Saturday, April 14, 2012

THIS JUST IN! SECRET SERVICE GONE WILD!

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

THOSE WHO TAKE AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CELEBRITY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN -- LITERALLY!

APPARENTLY MISTAKING A TRIP TO CARTAGENA AS SOME SORT OF X-RATED REMAKE OF ROMANCING THE STONE, SECRET SERVICE AGENTS HOOKED UP WITH APPARENT PROSTITUTES AND TOOK THEM BACK TO THE MOTEL.

NO THOUGHTS OR FEARS THAT THEY MIGHT BE BLACKMAILED OR DRUGGED OR SOMEHOW USED TO ATTACK THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF OR THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THEIR HEADS AS THEY WERE TOO BUSY ENTERING [CENSORED FOR FAMILY PUBLICATIONS].

SAID ONE UNLUCKY LASS, "HE SAID HE'D KEEP IT A SECRET IF I PROVIDED THE SERVICE BUT THE NEXT THING I KNEW, REPORTERS WERE EVERYWHERE!"

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O ADMITTED HE WAS TORN, "ON THE ONE HAND, THIS CONDUCT IS UNACCEPTABLE. ON THE OTHER, I HAVE TO WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T INVITE ME? DON'T THEY CONSIDER ME TO BE ONE OF THE FELLOWS? EVEN IF YOU SAY 'NO,' IT'S STILL NICE TO BE INVITED, YOU KNOW?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As a friend who covers Iraq (but isn't there currently) said of the big news today, "You could say the s**t hit the fan but it seems to do that every week now since US forces left." Since most US forces left. And that's not an argument on my part for the US to send in more troops. It is noting that both Bush and Barack bear responsibility for the problems in Iraq because both administrations supported Nouri al-Maliki. Even after his secret prisons were known, even after the torture was known, even after he consolidated control of the security forces, even after he was rejected by the voters, the White House backed him in 2010. The election results meant that Iraq could have been freed of the US-installed tyrant. But Barack Obama decided to back Nouri. Despite the will of the Iraqi voters as expressed in the March 2010 elections.
Well's it's hit the fan again. Repeatedly today. For context, let's drop back to Tuesday when UN Secretary-General's Specail Envoy Martin Kobler was telling fairy tales to the United Nations Security Council. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice presided over the meeting.
Martin Kobler: Madam President, it goes without saying that there can be no democracy without free, fair and competative elections. This makes UNAMI's work to provide election support all the more important for consolidating democracy in Iraq. At the request of the Council of Representatives [Parliament], UNAMI has been serving as advisor and observer in the selection process of the board of commission of the Independent High Electoral Commission before the expiration of the current board's term this month. The participation of UNAMI and the NGOs in the selection process is a clear sign to ensure transparency in the process. The final vote and selection of the nine new commissioners -- which was expected by the end of this month -- is unlikely to take place. However, in order to avoid delays in the upcoming elections in the Kurdistan region in September and the provincial elections in early 2013, the Council of Representatives is encouraged to extend the mandate of the current board of commissioners to enable it to initiate preparations for the conduct of those polls.
Oh, what pretty little words. Oh, what pretty little fantasies. Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:

In more dist[ur]bing power-grab news, Raheem Salman (ioL news) reports, "The head of Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) and one of its members were arrested by police on Thursday on corruption charges, IHED officials said, in the latest apparent move for more government control of independent bodies. Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki won a court ruling in January 2011 that put the IHED and other entities, including the central bank, under cabinet supervision, raising concern over attempts to consolidate power by the Shi'a premier."
Yes, two arrested. Two arrested who were supposed to oversee the upcoming elections in the KRG and in the rest of Iraq. These are provincial elections. The last ones were in 2009 (early 2009 for the bulk of Iraq, the summer for the KRG). And there are no new commissioners in part because UNAMI couldn't get its act together. And now Nouri's arrested two of the commissioners whose terms were supposed to carry over for these upcoming elections.


AP notes that the two are Karim al-Tamimi and the commission's chief Faraj al-Haidari. Yeah, the chief of the commission. Kind of important role, kind of an important person. He and Nouri have a history, of course. Nouri's angered pretty much everyone -- even erstwhile ally Motada al-Sadr -- in his too-long reign. Reuters observes, "Critics fear that the premier may be showing autocratic tendencies in some of his actions and view Maliki's control over key security ministries with suspicion." AFP does a service by explaining the history behind what went down, "There is bad blood between Haidari, a 64-year-old Shia Kurd, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri a-Maliki's State of Law list over his refusal to carry out a national recount after 2010 parliamentary polls, in which the premier's list came in second to rival Iyad Allawi's Iraqiya list."
For those who've forgotten the March 2010 parliamentary elections, they played out like a little psy-ops operations -- in fact, you have to wonder if the US government just provided support on that or if they actively devised the plan?
Nouri is the head of Dawa. It is the political party he belongs to. They are Shi'ites. They had all these plans for the 2010 elections but they hadn't done well enough for Nouri in 2009 (provincial elections). Nouri misread the 2009 results. Dawa wasn't the big problem. The big problem was sectarianism. Iraq's rejected it. That's why a number of sure-thing pre-election announcements were revealed as empty gas baggery once the ballots were counted and the tallies released.
But Nouri lives in a bubble where he convinces himself that he's the fairests of them all and that his enemies are evil Snow Whites. He convinced himself that Dawa was being rejected because, unlike himself, they weren't 'strong.' He was the Iraqi strong-man who had restored order and surely the people loved him for it right? No, he's never been popular with the Iraqi people. In 2006, the US imposed him on Iraq to prevent the popular choice from becoming prime minister.
Convinced that he and he alone knew the right thing to do, he refused to run with Dawa and instead invented State of Law, a political slate headed by him, a slate whose very name would trumpet his 'accomplishment' of ruling Iraq with an iron fist.
A new slate emerged to rival him: Iraqiya. Ayad Allawi is the head. He might not have been the original head. That's not meant as an insult to him, that's just noting that a number of members of Iraqiya were forbidden by Nouri al-Maliki's Justice and Accountability Commission from running. They were (prepare to shudder) terrorists!
Or that's what Nouri and his cronies insisted. Strange, some of them were members of Parliament but now were accused of being unrepetant Ba'athists plotting the return of the Ba'ath Party. Were that true (it wasn't), why not make your allegation and let the people decide?
Probably because Nouri grasped that even the Ba'ath Party was more popular in Iraq than Nouri was. Al Jazeera did their last good reporting on the political issues and divisions with regards to the February and March 2010. They probably had to. The bulk of their viewers are Arabs. Arabs around the world have been outraged by Nouri's actions -- a fact that the US press doesn't like to inform you of. Which is how you get garbage like, most recently, "The Arab League Summit in Baghdad was a huge success!" followed by the whisper of, "Except none of the leaders of major Arab states attended."
The Arab world has seen a very different war than the US has and that includes not just who gought and who died but also the political policies and witch hunts that the US press has largely ignored. The US press pretends that Arab fighters cross over into Iraq to be part of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they site the anti-Arab SITE (run by the discredited Ritz Katz) as 'proof' for whatever false claims they make. Soemtimes they get honest enough that a few US outlets will say "al Qaeda linked" as opposed to declaring them "al Qaeda." It's all b.s. and nonsense. Arab fighters enter Iraq, throughout the long war and ongoing occupation, for one reason only: They preceive their Arab brothers and sisters to be victimized in the 'new' Iraq.
And they have that perception because that is what has taken place and what is taking place. The US press deludes Americans into thinking something puzzling took place when what happened is the most natural and obivous reaction and, if you remove the heightened term 'al Qaeda,' you have the story of every invasion and every response to it throughout history. But they want to play dumb and pretend that something puzzling and new and never-before-seen is taking place.
No such thing is or has happened.
In fairness to Shi'ites in Iraq, they lived as an oppressed people for years. It's very rare that an oppressed people learns from the experience. (A modern exception is South Africa where, after apartheid was finally overturned, the people sought justice and not vengence, equality and not oppression.) Equally true, most Shi'ites aren't taking part in oppressing anyone. Most Shi'ites are trying to go about their daily lives without getting killed the same as the Sunnis and other groupings.
Iraq is a country of widows and orphans. The current war, the sanctions before that and the Gulf War ensured that Iraq would remain a young country because so few people would live to an old age. The median age in Iraq is approximately 20.9 years. Again, it's a very young country age wise.
So all of the past oppressions could be distant enough that the Iraqi people could work together. The thing that prevents that, the thing always prevented that, has been the exiles the US placed in charge of the country.
Too damn scared to fight Saddam Hussein, they fled the country decades ago. Lived in Iran, Syria, England, etc. while they plotted to get other countries to over throw Iraq's president Saddam Hussein.
"Saddam tried to kill me!" Nouri has whimpered when telling his life story to a few members of the press. Yeah, maybe so. But your response was to run like a coward (he'd spend 8 years in Iran alone). Your response wasn't to stand up and fight. You're response wasn't to leave with dignity by making a life another country. You fled like a coward and spent years nursing your hatred. That's what you brought back with you to Iraq. that's all Nouri brought back, a grudge he's picked and nursed for decades. What kind of idiots would ever think someone like that should run a country?

Oh, that's right. The US government.
And not by accident. We commented on Nouri's paraonia months after he became prime minister in 2006. It was obivous to the naked eye. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we now know that as early as 2007, State Dept cables were noting Nouri's paranoia. Nouri was put in charge because he was paranoid. When you install a puppet, you don't want someone with a strong, positive self-image. They're harder to control. Hugo Chavez has a healthy ego. He was not installed by the US and cannot be co-opted by the US government because he doesn't have those inner demons. Nouri does.
With Nouri, the US always knew how to appeal to his vanity, how to prey on his fears. Want something done, tell Nouri that he looks weak, tell him that the Kurds are disrespecting him, feed his inner doubts and he will act.
He haas no core strength and he no ethics or beliefs he stands by. He is nothing but id and he responds not only instinctually but also instantly. That's why he became prime minister and that's why, in 2010, the White House backed him to continue as prime minister. A psychological dossier exits on Nouri and made him the best (meaning most pliable) choice for US interests. (I dispute that conclusion/finding. He accomplishes nothing. If the US government has certain goals that they want achieved via a puppet, they need a puppet who can accomplish something. Instead Nouri's technique of stalling leads to paralysis which is why the US puppet has still not been able to deliver and oil & gas law all these years later.)
The Iraqi people were supposed to be scared of Iraqiya. Members were being purged from the election. (If you were labeled a 'terrorist,' your name was pulled from the ballots.) The political slate was scrambling to find people to run. Nouri controlled state-TV and controlled the message. It should have been a landslide victory for Nouri -- as he was insisting it would be. As Quil Lawrence (NPR) reported the Monday after the Saturday elections (when no ballot totals existed) it was.
It wasn't. The Iraqi people continued the trend of 2009. The parliamentary elections reflected the provincial elections. In most cases, Iraqis didn't want sectarian rule. They were exhausted by it, they were tired of it and they were tired of living in fear (fear being the only thing Nouri had to campaign on).. They rejected it. And they rejected Nouri's State of Law.
Which is why it came in second to Iraqiya. For some reason -- attempts to whore for the US government? -- a number of reporters feel the need to insist that Iraqiya only won a few seats more than State of Law!
So what? It had many, many more votes. Since when do we refer to the voters desires by noting seats and not vote totals?
By votes, which is how the Iraqi people expressed themselves, Iraqiya was the clear winner and the direction the country to go in. Iraqiya, headed by Shi'ite Ayad Allawi, was a mixture of various sects. It was a party that spoke to national identity. They did this by the candidates they put forward, they did it by the spokespeople they put forward. Even now, the most prominent woman in Iraqi politics is the spokesperson for Iraqiya: Maysoon al-Damluji.
State of Law is the past, always refighting old battles, always seeking revenge. Iraqiya was a way forward for the country, representing a national identity ("We are Iraqis") and representing that all were taking part, regardless of sect, regardless of belief or religion, regardless of gender. Iraqiya's message was: "We are Iraq. We are the party of all Iraqis."




Posted by at

Friday, April 13, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE DAILY WHAT WHAT?

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


OLD MAN BOBBY SOMERBY WANTS YOU TO KNOW THAT IT'S STUPID TO GET UPSET OVER HILARY ROSEN'S SEXIST REMARKS.

OF COURSE, BEING BOBBY SOMERBY HE NEVER BOTHERS TO USE THE WORD SEXISM -- THOUGH WE ALL KNOW HE'S USED SEXISM MANY TIMES IN HIS WORK.

IT'S AMAZING HOW SILENT BOB SOMERBY WAS ON THE SEXISM OF 2008 DESPITE COVERING THE POLITICAL RACE AT HIS WEBSITE.

IT'S AMAZING THAT HE IS NOW ON THE SIDE OF JOAN WALSH JUST BECAUSE IT LET'S HIM EMBRACE SEXISM.

MOST OF ALL, IT'S AMAZING HE'S NEVER GOTTEN HONEST -- MR. SELF-RIGHTEOUS -- ABOUT HOW WRONG HE WAS TO ATTACK JOE WILSON AND DISTORT VALERIE PLAME. OR CONFESS THAT HE DID THAT BECAUSE HE WAS FRIENDS WITH TUBBY LIAR MATTHEW COOPER.

YES, BOBBY NEVER CALLED OUT COOPER. THE 'REPORTER' WHO LIED TO COVER UP KARL ROVE'S INVOLVEMENT IN PLAME-GATE.

OH, BOBBY SOMERBY, CHECK INTO ASSISTED LIVING ALREADY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

US President Barack Obama did a good thing today. We're going to start on something other than Iraq. The reason being US President Barack Obama did a good thing today and a White House friend I was speaking to on the phone a little earlier said, "You won't mention it, you never mention anything nice" about him here. Not only will we mention it, we'll open with it. The following appeared here this morning:
Hilary Rosen is a corporatist who has done very little for anyone except herself. She's also a lousy spokesperson for the Democratic Party due to her previous lobbying for the RIAA. But that's their problem. And I wouldn't be weighing in were it not for nonsense Dylan Byers (POLITICO) reports:


Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen took a swipe at Mitt Romney's wife on CNN tonight, claiming that Ann had "never worked a day in her life" — a statement that led to criticism on Twitter from not just Ann but from the Obama campaign as well.
"I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work," Ann wrote in response to the comments Rosen made earlier in the evening on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.

Hillary Rosen owes Ann Romney an apology. She owes all American woman an apology. A stay-at-home mom is not a woman on extended vacation. It is work, it is tremendous work. Those of us in the feminist movement -- apparently that does not include Hilary Rosen -- are aware of that and made a point to note that from day one. The media -- especially bad TV shows written largely by men like the awful 30-something and Everybody Loves Raymond -- like to invent this split where feminists sneer at home makers. That's not reality. "The Politics of Housework" by Pat Mainardi was not decrying the fact that women had extra hours of leisure. It was noting the very real work required to run a home.

Ann Romney made a choice on how to live her life and was fortunate enough to be in a position to make that choice (all women aren't so fortunate -- some are single-mothers, some have economic issues that prevent such a choice). There is nothing wrong with her choice or with her life as a mother. If she had decided to be a mother who works outside of the home, that would have been a valid choice as well.

Hilary Rosen's statements need to be condemned loudly. She needs to be rebuked. What she said is offensive to all women, regardless of what choice we make or we're forced into. Rosen's remarks are sexist and divisive and I'm not in the damn mood to see the sexism we endured in 2008 flourish again. Those of us who are feminists need to stand together and say, "It's not okay, Rosen." It's not okay, it's not acceptable.

My apologies to Ann Romney that someone who will (wrongly) be seen as a feminist made such insulting remarks. They do not represent feminism and they are not appropriate. I don't know Ann Romney, have never met her, but from the press it would appear she's been very happy with her choice. I'm happy for her.
--------------------------
That is from this morning. Mary Bruce (ABC News -- link is text and video) reports that President Barack Obama has rejected Rosen's comments and stated "there's no tougher job than being a mom. Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement." Good for Barack.
Good for Michelle Obama who had responded to the nonsense assertion (by Rosen) by 10:00 am this morning on her Twitter feed: "Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected." That was a strong and graceful message. Good for Michelle Obama.
Good for David Axlerod and Jim Messina who publicly rejected it last night. Good for the Republican female senators that stood up for Ann Romeny -- and for all women -- in a press call today. I'm sorry, I haven't been following that story, I know (from a friend at CBS News) that Senator Kelly Ayotte was one. Good for her and the other women. (I'm also aware that they don't think Rosen was acting alone or independently. I'll leave that for someone else to decide.) Thank you to Michelle Obama, to David Axelrod, to Jim Messina, to Kelly Ayotte and everyone else who took it seriously including the president.
Those are the praises. Now the idiots. A friend at CBS News tells me that there is one article after another about how feminists were silent. I wasn't silent. I'm a feminist. I'm sure the many women with websites in our community will note it in some form tonight. Like me, they're not really following the race or, if they are, like Trina, they're blogging about Jill Stein's campaign. But as was pointed out to me -- by a non-feminist male with CBS News -- this silence is why the image of 'feminists don't care about home makers' can take root. I don't control the feminist movement or feminist bloggers. I am sure some others had to have weighed in. But who got attention? Zerlina's bad post at Feministing was mentioned.
According to Zerlina, "the real magic started when Ann Romney" went on to Twitter and saw "it as an opening to restart the 'mommy wars' of the 1990s." She did no such thing and posts like that don't help feminism. Ann Romney acknowledged today her good fortune to have been able to have made that choice, she noted that not every woman had that chance and she talked about how all choices were valid.
Zerlina wasn't funny or cute or -- most importantly -- helpful to feminism. Ann Romeny came off as more of a feminist than you today. (And Ann Romney may be a feminist. I don't know. I've never spoken to her.) Zerlina can take comfort in that Joan Walsh, as always, carries the torch for stupidity at Salon. Having distorted and outright lied with her coverage of the late Trayvon Martin (see Bob Somerby's archives), you'd think Walsh would learn when to close her mouth and take a seat, but that would be crediting her with far more intelligence than she has.
As usual, Joan's got a 'quote' but it's not really a quote. A quote is what someone said. Joan's edited it, as usual, so that it is different than what was said. Joan Walsh should have been kicked out of Salon a long, long time ago. You can watch Ann Romney here (link is video). I don't watch Fox News, I can't find a transcript so I'm providing one but I don't know the name of the woman she's speaking to.
Ann Romney: My career choice was to be a mother. And I think all of us need to know that we need to respect choices that women make. Other women make other choices -- to have a career and raise a family which I think Hilary Rosen has actually done herself. I respect that. That's wonderful. But you know, there are other people that have a choice. We have to respect women in all those choices that they make. And, by the way, let me give a shout out to all the Dads that are at home raising kids. This is obviously an awesome responsibility to raise children. It's, to me, the most important thing, we can do. I will tell you that Mitt said to me more times than you can imagine, "Ann, your job is more important than mine." He was making money and doing the things, raising funds and helping other companies and he would come home and say, "Ann, your job is more important than mine."
I'm holding up the roundtable for the gina & krista roundrobin (meaning everyone in the community will be late posting due to me). So I can't do a full transcript. But there was nothing insulting in Ann Romney's remarks. "Look I know what it's like to struggle. Maybe I haven't struggled as much financially as some people have. I can tell you and promise you that I have struggled in my life." Joan edits that quote down to "I know what it's like to struggle." And having lied like the piece of trash she is, Joan Walsh then wants an apology.
Joan, you deserve a public stoning. And you haven't walked in Ann's shoes and hopefully you never will, you will never have to raise children while dealing with your own illness or fear of being unable to do all you need to as a parent due to your illness. Joan Walsh is a disgusting person. She's allowed partisanship to turn her into the worst stereotype of a woman and all to attack another woman. We saw that in 2008. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. And Joan Walsh needs to be called out loudly for her 'creative' 'reporting.'
This should have been about women. Barack got it. Again, praise to Barack for that, he earned it.
But instead we got Joan Walsh or Zerlina -- writing on one of the most prominent feminist websites -- who saw this as an opportunity to attack Ann Romney and other women. And then Zerlina wants to call it a "faux controversy" (apparently reading from the Hilary Rosen Handbook). How dare you?
What feminist would ever say that issues about choice were a "faux controversy"? James Downie (Washington Post) puts quotes around controversy. So, he's an ass and an idiot. Ruth Marcus makes an idiot out of herself as well though I don't think we'd mistake her a feminist either. Rosen did not say the right thing the wrong way, Ruth Marcus. (Marcus: "Hilary Rosen made a legitimate point the wrong way.") How dare you suggest that because a woman makes a choice -- one that as feminist we're supposed to support -- to be a stay-at-home mom that she's not smart enough to know about the economy.
I'm not in the damn mood, let's strip away the nonsense and get to what Hilary Rosen's remarks are about.
The subtext of Rosen's remarks is: A woman who stays home is not smart, is not able to navigate the world, is not a full person, is but an appendage of a man.
Now that description, I can remember hearing that sort of thing said about women when I was very young. And you know who said? Men. And that's what the feminist movement fought against. So I'm not in the mood at this late date to hear the sexist insults come from women.
Any woman who is a stay-at-home mother has just as much chance of being aware of 'the world around' as does any other person on the face of the planet. How dare you suggest that their experiences and their work isn't valid and doesn't matter in the grown up world, in the public sphere. That's what Rosen's remarks do. That's what those remarks did when they came out of a man's mouth. There is no excuse for it.
And, yes, Ann Romney's proud of raising five children, why shouldn't she be?
I'm just not in the mood. I'm sorry you're all so damn bitter and disappointed in your own lives. That has to be the reason that you're slamming Ann Romney. She defined her job -- her main job -- as raising her children. That's her job. Let her have pride in it. I worked outside of the home and I take pride in a number of projects I worked. I also raised kids. I take pride in the fact that they turned out well in spite of me. (Truly, they deserve all the credit for the way they turned out.)
Where is the bitterness coming from? I worked outside the home. I hear Ann Romney take pride in her choice to be a stay-at-home mom and I'm not threatened by that, I'm not offended by it, I don't see it as a judgment on my choices. I don't know her age, I'd guess we're close to the same age and so you've got two women and we made two different choices and we're both happy with our choices. What's to go negative on Ann Romney in her remarks today? I'm not hearing a judgment or stone cast at me. So why are so many being defensive and attacking her. She's happy with her life, I'm happy for her. I'm happy with my life, I'm sure she'd be happy for me.
In 2008, it was acceptable to call Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin the c-word. It was accepted and treated as okay. Hillary was called a "bitch" on air, on CNN and that was acceptable. Sandra Bernhardt worked Palin into her act saying that African-American men should gang-rape Palin. Which was not only anti-woman, it was rather racist that when casting for the part of "Rapist," Bernhardt's first thought was, "African-American men!" We could do a whole week of snapshots that were nothing but examples of all the sexism in 2008 aimed at women who dared to run for higher office (in Hillary's case, the highest office). As I said this morning, I'm not going to stand for it a replay of that this year and America shouldn't stand for it either.
Hilary Rosen did not choose her words poorly. (And, be honest, it's not that she forgot to say "work at home." She stated Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life. That was an insult and it was intended as such. This was much more than I 'forgot to include work without pay.') She offered a point of view that was sexist, a point of view that argues that women who do not work outside the home don't know how hard it is, don't know what the real world's like. That's the point she was making and how she was attempting to discredit Ann Romney. If Hilary Rosen had a brain, she'd have woken up this morning and said, "I am so sorry." And then everyone could have moved on to something else. Instead, she took to the Huffngton Post justifying her remarks. There is no justification.
She was wrong. She should have said that this morning and offered an apology.
There's been no real apology. I've been arguing with friends over that (reporters and producers and editors see Rosen's words late this afternoon as an apology). Lucy Madison (CBS News) reports that Rosen told Wolf Blitzer today, "I apologize Working moms, stay at home moms, they're both extremely hard jobs." Good. Glad you grapsed that basic. But that's not where it ended. You have not taken away the sexist implication that a stay-at-home mother isn't a full person, a grown up who can understand the economy and certainly has just as much right as any other woman or man to discuss it.
Rosen made it worse by telling Blitzer that "we are all sort of falling victim to this amazing crashing political machine in this campaign, to move awy from the real issues . . ."
The real issues?
The right of every woman to make their own choices aren't real issues?
Rosen could have argued, "I applaud Ann Romney for her decision to stay-at-home and raise her children. She seems to be very happy with that choice. My concern is that her husband's proposed policies might make it difficult for other women who want to be stay-at-home mothers to do the same because I believe his policies would adversly effect the earning power of most couples and force some women who would choose to be stay-at-home moms to work outside the home instead."
But to say that these aren't real issues? These are the issues of the feminist movement. Thank you, Hilary Rosen, for insulting all the work so many women have done to establish that a woman had a right to choose her path.
Her apology, Rachel Rose Hartman (The Ticket) explains, included, "Let's declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance."
Does she not get how insulting that is? How insulting to the feminist movement?
Some of us -- including me -- strongly believe that all employers should provide on-site day care. Sorry, Hilary Rosen, that's a real issue. And it's a real issue if you disagree with me. If you think I'm wrong on this, that's your opinion, and you're voicing it because whether or not there is on-site day care is a real issue to you as well. You're not in favor of it, I am, these are real issues we are debating.
Everything Hillary Rosen has said since last night's interview has been an insult. She should have simply stated, "I was wrong. I am sorry. Please accept my apology and I'm going to take a few days to reflect on this before saying anything else."
Instead, she's offered 'apologies' where she blames Ann Romney (if her husband didn't bring Ann up, Rosen insists, she never would have!), offers insulting remarks and thinks she's apologized?
How did Hilary Rosen teach her own kids to apologize?
I taught my children: You say you're sorry, you ask if you can do anything to make it better.
Apparently Hilary Rosen taught her kids: You say you're sorry and then spend 30 minutes explaining to them why it was their fault to begin with.
This is not a 'faux' controversy about made up issues. This is about the rights of women and if Rosen has a problem with Ann Romney's comments on the economy, she should address those, not play pat-the-stay-at-home-mommy-on-the-head-and-say-you're-so-pretty. Her remarks today have made it clear that she was stating not just that stay-at-home moms don't work but that they're not really full adults, they can't grasp the economy, those 'hair-brained' gals. Her remarks and her attitude are insulting.
Again, praise for Barack from me. He could have been silent. I'm glad he wasn't. And Michelle Obama handled it with strength and grace, so good for her too. Excuse me, Michelle handled it with strength, grace and wisdom. Strong applause for her from me today.





Posted by at

Thursday, April 12, 2012

THIS JUST IN! HE'LL ALWAYS HAVE CLOONEY!

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

TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MADE CLEAR HE IS NO FRIEND TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY. IN THE PROCESS HE HAS ANGERED MEMBERS OF THE LGBT COMMUNITY WHO AREN'T HIDING IN A CLOSET.

THAT HASN'T STOPPED PROFESSIONAL BACHELOR GEORGE CLOONEY FROM THROWING A GET-TOGETHER FOR HIM. THE ONE-TIME TV STAR ADMITS THE DECISION WAS "NON-POLITICAL, I JUST WANT TO PLAY MARTHA STEWART AND WEAR A NEW HOSTESS GOWN."

BESIDES NONE OF HIS LAST NINE MOVIES EVEN CROSSED THE ONE HUNDRED MILLION MARK INDICATING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TIRED WITH CLOONEY AND HIS INCREASINGLY GIRL-LIKE FACE AND HAIR.

SAID THE TV-ACTOR, "I'VE FAILED IN THE MOVIES AS A MAN SO I THINK THE FACE WORK I'VE HAD DONE AND THE GIRLISH HAIR WILL LET ME START OVER IN THE ROM-COM BUSINESS, THIS TIME AS THE ONE WHO DATES CHRIS EVANS! KATHERINE HEIGL, LOOK OUT! I'M GOING TO BE THE NEW MEG RYAN!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As pointed out in yesterday's snapshot, Omar Ali (Liberation) notes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s San Francisco chapter held a teach-in the afternoon of March 25th at the First Unitarian Chuch on Franklin. The topic of the teach-in was the Iraq War. Speakers included Dr. Jess Ghannam, Nazila Bargshady, Dr. Henry Clark, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Richard Becker and Gloria La Riva. Ali notes, "The teach-in was well attended by progressives from many different movements and communities. The diversity of the attendees demonstrates the sense of unity of different strata of the working class of this country in opposition to the war against the Iraqi masses.
We included some of Iraq War veteran and March Forward co-founder Mike Prysner's speech in yesterday's snapshot. A number of e-mails state that the video with Omar Ali streams visually but there's no audio. I didn't know that. I was using my own notes of Mike's speech. Since there are problems with the stream, we'll note some more of his speech (I didn't take notes during the other speeches)
Mike Prysner: Families would come to us whose children had been killed, whose children's limbs had been blown off, who came to us begging for some kind of monetary compensation because they were left with absolutely nothing. I saw literally thousands of detainees who did absolutely nothing except be a military age male who happened to live in a village that was picked at random to be raided one night and who was brought into detention facilities to be tortured and humiliated. You know, for me personally, as I said earlier, I wanted to go to this war. I believed very much in it. I believed very much in the military and our country. But all of the lies and indoctrination that we were being fed couldn't match reality because I had other teachers beyond the president and the military commanders and those were the Iraqi people. And there are several people who will always be burned in my memory, they're the ones who taught me the truth and taught me which side I was on. It was men who were urinating themselves, pleading through sandbags on their heads in detention facilities. It was a father who was shot through the neck and as he was dying saying over and over, "I just want to see my family, I just want to see my family." And the number one person, the one that really did it for me was -- I have a little sister who's now 18 so she was about 8 at the time I deployed. I got her name tattooed on my arm before I -- before I left. Her name's Rachel. And we were ordered at this one point to kick these families out of their home for whatever reason. And there was this 8-year-old girl who looked exactly like my sister and it was my job to drag her out of her house as she was crying, as her parents were crying, as her siblings were crying, arrest the males in her family, put them on a truck and send them to those detention facilities. And I couldn't stop looking at her face because it was my sister's face. And I realized that this girl was exactly like my sister, that man who was shot was exactly like my father and that these people were just like my family. And so what happened was, I couldn't stop seeing that everything that we were doing to the Iraqi people, I was doing to my own family. Because they are our family, they're our brothers and sisters. And so this was the breaking point for myself and so many others. And the daily violence, the daily abuse, the daily humiliation all by an unwanted foreign invader, led to a widespread popular uprising against the occupation. And no rank-in-file soldier who has been to Iraq can say that they don't understand why the Iraqi people stood up and fought back. In fact, that's the main factor why the majority of US troops ended up opposing the war: Because it was clear that the resistance of the Iraqi people was justified. But the US government had a plan for the popular rebellion too. They used the tactics of divide and conquer and shredded a once united country. And in it's wake, they left a country completely destroyed. And it's difficult to overstate the level of suffering and destruction that the Iraqi people now deal with. And anyone believing the lie that the war in Iraq was somehow out of care for the Iraq people, one just has to look to the wave of the war within the US military to see how true that is, to see how much this government cares about its own soldiers -- let alone Iraqis. Today, in the wake of the Iraq War, there's an epidemic of suicides in the US military -- where, for the past three years more active-duty soldiers are killing themselves than are being killed in combat. This is a staggering, shocking number. Thousands already have been abandoned and left to die alone with the guilt and trauma of what they've been sent to do, hundreds of thousands of families thrown into chaos by loved ones they no longer recognize. Suicide and suicide attempts are at such a staggering record breaking rate, they can only call it an emergency situation. You can only call it a crisis that this government has refused to respond to in any meaningful way. I've traveled to different bases that have high rates of suicides and the numbers are staggering. Among veterans there's 950 suicide attempts a month. But when you see these peoples' faces -- I mean, I met people who jumped out of their window in the middle of the night because they heard voices speaking in Arabic every time they turned the lights off. I've met people who can't eat because they can't hold their utensils because they shake so bad. And these same people, when the go to the doctors in the army and say "I need help," they're told that they're fine and that they have to go on other deployments. And they can go a million times a day to every doctor, every chaplain, every leader that they have in their chain of command and they'll be told the same thing. It will always be written into the history of this war that during this time the US government allowed a wave of preventable suicides through it's US military and did absolutely nothing to stop it but not only did nothing to stop it but actively tried to deny soldiers their access to treatment, to deny them compensation. This is what they're doing now as they try to save precious tax dollars -- you know the same people who spared no expense writing blank checks for new weapons systems. And of course if you can witness the truly shocking, devestating effects of the war on US troops, one can only imagine the level of psychological trauma experienced by Iraq's entire population who didn't do just one tour or two tours but lived 20 years under constant bombing and nine years of brutal occupation. None will bear the scars of the war deeper than the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people have suffered and the suffering continues to this day. In many ways, that's due to the fact that the US government refused to utilize trained people and instead put thugs in power to scare the people with the hopes that a scared people couldn't fight back against the empire. The thugs get bored and consumed with their self-hatred so they lash out at others. Sometimes it's women, sometimes it's Christians, sometimes it's the LGBT community, sometimes it's . . . Anyone who isn't in the thug class is at risk of targeting in Iraq. Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project has released a video on being gay in Iraq which the Huffington Post has posted to their site. There is no closed caption but here's a transcript of the video.
Ahmed's Story: Surviving Persecution Against LGBT in Iraq
War and sectarian violence in Iraq forced thousands to flee for their lives and seek refuge elsewhere.
These people are stranded, unable to return to Iraq without risking their lives.
Ahmed had to flee Iraq as after the war intolerance towards homosexuality increased.
Neighboring countries fail to provide adequate protection to the growing number of refugees in Ahmed's situation.
For the safety of Ahmed and his family, identities have been concealed.
Ahmed: I was studying medicine in Baghdad University but after the war everybody starts to express every hatred he has. I don't support Saddam [Hussein -- ruler the US overthrew with the Iraq War] and I don't like him but at least there was law somehow. Sadly, my ex-boyfriend that I met four years ago and I was devoted to him for four years, I gave him my life, I gave him everything. He was the first boyfriend for me. He lost his job and he started to ask me for money, okay? Immediately, I started to give him, I give him everything I have. But then he started to ask for more and more. I told him, "My love, I cannot any more because my parents are suspecting. You know, I may lose my parents. He said, "I don't care about your parents." I had a lot of private pictures between me and him. He said, "You remember the photos we had?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Imagine that I will send the CDs to your uncles." I said, "No, you're joking." One day my sister called me. She said, "You have to flee Baghdad now. I have just received a call." She said that six of my uncles -- I have eight uncles -- they received a small envelope under the main gates of their houses. A letter was written with the CD: "Your son is one of Baghdad's biggest gay bitches." They made a meeting, those uncles, and they decided they want to make an 'honor' killing. And they want to shoot me in front of people. I said, "Are they serious?" She said, "Sure they are serious. You have to flee now. I prefer that you live in a far place rather than seeing your name on a rock on a grave." I said, "Do you hate me?" She said, "No, no. Just please, for God's sake, you have to flee."
Ahmed was able to escape to a neighbouring country, where he joined other family members.
Ahmed: I had a kind of stable, calm life. You know, I lived with my mom and dad, they loved me so much. I have my own friends and I had a boyfriend there.There was a small shop called Sense for perfumes and I liked some of their perfumes. I went there and I am paying. At that moment, I felt a hand is grabbing my hair and two hands grabbing and pulling my hands. I looked at them. I was shocked. The religious police. They say, "You're a f**. Is that how a man has to look like?" Then we went to the high court. The judge, he said, "You know, you are accused for being a homosexual. I want to tell you something, you don't deserve to live and you are a shame for your family, for the Iraqi nation, or for the Muslim nation. God, he took a lot of time. More than you deserve." In that jail, a police man entered. He said, "I know your story and I feel sorry for you." I was so happy. I said, "At last there is a good guy here." He said, "I want you to stand up." I said, "Okay." I stood up. He said, "I want to make sure. Are you really f**got?" Then he said, "Yeah, it seems that you are." Okay, then he tried with me. I refused. I refused. I refused. I clenched and clenched and spass-ed my muscles so as he won't be able to rape me fully. He was so mad. And he said, "You bitch. I will turn your days to hell in this jail.
Ahmed's parents were able to get him a conditional release from jail, prior to his trial.
They then contacted IRAP.
With the help of the Iraqi Refugees Assistance Project, Ahmed is now living safely and openly in the United States.
In Iraq, however, violence against the LGBT community is resurging.
Support the work of IRAP and help others like Ahmed.
Visit RefugeeRights.org to donate.
Imagine living in Iraq today and being gay (or just being thought to be gay). Huffington Post notes, "As Reuters reports, death squads have been targeting two separate groups -- gay men, and those who dress in a distinctive, Western-influenced style called 'emo,' which some Iraqis mistakenly associate with homosexuality, since the start of this year."
Near the start of last month, Trudy Ring (SheWired) reported:


A recent wave of violence in Iraq has resulted in the kidnapping, torture, and killing of about 40 people perceived to be gay or lesbian, with the murder weapon sometimes being a concrete block to the head.
The killings began in early February after an unidentified group put up posters with death threats against "adulterous individuals" in largely Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and Basra, reports the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. The threats listed the targets' names and ages, and gave them four days to change their behavior or face divine retribution.
Some of the murders have been carried out by smashing the victims' skulls with concrete blocks or pushing them off roofs of tall buildings, says a report from two other groups, the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq and Iraqi LGBT.
Again, imagine living in Iraq today and being gay (or just being thought to be gay). And, yes, it was better for Iraq's LGBT community under Saddam Hussein. As it was for Christians and for women and for minority groups in general.
What pretty words. What a shame his Special Envoy to Iraq spits on those words, betrays Iraq's LGBT community, stays silent as they're targeted and killed, ignores the persecution.
As we noted yesterday, the Special Envoy Martin Kobler appeared Tuesday before the United Nations Security Council where he yammered away for approximately 20 minutes and also handed in a written report/statement which was 17 pages long. Though he was supposedly concerned about violence and targeted groups and though he made his focus the first three months of the year, he couldn't bring himself to mention the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. He could talk about the so-called 'honor' killings but not in relation to gay men or lesbians. Ban Ki-moon assured the world's LGBT community just last month that they were not alone. Just yesterday, his Special Envoy to Iraq, made clear that, in fact, Iraq's LGBTs are very much alone. Martin Kobler made very clear that the United Nations, as represented by him in Iraq, will gladly and always look the other way while thugs go on killing sprees. One of the slogan of the United Nations is, "It's your world." But apparently that doesn't apply for LGBTs. Someone with the UN to address whether Ban Ki-moon was lying or if Martin Kobler just doesn't understand how offensive what he did yesterday was?
Also smelling up the room was US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice who didn't say a word about the exclusion and silence despite the fact that she presided over the Security Council hearing. The White House is aware, see this White House announcement, that this is LGBT Pride Month. But Barack mouths a lot of pretty words he apparently doesn't mean. This was made clear today when the White House announced they would not issue an executive order barring discrimination against LGBTs on the part of contractors awarded State Dept or Defense Dept contracts. Byron Tau (POLITICO) reports:
Obama is under pressure from some gay activists to endorse same-sex marriage -- and his refusal to address discrimination through executive order is unlikely to help him among those in the community who are hoping for a more forceful stance on equality from the White House.
"I don't know if the White House is politically homophobic, actually homophobic, or just afraid of doing anything that might risk some attention," Heather Cronk, the managing director of GetEQUAL.
"He's not going to have hoards of gay folks running over and voting for Romney," Cronk said, admitting that Obama stands little chance of losing votes to Republicans over the issue. "The problem [is] that the White House is making a calculation."
And making it clear that they aren't that 'gay friendly,' let alone the fierce advocate for gay rights Michelle used to insist Barack was.


Posted by at

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

THIS JUST IN! 'YOU'LL GROW TO LIKE IT' GETS OLD!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WHORED OUT THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA TO BIG INSURANCE AND CALLED IT "HEALTH CARE."

NOW AS THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HAVE ONLY -- HAVE JUST -- ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PONZI SCHEME, BARRY O AND HIS LITTLE WHORES
ARE FREAKING OUT.

ONE PIECE OF INSURANCE TRASH -- WHO WOULD PROBABLY BUST A NUT JUST DENYING YOUR INSURANCE CLAIM -- INSISTS THAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND OBAMACARE.

FOR HOW MANY DAMN YEARS HAS THE WHORE BARRY O AND EVERYONE IN THE WHORE HOUSE ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE TOLD US THAT 'ONCE PEOPLE GET TO KNOW OBAMACARE, THEY'LL LOVE IT!'?

PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IT IS, THEY DON'T LIKE IT.

THE JUSTICES KNOW WHAT IT IS, IT RAISED CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.

INSTEAD OF WHORING, BARRY O AND THE OTHER TRASH SHOULD HAVE TRIED TO PASS A LAW THAT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL. IT'S ON THEM AND THEIR TRASHY ASSES.





FROM THE TCI WIRE:

This week, Omar Ali (Liberation) notes A.N.S.W.E.R.'s San Francisco chapter held a teach-in the afternoon of March 25th at the First Unitarian Chuch on Franklin. The topic of the teach-in was the Iraq War. Speakers included Dr. Jess Ghannam, Nazila Bargshady, Dr. Henry Clark, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Richard Becker and Gloria La Riva. Ali notes, "The teach-in was well attended by progressives from many different movements and communities. The diversity of the attendees demonstrates the sense of unity of different strata of the working class of this country in opposition to the war against the Iraqi masses.
We're going to note a section of Iraq War veteran and March Forward co-founder Mike Prysner's speech.
Mike Prysner: I am happy to see so many people here to talk about the real history of the Iraq War because now that it is perceived that for the most part the Iraq War as we knew it from 2003 until just recently has largely ended, a large number of troops, occupying troops, have gone and, of course with that, the US government is going to try to write the history of the war as they want it to be written. And that started not too long ago, actually started on the ninth anniversary of the war, the day that the invasion began, March 19th, President Obama made the day an official holiday to mark the anniversary. That day, March 19th, was now called The National Day of Honor. President Obama wrote in his declaration that soldiers fought block-by-block to help the Iraqi people sieze a chance for a better future, that the soldiers took new roles as diplomats and development experts to improve the communities where they served, that their strength toppled a tyrant and their valor helped build opportunity in oppression's place. Across the nearly nine years of conflict, the glory of their service always shone through. The language in this declaration is just gushing over the honor and heroism of US service members and the righteousness of the mission, the bravery, the glory, the valor the sacrfice, the success -- this is how they are writing the history of the war: A just, heoric mission with an unforseen evil resistance that was defeated only by our soldiers' determination to serve the United States of America. That's the history that they want to write. And they want to write the history that way because the reality is very different. The reality is that this government sent those soldiers that they are honoring with this holiday, sent them to a war against the will of the majority of the people both in the United States and in Iraq, that they lied and we can say now without any question that they lied about why they were sending those soldiers, that they ordered them to unleash the full might of the most powerful military machine in history against a people that had committed no crime nor posed any threat to our friends or family, that they gutted our schools, our communities, our healthcare services to pay for the war, that they laid waste to a beautiful, proud country and that when the war wasn't going well or going as they planned, they kept throwing bodies and more bodies and more bodies into the grinder. And in it's wake, it left every single person who is touched by that war destroyed and abandoned with no hope while the vultures on Wall Street cashed in. This is the real history of the war and what will -- for the time being anyway -- be etched into the calendars in the United States as a national day of honor, we know that it will be something very different for Iraq. It will be the day that they'll remember as a day of fear, as a day of pain, as a day that began a new nightmare -- one that would take the lives of over 1.3 million people, there would be 5 million homeless, 4 million orphans, a day when a foreign miltary invaded their soil in a war of aggression and would not leave and remained there for years to raid their homes, torture their parents and children, shred their identity and patrol their streets. That day, March 19, 2003, will forever be ingrained into the conscience of the Iraqi people not as a day to honor the US military but as the day when they saw its true face. I was one of those soldiers who marched into Iraq on the eve of the invasion in March of '03. I was 19-years-old. I wanted to go. I was willing to die for my country -- whatever that means, as President Obama has just honored us for. But I didn't know a lot of things then. I didn't know that when our commander-in-chief, my top military commanders, civilian advisors, and when they were telling us why we had to risk our lives, that they were lying and that they knew that they were lying. I didn't know that they lied because they couldn't tell the truth because the truth was so sinister. On the eve of the invasion, I didn't know that we would not be greeted with flowers and people cheering in the streets. I didn't know that for more than ten years prior, these people had arleady been dying at the hands of the US government. As we saw, they spent years bombing the food supply, water treatment plants, civilian infrastructure, hopsitals, that they intentionally starved Iraq, that they intentionally denied medicine so that hundreds of thousands of children would die as a result, that this was a calculated strategy. This is the government we're dealing with. I didn't know that I'd be a part of such an unparalleled loss of innocent life, such an unmatched level of destruction that it would constitute the greatest atrocity of the modern era. That's the real history of the Iraq War.
Today W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports, "Iraqis thought a better life was at hand when Saddam Hussain's regime fell in April 2003, but after nine years of violence and suffering, many are still waiting for their dreams to be realised. Iraq still faces major shortages in basic services such as electricity and water, the UN says some 1.3 million Iraqis are internally displaced, and though violence is down from its peak in 2006-2007, attacks remain common."
Also today, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called to order a UN Security Council meeting noting, "The provisional agenda for this meeting is the situation in Iraq." Martin Kobler is the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's Special Envoy to Iraq and he offered testimony as did the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN Hamid al-Bayati.
Kobler's opening remarks were confusing and not just for their spin. For example, he claimed, "The United States completed the withdrawal of its armed forces from Iraq on December 31, 2011." December 18, 2011 is generally seen as when the US military withdrew most of it troops. (Left behind? Trainers, Special Ops, Marines to protect the Embassy and Embassy staff, the CIA and the FBI as well as thousands of contractors working for the US State Dept.)
Kobler noted the political crisis, "The continued delays in convening the National Conference underscores the urgent need for Iraqi leaders to summon the political will and courage to work together to solve the country's problems through an inclusive dialogue. In this regard, UNAMI will continue to remain steadfast in its commitment in assisting the government and people of Iraq to address the major challenges facing their nation."
He spoke of "the need for conducting provincial elections in Kirkuk as soon as possible." The steps for this were outlined in Iraq's 2005 Constitution -- Article 140. Who refused to implement Article 140 by the end of 2007 as the Constitution required? Prime Minister and thug Nouri al-Maliki. Political Stalemate I followed the March 7, 2010 elections and lasted for 8 months as Nouri refused to allow anyone else to be named prime minister-designate (despite Nouri's State of Law coming in second to Iraqiya). He could dig in his heels because he had the backing of US President Barack Obama. In November 2010, the US-brokered Erbil Agreement ended Poltiical Stalemate I. The Erbil Agreement called for Nouri to get a second term as prime minister. In exchange for that, he had to guarantee certain things in the agreement including that Kirkuk would be resolved as outlined in the Constitution. Once he became Prime Minister (end of December 2010), he trashed the Erbil Agreement and that created Political Stalemate II which has now lasted approximately 16 months.
UN Special Envoy Martin Kobler: [. . .] the tensions that have arisen between the main party blocs in Iraq which have developed into a political impasse. I have therefore Iraqi political parties and leaders to work together in the spirit of partnership towards finding common ground that will resolve their differences. In this regard, Iraqiya's decision to end its boycott of the Council of Ministers and Council of Representatives was the right step. President [Jalal] Talabani suggested holding a National Conference as a way forward to bring about an end to the stalemate. Unfortunately, until today, there was no agreement on the agenda. An inclusive forum is needed, however, as a first step to end the political impasse. I call on all Iraqi leaders to sit together to address all their differences in a meaningful way. UNAMI stands ready to continue supporting these efforts. [. . .] I'm concerned that Iraq's political situation is heightening communal tensions in the country and leading to an increase in the number of attacks on civilians. Since my last briefing to the council, terrorist attacks have continued to target pilgrims and resulted in the killing and wounding of scores of defenseless people practicing their religion. Other attacks across the country have indiscriminately targeted civilians resulting in large numbers of deaths and injuries including children. In the first three months of 2012, a total of 613 civilians were killed and 1,800 were injured. This is slightly less than civilian casualties last year; however, every man, woman and child dying in terrorist attacks in the streets, markets or mosques of Iraq is one casualty too many. Such horrendous crimes against the Iraqi people need to stop and violence must end if Iraq is to achieve the prosperous and secure future its people deserve.
There is more on violence that we'll get to in a moment. But let's go to where things stand with the major blocs in Iraq today. Al Mada notes that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon states the political crisis needs to be addressed and regrets that the national conference was not held last Thursday as scheduled. (The National Conference is what Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi have been calling for since December 21st to address the ongoing political crisis.) Nouri has resisted the conference since it was suggested. In February, his refusal began to be based on the Arab League Summit which was scheduled for March 29th. He argued that the conference would have to wait until then. The weekend before the conference, Talabani pushed Nouri's hand by announcing that the conference would take place April 5th. Nouri quickly touted that in public statements. But then the conference was cancelled at the last minute, less than 24 hours before it was to be held.
Dar Addustour notes that State of Law MP Mahmoud Hassan and Kurdish Alliance MP Bir Saz Shaaban got into a loud argument yesterday. These actions mirror the conflict between Nouri and the KRG which includes, most recently, the issue of oil contracts and more long-term the lack of an oil and gas law and the failure of Nouri to implement the agreed upon Erbil Agreement. Florian Neuhof (The National) notes:

Baghdad is irked by ExxonMobil's decision late last year to explore six blocks in the Kurdistan region, following the lead of Tony Hayward, the former BP chief executive who is heading the investment company Vallares, along with numerous smaller oil companies.
The central government has an informal policy of blacklisting oil companies active in the autonomous region from licensing rounds in the south of the country. But tough contracts and difficult conditions have made Kurdistan an attractive option for big operators over the rest of Iraq. The French oil major Total has hinted it may set up shop in the north.

Al Mada reports that officials in both the central-government in Baghdad and the KRG government are stating that to prevent ExxonMobil from operating in Iraq would be a blow to Iraq's oil industry. Moqtada al-Sadr has waded into the issue. Al Mada reports his online column this week responds to questions about the dispute and he states that the oil is not the centeral-government's oil or the KRG's oil but Iraqis' oil and belongs to all Iraqis. Asked of speaking with US President Barack Obama, al-Sadr states Barack needs to learn a lesson and floats that option that Barack, on a visit, could meet the same shoe treatment Bully Boy Bush did. He also states that Barack continues occupation and oppression of Muslims.

KRG President Massoud Barzani met with Barack last week as he visited DC. For his speech Thursday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy see Thusday's "Iraq snapshot" for his response to questions on the issue of Kirkuk see Friday's "Iraq snapshot." He also spoke at an event for Kurds in the US and Kani Xulam (Rudaw) covers that event:

There were other tidbits about little Kurdistan, but I am going to be picky for the purposes of this report. In America, he said, he was happy to meet with the likes of President Obama and conveyed to him our people's unswerving commitment to the constitution of Iraq, which recognizes Kurdistan as a federal state. But, he added, there were unmistakable signs of trouble in the city on the Tigris. The source of that concern was Nouri Maliki. He was concentrating power in his hands, he was like five ministers at once, and now, again, Mr. Barzani raised his voice: "He also wants to be head of the Central Bank of Iraq."

The Kurds aren't the only ones in disagreement with Nouri. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) writes of the ongoing political crisis:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demonstrated an increasingly authoritarian rule as he consolidates power over the country's institutions and security forces. He has marginalized his political opponents through force and coercion, which has stoked sectarian tensions and even threatened a break-up of the nation. And Obama is supporting all of it.

Maliki, a Shiite, ordered the arrest of his Sunni Vice President Hashemi just as the last U.S. troops left Iraq. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq expressed approval in January of this quest to detain Iraq's vice president on trumped up terrorism charges, despite a virtual consensus that it was a blatant attempt to eliminate a political rival.

Tareq al-Hashemi is Sunni, he's also a member of Iraqiya which won the most votes in the March 7, 2010 elections. Emre Peker (Bloomberg News) reports that Tareq al-Hashemi "arrived in Turkey last night". He's on a diplomatic tour and has already visited Qatar and Saudi Arabia. AFP adds, "During his visit to the kingdom, Saudi officials said that Al Hashemi might remain in the kingdom until his political foe, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, leaves office. But Hashemi's aides said he would not live in exile and would return to the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, where he has been sheltering since he was accused late last year of running a death squad." Today's Zaman notes, "Al-Hashemi's visit to Turkey was his first trip to Turkey since the allegations were leveled against him."

Iraqiya's led by Ayad Allawi who has penned a column for the Washington Times addressing Iraq's political crisis:

Of even greater concern is the increasing number of attempts to quash or take over institutions that are supposed to be independent, such as the elections, integrity and communication commissions and, most recently, the Central Bank. These, among other disturbing acts, are chilling reminders of the governance pattern established by dictatorship. More recently, Mr. al-Maliki stepped up his rhetoric against the government of the Kurdistan region. This was partly on the heels of Mr. al-Maliki's unconstitutional moves to target Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq immediately after he returned from a trip to the United States. This, in turn, brought Iraqis to make wrongful inferences about Washington's role in this series of events, in contradiction to the original vision of the United States to build a democratic state in Iraq with civil liberties, national reconciliation, an independent and fair judiciary, and pluralistic political and media systems.

Washington's evident disengagement gave Mr. al-Maliki the confidence to move even closer to his objective of achieving absolute power by blatantly avoiding the implementation of the power-sharing Erbil Agreement sponsored by Masoud Barzani and the White House. Eventually, the political momentum behind the agreement dissolved, allowing the country to drift back into sectarianism and autocratic rule instead of moving forward with reconciliation and reconstruction. The resulting disastrous state of affairs is fanning increasing disillusionment among Iraqis about the role of the United States and its efforts to create a stable democracy in Iraq.

With no obvious effort by Washington as the patron of the Erbil Agreement to break the current deadlock, Iraq surely will plunge into violence among Iraq's sects, ethnic groups and even political parties.

So that's where things stand in Iraq today. More or less, the same place they've stood for months now. This is Political Stalemate II -- or to use Martin Kobler's term "political impasse."


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)