Saturday, December 24, 2011

Moqtada wades into the political crisis

Mustafa Habib (Al Mada) notes that Nouri al-Maliki's targeting Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with terrorism charges and calling for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq have many noticing that both are members of Iraqiya and political opponents of Nouri and that while the political crisis has revealed a diminished role for the US it has underscored that the Kurds remain the heart of the country's political process. Dar Addustour reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi announced the postponement of the scheduled meeting yesterday of the political blocs while Nouri's spokesperson floated the notion that there are other charges waiting in the wings. Reportedly this includes charging the Minister of Finance, Rafie al-Issawi, with terrorism, specifically with killings in Falluja back in 2006. Like Tareq al-Hashemi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, Rafie al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya. Dar Addustour also notes Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister, issued a statement declaring the matter should have been resolved by the political blocs but has instead played out in the press. Al Mada adds that Kurdistan Regional President Massoud Barzani and US Ambassador James Jeffrey spoke yesterday and are calling for a meeting among the political blocs and that State of Law was whining about the Friday meet-up, whining that Iraqiya is boycotting Parliament but they want to attend the meet-up. Aswat al-Iraq notes, "Iraqiya bloc leader Iyad Alawi described recent events in Iraq as 'liquidation of differences', warning an explosive era waiting Iraq in the coming days, according to an interview with Arabia TV late yesterday (Friday)." Sinan Salaheddin and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report that Moqtada al-Sadr is proposing a "14-point 'peace code'" and attempting to present himself as a leader.

James Zogby (Huffington Post) offers his analysis of the current political crisis:

While American leaders may speak glowingly of Iraq's new democracy, all evidence points to serious problems on the road ahead. This can be discerned both from events on the ground and also from the results of our most recent poll of Iraqi public opinion.
In September 2011, in preparation for the Sir Bani Yas Forum, we surveyed Iraqis to measure their attitudes toward the impact of the war and their concerns about the future of their country in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. We also polled Americans, Iranians, and Arabs from six countries on many of the same questions. From the data several observations can be made.
First and foremost are the divisions among Iraq's three major groupings: Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds. In the United States, there is a deep partisan divide. And finally, there is a disconnect between the attitudes of Iraqis and their Arab neighbors.

And on the never-ending cycle of violence, Reuters notes a Hawija roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officer, a Kirkuk sticky bombing injured one person, and, dropping back to Friday for the following, a Balad sticky bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi military officer and left his son and wife injured and a Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life. Aswat al-Iraq notes that today a Mosul sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two police officers injured today.





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





























The ahistorical and the insulting

Bradley Manning's Article 32 hearing completed this week. Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted.

Josh Gerstein (POLITICO) reports:


Seven days of hearings at Fort Meade, Md., produced what the prosecution called "overwhelming" evidence that the low-ranking Army intelligence analyst was the one who sent hundreds of thousands of military reports and diplomatic cables to the transparency website WikiLeaks.
But the hearing also produced equally compelling evidence of the larger issue that is often overlooked in discussions of Manning's alleged misdeeds: the systematic breakdown in security that enabled a low-ranking enlisted man to abscond with a staggering quantity of classified Pentagon and State Department documents.



So that's fairly straightforward. Other coverage has been anything but.

A trusted friend passed on Ray McGovern's latest writing. I don't care for McGovern because he never knows his facts and makes them up as he goes along. That was most obvious when Ava and I monitored a week's worth of media appearances by McGovern and watched as he started off just wrong and ended up either lying or (if he doesn't know he's lying) offering the babbles of the deranged. It was about Bradley and a good friend did recommend it, so I took a look.

The most exteme lie:

Younger readers need to be reminded that, at the time (August 1967) there was no WikiLeaks, but The New York Times was an independent newspaper prone to publishing documentary evidence critical of the government. The Times had not yet gotten into the habit of seeking prior approval from the White House.


My comment on that runs along the lines of Oh Good F_____ _____.

The New York Times was independent, was it? That would be tremendous news to Gore Vidal, the late John Hess or any number of people who, unlike Ray McGovern, actually know history. Did the Times lead the coverage, for example, on Bay of Pigs? No. Did they bury advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs? Yes, they did. Does the Bay of Pigs pr-date Waterage? Yes, it does. Do we need to go through the history of Latin America? As it relates to the New York Times? Shall we talk Smedley Butler? As his story relates to the New York Times? Do we need to talk CIA?

Of course, we don't need to talk CIA. Ray McGovern was/is CIA. And he never has a bad word about that. He applauds the destruction of Vietnam and does it on Pacifica and gets away with that crap because he's seen as a friendly.

Ray McGovern is either the most dishonest man in the what passes for the left or he's the most stupid.

The New York Times is "the paper of record" not because it's independent but because it has spent its lifetime enshrining the views of the establishment. It also can't be independent when it's on the stock market and the paper went public years before Watergate.

What is the point in telling 'history' when it's all corrupted because you don't know the basic facts of a topic you've elected to speak publicly on? (McGovern's 'article' is the text of a speech he gave.)

And remember Vietnam? Remember us calling him out for his refusal to stop treating the Vietnamese as less than human? He's still at it. The speech does drop some of the more extreme nonsense but still wants you to know when it gets bloody in Vietnam. (Not when Vietnamese are being mowed down. They're faceless after all. It's only when US troops are harmed that it's 'bloody.') (Know your damn history, the Vietnamese were targeted and killed in large numbers long before the US ever even came in as 'advisors.')

And on top of that, he cites alleged transcripts turned over to the press by convicted felon and attention seeker Adrian Lamo, the one who insisted to the feds Bradley Manning was the leaker. Ray McGovern is a stupid ass. He has done more damage to the left than anyone paid by the government to destroy it could have done. At some point, the why of that needs to be asked because it's getting harder and harder to pin it all on stupidity.

Back to reality for a moment. Larry Shaughnessy (CNN) notes:

Long before Manning's hearing, there were numerous media reports that he was gay and was estranged from his father.
But during the hearing it was revealed that Manning believed he was suffered from Gender Identity Disorder. Witnesses testified that he had created an alter ego online named Breanna Manning. In closing arguments, Coombs read a letter Manning wrote to one of his supervisors, Master Sgt. Paul Adkins, prior to his arrest where he talked about "my problem."
"Everyone is concerned about me," Manning wrote. "Everyone is afraid of me and I'm sorry."
"I joined the military hoping the problem would go away and it did for awhile."
Eventually, Coombs alleged, the gender identity problem lead to violent outbursts.

See what happened there? CNN reported on GID and didn't demonize it.

That's not true of all. And, sadly, some of the rudest are supposed 'supporters' of Bradley.

It needs to stop.

The following community sites -- plus Susan's On The Edge -- updated last night and today:




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





























Friday, December 23, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, December 23, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Christmas gets cancelled in Iraq, the Baghdad meet-up gets the axe, Nouri continues to bluster as the political crisis gets deeper, and more.
 
Stealing from Mike to name an idiot of the week:  Uma Purushothaman. who writes (Daily Pionner), "One of the ways in which the US has left Iraq a better place is that it has nudged the country towards democracy.  The country has had elections and now has an inclusive, elected government." Sorry, Uma, stupidity does not pay (unless you anchor a US commercial, broadcast TV newscast).  Iraq held parliamentary elections March 7, 2010.  But it does not have an inclusive, elected government.  Nouri al-Maliki's slate came in second in those elections, he refused to surrender the post of prime minister, the US backed him in that and he retained the office despite the will of the people, the election results and the country's Constitution.  Sorry, Uma, stupidity isn't pretty.  And for those late to the party on that, we'll ape Mike and quote this from the Independent of London editorial: "The deal Washington did between the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish sections of the Iraqi population was always uneasy.  The danger of its fragmenting, now that the nine-year US and Shia have each been quick to blame the other.  Either way, it is clear that there are strong forces in the country who have been waiting for this moment to make their move to achieve supremacy."  Or you can refer to Ruth, "Because the White House screwed over Iraqiya before. That is who the reporters mean by 'Sunni Muslim minority,' by the way. And, no, Iraqiya is not 'Sunni.' It is a mixture of Sunni and Shia and others as well. They are a non-sectarian slate and are headed by (Shi'ite) Ayad Allawi. Iraqiya came in first in the March 2010 elections so Mr. Allawi should have been given first crack at forming a government as prime minister designate. If he had been successful at forming a government within 30 days, then he would have moved from prime minister designate to prime minister."  And your first hint that there's no democracy in Iraq, or foundation for it, people don't elect exiles, they elect their own.  But, as Marcia has pointed out, the US-created government in Iraq is one of exiles (including Nouri).
 
 
Yesterday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings. All week long, ABC, CBS and NBC have chosen to ignore Iraq in the nightly news casts. This despite the fact that Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and thug, has sworn out an arrest warrant on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. This despite the fact that al-Hashemi went to the KRG to meet with officials there and now remains there for his own protection. This despite the fact that Nouri is also attempting to strip Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq of his office (and immunity). This despite both men are members of Iraqiya -- the political slate which won more votes than did Nouri's State of Law -- and both men are Sunni.  When they finally addressed Iraq last night, all three chose not to inform their viewers of anything that Nouri's done and focus on the bombings only.  What commercial broadcast TV wouldn't do, public radio did.  On the second hour of today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane and her guests Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy), Abderrahim Foukara (Al Jazeera) and David E. Sanger (New York Times) discussed Iraq.  Excerpt.
 
Susan Glasser: If you look at the political instability racking Iraq --
 
Diane Rehm: Exactly.
 
Susan Glasser: -- literally hours and days after the last American troop left and you can see what the scenario is going to look like potentially in Afghanistan, in a place where the threats could be even more directly to US interests.
 
Diane Rehm: Do we know who's responsible for the worst day of violence that Iraq has seen in more than a year?  Do we know who committed those acts.
 
Susan Glasser: Well you know you immediately, as in Syria, saw claims from the government that this was al Qaeda related.  And remember, this is in the context -- as David pointed out --  of the widening sort of sectarian violence that has been and will be the context for the political fight that's playing out over who controls Iraq.  Remember that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who has now gone after Iraq's sitting vice president who is a Sunni, you have the rise of this Shi'ite majority in Iraq and I think that is the context of the political struggle taking place.
 
Diane Rehm: So how fragile is Iraq's government right now?
 
Abderrahim Foukara: It seems to me extremely fragile.  It seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that when the US was there, people were saying the-the situation currently is what it is because US presence -- because of US presence.  Now that you don't have that US presence, a lot of people are going back and saying US presence was actually the cement that was keeping superficially somewhat Iraq together.  Now that the US is out, it seems that you have to hark back to what happened the time of the surge when the Sunnis in Anbar Province -- who were actually by the way have been the most vocal in celebrating the departure of US troops.  You had the Arab "Awakenings" [Sahwa] there, you had the Arab tribes there, working with the  US government at that time to fight al Qaeda. And everybody at that time was saying, 'Okay, the surge has worked.  But it has also given various parties in Iraq time to actually reassemble their strength and once the US is out, you are going to see a surge of the violence including the sectarian violence. So right now, Iraq looks --
 
Diane Rehm and Abderrahim Foukara (together): -- very fragile.
 
Diane Rehm: And do you see that fragility really turning back into what could be described as civil war?
 
 
Susan Glasser: You know I think that has to be a real possibility.  As we're talking, I'm thinking about this conversation merging Iraq and Afghanistan, I can't help think of what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and what you had was first a political crisis and many thought that [Mohammed] Najibullah, who was the Soviet-installed ruler of Afghanistan, wouldn't last out the year.  He managed to but at the cost of literally a sort of  cycle of violence that the country has not gotten out of yet and of course ultimately with his body being dragged through the streets.  And you know, these scenarios are very real.
 
[. . .]
 
Abderrahim Foukara: Just wanting to go back to Iraq and the possibility of specter of civil war.  Yes, that's one possible scenario.  The other possible scenario -- and remember that when Saddam [Hussein, former president of Iraq] was in power, one of the main pieces of rationale that he gave for being the tough guy, dictator that he was is that Iraq could only work if it had a tough guy leading it. And I think the other scenario that we could be looking at now is Maliki turning into that tough guy to hold Iraq together which would be goodbye to any talk or any hope of a democratic Iraq even in -- even in the long future. And I think Maliki has so far shown all the signs that he wants to be another Saddam of a kind.  Whether he will actually be forced to go all the way there, we don't know.  But he's showing signs of that.
 
 
Susan Glasser: Well, you know, in fact, that's exactly what the political opposition to him is calling him already: The Shi'ite Saddam.  We had an interview this week with Vice President Hashemi who is now seeking refuge in Kurdistan in order not to be arrested by -- by supposedly his partner in the government and that's exactly what he said.  He said not only is Maliki turning into Saddam but he was making the case, and it shows you how inflammatory the rhetoric has become, he said, "Well actually Maliki's worse than Saddam," you know, in this interview with us because Saddam brought this stability.  But I have to say, take this with a grain of salt, right? This is what every tough guy says in order to justify his dictatorship.  Remember, I'm thinking about Russia and what is it that Vladmir Putin said a dozen years ago when he came to power? He said, 'Well, it's time for us to restore stability, we need to have a strong hand again to govern Russia. It's the only way to keep the state intact..'
 
Before we move further, a few things to note.  Twice this week, we quoted from Deborah Amos' "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010," Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center.  Deborah Amos is with NPR and the author of one of 2010's important books  Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East which I wished we linked to.  (One day we did and there wasn't room.  Also a similar note was supposed to go in yesterday's snapshot but was cut for space.)  Second, Wednesday's snapshot included: "In other news, Arwa Damon and Wolf Blitzer (CNN) report that, yes, indeed, CIA Director David Petraeus was just in Iraq."  What rumors, a few e-mails asked?  Since it was in the first paragraph (after the introduction) of Tuesday's snapshot:
 
 
How bad are things in Iraq right now?  Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) notes a rumor,  "The reported appearance of CIA director David Patraeus at a meeting of Iraqiyya yesterday seems somewhat extraordinary. If true, it could be indicative of how Washington sees the situation in Iraq after the withdrawal. Critics will claim that after two years dominated by Joe Biden diplomacy, it is perhaps somewhat late in the day to begin sending competent special envoys to Iraq."  The rumor may have truth to it, it may be completely false.  But its very existence, it merely being uttered goes to just how out of control things are in Iraq.
 
Reidar Visser had first reported the rumors that were confirmed the following day. On yesterday's bombing, Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explain:
 
 
Sirens wailed, smoke billowed and blood pooled on the pavement.
The scenes of devastation were all too familiar after more than a dozen explosions ripped through the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing at least 60 people and injuring nearly 200, just days after the last U.S. troops left the country.
[. . .]
By nightfall, fear gripped the city and some residents were already talking about the need to arm themselves again.

 
CARBERRY: Ahmed Mahdi is a 22-year-old who's selling chickpeas from a cart outside the cafe. He says the explosions were the result of the political crisis that erupted last weekend just as the last American convoy was packing to leave. Word came out of an arrest warrant against the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi. The government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has accused Hashemi of running assassination squads that have killed political and military officials.
 
MAHDI: (Foreign language spoken)
 
CARBERRY: Ahmed Mahdi believes that supporters of the embattled Sunni politicians carried out the bombings. Sectarianism has been on the rise and there's fear that things may be reaching critical mass.
 
Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Civil Society Forum (CSF) shouldered Iraqi politicians and the three presidencies the responsibility of the bloody explosion which hit Baghdad yesterday.  CFS regarded these explosions as a reflection of the failure of Iraqi politicans, following US forces withdrawal."
 
 
Hashemi has vehemently denied the charges against him, arguing that they are politically motivated and yet another effort by Maliki to consolidate power. When asked if Maliki has become a Saddam-like figure since assuming power in 2006, as fellow Iraqiya leaders Saleh al-Mutlak and Iyad Allawi have suggested, Hashemi noted that "many of Saddam's behaviors are now being exercised by Maliki unfortunately." But he added that Saddam rebuilt Iraq in six months after the invasion of Kuwait and the Gulf War in the early 1990s. In contrast, under Maliki's leadership, Hashemi pointed out, the consulting firm Mercer ranked Baghdad the worst city in the world in terms of quality of life.
 
That isn't saying Nouri is worse than Saddam.  There is nothing in the interview that meets that claim and Susan Glasser must have been confused.  However, those saying he is worse have many reasons to say so.  Though Diane Rehm laughed at the thought of Nouri as worse than Hussein, it's not off-base.  When Saddam Hussein had US support (as Nouri does),  Saddam wasn't repeatedly exposed as a torturer publicly.  What Saddam early on had to do in secret, Nouri's done as the world watches.  That's only one way that Nouri is worse than Saddam.  Many groups can claim a better life under Saddam (and have, check the public record) than under Nouri.  Those include Iraqi Jews which can now be counted on only two hands, Palestinians in Iraq, women in Iraq, and many more groups.  Back to the interview of Tareq al-Hashemi:
 
 
"Now everything is in his hands: the ministry of defense, the ministry of the interior, intelligence, national security," Hashemi claimed. He wants his case transferred to Kurdistan because he doesn't think Iraq's judicial system is independent. Instead of judiciary authorities responding to his appeal, the vice president notes, Maliki himself shot down the request during his press conference yesterday, calling instead for Kurdish officials to hand over Hashemi. "The judicial system is really in his pocket," Hashemi argued.
When asked if Maliki is also in Iran's pocket, Hashemi responded that the prime minister "is very close to Iran" and that Iraqiya's Allawi -- not Maliki -- would be prime minister now if not for the "interference of Iran." When Iraqi leaders agreed to a power-sharing deal last year, Hashemi said, "Iran actively supported Maliki, and we discovered in due course that the United States also supported Maliki. Whether this was a coincidence or deliberate or behind-the-scenes coordination I don't know. But this is what happened."
Hashemi says he had a brief telephone conversation with U.S. ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey when the American diplomat cut short his holiday vacation and rushed back to Baghdad to help resolve the current standoff. "I asked him to do his best and try to reach some sort of compromises and try to accommodate this crisis," Hashemi explained. "He promised me to do his utmost and talk to Maliki." Hashemi says Ambassador Jeffrey also suggested that he would come and meet with the vice president in person, though this has yet to happen.
 
So that's Jeffrey, US Vice President Joe Biden, CIA Director David Petraeus and General Ray Odierno that have all been attempting to aid in solving the crisis.  Geoff Dyer and Borou Daragahi (Financial Times of London) note that while these people are attempting contact, it is the huge number of employees of the US State Dept's Iraq branch (militarized) that the White House is pinning their hopes on.  Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Ahrar bloc MP described the statements of US vice-president Joe Biden on Hashimi's case as 'an avowed intervention in Iraqi internal affairs'."  The Wheeling Intelligencer editorializes that the US government better have a plan for Americans who will remain in Iraq, "But as we have pointed out, many Americans remain in harm's way there. About 16,000 diplomats, contractors and security personnel remain in Iraq. At some point, anti-American terrorists probably will target them."
 
Rebecca Santana (AP) interviews al-Hashemi today and quotes him stating, "Definitely, he [Nouri] is going to concentrate on the Sunni community because they are the society, the community of Tariq al-Hashemi so they are going to suffer. He is trying to escalate the tension, making life very, very difficult for our provinces, to our people.  [. . .] He doesn't believe in compromises. He doesn't believe in peaceful solutions to the problems. He's going to use the Iraqi army and the security for more repression."
 
Ghazwan Hassan (Reuters) reports that protests took place in Baiji, Ramadi, Samarra and Qaim today against Nouri al-Maliki and his targeting of Sunnis while Aswat al-Iraq notes 500 people gathered in Baghdad's Tahir Square "calling to hadn over vice-president Tarqi al-Hashimi to justice." No reports of attacks, of course, because when Nouri sends his employees to Tahrir Square, they aren't treated the way real protesters are.  Real protesters are beaten up by the police, kidnapped, tortured.  Nouri's employees are encouraged to protest and are rewarded for it.   Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports Nouri is calling for the US to turn over tools of destruction to him quickly citing yesterday's bmbings as one reason.  Another reason would be his ability to target enemies more quickly and deadly with such tools.
 
While Nouri's paid employees demand Tareq al-Hashemi be returned to Baghdad, Al Mada reports that Parliament is stating that the law is not clear on this issue.  Nouri has stated, "Kurdistan has to hand over the wanted. The abstention of handing Hashemi or allowing him to escape will only cause problems," Maliki stressed adding that Kurdistan should not contribute to the escape of wanted."  Last night, Trina shared her opinion that Tareq al-Hashemi could not get a fair trial in Baghdad.  Stan's also expressed his doubt on that this week when he noted "Dan Morse ('Washington Post') reports, 'Tariq al-Hashimi said he was ready to stand trial, but only in the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, the area to which he has fled. His statement raised the possibility of the Kurds being dragged into the political battle that has broken out between Shiite and Sunni factions of the country's central government'.''  Again, Iraqi lawmakers say the law is unclear on that point.  As Ann noted last night, the Kurds are less covered in this political crisis and she noted this from Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal):


The Kurds, mostly Sunni Muslims who are ethnically distinct from the Arabs who dominate the rest of Iraq, find themselves once more in the position of exploiting sectarian divisions among Arabs.
The Kurds also have a stake in the political conflict. They seek to maintain, and expand, their virtual state-within-a-state in northern Iraq, which they have built largely beyond the central government's control. Both sides have long been at loggerheads over a law that would govern how oil revenues are to be shared in the country.
U.S. officials have pressed Iraqi leaders to overcome their differences. On Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden called Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to offer support for his efforts to foster dialogue, the White House said.
 
Al Rafidayn reports that the scheduled meet-up of the political blocs in Baghdad today to address these issues was cancelled.
 
In other news, Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Archbishop of Chaldeans in Kirkuk and Sulaymaniah Louis Sako announced, on Wednesday, that Christians in Kirkuk decided to mark the season of Christmas in church masses and cancel Christmas celebrations due to Iraq's crisis and the continuous targeting of Christians." Peter Wilson (The Australian) reports:

Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 70 per cent of Iraq's Christians have fled their homes since the 2003 invasion.
Statistics are unreliable but the Christian population is believed to have crashed from about 1.4 million to less than 500,000, with many of those who are still in the country having sought refuge in Christian-heavy parts of Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
Mr [Ra'ad] Emmanuel [head of the Iraqi Christian Endowment] said the southern city of Basra had been virtually abandoned by Christians and there had been repeated church bombings, kidnaps and assassinations in Baghdad.
Early this week, several Christian teenagers wandered quietly inside the gutted church of Our Lady of Salvation in central Baghdad, shaking their heads at the hundreds of bullet holes left by a massacre in November last year.

Aid to the Church in Need quotes the Archbishop of Kirkuk, Louis Sako, stating, "Midnight Christmas Mass has been cancelled in Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk as a consequence of the never-ending assassinations of Christians and the attack against Our Lady of Perpetual Help Cathedral on 31st October, which killed 57 people." Yesterday's Baghdad bombings are also impacting the way people feel in terms of safety. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) notes the claims that Iraq could take care of its internal security now ring hollow to some Iraqi Christians and quotes Slvan Youhanna Matti -- whose sons have already sought shelter in Belgium, Lebanon and Sweden -- stating, "I am only staying in Kirkuk temporarily -- I am waiting to leave at any second. Christians who are leaving Baghdad for Kirkuk or Kurdistan consider those places just temporary stops before they leave for good. The future is unknown, and sectarian and religious conflict hurts our confidence in the situation, especially after the US departure."

Barack declared 'progress' and praised thug Nouri. This is progress?

Someone needs to ask Barack Obama exactly how Iraqi Christians not being able to publicly observe their faith's holiest day qualifies as progress?

While the evening newscasts on broadcast, commercial TV ignored the political crisis in Iraq, PBS' The NewsHour covered Iraq with two segments on Tuesday (here and here), in the news wrap on Wednesday,  an ITN report by Inigo Gilmore Thursday covering the bombings and  Jeffrey Brown moderated a discussion of whether or not the US should have remained in Iraq. Former NSC-er Meghan O'Sullivan supported a longer stay while former Air Force officer John Mearsheimer didn't.  (All NewsHour segments are text, audio and video.)  Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The War on Social Security" went up today and we'll close with this from Helen Thomas' "Iraq War Ends, But Questions Remain" (Falls Church News-Press):


Obama, who followed Bush in the White House, had one chance to pull out of Iraq the day after he took over the presidency. At that time, he was very popular and he could have moved boldly to end the wars. Instead, he chose a losing policy.
The war toll for American servicemembers includes 4,700 dead and tens of thousands wounded. The American people have been passive to fact that thousands of men and women who have gone half way around the world to fight Iraqis - none of whom were involved in the 9-11 attacks.
Hussein was anathema to the United States and Israel, who targeted him as public enemy number one. Following Israel's footsteps, we have now turned our attention to Iran and its plans to become a nuclear power.
The financial cost of the war is estimated to be somewhere between $800 billion and $1 trillion.
We are leaving Iraq not with a bang but a whimper.
 
 
 
 

How do you spell 'lie'? ABC, CBS and NBC

Yesterday, Baghdad was slammed with bombings. All week long, ABC, CBS and NBC have chosen to ignore Iraq in the nightly news casts. This despite the fact that Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and thug, has sworn out an arrest warrant on Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi. This despite the fact that al-Hashemi went to the KRG to meet with officials there and now remains there for his own protection. This despite the fact that Nouri is also attempting to strip Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq of his office (and immunity). This despite both men are members of Iraqiya -- the political slate which won more votes than did Nouri's State of Law -- and both men are Sunni.

On their evening 'news,' all three networks have steadfastedly refused to tell their viewers this story. With over 70 dead in yesterday's Baghdad bombings, you knew there was a strong chance that Iraq would get mentioned. But would they do so honestly?

The answer, of course, is no.

So the big question is it whichis the worst lie -- failing to provide any needed information or distorting (intentionally) what is taking place?

Your answer will help you decide which gave the worst 'information' to viewers last night.

We'll note PBS' The NewsHour at the end. They covered Iraq with two segments on Tuesday (here and here) and in the news wrap on Wednesday. (All NewsHour segments are text, audio and video.) But we're not going to use them as a measurement because I've already heard whining about that from friends at various commercial networks who insist that they don't have an hour and they have commercial breaks and blah blah blah. You know you only have 21 minutes and nobody's forcing you to do crap like "the power of healing" (that goes out to one producer who knows who they are). You're responsible for what you choose to air and what you choose to ignore.

But all for the little cry babies at commercial, broadcast network news, we'll go with the CBC. And I know someone will say, "Well that's public TV in Canda!" Yes, it is, but, as last night proved, one commercial network was keen on including footage of the same woman in the CBC report. The same footage.

We're using CBC as the measurement because (a) Canada wasn't officially in the Iraq War, (b) the report is shorter than two of the US networks and (c) a friend at the CBC asked (direct quote), "What the hell is happening to American news?" And he meant the TV news.


This CBC report (link is video):


Peter Mansbridge: In Iraq, a wave of bomb attacks in Baghdad has killed at least 70 people killed and hundreds more injured. It's a scale of violence not seen in months and it comes just days after American troops pulled out of the country. Carolyn Dunne has the details from London.

Carolyn Dunn: Smoke filled the skies over morning Baghdad -- the first ominous sign of what was to come: A wave of coordinated attacks roadside bombings, car bombings, explosions in at least a dozen locations. 'My baby was sleeping in her bed," says this woman, "shards of glass fell on her. Violence came just four days after the US completed its withdrawal of troops

Barack Obama: Iraq's not a perfect place. But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq

Carolyn Dunn: The surge in violence has shone a light on the sectarian divisions that are not only threatening Iraq's security but also it's tenuous coalition government. Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who is Shia issued an arrest warrant for vice president Tareq al-Hashemi who is Sunni. Maliki claims Hashemi has assembled a murderous hit squad but Maliki's critics say it's all a thinly veiled power grab. "Politicians fight and kill people says this man. "This is not the Iraq anyone had hoped for. But today it is an Iraq that's all too easy to imagine." Carolyn Dunn, CBC News, London.

It was less than two minutes. But they noted the bombing and they noted the political crisis. The networks last night couldn't do that. Made the decision not to. Richard Engel disgraced himself (and his reporting last week), so let's start with him and NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. But first, all US troops are not out of Iraq. I know that. I'm not saying they are. If your friend or loved one is still serving in Iraq (as many will be beyond 2011), these are direct quotes from the broadcasts and not me deciding to join in on the lie that pretends no US forces remain in Iraq.


Brian Williams: Overseas now to Iraq, some of the worst violence that country has seen in months. Dozens of people are dead tonight after 16 coordinated attacks across the city of Baghdad today at one point there were columns of smoke rising over the skyline. Of course, US troops pulled out of there and lowered the flag just days ago now. They are no longer a component in patrolling the streets or keeping the peace. Our chief foreign correspondent was with them and Richard Engel just back from there is with us here in the studio tonight. I got to tell you, people saw these pictures, if they saw them today, we heard people on television saying the government is collapsing and there are Americans who are going to be saying, "Don't tell me this means we're going to have to go back in because it's going to fall apart."

Richard Engel: Well it is falling apart. The government is collapsing. The violence is starting, we're seeing all the of the symptoms of the civil war in Iraq starting up again. I don't think that means the US troops are going to go back in. The US troops left, they are handing it over to Maliki and they're going to leave the prime minister to try and sort this out. I think the -- It would be very unlikely US troops are going back in even if we're going back into the phase of civil war which -- at this stage -- seems likely.

Brian Williams: Well you've spent -- as I said, the other night, you were talking from there -- you've spent a good percentage of your adult life living in Iraq. How bad, in your worst fears, does this get now?

Richard Engel: This is going to get a lot worse. There was a civil war in Iraq from 2006 to 2007. The surge happened. And this was between Sunnis and Shi'ites. And the surge happened with all the extra American troops, 40,000 of them, and that civil war stopped. Now the US troops are gone so that civil war is coming right back again. So I think it could get very, very ugly. The Shi'ites in the country -- who were never in power for 1400 years -- are now in power, they are consolidating their rule and the Sunnis who used to rule under Saddam Hussein feel like they have no future in this country. So they're fighting. They're fighting for their survival. It was the Sunnis who carried out all the bombings today. There were nearly all in Shi'ite districts. We're going to see more of this.

Brian Williams: Alright. It was a bad day. We'll keep watching it.

Was it bad day, Bri-Bri? Was it? It was horrible day for NBC News and for Richard Engel. First off, Richard, no one knows who's responsible yet. You can offer a guess but don't pass it off as fact ("It was the Sunnis who carred out all the bombings today.") -- not if you want to be considered a reporter. Second of all, the surge did stop the violence.

That would be the surge in refugees.

The period Richard's speaking of is when Iraqi refugees -- predominantly Sunni and Christians -- begin fleeing. IDP and external refugees, we're talking over 4.5 million. That surge is the largest refugee crisis in the MidEast since 1948. They didn't flee because they heard there was a hot new resort opening in Syria.

They fled for their lives. Many were not able to flee because they were killed. Nouri oversaw that. It was ethnic cleansing. And, strange thing, last week in his text reports, Richard Engel, could mention that cleansing and how Sunni and Christian neighborhoods in Baghdad were now Shi'ite.

But last night, he wouldn't tell that truth, now would he?

As for Sunnis fighting?

Why are they fighting, Richard?

And the government's falling apart, why is that?

Better question, Richard, do you really need to go along with Brian Williams when he tells you -- right before the segment starts -- that there's no need to mention Nouri al-Maliki or Tareq al-Hashemi?

Really?

I have no idea why Williams issued that instruction. But he did.

I can guess. I can guess that we're going to see the US networks continue to pretend that what Nouri's done is not taking place. That's because they whored for the White House when Bush was in it and they'll whore for the White House when Barack is in it. They know no honor, only how to bend or spread.

No honor? That's George Stephie. The creep made a total ass out himself last night and we'll probably take it up at Third on Sunday but we'll stick to Iraq for this. From last night's ABC World News with Diane Sawyer:

George Stephanopoulos: We're going to go overseas now to Iraq where Baghdad has suffered its deadliest day in more than a year, at least 69 people were killed and in a wave of bombings just days after the last American forces left the country raising the question tonight: Are all those hard won security gains now at risk? ABC's Nick Shifrin was in Baghdad earlier this week and he files this report.

Nick Schifrin: These were the scenes from Iraq Americans waited so long to see. ["Going home!" someone shouts.] Joy. Relief. For the US the war was over. These are the scenes from Iraq today. The all-to-familiar violence started at dawn. Car bombs and IEDs ripped through every part of Baghdad. More than a dozen blew up markets, schools and government buildings. "My baby was sleeping in her bed when glass fell on her head," she says. "Why don't we have any security?" Fears about security worried US commanders until the moment they left.

Gen Lloyd Austin: We know that al Qaeda's going to do what they've always done. They're going to continue to try to focus on the government and the Iraqi security forces. And the Iraqi security forces are going to have to deal with that. Even Iraqis who are happy to see the Americans leave are worried their own forces aren't ready. Dr. Mayad is building a new hospital. A shiny example of progress. But he says people here don't trust the government to keep them safe. The fragile coalition that runs the government is already collapsing. Do Iraqis have confidence in their government?

Dr. Mayad: There is very little confidence. There is gap.

Nick Schifrin: Today that worry appears well founded. The war in Iraq might be over for the US but that doesn't mean the war is over. Nick Schifrin, ABC News, Baghdad.


The two things that should have stood out?

First, they're using the same footage that the CBC had broadcast earlier on Thursday. (The woman talking about the shards of glass and her child.) Second, where's Nouri and his power grab in all of that? No where to be found. World News leaves the US for a few seconds and yet they can't even give the news.

This is not by chance. This is not by accident.


The joke that is CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley didn't have any report on the bombings. Instead, they let Pelley speak in that SNL Al-Gore-ish manner to the camera.


Scott Pelley: Just four days after the last US troops left Iraq a new wave of deadly bombings killed about 70 people today in Baghdad. At least 16 bombs went off. In the deadliest attack, a man in an ambulance blew himself up near a government building killing at least 25. Iraqi officials believe that the attacks are a continuation of the civil war between the two main branches of the Islamic faith.

Is that what they believe? Well, at least he didn't pull a Richard Engel and say he knew who was responsbile. But where is the arrest warrant in his report?

No where to be found.

Again, this is not an accident. These things don't just happen.

An arrest warrant is issued for a vice president and the vice president flees to the semi-autonomous region of the country? That's news. But it's news that anchors Scott Pelley, George The Hairball and Brian Williams never want the American people to hear.

The CBC friend? He said right now was worse than immediately after 9-11 in terms of the way the three US evening newscasts are practicing censorship. And I'm going to have to agree. There's no excuse for this nonsense. You either serve the public or you don't. Three little blind mice anchoring newscasts this week elected not to serve the public.

The NewsHour (PBS) offered an ITN report by Inigo Gilmore last night which covered the bombings as well as the political crisis. And Jeffrey Brown moderated a discussion of whether or not the US should have remained in Iraq. Former NSC-er Meghan O'Sullivan supported a longer stay while former Air Force officer John Mearsheimer didn't. We'll note this:


JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think with regard to Meghan's point, that there's no question that if the United States were to stay in Iraq that we wouldn't be having these troubles, and, as long as the United States is in Iraq, it would serve a pacifying function. But the fact is, we can't stay in Iraq forever. We faced this same situation in Vietnam. We were in Vietnam for roughly eight years with large-scale American forces. And when we finally left, the place came undone. And that was because the political system that we left behind was basically dysfunctional. It wasn't capable of running the government and dealing with the North Vietnamese.

And this:

MEGHAN O'SULLIVAN: Where I would disagree with John on the point about the U.S. troop presence and how long we were expected to stay, I didn't see the choice as either leaving completely or staying forever. I think there's quite clearly a very long timeline we see for new institutions taking root in post-conflict societies, which is what Iraq was and is, still is. And I think that we can really point to places where their institutions had maturity. Take their military forces, for instance. They were very, very poor a few years ago, and now they're much better than they were. And we can expect that, with the right kind of support, they would be even better in a few years' time.

I think those were each's strongest point but use the link to decide for yourself.

The following community sites -- plus Susan's On The Edge, The L-Studio, Adam Kokesh and IVAW -- updated last night:



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






























Christmas gets the axe in Iraq (this is progress?)

Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi Archbishop of Chaldeans in Kirkuk and Sulaymaniah Louis Sako announced, on Wednesday, that Christians in Kirkuk decided to mark the season of Christmas in church masses and cancel Christmas celebrations due to Iraq's crisis and the continuous targeting of Christians." Peter Wilson (The Australian) reports:

Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 70 per cent of Iraq's Christians have fled their homes since the 2003 invasion.
Statistics are unreliable but the Christian population is believed to have crashed from about 1.4 million to less than 500,000, with many of those who are still in the country having sought refuge in Christian-heavy parts of Kurdistan in northern Iraq.
Mr [Ra'ad] Emmanuel [head of the Iraqi Christian Endowment] said the southern city of Basra had been virtually abandoned by Christians and there had been repeated church bombings, kidnaps and assassinations in Baghdad.
Early this week, several Christian teenagers wandered quietly inside the gutted church of Our Lady of Salvation in central Baghdad, shaking their heads at the hundreds of bullet holes left by a massacre in November last year.

Aid to the Church in Need quotes the Archbishop of Kirkuk, Louis Sako, stating, "Midnight Christmas Mass has been cancelled in Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk as a consequence of the never-ending assassinations of Christians and the attack against Our Lady of Perpetual Help Cathedral on 31st October, which killed 57 people." Yesterday's Baghdad bombings are also impacting the way people feel in terms of safety. Marwan Ibrahim (AFP) notes the claims that Iraq could take care of its internal security now ring hollow to some Iraqi Christians and quotes Slvan Youhanna Matti -- whose sons have already sought shelter in Belgium, Lebanon and Sweden -- stating, "I am only staying in Kirkuk temporarily -- I am waiting to leave at any second. Christians who are leaving Baghdad for Kirkuk or Kurdistan consider those places just temporary stops before they leave for good. The future is unknown, and sectarian and religious conflict hurts our confidence in the situation, especially after the US departure."

Barack declared 'progress' and praised thug Nouri. This is progress?

Someone needs to ask Barack Obama exactly how Iraqi Christians not being able to publicly observe their faith's holiest day qualifies as progress?


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






























Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The War on Social Security"

the war on social security

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The War on Social Security." Fat cat Jay Carney at the White House press briefing on Wednesday declares, "So we compromised. I say 'we' so I can pretend someone voted my fat ass into public office. Governing based on fear is always bound to fail. Now let me scare you about payroll taxes again! This was worked out by the Republican leader in the Senate. Even though revenue's a House issue!" Fat Cats like Jay Carney's idea. Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.






I Hate The War

Sirens wailed, smoke billowed and blood pooled on the pavement.
The scenes of devastation were all too familiar after more than a dozen explosions ripped through the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing at least 60 people and injuring nearly 200, just days after the last U.S. troops left the country.
[. . .]
By nightfall, fear gripped the city and some residents were already talking about the need to arm themselves again.


That is from Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis' "Iraq bombings kill 60, revive old fears" (Los Angeles Times) and a powerful piece of writing from one of the stronger correspondents covering Iraq in the last few years and one of the stronger correspondents covering Iraq when Bush was occupying the White House.

As the US repostures (the Defense Dept's term) in the latest phase of the Iraq War, it'll be interesting to see what US outlets continue to cover Iraq. Post-2008 election, the US commercial networks began pulling their correspondents out. With so many saying the war is over (it's not), how many outlets plan to leave in the next few weeks or might have already left had the political crisis -- punctuated with Thursday's Baghdad bombings -- not taken place?

I know Joe Biden and think the world of him but his interview with Rachel Maddow was a very stupid thing. You never make those pronouncements about Iraq. Every time you do, Iraq reminds you just how unsettled things remain. It has happened every year of the war. It's like you're begging fate to slap you in the face and, worse, giving your political opponents -- as you head into an election year -- video of you looking very foolish.

And we'll be heading into an election year which we'll consume even more of the press' limited attention. A candidate for the GOP presidential nomination made some remarks about Iraq yesterday. If Ron Paul makes remarks and I'm aware of them, we will note him because his position is and has been consistent on the Iraq War. But as for the rest? Yesterday, someone was formulating a stance and I'm sure they'll get better at it. But I ignored it because I didn't find anything of value in it. I also don't want to take part in an ugly process of knocking people I'm not going to vote for.

Yesterday's candidate will most likely get called out by me many times over Iraq or other wars in the coming months and that's fine and it should happen. And it won't be high brown when I do or worded sweetly and nicely. But for months and months now, it's been highly fashionable to trash the people running for the GOP presidential nomination. I'm not talking about taking on their positions but just sneering at them because they're Republicans. It's cheap, easy and trashy. I'm not Gail Collins and would never want to be -- that unibrow alone makes me shudder. She thinks she's cute in print (and I guess if I looked like that, I'd delude myself as well) as she wastes everyone's time with her junior high slambook entries passed off as adult columns for the New York Times. She's far from the only one thinking she's a comedy writer whose snark somehow cures the world's ills and justifies her inability to address any serious issue but she's one of the more prominent ones. And certainly she's recycled the same basic column for ten months now.

I have no idea why she's allowed to waste everyone's time in that matter. It's not mature, it's not informative and it adds nothing to the discourse.

We get stuck covering death and dying every damn day due to the scope (the Iraq War). I really don't have the stomach for women who think being 'girlish' in print makes up for their obvious physical defects. They need to grow the hell up. And if they did, there'd still be a large number of men out there who are just as obsessed with distractions and gossip as opposed to issues that actually matter.

And there's nothing I've said here about the nonsensical drooling in print of Gail Collins (or others, male or female, who waste the nation's time) that has been better said by Bob Somerby. If you're unaware of the damage Collins specifically is doing, refer to his work on the topic.



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!)

Last week, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4487. Tonight it's [PDF format warning] 4487. Here's the screen snap:

122211


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