BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
KILLER BARRY O GOT A BLISTERING CRITIQUE FROM VENEZUELA TODAY WHICH INCLUDED CALLING HIM "THE GRAND CHIEF OF DEVILS."
REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS EVENING BY THESE REPORTERS, KILLER BARRY REPLIED, "GRAND CHEROKEE? I DON'T THINK SO. IT'S MORE OF A LIMO. LET ME CHECK WITH MICHELLE, SHE KNOWS ALL ABOUT CARS."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Since December 21st,
Fridays have meant protests in Iraq -- and harassment of protests by
Nouri al-Maliki's forces. Today, protests took place in many locations
including Mosul, Samarra (where Nouri had aircraft providing surveillance), Tikrit (where Nouri's forces -- like Americans in Abu Ghraib prison -- used dogs to 'assist' them, where protesters called for a unified Iraq, and decried attempts by the government to suppress the media), and Jalawla (where Nouri's forces closed roads in an attempt to stop the protests and then closed entrances to the square). All Iraq News notes
that today the protesters elected Mohamed Taha al-Hamdoun to be the
spokesperson for protesters in Anbar, Salahudden, Kirkuk, Baghdad,
Diyala and Mosul.
National Iraqi News Agency notes
that, in Falluja, Sheikh Ahmad al-Abadali spoke of the commitment to
peaceful demonstrations and wondered why Nouri continues to use
sectarian terms as it attempts to dismiss the protests? NINA notes
that in Falluja's morning prayers, Sheikh Mohamed Taha Hamdon declared
that there were four options: replace Nouri, divide Iraq into three
regions, "we rule ourselves in our provinces according to the
constitution and in accordance with systems of more than 41 percent of
the world's countries, stressing that who advocates to implement this
option are seeking preserve the unity of Iraq and the fourth option is,
confrontation and war, and this option is hated by the people." Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) adds, "In Samarra, Sunni cleric Mohammed Taha warned that the country is
descending to civil war because of what he described as a-Maliki’s
dictatorship."
Replace Nouri? In today's New York Times, Nussaibah Younis makes the case for that with "Why Maliki must go" -- which we'll get to in a minute. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted former US Ambassador Ryan Crocker had a column (Washington Post) which is mistaken beyond means. I argued:
While the key moments of betrayal did not happen on his watch (it was
under the dithering idiot Chris Hill), you cannot act, in 2013, as if
talk will bring back the progress of 2010. We'll address that at length
tomorrow. As with the issue of US forces in Iraq, it's one of those
topics we have to keep going back to because so few will ever bother to
cover it. The shortest version is when you make a deal in 2010 and one
party (Nouri) fails to honor it, you can't show three years later and
say, "Well let's just talk and try to progress." No, we don't reset the
clock. If there is to be progress in 2013, the first step is honoring
the contract that was signed in 2010.
He proposes everyone just talk and:
Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman. We're noting the section on the 2010 elections and The Erbil Agreement:
Part of the difficulty forming a government after the election was
the close result, and the dramatic implications of gaining or retaining
power in Iraq, where politics is often seen as a "winner take all"
proposition. In accordance with timelines established in the
Constitution, the newly elected COR [Council of Representatives,
Parliament] convened on June 15, 2020, but the session ended after less
than a half hour without electing a COR leadership team. The various
factions made little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he
remain prime minister for another term and remained in a caretaker
role. The United States stepped up its involvement in political talks,
but it was Iraqi politics that led the factions out of an impasse. On
October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR
Sadrist deputies. The United States reportedly was concerned that
Maliki might form a government with Sadrist support. The Administration
ultimately backed a second Maliki term, although continuing to demand
that Maliki form a broad-based government inclusive of Sunni leaders.
Illustrating the degree to which the Kurds reclaimed their former role
of "kingmakers," Maliki, Allawi, and other Iraqi leaders met in the
capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government-administered region in
Irbil on November 8, 2010, to continue to negotiate on a new
government. (Sadr did not attend the meeting in Irbil, but ISCI/Iraq
National Alliance slate leader Ammar Al Hakim did.)
On November 10, 2010, with reported direct intervention by President
Obama, the "Irbil Agreement" was reached in which (1) Allawi agreed to
support Maliki and Talabani to remain in their offices for another term;
(2) Iraqiyya would be extensively represented in government -- one of
its figures would become COR Speaker, another would be defense minister,
and another (presumably Allawi himself) would chair an oversight body
called the "National Council for Strategic Policies," and (3) amending
the de-Baathification laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh
al-Mutlaq, from holding political positions. Observers praised the
agreement because it included all major factions and was signed with KRG
President Masoud Barzani and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in attendance. The agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr
faction.
We've address The Erbil Agreement over and over. Like US troops still
in Iraq, it's one of those topics that results in drive-by readers
e-mailing to insist (a) it never happened and (b) the US was in no way
involved in it.
The Erbil Agreement ended the 8 month political stalemate that followed
the 2010 elections. It's the legal contract, brokered by the US, that
allowed those not supporting Nouri to throw in their support in exchange
for legally defined within the contract terms. The KRG, for example,
was supposed to get the census and referendum in Kirkuk (promised in
Article 140 of the Constitution but that Nouri refused to move on in his
first term). Another promise was that an independent national security
council would be created and Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi would head it.
(Iraqiya won the 2010 elections; Nouri's State of Law came in second.
He refused to honor the election results and step down which created the
political stalemate that lasted 8 months.)
Let's point out that this move by Nouri was not a surprise. In the
lead-up to the 2010 elections, US Gen Ray Odierno was warning this could
happen but the White House elected not to listen to him. They backed
the idiot Chris Hill who was then US Ambassador to Iraq. Hill didn't
even want Odierno speaking to the media and the White House went along
with that as well. Odierno warned what could happen. The idiot and
unqualified Hill (and we noted he was an unqualified and an idiot when
we reported on his confirmation hearing -- see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot)
and the White House that courted and coddled him are responsible for
what went down in 2010. And you can read more about that and how it
took Odierno going to then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates after
the 2010 parliamentary election and Gates bringing then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton in on their conversation for Odierno to get the
audience with the administration that he should have received
automatically by reading Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's The Endgame.
Barack was an idiot to have shut General Ray Odierno, the top-US
commander in Iraq, out of the conversation. To his credit, when
approached by Gates and Clinton (and faced with ongoing political
stalemate and Chris Hill's inability to answer basic questions about
it), Barack did act quickly to replace the idiot. Which is how you had
James Jeffrey quickly nominated to be the new US Ambassador to Iraq with
a confirmation hearing taking place July 20, 2010.
That said, in our reporting on Hill's confirmation, we noted he was
unqualified, we noted he had no understanding of the issues. The 15 or
so months he was allowed to be ambassador to Iraq were a disaster whose
repercussions are still felt today.
Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq immediately before Chris
Hill. He was nominated by Bully Boy Bush and, after Barack was elected
in 2008, Crocker offered to stay on until a replacement could be found.
As Betty noted last night, Iraq got coverage (finally) on The NewsHour (PBS -- all links to the program that follow are text, audio and video). Betty covered the segment on the violence.
The other segment was Ray Suarez moderating a discussion about the
state of Iraq featuring Ryan Crocker and former Iraqi Deputy Ambassadot
to the UN (2004 to 2007) Feisal Istrabadi.
Istrabadi starts out noting the basic problem ("Nouri al-Maliki himself
has been asserting greater and greater control over the
instrumentalities of the state, and I -- and has been unable or
unwilling to enter or execute the compromises") to which Crocker quickly
agrees ("I think Feisal is right, Ray."). Crocker mentions the
slaughter in Hawija (last week, a peaceful sit-in was attacked by
Nouri's forces leaving 50 dead and 110 injured) but feels this is a
"signal for Iraqis of all sects and ethnicities to take a very deep
breath" -- no, that's not how it works in a functioning society. A
despot does not launch a massacre and the response is, "Let's take a
deep breath." While you're taking that deep breath, you're likely to be
stormed the same way the sit-in in Hawija was.
As Betty did on Wednesday,
Feisal Istrabadi noted some contents of the US diplomatic tookbox that
the US could be using to influence events. Crocker wants US Secretary
of State John Kerry and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to act as
mediators. But for what purpose?
I agree they should be mediating. But Crocker's column in the Post offers this notion that things can be healed with talking.
No. The Erbil Agreement was a legally binding contract (that the White
House swore had its full support and backing). Nouri used it to become
prime minister and then tossed it aside refusing to honor it. Since
2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for Nouri
to implement The Erbil Agreement and he has refused.
You can't trust someone like that. Forget for the moment that The Erbil
Agreement is like every other promise Nouri makes (including the "100
Days To End Corruption" promise to the Iraqi people of February 2011) in
that he gets attention and praise for a proposal but never follows up
on it.
The Erbil Agreement ended up a political stalemate. It was a legal
contract. Nouri used just enough of it to get what he wanted (a second
term as prime minister) and then trashed it. And has refused to
implement even when called on to do so.
How do you trust someone who refuses to honor a contract?
You can not hit the re-set button and start all over on this. It doesn't work that way.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Time for Nouri to go as Iraq is 'plunged into viol..."
"Shouldn't Nouri be getting ten years behind bars a..."
"How stupid are Larry Harnisch and the Los Angeles ..."
"Coconut-California Avocado Ceviche in the Kitchen"
"A new dollar menu"
"Good for Reuters"
"Where are the left publications?"
"The slaughter in Hawija"
"Time of death for the rule of law?"
"scandal 'a woman scorned'"
"community"
"Wrong on Hagel"
"Renee Montagne sells war"
"Guantanamo"
"CounterPunch, fix your website"
"Susan Faludi notes the passing of Shulamith Firestone"
"Health care?"
"The Rules of Attraction"
"Arrow"
"Super Model President"
"Iraq gets worse (so does Women's Media Center)"
"Nikita: High Value Target"
"Foreclosure Queen Penny buys a Cabinet seat"
"Tina Brown shames herself in public"
"THIS JUST IN! PIMP DADDY TINA BROWN!"
