Saturday, April 21, 2012

THIS JUST IN! VICE PREZ JOEY BISHOP!!!

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

FRANK SINATRA NEVER MADE IT INTO THE J.F.K. WHITE HOUSE. HE'D HOPED HIS WORK ON THE 1960 ELECTION, THE GALA CELEBRATION, THE CAMPAIGN THEME SONG ("HIGH HOPES"), CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT TO THE MOB AND MORE WOULD RESULT IN SOME RECOGNITION.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND SINATRA FOUND HIMSELF, LIKE MARILYN MONROE, USED AND PUSHED ASIDE.

BUT SOMEWHERE HE'S NO DOUBT SMILING TODAY AS HE LOOKS DOWN AND SEES THAT A MEMBER OF THE SUMMIT (THE SUCCESSOR TO THE RAT PACK) FINALLY MADE IT INTO THE ADMINISTRATION.

GRINNING AND POINTING FINGERS, JOE BIDEN HIT ARIZONA DEMONSTRATING HE WAS THE LATTER DAY JOEY BISHOP AS HE DECLARED OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S LAWS "LIKE LEGALIZING RATTLESNAKES IN THE LOBBIES OF HOTELS" AND, PRESUMABLY AFTER A SIP OF A MARTINI, INSISTING "I LOVE THIS GUY."


LIKE THE NON-COMEDIAN, NON-SINGER JOEY BISHOP, JOE BIDEN OFTEN FINDS HIMSELF ODD-MAN-OUT IN THE GROUP BUT THAT CAT KNOWS HOW TO SWING!


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Syria is a neighbor of Iraq. Iraq remains neutral on the issue of war on Syria or no war on Syria. They remain neutral for a number of reasons including fear of huge influx of refugees and also the fear that taking sides would further harden divisions inside Iraq, existing divisions. Yesterday the US Congress discussed Syria. Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee were Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs General Martin Dempsey.
US House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, if the situation changes and you believe the use of force in Syria becomes necessary, will this administration seek authorization from Congress before taking action?
Secretary Leon Panetta: We will, uh -- We will clearly work with Congress if it, uh -- if it, comes to the issue of force. I think this administration wants to work within the War Powers Provision to make sure that we work together, not separately.
US House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, as a former member of Congress -- I have the biggest concern and this is not pointed at this administration, it could be at any administration -- they seem to want to take the authority to decide whether or not they need to go into a country that's not been a threat. They may have evil dictators, they might have problems in those countries. But I have been very concerned. I actually went to the federal courts for [US House Rep] Dennis Kucinich and two other Republicans and two other Democrats. We went to the courts because of the decision and how it was made -- I realize you were not there at the time [Panetta was heading the CIA, Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense] -- about Libya. I continue to believe -- and the American people seem to agree -- that we in Congress have not exercted our Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to war. And I hate that if there is a decision -- including Iran and Syria -- if a decision is made to commit American forces that the president would feel an obligation to the American people -- not to Congress necessarily, but the American people -- to explain and justify why we would take that kind of action. And, again, I'm talking about a situation where we're not being attacked, we just see things happening in other countries that we don't approve of. And I would hope -- and I think you did give me this answer, but if you would reaffirm -- that if we have to use military force and we're going to initiate that force, it's going to be our initation that causes that force, that the president, any president, would come to Congress and the American people and justify the need to attack.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Congressman, as-as you understand uh-uh-uh this president -- as other presidents will -- will operate pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the Commander in Chief should, uh, act when the vital interests of this country are in jeopardy. Uh-and-uh I believe this president believes that if that in fact is the case he would do that in partnership with the Congress in terms of taking any action.
US House Rep Walter Jones: Well I'll make another statement and then I'll work towards a close, Mr. Chairman [Buck McKeon]. I remember my good friend [US House Rep] Randy Forbes from Viriginia asked Secretary Gates when we went in [Libyan War], it seemed like the administration, if they called the leadership of the House and Senate, it must have been one call each house, each Senate. And Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Gates, if the Libyans fired a missile in New York City would that be an act of war? And I have to say, because my friend from Virginia is very articulate and very intelligent gentleman, that he never got a straight answer. So I hope that you will prevail upon the administration not to take those kinds of actions as they did in Libya -- whether it was justified or not, I won't get into that debate. But, in my opinion, that was really a kind of snub of Congress and the responsibility of Congress -- based on the Constitution.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Congressman, what I can assure you of is that, as long as I am Secretary, we won't take any action without proper legal authority.
One of the most disgusting things about the hearing was realizing how the coin had flipped. Meaning that if Bully Bush were still in the White House, US House Rep Rob Andrews (Democrat from New Jersey) would have followed up Walter Jones' questions by attempting to hit on the main points. Instead, with the Oval Office occupied by a Democrat, Andrews felt the need was to take wiggle room, shake it out repeatedly and turn wiggle room into a summer getaway home. Our 'national interests' Andrews wanted it known, were reasons to go to war and, of course, Panetta agreed. That's a different standard then 'you are attacked.' In fact, that's even worse, this must be the Obama Doctrine, than Bully Boy Bush claiming he had the right to declare war on someone he thought might harm the US in the future -- near or distant. Barack's policy -- as discussed by Andrews and Panetta -- allows war for no threat. Just the idea that you might do something, as a country, that isn't in the US' national interests. Andrews defined national interest with "the weaker Hezbollah is, the better the United States is" and Panetta agreed and went on to add that "anything to weaken a terrorist organization is in our best interest." And these are the grounds for war? How sickening two little War Hawks all but mounting one another in public.
Republican J. Randy Forbes tried to get the conversation back to reality.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: When we talk about vital national interests, probably there's no greater vital interest that we have than the rule of law. So sometimes we have to just ferret that out and see what that is. As I understand what you have indicated to this Committee, Mr. Secretary -- and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that before we would take military action against Syria that it would be a requirement to have a consensus of permission with the international community before that would happen? Is that a fair statement? And if not, would you tell me what the proper --
Secretary Leon Panetta: I think that's a -- I think that's a fair statement.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: If that's fair, than I'd like to come back to the question Mr. Jones asked, just so we know. I know you would never do anything that you didn't think was legally proper and you said the administration would have proper, legal authority before they would take military action. So my question is what is proper, legal authority? And I come back to -- as Mr. Jones pointed out -- in the War Powers Act, it's unlikely we would have a declaration of war. But that would be one of the things. Certainly we know if there's a national attack that would be one of them. And the second thing in the War Powers Act would be specific statutory authorization. Do you feel that it would be a requirement to have proper legal authority? That if you did not have a declaration of war or an attack on the United States, that you would have to have specific statutory authority -- in other words, the permission of Congress, before you'd take military action?
Secretary Leon Panetta: We would not take action without proper legal authority. That's --
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And I understand. And in all due respect, I don't want to put you in an interrogation. But we're trying to find out what exactly proper legal authoirty is because that's what we have to act under. And we don't have the president here to chat with him or have a cup of coffee with him and ask him. You're the closest we get. And so we're asking for your understanding and as Secretary of Defense what is proper legal authority? Would that require specific statutory authorization from the United States Congress if we had not had a declaration of war or an attack upon the United States?
Secretary Leon Panetta: Well, again, let me put it on this basis. Uh, this administration intends to operate pursuant to the War Power Act. And whatever the War Powers Act would require in order for us to engage, we would abide by.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for putting up with me as I just try to stumble through this and understand it. But as I read the War Powers Act, it has those three requirements. Are there any other requirements in there that you're familiar with that I'm leaving out or not reading?
Secretary Leon Panetta: No.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes:If that's the case, then again I just come back to, if there's no declaration of war, no attack upon the United States and if we're going to comply with the War Powers Act would that require specific statutory authority by Congress before we took military actions?
Secretary Leon Panetta: Again, under the Constitution, as I indicated, the commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country. But then pursuant to the War Powers Act, we would have to take steps to get Congressional approval. And that's -- that's the process that we would follow.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: Uhm, you'd have to take steps to get that approval but would the approval be required before you would take military action against Syria?
Secretary Leon Panetta: As I understand the Constitution and the power of the president, the president could in fact deploy forces if he to under -- if-if-if our vital interests were at stake. But then, under the War Powers Act, we would have to come here for your support and permission.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: So you get the support of Congress after you begin military operations.
Secretary Leon Panetta: In that -- In that particular situation, yes.
US House Rep J. Randy Forbes:Then just one last thing and make sure I'm stating this correctly, it's your position that the administration's position would be that we'd have to get a consensus of permission from the international community before we would act but we wouldn't have to get specific statutory authority from Congress before we would act.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Well I think in that situation, if international action is taken pursuant to a [UN] security council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regards to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community. But then ultimately the Congress of the United States, pursuant to its powers of the purse, would be able to determine whether or not that action is appropriate or not.
Panetta's song and dance wasn't amusing. And the War Powers Act did not matter to the White Houe when it came to the Libyan War. (Panetta's exchange with Andrews suggested it wouldn't matter with regards to Libya.) For those who've forgotten the illegality of the Libyan War, we're dropping back to an episode of Law and Disorder Radio -- which began airing on WBAI July 11th and around the country throughout that week. Attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discussed a number of issues including impeachment. Excerpt.
Michael Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in order to justify not going to Congress.

Michael Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities, it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions, whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress. Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the 90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is that clear, Michael?
Michael Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't think that's going to happen.
Michael Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It looks like it's not a really good lever.




Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jalal covers for Nouri "
"PTSD and the reporter who made a fool of herself"
"I Hate The War"
"Zucchini Ribbons in the Kitchen"
"Food and rebuke"
"That's informative?"
"I guess I better turn myself in"
"6 men, 1 woman"
"6 men, 0 women"
"community"
"revenge"
"Mr. Moyers, really?"
"Another lesson Harry Reid will never learn"
"Music and more"
"Carly"
"Books"
"Writing and media"
"Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol"
"Hillary"
"Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present"
"Chris Hill owes the nation an apology"
"Nouri is destroying Iraq"
"Clemens and Pettitte"
"He's the new Cesar Romer "
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A SPECIAL FELLOW!"
Posted by at

Friday, April 20, 2012

THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A SPECIAL FELLOW!

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

IN BAD NEWS FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, THE NUMBERS ARE NO FRIEND TO HIM WHEN YOU RUN THEM. BUT AS J.F.K. HAD MARILYN MONROE, BARRY O HAS PLASTIC SURGERY ADDICT GEORGE CLOONEY WHO, IF HE HAS JUST ONE MORE FACE LIFT, WILL LOOK LIKE YOUR AUNT MARGARET.

APPEARING TO HAVE OVERDOSED ON BOTOX AND ESTROGEN AND HAVING NO LUCK DEVELOPING A MASCULINE VIBE WITH THAT FUSSED-OVER BEARD, GEORGE CLOONEY HAS HAD TO FACE THE FACT THAT HE'S FAR TOO LONG IN THE TOOTH TO BE ANYBODY'S BOY TOY AND, THAT, IF NOT KIDS, TRICKS ARE DEFINITELY FOR YOUNGER MEN THAN HE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As dust storms swept many areas today, AGI notes "a wave of attacks" slammed Iraq.
Al Arabiya reports, "More than 20 bombs hit cities and towns across Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 36 and wounding more than 100, police and hospital sources said, raising fears of sectarian strife in a country keen to show it can now maintain security." Adnkronos International quotes Baghdad security chief Diya al-Wakil saying of the attacks, "It's an attempt to cause our efforts to return security to the country to collapse. It's a way to make the Iraqi people have a bad opinion about our work."

Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) explains "The blasts were a series of co-ordinated attacks in Baghdad and northern cities but mostly within Shia neighbourhoods." Prensa Latina notes, "An Interior Ministry's spokesman said the first explosion occurred at rush hour this morning, when a car bomb exploded in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah, in northern Baghdad, killing three and injuring 11." The Belfast Telegraph adds, "Extremists launched 12 attacks in the Iraqi capital and in the cities of Kirkuk, Samarra, Baqouba, Dibis and Taji. Mortars were fired into the northern cities of Beiji and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, but no injuries were reported there." UPI counts 35 dead and over seventy-three injured while the Voice of Russia counts 36 dead and over one hundred dead. ITV also goes with 36 killed. Salam Faraj (AFP) counts it out this way, "Twenty-two civilians, eight police, three members of an anti-Qaeda militia and two soldiers were killed in dozens of attacks, including 14 separate car bombings." Alsumaria puts the number injured at over 146. As the day ended, AFP noted the death toll -- per security officials -- had risen to 38 with over one-hundred and sixty people wounded.
The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG) for Iraq, Mr. Martin Kobler, condemned in the strongest terms the series of bomb attacks that took place today across Iraq and that have reportedly resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries.
SRSG Kobler expressed concern at the continuation of violence in the country and the targeting of security officials and personnel as well as the indiscriminate attacks on civilians. "These horrendous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people need to stop for Iraq to achieve the prosperous and secure future its people duly deserve," SRSG Kobler said.
SRSG Kobler reiterated the need for all Iraqis to work together to end the hideous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people to hamper its success as a democratic, stable and prosperous nation.
SRSG Kobler extends his condolences to the families of those who were killed and his wishes for the speedy recovery of those who were injured, and called on the Iraqi people to remain steadfast in the face of the attempts to derail Iraq's quest for a better future.
This would be a good place to note the lousy performance of the US State Dept, but we'll pick that up after the day's violence.
The Los Angeles Times explains, "The attacks drew sharp criticism of the country's security apparatus, with Maysoon Damalooji, spokeswoman for the Iraqiya political bloc, saying they reflected planning weakness. Parliament Speaker Usama Nujaifi demanded that leaders of the security forces bear responsibility." Peter Cave (Radio Australia News)quotes Maysoon al-Damaluji stating, "The continuation of bloody explosions, although it has been already announced that tight security measures have been taken, reflects the weak security plans and the necessity to reconsider them. The commander of the armed forces [Nouri al-Maliki] is responsible for providing security and complete safety for citizens." Alsumaria reports that the Kirkuk Provincial Council is calling for all security plans to be reviewed stating that the plans clearly are not preventing attacks or providing security. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers, "Many criticize Maliki with being preoccupied with his own authority instead of ensuring security in the country." Al Bawaba also stresses that perception, "These attacks occur amid a highly tense political climate. Several political parties have accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is in office since 2006, of seeking to impose a new dictatorship in Iraq."
Last month, Iraq Body Count reported at least 295 people died from violence in Iraq. And that March total came about only after Baghdad was under lockdown for a full week in the days leading up to the Arab League Summit. Already this week, Xinhua has reported 13 dead in Monday's violence alone (nine injured).


BBC News (link is text and video) breaks down today's violence as follows:

In Baghdad, a series of at least five blasts struck in various Shia neighbourhoods
Police say two car bombs went off in Kirkuk, 180 miles (290km) north of Baghdad
A suicide bomber killed a police officer in Baquba, an army officer said
Two car bombs targeted security forces in Samarra
A parked car exploded killing passers-by in Dibis
A roadside device exploded in Taji

Rami Ruhayem declares, "The targets have been varied. Some of them are civilian targets such as shops, Iranian pilgrims in Baghdad and also army and police forces." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) observes, "Five members of the Sahwa, or Awakening Council, a Sunni militia formed by the American forces before they left the country to combat Al-Qaeda in their own areas, were killed in a bomb attack on a checkpoint in Samarra." Deutsche Welle adds, "The blasts unfolded closely, over an hour and a quarter." Xinhua notes there were car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombs and shootings. Press TV states, "Police officials in the provincial capital city of Mosul in Nineveh said three people sustained injuries in a bomb attack carried out in a restaurant."

ITN quotes a wounded police officer in Kirkuk stating, "I was trying to stop traffic to let a police patrol pass. When it passed, a car bomb exploded and I fell on the ground and police took me to the hospital."
In addition to the above, Alsumaria notes a Baiji refinery came under a mortar attack causing minor damage to the refinery and fence but leaving one worker injured.
While the UN spoke clearly, the US State Dept continued its role as eternal disappointment. Spokesperson Mark C. Toner handled the breifing today and wouldn't have even raised the issue of Iraq if, in the last five, the issue of Iraq and a meeting with Iran May 23rd to discuss nuclear issues, hadn't been raised. Once the issue was raised, the spokesperson suddenly remembered Iraq.
Mark C. Toner: Oh, absolutely. We are -- first of all, I want to strongly condemn today's attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it's cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are -- they just hosted a very successful Arab League Summit and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
The State Dept spends more on Iraq than any other country. They claim they need 6 billion dollars yearly and aren't prepared to say when that 'need' might end but admit to Congress that it will be "years." Yet as violence sweeps Iraq today, they can't even think to weigh in on the subject? They have to be asked to remember? And that's in the last three minutes of a lengthy press conference?
Someone needs to explain it to the State Dept. First, if you ask the American people if the State Dept needs $6 billion annually just for Iraq, the answer back is going to be NO. Not by a plurality but by a strong majority. Second, if you're spending taxpayer money, taxpayers have a right to expect updates. Under Barack Obama (US President) and Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), the State Department has become as secretive as the Department of Justice under Bully Boy Bush -- and that's nothing to be proud of. The secrecy is evident in the continued attacks on Foreign Service Officer Peter Van Buren. At his blog today, Van Buren's notes the violence in this post and the US Embassy in Baghdad's silence as well as including a photo that was also up in a post yesterday while everyone was focused on the US official who received a blow job on a Baghdad roof. The photo is of former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. It's Halloween and some woman has dressed as then-Jackie Kennedy which is in poor taste since she and Chris Hill are a 'couple' (at least for Halloween). Hill's dressed as? A Secret Service bodyguard of JFK's.
That's not funny. I hate Bill Maher, but if he did it, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care about any private citizen. But Hill was the US Ambassador to Baghdad and he thought it was hilarious to mock the day JFK was assassinated? What kind of leadership did this asshole provide?
All the manic depressive kook did was rip apart the diplomtic ground work Ryan Crocker had established. Hill was afraid of Nouri al-Maliki. Gen Ray Odierno had to repeatedly calm the fretful Chris Hill down. So not only was he not up to the job (as we said in real time after he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he was a total creep. What he did was disgusting and that he did it an Embassy Halloween function? Chris Hill needs to be loudly condemned. I knew he was an ass and I knew he was an idiot but I was passed his personnel file before he was confirmed. Based on that record alone, he shouldn't have been confirmed.
But to now find out that the ass thought it was appropriate to mock one of the worst days in American history? To dress up as a Secret Service agent who wasn't able to protect Kennedy and some State Dept Woman (referred to as SDW from this point on) who thought she could dress up as Jackie Kennedy from the same day? Cause what's funnier than seeing your husband shot dead before your eyes? What's funnier than have bullets flying all around you?
Did Jacqueline Kenney Onassis really deserve that 'joke'? She conducted herself on the day and the immediate days after in a manner that still sets a standard for First Ladies. And some employee of the State Dept thinks they can go to a department party mocking her? Mocking her on what was one of the scariest and saddest days of her life?
(FYI, SDW is an idiot for many reasons including her pink ensemble isn't what Jackie was wearing that day -- Jackie had on a pink skirt, a black top, a pink jacket and a pink hat, the idiot doesn't even the outfit right.)
And Chris Hill didn't just give it a thumbs up which would have been bad enough, he actively participated in the sick 'joke' by dressing as a Secret Service agent. (In fairness to the Secret Service which is under fire right now, it should be noted that the 'joke' was in poor taste to their efforts that November day as well.)
That is disgusting. That is offensive and grasp, please grasp, that Hill was supposed to be a diplomat. He's an idiot and he owes the American people an apology. That little stunt wasn't funny and it wasn't cute. Apparently, if he'd remained in government service, he'd be dressed as a 9-11 victim this year and his date as the Twin Towers. This was beyond tasteless. Chris Hill needs to answer for this. And I think Hillary does as well. What did the White House think when they learned Chris Hill, at a party in Baghdad, thought it would be funny to lampoon the assassination of JFK?
That is beyond tacky, it's beyond offensive, there's no excuse for it. Chris Hill is trash, 100% trash.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at

Thursday, April 19, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE HAPPY WHITE HOUSE!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS BEING CRITICIZED FOR LOVING THE ROAR OF THE CROWD MORE THAN THE ACTUAL JOB. AND HE'S MADE A POINT TO TIE ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

AND EVEN ONE-TIME FRIENDS ARE CALLING BARRY O OUT. DEMOCRAT AND SENATOR JIM WEBB TOLD A GROUP OF REPORTERS:


The manner in which the health-care-reform issue was put in front of the Congress -- the way that the issue was dealt with by the White House -- cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader. From that point forward, Obama's had a difficult time selling himself as a decisive leader.


REACHED FOR COMMENT THE WHITE HOUSE NOTED, "THE WORLD CANNOT STOP TALKING ABOUT BARRY O! THE INTEREST IN HIM IS SKY HIGH! WE PREDICT THAT NOT ONLY WILL HE WIN RE-ELECTION THIS YEAR BUT IN 2016 AND 2020 AS WELL!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Three US officials are visiting troops stationed in/near war zones this week. Steve Klamkin (WPRO) reports on an overseas trip Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and South Dakota Govenor Dennis Daugaard.
Steve Klamkin: Governor Chafee met with Rhode Island troops on a trip to Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Governor Lincoln Chafee: They're doing well. The Rhode Islanders are doing well. And, for the families, hang in there, they'll be home soon.
Steve Klamkin: With the governors of Michigan and South Dakota, Chafee visited a forward operating base in Iraq There's been a series of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan even before the group arrived.
Governor Lincoln Chafee: That's really the frustration they voiced with us. Just who is setting the IEDs? Where are the Tablian? How do they mix in the local population which are right outside the walls, they're right their surrounding where all these Rhode Islanders are?
Steve Klamkin: Chafee, who opposed the war in Iraq, thinks the Afghans will be able to control their own destiny when US troops pull out next year. Steve Klamkin, WPRO News.
Major Matthew Davis (Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System) reports on their visit in Kuwait yesterday where they met with "National Guard and Reserve service members" "from Michigan and other states who supported U.S. operations during the drawdown of forces from Iraq, and ongoing logistic operations in connection with Operating Enduring Freedom in Kuwait.
On the topic of US officials in Iraq, Huffington Post, Daily Mail and others are noting Peter Van Buren -- author of We Meant Well: How I helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and State Dept Foreign Service Officer -- has posted about alleged sexual misconduct in Iraq. At his website, Van Buren asks:

What if a video existed that showed a prominent State Department VIP on the roof of the Republican Palace in Baghdad receiving, um, pleasure of an oral nature from another State Department officer not his wife, or even his journalist mistress of the time? What if that video has been passed around among Marine Security Guards at the Embassy to the point where it is considered "viral" with many copies made? What if the Deputy Chief of Mission, hand in hand with the Diplomatic Security chief (RSO) at the time, decided that the whole thing needed to be swept under the rug and made to go away, at least until some blogger got a hold of it.
Would that count as poor judgement? What if it was published during his oft-delayed Congressional hearings? Funny that State aggressively punishes some extramarital fooling around while ignoring other, er, well-documented cases.
Or would the State Department once again excuse the act itself and instead punish the person who made the act public, claiming THAT was the example of poor judgement, the crime of not hiding State's dirty laundry at a sensitive time?
Of the rumor Van Buren's floating, Michael Hastings (BuzzFeed) observes, "His description, however, contains clues: The location in the Republican Palace, and the delayed confirmation hearings in particular. That could only refer to a small handful of officials, and among those who fit that description is the high-profile nominee to be the next ambassador to Iraq, Brett McGurk." Author and journalist Michael Hastings has reported from Afghanistan and from Iraq and if he's seeing clues to Brett McGurk being the star of the rumor, he's got the background to suss out the rumor.
McGurk is US President Barack Obama's controversial nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq. No, after Chris Hill, it didn't seem likely we'd be again be referring to a controversial or questionable nominee for this post; however, here we are. McGurk has won some praise and backing since the nomination was announced. For example, Peter Feaver (Foreign Policy) feels his friend McGurk is qualified. Jake Cusak (Forbes) also endorsed McGurk who he hailed as "an old acquaintance."
However, outside of roll dogs, Brett McGurk hasn't had a lot of people singing his praises. As we've noted before, he's got no background in administrative supervision but Barack wants to put him over the State Dept's largest project -- most employees, biggest budget. He's held no supervisory post, he's held no financial post either. On the latter, he'd be responsible for the yearly $6 billion budget the State Dept gets for Iraq And that's before you get into the tensions and violence that continue in Iraq.
McGurk has headed NO mission in a foreign country before. But he's supposed to start -- and get on-the-job training? -- with Iraq? He doesn't speak Arabic. What traits does he have that makes him worthy of this important post?
Americans need to be asking that because over $6 billion US tax dollars will be wasted each year on Iraq for the foreseeable future unless something changes. Wasted? The State Dept sent someone a notch above intern to testify at a hearing they wanted to avoid. The young woman noted that the primary purpose of the mission -- besides a lot of airty talk -- was to train the Iraqi police. Dropping back to the October 4, 2006 snapshot:
CNN reports that it's time for retraining. As though deciding to let 'death squads' pass your security check point is akin to not knowing how to use the office copier. AFP reports they're on a US military base being retrained. BBC reports: "A programme has been under way for more than a month for comprehensive assessment and re-training of all national police unites -- a process called by the Americans 'transofrmational training.'" James Hider (Times of London) reports that since 2004, "US forces have been re-training the Iraqi police, but the programme has had little impact" and that a "survivor of Monday's mass kidnapping . . . described how half a dozen vehicles, with official security forces markings on them, pulled up and men in military fatigues rounded up all the Sunnis in the shops."
And dropping back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:
We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?
The US State Dept is not ready to put a time limit on it, by their own words. How long does the 'training' continue? How many years and how many billions? If it's really not clear to you, let's drop back to the House Foreign Relations Committee hearing of December 1st for this exchange.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.
The State Dept already can't answer basic questions regarding Iraq. And the White House wants to put the questionable McGurk in charge? Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted objection to the nomination in Iraq:
Sunni concerns have crystallized in recent weeks around Obama's nomination of Brett McGurk, 38, a lawyer who has frequently advised the U.S. Embassy but is not a diplomat to be the new ambassador to Iraq. As the chief adviser to Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and former ambassador Christopher R. Hill, McGurk is closely associated with the United States' controversial 2010 decision to support Maliki's candidacy as the better hope for future stability over that of Ayad Allawi, the head of the Iraqiya bloc, which narrowly won the most seats in parliament.
Should the Van Buren rumor be true and should it be about Brett McGurk, would that manage to sink the nomination?
Iraq's already struggling, it's really not the place where the US should send someone on a glorified travel-study.



Posted by at

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

THIS JUST IN! CAFETERIA STYLE!

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

AFTER THE FAILURE OF THE BUFFET RULE, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS REGROUPING AND SOME WHITE HOUSE INSIDERS INSIST HE WILL NEXT PROPOSE "THE CAFETERIA RULE."

BASICALLY, THAT MEANS THE VEGETABLES ARE OVERCOOKED, THE PIECE OF MEAT IS TOO SMALL AND THE PRICES ARE TOO HIGH -- VISIT ANY LUBY'S FOR EXAMPLES.

AND HE MAY BE ABLE TO PULL IT OFF PROVIDED HE STOPS SHARING STORIES OF PAST MEALS:

With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.

IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S MEATLOAF WEDNESDAY -- NO ONE'S REALLY SURE WHAT'S IN IT OR IF THEY CAN STOMACH IT OR EVEN WANT IT -- IN OTHER WORDS IT'S A LOT LIKE THE 2012 CAMPAIGN.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq, everyone's targeted and that includes journalists. Nouri has long been anti-press. As we noted yesterday, Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link has video and text) has asked Iraqi President Jalal Talabani about charges that Prime Minister and thug Nouri al-"Maliki is on the road to becoming a dictator" and Talabani denied the charge and stated, "There are some shortages -- it is not only him responsible. I am also responsible. I am responsible for looking after everything to guard the constitution. I must also speak, so we are all responsible for the shortages in the government." Yesterday's snapshot didn't have a working link to Jane Arraf's interview, my apologies. If Talabani agrees Iraq is his responsibility as well, he's going to have to learn to support and advocate on behalf of the press -- something he's never done, even before the Iraq War.
But let's focus on Nouri and his loathing of the press. At the start of the year, Canada's Centre For Law And Democracy released a report [PDF format warning] entitled "Freedoms in Iraq: An Increasingly Repressive Legal Net."
In recent years, the government has introduced a barrage of legislation relating to the fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly. In some cases, this legislation appears to be well intentioned, while in other cases positive interntions are less apparent. Regardless, all of these new laws, most of which have not yet been adopted, are problematical from the perspective of constitutional and international human rights guarantees.
This Report reviews five pieces of legislation affecting the freedoms of assembly and expression that have been introduced in recent years in Iraq. Of these, only one, the Journalistic Rights Law (Journalist Law), has actually been passed into law, in August 2011. The other four -- the draft Commission of Media and Communication Law (draft CMC Law), the draft Informatics Crimes Law (draft Internet Law), the draft Political Parties Law (draft Parties Law) and the draft Law of Expression, Assembly, and Peaceful Protest (draft Assembly Law) -- have not yet been formally adopted as laws.
[. . .]
One of the most problematical features of the five laws is that, taken together, they impose wide-ranging restrictions on the content of what may be published or broadcast through the media, during demonstrations, over the Internet and by political parties. These are in addition to the many content restrictions which are still found int he old 1969 Penal Code. A few issues receive particular attention in the new laws, such as public morals and more issues, incitement, in particular to religious hatred or criticism, and perhaps not surprisingly, public order and terrorism. Many of these fail to meet the standards of international law regarding restrictions on freedom of expression.
If a country really needed strong laws to provide a free press, it would be Iraq. Since becoming prime minister in 2006, Nouri's done nothing but attack the press. His disregard and hatred for it is well known and has influenced many incidents, most infamously a New York Times reporter had a gun aimed at them 'for fun' in the latter half of 2006, a gun aimed a pretend shot taken by one of Nouri's security forces who found the whole incident hilarious.
Therefore the proposals aren't really that surprising. Frightening, but not surprising. Of the proposed CMC Law, the Centre For Law And Democracy notes it is obsessed with "public morals" while the proposed Internet Law dictates that "moral, family or social values" must not be offended and similar dictates apply with the proposed Assembly Law. The Centre For Law And Democracy notes that speech that offends due to ideas can't be legitimately banned, the speech needs to do "harm to society" -- even so, the paper should be very clear -- and isn't -- because Nouri calls many things harmful to society including Iraqi politicians who criticize him.
Furthermore, the prohibited acts in these laws go well beyond public order and terrorism as normally understood. They also include undermining the constitution, jeopardising national interests, sending threatening or insulting messages or fabricated news, promoting terrorist ideologies (as opposed to terrorism per se) and publishing information about the manufacture of tools or materials usedd in terrorists acts.
These broad prohibitions simply cannot be justified. It is perfectly legitimate to 'undermine' (or criticise or seek to change) the constitution, as long as this is done through peaceful means. Otherwise, it would be a crime to seek to achiever any amendments to the constitution. The concept of 'national interests' is impossibly flexible. In many countries, it is a crime to make threats, but sending insulting messages is often perfectly legitimate or at worst may warrant a civil defamation suit. Similarly, promoting terrorism ideologies, whatever they may be, is not the same thing as inciting terrorism, and the narrower offence should be preferred.
Page 27 of the report notes the Journalists Rights bill. (PDF format warning, click here for that proposed law.) It was proposed in 2009 and modified in 2011. The modified version defines a journalist as "Every individual practicing a full time journalism job." This would leave out stringers, part-timers, freelancers and many other media workers. That's not an accident. The report doesn't point it out but Nouri's always attacked the press, always wanted them monitored as well. Let's drop back to the October 3, 2006 snapshot:
Operation Happy Talkers are on the move and telling you that Nouri al-Maliki offers a 'four-point' peace plan. You may have trouble reading of the 'four-point' plan because the third point isn't about "peace" or "democracy" so reports tend to ignore it. The first step has already been (rightly) dismissed by Andrew North (BBC) of the "local security committees": "In fact, most neighourhoods of Baghdad set up their own local security bodies some time ago to protect themselves -- because they do not trust the authorities to look after them." AP reports that the Iraqi parliament voted in favor of the 'peace' plan (reality title: "continued carnage plan"). Step three? Let's drop back to the September 7th snapshot:
["]Switching to the issue of broadcasting, were they showing episodes of Barney Miller or NYPD Blue? Who knows but police pulled the plug on the satellite network al-Arabiya in Baghdad. CNN was told by a company official (Najib Ben Cherif) that the offices "is being shut for a month." AP is iffy on who gave the order but notes that Nouri al-Malike started making warnings/threats to television stations back in July. CNN reports: "A news alert on Iraqi State TV said the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered the office closed for a month."["]
Ah, yes, the puppet's war with the press. The so-called peace plan is more of the same. The third 'plank' is about the media. Which is why the "brave" US media repeatedly cites the first two and stays silent while a free media (something a democracy is dependent upon) walks the plank.
It's disgusting and shameful, the third 'plank.' The whole 'plan' is a joke. Reuters is one of the few to go beyond the first two 'steps' but even it does a really poor job and those over coverage of Iraq in the mainstream (producers to suits) are very concerned about this. (So why don't they report it?) The "plan" isn't a plan for peace, it's a plan for the puppet to attempt to save his own ass for a few more months. Lee Keath (AP) is only one of many ignoring the third step (possibly AP thinks readers are unable to count to four?) but does note that al-Maliki took office last May with a 24-point plan that, to this day, "has done little to stem the daily killings." Nor will this so-called 'peace plan.' The US military and the American "ambassador" have announced that Nouri al-Maliki better show some results ('after all we've paid' going unspoken).
So al-Maliki pulls a page from Paul Bremer's book and decides to go after the media. For those who've forgotten, on March 28, 2004, al-Hawza was closed down as a result of running a cartoon of Bremer leading to the violence in Falluja in April 2004.
Nouri's attacks on the press are as lengthy as his time in office as prime minister. It includes bring a lawsuit against the Guardian -- among others. January 12, 2011, Josh Halliday (Guardian) reported:
The Guardian has won its appeal against an Iraqi court ruling which judged that the paper had defamed the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
The Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) brought the libel action after the Guardian reported criticism of al-Maliki and the INIS in an article published in April 2009. The Al-Karakh primary court judged in November 2009 that the report was defamatory and ordered the Guardian to pay a fine of 100m dinar (£52,000).
However, the Iraqi appeal court ruled on 28 December that the article did not cause any defamation or harm to al-Maliki or the INIS, overturning the earlier court ruling.
With the above and so much more, these measures, largely drafted by Nouri and his inner circle, are anti-press isn't surprising. The Centre For Law And Democracy notes "we see in the collective approach of the five laws a dramatic lack of respect for the fundamental human rights to freedom of assembly and expression. In most cases, these rules seek to impose unwarranted restrictions on the exercise of these rights. Taken together with the broad content restrictions, as well as the undue degree of government control over the exercise of these rights, the five laws would impose very severe constraints indeed on basic human rights."
The findings are disturbing. What's even more disturbing is that the findings really aren't new. They've very similar to what the United Nations Assistance Mission For Iraq (UNAMI) found in the second half of 2009 [PDF format warning] Human Rights Report. For example:
Some of the law's provisions, however, give rise to concern. For example, the law gives broad discretionary power to govenrment, which could be used to restrict the right to freedom of expression. Several porvisions of the law clearly inhibit the realization of the rights of media workers; the prohibition of publishing materials which "compromise the security and stability of the country" is open to broad interpretation and may be abused by authorities. The draft law does not provide a guarantee for the protection of sources: rather, provisions state that the law requires the source to be revealed.
The draft law's narrow definition of a journalist as "one who works for press . . . and who is affiliated with the Iraqi Journalists' Syndicate" raises concerns about the ability of other media workers, such as editors, commentators, blogger, and freelancers to exercise their right to express their views publicly and in effect imposes a de facto obligation to register journalists. According to the law, media organizations operating in Iraq must issue contracts to journalists that have been prepared and authorized by the Iraqi Journalists' Syndicate. Not only contradicting article 39 of the Constitution which stipulates that no one shall be compelled to join any party.
It's nearly three years later and the proposed laws still have the same exact problems. There's been no improvement. In fact, it has worsened. In January of this year, the Society for Defending Press Freedom's Oday Hattem told Al Jazeera, "There is no freedom to workin journalism here -- if we compare the jounalism in Iraq with the West. [. . .] The political and freedom of speech situations are both descending. Maliki launched an attack on freedom of speech in February 2010, when he arrested tens of journalists and human rights activsts after the beginning of demonstrations in Baghdad."
I believe he's referring to February 2011. February 25, 2011 saw major protests in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. It also saw Nouri crackdown on the press and activists. From February 26, 2011:
Yesterday Iraqis made their voices heard in multiple demonstrations. Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) report the disturbing news that after the demonstrations, four journalists who had been reporting on the protests were eating lunch when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested them with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists inside the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with their rifle handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says that they left Tahrir Square with colleagues including journalists, writers intellectuals, filmmakers. They went into the restaurant where the Iraqi military barged in, beat and kicked them, hit them in the face and head with the handles of their rifles, cursed the press and journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) adds:

{}Four journalists who had been released described being rounded up well after they had left a protest at Baghdad's Tahrir Square. They said they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit.
"It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists," said Hussam al-Ssairi, a journalist and poet, who was among a group and described seeing hundreds of protesters in black hoods at the detention facility. "Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq." {}
Among those arrested and tortured were journalist and activist Hadi al-Mahdi. NPR's Kelly McEvers interviewed Hadi for Morning Edition after he had been released and she noted he had been "beaten in the leg, eyes, and head." He explained that he was accused of attempting to "topple" Nouri al-Maliki's government -- accused by the soldiers under Nouri al-Maliki, the soldiers who beat him. Excerpt:
Hadi al-Mahdi: I replied, I told the guy who was investigating me, I'm pretty sure that your brother is unemployed and the street in your area is unpaved and you know that this political regime is a very corrupt one.
Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was later put in a room with what he says were about 200 detainees, some of them journalists and intellectuals, many of them young protesters.
Hadi al-Mahdi: I started hearing voices of other people. So, for instance, one guy was crying, another was saying, "Where's my brother?" And a third one was saying, "For the sake of God, help me."
Kelly McEvers: Mahdi was shown lists of names and asked to reveal people's addresses. He was forced to sign documents while blindfolded. Eventually he was released. Mahdi says the experience was worse than the times he was detained under Saddam Hussein. He says the regime that's taken Sadam's place is no improvement on the past. This, he says, should serve as a cautionary tale for other Arab countries trying to oust dictators.
Hadi al-Mahdi: They toppled the regime, but they brought the worst -- they brought a bunch of thieves, thugs, killers and corrupt people, stealers.
September 8, 2011, Hadi al-Mahdi was assassinated in his home. Madhi had filed a complaint with the courts against the Iraqi security forces for their actions. Mohamed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains, "Hadi al-Mehdi was inside his apartment on Abu Nawas street in central Baghdad when gunmen shot him twice with silencer-equipped pistols, said the ministry official, who did not want to be identified because he is not authorized to speak to media."


Posted by at

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

THIS JUST IN! O'S SUPPORTERS HURT HIM!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS AND LITTLE MIKEY TOMASKY ACTING SNIDE AND BITCHY WHILE HE GRUDGINGLY ADMITS TO A FEW ISN'T REALLY THE WAKE UP CALL BARRY O OR HIS CAMPAIGN NEEDS.

WHILE MIKEY IGNORES REALITY, OTHERS SMELL BLOOD IN THE WATER AND LOOK WHO'S DROPPED 7 PERCENTAGE POINTS IN ONE MONTH.

WHEN YOU ADD IN ALL THE GENIUSES IN THE CULT OF ST. BARACK 'HELPING' BARRY O BY STILL INSISTING HILARY ROSEN DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING WRONG -- AFTER BARRY O HAS ALREADY REBUKED HER?

THEY'RE IDIOTS BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS TO ELECT BARRY O AND THEY'RE GOING OFF MESSAGE AND THEY'RE IDIOTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T GRASP YOU WILL NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT WITH PEOPLE OFFENDED BY TELLING THEM, "YOU SHOULDN'T BE OFFENDED." AND MAYBE THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN WINNING ARGUMENTS?

MAYBE NOT. BUT IF YOU CAN'T WIN THE ARGUMENT DON'T BE SURPRISED WHEN YOU CAN'T GET THE VOTES.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In a new interview, Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera -- link has video and text) has asked Iraqi President Jalal Talabani about charges that Prime Minister and thug Nouri al-"Maliki is on the road to becoming a dictator" and Talabani denied the charge and stated, "There are some shortages -- it is not only him responsible. I am also responsible. I am responsible for looking after everything to guard the constitution. I must also speak, so we are all responsible for the shortages in the government." Well then Talabani needs to start exercising some responsibility and do so very quickly.
Yesterday Farah al-Haidari and Karim al-Tamimi were released from jail as was expected -- AFP reported Friday that they would "be jailed until Sunday, a fellow commission member told AFP." As noted in Friday's snapshot, last Tuesday the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Martin Kobler was praising the Independent High Electoral Commission to the United Nations Security Council and discussing how important it was to the upcoming provincial elections next year and then the parliamentary elections scheduled for the year after. So news that Nouri's had two members of that commission arrested on Thursday, as reported in real time by Raheem Salman (ioL news), was startling and alarming. Karim al-Tamimi serves on the commission while Faraj al-Haidari is the head of the commission.
How outrageous were the arrests? Saturday, Al Mada reported that Moqtada al-Sadr declared that the arrests were indications that Nouri al-Maliki might be attempting to delay the elections or call them off all together. He makes it clear that the the arrest needs to be based on eveidence and not on some whim of Nouri's and that it shouldn't be done because Nouri desires to "postpone or call of the election." Xinhua reported, "The government in Iraq's northern semi-autonomous Kurdistan region said Saturday that it has called on the central government in Baghdad to release the electoral commission's head and another member arrested on corruption charges." The Oman Tribune notes that the KRG issued the following statement on Friday: "The decision of the authorities in Baghdad to issue a detention order against Faraj Al Haidari and Karim Al Tamimi amounts to a gross violation and dangerous infringement of the political process. Such a decision is targeting the independence of the electoral commission ... We call (on the authorities) to reconsider the detention order immediately and refrain from persisting in insulting the democratic operation." As Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) observed, "Key political factions accused the premier of moving towards a dictatorship with the arrest of Iraq's electoral commission chief, a charge the prime minister denied on Saturday." W.G. Dunlop (AFP) quoted Iraqiya MP Haidar al-Mullah stating, "When the head of the independent electoral commission is being targeted, it means it is a message from the one who is targeting him that he is above the law and above the political process. The one who is standing behind this is the head of the State of Law coalition (Maliki), because he wants to send a message that either the elections should be fraudulent, or he will use the authorities to get revenge on the commission. This arrest is an indication that the judiciary has become an obedient tool in the hands of Mr Nuri al-Maliki."
Al Rafidayn explained Nouri al-Maliki released a statement Saturday decrying those who doubted the arrests were sound. The Baghdad court that Nouri controls made no attempt to even pretend to be impartial or about justice. The Supreme Judicial Council announced yesterday that Faraj al-Haidari had used UNHCR money to purchase plots of land and that he will face a seven year prison term for those actions. AFP spoke with al-Haidari after his release and he explained the charges are related to approved one-time bonuses for five employees of amounts between $80 and $125 (US equivalent). One-time bonuses to five employees. And he tells them this case was previously dismissed by the court but the State of Law MP bringing the charges filed an appeal. From the article:

He said that Hanan al-Fatlawi, an MP from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition, had pursued a large number of complaints against IHEC that eventually wound up with the Iraqi judiciary.
"For the last 6 months... the judiciary was sending warrants of investigation every day to the employees," Haidari said.

State of Law is the political slate that Nouri al-Maliki heads. Tim Arango (New York Times) points out, "Mr. Maliki has sought for two years to consolidate control over the electoral commission, whose independence is viewed as essential in ensuring that Iraqi elections are free from fraud, vote rigging and interference from political parties. Mr. Maliki's critics say the effort is a part of a pattern of power grabs -- his near total takeover of the security forces, a recent attempt to exert influence over the central bank and politically motivated arrests under the pretext of thwarting coup plots. And it reinforces a narrative that Mr. Maliki is emerging as an authoritarian leader in the wake of the American military withdrawl."
Meanwhile the editors of Bloomberg News note that the very visible power grabs aren't the end of the story:
More quietly, Maliki's government is pursuing worrisome measures that are potentially of greater long-term importance, as it crafts rules that will govern the new Iraq into the distant future.
These laws, regulating such things as mass communications and political parties, are necessary. Unfortunately, as detailed in a report by the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy, the versions drafted by Maliki's government for parliamentary approval would unreasonably hinder freedom of expression, assembly and association.
The Internet Bill provides for life imprisonment and heavy fines for offenses such as publishing information about the manufacture of "any tools or materials used in the planning or execution of terrorist acts." It sounds reasonable, but the measure could cover articles about the making of ink, paper, computers, guns, knives, or just about anything. An individual can be heavily fined or jailed for life for using a computer or information network to harm the reputation of Iraq. Similar laws elsewhere -- Turkey's infamous Article 301, for example, which made it a crime to "insult Turkishness" and a successor law that bars insulting the Turkish nation -- have inevitably led to dubious prosecutions and infringements on human rights.



RECOMMENDED:


Cedric's Big Mix
Who are they protecting?
2 days ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! SECRET SERVICE GONE WILD!
2 days ago




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)