Like Maria Said Paz

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Tiny steps

From CINEMA BLEND:

Next year, Chris Pine finally joins the superhero movie world as Steve Trevor in Wonder Woman. While the majority of this genre features men as the lead characters, this will be the first time in over a decade that a woman is the primary hero. Pine has previously expressed his satisfaction with being part of the project in a supporting capacity, and now he’s offered his take on why female-led superhero movies are a refreshing change of pace.

During his visit to Jimmy Kimmel Live! last night, Chris Pine admitted to the host that while all the “big, tent pole action films” are fun and action-packed, having a woman as the lead character this time around takes away the typical formula these blockbusters usually follow.

Good for Chris Pine.

A shame that more actors do not express similar thoughts.

A shame that a bunch of actors who are names (Chris Pine is a name) weren't in competition to land the role of Steve Trevor.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, January 26, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, the spin continues, US troops keep returning to Iraq, Hillary Clinton says her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake because of Bully Boy Bush, and much more.

Oh, how the whores lie.

I don't just mean the Bully Boy Bush whores.

But I do remember a woman practically wetting herself while he was speaking on television and basically declaring him god. I thought those Bush zombies were the worst the United States would ever see.

But they had nothing on the Cult of St. Barack.

And today I just don't have the stomach for either of these camps and their never ending lies and endless squabbles as they insist the other one is responsible for what's wrong in Iraq.

There's more than enough blame to go around.

NEWSHOUNDS was always a partisan front pretending to be about ethics and issues. The last eight years have not been easy on them.

Because War Criminal _____ has returned to the public eye in a desperate bid for sordid coin, NEWSHOUNDS is suddenly interested in Iraq.

Or 'interested' in Iraq.

They don't give a damn about Iraq.

Partisan whores on either side never gave a damn about Iraq.

NEWSHOUNDS slams the ridiculous Sean Hannity (he's as ridiculous as NEWSHOUNDS itself) for blaming Iraq's problems on Barack Obama:

Whatever that job was supposed to be after more than eight years of war.

More than 8 years?

They're ending the Iraq War in 2011.

How nice for them.

In the real world, of course, the Iraq War has not ended.

In the real world, of course, Barack's drawdown (there was no withdrawal) was followed by publicly sending US troops into Iraq.

A process that continues.

‏@TNTmilitary

Four years after last homecoming, #JBLM rocket battalion headed back to #Iraq http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/military/article56743698.html …                                                                                                                                                       

4 retweets6 likes

The Iraq War has not ended.

The US positioned one portion of the Shi'ites in charge. They remain in Iraq to prop up that government.

That's the reality.

More reality, things are getting worse.

Today, Kristina Wong (THE HILL) reports:

The U.S. is headed toward deeper military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Libya to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to President Obama's former national security adviser Tom Donilon.

"My own judgment is ... we're going to become more deeply involved in both Iraq and Syria going forward here to address the challenge," Donilon said at a Politico event Monday evening.

Donilon, who served as national security adviser between 2010 and 2013, said U.S. forces are "going to have to become deeply involved" in helping Iraqi security forces retake Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.

Reality escapes NEWSHOUNDS which whines:

And, of course, nobody pointed out that when Obama left, “Essentially, he implemented the phase-out plan laid out by Bush.”

Is that what Barack did?

Because that's not what he led Americans to believe he would do in 2008 while campaigning.

Back then, he was saying the US would be out of Iraq in 16 months of his being sworn in.

(Samantha Power resigned from his campaign after she told the BBC that he did not mean these promises and he'd decide what he'd actually do after he was in the White House.)

When we go around speaking about Iraq, from time to time we'll encounter a Cult of St. Barack-er who will insist to me that Barack had to break his promise because of the Status Of Forces Agreement Bully Boy Bush pushed through in November of 2008.

There are two main problems with that lie.

The first is that Barack (and Joe Biden) had campaigned insisting that any such agreement would have to have the consent of the US Senate -- because it would be a treaty.

When Bully Boy Bush pushed that through -- well after the 2008 presidential election -- Barack could have stuck to his guns (yes, I'm laughing at that notion as well) and Dems in Congress -- who already were on record opposing any agreement that did not have Congressional approval -- would have helped torpedo it.

Barack didn't do that.

Barack embraced that Status Of Forces Agreement.

That means Bully Boy Bush may have birthed the SOFA but Barack happily adopted it.

The second problem is where I usually lose the ability to be nice.

Because we explained the SOFA here and we were right.

All the opinion-ators were wrong.

Various news outlets got it wrong.

Contract law. Know it or just sit your tired and uninformed ass down.

No one needs your thoughts if you don't know contract law.

Not about what a contract means.

And the idiots who say Barack was bound by it?

I don't have time for their stupidity.

There were out clauses in the contract.

If I was in the mood to still spoon feed The Cult of St. Barack's ignorant and lazy ass, I'd quote from it.

But I just don't care anymore because you cannot teach the willfully stupid.

Barack broke his campaign promise (one of many) and did so to use the SOFA as he excuse if anything went wrong in Iraq.

Of the War Hawk whose wares we're not promoting, NEWSHOUNDS whines:

This is the guy who was part of the de-Baathification that caused so much destabilization in the first place.

Wait?

Do those idiots and liars at NEWSHOUNDS think de-Ba'athification ended?

It didn't.

It was supposed to.

National reconciliation was put into writing, in the Bully Boy Bush "benchmarks" of 2007. The November 2006 mid-terms had put Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress.

They had campaigned with promises of accountability and ending the war.

Now, afraid the Dems would pull funding for the Iraq War, the BBB White House came up with a series of benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to meet to continue to receive US tax dollars and support.

These benchmarks would demonstrate progress in Iraq.

But there was no progress.

And though Nouri al-Maliki signed off on the benchmarks in 2007, he never met them.

Not in 2007.

Not in 2008.

Not in 2009.

Not in 2010. (Key year that, remember it, we will be coming back to it.)

Not in 2011.

Not in 2012.

Not in 2013.

And not in 2014 (his final year as prime minister).

It wasn't met in 2015 either.

This is why the Islamic State found support or apathy in parts of Iraq and was able to establish a base in the country.

The persecution of the Sunnis led some Sunnis to support anyone who would stand up to this and led others to look the other way.

And Barack's responsible for that.

He's had two terms to do something about that and refused.

As we noted this week at Third in "Editorial: Barack's not even trying"

There is no US diplomacy in Iraq.
Last week, REUTERS reported, "The U.S. government has approved the probable sale to Iraq of smart bombs, AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles and other munitions for use on its fleet of 36 F-16 fighter jets in a deal valued at up to $1.95 billion, the U.S. Defense Department announced on Wednesday."
Barack didn't use Iraq's desire for the deal to force the Iraqi government to work on national reconciliation or on a national guard or on any political solutions.
He's not even trying.
He clearly doesn't even care.
No one, not even Barack, could be that inept.
No one.

Now we said we'd come back to 2010.

We're at that point now.

In 2010, Iraq held elections.

Though the media predicted Nouri al-Maliki would win by a large margin . . .

he lost.

And then he refused to step down.

Iraq's "political stalemate" is the 8 months the country comes to a standstill because he will not step down as prime minister.

Barack Obama, that great defender of freedom and democracy, does what?

Supports the winner and insists Nouri step down?

No.

He had US officials negotiate a contract (The Erbil Agreement) that went around the will of the Iraqi people and gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term.

That's reality.

And what Nouri did in his second term took Iraq even closer to the brink.

That's on Barack. Bully Boy Bush wasn't in the White House.

There's plenty of blame to place on both men.

Unless you embrace false gods and your false idol (Bush or Barack) is the only thing you hold dear.

Here's some of the violence inflicted upon Iraq today per the US Defense Dept's announcement:

Strikes in Iraq

Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 15 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Huwayjah, a strike suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL mortar systems.

-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL weapons storage facility and destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL weapons cache.

-- Near Ramadi, nine strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, denied ISIL access to terrain and destroyed an ISIL staging area, two ISIL tactical vehicles, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL armored bulldozer and an ISIL fuel tanker.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is a strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

In related news, Dan Lamothe (WASHINGTON POST) reports, "As the U.S. military prepares to expand its operations against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria, it has altered how and when it discloses sensitive information about when it kills civilians with airstrikes."

The changes will further obscure reality.

Lamothe notes CENTCOM spokesperson Patrick Ryder:

Ryder added that the process to declassify and redact documents associated with the cases can take months, so it made sense to release the limited information available now separately, and ahead of the documents. But the decision also means the documents will likely only be released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, which have historically taken Central Command many months, and sometimes years, to respond to fully.

I guess you could say CENTCOM is pulling a full-on Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, the anti-transparency candidate. Her e-mails, that she insisted she wanted the American people to see, are still not fully released. And her speeches to Wall Street -- the same Wall Street she swears she'll reign in -- are off limits to the public.

Hillary Clinton declared on CNN last night, "I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

She said it was a mistake.

But she can't shut her damn mouth, can she?

She's the liar who can't take accountability.

"I wrecked your car."

"But if that other car hadn't been on the road . . ."

"I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

Her vote was a mistake.

And then she adds "because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

No, you damn liar.

Iraq had no WMDs.

Iraq was not a threat.

These are the lies Hillary embraced with her vote.

And after saying she dealt with her vote in her last ghost written book -- no, she didn't deal with it -- she now wants to prove that she's still a liar.

"I have a much longer history than one vote, which I said was a mistake because of the way that it was done and how the Bush administration handled it."

The Iraq War was wrong.

No matter how it had been executed, it would have remained wrong.

It was built on lies.

Stop blaming everyone else for your poor judgment, take accountability.

Jeff Stein (VOX) reports:

Bernie Sanders went after Hillary Clinton's record on Iraq at a CNN town hall event Monday night, attacking Clinton's vote to invade more aggressively than in previous debates.
"I have tried — as I hope you all know — not to run a negative campaign ... to keep this discussion on a high level where we debate the issues facing this country," Sanders said, standing up from his chair at the forum, held in Iowa a week before primary voting begins.

""The truth is that the most significant vote and issue regarding foreign policy that we have seen in this country in modern history is the vote on the War in Iraq," Sanders said. "I voted against the War in Iraq ... Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq."
"I said, 'No, I think that war is a dumb idea.'"

Hillary voted for it. She supported it.

Stephen Zunes (FPIF) points out:

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.
There’s no question that the United States is long overdue to elect a woman head of state. But electing Hillary Clinton — or anyone else who supported the invasion of Iraq — would be sending a dangerous message that reckless global militarism needn’t prevent someone from becoming president, even as the nominee of the more liberal of the two major parties.

It also raises this ominous scenario: If Clinton were elected president despite having voted to give President Bush the authority, based on false pretenses, to launch a war of aggression — in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and common sense — what would stop her from demanding that Congress give her the same authority?

iraq
reuters
kristina wong
adam ashton
the washington post
dan lamothe

Monday, January 25, 2016

Noam goes whoring

Noam Chomsky's endorsed Hillary Clinton. Oh, yes, he has qualifiers.

But the takeaway is 'vote for Hillary.'

Noam's a whore.

It is never okay to vote for war mongers.

He knows what Hillary is.

But he whores and says he'd vote for her.

When no one wants to stand up, is it any wonder this country is in the mess it's in now?

Noam, you may remember, endorsed Barack.

Until there was pushback.

Pushback might force him to rethink his Hillary endorsement.

Even if it does, he's revealed himself to be worthless.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

January 25, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, the White House plans to send more US troops to Iraq, the US bombing of Iraq continues, and much more.

Today, the US Defense Dept announced:

Strikes in Iraq

Coalition military forces used rocket artillery and attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft to conduct 16 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Baghdadi, two strikes destroyed two ISIL weapons caches and an ISIL bunker.

-- Near Kisik, two strikes destroyed three separate ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL light machine gun.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL communications facility, and four ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units, cratered an ISIL-used earthen bridge, and destroyed an ISIL barge, an ISIL sniper position, two ISIL bunkers, two ISIL mortar positions, an ISIL weapons cache, three ISIL buildings and three ISIL tactical vehicles.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Tal Afar, a strike destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions.

Nothing changes.

And Barack Obama's 'strategy' is not working.

Which is why he's calling for even more of the same: More US troops in Iraq.

Former US Ambassador John Bolton Tweets:

There are over 3,5000 US troops in Iraq. The 3,500 figure does not cover the US Special Forces.

And even more US troops are being considered for Iraq.

The US Defense Dept noted over the weekend:

The United States potentially will make recommendations to position U.S. troops with Iraqi security forces in northern Iraq to support the next phase of isolating the key city of Mosul, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who met here with his French counterpart for talks focusing on the multinational effort against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, told reporters traveling with him that the U.S. troops would be placed where they can best support the Iraqi forces in the fight.
"We're about winning. ... We want to have the Iraqis win," he said.

The details are still being worked out, noted Dunford, who said he will make the recommendations to President Barack Obama based on what U.S. commanders and Iraqi security forces identify as the type of support the United States can provide in a plan to retake Mosul.

Richard Sisk (MILITARY TIMES) reports:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has again addressed the controversial issue of U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria, saying that more American troops would be deployed in an "enabling" role.
"Boots on the ground? We have 3,500 boots on the ground" in Iraq and "we're looking for opportunities to do more," Carter told CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Carter acknowledged there are about 50 U.S. Special Forces troops serving as advisers in Syria to local forces opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in addition to the 3,500-3,600 American troops serving as trainers and advisors to the Iraqi Security Forces.

Turning to the issue of the missing Americans in Iraq . . .

Two Sundays ago, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) broke the news that 3 Americans were missing in Iraq. Then CBS NEWS and AP reported, "A group of Americans who went missing over the weekend in Iraq were kidnapped from their interpreter's home in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi government intelligence official." Susannah George (AP) reported Thursday morning that "two powerful Shiite militias are top suspects" in the kidnapping: Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Saraya al-Salam -- both linked to Iran.

Yesterday, right wingers Max Boot and Michael Pregent took to THE WASHINGTON POST to accuse Barack of underplaying the kidnapping of the three Americans:

On Jan. 16, a group of militants driving SUVs and wearing military uniforms kidnapped three Americans in Baghdad. At least two of the men were apparently working as trainers for the Counter Terrorism Service, Iraq’s elite special operations unit, which is not only the most effective part of its military (it led the recent assault on Ramadi) but also virtually the only part of it not infiltrated by Shiite militias. Various media outlets are reporting that the Americans were taken to Sadr City, a Shiite stronghold, and that AAH is most likely responsible, possibly in coordination with another Iranian-backed militia, Saraya al-Salam.
AAH is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran’s Quds Force. It is inconceivable that it could kidnap and hold Americans — a course of action with significant international repercussions — without at least the acquiescence, and probably the active support, of Tehran. Yet the Obama administration is doing all it can to obfuscate that reality. Reuters cited “U.S. government sources” in reporting that “Washington had no reason to believe Tehran was involved in the kidnapping and did not believe the trio were being held in Iran, which borders Iraq.”

Last week, Haider al-Abadi spoke to the issue.

The prime minister of Iraq had no public statement when the Americans disappeared. He only found his voice after people began linking the kidnappers to Iran.

Haider then rushed in to insist that Iran was innocent and that maybe the three Americans weren't even kidnapped.

Today, Jay Solomon (WALL ST. JOURNAL) reports:

The suspected kidnappings in Iraq serve as a fresh test for the White House’s efforts to strengthen its ties with Tehran in the wake of the recent prisoner swap—in which five U.S. citizens were freed from Iranian captivity in exchange for the release of seven Iranian nationals held by the U.S.—and July’s landmark nuclear agreement, current and former U.S. officials said.
The Obama administration is seeking to build Tehran into a partner in combating Islamic State, and in ending wars in Syria and Yemen, but has been receiving conflicting signals from Iran’s theocratic leaders and military.
Mr. Kerry and other Obama administration officials have said there are no indications Iran played a role in abducting the Americans. They also haven’t ruled out the possibility that the disappearances resulted from criminal activity common in Baghdad. But they have said Tehran may be able to use its influence with the Iraqi militias to gain the Americans’ release.

“I asked him [Zarif]…if Iran knew any way to provide help or there were some ways they could have an impact on getting the right kind of outcome,” Mr. Kerry said after his meeting with the Iranian diplomat in Davos. “I asked him to give us that input.”

This morning, RT Tweets the following development in Iraq:

1 hour ago

#Iraq doesn’t need international help to fight #ISIS - FM al-Jaafari http://on.rt.com/72nn

Well that is good to know. It's an oil rich state and the oil brings in billions each year, so it's good to know the US-propped up government of Iraq is finally self-sufficient.

Or something.

And then there's this:

‏@UNDP

In #Iraq, $4mil from #Sweden enables @undpiraq to rebuild areas liberated from ISIS: http://on.undp.org/JHr

48 retweets 46 likes

And then there's this:

Donatella Rovera ‏@DRovera 2 hours ago City of London, London

#czechrepublic may donate 6500+ new & used submachine guns & 7 million+ bullets to #Iraq http://www.praguemonitor.com/2016/01/25/czech-government-debate-donation-arms-iraq-and-jordan …

6 retweets 3 likes

The Iraqi government is claiming record highs in oil pumped in central and southern Iraq for the month of December. Where are the billions?

When protesters took to the street, US-installed prime minister Haider al-Abadi insisted he would end corruption.

He didn't.

And one of the richest countries in the world continues to fail at providing for its people because the corrupt officials continue to steal the money.

Remember this Tweet from last week:

Where has the money gone?

And remember the failure to pay the Kurdistan Regional Government its shares of the federal monies?

Where has the money gone?

At NPR, Alice Fordham offers a shallow 'analysis' which includes:

In 2014 Iraq lost a lot of its territory to ISIS and had to start fighting back and looking after millions of civilians driven from their homes in the north and the west of the country.

At the same time, oil prices started to fall. Oil is now going for around $30 a barrel, down from about $100 when the prices began to crash in the summer of 2014.
Basically, all Iraq's government income comes from oil.

To help pay for the war, the U.S. has offered loans to cover defense equipment, but it doesn't cover salaries — either for soldiers or for the millions of Iraqis on the government payroll for jobs or pensions.

About 4.5 million workers are on the government payroll, with 3.7 million more receiving pensions. And people have come to expect other benefits like food rations and cheap gas.

Fordham never notes the annual oil revenues, the refusal of the central government in Baghdad to pay the KRG its share of federal revenues, etc.

iraq
alice fordham
npr

Sunday, January 24, 2016

SHADES OF BLUE shocker

If you didn't watch Thursday's episode of SHADES OF BLUE on NBC, you should have streamed it by now.

The big shocker for me?

When Matt (Ray Liotta) turns out to be having an affair.

With a man.

Donnie (Michael Esper), the man who's tipped him off that the feds have a mole ratting him out.

It was just a shock because Matt and Donnie are having their typical scene when suddenly it's kiss-kiss boom!

I loved it.

I also loved Harlee (Jennifer Lopez) hooking up with ADA James (Gino Anthony Pesi) -- especially when she showed up at his apartment and he says this might be crossing a line so she uses her foot to determine where that line might be.

It was a sexy scene.

It recalled the Jennifer Lopez of OUT OF SIGHT -- a strong actress playing a strong woman.

When Matt wasn't with Donnie and Harlee wasn't with James, the two were back to cat-and-mouse with the feds forcing Harlee to risk everything to get dirt on Matt and Matt trying to convince himself that Harlee couldn't be the mole.

He told her about her tell, how when he polygraphed her (last week), she'd been playing with her hair and she said she always played with her hair.

Then she said that if she was the mole, she'd be wearing a wire. She made him search her handbag, then she starts taking off her clothes.

He finally tells her to put her clothes on.

Good thing because if she'd turned around, he would have seen the wire on her back.

It was another tight episode.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Saturday, January 23, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Barack gives more weapons to Iraq, still no move towards national reconciliation or a national guard, persecution of the Sunnis continue, Haider's Iraq is going bankrupt (financially, this time) and much more.

Today, the US Defense Dept announced:

Strikes in Iraq

Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Kisik, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units, destroying 11 ISIL rockets, three ISIL vehicles and five ISIL assembly areas and suppressing an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Makhmur, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, one strike struck an ISIL improvised explosive device factory.

-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units, and destroying an ISIL front end loader, two ISIL vehicle-borne IEDs, an ISIL staging area, three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL heavy machine gun positions, an ISIL building and an ISIL vehicle and denying ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Sinjar, four strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL mortar tube and two ISIL light machine gun positions.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Tal Afar, one strike suppressed an ISIL light machine gun position.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

News? Mustafa Habib (NIQASH) addresses news in Iraq:

This kind of “news” is common on Iraqi social media. And it’s dangerous because for many Iraqis, social media websites, like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram to a lesser degree, have become a major source of political and security-related news. They do not trust mainstream media in Iraq, which is mostly considered to be partisan with much of it funded by political parties, religious bodies or other organizations pushing their own agenda. Many Iraqis say their most trusted source is word-of-mouth – relatives, friends, neighbours – so it makes sense that they would turn to social media, basically an expanded network of the latter, to get information they believe they can trust.

The media is highly partisan in Iraq -- and elsewhere -- but on Iraq, if this is news to you, refer to Deborah Amos' paper "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010" which documented the way so much of the media is controlled in Iraq.

Mustafa Habib examines several stories that became popular on social media and influenced events in Iraq.

We'll note one:

Once a certain story gets picked up on Iraqi social media it is often rapidly disseminated further. The story about Sheikh Nimr’s execution was a prime example of this. It’s hard to know who posted the videos originally but it seems clear that the original user had an agenda.
Under the guidance of advisors from open source verification experts at the investigative network, Bellingcat, a team of bloggers from the Iraqi Network for Social Media who are also the founders of a Facebook page called Fake Posts, as well as journalists from NIQASH, took a closer look at some of these falsified reports on social media.
Using open source verification techniques like geolocation and reverse image search, the team quickly found that the first video, the one allegedly showing al-Nimr’s execution, had nothing to do with the Saudi cleric. The clip, watched by thousands of Iraqis, was actually the video of the execution of an Indonesian maid in Saudi Arabia and it was four years old.
The other video that supposedly showed al-Nimr’s body being thrown out of a helicopter after his execution was also something else: It was a video showing a member of Saudi police force falling out of a helicopter, most likely to his death, in 2013.

The original user had an agenda?

True.

But let's not confine coverage to Iraq.

FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS and other ridiculous outlets -- front groups posing as news outlets -- certainly had an agenda as they suddenly discovered executions.

As was noted on Arabic media, FPIF was silent when the Iraqi government was killing the LGBT community members, when the Interior Ministry went into schools calling for violence against LGBTs, but suddenly it was interested in fairness.

It was noted that FPIF was silent when Sunni women and girls were wrongly imprisoned in Iraq and then beaten and/or raped in prison.

It was silent as Iraqi forces terrorized and killed Sunnis.

But FPIF and others were wetting their panties in public and beating themselves with chains over the execution of one Shi'ite cleric -- while ignoring the others executed in the same batch of executions.

Let's never pretend that some elements of the Iraqi media are the only ones with an agenda.

Tuesday, the United Nations issued a report on violence in Iraq. As we documented in that day's snapshot, many news outlets and 'news' outlets were pushing an agenda and not actually reporting. As we pointed out:

The Islamic State is a terrorist organization.
Documenting their abuses should be easy and something anyone can do without any great ethical challenge.
The United Nations report notes consistent patterns of abuse by the Iraqi government.
That needs to be spotlighted, it needs to be front and center.
You do not excuse away a government committing crimes against its own civilians.
You do not act as though that's nothing or that it's a sidebar.
It is the prime story.
Again, the Islamic State is a terrorist organization.
As such it commits crimes against people -- that's what makes it a terrorist organization.
The Iraqi government is supposed to serve (and protect) all the Iraqi people.
When it instead targets its own people, that is news.
The failure to properly report this goes a long way towards the growing divide between Arabs and others. Arabs watched from 2010 on forward as the Iraqi government openly targeted Sunnis. They saw little to no objection to this persecution.
The United Nations puts out a report that documents crimes by a terrorist organization (ISIS) and crimes against Sunnis by the Iraqi government and the western media again ignores the crimes of the Iraqi government or offers a brief sotto voice aside.
This is not acceptable.
It is silencing those suffering at the hands of the Iraqi government.
It is saying that Arabs are disposable and crimes against them can be ignored.

Friday, Aisha Maniar covered the report at TRUTHOUT:

The assault on the Iraqi people comes from all sides: ISIS, the Iraqi government and its security forces and related militias, coalition airstrikes and armed gangs cashing in on the prevailing state of anarchy. The UN report concedes that "The violence suffered by civilians in Iraq remains staggering," but with more than half of the report dedicated to atrocities carried out by ISIS, the Iraqi government gets off lightly.
A number of the human rights abuses ascribed to ISIS could equally be attributed to government security forces or related militias. For example, both ISIS and the government's popular mobilization units - mainly Shiite militias drafted into the fight against ISIS - have been open about their recruitment and use of child soldiers. In the latter case, not mentioned in the report, the use of child combatants could have serious implications for the United States, as these militias fall under the umbrella of an army that is trained and supported by the US. UNICEF expressed its concerns in June 2015, and called for "urgent measures" to be taken by the Iraqi government to protect children, including criminalizing the recruitment of children, and "the association of children with the Popular Mobilization Forces."

The report states that "systematic and widespread violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law" committed by ISIS could amount to "war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide." Others, including Human Rights Watch, have suggested that Iraqi government-backed militias in the fight against ISIS may have also committed war crimes. Kurds too have been accused of potential war crimes. Indeed, all parties to the conflict have committed crimes against humanity against the Iraqi people, and there must be no impunity for any of them. A report focused on human rights and the protection of civilians should not be politically biased toward any party.

Good for TRUTHOUT but let's not pretend that this is the dominant view the press is taking. Even now, the UN reports is covered as 'agenda reporting' with outlets using it for war propaganda.

Again, calling out the Islamic State requires no bravery.

Noting that the latest prime minister that the US has installed in Iraq -- Haider al-Abadi -- continues to preside over a government that persecutes its only civilians?

That's apparently too much even for the supposedly strong and brave American media.

It does help keep so many news consumers uniformed.

Dina al-Shibeeb (AL ARABIYA ENGLISH) reports:

Mohammed Karbouli, a member of the Iraqi Security and Defense parliamentary committee, dismissed a recent report saying that 40,000 Sunnis were given the green light to join PMU, describing Sunnis as feeling continuously excluded.

Instead, the lawmaker said the reality is a far cry from the reported figure, putting the current total number of Sunni volunteers at merely 16,000 whereas Shiites in the PMU account for as much as 120,000 fighters.

“What we have – those who are receiving salaries – is a number that does not exceed 16,000 for all of the Sunni provinces,” Karbouli told Al Arabiya News.

Of the 16,000 figure, the western province of Anbar takes the lion’s share of 9,000 volunteer fighters, he said.

Anbar Province field and security commander is quoted discussing the promise of adding 50,000 Sunni fighters (never added) and the promise that the Parliament would create a National Guard (never created).

National Guard?

You may remember US President Barack Obama was insistent on that back in June of 2014 on through August of that year.

It never happened.

He never forced it to happen.

This week the US State Dept signed off on another huge weapons deal/gift to the Iraqi government. This one is for $2 billion. Yet in the failed administration of Barack Obama, where everyone is diplomatically challenged, no one thought to pin any conditions on the deal.

There was no, "Haider, you promised a national guard, that's why we made you prime minister. So you've got to create the national guard now to get this $2 billion deal."

Haider never has to keep any promises or actually bring about reconciliation in Iraq.

He's a failure across the board.

It's January and the rich country of Iraq has $2 billion left in its budget.

Haider doesn't appear to have ended corruption in Iraq, just accelerated it.

He's also not protected the Iraqi people.

Marwan Qassami ‏@QassamiMarwan 24 minutes ago

Graphic: US backed Shi'a militia in #Iraq decapitate and burn the body of a Sunni civilian:

1 retweet 1 like

That's Haider's Iraq.

Lastly, David Bacon's latest book is The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration. This is from Bacon's new photo essay "THE WORKERS OF SAN QUINTIN VALLEY ARE NO LONGER WILLING TO BE INVISIBLE" (EQUAL TIMES and David's website):

On 29 March 2015, US photographer and labour activist David Bacon followed a group of farm workers in the San Quintín Valley in the Mexican state of Baja California as they marched to the US border.

Thousands of workers - who pick strawberries and tomatoes for the US market - went on a two-week strike in protest over their poverty wages. These farm workers, who mainly come from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca and make up the bulk of the agricultural workforce in Baja, are paid about US$9 a day; they were demanding wages of about 300 pesos, or US$24.

Growers bring over whole families, particularly Mixtec and Triqui indigenous peoples, to live in labour camps and housing notorious for poor conditions. The whole operation is reminiscent of the maquiladora [export assembly plants] industry, transplanted into agriculture.

The big companies walked out of negotiations with the workers March, and signed contracts with government-affiliated unions that were not on strike. They promised 15 per cent pay rises for the workers, which is much less than what they were asking for.

The biggest US distributor, Driscoll's, claimed its main grower, BerryMex, pays higher rates of US$5 to US$9 per hour - a highly dubious claim, according to activists. The growers want to move towards a code of conduct that avoids any negotiation or contracts with the striking union, the Alianza. At the same time, growers brought more workers up from southern Mexico to break the strike.

In a final negotiation session between the workers' organisation, the Alianza, and the government on 4 June 2015, authorities announced a new minimum wage in San Quintín of 150 (approximately US$8.40), 165 (US$9.20) or 180 pesos (US$10) a day, depending on the size of the employer.

But at the top daily wage of 180 pesos, a Baja field worker has to work for almost three hours to buy a gallon of milk. Workers also say the companies are not abiding by the agreement, and have announced their support for a boycott of Driscoll's berries.

Fidel Sanchez, leader of the strike told Bacon: "Consumers eat the fruits and the vegetables that these workers are producing, but know next to nothing about the workers themselves. This march, and the strike itself, show that workers are no longer willing to be invisible."

iraq
david bacon