Friday, August 12, 2016





Apologies for yesterday's snapshot when we noted Donald Trump's bad joke.

We noted that, in May of 2008, Hillary Clinton had explained she was still in the race against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic Party's presidential nomination because, in June of 1968, RFK was assassinated.

Her comment -- not a joke -- outraged many.

That is all correct.

What I did not know was Mike pointed out in "Why hasn't Hillary called out Bob Beckel for calling for the assassination of Assange," that one of her campaign high levels was calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.

Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated.

My apologies because this raises a completely different issue.

Yes, Mike and antiscoialista are correct about the hypocrisy of Hillary.

But there's another issue.

She's running to become president.

It's not just that her crony is calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.

She wants to become the head of the US government.

The US government has a legal system.

What the disgusting Beckel apparently didn't learn in rehab was the Constitution.

Did Hillary?

If she wants to become president of the United States, the American people need to know she will fairly enforce the legal system.

Julian Assange has been found guilty of no crimes by any court of law -- US or international.

It appears that yet again we have the Clinton standard -- where rules are tossed aside.

If that's not the case, if Hillary is committed to the US legal system, she needs to condemn Beckel's remarks.

Maybe she's too busy dealing with her latest 'lost' e-mails that she wishes were lost but are not.

From yesterday's US State Dept press briefing:

QUESTION: And I support you in that effort. The Clinton emails. (Laughter.) Does -

QUESTION: Just the subject she wanted to go to. (Laughter.)

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. I think she was trying to skip out before this came up. (Laughter.) But all right, so I want to ask you about one of the emails, and I know you addressed this briefly yesterday. One came from – that the critics have seized on came from Doug Band of the Clinton Foundation, asking Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in an email to, quote – it’s saying, “It’s important to take care of” – and then the name is redacted, and he is obviously pushing to get this person a job in the State Department. And then Huma replies, basically, they’re working on it.
Can you tell us why the State Department redacted that name, and whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I can’t speak to specific case – cases. I’m also not going to speak to specific redactions. I will note though, broadly, the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets for a broad variety of jobs. It’s not unusual for candidates to be recommended to the department through a variety of avenues.


QUESTION: Hold on, because that answer --

QUESTION: Let me just follow up, Matt. Sorry.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, and then I’ll get there, Matt.

QUESTION: The Clinton campaign is on background saying today it’s a – it was a young advance staffer, not a donor or a foundation employee. I guess I just – I need a little help understanding why this person’s name cannot be shared.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to specific cases, and I certainly can’t speak to comments from the – from the campaign.

QUESTION: Would it be wrong to assume that, then, that this is a case simply of nepotism or something like that? I mean, what – how are we then supposed to interpret what --

MS TRUDEAU: You – I can’t speak to specific cases, Justin.
Matt, did --

QUESTION: But it’s the State Department’s decision to redact those names, and nobody else’s decision.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. And I’m not going to speak to specific redactions nor specific cases.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious. Were you answering his question “was this person hired,” without getting into who it was?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can’t speak to specific cases or specific --

QUESTION: This is pretty – in fact, it’s pretty non-specific since we don’t know what the name is. It’s specific as to --

MS TRUDEAU: But you’re asking about a specific hiring action?

QUESTION: I’m asking if the person referred – if you know if the person referred to in this email whose name has been redacted ended up getting a job here.

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: But you just said --

QUESTION: But it’s --

QUESTION: In your answer to Justin, you said that the State Department hires from all sorts of places.

MS TRUDEAU: From all sorts of avenues. We receive recommendations from a variety --

QUESTION: But this person wasn’t hired, then?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information --


MS TRUDEAU: -- on that specific case or any specific case.

QUESTION: But if the person is not named, then it’s not specific.

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’re parsing.


MS TRUDEAU: More on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: No, it’s not really parsing. It’s – I mean, it – it’s specific to people who are non-career State Department employees who were hired after this email. That’s the universe. And the question is: Is this person referred to one of them?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I am unable to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: Well, how then can you disabuse us of the notion that there’s any impropriety here?

MS TRUDEAU: Because the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill 
sets from a broad – for a broad variety of jobs.

QUESTION: But why should we trust that’s – that that’s – why should we believe that that statement exonerates any – her – the Clinton – of any impropriety? I mean, we don’t know who it is. How then can we read that as it’s all good?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m just not going to speak anymore to specifics on this.
Do we have more on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: Yes, we do.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, we do. Do you mind if I go to Abigail first?


MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Abigail.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to criticism by some that suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time? There was an email that came out in this recent set that is between the – an executive at the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills where he is requesting to set up a meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Do you have any response to --

MS TRUDEAU: So very similar to what I said before, I’m not going to speak to specific emails. However, I think you guys know State Department officials are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations, including businesses, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks. The nearly 55,000 pages of former Secretary Clinton’s emails released by the department over the past year give a sense of the wide range of individuals both inside and outside of government that State Department officials are in contact with on a range of subjects.

QUESTION: So you don’t feel like this email or you don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?

MS TRUDEAU: We talk to a wide range of people, at my level, at various levels in the department – NGOs, think tanks, business leaders, experts on a variety of subjects.

QUESTION: But that’s not her – that’s not her question.

QUESTION: Except in this – and importantly, in this case, Secretary Clinton made a pledge that she would not personally or substantially in any way involve herself with the Clinton Foundation. So it’s not just any outside organization. It’s the specific organization that she said ahead of time she wouldn’t have contact with. So doesn’t that – doesn’t this, then, seem to violate that pledge?

MS TRUDEAU: So again, to reiterate, department officials are in touch with a wide range of individuals. I’d note that former Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question, which was: Has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?

MS TRUDEAU: The department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt.

QUESTION: That’s not the question. The question is whether or not you’ve looked into this – the building has looked into it and determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident in our ability and our past practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being responsive to requests.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as a foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that all the rules were followed.

QUESTION: That’s (inaudible).


QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Are we – we’re still doing Clinton emails? I’ll come back to you, Abigail. Go ahead, Arshad.

QUESTION: So Judicial Watch released 10 additional pages of emails this morning.


QUESTION: In one of them, it documents that Secretary Clinton’s – former Secretary Clinton’s then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills was advised of a FOIA request in which the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had sought, quote, “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable … of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” That – the email that chief of staff – then-chief of staff Mills received was sent on December the 11th, 2012, and according to the emails released, I believe she acknowledged it and said thanks in response.
So if she was aware, as she was because she was notified of this FOIA request asking about the different email accounts that were associated with Secretary Clinton at the time, why did the department subsequently tell the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that there were no responsive records?


QUESTION: Because she knew, because she – we know for a fact – emailed with Secretary Clinton on her private account. So – and we also know that she, as a lawyer, is the person who helped make the determinations on which of the emails on the private server constituted federal records and should therefore be turned over to the archives, many of which have now been made public. So why, if she knew in December of 2012 that there were requests for clarity on how many accounts Secretary Clinton had, did the State Department not forthrightly and honestly answer that request rather than just saying there were no responsive records?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. A lot there, so I’m going to give you a fulsome response on that. In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known by the acronym CREW, sent FOIA requests to a number of agencies seeking information about email use by agency heads. This FOIA request, as it relates to the State Department, has been covered extensively in the press and reviewed previously by State’s inspector general. The documents released today show what the OIG already reported in January 2016, that former Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills was informed of the request at the time it was received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up. The OIG report also found no evidence that S/ES, L, and IPS staff involved in responding to requests for information, searching for records, or drafting the response had knowledge of the secretary’s email use. Ms. Mills has testified about this topic previously; that testimony is publicly available.
I can’t speculate what may or have – may not been known about that email use. What – but I would note that the January IG report found no evidence that any senior State Department officials who exchanged emails with the secretary reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW. Nothing in these documents alters the facts as found by the IG. So it’s in the IG report.

QUESTION: I get that it was covered in the IG report. What I don’t understand, though – I mean, the IG report also concluded that the response that there were no responsive records was, quote, “inaccurate and incomplete.” And my question goes to why someone who was aware of that specific FOIA request, who was aware of the specific request for information regarding how many emails – email accounts the secretary had or were associated with her, would not have disclosed to S/ES, L, the FOIA people, or anybody else the fact of the private server so that federal records could in fact be made available in response to the FOIA request.

MS TRUDEAU: So I think what you’re asking about is why wasn’t that FOIA request amended.

QUESTION: No, I’m not asking that. I’m asking why the person – a person who was both in a position to know about the FOIA request and who was well aware and frequently corresponded with former Secretary Clinton on her private account did not make the existence of that account available and known to the people whose legal responsibility it was to respond honestly, accurately, and completely to a FOIA request. That’s my question, not why wasn’t it amended. Why wasn’t it correctly responded to in the first place?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s a good question. I don’t have an answer for you. As I note, we – the IG found no evidence that any senior department official reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW.

QUESTION: What about non-senior people?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no process chart, flow chart, on how that FOIA request was responded to, but it was taken a look at. The IG reported this in January 2016 and did note that result.

QUESTION: Can I also ask back on the hiring?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I want to Abigail too unless we answered – okay.

QUESTION: I mean, essentially that.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was just going to say I guess it just stands out that it seems like a pretty broad request, so it seems like something you would flag if the response was no records in response to that. It seems like something that a FOIA person would note is unusual or that there might be an issue or a problem there.

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I can’t speak to process. I would note that this was extensively covered, though, in the January 2016 IG report.
Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: But that didn’t ultimately put any blame on Cheryl Mills, did it – that IG report?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to the IG report itself.

QUESTION: Because it really looks like she was not speaking up.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – yeah, I’m not going got characterize the IG report. They would speak for themselves.
Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: You mentioned that State receives a lot of recommendations for candidates and things like that. I mean, what sort of guidelines do you have in place to make sure that when you act on those claims, the department or staff in the department are not drifting into nepotism or, I mean, a hiring decision --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think the department has public guidelines that are online in terms of appointments. I would direct you there. In terms of questions on screening for nepotism, which you raised, we follow federal law.

QUESTION: Or cronyism.

QUESTION: And have you been – have you been reviewing those guidelines in the wake of some of these email disclosures to make sure they’re adequate?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m aware of no review.
Was that a question, Arshad?

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make sure that your answer covered not merely nepotism, which refers to family members, but also cronyism, which refers to associates.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we live up to our federal obligations.

QUESTION: I looked up nepotism. It can be friends too --

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Justin.

QUESTION: -- in the broad sense of the definition.

QUESTION: So in other words, in – also in this hiring situation, you’re confident nothing was – that the department is – the department --

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that we followed State Department guidelines and federal law.


QUESTION: Have you looked into it on that one instance? You can’t say that you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not aware of any review going on now.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re confident you lived up to the guidelines even though you haven’t reviewed it?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not aware of any review, but I am confident that we followed the guidelines and the State Department’s internal procedures as well as lived up to federal law.

QUESTION: So you’re confident that you followed the guidelines even though you’re not aware of any review?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

We'll stop there.

State Dept spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau explaining to the world that no investigation or review was conducted to determine whether guidelines were followed, that none needs to be, because she just knows -- a bird told her? -- that nothing untoward was done.

That's now the standard apparently.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016





Maybe we could all just say the joke was "unfortunate and had no place in the campaign"?

That is what Barack's campaign went with in 2008 when Hillary's remarks were interpreted as her calling for him to be killed.

Of course, the difference there was that Hillary was dead serious.  She wasn't joking.

As Anne E. Kornblut (WASHINGTON POST) explained back then,  "Her advisers quickly explained that Clinton merely intended to note that this was not the first primary campaign to stretch into the summer, not to suggest that Obama might be assassinated. Clinton later apologized to the Kennedy family while speaking to reporters, saying she did not mean to offend anyone."

Again, the difference was that Donald Trump was joking.

As Mika and the other fools on MSNBC grab the vapors every five seconds, they look more and more like caged fools and less and less like even TV hosts -- let alone the journalists they pretend to be.

(And they're not journalists.  They host talk shows.  Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC appearances only argue for why she should no longer be able to report news.  She reveals she's not impartial daily on MSNBC.)

Mika really needs to seek professional help about her inability to get through a morning without exploding over the tiniest and most unimportant details of the day.

She seems to have an addiction to on air rage and it's very unprofessional.

Even more so when you remember the construct of the show is Mika as den mother reigning in the rowdy 'boys.'

But it lets her vent over her failed life -- MSNBC was the highest she could make it?

And only as a third or fourth banana?

After all her father did to promote war and conflict -- basically birthing the modern Afghanistan War all by himself -- and the best GE could do for her was this?

She is blond and she is pret -- Well, she's blond.

But now she's 49.

And the thought of her ever progressing anywhere is as hilarious as when her father went running through the Carter White House in a panic convinced that Fidel Castro had sent a box of exploding cigars.

The House of Brzezinski -- an asylum for the deeply, deeply inbred.

Mika might need to take this Tweet to heart:

If you're supporting a candidate for President who supported , you don't get to scold people from a moral perspective.

Maybe it's easy 2 say is better than if you 2 think the was a good "business opportunity" 4 US corporations


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

Monday, August 08, 2016







Human Rights Watch's Donatelle Rovera Tweets:

2 months on, more than 700 residents abducted by anti- militias are still missing & feared dead

Yes, the Sunnis continue to be persecuted.

Yes, the media continues to look the other way.

They basically did throughout Nouri al-Maliki's second term as prime minister (given to him by US President Barack Obama who, after the voters in Iraq rejected Nouri, had US personnel facilitate The Erbil Agreement which gave Nouri his second term -- voters didn't do it, a US brokered contract did it).

After Nouri's fall from grace in the summer of 2014, the press could finally get honest about it.  Take this PBS' FRONTLINE report:

Much of the world was shocked when militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took over Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, in June. One of the many factors that allowed the group of Sunni extremists to take the city so quickly was a Sunni population disillusioned with Iraq’s central government and unable or unwilling to fight against the militants.
Politicians who served under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government, and were targeted for arrest by his security forces, were not surprised. Here, they describe the many grievances of Iraq’s Sunni population while Maliki was in power, which they say led to the resurrection of the Sunni insurgency — once again providing a safe haven for extremists.
Tariq al-Hashemi served as vice president in Maliki’s government from 2006 until 2011, when a warrant was issued for his arrest for alleged links to terrorism. While former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey conceded that there were “a lot of problems” with Hashemi, the arrest of his bodyguards in 2011 was the first major indication of Maliki’s emerging sectarian politics. Hashemi, who fled Iraq, was later tried in absentia and sentenced to death.

Rafi al-Essawi was the minister of finance in Maliki’s cabinet, a figure who was “greatly respected” by many Iraqis, according to journalist Dexter Filkins. Almost exactly a year after Hashemi’s bodyguards were rounded up, Maliki’s security forces arrested Essawi’s bodyguards on similar allegations of ties to terrorism. The move triggered huge protests in Sunni parts of Iraq, because as Filkins said, “everybody knows Rafi al-Essawi is a peaceful man.” Fearing he would be arrested like Hashemi, Essawi fled to the Sunni-dominated city of Ramadi.

Much of the world was shocked, yes.

Because the western press wasn't covering it.

And not just the corporate press.

While ANTIWAR.COM was busy nuzzling Nouri al-Maliki's crotch, we were calling him a thug here.  Because that's what he forever is: a thug.

Understand that Nouri attacking the press -- having them rounded up and tortured, for example -- did not turn Barack against Nouri.

Nor did Nouri being connected to the assassination of Iraqi journalist Hadi al-Mahdi.  From the September 8, 2011 snapshot:

In Iraq, a journalist has been murdered.  In addition to being a journalist, he was also a leader of change and part of the movement to create an Iraq that was responsive to Iraqis. 
Al Mada reports Iraqi journalist Hadi al-Mahdi is dead according to an Interior Ministry source who says police discovered him murdered in his Baghdad home.  Along with being a journalist, Al Mada notes he was one of the chief organizers of the demonstrations demanding change and service reform that began on February 25th -- the day he was arrested by Iraqi security forces and beaten in broad daylight as he and others, after the February 25th protest, were eating in a restaurant. The New York Times didn't want to tell you about, the Washington Post did.  And now the man is dead. Gee, which paper has the archives that matter to any real degree.  Maybe it's time to act like a newspaper and not a "news magazine" with pithy little human interest stories?  (That is not a dig at Tim Arango but at the paper's diva male 'reporter' who went on NPR to talk of an Iraqi college this week.)  So while the Times missed the story (actaully, they misled on the story -- cowtowing to Nouri as usual),  Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported:

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."

A picture of the new democracy in Iraq, indeed.  And now one of the four is dead.  But back to that roundup, from the February 28th snapshot:
Over the weekend, a number of journalists were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square. Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) notes:

["]During a news conference held on Sunday, four journalists -- Hussam Saraie of Al-Sabah Al-Jadid newspaper, Ali Abdul Sada of the Al-Mada daily, Ali al-Mussawi of Sabah newspaper and Hadi al-Mehdi of Demozee radio -- reported being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened by security forces. They also claimed they were held in custody for nine hours and forced to sign a document, the contents of which were not revealed to them.
Aswat al Iraq news agency reported that the journalists will file a court case against the executive authority in response to the alleged violations of their civil rights.
This episode is the latest in a series of repressive measures adopted by security forces in order to stifle media reports about the current political and social
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.
Madhi had filed a complained with the courts against the Iraqi security forces, noting that they had now warrant and that they kidnapped him in broad daylight and that they beat him.  Mohamed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, "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."  Mazin Yahya (AP) notes that in addition to calling for improvements in the basic services (electricity, water and sanitation), on his radio program, Hadi al-Mehdi also used Facebook to get the word out on the Friday protests in Baghdad's Tahrir Square.
Al Mada notes that Hadi has been killed on the eve of tomorrow's protest.  The youth activists took the month of Ramadan off and announced that they would return to downtown Baghdad on September 9th (tomorrow).  And tomorrow they'll now be minus at least one.  Al Mada quotes Hadi writing shortly before he died on his Facebook page about the demonstration, noting that it would herald the emergence of real democracy in the new Iraq, an Iraq with no sectarian grudges, just hearts filled with tolerance and love, hearts saying no to corruption, looting, unemployment, hearts demaning a better Iraq and a government for the people because Iraqis deserve the best and they deserve pride and dignity.  The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "The funeral of the martyred jouranlist Hady Mahdy, who was killed earlier today will process from his Karrad home where he was assassinated to Tahrir Square. The funeral procession will commence at around 9 A.M."
Reporters Without Borders roundly condemns the well-known journalist Hadi Al-Mahdi's murder in Baghdad today, on the eve of nationwide protests that he supported. His body was found at around 7 p.m. in his home in the central district of Al-Karada. He had been shot twice in the head. There can be no doubt that his murder was politically motivated.
Offering its sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues, Reporters Without Borders urges the authorities to quickly investigate this murder and to assign all the necessary resources to ensure that those responsible are identified and brought to justice. This crime cannot go unpunished.
Aged 44, a Shiite and married to a Kurd, Mahdi hosted a talk show called "To whoever listens" on Radio Demozy (104,01 FM). His irreverence, his well-observed criticism that spared no one, neither the prime minister nor his detractors, and his readiness to tackle subjects ranging from corruption to the deplorable state of the Iraqi educational system made it one of the most popular talk shows in Baghdad.
It was clear from the messages that Mahdi had sent to relatives that he knew he was in danger. He had received many warnings and had told friends two days ago that something terrible could happen ( But he was determined to tough it out, regardless of the risks.
After covering a demonstration in Baghdad's Tahrir Square on 25 February, he and three fellow journalists were arrested, threatened and beaten.
Shortly after graduating from Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts in 1989, Mahdi fled to Syria and then to Sweden and did not return until 2007, after nearly a decade in exile. He began hosting "To whoever listens" for Radio Demozy, an independent station, a year later. (A New York Times profile of Mahdi)
He was the seventh Iraqi journalist to be murdered since the start of 2011 and the 12th since the United States announced the withdrawal of its combat troops in August 2010.
Mahdi's murder comes exactly a month after the Iraqi parliament adopted a law on the protection of journalists on 9 August.
Nouri al-Maliki's forces beat Hadi.  They are under Nouri's command.  Nouri demonized the protesters all along.  He has repeated the slurs in the last weeks that the September 9th protests are organized by Ba'ahtists, are out to topple him, are out to turn Iraq into a lawless state and much more.  Did Little Saddam aka Nouri al-Maliki, thug of the occupation, order his forces to murder Hadi?  Regardless, he certainly created the climate for the murder at the very least.  At the more extreme?  Little Saddam may be dreaming of becoming the next Augusto Pinochet.

Hadi had a dream that Iraq could become what so many in the US press portrayed it as being, a democracy, a place of fairness, a government that provided for the people.  The youth activists will carry on the struggle, as will be evident tomorrow, but it says a great deal about the stae of Iraq, he real state of Iraq, that Hadi can be targeted and murdered for wanting what so many US gas bags and US politicians and liars wnat to insist Iraq already has and is.

And the protesters did take to the streets.  They launched over a year of protesting.

But the western media, like the White House, was usually not interested.

Not even when Nouri was ordering protesters be shot and killed.

The biggest example of that was the April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).

That's not when Barack said enough.

When Barack finally had enough, he replaced Nouri with Haider al-Abadi -- yet another exile.

Why does the US government refuse to support Iraqi leaders who didn't leave Iraq for decades?

Oh, that's right, it might allow Iraqis to actually have a voice in their own government.

So Haider got installed and nothing changed.

No surprise.

Haider was a member of Nouri's political party (Dawa) and also a part of Nouri's self-created political slate (State of Law).

How much of an idiot do you have to be to think Haider is going to be different than Nouri.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jill Stein Tweets"
"Green Party convention in Houston"
"Prediction: Iraq will be 'rediscovered' by America..."
"Baghdad victims forgotten"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Cheap gasbaggery presented as news"
"Veterans, refugees, and corruption"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Without Sigourney?"
"joan collins"
"Everything you ever need to know about Hillary"
"End student loan debt"
"No to the lesser of two evils"
"Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential nominee."
"McCarthyism from John Aravosis"
"Jill becomes the real choice"
"No offense but I don't need political advice from The Simpsons"
"What we owe Dolly Parton"
"The working poor"
"Hillary's empty words"
"The duopoly doesn't do real issues"
"Hillary can't stop lying"
"the needed question"
"Jill's got my vote"
"Hillary & company better own it"
 "Box office"
"Home ownership falls to a new low"
"A departure"
"Even the BBC knows what's what"
"Don't Forget The Turkey!"
"Great news!!!!"
"Doug Henwood gives a lesson in logic"
"She can hide from the people but not from her image"
"What they ignore"
"babs streisand writing autobiography"
 "Look who's in the bordello"