Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Exactly

Not a big Twitter fan but, as Tweets go, this one manages to say something:


  1. RT : House Dem and Iraq veteran says there's no political strategy against .




For more on Iraq -- and what we're not being told -- see C.I.'s snapshot below.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, February 24, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Amnesty International releases a report documenting abuses in Iraq, the media looks away as they did with the United Nations report on Monday, we note some of the US reporters who have really reported from Iraq, we (again) dispel the myth of McClatchy, and much more.



Today Amnesty International issued "Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World's Human Rights."  The section on Iraq opens with:


There was a marked deterioration in human rights as armed conflict intensified between government security forces and fighters of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) armed group, which gained control of large parts of central and northern Iraq. IS fighters committed widespread war crimes, including ethnic cleansing of religious and ethnic minorities through a campaign of mass killings of men and abduction and sexual and other abuse of women and girls. Government forces carried out indiscriminate bombing and shelling in IS-controlled areas, and government-backed Shi’a militias abducted and executed scores of Sunni men in areas under government control. The conflict caused the deaths of some 10,000 civilians between January and October, forcibly displaced almost 2 million people and created a humanitarian crisis. This was exacerbated by the continuing influx of thousands of refugees from Syria, mostly to Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. The government continued to hold thousands of detainees without charge or trial, many of them in secret detention with no access to the outside world. Torture and other ill-treatment in detention remained rife, and many trials were unfair. Courts passed many death sentences, mostly on terrorism charges; more than 1,000 prisoners were on death row, and executions continued at a high rate.


That the Islamic State is committing crimes and overseeing horrors is not hard to discover in reports and 'reports' in the western media.


The fact that Iraq's government forces are doing the same?


Much harder to find reported in the western media.

For example, starting in January of 2014, then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki began bombing the civilian areas of Falluja -- a Sunni dominate city.  Bombing civilians areas as collective punishment?  Legally defined as War Crimes.  These bombings quickly became daily bombings.

The western press looked the other way until September 13, 2014 when new prime minister Haider al-Abadi announced these bombings had been stopped.

That the western press rushed to cover.

But, thing is, bombings continued the next day and ever since.  The bombing of the residential neighborhoods in Falluja has never stopped.


These bombings are acknowledged in a sentence in the Amnesty report:


Government forces used indiscriminate shelling to regain control over Fallujah and parts of Ramadi from ISIS, killing civilians and causing damage to civilian infrastructure. Anbar province remained in conflict throughout the year amid allegations that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had undermined efforts by tribal leaders to broker a solution.
The government’s failure to resolve the crisis, among other factors, left Anbar unable to stem the rapid military advance of ISIS, whose fighters seized control of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in June and then much of Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninevah and Salah al-Din provinces. This sparked a dramatic resurgence in sectarian tensions and massive displacement of communities at risk from armed attacks by ISIS or government air strikes. Ethnic and religious minorities were particularly targeted by ISIS, which forced all non-Sunni and non-Muslims out of the areas under its control.


The report also notes:

Government forces and Shi’a militias armed and backed by the government committed war crimes and human rights violations, predominantly targeting Sunni communities. In Anbar, Mosul and other areas under IS control, government forces carried out indiscriminate air strikes in civilian areas, including with barrel bombs, that killed and injured civilians. In September, Prime Minister al-Abadi called on the security forces to cease all shelling of civilian areas, but air strikes in IS-controlled areas continued, with ensuing civilian casualties.
Security forces and Shi’a militias abducted or detained Sunnis and carried out scores of extrajudicial executions with impunity. In areas where they regained control from IS, they also destroyed homes and businesses of Sunni residents, in reprisal for the alleged support for IS by members of those communities. KRG Peshmerga forces also carried out reprisal destruction of homes of Sunni Arab residents in areas they recaptured from IS.



Will any of the above get serious attention from the western press?

Did the findings in the United Nations report issued on Monday get any serious western press attention?


No, they did not.


The reports was issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and is entitled [PDF format warning] "Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 11 September - 10 December 2014."


The report notes:


During the reporting period UNAMI/OHCHR continued to receive reports alleging civilian casualties attributed to airstrikes and shelling by Government security forces and those supporting them -- that at times appear to have been carried out against civilian targets or heedless of the disproportionate effects of those operations on civilians, in which case it would amount to war crimes. Hundreds of civilians were reportedly killed (including at least 3 children) from airstrikes and shelling during the reporting period. However, in many cases, UNAMI/OHCHR has not been able to verify these reports nor the number of civilian casualties that may have caused . On 13 September, Prime Minister al - Abadi released a statement that he had ordered the Iraqi Air Force to s uspend bombardment in civilian areas, including those controlled by ISIL, and expressed his commitment to protect civilians. The statement was ostensibly in response to increasing concerns regarding civilian casualties stemming from airstrikes and shelling by Government forces,


Did CNN rush to cover the report?

No.

Did the Washington Post, McClatchy or the New York Times?


No.

Now it took forever for the report to get back to Falluja.

Because the United Nations is so cowardly -- especially UNAMI.


So you went from the bombing of civilian areas in Falluja to other bombings by forces -- Iraqi as well as the US-led foreign fighters -- before the report would (briefly) get back to Iraq.


ISF, and coalition forces 32 assisting the Government of Iraq, are bound to respect applicable humanitarian law in the conduct of military operations.  These norms include the principles of distinction and proportionality, and the requirement to take all reasonable precautions to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects. UNAMI/OHCHR notes one confirmed case (and there have been a few other similar reports cited in local media), where the Iraqi Air Force dropped leaflets from the Ministry of Defense advising civilians to evacuate areas occupied by ISIL that may be potential targets in military operations.
 As noted above, ISIL continues to deliberately position itself in civilian areas and within civilian infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, either to use the presence of civilians to shield their forces from attack or to cause civilian casualties in the event of attack.
Salah al-Din governorate reported the highest number of civilian casualties due to airstrikes, with allegedly 67 civilians killed during the reporting period. Subsequent to ISIL complex attack on the sub-district of Dhuluiya on 8 September, ISF began a series of airstrikes in defense of the area. Several aerial bombardments of the area during the remainder of September allegedly resulted in the deaths of at least 11 civilians , and the injury of two others. On 8 October, ISF shelling on Tikrit reportedly killed at least 14 civilians. On 9 and 10 November, shelling allegedly by ISF in al - Alam sub-district, including in a market area, reportedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded 14 more.
On 14 October, in the Kahrabaa area of Baiji district , an air strike reportedly hit two houses, killing 18 persons, most allegedly civilians. On 17 October, an airstrike in the Albo - Tuama area of Salah al - Din was alleged to have killed five people from one family, including one woman and three children. On 21 October, a building collapsed in the central part of Baiji district after it was targeted in an airstrike. According to one source, a second air strike killed at least five people and wounded at least 10 others who had gone to the site to retrieve those killed and injured by the first strike.
On 29 November, an airstrike allegedly targeted a vehicle in Yathrib sub-district, killing one civilian, with a second strike targeting a house where a family had allegedly gathered for a funeral. It was reported that at least 15 civilians (including four children) were killed and another 25 were injured in the attack. Local sources have reported that a predominately Sunni Arab area of Yathrib sub-district has been under regular attack by ISF and government-affiliated forces from Balad Air Base (formerly the al-Bakr Air Base) over the past several months. Approximately 15 - 20 villages have been affected, with the most severe impact on al-Jami’y a area, where it is alleged that almost half of the 600 homes were destroyed by shelling. Number of casualties could not be verified due to lack of access to the affected area. Residents have claimed that they are under threat of being shot if they entered their fields for agricultural purposes. It is alleged that the main actor conducting military operations in the area is the Asa’ib Ahl al - Haq (AAH).
Sources in Ninewa also alleged that the governorate had experienced a high number of air attacks during the reporting period. On the morning of 10 September, an air strike allegedly hit al-Majmoua area, north of Mosul, reportedly killing 11 civilians. In the afternoon of the same day, two additional air strikes in al - Shurta and Ba’aj areas allegedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded three more. Air strikes carried out on 17 October north of Mosul allegedly killed at least 26 civilians. It was further reported that on 7 November, two air strikes killed 10 civilians, including two children in Qayyara district.
UNAMI/OHCHR received several reports of air strikes in Anbar governorate, but due to the security situation was not able to verify these incidents or the casualties that are alleged to have resulted. On 6 October, an air strike allegedly hit civilian buildings in Heet, killing at least 18 civilians (including three women and eight children), with an undetermined number of wounded. Other sources, however, reported that the target of the air strike was ISIL, and that the three civilian houses had been hit with resulting civilian casualties in subsequent shelling of the area. It was also alleged that on 4 November, an air strike hit a market in al-Qaim, western Anbar, killing at least five civilians and wounding at least 27 more. Four days later on 8 November, another strike reportedly killed at least 13 civilians in the same area.
Sources in Fallujah General Hospital reported that 144 bodies (including 18 children) had been received during September, 398 (including 26 children) during October, and 2 94 bodies (including 8 children) during November. Sources in the hospital alleged that most of these casualties had resulted from shelling carried out by the Iraqi army and associated forces. UNAMI/OHCHR was not able to verify these figures.


Took them five paragraphs to get back to Falluja but eventually they did.

Again, did the western press rush to cover the UN's report?

No.

Nor will they rush to cover Amnesty International's report.

There's nothing in it for them.

First off, it would require getting honest.

They've lied and whored for years now.  Nouri's crimes didn't happen cloaked in darkness.

He did what he did out in the open.

And most western reporters were like the Whore of Baghdad herself, Jane Arraf, willing to look the other way over and over and over.

Of course, Whore of Baghdad Jane Arraf spent the 90s doing the same thing, looking the other way while the Iraqi government carried out crimes against the citizens.  She did that throughout Saddam Hussein's tenure as ruler.

So it's no surprise that she would do the same under Nouri al-Maliki.


Now the attacks on civilian and civilian areas didn't stop when Nouri al-Maliki was replaced as prime minister.  The following from the UN report occurs once Haider al-Abadi takes over as prime minister:

Airstrikes were also reported from Kirkuk and Diyala governorates. On 18 September , in Diyala province, five mortar rounds reportedly impacted Dhubab village, killing three civilians and injuring seven others. According to a security source, the mortar rounds had bee n fired mistakenly by ISF and a militia. An airstrike on 19 November in Qara Tapa allegedly killed four civilians and wounded 15 more in an area where a large number of displaced persons from Jalawla had reportedly taken refuge.
According to applicable rules of international humanitarian law, civilian infrastructure remains immune from attack , unless and for such time as they are used by a party to the conflict for military objectives. UNAMI/OHCHR has received reports that ISIL and associated armed groups have deliberately positioned themselves in civilian buildings, including hospitals, in order to conduct operations and in an attempt to shield themselves from attack. On 6 September an airstrike reportedly struck Hawija hospital in Kirkuk governorate , killing two women and five children hospitalized in the children's ward and wounding two medical staff. As a result of the attack, the pediatric and neonatal intensive care unit was temporarily closed. On 13 September, an airstrike reportedly hit a storage shed containing oxygen cylinders in al-Salam Hospital, eastern Mosul, killing one worker and wounding six. UNAMI/OHCHR received unverified reports that on the evening of 29 October several rockets were fired on Fallujah General Hospital by the Iraqi army and associated armed forces, wounding one staff member and causing material damage to hospital equipment and infrastructure. On 22 November and 4 December, ISF and associated forces once again allegedly shelled Fallujah General Hospital. No casualties were reported, but the shelling allegedly resulted in material damage to the infrastructure, including the dialysis unit. On 5 November, an airstrike is alleged to have hit a gathering of people near a hospital in al-Qaim, western Anbar, killing three and wounding 14 others.


Falluja General Hospital has been repeatedly targeted -- under Nouri al-Maliki, under Haider al-Abadi.  It's not the only hospital in Falluja that has been.

And these attacks are either completely ignored by the western media or they are mentioned in passing and never called out.

They need to be called out.

I'm not the weak ass United Nations.  Bombing hospitals?  War Crimes.

Legally defined as such.

Not just 'against international law,' War Crimes -- considered to be the most outrageous of crimes.



The Amnesty report notes:

The authorities held thousands of detainees without charge or trial under provisions of the anti-terrorism law. In February, the head of the Parliament’s Human Rights Committee alleged that around 40,000 detainees remained in prison awaiting investigations. Many were held in prisons and detention centres run by various government ministries.
A letter sent by the Central Investigation Court to the Head of the Supreme Judicial Council in 2013, published in April 2014, reported that authorities continued to carry out unlawful arrests using a list containing partial names of thousands of suspects that the Anti-terrorism General Directorate had sent to police stations in connection with sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007. This was believed to have led to the detention of the wrong people on the basis that part of their names corresponded to partial names on the list.


You may remember when the western press was interested in the above . . .

When Nouri made a for-show 'release' of a handful of detainees.

The western press didn't give a damn about it otherwise.

They were silent.

They looked the other way.

This is one of the factors in Iraq's ongoing political crises.

But the western press only covered it when Nouri did a for-show release.


The Amnesty International report notes:


Torture and other ill-treatment remained common and widespread in prisons and detention centres, particularly those controlled by the Ministries of the Interior and Defence, and were committed with impunity. These centres were blocked to inspection by the Independent High Commission for Human Rights. Interrogators tortured detainees to extract information and “confessions” for use against them at trial; sometimes detainees were tortured to death. Government representatives attending the Universal Periodic Review of Iraq at the UN Human Rights Council said the authorities had investigated 516 torture cases between 2008 and 2014, with many resulting in prosecutions, but provided no details and did not identify the security agencies responsible.
’Uday Taha Kurdi, a lawyer and father of two, died in June after 15 days of detention by Anti-terrorism General Directorate officials in Baghdad. In a letter to the Iraqi Lawyers’ Union in July, the Ministry of the Interior said that ’Uday Taha Kurdi had suffered a “health problem” in detention and had been taken to hospital, where he died. The Ministry also said that a judge had concluded that ’Uday Taha Kurdi, whose brother was held on terrorism charges, was “from the IS leadership” and belonged to “a terrorist family”, and that he had told the judge, when asked, that he had not been tortured. The Supreme Judicial Council said his death resulted from kidney failure, not torture as alleged. However, photographs of ’Uday Taha Kurdi’s body taken at the morgue and obtained by Amnesty International showed that he had sustained bruises, open wounds and burns - consistent with allegations of torture - prior to his death.


Again, the western press didn't give a damn.

They only really turned on Nouri after Barack did in June of 2014.

Two notable exceptions:  Ned Parker and Dexter Filkins.


Ned Parker's done the best western reporting out of Iraq -- first for the Los Angeles Times and now for Reuters.  Dexter Filkins was 'late to truth' -- I'm trying to be nice -- but in 2014 began a series of truth telling articles that surpass anything most outlets have done.  By the way, hallmark of an idiot talking about western reporting?

They compose sentences that include crap like this:

McClatchy - one of the few news outlets with a long record of skeptical war coverage - pointed to a mountain of evidence


I get it. Old whore Bill Moyers pimped the lie and it's all about repeating what some whore told you -- that is the modern western press -- as opposed to doing your own actual work.

McClatchy has no "long record of skeptical war coverage."

It did nothing to question war on Iraq in 2002 or 2003.

Now some idiot -- who probably viewed multiple episodes of programs hosted by Bill Moyers -- so blame PBS for letting him lie repeatedly -- will insist, "McClatchy was the only outlet who told the truth in the lead up to the Iraq War."

No, it did not.

And you're a damn liar or a damn fool if you repeat that claim.


McClatchy Newspapers has been around since 1857.

Find me the brave coverage in the 20th century?

It doesn't exist.

And they also weren't skeptical of the lies told to start the war on Iraq.

Knight-Ridder was.

And that's the real story of journalism in the US.

Tell the truth about Poppy Bush, for example, the way the Houston Press did?

You end up out of business, you end up bought out by the Houston Chronicle which has buried one Bush scandal after another over the years.

Tell the truth about Iraq?

Knight Ridder got bought by McClatchy in the middle of 2006.

McClatchy had numerous papers in 2002 and 2003.

They did not file skeptical coverage of the Iraq War.

Knight Ridder did.

So when someone like the Guardian's Trevor Trimm writes "McClatchy - one of the few news outlets with a long record of skeptical war coverage - [. . .]"?  They're confessing to being either a liar or an idiot.

Most of the Knight Ridder's reporters that worked on the Iraq coverage are gone.

The ones who mattered.

Warren Strobel, for example, is at Reuters. Margaret Talev is now with Bloomberg.

Jonathan S. Landay is really the only one who remains.

For awhile, Nancy A. Youssef was still there (she's now at The Daily Beast).

But Youssef wasn't important for the bulk of her career.  She filed one report that mattered -- it was published on Knight Ridder's last day.

But what Landay and Youssef did beginning in 2009 especially, would never have been allowed at Knight Ridder.

At Knight Ridder, their public devotion and embrace of Barack Obama -- in one Diane Rehm show appearance after another -- would have gotten them disciplinary action because as reporters they were supposed to be seen as objective.

Knight Ridder was about journalism.

McClatchy's really not.

There's been some good reporting from Iraq by McClatchy over the years.  Good, not great.  Leila Fadel's overall work -- especially originally -- was probably among the best.

Roy Gutman -- and his notorious chuckle on Diane Rehm's show -- was among the embarrassments.

So was the way McClatchy walked away from the Iraqi journalists who did the bulk of the work in Iraq -- often with no or little credit.  And, yes, Hannah loves to give speeches about not abandoning those reporters but she can't write about them, she can't even Tweet about them.

Which is why so many concerned about Iraqi refugees -- so many working on the issue in this country -- see Hannah's embarrassing little speeches as not really being about the Iraqi people but about selling herself as 'caring' and 'wonderful.'

And if that hurts Hannah Allam's feelings she can certainly prove me (and many others) wrong by at the very least using her Twitter account to get the word out on Iraqi refugees.

By the way, a real news outlet wouldn't let Hannah Tweet the way she does.

A real news outlet would object to the Circle Jerk.

In fact one did.

That's why Ezra Klein's at his laughable Vox (is it really about to go under?) after being 'freed' (fired) by the Washington Post.

Any day of Hannah's Circle Jerk Tweets demonstrate a liberal agenda.

Now it's a corporate liberal agenda to be sure.

But none the less, the bias is on full display in one Tweet after another.

Knight Ridder wouldn't have allowed it.

McClatchy's such a joke they don't even notice.

In fairness, the right wing media critics don't seem to notice either.

The Twitter feeds by individual MSM journalists are where to go to see the bias blatantly displayed.  But Newsbusters, et al, never seem to notice.

Once they do, news outlets might start clamping down -- as they should -- on so-called reporters who think they can act like columnists.

I could care less what a Paul Krugman or a Michelle Malkin Tweet on.  They're columnists, they're supposed to traffic in opinion.

But for so-called reporters to be Tweeting like their MSNBC hosts?

That's disturbing.

And it'll be disturbing when a Republican's in the White House because then they'll go back to sucking up to the GOP.

That's the thing about media whores -- look at Brian Williams -- they go to bed with whomever's in power.



Let's drop back to the December 30, 2013 snapshot:


Sunday, December 22nd, Nouri yet again called peaceful protesters 'terrorists' and announced he would stop the protests.

He wanted to attack last Tuesday but a last minute flurry of meetings by various officials and political blocs caused Nouri to withdraw the forces he had encircling the Ramadi protest square.  Then came Friday.  From that day's snapshot:

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports Nouri al-Maliki again threatened the protesters today.  He declared this will be their last Friday protest and that he will burn the tents in the protest squares down.  He declared that the protesters were guilty of sedition.  Sedition?  Nouri as William Bligh?  I can see it.  Kitabat notes that he made these remarks in a televised interview.  Kitabat also notes Nouri's been insisting 30 terrorist leaders are hiding in protest tents.  



We still can't get to today yet.




That's Falluja on Saturday as tons poured into the street to protest Nouri's latest stunt.


They were protesting the Saturday dawn raid that Nouri's forces carried out on an MP.  MP Ahmed al-Alwani was illegally arrested.  But there's more.  Alsumaria reported that his home was stormed by Nouri's SWAT forces at dawn and that 5 people (bodyguards and family) were killed (this included his brother) while ten family members (including children) were left injured.

By now, we all know the drill.

What is al-Alwani?

Yes, he's Sunni.

And he's also, we all know this, a member of Iraqiya.

If you're targeted by Nouri, then you are both things.

Or, as conservative Max Boot (Commentary) put it today, "If it’s the end of December or the beginning of January, it must be time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to arrest another prominent Sunni politician."

The people of Anbar did not respond well to Nouri breaking the law and arresting an MP.



I've often criticized and ridiculed Max Boot.

But I've also noted it any time I've seen him get it right.

While one outlet after another couldn't get their act together, Boot got it right (noted above).


From the November 24, 2014 snapshot:



Today,  All Iraq News reports it's been decided to put former MP Ahmed al-Alwani to death.  He was arrested December 29, 2013 the outlet notes.  His brother was killed in the arrest ordered by thug Nouri al-Maliki, an arrest that was actually a raid in the early, pre-dawn hours of the morning.
This will have huge implications.
For example, the tribe he belongs to is one of the key tribes in the fight against the Islamic State. Equally true, his arrest (and the murder of his brother) outraged the Sunni community.
This is the wrong time to be  executing a Sunni politician -- with the new prime minister Haider al-Abaidi having done nothing of significance to improve Sunni relations or to include them in the government.




We note that because Amnesty International's report notes the Iraqi 'justice' system and Ahmed al-Alwani:


The criminal justice system remained deeply flawed. The judiciary lacked independence. Judges and lawyers involved in trials of members of armed groups continued to be targets for killings, abductions and assaults by armed groups. Trials, particularly of defendants facing terrorism charges, were frequently unfair; courts returned guilty verdicts on the basis of torture-tainted “confessions”, which were often broadcast on the government-controlled al-Iraqiya TV channel. Other guilty verdicts were based on evidence from secret, unidentified informants, including in cases that resulted in death sentences.
In November, a Baghdad court sentenced former leading Sunni parliamentarian Ahmed al-‘Alwani to death on terrorism-related charges after a grossly unfair trial. Security forces had arrested him in December 2013 after they forcibly dispersed a year-long protest in Anbar.




Again Nouri's actions were public.  They weren't hidden.  They weren't covert.

The Iraqi press -- who had the most to risk -- were the ones who could and did report the truth: All Iraq News, National Iraqi News Agency, Alsumaria, Al Mada and Dar Addustour among them.

But the western press -- especially the US press -- can't make the same claim.

You can give credit to Liz Sly (Washington Post) and to Kelly McEvers (NPR) for some strong reporting on Iraq in the last years of Nouri's reign of terror.

But that's really about it.

And that's why there's no work on real solutions for Iraq today.

The American people are largely unaware of what Nouri spent his two terms -- especially his second term -- doing and how it tore apart Iraq.

They're unaware -- but not because they're 'stupid.'  They're unaware because the western media largely and repeatedly refused to tell the truth.


And for those who don't have the time to go back and research that coverage, grasp that United Nations released a report on Monday and Amnesty released one today and that both document Iraqi government attacks on the Iraqi people but the western media really doesn't see that as news or worthy of coverage.  The laughable SITE issues some 'alert' and the media runs with it.  Because SITE promotes war.  But anything that might complicate a rush to further war in Iraq?

The western media isn't interested as they make clear day after day.

At Foreign Policy, David Kenner interviews thug Nouri and others for a piece entitled "Nobody Puts Nouri in the Corner."  And Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes at least 197 violent deaths took place across Iraq today.










Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Allegiance

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Trashing Gary Webb Was So Much Easier For David Corn."




David Corn is such a moron.

He's never broken a story.

He's been fed them -- mainly from his CIA friends/handlers.

Anyone who defends the man who attacked Gary Webb and helped destroy Webb (an honest journalist who really did break stories) is just disgusting.

David Corn and Mother Jones are the perfect fit because they're equally disgusting.

Ever since those two women took over the magazine, it's been an embarrassment.

They've turned into a Democratic Party house organ.  It used to be an independent magazine for the left.

Back then, a hack like David Corn would never have been hired.

"TV: Off the rails" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
There's nothing break through about How To Get Away With Murder.


It had a chance to be but it ended it with the winter finale when instead of allowing Annalise (Viola's alleged lead character) to kill her cheating and abusive husband who had killed the young college student he got pregnant, it farmed out the task of that to her students.

It was as though Ryan O'Neal showed up at the start of the classic TV movie The Burning Bed and killed the abusive husband freeing Farrah Fawcett's Francine Hughes (the film is based on a true story) to do needle point for the rest of the film.

Or as though, at the end of Thelma & Louise, Geena Davis had told Susan Sarandon, "Hey, girl, we had our fun, let's turn ourselves in."  And Susan had nodded and the two women had stepped out of the convertible and walked towards the police with their hands in the air.

Annalise is a successful defense attorney known for her ability to allow her clients to get away with murder.  She teaches a college class on the topic and isn't concerned with guilt or innocence, only with how to destroy people on the witness stand and make them look liars even if they aren't.

It's really amazing that the families of various murder victims haven't demanded the university refuse to allow this unscrupulous and predatory person to teach.

But having created this character, the show refused to follow through on the natural storyline -- which was Annalise killing her husband.

As bad as that was, what followed has been even more pathetic.

As the ratings demonstrate, by the way.

Before the winter break, over ten million and over nine million viewers an episode was the norm.

The return of a new episode at the end of January saw a normal viewership.

But what the viewers saw in that episode ensured that every one that followed hasn't been able to crack nine million.

'Strong' Annalise is currently a victim of the Victorian era's "rest cure" as she remains confined to her bed, so distraught over the murder of her awful husband and all that followed.

Yes, the "rest cure."

In 1892, Charlotte Perkins Gilman's classic The Yellow Wallpaper was first published -- a novel that decries the rest cure.

Yet two centuries later, you've got a Shonda Rhimes show promoting it.

Shonda might claim, "This is good drama."

The audience is running, Shonda, they don't think it's good drama.


I've never had any respect for TV writers who create strong female characters and then proceed to water them down and make them ever weaker.

But I do want to note Allegiance on NBC.  It's a new show, the fourth episode will air on Thursday.  It's twists and turns and Hope Davis is doing an excellent job as a Russian who used to be KGB and is now forced back into spying.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, February 23, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the AUMF gets examined, Ed Snowden gets trashed at the Academy Awards by a host who doesn't know protocol, does NPR's David Folkenflik suffer from penis envy when it comes to Tom Brokaw, and much more.



Today, Law and Disorder Radio, aired this week's hourly installment on   WBAI -- and airs around the country throughout the week.  The program is hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) and at the opening of the program, the hosts discussed US President Barack Obama's recent AUMF request.



Heidi Boghosian:  Michael, President Obama has gone before Congress to get authorization to use military force against ISIS  but I understood that he was already fighting ISIS.  What is this about?


Michael Ratner:  It does seem bizarre, Heidi.  I mean, in one way it's probably going to expand his authority -- and we'll get into some of the details.  In another, I guess he feels better having Congress on his side against ISIS.  It may also be now that he has Republicans on both sides, that he has an easier time getting authority to go to war.  I think that's actually the biggest factor, the Democrats might give him a little harder time, not much harder, but a little harder.  Let me give a little of the technical details. It's called the Authorization to Use Military Force.  And, of course, under our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to approve the use of military force.  In fact, of course, this president, like every other one, seems to ignore that.  He has -- as people recall, he went to war against Libya without such a use of authority from Congress.  And he's been fighting against ISIS for five, six months already.  Although he's claimed that he's fighting against ISIS because it fits an old authorization to use military force -- the one from 2001 which was originally authorized to go after the people who were involved in the attacks of 9/11.  That's been infinitely expanded so far that not only is the President bombing ISIS but he's using drones in Yemen, he's using them in Somalia, he's all over the world with the 2001.  So you can see it hasn't a bit -- these broad uses of force that the president is authorized to use by Congress.  It reminds us, Heidi, of course, as we've talked about, of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which was passed to give the president [Lyndon B. Johnson] authority to go into Vietnam and fight against the Vietnamese.  But it was so broadly stated that it went on forever and it expanded the war to half-a-million troops.  And in addition in this case, in the case of Gulf of Tonkin, it was based on a false set of facts having to do with an attack by the North Vietnamese, a supposed attack in the waters.  But in any case, these are bad examples because what happens is you give the presidents these kinds of authority and they basically expand them into world war.  And what's amazing to me hear is that you have the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force which has already been expanded.  And they're not planning to end that one.  They're planning to leave that on the books even if they get this new Authorization to Use Military Force in 2015.  So he's going to have both.  And then he says he doesn't even need it. Even if Congress turns him down, he says, 'I still have the old one.'  So the whole thing is just a charade for wide war. 


And that is correct that the White House is asking for an AUMF that they insist they really don't need.  This was established last December when US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.



Secretary John Kerry:  Let me try to help you a little bit on this.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  Well help me this way:  Are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from Congress?

Secretary John Kerry:  We're seeking authorization now.  With respect to  --

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  So you are.  And if you didn't receive the authoirzation, will you continue the operation?  That's a --

Secretary John Kerry:  The authorization for what we're doing nowin both Iraq and Syria?

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  That's correct.

Secretary John Kerry:  Absolutely we will continue it because we believe we have full authority under the 2001 AUMF and parts of the 2002 AUMF but here's where I want to help you.



That December 9th hearing was covered in the December 9th snapshot, the December 10th snapshot,  Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Ground Hog Day (Ava)," Wally at Rebecca's site with "Barack wants war all over the world (Wally)" and Kat with "John Kerry, damn liar."


Back to the discussion on Law & Disorder.

Heidi Boghosian:  And-and I imagine Michael that it's in response to heightened media coverage of beheadings and high profile actions which, as we've seen over the years, in this country and abroad, often result in hastily passed legislation to placate public fears.

Michael Ratner: You know I that's -- that's a good point.  It may not just be the Republicans on both sides but, in fact, as the ISIS propaganda and videos come out, people are saying, 'Well what's the president doing?'  And so now he's saying, 'Look it, I'm going to Congress, I'm going to get this Authorization to Use Military Force.'  But, of course, he's going to get a very broad authorization to use military force.  Now there's three or four points in it that I want to mention because they're so shocking and surprising.  Let's just look at the scenario here.  The Democrats want to put some limits on it -- not very many, but some -- on this use of force.  The Republicans want an ever expansive use of force.  Not much real difference between them but in some of the details.  The first one comes up in what's known as the 'sunset clause.'  We've talked about sunset clauses here with respect to the PATRIOT Act, etc.  When liberals want to vote for something bad but they want to feel better about it, they say, 'Oh, we're going to put a sunset clause in!'  That means that in two, three, four years, whatever the sunset provision is, the law will end by itself and it won't be renewed automatically.  Well we know what happened with the PATRIOT Act -- which we predicted at the time -- was a lot of liberals voted for the PATRIOT Act because it had a sunset clause, that was their excuse.  'Oh, tell our liberal constituents it's going to set in four years.'  And, of course, it did set.  But, of course, before it did set, Congress went ahead and renewed it for another four, ten, whatever number of years.  So this one has a three year sunset clause.  Let's think about that.  One, they can renew it always.  But secondly, even if it sets in three years, the president -- and it won't be Obama anymore -- just goes back to the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force --

Heidi Boghosian: Right. 

Michael Ratner: -- which has no sunset.  So essentially the sunset clause is meaningless for lots of reasons except it gives liberals cover.  And for that reason, I oppose the sunset clause because I don't want liberals having cover.  They ought to vote for what they understand they're voting for which is  indefinite war against the world.  So that's one very bad provision. 


And on the issue of Congress and voting, Ivan Eland (Antiwar.com) points out the following in his latest column:

The founders of the nation, were they here to see such arrogant usurpation by imperial presidents of Congress’s constitutional war power, and Congress’s willing abdication of it, would simply pass out. A few gray areas of the U.S. Constitution exist, but the war power isn’t one of them. The document placed most of the war powers – including declaring war, even the approval of lesser military action, the raising of armies, the maintenance of a navy, and the funding and regulation of the armed forces and militia – with the people’s branches of governments. The American founders intentionally created this unusual arrangement, because they did not like the militarism of the European monarchs of the day, who took their countries to war on a whim and let the costs in blood and added taxes fall to common citizens. In the founders’ original conception of their system of government, the executive was only the commander-in-chief of the armed forces after war had been decided by the people’s branches and under whatever restrictions they imposed. As the debate in the Constitutional Convention indicated, only in the extreme case of the country being under imminent attack and the Congress not being in session, could the president take military action without congressional approval; even then he should seek a prompt authorization when possible.




As they pointed out at Third in "Editorial: The AUMF silence" Sunday ("they" because I didn't work on the editorial, I was at the Academy Awards when it was written), Law and Disorder Radio broke the silence at Pacifica on the AUMF.  Back to the discussion.


Michael Ratner:  A second one -- and a big struggle is going on --  or, I don't know if it's big, a struggle of some sort -- at least in the press around these guys -- is the use of ground forces.  How are we going to limit the use of ground forces?  Initially, I think we were told there won't be any ground forces used against ISIS or they believe they have to use ground forces. So what does this Authorization to Use Military Force say -- the new proposed one?  This does not authorize the use of the United States armed forces in -- and here's the key word -- "enduring" offensive ground combat operations.  The word is "enduring offensive ground combat operations."

Heidi Boghosian: Right.  And what does that mean? That means a long term -- 

Michael Ratner: How long is enduring?

Heidi Boghosian:  -- something short of -- Exactly.


Michael Ratner: One year? Two year?  Five years?  Ten years?

Heidi Boghosian:  Right. 

Michael Ratner:  What's "enduring"? Forever?

Heidi Boghosian:  It's over broad and vaguely drafted. 

Michael Ratner: It's meaningless.

Heidi Boghosian: Right.


February 12th, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on the AUMF.   The witnesses appearing before the committee included former US Ambassador James Jeffrey, the Center for a New American Security's Dafna H. Rand and RAND Corporation's Rick Brennan.  US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair of the Committee and US House Rep Eliot Engel is the Ranking Member.  From that hearing.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Section 2C of the President's draft Authorization of the Use of Military Force reads as follows The authority granted in sub-section A does not authorize the use of US armed forces in enduring offensive ground US operations.  Ambassador Jeffrey, what does enduring me?

James Jeffrey:  Uh.  My answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one.  Whatever the executive at the time defines enduring as.  And I have a real problem with that.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Brennan?

Rick Brennan Jr.:  I have real problems with that also.  Not only because it's -- I don't know what it means and I could just see the lawyers fighting over the meaning of this.  Uh, but-but more importantly, if you're looking at-at, uh, committing forces for something that you say is either vital or an important issue to the United States and you get in the middle of a battle and all the sudden are you on offense or are you on defense? What happens if neighbors cause problems?  Uh, wars never end the way that they were envisioned.  And so that's, I think, a-a-a-a terrible mistake to put in the AUMF.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand?

Dafna Rand:  Enduring, in my mind, specifies an open-endedness.  It specifies lack of clarity on the particular objective at hand.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: Dr. Rand, is two weeks enduring?

Dafna Rand: I would leave that to the lawyer to determine exactly.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So your answer is you don't know, right?  How 'bout two months?

Dafna Rand:  I don't know.  It would depend -- Again, I think it would depend on the particular objective.  "Enduring," in my mind, does not have a particular objective in mind.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: So you don't really know what it means?  Is that a fair statement?

Dafna Rand: Uhm, "enduring," in my mind, means "open ended."



That hearing was covered in the February 12th snapshot, the February 14th snapshot and the February 16th snapshot.

Let's get back to Michael Ratner and Heidi Boghosian's analysis of the AUMF.


Michael Ratner: Basically the president is authorized to use ground forces forever.

Heidi Boghosian:  Right. 

Michael Ratner:  So, again, the Democrats are going to be able to say to their constituents -- or maybe a few Republicans who are a little isolationists here, will say, 'It doesn't say we gave them authority.'  So --

Heidi Boghosian: [Laughing] It's not in perpetuity!


Michael Ratner: It's b.s.  That's number two.  A third part of the law says it allows war to be made on associated persons or forces.  That means individuals and organizations associated in some way with ISIL or ISIS -- the Islamic State.  And the problem is, that's like saying war can be made anybody.  And we know that from experience because in the 2001 AUMF, it also uses the term -- or has been interpreted to mean -- you can make war on associated forces of al Qaeda or the Taliban.  Well now under the US definition -- the government definition -- that's everybody.  That's the people in Somalia, that's the people in Yemen, that's the people in Mali, that's everywhere.  So it's a meaningless restriction, 'associated forces.'  That's number three.  And number four -- and this is really striking -- really, if you're thinking about the US and perpetual war, the act, the new proposed authorization to use military force of 2015 has no geographical limitations. That means if they think there's an ISIS guy living next door  --

Heidi Boghosian: In the US of A.

Michael Ratner:  In the US, anywhere in the world. They can get that guy -- whether through Joint Special Operations, drone him, whatever they want to do.  So war on the world is not a fantasy from this act, it's not a fantasy of mine.  

No, it's not a fantasy of Michael Ratner's -- it's what the act is insisting upon.


In the February 12th House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, the following was stated.


US House Rep Brad Sherman:  As to the AUMF, we've got the text the President sent over, leaves in place the 2001 AUMF.  In effect, republishes it, reaffirms it.  Well what is that that we would be reaffirming 15 years later?  Unlimited in time. Unlimited in what weapons or tactics or ground forces.  It authorized over 100,000 forces in Afghanistan last decade.  It would authorize over 100,000 US soldiers to be deployed on the ground next decade.  And, of course, unlimited in geography.  So if we republish, rather than repeal, that it's hard to say that the President doesn't have enough authority to do all the things that many of us hope he does not do. 


And we'll wrap up with this from the analysis.


Michael Ratner:  And just remember this as we go on, there was a Times article a few days ago that talks about the so-called spread of ISIS almost playing into this new Authorization to Use Military Force saying there's ISIS groups in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and Algeria and now the US,  under this act, can make war everywhere.  So what we have now is an authorization if it passes that allows the president to make more war around the world and kill thousands and thousands of Muslims.  Instead of this, of course, we should have less war, no war.  We should probably have the Congress impeaching the president for already going way beyond the war authorization he's had. Sadly, for me, the US as an imperial power has been almost impossible to restrain.  You and I know this, Heidi, since our days as Vietnam activists and beyond.  The US has been at constant war.  So we're watching a charade going on in Congress and in the media, the thousands of words, what's going to happen with the AUMF, it doesn't  make any difference in a sense.  We're watching a bloody charade that will continue for -- for a very long time. 


Heidi went on to bring up how the AUMF trickles down to local US communities.  That's an important issue but it's beyond our focus and we need to move to other topics.


Sunday night was the annual Academy Awards presentation.   Among the winners?  Laura Poitras for the documentary Citzenfour.  Rainey Reitman (EFF) has transcribed Poitras' acceptance speech:

. .
Thank you so much to the Academy. I'd like to first thank the documentary community. It's an incredible joy to work among people who support each other so deeply, risk so much, and do such incredible work. We don't stand here alone. The work we do to (unveil?) what needs to be seen by the public is possible through the brave organizations that support us. We'd like to thank Radius, Participant, HBO, BritDoc, and the many, many, many organizations who had our back making this film. 
The disclosures that Edward Snowden reveals don't only expose a threat to our privacy but to our democracy itself. When the most important decisions being made affecting all of us are made in secret, we lose our ability to check the powers that control. Thank you to Edward Snowden for his courage, and for the many other whistleblowers. And I share this with Glenn Greenwald and other journalists who are exposing truth.


 Ed Snowden, whose actions are the focus of the documentary,  is an American citizen and whistle-blower who had been employed by the CIA and by the NSA before leaving government employment for the more lucrative world of contracting.  At the time he blew the whistle, he was working for Booz Allen Hamilton doing NSA work.  Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) had the first scoop (and many that followed) on Snowden's revelations that the US government was spying on American citizens, keeping the data on every phone call made in the United States (and in Europe as well) while also spying on internet use via PRISM and Tempora.  US Senator Bernie Sanders decried the fact that a "secret court order" had been used to collect information on American citizens "whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing."  Sanders went on to say, "That is not what democracy is about.  That is not what freedom is about. [. . .] While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."  The immediate response of the White House, as Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) reported,  was to insist that there was nothing unusual and to get creaky and compromised Senator Dianne Feinstein to insist, in her best Third Reich voice, "People want to keep the homeland safe."  The spin included statements from Barack himself.   Anita Kumar (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Obama described the uproar this week over the programs as “hype” and sought to ensure Americans that Big Brother is not watching their every move."  Josh Richman (San Jose Mercury News) quoted Barack insisting that "we have established a process and a procedure that the American people should feel comfortable about."  Apparently not feeling the gratitude, the New York Times editorial board weighed in on the White House efforts at spin, noting that "the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights."  Former US President Jimmy Carter told CNN, "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial."  August 1, 2013, he was granted temporary asylum in Russia.  He remains there.

As was kind-of, sort-of noted.

Remember this guy?






It's Neil Patrick Harris, host of ceremony yesterday, shown above in the only moment that appeared to really go over -- him in his tighty-whities.


He soiled up the stage at various other moments.


Including after Laura accepted her award when Neil Patrick Harris offered, "The subject of Citizenfour, Edward Snowden, could not be here tonight for some treason."

As with so many of his remarks, it fell flat.

It was also offensive.

There's the obvious issue that treason is a serious charge and it's not a joke.  Many people consider Ed Snowden to be a hero (I do).

But that's for others to point out.

I want to note the disrespect.

That was disrespectful to the Academy and it was disrespectful to Laura and her award winning documentary.

Whatever his thoughts -- and Neil's not known for having many big thoughts -- they should have been kept to himself.

You don't editorialize at the Academy Awards as a host or presenter.  The winner can -- the winner can do anything, that's what winning is about.

But Frank Sinatra got himself in hot water for exactly that sort of bulls**t at the Academy Awards before -- Shirley MacLaine was enraged by his remarks and her words represented the consensus of the Academy.  The winners can say whatever.  That's their moment.  It is not your moment to interject your politics and discredit a winner.

Neil was probably trying to be a smart ass -- that's way beyond his reach as well.

But his remark was offensive.

In a Reddit discussion today featuring Laura, Glenn Greenwald and Ed, Snowden made clear he didn't take offense at the joke or 'joke.'

And that's fine and good for Ed..

But there are certain customs -- that have nothing to do with Ed -- and Neil violated them and disrespected what is supposed to represent a celebration of excellence.


If that had been a pro-Iraq War movie that had won the Academy Award for Best Documentary and the winner had delivered a speech celebrating the illegal war, the next comments after could have noted hair, gushing anything but it would have been wrong for a host to make a political statement in response -- especially if it disrespected the winner (and the Academy's vote).  Again, this was settled years ago, during Vietnam.



Let's stay with the topic of fairness and bring in NPR which is a sewer of bias.

Earlier today, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Trashing Gary Webb Was So Much Easier For David Corn."

David Corn is no one to lecture anyone on media ethics.  He flat out lied in 2008 about Bill Clinton and when his lie was pointed out -- a lie he repeated three times at Mother Jones -- he and the trashy outlet resisted correcting it.  When they finally did correct it, they did so with a 'clarification' refusing to admit their mistake and only tacked it on to one of the three pieces containing the lie.  Lie.

David Corn is trash.

Yes, years ago he apparently loved something Ava and I wrote. Who cares?

I didn't read the e-mail (I don't read fan mail) in real time, I haven't read his e-mails since whining about being treated unfairly.  (Ty and Jim read the bulk of the e-mails at Third.)

Let's clarify that Brian Williams is not a leftist.  Brian Williams was part of the media team of liars in the US who lied to start the Iraq War.  Brian was also very close to Bully Boy Bush and remains close to him today.

Brian Williams was a news anchor.

David Corn is among the hysterics who were offended that NBC is investigating Williams' claims and has placed him on a six month suspension.

So   David, he went after Bill O'Reilly.

He failed because he tried to equate dissimilar remarks as being the same.

They weren't.

He failed mainly, though, because he doesn't grasp that Bill O'Reilly is a talk show host.

Yes, Bill considers himself a 'newsman.'

He can consider himself Queen of the Mayfair Parade if it makes him happy.

But the rest of the world doesn't have to agree.

Bill O'Reilly is a talk show host.  (And a blowhard.) He does not anchor news, he does not do investigative reporting.  He's a host sitting behind a desk, a monkey filling time trying to amuse viewers.

That's true of Rachel Maddow, that's true of all of these talk show host who try to portray themselves as journalists or reporters.

They are not.

A talk show host sells themselves as entertaining.  That's why people watch.

If Bill O'Reilly does anything to make himself less likable or unlikable to his audience, he will be fired by Fox.

But Brian Willaims was an anchor.  Was.

And he was supposed to be trust worthy.  We are supposed to believe that news anchors are honest because if we can't believe that we can't believe the news they report (or read off monitors).

I wasn't going to include this section.

Then NPR again violated basic fairness guidelines.

They need to fire David Folkenflik who is nothing but a mouthpiece for FAIR.  FAIR has done strong work in the past (pre-Barack) and will hopefully do strong work in the future (after Barack leaves the White House).  But no NPR 'reporter' should be a mouthpiece for any left media outlet or any right media outlet.

Time and again, Folkenflick's 'scoops' are directly from FAIR's e-mail blasts.

Such as this long, long piece filed tonight on Bill O'Reilly (yes, FAIR issued their e-mail blast right before -- I believe it hit my inbox one hour and twenty minutes before Folkenflik published).

Now if you're not getting how bulls**t and trashy Folkenflick is, let me repeat from above:


David Corn is among the hysterics who were offended that NBC is investigating Williams' claims and has placed him on a six month suspension.  

Folkenflick has filed 3 on air 'reports' for NPR on Williams but never noted that Williams was being investigated or that it was an ongoing investigation.

He has lied in report after report that the only issue is one statement Williams made on air.

That is a lie.

Folkenflick is not to be trusted.  NPR should have fired him long ago.

Repeating, in three on air reports on Brian Williams, Folkenflick has never once noted the NBC investigation -- which is ongoing -- into Brian's many false claims.  Nor has he noted these claims, instead reducing it to one comment:


Folkenflick: On the "NBC Nightly News" on January 30, Williams falsely claimed a rocket-propelled grenade struck his helicopter in Iraq and forced it to land. 


Or take this crap:


DAVID GREENE, HOST:
In the media world, two big stars are leaving their high-profile posts - one by choice, one by necessity. Jon Stewart announced last night that he would be stepping down from "The Daily Show." He did not say what might be next. Stewart essentially invented a new form of satire in political criticism. And there is news that NBC has suspended its lead anchor for six months without pay. The punishment follows the admission by Brian Williams that he exaggerated the danger he faced as a reporter during the invasion of Iraq. NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik has been following both these stories and joins us on the line from our studios in New York. David, good morning to you.
DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Good morning, David.
GREENE: So let's start with Brian Williams first. Why have network executives suspended him, even really before any firm conclusions have been drawn about the scope of his transgressions (unintelligible)?

FOLKENFLIK: Well, look, I mean, first off, his credibility has been damaged both inside and outside of NBC news by puffing up, it would seem, the peril he faced in Iraq in 2003 while in a helicopter at the outset of the U.S.-led invasion there. At the same time, NBC has a corporate, public image issue to deal with. It's trying to figure out whether or not somebody can present the news whose credibility has been damaged on a personal tale. This feels like an interim step. This feels like something that allows them - buys them time to figure something out. It's almost as though it's an HR move or a personnel move rather than a journalistic move because as you say, we don't know what the findings will be, the conclusions will be, of that internal review. And to date, NBC hasn't promised to share it with us.



Promised to share what with us?  Internal review?  It's no internal review.  It's an investigation and called such by NBC News.  It is not just about one lie.  It's about repeated lies.  And, strangely, Folkenflick never found time to explore those lies.

He did find time to slime Tom Brokaw.

I know Tom, I've known him for decades.

I also know James L. Brooks.

And Tom Brokaw was not the inspiration for William Hurt's character in Broadcast News.  I know who the inspiration was, but it wasn't Tom.  The inspiration pre-dates Tom.  Most of the true life moments in the film are from before Tom was a news anchor.

I have no idea why Folkenflik gets away with lying like that.

And one more thing, William Hurt is too 'tiny' to play Tom.

Tom's nickname at NBC News was "Duncan The Wonder Horse."

He got that name due to the size of his penis.

And maybe that's why Folkenflik is so jealous of Tom Brokaw?


 Lastly, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 68 dead across Iraq today.






wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner

Sunday, February 22, 2015

The Mamas and the Papas' Deliver

"This edition's playlist" (The Third Estate Sunday Review):
Ben Harper White Lies For Dark Times

1) Ben Harper's White Lies For Dark Times.


2)  Sam Smith's The Lonely Hour.


3) india.arie's Testimony Vol. 2: Love & Politics.


4) Chrissie Hynde's Stockholm.


5)  The Mamas and the Papas' Deliver.


6) Prince's Art Official Age.


7) Cara Dillon's A Thousand Hearts.

8) Diana Ross' Touch Me In The Morning.

9)  Neil Young's Storytone.

10) Aretha Franklin's Aretha Sings The Great Diva Classics.


The Mamas and the Papas were a band in the sixties.  (They regrouped in the early 70s for one album to avoid a lawsuit from their label, otherwise they were only active in the sixties.)

The band was Denny Dougherty, Michelle Phillips, John Phillips and especially Cass Elliot.

Their four voices were utilized in a way voices seldom are.

The closest to anything like the group prior would have been jazz vocal combos -- like Lambert, Hendricks and Ross.

Deliver was the band's third album.

The album spawned three hit singles: "Look Through My Window," "Dedicated to the One I Love," and "Creeque Alley."

"Look Through My Window" was a traditional sound for the group (and a strong song).

"Dedicated to the One I Love" was a radical reworking of the Shirelles' earlier classic.

It included double tracked vocals by Michelle, a changing beat and metric from chorus to verse and some amazing work by Cass and Denny.

It was the second highest charting single the group ever had (it made it to number two, topped only by the number one hit "Monday, Monday" from the group's first album).

Then there was "Creeque Alley" which made it to number five.  Five was a popular position for the group -- "Words of Love" and "I Saw Her Again Last Night" both also made it to number five.

Like the band's signature hit "California Dreamin'" (which made it to number four), "Creeque Alley" was written by Michelle and John Phillips.

The song documented the group's history and included the tag line about how "no one's getting fat except Mama Cass" until the end of the song when various friends are hitting the charts so "and everybody's getting fat except Mama Cass."

Though it was not the group's last charting single, "Creeque Alley" was their last single to crack the top ten.

The classic "Dream A Little Dream Of Me" would only make it to number 12 on the pop charts. It appears on their 1968 album The Papas & the Mamas.  It does not appear on Cass' first solo album.

The hit single was from the group's album.  Cass' solo album featured a version of the song that had radio noise on it among other things.

This 1967 album sums up the band -- who they were -- and captures them at a peak.

I love 1968's The Papas and the Mamas; however, that album largely points to where they would have gone had they stayed together (they broke up after that album).






"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Saturday, February 21, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, there are warnings that an attempt to take on the Islamic State will fail, there is no political solution, there's no honesty about what took place in the last years in Iraq, and much more.



Retired military Lt Michael T. Flynn served as Director of Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to August 2014.  He's now penned a column for POLITICO in which he argues that US President Barack Obama's efforts against the Islamic State will fail:

Unless the United States takes dramatically more action than we have done so far in Iraq, the fractious, largely Shiite-composed units that make up the Iraqi army are not likely to be able, by themselves, to overwhelm a Sunni stronghold like Mosul, even though they outnumber the enemy by ten to one. The United States must be prepared to provide far more combat capabilities and enablers such as command and control, intelligence, logistics, and fire support, to name just a few things.
Yet to defeat an enemy, you first must admit they exist, and this we have not done. I believe there continues to be confusion at the highest level of our government about what it is we’re facing, and the American public want clarity as well as moral and intellectual courage, which they are not now getting.
There are some who argue that violent Islamists are not an existential threat and therefore can simply be managed as criminals, or as a local issue in Iraq and Syria. I respectfully and strongly disagree.


He may be right.  I disagree with many of his conclusions.  I do think the efforts Barack is pursuing will fail but for different reasons than Flynn argues.

Flynn writes of evil and seeing it when looking at the other side in Iraq.  I'm sure some Iraqis looking back at the US-led coalition saw 'evil' as well.  That combat is 'savage' really doesn't strike me as surprising or illuminating.

Flynn's probably brilliant when it comes to staging an attack or an assault and probably in finding defensive postures as well.

But in reality, it doesn't matter who controls Mosul in April or who controls it in May.

Yes, it's been controlled since June by the Islamic State.

But, believe it or not, that's not the issue.

Yes, a military operation that takes back Mosul is a good thing.

For a day or two.

Maybe a month.

But it's meaningless if that's all that happens.

The American media largely continues to lie about what happened in Iraq.

Left voices obsess over Bully Boy Bush and want to whine about 2003.

Hey, it's an illegal war, it's an ongoing illegal war.

Bully Boy Bush is War Criminal.

We've covered that.

We've dealt with that.

We've addressed it.

But that really has little to do with right now today.

Bully Boy Bush started the Iraq War and it's all dominoes or something ever since!

On the left we rightly rejected the domino theory with regards to Vietnam but we want to pretend like it exists within Iraq.

Iraq had found a form of stability when compared to its worst days of the 'civil war' (ethnic cleansing).

This happened for a number of reasons.

And if we can't be honest about what happened to turn that around, to bring Iraq back to the brink, then let's just declare war endlessly and repeatedly and never learn a damn thing because that's the path we've chosen.





In its eagerness to withdraw from Iraq, the Obama administration also undermined the country’s central democratic institutions. After preaching the virtues of democracy around the world, Obama chose to bypass the secular, Western-leaning winner of Iraq’s 2010 parliamentary elections, Ayad Allawi, in favor of the runner-up, Nouri al-Maliki. Ignoring Maliki’s sectarian and autocratic tendencies, the White House then repeatedly lobbied Congress to expedite sales of advanced American military equipment, including F-16 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and Hellfire missiles — even as the Iranian-allied strongman unleashed a reign of terror and purged his political enemies with less sophisticated American weapons systems.
Paradoxically, after Maliki actually won the 2014 parliamentary election — despite reigniting a Sunni insurgency and a broader civil war — the White House finally pivoted away from him. Washington’s preferred choice this time was Haider al-Abadi, a genuinely moderate and unifying member of the Dawa Islamic Party, which Maliki continues to formally lead.  Nevertheless, the precedent set twice by Obama — that the United States does not actually respect the intent of Iraq’s Constitution nor Iraqi elections results — will haunt the United States and Iraq alike for decades to come.

I agree with most of the above.

I'm less concerned about Barack (finally) dropping support in 2014 for Nouri.

In 2010, the results of the election were overturned by Barack Obama via The Erbil Agreement.

That didn't happen in 2014.

Allawi's Iraqiya won in 2010.  Iraqiya did not get to see one of their own become prime minister.

In 2014, State of Law (and Dawa) has the post of prime minister.

Nouri is an MP.  That's all the people can elect, MPs.  They can put a party or a slate in the lead but the Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament.

Nouri wanted a third term.

But the Parliament -- in a deal brokered by the US government and the Iranian government -- chose someone else from the same victorious group.

They didn't have to.

They could have followed the Constitution and named Moqtada al-Sadr or Ammar al-Hakim prime minister.  Both non-Dawa and non-State of Law leaders were part of the coalition -- the Shi'ite coalition -- banding together.

I don't feel that the election was stolen in 2014 because Nouri didn't have a 'right' to the post.  You can argue Dawa and State of Law -- more than any grouping in the Shi'ite alliance -- had a right to field their candidate for the post.  And that is what happened.

I don't like Nouri and that should be factored into my opinion.

I don't pretend to like Nouri.

In 2006, he was imposed upon Iraq by Bully Boy Bush.  A month after he became prime minister (not prime minister-designate, prime minister), his weakness was already on display.  His paranoia would be displayed shortly there after.

He had a lousy first term.

But his second term was so horrific that it's easy to, by comparison, see his first term as 'normal.'

I firmly believe that had Nouri gotten a third term, Iraq would have splintered completely.  I don't mean become a federation, I mean the entire social fabric would have been gone.

And I could be wrong on all of that but I toss that out there because I don't claim I'm unbiased when it comes to Nouri.  I can applaud or call out any official -- Allawi, Moqtada, you name it.  But Nouri is a destroyer and I'm not going to pretend I'm fair about him.

His second term is what no one wants to pay attention to.

The western reporters, the western officials, especially Barack and the White House thing they can physically seize Mosul or another location and everything's solved.

They get away with that nonsense because we all want to pretend that Bully Boy Bush is the cause of everything.

Bully Boy Bush was not in the White House in 2010.

Nouri lost the election, stamped his feet, the UN caved and gave him a few votes his slate didn't earn but he still wasn't the winner.

And he refused to step down.

Parliament couldn't form a new government.

For eight months, he refused to step down.

He brought the government to a standstill.  This period was known as the "political stalemate."

And instead of demanding that he step down, having lost the election, the White House decided to back Nouri al-Maliki for a second term.

Why?

Ask Samantha Power why.  She argued for Nouri.

The White House oversaw the negotiation of The Erbil Agreement.

This legal contract finally brought the stalemate to an end.

The leaders of all the political blocs signed off on the contract -- Nouri is a leader of a political bloc, he signed off too.

The White House portrayed the situation as: Nouri has held out for nearly 8 months, he could hold out longer so be the bigger person and give him the second term to do what's right for Iraq and, in exchange, we'll get you what you want by putting it in this legally binding contract that has the full backing of the US government.

So, for example, the Kurds were promised Article 140 would be implemented.

I've slammed the Kurds for being stupid on this and I'll slam them again.

Nouri became prime minister in the spring of 2006.  Iraq's current Constitution was already in place.  Article 140 of that Constitution demanded that the prime minister implement Article 140 (census and referendum on the disputed territories).  Both Baghdad and Erbil (KRG) claimed oil rich Kirkuk.  Article 140 would resolve the issue, it was the means by which to resolve it.

Nouri refused to implement it.

The Constitution gave him a deadline: December 31, 2007.

That's written into the Iraqi Constitution.

But 2007 ended and Nouri refused to implement Article 140.

He refused to in 2008.  And in 2009.

In 2010, Nouri's going to suddenly implement it because he signs a contract promising he will?

That was stupidity on the Kurds part.

And it was stupidity on everyone's part because Nouri's first term was nothing but broken promises.

If Nouri wanted a second term and the Kurds and others were willing to give it to him in exchange for X,Y and Z, then they should have demanded he first honor those requests, honor those legal promises.

They didn't.

They signed The Erbil Agreement, this allowed Parliament to finally have a real session and name a president and allow the president to name a prime minister-designate (I'm leaving a lot out including the back stabbing carried out by Jalal Talabani).  Nouri's named that and, on that first session, that first day, after being named, what does he say?

He can't implement the contract (Erbil Agreement) just yet.

Just yet.

Ayad Allawi (and members of Iraqiya -- not all) walked out of the session.

Barack personally called Allawi and asked him to call off the boycott.  The boycott was highlighting Nouri's broken promises and the US didn't want their puppet looking bad.  Barack personally promised Allawi that The Erbil Agreement would be implemented.

The press whores in the west pretended it would as well.

Then a few months passed without it being implemented and suddenly the White House and the US press pretended there had never been an Erbil Agreement.

And this is when Iraq falls apart and the world looks the other way.

The power-sharing agreement is not honored.  Nouri's attorney tells the Iraqi press that The Erbil Agreement is illegal so Nouri will not be honoring it.

By the summer of 2011, Iraqiya, Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds (primarily the Barzani family but Jalal Talabani wants some easy headlines so he joins in as well) and others are calling for The Erbil Agreement to be implemented.

Nouri blows them off.

As 2012 begins, Iraqi politicians begin talking about holding a vote of no-confidence in Parliament -- if the vote is one of no-confidence, Nouri is no longer prime minister.

Moqtada al-Sadr repeatedly and publicly states Nouri can end this effort at any point by implementing The Erbil Agreement -- the contract Nouri signed.

At this point, Iraqi voters have had their votes stripped away by the White House.

But their elected officials in Parliament are going to do something.

And the vote requires first a petition.  Enough signatures are gathered.

There will be a vote and it is likely Nouri will be out as prime minister . . .

but the US strong arms Jalal Talabani (one of the weakest figures in Iraqi politics) and Jalal agrees to stop the vote.

His role is pure ceremony.  He is to introduce the petition to the legislative body in a session of Parliament.

That's all his role is.

But, under US pressure and coaching, Jalal declares he has to vet the signatures.  Each one.

And not only does he have to ask each MP if they signed the petition but Jalal invents the power to ask them, "Would you still sign it?"  And if they say, "Yes, I signed it but no I wouldn't today," Jalal removed them as signers.

Or that was his excuse for disqualifying signatures.

No one could prove what he did because he announced it after the fact and refused to back it up with any evidence.

Not only that but he fled to Germany immediately and his office announced he required critical, life saving surgery.

He went to Germany and had knee surgery.

Don't confuse this with his December 2012 trip to Germany.

Having lied in May of 2012 about needing critical medical attention, karma kicked his fat ass and gave him a stroke in December 2012 and he had to be flown back to Germany.

So now you have the people stripped of their votes, their elected officials refused official redress and so the people took to the streets to begin a year of protests.

And they had reason to protest.  No jobs.

Iraqi girls and women being tortured and raped in jails and prison.

The disappeared -- male and female -- who vanished into Iraq's prisons.

The arrests without arrest warrants.

The arrests of family members charged with no crime and suspected of no crime but arrested because they were related to a suspect.

The people took to the streets and Nouri responded by targeting the protesters, having them harassed and followed home, having them beaten and killed by Iraqi forces.

The Iraqis were denied their vote by Barack, the then saw their elected officials denied Constitutional redress so they took to the streets and instead of supporting them the US government chose to ignore them.

The above really just focuses on the Sunni element.  There were also Nouri's battles with the Kurds and with other Shi'ites and with ethnic and religious minorities.

But Nouri's attacks on the Iraqi people, his constantly calling any rival or body who stood up to him 'terrorists,' his constant verbal attacks on surrounding countries, all of this brought the chaos and the violence back to the level that many thought was gone.

Driving the Islamic State out of Mosul in April is useless if nothing is done about the realities, the political crises (plural) that Nouri fostered and that continue under new prime minister Haider al-Abadi.

Erin Banco (International Business Times) reports:

The U.S. effort to stop the Islamic State group in Iraq’s Anbar province, though only a few months old, is being hindered by the Iraqi military, the partner President Barack Obama said on multiple occasions was cooperating with all of the country’s sects to stop the militant group’s advance. In a replay of the “Sunni Awakening” strategy in 2006 that funneled arms to Sunni tribes in western Iraq in a successful bid to stop al Qaeda, the U.S. enlisted tribal leaders to halt the Islamic State group with American weapons. But now leaders and their fighters say they have not received any of those weapons, because the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army is hoarding them in Baghdad.
“The U.S. government has not provided us with the weapons directly. The Iraqi military has them,” Muhand Murshad Drueesh Alwany, a Sunni militiaman in Ramadi who also fought alongside U.S. troops in Anbar in 2007, told International Business Times. “American soldiers are so far only consulting and training in their mission in Anbar, and are also conducting airstrikes.”


A trench project is being carried out.  It's a moat.

Those of us with long memories who were paying attention in 2006 may remember that when the Green Zone was almost breached one June Friday, Baghdad went into a panic.  Walls were put up all over (Nouri was out of the country at the time and expressed outrage over this and insisted the walls would come down when he returned to Baghdad -- didn't happen).  Nouri's plan was a moat around Baghdad.  That, Nouri felt, was the answer.  That didn't happen either.

But Reuters notes a moat is being dug to protect Kerbala and they explain some reaction to this:

Many Sunnis, however, fear the trench is not a temporary security measure but just one more example of how they are being expelled from sensitive areas in central Iraq, which they say the Shi’ite majority wants to control.
The trench and an accompanying berm, now more than half built, wind through traditional Sunni tribal lands whose civilian population has been caught in the crosshairs between Islamic State insurgents and military offensives by Shi’ite militias and Iraqi security forces.
“The goal is for the Shi’ite militias to cleanse the Sunnis from the area,” said a sheikh from al-Aweisat, an agricultural region about 40 km southwest of Baghdad that has been cut up by the trench.

These are not things that take Iraq away from the brink.


June 13, 2014, Barack stated:


I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge.  Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future.  Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there, and that’s created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government as well as their security forces.
So any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force.  We can’t do it for them.  And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed. 
So this should be a wake-up call.  Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together.  In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies. 



There's been no movement on any political solutions -- or even on just one.

So the US is going to have to waste more money and for nothing.  And the Iraqi military is going to have fight and die for nothing.

This is the same problem and it's still not being addressed.

Throwing bombs at it isn't a solution.

I'm opposed to war.

But if there was a political solution going on along with a military solution, maybe a case could be made for US involvement.

But eight months ago, Barack told the world Iraq required a political solution and there's been no solution, there's been no movement towards a solution.

In fact, Haider really is another Nouri.

He gets applause for announcing he will stop the military bombing of civilians in Falluja.  But the bombings continue.  Empty words.

He gets applause for reaching an agreement on oil with the Kurds.  But the 'agreement' was just words and is being used -- the prospect of the supposed deal -- is being used for leverage.  Empty words.

It's bad enough in my opinion that the Iraq War continues.  But to keep spending money on it and to ignore that nothing is changing is insanity.


Either Barack is nuts or he just wants the war because he and his administration have done nothing to move Iraq towards a political solution.


Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 72 dead across Iraq from violence on Friday.


“This is a separation line between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites,” he told Reuters.




We'll note this Tweet by the State Dept's Brett McGurk.


    1. Milestone: PM Abadi appoints Dr. Thikra Alwash as Mayor of . 1st woman mayor in its 1250-year history.





  • She will have symbolic value.

    Whether she'll have more than that was debated hotly in the Iraqi press on Thursday.







    iraq