6/10/2015

without pressure ...

i hope you caught this:


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand blasted President Barack Obama and Pentagon brass on Thursday for failing to show leadership in the fight against military sex crimes, saying there’s been a “100 percent failure” in protecting victims from retaliation after they’ve reported an assault.
In a wide-ranging interview with POLITICO, the New York Democrat said the president has been missing in action on the sexual assault issue, and hasn’t lived up to his promise from December 2013 to force an overhaul of the Defense Department’s judicial system if it didn't make progress within a year.
"He’s not providing leadership that he said he would," Gillibrand said. "He said, and so did [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Gen. [Martin] Dempsey, that they’re on the clock, they had a year to solve this problem, to fix this problem, to take responsibility for this problem, and they haven’t.”

pressure better build or nothing's happening on this issue.

barack clearly places no great emphasis on it.

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



Tuesday, June 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack contemplates sending more US troops into Iraq, Barack's Monday snub(s) of Haider al-Abadi get some press attention, more civilians killed in coalition airstrikes and much more.




US President Barack Obama is said to be readying to send more US troops into Iraq.  Michael R. Gordon (New York Times) explains, "In a major shift of strategy in Iraq, the Obama administration is planning to establish a new military base in Anbar Province and send hundreds of additional American military trainers to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi and repel the Islamic State."





  • While no announcement has yet to be made,  Keith Koffler (White House Dossier) offers:


    Mission creep continues.
    Fighting war the way liberals love to fight them, President Obama is adding bits and pieces of brigades at a time, adding an additional 500 troops after ISIS swamped Ramadi.
    Because even though everything, according to he White House, is going fine, and ya win some ya lose some when it comes to battles in a war, the reality is that the situation is deteriorating.



    David Lerman and Tony Capaccio (Bloomberg News) add, "Sending more Americans wouldn't solve the political problems that plague the Iraqi government's efforts to rebuild its army after a series of defeats, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's options. Many Sunnis continue to distrust Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a Shiite, as an ally of Iran, they said."


    David Martin (CBS News) reports that sending additional US troops into Iraq is only one of three options the White House is considering:

    The next option is to train Sunni tribesmen directly, Colonel Steve Warren, Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday. This option could be seen as a reprisal of the "Sunni Awakening" of 2006 and 2007. As of now, the job of training Sunnis has been left to the Iraqi government with underwhelming results.
    However, pursuing this option amounts to a vote of no-confidence in the willingness or ability of the Iraqi government to reconcile with the Sunnis. There's also some question as to whether the Sunnis would take up arms against ISIS the way they did against al Qaeda in 2006 and 2007.
    The third option for the U.S. is to close off the main border cross from Turkey into Iraq. Again, Warren on Tuesday mentioned "putting pressure" on border crossing to cut off or reduce the flow of foreign fighters.


    The issue of the US training Iraqi forces was raised at today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.


    QUESTION: Iraq?


    MR RATHKE: Iraq, yes.


    QUESTION: It’s one year since Mosul was taken by ISIS and they still maintain the grip on that city. Do you have any comment?


    MR RATHKE: Well, we’ve always been very clear that this is an Iraqi-led operation and that the timetable for an offensive, first of all, with respect to Mosul is one that will be set by the Iraqis. We are focused on getting Iraqi forces ready, adequately trained and equipped, and our efforts to train and advise Iraqi forces are ongoing at multiple sites across Iraq. And we’re doing that in cooperation not only with the Iraqi Government, but also with our coalition partners. And so that’s a central part of our response and of our broad international coalition, which is working on multiple fronts and multiple lines of effort to degrade and defeat ISIL.


    QUESTION: Thank you.


    MR RATHKE: Yes, Mary Alice.


    QUESTION: Following up on that question, yesterday President Obama made a comment that there was more training capacity than recruits. Could you perhaps tell us where – what the blockage is within the Iraqi Government to not actually supply more recruits?


    MR RATHKE: Well, it is – as the President said yesterday, one of the things that we have to improve is the speed with which we’re training Iraqi forces, and I think the President also spoke to that. We’re reviewing a range of plans for how that could be done. And I would highlight, though, that there is – we have already – we have trained 9,000 Iraqi troops. There are about 3,100 Iraqi troops currently in training across Iraq through our train, advise, and assist program. It is also true, though, that we have greater capacity to train troops than there are troops currently in the pipeline. And that’s why we’re working with the Government of Iraq to improve that aspect of the program. This is something that Prime Minister Abadi and his council of ministers recognize as well. When they put forward a plan on May 19th, one of the things that acknowledges is they need to expand recruitment into the Iraqi army as one of the key points of that plan.


    QUESTION: But do you know what the obstacle is? Why are they having so much trouble getting recruits? Where is the obstacle? Is it within the government structure itself, or is it that people just don’t want to join?


    MR RATHKE: Well, again, if you look at the response across Iraq, there is a lot of interest in joining. If we switch from the Iraqi army to the Popular Mobilization Forces, there are Sunni volunteers currently being trained by the Iraqis. About 1,000 Sunni fighters were inducted into the Popular Mobilization Forces at the end of May – May 27th – and they joined thousands of other Sunni volunteers who have already joined this program and are fighting side by side with Iraqi Security Forces. For more details about the particular difficulties in recruitment, I’d refer you back, I think, to Iraqi authorities.
    Ros.


    QUESTION: But, Jeff, the Pentagon’s spokesperson, Colonel Steve Warren, just told reporters an hour ago that of the 9,000 or so that have already been trained, a portion of them are Kurdish Peshmerga. So that actually knocks down the number of non-Kurdish Iraqi forces who have actually been trained, which doesn’t exactly put a good light on the efforts to build up the capacity and to try to confront ISIL fighters. And again, to echo Mary Alice’s point, are Iraqis really not willing to take up arms against ISIL, or is this just bureaucratic bottlenecks that are keeping people from actually getting into the training and then getting outfitted and getting deployed?


    MR RATHKE: Well, to go back to your first point, though, yes, some of those forces which we have trained are Kurdish forces, and that’s been part of the plan all along because, as we’ve seen, there are also – I mean, the Kurdish forces are also fighting back against ISIL in northern Iraq in the Kurdish region. So that is necessarily a part of our training and assisting mission with Iraq. So I don’t see any reason to discount those from the overall numbers that we’ve trained. We’re helping Iraqis push back against ISIL in all of those places of Iraq where they have tried to expand – not only in Anbar, although Anbar, of course, is a key region.


    QUESTION: But it does beg the question that in a country of some 25-odd million people that the most that have been trained is still under 10,000 in total to date.


    MR RATHKE: Well, those – that’s through the U.S. train, advise, and assist program. So those are the ones we have trained. We have a footprint of about 3,000 trainers on the ground, and that – again, we’re looking at ways to increase the throughput and the recruitment, because we have some additional capacity and we want to make use of it.


    QUESTION: Jeff?


    MR RATHKE: Yes.


    QUESTION: Can I just say something here to correct the record --


    MR RATHKE: Sure.


    QUESTION: -- and to do it because she’s too polite to herself. But the person to whom you’re referring as Mary Alice is named – her name is Sharon.


    MR RATHKE: Oh my goodness. Well then, I apologize most heartfeltly. Sorry about that.
    Yes, go ahead.


    QUESTION: Are you convinced that the 9,000 that you have trained through the American train, advise, and assist program have the will to fight?



    MR RATHKE: That’s certainly been our experience, and I think we’ve spoken to this since the fall of Ramadi. The President also has spoken about it. And our experience has been that for those forces who have gone through our train, advise, and assist program and are properly equipped and are part of an Iraqi command and control structure, that they have fought well. That’s – I think there’s been a lot of discussion of the situation in Ramadi and how that differed. I don’t have anything to add to those discussions, but I think that’s certainly been our view of things and I think that’s shared by others in the U.S. Government.


    The White House has bigger problems than the State Dept's spin being refuted as it's being spun.  There's also the issue of the Sunnis in Iraq.  Yerevan Saeed (Rudaw) explains:



    US diplomats have been talking to Sunni leaders, trying to convince them to join the fight against ISIS. But they have failed to talk to the real influential Sunni leaders who enjoy greater trust in their communities. Instead, the Americans have depended on elected officials, or tribal leaders who are seen as pawns of the Baghdad government. This has amounted to a major blunder in the US strategy to bring the Sunni tribes on board against ISIS. When Anbar’s capital Ramadi fell last month, the Iraqi army abandoned large numbers of weapons of all types, including tanks, Humvees and munitions, which were seized by ISIS. Meanwhile, the Sunnis had been begging Baghdad for months for enough weapons to push back ISIS from Anbar.  To the Sunnis, it appears as if the government prefers the weapons to fall into ISIS hands than to be given to their own fighters. This has angered many Sunni tribal sheikhs, who have accused Baghdad of backstabbing.  


    At last, US diplomatic efforts in Iraq!

    . . . to build the military.


    The State Dept's Brett McGurk gets all giddy and wet over the actions of the military.




    1. 87 airstrikes against terrorists in & over last 72 hours including , , , , & across .





    At what point does Barack intend to turn the focus on the needed political solution which he swore was the only answer this time last year?  (June 19, 2014 is when he made those statements.)


    Lara Jakes (Foreign Policy) reports that Salim al-Jabouri, Speaker of Parliament, is in DC and arguing for the White House to directly arm the Sunnis in Iraq in the fight against the Islamic State.  In addition, Lara Jakes outlines how the big face-to-face Iraq's prime minister had with Barack on Monday didn't go that well:

    Perhaps it is little wonder that Iraq feels its fight against the Islamic State does not have the West’s full support. For all the tough talk this week at the G-7 summit in Germany about defeating the extremists, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi left with little more than securing new help from 125 British troops and a lecture from U.S. President Barack Obama about how Baghdad has hindered a strategy for the war.
    And then, of course, there was this: A video of Obama seemingly oblivious to Abadi patiently waiting to talk to him before giving up and walking away as the American president happily chats with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and IMF chief Christine Lagarde.
    “I have to look at this as the Iraqi people would see it,” Iraqi Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri said Tuesday, watching a clip of the video during an interview in Washington with Foreign Policy. He smiled ruefully and shook his head. “Ignoring us and our problem — it is very clear,” he said, as translated by a State Department contractor. “It’s really as if the United States is not really looking at our problems or not paying attention to us.”




    Lara Jakes is being rather kind by only noting the video which has Barack upright with his back to Haider as Haider and his translator are trying to get a word in.


    That's not the only time Barack was caught ignoring Haider.

    There's also this now infamous photo.







  • The picture captures something more than accidentally not seeing Haider.  This is an active decision to ignore as evidenced by the position of the spine (Barack's) and the use of the hand.



    Meanwhile,  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 141 violent deaths across Iraq and notes, "In Mosul, 20 civilians were killed, including children, and 13 more were wounded in a coalition airstrike. An airstrike left 18 militants dead."
















    6/09/2015

    don't forget to blame his defenders too

    hillary's aiders



     Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Aiders" captures bernie sanders and ralph nader.

    if you look at the drawing, bernie, ralph's trying to come on to you.

    clearly, bernie, ralph wants you to rape him.

    right?

    that is the theory bernie sanders put forward about women, right?

    that they're just waiting for the day a guy rapes them?

    longing for it?

    not only have i lost all respect for senator bernie the idiot, i've also lost respect for the idiots like d.c.blogger at corrente who rush to defend his b.s.




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


    Monday, June 8, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Barack meets up with Haider, many insist Haider's working on a political solution (though you have to wonder if Josh Earnest can define "political solution"), Cindy Sheehan issues a plea, and much more.


    Today, US President Barack Obama and Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi addressed the press briefly in a joint appearance.

    haiderbarack




    US President Barack Obama:  And that’s why a lot of our discussion today will focus on how we can build on the thousands of Iraqi security forces that we have already trained; how we can coordinate more effectively in getting weapons into the hands of those who are prepared to fight ISIL on a timely basis; how we can ensure that the work that the Prime Minister has done to maintain an inclusive government in Baghdad continues. And in all of these discussions, what I found is that Prime Minister Abadi is very much committed to effective, inclusive governance.  And there’s a refreshing honesty, I think, on the part of the Prime Minister in recognizing that there remains a lot of work to be done.  But as long as the international coalition sustains its efforts, and as long as Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi government stay committed to an inclusive approach to gaining back territory from ISIL and then instituting governance that is inclusive and serves the people, I’m absolutely confident that we will succeed.



    An inclusive approach to the government?

    Is Barack unaware of the talk on Arabic social media that it's time to start protesting in Iraq again?


    Such protests, if they took place, would make it much more difficult for Barack to lie that Haider's all about the inclusive.

    He was selling that lie hard today -- in the joint-appearance with Haider as well as during a press briefing.  From the latter:


    US President Barack Obama:  The final point that I emphasized to Prime Minister Abadi is the political agenda of inclusion remains as important as the military fight that’s out there.  If Sunnis, Kurds, and Shia all feel as if they’re concerns are being addressed, and that operating within a legitimate political structure can meet their need for security, prosperity, non-discrimination, then we’re going to have much easier time.  And the good news is Prime Minister Abadi is very much committed to that principle.  But, obviously, he’s inheriting a legacy of a lot of mistrust between various groups in Iraq -- he’s having to take a lot of political risks.  In some cases, there are efforts to undermine those efforts by other political factions within Iraq.  And so we’ve got to continue to monitor that and support those who are on the right side of the issue there.


    Political inclusion is as important, according to Barack, as the military fight.


    So how many diplomats has he dropped on Iraq?

    How many Imaans who can preach inclusion and unity?


    Today alone, the Defense Dept boasted of these air strikes in Iraq:

    -Near Al Qaim, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
    -Near Bayji, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL bridge, destroying an ISIL vehicle.
    -Near Makhmur, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, an ISIL mortar position and an ISIL rocket position, destroying three ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL building.
    -Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL buildings, an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL vehicle.
    -Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL heavy machine gun, destroying two ISIL buildings, an ISIL mortar system and an ISIL vehicle.

     Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned to base safely.


    So if the political situation in Iraq is as important as the military, what has Barack done to aid it?  To foster a climate of unity?




    At the  G7 conference, Josh Earnest, White House spokesperson, attempted to distort the meaning of a political solution.



    Josh Earnest:  Uniting the diverse country of Iraq to confront the ISIL threat will be critical to their success.  And we’ve seen evidence of this approach when it comes to the efforts of Iraqi security forces to face down ISIL in Anbar Province.  The Prime Minister has received strong support from his multi-sectarian cabinet, but also from Sunni leaders in Anbar, that the deployment of a multi-sectarian force in Anbar Province against ISIL isn’t just important, it’s actually something that they specifically requested.  And they welcome the support of the international community for local Sunni fighters in Anbar and they welcome the decision from Prime Minister Abadi to deploy even Shia fighters and Kurdish fighters that are under the command and control of the Iraqi central government.  That’s an indication that Prime Minister Abadi’s multi-sectarian, inclusive approach is one that has the support of even Sunni leaders in Anbar Province.  Again, that is an indication that the strategy that we believe will be critical to their success is one that Prime Minister Abadi and other leaders in Iraq are committed to pursuing.


    No, it's not and that's a ridiculous claim.

    A) The Sunnis fighting the Islamic State in Anbar were largely fighting it for some time.  In some cases, they've been fighting since before Haider was even prime minister.

    B) Sunnis fleeing Ramadi?  Sunni families are not allowed to enter Baghdad and the males of fighting age are forced to return to the area as fighters against the Islamic State.

    Conscription isn't really a measure of national unity, it's just forced service.


    We'll come back to Josh Earnest later, right now let's stay with Barack's press conference.


    Kevin Liptak (CNN -- link is text and video) reports, "President Barack Obama said Monday his top national security advisers were still working to solidify training plans for Iraqi defense forces battling ISIS in their own country."  And he quotes Barack stating, "We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis."  Tom McCarthy (Guardian) notes:

    The comments echoed the president’s assessment nine months ago, when he was asked at a White House news conference about how to defeat Isis militants in Syria.
    “We don’t have a strategy yet,” Obama said then.


     BBC News quotes Barack declaring, "We want to get more Iraqi security forces trained, fresh, well-equipped and focused and [Mr] Abadi wants the same thing so we're reviewing a range of plans for how we might do that."

    Abadi wants the same thing, does he?


    But Kristina Wong (The Hill) reports today, "The U.S. mission in Iraq has stalled at one of five coalition training sites because the central government has not been sending new recruits, according to defense officials.  Baghdad has not identified or sent any new recruits to the Al-Asad air base in western Iraq for as many as four to six weeks, defense officials said Monday. "

    If everyone's so committed, how do you explain that?

    And how are you supposed to hear that news and not immediately think of the police training attempts in Iraq, by US forces, as the winter months bled from 2011 to 2012 and no police trainees showed up for the training?

    Half a billion dollars set aside for that training (US tax dollars) and it never took place because Iraqis refused to show up for the training.


    Back to Josh Earnest and his press briefing:


    Q    Josh, what is the administration’s take -– it’s a fairly new development but it happened this weekend that Iraqi forces apparently were able to retake the city of Baiji.  And what does that say about the so-called will to fight?


    MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, we’ve seen these reports.  We’ve been unable to confirm them at this point.  And so we’re going to continue to try to learn more about what exactly is happening inside the city of Baiji.  It is our understanding that the Baiji refinery, which has also been the site of extensive fighting, is an area that continues to be contested and that is an area that has –- or that has been an area where military coalition airstrikes have taken place in support of Iraqi security forces.
    What we continue to believe and what we’ll continue to support is the effort of Iraqi security forces that are under the command and control of the Iraqi central government pushing back on ISIL.  And there are a variety of ways that the U.S. and our coalition partners can support that ongoing effort.  We’ve talked about this quite a bit.  This is training and equipping; this is offering some military advice; and this includes the use of coalition military airpower that has proved to be a very valuable addition to the efforts of Iraqi security forces on the ground. 

    And so we’re going to continue to learn more about what exactly has happened around Baiji City and we’re going to be continuing to support ongoing efforts in other parts of the country, including in Anbar Province, which has been the site of setbacks recently.  But we continue to be encouraged about the commitment of Iraqi security forces in Anbar to taking the fight on the ground to ISIL in that province and pushing them back.  And that will require sustained effort, and the United States and our coalition partners are working to determine what additional assistance we can provide to ensure the success of those efforts.



    Oh, yes, Baiji.  Topic of our editorial at Third yesterday:

    Editorial: What (still) matters in Iraq


    They can't reclaim Mosul.

    And they can't reclaim Ramadi.

    But Iraqi forces did apparently reclaim Baiji. Or at least say they did.


    baiji


    Baiji came under attack a few weeks ago -- while prime minister Haider al-Abadi was in the US -- at the same time as Ramadi.


    The immediate response was to bomb Baiji (and ignore Ramadi).

    Baiji was more important than Ramadi for some reason.

    And now it's more important than Mosul as well, judging by the effort to reclaim it.


    Why is that?

    What's so different about Baiji?


    What CNN 'forgets' to inform you, AP tells you right in the  headline to Sinar Salaheddin's article: "Iraq: Troops Advance Against IS in Key Refinery Town."

    Oh.

    Yes, this wasn't about the town or the people.


    It was about a refinery.

    As usual, the Iraq War remains about oil.

    Always.



    And if you're still not grasping the priorities, let's go to Richard Sisk's report for Military.com last week:

    ISIS has begun using water as a weapon in eastern Anbar province by restricting the flow of water from a dam on the Euphrates River in Ramadi to government-held areas downstream, the Pentagon said Thursday.
    "It's an example of ISIS' terror tactics," Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman said of the closing of most of the gates on the dam on the river skirting the southern edges of Ramadi, which fell to ISIS last month as Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) fled.
    The fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) reportedly were opening only two or three of the 26 gates on the dam.
    "The use of water as a tool of war is to be condemned in no uncertain terms," said Stephane Dujarric, a United Nations representative in Iraq. "These kinds of reports are disturbing to say the least."

    But Ramadi wasn't the focus, the oil refinery in Baiji was.

    Priorities, you understand.

    Meanwhile, they've been a little optimistic in their progress reports.  Sunday, the Iraqi forces and Ministry of Defense were claiming they had liberated or 'liberated' Baiji.



    As usual, there are simple claims and then a truth that's a little more complex:







  • IRAQ: Once again it appears that still hasn't been full captured by the ISF, despite media reports.


  • Yet yesterday, the Hash al-Shaabi militia's Muhammed al-Eqabi was quoted by CNN stating, "We can announce that Baiji city is completely liberated and the Iraqi flag was raised over the governor building."

    Meanwhile Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 63 violent deaths across Iraq today.


    In US politics, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Aiders" notes how Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders are working overtime to increase support for Hillary Clinton.


    And lastly, we'll note this important item from Cindy Sheehan:




     Plea from Cindy


    Dede, Cindy and fellow Gold Star Mom Amy Branham before our first trip to Crawford. 8/6/05


    Dear Friend,

    It is with great concern but with hope that I write to you to let you know that my sister/best-friend/peace colleague, Dede Miller has recently been diagnosed with Stage 3, very aggressive and rare breast cancer.

    For a few months, she (and by extension as her primary support person, I) has been struggling with the monolithic bureaucracy of LA County "health" care. I have traveled from my home several times to LA to be with her. I can't see how a person can go through what Dede has had to go through alone.

    Dede has been by my side forever, not just since Casey was killed in Iraq. Dede, being a single person without children has been like a second mom to my kids and now the beloved Auntie to my five grandkids (she gets all the fun). However, since Casey has died she has been with me--getting arrested for peace; organizing Camp Casey and all of the other harebrained schemes I have come up with; campaign staff; and now my only co-worker in Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox and The Soapbox People's Network. 




    Back in 2005, Dede decided to leave corporate America to help me work for peace and now is finding it difficult (if not impossible) to survive with breast cancer AND fighting for her life to access basic services like medical care and disability (she doesn't qualify). Besides working for peace, we have been on the frontlines working for economic equality and social justice, and when we need it, it's not available. 

    Our family is working together to try and get Dede all the advantages she needs to heal herself from this terrible disease. We appreciate all of the well-wishes and healing thoughts, but we really don't need any more alternative therapy advice, we are exploring ALL options and know about these options.

    What we do need (besides your healing energy) are donations to give Dede this fighting chance to beat this awful (yet tragically) prevalent disease.

    One of our good friends, Jolie Diane, has set up this GOFUNDME page for Dede--please give what you can and/or share this campaign. 

    It's our most important campaign to date. Dede has been fighting for you full time, now please give her a fighting chance to continue in the struggle.

    http://www.gofundme.com/DedeM?fb_action_ids=719085811550607&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_ref=14_fb_up
    DEDE ARRESTED IN CRAWFORD, TX
    OR SEND CHECK/MONEY ORDER TO
    (MAKE CHECK OUT TO CINDY SHEEHAN'S SOAPBOX):
    HEALTHY DEDE
    C/O CINDY SHEEHAN'S SOAPBOX, LLC
    PO BOX 6264
    VACAVILLE, CA 95696

    Love & Peace,

    Cindy Sheehan









    kristina wong










    6/07/2015

    those crazy bernie sanders groupies

    so there's an important article by tom hall at wsws that a lot of us will be highlighting.  this is from the article:

    One of the central tasks of the Sanders campaign is to attempt to inflate illusions in the Democratic Party after more than six years of the Obama administration. While occasionally presenting himself as a “socialist” and making an appeal to deep anger over growing social inequality, Sanders has long functioned as a run-of-the-mill Democrat, caucusing with the party in Congress and backing the US military war machine. (See, “The right-wing political record of Bernie Sanders”)
    Groups like the International Socialist Organization and Socialist Alternative, which operate in and around the periphery of the Democratic Party, see their own role as complementary to that of Sanders himself. Their aim is to promote the Democrats and do what they can to block an independent political movement of the working class.

    Out of all the pseudo-left organizations, Socialist Alternative has arguably been the most open in its support for Sanders. They have adopted the position of integrating themselves directly into the Sanders campaign in order to exert “pressure” on him, arguing that he can be convinced through such means to run as an independent if and when he inevitably loses the nomination.

    as i said earlier this week, i have no idea how crazy you have to be to support bernie sanders.

    he's just a fake.

    and i question the sanity of his supporters.

    i mean if 2016 is the 1st election you're qualified to vote in, okay, you're young.

    and youth can excuse a lot.

    but for those who are seasoned voters and are acting like bernie sanders is the real deal, i have no idea about their sanity?



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



    Saturday, June 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the lies about Iraq continue, the State Dept finally appears to offer an olive branch to Ammar al-Hakim, and much more.



    As we were noting Friday, Diana Ohlbaum blew her chance to explore a serious topic via her own dirty whoring.  The Hill published her  "Republicans' revisionist history on Iraq" possibly in an attempt to open her up to the public ridicule she now so richly deserves.

    In a tacky poly blend of fact and fiction, she offers this mouth dropper:


    It was President George W. Bush who signed the security agreement with Iraq that set a date of Dec. 31, 2011 for all U.S. forces to withdraw from the country. 


    Get it?

    Because Bully Boy Bush did a treaty with Iraq, no one else can.

    It's a liar posing as a child's view of the world.

    By this 'logic'?


    He left no time to regret
    Kept his dick wet
    With his same old safe bet
    Me and my head high
    And my tears dry
    Get on without my guy
    You went back to what you knew
    So far removed from all that we went through
    And I tread a troubled track
    My odds are stacked
    I'll go back to black
    -- "Back to Black," written by Amy Winehouse and Mark Ronson, first appears on Amy's Back to Black album




    So by the liar's 'logic,' since Bully Boy Bush got his dick wet, Barack must be a virgin, right?


    In an either/or, dichotomous binary world, that is the only possible outcome, right?

    By her 'logic.'

    It's a 'logic' that's fact-free.



    Here's Barack speaking about it on June 19, 2014:



    Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?


    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 




    Huh?

    Yeah.

    That's right.  Barack tried to get a new agreement but failed.

    A fact that a cheap whore who can't even get honest about her politics thought she'd lie about in an article slamming Republicans for lying.

    I don't need cheap whores.


    None of us who are trying to tell the truth need cheap whores 'helping' us.

    All their lying does it obscure reality even further.

    I am trying to be as honest about Iraq as I can be because the Iraqi people matter.

    I'm not the whore Bob Somerby who announced this week that his entire reason for existence online is to elect Democrats (Ruth noted it here).

    Lies are not helping the Iraqi people, lies have never helped the Iraqi people.

    The lie that sanctions were a 'humane' way to avoid war didn't help the Iraqi people.

    The lie that Iraq had WMD didn't help the Iraqi people.

    Democratic politicians were the ones chiefly responsible for the first lie, Republican politicians were the ones chiefly responsible for the second.


    A lot of politicians did a lot of lying and, thing is, politicians lie all the time.  It's only when whores enable them that their lies have traction.

    It's only when filthy whores see themselves as something better than they are -- cheap tricks who will be used and tossed aside -- and lie for politicians. Diana Ohlbaum is just the latest whore to sling a tired ass.

    She writes:


    Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict. ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so threatening to U.S. interests in the region.



    Is that clear?

    No, it's not.

    And you have to be a damn liar to claim otherwise.

    I have been speaking out against the Iraq War since February 2003 -- one month before it started.

    It is still going on and I am still speaking out.

    But opposition to the illegal war or the desire to stop it does not give me the excuse to lie about it.

    The drawdown of US forces is December 2011.

    And immediately Nouri al-Maliki

    From the December 12, 2011 snapshot:

     
    CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds."
     
    What the hell is going on? 
     
    Over the weekend, Nouri went for another power grab. 
     
     
    It actually started before Saturday but the press was ga-ga over photo-ops.  'Last soldier out! No, really, last US soldier out! Except for the ones still there! Don't look behind the curtain!'   And apparently covering for Barack was more important than telling Americans what was taking place in Iraq.
     

    Late Saturday night online (Sunday in print), Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted that the 'government' in Iraq is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated Saturday." Really?  All in one day.  Well,  no, not in one day.  She continued,  "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." 



    And December 18, 2011 on All Things Considered (NPR), Kelly McEvers offered this take:

    Kelly McEvers: Here in Kuwait, just having crossed over the border, we have all these US commanders telling us that they're leaving Iraq in a better place, that it's a thriving democracy. Yet in Baghdad it looks like you have Prime Minister Maliki -- who is a Shi'ite and whose government is Shi'ite -- going after his rivals who are Sunnis. Just yesterday, charges were announced against the Vice President who is Sunni and troops surrounded his house. The Maliki government accuses him of being involved in a terrorist plot. But Maliki's detractors say this is sectarian revenge. So you know we've got these promises from US commanders that things are going really well but this kind of national reconciliation government looks like it's unraveling.

    This took place in the immediate aftermath of the US drawdown.

    Had more US troops stayed -- Ted Koppel established that not all US troops had left, if you're late to the party, Google that -- would Nouri have pulled that nonsense?

    Maybe not.

    Maybe so.

    It seems doubtful to me that he would have.

    But we just don't know.

    And that's what's called honesty.


    Diana Ohlbaum is dishonest and lying when she writes:


    Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict. ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so threatening to U.S. interests in the region.


    Would US troops on the ground in Iraq now -- as more than so-called 'trainers' -- make any difference?

    I don't know and neither does Diana Ohlbaum.

    My argument would be that any 'gains' that might result would be erased when the US troops left or decreased in number and Iraq would be right back where it was.  So maybe there's something to be said for allowing it to be sorted out now* and maybe there's not.

    [*If the US government is going to 'help' with war planes, they can certainly help with diplomacy.]

    But the "violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran" are not the reason the Islamic Society has a the strong foothold in Iraq today.  The reason for that is Nouri al-Maliki's second term and the actions he took.

    Is Diana Ohlbaum even aware that Iraqis took to the streets in December 2012 in protests which lasted until January 2014 -- when Nouri began burning down protest camps -- over a year of steady protests?

    If she is aware, she's not honest enough to admit it.

    She's just another partisan liar pretending to give a damn about Iraq but actually trying to use it as a political football in order to influencing voting.

    Her lies -- like other earlier lies -- do not help the Iraqi people.

    Is Robin Yassin-Kassab a liar or just really bad at condensing and summaring?  Yassin-Kassab (Guardian) writes of Emma Sky's The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq:



    In the 2010 election, with both Sunni and Shia support, the non‑sectarian, nationalist Iraqiya bloc won two seats more than Nouri al‑Maliki’s State of Law coalition. But many MPs were disqualified by the de‑Ba’athification committees, while Maliki demanded a recount and then manoeuvred to stay on as prime minister. To his military’s disgust, Obama ignored the deadlock for two months. Chris Hill, the new US ambassador, told Odierno that Iraq wasn’t ready for democracy and needed a Shia strongman. An opinion poll disagreed: only 14% of Iraqis thought Maliki should stay in power. But the Iranians lobbied hard to preserve him and thus to alienate Iraq from the rest of the Arab world. Obama’s acquiescence led one of Sky’s Iraqi informants to complain: “Either the Americans are stupid or there is a secret deal with Iran” – a view that is still more widespread today. Where Bush made democracy a totem, and thought it could be delivered via occupation, Obama gave up on it entirely. The results of this equally misguided (and orientalist) approach are painfully evident today.
    Sky saw the start of Maliki’s slide into paranoid authoritarianism. His regime abandoned (or arrested) the Sahwa militias who had fought al‑Qaida, detained thousands of Sunnis without trial, killed dozens of peaceful protesters, and appointed loyalists rather than competent officers to the army.

    In November 2013, Obama praised “a strong, prosperous, inclusive and democratic Iraq”. By July 2014, Islamic State had driven the Iraqi army out of Mosul and set about cleansing religious minorities from the north. 


    Let's zoom in here where the trouble starts:


    But many MPs were disqualified by the de‑Ba’athification committees, while Maliki demanded a recount and then manoeuvred to stay on as prime minister.


    Many MPs were disqualified -- before the election.

    Not after.

    Is that clear to the readers?

    Saleh al-Mutlaq, for example, would go on to be Deputy Prime Minister in the 2010 to 2014 government.

    But he was not allowed to run in the elections.

    He was among the Sunnis disqualified (more than Sunnis were disqualified).

    Ahead of the elections, he was a frequent guest on Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq where he discussed not being allowed to run.



    The summary also implies that Iraqiya won by two votes before a recount.


    Wrong, Iraqiya had a bigger lead and it was chipped away at when Nouri stomped his feet and demanded a recount.

    Chipped away at but not destroyed.

    And the political stalemate -- where Nouri refused to step down and brought the government to a standstill for eight months -- is that clear?

    Nothing's clear.

    Again, maybe the writer's just bad at summary or recap.

    But lies don't help the Iraqi people.

    The lies include pretending it's okay that Haider al-Abadi's doing nothing to reach a political solution in Iraq.

    Frederic Wehrey and Ala' Albrababa'h's report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted:

    The new Iraqi government of Haider al-Abadi initially took several steps to accommodate the tribes and temper the IS’s heavy-handed military campaign in Sunni areas. During his recent visit to Jordan, Abadi also met with several Sunni leaders from the Anbar Province to discuss support for a tribal struggle against the IS. But on balance, Iraqi government support for the tribes has fallen far short of what would be required to turn the tide against the IS in the province.


    They noted that in December.


    All these months later, it's still true.



  • Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) offers, "Reached late last year, the new Iraq-Kurdistan oil revenue sharing deal was supposed to be the centerpiece of a new rapprochement between the autonomous region and the central government, and new unity in the country. That deal is already in jeopardy, however, over disputes on revenue sharing."

    But it wasn't a deal and it wasn't followed and your first clue there was Haider's refusal to drop the lawsuit Nouri had brought regarding a tanker of oil the Kurds want to sell which has been stalled for over a year now.

    Your second clue that there was no deal was the fact that Haider was involved.

    Haider's a liar like Nouri -- pretending to make changes but never actually doing anything.

    Sunnis remain targeted.

    If you doubt it, Nour Malas (Wall St. Journal) reports:on how Ramadi refugees are not being allowed to enter Baghdad:


    On the outskirts of the capital and 50 miles southeast of Ramadi, Bzeibez is the only crossing over the Euphrates river between Anbar and the capital Baghdad. For five days after Ramadi fell to the Sunni extremists of Islamic State on May 17, the bridge was either completely or intermittently closed to those fleeing violence, officials at the bridge and in Baghdad said.
    [. . .]
    “When they came, yes there were women and children,” Mr. Bassem, the policeman, said on Wednesday. “But we see Daesh, and they have women and children among them so how can we be sure?”
    Behind him, teenage boys pushed steel wheelbarrows stacked with sacks of potatoes, sugar, and fabrics in both directions across the bridge, which was open for its usual working hours on Wednesday. Children, some of them residents of the area and others newly displaced, jumped into the Euphrates below to ward off the midday heat.




    Sunnis aren't welcome in Baghdad by Haider al-Abadi but he can't get enough of Qasem Soleimani.












  • Lastly, better late than never.  We've spent months noting that the US government has lost Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- a Shi'ite leader.


    We've also noted that the US government has done nothing to address that.

    Today the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted the following: