Isaiah has another comic but we decided we'd highlight that one tonight. Also, Kat's worked her ass off coming up with three -- THREE -- reviews over the holidays: "Kat's Korner: Susanna Hoffs and Joss Stone, who can figure it out?," "Kat's Korner: Animal Collective goes instinctual" and "Kat's Korner: All Hail The Queen of F**ked Up"
So NPR has a story entitled "Are You Better Off? Democrats In Charlotte Say It's Complicated" -- please.
That's a yes or it's a no. Don't try to legal-eeze every answer. You're better off or you're not. That's how most Americans are going to look at it. There's probably 80% of Democrats that will say yes and 80% of Republicans that will say no just based on party i.d. But the middle, the ones who don't have strong party i.d. are not going to play that game.
They're going to ask the question and give it a yes or no answer.
They are not going to sit there and play, on the one hand, on the other. They are going to make a decision and it's going to be yes or no.
"Media: Anger wasted, anger utilized" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Robin Morgan was an actress, many years ago when she was a child.
She's now the host of the latest offering from the Women's Media Center, the Sunday afternoon talk show WMC Live with Robin Morgan. The show debuted last Sunday and it revolves around current events, interviews with guests and Robin's rant.
Robin's rant isn't lovely and sweet. No one will mistake it for that.
But it's also not offensive.
How is she able to cover the same topics that an Ellen Barken Tweets about and Robin pulls it off?
For one thing, if she has a target, it's an individual. She's not glomming hatred on the great masses. Thus far, when she has a target, it is a worthy target.
Equally true, she's speaking as a woman. Women are oppressed. As a woman, she can sound off for women and it's perfectly acceptable.
But Ellen and a large number of journalists last week though they could sound off on behalf of the President of the United States of America. That's not truth to power, that's teacher's little suck up. Equally true, when you are shut out of power, as the left was under Bully Boy Bush, you can get away with a great deal. But when your supposed great leader is swept into the White House and all you're doing is bitching and moaning and whining and attacking? You look like the most miserable person in the world.
Robin's taken an outsider position for her radio show and we hope she keeps it. It would be so great to have a woman on the radio who is there for women. It would be so wonderful to have a woman who calls out all the people and all the systems that oppress women and all the ways in which women are oppressed. To have someone show that kind of strength is true liberation because it provides behavior which can be modeled.
Robin's show last week was the best thing in radio of the year. We have high hopes for it and hope she continues to be the outsider who will defend women and fight for them. That's not anger wasted, that's anger channeled and that would do more for the state of women, for the state of humanity, than a million and one Twitter feeds.
I think Ava and C.I. had a really important article this week. If you read it in full, you'll find many other topics but that was my favorite part.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday,
September 4, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the political
stalemate continues, the Iraqi ministries undercount the dead, Cindy
Sheehan announces she is no longer on the Peace and Freedom Party's
presidential ticket, Jill Stein fights Google and Jill Stein wins, and
more.
Starting with the US and the presidential race there. A surprise announcement
was made today when Cindy Sheehan issued a statement at her website.
Sheehan was Roseanne Barr's running mate on the Peace and Freedom Party
ticket. Due to health reasons, Cindy has stepped down and also due to
personal reasons: "As to the personal reasons, Candidate Barr and I have
irreconcilable differences on how best to serve the Peace and Freedom
Party." Cindy goes on to off her "hope that the Party/Campaign would
take my suggestion to replace me with the worthy and talented Ms.
Cynthia McKinney." Former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney was the Green
Party's presidential nominee in 2008.
I can't
speak for Cindy Sheehan. I can repeat what I noted last week which is
one person was doing work and one person was Tweeting. Cindy was the
vice presidential candidate. She was going to the media, being
interviewed. At her site, she and Jon Gold had upped the publishing so
that new content was coming from the campaign.
And
Roseanne was playing like the stereotype of a pajama blogger. Roseanne
being Roseanne was supposed to be a good thing. She was supposed to
bring extra attention to the race which is why the Peace and Freedom
Party gave her the nomination -- they had people running for that
nomination, Roseanne showed up at the last minute like a Bush trying to
for admission for Harvard and grabbed the nomination. That was fine
because the Peace and Freedom Party is trying to build their party ("Because
of changes in election law, Peace and Freedom must almost double its
registration by the end of 2014 to stay on the ballot. By registering
Peace and Freedom, you are joining with tens of thousands of others who
want to take control of our political system away from the ruling
capitalist class.") and a big name could help them do that by getting the word out.
But, as I noted Friday,
right now there is movement do dump Roseanne by some members of the
Peace and Freedom Party ("How would it feel to be the first presidential
candidate whose own party publicly rebukes them?").
Cindy worked her ass off -- Cindy and Jon Gold both did. And Roseanne Tweeted.
And
Tweeted hateful Tweets that led to complaints from the Peace and
Freedom Party which led Roseanne to say 'This is my personal Tweet feed
and this is my campaign Tweet feed.' Yeah, let's pretend like you can
draw that line and run for public office. Roseanne's ticket was the
ticket to cover because it is so f**ked up. I'm glad Cindy's off the
ticket for that reason. I'm sad she's off the ticket because she really
using the platform in a way that spotlighted issues and that raised the
profile of the Peace and Freedom Party.
I
like Roseanne as a person and as an artist but months ago I said I
wouldn't vote for her and that's why: The crazy. She's governed by fear
and can't let go of the hate. We've had more than enough fear and hate
the White House. In fact, we've had so much for so long that there are
elements on the left that see the country in terms of Hatfields and
McCoys. (The right has seen it that way for some time. I never thought
we on the left would fall victim to that as well.) And we want to
demonize Republicans as a result of that view.
Republicans
are your friends, your lovers, your co-workers. They're not the
enemy. They may have different ideas and an exchange about those ideas
might make both sides stronger but no exchange ever takes place when
people demonize. If there are politicians you do not care for, call
them out in any tone you want. But politicians don't necessarily
represent the people -- if the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom
Party honestly thought politicians represented the people, they wouldn't
be working to build a political party, they'd just join one of the two
dominant ones.
If 15 Republicans nationwide
switched to the Peace and Freedom Party this cycle, the party would
consider it a success and should. They wouldn't say, "Ew, former
Republicans? We don't want them!" But it's unlikely that they'll
recruit from that group or many groups when Roseanne can't stop Tweeting
hate which, yes, does include wishing cancer on people. When you're
crossing those lines as a comedian, you're in trouble. When you're
doing it as a political candidate, your campaign's dead.
I
don't think, my opinion, Cynthia McKinney could revive it. If she were
asked, I would hope she would say no. What would be the point?
Cynthia's an elected politician who served in Congress. She ran last
cycle for president and knows the hard work involved. So now she's
going to join on to Roseanne's campaign and bust her ass -- but not so
much that she steals attention -- to keep the campaign in the news? How
does that help Cynthia in any way? It doesn't.
In Roseanne's art, she is caring and loving and embracing. It's a shame she did not bring that side into her campaign.
As
Roseanne's campaign falls apart (maybe this will allow her to rise from
the ashes and be a better candidate, who knows), Green Party
presidential candidate Jill Stein announces a victory. Google
TV was refusing to show the Stein campaign's ad. This was a violation
of federal law. This afternoon, the campaign updated their announcement to note that the "ad are now running on TV, cable, and satellite nationally. Thanks for your support."
Robert Mackey (New York Times) reports that
Google relented and notes that Ben Manski, Jill's campaign manager ,
states that the "ad was primarily intended to be shown on cable and
satellite channels, like MSNBC and Comedy Central, which, like the
Internet, are not subject to government regulation of objectionable
language in the way that words and images broadcast over the airwaves
still are." The word in question was "bulls**t" -- according to Mackey,
it was partially bleeped for the TV ad -- and you can stream the
commercial -- unbleeped -- at the Times' report.
John
Hockenberry: So we've got a little time here and I want to do a couple
of things. First, I want to give you your chance to lay out your
platform, if you can relatively briefly. What is the Green Party's
message in 2012?
Jill
Stein: The message is we need an economy that works for every day
people -- not for the bankers who control not only the economy but
certainly our political system as well. So as the only political party
that does not accept corporate money, we actually have the unique
ability to reflect the urgent needs and desires of the American people.
And we are not bought and paid for, we can actually call for the real
solutions that the American people are clamoring for. And I would add
to this that several polls recently have showed that between 50 and 60%
of the American electorate is actually calling for a third party and
saying they would seriously consider voting for one. So why is it?
Number one, we're calling for jobs -- not simply tax breaks or corporate
tax breaks or favors for the so-called job creators who are creating
jobs in India and China. We're calling for 25 million jobs here in this
country through a Green New Deal. We know how to do this. It got us
out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. It can get us out of this
Great Recession right now. And we're calling for a Green version of
this New Deal because it would also jump start the Green economy that
could spell an end to climate change and make wars for oil obsolete.
That's number one. Number two, health care as a human right. Through
Medicare for all -- basically simply extending the elegibility of
Medicare to start at the moment of conception so that everybody is
covered comprehensively. It puts you back in charge of making your
health care decisions, not a profiteering CEO and it saves us trillions
of dollars. A well kept secret: It doesn't cost us, it saves us because
it eliminates the massive, wasteful health insurance bureaucracy.
Number three, tuition-free public, higher education. We have a
generation of students who are locked out of a future. They are
endentured servants under the current system. Both Mitt Romney and
Barack Obama are promising they will stay the course on student debt.
That's not what we need. We've bailed out the bankers who caused this
problem through waste, fraud and abuse on Wall Street. We can bail out
the students who've been the victim of that problem and provide free,
public higher education that is tuition-free. We know that it pays for
itself. We did this through the GI Bill after WWII. We know for every
dollar we tax payers invest, we get seven dollars back in benefits to
the economy.
John
Hockenberry: Okay. We're talking with Jill Stein, Green Party nominee
for President of the United States. Students are victims of the bank
crisis because they're holders of this debt and their interest rate
reflects some of the consequences of the financial crisis, is that what
you're saying there?
Jill
Stein: Well, it's not only the debt -- the sky rocketing of tuition so
that state legislators have been able to provide big tax breaks to the
wealthy. The burden has fallen on the students because the public
support for higher education isn't there --
John Hockenberry: Right.
Jill
Stein: Add to that the unemployment crisis which falls hardest on their
backs with 50% unemployment and underemployment for students. That
really locks them into endentured servant status.
John
Hockenberry: It was a miserable summer for college students,
absolutely, as you point out, Dr. Jill Stein. Alright, how come climate
change is almost no part of the debate in 2012 between the Republicans
and the Democrats where it seemed to be on both party platforms in 2008?
Jill
Stein: Yeah, well I think, you know, it's no secret our parties have
been bought and paid for by Wall Street and multi-national corporate
interests and, of course, oil, fossel fuel, nuclear -- nuclear power,
etc., you know, all the dirty energy stands to benefit from staying the
course. So you see de-regulation of energy, the continuation of the
current crisis which is not only causing drought, heat waves, the
melting of the Artic and beyond, rising prices of food, fires, etc. You
know, we have a disaster that is really beginning to hit the American
people. The American people are calling for real solutions to climate
change. They are told, over and over, that it's a choice between your
job or your climate and, in fact, that's not true at all.
It's a very lively segment and The Takeaway
deserves credit for doing it -- not just the interview with Jill, the
segment is also about political conventions, American voters and other
issues with various people sounding off.
In
Charlotte, North Carolina, the Demcorats have kiced off their national
convention. And on the subject of the implosion of Roseanne's campaign
(a) it is news, (b) I'm glad we made time for the campaign (again, it
was news), (c) Roseanne may pull herself out of her spiral, (d) if she
doesn't that might make for an even more interesting story -- meaning no
one ever had an excuse not to cover the Roseanne campaign. They made
excuses. They ignored her and they ignored Jill. It's their loss.
On
lively and sounding off, Archbishop Desmond Tutu shook things up over
the weekend. As War Criminal Tony Blair banked more blood money by
speaking Thursday in South Africa, he faced protests and also saw
Archbishop Desmond Tutu bow out of the speaking engagement with his
office stating the Archbishop could not share the stage with Blair due
to his Iraq War actions. Saturday, Tutu had a column on the matter which the Observer has published:
If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.
On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.
On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.
If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.
On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.
On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.
It quickly became the column read 'round the world. Tom Foot (Independent) explains, "Archbishop
Desmond Tutu today brands Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals and
calls for both former leaders to be hauled before an international
court." Adam Sich (ITN) added,
"As for the call for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to face justice in The Hague,
he said different standards appeared to be set for prosecuting African
leaders than western ones, and that the death toll during and after the
Iraq conflict was sufficient on its own for them to face action." BBC quoted
War Criminal Tony Blair insisting, ""I would also point out that
despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in
size, with child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with
investment hugely increased in places like Basra." Pakistan's The Nation covered it. CNN covers
the story and notes, "Tutu detailed some of the costs of the war. More
than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict, while millions have been
displaced, he said. Close to 4,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and
more than 32,000 wounded, Tutu added." The Irish Times covers the story as well,
"As for the call for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to face justice in The Hague,
he said different standards appeared to be set for prosecuting African
leaders than for western ones, and that the death toll during and after
the Iraq conflict was sufficient on its own for them to face action. 'On
these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible should
be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who
have been made to
answer for their actions in The Hague'." The Oman Observer carries an AFP report. Thanks to Archbishop Tutu, two War Criminals are getting some of the long overdue condemnation they've had coming. Today George Monbiot offered "We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague" (Guardian):
answer for their actions in The Hague'." The Oman Observer carries an AFP report. Thanks to Archbishop Tutu, two War Criminals are getting some of the long overdue condemnation they've had coming. Today George Monbiot offered "We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague" (Guardian):
When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague,
he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power –
the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to
another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover
from it.
The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.
That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.
The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.
That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.
Saturday the month of September started. Iraq Body Count
tabulated 393 people dead in Iraq from violence for the month of
August. Meanwhile the official number from the Iraqi ministries is
164. AFP noted their
own count of 278 killed and 51 injured and that their figures for June,
July and August demonstrate "the death toll nationwide has been almost
unchanged." Mohammed Tafeeq (CNN) noted CNN's count is 270 dead last month. Like IBC, Antiwar.com keeps their own independent count based on media reports. Margaret Griffis reports her outlet's count is 511 deaths for the month of August. Like AFP, Antiwar.com's count shows no real variation (June was 544 and July was 545).
Violence didn't stop in August. Today, Press TV reports that 2 bombings between Al-Adhaim and Tuz Khurmatu claimed the lives of 6 Iraqi soldiers with another two left injured. AFP notes that 16-year-old Ali Mohammed Ali was discovered outside Kirkuk "his hands, feet and head cut off." Alsumaria notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing has left a Peshmerga captain and two members injured today. In adddition, Dar Addustour reports a Basra cafe frequented by Emo teens and young people was bombed.
The Iraq War hasn't ended -- even if the press interest in it has. NPR's Scott Horsley won "Biggest Damn Liar Of The Week" on Sunday from Third for his 'report' on Weekend Edition Sunday in which he proclaimed, "There are no more US troops in Iraq." At Third, we noted that last month, RTT reported,
"More than 225 U.S. troops, seven Defense Department civilians, 530
security assistance team members and more than 4,000 contracted
personnel are currently in the office at the Iraqi government's
invitation." We pointed to the December 13th, Talk of the Nation which noted
all US troops would not be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The guest
was Ted Koppel and he noted the 157 who guard the US Embassy, the "few
hundred U.S. military trainers." (That's not counting contractors.)
And we noted that, as last week closed, Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) was reporting:
More
than 3,500 insurgents have been "taken off the streets of Baghdad" by
the elite British force in a series of audacious "Black Ops" over the
past two years.
It
is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured,
several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as
"al-Qa'eda in Iraq" have been killed by the SAS.
The
SAS is part of a highly secretive unit called "Task Force Black" which
also includes Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS.
Fars News Agnecy reports
that Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, is
stating that the situation in Iraq has improved and the country "is
moving towards progress and development" making him Iraq's home grown
Tony Blair -- a liar supreme, able to stand out even in a world of
liars.
Al Mada reports today that the National Alliance is in disagreement with Article 140. Article 140 takes its name from being the 140th article in Iraq's Constitution passed in 2005. And it's law, not proposal, not bill, not a notion. Law. The Constitution was passed in 2005. The US installed Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in the spring of 2006. Article 140 was supposed to have been implemented by the end of 2007 per the Constitution. Nouri refused to do so.
Kirkuk is disputed. It is oil-rich and the Kurdistan Regional Government says they have a right to it and the Baghdad-based central government says they have a right to it. That's what "disputed" means (we're going slow in case Chris Hill's joining us this morning -- at his 2009 confirmation hearing he showed indifference to and ignorance of the issue). Article 140 calls for a census and a referendum. And Article 140 has been repeatedly ignored.
In March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya which meant no second term for Nouri unless Iraaqiya imploded in the 30 day process of naming a Cabinet. (When named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days to name a Cabinet. If you don't succeed within 30 days, another prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.) Nouri threw his fit and had the White House backing him. This brought the government to a standstill for over 8 months (Political Stalemate I). During this time, Nouri made spectacular promises in an attempt to sway people to his side. He even (finally) scheduled a census for Kirkuk.
The US brokered a contract with the various political blocs. It gave Nouri a second term in exchange for various concessions. Among those was implementing Article 140. This contract is called the Erbil Agreement. The day after it was signed, Parliament held their first real session in over 8 months and Nouri was named prime minister-designate. Nouri then trashed the Erbil Agreement and called off the the Kirkuk census that had been scheduled for the beginning of December.
Resolving the issue of the disputed territories is seen as very important and instead addressing it, it has been ignored and ignored and ignored. That doesn't resolve anything and only breeds further tensions.
So now the National Alliance -- of which Ammar al-Hakim is a part -- wants to act as if Article 140 of the Constitution is optional? And al-Hakim wants to pretend that things are better in Iraq?
This as Nawzad Mahmoud (Rudaw) reports, "Several Kurdish lawmakers in Baghdad believe that the situation is not yet ripe for negotiations between the Kurdistan Region and central government." Speaking to various Kurdish MPs a portrait of a distracted Nouri quickly emerges:
Al Mada reports today that the National Alliance is in disagreement with Article 140. Article 140 takes its name from being the 140th article in Iraq's Constitution passed in 2005. And it's law, not proposal, not bill, not a notion. Law. The Constitution was passed in 2005. The US installed Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in the spring of 2006. Article 140 was supposed to have been implemented by the end of 2007 per the Constitution. Nouri refused to do so.
Kirkuk is disputed. It is oil-rich and the Kurdistan Regional Government says they have a right to it and the Baghdad-based central government says they have a right to it. That's what "disputed" means (we're going slow in case Chris Hill's joining us this morning -- at his 2009 confirmation hearing he showed indifference to and ignorance of the issue). Article 140 calls for a census and a referendum. And Article 140 has been repeatedly ignored.
In March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya which meant no second term for Nouri unless Iraaqiya imploded in the 30 day process of naming a Cabinet. (When named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days to name a Cabinet. If you don't succeed within 30 days, another prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.) Nouri threw his fit and had the White House backing him. This brought the government to a standstill for over 8 months (Political Stalemate I). During this time, Nouri made spectacular promises in an attempt to sway people to his side. He even (finally) scheduled a census for Kirkuk.
The US brokered a contract with the various political blocs. It gave Nouri a second term in exchange for various concessions. Among those was implementing Article 140. This contract is called the Erbil Agreement. The day after it was signed, Parliament held their first real session in over 8 months and Nouri was named prime minister-designate. Nouri then trashed the Erbil Agreement and called off the the Kirkuk census that had been scheduled for the beginning of December.
Resolving the issue of the disputed territories is seen as very important and instead addressing it, it has been ignored and ignored and ignored. That doesn't resolve anything and only breeds further tensions.
So now the National Alliance -- of which Ammar al-Hakim is a part -- wants to act as if Article 140 of the Constitution is optional? And al-Hakim wants to pretend that things are better in Iraq?
This as Nawzad Mahmoud (Rudaw) reports, "Several Kurdish lawmakers in Baghdad believe that the situation is not yet ripe for negotiations between the Kurdistan Region and central government." Speaking to various Kurdish MPs a portrait of a distracted Nouri quickly emerges:
Last
week, the Non-Aligned Summit was held in Tehran where leaders discussed
solutions to the current situation in Syria. During the summit, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proposed an initiative to end Syria's
violence.
"Maliki should have proposed an initiative to end Iraq's political turmoil instead," Abdullah said.
He added, "It's surprising that Maliki is busy finding a solution for Syria while his own country is in crisis."
In more political turmoil, All Iraq News reports that Ismail al-Jubouri has been arrested. He is a member of the Diayala Provincial Council and is also a member of Iraqiya. He's been arrested on charges of terrorism. It would appear to be political especially when an uproar over the arrest forced the security forces to release al-Jubouri shortly after he was arrested. He has stated he was arrested for political reasons including that he has announced he is running for governor of the province. (August 18th, Governor Hashim Hayali died.) Along with needing a new governor, Diyala's also facing another problem.
All Iraq News reports people are setting fires to the many orchards in the province and farmers are demading the authorities do something.
