Thursday, October 3, 2013

Adam Kokesh

Rebeeca's  "books: marilyn at rainbow's end" and my  "Marilyn At Rainbow's End by Darwin Porter" went up Friday covering Darwin Porter book on Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn At Rainbow's End: Sex, Lies, Murder, and the Great Cover-up.  And we are considering possibly doing another book piece this year.  Possibly.

A few people are e-mailing that there has not been enough book coverage in the community this year.  I find that hard to believe.  But we shall see.

Right now, you can see Adam Kokesh.







They need to let Adam out of jail.  It is shocking that he was arrested to begin with and even more shocking that he's been confined to jail for weeks now.  He needs to be let go.  They won't even give him bail.

What a lousy way to treat a veteran.


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

 
Wednesday, October 2, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, 2 helicopters crash in Iraq,  still no elections law, two 'wits' gather and tell a story that doesn't reflect reality, the official KRG results are in (no surprises, it's as the exit polling called it), and more.



ABC News Radio declares today, " Iraq is heading backwards in dangerous fashion."  Today's violence would appear to back that call up.  Sunday, National Iraqi News Agency reported Mayor Khalil Ibrahim was shot dead outside his home and that he was the fifth mayor shot dead that day.  Mayors continue to be targeted in Iraq.    NINA reports Mayor Mohammed Khalaf Ahmed survived an assassination attempt today in Samarra however 1 of his bodyguards as killed while two more bodyguards, a child and an elderly person were left injured.  That was today.  NINA notes last night "the mayor of a village near Muqdadiya" was shot dead.  Also last night, NINA notes today, was a Tikrit bombing which claimed the life of a father and daughter and five other people.


Today also saw a helicopter crash in Tirkit.  NINA explains the helicopter was dropping security members into the province.  As it attempted to leave Tikrit, it was shot down and the 4 member crew was killed in the crash.  AFP notes, "The helicopter was shot down during a large-scale operation against militants in a desert area west of Baiji, north of Baghdad, killing two crew members and two soldiers who were on board, army officers said."   Reuters adds, "The helicopter was carrying out a security mission between the city of Kirkuk and Salahuddin province in the early morning when it came under heavy fire and crashed in western Baiji, 180 kilometres north of Baghdad, police said.  It is the second helicopter to be downed in the area in recent weeks."  All Iraq News has a photo of the downed helicopter here.  That wasn't the only helicopter downed in Iraq today.  All Iraq News reports that a second helicopter showed up on the scene to provide support to military on the ground.  They cite a security source stating, "A helicopter for the Iraqi Army was providing support for the IA forces which came to the area to rescue the crew of the helicopter that fell down earlier by gunfire from the gunmen in the area.  The crew of the second helicopter survived the attack."


In other violence involving security forces?  NINA's got a long list.     In Falluja, the military came under fire leading to a "regiment commander" being left injured and at least 1 of his three bodyguards was killed in the attack (one was injured and the status of the third is unclear).  Also surviving an attack was Nineveh police commander Brigadier Khalid al-Hamdani but three of his bodyguards were left injured.  A Falluja suicide bomber took his own life and that of 1 police officer while four more were injured in the bombing with two more injured in the gunfire that followed (it was a one-two assault, first the bombing, then the shooters).  An attack on Khalis-Baquba road left police Captain Moshtaq Talib and his chauffeur dead.  The military states that they shot dead a Mosul suicide bomber.  Dropping back to last night, a Falluja grenade attack left two police officers injured.


NINA reports 3 bombings in Baghdad left 2 people dead and twenty-three injured. 
NINA notes a Kirkuk car bombing claimed 1 life and left eleven more injured, a Sabi al-Bor car bombing left 2 people dead and ten more injured,  a Haeoniya bombing left three people injured, a Mafraq alley bombing left three people injured,  attorney Abdul Aziz Saud left the courtroom in Shirqat, got into his car and was driving when a sticky bombing in side his car exploded killing him.


Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot to note the four that keep a count of the dead: Iraq Body /Count, UNAMI, AFP and Antiwar.com:

  Iraq Body Count notes the death toll for September from violence is 1220.  UNAMI's count was a little lower in the statement they released today:


Baghdad, 1 October 2013 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 979 Iraqis were killed and another 2,133 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in September.  
The number of civilians killed was 887 (including 127 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,957 (including 199 civilian police). A further 92 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 176 were injured. “As terrorists continue to target Iraqis indiscriminately, I call upon all political leaders to strengthen their efforts to promote national dialogue and reconciliation,” the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, said. “Political, religious and civil leaders as well as the security services must work together to end the bloodshed and ensure that all Iraqi citizens feel equally protected," he added.
Baghdad was the worst-affected governorate in September, with 1,429 civilian casualties (418 killed and 1011 injured), followed by Ninewa, Diyala, Salahuddin and Anbar. Kirkuk, Erbil, Babil, Wasit, Dhi-Qar and Basra also reported casualties (double-digit figures).

AFP's WG Dunlop Tweets:






  • Sept. the deadliest month for Iraq recorded by this year, with 880 killed; over 4,700 dead in violence in 2013




  • Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "Using numbers from various sources, Antiwar.com compiled a total of 1,271 deaths, up slightly from last month and down from July. In September 2012, Antiwar.com counted 444 dead and 1,233 wounded. This difference dramatically underscores how much attacks have increased this year." 








  • Sharp spike in Sept. Iraq violence; govt approves hazard pay for its forces in 7 "hot areas" as security worsens





  • And though security forces were the least hit when you examine September's death toll, they were among the first on Nouri's mind.  But chief and foremost was saving his own ass.  Asharq Al-Awsat reports, "Iraqi authorities have tightened security around the heavily-fortified Green Zone in the heart of Baghdad after receiving intelligence of plans for an attack on the area, security sources told Asharq Al-Awsat."

    Those with long memories will certainly remember how the Green Zone has been Nouri's first focus.  In 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister (the Bully Boy Bush administration installed him, nixing a second term for Ibrahim al-Jaafari), the Green Zone was almost breached one Sunday.  Nouri's response was talk of moats (world laughter prevented that -- although now it's being utilized in Kirkuk) and, of course, his peace plan -- multi-steps (including an attack on the press).  That's the peace plan that (a) did not work and that (b) he's dusted off and is proposing for Syria today.  When his own protected ass in the Green Zone is threatened, Nouri goes into overdrive. 

    Do you remember what else Nouri did then?  Iraqi National Alliance MP Hassan al-Sari does.  All Iraq News reports that al-Sari insists Nouri must impose a state of emergency as he "did in 2006 - 2007."

    Whether he does that or not, he's also done something else.  Apparently (yet again?), it's news only  Tim Arango (New York Times) can report, Nouri is backing (and arming) a Shi'ite militia, Asaib al-Haq:

    In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and, ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.


    Aragno reported that last Friday.  It'd be really nice if any pretending to pay attention to Iraq (posers know who they are) could pick up and amplify the important report.    Chatham House research fellow Jane Kinninmont (at CNN) explores the violence:

    But rather than working with mainstream Sunni political groups to build a united front against violent jihadis, the Baghdad government has treated the former as a political threat. This was epitomized by a death sentence passed against a Sunni former vice-president, Tariq Al Hashemi, in 2012 for allegedly organizing death squads, when Shia politicians who have headed militias have been accommodated politically (notably, the Badr Brigade, with a long record of sectarian violence, were absorbed into the national police). Protesters in Sunni-majority provinces have called for changes to terrorism and de-Baathification laws that they say treat all Sunnis as potential suspects.



    Is there a reason for Joel Wing (Musings on Iraq) to exist?  The analyst offers today a piece entitled "Iraq’s Oil Profits Bounce Back In August 2013 With Higher Exports And Rising Prices Due To Fears Over Syria" and if you're not getting house useless it is, in October, to be writing that August exports were up, check out Iraq Oil Report today where Ben Lando's latest article is entitled "September exports down by 500K bpd."

    Don't fret.  Come December, Joel Wing will be 'reporting' on September's oil exports.

    He's always just a little bit slower than the other kids.

    Most journalists make fun of him, I try to ignore him.  That's why Jim tried to bait me two Sundays ago (knowing I was an after party and had consumed more then a few drinks already) by bringing up Joel.  But he's so pathetic, I stepped over Jim's inclusion of Joel into our conversation ("The KRG elections").  Joel's become a huge joke in real journalism circles which was why Jim brought him up.   I know from my friends in the press how pathetic Joel is seen as being (in part because he's so linked to his crackpot buddy) and Jim does too.  Jim also has his own journalism friends and Jim's father (who retired recently) was a real and respected reporter and he heard all the laughter at Joel from his dad and his dad's colleagues.  Jim knew if we could make the conversation about Joel, we'd get a lot more links.

    I tried to be nice. Try to do someone a _____ favor.  (That's an infamous phrase of mine.) 

    You can't do Joel Wing any favors because he won't let you.  Jim called him and many others out, I ignored it and redirected the conversation (it was a transcript piece).  Cry baby Joel couldn't leave well enough alone.  He had to whine in an e-mail allowing Jim to cover the whole thing in "Jim's World" -- which has 75,000 hits and counting.  I'm sure some of that comes from Mike's post steering traffic.  I'm also sure that a lot of that is Jim's father (and a friend of mine at ABC News who can't stand Joel Wing's stupidity) passing it around.

    I tried to spare Joel Wing embarrassment but you can't because he's so damn determined to embarrass himself. 


    First off, Joel Wing, you stupid idiot.  Stop posting Voice of America.

    Were the internet to work like radio does, you wouldn't be allowed to.  VoA is banned from broadcasting in the US (some listen, in the US, to it via short-wave radio or over the internet).  Why?

    Because Voice of America is propaganda.

    Do you get that?

    I know you're an idiot, Joel Wing, but can even you grasp that and that that is why Congress -- the United States of America's legislature -- banned VoA from airing in the US.

    If you're an alleged academic and an alleged analyst, why would you post government propaganda at your site?  And you don't even call it out.  You just serve it up like it is news which it is so not.

    I wouldn't have noted any of this is an AP friend (who covered Iraq, does not cover it now) had not called me up to ask if I read your latest crazy?

    No, I'd missed "Eplaining The Political Factors Behind The Increasing Violence In Iraq, An Interview With Maria Fantappie, Iraq Researcher At The International Crisis Group "

    In a perfect world, I wouldn't note ICG.  I didn't when this site started, they used to mail all the time.  Then the father of a friend who's part of ICG started asking for links (leading me to tell his daughter, "Stop telling people I'm C.I.!").  I still didn't use them.  Now days, I have to.  There is so little Iraq coverage that we have to.  I'll even cite right wingers these days (but identify them as such).  Sometimes to disagree with them, sometimes to note they are right.

    I don't get to have purity when it comes to news sources and organizations.  (Though I do draw the line at government propaganda still -- VoA.)

    But Maria Fantappie?  Has any woman weighing in on Iraq got mentioned less here?  And I you take away her co-written pieces (which reign her nonsense in somewhat), she's shown up even fewer times.  That's because she's got an agenda and she also doesn't know her facts.  An interview on Australian radio this summer remains infamous to those of us who follow coverage of Iraq.

    But here's Joel chatting her up. 

    And why is that a bad thing?

    Let's go to the opening:


    [Joel Wing] 1. In 2009, Sunnis went to the polls after largely boycotting the 2005 provincial vote, and helped put a slew of parties into power. In 2010, many of those same voters came out for Iyad Allawi and Iraqiya, the Iraqi National Movement (INM) which won a plurality of seats in the new parliament. How did Allawi and the other members of the INM turn out to be as national leaders, and how did their performance affect their followers’ opinion of participating in politics?

    [Maria Freak]:  The key for political success in Iraq is to branch out power from Baghdad into the provinces. Iraqyia leaders focused all efforts on the assignment of government positions in Baghdad, neglecting local officials and constituents in the provinces. This was fatal to the future of the list. Starting from early 2011, while Iyad Allawi persisted in claiming the premiership for himself and the implementation of the Irbil agreement in Baghdad, Maliki ingrained power in the provinces: governors were replaced, police chiefs sacked and Sahwa tribal militias deprived of their salaries. Sunni constituents felt disappointed by their national leader and left under the grip of the government security agencies. Their disappointment evolved into distrust towards the political process altogether. In their eyes, Iraqyia leaders appeared not dissimilar from others of different political colors: locked within Baghdad Green Zone walls and far from people’s concerns.


    Heaven help us all.

    Joel, why don't you and Maria just go to some slash fiction website and type up your fantasies.  They'd read something like, "The thing about Nouri was, his stink wasn't a stink, it was a manly, musky smell that overwhelmed my senses the same way he grabbed my body and threw me back on the bed as we both squealed with joy . . . "


    It would certainly be more productive than the crap you and Maria are offering currently.

    Maria Freak may define success at the provincial level but that's her definition and it's grossly stupid when it comes to Iraqiya.

    You both (wrongly in my opinion) see Iraqiya as Sunni-supported only.  But let's run with your concept.  Only Sunnis will support Iraqiya?  So why would they focus on the provinces?  It's not like even half of Iraq's 18 provinces are Sunni dominated.

    Not only is Maria's nonsense (and your own) stupid, it reveals a level of lying that we rarely see in public.

    Iraqiya has largely imploded.  It may be able to pull it together for the 2014 parliamentary elections (if they're held).  If Iraqiya pulls it together, it could win those elections -- as they did in 2010.  In part due to a Nouri backlash as well as an American backlash.

    Blaming Ayad Allawi is like blaming Al Gore.  Both persons should have been their countries leaders.  Al should have been sworn in as President of the United States in January 2001 -- he won the 2000 election.  Ayad Allawi should have been named prime minister-designate in April 2010, Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections.

    Allawi did not become prime minister.  He was denied that post.  We can talk about the whys of that (though goodness knows, Wing never does and Maria's a tacky 'novelist' when it comes to Iraq) but the reality of Allawi not becoming prime minister was that you quickly had factions (such as White Iraqiya) breaking off.  You also had Saleh al-Mutlaq stabbing Iraqiya in the back.

    (Like so many, Maria missed that and could never understand why Saleh would be booed and have rocks tossed at him.  We explained why in real time and it was mere weeks later that Iraqi protesters were carrying banners with Saleh's face on it -- with a large red line across it.)

    In the US, as 2004 approached, many hoped/wanted Al Gore to run.  He didn't.  That was his call and he had his reasons.  But if you were a Gore supporter, you may remember how you felt when Gore's was sometimes floated in 2003 and 2004.

    That same feeling will be present for many Iraqis with regards to Allawi.  He could tap into that.

    The provinces don't mean a damn thing for Iraqiya. The political slate has been targeted -- Tareq al-Hashemi is only one example -- they have been weakened.  And the reason they won in 2010 is the reason, if they get their act together, they could win again.

    What do I know?  I'm just the one who said Iraqis in 2009 and 2010 demonstrated a move towards a national identity.  And, check, I said it in2010 here repeatedly.  It's now accepted wisdom among analysts.   I'm not Joel Wing processing something months after the fact and coming to a conclusion.  I've note before that campaign politics was one of my fields of emphasis.  Raw data gets dumped on me all the time by DNC friends wanting me to interpret it.  Not summarize it.  Any fool can do that. 

    The talent is to look at the data and see what's trending and why.

    The best chance for Nouri to get a third term by votes (as opposed to it being given to him by the US government -- as it has been twice now) or for  a Nouri like figure to become prime minister is a full on civil war.

    That will silence a lot of the criticism -- it'll be replaced with cries of 'help us!'

    Barring that, the Iraqi people are tired of Nouri.  They were tired of him in 2009.  They were tired of him in 2010.  He was the incumbent, he bribed, he had opponents disqualified from running, he controlled the press (am I the only one who read Deborah Amos' paper on the campaigning on TV in Iraq?) and yet he still couldn't pull out a win.

    State of Law, his slate, came in second.  That was a rebuke.

    The rebuke was even more obvious when Moqtada al-Sadr held his spring 2010 elections asking those who voted (primarily his supporters -- but he did open it up to any Iraqi who wanted to vote) who he should back for prime minister and Nouri wasn't the first choice, or the second, or the third . . .

    Those were Shi'ites, where Nouri's strength of support is supposed to come from.  (Yes, 2008's attacks on Sadr City and Basra are not forgotten by Moqtada's followers.  So what's your point?  They don't like Nouri.  Those attacks only hardened their dislike. The 2008 attacks can't be taken back, they are the mark against Nouri for many Shi'ites -- and not just Moqtada's followers -- a large number of Shi'ites in Iraq were appalled to see Nouri doing, they considered, the bidding of the Americans and attacking fellow Shi'ites.)

    If elections are held next year, Nouri will have spent eight years as prime minister.

    He has much to show for it -- I understand from friends in the US government that his bank accounts are overflowing.  However, the Iraqi people have nothing to show for it.

    They still don't have the basic public services, they still don't have safety, they still don't have jobs.


    The editorial board of the Gulf News notes today:

    Political vendettas and ministerial infighting have paralysed Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki’s government in Iraq and he should start to consider stepping down to trigger new elections so that a more forceful coalition can try to stem Iraq’s sad slide into the abyss of continual violence.
    [. . ]
    Al Maliki needs to take responsibility for not doing more to stop the violence. It is true that Iraq’s civil war was triggered by the America-led invasion more than 10 years ago and the disastrous failure of the consequent administration. However, Al Maliki has been the Prime Minister since 2006. He won a second term after complex coalition talks. In these seven years, his Shiite-dominated government should have done more and his recent announcements are not expected to achieve much.



    Nouri didn't win a second term in 2010.

    Nouri came in second and refused to step down.  Freak Maria can check her own writing if she's really forgotten that (as opposed to if she's just flat out lying).  For eight months, he refused to step down.

    For eight months, he brought government to a standstill in Iraq.

    The US babied him and backed him (Samantha Power led the fight -- within the administration -- for his second term).  The White House didn't give a damn that backing him meant spitting on the votes of the Iraqi people -- or the violence they risked encountering just to vote.

    Since the Iraqi Constitution didn't allow Nouri -- or anyone else who came in other than first -- a crack at prime minister-designate, the US government went around the Constitution, they circumvented it.

    They brokered a contract known as The Erbil Agreement.

    This was the US pitch (we've noted it repeatedly over the years), "Look, Nouri's dug in and refused to back down for eight months.  He could go eight months more.  As long as he does this, Iraq has no Parliament and nothing is being accomplished.  You love your country, you want the best for it.  So be the bigger person and let Nouri have that second term.  Then Iraq can get back to business. And we can do this with a legal contract that will have the full backing and support of the US government.  He wants a second term.  What does your bloc want?  We can put it in the contract and you can get it."

    And people signed up with it and entered into a contract with Nouri.  For example, the Kurds signed on after it was put in writing that Nouri would implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution (hold a census and referendum on oil-rich and disputed Kirkuk which is claimed by the KRG and by the central government of Baghdad).  Nouri signed the legal contract.

    He used it to become prime minister but he refused to honor his written -- and legally binding -- promises. 

    That is what caused the ongoing political crisis.

    For the US government to fail to keep their promises?  You want to blame Iraqiya and Ayad Allawi for that?

    You aren't analysts, your porn writers.

    For those who care about reality, let's drop back to the November 11, 2010 snapshot:


    An Iraqi journalist tells the BBC today, "I think a lot of people who voted this time round will have hoped for a change, and will be disappointed to see the same people in charge." John Leland, Jack Healy and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) add, "Iraq's lawmakers took a small step toward forming a government of Thursday evening, hammering out the details of a deal struck one day earlier to end an eight-months political impasse."


    March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's eight months and three days and still counting.

    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."


    Get it, yet?

    The power sharing agreement is The Erbil Agreement.  Barack gave his personal backing of it to Ayad Allawi and yet somehow what went down is Allawi's fault.

    Freak Maria and Joel Wing are idiots.


    Allawi was robbed. That's not a campaign slogan.

    We were robbed.

    That's a campaign slogan.

    It can be a winning one.  'The imperialist Americans stole our election last time, we won't let them this time.'


    I keep saying 'if they happen' of the parliamentary elections. Not only is Nouri attempting to insist he needs 8 additional months added onto the term, his State of Law continues to attempt to block the election law which needs to be passed for the elections to be held.  All Iraq News reports that Parliament again discussed the bill but did not vote for it today.



    Provincial elections are local.  We said that before 12 provinces voted this year.  'Analysts' insisted that 'Nouri' would be the big winner.  He wasn't even on the ballot.  His State of Law did very poorly.  I haven't blamed it on Nouri.  It's not a reflection of Nouri. They are local races (like a statewide race for statewide office in the US).  There may be a pattern in the elections -- probably not thought.  The elections were too spread out.  12 in April, 2 months later then the KRG in September.


    The results are finally in and official for the KRG.  It shouldn't have taken this long and it's actually an embarrassment for Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission that it has taken this long.  The Kurdistan Regional Government held provincial elections Saturday, September 21st.  Iraq has 18 provinces.  Three of them are in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government.  The September 21st elections meant 17 of the provinces had voted.  Only disputed Kirkuk was prevented from voting.   (Why? Because Nouri's never implemented Article 140 -- he was commanded to do so, in the Constitution, by the end of 2007.  He has refused.)



    Three provinces, only three, voted September 21st:  Erbil, Sulaimaniya and Dahuk.  It took 11 days to count the vote?  That's really sad and not a vote of confidence for when Iraq holds parliamentary elections in all 18 provinces next year (if they take place). 

    AP explains the KDP came in first and they will have 38 seats in the KRG Parliament (there are 111 seats in the Parliament).  (In fairness to AP, I should note that they didn't cite the crackpot in their work.  They were among the few outlets over the last years who hadn't.)  IANS adds: that Gorran (Change) got 24 seats, the PUK got 18 seats, the Kurdistan Islamic Union got "10 seats and the Islamic Group got six seats." Those were the major winners and that adds up to 96 seats (check my math).  Anadolu Agency explains, "Minority candidates won 11 seats."

    IANS reports, "Talabani's PUK and Barzani's KDP have long dominated politics in the three-province autonomous region of northern Iraq; however, the latest results showed that the Gorran movement won decisively in Sulaimaniyah province, which is the home base of the PUK."  Anadoulu Agency adds, "Gorran is led by the PUK's former number two, Noshirwan Mustafa, who broke away from Talabani in 2006."  Goran now joins the KDP as one of the two dominant political parties in the KRG.  Whether this is a momentary upset for the PUK or the beginning of its slide downward isn't clear.




    Going into the election, there were two dominant parties: the KDP, headed by KRG President Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.  Headed by whom?  Supposedly headed by Iraq's President, the Kurd Jalal Talabani.

     Last December,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.

    He can't lead the party, he can't even lead the country.  The only reason he shouldn't be replaced as President of Iraq is possibly that the new elections (parliamentary) early next year (if they happen) would result in a new president.  Jalal argued with the US government when they begged him, in 2010, to take another position and allow Ayad Allawi to be president.  Jalal said no for many reasons including (a) the US government's really not supposed to be in charge of the Iraqi elections (though that hasn't stopped them), (b) Allawi is a Shi'ite and Jalal (and many others) contend a Kurd must be in a high profile post and (c) he's a big, fat liar.  Jalal (like Nouri) had announced he wouldn't seek a second term yet in 2010 he (like Nouri) did just that.

    He's power-hungry but while Nouri wants a third term and may get it (since the US government overruled the Iraqi vote in 2010 in order to give Nouri a second term), Jalal won't.

    Unless his tired ass gets back to Iraq immediately, he will have spent one year out of the country (by the middle of November).  His stroke means that his health is now a question mark and his refusal to step down during his nearly a year out of the country, nearly a year of not doing his job (while drawing a salary) that the Iraqi people will be loudly saying "no."  And it may be hard for the US government to override the Iraqi vote this go round.



    And here's Twitter on the elections:


    1. 2010: KDP29seats(67%),PUK14seats(33%) 2013: KDP38seats(68%),PUK18seats(32%) seems power balance b/w 2 parties are almost same.
    2. Final results of out, what is puzzling, some candidates did not even get 1 vote, if your mum & dad not vote for you what hope!
    3. One thing is happening in Kurdistan Region: War of words among political parties just ahead of the formation of government.
    4. Gorran + IUK + Komal will meet tommorow to decide re election fraud/future steps
    5. One of candidates is said to have received roughly 140.000 votes in elections, about 7 parliamentary seats.
    6. Final results: KDP 38 seats | Gorran 24 | PUK 18 | IUK 10 | Komal 6 | Islamic movement 1 | leftists 3.
    7. Gorran is now the largest party in KRG most populous province and second placed in Erbil province and across
    8. Socialists 12501 (1 seat) Communists 12392 (1 seats) Third way (Zahmahtkesh) 8681 (1 seat) + qoutas
    9. KDP 743984 (38) Gorran 476736 (24) PUK 350500 (18) IUK 186841 (10) Komal 118574 (6) IMK 21834 (1)
    10. Can someone explain why we read the KURDISH regional elections in arabic?
    11. official results: KDP 38 seats, Gorran 24, PUK 18, Kurdistan Islamic Union 10, Kurdistan Islamic Group 6
    12. What good is it if we read all the election results and names in arabic? Why dont they just translate it?



    Debra Sweet (World Can't Wait) gets the last word:

    The U.S. War on Afghanistan — I refuse to call it the "Afghanistan war" because Afghans didn't start it — is now 12 years old.  Longer than the official American war on Vietnam; it's gone on half a generation, or more.


    In 2001, on October 6 (a Sunday) George Bush announced the attack on Afghanistan.  Some perceived the action as revenge for 9/11, though that was just a pretext for an action Rumsfeld, Cheney and other neo-cons had planned for years.  On the morning on 9/11, Rumsfeld said it was time to "go massive."  "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
    US destruction went massive, leaving one of the poorest countries in the world, already torn up by an occupation by the Soviet Union, with a brutal civil war between war lords, still impoverished, threatened by continued U.S. domination, Islamic fundamentalism, and the same warlords having been enriched by U.S. billions.
    Join our conference call discussion Thursday:
    People born after 1990 don't really remember a time when there wasn't a US war on Afghanistan. Many people think the war is "over" or "ending" thanks to Obama.




















    ben lando

    Tuesday, October 1, 2013

    Revolution: It's all White, er, right

    Did you see Andrea Peterson's Washington Post report yesterday?  It opens:

    Just one major telecommunications company refused to participate in a legally dubious NSA surveillance program in 2001. A few years later, its CEO was indicted by federal prosecutors. He was convicted, served four and a half years of his sentence and was released this month.
    Prosecutors claim Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio was guilty of insider trading, and that his prosecution had nothing to do with his refusal to allow spying on his customers without the permission of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But to this day, Nacchio insists that his prosecution was retaliation for refusing to break the law on the NSA's behalf.
    After his release from custody Sept. 20, Nacchio told the Wall Street Journal that he feels "vindicated" by the content of the leaks that show that the agency was collecting American's phone records.



     Okay, NBC's Revolution airs Wednesday nights this season and started back up last week.

    I was not impressed.

    I had kidded myself that Nora would live.  She died in her last scene in last season's episode.  But I thought, being in the compound, the scientists or Charlie or Rachel would grab some of those nanonites to save her.  (We saw them used to save Rachel.  We know they've saved people with cancer.  We know Charlie's brother only lived -- until he was shot dead -- because of them.)

    Nora's dead.  The show really didn't have another Latina in the cast. 

    African-Americans?  There's the forever missing Grace.

    What was the point of Grace in season one.  She was frequently not on the shows, we saw her kidnapped.  We never got the payoff for that.  And now no one even mentions her.

    That leaves African-American Neville and his bi-racial son Jason.  That's it for color in the main cast. 

    So we see a woman, which seems good, and she's Black, which seems better, but she's lying.  She's with the US government, she's Secretary Justine Allenford and she's explaining that the 'bad guys' turned the power back on (last episode of last season) so that they could nuke Atlanta and Philadelphia.

    Neville and Jason see that.  They know the woman's lying.  They wonder what else she's lying about.  (She declares the President is ready to return to power.)

    What else goes on?

    Charlie's Penelope Pitstop.  She's broken off from her group because she doesn't want to be around her mother (Rachel) but mainly so that she can end up at risk repeatedly forcing others to save her.  We saw that over and over last season.

    Now she's found Monroe.  He's in a carnival (along with David Schwimmer who's billed as the last living cast member of Friends -- Oh My God! They killed Janice!).  He's boxing.  Charlie plots to kill him.

     Rachel, Miles and Aaron are staying in a town where Rachel's father lives.   The town's being attacked by raiders.  They stab Aaron.  Miles and the sheriff go on defense and get captured by the raiders.  Aaron opens his eyes so we know he's alive.

    Earlier, before the attack, he opened his eyes.  And he saw this glowing stuff like fireflies but it was the stuff we see when they use the nanonites to heal.



    It picks back up with episode two Wednesday night on NBC.  Let's hope it finds a role for women.  I'm not in the mood for another half year before they start addressing the lack of women.  And with Nora dead and the female leader of Atlanta dead and Grace not even mentioned, they really are doing a s**t poor job.

    Few women and few people of color.


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

     
    Tuesday, October 1, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, the monthly death tolls are released, those 'only' wounded aren't in a lucky boat, US Senator Patrick Leahy makes an Iraq announcement,  the ruins of an ancient city are discovered in northern Iraq, we discuss political prisoner Lynne Stewart, and more.



    On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program which first 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 included political prisoner Lynne Stewart.  Here's that portion in full.


    Heidi Boghosian:   Michael as each day passes we grow more concerned about the health status of our friend Lynne Stewart.  What's the latest?

    Michael Ratner:  She's in prison in Texas.  The head of the Bureau of Prisons, [Charles E.] Samuels, is keeping her there.  The law, as recently articulate by Attorney General Holder says that she qualifies for compassionate release.  The prison doctor himself has written that she's got less than 18 months to live.  She's going to be 74-years-old on October 8th and we're trying to get her out of there, back here, home to New York, where she can get better medical care.  And we've relaunched a new petition because they turned down the last one -- although the judge said that if he got a new petition in front of him, he indicated that he would let her out.  So the trick here is to get Samuels, the head of the Bureau of Prisons, to allow her out.  The Bureau of Prisons has to make a motion to the court --  the court's going to grant the motion -- but they [BoP] have got to do it.

    Heidi Boghosian:  And I think it's worth noting that Samuels turned down the lawyers' first request for compassionate release but they filed new papers which are apparently sitting on his desk so it's all the more important that we mount public pressure.

    Michael Smith:  Well we had 30,000 people -- plus a number of organizations -- that signed a petition the last time.  We want to do even better than that.  You can go to lynnestewart.org or lawanddisorder.org -- we'll link to it -- get the information and help Lynne out here, wish her a happy 74th birthday.


    The radio program is a great one and I'd rank it in my own top ten of programs airing in the US on the radio.  In fact, top five.  Sometimes, inspiration just doesn't come.  Believe me, I understand that.  That can be especially true when it's a subject that matters (such as a dying friend) and especially if you address the subject regularly.  With Lynne, there are weeks when I've addresses her case in groups we've spoken to and I just don't want to do it here that evening because a) I don't want to cry, b) I don't have time to redo my eye makeup after I finish dictating the snapshot because I'm finishing it as I stand on the sidelines waiting to speak, and c) I just can't destroy myself one more time (emotionally wreck myself to say all that needs to be said).  Then there are the times when I'm drained completely and I'm typing up an entry and the well has run completely dry.

    The Michaels and Heidi are not robots who can just spit out the same facts and details every time.  They care about Lynne tremendously and they cover Lynne repeatedly.  I get that.

    All of the above and more may go to why this week's segment was the worst coverage they've done.

    Pretend WBAI can attract new listeners for a moment or grasp that, on one of the many other radio stations the program airs, new listeners heard about Lynne for the first time with that episode.

    What do they now know?

    Nothing.

    Lynne's some woman in some prison with cancer.  And set aside cancer because that's was bad as well, the presentation.

    In prison for what?  Who is she?  Why should I sign a petition for her?


    Glen Ford:  People's lawyer Lynne Stewart continues to fight for a compassionate release from prison where she's serving a ten year sentence for zealously defending her client.  Stewart is suffering Stage IV breast cancer but the Obama administration has turned down all of her pleas to be released to her family and doctors.  In Birmingham, Alabama, we spoke with David Gespass, a former president of the National Lawyers Guild.


    That's Glenn Ford on last week's Black Agenda Radio (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network)  -- a program which also covers Lynne regularly.  (I believe those are the only two who do so.)  Glen's established who Lynne is in that brief intro. 


    Here, we do a much longer intro.  What we're using here covers more because it's what I say when I raise the topic of Lynne when we're speaking to a group.  We turn it into a story and name the 'bad guys.'  Because there is time to do so (which isn't the case in the radio intro to one of several segments) and because it carries our larger theme of how Barack Obama has taken the crimes of Bully Boy Bush and not only run with it but managed to make them even worse.  When Barack came into office, the intro had to be changed to include him -- he is part of this story just by being president.  Near the end of his first term, he ordered Lynne behind bars (Bush hadn't, he let her stay our during the appeal process) and that and other actions had to be included as well.  My point being, we go long, yes, but we offer a narrative and it makes clear what Lynne's up against.  It works and it works because I'm able to see faces as I speak and tell when I'm losing people or when they're carried along by the narratives which has allowed me to make changes as required.  Here's the three paragraph into I've been using for a couple of months now (in speaking and then carried over to the snapshot).


    Lynne Stewart. is a political prisoner in the United States.  For the 'crime' of issuing a press release, she was eventually tossed in prison.  The 'crime' happened on Attorney General Janet Reno's watch.  Reno has her detractors who think she was far too tough as Attorney General.  She also has her supporters who see her as a moderate.  No one saw her as 'soft.'  Reno had her Justice Department review what happened.  There was no talk of a trial because there was no crime.  No law was broken.  The Justice Department imposes guidelines -- not written by Congress, so not laws -- on attorneys.  Lynne was made to review the guidelines and told not to break it again.  That was her 'punishment' under Janet Reno.  Bully Boy Bush comes into office and the already decided incident becomes a way for Attorney General John Ashcroft to try to build a name for himself. He goes on David Letterman's show to announce, after 9-11, that they're prosecuting Lynne for terrorism.


    Eventually tossed in prison?  Even Bully Boy Bush allowed Lynne to remain out on appeal.  It's only when Barack Obama becomes president that Lynne gets tossed in prison.  It's only under Barack that the US Justice Depart disputes the judge's sentence and demands a harsher one (under the original sentence Lynne would be out now).  Lynne's cancer has returned.

    She needs to be home with her family.  Her time is limited and it needs to be spent with her loved ones.  Lynne's a threat to no one -- not today, not ten years ago.  She's a 73-year-old grandmother who has dedicated her life to being there for people who would otherwise have no defenders.  Even now in prison, she shows compassion towards those who have had none for her.  Barack Obama needs to order her immediate release.  If he fails to do so, then it should be a permanent stain on his record.



    Lynne has been the victim of now one but two administrations.  That's an important point.  And when Lynne is raised by me, I can always count on one woman to raise the fact that Barack's own mother died of cancer (usually prefacing it with, "I don't get why Obama's not doing something since his own mother died of cancer").  That's an important point because Barack can pretend to be distracted and busy and a hundred other lies.  The reality is he knows what it is like to lose a mother to cancer so why is he allowing Lynne to remain in prison or -- as another person will usually point out -- keeping her confined to a prison in Fort Worth, Texas when her family, friends and doctor are in New York?

    Because, frankly, Barack's a little s**t.  And when enough people grasp that, he'll be embarrassed enough to help Lynne.  Not until then.

    Barack is no where in the narrative the Michaels and Heidi offered.  That never needs to happen again.  He could order her a compassionate release right now.  He's president of the United States.  He could pardon her.  Again, last week's Black Agenda Radio.


    Glen Ford:  Yes, in terms of administrations, how does this one rank on the compassionate scale?


    David Gespass:  I'd say at the bottom.  This administration has yet to pardon a single convict.  And I think that's probably a first.  Given particularly now when people are talking about how draconian and counter-productive these mandatory minimum sentences are for drug offenses especially, the fact that this administration refuses to even consider releasing people who have been low level involvement in drug transactions that have gotten these absurdly long sentences, it's just indicative of either just meanness or political cowardice.



    Making these points about Barack when discussing Lynne are important not just to Lynne but to others who should be pardoned.  Equally true, Barack  could commute Lynne's sentence.  He could do any number of things.  Lynne is an attorney.  She's guilty of no crime.

    And Barack knows about commuting and pardons.  He lied in a debate in 2008 and his campaign lied and his little whores (David Corn among them) lied until we did push back such as with "There was no pardon, Barack (Ava and C.I.)."  For those who've forgotten what a little bitch Barack actually is, let's travel back to that debate.



    SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.
    This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either. So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

    SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
    And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.
    And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)
    Unfortunately, they don't seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they're going to be out there, full force. And you know, I've been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.


    SENATOR OBAMA: I'm going to have to respond to this just really quickly, but by Senator Clinton's own vetting standards, I don't think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me --



    Barack knew it wasn't a pardon when he uttered the lie.  It was a lie and he knew it at the time.  This is confirmed by a friend who was part of the debate prep.  In 2008, I sat on the info because that probably gives a way who one of the sources was.  (I'd noted various things -- often before they happened -- about the 2008 campaign here and would explain I had three friends working on the campaign -- who were actively attempt to recruit me -- me offline, not 'C.I.' -- to publicly endorse Barack.)  The reality is 'Mr. Truthful' lied and did so intentionally.  His campaign then lied (also intentionally) leaving out the weasel aspect of  "or commuted").  "Or commuted" was put in at the insistence of my friend who stated that if Barack just said "pardoned" and the press did their job (my friend can be so funny -- the press doing their job! he cracks me up), Barack would walk away from the debate looking like either a liar "or Dan Quayle."  So they put in "commuted."  (Commuted is what happened.  There was no pardon.)

    Let's note the press first because they didn't do their job.  In fairness to some, this was before everything was documented by the internet (the Clinton era) and hard to do a fast fact check on.   That said, there are two reporters that have to be noted.  Jake Tapper (now with CNN) and David Corn (Mother Jones).  Both, like all of their peers, ran with the campaign's claim of a pardon.  When confronted with reality, what happened?  Jake Tapper actually cares about fairness and accuracy.   He immediately corrected his error.  David Corn?  He was as nasty and as rude as the receptionist at Mother Jones.  Maybe he was worse.  He bellowed and hollered during a campaign conference call with the media about the "pardon" (which had a friend with Hillary's campaign -- as I noted here in real time -- ask me if Corn was for real or some sort of Howard Stern-like prank).  He made a complete fool out of himself and did not one but three posts on the 'pardon' that he refused to correct.  As did Mother Jones when it had to do with people calling the receptionist -- when MoJo was confronted face-to-face, Corn was ordered to do a correction.  And instead of admitting his mistake, he had to mock Bill Clinton and bring up Marc Rich.

    So let's repeat it: Jake Tapper, serious journalist, immediately does a correction.  David Corn, fake journalist, whines and bitches and moans when he's finally forced to issue a correction and tries to make his error Bill Clinton's mistake. 

    Barack knows he could pardon, knows he could commute.  He won't.  And if the press had done their job -- and here I'm talking about Corn and the other beggars of Panhandle Media, not the corporate or MSM -- a better Barack might be in office.

    As usual, the Cult of St. Barack cared only about Barack.  But the reality of that 2008 exchange should have been obvious and should have been called out.  Barack was arguing that it wasn't wrong with him to be friends and business partners with someone some Americans saw as a terrorist.  (I don't see Bill Ayers as a terrorist.  He's never been anything but Bernardine Dohrn's trophy spouse.)  Barack was arguing what he did was okay but Bill Clinton pardoning or commuting someone's sentence was wrong. 

    Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of two women.  And Barack thought that was something to mock, to make fun of, to use as a weapon.  A real left would have grasped the danger in those remarks.  Instead, Panhandle whores (including FAIR) whined Barack was asked 'hard' questions.  Next time, if they can take a candidate's penis out of their mouth long enough, they might want to stop whining about questions and actually attempt to discern the meaning of what was said.


    Cancer.  Lynne will not survive.  I really don't think we need to stress "better medical care."  We can stress better comfort but you're losing women when you talk about lethal cancer and 18 months to live and then state she could receive "better medical care" in NYC.  You can't make that claim and be believed by most women.  There is no "better medical care" when you're dying of cancer.  There is the comfort factor -- being near your family and friends.  But "better medical care"?  Not unless there's a cure for cancer discovered in the next months. 

    Again, the Michaels and Heidi cover the topic regularly, they are among the few who have not abandoned Lynne.  Again, it's a difficult topic and inspiration does not always come.  I give them credit for covering Lynne and also for providing us with a way to discuss Lynne's case that we haven't before.   There will be demonstrations in support of Lynne next Tuesday:

    From Deep in the Belly of the Beast ... that is, Texas.
    Now another month has passed and I am getting increasingly irritable that these jokers are so cavalier with my life and what time I have left. (I also am getting weaker.)
    My application for compassionate release is moving but glacially (Are there any glaciers left? Only in the bureaucracy...). We learned that the request has left the General Counsel's office of the Bureau of Prisons in Washington and is now being considered by an "Independent Committee" (whatever that means). From there it will ostensibly go to the Director, Mr. Samuels, for the final recommendation and request for a motion to the Judge. 
    As you can appreciate there is still plenty of room for slips between cup and lip. I truly understand that I, with the strong and consistent support of all 30,000+ of you, do constitute a "threat" in their small universe. That is to say that, the will of the People cannot be ignored forever. With that in mind, I want to urge everyone to come on out on

    OCTOBER 8, TUESDAY, MY 74th BIRTHDAY
    FOR A LOCAL SHOW OF OUR COLLECTIVE WILL
    IN OPPOSITION TO THE '"DEATH PENALTY "


    ORGANIZE • ORGANIZE • ORGANIZE • ORGANIZE • ORGANIZE

    YOU AND YOUR COMRADES, FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES CAN GATHER AT YOUR LOCAL FEDERAL (U.S.) COURTHOUSE OR POST OFFICE TO REMIND THEM THAT WE WILL NOT LET ME DIE IN A JAIL CELL!!!

    If you can do this please notify Ralph of your location by sending an email to my web site [1lawyerleft at gmail.com]  or to this site. We hope this will be nationwide and we can spread the word of the senseless cruelty in the way the Bureau of Prisons administers a program that is supposed to be compassionate. I may be the "poster child" but this is done on behalf of all the prisoners who are languishing, in pain or worse, trying to go home.

    Be out there on October 8. It is already an historic day. Let's make it More So!!! Let's Win.


    Lynne has repeatedly spoken out against the Iraq War -- under Bully Boy Bush and under Barack.  She knew it would not result in democracy or peace.  She was right.

    National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed attack in Tikrit left 2 police officers dead and a third injured,  a Ramadi car bombing left one police officer injured, a Falluja roadside bombing left two police officers injured, a Falluja sticky bombing left a couple (wife and husband) injured,  3 Tikrit suicide bombers took their own lives and that of an Iraqi army colonel and 2 police officers (seven more police officers were injured), retired military colonel Maan al-Hayali was shot dead near his Mosul home,  the Mosul homes of 2 Shabak families were blown up leaving one person injured, a Tikrit suicide bomber took his own life and that of 2 bystanders (five more were left injured), and the Falluja home and three cars belonging to a soldier's family were set fire today (the family fled to safety during the attack).

    That violence falls under October.  September ended yesterday.  Iraq Body Count notes the death toll for September from violence is 1220.  UNAMI's count was a little lower in the statement they released today:



    Baghdad, 1 October 2013 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 979 Iraqis were killed and another 2,133 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in September.


    The number of civilians killed was 887 (including 127 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,957 (including 199 civilian police). A further 92 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 176 were injured. “As terrorists continue to target Iraqis indiscriminately, I call upon all political leaders to strengthen their efforts to promote national dialogue and reconciliation,” the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, said. “Political, religious and civil leaders as well as the security services must work together to end the bloodshed and ensure that all Iraqi citizens feel equally protected," he added.
    Baghdad was the worst-affected governorate in September, with 1,429 civilian casualties (418 killed and 1011 injured), followed by Ninewa, Diyala, Salahuddin and Anbar. Kirkuk, Erbil, Babil, Wasit, Dhi-Qar and Basra also reported casualties (double-digit figures).

    Investors Business Daily notes that the UN figures mean that 2013 has already surpassed "last year's deadly count."   AFP's WG Dunlop Tweets:




  • Sept. the deadliest month for Iraq recorded by this year, with 880 killed; over 4,700 dead in violence in 2013



  • Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "Using numbers from various sources, Antiwar.com compiled a total of 1,271 deaths, up slightly from last month and down from July. In September 2012, Antiwar.com counted 444 dead and 1,233 wounded. This difference dramatically underscores how much attacks have increased this year."  Antiwar.com and AFP are the only press outlets keeping their own monthly toll.  Investors Business Daily notes that the UN figures mean that 2013 has already surpassed "last year's deadly count."  Matt Brown (Australia's ABC) emphasizes, "The UN says nearly 2,000 were injured with terrorists attacking people indiscriminately."


    It's an important number.  Maybe more important the death toll.  The dead are gone.  Those left behind mourn them.  The wounded from the violence?  They have to carry on in a country still at war.  They carry physical and mental scars.  And they may have a lost limb or a lost sense.  That's not easy to manage in any country but especially not in a country at war. 

    Last week, retired US army Col David Sutherland (The Hill) noted the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which the Senate is scheduled to consider this month):


    As the commander of the U.S. combat brigade in Diyala Province, Iraq from 2006 – 2007, I fought for a rule of law that would be based, in part, on the high standards of the United States.  While in Iraq, I passed through villages caring for children injured by the conflict and children who were born with disabilities.  These children were loved, but the villages could be doing so much more.  There were no schools for Downs Syndrome kids or ramps and access for amputees.  This treaty, which Iraq has ratified, would open the dialogue so that such support might become a reality.



    Noting the September death toll, Fits News observes:

    A total of 4,486 American soldiers died in Iraq from 2003-2012. Thousands more were wounded and/ or returned home suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.
    And for what? Seriously … what did these troops fight and die for?
    Meanwhile U.S. taxpayers shelled out $1.7 trillion in borrowed dollars to fund the war effort – and owe an additional $500 billion in benefits to veterans (a figure which is expected to skyrocket in the coming years).
    Again … why? What did we spend all of that money for?


    Also pointing out the failures is SP Seth (at Pakistan's Daily Times), "The prime justifications for the US invasion of Iraq that it had weapons of mass destruction and links with al Qaeda were found to be untrue. As we now know, the laudable objective of liberating and making Iraq into a model regional democracy has turned out to be a cruel joke played on the Iraqi people. Surely, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and his overthrow by the Iraqi people would have been a welcome development. But the US invasion only compounded Iraq’s tragedy. "  Cathy Otten and Jacob Russell (USA Today) review the violence and we'll note this on Erbil:


    A car bomb blew up Sunday in the region's capital, Irbil. Two vehicles loaded with explosives were detonated at the entrance to the Directorate of Security, and attackers armed with assault rifles and grenades opened fire.
    "When I saw there had been an explosion there (in Irbil) something changed – I felt like I'm still in a dangerous place," Abid said. "Zakho is far from Irbil, but I worried it was the wrong decisions to come to a place that could turn out to be same as Baghdad."
    Sunday's attack was the first attack of its kind in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2007, but its scale worries authorities.


    Press TV reports, "Officials from Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region have offered support to fight terrorism following Sunday’s bombings in Arbil. The Iranian diplomats have visited some of the terror victims in hospital. The al-Qaeda linked Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham has announced responsibility for the violence in unconfirmed internet posts." Yerevan Saeed (Rudaw) offers these thoughts:

    One could ask why, despite many other soft targets such as ministries and government buildings, the attackers chose to target the Asayish headquarters.
    The answer could be that Asayish was attacked for doing too good a job: The agency has defused multiple planned attacks over the past several years. Sunday’s attack was the first in the Kurdistan Region since 2007, when the same Asayish facility was attacked in a similar fashion.
    Many potential attackers have been killed by Asayish. Therefore, Sunday’s attack could be revenge against the intelligence service and an attempt to tarnish its good image.


    Staying with the topic of the KRG, Owen Jarus (Live Science) notes:


    In the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq archaeologists have discovered an ancient city called Idu, hidden beneath a mound.
    Cuneiform inscriptions and works of art reveal the palaces that flourished in the city throughout its history thousands of years ago.
     Located in a valley on the northern bank of the lower Zab River, the city's remains are now part of a mound created by human occupation called a tell, which rises about 32 feet (10 meters) above the surrounding plain. The earliest remains date back to Neolithic times, when farming first appeared in the Middle East, and a modern-day village called Satu Qala now lies on top of the tell.


    Lisa Graziano (Las Vegas Guardian Express) adds, "Archaeologists determined the ancient kingdom flourished between 3,300 to 2,900 years ago. Beginning this period, the Assyrian empire had control of the city in order to govern the surrounding territory. When the empire failed, the city gained independence and was renamed Idu. Idu’s short life span was the centerpiece of the kingdom until the Assyrians reconquered it 140 years later."  That's an important discovery and it's an important moment for Iraq.  It's far from a perfect moment though.  As Matthew Schweitzer (Al Jazeera) points out:

    The men exchange stories under the ornamental lights strung across the street. "Doctor Saad was a drillmaster, but always cared about his students," Abdullah recalls. "Today many professors don't expect their students to succeed. Some are too afraid to stand up for them."
    These professors tell the story of an underreported tragedy - the destruction of Iraq's once proud academia through 30 years of war, sanctions, and occupation. The intelligentsia has been sucked into the whirlwind of Iraq's recent experience. It is still in chaos. 
    Once the envy of the Middle East, Iraq's academies today are hollow memories of a proud past. Conflict, assassinations, diaspora, and suppressed freedom of speech have handicapped centres of higher education, gutted research facilities, and silenced the academics staffing them.
    The toxic combination of destroyed infrastructure and lost faculty has left Iraq reeling, without the means to train those needed for national reconstruction.


    Still on the topic of Iraq,  US Senator Patrick Leahy's office issued the following:



    Leahy Applauds Senate Passage Of Bipartisan Bill To Reauthorize Critical Visa Program For Iraqi Translators

    Urges House To Renew Expiring Program
    October 1, 2013

    WASHINGTON – Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) hailed the Senate’s unanimous approval of a bipartisan measure to extend an important visa program for Iraqi translators who support U.S. troops abroad.

    The Senate unanimously approved a bipartisan bill late Monday night, just as the program’s authorization was set to expire, and Leahy called on the House to act quickly.

    “This program offers nothing short of a lifeline for the Iraqi men and women who risked everything supporting the United States’ mission in Iraq,” Leahy said. “Given all that is on the line, I am hopeful that even in this difficult political climate, the House of Representatives will take up and swiftly pass this bill and we can send it to President Obama for his signature later today.”

    The Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program was created in 2008, and to date it has issued approximately 6,000 of its 25,000 allocated visas to translators who have served alongside U.S. troops. The straight reauthorization passed by the Senate would allow this program to continue processing applications and extending visas to qualifying Iraqis. Leahy worked on the bipartisan legislation with Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

    “Among the many lessons of the Vietnam War is that we must not abandon those who risked their lives to help us,” Leahy said.  “We made a commitment and we must honor it.  We must renew this critical program.”

     
    # # # # #
     

    Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
    Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
    On Senate Passage of Legislation to Extend
    The Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa Program, S. 1566
    October 1, 2013


    I am proud that the Senate unanimously passed legislation late last night to extend the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. This program offers nothing short of a lifeline for the Iraqi men and women who risked everything supporting the United States’ mission in Iraq. Despite the fact that there are thousands of Iraqis still waiting for their paperwork to be processed, the program expired last night and we must take immediate action to renew it.

    Given all that is on the line, I am hopeful that even in this difficult political climate, the House of Representatives will take up and swiftly pass this bill and we can send it to President Obama for his signature later today.

    Congress created the Iraqi SIV program in 2008 to allow some of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who served alongside U.S. troops the opportunity to seek safety and a new beginning in the United States.   They were our translators and our guides. They were a critical resource to our troops, helping them navigate complex cultural, political and geographic terrain.  They literally risked their lives for us.  Now, five years after the original legislation passed, less than 6,000 of the 25,000 available visas have been distributed, leaving many well-deserving Iraqi allies in danger and American credibility on the line.


    As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on State Department and Foreign Operations, I worked hard to see that a reauthorization for the Iraqi SIV program is in the National Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, that reauthorization will not pass in time to renew this vital program.  We also made significant efforts to include that extension in the Continuing Resolution passed by the Senate last week, but a Congressional stalemate has eroded that path. The only option that remains is for the House to take up and pass the bipartisan standalone bill immediately.


    I am hopeful that we can do just that. I have joined with members from both sides of the aisle in the Senate, including Senators Shaheen, McCain, Grassley and Graham, as well members in the House, to resolve any concerns. We have compromised on the length of the extension and have covered any costs associated with it. Passage should be quick and straightforward. Lives are on the line. Our word is on the line. And it is time to act.


    Among the many lessons of the Vietnam War is that we must not abandon those who risked their lives to help us.  We made a commitment and we must honor it.  We must renew this critical program.



    # # # # #





    Moving over to the continued efforts for war on Syria, Larry Everest (World Can't Wait) gets the last word:

    Many people hope—and some have vociferously claimed—that the U.S.-Russian agreement to strip Syria of its chemical weapons and to take the matter to the United Nations Security Council marked a victory for peace and the antiwar movement.

    They argue that these diplomatic developments represented a fundamentally different approach than military threats, marking a turn away from war.

    They are wrong.

    The initial agreement between the U.S. and Russia (whatever that ends up being and however the various parties interpret it), Syria’s acquiescence, and UN involvement has not ended the danger of a U.S. war on Syria. Nor has it dialed down tensions between Russia—which has its own imperialist interests in the region—and the U.S. Instead, the U.S. and its allies Britain and France are using these as vehicles for continuing their aggression, threats, and bullying against Syria—all as part of efforts to maintain America’s imperial grip on the Middle East. (And even before the U.S. threatened direct military intervention it was carrying out great crimes in Syria and fueling the slaughter there.)

    For starters, it’s illusory and harmful to discuss diplomacy—and laud its merits—in the abstract without analyzing the economic, political, and class interests and agenda it serves. Ongoing analysis at revcom.us and in Revolution has continued to sharply identify that “bowing out” of the Middle East, allowing the region to spin out of (their) control, and allowing rivals of all stripes to replace them in dominating the oil-rich and geostrategic region is not an option for the rulers of a country whose stability and functioning depend on remaining the world’s sole superpower. And in that light, both direct military attacks and U.S. imperialist diplomacy serve to enforce U.S. global domination. (For an in-depth exploration of some of the contradictions facing the U.S. in the Middle East, and how to radically alter the current equation in the world, see Bringing Forward Another Way by Bob Avakian at revcom.us.)

    And U.S. diplomacy rests on blackmail and thuggery. Let us not forget that U.S. imperialist diplomacy, and sanctions, kill people in their own right. Some 500,000 Iraqi children died in the 1990s as a result of U.S. imperialist diplomacy that imposed and enforced cruel sanctions.






    iraq
    wbai
    law and disorder radio
    michael s. smith
    heidi boghosian
    michael ratner
    black agenda radio
    glen ford
    nellie bailey