Like Maria Said Paz: 2015-05-10

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Playlists and lists in general

At Third on Sunday, we did this:

We did not have a playlist.

Why not?

Time ran out.

Playlists are important.

They give you a sense of where someone's coming from -- in addition to giving you ideas for what to listen to.

The new issue of Rolling Stone -- with David Letterman's ugly face on the cover -- makes that clear as they survey various artists about what influences them.

The only one that passes the playlist test?

Taylor Swift who offers a mix of music styles and more than a token woman.

Marilyn Manson doesn't even offer a token woman.

Ed Shareen or whatever his name is? I was interested in getting the album.

No longer.

One woman makes his list and he has to offer -- because he thinks he's so 'manly'? -- that it only made the list because a woman friend suggested it to him.

I'm not living in that world.

Sorry.

That was my problem with CounterPunch and their music lists, you may remember.

They either ignored women completely or they included only a token woman.

CounterPunch finally stopped their weekly playlists.

I wish I could say that I was crushed but, honestly, if you're going to be a sexist, just go away.

Playlists -- lists period -- have traditionally been made by men over the years.

Which is another reason I support, at Third, any piece that's a list.

Third is a mixture of men and women.

A lot of the 'canon's -- in rock, in comedy, in TV, in film -- result from men making lists for decades.

It's really necessary that we have more input or the so-called canons will never be diverse.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Saturday, May 16, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept lies about what KRG President Massoud Barzani said during his DC trip last week, the US House of Representatives passes the National Defense Authorization, Ramadi is being lost but the White House seems unconcerned, we look at the targeting of Sunnis, and much more.

Monday, Finance Minister Rafe al-Assawi and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nuajaif (brother of Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi) were hosted at a Brookings Institution event which was moderated by Kenneth Pollack. We've covered the event in the Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday snapshots. We'll continue the coverage today.

Kenneth Pollack: As you are painfully and personally aware, one of the problems with the current federal system is that we've had a corruption of the justice process and key Sunni leaders -- again, present company included -- have been targeted by the central government using that judicial system. How would you think about a future Iraqi system that would prevent that from happening? How do we go about creating an Iraq in which you and Tareq al-Hashemi [Iraqi Vice President whom Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant and who was tried in absentia despite Constitutional protections preventing that] and Ahmed al-Alwani [Ramadi MP whose home Nouri ordered a military attack on during a dawn December 2013 morning -- the raid left several people dead -- including al-Alwani's brother -- al-Alwani has since been convicted to death by the 'impartial' and 'fair' and 'legal' Baghdad court system] and others can't be personally targeted by this system.

Former Minister Rafe al-Assawi: And it depends upon Iraqis. All Iraqis -- Shi'ites, Sunis, Kurds, Muslims, Christians -- whether to live together in a united Iraq, to respect these designations of authorities. Now for sure there is interferences in the judicial system. American -- and you, Ken -- can help a lot to restore. Everything needs to be restored. Everything is damaged. So you have to restructure damaged Iraq -- as I indicated in my presentation -- PowerPoint. So restoring Iraq again means you have to build again. On the corruption side -- which is really in the security and non-security institutions -- part of this is totally controlled by militia. So money create militia and militia took money. And it is a vicious circle. That's why I said the challenge is to restore back again the state. So it depends on how serious are Iraqis -- including me and my colleagues -- to rebuild Iraq? Otherwise, if everyone keep only observing's Iraq's burning, saying 'this is not my job,' or we only keep beating others for participation or giving promises without implementation we will not move any step.

Kenneth Pollack: Governor, anything you'd like to add on the judicial system?

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: I think that the corruption and all that problems may be solved easier if we are near to the people, not farther away from the people. Now with controlling everything from Baghdad, they have no interest, no concern what happen in Mosul [which the Islamic State took control of last June] or in Anbar [which the Islamic State controls part of] -- what the people of Anbar want. They want to found Mosul and Anbar, they want them to belong to them, not follow the problems or the corruption in their cities. And that's what happened in Mosul exactly before the collapse of Mousl. The corruption in the army is too much but Baghdad, they didn't care with that corruption, they care that the Mosul people must belong to them. So I think dividing the authorities as I said [he spoke of the need for a model similar to the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government -- while al-Assawi noted that the division of powers is in the Constitution but it is not being followed] and we can see the KRG as a model, dividing the authorities. Even if there is a problem between some of the Kurdish leaders and Baghdad, there is no real problems that can't be solved, no problems inside their autonomy.

Anbar Province was noted in the discussion. Last month, Haider al-Abadi ordered the start of the assault on Ramadi, a key city in the province. The assault has not gone well by any measure -- including the civilians left wounded and terrorized.

Ramadi was a topic in Friday's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.

QUESTION: Yeah. Jeff, do you have any reaction to the advances made by ISIS today in Ramadi in Iraq?

MR RATHKE: Right. Well, in conjunction with Anbari tribal forces, Iraqi Security Forces have been confronting ISIL fighters in Ramadi and around Anbar province for several months. Today, ISIL is once again attempting an offensive in the city of Ramadi. I don’t have a battlefield update to provide, but I would highlight that the coalition is supporting Iraqi Security Forces to help protect the citizens of Anbar province and to support their efforts to force ISIL from Ramadi and other cities. We continue to provide targeted air support in ISIL-held and contested areas, and that includes numerous airstrikes in Ramadi today. But as for the status on the ground, I would refer you to the Iraqi Government for their update. And about – for the details of U.S. military support, my colleagues at the Pentagon can share more detail.

QUESTION: And do you consider what happened as a blow for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi forces?

MR RATHKE: Well, look, we’ve said before that there will be good days and bad days in Iraq. ISIL’s trying to make today a bad day in Ramadi. We’ve said all along we see this as a long-term fight in conjunction with our Iraqi partners against ISIL. We are confident that Iraqi forces with support from the coalition will continue to push back ISIL where they’ve tried to gain advantages on the ground. So our policy and our engagement remains the same.

QUESTION: So is it the U.S.’s view that Ramadi is falling to ISIL, is under ISIL control, or would you say that it’s contested?

MR RATHKE: Well, I would – I’m not in a position to confirm reports that – I know there have been several reports out there – about the situation in the city center. I’d refer you, again, to the Iraqis for up-to-date information. We have said in the past that Ramadi is and the areas around it have been contested for months, and – but as to the situation in Ramadi right now, we’re working with the Government of Iraq to get a clearer picture of the situation.
Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) consider keeping Ramadi out of ISIS’s control a strategic priority, or is this going to be like Kobani where it’s not a strategic priority unless you win, and then it becomes a strategic priority?

MR RATHKE: Well, no. I think what we said about Kobani was that it was a strategic priority for ISIL. So – but anyway, to switch back to --

QUESTION: Do you consider this – yeah.

MR RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you consider this a strategic priority for the anti-ISIL coalition and for the Iraqis that this does not become an ISIL stronghold?

MR RATHKE: Well, this is a fight that’s being led by the Iraqis, so it’s the Iraqi Government’s job to set priorities. So that would be their – it’s their country and they need to set those priorities and we support them. Clearly, Ramadi is important and it’s a large city. It’s been contested for some time. And Anbar province – we’ve talked a lot about other actions in Anbar province in recent weeks and months, so Anbar is important, Ramadi is important. I’m not going to place labels on them to try to suggest a prioritization.

QUESTION: You – this building and this Administration has been a leader in creating a global anti-ISIL coalition.

MR RATHKE: Certainly.

QUESTION: Do you consider it important that they – that ISIL not gain what would be a significant victory here? I mean, are you --

MR RATHKE: No, I’ve just said Ramadi is important. I agree with you. But what I --

QUESTION: But are you willing to tell the people of Ramadi, the civilians in Ramadi, “We will not let this city fall”?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, we are – our approach in Iraq is to support the Iraqi forces as well as the tribal forces and all the forces who are fighting against ISIL under the command and control overall of the Iraqi central government. So we – that commitment remains and we are going to continue that support, and that’s not going to change.

QUESTION: Jeff, on this --

MR RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- do you consider that the Iraqi Government bears some responsibility in the falling of Ramadi since they didn’t provide the tribes and the Sunni militia the arms that they asked for or they need?

MR RATHKE: Well, first of all, this – I’m not going to start from the assumption that the city has fallen. I’m not issuing that judgment from this podium. With regard to the outreach to the Sunni tribes, this has been a priority for Prime Minister Abadi. He and other senior Iraqi government officials have been reaching out to the tribes to bridge differences and to build trust. We know there’s a lot of history there to be overcome and Prime Minister Abadi has been working continuously to address that.
So in broader terms, taking a step back from Ramadi, we have been encouraged by the Iraqi Government’s efforts to enlist and to arm tribal fighters in the campaign. They’ve been building on the thousands of Sunni fighters who have joined the popular mobilization forces, as they call them, over the past six months. I would highlight as well that the Anbar governor just last week held a ceremony to induct about a thousand more tribal fighters. So these units are going to be working with and coordinating with the Iraqi army. Prime Minister Abadi last month visited Anbar and delivered weapons to Sunni tribes. Of course, there are more efforts to organize and to arm the Sunnis and to integrate them; those who want to fight ISIL will be needed in the coming months. This is a long-term effort, so – and – but we will continue to support the Iraqi Government in that effort.

QUESTION: But – one follow-up on this.

MR RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you consider that the Iraqi Government is fulfilling its commitment regarding the Sunni tribes, first? And is – or will the U.S. provide the Sunni arms directly without passing the Iraqi Government?

MR RATHKE: Well, our policy on arms transfers to Iraq is – remains the same. We – all of those arms transfers are coordinated through the Iraqi central government. That’s not going to change. And as I said, Prime Minister Abadi has made it a priority to reach out to the Sunni population in particular in Anbar, and so we support those efforts.
Namo, go ahead.

QUESTION: We have seen little progress in Prime Minister Abadi’s outreach to the Sunnis, because – I mean, if you just look at the cities and towns that have been falling to ISIS in Iraq, almost all of them have been Sunni towns. It’s predominately Sunni towns. Does that – what does that tell us? Does that – doesn’t that tell us that the Iraqi army, which is basically a predominately Shia army, is unwilling to protect Sunni areas? Or doesn’t that also tell us that Prime Minister Abadi has failed in his outreach toward – to the Sunnis? Because they have been demanding weapons and also some equipment that they need to defend themselves.

MR RATHKE: Well, and the Iraqi Government has been providing it. So they --

QUESTION: But they have failed.

MR RATHKE: No, but – I wouldn’t accept that characterization. The prime minister has been reaching out. He has made the commitments to enlist and to arm tribal fighters. And those aren’t just the commitments on paper, they’ve been happening. I was just talking about some of the most recent steps in answer to Michel’s question. And so in addition to his personal engagement in Anbar, there was just last week an induction of another thousand tribal fighters. So yes, more efforts are needed but Prime Minister Abadi has focused on this and he continues to pursue that.

That is Jeff Rathke and the State Dept's opinion.

It is not fact and should not be mistaken for fact.

The Congress begs to differ.

And too bad for the State Dept, Congress can cut off funding.

Now the White House and the State Dept can go around Congress if Congress cuts off funding -- the White House and the State Dept can do that by (a) breaking the law, (b) creating a Constitutional crisis and (c) courting impeachment of US President Barack Obama.

If they choose to pursue that, it will certainly liven up the remainder of Lame Duck Obama's final term in office.

Congress' opinion on the matter can be found below:

(l)

(1)

(A)

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Iraq is meeting the conditions described in subparagraph (B).

(B)

The conditions described in this subparagraph are that the Government of Iraq—

(i)

is addressing the grievances of ethnic and sectarian minorities;

(ii)

is increasing political inclusiveness;

(iii)

is conducting efforts sufficient to reduce support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and improve stability in Iraq;

(iv)

is legislating the Iraqi Sunni National Guard;

(v)

is ensuring that minorities are represented in adequate numbers, trained, and equipped in government security organizations;

(vi)

is ending support to Shia militias and stopping abuses of elements of the Iraqi population by such militias;

(vii)

is ensuring that supplies, equipment, and weaponry supplied by the United States are appropriately distributed to security forces with a national security mission in Iraq, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribal security forces with a national security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni National Guard;

(viii)

is releasing prisoners from ethnic or sectarian minorities who have been arrested and held without trial or to charge and try such prisoners in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner; and

(ix)

is taking such other actions as the Secretaries consider appropriate.

(C)

The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State may submit an update of the assessment required under subparagraph (A) to the extent necessary.

(D)

The assessment required under subparagraph (A) and the update of the assessment authorized under subparagraph (C) may be submitted as part of the quarterly report required under subsection (d).

(2)

If the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State do not submit the assessment required by paragraph (1) or if the Secretaries submit the assessment required by paragraph (1) but the assessment indicates that the Government of Iraq has not substantially achieved the conditions contained in the assessment, the Secretaries shall withhold the provision of assistance pursuant to subsection (a) directly to the Government of Iraq for fiscal year 2016 until such time as the Secretaries submit an update of the assessment that indicates that the Government of Iraq has substantially achieved the conditions contained in the assessment.

(3)

(A)

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this section for fiscal year 2016, not less than 25 percent of such funds shall be obligated and expended for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E) (of which not less than 12.5 percent of such funds shall be obligated and expended for assistance directly to the group described in clause (i) of such subparagraph).

(B)

If the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State withhold the provision of assistance pursuant to subsection (a) directly to the Government of Iraq for fiscal year 2016 in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretaries shall obligate and expend not less than an additional 60 percent of all unobligated funds authorized to be appropriated under this section for fiscal year 2016 for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E).

(C)

The cost-sharing requirement of subsection (k) shall not apply with respect to funds that are obligated or expended for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E).

(D)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the groups described in subparagraph (E) shall each be deemed to be a country for purposes of meeting the eligibility requirements of section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2753) and chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.).

(E)

The groups described in this subparagraph are—

(i)

the Kurdish Peshmerga;

(ii)

Sunni tribal security forces with a national security mission; and

(iii)

the Iraqi Sunni National Guard.

That's Sec. 1223 of H.R. 1735 which passed the House on Friday (it remains a bill, the Senate has to pass their version) on a vote with 269 members supporting it (41 were Democrats) and 151 opposing it (143 were Democrats) while 12 members elected not to vote.

Wow, there is widespread Democratic opposition to this Iraq proposal.

No.

The Iraq issue is the least controversial element of the bill (well the changes related to the registration and tracking of sex offenders is probably the section that has the most support from Democrats and Republicans, but after that, Iraq's the least controversial).

If you're not grasping that, Democrats are noting publicly their problems with the bill. Leo Shane III (Military Times) reports, "House lawmakers on Friday approved a $612 billion defense authorization bill for next year despite objections from Democratic leaders and a White House veto threat over plans to skirt spending caps with oversized temporary war funds."

That makes me laugh.

For two reasons.

First, I've been at these hearings, Armed Services Comittee hearings, and heard Democrats and Republicans on the Committee -- both sides -- insist that the military must be sacrosacnt and not part of the sequestration (automatic cuts) and blah, blah, blah.

And, for the record, in the Veterans Affairs Comittee hearings (House and Senate), we hear the same statements, the automatic cuts should not effect the VA.

Every committee works to protect its own turf.

And now Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, is objecting to fudging numbers because . . . she thinks sequestration should just be eliminated when it comes to the military.

More money flows to the DoD than any other element in the budget but Nancy is opposed to cut being implemented on Defense.

Once upon a time, Americans believed in a thing called "shared sacrifice."

Meaning we all share in the cuts equally.

But they don't want to do that -- it's not full of the high drama Congress and the White House count on.

It's like the issue of the homeless in America.

Congress doesn't give a damn.

Unless it's veterans.

If it's veterans homeless, oh, let's talk, let's do, let's fund.

But the American citizens that Congress is supposed to represent -- all citizens, not just veterans?

They don't give a damn.

Nor does Barack.

He's promised that veterans homelessness ends this year.

Well bully for him.

But when does the US government ever intend to end homelessness in America?

The crisis exploded during Ronald Reagan's two terms as president.

And he's more or less blamed for it.

But Ronald Reagan's not only out of the White House, he's dead.

What prevented George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bully Boy Bush and now Barack Obama from seriously addressing this issue and ending homelessness in America?

The only thing that stopped them was a lack of caring.

(HW is infamous for stepping over the sleeping homeless while leaving various DC eateries.)

Paul Kane (Washington Post) offers that "Democrats largely opposed the measure Friday because of their demands for new negotiations to set up different spending limits on defense and non-defense agencies that were imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act."

I hope that's clear enough for everyone.

The second reason I laugh?

The Iraq measure in the bill was supposed to be so controversial.

It is to the White House but it's not to Congress -- not to Congressional Democrats, not to Congressional Republicans.

Well they bellowed, and they hollered
And they threw each other down
Down in this valley
This cruel and lovely valley
Oh it should have been an alley
In some low down part of town

-- "Memorial Day," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy

And didn't they, though?

Didn't the press -- mirroring the White House -- because goodness forbid they come up with their own behavior -- insist that this was wrong, so wrong, so wrong?

Didn't they tell you that this Iraq section was going to be rethought? And maybe pulled from the bill?

Didn't happen.

Never was going to happen.

And only idiots who hadn't attended Congressional hearings would have bought and/or promoted that nonsense.

It passed.

And it's not the source of Democratic objections.

Even the White House has sat its wild ass down on this matter realizing that they never had a chance at turning Congressional opinion on that in the first place but certainly not after certain thugs in Iraq -- thugs in the Iraqi government -- thought they could publicly threaten harm to the United States?

Congress is many things. Arrogant to be sure. But it's not a weak-willed president desperate to cave and remain silent in the face of threats from another country.

More than anything else, those threats solidified support in the House for this already popular provision.

So the Democrats are bothered that, to avoid spending caps, the bill ups the temporary expendiatures.

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports 62 people were killed across Iraq on Friday.

She forgets that the bill we noted above includes arming the Sunnis.

Back to Friday's State Dept press briefing:

QUESTION: Just one question about the Erbil-Baghdad.

MR RATHKE: Yeah. I think we’re going to need to move on. So yes --

QUESTION: Just one quick question about the Erbil-Baghdad. Because the – over the past couple of days, that oil deal that the United States has been praising for quite a few – quite a while as a successful deal seemed to have come to the edge of collapse, with the Kurdish leaders accusing Baghdad of having failed to abide by the terms of the agreement. And even the prime minister of the Kurdish region said they are going to take independent steps if Baghdad fails to implement that deal. What is your understanding of the deal between Erbil and Baghdad?

MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, we just had very good visits to Washington both by Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Kurdish Region President Barzani. One of the things that was discussed with them was the – were the important issues facing Iraq. And we understand that Baghdad and Erbil remain committed to seeking implementation of the deal. We continue to urge both sides to work together toward resolving the payments issue and fully implementing the agreement that was reached at the end of 2014. ISIL is the main threat, and we continue to encourage the central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to work together to fight against ISIL and resolve those issues.

No, Jeff Rathke, that's what the administration 'understands.'

It's the lie they repeat.

And KRG President Massoud Barzani was very clear in his public appearances that not only are Kurds not getting weapons, not only is Baghdad not honoring their public promise from last December re: oil revenues, but they are also not receiving their portion of the federal budget.

That's a huge deal.

But grasp that Iraq was unable to pass a budget for 2014.

So the KRG didn't get money then.

Rathke is less than honest in his remarks.

But he wouldn't work for the State Dept if he didn't know how to lie.

iraq
leo shane iii
the washington post
paul kane

antiwar.com
margaret griffis

Friday, May 15, 2015

Tweet of the Week

It's late and Ann found a Tweet and asked me to note it as well which I gladly will:

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, May 14, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Shi'ites attack a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad, the empty words on reconciliation get noted publicly, Jeb Bush ends his run for the GOP's presidential nomination (though he doesn't appear to know it yet), we examine his laughable campaign as well as the Democratic War Hawk Hillary Clinton and the fake ass Socialist Bernie Sanders, and much more.

It's most likely the end of Jeb Bush's run for the White House -- even if he doesn't know that.

This week, the former governor of Florida got attention for remarks he made about Iraq.

His floundering political campaign immediately got massive attention. This attention was big news for a candidate who had trailed Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Scott Walker and Senator Rand Paul in many polls of candidates vying for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

Sunday it started with leaks of an interview to be aired Monday in which he declared that, had he been US President in 2003, he would have done what his brother, Bully Boy Bush, did: Invade Iraq. We noted on Monday how this could give lift to his struggling campaign. On Wednesday, as he modified his remarks, we went over this again, how it speaks to the Republican base and could advance his standing. Thursday, Harry Enten and Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight 'discovered' the same argument.

They 'find' those answers too late.

Jeb Bush has made a spectacle of himself.

Monday through Wednesday, he was slammed by left pundits and by the MSM press.

This wasn't a bad thing.

Sarah Palin received that treatment and did not run from it. She used it, she harnessed it and she rode it to political fame and to popularity on the right.

Jeb could have done the same.

The criticism of Bully Boy Bush was always that he was not his father's son, he was his mother's son. Petty, cruel and mean like his mother, BBB never met a grudge he couldn't f**k.

Jeb, by contrast, suffered from the same image problems their father had. George H.W. Bush was always having to prove that he wasn't the light weight he appeared to be, the one not quite on the ball, the one who didn't grasp the stakes.

Jeb is his father's son.

Which is why he can't connect with the Republican base.

But this week, he had his chance.

He could show he was someone who didn't betray his own brother to garner a few votes, he could stand for the (illegal) war that remains popular with the GOP base, he could show that he was strong enough to stand against MSM attacks.

And as he modified his statement -- via his own remarks and those of surrogates, he was still okay.

Then, today, he decides to walk the remarks back completely, to disown them.

That's it.

He's weak Jeb Bush, as weak as his father, unable to stand up to the press therefore unable to stand up for the needs and desires of the Republican base.

That was the 'crime' of his father.

That is why his father had only one term as president.

That is why it is Ronald Reagan who remains a GOP hero while Bush, who served as Reagan's vice president, is not anyone the base ever describes as a "hero" -- just someone who's most notable moment even now remains his throwing up on Japan's then-Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi.

Jeb spewed a stream of cowardice today.

And the GOP will embrace strength and even get behind false macho.

But they run from weakness (out of fear).

A Republican candidate who can be forced to retract his stated opinion because of a hostile media?

That's weak to the GOP base.

Even those Republicans who might have disagreed with him are going to be dismayed that, after taking a position, he so quickly abandoned it just because he couldn't take the heat from the media.

John Kerry had hoped to make a run for the presidency in 2008.

That dream went up in smoke.

We noted it in real time, the California incident where he shot off his mouth to the delight of some but ensured that he would never be seen as presidential.

Jeb's actions today are very similar.

This is probably the end of the road for his political dreams.

He doesn't grasp that yet.

Neither does Nate Silver's band of thieves.

But after they read this breakdown, Nate's band will probably, in a few days, be humming the tune I've composed.

Jeb will probably remain in denial as long as big money holds up, telling himself that by focusing on New Hampshire, he's ensuring the buzz of strong early victory.

He's probably not going to carry New Hampshire and, having already abandoned Iowa, it will likely be two losses in a row. If he's stayed in that long, New Hampshire will probably be where the campaign money begins to dry up.

Of course, he's supposed to be the smart Bush so he might read the writing on the wall before 2016 and announce early he's shutting down his campaign.

From one disgraced candidate to another, Bernie Sanders. The Socialist running for the Democratic Party's nomination Tweeted today.

Bernie Sanders @SenSanders ·

The war in Iraq was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in modern history.

506 retweets 675 favorites

If the image doesn't show, click on the time link above.

You'll see an image with this on top of it:

The war in Iraq was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in modern history. I voted against military action in Iraq. It was the right choice then, and I stand by that vote today.
-- Sen. Bernie Sanders ( - Vt.)

You stand by that vote?

Do you stand by anything else?

No, you don't because you're Bernie Sanders with the collapsible spine.

So you refused to filibuster to end the war as former-US Senator Mike Gravel was offering lessons on. He was all over in 2006, 2007 and 2008 explaining how a real filibuster, by just one member of Congress, could defund the war.

But 'brave' Bernie didn't do anything.

When Barack began attempting to renegotiate the Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq in 2011, did Bernie lead public opposition to this?

Nope.

Not Bernie.

Not old Flap Your Gums Bernie.

As a member of the US House of Representatives in 2003, he voted against the Iraq War.

That's really all he ever did.

In November 2005, US House Rep Maxine Waters was among 69 members of the House's Out Of Iraq Caucus.

That 69?

It did not include Bernie Sanders.

And for those who've forgotten, Bernie didn't get elected to the Senate until November 7, 2006. He was a member of the US House of Representatives.

He just didn't care enough to be a member of the House's Out of Iraq Caucus.

He stands by his vote against the unpopular (and illegal and, yes, ongoing) war because that's all he has to offer on Iraq.

Arun Gupta took on the fake assery of Bernie's campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and noted:

What the Democrats really want is the left’s silence. The left, as disorganized as it is, is the source of ideas, energy and passion for a party that is an empty vessel of corporate sloganeering. The left spawns the movements and ideas—LGBT and reproductive rights, income inequality, national healthcare, climate justice, police and prison reform, antiwar—that both form and motivate the Democratic base. That’s where the Democrats draw their votes from, but the party needs money from corporations and plutocrats to run its machinery and to play its part in what is projected to be a $5 billion presidential campaign. More than that, the Democrats are one wing of the party of Wall Street, so they will never fulfill any social-justice demands without a powerful push from below.
In the general election, the Democrats need the left to be silent about how bankrupt and corrupt the party is so it can gloss its rush to the right in a veneer of progressive rhetoric. The role of Progressives for Obama in 2008 was to push as many leftists into the campaign as possible and then attack those disinclined to support a candidate who supported more war, bailouts with no accountability for Wall Street, and wanted to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the financial catastrophe.
After Sanders tossed his hat in the ring for the Democratic presidential nominee, there was the predictable Sanders-is-the-real-progressive-in-this-race column from the usual quarters. And there is already “The People for Bernie Sanders” working to corral the left into the Democratic Party. It’s easy to forecast how this will end.
In July 2016, at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, after Sanders’ team meets with Hillary Clinton’s senior strategists but not the nominee herself, his campaign manager speaks to the media: “We are proud of all we accomplished, the millions of Americans who cast their votes for the Sanders 2016 campaign, and the issues we raised about economic inequality, the struggling middle class, and an economy rigged for the benefit of a few billionaires. Senator Sanders may not be the nominee in 2016, but the concerns he championed are front and center.”
When asked about the closed-door meeting and Clinton’s $2 billion in campaign contributions from Wall Street and wealthy donors, Sanders’ manager says, “What we got from the Clinton campaign was a commitment to begin the process to talk about reducing income inequality. We’ve moved. They’ve moved. It’s truly unity in that sense. We are fully behind Hillary Clinton as our party’s presidential nominee for 2016, and are our only focus for the next 100 days is to make sure she is elected to that office. Thank you.”

I’m not making this up. The above quote is paraphrased from the Dennis Kucinich 2004 campaign. He ran on opposition to the Iraq War, but by the convention Kucinich backed the nominee, John Kerry, whose position was to escalate the war, in exchange for vague promises.

Last week, Bruce Dixon explained the realities in "Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016" (Black Agenda Report).

Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

None of this is an endorsement of Hillary Clinton and it's sad that just telling the truth about two awful candidates then requires that disclaimer.

Hillary, the Reclusive Candidate, the campaign trail's very own Greta Garbo.

She wants, you understand, both your vote and to be left alone.

As Cedric's "She's not talking" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY AIN'T TALKING!" (joint-post) noted earlier this week, she's not taking questions from the press.

Or not answering them.

This is how Queen Hillary campaigns?

This is how the elderly princess grabs on to the presidency she's always felt she was entitled to?

Citizen Hillary doesn't have to answer a single question.

But if you're running to be the president of the United States?

If she can't handle -- or won't handle -- the press now, as she needs them to amplify her campaign message, what does that say about a President Hillary Clinton?

That she's be secretive and hostile to the press?

Well hasn't that been Hillary since day one on the national stage?

For the bulk of this week, Jeb Bush has been raked over the coals for saying he would have gone to war on Iraq in 2003 or would have supported war on Iraq or . . .

But he wasn't in the position to.

He wasn't in the White House.

And he wasn't in the Congress.

Hillary was -- in the Congress.

And as a US senator, she voted for the illegal war.

Was it her vote that undid her run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2006?

"What difference, at this point, does it make!"

Remember that January 23, 2013 moment where she snarled/screamed at Congress, while she was being questioned about the four dead Americans (Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods), "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The entitlement, the snarling over being asked to explain herself?

We saw it in 2007 and 2008 when she'd be asked about her vote.

An annoyed and ticked off Hillary would snarl and fume like the petulant person she is.

She doens't hide from accountability due to the Clinton scandals (real and imagined). She hides because she refuses accountability.

Tell Bill Clinton that a room is hostile and angry over something he did or said?

He's going in that room determined to listen, explain and win over.

Hillary just doesn't have the time for that.

We all just need to shape up and get with her schedule.

That's not a leader and it's not a president.

Hillary's not answering questions because she can't handle them.

She's too angry, she's too bitter.

She explodes with her sense of entitlement.

Remember the incident where she was caught on an open micrphone in July of 2007? Michael Falcone (New York Times) reported on it:

At the end of a forum with the eight Democratic presidential contenders in Detroit on Thursday, Mr. Edwards walked up to Mrs. Clinton, leaned toward her and said: “We should try to have a more serious … smaller group.”

“We’ve got to cut the number…” Mrs. Clinton responded. “I think there was an effort by our campaigns to do that … it got somehow detoured. We’ve got to get back to it,” and added, “our guys should talk.”

Their exchange was captured by an open microphone and on video. Parts of it are barely audible.

If that's what she really believed, why didn't she say it publicly?

Hillary's always trying to short change democracy and work around what is supposed to be an open society.

Hillary's vote for the Iraq War in 2002 is not in the 'past' any more then the Iraq War itself is in the past.

It continues to this day.

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 111 violent deaths today in the ongoing war.

She also offers this, "In Baghdad, over 30 people were arrested after rumors of a suicide bomber triggered riots in Adhamiya; several buildings were set on fire, including one belonging to the Sunni Endowment."

I have low tolerance for nonsense.

In her link, "unidentified people" are the source for the supposed rumors that triggered riots.

Lies.

Damn lies.

Do some actual work.

You don't read Arabic?

There were Tweets in English -- we noted at least one on Wednesday -- about what was going on, about the militias (Shi'ite) and what they were doing.

This was about terrorizing the Sunnis.

Margaret does great work for the most part.

But honestly how stupid do you have to be -- and I certainly have more moments of stupidity than Margaret ever could -- to believe that "rumors" of a suicide bomber would lead Shi'ites to storm a Sunni dominate neighborhood of Baghdad?

"Oh, there's a suicide bomber! Let's go!"

It makes no sense.

Nor does the pretense that the Sunni Endowment would be set on fire by Sunni civilians.

Let's all stop being so damn stupid.

#IRAQ شمرية العراق ‏@moonnor27 5 hours ago

shia militias crimes burned my city Adhamiya in Baghdad yesterday & dancing with joy! save sunnis civilians #Iraq
12:11 AM - 14 May 2015 · Details
Hide photo

Shi'ite militias struck the area terrorizing the people. They burned down the Sunni Endowment building in Adhamiya. They then cheered and danced as it burned.

Alsumaria reports that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has condemned the attack in a statement noting that this assault was not something that took place in combat or on a battlefield and that there is no excuse for it. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq (a Sunni) stated that there was no excuse for this criminal behavior and that the government has an obligation to protect the people (all of the people). Sunni MP Haider al-Abadi issued a statement declaring that this assault by Shi'ite militias prove that Da'ash and the armed militias are two sides of the same coin. Baghdad Province Governor Ali al-Tamimi declared he holds Baghdad Operations Command responsible for the lack of security. And even Vice President Nouri al-Maliki -- former prime minister and noted Shi'ite thug -- issued a statement condemning the attacks and indicating that the (Shi'ite) militias were out of control and that only the official security forces should be used for security.

When your attack on Sunnis is so bad that even Nouri al-Maliki -- even Nouri -- is publicly condemning you, you know things are bad.

"As if it is a national anthem, everyone is singing it,"

That's Iraq's former Finance Minister Rafe al-Assawi speaking Monday about the talk -- but no action -- on reconciliation. He and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nuajaif (brother of Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi) were hosted at a Brookings Institution event on Monday which was moderated by Kenneth Pollack. We've covered the event in the Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday snapshots.

Today, we'll note this from the Monday event.

Former Minister Rafe al-Assawi: From 2010 and now, not from 2005 or 2004 or so. Before the second premiership of Mr. [Nouri al-]Maliki, we met in Erbil and what's called The Erbil Agreement? On top of that was reconciliation, de-Ba'athification restoring Ba'ath people, political. Let us asses from 2010 until now? [Tareq al-]Hashemi's left, been exiled, the vice president. Assawi, deputy prime minister, [tapping his chest to indicate himself] the speaker, and the former Minister of Finance, is also -- after 2010 -- been put outside the political process. [. . .] So the story is now keep talking, shouting. Implement the agreement. As well, if you come to the draft, I have the draft of the program of the government [flips through papers]. It is such an excellent one. [Holds up papers] Presented by Mr. [Haider al-]Abadi to the Parliament. The problem that I highlighted here in front of you is the timing. It talks about displaced people, talks about reconciliation, security forces should be totally Iraqi national, no arms and weapons should be outside the control of the government, no militias, all these things mentioned. The problem? Is it implemented? The answer is "no."

There will be no progress in Iraq until actions are taken.

Nouri al-Maliki was the king of empty talk in Iraq.

He'd promise this or that and then never deliver it.

Haider's quickly adapted that strategy.

There can be no political solution until actual steps are taken towards creating one.

iraq
antiwar.com
margaret griffis

iraqi spring mc

alsumaria