Parliament has 33 sessions since April 2006 till December 31. As Iraqis we don't trust Iraqi parliament members or Iraqi council representatives as they did nothing ever since as comparing to the sacrifice being given of the Iraqi people with the benefits they get in return. We have 275 members who suppose to represent the Iraqi people in their demands and suffering. On the contrary, they have the highest salaries in Iraq or in the world with the incredible privilege they have from houses and mansions, cars, body guards, real states, free tickets to go abroad and above all their space of freedom to go wherever they want to go without taking any kind of permission or telling the government that they go to this place or that one. They are really careless of the Iraqi people's demands and needs. If we came back to 2006 and 2007 to find out what achievements did the parliament do , we would find nothing. I tried to call some prominent members to have a bit of information of their achievements during the last 20 months of their work in the parliament within Al-Maliki government. I got none of them …really none of them. They suppose to represent Iraqis, but they are not even trouble themselves to answer the phones as they are either switched off or out of the coverage area. Yes, they are because most of them are not in Iraq spending their time with their families who settle in London, Amman, Dubai, Cairo and Doha or they want to enjoy their time away of their families in Beirut, Paris , Damascus or Rome.I am going to give you just four names that I tried to get before and during writing this blog who are from different blocs . Ayad Allawi , the former Iraqi prime minister and the head of
the Iraqia bloc, was the first ,but he lives in London and I tried to get his number there with negative results even from members of his bloc. Adnan Al-Duleimi , the head of Twafiq bloc in the parliament , was the second one with the same result having two numbers for him without any answer. I have friends in Jordan who said that he is in Amman now having some accusations against of displacing people and giving haunts for terrorists!! The third one was Ibrahim Al-Jafari , the former prime minister who ruled Iraq after Ayad Allawi , I tried to get numbers of someone to be in touch with in his hometown London ,but it was worthless. I heard that he made a visit to our new prime minister Noori Al-Maliki in London as the latter is having some medical tests in London hospitals at the present time.The forth one was Rose Shawis , a Kurd member of Kurdstan Democratic Party who is abroad too having this confirmation from his secretary telling me that he might come to Iraq next week!!!
The above is from one of McClatchy Newspapers' Iraqi correspondents, "Where Are They?" (Inside Iraq). Maybe as a general rule, if you're not in a country, you shouldn't be allowed to represent it? If you're an exile, you're not a leader? It doesn't seem like that's asking too much. So, for instance, if you're an exile and a 19-year-old college student, when you (and your corrupt Daddy) are made the head of the PPP in Pakistan, the response should be outrage and not stroking from the US media?
Exiles didn't start the illegal war. They did press for it. They were on the US dime. They who allegedly wanted 'regime change' in Iraq were too damn cowardly to do it themselves but they were happy to produce fake information and try to drag other countries into a war. And, of course, when the illegal war started, they didn't enlist with any of the militaries going in. They didn't fight for their country, they just eased back into it after Baghdad was seized by foreigners (US forces among them).
Does anyone grasp how pathetic that is?
And these liars were put in place by the US. Has Iraq had a prime minister since the start of the illegal war that hadn't been in exile?
There are a number of lessons that should be learned from the illegal war and, first and foremost, should be that you don't engage in illegal wars. Somewhere on the list should be that you don't listen to exiles who sacrifice nothing but cheer on the rush to war. Also on the list should be that you don't install anyone into leadership of another government. But if the US hadn't installed the various puppets, the exiles never would have gotten into power because as offensive as it is from the outside that exiles used the blood of others to advance their power grab, it's more offensive to the people of a country to see their 'leadership' composed of cowards who left the country and utilized other nations to overthrow their own government.
Robert Parry is on Democracy Now! today and he's pulled potty chair duty for Obama. He brings up Hillary Clinton's vote on the Iran resolution and says it was used to show that she hadn't broken from the Washington establishment -- meaning, among other things, she voted for the Iraq War resolution and for the Iran one. He then rushes in to offer a curious reading on Obama saying that Obama was able to demonstrate that he represented change: "He was a different candidate, someone who would bring change."
Parry is aware that Obama demonstrated something else? By his own repeated admission (see Friday's snapshot), Obama doesn't know how he would have voted on the 2002 resolution. On the campaign trail he tries to present himself as against the war because of a speech he gave in 2002 calling the Iraq War a "dumb" war. So if the Iran resolution vote represented anything for Obama it's that when it's time to make a decision, Obama's no where to be found.
Parry is aware that Obama not only didn't vote for the resolution, he didn't vote against it, right?
Obama who prior to this year repeatedly stated he didn't know how he'd vote on the 2002 Iraq resolution was in the Senate when the Iran resolution was voted on but he didn't show up for the vote. So I guess I don't understand what the point Parry's trying to make this morning is unless it's, "Come on Obama, you can go to potty. Come on little fellow, we're here for you."
Amy Goodman does at least make the point, in another section of the interview, that Bill Clinton's not the candidate, when Parry's critiquing Hillary for statements Bill made. As Trina observed a few weeks ago, candidate's spouses really aren't the issue. And I'm not recalling any wife of a Democratic candidate getting the 'vetting' from Parry not even when they give an embarrassing interview -- as one has right now -- to a glossy magazine.
Parry is right that Bill Clinton refused to pursue Iran-Contra and it was a huge mistake. And while he's free to extrapolate from there about what Hillary might do as a president, it's really false to utilize the Iran resolution to claim that it can demonstrate Hillary's ties to Washington and Obama's break from it when the only "break" Obama demonstrated was that he would skip a vote -- something he's demonstrated repeatedly since running for president.
As with the Iraq resolution, the Iran resolution proves nothing about Obama other than he might skip the vote in clutch time. Understanding "history" requires citing the facts and Parry never notes that Obama didn't vote on the Iran resolution but he repeatedly makes claims that have no basis in reality such as Obama used Iran to show "he did not make those kind of judgements." No, Obama made no judgements because he didn't vote on the Iran resolution and because he couldn't vote on the Iraq resolution (and has publicly stated he doesn't know how he would have voted on the latter). For the record, there's no reason Amy Goodman couldn't have interjected reality in that exchange. Obama's non-vote, though underplayed, is not a secret.
The two topics in this entry aren't unrelated. Both have to do with factual basis, both have to do with people who didn't show up, let alone stand up, being showered with kisses (exiles and Obama).
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.