Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Halle Berry's new TV show starts tomorrow




Tomorrow on CBS, Halle Berry's Extant debuts.


I'm excited and hoping it will be great.

I'm a mother with three kids -- we're all Black.

As I've blogged about before, representation does matter.

So it's great that a woman of color has a chance to carry an hour drama.

The only one who has done so successfully has been Kerry Washington (with "Scandal").

And it's not like Kerry was the 40th or even tenth Black woman to be given a chance.

My youngest is my daughter.

In her lifetime, TV has shown her that Black women can be funny (Wanda Sykes on "The New Adventures of Old Christine") and that they can be active leads (Kerry) and not much more.

We didn't have Kerry when I was a little girl.  But we had "The Cosby Show."  So I had Lisa Bonet and all the rest.  We had the spin-off ("A Different World"), etc.  I feel like the last 14 years have not been good for African-Americans and that if it weren't for Shonda Rhimes, we'd have almost nothing to point to with pride.

Along with Kerry, the most prominent women of color on entertainment TV today is  Sofia Vergara who stars on "Modern Family." 

And that's great but if you wrongly believe things are better, you really need to read Stan's "I'm getting sick of White Hollywood Liberals" which is about how Jane Fonda's new sitcom has cast the four main roles -- all White.

How are we supposed to get anywhere as a society when our 'friends' continue to betray us. 



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, July 8, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri is said to have lost the support of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, two DC neocons push for Ahmed Chalabi as Iraq's next prime minister, the Senate Armed Services Committee gets their third closed door briefing on Iraq in the last few weeks, and much more.


Heads up (no, it's not about Iraq, I'm promoting a friend's show).





Academy Award winning Best Actress Halle Berry's new TV show Extant debuts Wednesday night on CBS. 

While eyes turn to Steven Spielberg's latest TV venture,  Iraq is yet again becoming an issue in elections in the US.  The mid-terms will be in November.  Tom Robb (Journal and Topics) explores some of the US House races out of Illinois.  The results are rather depressing.  US House Rep Tammy Duckworth shares her opinion which doesn't depress because Tammy Duckworth did not run as an antiwar candidate. (Her stance has been well known since she ran for Congress in 2006.  The antiwar candidate in that 2006 Democratic Party primary was Christine Cegelis.)   She's fine with advisors but "I'm against U.S. boots on the ground beyond that."  That's perfectly in keeping with Duckworth's position since she first went for public office.  Jan Schakowsky, however, has always self-presented as against the war on Iraq.  (This, of course, was before Jan condemned Progressive Democrats of America in June 2011.)  From the article:

“The President -- as I did -- opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, and he kept his promise to the American people that he would withdraw our troops from combat. Tragically, the al-Maliki government has been unwilling to work with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to build a unified, effective government to provide peace and stability in their nation. American troops cannot solve that problem,” Schakowsky said. “The United States can play a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions. However, it is abundantly clear that our efforts should be focused on ending military engagement in Iraq.”


That passes for antiwar today.  One doubts Schakowsky would feel the same about Bully Boy Bush using US troops in "a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions."  Schakowsky should also be asked to explain who "our allies" in Iraq are because the US isn't working with the Kurds and, thus far, has done little but prop up Nouri al-Maliki who created the current crises.

In a Foreign Policy column The Week has reprinted, Zaid Al-Ali reminds 2010 offered a great deal of promise:

Iraqis were demanding more from their politicians than mere survival. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki established a new political alliance, the State of Law alliance, which campaigned on a platform of re-establishing strong state institutions, reducing corruption, and providing adequate services to the people. The Iraqiya alliance, another large and newly formed coalition, backed a similar platform. The tantalizing prospects of establishing a new political environment and creating a stable state seemed within reach.
It never happened. Rather than consolidating these gains, several factors began working against Iraq's national cohesion as early as 2010. Maliki's government used "de-Baathification" laws, introduced to keep members of Saddam Hussein's regime out of government, to target his opponents — but not his many allies, who also had been senior members of the Baath Party. The 2010 government formation process turned out to be yet another opportunity for politicians of all stripes to grant themselves senior positions which they could use to plunder the state. When tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in February 2011 to protest corruption, they were branded terrorists and were attacked and beaten by security forces and hired thugs. Dozens were killed and thousands arrested and tortured until the protests fizzled. Meanwhile, though terrorist groups were not operating as openly as before, hundreds of civilians continued to be killed every month, particularly in Baghdad, denying Iraqis in many parts of the country even a brief period of normalcy.
At that time, Maliki began referring to himself publicly as Iraq's preeminent military leader. When the 2010 electoral results did not conform to his expectations, he demanded a recount in his "capacity as commander in chief." When he forced senior anti-corruption officials from their positions, he once again inappropriately invoked his military credentials. He called officers on their mobile phones to demand specific actions or that individuals be arrested, circumventing the chain of command. After the new government was formed in November 2010, he refused to appoint ministers of the interior and of defense, preferring to occupy both positions himself. He appointed senior military commanders directly, instead of seeking parliamentary approval as required by the constitution.
There was also much talk about the prime minister's special forces, including the Baghdad Operations Command. Groups of young men were arrested in waves, often in the middle of the night, and would be whisked to secret jails, often never to be seen again. Former Army officers, members of the Awakening, activists who complained too much about corruption, devout Iraqis who prayed a little too often at their local mosques — all were targeted. Many were never charged with crimes or brought before a judge. Under the pretext of trying to stop the regular explosions that blighted Baghdad, these individuals were subjected to severe abuse.

Thug Nouri has harmed Iraq repeatedly.  He is a lousy leader whose word means nothing.  Whether he's promising his rivals a power-sharing government or telling the press, in 2011, that he wouldn't seek a third term, his word means nothing.

Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) reports today on Nouri's most recent broken promise and how it led to the failure of last week's session of Parliament:

 The main reason for the lack of agreement is Maliki’s insistence on retaining his post for a third term. On July 3, the former parliament speaker and the former president of the United for Reform coalition Osama al-Nujaifi announced that he was withdrawing his candidacy for parliament speaker to facilitate the task of forming the government. Maliki had conditioned waiving his candidacy for the premiership on Nujaifi waiving his candidacy for parliament speaker. But after Nujaifi agreed to the condition, Maliki reneged, and that blocked a solution to the crisis.
Regarding the first session of parliament, Sistani’s official representative said that it was “an unfortunate failure. And we hope that the political blocs will intensify dialogue to get out of the current crisis at the earliest possible opportunity.”
But after the session was adjourned for the second time, and for a month, despite the challenges facing the country, Sistani had to take a stand against Maliki. A source close to Sistani’s office told Al-Monitor that “what was attributed recently to Sistani about the fact that there were no red lines on any candidate for prime minister, is unfounded.” This means that Sistani has drawn red lines on some of the candidates.

The loss of Sistani, if true, is a body blow to Nouri's political career.

Nouri's corrupt and dishonest.  On top of that, he's a thug who tortures Iraqis, throws them in secret prisons and much more.  Nouri fled Iraq decades ago after his efforts against Saddam Hussein failed.  He spent his decades in exile railing against Saddam Hussein but the reality is that Nouri wasn't against what Hussein did.  No, Nouri was fine with it, he just wanted his sect to be the one doing the torturing and other crimes.

Nouri's focus in his exile years was on Saddam Hussein being 'evil.'  But not on 'evil' actions, just on a natural 'evil' that Hussein possessed.  When Nouri was hanging with terrorists in Iran, he gave several speeches which 'explained' Saddam Hussein was evil because he was (a) Sunni and (b) secular.

Nouri's objections to Saddam Hussein's actions were not the actions themselves.  No, Nouri only objected to the target of the actions (Shi'ites).  Granted, in the three speeches I've seen copies of, Nouri was speaking to Shi'ite radicals who were fueled on hatred of all things Sunni so one could argue Nouri had merely tailored his remarks to fit and win over the crowd.

It's also true that if he were faking his remarks back then, he could have, as he repeated them over and over, taken on those prejudices and hatreds. That would certainly explain his use of the term "terrorist" as a generic for any and all Sunnis -- from vice presidents to peaceful protesters.

Mustafa Habib (Niqash) offers a look at how Nouri al-Maliki has circumvented the Iraqi Constitution:

  

Part of the reason for this is because since al-Maliki has been in the Prime Minister’s seat, the job of Prime Minister has taken on more and more significance and more and more power. For years, his opponents, who include leading figures within the Shiite Muslim political scene, have criticised him for monopolizing power, for making all decisions by himself and for never consulting other parties in Iraq. It is for this reason that al-Maliki has been described as a dictator.
And it is for this reason that everybody wants his job, rather than any other. Since 2003, when Saddam Hussein’s regime was ended by a US-led invasion, the major roles in Iraq’s Parliament have been distributed evenly between the three major population groups – Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims and the Iraqi Kurds.
As British newspaper, the Guardian explained recently: “By convention in Iraq, the prime minister's position goes to the Shia, the speaker's position goes to the Sunnis, while the president goes to the Kurds”.
And now there are four main reasons as to why the Prime Minister’s job is the most powerful. They are political, constitutional, and personal and have to do with the way the Iraqi parliament has been working.
Firstly, the Iraqi Constitution actually gives the President of Iraq very important powers, some of which the Prime Minister doesn’t have. Executive power isn’t actually limited to Iraq’s Prime Minister. And those who say that the post of President of Iraq is just symbolic are wrong.

However because Iraq’s President has failed to follow through with the powers the Iraqi Constitution gives him, the Prime Minister has taken over some of the powers given that role.
Iraq’s current President is Iraqi Kurdish politician, Jalal Talabani. However Talabani suffered a stroke in late 2012 and has been in a hospital in Germany for over 18 months. His deputy, Vice President Khodair al-Khuzaei, has taken up some of Talabani’s duties. However al-Khuzaei, a Shiite Muslim politician, is in al-Maliki’s party and is well known to be an ally of his.
The Iraqi Constitution could also be seen to be at fault when it comes to al-Maliki’s power grabs. The Constitution doesn’t specify clearly enough which powers the Prime Minister, along with other ministers and leading political figures, should have. 
Al-Maliki has used the imprecise wording in the Constitution to ride roughshod over various ministries. For example, Article 78 of the Constitution says “the Prime Minister is the direct executive authority responsible for the general policy of the State and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He directs the Council of Ministers, presides over its meetings, and has the right to dismiss the Ministers, with the consent of the Council of Representatives”.
Al-Maliki has used his power over his own cabinet to dismiss various ministers and then take up their powers himself.  In their places, he appointed members of his own party. He also decided who should hold the most important posts within the security services and he has replaced officials in those services at will, without any parliamentary supervision.


Niqash is one of the outlets -- one of the few -- that's refused to look the other way in the last four years.  They've documented many ugly realities of Nouri's second term.  Again, they are an exception.  The Independent of London, by contrast, has often come off as Nouri al-Maliki's state-controlled media -- especially when compared to BBC and the Guardian.  Which makes it all the more shocking today that the Independent's Patrick Cockburn (writing at The London Review of Books) offers:

In reality, Maliki stands no chance of serving a third term as prime minister, a post he has held since 2006. His political alliance did well in the parliamentary election on 30 April, when, ironically, he successfully positioned himself as the leader who knew about security and would defend the Shia against Sunni counterrevolution. Discredited by military defeat, he has few allies left in the outside world: even the Iranians, under whose influence he was supposed to be, no longer fully support him. During his eight years in power he created what one former minister calls ‘an institutionalised kleptocracy, more corrupt than anything in central Africa’, which will do everything to stay in power or, at least, avoid prosecution if it has to go. Though Baghdad looks tattered and impoverished, oil revenues run at $100 billion a year, and great fortunes can be made by anyone with the right connections to government.


I firmly believe that Nouri does not deserve a third term and that Iraqis should not have to suffer through a third term; however, I do not share Patrick's confidence that it's not happening.  I hope Patrick Cockburn's prediction is correct.  There are many jockeying to be the next prime minister and Adam Taylor (Washington Post) notes that Ahmed Chalabi has the backing of neocons Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz for reasons unknown:

 The reality is that Chalabi lacks popular support, though his political guile and status as a secular Shiite has helped him emerge as one of the few viable candidates for prime minister. Liz Sly, The Post's Beirut bureau chief, explained his appeal this month: He is "a perennial who presents himself as a compromise candidate after every election. He has no real constituency and won only one seat in parliament, but he has the support of the Sadrists and is being regarded by Sunnis as a chance to move away from [Maliki's] Shiite Islamism."



Nouri and other issues were raised in the US State Dept press briefing today that spokesperson Jen Psaki moderated:
QUESTION: On Iraq?

 MS. PSAKI: Yes.

 QUESTION: Anne Patterson is leading a delegation on Capitol Hill today at 5 o’clock to brief the House. I was wondering if you had anything more on that.

 MS. PSAKI: I believe it’s a part of our standard efforts to make sure members of Congress are up to date on our thinking and policy and what’s happening on the ground.

 QUESTION: So this is just a routine update?

 MS. PSAKI: That is my understanding, yes.

 QUESTION: Was there any coordination with the Pentagon, given the Secretary of Defense’s briefing this morning?

 MS. PSAKI: Frequently, we have briefings the same day as the Pentagon and – or other officials throughout the Administration. So that certainly is not uncommon. And as you know, all of these senior officials are in regular meetings together about our policy, so I can assure you there’s coordination.

 QUESTION: Now, granted that this was closed door and classified, but Senator McCain told reporters afterwards that from his perspective, this Administration does not have a coherent policy on dealing with the Islamic State group. Is that a fair criticism?

 MS. PSAKI: I think that’s a common refrain from Senator McCain no matter what the issue is. But I would say, look, every member of Congress has every right to express their view of what our policies are and what they should be and where they see frustrations or where they support us. And that’s the case for Senator McCain or any member of Congress.
In this case, I think our policy is fairly clear. The President has been clear, the Secretary has been clear, that we’re going to take – go after threats where they face us. That includes ISIL and includes other terrorist organizations. But in Iraq, our focus is also on the political process, and that is the only way to have a long-term, sustainable, and successful Iraq. So hopefully, the continued briefings will help shed some light.

 QUESTION: Two follow-ups on that. One, has this Administration seen any change in Nuri al-Maliki’s political posture? Is he doing the work that this Administration believes needs to be done in order to make his government more inclusive?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, our concerns haven’t changed. But obviously, we continue to encourage all parties to move forward with the government formation process. I think you’ve seen overnight that they have announced that they’ll be meeting on Sunday instead of August. So that was a positive step forward. Obviously, we’d like to see that happen and see the rapid – the – all parties move forward with the rapid creation of a government.

 QUESTION: And then in terms of confronting the Islamic State group, Senator Graham said that he could not see any scenario in which the Iraqi security forces, Syrian opposition, even the Syrian Government, would be capable of confronting this organization without the assistance of the U.S. military. In particular, he said he couldn’t see this happening without the use of air strikes. Is this Administration in any way contemplating some sort of very active engagement to confront this organization?

 MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to outline from here what our options may or may not be. Obviously, we have a – always have a range of options at our disposal. Those are decisions for the President to make in consultation with the national security team. Our focus remains on continuing to encourage the rapid formation of the government.

 QUESTION: Sorry. So you say it was a positive step forward for them to move up the resumption of --

 MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly --

 QUESTION: -- I mean, surely --

 MS. PSAKI: -- welcome the announcement. But I won’t stop there. We – it will require --

 QUESTION: Right.

 MS. PSAKI: -- a prompt agreement on a new parliamentary speaker, and following that candidates for president and prime minister in order to have a successful creation or formation of a government.

 QUESTION: All right. In response to one of Roz’s earlier questions, I mean, what are the odds of you ever agreeing with critics who say that the Administration’s policy is incoherent on any issue?

 MS. PSAKI: That’s probably unlikely, but we certainly support freedom of speech here in the United States.

 QUESTION: Okay.

 QUESTION: Because there are people that – Iraqis who have accused Mr. McGurk of being one of Maliki’s staunchest allies and that, in fact, his position may have in any way hamstrung your position, so to speak, the Administration’s position in Iraq in pushing forward some sort of reconciliation type of government. Do you agree with that assessment?

 MS. PSAKI: I would not, and I’m not sure who the unnamed critics are. There are certainly a lot of unnamed critics out there. I would say that Deputy Assistant Secretary McGurk has been on the ground for weeks now. There’s almost no one in the government who knows Iraq and the political parties and all the leaders better than he does, and he’s been working day and night to move the political process forward. And I’d remind you he’s been meeting with leaders from all – from all sects and it hasn’t been just Prime Minister Maliki and his government. Far from it. He’s had a diversity of meetings, and that, I expect, will continue.

 QUESTION: Would you say that he’s a strong advocate of Mr. Maliki?

 MS. PSAKI: I would say he’s a strong advocate of a stable Iraq, and he cares deeply about the future of the – for the Iraqi people.

 QUESTION: When you are asking all these parties to be part of this process of, let’s say, stable Iraq, what these people are expecting from U.S.? I mean, guarantor is like what – how do you – is – what is the U.S. role in the coming future? I mean, it’s going to be like guaranteeing that these people are sitting together or secure the borders?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s up to the Iraqi people to make the political choices that they need to to move forward. At the same time, we have provided a great deal of assistance. We’ve only expedited that, and we’ve increased that in recent months. That is part of our effort to support Iraq, but we have a stake in a stable Iraq just like we have a stake in a stable region, and that’s one of the reasons we’re so committed to the future of what’s happening on the ground.

 QUESTION: But let’s say when we are – U.S. is providing to the Iraqi army things, people looking to it as if it’s – you are supporting Maliki against the others, right?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve provided also some support to the Peshmerga. We’ve advocated for a united security force that works with all parties that is united against the shared threat they all face with just ISIL, and that’s the message we’ve been sending.

 QUESTION: So there is no U.S. role in the coming future – I mean, the coming Iraq? Or there is a role for it?

 MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

 QUESTION: I mean like in 2011 or end of 2012, I mean, it’s like it was decided to leave Iraq and come out of it. Now, it’s getting another involvement, or I assume it’s involvement. Am I wrong?


 MS. PSAKI: A little bit. I think we’re not considering putting combat troops back on the ground. That’s not what is under consideration. We do have a stake in a stable and secure Iraq just like we have a stake in the stable and secure region, and that’s one of the reasons we’ve increased our assistance. Iraq will remain a partner, and we’re working to address the short-term threat so we can have a long-term successful Iraq.



The French government noted Iraq today.  KUNA notes:

 Political actors from all communities in Iraq must unite to fight the threat of terrorism in that country but also to agree on reforms and the creation of a National Unity Government, a senior official said here.
The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Romain Nadal, indicated that a senior French diplomat had criss-crossed Iraq last week to deliver that same message to all the different communities in the country.
Asked by KUNA if the message was "well-received," Nadal responded that "it (the message) was understood." "The Iraqi political actors must unite and form a national unity government. This message is even more topical today," Nadal said in a briefing.

 While the French government held a briefing on Iraq for the press, the US government hid behind closed doors.  This morning, General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  What did they say?


I don't get to know, you don't get to know.  They testified on Iraq and Afghanistan in a closed hearing, closed to the public, closed to the people.

What exactly do they need to hide on Iraq?

Among other things, the budget request for the operation -- Pentagon spokesperson Jack Kirby noted that at the start of today's Pentagon press briefing (transcript isn't up yet, click here for video).

Someone needs to ask because it's the fourth closed door hearing on Iraq that the Senate Armed Services Committee has held this year.

The first was January 15th.  The second was June 12th.  The third was June 19th.

Four closed door hearings on Iraq, three just in the last few weeks.

What's Congress being told that the American people aren't?

Maybe they could hold an open session to explore what gives US President Barack Obama the right to take actions in Iraq without Congressional authorization?

The Institute for Public Accuracy notes:

 The Nation writes: “Left-Right Coalition of 80 House Members Wants Congress to Check and Balance Iraq Intervention.”

PAUL FINDLEY, findley1 at frontier.com
Available for a limited number of interviews, Findley served as a member of United States House of Representatives for 22 years. He was a key author of the War Powers Resolution and a leader in securing its enactment by overriding the veto of President Richard Nixon. He is also the author of six books. The federal building in Springfield, Ill. is named for him. He said today: “Just as with threats to attack Syria last year, an attack on Iraq and/or Syria today would violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. As with any president, he [President Obama] commits an impeachable offense if he does not follow the Constitution. Some observers misread a section of the War Powers Resolution as giving the president 60 days to make war without a declaration from Congress. The section cited actually limits even war making in the event of an attack upon the United States, its territories, or armed forces, which is not the case in either Iraq or Syria. In my view, a tight rein on presidential war making is more important today than ever before.” Last year Findley wrote the piece “Obama has no Authority to Attack Syria.”

 FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu
Boyle, who has worked with Findley for many years, is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. He said today: “President Obama has now incrementally introduced about 800 U.S. troops armed for combat into Iraq in three stages, each without Congressional authorization, which clearly violates the terms of the War Powers Resolution. This is precisely what the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent — another incremental military escalation along the lines of the Vietnam War. The Obama administration has also threatened to bomb Syria as well as Iraq, either one of which would violate the War Powers Clause of the Constitution as well as the War Powers Resolution. It is not legitimate for the president — or members of Congress — to make de facto arrangements that violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.”


Al Jazeera's Dr. Ahmad M. Zaidan (Pakistan's Tribune) offers this take on the US government's aims in Iraq, "Interestingly, Barack Obama asked recently for consultations with Iran about Iraq over superseding Maliki, who is a product of the American invasion of Iraq. This makes it clear that state sovereignty in Iraq is over, even from the American point of view. If that is the case, one wonders why the Americans and the West are asking ISIS and other militants to respect colonial borders between artificial states that are products of the colonial system."

Iraq has to choose a prime minister.  It also has to choose a Speaker of Parliament and a President.  On the last one Hamza Mustafa (Asharq Al-Awsat) notes:

Kurdish political parties have narrowed down their candidates to replace outgoing Iraqi President Jalal Talabani while Salim Al-Jabouri, head of the Diyala is our Identity party has pulled ahead in the race for the position of speaker of parliament. The post of prime minister remains the last of the top three executive posts in Iraq that needs to be filled.
Former Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) prime minister Barham Salih looks set to compete with Governor of Kirkuk Najmiddin Karim to be named as the official candidate to replace ailing President Talabani.

On the topic of the Kurds, Yavuz Baydar (Today's Zayman) reports:

 As the politicians in Baghdad send no clear signals on keeping Iraq unified, Iraqi Kurds are firmly preparing the groundwork for a new state. Much has not been heard beyond the surface of mumblings coming from the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) top figures, and what appears to be timid objections to the build-up to an independent Kurdistan out of a dismembered Iraq may be illusory.
“It now seems safe to say that if the Iraqi Kurdish regional government declared independence, Ankara would be the first capital to recognize it. In today's Middle East, in other words, [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] ISIL is a bigger threat to the Turks than Kurdish independence in Iraq,” wrote Soner Çağaptay, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in Foreign Affairs Magazine.

Rudaw speaks with the Kurdistan Regional Government's Fuad Hussein (chief of staff to KRG President Massoud Barzani):

 US Secretary of State John Kerry was in Erbil more than a fortnight ago, where he asked the Kurds to stay with a united Iraq and help Baghdad establish an inclusive government.
However, according to Mustafa, the American tone is now different in some of the meetings.
“Those kinds of statements have always been there,” Mustafa told Rudaw in Washington, referring to a comment by the State Department spokeswoman, who said that America prefers a united Iraq. 
“But what is important is the content,” Mustafa said. “Not only in America, but in many other countries, in Europe, in Arab countries and the international community there has been a change that is more welcoming to the Kurdistan Region.”



The Kurds have a degree of power that other minorities in Iraq don't.  For example, National Iraqi News Agency reports Nouri's airstrikes on Mosul today left 5 people dead and eleven -- including children -- injured.

Thug Nouri al-Maliki claims to be a leader -- one worthy of a third term -- but all he does is kill Iraqis.  For seven months, he has bombed residential areas of Falluja -- killing and wounding civilians.  Now he's expanding his attacks to other areas.

As we've noted for some time, want to bring foreign Sunnis into Iraq to fight?  Keep targeting Iraq's Sunni population with violence.

Rudaw reports:
Kurdish Peshmerga forces have been instructed to “respond appropriately” to any attack on Tuz Khurmatu, an official warned, after Iraqi jets bombed the town center on Sunday, killing four people and wounding 10.
Shalal Abdul, an official from the mostly Turkmen-populated town south of Kirkuk, told Rudaw that the decision to respond to Iraqi attacks on Tuz Khurmatu was taken at an urgent meeting of the Peshmerga forces on Monday.
The Peshmerga strengthened their positions in Tuz Khurtamu and moved into other “disputed territories” outside the official borders of their autonomous northern enclave, after the withdrawal of Iraq’s armed forces from the region last month.


Today's Zaman notes, "Cabbar Yaver, secretary-general of KRG forces (peshmerge), was quoted in Turkish media reports as saying that the Iraqi war planes had targeted civilian areas in the town."
Among the victims of Nouri in the bombings of Tuz Khumatu?  A 12-year-old girl. This is what Nouri does.  Who will protect the Sunnis?  The Kurds have the power base and military to lodge a serious objection and be heard.  (That said, I don't think Nouri's done attacking Tuz Khurmatu.)  Sunni leaders in Anbar and Baghdad objected repeatedly to Nouri's bombings of Falluja (and continue to object) but it hasn't stopped Nouri.


Turning to some of the other violence in Iraq today, National Iraqi News Agency reports a Burhiz bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, 1 corpse was discovered dumped "north of Baghdad," a Kukjeli battle left three Peshmerga injured, and 1 police member was shot dead in Ghazaliya,  Al Bawaba reports a suicide bomber near Samarra left 8 people dead (plus the bomber) and seven more injured.  In addition, Liz Dodd and Ellen Teague (Tablet) report:

Two nuns are among five Assyrians believed to have been kidnapped while visiting a girls’ orphanage in northern Iraq in an area now controlled by the Islamic State.
Sisters Miskintah and Utoor Joseph, part of the Chaldean Daughters of Mary Order that ran an all-girl orphanage in Mosul, had returned to inspect it after the area fell to the Isis terrorist group two weeks ago. They have not been heard from since.
The sisters, along with three other Assyrians they were travelling with, Hala Salim, Sarah Khoshaba and Aram Sabah, are believed to have been kidnapped by Isis.


















Posted by at

The spier in chief is the liar in chief

Barack's illegal spying never ends.  There are some new developments.  Conor Friedersdorft reports:

July 07, 2014 "ICH" - "The Atlantic" - -  Consider the latest leak sourced to Edward Snowden from the perspective of his detractors. The National Security Agency's defenders would have us believe that Snowden is a thief and a criminal at best, and perhaps a traitorous Russian spy. In their telling, the NSA carries out its mission lawfully, honorably, and without unduly compromising the privacy of innocents. For that reason, they regard Snowden's actions as a wrongheaded slur campaign premised on lies and exaggerations.
But their narrative now contradicts itself. The Washington Post's latest article drawing on Snowden's leaked cache of documents includes files "described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained" that "tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are catalogued and recorded nevertheless."
The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected "medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren. In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam ..."


So despite Barack's claims that ordinary Americans were not being spied upon, they were.

Barack lied yet again.

Our government which is supposed to serve us is instead spying on us, storing information on us, information, no doubt, they intend to use at a later date.

Our government has overstepped its bounds.  The 2014 elections should be about the illegal spying and we should refuse to support any candidate who does not promise to protect the rights of the American people.

That's what should happen.

But of course it won't.

Instead, the creepy scum like Tom Hayden will make excuses for what has happened.

And I'm sure the right has their Tom Hayden equivalents doing the same.

In some rare good news, Glenn Greenwald suspects another NSA whistle-blower has come forward.

But it will probably take a lot more whistle-blowers to penetrate the propaganda that the likes of Tom Hayden produce to protect their political heart throbs.

On the disgusting Tom Hayden, be sure to catch our parody "The Diaries of Tom Hayden" at Third.

On spying, be sure to read Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Overt Affairs."
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, July 7, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the Kurds refuse to be the White House's lackey, tomorrow's session of Parliament is cancelled,  and much more.



Don't just love the pig boys?  No, I don't either.

Piggie Walter Hecht (Spectrum) wants you to know the problem in Iraq is Bully Boy Bush.  He has no knowledge to share of the years 2010 to 2014 -- Nouri's second term.  But he wants you to believe he knows what he's talking about.  He refers to "the Pottery Barn rule" which makes him look like a bigger dunce since Pottery Barn never has had a you-break-it-you-bought-it policy.  Before he was US Senator Al Franken, Al had done the research and established there was no you-break-it-you-bought-it policy at Pottery Barn.

Equally true, Hecht, Iraq isn't up for sale to foreigners.  The gall, the audacity to suggest that foreigners can and should "buy" Iraq?  I'm sorry, you modern day Columbuses, you didn't discover a brave, new land.  Like the Americas, Iraq was occupied.  In fact, Iraq is usually considered to be the birth place of civilization.

Pig boy Hecht wants you to know he understands Iraq.

He understands because he read a book by bwana L. Paul Bremer and a book by former US State Dept employee Peter Van Buren.

Pig boys never read, for example, Deborah Amos' Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile and Upheaval in the Middle East.

What is about these pig boys -- and toss in the ridiculous Thomas E. Ricks  -- that they don't think they need to read women?

Deborah Amos is a journalist.  She wasn't working for the government.  She was in Iraq to report.

I'm failing to understand how Bremer's book -- which I found very self-serving (more was to be learned from the public testimony in England's Iraq Inquiry than from Bremer's book).  Peter Van Buren wrote an interesting book worthy of praise but he's not really someone who mingled with the Iraqis, is he?

While the boys built monuments to their own egos (excessive praise and colossal wailing are two sides of the same grand ego), Deborah told the story of how the Iraq War effected Iraqis.

Her book topped the community's list for 2010 in books with Martha and Shirley observing, "Amos' book is moving throughout but especially when she's charting what refugee status means for a number of Iraqi women -- late nights in clubs attempting to turn a trick in order to support their families.  Amos is covering the realities of the Iraq War that so few have."

Deborah wrote a great book.  She's not the only woman who's done that with the topic of Iraq. At Third, we did a series on the 10 most important books of the last ten years and "Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad" was one of our selections:

 One of the few books addressing the effects of the war on the ground -- as opposed to War Porn glorifying the US military 'kills' -- is Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad: A Story of Identity -- My Own and What it Means to be a Woman in Chaos which charts her journey to Iraq, as an American (and an Arab), to help the women of Iraq and what she ends up learning from and of Iraqi women. Omar was with the US Institute of Peace and in Baghdad from 2003 to 2005.


Unlike Thomas E. Ricks or George Packer, we weren't afraid to note women in our list:  "Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking," "Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected," "Chris Hedges'Death of the Liberal Class," "Shirley MacLaine's I'm Over All That," "CCR's Articles of Impeachment Against Bush," "Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad," "Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream," "Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price's Courting Justice," "Anthony Arnove's Iraq: The Logic Of Withdrawal" and "Tori's Piece by Piece."  Laufer and Arnove made the list with Iraq as a topic and I'd also argue that Susan Faludi's penetrating book The Terror Dream has a lot to do with Iraq (and Afghanistan).


It takes a special ignorance blended with arrogance to believe books by people like Bremer -- where Iraqis are, at best, minor supporting character and, at worst, extras -- are going to provide you knowledge of Iraq and its people.  And you can see it in this sentence Hecht typed, "Iraq was not and is not ready for democracy and free market capitalism; Iraq may never be ready."

Who are you to say whether or not Iraq is "ready for democracy"?  That's really up to Iraqis.  As for "free market capitalism," they can be "ready" or not but that will be there decision.  And "free market capitalism" is not the end all be all to solve every problem.  They may choose another economic model, they may revert more strongly to the model they had prior to 2003.  That's their decision.  And when it's treated as though these two things are 'baby steps' to be taken by Iraq, you really insult and infantalize a people and a culture that outdates your own so you might want to pull your nose out of the air.

As for what's happening in Iraq now, Eli Lake (Daily Beast) reports voices were warning the administration -- for years and years:

 At the time, senior Obama administration officials went out of their way to proclaim just how impossible-to-predict the collapse of Mosul was. But interviews with a dozen U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials, diplomats, and policy makers reveal a very different story. A catastrophe like the fall of Mosul wasn’t just predictable, these officials say. They repeatedly warned the Obama administration that something like this was going to happen. With seemingly no good choices to make in Iraq, the White House wasn’t able to listen.
“It’s simply not true that nobody saw a disaster like the fall of Mosul coming,” Ali Khedery, who served as a senior adviser at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, told The Daily Beast. “I can’t speak for anyone else, but I literally predicted this in verbal warnings and in writing in 2010 that Iraq would fall apart.”


Ali Khedery had a very important column last week.  Mike noted it in "Reading assignment for Joel Wing and other nut jobs," Rebecca noted it in "and f**k you, tom hayden," Kat in "Joe Biden, another politician of broken promises," Marcia in "Barack's betrayal of Iraq," Ann with "Barack backed Nouri, remember that" and Trina in "The idiot Chris Hill."

The column is  "Why we stuck with Maliki -- and lost Iraq" (Washington Post) and at Third we noted it in "Truest statement of the week" and "Truest statement of the week II."


In a meeting in Baghdad with a Petraeus-hosted delegation of Council on Foreign Relations members shortly after the 2010 elections, Maliki insisted that the vote had been rigged by the United States, Britain, the United Nations and Saudi Arabia. As we shuffled out of the prime minister’s suite, one stunned executive, the father of an American Marine, turned to me and asked, “American troops are dying to keep that son of a b---- in power?”
[. . .]
On Sept. 1, 2010, Vice President Biden was in Baghdad for the change-of-command ceremony that would see the departure of Gen. Ray Odierno and the arrival of Gen. Lloyd Austin as commander of U.S. forces. That night, at a dinner at the ambassador’s residence that included Biden, his staff, the generals and senior embassy officials, I made a brief but impassioned argument against Maliki and for the need to respect the constitutional process. But the vice president said Maliki was the only option. Indeed, the following month he would tell top U.S. officials, “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” referring to the status-of-forces agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq past 2011.


Iraq was a topic in today's State Dept press briefing in DC moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki.





  • QUESTION: Yes. Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker told CNN – I know he’s a former official but he probably knows Iraq better than many people. He said that, “The Islamic State may have done us a favor by publicly erasing the Iraqi-Syrian border. If they have, I think we should too and go after their targets wherever they are.”
    Is that the kind of thinking that may be germinating in this building that --
    MS. PSAKI: Well, Said --
    QUESTION: -- because the Iraqis recognize their borders and the Syrians recognize their borders. Only the Islamic State that recognizes this fungible border, right?
    MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, Ambassador Crocker is a private citizen and doesn’t speak for the United States Government. We’ve also talked quite a bit in here about the fact that our focus remains on encouraging urgent steps toward a government formation, and we have a range of options at our disposal to take on the threat that Iraq and the region is facing from ISIL. That’s long been the case for weeks now, long before these comments were made.
    QUESTION: But as they expand their territory – and obviously they are – I mean, what is the United States doing actually on the ground to sort of reverse the tide?
    MS. PSAKI: Well, I think a range of steps. One, we’re consulting closely on the ground with a range of government officials from all parties. We also have increased, expedited our security assistance. You’re familiar with the steps we’ve taken in that regard. And we remain in close consultations. And again, we have a range of options at our disposal. But our focus remains on encouraging political steps forward and a unified front against ISIL and the threat that all people --
    QUESTION: You said that --
    MS. PSAKI: -- of Iraq face.
    We'll come back to the press briefing in a moment.



    Iraq needs a political solution, that's what US President Barack Obama said.  June 19th, for example, he declared, "Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future.  Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.  National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities.  Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible.  The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis."

    So when's it coming?

    Last Tuesday, the Parliament met.  And accomplished nothing -- in part due to Nouri's refusal to do the right thing and step aside.  His thuggery, corruption and ignorance has brought Iraq to the brink.  Saturday, Rufiz Hafizoglu (Trend AZ) reported cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has called on the Iraqi people to refute Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to secure a third term as prime minister. Al Jazeera notes, "The main point of contention right now is the post of prime minister, which holds most of the power in Iraq. Last week's session, the first since a May election, broke up when Sunnis and Kurds walked out after Shias failed to name a prime minister to replace Nouri al-Maliki."  Maria Abi-Habib (Wall St. Journal) explains:


     Salim al-Jabouri, a Sunni parliamentarian from the eastern province of Diyala who is widely touted as the next speaker, said Mr. Maliki is a stubborn, experienced political operator who won't vacate his office without a fight. 
    "This is a very difficult issue as Maliki has a strong personality and he will use all his cards to stay in power. He will also manipulate the security situation, which will give his supporters an excuse for him to stay in power," said Mr. al-Jabouri, adding that the premier's obstinacy won't deter efforts to replace him. 
    "Maliki is not accepted by all blocs, and we will push him to resign," he said. 
    A more broad-based government headed by a new prime minister is widely viewed here as critical to defusing the Sunni insurgency. 


     In 2011, he told AFP he wouldn't seek a third term.  No one wants to note that now.

    Certainly not AFP which believes this whoring for Nouri al-Maliki passes for reporting.

    Tomorrow, the Parliament was supposed to meet again.

    That's not happening.

    Everything imploded today and, as Alsumaria notes,  tomorrow's session was canceled and August 12th floated as when the Parliament might meet again.  Isra'a al-Rubei'i and Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explain, "Citing the politicians' failure to reach 'understanding and agreement' on nominations for the top three posts in government, the office of acting speaker Mehdi al-Hafidh said parliament would not meet again until Aug. 12."

    Alsumaria also notes the National Alliance is calling for a session of Parliament no later than a week from now and that Mehdi al-Hafez, who is acting Speaker, is stating it looks like there is agreement on holding a session within a week.
    Ban Ki-moon is the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  Nickolay E. Mladenov is his Special Envoy to Iraq.  Mladenov Tweeted:

    And then he later Tweeted:
    The second Tweet was late in the day.  It was, for example, after Jen Psaki's press briefing.  Let's go back to today's State Dept press briefing:

     QUESTION: You said that your kind of first priority is a government.


    MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.


    QUESTION: Now, the parliament wrapped up and kind of delayed its next meeting until August 12th without any kind of judgment or new government or anything. And I mean, do you have – given, like, if you think back to the last time the Iraqi Government tried to form a government, that took months.

    MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.


    QUESTION: Do you have that kind of time to kind of wait for a government to form and hope that that gels and will fight ISIS? I mean, it seems like they’ll probably be pretty close to overrunning the country before the Iraqi – if that’s like what needs to happen before any meaningful action is taken.


    MS. PSAKI: Elise, there’s no question that sooner is better than later and that we’re in a dire – we’re looking at a dire situation on the ground, which is why it’s so important that things move forward urgently on the ground. We’ve seen the statements. Our view is that’s not set in stone, that they still have the ability to move forward more quickly than what they outlined this morning.


    QUESTION: I understand. But I mean, if history is any indicator, that doesn’t really seem like it’s going to – that – like that’s going to happen. And I mean, can you afford really to wait until a new government is formed, regardless of how long that takes? It could take a week. It could take six weeks or six months. And so, can you really afford to wait, given that ISIS is continuing to gain territory with astonishing speed, as you admit?


    MS. PSAKI: Well, the circumstances are different than they were the last time we went through this. And certainly, you’ve seen us increase and expedite our – a range of assistance that we’re providing to the security forces on the ground, as a result of the circumstances on the ground. Our view is that government formation and the steps that the Iraqis need to take themselves is essential to a long term – the long term success in Iraq; that’s why we’re encouraging it. But the President has the prerogative to take any steps he chooses. But I don’t want to get ahead of any decision-making process.


    QUESTION: Let me just follow up on the government and the formation. In your opinion, what is really the hold up? Is it the Sunni bloc in the parliament or is it Maliki, who insists on being the prime minister once again or – what is it? What is the hold up?


    MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to do analysis along those lines from here, Said. At – bottom line is it’s urgent that all parties in Iraq take concrete steps to form a new government as quickly as possible under the constitution. That’s what we’re encouraging; that’s what we’re conveying to all parties on the ground.


    QUESTION: But you would think that after such investment in blood and treasure – of American blood and treasure in Iraq, you would be more engaged in this process. Or you would be --


    MS. PSAKI: We would be more engaged?


    QUESTION: Yes. You would be more engaged, perhaps a bit more forceful on what kind of outcome Iraq --


    MS. PSAKI: Well Said, just to refute your point – and I’m not sure – how – what are you referring to when you say we’re not engaged?


    QUESTION: I’m referring that – I don’t know. Are you engaged in this parliamentary, sort of little, whatever, ballet that is going on now to choose the three presidencies, as they call it – the president to the parliament, the president of the country, and the prime minister?


    MS. PSAKI: Well Said, the Secretary was just there two weeks ago. We’ve had Ambassador Beecroft, we’ve had Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk engaged every single day with a range of Iraqi officials. We’ve expedited our assistance. We’ve been in – probably as engaged or more engaged than any other country in what’s happening on the ground. So I think your point is not backed up by facts.

    QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you this: Are you still sort of sticking to Maliki, or do you prefer to see someone else? Because the Iranians said today that while they support Maliki, they are not really – they could see working with someone else like Adil Abd al-Mahdi, who is the former vice president of the country.

    MS. PSAKI: We’ve consistently said it’s up to the Iraqi people and only the Iraqi people to determine their future leadership. Moving forward in the process is what our focus is on now.

    QUESTION: Jen, do you have a specific reaction of whether it’s discouragement or anger or whatever to the parliament just taking off and not doing anything?

    MS. PSAKI: Well, I think specifically, as we’ve said in the past, we hope that Iraq’s leaders will move forward with extreme urgency, and that’s what we’ve been calling for.

    QUESTION: Have you --

    MS. PSAKI: Again, it’s not – in our view, the reports and what they called for this morning is not set in stone. They have every ability to move forward more quickly, and we’re encouraging them to do so.

    QUESTION: Well, do you think they’re demonstrating great – or the urgency with which you think that this situation needs to be treated?

    MS. PSAKI: We think there could be greater urgency in moving forward, yes.


    QUESTION: All right. And then you had also said that the United States has been engaged perhaps more than any other country? Would you put Iran in that category?


    MS. PSAKI: Well, what I’m referring to, Matt, is the fact that we’ve been engaged on the political front. We’ve been engaged on providing assistance. We’ve been working closely with the Iraqi Government. The Secretary was just there.

    QUESTION: Right.


    MS. PSAKI: So I think there’s no question I was refuting the point that Said was making.


    QUESTION: I understand that. But do you think that – or is it you think that the United States has been as engaged and active in Iraq over the course of the last three years as Iran has been?


    MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think I wasn’t meaning to draw a comparison --

    QUESTION: Right.

    MS. PSAKI: -- but bottom line, I don’t have all the details on their engagement either.

    The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:






    As everything falls apart, Barack needs help.  Thank goodness, he's been a good friend to the Kurds and can count on them.

    Oh, wait.

    He's just treated the Kurds like crap over and over.

    Most recently?

    As we noted Friday:


    In other news, the White House is objecting to the Kurds exercising their Constitutional right to explore full automony.
    Oh, look, Barack's stabbed the Kurds in the back.
    Again.
    Again.
    Can someone please tell the White House spokesperson to not take a position on Kurdish issues at a time when the White House desperately needs the help of the Kurds?
    Or is the spokesperson expressing Barack's desire to f**k up repeatedly on Iraq?
    This is not a White House concern, nor is it anything that's going to happen in the next few weeks.
    So maybe the White House could learn to keep their big nose out?  Maybe Barack and company could learn that the world doesn't need an opinion on them about every damn thing?  That sometimes, especially when you're attempting diplomacy, the smartest thing you can do is not express opinions on side issues when you know the opinions will only anger the people whose help you need?

    Saturday, All Iraq News reported:


    Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham said on Saturday that Iraqis will never accept disintegration of their homeland.

    She reiterated in a statement reviewed by All Iraq News Agency "Iran's support for Iraq's solidarity and territorial integrity."


    This put the US government and the Iranian government in agreement -- a very scary thought.

    Ron Margulies (Great Britian's Socialist Worker) explains recent history:


     In Iraq and Iran, Kurdish history was similarly bloody, with genocidal campaigns against them both by the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein.
    However, in Iraq, an uprising against Hussein in 1991 and the First Gulf War saw guerrilla forces drive the Iraqi army out of the Kurdish northern parts of the country.
    A period of self-rule was followed in 2005 by the recognition of Iraqi Kurdistan -- or South Kurdistan, as Kurds prefer to call it -- as a federal part of Iraq. The region is now effectively an independent state.
    The US-led occupation forces and the government it set up preferred to accept the Kurds’ autonomy rather than risk generalised resistance from across Iraqi society.

    For more on recent history, Amjed Rasheed (Rudaw) provides a strong look at the history of the Kurds in Iraq starting with 1970.

    And the most recent history of the Kurds would include: "The idea of a united Kurdistan is just a dream written in poetry."  That was Jalal Talabani.

    The caver caved again, caved always.  As long as Jalal could lead, the US government could count on him to do what they wanted.  Toss a few trinkets Jalal's way, the US government believed (based on many past experiences) and Jalal would do whatever the US government wanted.

    And if they didn't want Kurdish independence -- and historically, they haven't -- Jalal wasn't going to push for it either.

    But, thing is, he was supposed to represent the Kurds.

    And that statement, in 2009, was the beginning of the end for Jalal as 'power broker.'  He'd immediately have to announce he would not see a second term as Iraq's president.  He did that to take the heat off himself.  Most who know him argue he never intended to sit on the sidelines.  So he grabbed his second term and proved ineffective there as well.  He refused to perform his Constitutional duties and forward the petition for a vote of no-confidence (in Nouri) to the Parliament.  He then fled the country for Germany with his spokesperson insisting this was life or death, a real health issue.  (It would emerge he was having elective knee surgery.)  He'd hide out for months in Germany before finally returning in the fall of 2012.

    He wouldn't be in Iraq for long.

    December 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot).  Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.


    During all of this, KRG President Massoud Barzani became the voice for Kurdish independence.  He also stood up to Nouri repeatedly which made him very popular in the KRG and turned him into a figure on the world stage.

    Though all of this was happening while Barack was settling in as president -- every event noted above was 2009 and later -- no one at the White House appeared to grasp the change that was taking place.

    At 67 (and not being grossly obese), Massoud brings a passion and sense of urgency that 80-year-old (grossly obese) Jalal never could.

    As June was winding down, Massoud Barzani appeared on Amanpour (CNN -- link is text and video) and told host Christiane Amanpour, "Iraq is obviously falling apart.  And it's obvious that the federal or central government has lost control over everything. Everything is collapsing  --  the army, the troops, the police. We did not cause the collapse of Iraq. It is others who did. And we cannot remain hostages for the unknown. The time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold."


    University of Exeter professor Gareth Stansfield tells Rebecca Collars (Time magazine), "Baghdad always promises Kurds the world when Baghdad is weak.  And then as soon as Baghdad is strong enough to re-impose its authority over the Kurds then it comes back with its engines."

    You can see that happen repeatedly.  But the Jalal Kurd is passe.  The Massoud Kurd is more determined -- not just for full autonomy, but also not to fall for the lies and tricks all over again.

    Barack picked a really bad time to anger the Kurds.   Jackson Diehl (Washington Post) reports on the new Kurdish realities.

     Pressed by Secretary of State John F. Kerry, the Kurds agreed to negotiate on a new central government. But they insisted they also will go forward with a referendum on “self-determination for Kurdistan.” They have no intention of returning to a status in which they depend on the central government for revenue, refrain from directly exporting their own oil and defer their claim to Kirkuk.
    “The Kurds are being told to lead the engagement” for a new government, said [foreign relations dept. head Falah Mustafa] Bakir, in a not-so-subtle reference to Kerry. “In return for what?”

    Again, the White House needs the Kurds but chooses repeatedly to tick them off.  And it's not just Barack, it's every White House pretty much.  The very beginning of the relationship was documented by the US Congress in the Pike Report which the Congress quickly decided not to publish.  But it was leaked to the press and, February 16, 1976, The Village Voice published Aaron Latham's "Introduction to the Pike Papers."  Latham explained:



    In 1972, Dr. Henry Kissinger met with the Shah of Iran, who asked the U.S. to aid the Kurds in their rebellion against Iraq, an enemy of the Shah.  Kissinger later presented the proposal to President Nixon who approved what would become a $16 million program.  Then John B. Connally, the former Nixon Treasury Secretary, was dispatched to Iran to inform the Shah, one oil man to another.
    The committee report charges that: "The President, Dr. Kissinger and the foreign head of state [the Shah] hoped our clients would not prevail.  They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally's neighboring country [Iraq].  The policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting.  Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."
    During the Arab-Israeli war, when the Kurds might have been able to strike at a distracted Iraqi government, Kissinger, according to the report, "personally restrained the insurgents from an all-out offensive on the one occasion when such an attack might have been successful."
    Then, when Iran resolved its border dispute with Iraq, the U.S. summarily dropped the Kurds.  And Iraq, knowing aid would be cut off, launched a search-and-destroy campaign the day after the border agreement was signed.
    A high U.S. official later explained to the Pike committee staff: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

    The Kurds were lied to over and over by the US government.

    Now a US president needs them but he's exhausted their patience.  And his White House took to insulting them last week  Those don't qualify as 'smart moves.'



















    • Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)