Friday, September 15, 2017

Hillary and her haters

I saw this:

Hi, . Your friend got arrested earlier , you ask? Sarah Roark, 44, was carrying a banned weapon.

I thought, "Huh?"

But I GOOGLED and found this AP report.

Hillary's little buddy was arrested at a speech by conservative Ben Shapiro.  She was carrying "a banned weapon."

That's Hillary and her White Resistance.

A bunch of violent uglies who want to be a mob.

And she wants to lead them because they are her.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, September 15, 2017.  Chaos and violence continue, yet even when the topic opens a press briefing the press isn't interested.

.: We condemn in the strongest terms the barbaric terrorist attacks that took place in Nassiriya, .
Spokesperson Nauert Condemns Terrorist Attack in Iraq
Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert addresses reporters at the Department Press Briefing on September 14, 2017. - U.S. Department of State

Heather Nauert kicked off the press briefing with Iraq:

I’d like to start out today by mentioning the terror attack that took place – got a little bit of an echo in here – terror attack that took place in Iraq, and we’d like to condemn that in the strongest possible terms, the barbaric attacks that took place in Nasiriyah, Iraq. They’ve been claimed by ISIS – the attacks have. The brutal attacks demonstrate, once again, the savagery of the enemy that so many of our nations face. We want to extend our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and hope for a speedy recovery for those who’ve been wounded. The attacks are a reminder that all Iraqis must remain focused on defeating ISIS. The U.S. reaffirms its commitment to support the government and the people of Iraq in their struggle against ISIS. 

Betsy Woodruff of THE DAILY BEAST would bring up Iraq but first the reporters would work their own agendas (on Iran) while ignoring the ongoing war as they do every press briefing.

MS NAUERT: Of course not. Of course not.
Okay, let’s move on. Betsy, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. My publication, Daily Beast, and others, including Fox News, have reported that there’s a U.S. citizen who traveled to Syria, was fighting there along ISIS – alongside ISIS – when he was apprehended by the Kurds and handed over to the U.S. military. My question is: Is he currently in Syria or Iraq, and has the Red Cross had access to him? Do you have any information about just where he is?

MS NAUERT: So I don’t have a lot for you. I can tell you that we’re aware of that report that a U.S. citizen was detained. Beyond that, I just don’t have any specifics on that. Let me check to see if I have anything additional, but I don’t. This is early on. We just learned about this issue a couple hours ago – to my awareness, at least – and I believe that that is all we have.

QUESTION: Well, it seems that he surrendered to Kurdish elements of the SDF in Syria.


QUESTION: Are you saying you don’t know, or you can’t say because of privacy --

MS NAUERT: Look, we don’t have a lot of information on that. That is what is being reported; that is what somebody said. I just can’t – I can’t confirm that.
Go ahead.

QUESTION: But the DOD statement that they initially gave us said that we needed to ask the Government of Iraq about it. Is there – do you have any information on who --

MS NAUERT: That who would ask the Government of Iraq about it?

QUESTION: That our publication, when we were reporting this out --


QUESTION: We reached out to CENTCOM and they said we – they said they were deferring to the DOJ and the Government of Iraq. Just from your post at the State Department, do you have any sense of why the Government of Iraq could be involved in this issue with a U.S. citizen fighting with ISIS in Syria?

MS NAUERT: I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know. Look, perhaps the Government of Iraq – I mean, this is a hypothetical in a sense, in that perhaps the Government of Iraq has him. I don’t know where this man is. I can only tell you that we are aware of reports that a U.S. citizen was fighting for some sort of a terror group. Whether it was ISIS or not, I do not know.
It serves as a good reminder that in a nation of 330-some million people, some people will be dumb enough to go to Iraq and Syria to try to fight for ISIS. We encourage people not to do that. As the U.S. Government, we say don’t go do that. I mean, you can’t be very bright if you’re going to go over there and do that. Beyond that, I just have no information. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I – just one more thing on this? The CENTCOM statement, the most recent one, says, “The coalition defers questions pertaining to captured ISIS fighters to their relative nations’ departments of state or equivalent agencies.” And --

MS NAUERT: I’d say thanks, DOD.

QUESTION: Yeah. And they’ve been --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information for you.

QUESTION: And in fact – and in fact, the Pentagon – it’s not just CENTCOM in Baghdad or wherever.


QUESTION: It’s also the Pentagon.


QUESTION: Everyone’s throwing this to you guys and --

MS NAUERT: We don’t have any information on this.

QUESTION: Well, then call them out right now and say, “Stop referring questions to the State Department.”

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Thanks, DOD. Stop referring questions --

QUESTION: There we go, okay.

MS NAUERT: -- to the State Department when we don’t have any information --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: -- about who this person was. But it is a good opportunity to remind American citizens, do not go to Iraq or Syria. It is not safe. And if you go there to Iraq and Syria, very bad things could happen to you. Leave it at that.

QUESTION: Can we stay with Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on that?

QUESTION: Just because you don’t have any information on it, does that lead us to believe that --

MS NAUERT: Guys --

QUESTION: -- the U.S. Government doesn’t actually have this person in custody and that --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. Look, I don’t have any information about this. Okay? This is getting to be a bit much now. When I tell you I don’t have any information about it, I am telling you I don’t have any information about it.

QUESTION: But I’m just asking if – if you did have someone, would Consular Affairs make us aware, or is that something that you guys wouldn’t necessarily --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know the answer. I don’t know the answer to that.


MS NAUERT: I’d have to check on that.

QUESTION: Stay on Iraq?


QUESTION: Today, the president’s office of the northern – the KRG, the --


QUESTION: -- the Kurdistan Region – issued a statement that he’s looking at alternatives as a result of his meeting with Mr. McGurk and a high-level UK person.

MS NAUERT: He’s looking at alternatives to what?

QUESTION: To the – to the referendum that is scheduled for the 25 of this month.


QUESTION: Okay. So I would – could you share with us if you have any idea as to what that alternative might be to the referendum which would conceivably result in an independent Kurdistan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I’m not aware of that. I believe that Brett McGurk is still over there in the region, and I’m just not aware of what meetings he had and what came up in those conversations. But the U.S. Government, as we have told you, we don’t support the planned Kurdish referendum on September 25th because we feel that that takes the eye off the ball of ISIS and that we should all remain focused on ISIS. And when I topped at the beginning of this briefing with that most recent attack that took place in Nineveh province, that’s a good reminder why we can’t take our eye off the ball, which is ISIS.

QUESTION: Well, the Kurds are hoping that even if they have a referendum and you are --


QUESTION: -- opposed to it, once they go ahead with statehood that you’ll be the first to recognize them. Could you give us – I mean, is your position firm on this non-support of --

MS NAUERT: Our position is firm that we don’t support this referendum at this time. We do not support the referendum on Kurdish independence at the time because of ISIS. Okay. 

To recap.

At State Dept briefing, Heather Nauert says DOD should stop referring q's on our story to State bc they don't know

2) The attacks were noted.   Reuters  reports,  "Three suicide attacks claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) killed at least 60 people in southern Iraq on Thursday, a health official and police sources said, suggesting a shift in the ultra-hardline group’s tactics since it lost control of its stronghold in Mosul."  G.H. Renaud (KURDISTAN 24) adds, "Iraqi authorities confirmed over 100 people had been killed and wounded in a twin attack in southern Iraq on Thursday.  Following the violence, the Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for a third attack which has yet to be confirmed by officials."  An attack that leaves over one-hundred dead and the State Dept press corps can't be bothered to ask even one question about it.

2) The White House is against Kurdish independence.

The time is not right currently.

It needs to wait for another day, some other day.

That's been the same regardless of who occupied the Oval Office.

Bernhard-Henri Levy (FOREIGN POLICY) offers:

It is said the referendum will distract attention from the common fight against the Islamic State and interfere with the Iraqi elections scheduled for next year. But everyone knows, except when they choose not to admit it, that the military part of the battle ended with the fall of Mosul, thanks largely to the Kurds themselves. Moreover, who can guarantee that the Iraqi national elections will take place as scheduled rather than being adjourned, just as we are asking the Kurds to adjourn theirs?
An independent Kurdistan, the commentators continue, would imperil regional stability. As if Syria, mired in war; Iran, with its revived imperial ambitions; and decomposing Iraq, that artificial creation of the British, are not dangers far greater than little Kurdistan, a secular and democratic friend of the West with an elected parliament and free press!
Independence, the talking heads insist, would threaten the territorial integrity of the four nations — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey — across which the Kurdish nation is spread. It is as if these voices are unaware that the present referendum concerns only the Kurds of Iraq, who have no ambition to form a greater Kurdistan with their “brothers” and “sisters” in Turkey and Syria, whose crypto-Marxist leadership is ideologically incompatible with that of the Iraqi Kurds.

But what about the reaction of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, one asks? What about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reported threat to cut the pipelines that connect Iraqi Kurdistan to the rest of the world? I do not believe that it is the role of the West to act as a press agent for two dictatorships that detest us, nor do I see why the blackmailing of one’s neighbors should be condemned when practiced by Pyongyang but facilitated when it comes to Tehran or Ankara.
Sadly, however, no argument is too feeble to be used to justify our request to “delay.” It feels like an Orwellian nightmare, or a festival of bad faith, in which all arguments are turned into their opposites.

When is the good time?

It's like the good time for the US to end the Iraq War: When the US-installed government is no longer on shaky ground.

And when will that be?

The US-installed government is not popular and will never be.

The US government needs to stop injecting itself into Iraq.  Self-determination is what can allow a person to support a government.

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:

  • iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq Iraq

    Thursday, September 14, 2017

    Just this

    Nothing for tonight -- we just finished the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin.

    So I'll offer this Tweet.

    The New York Times is Russially profiling. There's no evidence of , but they "fit the description"

    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Thursday, September 14, 2017.   Chaos and violence continue, the September 25th vote on independence in the KRG and Kirkuk Province looms, the US Senate decides they're okay with abdicating their role, and much more.

    The US Senate again reveals its pro-war nature.  It was in the US Senate where, in 2002, Democrats linked arms with Republicans to vote in favor of the Iraq War.

    And it was in the US Senate late yesterday where they linked arms to vote down a measure that might have ended the never-ending wars.

    SPUTNIK reports:

    The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a measure to repeal authorization for the Bush-era wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  
    The Senate voted 61-36 in favor of killing Senator Ron Paul's Amendment #871 to HR 280, which would have repealed the authorization for use of US military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The measure would have ended the authorizations for use of military force after six months.

    Jeff Daniels (CNBC) adds:

    Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, an anti-war crusader, had offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal war authority granted in 2001 and 2002. He argued Wednesday that the current war authorizations are outdated and that Congress needed to "grab power back" from the executive branch, which he said has been using the war authorizations for "unauthorized, unconstitutional and undeclared war."

    Here's an excerpt from the above:

    Senator Rand Paul: For the first time in 15 years, we are debating the Congressional role in the declaration of war we have fought -- the longest war in US history -- under an original authorization to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11.  That war is long since over.  The war has long since lost its purpose.  And it's long time that we have a debate in Congress about whether we should be at war or not.  It is the constitutional role of Congress.  Interestingly the folks that you have heard on either side of the issue have said, "It is our job, it is what we should be doing."  And yet we haven't done it for 16 years.  Who in their right mind thinks that Congress is actually going to do their job without being forced to do their job.  My resolution is actually silent on whether we should still be at war.  My resolution just simply says that the resolutions that we have previously passed will expire.  I don't believe that they have anything to do with the seven wars we're involved with currently anyway.  But if we were to force them to expire, we would then have a debate.  But for those who say "Yes, Congress should exert its authority, Congress should be involved in the initiation of war," they don't really believe that unless they're going to vote that way.  What will happen is the continuation of the same: That we abdicate that role and let the president do whatever he wants.  It's worse than that. Let's say that we were to vote for my resolution and that the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expired, do you think any of the wars would end?  No.  The neo-conservatives and neo-liberals believe the president has unlimited authority.  They called Article 2 "Authority for War."  There is some authority given to the president -- an enormous amount of authority to execute the war.  But not to initiate war.  The sole duty of initiation of war was given specifically to Congress.  So if these authorities were to expire, the president says, "I have all the authority I want under the Constitution to do whatever I want."  But that's not what our founders wanted.  Madison, if he were here, would vehemently disagree.  Madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone for war.  Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.  It was supposed to be difficult to go to war.  And some gnash their hands and say, "Oh, the Senate could never agree on any authorization to go to war."  You know how long it took us after Pearl Harbor?  24 hours and we declared war on Japan.  You know how long it took us after 9/11?  Three days.  We can come together as a body when we're attacked, when we're unified in purpose.  But guess what?  After sixteen years, it's difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan.  But also those who say, "Oh, we need a new authorization but it's going to authorize war anywhere, anytime, with no geographic limit or no time limit"?  Basically, they would be authorizing everything we're doing now, not putting any limitations on it.  We are in Yemen.  We are aiding and abetting the Saudi war in Yemen and yet there's been no vote on it. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation because of the Saudi blockade and bombing campaign.  We are aiding and abetting that and yet there's been no vote here in Congress. Look we've got problems at home.  These wars are costing trillions of dollars.  They are unauthorized.  We have not voted on them.  And I say, "Look, let's pay attention to some of the problems we've got here at home.  We're going to have a hundred and fifty billion dollar tab for Harvey hurricane damage in Texas.  And yet we continue with unauthorized, unconstitutional, undeclared war.  I think it's time to think about what we've got -- the problems we've got here at home.  I think it's time to think about the twenty-trillion dollar debt we've got.  But still we have this gnashing of hands, this wringing of hands, these gnashing of teeth that say, "Oh, my goodness, what if Congress didn't do its job?  What if we allowed these authorities, these authorizations of force to expire and we didn't get another one?  Well the thing is, that's abdicating your constitutional duty.  The duty is to do what is in your constitutional duty.  It's not to say, "Well the other Congressmen won't do what their jobs is, so I'm not going to do my job."  Our job is to enforce, obey and execute the Constitution.  The Constitution says Congress shall declare a war.  Doesn't say the president can go to war anywhere, any time, around the globe.  Says Congress shall declare war.  So for the first time in 15 years, we are debating whether or not Congress has a role in this.  And for those who will vote "no" against my resolution, they're basically voting -- even though they will say otherwise -- they are voting to say, "Well, eh, let's just let the status quo go on.  The President can do what he wants.  It's too emotional.  It's too controversial to debate war.  So we'll just keep letting the president do whatever he wants."  Mine is a vote go grab power back.  Mine is a vote to say the Senate has prerogative here.  The Constitution gives the power to the legislature.  That's what this vote is about.

    Here's the vote breakdown:

    Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session

     Vote Summary 

    Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 )
    Vote Number: 195
    Vote Date: September 13, 2017, 12:17 PM
    Required For Majority: 1/2
    Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
    Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 871 to S.Amdt. 1003 to H.R. 2810 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018)
    Statement of Purpose: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
    Vote Counts:
    Not Voting
    *Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
    Alphabetical by Senator Name 
    Alexander (R-TN), Yea
    Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
    Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
    Bennet (D-CO), Nay
    Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
    Blunt (R-MO), Yea
    Booker (D-NJ), Nay
    Boozman (R-AR), Yea
    Brown (D-OH), Nay
    Burr (R-NC), Yea
    Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
    Capito (R-WV), Yea
    Cardin (D-MD), Nay
    Carper (D-DE), Yea
    Casey (D-PA), Yea
    Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
    Cochran (R-MS), Yea
    Collins (R-ME), Yea
    Coons (D-DE), Nay
    Corker (R-TN), Yea
    Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
    Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea
    Cotton (R-AR), Yea
    Crapo (R-ID), Yea
    Cruz (R-TX), Yea
    Daines (R-MT), Yea
    Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
    Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
    Durbin (D-IL), Nay
    Enzi (R-WY), Yea
    Ernst (R-IA), Yea
    Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
    Fischer (R-NE), Yea
    Flake (R-AZ), Yea
    Franken (D-MN), Nay
    Gardner (R-CO), Yea
    Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
    Graham (R-SC), Yea
    Grassley (R-IA), Yea
    Harris (D-CA), Nay
    Hassan (D-NH), Yea
    Hatch (R-UT), Yea
    Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
    Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
    Heller (R-NV), Nay
    Hirono (D-HI), Nay
    Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
    Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
    Isakson (R-GA), Yea
    Johnson (R-WI), Yea
    Kaine (D-VA), Nay
    Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
    King (I-ME), Nay
    Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
    Lankford (R-OK), Yea
    Leahy (D-VT), Nay
    Lee (R-UT), Nay
    Manchin (D-WV), Yea
    Markey (D-MA), Nay
    McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
    McConnell (R-KY), Yea
    Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting
    Merkley (D-OR), Nay
    Moran (R-KS), Yea
    Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
    Murphy (D-CT), Nay
    Murray (D-WA), Nay
    Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting
    Paul (R-KY), Nay
    Perdue (R-GA), Yea
    Peters (D-MI), Nay
    Portman (R-OH), Yea
    Reed (D-RI), Yea
    Risch (R-ID), Yea
    Roberts (R-KS), Yea
    Rounds (R-SD), Yea
    Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
    Sanders (I-VT), Nay
    Sasse (R-NE), Yea
    Schatz (D-HI), Yea
    Schumer (D-NY), Nay
    Scott (R-SC), Yea
    Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
    Shelby (R-AL), Yea
    Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
    Strange (R-AL), Yea
    Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
    Tester (D-MT), Nay
    Thune (R-SD), Yea
    Tillis (R-NC), Yea
    Toomey (R-PA), Yea
    Udall (D-NM), Nay
    Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay
    Warner (D-VA), Yea
    Warren (D-MA), Nay
    Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
    Wicker (R-MS), Yea
    Wyden (D-OR), Nay
    Young (R-IN), Yea

    See any you recognize?

    Former US House Rep and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney Tweeted the following:

    Every one of the 61 Senators who voted against Rand Paul for more war deserves to be defeated in the next...

    Noting the Tweet, Elaine added, "They should all be voted out if they're in favor of never-ending war."

    If you agree, these are the people who should be voted out.

    YEAs ---61
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Capito (R-WV)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Cassidy (R-LA)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Cortez Masto (D-NV)
    Cotton (R-AR)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Cruz (R-TX)
    Daines (R-MT)
    Donnelly (D-IN)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Ernst (R-IA)
    Fischer (R-NE)
    Flake (R-AZ)
    Gardner (R-CO)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hassan (D-NH)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kennedy (R-LA)
    Lankford (R-OK)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Perdue (R-GA)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rounds (R-SD)
    Sasse (R-NE)
    Schatz (D-HI)
    Scott (R-SC)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Strange (R-AL)
    Sullivan (R-AK)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Tillis (R-NC)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Wicker (R-MS)
    Young (R-IN)

    See the disappointments?  The Claire McCaskills, the Jean Shaheens, all the losers we were told would do a wonderful job but who don't do anything.

    Let's note the heroic voters:

    NAYs ---36
    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Booker (D-NJ)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Duckworth (D-IL)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Harris (D-CA)
    Heinrich (D-NM)
    Heitkamp (D-ND)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Hirono (D-HI)
    Kaine (D-VA)
    King (I-ME)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Markey (D-MA)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Peters (D-MI)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Van Hollen (D-MD)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    3 senators did not vote.  Robert Menendez has the excuse that he's standing trial.  Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio did not vote.  Bill and Marco were in Florida with their constituents (see below).

    In Belle Glade with handing out meals to those who still don't have power after Hurricane Irma.

    Staying with the issue of voting, September 25th, the KRG and Kirkuk Province are supposed to vote on whether or not to remain a part of Iraq or become autonomous.

    Turkey warns Iraqi Kurdish referendum move will have a cost

    While the government of Turkey continues to stamp its feet and threaten, others just threaten.

    Governor of fired by Iraqi parliament after request from Abadi. 110 MPs letter calling for Iraqi Pres Fuad Masum (Kurd) to be fired.

    Iraqi parliament voted on sacking governor based on a demand from Iraqi prime minister

    They didn't get what they want so they try to fire the governor?

    And they ignore that the Constitution required Kirkuk hold a referendum by the end of 2007.

    Required that, but the government never did it.

    Maybe Kirkuk should demand the Baghdad government be fired?

    At any rate, no one's losing a job yet.

    Kirkuk Provincial Council announces that Iraqi Parliament's decision to sack Najmaldin Karim, Governor of Kirkuk, will not be implemented.

    Replying to   and 
    Kirkuk council just rejected Iraqi parliament ousting of Nejmedin Karim, you think they would do that if they didn't stand behind him?

    Meanwhile, the violence continues . . .

    Over twenty civilians killed, injured in restaurant attack in

    The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, PACIFICA EVENING NEWS, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and LATINO USA -- updated:

    iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq Iraq