Wednesday, April 22, 2015

A hustler hangs with other hustlers

Ben Norton (CounterPunch) calls out fake-ass Michael Eric Dyson for his attacks on Cornel West:


While shielding Obama from West’s criticisms, Dyson elevates corporate civil rights figures Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, among others. The two men’s names appear constantly (Sharpton 16 times and Jackson eight).
Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford describes Al Sharpton as “a crook who is always for sale,” with strident “amorality and infinite capacity for corruption.” Sharpton, Ford says, is a “celebrity locked in the embrace of the rich and powerful.”
Sharpton’s ostensible civil rights organization the National Action Network is sponsored by the world’s largest corporations, including Walmart, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, AT&T, Verizon, and more. He clearly seeks real, systemic change and justice with those kinds of progressive backers.
Jackson is a reactionary pro-imperialist proponent of “black capitalism” who destroyed the Rainbow Coalition, co-opting its legacy as an internationalist, multi-cultural revolutionary organization created by the socialist Black Panthers and turning it into a neoliberal nationalist “coalition.”

 I am saddened by Rev. Jesse Jackson.

I agree with Norton's criticism but wish I did not.

As for Al Sharpton?

He actually makes Don King look rational and academic.

Al Sharpton is a hustler who has lied over and over.

It's no surprise that Dyson chooses to embrace cheap hustlers, he is one himself.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

Tuesday, April 22, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, a political solution remains elusive and unsought in Iraq, Haider al-Abadi puts refugees into Abu Ghraib prison, Chelsea Manning is appealing for donations to her legal fund, Hillary Clinton isn't fit for office unless the US wants a replay of Tricky Dick's presidency, and much more.



Let's start with Hillary Clinton since she can't stop trying to put herself in the news.


Hillary, married to Bill Clinton, has been First Lady of the United States.  In 2000, while in her final year as First Lady, she finally ran for elected office herself (in addition to being President of the United States, Bill had also been Governor of Arkansas) and she won a seat in the US Senate.  In 2006, she ran for re-election again.  Her last two years as a senator (2007 and 2008) were spent running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination (through June of 2008) and then in campaigning for Barack Obama to be President of the United States. Once he was sworn in as President, she slid into the Cabinet slot of Secretary of State and held that post for four years before stepping down.

How could someone support Hillary in 2008 and not support her in 2016?


That's a valid question.

And as I watch the various liars rush to support her today -- people who smeared her falsely as a racist in 2008 and insisted she was calling for Barack to be killed in the spring of 2008 -- I think asking them about their shift to embracing Hillary is also a valid question.


In 2008, there were many differences for me.

I did not support Hillary in 2007 and hadn't even thought of it.  I know Hillary, I knew everyone who was running on the Democratic Party side except for Barack.  (Elaine and I met Barack once and once was more than enough.  He's a War Hawk and in a very brief conversation with him at a fundraiser, that became clear.  We did not give money and we immediately left the fundraiser after this man running as anti-war for the US Senate insisted that the US was already in Iraq so that issue was already resolved.)


In 2008, Hillary did not have four years of Secretary of State dragging her down.

When someone belittles you (as Barack did Hillary in every manner possible -- including flipping the bird in one infamous moment), going to work in their administration does not make you look mature or reasonable.

It makes you look sad and pathetic.

It's insulting to you and it's very much insulting to the people who supported you.

Hillary always takes for granted the support she has.  I've known her for years but it only hit home when Hillary did what was best for her ambition.

Instead of rewarding her supporters, instead of using her position as a US senator to do some good, she became the lackey.

What is she most known for as Secretary of State besides photo ops and Benghazi?

Rushing to tell then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that her opposition to the surge was pure politics and she didn't mean it.  Now Barack said the same thing at the same encounter.  As usual The Cult of St. Barack covered for him and made it all about her.

But she's craven.

Was she telling the truth to Gates?

Who knows.

Her entire life is about saying and doing anything to advance herself.

Some of her supporters touched on this recently with her e-mail scandal.

Hillary, we were told, didn't do anything wrong.  We were supposed to take it on faith that she had not deleted anything that mattered, they insisted, and grasp that she did it to defend herself, that all the scandals she's suffered forced her to take extra measures.

Yes, they did.

And those measures are not acceptable in a president.

The best explanation of her e-mail scandal is that she felt she had the right to hide from the public that which they owned.  Her work product as Secretary of State -- every e-mail, every memo -- belonged to the US people.

She knows that.

Once upon a time, she would have lectured others on it.

Now she's so craven that she doesn't even respect it.

That's why she shouldn't have been Secretary of State.

She corrupted anything that was worthy of praise.

She also took a clear mistake -- supporting the Iraq War -- and turned one incident into an established pattern.

As Secretary of State, she tried to out hawk everyone.  War was her answer to everything.

And she sounded like a crazed serial killer in her attacks on Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden (among others).



Chelsea Manning acted on good faith and in an attempt to provide understanding and justice and to provoke a needed debate in this country.  Chelsea served in the US military as Bradley Manning.

Here is Logan Price detailing some of Hillary's attacks on Chelsea in 2011:
For those who don’t believe that Bradley’s alleged personal life and sexuality may be used against him, by either officials or media critics, this gem of information was presented in a recent Vanity Fair article about Hillary Clinton, while on tour in the Middle East:
Obama“Hillary told staff that she could not fathom how an army private, Bradley Manning, with psychological problems and a drag-queen boyfriend could single-handedly cause the United States unprecedented embarrassment just by labeling massive downloads as Lady Gaga songs.”
Were those comments verbatim, or just the ill-chosen words of the author? We may never know, but one thing is for sure, they were published in a major pop-culture outlet, and there is no taking them back.
Here is a good take-down of the allegation that Manning had “psychological problems.” As for Hillary’s comment about Bradley’s boyfriend, it is not only false, but inappropriate.
If Hillary did indeed say anything of the sort,  it is yet another reminder of the Obama administration’s willingness to disregard the fact that Bradley Manning has not yet been convicted of any crimes.
At a fundraiser in San Francisco in April,  Obama told me that Bradley Manning “broke the law,”  a legally irresponsible and inappropriate statement that could constitute an “unlawful command influence” over any military judge or jury that may preside over Bradley’s case.
Should the President and commander-in-chief,  or the Secretary of State for that matter, really be saying such things about a high profile prisoner like Bradley Manning who has not yet been to trial?
The release of the Diplomatic Cables may have been embarrassing for the Obama administration, but for Bradley, his life hangs in the balance.

This is an excerpt.  Read the full article here.




Chelsea is a whistle-blower.  She remains in a military prison.  Today, her Tweets included the following:







Hillary should have to answer about the treatments of whistle-blowers.  She should also be forced to clarify her remarks attacking Chelsea as a person, not simply attacking Chelsea's actions (which exposed a corrupt and vile State Dept -- among other things).



Hillary  became more and more vile with every year she served and the moment she will most be remembered for screeching "At this point, what difference does it make!" when asked about an attack that killed four Americans (at least four, from other remarks she's made since, the death toll was eventually higher) and wounded many more.

That's Hillary in 2016.

That wasn't Hillary in 2008.

She made clear in those four years that she was craven, that she was a War Hawk, that she was not to be trusted and that she didn't believe in accountability.

That's far different from 2008 where you had her up against a liar posing as an anti-war candidate (Barack) and one who would use every bit of sexism possible to advance himself.

Barack has nothing to point to with pride in the seven years he's so far served as president.

And that the 2008 sexism can't take place today was Hillary's accomplishment.

Had she not gone into the administration, his sexism (which, yes, does include those work-bonding moments of all male basketball and all male golf) would have been addressed by the press.

But it will be addressed by history.

Allowing a man who drunkenly mocked Hillary by groping her cut out to be your speech writer as president?

The future will not look kindly on Barack Obama.

A failure as a president, a failure as a human being.

And a smart Hillary would have sat out his administration.

She could have never run again and been seen as something of a hero for surviving the sexism and staying in the 2008 race.

And a real hero would have done that.

But she's not about heroism, she's about advancing herself.

So she spat on her supporters and went to work for the man who degraded and insulted her (and degraded and insulted her supporters).

She has nothing to point to with pride.

And she's become more touchy and more entitled and more of terror.

Just last year, there was Terry Gross (NPR's Fresh Air) delicately attempting to get Hillary to walk through her transition (sudden transition) to supporting marriage equality and she snapped and lost it repeatedly.

Queen Hillary must never be doubted or questioned.

Knowing that right now, how can anyone think this out of control, crazed person belongs in the Oval Office?

She is Richard Nixon waiting to happen.

If you doubt it, go back to the e-mail scandal.

You can tell yourself nothing untoward happened.  I don't believe that, but you can tell yourself that.

But can you also pretend this scandal is anyone else's fault?

She knew she wanted to run for president.  She knew she probably would run for president.

But in between two runs, she takes the post of Secretary of State and uses her own e-mail.  That may be the standard to be Secretary of Ag but it's not the standard for someone wanting to be president.

She then goes on to destroy the e-mails and to lie about it (contrary to her initial public remarks, she did not use only one portable device to do e-mails).

This is Richard Nixon behavior.

And it's present and public before she's ever president.

There are so many reasons she shouldn't be president today.

In 2008, she should have been president.

And the country would be different today.

We might be in the same number of wars or we might be in more (I doubt we'd be in less, but it's possible we could be).

But we would have been a nation with eyes wide open.

In 2008, Barack was lying about against the war and about pulling all US troops out within 16 months and lying about everything.

Worst of all?

He was getting away with it.

The country has nothing to show for seven years of Barack -- except maybe just how many lies can be told.

The same press and Cult of St. Barack so desperate to lie for him had no such position with regards to Hillary.

If President Hillary had gone to war on Libya without Congressional support?

You really think some mealy mouthed words from Michael Ratner -- words quickly forgotten as he rushed to whore for Barack on something else -- would have been the end of it?

No, a President Hillary would have been held accountable.

A President Hillary in January 2009 would not have The Nation magazine lying for her, The Progressive, Democracy Now!, etc.  Amnesty International -- US branch -- would not have disgraced itself by promoting her on their website.  No one remembers that today but Amnesty forgot that they were supposed to defend human rights and instead featured Barack, whored for him.  We called them out at Third -- we were the only ones to do so -- but between our mocking them and the slow realization that Barack was just another War Hawk, they took down their little page praising him -- a page intended to chronicle his accomplishments -- but there were none.

A President Hillary couldn't have sold that awful ObamaCare as something good for the country.  Anything less than what was truly needed -- universal coverage via the expansion of Medicare for all -- would have been called out.

And called out from the left.

The disgusting United for Peace and Justice would not have announced days after the 2008 election that they were folding tent and their work was done if Hillary had been elected (and not Barack).

The left would either have forced Hillary to make some real changes or they would have spent every moment protesting and exposing her.

Barack's regressive policies have turned the country backwards.

President Hillary might have also offered regressive policies but the 'independent' media of The Nation, KPFA, et al would have sounded the alarms and the American people -- especially those who followed left 'independent' media would have damn well known what was going on.

There were so many reasons to support her in 2008 (and we even made the IF Stone case back in real time).

There are no reasons to support her in 2016.

More than baggage, she now carries a pattern.  She has contempt for accountability.  She's openly hostile to any question that doesn't fawn over her.  She's a bully and she's Richard Nixon.

Sexism is real and it was only touched on in the above.  It's still present today as the 'left' continues beating up on women.  The two most zoomed in on members of the press today?  Judith Miller and Maureen Dowd.  One woman's work helped sell the illegal war.  The other railed against it -- one of the few national columnists that can be said of.  Yet both women are attacked.

Thomas Friedman's not attacked, mind you.

But Maureen's attacked by the 'left.'

Sexism was real in 2008 and it's real today.  And we may go into that aspect at some point.

But what we've done above?  I've explained why I, someone who supported Hillary in 2008, cannot support her in 2016.  Let's see if any of the many on the left who attacked her in 2008 but now want to support her can explain their own transition.

Liars like Claire McCaskill can't.

Though, in fairness to Claire, she's deeply afraid.  She should be.  A President Hillary would probably exact her pound of flesh on Claire regardless of the support Claire's suddenly decided to offer today.

When the candidates begin debating onstage, Hillary should find that the craven 'left'  and their stupidity isn't shared by all.


Meaning?

She's going to have answer questions about Iraq.

Not just that hideous vote.

She's going to have to answer about being Secretary of State as Iraq descended into flames.

She's going to have to answer how she refused to fully brief Congress on the most minute details -- including how the millions and billions her State Dept requested for Iraq would be spent?

She's going to have to ask why she refused to support the continuation of the efforts of Stuart Bowen but instead was part of the move to shut down the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.  She's going to have to ask why she didn't demand an Inspector General over her department.  Her four years had none.  The only time in modern history that can be said.  John Kerry, coming into the office, was asked by Congress about it and he said they'd work on it, that they would get one and, months later, the State Department once again had an Inspector General.

What the Cult of St. Barack ignored and endured won't stay hidden as Hillary attempts to become president.


Turning to Iraq today, National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Vice- President Iyad Allawi said on Saturday that the access to the state of citizenship and to confront the injustice is our goal for achieving the national reconciliation and the unity of the community, noting that Iraq will emerge from this ordeal strong and united.

He said during a meeting with a group of elders and notables and clerics of the province of Basra, according to a statement by his office that Basra suffers from problems which must be stopped, and promote the province and maintain its social fabric, adding that the issue is in the whole country represented in to get out of the crisis that all the areas suffer from terrorism, extremism, violence, conflict, unemployment and corruption.


This is not a new position for Ayad Allawi to be arguing.


 ·  Apr 3
دخول قوات برية اجنبية لن يساعد بل يجب ان تكون ستراتيجية سياسية لتحقيق مصالحة وطنية.
3 retweets 4 favorites




His remarks should not be seen as controversial.


They are what Barack Obama argued last June.  But Barack and the White House and the State Department have done nothing to work towards a political solution.  Instead, the focus has been on bombing and building a fighting/training coalition.



Few have bothered to question the lack of focus on a political solution.  We'll again note Manal Omar and Sarhang Hamasaeed (Foreign Policy) observation from earlier this week:


Addressing Iraq’s problems at the root means encouraging and implementing more inclusive administrative policies. Obama was right when he said last summer that there’s no military solution to Iraq’s problems, and that, “The only lasting solution is for Iraqis to come together and form an inclusive government.” However, a truly inclusive Iraqi state has yet to emerge under Abadi. To do that, Abadi needs to simultaneously create avenues of participation so that the Sunnis can re-engage in the political process more widely, and keep a working relationship with the Kurds by addressing key agreements yet to be fulfilled.
Currently, Abadi has not gained the full trust of Iraq’s Sunni population, who suffered in a post-2003 Iraq dominated by a Shiite-led government. Many Sunni tribes throughout the country have yet to join the fight against IS, especially in Anbar province, which is mostly controlled by IS and other Sunni militant groups. But this dynamic can change if Abadi’s administration is more attentive to Sunni needs during the fight against IS, offering a light at the end of the tunnel for not abandoning the government during the conflict. Granting more autonomy to Sunni provinces, for example, or freeing Sunni prisoners can achieve this. A truly inclusive Iraqi government with an army rebuilt to include Kurds and Sunnis is key to mitigating the Islamic State’s advance and ensuring its defeat.
This cannot happen without Abadi ending the sectarian policies of his predecessor that alienated mostly the Sunnis and Kurds, but some of the Shiites as well. 



Having nothing to report on that front, the State Dept's Brett McGurk busies himself Tweeting about bombings.




244.

That's the number of violent deaths across Iraq that Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts for Tuesday.


Barack's been bombing Iraq since August.

Nothing's going to be accomplished with this.

The whole point of it was to create a space for a political solution to Iraq's crises.

But there's been no movement there.


Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq since August, has managed to enlarge the refugee crisis.  Today, the UNHCR issued a statement today which included:


 The UN refugee agency on Tuesday reported that Iraqi civilians fleeing violence in Ramadi face numerous challenges, including dwindling resources, checkpoints, entry restrictions and security procedures to navigate on their journeys to safety.
An estimated 114,000 Iraqis have fled Ramadi, located in Iraq's restive Anbar province, over the past two weeks as conflict between government forces and extremists intensified. Of these, about 39,000 remain inside the province – many unable to move further afield.



The crisis is real and is growing.  And maybe had he sent reinforcements to Ramadi last Wednesday instead of to the oil refinery in Baiji, the crisis would have not have grown and continued.


As we've already noted, Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, has issued a rule that none of these refugees can enter Baghdad unless they have a "sponsor" in Baghdad.

Despite outcry from politicians -- in Parliament and ones on the Baghdad provincial council -- and despite Haider's office implying on Saturday that the policy had ceased, it has not ceased.

And you could argue it's now much worse:  Haider's said to be routing some of the refugees into Abu Ghraib prison.

So you've lost your home and you've had to flee for safety, you're nervous, you're scared and Haider's idea of 'comfort' is to provide you shelter . . . in Iraq's most notorious prison.


Ramadi is one of the most populated cities in Anbar Province.  The other is Falluja.

Civilians in Falluja learned Haider hadn't forgotten them today.

The Iraqi military continues its 15 month and counting campaign of bombing civilians homes in Falluja.  The latest daily attack?  Iraqi Spring MC reports 1 civilians and nineteen more are injured.

Yes, these bombings are legally defined War Crimes.

Yes, Haider al-Abadi announced September 13th that they had ended.

Yes, September 14th found the bombing continuing.

As it has ever since.

Haider's words never measure up to his actions.

In other news, the notorious Badr Brigade (thugs in a militia for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) have declared that they don't need US air support.  As we've noted before, Ammar al-Hakim, leader of ISCI, has long been considered a friend of the US government.  His public statements recently and those of the Badr Brigade make clear that a rift has taken place.

And, no, there are no real efforts by the State Dept to address that.





Posted by at

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Oh, Toni Morrison, you're so oblivious

Toni Morrison.

She was on NPR today.

Of course, she was.

She's got a new book about a mother who gives birth to a very dark skinned daughter.  She says it's about the way society values Blacks who look closer to White.

She would say that, wouldn't she?

And say it with no self-awareness at all.

Because Toni may be Black but Black people aren't the bulk of her audience and never have been.

Toni's always really been a reading favorite of White people -- mainly White academia.

And it's a shame she lacks the honesty or awareness to really explore that.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

Monday, April 20, 2015,  Chaos and violence continue, US Senator Claire McCaskill lies to drum up votes for the Democratic Party, her lies render real efforts by Democrats in Congress invisible, Glenn Greenwald's in a tizzy because of something Maureen Dowd wrote (in passing) about Barack Obama, Haider al-Abadi continues his lying, and much more.




You lie about your personal life, I really don't care.  In fact, I've often argued that the lies people tell themselves as they create a personal narrative are sometimes revealing truth ever would be.


A lie about what our elected government has or has not done?

I really don't tolerate those.

A lot of people whose 'thought process' can fit on a bumper sticker have wrongly declared that there have been more Congressional attention to the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack (that left Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and US Ambassador Chris Stevens dead) than to the Iraq War.


That is wrong.

But the idiots that usually Tweet that crap don't strike me as liars, just misinformed.

So we let it slide.

Past tense.

A US Senator should damn well know better.

Kyle Balluck (The Hill) reports:



 Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Sunday said the congressional investigation into the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, has “turned into a political exercise.”
“Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War,” the senator added on ABC’s “This Week.”

Now we know Claire's worthless.  When she betrayed women who serve, that was not minor.  We also know she's a liar.

And she demonstrates with that nonsense.

Granted Claire didn't get into Congress until January 2007 -- two months shy of four years after the Iraq War started.  So, since she is an idiot, she might not know, for example, that John Conyers held a hearing on the Downing Street Memo.

And she might not realize that there were Armed Services Committee hearings on Iraq in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.  Hearings in the House and in the Senate.  She might be too stupid to know that the House Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Iraq during this time or that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did.


And there was the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan which held hearings and offered testimony to Congress -- and Claire does know about that, just pretends not to in order to lie to the American public.  Shame on her.

And let's drop back to the November 6, ,2009 snapshot:
Rick Lamberth and L. Russell Keith were two of the four witnesses appearing before the Democratic Policy Committee today, for a hearing into burn pits led by Committee Chair Byron Dorgan.  Also appearing as witnesses were Lt Col Darrin Curtis and Dr. Anthony Szema.  At the start of the hearing, Chair Dorgan explained, "This is the twenty-first in a long series of hearings that we have held in the Policy Committee to examine contracting waste and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of these hearings have focused on substantial abuse which have put out troops lives in danger.  Some focused just on waste and some on fraud. Today we're going to have a discussion and have a hearing on how, as early as 2002, US military installations in Iraq and Afghanistan began relying on open-air burn pits -- disposing of waste materials in a very dangerous manner. And those burn pits included materials such as hazardous waste, medical waste, virtually all of the waste without segregation of the waste, put in burn pits. We'll hear how there were dire health warnings by Air Force officials about the dangers of burn pit smoke, the toxicity of that smoke, the danger for human health.  We'll hear how the Department of Defense regulations in place said that burn pits should be used only in short-term emergency situations -- regulations that have now been codified. And we will hear how, despite all the warnings and all the regulations, the Army and the contractor in charge of this waste disposal, Kellogg Brown & Root, made frequent and unnecessary use of these burn pits and exposed thousands of US troops to toxic smoke." 

That's from Chair Dorgan's opening remarks and you can [PDF format hearing warning] click here to read his prepared remarks (the above is what was stated which differs slightly from the prepared remarks).  You can also visit the Democratic Policy Committee's home page for more information and streaming video of today's hearing should be up there as well. (If it's not up already, it will be up by Monday.)


Today, the Democratic Policy Committee is a joke.

It doesn't exist to help the people but to be a press organ for the Democratic Party in an attempt to sway elections.

But while Senators who actually gave a damn -- Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh among them -- were a part of the DPC, it held real hearings on Iraq.

The burn pit issue was dismissed as a joke, not to be believed.

It was the hearings and investigations by the DPC that made DC and the media sit up and take the illnesses and injuries related to the burn pits seriously.

Claire's as worthless as the DPC today.

None of that matters to her.

The work that so many did doesn't matter to her.

Her own colleagues on both sides of the aisles and she'll stab them in the back in an attempt to sway elections.

When the Democratic Party was in the minority, US House Rep John Conyers did not roll over on the Iraq War.  In June of 2005, he held a public hearing on the Downing Street Memo.  No Republicans would join him.  In fact, not a lot of Democrats in the House supported his hearing either.

But Conyers stood strong and held the hearing.

John Conyers deserves credit for that.

When Claire erases him, Dorgan, Patty Murray and all the many others who asked important questions -- Lloyd Dogget, to be sure -- when all of these are erased, she still doesn't come off smart.

Because her lie is: Republicans have had more Congressional investigations of Benghazi than there were of the Iraq War.

If that were true (it's not) that doesn't really put Republicans (who largely supported the Iraq War) in a bad light.

Saying that Republicans investigate and dig and that Democrats don't isn't really a winning slogan.

Claire's an idiot.  Claire's a liar.

US House Rep John Hall only served two terms in Congress, in the House, but he did more with those four years than Claire's done with eight.

Should Congress have done more on Iraq?

Absolutely.

But blame the leaders of the Democratic Party.

It was Nancy Pelosi who vilely and disgustingly threatened John Conyers.  Not with physical harm, no.  But with loss of Committee assignments and loss of backing for future elections.

Nancy Peolosi was a bully to John Conyers.

Someday he may tell the story there.

But many of us already know it.

And we know she pretends to be many things but she's really just an ugly bully who didn't give a damn about the American people or that they were lied to.

Here's Claire's direct quote and then we're moving on because she lied all around this sentence and I'm just not in the mood to fact check an old and ugly whore like Claire on every lie that flies out of her ugly mouth that sits above those chin warts, "Benghazi has had more hearings, more documents produced, more investigative effort than the entire Iraq War."


Again: A lie.

And Claire lies and whores for elections.  Afterwards?  She's not doing a damn thing but trying to scare up votes for the next election cycle.  That's why her work has been so unimportant in Congress but someone like John Hall, a truly brave person, could and did do more in four years than Claire's managed in eight.

Let's stay with recent history for a moment.

A friend of mine was just complaining about how certain gay men think they can be sexist pigs and get away with it because they're gay.

No, they can't.







Maureen often sees "feminized men" -- Al Gore before Barack.

It's her take, you don't have to like it.

But you might try getting honest -- especially as you're crashing down to earth because you're too much of a bitch to ever get ahead -- while you supported the Iraq War, Maureen used her post at the New York Times to call it out.

While you put your faith in Bully Boy Bush -- did you want to suck his cock, Glenn? -- Maureen called him out.

Maureen Dowd has many faults (as do well all) and we've held her accountable when need be.

But if she feels Barack is a "feminized man"?  That's her observation call.  She's an opinion columnist, not a news reporter.

What are you, Glenn?

Just a big old, lazy bitch attacking one woman after another and thinking you can get away with it because you're gay?

Being gay doesn't mean you can attack women without being called on it.  Today, it's Maureen Dowd, at one time it was Hillary non-stop and there's also been Sibel Edmunds -- among many others.  The common thread of these women?  They all speak their mind.

Apparently that's what Glenn fears the most: A woman who won't be silent.

Maureen Dowd's column is about the shifting nature of gender and how its viewed by the public and by those who attempt to shape opinion.

As she explores that with regards to Hillary -- including by focusing on the comments of a 2008 advisor (Mark Penn) -- Dowd offers  one sentence that includes a half focusing on how Barack f-ed with gender in his own 2008 'true self' creation.

And that's just too much for little Glenn Glenn.

WikiLeaks recently offered a leaked Sony e-mail where a person noted what an ass Glenn was.  Normally, something like that might create sympathy but Glenn's been such a pompous jerk that the world just doesn't care anymore.


Long, long ago, I offered that he needed to enjoy the moment because it wouldn't last long.  He didn't and it hasn't.  He's Cornelia Guest tossing on flannel in an attempt to be relevant and current as she tries to barge  into an after party in 1992 only to find that the decades passed him by and rendered him obsolete.


Today, the Pulitzers were announced.  Among the finalists?


Ned Parker and a team from Reuters
For intrepid reports of the disintegration of Iraq and the rise of ISIS, linking the developing catastrophe to a legacy of sectarianism, corruption and violence seeded by the U.S. invasion.



Ned Parker's been in the news cycle for a week now.  Last week, he appeared on NPR's Morning Edition and hosts Steve Inskeep and David Greene explained:

INSKEEP: And he kept working as things improved and then worsened again with the rise of ISIS. He's covered Iraq for most of the past dozen years, and he's now the Baghdad bureau chief for Reuters.

 GREENE: But last week, he had to flee the country. He and two other journalists from Reuters had published a story detailing mass looting and arson by Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias that support them.


 INSKEEP: One reporter even saw the killing of a suspected Islamic State detainee, captured in the city of Tikrit by federal police. That was the story that Reuters published, which Ned Parker meant to show just how Iraqi forces were retaking Tikrit.



Ned Parker had to leave Iraq for his own safety and for the safety of others at Reuters.

On Thursday, in DC, Iraq's latest thug leader Haider al Abadi tried to make light of it.


Barbara Slavin: And also, one of our colleagues, Ned Parker, recently has left because of threats against Reuters for reporting what happened in Tikrit.  Will you issue a statement in Arabic protecting journalists for reporting what goes on in Iraq.  Thank you.
Haider al-Abadi: As with Mr. Parker, Ned Parker, I've known him for many years.  I heard this story while he was still in Baghdad.  My natural fact, a spokesman for my office has given me a message and he told me Ned Parker feels threatened and asked what sort of threats he had received? We want more information so that I can take action about these people who have threatened him.  I haven't received anything on that, to be honest with you. I asked for protection of his office -- to increase protection of his office -- and we did.  But all of the sudden, I'd heard he left. I know he sent a message he wants to meet me in Washington but unfortunately my program is, uh -- I didn't even have time to talk to my wife yesterday. [Begins chuckling.]  So I don't think I would talk to Ned instead of my wife.



He thinks that's funny.

But as leader of a country, it actually his duty to put off speaking to his wife long enough to find out what happened.

His refusal to do so makes him not only uninformed, makes it appear not only that he doesn't care, it makes him look like the stupid thug he really is.

Maybe one day Iraq will have a prime minister who never fled the country like a coward.  Barring that, maybe they'll have one who did flee but who stresses, "This is a new Iraq and none need fear."

Instead, Iraq just keeps getting cowards who are embarrassed that they fled and who nurse a grudge that bars them from working towards an inclusive Iraq.


Working towards an inclusive Iraq, please remember, is what Barack Obama's whole 'plan' is supposed to be about.

At Foreign Policy, Manal Omar and Sarhang Hamasaeed (Foreign Policy) observe:


Addressing Iraq’s problems at the root means encouraging and implementing more inclusive administrative policies. Obama was right when he said last summer that there’s no military solution to Iraq’s problems, and that, “The only lasting solution is for Iraqis to come together and form an inclusive government.” However, a truly inclusive Iraqi state has yet to emerge under Abadi. To do that, Abadi needs to simultaneously create avenues of participation so that the Sunnis can re-engage in the political process more widely, and keep a working relationship with the Kurds by addressing key agreements yet to be fulfilled.
Currently, Abadi has not gained the full trust of Iraq’s Sunni population, who suffered in a post-2003 Iraq dominated by a Shiite-led government. Many Sunni tribes throughout the country have yet to join the fight against IS, especially in Anbar province, which is mostly controlled by IS and other Sunni militant groups. But this dynamic can change if Abadi’s administration is more attentive to Sunni needs during the fight against IS, offering a light at the end of the tunnel for not abandoning the government during the conflict. Granting more autonomy to Sunni provinces, for example, or freeing Sunni prisoners can achieve this. A truly inclusive Iraqi government with an army rebuilt to include Kurds and Sunnis is key to mitigating the Islamic State’s advance and ensuring its defeat.
This cannot happen without Abadi ending the sectarian policies of his predecessor that alienated mostly the Sunnis and Kurds, but some of the Shiites as well.


And he needs to end those policies and work on unity but he's nothing but empty words.  Today, Yerevan Saeed wondered "Can Iraqi prime minister deliver on pledges made in Washington?" (Rudaw) and pointed out the empty claims of Haider al-Abadi:




“Our government has successfully concluded a long-sought, interim agreement with our Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This agreement provides for a fair sharing of oil revenues and the weapons and support that the Peshmerga forces need to participate fully in the fight against Daesh (ISIS) as a part of Iraq’s security forces,” Abadi added. “We are also restoring relationships with the local tribes in areas threatened or dominated by Daesh. I have met regularly with representatives from the provinces of Anbar, Salahaddin and Mosul.”
While it is true that Abadi signed a temporary deal with the KRG, facts on the ground indicate that the agreement has not been followed by action: the salaries of Kurdish civil servants are still months behind, the KRG treasury is empty, Kurdish officials still complain they lack proper weapons to fight ISIS;  and Erbil is suffering financially from the burden of providing for more than 1.4 million war refugees and internally displaced from Syria and other parts of Iraq who have flooded to Kurdistan for safety.


He's hedging his bets, unwilling to commit to full inclusion for all Iraqis and he's most likely doing that because he's uncertain of what the future of Iraq could be.

Emma Sky (Slate) notes that the inability to see an inclusive future allowed some Sunnis to
get cozy with the Islamic State to begin with (in response to the threats to the Sunni community from Nouri al-Maliki):

The conflict in Syria seemed to be re-enforcing sectarian narratives in Iraq. I asked him about ISIS, or the so-called Islamic State or Da’ash, as it was called in Arabic, the successor to al-Qaida in Iraq, which had taken control of one-third of the country. “Da’ash is only around 8 percent of the insurgency,” he said, as if quoting some scientific research. “But they have a big media image. For now, we allow them to be out at the front. We don’t want to show our faces.” He went on: “We will fight alongside Da’ash until we have overthrown Maliki—and then we will get rid of Da’ash.”
I told them they were deluding themselves if they thought they could use the fanatical Islamic State against Maliki and then defeat it afterward. The Baathists were fighting for power within Iraq whereas the Islamic State disputed the very legitimacy of Iraq as a state. Had they not seen what had happened in Syria? Among the Syrian rebels, it was the most extreme salafi groups that had attracted funding and recruits and were wiping out others.

“Iraqis,” I responded, “are good at coming together against someone they don’t like. The ‘moustaches’ and the ‘beards’ have come together against Maliki,” I noted, referring to the Baathists and the Islamists. “But what is your vision for the future, once Maliki is gone? What is the vision that you have for Iraq?”


The political solution demands an inclusive Iraq.

As someone who majored in poli sci, I probably should point out that there's another solution that could result in calm: Killing every non-Sunni in Iraq and around Iraq.

If you're unable to work with one another, that is your only other solution to end the conflict: Mass genocide.

It's a crime against humanity but let's be fair to Haider al-Abadi and note that (final) solution.  He won't be able to play with it as he does now -- he's overseeing a low-level genocide.  But if that's the option he's pursuing, he should come right out and announce it.

It would mean losing all international support and it would mean risking being put on trial for War Crimes but if that's why he's not attempting a political solution, he should be honest about it.

That would force world leaders who currently cozy up to him and hold his hand to reject him or be willing to stand with him on trial for War Crimes.


Let's go back to Thursday's snapshot:



Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory: [. . .] But piggy backing on the last question about Ned Parker, I was just wondering if you could briefly comment as to your take on the current state of press freedom within Iraq?  And also, in terms of going and taking action in response to Parker's being chased out of the country, what steps are you planning -- or are there any steps planned to institute protections for international press covering your country?  During your address, you said, and I quote, "A free society needs a free press."  And so I was just wondering if that would extend to foreign press as well?
Haider al-Abadi: Well I think if you look at the Iraqi press first, I think they're free to criticize.  I think that number one   institution which is being criticized in Iraq is the government.  We don't even reply to them.  We don't do anything. I drop charges against all-all media.  But I ask the media to have their own self-discipline.  That's important.  The media shouldn't be free to accuse others falsely.  They should respect freedom of others.  Freedom of speech is there but -- We need facts. But I refuse so far -- and I hope I continue on that -- you never know what office does.  Office usually corrupts people, right?  But I hope it doesn't corrupt me.  We keep on respecting the freedom of the press, we keep on protecting it.  As to the foreign press, as far as I know, there's no limitation on them, no restrictions.  They're free even to go to our --within our military unit.  I think we went to that extent to allow free reporting from the fronts.  I remember when the US army was there in 2003 [that's when Haider returned to Iraq after decades of exile in England], they had embedded journalists and they were restricted to what they were reporting.  I very much respect that.  I hope I can have that power to do that but unfortunately I cannot do it now.  It's so free, the situation in Iraq.  Now I'm not sure if Mr. Parker, why he has left.  To be honest with you, I didn't have the story from him.  He wrote something to me.  I cannot see why he left.  Was he really threatened?  Or he felt he was threatened?  I know some -- some Facebook thing and social media has mentioned him in a bad way but the-the thing I've seen -- in actual fact, they were condemning the government in the first place, not him.  They were condemning me as the prime minister to do something about it -- rather than him.  I know some of these, they want to use these things to just criticize the government in the same way when they accuse the coalition of dropping help to Da'ash or accuse the coalition of killing Iraqis falsely.  In actual fact, what they're trying to do -- trying to criticize the government for its policies. They don't want the government to seek the help of the coalition -- international coalition or to work with the US.  But to -- I think me, as prime minister, the safety of the Iraqi people, the interests of the Iraqi people is number one [. . .]


He was a little honest there, wasn't he?  In his hopes to curtail freedom of the press, in his hopes to move towards an embed program that is answerable to him.

It's amazing no one wants to touch on that.

On the subject of Ned Parker, An editor at the Los Angeles Times who's a friend called Sunday to correct me on something I had gotten wrong over the last few days.  I'd noted that April 8th, Haider al-Abadi made public remarks attacking journalists.  Ned Parker had noted remarks Haider made attacking journalists as well but said they took place Thursday, April 9th.  From Saturday's snapshot:

 It was a threat.
And it wasn't read calmly or in an amused manner.
It was a threat.
The only thing that confuses me about the Huffing Post piece is why two whores have their name on it?
For those of us attending Thursday's event, we're well aware that the whores 'writing' is nothing more than repetition of the crap Haider churned out.
It's a shame the whores weren't there.
They could have been rebuked the way Haider was.
Despite Luay's whoring, Ned Parker did not leave Iraq blaming prime minister Haider al-Abadi.
He wasn't even aware of it which is why Ned has the date wrong.
He thinks the verbal attack on journalism took place on Thursday.  It took place on Wednesday.
As the only   person in the world who reported on Haider's public attack on journalism -- yes, that's me -- I damn well know when it took place.
Ned Parker was not aware of it when it took place.
He had many other things to focus on that day which included doing his job -- he edited reports that day -- and also enduring the attacks on television.



On Wednesday, April 8th, in Anbar, Haider launched on attack on the press. His office even published a press release on that on the 8th -- in Arabic only.  A little trick they do when they don't want the west to know what Haider's doing.  Haider's office issued a release defending Ned Parker on April 11th -- in English only.  They like to keep that from non-English readers in Iraq.  It's a little trick they play.

While that attack took place, Ned wasn't referring to that.  My friend explained that Ned was talking about Haider's remarks at an April 9th event.

I was wrong and my apologies to Ned Parker for that.

Haider did two days of attacking the press:  April 8th and April 9th.


My apologies to Ned Parker for saying he had the date wrong.

He did not have the date wrong.  

Two days of attacking the press and Haider has been allowed to get away with his nonsense.


We're going to give lying Haider one more day to follow up on something and then we'll denounce him for lying yet again -- and press stooges for believing his empty words yet again.


US State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf plays the world as if it were a stooge.  Here she is today:


 QUESTION: When the Iraqi prime minister was here – and in the past I asked also this question. The investigation of the looting and human rights violations by the militias – have you seen any or does he provide any evidence that he conducted investigation or arrested some people for that?

 MS HARF: Well, he’s certainly spoken up very publicly about how this is not – any of those reports are unacceptable. They need to be fully investigated. I’m happy to check with our folks and see if there’s more of an update on that.


Nothing's happened there, nothing ever does.  Didn't under Nouri al-Maliki either.  His 'investigations' never resulted in published findings let alone arrests.

Let's wind down.  Trudy Rubin has long covered Iraq.  In her latest column (Boston Herald) she notes:


So now is the moment of testing for Iraq’s political leadership and for Obama’s strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat the jihadis.
“This is the moment when we and the Iraqis have to decide what is next,” says Crocker. “I hope it will be Anbar without Shia militias. Anbar is doable. The stakes are pretty high, enough to make this administration recognize you can’t win by withdrawing from the battlefield.”
Let’s hope Crocker is correct. Let’s hope the president isn’t too distracted by the nuclear talks with Iran, where he looks to be conceding too much too fast on sanctions relief to Tehran. If ISIS makes further gains in Iraq, it will further undercut the U.S. negotiating hand by making U.S. efforts and airstrikes there look feckless.

The surprise for me in the column was that Ryan Crocker has joined James Jeffrey in the critique of the Obama administration's failure regarding Iraq.

Crocker has every right to his opinion and to express it.  It's just amazing that two US Ambassadors that served during Barack's presidency have now denounced the administration's policies and this isn't considered news.


Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 161 violent deaths across Iraq today.







Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)