The Common Ills: Iraq snapshot

Monday, October 18, 2021

Iraq snapshot

Monday, October 18, 2021. Which political party got the most votes in Iraq's elections? Reading the coverage in the western media, you'd never know. On top of that, War Criminal Colin Powell has left this earth for another plane where ever those responsible for millions of deaths go.

Two Sundays ago, October 10th, Iraq held elections and ahead of the election? We got a lot of garbage from the western press passed off as analysis. After the election? It appears we'll continue to get the same.

Fan fiction is not reporting. Tim Russert may be dead but his non-journalism lives on and on. The useless gas baggery ahead of the election from the western media produced nothing of value and the gas baggery that they offered post-election produced nothing either.

A real take away from the election?

The PUK is far from being a dominant party in the Kurdistan.

In fact, the results are in and the strongest political party in Iraq appears to be the KDP currently.

For decades, the PUK was a dominant party. In 1947, the KDP was founded in Iraq -- Kurdistan Democratic Party. The Talabanis did not feel they had enough power within the KDP so they broke off in 1975 and founded the PUK. Following that, the Kurdistan had two dominant parties: the KDP and the PUK. They were still dominant in the early years after the 2093 US-led invasion of Iraq. This changed slowly and many couldn't interpret -- or even register -- the shifts that were going on. I have no dog in the fight so maybe that's why we saw what was happening when, even now, various US 'experts' can't see what's taken place.

Let's drop back to March 16, 2009:

The president of Iraq is Jalal Talabani who announced over the weekend (Friday to Iran's Press TV, actually) that he would not be seeking another term (his term expires in December of this year -- provided elections are held). Talabani has serious heart problems (compounded by the fact that he refuses to listen to doctor's orders -- leading to the infamous collapse at a US bookstore hours after being released from doctor's care). Alsumaria reports Talabani is in Turkey today for a conference on water and has already "met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the presence of South Korean Prime Minister." AFP notes the conference is held every three years and is more 'timely' this year following the United Nation's report (published last week) declaring a "global water crisis". AFP states approximately "20,000 people are expecte for the Fifth World Water Forum" while is a week-long conference. DPA adds, "In addition to discussions on how to stop Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) militants from using their bases in mountainous northern Iraq from where they launch attacks on Turkey proper, Talabani and Erdogan also discussed bilateral economic issues and the Middle East peace process."

Meanwhile Hurriyet reports:

Talabani told a Turkish newspaper in an interview published on Monday that it would not be realistic to believe that an independent Kurdish state could survive as it is likely that neighboring countries Turkey, Iran and Syria would close their borders.

"I tell my Turkish brothers not to fear that Kurds will declare independence. It is an advantage for Kurds to stay within the borders of Iraq in terms of their economic, cultural, social and political interests," he told in the interview.

Sabah got the interview and they quote Talabani stating, "Iraq will not be separated and the civil war is over" and "The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream written in poetry. I do not deny that there are poems devoted to the notion of a united Kurdistan. But we can not continue to dream." If accurate, Talabani's remarks will spark anger among some Kurds. And it may be a great deal of anger and it may be among many Iraqi Kurds.

In the western press, Jalal's remarks got scant attention. We returned to them over and over because they do matter to the Kurdish people. They mattered then and they mattered now. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland. The closest to one is the semi-autonomous region of northern Iraq, the Krudistan. Kurds there -- and many Kurds around the world -- see that as the best hope for an independent homeland. And there was Jalal spitting on a dream carried by so many. It wasn't minor. It was also reflective of the conniving that the Talabanis would do -- convincing against the Kurdish people.

We'll get to it. For now, let's note that Jalal's declaration not to seek another term as president was as worthless as everything else he ever uttered. He did seek it -- much to the misfortune of the the Kurds and of all Iraqis.

His second term made clear that the Talaanis and the PUK didn't give a damn about the Kurds or the dreams of the Kurdish people. 2012 saw the effort to force Nouri al-Maliki out as prime minister via Constitutional means. Shi'ites -- including Moqtada al-Sadr -- worked with Sunnis and with the Kurds and gathered enough signatures from members of Parliament to force a vote of confidence.

Where were Jalal's loyalties? With his own country or with the US? With the US. Jalal, per the Constitution, had the ceremonial duty of reading the petition into the record in a meeting of Parliament. Instead, under pressure from then-Vice President Joe Biden (the US wanted Nouri to remain prime minister) Jalal created powers not in the Constitution. It was his duty, he insisted, to verify the signatures. But he didn't just ask, "Did you sign this?" No, he asked if they would sign it today if it was put in front of them. And, he claimed, a large number said that they would not. He claimed.

The way it works is that they get enough signatures on the petition, it is read into the record and then Parliament votes. So if, indeed, any had changed their hearts, that's fine. They could vote in favor of keeping Nouri. But Jalal created the 'would you sign it today' nonsense and his baseless claim that there were enough who wouldn't sign it that it wouldn't have enough signatures.

Baseless? Those working to oust Nouri had to show their work. Jalal didn't. He gave no figures, he gave no names. Just take his word for it, he said, as he darted out of Iraq for an emergency surgery in Germany.

There was no new emergency surgery. He had elective knee surgery. He lied because the Iraqi people were outraged and furious and he didn't want to face their wrath. If you read the garbage of Patrick Cockburn that was hailed as 'reporting,' this is all new to you so I should point out that the no confidence vote was a result of Nouri going back on the US-brokered Erbil Agreement. Nouri lost the 2010 election. But he refused to step down. Joe Biden was in charge of Iraq -- Barack Obama put him in charge. The Erbil Agreement was cooked up by the US government. All the political leaders signed off on it. It gave Nouri a second term as prime minister. Not for free. In exchange, Nouri agreed to give each political bloc various things. The Kurds wanted Article 150 of the Constitution implemented, for example. Nouri agreed to do so.

He never was going to. In his first term, the Constitution mandated that he implement it but he refused to do so. He pretended he was going to honor The Erbil Agreement and used it to be named prime minister-designate. Ayad Allawi, who actually won that election, suspected Nouri was lying and his alliance walked out of the Parliament the same day Nouri was named prime minister-designate. Then US President Barack called Allawi and pleaded with him to get his members back into Parliament. He gave his word to Allawi that The Erbil Agreement had the full backing of the US government.

Barack lied.

With regards to the Kurds, he claimed he needed a month to implement 150 and then, with everyone looking elsewhere, he never implemented it and, a few months later, he announced through his spokesperson that the contract was illegal -- the one that made him prime minister -- and that now that he was prime minister he would not be following it or honoring it.

This is what led to the push for a vote of no confidence. And throughout that push, Moqtada repeatedly and publicly stated that Nouri could end the movement to remove him by just implementing the 2010 Erbil Agreement as he had legally promised to do.

Jalal stabbed everyone in the back when he decided that Joe Biden was more important than the Kurds or Iraq itself. What goes around comes around and Joe Biden should pay attention here: at the end of the first half of 2012, Jalal lied about his health and rushed off to Germany. At the end of the year, he'd be rushing off again and this time for a real health emergency.

In 2012, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany. He remained there for a year and a half. He was incapacitated. But the Talabani family lied to everyone so that, as the Iraqi Constitution requires, Jalal wouldn't be removed from office.

They lied to the country. They deceived the Iraqi people. They propped him up and posed him for pictures -- leading Arabic media to mock it as WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S -- but they couldn't offer video because he couldn't speak.

The first time was in May. Jalal was posed for a series of photos that appear to indicate his body was present but that was all.

The second set, months later, also showed Jalal posed with his right side to the camera.

The first set of photos led to comparisons to the film Weekend At Bernies (where two men use Bernie's corpse to pretend Bernie's still alive).

Over 18 months later Jalal would return. They wouldn't be able to use the return to pump up his party in elections because he couldn't speak.

In other words, the Talabani family lied to the Iraqi people, deceived them. Iraq had a non-functioning president who should have been removed from office. But the Talabanis lied to keep Jalal in a post he could not serve.

He never spoke in public again. Not even when he returned to Iraq 18 months after his stroke.

He was not able to do any duties and he was not able to speak but the Talabani family lied to the press and to the people so that they could hold onto the position and the prestige. They harmed Iraq in the process. Iraq needed a real president. It had none.

The next election showed how much damage the Talabanis had done to the PUK and that's been true ever since. In addition, you've got Jalal's sons showing up to try to tell the Kurds what to do. They love that -- and who wouldn't? One of Jalal's pampered sons who lives in the US and is married to an American woman returning to the Kurdistan to lecture them on how they shouldn't want independence for Kurdistan, lecturing them on how they shouldn't vote for it in a non-binding referendum.

The Talabanis never grasp how disliked they have become. Now the Barzanis -- of the KDP -- have been in power too long as well by my judgment. And they're not perfect. But they are more in step with the Kurdish people on the issues that matter -- including Kurdish independence.

KURDISTAN 24 reports:

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) has emerged from Iraq's October parliamentary elections as the biggest party in Iraq following the Iraqi Independent High Election Commission's (IHEC) preliminary counting of all the votes.

The KDP participated in the elections as a single party, not as part of any coalition, and won the most seats as a single party, making it the biggest single political party in all of Iraq.

We'll continue to cover the elections but we started with the KDP because they are the real winners -- no other political party got as many seats.

Moving on to a blot. A blot removed?

Noted War Criminal Colin Powell is dead and the world feels a little lighter as a result. He lied to the United Nations. He lied to the American people. He's a liar. Those aware of his record during Vietnam aren't at all surprised -- the late Robert Parry was the best at covering that.

The Iraq War likely would not have taken place had it not been for Colin liar. The press lined up behind him with a 'case closed' nonsense as they pushed the United States into war.

I think Ava and I said everything that I'd want to say about Colin back in our 2005 piece for THIRD:

TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were

Remakes usually suck. That's a lesson ABC's 20/20 learned Friday when they starred Barbara Walters and Colin Powell in a remake of The Way We Were.

Walters lacks the star power of Barbra Streisand. So Katie's passion has been tempered (we're being polite). At the crux of the film were the questions of what is truth, what is right? They carry that over from Arthur Laurents' screenplay. But Walters lacks the dedication to convincingly play someone determined in pursuit of truth -- which appears to result in the character Katie, more or less, being written out of her own film. Call this remake The Way It Was.

Powell, like Robert Redford, is shown early on military drag. He models well, he just lacks Redford's ability to convincingly play a man torn between doing what others want and what he knows is right. They did keep the plot point of Hubbell's betrayal. Probably had to because without the testimony that destroys Hubbell, you have no story.

They've updated the testimony. Instead of naming names during the McCarthy period, Powell lies to the United Nations and the world. What they miss is the heart breaking scene when Streisand explains to Redford that people are their beliefs. Probably too much a laugh getter if it came out of Walters' mouth. But if they were worried about unintended laughs, someone should have spoken to Walters about the three strands of red, worry beads she's wearing.

Walters says, unable to look at him while she does -- oh the drama!, "However, you gave the world false, groundless reasons for going to war. You've said, and I quote, 'I will forever be known as the one who made the case for war.' Do you think this blot on your record will stay with you for the rest of your life?"

Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record.
Walters: How painful is it?
Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it *was* painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.

Has a less convincing scene ever been performed?

Possibly. Such as when Powell informs Walters that the fault lies with the intelligence community -- with those who knew but didn't come forward. Unfortunately for Powell, FAIR's advisory steered everyone to a Los Angeles Times' article from July 15, 2004:

Days before Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was to present the case for war with Iraq to the United Nations, State Department analysts found dozens of factual problems in drafts of his speech, according to new documents contained in the Senate report on intelligence failures released last week.
Two memos included with the Senate report listed objections that State Department experts lodged as they reviewed successive drafts of the Powell speech. Although many of the claims considered inflated or unsupported were removed through painstaking debate by Powell and intelligence officials, the speech he ultimately presented contained material that was in dispute among State Department experts.

Well movies always rewrite some details to make the characters more sympathetic and, presumably, that happened in this remake as well.

Having dismissed the need for facts, the "reluctant warrior" Powell now wants to weigh in on the invasion/occupation. Powell explains that we can't "cut and run" with regards to Iraq. We have to stay. He offers that "I'm not a quitter" himself -- amidst his stay the course nonsense. All this from the former Secretrary of State.

If it's so damn important that we "accomplish" over there, that we "stay the course," are the words really convincing coming out the mouth of the cut and run Secretary of State? Seems to us if you believe in this war as much as you say you do, and believe in staying the course, you . . . stay the course in your job. Powell didn't. There are the Rules for Powell and there are the rules for the rest of us.

Take Cindy Sheehan. She's a grieving parent and he feels sorry for her. Walters actually wakes up for this moment. And, in one of the few times prior to Powell's wife being brought on, she actually looks him in the eye while delivering her line.

Walters: But if you feel the war is just -- that's a different feeling than if you feel the war is is not.
Powell: Well, of course, for the person that is effected, it is. If they don't feel the war is just, they will always feel it as a deep personal loss.

Unlike Powell, we'd argue that regardless of beliefs on this war, the loss is a "deep, personal loss" for most, possibly all, who've lost family members. Maybe if he sent fat-boy Michael over there, he could find out for himself what it feels like? Till then, by his remarks, he's not anyone effected. How nice that must be.

But is the war just?

It's not a moral issue for Powell. He's already informed Walters of that. He lied. Well if he had to lie, forget the pre-emptive war debate for a moment, if he had to lie, what does that say about the war? Seems to us that a just war wouldn't be a war that required you pulling one over on the public to get support for.

It wasn't a moral issue, Powell states, going to war. Then what does it matter that he lied?
If it's not a moral issue, then what does it matter?

Powell's mea culpa is not only unconvincing, it's illogical. He's glad Saddam Hussein's gone. So why's he concerned with his "blot?" He's completely unconcerned that we're in a war that's based on lies. "I'm glad" he says. Sure he admits that he lied (by proxy -- it's others faults, you understand, nameless people in the intel community), but there's no moral concern. He's only worried about the slug line that now accompanies his name. The "blot." The tag 'liar, liar.'

Colin Powell lied to the United Nations. Not by proxy, he lied. His testimony. A testimony he made the decision to give. Despite objections from people in the department he headed. His accountability pose is hollow and unconvincing. Shrugs? "What are you going to do?" shrugs? That and the shiftiness during the exchange (he can't sit still during the exchange) back up his words. This isn't any big deal to him, that he lied and we went to war. He's just concerned that he's a known liar. For the rest of his life.

This is how he wants to be remembered:

"A good public servant somebody who truly believes in his country. . . . Somebody who cared, somebody who served."

Yeah well, Nixon wanted to be remembered a certain way as well. Liar's the way many remember him now. Liar's the way many will remember Colin Powell. Belief in your country doesn't allow you to lie to your country. Belief in your Bully Boy does. That's something this adminstration fails to grasp. They all think they're working for the Bully Boy. Powell makes statements to that effect. He's full of many things including his "service" to the Bully Boy.
The administration is supposed to be working for the country. Presidents come and go. The nation is what is supposed to matter. Belief in your country would mean you tell the people
the truth.

Somebody who served?

He didn't serve the country. He betrayed it. He didn't live up to his office. He didn't live up to the public trust. He didn't live up to the principles of democracy. He lied. He lied. He lied.

We won't put the glossy spin on it that Walters did. We're not looking at Powell through the blind eyes of love.

As the film, er news segment, winds down, the makers decide to go another way. In the original The Way We Were, the child of Katie & Hubbell is seen only fleetingly. In the remake, she actually has lines. As military and infotainment merge, their by-product, the remake tell us, is Elizabeth Vargas. Child Vargas is left to make one of those uncomfortable points that children always make, "Colin Powell doesn't seem to be haunted by this blot on his career." Walters all but brushes a lock from Powell's forehead as she attempts to make Vargas see father Powell in
a more flattering, and far less realistic, light:

Well, you know, he is a, he is a fine soldier, he has a fine family, he has respect, and this is a man who never wanted the Glory Road.

The music fails to swell. Possibly because Walters is no singer and they rightly spare us her rendition of "The Way We Were." With apologies to Alan and Marilyn Bergman, we'll post the lyrics to the song Walters obviously wanted to sing:

Spin
In the place of real reporting.
Mushy soft focus moments
Not The Way It Was.

Unasked questions
Of the facts that are well known.
Facts that never will be buried
Of The Way It Was.

Can it be that spin can triumph fact
If we carefully rewrite each line.
If he had the choice to do it all again
He would -- he could.

Spin
May be full of lies and yet
If we push hard enough
Others will simply forget.

So it's the spin
We will hold onto
Whenever we discuss
The Way It Was.
The Way It Was.

*Corrected to put change "is" to "was." Change is indicated by "*."

From 9-13-05's "ABC 'fixes' Colin Powell" (The Common Ills):

When a magazine, even an entertainment one, puts Orpah's head (for instance) on another body, there's an outcry. It's not considered appropriate or up to journalistic standards.
So let's see if anyone has a problem with ABC news which has done something just as bad if not worse.
Robert Parry has a new article "Colin Powell Being Colin Powell" (Consortium News). It's a good article, a strong one (not uncommon with Parry's writing).It includes this:

In his first extensive interview since his resignation early this year, Powell told ABC News that his reputation has suffered because his assurances about Iraq's supposed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons proved false.
"It's a blot," Powell said. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

That isn't correct. It's not Parry's mistake. He's using (and crediting) "Exclusive: Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief" by "ABC News."

ABC broadcast the interview (conducted by Barbara Walters) on September 9th. (The article's dated September 8th when you use the link, September 9th when you utilize the print function.)Is it appropriate for ABC to improve on the public record?

Colin Powell did not say "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

Here's how that "quote" sounded before ABC News decided to "improve" on it and reassemble it:

Powell: Well it's a, it's a, of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United Nations, uh, United States, to the world. And it will always be uh, part of my, uh, my record.
Walters: How painful is it?
Powell: (shrugs) It was -- it *was* painful. (shifts, shrugs) It's painful now.

In ABC's "quote" they bracket "it." I have no idea why. He says "it." But they note, wrongly, that they are "adding" to the quote there. They do not note that they have deleted the stammers. They also leave out the "United Nations" and the fact that Walters asked him a question.

Why does it matter?

First of all, it matters because a news organization is supposed to be accurate.

Second of all, it matters because this is Powell addressing an issue. His mistakes (UN?), his stammers, all of it is important. ABC news presents it as a smooth, seamless response. That's not the case. He hemmed and he hawed. And the public should know that and the public record should show that.

Print reporters caught some attention for improving on Bully Boy's statments. This should catch attention as well.

Part of the "response" is how Powell structures his words.

Is he nervous? He may appear that way to some (Ava and I found him shifty when we watched the interview). This is public record. This was broadcast on national television. ABC does not have the right, journalistically, to 'smooth over' his remarks.

He was awkward when he spoke. That's part of his response -- or would be if ABC hadn't cleaned it up.

Ava and I reviewed the "performance" for The Third Estate Sunday Review (see "TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were").

The 'smoothed over' quote is not how it occurred.

Ava and I hold onto a copy of anything we review for at least seven days in case a question comes up. For instance on Smallville, surely, one person wrote, Tom Welling wasn't shirtless when Annette O'Toole remarked that he was dressed to go out, was he?We could be wrong. We watched it again. He was shirtless. At other times, someone will question if another character might have stated the line. So we'll watch again. We can make a mistake and we will correct it if we do. (More often than not, we're having to prove something to angry Nick Lachey fans or angry Nick & Jessica fans.) (After seven days, someone's waited too long to weigh in on a TV review. Unless it's something we've been provided with, we ditch whatever we've reviewed.)

Ava's in class but I called the apartment and Jim's there. He played back the interview. I can't say whether "It is painful. It's painful now." is what Powell said (as we noted) or if it's "It was painful. It's painful now" (as ABC notes). The connection wasn't clear enough for me to make out if "is" or "was" is used. [Note from Ava: I've listened to the interview. "Was" is the word and I've corrected that. Otherwise, C.I. and my version of the quote is accurate. I've put "*" around "was" to note that I've changed it. That is the only thing we're wrong on.]

But I could make out the "uh"s. I could make out Walter's question. I could make out Powell stating "United Nations."

Was he nervous? Did he intend to say "United Nations"?

Presenting it, as ABC news does, in a smooth, seamless quote is not reflecting the public record. It is, however, once again cleaning up after Powell.

In our review, Ava and I noted that it played like a really bad remake of The Way We Were. We note this:

As the film, er news segment, winds down, the makers decide to go another way. In the original The Way We Were, the child of Katie & Hubbell is seen only fleetingly. In the remake, she actually has lines. As military and infotainment merge, their by-product, the remake tell us, is Elizabeth Vargas. Child Vargas is left to make one of those uncomfortable points that children always make, "Colin Powell doesn't seem to be haunted by this blot on his career." Walters all but brushes a lock from Powell's forehead as she attempts to make Vargas see father Powell in a more flattering, and far less realistic, light:

Well, you know, he is a, he is a fine soldier, he has a fine family, he has respect, and this is a man who never wanted the Glory Road.
The music fails to swell. Possibly because Walters is no singer and they rightly spare us her rendition of "The Way We Were."

What they couldn't do when people were watching with their own eyes, ABC does in their "report." There's no excuse for what they have posted online. That's not what happened, that's not the way it happened.

It does present Powell in a more flattering light. It does eliminate his starts and stops, his stammer, his use of "United Nations." As p.r., it's fine. As journalism it's not fine. Journalism doesn't allow the public record to be 'polished.'

------------
Update 12-5-2010. We've fixed the FAIR link.

The following sites updated:

The Common Ills

Monday, October 18, 2021

Iraq snapshot

TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were

About Me

Blog Archive

The Common Ills