Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Nouri called out at the Arab Summit

As Sylvia Westall and Amena Bakr (Reuters) report the Arab Summit kicked off in Kuwait. Among those attending were Qatar's Shaikh Tamim Bin Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani.

March 12th, Thug and Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki gave an interview to France24 in which, among other things, he attacked Qatar saying it was responsible for terrorism in Iraq.
Gulf News notes:  "Without naming Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, he criticized what he says were attempts to sideline entire segments of that Arab nation."

Hamza Hendawi (AP) elaborates


Tamim criticized the Iraqi government for discrimination against the country's Sunni minority, which often complains of being excluded from power amid domination by the Shiite majority. Iraq saw a wave of Sunni protests the past year, and Sunni extremists have seized control of the western city of Fallujah.
"It's about time for Iraq to emerge from the vicious circle of violence and differences," Tamim said. "That cannot come about through the sidelining of entire segments of society or accusing them of terrorism if they demand equality and inclusion."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/25/4914418/qatars-emir-criticizes-egypt-iraq.html#storylink=cpy



It must be hard for Nouri to be so incompetent and unloved.

He thinks he can steal a third term.  Maybe he can.  Barack helped him steal the second term.

But the Iraqi people don't want him.

Eight years and he's failed to improve the lives of Iraqis.

It's time to send him packing.

Speaking of incompetent, our own US government.  One little thread they were pulling at on Iraq, they had to regroup, didn't they?

Yeah, piss C.I. off and she can let a lot 'slip' and they're really hoping one sentence was all she plans to let 'slip.'

In chess, they call her move check mate.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, March 25, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the board of the Independent High Electoral Commission announces their resignations, Nouri and the US government continue to try to (mis)use a death to create havoc in Iraq, an 'analysis' embarrasses herself, and much more.


Anadolu Agency reports a bombing targeted 3 Iraqi MPs.  3 bodyguards were killed in the bombing with another four wounded; however MPs Raad al-Dahlaki, Mohamed al-Khaldi and Abd al-Jabouri all three survived.  All are members of Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's Motahedoum coaltion.  All three had planned to run in the upcoming elections; however, in a sign of the state of Iraq, surviving an assassination attempt doesn't mean you've now survived the last obstacle.

They were luckier than others today.  National Iraqi News Agency reports  Ghaidaa Hussein Khader was shot dead in Mosul (she belonged to the Alfadheelah Party).

But while Iraq is set to hold parliamentary elections on April 30th, that may not happen. Despite the assurances Sarbast Mustafa (head of the Independent High Electoral Commission's board) offered to All Iraq News yesterday that elections would take palce and be held "in every area in Iraq" and that "It is difficult to set a new mechanism to postpone the next elections in any area of Iraq including Anbar," those statements are now in doubt.


Today, AFP reports, "All of Iraq’s election commissioners presented their resignations to parliament Tuesday in a collective protest over political and judicial 'interference' in upcoming legislative polls, sources have said."  What sort of interference?  An attempt to strip them of their powers via a little noticed clause in a bill Nouri's Cabinet wrote and Parliament passed into law.  BBC explains:

A clause approved last year allows for the exclusion of candidates considered not "of good reputation".

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who is seeking a third term, has been accused of using the law to prevent his political enemies from standing.


Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) provides context,  "IHEC’s complaints roughly mirror those of the last election, that the Maliki government is trying to use the electoral law’s ban on candidates of “ill repute” to ban potential rivals en masse."  AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:


  • Five weeks before legislative polls, Iraq's election commission has resigned. This country is astounding.

  • Indeed.

    Al Mada reports that the Dawa Party was specifically accused of exploiting the judiciary to settle scores with political rivals.  Dawa, for those who don't know, is Nouri's political party, State of Law is his coalition.  Al Mada notes that the commission felt wrongly accused of bowing to Nouri's wishes to dismiss his political opponents, especially when the decisions were coming from the Baghdad judiciary.

    In a statement the IHEC posted to their website, they insist the move was due to a need to protect the IHEC's integrity and that they await the approval of their resignations.  Raheem Salman and Robin Pomeroy (Reuters) observe, "IHEC's sudden move further complicates the outlook for a vote already clouded by violence across the country where Sunni Islamist militants have regained momentum over the past year."

    Staying with this topic, let's drop back to Friday's snapshot:


    The editorial board of Arab News argues voting should be postponed and they recap some of the events since the 2010 parliamentary elections including this from December 2011:



    [. . ] Al-Maliki began the effective demolition of the National Unity government he headed by having an arrest warrant issued for Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni. Hashimi was accused of involvement in death squads. Helped by Kurds, he fled the country, only to be tried in his absence and found guilty.
    Al-Maliki pretended at the time that the prosecution was important because no one should be able to escape punishment for past crimes. But this argument was fatally weakened by the presence in his government of Shiite politicians who were equally suspected of involvement in the inter-communal violence that had threatened to tear the country apart. Besides, however terrible the crimes committed by all parties in Iraq, the country’s future could only be ensured by reconciliation. Iraq desperately needed to put its dark past behind and look to a brighter and more prosperous future.
    Unfortunately Al-Maliki hardly tried to convince skeptical Sunni politicians and voters that the prosecution of Hashimi was not motivated by the fact that the vice-president was a Sunni. That this was indeed the reality has since become even more apparent as Shia legislators have moved to exclude former and serving Sunni politicians, including former Finance Minister Rafie Al-Issawi from standing in next month’s elections. Former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite, and leader of the National Iraqi Alliance, has himself warned that in the light of these moves against Sunni politicians, as well as the deteriorating security situation in the country, the vote cannot go ahead.


    How did Rafea al-Isawi and others get banned?  Niqash attempts to explain it:



    The Independent High Electoral Commission, or IHEC, the authority that is supposed to prepare Iraq for elections and run electoral procedures, such as voter registration and the actual voting, recently decided to ban a number of politicians from competing in the elections. These were independent Shiite Muslim MP, Sabah al-Saedi, Shiite Muslim MP, Jawad al-Shuhaili, who is aligned with the Sadrist bloc, MP Haider al-Mulla from the mostly-Sunni Muslim Iraqiya bloc, MP Rafea al-Isawi, also a Sunni Muslim from the Iraqiya bloc and one of the country’s most senior Sunni Muslim politicians as well as a former MP, Mithal al-Alousi, who made headlines in 2004 as one of the first Iraqi politicians to visit Israel and who previously headed the de-Baathification commission.
    IHEC says the reason for the ban on these politicians is because they have violated the rule about good conduct. However there are clearly some problems with this clause – many local legal and constitutional experts have already said that it is too general and that it could be used in myriad ways by the unscrupulous.
    Iraqi lawyer Munir Haddad, who is perhaps best known outside the country for his time as a judge, presiding over the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, told NIQASH: “Iraqi MPs should have been more careful when they voted on this article. It’s not clearly formulated enough.”
    “This paragraph is very general and it can be interpreted any way a person wants,” adds judge Abdul-Raheem al- Ukaili, who formerly worked with Iraq’s Commission on Integrity. “Unfortunately IHEC has interpreted this paragraph in an arbitrary way and it has been used against politicians who are well known for opposing the government.”
    Indeed it seemed to many that the “bad behaviour” these MPs had undertaken simply involved publicly criticizing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or his allies.
    “Politicians who speak about corruption in the government are now people with bad reputations,” one of the banned MPs, al-Alousi, complained to NIQASH. “There is a deliberate plan to silence al-Maliki’s opponents and to ruin democracy in Iraq. We are going to file a lawsuit at the Supreme Federal Court to defend our rights and we hope this court won’t bow to political pressure,” he argued.


    At some point, IHEC is going to have to be asked about the Niqash report.  AFP reports:

    Several candidates have been barred in recent weeks on the grounds of alleged ties to now executed dictator Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
    But a greater source of frustration for the IHEC board has been the exclusion of scores of hopefuls on the basis of what critics say is a vague provision in Iraq's electoral law that requires that parliamentary hopefuls be "of good reputation".

    Those barred, who include former finance minister Rafa al-Essawi, a Maliki opponent, have no obvious avenue of appeal against the judicial panel's decision.

    So was the IHEC a fall guy or were they going along?  Niqash's report was important last week, today's actions only made it more important.






    Maliki may be the primary reason for the radicalization of the Sunnis and growing sectarian reflexes, but the Anbar standoff is not likely to weaken him electorally. Indeed, renewed violence over the last three months, the absence of Sunni unity (some tribes are even calling for a boycott of the elections), and the fragmentation of the Shia political landscape (Moqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics in February) all create favorable conditions for another term for Maliki. This will be even more the case if the elections are marked by low turnout from the Sunnis because of their disillusionment with the transition. In a context of security vacuum, Maliki depicts himself as the only viable and legitimate leader for the country, the “strong man” that Iraqis need.
    Nouri's State of Law underperformed in the 2013 provincial elections.  Which is a nice way of saying that, as with the 2010 parliamentary elections, they lost.  Among those who did well in the 2013 elections?  Many were surprised by how well two young leaders ran their parties -- Ammar al-Hakim (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

    The two are Shi'ite.  The two are rivals of Nouri al-Maliki's.  There's also Nouri original blood rival, the man Nouri loathes but must pretend to respect: Ibrahim al-Jafaari.

    That's the man who should have remained prime minister.

    Following December 2005 elections, the Parliament wanted to have al-Jafaari as prime minister for a second term.  The US government said no.  The public reason was that Iraq was too new to have incumbents hold several terms, it might create a new Saddam Hussein.  Instead, the US government insisted that Nouri be named prime minister (the safe reason given in whispers to some journalists was that Nouri didn't have his own militia, the real reason was the psyche profile the CIA did on Nouri -- paranoid and pliable).  Ibrahiam al-Jafarri is a Shi'ite, a powerful one, and he remains in charge of Iraq's National Alliance coalition.

    Ayad Allawi is a Shi'ite.  He has stood with mixed coalitions.  The previous mentioned stand with Shi'ite coalitions.

    While you might leave Allawi out of the mix (despite the fact that his winning Iraqiya in 2010 also received Shi'ite votes), you can't leave Hakim, Moqtada and Ibarhiam out of the mix.

    They are very powerful Shi'ite leaders of Shi'ite coalitions.

    And there members have not flocked to Nouri.  Not in the 2009 provincial elections, not in the 2010 parliamentary elections, not in the 2013 provinical elections.

    So what crazy pill did you take that led you to believe this election would be different?

    Nouri's actions frustrate and worry me and I'm an American in the United States.  Try to grasp what they do to the Shi'ites who don't support him.

    It's not just Sunni opinion that's hardening against Nouri.

    Shi'ites see the continued violence, actually the violence that increased when Nouri got a second term.  They see the nonsense of his "I have a four billion dollar weapons deal with Russia!" followed by "No, I don't!  It's corrupt but it is not due to my son who set up a sweet side deal during negotiations!"  They see the lights out, the lack of drinking water, the lack of jobs, they see all of this.

    And they don't rally around Nouri.

    That's especially true of the National Reform Trend which is damn well aware that Parliament was blocked from naming their own Ibrahim to lead the country in 2006.
    Shi'ites are not a monolithic group but there's always some simpleton or racist in the press or speaking to it which attempts to portray Shi'ites as such. Despite acknowledging Shi'ite divisions, Myriam Benraad dismisses it when it comes to voting.

    The National Reform Trend  will not be voting for Nouri.  Ammar al-Hakim's group also won't be voting for Nouri.  They stuck with his late father Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and, in the fall of 2009, many decided to stick with Ammar as the new leader.  As the 2010 elections demonstrated, some chose to leave.  But that had actually been evident in the 2009 provincial elections and may have resulted from Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's inability to provide direct oversight of the party and politicians due to his illness (he'd die in the fall of 2009 from cancer).  Frances Romero (Time magazine) noted Septemeber 4, 2009, "Ammar al-Hakim was confirmed as the Iranian-backed SIIC's next leader this week and will begin his work promoting Shi'ite policies throughout the country."  That only gave him six months to take on the leadership tasks and steer the political party before parliamentary elections were held.

    His 2013 wins and post-election wins suggest the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq may see their best parliamentary election performance since the 2005 elections.

    His supporters are not Nouri's supporters.  This was even more evident in July of last year when he joined with Moqtada in publicly calling for Nouri al-Maliki to resign.

    Moqtada al-Sadr announced his political retirement February 15th.  February 18th, he delivered a speech --  CounterPunch posted the speech in full  -- emphasizing his decision. February 26th,  NINA noted the rumors that Moqtada left Iraq, "The sources noted in a press statement that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr left today's afternoon the city of Najaf heading to the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to complete his religious studies and stay away from the political scene as he officially announced for all Iraqis."  Yet March 14th, Moqtada returned to Iraq.


    Why did Moqtada return?

    We covered this in the March 14th snapshot:


    Background. Nouri's big mouth ended up tanking his own two-day conference.  For those who missed it, Nouri's fat mouth was flapping last Saturday insulting many as he spoke to France24.  France 24's Mark Perelman interviewed (link is text and video) Nouri for a half hour broadcast which aired Saturday.  In the interview, Nouri's well noted paranoia was on full display as he repeatedly declared, in the very first two minutes, his alleged 'victory' over those attempting to turn Iraq and Syria into one country ("there are goals to create a one state," "create a state -- one part in Syria and one part in Iraq").  He continued to gab and began accusing other countries of supporting terrorism (he was supposedly going to reveal proof of his gossip in the conference but, as usual, his fat mouth made empty promises).  He also insulted Moqtada.

    And let's note what the US and western press didn't, what happened on Saturday March 15th.  Moqtada returned to Iraq because of Nouri's insults and to lead the protest against them.









    That's Dar Addustour.





    That's Alsumaria.




    That's Al Mada.


    See the turnout?  Does it appear Moqtada's faded?

    No, it does not.

    It's curious that an 'analysis' of the elections would miss the above especially when the analyst takes the time to note the France24 interview but avoid the remarks about Moqtada.

    In fact, here's Myriam Benraad's 'analysis' of Moqtada's impact in full, "[. . .] and the fragmentation of the Shia political landscape (Moqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics in February) all create favorable conditions for another term for Maliki."

    How can you be so stupid?  She's so stupid she must require someone to follow her around reminding her to breathe.

    Not only is there what we've charted above, there's more -- in Nouri's Iraq, there always is.  NINA reports conflict between Nouri's forces and Sadr followers in Sadr City.  A witness tells the news agency, "A group of followers of the Sadrist movement entered into a verbal altercation with the federal police force in the Sadrain checkpoint at the entrance to the area, which led the police to shoot fire in the air to disperse the group. The region has been shut down by the police and helicopters flight in low level has been seen over the area."  These Sadrists are voters for Nouri al-Maliki?  No, they're not.  That's even more the case in the Sadr strong-hold of Basra.

    No where in her 'analysis' is anything as fundamental as this by Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com):

    The previous election saw the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya Party win the largest plurality, with Maliki’s State of Law faction eventually retaining power in a “power-sharing” deal imposed on them by the US. Maliki reneged on virtually all power-sharing, and retains the position of Prime Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister, and Chief of Staff for the military.

    Maybe next time, Carnegie should just ask Jason Ditz to write the analysis?

    FYI, I'm being kind by assuming she's dumb.  She might be another lie, another whore, another Quil Lawrence.  It's much kinder just to assume she's stupid.  And, no, Quil, we haven't forgotten you or what you did.  Next month, we again acknowledge your role in corrupting democracy in Iraq.


    Violence continues across Iraq.  National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed battle "between Taji and Tarmiya" left 4 Iraqi soldiers dead and fifteen more injured, the Ministry of the Interior announced they killed 2 suspects in Baiji, 1 police officer was shot dead in Tikrit,  Joint Special Operations Command announced they killed suspect Abdul-Jabbar Majid in Samarra, a Baquba bombing left 1 woman and 1 child dead (and three more people injured), an attack "on a civilian car on the road to the Hanarh resort in Arbil" left 2 women dead and three people injured, 1 corpse was discovered northwest Baghdad ("handcuffed with gunshot wounds in his head"), 1 federal police member was shot dead and one soldier left injured at "the entrance to the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Mosul," an an Ein al-Ijel Village attack left 5 Iraqi soldiers, a Ramadi battle left 1 police officer dead, a Balad Ruz bombing left three people injured, an attack on a Jalawla military checkpoint left two Iraqi soldiers injured, an al-Muthanna Bridge truck bombing left ten people injured (and the update on the bridge bombing is 6 dead and twenty-nine injured), and last night a Sensal Village battle left 1 rebel dead.

    In addition, Nouri's continued assault on Anbar continues.  His shelling of residential neighborhoods in Fallujah today has left 6 civilians dead and ten injured (the injured include two children).

    Throughout the assault, which began December 30th, Nouri's shelling of Falluja has killed and wounded many.

    But not one word from the US State Dept despite the fact that these are War Crimes.

    Yesterday, we noted the Saturday incident in which a Peshmerga (Kurdish military) shot dead Mohamed Bedewi who had worked for years for the US propaganda outlet Radio Free Iraq (which is to Voice of America what Phyllis was to The Mary Tyler Moore Show).  We noted how the US government and Nouri al-Maliki were engaging in dangerous behaviors and statements intent upon creating a crisis in Iraq.  IANS reports today:

    The Kurdish regional government Tuesday accused the central government in Iraq of stirring up political trouble with the Kurds by politically exploiting the killing four days ago of an Iraqi journalist by a Kurdish officer in Baghdad.
    "It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used strange and inconvenient words like "blood for blood" after the incident, which is outside law, state governance and the culture of coexistence and democracy," said the office of Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), in a statement.

    Middle East Monitor points out that the US government has insisted upon calling the death a "murder." Rudaw reports:

    The Kurdistan Region Presidency has warned of attempts by Iraqi leaders, among them Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take the death of journalist Muhammad Bidaiwi out of its judicial context and using it to settle political scores with the Kurds.
    “It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used the strange and ugly phrase of "blood for blood" after the incident,” said the office of President Massoud Barzani in a statement. “This is outside the law, governance and the culture of co-existence and democracy.”
    The statement expressed condolences to the family of Bidaiwi, an Iraqi academic and journalist who was shot dead by a Kurdish presidential guard in Baghdad on Saturday.

    All Iraq News quotes MP Latif Mutafa ("member of the Parliamentary Legal Committee") stating, "The Iraqi constitution assure the independence of the judiciary and no other authority should interfere in the performance of the judicial authority where the interference must be rejected according to the Iraqi Punishment Law No. 11 in 1969.  Since Bidaiwi's murder, we witness the interference by the key officials, MPs and Maliki in particular to affect the judicial decision over this case where Maliki should adhere to the oath that he made over preserving the independence of the judiciary."  The KRG Presidency issued a statement which announced sorrow and regret over Mohamed Bedaiwi's death (which they term "an unfortunate accident" -- and it well may have been) and dencounces Nouri al-Maliki's statements which are "inappropriate and strange" and a wide stretch from the rule of law that the Iraqi government is supposed to embrace and practice. 


    Yesterday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued the following:



    HVAC Webpage To Track How VA Stonewalls the Press

    Mar 24, 2014


    WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, Chairman Jeff Miller launched VA Honesty Project, a new web component of Veterans.House.Gov designed to highlight the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lack of transparency with the press, and by extension the public. View the page here.

    Because the Department of Veterans Affairs is a taxpayer funded organization, it has a responsibility to fully explain itself to the press and the public. Unfortunately, in many cases, VA is failing in this responsibility, as department officials – including 54 full-time public affairs employees – routinely ignore media inquiries.


    VA Honesty Project documents nearly 70 recent instances in which VA has failed to respond to reporters’ requests for information or refused to answer specific questions. The department’s apparent disregard for the press has become an object of reporters’ scorn, leading some to openly accuse VA of “thumbing their nose at us” and others to write entire articles focusing on VA’s stonewalling tactics. VA Honesty Project will be continually updated with new examples of VA refusing to respond to the press as they arise.
    Following the launch of VA Honesty Project, Chairman Miller issued the following statement.


    “With 54 full-time public affairs employees, VA’s media avoidance strategy can’t be anything other than intentional. What’s worse, the tactic leaves the impression that department leaders think the same taxpayers who fund the department don’t deserve an explanation of VA’s conduct. VA Honesty Project is dedicated to showing America’s veterans, American taxpayers and department leaders how VA’s media avoidance strategy is doing the public an extreme disservice while damaging VA’s reputation in the process. By keeping a running record of VA’s attempts to stonewall the press, we hope to convince the department to put a renewed focus on being responsive and transparent with the media so America’s veterans and taxpayers can get the answers they deserve.” – Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs







     




    Tuesday, March 25, 2014

    A sitcom is coming

    Sunday, Jane Fonda blogged about her new sitcom with Lily Tomlin.

    Sunday, Ava and C.I. wrote a major piece, "TV: Grace and Frankie," about this upcoming sitcom:


    We bring this up because among the groups we spoke to last week about Iraq, illegal spying and Ukraine was a group of acting students and there big questions were about acting and politics and Jane came up. Specifically, the question was, "What the hell happened to her acting?"

    Because the two-time Academy Award winning Best Actress was one of the most talented performers of her generation and her performance in Klute really is the finest film acting of the 20th century -- by an actor or an actress, it is the finest.

    One person (and remember these are drama majors hoping to have acting careers) offered that Jane's too busy "pretending to be authentic offscreen and it's hurting her as an actress when she does a role."  That woman argued that Fonda knows illegal spying is wrong, she knows we don't need more wars but she lacks the guts to speak out the current administration "while trying to present herself as some sort of brave voice for the people.  She's full of s**t and it's coming out of her pores."

    Possibly.

    For example, our opinion has always been a gay man can successfully play straight before the camera (or on stage) but a gay man having to play straight on the set and also play a straight character may be having too many levels to pull off successfully. (Even in the closeted days, few were fully in the closet.  Tony Perkins was and it tended to paralyze his performance, bisexual Paul Newman, in the 50s and 60s, was more relaxed on the set and able to focus on his acting.)  So, yes, Jane acting "The Third Act" of her life (as inspirational leader who lacks leadership skills as evidenced by her inability to call out the current government spying) and also trying to act a character may explain why she's given such lousy performances in the last ten years.

    But  another reason (instead of or along with)  could be that Jane knows her press.  Few performers pay as much attention to critical notices as Jane.  She seems to get a perverse joy out of them even when they're negative.  She's also seen as combative with reporters who are writing soft feature articles on her.  (It's why she got  a bad rep with many journalists and why, for example, journalist Paul Rosenfield loathed her.)  (In fairness to Jane, what they see as 'combative' is sometimes Jane initiating a conversation with a sardonic comment that is misread as combative.  Few performers have Jane's strong desire to be liked by all.)

    Aware of her press, she's aware that her brittle roles remain some of her best received.

    Klute, The Morning After, The China Syndrome, The Electric Horseman, California Suite, Agnes of God, They Shoot Horses Don't They?, Monster-in-Law, Julia and Fun With Dick and Jane are among her most praised performances.  Some (including one journalist intrepid enough to offer it to Jane's face) have gone further to divide her performances into smoking and non-smoking roles and arguing Jane excels at playing brittle, career women who smoke.

    She gave a brittle, but naked, performance in 33 Variations and many in the entertainment community believe she was denied a Tony (she was nominated) because the voters felt she was doing, as one playwright put it, "The 330th Variation on the same performance."  He was speaking of the impression among some, he didn't share it, nor do we.  It was a very naked performance, she let herself out there in a way few actors ever do.  To her misfortune, the role, in the text, called for a performance or type that some see as all she offers.

    In a well written role, Jane can find levels and depths that even a director or the original writer didn't realize were present.

    But too often, in the last ten years, she's had roles that are nothing and she's tried to apply technique to bring them to life.

    All that happens is a clinched performance.

    More and more, Jane's a clenched fist.

    Her body in these roles is as constrained as her emotions.

    She becomes as unyielding as a stone and all a stone can do is sink.


    That's an excerpt.  There's so much more in the piece.  I hope you make a point to read it.  Probably the best sections are the ending and the one where they talk about how Katharine Hepburn destroyed On Golden Pond.


    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Monday, March 24, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's assault on Anbar continues, the death of an Iraqi working for a US propaganda outlet means the US government can't shut up about the death (they really do expose their own hands, don't they?), the Kurds get stabbed in the back again, polio is back in Iraq (great job, Nouri), Juan Cole seems to forget what he did in 2010, and much more.

    Nouri's Iraq has another first.  As with all his other firsts, it's not good news.  Maya Rhodan (Time magazine) reports Iraq has a confirmed polio case, "A six-month old baby near Baghdad was paralyzed as a result of the debilitating virus, which is generally found among children under five years old."  IRIN notes it's been 14 years since Ira had a "confirmed case of the virus."  And they quote the World Health Organization's Iraq mission head, Syed Jaffar Hussain, declaring:

    Knowing that Iraq itself has a lot of security challenges and large amounts of population movement, internally and from outside, this presents a major public health challenge in the country.
    We do have a worry that other children may have been infected and that is why we are going door-to-door in the area where this child lives in order to collect samples to see if the virus has spread. 


    In other news, Robert Scheer's Truthdig runs a piece  by CIA contractor Juan Cole where Cole insist:


    It just baffles me that failed Neocons like Dan Senor are still given a hearing inside the Beltway.  ABC News actually interviewed Senor, the spokesman for the Bush administration’s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq on the Crimea crisis!


    The necons?  The ones who teamed with conservatives (traditional ones) and Democratic Hawks and neoliberals to sell the illegal war?  Trash like Juan Cole will never call out neoliberals, et al.,  but he'll make sure everyone knows the term "neocon."


    As for disappointment?

    I think it's disappointing that people who cheered on the illegal war continue to be treated as though they're wise or informed.

    I mean people like Juan Cole.

    He can fool everyone he wants today but even he knows that when push came to shove he was whoring for the Iraq War.


    It was over eight years ago that Steve Rendall called him on it during an interview broadcast on the February 9, 2007 of CounterSpin.

    Steve Rendall: Professor Juan Cole, you've expressed some reservations about US withdrawal from Iraq.  How do you reconcile that with the people poll done by the University of Maryland that finds that strong majorities of Iraqis -- both Shia and Sunni -- want the US out. 

    Juan Cole: Well, first of all, you're misreading my position.  Uh, for a year and a half now I have been maintaining that the US should withdraw from Iraq.  I supported [US House] Representative [John] Murtha's position -- and indeed I believe I preceded it -- which is the US should make an orderly withdraw from Iraq and what I oppose -- and I think anybody should oppose -- and something very worrying -- would be for the US to pull precipitously out of Iraq, just pull up stakes and get out in a rush and let the chips fall where they may because this would be a very bad idea. 


    Juan loves to rewrite the record, he loves to reinvent and spin yarns and do everything except tell the truth.

    When the illegal war started 11 years ago, CIA contractor Juan wrote that "the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides" (click here for Wikipedia and his attempts to justify and rewrite what he wrote).

    No one was punished or harmed for advocating for the illegal war which is why it's so shameful that Robert Scheer publishes Cole at Truthdig.  The MSM protected their own and promoted 'left' bloggers who supported the Iraq War so for an outlet like Truthdig to present the lies of Juan Cole is very upsetting.

    Lies?

    Juan Cole is a damn liar.  He's so very fond of thinking he can intimidate everyone into going along.  I'm not cowed by a pudgy bitch like Juan, so sorry.

    He writes today:

    Senor had the unmitigated gall to blame President Obama for “Iraq unraveling”!!

    Let’s see.  The American administration of Iraq fired 100,000 Sunni Arabs from their jobs, abruptly abolished the whole Iraqi army, closed all the major state-owned factories, coddled corrupt Shiite politicians, and generally plunged the country into a massive civil war, which at its height was killing 3000 civilians a month and was responsible for 2 million being displaced abroad and 4 million internally, in a country of 26 million.

    Not gall, mind you, but unmitigated gall.

    That's a strange argument to present but because Dan Senor is correct in the argument.  But before we move to facts -- those things that cause Juan to break out in hives -- let's just examine what Dan Senor did that was so wrong.

    According to Juan Cole, 'historian,' it is wrong for Senor or anyone to blame Barack for the state of Iraq.

    If Barack can't be blamed for it, he also -- pay attention  -- can't be praised.

    But in January 2010, Uninformed Boob Juan Cole was declaring the Iraq War was over and Barack had won it.


    I wouldn't have called the Iraq War ended then (it's ongoing even now) and I wouldn't have declared Barack had won it.

    At that point, I'd already called Barack out for entering into negotiations with terrorists (League of Righteous) and agreeing to release their leaders (so that they'd turn over British hostages -- all but one was turned over as a corpse).  And I'd called him out for lying about the Status Of Forces Agreement.  But, in  January 2010, I never said, "He is losing the war!"

    In March 2010, it would be different.

    That's where Barack ensured the current state of Iraq.

    Parliamentary elections took place.  Even with the media (western media) in his pocket, Nouri and his State of Law still lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.  Nouri screamed voter theft and insisted on a recount which didn't change the results.

    So Nouri decided he'd just refuse to step down.  He refused for 8 months (this was the political stalemate and Iraq set the world record at the time for the longest duration between an election and the formation of a government).

    During this time Barack backed him.  More than that, he had US officials broker The Erbil Agreement.  The legal contract provided Nouri with a second term as prime minister in exchange for Nouri agreeing to certain demands of the political blocs.  For example, the Kurdistan Regional Government demanded that Article 140 be implemented (referendum and census on disputed and oil-rich Kirkuk).

    Barack had no business overriding the votes of the Iraqi people or going around the country's constitution to provide Nouri with a second term.


    And the man who planned her life
    Commanded all that followed
    Well they bellowed  and they hollered
    And they threw each other down
    -- "Memorial Day," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy


    Today's problems stem from this.  It was Barack's decision (urged on by Samantha Power) and he owns it.  It cannot be explained away or wiped away.

    The administration got the blocs to sign on by insisting the contract had the full backing of the White House.  Vice President Joe Biden gave his word personally to Iraq President Jalal Talabani.  And the day after the contract was signed, when, in the session of Parliament, it appeared Nouri was refusing to honor it, Ayad Allawi walked as did many other members of Iraqiya.

    At which point -- pay attention, Juan Cole -- Barack personally called Allawi and made promises that led to Allawi returning to Parliament and ending the walk out.


    But Nouri refused to honor the contract.  He used it to get his second term and then his lawyer and his spokesperson both began announcing the contract was illegal (it probably was -- it was extra-constitutional) and so Nouri didn't have to honor it.

    By the summer of 2011, aware that the White House and Barack were not backing the contract they insisted they would, the Kurds, Moqtada al-Sadr and Allawi went public demanding that Nouri follow the contract.

    He refused.

    In April of 2012, they began publicly exploring a vote of no confidence in the Parliament.  Moqtada made clear publicly that Nouri could stop the effort at any point by implementing The Erbil Agreement.

    He didn't and, per the Constitution, the groups began gathering the signatures needed for a no confidence vote.  They got the needed number and then some.

    The vote would take place.

    But the White House was pressuring Jalal, insisting the vote could not be allowed to go forward.  They offered (empty) promises and made demands.  Suddenly, Jalal announced that it was his job (it wasn't) to verify every signature.  On top of that, he created another new step not in the Constitution, "Did you mean to sign it?"  Clearly, if the signature was their own, they meant to sign it.

    But Jalal would insist that several, during the verification process, stated they would not sign it today.  So he was striking their signatures.

    That's not how it works.

    They don't have to vote against Nouri in the vote but if they signed it, they signed it.  Change of heart (due to the spread of US money) doesn't let you undo your signature.

    The people spoke in 2010, they did not want Nouri.  The US re-installed him via a legal contract they swore (in November 2010) that they would back.  By 2011, the White House was ignoring it (and also insisting it didn't matter since Nouri had promised publicly not to seek a third term -- Nouri's a whore, his word means nothing).  In 2012, Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni politicians agreed to pull together and use the means provided in the Constitution to recall Nouri. The White House demanded this not happen.

    Juan Cole is a liar.

    All of the above has brought Iraq to the brink yet again.

    And that is on Barack.

    That and so much more.  Raya al-Jadir (Muslim Sister via OnIslam.net) observes today:

    Iraq has been in gradual decline since the 1980s, but never in all of its modern history has it witnessed such atrocious and devastating conditions as it is currently experiencing. According to the latest UNICEF report, Iraq has about five million orphans, 500,000 homeless children, and more than 100,000 children between the ages of 8 and 15 who have left school to support their families.

    Juan Cole likes to pretend the illegal war ended.  It didn't.  You can overlook the Special-Ops Barack sent back into Iraq in fall 2012, but how do you overlook the billions the State Dept's put into Iraq -- US taxpayer monies -- since the drawdown?  And how do you excuse that money doing nothing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people?

    If you're honest, you know you can't excuse it.

    Honesty?  In such short supply today.  Saturday, there was a shooting in Baghdad:

    One journalist after another has been killed in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki's never cared.  In some cases, as with Hadi al-Mahdi, Nouri is likely the one who ordered the murder.
    But today, the prime minister and chief thug of Iraq, found a murder he could condemn, that of Mohamed Bedewi.
    There are a number of reasons this murder is being condemned and one big reason that's not being stated by the press.
    As NINA notes, Bedewi was the "director of Office of Radio al-Iraq  Al-Hur" and was shot in Baghdad by 1 member of the Peshmerga who was charged with protecting the area around President Jalal Talabni's Baghdad residence.
    Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq.  December 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 (see the December 18, 20102 snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.  His residence proper is in northern Iraq in the Kurdistan Regional Government.   November 20th, his chief bodyguard was shot dead in Sulaimaniyah.
    Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) points out Talabani is Kurdish and so are his protection forces.
    It also helps that the Peshmerga has already turned the guard over to the police.  All Iraq News notes Nouri arrived on the scene (in time for the press to cover it).

    [. . .]
    The dead isn't a journalist.  He's part of a propaganda outlet.
    The stations he works for is better known as "Radio Free Iraq."
    And if that sounds vaguely familiar, yes, it is one of those "Radio Free" propaganda stations that the US government waste taxpayer dollars on.  Some may remember Hillary Clinton's lunatic ravings against China's outlets and Russia's and demanding Congress -- in her best Nikita Khruschev shoe banging performance -- do more for the propaganda outlets of the US.
    Oh, and by the way, Ukraine's about to get Radio Free Europe -- but let's all pretend not to notice that too.
    What was the 'journalist' doing?
    Who knows maybe he was pursuing a story?
    Maybe he was spying for the US government?
    Regardless, he was shot in public and by a Kurd so it was a political win for Nouri even before the US government dialed up Nouri announcing this murder be punished.  It was after this call that Nouri got his ass to the scene of the crime.
    You should have known something more was going on then what the press was telling you just by the fact that Nouri was finally calling for the murderer of a journalist to be punished.



    Sunday, Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) falsely reported all newspapers in Iraq took Sunday off in terms of print versions in order to protest the shooting of Mohammed Bdaiwi.  Yacoub, as a friend pointed out to me, got that 'info' from a report filed for Voice of America -- only even that propaganda outlet didn't claim "all" -- instead it went with "dozens."  As AP rushed to cover Mohammed Bdaiwi's death the day before, they didn't even make time to note that journalist Raji Hamadallah was shot in Babel Sunday and left injured.


    I'm going to be real blunt with the next statement: You need to wake the hell up and stop being so stupid.

    Journalist after journalist has been killed in Iraq.  It never mattered to the US government.  In fact, a number were killed by the US.

    Suddenly a death matters?

    If you're not getting how important this death is to the US government, the BBG Board issued two press releases on it on Saturday.  One opens:


    The senseless death today of the Baghdad bureau chief of RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq has shocked the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, who called for the immediate arrest of the Iraqi presidential guard accused in his shooting.

    The other opens:

     An Iraqi presidential guard has shot dead the Baghdad bureau chief of RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq (RFI), Mohammed Bdaiwi Obaid al-Shammari.



    The BBG?  "The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is both the name of the independent federal agency that oversees all U.S. civilian international media and the name of the board that governs those broadcasts."  Radio World explains, "The BBG is the independent federal agency overseeing U.S. civilian international media, including Voice of America, RFE/RL, Radio and Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks."  These propaganda outlets are forbidden by law, by US law, from broadcasting over American airwaves because they are propaganda outlets.

    Let's go to today's US State Dept press briefing.

    Marie Harf:  Hello. Happy Monday, everyone. Sorry for the delay. I have a few things at the top, including a travel update, and then I am happy to open it up for your questions. So, first item is on Iraq.
    The United States condemns the murder of Radio Free Iraq’s Baghdad bureau chief, Mohammed – excuse me, let me start over here. I haven’t briefed in a while.
    The United States condemns the murder of Radio Free Iraq’s Baghdad Bureau Chief Mohammed Bdaiwi al-Shammari, which occurred following a confrontation at a checkpoint in Baghdad on Sunday. We are deeply concerned about the circumstances surrounding his death and we call on the Government of Iraq to conduct a full investigation into the incident and to hold the perpetrator of this criminal act to account. The killing of any innocent is to be deplored. The murder of a journalist is a particular affront because it strikes at a fundamental pillar of democracy.

    Our understanding is that the case is now with the Iraqi judiciary, and we call on the Iraqi Government to ensure that the investigation is handled in a manner consistent with the constitutions and laws of Iraq. Mr. al-Shammari’s death is a major loss for the entire country of Iraq, and we extend our heartfelt condolences to his families – to his family and to his colleagues.


    Is your jaw on the floor yet?

    For the first time in her life, spokesperson Marie Harf spoke of Iraq at the top of a press briefing and did so without even being asked.

    It is a moment.

    There have been many for Marie recently.  She's become a quite popular topic in the Iraqi press and looked so ridiculous in the photo of an Iraqi newspaper last Friday.  Let's hope the US Embassy in Baghdad is tracking her popularity.  She's been noted repeatedly in the last three weeks on Arabic social media where she's referred to as the woman who endlessly flaps her mouth but never speaks of Iraq (it's a little more poetic in Arabic).

    They know her.  They know how useless she is.

    It's a shame so few Americans are aware of her.

    But she spoke about Iraq all on her own.

    Well, she spoke about the shooting death of a propagandist working for the US government.


    Let's drop back to the September 8, 2011 snapshot:





    In Iraq, a journalist has been murdered.  In addition to being a journalist, he was also a leader of change and part of the movement to create an Iraq that was responsive to Iraqis. 
    Al Mada reports Iraqi journalist Hadi al-Mahdi is dead according to an Interior Ministry source who says police discovered him murdered in his Baghdad home.  Along with being a journalist, Al Mada notes he was one of the chief organizers of the demonstrations demanding change and service reform that began on February 25th -- the day he was arrested by Iraqi security forces and beaten in broad daylight as he and others, after the February 25th protest, were eating in a restaurant. The New York Times didn't want to tell you about, the Washington Post did.  And now the man is dead. Gee, which paper has the archives that matter to any real degree.  Maybe it's time to act like a newspaper and not a "news magazine" with pithy little human interest stories?  (That is not a dig at Tim Arango but at the paper's diva male 'reporter' who went on NPR to talk of an Iraqi college this week.)  So while the Times missed the story (actaully, they misled on the story -- cowtowing to Nouri as usual),  Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported:

    Four journalists who had been released described being rounded up well after they had left a protest at Baghdad's Tahrir Square. They said they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit.
    "It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists," said Hussam al-Ssairi, a journalist and poet, who was among a group and described seeing hundreds of protesters in black hoods at the detention facility. "Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq."



    In fairness to Marie (who's actually said to be a nice person), she wasn't the spokesperson then.  Disgusting and vile Victoria Nuland was.  On September 8, 2011, did Vicky Nuland note the assassination of Hadi?  Nope.  How about September 9, 2011?  Nope.  Vicky didn't have then either.

    But today, before a single question can be asked, the State Dept wants to put out a statement noting the death of a propagandist on the US payroll.

    You'll notice that even though Raij Jamdallah was injured in a shooting on Sunday, Marie didn't note Jamadallah.  He doesn't work for the US government, so his death doesn't matter.

    Just like all the other Iraqi deaths that never mattered to the US, never got noted at the top of a State Dept press briefing.

    Again, if you're missing the reality now, you're just choosing to wallow in stupidity.

    Rudaw reports Nouri's calls for vengeance ("It will be my responsibility to avenge this killing, and blood can only be expiated by blood.") is causing alarm among politicians in Iraq:

    Hamid Mutlaq a member of the parliamentary defense and security committee criticized this comment, saying, “Iraq can not be ruled based on blood for blood because it won't get us anywhere.”
    Though some Iraqi and Kurdish officials have said that the killing was “an individual act” and shouldn’t incriminate the entire presidential guard unit, the Iraqi prime minister has personally taken up the case and promised to punish those responsible.
    Others believe that the Iraqi prime minister is using the death of Muhammad Bidaiwi, a university professor and head of Radio Free Iraq as a means to get back at the Kurds amid political disputes with Erbil.
    In a statement, the Change Movement (Gorran) warned of politicizing the incident and inciting nationalist and sectarian feelings, while demanding a fair trial for the Kurdish officer charged with killing Bidaiwi.
    Shortly after the shooting, interior ministry forces arrived at the gates of the presidential compound to arrest the Kurdish guard, which led to a tense standoff between both sides. However, it was reported that the guard was eventually handed over to the Iraqis after talks between Iraq’s First Lady, Hero Ibrahim Ahmed and Prime Minister Maliki.


    Nouri is using Mohammed Bdaiwi The US government is working hard to help tensions reach the boiling part over the death and Nouri and his office can't stop issuing statements (here for one).  The US government and Nouri are spreading lies and rumors.

    So much so that the First Lady of Iraq, Hero Ibrahim, has had to issue denials about false rumors.

    The 'journalist' was killed by a Peshmerga --Kurdish force -- and the US government and Nouri are trying to use the death to stir up animosity against the Kurds. That's the thank you, they had coming.  The Kurds again tried to work with the US government last week -- they came to an understanding on oil with Baghdad at the US government's insisting.  A Kurdish MP was thrilled about it and e-mailed this site to insist it was a new day.  I dictated back a reply stating that within five days the US government would show how it really feels about the Kurds.

    We're seeing it now, aren't we?

    The US government has never cared about the Kurds and has a pattern and history of lying to the Kurds..

    That is not my opinion.  That is what the US Congress found in the Pike Report.  February 16, 1976, The Village Voice published Aaron Latham's "Introduction to the Pike Papers."  Latham explained:


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


    That is the history.  Deception on the part of the US.  Promises are made to the Kurds with no intention of them being kept.  In part, these promises are made to destabilize all of Iraq, to pit one region against the other which does ensure that while Nouri al-Maliki may get cozy and fall into bed with Iran, the two won't be hitting any wedding registries.

    US policy is to lie and deceive and leave other governments, even friendly ones, forever guessing and off balance.




    Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 788 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.  Today the violence continues.

    Nouri's continued assault on Anbar, specifically his bombing of residential neighborhoods, left 2 women dead and two children injured.  Around 200 people have been killed since the start of the assault -- many elderly, many children.  Telling, isn't it, that the State Dept's never objected to those deaths.


    National Iraqi News Agency reports a security source states 21 suspects were killed today in Diyala Province, 1 federal police was shot dead "inside the Mosul university campus" and one Iraqi soldier was left injured, a Mosul car bombing left 3 people dead and three injured, a Kirkuk battle left 3 Sahwa dead and two more injured, a southern Baghdad (Dora district) bombing left 1 person dead and another injured, a southern Baghdad roadside bombing (Yusifyah area) left one police member injured, a southwestern Baghdad sticky bombing (Saidiya area) left one person injured, a Mosul bombing left five water department employees injured, and a Mosul car bombing left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and a child injured.


    We're way over but we need to go back to today's State Dept press briefing because Said Arikat, Al Quds bureau chief, raised  Iraq later in the briefing.


    QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

    MS. HARF: Get me back on track here.

    QUESTION: Yeah, right. Great. Can we go back to – you started at the top with Iraq.

    MS. HARF: I did, yes.

    QUESTION: On the killing and the murder of Mohammed Shammari.

    MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

    QUESTION: Now, are you saying that the government forces may have killed him? Is that what you’re suggesting because he – it was altercation at the checkpoint?

    MS. HARF: Well, what I said – I said a couple things. First, the Iraqi judiciary is just beginning their investigation into this crime. I think a lot of the details about what actually happened have already been reported in terms of it being a security guard. As I said, the judiciary is beginning their investigation. I don’t want to speculate on all the facts, other than to say, obviously, we strongly condemn the actions that took place here and want the Iraqi Government to investigate what happened.


    QUESTION: Okay. Now, do you – would you describe your relationship with Iraq as being at least precarious at this point? Because yesterday Prime Minister Maliki really criticized your allies in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He basically accused them of being behind all the terrorism that is taking place in Iraq. I mean, them being your close allies, security, and you have a lot of security coordination, do you also arrive at the same conclusion that the Saudis and the Qataris are behind it?


    MS. HARF: Well, I didn’t see his comments specifically. I’ll make a few points. The first is that we have a strong and continuing partnership with the Iraqi Government. We have said since we ended the war there that we will continue working with the government and the people of Iraq to help them build their capacity and move forward past the situation they have been in.
    Secondly, what we’ve said is separate from – you’re talking about terrorist attacks in general in Iraq.


    QUESTION: Right, right.


    MS. HARF: In terms of the terrorist activity inside Iraq, we believe it’s a direct result mostly of the situation in Syria and the destabilizing impact that Syria has had on Iraq in terms of foreign fighters being able to flow into Iraq and really wreak havoc there as well. So again, I didn’t see his specific comments, but that’s how we look at the situation. We’re working with the Iraqi Government to increase their capacity to fight these threats on their own.

    QUESTION: Okay. So would you give credence to his claims? Because you also --

    MS. HARF: I didn’t see the claims, Said. I’d have to take a look at his specific claims.

    QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you one last question on this. There was supposed to be deliveries of Hellfire missiles, other equipment, helicopters and so on to Iraq.

    MS. HARF: Yep.

    QUESTION: Is that still – or is it on hold now, or is it being delivered?

    MS. HARF: Not to my understanding.

    QUESTION: Do you know – what is the status?


    MS. HARF: It’s my understanding it’s ongoing. And we talked about some Hellfires that we delivered, I think back in December, and some ScanEagle surveillance platforms as well. It’s my understanding it’s ongoing, that’s nothing’s changed there, because we do think this is a very important fight to help the Iraqis build their capacity to go after themselves. But I’m happy to check. I just don’t think anything’s been changed.[1]

    [1] The ScanEagles have not yet been delivered to Iraq but are on track for delivery in the next few months. As for equipment recently delivered to Iraq, see the statement issued by Embassy Baghdad on March 16: http://iraq.usembassy.gov/pr-03162014.html.


    Greg Mitchell has a Nation post that ties the run up to the illegal war events with something more recent.  I told a Nation friend I'd consider linking to it and we just did.  That's also all that we have room for.











    Saturday, March 22, 2014

    Music

    From CounterPunch's "What We’re Listening to This Week," I'm going to again note Kevin Alexander Gray's choices:



    KEVIN ALEXANDER GRAY
    Ann Peebles, “St. Louis Woman: Memphis Soul.” (1996, Hi Records.)
    The Velvet Underground, “The Velvet Underground.” (1969, MGM Records.)
    The Allman Brothers Band, “Eat a Peach.” (1972, Capricorn Records.)
    Kevin Gray’s latest book, Killing Trayvon, (co-edited with JoAnn Wypijewski and Jeffrey St. Clair) will be published by CounterPunch this spring.



    At Third on Sunday, we offered "This edition's playlist:"


    Joss Stone LP1


    1) Joss Stone's LP1.

    2) Burial's Rival Dealer.

    3) James Blake's Enough Thunder.

    4) Kelela's Cut 4 Me.

    5) Sandie Shaw's  The Sandie Shaw Supplement.

    6) Elbow's The Take Off And Landing Of Everything.

    7) Rosie Lowe's Right Thing.

    8) Lorde's Pure Heroine.

    9) Patti LaBelle's Be Yourself.

    10) Robbie Williams' Swings Both Ways.



    We were in a British mood (there are only two non-Brits on the list).

    Joss Stone.

    I like Joss.  She's got a great voice.

    But I'd rather her do her own music, as she does on LP1.

    I thought LP1 was a huge step forward.

    Then she went and did another album of covers.

    Of course, the covers sold.  LP1 really didn't.

    I understand she needs a career.

    But I really think she needs to start focusing on interpreting her own songs or at least give soulful takes of non-soul songs.

    She doesn't always stack up when she does a cover.  For example, she can add tremendous drama to a song Diana Ross recorded -- much more so than Diana.

    However, Diana's simplicity and directness comes off better when you compare the two versions.  (Diana also not really soul so I have no idea why she's covering her.)

    By the way, if you haven't already, please read "Whose hands are clean in The War On Women (Ava and C.I.)."


    "Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
    Friday, March 21, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Anbar continues, the much maligned RT covered the anniversary of the Iraq War this week who else can make that claim?, burn pits are not being dealt with by the VA, and much more.

    This week was the anniversary of the start of the illegal war.  But, in the United States, there was very little notice of that.  Why?  Thursday night, Kat posted, "The US media forgets Iraq to sell war on Ukraine and Syria."

    While the American media was silent, US Labor Against the War was not:

      With heavy heart and renewed determination, the officers, staff, and affiliates of U.S. Labor Against the War mark the eleventh anniversary of the outbreak of the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. For many Americans, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq at the end of 2011 marked the end of U.S. involvement with, and responsibility towards, the Iraqi people.  We disagree.
    Even though our combat forces are out, the war continues to have catastrophic effects in Iraq, and for the families of tens of thousands of U.S. veterans. Millions of Iraqis grieve the loss of loved ones killed by the U.S. military, while Americans mourn the deaths of thousands of our soldiers. 
    The sectarian violence wracking Iraq has its immediate origins in the ignorant and hubristic policies imposed by U.S. occupation forces. The sectarian factionalism encouraged by the U.S. occupation has paralyzed the Iraqi political process, presided over by a dysfunctional government. Depleted uranium from U.S. munitions is a continuing, widespread, and profound threat to the Iraqi environment and people, and to returning U.S. troops. Iraqi workers, 80% of whom work in the public sector – the oil industry, transportation, heavy manufacturing, hospitals, schools, ports, social services - are forbidden from organizing unions and engaging in collective bargaining because the U.S. kept in force the 1987 Saddam Hussein decree that prohibits public sector workers from organizing unions. All this and more is the legacy of a war that has not ended for Iraqis, for which the American people and our government must take responsibility.
    The war, now officially over for more than two years, continues to have catastrophic effects in the U.S. as well. Our Iraq war veterans suffer loss of limbs and eyes, long-term traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder. They suffer from homelessness, unemployment, and suicide disproportionate to their numbers in society. The economic wellbeing of the country is threatened by the overhang of debt created by the reckless funding of the war and the distorted federal budget priorities that fund U.S. militarized foreign policy, instead of devoting those resources to urgent domestic human needs.
    As we reflect on the terrible continuing effects of the Iraq war, we in U.S. Labor Against the War commit ourselves to continuing and deepening our partnerships within the labor movement and with peace, veterans, and community organizations. We will continue to work with our partners in the Iraqi labor movement and Iraqi civil society. We will not turn away from our longstanding commitments to peace and justice in Iraq, and for our veterans and the American people. We are determined to end our country’s militarized foreign policy, no matter where our government seeks to apply it, and to promote true security for our people through universal education, health care, and modern infrastructure.
    These are our commitments as we mark the eleventh anniversary of the U.S. war in Iraq.


    Another who wasn't silent?  Abby Martin.  She did cover the illegal war's anniversary.  She spoke with Iraq War veteran Ryan Endicott about the war on her show Breaking The Set (RT -- here for the episode at Hulu).  Excerpt.

    Abby Martin:  In a speech you gave in 2009 called "Just Another Tuesday," you recount your experience as an infantryman in Iraq and that you were once punished for arresting a man instead of killing him.  Can you expand on this?

    Ryan Endicott:  Well, you know, I was on post when this Iraqi came through my door in the post, I was at the Government Center in Ramadi which is the capital of the Anbar Province where Falluja is.  And when this man came into my post, at that point, I had been standing my post and somehow he had gotten through all the other security measures and gotten to my post. And so, you know, when I arrested him and put him -- detained him, my command told me at that point that it was my fault that I should have killed him.  He was in an area that is completely restricted for civilians.  No questions asked, it doesn't matter if he had a gun, that's out the door, the fact is, I should have killed him.  And you know, for me during that time period, that was really tough for me to deal with it.  I had to go through all the repercussions and treated as though what I did was wrong and, you know, how I was called a "girl" and all sorts of pejorative terms around this situation.  And so after that situation, what I think is really important is that this is just one instance of that.  And like how many soldiers across this country are coming down with orders from command telling them to commit these crimes, telling them to kill people -- who don't have weapons -- specifically because of where they are specifically because of how they've impacted this sort of post.  And so what is shows is there's a whole policy around the idea that-that soldiers can kill or can murder someone that doesn't have a weapon and that's totally explainable by the command. 


    One could argue Nouri al-Maliki learned to attack the Iraqi people by watching the US actions in Iraq.  That would explain his ongoing attack on Anbar Province and his lack of remorse over the deaths of so many innocent civilians.  As Betty noted, 15 civilians died and forty more were injured on Thursday in Falluja due to Nouri's mortar attacks and bombings of residential neighborhoods.  NINA reports that Nouri's bombing of residential neighborhoods in Falluja today left 3 civilians dead and eleven more injured.

    Earlier this month in Genevea, a number of people and organizations addressed the issue of Iraq before the United Nations Human Rights Council.  BRussells Tribunal has a page with the remarks on Iraq in text as well as videos of the remarks being delivered.  We'll note this statement which the Geneva International Centre for Justice offered:


    Thank you Mr. President.
    We thank the Special Adviser for his ongoing efforts in raising awareness on genocide and in preventing this crime. It has been said that significant progress has been made in the prevention and punishment of genocide - but recent events have shown that we still have a long road ahead of us. The current situation in Iraq is a clear example. It was described as rapidly plummeting towards genocide.
    Since the US-invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the De-Ba’athification process, attacks based on discrimination and sectarianism have become major elements in the country’s politics. This tensed situation escalated at the turn of the year 2013/2014 with a military operation undertaken by the Iraqi government in the province of Al-Anbar, under the pretext of combating terrorists.
    Mr. Special Adviser, an important element of the prevention of genocide is the identification of the early warning signs of this crime.
    Signs have shown for long enough now that the Iraqi forces are targeting a certain religious group. The authority promotes domination over the government by those affiliated to its own religious beliefs, while treating the opposition with utmost hostility and brutality. It has become obvious that the onslaught against supposed terrorists is a cover for the annihilation of the group opposed to the increasingly discriminating policies of the current authorities in Iraq.
    The acts of the government find their roots in official speeches which are filled with sectarian rhetoric. Such rhetoric clearly shows the intent to eradicate a certain group.
    This raises serious concerns as the situation clearly fulfils the elements of the crime of genocide.

    We would like you, Mr. Special Advisor, to consider this alarming issue in your work.
    We also wonder why, inspite of these distressing events, the UN has not yet taken firm action to relieve the plight of the victims of the Iraqi government’s attacks. The UN must not wait the occurrence of a situation similar to what happened in Rwanda.
    We therefore plead that the situation in Iraq be addressed immediately by the Council. In particular, we call on the Special Adviser to urgently take all adequate measures.
    I thank you for your attention.

    The issue does need to be addressed immediately, the people of Anbar are being terrorized.  This was supposed to be a 'brief' campaign but it started December 30th and still isn't over -- despite the fact that national elections are supposed to take place next month.

    These are War Crimes that Nouri's committing but noted anti-Sunni Patrick Cockburn can't call him out on that.  He can smear Sunnis as killed -- he can does in his most recent article -- but the most he can offer to criticize his would-be lover Nouri al-Maliki is that "the government" (not Nouri, some other head of the Iraqi government that the world missed) released a fake video showing they were in control of Falluja when the footage was actually of Afghanistan.

    Patrick Cockburn's desire to have his ass joined to Nouri's cock is mind blowing.  But he needs to stop pretending he's reporting.  He slams the protest movement as a front for terrorists forgetting to note that his love master Nouri killed children last April.

    That would be the April 23rd massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).


    Even when his biased mouth managed to leave Nouri's crotch long enough to report on Hawija (long after the massacre), Lie Face Cock Burn couldn't tell his readers that the dead included 8 children.


    Apparently, when you're Paddy Cock Burn, you know better than UNICEF.

    Or else you just don't care when children are killed.

    Paddy Cock Burn has been allowed by the British newspaper the Independent (ha!) to conduct a war against the Sunnis in print.  He's gone after them repeatedly and lied repeatedly.  When he hasn't lied, he's left out major points that would demonstrate Nouri was a criminal thug.


    Here's an amazing though for the US government.

    Instead of supplying the dictator Nouri with weapons, why didn't you demand that he nominate people to head the security ministries?

    Security doesn't fall apart over night.

    In March 2010, Nouri and his State of Law lost the parliamentary elections to Ayad Allwi and Iraqiya.  But Nouri refused to step down.

    Worthless US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill was caught by surprise (while dreaming of being taken by surprise by Nouri) but US General Ray Odierno had been asking repeatedly that the US government figure out how they would respond if this happened?

    No one but Odierno thought it was possible.

    Contrasted with everyone else in the administration in 2010, Odierno looks like a genius.

    Nouri refused to step down and brought the government to an eight-month stand-still (this is the political stalemate).  The US government backed Nouri up on this (so did the Iranian government) and Barack ordered US officials in Iraq to broker a contract (The Erbil Agreement) to go around the votes of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Constitution in order that loser Nouri could get a second term.

    Had the Constitution been followed, he wouldn't be prime minister right now.  But since the Constitution wasn't followed, since he got his second term via The Erbil Agreement, he didn't have to abide the Constitution which dictates someone is named prime minister-designate and then has 30 days to form a Cabinet -- not a partial one, a full Cabinet.

    Nouri didn't do that.

    He refused to nominate people to head the security ministries.

    If he had and Parliament had confirmed someone as, for example, Minister of Defense, then only Parliament could remove them and this person would run the Ministry as he or she saw fit.

    By refusing to nominate anyone to Parliament, Nouri violated the Constitution and it was a power-grab -- as Ayad Allawi noted in real time while the dumb ass Western press instead wrote that Nouri would nominate people for those positions in a few weeks.

    A few weeks?

    Back in July, 2012 Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." 

    That didn't change.  He still hasn't nominated any people to head the security ministries.

    As 2010 drew to an end, he was supposed to fill those posts.  He didn't.

    And then we had 2011 when the violence should have been alarming but no one wanted to see the signs.  Then came 2012 and we were still Paul Revere here on the violence but no one wanted to see it.  

    In 2013, the violence reached 2008 levels.  Suddenly, the press was interested.

    The increase did not happen overnight.

    It did happen slowly and it did happen as Nouri failed to fill those security posts.

    So instead of promising him (in the November 1st White House visit) that he would get various weapons, the White House should have been insisting he fill those positions.  

    Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi wrote this week:




    The decline in the security situation in Iraq has occurred as part of the general decline in different aspects of life. If a government official is to be held accountable, then it should be Al-Maliki due to his wide constitutional power. The first step towards genuine change has to be the departure of Al-Maliki to allow someone more qualified to tackle the security issue head-on. That person needs to believe in peace and be willing to make tough decisions affecting every aspect of life, including the political, economic ,social, cultural and legal.

    Staying with security, let's look at today's violence.


    Bombings?


    National Iraqi News Agency reports  a Missan bombing left 1child dead and another injured,  2 Nimra Thmanya car bombings left 1 person dead and eleven more injured, an Alasewid Village roadside bombing left 2 police members dead, a car bombing targeting the "bridge connecting Jalawla and Kalar districts" left two people injured, 2 Dibbs car bombings left 2 people dead and twenty-six injured, a Ramadi suicide bomber targeted a funeral and took his own life and the lives of 7 mourners with twenty-three more people injured (the funeral was for a Sahwa killed yesterday), 2 Tuz Khurmatu bombings left sixteen people injured,  and 1 suicide tanker bomber took his own life "at the top of Hamrin Mountains" and also killed Brigadier General Raghib al-Tamimi and his assistant.  Sameer N. Yacoub and Murtada Faraj (AP) add that the death toll increased by 2 in the attack on the Ramadi funeral and that the funeral was for Nasir al-Alawani.  On the mountaintop attack that killed Ragheb al-Omari and one of his assistants,



    National Iraqi News Agency also reports  1 suicide tanker bomber took his own life "at the top of Hamrin Mountains" and also killed Brigadier General Raghib al-Tamimi and his assistant,   On the mountain top attack, Sameer N. Yacoub and Murtada Faraj (AP) add that the death toll increased by 7 for a total of nine.  (AFP goes with "killing 12 people and wounding five, including the head of the federal police, Brigadier General Raghib al-Umairi, and his assistant.")  Duraid Adnan (New York Times) describes it this way, "At dawn, a suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into a police station in northeastern Diyala Province, followed by gunmen who sprayed bullets from speeding S.U.V.s. Eleven police officers were killed, including the commander of the unit, officials said."  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports the attack this way, "The deadliest attack occurred about 105 miles (170 kilometers) north of Baghdad in Anjana, where a suicide bomber drove a truck loaded with explosives into federal police headquarters, police officials in Tikrit and Baquba said. Officers were among the 14 people who were killed and 18 others wounded, the officials said."  Only Iraq Times notes this was the headquarters of the Tigris Operations Command -- they're the force that Nouri illegally formed (he needed Parliament's consent and didn't seek it out).




    Shootings?

    National Iraqi News Agency reports Diyala Province security announced they killed 12 militants,  the army states they killed 10 suspects "south of Falluja,"


    Corpses?



    National Iraqi News Agency reports the corpse of 1 Sahwa was discovered in "the orchards along Diyala River north of Muqdadiyah."  All Iraq News adds that 13 corpses were discovered in Mujamaat ("shot in the head"),


    The US government had no interest in building democracy in Iraq.  That's Barack Obama as surely as it is Bully Boy Bush.  Barack spat on democracy when he refused to honor the results of the 2010 parliamentary elections.

    They did and do, however, care about Iraq's oil.  Yesterday, Mike noted Kevin Gosztola's article about Brookings' Kenneth Pollack (read at either "Information Clearing House or "Firedoglake").  Kevin quotes Pollack telling Congress:

    Since 2003, the United States has invested an enormous amount in Iraq, and the future of Iraq remains of great importance to the interests of the United States and our allies. Iraq has replaced Iran as the second leading oil exporter in OPEC, and projections of future low oil prices are highly contingent upon the continued growth of Iraqi oil exports. Remembering that virtually every postwar American recession was preceded by an increase in oil prices, Iraq and its oil production remain critical to the prosperity of the United States.


    Kevin states of Pollack, "This was his first expressed concern: the future of oil production. He then proceeded to address the resurgence of al Qaeda and other issues in Iraq."

    What to do?

    We tell truth here.

    Kevin's wrong.  Those weren't Pollack's first remarks.  In fairness to Kevin, that's probably what the Congressional Record reflects and that's problem that needs to be addressed.  Once upon a time, the record served a purpose.  Today, it needs to be accurate.

    If Kevin consulted, the record, that's why he's wrong.  If, however, he just went to Brookings to grab Kenneth Pollack's prepared remarks (written remarks 'submitted for the record'), then I'm less likely to cut him slack.

    I was at that hearing.  It was December 12th.  Pollack actually said a lot of smart things and we quoted some of it in the December 16th snapshot.  I honestly would have let him slide on the oil remarks (had he made them) because he was focusing on more important things.

    But he didn't make the oil remarks.  They're in the written remarks submitted.  But he didn't read his written statement but instead spoke of al Qaeda in Iraq in his opening remarks.

    He never said, in the entire hearing, what Kevin quotes him saying.

    He had intended to, judging by his written remarks, but more pressing issues forced him to speak of the political issues and much more.

    A long with the fact that we have to be truthful, we also have to be fair.  I've knocked Pollack and others at Brookings many times and I'm sure I will again but I was at that hearing, I know what happened, I can pull out my notes and I know Kenneth Pollack did not open with oil.  It would be unfair to him for me to pretend otherwise.

    If Kevin got it from the Congressional Record, he (and everyone else) has every right to assume that is an accurate record.  However, it's not. He did not make those opening remarks, a correct record would note those remarks were submitted for the record but also note what he stated.

    Also covering oil last night was Ann who noted this from Project Censored:



    JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003
    Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields
    Author: Judicial Watch staff

    FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004
    Title: “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil”
    Author: Michael Klare

    Faculty Evaluators: James Carr, Ph.D., Alexandra Von Meier, Ph.D.
    Student Researcher: Cassie Cypher, Shannon Arthur

    Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.
    Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”


    Isobel Coles (Reuters) reports, "Kurdistan will export 100,000 barrels of oil per day through the Iraqi pipeline network from April 1 as a 'gesture of goodwill' while negotiations with Baghdad continue, a statement from the region's prime minister said on Thursday."  I have so much to say on that issue including US Vice President Joe Biden's broken promise to Iraq's President Jalal Talabani.  We don't have the time or space to unpack it now.  Maybe next week.  And maybe we can note MP Susan Saad then as well.  Ruth covered the Jewish Archives at her site Thursday night.  I hope we can cover that next week.


    Today, John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "The U.S.-backed dictator Nouri al-Maliki is ruling the country with an iron fist, putting his political opponents in jail, torturing prisoners, crushing free speech, and so on. The advocates of “democracy promotion” in Iraq, somehow, don’t have to answer for the fact that the Iraqi parliament is now considering imposing new laws that would allow girls to be forced into arranged marriages from the age of nine."

    And with that as a backdrop, Iraq plans to hold parliamentary elections April 30th.  Supposedly, elections will take place in all 19 provinces (the KRG increased by 1 province last week).  But Iraqi elections, to be legitimate, must include the displaced.  And they have in the past.  In fact, Nouri's attempt to short change refugees out of the country in 2009 pushed the parliamentary elections back to 2010 (Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi used his veto power to sink the bill).  Now it's been announced that Iraqi refugees in Syria will not be allowed to vote.  It is stated that Syria is just too dangerous for a polling station.  Syria, Jordan and Lebanon remain the three countries with the highest number of Iraqi refugees as a result of their sharing borders with Iraq (and as a result of governments like the US leaving them stranded -- both in terms of ridiculous regulations and, in Syria, by closing down the means the refugees had to apply for admission to the US).

    The editorial board of Arab News argues voting should be postponed and they recap some of the events since the 2010 parliamentary elections including this from December 2011:


    [. . ] Al-Maliki began the effective demolition of the National Unity government he headed by having an arrest warrant issued for Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni. Hashimi was accused of involvement in death squads. Helped by Kurds, he fled the country, only to be tried in his absence and found guilty.
    Al-Maliki pretended at the time that the prosecution was important because no one should be able to escape punishment for past crimes. But this argument was fatally weakened by the presence in his government of Shiite politicians who were equally suspected of involvement in the inter-communal violence that had threatened to tear the country apart. Besides, however terrible the crimes committed by all parties in Iraq, the country’s future could only be ensured by reconciliation. Iraq desperately needed to put its dark past behind and look to a brighter and more prosperous future.
    Unfortunately Al-Maliki hardly tried to convince skeptical Sunni politicians and voters that the prosecution of Hashimi was not motivated by the fact that the vice-president was a Sunni. That this was indeed the reality has since become even more apparent as Shia legislators have moved to exclude former and serving Sunni politicians, including former Finance Minister Rafie Al-Issawi from standing in next month’s elections. Former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite, and leader of the National Iraqi Alliance, has himself warned that in the light of these moves against Sunni politicians, as well as the deteriorating security situation in the country, the vote cannot go ahead.

    How did Rafea al-Isawi and others get banned?  Niqash attempts to explain it:


    The Independent High Electoral Commission, or IHEC, the authority that is supposed to prepare Iraq for elections and run electoral procedures, such as voter registration and the actual voting, recently decided to ban a number of politicians from competing in the elections. These were independent Shiite Muslim MP, Sabah al-Saedi, Shiite Muslim MP, Jawad al-Shuhaili, who is aligned with the Sadrist bloc, MP Haider al-Mulla from the mostly-Sunni Muslim Iraqiya bloc, MP Rafea al-Isawi, also a Sunni Muslim from the Iraqiya bloc and one of the country’s most senior Sunni Muslim politicians as well as a former MP, Mithal al-Alousi, who made headlines in 2004 as one of the first Iraqi politicians to visit Israel and who previously headed the de-Baathification commission.


    IHEC says the reason for the ban on these politicians is because they have violated the rule about good conduct. However there are clearly some problems with this clause – many local legal and constitutional experts have already said that it is too general and that it could be used in myriad ways by the unscrupulous.


    Iraqi lawyer Munir Haddad, who is perhaps best known outside the country for his time as a judge, presiding over the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, told NIQASH: “Iraqi MPs should have been more careful when they voted on this article. It’s not clearly formulated enough.”


    “This paragraph is very general and it can be interpreted any way a person wants,” adds judge Abdul-Raheem al- Ukaili, who formerly worked with Iraq’s Commission on Integrity. “Unfortunately IHEC has interpreted this paragraph in an arbitrary way and it has been used against politicians who are well known for opposing the government.”


    Indeed it seemed to many that the “bad behaviour” these MPs had undertaken simply involved publicly criticizing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or his allies.


    “Politicians who speak about corruption in the government are now people with bad reputations,” one of the banned MPs, al-Alousi, complained to NIQASH. “There is a deliberate plan to silence al-Maliki’s opponents and to ruin democracy in Iraq. We are going to file a lawsuit at the Supreme Federal Court to defend our rights and we hope this court won’t bow to political pressure,” he argued.

    "Niqash attempts to explain it"?  There's no byline.  An Iraqi offering the above has cause to worry.

    One aspect not dealt with is the so-called Independent High Electoral Commission.  No one wanted to pay attention -- even though Nouri had previously attempted to take it over -- when certain people were nixed from serving.  No one wanted to pay attention as Nouri stacked the commission.

    Despite his threats and his bullying, despite the fact that it was clear his attempts to take over the independent banks had already succeeded, no one wanted to pay attention.

    Hamza Mustafa (Asharq Al-Awsat) reports:

    In his second media appearance since he announced his intention to quit politics, Iraqi Shi’ite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr called on the people of Iraq to participate in the forthcoming parliamentary elections to prevent “thieves” and “beneficiaries” from gaining power.
    Sadr has been an increasingly fierce critic of embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, denouncing him earlier this month as a “dictator and a tyrant.” He has called for a series of anti-government protests each Monday, saying the Iraqi electorate should ignore “the negligence and disregard of some politicians” and participate in the forthcoming legislative elections, scheduled for April 30.
    “If elections are held without the participation of patriotic and loyal voters, the unfit will inevitably make it to power,” Sadr said.


    Moqtada al-Sadr remains Nouri's most formidable rival at present.  Kitabat notes that Moqtada delivered a sermon today decrying the elimination and exclusion of candidates and calling for the people to vote and make their voices heard.


    Turning to the issue of Iraq's girls and women:

  • "Passage of Jaafari law would be disastrous & discriminatory step backward for Iraq's women& girls"


  • Last night, Trina noted Martin Chulov (Guardian) had reported on the issue  and Trina observed:

    In the article, Nouri's spokesperson insists Nouri hasn't taken a position on it.
    Yes, he has.
    By letting it come to a vote, he took a position.
    By forwarding it to Parliament, he took a position.
    It's also said that he voted for when he brought it up for a vote in the Cabinet.  And, as Middle East Confidential notes, "It was proposed by Iraq’s justice minister, Head of the Fadila bloc, which has seven seats in the parliament and is a strong ally of the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki."
    So let's cut the nonsense.



    Ghassan Tawfiq al-Husseini (Kitabat) writes about how this proposed law is harmful for Iraq (and also states Nouri voted for it in the Cabinet vote) and would divide the country and set it back.

    It's a strong column.  There was a column I wanted to highlight.  I read it this morning on the plane.  I've got 300 Iraqi newspaper pages in my browser and can't find it and don't have time to go through everyone of them.

    It was most likely Kitabat or Iraq Times.  The writer favors the law.  The writer feels Iraq is being shamed.  I appreciate the writer's feelings, but Iraq should be shamed on this.  The writer argued that if the age of nine (or eight) for marriage was too low, it could be changed to the onset of puberty.

    Most countries and most people around the world would tell you that is still too young.

    But let's set that aside real quick to note two other things in the law.  First, stripping mothers of their rights, custodial rights.  How is that good?  How is that helpful?

    And I'm not understanding how forced sex or rape is beneficial to a husband.  It's surely not beneficial to a wife.

    Putting that into law will make Iraq a laughingstock.

    The writer was concerned about how Iraq was being seen.  The writer should be concerned.  Legalizing rape is nothing any country is moving towards today except Iraq.  Passing the bill will mean the only thing Iraq will be noted for that's not shameful will be their new Guinness World Record of least wide ally in the world (it's in Baghdad).



    In other news, the National Lawyers Guild Tweeted:

  • Victory in SF! The City of Oakland will pay $4.5M to Iraq veteran and activist Scott Olsen, who was nearly killed...


  • WeCopWatch (Indybay Media -- link is text and video) adds:

    The City of Oakland has agreed to pay Scott Olsen $4.5 million to compensate him for devastating brain injuries he suffered when an Oakland Police officer shot him in the head with a “less lethal” munition on October 25, 2011, during a demonstration in support of Occupy Oakland. The lead filled “bean bag” round, fired from a 12 gauge shotgun, shattered Mr. Olsen’s skull and permanently destroyed part of his brain. The settlement in Olsen v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-06333, is pending final approval by the Oakland City Council. Mr. Olsen was represented by attorneys Jim Chanin, Rachel Lederman, and Julie Houk. (Ten-minute Olsen case video below.)



    As we rush to wrap up, Patrick Murphy's MSNBC talk show (Taking The Hill) will address a number of issues this Sunday:

  • Tune in! On Sunday, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard joins 's to discuss Iraq lessons & the need for vets in Congress. 7a HST/1p EST


  • And we'll close with  this from Senator Tom Udall's office:

    WASHINGTON - In a letter to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric K. Shinseki today, U.S. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations subcommittee, and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pressed the VA for answers regarding its failure to diligently and expeditiously implement the Open Air Burn Pit Registry as mandated under Section 201 of PL 112-260, which Udall and Corker coauthored and introduced in 2011.
    "As you know from previous correspondence on this matter, the Open Air Burn Pit Registry was designed to identify and monitor veterans who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were exposed to toxic pollutants released by open air burn pits," Udall and Corker wrote. "This delay is deeply concerning, particularly when similar registries exist within the United States government. The lack of urgency and communication from the VA is even more troubling. Our veterans, Congress, and the public deserve to know why the Open Air Burn Pit Registry has been delayed and when it will be completed."

    "In an effort to address this failure, we ask that you provide Congress with information on the current status of the Open Air Burn Pit Registry, an accounting of problems that have arisen during the development of the registry, detailed information on remaining benchmarks to be completed before the Open Air Burn Pit Registry will become fully operational, and any information on how Congress can help to expedite the implementation of this critical program."

    On January 10, 2013, President Barack Obama signed PL 112-260 into law. The law provided the VA one year to develop, implement, and maintain an open burn pit registry of service members and veterans who may have been exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes from open air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The registry has not yet been established.

    Full text of the letter is included below and HERE.


    Dear Secretary Shinseki,

    We write to you today regarding the failure of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to diligently and expeditiously implement the Open Air Burn Pit Registry as mandated under Section 201 of Public Law 112-260.

    As you know from previous correspondence on this matter, the Open Air Burn Pit Registry was designed to identify and monitor veterans who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were exposed to toxic pollutants released by open air burn pits. When President Obama signed PL 112-260 into law on January 10, 2013, it provided the VA one year to develop, implement, and maintain this registry. While the necessity for some delay is understandable, the VA has failed to adequately explain why the delay has occurred, which steps remain to be completed before the registry is available for the use of our veterans, and provide specific information on when the registry is expected to be completed.

    This delay is deeply concerning, particularly when similar registries exist within the United States government. The lack of urgency and communication from the VA is even more troubling. Our veterans, Congress, and the public deserve to know why the Open Air Burn Pit Registry has been delayed and when it will be completed. Furthermore, the VA has failed to develop the Open Air Burn Pit Registry after multiple congressional inquiries and letters calling for its timely creation and has not provided detailed information regarding the nature of the delay to Congressional offices who have requested such information.

    In an effort to address this failure, we ask that you provide Congress with information on the current status of the Open Air Burn Pit Registry, an accounting of problems that have arisen during the development of the registry, detailed information on remaining benchmarks to be completed before the Open Air Burn Pit Registry will become fully operational, and any information on how Congress can help to expedite the implementation of this critical program. We remain concerned about VA's implementation of this program and we urge you to diligently complete the Open Air Burn Pit Registry.

    Thank you for your timely response to this matter and your continued service to our nation.

    Sincerely,

    Bob Corker
    Tom Udall












     the new york times
     













    cnn