Lauren

As we noted at Third, before there was 9 to 5, there was How To Marry a Millionair.


In both films, 3 friends work together for the good of all.





It was a comic version of empowerment.


Lauren's deep voice and sexy laugh is how I will remember her.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, August 12, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary wants to break with Barack, Hillary doesn't want to talk Iraq, and much more.


Let's drop back to Saturday when US President Barack Obama spoke on the White House lawn and took questions:


Q Mr. President, do you have any second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq? And does it give you pause as the U.S. -- is it doing the same thing in Afghanistan?


THE PRESIDENT: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision. Under the previous administration, we had turned over the country to a sovereign, democratically elected Iraqi government. In order for us to maintain troops in Iraq, we needed the invitation of the Iraqi government and we needed assurances that our personnel would be immune from prosecution if, for example, they were protecting themselves and ended up getting in a firefight with Iraqis, that they wouldn’t be hauled before an Iraqi judicial system.
And the Iraqi government, based on its political considerations, in part because Iraqis were tired of a U.S. occupation, declined to provide us those assurances. And on that basis, we left. We had offered to leave additional troops. So when you hear people say, do you regret, Mr. President, not leaving more troops, that presupposes that I would have overridden this sovereign government that we had turned the keys back over to and said, you know what, you’re democratic, you’re sovereign, except if I decide that it’s good for you to keep 10,000 or 15,000 or 25,000 Marines in your country, you don’t have a choice -- which would have kind of run contrary to the entire argument we were making about turning over the country back to Iraqis, an argument not just made by me, but made by the previous administration.
So let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq. 


So he campaigned for re-election on removing troops from Iraq and now he says basically, "That wasn't me."  Or, more likely, "That's not on me."

It's worth noting and we'd explore it and fact check it at length at another time but there's too much to cover including Hillary.


We will note this:

Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 -- if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.


That qualifies as truth.  Nouri has caused the problems and done so over many, many years.  It's a reality many need to face. In those remarks, some note the frustration Barack had with Nouri al-Maliki but few are noting the reality in the remarks.  I'm especially surprised that Barack's usual supporters are not running with those remarks.  They go a long way towards explaining how the crises emerged in the first place.


By the way, I'm being accused of being a Barack groupie due to yesterday's snapshot.  Six years of calling him out, mocking him, etc and I give him a few words of praise -- praise that he earned -- and I'm a Barack groupie?

I'm more sympathetic to those who feel I was 'happy talking' yesterday.

I'm sure I was.  Nouri has destroyed Iraq.

In addition to the many things we noted yesterday, I also feel he ordered the assassination of journalist Hadi al-Mahdi.



I believe this was a huge moment for Iraq.


Dan Friedman and Corky Siemaszko (New York Daily News) refer to Nouri as "Iraq's power-hungry prime minister."  That's a rather nice way of putting it.

I think Nouri set a tone with his violence and his violent language.  The videos of the Sunni suspects being burned alive by Iraqi military officers reflected to me not some 'evil' in the heart of a segment of Iraqis but the clear influence of years and years of Nouri demonizing Sunnis and other groups in Iraq.

So, yes, I was upbeat and thrilled for the Iraqi people.


I will gladly confess to being  upbeat.


Let's move on.  Hillary Clinton is many things -- former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State, etc.  What she was when she sat down with Jeffrey Goldberg for a piece in The Atlantic?

Deeply stupid.

Deeply, deeply stupid.

We're not the Gaza snapshot, we're not covering that aspect here.  Others can grab it.

We focus on Iraq and sometimes on campaigns.

Hillary, a tip, as an elderly woman -- and putting blond coloring in your gray hair doesn't make you any less elderly -- you really shouldn't be calling yourself "old fashioned." Though it does make clear that a woman can be anything -- even an old coot -- it really doesn't help your own self image.

Outside of that, we're focusing on Iraq.

In a never-ending, mind numbing interview Hillary mentions Iraq.

For example, here:

We have our hands full in Syria and Iraq, just to name two places, maybe increasingly in Lebanon, and who knows what’s going to happen with us and Hamas.


Speaking of Egypt:

I think we’ve learned about the limits of our power to spread freedom and democracy. That’s one of the big lessons out of Iraq. But we’ve also learned about the importance of our power, our influence, and our values appropriately deployed and explained.


Then she insists:

I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing.

And that's it.

She's a deeply stupid woman.

Iraq has been a major issue for weeks now and Hillary's gabbing in a foreign policy interview.

Someone so out of touch maybe shouldn't be slamming Barack?

I have no problem with criticism of any US president or, in Bully Boy Bush's case, Oval Office Occupant -- whether they're still in office or have left.  I have a problem with stupid criticism.

If Hillary had just stuck her tongue out at US President Barack Obama, she would have shown more wisdom.

Her attempt to link events in Syria and Iraq is stupid and we'll go into that shortly.

But Hillary gabs where she wants you to look.  With her, it's the topics she doesn't bring up that tell the story because she knows her own failings.

Where was her leadership on Iraq?

In 2008, she called Nouri a "thug" and noted he was a threat to the Iraqi people.  In 2010, when Nouri al-Maliki lost the elections to Iraqiya, where was Hillary?

Where was she?

When did she lead -- from behind, beneath, above, below, upside down . . . ?

She didn't.

She avoids Iraq for that reason.

While not leading, she did resist.  Specifically, she resisted a court order to re-evaluate the status of the MEK.  During her husband Bill's presidency, this group of Iranian dissidents were placed on a terrorist list.

As Secretary of State, she was ordered to re-evaluate that.

She resisted.

The court had to remind her of her duty.

Then, when she did act, she 'ruled' not based on potential threat but based on whether the group in Iraq would move from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriyah.

I don't believe the Ashraf community can be labeled terrorists.

But I also don't believe you look at a group -- most of whose members are outside of Iraq -- and make the determination of terrorist or not by how quickly dissidents in Iraq move from one camp to another.

I could go into more detail but I just think, unless she's going to be serving up some personal confessions, now really isn't the time for Hillary to try to cast herself as the foreign policy expert and Barack as the great dunce.

The response from a functioning press should be, "Well, how did you contribute to the process?" And they should follow up with, "You appear comfortable providing oversight over Barack -- at least in retrospect.  But in real time, you went four years running the State Dept and did so without any real oversight.  John Kerry promised to get a real IG -- not 'acting Inspector General -- in place, promised to Congress and he did so within 5 months of being confirmed as Secretary of State.  But you went four years without independent oversight from an IG.  What does that say about your beliefs in checks and balances?"

Within the scope of the interview, Hillary seems to be linking Iraq and Syria.  She seems to be making the argument -- she needs to learn to speak clearly -- that Barack's failures include his not putting troops on the ground in Iraq.

As Ava and I noted Sunday, Martha Raddatz tried to link the two on ABC's This Week.

 RADDATZ (voice-over): The Islamic militant group ISIS in Syria and Iraq is so extreme that traditional al Qaeda has disavowed it. And now, from Vice News, video from inside the militants' stranglehold -- surreal scenes from the Syrian city of Raqqah -- families enjoying the coolness of the Euphrates. But even here, there is always something more sinister, even with the children.

(VIDEO CLIP OF CHILD SPEAKING IN ARABIC)

RADDATZ: And what happens in Syria affects Iraq, and vice-versa. The treasures from the march on Baghdad are proudly paraded through Raqqah, along with new recruits from around the world.

(VIDEO CLIP OF MAN SPEAKING IN ARABIC)

RADDATZ: Here, the group is known simply as IS, or Islamic State. At a nighttime gathering, recruiting continues -- "Beautiful virgins are calling. Enroll me as a martyr, this man sings." A call and response to excite the crowd. 

If Eleanor Rigby were around today, she'd be pondering: All the stupid people, where do they all come from?

Let's pretend for a moment that the group of -- wait.

Let's stop.  We have to start the pretending by insisting IS in both countries is everyone resisting with violence.  From there, let's pretend that the two groups are clones of one another.

For Martha to be correct, these two identical groups would have to have the same reaction in the two lands.

They don't.

IS -- however you define it -- is more embraced in Iraq.

IS was not attracted to Iraq because it's Syria's neighbor.

They share a border.

Syria also shares a border with Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

The success in Iraq is based on events in Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki's persecution of Sunnis created outrage and this was followed by







Yesterday Haider al-Abadi was named Iraq's prime minister-designate which means he has 30 days to form a government (Cabinet) and, if successful in that, he becomes prime minister of Iraq.  Of al-Abadi, Larry Kaplow and Alice Fordham (NPR via Idea Stream) report:

Abadi is a genial electrical engineer in his early 60s who often served as an intermediary for diplomats and Western journalists in Baghdad. He was comfortable in the role, having been educated in England and serving as the British representative of the Dawa party, a Shiite Islamist group, when it was in exile during the era of dictator Saddam Hussein.
Abadi's prominence in Dawa gives him credibility with the country's Shiite majority. Dawa was formed in the 1950s among Shiite intellectuals following the direction of a respected cleric.
The party fought Saddam, who authorized the executions of thousands of its members.
And while Maliki was working in low-level education bureaucracies in Iraq and on underground activities from Iran and Syria, Abadi was a Dawa spokesman in Britain, where he earned a doctorate and received a broad view of the world.

Along with a prime minister-designate, Iraq now has an outgoing prime minister.



For now, we're going out with this from today's State Dept press briefing by Marie Harf:




QUESTION: So I see the President spoke today with the Canadian prime minister on Iraq. It made me wonder what kind of regional dialogues the United States is having with other partners in the Mideast on how other states in the Mideast can assist militarily or with humanitarian aid to what’s happening.


MS. HARF: Well, we’re having a number of conversations, and to be fair, those conversations have been ongoing. Obviously, one I’d note is the Brits, as you know, who have now also provided – began providing humanitarian aid. We’ve also talked to a number of partners about financial contributions and would note generous financial contributions from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, the EU, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and others already in response. So obviously, we are talking to many of our partners on the humanitarian side and the financial side particularly about how we can all bring more resources to bear here.


QUESTION: I’m just wondering, aside from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, if there are other partners in the Mideast. Particularly, has anybody expressed any willingness to assist militarily with the Government of Iraq or even the Kurds, or what kind of – if not boots on the ground, personnel on the ground, people on the ground?


MS. HARF: I can check with our team here and see if those discussions have been happening. We’ve had discussions with Iraq’s neighbors over the past several weeks and months, I’d say, particularly on the refugee issue and on the foreign fighter issue as well. So these are conversations we’ve had for a while. I can check and see, Lara – and it’s a good question – if there are updates on the military or security assistance piece.


QUESTION: Thank you. Were you aware of the report in Der Spiegel today that apparently some Iranian planes have landed in the Kurdish region with arms and ammunition?


MS. HARF: I am and I’ve seen them, and we can’t confirm them one way or the other at this point.


QUESTION: Okay. And did you get any update from my question yesterday on when was the last time somebody from the U.S. Government spoke with Prime Minister Maliki?


MS. HARF: I believe it was yesterday. We’re not going to outline all the details of who talks to who, but I believe we did have contact with him yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. And can you – you can’t give us any readout on what the --


MS. HARF: I --


QUESTION: -- nature of the conversation was or --

MS. HARF: I don’t have more of a readout for you on that.


QUESTION: Okay.


QUESTION: Marie?


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: Can we follow up on one thing on Maliki, please?


QUESTION: Go ahead.


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: Yesterday, I had asked if you had – if the U.S. Government had played any role whatsoever in the selection of Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi, and you very clearly said no. Have you seen today’s Daily Beast story which claims – which cites U.S. officials as saying that they had pushed for Maliki for days, weeks? And it suggests maybe – suggests that an effort to oust Maliki had been underway since June. Is there any truth to that report?


MS. HARF: There is not. As I have said multiple times from this podium, this is up for the Iraqis to decide. Of course, we’ve had conversations with them as they’ve gone through this process, but quite frankly, for a number of years, not just in this Iraqi election but in the last one, there were a number of rumors and conspiracy theories about the U.S. role. I would squarely put this report in that category. As I said yesterday, this was a decision for the Iraqis and solely for the Iraqis to decide.

QUESTION: And are you getting the impression that you are getting more cooperation from your allies in the Gulf vis-a-vis Iraq now that an alternative to Prime Minister Maliki has been settled on?


MS. HARF: Well, cooperation in what way? Because certainly on the refugee and humanitarian side, they have, quite frankly, for a while been very concerned about the humanitarian situation and the possibility of refugees and foreign fighters as well. So I don’t think that’s a new concern. I do think that there are a number of partners in the region who want Iraq’s government to govern more inclusively. And so I certainly think that’s a part of it, but I don’t think the two are necessarily linked.


QUESTION: I ask because Secretary Kerry made clear that the U.S. Government could do a number of things with the new government and I therefore wonder if that sentiment is echoed among Iraq’s neighbors and any other close U.S. allies.


MS. HARF: Well, you’d have to ask them. I do think that broadly speaking, all of us are partners. We certainly know that the only way to fight ISIL going forward here is that it requires an inclusive Iraqi Government to be formed quickly. And as that happens, as the Secretary said, we certainly are looking at ways we can do even more to help.


QUESTION: And one more. Are you getting any greater cooperation from allies such as Kuwait, which the Treasury Department recently – I mean, they essentially said that the Kuwaiti Government needed to do more to try to crack down on financing of ISIL, and it identified, I think, three Kuwaiti citizens who were designated for having done so. Are you getting any more cooperation from them on that?


MS. HARF: I know it’s something we work with them and other governments on that there are private citizens in some of these countries who have been providing monetary support. We’re certainly very worried about it. And I think quite frankly, countries like Kuwait are increasingly realizing this is – could also be a threat to them. So it’s an ongoing conversation. I don’t have anything to update, but I’m happy to see if there is anything else to say.


QUESTION: Can I go back to Maliki very --


MS. HARF: Uh-huh, and then we’ll go to you, Michel.


QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly. Given that you said that you’re not aware of any more U.S. Government contacts with him in the last --

MS. HARF: Since yesterday.

QUESTION: -- since yesterday, is there a concern --


MS. HARF: There may have been, though.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: It’s constant communication on the ground in Baghdad.


QUESTION: Right. Is there a concern given his decision to move troops into the green zone over the weekend that he may try yet again to resist what the U.S. considers the orderly transition according to the Iraqi constitution?


MS. HARF: Well, I --


QUESTION: And how worried is the U.S. about this?


MS. HARF: I would note that today Prime Minister Maliki said in remarks that the security forces should not get involved in this matter and should focus on defending the country. Again, we’ll see what happens going forward, but there’s a process that’s been playing out. We never thought it would be without complication. We never thought it would be easy. These things often aren’t. But there is a process that has hit the benchmarks. It’s continued to move forward. And we’ll listen to what he said today and go from here.


QUESTION: And then very quickly, the status of those U.S. diplomats who had to be moved from Erbil temporarily, are they still --


MS. HARF: And some were moved in. As I said yesterday, we’re adjusting staffing, so if we move some people out, we might move other people in. We moved in a DART team over the weekend, a Disaster Assistance Response Team, to help with the humanitarian situation. So a lot of it is really about readjusting is a more appropriate term.


QUESTION: But for the people who had been moved out, is --


MS. HARF: I don’t believe they’ve moved back yet.


QUESTION: Okay.


MS. HARF: Yeah. Some of them are working out of Amman, where we have a contingent of people working on Iraq. Some are working out of Basra.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: I believe some also may be working out of Baghdad. But we’re basically shuffling people around where we have a need and what makes the most sense security-wise.


QUESTION: And perhaps you answered this yesterday, but what is the practical impact not so much on U.S. citizens, but on Iraqis who might need to do business in Erbil with the consulate there?


MS. HARF: The consulate is open, functioning. We believe it’s important to do so. That’s part of the reason the President ordered the military action we’ve seen to protect Erbil.
Lara.


QUESTION: Can I ask just very quickly, are you aware of reports of a bomb that may have gone off in the last hour or so near Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi’s house?


MS. HARF: I am not. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Okay.


MS. HARF: I will check as soon as I get off of the podium.

QUESTION: Thank you.


QUESTION: Marie --


MS. HARF: His house in Baghdad?


QUESTION: Yes.


MS. HARF: I’ll check.


QUESTION: Iran has endorsed Iraq’s new prime minister-designate. How do you view this statement from Iran?


MS. HARF: Well, we encourage any country to encourage the Iraqis to form an inclusive government as soon as possible to govern inclusively. That’s been our position all along, and so, obviously, we would welcome any statements to that effect.


QUESTION: And have you been in discussion with the Iranians regarding the situation in Iraq?


MS. HARF: We have not. We have not.


QUESTION: And last week during the meeting between the U.S. delegation and the Iranians, have you discussed Iran?


MS. HARF: Have we discussed Iraq?


QUESTION: Iraq, sorry.


MS. HARF: To my knowledge it was not raised in the way that it had been raised previously on the sidelines of the P5+1 round. It may have been brought up in casual conversation, but it was not discussed in a substantive way.


QUESTION: And a follow-up question on Roz’s question, too, regarding al-Maliki. To what extent you are confident that he will leave power after the formation of the new government?


MS. HARF: Well, there’s a process in place, and that’s what will happen at the end of it. That’s what should happen at the end of it. Look, we’re not going to entertain hypotheticals at this point. The Iraqis have hit the benchmarks as part of this process. Again, we knew it wouldn’t be entirely smooth. We never thought it would be. But that’s what we’re working towards right now. So let’s hope that happens. We’ll continue to have conversations with all of the Iraqis about making sure that happens.


QUESTION: Thank you.


QUESTION: (Inaudible) the – on the Iran angle. You mentioned that you couldn’t comment on the Der Spiegel --


MS. HARF: I just couldn’t confirm it. I just don’t know if --


QUESTION: Couldn’t confirm it, the Der Spiegel report?


MS. HARF: We can’t confirm it one way or the other.


QUESTION: Sure. But the issue of Iranian arms – does the U.S. have a position on that?


MS. HARF: Well --


QUESTION: Should Iran have the right to small arms --


MS. HARF: Well, it’s not a question of a right. There are some sanctionable – there are potential sanctions that could be involved with the export or import of Iran – arms in or out of Iran. There are specific sanctions in place. Without being able to confirm whether or not it’s happening and the specifics, I can’t say whether or not this would be, but there’s a likely chance it could be if this is true. We just have to look at it.


QUESTION: So, in general, the U.S. would be opposed to Iranian arms flowing into Iraq.


MS. HARF: In general, we believe we should --


QUESTION: Even if it’s for the same side.


MS. HARF: -- continue to implement sanctions that are on the books.


QUESTION: One on Afghanistan?


MS. HARF: Let’s stay on Iraq. If people – and then we’ll go to Afghanistan.


QUESTION: Can you just outline specific steps that Prime Minister-designate Abadi can take to be inclusive? We’re hearing the mantra “inclusive governing” often, but I was wondering if there are certain specific steps that could be outlined.


MS. HARF: Well, first of all in terms of specific steps, he now has 30 days under the constitution’s – it’s constitutionally mandated – to put a – to complete a process to put a new government in place. So as part of this process, that will be presenting a cabinet to the Iraqi parliament for approval that represents the aspirations of the Iraqi people. I’m not going to outline what that should look like. That’s for him and his government to decide. But there are things he can do that would demonstrate inclusiveness. Things you can say, things you can do, as part of this formation process. And then going forward, if he does form a government, which we expect and hope that he will, there are ways you can do that.
One of the things we’ve been quite heartened by is the really unprecedented way the Iraqi security forces have been working with the Kurdish forces for example, in a way we never saw them do before. So continuing some of that and encouraging some of that, from the top on down, is really important. So those are some.


QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?


MS. HARF: Yes.


QUESTION: So the government has --


MS. HARF: Thirty days.


QUESTION: -- so as you said, he has 30 days. But if he isn’t able to do that, then the Iraqis are back to square --


MS. HARF: Well, there’s --


QUESTION: I’m just worried -- I’m just wondering if you’re concerned that Prime Minister al-Maliki will take this time to try and prevent him from starting a coalition and not kind of let the process play out.


MS. HARF: Well, we’re going to watch the process play out. It’s played out on – as it should so far. So while I understand people want to jump 28 days from now and guess about all the bad things that might happen, the process has played out. Let’s watch and see what Prime Minister Maliki says – and does, more importantly. We’re having conversations with him and all the other Iraqi leaders about how this can move forward, Elise.


QUESTION: Well, it’s not really 28 – it’s not really 28 days. It’s what happens during the next 28 days.


MS. HARF: Exactly.


QUESTION: You don’t have the luxury, really, of waiting 30 days and --


MS. HARF: It’s not about us not having the luxury. It’s about the Iraqis.


QUESTION: Well, the Iraqis.


MS. HARF: Yeah.


QUESTION: Right. So I mean, starting from today --


MS. HARF: So, we’ll wait – we’ll see what happens, Elise. But let’s not assume the worst here.

QUESTION: Aren’t you kind of assuming the worst, that he’ll do that?


MS. HARF: No. I’m not. I don’t think we are, Elise. I think that today you saw Prime Minister Maliki say that security forces should not get involved in this matter. Again, we think that’s a good sign. But we will be watching and we will be in direct conversations if – as we have been with Prime Minister Maliki. And took, if we see signs that anything like that is happening, we would, obviously, be very concerned and immediately express those concerns.
But I think the other point, though, is it’s not about what the U.S. is or isn’t concerned about. The Iraqi people themselves, including the Shia bloc, has nominated someone else with a lot of support from Prime Minister Maliki’s own party. So this is about the Iraqi people standing up and saying this is the government we want.


QUESTION: Yeah, but --


MS. HARF: It’s not about what we want. It’s about what they want.


QUESTION: I understand that.


MS. HARF: And so the support for the new prime minister-designate, I think, has been fairly clear.


QUESTION: Right, but that’s not stopping Prime Minister Maliki from mounting legal challenges to – I don’t believe he’s dropped that legal challenge.

MS. HARF: Well, we don’t – look, there’s always going to be some differences that people have about how these things should play out. But we would reject any effort, legally or otherwise, to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process. I think I said this on Sunday night and repeating it today: There’s a constitutional process. It is happening, and that is what we support. And we will keep supporting that as the Iraqis go through this process.


QUESTION: But, I mean, you know that in 2010 he did launch a legal challenge. He mounted a legal challenge --


MS. HARF: I’m aware of the history.

QUESTION: -- and he was able to maintain another term.


MS. HARF: I’m aware of the history. I think we need to watch what happens day by day here. We need to see what’s happening on the ground. We need to make clear our position, which is that we would reject any efforts to achieve outcomes through judicial – through coercion or manipulation of judicial processes. And we’ll keep working with them, but they have a process in place. It’s moving forward, and let’s see how that plays out.


QUESTION: Who is the main interlocutor right now with Prime Minister al-Maliki?


MS. HARF: Well, we engage with him and other Iraqi leaders at a number of levels. We’re not going to outline specifically, necessarily, all the time what that engagement looks like. But people on the ground in Baghdad certainly have had conversations with him, as have people in Washington.


QUESTION: Well, has Secretary Kerry or Vice President Biden or, specifically, someone at a senior level reached out to Prime Minister Maliki?


MS. HARF: There are senior people who have --


QUESTION: Who – can you --


MS. HARF: We’re not going to outline --


QUESTION: Why can’t you say --


MS. HARF: Because we --


QUESTION: I mean, you put out press releases of calls --


MS. HARF: I can tell you the Secretary hasn’t, and I can tell you – to my knowledge; let me check with the White House – I don’t believe the Vice President has, either. But people have been in contact with him.


QUESTION: Does this mean that the fact that someone at a very senior – I’m not saying that the ambassador’s not of a senior level, but does the fact that the Secretary or the Vice President or the President is not speaking to Prime Minister al-Maliki meant to send a signal that the Administration is done dealing with him?



MS. HARF: Well no, not that we’re done dealing with him and not that we’re not speaking with him. It’s just that we haven’t. He’s the prime minister still, legally, until a new government is officially formed. So we will continue talking to him and working with him, but what we’re focused on is the way forward and how we can help the Iraqis, as they form this new government, fight ISIL. That’s what we’re focused on every day.





iraq npr larry kaplow alice fordham

all iraq news national iraqi news agency the new york daily news dan friedman corky siemaszko

Oh, Nouri

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts  "Barack's Dance"  


 If you missed it, Iraq named a prime minister-designate today.

It wasn't Nouri.

He refuses to leave.

He refues to step aside.

He insists he will remain prime minister.

Could you imagine what it would be like if he'd gone out for cheerleader?


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, August 11, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri goes insane and orders troops to surround Baghdad, the White House pulls support for Nouri, Iraq's president names someone other than Nouri to be prime minister-designate, this only makes Nouri crazier, and much more.


If someone refused to step down from office when their term was over, most people would call the man or woman "insane."  AFP goes with the softer sounding "defiant" to describe Nouri al-Maliki.

In a scene similar to what many of us on the left in the US feared might happen in 2008, a leader is refusing to leave office.  In fairness to Bully Boy Bush, he remains in Dallas and did vacate the White House in January 2009.  But the man he insisted (in 2006) become prime minister, the same man that US President Barack Obama insisted (in 2010) remain prime minister just doesn't want to take the hint and go.

The chief thug and outgoing prime minister of Iraq doesn't want to leave office.

The Associated Press is calling it a "foreign policy crisis."

What is the foreign policy crisis?

US President Barack Obama explained this evening from Martha's Vineyard, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort.   Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President.  Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi.  Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

Nouri, the man who brought the Iraq government to a standstill in 2010 when he refused to step down as prime minister after losing the election to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, began acting strangely -- even for him -- last week though most only noticed his strangeness last night.

Nouri had a tantrum yesterday when the President of Iraq, Fuad Masum, refused to name him prime minister.  As Loveday Morris (Washington Post) reported:

 
In actions that had all the markings of a political coup, Maliki gave a defiant late-night speech in Baghdad saying he would lodge a legal case against the country’s president, who has resisted naming him as the candidate for another term as prime minister.
Tanks rumbled onto major bridges and roads in the capital as security forces were put on high alert, with militiamen also patrolling Shiite neighborhoods. The special forces teams surrounding the Green Zone were taking orders directly from the prime minister, security officials said.



The Guardian quotes from a statement by US State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf:


The United States fully supports president Fuad Masum in his role as guarantor of the Iraqi constitution.  We reaffirm our support for a process to select a prime minister who can represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people by building a national consensus and governing in an inclusive manner. We reject any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process.


Also yesterday, the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:

Brett McGurk @brett_mcgurk  ·  6h

Fully support President of #Iraq Fuad Masum as guarantor of the Constitution and a PM nominee who can build a national consensus.

• Replied to 0 times
•  

Nouri's most recent crazy had included threatening that the "gates of hell" would open if he didn't receive a third term as prime minister, he bullied the President of Iraq to the point that Masum publicly stated he would not be bullied into naming a prime minister-designate.

So yesterday's stunt, his last minute crazy rambles on state television and his stationing forces around Baghdad appeared to be the last straw.  As Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explained, "Washington seems to be losing patience with Maliki, who has placed Shi'ite political loyalists in key positions in the army and military and drawn comparisons with executed former dictator Saddam Hussein, the man he plotted against from exile for years."

This morning, Lolita C. Baldor and Julie Pace (AP) reported that the White House  decided to send weapons directly to the Kurdistan Regional Government,  bypassing the central government of Baghdad.  This was about the loss of patience and trust with Nouri and all his crazy which has destroyed Iraq for years now.

Finally, the US government is walking away from him.

A White House friend asked what I was going to cover?  Meaning there's a Saturday remark by Barack (Ava and I covered it in "Media: Barack Lies, Cher Tweets and Martha Plays (Ava and C.I.)" on Sunday) that needs examination -- in that piece, it's also noted that Martha Radditz would be addressed here.  She will be -- tomorrow.  But the friend's concern was Barack.

As I said on the phone: Relax.

There will be time this week to talk about the history and everything else but right now I just want to be happy that the US government is no longer backing Thug Nouri.

The Iraqi people are strong.  But the fact that they have survived and can survive so much is no reason to inflict Nouri on them for a third term.


This evening, Barack declared:

Earlier today, Vice President Biden and I called Dr. Abadi to congratulate him and to urge him to form a new cabinet as quickly as possible -- one that’s inclusive of all Iraqis, and one that represents all Iraqis.  I pledged our support to him, as well as to President Masum and Speaker Jabouri, as they work together to form this government.  Meanwhile, I urge all Iraqi political leaders to work peacefully through the political process in the days ahead.
This new Iraqi leadership has a difficult task.  It has to regain the confidence of its citizens by governing inclusively and by taking steps to demonstrate its resolve.  The United States stands ready to support a government that addresses the needs and grievances of all Iraqi people.  We are also ready to work with other countries in the region to deal with the humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge in Iraq.  Mobilizing that support will be easier once this new government is in place.

These have been difficult days in Iraq -- a country that has faced so many challenges in its recent history.  And I’m sure that there will be difficult days ahead.  But just as the United States will remain vigilant against the threat posed to our people by ISIL, we stand ready to partner with Iraq in its fight against these terrorist forces.  Without question, that effort will be advanced if Iraqis continue to build on today’s progress, and come together to support a new and inclusive government.


Today was a hopeful day for Iraq.  I will offer praise for Barack for today:  It took courage to pull the support from Nouri.  I believe this will be seen as a transformative moment for Iraq and Barack's decision -- and, yes, action -- will be a key moment in not just the history of Iraq or the United States but in world history because Barack just pulled US government support for a despot and a tyrant.

Historically, when a US president -- or any world leader -- does that, it's only after a near universal cry around the globe.

With Iraq, the cries came from the Arab world, from a few NGOs, certainly from Human Rights Watch but that's really it.  In terms of non-Arabic press?

Ned Parker deserves huge praise.  Tim Aragno is someone I have no problem applauding.  Liz Sly deserves applause (and it's a shame she's covering Syria right now -- Loveday Morris has not anything bad but I'm just not seeing applause for her).  I'll even give Dexter Filkins a round of applause for his late-in-life turn around.  (Yes, I have so much joy I can even give Dexter a round of applause.)  I'll applaud Dahr Jamail, of course. But in terms of reporting, that's really about it.

If you include editorial boards, I think you have to praise the New York Times and The Economist. I'm long picturing on this -- I say that because I haven't read an opinion piece in the Times in probably two weeks.  But those two editorial boards were not afraid to call out Nouri.  It's a shame so many others were silent.


Worse than silent?  How about the enablers who lied for Nouri?  I'll boo and hiss Jane Araf, McClatchy Newspapers (their Iraqi staff always knew Nouri's number, it was just the American staff that was so very eager to spin), the radio yokel Scott Horton who loved him some Nouri, the woman at WSWS who never should have been allowed to write about Iraq and those pieces are as embarrassing as Horton's radio broadcasts, and so many more.

So many.

So Barack doing what he did was big.

It happened before a tidal wave of global outrage forced it.

Nouri's ordered the targeting of Iraq's LGBTQ community, he's had protesters targeted, he's targeted journalists for torture, his Cabinet pushed the notion that 'women' should have the 'right' to marry at 9-years-old and younger, he's bombed the civilians in Falluja for 8 months now . . .  His rap sheet is lengthy.

But the Jane Arrafs of the press ensured that, for example, the world wouldn't know about the rape of Iraqi women and girls in Nouri's prisons -- established prisons and secret ones.

If the world had paid attention to this and so much more, detractors might be able to say, "Well, the public forced Barack to break with Nouri."

But that's not what happened.  Barack could have continued his and the US government's policy of backing Nouri.

It's too his credit that he didn't.

It's a rare example of the US government walking away from a tyrant before global outrages forces them to do so.

So, yes, I will offer Barack praise for his decision and action with regards to Nouri.

And, by the way, tomorrow's snapshot, it will call Barack out for various things.  It will also defend him from Hillary Clinton's stupidity.

I have no problem with Hillary breaking from Barack (Al Gore had his break from Bill when he ran for president in 2000), it doesn't shock me, it doesn't appall me.  But if you're going to break on something, break smartly.  Hillary's as idiotic in her remarks to The Atlantic as Martha Raddats was on This Week Sunday.

So it's a new day for Iraq.

Which means Hadier al-Abadi is a saint and . . .

No.

He's not.

He's as flawed as anyone else.

He could, if he can form a Cabinet, end up as one of Iraq's best leaders or as another Nouri.

That'll be up to him.

But he is a reset, he is a chance to start over.  He can be a break with the past and a bridge to an Iraq for all Iraqis.

He'll probably fall somewhere in between saint and sinner -- as most of us do.

But hopefully he will not be another Nouri.

And hopefully the Iraqi people will be able to dream and hope again of a country that is their own -- free of invading forces, to be sure, but also free from 'leaders' who betray the Iraqi people.

A strong public works program could finally improve Iraq's faltering and failing infrastructure, could create jobs (which the country sorely needs and which can also put people into the paid workforce vesting them into the society), could do so much.

There are so many things that could be done and right now Iraq can hope that al-Abadi will be a leader very much for the people of Iraq, for all the people of Iraq, one who can move the country forward and let go of the vengeance and hatred that led Nouri to see the position as a way to settle old scores.

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

The MP, of the Watania coalition, Maysoon al-Damluji said the outgoing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki cannot stick to power again, but he will hinder the formation of the government.
She said in a statement to the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / "Maliki is rejected by the other political blocs and even from within the state of law, so he could not cling to power again."
Damluji added, "Maliki has failed in the political, security and economic files, so he has to step down and make way for the most efficient and best suited to manage these files." 


Maysoon al-Damluji is a prominent Iraqi politician and one of the few women with a national platform -- another would be MP Susan Said.

As the spokesperson for Iraqiya, al-Damluji regularly challenged Nouri publicly and demonstrated that Iraqi women are part of the political process -- so does Susan Said who comes from a different political perspective than does al-Damluji.

Like Senator Patty Murray and Senator Kelly Ayotte in the US, the two women have different constituencies and that's a good thing because it demonstrates and underscores "Iraqi women are strong" -- not just "Iraqi women who agree with me are strong."  Like Murray and Ayotte, they're two potential role models that blaze trails for the future.

And good for al-Damluji for speaking up again.


The Prime Minister of Iraq needs to be someone who loves the country and loves the people and wants to provide opportunities for all.





AFP reports, "Abadi is a low-key figure who spent time in Britain. Educated at the University of Manchester, Abadi served as the head of parliament's finance committee, a political adviser to the prime minister and minister of communications. His Facebook biography says his favourite quotation is 'the key to leadership is tolerance'."

At today's State Dept press briefing in DC, spokesperson Marie Harf outlined where things stood now with regards to al-Abadi.


QUESTION: By your statement, do I understand that the United States is recognizing Dr. Abadi as the --


MS. HARF: Nominee.


QUESTION: -- the nominee, or do you think he is going to be the next prime minister?


MS. HARF: Well, he’s the prime – prime minister-designate, excuse me. There’s a – Prime Minister Maliki is still the prime minister, as of right now. He is still legally the prime minister. I know there’s a lot of confusion about this. The President charged the prime minister nominee to form a new cabinet. The nominee now has 30 days to present a new government and national program to parliament for approval that will address the needs and aspirations of all of Iraq’s diverse communities. So there’s still a process here, but this is an important step in the process, one that we absolutely welcome.


QUESTION: So what would hold up Dr. Abadi from becoming the fully recognized prime minister at this point?


MS. HARF: Well, he now has 30 days to present a new government. There’s a process, an internal Iraqi process there.


QUESTION: Okay. Does the United States believe that the Iraqi National Alliance has the authority to nominate Dr. Abadi even though the Dawa party has not?


MS. HARF: Well, without going too deep in the weeds of Iraqi constitutional politics --


QUESTION: But it’s so fun.


MS. HARF: Isn’t it though? We can leave that up to them to talk about. But in general, look, the Shia bloc nominated Dr. Abadi, a bloc that includes Prime Minister Maliki’s party. There was overwhelming support for Dr. Abadi. We think this is part of the process as it has played out under the constitution. I don’t have any reason to believe otherwise.



While so many look to the future, Nouri -- as usual -- clings to the bitter past.  NINA reports:


Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki accused on Monday the United States of supporting those who breach the Constitution in naming the biggest bloc and its candidate to head the next government
He said in his speech this evening that "the United States revealed its support for those who breach the constitution, and it is the first democratic state is supposed to be supportive tothe Constitution and abide by it. 


Poor, insane Nouri.

Well it's hard to hide from
Eyes that are all over you
That only some
Make you lose your composure

"Well it's hard on my heart"
Said, "Well open your eyes"
"It gets harder every day"
Said, "I need to know now"


 Soon you will be gone
Take your violet and blue mornings with you
-- "Violet and Blue," written by Stevie Nicks who first recorded it for the Against All Odds soundtrack.

Yes, Nouri, take your violet and blue mornings with you.

Tim Arango, Alissa J. Rubin and Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) report:

Secretary of State John Kerry, in Australia, warned that Mr. Maliki must back the constitutional process and not attempt to circumvent it by using his powers as commander in chief to stay in office. He said that any extralegal effort to cling to power would bring a cutoff of international aid.

“There should be no use of force,” Mr. Kerry said in remarks to reporters in Sydney, where he was meeting with government leaders, “no introduction of troops or militias into this moment of democracy for Iraq.”

What Nouri does next is yet again the question on many minds.  Yochi Dreazen and John Hudson (Foreign Policy) survey a number of people including Douglas Ollivant:


Douglas Ollivant, who formerly served as the top Iraqi policy official on the National Security Council, said there was "very little" the United States could do to push Maliki out of power, but said he didn't think the Iraqi leader would resort to violence to stay in office.
"I really think its all done but the shouting," Ollivant said. "He's going to talk tough and play out his last legal card, but he doesn't want to be an international pariah. If we pull away, his only friends would be Iran and Syria, and even Maliki doesn't want that." 



We'll close with more from the State Dept press briefing today:


QUESTION: Has any senior U.S. official in the last 24 hours spoken to Prime Minister Maliki?

MS. HARF: I can check. I don’t know the answer to that.


QUESTION: Okay.


QUESTION: Vice President Biden.


MS. HARF: To Prime Minister Maliki?


QUESTION: Yeah.


MS. HARF: Okay. I can --


QUESTION: Not Maliki. To – sorry.


QUESTION: No. I’m asking about Maliki.


MS. HARF: Right. She’s asking about Maliki. But thank you for trying to help me out though. I’ll check on Prime Minister Maliki. I don’t know the answer to that.


QUESTION: Okay. I wonder if there’s any intent to at this point.


MS. HARF: I can check.


QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.


QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: Could I just phrase it a different way?


MS. HARF: Uh-huh.


QUESTION: What do you consider Prime Minister Maliki now? You say he’s still the prime minister, but --

MS. HARF: He’s still the prime minister legally under the Iraqi constitution.


QUESTION: But do you consider him a lame duck? Do you consider him on his way out? Do you consider him still a person you would work with?


MS. HARF: Well, certainly we will continue working and engaging with him given that he’s still the prime minister of Iraq, absolutely. And Iraq is facing a very dire situation right now. But we’ve said that in order for Iraq to better confront ISIL going forward, they need an inclusive government in place as soon as possible. There’s a process for that government to be in place, and what you saw today was just another step in that process.


QUESTION: Would you say he has a mandate democratically to still make decisions?


MS. HARF: Prime Minister Maliki?


QUESTION: Maliki.


MS. HARF: He’s still the prime minister legally under the constitution.


QUESTION: Marie --


QUESTION: So Marie --


MS. HARF: Yeah, Said, then we’ll go around.


QUESTION: Marie, what is happening now? You probably addressed this before I came. I’m sorry I was late.


MS. HARF: That’s okay.


QUESTION: Now that he’s deploying tanks and security forces and so on, you don’t think that’s in a way some sort of a coup?


MS. HARF: Well, how can it be a coup if he’s still the prime minister? That seems a strange word to use.


QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s deploying --


MS. HARF: But he’s still the prime minister.


QUESTION: He’s still the prime minister but he’s --


MS. HARF: So by definition, coup would not be --


QUESTION: Yeah, but he’s --


QUESTION: He’s protecting against a coup, no?


QUESTION: He’s using these forces to consolidate his power and sort of disenfranchise others.


MS. HARF: I think that’s making a number of assumptions about Prime Minister Maliki’s intentions. I don’t want to speak for him. I would note (a) that there’s a huge security threat right now from ISIL even in Baghdad, so (a); but (b), look, there’s a process in place here. Prime Minister Maliki’s party, which is part of this bloc, nominated someone new to be prime minister.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: And it’s the Iraqi people speaking up and choosing their own future. So let’s – we’re watching the situation on the ground, but there’s been no, in our view, discernible change in the security picture in terms of the kind of resources you’re talking about him deploying.


QUESTION: Okay. So are you supporting Haider al-Abadi as a prime minister? Is he someone that is known to you?


MS. HARF: Vice President Biden spoke with him today.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: Congratulated him on his nomination and called to – call on him for very quickly, as soon as possible, to form a new government and develop a national program. The prime minister-designate expressed his intent to move expeditiously to do so, and the Vice President and he had a conversation today. Obviously, we support the process. We have never supported any one person or one party here.


QUESTION: Okay. But you know the fact that the Vice President spoke to him, that’s like a ringing endorsement, isn’t it?


MS. HARF: Well, it’s not about who we speak to on the phone. It’s about who the Iraqis choose through their process, which they’ve done today, to be their next prime minister. That’s how this gets chosen here.







iraq
the washington post
loveday morris
associated press
lolita c. baldor
julie pace
the new york times
tim arango
alissa j. rubin
michael r. gordon

Extant (Molly loses her friend)

Halle Berry's "Extant" airs Wednesday nights on CBS.

We missed blogging about an episode.  We're not going back -- we were on vacation -- but we're all blogging about this week's episode.

In the episode we didn't cover (which I did cheat and stream at CBS online), the basic point was that the shadow corporation out to get Molly used Ethan (her robot child) to lure her out of her father's home and then they removed the fetus from her belly.

Now the doctors say she's not pregnant and the ones who saw her before insist she never was.

Before the shadow group grabbed her, Molly was bitten by a dog and got blood all over her clothes.  She gets her father to send her those and she analyzes it to prove that, yes, she was pregnant.

This is important because they're trying to make Molly think she's crazy.

She's part of some experiment the shadow corporation is executing.  That's how she ended up pregnant in space despite being on a solo mission.

Sam, her friend, was helping her.

No more.

Sam didn't turn on her.

But they threatened Sam.

Which, Sam being Sam, didn't mean a thing and she basically told them to bring it.

But then they explained they would not harm her, they would go after her brother.

That's when Sam caved.

So when John and Molly were told Molly wasn't pregnant by the doctors and had never been pregnant, they went to Sam.

Instead of agreeing (Sam is Molly's best friend and Molly's doctor and was the one who had told Molly about the pregnancy following some tests), Sam asked them what Molly was talking about?

She insisted Molly had never been pregnant.

Molly grabbed a paper tablet and wrote down "are they listening?"

And Sam responded, "Is who listening?"

She asked Molly what she was talking about?

Molly left telling Sam she didn't know what they had on her (Sam) to make her lie but it better be good.

Via blood from before the fetus was removed, Molly was able to prove to herself and to John that she had been pregnant.

We, the viewers, saw the fetus and were told it's a boy -- the shadow corporation has it.

So what I'm trying to figure out is whether this is some sort of race to populate the earth?

There's clearly some danger or menace -- real or inflated -- motivating the shadow corporation.  I just don't know what it is.
 



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Friday, August 8, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack bombs Iraq, he comes to the decision after Riding In Cars With Boys, no strategy is apparent to his so-called plan so he dusts off Vietnam justications, and much more.


Speaking at the US State Dept today, spokesperson Marie Harf declared, "As you saw this morning, the Defense Department put out a statement that at approximately 6:45 a.m. the U.S. military conducted a targeted airstrike against ISIL terrorists with two F/A-18 aircraft dropping 500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery piece near Erbil that ISIL was using to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, where, of course, U.S. personnel are located. As the President has made clear, the U.S. military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel or facilities."

Last night, US President Barack Obama announced he would be authorizing air strikes on Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Less than 12 hours after he finished speaking, the United States had already struck twice and a third bombing run was just a few hours away. The quick series of airstrikes raised fears among some of mission creep _ a term coined during the Vietnam War to describe a growing commitment of men and materiel after initial steps failed to produce the desired result."


US House Rep Barbara Lee is one who has noted mission creep.  Her office released this statement today:

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Lee issued this statement upon receiving news of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq:
“I support strictly humanitarian efforts to prevent genocide in Iraq.
While the President has existing authority to protect American diplomatic personnel,  I remain concerned about U.S. mission creep in Iraq and escalation into a larger conflict, which I oppose.
There is no military solution in Iraq. Any lasting solution must be political and respect the rights of all Iraqis.
I am pleased President Obama recognized this in his statement last night, when he said: ‘there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.  The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.’
I will continue to call for the President to seek congressional authorization before any combat operations. For too long, Congress has abdicated its Constitutional role in matters of war and peace. The President should come to Congress for authorization of any further military action in Iraq.”
###


When's he going to come before Congress?

Next week?

Are they holding Congressional sessions on Martha's Vineyard because Barack's embarking on a two week vacation.

Last night he declared:

Today I authorized two operations in Iraq -- targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.  Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why.    

First, I said in June -- as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq -- that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it.  In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces. 

To stop the advance on Erbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city.  We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad.  We’re also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL.

Second, at the request of the Iraqi government -- we’ve begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain.  As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis.  And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect.  Countless Iraqis have been displaced.  And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yezidi women. 

In recent days, Yezidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives.  And thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs.  They’re without food, they’re without water.  People are starving.  And children are dying of thirst.  Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yezidi people, which would constitute genocide.  So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice:  descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger.

I’ve said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world.  So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now.  When we face a situation like we do on that mountain -- with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help -- in this case, a request from the Iraqi government -- and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye.  We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide.  That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.

I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there.  Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive.  Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.”  Well today, America is coming to help.  We’re also consulting with other countries -- and the United Nations -- who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis. 

Late last night, he declared that and more.  Kicking it off with the statement that he made his decision "today."  But he didn't inform Congress of it until Friday (today).

When did he make his decision?  Margaret Talev (Bloomberg News) reports he made his decision "[d]uring a five-minute limo ride back to the White House from the State Department with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey" in which "Obama's fears were confirmed."  AP also notes Barack's Riding In Cars With Boys moment which they say took place Wednesday.  BBC News' Jonathan Marcus offers, "Analysts say the relentless advance of IS fighters, together with the continuing failure of Iraqi politicians to agree on a new government, after an inconclusive election in April, may have swayed Mr Obama into deciding to act now."

Another hypothesis is offered by BBC News' Paul Danahar.  Friday morning on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane asked him about the strikes.

REHM: Paul Danahar, President Obama authorized the airstrikes against Iraq to begin this morning. What was his rationale? 

DANAHAR: Well, I think we can guess that finally, he's found a conflict that he thinks is fairly localized, has a clear objective, and will stop him getting so much flack for not doing any of the things he's always talked about, which is having a high moral value in America that will stop bad things happening around the world. When there is an American interest, and there is an American interest in this, because there are American personnel in Erbil. 

REHM: How many? 

DANAHAR: Around about 40 we think. So, that's a good reason to intervene. And we do have what may literally be a genocide of these people, these Yezidis, because they are a very small group of people, between 70,000, maybe a couple hundred thousand. And they're all pretty much located in one place in Iraq, so if they were taken over by ISIS. And ISIS considers them to be devil worshippers. They would wipe them out, so this is an intervention that I think Obama is probably comfortable with, because he can see a beginning and an end. 

40?  Did he mispeak?

The number issue was raised at the Friday press briefing.


QUESTION: I’ll go back to the humanitarian situation --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- in a second. But first, just a couple of quick questions. How many American citizens are at the consulate in Erbil, absent the military presence right now?

MS. HARF: So we don’t give exact numbers. Let me just give a quick update. I know there are a lot of questions about the status of our consulate there. It is operating normally. There’s been no change to the current status of our consulate. We continue to monitor the security situation and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the risk to our colleagues. Obviously, we do this on a continuing basis. We don’t comment on specific numbers, are always reviewing staffing levels in light of the security posture. But I would note that the – one of the reasons, obviously, not just to protect Erbil but that we want to keep our people there is so they can keep working in this joint operation center to help the Iraqis fight this threat. We don’t want to have to pull them out. We’re constantly reevaluating the security.

QUESTION: I understand the reluctance to talk about specific numbers. I don’t need a specific number.

MS. HARF: It’s not a reluctance. We just never do it, as you know.

QUESTION: Well, we know there are about 5,000 people in the U.S. mission in Iraq right now. The vast majority of them are in Baghdad. So can you give some kind of – for example, I’ve been told somewhere between two to three hundred are in --

MS. HARF: I’m just not going to give any number ranges for security reasons. I understand the desire to have them. We do have a large presence still in Baghdad as well. You are correct on that.

Really, Marie?

When did it become classified?

This week?

I was at a Congressional hearing this summer where the State Dept official addressed the topic Marie claims must be kept secret.


Norwalk's The Hour has an online poll currently asking: "Do you support the latest airstrikes in Iraq?" The answers to choose from are yes, no and unsure.







The people don't support it.  And where is the Congress?

Does Barbara Lee have anything to offer other than words?  It's a question to ask.  But I won't slam her without offering this context:  She issued a statement that contained objections.

Where's our Socialist in the Senate Bernie Sanders?

Brave Bernie had nothing to say.

Not a statement, not even a Tweet.

Sami Ramadan (Stop the War UK and the Guardian) offers thoughts such as these, "It is sickening to see Obama and the Western media shedding crocodile tears for the Iraqi people, after the US-led occupation pulverised Iraq as a society and killed a million of its people. It is obscene to now suggest that the US will fight terrorism and protect the Iraqi people, when the rise of terrorism was the direct result of the US-led invasion of the country."

That's a bit of common sense in an otherwise mindless media.

Another bit of common sense popped up in today's State Dept briefing:



QUESTION: You said – first off, just to follow up on something you just said, you said that this strike comes as it would have whenever U.S. personnel are threatened. And I would just note that there have been attacks in Baghdad that are within hearing and feeling range of the U.S. Embassy there, and I wonder why this is happening now to protect personnel in Erbil, when U.S. personnel in Baghdad have been under threat for years.


MS. HARF: Well, first, what we’ve seen over the past several days really, but also several weeks, but really in the past several days is that there has been an ISIL fairly rapid advance towards Erbil. They’ve had access to heavy weapons. So basically, at this point, what we are trying to do is stop this advance, to give expedited support to the Iraqis as they fight this – obviously there’s a political process ongoing as well – also to provide humanitarian assistance.
And look, we’re focused on Erbil today because that’s where ISIL has been advancing. If – look, we have a very significant diplomatic presence in Baghdad, so, of course, the same principle would apply if we saw ISIL advances on Baghdad that would threaten our personnel as well. So obviously, it’s something we constantly monitor, but we’re focused on Erbil operationally right now.


QUESTION: But as you know, there have been ISIL bombings in Baghdad for years.


MS. HARF: There have been. But obviously, we look at the threat and look at the picture, and we saw here both a humanitarian situation where the U.S. military had unique capabilities to bring to bear that could be brought very quickly to bear in a very urgent crisis, and also a situation where you had ISIL advancing on Erbil, where, again, we have some military capabilities that we can use. I would also note that the Iraqis have been taking strikes of their own. We’ve been working in very close coordination with them out of our joint operation center at Erbil and the one in Baghdad as well.


Is there a plan here?  Is there a means to measure with?

Not really.


Japan Times quotes former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker stating,  "Two FA-18s dropping some 500-pound bombs on (militant) artillery is not going to turn the tide of this conflict. I don’t know what their strategy is."

The lack of strategy makes it all the more likely that US military involvement grows.

No, that it continues to grow.   The troops sent in the last few weeks have grown, the bombings are just another part of that growth.

Robert Burns and Lara Jakes (AP) insist it's a "strategy" and that it's containment.


Containment?

So it's back to the 'domino theory.'

That's reassuring, right?  That was used to justify so many misadventures -- including Vietnam.

While the State Dept doesn't think Baghdad's at risk, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr disagrees.  AFP reports:

One of Iraq's most influential Shiite clerics, Moqtada Sadr, claimed Friday that jihadists were poised to attack Baghdad and he vowed to send his men to defend the capital.
"There are terrorist groups that have completed their preparations for a breakthrough into Baghdad," the cleric said in a statement.
"We are ready to defend the city, we are ready to supply forces and coordinate with the authorities to face any scenario," said Sadr, who announced the creation of the Saraya al-Salam (Peace Brigades) group in the aftermath of the jihadist offensive that began in June.



 Turning to today's violence, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "It is impossible to know how many militants were killed in the U.S. airstrikes today; however, the Iraqi military claimed that over 800 militants were killed in a number of operations. Some of them may have involved U.S. forces. Only five people, civilians or security forces, were killed in other violence."  In addition, AFP reports Kurdish reporter Deniz Firat was killed by shrapnel in an attack in Makmur.



Last word goes to Senator Richard Blumenthal:

Friday, August 8, 2014

(Hartford, CT) – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) today released the following statement on military and humanitarian operations in Iraq: “I oppose open-ended military commitments, which the President’s actions in Iraq could become. Humanitarian relief is necessary to prevent genocide and provide food and water to meet an urgent emergency, but the President owes the American people a better, fuller explanation of the scope and strategy of military actions. I am deeply concerned that these actions could lead to prolonged direct military involvement, which I would strongly oppose. As a condition for any military aid in Iraq, I have said that there must be a new government that is inclusive and unifying. I continue to believe that the current situation in Iraq is a failure of Iraq’s leaders, who have used the security forces – with training and equipment we provided – for their own sectarian ends, rather than uniting their country. It is also a consequence of the failure of the international community to contain the ongoing civil war in Syria. I support the President’s diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.” Senator Blumenthal is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Press Contact

Contact: Josh Zembik (DC) - 202-224-6452
Josh_Zembik@blumenthal.senate.gov
Elizabeth Benton (CT) - 860-729-3589
Elizabeth_Benton@blumenthal.senate.gov

iraq

npr
the diane rehm show

mcclatchy newspapers

nancy a. youssef

bloomberg news
margaret talev
antiwar.com
margaret griffis

Worse than the websites gone . . .

are the ones who hung around.

Keesha made that point in the roundtable we did tonight for the gina & krista roundrobin.

It was in reply to my "When they close shop" and I agree with her.

I'm not using any of her examples from the roundtable, but here are a few of my own.

BuzzFlash.

Used to love Buzz.  Then came their love for all things Barack.  They whored throughout 2007 and 2008.

I used to visit that site constantly.

At work alone, I'd go to it five times a day.

But it whored out and I have no reason to put up with that nonsense.

Common Dreams.

This was a varied resource.  As a Democrat, reading it, I felt like it was inclusive to third parties.

Then came Ralph Nader's decision in 2008 to run and Cynthia McKinney's decision the same year.

It was very clear that there was no real effort to embrace, just a strong inclination to attempt to dictate who people vote for.

The other four I would name?  Keesha already did.  So I won't steal her thunder and you can be surprised when you read the roundrobin Friday morning.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills): 

Thursday, August 7, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Marie Harf fails to represent, Justin Raimondo gets a lecture after his tacky attitude towards the Yazidis, the US is involved in air drops of relief for the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar, and much more.

It was a rough day for State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf, she had to field questions on Iraq at today's State Dept press briefing (here for it in full -- and we've excerpted the Iraq section here).



QUESTION: ISIL seized this dam up in Mosul and I was wondering if you all could put that in perspective in terms of developments there. Also, what can you tell us about the Administration’s thoughts about how to help these trapped Iraqi civilians, these religious minorities that are kind of in trouble? There’s some discussion right now about humanitarian aid and whether or not that might include airstrikes or – what can you tell us about that?


MS. HARF: Well, I’ll start with the dam and then let’s go to the broader question. Obviously, the situation on the ground remains fluid, but the latest information is that ISIL has advanced on Mosul Dam and taken control of it. We are extremely concerned by this development. The dam is a vital part of Iraq’s infrastructure, as it controls water levels on the Tigris River. It is also a key source of water and electricity generation for the Iraqi people. So we’re closely coordinating with the Iraqis – with Iraqi officials in both Baghdad and Erbil to counter this development. But also writ large, I’d just say a few points. I know there’s a lot of interest out there on this today, a lot of questions and information floating around.  We are actively considering what we could do in support of Iraqi efforts – what more we could do – and particularly to provide additional support for the Yezidis, also the Christian communities we’ve talked about. Look, this is a huge humanitarian crisis. You have thousands and thousands of people at risk of death from starvation. We’re reviewing what more we can do. Obviously, we’ve talked a lot about this over the past few weeks. We’re working politically with the Iraqis on the government formation process. We’ve seen some progress, and hopefully we’ll see more. But we are right now actively considering what else we can do given the extremely grave humanitarian situation that we see on the ground. You’ve heard my colleague at the White House who I think just talked about this as well, so we’re looking at options.

I want to establish a point here so let's stay with the above and then move quickly through other sections on Iraq from today's briefing.



QUESTION: A few questions. Marie, on the question of the Yezidis, do we have any estimate of the – a number of people in peril?


MS. HARF: It’s a good question. I’m trying to get some information from our folks on that. We know it’s – there – I’ve seen reports of 15,000.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: I’ve seen a number of reports. I’m trying to get a little more clarity from our folks, and let me see if I can do that after the briefing. We do know it’s not just the Yezidis, though. It’s also these Christian communities. I mean, ISIL has come out and said they have a desire to kill people because of their sect or their ethnicity or their religion, and that they’ve been doing so. And so what we’ve seen on the ground is just really horrific, and that’s why right now, immediately, we are trying to find more ways to help.


QUESTION: And is – policy-wise, is stopping ethnic cleansing or is fear of potential ethnic cleansing a core national security interest of this Administration?


MS. HARF: I think you’ve seen throughout this Administration that when we have the ability to prevent humanitarian crises, or when we have the ability to help once there is a humanitarian crisis, ease the suffering of people through whatever means possible, right – we have a number of tools at our disposal – that has been a core principle for what guides our action. It’s certainly not the only one.

[. . .]


QUESTION: But ISIL could continue its advance. It could turn on the Yezidis; it could turn on the Christian minority.


MS. HARF: It already has.


QUESTION: It – yeah. Well, it could step it up.


MS. HARF: That’s true.


Marie Harf says IS is turning on Yazidis and Christians.  Does she say much else?

I really don't think this would fly under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or, for that matter, under Secretary of State Condi Rice.

If a group is being attacked, they need to be defended.

Did Marie issue a statement expressing outrage over the asaults?


In the entire press briefing, she used the term Yazidis only once and the only time she mentioned Christians was with the phrase "Christian communities" -- she used that phrase twice.

Given the chance to amplify outrage or register objection, a bored Marie takes a pass, mustering all the enthusiasm to decry religious intolerance as she'd offer deciding between roasted cherry and candy-shell red at her next manicure.

This is exactly how the administration has ended up with such a lousy reputation among many Christians, Jews and other groups.  The argument goes, a video on YouTube insults Muslims and Barack and others (including Hillary) are all over the media expressing dismay.  But Yazidis and Christians in Iraq are not targeted with videos, they're targeted with bullets, bombs, knifes, etc.  They're being killed not misentertained.

And where is the administration?

Why isn't Barack back on The View?  Why isn't he denouncing this religious persecution the same way he does a video on YouTube?

I don't disagree that Barack has many things to do on any day.  But if it's a question of too little time in his day, that's all the more reason that spokespeople like Marie Harf need to be strongly objecting.  (For those wondering why we're not quoting Josh Earnest, White House spokesperson, the White House needs to stop being so lazy and post text and video of today's press briefing.  They're lazy and embarrassing.  It's Thursday and their most recent posted briefing is from Tuesday.)

There is a cultural difference that is repeatedly ignored.  Most Americans have the attitude of get-over-it when a joke misfires or offends.  So the notion that you would apologize -- as a leader of the free world -- over some video posted to YouTube when you won't speak out loudly and condemn killing people for their religious beliefs?

I'm sorry, Barack chose to be president of the United States.  That does require you understand groups of people, not just your personal favorites.

And it is not shocking that some Christians in the US are dismayed by Barack's inability to address religious persecution -- especially when it is expressed in violence.

The gathering storm was finally spotted by the White House today.

Sky News reports, "A US official has said an 'effort has begun' to make humanitarian air drops over northern Iraq in the wake of ongoing jihadist offensive."  Benjamin Landy (MSNBC) adds, "The U.S. has been flying F-18 fighter jets, B-1 bombers and Predator drones over Iraq for several weeks on surveillance missions, which could be used as cover for the humanitarian mission or to protect the 40 U.S. personnel currently in Irbil."  David Jackson and Jim Michaels (USA Today) explain, "Iraqi aircraft have attempted to air drop supplies to the Yazidis but with limited success. Dropping supplies, particularly on a mountain top, is difficult as packages of food and water break open on impact. The U.S. Air Force has extensive experience with air dropping supplies, which they regularly do in the mountains of Afghanistan with accuracy."


You can credit Iraqis, Iraqi-Americans, CNN and Fox News (the only networks that took the issue seriously -- CBS Evening News did have a strong report -- one -- on the persecution), and even Samantha Power with the fact that the US is finally helping the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar by dropping aid -- they need water, food, blankets and much more.  Alison Meuse (NPR) notes, "Up to 40,000 members of the community are stranded on barren mountain cliffs and encircled by the Islamic State, the extremist group that's been advancing rapidly across Iraq this summer. Dozens of Yazidi children have already died of dehydration, according to UNICEF, and many more risk a similar fate."


Let's note Samantha Power's statement from earlier this week:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) recent attacks on Sinjar and Tal Afar in Ninewa province that have reportedly led to the displacement of tens of thousands of people, many from vulnerable minority communities, deepening Iraq’s already acute humanitarian crisis. ISIL’s reported abuse, kidnapping, torture and executions of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities and its systematic destruction of religious and cultural sites are appalling.
The United States supports the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga Forces working to defend these areas against ISIL. We urge all parties to the conflict to allow safe access to the United Nations and its partners so they can deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including to those Iraqi families reportedly encircled by ISIL on Mount Sinjar. The United States is committed to helping the people of Iraq as they confront the security and humanitarian challenges in their fight against ISIL. Iraq’s leaders must move swiftly to form a new, fully inclusive government that takes into account the rights, aspirations and legitimate concerns of all of Iraq’s communities. All Iraqis must come together to ensure that Iraq gets back on the path to a peaceful future and to prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity.

###

That is the strongest statement anyone in the administration made and it is the tone others should have been expressing.  I don't care for Samantha Power but if she does something right, I have no problem noting that and giving her credit.

Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) weighs in:

Now the War Party is trying the same stunt again, this time in – of all places! – Iraq. And it looks like they’ve succeeded, at least for the moment. Or maybe not: looks like the fog of war is already spreading and obscuring our view of facts on the ground. What we do know, however, is that the mysterious group known as ISIS (Islamic State in al-Sham/Syria), having invaded Iraq and taken great swathes of the country under its control, is now threatening the Yazidis, an obscure religious sect in the northern provinces that practices an exotic mix of Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism.
Yes, folks, it’s another "humanitarian disaster" staring us in the face – and, we’re being told, we have little choice but to go in and save the day. Whether or not President Obama – who was reported to be "considering" air strikes – decides to go all in, we’ve already sent in hundreds of Special Forces to "advise" the nearly nonexistent Iraqi army we spent billions arming and training. The military infrastructure is there, ready and waiting.
So what should we do to help Iraq stave off an invasion by ISIS, which is now holding some 40,000 Yazidis in the northern part of the country?

The answer is: nothing. Not every problem has a solution. Not every mistake – in this case the mistake of invading Iraq in the first place – can be rectified.


I don't get it.  We can all be a little bitchy -- me more so than many -- but why would you belittle people under attack?  "Obscure"?  What is the purpose of that?  To say their lives might have more value if they were "obvious" (to use but one antonym for obscure)?

Antiwar.com does much good and the country is lucky the website exists but sometimes Justin can be a little cruel to the victims when he should be punching up (aiming at officials and rulers).

As for what the US should do?  They should oversee airdrops of aid.

Should they provide ground forces?

I say no.

I also say no to the US providing bombings -- which they're doing now.

But that's a debate that needs to take place and (a) enough people aren't paying attention and (b) when Justin gets bitchy about the victims of violence, he makes it very difficult to rally support to his side.  There are some who, reading the remarks, will think, "Well I don't mock people who are being killed so I must be for a re-invasion."

And, honestly, that's what it can come down to in a national discussion.

Maybe some feel there's no need for such a discussion?  After all, CBS News and AP report, "Even as the White House weighed potential military options, [Joshua] Earnest said Obama would stand by his pledge to not put U.S. combat troops back on the ground in Iraq.  'There are no American military solutions to the problems in Iraq,' he said. "

So some may avoid the discussion for that reason.  But Josh Earnest didn't say one word about air strikes -- Barack's preferred method of attack as evidenced by The Drone War as well as his assault on Libya.

And there are reports that air strikes have already started. Marina Koren, Kaveh Waddell and Matt Berman (National Journal) report:

A New York Times report, which cited Kurdish officials, said American military forces launched airstrikes on at least two targets from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) on Thursday night. The Pentagon denied any such action.
Now, CNN reports that U.S. forces have begun dropping humanitarian aid by air over northwestern Iraq, where tens of thousands of the country's religious minorities are stranded. U.S. officials tell NBC News that U.S. aircraft are standing by and ready to launch airstrikes to defend refugees and American resources. ISIS targets of these airstrikes, they say, are "lined up," and U.S. forces have their "fingers on the trigger."

Other reports suggest that the airstrikes reported by the Times may have come from the Iraqi air force.


Eric Pfeiffer (Yahoo News) notes, "Minutes after several reports surfaced that the U.S. had conducted airstrikes in Iraq against Islamic State forces, the Pentagon denied the story.  A spokesman for the Kurdish armed forces said that U.S. aircraft had bombed two targets in Northern Iraq."

So bombings (by the US) may or may not have started.  The discussion starts when?

US House Rep Frank Wolf's office issued the following today:

     Aug 7, 2014

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today asked President Obama if the Atrocities Prevention Board he created in 2012 has been convened to discuss the genocide taking place in Iraq.
In a pointed letter to the president, Wolf reminded him of the speech he gave at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial where he said the Atrocities Prevention Board would make the deterrence of genocide and mass atrocities “a core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”
Over the last two weeks, Wolf has spoken on the House floor, issued statements and written letters to the president in an effort to raise awareness about the atrocities taking place in Iraq.  He also has been openly critical of the Obama Administration’s failure to speak out about the systematic targeting of Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq for extinction.
“It is now clear to the nation and the world that your words were hollow; your ‘presidential directive’ apparently was nothing more than a token gesture,” Wolf wrote.  “You will come to sincerely regret your failure to take action to stop the genocide in Iraq.  Your conscience will haunt you long after you leave office.  Mr. President, say something; do something.” 
Below is the complete text of Wolf’s letter:
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
The President
The White House
Washington DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In 2012, during an address at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, you announced the convening of the Atrocities Prevention Board, led by the White House, which would make the deterrence of genocide and mass atrocities “a core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”  You also stated “We're making sure that the United States government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities.”  Throughout your speech, you repeatedly said "never again" would the world allow mass atrocities to occur.  
Tragically, mass atrocities are happening again today – and on your watch.  Genocide is taking place today in northern Iraq, where the Christian and Yezidi populations are being exterminated by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  There is no question that systematic and targeted brutality is occurring.  Yet, as I said on the House floor last week, the silence from you and your administration is deafening. Why have you not spoken up, and why has the Atrocities Prevention Board not taken action?  Just today, the editorial page of The Washington Post described your administration's response to this emergency as “listless.” 
Over the weekend, approximately 200,000 Yezidis were forced to flee their homes.  Your own administration has reported that anywhere from 35,000 to 60,000 of these Yezidis took refuge in the Sinjar Mountains without any protection from the elements and little access to food and water.  Children and the elderly are dying of thirst, families are being separated and women and young girls are being raped and sold into slavery.
As I wrote in my letter to you earlier this week, ISIS has systematically destroyed and looted churches, monasteries, mosques and other significant historic landmarks, including Jonah's tomb.  The homes of Christians and other religious minorities have been marked with spray paint to target those who live there.  Families have been force to flee, often on foot, with nothing but literally the shirts on their backs.
We cannot pretend these atrocities aren’t taking place; there are now videos on the Internet being promoted by those sympathetic to ISIS proudly displaying their brutal and grotesque slaughter and abuse of Christians, Yezidis and other religious minorities in Iraq. 
Your administration is aware of what is going on, yet you are doing nothing.  Just what is the point of having an “Atrocities Prevention Board” if it takes no action to prevent or stop atrocities?  When was the last time this board has met?  Has the board even been convened to address the genocide taking place in Iraq? 
Much like President Clinton has deeply regretted his failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, I believe you will come to regret your inaction for years to come.  
I want to remind you of one other thing you said at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2012: 
“And finally, 'never again' is a challenge to nations.  It’s a bitter truth -- too often, the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale.  And we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save. 
 “Three years ago today, I joined many of you for a ceremony of remembrance at the U.S. Capitol.  And I said that we had to do 'everything we can to prevent and end atrocities.'  And so I want to report back to some of you today to let you know that as President I’ve done my utmost to back up those words with deeds.  Last year, in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge, I made it clear that 'preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.
“That does not mean that we intervene militarily every time there's an injustice in the world.  We cannot and should not.  It does mean we possess many tools – diplomatic and political, and economic and financial, and intelligence and law enforcement and our moral suasion –  and using these tools over the past three years, I believe –  I know – that we have saved countless lives.”    
It is now clear to the nation and the world that your words were hollow; your “presidential directive” apparently was nothing more than a token gesture.  You will come to sincerely regret your failure to take action to stop the genocide in Iraq.  Your conscience will haunt you long after you leave office.  Mr. President, say something; do something. 
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress

Wolf cares about the situation and has addressed it repeatedly.  So I won't mock him.  But I don't see what good is accomplished by the US government sending troops in or bombing.

If troops are sent in -- I'm opposed -- I would hope a discussion would have taken place and it would have outlined (a) what counts as success, (b) what's the end-point and (c) what prompts the US to leave early.  The last one means, for example, if the Iraqi government is not meeting its goals, the US military is not there to protect it.

That's why I don't see the point in sending troops in.

Is someone, some country, going to hold the Nouri's hand forever?

What's going on right now is a reaction to Nouri al-Maliki.

Justin Raimondo works his grudge f**k against John McCain and blames the senator.  Really, Justin, that bitchy you think you're doing so well?  It's not working.  And if I were a Libertarian (I'm not, I'm a liberal) so touchy about charges of 'isolationist,' I think I'd work harder at not coming off so damn bitchy and unfeeling.  That really feeds into the negative image of Libertarians that the GOP tries to hang on them.

Nouri is the cause.

If US troops had stayed in Iraq in large numbers, today's violence might be less (it might not be). But that just means the US military would again be used to fight Nouri's battles for him.

He can't stay in power without the help of other countries' armed forces.

That is the point of today and it should be the part of any discussion about the possibility of US troops going back into Iraq -- more US troops going back into Iraq.

Nouri could have fashioned the government he promised to in 2010 -- a power-sharing government.
He could have been the leader of all the Iraqi people.

Barack gets a little bitchy -- speaking of bitchy -- when it comes to Republicans forgetting that he's not President of Democratic America, he's President of all of America.  He should be a little more respectful of Republicans -- being in the fray constantly is really the job for Harry Reid and people like that.

But even at his bitchiest, Barack hasn't spewed hatred at any Americans.

Nouri spews hatred non-stop -- at Sunnis, at Kurds, at everyone who isn't State of Law.

He's called so many people "terrorists" and done so so often that the word has no meaning.

And the US-installed leader refused to lead in a fair manner.  He punished Sunnis, he put Shi'ite militias on the payroll -- and did so before last month --  though McClatchy Newspapers apparently missed Tim Arango (New York Times) breaking that story back in September of last year.

He targeted the Kurds, he targeted women, he targeted the LGBT community and so much more.


And the Iraqi people tried to send him packing in 2010.  But suddenly the votes didn't matter.  The US brokered the power sharing agreement and then refused to insist Nouri honor it.  It was left to the Kurdish leaders, Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya and cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr to publicly demand that Nouri follow it -- which they did in the summer of 2011.  And he blew them off.  So they eventually announced that if he did not implement The Erbil Agreement, they would take a vote in Parliament and Nouri might lose his post via a vote of no confidence.  They did everything the Constitution dictated for such a vote.

Then fat ass Jalal Talabani mistook the petition for a pizza and chowed down on it.

No, no, no.  Jalal just created powers for himself and refused to introduce the petition into Parliament.  That was his job, per the Constitution.  It was a formality, a bit of ceremony.  And he refused to do it.

Months after this, for the second time in Nouri's second term, massive protests took place around Iraq.

We said it, we warned about it.

You deny people their votes.  You deny them their leaders.  When you've destroyed every institution that might speak to and for the people, what is left?

Violence.

That's all that's left.

When you've voted, when you've followed the law (the attempt at a no-confidence vote), when you've protested and nothing improves -- the only change is Nouri gets more open about killing people -- such as with Hawija massacre in April of 2013 -- what resource do you have left?

Violence.

Justin Raimondo can babble away about John McCain.  It's pure stupidity and a waste of time but maybe that's what Justin wants to do.

We've covered Iraq every damn day here.  Justin hasn't.  Even if you count Antiwar.com, they haven't covered it every day since the drawdown of US forces in December of 2011. If you consider yokel Scott Horton part of Antiwar.com (he hosts Antiwar Radio), then, in fact, Antiwar.com spent a lot of time praising Nouri al-Maliki in the last four years.

So maybe Justin has a learning bloc?

I don't know.  But I know I don't like John McCain -- I always feel bad for Cindy when I dictate or write that -- and that I've called him out when I felt it was needed and I've given credit when I felt it was needed.  I don't get Justin's hatred for McCain.

But I don't get any of his hatred right now.

Does he not get that what's taking place in Iraq is the most valid argument for sending US troops in -- the most valid argument of the last 30 or so years?

It's more valid than mythical WMD or  'babies tossed from incubators!' or any such nonsense.


Justin doesn't believe this is something the US should send forces into Iraq over.

Okay, can he make that point in a grown up manner?

This is the nonsens that the balding Bill Maher pulls (Bill's hit that age where every year he looks more and more like a woman).  And some on my side (the left) eat it up.  Oh, we love to eat up hating the other.

But Justin's supposedly antiwar -- Bill's not.

If he's antiwar, he needs to ask himself, "Does anyone take me seriously when I say we shouldn't go into Iraq to protect religious minorities -- do they take me seriously if I mock the religious minorities?"

No, they don't.

You're mocking victims.

No one's taking you seriously.

A few God haters out there are probably applauding Justin's latest attack on religion and gods.  But outside of those people?

No.

Justin has so much potential power and he abuses it so often.

Do most people want to see people killed for their religious beliefs?

No.

So the fact that Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq are being threatened with death is an appeal for something to be done.

When an antiwar voice like Justin thinks belittling the targeted is funny, he just walls himself off from people searching for a position on whether or not to send US troops into Iraq.

Nouri is the problem.

A friend at the White House swears Barack gets this.  Said to note that.  Said noting it might get people -- including Barack -- publicly speaking about this.

If Nouri is the problem -- and he is -- then the answer is not US troops into Iraq.

There's a fight taking place and it's taking place because of Nouri's actions.

People are being hurt as a result.

That's very sad.

But if US troops go in to protect Nouri's government, nothing is fixed.

The day of reckoning just gets pushed back.

Unless the US intends to keep troops in Iraq forever.

Supposedly, Barack is resisting sending more US troops into Iraq right now (I think he's already sent too many) because he gets that a protected (by the US military) Nouri only gets worse.  Supposedly, Barack genuinely thinks -- or at least hopes -- that Nouri will get the message: Step down to save Iraq.

I don't think Nouri will get that message.

But Barack apparently does and he's delaying on 'more' -- however that's defined -- because he knows Iraq doesn't get better under Nouri.

There is pressure within the White House for 'action' of a violent nature.

If mature people want to have a discussion on this issue, that's great.  But mature is not calling a people "obscure."  And the obvious response to that is that the people aren't "obscure" -- nor is their religion -- you're just too damn stupid and xenophobic to grasp that you are not the center of the world and you are not the means by which we grade every other person on the face of the planet.  In other words, get over your damn self.

And if that seems harsh, Justin Raimondo, I'm sorry.  But we don't need Medea Benjamin and her nonsense.  She's a fake and fraud.  Justin, you're someone who could speak and be believed and applauded.  But it's not going to happen when you're tossing jabs at a victimized people.

That's what Republican comedians never get.  They think they can make fun of the victimized and the downtrodden and are always surprised when an audience turns on them.

Justin's not a Republican or a comedian.  Supposedly, he wants to stop wars and I don't see how he gets to be part of the discussion when, at the big table, no one wants to sit by him because he's known for picking on people in need.

In fairness to Justin Raimondo, there are many people doing what's he's doing wrong.  Most of them aren't Libertarians, they're lefites.  And if I thought any of them had the hope of convincing even one person that the US shouldn't send more troops to Iraq, I'd have tailored the remarks above to them.  But they're worthless and they've made themselves so.  Justin hasn't whored himself out for a politician the way most of the left did when they were inducted into The Cult of St. Barack.

If you're wondering, no, there was no new prime minister of Iraq named today.


New topic, David Bacon's latest book is The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration  is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press).  This is from his photo essay "LIVING ON THE STREETS OF OAKLAND" (East Bay Express):




I live in a camp on the side of the freeway. I've been kicked around from camp to camp by Caltrans for years - my own personal diaspora. Many times I've had a camp full of feeble people, old people, people with dementia. Think of how hard it is to march everyone to a different camp, with all of their bedding and belongings in shopping carts. So I form an advance party, and clear out a space somewhere along the freeway. We all move in together, like a family. Sometimes we move back into the same camp, if the police aren't involved. Many homeless people do that.

Caltrans workers are very pragmatic about the whole thing. They understand there's homelessness, and they're hoping you'll cooperate. They usually give a warning, but I've had experiences of going back to camp and discovering everything missing, including the people. I have to search for them, and bring them to a safe haven somewhere. All my library books, suddenly gone, because Caltrans takes them.

There are different types of homeless people. Many homeless have personality disorders and find it very difficult to be around people or hold down jobs. They have no choice but to be on the streets, because they're ill-equipped to deal with the requirements of life. That should inspire mercy in us, and compassion.

Of course, there are people on the streets who got there because of drugs and alcohol. That is also something that should require compassion in us, because people don't always understand the consequences when they get involved. There are relatively few people who want to be on the streets. I know I don't want to. I'd rather be inside with a nice warm bed, a shower, a toilet, and everything else.






iraq
antiwar.com
justin raimondo
the new york times
tim arango
david bacon