Saturday, October 08, 2016

Diane Keaton

Diane Keaton is announced to receive the American Film Institute's Lifetime Achievement Award.

Hard to think of a more deserving winner.

I'm going to offer up a list of her ten most must see performances.


She won the Academy Award for this comedy and she's hilarious. La di da.


She's so good in this that she didn't win for REDS.  The word was that she'd be nominated next year for this film and win.  So Katharine Hepburn won for one of her worst performances (ON GOLDEN POND) instead.  But this remains a superior performance.  She can break your heart when she's in the tub singing "If I Fell."


Warren Beatty's classic works but it could easily have fallen apart.  One of the keys to the film is Diane Keaton.  In another actress' hands, Louise Fletcher would not have come off as complex or as moving.


She's hilarious as Luna the poet.


When her daughter sees Liam Neeson's penis, Diane gets pulled into a custody battle.  I think this is one of her most underrated performances.


Diane manages to triumph in a comedy also starring Goldie Hawn and Bette Midler -- which attests to just how funny Diane can be.


Diane delivers another amazing comedic turn.


As great as BABY BOOM is, I think Diane's far funnier and more stylish in this re-teaming with Woody Allen.


Diane's the ignored sister -- caught in the middle between Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek.  They make a wonderful trio but Diane is the glue holding the film together.


Sonya is a classic comedy role for Diane.  I love her in this film. 

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, October 7, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions between Iraq and Turkey continue to heat up, the US has a split position (no surprise), and much more.

In Iraq, demands continue for Turkish troops to leave the country.

- Spokesperson for Coalition against says forces not part of the Coalition against ISIS in

RT adds:

Dorrian announced during a briefing in Baghdad that Turkey is operating “on its own” in Iraq, AP quoted him as saying. The coalition position is that every unit “should be here with the coordination or and with the permission of the government of Iraq,” he is also quoted as saying.

The issue arose at yesterday's Pentagon press briefing moderated by spokesperson Peter Cook.

Q:  There have been some reports coming from Iraq claiming that Colonel Dorrian called Turkish military presence in northern Iraq as evil and called Turks as invaders.

I got a statement from here saying that these are false, but I wonder about the Pentagon's general assessment -- of the Pentagon itself about Turkish armed forces presence in northern Iraq.

MR. COOK:  Again, you -- you -- my understanding is that the question about the words that were represented, that was not factually correct as to what Colonel Dorrian said.

Our views on this should be well known.  And this is something for the Turkish government and the government of Iraq to speak to.  And -- and we would urge them, those two governments, to speak to this issue and the presence of Turkish troops in Iraq.  This is something that we feel those two governments should be able to speak to most directly.

And the view of the United States has been that, of course, the sovereign territory of Iraq -- that the Iraqi government should be able to speak to foreign troops on its soil.  And that's something that -- again, this is a sovereign issue for the government of Iraq.

Q:  You -- (inaudible) -- some kind of -- by saying this is sovereign right of Iraqi government to, you know, to decide about foreign troops on its territories.

So do you imply that Turks are there without request or knowledge or consent of the Iraqi government?  Have you spoke to any of the parties about the issue?

MR. COOK:  This is -- this is an issue for the government of Turkey and the government of Iraq to speak to.  The government of Iraq can answer that question.  That's not something I can answer from this podium.  And again, we are -- the coalition of which Turkey is a member, is focused very much on -- on ridding Iraq of -- of the ISIL threat; Syria as well.

And that's -- will remain our focus and we think there's ample opportunity for the coalition to work very closely with the government of Iraq to achieve that goal.

Iraq wants Turkish troops off its soil.

They have appealed the matter to the United Nations Security Council.

Majeed Gly (RUDAW) quotes United Nations spokesperson Farhan Haq stating, "Any support to Iraq must conform to the principles of UN charter notably the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference. The Secretary General hopes the government of Turkey will ensure that all activities in Iraq are conducted with full consent of the government of Iraq."

That seems pretty clear.

Apparently not to officials in Turkey.

AFP quotes Turkey's Prime Minister Binali Yildrim stating, "No matter what the Iraqi government in Baghdad says, a Turkish presence will remain there to fight against [ISIS], and to avoid any forceful change of the demographic composition in the region."

All of this conflict comes as Iraq hopes to 'liberate' or liberate Mosul from the Islamic State which seized the city over two years ago (June 2014).

US President Barack Obama wants the battle plan to be carried out so that he can claim some success with regards to his failures on Iraq and he also hopes it will help promote Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The fact that there are thousands of civilians held hostage in Mosul was never a concern -- certainly not a primary concern for the Iraqi government or the US government.

Instead, it's been no big deal that Mosul has been occupied for over two years.

In fact, Barack may have hid behind the Yazidis trapped on the mountain top to justify sending 500 US troops into Iraq in 2014 (the number's now up to over 5,000 -- not counting Special Ops) but the reality was that the move was prompted by repeated movements which made many fear the Islamic State was going to attempt to take Baghdad.

For the non-Kurdish national politicians, anything can happen in Iraq, any suffering, any doing without electricity or potable water, just as long as it stays far, far away from the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad where so many politicians hide out when in Iraq.

Now the battle for Mosul looms and there have been repeated cries to prepare for the civilian crisis that liberation or 'liberation' may create.

THE ECONOMIST expresses hope in what the battle for Mosul might achieve:

Mosul, by contrast, could yet become a model for defeating the jihadists and creating a saner politics that recognises Sunni Arabs’ stake in Iraq (see article). Iraqi, Kurdish and local Sunni forces are closing on the city, with American support; the jihadists are fraying. The operation to retake Mosul is due to begin this month, and may give Mr Obama a farewell triumph. The loss of Mosul would deal a blow to IS; it was from there that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS leader, declared his caliphate.
Much can go wrong in Mosul. Nobody knows how hard IS will fight. There are worries that the Iraqi government has not done enough to prepare for a mass exodus of civilians; or that it will be unable to prevent an armed free-for-all by Shia, Kurdish and rival Sunni militias. But for all of its violence and chaos, Iraq offers real hope. Its politics are more open than those of most Arab countries, with a feisty press and an obstreperous parliament. Cross-sectarian alliances are starting to form. Shia politicians want to shake off their image as clients of Iran, while Sunni Arab ones are moving away from the politics of rejection and the dream of reconquering Baghdad.

Not everyone is so optimistic.

Human Rights Watch issued the following release yesterday:

The Iraqi government should make a commitment to prevent any armed forces implicated in laws of war violations from participating in planned operations against the extremist armed group Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in Mosul, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.
Those prohibited from participating should include elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a group of armed forces allied with the government known as the Hashd al-Sha’abi. The government should also ensure the protection of fundamental rights and nondiscrimination in security screenings and detention of people detained during the Mosul operations. Up to 1.2 million civilians are estimated to remain in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which ISIS captured in June 2014.
  “Civilians in Mosul have suffered under ISIS rule for more than two years and will need support if the city is retaken, but risk reprisals instead,” said Lama Fakih, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa. “The last thing the authorities should allow is for abusive forces to carry out revenge attacks in an atmosphere of impunity.”
In the most recent operation against ISIS, to retake Fallujah in May 2016, Human Rights Watch research indicates that members of the Popular Mobilization Forces and in at least one instance Iraqi Federal Police officers beat men taken into custody; tortured, summarily executed, and forcibly disappeared civilians including children; and mutilated corpses. Human Rights Watch has previously reported widespread abuse by the Popular Mobilization Forces, including the intentional destruction and looting of civilian property in al-‘Alam, Amerli, al-Bu‘Ajil, al-Dur, and parts of Tikrit after retaking territory from ISIS in March and April 2015.
Al-Abadi should prevent armed forces under his command or control who have been implicated in laws of war violations, including the Badr Brigades, the Hezbollah Brigades (Kata’ib Hezbollah), and other groups within the Popular Mobilization Forces, from participating in planned operations to retake Mosul. The authorities should take steps to protect civilians fleeing and in camps from revenge attacks.
Human Rights Watch documented the recruitment of child soldiers by two government-backed tribal militias (Hashad al-Asha`ri) participating in the fight against ISIS. The Iraqi government should stop working with armed groups that recruit child soldiers and those that have failed to demobilize them.
The Iraqi authorities should hold fighters and commanders in the Iraqi security forces and militias accountable for any abuses committed during military operations and make public the results of investigations into these abuses.
In light of violations in previous operations to retake territory from ISIS, Human Rights Watch has also provided al-Abadi with recommendations to prevent abuses during any screening and detention processes linked to the Mosul operation. If Iraqi and allied Kurdish forces set up centers to screen people who leave Mosul, only Iraqi Security Forces or Kurdistan Regional Government forces should operate them, not abusive armed forces. Authorities should ensure that the screening process is limited to a period of hours, and that anyone held longer is treated as detained and entitled to all protection of detainees under Iraqi and international law. No one should be presumed to be ISIS-affiliated or otherwise suspected of criminal activity based only on gender, age, religious sect, or tribal name.
Human Rights Watch noted with concern that under Iraqi law, the age of criminal responsibility is nine. If authorities screen children leaving Mosul and suspect that they were recruited or used as child soldiers by Islamic State, their treatment should focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration, not detention or prosecution.
The Iraqi authorities should promptly inform detainees of any charges against them and provide them with an opportunity to promptly challenge their detention before an independent judicial body, as required under Iraqi law. The authorities should allow independent protection monitors access to all screening and detention centers.
Since the Fallujah operation, al-Abadi’s government has refused to make public any information on the number of people killed and detained during and after the operation despite numerous requests from Human Rights Watch. The authorities should make public the number of fighters and civilians killed or detained as a result of the conflict with ISIS, and the charges brought against those in detention.

“Iraqi officials operating the screening centers and detention facilities should appreciate how vulnerable fleeing civilians will be, and treat them with care, respect, and the presumption of innocence,” Fakih said.

The issues Human Rights Watch is shining a spotlight on were raised in yesterday's State Dept press briefing -- then quickly deflected by spokesperson John Kirby.

QUESTION: Yeah. Human Rights Watch has made public a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi and they say there that, quote, “Any armed forces implicated in laws of war violations,” unquote, particularly the Hashd al-Shaabi, should not participate in the battle for – to liberate Mosul. Is anything being done to address their concerns?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think that’s a, first of all, question better put to the Abadi government. And I don’t want to speak for Prime Minister Abadi, but I think it’s fair to go back and talk about how – what he has said, and how we have publicly supported what he said, that these popular militia units – these Popular Mobilization Forces, excuse me – they have been useful in helping expel Daesh from areas of Iraq and they will continue to be useful. But we’ve long said that they need to be part of Iraqi organizational command structure, and they have been to a degree that satisfies Prime Minister Abadi, because this is his country. And we fully expect that they will have a role to play going forward.
Now, I think he’s also said – he’s been very clear about what role they won’t play in terms of Mosul, but I – again, I don’t want to get ahead of campaign planning here.

QUESTION: In terms of the role they’re playing, is it that they’re not going to enter Mosul but might be --

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to – the Mosul campaign plan is an Iraqi campaign plan, and Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government should speak to how they’re going to implement that campaign plan. It’s theirs. I’m not – certainly, you know I don’t like talking about military operations, and I certainly don’t like to talk about future military operations. They have – the PMF have played a role in Iraq. I suspect that they will continue to play a role. Exactly what that role is going forward in Mosul is not for me to say; it’s not for Prime Minister Abadi to describe.

QUESTION: Maybe I can formulate the question more State Department-like.

MR KIRBY: You can try. You’ll probably get the same answer, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Have you raised with the Abadi government the problem of these abuses that the Hashd al-Shaabi have committed and preventing them in the future?

MR KIRBY: We have – the short answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean that our hand was forced to do it. Prime Minister Abadi himself has expressed deep concerns about reports and allegations of violations of human rights in the conduct of operations in Iraq. In fact, he – I think this report was referring to allegations revolving around the operations in Fallujah, and the prime minister has talked about those exact allegations. And they have launched an investigation and they’ve been very honest and open about that. So of course, we’ve discussed it with the prime minister and his government, but it’s not like we had to bring it up. I mean, he was aware of these allegations on his own and launched an investigation on his own.

Kirby can't confirm anything -- but, as he admitted last week, he doesn't know anything about Iraq, he'd have to study up.  Poor little tax paid employee in over his head and unable to rise to the level.

The US Defense Dept announced yesterday:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft, as well as rocket artillery, conducted 18 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Al Huwayjah, two strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle.

-- Near Baghdad, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL staging area.

-- Near Hit, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL-held buildings, a vehicle and a weapons cache. A second ISIL-held building was damaged.

-- Near Mosul, six strikes engaged four ISIL tactical units and destroyed three vehicles, a weapons cache, two supply caches, a command-and-control node, a mortar system and an anti-air artillery system.

-- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed an ISIL mortar system and a fighting position.

-- Near Ramadi, two strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two vehicles, two bunkers and a tunnel entrance.

-- Near Rawah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

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

-- Near Tal Afar, two strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL-held buildings and a vehicle.

At THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, Andrew Bacevich sees Iraq as a quagmire like Vietnam before and wonders how this fails to register:

Today accountability and remorse are in short supply. Whatever capacity the public once possessed to rouse itself when faced with a military enterprise gone awry has apparently dissipated. With the normalization of war, Americans have learned to tune out events occurring on distant battlefields. Public malaise frees Congress of any obligation to exercise serious oversight. Why ask difficult questions when rote expressions of supporting the troops suffice to win votes?

Votes is closer to the answer.

The couch potato generations just want to kick back and lie to themselves.  Heaven forbid they face the truth about Hillary, let alone about Barack.

Take this idiot on Twitter:

I get so tired of correcting this. George W Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq on December 18,...

He -- and the idiots at 'THINK' 'PROGESS' (Podesta cage for the blind veal) -- insists that nothing can be be Hillary or Barack's support because Bully Boy Bush, by golly, by gum, was behind the SOFA!!!!!

No, that's not an explanation.

As Glenn Kessler (WASHINGTON POST) points out:

In fact, both sides assumed that before the SOFA expired, the two countries would negotiate an extension. “There was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our training with the Iraqis,” Rice told a reporter in 2011. “Everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force.”
The Obama administration also anticipated there would be an extension, and officials began negotiations for a new one as the deadline approached. Vice President Biden, who oversaw Iraq policy, was so convinced a deal could be struck that he was quoted as saying: “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise. I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA.”
For complicated reasons, a deal was not reached. A key sticking point was whether the SOFA could exist as simply a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or needed formal approval by the Iraqi parliament. Maliki was willing to sign an MOU, but administration lawyers concluded that parliamentary approval was needed, in part because parliament had approved the 2008 version. Moreover, there were serious questions about whether an MOU signed by the prime minister would really be binding, especially given Iraq’s independent judiciary.
But politically it was much more difficult to win parliamentary approval of a SOFA that would have allowed U.S. troops to be prosecuted outside Iraq, under U.S. jurisdiction, for crimes committed in Iraq — especially because of fierce opposition from a key Shiite parliamentary bloc that backed Maliki. Indeed, his political survival depended on the support of the Sadrist bloc that was dead-set against any presence of U.S. troops. (All other parties in parliament wanted U.S. troops to remain.)
“There was a lot of effort to work through with the Maliki government what such a status-of-forces agreement would look like,” Clinton said in 2014. “At the end of the day, the Maliki government would not agree.”
Separately, it’s debatable whether the number of troops Obama offered to remain in Iraq was enough to make worthwhile such a politically difficult choice for Iraqi leaders. U.S. military commanders wanted to leave at least 16,000 troops in Iraq, but Obama’s final number ended up being much lower: 3,500 trainers and advisers.
Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in his 2014 memoir “Worthy Fights,” said that he warned Obama that without U.S. troops in place, Iraq “could become a new haven for terrorists.” But he said that White House was “so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.” Panetta added: “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, Maliki was allowed to slip away.”

When the negotiations collapsed, Obama was happy to make the withdrawal of U.S. troops a key part of his 2012 reelection campaign. “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did,” he declared at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

That's reality.

And it's not even the full reality.

Here's another reason Barack and Hillary own it.

Hillary said a SOFA would have to go through the Senate.  She said that when she was campaigning in 2008 for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Because Hillary said it, Barack then said it -- remember how he hid behind her skirts?

Then, on Thanksgiving Day 2008, after the election, the White House announced that the SOFA had been signed and quickly we saw incoming president Barack (sworn in January 2009) drop from his official website the promise he made that any SOFA would face Senate approval.

So it's on Barack (and Hillary) even more than Glenn has space to acknowledge.

The wars continue because the whoring continues.

Thursday, October 06, 2016

Just one more whore on a crowded street corner

Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT): weighs in on fake ass Angela Y. Davis:

She denounced her own history when she endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012 she not only supported him again but claimed that he was part of the “black radical tradition.” The lie is so grotesque that it is difficult to know if she was really thinking when she said those words. Nor was that her first foolish remark uttered on behalf of Obama.  Her 2010 statement that “Obama won despite the power of money” was equally bizarre. Barack Obama set fund raising records in his presidential campaign. Ms. Davis aided and abetted his marketing ploy which gave the appearance of a people-based movement when in fact he perfected the art of creating a record breaking campaign war chest.

It is sad that Davis continues to devolve politically before our eyes, it is even worse that she attacks those who are still ready to fight back against neo-liberalism and imperialism. If she is willing to vote for Hillary Clinton she should just say so. But she felt compelled to get in her own dig at independent thinkers with the “narcissist” label. She is no better than Democratic party scoundrels who point at Trump’s low hanging racist fruit while simultaneously cutting deals with ruling elites.

Angela's all about the whoring these days and it's been that way for over a decade now.

People are just starting to notice.

It's on Angela.

She could have been an important leader.

Instead, she's just one more whore on a crowded street corner.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS): 
Thursday, October 6, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions between the governments of Iraq and Turkey continue as Iraq rejects the Turkish occupation of their country, the US did use Depleted Uranium in Iraq and kept records, and much more.

If Turkey is not occupying Iraq, what are they doing?  Squatting?

It's a question to ponder as the issue continues to heat up.

Iraq's Parliament has labeled the Turkish troops "occupiers," the Shi'ite militias have done similarly and called for them to leave, the Iraqi Foreign Affairs Ministry has issued a statement declaring them same.  All week this has been building up since, at the start of this month, Turkey's Parliament decided Turkish troops would be staying in Iraq for another year.

ANADOLU AGENCY reports that earlier today Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus declared at a press conference that the Turkish military is not "occupiers" and, not content merely to reject that label, he also throws out an insult insisting, "If Iraqi government officials had to react, where were they when Mosul and Raqqa were occupied by [the Islamic State] in one day?"

Dropping back to Tuesday's snapshot for context:

ALSUMARIA reports that Parliament is calling for the expulsion of the Turkish Ambassador and for Iraq to cut all economic ties with Turkey.  This is in response to Turkey's Parliament voting earlier this month to extend the Turkish military's mission in Iraq by one year.

This move follows Monday's statement from Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs which rebuked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his statements that Turkey would take part in the liberation of Mosul.

Turkey shares a border with Iraq, northern Iraq.

Turkey has a history of suppressing Kurds which has led to various groups of rebels/freedom fighters arising over the years.  The PKK is the most famous or infamous.  It's a group of Kurds that have been waging war on the Turksih government since the 80s in a fight for Kurdish rights.

Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described the PKK in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk."

Kurds are throughout the Middle East.

In Turkey, they live under a system of apartheid.

In Iraq, they tend to live in the semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq.

The Turkish government has long feared that the KRG might move from semi-autonomous to autonomous -- the fear being that an independent land for Kurds would inspire Kurds outside of Iraq and fuel independence movements.

Despite this fear, the post-2003 invasion Iraq period has seen the Turkish government being much closer to the KRG than to the central Iraqi government based in Baghdad.

Under Nouri al-Maliki's terms as prime minister (2006 -2014), for example, Turkey was accused of helping to steal Iraqi oil and backing terrorists.

Nouri did approve, however, of Turkey bombing northern Iraq.

Turkey has declared that its war planes bomb PKK terrorists.

The reality is that many farms in northern Iraq have been destroyed and many civilians have been left dead and injured.

In the fall of 2014, Haider al-Abadi became prime minister.

He has objected to the bombings carried out by Turkish airplanes as have various other Iraqi officials; however, the US State Dept has pronounced these bombings necessary and that apparently means the end of the story.

The announcement that Turkey would extend its Iraq mission for another year has kicked off the latest round of disagreements.

Iraq has made clear that it does not want Turkish troops on the ground in Iraq.

The message has not been received by the Turkish government.

And today?

Link to headline article

Humeyra Pamuk and Daren Butler (REUTERS) notes that Turkey's is calling the reaction "incomprehensible."

Others do not see it that way.

Has Invaded /: There are 18 Turkish Bases. The Iraqi Parliament has voted, asking for them to leave.

wants war!

REUTERS reports, "Iraq has requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the presence of Turkish troops on its territory as a dispute with Ankara escalates."

Meanwhile ALMASDAR NEWS states, "The Spokesperson for the Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve Council, Lt. Colonel John L. Dorrian, stated on Wednesday that the Turkish Army in northern Iraq is not part the coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) inside the country."  Some are denying the authenticity of the statement (which also calls the Turkish troops "illegal") and noting that it was released to the press not by the Joint Task Force but by the Shi'ite militias.

All this as US President Barack Obama tries to force the liberation or 'liberation' of Mosul in time to get a gold star for his tarnished legacy and in time to save the election for War Hawk Hillary Clinton.

Things are a bit complicated by the issue with Turkey.

But they'll find some way around it just the way the White House has agreed to look the other way at the War Crimes of the Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

Iraqi Sunni civilians under threat  by Shia Militias backed by Iraq Gov. in Iraq's Diyala province

Meanwhile Samuel Oakford (IRIN) has an explosive report which opens:

Records detailing as many as 181,000 rounds of depleted uranium munitions shot in 2003 by American forces in Iraq have been unearthed by researchers, representing the most significant public documentation of the controversial armament's use during the US-led invasion.
The cache, released to George Washington University in 2013 but until now not made public, shows that a majority of the 1,116 sorties carried out by A-10 jet crews during March and April of 2003 were aimed at so-called “soft targets” like cars and trucks, as well as buildings and troop positions. This runs parallel to accounts that the munitions were used on a wide array of targets and not just against the tanks and armoured vehicles that the Pentagon maintains super-penetrative DU munitions are intended for.
The strike logs were originally handed over in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University’s National Security Archive, but were not published on the archive’s website.
Fishing for new information, researchers at the Dutch NGO PAX, and an advocacy group, the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), obtained the records earlier this year, which were then mapped and analysed. IRIN obtained both the data and analysis, which is contained in a report that will be published later this week.

Confirmation that the munitions were used more indiscriminately than previously acknowledged could renew calls for scientists to look deeper into the health effects of DU on civilian populations in conflict areas. The munitions have been suspected – but never conclusively proven – of causing cancer and birth defects, among other issues.

Lastly, RUDAW reports, "Iraq’s Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari is set to appear before parliament on Thursday on charges of corruption, following impeachment of two other ministers since August and the resignation of a third."  al-Jaafari's government corruption goes back many years.  He's also suffered a loss of influence as he's no longer the commanding presence in Iraq he once was (Ammar al-Hakim outranks al-Jaafari in terms of prestige and power these days).

The following community sites updated:

  • Wednesday, October 05, 2016

    Hillary finally tells the truth

    I owe Hillary a big apology.

    I didn't think she was capable of telling the truth.

    Turns out, she can be honest.

    Look what she Tweeted.

    I can't help but laugh at , considering I am the spokeswoman for Wallstreet AND run a corrupt "foundation". Morons 😂

    Can you believe how honest she can be?

    It's startling.

    I applaud her.

    (If you don't know, that Tweet is from a parody account.)

    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Wednesday, October 5, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions between Iraq and Turkey continue, would Hillary usher in the "doormat presidency," a look at her history of destruction, and much more.

    Starting with War Hawk Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War, who then championed the Iraq War, attacked those opposed to it and only dropped her support for it a year after the public turned away from the illegal war by a majority.

    Last night, Elaine wrote "Hillary is the destroyer:"

    Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian , "it would have been a joke."

    It was no joke.

    It's who she is.

    It's how she 'deals' with anything.

    Her answer is always destruction.

    How Hillary Clinton helped to crush democracy in  

    Reality Check: Hillary Clinton the hawk, and the Honduran coup
    Mehdi Hasan on how Clinton backed regime change in the Latin American country.


    Whether it's Gennifer Flowers or Julian Assange, she only knows destroy.

    That's why she has no legacy to point to.

    She's the little brat who breaks every toy the day after Christmas.

    She would endanger the United States repeatedly.

    Yes, like she tried to destroy Gennifer Flowers and other women.

    Late Sunday night, THE NEW YORK TIMES published a report online (also in the Monday print edition) by Megan Twohey about Hillary Clinton's responses to her husband Bill Clinton's many infidelities.

    Megan's a woman, so naturally Bob Somerby is in a tizzy.

    We're not linking in this post.  We've long called Bob out for his sexism and, of course, his demented and disgusting friend (who really struck Rebecca and I as a closet case when he was making a show of cruising her tits and offering stories about how 'this one time, in college, Bob and me were listening to Joanie Baez as we drove cross country and . . .') is a chapter all by itself -- as is Bob's calling former UN Ambassador Joe Wilson a liar about Iraq -- because Bob's friends with Matt Cooper and Matty was under investigation, it was a sorted affair that never prompted any disclosures from Bob.

    So with all that, but especially his well known sexism, we're not linking to him attacking other women.  You know where his cesspool is if you want to find him, just follow the stink.

    Megan, Bob insists, is wrong to characterize the relationship with Gennifer as an affair.

    It wasn't!!!!

    Bob whines that.  It was one time that Bill admitted under oath to sex with Megan.

    And that doesn't even count -- Bob insists -- because later a spokesperson clarified it was just grabbing breasts!

    No, you stupid moron, it doesn't work that way.

    What is said under oath is said under oath.

    What some paid flack says after the fact -- to the press, not under oath -- is not the same as sworn testimony.

    Public statements always mean less than statements under oath.

    After all, Bill lied to the public about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, didn't he?  ("I did not have sexual relations" -- didn't he wag his finger while saying that?)

    Bill loves to use spokespeople.

    For example, nearly 20 years ago Juanita Broaddrick publicly stated he raped her.  And has witnesses to back up her claims.

    Nearly 20 years later, Bill has still never commented.

    Bob Somerby would insist he had -- he used a spokesperson!!!!!

    No, that's not commenting, that's hiding.

    Let's quote Katha Pollitt's "Re: Juanita Broaddrick" (THE NATION, March 4, 1999):

    Now that the impeachment trial is over, it’s time for progressives to get back to their drawing boards and let Bill Clinton clean up his own mess. If, as NOW president Patricia Ireland said, “There’s no way that Bill Clinton can look into the cameras and deny it and have anybody believe it,” that is a problem entirely of the President’s own making, and it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. For six years too many progressives have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt, whether it was their ill-founded hope that he wouldn’t sign the Personal Responsibility Act or the equally ill-founded skepticism about the existence in an unlaundered state of a certain blue dress. We’ve seen Jesse Jackson hailing “our President” as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending–wittily, tirelessly–the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.

    Gennifer stated she had an affair with Bill Clinton.  Years before he admitted to it, Naomi Wolf went through the tapes of the conversations Gennifer had supplied to the press of her talks with Bill and found the claim believable (and also felt the need to stress she was impressed with how Bill listened to women) in her book FIRE WITH FIRE.

    While Gennifer's accusations were first being made public, Bill and Hillary went on 60 MINUTES in 1992 with him insisting that he had sinned in his marriage -- his way of admitting affairs.

    For Megan or anyone else to interpret all of the above as an affair with Gennifer is a natural response, the truth -- regarding the affair -- is on Gennifer's side.

    Bob wants to insist Gennifer lied in a deposition, years before 1992, she had denied an affair with Bill.

    Bob loves to slut shame -- look at what he does to the woman he derides as a "rock groupie."

    And he, like Hillary, thinks that's acceptable.

    It no longer is.

    In the 90s, you could get away with a lot of discrimination.

    This deposition is one of the ways Hillary insisted she could destroy Gennifer on the witness stand if she had a crack at the woman.

    The same way, no doubt, she destroyed the child who was raped.

    As THE DAILY MAIL reported last August:

    Kathy Shelton was just 12 years old when a 41-year-old drifter raped her on the side of a desolate Arkansas road in 1975.
    Now, four decades later, she has agreed to be named and pictured for the first time in this Daily Mail Online exclusive because she is furious that her rapist's defense attorney - Hillary Clinton - has been portraying herself as a lifelong advocate of women and girls on the campaign trail.
    'It's put a lot of anger back in me,' said Shelton, now 54, in an exclusive interview at her Springdale, Arkansas, home in August. 'Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can't do that.'
    In 1975, Clinton served as the defense lawyer for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker accused of raping Shelton after luring her to his car.
    Taylor pleaded down to 'unlawful fondling of a minor' and served less than a year in prison after Clinton was able to block the admission of forensic evidence that linked her client to the crime.
    In a lengthy interview with the Daily Mail Online, Shelton said Clinton is 'lying' when she claims to be a lifelong defender of women and girls.
    Shelton said Clinton accused her during the case of 'seeking out older men', and demanded that the 12-year-old undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine whether she was 'mentally unstable'.
    'I don't think [Clinton's] for women or girls. I think she's lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win,' Shelton said. 'If she was [an advocate for women and children], she wouldn't have done that to me at 12 years old.'

    Hillary the destroyer.  And that's just what,  three years, before Juanita says Bill raped her?

    For years, many of us who refused to believe that was possible told ourselves, "Well if it could even be true -- even a possibility -- there's no way Hillary could stay with him."

    We were wrong.

    Clearly, Hillary saw her role as coming to the aid of rapists as evidenced by her attack of a 12-year-old rape victim.  (We're not getting into her cackling with glee about her success on this case years later, you can look on YOUTUBE for the video of that.)

    Let's again quote from Joan Didion's POLITICAL FICTIONS -- click here and you can order it instantly on KINDLE for $11.99 or pick up a used copy for one cent (plus postage) via snail mail:


    Apparent accidents, and even some apparent mistakes in judgment, had emerged over time as less accidental than strategic.  There was Hillary Clinton's "gaffe" in complaining to Gail Sheehy, interviewing her for Vanity Fair, that the press was following a "double standard" in dwelling on her husband's alleged friendship with Gennifer Flowers, since Anne Cox Chambers ("sittin' there in her sunroom") had told her about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."  This was an "embarrassment," a "mistake," and yet the appearance of the Vanity Fair piece coincided with Clinton strategists issuing the same preemptive warning to the Bush campaign; with Ron Brown suggesting that if the questions about adultery were to persist, he thought similar questions should be put to Bush; and with Democratic consultant Robert Squier suggesting on the NBC Today show that Bush be asked what he called "the Jennifer question."  Nor was just the single point scored: there was also considerable secondary gain in showing Mrs. Clinton as "feminine," a weaker vessel, gossiping with a friend over tea in the sunroom and then retailing the gossip to a new friend -- who, in the "unfrminine" role of reporter, the wife's moment of indiscretion in her husband's defense.  The erring but contrite wife could then be firmly but gently "reprimanded" by the presumptive CINC, her husband ("The main point is, she apologized . . . she made a mistake and she's acknowledge it"), an improved role for both of them.

    Back to Gennifer.  So she's having an affair with Bill.  He's the governor.  She's dragged into a lawsuit and, in that lawsuit, she protects Bill and/or herself by denying the ongoing affair.

    Though I'm sure, had Hillary had her way with Gennifer in court, she would have continued her jihad against women, it wouldn't work today.

    We're more aware as a society.

    And slut shaming no longer can be performed without facing serious outcries.

    Now Carl Bernstein reported on another long term affair Bill had with another woman while married to Hillary and while governor of Arkansas in his book  A WOMAN IN CHARGE (disclosure, I know Carl).  Bob's more than happy to accept that as a reality.  Big difference between Megan and Carl?  Carl has a dangling Y (chromosome).  As we've long noted, Bob gives men a pass, it's women he demonizes (Kit Seeley, Maureen Dowd, etc).

    It's bash the bitch, all the time, with Bob.

    For those unfamiliar with "bash the bitch," let's drop back to the piece Ava and I wrote in April 2006:

    Who knew it was a war crime? Katie Couric was a cheerleader and an army of Beate Klarsfelds are on her trail in an attempt to warn America of this dangerous contravention of the law. We imagine it's only a matter of time before the tribunal is held. The cheerleader as Eichmann, no doubt, sends shudders through the hearts of many women on the left, center and right, since they too may be charged.

    Couric's apparent crime, for some on the left, is saying that Navy Seals "rock." That moment was immortalized in Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and seems to be the chief piece of evidence that will be introduced when the commentators gather at the Hague.

    For some of the left, though not all, that's at the root of their pursuit of Couric. It's the gift of impunity that allows them to operate in a fact-free environment as they compose the charges against Couric. But those who hear such a statement and nod agreeably are also engaged in the national pastime of bash-the-bitch.

    Bash the bitch is as American as apple pie and rush to judgement, so who are we to complain?

    If it makes us "America haters" to say "Just a minute now" then so be it. Let all the ones partaking in bash-the-bitch wrap themselves in Old Glory, we'll call it the way we see it.

    Here's what we see. A woman's trashed. For what she did?

    Oh cookie, please, it's for being a woman. Read the commentaries. "Cheerleader" is a trumped up charge -- as usual, the true crime is gender.

    And it's because of bash the bitch -- and it being deeply woven into the fabric of America -- that rape survivors have had to fight for their rights, that those who have survived rape and other assault find their character attacked in court -- like the 12-year-old girl Hillary attacked in court.

    It's why, as Megan's article documents, Hillary and Bill were able to launch attacks on women who stepped forward to speak of abuse at the hands of Bill Clinton.

    Those days are gone.

    If Hillary gets in the White House, America better be prepared for more women to step forward and for the country to be pulled back into the Clinton's gutter because Bill hasn't changed.

    Whether it's Iraq or the women that Bill has slept with, Hillary knows how to destroy.

    She also has a rather large chip on her shoulder that appears to goad her into war repeatedly.

    So if and when she's called "President Doormat," what facility in Sudan will she bomb?  What war will she declare?

    Or maybe she'll just get honest, "I don't have enough respect for myself to leave a man who has cheated on me repeatedly -- and publicly -- throughout our marriage."

    Or maybe she'll say something like, "We have an open marriage."

    Who knows but let's anticipate what will likely happen because Bill hasn't changed.

    Bob Somerby also attacks Carla Anne Robbins this week.  We can't tie it into Iraq (other than to note that hack Joe Conason pretended to care about Iraq for a book and then lost interest -- well being the public defender for Bill and Hillary Clinton takes up a lot of time), so we'll ignore it other than to note that he's attacking her viciously because she's a woman as well and Carla made her case in her book review of Joe's latest piece of garbage.

    On Iraq, Caitlin Johnstone (INQUISITR) argues that Hillary's efforts in launching and supporting the Iraq War cannot be wiped away:

    There is simply no way that the hopeful heir to the Clinton dynasty had no basic understanding of Iraq’s relationship with oil and the American economy. She also knew what bombs and bullets do to the human body. She knew that tremendous death, destruction, suffering, looting, robbery, rape, chaos, terrorism, and exploitation necessarily come hand-in-hand with any militarily enforced regime change. She knew these things, but she chose to help make the Iraq war happen anyway.
    This remains without a doubt the single most evil thing that Hillary Clinton has ever taken part in during her time upon this earth. I know that those of you who oppose her are all hoping for some magical silver bullet to cripple or kill her campaign in some deus ex machina revelation from WikiLeaks, and who knows? We might even get one. But it is in my opinion virtually impossible for there to be anything in any leak that could be worse than a politician helping to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent men, women and children just because her neoliberal bosses aren’t ready to unplug from their petroleum-based cash cow just yet.
    Children ripped apart by cluster munitions. Women taken as sex slaves by newly-formed terrorist factions. A million dead, millions displaced, unfathomable devastation, and suffering which will reverberate throughout the region for generations. All over some black stuff in the ground that we’re going to have to stop using soon anyway.

    Evil. Pure, unadulterated evil. There is nothing else that you can possibly call it.

    Meanwhile Michael Georgy and Babak Dehghanpisheh (REUTERS) report that Atheel al-Nujaifi is warning that the liberation or 'liberation' of Mosul may result in more crises.  al-Nujaifi was the governor of Nineveh Province until the Islamic State came in and took Mosul.  He tells REUTERS, "The biggest fear is that Iraq will separate if they don’t control this fight in a wise manner and they don’t give the Arab Sunnis real authority."

    Other problems facing the Mosul operation?

    ALMASDAR reports that the US-coalition dropped bombs on the Shi'ite militias -- now a part of the Iraqi forces under Haider al-Abadi -- and killed at least 20.

    Some reaction Twitter:

    1. targeting the in in & the People's Mobilization Forces in in tells you one thing:

    led coalition targeted the fighters of the People's Mobilization Forces in south in , 21 fighters were martyred.

    And distracting from the planned operation in Mosul?  The dispute between the governments of Iraq and Turkey.

    : Iraqi Foreign Ministry summons Ambassador to , demanding withdrawal of Turkish troops in the country.

    REUTERS notes Haider al-Abadi is warning of "regional war" with Turkey.

    And Turkey responds it's only trying to help.

    Does Iraq have sovereignty?

    If it does, if it says get out, thenyou get out.

    It doesn't matter what you want, it's not your country.

    The following community sites updated: