BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS MORNING BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O SIGHED, "52%? THAT'S BAD. BUT AT LEAST MOST AMERICANS STILL LIKE ME, RIGHT?"
TOLD HE WAS ALSO POLLING POORLY ON THE PRISONER SWAP, BARRY O HUFFED, "I SUPPOSED I COULD HAVE STAYED HOME AND SWAPPED RECIPES AND HAD TEAS, BUT WHAT I DECIDED TO DO WAS FULFILL MY PROFESSION."
At The Huffington Post, Daniel Nisman offers an analysis which includes:
In a troubling development, Maliki has already threatened to "arm citizens" to fight ISIS, and claimed to have created a special crisis unit to implement a process of "volunteering and equipping." Such rhetoric is eerily in line with Maliki's past tendencies of mobilizing Shiite militias, many of them religious extremists, to combat Sunni jihadists. In the recent Fallujah and Ramadi counteroffensives, local residents complained of seeing Shiite militia insignias on Iraqi army tanks, alleging that these militias had been mobilized under the guise of the regular army, accusations that only fomented further mistrust among the Sunni population.
I agree with many of the points Nisman makes elsewhere in his analysis. Read the whole thing. At the Wall St. Journal, Kenneth M. Pollack offers mini-analysis and suggestions. I disagree with so much. Pollack seems unaware that he's arguing the Iraq War was about oil (but when you write, that the events in Iraq right now are "a serious threat for the United States. Americans seem to think that the vast increased in domestic oil production from shale deposits has immunized the U.S. economy from Middle East instaiblity" that's what you're suggesting).
We're going to look at these two suggestions Pollack makes in order to clarify why I disagree with him:
• A constitutional amendment imposing a two-term limit on the presidency and prime ministership. (A third term for Mr. Maliki may have to be grandfathered in to get him to agree, but simply advertising to all Iraqis that he will not rule for life would be an important reassurance that Iraq is not drifting back into dictatorship.)
Really?
Nouri is the cause of the violence. Pollack doesn't state that, I do. He does note Nouri abuses power. So even though Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds, Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and various others opposed a third term for Nouri (that list includes Ammar al-Hakim provided al-Hakim is named prime minister), the Iraqi people have to endure Nouri?
That makes no sense.
Nor does the notion that Nouri accepts the imposing of two terms only.
Here's what will most likely happen. Nouri might agree to get his third term. He would then say the law passed after he started his third term so he can still be elected to two more terms.
I'm sorry Pollack didn't pay attention the what happened in the KRG recently. KRG President Massoud Barzani was in office when the KRG's Parliament passed the two term rule for his post. What happened?
He was allowed two terms plus two years because it was passed two years after his first term started.
And Nouri's State of Law had a reaction. I get so damn tired of spoon feeding. But they had a reaction and it was publicly stated to Iraqi media that if a two-term law ever passed for the Iraqi prime minister post (I believe it did pass and then Nouri's court ruled it unconstitutional, but whatever), that term limit would only kick in for elections after the law passed.
Which would mean Nouri could go five term.
Again, people need to pay attention.
I'm being more kind than I usually am on stuff like this because I believe Pollack genuinely thought his suggestions had value. Let's examine another:
• A law defining the powers and prerogatives of the defense and interior ministers, thereby limiting the ability of the prime minister to exercise those powers.
What?
Does Pollack not know that Nouri grabbed those powers?
He did so by refusing to nominate anyone for the security posts.
Back in July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."
Nouri's second term is ending and those three Cabinent posts remain empty.
Nouri controls them.
Now, Pollack, help me out on how Nouri's going to be forced to nominate people for those posts this go round having made it through four years without them?
The easiest way to slow down the violence is to kick Nouri out of office. The US government needs to pull all support. If you don't grasp that, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.
Iraqis are scared of Nouri because he's a thug and he's destroyed the country and Pollack wants to suggest the answer is a third term?
Violence didn't disappear after the April 30th elections. But it did kick up a notch after Nouri claimed (he was lying) that he had the seats in Parliament to get a third term.
That's when the already violent day-to-day got more violent.
You are stripping a people of hope and forcing them to live in fear. Of course, they will resort to violence.
Pollack is correct when he notes that "the Obama administration seems to turn a blind eye toward Iraq no matter how bad things get." And they continue to support Nouri.
Nouri breaks every promise. He breaks with them with the Iraqi people. He broke them with Bully Boy Bush. He's broken them with Barack Obama.
You have to want to be fooled to take Nouri at his word today.
He promised to implement the White House's benchmarks. Bully Boy Bush came up with those. They never got implemented. Barack's on his second term and Nouri never kept his word on the benchmarks. To get his second term as prime minister, Barack had US officials negotiate The Erbil Agreement -- quid pro quo, Nouri promised leaders of political blocs certain things in writing in exchange for their agreeing to grant him a second term. He briefly honored the contract -- long enough to start his second term. Then he refused to honor it. This led to the political crisis which led to the increased violence.
Nouri lies and you have to be an idiot at this late date to think that the man who twice took an oath to the Iraqi Constitution but has twice failed to implement Article 140 as the Constitution compels him to (it resolves the disputed Kirkuk) is going to honor any promise.
He's a liar. And only the extreme idiots would, at this late date, believe him when he promised he was going to do something.
In a troubling development, Maliki has already threatened to "arm citizens" to fight ISIS, and claimed to have created a special crisis unit to implement a process of "volunteering and equipping." Such rhetoric is eerily in line with Maliki's past tendencies of mobilizing Shiite militias, many of them religious extremists, to combat Sunni jihadists. In the recent Fallujah and Ramadi counteroffensives, local residents complained of seeing Shiite militia insignias on Iraqi army tanks, alleging that these militias had been mobilized under the guise of the regular army, accusations that only fomented further mistrust among the Sunni population.
I agree with many of the points Nisman makes elsewhere in his analysis. Read the whole thing. At the Wall St. Journal, Kenneth M. Pollack offers mini-analysis and suggestions. I disagree with so much. Pollack seems unaware that he's arguing the Iraq War was about oil (but when you write, that the events in Iraq right now are "a serious threat for the United States. Americans seem to think that the vast increased in domestic oil production from shale deposits has immunized the U.S. economy from Middle East instaiblity" that's what you're suggesting).
We're going to look at these two suggestions Pollack makes in order to clarify why I disagree with him:
• A constitutional amendment imposing a two-term limit on the presidency and prime ministership. (A third term for Mr. Maliki may have to be grandfathered in to get him to agree, but simply advertising to all Iraqis that he will not rule for life would be an important reassurance that Iraq is not drifting back into dictatorship.)
Really?
Nouri is the cause of the violence. Pollack doesn't state that, I do. He does note Nouri abuses power. So even though Moqtada al-Sadr, the Kurds, Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and various others opposed a third term for Nouri (that list includes Ammar al-Hakim provided al-Hakim is named prime minister), the Iraqi people have to endure Nouri?
That makes no sense.
Nor does the notion that Nouri accepts the imposing of two terms only.
Here's what will most likely happen. Nouri might agree to get his third term. He would then say the law passed after he started his third term so he can still be elected to two more terms.
I'm sorry Pollack didn't pay attention the what happened in the KRG recently. KRG President Massoud Barzani was in office when the KRG's Parliament passed the two term rule for his post. What happened?
He was allowed two terms plus two years because it was passed two years after his first term started.
And Nouri's State of Law had a reaction. I get so damn tired of spoon feeding. But they had a reaction and it was publicly stated to Iraqi media that if a two-term law ever passed for the Iraqi prime minister post (I believe it did pass and then Nouri's court ruled it unconstitutional, but whatever), that term limit would only kick in for elections after the law passed.
Which would mean Nouri could go five term.
Again, people need to pay attention.
I'm being more kind than I usually am on stuff like this because I believe Pollack genuinely thought his suggestions had value. Let's examine another:
• A law defining the powers and prerogatives of the defense and interior ministers, thereby limiting the ability of the prime minister to exercise those powers.
What?
Does Pollack not know that Nouri grabbed those powers?
He did so by refusing to nominate anyone for the security posts.
Back in July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."
Nouri's second term is ending and those three Cabinent posts remain empty.
Nouri controls them.
Now, Pollack, help me out on how Nouri's going to be forced to nominate people for those posts this go round having made it through four years without them?
The easiest way to slow down the violence is to kick Nouri out of office. The US government needs to pull all support. If you don't grasp that, maybe you shouldn't be having this conversation.
Iraqis are scared of Nouri because he's a thug and he's destroyed the country and Pollack wants to suggest the answer is a third term?
Violence didn't disappear after the April 30th elections. But it did kick up a notch after Nouri claimed (he was lying) that he had the seats in Parliament to get a third term.
That's when the already violent day-to-day got more violent.
You are stripping a people of hope and forcing them to live in fear. Of course, they will resort to violence.
Pollack is correct when he notes that "the Obama administration seems to turn a blind eye toward Iraq no matter how bad things get." And they continue to support Nouri.
Nouri breaks every promise. He breaks with them with the Iraqi people. He broke them with Bully Boy Bush. He's broken them with Barack Obama.
You have to want to be fooled to take Nouri at his word today.
He promised to implement the White House's benchmarks. Bully Boy Bush came up with those. They never got implemented. Barack's on his second term and Nouri never kept his word on the benchmarks. To get his second term as prime minister, Barack had US officials negotiate The Erbil Agreement -- quid pro quo, Nouri promised leaders of political blocs certain things in writing in exchange for their agreeing to grant him a second term. He briefly honored the contract -- long enough to start his second term. Then he refused to honor it. This led to the political crisis which led to the increased violence.
Nouri lies and you have to be an idiot at this late date to think that the man who twice took an oath to the Iraqi Constitution but has twice failed to implement Article 140 as the Constitution compels him to (it resolves the disputed Kirkuk) is going to honor any promise.
He's a liar. And only the extreme idiots would, at this late date, believe him when he promised he was going to do something.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Netflix"
"glenn"
