Thursday, September 25, 2014

Better renounce your Democratic Party membership

So today the United Nations rushed to declare it a crime to join a terrorist group.

Looking at the last six years, I've seen Barack commit acts of terrorism against Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

But the point being, the chief proponent of terrorism in the last six years has been Barack Obama.

So for safety and to avoid being arrested by UN peace keepers, I'm guessing we should all renounce our membership in the Democratic Party.


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


Wednesday, September 24, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the US continues to focus on bombings and not on political solutions, we note time's running out there, we provide a few basic steps that could be taken immediately, and much more.



I have a friend I'm going to share a story on.  Many years ago, she had a mouse problem.

I kept saying call an exterminator and she wouldn't.

We'd be on the phone and she'd squeal and announce she just threw something at the mouse.

Now she'll deny my hypothesis here but she was on a TV show at the time that was successful.  This was her second successful TV show and she'd been fired from the first.

So I would point out that she was kind of tight with the money.  She's spend outrageously for public appearances (and that is work related, I'm not mocking her) but for the basics to live on, she was saving every penny and that's why I think she refused to call an exterminator.

Today, she insists it was because she couldn't kill a living thing but that wasn't true then.

So anyway, I'm at her place two weeks later and she's screaming all the sudden and jumping on furniture and I'm looking for what I'm expecting to be a huge and ugly rat -- which are all over Malibu and are not a reflection on anyone's home or how clean they are, they're just beach rats.  They'll come in because you have an inside dog and they can smell the dog food in the bowl or whatever.

So I'm looking for one of those Malibu rats but seeing instead the tiniest mouse.  About the size of a field mouse.  Tiny and more scared of her -- tossing books at him -- then anything else.  So he's scurried against the wall and I reach over and grab him (or her, I don't know) by the tail.

At which point, my friend is screaming, "Kill him! Kill him!"  Which is why I say this 'couldn't kill a living thing' wasn't true back then.  I didn't kill him -- not because I'm a nice person but because it looked like a pet and I asked her to go over to her neighbors while I put the mouse in a plastic cup.  Sure enough, they had four mice that their daughter had as pets and one had escaped, so she got her pet back.

But the point of this story?

My friend was sometimes scaring the mouse by tossing books at it or near where she thought it was -- she also broke one of her lamps and several glasses doing that.  But she didn't kill it, she didn't stop the problem.

To get the mouse, I had to put both feet on the floor, go over to it and grab it.

I'm not for US forces on the ground in Iraq.

But I'm also not for stupidity.

US President Barack Obama has no plan.

Barack's bombing is not a plan anymore than my friend throwing books at a mouse was.

Now if his plan was: 'We will bomb and we will surround the bombed areas with US troops?'

I'd say that was a plan.  It be a bad plan, in my opinion, but it would be a plan.

My friend's mouse was usually smart enough, when my friend threw books at in one room, to try to move to another.

I don't understand how we can be so stupid to think these 'precision' bombings are accomplishing thing.  They're not.

I don't favor US boots on the ground.  But if Barack was announcing that the boots on the ground -- which already there and, yes, already engaged in combat -- if he were announcing/admitting that and coming up with someway to use them, it wouldn't be a plan I'd back but I wouldn't dispute that it was a plan.

What Barack's doing is nonsense on every level.

If you want the US to 'defeat' the Islamic State militarily (I don't think that's possible), then you're going to have to do something more than selective bombing.

Let's stop being stupid about that at least.

I don't believe there is a military answer.  I believe that bombing is just going to breed more terrorism.  I believe a number of Islamic State men who have been killed (some of who were Islamic State and some of whom were not) have loved ones they've left behind and I don't believe that the loved ones are saying, "Thank goodness he got killed!"  I think resentments and anger are being bred by Barack's actions.

I also think civilians are being put at risk.  Some are being killed and there's no point in kidding around about that.  There's never been a series of ongoing strikes anywhere that didn't result in the death of at least a few civilians -- which is why terms like "collateral damage" were invented in the first place.

So what's the solution.

For years now, with the prison breaks in Iraq and the prisoners who don't get recaptured -- and most don't -- we've repeatedly pointed out here that the escapees are able to blend and elude capture because the communities are sympathetic.

It's not, "Oh, you're a Sunni?  I'm a Sunni too!  I won't rat you out to the police for that reason!"

The sympathy comes from the fact that, under thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Sunni community was targeted.  Sunnis were taken away, many times without arrest warrants only to vanish into the jails and prisons of Iraq -- jails and prisons infamous -- even post-Saddam Hussein -- for torture and abuse.

Add in that not only were Sunni suspects arrested but so were relatives of suspects.

The Iraqi forces show up at a home looking for 28-year-old Ali Hammadi.  Ali's not home.  But his wife is.  Or his dad.  Or his mom.  Or his grandparents or maybe even a child.  There was a protest this week in Iraq calling for the Sunni children to be released from Iraq's prisons and jails.

That may shock you.  It shouldn't.

The US government instituted this practice in the early years of the Iraq War -- showing far less ethics than even the mob.  And Nouri carried it over.  If he couldn't get you, he'd arrest one of your relatives.  No arrest warrant for them, maybe no hearing for them, and they disappear into Iraq's overpopulated jails and prisons.

And that's why many Sunnis don't give a damn when there's a prison escape.  That's why their attitude is, "Good."  Too many of them have family members or friends who have been wrongly imprisoned.

This and other mistreatment is why some Sunnis join the Islamic State, join with the Islamic State in actions (worded that way because they assist in actions but do not join the Islamic State) and/or look the other way when they might otherwise alert authorities to suspicious persons.

Sometimes e-mails come in saying, "Oh, you're so mean to poor little Scott Horton of Antiwar Radio."

No, I'm not.

He's either a whore or he's an idiot.

That's reality.

We were dealing with reality in 2010 and 2011 and pointing out what was building up because of Nouri and Scotty was off basically masturbating on air because he felt Nouri had flipped the bird to the US.  That got Scotty and his little willy all excited.

And he other idiots or whores -- Patrick Cockburn, we mean you -- would giggle and guffaw and have a good time.

It was outrageous they were praising Nouri al-Malik while Nouri was targeting Sunnis, while Nouri was using the Ministry of the Interior to target Iraq's gay population, while Nouri was doing this or that.

Nouri is a War Criminal.

The agreement the US oversaw to get Nouri to step down included a no-prosecution promise.  That's too bad because Nouri should stand trial for War Crimes.  (And, point of fact, that promise is useless if the issue heads to the Iraqi courts.)

Girls and women were beaten and raped in Iraq's jails and prisons.

In fairness to Horton and Cockburn, the US government was ignoring as well.  (Members of Congress did object to the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community.  They also publicly objected to the targeted of certain religious groups and to the mistreatment of and attacks on the Ashraf community.)

Right now, John Kerry can't shut up about how 'evil' the Islamic State is for what it's doing to women.

But when Iraqis took to the streets to protest non-stop from December 2012 through January 2014, while they demanded over and over that Iraqi girls and women be released due to the abuse and rape taking place, John Kerry never said one damn word.

When the Iraqi Parliament investigated and found proof of the abuse and rape, John Kerry didn't say one damn word.

And when Human Rights Watch began documenting these rapes and abuse?

John Kerry didn't say one damn word.


Of course, in defense of John, he's part of an out-of-control administration that's probably going to be seen as even more crooked and more criminal once Barack's out of the White House.

Defense?

Well John's not claiming to be anti-war, is he?

Horton was.  Cockburn went on a show called Antiwar Radio (repeatedly went on).

So their covering for Nouri al-Maliki is shameful.

I was told by a friend, a professor at Stanford, that this site isn't clearly establishing what the alternative is.

He's right.

Because I know most people reading this are either community members or readers who've been around for awhile and we've spent the last four years discussing how Nouri al-Maliki bred terrorism in Iraq.  We noted he was doing that in real time.  Not because I'm especially smart or highly intelligent but because it was obvious if you just paid attention.

A lot of people didn't.  Some were misled by people like Cockburn (whose bias against the Sunnis allowed him to ignore their suffering and to minimize it when he had to mention it because others were).

But my friend is right, it may not be clear what the alternative to bombing is.

Barack's said that Iraq requires a political solution not a military one.

We've agreed that statement here.

We've applauded it.

But instead of working on a political solution, the US government has wasted time trying to build a coalition for bombing Iraq.

Why the hell is John Kerry working on that?

That should have been Chuck Hagel, he's Secretary of Defense.

John Kerry's time should have been spent on diplomacy and political cohesion in Iraq.

No one seems to want to do the work required for peace.

Countries are rushing to sign on as partners in bombings.

But no one wants to do the work required for peace.

Nouri al-Maliki came to power -- installed by the US government -- with a huge chip on his shoulder about having run out of the country like a coward because Saddam Hussein didn't like Nouri.

Feeling like a coward -- because he was one -- now that he was in power, all Nouri wanted was to destroy the Sunnis.

And the US looked the other way over and over.

The violence finally built to the point where Barack had to address the problem.

And I wish it had happened sooner but I do applaud him for pulling the plug on Nouri.  Iraq now has a chance at peace.

Bombings are not helping the chances.

If they continue -- this is my prediction and I can be wrong and often am, these bombings are going to turn the Iraqi people not just against the White House but against the new prime minister.  They're going to be outraged that their country is being torn apart by war planes bombing -- foreign war planes.

And I can be wrong and often am.

But I don't just make stuff up.

I'm thinking of the early days of the Turkish bombings of northern Iraq.  There was some support for it among the populations near the shared border.  And that faded as the bombings continued.  Long before western news outlets were willing to acknowledge that the bombings were killing civilians, the people knew the reality and they turned on those bombings.

Currently, there is no majority support among the Iraqi people for these bombings.  Movement leader and cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has denounced those bombings.  (And the attack yesterday on Sadr City is seen by some as a response to Moqtada speaking out against the bombings -- a response from some hard-line Shi'ite militia groups -- like a certain group who split off from Moqtada some time ago.  Check out Arabic social media if you haven't already for those discussions.)

Barack's exhausting people's patience with these bombings.

And if anger grows towards the US for the bombings, anger will also build against Iraq's new prime minister Haider al-Abadi.

The whole point of someone other than Nouri was a fresh start.

A fresh start goes stale quick if change doesn't emerge.

No change is emerging.

Yes, two Saturdays ago, al-Abadi did give the order to stop the bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods.

And how did that turn out?

It didn't stop.

It continues.

For example, today NINA reports:


A medical source at the hospital in Fallujah said on Wednesday that /17/ civilians were martyred and wounded, including women and children by indiscriminately bombing on Fallujah.
Th[e] source told the National Iraqi News Agency / Nina / that the indiscriminate shelling with explosive barrels and mortars targeted residential neighborhoods in the city of Fallujah, including Aljughaifi , Golan, al-Askari, al-Shuhadaa and al-Shurta, and resulted in the killing of / 4 / civilians and wounding / 13 / others, including two children and a woman were taken to the hospital.


Those deaths are bad for numerous reasons starting with the bombings of civilian targets -- residential neighborhoods -- are War Crimes -- legally defined as such.  Those deaths are bad because those people were killed for the 'crime' of living their lives.  Those deaths are bad because they appear to demonstrate that the Iraqi military -- at least some segment of it -- is refusing to follow the orders of the prime minister.

If Haider becomes a clown, no one in Iraq will take him seriously.

The bombings of residential neighborhoods -- War Crimes -- were ignored by the US when their pet Nouri started carrying them out in January of this year.  It is past time for Barack Obama and John Kerry to denounce these bombings.

The bombings daily demonstrate that nothing has changed and that the Sunnis -- Falluja is a Sunni-dominated city -- will continue to be attacked.

The US and Haider are blowing it.

You only get a brief window of time to prove you are different.

If the White House could get its thumb out of its ass long enough to stick a finger in the wind, they'd realize that things are already changing and they've wasted far too much time focusing on bombing and far too little time robbing the Islamic State of credibility -- which is the only thing that will defeat it.

There need to be serious steps taken and they need to be taken immediately.

As the Iraq Inquiry (also known as the Chilton Inquiry) in London established, de-Ba'athifcation was destructive to Iraq.  In 2007, Nouri al-Maliki signed off on a series of benchmarks put forward by the White House and one of those was demanding an end to de-Ba'athification.  (We called it "de-de-Bathification" here -- search that if you're late to the party.)

Now de-Ba'athification should end immediately.

Can it?

Maybe, maybe not.

But what can happen immediately is the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament can announce that the Justice and Accountability Commission is no more.  It was supposed to have termed out before the 2010 elections but Nouri (illegally) revived it and used it to eliminate political rivals from running for office and the same was done in 2012.  This Commission is not supposed to exist, it's not supposed to be receiving funding.  The Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament can announce that this commission and any other illegal commission will not be recognized by the government nor will they receive funding.

The Prime Minister should also immediately have his government file papers with the Iraqi Courts to overturn the conviction of former Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.  al-Hashemi was Vice President of Iraq from 2006 until this summer.  From the end of December 2011 on forward, he has been Vice President in exile because, as soon as most us troops left Iraq, Nouri insisted Tareq was a terrorist.

The Prime Minister's government should file a formal request that these charges be vacated.

It was a kangaroo court, yes.  Months before the case was heard, Iraq's judiciary in Baghdad held a press conference to announce Tareq was guilty.  Iraq, in its Constitution, notes that all are innocent until proven guilty.  The judges erred there.

They erred on evidence, they erred everywhere.

But here's why the decision needs to be vacated -- it was illegal.

al-Hashemi was a member of Parliament until this summer.  Members of Parliament have to be stripped of their rights to be sued while in office.

Tareq could be tried today.

He's no longer Vice President.

But the 'trial' took place when he was a sitting Vice President, the trial took place when the Iraqi Parliament refused to strip him of his rights.

The trial was unconstitutional and should never have taken place.

The decision needs to be vacated and the new government calling for that would go a long way towards establishing respect for rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- not the whim of a tyrant like Nouri al-Maliki.

These are basic steps which can be taken right now.

They need to show change and do so quickly.

War has made Iraq a very young country population wise.

According to the CIA's estimates (Iraq is long overdue for a census), the median age is 21.5 years (21.6 for women, 21.4 for men).  To provide contrast, you can compare that to the US where the median age is 37.6 years-old (36.3 for men, 39 for women).

You're asking a lot of a young population if you're expecting them to wait months for change to start coming.

Again, the White House and Haider are blowing the opportunity for Haider to establish that he is a fresh face, a new start for Iraq.

Parliament went on vacation today.  It's going to be about two weeks before they hold another session.

Iraqis can't wait that long to see changes taking place.

And it's really past time -- does no one grasp this in the White House -- for Iraq's new prime minister to announce a program for his term, a program that will create jobs (a huge issue in Iraq) and that will benefit the public.

Nouri was real good, for example, about providing ice.  Every two years, about a month and a half before an election, Nouri would send out ice trucks to various areas.

Now that didn't create potable water -- a public works program to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure would have done that -- but it was what he offered -- about all that he did.

If Haider wants to prove he's not Nouri, he needs to announce a program on how he intends to make life better for the Iraqi people.

That the White House has not assisted him in drafting such a program demonstrates that they're unable to both rope people into their bombing programs and practice diplomacy.

There are other things I want to focus on but when a friend calls and says I'm blowing it and we need to provide concrete examples "for a highly unintelligent White House," we'll spend the whole snapshot on the basics.


The White House issued the following today:


The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Abadi of the Republic of Iraq After Bilateral Meeting

United Nations Building
New York City, New York
12:05 P.M. EDT


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, I want to thank Prime Minister Abadi and his delegation for the opportunity to meet here this morning. 
As I’ve said previously, the United States and Iraq have a strategic relationship that is important to both countries.  We believe in a vision of an Iraq that is inclusive, in which Sunni, Shia, Kurd are all able to come together to peacefully iron out their differences and to achieve prosperity and peace for all the people of the country.
Obviously, Iraq is under enormous threat at the moment from the organization that calls itself ISIL.  And as I’ve discussed today and for many weeks now, we consider ISIL to be a threat not only to Iraq, but to the region, to the world, and to the United States.
We are committed to working in support of Iraq regaining territory that ISIL has currently taken over, and making sure that an inclusive Iraqi government is able to control its territory and push ISIL back.  In doing that, we are coordinating closely in our military campaign.  And the airstrikes and air support that we’re able to provide, as well as the training and assistance, I think will be critical in partnership with Iraqi forces on the ground.
One of the things I’m very impressed with, however, is the fact that Prime Minister Abadi understands that in order for Iraq to succeed it’s not just a matter of a military campaign; it’s also the need for political outreach to all factions within the country.  And I’ve been very impressed with Prime Minister Abadi’s vision. 
Since he took over the prime-ministership, he has reached out systematically to all the peoples of Iraq.  He has articulated a vision of reform and a commitment to moving forward with many of the laws that had previously stalled but offer the potential of unleashing energy and entrepreneurship inside of Iraq. 
And so, in addition to the military campaign in which we’re going to be coordinating, I want to say directly to the Prime Minister that we fully support his political vision, and we are also encouraged by his willingness to reach out and work with other countries in the region who are going to be very important in supporting our overall effort to defeat ISIL.
The last point I would make:  I think that the Prime Minister recognizes this is not something that is going to be easy and it is not going to happen overnight.  But after talking with the Prime Minister, I’m confident that he’s the right person to help work with a broad-based coalition of like-minded Iraqis and that they will be successful. 
And my main message to the Prime Minister is that although we cannot do this for you, we can be a strong partner, and we are fully committed to your success.  We wish you Godspeed.  And we are grateful for your willingness to take on this leadership mantle at such a critical time in your country’s history.


PRIME MINISTER ABADI:  (As interpreted.)  In the name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, I would like to thank President Obama for allowing for this opportunity for Iraq to explain its points of view towards the confrontation that is happening in Iraq and in which Iraq is at the forefront of the confrontation against the forces of ISIL.
The Iraqi people have confronted this very brutal, ruthless attack on the Iraqi territory with bravery, and I am very proud to say that I am the commander of the Iraqi armed forces.  Our armed forces have also offered a lot of sacrifices when they confronted the Daesh attack.  And I can say today that in many of the areas we are now turning around the ground.   
Today, I am also proud to say that our people are brave, and the popular effort on the ground has been of utmost importance.  I am keen to protect our brave people on the ground, and I am proud of the sacrifices and protect them and protect all that they have been doing to protect their communities on the ground, their religious sites, and to stand a firm stance against the terrorist attacks that targeted the minorities, and targeted and killed children, men and women.
In my discussion with President Obama, I emphasized the importance of the respect of the sovereignty of Iraq and the territorial integrity of Iraq.  And as a Prime Minister of Iraq, I reaffirmed the importance for all forces that want to help Iraq to respect the sovereignty of Iraq and its territorial integrity. I am very thankful for President Obama and all the allies, all who are helping, for maintaining and respecting the territorial integrity of Iraq and its sovereignty.
Finally, one of the requests that I have put forth for President Obama is the importance of equipping and arming the Iraqi army and to provide the Iraqi armed forces with weapons.  As you know, our armed forces are in dire need for equipment and for weapons, mostly because we lost a lot of the equipment and the weapons in our confrontation and our fight against ISIL, and specifically when the ISIL groups came through the borders from Syria, many of the weapons were destroyed.  Some of the weapons fell in the hand of ISIL.  Therefore, I am very thankful for President Obama that he promised that weapons and supplies would be delivered to Iraq as soon as possible so Iraq can defeat ISIL and Iraq can overcome this crisis.
We are keen in Iraq to promote further the strategic relationship between our two countries, a strategic relationship that is based on mutual respect within the Strategic Framework Agreement that was signed between the two governments back in 2008.  I am pleased to say that President Obama has promised to reinvigorate the Strategic Framework Agreement not only to put the focus on the military and security aspect of that agreement, but also on all other levels -- scientific, educational, economic, cultural and academic, social and other aspects of our relationship.
Mr. President, I thank you for all your support and all the promises that you have given us.  And I hope to see that these promises will be concretely fulfilled on the ground as soon as possible. 
Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much, everybody.


END
12:17 P.M. EDT



Barack may think he did his part with that speech.

He didn't.

Leaving aside that Haider's done nothing to present a 'vision' (let alone a plan) to the Iraqi people, when Haider did speak, none of it was about political, none of it was about the Iraqi people.

No, Haider drooled over military hardware.

Not unlike Nouri when he went to Russia to get war planes.

Today, Haider blew any chance to prove he was different.  Each day that this happens is another blow to a fresh start for Iraq.












Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Did you catch this nonsense?

Here's the letter Barack sent Congress 'justifying' his attack on Syria with no authorization for such an attack:



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

Letter from the President -- War Powers Resolution Regarding Iraq



TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

September 23, 2014

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

In my reports of August 8 and 17 and September 1 and 8, 2014, I described a series of discrete military operations in Iraq to stop the advance on Erbil by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), support civilians trapped on Mount Sinjar, support operations by Iraqi forces to recapture the Mosul Dam, support an operation to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the town of Amirli, Iraq, and conduct airstrikes in the vicinity of Haditha Dam.

As I noted in my address to the Nation on September 10, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and the Congress at home, I have ordered implementation of a new comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy to degrade, and ultimately defeat, ISIL. As part of this strategy, I have directed the deployment of 475 additional U.S. Armed Forces personnel to Iraq, and I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to use the U.S. Armed Forces to conduct coordination with Iraqi forces and to provide training, communications support, intelligence support, and other support, to select elements of the Iraqi security forces, including Kurdish Peshmerga forces. I have also ordered the U.S. Armed Forces to conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes and other necessary actions against these terrorists in Iraq and Syria. These actions are being undertaken in coordination with and at the request of the Government of Iraq and in conjunction with coalition partners.

It is not possible to know the duration of these deployments and operations. I will continue to direct such additional measures as necessary to protect and secure U.S. citizens and our interests against the threat posed by ISIL.

I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40 and Public Law 107-243) and as Chief Executive, as well as my constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.

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




Barack is one of the biggest liars of all time.

As his lies lead to more and more violence, I have less and less sympathy for his (few remaining) supporters.

To me those people really are enemies of peace.  The David Corns, the Al Sharptons, all of them, enemies of peace.




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


Tuesday, September 23, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, bombings continue, John Kerry points fingers at others, Barack suffers from mission creep, US army prepares for a new headquarters in Iraq, and much more.

Michael Crowley (Time magazine) documents the US mission creep in Iraq:


From a podium in the White House’s state dining room on the night of Aug. 7, Obama gravely described his authorization of two military operations. One was to stop ISIS’s advance on the Iraqi city of Erbil, which Obama described as a threat to Americans stationed there. The other was to rescue thousands of Yezidi people besieged by ISIS fighters atop Sinjar Mountain.
[. . .]
On a Sunday afternoon ten days later, the White House quietly issued a statement announcing air strikes with the goal of liberating the Mosul dam from the clutches of ISIS militants. 
[. . .]
Then, on Sept. 7, came word of still another mission: A Pentagon statement said the U.S. was now bombing ISIS around the Haditha dam, in western Iraq—far from Erbil, Sinjar and Mosul. By now, American drones and planes had conducted about 150 strikes in the country. The U.S. was conducting a de facto air campaign against ISIS in support of Iraq’s government.


Crowley continues with his documentation but for those who need a single example of the mission creep, Michelle Tan (Army Times) reports:

As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”


Yeah, that never-ending Iraq War is expanding.  David Corn(nuts) and all the other trashy whores can toss aside ethics and offer justifications but the reality is there for anyone who wants to see it.



Flash from Mexico
The Toreadors have all turned gay
Roman whores have quit to seek a better way
Dope has undermined the morale of
The Buckingham Palace guards
Motorcycle gangs ride naked down Hollywood Boulevard

If through all the madness
We can stick together
We're safe and sound
The world's just inside out and upside down

 -- "Safe and Sound," written by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, first appears on Carly's Hotcakes

In the crazy, upside down world we live in, Christi Parsons and WJ Hennigan (Los Angeles Times) can report:


President Obama said Tuesday that he will "do what's necessary" to fight the Sunni Muslim extremists targeted in a fierce round of U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria and that he'll do so with the support of regional partners whose coordinated bombing makes it "clear to the world that this is not America's fight alone."
Speaking just before his departure for New York to meet with world leaders at the United Nations, Obama said the bombings he ordered overnight had the support of Arab coalition partners.

So how long does this crazy last?

The 'plan' is nothing but bombing.

If the US wasn't taking part in the bombings in Iraq and Syria (along with France), the White House would be decrying these actions, would be insisting that the country or countries carrying them out needed to be punished.

In what world is bombing a country a 'plan' for peace?


In New York today, NINA notes, Iraq's Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari met up with the Danish Foreign Minister Martin Legurd.  And Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in New York today for the United Nations' General Assembly.

Iraq's President Fuad Masum didn't arrive in New York today.  Because he was already there. All Iraq News notes he arrived on Monday.

With so much of the government out of the country, maybe it's good that Iraq now has three vice presidents?

Of course, with Nouri al-Maliki being one, that means the other two, Osama al-Nujaafi and Ayad Allawi, must spend the bulk of their time ensuring Nouri's not carrying out a coup.


Two Iraqi officials who aren't in New York?  The Minister of Defense and the Minister of Interior.

They're not in New York but that's mainly due to the fact that those two posts have still not been filled.

Nothing like leaving the security posts empty to scream, "We are committed to fighting the Islamic State!"

All Iraq News reports MP Hamid al-Khudhari states these positions must be filled and that "there must be Ministers to run the security file."  Meanwhile Nouri's State of Law coalition is whining because they want Hadi al-Amiri to be the nominee and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has not nominated al-Amiri.  MP Salah al-Jubouri tells NINA, "There is a need to name the ministers of defense and interior, because of the security problems in the country, whichmakes it imperative for the Prime Minister to resolve this file in nearest opportunity."  He notes Parliament begins a 2 week vacation starting September 26th and he doesn't expect the positions to be filled until after the break.


With rumors that the United Kingdom's about to join France and the US in bombing Iraq, there's apparently no rush for Iraq to prepare their own defense team and plan, let alone put people in charge of executing it.


Why were they in New York?  Because Iraq will be the topic Wednesday at the United Nations.Security Council meeting with US President Barack Obama acting as Chair of the special session.

That's tomorrow.  All Iraq News reports, "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday blamed Islamic State militants and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for destroying cultural treasures in Syria and Iraq describing it as 'ugly, savage, inexplicable, valueless barbarism'."

Who's the 'barbarian'?  Who sent war planes into a foreign country to bomb the country?

And having done that, is the US government really in a place to slam others for destruction taking place in Iraq?

Is the White House now insisting that US planes are dropping Nerf footballs on Iraq because that's about the only way US bombs aren't also "destroying cultural treasures."


Today, John Kerry insisted:

Now obviously there are a range of terrorist groups that concern us, and we are laser focused on combatting them. But we gather this week to discuss as priority a threat that has a particular resonance for every country in this room, and that’s ISIL.
ISIL is an organization that knows no bounds, as it has proven. It brutalizes women and girls and sells them off as slaves to jihadists. It forces grown men to their knees, ties their hands behind their back, and shoots them in the head. Fed by illicit funding and a stream of foreign fighters that have come, regrettably, from many of the countries around this table – mine included – it has seized territory, and it has attempted to undertake announced genocide against minority groups like the Yezidis. This kind of barbarity simply has no place in the modern world. And these coldblooded killers, masquerading as a religious movement, need to be stopped.

Now President Obama has laid out a coordinated global strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL. And we’ve assembled a broad coalition. And last night, by conducting strikes against ISIL, targets inside Syria, we took another major step towards getting the job done. But it will require enormous cooperation and perseverance by everybody.


Aslumaria notes that John Kerry is insisting that many Arab countries have joined what Mike's dubbed The Spread The Blame Around Coalition.

How many?

The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted the answer:




AP proclaims, "World leaders meet at UN facing turmoil from multiple crises, with few solutions."

Huh?

There was no talk of solutions, just of bombings.

I've castigated the press for failure to cover the political issues in Iraq -- especially since Barack has repeatedly insisted that Iraq's only solution is a political one, not a military one.

But what has the White House offered thus far except a military response and focusing on garnering support for that?

Exactly who works on the political process and when?


The State Dept released the following today:

SECRETARY KERRY: Mr. President, you go right ahead.


PRESIDENT [FUAD] MASUM: (Via interpreter) Our meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State was very positive and very fruitful. We have discussed several issues, especially the situation in Iraq and the region. And also, we specifically focused on this terrorist organization known as ISIL. We have common views concerning this issue, and also we believe that the latest session of the UN Security Council was remarkable, and it gives peace and – gives assurances to people in the region that this threat will be dealt with.
Therefore, we would like to thank the countries that have come together in order to support Iraq and to stand by Iraq and support it in its war against terrorism, which is a new threat in this area.


SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Delighted to be here with President Masum and with Foreign Minister Jafari, who have already proven to be important partners in this effort, and I appreciate the very constructive meeting that we’ve just had to talk about where we are.
Before I get started, I want to just say a few words about our decision to conduct strikes against ISIL targets in Syria, and also against seasoned al-Qaida operatives in Syria, who are known as the Khorasan Group. We have been very clear from the beginning we will not allow geography or borders to prevent us from being able to take action against ISIL, and we will not allow them to have a safe haven where they think they can have sanctuary against accountability. We will hold them responsible for their grotesque atrocities, and we will not allow these terrorists to find a safe haven anywhere. That is President Obama’s resolve.
If left unchecked, ISIL is not only a threat to the stability of Iraq and to the region, but it is a threat to countries elsewhere, including here. From the beginning President Obama has been very clear that this is not America’s fight alone. ISIL poses a threat to not just Iraq and Syria but to the region as a whole, and the region has to be a leader in this effort in order to fight back.
I want to commend President Masum and Prime Minister Abadi for the critically important steps that Iraq has taken to help form a government, and it is obviously important that they continue to take those steps, and we talked about some of that today. They are committed to doing so.
But they’ve also been, importantly, reaching out to their neighbors and helping to build this coalition. More than 50 countries have now agreed to join this effort to combat ISIL, including the Arab countries that joined us last night in taking military action in Syria. The overall effort is going to take time, there are challenges ahead, but we are going to do what is necessary to take the fight to ISIL, to begin to make it clear that terrorism, extremism does not have a place in the building of civilized society. And we will work with our friends from Iraq in order to make certain that their choice to move forward in a democratic and viable way will bear fruit and be supported by the international community.

Thank you.


No, thank you, John.  And could you explain to us why the head of US diplomacy could only talking bombings and war while offering some vague salute to vague events of over two weeks ago?

There's been no political progress in Iraq overseen by the president of Iraq. There's been no progress at all and, in three days, the Parliament breaks for a two week vacation.

Where's the progress?

Where's the work on that?


If you don't get that there are serious political problems to address, you need to read Mustafa Habib's piece for Niqash:


Recently there have been three major issues that the different political blocs in the Parliament have been working on.

Firstly, a new internal bylaw to regulate the work of the prime minister's department. This is something that Iraq's last Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, had refused to even discuss because, one imagines, such a bylaw would have reduced the many powers he tried to keep solely for his executive branch.

The second issue centres on a steering committee for all of the parties that identify as Shiite Muslim majority, which work in an alliance in Parliament. The committee would bring about more unified and quicker decision making among the alliance. In the past, al-Maliki had also refused to help form such a committee because once again, it would have taken away his power.
The third issue is possibly the most important and concerns a number of decisions made by al-Maliki shortly before he was ousted by al-Abadi. The new government wants to know what all of these were – some remain unclear – and they want them annulled or reversed.
This series of decisions includes al-Maliki making some important appointments, handing out sensitive positions to his closest allies and even relatives, as well as withdrawing money from the national coffers.
Early in September al-Maliki appointed one of his closest allies, Ali al-Allaq, to head Iraq's Central Bank. This came at the same time as the Central Bank's former head, Sinan al-Shabibi, was sentenced to seven years in jail on charges of corruption.
It is generally thought that because al-Shabibi, an economist, had resisted al-Maliki's attempts to interfere in Central Bank business and not allowed him to withdraw money from the bank's reserves, that al-Maliki cooked up the corruption charges in order to have him removed from the post.

There have already been calls to reverse the decisions made against al-Shabibi. 
Other appointments made by al-Maliki include appointing his spokesperson, Ali al-Mousawi, as director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, making the head of his financial office, Dea'a al-Quraishi, the Deputy Minister of Planning and appointing an MP from his own party, Ali al-Shlah, as chairman of the board of trustees at the national broadcaster, the Iraqi Media Network, which also runs the Iraqiya TV channel.
Current MPs say that behind the scenes, al-Maliki also appointed dozens more of his closest allies and followers into senior jobs in sensitive positions. Other job holders were forced to retire, army officers loyal to al-Maliki were unjustifiably promoted and other army officers were paid above and beyond their salaries by his office.




There are serious issues to address and there's no excuse for the failure of US outlets to cover that reality.


One of the few figures with national standing in Iraq to remain in Iraq is Ammar al-Hakim.  All Iraq News notes that the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq met today with the leader of Goran, Nicherwan Mustafa, to discuss outstanding issues between Baghdad's central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Under the 'leadership' of thug Nouri al-Maliki, relationships between the Kurds and the central government out of Baghdad soured, to put it mildly.  The conflict which received the most western press was the conflict over oil.  In the continued absence of a national gas and oil law, the Kurds exercised their right to do with their oil as they saw fit.  This alarmed Nouri and the State Dept.  Another conflict was Nouri's refusal, in both of his terms as prime minister, to implement Article 140 of the Constitution.  Oil-rick Kirkuk is claimed by both Baghdad and the KRG.  Article 140 is how the situation gets resolved -- census and referendum.  Victoria Nuland and other spokespersons who were so bothered by the selling or potential selling of oil by the Kurds never expressed a sad note over the refusal of Nouri to obey the Constitution.

They also didn't decry Nouri withholding federal funds from the KRG.  That move was an attempt to blackmail the Kurds on the oil issue.  Nouri also called the Kurds "terrorists" and supporters of "terrorists" and much more.  Nouri refused to respect their territorial integrity and frequently sent the SWAT forces into disputed areas which only heightened tensions.


There's much more and there's much to sort out.

It may not be as 'sexy' as war planes but it should still capture the attention of the western press.

Al Mada notes KRG President Barzani called for Iraq's new government to listen to the Kurds and that KRG President is calling for the three presidences -- Iraq's president Fuad Masum, Speaker of Parliament .  Salim al-Jubouri and Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi -- to visit the KRG.

Over on the violence front,  Alsumaria reports a Sadr City car bombing left 14 people dead and sixty-seven more injured.  All Iraq News quotes a security source stating the bombing was "in front of Muntadher police station."  Alsumaria reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two police officers injured.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 103 killed in Tuesday's violence.


In some possible good news regarding bombings (on the ground, not dropped from war planes), Alsumaria quotes a senior official at the Ministry of the Interior, Adnan Hadi al-Sadi, declared that "sophisticated equipment" would soon be utilized in Iraq to detect bombs.

This would be a huge improvement.

For those who've forgotten, once upon a time a device was invented to find lost golf balls on the golf course.  It couldn't even do that.  But a hack and a crook decided he'd market it as a device that could detect bombs.  You held the magic wand by a car, for example, and ran in place and if the wand moved, there was a bomb!!!!

The US military was publicly calling out this 'magic wand' in 2008 but Nouri al-Maliki, then prime minister, kept spending a fortune on this device.

Even after the man selling it was arrested, Nouri continued to insist it be used.  Even after the man was tried and convicted in a British court.

Even as late as this summer, Nouri was still insisting the magic wands be used.


Because stupidity is not unique to one nation, we'll note this Tweet highlighting US government stupidity:




















  •  







    Tuesday, September 23, 2014

    A Barbarella sequel?

    Jane Fonda gets covered in my local paper.

    She has an idea for a Barbarella remake that actually sounds worth pursuing.  I would pay to see it.

    I'm not going to pay to see her current movie.

    Like most movie goers, I really don't care for Tina Fey.

    Which is why it was no surprise that the comedy's a bomb.

    I asked C.I. for a prediction and she said it will end its run with at least $42 million but less than 50 unless everyone gets out there and promotes the film.

    Tina really is box office poison.

    Some people hate her.  Some people just hate her controversy.

    Some people just hate her inability to act.

    I like Jane's acting.  But I can't sit through Tina Fey, sorry.

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


    Monday, September 22, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Falluja continues to be bombed, Barack's bombing have had no real impact on Iraq and much more.



    David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."  The two go on to note that it may have stopped or diverted a "march toward Baghdad" but the bombings have not stopped the Islamic State which has seized Sichar.

    They write that today "the government acknowledged that it had lost control of the small town of Sichar" and they note the large number of Iraqi soldiers the Islamic State continues to kill.



    Where do you go from there?



    Let's go to a former US President: Jimmy Carter who declared today in video posted at WoodTV.com:


    Because when ISIS forces go into a city and take it over and then the United States goes over there with bombers and drops bombs, we are likely to kill more civilians than we do ISIS members.  And that's why it's very necessary to have our own people on the ground that can give us -- give us accurate information about exactly where to let a missile land or a bomb land to make sure it kills the ISIS terrorist instead of normal civilians.



    At least Jimmy noted civilian casualties.

    Because civilian casualties -- though overlooked by the press and ignroed by the White House -- do exist.


    Sunday, NINA reports, the military's (continued) bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods left 1 civilian dead and ten more injured.  Monday, mortar and rocket attacks left 7 civilians dead ("including a woman and a child") and twelve more people injured.


    Again, David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."



    It's not working.



    Is it legal?



    Probably not.



    On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed included  the legality of Barack's current war actions.


    Heidi Boghosia:  Michael, the US recently began bombing the Islamic State or ISIL with the promise that there will be no ground troops. Let's talk a bit about the legality of this.

    Michael Ratner:  I think the legality of this is important but of course the first thing is this was a promise not to use any ground troops that was -- Obama made that publicly -- and a few days later, perhaps two days later, Gen Martin Dempsey, who's head of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, said he would not rule out the use of ground troops and said, that if necessary, he would recommend that to the president.  The Times then wrote a very strong editorial saying, here we go again, a slippery slope into a ground war, an endless war in the Middle East.  Not that I didn't think they had ground troops in there already, they did.  They called them advisors.  Who knows what they are doing?  I know my experience with "advisors" whether back in Vietnam or El Salvador is they don't just stand there with no weapons.  They often accompany the troops.  They give advice. And, if fired upon, they have the right to fire back. 

    Heidi Boghosian:  And are they -- the advisors -- sort of top level military personnel?  Who are they exactly?

    Michael Ratner:  I don't think they're necessarily top level  Some are, but some are training units, etc. So I think already we are having a certain number of so-called "ground troops" there.  But certainly, Gen Dempsey's statements indicate that we're only seeing the beginning and, as usual, the US population is "being lulled into" another major ground war in the Middle East.  One question as lawyers -- and this is technically a lawyers' show -- is the question of the legality of what the president is doing.  I've spent -- a number of us have -- a lot of our lives trying to restrain US war powers and the US, particularly the president or the Congress together, going to war around the world.  And it's been a task that's been particularly unsuccessful starting with Vietnam where we brought case after case and only at the end of the war really did Congress finally act to restrict the president, after there were secret wars carried out in Cambodia, in Laos, not just Vietnam.  As the devastation became too great, as the opposition here became great, and, really, as the Vietnamese started to win the war. 


    Heidi Boghosian:  Now, Michael, lets just give a basic lesson in government structure.  Right now, what could Congress do to restrain the president?

    Michael Ratner:  Let's step back one second, Heidi, and that is where I'm going.  Right now, the president has not asked for any authority from Congress to either bomb targets in Iraq that he claims are Islamic State targets or, presumably, if they've begun it, bombing in Syria -- again targets that they claim are Islamic State targets.  He has not asked for any authority.  He has , of course, had to use some funding that Congress, I think,  will  approve if he asks for more.  That is not considered "giving authority" by Congress just because they fund a war, that's some specific legislation.  But let's talk about what the president should be required to do and essentially how my office, other people, and I've litigated a dozen case around the world have utterly failed to be able to force the president to obey the Constitution or to force the president and the Congress to obey the UN Charter which also has a prohibition on the use of force. Coming out of Vietnam, Congress did a sort of mea culpa.  They said, 'Well, the president dragged us into this war.  We passed this Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was this open-ended resolution that the president said he could do whatever he wanted in Vietnam.  And he kept fighting the war based on this one broad authorization the Congress gave him over a false incident that took place when one Vietnamese boat supposedly -- but did not -- actually fire on a US ship.  President went to the Congress and they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. They fought that war for years based on that open-ended resolution. 


    Heidi Boghosian: Sort of like the Weapons of Mass Destruction justification. 

    Michael Ratner:  Like that exactly.  That resolution, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, you could liken to the authority that Congress gave the president to go to war in Afghanistan called The Authorization To Use Military Force.  But let's keep stepping back to Vietnam.  So after Vietnam, it cost some 50,000-plus  American lives, possibly 2 million Vietnamese lives, the devastation of our country politically and in the streets but particularlly of course in Vietnam where it's still paying a very heavy cost from Agent Orange to the numbers of people killed.  So Congress then passes what's called a War Powers Resolution.  People here that bandied about a lot.  What the War Powers Resolution did was Congress said, "Look it, we don't want to be in the situation of Vietnam again.'  The president, yes, is required to go to Congress before he can go to war with any country.  That's Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.  The framers were very clear, 'We don't want a president making war on his own.  We want war to be harder to make not easier.  We think it's harder to make if the people who are actually representatives of people and who are paying the costs and are losing their children will have to consent to that war.

    And we'll pick up from there later in the week (hopefully tomorrow).


    Michael wondered about Syria and bombing and today the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:



    Meanwhile, David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."

    So why is it still taking place?

    At what point is Barack's 'plan' supposed to kick in?

    Because it's a failure right now.

    In other news, The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN) reports:




    In an interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday evening, Panetta told Scott Pelley that he "really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
    The United States withdrew its last combat troops from Iraq in 2011 after an agreement could not be reached with Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki about residual U.S. troops.

    But former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), who opposed the Iraq War in 2003, disagrees with Panetta.
    "If you're using that as a reason that that would have prevented what ISIS did, I think you're after the wrong rationale," Zinni said in an interview with CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper."



    Wait, I'm confused, Zinni opposed the Iraq War?  'Cause I didn't see his ass at any rallies or marches.  I did see him on TV.  Not saying, "Don't go to war."  Not, after it started, saying, "Stop the war!"

    He never did that.  It's a myth, it's a lie.  He's a War Whore.  He's been exposed as such.  He retired long ago and, as a New York Times expose a few years back noted, he can be bought.

    Now if this is all too much, if you've been raised on fairy tales, click here for a lengthy -- very lengthy -- 2003 interview he gave to The NewsHour (PBS).  Find in there one time when he says the war is wrong -- not illegal, just wrong.

    He never does.

    He quibbles about this or that but the myth of him as 'against the war' -- this man who supported Bully Boy Bush's "surge" in Iraq -- are just outright lies -- mainly told by little boys who need a daddy figure.

    And, for the record, saying in October 2002 that the US needed to send more troops than Bully Boy Bush was planning into Iraq is not anti-war.

    That same month, he also delivered a speech.  From The History Commons:


    In a speech during the Middle East Institute’s annual conference, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni presents an extensive argument against the Bush administration’s plans for invading Iraq. He makes several salient points. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet In order for the planned military operation against Iraq to be successful it must have international support. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet In order to ensure a quick war, the US must use overwhelming force. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Civilian casualties, collateral damage, and destruction of the infrastructure must be kept to a minimum. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Israeli involvement would create massive instability. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The invasion must not provoke a reaction from the Arab world. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The transition to a post-Saddam Iraq will not be easy. He explains: “If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath-suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily.” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The burden of the war and post-war reconstruction must be shared. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet It will not be possible to simply impose a democracy on Iraq. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Anti-American militant groups cannot be defeated by military means alone. He asks several questions that are rarely asked in public: “Why are young people flocking to these causes? Could the issues be political, economic and social? Could disenfranchisement or oppression be what drives them rather than the religious fanaticism that may be the core element to only a few? How do we cooperate to fix these problems? How do we help a part of the world that’s trying to come to grips with modernity?” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet He questions whether an invasion is even necessary, instead suggesting that there are numerous other issues to deal with of higher priority. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Finally, he says that violence and war are not the solution. “Like those generals who were far greater than I am, I don’t think that violence and war is the solution. There are times when you reluctantly, as a last resort, have to go to war. But as a general that has seen war,… I will tell you that in my time, I never saw anything come out of fighting that was worth the fight.” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]



    Iraqi Minister Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish, who is in charge of Iraq’s weapons programs, invites reporters and members of the Bush administration to visit two of the alleged WMD sites, Furat and Nasser al-Azim. Bush had referred to the sites in his October 7 speech (see October 7, 2002). “The American administration are invited to inspect these sites,” Hawaish says, “As I am responsible for the Iraqi weapons programs, I confirm here that we have no weapons of mass destruction and we have no intention to produce them…. I am saying here and now that we do not have weapons of mass destruction and we do not have programs to develop them.” [BBC, 10/10/2002; Reuters, 10/10/2002] But the White House rejects the offer. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says, “This matter is not up to Iraq…. It is… up to the United Nations to decide.” [White House, 10/10/2002] Reporters, however, accept the offer and tour the Nasser State Establishment, a facility that Iraq claims produces goods for civilian use as well as components for conventional weapons. [Reuters, 10/10/2002]



    That was an anti-war speech?

    Have we all gotten that stupid?

    No.  And, writing in January 2004, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) called the general a "critic" of the war, not antiwar.

    As far Zinni's assertions, I believe Panetta was arguing that several thousand US troops on the ground in Iraq would have given them influence over Nouri al-Maliki.  I'm opposed to US troops on the ground in Iraq -- or in Iraqi air space -- for any reason.  But I'm not going to lie about Leon or pretend he said something that he didn't.

    A lot of people are willing to lie about anything.  As we noted last night 'journalist' David Corn went on MSNBC's Up to bray like a neocon.  This is different, he insists, this violence is needed.



    The perfect response to Corn's crap comes via Twitter.





  • Poor Iraq, keeps getting beaten up by her American boyfriend, who then cradles her saying "Baby, I'm gonna do good this time, I swear."










  • Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al Abadi Receives Australian Defense Minister September 22, 2014 

     Prime Minister Dr. Haider al-Abadi met in his office today the Australian Defense Minister Mr. David Johnston. During the meeting, they discussed security cooperation between Iraq and Australia to counter the threat of the ISIS criminal gangs, and they also discussed the international efforts to combat terrorism and its impact on Iraq, on the region and on the world. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of respecting Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in its internal affairs, which is one of the principles of our efforts in the coming period. Dr. Al Abadi reiterated the rejection of any interference in Iraq affairs indicating that our security forces and the forces of the popular mobilization have the ability to win the battle against the enemy. For his part, Mr. Johnston expressed his country's readiness to assist Iraq in the field of security and provide all kinds of assistance needed by the Iraqi government. Media Office of the Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al Abadi


    The prime minister's office issued the above.








    wbai
    law and disorder radio
    michael s. smith
    heidi boghosian
    michael ratner