12/03/2015

time after time


bills bucket list
  •   
    that's  Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bill's Bucket List" and it went up the same day as Kat's "Kat's Korner: Tracy Chapman collects the best."

    on music, marc myers ('wall st. journal') has a good article about 'time after time.' that's cyndi lauper's number 1 hit from the 80s and - my opinion - the best music video ever made.

    so myers talks to the song's writers - cyndi lauper and rob hyman and i'll note this from the article:


    Mr. Hyman: The craziest thing was when I overdubbed a harmony as Cyndi sang the melody line in the chorus. I added my voice just as a reference for another singer—a male-female dialogue thing, as if they’re singing to each other. When Cyndi listened back, she liked it and said, “We’re keeping it.”
    If you listen carefully, you’ll hear that the song has no bass until each chorus—“If you’re lost you can look and you will find me.” The song had to lift off there, so I added a synth bass.

    But just as we were wrapping up, I sensed someone behind me. When I turned around, there was Roberta Flack. She was probably recording at the Record Plant. She said, “Wow, that’s cool! That sounds great, guys.” And then she was gone. 

    again, 'time after time' is an incredible song and also the best video ever.

    i really thought cyndi was going to be bigger than madonna.

    but then came cyndi's follow up to 'she's so unusual.'

    the lead single, 'true colors' was great and wonderful.

    but 'change of heart' just didn't make it as a single and the album was too mild when compared to her debut.


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

    Wednesday, December 2, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack's broken promise on Iraq get's some press attention, US House Rep Beto O'Rourke asks what is success in the war on the Islamic State and how do we know when it ends, and much more.


    Barack said he'd end the war in Iraq.  (More often, in his 2007 and 2008 stump speeches, he'd yell, "We want to end the war in Iraq!"  A line they were so impressed with, they featured it heavily in TV ads during the Democratic Party primaries of 2008.)


    But then, he also swore he'd close Guantanamo.

    And he promised to walk on that picket line.

    But never did that either.

    He swore he'd filibuster any bill, while he was still a US senator, that gave tech companies immunity from fines for 'helping' the government spy on a citizen without a warrant and he didn't keep that promise.

    Not to mention that, as Jake Tapper (CNN) pointed out, this was the 7th year in a row that Barack broke his promise that he would use "genocide" to describe the Armenian genocide.


    And his promise to be the sunshine president -- open and transparent?  Karen J. Greenberg (LOS ANGELES TIMES) explains:


    Obama's self-professed aim was to restore trust between the people and their government by pledging to promote accountability and provide "information for citizens about what their government is doing." Toward that end, the president quickly released a number of previously classified documents from the Bush years on torture policy.
    But that, as it happened, was the end of the sunshine. In the five years since, little of note has occurred in the name of transparency and much, including a war against whistle-blowers, has been pursued in the name of secrecy. The administration has also, even after Edward Snowden's devastating revelations, continued for the most part to defend the NSA's massive, secret, warrantless surveillance.




    So are we really that surprised that the third and fourth term of Bully Boy Bush has broken yet another promise?

    All those broken promises?







    And all those promises
    that you made and left behind
    were filled with emptiness
    You were never really mine
    Every sweet caress
    was just your second best
    Broken promises

    Baby, I'm amazed
    at how long I still believed
    How many lies it takes
    before someone like me sees
    All the tears you cry
    never can deny
    that you make love a lie
    All the tears you cry
    they never could deny
    that you make love a lie
    -- "All Those Promises," written by Janis Ian, appears on her album Folk Is The New Black


    At yesterday's US House Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declared:


     Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.   




    Amy Goodman (DEMOCRACY NOW!) pimped and whored for Barack, destroyed her good name, used the 2009 inauguration as a fund raiser for her program, so it's not that surprising that she basically ignored this huge development, reducing it to a headline -- not even the headline:



    Pentagon officials have announced the U.S. is deploying more special operations troops to Iraq and Syria. Speaking to Congress Tuesday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the U.S. special forces are authorized to conduct raids, gather intelligence, free hostages and capture members of ISIS. He also said the troops would conduct unilateral operations inside Syria. 


    Tom Bowman (NPR's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED) offered a more substantial report which clocked in at over three minutes and included US House Rep Barbara Lee's statement that, "The deployment of additional special operations forces to Iraq should be a wake-up call to Congress.  It's past time to hold a serious debate on the costs and consequences of yet another war in the Middle East."

    It is past time for a serious debate and this should be a wake up call -- however, it's clearly meaningless to Amy Goodman so-called 'left' 'leader.'


    We'll note Barbara Lee's statement in full:

    Additional Troop Deployment Demands Congressional Action


    Washington, DC – Yesterday, President Obama ordered the deployment of additional specialized “expeditionary” forces to Iraq and Syria. Congresswoman Barbara Lee released this statement:
    “Everyone agrees that ISIL is a barbaric terrorist organization that must be degraded and dismantled. As this conflict expands, Congress must be actively involved in addressing ISIL.   
    The deployment of additional special operations forces to Iraq should be a wake-up call to Congress – it’s past time to hold a serious debate on the costs and consequences of yet another war in the Middle East.
    294 days ago, President Obama sent Congress a draft military authorization; it has remained on the Speaker’s desk ever since.
    It is simply unacceptable.
    Every day, this war escalates and more American troops are placed in harm’s way. Congress must live up to its constitutional duty to give the American people a voice on matters of war and peace.
    National security experts are clear, there is no military solution to this conflict. Only a comprehensive, regionally-led strategy that addresses the underlying political, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian issues in the region will ultimately be effective.  
    My legislation, H.J. Res. 30, lays out a comprehensive strategy while ending the blank checks for endless war that have allowed this conflict to escalate unchecked by Congress.
    ###
    Congresswoman Lee is a member of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, the Steering and Policy Committee, is a Senior Democratic Whip, former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. She serves as chair of the Whip’s Task Force on Poverty and Opportunity.







    WSWS treated Carter's announcement as real news with Niles Williamson and Thomas Gaist reporting:


    Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced Tuesday that the US plans to deploy a new contingent of Special Forces to Iraq to carry out military operations against ISIS targets throughout the country as well across the border in Syria. The US ground force will include at least 200 commandos, according to an AFP report published late Tuesday.
    Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Carter said a “specialized expeditionary targeting force” would be deployed to assist the Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga forces in retaking territory from ISIS.
    According to Carter, these soldiers will work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIS leaders throughout Iraq. They will also, Carter said, conduct “unilateral operations” in Syria. “We are at war,” he told the assembled House of Representatives members.

    Dunford told the committee that the new force would increase the effectiveness of military operations in Iraq and Syria and accelerate the collection of intelligence on ISIS operations. “We’re fighting a campaign across Iraq and Syria so we’re going to go where the enemy is, and we’re going to conduct operations where they most effectively degrade the capabilities of the enemy,” he stated.



    We covered the hearing in yesterday's snapshot -- emphasizing Carter's Iraq remarks, US House Rep Loretta Sanchez's line of questioning and US House Rep Walter Jones embarrassing himself.

    Ann offered her thoughts on the hearing's big news in "Yeah, I blame Jill Stein," Stan offered his in "Thanks for screwing up TV, Barack," Marcia with "New and old" and Betty with "Barack's a damn liar."

    And reporting on the hearing, Cedric's "Hank Johnson's sexual obsession with Barack" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HANK HIS JOHNSON!" covered US House Rep Hank Johnson wasting everyone's time to profess his strangely sexual obsession with Barack and Carter and Gen Joe Dunford refusing to indulge Johnson,  At Rebecca's site, Wally reported on Ranking Member Adam Smith  in "Even House Democrats are criticizing Saint Barack.(Wally)," at Trina's site Ava reported on the obsession with oil that was at the heart of the hearing in "It's still about the oil," Mike reported on US House Rep Niki Tsongas offering some realities about the so-called coalition in "US Armed Services Committee hearing offers a little bit of reality," Ruth reported on US House Rep John Kline's questioning which established that there was no cap on the number of US troops that could be in Iraq "Iraq still matters,"  Kat took on the surreal aspect with "The US just declared war on everyone but Santa," and Elaine covered one time anti-war US House Rep Jackie Speier making an idiot of herself in statements and dress with "The idiot Jackie Speier,"

  •  
    Today, we'll cover another exchange from the hearing.

    The Iraq War is the never-ending war.

    When does it end?

    That was an issue raised in Tuesday's hearing.



    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: Mr. Secretary, if we are indeed at war, how will we know when we have won?


    Secretary Ash Carter:  The destruction of ISIL involves their destruction from any territory they claim to uh-uh claim to occupy and their destruction elsewhere around the world -- including their various branches and so forth -- that's the --

    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: So as long as ISIL's in Iraq or Syria or Libya or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war?

    Secretary Ash Carter: I believe that in today's world uh-- One -- It -- uh -- These treats are difficult to confine to one place and that is the reason why we have to go there and why we have to go to Syria and Iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is.  It's in the nature of today's world: Mobility among people you see this underlying this and, above all, mobility of information which can radicalize people who've never gone anywhere except in there -- on their keyboard.


    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  I think it's important if we are at war to define the clearest and the most precise terms of what victory looks like.  With 15 years of Afghanistan in mind, with the fact that we've been in Iraq off and on since 2003 -- or you can take it all the way back to 1991, to keep us out of perpetual war, I think it's really important that we explicitly define the objectives and the outcomes for which we're fighting.  I think we owe that to our service members, I think we owe that to ourselves.  And I would hope that we could come up with a better definition of victory and success.  I appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of political and diplomatic components of a solution in Iraq or in Syria, but I'm interested in your response to a question asked by Mr. Gibson in terms of conditionality.  There's so much in those countries -- I'll just use Iraq as an example -- that we do not control, cannot control and will not be able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes and so when we say we are going to set conditions on our aid, when we say we are going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that?  Is that a viable threat?  Will we really walk away from Iraq if the government there doesn't meet those conditions?  And I think that's an important question because if, in fact, we will not, then I wonder what the motivation is there for the Iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities -- whether they be Kurds, whether they be Sunnis -- into a functioning government -- decentralized or otherwise?



    Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, first of all with respect to the first part of your question, uhm, the -- It -- The -- Your point gets back -- is exactly the military and the political going together.  In addition to the -- The only end state that involves the lasting defeat of ISIL is one in which there are -- whether there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by ISIL.  That's why once again the political and the military go together -- that's the heart of the strategy and that's why enabling committed, capable forces who can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory, critical --


    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  Yes.


    Secretary Ash Carter (Con't):  -- to the strategy. With respect to the leverage, I'll start there in Baghdad but the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path they're supposed to.  So we find alternatives, we find people that can act.  If-if-if the people that we're dealing with are not capable of -- because we have to act and we will find such forces that are capable.


    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  Very quickly, for General Dunford, what does ISIS want us to do and how does that factor into our strategy for confronting them.


    Gen Joe Dunfurd:  ISIS wants us to be impetuous right now as opposed to being aggressive and they would love nothing more than a large presence of US forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria so that they could have a call to jihad. 





    In Brussels today, US Secretary of State John Kerry was asked about Iraq.



    MR KIRBY: Our first question today will come from Arshad Mohammed from Reuters.


    QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, my question is about the fight against Islamic State both in Syria and Iraq. Leaving aside the British parliamentary vote today and the German commitments yesterday, what tangible commitments did you get from other NATO partners to fight Islamic State in Syria?
    And on Iraq, Prime Minister Abadi issued a fairly ambiguous statement yesterday about the planned U.S. Special Ops deployment, saying he didn’t see a need for ground troops, he would have to approve any deployments. Was he fully consulted about this? Would he have to approve movements of the Special Operations forces in Iraq? And can you live with those kinds of constraints?



    SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the answer – let me take the first part first. We’re very pleased with the efforts by Prime Minister Cameron to go to the parliament and to ask for the right for Great Britain to join us in striking against ISIL in Syria. This is a very important step. We applaud his leadership on it and I hope that the parliament will vote to grant that because it is important for the world to join together in this initiative, and we welcome Germany’s efforts. I just met with Foreign Minister Steinmeier who has just left here to go back to Berlin in order to speak to this issue in the Bundestag later today. And we welcome Germany’s efforts to contribute to this.
    Other nations are indeed stepping up and considering exactly what they will do. There are a number of countries, and I need to let them have the space to go back and speak to their parliaments and talk with their leadership. But they are committed to be helpful in various different ways. We have asked for the participation of special forces of people to provide police training; people to provide ammo, military assistance; people can provide enablers – there are various ways in which countries can contribute. They don’t have to necessarily be troops engaged in kinetic action. There are medical facilities, there are other assets that could be deployed, there is intelligence gathering, there is all kinds of support structures necessary to this kind of endeavor, whether it’s flying refueling or flying defensive. There are many things that countries can do. And a number of countries will leave here today prepared to go back to consult with their governments, and we will be in touch with them on a military-to-military basis as well as diplomatic basis in order to secure additional help in this effort.
    What I was impressed by, and in fact, moved by was the absolute broad-based understanding that Daesh represents not a threat just to Syria or to Jordan or to Turkey, Lebanon, but Daesh is now a proven reality and a threat throughout the world. Because any one person has the ability with the – with certain instructions, if they’re prepared to go die, to unfortunately do great harm in that process. And we’ve seen that in many different places. So we are all engaged in this effort. Countries can help us with traveler information, with exchange of information, and other kinds of security efforts and initiatives with respect to public events and security, travel, migration, and so forth. So we are anticipating that there will be a very constructive response to this, and over the days ahead.

    With respect to Iraq, the Government of Iraq was of course briefed in advance of Secretary Carter’s announcement. And we will continue to work very, very closely with our Iraqi partners on exactly who would be deployed, where they would be deployed, what kinds of missions people would undertake, how they would support Iraqi efforts to degrade and destroy ISIL. We have full and total respect and work with, for Prime Minister Abadi’s leadership. We work very closely with him. And we strongly support his efforts to restore Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity against ISIL attacks, and I can assure you that as the plans are developed, it will be in full consultation and with the full consent of the Iraqi Government. And I have no doubt that this announcement should be viewed entirely in the context of what we have announced a year ago. It’s the same mission – not a different one – but we need to provide greater assistance in ways that meet with the Iraqis’ both consent and needs.




    Arshad Mohammed and Sabine Siebold (REUTERS) report on Kerry here.  Kerry's comments were raised in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Mark Toner.

     

    QUESTION: Mark, can you clarify a statement that the Secretary made earlier today in Brussels? This was in reference to Iraq. He was asked specifically about Prime Minister Abadi’s comment about foreign ground combat troops not being needed in Iraq. And in his response, the Secretary mentioned having respect for the work of Prime Minister Abadi’s leadership and a close relationship with Iraqi partners, but he didn’t specifically address Abadi’s statement. So how exactly is the U.S. responding to what Abadi is saying about there not being a need for foreign ground combat forces in – on – in Iraq?


    MR TONER: Again, I don’t have Prime Minister Abadi’s statements in front of me, but my understanding is that he said any kind of deployment would have to be under – with the approval and with the coordination of the Iraqi Government and Iraqi military, Iraqi armed forces. And I think that Secretary Carter said as much in responding to a question on this last night, or he spoke to it – addressed it and said that absolutely, we are – excuse me – any additional forces that we would put into Iraq or on the ground in Iraq would be taken in full coordination with the Government of Iraq.


    QUESTION: So the U.S. does not believe that Iraq is against ground forces in spite of this statement, but just wants coordination – but Iraq is asking for coordination?


    MR TONER: That’s our assessment, yeah.
    Yeah.


    QUESTION: But he was clear today that there are not a need for U.S. troops.


    MR TONER: Again, what’s – I just want to be clear on this and would refer you to the Department of Defense for any other details, but – because I don’t want to speak on behalf of them, but any steps, any additional troops that we would send into Iraq would obviously be done with the coordination of the Iraqi Government.


    QUESTION: On the word that they used, expeditionary force.


    MR TONER: Forgive me? I didn’t hear what you said.


    QUESTION: Expeditionary force. Is that – the term they used, expeditionary force. I mean, that takes us – that harkens back, like, to the Spanish-American War. I mean, this is – what does that mean, really?


    MR TONER: I can’t begin to – again, I’m going to refer you to the Department of Defense to elaborate on why that’s different than, for example, Special Operations Forces, but I’m sure there’s very clear lines drawn between the different aspects of them.



    We'll again note Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid's "Paris: The War ISIS Wants" was published by THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS a few weeks ago.  From the essay:

    Indeed, ISIS’s theatrical brutality—whether in the Middle East or now in Europe—is part of a conscious plan designed to instill among believers a sense of meaning that is sacred and sublime, while scaring the hell out of fence-sitters and enemies. This strategy was outlined in the 2004 manifesto Idarat at Tawahoush (The Management of Savagery), a tract written for ISIS’s precursor, the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda; tawahoush comes from wahsh or “beast,” so an animal-like state. Here are some of its main axioms:

    Diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside of it if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy and thus drain it to the greatest extent possible.
    To be effective, attacks should be launched against soft targets that cannot possibly be defended to any appreciable degree, leading to a debilitating security state:

    If a tourist resort that the Crusaders patronize…is hit, all of the tourist resorts in all of the states of the world will have to be secured by the work of additional forces, which are double the ordinary amount, and a huge increase in spending.
    Crucially, these tactics are also designed to appeal to disaffected young who tend to rebel against authority, are eager for for self-sacrifice, and are filled with energy and idealism that calls for “moderation” (wasatiyyah) only seek to suppress. The aim is

    to motivate crowds drawn from the masses to fly to the regions which we manage, particularly the youth… [For] the youth of the nation are closer to the innate nature [of humans] on account of the rebelliousness within them.
    Finally, these violent attacks should be used to draw the West as deeply and actively as possible into military conflict:

    Work to expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.

    Eleven years later, ISIS is using this approach against America’s most important allies in Europe. 





    On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights), Nafees Hamid addressed the Paris attacks and his belief that the Islamic State's goal is "the eradication of the gray zone," forcing people to choose sides.  From the broadcast:



    Nafees Hamid: One goal is to polarize society -- is to make -- to convince Muslims that they just can't be happy in western lands, that they will always be second and third class citiznes, living in these areas, that they will always be persecuted, that the humanism of western ideals is just a fantasy, it's a lie.  And by creating those atacks, they want -- there's sort of this tacit alliance between hard right-wing groups and the Islamic State.  On the one hand every time an attack happens hard right-wing groups in France, for example the National Front, benefits from this.  It feeds into their narrative that, "Look, we have to not accept these Syrian refugees.  We have to close down our borders, we have to limit immigration, we have to have stricter laws in the banlieues where the majority of the people are Muslim, [. .. .]"  So it advances the far right cause and it polarizes society more and the hope of ISIS is that it pushes someone in the center into the hands of groups like ISIS>



    Heidi Boghosian:  We've read a lot about attemtps to appeal to so-called disaffected youth.  Would you say that is a primary target of this whole agenda?


    Nafees Hamid:  Yes.  But it's also important to know that disaffected youth -- It's not necesarrily that they're poor, for example.  When we think about disaffected youth, we often sometimes think of somebody who does not have a job, someone who is struggling economically.  And it's true that right now you see more people coming from in and out of prison and people who have  a little bit of a criminal background or are poor but historically that hasn't been the case.  And there are plent of people who are middle class, educated people who had career prospects.  Whereas like 20% of them don't even have an Islamic heritage at all -- they're converts.  So, yes, I would say disaffected and open to political consicousness.  As they ascribe in THE MANAGEMENT OF SAVAGERY that there's an inherent rebellion that we need to tap into rebelliousness -- a passion that exists in young people that we need to tap into.  And right now, many of those people in western culture are not feeling that way -- and it's not just jihadi movements.  It's sort of a little bit of a stereotype.  People wanting to find purpose and meaning in their life.  People wanting to have an impact feel like they can do more than just go get a job and have security in their life.  So this -- this spirit is kind of what they're trying to tap into.




    How does the US government address that?  Apparently, it doesn't.  But they did continue bombing Iraq today with the Defense Dept noting:




    Strikes in Iraq
    Attack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 15 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Ramadi, nine strikes struck three ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar position, 10 ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL tactical vehicle, five ISIL heavy machine guns, two ISIL rocket-propelled grenade positions, an ISIL tunnel, an ISIL anti-tank position, an ISIL vehicle bomb, an ISIL staging location, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL command and control node, cratered an ISIL-used road, and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL vehicle, and an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar position, an ISIL fighting position, and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

    -- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL vehicle bomb facility and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.





     






    wbai
    law and disorder radio
    michael s. smith
    heidi boghosian
    michael ratner



    12/02/2015

    Even House Democrats are criticizing Saint Barack.(Wally)

    Wally here filling in for Rebecca to cover Tuesday's House Armed Services Committee hearing where the Committee heard from Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and Joe Dunford.

    What stood out for me the most?

    After the fact that Barack's now officially sending US troops into combat in Iraq?  (See the snapshot below, C.I. covers it all.)

    Even the House Democrats are now criticizing Saint Barack.

    For those who missed it, in 2007, Ava and C.I. began writing of "The Cult of St. Barack."

    Boy, did they get that right.

    The cult still exists today.

    But it grows ever smaller.

    You can count a few House Dems as ex-members.

    US House Rep. Adam Smith is the Ranking Member on the Committee (and a Democrat).

    He made it very clear that he wasn't thrilled with Barack.

    "The administration does need to be clearing in saying what that strategy" for confronting the Islamic State "is and that they are actually committed to it," he said at one point.

    And in case you can't pick up on his weary tone just by reading the sentence, he also stated, "Let's remember that the President, less than a year ago, said, 'We do not yet have a strategy.'  That's the kind of thing that doesn't need to be said."

    That's the kind of thing that doesn't need to be said.

    Lame duck Barack is seeing the chickens flee the roost as The Cult of St. Barack dwindles.

    Republican Joe Wilson may have put it best though.  He declared in the hearing that "the president has established a legacy of failure."


    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


    Tuesday, December 1, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the United Nations announces their count for the death toll in November, US Secretary of Defense announces US troops will be boots-on-the-ground in combat, the House Armed Services Committee seems underwhelmed by the announcement, US House Rep Walter Jones re-embraces the crazy, and much more.


    Ash Carter is the US Secretary of Defense.  We'll open with some remarks by him today.


    Secretary Ash Carter:  As I've discussed with you in the past, the United States strategy requires leveraging all of the components in our nation's might to destroy ISIL, every instrument of national power -- diplomatic, military, intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, economic, informational -- is engaged and every national security agency is contributing to one of the strategies, lines of effort.  We're defending the homeland, acting to defeat ISIL in its core in Syria and Iraq, and taking appropriate action where ever else in the world this evil organization metastasizes. Now the Defense Dept contributes to nearly all the lines of effort but protecting the homeland is among our highest priorities.  We're adapting to meet ISIL's threat -- including ensuring the security of Defense Dept installations and personnel. And just last week, I hosted some of the top national security law enforcement individuals at the Pentagon to discuss efforts to cut off the flow of foreign fighters.  But we at the Defense Dept, of course, are centrally responsible for the military campaign which will be the focus of my statement to this community. Through our own action, and those of our coalition partners, the military campaign will destroy ISIL's leadership and forces, deprive it of resources and safe haven and mobility.  All the while, we seek to identify and then enable motivated, local forces on the ground to expel ISIL from its territory, hold and govern it and ensure that victory sticks.  That's the right strategic approach for two particular reasons.  First, it emphasizes the necessity of capable, motivated, local forces as the only force that can ensure a lasting victory.  Such forces are hard to find but they do exist and we are enabling them and we're constantly looking for ways to expand doing so -- and I will describe some of them -- but we cannot substitute for such forces. And second, this strategic approach sets the conditions for a political solution to the civil war in Syria and the crippling sectarianism in Iraq which are the only durable ways to prevent an ISIL-like organization from re-emerging.  And that's why the diplomatic work, led by Secretary [John] Kerry and the State Dept is the first and absolutely critical line of effort in our strategy.  We're gathering momentum on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.  And today, I'll describe how the US is continuing to accelerate the military campaign against ISIL and what more we're asking of our global partners. While I can't describe everything in this unclassified setting, I do want to take a few extra moments this morning to give as much detail as possible about the new things that we're doing to accelerate ISIL's defeat. We're at war.  We're using the might of the finest fighting force the world has ever known.  Tens of thousands of US personnel are operating in the broader Middle East region -- more on the way.  We have some of our most advanced Air-Naval forces attacking ISIL.  US troops are advising and assisting ground operations in Syria and Iraq.  I'll briefly describe some of these efforts and how we're accelerating them.  First, in northern Syria . . . [you are reading an "Iraq snapshot," our focus is Iraq].  In northern Iraq, Peshmerga units with the help of US air power and advisors have retaken the town of Sinjar cutting the main line of communication between Raqqa and Mosul -- the two largest cities under ISIL's control.  To move people and supplies, ISIL must now rely on backroads where we locate and destroy them.  Elsewhere in Iraq, we have about 3,500 troops at six locations in Iraq in support of Iraqi security forces, the ISF.  There we've been providing increased lethal fire and augmenting the existing training, advising and assisting program.  And we're prepared to do more as Iraq shows capability and motivation in the counter ISIL fight in resolving its political divisions.  The progress in the Sunni portions of Iraq, as mentioned by Mr. [US House Rep Adam] Smith, as the campaign to recapture Ramadi shows, has been slow -- much to our and Prime Minister [Haider al-] Abadi's frustration. Despite his efforts, sectarian politics and Iranian influence have made building a multi-sectarian Iraqi security force difficult with some notable exceptions such as the US-trained counter-terrorism forces We continue to offer additional US support of all kinds and urge Baghdad to support, enroll, train and arm and pay Sunni Arab fighters as well as local Sunni Arab police forces to hold territory recaptured from ISIL.  All these efforts -- from northern Syria through Iraq -- have shrunk the ISIL controlled territory in both.  Importantly, we now have an opportunity to divide ISIL's presence in Iraq from that in Syria.  This could be important because, while both countries are plagued by ISIL, each, as I said earlier, has different political pathologies that provide the opportunity for extremism and they ultimately require different kinds of political progress to ensure lasting victory. Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations in Syria. That creates a virtuous cycle of better intelligence which generates more targets, more raids, more momentum.  The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the ISF capability.  Next, we're also significantly expanding US attacks on ISIL infrastructure and sources of revenue -- particularly its oil revenue. Over the past several weeks, because of improved intelligence and understanding of ISIL's financial operations, we've intensified the air campaign against ISIL's  war-sustaining oil enterprise -- a critical pillar of ISIL's financial infrastructure.  In addition to destroying fixed . . . 


    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    The key moment above is:

    Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  


     Remember when this was supposed to Iraq's fight?

    And no US forces would be in combat?


    Remember those words from US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama?



    This was a key moment.  It sailed right over everyone.

    Carter was speaking



    "In full co-ordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialised expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces,"


    Carter was speaking at today's US House Armed Services Committee hearing.  Also offering testimony was Gen Joe Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs.  The Committee Chair is US House Rep Mac Thornberry, the Ranking Member is US House Rep Adam Smith.


    US House Rep Walter Jones:  Before I get to the question, I want to remind the American people what James Madison said, the power to declare war -- including the power of judging the causes of war -- is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature -- not the executive branch, but the legislature.  I would like to ask you and Gen Dunford, in this undertaking of trying to defeat the evil group ISIL, would it help your cause if the Congress met its Constitutional responsibility of debating a new AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]? [. . .]

    Secretary Ash Carter: It would show to our troops that their country was behind them.  I think they know we're behind them [gestures to himself and Dunford].  I think they know you're behind them.  would this show that the country was behind them in their effort?  I think they deserve to know that and for that reason I think it's desirable to have an AUMF.  The only thing I'd say is the lawyers tell me  that we don't technically need one.  We can conduct what we need to do within the law.  But I think it would be helpful principally because I-I-I think you can't do enough to show the troops that we're behind them.


    So Carter doesn't think the military believes the American people support them?  He thinks they believe that he does support them and the Congress does but not the American people?

    Hmm.

    Well let's pretend that's a valid thought -- exactly how does Congress voting on an AUMF alter that alleged belief?

    It doesn't.

    He was a real stooge.

    And I find it really telling that these people, paid by the US taxpayers, go out in public and insult the American people.

    I find it really telling that they openly display their contempt and disregard for democracy.

    And "they" includes Walter Jones who apparently shoved a freedom fry in his brain.

    No one needed him to come to the hearing with his prepared talking points.

    I guess actually listening and asking about what is being discussed was too much for the little tyke so instead he has his staff look up a quote and he pretended he gave a damn about it.

    But if he gave a damn about the Congress' right to declare war, he would need to give a damn about the American people and when Carter's playing the card of you-and-me-we-support-the-military-but-that-stinking-public-doesn't, if Jones actually understood the points Madison was making, he would've objected to Carter's smear on the people of American instead of grinning like an idiot and nodding along.

    Apparently, all that mattered was he got his prepared comment -- passed off as a question -- before the cameras.

    So unimportant was the whole thing to him -- including the deployment of more US forces and their role in combat in Iraq -- that he rushed to boast he was going to yield 51 seconds back.

    What a proud moment for Walter Jones -- a man who spent the last years apologizing for his idiotic support of the illegal war but so quick to jump back on board with it today.

    And, of course, yet again the lie is pimped that you can only back the military by supporting war.

    I thought Walter Jones rejected that in the aftermath of his freedom fries nonsense.


    Apparently, any intelligence he later showed was somehow transitory and vanished in his lust for more war.


    Not everyone was avoiding all issues.  We'll note this exchange.


    US House Rep Loretta Sanchez:  You said that we are arming the Kurds.  The last time I spoke to [KRG President Mahmoud] Barzani, he suggested that they needed heavier duty weapons versus light arms.  And so my question -- my first question -- would be what are we arming them with?  I mean, is this really for the battlefield that they find?  Secondly,  I'd like you to address this whole issue with respect to the Iraqi army and the inability for us to get integrated -- or for Iraq's government to get it integrated.  I remember back in the -- under the Constitution and the whole issue of, for example, having a vote on the Kurd area being an independent entity, for example.  That was something that I continued to ask our military leaders at the time who were overseeing Iraq and the reality was they kept saying, 'That's the hardest part, that's the hardest part, we're going to get to it.'  And we never got to it before we were gone.  Now we see the fruits of that in that we are still not able to have a military that -- or police force -- that's very integrated.  So what do we do about that?   Uhm, so we've been taking back territory in Iraq and one of the issues that we had is it always takes additional -- I mean, we need to leave troops there or we need to leave somebody there in order to hold onto it. Otherwise, we end up losing that territory.  So what is our strategy to do that?  And the recruitment effort.  I would like -- and I'm sure that it would be not within the public realm, but I would love to get briefed on the cyber issues and how we're countering the recruitment with respect to ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call them. these days, from a global perspective.  But in particular are we doing anything that you can talk about in this setting with respect to the recruiting effort in the region itself?  And lastly, DIME -- Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic.  You know, it's not just military that we need here.  So, Secretary, if you could speak a little to what are some of the other efforts we're doing to counter-act what is really something we need to eliminate which is ISIS.  Thank you.

    Secretary Ash Carter: Uh-uh, Congresswoman Sanchez, I'll touch two of the points and ask-ask the Chairman especially with respect -- with-with respect to arming the Kurds -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman -- and-and-and generally the Iraqi security forces.  Uhm, you talk about DIME?  Absolutely, it is essential that we recognize even though we -- uhh-uhh, I believe this is absolutely true -- are the center of the campaign because there must be a military defeat of ISIL.  And I also believe that, uh, Iraq and Syria since it is the heart of ISIL, we have to defeat it there.  That said, this is a global fight, it's a multi-dimensional fight, it's in the intelligence sphere, it's in the homeland security sphere, it's in the law enforcement sphere.  And I'm not going to [have] much more to say about that except that I have begun to convene, uh, with Secretary Kerry -- and I appreciate his cooperation, in this regard -- all of the agencies and going through what we're all doing -- making sure that the right hand knows what the left is. So in cyber, you're right I can't talk about it here.  I'm happy to come give you a classified briefing.  But we are linked up.  That's very important.  The FBI.  Jim Comey. Homeland Security.  The intelligence community.  Uh-uh and-and our DoD people.  Last thing I'll say is you ask, we thought about a hold force, a-uh-ugh necessity for a hold force is at the root of our strategy. Our strategy is to find, identify and enable forces that can not only take territory but hold territory because we are -- we know from the last fourteen years that that's the tricky part.  The hard part about getting victory to stick is to find people who can hold territory and govern it decently so that the likes of ISIL don't come back.  And-and as I said, they're hard to find.  They do exist but they're hard to find.  And we're going to try to make a snowball and get more.  Chairman?

    Gen Joe Dunford: Congresswoman, with regard to the Kurds, the Kurds have, as you know -- you've been there many times, a full range of weapons and heavy vehicles and [. . .]

    There was nothing to answer her question regarding what the Kurds were being supplied with and time ran out so he was shut down.


    As for Cater's remarks?


    How nice that, all this time later, 16 months after the US started bombing Iraq, Carter has "begun to convene, uh, with Secretary Kerry."

    In fairness to Carter, the failures of State are Kerry's failures and Barack Obama's failures since John wanted to play like he was Secretary of Defense and Barack didn't have the spine to tell him to instead to do his job.


    We'll probably note more from the hearing in the next snapshot but, again, the key moment was this remark/announcement by Carter:


    Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  


    As CBS News' Rebecca Shabad points out, Carter's announcement of US forces in Iraq on the front lines 'assisting'  "comes after Hillary Clinton told CBS News on Monday that she couldn't 'conceive' any circumstance in which the U.S. should send troops to fight ISIS on the ground in the Middle East."

    That should probably read "comes after even Hillary Clinton -- even Hillary Clinton -- told CBS News on Monday that she couldn't 'conceive' any circumstance in which the US should send troops to fight ISIS on the ground in the Middle East."

    Even.

    Even Hillary.


    And the bombs go on . . .

    The US Defense Dept announced today:

    Airstrikes in Iraq
    Bomber, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 13 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:
    -- Near Huwayjah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.
    -- Near Habbaniyah, a strike destroyed an ISIL building.
    -- Near Makhmur, a strike denied ISIL access to terrain.
    -- Near Ramadi, five strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL command and control nodes, an ISIL staging area, and an ISIL weapons cache, damaged two ISIL command and control nodes, two ISIL buildings, and denied ISIL access to terrain.
    -- Near Sinjar, three strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed seven ISIL fighting positions.
    -- Near Qaim, a strike struck an ISIL vehicle bomb facility.

    -- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike struck inoperable Coalition equipment denying ISIL access in support of Coalition operations.


    Still on violence, the United Nations published their woeful undercounting of the dead and injured for the month of November:














  • US House Rep Loretta Sanchez asked about recruitment by the Islamic State in today's hearing.


    "The eradication of the gray zone."  Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid's "Paris: The War ISIS Wants" was published by THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS a few weeks ago.  From the essay:

    Indeed, ISIS’s theatrical brutality—whether in the Middle East or now in Europe—is part of a conscious plan designed to instill among believers a sense of meaning that is sacred and sublime, while scaring the hell out of fence-sitters and enemies. This strategy was outlined in the 2004 manifesto Idarat at Tawahoush (The Management of Savagery), a tract written for ISIS’s precursor, the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda; tawahoush comes from wahsh or “beast,” so an animal-like state. Here are some of its main axioms:
    Diversify and widen the vexation strikes against the Crusader-Zionist enemy in every place in the Islamic world, and even outside of it if possible, so as to disperse the efforts of the alliance of the enemy and thus drain it to the greatest extent possible.
    To be effective, attacks should be launched against soft targets that cannot possibly be defended to any appreciable degree, leading to a debilitating security state:
    If a tourist resort that the Crusaders patronize…is hit, all of the tourist resorts in all of the states of the world will have to be secured by the work of additional forces, which are double the ordinary amount, and a huge increase in spending.
    Crucially, these tactics are also designed to appeal to disaffected young who tend to rebel against authority, are eager for for self-sacrifice, and are filled with energy and idealism that calls for “moderation” (wasatiyyah) only seek to suppress. The aim is
    to motivate crowds drawn from the masses to fly to the regions which we manage, particularly the youth… [For] the youth of the nation are closer to the innate nature [of humans] on account of the rebelliousness within them.
    Finally, these violent attacks should be used to draw the West as deeply and actively as possible into military conflict:
    Work to expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.

    Eleven years later, ISIS is using this approach against America’s most important allies in Europe. 



    Hamid has argued that recruitment -- for all the talk of cyber -- is not done by the computer but by peer-to-peer, people that recruits already know.

    We'll note that and his belief that the Islamic State's goal is "the eradication of the gray zone" in the next snapshot.



    Again, today's key moment regarding Iraq was Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announcing Barack's new move:


    Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  


    The announcement, of course, came after it was implemented.  It was Monday, for example, that
     Fazel Hawramy, Shalaw Mohammad and David Smith (Guardian) reported:



    The US military denies any special operations forces involvement in combat on 11 September or in three other other incidents listed by the peshmerga. Yet in interviews with the Guardian, a dozen Kurdish fighters and commanders said that US special forces troops have been participating in operations against Isis for months.
    [. . .]
    Karwan Hama Tata, a peshmerga volunteer, showed a Guardian reporter a video which appeared to show two Americans in the midst of the battle accompanied by three peshmerga fighters. He said: “They fight and they even fight ahead of the peshmerga. They won’t allow anyone to take photos of them, but they take photos of everyone.”
    The American special forces arrived in Kirkuk earlier this year to train, advise and support peshmerga forces fighting Isis. According to a Kurdish peshmerga commander, about 30 American special forces operatives set up an operations room in the city.

    A senior peshmerga commander, who did not wish to be named, said: “In February, for the first time, four American snipers came to south Kirkuk because we had lost several peshmerga to the Isis snipers.


    Whether or not today's announcement would have been made by Carter without that report being filed yesterday is a question worth considering.











    11/29/2015

    oh, hillary, do the lies ever end?

    and crimes too - do the crimes ever end?

    hillary clinton is insisting she is all for campaign finance reform and she's doing this and that.

    but attorney lawrence noble (washington post) notes the reality:

    Of course, most candidates and super PACs say they are following the law and not coordinating, no matter how ludicrous the claim appears in light of the facts. But according to Correct the Record, the super PAC and Clinton's campaign have taken a new and different approach -- actually claiming the right to coordinate.
    Correct the Record is run by Clinton ally David Brock, who boasts that the organization directly coordinates with the Clinton campaign. How can this be? Brock and the campaign appear to believe that their lawyers have found a loophole in the FEC's definition of "coordination." Correct the Record says it can fully coordinate with the campaign as long as it communicates with the public only via the super PAC's Web sites and not, for example, via TV and radio ads.
    Many campaign finance lawyers, myself included, think no such loophole exists and that it is illegal for Correct the Record to spend money in coordination with the campaign. However, Team Clinton is seemingly playing the odds that the feckless FEC will never challenge it and that the public will not notice the campaign's contribution to the destruction of our campaign finance laws. If so, the campaign's willingness to pursue such a "loophole" tells us much more about Clinton's attitude toward campaign finance reform than any speech or quote on her website.



    it's really time crooks like hillary went to jail.

    and the left needs to step the hell away from david brock.

    he is corrupt.

    he is ugly.

    and he's destroyed the left ever since he 'defected' from the right (he was tossed aside).
     
    hillaryready

    Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary Ready" is above and it went up thanksgiving day and addresses hillary's use of gender in the campaign, her eagerness to say anything to any group to garner their support and so much more.

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


    Saturday, November 11, 28, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Anbar Provincial Council objects to the war planes bombing Falluja, Haider al-Abadi appears to be slipping, and much more.


    Today, the US government announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Bomber, fighter, attack, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Baghdadi, two strikes destroyed two ISIL rocket rails and damaged a third ISIL rocket rail and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

    -- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar position and four ISIL fighting positions.

    -- Near Ramadi, seven strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL home-made explosives cache, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL boat, an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL ammo cache, two ISIL weapons caches, and an ISIL fighting position.


    -- Near Sinjar, four strikes struck three separate tactical units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and three ISIL vehicles.



    The bombings have no positive effect.



    They do, however, terrorize the Iraqi people.


    For example, ALSUMARIA reports the Anbar Provincial Council issued a statement today decrying the bombing by warplanes flying over Falluja and notes that these bombs are effecting the lives of civilians and contributing to the deaths of "women and children and the elderly."  Civilians in Falluja are calling for an end to the bombings and safe passage out of Falluja.

    Anbar is largely Sunni and what's taking place there in the so-called name of 'liberation' is not seen as such by everyone.












  • It's funny, isn't it, how when Iraqis object to actions by Bully Boy Bush, we on the left rush to insist that they be heard.  But when they're not pleased with Barack, we turn our backs on them and act like they weren't speaking.

    Or we whine about the US government interfering in an election but when Barack Obama overturned the results of Iraq's 2010 election, we fall silent.


    It's because so many of us lack ethics and integrity.


    Did someone say whore?


    Why facts matter/How Big Media Failed Us in Iraq via @BillMoyersHQcounturl= via







    Oh, can you tell us again about Bully Boy Bush?


    Please, ugly Grandma, can you tell us one more time about that?


    Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal.

    He's also out of office.

    Even the cheapest whore or coward can now call out Bully Boy Bush.

    But remember Katrina's grand standing because it's why THE NATION is sinking.

    And things will only get worse.

    The digital age means Barack's two terms won't be like Bill Clinton's for THE NATION.

    They can pretend -- and do -- that they held Bill's feet to the fire and led the fight for the left.

    But they didn't.

    Their whoring then is protected as it existed at the early stages of the internet.

    Their whoring under Barack?

    It's all over the internet.  Not just us, but WSWS and many others have called them out.

    They have failed to fight against Barack's continued war but Katrina sticks her ugly, big nose into Iraq anytime she thinks she can score points against Bully Boy Bush which, let's all be honest, is her attempt to turn the 2016 election to the Democrats.

    She doesn't care about Iraq.

    She never has.

    That's why she repeatedly ignored Americans who refused to fight -- or continue to fight -- in Iraq.

    War resisters found no support from Katrina.

    And we documented that in real time.

    So the ugly, old whore -- with a racist grandfather who got the family rich by ripping off African-American entertainers (including Lena Horne) --  needs to grasp that she's not fooling anyone.

    And her father's connections to the intelligence community -- which, when noted on her Wikipedia page, she has her interns scrub -- are part of the control of the left and she needs to be rejected completely by the left.


    She lies so well from her Harlem mansion.


    In the real world, Loveday Morris (WASHINGTON POST) reports:



    In a mansion tiled with salmon-pink marble, Sunni politician Osama al-Nujaifi greets visitors in an expansive meeting room. From a chair flanked by the national flag, he insists he is still vice president of Iraq — even though Iraq’s prime minister says he is not.

    Nujaifi’s position and Iraq’s two other vice presidencies were eliminated by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in purported cost-cutting measures announced this summer. But there is little change at Nujaifi’s office. His staff is still paid, he said, and he is working as normal.
    Nujaifi’s defiance highlights Abadi’s weak hand as he fails to execute anything but superficial changes after pledging wide-ranging reforms in response to street protests. Smelling blood as he flounders, his political rivals have turned on him, while ­Iranian-backed militias leverage what they can from him.



    Barack backed Nouri (after Bully Boy Bush installed him).  He gave Nouri the second term that the Iraqi voters had denied him.

    Then when Nouri's strident hatred of Sunnis became even more intolerable even Barack had to walk away.

    Not too far, he can't tire himself out, after all.

    He stayed in Nouri's political party (Dawa) when picking the new prime minister of Iraq in August 2014.

    He didn't pick well.

    That's become obvious with each passing month.

    Haider al-Abadi's a failure.

    In a speech today, ALL IRAQ NEWS notes, Haider declared that he has accomplished reforms and cited opening up (a tiny) part of the Green Zone and Baghdad's night life as successful reforms.  He also spoke of the necessity to prosecute corruption . . . but offered no examples of success with that goal.


    Opening a small spot of the Green Zone -- and not even open to all Iraqis -- was treated as a major move by the press -- those who actually reported on the opening, however, tended to note how nothing had really changed.

    And Baghdad's night life was already doing well before Haider became prime minister.

    In fact, the biggest problem for Baghdad's night life was -- and remains -- Shi'ite police that regularly try to shut down clubs for 'morality' reasons.


    As Barack continues to back Haider, it's interesting to note that the  only real support he receives in Iraq comes from the man the US government has branded a threat to the US.

    ALL IRAQ NEWS reports Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has called for Haider al-Abadi to continue his push for reforms even in the face of the appeal that a coalition led by Osama al-Nujaifi has filed with the Federal Court of Iraq to overrule Abadi's move to cancel the posts of vice president.  ALSUMARIA notes this follows an October 24th decision upholding Haider's move.  However, Wael Grace (AL MADA) reports Parliament's stating that despite voting to pass the bill they have never received the official legislation on this move.



    Nothing gets sorted out.


    On the political front, US Senator John McCain is in Iraq and has Tweeted the following on his meet-ups.















  • Starting imp't trip to w/ visiting PM & discussing fight vs
    Embedded image permalink







    1. Will be live from tomorrow w/ , discussing latest on fight vs terror



    Media Matters has their Soros-bought panties in a wad as usual.




  • yes, has invited two GOP senators to discuss Iraq tm. No panel scheduled re: PP terror attack



  • It's all binary and political games to Bitch-boi Boehlert and the other Soros whores at Media Matters.

    Real critics would point out that the two senators support more war on Iraq.

    They'd note that this means to war hawks will be on and that there will be no voices of peace.


    But for Boehlert isn't about actions or opinions, it's just about team jerseys.


    They don't do media critiques at Media Matters, they just spread the text equivalents of venereal diseases.


    Turning to some of today's violence,   IRAQI SPRING MC reports government forces shelled Salman Village today resulting in the deaths of several civilians.  ALSUMARIA notes a suicide car bomber in Tuz took his own life and the lives of 5 other people with fifteen more left injured,, a Tarmiya roadside bombing killed 1 person, and former MP Mishan al-Jubouri's cousin was kidnapped in Hillah and then found dead hours later.  al-Juburi is also a Sheikh in the al-Jiburi tribe and he is part of the Sunni community in Iraq.  In addition, AFP reports, "A bomb-rigged mass grave believed to hold the remains of more than 120 people killed by the Islamic State group has been found in north Iraq, an official said today."



    Meanwhile, David Pugliese (OTTAWA CITIZEN) reports newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will reportedly keep Aurora surveillance jets and at least one military refuelling aircraft in Iraq:

    The move would placate coalition allies, particularly the United States, who view the refuelling plane and the surveillance aircraft as valuable contributions to the ongoing air campaign.
    The move would also allow Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to continue to say he is keeping his election promise of withdrawing Canada’s six CF-18 fighter jets. Trudeau promised to end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and Syria by bringing the CF-18s home before March. Sources have said that there is a good chance the Polaris and the Auroras will stay…..it is unclear at this point how many Canadian Forces personnel will remain in Kuwait to support the planes.






    npr