The plight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing the Burmese military’s rampage in the western state of Rakhine is a devastating exposure of the fraud of human rights imperialism practiced by the US and its allies and their chief political asset in Burma (Myanmar)—Aung San Suu Kyi.
The brutality and scale of the military operations have occasioned a great deal of hypocritical handwringing in the UN and by those who have aggressively promoted Suu Kyi as a “democracy icon.” Despite the media and humanitarian agencies being barred from the operational area, there is substantial and mounting evidence that the Burmese army has been systematically torching villages and there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers gunning down civilians.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres yesterday described what was taking place in Rakhine state as “ethnic cleansing,” saying: “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, could you find a better word to describe it?” The UN Security Council issued a statement that “expressed concern about reports of excessive violence” and appealed for steps to “de-escalate the situation,” protect civilians and resolve the refugee problem.
British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson last week joined the chorus of international appeals to Suu Kyi to use her influence to rein in the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age, but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma,” he declared.
If the military’s ethnic cleansing had taken place a decade ago, when the Burmese junta had Suu Kyi under house arrest, the reaction would have been quite different. There would have been ringing condemnations from Western imperialism of the “rogue regime,” denunciations of its long history of human rights abuses and moves for even tougher diplomatic and economic sanctions against Burma.
Aung Sun Kyi was always a fake.
You need to realize how many people pimped her.
She was little more than a CIA devised ploy.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Thursday, September 14, 2017. Chaos and violence continue, the
September 25th vote on independence in the KRG and Kirkuk Province
looms, the US Senate decides they're okay with abdicating their role,
and much more.
The US Senate again reveals its pro-war nature. It was in the US Senate where, in 2002, Democrats linked arms with Republicans to vote in favor of the Iraq War.
And it was in the US Senate late yesterday where they linked arms to vote down a measure that might have ended the never-ending wars.
SPUTNIK reports:
The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a measure to repeal authorization for the Bush-era wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Senate voted 61-36 in favor of killing Senator Ron Paul's Amendment #871 to HR 280, which would have repealed the authorization for use of US military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure would have ended the authorizations for use of military force after six months.
Jeff Daniels (CNBC) adds:
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, an anti-war crusader, had offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal war authority granted in 2001 and 2002. He argued Wednesday that the current war authorizations are outdated and that Congress needed to "grab power back" from the executive branch, which he said has been using the war authorizations for "unauthorized, unconstitutional and undeclared war."
Here's an excerpt from the above:
Senator Rand Paul: For the first time in 15 years, we are debating the Congressional role in the declaration of war we have fought -- the longest war in US history -- under an original authorization to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11. That war is long since over. The war has long since lost its purpose. And it's long time that we have a debate in Congress about whether we should be at war or not. It is the constitutional role of Congress. Interestingly the folks that you have heard on either side of the issue have said, "It is our job, it is what we should be doing." And yet we haven't done it for 16 years. Who in their right mind thinks that Congress is actually going to do their job without being forced to do their job. My resolution is actually silent on whether we should still be at war. My resolution just simply says that the resolutions that we have previously passed will expire. I don't believe that they have anything to do with the seven wars we're involved with currently anyway. But if we were to force them to expire, we would then have a debate. But for those who say "Yes, Congress should exert its authority, Congress should be involved in the initiation of war," they don't really believe that unless they're going to vote that way. What will happen is the continuation of the same: That we abdicate that role and let the president do whatever he wants. It's worse than that. Let's say that we were to vote for my resolution and that the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expired, do you think any of the wars would end? No. The neo-conservatives and neo-liberals believe the president has unlimited authority. They called Article 2 "Authority for War." There is some authority given to the president -- an enormous amount of authority to execute the war. But not to initiate war. The sole duty of initiation of war was given specifically to Congress. So if these authorities were to expire, the president says, "I have all the authority I want under the Constitution to do whatever I want." But that's not what our founders wanted. Madison, if he were here, would vehemently disagree. Madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone for war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. It was supposed to be difficult to go to war. And some gnash their hands and say, "Oh, the Senate could never agree on any authorization to go to war." You know how long it took us after Pearl Harbor? 24 hours and we declared war on Japan. You know how long it took us after 9/11? Three days. We can come together as a body when we're attacked, when we're unified in purpose. But guess what? After sixteen years, it's difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan. But also those who say, "Oh, we need a new authorization but it's going to authorize war anywhere, anytime, with no geographic limit or no time limit"? Basically, they would be authorizing everything we're doing now, not putting any limitations on it. We are in Yemen. We are aiding and abetting the Saudi war in Yemen and yet there's been no vote on it. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation because of the Saudi blockade and bombing campaign. We are aiding and abetting that and yet there's been no vote here in Congress. Look we've got problems at home. These wars are costing trillions of dollars. They are unauthorized. We have not voted on them. And I say, "Look, let's pay attention to some of the problems we've got here at home. We're going to have a hundred and fifty billion dollar tab for Harvey hurricane damage in Texas. And yet we continue with unauthorized, unconstitutional, undeclared war. I think it's time to think about what we've got -- the problems we've got here at home. I think it's time to think about the twenty-trillion dollar debt we've got. But still we have this gnashing of hands, this wringing of hands, these gnashing of teeth that say, "Oh, my goodness, what if Congress didn't do its job? What if we allowed these authorities, these authorizations of force to expire and we didn't get another one? Well the thing is, that's abdicating your constitutional duty. The duty is to do what is in your constitutional duty. It's not to say, "Well the other Congressmen won't do what their jobs is, so I'm not going to do my job." Our job is to enforce, obey and execute the Constitution. The Constitution says Congress shall declare a war. Doesn't say the president can go to war anywhere, any time, around the globe. Says Congress shall declare war. So for the first time in 15 years, we are debating whether or not Congress has a role in this. And for those who will vote "no" against my resolution, they're basically voting -- even though they will say otherwise -- they are voting to say, "Well, eh, let's just let the status quo go on. The President can do what he wants. It's too emotional. It's too controversial to debate war. So we'll just keep letting the president do whatever he wants." Mine is a vote go grab power back. Mine is a vote to say the Senate has prerogative here. The Constitution gives the power to the legislature. That's what this vote is about.
Here's the vote breakdown:
Alphabetical by Senator Name
See any you recognize?
Former US House Rep and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney Tweeted the following:
The US Senate again reveals its pro-war nature. It was in the US Senate where, in 2002, Democrats linked arms with Republicans to vote in favor of the Iraq War.
And it was in the US Senate late yesterday where they linked arms to vote down a measure that might have ended the never-ending wars.
SPUTNIK reports:
The US Senate on Wednesday blocked a measure to repeal authorization for the Bush-era wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Senate voted 61-36 in favor of killing Senator Ron Paul's Amendment #871 to HR 280, which would have repealed the authorization for use of US military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure would have ended the authorizations for use of military force after six months.
Jeff Daniels (CNBC) adds:
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, an anti-war crusader, had offered an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal war authority granted in 2001 and 2002. He argued Wednesday that the current war authorizations are outdated and that Congress needed to "grab power back" from the executive branch, which he said has been using the war authorizations for "unauthorized, unconstitutional and undeclared war."
Here's an excerpt from the above:
Senator Rand Paul: For the first time in 15 years, we are debating the Congressional role in the declaration of war we have fought -- the longest war in US history -- under an original authorization to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11. That war is long since over. The war has long since lost its purpose. And it's long time that we have a debate in Congress about whether we should be at war or not. It is the constitutional role of Congress. Interestingly the folks that you have heard on either side of the issue have said, "It is our job, it is what we should be doing." And yet we haven't done it for 16 years. Who in their right mind thinks that Congress is actually going to do their job without being forced to do their job. My resolution is actually silent on whether we should still be at war. My resolution just simply says that the resolutions that we have previously passed will expire. I don't believe that they have anything to do with the seven wars we're involved with currently anyway. But if we were to force them to expire, we would then have a debate. But for those who say "Yes, Congress should exert its authority, Congress should be involved in the initiation of war," they don't really believe that unless they're going to vote that way. What will happen is the continuation of the same: That we abdicate that role and let the president do whatever he wants. It's worse than that. Let's say that we were to vote for my resolution and that the authorization to go to war after 9/11 expired, do you think any of the wars would end? No. The neo-conservatives and neo-liberals believe the president has unlimited authority. They called Article 2 "Authority for War." There is some authority given to the president -- an enormous amount of authority to execute the war. But not to initiate war. The sole duty of initiation of war was given specifically to Congress. So if these authorities were to expire, the president says, "I have all the authority I want under the Constitution to do whatever I want." But that's not what our founders wanted. Madison, if he were here, would vehemently disagree. Madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone for war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature. It was supposed to be difficult to go to war. And some gnash their hands and say, "Oh, the Senate could never agree on any authorization to go to war." You know how long it took us after Pearl Harbor? 24 hours and we declared war on Japan. You know how long it took us after 9/11? Three days. We can come together as a body when we're attacked, when we're unified in purpose. But guess what? After sixteen years, it's difficult to determine the purpose in Afghanistan. But also those who say, "Oh, we need a new authorization but it's going to authorize war anywhere, anytime, with no geographic limit or no time limit"? Basically, they would be authorizing everything we're doing now, not putting any limitations on it. We are in Yemen. We are aiding and abetting the Saudi war in Yemen and yet there's been no vote on it. 17 million people live on the edge of starvation because of the Saudi blockade and bombing campaign. We are aiding and abetting that and yet there's been no vote here in Congress. Look we've got problems at home. These wars are costing trillions of dollars. They are unauthorized. We have not voted on them. And I say, "Look, let's pay attention to some of the problems we've got here at home. We're going to have a hundred and fifty billion dollar tab for Harvey hurricane damage in Texas. And yet we continue with unauthorized, unconstitutional, undeclared war. I think it's time to think about what we've got -- the problems we've got here at home. I think it's time to think about the twenty-trillion dollar debt we've got. But still we have this gnashing of hands, this wringing of hands, these gnashing of teeth that say, "Oh, my goodness, what if Congress didn't do its job? What if we allowed these authorities, these authorizations of force to expire and we didn't get another one? Well the thing is, that's abdicating your constitutional duty. The duty is to do what is in your constitutional duty. It's not to say, "Well the other Congressmen won't do what their jobs is, so I'm not going to do my job." Our job is to enforce, obey and execute the Constitution. The Constitution says Congress shall declare a war. Doesn't say the president can go to war anywhere, any time, around the globe. Says Congress shall declare war. So for the first time in 15 years, we are debating whether or not Congress has a role in this. And for those who will vote "no" against my resolution, they're basically voting -- even though they will say otherwise -- they are voting to say, "Well, eh, let's just let the status quo go on. The President can do what he wants. It's too emotional. It's too controversial to debate war. So we'll just keep letting the president do whatever he wants." Mine is a vote go grab power back. Mine is a vote to say the Senate has prerogative here. The Constitution gives the power to the legislature. That's what this vote is about.
Here's the vote breakdown:
Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session
Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 )
Vote Number: 195
Vote Date: September 13, 2017, 12:17 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 871 to S.Amdt. 1003 to H.R. 2810 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018)
Statement of Purpose: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military
Force and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002.
Vote Counts:
YEAs61
NAYs
36
Not Voting
3
*Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea
Cotton (R-AR), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Hassan (D-NH), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Strange (R-AL), Yea
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Young (R-IN), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Cassidy (R-LA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea
Cotton (R-AR), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Daines (R-MT), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Duckworth (D-IL), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Ernst (R-IA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Harris (D-CA), Nay
Hassan (D-NH), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
Kennedy (R-LA), Yea
King (I-ME), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Perdue (R-GA), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Nay
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rounds (R-SD), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Strange (R-AL), Yea
Sullivan (R-AK), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tillis (R-NC), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Young (R-IN), Yea
See any you recognize?
Former US House Rep and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney Tweeted the following:
Every one of the 61 Senators who voted against Rand Paul for more war deserves to be defeated in the next...
Noting the Tweet, Elaine added, "They should all be voted out if they're in favor of never-ending war."
If you agree, these are the people who should be voted out.
YEAs ---61
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Strange (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)
See the disappointments? The Claire McCaskills, the Jean Shaheens, all the losers we were told would do a wonderful job but who don't do anything.
Let's note the heroic voters:
NAYs ---36
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Coons (D-DE)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Coons (D-DE)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Peters (D-MI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
3 senators did not vote. Robert Menendez has the excuse that he's standing trial. Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio did not vote. Bill and Marco were in Florida with their constituents (see below).
In Belle Glade with @marcorubio handing out meals to those who still don't have power after Hurricane Irma.
Staying with the issue of voting, September 25th, the KRG and Kirkuk Province are supposed to vote on whether or not to remain a part of Iraq or become autonomous.
Turkey warns Iraqi Kurdish referendum move will have a cost reut.rs/2h4nwKW
While the government of Turkey continues to stamp its feet and threaten, others just threaten.
Governor of #Kirkuk fired by Iraqi parliament after request from Abadi. 110 MPs letter calling for Iraqi Pres Fuad Masum (Kurd) to be fired.
Iraqi parliament voted on sacking #Kirkuk governor based on a demand from Iraqi prime minister
They didn't get what they want so they try to fire the governor?
And they ignore that the Constitution required Kirkuk hold a referendum by the end of 2007.
Required that, but the government never did it.
Maybe Kirkuk should demand the Baghdad government be fired?
At any rate, no one's losing a job yet.
Kirkuk Provincial Council announces that Iraqi Parliament's decision to sack Najmaldin Karim, Governor of Kirkuk, will not be implemented.
Replying to @SalimH9 @FazelHawramy and
Kirkuk council just rejected Iraqi parliament ousting of Nejmedin Karim, you think they would do that if they didn't stand behind him?
Meanwhile, the violence continues . . .
Over twenty civilians killed, injured in restaurant attack in #Dhi_Qar
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, PACIFICA EVENING NEWS, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and LATINO USA -- updated:
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq Iraq
