Saturday, July 02, 2016

So pro-slavery Ani diFranco is still alive?

I thought she died.


My mistake, it was just her career.


Kat actually predicted that was coming back in 2006 -- and she was right.




But Kat really nailed fake-ass Ani in 2012, reviewing one of Ani's many crappy albums:


At the start of the seventies, Helen Reddy proclaimed, "I am woman, here me roar . . ." Yet Ani's writing about women as if they're the other and don't include her. It's not about "us" throughout the lyrics of "Amendment." And if a man sang this song, he would be booed off the stage by men and women because it's so insulting. In fact, "Amendment" makes Paul Anka's "You're Having My Baby" seem positively progressive in retrospect.

"Trust," she sings, "women will always take you to their breasts." And pair that with "Splinter" where she adds, "Oh women, won't you be our windows, women who bleed and bleed and bleed [. . .] show us we are connected to everything" -- in other words, stealing from Robert Altman's The Player, it's The Gods Must Be Crazy and women are the Coke bottle?

Uh, Ani, don't try speaking for me and certainly don't go making promises on my behalf. You may have a vagina but we do not share anything else. If you want to 'put out' for 'boys who say yes to ERA,' you go for it, but don't expect me to be a Playboy centerfold of faux liberation, pretending that my putting out for a man equals fulfilling my own liberation. Or that I must "bleed and bleed and bleed" -- really, for who?

And why?

Post-menopausal women who are bleeding have either been beaten or have a health condition. The same for women who have had a hysterectomy. Ani's need for women to bleed is deeply sexist and goes to the violent imagery Ani DiFranco embraces. And to the fact that women exist, in her songs, only for what they can do for men. They're metaphors and machines, not full bodied persons, certainly not independent ones, or rational ones, these nature-centric women Ani apparently observed on some 70s vintage feminine napkin commercial. Ani writes as if her brain has taken off 'on the wings of a Maxi.'

Her muse must have taken off for parts unknown because, over and over, the music and Ani's guitar playing sound tired and lifeless on this album. The opening of "Unworry" teases that it might be a song with life but then it's big band time and a simple thump-thump-thump that's tired and dull. It also humorous -- at least it is when Ani reveals that she thinks she can scat. "Scat" might actually be the term to apply to this album, but not in the jazz sense.

"Amendment" starts off with what sounds like radio static (how very R.E.M. of her) and nonsense sounds kick off most tracks like the start of "Hearse."

That one's yet another ode to 'lesbian' Ani's eternal love for being in bed with men ("I just want to lie here with you"). She then wants to really worship the phallus by telling her man, "The little baby in the next room dreaming is just icing on the cake." For someone with such hot loins, you might think she could write one song with music that was convincingly sexual. You would be wrong. And topping her music on the dispassionate measure are her tired vocals. "I will always be your lover," she insists sounding as if she's asking, "You want Thai or Mexican for lunch?"

Sexy really isn't a quality that's ever applied to Ani. And there's something really f**ked up about anyone who thinks "like a dog chasing after a hearse" is a metaphor for sex. Does Ani get how f**ked up she is?

Of course not. Which makes Which Side Are You On work . . . as a comedy album. But fail as anything else.

Laugh at "Splinter" as you grasp that Ani's now ripping off corporate jingles ("
The touch, the feel, the fabric of our lives"). But mainly, laugh at the millionaire poser. Ani doesn't like it to be pointed out that she's a millionaire several times over. And certainly that fact doesn't jibe with her 'protests' songs. But no real protest singer does an album applauding a US president -- especially when this one has continued empire and war.

"And you can smell me coming from half way down the street," Ani sings on "Life Boat" and also makes very clear throughout Which Side Are You On.

You know Ani, if Massengil worries you, there are homeopathic cures for vaginal odor -- including garlic and tea tree oil. Either way, you should certainly have looked into that issue before stinking up America with your latest release.





Since then, Ani's most infamous for attempting to stage a lady get together at a former slave plantations and then having a fit when she got criticized for it.




Now she's in the news again.


So she's on a tour urging people to vote:




"I have a 9-year-old daughter. The first president she was aware of is Barack Obama, potentially the second could be a female," she said. "That makes me cry just to think about it."




Oh, shut up Ani Fake Ass.


Barack's the king of THE DRONE WAR.


He's failed to end the Iraq War.


And your garbage on Hillary Clinton?




Just shut up already.




"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):




Saturday, July 2, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, a bomb goes off in Baghdad, the United Nations releases the data for June's dead and wounded, calls go out for changes in Iraq's election law, and much more.



Baghdad's slammed with a bombing today.



Suicide bombing in 's Karrada district targeting a restaurant.







ALSUMARIA reports it was a suicide car bomber.





Explosion was near a popular restaurant in 's Karrada area. 20 people were wounded and many shops were burnt/damaged.




Images of the suicide bombing in 's Karrada district earlier.
 







AP counts 18 dead and forty-five injured in the bombing.  The bombing is already 'yesterday' (time change) in Iraq:




Some of the victims of yesterday's suicide bombing in , majority of them worked in the complex.






Among other violence today, ALSUMARIA reports 1 commander of an Iraqi brigade was shot dead by an Islamic State sniper, and a bombing east of Baquba left 1 Shi'ite militia member dead.  And the US government continued dropping bombs on Iraq:


Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 15 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Baghdadi, five strikes struck two ISIL bomb-making factories, an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL staging facility and an ISIL bed down location.

-- Near Beiji, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel entrance and an ISIL cave entrance and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Habbaniyah, two strikes destroyed two ISIL front-end loaders and two ISIL vehicles.

-- Near Qayyarah, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL-used road, two ISIL assembly areas, and an ISIL checkpoint and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed four ISIL vehicles and an ISIL boat.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike suppressed an ISIL mortar system.


Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.



And yesterday was the start of the month which means the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the death and wounded tolls for June:



Baghdad, Iraq, 01 July 2016 – A total of 662 Iraqis were killed and another 1,457 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in Iraq in June 2016*, according to casualty figures recorded by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).




The number of civilians killed in June was 382 (including 28 federal police, Sahwa civil defence, Personal Security Details, facilities protection police, fire department), and the number of civilians injured was 1,145 (including 23 federal police, Sahwa civil defence, Personal Security Details, facilities protection police, fire department).

A total of 280 members of the Iraqi Security Forces (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army but excluding Anbar Operations) were killed and 312 were injured.

According to the casualties recorded for June, Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 978 civilian casualties (236 killed and 742 injured). Ninewa 56 killed, Salahadin 24 killed and 21 injured, Kirkuk 20 killed and 11 injured, while Diyala had 21 killed and 8 injured, and Karbala 8 killed and 18 injured.

According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the Governorate suffered a total of 357 Civilian casualties (15 killed and 342 injured).

The overall casualty figures have dropped over the previous month of May, where a total of 867 were killed and 1,459 were injured. But the casualty figures for June are likely to increase due to the combat to liberate Fallujah in Anbar Governorate.

The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG) for Iraq, Mr. Ján Kubiš, regretted that the violence and the casualties among civilians continued during the holy month of Ramadan.

“We had hoped for a period of calm during holy Ramadan, a month of peace and compassion, but unfortunately the violence continued to take its toll on civilians. The terrorists did not spare an occasion to strike at markets, mosques and areas where people gathered in order to exact maximum casualties among civilians, despite the religious occasion and in total disregard of the values of Islam. In addition, tens of thousands of civilians also were forced to flee their homes in Fallujah as a result of the fighting there,” Mr. Kubiš said.

The SRSG reiterated his call on the parties to undertake every effort to protect the lives of civilians.

* CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas. Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate and are noted. Casualty figures obtained from the Anbar Health Directorate might not fully reflect the real number of casualties in those areas due to the increased volatility of the situation on the ground and the disruption of services. In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents. UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care. For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.




In light of all this violence, some try to impose sense or order upon it.


Azeem Ibrahim (AL-ARABIYA) is only the latest to do so and only one of many to insist that the 2003 invasion gave Iraqis an opportunity that they blew:




But they have failed to take that chance in a spectacular fashion, as even Iraqi insiders who initially supported the Invasion have admitted: "Iraqi mistakes are orders of magnitude more important to what has gone wrong in Iraq than American mistakes." Iraqis did not build political parties to take part in the democratic process based on shared visions for the future of Iraq, say based on left, right, or centrist political ideologies. Rather, they have created parties based on sectarian lines and narrow localised interests. And those parties have always looked to exclude competitors and assert their dominion over the institutions of state. Thus, the political system in Iraq was not an inclusive democracy: instead it was a sectarian exclusivist zero-sum competition for power and resources within the semblance of a parliamentary democratic system.
Fast forward ten years, and that has resulted in the de facto fragmentation of the country in the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish areas, the bitter war against the Sunni ISIS in the north-west, the atrocities on all sides of the conflict, the massive dislocation of people and the ongoing humanitarian crisis both in Iraq and in neighbouring Syria. Yet the problems of Iraq are not new ones, wrought by the American-led invasion. They are the old ones of a bitterly sectarian politics. The Invasion made a cold civil war into an overtly hot one. But the atrocities, the mass killings, the sectarian struggles had been going on long before, even when the country was nominally at peace. The problems, in other words, are not so much with what the Invasion changed -- rather, they are with what has remained the same.


There may be truth in some of that.

But there's a larger truth that such arguments ignore.


The Iraq War did officially kick off with the invasion, but those being invaded were put in charge of nothing.

Instead, the foreigners invading put Iraqis who long ago fled the country in charge.

A bunch of exiles out of the country for decades were put in charge.

They meant nothing in Iraq.


They had long ago fled.

They didn't understand Iraq at that point but were put in charge.

They spoke for no one but themselves.

So don't whine that Iraq blew its chance when Iraqis were never given any chance.

You might be able to make an argument that had Iraqis in their own country been allowed to take leadership, Iraq might be better off than it is now.


But you can't argue that they blew it because they were never given the chance.



The political experience in Iraq has many critics.


ALSUMARIA reports that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr is calling for a change in the election law and for the electoral commission to be abolished.  Moqtada was also asked about former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's praise for the militias and Moqtada declared he was not impressed.



Dawa is the political party of Nouri as well as the current prime minister Haider al-Abadi.  AZZAMAN reports that they are also calling for a change in the election law, specifically they're calling for provincial elections (provinces) to take place at the same time as national elections and want April of 2017 to see both take place (while provincial elections are supposed to be held next year, national elections aren't due until 2018).  Dawa is also calling for the number of Members of Parliament to be reduced by half.


Calls for changes come during a week that saw Iraq's highest court overrule Haider al-Abadi's attept at unilateral changes which included replacing ministers on his Cabinet.  Wael Grace (AL MADA) notes that Haider has stated he will respect the decision of the court.




There are no changes for the Ashraf community, they continue to be persecuted in Iraq.





  1. forcing hardship on depriving fuel/food 6 days




6 days no fuel food 4 Camp Liberty @USEmbBaghdad








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

















Friday, July 01, 2016

I still don't trust Loretta Lynch

So Loretta Lynch (US Attorney General) finally realizes it was wrong for her to have a secretive and private meeting with Bill Clinton since his wife is the subject of a criminal FBI investigation?


Here's the report:




Acknowledging that her meeting this week with former president Bill Clinton had “cast a shadow” over her department’s investigation into his wife, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Friday that she “fully” expects to accept whatever recommendations she receives from career prosecutors investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.




Covering this same topic this morning, Kat offered "Good for Loretta Lynch."


I love Kat.


I respect her.


But I disagree.


I don't trust Loretta Lynch.


This whole thing became an issue before she made her announcement.


I see it as a face saving announcement.


I also don't find it sincere and think if she'd meet in private, she'd also ignore what agents and lawyers at the FBI recommend.


Sorry, I just don't believe Loretta Lynch at this point.


Wish I could.


Think the best of Kat, believe me, I do.


But I think she's a little more trusting than I am on this one.


(And I read this over the phone to Kat before publishing.  She said there's nothing to worry about so don't think we have any problems between us.)






"Iraq snapshot"  (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, July 1, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue,  Falluja's 'liberated' again, the UK is sending more troops to Iraq, Iraq's Shi'ite militias are up in arms that someone would dictate to them other than the government of Iran, and much more.


News from the United Kingdom this morning:



Good day for British govt to 'bury news' as UK domestic politics take priority: UK to send 250 more soldiers to Iraq







Emma Clark (SCOTSMAN) reports:


Scores of extra British troops are being sent to Iraq to help the country in its battle against the so-called Islamic State, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has announced.

Mr Fallon said almost 200 additional personnel and an engineering squadron will travel to the country, bringing the total number of British personnel in Iraq to 1,100.


 




A good question from Twitter:







ON Somme anniversary: UK sends 250 more soldiers to Iraq, Total there now 1,100 Did MPs ever sanction this number..where will it lead?









RT calls it "mission creep" for the UK.  It is mission creep for all.  Offering perspective, Dita Deboni (ONE VOICE) explains New Zealand's troops, UK troops and others:

So despite telling us there would be no troops sent to Iraq in 2014, and then telling us there would be a deployment – but no longer than two years - in 2015, we are now told, this week, that the Iraq deployment of our ostensibly non-combat troops will go on for another 18 months.

This announcement is not really much of a surprise, coming as it does after Barack Obama’s April announcement that the US would be sending an extra 217 troops to Iraq – as well as Apache helicopters and other more serious equipment of warfare. Days later it was announced the UK would do the same. Italy, Germany and France have all sent more troops to Iraq this year. 


There’s a total of over 7000 US and coalition troops, including New Zealand, on the supposed “advise and assist” role in the fight against ISIS across Iraq, Syria and Libya.  And those are the ones we know about. It’s understood there are many more American troops in Iraq than publicly declared, for example, including some of the country’s air forces.



Governments lie.

Then they take a minute to catch their breath.

And then they lie again.


Now remember what Dita's talking about regarding the number of troops while we note the US Defense Dept announcement yesterday:

Strikes in Iraq
Bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 19 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Baghdadi, two strikes struck an ISIL staging facility and destroyed an ISIL bunker and suppressed an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Qaim, a strike struck an ISIL vehicle bomb facility.

-- Near Beiji, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL vehicle bomb.

-- Near Fallujah, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed 42 ISIL vehicles and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 120 ISIL vehicles, an ISIL tactical vehicle and three ISIL vehicle bombs.

-- Near Haditha, a strike struck an ISIL staging facility.

-- Near Hit, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 13 ISIL vehicles and damaged another.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL supply cache.

-- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed eight ISIL rocket rails and five ISIL rocket systems.

-- Near Ramadi, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL heavy machine guns, an ISIL mortar system and an ISIL staging area and damaged two ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike destroyed an ISIL tactical vehicle.

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Waleed, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and two ISIL weapons caches.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.


These are the daily air strikes that US President Barack  Obama started in August of 2014.

Daily.

And, as the US government wants us to know (even though it's not true), those air strikes do not kill civilians.


Handling the gossip column, Phil Stewart (REUTERS) passes on, "U.S.-led coalition aircraft waged a series of deadly strikes against Islamic State around the city of Falluja on Wednesday, U.S. officials told Reuters, with one citing a preliminary estimate of at least 250 suspected fighters killed and at least 40 vehicles destroyed."


Wow, so Wednesday's strikes killed 250 fighters.

And these strikes have taken place daily since August 2014.


How many members does the Islamic State have in Iraq?


Must be millions, right?


But earlier this week, at SALON, Patrick Cockburn noted, "The Iraqi army and security forces, for example, had 350,000 soldiers and 660,000 police on the books in June 2014 when a few thousand Islamic State fighters captured Mosul, the country’s second largest city, which they still hold. Today the Iraqi army, security services, and about 20,000 Shia paramilitaries backed by the massive firepower of the United States and allied air forces have fought their way into the city of Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, against the resistance of IS fighters who may have numbered as few as 900."



So with only a handful, approximately 30,000, in the country why are foreign forces needed?

Didn't the Iraqi forces do a wonderful job of liberating Falluja?

Well . . . not the first time it was announced.

But certainly, last weekend, it had done awesome completely it's mission (if you don't count War Crimes and intimidating the civilian population), right?


Except WORLD BULLETIN reports that a suburb of Falluja (3 miles from the heart of the city) just got 'liberated' yesterday.

Well someday, maybe, right?

At least Iraq is getting along with its neighbors, right?


Well . . .

RUDAW reports:


The Iraqi government has asked Saudi Arabia to stop interfering in its internal affairs in a strong statement a day after the Saudi foreign minister said that the Shiite militia group known as Hashd al-Shaabi must be disbanded.

The Iraqi ministry of foreign affairs said that “it condemns the repeated interference of the Saudi foreign ministry in Iraq’s internal affairs,” said Ahmed Jamal, the ministry spokesperson.

The statement from Baghdad comes a day after Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir said that the Shiite militia was a sectarian group backed by Iran and that it must be disbanded.



Why would anyone be bothered by Hashd al-Shaabi?


Ongoing War Crimes.




  1. Shia Militias crimes
    مليشات الشيعه قتلت 15 سني عراقي اثناء سجودهم بصلاة التراويح ببغداد ابو غريب ولم تذكرهم اي قناة




15 Iraqi Sunni civilian killed During Thier prayers by Shia Militias in  Nour mosque  Abu Ghraib









AL-MANAR reports, "The Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq issued on Thursday a statement to blast the stances of Saudi Foreign Minister's stances which asked for decomposing the PMF units."


Let's note Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing:


Ranking Member Ben Cardin: How do you deal with the Shi'ite militia?  How do they deal with it?

Special Envoy Brett McGurk: Well, it's a good question. First of all, Shia militias have to act under the control of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi state, that's a fundamental principle of the government of Iraq.  We think most of the Popular Mobilization Forces operate under the control of the Iraqi state but about 15 to 20% of them actually do not.  And those groups are a fundamental problem.  The number one thing we do is try to make sure they stay out of Sunni populated areas where they did cause real problems.  So in Tikrit, for example, Shi'ite militias are not inside the streets of Tikrit that's one thing that gave the population the confidence to return.  Uh, we have a principle when we support Iraqi forces in the military campaign: We will only support military forces operating strictly under Iraqi command and control.  That means that going up from the ground up an Iraqi chain of command  into a joint operations center where we're working with Iraqi commanders.  If there's a unit that's not operating under that structure, it doesn't get any support.



If it often sounds, by the way, that Brett McGurk's statements conflict with John Kerry's, they do.

That's why we told you awhile back, John's being shut out by the White House and Brett's the go-to-guy.  In related news, Hillary Clinton's sent out feelers to Brett about being Secretary of State should she be elected president.


Back to the issue at hand, will the Shi'ite militias now be issuing a statement condemning Barack's Special Envoy?

Doubt it.

Nouri al-Maliki, when he was prime minister, banned the militias.  He made various organizations disband them or stated they could not participate in the political process.

He did that because he feared being overthrown.

The always oblivious Haider al-Abadi (the current US-appointed prime minister of Iraq) has no such thoughts.

He not only allowed them back into the process, he made them a part of the government.

They're now a part of the government that he can't control.


And they don't take orders from anybody . . .


Except some take orders from Iran, of course.


And Iraq's long take orders from Iran when it came to the Ashraf refugees.





















Did John Kerry really call Iran "helpful" this week?


Yes, he did.

He'll hop into bed with anyone (that's why NEWSWEEK called him "the randy conspiracy buff" all those years ago -- though only the "conspiracy buff" angle was ever explored in commentaries after the fact).

And he hopped into bed with Iran.

Who's on top, John?

I know this not because it was on the news (though it was).  I know this from visiting members of Congress this week.  And those who advocate for the Ashraf community -- especially from my home state -- are furious with John for that statement.

They point out that the ones kidnapped have still not been returned and that the State Dept still provides no real information.

But, hey, John, you got a new sex partner and at your age, that is an accomplishment.

It doesn't help the persecuted Iranian refugees.

Hey, John, you think they might now ask you about the man you appointed to take care of this problem?

Your personal friend who had no experience in the area, pocketed his tax payer funded salary and then quickly went back into the private industry?

Yeah, I'm thinking so, too, John.


The Ashraf community.


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




The situation has not been addressed.  The Ashraf community continues to be targeted.  The US government legally owes them safe passage out of Iraq.