1/10/2017

remember those idiotic 'progressives for obama'?

saw this at glenn greenwald's twitter feed:

"Those Obama cheerleaders who refused to make him accountable bear some responsibility."



made me think of c.i.

she really called out those people.

that's why the tweet stood out.

but they were going to hold his feet to the fire - laura flanders, tom hayden, bill fletcher - that whole motley crew of 'progressives for obama.'

they didn't do s**t.

they did not do s**t.

they focused all their time on calling out republicans for this or that.

they ignored the ongoing wars.

they ignored the ongoing spying.

they went out of their way to applaud and excuse him - the same way they did during the primary of 2008, the same way they did in the election of 2008.

they are just whores.

laura flanders is a whore, bill fletcher is a whore - tom hayden?  he's a dead whore.

we need to remember that as they try to slink back in and pretend they have been leaders and they have demanded accountability.

back of the line, flanders and fletcher, back of the line.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'


Tuesday, January 10, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the Mosul slog continues, Barack Obama's legacy of war continues, all that and Meryl Streep.


Hail to the departing Celebrity In Chief.  Having appeared on Samantha Bee's poor copy of THE DAILY SHOW on October 31st, our braless starlet Barack Obama had exhausted all




Celebrity President
From March 22, 2009, that's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Celebrity President." A bra-less Barack, in a slinky little number, sits next to Jay Leno explaining, "Life in the bubble, Jay, everyone's Simon Cowell. Let me tell you about my motorcade or, if you want, I can make fun of the front row kid in the wheel chair." Jay responds, "How about your tasteful nude scene? You want to take a break and answer that when we come back?" [Added: Isaiah says refer to Third's "Editorial: Barack's too immature to apologize" and "TV: The War Goes Ignored" and Friday's "Barack has not apologized and people need to quit making excuses."] Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


My favorite moment of all his airhead TV appearances?

It would still be with Jay but it would be the October 25, 2011 appearance on THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO.


Barack Obama: The entire national security team that we've had has been outstanding. And it's not just rivals within the Democratic Party.  My Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, is a Republican.


Jay Leno: Right.

Barack Obama: He was a carryover from the Bush Administration. He made an outstanding contribution. 


As noted in the October 26, 2011 snapshot, if Ronald Reagan had made similar remarks, he would have been called senile.

It was October of 2011.

The Secretary of Defense was?

Leon Panetta.

And had been since July 1, 2011 when he was sworn into office (the Senate confirmed his nomination June 21, 2011).

Barack, three months after Panetta became Secretary of Defense, went on TV and made clear he had no functioning knowledge of his cabinet since he had no idea who was Secretary of Defense.

How out of touch can you be?


And how whorish can the corporate media be that they couldn't make the same observation I did -- couldn't make it then and can't make it to this day?

Tonight, he gives his last speech as president.

Joseph Kishore (WSWS) notes Barack's legacy as the president prepares to address the nation tonight:

US President Barack Obama’s “farewell address to the nation,” scheduled for tonight, has been preceded by a concentrated media buildup on the theme of Obama’s legacy. This has included fawning tributes portraying the president as a brilliant orator, progressive reformer, visionary and man of the people.

Seeking to mold the narrative of Obama’s presidency, the White House put out a video over the weekend featuring comedians Ellen DeGeneres and Jerry Seinfeld, actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks, former basketball star Michael Jordan and other celebrities extolling the “historic moments that prove, yes, we can create progress.” Such absurd and nauseating effusions testify not to the qualities or accomplishments of the 44th president, but to the intellectual, political and moral debasement of the American cultural establishment.

For Obama and the privileged social layers that surround the Democratic Party, a legacy can be crafted with honeyed phrases and clever marketing. Millions of people, however, will judge the administration by its actions.

It would take far more space than is available here to outline in detail the real record of the Obama White House. However, any objective appraisal of the past eight years would have to include the following elements:


1. Unending war


Obama is the first president in American history to serve two full terms in office with the nation at war. This includes the continued bloodletting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the six-year-long war for regime change in Syria, and support for the Saudi-led destruction of Yemen. A recent survey reported that in 2016, US Special Operations forces were deployed in 138 nations, or 70 percent of the countries of the world.

The “wars of the 21st century,” begun under Bush and expanded under Obama, have killed more than a million people and driven millions more from their homes, producing the worst refugee disaster since the Second World War. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” has inflamed tensions from the South China Sea to India and Pakistan. The current president will leave the White House as NATO troops deploy to Eastern Europe in the midst of an anti-Russia war hysteria stoked by the media and the Democratic Party.

Obama is the “drone” president, supervising the killing of some 3,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya by means of unmanned aerial vehicles, along with several thousand more in Iraq and Afghanistan.




At COUNTERPUNCH, John Steppling also reflects on the sudden interest in ethics now that War Hawk corporatist Hillary Clinton did not make it to her coronation:



And yet here they all are wringing their hands in dismay that Hillary lost. Here they are constantly repeating the litanies of Trump evil and never noticing the crimes of earlier democratic presidents and administrations. So, yes Trump’s appointments are awful. But I refuse to even dig into that until a discussion of Obama’s appointments are dissected. First came Rahm Emanuel, former memeber of the IDF, all around thug and bully and lover of never ending war to help expand Israeli power. Penny Pritzker, heiress and elitist and friend to the 1%, or Robert Rubin or Tim Geithner (!!!) or Tom Daschle, the senator from Citibank. I’m just scratching the surface. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The point is that I am coming to feel that almost any focus on Trump feels misplaced. Certainly now it does since he isn’t even president yet. The deconstruction of liberal Obama is far from complete and the propaganda apparatus is working overtime to rewrite not just recent history, but the present. And the anti Russian propaganda is so absurd, so transparent, that this feels far more important than the predictable stupidity of Trump. I mean Obama is massing troops near the Russian border. Obama is ramping up the building of purpose built navel bases near China. Obama is still looking to prosecute Chelsea Manning and every other whistleblower. And he is still signing draconian legislation to curb free speech and institutionalize legitimacy for the new McCarthyism. Talking about Trump is a form of forgetting. I can’t do it. And if there is an easier target for parody or even non parodic narrative than Donald Trump, I havent met them. And easy is never an act of rigorous self examination.


And that's why Meryl Streep garbage matters.

I understand Michael Tracey's attitude that it doesn't.

But it does matter to me.  And I'd argue it matters to many more.

Let's stay with the industry first.

Meryl Streep is not a star and  never has been.

She has 'femme' appeal among eastern seaboard critics -- 'femme' appeal as VARIETY used to word it in the fifties.

Most people will not pay to see Meryl which is why she can't open a film and why her films are flops.

She's made 66 films and her average domestic box office is $33 million.

That's ticket sales.  That is a joke.

She is a joke.

Not one of her last five films has even made $30 million at the box office.

She is not a star.

She's an overpraised actress.

Try to imagine a reel of Meryl highlights?

Does anyone remember anything?

There's DEATH BECOMES HER -- but credit for that goes to Robert Zemeckis and Goldie Hawn.

DEATH BECOMES HER goes to Meryl's problems.  In the late 80s, she'd finally found a way to fill in her otherwise hollow characters (this happens when she moves into comedy) but in 1992's DEATH BECOMES HER -- and all that's followed, Meryl's projecting into her own palm.  She can't interact with other characters and it's as though she has no body.

We're not talking about sex appeal.  She lacks that and few men or women ever become stars without sex appeal.

But we're talking about a performer divorced from her body.

There are many finer actresses than Meryl.  Lily Tomlin immediately comes to mind.  Every scene is a work to marvel with Lily.  That's especially true when Lily co-starred with Meryl in Robert Altman's last film.  You watched Meryl do all the same things, same fussy business she does with each role, all the mechanics (as Pauline Kael long ago pointed out) and you never feel reality, you just feel like Meryl's doing yet another performance that her drama teacher will applaud.  Yawn.

Lily's creating a new character.

Meryl may do accents but her characters are all the same.

Lily's Margo in THE LATE SHOW and Violet in 9 TO 5 and Linnea in NASHVILLE and Edweena in ALL OF ME and Doreen in SHORT CUTS and Elle in GRANDMA and Frankie in GRACE AND FRANKIE are all different and distinct characters.  They move differently, they gesture differently, Lily alters her body and her voice for each role.

Lily's co-star in GRACE AND FRANKIE is Jane Fonda.  Meryl has done 66 films.  Where is her Bree Daniels? 

I always argue that Jane gave the best performance of any actress in the second half of the 20th century with KLUTE.

Meryl's never matched that moment on screen, let alone surpassed it.

Back to Lily.

Lily's been nominated once for an Academy Award -- only once. 

OSCARSOWHITE# got it wrong.

It's OSCARSOCLASSIST#.

And don't complain about the actresses denied nominations -- worthy actresses -- unless you want to face the reality that Meryl doesn't deserve 19 nominations.

But she's received them.

Not because she's outstanding like Lily Tomlin or because she's given an amazing all out performance like Jane Fonda, but because of the class system -- an upper, middle class, eastern seaboard woman who went to Vassar and Yale.

Debra Winger is a better actress then Meryl but Debra's background's working class.  So the fussbudgets among the 'critics' don't rush to crown Debra.

It's a class issue.

And when Meryl won for her awful portrayal of Margaret Thatcher (in the fact challenged film), that meant Viola Davis lost for THE HELP.  Viola's performance had life, passion and believability.

So, yes, it is an issue that matters.

Because Meryl's a WASP, she doesn't have to excel, she merely has to be adequate.

And when she goes on TV and presents herself as 'the left' that's a lie that needs to be called out.  She is not opposed to war.  She is not concerned with illegal spying.  She is hack for the Democratic Party.

  1. Preach.




This kid says it all.






Meryl Streep blasted Trump at the Golden Globes. Where are her tears over Obama's policies? New Award: Best Selective Outrage by an Elite! 😒






Michael Tracey's a great writer and he doesn't have to cover any topic he's not interested in.

But I disagree with this:

Meryl Streep's speech at the Golden Globes and Trump's subsequent Twitter rebuttal is a great example of a controversy to simply ignore.






The attacks on Trump are taste attacks -- include Meryl in that.  He's too crude for them.

He has implemented no policies and not been sworn in as president, but Meryl will go TV and present as the left slamming him while ignoring the crimes -- yes, crimes -- of Barack Obama. 

Trump's response?  He called her over-praised and this led to non-stop monologues on the late night shows defending Meryl's honor.

She is over-praised.

Other than DEATH BECOMES HER and SILKWOOD, nothing she's done will be remembered.  And in both those movies, she's not giving the strongest performance (that would be Goldie Hawn in the first and Cher in the second). 

But it's apparently a heresy to use critical abilities to point out that she's failed repeatedly at the box office, that she's not a star, that she's a WASP who's benefitted from class, etc?

And Meryl's world view is frightening and needs to be called out.


  1. Streep’s blasts “violence” in Golden Globes speech, forgetting ’s wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine



Where has Meryl Streep been for the past 8 yrs as bombed 7 countries?






Meryl's made herself a joke and it wasn't just that plunging neckline worn despite the lack of cleavage. So, yes, it does matter.  For all the reasons above not to mention I have to attend the Academy Awards and I'm not in the mood for a bunch of partisan hacks making the night all the longer as they whine about how Hillary Clinton didn't make it into the White House.



Iraqi Sunni Sheikh Jawad Amam of Alravh Mosque killed by Iraqi army in







Mosul.  Seized by the Islamic State in June of 2014.  85 days ago, Iraq's prime minister Hayder al-Abadi finally initiated a liberation or 'liberation' effort.

The Mosul slog.

85 days and counting and civilian casualties are mounting.

John Davison and Stephen Kalin (REUTERS) report, "The United Nations said civilian casualties had streamed into nearby hospitals in the last two weeks as fighting intensified in the jihadist group's last major stronghold in Iraq."


The Islamic State is a terrorist group.

Sadly, so are the militias 'liberating' Mosul.


Let's move over to yesterday's US State Dept press briefing by lovely lashes John Kirby:


QUESTION: Okay. So can I switch to Iraq or --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. The – couple days ago of Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim visited Iraq and he met with Kurdish and Iraqi leaders in Baghdad and Erbil. One of the topics they talked about is the military and deployment – Turkish military deployment in Iraq and that issue. So if you would just comment on that – on the visit in general and on were you involved in any way, because you – previously you have asked both sides to de-escalate the tensions they had over the --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, we --

QUESTION: -- Turkish army --

MR KIRBY: I think I talked about this last week. I’m not going to – I don’t have a readout to offer to you. We weren’t party to these meetings. Certainly, as we’ve said over and over again, we respect the sovereign right of the government in Baghdad to meet and discuss and have dialogue with neighbors and partners in the region, including Turkey. We obviously look favorably on dialogue between Turkey and Iraq on a number of issues, but I’d leave it to leaders from both those countries to speak to what was discussed and what the outcomes were.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: That’s not for us to speak to. But I said all that last week, so that’s – I’m not giving you anything different.

Yeah.


So he believes he answered that last week so he doesn't have to answer it this week?

Does that mean that we the US taxpayers can pay him for last week but since he doesn't want to actually work this week, we don't have to pay him for this week?

Seems fair.

At least it wasn't another briefing where he talked about his son.  Talked about?  Slobbered over.  There's family pride and then there's crossing dangerous boundaries.


On June 19, 2014, Barack Obama declared that the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution.  But instead of working on that, the US government has just dropped bombs and sent US troops into Iraq.

Too bad that things can't be postponed forever.

Mustafa Habib (NIQASH) reports:


Last month, Iraq’s unpopular former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki paid a visit to the southern Iraqi provinces of Maysan, Basra and Nasiriya. But instead of a welcoming committee he was met by thousands of Iraqis demonstrating against him. Most of these were affiliated with, or followers of, another political leader, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In Basra, dozens of the protestors, who chanted that al-Maliki was corrupt and a thief, even went so far as to try and storm the hall where al-Maliki was giving a speech, forcing security staff to cancel the event. After the cancellation, al-Maliki threatened to launch a new version of a 2008 military operation called Sawat al-Fursan, or Operation Knight’s Charge, against the protestors. This was a military operation sent into Basra to purge Basra of militias affiliated with al-Sadr’s movement at the time.
This may have been an idle threat – the 2008 operation did not succeed and a truce between the two Shiite Muslim leaders was eventually brokered by Iran. But the real repercussions of the protests began to be played out some days later on Iraq’s latest, and increasingly important, political battleground: The country’s provincial councils.

Because of various new legislation that gives provincial councils more power to make their own decisions on security, finance and politics, Iraq is moving slowly toward a more decentralized system. Competition for power on these councils will only increase in the future.
And competition for seats on the provincial councils in southern Iraq, populated mainly by the country’s Shiite Muslims, will be divided between two main Shiite Muslim groups: The State of Law coalition, led by Nouri al-Maliki of which the current prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is also a member, and the forces led by two younger clerics, Ammar al-Hakim and Muqtada al-Sadr. The pair represent a new Iraqi generation in political Islam.
Al-Maliki’s next response to the humiliation he suffered in front of al-Sadr’s protestors in southern Iraq was to instruct the members of the Baghdad provincial council belonging to the State of Law coalition, to question their governor, Ali al-Tamimi, a member of al-Sadr’s Sadrist movement.
The governor was to be called to answer special questions about financial and administrative corruption, including questions about a security system to monitor vehicles in Baghdad, to try and stop car bombs, that was planned but never carried out. Money for the system was collected from the people of Baghdad.
 “Calling Baghdad’s governor in for questioning at this time is clearly politically motivated,” council member Fadel Al-Shuwaili, also a member of the Sadrist movement, told NIQASH. “Why did they choose this moment? What have they been doing for the past few months?”
But, al-Shuwaili said, the alliance between the Sadrist members of the council and other parties is strong and the State of Law members won’t be able to sack the governor. The State of Law has 20 out of 58 seats on the provincial council but would need over 29 to be able to dismiss the governor.
“This questioning of officials is both legal and constitutional,” says Saad al-Matlabi, a senior member of Nouri al-Maliki's party and one of his supporters, in reply to the criticism. “If the Sadrist movement trusts their governor, then why are they afraid of having him questioned?”

A few days later the next campaign against a provincial Sadrist politician began. This time it was Maysan’s popular governor, Ali Dawai, also a Sadr supporter, in the spotlight.


Thug Nouri wants back in power.  Barack overruled Iraqi voters in 2010 and gave the thug a second term.  In 2014, as Nouri's persecution of various people had led Iraq yet again to the brink, even Barack could no longer back him.  Since being ousted, Nouri has plotted his return.


The following community sites -- plus Tavis Smiley -- updated:









  • Hypocrisy
    13 hours ago 







  • 1/09/2017

    oh, meryl, go back to your mansion


    okay, so meryl what the f**k did you do?

    seriously, you are a prim priss and no one really cares what you have to say about politics.


    why didn't you speak about art?

    does not art matter to you?

    maybe it doesn't.

    you're getting $825,0000 (more?) for each episode of an upcoming mini-series.

    you get millions for pictures.

    you don't pull in an audience.

    but you do pull in big bucks.

    as the token you are.

    donald called meryl overrated.



    meryl is overrated.

    she's not attractive.

    she can't deliver an audience and never has been able to.

    she's a minor figure who's been awarded because she's a wasp.

    it's classicism.


     let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

    January 9, 2017.  Chaos and violence continue, the Mosul slog continues, though Hayder al-Abadi swears it is in the "final stage," Meryl Streep gets partisan and some mistake it for political, and more.

    Let's start with a basic learning exercise because a lot of fools don't seem to know what happened.

    Meryl Streep did not go "political" at the Golden Globes.

    At the Academy Awards many years ago, you had a group led by Frank Sinatra and a group led by Shirley MacLaine -- both went political.  Shirley was right, Frank was wrong.

    The issue was Vietnam.

    Shirley was against the war and I agreed with that stance but that's not why she was right.

    She was right because a winner had gone political and there was no need to comment on it in the ceremonies.

    Bert Schneider, accepting his award for HEARTS & MINDS, made comments and Frank and Bob Hope and a few others were outraged, composed a letter supposedly on behalf of the Academy and
    read it on air.

    It did not speak for the Academy nor were Frank and Bob Hope supposed to speak on behalf of the Academy.

    They were wrong, Shirley was right.

    Bert went political.

    Meryl Streep, on yesterday's Golden Globes, did not go political.

    She went partisan.

    There is a difference.

    The studios understand there's a difference and you didn't catch the suits applauding Meryl's stupidity last night.

    The industry is under attack.

    Meryl didn't touch on that.  Might have hurt her own career to do so.

    But the industry is under attack.

    Where are the new stars?

    Jennifer Lawrence is not a star and the role that made her famous already saw erosion with each chapter of the HUNGER GAMES.  And the doe eyed novice really isn't an archetype you can age through as a woman.

    Movies are under attack and Ridley Scott and a few other brave voices are pointing this out.

    The top ten films of last year are a disaster.

    There's nothing wrong with superheroes and video games except when we mistake them for self-representations.

    There is no art to playing, for example, Superman (though Christopher Reeve gave it grace).

    There is no real art in these films.

    There is escapism and there's always been the place for that in films, especially in the old time serials.

    But there's not any real attempt to make films that say anything currently.

    It's super heroes, video games and end of times.

    If you don't realize what a threat that is to acting, then you're not very smart.

    Meryl could have spoken about that.

    She could have noted how all the villains were men in the superhero films of the last ten or so years.  She could have noted how it creates a (stupid) role for a Bob Redford but nothing for a woman of similar age.

    She could have talked about the industry and probably should have since she was being handed (she didn't win -- it wasn't a competitive award) a lifetime award.


    Instead, she elected to go partisan.

    About a November election.

    'Wait-wait, she defended a reporter!"

    A reporter was mocked.  Not only is that not the end of the world, it's also not anything she should be talking about since she never called out her co-star Alec Baldwin for any of his caught on video attacks of reporters -- including the man he called a fa**ot and a c**ksucker.

    By calling out Donald for that, she opened herself up for charges of hypocrisy.

    She also mocked The Committee To Protect Journalists when she did that because she mentioned them and, guess what college drama major, mockery isn't what the CPJ is focusing on.

    There are real issues -- like kidnapping reporters, like arresting them, like killing them.

    And Meryl, who never called out pal Alec Baldwin, wants to equate crude (and disgusting) mockery with the real hazards journalists can face?

    What a self-indulgent idiot.

    Sounding as though she'd swallowed every pill in her handbag all at once, she also wanted the world to know that without actors, they'd be left with nothing but football and mixed martial arts.  Excuse me it wasn't actors, it was "outsiders and foreigners."

    Let's start with football because I can't stand it.

    I've never liked it, I never will.

    But a lot of people do. I'm glad of that each Superbowl because I can go see movies at theaters without being bothered.

    But although I don't care for football, I'm failing to see how removing "outsiders and foreigners" -- who's actually proposed that? no one -- wouldn't effect football or mixed martial arts.

    Kenji Oguso.  Does Meryl believe that MMA champion is from the United States?

    Or Yuichi Watanabe?


    There would be nothing more stupid than me giving a speech on football -- or even referencing the sport in a speech -- except for Meryl Streep doing the same.

    She doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and appears to be suffering from some failed high school experiment years later in her need to attack football.

    Meryl was partisan.

    The nation doesn't need it.

    Tracee Ellis Ross was neither partisan or political.  She affirmed dignity in her speech.  Nothing wrong with her remarks.

    Hugh Laurie?

    I have no idea why a British citizen accepting an award in the United States feels anyone needs him to weigh in on an American political party.

    Which brings us back to the problem of partisan.

    "Disrespect invites disrespect," Meryl insisted.

    Failing to grasp that her speech disrespected half of American voters with her lewd and insane thoughts on what Republicans are or what they believe in.

    Did she wonder about that for even a moment?

    Did she take a second to think of some 11-year-old boy or girl watching, with a  Republican family, and how her nonsense might have disrespected that child?

    No, of course not.

    Because the highly overpraised Meryl Streep is a failure as a human being.

    Reason enough never to award her with another lifetime award.

    If Meryl wanted to be political, she could have talked about Iraq.

    Or even the Iraqi journalist who was kidnapped (and who was freed last week).

    But that would have required knowledge and being informed.

    That also would have required calling out a war that Barack has presided over for two terms now and partisans ignore Barack's crimes and disgraces.



    Meanwhile, BBC NEWS insists the liberation or 'liberation' of Mosul is "gaining momentum."  Well good.  After 85 days, it's about time, right?  Yesterday, PRESS TV notes, prime minister Hayder al-Abadi insisted the operation was in its "final phase."


    Iraq's previous prime minister was thug Nouri al-Maliki who did so much to persecute so many in Iraq.  Former parliamentarian to the European Council Struan Stevenson (UPI) offers this take:

    Despite repeated warnings, Obama began his administration by capitulating to Iranian demands to back the corrupt and murderous Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in Iraq. Maliki was a puppet of the mullahs, doing their bidding by opening a direct route for Iranian troops and equipment heading to Syria to bolster the murderous Assad regime. Iran's support for Maliki in Iraq and for Assad in Syria, two corrupt dictators who repressed and brutalized their own people, resulted in the rise of [the Islamic State], also known as the Islamic State.Thanks to U.S. acquiescence over Tehran, [the Islamic State] grew and became a threat to the whole world.


    Obama compounded this grievous mistake by providing American military support and air cover for the genocidal campaign being waged by pro-Iranian Shi'ia militias in Iraq.  Once again Iran exploited its role in ousting [the Islamic State] as a means for implementing its ruthless policy of ethnic cleansing to annihilate the Sunnis in Iraq's al-Anbar Province. Horrific sectarian atrocities were committed during the so-called "liberation" of the ancient cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. The Shi'ia militias, who formed the main part of the force fighting to recapture these cities from [the Islamic State] and are now engaged in the battle to recapture Mosul, are led by Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian terrorist Quds Force. Soleimani has also played a key role in Syria and the massacre in Aleppo.


    Nouri also persecuted the "Awakeings" (also known as Sahwa and the Sons and Daughters of Iraq).  Abdulrahman al-Rashed (AL ARABIYA) notes how the militias (Popular Mobilization forces) are not the same as Sahwa:

    International organizations’ warnings of the Popular Mobilization militias have brought the latter into the picture again depicting it as a dangerous organization.

    There is also a distortion campaign that aims to mislead the world about the Popular Mobilization militias’ legitimacy by comparing it with other groups, such as the Sahwat and Peshmerga.

    During the last few years the Americans spent in Iraq, the military command formed a group of Sunni tribes consisting of Anbar citizens.

    The aim was to get rid of the terrorist al-Qaeda organization after the Americans failed. At the time, CIA officials were quoted in the New York Times as saying that Anbar was a hopeless situation as the situation in west of Iraq has completely gone out of control. A force called ‘Sahwat’ was formed and it was ridiculed considering that all people in the governorate were suspects and that al-Qaeda - particularly the most dangerous branch which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed and which we call ISIS today - has reached the peak of its influence. This al-Qaeda branch killed the Sahwat leader and fierce battles erupted and ended two years later after eliminating the terrorists.

    Back then, Nouri al-Maliki’s government objected to forming a sectarian tribal power because the Sahwat were Sunni and they feared they will turn into an armed force that opposes the central authority.  


    In the end, the Sahwat were disbanded by suspending financial appropriations and integrating a small number of them within the armed forces.

    Theoretically, worry of a parallel force was justified in a country that was still suffering from a disturbed situation. However, on ground, the tribal Sahwat were eliminated and were not replaced by an armed governmental force to protect the west of Iraq. The result was that al-Qaeda returned and it controlled several areas, displaced thousands and murdered many.

    Maliki’s failure to compensate for the Sahwat brought back the cancer of terrorist groups which besieged Baghdad’s surroundings and seized Mosul, Baiji and other areas. This is a summary of the Sahwat. 



    The not-so-great Meryl had nothing to say about any of the above -- not in real time, not since.

    She has nothing to say about anything political but if she can be partisan, she will be.


    The Democratic Party is a joke because it used Iraq to drive up voter turnout but it refused to address Iraq.

    The Iraq War was supposed to end via the 2006 mid-term elections.

    Nancy Pelosi swore that giving the Democratic Party just one house of Congress would end the Iraq War.

    The American people gave them both houses of Congress.

    The Iraq War did not end.

    Two years later, Barack Obama campaigned on the promise that the first thing he would do is end the Iraq War.

    Two terms later, Barack has not ended the Iraq War.

    These are not issues to Meryl Streep because it doesn't upset the limited group of people she comes into contact with.




    She has no concern for the Iraqi people who have lived daily with war since 2003.

    She has no objection to children being raised with bombs dropped on them daily by the US government.

    She can't object to any of that, but she can whine because her hero lost the election two months ago.  She can lash out on TV for that reason.