Tuesday, April 07, 2015

In the less stage-managed press, it's not all hosannas

While in the US, President Barack Obama has activated his pool of 'loyal' writers (whores) to sell him as a success regarding Iran, the lying's not holding in the Gulf region.

Salman Aldossary (Asharq al-Awsat) responds very clearly to the notion that Barack can lecture the Gulf on who their friends are and who their friends are not:

What invaluable gifts US President Barack Obama has bestowed on Iran! Has the “axis of evil” collapsed to the extent that the president of the world’s most powerful country is courting one of its key members? Not only did Obama crown his two terms in office with a “historic” vague deal with Iran, but he gave Tehran a free hand in Iraq, turning a blind eye to the activities of the Popular Mobilization forces that operate under the command of Quds Force leader Gen. Qassem Suleimani. Not only has he turned over a new leaf with Tehran, he is even issuing statements on its behalf, going so far as to tell “Sunni Arabs” that Tehran does not pose a threat to them and instead telling them to focus on “real internal threats” according to a New York Times interview. What is strange about the interview is Obama’s frequent use of terms like “Sunni Arabs” and “Sunni countries.” These are expressions that betray sectarian over-simplification; while he refers to whole states as being “Sunni,” Obama falls short of describing Iran as a Shi’ite country. I wonder what other surprises Mr. Obama has up his sleeve.
It was Washington that labelled Iran as a member of the so-called “axis of evil” and a country that sponsors terrorism. It was Washington that warned the world against dealing with Iran, imposing economic sanctions on Tehran and regarding it as an arch enemy. So, after all this, how can the US president now come out to say that Iran no longer poses a threat to its neighbors? Does the signing of a nuclear framework deal negate this threat? Does Obama expect the Gulf—which has long suffered from Iran’s interventions and sponsorship of terrorism—to simply believe his efforts to improve the image of Tehran? Isn’t this the same Tehran that has posed a clear and present danger to Gulf states for the past 36 years? 

Gulf News does a round up of reactions from Gulf bloggers:

Obama’s argument was promptly refuted by a blogger writing under the moniker “The Free”.
“The problem with the US is that it wants to decide for us who our friend is and who our foe is,” he posted online. “It also wants to decide when we should destroy one another and who should reconstruct what has been destroyed. We are treated like political adolescents,” he said.
The Bulldozer, another blogger, said that the US could not be trusted.
“There is no safe ground with the US, a country that is ready to sell out its closest allies for the sake of its own interests,” he said. “It is not a matter of Sunni or Shiite. It is pure interests. The US sold the Shah of Iran in 1979, and then it sold Kuwait before selling Saddam [Hussain]. It recently sold Hosni [Mubarak] and others. Today, it is selling away everyone.”
“The US has reached a conclusion that Sunnis were a threat and as such they should be subdued,” Conclusion, another blogger, said. “To the US, the Arab countries are the source of terrorists and the best solution to deal with them is to work closely with Iran against them.”
Mohammad Al Azemi said he was shocked that Obama failed to see the reality on the ground.
“Iran has taken over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and now wants to take over Yemen,” he said. “Yet, we have a US president who says that Iran is not a threat!”                                      

In the US, the media largely wants to tell you how wonderful the Iran 'deal' -- that they can't offer specifics on -- is.  It's a lot like when they sold Barack to begin with -- talk of 'historic' and 'importance' but don't give any specifics, try to create a feeling not an actual *thought.*

Barack.  Poor Barack.  Iraq's falling apart and that's on him.

His whores did a good job of covering for him, making sure American didn't grasp how Barack overturned a democratic election in 2010.

That wouldn't fit with Mr. Peace and Mr. Justice, right?

But you can only lie for so long.

And these days there's real pushback.

Today, POLITICO publishes Emma Sky's "How Obama Abandoned Democracy in Iraq: Bush's mistake was invading the country. His successor's was leaving it to a strongman."

It's a highly important article.

One that might be the beginning in the pushback on Hillary's 'success' as Secretary of State.  Her support for the idiot Chris Hill, for example, is very clear in the article.

We opposed Hill.

We said he'd be a failure and he was.

Covering his confirmation hearings, we noted he did not understand the basics about Iraq.

Emma Sky goes to town on Hill (about time someone did) and all the things we've said about his incompetence are true.

Sky also zooms in on the moment that really determined the current state of Iraq, the 2010 elections and "General O" is Ray Odierno who was then the top US commander in Iraq:

“We won the elections!” Rafi Issawi, the deputy prime minister, shouted excitedly to me on the phone. I could hear celebratory gunfire in the background. We had not expected Iraqiya—a coalition headed by the secular Shia Ayad Allawi and leaders of the Sunni community, and running on a non-sectarian platform—to do so well. The coalition had won 91 seats—two more than the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition.
I accompanied General O and Hill to a meeting with Maliki the next day. Maliki, a Shia, had been prime minister since 2006. Americans and Iraqis alike initially viewed him as weak, but his reputation grew after he ordered military operations against Shia militias. Since then, Iraqi politicians had become increasingly fearful of his authoritarian tendencies. He had insisted on running separately in the election—as State of Law rather than joining a united Shia coalition as had happened in 2005—in large part because the Shia parties would not agree on him to lead the list. Nobody wanted a second Maliki premiership.
When Hill asked Maliki that day about his retirement plans, it was immediately apparent that he was not contemplating stepping down. Instead, he claimed there had been massive election fraud and that the Mujahideen al-Khalq, an Iranian opposition group locked away in eastern Iraq’s Diyala province, had used satellites to tamper with the computers used to tally the voting results—even though the computers were not connected to the Internet and thousands of election observers had monitored the voting. But Maliki’s advisers had told him he would win big with more than a hundred seats, so he demanded a recount. Maliki was becoming scary.

[. . .]
But after one meeting with Hill, General O strode down the embassy corridor looking visibly upset. “He told me that Iraq is not ready for democracy, that Iraq needs a Shia strongman,” the general said, “and Maliki is our man.” Odierno had objected that that was not what the Iraqis wanted. They were rid of one dictator, Hussein, and did not want to create another.

But who did Barack back?  Not the choice of the voters.  

The following community sites -- plus the Guardian -- updated:

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