Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Further on The Originals


Some e-mailed to express offense over my take on The Originals, some e-mailed to agree.

I don't care if everyone had hated my thoughts, I'd stand by them.

It is past time that we had real African-American characters on this show set in New Orleans which is over 60% African-American.

That it doesn't bother some goes to the need for a BlackLivesMatter event.

Again, if this show was set in Iowa, it could be all White.

But do not set your show in a majority Black city and then refuse to provide African-American characters.

We had a witch in season one and then she died.

We have Marcel all along but that's really it.

The use of the hideous Clair to play Rebekah in flashbacks goes to the fact that they do not appreciate Masie -- the actress of color currently play Rebekah in modern times.

I'm tired of it.

I didn't ask them to set a show in New Orleans.

They did.

They need to be representative.

That this is even open to debate goes to how African-Americans are repeatedly left out of the conversations and expected to be happy with a few crumbs thrown their way.




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


 
Monday, October 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continues, politicians gear up to spin, the KRG remains in turmoil, and much more.


Tuesday night, candidates for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination debate in Las Vegas.


People say a lot when they want the job, yeah
Lining up sideways around the block
"It's not for the money" she say to you
Almost convincing herself that it's true
"I'll take care of your dog when you're away"
"I don't mind working Saturdays"
"When you wanna work I'll work with you", she say
"And I'll go on working when you wanna play"
"Nothing gonna hurt you when I'm around"
"I'll keep my eyes wide open and my nose to the ground"
"I'll be like a mama with a baby cub"
People say a lot when they want the job
People say a lot when they want the job, yeah
People say a lot when they want the job
-- "People Say A Lot," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album THIS KIND OF LOVE


Hillary Clinton, for example, has been making promises that  the editorial board of USA Today and Stephen Stromberg (Washington Post) find hard to believe since her new found objections to the TPP trade deal and the Keystone pipeline are so far from her previous positions and, back in June, Jake Tapper (CNN) offered "45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes."

The former Secretary of State is facing serious competition from Senator Bernie Sanders who Alex Griswold (Mediaite) notes has stated that, unlike Hillary, his positions have remained "consistent."


Patrick Frye (Inquisiter) offers, "With the 2016 presidential candidates planning for the Democratic Debate, 2015 promises to be interesting since Bernie Sanders may bring up Hillary Clinton’s war record during the Democrat’s presidential debate being hosted by CNN. In return, Clinton will have to convince Democrats that making her the United States president has a reason or goal, although it’s uncertain whether or not she will have to dance around questions based upon the infamous email server incident."


And, indeed, he's been circulating his remarks from October 2, 2002:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say, despite what we have heard from the White House, that "Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States." Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
But I do feel that as a part of this process, the President is ignoring some of the most pressing economic issues affecting the well-being of ordinary Americans. There has been virtually no public discussion about the stock market's loss of trillions of dollars over the last few years and that millions of Americans have seen the retirement benefits for which they have worked their entire lives disappear. When are we going to address that issue? This country today has a $340 billion trade deficit, and we have lost 10 percent of our manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years, 2 million decent-paying jobs. The average American worker today is working longer hours for lower wages than 25 years ago. When are we going to address that issue?
Mr. Speaker, poverty in this country is increasing and median family income is declining. Throughout this country family farmers are being driven off of the land; and veterans, the people who put their lives on the line to defend us, are unable to get the health care and other benefits they were promised because of government underfunding. When are we going to tackle these issues and many other important issues that are of such deep concern to Americans?



Where I'm confused is what the hell did Bernie ever do afterwards?

Or, for that matter, now that the US-led coalition is again dropping bombs on Iraq, where the hell is Bernie?


Oh, wow, in 2002, he spoke out?

I did too, Berns.

And I've spent my time since continuing to protest this ongoing illegal war.

What have you done, Bernie?

Ignored veterans issues -- as Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee -- to promote acupuncture?


Wow.

What a proud moment for you, as a scandal was killing veterans, you were off pimping your pet projects.


Since August of 2014, Barack Obama's 'answer' for the crises in Iraq has been to drop bombs.


Today, the US Defense Dept announced:
Attack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 18 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the government of Iraq:
-- Near Baghdadi, one strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
-- Near Bayji, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units, destroyed an ISIL fighting position, and denied ISIL access to terrain.
-- Near Fallujah, one strike destroyed an ISIL anti-air artillery piece and an ISIL tactical vehicle.
-- Near Kisik, one strike suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun position.
-- Near Mosul, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Ramadi, seven strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL trench, three separate ISIL vehicle borne improvised explosive devices, two ISIL front-end loaders, an ISIL building, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL tactical vehicle, an ISIL home-made explosives cache, denied ISIL access to terrain and wounded an ISIL fighter.
-- Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed and ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Tal Afar, one strike struck and destroyed an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Waleed, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.



What's Bernie's response to that?


Hillary voted for the Iraq War and she's never addressed that.

She's offered mealy mouthed statements when pressed in public and her ghost written book offered a laughable account.

But she's never been held accountable for what she supported, for what she wanted.

The US is deeply in debt because of the Iraq War.


As for her change in positions, it's possible that she has had a change of heart.

I doubt it.

And it doesn't really matter.

She's pandering.

Bill Clinton pandered too.

But the difference was, he stood by what he said.

Hillary never does.


She offers promises and she never keeps them.

We'll address one in the next snapshot (one on Iraq).

But with the debate looming, it's a good time to remember what Carly says in "People Say A Lot," "Well it's a full time job to be a hypocrite."

Moving over to Iraq, Reuters reports that the Speaker of the Kurdish Parliament, Yousif Mohammed, was prevented from entering Sulaimaniyah -- where protests have been taking place by KRG government employees (including teachers) who are not being paid.  Reuters notes that Mohammed is a member of Goran (Change -- political party) and that the Kurdistan Democratic Party (the head of which is KRG President Massoud Barzani) have accused Goran of statements that have incited violence.



Let's deal with the issue of the KRG presidency first.


Massoud Barzani's ongoing presidency  remains a source of conflict.  The president of the KRG has been president for as long as the Constitution allows plus two years that the Kurdish Parliament voted to allow him (the vote took place in 2013).

Sunday, Goran (Change) joined the critics by insisting that he was fighting for personal power (in his fight to continue as president) and not fighting for the Kurdish people.

The PUK has made similar charges but are less easy to take seriously. (For example, Saturday  All Iraq News reported that PUK MP Farhad Qadir is insisting that the issue of who will be president of the Kurdistan Regional Government has been blocked by the KDP.)

Just as Barzani (and his family) control the KDP, Jalal Talabani's family controls the PUK (the current president of Iraq, Fuad Masum, like Jalal, is from the PUK party).

Goran is supposed to be the party of change.

Created with CIA seed money and assistance, the party emerged from nowhere and yet managed to replace the PUK as the second most popular party in the KRG.


The two-year extension came out of the June 30, 2013 meeting and perhaps it was foreshadowing that the session of the Kurdish Parliament erupted in violence with MPs fighting one another?

Barzani wants to remain president.

It's hard to see how he thinks that possible.

The above opinion was voiced earlier and resulted in over 200 e-mails accusing me of "turning on" (to cite one popular phrase) Massoud Barzani.

I haven't "turned on" anyone.

We're the critic here, we're not a fan newsletter.

Barzani, my opinion, is a more effective leader than Jalal Talabani ever could be.

Which is why he should step down.  Jalal was too clingy and refused to step down when a stroke left him unable to do his job.  For over a year, he hid out in Germany and clung to the presidency.  He's part of the reason Iraq fell apart.

Massoud Barzani should show the leadership that Jalal refused to.

If you've agreed to step down -- as was the case when the two year extension was voted on -- then you need to keep your word.

He can attempt to rally people to support his son, the current prime minister, for the job and I wouldn't say anything.

But for him to try to hold onto a position he agreed to vacate?

Barzani has been a very strong leader.

I can understand him or his supporters being nervous because the KRG is in a delicate position currently.

I don't believe a Talabani could rescue the KRG and feel, based on Jalal's past weakness, that they'd probably make things worse for the KRG.

But the next president could be a Barzani (just not Massoud) or a member of Goran or from some other political party.

Massoud Barzani has accomplished a great deal which is another reason he needs to step down.  He should not allow his legacy -- which is strong -- to be turned into "The Man Who Didn't Know When To Leave."


Loveday Morris (Washington Post) sums up the issues as follows:

At the center of the crisis is a political standoff between the dominant Kurdish Democratic Party, or the KDP, and the rival Movement for Change, or Gorran. The KDP accuses Gorran of fomenting a week of violent protests in which KDP offices have been attacked and at least five people have been killed. Gorran, in turn, says the KDP has flouted the democratic process to stay in power.

The Kurdish leadership also is struggling to maintain internal stability as a crippled economy has delayed salary payments to government employees and discontent is mounting. Meanwhile, the legitimacy of Iraqi Kurdistan’s leadership is also under question, with President Masoud Barzani accused of illegally extending his term after it expired in August.


Violence continued in Iraq today -- the US coalition continued bombing the countryside, for example.  In addition:























    • New content at Third:









    iraq 



    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, October 11, 2015

    The Originals returns White, White and more White BlackActorsMatter#

    And color me unimpressed.

    Rebekah's the damn White girl for the whole damn episode due to flashbacks.

    Let me be really clear to the White White show, they need people of color and 2 African-American males ain't gonna cut it.

    They decided to set the show in New Orleans, not me.

    New Orleans is 60.2% African-American.

    Everytime I turned around there was White actress Claire Holt in yet another scene -- you know, the liar who left the show lying -- lying about her family needing her -- because she thought she was going to be Supergirl.  But CBS cast someone else and now Claire's lying ass wants to come back to The Originals -- after an actress of color got cast in the part as her replacement.

    Forget it.

    There were 27 actors playing main roles on Wednesday's episode.

    Three were people of color.

    Kiss my Black ass, you racist show.

    Cracker Claire Holt had more scenes as Rebkah than did Maisie Richardson-Sellers who is the present day Rebekah.  They gave the Cracker more flashback scenes than they gave the actress of color playing Rebekah today.


    Now let me repeat for the RACIST MOFOS at The Originals, New Orleans is over 60% African-American (and they 30.5% Anglo White population) so what the hell was the point of adding two new characters (a detective and one of Klaus's sires) when they were both White?

    Cracker says what?

    You want to appeal to all viewers, stop being so damn White or move your show to Iowa where it's over 90% White -- just like your damn cast.

    And here's the other news: The episode sucked.

    It was the worst episode of The Originals I have ever seen.

    Too much whining, too much 'slow reveal' blah, blah, blah.

    If there's one character we cared about it's Hayley.

    And waiting until nearly the end to reveal that she's alive (and Davina's trapped her to get her to do something for her) was beyond bulls**t.

    But the whole episode was b.s. as we got stuck with all the nonsense of the sire showing up and bringing a psychic (a woman -- White, of course).

    This was the worst episode ever.

    And I waited all summer for this show to return.

    It wasn't the Big Easy, it was the Big Yawn.



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

     
    Saturday, October 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the PUK political party appears willing to stir up and incite in the KRG, Congress discusses the Ashraf community, concern is expressed over exactly how long Haider al-Abadi will remain prime minister of Iraq, and much more.



    Wednesday, former US Senator Joe Lieberman declared, "I will just say briefly that the very fact of this hearing is important today because the greatest because the greatest enemy of the people in Camp Liberty is invisibility."

    What was talking about?

    The Ashraf community.


    Background:  As of September 2013, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of 2013, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1, 2013 -- two years ago.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported back then that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.


    Those in Iraq remain persecuted.

    Lieberman was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday (we covered part of the hearing in the Wednesday's Iraq snapshot).  Senator John McCain is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jack Reed is the Ranking Member.  Lieberman was one of three witnesses appearing before the Committee.  The other two were  retired US Gen James Jones  and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.

    The topic was the Ashraf community still trapped in Iraq at Camp Liberty.



     Senator Jeanne Shaheen: [. . . ] and to our witnesses for testifying to what I also believe is a travesty and that we have not lived up to the commitments that we have made to the people who are now at Camp Liberty.  I was in Iraq back in 2009 and we heard about this issue.  And I've had a chance to see the video -- a video of one of the attacks on Camp Liberty and the people being murdered.  So I think it's an area where we need to do much more to address what has happened there.  And I don't understand why people who have relatives here are not able to come and join their relatives and be resettled in America.  So I guess I appreciate that I'm asking you all for a subjective analysis of why the resettlement has been so slow.  But is it just beauractric foot dragging?  Is it because it has not risen to the level of some of the people at State who can make it happen to put pressure on Iraq to release the residents of Camp Liberty?  Or is there something else going on?  And General Jones or Senator Lieberman, I don't know if either of you have a perspective on that?

     General James Jones: Senator, I don't know the answer to that.  All I know is that for the last several years, things that look like they're finally going to move are replaced by another obstacle. The-the delisting of the MEK [a decision then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made under pressure from the US courts] would be the end of it but it was replaced by another listing [a  designation by the Dept of Homeland Security classifying the MEK as "third tier" -- a listing that is in violation of the court order served on then Secretary of State Clinton] -- that was, somewhat, in my view arbitrary.  But it has served to delay the process even more.  I don't think the Iraqi government has been particularly helpful.  They-they play cat and mouse with the residents.  Sometimes they deny food, they deny protection, they turn off the water, they don't take out the trash or garbage for days on end.  It's just a constant problem.  But I really think that the real answer is for someone in authority to just make a decision, "Enough, we're going to do the right thing.  We made a commitment to these people.  We didn't live up to it. It's time to finish it."  And I think it's that simple.  It's a humanitarian gesture. I frankly don't care what the Iranians think about this.  I think it's the right thing to do.

     Senator Jeanne Shaheen:  Senator Lieberman, one of the things I have heard from relatives of people at Camp Liberty that they're very concerned about is this requirement that they renounce MEK and concerned about what that might mean in the future and if somebody could use that and come back to address their ability to come back and live in the United States?  I've not had anybody explain that to me adequately why that is something people are being requested to do.  Have you had anybody explain to you why that's so important?

     Senator Joe Lieberman: I have not.  First, Senator Shaheen, let me thank you for the leadership that you've shown on this matter. You've been a real great advocate for the people in Camp Liberty and I know their families and friends appreciate it a lot.  This requirement of renouncing membership in an organization that is no longer considered a threat or a terrorist organization by any means -- and really there are questions of whether it should ever have been on the list of terrorist organizations seems to me to be very unAmerican.  It's like a -- it's a belief test. It seems contrary to the First Amendment.  And the truth is that there are a lot of people there in Camp Liberty who've had a long history with the MEK.  As I mentioned, they're-they're freedom fighters.  I mean, they were against the Shah [of Iran] for part of the revolution and then they turned against the Ayatollah because they replaced one dictatorship with a worse dictatorship.  So I have never -- to what extent members of Congress can to push the State Dept to explain that or really to rescind that because it's an unfair obstacle and you've made a good point: It's going to raise insecurity in the minds of people coming into the country that somehow this is going to come back three, four, five years from now and they may be subject to deportation. I-I would say to you, Senator King, the State Dept if they were here now would not question the promises made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and then Camp Liberty.



    Senator King?

    Lieberman was referring to an earlier and lengthy exchange that took place which included King noting that no one from the administration was present to testify.


    Senator Angus King: Several times you gentlemen used the term "the US made assurances," the term "solemn promise,""guarantee," and Col Martin, you mentioned a card.  What did that card say?  I'd like to know specifically: what assurances were delivered, by whom and when?

     Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir.  This was the protected persons status under the Geneva Convention.  And I have a copy of it.  If you give me a second, I can find it real quick.

     Senator Angus King: Well I'd like to know what is says.

     Colonel Wesley Martin:  Okay. 

     Senator Angus King: What I'm searching for here is what are the assurances specifically and who delivered them and when.  I think that's a fair question given that seems to be the premise of this discussion.

     Colonel Wesley Martin: "This card holder is protected person under the agreement of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Should the assigned person" uh, it's a little blurry "should an incident occur, we request that the person contact the [US] military police brigade."  And then it goes on the agreement that they made: "You are being offered your release from control and protection in exchange for your promise to comply with certain regulations."  And it clearly states they are protected, they will not be -- they will not be arrested, they will not be harmed.

     Senator Angus King: What did they have to do?

     Colonel Wesley Martin: And what they had to do, sir, is go ahead and sign an agreement --

     Senator Angus King: That's when they were moved from Ashraf to Liberty?

     Colonel Wesley Martin: No, sir. That was a whole set of different promises.  If I may, sir, Senator McCain, [holding clipped stack of papers], if I could, I'd like to make this submitted for the record.

     Senator Angus King: Well you can make it for the record but I want to know who made assurances -- 
    Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.

     Senator Angus King (Con't): -- and what those assurances were.  And saying they were protected person under the Geneva Convention isn't a promise that the US will take you in.  I just want to understand what the promise is that we're being urged to honor.

     Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  I understand.  The first one is they would be protected and they would remain at Camp Ashraf.  That was 2004. That was with the US State Dept in agreement with the United States Dept of Defense and [then-Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was the person that finally approved it -- but working with the State Dept.  The person that issued those cards, working with the Embassy, was US Brigadier General David Phillips --

     Senator Angus King: But it is your position that this Geneva Convention of being a protected person constitutes a solemn promise of the United States to look after these people indefinitely? 
    Senator Joe Lieberman: Part of this was -- correct me, Wes -- that these people gave up their arms.  They were disarmed.  And that was part of a post-Saddam [Hussein] policy in Iraq.  Gen Odierno was actually involved in some ways -- not at the higher level he ultimately reached -- but he was on the ground in these negotiations.  I'll tell you, Senator King, to me one of the most compelling -- I've had it happen two or three times -- most compelling moments in my own understanding -- or getting more understanding of what happened here was to hear leaders of the US military -- including Gen Phillips, but that includes people on up who were Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time standing up and saying at a public meeting, 'We made a promise to these people and we broke it.'  I mean -- 

     Senator Angus King: Well all I'm looking for was what was the promise, when was it made and who made it?  Perhaps you could submit that for the record?  That's what I'm interested in.

     Colonel Wesley Martin:  We can do that, sir.

     Senator Angus King: I'd appreciate it.

     Colonel Wesley Martin:  And matter of fact, I just did.

     Senator Angus King: The other -- the other piece that I want to follow up on is that I'm a little uncomfortable with this hearing because we don't have anyone here from the administration.  I'm old enough to realize that they're are always two sides to every story and you've made a very strong case.  In fact, the case is so strong, you have to wonder why isn't this -- what wasn't this taken care of some time ago?  And there must be some reason and I would like to hear -- perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could solicit the comments of the administration, the State Dept or the Dept of Homeland Security to determine why this hasn't been dealt with?  I'm just -- Again, I'm not taking any side here but I-I-I'm uncomfortable not hearing both sides of the situation.

     Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  If I may, Congressman Dana Roehbacher offered them the chance of what you speak of. I would be at the table along with Colonel Gary Marsh and a representative of the State Dept.  They refused. I would love to sit at a table in front of you ladies and gentlemen and go through the issues with the US State Dept.  Every time we have made that offer, they've refused.  Earlier your question was the promises, the series of promises, especially in 2012 from [Secretary of State's Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf] Dan Fried that these actions would be taken to get them out of harms way.  He came to us.  And General Jones was on the phone calls as well as myself, [former FIB Director] Louis Freeh, [former Pennsylvania] Governor [Tom] Ridge, [former Governor of Pennsylvania] Ed Rendall, [former Governor of Vermont] Howard Dean and many others -- and [retired General and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Hugh Shelton and others actually.  And 'we will do this, we will do this.'  And even one of the promises: "We're going to be out at that Camp on a continual basis."  And I have that one in writing in this packet.

     Senator Angus King: Well I understand.  And I understand that the circumstances have changed because of Iran's influence in Iraq at this moment and that that raises the level of, as you said, stress in this situation and, perhaps, urgency.  I fully understand that.  I just want to get some of the details and some of the background.  And I want to understand why -- if it's so obvious -- we should do this that it's not being done.  


    King's time had run out.  Committee Chair McCain attempted to clarify a point.


     Chair John McCain:  I will just mention, Senator, that we have been trying for years to get the State Dept to react -- correspondence, meetings -- every method that I know of besides a Congressional hearing -- to try to get this issue resolved and these people who are now in greater and greater danger what we promised them.  And, I've got to say Colonel Martin, you didn't exactly describe it.  That was in return for -- That guarantee was in return for their giving up their weapons and in giving up their weapons we said we would guarantee their safety and gave them, under the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn't mean anything other than that the United States used that as a rationale for guaranteeing their protection.  And it's been going on now for years and -- Go ahead, General, go ahead, please.
    Gen James Jones:  I just wanted to say that we have worked diligently with the administration on a regular basis, on a daily basis.  All of Colonel Martin's reports have been sent both to the National Security Council and the State Dept.  And there are three of us at the table but it's part of a larger group including six former Ambassadors, a former Director of the FBI, a former Attorney General, 8 five-star generals, one former Speaker of the House, four former governors, six members of Congress, one White House Chief of Staff, 



    Some may have been bothered by McCain's clarification/lecture. But at least it wasn't like his September 29th outburst during an Armed Services Committee hearing when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was not prepared to get too outraged (publicly, anyway) over cyber propaganda aimed at US (or 'US' -- most are offshore) companies when the US is doing the exact same thing.  This prompted a loud lecture from McCain that "glass houses" is not an argument for doing nothing.  (Which, for the record, is not the point Clapper was making.  He was attempting to say both sides engage in corporate espionage and he wasn't willing to grandstand on the topic as a result.)

    One of the moments from the hearing that should especially be noted?


     Colonel Wesley Martin:  [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-]Abadi, as I mentioned before, is very weak.  And this is a golden opportunity for the United States to pressure him into allowing the residents to leave and for us to bring all the residents here. As I mentioned, there are enough families throughout the United States, we can absorb all of them. And when you think of all the torment and all the horror  they have had to go through for the past three, four years especially --  well since 2009 -- and yet they still remain loyal hoping that we will be able to do something to lift them out of that tyranny.  It's time to bring them out.  And it's only a matter of time before the fight between [former Iraqi prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-]Maliki and al-Abadi is going to come to a head.  And I fear Maliki has the strong support of the militias, Abadi will be out.


    On the struggle between Haider and Nouri, J. Matthew McInnis (National Interest) offered this near the end of last month:


    Following Abadi’s August 9 decision to eliminate Nouri al-Maliki’s position as vice president (which still needs judicial approval), Maliki made a well-publicized visit to Iran, meeting with Supreme Leader Khamenei’s senior foreign policy advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati and other Iranian officials. The prime minister is rightly worried that Tehran is plotting a Maliki restoration, perhaps by using the Iranian-aligned Iraqi Shia militia groups under Soleimani, such as Khataib Hezbollah, that are deepening their grip on large parts of the Iraqi’s security forces amidst the government’s campaign against ISIS.


    The violence never ends in Iraq.




  • 2h2 hours ago
    | Sunni Iraqi Preacher Abdelmalek al-Saadi: Iraqi fleeing Sunni cities in not from Daesh only but also from coalition missiles
    7 retweets 4 favorites





    • In addition, AP reports that a Husseiniya car bombing left 8 people dead and "nearly two dozen" injured. Isabel Coles (Reuters) notes 3 people are dead in the third day of protests in the Kurdistan Region which also saw "several offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)" torched.

    The KDP and Goran (Change) are the two main political parties in Iraq following the last KRG elections.  The once might Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has slid to three.  That slide may be why the PUK is making statements that seemed time to inflame the outrage (which is over the lack of payment of government employees -- as a result of Baghdad continuing to withhold the KRG's percentage of the national budget).  All Iraq News reports that PUK MP Farhad Qadir is insisting that the issue of who will be president of the Kurdistan Regional Government has been blocked by the KDP.



    Not all protests have turned violent.  Outside of the KRG, the Friday protests continued.
















    • Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, October 8, 2015

    Disgusting

    Closet case Jim Hightower.

    Is there nothing more ridiculous than an elderly gay man who won't come out of the closet?

    How about this?

    A gay man who thinks he can look 'manly' by attacking a woman.

    He's all over Carly what's her name who's trying for the GOP presidential nomination in his latest 'column' (he really can't write).

    Does she stand any chance of winning the GOP nomination?

    No.

    But he focuses on her because he wants to pretend he's 'manly.'

    I'm so sick of closet cases and all the self-hatred they carry which they tend to aim at others.

    (I've been an out lesbian since I was a young teenager, FYI.)



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

     
    Wednesday, October 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, claims are treated as fact by the ridiculous NBC News and AFP, Hillary continues to pretend that the 2008 SOFA is the responsibility of Bully Boy Bush (no, it's her responsibility as well and Barack's and Joe's and . . .) and we're going to start calling out 'fact checkers' who lie about what took place in 2008, the US Senate holds a hearing on Iraq with a focus on the Ashraf community, and much more.



    NBC News insists, "Iraqi military plans to retake the city of Ramadi from ISIS militants for the first time in months, officials said."  AFP quotes Anbar Council Member insisting, "If operations continue at this pace, I expect the liberation of Ramadi to be possible by the end of the month."


    Oh, what wonderful propaganda that almost makes the months long effort to retake Ramadi (begun in May) seem like it might be a success soon.

    Almost.

    Let's drop back to Alice Fordham report for NPR's Morning Edition (link is text and audio  and transcript) yesterday:


    FORDHAM: That's Army Colonel Lawrence al Issawi. He says they're holding ground but aren't strong enough to actually push ISIS back. A major offensive was expected four months ago to take back the provincial capital, Ramadi. I ask defense minister Khalid al Obeidi in Baghdad why that never happened.
    KHALID AL OBEIDI: (Speaking Arabic).
    FORDHAM: He tells me, "we can't lose any more soldiers," and, "you endanger civilians by going in before your forces are ready." But he won't say when they might be ready, although Iraqi officials cite a dire financial situation and massive corruption in the military as obstacles to fighting ISIS. To get an idea of what's going to be needed, I meet a soldier who's been fighting close to Ramadi.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).
    FORDHAM: He won't give his name because he's afraid of his commanders but tells me it's not like the government or coalition isn't doing anything. He recently had American training, and they armed his unit, too.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) They transfer us to Ramadi. We spent two days there. We liberated from 30 to 40 kilometers.
    FORDHAM: Liberated the outskirts from ISIS, that is. And following heavy casualties, reinforcements arrived. But he says the officers are still a problem.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).
    FORDHAM: They take bribes to let people go on leave and flee themselves as soon as the battle heats up. Food and water are scarce. Plus, he too says ISIS just has way more men and weapons and uses devastating car bombs in battle.
    How long do you think before Ramadi is retaken?

    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) Ramadi retaken will last from seven to eight years.


    AFP's really been an embarrassment when it comes to reporting or 'reporting' from Iraq for some time now.



    Let's stay with cheap liars long enough to note the ongoing disgrace that is Hillary Clinton.


    BBC News reports the craven and cranky candidate is firing back at Jeb Bush -- Bush is trying to win the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination, Cranky feels she's owed the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination:


    On Tuesday Mr Bush accused the Obama administration of a "premature withdrawal" of US forces from Iraq in 2011, with "grievous" costs.
    Mrs Clinton replied by saying it was Mr Bush's brother George W Bush who, as president, negotiated a US withdrawal.



    Barack attempted to do another Status Of Forces Agreement to keep US troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (and they actually were but can't continually waste time spoon feeding the stupid and uninformed -- Ted Koppel attempted to in real time on both NPR and NBC).


    In 2014, Katie Sanders (PolitiFact) noted ABC News' Martha Raddatz:

    Martha Raddatz, ABC’s chief global affairs correspondent, was wearing her TV pundit hat when she said Allen’s idea for a strategy "makes me think back about what the Obama administration originally wanted."

    "They wanted 10,000 troops to remain in Iraq -- not combat troops, but military advisers, special operations forces, to watch the counterterrorism effort," she said. "So perhaps they'd go that way, but it would be a tough one."



    She evaluated Raddatz' remarks and concluded:
    Raddatz said the Obama administration originally "wanted 10,000 troops to remain in Iraq -- not combat troops, but military advisers, special operations forces, to watch the counterterrorism effort."
    For a period, at least, the Obama administration did envision leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31, 2011, pullout of forces. That number went down to about 5,000 before negotiations stalled amid a legal snare over immunity of American forces in Iraqi courts.

    Her claim is accurate but needs additional information. We rate her claim Mostly True.



    Now let's deal with an issue -- a fact -- that PolitiFact and other fact checkers have repeatedly ignored.

    Cranky Clinton likes to say Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA.

    It was his deal, she and other cheap trash insist.



    I'm sorry, I didn't join the Cult of St. Barack so I never took an oath to lie for him.



    So in my best Cher "Follow This You Bitches" manner . . .

    Here's reality that cheap trash doesn't tell you.

    The SOFA is a treaty.

    The Iraqi Parliament voted on it and approved it.

    All US treaties must be approved by the US Senate.

    Senator Hillary Clinton was among the first to point that out and campaigned -- in 2008 -- on the promise that she would demand a Senate vote on any SOFA.


    As the rudderless and leaderless Barack so often did in 2008, he copied Hillary.

    He made that a promise as well.

    Joe Biden, while Hillary and Barack were going back and forth, had already dropped out of the campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party's presidential nomination.


    But he also was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    We covered the April 10, 2008 hearing he chaired -- did anyone else?  Again, follow this, you bitches.


    Joe told the Bush State Dept witnesses that the treaty would require Senate confirmation.


    And when Joe joined Barack's campaign as his running mate, the campaign promised on their website that any treaty would require a vote by the Senate.


    Hillary was a senator when the treaty went through (Thanksgiving Day, 2008).  So was Barack.  So was Joe.

    Where was the damn vote?

    There was no vote.


    If Hillary's unhappy -- she's always unhappy, look at the corners of her mouth, it's the mouth of a person whose had a miserable life -- she needs to put on her big girl panties and take a hard look in the mirror.


    Saying Bully Boy Bush negotiated the treaty?


    That's one half of the damn story.


    The other half is that Hillary, Barack, Joe and so many others broke their public promise to demand a Senate vote.


    And please note, I can also list Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2008 who publicly stated the Senate would have to vote.


    Instead, they rolled over.


    So the reality is that this is the treaty that Bully Boy Bush (by action) and Democrats like Hillary (by inaction) pushed through.


    Stop pretending otherwise.


    From nonsense to reality . . .


    Retired Col Wesley Martin shared today, "I remember back in the seventies, there used to be this little cartoon of a pair of goldfish in a blender and they're in the water.  And there's this little button for the blender -- they're waiting for it to be turned on. And one  goldfish says to the other, 'I can't handle the stress.'  That's what it reminds me of, for the residents."


    He was offering testimony on the Ashraf community moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty and still not resettled outside of Iraq.

    For a more detailed view, we'll note this.


    Senator Jack Reed: This morning, our hearing focuses on Iranian influence in Iraq and the plight of the nearly 2,400 residents at Camp Liberty in Iraq -- members of the Iranian dissident group the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq or MEK. The Iranian dissidents at Camp Liberty are in an increasingly perilous situation having repeatedly come under attack.  And these attacks, which have killed more than 100 MEK members since 2009, clearly indicate the threat to this group from Iran and Iranian-backed militias seeking to eliminate and silence these dissidents.  The deteriorating security situation in Iraq only highlights the urgent need to find safe refuge for these individuals outside that country.  The United States have had a special relationship with the MEK dating back to the height of the Iraq War in the mid 2000s.  This stems in part from the MEK's agreement at the US military's request to disarm and move into Camp Ashraf in north eastern Iraq.  The US military extended under the Geneva Conventions to the Camp Ashraf residents.  However, as the United States drew down its forces consistent with its obligations under the 2008 security agreements signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, US forces were no longer well positioned to provide for the safety and security of the Camp Ashraf residents.  In December of 2011, the government of Iraq signed a memorandum with the United Nations in which the Iraq government committed to ensure the safety and the security of these residents as part of the process of relocating them to Camp Liberty outside Baghdad to facilitate the settlement process.  However, the United States, through the State Dept, has had to repeatedly press the government of Iraq to live up to its obligations to provide for the safety and well being of the Camp Liberty residents and Camp Liberty residents remain in fear that the government of Iraq will extradite them to Iran at Tehran's request. The State Dept now is the lead US government agency advocating on behalf of the Camp Liberty residents. And the State Dept is working the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to find resettlement options for these residents outside of Iraq. It is my understanding that as of the beginning of this month, nearly 800 Camp Liberty residents have been processed by the UNHCR and resettled outside of Iraq.  Unfortunately, this resettlement process has dragged on for years and much more still needs to be done to find homes for the remaining Camp Liberty residents. I would urge all participants in the resettlement process to cooperate fully to advance the resettlement of these very vulnerable individuals.  One issue that I expect will arise this morning is whether the United States should accept more Camp Liberty residents for resettlement.  While the MEK was removed from the list of foreign terrorists organizations in 2012, group members continue to be barred from admission to the United States because of their Tier Three status under US anti-terrorism laws.  Nonetheless, I understand that the administration has adopted a policy that would allow Camp Liberty residents to be paroled in the United States if they renounce their affiliation with the MEK.  Under this policy, some 29 Camp Liberty residents have ultimately resettled in the United States making the United States one of the larger recipient countries for these refugees.  I hope the testimony of our witnesses this morning will help shine a light on what more can be done to accelerate the resettlement process so that the residents of Camp Liberty can be brought to safety outside of  Iraq once and for all.

    Senator Reed was speaking at this morning's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  He is the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator John McCain is the Committee Chair.  The witnesses appearing before the Committee were retired US Gen James Jones, former US Senator Joe Lieberman and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.



    "We wouldn't be sitting here today,"  Gen James Jones declared, "if we'd just had an airlift.  The, uh, there's just some other points I think are outrageous.  The officers -- the Iraqi officers that led the attack on Camp Ashraf and killed -- are responsible for the killing of women and children -- are the ones responsible for dealing with Camp Liberty today. And you talk about an insult?  Adding insult to injury? It's incredible.  And I just -- I just find it unbelievable that this problem has not been resolved three or four years ago.


    Noting the Albanian government specifically for taking in a large number of residents, Jones wanted to clarify a point, "By the way the cost for relocation is being born by the MEK.  It's not being born by us, it's not being born by the UN.  Money's been allocated.  I forget the number, but it's [amount whispered to him] $20 million of their funds to relocate their wives, their sisters, their brothers, their family members and their colleagues."

    Senator Thom Tillis also wanted to clarify a point.

     Senator Thom Tillis: I want to be clear then.  So they're living in horrible conditions every day, worrying about whether or not they're going to be alive the following day.   And these are people who peacefully disarmed --

     Col Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.

     Senator Thom Tillis (Con't):  -- and protected American soldiers when we came into Iraq.  And we made a promise that we would take care of them.

     Col Wesley Martin:  That is correct, sir.


    Let's stay with clarification a bit more.

     Senator Joe Manchin: Let me ask another -- and, Gen Jones, this might be to you. In your testimony, you cited the three most lethal events occurred in 2009 to 2013 during prime minister Maliki's time in office.  Since Prime Minister Abadi took office in 2014, have there been any changes in the situation in Camp Liberty when it comes to the security or resettlement?  Have you seen any changes?

     Gen James Jones:  Uhm, I'd defer to Wes for the details but, uhm, uh, I think the attacks have been less -- lessened.  But the fact that the Iraqi military who are regularly in the camp are still the ones who conducted the raids in previous years -- and the killings -- is indicative of the kind of pressure that they want to keep on the citizens in the camp.  Wes, you may have more details?

     Senator Joe Manchin:  Has it improved is what I'm asking?

     Col Wesley Martin:  It hasn't improved and --

     Senator Joe Manchin:  It has not?

     Col Wesley Martin:  It has not.  And it has not deteroriarted.  They're still in that blender [70s comic reference, noted earlier] waiting for that button to be pushed.  Abadi.  He's the prime minister. But he's in a very precarious position because Maliki still controls Dawa [political] party, Maliki still has the ear of Tehran and, as you recall, Maliki was forced out only after ISIS took over major parts of the country.  Both, uh, the Ayatollah in Iran and President Obama were blessing him for a third term which was against the Constitution -- the Iraqi Constitution -- but he was force out when [Iranian] General [Qassem] Soleimani went to him and said, "You have to step down."  And then a member of his Dawa party was brought up. Abadi has made a lot of great promises.  There are demonstrations going on throughout Iraq.  He's drawing the support of them. [C.I. note: That's what the western press largely says, it is not, however, the truth.  The protesters are clear that they do not feel Abadi's doing anything other than offering empty promises.]  He's drawing the support of, uh, [Grand] Ayatollah [Ali al-]Sistani. And surprisingly he's drawing the support of the Mahdi army with Moqtada al-Sadr.

     Senator Joe Manchin:  I have another one.  This is a most difficult question.  It's when the State Dept de-listed the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 2012, it stated, "The Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's past acts of terrorism including its involvement with the killings of US citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on US soil in 1992.  The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members."  How has the MEK addressed the concerns raised about potential abuse of its own members since the de-listing, sir?

     Col Wesley Martin: Since the de-listing, it hasn't needed to be addressed.  In this same document that [former] Governor [Tom] Ridge provided Senator McCain -- I'll get you a copy of it -- I addressed that thoroughly. I investigated those -- when I was the Base Commander military policeman -- I went and investigated those allegations of abuse and along with a lot of other allegations.  They were unfounded.  What I found, while I was there, and since then, the MEK is the most lied to and --

     Senator Joe Manchin:  Is the State Dept corrected its findings?

     Col Wesley Martin:  No, sir. This report [the Ridge one] was generated when [the State Dept's] Julia Frifield sent to Congressman [Ed}] Royce a repetition of the previous lies and all the omissions. 


    We'll leave that aspect there -- I've not read Ridge's report.  I'm comfortable sharing what Martin testified to that he saw but the discussion of a report (that I've not read) isn't something I'm eager to get stuck on.  We will note that the report was a response to claims of abuse and the report states no abuse took place.



    I'm not a Joe Lieberman fan but we're not ignoring him.  We'll note a section of his testimony in the next snapshot.


    For now, we'll close this snapshot's coverage of the hearing by noting the reference to recently reported comments and developments.


    Chair John McCain: A Shi'ite leader was quoted yesterday as saying that the United States air strikes were ineffective so therefore they needed the Iranian and the Russian assistance.  What-what-what is your assessment of the Iranian influence now in Iraq and how it may more endanger the lives and welfare of the residents of the Camp?

     Gen James Jones: Sir, my -- as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, I was present when the former King of Saudi Arabia issued his warning about then-prime minister Maliki which was proven to be correct.  It was my hope that the new prime minister and the leader of Iraq would -- would have shown more appreciation for the sacrifice that was made on behalf of his country by the United States.  I-I think that such statements are not only insulting to our commitment but also just show-show how deeply the Iranian influence has, uh, permeated the, uh, Baghdad, the capital of Iraq and it's leadership.  Unfortunately.

     Chair John McCain: Suppose that the Russians begin air attacks in Iraq.  What-what-what -- One, what does that mean?  And, two, what should the United States reaction be?

     Gen James Jones:  Well the United -- in my view, it means, uh, unless-unless the Russians, uh, agree to join the, uh, the international, uh, coalition and cooperate under the air tasking orders and, uh, and bring a certain military competence in coordination to the fore, you run the risk of having chaos in the skies. Uhm, the United States, with all -- with all due respect, the United States should do everything in its power, I think, to avert that situation and to make sure that what's happening in Syria does not happen in the skies over Iraq regardless of whether the prime minister welcomes the addition of the Russians. 

     Chair John McCain:  But he does have a point about the effectiveness of the air campaign against ISIS.

     Gen James Jones:  Yes, it-it does in the sense that the United States has made its decision as to what it's going to do.  My understanding is that we're re-looking at our commitment and we'll hopefully ramp it up a bit more.  As you know, my personal belief is that the longest road to victory here is, uh, is purely an air campaign, uhm, but if that's all that we have, we ought to make it a massive air campaign.

     Chair John McCain: Didn't we learn in a campaign that you and I were long ago engaged [Vietnam] that incrementalism doesn't work and air campaigns alone doesn't work?
    Gen James Jones:  That's correct.















    Posted by at No comments:

    Tuesday, October 6, 2015

    Hillary versus Joe

    Before anything else, remember The Originals returns on The CW Thursday night with new episodes. 

    The Daily Mail reports:


    In public, Hillary Clinton is staying calm, cool and collected about a potential Joe Biden run, but in private those working to elect the first female president have already gotten busy.
    A team of pro-Clinton opposition researchers are digging through Biden's many years of public service to find political kryptonite, according to New York Magazine. 
    This news comes after Clinton told John Dickerson on CBS' Face the Nation that her campaign wasn't doing anything to prepare for a Biden candidacy.


    My own take?

    If you think Hillary's polls have plunged, wait until she or her surrogates go after Joe Biden.

    Biden's not a hero but he's immensely more likable than Hillary and this will only increase her negatives.

    Attacks on Biden will only result in more scorn and hatred aimed at Clinton.

    Joe's got so much more going for him than Hillary does and that includes a sympathy factor.

    So will she slash and burn?

    If he declares, she will because she's always her worst enemy.



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


     
    Tuesday, October 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Tony Blair lies again, Alice Fordham and NPR offer some truth telling, and much more.


    War Criminal Tony Blair emerged from beneath the rock he's been living to impart some of the stupidity and blood lust that's condemned him to his own personal hell.


    Jewish News reports of Blair:



    Speaking to Rabbi David Wolpe  – named the most influential rabbi in America by Newsweek magazine – the former prime minister, said: “We can apologise for the mistakes, but in the end we got rid of Saddam Hussein… Once you get rid of the tyrants, you get competition between Islamists and more moderate groups.”


    Saddam Hussein is gone, War Criminal Tony Blair remains -- though Arrest Blair might be able to address that.

    Saddam Hussein's actions and crimes did not lead Iraq to the brink of extinction.

    Tony Blair's actions -- along with Bully Boy Bush's actions and John Howard's action -- destroyed Iraq.

    He seems to think that as long as he points to Saddam, his own guilt vanishes.

    It doesn't work that way.

    And destruction is not a 'mistake.'  It's a crime.

    Lies used to launch a war also don't go to character or nobility.

    Tony Blair's a cheap thug who should stand trial at the Hague.

    And Saddam Hussein was contained and not a threat to other nations.

    Just War theory allows for no war on Iraq.

    Tony's a criminal who wants to paint himself as a hero.

    It's not an identity the world's prepared to pin on him.

    His actions brought down the Labour Party in England.

    He's despised around the globe.

    And every time he tries to lie his way out, it only reminds people just how much they loathe him.

    In fairness, others are also responsible for Iraq.

    That list includes Barack Obama.

    Liars and whores -- is there really a difference anymore -- work overtime to pretend otherwise.

    And they probably fool an ignorant American public that's depended on the US media -- which largely withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2008 -- to inform them of reality.


    At Huffington Post, Libertarian Doug Bandow, at best, sports ignorance, and, at worst, flat out lies:


    Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up. In 2007 U.S. military adviser Emma Sky wrote of the U.S. military's frustration "by what they viewed as the schemes of Maliki and his inner circle to actively sabotage our efforts to draw Sunnis out of the insurgency." Al-Qaeda in Iraq survived, mutating into the Islamic State. The Bush administration then became one of the Islamic State's chief armorers when Iraqi soldiers fled before ISIS forces, abandoning their expensive, high-tech weapons which U.S. aircraft had to destroy last year.
    Third, President Bush failed to win Iraqi approval of a continuing U.S. military presence and governing Status of Forces Agreement. With Americans ready to leave and Iraqis determined to move on, Bush planned an American exit. Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno explained: "us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. And that was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty." Indeed, while Republican candidates now treat this departure as a failure--Jeb Bush proclaimed "that premature withdrawal was the fatal error"--attempting to stay would have been much worse. Washington would have had leverage only by threatening to withdraw its garrison, which the Maliki government desired. U.S. troops would have had little impact on Iraqi political developments, unless augmented and deployed in anti-insurgency operations, which Americans did not support. And a continuing military occupation would have provided radicals from every sectarian viewpoint with a target. 



    First off, Odierno's comments conflict with others.  When a conflict occurs, you tend to go with the people who were actually in the room.  Odierno did not take part in the negotiations.  Brett McGurk, Condi Rice and others -- who were actually involved in the negotiations (this was a diplomatic effort, not a military one) -- have stated differently and they are correct.

    Not only were they in the room but their remarks are also accurate based on the public record.

    Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA for three years.  Why three years?

    It replaced the United Nations mandate.

    That provided the legal cover for the US troops to be in Iraq.

    The UN mandate had been a yearly agreement.

    At the end of 2006, Nouri signed off on it for another year.

    The Iraqi Parliament was furious.

    Nouri promised he would get their approval next time.

    At the end of 2007, he did not.

    It was becoming a political issue.

    For that reason, the agreement was a three year agreement.

    (And don't forget that Barack tried to extend it.)

    That's the reality.

    Reality is hard for Doug Barlow so he lies, "Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up."

    The ruthless targeting?

    You mean in 2010?

    After Nouri's secret torture prisons were exposed?

    But Barack, Joe Biden and Samantha Power demanded Nouri continue as prime minister?

    Even after Nouri lost the election to Ayad Allawi?

    Is that what liar Doug Bandow means?

    Is that what the cheap, little hustler means?

    I'm not seeing any world leaders with cleans hands when it comes to Iraq.


    I also think it's less than honest when Barlow cites Emma Sky's book --  The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq. -- and portrays Odierno as supporting US troops leaving at the end of 2011 when Sky notes on page 311, "He believed twenty thousand or so US troops were needed to say in Iraq in post-2011 to train Iraqi security forces and to provide the psychological support to maintain a level of stability.  He envisaged a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries."

    Doug Bandow will most likely get away with his lie because the American media has ignored Iraq and even should Emma Sky's book sell a million copies domestically -- and be hugely popular at public and school libraries -- it still won't reach most Americans.

    Charlie Rose has never brought Emma Sky on his program to discuss the book.

    In part because he can't handle the truths she tells and in part because he's so strongly anti-woman.

    In Canada, she can get on TV and radio.  Let's again note her August appearance on Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC).  Let's excerpt the section on the 2010 election -- when Barack's president and Nouri loses.  Wasn't Bully Boy Bush who "continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up" then.

    Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election.  They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence.  To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election.  And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats.  And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism.  And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

     Kevin Sylvester:  People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

     Emma Sky:  Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.  And Maliki refused to accept the results.  He just said, "It is not right."  He wanted a recount.  He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained.  And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.  And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do?  So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days.  And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

     Kevin Sylvester:   Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around.  What happened?

     Emma Sky:  Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there.  He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

     Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

     Emma Sky:  And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man.  Maliki's our friend.  Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.'  So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation.  And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki.  People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election."  So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him.  So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya.  They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement.  So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki.  And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.'  But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.  And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011.  So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

     Kevin Sylvester:  Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention?  Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something.  This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq.  How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?  Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.]  How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?
    Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 





    That's Barack, that's on Barack.

    Again, I don't believe any leader's hands are blood free when it comes to Iraq.

    I certainly don't believe Jill Stein's hands are blood free.

    She ran an embarrassing campaign in 2012 for president.  She was the Green Party nominee and she offered mild criticism of Barack but went after Mitt Romney (the GOP nominee) like crazy -- especially after Barack lost a debate to Mitt.


    She didn't run a campaign, she acted like the kid sister to the Democratic Party.


    As September drew to a close, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported that the US had just sent in a Special-Ops division into Iraq:

    Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.  



    Mitt and Barack were arguing over Iraq with each, frankly, lying through their teeth.

    Jill Stein didn't even raise the issue or point to the New York Times report to discredit or question Barack (or point out that Mitt was wrong in his charges).

    Jill was worthless, a lousy candidate.

    And she's another Hillary Clinton.

    She thinks she's owed the Green Party's 2016 nomination.

    And liars in the press help her.

    The Green Party will not select their nominee until the summer of 2016.

    She is among those running for the nomination.

    And her cult has done their best to pretend she has the nomination and bully other candidates into backing down.

    But she can't fight for anything but her own vanity.

    Where was Jill when Barack was bombing Libya?

    "Where was Jill?" should be the rallying cry of her opponents because she was never anywhere to be found.

    By contrast, I know where Cynthia McKinney was.

    She was publicly objecting to war on Libya.

    Looking at the state of Libya today, she was right.

    Cynthia was the 2008 Green Party presidential nominee and she is weighing rather or not to seek the nomination in 2016.

    Cynthia's a fighter, Jill's not.

    That probably goes a long, long way towards explaining all the fawning press Jill's been getting.


    That and the fact that she offers tidy bromides as opposed to penetrating analysis or real criticism.


    Where's her critique of Operation Inherent Failure, for example?


    Pravda notes, "According to Italian newspaper Corrierre della Sera, Italy will start bombing terrorists in Iraq in the next few hours. Italy will launch the operation only after all the details are coordinated with the US command."


    Jill's got no statement on Iraq at her website.


    She's got nothing.


    This as Alice Fordham reports today for NPR's Morning Edition (link is text and audio  and transcript)..

    Fordham sketches out an Iraq plagued by shortage of supplies -- not just guns for recruits but also boots --  and funds with Sunni tribes ready to fight but forced to the sidelines and Ramadi still held by the Islamic State.

    She quotes Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi expressing his disappointment over what the US has offered -- he thought it would be more.

    A key section of her report is this:


     FORDHAM:  To get an idea of what's going to be needed, I meet a soldier who's been fighting close to Ramadi.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).
    FORDHAM: He won't give his name because he's afraid of his commanders but tells me it's not like the government or coalition isn't doing anything. He recently had American training, and they armed his unit, too.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) They transfer us to Ramadi. We spent two days there. We liberated from 30 to 40 kilometers.
    FORDHAM: Liberated the outskirts from ISIS, that is. And following heavy casualties, reinforcements arrived. But he says the officers are still a problem.
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).
    FORDHAM: They take bribes to let people go on leave and flee themselves as soon as the battle heats up. Food and water are scarce. Plus, he too says ISIS just has way more men and weapons and uses devastating car bombs in battle.
    How long do you think before Ramadi is retaken?
    UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) Ramadi retaken will last from seven to eight years.




    Again, it's Operation Inherent Failure.

    People might try paying attention.

    The call for US troops to be sent into Iraq in larger numbers will only grow.  Those of us opposed to it now should be taking a stand now.


    The US State Dept issued the following today:


     Media Note
    Office of the Spokesperson
    Washington, DC
    October 6, 2015
    Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen arrived in Baghdad, Iraq today to meet with senior Iraqi government and security officials. During his meetings with Iraqi officials, General Allen will discuss the Coalition’s continued support for Iraqi-led efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL, as well as recent developments in the region.




    In some of today's violence, Alsumaria reports 2 dead in a Falluja clash, 2 corpses were discovered in the streets of Baghdad (dead from gunshot wounds), and an armed attack outside of Baghdad left a dentist dead.













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