The exposed

Isaiah;s The World Today Just Nuts "Trustful Hillary"



Isaiah exposes Hillary.  In the snapshot (at the end of this post), C.I. goes over how Hillary has lied and obscured reality during her time as Secretary of State.

In fact, that's why Isaiah did the comic.

When he read C.I.'s Tuesday morning entry, he knew she was probably going to tackle Hillary in the snapshot so he quickly did the comic.

Hillary's not the only thing getting exposed these days.

Human Rights Watch

Iraq: Militia Attacks Destroy Villages, Displace Thousands

By Human Rights Watch @hrw

Militias, volunteer fighters, and Iraqi security forces engaged in deliberate destruction of civilian property after these forces, following US and Iraqi air strikes, forced the retreat of Islamic...

View on web

The attacks by the Iraqi military and militias are not going unnoticed.


"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, March 17, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Tikrit remains stalled, more documentation of human rights abuses (War Crimes) by Iraqi forces and militias, we explore Hillary Clinton's lies and lack of transparency on Iraq while she was Secretary of State, and much more.



Hillary Clinton ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 and lost to Barack Obama.  It's thought that she will announce her intent to seek her party's nomination again in the immediate future.  Currently, she's in the midst of yet another scandal.  Dan Epstein (USA Today) notes:

Six years ago today, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent a memo on the Freedom of Information Act to the entire Department of State. It stated that "Preserving the record of our deliberations, decisions, and actions will be at the foundation of our efforts to promote openness."
So much for that. Today, we know that Clinton took extraordinary steps to prevent any record of her "deliberations, decisions, and actions." During her entire tenure as Secretary of State, she exclusively utilized a private email account run through servers located at her home in Chappaqua, New York. This arrangement prevented the federal government from maintaining any record of her email communications — a slap in the face to anyone who cares about government transparency and an obvious example of hypocrisy given the memo Clinton sent to her staff in 2009.

Hillary at first attempted to respond with a Tweet and then held a ridiculous 'press conference' in which she was far from forthcoming.  Lauren Carroll (PolitiFact) finds the claims put forward by Hillary less than convincing and notes Daniel Metcalfe's reactions (Metcalfe was over the Justice Depart's FOIA):

Metcalfe pointed to Clinton's use of the word "allowed" and "opted" throughout her news conference, when referring to her decision to use private email. He said both words give the false impression that the law and its proper implementation presented her with a choice. She might have been "allowed" to use only a private email account in that no one stopped her, Metcalfe said, but that's not the same thing as lawfully complying with rules.

 As Isaiah notes in The World Today Just Nuts "Trustful Hillary," what you're left with is Hillary insisting "trust me" while she has her fingers crossed behind her back.





Hillary's e-mails may or may not have something to do with Benghazi.

Already, you can argue they do because Secretary of State John Kerry was unaware of any e-mail problem in the first months of assuming the post and repeatedly told Congressional Committees, under oath, that all e-mails had been reviewed by State and handed over to Congress.

But Benghazi isn't the main issue at present.

The issue is Hillary's refusal to follow rules that govern others, rules that allow for accountability and transparency.

She wants to be president.

She just doesn't believe in democracy or open government.

Her failure to follow the guidelines with regards to e-mails goes to the lying and obstruction that were key to her tenure as Secretary of State.

What marked her four years of State Dept?

Her refusal to allow oversight.

The best example of that was she failed to demand an Inspector General.

She was in Charge of the State Dept for four years and, for four years, there was no Inspector General.

In his first encounter with Congress as Secretary of State John Kerry was asked about the lack of one and he stated his beliefs in the need for oversight and that he was working with the administration on the issue.  He followed up on those words and the State Dept finally once again had an Inspector General.

Hillary doesn't want oversight.

Hillary doesn't want accountability.

She believes she should be able to operate in secret -- as evidenced by her failed efforts at healthcare in 1993.


Let's drop back to  2006, when she was then Senator Hillary Clinton.

June 15, 2006, then-Senator Russ Feingold's office issued the following:


Amendment to Defense Bill Would Strengthen the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction In Charge of
Monitoring Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars
Today, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment offered by Senator Russ Feingold to strengthen the watchdog agency he helped create, which monitors the spending of reconstruction funding in Iraq. Feingold's amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill would extend the life of the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) to ensure that all U.S. taxpayer dollars supporting Iraq reconstruction are being used efficiently and effectively. Earlier this year, Feingold filed an identical amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill but was unable to get a vote on that amendment.
"We need strong oversight of the tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars being spent in Iraq," Feingold said. "This is a common-sense amendment in support of an office that has proven vital in identifying fraud and waste. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going in this costly war and that it is being used effectively and efficiently."

Feingold was instrumental in creating the watchdog office of the Special Inspector. The SIGIR's work to date has been extremely valuable to the U.S. government and to Congress. The SIGIR has now completed over 55 audit reports, issued over 165 recommendations for program improvement, and has seized over $13 million in assets. Overall, the SIGIR estimates that its operations have resulted in savings of $24 million. The SIGIR's work has also resulted in the arrest of five individuals who were defrauding the U.S. government, and has shed light on tens of millions of dollars of waste. 



Hillary voted for it and favored it.

As Senator Clinton, she strongly believed the SIGIR needed to exist and needed to provide oversight.

Yet as Secretary of State, she believed and behaved completely different.

Which is why, five years later, senators on both sides of the aisle were compelled to release an open letter to Hillary:

WASHINGTON - Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ensure the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has the needed access to information and documents.

The Senators believe Department of State is contesting the clear authorities Congress granted SIGIR to carry out its audits with complete access to necessary information and without impediments from any department. Congress and federal agencies rely on Inspectors General to conduct timely audits and inspections of federal programs to ward off waste and mismanagement.
The text of the letter to Secretary Clinton follows:

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

October 31, 2011

Dear Madam Secretary:

We are writing to urge you to ensure that officials of the Department of State comply with lawful requests by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) for information and documents.
SIGIR has broad access to information that may assist it to perform its duties. According to the law that established the office, SIGIR is required to “conduct, supervise, and coordinate audits and investigations of the treatment, handling, and expenditure of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, and of the programs, operations, and contracts carried out utilizing such funds.”
The State Department is explicitly directed to provide whatever information or assistance is needed by SIGIR, so long as SIGIR’s request is “practicable and not in contravention of any existing law.” In addition, State Department officials are prohibited from “prevent[ing] or prohibit[ing] the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit” related to funds involved in Iraq reconstruction.
Despite these requirements, the State Department has failed to provide SIGIR with adequate assistance and access to information and documents. On August 3, 2011, SIGIR notified Congress and the State Department that the Department’s lack of cooperation with its requests was impairing SIGIR’s ability to perform audits of the Department’s use of private security contractors and the Police Development Program.
The State Department has justified these denials on two grounds: that the information requested is outside of SIGIR’s jurisdiction and that the requests overlap with work done by other government auditors. In testimony before the Committee on September 21, 2011, Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s Under Secretary for Management, asserted that SIGIR’s requests for information about contracts used by the State Department to protect State Department personnel were outside the scope of SIGIR’s jurisdiction, which is limited to Iraq reconstruction funds. Mr. Kennedy also stated that the subject matter of SIGIR’s requests had already been widely addressed by other government auditors, including the State Department’s Office of Inspector General.
These assertions are deeply troubling. First, SIGIR has jurisdiction to audit all Iraq reconstruction funds, including those spent on contracts which may also support other State Department activities. The State Department has an affirmative obligation to comply with all lawful and practicable requests made by SIGIR in support of their work. Under the law, the Department must provide whatever information SIGIR legitimately requests, not merely whatever information the Department deems appropriate.
Second, even if the Department concludes that SIGIR has not coordinated its audits with other Inspectors General, the law does not provide the Department authority to impede such audits. In the present matter, however, SIGIR has already coordinated the audits of the PDP and private security contractors with the Inspector General of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
We believe that this unwarranted obstruction of SIGIR will weaken an important oversight tool for the taxpayers and obstruct your own efforts at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department. Therefore, we request that you direct your officers to comply with all lawful current and future requests from SIGIR for documents and information it may require.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.


Senator Joseph Lieberman
Senator Susan Collins
Senator Claire McCaskill
Senator Tom Coburn
Senator Lindsey Graham



Hillary's e-mails are a pattern of secrecy and lies that mark her tenure as Secretary of State.  Patrick Kennedy was Hillary's right arm and he lied repeatedly to Congress on behalf of the State Dept.  For just one example, let's drop back to the June 29, 2012 snapshot covering the June 28, 2012 House Oversight and Government Reform's Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations Committee hearing.



 Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  I just have one more question so we'll just do a quick
 second round of questions. Ambassador Kennedy, you mentioned the Baghdad police
 college annex facility as one of the facilities.  It's my understanding that the United States' taxpayers have invested more than $100 million in improvements on that site. It was intended to house the police department program -- a multi-billion dollar effort that's 
currently being downsized.  And as a result of the State Dept's failure to secure land use rights the entire facility is being turned over to the Iraqis at no cost.  The GAO reports 
Mission Iraq has land use agreements or leases for only 5 out of all of the sites that it operates. Can you say with confidence that those sites now operating without leases or agreements will not be turned over to Iraq for free as was the case with the police development program?  And what would the cost to the US taxpayer be if they were to 
lose without compensation all of those facilities?

Patrick Kennedy:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  First of all, the statement that has been -- 
that you were reading from about we are closing the Baghdad police development center because of a failure to have land use rights is simply factually incorrect.  We have a land 
use agreement for that site. As part of the program -- the police development program -- there are periodic reviews that are underway and my colleagues who do that -- it's not 
part of my general responsibility on the operating side of the house -- engage in reviews
on a six month basis both internally and with the government of Iraq.  It was always our 
plan to make adjustments to the police development program  over time.  But the 
statement that somehow we have wasted or had everything pulled out from under us because of lack of a land use agreement is very simply false. For our other properties
 in Iraq we have -- we have agreements for every single property we have in Iraq except 
for one which is our interim facility in -- in Basra which is simply a reincarnation of a
 former US military there. But even in that regard we have a longterm agreement that 
was signed with the government of Iraq by Ambassador Negroponte in 2005 in which 
we swapped properties with the government of Iraq and they are committed to provide 
us with a ten acre facility in-in Basra of our mutal choosing. And so we are covered, sir. 

In the second panel, Patrick Kennedy's claims would be refuted.

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  Mr. Courts, Ambassador Kennedy and I got into a 
discussion about the absence of or presence of land use agreements for the facilities 
we have in Iraq do you have the current status for that information from your latest 
eport as to what facilities we do and do not have land use agreements for?

Michael Courts: What Ambassador Kennedy may have been referring to that for 13 of 
the 14 facilities the Iraqis have acknowledged a presence through diplomatic notes. 
 But there's still only 5 of the 14 for which we actually have explicit title land use 
agreements or leases. 

Acting Chair Blake Farenthold:  Alright so I'm not -- I'm not a diplomat.  So what does
 that mean?  They say, "Oh, you can use it until we change our minds" -- is that 
basically what those are?  Or is there some force of law to those notes?

Michael Courts: Well the notes are definitely not the same thing as having an explicit agreement.  And as a matter of fact, there's already been one case where the Iraqis 
required us to reconfigure, downsize one of our sites.  And that was at one of the 
sites where we did not have a land use agreement and so obviously we're in a much 
more vulnerable position when there's not an explicit agreement.

How much taxpayer money was wasted by the State Dept turning over facilities to the Iraqi government?

Who can know?

Under Hillary, the State Dept regularly lied and/or obscured reality.

Congress was denied basic information.


This was probably most clear in the November 30, 2012 House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing (covered in the December 1, 2012 snapshot) where the State Dept's Brooke Darby was sent to spin, stall and avoid answering questions.

 

 

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Madame Deputy Assistant Secretary, welcome. Is it your testimony here today that the State Dept is fully committed to transparency and accountability with respect to any and all programs it has oversight and responsibility for in Iraq?

 

Brooke Darby: We take our responsibility for accountability and cooperation with all of the  audit entities, with Congress very, very seriously.

 

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: No, ma'am, that was not my question.  Is it your testimony that you're fully committed to transparency and accountability with respect to those responsibilities?

 

Brooke Darby: We are absolutely committed to accountability.

 

US House Rep Gerald Connolly: Full accountability?  Full transparency and accountability?

 

Brooke Darby:  I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how you define that so . . .

 

US House Rep Gerald Connolly:  Well I guess I'm not sure why you avoid the word.  That was my question and you've ducked it three times.  Are we or are we not, is the State Dept committed to full transparency and accountability to the tax payers in the United States and the people who served in Iraq or not?

 

Brooke Darby:  We absolutely are accountable to the tax payers, to our Congress and to all of the oversight bodies who are looking into how we are spending our dollars, whether our programs are achieving success.  We are absolutely --

 

US House Rep Gerald Connolly:  Alright. I'll sort of take that as a commitment. 

Also testifying at that hearing was the Inspector General for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart W. Bowen.  We'll note this exchange.

US House Rep Brian Higgins: Clearly there's a lack of oversight and transparency.  And that problem is seemingly pervasive and growing or least since we've initiated this back in 2003. Why is it that the State Dept would deliberately make efforts to obstruct, efforts to blame greater oversight and transparency?  Why is there that adversarial relationship?  It would seem to me that your efforts would be  to benefit the effective use, efficient use, of American resources in that region because we all have a strategic interest in seeing that region evolve.  Why is it that you suspect that the State Dept is seemingly obstructing those efforts?

 

Stuart Bowen:  Well it was obstructing. I think we heard today that they are supportive -- almost "fully" supportive --  of our oversight at this stage. And it took an obstruction letter though, Mr. Higgins, as you were pointing to, to break that log-jam. Why?  You know I can't read into the exact motives but I think to a certain extent it was a -- it was a legalistic argument about jurisdiction.

Hillary has clear problems with transparency.  She has clear problems with accountability.

Her e-mail scandal is not a stand alone scandal but part of a broad action to deceive and to avoid accountability while Secretary of State.

A lot of fools (Bob Somerby, for example) and a lot of liars (James Carville) are saying the e-mail scandal doesn't matter.

As a stand alone it matters.  The inability of Hillary to be transparent and open goes against all the principles of a functional democracy.  But this e-mail scandal is yet another example of how she obscured and lied as Secretary of State.

She wants to be president of the United States.

Yet every action as Secretary of State goes to the fact that she doesn't believe in democracy, doesn't believe in accountability and doesn't believe in responsive government.

It is amazing that someone whose obstruction is noted in repeated SIGIR reports is on the verge of announcing her candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

It's even more amazing that the press is completely uninterested in these documented cases detailing her obstructionism and her lying.


And, by the way, there's much more -- many more hearings, many more examples -- that could be cited.  But there are other things we need to cover in this snapshot.

For example, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 369 dead in violence across Iraq today.


And then there's the lies.

What's really sad about Rebecca Collard's report for Time magazine is that it's already got one correction to it since being published yet still features this glaring error: "Although Iraqi forces have been waging war against ISIS in Tikrit for two weeks, the battle to drive the jihadists from the town has come to a stalemate."

No.

They haven't been in Tikrit for two weeks.  It took them 12 days just to get there.  (Some say 11.  The time change can be confusing as we see every year when we have two dates for the start of the Iraq War.)

She's correct about the stalemate, she's just wrong about the timeline.

She's also strangely silent about ABC News' two reports last week on human rights abuses (War Crimes) of Shi'ite forces in Iraq.

 Johnlee Varghese (IBT) does manage to cover what Time can't or won't:


The video released on LiveLeak.com shows the gruesome killing of an Isis prisoner captured by men, reported to be Iraqi soldiers. In the one minute and thirty-six second video, the injured captive is seen being stabbed in the face several times before being decapitated.
[. . .]
On Tuesday, several Iraqi news sources released images of Iraqi special forces torturing and beheading captured Isis militants. The pictures, widely shared on social media, showed Iraqi soldiers posing with disembodied heads and mutilated bodies of the militants.
The images that were released first on the social media allegedly stated that the killings were to avenge the hundreds of Iraqi soldiers killed by the Sunni militant group.


Human Rights Watch has long called out these abuses.  They do so again in a new release which includes:


Militias, volunteer fighters, and Iraqi security forces engaged in deliberate destruction of civilian property after these forces, following US and Iraqi air strikes, forced the retreat of Islamic State fighters (also known as ISIS) from the town of Amerli and surrounding areas in early September 2014, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Iraqi government should rein in the militias and countries participating in the fight against ISIS, including the United States and Iran, should ensure military operations and other related support in the fight against ISIS are not paving the way for such abuses.
The 31-page report,  “After Liberation Came Destruction: Iraqi Militias and the Aftermath of Amerli,” documents, through field visits, analysis of satellite imagery, interviews with victims and witnesses, and review of photo and video evidence, that militias looted property of Sunni civilians who had fled fighting, burned their homes and businesses, and destroyed at least two entire villages. The actions violated the laws of war. Human Rights Watch also documented the abduction of 11 men during the operation, in September and October.
“Iraq can’t win the fight against ISIS’s atrocities with attacks on civilians that violate the laws of war and fly in the face of human decency,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. “Militia abuses are wreaking havoc among some of Iraq’s most vulnerable people and exacerbating sectarian hostilities.”


In addition, Human Rights Watch's Kenneth Roth Tweets:

1. Kenneth Roth ‏@KenRoth 10h10 hours ago

   Bad enuf Iraq Shia militia kill Sunni indiscriminately. Now Iran sends indiscriminate weapons. http://trib.al/zKH7klS 

   

   View photo 50 retweets 12 favorites

iraq
antiwar.com
margaret griffis
human rights watch

TV

"TV: Let's Hear It For The Boy" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Perry, who is also producing the show, showed up in the pilot projecting more confidence and humor than anyone could have expected.

As we've long documented, the idiots who think these single-camera whim-coms are 'amazing' are not real fans of comedy.  They're idiots -- artistically ignorant idiots -- who say things like, "I don't like a show that tells me when to laugh."

Of course you don't like laughter from a studio audience.

It reminds you that you just don't laugh.

It underscores how sour you are and how joyless.

These idiots like to claim that sitcoms with studio audiences are unnatural -- as if they've never been to a play before?

Maybe they haven't.

Maybe when you're that stupid, you've never been to a theater to see a play performed?


You have to be pretty stupid to assume the whim-com is something new.

As if substandard comedy hadn't already been done on The Courtship of Eddie's Father, My Three Sons and assorted other mildly amusing shows.

TV's comedy greats have always depended on the spark a studio audience can provide performers with -- I Love Lucy, Roseanne, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Jeffersons, Murphy Brown, Seinfeld, Will & Grace, Good Times, News Radio, The Nanny, Gimmie A Break, Laverne & Shirley, Cheers, Newhart, 227, etc.

Breakout characters -- including Jimmie Walker's JJ, Julia Duffy's Stephanie, George Wendt's Norm and Jackee Harry's Sandra -- were singled out first by studio audiences.

Studio audience reaction acted as a gauge for Megan Mullally's creation of Karen in the first episodes of Will & Grace in the same way that studio audience reaction helped Ted Knight develop his character on the early episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

And Mary Tyler Moore?

One of TV's most gifted comedy actors?

She was lifeless and dull in 1988's single-camera Annie McGuire but in front of a studio audience -- even in a nonsense role like Christine St. George on That '70s Show -- she comes alive.

Sitcoms very roots go to live audience -- in terms of plays and in terms of stand up.

The return of single-camera half-hour shows has really just been notable for the return of empty moralizing.

Ditching the genre has allowed Matthew Perry to exhibit a joy that many had feared he had lost.



I'm not an Odd Couple fan -- not of any of the formats.  But I am glad Matthew Perry has finally found a showcase to be funny in.

I'm less thrilled to learn Allegiance has gotten the axe.

I really enjoyed that NBC show.

But apparently I was part of a very tiny group.

That's probably the biggest reason I don't watch TV today other than news or specials.

When I take to the time to actually watch a series, it's usually yanked off the air quickly.

(Or else destroyed in season two the way NBC destroyed Smash.)

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, March 16, 2015,  Chaos and violence continue, Tehran-Bagdad forces take a four day break to rest up after (finally) reaching Tikrit, the press goes out of the way to avoid ABC News' scoop last week on human rights violations by Iraqi forces, David Petraeus shared classified information -- he's admitted to it and he'll be sentenced for it -- but somehow he's got a security clearance again, and much more.



Reuters reports, "Iraq said on Monday it had put its Tikrit offensive on hold and senior officials called for more air strikes to dislodge Islamic State (IS) militants,"

On hold?

Did they pause on Monday?

Because they paused on Saturday, remember?

Reuters explains in a longer report, "The offensive, the largest yet against insurgents has been stalled for four days after Iraqi security forces and Shia militia pushed into Tikrit last week."

Four days on hold.

And they took 12 days to reach Tikrit.

Loveday Morris (Washington Post) puts it this way, "Iraqi forces’ operation to retake the city of Tikrit has stalled as troops suffer heavy casualties at the hands of Islamic State militants, raising concerns about whether the pro-government fighters are ready for major offensives."


I would argue that the inability to reach Tikrit in a timely fashion made it clear that the Baghdad-Tehran forces were not "ready for major offensives."

Reaching it and then taking a break?  Then starting back up for a day before taking another break?


Anne Barnard (New York Times) reports:

As the days pass, critics are asking why the government’s 30,000-strong force has been unable to dislodge the last Islamic State fighters -- and whether the reduced pace is a bad sign for future efforts to root the militants out of their self-declared capital, the much larger city of Mosul.


Yeah, why can't do it anything?

"Hundreds" is the number of Islamic State fighters that were reported to be in Iraq when the Tehran-Baghdad forces arrived in Tikrit.

But the Islamic State is winning in Tikrit?


Nabih Bulos (Los Angeles Times) explains:

State media, meanwhile, displayed slogans announcing that there was "no backing down" from  the battle for Tikrit, hometown of Saddam Hussein, as reports came of the destruction of the former Iraqi strongman's grave in the city.
State media also broadcast interviews with various military officials who downplayed the stall, saying that military operations had not ceased and accusing opposition media of seeking to "demoralize people."



The destruction of the grave of former President Saddam Hussein?

Tikrit was chosen for one reason only: The motivation factor.

Shi'ites who loathed Saddam could be encouraged to charge, to behave like rabid dogs.

And with regards to Saddam's grave they did just that.

They destroyed it.

But apparently, that wasn't enough to motivate them to take on Tikrit.  (Saddam Hussein's grave is in nearby al-Owja village, not Tikrit itself.)



BBC News reports:

Poster-sized pictures of Saddam that once covered it have been replaced with Shia militia flags and pictures of militia leaders, including Iranian General Qassem Soleimani who advises the Shia militias.
Militia leaders said IS put up a strong fight for the village, and left many bombs and booby-traps behind, says BBC Middle East correspondent Jim Muir.
But there will be suspicions among many in Iraq's Sunni community that the tomb was deliberately destroyed by the Shia militias, he says.



Of course they'll believe that.

Look at who was involved.

Look at what happened after.

And this assault?  This attempt to wave a red flag to send the Shi'ite fighters on a rampage?

It was done when the US government already knew about the War Crime accusation.  Niles Williamson (WSWS) points out:


 ABC News reported last week that Iraqi military units and Shiite militias trained and armed by the United States are being investigated by the Iraqi government for possible war crimes, including the torture and summary execution of Sunni prisoners, in many cases by decapitation, and the desecration of corpses. ABC has known of these crimes since September last year, when it came across an online video posted by a member of the Iraqi security forces showing a handcuffed prisoner being shot in the head.
An investigation was reportedly opened by the Iraqi government after an ABC News journalist presented evidence of “uniformed soldiers from some of Iraq’s most elite units and militia members massacring civilians, torturing and executing prisoners, and displaying severed heads.”
Multiple images posted by ABC last week depict soldiers wearing the uniforms of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces and the Emergency Response Brigade, which operates under the authority of the Iraqi Interior Ministry, posing with severed heads. Others depict Iraqi Special Forces dragging corpses behind their Humvees. Another image shows a corpse being hung from the guard tower of an Iraqi military base.
Responding to the revelations of war crimes carried out by its proxies in Iraq, the Obama administration issued a statement declaring, “If these allegations are confirmed, those found responsible must be held accountable.”
Such statements are worthless. While there has been detailed reporting on the crimes of ISIS, next to nothing has been said by the American government or media about the activities of the US-backed forces. The New York Times has yet to dedicate a single column inch to the latest revelations.



There were two reports by ABC World News with David Muir.

The first was Wednesday evening with  James Gordon Meek, Brian Ross, Rym Momtaz and Alex Hosenball (ABC News) breaking the news that Shi'ites were committing War Crimes (they called it "human rights violations") in Iraq.


There was also the follow up on the Thursday broadcast of ABC World News with David Muir:


David Muir: Now to new fall out after our ABC investigation last night. It involves the fight against ISIS known for those awful videos, lining up their victims on the beach.  And now a new concern.  Are some of the Iraqi forces -- trained and paid for by US taxpayers -- using techniques that are just as brutal?  Well the State Dept tonight responding to our report and ABC's chief investigative reporter Brian Ross back on the job tonight.

Brian Ross:  The State Dept called these scenes today serious and disturbing.  Brutal images of what appear to be Iraqi forces and militias carrying out, celebrating, torture and beheadings.  In this torture scene, two US weapons against the wall. This video shows two civilians, pleading for their lives, about to be shot dead.  A man with an American supplied weapon walks by, a gunman with what appears to be the insignia of Iraqi Special Forces caught on tape.

US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki: Their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL fighters.


Brian Ross:  The Pentagon says it has already cut off money to some Iraqi units because of gross human rights violations.  But Senator Patrick Leahy says the ABC News report shows the government should cut off money to more Iraqi units.

Senator Patrick Leahy: When you look at at the videos and look at the uniforms being worn, do we really want to say the US condones that?

Brian Ross: US officials tonight tell ABC News that America's top military leader Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly warned Iraqi leaders about the conduct of the Iraqi military and the militias that fight with them -- especially because the US is sending $1.5 billion to the Iraqi army and almost 3,000 American troops to help train them.



This was a major scoop.

The failure of most outlets to note it has been appalling and the silence telling.



One not staying silent?

1. The Intercept ‏@the_intercept 14h14 hours ago

   U.S.-backed forces in Iraq are committing same type of horrific war crimes as Islamic State fighters on other side. http://interc.pt/1FjPNnf 

   77 retweets 40 favorites

Good for The Intercept.

Now can someone explain KPFA to me?

I'm grateful that the weekend evening news -- which is produced solely by KPFA -- continues to cover Iraq.

Not just right now when it's in the news, but they've always made an effort.

So here's my problem.

They didn't note what Emma Graham-Harrison (Guardian) does:

Large numbers of civilians living north of Tikrit could be at risk if the Iraqi city is liberated and fighting moves towards their towns, a senior official with medical charity MSF has warned.
Long before the recent push to retake Saddam Hussein’s home town, the vast majority of Tikrit’s civilians had fled, leaving it vulnerable to destruction but most of its population safe from the fighting. However, if Islamic State loses control of the city and Iraqi fighters pursue them north towards Mosul, the two sides will be facing off in areas where many more people are still living in their homes and could be at risk during battles.


They didn't note the ABC News story either.  I find that appalling.

But I bring up the Guardian article because of what KPFA listeners had to sit through.

I thought we had a problem, on the left, with relying on the ex-generals?

That's all we got in the report.

An ex-general talking strategy and 'success' to Al Jazeera and that being rebroadcasted by KPFA.

There was no effort to include anyone discussing civilians or anything that wasn't strategy and kill-kill-kill.

I like the KPFA Evening News.

But I'm not really keen on reports which included pro-war voices only.

I get it.

KPFA whored out itself for Barack Obama.

So that makes it really hard, today, to stand against war.

I get that whores have destroyed the left in this country.

But I'm still not in place where I can pretend it's okay that KPFA aired a report which went out of its way to include a retired general offering arm chair rah-rah-rah while excluding voices against war or voices cautioning that the assault is not as wonderful as a pro-war voice makes it out to be.


AP notes:

Concerns are mounting that Iraq's Shiite militias, of which an estimated 20,000 are fighting in Tikrit, will carry out revenge attacks on this and other areas that are home to predominantly Sunni residents.
Amnesty International last year said the militias wear military uniforms but operate outside any legal framework and without any official oversight, adding that they are not prosecuted for their crimes. Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch echoed those concerns, calling on the Iraqi government to protect civilians in Tikrit and allow them to flee combat zones. Its statement noted "numerous atrocities" against Sunni civilians by pro-government militias and security forces.


But KPFA can't note that possibility?


There's also this:  James Cullum (Talk Radio News) reports,  "The two-week-long fight to retake Tikrit, the hometown of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, from ISIL terrorists is on hold, and, the Defense Department announced Monday that coalition bombers have left the City untouched."

Which really contradicts what the retired general had to offer.

And should go to the fact that retired generals really aren't the experts the MSM presents them as -- they're not the experts the MSM presents them as or that KPFA now pretends they are.


While the eradication of Tirkit appears stalled (it's not a liberation of the city, it's an attempt to obliterate the Sunnis and the region's history -- ISIS and Shi'ite thugs, different sides of the same coin), Tian Shaohui (Xinhua) reports:

Kurdish fighters on Monday recaptured three villages near Kirkuk from Islamic State (IS) militants, a Kurdish security source told Xinhua.
About 20 IS militants and three Kurdish fighters were killed in the battles to seize the villages of Wihda, Saad and Khalid, near the town of Daquoq, some 40 km south of Kirkuk, capital city of the province with the same name, the source said on condition of anonymity.

IANS covers the claims here.  EFE notes, "The Kurds shot dead over 25 IS militants and wounded many more, while the rest of the combatants escaped, according to the sources, adding that the operation had concluded thanks to U.S.-led international coalition air support."



What's interesting is that there are no posters of Barzani.

Isn't that what's done?

It's what Baghdad's doing.

Destroying areas and calling it 'liberation' as they rush to post posters of Iranians and others.

We'll note the Christian Science Monitor's Scott Peterson:

Scott Peterson ‏@peterson__scott 11h11 hours ago

My report: In north Iraq, casualties as Kurds push back Islamic State: "They are retreating, we are weakening them" http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0316/In-northern-Iraq-casualties-as-Kurds-push-back-Islamic-State?cmpid=addthis_twitter …

28 retweets 14 favorites

On violence, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 258 violent deaths throughout Iraq today.

Changing topics, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) issued a statement today:

WASHINGTON — More than 60 Iraqi cultural treasures illegally smuggled into the United States were returned to the Republic of Iraq Monday, following five separate investigations led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). The objects were seized at the culmination of investigations led by HSI offices in New York; Baltimore, Maryland; Austin, Texas; and New Haven, Connecticut. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office assisted in two of the investigations.

“These ancient treasures we are returning do not belong in the hands of any private collection or any one owner. They belong to the people of Iraq where they will be displayed and protected,” said Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security and ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña. “ICE will not allow the illicit greed of some to trump the cultural history of an entire nation.”

“On behalf of the Government and people of Iraq, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the U.S. Government and HSI special agents (the soldiers behind the scenes), and all those who contributed in restoring this priceless heritage that belongs to Iraq and its people, said Lukman Faily, Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq. “Today is a historic day that documents the deep relationship, cooperation and friendship between Iraq and the United States. While we stand here united with our friends and allies, we send a strong message to Daesh and its destruction that we are committed to defeating the terror, rebuilding our country and preserving its cultural heritage. The return of our looted archeological items is a national project and we call upon all countries to help us in preserving this heritage which is not only valuable for Iraq but for all mankind.”
One of the most significant items returned to Iraq is the Head of Assyrian King Sargon II, a limestone fragmentary head of Lamassu, the winged bull, from the Palace of Sargon II.
As part of “Operation Lost Treasure,” HSI New York special agents received information on June 30, 2008, that an antiquities dealer based in Dubai was selling looted Iraqi antiquities to dealers around the world. The special agents seized the limestone statue on Aug. 13, 2008, after it was shipped to New York by a Dubai-based antiquities trading company owned by the antiques dealer.
This investigation identified a broad transnational criminal organization dealing in illicit cultural property. Some of the network’s shipments were directly linked to major museums, galleries and art houses in New York.  The investigation has resulted in one arrest, multiple seizures of antiquities ranging from Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan, and the return of many of artifacts. A repatriation ceremony with Afghanistan was held two years ago and future repatriations are anticipated.
In April 2012, HSI New Haven special agents received information that individuals were smuggling and transporting stolen goods, specifically gold plated items from Saddam Hussein’s private airport and palace. The individual obtained a water urn, door knocker and soap dish from in or around one of Hussein’s palaces.
HSI Austin special agents viewed a Craigslist posting selling objects consisting of swords, daggers and an ax from various time frames and regions.  In June 2012 special agents determined that a Luristan bronze ax from Early Sumeria (present day Iraq) was among the artifacts being sold. The seller had no importation documentation and the ax was among several other items that were subsequently abandoned by the individual.
In January 2014, HSI Baltimore received a tip reporting that a senior civilian employee working in Iraq in 2004 during Operation Iraqi Freedom, withdrew an Iraqi window seal from an Iraq government building and brought it home. 
Special agents met with the employee where he stated he was not aware that he required permission from the United States, Iraq or military authorities to export the item out of Iraq.
An investigation by HSI New York dubbed “The Mummy’s Curse” targeted an organization that smuggled cultural heritage objects into the U.S., sold them in antiquities markets and laundered the proceeds back to the source countries.  As part of the investigation, 37 Iraqi bronze objects, 21 clay reliefs and 18 pieces of Iraqi glass were forfeited to the U.S. government to be returned to the people of Iraq. This investigation was unique in utilizing money laundering charges, which allowed investigators to seize bank accounts containing the proceeds from the sale of smuggled cultural property. This allowed ICE to identify a large transnational criminal organization, resulting in the issuance of four arrests warrants. So far two convictions have been secured and the agency is seeking an international fugitive involved in the case.
ICE has returned more than 1200 items to Iraq in four repatriations since 2008.  Since 2007, more than 7,800 artifacts have been returned to over 30 countries including paintings from France, Germany, Poland and Austria, 15th-18th century manuscripts from Italy and Peru, cultural artifacts from China, Cambodia and Iraq, two Baatar dinosaur fossils to Mongolia and most recently 19 antiquities were returned to Italy.
Learn more about HSI cultural property, art and antiquities investigations. Members of the public who have information about suspected stolen cultural property are urged to call the toll-free HSI tip line at 1-866-DHS-2-ICE or to complete its online tip form.

Artifacts aren't the only thing returning to Iraq. David Petraeus is back in the news.  For example, UPI reports:



Abbe Lowell is the lawyer for Stephen Kim, a former U.S. Department of State contractor, who is serving a 13-month sentence for discussing classified information about North Korea to Fox News.
"The decision to permit General Petraeus to plead guilty to a misdemeanor demonstrates more clearly than ever the profound double standard that applies when prosecuting so-called 'leakers' and those accused of disclosing classified information for their own purposes," Lowell wrote to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Petraeus plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information by sharing it with his mistress. He is scheduled to be sentenced in April.

Yet he is now providing security advice on Iraq to the White House.  Ben Kamisar (The Hill) quotes White House spokesperson Josh Earnest declaring today, "General Petraeus is somebody who served for a number of years in Iraq, he commanded a large number of American military personnel in that country. Over that time, he developed strong relationships with some of his Iraqi counterparts and with some of Iraq's political leaders. He is, I think, legitimately regarded as an expert when it comes to the security situation on Iraq. So I think it makes sense for senior administration officials to on occasion consult him for advice."  AP reminds,  "A retired four-star general, Petraeus' vaunted career suffered a major blow from revelations he gave the biographer, Paula Broadwell, eight binders of classified material he had improperly kept. The 62-year-old agreed earlier this month to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count that carries a possible sentence of up to a year in prison. "


So let's just recap.

David Petraeus had to step down for an affair. Step down as CIA head.  And it was discovered he did indeed pass on classified information.

And now Barack's bringing him back into the fold?

After you've leaked classified information how do you get a security clearance?

I am confused.

iraq

rudaw
the new york times
the washington post
loveday morris
all iraq news
abc news
james gordon meek
Brian Ross
rym momtaz
alex hosenball
david muir
abc world news

What do you know about Tikrit?

Tikrit is a city in Iraq.

If you follow the news, you may know it is a Sunni dominant city.

You may also know that it is currently a battle site between Shi'ite forces from Baghdad and Tehran battling the Islamic State.

In the latest snapshot, C.I. does a great job analyzing the failures of Iraqi forces in this battle.

But I thought about how little is known about Tikrit.  BBC News has an article on the city by Mina al-Lami:



Tikrit's palaces also have a somewhat mythical status. The city is widely cited as having the highest number of luxurious palaces built during Saddam's time, with reports putting their numbers between 60 and over 100.
The most impressive of these palaces lie within the Tikrit Presidential Palaces compound on the Tigris river, out of sight behind concrete walls.
Control of these palaces moved from Saddam Hussein, to the US forces, then the Iraqi government, and finally, since June last year, to the jihadist group Islamic State (IS).


Meanwhile, Ben Wedeman (CNN) reports:

All the while, the windows of the building shook from the concussion of the bombardment of central Tikrit. From the sound, it was clear that artillery and rocket launchers were nearby.

Several other wounded fighters were in the entrance, but their condition was much less grave. One, who identified himself as Sadiq, had been shot in the upper thigh, but was fully conscious.

He told producer Kareem Khadder he had been shot in central Tikrit that morning, recalling at the time he was uncertain whether it was shrapnel or a bullet because the fighting was so intense.

You'll learn, if you read the article, that as the CNN journalists were leaving, there was an effort to strip them of their cameras and footage.

I'll also note that Wedeman was embedded with the Badr Brigade.

I'd applaud that if this were 2006.

But it's 2015 so I'll just note I don't have a problem with it provided CNN can be objective about the notorious Shi'ite militia.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Saturday, March 14, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Tikrit attack proves to be humiliating for Baghdad and Tehran, lies and more lies from the US government on Iraq get exposed, we note the shooting death of an Iraqi in Dallas, Texas, and much more.


Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports that Badr militia leader Hadi al-Amiri has praised Iran for it's "unconditional" aid and support as contrasted with the US -- Iraqi leaders "kiss the hands of the Americans and get nothing in return."

Oh, Hadi, you're such an embarrassment, such an idiot.

Do you really think we've forgotten you or your weakling son?

Or the 2014 incident where your little baby (grown adult son) threw a tantrum because an airline refused to delay a flight for him.

Or that you, as Transportation Minister, then refused to allow the flight to land in Iraq?

Oh, Hadi, you stupid ass.

The world has not forgotten.

Nor has the world forgotten that, in your denials (lies) about the incident, you promised a full investigation.

There was never an investigation.

Which was good for your little boy, right?

Because you'd publicly insisted that if he was responsible, you'd turn him over to the authorities.

Poor little Hadi.  Such a joke on the world stage.

And part of the reason the US government did not back, last summer, Ammar al-Hakim for the post of prime minister.  Hadi's part of the al-Hakim led Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.  All Iraq News reports Ammar met with Brett McGurk of the US State Dept to tell McGurk that Iraq doesn't need the US.

Good enough, let's pull all US troops out of Iraq (at last).


Wednesday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an important hearing on Iraq and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that US President Barack Obama has requested.  We've covered the hearing in the Wednesday and Thursday snapshots and will cover it later in this one.  But for now, let's note what Ranking Member Robert Menendez stated as the hearing was coming to a close.



Ranking Member Robert Menendez:  Finally, I do hope that we can get to a point to find the right balance and that's not easy in this proposition to give you an AUMF that gives you the wherewithall to degrade and defeat ISIL but by the same token doesn't provide an open-ended check.  And I think that the real concern here  is for some of us who lived under shock and awe and were told that Iraqi oil was going to pay for everything and saw a lot of lives and national treasure spent, that even well intentioned efforts can move in a totally different direction.  And this is the most critical vote that any member of the Congress  will take which is basically a vote on war and peace and life and death.


As if to underscore the points he was making Wednesday, CBS News reported Friday:

A U.S. soldier at an Iraqi training base was injured by gunfire directed at the base, marking the first time an American soldier has been wounded by fire from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.
A Pentagon spokesman told Martin that the soldier received superficial wounds to his face after the incident, which occurred Wednesday at 3:00 a.m. Iraqi time.

National Iraqi News Agency adds, "The Spokesman of the Pentagon said that this is the first time that a US soldier wounded are carried out on the ground, since the United States began training Iraqi forces as part of coalition efforts to defeat the IS organization."  All Iraq News quotes the Pentagon spokesperson, Steve Warren, stating that "US soldiers returned fire."




Oh, what a beautiful city
Oh, what a beautiful city
Oh, what a beautiful city
Twelve gates to the city
Hallelujah
There are three gates in the east
And three to the west
There's three to the north
And three to the south
There's twelve gates to the city
Hallelujah
-- "Twelve Gates To The City," traditional song recorded by Carly Simon on her Christmas Is Almost Here



Twelve Gates To The City, and 12 days to reach Tikrit.

That's how long it's taken the Baghdad-Tehran alliance.  On Thursday, the 12th day of the operation, they finally reached Tikrit.  Apparently, there was no direct path so they had to take stop overs, possibly they traveled Jet Blue via Miami.

Thursday, All Iraq News reported that Khalid al-Khazrji (Deputy Chair of the Local Security Committee) was insisting, "The Iraqi forces have completely controlled over Tikrit."

Oh, the lies and the liars.

Like Khaled al-Obeidi.  Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reported that Defense Minister al-Obeidi declared that the battle for Tikrit "will be today and will be a decisive battle."


Didn't happen.

But Iran and Baghdad's Shi'ite forces had finally made it to Tikrit.

And?



Jean Marc Mojon (AFP) didn't seem to grasp what he reported on Friday morning:


Iraqi forces on Friday battled jihadists making what looked increasingly like a last stand in Tikrit but the Islamic State group responded by vowing to expand its "caliphate".
Thousands of fighters surrounded a few hundred holdout IS militants, pounding their positions from the air but treading carefully to avoid the thousands of bombs littering the city centre.


The bulk of Islamic State fighters had left, only a "few hundred" remained and that was still too much for the combined might of Baghdad and Tehran.

Offering a more clear-eyed assessment on Friday was Saif Hameed (Reuters) who reported:

The offensive to retake Tikrit appeared to stall on Friday, two days after Iraqi security forces and mainly Shi’ite militia pushed into Saddam Hussein’s home city in their biggest offensive yet against the militants.
A source in the Salah Al-Din Operations Command said Iraqi forces would not move forward until reinforcements reached Tikrit, of which the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) still holds around half.

Using guerrilla warfare tactics, the militants have turned the city into a labyrinth of home-made bombs and booby-trapped buildings, and are using snipers to halt their progress.


Adam Rawnsley (War Is Boring) notes that, "in a sign of Tehran’s growing military presence in the Iraq, Iranian weapons were a nearly ubiquitous sight in images and videos coming out of the offensive to take the mostly Sunni city."  Yamei Wang (Xinhua) adds that Friday saw at least seventy-two security forces injured and another 26 killed.


And today?  Xinhua reports:

Iraqi security forces fighting to free the besiege city of Tikrit planned to clear the city from the Islamic State (IS) militants within 72 hours, a militia spokesman said on Saturday.
The city "will be liberated within 72 hours," Karim al-Nouri, a leading figure of the Shiite party Badr Organization and the spokesman of the government-backed militia of al-Hashed al-Shaabi, said in the town of Awja, south of Tikrit.


But reality is not what's above.  Reuters reports reality which is that the Islamic State still controls at least half of Tirkit and the security forces who entered the city?

They have "paused their offensive for a second day on Saturday as they awaited reinforcements, a military source said."

This is also echoed by the Oman Tribune, "Earlier, Iraqi forces and Shia militia battling to wrest full control of the city of Tikrit from Baghdadi militiamen paused their offensive for a second day on Saturday as they awaited reinforcements.  A source in the local military command centre said military commanders had reached a decision to halt the operation until a suitable, carefully set plan is in place to break into central Tikrit."

So the operation starts with claims that are never met (they were supposed to have entered and seized Tikrit two Fridays ago -- that is what the officials promised) and after they finally arrive in Tikrit and face significantly fewer Islamic State forces than they expected, they're still so inept that they have to pause their fighting and wait for reinforcements.

Hundreds of Islamic State fighters.

Thousands of security forces.

And the security forces have to wait for reinforcements before continuing the battle.

This was supposed to be a confidence builder.

It has been anything but.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is again demonstrating he's no different than Nouri al-Maliki.

In 2008, you may remember, Nouri decided to attack Basra (and Sadr City in Baghdad).

It was an operation that the US was planning with Iraqi forces.

But Nouri jumped the gun.

And Iraqi forces, once fighting began, began deserting.

And Nouri hadto count on the US forces to rescue his plan.

But because the US government needed to promote Nouri as a leader, it was considered unkind to point out that it was only US forces that diverted the disaster.

And now there's Haider.

Who didn't want US help on this.

And the forces -- with all of Tehran's help -- couldn't even make it into Tirkit on time.

And when they did?

They can't even fight a much smaller than expected group of Islamic State fighters.

This was supposed to be the morale booster.

It should be the wake up call.

Yes, the US military assessment was correct:  Iraqi forces (with or without help from Tehran) are still not ready or maybe just still not committed to the actual fight.

Sending Shi'ites into Saddam Hussein's home town?

It was supposed to be a morale builder because Shi'ites hated (and continue to hate) the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

This was the area they would shoot up and destroy, feeding on their own hatred.

But even with all that, they still can't pull it off.

They're an embarrassment.

So is stupidity.

We're not even going to go into Nancy A. Youssef's idiotic efforts to claim a slice of Tikrit for the US -- she (and brass) feared the operation would be a success -- because they're unable to use their eyes and ears -- so she did a piece of whoring -- like what she used to do for McClatchy all the time.  We're not linking to her nonsense.

But we will go to greater stupidity.

Foreign Policy, we mean you.

Why did you ever hire idiots like David Frances and Sabine Muscat who wrote on Friday:

Congress sits by as Christians are besieged by the Islamic State. Last August, President Barack Obama signed a bill creating a special envoy charged with helping Iraq’s Christian communities and other minority religious groups targeted by the Islamic State. Seven months later, the post is still vacant, and Congress seems in no rush to fill it. FP’s Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian and Yochi Dreazen report on a “small but concrete example of Washington’s passivity in the face of an ongoing wave of atrocities against the Assyrian, Chaldean, and other Christian communities of Iraq and Syria.”



Leave out Yochi and Bethany because they don't argue what Frances and Muscat stupidly do.

Have you finished the third grade?

If so and you're an American citizen going to school in America you should be rolling your eyes at what Frances and Muscat wrote.

Congress isn't sitting by.

They're not the ones "in no rush to fill it."

Because, even though Frances and Muscat are too stupid to know it, Congress merely votes to confirm (or deny) someone the president nominates.

What kind of whores are Frances and Muscat to blame Congress for Barack's inaction?

Stupid whores if they think they can get away with it.

Again, the linked to article by Yochi and Bethany does not make the claim Frances and Muscat do.

Frances and Muscat are wrong, they're wrong about the Constitution and they really shouldn't be allowed to cover these topics anymore because either they're too stupid or they're too biased to be trusted.


Here's reality, Barack waited 10 days to sign the bill in question (passed by Congress) and did so quietly, as Yochi and Bethany note, "the White House quietly announced the signing in a late-afternoon press release that lumped it in with an array of other low-profile legislation. Neither Obama nor any prominent lawmakers made any explicit public reference to the bill."


When Barack's failure to nominate someone for the post results in two 'reporters' rushing to slam Congress, then Foreign Policy needs to do a house cleaning.  Frances and Muscat are not qualified to even write up synopsis so they shouldn't be working for Foreign Policy.

Yochi and Bethany write an even-handed report which includes:

Administration officials say they are paying close attention to the plight of Iraq’s religious minorities and doing all they can to help. In an interview, Rabbi David Saperstein, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, said that he has devoted the majority of his time since assuming his post last December to the plight of the Christians and other groups that find themselves in the crosshairs of the Islamic State.
Saperstein noted that when the Islamic State encircled thousands of members of the country’s Yazidi community and threatened to exterminate them last year, it was American warplanes that beat back the militants and allowed the civilians to escape their clutches. “There are scores of thousands of people who are alive because of what we did,” he said.

The issue is Iraqi Christians.

If Saperstein is too ignorant to know that Yazidis are not Christians may be he's not up for his job.

The Yazidis should have been (and were) provided with supplies dropped from planes.

In addition, they were used to put US forces (publicly) back into Iraq.

The Yazidis are now aligned with the neocons -- via their sole MP in Parliament who spends so much of her time in England, Canada and the United States.  They really don't need an advocate.

But Iraqi Christians have been very public about the fact that the Yazidis have gotten the world's attention while the slaughter of Iraqi Christians in Iraq goes largely unnoticed.

The so called objective press might want to explain to their news consumers why that is, why they ignore the Iraqi Christians while they provide tons of coverage to the group advocating for US combat troops in Iraq -- because that's what the Yazidi leadership signed off on when they agreed to take neocon money in an effort to publicize themselves.

On the battles in Iraq, Kareem Shaheen (Guardian) reports:

On Friday a prominent Iraqi Sunni preacher urged authorities to prevent Shia militias from carrying out revenge attacks. Sheikh Abdel Sattar Abdul Jabbar said that if the government failed to stop revenge attacks by Shia militias, the country would face reignited sectarian tensions such as the ones it witnessed at the height of the war in 2006 and 2007.
“We ask that actions follow words to punish those who are attacking houses in Tikrit,” Abdul Jabbar said during his Friday sermon in Baghdad. “We are sorry about those acting in revenge that might ignite tribal anger and add to our sectarian problems.

Analysts say the campaign to liberate Sunni areas must be led by members of the community, fearing retributions and revenge attacks that could upend the campaign to drive out Isis. 



Back to Wednesday's hearing.  Isakson questioned the need for a time limit on Barack's proposed AUMF -- which currently has a 3-year-provision calling for a review three years after it is passed.  Isakson wondered, "Wouldn't we be better off sending a clear signal that there is no end to this conflict as far as we are concerned until we win the victory?"  Click here for the press release from Senator Isakson's office.

For any wondering about the answer, Ash Carter repeatedly stated this was a "political consideration" and that the Good and Powerful Barack didn't want to tie anyone's hands.

Strange because Bully Boy Bush signed a three year agreement with Iraq after -- after -- the 2008 elections which saw Barack win the presidency.  Before Barack won the presidency, he (and Joe Biden) insisted they would oppose Bully Boy Bush doing any such agreement without the Senate signing off.  Immediately after the election -- Deletion You Can Believe In -- that promise disappeared from the campaign site and neither Barack nor Joe ever brought it up again.

Ash Carter is the Secretary of Defense.  He appeared at the hearing to offer testimony as did Secretary of State John Kerry and General Martin Dempsey who is the Chair of the Joint Chiefs.


Let's jump in on this exchange.


Senator Cory Gardner:  . .  . what weight of effort would you say that the Peshmerga or other fighting in the region are pursuing against ISIL?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  The early successes against ISIL were largely through the Peshmerga.  And that will evolve over time but they've been carrying the majority of the effort thus far.

Senator Cory Gardner:  And by majority of effort, is there a weight?  Like they're carrying out a third?   Three-quarters?  Ninety percent?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  No, Senator, I can't actually put

Senator Cory Gardner:  -- the weight of effort on it?

Gen Martin Depmsey:  -- but the early, uh, the early effort to blunt ISIL's momentum were north and therefore with the Peshmerga

Senator Cory Gardner:  And reports in the news and other places have stated the Peshmerga are only getting about 10% of the arms that have routed through -- that have been routed through Baghdad.  Is that correct?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Uh, again, I don't have the percentage but I can certainly take it for the record.  But there were some friction early on with the willingness of the government of Iraq to provide weapons to the Peshmerga but we think we've-we've managed our way through that.

Senator Cory Gardner:  And so right now you feel confident that the process by which arms will reach Erbil have now been settled or resolved?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  I am confident that we've broke through the initial friction but it doesn't mean it won't return.


He was confident on Wednesday.

Is he still confident?

Or is he just a liar?

Massoud Barazani is the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Hours after the hearing, The NewsHour (PBS -- link is text, audio and video) aired an interview with Barzani which included Barzani declaring:


We are satisfied with the [US] air support. We are getting good support, but, in reality, to this present moment, we have the same view as in the past on arming and equipping the Peshmerga forces with the right weapons.  It’s not to the standard we want.


If that's confusing for anyone -- possibly confusing for Dempsey, the title of the segment is "Kurdish leader says more U.S. weapons needed in fight against Islamic State."


Peshmerga forces include women and Cale Salih has written about that for CNN here.

But to the point of Dempsey's dishonesty?

That's all the hearing offered: dishonesty from the witnesses.

Hour after the hearing,  James Gordon Meek, Brian Ross, Rym Momtaz and Alex Hosenball (ABC News) broke the news that Shi'ites were committing War Crimes (they called it "human rights violations") in Iraq.


At the hearing, John Kerry lied non-stop including, "So as long as we continue to work on the integration, the  internal inclusivity of Iraq and its government -- to help the Iraqis to be able to do this themselves, help the region feel empowered by it, that is a long term recipe for the United States not to have as much risk and not to have to put ourselves on the line the way we have historically."

There is no 'inclusivity' in Iraq.  Shi'ites forces are targeting, terrorizing and killing Sunni civilians.

A fact Kerry didn't raise before the Committee.

Let's again note, the Thursday broadcast of ABC World News with David Muir:


David Muir: Now to new fall out after our ABC investigation last night. It involves the fight against ISIS known for those awful videos, lining up their victims on the beach.  And now a new concern.  Are some of the Iraqi forces -- trained and paid for by US taxpayers -- using techniques that are just as brutal?  Well the State Dept tonight responding to our report and ABC's chief investigative reporter Brian Ross back on the job tonight.

Brian Ross:  The State Dept called these scenes today serious and disturbing.  Brutal images of what appear to be Iraqi forces and militias carrying out, celebrating, torture and beheadings.  In this torture scene, two US weapons against the wall. This video shows two civilians, pleading for their lives, about to be shot dead.  A man with an American supplied weapon walks by, a gunman with what appears to be the insignia of Iraqi Special Forces caught on tape.

US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki: Their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL fighters.


Brian Ross:  The Pentagon says it has already cut off money to some Iraqi units because of gross human rights violations.  But Senator Patrick Leahy says the ABC News report shows the government should cut off money to more Iraqi units.

Senator Patrick Leahy: When you look at at the videos and look at the uniforms being worn, do we really want to say the US condones that?

Brian Ross: US officials tonight tell ABC News that America's top military leader Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly warned Iraqi leaders about the conduct of the Iraqi military and the militias that fight with them -- especially because the US is sending $1.5 billion to the Iraqi army and almost 3,000 American troops to help train them.



The hearing on Iraq?  John Kerry should have informed the Committee.

Especially since this was Senator Bob Menendez's concern.

Not his concern today.

His concern back in November of 2013.

He was very concerned -- and very public about it -- that the US government would be arming thugs who would use the weapons to terrorize the people.

The White House not only assured him that would not happen, they promised that if it did, they would -- as the law requires -- cut off all arm shipments to Iraq.


Starting to understand why John Kerry lied and failed to disclose the abuses to Congress?

It was one lie after another.

And Kerry was also caught this week in yet another lie.

Last month, he was grandstanding in Munich -- yet again acting as though he were the Secretary of Defense -- and he created a figure -- how very Brian Williams of him -- that really didn't exist as he claimed that 50% of the Islamic State's leadership had been decimated in Syria and in Iraq.

Eli Lake and Josh Rogin (Daily Beast) reported Friday:



When asked about Kerry's 50 percent claim, Army Captain John J. Moore, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told us: "We currently don't have a percentage attached to that statistic."
Experts told us Kerry’s estimate is tough to understand, because defining the Islamic State’s “leadership” is subjective. Cole Bunzel, a Princeton University scholar of Near Eastern Studies who closely follows Islamic State, said its leadership structure is opaque, and not much is known about the true membership of its Shura and Sharia councils, which play an important role in the organization. When the Islamic State has announced major decisions, such as its decision to expand into Syria or declare itself a caliphate, said Bunzel, it has made clear that one or both of those councils were consulted by Baghdadi.
"I am very skeptical of the claim that the coalition has killed 50 percent of the leadership of the Islamic State, whatever that means,” said Bunzel.
He later added, "The Islamic State has publicly announced when senior members of the group have been killed. But they have never talked about anyone in the core leadership being killed since 2010."


It's just been one lie after another.

And that's why Congress should be very alarmed at the wording in Barack's requested AUMF.

In the hearing, Senator Chris Murphy noted:


I remain as frustrated as many of my colleagues with this question over these definitions
I think the problem is in part every different member of the administration  we talk to does seem to have a slightly different interpretation of what these words mean and I can't blame them because, I think, as Secretary Carter said there's no historical operational definition of these words.  But I think the lack of consistency has hampered our efforts to get on the same page together.


Senator Rand Paul noted in the hearing, "It's disdainful to say, 'We want you to pass something but it really doesn't matter, we'll just use 2001' -- which is really absurd.  It just means that Congress is inconsequential and so are the people and the country,"

And it was disdainful for the witnesses to lie to Congress.

And Kerry's entire presentation was disdainful and, yes, shameful.

He needs to learn to shut his mouth.

Yeah, he chaired the Committee -- back when people traveled in wagons.  He's Secretary of State now and he needs to learn to shut his mouth.

At one point, the Chair told him he was done.

Kerry insisted he wasn't.

Chair Bob Corker said he was done with his "speech" and that he had taken five minutes and 20 seconds to 'answer' a question.  The time was up.  The Senator asking questions had already pushed the time limit before finally giving Kerry a chance to speechify. It was time for the next Senator to ask questions.

When the Chair tells you that, you don't keep talking, you don't argue.

You just shut your damn mouth.

When he chaired the Committee, Kerry certainly understood that.

His preening ego, however, prevents from understanding it today.


Moving from Kerry's never ending jaw boning and lying to violence in the US, All Iraq News notes the fatal shooting of Iraqi Ahmed al-Jumaili in Dallas, Texas.  Al-Jumaili was an Iraqi refugee who had only recently arrived in the US.  CBS News reports:


The victim's wife, Zahraa Altaie, told the station they noticed the men that night but paid no attention to them nor did anything to provoke them. She said the shooting appeared to be random.
"I put my hand on his heart. I still feel his heart beating. I tried to stop his bleeding, but I couldn't," said Zahraa.

Iraqi community members are e-mailing asking where the left is on this?

They note that the American left was calling out the movie American Sniper.  (Some were calling it out.  I didn't call it out.)  They note the protests in Ferguson over the killing of an African-American (Michael Brown) by police.

So why isn't this faction of the left also objecting to the murder of Ahmed, the e-mails ask?

That's a question they'll have to answer.  I don't think it will be a pretty answer so I'm guessing those that called out a film -- Debra Useless Sweet, Cindy Sheehan and all the others -- will not call out the killer who, for the record, is African-American.  Nykerion Nealon is the killer's name.

Rachelle Blinder (New York Daily News) reports:


Nealon, who went by the nickname Kaca, did not know al-Jumaili and shot him while seeking revenge, Cotner said. Someone reportedly shot at his girlfriend's apartment in a neighboring complex, making Nealon round up three buddies to look for the suspect, a witness told police. They went to Nealon's apartment to get his assault rifle and then headed to Al-Jumaili's apartment complex.
The thug saw al-Jumaili taking pictures of the snow and raised his rifle, one of his friends told police. The friend took cover under bushes and heard shots ring out, he said. 

Al-Jumaili ran back to his apartment as Nealon followed him with his eyes, continually aiming his rifle and firing at him, Cotner said. Al-Jumaili was shot in the chest.

15 shell casings were found at the crime scene.


Let's also note that the claim of Kaca's girlfriend's apartment being shot at was made -- in a phone call to the police -- after Kaca shot dead Ahmed.  After.  Whether the claim is true or not, no one knows.

Whether it's true or not, it does not justify Kaca grabbing a gun and killing anyone.

But it's important to remember the claim came after the fact.

It's important to remember Kaca shot dead Ahmed.  Kaca and friends then ran to girlfriend's apartment. Then the police were called and the alleged shooting at girlfriend's apartment was reported to the police but they didn't report the murder of Ahmed.  They didn't report that Kaca had shot Ahmed.


As Telemundo reports, the police only discovered Kaca shot Ahmed because Kaca was caught on security cameras (with his rifle).

I wouldn't believe, were I on the jury, the claim of a shooting at an apartment without physical evidence.  That said, were I the defense attorney, I would be sure to put Walnut Bend Apartments on trial and note that the ownership (BH Management) is notorious for its shoddy practices -- including falsely telling renters that  eviction processes had been started, including failure to salt frozen stairs and walk ways, etc.  They have one of the worst images of any in the region.  They do not have security, they often arrange drive throughs with local police.  Were I the defense attorney, I'd be asking what the security was like and how responsive the management was to security concerns.

Regardless of whether or not the shooting at his girlfriend's apartment can be proven, if BH Management did their usual poor job of security and of responding to safety concerns, a case for Kaca could be built around that.  And it's winter -- almost over -- so BH Management probably distributed in January or February a flier to the residents of Walnut Bend Apartments that would basically make clear how little responsibility BH Management takes for their properties.  I'd get a copy of that, were I the defense attorney, to explain why Kaca might have felt it was necessary to defend his girlfriend himself.

If he is convicted?  A few e-mails from Iraqi community members ask about the death penalty? Texas is a death penalty state.  If tried as an adult (Kaca is 17), the killer could face the death penalty.

(We are not calling the victim, Ahmed, by his last name because we humanize people by calling them by their first names here.  Due to the accused's age, we're also going with something other than the last name.  And we would have gone with his first name but when people have a preferred name that is on the record -- such as Ed Snowden always introducing himself as "Ed" -- we call them by the name they prefer.)






iraq
cbs news
david martin
pbs
the newshour
eli lake
bloomberg news
abc news
james gordon meek
Brian Ross
rym momtaz
alex hosenball
david muir
abc world news