Saturday, January 07, 2012

Nouri's insane, Moqtada's playing statesman and more

Nouri al-Maliki, if the US press didn't work so hard to shelter him, he'd be the laugh of all of America. In his latest bit of spin, Al Mada reports, Nouri took to the TV airwaves to proclaim he didn't want Tareq al-Hashemi to be arrested. But the Iraqi judiciary threatened him (Nouri) with arrest! This fantasy ignores the fact that Nouri was publicly attacking Tareq al-Hashemi (and Saleh al-Mutlaq) starting on Friday, December 16th (after his DC trip) and having their homes surrounded by tanks. It ignores that on Saturday the 17th, he took the airwaves of his attacks. It ignores that he ordered the plane they were flying to the KRG on, Sunday the 18th, stopped from taking off and the two men and the Minister of Finance pulled off the plane with all their bodyguards. It also ignores that on Monday, March 19th, the warrant was finally issued by the court.

Nouri's such a bad liar. He kicked off the political crisis with those actions. The political crisis finally got the US government to sort-of acknowledge Political Stalemate II which had gripped Iraq since December 2010.

The winner of the political crisis thus far is Moqtada al-Sadr who has used the crisis very well. He's struck poses of maturity and leadership. He's made comments that Nouri should have but wouldn't. He's publicly maintained the Constitution is the law of the land. He's publicly maintained that it is in the interest of the country for all parties to be part of the solution. He's distanced himself further from the League of Righteous. I'll leave it to others to determine the sincerity of his moves but it's a different Moqtada he's been presenting to Iraq. He really wanted to be prime minister in 2010. In 2011, he's acting like he is.

His latest move? Aswat al-Iraq notes that he's calling for Iraq to open an embassy in DC.

While Moqtada distances himself from the League of Righteous, Nouri al-Maliki flirts with them. Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) reports:

The group says it wishes to run in local and parliamentary elections and is willing to hand over its weapons. “They want to join the political process,” said Amer al-Khuzaie, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's adviser for reconciliation. “The government will not buy up the group's weapons, but we are ready to take them if they want us to.”
The group carried out lethal attacks on the remaining US bases in Iraq last June. Mr Sadr, who has denounced the sectarian killings carried out by Shia militiamen acting in his name, says that Asaib Ahl al-Haq still has Iraqi blood on their hands. Mr Maliki may wish to split the Shia militia movement that only grudgingly gave him the support he needed to remain prime minister in 2010.

Jack Healy (New York Times) discovers Iraq's Constitution via an unnamed Western official. Perhaps the official could have quoted it to him so that Healy's article could be stronger. Nouri continues the broadcast of show confessions on TV. This started becoming especially popular on Iraqi TV when Nouri became prime minister (2006). Healy observes:

But to many Westerners, the rituals are inflammatory and even illegal, symptoms of a politically tainted justice system that still relies on confessions, many coerced, as much as physical evidence despite millions in American aid and legal training programs.
The prisoner displays are also sharpening the political and sectarian tensions that plunged Iraq's government into disarray immediately after the American military withdrawal in December. When officials from the country's Shiite-led government announced an arrest warrant against the Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, they played videotaped confessions from three bodyguards who accused Mr. Hashimi of personally running a death squad against police officers and political rivals.

It's a better article than I'm giving it credit for but I'm so tired of this nonsense. Why does a country have laws if they're not applied? Or worse, if they're only applied to the poor? Nouri takes an oath to follow the Iraqi Constitution. When he violates that oath, it should be news and it should be called out.

However, it's Al Mada that's carrying the story about Nouri breaking the Constitution re: the Cabinet.

Adel Berwari is an advisor to Nouri. Al Mada quotes him explaining that Nouri doesn't have the power to replace ministers of the Cabinet. No, he doesn't and we pointed that out this week while others played dumb. The New York Times is still playing dumb even when Nouri's own advisor goes on the record stating Nouri doesn't have that power, that the Constitution does not grant him that power. Goodness. Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, the snapshot Wednesday:


Today Nouri manages to break the Constitution again. Khalid Al Ansary and Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) report that he placed "all eight government ministers from the Sunni Muslim-backed al-Iraqiya alliance on leave" according to his spokesperon Ali al-Musawi. Where in the country's constitution does that power exist?
Oh, right, it doesn't. Those eight ministers were confirmed in their posts by Parliament (in other words they're not 'acting' anything, they are the ministers, per the Constitution). His only power after a minister is confirmed by Parliament? Outlined in Article 75:
The Prime Minister is the direct executive authority responsible for the general policy of the State and the commander in chief of the armed forces. He directs the Council of Ministers, and presides over its meetings and has the right to dismiss the Ministers on the consent of the Council of Representatives.
He is not allowed to strip a minister of their post without the consent of Parliament. Iraqiya has been boycotting the Cabinet and Parliament -- this started last month over the failure of Nouri to live up to the Erbil Agreement that ended the eight month political stalemate following the March 2010 elections. If Nouri now wants the ministers dismissed -- for any reason -- he needs to go to Parliament.
He has no right to put them on "leave." There is nothing in the Constitution that gives him this right. Per the Constitution, a Minister can only be stripped of their post (which would include their duties) if the Parliament agrees to it. The Parliament still hasn't set a date on hearing Nouri's demand from last month (December 17th) that Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post. They certainly haven't agreed to strip eight ministers of their post.

He can't fire them, he can't put them on leave, he can't even appoint an 'acting' legally. Read the Constitution. Why was it written if no one's going to follow it and no one's going to read it? What was the purpose of all that time spend on producing the document if it's nothing but something to be placed in a glass case now?

Let's go through it one more time. The prime minister-designate puts together a Cabinet. That's a serious obligation on the office. Nominees to be carefully chosen. Once chose, they are presented to the Parliament which votes on each nomination. After that, the only way they leave is they resign (or die) or the prime minister and the Parliament agree the minister needs to go. That's it. There are no other options. That's why it's important that a prime minister-designate (or a prime minister if he or she is picking a replacement later in his or her term) carefully consider who they nominate. Barring death, resignation or being stripped of office, that minister is on the Cabinet for the duration of the government. There is no "I put you on leave." There is no "I'm handing your folio over to him/her."

If the person is not qualified -- if the Parliament and the prime minister agree on that -- then the person is stripped of their position. Otherwise, they continue in their role until the next government is formed.

Nouri wants to create powers that he doesn't have and the US press wants to treat that as normal. I remember in 1979 when Saddam Hussein started ignoring the Constitution to attack the country's Communist Party. And I remember the US press having no interest in that. That's how thugs become despots. They take, they steal, they circumvent the law and yet all the watchdogs that are supposed to provide oversight -- including the press -- choose to treat the actions as normal.

We're going to note the violence and that's it. There's a lot more and I planned to cover it. But I'm just not in the mood. We refuse to learn. We refuse to because we waste all of our time propping up whatever suck-ass, pathetic politican we've lined up behind (like David Shorr enlisting in the Propaganda War on behalf of Barack). And we're so busy with that bulls**t that we're unable to focus on what really matters. The Iraqi people really matter. What did protesters tell CNN last month? They begged CNN not to leave Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Why? Because when the press left, Nouri's forces would attack the protesters. (And did.) Across the world, we all have the power to shine a light on what's going in Iraq. And shining that light might mean one or two people live this month or next. It might mean that people in a country the US destroyed get half-a-chance at rebuilding their lives. But instead of doing the right thing, instead of owning what our government did, we rush to deny it and we refuse to pay attention. And as we rush out with insulting remarks of 'someone turn off the lights' (as though Iraq is now empty?), we shine no light on what the Iraqis are going through and Nouri -- like Saddam before him -- can do whatever he wants and know that the world isn't watching and, most importantly, that the world just doesn't care.

But don't worry, the David Shorrs made sure to defend Barack today. They failed to protect the people who really need help, the people whose lives were destroyed by this country, but hey, they whored for Barack so doesn't that count for . . . nothing.

Reuters notes 1 corpse (woman) was discovered in Muqdadiya, a mosque in Mosul was invaded (that is so disgusting and so disrespectful) and 1 person was shot dead in the process ("an off-duty policeman"), a Mahmudiya roadside bombing claimed 2 lives and left twenty people injured, a Baquba car bombing claimed 1 life and left three people injured, and, dropping back to Friday for the last two, a Balad attack left two Iraqi soldiers injured and a Tarmiya bombing claimed 2 lives.

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























Posted by at

3-year-old (mentally) David finds his way home

They say politics is show biz for ugly people so David Shorr should have a large lead; however, that's just not the case.

Yesterday's snapshot noted David Shorr's dishonesty and spin. It's now been posted at TPM, an e-mail advises. Good. That's where it belongs. Stick in pin it that, we'll come back to it.

Why does Barack own the Iraq War as well as Bush?

David Shorr wants to be walked through like he's a four-year-old but I think that's aiming too high so let's go real slow for Davey.

1) Barack campaigned screaming in those tent revivals across America, "We want to end the war! And we want to end it now!" He left voters convinced that he would end the Iraq War immediately.

Now some voters, yes, believed things that were wrong (like the "free gasoline" claim that was so popular on YouTube) and that's on them because Barack never said any such thing. But he did say, "We want to end the war! And we want to end it now!" And he did say ending it would be his top priority and that, as soon as he was sworn in, he'd begin withdrawing and on and on.

He's the one who gave the impression he'd end the war in Iraq.

He was lying. That's why Samantha Power left the campaign. She went to England and shot her mouth off repeatedly. She didn't resign for calling Hillary a "monster." She resigned for giving an interview to the BBC (see the March 7, 2008 snapshot, we documented it in real time) and declaring that Barack's words were empty and meaningless. Excerpt from the interview.

Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?


Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

Really? BBC started airing it on the Friday that Samantha quickly announced her resignation. (She resigned, she was not fired.) (She made the decision, she was not asked to resign. She was even told she could just lay low. Power was smart enough to realize that she had to get out the door immediately or this would be a major news story.) It broke, in the US mid-day on a Friday. Most outlets were still grudge f**king Hillary with the monster storyline and, of course, a large number were in the tank for Barack. (David Corn of Mother Jones being one of the most obvious.)

Around midnight (EST), another Barack whore decided to spin. The Nation magazine loved a 2006 editorial so much, they put it on their cover, text on the cover, no illustration. In that editorial they proclaimed that they would support no candidate who did not call for the immediate withdrawal of Iraq.

So surely, The Nation rushing a piece up online at the end of Friday was going to be about what Samantha Power had said, right?

Wrong.

It was John Nichols lying and distracting. See "John Nichols Employs 'Girl Power' for Sammy Power." As we noted, it was one lie after another from Nichols who avoided Power's Iraq comments but did put forward the lie that Samantha and Hillary were 'tight' and had known each other for "years" so "monster" didn't really matter -- they'd met once and only once -- a fact Nichols ignored but that Power had already admitted on Charlie Rose's program. Damn, disgusting liar.

John Nichols would go on Democracy Now! when AP reported -- and proved -- that Barack's campaign was telling the Canadian government of Stephen Harper not to worry about Barack's anti-NAFTA remarks because they were just empty words being used to win the primary. John Nichols go on Democracy Now! and insist that it was actually Hillary and he was working on an explosive story about that, and then the little two-bit whore's rumor would go all over the internet via the Cult of St. Barack. Reality, it was Barack. Reality, John Nichols is a dirty ass whore who cannot now or ever again be trusted. He has refused to own up to his lies. And remember, this is the little bitch whore wrote a book on impeachment but dropped the topic a immediately after the book came out -- in hardcover -- because Pelosi and company were gearing up for the 2006 elections and she had declared impeachment was off the table.)

Barack lied. Samantha Power told the truth about that to the BBC and had to leave the campaign.

Most Americans never heard about what Samantha Power said as the primaries were ongoing. We noted the silence in "Editorial: The Whores of Indymedia" at Third in March of 2008. A few more heard about it July 4, 2008 when Tom Hayden suddenly 'discovered' Power's statements in a Huffington Post column. (Hayden was aware of Power's remarks in March of 2008. He chose not to write about them. He was asked by several people to address the remarks -- and they though he would because he'd actually had the guts -- for one moment in time -- to call out the little war cabal at Harvard that Power was a part of. But a dirty whore's a dirty whore, a pointe we note in Third's "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq").

Barack lied and misled the American people.

2) Despite his parroting Hillary in a debate that the president sets the mission and stating he would do that, he would task the military with withdrawal immediately, he didn't do that. He asked for an assessment. His 'a brigade a month' as soon as he was sworn in didn't come to pass, now did it.

3) He was not elected to continue Bush policies.

4) By refusing to immediately withdraw -- as he promised he would -- he owns the war. We made that point repeatedly and, even for a 3-year-old like David, it shouldn't be confusing. He is commander-in-chief of the military. He continued the war, he owns it. The only way he wouldn't own it -- and we noted it over and over in real time -- was to immediately start withdrawing. He was elected with a mandate to end the Iraq War immediately.

If he had done that, anything that went wrong in Iraq would be Bush's fault. And his response would be, "I promised to bring an immediate end to the war. I was elected on that promise. The American people have spoken." And that would have been it.

But he had to stay with the war -- and try to continue it -- and he owns it now as much as Bush. In fact, maybe more. This is a point we made repeatedly in 2008 when his alleged 'superior judgment' on Iraq was being trumpeted over and over. We were told Barack was so smart because in 2002 he was against the war. (Forget that he told the New York Times in 2004 that had he been in Congress at the time, he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the 2002 resolution.) This made him smarter than Hillary and John Edwards who voted for the war in 2002.

But Barack got to the Senate in 2005. And he promptly voted for every Iraq authorization, over and over.

If you know the war is wrong, it's worse to vote for it.

Hillary and John could have argued that they had realized it was a mistake over time. But Barack was right-from-day-one. So why did he vote to continue the war? (Because he supported it as Elaine has documented since before Barack was campaigning for president. We attended his big money fundraiser for the Senate and we used our face time to ask him about Iraq only to have him tell us to our faces that he wouldn't support withdrawal because "the troops are there." We left without donating a cent. He was just another lying, useless politician. We saw it before he got into the Senate, all that the left now sees, we saw years ago.)

3) Attempting to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (which continues, the talks on that continue) also betray the promise. As does the continued occupation of Iraq via the militarization of the State Dept.

4) When critics in Congress (Republians but it includes Democrats -- as well as independent Joe Lieberman) speak of the "hasty exit," they are referring to Barack announcing in October that the talks had fallen through and moving to bring troops out of Iraq. That's what they're calling hasty.

5) Pretending not to grasp that makes David not just a very physically unattractive man but deeply ugly on the inside, where it really matters.

The aspiring 4-year-old is a liar so providing this walk through won't help him at all. But little will. He'll go to his grave a cheap ass liar who put partisanship above truth. (And he won't be the first or the last.)

Now he's reposted his crap at Talking Points Memo, as an e-mail informed.

Good. That's where it belongs.

That's not an anti-war site. That's not a site that stood tall and brave when it mattered. It's the equivalent of Judith Miller's reporting or all the "Case closed" columns after Colin Powell lied to the United Nations.

And for those who didn't grasp what a coward Josh Marshall was and is or how ethically challenged he is, let's note this from Bob Somerby (Daily Howler):

In our view, this tribal politics is death for progressive objectives. Progressive reforms will never be achieved in this situation. It seems to us that savvy progressive leaders would warn against this tribal division.

That’s why we were so intrigued by several recent posts by Josh Marshall. In these posts, Josh gives us a portrait of the way a certain type of liberal “intellectual leader” may decide to go thoroughly tribal.

When Josh arrived on the Internet, he was a very bright player; he was a doctoral candidate at Brown, and he acted a good deal like same. Yes, he played it safe in 2002, hemming and hawing and seeing all sides when it came to the proposed war in Iraq. But there may have been a good reason for that! In this profile of Josh in the New York Times, Noam Cohen quoted Josh describing his career outlook in the early years of his on-line tenure:

COHEN (2/25/08): Seven years ago, Mr. Marshall was a Ph.D candidate in early American history at Brown University; the Washington editor of a liberal magazine, The American Prospect; and a new blogger. He had started the blog as an outlet for his ideas and to track the recount fight in Florida—the name came from a term bandied about during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

''If I had quickly happened into a staff position at The New Yorker, I probably wouldn't have done this,'' Mr. Marshall, 39, said of his migration to full-time online journalism.

By 2008, Josh was running a full-time site, not his original blog. But if he’d happened into a position as a career journalist, he probably wouldn’t have done that.

In other words: When Josh started his blogging, he was part of the career journalism world (through his spot at the American Prospect)—and he was still imagining the possibility of a full-time career in upper-end, established media. And can we talk? In 2002, if you wanted such a career, you tended to cast yourself as a Serious Person. You puffed on your pipe and you hemmed and you hawed. When it came to the war in Iraq, you saw all sides of Bush’s thoughtful proposal.

You weren’t sure that war was best—but you certainly saw all the angles! This may be why Josh walked such a Serious line in the months leading up to Iraq.


So it is very appropriate that a pathetic pieces of lies about the Iraq War would end up at Josh Marshall's pathetic site which aided the outbreak of that illegal war. Little David heard the call of his mother ship, at last he's back home.

The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, NPR, Antiwar.com, Watching America, the Independent and On TheWilder Side -- updated last night and today:




Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Fincher
13 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
Changey?
16 hours ago




We'll close with this from international law expert Francis A. Boyle, "Preventing War by the United States against Iran:"



Article 2 (3) of the United Nations Charter requires the pacific settlement of the international dispute between the United States and Iran. To the same effect is article 33 and the entirety of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter that mandate and set up numerous procedures for the pacific settlement of the international dispute between the United States and Iran. And of course Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits both the threat and use of force by the United States against Iran.

Furthermore, both Iran and the United States are parties to the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, upon which legal basis the Nazi Leaders were prosecuted by the United States, inter alia, at Nuremberg for Crimes against Peace, sentenced to death, and executed. In Article I thereof the States Parties “condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another." The United States has been illegally threatening war against Iran going back to the Bush Jr. Administration. Article II requires the United States only to pursue a pacific settlement of its international dispute with Iran: “The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Finally, both the United States and Iran are parties to the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This seminal Hague Peace Convention establishes numerous mechanisms for the pacific settlement of international disputes between contracting parties that are too numerous to analyze here. But they are discussed in detail in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999). According to article 27 thereof, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between contracting powers, it was the DUTY of the other contracting powers to remind them that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is open to them, and such reminder could not be treated as an unfriendly act of intervention by the disputants. Today the world needs one State party to either the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes or the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes to publicly remind both the United States and Iran that the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, together with its International Bureau and the entirety of the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes , are available to the two States in order to resolve their dispute in a peaceful manner.

After the terrorist assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June of 1914, Serbia made an offer to Austria to submit the entire dispute to “the International Tribunal of The Hague”—i.e.,to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Austria did not accept the offer, the First World War broke out, and about 10 Million Human Beings were needlessly slaughtered. The death toll from World War III will be incalculable. Humanity must not allow our history to repeat itself! Otherwise, that could be the end of our Humanity.


Francis A. Boyle

Professor of International Law



Francis A. Boyle

Law Building

504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.

Champaign, Illinois 61820



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























Posted by at

Friday, January 06, 2012

Iraq snapshot

Friday, January 6, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, denial that Barack has responsibility continues, the US is not going to support Tareq al-Hashemi, who got punished for Iraq coverage (and who didn't), and more.
 
Let's start with David Shorr.  He's not interested in honesty, he's not interested in facts.  If you can hold your nose, click on the link and sink into the spin and ignorance.  He doesn't see how Barack Obama "owns" what happens in Iraq.  He doesn't see it because he can't admit the truth.  I haven't read Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan's column, I have no interest in reading it.  I have even less interest in reading Steve Clemons.  I did read Peter Feaver's piece -- awhile back.  (We highlighted it in the December 27th snapshot.)
 
I'm not in the mood to pretend Shorr's an honest broker, so we'll dismiss with him quickly.  Feaver argued that Barack also owns the war (owns it with Bush).  Shorr has a problem with that. We'll let Shorr's own words betray him:
 
Feaver cries foul on the attempt he sees by Obama supporters to give him full credit for anything positive in Iraq and saddle President Bush with everything negative. Well, what is the Obama Administration claiming to have done? President Obama claims credit for extricating American forces from nearly nine years of military involvement there.  By the way, can I pause for a moment to say how absurd it is to talk about a hasty exit after nine years?!?
 
Wow.  Well I'm convinced.  Barack's a saint, a hero and pees rainbows.  In Shorr's  mouth.  The rest of the world, however, may note that Shorr claims the Iraq War lasted nine years.  No, March 2003 is when it officially started.  So let's go with the eight years plus.  (Facts are so hard for con artists.)  So Barack deserves credit because he ended this eight year war?
 
Bush started and Bush ran it for eight years and just last month, Barack ended it.  Thank goodness Barack Obama was sworn in as president in December 2011 or else the US might still be -- What's that?
 
Oh, that's right.  Barack wasn't just sworn in.  He was sworn in back in January of 2009. A few weeks short of three years he pretends he ended the war and occupation (he didn't end it).  But he continued it, despite campaign promises.  And he wanted to continue the US military's strong presence even longer.  The "hasty exit" line?  Again? We just called out Media Matters distorting/lying about this.  But, I guess, when independent thought is beyond your capabilities, all you can do is repeat talking points. 
 
The "hasty exit"  -- as presented by members of Congress -- refers to the fact that in October when Barack ignores the Defense Dept's legal opinion and goes with the State Dept's legal opinion (I don't believe the idiot Shorr is even aware that there were legal opinions) and declares (that phase of) the talks over, that period from the last of October through December, is what they call the hasty exit.  Liars and whores can't make solid arguments so they have to lie.  Barack has not ended the war and occupation.  But let's pretend for a moment that he has.  Was he elected in 2008 with the mandate to follow Bush's actions?  To continue the Iraq War for three more years?  No, he wasn't.  He was voted into office to end the Iraq War.  And during those three years (2009, 2010 and 2011), he repeatedly made one mistake after another.  December 13 on To The Point (KCRW), Warren Oleny spoke with former Iraqi Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi.  Excerpt.
 
Warren Oleny: Is there anything the Obama administration should be doing differently from what it is?
 
Ambassador Feisal Istrabadi: Well, I mean, that's hard to say because obviously it's influence is somewhat waning.  The critical mistake the Obama administration made occurred last year when it threw its entire diplomatic weight behind supporting Nouri al-Maliki notwithstanding these very worrisome signs which were already in place in 2009 and 2010.  The administration lobbied hard both internally in Iraq and throughout the region to have Nouri al-Maliki get a second term -- which he has done.  Right now, the betting there's some question among Iraq experts whether we'll ever have a set of elections in Iraq worthy of the name.  I mean, you can almost get odds, a la Las Vegas, on that among Iraq experts. It's a very worrisome thing.  What can they do in the future? Well I suppose it would be helpful, it would be useful, if we stopped hearing this sort of Happy Talk coming from the administration -- whether its Jim Jeffreys in Baghdad, the US Ambassador or whether it's the president himself or other cabinet officers.  We're getting a lot of Happy Talk, we're getting a lot of Happy Talk from the Pentagon about how professional the Iraqi Army is when, in fact, the Iraqi Army Chief of Staff himself has said it's going to take another ten years before the Iraqi Army can secure the borders. So it would help, at least, if we would stop hearing this sort of Pollyanna-ish -- if that's a word -- exclamations from the administration about how swimmingly things are going in Iraq and had a little more truth told in public, that would be a very big help to begin with.
 
We're opposed to the illegal (and ongoing) Iraq War.  We always have been.  I don't need to distort what someone from the other side says or does to make my argument (see last night's entry).  Let's dispense with David Shorr by noting he hero worshipped Daniel Schorr.  Schorr loved to lie that he was fired from CBS News because of his integrity in ensuring that a Congressional report was printed.  No, he was fired for lying.  He was fired for lying and trying to get someone else in trouble.  As Ava and I noted in "Let's Kill Helen!" (our look at the disgusting trolls attacking Helen Thomas):
 
Oh my goodness, Helen's anti-war! Strip her of her American citizenship! Truly, that must be a huge offense to Alicia since she likens it to anti-semitism. Can you get more stupid than Alicia Shepard?
Others may not be able to, but she surely can. And did. No reporter for CBS would get away with that, Alicia wanted to insist. And she follows that up by telling Aimee that age can't be to blame because "Dan Schorr" is 91 and he works for NPR.
He does, she's right.
But he doesn't work for CBS, does he?
Nor can he.
Yeah, we'll go there.
Daniel Schorr was fired from CBS. He and his supporters (who funded a year long travel circuit for Danny after his firing) insisted he was fired for doing his job. That is and was a lie. Daniel Schorr was not fired for being a defender of freedom.
Most people are aware of the Church Committee which investigated governmental abuses. The Pike Committee came immediately after, doing the same sort of work, and they wrote a report. They then decided not to issue it. Schorr, in his capacity as a CBS reporter, had a copy of the report. CBS was weighing whether or not to report on the now killed report. Schorr has often (not always) maintained that a decision was made to kill the report and that's why he acted. That's not true. Either he's lying or he was out of the loop. CBS was still deciding. Schorr took the report to The Village Voice which published it.
That could have been the end of it for CBS News because they retained their copy (Schorr had photocopied it and given the photocopies to the weekly). There was an internal investigation at CBS to determine whether or not someone at CBS leaked the report to The Village Voice. Had Schorr kept his mouth shut, the investigation would have been as half-assed as every other internal investigation CBS News conducts. But Schorr couldn't keep his mouth shut.
This is why he was fired, this is why he will never work for CBS again. When asked, as all who had access to the report were, if he had given it to anyone, Schorr didn't stick to "no comment" or a lie that he didn't do anything.
No, instead Schorr chose to finger Lesley Stahl. Schorr told the investigators that The Village Voice published the report (which they knew) and Lesley was dating Aaron Latham (who worked for The Voice) so it was most likely that Lesley Stahl handed over the report to the weekly.
Schorr was not fired for leaking the report. He was fired for lying and for trying to blame someone he knew was innocent.
Think for just a moment what could have happened if Schorr had gotten away with that: Lesley Stahl's career would have been over -- at least at CBS though probably no other network would touch her if they feared she'd take their stories elsewhere. Aaron Latham (a notable journalist in his own right) would have been outraged that Lesley lost her job because she was dating him. Knowing Aaron, he would have made it his life's purpose to find out who falsely accused Lesley and prove that liar wrong. If he'd been successful, it might have been a messy media moment and then life would have continued. If not? Most likely, Lesley would try to move on from it and Aaron would want to remain in the role of protector/enforcer. Meaning it wouldn't have just effected her professional life, which was bad enough, if would have changed her entire life. Lesley and Aaron married years ago and have had one of the few enduring marriages in the journalistic community. Lesley could have lost everything as a result of Daniel Schorr's lies. He was prepared to destroy someone professionally and personally.

In June 2010, while he was still alive, Ava and I were telling the truth about the dishonest and corrupt Daniel Schorr.  A month later, he died and there was David Shorr holding him up as a model. That says everything you need to know about the dishonest and uninformed David Shorr.  We're done with David Shorr.
 
In the real world, Chris Floyd (Empire Burlesque) observes, "And as we noted here last month, the American war crime in Iraq just keeps rolling on. This week saw yet another spate of mass slaughter in yet another series of bombings in the virulent sectarian warfare which was spawned, set loose, empowered and fomented by the invaders, who very deliberately -- with malice aforethought -- divided their new 'Iraqi' government along strict sectarian lines, arming and paying death squads and militias on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide to rip each other -- and Iraqi society -- to pieces. The mass murder this week is a direct result and a direct responsibility of the Americans who instigated, carried out, supported -- and praise -- the 'extraordinary achievement' of this endless atrocity. 'Nine years in the making,' yes -- and still going strong!"  From the right-wing, we'll note Sheldon Richman (Reason -- link is text and audio):
 
Obama will campaign on how he ended the war -- which began not in 2003 but in 1991; the U.S. government tormented the Iraqi people for 20 years! -- and conservatives will attack him for it. Both sides will conveniently forget that (1) the U.S. government was obligated to leave on Dec. 31, 2011, under an agreement signed by Bush, and (2) Obama tried his damnedest to get the Iraqi leaders to ask the U.S. military to stay. (Contrary to claims, not all troops have left.)
And let's be clear: An exit from Iraq hardly constitutes an exit from the Middle East. The troops moved down the road to Kuwait, "repostured" for future use.
Meanwhile, sabers are being rattled in the direction of Iran and Syria, where covert warfare is already being waged.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
 
The Iraq War has entered a new phase.  As people mark the end of the last phase with various stats and numbers, it might be time to note that a few people paid a price for getting it right.  Chris Hedges is the author of many books including Death of the Liberal Class which we picked at Third as one of the ten most important books of the last ten years (2001 to 2011).  The community voted it the number two book of 2010, see "2010 in books (Martha & Shirley)" and the number two book of 2011, see  "2011 in books (Martha & Shirley)."  His most recent book is a collection of his columns,
 
Host:  When were you with the New York Times?
 
Chris Hedges:  1990 to 2005.
 
Host:  And why did you leave?
Chris Hedges: Well we had a little dispute oversomething called the Iraq War. And I'd spent a lot of my life, not only, of course in the Middle East, but in Iraq.  I understood like most Arabists that the arguments used to justify the invasion-occupation of Iraq were non-reality based.  They weren't -- This is not a political discussion.  It's the idea that we would be greeted as liberators and there wouldn't be an insurgency, that democracy would be implanted in Baghdad and emanate outwards across the Middle East, that -- remember? -- the oil would pay for the reconstruction.  I mean these were just spun by people who had no idea what they were talking about.  But to get up and say that, despite the wealth of experience that I had within the region and within Iraq itself became deeply polarizing.  And I gave a commencement address -- I'd been saying it, but it came to sort of a head when I gave a commencement address at Rockford College [text of speech, video of speech with a link to other parts of speech on the right) where I was booed off o the stage, had my microphone cut, people stood up and started shouting things against me.  At one point, they stood up and sang "God Bless America."  I was actually escorted off the platform before the rewarding of diplomas since they didn't want any sort of fracas by close contact with students.  And this got picked up by Fox and sort-of trash talk media -- which looped it, hour after hour.  And the New York Times responded by giving me a formal written reprimand.  Now we were Guild, at the Times, which means we were unionized and the process is you give the employee a written reprimand and the next time they're fired.  So I faced a difficult choice which is that I would have to in essence muzzle myself in service of my career. But, you know, on a fundemantal level, I was very close to my dad.  He was a great minister and an activist in the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movement, the gay rights movement  -- his brother who was gay -- and he was very outspoken in support of gay rights.  You know I realized that point to do so would be to betray my father.  And I wasn't going to do that so I left the paper.
 
It's interesting. You could go on TV and -- reporter or columnist for the New York Times -- advocate for the war -- as many did, before it started and after it started -- and you would not get a written reprimand.  But speak out against the war and suddenly there was a big problem.  That goes to the huge problems with the US press.  If you repeat the government's lies -- even if you know they're lies -- as reality and truth, you don't get into trouble.  Even whent he lies are exposed, even when it's known, for example, that you helped the Reagan administration with Iran-Contra although you were a TV journalist.  You're not punished.  But if you question the government, if you criticize it, you have an "opinion."  And you may have violated your outlet's code.  This despite the fact that skepticism is supposed to be the hallmark of journalism. 
 
 
Many were punished for opposing the Iraq War -- Henry Noor (San Francisco Chronicle) and Phil Donahue (MSNBC) are two more.  But the only one who was punished from the other side is scapegoat Judith Miller.  The New York Times let her go because (a) her image and (b) their own embarrassment.  Her reports don't stand up.  Was Judith also an editor?  Was she the publisher?  Why was she the only one at the paper who was let go?  Judith didn't host Meet The Press on NBC or any of the Sunday chat shows that sold the illegal war (often with Miller as a guest).  None of those people were fired from their jobs.  Judith was a guest on Oprah's daytime talk show when Oprah wanted to sell the upcoming illegal war and Oprah even snapped on TV at an audience member who dared to questions the dubious claims presented as fact.  Oprah lost nothing.
 
Judith Miller's reporting doesn't stand up.  She was wrong.  She was a lousy reporter.  If you ignore that she commandeered a US military unit while she was in Iraq and used them to go find WMD (they found nothing), you could call her a liar.  (Clearly she was tricked or allowed herself to be tricke by the sources she was too cozy with.)
 
But Judith Miller didn't work at the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper.  And Judith Miller hosted no MSNBC, CNN or Fox News program.  And Judith Miller anchored no broadcast network's evening news.  And Judith Miller didn't host PBS' Washington Week or The NewsHour.  So why was she the only one -- out of all those fools, liars and worse?
 
Because, as a woman, she was a lightening rod in a way that a man can never be. (Bash the bitch is the American pastime, as Ava and I noted.)  And so a lot of men (and less prominent women) kept their heads down and played dumb, just glad to have Judith Miller punished for all of their journalistic sins.
 
 
On national, state and local levels around the country, people were fired for being skeptical and/or against the impending war.  And the only one fired who cheerleaded the war was Judith Miller?  Imagine how different today would be if those cheerleading war -- and not the Dixie Chicks -- had been the ones to lose their media access, had been the ones dropped by various media outlets.  But opposing war was controversial.  Blindly going along wasn't.  Because it's never a crime in US journalism to parrot and applaud the US government -- especially the White House.
 
 
(And I'm not calling for the censorship of the War Hawks or anyone else -- let opinions compete in the public square.  But I am attempting to underscore that they had access to the media and amplification while those who were skeptical or flat out against the Iraq War were shut out by the media.)
 
 
After yesterday's string of bombings across Iraq, today would have to be (comparatively) more peaceful. This being Iraq, that doesn't mean the violence stopped. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports, "At least three explosions struck Friday near Baghdad's Green Zone, where a parade to make Iraq's Army Day was taking place, according to witnesses."  Reuters notes that there was also a Baghdad mortar attack which left three people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, another Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left seven people injured, a third Baghdad roadsie bombing claimed 1 life and left five more people injured and a Balad Ruz roadside bombing claimed 1 life. That's 3 dead and twenty injured.  Of yesterday's violence, Dan Morse (Washington Post) observes, "At least 72 people were killed Thursday in a series of attacks on Shiites in Iraq, marking the deadliest day since U.S. troops withdrew last month and raising new worries about the country's sharp sectarian divisions."
The political crisis continues in Iraq.  At 8:00 pm EST last night, the White House issued the following:

The White House

Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release
January 05, 2012
Readout of the Vice President's Call with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey
In the context of close U.S.-Turkish consultation on matters of mutual interest, Vice President Biden and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed regional issues, including political developments in Iraq, by telephone today. Following up on their conversation during the Vice President's trip to Turkey in December, the two leaders agreed on the need to advance security, support the rule of law and encourage democracy in the region. They agreed that our two governments would remain in regular contact on these issues.
 
Hurriyet Daily News adds that "Erdogan warned efforts expended so far to protect Iraq's territorial intergrity and stability would become meaningless if Iraq drifted away from democratic culture."  Nouri al-Maliki's attempt at seizing further power has resulted in his swearing out a warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.  Former CIA Director (2006 - 2009) Michael V. Hayden offered this summary at CNN of Iraq post Status Of Forces Agreement:
 
 

With that agreement unextended and now expired, al-Maliki appears to be acting out the darkest shadows of his own past. Over the last months, he has reneged on a power-sharing agreement with Sunnis in several key ministries, arrested hundreds of suspected Baathists (read Sunni oppositionists) and -- as the last American troops were leaving Iraq and fresh from an audience in the Oval Office -- he has now ordered the arrest of his own Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, for alleged "terrorism."

Along with all of this, al Qaeda in Iraq greeted the U.S. withdrawal with a series of deadly bombings against largely Shiite targets. Al Qaeda was always expected to take advantage of the "seam" created by the handoff of counterterrorism operations from American to Iraqi control, but now even a badly weakened al Qaeda can exploit the sense of Sunni vulnerability that al-Maliki's actions have created.

The situation may yet be salvaged. America is not without tools. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey cut short his holiday home leave to return to Iraq and, as he has in the past, he will no doubt use his considerable skills in an attempt to defuse the situation. But the ambassador will have fewer tools at his disposal.


But is James Jeffrey able to address all the issues?  No.  And he wouldn't if he could.  The US government has repeatedly went for the 'big' issue.  Which, under Bush since 2006 or Barack since he was sworn in, has always translated as: Protect Nouri and his position.  That's why Barack was able to ignore the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community even with the US Congress calling it out.  That's why Barack was able to ignore Nouri attacking protesters during the so-called "Arab Spring."  February 25th, Nouri's forces were attaking protesters and journalists.  This continued week after week.  Human Rights Watch covered this repeatedly.  Here's Human Rights Watch from June 2nd:
 
On May 28, soldiers in four Humvees and two other unmarked vehicles approached the offices of the human rights group Where Are My Rights in Baghdad's Bab al Mu'adham neighborhood, as members met with fellow protest organizers from the February 25 Group. Members of both groups told Human Rights Watch that soldiers raided the building with guns drawn, took away 13 activists in handcuffs and blindfolds, and confiscated mobile phones, computers and documents.

One detained activist who was released on May 29 told Human Rights Watch that during the raid a commanding officer introduced himself as "from Brigade 43"of the army's 11th Division and said another officer was "from Baghdad Operation Command."

"They did not show any arrest warrants and did not tell us why we were being arrested," this activist said:
A female activist complained and asked to see warrants, and they told her to "shut up and get in the car." They blindfolded and handcuffed us, and while they were doing this, they asked, "Why are you having these meetings? Do you really think you can bring down the government?" And they asked who was supporting us.
The activist said that the army took the people it arrested to a detention facility at Division 11 headquarters, where they were interrogated both as a group and individually. "Once we were there, they hit us with their hands in the face, neck, chest, and arms while we were still blindfolded," the activist said. "They kicked us everywhere they could reach. They did not use batons on me, and they talked to each other about not leaving marks or bruises on us."
The released activist and several members of both organizations said security forces are still holding nine of the activists and have released four without any charges. "I asked what crimes we had committed, and asked again about arrest warrants," said the released activist. "They never answered either question."
 
But that was never anything Barack condemned.  Nouri becomes prime minister in 2006.  Was there a year in there -- 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 -- when Nouri wasn't getting exposed for running another secret prison?  And they tortured in those prisons.  And yet when Nouri's slate came in second in the 2010 elections -- when Iraqis chose Iraqiya for first place and when that meant, per the Constitution, that Iraqiya had first crack at forming a government -- the White House refused to stand up for the will of the Iraqi people or for the Iraq Constitution or for democracy.  They backed thug Nouri.
 
So Iraqiya would have to be very foolish to think that this is the time that the US finally breaks with Nouri and comes to the rescue of Tareq al-Hashemi, let alone the Iraqi people.  And commentators are noting that James Jeffrey isn't doing a damn thing to help al-Hashemi.  Northsum32 (All Voices) writes:
 
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey said: "There is a serious effort by the Iraqi judiciary to have a free and fair and just investigation," "It seems a lot of care is being taken at this point to maintain judicial independence and to have a very broad investigation." These remarks give support to Maliki in his attempt to discredit Hashemi and portray him as a terrorist.
 
John Glaser (Antiwar.com) observes, "The U.S. ambassador to Iraq has expressed approval of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's quest to detain Iraq's vice president on terrorism charges, despite almost everyone else recognizing it as part of a troubling pattern of consolidating dictatorial power."  Again, Iraqiya would have to be very stupid at this late date to think the US government was going to help al-Hashemi when they have repeatedly backed Nouri over and over.  Despite the fact that Nouri's a thug.  Despite the fact that I can list five prominent members of the administration who have described him as that.  Despite the fact that I can name more Democratic Senators who describe him as a thug than I can name Democratic Senators who don't.
 
 
Al Rafidayn reports al-Hashemi has opened an office in the KRG. In a statement, al-Hashemi noted that his new office was in Sulaymaniyah and that it was temporary. He also called for a stop to the raids and harassment on his home and offices in Baghdad as well as the homes of his staff. Two women who work for him were recently detained with no explanation provided to them. On al-Hashemi, Al Mada reports that Parliament has rejected a request to supervise the investigation of al-Hashemi noting that such an action is beyond the scope of their legal duties. The paper also notes that rumors that he will be going to Jordan have been denied by Jordanian officials. Rakan al-Majali, government spokesperson, states no request from al-Hashemi has been received.

Again, Nouri's political slate is State of Law. al-Hashemi is currently a house guest of Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Earlier this week, the Kurdish Alliance staged a walkout (Tuesday) during a session of Parliament to register their offense over State of Law MP Hussein al-Asadi calling Talabani (who is Kurdish) a "terrorist.' Al Mada reports that al-Asadi delivered a formal apology and has stated he will travel to Sulaimaniyah to apologize to Talabani in person.
Talabani has called for a national conference among the political blocs to address the political crisis. Alsumaria TV reports on "observers" believing Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc not attending (this was announced over the holiday weekend) could cause a problem and some think the objection is part of a larger issue with claims that the National Alliance wants the list of invitees narrowed while Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance want the conference to be open to various political actors. Alsumaria also notes that Talabani met with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi in Sulaimaniya and Talabani and Allawi remain committed to a national conference to "dismantle" the political crisis. Aswat al-Iraq covers another meet-up:
Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani discussed with Higher Islamic Council leading member Adel Abdul Mehdi ways to deal with the present crisis in the country and the necessity to all parties' agreement on a national projects and the implementation of previous agreements.
Barzani, in a statement, copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, stressed the importance of abiding by the real partnership.
The statement added that both sides stressed that all political parties should agree on a national project, implement previous agreements and solve the present crisis to create a state of stability in the country.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was the Shi'ite Vice President of Iraq in Nouri's first term. In the second term, he was one of two Vice Presidents originally (himself and Tareq al-Hashemi) and then there were three vice presidents. He turned in his resignation at the end of May and Talabani accepted it formally in June. (Since then, Iraq has only had two vice presidents.) Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister. He has had the support in that from various international oil corporations. Like most rulers in Iraq (excepting the KRG), Mahdi is an exile. He left Iraq in 1969.

When he stepped down as vice president, he did so with a letter lamenting government excess. The letter and the move was seen by some insiders as Mahdi setting himself up for a potential challenge to Nouri.
We need to wrap up.  We've got two things.  Partner Hub will be hosting a live online discussion with Angelina Jolie Thursday (January 12) starting at 8:00 pm EST (7:00 pm Central, 5:00 pm PST).  Angelina is an Academy Award winning actress and, of course, now a film director with her upcoming In The Land of Blood and Honey.  She also wrote the screenplay.  What impressed me (I saw at the end of last month) the most was just how strong Angelina's visual storytelling is.  She's a gifted director right out of the box.  Many sites will be taking part in the discussion (we won't -- it was a nice invitation but Thursday next week is a hard one and Friday's a nightmare in terms of my schedule).  We wil, however, gladly note any sites that are taking part.  As noted here before when I've felt the need to defend Angelina from some stupid attack (usually when some reporter -- Leila Fadel, I'm thinking of you especially), I've known Angelina since she was a little girl.  (I am much older than Angelina.  I was not a little girl, I was an adult.)  She's directed an amazing movie and she's got the visual gift a director needs, it's there in transitions from scene to scene, it's their in telling moments.  She should be really proud of herself and proud of her film.  And the last word goes to the Feminist Majority Foundation as they address the change in the FBI's legal definition of rape:
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 6, 2012
Contact: Francesca Tarant, 703.522.2214, ftarant@feminist.org
Annie Shields, 310.556.2500, ashields@msmagazine.com
 
 
Feminist Majority Foundation Celebrates FBI Approval of New Rape Definition - FBI Director's Action Follows Extensive Campaign By Women's Rights Supporters

"Updating the FBI Uniform Crime Report definition of rape is a big win for women," said Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority Foundation. "We appreciate the support for this change from the Obama Administration, led by Vice President Joe Biden and by Lynn Rosenthal, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and Hon. Susan B. Carbon, director of the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI." The White House today announced that FBI Director Robert Mueller has approved the change recommended by several committees of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Service.

"With a modern, broader definition, FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics will finally show the true breadth of this violence that affects so many women's lives. Women's groups will work to ensure that this more accurate and complete data will lead to increased resources to combat and reduce the incidence of rape," continued Smeal.

The "Rape is Rape" campaign, a massive grassroots feminist activism effort launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, generated over 160,000 emails to the FBI and the Department of Justice urging this change. For over a decade the Pennsylvania-based Women's Law Project (WLP) had pursued the change. "Ultimately, accurate data is a fundamental starting point to improving police response to sex crimes and improved practice should lead to increased victim confidence in police and reporting," said Carol E. Tracy, WLP Executive Director.

The old definition, adopted over 80 years ago, had been extensively criticized for leading to widespread underreporting of rape. Defined as "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will," it excluded rapes involving forced anal sex and/or oral sex, rape with an object (even if serious injuries resulted) and rapes of men, and was interpreted by many police jurisdictions to exclude rapes where the victim was incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or otherwise unable to give consent. The old rape definition excluded many rapes against women and all against men.

The new definition, as it appears on the FBI website, is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

"This is a major policy change and will dramatically impact the way rape is tracked and reported nationwide," said Kim Gandy, Vice President and General Counsel of the Feminist Majority Foundation. "It is a great day for women and law enforcement because the police can more accurately know what is going on as far as the crime of rape in their communities," observed Margaret Moore, Director of the National Center for Women and Policing of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

Available for interview on the change in definition, its significance and the campaign leading up to it are Feminist Majority Foundation President/Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal, FMF Vice President and General Counsel Kim Gandy, Executive Editor of Ms. Katherine Spillar, Women's Law Project Executive Director Carol E. Tracy and Margaret Moore, director of the National Center for Women and Policing, a division of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

 
Posted by at

Many meet-ups, no national conference

After yesterday's string of bombings across Iraq, today would have to be (comparatively) more peaceful. This being Iraq, that doesn't mean the violence stopped. Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports, "At least three explosions struck Friday near Baghdad's Green Zone, where a parade to make Iraq's Army Day was taking place, according to witnesses." Of yesterday's violence, Dan Morse (Washington Post) observes, "At least 72 people were killed Thursday in a series of attacks on Shiites in Iraq, marking the deadliest day since U.S. troops withdrew last month and raising new worries about the country’s sharp sectarian divisions."

At 8:00 pm EST last night, the White House issued the following:

The White House

Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release January 05, 2012 Readout of the Vice President's Call with Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey
In the context of close U.S.-Turkish consultation on matters of mutual interest, Vice President Biden and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed regional issues, including political developments in Iraq, by telephone today. Following up on their conversation during the Vice President’s trip to Turkey in December, the two leaders agreed on the need to advance security, support the rule of law and encourage democracy in the region. They agreed that our two governments would remain in regular contact on these issues.




The political crisis continues in Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki's attempt at seizing further power has resulted in his swearing out a warrant against Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. Al Rafidayn reports al-Hashemi has opened an office in the KRG. In a statement, al-Hashemi noted that his new office was in Sulaymaniyah and that it was temporary. He also called for a stop to the raids and harassment on his home and offices in Baghdad as well as the homes of his staff. Two women who work for him were recently detained with no explanation provided to them. On al-Hashemi, Al Mada reports that Parliament has rejected a request to supervise the investigation of al-Hashemi noting that such an action is beyond the scope of their legal duties. The paper also notes that rumors that he will be going to Jordan have been denied by Jordanian officials. Rakan al-Majali, government spokesperson, states no request from al-Hashemi has been received.

Nouri's political slate is State of Law. al-Hashemi is currently a house guest of Iraq's President Jalal Talabani. Earlier this week, the Kurdish Alliance staged a walkout (Tuesday) during a session of Parliament to register their offense over State of Law MP Hussein al-Asadi calling Talabani (who is Kurdish) a "terrorist.' Al Mada reports that al-Asadi delivered a formal apology and has stated he will travel to Sulaimaniyah to apologize to Talabani in person.

Talabani has called for a national conference among the political blocs to address the political crisis. Alsumaria TV reports on "observers" believing Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc not attending (this was announced over the holiday weekend) could cause a problem and some think the objection is part of a larger issue with claims that the National Alliance wants the list of invitees narrowed while Iraqiya and the Kurdistan Alliance want the conference to be open to various political actors. Alsumaria also notes that Talabani met with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi in Sulaimaniya and Talabani and Allawi remain committed to a national conference to "dismantle" the political crisis. Aswat al-Iraq covers another meet-up:

Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani discussed with Higher Islamic Council leading member Adel Abdul Mehdi ways to deal with the present crisis in the country and the necessity to all parties' agreement on a national projects and the implementation of previous agreements.
Barzani, in a statement, copy received by Aswat al-Iraq, stressed the importance of abiding by the real partnership.
The statement added that both sides stressed that all political parties should agree on a national project, implement previous agreements and solve the present crisis to create a state of stability in the country.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was the Shi'ite Vice President of Iraq in Nouri's first term. In the second term, he was one of two Vice Presidents originally (himself and Tareq al-Hashemi) and then there were three vice presidents. He turned in his resignation at the end of May and Talabani accepted it formally in June. (Since then, Iraq has only had two vice presidents.) Mahdi has long wanted to be prime minister. He has had the support in that from various international oil corporations. Like most rulers in Iraq (excepting the KRG), Mahdi is an exile. He left Iraq in 1969.

When he stepped down as vice president, he did so with a letter lamenting government excess. The letter and the move was seen by some insiders as Mahdi setting himself up for a potential challenge to Nouri.

As all the meet-ups go on and on and the national conference is the carrot forever dangled, I'm reminded of the singing exercise, "Many men and many women mining many mines. Many men and many women mining many mines. Many . . ." (If you're not familiar with the exercise, you go up a note with each repeat . . . as you continue with the same words, over and over.)

Wordpress isn't working right now. At some point, the entries will be cross-posted today. (Currently, they are at the other mirror site on Blog Drive.) Finally, David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. We'll close with this from Bacon's "How US Policies Fueled Mexico's Great Migration" (The Nation):

Roberto Ortega tried to make a living slaughtering pigs in Veracruz, Mexico. "In my town, Las Choapas, after I killed a pig, I would cut it up to sell the meat," he recalls. But in the late 1990s, after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) opened up Mexican markets to massive pork imports from US companies like Smithfield Foods, Ortega and other small-scale butchers in Mexico were devastated by the drop in prices. "Whatever I could do to make money, I did," Ortega explains. "But I could never make enough for us to survive." In 1999 he came to the United States, where he again slaughtered pigs for a living. This time, though, he did it as a worker in the world's largest pork slaughterhouse, in Tar Heel, North Carolina.
His new employer? Smithfield-the same company whose imports helped to drive small butchers like him out of business in Mexico.
David Ceja, another immigrant from Veracruz who wound up in Tar Heel, recalls, "Sometimes the price of a pig was enough to buy what we needed, but then it wasn't. Farm prices were always going down. We couldn't pay for electricity, so we'd just use candles. Everyone was hurting almost all the time."
Ceja remembers that his family had ten cows, as well as pigs and chickens, when he was growing up. Even then, he still had to work, and they sometimes went hungry. "But we could give milk to people who came asking for it. There were people even worse off than us," he recalls.




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





















Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)