A week ago, I made a comment in a snapshot about the "Antiwar.com idiots." It's lead to some confusion in a few e-mails to the public account (firstname.lastname@example.org). Are we not anti-war? That's the most common question that's popped up. Actually, I prefer pro-peace to anti-anything. But I wasn't referring to an anti-war position in that comment, I was referring to the idiots at ANTIWAR.COM. They have a lot of idiots. Not everyone there is an idiot but they do have a lot of idiots -- do you prefer liars? -- at that website.
Other e-mails went on about how we're all on the same side?
Oh, no, we're not.
I'm on the side of the truth.
If you're covering Iraq, don't lie about it. You're not on my side if you're lying. You may think lying will help end the war but that's not going to happen. All your lies do is cheapen whatever position you hold.
ANTIWAR.COM has done an awful job covering events in Iraq. As we've noted before, on the 18th anniversary of the Iraq War, they didn't even have a heading for Iraq on their home page. (Refer to "Et tu, ANTIWAR.COM?" if you missed this omission in real time.) And the fools who cover it -- I'm not referring to Margaret Griffis as a fool -- she does a body count, that's all she does -- I'm referring to their 'experts' who tell us what happened in Iraq.
So this week, July 22, a perfect example popped up. David DeCamp wrote:
Earlier this week, Kadhimi said he wants continued support from the US but that “combat troops” must leave. The Iraqi leader has been under pressure to get US forces to leave since he came into office in May 2020. In January 2020, Iraq’s parliament voted unanimously to expel US forces after Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed in Baghdad by a US drone strike.
Unanimously. Let's use that link which goes to Jason Ditz's original mis-report which included:
In a 170-0 vote during Sunday’s emergency session, Iraq’s
parliament voted in favor of a five-point plan to require the Iraqi
government to oust all foreign troops from the country, and withdraw the
2014 request for assistance against ISIS, a group which largely does
not exist in Iraq.
The session was called after the Thursday night US airstrike against Baghdad International Airport, which killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, as well as high ranking Iraqi government official Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The parliamentary resolution made clear that they view this as a gross violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
The resolution now goes on to be signed by the Iraqi prime minister, in this case Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who resigned in November but has yet to be replaced. Abdul-Mahdi was responsible for much of the language of the resolution, and his signature seems a foregone conclusion.
The 170-0 vote was a result of many smaller factions, including the Kurds, not showing up to the session. The Shi’ites clearly had more than enough MPs for a majority vote, and were the ones most affected by the US attack.
Did it go to Adel?
No. It never did. It was a resolution and not a bill. So it was never sent to Adel and never required his signature.
Ditzy, as we so often refer to Jason Ditz, never has the basic background he needs when scanning through wire reports. "Smaller factions, including the Kurds"?
170 were present. How big is the Parliament?
Something Ditzy never informs anyone of and probably didn't know. If he did know, then he's a liar and not an idiot because including the fact would undercut his argument.
The bill passed by 52%. 52% of the members showed up. The rest boycotted. There are 325 members of Parliament.
It'd be great if the liars at ANTIWAR.COM would stop lying. They're not helping the issue. They are confusing people who do care about Iraq and then run around repeating falsehood based upon the 'reporting' of Ditzy and others.
Here's how we covered it in real time:
THE NATIONAL explains that what the Parliament voted on yesterday was a resolution and not a law, a "non-binding resolution" which will not go to the Cabinet. They explain of Parliament's actions on Sunday, "The session was boycotted by nearly half of all Iraqis parliamentarians and led by caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, a man who had resigned from his position last month. He was largely discredited among Iraqi youth for overseeing a ruthless crackdown that took the lives of hundreds of unarmed protesters - many of whom died at the hands of pro-Iranian militias represented in parliament."
It's non-binding. It's also true that US troops could remain in Kuwait and, yes, Iraq. How?
Well the Kurds didn't attend the session on Sunday (nor did most Sunnis) and the Kurds are semi-autonomous. When thug Nouri was prime minister and trying to arrest Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi as part of his purge of all Sunnis, where did Tareq go? The KRG. And he stayed there for months before leaving Iraq. And there was nothing Baghdad could do about it but bluster and scream.
So the US could keep US troops in Iraq via the KRG if they had to ("had to" meaning they were truly kicked out -- which at this point they haven't been). Baghdad would issue threats and probably cut off monies. The US government would probably be willing to pay monies of its own to keep US troops in Iraq. The US government could also send US troops to Turkey -- don't forget there's already a CIA compound near the border Turkey shares with Iraq, Bully Boy Bush negotiated that during his second term.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.