Saturday, August 09, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HE SPEAKS SOME TRUTH!

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

NUMBER 2 JUST BECAME NUMBER 4.


REACHED FOR COMMENT TONIGHT AS HE VACATIONED ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I'M BASICALLY VERY SHALLOW AND UNABLE TO THINK OF ANYTHING ORIGINAL TO DO OR SAY.  THAT LEAVES ME WITH VERY LIMITED OPTIONS."



Speaking at the US State Dept today, spokesperson Marie Harf declared, "As you saw this morning, the Defense Department put out a statement that at approximately 6:45 a.m. the U.S. military conducted a targeted airstrike against ISIL terrorists with two F/A-18 aircraft dropping 500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery piece near Erbil that ISIL was using to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, where, of course, U.S. personnel are located. As the President has made clear, the U.S. military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel or facilities."

Last night, US President Barack Obama announced he would be authorizing air strikes on Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Less than 12 hours after he finished speaking, the United States had already struck twice and a third bombing run was just a few hours away. The quick series of airstrikes raised fears among some of mission creep _ a term coined during the Vietnam War to describe a growing commitment of men and materiel after initial steps failed to produce the desired result."


US House Rep Barbara Lee is one who has noted mission creep.  Her office released this statement today:

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Lee issued this statement upon receiving news of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq:
“I support strictly humanitarian efforts to prevent genocide in Iraq.
While the President has existing authority to protect American diplomatic personnel,  I remain concerned about U.S. mission creep in Iraq and escalation into a larger conflict, which I oppose.
There is no military solution in Iraq. Any lasting solution must be political and respect the rights of all Iraqis.
I am pleased President Obama recognized this in his statement last night, when he said: ‘there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.  The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.’
I will continue to call for the President to seek congressional authorization before any combat operations. For too long, Congress has abdicated its Constitutional role in matters of war and peace. The President should come to Congress for authorization of any further military action in Iraq.”
###


When's he going to come before Congress? 

Next week?

Are they holding Congressional sessions on Martha's Vineyard because Barack's embarking on a two week vacation.

Last night he declared:
Today I authorized two operations in Iraq -- targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.  Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why.    
First, I said in June -- as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq -- that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it.  In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces. 
To stop the advance on Erbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city.  We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad.  We’re also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL.
Second, at the request of the Iraqi government -- we’ve begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain.  As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis.  And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect.  Countless Iraqis have been displaced.  And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up  families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yezidi women. 
In recent days, Yezidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives.  And thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs.  They’re without food, they’re without water.  People are starving.  And children are dying of thirst.  Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yezidi people, which would constitute genocide.  So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice:  descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger.
I’ve said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world.  So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now.  When we face a situation like we do on that mountain -- with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help -- in this case, a request from the Iraqi government -- and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye.  We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide.  That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.

I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there.  Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive.  Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.”  Well today, America is coming to help.  We’re also consulting with other countries -- and the United Nations -- who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis. 

Late last night, he declared that and more.  Kicking it off with the statement that he made his decision "today."  But he didn't inform Congress of it until Friday (today).

When did he make his decision?  Margaret Talev (Bloomberg News) reports he made his decision "[d]uring a five-minute limo ride back to the White House from the State Department with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey" in which "Obama's fears were confirmed."  AP also notes Barack's Riding In Cars With Boys moment which they say took place Wednesday.  BBC News' Jonathan Marcus offers, "Analysts say the relentless advance of IS fighters, together with the continuing failure of Iraqi politicians to agree on a new government, after an inconclusive election in April, may have swayed Mr Obama into deciding to act now."

Another hypothesis is offered by BBC News' Paul Danahar.  Friday morning on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane asked him about the strikes.

REHM: Paul Danahar, President Obama authorized the airstrikes against Iraq to begin this morning. What was his rationale? 

DANAHAR: Well, I think we can guess that finally, he's found a conflict that he thinks is fairly localized, has a clear objective, and will stop him getting so much flack for not doing any of the things he's always talked about, which is having a high moral value in America that will stop bad things happening around the world. When there is an American interest, and there is an American interest in this, because there are American personnel in Erbil. 

REHM: How many? 

DANAHAR: Around about 40 we think. So, that's a good reason to intervene. And we do have what may literally be a genocide of these people, these Yezidis, because they are a very small group of people, between 70,000, maybe a couple hundred thousand. And they're all pretty much located in one place in Iraq, so if they were taken over by ISIS. And ISIS considers them to be devil worshippers. They would wipe them out, so this is an intervention that I think Obama is probably comfortable with, because he can see a beginning and an end. 

40?  Did he mispeak?

The number issue was raised at the Friday press briefing.


QUESTION: I’ll go back to the humanitarian situation --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- in a second. But first, just a couple of quick questions. How many American citizens are at the consulate in Erbil, absent the military presence right now?

MS. HARF: So we don’t give exact numbers. Let me just give a quick update. I know there are a lot of questions about the status of our consulate there. It is operating normally. There’s been no change to the current status of our consulate. We continue to monitor the security situation and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the risk to our colleagues. Obviously, we do this on a continuing basis. We don’t comment on specific numbers, are always reviewing staffing levels in light of the security posture. But I would note that the – one of the reasons, obviously, not just to protect Erbil but that we want to keep our people there is so they can keep working in this joint operation center to help the Iraqis fight this threat. We don’t want to have to pull them out. We’re constantly reevaluating the security.

QUESTION: I understand the reluctance to talk about specific numbers. I don’t need a specific number.

MS. HARF: It’s not a reluctance. We just never do it, as you know.

QUESTION: Well, we know there are about 5,000 people in the U.S. mission in Iraq right now. The vast majority of them are in Baghdad. So can you give some kind of – for example, I’ve been told somewhere between two to three hundred are in --

MS. HARF: I’m just not going to give any number ranges for security reasons. I understand the desire to have them. We do have a large presence still in Baghdad as well. You are correct on that.

Really, Marie?

When did it become classified?

This week?

I was at a Congressional hearing this summer where the State Dept official addressed the topic Marie claims must be kept secret.




Posted by at

Friday, August 08, 2014

THIS JUST IN! BARRY BOMBER GETS HAPPY!

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O FOUND A NEW WAY TO GRAB ATTENTION AND STOP THE SLOW FADE TO OBSCURITY: GO TO WAR ON IRAQ.

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST, WHO IS ALREADY TICKED OFF THAT BARRY O KEEPS CALLING HIM "NEW JAY," TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IT WAS BETWEEN BOMBING IRAQ OR "GIVING PUTIN A ROSE."

BARRY O, EARNEST SAYS, REALLY WANTED TO GIVE PUTIN A ROSE "AND A RUSTY TRUMBONE SO WE'RE COUNTING THIS AS A WIN."



It was a rough day for State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf, she had to field questions on Iraq at today's State Dept press briefing (here for it in full -- and we've excerpted the Iraq section here).



QUESTION: ISIL seized this dam up in Mosul and I was wondering if you all could put that in perspective in terms of developments there. Also, what can you tell us about the Administration’s thoughts about how to help these trapped Iraqi civilians, these religious minorities that are kind of in trouble? There’s some discussion right now about humanitarian aid and whether or not that might include airstrikes or – what can you tell us about that?


MS. HARF: Well, I’ll start with the dam and then let’s go to the broader question. Obviously, the situation on the ground remains fluid, but the latest information is that ISIL has advanced on Mosul Dam and taken control of it. We are extremely concerned by this development. The dam is a vital part of Iraq’s infrastructure, as it controls water levels on the Tigris River. It is also a key source of water and electricity generation for the Iraqi people. So we’re closely coordinating with the Iraqis – with Iraqi officials in both Baghdad and Erbil to counter this development. But also writ large, I’d just say a few points. I know there’s a lot of interest out there on this today, a lot of questions and information floating around.  We are actively considering what we could do in support of Iraqi efforts – what more we could do – and particularly to provide additional support for the Yezidis, also the Christian communities we’ve talked about. Look, this is a huge humanitarian crisis. You have thousands and thousands of people at risk of death from starvation. We’re reviewing what more we can do. Obviously, we’ve talked a lot about this over the past few weeks. We’re working politically with the Iraqis on the government formation process. We’ve seen some progress, and hopefully we’ll see more. But we are right now actively considering what else we can do given the extremely grave humanitarian situation that we see on the ground. You’ve heard my colleague at the White House who I think just talked about this as well, so we’re looking at options.

I want to establish a point here so let's stay with the above and then move quickly through other sections on Iraq from today's briefing.



QUESTION: A few questions. Marie, on the question of the Yezidis, do we have any estimate of the – a number of people in peril?


MS. HARF: It’s a good question. I’m trying to get some information from our folks on that. We know it’s – there – I’ve seen reports of 15,000.


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: I’ve seen a number of reports. I’m trying to get a little more clarity from our folks, and let me see if I can do that after the briefing. We do know it’s not just the Yezidis, though. It’s also these Christian communities. I mean, ISIL has come out and said they have a  desire to kill people because of their sect or their ethnicity or their religion, and that they’ve been doing so. And so what we’ve seen on the ground is just really horrific, and that’s why right now, immediately, we are trying to find more ways to help.


QUESTION: And is – policy-wise, is stopping ethnic cleansing or is fear of potential ethnic cleansing a core national security interest of this Administration?


MS. HARF: I think you’ve seen throughout this Administration that when we have the ability to prevent humanitarian crises, or when we have the ability to help once there is a humanitarian crisis, ease the suffering of people through whatever means possible, right – we have a number of tools at our disposal – that has been a core principle for what guides our action. It’s certainly not the only one.

[. . .]


QUESTION: But ISIL could continue its advance. It could turn on the Yezidis; it could turn on the Christian minority.


MS. HARF: It already has.


QUESTION: It – yeah. Well, it could step it up.


MS. HARF: That’s true.


Marie Harf says IS is turning on Yazidis and Christians.  Does she say much else?

I really don't think this would fly under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or, for that matter, under Secretary of State Condi Rice.

If a group is being attacked, they need to be defended.

Did Marie issue a statement expressing outrage over the asaults?


In the entire press briefing, she used the term Yazidis only once and the only time she mentioned Christians was with the phrase "Christian communities" -- she used that phrase twice.

Given the chance to amplify outrage or register objection, a bored Marie takes a pass, mustering all the enthusiasm to decry religious intolerance as she'd offer deciding between roasted cherry and candy-shell red at her next manicure.

This is exactly how the administration has ended up with such a lousy reputation among many Christians, Jews and other groups.  The argument goes, a video on YouTube insults Muslims and Barack and others (including Hillary) are all over the media expressing dismay.  But Yazidis and Christians in Iraq are not targeted with videos, they're targeted with bullets, bombs, knifes, etc.  They're being killed not misentertained.

And where is the administration?

Why isn't Barack back on The View?  Why isn't he denouncing this religious persecution the same way he does a video on YouTube?

I don't disagree that Barack has many things to do on any day.  But if it's a question of too little time in his day, that's all the more reason that spokespeople like Marie Harf need to be strongly objecting.  (For those wondering why we're not quoting Josh Earnest, White House spokesperson, the White House needs to stop being so lazy and post text and video of today's press briefing.  They're lazy and embarrassing.  It's Thursday and their most recent posted briefing is from Tuesday.)

There is a cultural difference that is repeatedly ignored.  Most Americans have the attitude of get-over-it when a joke misfires or offends.  So the notion that you would apologize -- as a leader of the free world -- over some video posted to YouTube when you won't speak out loudly and condemn killing people for their religious beliefs?

I'm sorry, Barack chose to be president of the United States.  That does require you understand groups of people, not just your personal favorites.

And it is not shocking that some Christians in the US are dismayed by Barack's inability to address religious persecution -- especially when it is expressed in violence.

The gathering storm was finally spotted by the White House today.

Sky News reports, "A US official has said an 'effort has begun' to make humanitarian air drops over northern Iraq in the wake of ongoing jihadist offensive."  Benjamin Landy (MSNBC) adds, "The U.S. has been flying F-18 fighter jets, B-1 bombers and Predator drones over Iraq for several weeks on surveillance missions, which could be used as cover for the humanitarian mission or to protect the 40 U.S. personnel currently in Irbil."  David Jackson and Jim Michaels (USA Today) explain, "Iraqi aircraft have attempted to air drop supplies to the Yazidis but with limited success. Dropping supplies, particularly on a mountain top, is difficult as packages of food and water break open on impact. The U.S. Air Force has extensive experience with air dropping supplies, which they regularly do in the mountains of Afghanistan with accuracy."



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq"

Posted by at

Thursday, August 07, 2014

THIS JUST IN! BRO CODE BREAKS!

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS BEING CALLED A LIAR YET AGAIN -- THIS TIME BY HIS HALF-BROTHER.

LITTLE BRO NOTES THAT BARRY O DREAMED OF HIS FATHER -- SOME SAY LUSTED FOR -- SO MUCH THAT HE OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT BARRY SR. WAS A NASTY DRUNK WHO BEAT WOMEN.

BUT THAT'S WHO BARRY O DREAMS OF.

AND BOY DOES IT SHOW.


The Yazidis remain targeted in Iraq.  In fact, 40,000 are said to be trapped on a mountain  Laura Smith-Spark (CNN) explains:

 When radical Islamist fighters stormed the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar over the weekend, the Yazidi minority who call it home fled into the surrounding mountains in fear of their lives.
Now, trapped without food, water or medical care in the summer heat, thousands of families are in desperate need of help.

It's already too late to save dozens of children who've died of thirst.


Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes that 40,000 are thought to be at the top of Mount Sinjar and quotes UNICEF's Juliette Touma stating, "It's not like this is a one-off incident.  We are almost back to square zero in terms of the preparedness and the supplies.  Enormous numbers of people have been crossing the border since June.  The stresses are enormous, dehydration, fatique, people sometimes having to walk for days.  The impact on kids is very physical, let alone the psychological impact."

We should note that Nouri reportedly attempted to drop supplies -- including water -- on the mountain top over the weekend.  The drops failed.  They missed the targets.

This does not instill confidence in Iraq's pilots.  (Why helicopters were not used in the attempt is not known.  Nouri used planes.  Today, Al Jazeera reports helicopters were used by Nouri on Tuesday.)

Meanwhile the Financial Times' Borzou Daragahi Tweets:
  • 15h
    You don't need to understand Arabic to be moved by  lawmaker breaking down in tears describing Yazidi plight 
    Cairo, Egypt
    Expand


    • Glen Carey (Bloomberg News) speaks with Housam Salim ("head of the Solidarity and Brotherhood Yezidi Organization") who states, "It is a humanitarian tragedy.  Men were executed in the streets, women were kidnapped and raped. When we are captured, they kill us immediately, and they take our women."  Time magazine's Bobby Ghosh (Quartz) points out, "Leaders of all these minority groups have sent increasingly desperate pleas—to the Maliki government, to the US, to the UN—for help. But while some appeals have gone viral online, and the UN has engaged in its usual pro-forma hand-wringing, the SOS has gone largely unanswered as the world focused on Gaza. Now that the ceasefire there appears (fingers crossed) to be holding, there’s no excuse not to respond."

    The US government could help but US President Barack Obama chooses not to.  This isn't about sending US forces into Iraq.  This is about dropping supplies onto a mountain.

    Mick Krever and Ken Olshansky (Amanpour, CNN) report:

    The foreign minister of Iraqi Kurdistan on Wednesday issued a desperate plea for American and Western intervention to halt the advance of ISIS extremists.
    “We are left alone in the front to fight the terrorists of ISIS,” Falah Mustafa Bakir told CNN’s Fred Pleitgen, in for Christiane Amanpour.

    “I believe the United States has a moral responsibility to support us, because this is a fight against terrorism, and we have proven to be pro-democracy, pro-West, and pro-secularism.”


    Tuesday, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations Samantha Power issued the following statement:



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    I condemn in the strongest possible terms the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL) recent attacks on Sinjar and Tal Afar in Ninewa province that have reportedly led to the displacement of tens of thousands of people, many from vulnerable minority communities, deepening Iraq’s already acute humanitarian crisis. ISIL’s reported abuse, kidnapping, torture and executions of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities and its systematic destruction of religious and cultural sites are appalling.
    The United States supports the Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga Forces working to defend these areas against ISIL. We urge all parties to the conflict to allow safe access to the United Nations and its partners so they can deliver lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including to those Iraqi families reportedly encircled by ISIL on Mount Sinjar. The United States is committed to helping the people of Iraq as they confront the security and humanitarian challenges in their fight against ISIL. Iraq’s leaders must move swiftly to form a new, fully inclusive government that takes into account the rights, aspirations and legitimate concerns of all of Iraq’s communities. All Iraqis must come together to ensure that Iraq gets back on the path to a peaceful future and to prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity.
    ###


    That I don't like Samantha Power should be a known -- I've called her out here and in pieces at Third.  I don't care for her. 

    But I'm not going to pick apart her statement (a) at least she said something and (b) I don't really expect to be as one mentally with Samantha. 

    But if the US 'stands' with Iraqis, why can't they organize an air drop for those suffering on top of the mountains?

    It makes no sense, the refusal.  Yes, US planes (commercial) are flying at higher altitudes over Iraq due to safety concerns, but the military could easily do a drop.

    Not only would it be a humanitarian mission, it could also be used to do some spying on various groups as it passed over a portion of Iraq. 


    I don't care for Samantha Power, I think she argues for death and murder at the drop of a hat, I think she grossly misunderstood Rawanda as well as the after-effects.  But a drop of supplies, is not a call for war.  And if the administration cares, why is it Catholic Samantha speaking and only her?

    What's happening to the Yazidis echoes what is happening to the Christians who were forced out of Mosul.  Mike Stechschulte (Catholic News Service) reports the attack on the Mosul Christians led to a march this month in Detroit where participants shouted, "Obama, Obama, where are you?  Iraqi Christians need you!"  Another CNS report notes Chaldean Bishop Francis Kalabat in Southfield, Michigan:

    Bishop Kalabat had especially pointed words for President Barack Obama, whom he said has not done much to address the problem.
    "I don't understand President Obama's words, 'The situation is an Iraqi problem.' Since when? How many thousands of American soldiers were sacrificed? Bloodied, lost limbs, lost their souls, lost their lives. How is this not an American problem?" Bishop Kalabat said.
    He said the inaction by the White House has prompted the Chaldean community to pursue direct humanitarian aid instead, including via bills currently before Congress.
    "This community, you have responded in the most beautiful way," he said, referring to a $60,000 collection taken up by local Chaldean parishioners about a month ago. "It was a drop in the bucket (compared to what's needed), but it did help."
    He thanked the senators and representatives who traveled to Iraq to visit with refugees, especially from Michigan and San Diego, where the two largest concentrations of Chaldeans exist in the United States.


    Unlike Barack, some members of Congress have been willing to speak out.  Catholic San Francisco notes a rally in San Francisco earlier this month:

    Assyrian Catholics came via bus from the Central Valley and San Jose. Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Fresno, whose district has 25,000 Assyrian Catholics, also spoke, criticizing leaders “for allowing a genocide to go on against the Christians of Iraq and Syria at the hands of ISIS without any action,” DeKelaita said. 

    But Barack won't address it and, as we saw in a State Dept press briefing this week, even when the targeting of religious minorities is raised to the State Dept, the spokesperson prefers to ignore the issue. 




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

    Posted by at

    Wednesday, August 06, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! NOAH'S MAD FOR THE WIMPY BOYS!

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


    SPREADING HIS LEGS WIDE AND HOLDING HIS BUTT CHEEKS APART, 'PROFESSOR' NOAH SMITH CUMS TO PRAISE THE DRONE WAR AND, MOST OF ALL, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

    BARRY O -- COWARDLY NOAH INSISTS -- IS NOT A WIMP.

    PROVING ONLY THAT THERE AREN'T A LOT OF TOUGH GUYS AT STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY.

    IF THERE WERE, THEY'D ALL BE KICKING NOAH'S ASS.







    Each day, things get worse in Iraq.  In an essay for The London Review of Books entitled "Isis consolidates," Patrick Cockburn offers:


    In Baghdad there was shock and terror on 10 June at the fall of Mosul and as people realised that trucks packed with Isis gunmen were only an hour’s drive away. But instead of assaulting Baghdad, Isis took most of Anbar, the vast Sunni province that sprawls across western Iraq on either side of the Euphrates. In Baghdad, with its mostly Shia population of seven million, people know what to expect if the murderously anti-Shia Isis forces capture the city, but they take heart from the fact that the calamity has not happened yet. ‘We were frightened by the military disaster at first but we Baghdadis have got used to crises over the last 35 years,’ one woman said. Even with Isis at the gates, Iraqi politicians have gone on playing political games as they move ponderously towards replacing the discredited prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
    ‘It is truly surreal,’ a former Iraqi minister said. ‘When you speak to any political leader in Baghdad they talk as if they had not just lost half the country.’ Volunteers had gone to the front after a fatwa from the grand ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most influential Shia cleric. But these militiamen are now streaming back to their homes, complaining that they were half-starved and forced to use their own weapons and buy their own ammunition. The only large-scale counter-attack launched by the regular army and the newly raised Shia militia was a disastrous foray into Tikrit on 15 July that was ambushed and defeated with heavy losses. There is no sign that the dysfunctional nature of the Iraqi army has changed. ‘They were using  just one helicopter in support of the troops in Tikrit,’ the former minister said, ‘so I wonder what on earth happened to the 140 helicopters the Iraqi state has bought in recent years?’
    Probably the money for the missing 139 helicopters was simply stolen. There are other wholly corrupt states in the world but few of them have oil revenues of $100 billion a year to steal from.

    That's a look at Iraq today.

    The prime minister is the chief thug Nouri al-Maliki.  In 2006, Bully Boy Bush refused to allow Ibrahim al-Jafaari to have a second (non-consecutive) term as prime minister, arguing the 'new' Iraq (post 2003-invasion) was too young to survive a two-term prime minister, that it would be too easy to slip in a new Saddam that way.  So the Bully Boy Bush administration began demanding the prime minister be Nouri -- who had passed several tests with administration officials (including Zalmay Khalilzad) and with the CIA (who felt his paranoia would make him very easy to control).  And that's how nobody Nouri ended up becoming prime minister the first time.

    Barack Obama was elected president in November of 2008.  We're doing a very simplistic time line here.  In 2010, Iraq holds elections.  Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law loses to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

    Last week, Frontline (PBS) served up "Losing Iraq."  One of the people they spoke with was Zalmay Khalizad.  He's generally considered to be a neocon and he was a supporter of the Iraq War as well as the US Ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007.


    Zalmay Khalizad: Then at the same time, the Iraqi election was front and center. And once the Iraqi election had occurred, Mr. [Ayad] Allawi’s party, called Iraqiya, won more seats than Maliki’s party.
    I felt the success of those two parties also showed political progress in Iraq, the waning of sectarianism and the rise of cross-sectarianism, because Iraqiya was a secular party that had a lot of Sunni support but had some Shia support as well. For it to go from 25 seats in the previous election to 92 seats in the 2009 election showed increased support for secular or cross-sectarian and less support for sectarian parties.
    And Maliki, who had been the leader of a religious party, a Shia religious party by one of its leaders, adapted by establishing a new party called the State of Law, which had nothing to do with a sect as such, and he was the second largest party. He too moved away from being sectarian.
    These two were the two biggest political forces, the State of Law and the Iraqiya, afterward. So government formation became a preoccupation of the administration as well.

    [. . .]

    Frontline:  So the 2010 election takes place. The United States basically backs Maliki, is the one to sort of name the new government, despite the fact that he had less seats. Is that important? Some people say that’s a turning point, that if Allawi had been allowed to set up the government, if Maliki had been pushed out of the prime minister role, it might have allowed more of a chance for power sharing, more of a secure Iraq moving forward, alleviating some of what happens afterward that we’re seeing today.


    Zalmay Kahlilzad: It would have been very important, in my view, to follow the constitution of Iraq in order to maintain support for the process and to show that being cross-sectarian pays off. It has political consequence.
    And to ask Allawi to form the government, he may have or he may not have succeeded in forming a government. Although he was the largest bloc, he wasn’t the majority, and therefore he would have had to convince some Shia, Kurds and some of the Sunnis who had separate parties of their own to vote for him.
    But that did not happen. Instead Maliki maneuvered, used the judiciary in a politicized way by getting a judgment from the court that said the bloc that even forms after the election, if it’s larger than the bloc that won the election, as they were before the election, can lead in forming the government. And we kind of bandwagoned with that, rather than pushing back and saying the constitution had to be followed.
    And an even bigger mistake, in my view, was in retrospect, that once the government had been formed with Maliki leading, … the package that was part of the agreement on the staffing of the government — establishment of this new position of a senior group of a strategic council that Ayad Allawi was to chair — was never formed.
    Some of the other agreements that were in place on policy issues did not occur, and we became much more disengaged after intense engagement in the formation of the government with a vice president and the president being hands-on, calling. Then we didn’t push, pursue, cajole to have these other elements also be implemented.
    Then add to that the absence of a SOFA and total withdrawal and the deterioration of the region, all of this then impacted Iraq.

    There are things I disagree with in the above (State of Law nonsectarian?) but in terms of a sweeping summary, it's better than most. The agreement he's speaking of is The Erbil Agreement -- the one giving Allawi a position over national security.  For over eight months, Nouri refused to step down.  In doing so, he brought the government to a standstill.  The political stalemate set a world record at the time for the longest period of time between elections and the formation of a government.

    Nouri would not have been able to pull that off without backing from the White House.  Some point to Iran as well.  And they did support Nouri.  They did not, however, ensure his second term as prime minister.  The White House did.  The Parliament finally met (and named a president, a speaker and a prime minister-designate all in one day) the day after the US-brokered Erbil Agreement was signed.

    The agreement was a contract -- a binding contract, US officials told the leaders of each political bloc.  In writing, the leaders agreed to give Nouri a second term as prime minister in exchange for concessions from him -- such as Allawi's national security appointment, the Kurds wanted Article 140 of the Constitution implemented, etc.

    Nouri didn't win.

    There was no reason for him to be prime minister.

    The legal contract was how the US government got people on board with a second term.

    And then Nouri refused to implement it and the White House played dumb.

    In 2011, he's not implemented it.  By that summer, the Kurds, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr and Iraqiya are among those publicly calling for Nouri to implement the agreement.

    We need to wrap this section up -- it's all prelude to another portion of the snapshot -- so let's big picture it.

    Nouri does not keep his word.  Not on The Erbil Agreement.  Not on the White House benchmarks.  Not on this, not on that.

    I have called out Barack repeatedly here for refusing to stand up to Nouri.  A friend who left the administration in 2013 tells me I'm wrong.  Barack gave many firm words to Nouri over the years especially November 1, 2013. 

    Okay, I'm fine with being wrong on that.

    The man who's all talk scolded the man who can't keep his word.  And nothing ever followed because Nouri can't keep his promise and Barack thinks empty words solve everything.

    Barack should have long ago made clear that if X isn't met then the US pulls support.

    By not doing so?

    Peter Sullivan (The Hill) notes the results of the latest NBC News - Wall St. Journal poll including, "Respondents rated Obama's handling of foreign policy even lower, with 36 percent approving, also an all-time low for the president."  This a day after Connie Cass and Jennifer Agiesta (AP) reported on the latest AP-GfK poll which finds "38 percent find the situation in Iraq of pressing importance; 57 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of it."

    Barack ran for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination on the lie that he was 'right' about Iraq.  (Barack protested it before the war started.  Once it started, he was supporting it.  That's public record.  I also knew this for a fact long before Boston in the summer of 2004 -- when Barack spoke to the New York Times.  He had already told Elaine and I at a fundraiser that 'we're there now' so opposition to the war no longer mattered.)

    He deserved your vote, he insisted, because he was right about Iraq.

    Does he look right now?

    He took over in 2009 as violence was dropping and all he's done is throw gas on a fire to keep it going and to make it grow larger.


    Does he look right now?

    Andy Piascik (Connecticut Post) observes, "True to his preference for violence over diplomacy, Obama has sent a strike force to Iraq which grows larger by the day."

    Barack's 'superior judgment' never was all that and events on the ground in Iraq threaten Barack's very image and power base.

    The ongoing failure that is the failed state of Iraq is a reflection on Barack and, as usual, the dim bulbs of the administration have somehow managed to repeatedly overlook that fact.

    The public doesn't appear to be.  The low marks Barack's getting have to do with his false advertising being revealed to be false.


    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"


    Posted by at

    Tuesday, August 05, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM!

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

    CONCERNED ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST?

    NOT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.  

    FRESH FACED WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JOSH EARNEST EXPLAINED THAT THE BATTLES IN GAZA, IRAQ AND ELSEWHERE ARE SEEN BY BARRY O AS "FIREWORKS" SET OFF TO NOTE HIS BIRTHDAY ON MONDAY.

    "WE THOUGHT ABOUT TELLING HIM THE TRUTH BUT THEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO EXPLAIN IT TO HIM, HOW WE'D NEED HAND PUPPETS AND PROBABLY A SLIDE SHOW SO WE JUST SAID, 'THAT'S RIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S RIGHT'."



    For nearly a month now, the Israeli government has ordered an attack on Gaza.  The government's actions have led other governments to criticize -- including the US where State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki has stated, "The United States is appalled by today's disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons." Mick Krever (CNN -- link is text and video) notes Israel's Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz spoke with Christiane Amanpour for her CNN program and responded to criticism by some governments with the following,  "Sometimes I feel there is some hypocrisy in the criticism. Maybe [the] United States, Britain, France, and NATO forces can teach us from their experience how to minimize collateral damage -- for example, in their experience in Belgrade; their experience in Iraq; in Fallujah in Iraq; or in Afghanistan."


    No, there was no minimizing of collateral damage in Falluja.  You can even argue that the November 2004 assault on Falluja -- using conventional weapons as well as chemical ones -- was all about expanding collateral damage as much as possible. There was no concern for safety.  Young boys, for example, were judged to be 'fighters' -- merely because they were male -- and not allowed to leave the city, forced to remain for the assault. 

    Pointing to the US' crimes and culpability does not mitigate those of the Israeli government but they do expose hypocrisy on the part of the US government.

    And they expose stupidity.

    Stupidity on the part of Yuval Steinitz.

    He tells Amanpour, "This idea that if they are launching rockets from civilian neighborhoods or nearby, unfortunately, some schools or hospitals, then we cannot or should not defend ourselves? You know, what alternative to we have?"

    The alternative you have is to not attack schools or hospitals or other places where civilians are.

    Doing so to kill an element that may or may not be gathered among the civilians?

    That's Collective Punishment and it's a War Crime -- it's a War Crime that no one in the Israeli government should be confused over.

    But the stupidity here is the Collective Stupidity when it comes to Iraq.

    Since the first of January of this year, Nouri has been using Collective Punishment, he's been bombing the residential neighborhoods of Falluja -- killing and wounding civilians.

    These are War Crimes.

    If Steinitz wants to object that the Israeli government is being wrongly criticized, he shouldn't be reaching back to 2004 or the past.  He should simply note that for 8 months now, Iraq's chief thug and  hopefully outgoing prime minister has been killing civilians, committing War Crimes, and the White House, England's Prime Minister, etc., have all refused to demand Nouri stop these War Crimes.


    Bombing hospitals?  Nouri's bombed Falluja General as well as Falluja's teaching hospital.




    If you've not noticed in the last ten years, I do prefer precision from news outlets.  I try to be sensitive to all religions and especially to religious minorities.  But I am troubled by headlines claiming "thousands" of Yazidis were just slaughtered. 

    Thousands?

    Thousands are being targeted and threatened.

    But were thousands slaughtered?

    If so, the body of your article should have backed that up at some point with a number.

    If you didn't, your article's suspect.  And if you're claiming 'thousands slaughtered' in anticipation of thousands being killed, don't expect to be believed if/when thousands are killed since you've already stated that it happened.

    Rudaw has numbers.  They say there are approximately 300,000 Yazidis in Iraq today with "thousands" having fled due to the violence and the refugee population of "Yezidi Kurds and [. . .] Assyrian and Chaldean Christians" have seen the deaths of 20 children from hunger while many of the elderly population have "collapsed from exhaustion in the summer heat."

    What we do know is that the Yazidis in northern Iraq were threatened yesterday when three towns fell to fighters/rebels/militants/et al.  Adam Chandler (The Wire) noted Sunni fighters "swept across northern Iraq over the weekend, reportedly defeating Kurdish forces for the first time, and was rumored to have captured a vital dam near Mosul." Alan Duke (CNN) explained, "ISIS took control of Iraq's largest hydroelectric dam on Iraq's Tigris River, which provides power to the city of Mosul about 50 kilometers (31 miles) to the south, the commander of the Peshmerga Kurdish fighters who had been defending the facility said Sunday."

     

    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"








    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)