REUTERS reports:
Iraqi security forces are forcibly returning civilians from refugee
camps to unsafe areas in the predominantly Sunni Anbar province,
exposing them to death from booby-traps or acts of vigilantism, refugees
and aid workers say.
Managing more than two million Iraqis displaced by the war against
ISIL is one of prime minister Haider Al Abadi's most daunting tasks. But
critics say he is more interested in winning elections in May than
alleviating the suffering of displaced Iraqis and returning them home
safely.
Authorities are sending back people against their will, refugees and
aid workers say, to ensure that the election takes place on time. People
must be in their area of origin to vote and if they do not return home,
this could delay the election.
Yet again, Hayder shows no concern for the Iraqi people.
Yet again, his interests are not the interests of the Iraqi people.
How long will this country be forced to take whatever 'leader' the US government forces off on them?
Will the next 100 years, for example, see even one prime minister in Iraq that the Iraqi people saw as a real leader?
Probably not.
Senator John McCain was probably speaking for many when he said he was fine with the US military being in Iraq for a hundred years.
And many feigning shock and dismay really agreed with him because we're two months away from the 15th anniversary and the US military remains in Iraq.
When the Democratic Party was using opposition to the Iraq War in 2006 to motivate voter turnout, did the bulk of those voters grasp that the war would not be ending in 2007? Or by 2017?
Probably not.
But how many tricked are speaking out today?
Not many.
And tricksters like 'Vote Vets' are still out whoring for the Democratic Party.
The promise, for any that have forgotten, came from Dem leaders like Nancy Pelosi and it was 'give us one house of Congress and we'll end the war.'
We gave them both houses of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms.
The Iraq War still isn't over.
Nancy remains in office, for some reason. She remains the Democratic Party leader in the House, for some reason.
There are no consequences, apparently.
Not for starting war.
Not for promising to end war and not doing so.
Meanwhile, good to see the push back against hideous Kirk Douglas. Good to see Frances win. And Nicole and Laura. Between tonight and last week's Writers Guild Awards nominations, it appears bad acting in a bad historical film (THE POST) will not result in honors -- nor should it. Historical films are generally crap and don't age well.
One example, Warren's Howard Hughes film. If he'd made it in the seventies it might have been a hit. In the 80s, it would have found an audience. But now? When most of the country is mature enough to grasp that Howard Hughes was bi-sexual? That film was never going to work. Even with star power, Martin's THE AVIATOR wasn't much of a hit. $100 million box office in the US? For a film that starred Leo?
Even THE GREAT GATSBY earned $144.8.
They keep churning out crap because they fail to realize that the world has moved on, that audiences have grown up. Had Warren's film been about a fictional person, it would have been charming. To be Howard Hughes -- who really only had oral sex with women but had all kinds of sex with men -- and to yet again ignore reality?
THE POST is crap because (a) crappy acting (Hanks, yelling isn't acting), (b) glorifying a union buster (Katharine Graham -- one of the reasons The Writers Guild refused to embrace that film) and (c) nothing of value to contribute. 'Oh, we're going to glorify a woman this time!' Yeah, a token. We've always seen that, since the beginning of film. It's a fairy tale for the extremely bored. It's also a physically ugly film. The colors are wrong, the clothes are poorly chosen.
