Saturday, April 26, 2014

I Hate The War

Yesterday, Mark Hosenball, Warren Strobel, Phil Stewart, Ned Parker, Jason Szep and Ross Colvin (Reuters) reported, "The United States is quietly expanding the number of intelligence officers in Iraq and holding urgent meetings in Washington and Baghdad to find ways to counter growing violence by Islamic militants, U.S. government sources said." The Times of India carries the Reuters report today, it was noted last night on The NewsHour (PBS):

 JUDY WOODRUFF: Jane, there’s a Reuters report today that the U.S. is adding intelligence support in Iraq right now because of this kind of violence. What does all this say about the security situation right now?
JANE ARRAF: I think what that says is that the United States is understandably worried.


This is an important development and you'll note, like so much regarding Iraq, it's being ignored.

That's especially distressing with regards to so-called 'alternative' media -- The Progressive, The Nation, etc. And that's true of anything to do with Iraq.  We noted how left outlets were avoiding Iraq on Wednesday, "That's not about the campaign per se but in the US the left -- or the hustler left -- doesn't give a damn about Iraq.  I'm left, I care about Iraq, but supposedly The Progressive, The Nation, blah blah blah are left and they can't be bothered with Iraq. "

The next day Russ Wellen's "Maliki: One of the Wrongest Horses the U.S. Ever Backed" (Foreign Policy In Focus) went up and we noted it (this is the third time we've provided a link to the piece).  That's really about it for the left.

This ties into War Criminal Tony Blair who gave a speech this week trying to pretend he had some ethical ground to stand on.

At The Daily Mail, Mark Almond points out:


In office, Tony Blair argued in favour of pre-emptive military action against threats to the West. Last week he launched a pre-emptive strike on the Chilcot Report into his war in Iraq. Didn’t we realise, he told a City audience, that it was a war against the Islamic fundamentalism now wreaking havoc worldwide?
Secular Saddam Hussein and his missiles launchable at 45 minutes’ warning were forgotten. Today’s war, even tomorrow’s, are what Tony Blair wants us to believe he was trying to pre-empt eleven years ago.
Although he was happy to let Lord Hutton inquire into BBC coverage of the death of Dr David Kelly, Blair fought tooth and nail against a public inquiry into how he led Britain to war on false information.
Although Gordon Brown in 2009 conceded an inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot, the political class in Westminster has fought almost five years of trench warfare against admitting mistakes, let alone placing the blame for them. Every opportunity to throw sand in our eyes has been taken.

We called out Tony Blair's speech repeatedly this week which led to a few e-mails from visitors pointing out that I don't do the same to Bully Boy Bush.

Bully Boy Bush is not in the White House.  He does not hold a title anymore -- Tony does, idiots put him in charge of the Middle East.  Bully Boy Bush is cooped up.  He's not a free range chicken, he's in a tiny coop. It truly is tiny, we published the floor plan here, after all.  It's a shoddy little house that didn't get completely built, couldn't pass inspections while it was being built and is adjacent to Highland Park.  But, please understand, not in Highland Park because Bully Boy Bush is so damn cheap.  H. Ross Perot lives in Highland Park.  Bully Boy Bush lives in Dallas.  (Highland Park is not a part of the city of Dallas, it is its own city.) 

He does an occasion thing for veterans.  

As a general rule, if it's a fundraiser or a charity event for veterans, I don't call anyone out for participating.

Other than that, Bully Boy Bush stays in his cheap chicken pen.  

He's not advocating for new wars the way Tony Blair is.

Bully Boy Bush is out of the White House.  I wanted that for years and years.  This is a victory.

Learn to savor it.

He's unimportant in our lives today.

Tony Blair refuses to go away.  There's a difference.

Now there are those who want Bully Boy Bush's head on a pike.

The week before last, one such person wrote something he wanted highlighted here.

We didn't highlight.

Not interested.

Bully Boy Bush isn't important enough to me to obsess over.  He may be for other people and that's their right.  But for me, I wanted him out of the White House.

I don't live under the belief that real criminals go on trial.  None of the Bushes ever went on trial.  Prescott was basically a Nazi collaborator.  Prior to that, he's said to have been part of the conspiracy to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  He never went to prison, he never went to trial, he never even got charged.

Bully Boy Bush knows that, like Henry Kissinger, he can't travel freely around the world.  But it's also true, he never wanted to travel -- that was obvious in 2000 when he couldn't stop whining about campaign events that didn't allow him to be home in his Texas bedroom.  

I can't turn back the clock.  

But Bully Boy Bush is out of the White House.  

There are those who care about Iraq that feel differently than me and that's their right.  But I believe in picking your battles and, for me, there's no battle there.  

Tony Blair refuses to fade away.  He, like Kissinger, is convinced he can wear people down if he just keeps lying.

That's a battle that needs to be fought.  He's a danger to the world as he attempts to advocate for more wars.

If someone genuinely cares about Iraq and they call out Bully Boy Bush, great.  We might even note it here.

Cindy Sheehan, for example, is someone we might note doing that.

But these people who call out Bully Boy Bush today, right now, and toss out the word "Iraq"?


I can't stomach whores.

Most of the people on the 'left' (partisans, not real leftists) who write about BBB today and try to pretend to care about Iraq have nothing to offer about Iraq.

They don't know a damn thing.  They stopped paying attention (and stopped caring because attention is showing that you care) when Barack got into office.

They show up with their attempts to elect Democrats by pretending to care about Iraq.  I don't have time for it.


If nothing else, these jerks could have read Ned Parker's "Who Lost Iraq?" (POLITICO) in January, or his "Iraq: The Road to Chaos" (The New York Review of Books) this month.  Or even Dexter Filkins' "What We Left Behind in Iraq" (New Yorker).  But they don't want to be informed because being informed means knowing about Barack's responsibilities.

Barack's destroyed Iraq.

That's on him.

That doesn't mean BBB didn't.  It means things could have moved forward, could have progressed but Barack, once he became president, made one bad decision after another.  


The smart thing to do would have been to have pulled all US troops out of the country after he was sworn in.  He could have stuck to his 16 months 'promise' or he could have accelerated it.

But instead of leaving, Barack wanted to put in new carpet and, hey, what's with those drapes? -- and can we get a new paint job?

He busied himself with the country and his decisions went beyond bad.  His finger prints are on Iraq.

Had he immediately moved to pull troops -- and that's what we said in real time -- he'd be able to say, "The people wanted this as per the 2008 elections."  And having kept his hands off it, it wasn't his fault.  Iraq could be right where it is right now and he'd be innocent of blame.

But he decided to 'own' and 'improve' Iraq.

So now it's on him.

The violence today is because Nouri al-Maliki refused to power-share.

That's on Barack Obama.  That's got nothing to do with the idiot Bully Boy Bush.

Iraqis went to the polls in 2010 and voted.  Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.  Allawi should be prime minister.  He's not.

Nouri got a second term.

That has nothing to do with George W(ar Criminal) Bush.  That has everything to do with Barack.

It was Barack who had US officials in Iraq broker The Erbil Agreeement.  That's what gave Nouri the second term.

There are some great big liars who keep bringing up Iran.

Oh, Iran persuaded Motada al-Sadr to support Nouri.

Yeah, they did.  I believe we noted that in real time repeatedly and noted the rumors that Moqtada was promised he would be the next prime minister if he'd go along.


But that's not what gave Nouri a second term.

By October 2010, Moqtada had discarded his objection to Nouri.

But October 2010 didn't end the political stalemate and didn't see Nouri named prime minister-designate.

So stop lying and stop whoring.

If it's just that you're lazy, here's the 2010 week you're looking for:




That's the week the government was formed.

That's where you'll find things like this:

Leila Fadel (Washington Post) notes the latest rumors that a deal has been reached and explains the expected process: "Legislators are expected to meet Thursday afternoon for only the second time since the inconclusive March 7 election. Under the deal reached Wednesday, the parliament is expected to appoint a speaker from Iraqiya, then name the current Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, as president. He, in turn, will name Maliki as prime minister. Maliki will then have to put together a cabinet that a simple majority in Iraq's parliament will have to approve."  Whomever is named PM-designate -- whenever they're named -- will have 30 days to pull together a cabinet.  Nouri's past history of ministers walking out -- as well as his own boasting in April 2006 that he'd put together a cabinet before 30 days -- are forgotten, apparently.  Also forgotten is what this says: Elections are meaningless. 
If the rumors are true about the make up of the next government and that does come to pass, the message is: "Elections are meaningless, voters stay home."  The president and the prime minister remain the same?  Only the speaker changes?

What is she talking about?  What deal?

It's The Erbil Agreement.  Brokered by the US.  You'll find this:


Political issues?  An Iraqi journalist tells the BBC today, "I think a lot of people who voted this time round will have hoped for a change, and will be disappointed to see the same people in charge." John Leland, Jack Healy and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) add, "Iraq's lawmakers took a small step toward forming a government of Thursday evening, hammering out the details of a deal struck one day earlier to end an eight-months political impasse."
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's eight months and three days and still counting.

Today the KRG website announces:

Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.

Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call."  So all is well and good and . . . Ooops!!!! Lando, Dagher and Coker file an update, Iraqiya wasn't happy and walked out of the session.  Prashant Rao (AFP) reports that "a dispute erupted in the Council of Representatives chamber when the mostly Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc argued that the agreement they had signed on to was not being honoured, prompting the bloc's MPs to storm out. [. . .] Specifically, Iraqiya had called for three of their lawmakers, barred for their alleged ties to Saddam Hussein's Baath party, to be reinstated before voting for a president."  As The Economist noted earlier today, "An actual government is not yet in place; last-minute hiccups may yet occur."  AP notes, "A parliament vote on the government could still take several weeks, as the factions work out the details of who gets what posts." 

I don't what to tell you except I'm sorry you were stupid and listened to hacks like Amy Goodman and the always uninformed Ra'ed Jarrar.

I don't have any sympathy for you.  The Goody Whore?

When she tried to profit by selling 2009 inauguration ball tickets, you should have grasped that the Whore was nothing but a Whore.

A journalist doesn't do that.

She's a Whore for Barack.

She's one of many.

They pretended to care about Iraq but when they didn't have a Republican in the White House to slam, they didn't give a damn what happened in Iraq.

Nouri didn't earn a second term.  The US is the reason he has one.  The Erbil Agreement is how.  And though Nouri used it to get his second term he refused to honor the other parts of the contract.

That's why Iraq is where it is now.

You can't blame Gen Ray Odierno for this because he saw it coming and tried to warn the administration.  But Barack was enthralled with the idiot Chris Hill (who had hurt feelings that the press was talking more to Odierno than to him so he got the White House to ban Odierno from giving interviews).

You can blame Barack.  And if they make the idiot move that Laura Rozen reported earlier this week -- and I'm sure she's correct -- I will really be letting them have it.

The Goody Whore won't.  She's all about whoring.  Fortunately, Pacifica can't afford their addiction to her anymore so she's attempting to spread like a virus elsewhere in anticipation of what may be coming down the pike.


Barack's in the White House.  He's President Barack Obama.  Excuses and blaming others?  That's worn so very thin but watch and you'll see partisan whores continue to offer that.






It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)


The number of US service members the Dept of Defense states died in the Iraq War is [PDF format warning] 4489.

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




Posted by at