Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, March 10, 2020. Joe Biden claims, on live TV, that he knew Iraq did not have WMDs (but he voted for war anyway), 2 more US troops have died in Iraq -- Gunnery Sgt. Diego D. Pongo and
Capt. Moises A. Navas, protests continue in Iraq and that includes over the latest candidate cult leader Moqtada al-Sadr wants to install as prime minister.

Starting in the US where War Hawk Joe Biden continues to get easy press as he tries to coast into the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. 

At Joe Biden's official Twitter feed -- no, no one believes it's him or that he knows how to Tweet -- he's got a ton of Tweets in the last 24 hours promoting himself and one about how he's so happy it's spring.

What's missing?

How about the fact that there's more blood on his hands.  Is that why he didn't note that two more US troops have died in Iraq?

Joe's got blood on his hands and so do the idiots  who keep pimping Joe.

  1. Joe Biden says he never believed there were WMD in Iraq - yet he voted for war. A conflict that cost the United States trillions, half a million lives, and led to the rise of ISIS. This is what a completely shattered political class looks like.

We need to stop a minute.  The Iraq War (this phase) started with the 2003 US-led invasion.  That was 17 years ago -- in a few days it will be 17 years ago.  There are people paying attention today who were small children or not even born yet when it started.

So let's be clear that the Iraq War's 'excuse' or 'cover' was the claim that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.  That was the lie Bully Boy Bush pushed.  And most knew it was a lie -- even when the press went on to whore for Colin Powell's lies to the UN.  In 2002, the vote took place.  Many Democrats opposed it.  Senator Patty Murray, for example, voted against the war.  Senator Bob Graham voted against it and was very vocal about the people -- including Hillary Clinton -- who voted for it and didn't bother to look at the claims and what was being called evidence.  Senator Ted Kennedy was also vocal about those who voted for it.  They were in the House then but Senators Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin were also among the many who voted against the war.

Joe voted for it.  Joe did more than that.  He was over the Committee that held hearings and he only invited those supporting a war to testify.  He insulted those opposed to the war.

Now we learn, all these years later, that he knew Iraq didn't have WMD but he voted for the war anyway?

Do you realize how many people are dead because of Joe Biden?

Yesterday evening, Devan Cole (CNN) reported:

Two US service members were killed on Sunday in Iraq by enemy forces, the Pentagon said in a statement Monday morning.
The individuals' names have not yet be released pending notification to next of kin.
The soldiers were killed while "advising and accompanying Iraqi Security Forces during a mission to eliminate an ISIS terrorist stronghold" in the country, the statement said.
The US-led coalition recovered the bodies of the service members Sunday evening. 
Thanks, Joe Biden.

From the US Defense Dept:

                                                               Immediate Release

DOD Identifies Marine Casualties

March 10, 2020                                      
The Department of Defense announced today the death of two Marines who were supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
The following Marines died March 8, 2020 while supporting Iraqi Security Forces in north central Iraq. The incident is under investigation.
Gunnery Sgt. Diego D. Pongo, 34, of Simi Valley, California.
Capt. Moises A. Navas, 34, of Germantown, Maryland.
Both Marines were assigned to 2nd Marine Raider Battalion, Marine Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
For more information regarding Gunnery Sgt. Diego D. Pongo and Capt. Moises A. Navas, media may contact the Marine Forces Special Operations Command Communication Strategy office at marsocofficial@socom.mil.

Joe has never apologized for his vote.  To be clear, Joe's Iraq War issues go beyond his vote and include his verbal attacks on those who opposed the war and go all the way through his vice presidency when Barack Obama put him over Iraq and he failed repeatedly.  He failed so badly, understand, that in 2014, Barack added people for Joe to 'work with' and answer to.  No one wants to talk about that, do they?  Joe led the effort on overturning the 2010 election so that Nouri al-Maliki could get a second term. Thug Nouri is the reason for the rise of ISIS in Iraq.  Joe has so much to answer for.

Again, he has never apologized for his vote.  What he has said is that mean old Bully Boy Bush tricked him.  How could he have been tricked if he's now saying that he knew Iraq had no WMDs but voted for the war anyway?  That was the reason given for the war.

  1. Joe Biden continues to offer demonstrably false & laughable excuses for his Iraq war vote. Tonight he told MSNBC’s that he voted for the war... “to try to prevent a war from happening”:

  1. Michigan, Joe Biden not only voted for every single terrible trade deal, he worked his ass off promoting them. Joe Biden sent your kids to die in the Iraq war & admitted TODAY he knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Joe Biden was VP while Flint was poisoned.
  2. Enjoy this video fact check of Joe Biden claiming his vote to authorize the Iraq War was actually a vote against war.
  3. Joe Biden helped lead the march to war on Iraq siding with George W. Bush in his claim there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD). March 9, 2020 Joe Biden said, "I didn't believe there were WMD." Which is it Joe?

Joe has a lot to answer for.

And a functioning media would ensure that he was pressed on these issues.  But, in the US, we don't have a functioning corporate media. 

Juan Caicedo and Sarah Lazar (IN THESE TIMES) report:

Joe Biden’s ascent into frontrunner status is often portrayed as an organic consequence of big-time endorsements and an untapped desire for a more “centrist” and “electable” candidate. But a survey by In These Times finds that CNN has portrayed Bernie Sanders more negatively than Biden, suggesting that media slant itself may play a role in Biden’s rise.
In the 24 hours following his massive win in Nevada, Sanders received 3.26 times the amount of negative CNN coverage than Biden did following the latter’s South Carolina win—despite the two wins being by similar margins. Sanders received more coverage after his win than Biden did after his: 419 mentions to Biden’s 249. But a larger share of Sanders’ mentions were negative, and fewer positive, than Biden’s. The above 3.26 figure was arrived at by comparing negative coverage as a proportion of total coverage for both candidates.
CNN is one of the most widely watched cable news networks on television, averaging about a million viewers during prime time. Given its down-the-middle reputation, CNN can be a useful proxy for broader media coverage. The 24-hour window following a primary is a critical time for setting a public narrative about which candidates are viable, have “momentum,” and seem presidential. Media coverage that drives up the negatives of a candidate can have a hand in harming their campaigns.
Sanders won a blowout victory in Nevada, garnering 46.8% of the vote in a multi-candidate field—putting him well ahead of Biden’s 20.2% support. Yet in the 24-hour period following his win, starting at midnight, CNN’s coverage of Sanders was slightly more negative than positive: He received 32 positive mentions, 33 negative mentions, and 354 neutral mentions from CNN guests or hosts. (For the purposes of this study, a “mention” refers to each time a candidate is discussed—but not to each time his or her name is mentioned. In These Times tended towards conservatism and only logged a mention as positive or negative if it was clearly either.)
In contrast, during the 24 hours following Biden’s blowout win in South Carolina, bringing in 48.4% compared to Sanders’ 19.9%—roughly the same result—the former vice president received much more fawning coverage from CNN: 19 positive mensions, only 6 negative mentions, and 224 neutral mentions.

Sanders’ negatives and positives were roughly equal (33 vs. 32) to each other, while Biden received more than three times more positive than negative mentions.

The media fawns over senile Joe.  He gets to whine in public that his son Beau is dead or that his first wife and daughter died in a car crash -- decades ago.  What about the lives of the Iraqi people and what about the US troops killed and wounded in this never-ending Iraq War?  When does he start acknowledging them and his part in their deaths and injuries?

He's danced through the debates with no serious questions about the Iraq War -- one of the key historical moments of this century and one he was part of starting. 

Repeating, yesterday evening Devan Cole (CNN) reported:

Two US service members were killed on Sunday in Iraq by enemy forces, the Pentagon said in a statement Monday morning.
The individuals' names have not yet be released pending notification to next of kin.
The soldiers were killed while "advising and accompanying Iraqi Security Forces during a mission to eliminate an ISIS terrorist stronghold" in the country, the statement said.
The US-led coalition recovered the bodies of the service members Sunday evening. 

Will Joe ever have to answer for what he's done?

The corporate media won't press him on this.  Probably because they sold the Iraq War.  THE NEW YORK TIMES, MEET THE PRESS, all of them.  They sold it.  KNIGHT RIDDER didn't but look what happens when you tell the truth -- you're no longer around.  Some say THE HOUSTON POST found that out the hard way, reporting the truth on George H.W. Bush ended their publication.  That's what tends to happen when you break from the pack. 

The corporate media ignores the realities of Iraq.  That doesn't mean voters will.

So he just wanted to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims for fun? must demand Biden suspend his campaign - the Democrats cannot stand as the party of imperialist white supremacy in America. This is deranged bloodlust.

Tonight Joe Biden belittled climate protesters, said he would veto m4a, and told like 4 lies about the Iraq war in 2 and a half minutes to defend his indefensible actions. All while being a smug piece of s**t about it all. And you expect me to vote for this slimeball?

Time and again, Joe has demonstrated he does not value human life.  Jake Johnson (COMMON DREAMS) reports:

Speaking at a coronavirus roundtable in Detroit Monday alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders and public health experts, registered nurse Deborah Burger forcefully shot down a question on how the United States can afford to make any COVID-19 vaccine free for everyone in the country, noting that no one asks that question of other vaccines or America's endless wars overseas.
Burger, president of National Nurses United (NNU), pointed out that "nobody asked how you pay for" the Polio vaccine "because what they saw were children in iron longs that were going to be damaged forever."
"How insane and cruel is it," Burger continued, "to suggest that we have to figure out how to pay for it when we can actually go to war and not ask one question, but to prevent this kind of a disease, we have to say, 'How can we pay for it?'"


Sanders, who is pressuring the Trump administration to make any coronavirus vaccine free and available to all, also weighed in on the pay-for question.
"Do I approve of [the U.S. government] spending a few cents for a vaccine rather than seeing people die or spending thousands of dollars on hospital care? Yeah, I kinda think it makes a little bit more sense to invest a few cents in a vaccine," Sanders said.
"Does anybody in their right mind believe that if you're rich you should be able to afford a vaccine and save your life but if you're poor you gotta die?" Sanders asked. "Is that really where we're at in the United States of America?"

In Iraq, the chaos Joe Biden fostered continues.  The corporate media keeps trying to make Moqtada al-Sad re-happen and you have to wonder why that is?  He's lost his power, he did so when he turned on the protesters.  You saw that many of his supporters refused to stop protesting.  You saw that the protesters who weren't part of his supporters didn't care what he had to say.  He then decreed that women were not allowed at protests with men.  That resulted in even more women and men turning out to protest.  He has no power anymore.  He was thought to be a leader and then he was revealed to be far less.  He's got his cult -- it's smaller but he's still got that.  And that's all he has.  But the media keeps trying to pretend like none of that happened. 

They pretend a lot with regards to Moqtada.  For example, Reporters Without Borders has called him out and the corporate media's not covering that.

: While covering a demonstration in Baghdad, journalists Hussein Raham and Kholoud Al-Taee were brutally beaten by militiamen supporting the Shiite leader Moqtada Al-Sadr. RSF condemns the attacks and calls on the authorities to protect journalists.

Elijah J. Magnier offers:

Elected Prime Minister Mohammad Allawi has fallen due to the lack of a parliamentary quorum. The selection of his new cabinet, his mismanagement in dealing with various political parties, and his condescending attitude particularly towards Sunnis and Kurds brought him the support of only 108 MPs in Parliament last Sunday. He needed 165 out of 329 MPs.
Allawi’s biggest mistake was in counting on the support of Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, who had nominated him in the first place. Moqtada’s support made Allawi overconfident; he failed to engage with other political parties, thinking Moqtada’s support would be enough for him to govern. Sayyed Moqtada was indeed given the leadership of the Iraqi groups following the US drone assassination of Iranian brigadier general Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and their companions. The Iranian and Iraqi leaderships acknowledged Moqtada’s leadership at that moment in order to unite the Shia of Iraq. It was Moqtada who selected Allawi, and most Shia groups accepted the choice at the time.
At that time, the Iraqi street was boiling and rising up against corruption, the mismanagement of political leaders who share power amongst themselves, and against the lack of job opportunities and civil services. Sayyed Moqtada joined the crowd, trying to adopt the street protest movement as though he had been its leader and instigator. 
The reality is different. In the past, when Nuri al-Maliki, Haidar Abadi, and Adel Abdel Mahdi, ruled Iraq, the favourite hobby of Sayyed Moqtada was to call for a million men to protest at his preferred location, the green zone in Baghdad. Moqtada wanted to show off his public support both to the prime minister in office and to foreign missions and government headquarters. Moqtada regularly played this game, notably during the last election, when Professor Sheikh Ali Smeism, one of the Sadrist leaders, was managing Moqtada’s electoral campaign. At that time he was able to attract the support from many groups to secure 53 MPs in parliament.
During Adel Abdul Mahdi’s presidency of the Council of Ministers, the Marjaiya in Najaf hoped that Moqtada al-Sadr would allow the new Prime Minister to rule without major protests in the green zone for at least a year.  Sayyed Moqtada reneged on his promise after a few months, calling for demonstrations against Abdel Mahdi in the Green Zone. However, such displays of power have now backfired on Muqtada. He is now part of the system and holds the largest number of deputies, ministers, general managers and ambassadors. Hence, the people in the street are no longer under Moqtada’s control and are demanding that all political leaders stop imposing their will on the cabinet and dividing power among themselves.
Moqtada al-Sadr and his group – called “the blue hats” – were both driving attacks on the protestors and at the same time “protecting” them. No one in Iraq besides  Sayyed Muqtada dares to demonstrate in front of government buildings or to clash with large and powerful Shiite parties. This is not because he has the most influential organisation, but because he is not inhibited by religious or national considerations as are other Shia parties. This is why all groups tried to avoid clashing with Sayyed Moqtada in the first years of the US occupation of Iraq. The situation has changed today, as many Shia groups are well equipped and armed. Still, they prefer not to clash with Moqtada, although he is no longer so much feared as he was before. Iraqis call him “the surfer.”
When Major General Soleimani (who did not have good relations with the volatile Moqtada) was killed, the Iranian leadership made Moqtada believes he was the “Rahbar” (Leader) of Iraq in order to mollify his inconsistent mood. Moqtada was quick to suggest Muhammad Allawi to head the government. Most of the Shiite parties agreed to support Allawi. However, problems started when Allawi failed to consult with the main parties (Sunni and Kurds) in assembling his cabinet. He also ignored other Shiite organisations inside the Conquest coalition (Al-Fateh) because Hadi al-Amiri had promised Allawi absolute support. 

Allawi ignored the fact that Al-Sadr had lost a lot of his prestige and that people and groups are no longer afraid to face him or to disagree with him. Likewise, Al-Amiri does not control Al-Fateh (nor even the Badr organisation). Al-Amiri is an honorary president, respected in part for the history of fighting against Saddam Hussein.

He's a cult leader now, not a movement leader, and his cult continues to thin out.

In case anyone still had any doubt, Moqtada al-Sadr clarifies he never supported the & has spared no effort to undermine it.

In Iraq, the protests continue.

Three Baghdad protesters dead and 47 others wounded since Sunday: 's High Commission for

Demonstrators in have called on the international community to protect them from the mass killing of protesters by militias targeting them in Iraqi cities.

  1. That is what the terrorist militia and the government do in Iraq with peaceful protesters they use different ways to kill such as animals hunting guns with small iron particles to defacement the young protester

| |i protesters reject the candidacy of Mustafa Al-Kazemi proposed by militias and as a compromise to get out of the ongoing crisis. |

  1. Since 1 October 2019, has documented the excessive and lethal use of force by security forces in . have come under fire with a plethora of weapons, while the stands by. We have documented the weapons here:
  2. We are receiving reports of security forces in renewing use of live ammunition against protesters in ‘s Khelani Square, resulting in a number of casualties and injuries. How long will the continue to allow this bloodshed?

The following sites updated: