Saturday, August 08, 2015

Iraq snapshot

Saturday, August 8, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, protests continue in Iraq, Haider al-Abadi's chance to demonstrate 'change' appears to have passed, the one year anniversary of Barack's plan or 'plan' reveals no real progress, and much more.



Starting with news of awards, Nick Vivarelli (Variety) reports, " Iraqi-French director Abbas Fahdel’s docu “Homeland (Iraq Year Zero) is the winner of the Doc Alliance Selection Award, given by a group of seven prominent European festivals dedicated to docus, and presented for the first time this year at the Locarno Film Festival."


Here's the trailer for the documentary.





At his website, the following is noted:


Abbas Fahde is an Iraqi-French film director, screenwriter and film critic, born in Babylon, Iraq.
Based in France since the age of 18 years, he studied cinema at the Sorbonne University until Ph.D. In January 2002, he returned to Iraq with a French passport and filmed a documentary film, Back to Babylon (film), in which he asked himself: “What have my childhood friends become? How have their lives changed? What would my life have been like if I hadn’t chosen to build my destiny elsewhere?” The country’s dramatic situation is the background of this introspective investigation.
One year later, in February 2003, when a new war seems imminent, Abbas Fahdel returned to Iraq with the intention of filming his family and friends, and the superstitious hope of protecting them against the dangers threatening them. When the war started, he returned to France and lost all contact with his family. Two months later, he again returned to Iraq and discovered a country shaken by violence, the nightmare of dictatorship replaced by chaos, but a country where, nonetheless, everything remains possible: the best or the worse. This historical moment is the theme of his second documentary film, We Iraqis.
In 2008, he directed the feature film Dawn of the World, a war-drama in which he gives an unexpected account of the multiple impacts of the Gulf Wars and how they have dramatically damaged an area known to be the geographic location of the biblical Garden of Eden.

In 2015, his new film Homeland (Iraq Year Zero), a monumental documentary of 334 minutes, is presented in “World Première” at Visions du réel International Film Festival.


Moving over to activism, protests continue in Iraq.  As with last weekend, protests continued.  Friday, Alsumaria reported that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr issued   instructions Thursday for his followers which included that they take part in peaceful actions and not damage private property, that they not wear military uniforms while protesting and that they not carry photos/placards/banners with photos of any political or religious official.





  • In the image above, the top right is Moqtada al-Sadr and below him is Ammar al-Hakim.  Ammar is the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq.  If he's now supporting the protesters, that would be a big switch from his remarks earlier this week.


    From Thursday:


    Last weekend saw protests across Iraq.  Abdul Latif al-Saadoun (MEM) observes today:


    "If we cannot provide enough electric power for the Iraqis, why don't the families buy private generators?" asked an Iraqi official during a recent press interview. It was similar to the quotation misattributed to French Queen Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago; if the people don't have bread, "Then let them eat cake."
    Again, like the French, the Iraqis revolted by igniting the uprising in Basra. This spread around the country and this time the Iraqi leaders could not blame the Yazidis, which they had done in the past when there was activity in Iraq's western cities. Those who gathered in Iraq's Tahrir and other Squares did not belong to a specific sect, race or party. They gathered as Iraqis and expressed their anger at their rulers who have subjected them to decades of failure, with neither justice nor anything as mundane as new building projects. Instead, the leaders conspired in the name of religion to loot the country's wealth and used its resources to satisfy their evil desires and feed their obsession for money and power.


    al-Saadoun goes on to note how the Iraqi government went on to blame the Islamic State with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) insisting that the protesters themselves were members of the Islamic State.  How very sad events have been for al-Hakim.  His relationship with the US has soured.  He's not moved forward or higher in the political hierarchy of Iraq.  And now he's attacking the people in a manner that recalls Nouri al-Maliki's ridiculous attacks on the protesters.



    So if Ammar is now supporting the protesters, that would actually be major news.

    Regardless of whether Ammar supports them or not, the protesters were out in full force:






























  • The protests address corruption and lack of services.


    For massive protests, there had to be that and more.  The more for many Sunnis include the continued targeting of the Sunni population.



















  • Nothing has changed under Haider's leadership.

    He is, thus far, an abject failure.



    National Iraqi News Agency reports:

    Speaker of the House of Representatives Saleem al-Jubouri announced on Friday that he will be assigned the next session of parliament to discuss the demands of the demonstrators and set time limits for their achievement, stressing the importance of ending the existence of the corrupt who have squandered the money of the Iraqi people.
    Al-Jubouri said in a speech addressed to the demonstrators: that the House of Representatives will allocate the next meeting to discuss the demands of the demonstrators and to identify time ceilings for their implementation," adding, that the demonstrators demands are legitimate and can not be ignored, it is necessary to end the presence of the corrupt who have squandered and stole the bounties of the country."



    All Iraq News reports:

    “All of you together to the court, all of you are thieves,” chanted protesters gathered at Tahrir Square and carrying Iraqi flags. “Friday after Friday, we’ll get the corrupt out.”
    Protesters also turned out in Nasiriyah, Diwaniah, Najaf, Samawah, Karbala and Babel provinces to air similar grievances, the reporter of AIN said.
    Baghdad and other cities have seen weeks of protests against the poor quality of services, especially power cuts that leave Iraqis with only a few hours of electricity per day as temperatures top 50C.




    Last Saturday, Iraq's prime minister dubbed the protests a "warning sign."  He faced more warning signs on Friday. All Iraq News reported, "The Supreme Religious Authority said that Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, has to avoid the partisan confesionalism and uncover those who hinder reforms."  And they noted, "The Supreme Religious Authority called Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, to cancel all former and current key officials' privileges."  Sputinik added, "Earlier this day, the country’s leading Shiite clergyman Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani released a statement through his aide addressed to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, stressing that he should immediately start reforming the government and strike those who steal people’s money with an 'iron fist'."

    And Haider's reaction?   Reuters quotes him from Facebook writing, "I promise to announce a comprehensive reform plan ... and I call on the political forces to cooperate with me to implement the reform program."

    Help me out.

    What was happening in February 2011?

    Oh, right: Protests.


    And what did then-prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki do?

    He declared give him 100 days and he would end corruption, create jobs and blah blah blah.

    And so Moqtada called for his followers to leave the streets and stop protesting.

    As we noted June 4, 2011:


    Among the things Nouri was supposed to be addressing in the 100 Days (called in an attempt to defocus attention on the protests and to buy time for Nouri) was the lack of jobs. Al Mada notes that while the official unemployment rates is 15% (a high number itself), the actual unemployment number is probably 30%. Mohammed Tawfeeq and Chelsea J. Carter (CNN) report on the impending end of the 100 Days and note what's taking place as the end arrives:

    But activists and a leading human rights group accused al-Maliki's government of a campaign of intimidation against protest organizers ahead of the deadline, even as an Iraqi government spokesman announced a news conference to showcase improvements.
    Hundreds of demonstrators gathered Friday in Baghdad's Tahrir Square to demand the release of four protest organizers -- Jihad Jalil, Ali al-Jaf, Mouyed Faisal and Ahmed Al-Baghdadi -- who were detained during a protest at the same location a week earlier.
    Carrying banners that featured pictures of the four organizers, demonstrators chanted: "Oh Maliki, don't muzzle the voice of the people/oh Maliki, release the four immediately."


    The 100 Days were also supposed to see an improvement in the security situation. That didn't take place either. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Parliament Speaker Ousama Al Nujaifi believes that the recurrence of bombings in Iraq without control is a clear sign on the failure to manage security in the country and an indicator on the major downfall in the performance of security forces."  




    But 100 days came and went and Nouri didn't end a thing.  From the June 7, 2011 snapshot:


    The 100 Days is over. Al Rafidayn reports Nouri's press conference yesterday in Baghdad found Nouri expressing his hope that "the citizens will treat us kindly in the measuring our accomplishments and that they will be objective." He announced that meetings would take place today on evaluations. New Sabah quotes State Of Law's Khaled al-Asadi stating that Nouri will make assessments through tonight and that the 100 Days was in order to evaluate the performances and that "no sane person would assume a government only four years old could accomplish improvement in one hundred days." Oh, how they try to lower the expectations now. The 100 Days?  Al Jazeera gets it right, "Maliki gave his cabinet a 100-day deadline to improve basic services after a string of anti-government protests across Iraq in February.  He promised to assess their progress at the end of that period, and warned that 'changes will be made' at failing ministries.  That deadline expired on Tuesday -- and Maliki largely retreated from his threat, instead asking for patience and more time to solve problems." Fakhri Karim (Al Mada) observes that the 100 Days has done little to instill strength in the belief that Nouri has the "ability to manage the Cabinet" and the duties of the office of prime minister. Karim notes that Nouri's inability to govern, his failure at it, led to the protests and that they were for the basic services which are "the most basic necessities" of our time.


    Iraqi politicians are known for playing kick-the-can and insisting, given time, they will solve something while apparently all they're hoping for is that, in the delay, people will forget.  Even Nouri appears to hope that the protesters have forgotten 2011.  Mustafa Salim and Liz Sly (Washington Post) reports:

    The protesters included a sizable number of supporters of former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who suppressed similar demonstrations against the corruption of his government four years ago by detaining and intimidating organizers. Maliki, who has not attempted to hide his hope of returning to power, issued a statement calling on Abadi “to hit corrupt officials financially and politically.”
    Many demonstrators said they had turned out only to demand what Lamia Fadhil, 29, called “a decent life.”

    “For more than 10 years the government didn’t provide anything for us. No electricity, no services and no jobs,” she said. “That’s it. We’ve had enough.”




    Reuters reports:

    In Basra on Friday, one sign depicted the city as a bony "milking cow" -- a reference to complaints that Baghdad has benefited from the region's oil while neglecting basic services like power and water.
    "I call for fighting any corrupt official," said government employee Muntadhar Hatam, 55. "They are more dangerous than Daesh (Islamic State). They are the terrorists."  



    The same charges were made against Nouri al-Maliki.

    Is that any real surprise?

    Nouri al-Maliki is head of the Dawa political party.

    Haider al-Abadi is in the Dawa political party.

    Ahead of the 2010 elections, Nouri refused to run with Dawa and created the political coalition State of Law.

    Haider al-Abadi is a member of the State of Law coalition.

    There were any number of Shi'ite politicians US President Barack Obama could have backed for prime minister this time last year.

    He could have gone with, for example, anyone from the National Alliance or ISCI.  He could have backed Moqtada (though he never would, the US government has spent 12 years demonizing Moqtada).

    Instead, for 'change,' he backed someone who was friends with Nouri, who served in Nouri's political coalition and was a member of the same political party.

    And then Barack wanted to pretend 'change' was possible in Iraq.

    Nouri pulled the country to the edge of destruction.

    For those not paying attention, the Iraqi people kicked him out in the 2010 elections but Barack used a contract (The Erbil Agreement) to give Nouri a second term as prime minister.  That agreement was supposed to ensure a power-sharing government and Barack personally called Ayad Allawi (whose Iraqiya won the election) to insist that the contract had the full backing of the White House.

    But Nouri refused to implement the power-sharing government.

    So Iraqi leaders began demanding he do so in the summer of 2011 -- Ayad Allawi, Moqtada al-Sadr, Osama al-Nujaifi, Massoud Barzani and more -- Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, all demanding Nouri honor the contract.

    He refused to do so.

    So, in the spring of 2012, they moved towards a no-confidence vote in Parliament to strip Nouri of his office.

    Moqtada repeatedly stated publicly that the effort could be killed at any time by Nouri agreeing to implement the power-sharing government he promised in The Erbil Agreement (promised in order to get a second term after losing the 2010 election).

    They gathered the signatures, as the Constitution demanded.  They then handed them over to the president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani.

    Talabani refused to obey the Constitution and forward the petition to Parliament.

    He instead announced he had checked the signatures and some of the MPs -- he never identified them -- said they wouldn't sign the petition if it was put before them today.

    Too damn bad.

    Not only was this not Jalal's role but there's also the fact that you make your decision when you sign.  You don't get to remove your name after you signed (and maybe they wanted to or maybe Jalal just lied).

    If they wanted to change their mind, they could do so during the actual vote.

    But, under pressure from the White House, Jalal pretended he had the right to kill the petition and that's what he did.

    Then like the grotesque fat ass coward that he is, he announced he was leaving for Germany because he needed to have surgery -- it was surgery necessary for his continued living.

    Turns out he was having knee surgery.

    Karma bit the liar in the ass and months later he'd have a stroke.

    But after he killed the petition, the Iraqi people took to the streets.

    They had tried to vote Nouri out.

    They had tried to have their elected officials remove him.

    All they had left was protests.

    And Nouri called them terrorists, had reporters covering the protests kidnapped by the police, tortured by the police and he had the protesters followed home, had them arrested, had them killed -- yes, had them killed (especially in Anbar Province) and then he began attacking them at peaceful protests.

    The Iraqi people could not take a third term of Nouri -- Nouri who'd promised in 2011 that he would not seek a third term.

    The point of forcing Nouri out, as Barack did, was to calm the crises in Iraq.

    The point was to provide a re-set.

    And the new prime minister -- whomever he or she was -- would work quickly to demonstrate a difference with Nouri, to end the persecution, to end the corruption, to provide public services, to end the illegal detention of Sunnis, the beatings and rapes of Sunni women falsely arrested, and so much more.

    He couldn't even stop the illegal bombings of residential neighborhoods in Falluja.

    September 13, 2014, he noted these bombings were wrong (they are illegal, they meet the legal definition of War Crimes).

    He said they had ended.  He had ordered their end.

    September 14th, the very next day, they continued and have ever since.

    Haider's provided no change and the Iraqi people are registering that after a year.


    The violence continues (even increases) under Haider. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 109 violent deaths across Iraq on Friday.



    We spent the bulk of the July 18th snapshot noting the failure that is Barack's plan or 'plan' with regards to combating the Islamic State in Iraq.  Today, Trevor Timm (Guardian) observes the failures:

    This Saturday marks one full year since the US military began its still-undeclared war against Islamic State that the government officials openly acknowledge will last indefinitely. What do we have to show for it? So far, billions of dollars have been spent, thousands of bombs have been dropped, hundreds of civilians have been killed and Isis is no weaker than it was last August, when the airstrikes began.
    But don’t take it from me – that’s the conclusion of the US intelligence community itself. As the Associated Press reported a few days ago, the consensus view of the US intelligence agencies is that Isis is just as powerful as it was a year ago, and they can replace fighters faster than they are getting killed.

















     al jazeera



    Planned Parenthood

    I support the use of birth control and I support abortion.

    A woman who has an abortion need offer no excuse or reason.

    I would assume no one would make the decision lightly.

    (A) I also know that some women have no regrets after for various reasons.

    (B) Some women have some regrets and try to balance that.

    (C) Some women have nothing but regret.

    But here's the thing, (A), (B) and (C) are going to happen with any decision.

    I'm not making light of it.

    I'm saying that's human nature.

    Planned Parenthood, under the idiot Cecile Richards, is in the midst of a scandal.

    Senator Johnny Isakson's office has e-mailed a statement or two upon it.  We haven't posted them.

    Not because I'm pro-choice (hell, call me pro-abortion, I don't care).

    But because I'm focusing on Iraq and have no idea what the idiot Cecile has done now.

    She's an idiot.

    She's a fool.

    That's not a new stance here.

    She got her job because of her mother's legacy.  Unlike Ann Richards, she has no courage or brain.  She's got to be the most watered down off-spring of a courageous figure ever.

    I do not have time to figure out what that damn fool has done this time.

    But e-mails have come in all week on this issue.

    I'm focused on Iraq.

    I know what I hear as I speak about Iraq -- what I hear from people about Planned Parenthood.

    Andrea Mitchell acting as on air defender is not going to save Planned Parenthood.

    The only thing that will is Cecile making a statement that, whatever happened before, from this day forward, Planned Parenthood is only focused on birth control and providing abortions to women in need.

    That's it.

    Rumors are sprouting like crazy.

    The organization needs to address the crisis with a statement of purpose and intent.

    Not Cecile going around defending what happened.

    Wake the hell up, there's no defense for it.

    Not from Planned Parenthood.

    Planned Parenthood's role is not to provide scientific testing or anything else like that.


    It is to help women in need.

    That's it.

    It's that simple.

    If Cecile wants to stray from that for 'noble purposes,' she needs to resign from Planned Parenthood and work for another organization.

    For the record, I'm not opposed to scientific experiments on fetal tissue or any other tissue.

    But that's one issue and birth control and abortion are another issue.

    Planned Parenthood needs to focus on its actual mission.

    There are many Americans who support abortions but when you bring fetal tissue experimentation and other issues into it, that support drops.

    Planned Parenthood needs to stay focused on its mission and Cecile needs to stop being such a damn 'helpful' idiot to other causes.

    If they cannot accept the fact that some abortion supporters in the US expect the fetuses to be treated with dignity after an abortion (and do not see experimentation as dignity), then Planned Parenthood needs to close its doors because it is harming support for abortions.

    This is not open to debate.

    Cecile has been in charge as Planned Parenthood's missions has been transformed and it was transformed without input from the people that support Planned Parenthood.

    I don't plan to say much more on the issue, it's very cut and dried and Cecile has created a public relations nightmare that she needs to fix.  If she can't fix it, she needs to resign and a new head needs to be appointed (immediately) to restore trust in Planned Parenthood.



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




    Friday, August 07, 2015

    Senator Schumer's position on the Iran deal


    schumer


    Senator Charles Schumer's office issued the following yesterday:


    08.06.15

    My Position on the Iran Deal

    Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

    Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

    I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.

    Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.


    While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.
    In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

    In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.


    Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.


    Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.


    Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.


    Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.


    Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
    Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.


    If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.


    In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.


    To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.


    Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.


    When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.


    Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.


    Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.


    If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement.  After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.


    But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.


    Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?


    To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.


    Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.


    For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.











    Protests in Iraq

    wasitprovince



    It's Friday, protests are taking place in Iraq.

    Alsumaria reports that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr issued instructions yesterday for his followers which included that they take part in peaceful actions and not damage private property, that they not wear military uniforms while protesting and that they not carry photos/placards/banners with photos of any political or religious official.



  • In the image above, the top right is Moqtada al-Sadr and below him is Ammar al-Hakim.  Ammar is the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq.  If he's now supporting the protesters, that would be a big switch from his remarks earlier this week.


    From Thursday:


    Last weekend saw protests across Iraq.  Abdul Latif al-Saadoun (MEM) observes today:


    "If we cannot provide enough electric power for the Iraqis, why don't the families buy private generators?" asked an Iraqi official during a recent press interview. It was similar to the quotation misattributed to French Queen Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago; if the people don't have bread, "Then let them eat cake."
    Again, like the French, the Iraqis revolted by igniting the uprising in Basra. This spread around the country and this time the Iraqi leaders could not blame the Yazidis, which they had done in the past when there was activity in Iraq's western cities. Those who gathered in Iraq's Tahrir and other Squares did not belong to a specific sect, race or party. They gathered as Iraqis and expressed their anger at their rulers who have subjected them to decades of failure, with neither justice nor anything as mundane as new building projects. Instead, the leaders conspired in the name of religion to loot the country's wealth and used its resources to satisfy their evil desires and feed their obsession for money and power.


    al-Saadoun goes on to note how the Iraqi government went on to blame the Islamic State with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) insisting that the protesters themselves were members of the Islamic State.  How very sad events have been for al-Hakim.  His relationship with the US has soured.  He's not moved forward or higher in the political hierarchy of Iraq.  And now he's attacking the people in a manner that recalls Nouri al-Maliki's ridiculous attacks on the protesters.



    So if Ammar is now supporting the protesters, that would actually be major news.


    Also big news?





    The video is of the spokesperson for the Shi'ite militia (thugs) the League of Righteous commenting on the protests.


    For those who have forgotten, their leadership was held by the US military after they'd killed five US troops in a single attack.


    They were supposed to go on trial but then US President Barack Obama let the leaders go after negotiating with the terrorist group and getting their promise that 5 British hostages would be released.

    4 immediately were -- one alive and three corpses.

    Then, years later, after the League had mocked Barack publicly and repeatedly, they released the fourth corpse.


    For those who were snoozing in real time, let's drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:



    This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."


    Remember that the next time Barack claims the US government does not negotiate with terrorists.


    The protests are attracting a lot of attention in Iraq.

    Last Saturday, Iraq's prime minister dubbed them a "warning sign."  Looks like he's facing more warning signs today.  All Iraq News notes, "The Supreme Religious Authority said that Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, has to avoid the partisan confesionalism and uncover those who hinder reforms."  And they note, "The Supreme Religious Authority called Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, to cancel all former and current key officials' privileges."














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