Thursday, September 03, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY WEIGHS IN!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

"MAMA HASN'T EVEN STOPPED BAKING," SNORTED CRANKY CLINTON TO THESE REPORTERS LATE LAST NIGHT.








As September starts, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq announces at least 1325 violent deaths for the month of August in Iraq:



Baghdad, 1 September 2015 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 1,325 Iraqis were killed and another 1,811 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in August 2015*.

The number of civilians killed was 585 (including 20 civilian police and casualty figures in Anbar), and the number of civilians injured was 1,103 (including 44 civilian police and casualty figures in Anbar).
A further 740 members of the Iraqi Security Forces (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army / Not including casualties from Anbar Operations) were killed and 708 were injured.
“With the steadily increasing number of casualties, internally displaced persons, and the alarming rate of Iraqis fleeing war, persecution and poverty to seek refuge abroad, the successful implementation of the government reform plan will be paramount to restore order, legality and social justice in the country and renew confidence in the fair participation of all in the society”, SRSG Kubis said, acknowledging the immense sacrifices Iraqi civilians and security forces continue to make in the ongoing war against terrorism.
Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,069 civilian casualties (318 killed, 751 injured). Diyala suffered 108 killed and 162 injured; Ninewa 69 killed and 3 injured; Salah al-Din 23 killed and 13 injured and Kirkuk 17 killed and 15 injured.
According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the Governorate suffered a total of 187 civilian casualties (39 killed and 148 injured).
*CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas. Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate and are noted below. Casualty figures obtained from the Anbar Health Directorate might not fully reflect the real number of casualties in those areas due to the increased volatility of the situation on the ground and the disruption of services. In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents. UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care. For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.


This is an undercount.  It's always been an undercount.


In the past, we've noted Anitwar.com.

Not interested anymore.

Not because Justin Raimondo is the equivalent of wet-pantied, squealing little girl at a Beatles concert when it comes to Barack Obama.  (They call themselves Antiwar and 'libertarian' but any time Barack pulls a fake ass 'peace' move, Raimondo's hands go straight down his pants as he begins moaning.)

This is because they're liars and I don't like liars.

Back in 2014, we raised the issue of Margaret Griffis tossing "militants" onto any deaths because some official did.  We'd hoped that would change this year.

Not only did it not change but when it turned out that so-called 'militants' were actually innocent civilians, Antiwar.com didn't go back and change the propaganda and lies they'd offered.

This is no different than be outraged that the New York Times spread propaganda to sell and continue the illegal war in Iraq.

This is no different than expressing dismay that its then-reporter Judith Miller took dictation from government sources instead of doing actual reporting.

When civilians are killed by governments and governments try to wall paper over those deaths by pretending the dead were 'militants' or 'terrorists,'

Those who help them reach that goal -- intentionally or due to their own blatant stupidity -- are no better than the government liars.

I've tried to be nice about it, but I'm sick of it now.

One of the worst War Crimes of the illegal war was the murder and gang-rape of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi who was gang-raped while her parents and younger sister were murdered.  This was done by US soldiers who were sure they could get away with it because the violence would be blamed on, yes, 'militants' and 'terrorists' and, yes, they almost got away with it.

We covered what happened here.  We covered the Article 32 hearing, the plea deals, the civilian prosecution of Steven D. Green, Abeer's family reacting to the verdict on Green and so much more.

By contrast, I think Antiwar.com offered three pieces on this War Crime.

They really weren't interested which goes to the hatred of women which you'll find at Antiwar.com -- one of those sites infamous for multitudes of men writing and blogging and the occasional token woman.

They weren't interested in Abeer.

And they're not interested in Iraqis.

They really do reek of the isolationist slur or stereotype that so many War Hawks try to pin on them -- and they have no one to blame for that but themselves.

As I've repeatedly noted over the years, I'm part of a peace movement, not an anti-war movement.  That crowd has trouble grasping what to hold on to but they can tell you in three seconds everything they're against.

Those were ideological differences.

I bit my tongue.

When Antiwar.com knows that civilians were killed and that they reported those deaths as deaths of 'militants'?  When they know that and they don't correct it or follow up on it?


Not only does Justin Raimondo have no high horse to ride but we have no use for them.

Mistakes are one thing -- we all make them -- intentionally lying is another.

Their embrace of Nouri al-Maliki?

We largely looked the other way.


But that's typical of the immaturity they've demonstrated repeatedly over the years while pretending to be the leading light of 'anti war' thinking.

You'll notice that even now, especially now?, with Nouri a public disgrace, they don't address their ridiculous support of Nouri -- a position that seems as laughable as the pro-Stalin Americans of yesteryear.

But thing is, it was always laughable.

We called Nouri out in real time and we called him out repeatedly.

The abuses he's now infamous for?

We called them out while they were taking place.

Antiwar.com wall papered over those in order to keep their pro-Nouri stance.

We have no more use for Antiwar.com and the reason is that they don't respect Iraqis enough to stop repeating unverifiable claims that the dead are 'militants' or 'terrorists.'

It's not a minor point.

If they truly were antiwar, they would grasp that not only is it not a minor point but that what they are doing perpetuates war because it provides cover for the deaths of civilians.

"Watch Donald Trump Completely Contradict Himself . . ."

Oh, it's time to gas bag and pretend you reported, is it?

Yes, a US presidential election is only 15 or so months away which means it's time for Mother Jones to start pretending they're covering real issues.

And first stop:  Iraq.

The little twerps spend forever trying to figure out how to shame the GOP and call it 'reporting' before arriving at useless crap like that Donald Trump nonsense we'll note but not link to.

If they're truly worried about someone contradicting themselves on Iraq, they'd be noting Hillary Clinton as well.  They don't.

Now in 2008, they slaughtered her -- especially David Corn.

That's when they were pimping Barack.

Since he can't run and Hillary's the desired candidate of big money, Mother Jones is pimping her now.

They call it 'reporting' but they're really just thugs sent out to destroy for their corporate masters.




RECOMMENDED: "

Tuesday, September 01, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GOES FLINCHY!

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, THE BIG DAWG HIMSELF ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND HIS WIFE AND INSISTED THAT SHE WASN'T GETTING TESTY ABOUT HIDING THINGS.

"YOU GOT TO REALIZE, SHE'S A GRANDMA -- YOU'VE SEEN HER RIGHT?  SHE'S OLD, SHE'S ELDERLY.  WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON HER FACE IS THE FACE OF A CONFUSED, ELDERLY WOMAN WHO JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW E-MAILS EVEN WORK.  SHE CAN'T USE THE FAX MACHINE.  SHE CAN'T USE ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, REALLY?  TOOK HER YEARS O MASTER THE VIBRATOR.  TRUST ME."





Starting with this:


  1.  reinforced that all must ; it is our collective responsibility. 




  • I'm sorry, sweetheart, which Disney princess are you?

    I kind of thought you were Secretary of State.

    But to be that, you'd need to be doing something on Iraq.

    You haven't.

    But you think you have time for Climate Change so you must be a Disney princess, right?

    I happen to believe in global warming.

    And that the issue needs to be addressed.

    But, John Kerry, your plate is full.

    And after a year of US taxpayers footing the bill for billions more on Iraq, you should be Tweeting about Iraq and focusing on Iraq.

    If that's too much for you, maybe you should apply at Disney?

    As a Vietnam veteran, you'd benefit because Disney believes in hiring veterans.

    But if you want to be Secretary of State, it's past time you started focusing on Iraq.


    Your lack of leadership is evident at the State Dept.

    From Friday's snapshot:











  • 's celeb militiaman Abu Azrael was filmed mutilating corpse of -er he allegedly burned to death. He's one of the good guys, right?





  • As noted, this thug is treated by the western media as something heroic -- a Rambo.


    It's that sort of whoring by the press that allows so many around the world to never grasp what's going on in Iraq or how things got to the point they are now.




    Clear enough, right?

    And the story received attention from the media all weekend.


    Despite that attention . . .

    When the issue was raised to State Dept spokesperson Mark Toner at today's press briefing, he pleaded ignorance.



    QUESTION: I want your reaction for a video that circulated over the internet of a celebrated Shia militia in Iraq, whose, like, his graphic pictures are seen basically burning an ISIS member and slicing off his flesh. I wanted to know whether the United States has a position on the anti-ISIS forces taking basically what seems to be from ISIS playbook in fighting the ISIS fighters?


    MR TONER: Sorry, so you’re speaking to a video that shows --


    QUESTION: Of a very famous militia man named as the Rambo of Iraq in Western press. He’s seen basically in the video like desecrating the body of an ISIS fighter. Is it okay for anti-ISIS forces to practice --


    MR TONER: I mean, we wouldn’t – I’m not aware of this actual incident that you’re speaking about. But the desecration of any --


    QUESTION: But in general, you are not --


    MR TONER: In general, no, we don’t support --


    QUESTION: Against ISIS. Against ISIS.



    MR TONER: Regardless of who it is, we don’t support the desecration of bodies of fallen enemy or anyone, frankly.




    Again, Princess John, you're not doing your job and it's effecting those working under you.


    For Toner to go into a briefing on Monday and not know about a major Iraq story that broke on the previous Friday and was covered all weekend in the press goes to John Kerry's lackadaisical  -- I'll get there when I get there -- attitude about Iraq.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


    Monday, August 31, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! THE WHEELS COME OFF THE CRANKY BUS!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE




    THE VICE PRESIDENT RUNS LIKE A BIG DOG WHILE CRANKY CLINTON "HAS LOST ONE THIRD OF HER SUPPORT IN IOWA SINCE MAY."

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY SNARLED, "AMERICA DOESN'T ELECT ROCK STARS! IF THEY DID STEVEN TYLER WOULD BE A FORMER PRESIDENT, NOT RONALD REAGAN!"





    Turning to US politics, Scott Walker is the governor of Wisconsin.  Supposedly, he's seeking the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nomination.


    Supposedly, because I've never seen such a crap ass campaign and we covered Jill Stein's idiotic run in 2012.

    Walker's in the news because he gave a "major foreign policy speech."

    And you can find that out at NBC News, CBS News, etc.


    You just can't really find it at his campaign website.

    They're helpful enough to tell you how you can watch the now past speech "live" and they even offer five bulletin points from it.

    Here's a clue for Scott Walker's campaign, come into the 21st century.

    If you give a major speech, post it on your campaign website, you damn fool.

    If you don't, why did you give it?

    What a moron.

    And that "moron" is due to his idiotic campaign website.

    We long ago noted at Third, ten years ago?, that your website was your online office.  You need to run it effectively.


    Bill Barrow (AP) reports:

    Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker is calling for U.S. forces in Iraq to engage in direct combat to defeat "radical Islamic terrorists" in the Middle East.
    Yet even as the Wisconsin governor predicts a "generational struggle," he continues to avoid calling for additional ground troops beyond the roughly 3,200 military security personnel, trainers and advisers now deployed.


    Is that an accurate portrayal of Walker's view?

    I have no idea.

    He and his campaign were too stupid to post a transcript of the speech online.

    Some partisan outlets (Vox, to name one) are treating the above position sketched out by Barrow as outrageous.

    But this is US President Barack Obama's position -- though they never call him out.

    He's the one who's put over 3,200 US military personnel in Iraq.

    And this is close to the 3,500 to 4,000 he wanted to leave in Iraq after December 2011.

    And their being in combat?

    That's what he told the New York Times when he was first running for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination -- that after starting a withdrawal, if things went bad in Iraq, he was fine with sending troops back into Iraq.

    Oh, is this news to you?

    It's because the New York Times failed to report it.


    They did a fluffy, frou-frou report based on an extensive interview with Barack.  We took the transcript of the interview and wrote the reality at Third in November 4, 2007's "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq':"


    Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean.

    Declaring that "there are no good options in Iraq," Senator Obama went on to explain that even with his 16 month plan for withdrawal, he would continue to keep US troops in Iraq, agreeing that he would "leave behind residual force" even after what he is billing as a "troop withdrawal."

    "Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast," Senator Obama offered contrasting himself with his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I do think it is important for us not only to protect our embassy, but also to engage in counter-terrorism activities. We’ve seen progress against AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], but they are a resilient group and there’s the possibility that they might try to set up new bases. I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."

    The Senator insisted, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities. How large that force is, whether it’s located inside Iraq or as an over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is."

    The positon of the majority of Americans in poll after poll is that all US troops need to be brought home by 2008. Senator Obama's strategy calls for bringing some troops home, should he be elected president, in his first sixteen months; however, he is not, by his own words, an advocate of a "Out of Iraq" strategy.

    While maintaining that he would remove all combat troops in sixteen months he did agree that the forces left behind to fight "terrorists" would be performing "a combat function."

    He also spoke of deployment, and presumably bases, "in places like Kuwait" in order "to strike at terrorist targets successfully."

    Returning the topic of leaving US forces in Iraq even after what he's billed as a "withdrawal," the Senator delcared, "As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence. 

    The senator also admitted that he was comfortable with sending troops back into Iraq after what he's terming a "withdrawal" though he wanted to split hairs on what constituted "armed force."  



    Again, if that's news to you, take it up with the New York Times which had the above quotations and chose not to run with them.  As we said at the end of the above:

    That's the story they could have written based upon the interview conducted by Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny. As C.I. noted in Friday's "Iraq snapshot," the interview the reporters conducted hit harder than the sop they wrote up on it that ran on Friday's front page of the paper. 


    Walker's position is not significantly different from Barack's.  (And, for the record, I don't support either's position on Iraq.)


    And for those really harping on Walker's position that US forces should be in combat, they already are.  Those bombs dropped from US war planes?

    That's combat.

    In addition, Wael Grace (Al Mada) reported this week on what the people of Nineveh Province were seeing: US forces joining Iraqi forces in combat.

    The residents say this is not 'consulting' or 'advising' but that US forces are actually taking part in on the ground combat.


    Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"

    Thursday, August 27, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE



    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DECLARED, "I'M A PRIVATE DANCER, A DANCER FOR MONEY, DO WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, JUST A PRIVATE DANCER . . ."







    A much more important gathering was recently covered by Al Jazeera.  This was an event that the Association of Muslim Scholars In Iraq held and out of it has come their "The 'Inclusive Iraq' Scheme: The Proper Solution for Saving Iraq and the Region."  We noted a section of it yesterday.  Who else is noting this, by the way?  It should be getting major attention.  Or does the western press believe attention on Iraq solutions is only warranted if its westerners offering solutions or 'solutions'?  At any rate, we'll note this section of the report:


      Finally, it is worth stressing that the aforementioned initiative details come within the framework of the following specifics and firm beliefs:
    1. Full adherence to the independence of Iraq and its territorial integrity and the preservation of its identity. Its policies on development shall be based on the common interests of its citizens. The building of the modern state shall be in accordance with the necessary foundations, constitutionally, legally, economically, militarily, socially and culturally.
    2. Commitment to the pluralistic approach and freedom of opinion, based on mechanisms that are consistent with and respect our values ​​and traditions.
    3. Exclusion of political revenge mechanisms and allowing for justice. This should be based on a consensual agreement between Iraqis in order for it to take its course in preserving the rights, the lives and dignities and to prevent the events that took place and currently taking place from happening again.
    4. Being aware that our tragedy in Iraq is not a tragedy of a certain group, race, region, governorate or any particular place. It is the tragedy of the homeland and the nation. Giving instant attention to partial problems that arise here or there should not affect seeing the whole picture of this tragedy.
    5. Rights are not given, but acquired by uninterrupted effective acts, arduous efforts and great sacrifices. Identity is the product of pride in position, mission and mandate. It is not a favour given by anyone nor the result of effect of an action event, effect and reaction, however this may be painful, harsh and long.

    6. Inspiring the spirit of resistance, uprisings, protests and popular revolts is crucial and necessary in determining our path towards change and deliverance.


    On the subject of protests, this morning I noted that a woman had been stabbed in Baghdad at Friday's protest and this was apparently news to several people judging by e-mails -- not that a woman was stabbed but that a woman participated.

    I'm looking at Arabic social media on the protests and often forget that many have to depend on reports in the English language from western media which apparently has yet to discover that women are taking part in these protests.


    For those who were not aware of that, we'll offer this Tweet from Friday (a rare one to note women in the protests but women are there at every protest).







  • Let's stay with truths and note Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC) which featured Emma Sky discussing Iraq and her new book  The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq.  Excerpt of the discussion about the 2010 national election:


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

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

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

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

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

    Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

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

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


    Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics --  the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 




    The 2010 decision set the events in motion for Iraq's current (and ongoing) crises.

    We objected in real time.  We called for the vote to be respected.

    The western press ignored the vote, ignored the will of the people and treated it as normal that, following an election, the outcome was decided by a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement).



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"