Like Maria Said Paz

Tuesday, November 02, 2021

Did Joe screw up again?

Jonathan Turley:

“Is there a way to win?” Those words from actress Jane Greer, the ultimate femme fatale in the 1947 film-noir classic, “Out of the Past,” could well have been written above the caption of the Biden administration’s brief this week before the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the Texas abortion law. The administration is returning to ask for an injunction from a court that just voted against such an injunction as legally unfounded.

Asking the same justices the same question would not seem a way to win. Indeed, as actor Robert Mitchum dryly responded to Greer in the film, this may not be the way to win, but at least “there’s a way to lose more slowly.”

For pro-choice advocates, the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, out of Mississippi, is a more ominous threat to abortion rights with a newly constituted conservative majority on the court — including Justice Amy Coney Barrett who, as an academic before joining the court, was highly critical of Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs case is due to be argued in December.

However, the Court has been thrown early into the arena by the Biden administration’s emergency demand to seek an injunction of the Texas law, which imposes an even more stringent limit on abortion than the Mississippi law at issue in Dobbs.

As previously discussed, the attempted intervention of the Justice Department in the Texas case was not just legally unnecessary but unwise. I share the view that this law is unconstitutional, and I have long favored more liberal standing rules, but the Biden administration is risking a great deal to enjoin a law that was already declared unconstitutional in Texas. Indeed, the rushed hearing this week could lock in a majority on language impacting the much more important appeal in Dobbs.

Did Joe blow it? Seems very likely. As usual, if he did screw up, it's others who will have to pay the costs for his gross incompetence. We deserved so much better than Joe and the 2019-2020 Democratic Party primary offered a lot more than Joe, a lot better than Joe. That we got stuck with him goes to how corrupt and lousy the system truly is.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, November 1, 2021. Election results are still not official, someone is convicted of murdering journalists finally but they can't tell you who or the person's affiliations, The Lincoln Project is a disgrace that the press needs to start ignoring, and much more.

Starting in the US, Caroline Downey (NATIONAL REVIEW via MSN):

The anti-Trump organization The Lincoln Project became the subject of intense criticism after it coordinated a hoax show of support by ostensible white nationalists for Republican Virginia gubernatorial frontrunner Glenn Youngkin.

In the viral incident, a group sporting khaki pants, baseball hats, and tiki torches lined in up in front of a Youngkin campaign bus to declare their endorsement of the candidate in a way that was presumably supposed to mimic the white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017.

“We’re all in for Glenn,” the activists proclaimed.

After rumors circulated that the stunt was launched by Youngkin’s political adversaries, the Lincoln Project claimed responsibility. It was later revealed that the demonstrators were paid by the non-profit to position themselves as white supremacists affiliated with Youngkin as part of a disinformation campaign against him.

That's it. In a functioning world, that's it. The Lincoln Project was always an unethical organization but after that stunt, that's it. No journalistic organization should invite them on as guests, should seek them out for quotes. They're liars who will lie in any way possible. They are not trusted participants. This is not the first time that they've been caught but this should be the last time. In a functioning world of journalism, that's it.

They paid people to pretend to support a candidate and to pretend that themselves were KKK-types. That's it. They're liars and they're hacks and they don't need to be included in the discourse anymore.

That's the end of the line for them unless you also lack scruples -- in which case, MSNBC 'NEWS,' keep bringing them on as guests.

And let's be clear on what happens next if the corporate media does not take a hard line stance here: Every political group now has the right to lie and hire people to smear a candidate with lies. They have the right to fake support in order to smear a candidate.

Is that how we want the discourse to be now? Project Lincoln long ago revealed that they had no ethics but this latest stunt is outrageous.

Brendan Cole (NEWSWEEK) reports:

he Lincoln Project has been condemned for a stunt targeting the Republican gubernatorial candidate for Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, in which it sent people mimicking white nationalists to stand outside his campaign bus.
The action on Friday by the PAC has prompted concerns that it could harm the election prospects of the Democratic candidate, Terry McAuliffe, whom it had intended to help.
Lis Smith, a former senior advisor to Democratic primary candidate Pete Buttigieg tweeted: "What a massive, massive screw up. The last thing that the McAuliffe campaign needed this weekend. A total disservice to the hundreds of hard-working staffers on the ground."

[. . .]

Virginia legislator Sally Hudson tweeted: "Charlottesville is not a prop. Our community is still reeling from years of trauma—especially this week. Don't come back, @ProjectLincoln. Your stunts aren't welcome here."

Terry McAuliffe's campaign has rightly condemned the lie. Edward Helmore (GUARDIAN) reports:

McAuliffe disavowed the Lincoln Project’s actions.

“What happened today in Charlottesville is disgusting and distasteful and the McAuliffe campaign condemns it in the strongest terms,” the Democrat’s campaign manager said in a tweet. “Those involved should immediately apologise.”

This did not help Terry -- and the conventional wisdom is that Terry needs help -- and the Lincoln Project needs to be shunned and ostracized. That's not what you do. That's not how you support a campaign. And, had they not been caught, they would have remained silent and let people think that racists supported Terry's opponent. There is no excuse for what they did and their action should end their access to the media and their media appearances.

John Weaver's use of the organization to target men and to groom a 14-year-old boy for sex wasn't enough for the media to walk away from the group -- which tells you more than you ever wanted to know about the corporate media. This latest stunt should be. They are trash. They have no ethics and they harm. It's time's up for the Lincoln Project if the media has any sense of decency.

Iraq held an election October 10th.

 SabereenNews 
Protesters block the road to Umm Qasr port in Basra governorate, in protest against election fraud and the commission's ambivalence. The port is Iraq's 2nd largest port in scale of size and goods shipped to the port of Basra,it is strategically important.

10:06 AM · Oct 31, 2021

Rend al-Rahim is Iraq's former US Ambassador. At the Arab Center, she writes:

Iraq’s fifth parliamentary election since the 2003 US invasion is procedurally over. The polling stations have closed, but the fight over the results has just begun.

The situation is still in flux. A week after election day, the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) is still checking ballots and receiving complaints. Its preliminary results are vehemently contested and there may be minor changes in the final tally. Turnout was low: at 43 percent, it was among the lowest for any election since 2005, signaling a deep and worrisome distrust in the political process and state institutions. Nevertheless, and despite some operational glitches, the process appeared to go smoothly, with no violence, less fraud than usual, and minimal irregularities. As the the European Union mission to observe the election put it, “Voting on election day was largely peaceful and orderly.”

And they continue to check the ballots and count and, honestly, stall. No one forced the electoral commission, ahead of the election, to promise that they'd have all ballots counted in 24 hours following the election but that is what the commission promised. Still we wait all these days later.

NRT has an interesting report. We'll note it in full:

Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council announced on Monday (November 1) that the Basra Criminal Court has handed down a death sentence for a suspect accused of killing two journalists last year.

Dijlah TV reporter Ahmed Abdul Samad and camera operator Safaa Ghali were shot and killed while they were covering a protest in Basra on January 10, 2020.

The Council said in a statement that the defendant confessed to all the details of the crime, the aim of which was to destabilize security and stability and spread terror.

The verdict was issued in accordance with the provisions of Article 4/1 of Counterterrorism Law No. 13 of 2005, it added.

Samad was formerly a reporter for NRT.

If true, it's great that the murderer of a journalist is finally being held accountable.

But what's most interesting to me is the one convicted.

Who?

We've long noted -- and decried -- Iraq's televising of confessions (which most likely are forced). Why is the convicted not named?

A court found someone guilty. Who? And what are his or her affiliations? This should all be part of the public record. Instead, we're being told that some unnamed person has been found guilty of murdering two journalists. And that's supposed to pass for informing the public?

In other news, yesterday saw another rocket attack on Baghdad. Dilan Sirwan (RUDAW) reports, "Three rockets hit near Baghdad’s Green Zone overnight, the first such attack in more than three months. There are no reports of injuries." Sinan Mahmoud (THE NATIONAL) adds, "All three were Katyusha rockets – a rail-mounted weapon based on a Second World War-era Soviet design. They were fired from the Bayaa district, a Shiite area in south-western Baghdad, a police officer said." As RES notes, "It came at a time when the recount of votes from the early parliamentary elections of October 10 continues."

In other news, Human Rights Watch issued the following Friday:

Dozens of Sunni Arab men who served prison time or were acquitted in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region for Islamic State (ISIS) connections risk rearrest or retaliation if they try to reunite with their families in areas controlled by Baghdad, Human Rights Watch said today. Some of the men were boys as young as 14 when Kurdish security forces arrested them.

The men are currently stuck in a camp in the Kurdistan region, after being released from prison between 2018 and 2020. Security forces are not allowing them to leave the camp to live elsewhere in the Kurdistan region, and they fear for their lives if they were to return home. This stems from a lack of coordination and recognition between the separate judicial systems of the Kurdistan Regional Government and Iraq’s Baghdad government, as well as the near-total impunity with which armed groups operating in the men’s home communities arbitrarily detain and even kill those suspected of ISIS affiliation.

“These men, most of them boys back when ISIS was in control of their areas, have been and continue to be punished, even though many were victims as child soldiers,” said Belkis Wille, senior crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “After years of suffering they are still in limbo with no hope for the future.”

In August 2021 Human Rights Watch interviewed 10 men whom the Asayish, the Kurdish security forces, had arrested for alleged ISIS affiliations in 2016 and 2017. Six were children at the time of their arrest. They were among about 65 men at a camp in northern Iraq, controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government, where they resettled after being acquitted or completing a sentence in the region. Though security forces at the camp would let the men leave if they were to return to Baghdad-controlled areas, they do not allow them to leave the camp at all if they want to travel or resettle within the Kurdistan region.

The men interviewed said that they were among about 100 men transferred to the camp in April 2019. Because of the dire conditions in the camp, and because many of them felt they had no future in the country, those who could afford it managed to leave the camp, paying smugglers to take them to Turkey. All of those interviewed said they would go to Turkey if they had enough money.

“My only solution is to leave Iraq and go to Turkey,” one man said. “If I were to go home or anywhere else on the Baghdad side, it wouldn’t just be the courts that would come after me, it would be the tribes, and the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces – militias formerly under the prime minister’s control]. I have no future here.”

Each of Iraq’s two separate judicial systems have their own counterterrorism laws, which are applied in their courts. As part of their campaign to defeat ISIS, Iraqi and Kurdish security and military forces screened people leaving ISIS-controlled areas and detained those identified as ISIS suspects. They checked the names against “wanted” lists that security forces on both sides had developed since 2014. The security forces compiled the lists from a variety of sources, including public information about ISIS members, names published by ISIS itself, and names provided by informants.

Many relatives of detained ISIS suspects told Human Rights Watch that since 2016, people would submit names because of tribal, familial, land, or personal disputes, falsely accusing them of links with ISIS. People stopped at checkpoints who are on the lists face detention while officials investigate the alleged ISIS-affiliation, usually through interrogations.

Numerous judges and lawyers have told Human Rights Watch that the prosecutions in some cases rely solely on defendants’ confessions, often extracted through torture. Human Rights Watch’s experience monitoring trials in both regions confirms this. In at least 428 cases among almost 800 trials that the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq observed, in addition to confessions, evidence admitted – and primarily relied upon in terrorism prosecutions – included anonymous witness statements and information based on security or intelligence reports.

“Someone from my town who had a grudge arrived in the camp and told the Asayish I had been with ISIS.” said one man who had fled the fighting in 2016 and arrived at a camp in the Kurdish region. “The Asayish beat me until I said I had joined ISIS for four days. They sentenced me, and after over a year in prison they finally released me.”

The men gave Human Rights Watch the names of four individuals, all of whom had been boys when arrested, who had returned home to areas under Baghdad’s control after completing their sentences. The men said that they heard from relatives later that all four were rearrested by Baghdad authorities and were now serving extended second sentences for ISIS affiliation. Sentences for terrorism charges are significantly longer in Baghdad-controlled territories. Human Rights Watch was able to contact relatives of two of the four men and confirm the accounts.

Iraq’s constitution prohibits putting anyone on trial twice for the same crime. While the two regions have separate counterterrorism laws, the offense is ultimately the same and if a person has been convicted in one of the jurisdictions and completed their sentence, they cannot be tried again for the same offense anywhere in Iraq. Iraq’s Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits further action against a defendant, even if new evidence emerges, two years after an investigative judge has issued a decision on the case.

As a priority, Baghdad authorities should ensure that all of the men can obtain up-to-date civil documentation including by sending representatives from the nearest Civil Status Directorate to the camp to issue these documents.

The Kurdish Regional Government should allow the men to reside in any part of the Kurdish region they choose, in line with the general residency requirements the region has in place. It should allow their families to seek residency to join them in the region. It should open the camp and allow freedom of movement to its residents throughout the Kurdistan region, keeping any restrictions on movement strictly necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory as compared to those residing in the Kurdistan region.

“These men have served their time or been acquitted,” Wille said. “Continuing to restrict their ability to return to a normal life is nothing less than unlawful discrimination.”

Real Risks to Return

All of the men said they were afraid of being rearrested or harmed, even killed, if they returned home, even if Baghdad’s High Judicial Council confirmed that they would face no further charges. They also shared that they are not in regular communication with their parents and relatives, fearing that if security forces found out the men were speaking to their family members, they could be arrested, evicted, or otherwise threatened.

One man said that his father, brother, and uncle are ISIS members, and that a unit of the PMF that controls his hometown told his mother and other relatives that he needed to return and provide them with information on his ISIS relatives’ whereabouts.

He said the PMF unit had convinced the local police to issue an arrest warrant for him. They abducted his younger brother and sent the man a photo of the warrant in a message after they got his phone number from the brother’s phone. In the message, which he showed researchers, they said they would use the arrest warrant as grounds to evict the man’s mother and younger brother as an ISIS-affiliated family unless he returned home:

I don’t know what to do. If I go home, I am sure they will try to get information out of me, and then kill me. But if I don’t surrender myself, they will evict my family. They already are watching my mother and don’t let my family move freely.

Another man, whose wife was living in Erbil while he served his prison sentence there, said that she is now living in the camp with him. He described what happened to her in mid-2021 when she travelled from the camp to their hometown via Mosul to visit her family:

When she got to the first Baghdad-controlled checkpoint on the way to Mosul, security forces checked her identity card and then held her for two hours, before letting her go. When they let her go, they told her, “Your husband is wanted. If he doesn’t surrender to us, we will not let you through this or any other checkpoint to visit your family again.”

One man said that in mid-2021 security forces in control of the area where his family lived, forced his mother to open a criminal complaint against him as an ISIS member in order for her to obtain a security clearance to avoid eviction or other forms of collective punishment. This practice is known as tabriya. He said this meant he could never return home. “I am not angry at her for doing this,” he said, “but now that she has, the tribal forces in our area [effectively] have the right to kill me.”

Another problem the men face is an inability to obtain civil documentation. Only three of the men have valid identity cards, which are vital for anyone trying to move around within the country. Many only had childhood documents which are no longer valid.

One man said that his mother tried to get him a new identity card back in his hometown, but when the PMF in control found out from the Civil Status Directorate that she applied for the document, they approached her and told her that if she continued to ask for the identity card, they would evict her from her home.

In addition, most of the former detainees struggled to obtain documents confirming their time in detention, only one of the ten men was given a document upon his release confirming his time served; whereas the rest required legal assistance from nongovernmental organizations to obtain the appropriate documentation after their release.

Recommendations

Baghdad’s High Judicial Council should adopt specific policies and procedures to prevent repeated prosecutions for people who have been acquitted, or convicted and served their sentence for ISIS involvement, whether in the KRI or in other Baghdad-controlled governorates. It should take measures to establish the number of detainees in custody who have already been exonerated or served a sentence for the same crime, and should release or pardon them as appropriate.

Judicial authorities in Baghdad-controlled territories and the KRI should start automatically sharing with each other the judicial paperwork in each case, including release certificates. They should ensure that all former detainees are given release certificates, including those released without charge, with enough specificity to be considered valid, and order their names be removed from “wanted” lists.

All detaining authorities should redouble efforts to bring defendants before a judge within the legally mandated 24 hours, so that if they have served a previous sentence, they will be able to communicate this to a judge promptly and be released. Iraq should ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and set up its own independent system to inspect detention centers.

Iraqi authorities should consider alternatives to detention and criminal prosecution for child detainees, and develop rehabilitation and reintegration programs to aid their return to society.

Back in the US, a 40-year-old Iraq War veteran, Tyson Manker, gets some justice. Stephanie Zimmerman (CHICAGO SUN-TIMES) reports:

But now the Illinois man has won his latest and potentially most broad-reaching battle — this one fought in court. And it should help him and thousands of other U.S. military vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

A preliminary settlement of his class-action lawsuit against the Navy, once finalized, will help veterans given “other-than-honorable” and “general” military discharges due to PTSD — and who, as a result, were locked out of health care, injury compensation, college money and other benefits usually available to vets.

Like Manker, many went untreated and were flagged for behavioral problems.

“Think about how wrong this situation is,” Manker says. “We’re going to send you home with no benefits and with injuries and with this scarlet letter, and ‘Good luck.’ ”

The following sites updated:

Sunday, October 31, 2021

McAuliffe and his unsavory attorney

Jonathan Turley:

Yesterday I wrote about reports that Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe’s campaign retained the services of former Clinton counsel Marc Elias. The hiring was astonishing not only because of Elias’ controversial record but a still ongoing special counsel investigation touching on his role in the last election. Elias has challenged past elections and I raised the question of whether he might be part of post-election challenges. When Fox News asked the McAuliffe campaign, the response was . . . well . . . a killer.

The campaign responded to Fox reporter Tyler O’Neil with an email sent by McAuliffe spokesperson Christina Freundlich asking “can we try to kill this.” She later sent out an email which seemed to claim success in spiking the story without having to respond to questions about Elias’ record.

Now this is from the column that had the McAuliffe's campaign upset:

As a long-standing associate of the Clintons, Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe has long ties with the Democratic establishment. That history was placed into sharp relief this week when he made a hefty down payment on the services of former Clinton counsel Marc Elias. Elias is a critical figure in the ongoing Durham investigation and has been accused of lying to the media to hide the role of the Clinton campaign in funding the Steele dossier. His former law partner Michael Sussmann at Perkins Coie was recently indicted by Durham. Elias has also led efforts to challenge Democratic losses, even as he denounces Republicans for such election challenges. Elias has been sanctioned in past litigation.

Like Sussmann, Elias has left Perkins Coie. He ironically created a law firm specializing in campaign ethics. McAuliffe may be preparing to challenge any win by Republican Glenn Youngkin. He has given $53,680 to the Elias Law Group. McAuliffe does not appear disturbed by Elias’ highly controversial career or his possible exposure in the Durham investigation.

The bar lowered by Bill Clinton continues to fall ever lower by his pals.

In the meantime, Rebecca's covered "abba" and their new music, Kat's reviewed a book "THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BIBLE as written by Laurence Myers," Ann continues to cover "Perv Prince's response?," Betty is excited by "John Woo," Stan warns you "DUNE still sucks (and now sucks at the box office)" and Marcia's car shopping in "Subaru."

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, October 29, 2021. As the myth-based coverage of Moqtada continues from US 'press' outlets, we offer some reality.

Heaven help us, the world deserves better.

You can't follow what passes for commentary without thinking "The world deserves better." I'm reminded of this with the garbage FOREIGN POLICY has published -- is that redundant? FP just publishes garbage and has been since around the time of Susan Glasser's brief tenure at the head of the magazine. It's garbage.

So they want to weigh in on Iraq and they can't find anyone obviously. So they go with . . . Anchal Vohra. Scratching your head? A lot of us are. Those of us who know her work certainly are. But, reality, most people are scratching their heads over "Who?" They'd be right to.

But Anchal's problem for those of us who know her work is she doesn't cover Iraq. She's a paid journalist. In three years, she has filed two reports on Iraq -- don't count her b.s. "Syria and Iraq" that is never about Iraq, whether it's her or anyone else, they write about Syria and toss in a tidbit about Iraq. Anchal does the same with her "Lebanaon and Iraq" coverage. She's in Beirut and she largely covers Israel.

She's not an expert on Iraq and it shows. Over and over.

And I get it, most people have pulled their staff from Iraq. You need someone to write a column, what are you going to do?

Well, I don't know, maybe get an Iraqi journalist in Iraq to write it? How about that?

It beats bringing on Jane Arraf -- which MSNBC did recently and Ava and I were kind and avoided weighing in on that nonsense. Jane has no opinion worth sharing.

She's at THE NEW YORK TIMES now. But you may know her from THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NPR, ALJAZEERA or, most infamously CNN.

She's been in Iraq forever. Including under CNN.

If you're thinking, wait, wait, I don't know that name -- you're right.

Because she doesn't break news.

Never.

Ever.

She learned that at CNN.

As Eason Jordan revealed in April of 2003 ("The News We Kept To Ourselves," NEW YORK TIMES), CNN didn't report from Iraq. They covered what the Iraqi government (run by Saddam Hussein) wanted covered. They avoided anything embarrassing (such as reality) because it might get them kicked out of the country.

That's why you don't know Jane Arraf. She's 'covered' Iraq since the 90s. And she never saw anything.

Nothing.

Abu Ghraib? Nope. Innocent civilians being killed? No.

I should be fair. She did briefly see the deaths of civilians. Briefly. When she was new on Twitter. But those deaths never made it into her print or radio coverage. Even when she was an eye witness.

Because Jane was trained under "The News We Kept To Ourselves."

Someone who is now on her fourth decade covering Iraq and she's never had a scoop, never had a memorable piece of journalism.

That is, by the way, how she keeps getting hired. They hire her, all these outlets, knowing that she'll churn out boring copy that never informs so it never alienates. She takes up space and let's them check off 'covered' on their list.

Back to Anchal. At FOREIGN POLICY, she pens the non-thought piece (a musing? fan fiction?) entitled "Muqtada al-Sadr is the United States' best hope in Iraq."

Iraq is a land of orphans and widows. The war continues and will hit the 19th anniversary mark next March. The media age in Iraq is 21-years-old. By way of contrast, in the US, the median age is 38.1-years-old. Why the stark difference? Because the war killed over a million people. Because it turned the country into a land of orphans and widows.

And yet Anchal's writing about the Iraq election from the stand point of . . . the US?

Never accuse most journalists of having a sense of purpose -- the vast majority don't even provide context today.

FOREIGN POLICY pretends it informs readers -- but informing readers requires telling them what's happening, not shaping articles to suit policy -- that's called propaganda at worst and press releases at best. Thanks, Anchal, for making it clear that there is no informing from FP, just indoctrination.

Let's move over to Brooking to quote from a new piece by Ranj Alaaldin:

Muqtada al-Sadr’s victory is an example of strategic acumen within a movement that continues its transition from insurgency to government, propelled by a yearning for respite and leadership, and by rampant destitution within Iraqi society. Almost 32% of Iraq’s population could soon be impoverished. But it is precisely this despair that has resulted in the emergence of a protest movement that considers Sadr and his militia to be part of the problem, and complicit in the bloodshed that has engulfed the country, including violence against protesters. In its electoral debut, the bloc representing the protesters, Imtidad, secured 10 seats out of 329, a remarkable feat for a movement that is subjected to systemic assassinations and contested the elections amid unprecedented voter apathy.

In that one paragraph, Rani presents more reality than Anchal does in her entire essay.

The clear choice in Iraq was Moqtada, Anchal lies. No, dear, with at least 52% of voters sitting out the election, the clear choice was something other than what is being offered.

As for the claim that Moqtada was a choice over the militias, what world do you live in?

Firsly, we've got the reality that the militias were disenfranchised since most could not vote (the bulk of the militia members were excluded from early voting on October 7th by a 'ruling' from the electoral commission and the bulk of the militias were deployed on October 10th to provide security -- October 10th being the election day). That claim keeps getting made and it's not accurate.

I loathe the militias and, had this been a fair election and the turnout the same, I'd be the first to trumpet this as reality. But it's not reality. And even to me, someone who loathes the militias, it's obvious that the militias were disenfranchised (and this may have been done on behalf of the US government, two US State Dept friends turn strangely coy on the topic while a third tells me I'm on the right track).

Secondly, Moqtada has his goon squad. He is not apart from the militias. He's a bit of an egomaniac who can't get along with others. What> You thought he was just Iraq's version of Richard Simmons in a large caftan?

Thirdly, huh?

Moqtada wasn't on the ballot. NOr is it his political party that won all the seats that they apparently did -- final results are still not in.

Iraq election body soon to announce final results after recount

aljazeera.com

Iraq election body soon to announce final results after recount

More than 1,300 complaints were made following the elections by Shia groups alleging vote fraud.

Are we forgetting that the same empty-minded press covered Moqtada not participating in the election?

It wasn't news. We noted here that a member of his political party e-mailed to correct that coverage. The members were still running whether Moqtada was boycotting the election or not. They had already filed their paperwork.

Moqtada wasn't a candidate. He's never been. When he said he was boycotting, that was not pulling his party or members of the alliance he's strung together. That was he wasn't going to vote and was calling on others not to. And then the US government used our tax dollars to buy him off in August and Moqtada came out in favor of the elections.

That's not the first time that Moqtada's received a gift from the US.

His supposed anti-American position is not as strong as it once was. It's hard to bite the hand that feeds you.

Anchal gushes -- did she mistake FOREIGN POLICY for TEEN BEAT? next up, "Moqtada Shares the 10 hottest things about men!" -- that only Moqtada can bring Iraq "the sort of change the country needs."

Strange, he's not at one with the protesters. No, he declared war on The October Revolution. After this movement started in the fall o 2019, Moqtada leapt onto the bandwagon once he saw how popular it was. But Moqtada is always about Moqtada. And the protesters -- Shi'ites, just like Moqtada is -- weren't going to take orders from any political elite. So, within four months, Moqtada was publicly attacking them (and his goons were attacking them with more than words). Then he saw the backlash and tried to hop back on board then hopped back off. And then? He got permanently shoved aside.

Why?

Motada attacked the girls and women participating. And he stated that they should not be allowed to protest with me.

See, Moqtada's all about the men. Moqtada's only happy when he's around men. Make of that what you will (and many do) or just le that closet door remain closed, it's your choice. (Or put Moronic Mars on the case of Knock Down That Closet Door, Mary.)

The October Revolution wasn't having it.

And they mocked him. They didn't just call him out. They mocked him. And Iraqi Shi'ites saw this and it just made the movement even more popular.

Moqtada can't make the changes necessary when he opposes them.

That's for starters. Second, he's not going to be prime minister.

He may -- or may not -- be a 'kingmaker' but that won't put him in the seat of power.

And the kingmaker . . .

I don't feel like redoing it, let's just grab two Saturdays ago and re-post:

---------

If you need to reach is 163, then 73 isn't really that close

Coming on two weeks after the election, Iraq still struggles and still has no prime minister or even a prime minister-designate. Yet we are all supposed to pretend. Which is how we get dreck like Thomas O'Falk (ALJAZEERA) report:

Muqtada al-Sadr remains one of Iraq’s most influential political figures and plays a pivotal role when it comes to the country’s future. He is currently considered the kingmaker, but it remains unclear if he can form a government with stability.

In the latest elections, al-Sadr’s party obtained 70 of a total of 329 parliamentary seats – a significant increase compared with the result of 2018, when his movement won 54 seats.

Despite this election result, al-Sadr did not run as a candidate for Iraq’s prime ministership.

The reason is relatively simple and founded in al-Sadr’s political strategy, Ruba Ali Al-Hassani, postdoctoral researcher at Lancaster University & Project SEPAD, told Al Jazeera.

Moqtada is a kingmaker?

He may become one. At present? He's not. He's part of a stalled system. And while Moqtada dithers and is unable to pull together an alliance, you better believe Nouri al-Maliki is working on putting together an alliance. Or did we all forget 2010?

Nouri's State of Law bloc came in second to Moqtada's bloc. Do we really think what happened in 2010 can't happen again? Or are we just ignorant of recent history? Or maybe we just discount Nouri's drive? If it's the latter, we're wrong to do so.

It's amazing how little attention is being given to Nouri. AL-MONITOR is one of the few outlets to emphasize the success Nouri had in this election:

Political parties affiliated with Iraqi militias faced significant defeat, while their ally Nouri al-Maliki earned a remarkable victory https://al-monitor.com/originals/2021/10/iraqs-election-results-put-militias-between-rock-and-hard-place

 by @hassanaIiahmed

al-monitor.com

Iraq's election results put militias between rock and hard place

Political parties affiliated with Iraqi militias faced significant defeat, while their ally Nouri al-Maliki earned a remarkable victory

At the US government funded Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Harith Hasan writes:

On the one hand, mainstream parties such as those of the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, the speaker of parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi, and the former president of the Kurdistan Region Massoud Barzani, appeared to be the main winners. On the other hand, there was more room for independents and newcomers to win a greater number of seats in the latest elections than during any of the previous elections, and they actually would have won more had the turnout been higher.

I believe that last sentence should be ''they actually MIGHT have won more had the turnout been higher." Or has Carnegie dumped analysis for psychic readings? Is this Carnegie Endowment or Carnac The Magnificent's Endowment For Peace?