rather strange, isn't it?
She's arguing Condi shouldn't be allowed on programs because she was wrong. But she had the woman who wrote Condi's speeches on Monday's program -- the only guest on Monday's program -- and she never told the audience, "My guest here? She used to write Condi's speeches."
Instead, she just identified Elise Jordan as Michael Hastings' widow.
Tuesday, she had Carne Ross on.
Here's how she misled her viewers, "He`s a former British diplomat who resigned over the war in Iraq."
He's a regular Ann Wright!
Remember Ann Wright? State Department diplomat, retired army colonel, who resigned March 19, 2003 over the Iraq War.
Yeah, Ann did that. Good for Carne for doing the same.
What day in 2003 did he resign now?
He didn't resign in March of 2003? Well the next month then.
A year later.
You can add Peter Hart and FAIR to the list of whiners. FAIR has a 30 minute weekly radio show (they also try TV but only Peter Hart can pull off TV -- you have to have magnetism to succeed on TV). It's called CounterSpin.
While they have addressed Iraq this week and last week, they didn't have on anyone who got it right. A young writer who really hasn't spent his career even focusing on Iraq -- check Common Dreams' archives. And they had on a veteran of the Iraq War.
Hillary Clinton, in her new book, says people can change their minds. She's right. They can. Ross Caputi did. He can tell you all about his transformation on Iraq. While Hillary can't which is why she looks insincere at best and, as Marcia noted, there is no excuse for her needing 2013 to 'wake up' to marriage equality. Gay men and lesbians consistently supported her and it is a slap in the face for her to claim that some indescribable epiphany came to her last year.
But Ross did have a transformation and he can describe it and good for him.
That said, he's not someone who was right before the war started. Tareq Ali was. As Betty asked in a different context, "Where the hell is Norman Solomon?" Why didn't CounterSpin feature a whole show of voices who got it right before the war started?
They can whine, they just lack Ross' ability to transform and make something meaningful out of their lives.
They want a different media? Then they need to show it is possible with their own resources.
But they don't and they won't.
They won't put on the people who were right but they will waste our time whining that the MSM doesn't put on the people who were right.
Diane Rehm can bring Phyllis Bennis onto her NPR program this month -- Phyllis is one of the ones who got it right -- but CounterSpin, The Rachel Maddow Show and Law & Disorder Radio can't. And they can't bring anyone -- not one person -- who got it right onto their shows. But they want to slam others?
And I'm sorry to call Michael Ratner out. I waited several days to get into my most calm place to do so because Michael does great work and is someone who is loved by everyone who knows him because he's a good guy.
But what he said was outrageous. He doesn't need to be crucified for it. He doesn't need to step away from the microphone. But from someone on our side, the left, to say that people should be run out of the country for their opinions and/or advocacy?
Emma Goldman was run out of the country. She was urging men not to register for the draft. She was thrown in prison for that and then deported out of the country (to Russia). That was so wrong and went completely the fabric of democracy. We should never, ever say someone needs to leave the country because of their opinion or advocacy.
We mentioned Hillary, let's stay with Hillary Clinton because she appeared on The NewsHour (PBS -- link is video, text and audio) this week.
GWEN IFILL: I want to start by talking about Iraq. There’s much debate now about what the would-haves and the could-haves and the should-haves. If we had left a residual force on the ground as some critics are now saying, do you think we’d be seeing the collapse we’re seeing today?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: I think it’s impossible to answer that question. Certainly when President Obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the Bush administration had already determined, because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011. And I was part of the discussions where we were putting together proposals for the Iraqi government to consider about a residual force that would be there to help train, to provide intelligence and generally support services.
Unfortunately as we all know now, the Maliki government was not willing to do what was necessary for us to be able to do that. So the problems that we’re seeing in Iraq, I would argue are primarily political, but they are of course manifest in this very dangerous extremist group being able to gain ground and hold it. That is only possible in my opinion because the Sunnis, who had partnered with the United States and even with Maliki to drive out Al Qaeda in Iraq, feel as though they have been isolated and excluded. So I think it’s, it’s difficult to say if we had kept a residual force even for a year or two, or three, that we would have had the ability to control what Maliki did, and I think his behavior, his sectarianism, his purging of Sunni leaders, the way he stopped paying the Sunni awakening soldiers and so much else contributed to where we are today.
GWEN IFILL: So Maliki has to go for this to work itself out?
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, I think it’s highly unlikely that he will embrace the kind of inclusivity that is required, but it’s up to the Iraqis to decide who they want to lead them, but of course their decision affects whether, and to what extent, we should be involved to trying to help them.
I think it’s impossible to answer that question. Certainly when President Obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the Bush administration had already determined, because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011. And I was part of the discussions where we were putting together proposals for the Iraqi government to consider about a residual force that would be there to help train, to provide intelligence and generally support services.
Barack was deciding based on what Bully Boy Bush had already determined?
I'm sick of that lie.
But before we get to what no one ever talks about regarding the SOFA, Hillary's lying through her teeth. She reveals in the next sentence. There were negotiations for a new SOFA stop blaming it on Bush.
I hate Bully Boy Bush. I dislike Barack but I will use the "p" word there -- President Barack Obama. I will not do the same for Bully Boy Bush.
So I'm really the last person to defend him.
But I'm sick of all the damn lies.
Barack broke a campaign promise before he was ever sworn in. He decided to break it within hours of the election. That's why it was pulled from his campaign website. The only time, briefly, that anyone ever noted it. That was back in November 2008.
Bully Boy Bush got the SOFA pushed through.
And did so with Barack's blessing.
That's the detail no one wants to get honest and I'm just sick of all the damn lies.
Hillary Clinton, campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, declared any SOFA would have to be approved by the Senate -- citing thhe Constitution for why. Which meant? Barack immediately said, "Me too!" Biden had already staked out that ground as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Bully Boy Bush administration met with Barack's transition team to discuss the SOFA. Not only did Barack like it (and like that someone else would be on the hook for it and not him) but he gave his word that he would not call for the SOFA to be approved by the Senate.
He hadn't even been sworn in and already he was breaking campaign promises.
And, yes, the SOFA was a treaty and should have had US Senate approval. It mattered to him when he was a senator but it didn't when he became president.
Let's repeat that: It mattered to Barack when he was a senator but it didn't when he became president. That just about sums up his two terms thus far, doesn't it?
And while we're noting lies, this was a crafty little report by PBS which ignored an American imprisoned in Mexico by making the focus "overseas."
Image from Free USMC Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi Facebook page. The VFW issued the following:
VFW CALLS FOR BOYCOTT UNTIL MEXICO RELEASES U.S. MARINE
VFW calls for nationwide boycott of Mexican products and travel until Marine is release
June 25, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is calling for a nationwide boycott of Mexican products and travel until Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi is released from a Mexican jail.
“This combat Marine has been languishing away since he was arrested March 31 for allegedly crossing the border accidentally with three personal firearms that were legally registered in the States but not in Mexico,” said VFW National Commander William A. Thien. “It was a mistake, but so is the Mexican government’s reluctance to release him unharmed back to the U.S.”
As America’s oldest and largest major combat veterans’ organization, the VFW wants to apply economic pressure to the Mexican government because Tahmooressi’s arrest and captivity is mirroring that of former Marine Jon Hammer, who was arrested for carrying an antique shotgun across the border in August 2012, despite having proper American paperwork. He wasn’t released until four months later.
Thien said the VFW tried the politically polite route by twice asking President Obama to contact Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, but a phone call specifically about the Marine sergeant never took place. Now that Tahmooressi is approaching his third full month in jail, the VFW national commander said it’s time to take the gloves off.
"This is about politics, and if my government won’t do anything, then I guess we need to let the power of the purse take over. No products, no travel, a total boycott … then maybe a dialogue will start.”
Turning to violence. All Iraq News reports violence has forced 400 Christian families to flee Mosul.
Alsumaria reports 3 young Shabak were kidnapped in Nineveh Province, a mortar attack on a village east of Baquba left 6 civilians dead and two more injured, a Diyala Province battle left 1 rebel dead and two security forces injured, a Samarra mortar attack left 2 security forces dead and seventeen more injured, security forces killed 15 suspects in Latifiya, the corpses of 2 young men were discovered dumped in Kirkuk, and, dropping back to late last night, a Samarra mortar attack left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and eight more injured. Chelsea J. Carter, Arwa Damon and Raja Razek (CNN) report, "Human Rights Watch said two mass graves believed to contain the bodies of Iraqi soldiers, police and civilians killed by the Sunni ISIS fighters and their militant allies have been discovered in Hussein's hometown of Tikrit." It's left to Reuters to report that Iraqi forces killed 69 prisoners they were transferring and blamed it on Sunni militants. Reuters notes, "The deaths in Hilla came less than a week after the killing of 52 prisoners in Baquba, a regional capital north of Baghdad."
Iraq and violence came up in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Marie Harf:
QUESTION: At least two Indian nurses were beheaded by the ISIL and they were serving (inaudible) and the sick and needy in hospitals and around the country. And at least 40 Indians are still being held, and if Indian Government has asked any help from the U.S. or what’s --
MS. HARF: Let me check on that. I don’t know the answer to that. Obviously, both of the incidents you just mentioned really underscore the brutality of ISIL. This is a group that al-Qaida has even deemed to be too brutal for it, which I think is saying something.
So clearly we know there’s huge challenges here. I can check on that specifically.
QUESTION: Marie, on Iraq, this has – we haven’t asked this for a while – but are you aware, since Vienna, I mean – yeah, Vienna and Deputy Secretary Burns’s meeting with the Iranians on the Iraq issue. Are you aware if there have been any more contacts?
MS. HARF: I am not. But let me double-check. I am not, but --
QUESTION: The reason I ask is because the Pentagon now says that, yes, it is flying drones --
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- and the Iranians are also flying drones. And I’m just wondering what the mechanism is to prevent these drones from flying into each other.
MS. HARF: I am happy to check and see if there is anything we can share on that.
QUESTION: Okay. I would be --
QUESTION: Any coordination with the Iranians?
MS. HARF: No. None.
QUESTION: Right. But in terms of contacts in Baghdad and --
MS. HARF: I’m happy to check. Not to my knowledge, but I’m happy to check.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Iraq?
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Okay.
QUESTION: Just follow-up on hostages. There are still eight hostages – Turkish hostages in Mosul as well. Do you have any update on that?
MS. HARF: I don’t have any update on those as well.
QUESTION: And on Kurdistan region, last couple of days both the Israel officials and today Turkish spokesman – administration spokesman – again talk about the independence of the Kurdistan region. And they would support or – it’s inevitable. Do you have any change of analysis on the Kurdistan?
MS. HARF: No change of policy here. We’ve said that a unified Iraq is the strongest Iraq, and have said that an inclusive government that includes Sunni, Shia, and Kurds needs to be formed as soon as possible to help deal with this crisis.
QUESTION: It looks like ISIL’s forces are gaining some more momentum around the borders. Do you have any assessment on the --
MS. HARF: We don’t have a detailed battleground assessment to share. Obviously, the threat from ISIL is very serious and we know that it’s very challenging on the ground. We know that units are trying to fight back, but that’s why we’re trying to provide more assistance to help them do that.
national iraqi news agency
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
chelsea j. carter