Saturday, March 24, 2018

Time to unfriend Facebook

Facebook was never anyone's friend.



  1. Anti Democracy Neoliberal Globalist Fascist Mark Zuckerberg Scrambles To Calm Facebook Employees Over Data Harvesting Scandal



Zuckerberg is every woman's nightmare.  An unnattractive smug piece of trash.  You encountered him in classes, in the park, wherever.  He was smug and condescending while also wanting to make it with you.

He is the man that rapes women.  He is the man that beats women.

With a little CIA seed money, he started one of the worst online sites.  It harvested your information while pretending to guarantee your privacy.  It used you.  It played you.

Facebook is not your friend.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, March 23, 2018.

Let's start with another whore in David Brock's bordello.

Just so we're all clear: Trump's new national security adviser John Bolton didn't just lie about WMD's to promote the Iraq war. He stated, in 2015, that the Iraq war — which cost thousands of lives, wasted trillions of dollars, and ultimately spawned ISIS — was "worth it."





Sit your tired ass down.  Just stop.  The anniversary of the Iraq War was this week and you didn't Tweet about that, did you, whore?  No, you are one of those wack jobs with conspiracy theories about Russia.  You are so embarrassing.  You're worse than the flat earthers.  But that's fine, crazy, just don't try to grand stand on Iraq.

David Brock's whores always think they can pretend to care about Iraq and that the world won't notice they only mention Iraq when they can trash Republicans -- and only Republicans, they never use it to trust Democrats but, hey, what cunning whore goes out of their way to trash one of the johns?

Bolton thinks it's "worth it."  Like Mad Maddie Albright thought killing half a million Iraqi kids was "worth it"?

Clearly, Caroline O, you think it was "worth it" too because you've can't say a damn word about an ongoing war that's still resulting in the deaths of Iraqis and the deaths of US service members (7 last week alone -- 59 since August of 2014).  How are you any different from John Bolton?  Because I'm not seeing a bit of difference between you and Bolton.  Both of you, through your actions and deeds, normalize and condone an illegal war.  Why don't you go to David and say, "Hey, be a good pimp and don't send me out in the rain tonight?"  Then you can use that time to contemplate how whorish someone has to be to only bring up an ongoing war when it's too her political advantage?

Scurry off now, no one wants to contract a social disease from you. No one needs to hear from you.  As Jhene Aiko sings, "Yes, your mama did, she raised a fool wow" ("Never Call Me," from her album TRIP).




Or maybe Caroline O can scurry off to John Bolton?

As Isaiah noted May 12, 2005, he is "The Swingin' John Bolton."






Yes, Bolton was a menace and remains one.  But we'll cite those who speak out against war, war, war and not silly tricks like Caroline O.


I can’t think of anyone more dangerous than John Bolton to be the National Security Adviser. Pompeo and Bolton are standard bearers for the interventionist neocon foreign policy establishment, addicted to regime change wars, without any thought of the deathly cost or consequence


  • McMaster is out. Trump’s choice of John Bolton to replace him, following his pick of Pompeo, continues the extreme warhawk neocon takeover of the White House. Bolton helped build the case of WMD lies that was used to invade Iraq. Bolton still champions that war today.




    Eric London (WSWS) observes:

    Bolton’s reemergence within the inner circle of American imperialist decision-making exposes the role played by the Democratic Party since the run-up to the Iraq War, launched 15 years ago this week. At each stage in the preparation, launching, and expansion of the war, the Democratic Party sought to divert mass opposition to war behind its own electoral campaigns, including that of John Kerry in 2004, the 2006 midterm elections, the Barack Obama campaign in 2008, and those of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries and general election of 2016.
    Despite the fact that the Democratic Party controlled the presidency from 2009 to 2017, not a single leading figure responsible for war crimes, including the CIA officials responsible for torture, have been punished or even fired.
    Instead, Obama escalated imperialist war around the world. Just this week, the Democratic Party voted for a $1.3 trillion federal budget which includes massive increases in military spending. As a result of the imperialist character of both parties, a detestable figure like John Bolton is able to return to the Oval Office.


    The budget?

    Early this morning, the US Senate followed the House's lead and passed the $1.3 trillion spending bill that now awaits the signature of the President.  Senator Rand Paul's raised some serious questions about the bill (we posted those here) but for the snapshot we'll note this one.


    Page 357. Sec. 8116 no funds can be used in Iraq in contravention of the War Powers Act sounds good but . . . haven’t we been back in Iraq at war against new foes without any new congressional authorization?





    There hasn't been a congressional authorization.  Yet the war continues, day after day, and apparently just so it can be a political prop for posers like Caroline O.



    May 12th, Iraq is set to hold parliamentary elections and no one's been bothered by the fact that Ramadan takes place from May 15th to June 14th.   Past elections in Iraq have required many deyas -- in the case of the 2010 parliamentary elections, many months -- to settle.

    Hayder al-Abadi staked his future on the premature claim that he vanquished ISIS in Iraq.  That, of course, hasn't proven to be the case.   He hasn't been very effective eliminating corruption either. MEM reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi yesterday ordered an immediate investigation into allegations that fake jobs in the public sector were being offered to citizens by political parties in order to win votes in the country’s upcoming general elections."

    Christopher M. Blanchard (CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE) notes:

    Prime Minister Abadi has announced his plan to lead a coalition of mostly Shia parties and independent Sunni figures under the framework of his Victory (Nasr) Alliance. In launching his own coalition, Abadi is competing with Vice President and former prime minister Nouri al Maliki, who, like Abadi, is a leading member of the Dawa Party. Maliki’s State of Law alliance has been critical of Abadi’s leadership, and some State of Law members are vocal opponents of Iraq’s security partnership with the United States. Several former leaders of the Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) militias organized to help fight the Islamic State are participating in the elections as candidates under the rubric of the Fatah Alliance (see textbox below).
    Other prominent Iraqi figures have organized coalitions and lists to contest the election, including a largely Sunni list led by Vice President Osama al Nujayfi and the National Alliance jointly led by Vice President Iyad Allawi, COR Speaker Salim al Juburi, and former deputy Prime Minister Salih al Mutlaq. Among Shia leaders, Ammar al Hakim’s Wisdom (Hikma) movement has formally withdrawn from the Prime Minister’s coalition, but Hakim reportedly intends to coordinate with Abadi during government formation negotiations after the election. Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr is directing his followers to support the multiparty, anti-corruption oriented Sa’irun coalition. Sadr has criticized the participation of PMF leaders in the election and is campaigning on a populist reform and anti-corruption platform.


    Barack Obama ousted Nouri al-Maliki in the fall of 2014 to make Hayder prime minister.  Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri wants to be prime minister again despite his flunkies repeatedly insisting that is not the case.  ALSUMARIA reported yesterday that Nouri has insisted Iraq is passing through a serious, make-it-or-break-it period.  Naturally, Nouri believes he's the one who can save the country -- despite nearly destroying it in 2014..  Today, ALSUMARIA notes that he's saying Iraq needs someone who can lead the country in construction and progress.  Others who would like to become prime minister include Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr who has teamed up with five other groups -- including the Iraqi Communist Party -- for this election cycle.  Two others who'd like to become prime minister, Ammar al-Hakim and Ayad Allawi, have done joint photo-ops.  Ayad Allawi should have been prime minister per the 2010 elections.  But Nouri refused to step down for eight months and brought the country to a stalemate.  Barack Obama, then president, refused to back the winner of the election and instead brokered The Erbil Agreement which, in November of 2010, gave Nouri a second term as prime minister -- in effect, nullifying the election results and overturning the will of the Iraqi people.


    March 7, 2010, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August 2010, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 

    November 10, 2010, The Erbil Agreement is signed.  November 11, 2010, the Iraqi Parliament has their first real session in over eight months and finally declares a president, a Speaker of Parliament and Nouri as prime minister-designate -- all the things that were supposed to happen in April of 2010 but didn't.


    If the post-election process goes even 1/4 as poorly as it did in 2010, Ramadan will only compound that.  Holding the election three days before Ramadan was very poor planning.

    All want to reform, but few are sinceres. The reformation in Iraq must be started right now via a set of Procedures are: Cancel privileges and pensions retailed; work on rehabilitating infrastructure and balanced external relations;




    The following community sites updated:



  • Thursday, March 22, 2018

    News?


    The House voted Thursday to pass a roughly $1.3 trillion spending bill to fund the government through Sept. 30, giving the Senate just over 24 hours to pass the bill and avert a second government shutdown this year.
    The massive spending package easily passed 256 to 167 as the House wrapped up what may be the last major legislative achievement ahead of the midterm elections in November. But the 2,232-page spending bill remained mired in controversy after leaders rushed the measure to passage ahead of the Friday deadline.
    The attention now shifts to the Senate, where leaders hope to speed the bill to a vote if they can persuade all 100 senators to sign off on the plan. The biggest threat to that effort comes from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who moved to block a similar gambit in February, leading to a brief lapse in spending in the middle of the night.
     
     
    I want to piggy back on Marcia from yesterday “Can we get some real news? ” because she made some really important points.  This backs up what she was saying, we need real news.  Every news broadcast – or public affairs program that has headlines at the start – should have led with one aspect of the budget proposal.  It should have explored it and focused on it.
     
    I do not expect, say, PBS THE NEWSHOUR to tell me the entire details of the proposed budget – some of which were not known too far ahead of time.  But there is nothing that prevents them, as a public service which is what they are supposed to provide, from divvying up the budget.  PBS says they’ll grab defense and spend episodes focusing on that.  CBS says they’ll grab housing.  ABC says they’ll grab agriculture.  NBC says they’ll grab foreign policy and the State Department spending.  CNN can grab science and research.  Etc.
     
    The news media in this country is a failure.  That is not by happenstance.  That is planned.  It is cheap to do Rachel Maddow’s junk ‘news’ of ranting and raving then to do investigative reporting or any real reporting. 
     

    Marcia is exactly right – great job, Marcia!!!!


    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Thursday, March 22, 2018.  Cause and effect -- declare war on the world and it takes a lot more money to protect your own ass.


    ALSUMARIA notes the latest Mercer study of quality of life which surveyed 231 cities and found Baghdad to be dead last.  Since the 2003 US-led invasion, Baghdad has been in the bottom including coming in dead last in 2017 as well.  Trillions spent on 'liberation' and that's the result?

    Spending.

    ALSUMARIA also notes that US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has declared the proposed US budget to be the biggest spending increase for the Defense Dept in 15 years.


    We are delivering the biggest increase in defense funding in 15 years. Reports of training accidents and incidents point to a readiness crisis, and this bill fulfills our pledge to rebuild the nations military.
     
     


    We'll get to the why of that increase in a minute.  Let's note Paul wowed by his own bill.

    This funding bill addresses other key priorities: ✅ Maintains all existing pro-life policies ✅ Provides resources to safeguard amateur athletes from abuse ✅ Cracks down on human trafficking ✅ Helps the IRS implement the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act ✅ And more:
     
     



    Sorry but there's nothing "pro-life" about war and, as Speaker of the House, you should damn well be aware that the US remains at war in Iraq.  As Joshua Keating (SLATE) explained earlier this week, Iraq is one of at least seven wars the US government is currently engaged in:

    Fifteen years ago today, George W. Bush announced the beginning of the Iraq war. Two U.S. presidents, thousands of lives lost, a withdrawal and a reengagement later, American troops are still on the ground—and dying—in Iraq. There are no plans for withdrawal, even though the most recent foe there—ISIS—has been almost entirely defeated.
    The conflict in Iraq is just one facet of an ever-expanding and seemingly endless U.S. military campaign across the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. Last week, the White House, as required by a new provision in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, issued a report to Congress on all the countries where ongoing U.S. military operations are taking place. According to the unclassified portion of the report, America is currently at war in seven countries:
    • In Iraq, the U.S. military is continuing to train and assist Iraqi security forces in order to prevent the reemergence of ISIS, as happened after the withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2011.
    • In Syria, American troops are still on the ground, ostensibly to mop up the last remnants of ISIS, though administration officials have also mentioned several other goals, including putting pressure on Bashar al-Assad’s government, supporting local Kurdish allies, and countering Iranian aggression. These troops have been in an increasingly complex and precarious position as open warfare has broken out between Turkey and the Kurds—both officially U.S. allies.
    • In Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been fighting since 2001, making it the longest conflict in U.S. history. Thousands of new U.S. troops were dispatched last year to support the Afghan government and security forces and fight the Taliban and ISIS. Nonetheless, the Taliban continues to increase the amount of area under its control.
    • In Libya, the U.S. military conducted airstrikes against ISIS with what appear to be loosened rules of engagement.
    • In Somalia, the Trump administration has dramatically ramped up the number of drone and special operations strikes against ISIS, al-Qaida, and al-Shabaab as well as assisting local forces. Last May saw the first U.S. combat death since the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.
    • In Niger, around 800 troops are working to train and assist local forces. The U.S. presence in the West African country was little known, even to senior lawmakers, until the firefight that killed four American troops last October. This confrontation was apparently not an isolated incident in what was not originally intended to be a combat mission.
    • In Yemen, the U.S. is carrying out strikes against ISIS and al-Qaida targets as well as providing what the White House report calls “limited support” to the Saudi-led coalition fighting against Houthi forces. This last operation has proven particularly controversial given the horrific humanitarian consequences and unclear strategic objectives of the Saudi campaign. A bill, which could see a vote in the Senate this week, seeks to end U.S. involvement in the conflict against the Houthis.


    Meet the new El Chapo, the United States government. Terrorizing the world, it needs to hunker down in a compound.  And grasp that should forces ever invade, the government will protect itself, not We The People.  Oh, like El Chapo, they might grab a child as they flee, but only to prevent themselves from being shot.  The arrogance and disregard for international law, the inability to recognize the right of self-determination when it comes to foreign lands, all of it adds up to require that the US government spend more and more on 'security.'

    Seven wars.  And people wonder about school violence?  What are children in America taught?  That might makes right.




    Strong and wrong you win--
    Only because
    That's the way its always been.
    Men love war!
    That's what history' s for.
    History...
    A mass--murder mystery...
    His story

    Strong and wrong
    You lose everything
    Without the heart
    You need
    To hear a robin sing
    Where have all the songbirds gone?
    Gone!
    All I hear are crows in flight
    Singing might is right
    Might is right!

    Oh the dawn of man comes slow
    Thousands of years
    And here we are...
    Still worshiping
    Our own ego

    -- "Strong and Wrong," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on SHINE.


    Seven wars.  The US government is engaged in (at least) seven wars.  Never-ending wars.  Children raised in Iraq are suffering and have suffered, absolutely.  But don't pretend that children in the US haven't been impacted.  Many have grown up deprived because the same government that can spend a trillion dollars -- spending away the children's future -- can't provide for basic needs let alone the commons and shared spaces.  But also true, children in the US now grow up with no notions of peace.  It's war, war, forever war.  That is normal to them because that is all they have ever seen.  The violence is normal (and Joe Biden can't stop preaching it -- see Mike's post from last night).  Is it any surprised that the urge to resort to violence spreads into US schools?  Do we not believe in cause and effect?  Do we not constantly decry this or that personal development as a bad influence on children?  So if it's, for example, a sex scene in a movie, we're shocked and shield the children.  But when it's war, war, war carried out by the government, the same government many children in this country pledge allegiance to, we pretend it has no influence at all?


    The Iraq War woke me up to how the media acts as an arm of the US government to sell imperial wars & reinforce world dominance. I couldn’t believe reporters repeated every lie the Bush admin told about why we needed to invade countries at random & start a global “war on terror”
     
     


    I hear you, Abby.  But I'm also aware that you're all over Syria and other topics while you ignore Iraq.  Glad you could check back in on the 15th anniversary but you do have a platform and you could use it from time to time to note the Iraq War.

    I feel the same way reading Charles P. Pierce at ESQUIRE:



    On Tuesday, one of that war’s most baroque cheerleaders, former general Ralph Peters, announced that he was leaving Fox News because he had suddenly discovered that it was “a propaganda machine.” There were many tubs thumped on Peters’s behalf. (As an antidote, here are Edroso’s invaluable archives of the guy he called Blood ‘n Guts, who, back in the day, saw himself as a centurion at the walls of Carthage.) That so many of the monsters out of this nightmare have been rehabilitated by their revulsion at Donald Trump did not elude Sinan Antoon, either.
    No one knows for certain how many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion 15 years ago. Some credible estimates put the number at more than one million. You can read that sentence again. The invasion of Iraq is often spoken of in the United States as a “blunder,” or even a “colossal mistake.” It was a crime. Those who perpetrated it are still at large. Some of them have even been rehabilitated thanks to the horrors of Trumpism and a mostly amnesiac citizenry. (A year ago, I watched Mr. Bush on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” dancing and talking about his paintings.) The pundits and “experts” who sold us the war still go on doing what they do. I never thought that Iraq could ever be worse than it was during Saddam’s reign, but that is what America’s war achieved and bequeathed to Iraqis.
    A lot of people should have taken Tuesday off. The green rooms should have emptied as a day of atonement. George W. Bush should have spent the day in the stocks.


    I'm not disagreeing with what Pierce's saying but, reality, Iraq is not just an ongoing war, it's an ongoing tragedy.  So maybe something more than a once in a blue moon mention of Iraq?

    Here's a thought for Abby and Charles, once a month.  Women should do a breast self-check once a month to detect lumps ("Using your left hand, move the pads of your fingers around your right breast gently in small circular motions covering the entire breast area and armpit. Use light, medium, and firm pressure. Squeeze the nipple; check for discharge and lumps. Repeat these steps for your left breast").  How about those with a platform make a point to check on Iraq at least as often as we need to self-check our breasts?  Would that be too much to ask?

    Abby, Charles, I don't question the intensity of your passion, I just question the frequency of your coverage.


    Violence never ends in Iraq.  ALSUMARIA reports 1 person was stabbed to death in Baghdad, a mortar attack in Baquba left 1 child injured, and, west of Anbar Province,  the Islamic State killed 4 security guards.

    ALSUMARIA also notes that 4 civilians were killed north of Erbil.  How?  Turkish War Planes.  Remember, the Turkish government insists they only kill terrorists.  See the bombs they drop, they have this special ability to, in mid-flight, sniff the potential corpses and, should they smell civilian blood, they're immediately redirected automatically to a non-populated area.  That is sarcasm.  The Turkish government has been killing Kurds for years now -- and this has been ranchers and farmers and other civilians.  It's amazing how Turkey -- like the US -- has a government that would rather attack other countries instead of solving the problems in their own countries.  AL MADA reports that Turkish troops are on the ground in Erbil and notes that the Baghdad-based central government is supposed to be protecting the Iraqi borders.  So Turkish troops have invaded Iraq.  Northern Iraq.  And done so with the apparent permission of Iraq's prime minister Hayder al-Abadi.


    May 12th, Iraq is set to hold parliamentary elections and Hayder wants to be prime minister again.  What about what the Iraqi people want?  Oh, when has that ever mattered?


    Hayder staked his future on the premature claim that he vanquished ISIS in Iraq.  Barack Obama ousted Nouri al-Maliki in the fall of 2014 to make Hayder prime minister.  Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri wants to be prime minister again despite his flunkies repeatedly insisting that is not the case.  ALSUMARIA reports today that Nouri has insisted Iraq is passing through a serious, make-it-or-break-it period.  Naturally, Nouri believes he's the one who can save the country -- despite nearly destroying it in 2014..  Others who would like to become prime minister include Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr who has teamed up with five other groups -- including the Iraqi Communist Party -- for this election cycle.  Two others who'd like to become prime minister, Ammar al-Hakim and Ayad Allawi, have done joint photo-ops.  Ayad Allawi should have been prime minister per the 2010 elections.  But Nouri refused to step down for eight months and brought the country to a stalemate.  Barack Obama, then president, refused to back the winner of the election and instead brokered The Erbil Agreement which, in November of 2010, gave Nouri a second term as prime minister -- in effect, nullifying the election results and overturning the will of the Iraqi people.


    March 7, 2010, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August 2010, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 

    November 10, 2010, The Erbil Agreement is signed.  November 11, 2010, the Iraqi Parliament has their first real session in over eight months and finally declares a president, a Speaker of Parliament and Nouri as prime minister-designate -- all the things that were supposed to happen in April of 2010 but didn't.


    For more on what happened, let's drop back to August 2015 for  Kevin Sylvester's THIS SUNDAY EDITION (CBC) which featured Emma Sky discussing Iraq and her new book  THE UNRAVELING: HIGH HOPES AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN IRAQ.  Excerpt of the discussion about the 2010 national election:




    Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election.  They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence.  To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election.  And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats.  And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism.  And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

    Kevin Sylvester:  People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

    Emma Sky:  Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.  And Maliki refused to accept the results.  He just said, "It is not right."  He wanted a recount.  He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained.  And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.  And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do?  So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days.  And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

    Kevin Sylvester:   Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around.  What happened?

    Emma Sky:  Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there.  He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

    Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

    Emma Sky:  And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man.  Maliki's our friend.  Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.'  So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation.  And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki.  People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election."  So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him.  So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya.  They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement.  So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki.  And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.'  But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.  And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011.  So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

    Kevin Sylvester:  Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention?  Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something.  This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq.  How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?  Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place?   How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?


    Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 



    Will the Iraqi people get a say this time?

  • I'm running for the U.S. Senate because you deserve a seat at the table. Please join my campaign:
    1:23
    37.4K views
     
     
    Thank you, , for the special escort into the Senate Chamber today. Honored to walk beside you and in your footsteps.
     
     
    What we know about the bill: ❌ ~$2B for Trump’s dumb wall ❌More money for ICE to deport hardworking immigrants ❌ No Dream Act ❌ No healthcare deal No Dream Act + More 💰for ICE Deportations? That's NOT a deal DC Dems should support.
     
     
    Watching my good friend being sworn-in as California’s next pro Tem fills me with hope, and I can't help but reflect on the incredible work we have done together. Senate President pro Tempore Atkins will lead California with passion, integrity, and conviction.
     
     
    For too long our most disadvantaged communities have borne the brunt of the most devastating effects of climate change and pollution. I look forward to working with so that all Californians have a representative in D.C. who will fight for their environmental rights.
     
     
    We shall see.

    Will California voters get what we deserve?  We might.  In June, we will have primary and the top two vote getters in the US Senate race will advance to the November general election -- top two regardless of party.

    I am supporting Kevin de Leon, the needed change we need after way too many years of Senator I Voted For The Iraq War and Love Covering For The CIA Dianne Feinstein.






    The following community sites -- plus PACIFICA EVENING NEWS and BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated: