Saturday, August 13, 2011

Withdrawal and Iraqi military invading provinces?

The Ministry of the Defense, Al Mada reports, is planning to buy air craft from multiple countries in a stated attempt to be prepared for a US withdrawal at the end of the year. But the issue isn't what you can store in a hanger, the issue is whether or not you can fly it. And the Baghdad government or 'government' waited way too long on this issue. Since 2007, it's been openly addressed, the training needs of the Iraqi air force. Nouri was prime minister then, he's on his second term now. Why didn't he do something then? More recently, there's been an offer made to welcome back certain members of Iraq's Air Force -- members who served when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq. That didn't lead to a lot of people coming forward. But why would it? The de-Ba'athification process started by Paul Bremer reamins in place. Despite Nouri agreeing to work on reconciliation (to de-de-Ba'athify) as part of the benchmarks the White House proposed in 2007, nothing ever came of it. So now when the old air force may be needed, there's no rush to step forward because there's no trust. If Nouri had worked on rebuilding the trust back then, he might not have the problem he does today. It's also funny to hear from the Ministry of Defense about how they're going to try to prepare the Iraqi air force quickly -- the Ministry of Defense that still has no head. Nine months after Nouri became prime minister (December 2010; in November he was named prime minister-designate, at the end of December, he became prime minister), there is still no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior and no Minister of National Security.

Withdrawal may or may not happen (smart money wouldn't bet on US forces being off Iraqi soil at the start of 2012). On the issue, the Kurdish Globe translate an interview Nechirvan Barzani, Vice President of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, recently gave:


"Leaders of the Kurdistan Region have already spoken about their stances, obviously, regarding the issue of the possible stay of the U.S. forces. for which Iraqis have sacrificed for many years," said Barzani.
He also said Kurdish leaders deal with this issue regarding the Region as a part of the federal Iraq. He said they had nothing to hide in regard to that issue.
Barzani firmly refuted rumors suggesting that the Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani had allegedly made a speech demanding U.S. forces to be stationed in Kurdistan Region. "In fact, no such speech has occurred," Barzani assured, adding, "The Kurdistan Region president"s attempts regarding this issue remain within the circle of negotiations currently going on among the Iraqi political powers. The President does not have a unilateral stance on this; but the issue will be resolved according to the negotiations among the Iraqi political components. The final decision will depend on the result of the talks among Iraq's political factions."

Nerchevan Barzani is also a former prime minister of the KRG (2006 through 2009). And, if you use your brain, you'll remember that the person who told Chinese TV that US forces would remain in the KRG wasn't Massoud Barzani or any other member of Nercheven's family or political party. It was the current President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani (who belongs to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan -- PUK -- not the Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party).

Still on non-wihdrawal, Jennifer Quinn (WPRI -- link has text and video) reports, "The Rhode Island National Guard has deployed two of it's units to Iraq for one year. A Company, 1st Battalion 126th Aviation and D Company 126th Aviation will provide aviation support to combat and reconstruction efforts. Approximately 20 Rhode Island soldiers will combine with troops from Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other states for the length of their deployment."

Ed O'Keefe (Washington Post) has an interesting feature article on Americans visiting 'Iraq' (visiting the KRG, the US military said no to elsewhere). But this sentence ruins the article for me: "Fearing that the U.S. government and the American people are giving up too soon on a country that still needs help, the women are making their own long-term commitment to the country and, in the process, coming to grips with why the United States came here in the first place." "Coming to grips with why the United States came here in the first place"? Why was that? There's been no Iraq Inquiry in the United States. So why is the US go into Iraq?

It wasn't for liberation or democracy as evidenced by the realities of the Iraq today. So why was it?

It's an interesting article but that statement mars it for me because I think the propaganda has cost enough blood and I'm just not willing for more blood to be spent in the promotion of lies.

Like O'Keefe, Dar Addustour pursues the human interest angle. They file on women driving in Iraq and note women driving even when there's a man in the car. Dar Addustour notes that some countries such as Saudi Arabia forbid women from driving. Lina Mohammed tells the paper that she can afford a car because of her job and that she needs one due to her various responsibilities and that women like her are overcoming oppression. (To be clear, women could drive when Saddam Hussein was president. It is only when the US impose exiles upon the Iraqis that women's rights take a nose dive in Iraq. Women were not liberated by the Iraq War, to the contrary, they have lost rights as a result. This is documented in one report after another from Amnesty International, the United Nations, etc.) Ammar Kasim stated that she believes in women's liberation and encourages all women to live without restrictions and notes that she sees nothing shameful in driving a car.

Meanwhile did a coup take place in the Maysan Province? Dar Addustour reports that the Iraqi military invaded ("stormed" is the term used) police headquarters and declared a new police chief. The provincial council has already had one emergency session in an attempt to deal with the "crisis" whcih they expect to cause turmoil and to which they insist Nouri's government is responsible for. Then there's Nineveh Province, the governor is Atheel al-Nujaifi, the brother of the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi. Atheel al-Nujaifi has repeatedly had problems with Nouri al-Maliki this year. At one point, Nouri was demanding that al-Nujaifi step down as governor. Dar Addustour reports that Atheel states Nouri is attempting to take over the province via the military. Nouri is allegedly attempting to form the Knights of the State of Law which would be n charge of the Nineveh. Atheel points out that the provincial council has expressly forbidden such a formation.

To end Political Stalemate I (the period of political stagnancy following the March 7, 2010 elections), the Erbil Agreement was created by the political blocs. It allowed Nouri to be named prime minister-designate and it was to create a National Council to address security issues and to be headed by Ayad Allawi whose Iraqiya had come in first in the elections. That was November 2010. Nouri got what he wanted and then went back on the agreement creating Political Stalemate II. Supposedly the National Council is on the verge of being created (despite State of Law objecting to it this week when the first draft was read in Parliament?) and Al Mada reports that the National Alliance is stating it has the rights to half the seats on the Council prompting new objections from State of Law. Still on Parliament, Wael Grace and Ines Tariq (Al Mada) report on efforts in the Parliament to devise a draft law on electronic eavesdropping that will include protections
for citizens and not allow the technology to be used to suppress protests or to spy on people's personal lives. In other news, Al Mada reports Iraqis are concerned with the Japanese goods coming into the country, fearing that they will be contaminated due to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima.

In today's violence, Reuters notes a Mosul bombing which injured two people, a Mosul grenade attack which injured one police officer, a Baghdad drive-by shooting which killed Imam Adil Jaijan and, dropping back to Friday night, a Baghdad roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left ten people injured.


We'll close with this from Cindy Sheehan's "The People vs. The Machine" (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox):

What I observe in the U.S. is the financial chickens coming home to roost after decades’ long foreign expansion and wars. I firmly believe that Barack Obama was (s)elected to put a minority face on this expansion to help quell rising protests against the aggressive wars abroad and the war against the poor here at home. Everything he has done during his disastrous first term in office has been done to shore up the economic defenses of the economic elite: expand wars, TARP, health care "reform" bill, bankster bailouts, and the recent debt ceiling debacle.
Still in Japan, I was recently in Hana-shi, Okinawa Prefecture in Southern Japan. While there, I visited a protest camp in Henoko, where activists have been protesting against the expansion of a U.S. Marine Corps base called Camp Schwab.
Fifteen years ago when this protest started, the “profound wisdom” of the mighty Empire was to build an island offshore with landfill which would spoil the natural beauty of the ocean, and further harm species of endangered manatee and sea tortoise.



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


























Posted by at

Tell the whore likability is not legality

The same paper that sold the illegal war in Iraq -- the ongoing illegal war -- brings out another one-time liberal 'humanitarian.' Like Judith Miller before her, whore Elizabeth Rubin has her own political agenda. In fact, she's worse than Judy Miller who can be called "gullible." There's nothing but guile when it comes to Rubin.

Our 'humanitarian' War Hawk Missile's penned a little piece on the MEK for the New York Times. It's her usual lies and trickery.

That's not a defense of the MEK. We have no opinon on the MEK or the PKK or any other of these organizations. We do have an opinion on residents of Camp Ashraf. They are MEK, yes. But our interest in them is based upon their being in Iraq and our opinion of them is founded in the law -- an interesting concept which Rubin's never understood. The US government promised the residents of Camp Ashraf (an Iranian dissident group) protection. The minute that took place, various laws and treaties came into effect -- something a whore like Elizabeth won't ever address not due to stupidity or bad hair but because she's a whore.

I'm not in the mood.

Scott Horton's entered into a war of words recently with the MEK. He can have a war of words wth anyone he wants and I have no opinion on that except for: WHERE'S THE IRAQ COVERAGE?

Truly, when you're off on a personal war with anyone, you better make sure that doesn't interfere with what you're supposed to be doing. By repeatedly making the MEK his topic, he hasn't had time for Iraq all week. I hope the pissing match has been fun for him because it's made for damn boring radio if you're point in listening to Antiwar Radio is to hear about, yes, the wars. Maybe he can host two shows: Antiwar Radio and Antiterrorist Radio? If so, great. But stop short changing the wars in Iraq and Libya by wagging your cock in your own personal pissing match.

Again, we have no opinion on the MEK and Iran. Our focus in Iraq and we've had to pick up Libay because, take a look around, no one else seems willing to. The boys get to have fun pulling on their cocks and pretending that their little cock fights somehow help the world. But while they fondle themselves, as usual it's the little red hens that get stuck with the work -- the little red hens, the original CODEPINK.

Wars are going on, who's paying attention to the world wars when they're focused on their own little petty wars?

If you're generous to Whore Elizabeth Rudin, she writes three paragraphs about the residents of Camp Ashraf. Three paragraphs . . . in a column that's over thirty paragraphs long.

Whore Elizabeth and others need to grasp a tricky little thing about the law: Likability is not legality.

Likability is not legality.

I know that's difficult for small and for bought minds to grasp but it is reality.

Paid whore Elizabeth wants you to know she visited Camp Ashraf once in 2003. Did that lead her to ever advocate for the residents? No, but it does allow her to make charges and claims that scream: LOOK AT THOSE WEIRDOS!

What might happen in Iran or not? It's up to the people of Iran.

It's called self-determination and cheap whores like Elizabeth don't believe in that. They want to determine what happens. So she's involved in a pissing match of her own with the MEK.

They're a cult, she tells you, forgetting to explain to you her credentials that allow her to make such a judgment. Cult or religion? I wouldn't pretend to claim that I could make that call on any number of groups (including groups in the US). But Liz Rubin can. She can know about that and she can know about Iran and she can know about the US and she can know about what's really deep inside people's hearts and minds because when you slip your twenty in her g-string, you've bought yourself not just a lap dance, but an expert lap dance.

Lizzie's an expert on everything if you pay her.

Strange, all this time she's posed as a journalist. I will assume her editors at the paper will review the column and keep in mind all of her assertions and, yes, her very real bias, when making future assignments?

And I'll assume that her one-sided reporting on Camp Ashraf is just another indication of the fact that the New York Times remains in the gutter not because Judith Miller broke the paper's back but because the paper loves rolling in the gutter.

Here's Rudin, wallowing in her world of whoredom:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.
They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.
American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

She is funny. She's not honest, but she's as funny as that face of hers which looks like something that just stumbled out of the barnyard. First paragraph:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.

Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence? Don't you mean that with the overthrow of a Sunni government and the installation of a government composed of exile Shias with ties to Iran, the puppet government will no longer tolerate Camp Ashraf? That's what you mean, right?

I don't understand your use of the term "now," however, since the Iraqi Governing Council passed a resolution calling for Camp Ashraf residents to be expelled December 9, 2003.


Lizzie, is your calendar not up to date? Or are you just that much of a lying whore? I have no idea how someone can be so repeatedly stupid and still be published by a paper . . . Wait, forgot the rule, "Unless of course the paper is the New York Times."Yeah, yeah, yeah, that explains it all. Thank you so very much.


She writes Camp Ashraf was "attacked"? Don't you mean the "massacre" in April. Forget General Jones, that was the term applied by Senator John Kerry.

Of course, when you're a paid whore, you can't be trusted to distribute a deck of cards evenly, you'll always deal from the bottom.


Let's skip to the third paragraph:

American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

American officials who support the group?

Which group?

The MEK within Iran (and elsewhere) or the residents of Camp Ashraf.

They are two different groups. It's a shame that a lying whore wants to lump them together. I do support the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf to leave Iraq safely and be relocated elsewhere. That has nothing to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (an idiotic bromide we've long disputed here -- as have many but if Elizabeth Rubin couldn't hump a straw man, she'd probably just be left with an overly large vibrator she'd dubbed El Toro). "The means are the ends"? She's as stupid as she is ugly. No, the law is the law.

Camp Ashraf residents are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Whore Elizabeth never mentions this. Why is that? Is she unfamiliar with it? Strange because in the second paragraph, she cites a study, a RAND study commissioned by DoD [PDF format warning, "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum"] that states this very clearly on pages 13 through 17 of the study. The US was confused as to what the legal status for the residents were. They conducted a review. They then started to apply status. Again, this is in pages 13 through 17 of the study that Rubin cites. Rather strange that she's unfamiliar with it. Pages 19 through 23 deal with Rumsfeld and the White House and the UN and Rumsfeld recognizing them 'in effect' under the Fourth Article of the Geneva Convention for a variety of reasons. ('In effect,' by this point the US is stating the war is over and that the US and the Iraqi 'government' -- puppets -- are engaged in a joint-effort to defeat terrorists in Iraq. For that reason Rumsfeld is stating Geneva per se no longer applies but that, for all intents and purposes, the Fourth Article will be followed with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf. For legal reasons, that application made them officially and legally protected persons. You can 'per se' it and 'in effect' it all you want, a court is concerned only with what their recognition was. The US was hung up on terms, the court would see, but they were not hung up on what the rights of the residents were. That decision was made and, once made, that decision was binding. If someone can prepare a set of flash cards illustrating this for Elizabeth Rubin, I'm sure she could grasp the concept after two, maybe three months of someone drilling her with them.)

How could Rubin cite a report and be wrong? Hmm. Back to her paragraph two:


They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.


"A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

That's an interesting . . . 'fact.'


Did Elizabeth Rubin discover that 'fact' by sucking it down to its hairy root? Or possibly it penetrated her from behind?

Elizabeth does what whores do: LIE.

She lies so much she couldn't work anywhere else but the New York Times. The report from RAND did not address that. An appendix to the report (page74, look it up) makes the allegation that "it is possible that nearly 70 percent of the MeK population may have been recruited through deception and kept at Camp Ashraf against their will." It is possible that nearly 70%, in the mouth of a liar, becomes "A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

Only at the New York Times.

"It is possible" also means it's possible that they're wrong. That's what "possible" means. (Again, flashcards please, for Elizabeth.) Shall we contrast "nearly 70%" with "at least 70 percent" or can we all just agree that Elizabeth Rubin is a stupid, lying whore?

Now the RAND report proper, the actual report, not some appendix, is very good at citations. The Appendix is spotty when it comes to citations. And the ten line paragraph in which that maybe appears has many, many figures and zero citations. Or to be Maya Rudolph, "Zero point zero zero" citations.

'Okay,' you say, the citation's not sourced but it could be real.' It could be. That's what "possible" means -- that it could be true or it could be false. If you read the actual report, you'll understand why I'm doubtful of the figure. From pages 42-43 of the RAND report:


Lack of manpower has also meant that MNF-I has never conducted a comprehensive search of Camp Ashraf. The MeK would not allow it, and MNF-I was unwilling to divert manpower at FOB Grizzly from regular regional security missions to force a search upon the group. As a result, there are buildings at Camp Ashraf that no American has ever searched. Former JIATF staff believe that weapons, personnel files, and possibly even MeK members detained by the leadership would likely be
discovered in some of these buildings. At the very least, on the basis of rumors that the MeK were storing WMD for Saddam, the Iraq Survey Group, an international team organized by the Pentagon and the CIA to hunt for Iraq’s alleged WMD stockpiles, should have secured access to every building.

I don't disagree with the issue of access. And I've never claimed to be the smartest person in the room, let alone the world, but I do have the common sense to grasp that any 'estimate' of people in a compound is iffy (at best) if the compound's never been inventoried. Not in the report, in an appendix, you're told that nearly 70% of the residents . . . But there's been no inventory of the residents or the compound. So that figure is useless. And even with it being useless, it wasn't enough for Elizabeth Rubin. She had to take "nearly" and turn it into "at least." With a wave of her magic LYING wand.

And people wonder why the New York Times' reputation is in tatters.

For review purposes for those late to the party, we don't support the US backing any exile group in a war against another country. That's Iraq (which did take place and continues to), that's Cuba, that's Iran, that's anywhere. If someone wants to fight for their country, really wants to fight for it, they take up arms. They don't go whining like little babies to other countries, "Oh, help me, help me! I'm so little and small!" Not only do we not support the US fighting proxy wars on behalf of exiles, I personally think it should be grounds for forcible eviction from this country, if you're found plotting a war against your former country. You want to come to the US for asylum, I'm all for it. You want to come to this country to regroup as you plot your next attack? I don't think you should be allowed on US soil. My opinion. The residents of Camp Ashraf are protected persons and needed to be recognized as such. The massacre last April was the second big attack. Both attacks are in violation of the agreement that the US government and Iraq signed. The US is obviously not going to enforce the agreement. Therefore, it is up to the US State Dept to begin working overtime on finding countries that the residents of Camp Ashraf can be resetteld to. If the residents say "no" to resettlement? My opinion -- disagree if you want -- then the US government states, "We are not able or willing to keep agreement we made with you, we are sorry. But what we can do is resettle you. We will do that for six months/three months and then we're done. You're remaining in Iraq puts you at risk. Your refusal to resettle will be seen as an acknowledgment of that risk and an admission that you are choosing to stay while knowing that the US cannot protect you." My opinion -- feel free to disagree. Do I think that's honorable? No. But it's very clear the US government will no longer live up to the promise it made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and that reality needs to be conveyed so that anyone thinking, "Oh, I'll stay, the US will still protect me, they're just saying that to appease Nouri," gets the message that there is no more protection.


Community sites have updated. We'll do it in two lists and in the first we'll also note Watching America, Susan at Random Thoughts, On The Wilder Side with a very important post, Adam vs The Man, Cindy Sheehan, War News Radio and Washington Week:

OntheWilderSide
Credo lies about Funding Pro-War Politicians
5 hours ago


Ann and Kat aren't on the list above. Despite updating. That's not their fault, that's not my fault. It's a Blogger/Blogspot issue. To make up for it, swiping from Cedric and Wally, here are all the community posts from Thursday on (except for Wally and Cedric's post this evening):

"Green Beans in the Kitchen"
"Robert Reich"
"Baked Sweet Potatoes"
"How many terms?"
"4 women, 2 men"
"3 women, 2 men"
"does he get how he looks?"
"not pretty"
"A verdict"
"David Axelrod: Been Caught Lying"
"Good for Michele Bachmann"
"Lopez gets the axe"
"Out of the closet?"
"That's a winning strategy?"
"Just Go With It"
"White Chicks"
"The Vulture Rudy G"
"They Just Don't Care"
"Idiot of the week"
"Tiring"
"No mystery"
"THIS JUST IN! IT WAS OBVIOUS!"

This is one of two entries I have to do tonight and I have to work forever on this one because the New York Times doesn't fact check. And, please note, I could go on for 17 more paragraphs about the lies and distortions in Elizabeth Rubin's bad column. I don't have that time and I'm pretty pissed that I've lost nearly two hours of my time addressing her garbage. And I've still got to do another entry. And of course do the all night writing session with Third. And I'm really not, as noted before, in the damn mood tonight. Which is how I say, we like Sherwood Ross' writings but the one that follows is the last of its kind we'll highlight. We're not campaign politics -- congrats to Michele Bachmann for winning the Iowa straw poll and to Ron Paul for his strong second place showing -- one is victory with great symbolism (see Kat's post), the other is a victory for those opposed to these wars of choice -- and we try to only note the races when it has to do with the wars. It is 2011. It's not even the election year. Because it's Sherwood Ross, we'll excerpt from his piece. But this is the last time we'll do that. If it's not about a war, I'm not interested. I am so especially not interested -- soooooooooooooooo not interested -- in columns about religion or, even more importantly, what's wrong with someone's religion. I don't make that judgment, I don't concern myself -- stick my nose into -- people's worship. We'll note this piece by Sherwood Ross and then I'm done with it. If you send something similar and say, "Well you noted Sherwood," yeah, and I noted my objection. This is from Ross' "OUTLOOK FOR PEACE DIM IF PERRY ELECTED PRESIDENT" (OpEdNews):


The news that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is seeking the Republican presidential nomination may well send a tremor through the Muslim world.
That's because Perry, an evangelical Christian who would make a formidable candidate, appears to actually believe the U.S. military is divinely directed and is liable to continue U.S. interventions in the region.
At a prayer rally only this past August 6th in Houston's Reliant Stadium that attracted 30,000, he "called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders," the New York Times reported. And his announcement August 11th that he plans to run for president, the Associated Press said, will delight "conservatives looking for a candidate to embrace." Indeed, if Perry is elected with the the fervid support of the Religious Right, they're surely apt get one!
His election, though, could spell doom for any chance of the restoration of peace in the Middle East in our time.
In a campaign against President Obama, Perry could rally the tens of millions of charismatic Christian voters who have done so much to support the transformation of USA into a full-blown warfare state, supporting the military at every juncture, endorsing the illegal Middle East wars of the Pentagon, blindly backing Israeli interventions, and supplying the military with chaplains who spread an ultra-conservative philosophy among the troops.
According to the website "On The Issues," Perry told a veteran's group in a Memorial Day speech in 2008: "Today our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are on patrol, securing freedom for oppressed people, guarding the tender shoots of a blooming democracy, working to eradicate an infestation of terrorism, so that it does not revisit our nation." This, when the invasions had to do with oil and where the occupiers have shown little, if any, concern for “blooming democracy,” only how to make a buck.
Perry continued, "Time and again, I speak to soldiers who have seen the positive impact of US efforts and tell of Iraqi communities responding to the rule of law." This is sadly hilarious given the thousands of Middle East peoples who have been jailed by USA for years without attorneys and trials and some of whom have been mercilessly tortured and murdered in secret prisons hidden from the Red Cross.
Perry believes, "We have come too far and sacrificed too much to simply walk away and allow the dark forces of oppression to regain control of these places that have been consecrated by the blood of our nation's best." This, as if U.S. occupiers are not widely seen as “oppressors”!







The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


























Posted by at

Friday, August 12, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, August 12, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, the US Army releases data on military suicides, Nouri and State Of Law object to something they previously agreed to (twice0, the AFL-CIO pulls a fake out, and more.
 
Starting with the Libyan War, Amnesty International issued the following this week:
 
NATO must take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties during military operations, Amnesty International said today, after allegations by Libyan officials loyal to Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi that 85 people were killed during an air strike on Monday night.
The organization called on NATO to thoroughly investigate allegations of the deaths of unarmed civilians during the air strike in the area of Majar, south of Zlitan city.
Independent journalists taken to the scene reported having been shown up to 30 body bags, of which the bodies of two women and two children were revealed
On Tuesday, NATO military spokesperson Colonel Roland Lavoie said the "legitimate target" of the strike was several farm buildings taken over by al-Gaddafi forces and said that he had "no evidence of civilian casualties."
"NATO must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, even in those cases where al-Gaddafi forces are using civilian facilities for military purposes," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui of Amnesty International.
"NATO continues to stress its commitment to protect civilians. To that effect, it should thoroughly investigate this and all other recent incidents in which civilians were reportedly killed in western Libya as a result of air strikes."
On 2 August, Amnesty International wrote to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen asking for clarification on incidents in June in which unarmed civilians were reportedly killed and injured in Surman and Tripoli.
On 19 June, several civilians were reportedly killed, including two children and a woman, when a projectile struck their homes in Tripoli.
A NATO Spokesperson later said that during the air strike on a missile site, "a potential weapon system failure occurred and this caused the weapon not to hit the intended target, and reportedly resulted in a number of civilian casualties."
On 20 June, NATO strikes in Surman against what appeared to be civilian homes in a compound belonging to one of Colonel al-Gaddafi's associates, Khweildy al-Hamedi, reportedly killed several civilians, including two children and their mother.
NATO said that the facility was a legitimate military target and assured that precautions were taken before conducting the "strike which minimized any potential risk of causing unnecessary casualties".
Since March 2011, Amnesty International has repeatedly requested access to territories under the control of Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi in order to investigate allegations of human rights violations and violations to international humanitarian law. These included the sites of NATO bombings where civilian casualties have been reported. The organization received no response.
On 17 March, as fighting intensified in eastern Libya as well as in Misratah, the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya and the implementation of all necessary measures, short of foreign occupation, to protect civilians.
The international alliance launched its first military attacks against al-Gaddafi forces on 19 March. NATO took over the military operation in late March.
In their attempt to regain territory under opposition control, al-Gaddafi forces launched indiscriminate attacks and attacks targeting civilians.
Such attacks were particularly widespread in Misratah. Residents faced relentless and indiscriminate rocket attacks from March to mid-May and sporadic attacks in the summer.
On 31 July, three unarmed civilians were killed and another injured when rockets landed in the residential neighbourhood of Magasaba.
 
Whether attacking hospitals or bombing news outlets, NATO has shown a blood desire to inflict as much destruction and death as possible in what was originally termed a "humanitarian mission" that would "protect" civilians.  At the start of the war, it was also asserted it would be a matter of weeks.  That was six months ago.  Every other week, the media breathlessly announces that the so-called 'rebels' are advancing. Are they crawling across Libya on their bellies? 
 
The reality is that they're not advancing in any real sense and that's due to the fact that the US government has yet again backed exiles -- decades old exiles -- and just knows that these people who chose to leave the country will have sway on those who remained behind.  Not very likely.  And that's why NATO bombs like crazy, more than willing to kill civilians in the hope that the final result will be Libyans screaming, "I don't care! I don't care! Do whatever you want! Just stop the bombings!"
 
This week's talking points was "advancing" and "success" just around that corner.  But the week ends with Reuters reporting the so-called 'rebels' attempting to overthrow the current government suffered 11 deaths "in the past 24 hours" while fighting in Brega.
 
Meanwhile  the Coalition of the Killing got a little bigger today when Russia made an announcement.  Xinhua reports, "Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree Friday backing the U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized international military action in Libya, the presidential press service said. Russia abstained from voting on UNSC Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and tightened sanctions on the North African country, when the measure was presented in March. According to a decree posted on the Kremlin's website, Russia has agreed to ban all flights to Libya in Russian air space with the exception of flights for humanitarian purposes or for making an emergency landing."
 
2008 US presidential candidate and former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney is speaking around the country, truth-telling, about the Libyan War. Press TV notes today that hundreds turned out in Canada to hear her speak this week and that tomorrow (August 13th) she will be taking part in the Millions March in Harlem.   David Hungerford (Fight Back News) notes hundreds turned out for Cynthia's Newark, New Jersey speak-out and that she quoted Libyans stating, "This is our land and what lies underneath it belongs to  us. We aren't going to let anyone take it away. We wiil fight to the last person and the last bullet." Workers World notes of her speech to a packed crowd at Atlanta's Shrine of the Black Madonna last month, "She declared to the enthusiastic crowd that she would never be a 'team player for war' but was representing the 'peace team' on her travels around the world'."  June 24th, she spoke in DC and this is an excerpt of the speech:
 
 
Cynthia McKinney:  I took a rash step because I was so outraged.  I was outraged that our president would launch yet another illegal, unconstitutional, immoral war.  And so I also knew that my government was lying. I knew -- Again, yes, that's right.  I knew also that the press were lying. After all, in this country we've got at least one court decision that says it's okay for the press to knowingly lie to the American people and to the international community. But not only that, we know from just a few years ago with Iraq that 935 times not only were we lied to but our president, vice president and Condoleeza Rice but the press readily, zealously printed all of those lies. And since I'm a student of the counter-intelligence program, I know that it didn't start with the Iraq War, it started a long time ago.  And the demonizing, the targeting.  Our own FBI said that they wanted to neutralize certain leaders who dared to dissent. And while I'm here, I'm staying at the home of John Judge who has dedicated his life to understanding the nature of political assassinations that have taken place in our country and so we know that we have had silent coups and the end of sniper's bullets that have killed our leaders who have dared to dissent.   Faced with all of that, Brother Akbar [Muhammad] that is so vitally important. Black Amrica has been extremely supportive of our president but not in this case. A line has been drawn in the sand with respect to our president bombing Africa.  And Libya in particular because of the history of support when the United States was supporting apartheid in Africa, on the African continent it was the people of Libya and the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi  who were fighting to eradicate apartheid. And for those Blacks and people of color inside this countrty who were fighting to eradicate American style apartheid, the people of Libya and Muammar Gaddafi were supportive as well. Now I don't know that history but Brother Akbar knows that history very well. And that is part of the reason why Black America has drawn this line in the sand because this is something that is a historical relationship that has context that [. . .] that our President Obama has stepped across, he has crossed over the threshold. I have been blessed to be able to travel all over the world and as I have traveled, at one point I was extremely proud of the fact that Black people in the United States all over the world have a moral authority because everyone all over the world understands the plight that we have struggled against and that we continue to have to struggle against. But unfortunately now, the policies of the Bush administration have been enuciated and implemented by Black faces from Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and now we have a continuation of those polices through the office of President Obama. So I am directly impacted negatively by the actions of these Black people who have decided that they would cast their lot with War Mongerers, War Criminals and people who peddle in death and destruction.  So I decided that as a responsible and conscious Black person, I wanted my voice heard against what these other people were inunciating. And at the same time, I am sick and tired of war. 
 
Cynthia McKinney's truth-telling tour continues:
 
A continuing mobilization against the U.S. war on Libya has taken place in cities across the country. Packed, standing room only audiences at major meetings have heard former Congressperson Cynthia McKinney report on her June fact-finding trip to Libya with the Dignity delegation. In every meeting the message rings out: Stop the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya.
In the coming ten days Cynthia McKinney is scheduled to speak at meetings in Boston on Saturday, August 6, in Los Angeles on Sunday, August 7, in Vancouver on Tuesday, August 9. McKinney will speak at the Millions March in Harlem of August 13 along with Minister Farrakhan and other opponents of war and sanctions on Libya and Zimbabwe. She is scheduled to speak at 2 meetings in North Carolina on Sunday, August 14 hosted by the Black Workers for Justice in Rocky Mount and later at a historic civil rights church in Durham.
CLICK HERE for FULL LISTING
CLICK HERE TO DONATE FOR TOUR EXPENSES
To see Cynthia speaking at Riverside Church, click here.  The release notes that Cynthia spoke to a standing-room-only audience at Newark's Abyssinian Baptist Church.   Quoting from the release:
 
A Full listing of the current tour follows and is available at: www.IACenter.org
National-tour, now to 19 cities, organized by International Action
Center in coordination with many antiwar and
community organizations from July 7 to August 28, 2011.
 
And we'll note her upcoming events:
 
 
August 13, Saturday - NYC with Millions March in Harlem
August 14, Sunday - Rocky Mount, and Durham, NC
August 19, Friday – St Louis MO
August 21, Sunday - Pittsburg, PA
August 25, Thursday - Baltimore, MD
August 27, Saturday – Detroit, MI
August 28, Sunday – Denver CO
 
Please note if you're planning to see her Sunday in Rocky Mount that the venue has changed.  She will now be speaking at the Imperical Centre.  It will still start at 3:00 p.m.
 
 
Turning to Iraq where Nouri al-Maliki's greed was once only fabled and whispered of softly, today it's legendary. As he continues to fleece the Iraqi people, his greed may be the thing that destroys the US-propped up government.

Despite the March 7, 2010 election being seen as a rejection of Nouri -- whose slate came in second despite all of the predictions otherwise as well as Nouri's own abuse of office in an attempt to bring in the votes -- his greed would not allow for anyone else to be prime minister. As Nouri dug in his heels following the election, a few wondered what it would take to get Nouri out of the office he had just lost? Thanks to the US, he didn't have to worry and, after nine months of Political Stalemate I, he and the political blocs agreed to follow the Erbil Agreement. Among other things, the Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a national council on security which would be headed by Ayad Allawi (Allawi's Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections). Then Nouri got named prime minister-designate and promptly trashed the agreement.

Via a series of summer house parties, Jalal Talabani brought together the political blocs and, as late as yesterday, there was praise for Jalal's efforts in the Iraqi press. Political Stalemate II was going to be ended. And before nine months! The political blocs -- including Nouri -- had agreed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Yesterday in Parliament, the most vocal opponents to the creation of the national council were from Nouri's State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraq Premier Nouri Al Maliki reiterated that he is not convinced by the Higher National Strategic Policies Council as the country is heading towards Ministerial reduction and added that the Council is to be established in order to please some parties and doesn't have any role in solving the problems of the political process. During an interview with Alsumaria TV Maliki said he is not convinced by establishing this council especially that the institutions of the Iraqi State are currently flaccid. Maliki stressed that the situation will deteriorate if politics interfered in security."

Though the body was supposed to be independent and have actual powers, Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that its work would be purely advisory. Nouri's trashing this latest agreement much sooner than he did at the end of 2010. When State of Law carped and complained in Parliament yesterday following the reading of the draft law, many observers knew that they must do so with Nouri's blessing (Nouri is the head of State of Law). Now the surprise over that has been replaced with puzzlement over why Nouri is attacking the agreement he just signed off on? Since the only thing most are aware he got was for others to begin publicly speaking favorably of at least entertaining the thought of US forces remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, that would appear to be all he got from the summer House Parties -- spreading the blame for a continued US presence all around in the government.
 
On the subject of whether or not US troops remain in Iraq after the start of the new year,
Robert Naiman (Huffington Post) observes, "John McCain once said that there's no problem with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq forever, just like we do in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.  How liberals mocked him! But that's what the Obama Administration is now trying to do: keep US troops in Iraq forever. [. . . ] The Pentagon doesn't want you to notice that at the same time Washington is seized with debt hysteria, and the nation's mainstream media are demanding cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous claim that 'we can no longer afford it,' the Pentagon is laying plans to keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Iraq forever.  They call these troops 'trainers,' so we are not supposed to notice. But these 'trainers' engage in combat: they kill Iraqis, and they get killed by Iraqis."  Naiman is with Just Foreign Policy and they're asking you to tell Congress no more Iraq War funding after the end of 2011.  And while Americans wait for the day that Barack will speak publicly about the efforts of the US government to extend the US military presence in Iraq, the costs are not only finanical but also human lives. A memorial in California has been tracking deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.  Has been.  Jonathan Morales (Contra Costa Times) reports that the memorial in Lafayette has simply run out of space for any more crosses. There is no more space to erect additional crosses to note the deaths and yet the US government wants to continue both wars.
 
Political intrigue continues in Iraq as well.  For example,  Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worth billions. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature. Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made.  Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli (The Middle East Media Research Institute) offers an analysis of what happened:
 
 
In July of this year, the Ministry of Electricity signed a contract with a Canadian company, CAPGENT, for $1.2 billion for the construction of 10 power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each. The company was registered in Vancouver, Canada. It also signed a second contract with a German company, Maschinerbrau Halberstadt, for €500 million ($650 million) for the construction of five power stations with a production capacity of 100 megawatts each, to be completed within 12 months from the time a line of credit was extended. It now appears that the two companies are fictitious, and had the contracts been executed they would have would have constituted a monumental case of fraud involving senior officials of the Ministry of Electricity.
The two fraudulent cases came to light thanks to the personal efforts of Jawad Hashim, a former minister of planning in Iraq during the early Ba'thist regime in the 1960s and early 1970s. In a handwritten letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, datelined Vancouver, Canada, August 2, 2011, Hashim detailed the fraud.
As a resident of Vancouver, Hashim decided to investigate the available information on the Canadian company while he asked the former minister of economy and governor of the Iraqi central bank, Fakhri Yassin Qadduri, who resides in Germany, to investigate the identity of the German company.

David Baines (Vancouver Sun) reports that Jawad Hashim (the whistleblower) was convicted of "in absentia, of embezzling more than $50 million from the Arab Monetary Fund" and that Hashim maintains that the charges are false and were revenge for his defection from Saddam Hussein's government and his departing Iraq.  Hayder Najm (niqash) questions whether the contracts are indeed with fake companies.
 
 

Last Friday, a prison in Hilla saw a riot and a break out. Among the details that were passed on to the media was that guns with silencers were stored in the prison -- by guards. Why do you need a silencer in a prison if you're a guard? That question was never answered.  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports four prisoners were killed, 1 guard was killed and four guards were injured.  Dar Addustour reports that the prison break was addressed in Parliament today. Now might be a good time to note what's not addresssed: though there was a great deal of grandstanding when protests were taking place repeatedly throughout Iraq, no salaries were changed. That's the presidency and the vice presidency, that's the prime minister.
 
Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing last night left three people injured and a second one left two Iraqi soldiers injured (other events from last night noted by Retuers were included in yesterday's snapshot). 
 

 

"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home" - AFL-CIO Executive Council, Aug. 3, 2011

 

 

Tom Hayden found the statement amazing and a sign of a 'progressive' victory.  This morning, I disagreed. Tom may have indeed been right.  Because the statement is rather weak and the AFL-CIO has been calling out the Iraq War for years, click here for one 2007 example and although the new statement was approved and passed August 3rd, you can search in favin on the AFL-CIO's website for it.  You'd think such an important statement might make the main  page.  Wrong.  But on the main page you will hear about what you can do for the Democratic Party in next year's elections and about those 'bad' Republicans.  But you won't find the statement. Because it means nothing to the AFL-CIO.  If it did, they'd make it their damn banner already.  It's nothing but an attempt at advertising.  It's nothing but, "We've got to elect Dems!  Who can connect with liberal voters now that Barack's proven to be the golden calf?  I know!  The unions!  Get the AFL-CIO to issue a statement and then when they come to the website we'll lock in their votes for the Democratic Party."  I'm real damn sick of this illegal war to begin with.  But I'm also sick of the partisn b.s. that has surrounded it from day one. It's been used to give Republicans control of Congress (that was the 2002 strategy), it's been used to give Democrats control of both houses of Congress and it's been used to flip the White House.  But the Iraq War has not ended.  And if 'progressives' were serious about ending it today, they'd be talking about the war every time they were in front of the camera or microphone and, in Congress, Barbara Lee wouldn't be writing that embarrassing letter.  Instead, she or someone else, would compose a letter that simply stated: "We will not allow you to continue this war.  We will stop funding." That's all that needs to be said.  And it's not even an issue of votes.  A real filibuster could defeat any and every attempt at continuing to fund the illegal war.
 
On the main page of US Labor Against the War, the top headline, in huge letters, is about the AFL-CIO resolution. And if they cared about their own resolution, that's what the AFL-CIO would have done as well.  Instead it's a 'progressive.'  Meaning, it tricks and decieves, lies and manipulates because all that ever matters is how you vote every other year in November. That is the true meaning of progressive as they have repeatedly taught us (so-called progressives) since 2007.  They're fakes.  Many of them are adults who are too scared of their own shadow to declare they're Socialists.  Matthew Rothschild, for example, presented as "progressive" and only came out as a Socialist after the 2008 election.  (And no doubt, actual Socialists wish the coward would go back in the political closet.) If you use the links US Labor Against the War provides, you suddenly find the 'statement' at the AFL-CIO website.
 
Remember progressives are fakes?  Tom Hayden, the mother of all progressives, the one who nursed them with his man boobs, Tom Hayden writes about this 'amazing' statement, turns it into a Huffignton Post article.
 
Is there a bigger fraud than Tom Hayden?
 
"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home."  Is that not just the sweetest little open the heavens and let in the light statement to be made?
 
What's the problem with the statement?  It's 42 words.
 
42 words.  And this 'big statement' that's only 42 words?
 
It's not really a statement.
 
If I want to make a statement about the wars, I make a statement about the wars.  I don't bury two little sentences of 42 words in a, pay attention, 1592.word essay.  That 'statement'?  It's the eighth paragraph of their press release that should be entitled "Your 2012 Voters' Guide."  19 more paragraphs follow paragraph eight.  Only paragraph eight -- those two sentences of 42 words, mentions the wars.  And Tom wants to claim it as a progressive victory.  Wants to treat it as major news.  And thought he'd get away with it.  There's nothing worth praising here.
 
US Senator Patty Murray is also the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes this event next week.
 

(Washington, D.C.) – On Tuesday, August 16th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will hold a listening session to hear from area veterans on local challenges and to discuss her efforts to improve veterans care and benefits nationwide. This will be Senator Murray's first discussion with local veterans as Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Senator Murray will use the struggles, stories, and suggestions she hears on Monday to fight for local veterans in Washington, D.C.

 
 

WHO:          U.S. Senator Patty Murray

                     Local veterans

         

WHAT:        Veterans listening session with Senator Murray

 

WHEN:        Tuesday, August 16th 

         1:00 PM PT

 

WHERE:     Ft. Vancouver Artillery Barracks

                                 600 East Hatheway Road

                                 Vancouver, WA 98661

                     Map

 

 
Still on veterans issues, Joe Fryer (KING5) reports on March Forward's press conference this week where the addressed the issue of military suicides and noted that Sgt Derrick Kirkland repeatedly attempted to take his own life yet was labeled "low risk" by the military. Michael Prysner is quoted stating, "Within 48 hours of being in the care of Fort Lewis, he was dead. The mental health care system is broken. Soldiers are sent on constant, repeated deployments. When they ask for help, they receive notoriously inadequate care."

Tonight at Coffee Strong -- the GI coffeehouse -- a speak-out was held.  Among those telling truths was Mary Kirkland, mother of the late Sgt Derrick Kirkland. Jeremiah Kirkland is a member of March Forward and, like his brother Derrick, he served in the Army. He spoke about his brother's suicide in an interview with March Forward. Excerpt:


MF: What was he like when you talked to him after he was sent home?

Jeremiah Kirkland: He was just totally depressed. It all got to him.

MF: Did he express his frustration with the treatment he was getting?

JK: Yeah, he said all they did was load him up with drugs.

MF: What was your reaction when you heard that he had killed himself?

JK: In all honestly, I was not surprised. I mean, Army mental health care is a joke. You pretty much go there, don't even tell them anything, and they determine whatever category you're in based on different factors and that's the treatment you get. My brother got substandard treatment. The consistently dropped the ball.

MF: Who do you think is responsible for your brother's death?

JK: This government! If he hadn't been deployed, for no goddamn reason but corporate greed, he would still be here.

MF: What do you think about Derrick being rated a "low risk" for suicide by the Army?

JK: Not surprised, honestly. It's just, you know, pretty much whatever they can do to save the government dollar on giving our soldiers actual health care. It just doesn't work.
 
 The speak-out comes as the US Army delivers the latest monthly results on suicide.  Youchi J. Dreazen (National Journal) explains:  "There were 32 Army suicides in July, the highest monthly toll ever recorded. The grim figure underscores the military's continuing inability to find ways of preventing troubled soldiers from taking their own lives."
 
Next week, we'll do two days on the UN report.  I forgot it yesterday and just don't have the time tonight.  My apologies.
Posted by at

Nouri breaks his word, just like a little liar

Nouri al-Maliki's greed was once only fabled and whispered of softly, today it's legendary. As he continues to fleece the Iraqi people, his greed may be the thing that destroys the US-propped up government.

Despite the March 7, 2010 election being seen as a rejection of Nouri -- whose slate came in second despite all of the predictions otherwise as well as Nouri's own abuse of office in an attempt to bring in the votes -- his greed would not allow for anyone else to be prime minister. As Nouri dug in his heels following the election, a few wondered what it would take to get Nouri out of the office he had just lost? Thanks to the US, he didn't have to worry and, after nine months of Political Stalemate I, he and the political blocs agreed to follow the Erbil Agreement. Among other things, the Erbil Agreement called for the creation of a national council on security which would be headed by Ayad Allawi (Allawi's Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections). Then Nouri got named prime minister-designate and promptly trashed the agreement.

Via a series of summer house parties, Jalal Talabani brought together the political blocs and, as late as yesterday, there was praise for Jalal's efforts in the Iraqi press. Political Stalemate II was going to be ended. And before nine months! The political blocs -- including Nouri -- had agreed to return to the Erbil Agreement. Yesterday in Parliament, the most vocal opponents to the creation of the national council were from Nouri's State Of Law. Alsumaria TV reports today, "Iraq Premier Nouri Al Maliki reiterated that he is not convinced by the Higher National Strategic Policies Council as the country is heading towards Ministerial reduction and added that the Council is to be established in order to please some parties and doesn’t have any role in solving the problems of the political process. During an interview with Alsumaria TV Maliki said he is not convinced by establishing this council especially that the institutions of the Iraqi State are currently flaccid. Maliki stressed that the situation will deteriorate if politics interfered in security."

Though the body was supposed to be independent and have actual powers, Al Rafidayn quotes Nouri stating that its work would be purely advisory. Nouri's trashing this latest agreement much sooner than he did at the end of 2010. When State of Law carped and complained in Parliament yesterday following the reading of the draft law, many observers knew that they must do so with Nouri's blessing (Nouri is the head of State of Law). Now the surprise over that has been replaced with puzzlement over why Nouri is attacking the agreement he just signed off on? Since the only thing most are aware he got was for others to begin publicly speaking favorably of at least entertaining the thought of US forces remaining on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011, that would appear to be all he got from the summer House Parties -- spreading the blame for a continued US presence all around in the government.

In another interesting development, Al Mada reports that the Sadr bloc is calling for an investigation into the alleged fake contracts and alleged theft of funds in the Ministry of Electricity. Over the weekend, Nouri al-Maliki announced he was firing the Minister of Electricity due to fake contracts worh close to two million dollars. There were two main responses. First, many stated Nouri didn't have the power to do the firing, only Parliament did. Second, the Minister of Electricity floated that he had many stories to tell. It has since emerged that these contracts Nouri claims to be surprised and appalled by carry . . . Nouri's signature. Nouri and State Of Law's latest move is to note that this member of Nouri's Cabinet is also a member of Iraqiya. I'm not sure how that assists Nouri since, over the weekend, Iraqiya was the first to state that they supported the move Nouri made.

Last Friday, a prison in Hilla saw a riot and a break out. Among the details that were passed on to the media was that guns with silencers were stored in the prison -- by guards. Why do you need a silencer in a prison if you're a guard? That question was never answered. But Dar Addustour reports that the prison break will be addressed in Parliament today. Now might be a good time to note what's not addresssed: though there was a great deal of grandstanding when protests were taking place repeatedly throughout Iraq, no salaries were changed. That's the presidency and the vice presidency, that's the prime minister.

In the US, Tom Hayden (Huffington Post) gushes:


"There is no way to fund what we must do as a nation without bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. The militarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home" - AFL-CIO Executive Council, Aug. 3, 2011

In a major victory for the progressive movement, the AFL-CIO has condemned the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a "militarization of our foreign policy" and a "costly mistake." The statement, adopted August 3, is the most forthright in the history of a labor movement marked by pro-war allegiances for many decades. It reflects a deep sentiment among working families, estimated at 80 percent opposition by one longtime labor official in Washington D.C. Much credit goes to the patient bottom-up organizing by U.S. Labor Against the War and others, who solicited endorsements from hundreds of locals and mobilized labor contingents at countless rallies across the country.


I wish I shared Tom's enthusiasm. But the fact remains that The Nation's doing a "sports issue" not an issue on war and peace. The fact remains that the statement from the AFL-CIO is not a statement from various 'progressive' leaders -- the bulk of whom fell silent on the wars rather than criticize their beloved Barky Obama. Union members, led by US Labor Against the War, have something to be proud of; however, considering the demographics of the AFL-CIO and the tirades by 'progressives' in 2008, I think it's beyond dishonest and hypocritical for 'progressives' to now claim to stand with the very people they demonized three years ago. The AFL-CIO is largely the 'old coalition,' the one that Donna Brazile and so many others declared a thing of the past and no longer needed. (For those who missed it, Donna declared that older Americans, White Americans and Latinos were no longer needed in the Democratic Party, declared on CNN, because a new coalition had been created.) Of course, the 2010 elections demonstrated what any student of poli sci should have already noted, there was no new 'coalition' to replaced FDR Democrats. If Hayden wants to act jazzed by the union, he might first need to reconcile the attacks launched on FDR Democrats by numerous organizations he belongs to. He might also want to find his voice on the wars which requires more than checking in when someone else takes a stand. People are dying and silence is not an option.

We'll close with this from Lizzie Phelan's "Waging a Savage War on Libyan People" (ICH):

August 11, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- More bombs drop on Tripoli and across Libya tonight. Theses bombs dropped by the British government whose own youth are setting that country on fire in protest at their abandonment.
The Libyan government share with the British youth the experience of criminalisation by the British press and politicians, and tonight they extended their solidarity to them.
Libyan Foreign Minister chastised British Prime Minister David Cameron for “describing his own people as criminals” and echoed the sentiments of the youth by declaring him “unfit for the job”.
Recognising that the cause of these “riots” by black and working class youngsters were their ignored demands for better representation, better education and health services, better housing, jobs and more and equal opportunities, he added that, “instead of investing taxpayers money in areas underfunded, [Cameron] is spending it on waging a savage war on Libyan people.”
And on the day that NATO massacred 85 Libyan civilians, the images of Britain on fire can garner little sympathy amongst outraged Libyans. This is just the start of the “chickens [coming] home to roost.”
I watched their heartbroken and incensed loved ones bury the 33 children, 32 women and 20 men NATO claimed were likely to be part of the military or “mercenaries”. Most of the population of the Zlitan town Majer turned out for their burial chanting furiously against NATO.
As we captured on film and in history the aftermath of NATO’s crimes, person after person came to tell us how NATO was creating a generation of Libyans so filled with rage that they would see no recourse but to send themselves to martyrdom in revenge against the west.




The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

































Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)