I love it. And it's what to hold on to: The reality that Barry is so-over. He can't run in 2016. You know John Nichols is already gearing up to start writing about that election. So Barack won't be the pretty girl we get shoved down our throats over and over.
Thank goodness. And little Princess Barack's going to find the climate has changed. He barely scored a win. 50% of the vote, 2% for third parties and 47.7% for Romney.
Barack squeaked to a win. He has no mandate.
"Four More Years - Of Political Warfare And Disaster" (Hillary Is 44): After a campaign of fear and smear, an economy in shambles, a world
adrift from American leadership, corruption and lies, Barack Obama has
enough electoral votes to drag America further into the abyss. The near
even distribution of popular votes indicates the country is as divided
as ever.
Agreed. Pray for us.
I wish I had something funny and wonderful to share. I don't. I'm kind of sad. My kids are too. I talk about the election with my boys because they're old enough. But I tell them to go easy around their daughter. So I was surprised that she was following it as closely. She goes to a very left school and she knows more about the kill-list than I do. She's like an expert on it and other things.
So she's very sad about what happened. And I gave her a hug and told her we survive everything and we'll survive this as well. She said, "But, Mo-om, the people on his kill-list won't survive. And the children his drones kill in Pakistan won't survive."
So what do you say to that?
I didn't know.
I said, "Honey, we just have to pray for their safety." And even as I said it, I wished I could have offered more. But what do you say?
Wednesday, November 7, 2012. Chaos
and violence continue, among those attacked today include a dean of a medical
school, a plurality of Americans back
torture-Guantanamo-illegal-wars-kill-lists-and-so-much-more, Julian Assange
calls out the War Mongerer in Chief, Nouri tries to bully the Kurds over the
Peshmerga, ExxonMobil serves Nouri notice, 20,000 Iraqis are said to be on the
verge of deportation, and more.
Last night the plurality of US citizens voting on the presidential race
re-elected Barack Obama president of the United States by a thin margin. As Isaiah noted this morning in his
comic, the second term is where Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan
found out what happens when the love's gone -- Bill almost impeached for lying
about a blow job, Reagan with the ghost of impeachment hovering over Iran-Contra
and Richard Nixon with Watergate which really helped to draw attention away from
the slush fund and so many other crimes. Even Supreme Court selected Bully Boy
Bush, when he won a term by the votes and not by the Supreme Court,
struggled.
Already Barack's buddy and former OMB Director Peter The Swinger Orszag, as
Alexa noted this afternoon at Corrente,
has taken to Bloomberg Television to proclaim that it's time to cut Social
Security. Thank yourselves, Americans, you voted for the bastard -- and, yes,
that term is linguistically correct when applied to Barack. The thing with
Bush's first term, he wasn't elected. His crimes were appalling, his disregard
for the Constitution, his Executive Signing Statements, Guantanamo, his illegal
war, all of it was disgusting and, yes, criminal. And those of us who are
citizens of the United States could insist, "The Supreme Court awarded him the
presidency, he didn't win it." But then came November 2004 and enough Americans
went to the polls to say that they were okay with this, tha it was fine and
dandy to torture and worse. At that point, when US voters embraced it, it
became a lot more difficult to say, "Hey, that's him, it's not us."
The people embraced Bully Boy Bush -- a plurality -- in the 2004 election
and a plurality embraced Barack Obama yesterday. Granted the American people
were uninformed by a media that increasingly is exposed as not incompetent but
as deliberately deceitful.
Take CBS News (where I have -- or maybe had before this went up -- friends). Monday Ruth notedErik Wemple's Washington Post
piece about CBS News hiding footage voters should have known about.
September 12th, Steve Kroft interviewed Barack for 60 Minutes. He pressed
Barack on the Bengahzi attack that killed Americans Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods,
Sean Smith and Chris Stevens. Barack -- who would go to the UN and talk about
YouTube videos -- would have to admit to Kroft "it was an attack on Americans."
As Wemple notes, CBS releasing the video after the second debate would have been
good for its web 'hits' and it would have raised the issue of accountability.
It would have forced the media to do their job. Instead, they sat on it and
waited until the day before voting to quietly release it online.
That's not how you run a news outlet. That's not how you inform citizens.
But Scott Pelley was hired to put you asleep, not to inform you. And in that
monotone, as he goes on and on about nothing oh-so-gently, he ensures that
Americans remain uninformed. He does his part, I should say. Despite the fact
that CBS prime time brings in huge numbers and CBS daytime holds its own,
CBS Evening News just can't deliver an audience. So Pelley's impact
is, like the man himself, rather small.
Like Pelley, Diane Sawyer (ABC's World News), NBC's Brian Williams and
CNN's multitude of hosts refused to inform their audience that, September 26th,
the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:
Iraq
and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the
return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the
request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army
Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on
counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
As Ava and I noted, that report was
followed by not one, but three so-called 'presidential debates' ("Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney. Again October 16th. Again October 22nd. Not once did the moderators
ever raise the issue.") Every one of them played dumb while Barack talked about
how he supposedly got the US out of Iraq. Not one of the high paid
'journalists' who moderated the debates ever raised the issue. Candy Crowley
never said, "Actually, Mr. Obama, you are in negotiations with Iraq to send more
US troops back into Iraq."
That would have been too much for a suck-up hilariously named "Candy."
To get that into the New York Times, Arango had to bury it in
paragraph fifteen. If you're not getting what a struggle it was to get that
reality into print, grasp that when the New York Times 'fact check'ed
Barack in the debates on Iraq, they avoided mentioning what Arango had
reported. The editorial boad disappeared what was a news outlet exclusive -- an
exclusive in their own paper -- and they disowned it.
With little to no amplification, it is true that the American people had
little hope of hearing of these important news items. However, they knew
Bradley Manning was imprisoned. They may not have known that election day was also his 898th day being locked away -- still without a
trial -- but they knew he was locked away.
Monday April 5,
2010, WikiLeaks released US
military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were
killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and
Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7,
2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley
Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel
(Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had
been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring
classified information to his personal computer between November and May and
adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second
comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of
classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud
(Los Angeles Times) reported
that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one
that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty
if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of
this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced
that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has
yet to enter a plea and has neither affirmed that he is the leaker nor denied
it. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the election but it was
postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a
record of his actual actions.
At Fort Meade, Maryland, during a motion hearing in Pfc. Bradley
Manning’s court martial, his defense attorney David Coombs told the court
Manning had submitted a plea notice indicating he would accept general
responsibility for providing all charged information to WikiLeaks. The notice
was the beginning of a process that could greatly simplify the upcoming trial
proceedings in February.
Manning did not plead guilty to the charged offenses in the plea
notice. However, significantly, he did indicate with this notice that he is
willing to admit to the fact that the act of providing information to WikiLeaks
did occur or that the government has evidence that would prove he did commit the
act and so he is willing to plea to it.
People who supposedly give a damn about Bradley -- about the torture he's
been put through -- didn't give enough of a damn to take a stand against Barack
Obama. Whores like Daniel Ellsberg even went out trolling for votes for
Barack. No whore like an old whore. And it needs to be made clear to Daniel
that he's no longer needed as a face for the issue. You can't urge people to
vote for the man who has imprisoned Bradley, the man who has pronounced him
guilty, and still be an advocate for Bradley.
In a conversation about alleged WikiLeaks leaker US President
Barack Obama commented on Pfc. Bradley Manning saying, “He broke the
law.”
The words from Obama’s mouth come as Manning is held in prison
awaiting further charges and a military trial. Manning has entered no official
plea and no court proceedings have begun. Yet, the US president dubbed him
guilty of breaking the law.
Many argue no truly fair or impartial trial is even possible at
this point. Some hold there would never be a fair trial since the media had
already convicted manning in the court of public opinion. Now that the
Military’s commander-in-chief has spoke on the matter is even more unlikely the
military trial will be fair and impartial.
Military officers on a potential jury now know that their commander
and chief believes Manning to be guilty. To find otherwise would amount to
undermining his view.
Again, Daniel Ellsberg has whored his reputation and needs to find another
hobby to occupy his final days, he has blown his credibility.
Julian Assange is the founder of WikiLeaks and currently in London at
Ecuador's Embassy. Assange tells Katy Lee (AFP), "Obama
seems to be a nice man, and that is precisely the problem. It's better to have
a sheep in wolf's clothing than a wolf in sheep's clothing. [. . .] All of the
activities against WikiLeaks by the United States have occurred under an Obama
administration." Why is Assange at the Embassy? He states he fears that
British officials will turn him over to the United States or that he will be
sent to Sweden which will then turn him over to the US. Law and Disorder
Radio host Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) is
among the attorneys representing Assange. In a piece for the Guardian in August, Michael
Ratner explained:
There are several unambiguous signs that the US is on track to
prosecute Assange for his work as a journalist. A grand jury in Alexandria,
Virginia, empanelled to investigate violations of the Espionage Act – a
statute that by its very nature targets speech – has subpoenaed Twitter feeds
regarding Assange and WikiLeaks. An FBI agent, testifying at whistleblower
Bradley Manning's trial, said that "founders, owners and managers" of WikiLeaks
are being investigated. And then there is Assange's 42,135-page FBI file – a
compilation of curious heft if the government is "not interested" in
investigating its subject.
In this context, Assange's fears of extradition to and persecution
in the US, and therefore his plea for asylum, are eminently
reasonable.
What's more, Assange is rightly concerned about how he will be
treated if he is extradited to the US. One need only consider how the US treated
Bradley Manning, the
army private who allegedly leaked the cables to WikiLeaks to see why. Manning
spent close to a year in pre-trial solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and
then eight months under conditions designed to pressure him into providing
evidence to incriminate Assange. During this time, Manning was stripped of his
clothing and made to stand nude for inspection. Thousands of people, including
scores of legal scholars and the United Nations special rapporteur on torture,
have condemned Manning's treatment as inhumane, and state that it may constitute
torture. There is no reason for Assange to expect he will be treated any
better.
Most disturbingly, the US government is more concerned with
investigating a journalist and publisher than the high-level government
officials whose alleged war crimes and misdeeds Assange and his cohorts brought
to light.
Those are fears Assange has of the government commanded and directed by
Barack Obama. The media's certainly done their part to hide Bradley away but
the American people should have known about him.
Even so, a plurality said "yes" last night.
And that's the problem. Today people whine about the US being a national
security state. Some foolish ones cite Dwight Eisenhower warning against the
"military industrial complex." Yes, he did warn against it. When? January 17,
1961. As he was leaving the White House and John F. Kennedy was coming in. In
other words, he stayed silent when it would have mattered. In the last gasps of
his presidency, he suddenly wants to alert the American people that there's a
problem -- one he not only refused to fix but also helped create. So some
foolish types today don't get that it's not getting taken down. Not now, not
ever. It's been accepted. By presidents of both parties, yes, but also by the
American people. It's outrageous, it shouldn't continue.
But that's what voting can do: validate government positions.
Last night, American voters said, "Yes to Guantanamo! Yes to indefinite
detentions! Yes to illegal war -- Libya specifically! Yes to ignoring acts of
Congress -- also known as laws -- such as the War Powers Act! Yes to having a
kill list of American citizens!"
They said yes to that and so much more.
We were just noting Michael Ratner. He hosts Law and Disorder
Radio-- a weekly hour long
program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout
the week, with attorneys Heidi Boghosian,
and Michael S. Smith. In February, they
discussed the NDAA with guest Chris Hedges who was suing the White House.
Excerpt.
Michael Smith: The National Defense Authorization Act was signed by
President Obama on December 31st of last year and takes effect this coming
March. The act authorizes the military to begin domestic policing. The
military can detain indefinitely without trial any US citizen deemed to be a
terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. Vague language in the bill such as
"substantially supported" or "directly supported" or "associated forces" is
used. We're joined today by returning guest Chris Hedges in his capacity as a
plantiff in a lawsuit that he's just filed against President Barack Obama with
respect to the National Defense Authorization Act and its language about
rounding up even American citizens and salting them away forever.
Heidi Boghosian: Chris, welcome to Law and Disorder.
Chris Hedges: Thank you.
Heidi Boghosian: Can you talk about the significance of codifying
the NDAA into law essentially several over-reaching practices that the
executive has been implementing for awhile now?
Chris Hedges: That's correct but it's been implementing those
practices through a radical interpretation of the 2001 law, The Authorization to
Use Military Force Act. You remember old John Yoo was Bush's legal advisor. It
was under the auspices of this act that Jose Padilla who is a US citizen was
held for three and a half years in a military brig. Remember, he was supposedly
one of the other hijackers that never made it to a plane. Stripped of due
process. And it's under that old act that the executive branch, Barack Obama,
permits himself to serve as judge, jury and executioner and order the
assassination of a US citizen, the Yemeni cleric Anwar
al-Awlaki.
Michael Smith: Two weeks later his 16-year-old son.
Chris Hedges: Yes, exactly. So what this does is it essentially
codfies this kind of behavior into law. It overturns over 200 years of legal
precedent so that the military is allowed to engage in domestic policing and
there are a couple of very disturbing aspects in the creation of this
legislation. One of them is that [US Senator] Dianne Feinstein had proposed
that US citiens be exempt from this piece of legislation and both the Obama
White House and the Democratic Party rejected that. Now Obama issued a signing
statement saying that this will not be used against American citizens but the
fact is legally it can be used against American citizens. There was an
opportunity for them to protect American citizens and to protect due process and
they chose not to do that.
Michael Smith: Well he also announced that he was going to close
Guantanamo.
Chris Hedges: Right, so it's very disingenous.
Heidi Boghosian: And signing statements really carry no legal
force.
Chris Hedges. Right. And if they wanted to protect basic civil
liberties, they certainly had a chance to do so and it was there decision not to
do that. I mean, the other thing that's disturbing is that it expands this
endless war on terror. So the 2001 act is targeted towards groups that are
affiliated or part of al Qaeda. Now it's groups that didn't even exist in
2001. There are all sorts of nebulous terms like "associated forces,"
"substantially supported." When you look at the criteria by which Americans can
be investigated by our security and surveillance state, it's amorphus and
frightening: People who have lost fingers on the hand, people who hoard more
than seven days worth of food in their house, people who have water-proof
ammunition. I mean, I always say I come from rural parts of Maine. That's
probably most of my family.
[Laughter.]
Chris Hedges: It's a very short step to adding the obstructionist
tactics of the Occupy movement.
Michael Smith: Well that's what we've wanted to ask you because
we've thought all along with the beginning of this war on terrorism that
ultimately these laws stripping us of our Constitutional rights would be used
against the social protest movements at home and the latest development is
absolutely chilling and we wanted to ask you about that.
Chris Hedges: We don't know what the motives are. We do know that
all the intelligence agencies as well as the Pentagon opposed this legislation.
Robert Muller, the head of the FBI, actually went before Congress and said that
if it was passed it would make the FBI's work in terms of investigating
terrorism harder because it would make it harder to get people to cooperate once
you hand the military that power. So I think it's interesting, to say the very
least, that the various agencies that are being pulled into domestic policing --
especially the Pentagon -- didn't push for the bill. I don't know what the
motives are but I know what the consequences are and that is that it hands to
the corporate state weapons, the capacity to use the armed forces internally in
ways that we have not seen for over two centuries. That is the consequence of
the bill. What are the motives? You know I haven't gone down and reported it
in Washington.
Heidi Boghosian: Chris, you know I'm thinking of the Supreme Court Case Humanitarian Law
Project and the notion "providing material support."
[Center for Constitutional Rights analysis here -- text and video.] And in that
case it was also very vague and things that seemed benign could be construed as
providing support but it strikes me that under this piece of legislation also
the notion of associating with others that the government may deem terrorists
becomes possibly vague.
Chris Hedges: Well it is vague. And that's what's so frightening.
And the lawsuit was proposed by Civil Rights attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce
Afran who approached me and said that I needed a credible plantiff. Now because
I had been the Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times and
because I was in the Middle East for seven years I spent considerable time with
both individuals and organizations that are considered by the US State Dept to
be either terrorists or terrorist groups. That would include Hamas, Islamic
Jihad in Gaza, the Kurdistan Workers Party -- or the PKK as it's known in
southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq. All of these organizations -- I mean, I
used to go to Tunis and have dinner with Yasser Arafat [President of the
Palestinian National Authority from 1996 until his death in 2004] and Abu Jihad
[the PLO's Khalil al-Wair] when they were branded as international terrorists.
And there are no exemptions in this piece of legislation for journalists. And
the attorneys felt that I was a credible plantiff because of that. We have
already seen under the 2001 law, a persecution of not only Muslim Americans in
this country but Muslim American organizations -- in particular charity
organizations and mostly charity organizations that support the Palestinians.
And under this legislation, it is certainly conceivable that not only -- many of
these organizations have been shut down, their bank accounts have been frozen,
their organizers have been persecuted -- but under this legislation they're
essentially able to be branded as terrorists, stripped of due process, thrown
into a military brig and held, in the language of the legislation, until the end
of hostilities -- whenever that is.
Last night was a "yes" to that. The problem with these yes votes? There
is the law by word and law by custom and practice. Bully Boy Bush floated outrageous ideas
that Barack Obama took further. Neither man has been prosecuted. By refusing
to prosecute, these actions are now custom. Can someone object? Yes, you can
object to anything. You can also file a lawsuit over anything. But in 2017 or
2018 when we suddenly decide we care once again about, for example, habeas
corpus, a court's going to take into account the fact that two administrations
-- two consecutive administrations have trashed it. (They'll also be taking
into account that they don't wan to open the door for a lawsuit against a former
president or presidents or, in Bully Boy Bush's case, occupant of the White
House.) So lots of luck carrying after everything's over.
It'll be a bit like whining today about what Eisenhower oversaw the
creation of in the fifties.
We can -- and should -- blame the media for a great deal. But the blame
goes beyond the media.
Staying with the Turks, both AP and Reuters report that Turkey's conducting a
two-day ground operation -- yesterday and today -- in which Turkish forces have
entered northern Iraq. AFP observes, "The rare cross-border
strike hit targets some five kilometres (three miles) inside the border and came
as part of an air-backed operation that has been going on for two days,
according to NTV." The Turkish war planes bombing northern Iraq have been going
on for years now. Xinhua notes of the latest, "Two Iraqi
Kurds were killed and three wounded on Wednesday during an air strike on an
Iraqi border area, as Turkish warplanes continue attacks against suspected
Kurdish guerrilla targets inside Iraq, official Kurdish website reported." Aaron Hess (International
Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008, "The PKK emerged in
1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish
population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition
that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes.
The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population
concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the
victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to
accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at
risk." This has been going on forever. Inclusion could have addressed that
long ago, many, many deaths ago. The same is true with regards to Iraq.
Nouri's actions are setting up a struggle which will last years unless he learns
to practice inclusion and stop targeting rivals and Sunnis.
The violence has never ended in Iraq. Many have fled due to the
violence. The Christian population, for example, has been greatly reduced.
Now, despite the fact that violence is actually worse this year than in 2010,
comes the news of a country that intends to force Iraqis out of their borders.
Al Rafidayn states that diplomatic
sources say Sweden is preparing to deport 20,000 Iraqi refugees over the next
few months.
In other news, Al Rafidayn reports that ExxonMobil has notified the Baghdad-based
government in writing of their intent to sell their stake in the West Qurna oil
field. Their desire to sell has been public knowledge for some time. The news
value is that they have now put their intent in writing. Dropping back to the
October 18th
snapshot:
Early this morning, Laura Rozen (The Back Channel) reported,
"Oil giant Exxon Mobil is expected to soon announce that it is pulling out of
non-Kurdish Iraq, an energy expert source told Al-Monitor Wednesday on condition
of anonymity. The decision would not apply to Exxon's contracts in Kurdish
Iraq, which has been a source of on-going tension with Baghdad authorities for
the company, the source said." Ahmed Rasheed and Patricky Markey (Reuters) state
the corporation didn't inform "Iraq of its interest in quitting the country's
West Qurna oilfield project" according to unnamed sources. Sometimes unnamed
sources lie. This may be one of those times. This is very embarrassing for
Nouri and his government and feigning surprise may be their effort to play it
off. 'How could we have stopped it? We didn't even know it was coming!' That
would explain why the 'big surprise' that isn't is being played like it is. Derek Brower (Petroleum Economist) has been covering
this story for over 48 hours (including a source that stated ExxonMobil had
informed the Iraqi government) and he notes that ExxonMobil will be focusing all
their "efforts on upstream projects in Kurdistan instead." In addition to the
claim in Rasheed and Markey's piece about Iraq having had no meeting on this,
Brower notes that a meeting took place today at the Ministry of Oil. It would
appear Nouri's spinning like crazy in an effort to save his faltering image.
(Nouri can certainly spend billions -- as he proved last week on his mad
shopping spree for weapons, he just doesn't seem able to maintain releations
with those who help Iraq generate large revenues.)
This Reuters story notes that unnamed US officials
stated Iraq was informed and it adds the Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister for
Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, "told Reuters in an e-mail that Baghdad was
sticking to its line that all contract signed with the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) without the approval of Baghdad were illegal." ExxonMobil has
long had problems with their deal with Baghdad. In March, Emily Knapp (Wall St Cheat Sheet)
explained, "Foreign oil companies involved in Iraq's oil expansion generally
prefer to be compensated for capital expenditure and service fees in oil because
cash payments are more complicated to arrange. Now the parties have reached an
agreement in which they will be paid in crude. Exxon and Shell spent $910
million on West Qurna-1 last year, and were repaid $470 million in cash." Hassan Hafidh (Wall St. Journal) adds
today, "Exxon's 2010 deal with the Iraqi central government to improve
production in the West Qurna-1 field was never expected to be lucrative under
the best circumstances, the person said. The government had agreed to pay Exxon
Mobil and its partners $1.90 for each additional barrel of oil they pumped after
refurbishing the already producing field. The fees would barely be enough to
cover the companies' costs."
Today Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explains, "Iraq's
cabinet also said on Wednesday it was expelling Turkey's state-owned TPAO from
its exploration block 9 oilfield but denied that the measure was prompted by any
proposed move by the Turkish company into Kurdistan. The withdrawal of Exxon
from a key project in Iraq's south, and doubts about who can replace the U.S.
giant also raise questions about the country's plans to increase crude
production to 5-6 million barrels per day from 3.4 million bpd by 2015." Lance Murray (Dallas Business Journal)
notes that the minority party (currently) in the deal ExxonMobil is walking
out on is Royal Dutch Shell. Dan Ritter (Wall St. Cheat Sheet)
observes, "Iraqi officials previously asked President Barack Obama to
intervene, but there has been no government involvement so far. It’s unclear
what the President could do, if he decided to step in. At the end of the day,
Iraq may just be hurting itself by forcing oil companies to choose, and right
now Kurdistan looks pretty attractive."
In news on the continued political stalemate, Al Mada reports that the head of the
National Alliance Ibrahim al-Jaafari is stating that there is conflict within
Nouri's Cabinet and some ministers are not attending meetings or listening to
other views and he notes that he is against dissolving Parliament and holding
early elections. In other Cabinet news, Dar Addustour adds that the Minister of
Trade Khairallah Babiker, is stating he will withdraw from the Cabinet if the
federal budget does not make good on the Peshmerga budget. The Peshmerga are
Kurdish security forces. The 2013 federal budget attempts to do away with
payments for them. This is similar to Nouri's attempts to do away with the
Sahwa ("Sons of Iraq," "Awakenings"). He's already illegally amassed control
over all security forces (military and police) outside of the KRG. Bassem Francis and Mohammad al-Tamimi
(Al-Hayat via Al-Monitor) report:
A senior official at the Ministry of Peshmerga in Iraq’s
Kurdistan region has called the demand of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
to place the Peshmerga forces under the jurisdiction of the federal government
an “illusion.” He vowed to make an official response in the next week to the
accusations by Maliki.
Meanwhile, a Kurdish lawmaker accused the prime minister of
obstructing the ongoing negotiations between Baghdad and Erbil.
In an interview with Al Sumaria TV on Monday evening [Nov. 5],
Maliki declared his willingness to release funding for the Peshmerga forces if
they place themselves under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, since
the constitution prohibits the financing of the Peshmerga, which fall under the
jurisdiction of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).
This
is how Nouri tears apart the country and works to destroy any national
identity. Nouri al-Maliki is the puppet Bully Boy Bush installed in 2006 when
the Iraqi choice for prime minister did not meet with US approval. It's who
Barack made his own puppet in 2010 when Barack decided Nouri would remain as
prime minister -- in spite of the votes of the Iraqi people, in spite of the
Iraqi Constitution, in spite of a concept known as "democracy." Once again,
John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical
Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily
Beast): Washington has little political and no military influence over
these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in
their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration
sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of
Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration
acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's
bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming
a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise
that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian
government."
I figure we've had enough of the elections and by the time I end this post, it might already be decided so I'm going to focus on something else instead.
Two women who are betraying women.
First up, the idiot Rihanna, "Rihanna unveiled the tracklist for Unapologetic that features Chris Brown on a new song called “Nobodies Business” along with Eminem on another new track."
The fact that Dave Zirin was coo-coo for Rihanna should have been our first clue that she was trash who betrayed women. But she's recording with Brown (and dating him again) after he beat the crap out of her. That's not a message to send to young girls. And let's not forget the hideous Eminem song she plays the woman in -- the battered woman who's happy to be battered. "Well that's alright because I like the way it hurts" she sings in "Love The Way You Lie" as Eminem raps about beating up the woman and about how if she tries to leave him, he'll burn her in bed ("If she ever tries to f**kin' leave again, I'ma tie her to the bed/ And set this house on fire" then Rihanna with her, "Just gonna stand there and watch me burn/ Well that's alright because I like the way it hurts").
This is f**ked up and is played on popular radio that kids listen to.
Rihanna is nothing but trash.
If her ass gets beat to death, I'm not going to feel sorry for her. You can, if you're that pathetic. But she has justified beating up women by going back with Chris Brown and with this awful song with Eminem. It's not funny. Do you not know that most women who are beaten are killed when they try to leave.
It's not funny.
It's trash and it doesn't belong on radio targeting kids.
She's trash and shame on anyone who doesn't call her out.
Alicia Keys doesn't have the need to act the fool. Mary J. Blige is a strong woman.
Rihanna's nothing but a bitch looking to get slapped down.
And doing that publicly says it's "okay" to a lot of little boys growing up who will believe it's okay to hit women and a lot of little girls who will believe that hitting a woman is a way of saying you love her.
Rihanna should rot in hell.
This is Pink's video "Try" (her single that just came out).
Pink is a strong woman who usually promotes strength for all.
And she may think she's doing an 'equality' video.
But the reality is that the victims of violence are predominately women so her having a romantic couple where the man tries to choke the woman and is aggressive towards her?
I'm sorry, Pink, you should be ashamed for yourself.
Rihanna's trash. She can't help it. Someday, she'll be beat to death while she's drugged out.
Pink, however, has a brain and some respect. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she saw the video as some bold artistic statement.
But that's not how it's going to play.
Pink has a young girl following. And this video is not a message to send to young girls.
I've never had a problem with Pink's video. (My favorite Pink song is "Just Like A Pill.")
Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if I didn't have a girly-girl for a daughter.
I was a tom boy and if some guy tried to hit me, I would beat the s**t out of him. There was only one time when I was surprised by a guy in my life and that was because he seemed so nice and he tried to date rape me. If my father hadn't shown up, I would have come out of it enough to beat the crap out of him. My sisters and I were taught where to aim and how.
But my daughter is a girly-girl wanting to dress up as a princess wanting all that sort of thing. So I do worry about her. And she's just the type that would see Pink's video and say, "Pink's so pretty and she sings so great. I want to be just like her . . . in this video!"
Pink has a daughter, by the way. So I would think she'd show a little better judgment when making her videos.
Tuesday,
November 6, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Taji is slammed with a
bombing, Nouri (at present) can't get the support he needs to form a
majority-government, Moqtada al-Sadr continues to present as a leader,
Nouri and his Cabinet attempt to gut the food ration card system, the
European press appears to miss that the cards have more than one use,
Ayad Allawi says Nouri will appear before Parliament, Massoud Barzani
finishes up a tour of the region, and more.
In the United States today, a presidential election is being held. Alastair Reith (CounterPunch) explores Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of the lies being told:
However, both candidates are neglecting to mention a few things about America's 'total withdrawal'.
There are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, each with upwards of 1000 employees.
These
figures include more than just the bureaucrats and diplomats that
immediately spring to mind – the embassy also houses CIA officers,
intelligence analysts, defence attaches and upwards of 5,000 security
contractors.
They do everything from peeling potatoes to providing diplomats and businessmen with armed security details.
Exact figures and details of precise activities are hard to come by, but the latest report from US Central Command details 7,336 contractors working for the Pentagon in Iraq.
It's not just the Pentagon
outsourcing its boots on the ground – when other government agencies
(such as the US State Department) are factored in the numbers become
closer to 13,500.
While Obama and Romney
cross verbal swords over the withdrawal of troops and how it took place,
the privatisation of America's significant and ongoing presence in Iraq
does not rate a mention.
Also noting the US election is Wael Grace (Al Mada) who points out
that Barack's 'withdrawal' has left behind US military as "trainers"
and Marines guarding the US diplomatic staff as well as contractors.
Taji has been slammed by a bombing which has left many dead and many injured. Reuters quotes police
officer Ahmed Khalef stating, "There were army trainees leaving the
base and small buses were waiting for them when the explosion took
place. We immediately started to rescue the wounded. You could smell
charred bodies." Earlier today, Adam Schreck (AP) reported 27 dead (and possibly a suicide bomber) and over forty injured. Hours later, Schreck updated to 33 dead and fifty-six injured. The Frontier Post notes the suicide car bombing was "at the entrance to an Iraqi army base" where recruits were lining up. AFP adds,
"The explosion appears to have occurred as they left the base at
lunchtime. But sources told the AFP news agency there had also been a
recruitment event on Tuesday to welcome potential new soldiers. Such
events have been targeted by militants in the past." Yesterday Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported a Taji car bombing as well -- one that claimed 1 life and left seven injured.
Yasir Ghazi (New York Times) quotes
Mohamed Talal who was hoping to enlist, "I was heading to the place
near the parking lot to check my name when all of sudden a strong
explosion happened where people were gathering. I turned and started to
run, and I began to feel shrapnel in my back and I fell to the ground."
Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) states, "Our police source said that the attack was a parked car bomb, and not a suicide blast." Reuters notes
that the death toll has risen, "A suicide bomber rammed his
explosive-filled car into soldiers outside an army base near Baghdad on
Tuesday, killing 31 people and injuring tens more in one of the worst
attacks this year on the country's military."
Also on violence, All Iraq News notes
that today Iraqiya MP Hamid al-Mutlaq called for Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani to hold responsible
whomever killed Diyala Province's Mohammed Jassim al-Mikdadi and strung
the man's body up on an electric pole afterwards.
In other disturbing news, All Iraq News reports Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson declared today the intent to do away with the ration cards. Earlier this year, Stan Cox (Al Jazeera) explained the food ration card system:
For
more than two decades, Iraq has been running what the World Food
Program (WFP) has called "the largest public food program operating in
the world today". The system dates back to August 1990, when President
Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait. In response, the UN Security
Council adopted Resolution 661, imposing sanctions and blocking
virtually all trade with the country. The government of Iraq quickly
established a PDS to provide food and other basic necessities to all
Iraqis. Little did they know the system would remain in place for more
than 20 years. Because sanctions hampered Iraq's ability to sell oil
or buy food, hardship intensified in the years following the 1991 Gulf
War that ousted Iraqi troops from Kuwait. In 1995, Security Council
Resolution 986 created the UN Oil-for-Food Program, and the PDS was
expanded. But, through the sanctions period and during the almost nine
years of occupation that followed the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, a
significant portion of the population remained vulnerable to hunger.
Are
we not supposed to think? I'm sorry, I thought humans were the thinking
animal. I thought we processed. I thought we did more than just
offered he-said, she-said. Seems to me if Nouri's killing off the
ration card system, you ask a few questions, you make a few
observations.
And I'm real sorry but it's not just about the food or has the press been sleeping for the last years?
Pretend
I am an Iraqi. I want to vote in the provincial elections scheduled
for early next year. And I want to vote in the parliamentary elections
which are supposed to take place in 2014. How do I do that?
Currently -- pay attention AFP
-- I would do as I have done since the US invasion. I would display a
food ration card. This is the identification system that's used.
And
a move away from the card system? With an election coming up and one
supposed to follow within 12 months after the provincial elections? I
think it's safe to argue it's a pretty damn stupid time to drop the food
ration cards. Nouri can't even pull off a census. We're supposed to
believe he can handle voter registration?
Immediately
someone wearing a dunce cap insists, "Well they can end the program and
just use the cards." Yes, they can. If no new voters are coming into
the process. Good thing Iraq's got a population that rends old, right?
Good thing -- Oh, wait. Iraq's median age is 20-years. Iraq has an
incredibly young population and the percentage that will be coming of
age for the parliamentary election is a significant proportion of Iraq's
estimated 30 million people.
So what are
you telling us? The ration card system is ending but you're still going
to issue cards for the next two years to take care of the voting issue?
We've
talked about what is. Let's note what this may be based on past
history: Yet another attempt by Nouri to skew the elections in his own
favor.
For those who've forgotten, Iraq is in
the midst of a political crisis -- one caused by Nouri al-Maliki.
Unhappy that his State of Law did not come in first in the 2010
parliamentary elections, Nouri dugs his heels in for 8 months while the
US government backed him and figured out a way to disregard the Iraq
Constitution, the will of the people and the vote. The White House
decided a contract could sidestep all the issues. So the 8 month
political stalemate ended in November 2010 with Nouri and the leaders of
the other political blocs signing the Erbil Agreement. The contract
had concessions from Nouri (such as the formation of an independent
national security commission, Article 140 of the Constitution finally be
implemented, and more) and, in return, the blocs agreed to let Nouri
have a second term as prime minister. Nouri used it to get that second
term and then trashed the contract, refused to honor it. By the
summer of 2011, it was obvious that Nouri didn't -- as the US State
Department repeatedly lied -- just need more time. No, Nouri wasn't
going to follow the contract. That's when Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds
and Iraqiya began demanding that the Erbil Agreement be honored.
Nouri's failure to honor the contract started political stalemate II.
His desire to target Sunnis and Iraqiya led to the political crisis.
Mohammed Sabah (Al Mada) reports
today that Nouri's wish to further disregard the votes, the voters and
the other parties (including Iraqiya which won the parliamentary
election) has been stymied for while he still wants to form a
"majority-government" (he would block out political rivals), he's
worried that both Iraqiya and the Kurds would prevent him from forming
that if he dissolved the current government. It's a sign of just howed
cowed and cowardly the White House is that Nouri's trying to form a
majority-State of Law-government and they're not saying a word. The
runner up in the 2010 election is trying to seize total control of the
government and the White House is too chicken to speak up publicly. Al Rafidayn reports
that not only is the National Alliance (Shi'ite party led by Ibrahim
al-Jaafari) split on Nouri's plan for a majority government but the Sadr
bloc has also made clear that they oppose it. Let's again note, as we
have since 2010, Moqtada al-Sadr wants to be the next prime minister of
Iraq. In the last years, he's gone out of his way to make moves and
take positions that are seen as inclusive of all Iraqis. And reportedly
(this is what the US government was told), one of the reasons Moqtada
finally agreed to back Nouri on the second term in 2010 was because the
Iranian government told Moqtada, come 2014, they would back him. A
little while ago, when oil rich Iraq, according to Nouri, had no oil
surplus funds to share with the people, Moqtada cried foul. He's
refused to leave that issue alone and Nouri's been forced to admit that
there are funds. Moqtada's still not leaving it alone. All Iraq News reports
that a delegation from the Sadr bloc met today with Minister of
Finance Rafie al-Issawi to discuss this issue and find out what the
progess was on it. The bloc issued a statement noting they will
continue to stay focused on this and ensure that the country and its
children benefit from the oil.
Moqtada
is positioning himself to be Iraq's future prime minister. There's no
reason he shouldn't but he is, to the White House, "Iraq's radical
cleric." If they wanted to stop Moqtada (and they do), the easiest way
would have been to back Iraqiya in 2010 when it won the parliamentary
elections. Then Ayad Allawi would be prime minister (most likely it
would have been him, he is the head of Iraqiya) and if Iraqis were even
just a little bit better off, he'd be sailing into another term in
2014. Instead, the White-House-dreaded Moqtada may be the one. Al Mada reports
that Allawi declared yesterday that the political crisis has led to
serious differences and that Nouri must appear before Parliament as has
been requested. If the work is too much for Nouri, Allawi says, then
Nouri can leave the work to others because many would be happy to take
on Nouri's job.
Al Mada reports
that Baghdad made third dirtiest capital on the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's ranking as a result
of environmental pollution. Meanwhile All Iraq News reports Iraq's Ministry of the Environment is noting the waste in the Khasa River water in Kirkuk -- oil and construction materials.
Turning to England, as noted at War Criminal Tony Blair's online office,
he decided to kick off the work week with another speech, this one to
the Iraq Britain Business Council's 4th London Conference. To them, he
declared "So these are all compelling reasons for Britain and British
investment to be part of Iraq's future. But, naturally, in addition, to
the economic and industrial reasons, British forces helped liberate Iraq
from Saddam and for years with much heroism and sacrifice helped Basrah
survive the sectarian aftermath. They should be proud of what they
achieved. "
Many hearing his remarks probably thought of the news
in June about efforts in the UK to ensure that those who tortured
Iraqis not be legally punished. From Russia Today:
In
2003, dozens of men were allegedly hooded, stripped and beaten in
secret camps across Iraq. One innocent civilian has reportedly died
aboard a Royal Air Force helicopter, and a group of 63 others are still
considered missing after being taken to another secret prison located in
an oil pump station. The shocking revelation is worsened by
the fact that these events – which, if proven true, are clear violations
of international law – were apparently sanctioned by top lawyers in the
British Ministry of Defense, and kept secret from the Army's lawyer on
the ground in Iraq. Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the
chief British Army lawyer in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, told the
Mail on Sunday that what went on in this secret prison network amounted
to "war crimes."
Peter
Mandelson has admitted Tony Blair made a mistake invading Iraq, as he
did not foresee the prolonged violence that was to engulf the country. In
an interview with Esquire magazine, the former king of spin said Blair
had been expecting a "short, sharp success" rather than eight years of
sectarian killing. "He expected it, obviously, not to be a walk in the park but to be a short, sweet success with the downfall of Saddam," he said. "But
it didn't turn out like that, which was more the Americans' fault than
his, but I think he should have gone into it with his eyes wider open."
Sorry,
Mandelson, Tony didn't go to war with Iraq inspite of the US, in went
to war in partnership with the US. That means if the US is 'at fault,'
so is War Criminal Tony. We are judged by who we hop in bed with. As Stop The War Coalition notes, that wasn't War Criminal Tony's only public event this month:
Protest Tuesday 13 November 11am War criminals & arms dealers out of our universities Main Entrance, University College London WC1E 6BT
Tony Blair, John Reid and Michael Goveare among the speakers at the inaugural conference of the UCL Institute for Security & Resilience Studies.
Join
Stop the War to protest against war criminals like Tony Blair and his
friends speaking at a conference to promote the interests of arms
dealers in our universities.
ON TUESDAY 13 NOVEMBER, Tony Blair will be the headline speaker for the inaugural conference of University College London's Institute for Security & Resilience Studies (ISRS).
If you would like to attend Building an ethos of Resilience – A new Manifesto for Business, it costs just £714 a ticket -- or £354 at the "not for profit"rate.
This
is a departure from Mr Blair's recent public engagements, which have
focused more on the religious community. It is, however, perhaps more in
tune with his employment by the government of Kazakhstan, who currently
pay him £8 million a year to whitewash their human rights record.
The
ISRS was founded in 2008 by former MP John Reid. Reid was a key Blair
ally in the run-up to the Iraq war and an 'enforcer' within the Labour
Party. He was appointed Home Secretary following Robin Cook's
resignation to ensure few others would follow suit.
Reid
was known in Whitehall as 'Minister for Newsnight' for his skill in
pushing the Bush/Blair line in media appearances. The invasion of Iraq
may well be remembered as 'Blair's war', and not without some
justification. But there are many people who bear a great deal of
responsibility for that criminal act. John Reid is one of them.
Maybe the November 13th appearance will see someone attempt to Arrest Blair. The website notes it's already paid out money to several who made attempts to Arrest Blair:
Amount in the pot at 28.08.12: £7,262.67
First payment to Grace McCann: £2,619.67 Second payment to David Cronin: £2,801.98 Third payment to Kate O'Sullivan: £3,129.02 Forth payment to Tom Grundy: £2,420.89
Back
to the US where already some states are being called (yes, voting
continues on the West Coast -- never stops the 'news' industry from
predicting an outcome), if tonight's results leave you unhappy, let's join Elaine in noting Brian Montopoli's "Will The Election Really Change Anything?" (CBS News):
Yet no matter who wins on Tuesday, much of what goes on in Washington won't be all that different. That's because there are significant limits on what a president can do without a compliant Congress. And forecasters expect the House to remain in Republican hands and the Senate to remain in Democratic hands.
That sets the stage for the same Congressional gridlock we've seen over
the past four years, when Congress' approval rating has hovered around 10 percent. And
let's say that Mr. Obama wins the election and the House also,
improbably, ends up in Democratic hands. Even if Democrats hold the
Senate, they still almost certainly won't have the 60 votes necessary to
overcome a filibuster, which will make it easy for Republicans to block
many of their policy goals. On the flip side, let's say Romney wins
and Republicans take control of the Senate and hang onto the House.
Republicans also wouldn't have 60 Senate votes, and while either party
could use a maneuver called "reconciliation" to circumvent the
filibuster on certain budget matters - this is what Republicans want to
use to block the health care law from going into effect - the minority
would still have significant power to stymie the majority.
"Rescue America Or Goodbye America" (Hillary Is 44): It’s not as if any side is going to surrender on Wednesday. The
political fights will continue. But the results from Tuesday will
matter for the future, the present, and the past. The American future will be greatly determined on Tuesday. The vote
on Tuesday will also be a shout from today’s electorate as to what kind
of country we want. Tuesday will also inform us all as to what happened
in the past – if Obama loses we’ll finally get to hear the truth about
his history and campaigns as well as rejoice in the judgment call of
history on his tactics througout his electoral history. A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday will mean that race-baiting as a
political movement will end – character, not skin color will determine
our choice in leaders. A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday will mean the
American voter believes in accountability as to elected officials and
not smear and fear slime tactics as practiced so dexterously in Chicago.
A Mitt Romney win on Tuesday means the American future is not the
Greece present. If Barack Obama wins on Tuesday all restraints on race-baiting,
fear/smear politics, and unaccountable elected officials will get worse.
With both these scenarios we’ll bet on the American people but we all
have to understand the toxic influence of Big Media on our daily lives
and on our electoral process. Vote as if your lives depended on it because in many ways they do. As the Professor says, today will be a day of mostly meaningless predictions as to Tuesday’s outcome. There is already a fun Hot Air Survey: Your Election Predictions. The Professor also graphically reminds us that on election day 1980
the polls, according to Associated Press, held the election “too close
to call”. Reagan won solidly. This is important because as we have
written before Mitt Romney has premised his campaign on the 1980
campaign.
I already voted, I did absentee because I would be out of the state for a family wedding anniversary. I'm still in Georgia because if we fly out here, we're taking a week and not just hopping the plane and flying right back out.
"666 Park" airs on ABC Sunday nights. This episode provided a lot of backstory.
Slowly, as Henry doubted Jane -- to the point that even I was pissed off -- Jane began to grasp her own backstory. The woman who was murdered -- in the newspaper story from last week -- she realized it was her grandmother. Which made the young girl under the bed that her grandmother tells (as she's dying from stab wounds) to stay there and be quiet (so that the little girl isn't killed also) Jane's mother.
Jane tells Henry that she "sees things." He thinks she's nuts.
Well if your grandfather killed your grandmother and showed up last week on the Halloween episode to try to kill you too, I think you'd be a little nuts.
Gavin and Olivia. Gavin lied to Olivia about last week. He had her checked out by the doctor (the new one in the building) and found out she was okay. Then he lied and told her she just drank too much. (She was gassed to knock her out when their apartment was broken into.)
A man shows up at her lunch and tells her Gavin is lying. She doesn't believe him. He says she should see a doctor her husband doesn't pay.
She does.
She finds out she had gas in her bloodstream.
Confronting Gaving, she learns that their safe was broken into. For stocks and bonds, this happened? No, he tells her, the other safe.
Immediately, she asks about the box.
So this box is really a big deal.
I've guessed that it somehow keeps Olivia alive.
I could be wrong.
But this episode made me wonder that even more.
Gavin's desperate to get it back.
He tells the man not to open it.
The man brings up an admirer that Olivia had years ago. Then he disappeared allowing Gavin to step-in. What if that man suddenly turned up?
So Gavin may be able to trap people in the box. If so, I'm guessing there are a lot of souls in that box.
Olivia knows enough to know that the box must not be opened.
At the end, the man who's stolen the box is in a limo with it and the box is thumping. (Like the suitcase Jane took out of the basement did. Remember, that suitcase ended up having her killer grandfather in it.) So it was a pretty complex episode as it dealt with a lot of backstory.
I think the show gets better with each episode. It's really moving fast these days.
Monday,
November 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the US gears up for
Tuesday's elections, the issue of the Kurds gets some serious attention,
the political crisis continues, and more.
As last month drew to a close, the US Dept of Veterans Affairs announced
that the home loan program which was created as part of the GI Bill of
Rights back in 1944 had awarded its 20 millionth home loan. The VA's
Undersecretary For Benefits Allison Hickey declared, "The 20 millionth
VA home loan is a major milestone and is a testament to VA's commitment
to support and enhance the lives of Veterans, Servicemembers, their
families and survivors. As a result of their service and sacrifice, as a
group, they prove to be disciplined, reliable, and honorable -- traits
that are ideal for this kind of national investment." The VA has a history page on the GI Bill of Rights of 1944 which opens:
It
has been heralded as one of the most significant pieces of legislation
ever produced by the federal government -- one that impacted the United
States socially, economically and politically. But it almost never came
to pass.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act
of 1944 -- commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights -- nearly stalled in
Congress as members of the House and Senate debated provisions of the
controversial bill.
Some shunned the idea
of paying unemployed veterans $20 a week because they thought it
diminished their incentive to look for work. Others questioned the
concept of sending battle-hardened veterans to colleges and
universities, a privilege then reserved for the rich.
Despite their differences, all agreed something must be done to help veterans assimilate into civilian life.
Much
of the urgency stemmed from a desire to avoid the missteps following
World War I, when discharged veterans got little more than a $60
allowance and a train ticket home.
Veterans of today's wars also have The Post 9/11 GI Bill.
("The Post-9/11 GI Bill provides financial support for education and
housing to individuals with at least 90 days of aggregate service after
September 10, 2001, or individuals discharged with a service-connected
disability after 30 days. You must have received an honorable discharge
to be eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill.") Many of the leaders on the
Post 9-11 GI BIll are no longer in the House -- the 2010 midterms saw a
number of them lose their seats. It's another election year. Voting in
the US is done on Tuesday. IAVA's Paul Rieckhoff (Daily Beast) looks at what the Barack Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns have addressed or haven't addressed in their campaigns:
Eleven
years ago in October, American military forces launched a war in
Afghanistan that's still raging today. One would think that the war and
the postwar care for the veterans that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq
would be a crucial part of the 2012 presidential campaign, but that
hasn't been the case.
In stump speeches and
campaign pit stops across the country, President Obama and Governor
Romney have made cursory references to veterans' care and benefits, but
offered little in the way of specifics. And in the debates, the
candidates spent more time talking about Big Bird than they did vets'
policy. ObamaCare versus "Obama Cares" and "Romnesia" are funny, but
also a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse. The Main
Streets in countless American towns and cities are pushed aside for
carefully crafted PR zingers.
But whoever
wins on Tuesday, America's 2.5 million post-9/11 veterans -- more than
60,000 in Ohio alone -- will be looking to the president to address the
education, housing, employment, and health-care challenges they face
every day -- and to do so substantively, the same way they have tackled
the fallout from Hurricane Sandy. Just because the war in Afghanistan
will end someday doesn't mean it already has, nor does it mean that the
effects of it are going away anytime soon. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I
have friends in IAVA but I'm not a fan of Paul's. That's long
established here. So hopefully when I now say that he has written a
very important column, it means something if even one of his detractors,
like myself, praise it.
I can't praise
Barack's lie that he ended the Iraq War, a lie he makes while also
negotiating with Nouri al-Maliki to send more US troops back into Iraq.
As Tim Arango (New York Times) reported
at the end of September, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an
agreement that could result in the return of small units of American
soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi
government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special
Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on
counterterrorism and help with intelligence." Kevin Gosztola (FireDogLake) notes:
Each paper praised Obama for ending the Iraq War. The Chicago Tribune suggested,
"He set and stuck to a withdrawal schedule for U.S. troops in Iraq."
Actually, in 2008, George W. Bush negotiated the withdrawal schedule. It
also must be noted
the Pentagon wanted to keep 10,000 to 20,000 troops in Iraq as
"trainers" and "anti-terrorism forces. They lowered the figure to around
3,000. The Pentagon, along with the Obama administration pressed for
immunity for any US troops that would remain in the country. That was
met with opposition and, when immunity could not be ensured, the
withdrawal officially began.
The
US presence did not completely end though. According to the State
Department, 16,000 to 17,000 US personnel would remain in the country
along with about 5,500 military contractors. The US occupation would
also leave behind the world's largest embassy in Baghdad.
How did Obama mark the end of the war? Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick in their book, The Untold History of the United States, gave it proper treatment:
…Obama
welcomed the troops home at Fort Bragg. But instead of honestly
treating the Iraq War as the unmitigated disaster it had been for the
United States, drawing some poignant lessons, and thanking those
gathered for their sacrifice, Obama felt compelled to cloak the war's
end in the kind of patriotic drivel that conjured up the powerfully
haunting words of Rudyard Kipling, the erstwhile proponent of empire,
who had convinced his son to enlist in the First World War, only to have
him die his first day of combat. In his "Epitaphs of the War," Kipling
wrote, "If any question why we died / Tell them, because our fathers
lied." Obama's lies would sear just as deeply and painfully. "We're
leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a
representative government that was elected by its people," he told the
troops, praising their "extraordinary achievement." The "most important
lesson," he declared, was "about our national character…that there's
nothing we Americans can't do when we stick together…And that why the
United States military is the most respected institution in our land."
He commended their willingness to sacrifice "so much for a people that
you had never met," which, he insisted, was "part of what makes us
special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don't make these
sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it's right.
There can be no fuller expression of America's support for
self-determination than our leaving Iraq to its people. That says
something about who we are."…
If
anyone thinks that the war is over in Iraq, I have only to open my "At a
Glance" calendar where I have tried to note the number of Iraqi
casualties each day over the last nine plus years: deaths due to
explosions, bombs, assassinations. Just a few randomly selected numbers
from 2012 (these are the number of dead, the number of wounded is of
course much greater). 63, 54, 78, 97, 28, 36, 105, 24, 41, 115 ... the
list goes on and on.
One
of my hopes on this trip is to visit Iraqi families who have had to
return from Syria. Having fled the violence in Iraq, they came to Syria
where I met them as refugees. Now they are threatened once again, and
there are no countries willing to take them. Many have returned to Iraq,
and we are anxious to know how they are doing.
While
some deserve praise, some don't. Such as a spinner spinning online in
an attempt to bully/trick people into voting for Barack. First, you
would have been ripped apart in an undergrad poli sci class for your
gross ignorance -- forget an advanced class. No, we don't have
to vote. Voting is a right in the United Staes. So is owning a gun. I
don't own a gun. Second, Ralph Nader did work in 2000 regarding party
building and ballot access. After that? He continued to do strong
work on ballot access in terms of raising awareness. As for helping to
build the Green Party? The reality that the Green Party was
'conflcited' (co-opted) is why he didn't run with them in 2004 or 2008.
Distortions of Nader only reveal your sublime ignorance. In the
future, stick to horse race 'coverage' because your tired little mind
might be able to handle that. As for the accusation that the Greens
only show up at election time? First, isn't that the only time the
Democrats and Republicans remember that there are voters out there?
Second, your ignorance of what takes places in the fifty states is
exceeded only by your ego assuming you could absorb that information
even if the media bothered to cover it. The Michigan Green Party,
to name but one state, never stops working. From your computer
screen, you may think you see the world. But being aware of what's
happening on the ground would require you traveling to many states --
something I've done repeatedly since the month before the Iraq War
started.
Next topic on the elections: Barack
Obama supporters better get outraged. Republicans vote. I'm sorry if
that's upsetting news to anyone. I've done every task in the world on
campaigns during my lifetime and that includes getting out the vote on
election day. I've driven seniors to polls, you name it. I live in a
state that has gone Democratic in the last five elections. We also are
still voting -- due to the time difference -- when most states have
stopped. Regardless of what the prediction or, yes, 'call' is,
Republcians still show up to vote in those last hours. Many Democrats
don't. Point being, this nonsense of "Barack's going to win!" It's
hurting Barack and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't live in the
PST time zone which regularly sees how this sort of 'the winner's known'
talk effects turnout. It may hurt him just a little, it may hurt him a
lot. But you should be demanding that media stop saying he or anyone
has won.
Democrats are more likely to be
working class and they're more likely to have obstacles to voting. You
start saying that Barack's won, your hurting his turnout and you're
hurting the Democratic Party turnout. Not just in the PST states, but
in all the states. Encouraging people not to vote -- calling the election the day before the vote is encouraging people not to vote
-- can also hurt Senate races, House races and state and municipal
races. People are busy enough as it is, don't give those who want to
vote but are buy a reason not to. (And I'd make this point if Mitt
Romney were the one the press was saying would win Tuesday. Although
I'd be less concerned about turnout being depressed as a result because,
again, Republicans vote regardless. CBS could call it for Barack at
7:30 PM EST tomorrow and Republicans on the West Coast would still show
up at the polls.)
In
addition, the growing prevalence of early voting has provided analysts
with a more concrete metric – allowing prognosticators to base their
assumptions not only on what polls suggest will happen on Election Day,
but also on what early voting patterns suggest has already happened.
English
lit is not poli sci. Maybe people who didn't study poli sci shouldn't
be presenting as 'experts.' Liz's comment above? You have nothing to
base a conclusion on. The votes have not been counted. Not even the
early votes. Not the mail-in votes. Not the votes that will be cast on
Tuesday. You have nothing. You don't have early prognostics.
You
have polling which can be an indication. Provided the pollsters are
doing their job correctly and provided that people aren't pissed off at
the pollsters. Meaning when someone says, "I'm doing a poll . . .,"
respondents aren't thinking, "I hate that polling firm/outlet, I'm going
to f**k with this man/woman and lie about my vote."
Predictions
don't win elections, votes do. Nate Silver and the rest have already
destroyed whatever was left of campaign reporting because the coverage
is even less about issues. (In the film, Network, these
worthless types were represented by the character Sybil the Soothsayer.
Remember when so many on the left couldn't stop citing Network
and insisting we heed its cautionary tales?) Now they're taking over
the last hours of the election as well. Supporters of the nonsense Nate
does like to claim, "Well sports . . ." Correct me if I'm wrong (and I
may be, I don't follow sports) but predicting a winner in sports is
based upon using their past performance in that season. There has been
no 'win' in a general election this year that you can base another one
on. Tomorrow is the contest.
I don't care who
you vote for. If you choose not to vote in a race or not to vote in
all races because you make that decision, that's your choice and be
happy with it. (I will not be voting in the presidential race, no
candidate earned my vote. I will be voting in other races) But I do
care that whomever is elected is elected by the people and not by the
media. The media overwhelmingly wants Barack to win. That's been
obvious for some time. But preening and strutting before an election
may not bring about their desired result.
Trusting
the media worked out real well in 2000, didn't it? And it worked out
real well with the Iraq War, too, right? (Wrong in both cases.) Do you
really want to be a Quil Lawrence? March 7, 2010, Iraq held
parliamentary elections. March 8th, Quil did what? Before votes were counted, Quil was on NPR's Morning Edition telling Steve Inskeep
that Nouri did "very well." Maybe Barack will do "very well," too?
"Very well," when the ballots were actually counted and Quil Lawrence
had left the region and moved on to another story, translated as:
Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya. Second place isn't
winning in an election.
The
political crisis continues in Iraq, not a surprise when the White House
spat on the Iraqi Constitution and the will of the people to back
second place Nouri over first place winner Iraqiya. All Iraq News reports
MP Mohammed Jaafar al-Sadr is calling for Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani to accelerate the resolution attempts. But what can be done?
Saturday Ayad al-Tamimi (Al Mada) reported
that negotiations had stalled as a result of disagreements with the
National Alliance -- specifcially within the 'Reform Commission.' To
avoid a National Conference, Nouri stalled and road blocked and then
finally, in late spring, insisted what was needed was a Reform
Commission. That turned out to be a paper. And all this time, Nouri and
company have led people to believe that there was a paper. Turns out
the paper has yet to be written but there are 'intentions' to write it,
al-Tamimi notes. Yesterday, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reported
a Kurdistan Alliance MP was stating State of Law (Nouri al-Maliki's
political slate) was attempting to prevent a National Conference to
resolve the political crisis. That seems plausible since Nouri's been
attempting to do that since Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and
Jalal Talabani first began calling for one nearly a year ago (December
21st).
The Tigris Operation continues with no US coverage. This
is seen as yet another power grab by Nouri. Nouri is sending in
military under his command to disputed Kirkuk. This has long been
protected by the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces). Nouri has refused to
implement Article 140 of the Constitution (hold a census and referendum)
on Kirkuk to resolve the dispute and his decision to send in security
forces is seen as laying the ground work for his ignoring the
Constitution and just declaring Kirkuk to be part of the Baghdad-based
government and not part of the Kurdistan Regional Government. (Kirkuk
is oil rich.) Alsumaria reports that the Salahuddin Province's Student Council has called for Nouri to cancel the operation. Al Mada reports
that Kurdistan Alliance MP Chuan Mohammed Taha has called out the
operation and states that Nouri has gone beyond any powers listed in the
Constitution. The RAND Corporation's Larry Hanauer examines the Kirkuk
issue here.
The
power grabs never stop with Nouri. Last month, he fired the Governor
of the Central Bank (despite not having the authority to do that) and
declared him a criminal (thereby running him out of the country).
Sinan al-Shabibi had been the Governor of the Central Bank since 2003.
In fact, he's still listed as such on the Central Bank's website whic notes:
Awards
Arabian Business Power 500 - Listed among The World's Most Influential Arabs, June 2012.
Arabian Business Power 500 - Listed among The World's Most Influential Arabs, March 2011.
The New Breed/Listed among the Time-CNN 25 Business Influentials, December 2004.
Career
Governor of the Central Bank of Iraq since 2003.
Consultant on Trade, Debt and Finance to UNCTAD.
Was until retirement a Senior economist at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Undertaken
research on Financial flows, Economics of disarmament, Balance of
Payments, External debt, Globalisation, and the Iraqi Economy.
Managed
projects for the implementation of policy, analytical and institutional
aspects of debt management including the implementation of UNCTAD's
Debt Management and Financial Analysis System (DMFAS) in several Arab
countries. Familiar with the macroeconomic and operational aspects of
the "Debt Sustainability Model (DSM)" of the World Bank, and with the
HIPC initiative.
Coordinated
UNCTAD's work on OPEC financial flows to other developing countries
resulting in the production of numerous reports on the subject.
High-level contacts with Government Officials especially in the Arab region.
Delivered numerous lectures and talks on the "Economic Prospects of the Iraqi Economy" in many international forums.
Extensive travel experience in connection with work on debt management, OPEC Financial Flows and the work on the Iraqi economy.
How did such an applauded figure end up up charged with crimes? Dropping back to October 21st,
" In other scandals, Nouri fired Sinan al-Shabibi as Governor of the
Central Bank (despite Article 103 of the Constitution making clear that
he doesn't have that right -- Parliament does). Since then a warrant's
been put out for al-Shabibi who is said to be in Europe. An unnamed MP tells Al Mada
that Nouri fired al-Shabibi because the man refused to loan Nouri $63
billion that Nouri said was for the government's budget. Al Mada notes
that Moqtada al-Sadr is calling out Nouri's attempts to politicize the
Central Bank and he also asks where is the reform that Nouri promised in
early 2011?" Shortly afterward, Prashant Rao (AFP) reported,
"The targeting of Iraq's well-respected central bank chief appears to
be a move by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to consolidate power and
sends a bad message to international investors, experts and diplomats
say." Long time Iraq observer Joost Hiltermann of the International
Crisis Group told Rao, "The Maliki government will claim it (the move
against Shabibi) is part of long-standing efforts to root out
corruption. It looks more like a long-standing effort to gain control
over independent institutions."
But
that's really more what happened. The how he ended up charged goes
back further. Back to the days when Nouri was having the then-head of
Iraq's Electoral Commission arrested because he wanted to take over that
independent body. At the same time, he was attempting to take over
Iraq's Central Bank, insisting it must come under his authority -- he
targeted all the independent institutions in his attempted power
grab. Fear of the Arab Spring spreading into Iraq prevented Nouri from
following up on that desire. Now he's gone in the back door. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports
Nouri is accused of attempting to stack the Central bank with Dawa
personnel in order to control it. (Dawa is Nouri's political party,
State of Law is his political slate.)
Violence continues in Iraq and is encouraged by Nouri's repeated targeting of political rivals and non-stop mass arrests. All Iraq News reports a Baghdad car bombing near a mosque has resulted in 1 death and six people being left injured. In an update, they note the death toll has risen to 3 with eight injured. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports a Taji car bombing claimed 1 life and left seven people injured.
In addition, Alsumaria reports
that Turkish war planes bombed erbil Sunday night for approximately
one hour, setting at least one section of a forest on fire. Hurriyet Daily News adds
that the latest attacks, beginning Saturday night, are taking place
under the name "Panther Operation" and that Saturday's assault lasted
two hours. They are targeting the PKK. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008,
"The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's
oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has
waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of
Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's
largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration
straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of
imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While
Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order
to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these
are now at risk."
I
am not arguing or asking Turkey to give the Kurds rights, but I am
asking who gave Turkey or Islamists the right to deny Kurdish basic
rights, such as birth rights to a right to life, a right to speak, a
right to worship, and a right to a fair trial before a judge? If God has
created the human race, skin color, languages, as well as tribes, and
rights are natural, inalienable, God-given, and self-evident, then why
do TUrkey and most Islamist countries deny the Kurds those rights? Today
more than 40 million Kurds are denied basic rights not by Christians or
Jews but by Muslim countries; yet, most Muslim countries consider Islam
to be the only religion that administers true justice, tolerance, and
peace on earth, and consider Christians, Jews, and devotees of other
religions as unjust, intolerant, and cruel. But what about the more than
40 million Kurds who live in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria being denied
their basic rights? Why are mroe than 683 Kurdish people
participating in a hunger strike in Turkey and agreeing to die? They
have been on a hunger strike for more than 53 days, and the days move
them closer to death. Because they are like any other human being,
demanding to live in dignity and because death for them is the last
resort to voice their plight even though they cherish human life and
liberty, but will the world listen as the Kurds show solidarity in their
suffering? Will those who learn of their hunger strike pressure Turkey
not to play the hypocrite when it comes to the Kurdish issue but to
value human beings? Will they pressure Turkey to let the kurds decide
how to live and who to worship, and let the Kurds, not Turks, Arabs, or
Persians, decide their destiny?
It
will not be easy, but the uncertainty and plasticity in the region
today offers an opportunity to secure a Kurdish homeland and remedy the
capricious map-making of the early 20th century. Iraq is threatening to
split into the pre-Iraq Sunni, Shia and Kurdish divisions of the Ottoman
Empire, with the Kurds semi-independent and the Iran-allied Shiites
ruling the Sunnis. Iran's economy is in free-fall. Syria will soon have
no central control and no choice. And while no country is eager to
surrender a fifth of its population, Turkey would do well to get ahead
of this issue -- ending the vicious, ongoing war with the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), saving countless lives and positioning themselves
to reap the benefits of a long-term strategic alliance to counterbalance
Iranian influence. Not to mention, membership in the European Union
will forever be out of reach for a Turkey at war with itself.
For
proof of what's possible, look no further than Iraqi Kurdistan, a
pro-American, pro-Israel and semi-autonomous parliamentary democracy
most Americans have never heard of. Nurtured by an American no-fly zone
in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) was established under the Iraqi Constitution in 2005, a
stunning testament to the success of Muslim representative government.
Of more than 4,800 American soldiers killed in the brutal battles for
Iraq, not a single one
has lost their life -- and no foreigner has been kidnapped -- within
the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Boasting two international airports, a
booming oil industry and a dawning respect for the rights of women, this
15,000 square-mile territory of nearly four million Kurds is the one
part of President George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" that was
actually accomplished.
Building on this
unanticipated success, the U.S. should rethink its previous opposition
to an independent greater Kurdistan and recognize that the advantages of
a friendly, democratic and strategically-positioned ally far outweigh
the outdated assumption that the Kurds' national liberation would result
in regional conflagration.
The
blog passed one million hits over a year ago. But something was
happening: both the news media and the American public were suffering
from "war fatigue." Interest in the blog was waning.
Blog
viewership dropped to under 200 hits a day, and even though I was
posting fresh material on Facebook and Twitter, it became more and more
obvious to me that the American public was no longer very interested in a
conflict that, in the case of the Afghan war, had entered its 12th
year.
I'm a realist and I'm fully aware
that after so many years it is hard for people to continue to care
deeply about a conflict that doesn't seem to have any end goal or sense
of mission. So a few weeks ago, I decided I would stop the blog after
the election. (I'm leaving the door open just a bit to a last-minute
change of heart.) If I do stop posting, however, I intend to keep it on
the Internet as a historical reference for anyone interested in the Iraq
and Afghan wars.
You can check out his site
(I never knew about the site until a few minutes ago). At some point,
most will say "enough" (I would love to and am still weighing whether or
not we'll do six more months). I do agree that there is war fatigue. I
also think there are other issues at play. (Including the lack of
interest on the part of the US media which tends to make a number of
people believe that the end credits rolled, the lights came up and it's
all over.) I'm sorry that he doesn't feel there's an audience (our
audience has only increased in 2012 -- the increase has largely come
from outside the US). I'm sadder that he feels you do something based
on numbers. But mainly, I'm saddened by the fact that he's obviously
put a great deal of time in trying to keep Iraq and Afghanistan in the
national discourse and he feels his work didn't matter or doesn't
now. What he has done matters and, even if you were unaware of the
site until this evening (like me), it being out there did and does make a
difference. Whether he continues with it or shuts it down, thank you,
Bill Corcoran for focusing on something that actually mattered in a
landscape that's otherwise so much fluff from sea to shining sea.
