Monday, September 18, 2017

Terry Gross helps Hillary lie again

On the awful NPR today, Hillary Clinton lied while Terry Gross fluffled for Hillary who made outrageous statements like this one:

I know what happened to our candidates in 2014, before I ever ran, before I announced that I would run. I was campaigning hard for Democrats in that midterm election, and I saw what the right was doing to really good people — people like Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina. People like our wonderful candidate Michelle Nunn in Georgia.

Terry let the lie go unchallenged. Here's Wikipedia on "wonderful candidate Michelle Nunn:"

Nunn's policy positions during the campaign emphasized her attempt to portray a moderate image and distance herself from the unpopular Obama administration.^[54] She declined to say whether she would have voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had she been in the Senate but said that going forward, some aspects of it should be fixed rather than the whole law being eliminated.^[42]^[55] She criticized Georgia's refusal to accept Medicaid expansion under the act.^[42] Following the start-up problems with the associated HealthCare.gov website, Nunn broke with the Obama administration and said that the individual mandate portion of the law should be delayed.^[56] Nunn favored construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline^[15] and opposed the Obama administration's proposed cuts to defense spending.^[57] On the topic of same-sex marriage, Nunn said she personally favored it, but that the decision should be made on a state-by-state basis.^[42] Nunn was endorsed by EMILY's List, a political action committee that assists pro-choice Democratic women with their campaigns.^[58]
Nunn's stump speech emphasized an appeal to bipartisanship.^[59] She proposed that members of Congress should be forced to pass a budget each year or forfeit their pay, said there was blame on both sides for ongoing Congressional dysfunction, and declined to say whether she would support Harry Reid remaining as Senate Majority Leader.^[15]^[34] Nunn made her father a focal point, staging joint appearances with him at military bases and saying that she would emulate his bipartisan approach to legislating.^[57] She received support and donations from former Republican Senators Richard Lugar and John Warner, both of whom were close to her father,^[60] and support from former Georgia Senator and Governor Zell Miller, a Democrat who had endorsed Republicans over the previous decade.^[61] However, the use by Nunn's campaign commercials of photographs of her with George H. W. Bush drew a series of objections from the former president, who endorsed Perdue.^[62]^[63] Neil Bush neither endorsed nor opposed her candidacy,^[14] but did object to some of Perdue's negative ads based upon her time with Points of Light.^[64] In all, Nunn raised $14 million during the campaign.^[65]

She favored Keystone XL. She couldn't declare for marriage equality.

She was also big money's candidate and she raised more than any Democrat or Republican running.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Monday, September 18, 2017. Chaos and violence continue, Hayder al-Abadi and Nouri al-Maliki preach hate, one person dies in Kirkuk as a result, the Baghdad based Supreme Court insists it has jurisdiction over a KRG vote, and much more.

Because they'd always gotten their way, they'd assumed they always would.

So months ago, when the Kurdistan Regional Government declared that they would hold a referendum on independence, the Baghdad-based government made vague mutterings. Now that the September 25th referendum remains

Come and dig the Koo Koo war
Rumor has it got started cuz our leaders got bored
New toys with a laser teach children 2 kill
Who knows when they're older
Maybe they will

Nothing gained
Paradise lost
Koo Koo's the trip and death is the cost
It's your world
4 a little while

Peace, mother, brother
Peace of mind
We got 2 love one another all the time
Cuz a kiss on the lips
Is better than a knife in the back

-- "Koo Koo" written by Sheila E. and Prince, first appears on her album SHEILA E.

Better than a knife in the back?

Which is all the KRG has gotten historically from the US government.

Let's drop back to the US Congress and the Pike Report. It was leaked to the press and, February 16, 1976, The Village Voice published Aaron Latham's "Introduction to the Pike Papers." Latham explained:

In 1972, Dr. Henry Kissinger met with the Shah of Iran, who asked the U.S. to aid the Kurds in their rebellion against Iraq, an enemy of the Shah. Kissinger later presented the proposal to President Nixon who approved what would become a $16 million program. Then John B. Connally, the former Nixon Treasury Secretary, was dispatched to Iran to inform the Shah, one oil man to another.
The committee report charges that: "The President, Dr. Kissinger and the foreign head of state [the Shah] hoped our clients would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap the resources of our ally's neighboring country [Iraq]. The policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."
During the Arab-Israeli war, when the Kurds might have been able to strike at a distracted Iraqi government, Kissinger, according to the report, "personally restrained the insurgents from an all-out offensive on the one occasion when such an attack might have been successful."
Then, when Iran resolved its border dispute with Iraq, the U.S. summarily dropped the Kurds. And Iraq, knowing aid would be cut off, launched a search-and-destroy campaign the day after the border agreement was signed.
A high U.S. official later explained to the Pike committee staff: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."

The US government, for all the lies of spreading democracy around the world, has never been mistaken for a missionary.

And last Friday, the Trump administration demonstrated that yet again.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 15, 2017

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s Proposed Referendum

The United States does not support the Kurdistan Regional Government’s intention to hold a referendum later this month. The United States has repeatedly emphasized to the leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government that the referendum is distracting from efforts to defeat ISIS and stabilize the liberated areas. Holding the referendum in disputed areas is particularly provocative and destabilizing. We therefore call on the Kurdistan Regional Government to call off the referendum and enter into serious and sustained dialogue with Baghdad, which the United States has repeatedly indicated it is prepared to facilitate.

How is it distracting from efforts to defeat ISIS?

Could someone explain that?

Of course, they can't. There is no solid explanation for such a claim.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote on September 25th, the Peshmerga would continue to battle the Islamic State as needed.

Turkey has continued to battle the Islamic State, for example. Even when the government of Iraq has asked that Turkish troops leave the country, Turkey has continued to battle the Islamic State. (The Turkish government opposes Kurdish independence.)

How is a referendum going to destabilize other areas of Iraq?

ALJAZEERA reminds:

The KRG, which governs the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, has said a pro-independence vote would not trigger an immediate secession.
Massoud Barzani, president of the KRG, said a "yes" result would instead kick-start "serious discussions" with Baghdad.

As for Kirkuk, the disputed area was supposed to be resolved by the end of 2007.

Bully Boy Bush didn't want that because it would hurt war efforts in Iraq.

Barack Obama also refused to support the Iraqi constitution (which demanded the issue be resolved).

Three administrations have now attempted to thwart Kurdish independence.

All have insisted now was not the right time.

When is the right time?

The Iraq War continues.

It continues because the Iraqi government is installed by the US government.

It wasn't elected by the people.

They didn't choose for a bunch of cowards who left Iraq decades ago to return after the US invaded in 2003 and become leaders.

This government has no authority or legitimacy.

14 years on and there's still no legitimacy.

The US military will apparently be in Iraq for hundreds of years -- remember when John McCain presented that as his position and we were all horrified?
Dropping back to the January 7, 2008 snapshot:

Of the GOP candidates, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained today, "In other campaign news, Republican Senator John McCain admitted he would be fine if the United States military stayed in Iraq for a hundred years. McCain said 'We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. . . As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me'." Vote Insane! Vote John McCain!

Two months later, it was still news. Ron Clairborne (ABC NEWS) reported at the end of March 2008:

By early February, as it became clear that McCain would emerge the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, the Democratic National Committee sent out a fundraising letter portraying McCain as favoring "an endless war" in Iraq.

Last week, Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean blasted McCain as "a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."

Sen. Hillary Clinton's camp continually blasts him for the 100-year remark. The Democratic presidential candidate said this month McCain "is willing to keep this war going for 100 years." She vows to remove U.S. troops from Iraq. But a year ago, she told The New York Times that as president she would leave some unspecified number of U.S. forces to protect "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq."

The article said: "She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers." That position does not appear to be much different than what McCain was saying in Derry, minus the 100-year quip.

Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said, "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years."

[. . .]

The attacks on McCain aren't coming just from his Democratic opponents. A scathing anti-McCain video posted on YouTube, entitled "No, We Can't," uses select lines from what McCain said to give the distinct impression that he would actually enjoy it if the war went on for 100 years. His words are edited to make him to say: "Make it (or, maybe) 100 years. That'd be fine with me."

Google the words "McCain" and "100 years" and you will be treated to a menu of blogs attacking McCain for wanting to wage war for another century.

Several political analysts said they sympathized with McCain's predicament. They say he tried to give a detailed, textured reply to a serious question and his opponents conveniently dropped the context and qualifiers and used to draw a withering caricature of cavalier warmonger.

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum said it was clear to him what McCain really meant -- after all, McCain spelled it out at length. His candor gave his opponents a huge opening to portray it otherwise.

"It's his Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright [Obama's controversial former pastor]," Shrum said. "It's his Tuzla [the Bosnian city where Clinton erroneously claimed she had landed in a helicopter under sniper fire]."

In 2008, it was all so shocking but now that Barack left the White House -- after serving two terms as president -- and the Iraq War still continues, it appears some of the 'shock' over McCain's position was manufactured and that many shared his views.

In fact, today finds Elise Knutsen (VOX) typing matter of factly that "military and political leaders here in Iraq have a blunt warning: The fight against ISIS is far from over, and it may take decades to rout former fighters and their sympathizers from the region. "

Throughout it all, the Kurds keep getting told to wait.

It's their lives and it's their decision.

Strange, isn't it, that the US government has repeatedly insisted they are their to help the people and for democracy but when the Kurds attempt democracy, the US governments has a hissy fit.

TIME magazine reports (in an unsigned article -- those of us who emphasized foreign relations in our poli sci studies should remember what an unsigned TIME article actually is):

Iraq's top court on Monday temporarily suspended the northern Kurdish region's referendum on independence that's due next week, a decision that put further pressure on the Iraqi Kurds to call off the controversial vote.

The Supreme Court in Baghdad released a statement, saying it "issued a national order to suspend the referendum procedures ... until the resolution of the cases regarding the constitutionality of said decision."

It was not immediately clear if the local government in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region would abide by the court's ruling.

RUDAW reports the response to the court -- which may not have authority over a KRG referendum to begin with -- has not been to tremble:

Amid numerous calls to postpone next week’s independence referendum and focus on discussions with Baghdad, President Masoud Barzani told a visiting British minister that they will not postpone the referendum without commitment from Baghdad to begin independence negotiations, with international guarantees that agreements will be enforced.

British Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon called on Barzani to delay the September 25 independence referendum and focus on dialogue with the central government “under the supervision of the international community,” read a Kurdish-language statement from the presidency’s office.

Fallon visited Kurdistan on Monday with UK Ambassador to Iraq Frank Baker and met with Barzani, Vice President Kosrat Rasul, and acting Peshmerga Minister Karim Sinjari.

Responding to Fallon’s request, Barzani said that referendum and dialogue are both tools for independence and that, since no alternative had been presented that could guarantee independence talks and Baghdad’s readiness to commence such talks, the referendum cannot be delayed.

The United Nations weighed in yesterday on the issue.

Reuters Top News‏Verified account @Reuters 3 hours ago

U.N. chief: Northern Iraq vote would detract from Islamic State fight reut.rs/2fdW1lf

4 replies18 retweets29 likes

UN chief urges Kurds in Iraq to scrap referendum, arguing it would detract from the fight against ISIL aje.io/nkdvu

11 replies31 retweets23 likes

That would be the same United Nations that waited until six months after the Iraq War started to offer a sotto voiced opinion. In September of 2004 (six months after the Iraq War started), Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger (GUARDIAN) reported:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

The UN isn't noted for bravery or for much of anything these days.

Remember, this is the same United Nations that stopped counting the military and police killed in Iraq because the country's prime minister whined and hissed.

Sunday, REUTERS reported that Hayder al-Abadi, Iraq's prime minister installed under Barack Obama, declared that the Kurds were "playing with fire." Joining Hayder in inflaming tensions is former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki.

‏ @spectatorindex

IRAQ: Vice President Nouri Maliki says a Kurdish state is equivalent of the 'creation of a second Israel in the north of Iraq'

9:27 PM - 17 Sep 2017

222 Retweets
204 Likes

35 replies222 retweets204 likes

Nouri and Hayder are among those inciting violence. And the impact of their words can already be seen. RUDAW reports supporters of the referendum gathered in Kirkuk when shots were fired at the pro-referendum activists leaving at least one dead and two more injured.

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Another classic from Tori Amos" went up last night. We'll close with this from Senator Johnny Isakson's office (Isakson is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee):

Contact: Amanda Maddox, 202-224-7777

Marie Gordon, 770-661-0999

Isakson Delivers Remarks on National Defense, Hurricane Irma Recovery, JSTARS

Click here to view remarks online

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday to argue for support for the National Defense Authorization Act, which is currently being debated in the Senate. The measure seeks to ensure that our military has the resources it needs to carry out its missions, including critical support in the aftermath of recent hurricanes.

Isakson opened his remarks by acknowledging military service members who are helping in recovery efforts from Hurricanes Irma and Harvey and by thanking every level of preparation and storm response that has allowed for a speedy response in Georgia, starting with Georgia Governor Nathan Deal.

“In Georgia, we lost three lives, which is tragic. We’re sorry for each one of them and our hearts go out to those families,” said Isakson. “Our preparation by Governor Nathan Deal and other leaders in the state saw to it that our reaction and our timeliness was excellent. I want to thank Governor Nathan Deal as well as Georgia Emergency Management in coordination with the agency of FEMA who worked to ensure that everywhere we had danger in Georgia, we also had response for our people and for our state.”

Isakson also highlighted the urgent need to pass the National Defense Authorization Actto provide our warfighters with the tools and resources to counter ongoing threats, including continued support for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) mission based out of Georgia.

“JSTARS is an asset of our U.S. military and our intelligence agencies with a capability that is second to none in the world,” said Isakson. “Since the Gulf War and everything that’s happened in the Middle East and ensued since then, [JSTARS] has been invaluable in command and control capabilities on the ground. It is an intelligence capability that is unmatched by any of our military adversaries in the world.”

Isakson noted that he had a visit earlier in the day Wednesday from Heather Wilson, secretary of the U.S. Air Force, who confirmed to him that the branch was considering other ways of delivering JSTARS’ services to military personnel.

He expressed serious concerns about the Air Force’s “inexplicable” consideration of abandoning this proven and successful platform.

“Our country and our soldiers and our warfighters have benefitted greatly on the ground and in the air, from JSTARS’ surveillance capabilities,” Isakson observed.

“I would submit if the Air Force were to decide that rather than recapitalizing the JSTARS program that we’ve been working on for the last few years, they would go to an alternative delivery system, they’re probably giving up security for our country, intel for our men and women on the ground, battlefield coordination you could not replace any other way, and an asset that we’ve taken for granted for far too long in this country,” he argued.

In addition, Isakson committed to supporting the National Defense Authorization Act,and noted the work of Senate Committee on Armed Services Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the bill.

“I came to the floor to say that I’m with you, and I support you,” said Isakson. “But I want to make sure we do everything we can to ensure the JSTARS [program] and the capabilities of that mission are recapitalized for our soldiers in the future and our military in the future. For us to fail to do so… would be bad for our soldiers, bad for our security and bad for our country.”

Isakson’s remarks are available to view here.

###

The only review of Hillary's book you need to read

Jeffrey St. Clair (COUNTERPUNCH) nails Hillary and her awful book:

The closest Hillary comes to any admission of personal liability is when she discloses that she may have blundered when she smeared Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” Then she suddenly pulls back, recalibrates and defends her denunciation of white working class voters as an act of courage, speaking truth to the powerless, even though it may have harmed her. “I regret handing Trump a political gift with my ‘deplorables’ comment,” she writes. “[But] too many of Trump’s core supporters do hold views that I find — there’s no other word for it — deplorable.” What started as a confession ended in a boast.
Of course, Hillary Clinton has never been able to conceal her contempt for her enemies, real and imagined. It’s one reason she’s never been a successful politician. Where others are supple, she is taut. Unlike Bill, Hillary is a prolific, but graceless and transparent liar. She is also probably the nastiest political figure in America since Nixon. Yet she lacked Nixon’s Machiavellian genius for political manipulation. Hillary wears her menace on her face. She could never hide her aspiration for power; her desire to become a war criminal in the ranks of her mentor Henry Kissinger (symbolized by the laurels of a Nobel Peace Prize, naturally). Americans don’t mind politicians with a lust to spill blood, but they prefer them not to advertise it.
[. . .]
Throughout her career, HRC regularly scolded poor black and Hispanic families about taking “personal responsibility” for their dire circumstances. Indeed, Clinton cast welfare reform as the penance the poor must pay for not getting their shit together. But personal responsibility is a quality that Hillary never adopts for her own failures and screw-ups, including grave ones such as the invasion of Libya or sliming black teens as “super predators” in her lobbying blitz to enact her husband’s vicious Crime Bill. She can’t forgive Bernie Sanders for having the temerity to challenge her pre-ordained coronation and shining a spotlight on the more ignoble chapters of her political career.

He nails it.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, September 15, 2017. Chaos and violence continue, yet even when the topic opens a press briefing the press isn't interested.

‏Verified account @StateDept

.@statedeptspox: We condemn in the strongest terms the barbaric terrorist attacks that took place in Nassiriya, #Iraq. 

Spokesperson Nauert Condemns Terrorist Attack in Iraq

Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert addresses reporters at the Department Press Briefing on September 14, 2017. - U.S. Department of State

16 replies101 retweets157 likes

Heather Nauert kicked off the press briefing with Iraq:

I’d like to start out today by mentioning the terror attack that took place – got a little bit of an echo in here – terror attack that took place in Iraq, and we’d like to condemn that in the strongest possible terms, the barbaric attacks that took place in Nasiriyah, Iraq. They’ve been claimed by ISIS – the attacks have. The brutal attacks demonstrate, once again, the savagery of the enemy that so many of our nations face. We want to extend our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and hope for a speedy recovery for those who’ve been wounded. The attacks are a reminder that all Iraqis must remain focused on defeating ISIS. The U.S. reaffirms its commitment to support the government and the people of Iraq in their struggle against ISIS.

Betsy Woodruff of THE DAILY BEAST would bring up Iraq but first the reporters would work their own agendas (on Iran) while ignoring the ongoing war as they do every press briefing.

MS NAUERT: Of course not. Of course not.
Okay, let’s move on. Betsy, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. My publication, Daily Beast, and others, including Fox News, have reported that there’s a U.S. citizen who traveled to Syria, was fighting there along ISIS – alongside ISIS – when he was apprehended by the Kurds and handed over to the U.S. military. My question is: Is he currently in Syria or Iraq, and has the Red Cross had access to him? Do you have any information about just where he is?

MS NAUERT: So I don’t have a lot for you. I can tell you that we’re aware of that report that a U.S. citizen was detained. Beyond that, I just don’t have any specifics on that. Let me check to see if I have anything additional, but I don’t. This is early on. We just learned about this issue a couple hours ago – to my awareness, at least – and I believe that that is all we have.

QUESTION: Well, it seems that he surrendered to Kurdish elements of the SDF in Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you saying you don’t know, or you can’t say because of privacy --

MS NAUERT: Look, we don’t have a lot of information on that. That is what is being reported; that is what somebody said. I just can’t – I can’t confirm that.
Go ahead.

QUESTION: But the DOD statement that they initially gave us said that we needed to ask the Government of Iraq about it. Is there – do you have any information on who --

MS NAUERT: That who would ask the Government of Iraq about it?

QUESTION: That our publication, when we were reporting this out --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: We reached out to CENTCOM and they said we – they said they were deferring to the DOJ and the Government of Iraq. Just from your post at the State Department, do you have any sense of why the Government of Iraq could be involved in this issue with a U.S. citizen fighting with ISIS in Syria?

MS NAUERT: I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know. Look, perhaps the Government of Iraq – I mean, this is a hypothetical in a sense, in that perhaps the Government of Iraq has him. I don’t know where this man is. I can only tell you that we are aware of reports that a U.S. citizen was fighting for some sort of a terror group. Whether it was ISIS or not, I do not know.
It serves as a good reminder that in a nation of 330-some million people, some people will be dumb enough to go to Iraq and Syria to try to fight for ISIS. We encourage people not to do that. As the U.S. Government, we say don’t go do that. I mean, you can’t be very bright if you’re going to go over there and do that. Beyond that, I just have no information. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I – just one more thing on this? The CENTCOM statement, the most recent one, says, “The coalition defers questions pertaining to captured ISIS fighters to their relative nations’ departments of state or equivalent agencies.” And --

MS NAUERT: I’d say thanks, DOD.

QUESTION: Yeah. And they’ve been --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information for you.

QUESTION: And in fact – and in fact, the Pentagon – it’s not just CENTCOM in Baghdad or wherever.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s also the Pentagon.

MS NAUERT: Look.

QUESTION: Everyone’s throwing this to you guys and --

MS NAUERT: We don’t have any information on this.

QUESTION: Well, then call them out right now and say, “Stop referring questions to the State Department.”

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Thanks, DOD. Stop referring questions --

QUESTION: There we go, okay.

MS NAUERT: -- to the State Department when we don’t have any information --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: -- about who this person was. But it is a good opportunity to remind American citizens, do not go to Iraq or Syria. It is not safe. And if you go there to Iraq and Syria, very bad things could happen to you. Leave it at that.

QUESTION: Can we stay with Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on that?

QUESTION: Just because you don’t have any information on it, does that lead us to believe that --

MS NAUERT: Guys --

QUESTION: -- the U.S. Government doesn’t actually have this person in custody and that --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. Look, I don’t have any information about this. Okay? This is getting to be a bit much now. When I tell you I don’t have any information about it, I am telling you I don’t have any information about it.

QUESTION: But I’m just asking if – if you did have someone, would Consular Affairs make us aware, or is that something that you guys wouldn’t necessarily --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know the answer. I don’t know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: I’d have to check on that.

QUESTION: Stay on Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Today, the president’s office of the northern – the KRG, the --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the Kurdistan Region – issued a statement that he’s looking at alternatives as a result of his meeting with Mr. McGurk and a high-level UK person.

MS NAUERT: He’s looking at alternatives to what?

QUESTION: To the – to the referendum that is scheduled for the 25 of this month.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. So I would – could you share with us if you have any idea as to what that alternative might be to the referendum which would conceivably result in an independent Kurdistan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I’m not aware of that. I believe that Brett McGurk is still over there in the region, and I’m just not aware of what meetings he had and what came up in those conversations. But the U.S. Government, as we have told you, we don’t support the planned Kurdish referendum on September 25th because we feel that that takes the eye off the ball of ISIS and that we should all remain focused on ISIS. And when I topped at the beginning of this briefing with that most recent attack that took place in Nineveh province, that’s a good reminder why we can’t take our eye off the ball, which is ISIS.

QUESTION: Well, the Kurds are hoping that even if they have a referendum and you are --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- opposed to it, once they go ahead with statehood that you’ll be the first to recognize them. Could you give us – I mean, is your position firm on this non-support of --

MS NAUERT: Our position is firm that we don’t support this referendum at this time. We do not support the referendum on Kurdish independence at the time because of ISIS. Okay.

To recap.

1) ‏

Verified account @woodruffbets

At State Dept briefing, Heather Nauert says DOD should stop referring q's on our story to State bc they don't know

2 replies34 retweets29 likes

2) The attacks were noted. Reuters reports, "Three suicide attacks claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) killed at least 60 people in southern Iraq on Thursday, a health official and police sources said, suggesting a shift in the ultra-hardline group’s tactics since it lost control of its stronghold in Mosul." G.H. Renaud (KURDISTAN 24) adds, "Iraqi authorities confirmed over 100 people had been killed and wounded in a twin attack in southern Iraq on Thursday. Following the violence, the Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for a third attack which has yet to be confirmed by officials." An attack that leaves over one-hundred dead and the State Dept press corps can't be bothered to ask even one question about it.

2) The White House is against Kurdish independence.

The time is not right currently.

It needs to wait for another day, some other day.

That's been the same regardless of who occupied the Oval Office.

Bernhard-Henri Levy (FOREIGN POLICY) offers:

It is said the referendum will distract attention from the common fight against the Islamic State and interfere with the Iraqi elections scheduled for next year. But everyone knows, except when they choose not to admit it, that the military part of the battle ended with the fall of Mosul, thanks largely to the Kurds themselves. Moreover, who can guarantee that the Iraqi national elections will take place as scheduled rather than being adjourned, just as we are asking the Kurds to adjourn theirs?
An independent Kurdistan, the commentators continue, would imperil regional stability. As if Syria, mired in war; Iran, with its revived imperial ambitions; and decomposing Iraq, that artificial creation of the British, are not dangers far greater than little Kurdistan, a secular and democratic friend of the West with an elected parliament and free press!
Independence, the talking heads insist, would threaten the territorial integrity of the four nations — Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey — across which the Kurdish nation is spread. It is as if these voices are unaware that the present referendum concerns only the Kurds of Iraq, who have no ambition to form a greater Kurdistan with their “brothers” and “sisters” in Turkey and Syria, whose crypto-Marxist leadership is ideologically incompatible with that of the Iraqi Kurds.

But what about the reaction of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, one asks? What about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reported threat to cut the pipelines that connect Iraqi Kurdistan to the rest of the world? I do not believe that it is the role of the West to act as a press agent for two dictatorships that detest us, nor do I see why the blackmailing of one’s neighbors should be condemned when practiced by Pyongyang but facilitated when it comes to Tehran or Ankara.
Sadly, however, no argument is too feeble to be used to justify our request to “delay.” It feels like an Orwellian nightmare, or a festival of bad faith, in which all arguments are turned into their opposites.

When is the good time?

It's like the good time for the US to end the Iraq War: When the US-installed government is no longer on shaky ground.

And when will that be?

The US-installed government is not popular and will never be.

The US government needs to stop injecting itself into Iraq. Self-determination is what can allow a person to support a government.

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated: