Monday, January 13, 2014

Armond White and other things

 Kat's "Kat's Korner: Limp Bruce" went up Sunday and so did  Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Duty" went






Hillary Is 44 writes about Bill Gates' new book and other things today:

While Republicans from other potential 2016 campaigns temporarily enjoy the travails of Chris Christie (until they get in the sights of Big Media shotguns), the same outlets writing about Hillary’s Hit List (yes, we mean the Politico co-author) only want to talk about the Republican divide and coming nomination fight. But does anyone think that we have at all been wrong when we write that Barack Obama and his thugs will do what they have to do to keep control of the party and destroy Hillary - or that when/if Hillary Clinton becomes the party nominee the blood bath at the DNC will drench Georgetown and other neighborhoods? As a taste of our next article compare what Politico writes today to what we wrote about a year ago. Here’s today’s Politico take:
“Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.”
This is what we wrote in February of last year:
“LANNY DAVIS today makes us smile and makes the Hopium Guzzlers tremble. The Hopium-laced blood will flow in rivers down the corridors of the DNC if and when Hillary Clinton gets the nomination in 2016. Donna Brazille, the DailyKooks, Judas Richardson, certain Kennedys, and everyone else who sided with Barack Obama over Hillary in 2008 will be disemboweled.
The blood will flow. We haven’t forgotten, Lanny hasn’t forgotten, the racebaiting of 2008. Bill and Hillary have to play a different game, but who thinks they have forgotten?”
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 enemies list: John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, et al. None of us have forgotten. Hear us Donna and Claire “None of us have forgotten. None of us is fooled by your attempts to wash the past with an endorsement. None of us have forgotten. None of us have forgiven.


All I'll add to the above is I see Hillary finally changed her hair.  Good.  It looks much better.

Finally, this news pisses me off.  Armond White got kicked out of the NY Film Critics Circle.  He denies having made the shouts at the presentation.  I believe him, but even if he had, so what?

A director got some negative feedback?

It's not the end of the world.

Remember this when NYFCC pretends to be about journalism or about free speech.

This was about targeting a Black man, this was about going after him.  Doesn't matter in the end, his work stands on its own.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, January 13, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue,  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visits Baghdad, some in the US think you can pet mad dog Nouri, efforts to charge UK officials with War Crimes, and more.



Tweet of the day:

  • As more eyes turn to Iraq internationally, Michael Holmes (CNN -- link is video and text) observes:

    The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to usher in a political era of inclusion and reconciliation. His critics say those first days after the American departure were a signal of opposite intentions that have continued to this day.
    The Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq via the iron fist of Saddam Hussein was at the political and social mercy of al-Maliki's Shia-dominated government. Today, they say, "inclusiveness" never materialized, Sunnis have been marginalized and resentment has festered in a divide-and-conquer political climate. As one local put it, "It's like if you're against us, you're a terrorist and we'll arrest you."


    And the Sunnis are correct.  US President Barack Obama backed Nouri for a second term as prime minister even though Nouri's State of Law came in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.  As Ned Parker explained in "Who Lost Iraq?" (POLITICO) last week:


    It was the April 2010 national election and its tortured aftermath that sewed the seeds of today’s crisis in Iraq. Beforehand, U.S. state and military officials had prepared for any scenario, including the possibility that Maliki might refuse to leave office for another Shiite Islamist candidate. No one imagined that the secular Iraqiya list, backed by Sunni Arabs, would win the largest number of seats in parliament. Suddenly the Sunnis’ candidate, secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, was poised to be prime minister. But Maliki refused and dug in.
    And it is here where America found its standing wounded. Anxious about midterm elections in November and worried about the status of U.S. forces slated to be drawn down to 50,000 by August, the White House decided to pick winners. According to multiple officials in Baghdad at time, Vice President Joseph Biden and then-Ambassador Chris Hill decided in July 2010 to support Maliki for prime minister, but Maliki had to bring the Sunnis and Allawi onboard. Hill and his staff then made America’s support for Maliki clear in meetings with Iraqi political figures.
    The stalemate would drag on for months, and in the end both the United States and its arch-foe Iran proved would take credit for forming the government. But Washington would be damaged in the process. It would be forever linked with endorsing Maliki. One U.S. Embassy official I spoke with just months before the government was formed privately expressed regret at how the Americans had played kingmaker.


    And the US government brokered The Erbil Agreement to give Nouri the second term.  This was a power-sharing agreement, a legal contract, one that US officials told the leaders of Iraq's political blocs would have the full backing of the White House.

    But Nouri used this contract to secure a second term in November 2010 and refused to then implement the concessions he agreed to in the contract to get the second term.

    And the White House?

    They played dumb.

    Nouri stalled on implementing The Erbil Agreement.  Then came the summer of 2011 and Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada al-Sadr all began publicly demanding that Nouri implement The Erbil Agreement as planned.   He refused to.  He's still refused to.  He's a liar who never keeps his word.

    From December 2006 to July 2011, Robert Gates was the US Secretary of Defense.  Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) gets Gates' opinion on Iraq today:

    Maliki “has turned out to be far less inclusive and more of a sectarian leader then we had hoped” after the U.S. “handed the Iraqis a golden opportunity in 2009, 2010,” Gates said today in an interview in New York. “Since then, he’s really been sort of antagonistic towards the Sunnis in a kind of unrelenting way.” 

    Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq also points the finger at Nouri.  David Kenner (Foreign Policy) reports:


     Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq -- a former member of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party before being expelled in 1977 -- told Foreign Policy that the government in Baghdad was using al Qaeda as a pretext to crack down on its political opponents. Marginalization of Sunni Arabs, Mutlaq added, was leading to their radicalization. And even as he deplored the U.S. invasion for being the root cause of Iraq's problems, he called on Washington to intervene in Iraqi politics to save the country from disaster.
    "Yes, I do blame [the Americans]," he said. "And I expect them to do some changes in Iraq now. Not necessarily through military operations, but through political pressure and economic pressure on Iraqi politicians, to make sure that Iraqis feel that they are equal in their own country." 


    Now might be a good time to remember when Saleh al-Mutlaq last gave an interview to a US news outlet. We need to drop back to December of 2011 for that. Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported:


    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S. troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the nation, his deputy warned Tuesday.
    Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was "shocked" to hear U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq." He said Washington is leaving Iraq "with a dictator" who has ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks.
    [. . .]
    "America left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said. "People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster. Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."


    Remember how Nouri responded to that?  Dropping back to December 17, 2011:

    Like Tareq al-Hashemi, Saleh al-Mutlaq is a member of the Iraqiya political slate.  Dar Addustour is reporting that the homes of al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq as well as the home of Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi have been surrounded by "tanks and special forces." Dr. Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi was the previous Deputy prime minister (2007 through 2010). He was the head of Falluja General Hospital prior to that and he is currently the Minister of Finance. Like the other two, al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya.


    And from the December 19, 2011 snapshot:

    Late Saturday night online (Sunday in print), Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted that the 'government' in Iraq is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated Saturday." Really?  All in one day.  Well,  no, not in one day.  She continued,  "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." 

    That's how Nouri responded to criticism just two years ago.  Let's wait and see if he handles it any better today.

    Today the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Michael Knights argues at USA Today:

     Providing counter-terrorism advisors and air support during crises such as the present one does nothing to invalidate President Obama's claim to have ended the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. No "boots on the ground" should not be taken to extremes. And if a post-occupation Iraq cannot openly ask for help from its recent occupier, this should not stop the U.S. from occasionally pursuing terrorists in Iraq when they become vulnerable. After all, is al-Qaeda in Iraq any less threatening than al-Qaeda's ideologues in Pakistan, where America risked undermining the government of a nuclear-armed Islamic state to kill Osama bin Laden without the host government's permission?


    Joining in the arm-arm-Iraq chorus, the editorial board of the Middleton Press insists:





    Critics worry that Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government might turn U.S. weapons on perceived foes in the Sunni tribal ranks; given the increasingly sectarian style of his rule, that’s a legitimate fear. That’s why the Obama administration should make its military aid explicitly conditional on a new political effort by Maliki for a rapprochement with Sunnis. Sunni leaders, who dominated during the long reign of Saddam Hussein, have also been slow to adjust to their minority status. But Maliki is in charge and must take the initiative.


    How does that work?

    How do conditions placed on Nouri work?

    In his first term, which began in 2006, he took an oath to uphold the Iraqi Constitution.  That Constitution includes Article 140 which calls for a referendum and census to be held on Kirkuk by the end of 2007.  He refused to do that.

    Then, in 2010, he wanted a second term the voters didn't give him so the US brokered The Erbil Agreement -- a legal contract.  He used it to get his second term and then refused to honor his contractual promises -- which included, yes, implementing Article 140.

    In February 2011, he insisted that if protesters would leave the streets, he would end corruption in 100 days.  100 days came and went.  No end to corruption.

    When he became prime minister for the second time, he was supposed to assemble a Cabinet.  In fact, that's the only condition to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister.  But Nouri never did that.  In fact, he still hasn't.   Back in July, 2012,  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."  True then and still true.

    You might think if the country was gripped by violence, Nouri would finally get around to filling those positions but you'd be wrong.

    So I'd love to know how the editorial board of the Middleton Press thinks they can impose conditions that Nouri will follow since he's failed to follow every condition (including the White House benchmarks) and every law previously.

    The Center for Strategic and International Studies' Anthony H. Cordesman offers an assessment of Nouri today:

    He has refused to honor the Erbil power-sharing agreement that was supposed to create a national government that could tie together Arab Sunni and Arab Shi’ite, and he has increased tensions with Iraq’s Kurds. As the U.S. State Department human rights reports for Iraq, Amnesty International, and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) make all too clear; Maliki’s search for power has steadily repressed and alienated Iraq’s Sunnis on a national level. It has led to show trials and death sentences against one of Iraq’s leading Sunni politicians including former Vice President Taqris al-Hashimi, who has been living in asylum in Turkey since being convicted nad sentenced to death in absentia by an Iraqi court. It has shifted the promotion structure in the Iraqi Security Forces to both give the Prime Minister personal control and has turned them into an instrument he can use against Sunnis.
    Al Qaeda in Iraq - nor its recent incarnation the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - has not risen up as a rebirth of the opposition the U.S. faced in 2005-2008. In spite of attempts by the Maliki government to label virtually any major Sunni opposition as terrorists, the steady increase in that opposition orginated primarily in the form of peaceful and legitimate political protests against Maliki’s purges of elected Iraqi Sunni leaders, and a regular exclusion of Sunnis from the government – including the Sons of Iraq in areas like Anbar. It came because Maliki used the Iraqi Security Forces  against segments of his own population in the name of fighting terrorists and extremists. It came because of the failure to use Iraq’s oil wealth effectively and fairly – resulting with an economy that the CIA ranks Iraq 140th in the world in per capita income. The opposition to Maliki's government also resulted from corruption so extreme that in December 2013 Transparency International ranked Iraq the seventh most corrupt country in the world, with only Libya, South Sudan, Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia ranking worse than Iraq in terms of corruption.


    Nouri's word is useless.  He's refused to ever keep it and he is the root cause of violence in Iraq.  Furthermore, if the editorial board of the Middletown Press needs a condition, here's a condition:

    Consistent with U.S. law and policy, the Department of State vets its assistance to foreign security forces, as well as certain Department of Defense training programs, to ensure that recipients have not committed gross human rights abuses. When the vetting process uncovers credible information that an individual or unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, U.S. assistance is withheld.

    That condition?  Happens to be a US law.  It's the Leahy Amendment, names after Senator Patrick Leahy.  In spit of that law, people are advocating for the US government to continue to arm a despot who regularly uses weapons on the Iraqi people.


    The violence continue in Iraq today.  One of the targets?  The new Falluja Chief of police Col Mohammed Alewi took over his position yesterday. Today, National Iraqi News Agency reports his home was bombed. NINA also notes a western Mosul bombing left three police members injured, a Baquba bombing left a police member and a civilian injured, 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk, a Baghdad car bombing left 2 people dead and thirteen injured, an Adhamiya Corniche car bombing claimed the life of 1 person and left nine injured, a south Mosul roadside bombing left six construction workers injured, an eastern Baghdad car bombing left 1 person dead and ten more injured, and a downtown Baghdad car bombing claimed 5 lives and left thirteen more injured.

    Yesterday wasn't even the half-way mark but, according to Iraq Body Count, the number killed in violent attacks so far this month reached 420 on Sunday.  AKE's John Drake Tweeted today:



    1. I counted at least 165 deaths and 330 injured in violence last week but true figure likely much higher.





    United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Baghdad today.


    The United Nations notes:

    Voicing concern about the deteriorating security in parts of Iraq, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged all political leaders to unite against terrorism and work together to stabilize the country and stop the “senseless deaths of Iraqi women, children and men.”
    “We agreed that the challenges facing Iraq require all political leaders to fulfil their responsibilities to ensure social cohesion, dialogue and progress over political obstacles,” Mr. Ban said, speaking alongside Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, following their meeting in Baghdad.
    He also met with the Vice-President, the Foreign Minister, the Speaker of the Council of Representatives and President of the Independent High Electoral Commission.
    “The people of Iraq are looking to their leaders for tangible benefits and a better future,” he added, noting that the parliamentary elections due to held in April are an “opportunity” to deliver on these legitimate expectations.
    Urging Iraq’s leaders to address root causes of the current wave of unrest, ensuring that “nobody is left behind,” Mr. Ban encouraged measures to strengthen the country’s social fabric – through political participation, democratic processes and institutions, respect for the rule of law and human rights, and inclusive development. 


    Hamza Mustafa (Asharq al-Awsat) adds:

    Maliki, meanwhile, dismissed calls for dialogue in the Anbar Province, saying that there could be no negotiations with insurgents linked to Al-Qaeda.
    “Talk about dialogue in Al-Anbar is rejected because we do not hold dialogue with Al-Qaeda,” he said, adding that the conflict in Anbar had united Iraqis in their fight against the terrorist group.

    Yeah, Nouri did just blow of Ban Ki-moon's statements.  And that was actually key to the joint-press conference.  AFP reports:

    Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday publicly rebuked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's call for the country to halt executions while standing beside him at a joint news conference.
    Despite widespread calls for a moratorium due to major problems with the country's criminal justice system, Iraq executed at least 169 people last year, its highest such figure since the 2003 US-led invasion, placing it third in the world, behind just China and Iran.

    At Queerty, Iraq War veteran Rob Smith explains why you should buy his new book Closets, Combat, and Coming Out: Coming of Age as a Gay Man in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Army.









    Moving over to  news of England and Iraq.  RT reports:

    The ICC has been urged to investigate the alleged war crimes of UK politicians during the Iraq conflict. A dossier detailing reports of sexual assault, torture and mock executions carried out by British soldiers in Iraq has been submitted to the Court.

    The 250-page document entitled “The Responsibility of UK Officials for War Crimes Involving Systematic Detainee Abuse in Iraq from 2003-2008”, published by the German-based European Centre for Constitutional Human Rights, calls for "opening of an investigation” into the actions of senior British officials during the conflict. 


    Chris Harris (Euronews) adds:


    The head of the British Army, General Sir Peter Wall, and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon, are among those reportedly named in a 250-page dossier alleging the abuse.
    But current UK foreign secretary William Hague said the application should be rejected because the allegations are already under investigation or have been dealt with.
    The dossier, which claims to represent more than 400 Iraqis, was submitted by Public Interest Lawyers. It is said to detail allegations, between 2003-2008, of beatings, electrocution, mock executions and sexual assault.


    Felicity Arbuthnot (Dissident Voice) continues:



    The document, lodged with the International Criminal Court at the Hague on Saturday (11th January 2013), “calls for an investigation into the alleged war crimes, under Article 15 of the Rome Statute” and is the result of some years of work by Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR.). The submission “is the most detailed ever submitted to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor on war crimes allegedly committed by British forces in Iraq.”
    In 2006 the ICC opined that “there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the court had been committed, namely willful killing and inhuman treatment.” However, since the claims were less than twenty cases, prosecutors declined to mount an investigation.
    Subsequently “hundreds of other claims have come to light, prompting consideration of the complaint now. It is the start of a process which could result in British politicians and generals being put in the dock on war-crimes charges.” The “pattern of abusive treatment by UK services personnel in Iraq continued over almost six years of military operations.” When is a crime not a crime, one wonders, when it is “only” in double figures?

    Evidence is presented of “systematic use of brutal violence, that at times resulted in the death of detainees, while in the custody of UK Services Personnel.”














    cnn

    arwa damon
    dar addustour

    Saturday, January 11, 2014

    Film


    "The Politics of Film Criticism" (Louis Proyect, CounterPunch):
    Armond White, the past president of the New York Film Critics Circle, was charged with heckling Steve McQueen at their awards ceremony on January 5th. Just as McQueen was picking up an award from an adoring Harry Belafonte for his direction of “12 Years a Slave”, someone from White’s table yelled out “”You’re an embarrassing doorman and garbage man. F— you. Kiss my ass.” Witnesses automatically assumed that White (an African-American) was the culprit because he despised the movie. However, he vehemently denied the charges.
    Now heckling someone at a film industry awards ceremony is not the sort of thing that would generate much press attention, but in this instance coverage has encompassed the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times as if McQueen had been assassinated rather than heckled. One wonders if Judd Apatow was up there being awarded for directing a comedy starring Seth Rogen as a porn star afflicted with impotence and someone yelled out that Apatow was a big dick himself, would anybody care?
    One can understand why the Hollywood Reporter would have covered the original story but its dissemination to the major media requires some explanation. In my view, it has a lot to do with the role of a film such as “12 Years a Slave” in fostering liberal expiation for racism and the almost cult-like devotion to it within the industry. White had the temerity to label McQueen’s film as torture porn and that had much more to do with the willingness of his professional peers and the press to call for punitive measures than any amount of heckling, which by all admissions lasted no more than 30 seconds or so.

    I haven't seen "12 Years a Slave."  I've seen the trailer and didn't look like anything I'd care for.

    But I'm noting the above for two reasons.  1) I often note Louis' film writing.  2) Armond White is a film reviewer.  I often disagree with him (especially over "Fabulous Baker Boys") but he's a real reviewer.  He's not a hack and it's a shame that so many are so eager to attack him.  That said, he's got a body of work and it'll stand for many, many years to come.

    Veronica Miller writes a hit piece on White at Grio that doesn't even include the fact that he says he did not heckle the director.

     And what's the big damn deal?

    Who ever heckled McQueen?

    It wasn't the end of the world.


    And if White had done that to an African-American (instead of a British Black man), you can be sure the outrage expressed would be far less.  This has to do with degrees of Blackness.  And McQueen's British natures makes him more genteel and so, to some, more worthy of defending.

    As a Black woman, a dark Black woman, I know all about the shadings society responds to.


    And let me add, as a Black woman, I'm really sick of those White critics who pretended to have our back (Black people) in season one of "Girls" but really were just covering for KKK's Lena Dunham.  She promised a Black "girl" in the second season.  She never delivered and she doesn't in season three.  The show's set in NYC and KKK's Lena can't find a Black main character?  Racist.  And racist are the people who won't call her out on it.


    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

    Friday, January 10, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on Anbar continues, rumors of a secret deal surface, Nouri gets more rewards from the White House, Dan Murphy embarrasses himself (again), and more.




    One of the points of Nouri's assault on Anbar was to end the ongoing protests in Iraq -- protests against his government -- protests which have lasted over a year.


    How'd that work out for al-Maliki?



    الجمعة الموحدة في مدينة سامراء:
    .


    That's Samarra.

    You may remember Samarra especially due to AP falsely reporting December 30th that the protests had withered away in Samara.  False then, false today.


    Brave Iraqis also turned out in Ramadi and Jalawla.

    And fearful, scared Nouri resorted to collective punishment again today.   Iraqi Spring MC reports Nouri al-Maliki's air force bombed residential areas in Ramadi today, denied humanitarian aid to Falluja, killed a child named Taha Ayoub Aelchortani and left two more injured with his bombings, bombed homes in Falluja, Ramadi's hospital has received 200 dead or wounded from Nouri's bombings and Falluja has received 150 dead or wounded.  Omar al-Jaffal (Al-Monitor) reports:


    Meanwhile, the head of the tribal council in Anbar, Abdul Rahman al-Zobaie from Ramadi, told Al-Monitor, “The army ought to stop the indiscriminate shelling of civilian houses.” He noted, “This has killed and injured hundreds of civilians and destroyed a large number of houses. The government of Anbar ought to expedite measures to meet the needs of the affected families.” 
    Zobaie said, “Local police forces are deployed at the entrance of the city, and checkpoints have been established in all areas in Fallujah, [and are] working on protecting the governmental institutions with the support of the tribes. There are no members affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham [ISIS] as propagated by some politicians and the government of Anbar.” 
    He added, “The government of Fallujah, with all its tribal sheikhs and dignitaries, are demanding that the central government and the armed forces stop the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas and withdraw the armed forces, as the [local] police are the only party responsible for managing the crisis.”

    AFP notes, "The United Nations and NGOs have said that civilians lack access to essential supplies such as food and fuel as a result of a government blockade, while Human Rights Watch has condemned rights abuses by all sides during the crisis." And there's still little clarity for the western press regarding who's in Falluja with guns.   Isabel Coles (Reuters) reports, "Iraqis fleeing from Falluja question whether the masked gunmen who overran their city 10 days ago are really al Qaeda-linked militants as the government says, but fear their presence will draw a ferocious response from the army regardless."  Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) explains:


    Neutral sources in the city confirmed to Al-Monitor that four armed groups are deployed inside the city and on its outskirts:
    • Tribal gunmen: This group of fighters is led by former army officers belonging to the main Dulaim tribes — among them the al-Bou Nimr, al-Farraj, al-Bou Issa and al-Fallaha — besides gunmen from the al-Jamilat, al-Jabour and al-Janabat clans. They have been organizing under the banner of the Tribal Revolutionaries. It is believed that Sheikh Ali al-Hatem al-Salman is personally leading them. Their political and religious reference is the Tribal Revolutionaries’ Council, which is likely led by the Salafist cleric Abu Abdullah al-Janabi.
    • Assorted armed groups: These had fought against US forces and later either disbanded, reduced their activity or joined the Sahwa or Iraqi security forces. They include Hamas-Iraq, Kataeb al-Thawrat al-Ishrin, Jamaat al-Naqshbandi, Jaish al-Mujahidin and Baathist outfits. These groups have Brotherhood and Salafist leaders inside and outside Iraq and coordinate with the Anbar Revolutionaries’ Council.
    • Salafi jihadist organizations: These groups follow al-Qaeda but are not part of ISIS, having split from it after its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rebelled against the global al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri. The most prominent of these groups is Jaish Ansar al-Sunna.
    • ISIS: Part of the ISIS contingent came to Fallujah from Ramadi, as noted above, after battles there against Sahwa forces. From there, they journeyed to Fallujah and were joined by local ISIS members as well as fighters from Abu Ghraib and other Baghdad environs.
    The picture on the ground is made complex by overlapping forces. No one can say for sure whether there is coordination among these various groups. The most credible information indicates that the Tribal Revolutionaries is the largest, with thousands of fighters affiliated with tribal leaders and clerics, and is native to Fallujah. Meanwhile, outside Fallujah, besides Iraqi Army forces stationed east and north of the city, government Swat police forces have been deployed south and west of it connected to Ramadi. Tribal Sahwa forces are present in the areas of the Swat and army contingents, but are less influential in Fallujah compared to in other cities in Anbar.


    Mustafa Habib (Niqash) reports rumors of secret developments:


    A secret deal was done between the tribes of Anbar and Sunni Muslim extremists this week – the result has seen extremists withdraw from Fallujah. But questions remain: Will PM Nouri al-Maliki still react with military force? How did Al Qaeda manage to take over a city like Fallujah in just two days? And why did they react so diplomatically when asked to leave?

    Sources from within the tribes in the city of Fallujah in Anbar province say that on Tuesday evening, a secret deal was done by the tribes of Anbar and members of the extremist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Sources told NIQASH that the extremist group, also known as ISIS or Daash, said they would withdraw from the city so that the Iraqi army did not invade.  

    For several days now Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been threatening to send his troops into Fallujah to re-take the city; as Iraqi army troops massed on the outskirts of the city he even put out a call to locals to expel the extremist elements themselves - or face an attack by the Iraqi military.
    The deal, done in the central city, was reached in order to prevent any further damage to the city. The city is mostly home to members of Sunni Muslim tribes who tend to be conservative when it comes to religion and to tribal customs. And despite their antipathy toward al-Maliki’s government –a Shiite Muslim-led coalition that Sunni Muslims say has alternately sidelined and targeted them – locals apparently do not want to see a repeat of 2004, when the US army stormed the city after the gruesome deaths of four contractors there. 

    Although it is unusual for ISIS to react in what may best be described as a diplomatic way, they apparently ad good reason.
    “Only several dozen Daash fighters actually entered the city in the first place,” says Ahmad al-Jumaili, one of the tribal leaders in Anbar. “They were only carrying light and medium sized weapons with them. And there is no way they could control a city like Fallujah where all the people of the city have at least one weapon in their homes.”


    AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted the following today:



  • Deadly standoff over major Iraq cities enters second week - :



  • At the Guardian and at BRussells Tribunal, Ross Caputi explains:

    This week, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior's assertion that al-Qaida's affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has taken over half of Falluja is being parroted in headlines by almost every major media network. But again, it appears that the role of al-Qaida in Falluja is being exaggerated and used as a justification for a military assault on the city.
    The violence began just over a week ago, when Iraqi security forces disbursed a protest camp in Falluja and arrested a politician who had been friendly to the protestors' goals. This camp was part of a non-violent protest movement – which took place mostly in Sunni cities, but was also receiving some support from the Shia community – that began a year ago. Iraqi security forces have attacked protestors in Falluja and other Sunni cities on several occasions, the most egregious example taking place in Hawija, when over 50 protestors were killed. 



    While some deal with reality, some struggle with themselves.

    In the church they light the candles
    And the wax rolls down like tears
    There's the hope and the hopelessness
    I've witnessed thirty years
    -- "Hejira," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her album Hejira

    Case in point, Dan Murphy.  Light those candles, Danny, cause the tears they are a coming.

    Today, the Christian Science Monitor reporter Tweeted.



  • I took on a little of the partisan finger pointing in Iraq and the myth of how great things were post surge.



  • Well that's good, Dan, it's good to know you were objective or tried to be and --  Oh, he wasn't done Tweeting.



  • I wrote today if you're listening to people saying Obama "lost" Iraq well, you're listening to the wrong people.


  • Both Tweets take you to the same article by Dan, "The myth of Iraq's squandered stability."  I'm sorry is this a defense of Obama -- something Dan's already written many times over -- or a look at partisan finger pointing?

    Well it is a defense of Barack written by a devote schoolboy -- it's a bunch of crap.


    He should be ashamed of himself, he's immature brat. He's such a little brat and he can't even get his figures right.  He builds his article around 2008 and Petraeus.  That's when, according to Dan, everything went wrong.  Apparently, Iraq's been on a very slow simmer, with a tilted lid, for the last years and it only now boiled over.


    Dan took one for Barack today.  He's really hoping this did the trick and Barack will ask him to senior prom because Dan's got his eye on a purple formal.


    Like I always say, if you're going to be a bitch, don't be a dumb one.  Poor dumb bitch Dan also Tweets:



  • could have somehow seen to it that Allawi was PM after the election. Nonsense. We had no leverage beyond reoccupying.
    That's beyond ignorant.  And 2010 is the starting date -- it's what his article ignores but what a Tweet tosses onto his face.  There were many things that have been done when Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya in the March 2010 elections.  The White House could have pulled their support of Nouri at any point during the eight months when he refused to step down as prime minister.  They could have allowed the France sponsored position of a UN-caretaker government replacing Nouri, they could have done so much.
    Dan can't grasp that because all he ever grasps is his penis which he identifies with a gun and that with the military which is why he wrote his repulsive and ignorant piece today.  Next time, Dan, just excuse yourself, go off in the men's room, beat off, then come back.  Don't type while all your bloods flowing below your navel.
  • He's such a stupid idiot and fate has a way of ensuring the stupid look really stupid.

    If Dan's weighing in on Iraq today, who would be the counterweight?  That's right Ned Parker, an actual journalist.

    At the Los Angeles Times, Ned repeatedly broke stories of Nouri's human rights abuses and secret prisons.  The Christian Science Monitor still can't write about that, not even in retrospect.

    "Who Lost Iraq?" is the title of Ned Parker's Politico essay.  Remember Dan Murphy's first Tweet?  Pretending he was going to step out of partisanship?  Ned Parker actually does that and refuses to play cheerleader for either the Democrats or the Republicans.

    Here's three early paragraph of the articles, Dan Murphy can study and hopefully learn from them:


    It was the April 2010 national election and its tortured aftermath that sewed the seeds of today’s crisis in Iraq. Beforehand, U.S. state and military officials had prepared for any scenario, including the possibility that Maliki might refuse to leave office for another Shiite Islamist candidate. No one imagined that the secular Iraqiya list, backed by Sunni Arabs, would win the largest number of seats in parliament. Suddenly the Sunnis’ candidate, secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, was poised to be prime minister. But Maliki refused and dug in.
    And it is here where America found its standing wounded. Anxious about midterm elections in November and worried about the status of U.S. forces slated to be drawn down to 50,000 by August, the White House decided to pick winners. According to multiple officials in Baghdad at time, Vice President Joseph Biden and then-Ambassador Chris Hill decided in July 2010 to support Maliki for prime minister, but Maliki had to bring the Sunnis and Allawi onboard. Hill and his staff then made America’s support for Maliki clear in meetings with Iraqi political figures.
    The stalemate would drag on for months, and in the end both the United States and its arch-foe Iran proved would take credit for forming the government. But Washington would be damaged in the process. It would be forever linked with endorsing Maliki. One U.S. Embassy official I spoke with just months before the government was formed privately expressed regret at how the Americans had played kingmaker.


    With the exception of naming Joe, you can find that over and over here in the last years.

    We've covered it, we've covered The Erbil Agreement.  Dan Murphy can't find either with his one free hand.


    He also can't find the failure that is Chris Hill.  Chris Hill was not qualified to be the US Ambassador to Iraq and he did more to screw than anyone.  Thing is though?  That was obvious at his confirmation hearing and we noted it then.  He had no understanding of Iraq.  He was a joke.  And he only got worse once he was confirmed.  He was so bad he barely lasted a year and, for the record, when a president nominates someone to be an ambassador, they're not assuming they're going to have to keep coming back -- over and over -- in the same term to nominate others for the same position.

    Hill was a failure.

    You can be an idiot like Dan Murphy or you can start looking at what took place.

    The US government installed Nouri as prime minister under Bully Boy Bush (2006) and they demanded under Barack (2010) that the despot get a second term.

    That's too complicated for Dan Murphy so he goes to 2008 -- the last year Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, pretend not to notice -- and tries to pretend like that's what led up to everything.

    No, this is about democracy, this is about elections, this is about circumventing a Constitution.

    In fact, this is about Dan Damn Murphy.

    I have no problem calling out Bully Boy Bush and the archives make quite clear that, when he occupied the White House, I called him out over and over and over.  Barack Obama has been President of the United States since January 2009.  I don't have a problem calling him out.

    Dan Murphy does which is why he goes to 2008 to explain today's failures (when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House) and acts as though the last five years don't make a difference.

    And it's that same blindness over the last five years that allowed Nouri to grab more power and to destroy more lives.

    Dan Murphy's supposed to be a reporter.  Looking at Nouri's assault on Anbar today, he's unable to make one pertinent observation in a piece he Tweeted about twice.

    He also insists, in Tweets, that the US has or had no leverage.

    Excuse me, what's Nouri's stomping his feet for right now?

    That's right F-16s.  That's leverage the US has.  They have a lot of other leverage as well.  But for simple minds like Dan Murphy the only way to have leverage is to have 'boots on the ground.'  His limited vision goes to why his 'reporting' so often sucks.  He injects his opinions into the reporting and he's not a very thoughtful or analytical person.


    Now if you're not getting how insane Nouri is, please note that in the midst of all this week's events, he wasn't content to leave other things alone.  AFP reports, "Baghdad: Iraq’s oil ministry sharply criticised the autonomous Kurdish region on Friday for its move to sell oil independently, saying it was a violation of the constitution and amounts to smuggling."  It's one fight after another, Nouri's always picking fights.


    And the US government always caters to him.  Even if Dan Murphy won't face that fact.  Barbara Starr (CNN) reports, "The Pentagon is considering a proposal to train Iraqi forces in counterterrorism operations, a senior U.S. defense official tells CNN. It would be the U.S. military's most significant involvement with Iraq since U.S. troops withdrew from that country two years ago."  Julian E. Barnes (Wall St. Journal) adds, "The commando training likely would take place in Jordan and wouldn't require American troops to enter Iraq, a move opposed by the Obama administration and its toughest critics in Congress."



    Tuesday's snapshot noted this from Human Rights First:



    Washington, D.C. – Human Rights First today praised the Obama Administration for supporting the repeal of the Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that led to the war in Iraq after 9/11. The support for the repeal came in an announcement made by National Security spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.
    “While the move is mostly symbolic because the United States is not in an armed conflict in Iraq, it signals the reluctance of the administration to leave endless war authority on the books,” said Human Rights First’s Michael Quigley.
    The administration’s call for repeal of the Iraq AUMF comes amid an uptick in violence in Iraq, and serves as a reminder that the most effective responses to extremist violence will rarely require the status of war, and counterterrorism efforts may even be hindered by a war footing. The administration’s statement also precedes a likely in debate in Congress on the status of the Afghanistan AUMF as the Obama Administration ends combat operations in the country later this year.  At the National Defense University last May, President Obama said he would work with Congress to revise or repeal the Afghanistan AUMF.
    Most Americans are reluctant with good reason to extend the war to dozens of countries simply on the grounds of an al Qaeda-affiliated presence,” Quigley said.  “The debate this year should focus on strategic counterterrorism measures that assure U.S. security with resort to war only as a last step.”

    For more information or to speak with Quigley, contact Corinne Duffy at DuffyC@humanrightsfirst.org or 202-370-3319.



    Today Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Tweeted:


  • Co-sponsoring 's bill to , to end authority for war and prevent more troops being sent there.




















  • Friday, January 10, 2014

    Hillary looks physically ill

    At Black Agenda Report, Adam Engel interviews former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney who was the 2008 Green Party presidential candidate:



    ENGEL: Men and women will always experience life differently, if only because of the way they experience the world in their bodies. If it were in Power's interest to divide people by hair-color or eye color or height, as opposed to race, it would do so, and historical events would follow, but men and women will always be divided in certain fundamental ways. Could you comment on this, in terms of the what and why of racism/class-ism, as well as the one distinction that will always be felt, regardless of how individuals are treated, i.e. gender?


    MCKINNEY: I have traveled around the world and there is one thing that I have discovered about the company I have kept: we women can always find one point on which we may commiserate: men. If it's women in the White House or women in a refugee camp, and believe me, I've been in the company of both. We women can always amuse ourselves with the incredible things that men are prone to do!
    At one point in the discourse, we would say how different the world would be if women were in charge. (sigh) "If only there were more women in policy-making positions . . ."
    For we all agreed on one thing: Yes, we women were a different breed. We were the nurturers of the family and the community. We were the ones who could see across all manner of divides and try to bring family members or community members together. We understood the necessity of climbing atop the petty divides – even if we didn't eliminate them – just to produce some semblance of family or community togetherness. If it were going to be done, it would be the women who would do it. That's what our smug self-assuredness about the values and the valor of women told us.
    Until we encountered that new breed of woman, carved not from Adam's rib, but from some of man's lower depths.
    Dr. June Terpstra calls these the "Hollow Women of the Hegemon." That is, women who have proven themselves capable of formulating and implementing policies as horrid as those of men. Dr. June Terpstra used the term first in her eponymous piece. She uses the term to describe women who carry out policies of war and killing just as men do. Women, unlike the women we used to idealize in our sitting room conversations, who were so different and who could turn the world back right-side up again if only they were given a chance to do so. These Hollow Women were proliferating, even as we sipped tea from our bone china cups; women like Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice can now be added to that list. These are women who have implemented and justified wars of aggression, targeted assassination, torture, and crimes against humanity. These are women unlike any women that we "sort-of" feminists could ever have imagined.
    Which leads me to ask the question: Is this what feminists dreamed of as a strong woman in charge? Being more "masculine" while killing?
    Dr. King said that he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Because of the prevalence now of hollow women of the hegemon in public policy, it has become clear at least to me, that I can no longer assume that just because it is a woman's name that appears on the ballot that, as a policy maker, she will be a woman of justice and peace--a woman with values similar to mine. Maybe that prejudice in the favorable way was never justified, maybe it was our folly to think that somehow women would be immune to the corruptions of power.

    I think Samantha Power needs to be added to that list of Hollow Women.

    Do you think Hillary's running in 2016?

    I don't.

    First off, she's still not broken with Barack, which she would need to do.

    Second, she looks so awful.

    Either she's not healthy or all the sudden the years are hitting her.

    My aunt was that way.  Up until 58, you would have thought she was 29.  And not because of  'Black don't crack.'  It wasn't just a lack of wrinkles.

    When she turned 58, boom, the age hit her in the hips, in the butt, in the upper arms, in the neck . . .

    And that's what I think of when I look at Hillary today.

    That and how sad it is that she's determined to die her hair blond at her age.

    She's 66 and dying her hair and, by having it long, it looks ratty and she looks like an old woman who scares children.

    That's why I think she's sick.

    Hillary's always played with her hair styles over the years but she's never had one that looked so bad.

    I honestly think she's not planning to run for anything and that we'll be hearing about health problems shortly.


    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

    Thursday, January 9, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on political rivals continues, the White House continues to dance on the string Nouri pulls, a few voices began to note this isn't about 'terrorism,' and much more.




    Failed spokesperson, Hillary Clinton gal-pal and spouse in neocon dynasty Victoria Nuland has weighed in on Iraq.  Failure is rewarded in Barack's administration -- failure and deception.  Which is how Dick Cheney's right-hand ended up in Barack's administration to begin with.  Nuland was interviewed for the Netherlands' Nieuwsuur:


    Question: The last few days we had some very serious news from Iraq.

    Assistant Secretary Nuland: Absolutely.

    Question: Anbar Province. And some commentators are now saying it was a mistake for the United States to leave so soon. Iraq was not ready for it. What are your feelings about this?

    Assistant Secretary Nuland: Obviously we are all watching with concern the situation on the ground in Iraq. I think you know that Vice President Biden was in touch with key Iraqi leaders in the last 36 hours to urge them to work together and to work with tribal leaders and others in the key cities in Fallujah and Ramadi, to say no to terror, to stand up to taking Iraq backwards, and for Iraqis to manage their security together.
    I think you know the backdrop of the U.S. decision. It was an Iraqi decision, how we would work with them going forward, and we have in this instance offered certain kinds of support for their security effort and we’ll continue to do that.

    No, he's not.  Even away from a podium, Victoria Nuland can't stop lying -- no wonder she worked so well with Dick Cheney for so many years.

    What leaders has Vice President Joe Biden spoken to?

    AP reports he finally spoke to KRG President Massoud Barazani today.

    Took his sweet ass time, didn't he?

    How does the US government leave Barazni out of the loop until today?  Barzani is a power player, he is the head of a political dynasty.  You're in a panic over Iraq but can't figure out how to look in the Kurds?


    Hoshyar Zebaria?  That little nobody?  That toad lackey?  Well maybe John Kerry liked speaking to him but Zebari represents no constituency and Goran can't stand him, the Talabani family sees him as an opportunist so exactly what faction does he represent?  The Barzanis?  No.  He represents no one.


    Iraq has no president -- the whole country's in a Constitutional emergency if anyone was smart enough about the law and grasp what was happening.  December 2012 -- not last month, December a year ago, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.  He has been out of the country for over a year.  He's propped up every now and then to be posed for pictures.  No video because he can't speak.  And he can't carry out his duties and hasn't been able to for over a year.

    Some want to say the post is 'ceremonial' only -- yeah, well, so's the US Vice Presidency, right?


    Over 15,000 Anbar residents have fled to Erbil -- part of the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government.  At what point did you plan to bring them into the conversation?

    Today.

    No, not even today.

    AP explains Joe used his time today to whine about the KRG's deal with Turkey -- the deal Nouri doesn't like.

    Why the hell has the White House made What Nouri Wants their governing principle?

    Even now, when Joe should be doing the job of bringing in the Kurds, he fails because he's too damn busy whining that the KRG has an oil deal Nouri doesn't like.

    Nouri has certainly  f**ked the White House up the ass for the last five years.

    Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal but at least he wasn't jerked around in the public square by his puppet Nouri al-Maliki.

    The editorial board of Lebanon's Daily Star offers "U.S. nearing irrelevance."  Five years of doing Nouri's bidding slowly does not become strength by doing it quickly.  The US government is becoming a joke.  Barack's a klutz on the world stage, that's how he managed to spend the second half of 2013 elevating Vladamir Putin up to world leader status.  The White House is running blind, there's no grown up in charge and everyone's in a panic.

    In their panic, they're trying to arm Nouri more and quicker and John T. Bennett (Defense News) notes this criticism:

    “What is shocking is the State Department and the administration had not been more engaging with us on what they’re doing with the Iraqis on this,” a Senate Foreign Relations Committee aide told Defense News Thursday in a telephone conversation that included a second panel aide. “I think the administration has not yet successfully calibrated how to best engage with Congress.”

    Guy Taylor (Washington Times) speaks to Iraq's Ambassador to the US Lukman Faily who parrots the line from Nouri:

    “The administration has to have a better understanding of any adverse impact of any delay in provision of support to Iraq,” Ambassador Lukman Faily told The Washington Times in an interview Wednesday. “It cannot afford a whole town or province of Iraq falling to al Qaeda and becoming a safe haven. It’s against the U.S. strategic interest. It’s against the U.S. national security to do that.”

    When you're playing someone else's game on their terms, you have no influence.  

    If there was adult left in the White House, they'd be focusing their attention on something other than Nouri's narrative and Nouri's wants and desires.

    They'd also be asking why Nouri kicked these events off now?

    Ellen Knickmeyer  (Wall St. Journal) reports:

    Voters in Mr. Maliki's political base in Iraq's largely Shiite south are speaking out, with some urging Iraq's army to attack Fallujah.
    For Mr. Maliki, the reward of a tough response "includes getting the prime minister's ratings [stature] high among ordinary Shiites, who still don't trust the Sunni community and feel uncomfortable [about] the Sunni protests," said Fadel al-Kifaee, a political analyst in Baghdad.

    Mr. Maliki is hoping for a third term as prime minister in national elections in April, said Kournay al-Mulhem, the Berlin-based editor at large for the Iraqi news website Niqash.


    Instead of questioning the events, they're so busy responding to the chaos Nouri's created, they can't even take a moment to think.


    Back to Nuland.


    Question: The Secretary of State said, Kerry said we might send some more weapons, but there will be no boots on the ground, no new boots on the ground. Is it possible for the United States to stay out if Iraq might become another safe haven for terrorists?

    Assistant Secretary Nuland: Again, none of us has a crystal ball but we are focused now with the Iraqis on their capacity as citizens of their country to manage their security issues together, to manage it across confessional lines, to manage it across political lines. That’s what they want to do with our support, with the support of European countries as well. So that’s what we should all be pushing for now. Iraqis being able to manage their own security challenges.

    Question: Can they?

    Assistant Secretary Nuland: Again, that is what they want to be able to do. We need to support them in that and we need to work with them to get the kind of progress that they deserve and that the Iraqi people have suffered a lot to have.

    Question: Were you shocked that the rebels were able to take control of Fallujah which is so important city politically, symbolically?


    Assistant Secretary Nuland: The presence of extremists of this kind, whether it’s in Iraq, whether it’s in Syria, whether it’s in Lebanon, is disturbing to all of us.

    But this was never about terror.  This was about Nouri arresting a political rival and stopping a political protest.

    December 27th, the Iraqi protests continue against Nouri's corrupt government -- a year and a week and counting.  Nouri was furious and vowed publicly, on TV, that the protests would not see another Friday.  Decemeber 28th, he ordered the arrest of Ahmed al-Alwani.  There were a number of problems including that a dawn raid on a person's home left 6 people -- including al-Alwani's brother -- dead.  Equally true, there was no right to arrest him.  He's a Member of Parliament.  He can be arrested by police if they catch him while he's carrying out a crime.  Otherwise, Parliament's got to first vote to strip the MP immunity or there's no arrest.  What's worse than the Constitution not being followed were idiots of Nouri's party stating that saying someone was guilty (charging them) was the same as them being caught in the act.  They are idiots.  December 30th, Nouri's forces attacked the protest squares.

    That's how we get to the attacks and the present mess.

    Doubt it?  Here's Bill van Auken (WSWS) explaining it:

    The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, installed under the US occupation, has pursued an openly sectarian agenda, ruthlessly purging leading Sunni political figures, using the security forces to crack down on the population of Anbar and branding protests against these abuses of power as acts of Al Qaeda terrorism.
    At the end of December, the Maliki regime touched off the present conflict by moving to arrest Ahmed al-Alwany, a prominent Sunni member of parliament in Ramadi—killing his brother and five bodyguards in the process—and then on December 30 sending in security forces to break up a protest encampment that had existed in the same city for months, killing at least 17 more.
    Amid seething popular anger, armed groups, including both the Al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and local tribesmen, seized control of police stations, drove out the security forces and set up local checkpoints, effectively taking over Fallujah and much of Ramadi.

    The Obama administration has responded by declaring its full support to Maliki and rushing weapons, including Hellfire missiles, drones and other equipment to his military. It is exerting maximum pressure on Congress to end its delay on shipment of Apache attack helicopters and F-16s to the regime. That this weaponry, in the hands of a regime that has become ever more sectarian and authoritarian, may soon be used to massacre civilians has presented no obstacle to the Obama White House.


    It was not about 'terrorism,' it was about Nouri attacking his political rivals.

    And now he's using the attacks to try to appear strong and the US is backing him -- this is his election strategy.  This is insanity.



    Even right-wing Max Boot (Wall St. Journal) grasps what kicked things off:

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has no-one but himself to blame. If he had embraced the Sunni Awakening movement, Iraq likely would have remained relatively peaceful. Instead, the moment that US troops left Iraq, he immediately began victimizing prominent Sunnis.



    Reporter Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) also shows some wisdom:

    The national reconciliation that the US military's "surge" of 30,000 extra troops into the country was supposed to enable never took place. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from the Dawa Party, a Shiite Islamist political movement with close ties to Iran, has governed Iraq with intolerance and arrogance, stubbornly refusing to reach out to Iraq's disenchanted Sunni Arab majority and dismissing almost all of the community's political leaders who stand up to him as terrorists or friends of terrorists.
    Though it may seem strange, this is good news. Because what's happening in Iraq at the moment is not some atavistic expression of "ancient" hatreds and irreconcilable cultural differences. Instead, it's a function of the failure of politics and power sharing in the modern era. And that's the kind of failure that can be rectified if Iraq's leaders, starting with Mr. Maliki, decide to change course from the politics of marginalization and exclusion. 






    Allen G. Breed and Julie Watson (AP) offer this of the November 2004 assault on Falluja:

    For several bloody weeks, the Marines went house-to-house in what has been called some of the heaviest urban combat involving the Corps since the Battle of Hue City, Vietnam, in 1968. Historian Richard Lowry, who interviewed nearly 200 veterans of the Iraq battle, likens it to ''a thousand SWAT teams going through the city, clearing criminals out.''
    ''They entered darkened rooms, kicking down doors, never knowing if they would find an Iraqi family hunkered down in fear or an Islamist terrorist waiting to shoot them and kill them,'' says Lowry, author of the book ''New Dawn: The Battles for Fallujah.''
     

    The most afraid would most likely be the "Iraqi family hunkered down in fear."  It's been nine years, you'd think by now the press could cover Iraq by covering Iraqis.  But you'd be wrong.  Stephen Lendman (Global Research) is one of the few who remembers the actual victims of the slaughters.

    Let's focus on the US Congress for a bit.  Brian Everstine (Air Force Times) reports, "A congressman who also is an Air National Guardsman is calling for the Air Force to begin again its fight in Iraq.  Rep Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said on the House floor Tuesday that the U.S. needs to use 'limited air power” in Iraq to help its fight against al-Qaida'."  Meanwhile ABC New Radio reports Speaker of the House John Boehner has declared US President Barack Obama's first mistake with regards to Iraq was putting Vice President Joe Biden in charge of it, "Starting with the president delegating his responsibilities to the vice president, the administration has chosen to spend much of its time and energy trying to explain why having terrorists holding key terrain in the Middle East is not the president's problem.  The United States has and will continue to have a vital national interest in Iraq. We must maintain a long-term commitment to a successful outcome there, and it's time that the president recognized this and get engaged."  Stephanie Condon (CBS News) quotes Boehner stating, "I think that the president himself ought to take a more active role in dealing with the issues in Iraq.  Secondly, we need to get equipment to the Iraqis and other services that would help them battle this counterterrorism effort that they're attempting to do."  Senator John McCain said the White House "not only sits by and does nothing, but the president of the United States says nothing."

    Rasmussen Reports announced today the results of a poll (margin of error is +/-3%), "One-in-four voters is now prepared to take military action against Iraq or Syria if al-Qaeda-led forces win control there. "  You'd hope the poll would calm the White House a bit, allow them to leave a state of high drama and address reality.  The administration apparently doesn't care what the American people think.

    It's a shame members of Congress aren't paying attention to the poll or to what's really going on in Iraq instead of going into a mad panic.  There's no great threat in Iraq today.  And certainly nothing that justifies handing Nouri more weapons.  Stephanie Gaskell (Defense One) notes:

      "The issue here is not whether such aircraft would help Iraq fight violent extremists; they would. The question is whether the Maliki government would use them only against violent extremists, and whether we receive credible assurances that such weapons will be used to target Iraq’s real enemies, and not to further sectarian political objectives. With credible assurances, it would be appropriate to provide such assistance,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said on the Senate floor on Thursday.
    Iraq requested the Apaches last May, but members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which must approve the sale, want to be able to monitor how the Apaches are used, and lawmakers still have concerns about oversight of flights in Iraqi airspace going to and from Syria and Iran.


    Roxana Tiron (Bloomberg News) notes Levin is a conditional yes.  Though his conditions are admirable, there's no way to ensure them which is why you don't say "yes" to arming a despot.  Richard Sisk (DoD Buzz) notes Levin's conditions as well but Sisk gets at the real point in this sentence, "The Obama administration, rattled by images of Al Qaeda flags flying over the flashpoint towns of Fallujah and Ramadi, announced Monday that the U.S. was speeding up the delivery of Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and reconnaissance drones to Iraq."

    And that is the problem, they're rattled and they're not thinking.  Rattled never leads to good decision making.  Panic isn't a confidence instiller.

    Reuters notes:

    Menendez' concerns have centered around whether Washington could ensure that Maliki, a Shi'ite increasingly at odds with minority Sunnis in Iraq, would not use the helicopters to target political opponents. He is also concerned over whether the administration was keeping Congress sufficiently informed about efforts to ensure Iran did not send military aid to Syria across Iraqi airspace.

    "The administration is now addressing concerns first raised in July that required responses before this sale could proceed," said Adam Sharon, a spokesman for the committee. "Provided these issues are sufficiently addressed, Chairman Menendez will be ready to move forward."


    I hope Menendez stands against arming the thug Nouri.  In the meantime, BRussells Tribunal notes Ross Caputi's important action:

      Once again the claim that al Qaeda has taken over Fallujah is being used to justify a heavy-handed military assault on the city. And again, these claims are false.
    Over 100 civilians have been killed in recent fighting in Fallujah, as the Iraqi government shells the city with American bought weapons. The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior claims that al Qaeda has taken over the city and that a heavy handed military response is needed to take the city back from terrorists. But many residents of Fallujah insist that tribal militias control Fallujah and that al Qaeda forces play only a marginal role in the fighting.
    The violence began when the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki, forced a year-old, nonviolent protest camp in Fallujah to disperse. The Iraqi government has since bombed Fallujah with American bought Hellfire Missiles, a weapon system that is believed to contain uranium and could cause indiscriminate public health effects.

    Tell President Obama and Congress to stop selling weapons to the Iraqi government

    Please sign our petition to tell the President and Congress to stop arming the Iraqi government: http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9035





    On the issue of the Senate, W. James Antle III (National Interest) offers a piece to flaunt his own stupidity.  Check out the ignorance on the third Jimmy Antle:

    McCain and Graham dispute that the Iraqi government decided against concluding a new status of forces agreement that would have kept U.S. troops in Iraq past the deadline originally negotiated by the Bush administration. The senators describe this as “patently false,” claiming to “know firsthand that Iraq's main political blocs were supportive.”
    Leaving aside the question of whether they had better sources for this information than Curveball and Ahmed Chalabi, the plain fact was that the American people had no appetite for an indefinite military presence in Iraq. 


    I didn't vote for McCain, I don't like him, I've never liked him (I do like Cindy) but that doesn't give me the right to lie about him.  I'm sorry that Antle is such an idiot but if he doesn't know what he's talking about, he should shut his mouth.  He, Graham and Joe Lieberman were told by Iraqi leaders -- who they have named in Senate hearings that little Priss Pott The Third couldn't get his candy ass to. Since he's insisting that the agreement was dead, absolutely dead, he should check out the November 2011 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  He'll find McCain very vocal who he spoke to.  But more importantly, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is testifying to that hearing that negotiations continue.  That hearing is after the refusal to grant immunity ended Barack's SOFA II negotiations.


    Those late to the party on that hearing can check out the November 15, 2011 "Iraq snapshot," November 16th "Iraq snapshot," November 17th "Iraq snapshot," Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's  "Who wanted what?"


    Meanwhile,  a 'major victory' for Nouri al-Maliki, this announcement: They have killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi -- "the driver for al Qaeda."  Next, they're going after the cleaning lady.


    Turning to some of today's violence, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Tirkit roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers and left five injured, a Samarra roadside bombing claimed the lives of 4 police members, a Baquba sticky bombing left one person injured, 1 person was shot dead outside his Mosul home, 1 person "working as an owner of generating electricity" was shot dead, 3 fighters were shot dead in Baghdad, a Mosul bombing left four SWAT forces injured, a Tikrit car bombing claimed the life of 1 police member and left four more people injured, a Ramadi suicide car bomber took his own life and the lives of 4 SWAT members with six more left injured, a Mosul home bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers and 1 "gunman" and left four people injured, 1 Shabak was shot dead in Mosul, and a Mosul home invasion left 1 police officer and his mother dead.