The Common Ills: At least 41 dead and 52 injured in Saturday's violence in Iraq

Saturday, September 14, 2013

At least 41 dead and 52 injured in Saturday's violence in Iraq

All Iraq News reports Iraqi Vice President Khudhir al-Khuzaive hosted US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft and Brett McGurk. National Iraqi News Agency notes that al-Khuzaive issued a statement afterwards saying they discussed "the importance of holding a social peace conference in Baghdad soon to protect Iraq from internal and external harmful repercussions." And when will this peace conference take place? Iraq's not exactly flowing milk and honey these days.

NINA reports that a Dijail bombing claimed the lives of a husband and wife and left three women injured, a clash between police and rebels in Tikrit left 1 rebel dead and two more injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 3 lives and left five people injured, a Mosul home invasion left 1 man dead and his son injured, 1 person was shot dead in Ramadi and another was left injured, a Mosul suicide bomber claimed the lives of 10 people with another fifteen injured in the targeting of a funeral, an attack on a Ramadi police officer's home left two by-standers injured, 1 Shabak was shot dead near his Mosul home, an attack on a Falluja checkpoint left 1 police officer dead and another injured, a Badush bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left an army captain injured, and Friday there was a bombing just outside of Falluja which targeted the Chair of Anbar Council who was not harmed but one of his bodyguards was injured and the bodyguard died from the wounds today at Falluja General Hospital.

Reuters notes the Mosul suicide bomber targeting the funeral was targeting the funeral of a Shabak and that the death toll continued to rise. Al Mada notes the bomber wore a bomb belt. Yang Lina (Xinhua) reports it rose to 27 dead and thirty-six injured. Through Friday, Iraq Body Count counts 453 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month. That's 40 dead (actually, 41, the suicide bomber is among the dead) and 52 injured.

Again, when does the US think they might get around to a peace conference in Iraq?

Of course, working on peace has to wait since the administration -- including the Secretary of State -- is far more interested in demanding war (on Syria). KUNA notes, "Speakers of Iranian and Iraqi parliaments, Ali Larijani and Osama Al-Nujaifi respectively reiterated on Saturday rejection to any military intervention in Syria." On the topic of Syria and Iraq, Majid Rafizadeh (The Jewish Voice) points out the hypocrisy of US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Pelosi seemed to enjoy a good relationship with Assad, when she rejected President George W. Bush’s recommendation to not meet with Syria’s dictator. In 2007, Pelosi ignored the Bush administration’s foreign policies and met with one of the most authoritarian leaders of the world— one who has ruled Syria by killings, torture and oppression. Later, though, Pelosi praised Assad by stating, “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace.” This rhetoric, these remarks, and the trip to Damascus itself further legitimized Assad’s rule, not only domestically but also regionally and internationally.
Furthermore, Pelosi also critically opposed the war against Iraq. According to her, the war was a grave foreign policy gaffe, based on the fact that it was unilateral, and that not all diplomatic venues and initiatives were explored. She stated, “I say flat out that unilateral use of force without first exhausting every diplomatic remedy and other remedies and making a case to the American people will be harmful to our war on terrorism.”
If Pelosi’s logic and doctrine suggest that unilateral military actions should be avoided, diplomatic efforts should be exhausted and a legitimate case should be made to the American people on the use of military force, then how could Pelosi justify supporting a military strike in Syria?
First of all, the coalition for striking Syria militarily has significantly shrunk as Britain, Australia, Germany, and other Western allies have declared that they will not join United States in the use of military force against the Assad regime. In other words, the Obama administration is in fact going to war unilaterally. The coalition for war against the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was much larger and unified than the one forming against Syria. Yet, though Pelosi decided and voted against war with Iraq due to its unilateral nature, she is supporting entering into a war against Assad.
Even more, the Obama administration has neither made a strong argument, nor made it clear to the American people why the nation will strike the Assad regime. His broad explanations essentially come down to the belief that bombing Syria “may have a positive impact on our national security over the long term.” The American leadership has failed to specify how that can actually assist national security in the long term. More importantly, while the overwhelming majority of the American public is against any military involvement in Syria, Pelosi has continued to push to get authorization from Congress and approval for President Obama’s plan.

It's amazing. The voters send them to DC and they spit on the voters. Nancy Pelosi's office has heard very little (3%, I'm told) support for war on Syria. With 97% of her constituents against it (I am part of that 97%, she's my House Rep), our public servant has decided to yet again screw us over.

The following community sites -- plus Susan's On the Edge, Jody Watley, Antiwar.com, Tavis Smiley, ACLU, Latino USA, FPIF, Pacifica Evening News, Chocolate City and Liberal Oasis -- updated since Friday morning:

Here are the most recent Tweets from Anonymous Press' Twitter feed: