Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Great Tweet

I've rarely, if ever, agreed with a Tweet more:

That first sentence alone should be a bumper sticker.

I'm taking this to Third Sunday as a possible Tweet of the Week.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Monday:

Monday, September 8, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, a UN official seems confused as to how Iraqi children die (Nouri could explain it to her, the executioner usually knows all), Haider al-Abadi has become the new Prime Minister of Iraq, a number disgrace themselves trying to scare the American people, and more.

Ban Ki-moon is the United Nations Secretary-General. Today, his office issued the following statement:

The Secretary-General welcomes today’s announcement of the formation of a new inclusive Government in Iraq and congratulates Haider al-Abadi on his confirmation as Iraq's Prime Minister. At this challenging moment for Iraq and the region, today's decision by the Iraqi Council of Representatives is a positive step towards political stability and peace in the country.
The Secretary-General calls on all Iraqi political leaders to build on the current momentum of collaboration to ensure that a decision is made without delay on the pending appointments of Minister of Defence and Minister of Interior.

The Secretary-General hopes that the ministerial programme approved today will be implemented in a timely manner, taking into account the needs of all Iraqi communities. The Secretary-General pays tribute to outgoing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for his leadership in this time of transition. The United Nations looks forward to working with the new Government of Iraq in its efforts to serve all Iraq's communities while confronting major challenges.

Also weighing in was US Secretary of State John Kerry. His statement included (click here for statement in full and to stream video of it):

SECRETARY KERRY: Good afternoon, everybody. Tonight we mark what is unquestionably a major milestone for Iraq, and what President Obama has made clear will be a cornerstone of our efforts against ISIL.
Just a few hours ago, overcoming the obstacle of ethnic and sectarian divides, the Iraqi parliament approved a new and inclusive government, one that has the potential to unite all of Iraq’s diverse communities for a strong Iraq, a united Iraq, and to give those communities the chance to build the future that all Iraqis desire and deserve.
Now is the time for Iraq’s leaders to govern their nation with the same vision and sense of purpose that helped to bring this new government together in the first place. And in that effort, they should know the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqis as they implement their national plan to overcome the longstanding political and economic grievances that have for too long divided their country.

Tonight Iraq has a unity government. Tomorrow I will travel to the Middle East to continue to build the broadest possible coalition of partners around the globe to confront, degrade, and ultimately defeat ISIL.

Anyone who's read this site for even a little bit should know that thug and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is someone who I feel did great harm to Iraq and bred the current crises in the country.

So I'm thrilled Nouri's gone -- officially. And here's another opinion on Nouri, Tim Arango of the New York Times:

The U.S. basically chose Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose sectarian politics alienated many Sunnis, creating the fertile ground for ISIS to sweep into these areas. And many of those Maliki policies that have pushed aside the Sunnis were started by the Americans. Excluding Sunnis from political life? That has its origins in the American de-Baathification policy. Mr. Maliki’s security policy of conducting mass arrests of Sunni men in the name of fighting terrorism? The U.S. did that too. So at every turn in the Iraq story now, you see the American legacy at play.

That's from an online conversation Tim Arango did with Reddit. Click here for full conversation.

While I'm glad Nouri is officially out, it's sad that the Iraqi Constitution has yet to be honored.

Haider al-Abadi's done better than anyone so far -- well, better than Nouri in 2006 and Nouri in 2010. But he didn't form a Cabinet -- that would mean a full Cabinet.

There is no Minister of Defense. There is no Minister of the Interior.

EFE notes that "the Defense and Interior portfolios will remain vacant due to disagreements regarding the candidates, said Al-Abadi, who will make new proposals to fill the posts to Parliament in a week."

That's not a full Cabinet.

The Constitution has one rule for how a person moves from prime minister-designate to prime minister: Form a Cabinet in 30 days.

Not a partial Cabinet.

People can pretend all they want.

I'm thrilled Nouri is not prime minister. But I'd be a hypocrite if I pretended the Constitution was being followed.

Credit to Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) for noting that the Cabinet is missing two posts:

But Abadi put off until next week a vote on the two top security posts after members of parliament complained that they knew little about his proposed defense minister, Khalid al Ubaidi, a Sunni who is a former military officer but about whom little else was known.
Abadi’s nominee as interior minister, Hadi al Ameri, also is likely to prove controversial. Ameri heads the Badr Organization, a Shiite militia group with close ties to Iran. When it was known as the Badr Brigades, the group fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and Ameri’s presence in such a sensitive position _ the Interior Ministry is responsible for Iraq’s police forces _ is likely to rankle many Sunnis.

The inability to successfully name people to the two posts wasn't surprising. Over ten hours before the 8:00 pm (Baghdad time) vote, Alsumaria reported a spokesperson for the Sadr bloc had announced that no vote would take place on the nominees for Minister of the Interior and for Minister of Defense.

Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr is the head of the Sadr bloc. When they make an announcement, it's always worth listening to. But if anyone doubted their power, on Sunday they blocked Ahmed Chalabi from becoming the Minister of Municipalities and Construction.

US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, treated the following:

Let's deal with Nouri.

We noted last week that he was up for one of the three posts of Vice President of Iraq. Over the weekend, a flurry of rumors insisted he was refusing the nomination -- some rumors even insisted his health was causing him to refuse.

When has Nouri ever refused a position of power?

Even so, Sunday found an unnamed "source" telling All Iraq News that Nouri "rejected to be within the governmental formation and also rejected to be within the three presidencies."

Nouri didn't refuse the nomination and, today, he was voted into office. National Iraqi News Agency reports the Parliament voted -- majority vote -- to name Nouri, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi to be the three vice presidents of Iraq.

In other news from today, National Iraqi News Agency reports former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari was named Foreign Minister. He's a Shi'ite. Hoshyar Zebari held the post for two terms. He is a Kurd and, this go round, he's now a Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq.

Let's move from the Iraqi Parliament over to the US Congress which will no doubt rush to provide legal cover for Barack's actions in Iraq. Patricia Zengerle and David Lawder (Reuters) report:

U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to pursue a military campaign against Islamic State without seeking special congressional authority now but lawmakers said on Monday they would probably approve any request he made for extra funding.
They said there was widespread support in Congress for attacks to stop the advance of the Sunni Islamist militant group, especially after the videotaped beheading of two American journalists by the Islamist group in the last three weeks.

Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) add, "Top House Republican aides said Monday night that based on conversations with White House aides, they do not expect Obama to seek formal authorization. Top House GOP leaders also do not expect to be bringing any such legislation to the floor in the coming days, said the aides, who asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter."

The White House issued the following statement today:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 08, 2014

Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Regarding Iraq

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

As I reported on August 8 and 17 and on September 1, 2014, U.S. Armed Forces have conducted targeted airstrikes in Iraq for the limited purposes of stopping the advance on Erbil by the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), supporting civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar, supporting operations by Iraqi forces to recapture the Mosul Dam, and supporting an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the town of Amirli, Iraq.

On September 6, 2014, pursuant to my authorization, U.S. Armed Forces commenced targeted airstrikes in the vicinity of the Haditha Dam in support of Iraqi forces in their efforts to retain control of and defend this critical infrastructure site from ISIL. These additional military operations will be limited in their scope and duration as necessary to address this threat and prevent endangerment of U.S. personnel and facilities and large numbers of Iraqi civilians.

I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. These actions are being undertaken in coordination with and at the request of the Iraqi government. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the

Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Congress, if the record of the last sixty or so years hold, will vote to back Barack if asked to do so. There would be some criticism but most would go along.

The way Dianne Feinstein always does. Kristina Wong (The Hill) reports:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote in an op-ed published Monday that the United States "must lead an aggressive, international effort to confront and eliminate" the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that includes sustained airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote in USA Today that the threat posed by ISIS to the U.S. "cannot be overstated."

Oh, Dianne, I think it can be overstated and, clearly, it can even be overstated by you.

Just last week, someone who presumably would know the power and reach of the Islamic State offered a different assessment than Dianne. RIA Novosti reported:

Speaking at a Brookings Institution Intelligence Project event, US Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen said this Wednesday that despite the growing strength of ISIS, there is no evidence of a direct threat to the continental United States.
“At this point, we have no credible information that ISIS is planning to attack the United States,” Olsen told attendees.
Olsen noted that despite the IS’s growing threat to US interests, Al-Qaeda remains the most serious terror threat, given its global presence.

If someone could stop Dianne from running in circles and re-attach her head to her body, she might grasp what Olsen was saying.

Crazy Dianne should be in a rest home enjoying her final years. Instead, her faltering memory and diminished capacities go unnoticed by most of the public and won't be remarked on by the media unless/until she angers one of the big money lobbies she has made her career bowing too.

Not everyone's so stupid. Senator Mark Udall told the truth. His thanks?

CNN's Ashley Killough reports he's had to apologize for a statement:

In his statement Monday, Udall said his "intent was to emphasize the importance of taking the right next steps as we confront this serious threat."
Udall, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, also has received criticism for arguing that ISIS is not "an immediate threat to the homeland."
His views are at odds with a majority of the country. According to a new CNN/ORC International poll, seven in 10 Americans believe ISIS has the resources to launch an attack against the U.S.

I can't endorse Mark for re-election because my rule is I don't endorse anyone I can't vote for. I live in California so Colorado really doesn't need to know who I'd vote for. They'll make up their own minds as they should.

But I can say, on the apology, that's nonsense. It's a nonsense issue being used to attack Mark.

And in Colorado or outside of Colorado, you can applaud Mark Udall for telling the truth. He tells the truth when so few even try.

CNN cites a poll about how Mark's views are at odds with the general public.

Would that be the case had CNN (and others) not spent hour after hour with alarmist propaganda passed off as news?

If the media hadn't enlisted in the fear campaign, those numbers wouldn't have shot up.

So people who care about the truth in the United States should be applauding Mark Udall. For those who live in Colorado, doesn't mean you have to vote for him. Should, however, mean you make a point to defend him.

It's rare for anyone in the US right now -- in or out of Congress -- to point out that the Islamic State is not Napolean's army, let alone Nazi Germany.

Instead, we get 'experts.'

Sudden experts apparently.

Former US House Rep Jane Harman offers a column at CNN which opens, "President Barack Obama has properly decided to go to Congress and then the American people this week to reveal his strategy to degrade and destroy ISIS. To paraphrase former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, this is a crisis the President should not waste. How individual members of Congress respond to this call should matter and should be a 2014 election issue -- the duck and blame game stops here."

Is Jane like a chicken with her head cut off?

No, Jane's just a War Hawk that never met a war she couldn't get to at least third base with.

It's really hilarious that Jane wants to insist today that members of Congress should be held accountable by how they vote -- if there's a vote -- on Iraq. That certainly wasn't her position when she sat in Congress. Harman voted for the Iraq War and being a Democrat from California, she spun madly to justify that vote when the war went so bad that even most members of the media could no longer pretend that things were great, really great.

Like Jane, the editorial board of the Washington Post never met a war it didn't cheer on which explains this evening's editorial:

We are glad that the president has come around to a more sober view. But if he is truly committed to the group’s defeat, certain things must follow from that determination. First, the objective — victory — must determine the strategy, tactics and schedule. Heretofore, Mr. Obama has had an unfortunate tendency to do things the other way round: to view military conflict as something to be carried out according to a schedule, whereby U.S. forces must be withdrawn on a particular date, whether their goals were lastingly achieved or not. He has described his country as tired of war, and, in multiple instances, ruled out certain means — ground forces especially — before anyone has even asked for them. He wishfully mused that the tide of war had “receded.” Now, if Mr. Obama believes that the destruction of the Islamic State is essential to U.S. security, he must commit to that goal and fashion whatever strategy is necessary to achieve it.

Equally ridiculous, the remarks of Leila Zerrougui. AFP reports:

Islamic fighters in Iraq have killed hundreds of children including in summary executions and used some as suicide bombers, the top UN envoy on children and armed conflict said Monday.

"Up to 700 children have been killed or maimed in Iraq since the beginning of the year, including in summary executions," Leila Zerrougui told the UN Security Council.

What is the rate for whoring?

I hope Leila was paid well.

Nouri's government has been killing children for some time -- UNICEF even established that Iraqi forces killed 8 children in the massacre in Hawaija last year.

And just this weekend, Hawajia was back in the news. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reported civilians were killed in airstrikes in Abbai, Tal Ali and Hawija. Hawija found the Iraq and US military -- and let's be clear, it's both -- bombing a hospital resulting in 18 deaths -- "Eight of the fatalities were newborns housed in a premature baby wing that collapsed due to the strike."

Iraqi Spring MC Tweeted the following Saturday.

‏@IraqiSpringMC

مقتل الطفل(أنس العباسي)وإصابة(2)بجروح في العباسية شمال سامراء؛ نتيجة لإطلاق نار عشوائي من قبل الجيش ولحشد الشعبي.
. pic.twitter.com/q82HUWA4zU

The young boy in the photo? Anas al-Abbasi.

He was killed in Samarra by the Iraqi army when they fired into a crowd of civilians.

Two other children were left injured.

This is why so few people take the United Nations seriously.

You get some fat, lying, hypocritical ass blathering on about some group, some minor group, while refusing to call out the crimes against civilians carried out by a government.

It's craven and it's cowardly and it's, sadly, become the hallmark of the Ban Ki-moon era of the United Nations. His second term will soon be over and it's been a term with little bravery and little accomplishment.

He's not the only leader on the world stage who should be embarrassed.

Wednesday, US President Barack Obama is finally supposed to explain his plan or 'plan' for Iraq to the American people.

Iraq War veteran and March Forward activist Mike Prysner raises a very pertinent question.

Saturday, September 06, 2014

Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels Full Throttle

An e-mail noted how, at Third, we have a regular feature called "Film Classics of the 20th Century."

As noted at the top of our coverage of Blow Out:

In this ongoing series on film classics of the last century, we've looked at You Only Live Twice, Sleeper, Diamonds Are Forever, Sleepless In Seattle, My Little Chickadee, Tootsie, After Hours, Edward Scissorhands, Christmas in Connecticut, Desk Set, When Harry Met Sally . . ., Who Done It?, That Darn Cat!, Cactus Flower, Family Plot, House Sitter, and Outrageous Fortune. Film classics are the films that grab you, even on repeat viewings, especially on repeat viewings.

Here is the collage that was done for the feature.

The series is ongoing and covers 20th century films.

The e-mailer wondered what film or films from this century, the 21st century, I would personally add?

I would add many. But two that spring to mind are Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels Full Throttle.

I can watch both over and over.

I wish there was a third one.

The 70s TV show starring (among others) Kate Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and Jaclyn Smith was reworked into a film with Drew Barrymore (who also produced both films), Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu.

The three are detectives and the films are highly visual and entertaining. They have a sisterhood bond and many pro-women images including that Drew's character has a healthy appetite for food and does not hide it.

But I remember the films being trashed by, of all people, Janeane Garofalo.

She hated them and called them sexist.

I thought, "Lighten up."

They are action films with female leads and, no, they were not sexist.

Garofalo would, of course, go on to do a season of the torture endorsing TV show 24 so that may say everything we need to know about her ability to critique entertainment?

Both films are great for different reasons. The second one works most of all because of the chemistry of the three leads plus Demi Moore and Jaclyn Smith play ex-Angels with Demi being a crazed ex-Angel. And Melissa McCarthy has a small role in both films.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Saturday:

Saturday, September 6, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, no end in sight to Barack's undefined mission, John Kerry tries to sell the spin, there's talk of who might be Iraq's vice presidents, and more.

US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke in Wales Friday. We'll note some of it:

Everybody here understands what ISIL is and the challenge that it represents. I would say to all of you, including those of you – the defense ministers who are now with us, but we had a very provocative conversation last night among the foreign ministers regarding some of the overall challenges we all face, the number of failed states and the challenges of disorder in so many countries. In many ways, I believe ISIL presents us with an opportunity. And it’s an opportunity to prove that we have the ability to come together, that our capacities for defense are not so frozen in an old model that we can’t respond to something like ISIL, that we can’t pull ourselves together and effect the coalition of clearly the willing and the capable to be able to deal with ISIL.

Contrary to what you sort of heard in the politics of our country, the President is totally committed; there is a strategy that is clear, becoming more clear by the day. And it really relies on a holistic approach to ISIL. That is to say that we need to do kinetic, we need to attack them in ways that prevent them from taking over territory, that bolster the Iraqi security forces, others in the region who are prepared to take them on, without committing troops of our own, obviously. I think that’s a redline for everybody here, no boots on the ground. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which we can train, advise, assist, and equip. There are kinetic operations we can run in direct support of Iraqi security forces.

And we’ve proven the model in the last weeks – breaking the siege on Sinjar Mountain, breaking the siege of Amirli, breaking of momentum that was moving towards Erbil, and in effect picking up enough intel to understand that the minute we hit them, these guys are not 10 feet tall. They’re not as disciplined as everybody thinks. They’re not as organized as everybody thinks. And we have the technology, we have the know-how. What we need is obviously the willpower to make certain that we are steady and stay at this.

There is no contain policy for ISIL. They’re an ambitious, avowed genocidal, territorial-grabbing, Caliphate-desiring, quasi state within a regular army. And leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will ultimately come back to haunt us. So there is no issue in our minds about our determination to build this coalition, go after this. I’ll give you a quick take at what we are looking for and what we’re going to do.

When we say holistic, we mean every aspect of this group, and I think this could become conceivably a model that can help us with Boko Haram, could help us with Shabaab, with other groups if we can do this successfully. And NATO needs to think of it that way as we consider sort of our role in this new world we’re living in. We need to go after their financing mechanisms and sources, and we need to elicit broad-based support within the world of (inaudible) as well as in the world of normal banking and cover entities, businesses and so forth. Which means our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are going to need to coordinate and work together that have a clear part of an agenda within this framework.

We need a major humanitarian component that needs to be coordinated with the economic component, which will be real, to help Iraq get on its feet. We need a foreign fighter component. President Obama is going to be leading a National Security Council meeting in New York in the course of UNGA. We want – hope everybody will take part in that and help us lay down a critical agenda with respect to how we deal, all of us, with foreign fighters, which is a challenge to every country here, which is partly why we are all here.

Throughout, John's losing the audience with his efforts to footnote and show off that someone did this week's vocabulary list. He really should stop trying to show off and keep it plain spoken.

I don't agree with much of anything he's saying but the speech starts to fall apart early on and is cratering when he tosses out Boko Haram. It only gets worse as he tries to talk "kinetic." (We've spared you that.)

We've used the term here and been specific in its use. John's all over the place with it and probably confusing people.

Was John's speech supposed to be homework for Americans or was he attempting to communicate with them?

Does no one know how to communicate in the administration?

It's the show boating, the need to dandy up, that divorces them from the reality so many Americans live in.

So the take away from the above is that, no, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, bombs alone won't change a thing.

They'll change numbers -- they'll increase the numbers of the Islamic State.

John Kerry needs to define what the non-military approach will be.

The American people are left in the dark.

The reason for that is, honestly, the White House still doesn't have a plan.

It doesn't have a plan for war, it doesn't have a plan for diplomacy.

No US troops should have been sent into Iraq in June. Barack certainly shouldn't have announced this week he was sending even more into Iraq. As Kristina Wong (The Hill) reported Tuesday, "President Obama has ordered 405 additional U.S. troops to Iraq on Tuesday, bringing the total of U.S. forces authorized there to more than 1,000, the White House announced Tuesday."

I'm back on Gasoline Alley
Where the smoke looks like a misty valley
And the dotted hills where pills go down the wrong way
In the service of the king and his kingdom too
Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh
I was the man and the woman and the who-knows-who
-- "Down The Wrong Way," written by Chrissie Hynde and Bjorn Yttling, first appears on Chrissie's new album Stockholm.

But if you make the decision to send troops in -- and Barack did make that decision -- then you have already reviewed all options and you should know what you will be doing next.

Otherwise, you're just sending troops in blindly and that's what Barack has done.

And instead of presenting a mission, he's responded to each worsening by tossing more troops onto the fire.

Shame on those -- in Congress, and across the US -- who accept this as a plan.

Kristina Wong (The Hill) reported Friday morning, "Military officials are signaling that the fight against Islamist militants in Iraq could take years, raising the possibility of a new, open-ended military commitment that lasts beyond the Obama presidency. Tony Blinken, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, says defeating the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) would require a long-term commitment."

And that was before John Kerry gave the speech we noted earlier. In it, his final statements include this, "It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years."

A planned mission wouldn't be open-ended.

John Kerry grasped that in the Bully Boy Bush years when he was among those insisting there needed to be some form of benchmarks by which to measure whether Iraq was progressing or not. He also once grasped the reality of war. No longer.

In fact, it's sad that more concern for US troops is expressed by the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government than by the American president. National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Head of the Kurdistan region Massoud Barzani said on Wednesday, during a meeting with US Senator for the State of Michigan Carl Levin that: "We do not want from America and the nations of the world to send their sons to Kurdistan, but we want to secure humanitarian and military aids to the people of Kurdistan and the Peshmerga, to be able to defend ourselves and the citizens and religious and national components.
A statement by the presidency of the region, today, "said that Barzani stressed to Sen. George and the delegation accompanying him that the region will not allow to terrorism to have a base in Kurdistan.

By the way, the US would send men and women -- sons and daughters. I appreciate Barzani's sentiment. Is he being sexist? I don't think so. I don't even think it's that he's of a certain age. I think it's that he's talking about what he's seeing and what he's seeing in the KRG is American men. If that is the case, there are implications to that which aren't even being touched on.

Maybe someone else will unpack that? (Probably not and we'll get stuck with it next week.)

For now, let's repeat: I'm against more war on Iraq.

I'd think even the War Hawks who seem to get giddy at the thought of blood spilled on the battlefield would be rushing over to my side as Barack proves repeatedly that the role of commander-in-chief is beyond his grasp.

But these days, it's all beyond his grasp.

Who would have thought the administration of Barack Obama -- aka Mr. Pretty Words -- would have difficulty with messaging?

This inability to communicate clearly was again on display today when John Kerry spoke and it's all the more troubling when you grasp that John thinks he was crystal in his statements as evidenced by remarks like this, "We need a clarity to the strategy, and a clarity to what everybody is going to undertake."

Are you waiting for someone to provide that clarity to you, John?

Because that clarity was actually needed before Barack started sending US troops into Iraq as spring was winding down and summer beginning.

If anyone's getting the spin across even semi-successfully it's the State Dept spokespersons Jen Psaki and Marie Harf.

Friday, Marie Harf handled the department's press briefing and noted, "Second item at the top – second and final item at the top. Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk arrived in Baghdad today for several days of discussions with Iraqi leaders on our mutual efforts in confronting ISIL to include the next steps in building a regional and international coalition to support those efforts. He will also support the efforts of Ambassador Beecroft in encouraging the Iraqis to complete their government formation process as soon as possible. McGurk will also travel to Erbil for discussions and then later join the Secretary during his onward travel to the region following the NATO summit as well."

We'll also note this section -- a minor one to many, a blink of the eye.

QUESTION: And finally, it looks like the U.S. is sending former U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson to Ankara as a temporary –

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit on that appointment?

MS. HARF: Yep. So John Bass, who is President Obama’s nominee as ambassador to Turkey, is awaiting a confirmation vote from the Senate as are 50 other – over 50 other ambassadorial nominees awaiting a vote. So we are facing the prospect of a long-term gap in filling this crucial position of ambassador to Turkey. Obviously, we recognize the centrality of a strong U.S.-Turkey relationship, so the Secretary has asked Ross Wilson to return to Ankara – he served as ambassador there from 2005 until 2008 – to serve as the charge d’affaires until John Bass is confirmed as the ambassador. We, as we do with all of our nominees, encourage the Senate to confirm him as soon as possible.

Why are we noting that?

Hmm.

Not all nominees have been held up. We know that, right?

Let's back up to our earlier quote from Marie Hart.

See if you can spot the puzzling moment.

I'll give you a hint, Marie's not making a mistake. Don't look for that.

Second item at the top – second and final item at the top. Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk arrived in Baghdad today for several days of discussions with Iraqi leaders on our mutual efforts in confronting ISIL to include the next steps in building a regional and international coalition to support those efforts. He will also support the efforts of Ambassador Beecroft in encouraging the Iraqis to complete their government formation process as soon as possible. McGurk will also travel to Erbil for discussions and then later join the Secretary during his onward travel to the region following the NATO summit as well.

Did you catch it?

Okay, let's move in for a close up in case anyone missed it:

He will also support the efforts of Ambassador Beecroft in encouraging the Iraqis to complete their government formation process as soon as possible.

Ambassador Beecroft?

Robert Steven Beecroft is not the Ambassador of Iraq anymore.

Let's quote from the Senate Democrat's website:

Jun 26, ’14 2:20 PM

Categories Floor Updates

The Senate confirmed the Beecroft, Dynan, Kai’aina, Logan and Handelsman nominations by voice votes.
Senators should expect 2 roll call votes at 5:30pm on Monday, July 7. Those votes would be on the following items:

What was Beecroft confirmed to be? US Ambassador to Egypt.

As The Atlantic Council noted the next day (June 27th):

The Senate has confirmed the new US ambassador, Robert Beecroft, to Egypt after lengthy delays. The president nominated the envoy in May, but his nomination was held up in a larger Senate logjam that has affected dozens of appointees. Beecroft’s nomination was confirmed by voice vote.

So who is the US Ambassador to Iraq?

Let's again quote from the Senate Democrats' website on June 26th:

1:45PM the Senate began a 15minute roll call vote on confirmation of Calendar #897 Stuart E. Jones, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Iraq;

Confirmed: 93-0

Barack's first nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq was the hideous Chris Hill. He didn't make it to a second year in the post. Then Barack nominated James Jeffrey and Jeffrey was more of an adult than Chris. (He also didn't get fired the way Hill did. Jeffrey chose to leave and there's a story there the press has apparently all agreed not to touch.) Then Barack nominated Brett McGurk but that was a failed nomination.

So Barack nominated Beecroft who became the third US Ambassador to Iraq since 2009. And now Stuart Jones is Barack's fourth US Ambassador to Iraq.

This never-ending game of musical chairs neither inspires confidence nor fosters consistency.

Iraq needs a diplomatic solution. Barack's rightly and repeatedly noted in the last months.

It's difficult to see how this was going to be achieved with The Obama Conga Line of Iraq Ambassadors doing can-can kicks across the Middle East.

Brett McGurk's now meeting with Beecroft in Baghdad. Another sign that it wasn't the time to again swap out the post.

If only Ice Cube had been around to advise McGurk, Brett might be the ambassador today. (In 21 Jump Street, Ice Cube tells Channing Tatum, "Keep that dirty dick inside your pants.") In fairness to Brett, whose nomination I opposed, he's pretty much done the job without the title.

Brett McGurk Tweeted:

Brett McGurk @brett_mcgurk · 7h

In #Baghdad for talks on gov't formation and building a global coalition to support a united Iraqi front against #ISIS. Time is critical.

John Kerry should be there for those talks but Marie Harf made clear in today's press briefing that, at present, there were no plans for Kerry to be in Iraq.

Time is running out.

August 11th is when the prime minister-designate was named and that's when the 30 day time limit kicked off. Barack observed, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort. Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President. Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi. Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

Five days to form a Cabinet. And this as NINA reports State of Law MP Ammar al-Shibli is insisting that "some political blocs to submit unacceptable names and incompetent to Prime Minister [designate] Haider Abadi to embarrass him."

Well there's at least one looney name being bandied about. All Iraq News reports there are three names for vice president and one for Foreign Minister. Former prime minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari is said to be the choice for Minister of Foreign Affairs. The three names for vice president?
Iraqiya leader Ayad Allai, former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and thug and . . . 'outgoing' prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Again, Nouri's never gone until he's in the ground.

People underestimated him as a thug and they continue to underestimate him.

Which is a real shame because Nouri remains the biggest obstacle to peace in Iraq.

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 52 dead in Friday's violence with another 38 injured.

iraq
national iraqi news agency
kristina wong
antiwar.com
margaret griffis

Friday, September 05, 2014

Barack's expansion

At WSWS, Christoph Dreier points out:

On the eve of the NATO summit in Wales, US President Barack Obama assured the Baltic states of unconditional military support in a state visit to Estonia on Wednesday. His statements provided a blank cheque for military provocations against Russia, heightening the danger of a third world war.

After a meeting with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Obama invoked not only Article 5 of the NATO charter, which lays out conditions for collective military action by the alliance, but went far beyond. Assistance to the Baltic states, he declared, is “a commitment that is unbreakable. It is unwavering. It is eternal. And Estonia will never stand alone.”

At the same time, Obama announced that the US is sending more troops and fighter jets to the Baltic states. These are to be stationed at the US' Amari airbase in Estonia. The president did not name a specific number of troops. The plans must also be approved by Congress.

At this late date, it's probably pointless but let's note the reality by noting the mantra: If Bully Boy Bush were doing this, we'd be up in arms.

We really are a craven group of people willing to lie to ourselves repeatedly.

Sorry that I'm unable to be more positive this morning.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Thursday:

Thursday, September 4, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, lies and spin continue, Dianne Feinstein wants war, Prince Charles expresses some concern, and much more.

Russ Wellen, liar or fool?

The Foreign Policy In Focus blogger can never seem to get the facts right.

He's not helped by the fact that he basis his bad article ("Five Ways have aided and abetted the development of the Islamir State'') on Andrew Cockburn's lousy fly-over reporting. But he has only himself to blame for this nonsense:

The general state of chaos in which the United States left Iraq with, to this day, no strong central government.

How stupid does he have to be to write that? Or is he just a lousy liar?

Those of us who actually paid attention to the issue of Iraq over the last years know damn well that Nouri implemented a power grab and did so with no objection from FPIF which had no time for Iraq. And now it wants to play catch up and, lazy student, uses Andrew Cockburn's (bad and biased) reporting to play catch up.

Is it any wonder that Wellen and Foreign Policy In Focus are fumbling in the dark?

Nouri's corruption did not begin in his second term.

Congress heard repeatedly about his corruption.

In fact, Barack heard repeatedly --

Oh, wait, he didn't.

Had he attended Committee hearings in 2007 and 2008, he would have heard about Nouri's corruption but, of course, he was too busy for hearings, rushing in only when the cameras were present.

His desire to take over the central bank and the courts were already well known.

But when he made those efforts in his second term, FPIF didn't say one damn word. If Russ missed these events, he'll never find them in Patrick Cockburn's writings filled with lust for thug Nouri.

Lust for war is something FPIF would rail against if it had any guts.

It has no guts and no spine.

Strolling through the western press on Iraq today is very depressing.

Iraqis still don't matter.

The Islamic State, we are told, are 'barbaric,' vile and many other things.

And the proof?

One American journalist and one American and Israeli journalist were killed.

Their deaths are unfortunate.

But this is the basis for worst terrorists ever?

In fairness to the press, the White House -- both US President Barack Obama and US Vice President Joe Biden -- repeat similar statements near constantly -- that these deaths will be avenged and blah, blah, blah.

Not only does this nonsense erase Iraqis and their suffering from the public history, it also shows an extreme ignorance of history -- from early US history all the way up to at least the Symbionese Liberation Army.

The deaths are regrettable but they're justification for massive military maneuvers?

It's like a retelling of Helen of Troy done in a house of mirrors.

Now I understand why the White House is attempting to sell war this way.

There is a lack of sympathy for (or caring of) Iraqis around the country. I would hope it was a small segment of the country but it may be larger than I think. In the last three weeks, we've repeatedly overheard the same conversation in every state.

One person will argue 'those people' have never been able to get along so 'we' should just let them kill each other and be done with it. A second person will agree and add that Barack's unable to solve the problem because Muslims don't kill other Muslims.

Barack as Muslim (a falsehood) is popping up yet again. We'll have stopped for lunch and be eating and someone -- usually Kat or Wally (not often Ava or me) -- will waive their hands, nod their head a direction and indicate we should check out the conversation a table or two over.

Forget that Barack's not Muslim -- it was never worth refuting to begin with. Turning the focus there and making a big denial leaves the impression that there's something wrong with being Muslim (when there's not).

Focus on the logic: (1) Muslims will kill each other and (2) Muslims don't kill other Muslims.

Over and over we hear this conversation -- over hear it -- and our first thought is always, "Wait, their points don't match up." But they never seem to realize that, the people repeating these two points never grasp it.

So the larger point here is that many Americans don't care about the fate of the Iraqi people. For some their short attention span has been exhausted and those MTV reality re-match ups won't watch themselves, after all. For others, it's that their empathy has been exhausted.

Regardless, that segment (whatever its size) goes a long way towards explaining why the war can't be sold on 'We must help the Iraqis!'

There's also the issue of costs -- financial and blood.

On the financial side, Cristina Alesci (CNN -- link is text and video) declares $7.5 million is how much the Pentagon says US taxpayers are being billed daily for Barack's latest Iraq adventure.

On the blood side, friends and families daily mourn those who died fighting in the Iraq War and those who were wounded in Iraq carry that wound with them always.

Americans really aren't wanting another war on Iraq.

Americans aren't.

The Jewish people are wrongly slimed and smeared.

But it's to be expected when trash like Uri Dromi screech at the top of their lungs for war. Why the Miami Herald feels Israeli Air Force Reserve Colonel Uri Dromi is worth featuring is a question to put to them. But the question for precious Dromi is, "If you want war, your country has a military and then some, try using it."

But, of course, let's be frank, Israel can't use its military.

That's the secret they always hope their Arab neighbors never catch on to.

Using the military on another country would leave Israel open to attack.

It doesn't have the military strength to attack another country and defend itself at the same time.

So War Hawks like Dromi scream for the US to do the war that they know their own country can't carry out.

Good going, Dromi.

To Americans, you look like a candy ass to scared to fight your own damn war while, to the Arab world, you feed into every ugly stereotype about Israel.

Also helping Israel look bad? Anshel Pfeffer and Ha'aretz gloating, "The Islamic State is forcing the West out of its Iraq war trauma."
What, pray tell, will ever force the Israeli government out of their apartheid stance?

Probably more and more people around the world seeing it as a corrupt government illegitimately occupying land that belongs to others.

Harsh words?

I have plenty more.

In ten years online, never felt the need to say them.

If that's how I feel and respond, imagine how those who loathe the Israeli government and see it run by killers intent on genocide will interpret the braying for more war by Israeli voices?

And please remember, if something must be done by the US military to stop indiscriminate killing, first stop may be Iraq but there are a lot of people who will scream second stop should be Israel whose chief national industry appears to be genocide.

Feeding into every ugly stereotype of an ignorant Congress?

US Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Anna Duckworth (KCBS -- link is audio and text) reports on Dianne's lust for war which includes the senator insisting, "If the United States doesn't act, nobody will. I believe they will want Bagdad to be the center of this caliphate. And we have the largest embassy in the world in Bagdad."

So maybe the answer isn't bombing the hell out of Iraq, it's getting the hell out of the country?

Maybe the answer is to stop butting in?

That's why things are where they are now.

Nouri al-Maliki was installed as prime minister by the Bully Boy Bush White House. After losing the 2010 elections, the Barack White House insisted Nouri still get a second term.

Nouri used that term to destroy the rights of women, to turn his goons loose on reporters and peaceful activists, to target and kill Iraq's LGBTQ community, to terrorize the minority religions and, always, to target, harass and kill Sunnis.

Maybe, Dianne, if the US hadn't 'acted' to keep Nouri prime minister, none of this would be taking place today.

In fairness to Dianne, she will gladly vote for war (always!). Unlike her colleagues, she'd stay in DC week after week if it meant she could register her approval for war.

Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) reports several members of Congress are hoping for a brief September session and that Barack doesn't raise the issue of war on Iraq or immigration.

We'll note this from today's State Dept press briefing by spokesperson Marie Harf:

QUESTION: I’m not trying to make fun of you. I just have one very extremely brief one, and that is the Iraqi Government formation --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- was supposed happen this week. Is it --

MS. HARF: Nah, no, I think we were tracking towards that the 10th or 11th is – as when the deadline is.

QUESTION: All right. Okay, so --

MS. HARF: Deadline. The 30 days.

QUESTION: -- that’s your understanding --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is that it’s still on track?

MS. HARF: Yes, yes, moving forward.

QUESTION: Yeah?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

It's okay if you've forgotten. It would appear the White House has as well.

August 11th is when the prime minister-designate was named and that's when the 30 day time limit kicked off. Barack observed, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort. Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President. Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi. Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

If Iraq's finally going to follow the Constitution -- they didn't for Nouri -- that means prime minister-designate Haider al-Abadi needs to form a Cabinet before the 30 days are up.

The clock is ticking.

How do you move from prime minister-designate to prime minister?

The Iraqi Constitution calls for you to form a Cabinet which means nominating and getting Parliament to vote for each member so you have a full Cabinet.

The point of this requirement?

To demonstrate you have the leadership skills to work with others elected to the Parliament.

If the 30 days passes without a Cabinet, per the Constitution, the President of Iraq is supposed to announce a new prime minister-designate.

The wording of the Constitution is such that you could do a weasel-word interp and say the president could re-name the same person.

But that's not the intent and everyone knows it.

Everyone doesn't know another detail because we have a whorish press corps in the west.

'Outgoing' prime minister (and tyrant) Nouri al-Maliki doesn't want to go and he's announced if the designate fails to form a Cabinet in time, he's prepared to do so and that he supposedly has the suppot and backing to stay in power.

If you think things are bad in Iraq right now, you let Nouri get a third term.

And things are bad. Xinhua reports:

A suicide bomber drove an explosive-laden car into a police checkpoint and blew it up in kadhimiyah district, northern Baghdad, leaving at least nine people killed and 35 others injured, a police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.
Two hours later, six civilians were killed and 17 others wounded when a car bomb exploded in Saadoun Street in central Baghdad, the source added.

BBC notes the death toll from the two bombings rose to 20.

National Iraqi News Agency reports s Kirkuk car bombing apparently targeting an alcohol store and leaving sixteen people dead.

That's just some of the violence.

Blame is placed at the feet of the United States for the Islamic State. The latest to make that assertion is Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako. Ishaan Tharoor (Washington Post) quotes the priest stating, "[The U.S.] said it would ensure democracy and the well-being of the people. But 10 years have passed, and, on the contrary, we have gone backward. There were about 1 million Christians in Iraq and more than half of them have been displaced. Only 400,000 are left while displacement is still rising."

On the topic of Iraqi Christians, John Bingham (Telegraph of London) reports Prince Charles of England has spoken out:

The Prince of Wales has written an impassioned letter to Christians in Iraq speaking of his “heartbreak” at their suffering at the hands of Jihadists.

He condemned the atrocities by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) as “diabolic evil” and spoke of his “fervent hope and prayer” for those suffering in the region.

His remarks came as the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of attempts to drive Christianity out its Middle Eastern birthplace as the biggest assault on the faith in the area “since the invasion of Genghis Khan” in the 13th Century.

The Most Rev Justin Welby joined leaders of churches from the Middle East for prayers in Lambeth Palace and a vigil at Westminster Abbey.

iraq
the washington post
ed okeefe

Trina's Kitchen