Well, at least we know the news media is no different than any other occupation.
Mike Snider (USA TODAY) reports:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/04/cbs-news-says-fired-political-director-inappropriate-behavior/1002986001/
CBS News has fired its political director after investigating reports of "inappropriate behavior," the network said Thursday.
Steve Chaggaris
had served as CBS News' political director since March 2017 after being
hired in 2012 as the Washington-based executive editor for CBSNews.com.
He became senior political editor in 2014.
"In the last two weeks, accounts of inappropriate behavior by Steve
Chaggaris were brought to our attention and were
immediately investigated," CBS News said in a statement. "As a result,
CBS News has severed ties with Mr.
Chaggaris for violating company policy, effective immediately."
Last month, Jared Kushner
began seeking
the help of a crisis-communications firm. Perhaps the White House
senior adviser could make a referral for his father in law, too. There’s
no scenario in which
Michael Wolff’s new book on the Trump administration
wouldn’t be a bombshell, but Donald Trump’s strategy for responding to
the book seems certain to only increase the scrutiny on it.
So far, the pushback has
included an astonishing statement from the president on Wednesday:
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was
fired, he not only lost his job,
he lost his mind.” Wednesday night, lawyers for Trump
sent Bannon
a cease-and-desist letter, accusing him of libel, slander, and breach
of confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements. On Thursday,
The Washington Post reported,
lawyers also
sent a letter to Wolff and his publisher,
Henry Holt, alleging libel and demanding they “immediately cease and
desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the
book.”
There are many areas that I disagree with Donald Trump on. A lot of it, I will write off to him being a Republican.
I’m also extremely left (no to war!).
But I would think we would all realize you can’t halt publication of a book because you don’t like what it says.
Last month, Jared Kushner
began seeking
the help of a crisis-communications firm. Perhaps the White House
senior adviser could make a referral for his father in law, too. There’s
no scenario in which
Michael Wolff’s new book on the Trump administration
wouldn’t be a bombshell, but Donald Trump’s strategy for responding to
the book seems certain to only increase the scrutiny on it.
So far, the pushback has
included an astonishing statement from the president on Wednesday:
“Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was
fired, he not only lost his job,
he lost his mind.” Wednesday night, lawyers for Trump
sent Bannon
a cease-and-desist letter, accusing him of libel, slander, and breach
of confidentiality and non-disparagement agreements. On Thursday,
The Washington Post reported,
lawyers also
sent a letter to Wolff and his publisher,
Henry Holt, alleging libel and demanding they “immediately cease and
desist from any further publication, release or dissemination of the
book.”
This isn’t even The Pentagon Papers. (Meaning he can’t cry “National security!” as Nixon tried.)
I don’t think that Donald Trump gets that as US president he has less rights than a private citizen.
This goes beyond being a public figure. When you’re in the Oval Office, people can basically say anything and declare it political speech.
I think it’s a huge mistake and looks like a tantrum.
This is from someone who, while not a fan, is also not someone weighing in every day on Trump’s latest.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Thursday, January 4, 2018.
We are going to again stress the need to please read James Risen's piece for THE INTERCEPT.
As 2017 was coming to close, the Iraqi government began pursuing new ways to persecute the Palestinians in Iraq. Though largely ignored in the US, there was outcry from the international community. Iraqi officials may now be feeling pressure. MIDDLE EAST MONITOR reports:
Will there be any actual effort? At this point, no one knows.
Today, for example, Hayder al-Abadi served up this Tweet:
We are going to again stress the need to please read James Risen's piece for THE INTERCEPT.
As 2017 was coming to close, the Iraqi government began pursuing new ways to persecute the Palestinians in Iraq. Though largely ignored in the US, there was outcry from the international community. Iraqi officials may now be feeling pressure. MIDDLE EAST MONITOR reports:
The Palestinian Ambassador to Iraq, Ahmed Aqel, said the Speaker of
Iraq’s Parliament, Salim Al-Jubouri, has promised him to find a legal
formula during the next few days to preserve the Palestinian refugees’
rights in Iraq.
The ambassador met with Al-Jubouri in his office in Baghdad to
discuss the issue of Palestinian refugees in Iraq and other issues.
[. . .]
Iraq abolished last month Resolution 202 which gave Palestinian
refugees in Iraq the same rights as Iraqi citizens except citizenship,
army service and political action.
Will there be any actual effort? At this point, no one knows.
Today, for example, Hayder al-Abadi served up this Tweet:
PM @HaiderAlAbadi receives leaders of Iraq’s Christian denominations, says Iraq’s religious diversity is a source of pride & strength, and that the @IraqiGovt is working with all communities to build a prosperous, fair and equal society for all Iraqis
Photos and empty promises come easy for Hayder. Follow through? Not really so much.
Which makes pieces like Jack Watling's "The Remarkable Resilience of the Prime Minister of Iraq" (THE ATLANTIC) puzzling -- unless you remember the long, long history of western journalists doing puff pieces for despots around the world.
Hayder's accomplished so very little but if you're able to ignore the squalor so many Iraqis live in, if you're able to ignore the widows and orphans, if you're able to ignore the government persecution, if you're able to ignore so much, he might actually have accomplished . . . well . . . breathing. He's still breathing. Installed by the US in 2014 and he's still breathing.
The biggest howler in the piece? Hard to say but this one surely ranks near the top:
Taha al Tamimi, a former advisor to the governor of Basra and political advisor to the British government, said that corruption in Iraq extends to its senior-most politicians. Anti-corruption institutions have proved unable to confront senior political figures, but al Tamimi predicted this will change, and that there would be little opposition to serious corruption charges against former Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, and some of his allies.
How will it change?
The courts are corrupt.
How is it going to change?
And while I would love to see Nouri behind bars, I don't believe it's as simple or as easy as Taha al-Tamimi portrays it.
Is Nouri corrupt?
Yes.
He's enriched himself and fleeced the Iraqi government.
But Hayder going after Nouri?
They are from the same political party (Dawa) and Hayder belongs to Nouri's political slate (State of Law). Hayder's shown no independence from Nouri. Even in the face of Nouri's attempts to return as prime minister, Hayder seems both inept and oblivious.
Hayder's only 'bragging right' is the so-called defeat of ISIS. (So-called? The Islamic State remains in Iraq.)
In May, Iraq's supposed to hold elections. In four months, Hayder's victory or 'victory' may look even less impressive.
The editorial board of THE CHICAGO TIMES argues for a continued US military presence in Iraq:
The U.S. and Baghdad are stepping up talks about maintaining a U.S. military presence in the country, USA Today recently reported. It’s not known how large an American contingent would be involved, but its role would likely mirror that of U.S. troops in the bid to defeat the Islamic State group — advising Iraqi commanders and providing surveillance and intelligence help. James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and now a foreign affairs analyst, told USA Today that the new contingent probably would be smaller than the current force of 5,500 soldiers.
Keeping American boots on the ground in a part of the world as unstable as Iraq is never an easy decision, but it behooves both Iraq and the U.S. to hammer out a deal. Iraq’s peace is desperately fragile.
[. . .]
An American military intelligence presence is needed in Iraq to ferret out and neutralize whatever the Islamic State group is up to, whether that be web propaganda or suicide bomb attacks in Baghdad.
Huh?
The US military has to remain "in Iraq to ferret out and neutralize whatever the Islamic State group is up to"?
Wouldn't that actually be the responsibility of the Iraqi government?
And what's with tasking the US military for everything under the sun?
The US military is trained to wage war.
But it's already been tasked with reconstruction and rebuilding in Iraq. It's also supposed to have helped democracy take root.
Now we're going to also push off spying duties and bodyguard duties onto the US military?
That's a hell of a burden for a group that returns home only to have to battle for timely treatment from the VA.
And in Iraq?
They get to be the target of the Shi'ite militias that Hayder brought into the government.
KURDISTAN 24 reports:
The head of Iranian-backed militia Asaib Ahl al-Haq recently called on the Iraqi government and Parliament to review the United States’ military presence in the country.
During a ceremony over the weekend marking the anniversary of “victory and liberation” over the US in Iraq, Qais al-Khazali, head of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq Shia militia—a faction within the Hashd al-Shaabi—said defeating America in the country was a victory against the most powerful force in the world.
“We are honored to celebrate the 6th anniversary of the US defeat,” Khazali said while addressing supporters in Baghdad.
“The defeat of the occupier [US] led to the restoration of Iraq’s sovereignty which the US wanted to violate,” he stated, adding the Asaib Ahl al-Haq inflicted damages to American troops “without killing the innocent or relying on suicide bombings.”
The report goes on to note that he is also accusing the US of creating ISIS. Did it? Maybe so, maybe no. We've noted this before and how the lack of a response to it has not helped. But that's for the US image in general. Right here? We're talking about the image in Iraq -- we're talking about painting a bulls eye on the backs of US service members in Iraq. In his ATLANTIC piece, Jack's convinced that Hayder can control the militias. Then maybe he can prove that by getting them to cease making that charge?
The following community sites updated:
