5/14/2015

revenge - the worst



sunday, 'revenge' wrapped up on abc.

this is the end.

there may be a spin off, but this was the series finale.

it was suggested (by emily) that i do a best and worst the way i used to where 1 post focused on the worst and the other focused on the best.

so let's get the worst out of the way.

margaux.

was there  ever a worse actress on the show?

no.

she is the all time worst.

i don't know that there was even an actor who was worse than margaux.

so victoria goes to her own funeral and sees the sparse turn out and only lousie speaking of her with love and passion.

she tells margaux they have to tell louise the truth.

margaux's against it.

some 1 is attacked by courtney love besides ben.

as i suspected, courtney is working for margaux.

when the new person is attacked, okay, it's jack.

when jack is attacked and injured, margaux has a fit.

and we're supposed to like her again?

courtney next tries to kill nolan and shows up at the country club and stabs him in the hand while he's reaching with the other hand for a bottle to pour her a drink.

or that's what she thought.

he has a taser.

courtney goes down.

enter margaux.

he tells her to leave, he's about to tell the police.

and he has a zip drive that will implicate her when he turns it otver -- implicate courtney love.

but he's stripped all links of margaux off the drive.

so margaux thanks him and leaves.

she gets away with every thing.

that's apparently what amanda wanted.  doesn't make it right with me.

she helped victoria stage her death, she hired courtney to kill ben.

she should be behind bars.

margaux was the worst of 'revenge.'



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

 
Wednesday, May 13, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Shi'ite militias continue to target Sunnis, Nancy A. Youssef calls out propaganda, Barack's photo op flames out, and much more.




Tomorrow is supposed to be US President Barack Obama's big photo op at Camp David to prove that he's friends with the Arabs in the Middle East and that they stand with him.

Of course, they don't.  Not these days.

His embrace of Iran has disturbed officials in the region and threatens to result in instability or futher instability.

In what has been interpreted as an international snub, Saudi Arabia's King Salman has refused to travel to the US for the event and has instead sent two Saudi princes.

Jeff Mason (Reuters) reports that Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Prince Mohammed bin Salam were welcomed by Barack at the White House today.

The White House released this transcript of remarks at the brief photo op.



THE PRESIDENT:   Well, it’s wonderful to welcome back the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef, as well as Deputy Crown Prince Salman.  We are very pleased to have them both here today, as well as the delegation from Saudi Arabia.
As all of you are aware, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt and King Faisal, and we are continuing to build that relationship during a very challenging time.
This gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the bilateral issues, including the crisis in Yemen and how we can build on the ceasefire that’s been established to restore a process for an inclusive, legitimate government inside of Yemen.  And it will also give us a chance to discuss some of the broader issues that will be the topic of the GCC-U.S. Summit tomorrow. 
I can say that, on a personal level, my work and the U.S. government’s work with these two individuals, Crown Prince bin Nayef, on counterterrorism issues has been absolutely critical not only to maintaining stability in the region but also protecting the American people.  And I want to thank them for their extraordinary support and hard work and coordination on our counterterrorism efforts.  And they came in as a critical component of our coalition in the fight against ISIL, and I’m sure that we’ll have opportunities to discuss as well the progress that’s been made in the fight against ISIL in Iraq, as well as the continuing crisis in Syria, and the importance of us addressing not only the humanitarian crisis but the need to bring about a more inclusive and legitimate government there.
Well, I just thank you so much for your presence here today and for your longstanding friendship.


CROWN PRINCE BIN NAYEF:  (As interpreted.)  I would like to thank the President for your kind invitation extended to me and to His Royal Highness, the Deputy Crown Prince.  I wish to convey to you the greetings and appreciation of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman, who attaches -- along with everybody in the Kingdom -- great importance to the strategic and historic relationship between our two countries.
This historic relationship we seek to strengthen and broaden and deepen with time.  Mr. President, you spoke about the situation in the region, and we look forward to, God willing, to working with you to overcome the challenges and to bring about calm and stability in the region.
Once again, Mr. President, I want to thank you for this meeting.


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you, everybody.


Q    Mr. President, what do you plan to tell the GCC leaders about Iran and the nuclear deal?


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  We’ll have a whole press conference, Julie.  You’ll get all kinds of questions.


Q    I’m holding you to that.



PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you, guys.



Julie is Julie Pace, AP correspondent.


The President tried to spin pretty.  Andrew Beatty (AFP) observes:


But the warm words belied deep malaise over Obama's perceived disengagement from the region and willingness to talk to Iran.
The Arab and largely Sunni Muslim states suspect Obama's nuclear deal with Tehran is a harbinger of a bigger role for their Persian and Shiite arch-foe.



Barack's photo ops this week does not include the Sunni Arab delegation from Iraq.  But two of those visiting the US, former Finance Minister Rafe al-Assawi and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nuajaif (brother of Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi) were hosted at a Brookings Institution event on Monday which was moderated by Kenneth Pollack.  We've covered the event in the Monday and Tuesday snapshots.  Today, we'll note this section.




Kenneth Pollack: You [Rafe al-Assawi]  made the point -- and Governor feel free to disagree with this if you do but I have the sense that you also agree with this -- and it was certainly the impression that most of Washington got -- that the problem is not Haider al-Abadi per se.  Prime Minister Abadi wants to do the right thing and that was certainly  the impression that he left here in Washington, that he very much knows where Iraq needs to go and wants to do it.  The problem is not the what, the problem is the how.  And if that is something you both agree with, I'd love to get your thoughts on how you believe the United State might help him to better actually achieve those goals.  Rafe, would you like to start?


Former Minister Rafe al-Assawi:  Okay, thank you very much, Ken, again.  This a broad, very big question.  If we answer it, that means we'll liberate Iraq from ISIS but also from the militias  would save Iraq not just from ISIS and from the militias so all our presentations will answer that so thank you very much.  Look gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen -- talking about Haider al-Abadi who inherited a very damaged political and security situation -- and he's a good guy.  Yes, I agree with you.  He's trying, yes. He needs to be supported -- both Americans, both Arab Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds, yes, I agree on that.  But until this moment, the program of the government has not been implemented according to his commitment in front of the Parliament.  I'm talking about the timetable.  So some of the stories like amnesty -- he talks about six months for example.  Now?  Nothing took place. And if you come to all other points of reconciliation, de-Ba'athifcaiton, etc.  So yes, I agree we should help Haider al-Abadi.  America can help to rebuild the Iraqi security forces that I talk about because without building national security forces it means Iraq would be controlled totally by militias on one side and by ISIS on the other side.  And this is the question -- the story of arming Sunnis: Would arming Sunnis divide Iraq?  The question is: Is Iraq united now?  More than 50% is under the control of ISIS.  We want to bring back, restore united Iraq by arming the Sunnis. So when we send Sunni fighters and Kurds to liberate territory from ISIS, we want to bring back the unity of Iraq.  So helping him in dismantling militias on the Shi'ite side, bringing back state of law, supporting him in the very rapid arming of the Iraqi fighters -- Kurd and Sunni according to our suggestion of this committee because central government keeps saying that if we push the weapons to the Sunni tribes and the Sunnis may push it.  Is it the Sunnis who will push the weapons or or the defeated Iraqi army who'll give his tanks in Mosul when he's defeated?  So you see, this is not justification.  You cannot keep saying -- putting question mark on everything. You have to trust people who are fighting ISIS.  So this is dismantlying militias putting all the resources of all the Iraqis supporting them in fighting ISIS, supporting Iraqis in presenting the draft of national guard because we agreed upon local forces that catch security on the ground in Nineveh on its own and in Anbar local, by the way, and on the southern province also so south has its own national guard.  The problem is national guard has not moved yet.  So these are the main topics on which America can help.  Finally, America can also work to support Abadi on oil because when the prices have collapsed, it's very difficult for the government to cover the costs of all these huge numbers of displaced people, the story of international funds may help also.

Kenneth Pollack:  Governor Atheel?

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi:  I believe in the unity of the stronger groups. I think it will not be -- Iraq will not be united if we strengthen one group and weaken the others.  So what we need is to strengthen the Sunni group so that they can fight ISIS also they will return to balance the Iraqi forces.  And US can do that. It can strengthen the Iraq, the Sunni groups, the Kurds and the legal Shia group who are in the Iraqi Constitution.  

Kenneth Pollack:  Governor, let me follow that up with a specific question to you -- but, Rafe, I would also be glad to get your thoughts -- the process of reconciliation was something you both talked about, that Prime Minister Abadi talks about.  Again, it is clear that every Iraqi who knows anything about the situation understands that this is critical.  Does the US have a role to play in fostering that process of reconciliation because, again, we see people like you, we see people like the Prime Minister talking about the process of reconciliation [but] we don't really see it happening. Is it happening behind the scenes?  Is there more that can be done? Should the US be doing more? Governor?

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi:  I think that there's a real wish for the reconciliation in Iraq especially when some of the Shi'ite groups get the authority and they didn't want to lose it.  So they want the reconciliation to keep the power in their hand and it cannot be a reconciliation like that.  If we are talking with real reconciliation, as I said, we need to strengthen the other groups to give them the freedom to choose their representatives so they will be in balance with others.  And that will work.  I'm talking about elections.  We need elections getting all of the groups of the Sunnis -- not only me and Dr. Rafe -- all the Sunni groups must be involved in that election.  And so we will have all the Sunni community inside the political process.


I'm not of the opinion that Haider al-Abadi is a "good person."

I honestly don't care whether he is or not or whether he wakes up smiling or has a pleasant bowel movement.

I care if he delivers on his promise.

He was installed (by the US government) to demonstrate to a fracturing Iraq -- and a targeted and disenchanted Sunni group -- that democracy -- in some form -- was still a possibility for Iraq.

We'll go into democracy or 'democracy' in Iraq in Thursday's snapshot.

But for now, let's just note that Haider's installation as prime minister was a last gasp effort to try to save Iraq -- last gasp effort by the US government.

And let's note that Barack declared, eleven months ago, that the only answer to Iraq's crises was "a political solution."

Now if that was sincere, if the whole point was to trick and screw over the Iraqi people (yet again), then the US government should have been aiding and facilitating reconciliation.

They should have made every weapon delivery, every equipment delivery, every bit of financial aid promised and delivered conditional upon steps towards national reconciliation.

Not empty words, mind you, but actual steps, actual actions taken.

You laugh he said you think you're immune
Go look at your eyes they're full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies pretty lies
When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies
Only pretty lies just pretty lies

-- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Blue album


Those pretty lies aren't doing a damn thing to help Iraq.

And it's a sign of just how awful thug Nouri al-Maliki was as prime minister that Haider al-Abadi doing nothing for eight months is a sign of 'improvement.'

Or treated as though it is.

There is no improvement.

You can argue things are getting worse.

Haider clearly has no control over the Shi'ite militias.

The US government has lost the support of Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (a Shi'ite political group -- with ties to two Shi'ite militias).  al-Hakim spent all of last month publicly slamming the United States government.  He's made this week about praising the government of Iran for its help and insisting that its done an outstanding job in the fight against terrorism.


And the White House doesn't seem to care.

They did not have a closer Shi'ite ally than Ammar al-Hakim.


They have never gotten along with cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr.  The relationship with Nouri al-Maliki was based upon mutual deceptions and lies.  Ibrahim al-Jaafari has never cared for the US -- why would he?  Following the December 2005 elections, Ibrahim was supposed to be prime minister (for a second term) but the US government refused to allow that to happen and instead installed Nouri in the spring of 2006.

Those really are the main Shi'ite political players.

And the only one that was willing to publicly give the US a fair hearing, Ammar al-Hakim, has publicly transitioned from/turned against the US government and this hasn't bothered Barack at all.  There have been no efforts to address whatever issues or problems have sprung up.

The diplomatic approach -- if you can call it that -- has been to ignore Ammar.

At whatever point the US government decides they need to work on or towards a political solution, they're going to have a hard time building support.

And Haider needs prompting, needs pushing.











Tuesday saw a demonstration in Balad Ruz, Sunnis decrying the kidnapping of 25 Sunni civilians by Shi'ite militias in the area to 'protect' the people.

Just because the western media ignores it doesn't mean that the Iraqi people have.

Haider was supposed to represent change.

Nothing's changed.

Sunnis are still being targeted.


And the Kurds are still being given empty promises from Haider al-Abadi.  National Iraqi News Agency reports:


PM of the Kurdistan Regional Government Nechirvan Barzani reiterated on Tuesday the Regional government's commitment to the agreement between Baghdad and Erbil, waving to take an "appropriate political decision" in the absence of Baghdad's commitment to the agreement.
A statement by the Regional government quoted al-Barzani as saying that "the Government of the region interested in implementation of the agreement with the central government, and it committed to it fully, adding that "if Baghdad did not comply with the agreement, the Government of the Region and political parties participating in the government should take the necessary political decision, and find a way to resolve the financial and economic crisis in the region ".
He added that the parliament and the government of the region are obligated, according to the law, in finding other way to secure the requirements of the region, if the federal government failed to secure it.




The empty promises, the pretty words, they only amuse and distract for so long.

Haider's repeated inability to deliver on his public promises are preventing any progress or unity from being achieved.


At the Brooking Institution event, the national guard issue was raised.


One thing that US President Barack Obama has pushed for is a national guard in Iraq made up of the three dominant population groups with each of the three responsible for defending the areas in which their group is dominant.  Since last summer, Barack and others working for the US government have publicly promoted that idea.


They haven't put any real work in on the issue.

And there's still no national guard, as Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi noted at the Brookings event.



It still hasn't come into being.

Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports that a bill proposing the creation of the national guard was read into Parliament a second time last Thursday but no one bothered to comment during the reading and the excuse is there wasn't time.  Grace notes MP reactions indicate support from Sunnis but fear from Shi'ites that a national guard would elevate Sunnis and strip control and/or power from Baghdad.  The Badr bloc and the National Alliance (both Shi'ite groups) are said to be against the creation of a National Guard.



Turning to violence, Iraqi Spring MC notes a southern Baghdad roadside bombing left three Sahwa injured.  Alsumaria notes a Baquba bombing has left six member of the police injured, All Iraq News adds a Baghdad car bombing has left 3 Shi'ite pilgrims dead and eleven more injured. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 104 violent deaths across Iraq.


And if you survive the Islamic State and/or or the Iraqi forces (including militias) don't kill you, you still have to watch out for the weather.  A dust storm,  Alsumaria notes, resulted in  97 asphyxia cases in Kirkuk  (all 97 received medical attention and survived) while in Anbar 1 person died and 19 others were in need of treatment due to asphyxia from the dust storm.


Not all citizens are at risk.







That video, posted by Iraqi Spring MC, shows the lengths Iraqi forces go to protect a citizen . . . of course he's the son of a government official and this is the Mansour section of Baghdad and he, apparently, really needs to race his car so it's really important that he have security forces standing by to protect him should any threats emerge to his pampered ass.


Iraq was a topic raised at today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.





QUESTION: Iraq?


MR RATHKE: Yes.


QUESTION: So International Crisis Group just released a report yesterday. They criticized the way the United States and other coalition countries provide military assistance to the Kurdish Peshmerga. First of all, have you seen the report? And --


MR RATHKE: I haven’t seen the report. I think our stance on our support to the Kurdish forces, to the Peshmerga, remains the same. We provide very significant assistance to the Kurdish Peshmerga, so I think there can be no question about our commitment to supporting the Kurdish forces. But we do that in coordination through the central Iraqi Government.


QUESTION: Are you – is there any concerns that providing military assistance to the Kurdish Peshmerga might destabilize the region furthermore in the future, as the report states?


MR RATHKE: Well, again, our policy is – it remains the same. We believe that a united Iraq is a stronger Iraq. We support the Iraqi constitution. And we have an active relationship, of course, with officials in the Kurdish region, as well as with the Peshmerga. So we see that as strengthening the – Iraq overall, and that’s why our policy is focused on a united, democratic, and federal Iraq.


QUESTION: Also on Iraq?


MR RATHKE: Yes. Yeah, Iraq. Yes, go ahead, Lesley.


QUESTION: There are reports – well, Iraq’s defense ministry has said that ISIS’s number two has been killed in Iraq. Can you confirm any of this?


MR RATHKE: I’m not able to confirm that. I think if anyone in the U.S. Government will know first, it would be my colleagues at the Pentagon. But I don’t have confirmation.


QUESTION: Would it matter if he were killed? What does it say about the current strength of ISIL?


MR RATHKE: Well, our view on ISIL is that its momentum has been halted; they’ve lost control of territory; and we believe that ultimately they will be defeated. So that’s certainly the way we look at ISIL.


QUESTION: We actually had (inaudible) saying that ISIL had made gains near Homs in Syria and that it is actually expanding its reach in Syria. Does that worry you, or do you actually not see that as the overall trajectory there?


MR RATHKE: I’m not familiar with that report. I hadn’t seen it.


QUESTION: Okay.


MR RATHKE: So we’ve tried not to do a battlefield analysis on shifting lines on a day-to-day basis. I think if you look at the extent of ISIL’s reach about a year ago and look at where it is now, you see that it has been pushed back in many, many places, but --


QUESTION: I guess it depends when you start to look and – I mean, if you look at two years ago to where they are now, they have a lot more than what they had two years ago.


MR RATHKE: Well, and ISIL is a serious threat. That’s why we’ve mounted a coalition to oppose them. But my point is that since that coalition has been brought together and has taken so many different steps, that it’s had a real effect --


QUESTION: (Inaudible) just to follow up on --


MR RATHKE: Yeah.


QUESTION: But ISIL, I mean, their biggest prize that they’ve gotten so far is Mosul. And there was so much talk about a spring offensive to liberate Mosul and so on, and nothing really is happening (inaudible).


MR RATHKE: Well, we haven’t put a timeline on that. That will be a decision made by the Iraqi leadership. We are supporting Iraq through training, through equipment, and through our joint operation centers in Baghdad, in Erbil. But as we’ve said quite a few times, when they decide to undertake an operation to liberate Mosul will be an Iraqi decision, and I think the Iraqis want to do it when the time is right.


QUESTION: Most reports show that they are actually strengthening their presence in Mosul, not loosening it, so to speak. So they – they govern it as an independent entity and they do from traffic to finances to currency to all these things. They’re solidly in control. So wouldn’t it be safe to assume that the lack of this offensive, or the joint operations, as you call them, or the delay basically helps ISIS control more of that territory?


MR RATHKE: We’ve said all along that this will take time. So it’s – it is important. We’re working with our Iraqi partners to that end; also with our international partners.
Go ahead, Guy.


QUESTION: Thanks, Jeff. Just back to this talk about the International Crisis Group report, the report also went into quite a bit of detail actually about how the current U.S. and coalition policy of channeling the weapons through the ministry of defense in Baghdad is making Kurdish – factions of the Peshmerga that are aligned with different political factions within the KRG and around wider Kurdistan fight amongst each other and be more susceptible from Iranian military influence. My question for you – this report specifically called on the United States and its partners in the coalition to create a central command that included Baghdad and these various other factions to redefine the policy of distributing weapons to the various militias in Iraq. And there are others in Iraq that are calling for that right now. I’m wondering if that’s something you can comment on. Is it something being considered seriously in this building by perhaps General Allen, Mr. McGurk, and others?


MR RATHKE: Well, as I said in response to the earlier question, I haven’t seen that report, so I’m not familiar with its contents and I don’t want to --


QUESTION: I just told you what the contents were.


MR RATHKE: Well, I appreciate you’re offering the summary, but --


QUESTION: I also wrote about it. It’s in today’s paper if – it’s laid out fairly clearly. (Laughter).


MR RATHKE: You need to send me your articles. I hadn’t seen that one.


QUESTION: (Off-mike.)



MR RATHKE: But our policy is in support of a united and federal and democratic Iraq. And also our policy with regard to arms transfers, again, is designed to reinforce that policy. I’m happy to look and see if there’s anything additional to add on that, but I’m not aware of any discussion about changing – about the United States trying to suggest changes to how Iraq organizes its security forces writ large.



We long ago learned to ignore the claims of this fighter/militant/terrorist/leader killed in Iraq.  If you still immediately fell for that after 2006, you were being willfully ignorant.

The death raised in today's press briefing?

Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) explores the propaganda:


Another day, another dubious claim about a top terrorist’s death. What’s going on here?
On Wednesday, the Iraqi Defense Ministry said ISIS’s No. 2 leader, Alaa al-Afri, had been killed in an airstrike targeting a mosque in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. The ministry released a video of what it called the Iraqi strike that killed al-Afri. The problem: The video was actually May 4 video of a coalition strike in Mosul, 40 miles away.
And given that Al-Afri spoke at a mosque in Mosul Friday, it is impossible that the released video could have been of the No. 2 commander’s death.
It’s not the first time Iraq has made dubious claims about offing ISIS chiefs. The question is: why do they keep doing it?










iraq
antiwar.com





nancy a. youssef
the daily beast
reuters

5/13/2015

revenge - questions

abc aired the series finale of 'revenge' on sunday.

i had a ton of e-mails about how it should have been a 2 hour special and why wasn't it a 2 hour special and didn't i think it should be a 2 hour special and -

get the idea?

so should it have been a 2 hour special?

that would have been nice.

but grasp that they were wrapping up the show but at the same time possibly extending it.

had abc told them when they were getting ready to write the episode that it would for sure be the last 1, they might have gone for a longer 1.

or might not.

the only way to make it a 2 hour 1 was to put the last 2 episodes together on the same night.

that would give you 2 hours but wouldn't really feel like anything other than 2 separate episodes.

i am mad at abc for cancelling the show but i'm not blaming any 1 with the show for not giving us a 2 hour send off.  i'm sure, given the opportunity, they would have gladly gone for it.



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



Tuesday, May 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues to mount, Haider al-Abadi's half-hearted Sunni inclusion measures yield half-hearted results, how Jeb Bush is working the GOP base to improve his struggling political campaign, and much more.



It was not a good day for US President Barack Obama.  Alexander Bolton (The Hill) notes, "Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama's trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from tackling fast-track legislation."  Today also saw him criticized as sexist for his remarks on Senator Elizabeth Warren with NOW's Terry O'Neill declaring his remarks were sexist and that their "clear subtext is that 'the little lady' just doesn't know what she's talking about" while Senator Sherrod Brown stated, "I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that.  I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to."

As bad as today may be for Barack, next month may be worse.

June 2015 will mark the one year anniversary of Barack rebuking Iraq's then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and insisting the only way for the country to emerge from its crises was via a "political solution."  That publicly stated realization has been followed by months and months of the US government refusing to work with Iraq towards a political solution or to demand that Iraq's leaders take necessary steps.

Iraq came up in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.



QUESTION: Okay. And then some Sunni – Iraqi Sunni leaders are here in town in Washington, D.C., including Rafe al-Essawi, who is wanted by the Iraqi court. Can you tell us why they are here and whether they have met any State Department officials?


MR RATHKE: Well, we’re aware that the former Iraqi deputy prime minister and the governor of Nineveh province are visiting Washington this week. It’s an unofficial visit, not organized by the U.S. Government. They have requested meetings at the Department of State, so we expect that senior department officials who work on issues related to Iraq and ISIL will meet with them during their stay, but I don’t have further --


QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi?


MR RATHKE: I’m sorry?


QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi as well?


MR RATHKE: I don’t have further information on the meetings. As again – as I said, this is an unofficial visit. So they’ve requested meetings here, and we will meet with them. I don’t have a full lineup of exactly who’s going to participate.


QUESTION: Well, when you meet with them, will you be able to share some more information?



MR RATHKE: I don’t have any further information. I’d refer you back to their delegation to talk about the details.

Yesterday in DC, Rafe al-Issawi appeared at Brookings Institution event with Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi.  The event was moderated by Kenneth Pollack.


Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: [. . .]  the volunteers are ready to fight as soon as they get weapons.  By now we have thousands of fighters who have graduated from these camps [run by international trainers] and are ready to fight but they don't have weapons.  They don't have the weapons they need for the fight for the liberation of Mosul from Da'ash.  Since last January -- now five months ago -- we are still waiting for the promises of weapons that have been made by our government in Baghdad.  Promises are nice but it's the weapons that our volunteers need, not the promises.  The force which hold Mosul after liberation  must be trusted by the people of Mosul.  That means the force must be from Mosul and its surrounding province in Nineveh. If these forces to be trusted by Mosul community the Mosul people will be on the side of the liberation and Da'ash cannot make a comeback into Mosul.  The liberation comes first, of course, but its the period after the liberation that will be decided.  Our people will be watching. 



al-Nujaifi's remarks work with regards to Mosul.  He identified the Nineveh Province city as the equivalent of Chicago or San Francisco in the United States.

But the remarks also go to the ongoing operation in Anbar Province where non-Sunnis are failing in their assault on Ramadi and Shi'ite militias have also found no success.  The news that 1,000 Sunni fighters might take part is seen as too little and way too late.

Only 1,000, Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) notes as he explains:


 In response to mounting criticism that sectarian Shiite Muslim militias are committing crimes against the mostly Sunni Muslim residents of embattled Anbar province, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi has authorized training and arming Sunni militiamen to combat the Islamic State.
But as the first class of local Sunnis began training this week, analysts, security experts and government officials expressed concerns that the program is too small and poorly coordinated to make a difference, while others are concerned that arming the Sunnis will alienate Abadi’s Shiite militia allies, who’ve already complained about the government’s cooperation with the American-led coalition.



Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/05/12/4521699/few-sunni-tribesmen-in-iraq-sign.html#storylink=cpy

The remarks by Atheel al-Nujaifi  also go to the failures of Prime Minister Haider al-Obadi to live up to his part of the deal:  The US government arms Iraq to fight the Islamic State and Haider distributes those arms to the fighters -- all those fighting against the Islamic State -- Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis.


But Haider has refused to supply the needed arms to the Sunnis and the Kurds.  Atheel al-Nujaifi noted the failure to provide Sunni fighters with the needed arms.

Last week, KRG President Massoud Barzani visited DC and he noted, again, the failure of Haider and the Baghdad-based government to arm the Kurds.

Rudaw examined Barzani's visit in a discussion featuring Nussaibah Younis and Ernie Audino with Rudaw's Namo Abdulla moderating.

Nussaibah Younis:  I'm not at all surprised that President Barzani was well recieved in the United States. After all, the Kurdish Peshmerga -- and particularly the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga -- are the only responsible, very well equipped, very effective forces on the ground in the fight against ISIS and the United States has been absolutely desperate to support forces on the ground so that the US  is not again in the position where it has to send ground troops into Iraq.  So it makes absolute sense that President Barzani and other Kurdish leaders would be very well received in Washington.

[. . .]

Ernie Audino:  I think President Barzani left the meeting seemingly happy with the results of the meeting maybe not because of the independence issue -- maybe not because of that.  But we can presume that that was one of several issues he very likely discussed.  Now I wasn't in the meeting, but it's clear he certainly had to articulate a case for direct arming of the Peshmerga -- something that has not happened yet, okay?  Arms and equipment go directly to Baghdad first  and -- from my experience on the ground trying to equip the Kurdish government back in 2006, I can tell you the equipment, very little of that gets into the hands of the Peshmerga.  And right now if its on the manifest of the carrier that's landing in Baghdad and Baghdad does not want that in the hands of the Peshmerga, the Peshmerga do not get it. And the Peshmerga just got 25 mwraps.  And that's good, I'm glad   That's 10% of all the Mwraps that were delivered to Baghdad.

Namo Abdullah:  That's mine resistant vehichles, right?

Ernie Audino:  That's correct.  That's correct.  The Peshmerga desperately need those vehicles to cross the open ground.  But 10% landing on the ground in Baghdad going to the main effort in the fight? The Peshmerga?  That's inconsistent with sound military doctrine. 



If Haider wants to continue to oversee the distribution, he needs to honor his word to distribute the arms and equipment.  If he can't, the US Congress is prepared to handle the responsibility he's shirked.

There is genuine concern in Iraq over Haider's inability to deal fairly.

At Monday's event, Atheel al-Nujaifi also noted, "President Obama last month pledged $200 million in humanitarian aid.  With this humanitarian aid, President Obama promised, to be on hand immediately in Mosul after liberation.  Or  will it be tied up in Baghdad's bureaucracy?"

And that's a very good question since so much of the money in Iraq tends to vanish and never reached the intended or the needy.

The refugee crisis once prompted Nouri al-Maliki to insist that neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would receive money from the Iraqi government due to all the Iraqi refugees they were hosting.  That never happened.

But long after Nouri is no longer prime minister, the refugee crisis continues to grow.

The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued the following today:



12 May 2015,Iraq - IOM Iraq’s new Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) published this week recorded 2,834,676 internally displaced Iraqis from January 2014 through 25 April
2015. The majority of the new displacement identified in the two-week period was caused by conflict in the Ramadi area of Anbar governorate.
Following the outbreak of the Ramadi crisis, which occurred around 10 April, DTM tracked 133,104 individuals displaced to 15 of Iraq’s 18 governorates. The governorates receiving the greatest number of displaced people as a result of the Ramadi crisis are Baghdad (83,172), Anbar (24,552), Babylon (7,392) and Sulaymaniyah (6,504). An estimated 65 per cent of the total population tracked as “in transit” has been recorded in this DTM report.
Within the reporting period, more than 16,000 individuals returned to the Markaz Ramadi sub-district, in the center of Ramadi district. The majority of this population cited the lack of a required sponsor to enter Baghdad as the reason they returned to Ramadi. Based on initial field reports, areas of return are under the control of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
Recent clashes between the ISF and armed groups also triggered displacements from Karmah district in Anbar. As of 8 May, 47,256 individuals were displaced; 94 per cent to Fallujah district and 6 per cent to Abu Ghraib district in Baghdad.
This is the second DTM report to present returnee tracking figures across Iraq. A total of 116,850 individuals (19,475 families) are monitored as having returned to their districts of origin. Diyala governorate shows the highest returnee population with 37 per cent (43,044 individuals), of which 73 per cent are reported to be returning from other areas within the governorate. Preliminary findings indicate that 77 per cent of the total returnee population resettled in their locations of former residence, while 19 per cent have returned to unfinished or abandoned buildings.
IOM Iraq Chief of Mission Thomas Lothar Weiss said: “We are deeply concerned about the new and continuing displacement in Iraq. IOM Iraq has provided over 115,000 non-food item kits since the beginning of the current crisis, and tens of thousands of displaced people have benefitted from our shelter, livelihoods, and health programme assistance. But the quantity of life-saving humanitarian aid available is insufficient. Funding constraints limit IOM and the humanitarian communities’ ability to offer the breadth of response required to the meet vast humanitarian needs. IOM is committed to provide continued assistance in coordination with the Government of Iraq and humanitarian partners in its efforts to assist displaced people.”
Salam Zidan fled from his home just outside of Ramadi in Anbar district on 19 April with his wife and six children. They left when shelling drew near to their neighbourhood. They spoke with IOM staff at a non-food item kit distribution in western Baghdad on 21 April.
“We spent two days travelling to Baghdad, between walking and hiring transport. I was shot in the leg during the displacement, so I can’t work. We came with nothing. Now after this distribution we have mattresses and stoves and other items. There are no words to describe our gratitude for what IOM gave us,” he said.
The DTM is an IOM information management tool that gathers specific information regarding the status and location of displaced people.
The most recent IOM Iraq DTM Dataset, Dashboards, and Dynamic Displacement Map, in addition to previous DTM products, can be found at: http://iomiraq.net/dtm-page

For more information please contact IOM Iraq. Laura Nistri, Tel. +964 751 234 2549, Email: lnistri@iom.int or Sandra Black, Tel. +964 751 234 2550, Email: sblack@iom.int




Turning to the topic of the ongoing killings, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 137 violent deaths in Iraq today.


On violence, there are many ways to prevent it.  There are also ways to detect it.

For example, a bomb threat might lead to bomb sniffing dogs being used in an area.

Some aren't smart enough to resort to that and instead prefer to resort to 'magic.'  For a reminder of that, let's drop back to May 20, 2013:




Violence slams Iraq today.  Brisband Times notes (in a video report),  "Washing the blood off the streets, the clear up begins after another deadly day of violence in Iraq."  Fiji Broadcasting Corporation observes, "Baghdad was the worst hit."  This morning,  Al Jazeera noted, "Eight car bombs in mainly Shia districts of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, killed 20 people on Monday."   By the end of the day, AP reported the bombing toll was up to 10 and the death toll to 48 (with over 150 injured).  On this AP video report, a Baghdad man states, "We have become accustom to such explosions.  We have seen blasts every day. These attacks will never frighten us, God willing."  As Baghdad is slammed with bombings, it's worth dropping back to the May 10th snapshot:

Alsumaria reports that cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr declared his sympathy for the Iraqis who've lost family members as a result of the purchase and use by Nouri's government of 'magic' wands -- which have been known not to work since 2009.  Moqtada urged the families who lost loved ones and those who were injured as a result to sue the person who purchased the items. (That would be Nouri.)  April 23rd (see the  April 24, 2013 snapshot), James McCormick, the man who made and sold the wands, who was on trial for those wands, was pronounced guilty on three counts of fraud.  And still Nouri has allowed -- no, insisted that the wands be used.   May 2nd, McCormick was sentenced to a maxium of 10 years.  Jake Ryan (Sun) quoted Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse." And yet last Friday, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that the 'magic'  wands to 'detect' bombs (and drugs and, no doubt, spirits from the other world) are still being used in Iraq.  He spoke with a police officer in Baghdad who admits that everyone knows that they don't work but that the police are under orders to use the wands.

Last Saturday,   NINA reported,  "Leader of the Sadrist Trend, Muqtada al-Sadr, demanded Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to apologize and stand before Parliament to answer about the deal of the explosives detection instruments."  Moqtada suspects some Iraqis were bribed in this deal and wants names he also demands that the 'magic' wands stop being used immediately stating that they are "an insult to the Iraqis' intelligence."  Moqtada and Iraqiya have called for Nouri to appear before Parliament and explain why the wands were purchased, who profited from them and the various details of the deal that was made for them.

Al Mada reports that the Ministry of the Interior claimed today that they would recover all the money spent on the magic wands.  Ministry of the Interior Inspector General Aqeel Turaihi states that they have known and acknowledged since October 2010 that the magic wands do not work.

Regardless of whether money is recovered for the purchase, as Moqtada al-Sadr points out, lives have been lost and people have been injured.


So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working?  No.  It was known before that.  May 11th,  Alsumaria reported  that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased anymore.  There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to answer questions.  He needs to.  But he has refused all calls so far -- despite the Constitution on this issue.  He continues to violate and ignore the Constitution.   Kitabat  also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here.  May 12th,   Alsumaria reported Parliament's Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of "top officials" involved.  Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander "Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs, which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the intelligence information."  May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands were still being used in Baghdad.  May 2nd, the seller and maker was sentenced:

The Belfast Telegraph notes that [James] McCormick "showed no reaction as he was told his 'callous confidence trick' was the worst fraud imaginable."  Jake Ryan (Sun) quotes Judge Richard Hone stating, "The device was useless, the profit outrageous and your culpability as a fraudster has to be placed in the highest category.  Your profits were obscene.  You have neither insight, shame or any sense of remorse."


The use of these 'magic' wands in Iraq still is criminal.





It was criminal.

Even more criminal is that those useless wands are still in use today.  Jacob Siegel (Daily Beast) reports Iraq is still using those worthless sticks designed to find golf balls -- they couldn't even do that -- but sold to Iraq as bomb dectectors.  You hold it and jog in place and that job turns the stick into a magical diving rod that can sense bombs. Sigel reports:


The wands provide a visible symbol of Iraq’s rampant corruption. They were bought despite warnings that they didn’t work and kept in service after it was proved they didn’t work. A 2010 investigation into their purchase ended before it started, without any officials held accountable, after Iraq’s interior minister used an article in the country’s criminal code that gives senior officials control over whether their subordinates are prosecuted for corruption. 
 “The government in Maliki’s era was corrupt and strong; now it is corrupt and weak,” said Dr. Abbas Kadhim, a senior foreign policy fellow at Johns Hopkins University, in a recent interview about the legacy of former Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki and current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.



The craftiness that is Jeb Bush, the stupidity that is us.

Last week, Jeb's struggling political campaign to win the GOP's presidential nomination was dealing with the kind of poll results that do real damage --- the ones that tell the media you're not really a serious candidate.

When that sinks in, the media tends to run from you.

And Jeb was supposed to be the front runner.

He's the son of a president (George HW Bush) and the brother of a man the Supreme Court installed in the Oval Office (Bully Boy Bush).  His grandfather (Prescott Bush) was a US Senator.  Himself, he's the former governor of Florida.

Those are the sort of credits that let you step to the front when you announce your running for public office.

But they didn't work for Jeb.

Throughout April, he found himself either only slightly ahead in the polls (within the margin of error) or running behind Senator Marco Rubio.

And in some polls, he was running behind Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

And in some polls, he was running behind Rubio, Walker and Senator Rand Paul.

In a crowded field, he was being overlooked.

His statements broadcast Monday, but leaked to the press on Sunday, that he would have gone to war on Iraq the way his brother did (and, he pointed out, the way Hillary Clinton had voted to support) moved him to the forefront.

He is the focus.

B-b-but the media is calling him out!

And what's your point?

We're talking about the Republican Party.

The party who invented the myth of a liberal media to take the heat off journalistic exposes and stinging commentaries.

The media attacking Jeb -- and that is what they're doing as they obsess over him -- only make Jeb more viable -- and relatable -- to the GOP base.

We all realize, right, that Jeb's running to appeal to the GOP base right now, right?

We get that?

Most of us are smart enough to know that Dems run left (or what they think is left) in the presidential primary and then veer towards the center in the general.

Guess what?

The Republicans do the same.

Jeb Bush is running for the GOP presidential nomination.

He may or may not make it to the general election.  But to get there, he's first got to appeal to the base.  And he's never been the 'regular guy' his brother Bully Boy Bush was portrayed as by the media.

So these attacks on him?

They're actually helping him.

And the Republican base which supported the Iraq War -- and a significant portion of which does not regret the Iraq War -- aren't bothered by his remarks but are watching with interest how he is attacked for expressing an opinion that they feel is very similar to their own opinion.

He's walked it back a bit, clarified his remarks.

He can say whatever he wants now.  To the base, he expressed their opinion and he was trashed for it. That provides identification with Jeb that they've never had before.

In some of the comments being made -- in Tweets, columns, etc -- Jeb is taken to task for not calling out his brother.  I have no idea what world these people live in.

But fueled by their own hatred, they suddenly believe it's normal to ask or expect Jeb to take on his brother.

That's never been considered noble or the thing to do.



My name is Joe Roberts I work for the state
I'm a sergeant out of Perrineville barracks number 8
I always done an honest job as honest as I could
I got a brother named Franky and Franky ain't no good

Now ever since we was young kids it's been the same come down
I get a call over the radio Franky's in trouble downtown
Well if it was any other man, I'd put him straight away
But when it's your brother sometimes you look the other way

Me and Franky laughin' and drinkin' nothin' feels better than blood on blood
Takin' turns dancin' with Maria as the band played "Night of the Johnstown Flood"

I catch him when he's strayin' like any brother would
Man turns his back on his family well he just ain't no good

-- "Highway Patrolman," written by Bruce Springsteen, first appears on his album Nebraska



Get it?

Get it, yet?

My side (the left) has now spent nearly three days being ridiculous with attacks that only help Jeb Bush with the GOP base.

By the end of last month, it really seemed like Jeb's run for the GOP presidential nomination was over.

Yet thanks to remarks -- and the reaction (over reaction) to them by the media and the left -- this week, he's now soaked up all the media focus and been treated in such a manner that the Republican base that wasn't sure about him now could very well identify with him.









5/12/2015

revenge

to a number of readers - including those in east texas - who wrote in to say they hadn't seen 'revenge' yet (east texas has the excuse of bad weather meaning their local abc did not air the finale), i won't write about anything until tuesday night at the earliest.

so no spoilers in this post.

i will say it went out strong.

and i will say that there's a chance of a nolan spin-off.

in his final scene - this i will write about - he's at the club he owns (country club) when a man walks in and he was told to see nolan because he wants revenge for what was done to his mother.

so that's the spin-off people have been whispering about.

i have no idea if it will come to be or not.

but even if it doesn't, it gives nolan some closure in that he's now able to help some else with all he's learned in the last 4 seasons.

otherwise?

again, i'm not saying until next time.

but i will be writing about it next time so don't come here if you don't want to find out what happened or get my take on it.

(and to those readers in east texas, i'm glad that you're okay and sad that some people died as a result of extreme bad weather.)


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



Monday, May 12, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, two prominent Sunni officials visit the US and talk Iraq, Barack's big Camp David summit photo-op is in danger, Congress gives some attention to the dangers of burn pits, and much more.


The month's not even at the half-way point and already a new calamity for US Pesident danger prone Barack Obama.  Terry Atlas (Australia's The Age) notes, "Mr Obama is convening the summit as the administration is trying to restore the flagging confidence of Gulf Arab leaders in US leadership in the face of an emboldened Iran. Several heads of state are sending lower level officials to meet with Mr Obama, sparking questions about whether the president had been snubbed by frustrated allies."

Raghida Dergham (Al Arabiya) offers this take:


The security concerns of the Gulf nations will be strongly present on the agenda of the meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, who has linked his historical legacy to a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Any attempt to dissuade Obama from his eagerness for a deal with Tehran would draw the ire of the man who does not accept criticism easily and who has no wish to deviate from the path he set with Iran. Any attempt to remind him that he had backed away from his own red line on the 11th hour will be sure to anger him and make him more critical of his interlocutors. Barack Obama is not an easy man, but he is more complicated now on the verge of a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has little patience and he has no room for bargaining. 



The summit is set to take place at Camp David and was supposed to be a major photo op for the White House which has so frequently stumbled in the Middle East.  It was supposed to reassure the world that Barack was a friend of and to Arabs and that he stood alongside Arab rulers.


Instead?

Reuters reports:

The White House scrambled on Monday to counter perceptions that the Saudi king's absence from a summit later this week could undermine U.S. efforts to assure Gulf states it remains committed to their security against Iran.
King Salman's abrupt decision to skip the U.S.-hosted regional talks shows how Gulf rulers, displeased by what they see as U.S. indifference to Iranian meddling in the Arab world, may hesitate to bless any final nuclear deal that President Barack Obama reaches with Tehran.

What's going on?

The Brookings Institution's Bruce Riedel offers an explanation which includes:

The Saudis are unhappy with U.S. policy toward Iran, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. They don't want a public argument with the Obama administration (unlike Israel) but they want a very public display of their dissatisfaction.
The timing of the decision, on the eve of the Camp David summit, is especially symbolic and intended to be embarrassing. Saudi sources are suggesting the summit was poorly prepared and lacked substantive deliverables. A reaffirmation of the Carter Doctrine of American support for the Gulf States is regarded as too little. More arms are too late. But the Saudis have known for weeks the constraints on Washington. They deliberately choose the last minute to cancel the king's trip to send a potent signal.

At the heart of Saudi unhappiness is the Saudi fear that the nuclear deal between the P5 and Iran will lift sanctions and end Iran's isolation. The Saudis, Emirates, and Bahrainis want Iran to be a permanent pariah under sanctions indefinitely. They are not worried about centrifuges; they are worried about subversion and intimidation. A rapprochement between the P5 and Iran leaves them dangerously exposed in their view.



In 2012 and '13, "  Kenneth Pollack said as he wound down his introduction of Iraqi official Rafe al-Issawi this morning, "Rafe came under attack by the previous government [Nouri al-Maliki].  His body guards were arrested. He was the target of an assassination attempt.  And he was forced to resign from the government.  He is the personification of the events that led to alienation of the Sunni community in 2012 and '13."

Pollack was speaking at the Brookings Institution as the host of an event featuring al-Assawi and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nujaifi (who is also the brother of Osama al-Nujaifi, the former Speaker of Parliament and one of Iraq's current three vice presidents -- the other two are Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki).



Pollack noted the need for a political solution and how that was not possible until there was a Sunni buy-in of the government.  For that to happen, Pollack stressed, the Sunnis need a picture of what they would be buying into and they would require a vision/plan that recognized them as full citizens of Iraq.

Barack once spoke of the need for a political solution -- in fact, he did so 11 months ago.  Last June, Barack declared that a "political solution" was the only way to resolve the crises Iraq was facing.

Despite that public declaration, Barack and the administration have worked on bombing Iraq and lining up other countries to fly war planes and drop bombs, and send 'trainers' into Iraq and lining up other countries to do the same.

The US State Dept has confused itself with the Defense Dept.  That's Secretary of State John Kerry who's confused the department's mission, that's Brett McGurk and that's especially Special Envoy John Allen who doesn't want to be billed as "special envoy" or "ambassador" but instead as "General" even though (a) he's retired and (b) he's working for the State Dept.

Diplomacy has not just been given a bad name, it's been given figure heads who seem embarrassed by any form of diplomacy that isn't gun point diplomacy.



Rafe al-Issawi noted that in the short term, the most immediate danger to Iraq was the Islamic State and its actions of violence and terror.  But that's not the only danger the country faces.  He explained,
"On the long run, you cannot deal with a country filled with militia which is illegal and which is non-state actors."

He detailed the many Sunnis forced into exile by Nouri al-Maliki and "politicized judiciary decisions" and noted the list of the Sunnis included Tareq al-Hashemi, a vice president of Iraq during Nouri's second term, who was forced into exile by the actions of Nouri.

And I'm noting, these actions did not follow the Constitution.  Charges were brought against Tareq despite the fact that this was not allowed to happen while he was a member of Parliament.  Nouri either had to get the Parliament to strip Tareq of his elected position (they refused to do so) or Nouri had to wait until Tareq's elected position expired.

Instead, Nouri refused to follow the law and had a laughable Court convict him (repeatedly he was convicted, one death penalty sentence after another) -- and the Court was laughable because before the case ever began, they held a press conference in Baghdad, these so-called judges, announcing Tareq was guilty.  This before a single argument was heard in court, before a single piece of evidence was introduced.  This despite the fact that the Iraqi Constitution insists all are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

This was a major moment.

So naturally the world press treated it as nothing.  Treated it as normal.  Underplayed it or outright ignored it.

It took place February 16, 2012 and we noted how it should have been reported:


IRAQI VICE PRESIDENT PROVEN CORRECT
After many claims that he could not receive a fair trial, Tareq al-Hashemi's
assertions were backed up today by the Iraqi judiciary.
BAGHDAD -- Today a nine-member Iraqi judiciary panel released results of an investigation they conducted which found the Sunni Vice President of Iraq was guilty of terrorism.  Monday, December 19th, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki swore out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi who had arrived in the KRG the previous day.  Mr. al-Hashemi refused to return to Baghdad insisting he would not receive a fair trial.  Instead, he was the guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.
During the weeks since the arrest warrant was issued, Mr. al-Hashemi has repeatedly attempted to get the trial moved to another venue stating that Prime Minister al-Maliki controlled the Baghdad judiciary.  Mr. al-Maliki insisted that the vice president return and that he would get a fair trial.
Today's events demonstrate that Mr. al-Hashemi was correct and there is no chance of a fair trial in Iraq.  This was made clear by the judiciary's announcement today.
A judiciary hears charges in a trial and determines guilt; however, what the Baghdad judiciary did today was to declare Tareq al-Hashemi guilt of the charges and to do so before a trial was held. 
Not only do the events offer a frightening glimpse at the realities of the Iraqi legal system, they also back up the claims Mr. al-Hashemi has long made.


Let's also state that the world press saw their role as trash talking Tareq.  They didn't play objective.  They certainly didn't play supportive.  They were too busy propping up thug Nouri.

They were too busy trashing the Sunnis.

Take AFP.

When allegations surfaced that Iraqi women and girls (predominately Sunni) were being beaten and raped in Iraqi jails and prison, AFP ignored the allegations.

When the Parliament began investigating and found the charges to be true, AFP ignored the allegations.

When this issue was one of the issues that led to series of protests lasting over a year in Iraq, AFP ignored the allegations.

When Nouri, months after the allegations surfaced, did a for-show release of a small number of Iraqi women and girls, AFP hailed the moment.

They 'forgot' to follow up on the fact that those females participating in Nouri's photo op never made it home -- their families publicly stated that (and the Iraqi press covered it).

AFP was only interested in the rapes and beatings when Nouri was insisting they weren't true and that, as proof, he'd be releasing a small number of females.

It wasn't just Nouri that brought Iraq to the brink from 2010 to 2014.

It was also the world press which refused to accurately and honestly report what was taking place on the ground in Iraq.

"We keep saying the solution should be political," Rafe al-Issawi noted at the event today. But that's not being focused on and "we don't need America to build its partnership with militias."


al-Issawi noted he had worked with Haider al-Abadi when they both served in Parliament.  He declared that he believed al-Abadi was trying.  But that more needed to be done than trying and that results have not been forthcoming.

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: After 11 years of just talking about reconciliation but no actual steps taken the Sunni in Iraq will no longer be interested in more talk.  The Sunni need to see actual and concrete steps. [. . .] I will give and only outline these points so we can have your questions and a good discussion.  I'm talking about Mosul as a model but I think what I'm talking can be for all the Sunni areas.  First, the people of Mosul are the key to the liberation of Mosul.  The Mosul people must be shown why liberation is better for them than the regime of Da'ash.  History shows that the people are the reason armies succeed or fail.  In a city of nearly 2 million people, soldiers -- no matter how many, even in thousands, or how well equipped and trained -- can do only so much.  We need the people of Mosul to rise up and to help the soldiers throw out Da'ash.  Will the people throw out Da'ash?  I believe they will but we must give them a vision of what their life will be like after the liberation of Mosul -- in addition to the support they need during and immediately after liberation.  


Sunni leaders have gotten far too little attention from the world press -- or the White House -- and we'll be noting this event again.  I have enough marked in my notes to cover at least one more snapshot.  We may end up bringing this into all the snapshots this week, however.



On the issue of a political solution, some will argue Barack's arms are tied.  This seems to be the fall back position for The Cult of St. Barack whenever he fails.

Unlike War Hawks, we never argue that the answer is bombing or sending US ground troops into combat.

There is a diplomatic tool box.  You use it.

If Haider al-Abadi's government wants X and you can give it, you do so on the condition that he does Y in exchange.

So Army Technology reports:

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has notified Congress of a potential foreign military sale (FMS) of additional ammunition and associated equipment to Iraq.
Under the estimated $395m sale, the Iraqi Government has requested the supply of 5,000, 81mm high-explosive mortar ammunition, 684,000 M203 40mm high-explosive ammunition, 532,000 MK19 40mm high-explosive dual-purpose ammunition, and 40,000, 155mm high-explosives.


That's what Iraq's government wants.

To receive it, Barack should demand that certain steps (he can define them) take place on the political reconciliation efforts.

Until a law is passed and implemented, for instance, the ammunition and equipment will not be delivered.

This can also be done with the $200 million he's promised Haider for reconstruction.

To have influence and impact, you don't have to rely on combat.

It's a point that's escaped Barack and his administration -- repeatedly.




Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 55 violent deaths today across Iraq.  In the last week, there have been two high profile murders of Iraqi journalists.  Raed al-Joubri and Thaer Ali's deaths have been covered here and we've noted the silence outside of the Iraqi media and La Prensa when it came to covering these deaths.  Today Reporters Without Borders issued a press release which includes:


Reporters Without Borders is deeply worried by journalist Raed Al-Joubouri’s murder at his Baghdad home last week just days after another journalist, Thaer Alali, was publicly killed after being abducted by Islamic State. The generalized violence and impunity is making the situation of journalists very difficult in Iraq.
Raed Al-Joubouri was found dead in his home in the Qadissiyah district of east Baghdad on 5 May. He had been shot several times, including once in the heart. The circumstances of his death are still unclear but his father told the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO) he thought his son’s death was premeditated and organized.
Employed by the newspaper Azzaman and the host of a business programme on Al Rasheed TV, Joubouri was a critic of Iraqi politics and feared for his life, to the point that he had given those close to him a list of contacts to be alerted if anything happened to him, JFO director Ziad Ajili said.
Thaer Alali, 56, the editor of the local newspaper Rai’ al Nas, was murdered by Islamic State in the northern city of Mosul on 28 April, 20 days after being abducted while making phone calls in a café in the city’s Al-Dawasa district.

According to the JFO, he was the second journalist to be publicly executed by Islamic State this year, following Sama Mosul TV correspondent Qais Talal, 27, who was abducted in June 2014 and executed on 18 February.



We're going to close with a press release.  It was issued Friday.  We noted it here on Saturday.  I was in a hurry and just copy and pasted it from the e-mail and used the title the Congressional office gave it.  Hours later, I realized I shouldn't have.

The title was long.

And the main words, the key word, came way too late in the title.

At Third, we posted it with two words: "Burn Pits."

I asked Jim to check the stats for me and, sure enough, "Burn Pits" more than trumped "Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty Hears from Veterans i..." when it came to page views.

That's because -- here and at Third -- we've long covered burn pits.  And we have people who will eagerly read any news of burn pits if they know that's what it is.

So my apologies for not thinking of that before I posted the press release here on Saturday.


But we are closing with it now, this is from US House Rep Elizabeth Esty's office:


 



     
May 8, 2015
Press Release


WATERBURY, CT – Today, Congresswoman Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) met with veterans at Naugatuck Valley Community College in Waterbury to discuss the consequences of exposure to burn pits while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Burn pits are areas on military bases where waste, such as human waste, batteries, and other garbage, is incinerated and toxic fumes are released into the atmosphere. Esty was inspired to introduce legislation, the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act, H.R. 2237, after veterans in her district contacted her office to inform her of the negative health consequences they suffered.


“While much attention is rightly paid to the visible wounds of war, our veterans also suffer from numerous less visible conditions that result from exposure to the environmental hazards found in war zones,” said Congresswoman Esty. “I’ve heard from veterans in central and northwest Connecticut who suffer from or who know fellow service members who suffer from respiratory and gastrointestinal issues that were likely caused by exposure to burn pits. This is exactly why I introduced the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act to expand care to those exposed to burn pits. Our veterans deserve real attention and quality care for the full range of health conditions from their service to our country.”


“Burn pits are the Agent Orange of our generation,” said James Rizzio, president of NVCC’s Veterans’ Club. “I was around burn pits a lot and it can lead to very serious medical issues later in life. Getting this legislation passed is the right thing to do.”


Rizzio spent six years in the U.S. Army and served in Iraq from 2009 to 2010.


Military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are exposed to a variety of potentially harmful substances including the smoke produced from the burning of waste on military bases. Items such as plastics, aerosol cans, electronic equipment, human waste, metal containers, tires, and batteries are thrown into open pits, sometimes doused with jet fuel, and set ablaze. Smoke from these open-air burn pits can waft throughout the entire base and even into living areas. Health effects from exposure to chemicals found in burn pits can include cancer, neurological and reproductive effects, respiratory toxicity, and cardiovascular toxicity.


The Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act would create a center of excellence within the Department of Veterans Affairs in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of health conditions related to exposure to burn pits.


Currently, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs maintains an Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry for veterans who are suffering from conditions related to exposure to burn pits.
Full text of Esty’s bill, the Helping Veterans Exposed to Burn Pits Act can be found here.
###















iraq

5/10/2015

state of affairs

nbc took the axe to 'state of affairs.'

a real shame.

that show maintained a strong following.

each may nbc takes the axe to 'underperformers' and each may, looking back, their new crop had less viewers.

they never learn.

'state of affairs' was a great show filled with huge potential.

'scandal' was not a break out hit in season 1.

nor was 'x-files.'

these shows with strong followings can expand viewers.

but no 1 wants to grasp that.

this show had continuing elements that could have led to increased viewers in season 2.

and for nbc, the show was a mega hit ratings wise.



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



Saturday, May 9, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the Barzani liars are exposed as the week comes to a close, we refute the claim that Haider al-Abadi's abuses must be ignored, and much more.


Deb Riechmann (AP) reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani declared "he had not backtracked on his request for the U.S. to bypass Baghdad and directly supply" the KRG with weapons.

What?

It's shocking . . . if you're a useless liar



That would be Huffington Post's  Akbar Shahid Ahmed who refused to rely Wednesday on what Barzani said because it was so much more 'fun' (if not journalistic) to go with what Ahmed really, really wanted Barzani to have said instead.

(See Wednesday's snapshot for what Barzani said as opposed to what liars like Akbar insisted Barzani meant or would have said or should have said.)


Friday,  Rudaw reported:

The United States has reassured Iraq’s Kurds they will have the weapons they need in the war with ISIS, promising the arms will continue to be expedited by Baghdad, a member of the Kurdish presidential delegation in Washington told Rudaw.The official, speaking to Rudaw on background and refusing to be named or directly quoted, said US officials had told Kurdish President Masoud Barzani’s delegation that Baghdad would be courting problems with Washington if it tried to delay weapons funneled to Erbil through the Iraqi central government.



Deb Riechmann quotes Barzani declaring the KRG and the Peshmerga have not seen "a bullet or a piece" of the many arms and weapons the White House has insisted the US government had to supply Iraq with to fight the Islamic State.

These are weapons that were supposed to be distributed by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The one who lied, the one who failed?

That's Haider al-Abadi who has refused to arm anyone but the Shi'ites except for a few token items here and there.

That's the reality of the story.

That's the crux.

That's what it all boils down to.

But whores passing themselves off as journalists have bent over backwards to avoid that reality.

They've attacked the US House of Representatives instead.

They've lied and passed a bill that was voted out of Committee on a vote of 60 for and 2 against as a "Republican bill."

No, that's a bi-partisan bill.

And the fact that whores think they can get away with lying about that bill goes too how deeply troubled the US press truly is because it's decided since 2008 that they were an advocacy organization for then-Senator Barack Obama and not a functioning press.


The White House has refused to address what is going on in Iraq.

That's why the country's in shambles.

Bully Boy Bush invaded in 2003!

Yes, he did.

Is that going to be your excuse forever because you're really going to the well one time too many on that.

Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal.

He's also out of office -- thank heaven for that and for the fact that he can never, ever occupy the Oval Office again.

Bully Boy Bush left the White House in January of 2009.

The country he (and the US Congress) attacked was not 'fixed' or 'safe' or maybe even 'better,' but it hadn't fallen apart to the extent that it has today.


The United States is supposed to stand for democracy.  It's supposed to stand for elections.

It gives lip service to the people having a say.

In 2010, Iraqis went to the polls and voted.  They did so in the face of violence.

They endured checkpoints, they endured threats, they endured making it to a polling station only to be told they couldn't vote there but had to go through checkpoints in the opposite direction and, did we mention, they did this in areas with bans on cars.

They did all of this to make their voice heard.

Few will ever go through so much to have a say in their government.

And for Barack Obama to overturn their votes is not a minor thing and Iraq falls apart as a result.

This was briefly touched on this week on The NewsHour (PBS) when Margaret Warner spoke with Emma Sky, author of  The Unraveling: High Hopes And Missed Opportunities In Iraq


MARGARET WARNER: But, in 2010, after quelling the Sunni-Shia civil war and al-Qaida, the Americans, Sky says, made a fateful mistake, throwing their weight Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after he narrowly lost the 2010 election against a non-sectarian rival.



EMMA SKY: There was a sense of, do we uphold the election results or do we keep Maliki in power? And General Odierno was, we’re Americans, there’s been an election, we must uphold the results.
But there were others who thought, we know Maliki. He will give us a follow-on security agreement. So, that was the debate. And, unfortunately, Vice President Biden came down on the side of, there’s no one but al-Maliki, this is the quickest option, keep the status quo, and we can get an security agreement, and then just really disengage.


Nouri didn't keep the status quo, he made things much worse.  And the US didn't get the new Status Of Forces Agreement that Barack and Joe Biden just knew was going to happen.

The Iraq people?

They got four more years of a despot they voted to get rid of.

2009's provincial elections seemed to suggest that Iraq was resisting sectarianism and moving towards a national identity.  This was born out in the 2010 results.

This was something to encourage, something to foster.

Instead, Barack Obama ripped it apart.

Doing so, he didn't just saddle Iraq with four more years of thug Nouri, he destroyed hope and belief in the democratic process.

How are Iraqis to trust their own votes when they see Barack Obama overrule their intent?

And it only got worse.

To ram through a second term of Nouri, Barack orchestrated The Erbil Agreement.  Nouri didn't win a second term.  The legal contract gave him one -- in exchange for concessions on his part.

But Nouri refused to honor his written, contractual promises after he got his second term.

Which led political leaders -- including Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr and Massoud Barzani -- to demand that he honor the contract.

When he refused, they moved for a no-confidence vote to remove Nouri.

This is a legal procedure, one outlined in the Iraqi Constitution.

And they met the legal requirements, they gathered the petition with enough signatures of MPs.

But Barack couldn't leave that alone, he had to have Nouri.  So, in the spring of 2012, pressure was brought on Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to bring a stop to the no-confidence vote.

Per the Constitution, the signed petition was handed to Jalal who then, in his ceremonial role as president, had only one duty: formally introduce it to Parliament.


Jalal insisted he needed to verify the signatures.

Not in the Constitution, but people indulged him.

Only he wasn't verifying.

Verifying is making sure the MP signed the petition.

Verifying is not browbeating the MP into saying they wouldn't sign it today.

Didn't matter if they'd sign it today or not, it mattered did they sign it.

But Jalal claimed enough had begged off to him that he was refusing to introduce the petition.

He then claimed a medical emergency and fled to Germany where he actually had elective surgery (on his knee).  Fate and karma don't like whores which is probably how, months later, Jalal had a massive heart attack and/or stroke and ended up in Germany again and how he'd never, ever serve another day as president and how, to this day, he's an invalid who requires 24 hour care.

All of this is Barack, none of this is Bully Boy Bush.


And if we want to tell the ugly truth -- let's tell the ugly truth.

The insipid and whorish US press couldn't have sold the myth of St. Barack as successfully as they did if a large number of the US public wasn't so desperate to believe in it.

How'd that work out for you anyway?

You've got a secret trade pack that sees Barack threatening members of Congress over.

You've got the continued illegal spying which has only increased under St. Barack.

You've got more wars than you did under Bully Boy Bush which includes the never-ending military (and, yes, combat) presence in Iraq.

You've got the war on whistle blowers.

And you didn't even get Medicare for all.  You didn't even get what FDR wanted to give the American people back in the 1940s.  Instead, you're shackled to corporations and if you're working poor you're screwed because you make too much for real assistance and you've have to purchase a policy with some ridiculous deductible like $6,000 before you see any benefits at all.  That's not universal health care and only a lying whore would pretend that it was.

But the US press pretended.


The left didn't get anything out of Barack's presidency. There are 19 more months left -- maybe that's when St. Barack begins delivering miracles.

But thus far, he's failed to live up to all the promises The Cult of St. Barack swore were coming.

What he did with Iraq?

He destroyed it.

In 2011, he could have stood with the Iraqi people as they hit the streets protesting.

He did not.

When Nouri began sending his goons into schools to tell Iraqi teenagers that gay men should be killed that they were vampires who would suck blood from the innocents, Barack could have stood up to the thug but he did not.

When Iraqi women and girls were being wrongly imprisoned by Nouri, Barack didn't stand up.

When Iraqi women and girls were being tortured and raped in Iraqi prisons and jails, Barack didn't stand up.

When Nouri's secret torture chambers were revealed by the press, Barack stayed silent.


When Nouri called peaceful protesters "terrorists," Barack said nothing.

When Nouri began targeting protesters, Barack said nothing.


Then came the major attack, the April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the toll increased to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).


And Barack said . . .

nothing.

Now the useless trash on Twitter obsessed with Dick Cheney or Bully Boy Bush can pretend they're focused on Iraq but they're not.

And the reality is that these types of people weren't misled by the press, they willingly followed the liars because they just didn't give a damn about Iraq.

They prove it by having a meaningless conversation about events ten years ago while refusing to focus on the factors the led Iraq to the current state today.

And this matters now more than ever.

Last month, I was at a hearing where various 'officials' think tankers explained to Congress that pressure couldn't be put on Haider al-Abadi to live up the human rights or even to distribute weapons fairly.


Tamara Cofman Wittes of Brookings,  the RAND Corporation's Dr. Seth Jones and the Institute for the Study of War's Jack Keane (who is a retired US General) are the ones I'm referring to and you can find coverage of that April 30th Congressional hearing in the May 2nd snapshot.


Instead of demanding accountability, these RAND, Brookings types insisted that Haider had to be indulged and challenged because, apparently, Iraq needs a thug and can only respect a thug.

Putting pressure on Haider to follow the law would risk weakening him.


If there's a bigger load of s**t delivered to Congress, I've failed to see it.

But, pay attention, this is what they said about Nouri.

This is why Nouri indulged throughout his second term as things in Iraq only worsened.

The same pack of lies that were used to justify looking the other way on Nouri's human rights abuses and War Crimes are now being used to cover for Haider al-Abadi.


If you care about Iraq and the Iraq people, you need to pay attention.

To right now, you need to pay attention.

You need to reject the notion that the US government can arm and financially aid a government led by a thug who attacks whole sections of the Iraqi population.

Long after Barack's out of office, future generations in the United States will talk about, for example, the Hawija massacre and denounce those Americans who stayed silent in real time, who refused to call it out.

Those on the left will, anyway.

That's what we do.

How could we have gotten in bed with _____?  How could we have looked the other way on ____?

What Nouri al-Maliki did, he did openly.

And The World Can't Wait was too busy attacking this film or that film to call out the slaughter of peaceful protesters.

What Haider's doing, he's doing openly.

There are no more excuses.

At this late date, if you're going to lie about Iraq for Barack at least admit it.


Massoud Barazni never denounced the moves of the US Congress to arm the KRG directly.

But that didn't stop a lot of 'reporters' from pretending otherwise this week.


Turning to violence,

Iraq jail riot leaves up to 50 prisoners and 12 police dead as dozens escape










And Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 149 violent deaths on Friday in Iraq with 81 more people left injured.



Lastly, David Bacon's latest book is The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration.  We'll close with this from Bacon's photo essay "Hard Labor In The Organic Potato Field" (gatronomica: the journal of critical food studies, Spring 2015):






Workers in the potato field bundle up against the sun and the heat.


By seven thirty in the morning it is already 80 degrees in a potato field in Lamont, in the southern San Joaquin Valley. By mid-afternoon here it will reach 107. The workers moving up and down the rows are not dressed in shorts and tank tops, though. They wear multiple layers of clothing, including long sleeves and, in the case of women, bandannas that cover their faces, leaving only their eyes visible.

Farmworkers know how to handle heat. They work in these intense conditions every day. ''Clothing is like insulation,'' says Evelina Arellano. ''It actually protects you. And if I didn't wear my bandanna, by the end of the day it would be hard to breathe because of the dust.'' [The names of the workers in the field have been changed-Ed.]

The rows are as long as two football fields, each a deep furrow next to a mound bearing the potato plants. Between the potatoes grow weeds, some spreading out next to the dirt and others growing as tall as the workers themselves. On this day in mid-June the farm labor crew is pulling the weeds.














 pbs
the newshour
margaret warner