He landed on his ass

Jaimie Crawford and Greg Botehlo (CNN) report:

Using an op-ed "to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders ... at a time of insufficient communication between our societies," Putin made a case much like U.S. President Barack Obama did Tuesday night -- although their arguments could hardly have been more different.

Striking Syria would have many negative ramifications, Putin argued in a piece that went online Wednesday night, including the killing of innocent people, spreading violence around the Middle East, clouding diplomatic efforts to address Iran's nuclear crisis and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and "unleash(ing) a new wave of terrorism."

Moreover, the Russian leader said such action without the U.N. Security Council's approval "would constitute an act of aggression."

Sorry but Putin is right.  Without approval from the UN Security Council, a US attack on Syria would be illegal and constitute an act of aggression -- per international law.

I'm not outraged that Putin's lecturing Barack but I do find it telling of just how awful Barack has been that Vladimir Putin is comfortable calling him out.

On the world stage, Barack is a joke and he has no one to blame but himself.

There was never a reason to grandstand, but didn't he do that?  Didn't he act like he was God's gift to the world?  You can't be that conceited for too long.  The world has a way of evening the score.

And that's what is happening right now.

The spoiled child is hearing from someone other than the indulgent parent and it's not pretty.

I picture Barack sobbing into his pillow -- crying over himself, for the death of his popularity, for the death of his cult.

Barack finally fell to earth and it appears he landed on his ass.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Wednesday, September 11, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, a moat in Iraq gets attention, we look at Barack's Syria speech and reactions to it, and more.


Today is the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  US Senator Patty Murray's office released the following today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                            CONTACT: Murray Press Office

Wednesday, September 11, 2013                                                                               (202) 224-2834

 

Senator Murray’s Statement on the 12^th Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks

“Like all Americans, I will never forget where I was twelve years ago and the way our nation responded in the face of great tragedy. On that day, no matter our differences, our region, race, religion, or political party - we were all one thing: Americans.

 

“Today we not only honor the service and lives of the thousands of heroes who perished that day, and in the decade since, but we also reflect on the shared selflessness and dedication to the common good that was born out of that difficult time. On that September morning we all came to understand how fragile life can be and then immediately lined up to donate our time, money, and even our blood to help strangers.

 

“So as we mark this somber occasion, I encourage all Americans to find a way to channel that sense of community on this National Day of Service and Remembrance by giving back to those in need. Let’s recommit to making our nation a better place for our children and let the examples of these men and women always inspire and guide us.”

To get involved, visit www.Serve.gov for opportunities in your community.

 

###

 

 

---

Meghan Roh

Press Secretary | New Media Director

Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray

Mobile: (202) 365-1235

Office: (202) 224-2834

@PattyMurray | @SenateBudget | @MegRoh

Senator Patty Murray's office

 

Senator Murray's YouTube Channel

 

Senator Murray's Press Office Twitter Account

 

RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office



Alsumaria reports that Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomes Russia's initiative to ease the tensions (with regards to the US march to war on Syria) by supervising any chemical weapons and putting them under international supervision.

At 9:00 pm EST yesterday, US President Barack Obama gave a nationally broadcast speech begrudgingly acknowledging the Russian effort.  From last night's speech (link is transcript with video option on the far right):

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.  But these things happened.  The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it.  Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why.  If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.  Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

 First off, allegations are not "facts."  As Revolution newspaper notes, "Whether the deaths were the result of chemical weapons and, if so, whether the attack was launched by the Syrian government or by rebel forces, has not been independently verified. U.S. Secretary of State Kerry initially demanded that the Syrian government allow UN investigators into the area, but then when the Syrian regime responded that it would give inspectors unlimited access, Reuters reported that: '[A] U.S. official said such an offer was "too late to be credible" and Washington was all but certain that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had gassed its own people'."  Alex Lantier and Joe Kishore (WSWS) also note Barack's 'facts' were assertions,  "Without providing a scintilla of probative evidence, Obama repeated claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on August 21. Obama tried to bolster this assertion with various unsubstantiated assertions, combined with lurid images of the victims of the attack."

Lurid images from YouTube videos.  As a US Senator was explaining to me of Senator Dianne Feinstein's idiotic support of war on Syria, Dianne's seeing YouTube videos, these are sparkly, new things to her.  This is the woman who, after all, was born three years before Charlie Chaplin made his silent film masterpiece Modern Times, she was born the year silent film star (and producer, director and writer) Mary Pickford announced her film retirement. Talkies, color pictures, black and white TVs, color TV productions, satellite TV, now streaming, it's all been such a long and crazy trip for Dianne who, at 80-years-old, is the oldest member of the US Senate.  Could whomever cuts her food for her show her the door to gracefully leave the Senate or are we next to see her with drool on her face during Senate hearings?  Or, worse, someone has to explain to her that "40 Days of Dating" is staged.  ("But I saw it on the computer thing!" Dianne insists.)


Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) points out the larger problems with Barack and Secretary of State John Kerry's 'intell':
 

Evidence of sketchy claims and lack of support for them came very early on in the propaganda process. The president and secretary of state made their initial appeal by claiming there would be no “boots on the ground.” The horrendously Orwellian phrase was meant to give them cover from criticism and get hesitant congress members on board. But when asked at a Senate hearing, Kerry hedged. “ I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.” The so-called gaffes were constant. When a reporter asked if the United States would be amenable to forsaking an attack if Assad gave up weapons, Kerry initially said it would be acceptable.
“Sure, if he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community, in the next week, turn it over. All of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that, but he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously.”
The White House and State Department back pedaled furiously from Kerry’s comment. His own spokesperson said that the secretary “was not making a proposal." The evil doers had exposed themselves as the aggressors that they are. They admitted to the world community that the stated reason for going to war is a sham and that there is nothing Assad can do to call off the dogs. Even if a diplomatic process begins, the United States and the other NATO nations will try something else to bring about the regime change that they claim not to want in Syria.


On the subject of the information and intelligence:


The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O'Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University. ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O'Bagy's employment, effective immediately.

Who is she?  Leslie Larson (New York Daily News) explains who and how she figures into the Syrian debate, "A Syria expert at a U.S. think tank, whose research was cited by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during Senate testimony, has been fired for lying about having a Ph.D."   Greg Myer (NPR) explains her conflicts were more than lying about a degree, "In an interview on Fox News and in other appearances, she came under criticism for serving as a both an independent analyst at her institute and for working on a contractual basis with an advocacy group that supports the Syrian opposition, the Syrian Emergency Task Force. That group subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition."

Poor John Kerry, he really has become the joke of the administration. 


Along with offering 'facts' that were not facts, Barack also made an illogical assertion.  How do you claim that you have a right to break international law in order to enforce international custom?

IPS analyst Phyllis Bennis has repeatedly explained how the law works.  We'll include her speaking to Peter Hart on FAIR's Counterspin two Fridays ago:



Phyllis Bennis:  Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal.  No other agency, institution, organization has that right.  So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press.  It's being asserted that if the Security Council doesn't agree, there are other options.  Yeah, there are other options.  The problem is they're all illegal.  The Kosovo model was illegal.  What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto.  So instead of saying, 'Well okay we don't have support of the Security Council, I guess we can't do it,' they said, 'Okay, we won't go to the Security Council, we'll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.'  Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said 'sure.'  It's like the hammer and the nail.  If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you're NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention.  The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace.  And the charter doesn't say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force.  The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations.  Period.  Full stop.


It's hypocritical to argue that international custom must be upheld . . . by breaking international law.

It makes no sense.  Neither did today's US State Dept press briefings moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:


QUESTION: Based on what the President said last night and what the Secretary said yesterday afternoon, is it correct that the Administration wants to first work with the Russians to get a deal on securing the chemical weapons and taking care of them, and then take that agreement and somehow enshrine it in a UN Security Council resolution – a binding resolution, not a presidential statement – and use that as the basis for going forward? Is that right?


MS. PSAKI: Well, you’re getting a little ahead of where we are in the process.


QUESTION: No, I know, but I’m asking about what your long – what your hope and intention is, based on what the President and the Secretary said yesterday.


MS. PSAKI: Well, let me start with Geneva as the first step, since that, of course, is where the Secretary is heading. So as you all know, over the last 48 hours I guess it is, the credible threat of U.S. military action has created a diplomatic opportunity to remove the threat of chemical weapons in Syria without the use of force. The Secretary will be heading to Geneva, as I mentioned, later this evening to meet with not only Foreign Minister Lavrov, but we will also be bringing a team of experts to meet with their team of experts and discuss that.
So our goal here is to hear from the Russians about the modalities of their ideas that they have put forward, and to assess whether they will meet our requirement for the final disposition of Assad’s chemical weapons. In this stage of the process, our goal here is to test the seriousness of this proposal, to talk about the specifics of how this would get done, what are the mechanics of identifying, verifying, securing, and ultimately destroying the chemical weapons. And this requires, of course, a willingness from both sides. That’s what we’re focused on here.
At the same time, I would look at this as parallel tracks, or there are three tracks happening at once. One is that. The second is the UN and their efforts that are going to be ongoing in New York. We will not be – the Secretary will not be negotiating or discussing a UN Security Council resolution as part of the next couple of days. That is not our goal here. Those efforts and that work will be done in New York. And then, of course, there is the efforts that we’ve had underway with Congress. And there’s no question, and it doesn’t come as a surprise – in fact, we welcome it, as the President said last night – that they would take into account the events of the last couple of days.


QUESTION: I understand. But are you – are – is it your desire, is it the Administration’s desire, to see any potential, acceptable agreement with Russia on the weapons – is it your desire to have that as part of or at least referenced in a Security – a binding Security Council resolution?

MS. PSAKI: We do – we are working towards, of course, a binding UN Security Council resolution.


QUESTION: That would include – that would be the enforcement mechanism for the agreement with the – because an agreement just between Russia and Syria on this is not going to be good enough for you, is it? I mean --


MS. PSAKI: There’s no question that there has to be an international community engagement here and role. What that is and the form it takes, we’re not quite there yet. But when I say credibility and verifiability, that’s all related to what the outcome would be.


QUESTION: So it is – is it – so is it correct or not that you want to see this – if some kind of acceptable agreement can be reached with the Russians, that you would like to see that as part of a UN resolution?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to litigate what could or couldn’t be in a UN resolution.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we’re pursuing that.

QUESTION: Then let’s leave --

MS. PSAKI: We’re focused on day-by-day here.

QUESTION: Then let’s leave that out of it for a second --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and just talk about the UN resolution.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: What do you want this resolution to have in it?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more to tell you about what we would like to see --

QUESTION: But do you – all right. But you do want a resolution?

MS. PSAKI: Yes. That’s what we’re pushing for, absolutely.

QUESTION: Yes. Why do you want – why is it – I guess I’m asking – this is a major and significant change from last week and from even on Monday, because the Russians have still said that they don’t want a resolution. And on Friday, your Ambassador to the UN said it would be – what did she say – “It is naive to think that Russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the UN Security Council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. In short, the Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have.” Now that was Samantha Power on Friday, not John Bolton in 2003, and frankly it makes her – she kind of sounded more – makes him sound kind of moderate, those lines. Why is it that you now think that the Russians, even after Lavrov and Putin said they don’t want a resolution, will go for one?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: And this is when Lavrov and Putin said this yesterday, after the whole – their whole thing about getting a deal with the Syrians.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I can’t obviously predict what the Russians will or will not – I understand – I saw their comments yesterday. Let me take the first part first, the reference to the speech. There’s no question that in the last 36 hours events have changed. And leadership is having the flexibility to seize opportunities when there’s potential for them. We’re not naive about the challenges. We don’t think this will be easy. But that’s why we’re going to Geneva, and these events of the last 36 hours happened post the speeches that you’re quoting.

QUESTION: I understand. Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the problem here – and maybe you don’t – maybe I’m misunderstanding what the Russian position is – the Russians have said that they’re willing to push the Syrians for a deal on the chemical – on their chemical weapons --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- an agreement on that. They have not said that they’re willing to have this go to the UN or they’re willing even to have a UN Security Council resolution.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Your Ambassador to the UN and the National Security Advisor, the former UN ambassador, have both said, essentially, it’s a waste of time at the – the President said that, essentially. So I don’t get why it is now even – I don’t get why it is now that you think that such an endeavor would be productive.

MS. PSAKI: Well, a couple of things. One is a lot of those comments from our Ambassador to the UN and Susan Rice and the President came before the last two days. I understand you’re also referring to the comments of the Russians.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I can’t predict what they’ll be willing to support. But what has changed is that on Monday, when Foreign Minister Lavrov came out and made his statement, that was a more serious statement that showed a greater willingness to engage on this than we had seen in the past.

QUESTION: But his statement said nothing about the UN.

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Or any kind of an enforcement mechanism, right?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. And those negotiations and discussions will happen at the UN with appropriate UN counterparts. But there’s no question that was a positive step and an indication of more of an openness than what we had even 72 hours ago.

QUESTION: All right. Well, assuming that the UN Ambassador and the former – the current National Security Advisor, former UN Ambassador speak for the Administration, is it still the Administration’s view that it was – it is naive to think that the Russians are on the verge of changing their minds in the Security Council, and that then it’s not realistic – the first was Power, this is Rice – it’s not realistic that it’s going to happen?

MS. PSAKI: Well I --

QUESTION: Is that still the position of the Administration?

MS. PSAKI: I read and watched both of their speeches.

QUESTION: Right. But is that still the position of the Administration --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, the --

QUESTION: -- given the fact that the Russians have not said anything or made any sign that they’re willing to allow the Security Council --

MS. PSAKI: You are correct, and I’m not implying that they have. But things have changed in the last 36 hours. We’re working towards a goal here of working with them. I can’t predict what will or won’t come out of the UN Security Council. I know they have a meeting later this afternoon. And beyond that, everyone in the Administration who gave those speeches are all working towards the same effort.

QUESTION: Okay. But I can – I’m a big fan of the Emerson line that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but I – aren’t you, by going back to the UN, guilty of the naivete that Ambassador Power discussed on Friday?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: I don’t see how what the Russians have said changes anything at the UN, and I don’t see how it can be acceptable for you for there just to some kind of a buddy-buddy agreement between Putin and Assad on the chemical weapons if there’s no enforcement, as --

MS. PSAKI: I just said we’re fully supportive of and pushing for a resolution. What I’m --

QUESTION: I know. But why isn’t that – why doesn’t that make --

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: What I’m also conveying is that we don’t conduct diplomacy and foreign policy with inflexibility, just to say the things we said last week, when events on the ground change and when a greater opportunity presents itself.

QUESTION: So would you say that the Administration – despite what Ambassador Power said on Friday about being naive, you would say that it is not naive to think that Russia is now on the verge of changing it? I mean, --


MS. PSAKI: Matt, we have --


QUESTION: -- either you are guilty of being naive, as she said on Friday, or you’re not.


MS. PSAKI: I simply don’t think it’s that simple.


QUESTION: All right.
 

Tom Hayden (Los Angeles Times) observes:

The dominant mantra we heard from the president’s allies Tuesday was that it was the credible threat of American military force that caused Russia, Syria and Iran to agree to dismantle Assad's chemical weapons. If that argument keeps us out of another war, it deserves some credit, even if it's only partly true.
But it could also be said that it was the “credible threat” of democracy -- a defeat of his war plan in Congress and in public opinion polls -- that caused the Obama administration to back away from the military brink and seek an honorable way out.

Let's note some reactions to the speech.   Frank Rich (New York Magazine) offers this on the speech, "He started with a call for military action, then veered into a prayer for diplomacy before trailing off into an inchoate 'stay tuned' denouement. I guess this proves that if you mate a hawk with a dove, you end up with the rhetorical equivalent of turducken. I'd like to believe there was some other aim, but what could it have been? A humanitarian preemption of ABC’s The Bachelor? This address should have been put on hold by the White House the moment the attack was put on hold because the urgency of the appeal for force had evaporated. Now, if the Hail Putin Pass proves a Russian-Syrian bluff or some other form of mirage, the president can't give the same speech again, minus the diplomacy part. One prime-time strike to sell the country on air strikes, and you're out."  Truth-Out posts a Real News Network (link is text and transcript) of a discussion on the speech moderated by Jaisal Noor and featuring Rania Masri and Chris Hedges.  Excerpt.

NOOR: So, Rania, let's start with you. As an activist that's been speaking out against this possible intervention, against U.S. involvement in Syria, what's your response to this speech? Obama asked Congress to delay a possible vote authorizing intervention in Syria.


MASRI: It really was what we had expected. I mean, those of us who've been spending time at the Hill and following the news, President Obama's speech was what we had expected. The postponement was expected. And [incompr.] that he postponed it not only because the Russians provided him with a really strong political way out, a political possibility for chemical weapons deterrence in Syria, but also because he simply didn't have the votes in Congress. Were this to go to the House, it would have failed. It might even have failed in the Senate.


NOOR: And, Chris, I want to pose that question to you. It seems like within the past few weeks and days, this war has become or this possible intervention in Syria has become increasingly unpopular. At least that's how it's been reported in the press. What's your response to his speech and the fact also that he had to delay this vote in Congress?

HEDGES: Well, Rania is right. He didn't have the votes, so he had no choice.
But I think this is really symptomatic of an exhaustion on the part of the American public after 12 years of war, 12 years in Afghanistan, ten years in Iraq. They have seen this scenario before. The clips of atrocities, the appealing to American exceptionalism, the high-blown rhetoric of patriotism. Kerry even trotted out once again World War II, calling this the Munich moment and referring to the graves, Normandy. And none of it worked.
It didn't work because at this point people have been lied to so many times. The excuses and propaganda that is pushed forth and has been pushed forth year after year just fall flat. It doesn't work anymore. And I think people understand that when you drop Tomahawk missiles, each Tomahawk missile carries a 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bomb or 166 cluster bombs. And they're talking about dropping hundreds of them.
You know, this circular logic whereby we go in and kill civilians--and Dempsey, the chief of staff, said there would be, quote-unquote, collateral damage to stop the Assad stopping regime from killing civilians, it just--it doesn't work anymore after Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we're really seeing a kind of implosion of the myth of war, which has sustained these imperial adventures. And I think Obama just got cornered. You know, left, right, it didn't make any difference. The [incompr.] sick of it.
And let's not forget that internally, we are, like all dying empires, being hollowed out from the inside in terms of infrastructure. I live near Philly, I live in Princeton. The school system is shattered with closings and layoffs. Libraries are being shuttered. Head Start is being cut back. Unemployment benefits are not being extended. You know, we've reached a point of both physical and emotional exhaustion.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) points out:

We are told a Kerry gaffe, an impressive display of Putin’s diplomatic jiu-jitsu, and – most of all – the "credible threat" of war led to what the Obamaites and their media cheerleaders are hailing as a great victory for this administration. A look at the timeline of events, however, effectively debunks the official narrative.
The key development here wasn’t Kerry’s fumble and the Russian interception but the announcement by majority leader Harry Reid that the Senate vote on the war resolution would be delayed: the War Party simply didn’t have the votes. What the administration discovered, to their horror, was that the more they made their case to the American people the less support they had: every time Kerry opened his mouth, their poll numbers went down a few points, and a few more members of Congress came out against intervention.

The World Can't Wait Tweeted:

2. World Can't Wait! ‏@worldcantwait 14h

   No! #Obama's speech did not convince us to support an illegitimate, unjust and immoral war with #syria #NoWarWithSyria

   Expand

Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) dissects five claims from the speech:

1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”
No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.


A.N.S.W.E.R. decodes Barack's speech:

The U.S. war threat against Syria has not ended. But the particular path to war has required a shift because of resounding domestic and global opposition.
The U.S. Congress will now be asked to pass a different resolution than the one originally supported by the White House. The new resolution will be constructed to authorize Obama to carry out military strikes if the U.S. government decides that Syria is not in full compliance with a new UN resolution calling for its chemical weapons stockpiles to be totally destroyed.
This was precisely the scenario used by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney when they launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Even though the Iraqi government complied with UN weapons inspections demands and was actively disarming its own military forces, Bush simply declared that Saddam Hussein was not complying with UN resolutions and launched the U.S. war that toppled the government.
In Syria, like with Iraq, Libya and Iran for the past decades, the U.S. government goal of toppling independent, nationalist governments uses an assortment of tactics, including economic and financial sanctions, funding and arming internal domestic opposition, providing international legitimacy and recognition to the internal opposition, cyber attacks, and in some cases direct bombings and invasion.

Fred Goldstein (Workers World) also views the speech as a charade, "Many are hoping that this proposal will put the skids under the U.S. war drive against Syria. But that would be a fatal error and a complete misunderstanding of Washington, the Pentagon, the oil companies and the military-industrial complex, which are behind the drive to overthrow the independent, sovereign government of Syria."  BBC News provides this video reaction of various people in the Middle East to an attack on Syria.  Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report -- link is text and audio) has a strong commentary on the lies used to call for war on Syria.  Libertarian Christopher A. Preble (CATO) live blogged the speech.  The US Green Party states:

The Green Party opposes any resumption of threats to attack Syria and supports a halt to U.S. arms shipments and training for Syrian rebels. Party leaders reiterated the call for a nonviolent resolution, with diplomacy, participation in the upcoming U.N.-backed Geneva II Middle East peace conference, cooperation with the International Criminal Court, and an across-the-board arms embargo. "While this decision to respect the Russian proposal is encouraging, we're not out of the woods by a longshot. We urge Americans to keep the heat on President Obama to avoid future military action against Syria. In the absence of continued public pressure, it wouldn't be surprising to see inspections and the talks with Russia and other members of the U.N. Security Council used as a pretext for a later attack," said Steve Welzer, Green candidate for Governor of New Jersey. Greens noted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's warning at a congressional hearing: "For this diplomatic option to have a chance at succeeding, the threat of a U.S. military action, the credible, real threat of U.S. military action, must continue." In fact, such action would be illegal, and the threat of attack gives President Assad reason to maintain arms to defend against that threat. Pressure should be brought on all Syrian factions to come to the peace table and for all foreign parties to stop arming them. Green Party members participated in recent protest rallies across the country in opposition to the planned attack and military aid for Syrian rebel groups and encouraged members and friends to contact their members of Congress to urge nay votes on the resolution granting the President license to order an attack.

Revolution and Stop Patriarchy's Sunsara Taylor re-Tweeted Larry Everest on the speech:

2. Larry Everest ‏@LarryEverest 17h

   #NoWarWithSyria Shocked Obama didn't promo this video!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo … (Albright defending US mass murder of Iraqi children)

   Retweeted by Sunsara Taylor

   View media
3. Larry Everest ‏@LarryEverest 17h

   #NoWarWithSyria Obama forgot to cover this chapter of US "concern" for Iraqi children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo …

   Retweeted by Sunsara Taylor

   View media

Elisabeth Armstrong (CounterPunch) offers this reality, "The choice is not between doing 'nothing' or bombing. Other options remain. Meaningful regional diplomacy, drawing in countries that are eager to solve the Syrian standoff, bringing in adversaries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, bringing in US allies such as Israel and Jordan, bringing in the major powers such as Russia and the United States itself, allowing the United Nations to fulfil the process known as Geneva 2. All this is possible. It is doing something. If our media imparts news as a cynical display of power, it is complicit with any US response that begins with military force. Other ways are possible. West Asia deserves another way."  Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) gets the last word on the topic of Syria:

It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.
The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together.

In Iraq, BBC News reports, "Two explosions near a Shia mosque in the Iraqi capital Baghdad have killed at least 35 people, officials say.  At least 55 others were wounded in the attack in the largely Shia district of Kasra as worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers."  Reuters adds, "A co-ordinated car and suicide bomb attack on a Shi'ite mosque in the Iraqi capital killed at least 33 people on Wednesday evening, police and medical sources said.  Worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers when the car bomb exploded, and as onlookers rushed to help the wounded, a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst."  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, "The bomber wore an explosive vest, which he detonated Wednesday evening in the northwestern al-Kassra neighborhood, police officials said. The force of the blast damaged not only the mosque but several buildings nearby, police said."  AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted:

2. Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP 6h

   Iraq mosque suicide bomb, attacks kill 37 http://u.afp.com/oWY  by @prashantrao

   Retweeted by Prashant Rao

   View summary

   • Reply
   • Retweet
   • Favorite

In addition,  All Iraq News reports a Mosul sticky bombing killed 1 journalist and 1 police colonel was shot dead in Mosul.   NINA reports Sheikh Natiq Yassin was assassinated in Abe al-Kahseb, police shot dead 1 suspect and injured another in Baiji, a suicide car bomber in Tuz Khurmatu claimed the lives of 5 police officers and left another four injured, a Baquba bombing claimed the life of 1 "employee in the Sunni Waqf Directorate in Diyala and his wife," an attack on a Buhriz checkpoint left 1 police officer dead, 1 worker for the General Company for Ports of Iraq was shot dead in Basra, and last night 2 Muqdadiya bombings left four people injured. Also last night, AFP reports 1 fifty-year-old women was shot at a Goran rally on Tuesday in Sulaimaniyah and died Tuesday night at the hospital.

  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports on the various ("heavy-handed") efforts that Iraqi officials are using in attempts to reduce violence including a moat around Kirkuk, vehicle restrictions and "bulldozing soccer fields."  Salman Faraj (AFP) reports on the Kirkuk moat, "workers are digging the 53-kilometre (32-mile) trench -- a defensive measure dating to ancient times."


The US Embassy in Baghdad posted "Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens" at its website late yesterday:

The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq.

Due to heightened safety and security risks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activities throughout Iraq, the U.S. government remains highly concerned about the danger to U.S. citizens, whether visiting or residing in Iraq, and to U.S. facilities and businesses.  Threats against U.S. interests, U.S. assets, and foreign companies employing U.S. personnel in Iraq have been reported, related to a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.

On the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Embassy reminds U.S. citizens of the need for caution and awareness of personal security.  U.S. citizens in Iraq should avoid areas where large gatherings may occur.  Even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.  You should avoid areas of demonstrations and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations.

Review your personal security plans; remain aware of your surroundings, including local events; and monitor local news stations for updates.  Maintain a high level of vigilance, take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security and follow instructions of local authorities.

We strongly recommend that U.S. citizens residing in Iraq enroll in the Department of State's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP).   STEP enrollment gives you the latest security updates, and makes it easier for the U.S. embassy or nearest U.S. consulate to contact you in an emergency. If you don't have Internet access, enroll directly with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.

For the latest security information, U.S. citizens traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department of State's Internet website at travel.state.gov where the Worldwide Caution, Country Specific Information, Travel Warnings, and Travel Alerts can be found.  Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs page on Facebook as well.  Download our free Smart Traveler app, available through iTunes or Google Play, to have travel information at your fingertips. 

Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States and Canada, or, for callers outside the United States and Canada, a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444. These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).

The U.S. Embassy is located at Al Kindi Street, IZ, Baghdad.  If you are a U.S. citizen in need of urgent assistance, the emergency number for the U.S. Embassy is 0770-443-128, from the United States:  011-964-770-443-1286.  The U.S. Consulate General in Erbil is located at 413 Ishtar, Ankawa, Erbil:  0770-443-4396.

iraq
phyllis bennis
matthew rothschild
justin raimondo
antiwar.com
 tom hayden
margaret kimberley
glen ford
black agenda report
 bbc news
 cnn

mohammed tawfeeq

 afp
prashant rao

 

 

 

 national iraqi news agency
alsumaria

sameer n. yacoub

The cracks emerge

"Kaaarraccck – The Broken Back Of Barack" (Hillary Is 44):
Why is Barack Obama bothering with a publicity stunt speech tonight? No one seems to know. The one person that should be speaking to Americans and the world is Vladimir Putin. Strong Vladimir Putin just abused Barack’s back and left it broken and bleeding:

“Putin Didn’t Save Obama, He Beat Him [snip]
“The only reason why we are seeing this proposal,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, “is because of the U.S. threat of military action.”
Right, Putin is laughing to himself. Whatever. If Obama wants to sell it like a Christmas miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue that’s fine with Putin, because Putin won. [snip]
What’s unclear is whether Obama understands that his foreign policy legacy will be to have ruined the American position in the Middle East, our patrimony of the last seven decades. If the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran signaled weakness, the Russian deal screams surrender. The real surprise is that it’s not Iran kicking the United States out of the region under Obama’s watch, but Putin.
The Syrian government has accepted the proposal because they understand it is an empty formalism. [snip]
Who knows what the Russians told Assad? For God’s sake, just say it’s your chemical weapons arsenal you’re turning over for safekeeping. Send them canisters of perfume, or cat urine. The Americans just want a deal, the president thinks he’s saving face. a bunch of legalistic bureaucrats who are incapable of standing with their friends.
If the Americans are smart, they’ll let the whole thing drop and call it a win, but knowing them they’ll come back later and complain that you’re not keeping your end of the bargain. No problem. We’ll stall them. And then every time Obama whines it will remind your adversaries and U.S. allies around the world that the Americans are empty suits,
It’s hard not to be impressed with Putin. A man who up until yesterday seemed merely crass, has revealed himself to be capable of great subtlety. For years his method was so transparent, so obvious, his vulgarities intended to appall and shock the White House. He accused one secretary of state of plotting against him, and another he calls a liar. He gave Edward Snowden refuge. He dispatches his thugs to beat up LGBT teenagers. After a while, the administration learned not to be surprised by anything Putin does. He’s a bully, smitten with his own macho self-image. That’s all true, but now we see that Putin was testing Obama and looking for openings.”

That above bit is from supporters of a Syrian attack. Why anyone would sign up for an attack led by a rodeo clown is a mystery to the sensible. But they signed up to support Barack and they look like the fools they are. Obama cannot be trusted and they trusted him. Results? Comedy.
Why is Barack Obama giving a speech tonight? There’s a report that the speech will only last 15 minutes. It’s 15 minutes too long. When the speech was announced it was supposed to help get votes for the authorization of an attack on Syria. But the vote has been postponed or cancelled so what is the purpose of this waste of time?
Even if there was a vote Obama is set to lose anyway. Obama’s back is broken much like a rented mule with arthritis. It’s not just Vladimir Putin that rode this big broken ass.
Barack is a cheap ass con man, a broke ass fraud.

Thank goodness we only have to endure three more years of the bastard.

But who knows how many more wars he'll try to drag us into?


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, September 10, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, the insurance industry feels they've found an untapped market: Life insurance for Iraqis!, Jalal Talabani's continued absence from Iraq prompts more discussions, a rumor pops up regarding US approval for Nouri to serve a third term as prime minister, Camp Ashraf continues to suffer -- where is Richard Cohen's outrage!!!!,  John Kerry's bluster on Syria gets called, and more. 

Richard Cohen is a Washington Post columnist.  He's come under intense criticism this year, more so than at any other time.  It could actually be a great thing.  Columnists are supposed to generate controversy, ideas are supposed to be provocative.  The criticism also allows Cohen to take a look at how he presents himself in his writing and decide whether he's mispresenting or whether he thinks people are misunderstanding what he's stating.  Most of all, the constant dogpile means that he is eagerly read by his harshest critics in the hopes that they can catch something to criticize him for. All of that spells success if you respond to it correctly.

I'm not one of Richard's harshest critics.  I know him and I like him and I will forever applaud his work on the illegal government spying of the seventies.  But his column showing up all over the place this week (here for San Jose Mercury News, here for Real Clear Politics to cite only two) is dead wrong.  "Where's the moral outrage?" the headline asks.

Uh, don't know, Richard?  Is the 'moral' outrage aimed at a same-sex couple attempting to adopt?  Or maybe it's aimed at an unwed, pregnant woman?  Who knows where the 'moral' outrage is and who really gives a f**k?  How about we talk ethical and leave 'morality' to the cowards who are unable to debate ethics?  Once again,  from the classic comedy sketch (about the quiz show scandal) . . .


 
Mike Nichols: It's a moral issue.

Elaine May: Yes!

Mike Nichols: A moral issue.

Elaine May: Yes! Yes! Yes! It is a moral issue.  

Mike Nichols:  A moral issue.

Elaine May:  And to me that's always so much more interesting than a real issue



Truly, let's talk about something that actually matters.


Richard is outraged by the deaths in Syria.  I don't doubt that.  And he's worked himself up over it to write a column whose sincerity I don't question.

Deaths are sad, wherever they take place.  Syria's in the midst of a civil war.  Deaths take place in a civil war, as any student of history knows.  Deaths take place in revolutions as well.  The American Revolution was very bloody, for example.  These are facts.

Cohen writes:

What perplexes me is how the calls for Congress to rebuff President Obama are empty of moral outrage. The civil war in Syria has cost more than 110,000 lives. It has produced a humanitarian calamity -- well over 2 million refugees. Bashar al-Assad has massacred his own people by conventional means and is accused of using poison gas several times, most recently on Aug. 21, when his military murdered 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.

Again, let's leave 'morality' out of it.  Refugees?  The Iraqi refugee crisis had/has a higher number and as the BBC -- and only the BBC -- has recently reported, violence returning to 2008 levels in today's Iraq means that, yet again, Iraqis are fleeing the country in large numbers.

What has Bashar al-Assad done or not done?  I have no idea.  Nor does Richard Cohen.  But if they are "his own people," I guess he can feed them or kill them or whatever.

"His own people"?  Do you get how insulting that is, that mind-set?  It's truly imperialism at its worst.   And that's what harms Cohen and his column.

He's outraged.  That's a feeling, we can talk about it, we can process it.  But he has a feeling and he wants to act on it.

Somewhere along the way, a very smart man has lost his toolbox.  All Cohen has is killing.  That is now his answer to everything.  Something must be done?  Kill!  Kill!  Kill!

He's like a 'sexy vixen' in a Roger Corman film.

Cohen is smart enough to grasp -- if he'd take a breath -- that there are many ways to respond.

Cohen writes, "We should all be ashamed.  The inescapable truth is that the world needs a policeman. The inescapable truth is that only the U.S. can play cop."

If that's all he has to offer, he needs to consider a serious vacation because the well's gone dry and it's time to refill.  More importantly, he needs to shake off the tension because he is consumed with fear.

We need peace makers, we need diplomats.  If America has a gun problem (I'll leave that to others to decide, I do not support changes to the Second Amendment), why wouldn't it?  The government constantly threatens at the barrel of a gun and this is treated as normal, people like Richard Cohen will even applaud it.  So why wouldn't many citizens in the country model the behavior in their own lives?  When your government acts like a bully and gets applauded for it, it sends a message.

So those who treat the threats of violence as normal really shouldn't be surprised as the society in the same country grows even more violent.

Cohen wants to provide a service?  Try breaking with a culture that embraces violence.

Also stop attacking the American people (left, right, center, apolitical) for 'not caring.'  As donations and volunteer work in Haiti demonstrate, there is no lack of humanitarian concern among Americans.  But Cohen and others don't want to measure that as "humanitarian" -- that which truly is humanitarian -- and that's what's so disturbing.

Bombing is not humanitarian.  Bombing is war.  If you want to advocate for it, do it honestly.  Stop being so chicken s**t that you try to pretend you're being a humanitarian.

If you don't believe diplomacy can work, if you don't believe peace talks could be productive, that's fine, state your opinion on that.  But don't ignore humanitarian means while insisting that bombing a people is "humanitarian."  It's war.

There's also a lack of honesty when what US President Barack Obama might order on Syria is 'discussed.'  Tom Hayden (Beyond Chron) speaks bluntly about what is possible:


Secretary of State John Kerry even already has suggested a role for American ground forces in his Senate testimony, for example in the case of chaos or a takeover by Syrian militants in a vacuum. This was purely "hypothetical" Kerry said, under sharp questioning. Then in his classic way, Kerry retracted his retraction, sort of, by saying that there would be no boots on the ground during "the civil war" phase of the conflict. This statement left open the possibility of American ground troops if and when the Assad regime begins disintegrating. At that point, does anyone seriously believe there would be another Congressional debate?
The parallel with Iraq is crystal clear. That earlier war was based on false information about "weapons of mass destruction" in the terrifying hands of Saddam Hussein. In an interview, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the war's architects, said that the non-existent weapons were the best argument for mobilizing public opinion and a reluctant Congress. In this war, there seems to be no question that a sarin-type gas attack killed one thousand people, although a UN investigation is incomplete and there are questions about who exactly ordered the attack. That major difference aside, the eerie parallel with Iraq is that the chemical weapons attack is a pretext for expanding the American war in Syria on a much broader basis than is acknowledged.
The American public deserves a full explanation for what we are expected to support.


John Kerry . . . As a White House friend said to me today, "You know Joe's loving this.  For once, he's not the [administration] buffoon."

No, John holds that title.  We have warned here repeatedly that Barack needed to stop being such a little wimp and take control of his own message instead of attempting to hide behind others.  We've noted how bad it makes Barack look on the world stage when John Kerry's acting as 'president' and not Secretary of State.

As we noted yesterday, Kerry declared, "Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week -- turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."  He was speaking off the cuff, acting like he was the policy setter.


Now it's bit him in the butt as the government of Russia has grabbed it and run with it.  Of course they would grab it.  They were already mocking Kerry and calling him a liar because, well, he lied.  So, of course, they were looking for more to score with.   And they ran with John's adlibs.


Late Monday, the Russian government announced they'd be happy to help with such an arrangement (securing any chemical weapons Syria may have) and, as the AP reports, the White House immediately tried to distance themselves from Kerry's words until they were forced to go along.


Reuters notes, "Syria accepted a Russian proposal on Tuesday to give up chemical weapons and win a reprieve from U.S. military strikes but serious differences emerged between Russia and the United States that could obstruct a U.N. resolution to seal a deal."  Russia's issue is they want a pledge of no attack on Syria from the US government.  That's actually a smart demand considering the way the US government forced UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq to start the Iraq War and then repeatedly lied that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors do their work.


Kerry went before the House Armed Services Committee today and insisted:


If we don't answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected American troops in war. So to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, "Why did you vote for this even though we said we don't want to go to war?" Because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America's prohibition and the world's prohibition against these weapons.

 There's no need to protect American troops from those alleged weapons.  American troops aren't in Syria.  Keep them out of Syria -- which does not border the United States -- and it shouldn't be an issue.

John Kerry continued babbling:

The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere. In Israel, they can't get enough gas masks. And there's a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. It's called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential – with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They're watching what we do here. They're watching what you do and whether or not this means something.


The government of Israel preaches and teaches fear, another reason they're in such trouble today.  As for 'allies,'  where's Iraq in that sentence.  They share a longer border with Syria than does any other neighboring country.




But to pimp Iraq might require Kerry -- or Cohen -- note what Nouri's done to the Ashraf community most recently.  James Morrison (Washington Times) noted yesterday:


Iranian opposition leaders and their U.S. and European supporters are urging President Obama to draw a “red line” in Iraq — a week after gunmen killed 52 Iranian dissidents at a refugee camp north of Baghdad.
Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican, called on Secretary of State John F. Kerry to cut U.S. aid to Iraq’s government, which is strongly influenced by Iran.
Struan Stevenson, leader of the European Parliament’s committee on Iraq, denounced the “inaction” of the U.S., U.N. and European Union after the Sept. 1 attack on Camp Ashraf, where gunmen believed to be Iraqi soldiers killed the unarmed Iranian exiles.
“Silence in relation to such murderous activity is shameful and an encouragement for further atrocities,” said Mr. Stevenson, a Conservative Party member from Scotland.
Opposition leaders also said that U.S. prestige is at risk in Iraq as much as in Syria, noting that all of the victims carried U.S. government-issued cards identifying them as protected persons under the Geneva Conventions.

Last Friday, the US State Dept announced,  "The State Department has appointed a Senior Advisor for MEK Resettlement, Jonathan Winer, to oversee our efforts to help resettle the residents of Camp Hurriya to safe, permanent, and secure locations outside of Iraq, in addition to those countries, such as Albania, that have admirably assisted the United Nations in this important humanitarian mission."




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



Cohen and Kerry and so many others have 'moral' outrage and want to make comparisons to Hitler's assault on the Jews.  If anyone's living in concentration camps it's the Ashraf community.  Kerry also doesn't seem to care that Iraq is a neighbor of Syria who has made it very clear that a US military strike on Syria will not help them.

On Iraq,  Ziad al Sinjary, Raheem Salman, Isabel Coles and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) report, "Iraq closed the international airport in its second largest city Mosul on Tuesday, grounding all flights without giving any explanation, air industry and security sources said."  Mosul is the capital of Nineveh Province.  Alsumaria notes it is Iraq's third largest airport and quotes Haider Mohammed Ali (Director of the Mosul International Airport) declaring it will be closed for at least four days.  In this morning's news headlines, Cameron Jones (KPFA) noted this "effects flights to and from Jordan, the United Arab Emeritus and, Turkey as well as daily internal flights to and from the capital.  Reuters notes that the governor of the province is opposed to the move."  Various reasons have been given for the closure (including terrorism and maintenance).  Sunday,  Alsumaria reported that Nineveh Province Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi (also sometimes spelled Ethyl al-Nujaifi), who just won a second term as governor this summer, has an arrest warrant out for him for 'integrity' crimes.  If the warrant does exist and Nouri executes it (if it exists, he's the one who initiated it), expect the various crises in Iraq -- especially the political crisis -- to intensify even more.



If a warrant is executed against the immensely popular Governor of Nineveh (again, just re-elected to a second term this summer), look for the protests to intensify, look for rebels to feel Sunnis are being further attacked (therefore the rebels will up their attacks) and look for the already inflamed tensions to soar ever higher.


For many, the targeting of Tareq al-Hashemi is what really underscores how Nouri has rejected a power-sharing governmnet.  Tareq al-Hashemi is a Sunni and a member of Iraqiya, the political slate that came in first in the March 2010 elections (Nouri's State of Law came in second). Tareq al-Hashemi and Adel Abdul-Mahdi were also vice presidents from 2006 to 2010. In December 2011, after multiple photo-ops with US President Barack Obama, Nouri returned to Iraq and quickly ordered the homes of his political rivals circled by tanks -- a detail the US press 'forgot' to report for at least 24 hours (most estimates are 48 hours). The bulk of US forces had left Iraq when Nouri made his move (a detail international observers stressed). He began calling for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his office. Like al-Hashemi, al-Mutlaq is also Sunni and also a member of Iraqiya. 

Sunday December 18, 2011, Tareq al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, along with bodyguards, attempted to leave out of Baghdad International Airport for the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government -- three semi-autonomous provinces in Iraq). Nouri's forces pulled all off the plane and detained them for approximately an hour before allowing some bodyguards and al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq to reboard. The next day, December 19th, Nouri issued an arrest warrant for al-Hashemi whom he charged with 'terrorism.'  From the December 19, 2012 snapshot:




CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator." 


al-Hashemi, who did not 'flee' to the KRG, remained in the KRG as a guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani while Nouri screamed for Tareq to handed over.  When Talabani folded, KRG Pre. He went there on business and could have been stopped if Nouri wanted to stop him. A day after he arrived, an arrest warrant was issued and he elected to remain in the KRG. He has been the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani. Tareq noted he could not receive a fair trial since Nouri controls the Baghdad judiciary.

Thursday Februaty 16, 2012,  the 'independent' Supreme Court in Baghdad issued a finding of guilt against Tareq al-Hashemi. Was a trial held? Because Article 19 of Iraq's Constitution is very clear that the accused will be guilty until convicted in a court of law. No. There was no trial held. But members of the judiciary -- who should damn well know the Constitution -- took it upon themselves not only to form an investigative panel -- extra-judicial -- but also to hold a press conference and issue their findings. At the press conference, a judge who is a well known Sunni hater, one with prominent family members who have demonized all Sunnis as Ba'athists, one who is currently demanding that a member of Iraqiya in Parliament be stripped of his immunity so that the judge can sue him, felt the need to go to the microphone and insist he was receiving threats and this was because of Tareq al-Hashemi, that al-Hashemi was a threat to his family.

The kangaroo court tried al-Hashemi in absentia repeatedly handing down death sentences.  The fifth death sentence was handed down December 15, 2012.

Though trials in absentia are often seen as, at best, flawed, a further problem for the judiciary was that, as a sitting vice president, Tareq al-Hashemi really couldn't be put on trial.  He would have to either finish his term (it expires next year) or be removed from office (by a vote in Parliament).  He remains vice president.

That's only the most well known example.  December 20, 2012, another action took place, one that kicked off the ongoing protests which hit the 9 month mark in less than two weeks.  From the December 21st snapshot:


After morning prayers, Kitabat reports, protesters gathered in Falluja to protest the arrests and Nouri al-Maliki.  They chanted down with Nouri's brutality and, in a move that won't change their minds, found themselves descended upon by Nouri's forces who violently ended the protest.  Before that, Al Mada reports, they were chanting that terrorism and Nouri are two sides of the same coin.  Kitabat also reports that demonstrations also took place in Tikrit, Samarra, Ramdia and just outside Falluja with persons from various tribes choosing to block the road connecting Anbar Province (Falluja is the capitol of Anbar) with Baghdad.  Across Iraq, there were calls for Nouri to release the bodyguards of Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi.  Alsumaria notes demonstrators in Samarra accused Nouri of attempting to start a sectarian war.
So what happened yesterday?  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports:


Iraq's Finance Minister Rafei al-Essawi said Thursday that "a militia force" raided his house, headquarters and ministry in Baghdad and kidnapped 150 people, and he holds the nation's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, responsible for their safety.  Members of the al-Essawi's staff and guards were among those kidnapped from the ministry Thursday, the finance minister said. He also said that his computers and documents were searched at his house and headquarters. He said the head of security was arrested Wednesday at a Baghdad checkpoint for unknown reasons and that now the compound has no security.

 

 

Kitabat explains that these raids took place in the Green Zone, were carried out by the Iraqi military and that Nouri, yesterday evening, was insisting he knew nothing about them.    In another report, Tawfeeq quotes al-Essawi stating, "My message to the prime minister: You are a man who does not respect partnership at all, a man who does not respect the law and the constitution, and I personally hold you fully responsible for the safety of the kidnapped people." BBC News adds, "Rafie al-Issawi, a prominent member of the al-Iraqiyya political bloc, said about 150 of his bodyguards and staff members had been arrested on Thursday."

If Nouri's planning to arrest Atheel al-Nujaifi, closing the Mosul airport might be part of that procedure (to prevent al-Nujaifi from seeking asylum in the KRG.


NINA notes 3 car bombings have gone off in Diyala Province.  Fars News Agency notes that the 3 Baquba bombings have claimed 10 lives and left thirty-four injured while a Latifiyah car bombing claimed 4 lives with fourteen injured.  Isabel Coles and Kevin Liffey (Reuters) quote college student Ali Kadhim stating, "A white car parked near a barber's shop inside Anbakiya market exploded. I got shrapnel in my head and my family took me to Baquba hospital." AP adds, "In Tuesday's deadliest attack, gunmen stormed a house in the town of Yusufiyah and killed six people, including two women, as they were ritually cleansing the body of a Sunni Arab man ahead of his funeral, a police officer and a doctor at a nearby hospital said."  AFP reports, "And in the northern city of Mosul, two people, including a policeman, were gunned down by militants, while three bodies were found in northern Iraq as well."  Alsumaria notes a Kirkuk suicide bomber took his own life and left four people (including one child) injured, a Taji bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left six more injured, and a Baghdad bomb targeting a football field left 4 young people dead and sixteen more injured.  Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 293 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.  Today's already reported deaths mean over 300 people have been killed in Iraq in the first ten days of the month.

In the face of all this death and destruction,  Julie Campbell (Live Insurance News) smells profits, "Even though there are hundreds of Iraqi people who die every month as a result of the violence that still plagues the nation, there remains a lack of awareness regarding life insurance throughout the population."  You know things are bad in Iraq when the mercenary profit motive starts getting applied.  How bad is it in Iraq?   Rabin Nader (Al-Monitor) reports:


The term “death zones” nowadays easily describes many areas of Baghdad, while in the past it only applied to specific areas.
Baghdad’s inhabitants now expect to fall victim to car bombs, even while traveling in alleyways. Bassem Hussein, 31, recounted to Al-Monitor the details of an explosion that struck the al-Qahira neighborhood of Baghdad over a week ago, when he lost his right eye and his brother was killed.
After his release from hospital, Bassem said, “We did not expect these bombings to target residential areas at such a pace. We now fear that they might kill us in our own homes.”
He added, “Even during years of sectarian war, fear of death was not this intense. At the time, we only avoided going to specific places, but now all areas have become death zones.”

Turning to Iraqi politics,  Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi Tweeted the following today:

1. Ayad Allawi ‏@AyadAllawi 5h

   انا ضد تسييس #الاسلام ولا اعمل مع اي جهة تتبنى هذه السياسية او تتبنى الفكر المتطرف. #العراق

   Expand
2. Ayad Allawi ‏@AyadAllawi 5h

   I am against politicising #Islam and do not deal with any party that adopts this policy or any extreme ideology #Iraq

   Expand 

    

The Tweets come as the vote on the legislation for next year's parliamentary elections has again been postponed.  All Iraq News reports that September 19th is thought to be the last day on which to vote without delaying the elections planned for early next year.  Kitabat notes rumors that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc will be making amendments to the proposal and that these amendments are seen as part of the continued conflict between Moqtada and Nouri.  Ahmed Hussein and Muhannad Muhammad (Alsumaria) report the postponement is due to the desire to switch to an open-list system.  NINA quotes Iraqiya MP Wahda al-Jumaili stating, "The delay in adopting the electoral law and its impact on the work [of] IHEC is what some political blocs want in order to postpone the parliamentary elections."  Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports there is a growing belief that there is a concentrated effort on the part of some in government to prevent elections from taking place next year.

In other election news,  All Iraq News reports, "The office of the Independent High Electoral Commission in Erbil stated that two million and 803 thousand citizens are eligible to participate in the parliamentary elections in KR. "  The Kurdistan Regional Government is the semi-autonomous northern region in Iraq which is made up of Duhok Province, Erbil Province and Sulaymaniyah Province.

Iraq has 18 provinces.  Fourteen have now voted in provincial elections.  Kirkuk was not allowed to participate despite calls from the United Nations and the IHEC.  (Nouri has refused to implement Article 140 of the Constitution as ordered to do so by the Constitution of Iraq.  As a result of Nouri's failure, Kirkuk remains disputed territory -- claimed by both the KRG and the central-government out of Baghdad.)

The two major political parties in the KRG are the KDP -- led by KRG President Massoud Barazni -- and the PUK -- led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Last December,  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.

Hevidar Ahmed (Rudaw) reports:



No one is ready to talk about Jalal Talabani’s health anymore, even his private doctor, who used to update the public on the health of the man who is both Iraq’s president and the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).
With the PUK heading into the September 21 parliamentary elections in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region, Talabani’s party needs him more than ever before. The 79-year-old leader has been absent from the scene ever since he suffered a stroke in December and was flown to Germany for treatment.
In an interview with Rudaw Mala Bakhtiar, politburo member of the PUK, said that even a “three seconds” video of Talabani would change the whole electoral equation in favor of the PUK.
Political parties in the Kurdistan Region understand Talabani’s situation and do not put pressure on the PUK to reveal information on their leader’s health. But this is not the case in Baghdad.
From time to time, Iraqi political leaders call for concrete information on Talabani’s health and some request personal meetings with him, which have put the PUK’s leadership and Talabani’s family in a tough situation.
The latest such request comes from Usama Nujaifi, Iraq’s parliament speaker. Yesterday, Nujaifi rekindled the issue and accused Talabani’s family of not letting him see the president.


Sunday, All Iraq News reported, Osama al-Nujaifi declared he attempted to meet with the hospitalized Jalal five months ago  (that would have been around April) but was rebuffed.  He states he has again asked for another meeting.  He further states if Jalal is unable to resume his tasks shortly, a new president needs to be named.  Monday, Dar Addustour columnist As Sheikh noted that the Constitution is very clear on what happens when the president can't perform duties but how is that determination made? (Is Jalal performing duties from the hospital in Germany?  He could be.  If he is, the Constitution would see him as in office.)  The Constitution says nothing, Sheik notes, about how long a president can be out of the country.  He reviews the rumors that Jalal has not recovered, that he is in a coma, that he has passed away, that his family is putting up a pretense that Jalal has recovered.  He ends his column with a call for clarity both in terms of the governing rules and in terms of the state of Jalal's health.

Dar Addustour is reporting Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari broached a third term for Nouri as prime minister during Zebari's visit to the US last month.  They report Zebari was told the White House is fine with a third term for Nouri and this is to be addressed further when Nouri visits the US later this month.

Last month, Al-ikhbarya News Agency reported Nouri had issued a general amnesty for all Iraqis who had deserted the military or the police.  The pardon was granted on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr.  At the start of this month, Iraq War veteran Chelsea Manning's attorney applied for a presidential pardon for the army private who informed the world of the damage counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism tactics were causing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Manning's leaks to WikiLeaks should have resulted in strong applause but Barack Obama does not care for whistle-blowers.  I don't see the pardon happening for a number of reasons (this is my opinion, if you want to fight for a pardon for Chelsea, go ahead) including that Barack made a public declaration of the private's guilt in April 2011.  More telling to me, he's done nothing for the war resisters of the Iraq War, the one he dubbed the "dumb" war.   As Daniel Nardini (Lawndale News) reported in May on the effort by the US government to try and punish Iraq War veteran and war resister Kim Rivera and observed, "It seems that if anything, U.S. President Barack Obama is simply carrying out the same policy of former U.S. President George W. Bush -- to indict, imprison and throw away the key on as many former U.S. military Iraq War deserters as possible."  Barack's failure is more obvious as Andre Shepherd is back in the news today.

Dropping back to the April 20, 2009 snapshot:
 

US war resister Andre Shepherd is seeking asylum in Germany.  We last noted him in the February 6th snapshot (when  Andy Eckardt (NBC News) offered a strong report on Andre ).  Friday night, BBC World Service offered a report on him (link has text and audio):

 

Andre Shepherd: First of all the war on terror, I believe, was based on a fraud.  We aren't going after Osama bin Laden.  The evidence is leaning towards that we are only there to strategically position ourselves around the national resources that are there. The [German] asylum laws are set up that they should not deport a person that refuses to take part in an illegal conflict.  The UN Charter, Article 51, specifically states that armed conflict is necessary only as a means of last resort and if there is a real threat.  It's been proven that Saddam Hussein's regime was no threat to the United States -- that would mean that America is in violation of the UN Charter.

 

Damien McGuinness: You signed up as a soldier and signed to say that you would obey the orders given by your superior in military command.  Surely there's a responsibility there to carry out the duties which military command asks you to do.

 

Andre Shepherd: That is true but there's also a section in the same oath that says I have to defend the Constitution of the United States and when the United States willingly violates their own Constitution to pursue these wars, I am acting in accordance with the oath by refusing to take part in these wars because I refuse to watch the Constitution get destroyed just for the needs of a few people.  There was a conversation I had with an Iraqi that was completely irate as to what was going on in Iraq.  A lot of things that I wasn't even aware of, rendition program, the detentions of different places, Abu Ghraib, things like this. And I was completely dumbfounded as to what was going on out there because this was totally against everything that I believed in in the military.  So that's when I started doing research and that's how I got to this position today.

 

Damien McGuinness: Andre Shepherd has come here, to Freiburg, to take part in a podium discussion of Iraq veterans who have deserted the army because they oppose the war.  Now Germany has no troops stationed in Iraq and the majority of Germans are against the US-led invasion so he's found a lot of support here for his cause. Some worry that granting him asylum could create tensions between Germany and the US and encourage some of the other sixty-thousand [US] soldiers stationed here to desert and apply for refugee status.  According to Rudi Friedrich who runs a support group for deserters [Connection e.V] only a minority of soldiers generally opt to stay abroad.

 

Rudi Friedrich: In practice, most deserters decide to go back to the US and that's where their families are and they feel at home and they know the language.  But that means they either have to be punished or become conscientious objectors against war in general.   The decision to stay in another country and never return home is something which many refugees have to do it's not necessarily the case that all deserters would take this step.

 

Damien McGuinness: German immigration officials heard the case at the end of February and are currently examining Shepherd's eligibility for asylum.  He says the consequences of being sent back to the US would be severe.

 

Andre Shepherd: If I went back to America, I would definitely be court-martialed on the charges of desertion during a time of war. That is one of the most serious charges you can get in the military. Upon conviction, I would get a few months to several years in prison and I would get a dishonorable discharge.  On top of that, there's a debate  whether or not I would get a felony conviction which is the highest criminal category in the United States.  Having a tag like that would bar you from having a decent life -- you wouldn't be able to vote, you wouldn't be able to hold a high office, it's difficult to get credit, you can't do a lot of things, you would pretty much be harassed and you would have to live with the stigma of being an enemy of the state.  Especially in the age of Homeland Security, that's not something you'd really want.

 

Damien McGuinness:  A decision could come through any day now.  In the meantime, Shepherd is allowed to stay here in Germany but he admits the move wasn't an easy one.

 

Andre Shepherd:  Well desertion is not an easy thing because your home country will always think that you're a traitor.  It doesn't matter what the reason is, whether it's justified or not. Not saying everyone, because there's a lot of support in the United States for what I've done.  In terms of family life? My family is supporting me but they wish I'd took a different step because the potential of me not returning there cause a lot of emotional stress and I have to apologize to my parents for that.  As far as my colleagues?  That one is difficult because a lot of the people in the military understand the situation; however, they also deal with unit loyalty where you have to be there if not for yourself  but for the other guys in your unit.  So a lot of the guys feel let down and hurt by what I've done; however, if they understand why I did it, then I can accept that.  It's the same thing with me accepting them knowing what's going on but still going back to Iraq anyway. Because you don't know what they're facing -- if they have a family to take care of, if they desert, they just lost their meal ticket for their family.  That doesn't help them.  So there are a lot of complicated things that I deal with on a daily basis.

Steven Beardsley (Stars and Stripes) reports today, "A Munich court considering the appeal of a U.S. soldier seeking asylum in Germany after deserting his Iraq-bound unit in 2007 has forwarded the case to a European Union court in Luxembourg for clarification of EU law, according to the soldier’s attorney."  Reinhard Marx is Andre's attorney and he is quoted stating, "This had to be clarified by the European court.  And the main issue is standard of proof -- what kind of standard of proof do deserters have to establish in the European asylum system."  On Iraq War veterans, Samantha Melamed (City Paper) interviews singer-songwriter and Iraq War veteran Emily Yates after she was violently accosted by federal Park Police.  Dave Lindorff covered the arrest last week.

We didn't note it here.  Ava and I were hoping to cover it at Third and address something in the video of the arrest.  I'll note it briefly here.  The f-word (slur against gay men) is used in the video.  That's why we didn't and wouldn't link to the video or embed it here.  Sorry.  I don't tolerate homophobia.  The word is said at least twice (yelled) by someone unseen who would have to be described as a supporter of Emily Yates.  If he is a supporter of Yates, then the man is hopefully not homophobic.  Hopefully, his anger as Yates is roughly and brutally pushed around led him to shout (at least twice) the most offensive term he could think of because it was the most offensive term.  In the piece we'd talked about (Jim instead asked if we could cover Chris Hayes, which we did), we were going to explore that theme.  Instead, I'll just note that was the theme we were going to explore and that I hope that was why the term was used but, regardless of why the term was used, we would never link to or embed a video like that here.




iraq
reuters
raheem salman
 isabel coles
 cnn

mohammed tawfeeq

 national iraqi news agency
fars news agency
iraq body count
rudaw
 hevidar ahmed
dar addustour
alsumaria
kitabat
as sheikh
al mada
the iraq times