Thursday, January 02, 2014

Nigella and Iraq

Community member Brady e-mailed me this from "People" magazine:

Nigella Lawson may have admitted to using drugs in the past, but she said that chocolate has been her substance of choice for getting through the stress of a fraud trial against two of her former personal assistants.
Since I wrote about my chocolate overdose earlier ("I was hung over"), he thought I might enjoy it.

Brady didn't ask about Nigella but I'll use it as my excuse to write about her.

Whatever she did in private -- drugs or whatever -- that's really not my business and I don't care.

I might feel different if I followed her but all I knew of her was the "30 Rock" episode where Liz wanted to be her.

Then, was it last month or November?, all the sudden she was everywhere as the press started publishing photos of her husband trying to strangle her while they were eating out.

I haven't confused my Brits, have I?

So I hope the chocolate helps Nigella. She's gone through a very public phase.

RTT reports, "2013 has been the deadliest year since 2008 in Iraq, according to casualty figures released by United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) on Thursday."

Barack's responsible.

The people of Iraq turned out in 2010 to vote. Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

That meant bye-bye Nouri.

But like a spoiled child, he dug his heels in and refused to step down.

And the White House backed him on it and then negotiated The Erbil Agreement to give him a second term the voters didn't want him to have.

Now the violence is on the increase.

And Nouri never nominated people to head the security ministries.

And the violence just got worse each year.

This is Barack and his puppet Nouri.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, January 2, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the New York Times played people for fools on Benghazi, today they rewrite history on Iraq, 'media watchdog' Greg Mitchell idiotically reTweets the Times, Nouri assaults Anbar, children are being killed, where did Iraq get fighter jets, and so very much more.

We're going to start with Benghazi. September 11, 2012, an attack in Benghazi left 4 Americans dead: Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens.

Sunday, the New York Times published David Kirkpatrick's garbage on the Benghazi attack. I heard in November, from a White House friend, that the Times was doing a major front page article on the attack to help improve Susan Rice's image. The White House designated Rice a press leaker in the first term and she remains that. She is one of those 'government officials' who is given anonymity to leak flattering details about the White House or to attack White House opponents.

The silly Bob Somerby applauded the article, he wasn't the only one to do so. I avoided the article thinking it would need a mention or two in the year-in-review. Then I read it when I started writing "2013: The Year of Exposure."

People who value journalism should not value this crap. Andrew Rosenthal wrote an idiotic defense of the article and attack on its critics. When the paper gets defensive, it's because they're caught lying.

Not caught by the people, they never give a damn about that. But Democrats and Republicans in Congress have pushed back. That's a bit of a surprise if you consider this is a week when people take time off.

So now the paper gets defensive.

In the year-in-review, I focused on the YouTube nonsense. In paragraph ten of the long, long article, Kirkpatrick claims that the video is connected to the attack.

Alright then. Walk us through it.

I believe he's given at least 7,200 words.

Few people will get 1,000 words to back up their point.

But Kirkpatrick can't back up his point. The closest he comes is telling you an Egyptian program broadcast a clip of the video then moves to a Libyan man who supposedly backs up that the program is watched in Libya -- apparently by those with satellite TV.

Here's the thing though. The Libyan man says they watch the Egyptian program on TV Fridays before morning prayers. Okay well there are problems with that claim but let's let it go forward. The article tells us that the Egyptian program aired the clip in the September 8th program. Since the attack was in September 2012, we're talking about September 8, 2012.

Here are the two paragraphs we're talking about.

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

I can't believe how gullible and complaint people are.

Did no one read this damn report?

It's too long, granted. But if you read it where was your brain?

September 8, 2012, one of the entries that went up here was "Nouri's criminal ways." What didn't go up? An Iraq snapshot. Why was that?

I don't do a snapshot on Saturdays.

The argument is the Egyptian program popularized the video and the program is watched in Libya Friday mornings before prayers and that Friday they watched the program, saw the clip, it incited rage. None of that is proven or even backed up. But worst of all, if the clip was broadcast September 8th, no one in Libya saw it on that Friday because that was Friday, September 7, 2012.

Not only did the readers -- if anyone did read it -- fail to use their critical thinking, but there was no fact check of this awful article.

This article -- in an earlier form -- was so bad that the paper didn't run it. In June, Kirkpatrick wrote a version of it.

You need to grow the hell up and grasp when you're being conned. An article that didn't qualify to the paper as "all the news that's fit to print" in June is printed at great length in December?

What changed?

The deal to rehabilitate Susan Rice's image.

You're being conned and you're being lied to and if that's okay with you, then cheer the stupid article, but if you've got a brain in your head, now's the time to use it.

The article's being pimped as proof of two things -- the YouTube video caused what happened and that al Qaeda was not involved.

Earlier today, Mike and I talked about the article for his "Benghazi." From that:

[Mike:] The other assertion is that al Qaeda was not involved.

C.I.: I don't believe the article proves who was involved but on al Qaeda, Kirkpatrick plays stupid. I'm sorry, I'm doing the Iraq snapshot every day but holidays and I see the way the western press covers Iraq. I have repeatedly noted that "al Qaeda" did not carry out this or that attack. Sometimes the press will allow "al Qaeda-linked." But I have repeatedly noted that the press needs to be precise in their reporting. Kirkpatrick attempts to pin the blame on a group -- I don't think he succeeds which doesn't mean the group's innocent, it means he didn't back up his claims -- but that group -- which is not al Qaeda -- has been reported in many outlets before -- including the New York Times -- as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked. To be clear, I don't know which group or groups carried out the attack. I don't claim to. But what I'm saying is Kirkpatrick's insisting it's group Z and group Z has often been said to be al Qaeda. It's not. Group Z is not. But that is true of many groups the press falsely dubs al Qaeda. I've frequently written about this at The Common Ills and repeatedly the press needs to be precise when they speak of these groups. Kirkpatrick can argue he is being precise to which I would reply I'm glad he's being precise and I hope everyone at the paper will be from the publication of his article forward.

Repeatedly here, I have called out various outlets that insist "al Qaeda in Iraq" or just "al Qaeda." They use it as a catch-all. Sometimes, with the same groups, if we've harped on it here enough, they'll go a week or two of saying "al Qaeda-linked" or "al Qaeda-affiliated."

Jonathan Karl (ABC News) quoted the CIA version of the events from an early draft:

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

Here's Karl again:

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia.

Now I'm real sorry that Bob Somerby's an idiot. But for several years now, we've argued here that this 'classification' is imprecise and needs to stop.

But it hasn't stopped.

I don't see that the New York Times article proves anything about who was behind the attack -- clearly the US government agrees with me on that since there are still no arrests for the attack -- but it's crazy for people to being splitting hairs over this. I'm fine -- I am more than fine -- with a strict definition of al Qaeda. But until that day comes, we've got what we've got.

Feel free to join me in demanding a strict definition. I'm unaware that anyone has outside of the United Nations. I'm certainly Bob Somerby's never bothered with the topic in all of his useless prattles.

A USA Today friend called to ask if we could note J.D. Gordon's column on Benghazi (it's online, it will be in tomorrow's paper). We'll note this from it:

Not only does that contradict U.S. intelligence authorities, including sworn testimony before Congress, it also purposely downplays the danger posed to all Americans from a wide variety of radical Islamic terror groups that routinely communicate and coordinate with each other. Many of these groups openly claim to be "affiliates" of Al Qaeda. Some of them almost certainly were among the Al Qaeda affiliates who participated in a rally in Benghazi in June of 2012, three months before the consulate killings. But when it comes to Al Qaeda, the Times defines the term even more narrowly than White House spokesman Jay Carney's reference to "Core Al Qaeda".

You can't keep stretching it back and forth. Join me in demanding a strict definition or accept things as they are now. If you're accepting them as they are now, Kirkpatrick's 'reasoning' doesn't hold up -- nor does it match other work product from the paper.

People need to learn to use their critical abilities.

Patrick Martin (WSWS) read the report and found a takeaway that's not going to thrill everyone:

A lengthy front-page report in Sunday’s New York Times provides additional confirmation that the attack on a US facility in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 was the outcome of the Obama administration’s use of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in its war against the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi.
The Times article, based on dozens of interviews in Benghazi, asserts that the attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was carried out by Libyans who had previously been allied with the US government in the 2011 war that overthrew and murdered Gaddafi. Times correspondent David D. Kirkpatrick writes that the attack was not organized by Al Qaeda or any other group from outside Libya, but “by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.”

Just the fact that the paper published this tired story in the dead week tells you they knew it was nothing. Unless a natural disaster takes place -- like the tsunami a few years back -- the paper's dead this time of year. So the fact that they slip the article in this time of year should have raised eyebrows automatically.

If they had any faith in it, they would have run it in June.

If you're praising the article, you're not reading critically. In fact, if you're eyes moved over this article and you're praising it, I'm not even sure we can call it reading, maybe "absorbing"?

Over 7,000 words and none of them back up the central claims. No direct links are presented. Kirkpatrick's article is like an early Sonny and Cher recording, it goes round and round but never hits the actual note.

If you were fooled by the Times again, take comfort that there's always a bigger fool.

Remember this:

Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let bygones be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases. For example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the consequences. This explains my reaction to the Columbia Journalism Review today announcing, after a widely-watched search, that it was hiring Liz Spayd of The Washington Post as its new editor.

Now, I suppose I should review her entire career, for context, though others are doing it and you can read about it in plenty of places. She has been managing editor of the Post for years now and obviously supervised a good deal of important work (and some not so terrific, of course). But I am moved to recall, and then let go, one famous 2004 article, by Howard Kurtz, then media writer at the Post, which I covered in my book on those media failures and Iraq, So Wrong for So Long.

That's Greg Mitchell in November and we called him out. We didn't see sincerity in his remarks, no, we saw opportunism.

For those who think I was too harsh on noted sexist Greg Mitchell, he Tweeted today:

So he was pissed about the press and Iraq and savaged a woman but today he's Tweeting the New York Times?

I'm sorry, I thought Greg wrote:

Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let bygones be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases. For example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the consequences.

He did. He wrote that.

He's not going to let bygones be bygones, he insists, and he's appalled still by "the media failurs in the run-up to the Iraq war" -- but not so appalled and not so anti-bygones be bygones that he's not going to reTweet the New York Times. (And it's bad article on top of that -- it's more revisionary crap from the Times that sold the illegal war, but he's reTweeting it?)

Okay, let's move to Iraq. Today, the topic came up when spokesperson Marie Harf was doing the US State Dept press briefing.

QUESTION: Marie, moving over to Iraq, does State Department have any comments on reports that al-Qaida has captured parts of Ramadi and Falluja?

MS. HARF: Let me see what I have on that. So we continue to follow closely events in Anbar. We’re working to help all leaders focus on the threat to Iraq posed by al-Qaida. This is a common threat that we are obviously very familiar with, and we are helping to support the Iraqi Government in this common fight. We’ve been in constant – in close communication with the Iraqi Government. Ambassador Beecroft on the ground, Brett McGurk here from Washington have been engaging with government officials at the highest levels across the ethnic and sectarian spectrum in Iraq on this issue. We’ve encouraged the government to work with the population to fight these terrorists to draw on some of the lessons, quite frankly, we learned when we were there, to isolate extremists which exist on both sides, and encourage moderates on both sides. We obviously condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks we’ve seen. There’s no place for this kind of violence in Iraq, and we are very committed to continuing to work with them to fight this common enemy together.

QUESTION: Do you think the threat from al-Qaida is increasing in the Middle East?

MS. HARF: That’s a pretty broad question. I think there are in some places, as I said I think to Matt’s question, either al-Qaida affiliates or groups that may share some sort of extremist ideology with al-Qaida, that in some places, particularly because of the civil war in Syria, have taken advantage of the security situation to perpetrate terrorist attacks. That’s certainly what we’ve seen in Iraq, we’ve seen it in Lebanon. It’s something we’re concerned about. I think it’s not as simple as saying al-Qaida. Each of these groups is a little bit different, and that’s important because when you’re trying to figure out how to combat them and fight them, it actually matters who they take guidance from and who’s giving them orders and who’s planning these attacks.

QUESTION: So do you blame Syria for the increase of violence in Iraq?

MS. HARF: That’s certainly a huge part of it, absolutely. We’ve seen the kind of terrorist violence we’ve seen in Syria, and that’s certainly spilled over into Iraq. But we are very concerned about it. That’s why we’re engaged consistently with the Iraqis to help fight it together. But it is a problem we’re very concerned about, absolutely.

QUESTION: Yep. Wait – anything else on the Middle East?

Marie Harf says, "It's not as simple as saying al Qaeda" and at least Marie Harf and I agree on something. Maybe others can agree and we can all get a little more mature?

It won't happen any time soon. Jim Michaels didn't get the memo. He opens his USA Today report tonight with this, "Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shiites." To stage this operation? Nouri has to pull troops from across Iraq.

Iraq Times reports that troops were pulled from Dhi Qar and, now in Iraq, they don't have sufficient food rations. More poor planning from Nouri.

‏@IraqiSpringMC

سيطرات #جيش_المالكي في مناطق السعدان بقضاء #ابي_غريب غرب العاصمة بغداد بعد فرار عناصرها.
. pic.twitter.com/f86N9CMazQ

Expand

Militants/terrorists/rebels/who knows attacked/defended/ who knows. But turmoil continued in Iraq today. All Iraq News notes Baghdad Opertations Command says they've killed 30 people (suspects) in Anbar. National Iraqi News Agency reported clashes taking place in Ramadi, a tribe has taken 'back' a Ramadi police station from militants, the governor of Anbar says Ramadi is quiet and police should return to their posts and help citizens repair police stations and Jabbar Yawar (Secretary Generl of the KRG's Ministry of Peshmerga) declared, "The Peshmerga forces are protecting citizens in the areas between Nafutkana and Vichabour, which include Salahuddin, Diyala and Kirkuk provinces, and part of Nineveh." You get what the 'safe to return' message from the governor is, don't you? People deserted their posts. A Ministry of Interior announcement today also made that clear. Here you can see a photo of the military force in Anbar after Nouri's forces fled. Al Mada notes that for several hours today fighters were able to seize police stations in Ramadi and Falluja. Irish Times reports on the seizures and includes this:

“The tribesmen are now fighting the army. What is the army doing in our city and why did they come?” Sheikh Adnan al-Mehana, the head of one of the biggest tribes in Anbar, said by phone from Ramadi.

“Today, we defeated the army and if another force will be sent, we are ready for them,” he said.

Grasp that?

Good.

For the second time this week, the BBC's Rafid Jaboori has provided lies as news. I hope Nouri's f**king Rafid, because I hope Rafid's getting something out of his whoring. Here he is today, offering 'analysis:'

Al-Qaeda has moved into Anbar to exploit the dispute between the Sunnis and the government. However, Mr Maliki has now secured backing from key Sunni tribal leaders.

Maybe if you just follow the BBC you can pretend Rafid's offering analysis.

Iraqi Spring MC notes that Anbar tribal leaders are pointing out that they did not ask for Nouri's forces to be sent into the province and the tribal leaders maintain they're more than able to provide security without Nouri's forces.

Nouri's forces are committing genocide. You can pretty as much you damn well want and you kid yourself however you need to, but that's what's happening and that the United States government is allowing to happen. They have armed a despot.

As the day wound down, NINA reported that police Colonel Mohammed al-Thiyabi had been shot dead in Ramadi. Iraqi Spring MC reports that tanks shot at rebels on a bridge in Anbar and that Nouri's aircraft dropped bombs on homes in Ramadi. His forces also bombed Falluja and many people were wounded and taken to Falluja General Hospital. A 6-year-old girl named Estrabraq was killed by the bombs Nouri's forces dropped and two more children were left wounded.

The people are being terrorized and maybe someone can ask the State Dept about that? Maybe they can ask about this child that Nouri's forces shot dead in Iraq?

‏@IraqiSpringMC

عناصر #جيش_المالكي تقتل طفلا-8 سنوات- باطلاق الرصاص باحدى سيطراتهم  في الصقلاوية.
#التفاصيل_في_الصورة_المرافقة.
. pic.twitter.com/M22q5v176p

Expand

That little boy was shot dead by Nouri's forces in Saqlawiyah which is an Anbar Province city near Falluja.

Nouri's forces always get away with killing children.

Former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey tells USA Today (on the Anbar assault, not about children dying), "Maliki has taken a very serious and unfortunate step toward pushing a large percentage of the Sunni population to feel disenfranchised."

There are multiple reports in Arabic social media that "fighter jets" are being used. Iraq has no fighter jets. That's what Congress was told in December, just weeks ago. So where did these fighter jets come from?

Also, the White House might want to check with the propaganda channel Voice of America -- it's also saying fighter jets are being used in Anbar.

Let's drop back to Monday's snapshot:

Rudaw also notes, "The scholars also demanded that all Sunnis involved in the political process withdraw from the so-called Document of Honor, because 'Maliki has proved that he does not respect treaties or covenants'." Let's get back to the resignations noted earlier in the snapshot. Al Mada reports 44 MPs with the Motahidon Alliance have submitted their resignations to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi because of today's attacks on the protesters in Anbar. All Iraq News notes the spokesperson for the Motahidon Alliance held a press conference and stated that the resignations are taking place and "that the war in Anbar is unconstitutional and violate all patriotic terms." KUNA covers it here. Liu Dan (Xinhua) reports, "The MPs from the Sunni Motahidoon (United) Alliance also demanded the withdrawal of the army from cities in the Anbar province and the release of Ahmad al-Alwani, a Sunni lawmaker who was arrested on Saturday, the bloc's spokesman Dhafer al-Ani said at a televised press conference." Matt Bradley (Wall St. Journal) points out, "Mr. Awlani was an early supporter of the year-old Sunni protest movement against Mr. Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government."

Monday at Marie Harf's State Dept press briefing some of that was asked of:

QUESTION: Today, a number of parliamentarians have resigned and the government continued to pound areas in Ramadi and Anbar and so on, and at the same time, you have already sent in some drones and other material to fight terrorism. Do you have any comments on that?

MS. HARF: Well, we’re tracking the events in Anbar closely. We’re concerned by the reports of soldiers and civilians who have been killed in clashes. We, from the U.S. side, have been intensely engaged from both Baghdad and Washington with Iraqi leaders on all sides. We’ve been urging restraint, dialogue, and certainly for all sides to take steps to de-escalate and not to further escalate the situation. We’ll continue to gather facts on the ground and continue to engage with Iraqi leaders as this moves forward.

QUESTION: Yeah. Are you talking to the – to people, like, from the Iraqiya and the dialogue like (inaudible) and so on who have just withdrawn, including the speaker of the parliament and --

MS. HARF: Well, I think we’re still gathering facts on that, Said. I saw some of those reports before I came out. I think all the facts aren’t entirely clear. Suffice to say, we’re talking to folks from all different sides that are involved in this.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that the government may collapse?

MS. HARF: I think you’re getting 15 steps ahead of where we are. What we’re calling on folks to do is to de-escalate the situation on all sides.

QUESTION: Don’t you think that the security forces has overreacted in dealing with the protestors in Anbar?

MS. HARF: Again, we’re still looking at the situation to get all the facts on the ground. I just don’t want to go further than that before we know exactly what happened. We’ve called on all sides to show restraint. That includes, certainly, the security forces and other folks as well. So we’ll see what exactly happened and go from there.

QUESTION: And on what level are you talking to the prime minister?

MS. HARF: I can double-check and see if there’s some specifics I can share about what level.

Let's note what's going on with imprisoned MP Ahmed al-Alwani -- illegally imprisoned. NINA reports:

A parliamentary delegation headed to the Anti-terrorism center to meet MP Ahmed al-Alwani.
MP, of the Iraqiya coalition, Sumayya al-Qallab told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA /: "The delegation includes MP Khalid al-Alwani, MP Hamid al-Zobaie and Sumayya al-Qallab."
The Acting Defense Minister, Saadoun al-Dulaimi and the head of the Iraqi Awakening Conference, Ahmed Abu Risha met Alwani yesterday, emphasizing that he enjoys good health, and he was allowed to contact with his family, and he will be presented to the investigating judge on Thursday.

Why did that visit take place?

Before today's visit was being reported, Wednesday, in fact, Iraq Times was reporting that Nouri had acknowledged that al-Alwani was not responsible for shooting anyone or transferring weapons and would allow the visit to take place.

How nice of him.

Per the Iraqi Constitution, al-Alwani cannot be arrested unless he's arrested while he's committing a crime or the Parliament strips him of his office. At his home at dawn, asleep, on Saturday, he was not in the midst of any crime.

He has not been stripped of his immunity.

The arrest was illegal.

He was said to be -- yes, it's coming -- a 'terrorist.' And an assassin.

Why have the charges not been made public?

Where's the government release noting why he was arrested?

It doesn't exist.

But Monday, Nouri's office did issue a statement of him claiming the assault on Anbar was uniting the province.

Monday was when Nouri ordered his forces to attack the peaceful protesters. Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango (New York Times) live in a curious world -- one that pimps al Qaeda, granted, "The fighting began after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, ordered security forces to dismantle protest encampments in Falluja and Ramadi."

So if I set your house on fire and you turn around and do the same to me, I can claim that the trouble started with you?

Nouri attacks and then the fighting begins?

I think the fighting began when Nouri's forces attacked.

That is what happened even if the New York Times can't handle logic.

Gulf Daily News reminds (what the New York Times 'forgot'), "Ten people died when the government moved against the camp in Ramadi on Monday."

As all the above takes place, so do other incidents of violence. Reuters notes a Balad Ruz suicide car bomber took his own life and the lives of "at least 12 people who had gathered to buy and sell cars." NINA reports 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul, a Mosul rocket attack killed 2 Iraqi soldiers, a Shura bombing claimed 1 life, a Falluja bombing claimed 1 life and left four people injured, a Latifiyah attack left 2 Iraqi soldiers and 2 rebels killed and two rebels were injured, a Nineveh operation leaves 3 suspect dead and six more injured, security operations in Qayyarah left 1 suspect dead, and 1 doctor was kidnapped from a Baquba medical clinic. and a Hilla bombing left five Iraqi soldiers injured. EFE reports a Baquba truck bombing has killed 15 people and left thirty injured.

On medical, All Iraq News reports a fire broke out in Dhi-Qars Hussein Hospital ("reasons behind this fire are unknown").

Antiwar.com's Jason Ditz (CounterCurrents) notes:

2013 in Iraq began much the way 2012 did, with violence well down from the levels of the US occupation era. Then the Maliki government attacked a peaceful protest in Hawija in mid-April, and a sectarian powderkeg just exploded.

By summer the death tolls were again rivaling the worst of the US surge-era, and 2013 ended with well over 10,000 dead, and 1,180 killed in the month of December alone. The toll is the worst since 2007.

Iraq Body Count counts 983 violent deaths for the month of December and 9475 violent death for the year. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following:

Baghdad, 1 January 2014 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 759 Iraqis were killed and another 1,345 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in December*.

The number of civilians killed was 661 (including 175 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1201 (including 258 civilian police). A further 98 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 144 were injured.
The total number of civilian casualties (including police) in 2013 has been the highest since 2008, with 7,818 killed (6,787 in 2008) and 17,981 (20,178 in 2008) injured.
“This is a sad and terrible record which confirms once again the urgent need for the Iraqi authorities to address the roots of violence to curb this infernal circle,” the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, said.
The most violent month of 2013 was May, with a total of 3,154 civilian casualties (including police), of whom 963 were killed and 2,191 wounded. Since April 2013, the total number of civilian casualties (killed and injured, including police) has been consistently above 1,500.
“The level of indiscriminate violence in Iraq is unacceptable and I call on the Iraqi leaders to take the necessary steps to prevent terrorist groups to fuel the sectarian tensions, which contribute to weaken the social fabric of the society,” Mr. Mladenov added.
Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 809 civilian casualties (254 killed, 555 injured), followed by Salahadin (102 killed 160 injured), Diyala (99 killed 161 injured), Ninewa (105 killed 147 injured), and Anbar (62 killed 79 injured).
Kirkuk and Babil also reported casualties (double digit figures).

*Data do not take into account casualties of the current IA operation in Anbar, for which we do not have sufficient information.

Disclaimer: The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq undertakes monitoring of the impact of armed violence and terrorism on Iraqi civilians in accordance with its mandate. UNAMI relies on direct investigation, along with credible secondary sources, in determining civilian casualties. UNAMI figures are conservative and may under-report the actual number of civilians killed and injured for a variety of reasons. Where different casualty figures are obtained for the same incident, the figure as verified by UNAMI is used.

yasir ghazi

al mada
the irish times
iraq times
patrick martin

I was hung over

Hillary Is 44 has posted "The Prestigious Backpfeifengesicht 2013 Award Winner Is…." -- no exceprt.

Use the link.

It's a humor post and they nail it this time.

So use the link and enjoy.

I didn't plan to take off New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

I was hung over.

Big time.

So were my kids.

Before you give me the award for Worst Mom Of The New Year, let me clarify that it was sugar.

We went to the movies and pigged out on candy and coke and then came back to C.I.'s and a chocolate fountain?

You think I'm walking past a chocolate fountain without sampling? Heavily?

My kids are just like me.

But while they got antsy it didn't seem to effect me and I love chocolate so I had more and more and more.

I woke up at nine in the morning with the worst headache and hang over of my life.

And I had not had any booze.

I do drink. But we'd been at the movvies and then when we got back I just wanted that chocolate.

But I woke up with my head pounding and woozy.

I had some tomato soup, read some papers and then put on a bathing suit and swam (C.I. has a pool) and finally started to feel better.

I'll be writing tonight.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, December 31, 2013. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, another journalist is killed in Iraq, Nouri's attacks continue, we take a look at how little he's accomplished in over 7 years as prime minister, and more.

NINA reports Omar al-Dulaimi was shot dead in Ramadi today while he was covering the clashes between Nouri's forces and militants or rebels. NINA notes he was "a graduate of the Department of Information in the faculty of Arts, University of Anbar, and worked as a reporter for one of the local agencies in Ramadi."

Yesterday, The Committee to Protect Journalists published a report by Elana Beiser on the deaths of journalists in 2013 which noted 70 journalists were killed around the world in 2013:

At least 10 journalists were killed for their work in Iraq, nine of them murdered, and all during the final quarter of the year. Unidentified gunmen opened fire on cameraman Mohammed Ghanem and correspondent Mohammed Karim al-Badrani of the independent TV channel Al-Sharqiya as they filmed a report on Eid al-Adha holiday preparations in Mosul in October. It is unclear why they were targeted; the station has attracted ire from both Iraqi authorities and anti-government militants.

As the year ends, the number of journalists killed in Iraq this year stands at eleven -- at least eleven.

The year winds down and so does Nouri al-Maliki's second term as prime minister. What has he accomplished?

Not a damn thing.

Every October, the heavy rains come to Iraq.

Every year.

It's the raining season. It's not a surprise.

And if you're on your second term as prime minister, it's especially not a surprise.

When heavy rains fall in most wealthy countries, the water moves along via the public sewage systems.

If you don't have them, the water doesn't move along. Instead the water pools.

A home that comes down in the midst of storms?

That's probably not Nouri's fault. That's the effect of the rain (most likely).

But when, for example, rain water -- after the raining stops -- is knee high in Baghdad?

That's on Nouri al-Maliki.

Top photo on this Al Mada page of photos is of the flooding in Baghdad.

Iraq brings in billions of dollars from oil each month and yet Nouri can't address public services. The crumbling infrastructure has not really been updated since the 70s.

Iraq has another water problem. Having any.

This is going to become a very pressing issue for Iraq in the 21st century if it's not addressed.

An intelligent leader aware of the rainy season would have been prepared to work the heavy rains to his or her advantage. That would require constructing water towers. The basin issue? That's what the whole region's going to be fighting over. If I were in charge of Iraq, every major city would have a water tower.

In a largely useless interview on Morning Edition (NPR -- link is text and audio), this exchange took place between host Steve Inskeep and AFP's WG Dunlop:

INSKEEP: We understand that as we were arranging this call, there were power outages in Baghdad. How regular are city services at this point?

DUNLOP: It really varies by area and time. But ultimately, there's not 24-hour power. Many Iraqis have to supplement government-provided power with private generators - either buying generators themselves, or buying lines from local neighborhood generators.

Nouri's first term started in 2006. And it's 2013. Yet he's failed to fix the electricity.

Unemployment remains at record highs in Iraq, it's one of the reasons people have protested for over a year. Nouri's failed to provide jobs.

As we've repeatedly noted, every few months Iraq's importing nurses from other countries. The way you create jobs? Fast track medical training. You provide an education for those in need of jobs to become nurses and doctors -- both are heavily needed in Iraq.

But Nouri didn't do that. He didn't do that in 2006 or any time since. We've noted that he needs to do this since at least 2009.

In November, in search of a campaign issue, he brought it up once and then dropped it.

Also in November, All Iraq News reported, "Iraq has occupied the (130) position globally in terms of economic development indicator in accordance with the general prosperity and welfare world annual pointer of 2013. The report, which was issued by the British Institute (Legatom) in London including (142) countries, is considering many pointers such as the happiness and satisfaction of the people of the country and their ability to plan for better future as well as the financial fortune."

He has been prime minister for over seven years now and he has nothing to show for it, nothing to point to with pride.

He has no accomplishments.

In 2007, he agreed with the White House to a set of benchmarks.

He failed at them.

He failed at them while Bully Boy Bush was in the White House and he's still not accomplished them.

One of them we still hear the foolishness of reporters on. That would be the oil and gas law.

How long would it take to count up all the 'reports' from news outlets over the years that have told us that Iraq was about to pass an oil and gas law?

Vivienne Walt (Time magazine) noted:

Among the key "benchmarks" for progress in Iraq set by President George W. Bush in January of 2007 was the passage of a new Iraqi oil law. But almost three years on, the controversial legislation setting terms for foreign investment in the country's oil sector, and for distributing its revenues, remains stalled in the legislature. And Iraqi politicians admit it's unlikely to pass before the current parliament is replaced following Iraq's general elections next January.

And she noted that in October 2009. It's still true.

The January "general elections" she's referring to did take place . . . in March of 2010.

Which is why we try to say "scheduled for April 30th" about the supposed upcoming elections.

Iraq did have elections this year.

This was more failure for Nouri.

The press runs with the poor showing of his State of Law as evidence that his popularity is on the wane. I don't make that argument. I do think he's far less popular but these were provincial elections and they're more local elections.

So what do I mean it was a failure for Nouri?

The Kurdistan Regional Government is (currently) three provinces in northern Iraq. They held their elections in September. That's fine, the KRG is semi-autonomous.

But Iraq has 18 provinces and that still left fifteen.

One did not vote. That left fourteen.

April 20th was the day of elections . . . for twelve provinces.

Nouri is deeply unpopular in Anbar and Nineveh Province.

Guess which two weren't allowed to vote in April?

You got it.

In Novmeber, the State Dept's Brett McGurk told Congress, "In the Sunni majority provinces of Ninewa and Anbar, provincial elections had been delayed due to security concerns. We were clear from the outset that this decision was unwise, and pushed to ensure the elections took place, which they did on June 20."

Clear from the outset?

On that -- at least on that -- McGurk told the truth.

In March of this year, Al Jazeera reported the following

Kerry's visit also addressed democratic reforms and upcoming elections which are threatened by sectarian tensions.
The secretary of state has told Iraq's parliamentary speaker the US believes Iraq is facing a serious crisis and is in danger of going backwards, according to an official at the talks.
Iraq's parliamentary speaker told Kerry that a decision earlier this month by the Iraqi government to postpone provincial elections next month in two Sunni-majority provinces due to security concerns is unconstitutional.
The statement said the speaker pointed out to Kerry that security during the last elections four years ago was much worse, and described the delay as a "political decision".

Following this discussion, Kerry says that Maliki agreed to revisit a cabinet decision to delay elections in two Sunni majority provinces next month.

Al Jazeera goes on to tell you that the elections were delayed in the two provinces for security reasons.

No.

That's a lie and part of the continued lying that outlet does for Nouri.

The most violent province was Baghdad -- as cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr pointed out.

It wasn't about violence at all.

Pressed on that, Nouri suddenly announced the delay was because they couldn't prevent voter fraud in those two provinces.

Okay, we noted 17 provinces finally voted -- not 18 -- and that the KRG currently is three provinces. What are we talking about?

The province of Kirkuk -- both the KRG and Nouri's Baghdad based government insist that Kirkuk belongs to them.

If only there was a way to resolve the dispute.

Oh, wait, there is.

Article 140 of the Constitution. It demands that a census and referendum be held to determine the status of Kirkuk.

Nouri took an oath to the Constitution at the start of both of his terms of prime minister.

But he's never implemented Article 140.

The Constitution demands it be implemented. It was supposed to, per the wording of Article 140, have been resolved by the end of 2007.

Nouri blew the Constitution off.

In 2010's parlimentary elections, Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. Allawi should be prime minister today.

If Nouri didn't have the votes of the people how did he get around it and get a second term?

Because Nouri refused to step down.

An election took place in March of 2010.

For over eight months, Nouri refused to step down. He lost to Iraqiya and he refused to step down.

Instead of urging him to honor the will of the Iraqi people, the White House backed him and brokered a legal contract, The Erbil Agreement.

The pitch the White House used with the leaders of Iraq's various political blocs was, "Nouri's prepared to drag this on for eight more months. Nothing is happening. Parliament can't meet. There are no sessions, there is no Cabinet. Iraq cannot survive 8 more months of this. The country needs your leadership and your maturity. Be the bigger person and let Nouri have a second term. If you agree, we can draw up the contract, a legally binding contract with the full backing of the US government, and make sure that, in exchange for Nouri getting a second term, you get something your constituents want."

For the Kurds, what they wanted was Kirkuk determined.

Nouri was so desperate for a second term -- and he's such a liar -- that the Kurds could have probably asked for Kirkuk in that negotiation and he would have agreed to it.

But they asked for Article 140 to be implemented.

That was stupid.

If the Constitution requires Nouri to implement it and he's refusing to do so, why would you think a United States brokered contract would make him implement it?

He never intended to.

He used The Erbil Agreement to grab a second term and, once he had that, he refused to honor the legally binding promises he made in that contract. And the White House pretended that they'd never heard of The Erbil Agreement -- so much for the contract having the full backing of the US government.

KRG President Massoud Barzani spoke in DC April 5, 2012 (covered in that day's snapshot and the April 6, 2012 one). Among the statements he made? This:

As far as the second part of your question, the Erbil Agreement. In fact, the agreement was not only for the sake of forming the government and forming the three presidencies -- the presidency, the Speakership of Parliament and premier. In fact, it was a package -- a package that included a number of essential items. First, to put in place a general partnership in the country. Second, commitment to the Constitution and its implementation, the issue of fedarlism, the return of balance of power and especially in all the state institutions,the establishment in [. . .] mainly in the armed forces and the security forces, the hydrocarbons law, the Article 140 of the Constitution, the status of the pesh merga. These were all part of the package that had been there. Had this Erbil Agreement been implemented, we would not have faced the situation that we are in today. Therefore, if we do not implement the Erbil Agreement then there would certainly be problems in Iraq.

Nouri created the ongoing political crisis by refusing to honor The Erbil Agreement.

In fact, the White House -- Barack Obama -- created the ongoing political crisis by refusing to honor the will of the Iraqi people and brokering an extra-constitutional contract to give Nouri a second term.

The administration's inept and clueless on Iraq.

They've never understood it. Vice President Joe Biden does have an understanding.

But he's repeatedly overridden by the likes of Samantha Power. (She and Susan Rice were the ones insisting to Barack that Nouri had to have a second term.)

Barack's clueless on Iraq. That's why his first US Ambassador to Iraq was the idiot Chris Hill.

We covered Hill's Senate confirmation hearing in the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th one.

In his opening remarks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry pointed out the importance of Kirkuk:

First, resolving the status of Kirkuk and other disputed territories. Arab - Kurdish tensions run high in Kirkuk, which remains a potential flashpoint for violence, and meaningful efforts to reach agreement on Kirkuk's final status cannot be put off indefinitely. In Mosul, a strong showing in recent provincial elections by an anti-Kurdish coalition illustrated rising tensions there, as did a tense military standoff in Diyala province last summer between the Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga . If progress is not made in defusing Arab-Kurdish tensions while American forces remain in Iraq, the window for a peaceful resolution of Kirkuk and other disputed territories may close.

However, the never-should-have-been-confirmed Hill insisted in that hearing that Kirkuk was"just an old fashioned land dispute."

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Pig-Pen Ambassador" from April 5, 2009 would mock that comment.

People ask two questions about that coverage. Did John Kerry really yawn while Hill was speaking? Yes, he did. I noted he was tired. Even so, he openly yawned as Hill yammered away, wide mouth yawn and no attempt to hide it or cover his mouth was his hand. Second, was Isaiah's comic fair?

Yes.

Chris Hill may have cowlicks or he may just be messy but his hair was sticking up and out and his shirt had a food stain on it, a prominent food stain.

This is how the lazy slob presented himself to the Senate Committee in what was a job interview.

That goes to his stupidity as well.

If you're blowing Kerry on the importance of Kirkuk, you're making a mistake. If you're blowing off the importance because I'm the one saying it, let's drop back to the July 26, 2011 snapshot for more on this issue:

Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops." The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing else happens, you may have read the already read the report. CBMs may strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were constantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a patrol program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage counselor. (And the report admits CBMs are based on that.) Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years. And had outside actors. The authors acknowledge:

Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds.

As you read over the report, you may be struck by its failure to state the obvious: If the US government really wanted the issue solved, it would have been solved in the early years of the illegal war. They don't want it solved. The Kurds have been the most loyal ally the US has had in the country and, due to that, they don't want to upset them. However, they're not going to pay back the loyalty with actual support, not when there's so much oil at stake. So the Kurds were and will continue to be told their interests matter but the US will continue to blow the Kurdish issues off over and over. Greed trumps loyalty is the message. (If you doubt it, the Constitution guaranteed a census and referendum on Kirkuk by December 31, 2007. Not only did the US government install Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in 2006, they continued to back him for a second term in 2010 despite his failure to follow the Constitution.)

Along with avoiding that reality, the report seems rather small-minded or, at least, "niche driven." Again, the authors acknowledge that as well noting that they're not presenting a solution to the problems or ways to reach a solution, just ways to kick the can further down the road and, hopefully, there won't be an explosion that forces the issue any time soon. ("Regional and local CBMs have the potential to keep a lid on inter-communal tensions that will, without question, boil beneath the surface for a long time. They cannot, however, resolve what is, at its heart, a strategic political dispute that must be resolved at the national level.") Hopefully? Page nine of the report notes that the consensus of US military, officials, analysts, etc. who have worked on the issue is that -- "given enough time -- Arab and Kurdish participants will eventually have a dispute that leads to violence, which will cause the mechanism to degrade or collapse."

The report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.

This can't continue. Kirkuk needs to be resolved.

To the Kurds credit, when they had leverage in 2010, they only asked for Article 140 to be implemented. All they asked for with regards to Kirkuk was for the country's Constitution to be followed.

That's not going to continue.

People can only be ignored and blown off for so long. The issue needs to be resolved.

If the current violence diminished or even disappeared tomorrow, the issue of Kirkuk would continue to jeopardize the future of Iraq. It has to be addressed.

Violence?

Let's go today's violence.

National Iraqi News Agency reports that a Baghdad shooting left a police member injured, a Baghdad car bombing left one person injured, another Baghdad car bombing left 1 person dead and five more injured, two more Baghdad car bombings left 4 people dead and ten injured, yet another Baghdad car bombing left eleven people injured, a clash in Ramadi left three Iraqi soldiers injured and one police member injured as well, Jurf al-Sakar home bombings claimed the lives of 7 Iraqi soldiers and 2 military officers, two people were injured in Falluja by sniper fire, a Mosul home invasion left a wife and husband dead, Baghdad Operations command announced/boasted they shot dead 2 suspects, 4 people were shot dead in Ramadi by a sniper, and in another Ramadi shooting 1 person was dead and two more injured,

Staying with violence, Nouri attacked peaceful protesters yesterday. He was able to do so because he has the backing of the White House. That backing includes the White House decision to supply Nouri with weapons.

Last week, Erin Evers (Human Rights Watch) weighed in on the latest arming Barack has elected to do:

These issues are all at play. Further irritating Nouri may be Ayad Allawi's visit. KUNA reports that he is in Anakara meeting with Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

So the United States has delivered 75 Hellfire missiles to Iraq, The New York Times reported, to help Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki fight Al-Qaeda’s regional affiliate, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The US has already sent Iraq reconnaissance helicopters, and plans to deliver more aerial drones and F-16 fighter planes in 2014, the article said. The Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and reconnaissance drones, along with US intelligence, are meant to “augment limited Iraqi ability”to locate and strike Al-Qaeda militants, the article said.
The US focus on new weapons seems to be missing the point about the security problems facing Iraq. There’s little evidence that Iraq’s failure to improve security in the country stems from a lack of weapons, but rather from its short-sighted approach to corruption and sectarian politics, and a counterterrorism strategy that targets Sunni Iraqis amounting to collective punishment.
Corruption is deeply entrenched in the security forces, and Maliki has at best turned a blind eye and at worst encouraged the graft to his own advantage. Many people in Baghdad – including military officers, and advisers in the Prime Minister’s Office – have told me that there is a system for buying positions in the army and police, with set prices for each rank.
Shia militias interested in escalating sectarian warfare ahead of elections have infiltrated the security forces, which are filled with men whose only loyalty is to the officers they’ve paid for their positions. In the last six months there have been at least four prison breakouts and numerous attacks on government buildings and security installations that would have been impossible without help from within the security forces.
Maliki has also blatantly encouraged sectarian policies, visually apparent in the Shia flags and slogans that cover virtually every SWAT and army vehicle in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda effectively exploits Iraq’s main problem, the gulf between the Shiite-led government and the minority Sunni population. The Iraqi army and police are just as likely to turn any new weapons and capabilities against the Sunni population at large, rather than against those posing imminent threats to human life.

US President Barack Obama should be doing more to address the human rights issues underlying Iraq’s security problems. He needs to take the Iraqi leader to task for his abusive and sectarian policies and his failure to curb corruption.These failures have helped strengthen Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and won’t disappear without ending the discrimination and abuses.

Violence continues today as Nouri's forces continue their Anbar attacks. While the press reports this, they do not report numbers. Presumably, in a few days a toll will be given. As noted in yesterday's snapshot, 44 Sunni MPs resigned Monday over Nouri's attacks on Anbar and Nouri's Saturday dawn raid on the home of MP Ahmed al-Alwani who was illegally arrested while 5 people (bodyguards and family) were killed (this included his brother) while ten family members (including children) were left injured. Al Jazeera reports today:

Tariq Hashemi, Iraq's exiled Sunni vice president, has also resigned in protest, and called on the government of Saudi Arabia for help.
"Enough is enough," Hashemi told Al Jazeera. "Everyone has a cause, but we face two main problems. We lack a unifying project and a country that supports our cause."

Kim Sengupta (Independent) adds of the violence and the MPs who have resigned:

The MPs also demanded the release of Ahmed al-Alwani, a colleague who was arrested in Ramadi at the weekend amid violence in which his brother and five guards were killed. The government stated that he was wanted on charges of terrorism without specifying what they were.
Support for the Sunni stance had come from some Shia public figures, including Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric who was a vehement opponent of the presence of American and British forces in his country. Sheikh Abdul Malik al-Saadi, an influential Sunni cleric, has asked the Shia tribes in the south of the country not to send their sons to participate “in this blatant aggression on their brothers”.

World Bulletin reports that the resignations were in response to a Sunday call from Ayad Allawi that MPs resign over Nouri's targeting of Sunnis. (Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, is a Shi'ite.)

State Dept friends have repeatedly called to tell me Iraq came up in the briefing yesterday.

Thank you.

I knew that yesterday. We didn't have room. We don't have room today. In the January 2nd snapshot it will be noted. We never had room to note the death threat on Ayad Allawii in Jordan last week. There's a ton of things I'd love to note -- including ripping apart an 'analysis' that can't seem to support itself with facts.
We don't have room. That's how it goes sometimes. I wanted to note Nouri and the Constitution today -- how he refuses to follow the Constitution -- not just Article 140.

No room. No time.

The coverage of Iraq is minimal today. And yet events in Iraq are so numerous that an overly long snapshot can't even cover it all. When this started, the snapshots, in 2006, the term 'snapshot' was used because there was so much Iraq news that we couldn't cover it all. There is so much less coverage in English language media of Iraq today -- however, the news making events out of Iraq have -- like the violence -- soared.

All that we have not had time to cover this year? That goes to just how much is taking place in Iraq, a thought to end the last 2013 Iraq snapshot on.

iraq
npr
morning edition
steve inskeep
afp
w.g. dunlop
human rights watch
the independent of london
kim sengupta
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Ani DiFranco is the new Paula Deen

That Ani Di Franco is nothing but a fake comes as no surprise to me.

That she's the new Paula Deen does.

For those who missed it, Ani's the hypocrite who pretended she was against the Iraq War and pretended she was a political singer with political concerns.

Then Bully Boy Bush finally left the White House and Ani no longer gave a damn about war.

Baby Weak Ass never calls out The Drone War or the war on Libya or Barack sending a unit of special forces back into Iraq in the fall of 2012.

None of that matters to Princess Prissy of Fake Ass World.

Well she's in trouble now. Big time. She stepped and then some.

This petition went up at Change.org:

Ani DiFranco: Cancel the "Righteous Retreat in the Big Easy"

2. Petition by
  
  Sara Starr
  
  Chapel Hill, NC

Ani DiFranco, a well known white "feminist" and queer singer songwriter, is holding a workshop event on a plantation in a town founded by racists. This is insulting to black feminists and black queer individuals and is a very blatant display of racism on her part. In order for this event to be canceled, this petition has been formed so that feminists and queer individuals of all races can express their disdain for DiFranco's racist and oppressive gestures, not to mention the obvious exclusion of/disregard for her black fans. Holding an event on the site of the genocide of black people is no way to show inclusion and intersectionality, both of which are important tenets of feminism.

To:
Ani DiFranco

Cancel the "Righteous Retreat in the Big Easy"

Sincerely,
[Your name]

I'm sorry but she's not a "queer singer songwriter." Ani used lesbianism as a hook to sell her music She married a man in 1998 and divorced him in 2003 and quickly got involved with Mike Napolitano -- who bosses her around in the studio and is listed as producer on her albums -- and she has two children and eventually married him.

So, no, she's not "queer." She is fake ass.

And today, fake ass announced the retreat was on hold or no more or something.

She goes on for 1331 words and the really funny thing there is she writes this:

i believe that compassionate energy is transformative and necessary for healing the wounds of history. i believe that even though i am white, i can and must do this work too. if you disagree, i respectfully understand where you’re coming from and your right to disagree. i am not unaware of the mechanism of white privilege or the fact that i need to listen more than talk when it comes to issues of race.
Yet after stating that she is "not unaware of the mechanism of white privilege or the fact that i need to listen more than talk when it comes to issues of race," she goes on (and on and on) for 899 more words.

Ani is Paula Deen.

She admits she learned, before the petition, that her 'retreat' would take place on a slavery plantation.

But because she wants to have a conversation, we're supposed to be okay with that.

It was a songwriter's retreat, not a retreat to address issues. So Ani's 'conversation' most likely would have been, "I love this iced tea. Don't you love iced tea? You know what, there used to be slaves on this plantation. Would you like some more iced tea?"

Ani just doesn't get it and she makes that clear in her statement. For example:

for myself, i believe that one cannot draw a line around the nottoway plantation and say "racism reached it's depths of wrongness here" and then point to the other side of that line and say "but not here". i know that any building built before 1860 in the South and many after, were built on the backs of slaves. i know that in new orleans, the city i live in, most buildings have slave quarters out back, and to not use any buildings that speak to our country's history of slavery would necessitate moving far far away. i know that indeed our whole country has had a history of invasion, oppression and exploitation as part of its very fabric of power and wealth. i know that each of us is sitting right now in a building located on stolen land. stolen from the original people of this continent who suffered genocide at the hands of european colonists. i know that many of us can look down right now and see shoes and clothes that were manufactured by modern day indentured servants in sweat shops. i know that micro profits from purchases that we make all day long are trickling down to monsanto, to nestle and to GE. i know that a sickeningly large percentage of the taxes we pay go to manufacturing weapons and to making war. and on and on and on. it is a very imperfect world we live in and i, like everyone else, am just trying to do my best to negotiate it.

For someone who just a few paragraphs before was insisting she knew she needed to listen more than talk on the issue of race, she sure spits out a lot, doesn't she? A lot of it with "I know" as the first two words. She knows so much, I guess that's why she didn't need to listen.

And then there's this bitchy little remark:

i know that the pain of slavery is real and runs very deep and wide. however, in this incident i think is very unfortunate what many have chosen to do with that pain. i cancel the retreat now because i wish to restore peace and respectful discourse between people as quickly as possible. i entreat you to refocus your concerns and comments on this matter with positive energy and allow us now to work together towards common ground and healing.

She doesn't believe she was in the wrong. She believes that the problem is the people objecting to her wanting to have four days of fun staging an event on a slave plantation.

It's unfortunate, she feels, what people have done with pain -- force her to cancel her money earning gig.

In fairness to Ani, it may be unfair.

Her 2012 crappy and embarrassing album did not sell even by her low standards. Like her 2008 album, it was a bomb.

Oh my goodness. Too late to rewrite, but if I could, I'd make this about how she's the new Michelle Shocked. Remember that? Michelle Shocked killing her career this year with her homophobia?

Well Ani and racism are now entertwined.

It's not going away.

Her kissing Barack (who is bi-racial, not Black) or some Black person's ass won't make our community forget this. She wanted to gather with people and have fun (and make money) on a slavery plantation.

And she won't apologize for that.

In her long statement, she never apologizes for it.

She claims she'd be without venues and blah blah blah.

There's a "If you were offended by this, I'm sorry" manner to her statement.

She never apologizes.

She does bitch that people have apparently called her on her racism.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, December 30, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri attacks Ramadi, the AP lies and it's lie can be refuted with a photograph (and we do so in the snapshot), Nouri's going after Sunni politicians again, and much more.

Friday, December 21, 2012, protests against the government corruption, the lack of public services, the 'disappeared' in Iraq's 'legal' system, the rape and torture of girls and women in prisons and detention centers kicked off. Friday, December 20, 2013, the protests reached the one year mark -- one year of continuous protests despite Nouri and his forces efforts at intimidation, their attacks and so much more. One year of continuous protests. Remember Egypt and how the western press fawned over the protests and the protesters? How entire divisions of US news networks foreign coverage reporters descended upon Egypt?

Yeah, nothing like that happened with Iraq.

The western press ignored the one year mark. When Nouri made it clear that he didn't want the press to cover the protests, what happened?

The big brave western press went into hiding and it was left to Iraqi reporters -- for Al Mada, National Iraqi News Agency, Kitabat, Iraq Times, Dar Addustour and others -- to do the coverage the western outlets were too scared or too craven to do.

The scared little reporters for AFP and AP and the rest just played dumb, looked for the blankys while sucking their thumbs and whimpering.

Again, it was so far from the big bad western press that stormed Egypt to cover what was happening there.

Sunday, December 22nd, Nouri yet again called peaceful protesters 'terrorists' and announced he would stop the protests.

He wanted to attack last Tuesday but a last minute flurry of meetings by various officials and political blocs caused Nouri to withdraw the forces he had encircling the Ramadi protest square. Then came Friday. From that day's snapshot:

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports Nouri al-Maliki again threatened the protesters today. He declared this will be their last Friday protest and that he will burn the tents in the protest squares down. He declared that the protesters were guilty of sedition. Sedition? Nouri as William Bligh? I can see it. Kitabat notes that he made these remarks in a televised interview. Kitabat also notes Nouri's been insisting 30 terrorist leaders are hiding in protest tents.

We still can't get to today yet.

That's Falluja on Saturday as tons poured into the street to protest Nouri's latest stunt.

They were protesting the Saturday dawn raid that Nouri's forces carried out on an MP. MP Ahmed al-Alwani was illegally arrested. But there's more. Alsumaria reported that his home was stormed by Nouri's SWAT forces at dawn and that 5 people (bodyguards and family) were killed (this included his brother) while ten family members (including children) were left injured.

By now, we all know the drill.

What is al-Alwani?

Yes, he's Sunni.

And he's also, we all know this, a member of Iraqiya.

If you're targeted by Nouri, then you are both things.

Or, as conservative Max Boot (Commentary) put it today, "If it’s the end of December or the beginning of January, it must be time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to arrest another prominent Sunni politician."

The people of Anbar did not respond well to Nouri breaking the law and arresting an MP.

We'll come back to the arrest but we need to get to today.

Nouri's latest stunt has resulted in a response from many members of Parliament. Al Mada reports 44 MPs with the Motahidon Alliance have submitted their resignations to Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi because of today's attacks on the protesters in Anbar. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq is stating all MPs from the Iraqiya bloc should resign right now to trigger an immediate election.

Yes, today he ordered his forces to attack peaceful protesters.

As you look at the western coverage, you should see it as an education.

Today, a lot of people wrongly think the press told the truth during the Civil Rights Era. That if, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was staging a sit-in and the peaceful activists were attacked, the press reported reality: "Dr. King and other protesters were exercising their Constitutional rights and behaving in a legal manner when blood thirsty thugs . . ."

That didn't happen.

In the lie of 'objectivity,' the press pretended that laws didn't exist and that it was perfectly normal -- or at least not worth questioning -- when police officers violated people's legal rights.

We didn't, for example, get the truth from the New York Times then and we don't get it now. Instead we get Yasir Ghazi reporting or 'reporting' for the paper, "Heavy fighting erupted on Monday between government security forces and tribal gunmen when the police moved to dismantle a Sunni protesters’ camp in Ramadi, west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, police and local officials said. At least 17 people died in the clashes, according to a security official."

Oh, is that what they did?

They just moved to dismantle.

With tanks, helicopters and mortar rounds. Al Mada cites an Anabar police source explaining Nour had the army storm Falluja following tank shellings and mortars being shot at the protesters. The source states an unknown number of people are wounded and dead.

All of that's just 'dismantling.'

And of course, let's not bring up the ugly reality that the protesters were within their legal rights to be at the square.

Or that their Constitutional rights were violated.

But, hey, at least Nouri caught his 'terrorists,' right?

Oops. AFP reports:

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki's spokesman Ali Mussawi said military sources confirmed tents at the protest site had been removed and the highway reopened. This was done "without any losses, after Al-Qaeda and its members escaped from the camp to the city and they are being pursued now,' Mussawi told AFP. He was repeating an assertion made on December 22 by Maliki, who said, "the sit-in site in Anbar has turned into a headquarters for the leadership of Al-Qaeda".

Wow. The Anbar sit-ins were overrun with 'terrorists' but Nouri shut them down today and, strangest thing, not a single terrorist.

Here are three plain speaking outlets -- two western and Rudaw. Kamal Namaa, Ahmed Rasheed, Alexander Dziadosz and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) report, "Fighting broke out when Iraqi police moved to dismantle a Sunni Muslim protest camp in the western Anbar province on Monday, leaving at least 13 people dead, police and medical sources said." Rudaw explains, "As Iraqi forces launched a reportedly deadly crackdown on a months-long protest in the city of Ramadi in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province, Sunni MPs reacted by announcing mass resignations as other leaders called on protesters to resist and soldiers to disobey." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) observes, "Today, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki underscored how little he’s learned, responding to a sit-in protest in Ramadi with heavy-handed police action that killed at least 17 people, 12 of them unarmed civilians."

These murders brought to you by the largess of US President Barack Obama. Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) explains:

Rashid Fleih, a leader of the Anbar operations, told Al-Monitor that the Iraqi army had received US equipment and supplies to be used in the battle against groups affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The New York Times revealed Dec. 25 that Washington will supply Iraq with a map showing the locations and origins of al-Qaeda in Iraq, besides 75 Hellfire air-to-land missiles and 10 ScanEagle reconnaissance drones. This information was confirmed by the prime minister's spokesperson, Ali al-Moussawi, in a statement released Dec. 27.

Barack arming Nouri with weapons to use against the Iraqi people is in violation human rights agreements as well as the Leahy Amendment. In a bit of synchronicity, the editorial board of the Toledo Blade pointed out this morning:

Nearly two years after the United States supposedly ended its military involvement in Iraq, President Obama apparently has decided to provide extensive military aid to the country. It shouldn't happen.
The aid is intended to strengthen Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's predominantly Shiite government against Sunni opponents who are bitter at having been excluded from his post-American occupation regime.

Yes, that's exactly what the weapons were wanted for and what they were used for today -- in violation of the Leahy Amendment.

The Associated Press is in violation of journalism. The outlet 'informs,' "There have also been other Sunni sit-ins, in cities such as Kirkuk, Mosul and Samarra, but rallying there has died down over the past months and it was not immediately clear if the camp sites there would be dismantled as well."

I'm sorry, you're lazy ass reporters were at the Samarra protest when?

You're cowardly correspondents saw what?

Died down, have they?

‏@IraqiSpringMC

#الجمعة الموحدة في #ميدان_الحق بمدينة #سامراء.

. pic.twitter.com/OQBYtpwUQj

Expand

That's Samarra. I pulled that from Friday, December 27th snapshot. Click on the "7h" above (for 7 hours) and you'll be taken to the photo at the Iraqi Spring MC Twitter feed and see that it's December 27th.

Died down, have they?

It's bad enough that you were too cowardly to go to the protest out of fear upsetting Nouri but now you think you can lie?

You think you can declare that Samarra has died down?

And you think you can get away with it?

No, the protests have not died down and anyone following Arabic social media is damn well aware of that but I guess that's too much for AP as well.

Rudaw notes that the Association of Muslim Scholars have called out Nouri's assault, "We hold the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki responsible for what happens in Anbar between the people of the same nation. We prohibit anyone from participating in military operations against the citizens."

Baghdad, 30 December 2013 – The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, today expressed his concern about the situation in Anbar Province and called for restraint and political engagement.

“I am concerned about the current developments in Anbar and call on all to remain calm and to abide by the agreements reached in in the course of the last two days. Political disputes must be resolved through dialogue and through an inclusive political process that allows all components to feel engaged in building the democratic future of the country”.
“The government has a Constitutional responsibility to protect all citizens from terrorism, while observing the rights of ordinary Iraqi citizens, providing for their humanitarian needs, and showing maximum restraint in the use of force”.
“I call on all political leaders to abide by their commitments, including the ‘The National Honour Code’, and to immediately come together to discuss the serious challenges facing the country. As Iraq prepares for elections next year, all parties and coalitions should put forward their platforms for the future and remain fully engaged in the democratic political process”.
“The United Nations will continue to work with the Government and the people of Iraq to support democratic developments and stands ready to assist in facilitating dialogue,” Mladenov said.

Borzou Daragahi and Amina Ashraf (Financial Times of London) explain, "Ayad Allawi, opposition leader and former prime minister, presented Mr Maliki on Sunday with a list of demands, including the removal of military forces from the protest camps, negotiation with the demonstrators and the release of Mr Alwani from prison on the grounds of parliamentary immunity."

Where to go next?

Let's go back to Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq.

Al Mada reports al-Mutleq revealed that the government has cut off all internet and telephone communication for and among Anbar residents.

That's a detail not being reported in the western press. Communications are being jammed. Considering Nouri repeatedly whines -- and lies -- that he can't stop Iranian flights to Syria because he doesn't have fighter jets, it is interesting that Nouri has the power to do that.

(Lie? Yeah, he's been lying forever. He can block any flights he want. Even Michael Knights made that point to Congress this month by noting that Nouri prevented Turkey from flying to the KRG so when Nouri wants to stop flights he does.)

Okay, Saleh. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq is stating all MPs from the Iraqiya bloc should resign right now to trigger an immediate election.

Saleh came into Parliament (and to his Deputy Prime Minister post) because Iraqiya won the 2010 elections. He's now estranged from Iraqiya which will most likely not be a major grouping in the planned April 30, 2014 elections. (Barring a decision on the part of al-Nujaifi -- among others -- to run on the Iraqiya ticket, Iraqiya will not be a major entity in the elections.) He is correct that resignations could trigger an immediate (say within 30 days) election per the Constitution but when in Nouri al-Maliki's two terms as prime minister has the government followed the Constitution?

But the Constitution isn't followed.

Were it to be?

Right now?

The UN and the Independent High Electoral Commission would both say the it would be difficult to get the ballots printed, the poll workers trained, etc.

They would say that.

But if they wanted to, they could pull it off in 30 days.

The danger here would be that they moved for immediate elections and Nouri used powers he didn't have to delay the elections.

This would mean Iraq was without not only a president (Jalal Talabani has now been out of the country for over a year) but also without a Parliament.

Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) argues today's attack was part of Nouri's campaigning:

Fourth, Maliki, who's seeking a third term, cannot go into the parliamentary elections at the end of April without a real achievement on the ground. The fact is that Maliki’s greatest achievement during his reign was to re-impose the rule of law by military force after the 2006-2008 civil war. A security achievement would greatly help his election chances. His breaking up the Sunni sit-ins may also serve this purpose.

Nouri's violence in Anbar didn't end the other violence in Iraq today.

National Iraqi News Agency reports 2 Mosul bombing targeted MP Jassim Mohammed Hussein and left at least two of his bodyguards injured, two children were kidnapped in Kirkuk, an armed attack in Balad left Lt Col Nouri al-Azzawi injured, a Qayyarah sticky bombing left army Colonel Raad Yassin Amash killed, 1 Baijia suicide car bomber took his own life and that of 1 police officer and the police officer's son, a Mosul car bombing left 4 people dead and four people injured, a Kirkuk car bombing left six people injured, an armed clash in Falluja left 8 people dead and forty injured, Sheikh Qais al-Jubouri was shot dead in Muqdadiya, a Baquba bombing left two police members injured, an al-Hamdania attack left 1 Kurdish force and 1 woman dead, an attack on a Mosul federal police checkpoint left 1 police member dead, a Mosul garage bombing left three people injured, a Tikrit car bombing targeting the Vice Chair of Salahuddin Province left four of his bodyguards injured , and a Tuz Khormato car bombing claimed the lives of 2 police members and left four more injured. All Iraq News adds a Kirkuk motorcyle bombing left four children injured, 3 corpses of Iraqi soldiers were discovered dumped in the streets of Beiji, an armed attack in Shurqat left 5 Iraqi soldiers dead, and a mayor and 1 teacher walking in Mosul were shot dead,

That's a ton of violence.

And the thing is, when Nouri targets one area, historically, violence increases elsewhere. This was true in his first term and it's been true in his second.

So it's not likely that Nouri's attack on Anbar is going to reduce violence. Kirkuk? Not in Anbar. Tikrit? Not in Anbar.

All Nouri's doing with these uncalled for assaults is making it easier for the resistance, the militants, the insurgents and any terrorists that might be in Iraq to hide out.

As we've noted here for years, the success of those groupings -- and the success of prison breaks -- results from the fact that people are sympathetic and they're sympathetic because they see Nouri targeting Sunnis and it creates a bond.

It also exposes Nouri as a liar. The Erbil Agreement is the only reason he has a term.

The US government brokered that contract and offered bribes to get political leaders to sign the contract.

Nouri didn't win a second term.

His State of Law lost to Iraqiya. Ayad Allawi should be the prime minister if the Constitution were followed and the votes of the Iraqi people honored.

But Barack wanted Nouri to have a second term so they went around the votes, they went around the constitution and democracy and created a legal contract that gave Nouri a second term.

Why did people sign on to the contact?

Because they were given things in the contract in exchange for giving Nouri a second term.

The western press, especially the US press, doesn't want to discuss this.

Even when it's discussed in the US.

President Massoud Barzani: As far as the second part of your question, the Erbil Agreement. In fact, the agreement was not only for the sake of forming the government and forming the three presidencies -- the presidency, the Speakership of Parliament and premier. In fact, it was a package -- a package that included a number of essential items. First, to put in place a general partnership in the country. Second, commitment to the Constitution and its implementation, the issue of fedarlism, the return of balance of power and especially in all the state institutions,the establishment in [. . .] mainly in the armed forces and the security forces, the hydrocarbons law, the Article 140 of the Constitution, the status of the pesh merga. These were all part of the package that had been there. Had this Erbil Agreement been implemented, we would not have faced the situation that we are in today. Therefore, if we do not implement the Erbil Agreement then there would certainly be problems in Iraq.

That's KRG President Massoud Barzani speaking in DC April 5, 2012 (covered in that day's snapshot and the April 6, 2012 one).

What does he mean that it wasn't implemented?

He means Nouri used it to get a second term, told everyone in November 2010 that he needed some time to implement the other aspects (the promises he made in the contract) and then he never did.

That's Nouri's pattern.

He's a known liar.

He makes promises he has no intentions of ever keeping. Over and over he does that.

The contract was supposed to guarantee a power sharing government.

This was important why?

Because Nouri lost.

He shouldn't be in charge.

But by refusing to honor The Erbil Agreement, he has 'won' an election he lost.

It's outrageous and it goes to the outrage so many -- Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds -- feel against him.

I doubt his stunts are going to help him.

Nouri's not a new face.

He's a known factor.

And he's got four months to try to remake himself.

That's not enough time even if he avoided stunts like his murderous attacks Saturday or today.

All his attacks do is remind Iraqis of how badly he's harmed the country in his second term.

From the April 6, 2012 snapshot:

Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is currently on a diplomatic tour of the surrounding region having already visited Qatar and currently Saudia Arabia. Raman Brosk (AKnews) reports that State of Law is arguing that al-Hashemi should not be allowed to re-enter Iraq and Iraqiya's spokesperson Maisoun al-Damlouji is responding, "This is not acceptable at all. Hashemi is the vice president of the Republic and he will return to the region." In December, after most US troops left, Nouri al-Maliki upped the political crisis by insisting that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post and that Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi be arrested on charges of 'terrorism.' Both al-Mutlaq and al-Hashemi are members of Iraqiya (both are also Sunni) which is the political slate that won the most votes in the March 7, 2010 elections. Nouri's State of Law slate came in second to Iraqiya. The two slates are political rivals. As an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers observed at Inside Iraq this week:

In a press conference Maliki said that he had a criminal file on Hashimi that he had been sitting on for three years, and was now ready to prosecute him. For the objective observer, the timing of this announcement was telling. [. . .] Confessions of Hashimi's security personnel were aired on state television and an arrest warrent for Hashim himself was issued and also made public on state TV -- All this publicity on Maliki's side in order to burn the bridges and make any political deal impossible in this country where government is glued together with political deals.

He sat on a file for three years?

That's not encouraging and it makes it all the more obvious that his attacks on Tareq al-Hashemi weren't about the law but about the conflict between political rivals.

Saturday, Nouri's thugs went into MP Ahmed al-Alwani's home, killing people, wounding people (including children) and arresting the MP despite the legal immunity from arrest that he enjoys as a Member of Parliament. Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi was calling for an investigation into the arrest..

Sunday, Tamim al-Jubouri (Al Mada) reported today that the Parliamentary committee tasked with investigating the arrest was unable to do so. Nouri's SWAT forces refuse to allow these Members of Parliament to leave Baghdad to travel to Anbar and speak to witnesses.

The deaths are on Nouri's hands. There's no excuse for the deaths, there's no excuse for wounding children. Thug Nouri unleashed his thugs and murder happened.

iraq
national iraqi news agency
al mada
all iraq news
wael grace
kitabat

the new york times

yasir ghazi

antiwar.com
jason ditz
rudaw
the toledo blade
commentary
max boot
borzou daragahi
the financial times of london
al-monitor
mushreq abbas

Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel)

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Nigella and Iraq

I was hung over

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Ani DiFranco is the new Paula Deen

Ani DiFranco: Cancel the "Righteous Retreat in the Big Easy"

About Me

Blog Archive

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man